Third Places and the Social Life of Streets

Abstract

Urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg defines a third place as a place of refuge other than the home or workplace where people can regularly visit and commune with friends, neighbors, coworkers, and even strangers. Because little is known about the place-based physical qualities of third places that support sociability and place attachment, this article examines how four urban design characteristics distinguish third-place businesses from other businesses on the Main Street. The article discusses a study conducted at Main Streets in two cities and one town in Massachusetts. As part of the study, visual surveys measured urban design qualities of businesses on the Main Streets, and interviews helped determine user perceptions. The findings suggest that third places are relatively high in both personalization (distinctiveness, recognizability) and permeability to the street, but seating and shelter provisions are perhaps the most crucial urban design characteristics that contribute to sociability on the Main Street.

Full text

Article
Environment and Behavior
42(6) 779 –805
© 2010 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013916509344677
http://eab.sagepub.com
Third Places and the
Social Life of Streets
Vikas Mehta1 and Jennifer K. Bosson1
Abstract
Urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg defines a third place as a place of refuge
other than the home or workplace where people can regularly visit and
commune with friends, neighbors, coworkers, and even strangers. Because
little is known about the place-based physical qualities of third places that
support sociability and place attachment, this article examines how four
urban design characteristics distinguish third-place businesses from other
businesses on the Main Street. The article discusses a study conducted
at Main Streets in two cities and one town in Massachusetts. As part of
the study, visual surveys measured urban design qualities of businesses on
the Main Streets, and interviews helped determine user perceptions. The
findings suggest that third places are relatively high in both personalization
(distinctiveness, recognizability) and permeability to the street, but seating and
shelter provisions are perhaps the most crucial urban design characteristics
that contribute to sociability on the Main Street.
Keywords
third place, Main Street, urban design, social interaction, social and physical
qualities
Research in urban design has identified many physical characteristics that
make public spaces attractive for public life. At the same time, literature in
social sciences has emphasized the role of social qualities of public spaces in
1University of South Florida
Corresponding Author:
Vikas Mehta, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620
Email: mehta@arch.usf.edu
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

780 Environment and Behavior 42(6)
place attachment and place making. Together these efforts attempt to capture
qualities in the environment that help create a sense of place with desirable
spaces for people. Using the knowledge from the social sciences, urban
design researchers are broadening the province of design and have begun to
evaluate both physical and social aspects of the environment to understand
user needs (see, for example Lang, 1987; Brower, 1996).
The Great Good Place
Urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg defined a third place as a place of refuge
other than the home or workplace where people can regularly visit and com-
mune with friends, neighbors, coworkers, and even strangers. Oldenburg’s
(1991) treatise on third places mostly focuses on the social aspects, that a
third place is welcoming and comfortable, is visited by regulars, and is a
place to meet old friends and make new ones. Often third places are small
businesses, cafes, coffee shops, bars, pubs, restaurants, community centers,
general stores, and so on. Even though such destinations are called third
places, Oldenburg discusses only a few physical aspects of third places, such
as their proximity and easy access from home or work for many, and high-
lights that these places are likely to offer food and drinks. However, there are
likely other physical features that differentiate third places from other similar
businesses or places. This article proposes that four physical characteristics
that support human use and social interaction, which are visible from the
street, likely characterize third places more than other places on the Main
Street. These characteristics are (a) personalization of the street front by the
business, (b) permeability of the business to the street, (c) seating provided
by the business, and (d) shelter provided by the business on the street space.
Characteristics That Support Social Behavior
Researchers and social commentators have been exploring the relationship
between the environment and human behavior for decades, in order to under-
stand what attracts people to public spaces and supports social activities.
Their findings point to characteristics of the environment that are place based
and ones that are people based; that is, some are a result of the characteristics
of the physical environment, and others, a consequence of human actions and
management. Of the place-based characteristics of Main Streets, some are
under the control of public or private authorities, whereas others are con-
trolled and managed by individual property or business owners. The four
physical characteristics discussed in this article are largely under the control
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mehta and Bosson 781
of the business owners. There are undoubtedly other physical characteristics
that support human interaction that are not under the control of business
owners. For example, sidewalk width and the provision of benches for
sitting––both characteristics under the control and management of a larger
public or private authority, are known to be physical characteristics that sup-
port human activities on streets and other public spaces. This article focuses
only on the physical characteristics that are under the control of business
owners. These four characteristics are discussed below.
Personalization
Personalization is the act of modifying the physical environment and an
expression of claiming territory, of caring for and nurturing the claimed ter-
ritory. By personalizing a space, people change the environment to meet their
needs and specific activity patterns. This provides psychological security, a
symbolic aesthetic, and the marking of territory (Lang, 1987). By marking
territories through personalization, individuals or groups are also able to
make the territory “distinctive and identifiable” (Edney, 1976). Perkins
(1986) found that personalization of property made the street environment
appear safer. Conversely, a lack of territorial control due to lack of personal-
ization made the street environment perceptibly less safe (Taylor, Gottfredson,
& Brower, 1984). Various studies have found the perception of safety to be
negatively affected by the lack of personalization and care resulting in
the presence of litter, graffiti, vandalism, and poorly maintained buildings
(Hope & Hough, 1988; Perkins, Meeks, & Taylor, 1992; Skogan & Maxfield,
1981). According to Gehl (1987), increased opportunities for personaliza-
tion add those elements to the environment that are of prime interest to
people. Personalization of the street front also allows for change to occur
in an otherwise familiar setting. This provides stimulation and interest and
creates a reason to stop and look, enabling possibilities that generate conver-
sation and other social interactions.
Permeability
Permeability of the street front is more than just the transparency of the
building façade. Permeable street fronts are those that actively reveal the
interior to the exterior such that people on the street are able to sense what is
going on and understand the activities inside the buildings. Research in mar-
keting and retailing suggests that, besides the primary activity of acquiring
goods and services, people go shopping to look around (in addition to
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

