The Psychology of Places of Connection with Dr. Colin Ellard [Part 1 of 2]

The prehistoric Stonehenge monument and other archaeological sites offer ample evidence of human civilization’s enduring need for communal gathering spaces, those places where people can come together for celebration, ritual, and the mundane (1). These places are what sociologist Ray Oldenburg coined third places (2)—places unlike the private, informal home and the public, formal workplace, being both informal and public. These are places where people gather and socialize deliberately or casually (3): meet friends, cheer for the home team with fellow fans, or just sit to people-watch. Third places are defined by their “ordinariness”(4) and allow people to meet, relax, play, and just be, with minimal cost to themselves (5). Third places have been shown to strengthen social capital (6), foster social connection (7), and boost diversity (8) and well-being (9). They also serve as “enabling places” (10) that promote recovery from mental illness by providing social and material resources11.

The social interactions that occur in these spaces can provide opportunities for making and sustaining bonds, offer relief from daily stresses, support a sense of community, and facilitate tolerance between diverse people (12). Research also shows that the social support (i.e., emotional support, companionship) that people get in third places may match their deficit of social support elsewhere13. In light of this evidence, as loneliness is on the rise (14), the need for third places, and public space, is greater than ever. Yet across the nation, third places are closing (15),fraying the ties that hold communities together.

To create places that connect us, we need policymakers, entrepreneurs, developers, city planners, architects, and, most of all, citizens to advocate for the importance of cultivating these spaces, which provide a buffer from the physical and psychological stresses of modern day. Although third places have traditionally been studied and understood as standalone brick-and-mortar spaces, this report makes the case that they also exist as small, semi-public spaces within larger buildings or areas—for example, the office kitchen, or the communal space in a long-term inpatient unit, or the shared interior courtyard of a large building. These places can be small- to largescale: office watering coolers, local coffee shops, corner markets, daycares, community centers, city parks, and street blocks16. Some have argued that virtual worlds can serve as “fourth places” or a type of digital third place; however, there is little evidence that virtual places can fill the real world physical needs for connection, community, leisure, and support that third places do...

REFERENCES: 1. Ellard, 2018; 2. Oldenburg, 1999; 3. Soja, 1996; 4. Hickman, 2013; 5. Cheang, 2002; Finlay, Esposito, Kim, Gomez-Lopez, & Clarke,2019; Oldenburg, 1999; Thompson & Kent, 2014; 6. Lifszyc-Friedlander et al., 2019; 7. Klinenberg, 2018; Williams & Hipp, 2019; 8. Klinenberg, 2018; Williams & Hipp, 2019; 9. Cattell, Dines, Gesler, & Curtis, 2008; 10. Duff, 2012

FULL REPORT: https://www.hksinc.com/how-we-think/research/connecting-irl-how-the-built-environment-can-foster-social-health/