Recent work on emotion in geography and architecture primes the fuse for an emotional landscape architecture. Avril Maddrell writes of emotional geographies, how they are ‘particular spaces [which] become emotion-laden places, both those which we choose to identify and those affective spaces which can unexpectedly interpolate us’ (Maddrell, 2009, p.38). Emotion and affect are intertwined, and can be related to the individual and the social, respectively, and closely associated with feeling and phenomena. Brian Massumi indicates emotion and affect can also be correspondingly linked with the mind and body (in Price, 2015), but as Stephanie Clare cautions, this can reintroduce ‘a reductive distinction between mind and body’ (in Price, 2015, p.162). Bearing this caution in mind, and the various de nitions of and distinctions between emotion and affect, the signi cant point is the shift towards acknowledging the subjective dimension of place, a counter to the objectivity which has prevailed in attempts to design and plan the landscape. This subjective connection can also be considered a dwelling perspective, a means of offsetting the distancing of objectivity, and engaging emotion and affect. Dwelling engenders proximity and temporality and connects us with place.