782 Environment and Behavior 42(6)
meeting and spending time with their friends, people watching, and walking
around). Studies have identified sensory stimulation as an important and
basic motive for shopping behavior (Bloch, Ridgway, & Sherrell, 1989; Falk,
1997; Tauber, 1972). Scholars note that pedestrians experience pleasure from
characteristics of the edges of buildings that define the street, including shop
windows and the displays and goods in them (Ciolek, 1978; Whyte, 1980),
and the permeability of the street front is integral to creating a condition for
such sensory stimulation.
Seating
Sitting space has been identified as one of the most important characteristics
in retaining people in public spaces and possibly supporting social behavior
(Linday, 1978; Mehta, 2007; Whyte, 1980). Movable chairs are a desired
form of seating due to the choice, flexibility, and comfort they offer (Whyte,
1980). Stores selling goods and services that may be consumed outdoors
sometimes provide outdoor seating. This allows for goods or services to be
consumed outside the store, thus extending the activity that would otherwise
be limited within the store. Eating and drinking are activities commonly
associated with relaxation, and people frequently combine eating and drink-
ing with socializing. This combination of food and social activity supported
by outdoor seating makes people stay longer, making it a very important
characteristic to support social life on the street. Outdoor seating makes
patrons more visible and several empirical studies show that people are
attracted to places with people in them (Ciolek, 1978; Gehl, 1987;
Hass-Klau, Crampton, Dowland, & Nold, 1999; Share, 1978; Whyte, 1980).
Shelter
Designers and planners often recommend that public spaces should generally
be oriented to receive maximum sunlight. However, it is equally important to
provide shade and shelter as people’s preferences for spaces in the sun or
under shade change with changing seasons and weather. Whyte’s (1980)
study of plazas in New York City showed that though sunlight was an impor-
tant factor in the spring, people sought shade provided by trees, awnings,
canopies, and overhangs during the warmer summer months. Research on the
effects of environmental factors on human behavior shows that comfortable
microclimatic conditions, including temperature, sunlight, and shade are
important in supporting outdoor activities (Arens & Bosselmann, 1989;
Khisty, n.d. from Rapoport, 1990; Pushkarev & Zupan, 1975). Similarly,
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mehta and Bosson 783
Zacharias et al. (2001) found that in Montreal’s public open spaces at tem-
peratures above 20° Celsius (68° Fahrenheit) people preferred to move to
areas under shade.
Hence, there is considerable empirical research that suggests the impor-
tance of personalization, permeability, seating, and shelter in making public
spaces such as Main Streets more attractive for human use and social
interaction.
Research Question
Third places are known for their friendliness and qualities that support socia-
bility and place attachment. However, there is little research that investigates
whether compared to other businesses on the Main Street, third places have
other place-based qualities that support sociability. The specific research
question is: Besides their social attributes, do third places inherently possess
physical characteristics that support human use and social interaction on
Main Streets?
Method
The research for this article was conducted on Massachusetts Avenue in the
Central Square neighborhood in the city of Cambridge (population: 101,355;
Source: US Census Bureau [2000] data), Harvard Street in the Coolidge
Corner neighborhood in the town of Brookline (population: 57,107; Ibid),
and Elm Street in the Davis Square neighborhood in the city of Somerville
(population: 77,478; Ibid). All three towns/cities are in the Boston metropoli-
tan area in Massachusetts and are on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA) transit system that includes subway, surface light rail,
and/or bus service. Central Square, Coolidge Corner, and Davis Square may
be classified as predominantly residential neighborhoods where Main Street
shops provide for a variety of daily needs. All three streets studied are the
primary commercial streets of the neighborhoods—the Main Streets––which
have a combination of small, independently owned, local businesses and
national chain stores. All three are historic streets that include mostly older
building stock, with only a few new buildings constructed in the past 40
years. Almost all buildings are built to the sidewalk, leaving no setbacks.
Aside from a few newer buildings with commercial space, all buildings range
from one to four stories in height. All three streets have been upgraded in the
past decade to make them more pedestrian friendly. These improvements
include the following: widening and resurfacing of sidewalks; creating
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

