The chapter addresses the issue of the relationship between residential mobility and place attachment. It is argued that the relationship depends on the type of mobility: mobility that is forced and unwanted is usually accompanied by sense of un-rootedness and lack of attachment whereas voluntary movers may easily grow roots in new places. Further it is also argued that place attachment is not a uniform concept. Dependent on its type, traditional or active, it may either depend or not on the duration of residency, and thus mobility. Finally, an argument is made that people feel an emotional bond with a place based on the perceived continuity of oneself-in-that-place. Since residential mobility means a disruption of this continuity, the chapter concludes with some speculations, supported by empirical evidence, on what measures people can take in order to restore the broken continuity and thus “replant” or “reattach” to a new place. Three measures to restore continuity have been discussed: continuity based on the similarity between place features and person's values (place-congruent continuity), continuity based on autobiographical memories associated with former places (place-referent continuity), and continuity based on the perceived local history (continuity of a place).