I have identified „Digital Intimacy-Feeling Human in an Artificial World“ as the second talk I want to discuss here because I have previously worked on two projects during my bachelors degree that dealt with the same topic and similar questions as the ones Lutz Schmitt presented at the Expo. Especially in one of my projects about long distance relationships my team and I asked ourselves how we could create a sense of closeness through media and technology. Closeness especially meaning emotional intimacy – through rituals shared experiences and time spent doing things together, but also asked ourselves if we should mimic physical intimacy and proximity in some way and more importantly how to do that with technology.
Lutz Schmitt’s talk investigates how feelings of closeness and connection can be created in digital and artificial contexts (through robots, AI-driven systems, or designed experiences). He explores whether digital interactions can offer a genuine sense of intimacy and how we can distinguish meaningful connection from simulation. He brings up key questions: Can people form real emotional bonds with non-human objects? What role do trust and vulnerability play in creating such connections? And what ethical responsibilities arise when we design digital interactions?
From a UX and interaction design perspective, this talk is very relevant. In both projects I worked on, we looked into creating interfaces that go beyond typical communication(tools). Ones that encourage presence and emotional involvement. For example, instead of simply allowing users to send messages, we explored designing rituals: synchronized activities, and interfaces that created a sense of “co-being” rather than just „back and forth“ communication. These approaches align with Schmitt’s idea that intimacy is not just about frequency of contact, but about quality of interaction and the emotional context.
He also challenges the trend of creating frictionless, overly polished digital experiences. In reality, human relationships are full of imperfection and effort. Transferring that to UI/UX means intentionally designing for slowness and emotional nuance which is something we often avoid in tech but is deeply engrained in us and an inherent part of the human experience. For example, what if the interface was affected by emotional tone? Or what if moments of silence or waiting became part of the interaction, signaling care or presence instead of emptiness?
What I also found to be a really interesting and relevant aspect he brought up in his talk, was the consideration of privacy. This is much harder to maintain when introducing a technological component/product into a situation, since it’s almost impossible to not have a third party involved. It raises the ethical question of how to handle the very private data that is collected responsibly. As someone who designs these kinds of products this is something I hadn’t given much thought before but really need to take into consideration.
In conclusion the talk reminded me that designing for emotional intimacy is not just about what technology to use but a much deeper emotional and ethical problem that requires understanding the essence of human intimacy and how technology can support that, instead of substituting or mimicking it. It’s a complex but deeply relevant area for interaction design, that requires sensitivity, creativity, and critical thinking.
Author: victoria.bremer
WebExpo Conference Talk #1 – Data Visualization
As someone who is very interested in visual design, data visualization and interdisciplinary topics, mixing design and science or values and aesthetics, I was really curious about Nadieh Bremers talk „Creating an Effective & Beautiful Data Visualisation from Scratch”. I wasn’t sure what to expect, since I have found that „beautiful data visualization“ often just means clear and structured, but I was more that positively surprised to see how much artistic creativity she was able to incorporate into her visualizations while still maintaining the data to communicate. What I was also surprised by and really broadened my view on the topic was her approach and angle to how she creates her visualizations. I had never heard of the tool she uses (coding it in D3.js) and thought it was so cool to create truly interactive pieces with the actual data in the background instead of using visual tools like Illustrator, which I was more used to when it comes to creatively visualizing data.
What I also thought was a great starting point was her emphasis on storytelling through data. Rather than beginning with tools or templates, she encouraged designers to start with the narrative: what is the data trying to say? This approach really aligns with interaction design principles, where the goal is not just functionality but clarity, emotion, and user connection. Sketching ideas before coding is sort of like prototyping in UX or any other visually creative field, reminding us that visual thinking is critical to problem solving. I really enjoyed that she considered aesthetic and emotional engagement. I feel like many visualizations aim for neutrality or objectivity, but in her case the work also aims to be expressive, and fun. She challenged the idea that beauty is just decoration. Instead, she argued that beauty and clarity are not mutually exclusive, and that well-designed visuals can help users stay curious, linger longer, and feel more connected to the data. This view aligns with interaction design’s attention to emotional and engaging user experiences and human centered design.