784 Environment and Behavior 42(6)
curbside parking; planting of trees; and providing benches, bicycle racks,
trash cans, pedestrian-oriented street lighting, and so on. Each Main Street
has a subway or surface light rail stop connecting it to the MBTA transit
system. In addition, there is one bus stop at one of the blocks studied in Davis
Square and two at Coolidge Corner. The three Main Streets were selected for
this study for their similarities and because each one included a combination
of third places and non-third places as well as variability between the four
urban design characteristics mentioned earlier. The three streets were also
selected to provide an adequate sample size for the study.
Units of Study and Selection of Blocks
The author conducted several drive-bys and walk-bys at each of the study
areas and selected 6 to 10 blocks on each Main Street in which to make pre-
liminary observations. The blocks were selected for businesses with the
variability of the four physical urban design characteristics that are the focus
of this article. Hence, the selected blocks had businesses that provided sitting
space on the street and ones that did not and businesses with a range of per-
sonalization of the street front, businesses with a range of permeability of the
business to the street, and businesses with variability in the range of shade
and shelter they offered through the provision of canopies, awnings, and so
on, on the street space. A total 19 blocks were selected for the study; 5 blocks
were on Massachusetts Avenue at Central Square in Cambridge, with 30
businesses on the first floor; 6 on Harvard Street at Coolidge Corner in
Brookline, with 43 businesses on the first floor; and 8 blocks on Elm
Street at Davis Square in Somerville, with 47 businesses on the first floor
(see Figures 1, 2, and 3).
As the selected blocks were all on the Main Street, they were part of the
same context and had similar neighborhood-scale characteristics. These
neighborhood-scale characteristics included the following: the housing and
commercial density of the area; the age, ethnicity, and SES (socioeconomic
status) of people living in the area; the proximity to major natural features
such as a water’s edge; major uses such as a university or a cultural institu-
tion; a transit hub; and so on. The distance between the different businesses
on the blocks and a major subway station ranged from 0 to 1,080 feet. All
the blocks within a study area were within 1,600 feet of each other. This
allowed for minimum variation in the neighborhood-scale factors among the
selected blocks in a study area. Thus, the selected blocks on all the three
Main Streets were part of the same urban context with similar neighborhood-
scale characteristics of the environment. As this article explores whether
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mehta and Bosson 785
third places provide place-based urban design characteristics on neighbor-
hood commercial streets, the unit of study was each business on these
selected blocks.
Figure 1. Map showing the five blocks studied on Massachusetts Avenue in the
Central Square neighborhood of Cambridge, Massachusetts
Note: All the blocks studied belong to the same context.
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

786 Environment and Behavior 42(6)
Sampling
A flyer seeking participation in the interview was designed for each study
area. These were regularly posted at stores in the study areas that had space
Figure 2. Map showing the six blocks studied on Harvard Street in the Coolidge
Corner neighborhood of Brookline, Massachusetts
Note: All the blocks studied belong to the same context.
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mehta and Bosson 787
for community notices and announcements. Each study area had five to six
such community notice boards. Flyers were given to all the businesses on
the first floor and were also distributed to people passing by in the study
Figure 3. Map showing the eight blocks studied on Elm Street in the Davis Square
neighborhood of Somerville, Massachusetts
Note: All the blocks studied belong to the same context.
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

788 Environment and Behavior 42(6)
areas at several occasions. Approximately 220 flyers were distributed at
Massachusetts Avenue and approximately 160 each at Harvard Street and
Elm Street. A total of 51 people were interviewed: 21 for Massachusetts
Avenue at Central Square in Cambridge, 17 for Harvard Street at Coolidge
Corner in Brookline, and 13 for Elm Street at Davis Square in Somerville.
Participants contacted the researcher by phone or e-mail to schedule inter-
views. A total 45 people were interviewed on the street at the benches
provided by the public authorities. Three were interviewed inside the stores
that were considered third places by people, two at their residences, and one
at a neighborhood library. The time for interview ranged from 30 min to 2
hours, with an overall average of 50 minutes.
Measures
Defining and determining a third place. For the purpose of this study, a third
place is defined as a business on the Main Street that was identified as a
community-gathering place by the people who lived or worked in the neigh-
borhood. A face-to-face interview was considered the best method to provide
in-depth information to help understand the users’ feelings, perceptions, and
attitudes toward the businesses and the street environments in the three study
areas. The purpose of the interview was to obtain information from people
who actively used the Main Street. By posting and distributing flyers about
the research at the study areas, we were able to target the neighborhood’s
residents, workers, and visitors who actually used the Main Street on a regu-
lar basis. The instrument was designed to identify the businesses that people
considered third places. A structured interview asked participants about their
familiarity with the study area of the Main Street, frequency of visitation,
identification of frequently used and favorite businesses, and purpose and
reasons for using the businesses in the study area. In keeping with
Oldenburg’s definition, third places were businesses that people identified as
places where they were welcome and the people were friendly and where
they spent time in active and passive socializing (i.e., sitting in the presence
of other people, watching people and their activities, etc.) with their neigh-
bors, friends, and acquaintances. To qualify as a third place, at least three
respondents had to mention the above-listed qualities and characteristics of
the business. A business qualified as a third place when, for example, at least
three people said something similar to “. . . is a community gathering point. I
feel at home. It has an ambience of community,” or “People can hang out
here and socialize and not just be a customer. It is a meeting area—a destina-
tion,” or “. . . is an institution of the community. It’s a good place to hang
out,” or “It’s a great meeting place in the neighborhood.”
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mehta and Bosson 789
People sometimes made similar positive comments about businesses they
did not consider third places, such as “. . . is very popular. It’s cheap. It
draws all kinds of people,” or “. . . is my favorite because it has a diverse
collection of books in all price ranges.” While these businesses evoked some
positive comments, they earned about half as many positive comments on
average as the third-place businesses received (averages = 0.71 vs. 1.29).
More important, people did not mention the crucial third-place characteristics
when describing non–third place businesses. Specifically, their comments
did not mention these businesses to be meeting places or community gather-
ing places––aspects that qualified businesses to be third places in the users’
minds.
There were 120 businesses on the three Main Streets, and each Main
Street contained several third places. Of the 120 businesses on the blocks
studied, 17 were considered to be third places by the users of the streets
(Group 1). A variety of businesses such as coffee shops, bars, restaurants,
bookshops, convenience stores, and so on were considered third places.
These businesses received between 3 and 14 third-place nominations each,
for a total of 80 nominations across the 17 businesses (average number of
nominations per business = 4.7). Of the remaining 103 businesses that were
not considered third places, 17 were similar in type (e.g., coffee shops, book-
shops) to the third-place businesses. These 17 businesses were, therefore,
grouped to reflect comparable, non–third places (Group 2). Note that this
entire group of businesses received a total of one nomination as a third place,
which was clearly not enough to qualify any of the businesses as third places.
The remaining 86 businesses (Group 3) were different types from the
businesses in Groups 1 and 2 and, like the businesses in Group 2, were not
considered third places by the people who used the Main Streets (see Table
1). Only two of the businesses in this last group each received a single third-
place nomination.
Visual surveys: Measuring characteristics of settings. Visual surveys were used
to record the four characteristics at each business: seating on the street pro-
vided by the business, personalization of the street front by the business,
permeability of the business to the street, and shelter offered by the business
through the provision of canopies, awnings, and so on, on the street space.
The characteristics and their measures are described in detail in Table 2.
Two characteristics, seating and shelter, were largely objective and were
measured by the author. Seating provided by the businesses was in the form
of movable chairs. The author counted the number of seats at the sidewalk to
determine the seating provided by each business. Shelter provided by busi-
nesses was in the form of retractable or fixed canopies or awnings of various
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

