There were two main factors to this article that I found difficult and imensly intriguing (most likely because I had difficulty with them). Primarily the references he makes are thing that are not even remotely recognizable to me... making it difficult to follow his discussion. Secondly, the distinction he makes between space and place are contrary and in fact opposite to the way that I would personally define those words. I would define place something like his "intersections of mobile elements" and space as "an intantaneous configuration of positions" though I would never have been able to describe the two so concisely. Especially in reference to architecture and the idea of "place making" that is so popular. I think of "place" as what happens when the "space" is occupied. Interestingly, in reading through the article the reversal of the definitions of these terms in my head made me pay much more attention to how the two words were used.