I honestly can't understand that at all. The "third place" has exploded and has never been more vibrant in the history of mankind, at least if you live in a city.

Yoga classes, coffee shops, CrossFit, meetups, hiking groups, rock climbing, dance parties, marathons, evening painting classes where they serve wine, improv comedy shows, improv comedy classes, cooking classes, language classes, indie band shows of every type. Meditation, Buddhism, any kind of spirituality you might be into. Literally everything just a few clicks away on Google. You don't need to "know somebody", you can just go. Go a few times in a row and make conversation with people, and suddenly you've got community and new friends.

Modern culture is an incredible smorgasboard where you can connect with every type of person through pretty much every type of activity known to man, whether athletic or artistic or spiritual or educational or all four.

The bar was a kind of lowest-common-denominator location that often came with a drinking problem. Bars still exist, but today's alternatives are almost infinitely more varied and vibrant.

That is true, but those are all interest based activities, things you do at 7pm on a Tuesday night, between getting off work and passing out while watching netflix. They aren't places where one can go to simply 'be', or to mingle with strangers. In Ireland for example, people would do those things and then go to the pub afterwards.

Think of the Prancing Pony in the Lord of the Rings...a place where locals and travellers can mix and mingle and converse as much or as little as they please.

This also sounds like the Ethiopian concept of coffee as a 'social house.' There's a place in the ethiopian neighborhood of DC that really practices this: https://www.kaldissocial.com/#new-page-1-section

> In Ireland for example, people would do those things and then go to the pub afterwards.

I love the idea of a hot yoga session before heading to the pub for a couple of pints and some darts.

Nothing as beautiful as cans with the lads and a couple of smokes too

:)

There is a fair bit of social pressure to drink in a bar though, it isn't exactly a place to just "be" in that regard.

> coffee shops

Central Europe is losing the vibrant cafe culture it used to have, where people could sit together for hours and chat. Cafes today often blast loud pop music and send staff around more frequently to pester clients who seem to have finished their drinks, as owners believe this will prevent people from loitering. Instead, customers will quickly drink what they ordered and then get out, freeing the table for other customers.

Perhaps in the USA the situation is different, but I live in a city with a tradition of quiet, intellectual cafes that goes back centuries, and was still like that a decade ago, but now I am hard pressed to find a single place that would be pleasant to socialize even with my friends in, let alone mingle with other regulars and strike up conversations with strangers.

Speaking here in the US, if you don't have a local coffee shop your neighborhood is probably not very vibrant, and lots of business happens in these local coffee shops. I host meetings at my local coffee shop all the time and see others doing the same thing. Even if all you have is Starbucks, there's still tons of meetings that happen at Starbucks and you're not likely to be hassled to leave.

I'm much more likely to be pushed out the door at my local brewery or bar than I am at a coffee shop. If I had to guess it's because coffee tends to be a grab-and-go whereas beer cannot be served in a to-go cup so it has to be served and consumed inside the building with few alternatives if the seats are all full.

Huh. My experience in nyc is that most of the coffeeshops tend to have hordes of people on laptops with earbuds on ignoring each other.

I think that New York City may be particularly bad in this regard. I remember when I lived in Saratoga Springs (a small city upstate), I could strike up conversations with strangers on the bus or train, and did all the time. Here in NYC, that's nearly unthinkable—only crazy people do it.

And they are crowded and have loud music and no bathrooms.

There's a hookah bar by my apartment that has just the vibe I crave from a coffee shop. It takes ~1 hour to smoke a whole hookah, and you can go with some friends, socialize, work quietly, and they don't blast music. I believe it's like that because it's next to a university and usually full of students. Other ones around me aren't like that.

Unfortunately, it comes with some dangers...nicotine.

Good points. Pubs, tea houses, hookah bars, cafés, etc. serve a similar function as local gathering places in a number of cultures. It's important that you won't be pressured to leave if you don't order anything for a while.

> Unfortunately, it comes with some dangers...nicotine.

The days of hookah bars in many locations are probably numbered, since public health is focusing on gradually reducing tobacco use to zero. For the time being hookah tobacco might still be sold for someone to use in the privacy of their own home, but forbidding smoking hookahs in public spaces is a simple and effective step that the authorities can take.

None of these are third places, though; they're more expensive commercial activities, and non-participatory performances. Not the same thing. They don't facilitate the same social or psychological functions as the relaxed, inexpensive, unstimulating and improvisational third-place.

> None of these are third places, though; they're more expensive commercial activities

Many meditation and Buddhist activities are free or donation only. It's a common attribute that Buddhist retreats are completely free before and during the event, and only after you receive a piece of mail soliciting a donation.