790 Environment and Behavior 42(6)
Table 1. List of Businesses That Were Considered Third Places and the Ones
That Were Not by Users of the Three Main Streets
Business Groupings Number of Businesses
Group 1: Businesses considered third places
Coffee shops 6
Bars/pubs 4
Restaurants 2
Convenience store 1
Deli/local supermarket 1
Ice-cream shop 1
Book shop 1
Thrift store 1
Total 17
Group 2: Businesses in same category as Group 1
but not considered third places
Coffee shops 1
Bars/pubs 0
Restaurants 9
Convenience store 1
Deli/local supermarket 3
Ice-cream shop 0
Book shop 2
Thrift store 1
Total 17
Group 3: All other businesses
Movie rental store 3
Hair salon 5
Hardware 1
Education institute 1
Bank 11
Music store 2
Mobile phone store 3
Office lobby 7
Florist 4
Insurance office 2
Electronics store 2
Cosmetics store 2
Fast-food restaurant/carryout 9
Laboratory 2
Drycleaner 4
Tobacco/newspaper store 1
Shoe store 3
Optician 2
(continued)
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mehta and Bosson 791
sizes and folding umbrellas. The smallest shading device that effectively
provided shelter at the street (approximately 30 square feet) was used as a
unit to calculate the shelter provided by each business. Therefore, if a busi-
ness provided a canopy that was 12 feet long and 6 feet wide, it counted as 2
canopies. The author counted the number of shading devices to determine the
shade and shelter provided by each business. There were trees providing
shade and shelter in some locations on the street. However, the trees were
planted close to the edge of the sidewalk near the pavement. Thus, due to
changing direction of the sunlight, trees did not provide shade and shelter
near the stores at all times. Many business owners realized this and provided
canopies, awnings, umbrellas, and so on, even when there were trees present
on the street space near their stores.
“Degree of personalization of the street-front” and “degree of permeabil-
ity of the business to the street” are subjective characteristics. Four urban
designers (two women and two men), including one of the authors, indepen-
dently rated these two subjective characteristics by visiting all the businesses
at the study areas and rating each business on scales of 1 (lowest) to 10 (high-
est) for personalization and permeability. Interrater reliability was very good,
as evidenced by intraclass correlation coefficients of .86 and .87 for ratings
of personalization and permeability, respectively. Thus, mean personaliza-
tion and permeability scores were computed for each of the 120 businesses
on the three Main Streets.
Visual surveys were only conducted during days with temperatures
between 55°F and 85°F from late May through early October in fair weather
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and
11:00 p.m. on weekends, on each block, and hence, each business.
Table 1. (continued)
Business Groupings Number of Businesses
Pharmacy 3
Crepes store 1
Apparel 4
Theater 3
Children’s toys store 2
Comics store 1
Art gallery 2
Picture framing 1
Specialty Halloween store 1
Sewing supplies store 1
Photography/camera store 2
Liquor store 1
Total 86
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Table 2. Selected Characteristics of the Street Under the Control of Businesses
Street Characteristic Description Measured by Unit
Degree of personalization
of the street front by
the business
All businesses at the street level were individually
rated. The degree of personalization was determined
by rating how the interface of the business with the
street (building façade, entrances, shop windows)
was embellished with personal touches such
as displays, decorations, signs, banners, planters,
flowerboxes, and other wares. Each architect/
urban designer rated the personalization for each
business on the three streets. A mean was calculated
for all four raters’ scores to determine the final
personalization score for each business.
Four
architects/
urban
designers
Likert scale rating from 1
to 10, where 1 suggests
very little or no personal
touches at the street-
front and 10 suggests a
very high level of personal
touches made by the
business
Degree of permeability
of the business to
the street
All businesses at the street level were individually
rated. The degree of permeability was determined
by rating how well the activities inside the buildings
were visible or could be sensed from the street.
Each architect/urban designer rated the permeability
for each business on the three streets. A mean was
calculated for all four raters’ scores to determine the
final permeability score for each business.
Four
architects/
urban
designers
Likert scale rating from 1 to
10, where 1 suggests very
little or no permeability of
the business to the street
and 10 suggest a very high
level of permeability of the
business to the street
Number of seating (chairs)
on the street provided
by the business
Outdoor seating opportunities provided by private
businesses were usually in the form of chairs. Usually,
only patrons of these businesses were permitted to
use these seats. It was calculated as number of seats
provided on the sidewalk by each business.
Author Number
Number of canopies,
awnings, and so on
provided by the business
to offer shade and
shelter on the street
Shade and shelter at the street provided by canopies,
awnings, overhangs, and other shading devices were
calculated as number of such devices that were
capable of providing shade and shelter.
Author Number
792
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mehta and Bosson 793
Findings
Observations and interviews suggested that the third places were destina-
tions to go to, gather, meet friends and neighbors, socialize, and watch
people, and so on for people in the neighborhood, as a person one of the
authors met suggested,
I feel lucky because I live so close to this block. My friends come to see
me and say, “It is so cool.” 1369 is my favorite coffeehouse. I love the
music they play. It is a convenient place to meet friends, planned and
incidentally. There is a place to sit, sit out, and people watch. I read my
books here. . . . I like their coffee and other products too. (R 33.1)
At the same time, however, observations and interviews suggested that
in some cases the choice of the third places was based on the residents’
duration of stay in the neighborhood, age, class, and attitudes that resulted
in different third places for different groups in the neighborhood. New
residents seldom mentioned an old bar that was a favorite community place
for the long-time residents of this neighborhood, and, as suggested by one
person one of the authors met,
Sligo is an institution of the community. It’s a good place to hang out.
It’s a community place. It’s a place you go to. People hang out there. It
feels very comfortable for an average middle-class person, but there is
a variety of people there. That’s the old Davis Square. (R 48.1)
The differences between third places (Group 1), similar businesses that were
not considered third places (Group 2), and other businesses (Group 3) with
respect to the four urban design characteristics are discussed in detail below.
Personalization
Many businesses had personalized their street frontage with signs, displays,
and decorations and by bringing out their wares, goods, and services to the
street, but third places were more personalized than other businesses on the
three Main Streets. As shown in Figure 4, third places (n = 17) received a
higher mean personalization score than similar businesses not considered
third places (n = 17), as well as all other businesses (n = 86). A one-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that the differences between these
personalization scores were statistically significant, F(2, 117) = 11.64, p <
.001 (see Table 3). To determine more precisely which groups of businesses
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

