Although one should note that the concept of place is already clearly differentiated from the concept of location, i.e. positioning within space, within the context of architectural theory, this differentiation still remains blurred, despite endeavours invested by theoreticians of architecture aimed at stressing the importance of this distinction for the understanding of the phenomenon of architecture. It would seem that the underlying reasons for this is to be found in the complexity contained within the philosophy of Martin Heidegger which is a reference for all theoreticians of architecture concerned with phenomenology and hermeneutics, as well as persisting viewpoint that architecture is predominantly a human activity concerned with space, in the sense of “shaping space”, “forms within space” or “the art of space”. Architecture definitely belongs to this category ; however, the problem lies in the conceptualization of the term space, particularly in the sense of distinct mathematical-absolute space as a universal, a-temporal scene used for the arrangement of objects and events. Devoiding of meaning conceal an essential linguistic-meaningful dimension for architectural space. Therefore, in order to expound upon the meaning of place, we need to incorporate the phenomenon of language within the context of the phenomenon of architecture. When asked about the “meaning” of architecture, one cannot avoid the use of language for interpretation: Without language architecture cannot be understood or “grasped”. The phenomenon of space is not exhausted by mathematical-absolute model. Phenomenon of architecture is more complex than an understanding of architecture in the sense of shaping space. The consequence of the concept of space according to the model of existential space is expressed in the notion of place, which unites space and meaning within one construct, and which we would like to explore in this article.