Read this in Library School and really enjoyed it. Now I need to read Bowling Alone.

In-depth analysis and discussion regarding third places. Really enjoyed learning some history on bier gardens, pubs, French cafes, and American taverns. It’s crazy how far we’ve strayed from having accessible, inviting third places. Author did a good job explaining the human side and need of social places that are for relaxing. How much of a positive effect that third places have for an individual to balance out a hectic life. Community through an informal social group reenergizes instead of depletes your personal battery. Recommend if you want to learn more about the history or causes a third place can have and also the deterioration the lack of a third place can produce.

If one spends most of one’s time at home (even if asleep a good deal of that time) and the second biggest block of time at work, that means home is your first place and work is your second place. What then, is your third place? The third place is the social venue where one has informal interaction with a group of regulars and potential newcomers such that one experiences novelty, perspective, spiritual uplift, and friends by the set (as opposed to befriending individuals). It is an enriching crossroads of culture but one that seems to be vanishing (pp. 43-44). Hence, sociologist Ray Oldenburg offered the landmark study on the “third place,” The Great Good Place in that last few years of the 20th century. If anything, his survey is more needed today than when it was initially published.

One reason we need third places is because our first and second places both have constant populations such that they lose diversity and “…people come to expect too much from too few people in a duality of settings in which surprise, adventure, risk, and excitement are alien commodities.” (p. 45) Such should not be the case in a third place that harbors a diverse population where people are accepted and liked by those from many different walks of life. “For all the persiflage, silliness, unresolved arguments, joking, and banter of third places, an outlook on life is asserted there and, because it evolves from a disinterest impossible in home and work settings, it is a particularly valuable one.” (p. 51)

Oldenburg goes on to explain third places by the German word, Gemutlich (the “u” actually has an umlaut), referring to the inclusive nature of the group (p. 56). He calls “associations” and interest groups the “instant community” idea for the automobile culture, but points out that there is no base and no sense of place in those groups (p. 61). Third places, then, provide space for affiliation and friendship by the aforementioned “set.” (p. 63) This “set” is large enough to provide the bonus of a sense of belonging without the requirement of individual emotional output (p. 64).

Indeed, Oldenburg counts the diminishment of public places capable of providing “third places” as particularly ironic in the United States of America where the taverns provided a democratic forum which functioned as a catalyst for the American Revolution, taverns where ‘there existed that full and free interplay of spontaneous and responsible group association which appears to be a necessary condition of a healthy social order.” (p. 67, quoting Carl and Jesse Bridenbaugh) As a result of this diminishment of public space, we are better informed of global than local affairs. Hence, the j’accuse that we ‘live in the hole of an informational doughnut.’ (p. 70) I also liked the little tidbit where the book reminds us that the Greek word from which we get idiot applies to those who only understood their private worlds and didn’t understand the way they connected to society (p. 71).

I didn’t appreciate his indictment of the Protestant (and Puritan) church as seeking “to ensure the life of the church over the life of the community.” (p. 74) I didn’t appreciate it because an inclusive, growing, and active church is precisely the kind of “third place” for which Oldenburg advocates. To be sure, my experiences in ministering to English Ministries of “immigrant” churches may color my perspective but I know that these types of churches have informal, playful, insightful, and encouraging conversations, relationships, and activities (social and recreational, as well as spiritual) and that many are open to Caucasians and those of ethnic minorities as well. It is ironic that Oldenburg counts out the local church and I personally suggest that it is probably because the churches with which he is familiar are primarily Sunday AM only congregations with little or no interaction through the week. But he’s probably right that much of the church’s earlier ranting about “keeping the Sabbath” by limiting amusements and public gatherings was largely a matter of taking care of the pastor’s livelihood (p. 100).

This reflects a historical tension between church and recreation. Oldenburg quotes that iconic social worker in Chicago, Jane Addams, as stating, “Since the soldiers of Cromwell shut up the people’s playhouses and destroyed their pleasure fields, the Anglo-Saxon city has turned over the provision for public recreation to the most evil-minded and most unscrupulous members of the community.” (p. 220) Citing U.S. cities with limited municipal swimming facilities because most of the planners and councilpersons have private pools, Oldenburg questions our current value system for public places of any kind, much less the conversational third places for which he advocates.

On the other hand, he seems dead on when he states that the mass media (and presumably, in the last decade, the narrow-cast pages of the web) provide so much entertainment and information that they encourage people to stay at home. Since “time spent in isolation is time lost to affiliation” this means a drop in social capital (p. 77). He also compares the authorities at the workplace (second place) unfavorably with the authorities at the “third place” by citing an old Latin proverb, Asperius nihil est humili cum surgit in altum (“Nothing is cruder (lit. rougher) than a humble [person] lifted to a height.”), and suggesting that the gatekeepers of the “third place” earn their place by common accord and approbation (p. 78).
Another insightful case is made when Oldenburg observes that U.S. citizens have become satisfied with an attitude that public spaces aren’t owned by anyone as opposed to being the communal property of everyone. As a result, we do a poor job of taking care of our public spaces, expecting governmental employees or contractors to pick up our messes (p. 83).