794 Environment and Behavior 42(6)
differed statistically from each other, post hoc Tukey HSD tests were con-
ducted. The output of these tests showed that both third places (Group 1) and
similar businesses (Group 2) were significantly higher in personalization
than the other businesses (Group 3), ps < .01, but they did not differ from
each other, p = .78 (see Table 4).
Observations showed that businesses that were considered third places
spent considerable time and effort in changing and updating their interface
with the street by frequently changing their show window décor, displays,
planters, signs, often displaying their goods and wares on the sidewalk and
thus adding a personal touch to their appearance. This personalization was
very important to the users of the street as suggested by previous research
and corroborated by many people who regularly used the businesses and the
Main Street who said,
Booksmith [bookshop] is my favorite because it’s locally owned. I like
the atmosphere there. It is very personal. . . . I like that they change the
[window] displays, and put out so many things to add color to the street.
Like the flowers and book displays and the signs about the readings
Figure 4. Mean ratings of personalization of street front and permeability of
business to the street for third places, comparable non–third places, and all other
businesses on the three Main Streets
Note: Y-error bars represent the standard deviations of each group.
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mehta and Bosson 795
that they arrange. . . . It is the center of cultural life [in Coolidge
Corner]. It’s one of the reasons we chose to move here. (R 14.1)
Signs out on the street [in front of the coffeehouse] change every few
days. They tell you the special brews or flavors 1369 [coffeehouse] is
serving that day. And the flowers and planters––they change every
few weeks. It’s very personal and neighborly. Not like a corporation.
(R 28.1).
Another respondent, a regular user of the Main Street, suggested how
businesses may make their interface with the street more personalized. She
suggested,
We need planters, awnings––things that give off that people are around.
Something that makes the stores communicate with you. Window
boxes for flowers would do a lot for me. (R 42.9)
Table 3. Summary of ANOVA Results
Sum of Squares df Mean Square FSig.
Personalization of street
front by business
Between groups 62.57 2 31.29 11.64 .000
Within groups 314.67 117 2.69
Total 377.29 119
Permeability of business on
street front
Between groups 67.17 2 33.58 13.99 .000
Within groups 280.91 117 2.40
Total 348.08 119
Seating on street provided
by business
Between groups 203.90 2 101.95 20.69 .000
Within groups 576.42 117 4.92
Total 780.32 119
Shade and shelter on street
provided by business
Between groups 2.17 2 1.08 3.30 .04
Within groups 38.49 117 0.33
Total 40.67 119
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