There _are_ more commercial meditation based activities but those are more lifestyle than spiritual.

What if you don’t believe in Buddhism or the particular meditation approach advocated? I agree that these sorts of events are not quite third places as a modern society of people of varied or no religious belief would expect.

Also, due to movements like the Hare Krishnas advertising free events (often without specifying that it was the Hare Krishnas or whatever other sect organizing it) for the sake of bait-and-switch recruitment, people are understandably suspicious of any vague "spirituality" or "meditation" event where free entrance is advertised.

You're both a) cherry-picking and b) overlooking the second half of my post.

I agree with the others. While these may be options, they're all activities or events, not just a default place to hangout or be and where you're not there because one specific thing ties you together

True, but ... this explosion and this embarrassment of riches also led to people not engaging with a "community of some interest group" (so a subculture), but just paying for it. In and out in a few hours.

To acquire friends one has to get to know people, and also people have to know one. It takes time to open up.

I'm not saying bars were this magical place. No. Bars were the place people who for some reason spent enough time together to get to a bar went to.

I work out a lot. I’ve tried taking classes or joining the lifting team. But I don’t like working up out on a schedule. I get to the gym when I get to the gym.

I don’t drink anymore but when I lived in NYC I went to the neighborhood bar and was part of a loose knit group of people who went there too. Classes, schedules and fees don’t point to the same thing.

I do miss the mid 90s indie coffeeshop scene.

I think some of these things may die off when people our age have kids. I didn’t have a kid when I did these things before. Maybe schedules and fees facilitate third place activities when you’re negotiating time with your co-parent. Now my kid is mid-teens and I have my free nights for third place things. But I’m not likely to attend a thing at a time and pay a fee. I’ll go for a trail run, with my partner or by myself.

I believe that the activity-based stuff you list is quite orthogonal to the concept of “the third place”.

>> Yoga classes, coffee shops, CrossFit, meetups, hiking groups, rock climbing, dance parties, marathons, evening painting classes where they serve wine, improv comedy shows, improv comedy classes, cooking classes, language classes, indie band shows of every type.

Your white upper-middle class is showing

Please don't do this here. Even if you're right, it only adds poison to the commons.

My experience is that some churches are dying and some are growing. Unfortunately it's the ones I (and possibly you) would go to that are dying.

Churchgoers are moving from mainline Christian denominations to more extreme evangelical or fundamentalist denominations. Evangelicals have become a majority of all Protestants [1]. Generalizing, these churches are stridently political in character, and often have social beliefs unacceptable to most of us.

What we are seeing is many churches having reoriented themselves with respect to society: while before they were community meeting places in areas with nearly identical backgrounds and beliefs, now they define themselves in opposition to a diverse community and the changes it brings.

In other words, it's not just that people have abandoned churches (secularization); it's also that many churches have self-consciously abandoned their roles as third places.

[1] https://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-1-the-changing-r...

This is such a sad phenomena and it's really accelerated in recent decades. What it means to be an American Evangelical has also radically changed over the years- for example, 100 years ago, the Southern Baptists were very vocal, activists even about preserving the bounds between Church and State. It was the official Southern Baptist position that not intermingling Church and State was critical to a functioning society, that when the two intermingle it inevitably corrupts both (which has been shown to be true, if the last 50 years have taught us anything). I bet many/most Southern Baptists today believe the opposite, and might not even believe that their denomination has done a 180 on this in recent years.

In America at least, the trend has had the effect of minimizing the positive effects of religion on society, while maximizing the irrational, corrosive, and divisive effects. It's like the worst of all possible worlds. I blame politicians for catering to the worst instincts of religiously-motivated voters, and I blame religious voters for allowing their politics to corrupt their own spirituality. As a result, you see these Evangelical megachurch pastors preaching beliefs that are in blatant, obvious, direct opposition to the clearest and least ambiguous words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, for example. His observations on the Pharisees have never been more relevant.

I was going to disagree because I had misunderstood the GP. But if you’re both considering mega churches to be an example of evangelicals then I while heartedly agree. The mega church is the worst thing to happen to Christianity. While once you could be part of a small community and you’d notice new visitors and introduce yourself that doesn’t seem to be the case at the larger churches. I recall visiting small churches with my grandparents in our (likely evangelical) denomination and always being greeted and invited to potluck. The few times I’ve visited mega churches it felt so impersonal and hollow. I am a pro-church athiest but I’d like to see the likes of Joe Olstein pass away.

A pro-church atheist is a great description for me too, it never occurred to me but that's a great phrase.

