[INJ] No. You're right and I think I may come in for some criticism. By answering Chalky's question "Is this a place?" with a Yes and not directing her and following questioners to the fact that there is more than one of these, I think I have unwittingly misled people into thinking that there is, in fact, only one. Even as I think about it, I am beginning to doubt whether this is really abstract at all, but merely animal, mineral and (to a lesser extent) vegetable, but I will stick to my guns and take the flak if it comes.
In the light of this, the answer to each of the five questions following yours is No.
Raak and Projoy are currently the strongest links and, moreover, have already used the words that are on the card here in separate questions.
Questioners may get more benefit focusing on the non-abstract qualities.

So the answer is somewhere in:

is a abstract and archaic architecture art Brasil building controversial Could dominoes fall fictional geographical Given Gravity huge Hy I is it it's like making of over Paleontology pastime place question replace rows ruin single site specific sport that the them then with work

Oh Raak - you DO make me laugh sometimes :-) Spot on.
Now I shall ask a question ...

Might have helped if I'd actually read your question aswell ... sorry Kim, I'll do another one

[Raak] Tourist attractions? Unlikely, but then some tourists would go to see a hole in the ground.
[Raak] Yes! Now, perm any three from forty-four in alpha order.
[Chalky] Unlikely, but then some people would pay to see a hole in the ground.
[Irouleguy] No.

Chalky wins! The answer on the card is, indeed, "A building site". Well done, Chalky. Now, was I right or wrong?

---

[Kim] I agree it's reasonable to call it abstract. As for one or more: I see your problem, but I think you needed to answer Raak's 'single specific place' differently - otherwise it is no longer abstract.

[Kim] Thanks M'dear :-)
hmmm - I wonder if you had answered Raak's question "A single, specific place?" with a No and a Yes - it might have been obvious that, although having a singular purpose, this type of place was not unique. As for the 'Abstract' label, I can understand your misgivings. Probably not, I'd say.
I'll post a new one a bit later - give others a chance to comment ..
[simul'd with INJ]

Kim] Nice one, first of all. I tend to think of 'abstract' as meaning fictional or unreal, so I would have labelled this as MINERAL (with qualifications) rather than ABSTRACT, but I do think it's a fine distinction. I agree with Chalky about your answer to Raak's question, but I don't think it led us too far astray. And I thoroughly enjoyed it, which is what really matters.