796 Environment and Behavior 42(6)
Table 4. Summary of Post Hoc Tukey HSD Tests Showing Multiple Comparisons
(A) (B)
Mean
Difference
(A-B) SE Sig.
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Personalization of
street front by
business
Other business Third place –1.777* 0.435 .000 –2.81 –0.74
Similar business –1.397* 0.435 .005 –2.43 –0.36
Third place Other business 1.777* 0.435 .000 0.74 2.81
Similar business 0.380 0.563 .778 –0.96 1.72
Similar business Other business 1.397* 0.435 .005 0.36 2.43
Third place –0.380 0.563 .778 –1.72 0.96
Permeability of
business on
street front
Other business Third place –1.998* 0.411 .000 –2.97 –1.02
Similar business –1.178* 0.411 .014 –2.15 –0.20
Third place Other business 1.998* 0.411 .000 1.02 2.97
Similar business 0.820 0.531 .275 –0.44 2.08
Similar business Other business 1.178* 0.411 .014 0.20 2.15
Third place –0.820 0.531 .275 –2.08 0.44
Seating on street
provided by
business
Other business Third place –3.789* 0.589 .000 –5.19 –2.39
Similar business –0.730 0.589 .433 –2.13 0.67
Third place Other business 3.789* 0.589 .000 2.39 5.19
Similar business 3.059* 0.761 .000 1.25 4.87
Similar Business Other business 0.730 0.589 .433 –0.67 2.13
Third place –3.059* 0.761 .000 –4.87 –1.25
Shade and shelter
on street provided
by business
Other business Third place –0.345 0.152 .065 –0.71 0.02
Similar business 0.126 0.152 .687 –0.24 0.49
Third place Other business 0.345 0.152 .065 –0.02 0.71
Similar business 0.471* 0.197 .048 0.00 0.94
Similar business Other business –0.126 0.152 .687 –0.49 0.24
Third place –0.471* 0.197 .048 –0.94 0.00
*Statistically significant at p < .05.
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mehta and Bosson 797
Personalization through the change of signs and displays also provided
current information about schedules and events, and goods and services in
the stores, right at the street (see Figure 5).
Permeability
Many businesses had modified their street fronts to make them permeable to
the street, but third places were more permeable than other businesses on the
Figure 5. Personalization of street front encourages window shopping and
conversation, provides current information and amenities, and adds interest to
provide sensory pleasure, and sometimes even humor, on the Main Street
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

798 Environment and Behavior 42(6)
three Main Streets. The mean permeability score for all third places was
higher than that of similar businesses not considered third places and all other
businesses on the street (see Figure 4). A one-way ANOVA on permeability
scores revealed that the three groups differed statistically from each other,
F(2, 117) = 13.99, p < .001 (see Table 3). Post hoc Tukey HSD tests revealed
that both third places (Group 1) and similar businesses (Group 2) were
significantly higher in permeability than the other businesses (Group 3),
ps < .05, but they did not differ from each other, p = .28 (see Table 4).
Many third places left their doors or windows wide open, letting the
people outside see and hear the activities inside and in some cases, smell the
goods for sale (see Figure 6). Users of the Main Street expressed a strong
desire for this quality of permeability as suggested by comments regarding
some businesses that were not considered third places:
Some stores have no communion with the sidewalk environment.
I walk by but feel shut out. There’s not enough interaction. (R 42.3)
Figure 6. Permeability of the street front provides information of services and
activities inside, enlivens the outdoor street environment, and arouses the curiosity
of many on the Main Street
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mehta and Bosson 799
Another respondent suggested how window displays could make the
street front more permeable:
I wish the façade was more interactive with the street. It’s very alien-
ating. It is like a black hole. They should soften the barrier between
in and out, put more signs on the sidewalk welcoming you, inviting
you in. Hang plants, pictures in windows, add color in windows.
(R 42.12)
In contrast, this participant recognized and appreciated the quality of
permeability in one of the third places on the Main Street:
I love the colorful atmosphere at Diesel. Acoustics aren’t terrible either.
The garage doors open to the street and it has a good in and out flow.
You can see people hanging out in there. It has a great connection to the
street. (R 41.3)
Seating
Seating provided by stores is usually near businesses where goods may be
consumed outdoors. Many stores, especially those offering goods and ser-
vices that could be consumed outdoors, provided seating on the street. As
illustrated in Figure 7, third places provided more seats on average than simi-
lar businesses not considered third places and all other businesses on the
street. An ANOVA on the mean number of seats provided revealed that the
differences among groups was statistically significant, F(2, 117) = 20.69, p <
.001 (see Table 3). Moreover, post hoc Tukey HSD tests showed that third
places offered more seats than both similar businesses not considered third
places and all other businesses on the street, ps < .001. The latter two groups
did not differ significantly in the number of seats they offered, p = .43 (see
Table 4).
The ability to consume goods or services outside the store allowed for an
extension of the activity and hence the extension of the territory of the store
space that would otherwise be limited within the store. This extension
allowed people to engage in social activities on the street. The users of the
Main Streets valued the outdoor sitting space provided by businesses for
relaxation, people watching, and so on as suggested by these people who
regularly used the street:
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

