The term third place was coined by the urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg in his book The Great Good Place (1999). According to Oldenburg, “The third place is a generic designation of a great variety of public places that host the regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of the home and work.” (1999, p.16). Therefore, third places are central to the process of creating a sense of place by facilitating informal encounters and gatherings and thus becoming the centrepiece of communities and a cohesive society. They can also be a remedy to combat the deepening sense of loneliness and alienation in modern-day cities. The third place owes its name to the existence of the first and second place. Oldenburg contends that individuals have at least two places associated with two types of activity, the first, dwelling, associated to our home, and the second, our work or study place. The third place is therefore linked to leisure activities. These places are anchor points of communities because they enable social activities to take place by providing opportunities for people to meet or make acquaintances in an informal and organic manner. For third places to attain their social function, they should be easily accessible, inexpensive and inclusive. Therefore, they need to be in close proximity to homes in a location that ensures easy access for as many residents as possible. Since they cater for a local clientele, it could be said that they become the glue that keep communities together as they reinforce the sense of connectedness. Third place create communities by allowing serendipitous encounters to happen over time..  In the third place the many comings and goings create acquaintances among neighbours and are the seeds of community life. They are the neutral ground upon which people may gather. This neutrality allows those encounters to happen in a more organic fashion. They offer the opportunity for these interactions to materialise but it is up to the community members to actually make use of them.

It could be said that the third place is the backdrop of Gehl’s (2011) optimal and social activities described in his seminal book Life Between Buildings:

Optimal: These are completely voluntary activities. As these are often leisure activities, the built environment plays a crucial role in deciding whether to participate in them. Going for a walk, spending time outdoors, connecting with nature, relaxing while sunbathing, etc. are examples of activities that fall into this category. “In streets and city spaces of poor quality, only the bare minimum of activity takes place. People hurry home” (Gehl, 2011, p. 11).

Social: These are the resulting activities that rely on the presence or interaction with others, in this context, in the public space. They range from passive encounters with others, like hearing or watching people or greeting our neighbour, to more interesting and complex scenarios that involve our active participation, such as playing or engaging in conversation. They can be spontaneous or planned and, as the optimal activities, are heavily influenced by the spatial qualities of the built environment.      

Oldenburg identifies three realms of experience: “One is domestic, a second is gainful and productive, and the third is inclusively sociable, offering both the basis of community and the celebration of it” (p.293). He goes on to explain: “Each of these realms of human experience is built on associations and relationships appropriate to it; each has its own physically separate and distinct places; each must have its measure of autonomy from the others.” In this case, it is important to note the role of physical space, which acts as a reservoir for activities and relationships. This aspect resonates with Christopher Alexander’s (1979)  and Herman Hertzberger’s (1991) views on the importance of physical spaces, or ‘core settings’ as Oldenburg calls them, that anchor social interactions and events, as well as with Klinenberg's (2018) argument for a social infrastructure and the need for adequate spaces for meetings and relationship building. However, it is also worth noting that in today's world - increasingly after the COVID-19 pandemic - the distinction between work and home spaces is blurred. Perhaps the third space is the only one of the three that, although affected by alternative ways of socialising that no longer rely exclusively on sharing the same physical space, remains relevant for community building - and was even revitalised after the lockdown measures were lifted.

Regarding the location of third places

We can probably all think of a third place in our neighbourhood, for they seem to exist independently of cultural differences and local contexts. They may change in form and purpose, but not in their social function. Examples range from pubs, cafés, bars, places of worship, public libraries, community centres, parks, bookshops, gyms and so on. Oldenburg also identifies this feature by recognising common patterns shared by different third places in different cultures: “The eternal sameness of the third place overshadows the variations in its outward appearance and seems unaffected by the wide differences in cultural attitudes toward the typical gathering places of informal public life” (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 20). The relationship that exists between the space and the activities it harbours is open and allows for a plethora of spatial configurations as long as its structural elements are guaranteed. Perhaps the third places function as polyvalent, flexible spaces which, according to the observations of Hertzberger (1963), can generate their own programme due to the openness of their spatial characteristics.

