Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Communication Faculty Publications School of Communication 12-2009 The impact of third places on community quality of life Leo Wayne Jeffres Cleveland State University, [email protected] Cheryl Campanella Bracken Cleveland State University, [email protected] Guowei Jian Cleveland State University, [email protected] Mary F. Casey Cleveland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clcom_facpub Part of the Civic and Community Engagement Commons, Communication Commons, and the Community-Based Research Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Publisher's Statement The final publication is va ailable at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11482-009-9084-8 Recommended Citation Jeffres, L. W., Bracken, C. C., Jian, G., & Casey, M. F. (2009). The impact of third places on community quality of life. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 4, 333-345. doi:10.1007/s11482-009-9084-8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Communication at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Impact of Third Places on Community Quality of Life Leo W. Jeffres & Cheryl C. Bracken & Guowei Jian & Mary F. Casey Abstract Older cities struggling with issues of survival focus on jobs and the economy, but competition requires all cities to pay attention to the quality of life that attracts residents. Creating such an inviting environment includes “third places” that foster community and communication among people outside of home and work, yet we have little empirical evidence that speaks to the subject, or their importance for a community’s quality of life. Here we report on a national U.S. survey that asked people to identify such places in their community, producing a wide variety of “third places” that ranged from the most popular community centers, coffee shops and restaurants to parks and malls. While a few relationships are found between population/diversity and the popularity of particular third places, the most important result confirms a hypothesized relationship between perceptions that third places are accessible in their community and the perceived quality of life. Keywords Third places . Communication . Community quality of life . Urban Communication . Constructed Environment Older cities struggling with issues of survival focus on jobs and the economy, but there’s also recognition that today’s competition requires all cities to pay attention to the quality of life that attracts young professionals and entrepreneurs (Audirac and Fitzgerald 2003; Lambiri et al. 2007). Urban centers around the world see themselves as competing for residents and tourists through unique attractions and leisure activities (Clark et al. 2002; Young et al. 2006).1 1Paskaleva-Shapira (2007) notes that tourist cities need to create an appeal to all stakeholders—tourists, businesses and citizens—to be competitive. The importance of local tourism through arts festivals also is a factor (Quinn (2005). This manuscript is based on a paper presented at the Urban Communication Seminar, National Communication Association, Chicago, Ill., November, 2007. L. W. Jeffres (*) : C. C. Bracken : G. Jian : M. F. Casey School of Communication, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH 44115, USA e-mail: [email protected] This economic competition among cities depends in part on attracting what Florida (2002a, 2002b, 2005a, 2005b, 2008) calls the “creative class,” more highly-paid innovative thinkers such as writers, entertainers, artists and engineers, who are the key to urban regeneration. These individuals fuel the “creative economy” with innovation that generates jobs and hope for older industrial cities. However, these relatively young people (aged 18 to 50) are not only highly educated but also mobile and attracted to environments that have few problems, tolerate “bohemians,” and provide opportunities for leisure and amenities consistent with a high quality of life. In this mix, attractive “public spaces” and the built environment would seem to be necessary ingredients for a desirable quality of life. Here we will focus on this potential link between public places and the perceived quality of life available in the community. Research on the quality of urban life began when concern arose over the secondary effects on American society of national governmental programs (Andrews 1986; Schuessler and Fisher 1985). Among urban scholars today, the focus shifts to how planners and policy makers can create an environment conducive to economic development (While et al. 2004). Quality of life research should be front and center in this process of evaluating people’s relationship to their environment. Urban planners and designers contribute to this dialogue about the future through multidisciplinary contributions that range from “life style centers” that are the domain of commercial interests to public spaces that are the responsibility of officials and government (Marans 2003; Pacione 2003; van Kamp et al. 2003). Changing definitions of the quality of life and the marketing of cities as places to live have led to popular rankings of cities. This media attention has framed policy- making discussions in many U.S. cities (McCann 2004). The concern about urban centers cannot ignore the search for community. While many people select a home for its resale value or neighborhood schools, others seek community, a place to connect with others, where they feel at home. Among long- term residents, the social network is important for neighborhood participation (Dekker 2007). And that brings us to “communication,” which links people to each other and their community. Communication scholars have much to contribute to this concern about spaces and activities, though their participation has been minimal so far. Our lives are acted out in three broad contexts: homes, the private spaces of individuals and families; workplaces, that generate economic resources; and “third places” that are neither home nor work. Someone’s workplace is someone else’s “third place,” but the distinction is not some absolute categorization but the function it serves. “Third places,” as defined by Oldenburg (1989), are the “great, good places” that foster community and communication among people outside of home and work, the first and second places of daily life. Third places are the bars and coffee shops, the beauty salons and barbershops, bowling alleys and recreation centers, public places where people meet, congregate, and communicate. As Das (2008) notes, both objective and subjective factors are important for people’s quality of life, and “third places” are part of the “constructed environment” that contribute to objective conditions of living. Even economists now recognize that the “quality of life” is an “economic good,” with multiple dimensions (Lambiri et al. 2007). Kearney (2006) found that opportunities by residents to visit nearby shared space affected neighborhood satisfaction. These “third places” may take many forms, and, while observers and scholars have written many essays on their form and their importance, we have no scholarly con- tributions that ascertain the public’s perception of such spaces, and whether they contribute to the quality of life in their communities. This paper will report on such an effort. Third Places as Centers of Community One of the long-running hit television shows of the 1980s and early 1990s was Cheers, a situation comedy about a Boston tavern. The setting was a perfect example of Oldenburg’s third place. The regulars were a racially homogeneous but socio- economically diverse group who laughed, told stories, confided problems, drank moderately, and blew off steam from the pressures of home and work. The theme song summed up both the series and the ideal third place as where you can go and everybody knows your name.2 Not every community or neighborhood has a “Cheers,” where that perfect social experience exists, but many communities have places that are near-equivalents. The recreation center where neighbors meet for aqua aerobics classes, the church where most of the parishioners have ties with each other, the McDonald’s where the gang meets for morning coffee, all have at least some of the characteristics of an ideal “third place.” Oldenburg and Brissett (1982) note that, “Third places exist outside the home and beyond the ‘work lots’ of modern economic production. They are places where people gather primarily to enjoy each other’s company” (p. 269). Third places function as unique public spaces for social interaction, providing a context for sociability, spontaneity, community building and emotional expressiveness. Third places also serve as a means of “keeping in touch with reality” through intimate personal ties outside the home and workplace (Oldenburg and Brissett 1982, p. 280). Oldenburg (1989) outlines some of the specific characteristics of third places:1) They are on neutral ground. All are welcome, and no one plays “host”; 2) They are a leveler; people of different socio-economic strata attend; 3) Conversation is the main activity. Even though the setting may be a place for drinking, or exercising, or playing a game, talking is always present; 4) They are accessible; there are no physical, policy, or monetary barriers to entrance; 5) They are a home away from home. There are “regulars” who find the atmosphere comfortable enough to “root” them there; 6) The mood is playful, laughter is often heard, and wit is prized. Oldenburg believes that these are the essential characteristics of third places because they engender the unique communication experiences and sociological 2 The lyrics of the theme from the television show, Cheers, “Where Everybody Knows Your Name” are: Making your way in the world today takes everything you’ve got. Taking a break from all your worries, sure would help a lot. Wouldn’t you like to get away? Sometimes you want to go.