The main argument of this book - that human beings need physical spaces that are easily accessible and conducive to chance social encounters, and that we should fight their disappearance - remains resonant and still very current. But many of the supporting arguments feel outdated. Not just because this book predates the internet, but outdated in its assumption that the author’s heteronormative white male experience is entirely universal. He articulately argues that women should have more space to socialize with other women, but is apparently totally oblivious to how expectations around childcare and other domestic obligations might keep women physically in their homes. (He definitely isn’t arguing that men should help.) He articulately criticizes the bland uniformity of most suburbs, but never once mentions redlining. The depth of his nostalgia for the pre-war era also seems completely oblivious to reasons why less privileged people might have felt less safe within gatherings of mostly straight white men before the Civil Rights era.

The key takeaways here are still highly relevant to urban planning. But now I’m left wondering how to make these vital “third places” also more genuinely inclusive.

A scathing breakdown of how America's suburban design and puritanical ethos has diminished public gathering places and isolated the individual into their cars and television rooms. As true now as when it was written in the eighties. Written very much as a textbook, it can be dull and repetitive at times, but then you will find yourself reading sections aloud to your spouse or friends.

This is a great book! The author argues compellingly for critical role of The Third Place (after the first two places: Work and Home) in bringing a richness to human life. He talks about the problem in North America, then champions the role of the Third Place in general before embarking on a historical review of Third Places in western societies. He lambastes suburban life for its anti-social tendencies, and advocates strongly for walkable neighborhoods, places (like Cheers) where everyone knows your name, and a social life that brings together several social strata and age groups.

I read the First Edition (1989), so it was a bit dated. I would be interested to know the authors views on 1) how the internet has reshaped social life and 2) the proliferation of the Starbucks coffee shop and its copies.

The central concept of the third place is well-articulated and agreeable. Oldenburg outlines what it is and why it is important. I wish he would've stopped after the first section because all of that is cogent and relevant to scholars and regular readers alike. However, the second and third parts contain plenty of objectionable claims that lack support, broad generalizations, a tenor of expertise for places the author seems to have visited once or only heard about, and a writing style that is very much of someone who did their grad work in the 60s. Frequent references to feminists (not in a purely derogatory way yet still clearly Othering women who fight for equal rights), romanticizing rural American culture to an extent that one forgets how awful it has been over the years, and otherwise essentializing an ideal type of masculinity (spoiler alert: today's men are not Men, apparently) turn an excellent manuscript into one that is frustrating and difficult to read to these 21st century eyes.

Shorter: If you're an academic, just read part one for the conceptual stuff.

The good: Ray lends his world view to the plague of loneliness and isolation by way of dissolution of places people can go to find easy access to others to have repeated, positive exposures. It’s harder to have casual run ins with people now than ever and we should explore any reason that may be. He correctly points out how zoning and car culture have negatively impacted community.

The bad: Ray presents us exactly what he sees from where he sits and where he sits alone. I am a female social worker and he uses some blatantly sexist language and there is an undercurrent of “the girls showed up and ruined it!” throughout.

I’m very interested in the importance of place for community building but I was distracted by the preoccupation on how to keep the sexes separate.

The first third of this book reads very well. The author provides a good definition of what makes a third place, and what distinguishes it from first and second places (home and work). He also argues that there are individual and collective benefits, and those reviews are well summarized and organized. The empirical chapters, where he reviews specific types of third places (e.g., the English pub, the German beer garden) are by now a little dated (the book was first published in the 1980s). Similarly, the chapters in the final third of the book, on third places and relations between the sexes and how children are shut out of third places, very much reflect the times. But overall, the book is a pretty sharp indictment of urban planning and how it has eroded public sociability, and the consequences we suffer. The book could have been improved by some examples of communities that have sought to overturn these patterns.

This book riffs on Jane Jacobs' classic study of urbanism. Oldenburg's version doesn't look broadly at what generates life in cities, but narrowly; he argues that places where people can hang out and loiter enjoyably are crucial for community well-being (both the well-being of the individuals in the community, but also the health of the community as a community). For Oldenburg, the marker of what he calls a "third space" is that it's neither strictly private (home) or the space of work, and crucially, that people can be both idle and entertaining there (so utilitarian spaces like grocery stores and sidewalks do not automatically count). His big targets here are suburbs and TVs; he thinks that the way we design communities now incentivizes people to spend free time in their house, passively watching TV or drinking privately, and that this weakens community strength. I do not disagree with his major conclusion (and indeed, think that some of the weakness of the neo-urbanist movement in at least some of its formulations is that it pays only shallow attention to community space). While he's strongest and really persuasive when he's clearly internalizing his Jacobs and talking about the dynamics of interaction--some of his closely-observed riffs on dynamics really hit home--I found myself put off by some of the weaknesses in the book. Most crucially for me, his love of his third-place idea means that he ignores the crucial difference between non-commercial and commercial third spaces. A public park doesn't require people to buy anything, so the kind of idle enjoyment there is categorically different than what one finds in coffee houses, bars, bookstores, and every other place listed in his title. But almost as problematic for me was the utter absence of any meaningful consideration of racism and segregation. Oldenburg champions third places because they promote 'diversity' in thinking; and yet, his catalog of what we see in his survey of third places is actually relentlessly white (his examples make this clear, but if you don't have time for this just look at the photos in the middle of the book). The book first came out in 1989 and he's updated it since (I was reading one of the updated editions), so it's not like he can claim that he's unaware that racial segregation is a key issue in this country. It just makes his claims about broadening our worldview by going to bars and coffee houses seem painfully ironic.

I think Oldenburg's thesis is an interesting and important one. Unfortunately, however, this really ought to have been an essay or an article, 5000-10000 words long, not a whole book. Most of the time his writing sounds long-winded and preachy, which makes reading it very tiring, because you expend a lot of energy extracting his main arguments from all the extraneous fluff, and then holding on to them until he moves on to the next point, which may be paragraphs or even pages away. Honestly, I struggled to get through it, and have up after the first three chapters. Skimmed the rest. I think most people would be better off just looking the subject up on Wikipedia.

I think I first became familiar with the phrase "third place" in relation to libraries when I was in grad school for library science, and I've been interested by the concept ever since. A lot of television series have portrayed the "third place" well ("Cheers" is a good example). I enjoyed reading about how events in history, as well as urban development and other things, have affected the third place, and what the consequences have been. I've been intrigued by some new apartment developments in the Triangle that have included nearby grocery stores and shopping areas. Maybe "third places" are making a comeback.

Definitely too long. This book had been on my list for several years and it took what felt like several years to finish it. I don't disagree with his conclusions but it could have been said much more concisely. My concise version: "Community is necessary and necessitates a place for it to happen."

Thank you! Proceeds may be sent to me at this account...

“The third place” as a term began in this book, almost thirty years ago. Ray Oldenburg wanted to make the case for the informed public life, which, in the late eighties, he found in cafés, bookshops, diners and similar places. But he also found these places disappearing as suburbs of that period drained some cities of the people who populated these spots. And that’s what inspired this book. After home and work, third places now make a resurgence in older cities with active walkable neighborhoods.

Social media and their influence arrived long after this book published, so his thoughts feel dated in many sections. Oldenburg, nonetheless, offers a deep history into “the happy gathering places” that we think of as the homes away from home. The stranger feels at home in these informal public gathering places. Think of Paris with its sidewalk cafés, London pubs, Florence piazzas.

Third places everywhere share common but essential features, writes Oldenburg. They are on neutral ground and they function as a leveler of people from different strata. Conversation is the main activity.

The rules for conversation, which seem quaint today, included these: stay quiet during your share of the time, then speak in as low a voice that will allow others to hear you. Bores talk louder, writes Oldenburg.

But these days, the abrasive background music of many cafés with hard walls means finding a quiet table away from the main room. And, if you want to read a book, pack earplugs to filter the noise.

The regulars set the mood and manner that give a place its style of interaction, Oldenburg writes. Every regular began as a newcomer. Regulars of third places come as they are.

Today’s informal gathering spots enjoy a long tradition.

French bistros and sidewalk cafés emerged five hundred years ago, about the time of the first coffeehouses in Saudi Arabia. Bistros became favored places for writing books and letters. Londoners imported the habit and dropped in to their coffeehouses several times a day for the news, before newspapers and daily mail. The democratic atmosphere of the coffeehouse contrasted with the drunks at inns and taverns.

Milwaukee Germans almost two hundred years ago, the author explains, fashioned a collective life in the city. Beer gardens welcomed everyone. From there, bands, reading clubs and other organizations emerged. German immigrants understood the importance of informal public gathering places. In Milwaukee, by the eighteen-sixties, its best taverns offered good beer, music, conversation and food, often free.

Because the concept of the third place intrigued me for years, this book lived on my to-read shelf for a long time. Although anchored in the eighties, it was a worthwhile read. The book needed a good editor. But, by now, the topic needs a new book, using this as the beginning. Three and a half stars.

A colleague at work suggested this to get folks thinking about how to look at museums as a third space, how to encourage more community interaction/community building within the scope of the museum. It's an interesting concept, and one that kids are very natural at, but not so much for grownups. Think about it, when you are out in the community—coffee shop, post office, grocery store—how often to you really start up a conversation? Unless you actually bump into someone you know, probably not very often (at least not in Boston). As a commuter on public transportation, when strangers do approach me to start a conversation, it often feels awkward and uncomfortable. "Why is the crazy person talking to me?" One day I engaged in such a conversation on the T and when the person I was speaking with got off at their stop the woman seated next to me told me that I'd been "very kind" to carry on with the person, which also felt strange. Why is it so awkward to get into conversations with strangers? Why can children, in most cases, easily start talking to their peers and quickly find common ground, yet grownups cannot?

Anyway, it's an interesting read on how community has changed from the days of the soda shoppe counter, where you likely knew everyone, to today, where we plan all of our meetings via text, email, or facebook.