Monthly Archives: September 2014

Link to the blog for the reading.

(http://itsmikeysdesignblog.tumblr.com)

There are many reasons for the increase in public vs. private space. It’s not that these places don’t exist, but the mind set of the people that use them have changed. A lot of people are more self-absorbed. Technology now plays a big role in the way in which we converse and interact. Even in public places that promote community and social interaction, people are too engaged in their own livelihood and their personal emails and messages to communicate with one another.

This can be regularly seen on the subway, where people are choosing the life style consisting mainly of a home-to-work-and-back-again shuttle. You walk down the street with your headphones on and then sit on the subway staring at your phone. There are unwritten rules on the subway or public bus. Don’t make eye contact and give people as much space as possible and if you try and talk to someone you might be seen as crazy. These spaces promote communication but we fall back on our routine of solitude.

Technology is evolving and so is our way of socializing. Using a phone or screen doesn’t mean it stops us from communication with each other, but is a new form of connecting and interaction with one another. There are certain things that may change because of this. We may see less community in our neighborhoods with fewer people knowing and talking with their neighbors. However there are places and groups online where people can form similar relationships with people of shared interest. This is a different type of “third place”, but still a place where people can virtually gather easily and pleasurably.

I come from a small island called the United Kingdom. We love privacy. Perhaps the only other country to display such reserved sensibilities is Japan, where people also share a small water-locked slither of land.

In light of this I’ve always admired America’s more outgoing culture. I figured the early settlers understood that if they were going to conquer this brave new world they were going to have to talk to strangers, leading the way to a land more prone to celebrating extroversion and openness.

But Oldenburg is right to lament modern suburbia. The ‘private’ space afforded by a car has led to a deep re-orientation of public space. Until I came to America, I’d never dreamed of a drive-through ATM.

Cities – particularly New York – are often considered unfriendly. I see this as mostly misconceived. New York is probably the most overly-social place in the world. A place where people fulfil three social engagements in one night, and pass on two more. The problem is that this intensity leads people to shut down sharply to strangers, there is only so much inter-personal stimulation a person can handle.

An easy deflection of the author’s critique, particularly 18 years after its writing, is to call the web – and particularly social media – today’s third place. I’d argue there are many nuances to this, some of which I’ve tackled in my own work. Connecting with strangers still requires a set of norms, permissions and affordances. Just because people can connect online, doesn’t mean they will feel comfortable doing so. Also, somewhat ironically, digital services that have had the most impact connecting nearby users really only gain traction in big cities with critical density – suburbunites who could really benefit from nearby networking are likely to encounter empty rooms and virtual tumbleweeds.

Of course, such norms, permissions and affordances are important in the physical plane too. His reference to dog-owners is interesting – in England a pet offers near complete permission to talk to a stranger, though often conversation is directed to the pet rather than the owner. I’m quite sure that millions of people only own pets to afford these kind of encounters, particularly with other pet owners.

I’d never considered that fleeing to ‘Sun Cities’ correlated with a lack of community and purpose post-retirement, but I think he is correct in this insight. However, I’d argue that some of these new retirement communities act as purpose-built third places, full of the kind of interactions he longs for. In this sense, I’m not sure this is a wholly negative development.

A lot of the issues with third places are really economic – with more disposable income people can pay to spend time in shared public (but private) spaces. I’m not sure he addressed this component as much as he might. In posing questions about inclusivity, I think access to third places – and the corresponding benefits he outlines – deserves to be a lens through which such issues are examined.

You can find it on my blog here