The amazing thing about “third places” all over the world is how many of them are based on serving alcohol: German beer gardens that spawned interest groups which formed drama clubs, debating societies, singing groups, volunteer fire departments, etc. (pp. 103-4); English pubs where “three-fourths of the drinking done in England still takes place in public settings…” (p. 123); French bistros, also known as the “clubs of the poor” (p. 146), providing something of another office for writers and planners; and American taverns and saloons on the frontier that provided the “melting pots for an ethnically diverse population.” (p. 166) It must have something to do with the talking-drinking synergism (p. 167). A survey conducted in 1974 indicated that tavern regulars drink far less than one would expect—45% only consuming one drink during a visit but staying a lengthy period to talk (p. 168). As the book quotes Kenneth Davids, “Every social lubricant has its home away from home, its church, as it were…” (p. 183)

There was also some interesting history. I always wondered about the early closing hours in England. I didn’t realize that the culture changed at the beginning of World War I in order to increase worker productivity (p. 137). It’s actually ironic that countries like those in Europe (Western Europe, at least) where there is lots of public consumption of alcohol, there is a negative correlation between drunkenness and the number of pubs in various regions of England (p. 159).

Of course, The Great Good Place would also suggest the classic coffeehouses of the 17th-19th centuries in both England and Austria. Not only did the coffeehouses spawn insurance agencies and stock exchanges in the former, but it is also credited with being a source of news and “education.” As Oldenburg quotes a late 17th century poet:
“So great a Universitie
I think there ne’er was any
In which you may a scholar be
For spending of a Penny.” (p. 185)
Of course, the English coffeehouse of that era wasn’t universally approved because they were the exclusive domain of males. As a result,

I was amused to read about The Women’s Petition Against Coffee as being responsible for the emasculation of the English male (p. 187). Some have speculated that this hostility toward the coffeehouse culture may have inspired the adoption of “tea” as the more important ritual beverage in the English lifestyle than coffee (p. 188).

In the German-Austrian tradition, those who regularly frequent one of the classic Viennese-style coffeehouses is known as a Stammgast (lit. “root” or “trunk” customer) and their regular table (as well as those who sit at it) are known as the Stammtisch (“root” table), a close-knit group with an unstated but obvious proviso that visitors need not apply (p. 195). Rather, one must be invited to that table. As an aside, this does happen in U.S. establishments. For years, the business of Chicago (both licit and illicit) was handled at a particular table in a particular restaurant near the center of power where representatives of the “Outfit” (aka “mafia”) met with representatives of the politicians. In addition, I remember visiting a small restaurant in a Southwestern town of less than 700 people where there was a Stammtisch that met regularly each morning and to which table one must be “invited” to sit.

In the last third of the book, Oldenburg presents his view of the progressively hostile environment toward “third places” in the United States. He notes that “third places” are generally “older” structures where the regulars can insinuate themselves and loiter, lounge, or hang out (depending on how you view such behavior), but all urban planning and zoning restrictions tend to discourage the social use of establishments from having an informal public life (pp. 204, 218). So “places” have been replaced by “newer” structures which the author calls “nonplaces” because of their sterility and lack of opportunity for leisurely interaction (p. 205). This sterilization is blamed on two factors: failure to consult those who might use the facilities and imitation of the same basic designs (p. 208). For example, note his cautionary word on venues designed specifically for children: “Whenever anyone takes the trouble to monitor the use that is made (or not made) of places created especially for children, the results usually indicate that the basic idea may be wrong.” (p. 280) Venues designed just for children tend to sit vacant and unused.
This is why citizens of the U.S. are estimated to spend 90% of their leisure time in their homes (my emphasis, but quoted from p. 214), a difficult way to experience cross-pollenization of ideas, indeed. And, while single-use facilities may be efficient for straightforward production uses, it doesn’t really work well for effective socialization (p. 215).

Remember, of course, that Oldenburg is a sociologist. As a result, at the very time he is lauding the value of same-sex “third places” in terms of solidifying gender roles and assisting acculturation, he drops a tidbit about romance and attraction that I’ve shared with others but not worded as well. “…sexual contact represents a spark of intensely erotic interest that bridges a gap between partners. The gap results from conflicts, tensions, antagonisms, or barriers that tend to keep potential partners apart. The principle is a simple one: no gaps, no sparks.” (p. 250) Another intriguing sociological canapé was his observation that marriage and family textbooks now refer to childfree couples rather than childless couples, making a virtue out of what was once seen as unfulfilled (p. 266).

