BUILDING COMMUNITY
Third Spaces: Who Uses Them and Who Benefits
The “third place” label has become a marketing category, applied in ways that abandon its original meaning. Research on corporate coffee-chain environments has consistently found that the franchise, despite its advertising, provides almost none of Oldenburg’s criteria; it is a fast-food model dressed in third space aesthetics. Reframing Third Spaces
BY MERCEDES LANEY
The intuitive answer, “everyone,” is wrong. Recent research sug - gests third spaces are used unevenly and benefit unevenly. The con - cept emerged in 1982 in an article by sociologist Ray Oldenburg and
Dennis Brissett titled, “The Third Place.” It was originally popularized by Olden - burg’s 1989 book The Great Good Place . Since roughly 2019, the phrase has re - surfaced in popular culture alongside re- newed interest in preserving the spaces it describes. But the third space itself is old - er than the term. The earliest document- ed third space institutions emerged not in Europe but in the Arabian Peninsula; and the most sociologically sophisticated con- versational traditions come from China, Japan, South Asia, and Central Asia. Oldenburg called it “a generic desig- nation for a great variety of public places that host the regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of in- dividuals beyond the realms of home and work.” “The first place” being the home, “the second place” the workplace, and “the third place” everywhere else that matters to us. But the space he sought to describe, the informal, recurring, non-transaction- al gathering place that is neither home nor work, is ancient and cross-cultural. Sufi mystics in fifteenth-century Yemen used coffee to stay awake through long nights of devotion, and the coffeehous - es that grew from that practice became, within a century, the “schools of the wise” of Mecca, Cairo, and Istanbul. Chinese teahouses were serving as conversation- al and commercial arbitration spaces as
In present-day America, especially in urban centers like the DMV, historical third spaces like malls, diners, bowling alleys, and independent cafes are simul- taneously vanishing and being reinvent- ed into run clubs, bookstore revivals, online communities, coworking hybrids, and contemplative spaces. The answer to who they benefit most is counterintu - itive. The heaviest beneficiaries are not the socially abundant but the socially vulnerable: older adults, adolescents, the chronically ill, immigrants, and members of minoritized communities for whom the third space doubles as political, eco- nomic, and emotional infrastructure. Sociologist Eric Klinenberg’s work on social infrastructure has sought to re- frame third spaces as a category of pro- tective public good whose loss correlates with isolation, polarization, and even mortality during climate events. The 2023 U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on loneliness and isolation has since echoed this framing, classifying social discon- nection as a public health crisis with a mortality impact comparable to smoking fifteen cigarettes a day. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the social fracture of our society and accelerated the shut- tering of these spaces centered on hold-
Photo by Mercedes Laney
ing community in a non-transactional way. The loss that has followed has cemented the idea of third spaces as essential to human connec- tion and vitality. While the language is clinical, the root is structural. Third spaces didn’t just become harder to find after the pandemic; they had been quietly dismantled long before it. The third space was never simply social. It was neurological. There is a network in the brain often referred to by the scientific community as the “default mode network,” which becomes active when the mind is not directed toward a task. It’s where reflection happens. Where meaning organizes itself. Where the self, in a deeper sense, begins to cohere. But this network requires something increasingly rare: un - claimed attention. The third space used to provide that by default. Nothing was being optimized. Nothing was being produced. Atten - tion was allowed to drift, to settle, to return on its own terms. It had somewhere to go that wasn’t immediately captured. Now, attention has nowhere to rest. Coffee shops have become of - fices, their conversational atmosphere compromised by Wi-Fi-driven laptop culture and the “alone together” dynamic. This has also bled into parks and shared outdoor spaces filled with headphones, run clubs, pickleball, and other organized social meetups, which have ex - panded rapidly since 2022, particularly among young 20-somethings seeking sober social interactions. Even the remaining spaces, like li- braries and religious and spiritual spaces, have absorbed the logic of productivity and competition. It wasn’t just a loss of physical places. It was a loss of spaces that allow the nervous system to settle and be supported in familiar environments surrounded by a safe communi- ty.
early as the Tang dynasty, more than a thousand years before Olden- burg named the category. Bengali adda , the hours-long unstructured conversation held in tea stalls and coffeehouses, was a culturally codi - fied practice by the early nineteenth century. In other words, the third space was not invented in 1982; it was named. The spaces Oldenburg celebrated, such as colonial American tav - erns, English coffeehouses, Viennese cafes and French bistros, were notoriously gendered, often racially bounded, and maintained high barriers to entry. The mixed company of different nations and reli - gions that Alexander Hamilton praised in his colonial tavern was almost entirely male and white. Subsequent scholarship has had to account for the fact that third spaces are not only integrating spaces but also sorting ones: they produce inclusion for some by producing exclusion for others. Four populations surface repeatedly in the literature as dispropor- tionate beneficiaries. The literature sometimes treats third spaces as universally beneficial, but the data is less clean. For already socially abundant people, well-networked professionals with robust first and second spaces, third spaces are pleasant additions rather than necessi- ties. This complicates the common policy argument. “Everyone needs a third place” is not quite true. Closer to the truth is that the people who need third spaces most are the ones most structurally excluded from accessing them. Monetized luxury coworking spaces marketed as third spaces often serve the first group while the closure of the public library branch that served the second goes unnoticed. Oldenburg himself observed that chain establishments are less enduring third spaces than independent ones because they extract economic value from the local community instead of circulating it.
continued on page 12
PATHWAYS—Summer 26—11
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker