The globalized world is shrinking: almost simultaneously we get the information from other side of the ball we are familiar with global possibilities but also global threats. Today’s people are encouraged to view themselves as global consumers rather than participants of communities or localities. In the beginning of the era of network society people use to think that the place isn’t any more important, but now there is also a marked movement towards individualization and need for locality. The locality (plural localities) is lifting up the significance of “place” at least in two different ways: the locality as having a position in space and localities as the features or surroundings of a particular place. “Locality” and “sense of community” can be seen as values that could be used to bring together a number of elements, such as commitment, trust and identity. It is possible that these different ways of approaching the concept of community will also overlap in particular instances. Place-based and interest-based communities may well coincide geographically, for example in places where many inhabitants use to work in the same industry, such as was the case in early industries ad e.g. mining villages. We may add a third theme to the locality that of attachment – as communities of place or interest may not automatically have a sense of shared identity. People construct their communities symbolically, making it a resource and repository of meaning, and a referent of their identity. Therefore communities are best approached as ‘communities of meaning’: community plays a crucial symbolic role in generating people’s sense of belonging and identity. Research questions in this paper: Does the place matter in today’s global world? How is it possible to design places where people can feel the sense of community and shared identity today? Is it possible that places can change their identity and become more important? In a long lasting case study of Old Paukku I have researched the identity of a former industrial site which was made a cultural centre (my dissertation 2006: The Old Paukku in Lapua -- re-built and re-spoken. Discursive formation of the cultural heritage in built environment). When making the regional plan in Southern Ostrobotnia I also have studied the meaning of built environment for the regional identity (2002-2003). Recently I have been involved in a large trans-disciplinary and international research project (InnoSchool 2007-2010) and I had a possibility to investigate children’s meaningful places in Finland and California, and how they in collaboration can describe these to each other. The meanings of places may be rooted in the physical setting and objects and activities. There are no places that have no identity: But identity of place is not only the product of its main components but it is socially structured (Berger & Luckmann 1967). In other words, identity varies with the individual or group. One place can even have many different identities to one person- and the identity of place varies with the intentions, personalities, and circumstances of those who are experiencing it. On the other hand individual images have been and are being constantly socialised through the use of common language, symbols, and experiences. In this context I argue that the Old Paukku (Old Factory) was already “a place” and after the process in which it became a cultural centre - which one could call developing of localisation- it became a place with new meanings, still having its own special identity. The process of culture (when people are using the culture centre; the library, art and music school, many museums) opened the place for people and made them accept the place not earlier familiar them as “meaningful” and significant for them (and their identity). Places are localised- they are parts of larger areas and are focuses in a system of localisation. But a place is just not “where” of something; it is the location plus everything that occupies that location seen as an integrated and meaningful phenomenon.