In summary, the thesis can be advanced, “Eventually Americans will learn that the fast and hectic pace of urban life is not due to modernity but to bad urban planning.” (p. 287) As an individual, I couldn’t agree more. I do hope, however, that virtual communities (I place a higher value on them than Oldenburg, even though they were quite nascent when this book was originally published.) will actually stimulate the re-thinking of “actual” communities. We need “third places” to revitalize our sense of communities, togetherness, commitment, and creativity.

Not perfect and often just delves into the authors personal biases and experiences but the lessons and messages were clear and important. How a book like this is so good yet so hard to get a hold of is weird to me. It did finally get released as an e book this year though so hopefully more ppl can read it!

For class

The core idea is compelling: a local, "third place" that is apart from home or workplace, where we can congregate with our neighbors, is beneficial to us all.

Intriguing idea. But the author never really develops it. After defining the kinds of social interactions found in the ideal third place, the rest of the book presents lots of descriptions of how the third place used to function in pre-World War II society. The close-knit society of small town America, where everybody knows everybody's business, is held up as the ideal. Social interactions with neighbors and keeping track of their activities are promoted as the prime way to amuse oneself. Libraries, reading, and other non-social activities aren't discussed or mentioned as worthwhile.

Also, it focusses almost exclusively on third places used by men. Women are portrayed throughout the book as wives, mothers and homemakers. Women finally get a chapter of their own at the end as part of a larger discussion of the need for sexually separate spaces that I only skimmed. Perhaps his real opinion about women's place was his comment about admitting women to the iconic Greenwich Village bar, McSorley's to women: "McSorley's...has survived urban renewal and the blood lust of feminists seeing to integrate or destroy it." People of color, and LGBT folks are not mentioned at all.

The book is quite dated as it was written before widespread access to the internet was available and with it, the expansive use of social media.

I had hoped that there would be a more incisive discussion of this topic. I found it to be a very well-written book that gave the author more than ample space to promote his pet ideas.

"The examples set by societies that have solved the problem of place and those set by the small towns and vital neighborhoods of our past suggest that daily life, in order to be relaxed and fulfilling, must find its balance in three realms of experience. One is domestic, a second is gainful or productive, and the third is inclusively sociable, offering the basis of community and the celebration of it." (14)

"Necessarily, a transformation must occur as one passes through the portals of a third place. Worldly status claims must be checked at the door in order that all within may be equals. ... Leveling is a joy and a relief to those of higher and lower status in the mundane world." (25)

"Where once there were places, we now find nonplaces. In real places the human being is a person. He or she is an individual, unique and possessing a character. In nonplaces, individuality disappears." (205)

"What is revolutionary about our new environment is not its freeway mazes or its hulking rectangular skyscrapers, but its unprecedented resistance to user modification." (286)

This books talks about a valid issue in today's society.
My one complaint is the author frequently reverts to stereotypes and sexism.
This distracts from the main tennant if the book.

I definitely enjoyed this book, even if uneven on occasion stretching parts of it's main thesis. I think there is a lot to chew on here from the sociological, urban planning, modern alienation, disappearing downtowns, why there are no places for the elderly and kids to just go and be without a specific plan or purpose.

"When the good citizens of a community find places to spend pleasurable hours with one another for no specific or obvious purpose, there is purpose to such association"

"The neutral ground (space upon which one is not burdened by the role of host or guest) of third places (after work and home) offers the great ease of association so important to community life"

Wonderful discussion about the history of third places in Europe whether they be coffee houses or public houses. How Americans just assumed third places would be there but we've increasingly zoned ourselves out of that possibility.

"The environment in which we live out our lives is not a cafeteria containing an endless variety of passively arrayed settings and experiences. It is an active, dictatorial force that adds experiences or subtracts them according to the way it has been shaped. When Americans begin to grasp that lesson, the path to the planners' offices will be more heavily trod than that to the psychiatrists' couches." (296)

Long slog through the middle, but it picked up at the end. Point (quoted above) well made. Finally.

Parts were very thought provoking and informative, but it was too focused and biased toward the third places of men. Even when women and children were present in a third place, they were discussed in terms of how the affected the activity and community of men. Much more of the book should have addressed the third places of women in history and recommendations for how to create new third places for everyone. Third places of the past will not meet the needs and physical environment of today and the future.

With the shear size of American metropolitan areas and the need for cars, how can we create third places in our new reality instead of waxing on about what has been lost? The book was also written before social media existed and the rise of Starbucks. How has social media affected the need for and existence of a third place? How have Starbucks and other coffee houses provided or stifled third places?

"What got us here won't get us there." - Leslie Wexner

Upside: some backstory on different types of Third Places. Makes me rethink it - I guess I barely have any! And the ones that I have are not anywhere near the lively spots he talks about. Paints a good picture of how it used to be. Makes me think.

Downside: such a grumpy old man! Emphasis on "grumpy old" (lots of focus on how it used to be better and "kids these days") and emphasis on "man" (barely touches on women's third places, or really women at all, and when he does it's generally pretty old-fashioned and chauvinistic).