800 Environment and Behavior 42(6)
1369 [Coffeehouse] is very personal. There is great outdoor seating.
The music outdoors attracts people. It is a great place to sit and enjoy
your day and people-watch. It is interesting to see all kinds of people. I
frequently run into people without planning. (R 37.1)
Greater socialness is created when you are outdoors. People feel less
private and have an ease of interaction. Sociability increases in outdoor
seating. It just seems more comfortable and results in higher social
interaction with all types of people. (R 50.2).
Eating and drinking is an activity commonly associated with relaxation, with
a break in the regular schedule, a pause. People frequently combine eating and
drinking with socializing. This combination of food and social activity supported
by outdoor seating made people stay longer on the street (see Figure 8).
Shade and Shelter
Canopies, awnings, shading umbrellas, and overhangs were permitted on all
three Main Streets, but not all businesses provided and maintained such
Figure 7. Mean numbers of outdoor seats and shade/shelter devices provided for
third places, comparable non–third places, and all other businesses on the three
Main Streets
Note: Y-error bars represent the standard deviations of each group.
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mehta and Bosson 801
amenities. Some buildings had recessed entrances that provided adequate
shade and shelter, but most buildings required additional semifixed elements
to protect their entrances and the interface with the street. Third places pro-
vided more shading devices than similar businesses not considered third
places, as well as all other businesses on the street (see Figure 7). An ANOVA
confirmed that the differences among these groups was statistically signifi-
cant, F(2, 117) = 3.30, p < .05 (see Table 3). Post hoc Tukey HSD tests
revealed that third places provided significantly more shade and shelter on
the street than similar businesses not considered third places, ps < .05, and
they provided marginally significantly more shade than all other businesses,
p < .07 (see Table 4 and Figure 8).
Discussion
Meaningful differences among third places, comparable non–third places,
and all other business were observed on the four characteristics of settings
Figure 8. Outdoor sitting space and shade and shelter provided by third places
serve as basic amenities to support social interaction on the three Main Streets
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

802 Environment and Behavior 42(6)
studied here. With regard to personalization and permeability, third places
and comparable non–third places did not differ statistically from each other,
but they both received higher ratings than all other businesses on the street.
This suggests that, although personalization and permeability are clearly
important features of third places, these characteristics in themselves cannot
fully explain the unique appeal of third places. Instead, the characteristics
that distinguished third places from comparable businesses included seating
and shelter provisions. Specifically, third places provided more seating, and
more shade and shelter, compared to similar businesses that were not consid-
ered third places and all other businesses on the street (although the difference
between third places and all other businesses only approached significance
for shade and shelter provision). This indicates that features of businesses
that increase people’s physical comfort––by providing a place to sit and shel-
ter from the sun––are especially important criteria for distinguishing third
places from other businesses.
In addition, it was observed that the four physical design features exam-
ined here often served the human functions of territoriality, window shopping,
and socialization. In an attempt to attract customers, many businesses on the
first floor of Main Streets extend their territory from the interior space to the
outdoors. Usually this extension of territorial claim is on the street or public
space right outside or adjacent to the business. This extension of territory has
great ability to influence the immediate space on the street. For example,
when the physical environment supports it, it is common to see people sitting
or standing and eating or drinking and socializing on the street near a busi-
ness that offers food and drink items that may be consumed outside the
business. This type of impact creates valuable human activity and active and
passive social interaction on the street space adjacent to the businesses. Sem-
istructured observations showed that window shopping was a frequent
activity on the three streets that was further supported by personalized street
fronts of businesses. Social activity frequently occurred as a result of window
shopping. Personalized street fronts also acted as zones for education of chil-
dren, and sometimes even adults, through a variety of ideas conveyed by the
signs, materials, and displays. The personalized street fronts often added a
sense of delight, and occasionally, a sense of humor that could be shared by
all. The permeability and information of the inside of stores aroused the curi-
osity of many, especially children, who were able to satisfy their curiosity by
observing the objects and activities that were visible from the street and thus
also learning about these objects and activities. Permeable street fronts of
businesses provided opportunities for people to stop and engage in the busi-
nesses. As a result, people spent more time lingering there, and this opened
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mehta and Bosson 803
up opportunities for conversation and passive and active social interaction on
the street. In addition, seating, in the form of chairs that could be moved,
provided a level of flexibility and control desirable to users. Systematic
investigation of these functions would be a worthwhile topic for future stud-
ies of the appeal of third places.
Limitations
As most empirical research, this study has its limitations. The research was
limited to center-city neighborhoods with a high density and intensity of use
relative to other neighborhoods in North America. The study of Main Streets
of these neighborhoods also limited the types of third places encountered,
most of which were places for eating and drinking or bookshops or some
other retail. Oldenburg’s work (1991, 2002) demonstrates a wider range in
the types of businesses that qualify as third places. His research also shows
that third places exist in most cultures, in various types of neighborhoods and
in locations beyond the Main Streets and prominent public spaces of towns
and cities. Hence, it would be important to test the hypotheses put forth by
this research in other locations and cultures. This study was also limited by
its sample size, and we suggest extending this inquiry using larger popula-
tions. Although in this study the criteria used to qualify a business as a third
place were clear, a larger sample would further differentiate businesses con-
sidered third places from similar businesses that are not. With a larger sample,
researchers could increase the threshold of nominations for a business to
qualify as a third place in the minds of people. Lastly, we understand that this
is a difficult topic to study experimentally and our research is only a first step.
We encourage researchers to apply other methodological approaches to
address this important subject.
Policy Implications
Community development programs recommend supporting small businesses
and third places for their people-based social benefits. The findings of this
article suggest that businesses that are considered third places by the users of
the three Main Streets influence their immediate public space by paying more
attention to and providing place-based urban design characteristics that help
make good people places. These findings have implications for urban design,
community planning, and economic development policies. Policy makers
need to retain and support the third places that exist in neighborhoods. In
addition, many businesses realize the economic and social value of being
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