Yes, I'm definitely including megachurches (esp. nondenominational megachurches) as evangelicals, and I totally agree with the friendly small church vs dystopian megachurch experiences. Just about any TV pastor is an evangelical as well. For someone who's not a believer, I'm surprised at how sad this state of affairs can make me. Joel Osteen/Jim Bakker/Jerry Falwell Jr./Pat Robertson/etc. are just the worst.

If I could point at any one evangelical belief that for whatever reason offends this atheist, it's Prosperity Gospel. The idea that you should follow Christ so that material wealth will be drawn towards you, in correlation to how hardcore you are about Jesus. Of course this conveniently explains why the Joel Osteens of the world have mansions and private jets and so on- it's not a pyramid scheme, it's Christ's blessing magically seeping into their bank accounts on account of their innate holiness. But what's more depressing by far is that they've gotten so many people to actually believe that that's what's in the Bible.

> If I could point at any one evangelical belief that for whatever reason offends this atheist, it's Prosperity Gospel. The idea that you should follow Christ so that material wealth will be drawn towards you, in correlation to how hardcore you are about Jesus.

Surely there is nothing worse than the prosperity gospel. I didn’t think there could be something worse than the glorification of suffering until I understood the prosperity gospel.

I honestly wish we could found a church based on teaching and practicing meditation and communication techniques. I think it would be a good place to raise a kid since churches are largely about raising kids.

Strongly pro-church agnostic here. Agreed with you. Small community churches served and in some cases still serve a vital role. Megachurches are like the KFC of the religious world.

>social beliefs unacceptable to most of us

the mission of the church is not to feel you warm and fuzzy, and appeal to the latest social trends and what's deemed politically correct these days.

I've got to disagree with you on this one.

I left Catholicism 20-odd years ago when I got married. Started going to a Southern Baptist (evangelical) church, and have gone ever since.

If you agree that everyone has a right to think as they please, you'll have nothing against evangelicals. Say you want to support abortions. You will surely get passionate arguments in return. You won't be given a position of leadership. You will not be in sycn with the rest of the congregation, and probably won't feel good about hanging around (as long as you keep vocalizing these ideas. That's not what the church is there for.) But nobody will be treated disrespectfully, and nobody will be subjected to anything unlawful.

On the flip side, evengilical churches do a great job of feeding the hungry, digging wells where they are needed, helping with disaster relief, etc. These are really important works, and given without care for the beliefs of the recipient.

I'm not sure I understand your position very well. Of course I think everyone has a right to believe whatever they want. But they don't have the right to inject their beliefs into politics, curtailing the rights of women, LGBT people, and other minorities, as they manifestly have done for decades.

You say I wouldn't feel comfortable hanging around should I be the sort of person who says what I think about these issues. If that were because churches were non-political spaces (like some neighborhood bars), that might be fine. But the point of my comment was that evangelical (and some other) churches have become heavily politicized spaces. The rules are, in fact, that you can say whatever you want, as long it agrees with extreme right-wing conservative dogma. In many (especially smaller) evangelical churches, you'll even hear it from the pulpit on Sunday. As it happens, I just visited the "Bible Belt" and got to hear evangelical Christians trash my so-called "environmentalism" (I tried to recycle plastic).

> On the flip side, evengilical churches do a great job of feeding the hungry, digging wells where they are needed, helping with disaster relief, etc. These are really important works, and given without care for the beliefs of the recipient.

Here again I must say my experience (I grew up in an evangelical church) doesn't match this. In my experience, churches treat these like mission opportunities. Any charity given is closely tied to the recipient's willingness to listen to the Gospel. And that's even putting aside the extremely questionable organizations that often run these programs, like groups tied to Franklin Graham.

It seems we've had differing experiences, with mine being the more pleasant.

Sorry about that. Please seek out a better church-- they are out there!

As Harvard Professor Robert Putnam has pointed out: One of the effects of "increased diversity" is that there is a shift away from being a high-trust society. This causes, among other things, increased isolation and social disengagement.

No doubt this isn't the only cause of pubs / bars closing, but it is a real measurable effect.

My spitball opinion on that: we had diversity in America during the beginning of the industrial age that we heavily relied on for it's host of benefits, innovation primarily as well, but it didn't create the conflict (conflict theory terms) we see today because you were expected to integrate (conform) to be "American", which was a shared set of values and beliefs. America is still today one of the few geopolitical distinctions today that is solely demarcated as such by subscribing to a fundamental set of beliefs, rather than by blood as you have in most other countries in the world, especially in Europe. America is chiefly an idea, and by believing in that ideal, you gain the entire inheritance.

This is something that is continually being eroded unfortunately, especially as we continually descend into more and more hyphenated subgroups of Americans, rather than just focusing on what makes us simply Americans, but something we should still strive for.