As mentioned her use of D3.js was also very interesting for me. By building a data visualization from scratch in a live coding session, she nicely demonstrated what a workflow can look like, which I found really helpful. What made this talk especially valuable was watching her iterative process. Trying something to see what happens, then continuing from there, changing things along the way and making mistakes. Her process reminded me of the iterative prototyping cycles in interaction design: test, tweak, refine. Even a small change in data structure or layout can significantly shift the meaning of a visualization. It was a really eyeopening creative process and a reminder that you don’t need a perfect or exact vision to start and then go through with, but rather develop an idea of what works along the way. This process also showed me how D3 (and coding in general) can empower designers to go beyond their visual tools and create more immersive and interactive experiences while still maintaining the aesthetics.
NIME Review – “Sound Kitchen”
The paper “Sound Kitchen: Designing a Chemically Controlled Musical Performance” presents a project in which chemical reactions were created and used to trigger different sounds. The reactions were sampled and mapped into a “sound recipe” and showcased as a live performance. Different chemical processes and substances were carefully selected based on certain criteria like availability, safety, controllability, and range. The creation of sound was the main focus; however, since it was meant to be a live performance, visual appeal was also considered (colorful liquids like red wine and orange juice were chosen over clear vinegar). Chemical reactions are used not just as metaphors (or visuals) in performance, but as literal sound generators. Through the manipulation of chemical properties—like electrolyte mixtures and their reactive behaviors—electrical signals are generated and fed into computer systems, where they are shaped and sonified.
The project was created as part of a course called “Human Computer Interaction Theory and Practice: Designing New Devices.” It is an interesting study of the process of creation—drawing parallels between the art of cooking and the art of music: creating a carefully crafted dish and composing a piece of music. Different ingredients and processes alter the final outcome, directed by a composer or chef who controls the composition and final product.
Personally, this new angle of looking at music and approaching composition in such a tangible way was very interesting. Especially as someone who doesn’t know a lot about music and sonification, but is very interested in cooking and baking, I found this experiment gave me a new perspective on the composition of music.
What’s especially interesting about this idea for me as an interaction designer are the implications for almost every interdisciplinary design field and place for interaction. It is a powerful reminder to look beyond the obvious tools. It encourages us to rethink the boundaries of materiality, data, and performance, and expands our definition of what can be an interface or generate usable data (or how something seemingly unrelated can be made usable). I am thinking especially about how this can reshape how we engage with technology, nature, and art. Invisible processes, for example (in nature, cooking, our surroundings, etc.), can be uncovered—not just (as usual) via visuals, but perhaps through sound. This is a channel I, and many other installations, projects, or products, often overlook. However, in terms of ambience or even accessibility, this should be considered and explored much more.
Another thought that is more closely related to artistic aspects of the project would be the visual components of the “instrument.” I feel like it has great potential, and while already considered in some parts, I see a lot of room for improvement, since chemical reactions offer a huge amount of visually appealing options to work with. Phenomena like synesthesia come to mind, and it would be very interesting to see a close relation between the visual reactions and the generated sounds. Moving away from performance art and more into immersive, interactive, and participatory projects, this could, for example, mean an entirely new dining experience that engages all senses in a new and enhanced way.
In conclusion, this paper serves as a strong starting point for rethinking how we design—by considering and combining different sensory experiences in innovative and unexpected ways to create new experiences.
Sound Kitchen: Designing a Chemically Controlled Musical Performance: https://www.nime.org/proceedings/2003/nime2003_083.pdf
Where do we go from here? Possible approaches for designing connection
What I’ve discovered is that there’s a strong awareness of loneliness as a problem, especially in the research community. There are countless studies, statistics, and even political measures addressing it, but what’s missing are concrete steps and ideas on how to tackle it.
There are some considerations, such as guidelines for urban planners and architects, that lay the groundwork. But direct, creative, and innovative approaches are harder to find. Most existing solutions focus on open spaces, but few actively invite specific forms of interaction. What’s needed is a deep understanding of both the structural aspects of loneliness and the personal experience of it. This means understanding what people need in order to change their behavior and the way they operate in the world we currently live in. Is it the online world and our phone addiction? The fast paced life style? The way and amount we work? The ways our offices, homes an cities are designed and built?
It might be helpful to focus on specific scenarios where loneliness occurs, as its causes and effects vary depending on the context. Loneliness looks different for an older person in a retirement home than it does for a young person who just moved to a new city. Patients in hospitals or reha centers face different challenges than single parents with little time for social interaction. Immigrants who have been separated from their families and cultures experience isolation differently than someone struggling with mental health issues. People who have been removed from or disconnected from their communities also face unique forms of loneliness.
