I view Oldenburg’s argument as more compelling than that of Zukin’s. Both authors are correct in believing that small shops and the people are the soul of the city that contribute to the diversity and identity of the crowds. Oldenburg makes sure to include what contributes to a place attaining the label as a “third place,” something Zukin fails to do. Zukin simply states what generally contributes to a city’s identity and proposes tactics to prevent displacement. Many businesses and communities are at risk due to gentrification’s commercial impact. The affluent residents once wanted to simply learn about the community and experience its culture. However, many people now move into these neighborhoods and bring traits that fuel the idealization of their own cultural landscape. Despite the businesses that are closing its doors, the ones that do remain hold on to a unique cultural identity.
The places that maintain an individuality over time and don’t lose focus of culture and traditions are essential to a neighborhood’s personality. Many of these businesses are third places that people feel comfortable in. Businesses such as these provide happiness and stability for communities, reminding me of a restaurant that meets the criteria of a third place, Jose Tejas. This small Tex-Mex restaurant serves made-to-order Mexican food with a southern twist. The restaurant serves a tight-knit community and provides promise for deeper friendships. In this restaurant, all of the customers are comfortable and feel at home. As a leveler, Jose Tejas is an inclusive place that is easily accessible, providing regulars with a home away from home. With a low profile and playful attitude, the restaurant is an ideal “third place” that enhances the surrounding community.
