Place is more than physical and it’s intangible aspects can be quite fragile. Does the creative making of a place mean the erasure of any that were pre-existing? After all, if you’ve made a new place, creative or not, where does the old place go? New can certainly incorporate aspects of older places, but what if only the physical aspects, being the most resilient to change? For instance, an aggressively preserved landmark, no longer the place it one was, has necessarily become somewhere new. Many aspects may be preserved, tangible and intangible, but the place is still changed. Such is the cost of intervention and interpretation. Should greater pressure for interpretation be put on creative places as they are being made and are changing anyway?