ABSTRACT
After decades of highlighting the decline of social networks, leisure spaces as third places constitute a welcomed approach to mediate this loss. Third places are defined as public gathering places that ultimately contribute to the strength of community. We appreciate the concept and believe that it has and will continue to influence scholars in the field of leisure. For this reason, this research reflection argues Oldenburg's conceptualization of third places requires reconsideration. Specifically, we address the increasing prevalence of technology and question Oldenburg's claim that technology contributes to the isolation of individuals. We also encourage a more complex understanding of third places—one that is beyond the idealized notion of public places. Oldenburg's social dimensions of third places (enjoyment, regularity, pure sociability/social leveler, and diversity) are offered as a useful framework. More specifically, we argue that diversity is the most relevant characteristic when exploring third places as a platform for community.
Notes
1 Social dimension refers to the demographic make-up of people, their experiences, and their emotions, as opposed to the physical dimensions (i.e., built environment). For more discussion on the importance of the physical aspects in community building, please see Dempsey (Citation2008, Citation2009), Glover and Parry (Citation2009), Peters, Elands, and Buijs (Citation2010), and Talen (Citation2000).
2 Intersectionality recognizes individuals have multiple identities based on demographic characteristics such as race, ethnicity, class, gender, and sexual orientation (Mann & Huffman, 2005).As argued by Brotman and Kraniou (1999), researchers need to consider various experiences of marginalization—some of which may be more dominant than others, depending on the situation.
3 Please refer to Blackshaw and Long (Citation2005), Glover (Citation2006), and Mulcahy, Parry, and Glover (Citation2010) for more details.