804 Environment and Behavior 42(6)
recognized as a third place and follow business models that help them become
third places (Oldenburg, 2002). Such businesses should be supported and
encouraged through economic development programs. Policy makers need to
be sensitive to both the existing and the new third places in neighborhoods
and value them not only for their social attributes but also for their contribu-
tion to the design quality of the public spaces in which they exist.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.
References
Arens, E., & Bosselmann, P. (1989). Wind, sun and temperature––Predicting the ther-
mal comfort of people in outdoor spaces. Building and Environment, 24, 315-320.
Bloch, P., Ridgway, N., & Sherrell, D. (1989). Extending the concept of shopping: An
investigation in browsing activity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
17, 13-21.
Brower, S. (1996). Good neighborhoods. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Ciolek, M. T. (1978). Spatial behavior in pedestrian areas. Ekistics, 45, 120-122.
Edney, J. (1976). Human territories: Comment on functional properties. Environment
and Behavior, 8, 31-47.
Falk, P. (1997). The scopic regimes of shopping. In P. Falk & C. Campbell (Eds.), The
shopping experience (pp. 177-185). London: SAGE.
Gehl, J. (1987). Life between buildings. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold.
Hass-Klau, C., Crampton, G., Dowland, C., & Nold, I. (1999). Streets as living space:
Helping public spaces play their proper role. London: ETP/Landor.
Hope, T., & Hough, M. (1988). Area, crime and incivility: A profile from the British
Crime Survey. In T. Hope & M. Shaw (Eds.), Communities and crime reduction
(pp. 30-47). London: HMSO.
Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in
environmental design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Linday, N. (1978). It all comes down to a comfortable place to sit and watch. Land-
scape Architecture, 68, 492-497.
Mehta, V. (2007). Lively streets: Determining environmental characteristics
to support social behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27,
165-187.
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Mehta and Bosson 805
Oldenburg, R. (1991). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars,
hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York: Marlowe.
Oldenburg, R. (2002). Celebrating the third place: Inspiring stories about the “Great
Good Places” at the heart of our communities. New York: Marlowe.
Perkins, D. (1986). The crime-related physical and social environmental correlates of
citizen participation in block associations. Paper presented to the annual meeting
of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Perkins, D., Meeks, J., & Taylor, R. (1992). The physical environment of street
blocks and residents’ perception of crime and disorder: Implications for theory
and measurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 21-34.
Pushkarev, B., & Zupan, J. (1975). Urban space for pedestrians. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Rapoport, A. (1990). History and precedent in environmental design. New York:
Plenum.
Share, L. (1978). A. P. Giannini plaza and Transamerica park: Effects of their physical
characteristics on users’ perception and experiences. In W. Rogers & W. Ittelson
(Eds.), New directions in environmental design research (EDRA 9; pp. 127-139).
Washington, DC: EDRA.
Skogan, W., & Maxfield, M. (1981). Coping with crime: Individual and neighbor-
hood reactions. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Tauber, E. (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing, 36, 6-59.
Taylor, R., Gottfredson, S., & Brower, S. (1984). Block crime and fear—Defensible
space, local social ties, and territorial functioning. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 21, 303-331.
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, DC:
Conservation Foundation.
Zacharias, J., Stathopoulos, T., & Wu, H. (2001). Microclimate and downtown open
space activity. Environment and Behavior, 33, 296-315.
Bios
Vikas Mehta is an assistant professor of urban design and architecture in the School
of Architecture and Community Design at the University of South Florida. His
research explores the social and sensorial dimensions of urban design and architec-
ture, with an emphasis on aspects of human behavior and perceptions, especially as
they relate to the design of public spaces and buildings.
Jennifer K. Bosson is an assistant professor of social psychology at the University of
South Florida. Her primary research lines deal with stereotypes, stigma, gender roles,
and the self-concept.
at UNIV OF SOUTH FLORIDA on December 26, 2014eab.sagepub.comDownloaded from