<p>This study investigates the ontological distinction between existentially experienced places and cognized places and examines how this distinction can contribute to rethinking the conceptual foundation of architectural heritage conservation. Departing from conventional approaches that prioritize the material preservation of historical form, the research suggests that heritage sites may be understood as lived places in which memories, emotions, and embodied experiences accumulate, thereby potentially contributing to the formation of individual and collective identity. Through a theoretical analysis grounded in the philosophical insights of Martin Heidegger and the spatial discourse of Christian Norberg-Schulz, and informed by the experiential perspective of Yi-Fu Tuan, as well as discussions on place identity and place attachment, the study conceptualizes existentially experienced places as sites constituted through dwelling, sensory immersion, and the sedimentation of lived experience. Conversely, cognized places are formed through mediated representations such as images, texts, and cultural narratives and thus may not always provide the experiential depth required for identity formation. By comparing these two modes of place, the study argues that existentially experienced places can be interpreted as providing an important ontological basis for heritage preservation, whereas cognized places tend to hold primarily symbolic or supplementary meaning. The analysis further identifies the limitations of preserving places known only through representation, including their comparatively weaker emotional resonance, symbolic volatility, and potentially limited contribution to community identity. Based on these findings, the study proposes a theoretically informed, existentially oriented conservation framework that prioritizes the preservation of lived experience, community narratives, and the temporal layers embedded in place. This approach suggests potential implications for policy development, participatory design, and heritage interpretation, positioning architectural heritage not as a static relic of the past but as a dynamic context in which identity may be continually reproduced.</p>