‘We pay a heavy price for capitalising on our basic animal mobility’ writes Edward Casey and that price is ‘the loss of places that can serve as lasting scenes of experience and reflection and memory’ (Casey 1993: xiii). This loss is usually blamed on the proliferation of generic spaces – or, ‘non-places’, to use Marc Augé's (1995) phrase – like malls, airports, freeways, office parks, and so forth, which prioritise cost and function over look and feel. Even so, Casey still wants to argue that transitory spaces like airports retain a certain ‘placial’ quality that gives meaning to contemporary existence. In contrast, writers like Augé (he is by no means alone – Augé himself attributes the key elements of his idea of non-place to de Certeau and Foucault) have in much recent writing on space sought to elucidate this new type of generic space's distinct lack of placiality. These two positions are, however, simply two sides of the same conceptual coin – Augé does not conceive of a new type of place, he uses a traditional model of place to decry the seemingly soulless transformations to the built environment he witnesses everywhere in the developed world. By the same token, Casey acknowledges that these new spaces appear placeless, but that is only because one isn't looking at them in the right way. His work then seeks to restore their seemingly lost placiality. The interest of bringing Deleuze and Guattari into this debate resides in the fact that they do not hold that the idea of place continues to be relevant.