Vocabulary

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). Third places are central to creating a sense of place by facilitating informal encounters and gatherings, thus becoming the centrepiece of communities and a cohesive society. They can also help combat deepening loneliness and alienation in modern-day cities.   The third place derives its name from the existence of the first and second places. Oldenburg contends that individuals have at least two places associated with distinct activities: the first place is our home, linked to dwelling, and the second place is our work or study environment. The third place, therefore, is associated with leisure activities. These places act as anchor points for communities by enabling social activities and providing opportunities for people to meet and make acquaintances in an informal and organic manner.   For third places to fulfil their social function, they must be easily accessible, inexpensive and inclusive. They should be located close to homes to ensure easy access for as many residents as possible. Since they cater to a local clientele, it could be said that they act as the glue that keeps communities together by reinforcing a sense of connectedness. The third place creates communities by allowing serendipitous encounters to occur over time.  The many comings and goings foster acquaintances among neighbours in these spaces, planting the seeds of community life. They are neutral grounds where people may gather, and this neutrality allows encounters to happen more organically. While third places offer the opportunity for those interactions, it is ultimately up to community members to make use of them.   It could be said that the third place is the backdrop for Gehl’s (2011) optimal and social activities described in his seminal book Life Between Buildings: Optimal activities: These are completely voluntary activities, often leisure-related, where the built environment plays a crucial role in deciding whether to participate. Examples include going for a walk, spending time outdoors, connecting with nature, or relaxing while sunbathing. Gehl notes, “In streets and city spaces of poor quality, only the bare minimum of activity takes place. People hurry home” (2011, p. 11).   Social activities: These activities rely on the presence or interaction with others in public spaces. They range from passive encounters, like hearing or watching people or greeting a neighbour, to more engaging activities that involve active participation, such as playing or conversing. Like optimal activities, social 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 explains that “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.” Here, it is important to note the role of physical space, which acts as a reservoir for activities and relationships. This aspect resonates with the views of Christopher Alexander (1979)  and Herman Hertzberger (1991) on the importance of physical spaces, or ‘core settings’ as Oldenburg calls them, which anchor social interactions and events. This also aligns with Klinenberg's (2018) argument for social infrastructure and the need for adequate spaces for meetings and relationship building.   However, it is also worth noting that in today's world—especially after the COVID-19 pandemic—the distinction between work and home spaces has 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. Their form and purposes may change, but their social function remains constant. Examples include pubs, cafés, bars, places of worship, public libraries, community centres, parks, bookshops, gyms and so on. Oldenburg recognises this feature by noting common patterns shared by different third places across 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 maintained. Third places function as polyvalent, flexible spaces that can generate their own programmes due to the openness of their spatial characteristics, as observed by Hertzberger (1963).   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 to 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 strategically placing communal spaces within housing developments. He stresses the relevance of creating optimal distances and clear layouts for their success. As Gehl states, "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) emphasise the importance of so-called 'fixed spaces' in creating opportunities for interaction. Similarly, Simmel (1997, p. 47) emphasises the importance of these fixed places as ‘pivot points’ for social interaction and bond formation.   The experience of a third place In a third place, interactions are characterised by a perception of fairness among patrons, where power dynamics are balanced. Oldenburg refers to them as ‘levellers.’ A third place is perceived as belonging to everyone and where everyone is welcomed. This perception is possible because third places serve as neutral grounds where people can come and go freely, unlike a private space where one is invited to take part in an activity. 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, third places 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). This sense of belonging develops over time through familiarity with the place and its patrons.   Third places are often run or frequented by ‘self-appointed public characters,’ a concept Oldenburg draws from  Jane Jacobs. Jacobs (1961) highlights the importance of these community members, noting that the social structure of sidewalk life partly relies on them (p. 68). Both Jacobs and Oldenburg agree on their value in developing social life within a neighbourhood. These public characters, who regularly interact with a wide range of people, need a place to associate with, which for Oldenburg, is the third place. Jacobs concurs with this observation stating that 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). This indicates the polyfunctionality of such spaces. One could argue that third places align well with Jacobs’ preference for slow-paced urban development.   The social value and potential of third places Oldenburg expressed concern about the gradual but progressive disappearance of informal gathering places; A process accelerated by the spread of monofunctional neighbourhoods and the segregation of uses promoted by modernist urban planning. Mass housing programmes and suburban developments, most notoriously in American suburbia, were failing to provide spaces where community life could thrive. This process was further exacerbated by the resulting fragmentation of cities through dull urban planning and uninspired design centred on profit-making and Fordist means of production, characteristic of the post-war housing initiatives in the latter half of the 20th century. In Oldenberg’s view, one potential solution to the 'problem of place in America’ was to champion the third place. Although his proposal was context-specific, the problems he described can be attested outside the USA. Social isolation and loneliness are prevalent worldwide, with significant effects on 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 can profoundly impact community life. Oldenburg pointed out some of its most important functions: as anchor points of social life in neighbourhoods, they help to unite and create a sense of identity. They facilitate contact between people with similar interests or shared struggles, leading to meaningful relationships. They also help newcomers integrate and gain useful information and contacts in the local area. Additionally, third places can provide aid, support and cooperation during emergencies or disasters, increasing a community's resilience to shocks. Klinenberg (2015) emphasized this characteristic when studying the aftermath of the 1995 Chicago heatwave and elaborated on it in his book Palaces for the People (2018), which examines the crucial role of social infrastructure in creating liveable and resilient neighbourhoods.