Whether third places can be created by design decisions alone is debatable. What is clear, however, is that places are more likely to become third places if they fulfil certain conditions. One very important requirement is that they are easy to reach and have a local catchment area: “Where informal gathering places are far removed from one’s residence, their appeal fades, for two reasons. Getting there is inconvenient, and one is not likely to know the patrons.” (p.33). Third places work better at the neighbourhood level and therefore cater for a local clientele who live within walking distance. The journey to a third place should not take much time, so they can have great potential when integrated into the housing block. After decades of research into social life in urban spaces, Gehl (2011) underscores the significance of the strategic placement of communal spaces within housing developments and stresses the relevance of creating optimal distance and legibility of the layout for their success. In his words: "Those who live nearest to the library and who can get there most easily also borrow the most books" (2011, p. 115). This principle holds true for any kind of third place or social infrastructure in the local area. Other sociologists have come to similar conclusions when examining the role of space in the formation of social ties. Small & Adler (2019) have emphasised the importance of so-called 'fixed spaces' in creating opportunities for interaction. Simmel (1997, p. 47) also emphasises the importance of these fixed places as ‘pivot points’ for social interaction and the formation of bonds.

The experience of a third place

In a third place, interactions are characterised by the perception of fairness, at least between patrons, in an environment where power dynamics are balanced - Oldenburg refers to them as levellers. A third place is perceived as a place that belongs to all and where everyone is welcomed. This is possible because third places are seen as neutral grounds where people can come and go as they please. This is different from inviting someone to your home or being invited to someone else’s home. In this case, Oldenburg says, the balance of power in the private sphere can be asymmetrical due to the dynamics inherent in the domestic space, where one is the host and the other is the guest. Similarly, they convey a sense of ownership to those who become regulars. “[A]ppropriation, or a sense of possession and control over a setting that need not entail actual ownership” (Oldenburg, 1999, p.40). As already mentioned, this process takes time and is facilitated by familiarity with the place and the patrons after several visits.

Third places are often run or frequented by ‘self-appointed public characters’. Oldenburg draws on Jane Jacobs’ description of this type of community member. For Jacobs (1961), their relevance lie in the fact that it is with them that “the social structure of sidewalk life hangs partly on” (p.68). Both authors agree on their value for the development of social life in a neighbourhood. The ‘public character’, someone who is in frequent contact with a wide range of people in the community, needs a place to associate with, and for Oldenburg, this is the third place. Jacobs agrees with this observation: sidewalk life “arises only when the concrete, tangible facilities it requires are present. These happen to be the same facilities, in the same abundance and ubiquity, that are required for cultivating sidewalk safety. If they are absent, public sidewalk contacts are absent too” (p.70), indicating their polyfunctionality. One could say that third places correspond well with Jacobs’ preference for slow-paced urban development.

Functions of third places

Oldenburg was concerned about the gradual but consistent disappearance of informal gathering places. A process provoked by the spread of monofunctional neighbourhoods and the segregation of uses promoted by modernist urban planning. As a result, mass housing programmes and suburban developments (most notoriously the American suburbia) were failing to provide places where community life could flourish. A process that was further exacerbated by the resulting fragmentation of cities by dull urban planning and uninspired design, centred on profit-making and Fordist means of production, which were very characteristic of the post-war housing endeavour in the second half of the XX century. In Oldenberg’s view, one possible solution to the 'problem of place in America’ was to champion the third place. Although his proposal is context-specific, the problems he describes can also be attested outside the USA. Social isolation and loneliness are prevalent around the world and have alarming effects on our mental and physical wellbeing. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that the problem affects all age groups, with comparable incidence rates in low-, middle- and high-income countries (WHO, 2024).

A physical place that enables contact in the first place can have a major impact on community life, and Oldenburg has pointed out some of its most important functions: As they are the anchor points of social life in neighbourhoods, they help to unite and create a sense of identity. They also facilitate contact between people with similar interests or shared struggles, a process that can lead to meaningful relationships. Similarly, they can help newcomers to integrate and gain useful information and contacts in the local area. In the same vein, Oldenburg points out that third places can facilitate aid, support and cooperation in emergencies or disasters and increase the community's resilience to shocks. This characteristic was also highlighted by Klinenberg (2015) when studying the aftermath of the 1995 Chicago heatwave and further elaborated and detailed in his more recent book Palaces for the People (2018), which looks at the pivotal role of social infrastructure in creating liveable and resilient neighbourhoods.