Max’s Thoughts on “Third Places”

Ray Oldenburg discusses many opportunities and benefits for cultivating “Third Places,” several of which resonated closely to me.  Though, some of these moments felt very idealistic and generally unwieldy.

As a native New Yorker, I grew up visiting central park playgrounds near my home very often, creating bonds and relationships with the kids and families in the neighborhood. Rather than a local deli, or grocer, the playground, or public park areas surrounding were a “Third Place.”  Interestingly, some relationships and friendships made there were exclusive to the park.  My park-friends were a category of their own. Of course, at a young age, conversation was hardly stimulating, but looking back at the space now, it’s interesting to think about the considerations of the planners that designed these public “places”.  Benches lined the entire outer areas of the playground we visited, and while some visitors might sit, this public organization considered many use cases from the parents, babysitters, or other casual visitors that might want to socialize, and create a “Third Place” of their own (if perhaps they didn’t want to swing on the monkey bars that day).

Oldenburg mentions chemistry in his personal observations towards the end of the article.  The accessibility of the park by foot, and planning of the architectural layout of these parks were certainly no mistake, according to Oldenburg. I’d agree with this notion, although, perhaps he is offering a bit too much credit to the planners in their efforts to generate community and political debate etc. While considerations were taken, I’m curious how much of the city code/park regulations and the like were considered over community nourishment, and “Third Places”.

I would most definitely agree with Oldenburg’s point on visitor neutrality in parks and “Third Places”. The simple enjoyment of visiting the park and leaving on your own accord offers a minimized commitment and brevity to the experience that is rare otherwise.  In an idealistic world, this laxity would stimulate conversation, and “we take our relaxation with people, we grow to like them, and as we come to like them we are inclined to “do for them””.  These notions seem a bit far-fetched, and…wishful, but maybe that’s the New Yorker in me.

•

Additionally, Oldenburg’s early focus on suburbia as this prison-like atmosphere by suggesting an “easy escapes from the cabin fever of marriage and family life” is very specific and I’d be curious to see his value systems be applied to a more rural setting, like New York, where everything is public, walkable, and interactive.  That said, I feel as if there is less community in my neighborhood (Lower East Side) than one might have in a Brooklyn, or Hoboken-like setting. I’d suggest that it’s a level of security, and distrust in the general public in New York.  The constant contact and interaction with those on the subway, street, sidewalk, and otherwise in combination with the crime, dirt, and pace of the city generate an (at times) negative connotation and general irritation with one another. Again, in a suburban setting, I think Oldenburg’s Laws may thrive, but in a city like New York – I’d be skeptical to embrace a lot of his reasoning for “Third Places”.

In comparison, I spent the summer in San Francisco, where, aside from the consist characters, people are generally more friendly, polite, and welcoming.  After several weeks, I was on a first name basis with the barista at a local coffee shop, while in New York, my relationships are few and very far between at any establishment.  Again, maybe the sheer volume, pace and overall congestion of New York offers a unfortunately cyclical cynicism for one another that even a “Third Place” can’t solve.