(And I know you will get downvoted for posting about Robert Putnam research here because it appears to come off as a knock against diversity, even though Putnam himself said his research actually affirms the benefits of diversity)

Except your opinion does not actually follow from the facts.

African Americans weren’t just “hyphenated subgroups” earlier. They weren’t even allowed to be in the same places as white male americans. Similarly, Chinese Americans formthe most part lived a separate life, and Japanese Americans were considered so different they were placed in internment camps during WW2.

Even the Irish and Italians were treated differently when they arrived, and had entire sub cultures.

The idea that the US is more hyphenated today just doesn’t seem to follow from what was actually happening in the 20th century.

I'm going to double down on this.

Early America was so hyphenated that people only occupied regions with people of the same original nationality. We still see places with lots of French street names, or a place with lots of German street names. To some degree this might have been self-selecting, but there are documented cases of people being denied mortgages in particular areas based on their ethnicity into the twentieth century.

We are in a place in American history where ethnicity has the least amount of impact on someone's life. It's illegal to discriminate on job applications, mortgage applications, or school applications based on ethnicity.

We have a lot further to go, and sometimes we take a step backwards. I think we'll continue to see an increase in diversity in all public spaces.

It's quite possible that the US is at an inflection point. Now those hyphenated groups are spread so thin that they lost all their meaning. Now you can't find comfort in sameness, because yes, you share some common history, but you are also very different in other ways.

And thus people can't seem to find their place, can't seem to find friends, and the default fallback of going back to your people is no more.

This is just a very wild hypothesis of course.

Did Putnam specify the benefits?

" In the short term, he writes, there are clearly challenges, but over the long haul, he argues that diversity has a range of benefits for a society, and that the fragmentation and distrust can be overcome. It’s not an easy process, but in the end it’s “well worth the effort.” Putnam cites the integration of institutions like the U.S. Army as proof that diversity can work."

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-say...

The point about the army is a particularly interesting one because they certainly are experts in integration and conformity, which hits back to my point in my previous comment as well.

The army life is not a good example; it is an intense, catalytic experience that accelerates and exaggerates processes that may not even appear in the real life. For many people their army buddies are the people they trust because they trusted their life to them, nothing like this happens for regular people.

It's not just the military in wartime though. My father was in the US Army in the late 1950s after the Korean ceasefire was signed but when they were still drafting soldiers to be deployed there. It was the first time he had any major interaction with African-Americans as they were rare in the small Northern town he grew up in. Serving alongside them and realizing that they weren't much different from himself was a significant experience for him.

Most locals have a single race living in them and almost all have single income group living there.

Just about the only diversity pertinent to local pubs is gender diversity - it is more appropriate for girls to be in too.

In my experience, this is not true. Income group, yes, but racial mix tends to mirror the racial mix of the income group locally.

Possibly in some places, but not in my part of the world. Different places, different cultures, different outcomes.

Third places typically cater to specific demographics. "The sports bar," "the gay bar," "the cop bar," etc.

The non-teetotaler's bar... for getting drunk or otherwise mentally impaired.

Any good neighbourhood needs a little public green space, and a few pubs and coffee houses. To hell with zoning or other rules that separate living spaces from public drinking spaces.

(The green spaces are for drinking too. Possibly with guitars and snacks.)

Good point. I don't think many would bemoan the loss of a bar, but they should recognize that losing a place other than home or work could have dramatic and far reaching impact.

In addition to churches I'd add the death of social organizations like elks, shriners, etc. Most of the good things these groups worked on are now seen by most as the responsibility of the government, which changes a lot of the dynamics.

In my life contra dancing fills this role. It's a place I can go to socialize with friends and strangers, dance, and listen to live music. There are dances all over the country, and when I'm traveling for work I often look up the local dance (https://trycontra.com) and drop in. Wherever I am I have a good time.

It is not the same. I used to go dancing for years, but most people were going to a bar after that to socialize. Some dance events are a combination of both (the milonga for Argentine tango), but I haven't seen one to replace it.

I think a country bar/dance hall/saloon is unique in this regard when it comes to social dancing destinations.

They are certainly not for everyone but I have yet to have found another type of social dancing venue that balances being a hangout spot and a place to dance.

Line dancing in particular brings something to the table outside of couples dancing that gives those not interested in the potentially-unfamiliar social situation of dancing with someone else a reason to go. I think that especially helps to keep these communities going.

Quick plug: I've been trying to catalog country venues (and their dances and songs) at https://dancedocket.com

highly depends on the person but i hate dancing with strangers and would never do this

in contrast, i absolutely enjoy drinking tasty beer and cocktails with people i don't know

Cafes in my experience.