So what can design do? There are different angles and scales from which to approach this issue. One possibility is rethinking urban planning to create spaces that naturally foster human interaction. Another is shifting public perception by raising awareness and reducing the stigma around loneliness, making it something we can talk about openly rather than something to be ashamed of. Smaller interventions can also play a role, like simple design elements that spark interaction and connection, allowing relationships to develop organically.
The next step is to explore possible directions. Should this take the form of a framework or set of guidelines for urban design? A workshop that actively engages communities? A game or interactive tool that initiates connection? A digital platform that helps people meet in meaningful ways? Maybe physical installations or experimental spaces designed to encourage spontaneous interactions. Or maybe artistic works that highlight and address loneliness could invite reflection and conversation.
To move forward, more research is needed and the questions that came up during research need to be answered. Interviews, testing, and case studies could provide valuable insights into what actually works. Understanding the real experiences of people struggling with loneliness and setting a direction for a project are key to designing solutions that go beyond theory and make a real impact.
A different approach – designing for loneliness
While traditional approaches to tackling loneliness often focus on creating opportunities for social interactions, there’s another, more surprising strategy gaining attention: designing public spaces that actively embrace and even encourage solitude. A paradoxical approach recognizes that many people experiencing loneliness don’t necessarily want to be surrounded by others but instead need environments that allow them to feel comfortable being alone. Being comfortable with being alone and even feeling lonely is important. Sometimes the feeling is inevitable and a vital part to identifying and overcoming loneliness is connecting with ones own emotional needs as it is connecting with others. Places that make this possible in a positive, comfortable and nonjudgmental way can therefore also play an important role in wellbeing, reflection and dealing with an at first uncomfortable feeling [3].
Often, urban spaces prioritize group interactions, leaving little room for those who prefer solitude. This can unintentionally send the message that being alone in public is unusual or even undesirable. However, small design tweaks can challenge that stigma. Take seating arrangements, for example. Public furniture designed for individuals – like single chairs rather than long communal benches – can make it feel normal and even inviting to spend time alone in public. The MuseumsQuartier in Vienna does this with its modular seating options that work just as well for one person as they do for a group, creating a more inclusive and flexible experience.
It’s not just about where you sit, it’s also about the atmosphere. Public spaces can be designed to provide opportunities for quiet moments, which are essential for helping people process their feelings of loneliness. Parks are a natural fit for this kind of design. Whether someone wants a solitary walk or a peaceful corner to sit and reflect, these kinds of environments offer options for both privacy and connection. Nature itself can also play a big role. Green spaces, dense vegetation, and the presence of birds or other wildlife add a sense of life and calm to a city. These features don’t just make urban spaces – they provide a way for people to connect with something larger than themselves. Studies have shown that access to green spaces is linked to lower feelings of loneliness, likely because they help clear the mind and create moments of quiet, personal connection with nature.
This idea of “paradoxical intervention” in design doesn’t just apply to solitude. It’s about embracing contradictions to create better experiences. By designing spaces that support both solitude and social interaction, we can serve different emotional and social needs in the same environment. It’s a shift away from rigid design concepts and toward more flexible, human-centered thinking.
Interaction design, too, has a critical role in this conversation. Thoughtfully designed technology can help foster meaningful connections in ways that feel organic and comfortable. For example, the concept of “cozy tech” has emerged as a way to create products that offer a sense of companionship. Devices designed with warmth and simplicity in mind, for instance, can provide emotional support in subtle ways. These tools aren’t about replacing human relationships but complementing them, making it easier for people to feel connected in their own way.
Ultimately, combating loneliness in cities requires a holistic approach – including rethinking public spaces, embracing solitude as a valid experience, and designing products that help people feel less alone. By integrating interventions and innovative interaction design into urban life, environments can be created that feel welcoming, inclusive, and human. And in doing so, we can take meaningful steps toward not just reducing loneliness, but reshaping how we think about connection and belonging in the first place [1,2].
Sources
- L. Heu and T. Brennecke, “Making Space For Loneliness In Our Cities,” Next City, Oct. 21, 2022. https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/making-space-for-loneliness-in-our-cities-design-research
- L. C. Heu and T. Brennecke, “By yourself, yet not alone: Making space for loneliness,” Urban Studies, vol. 60, no. 16, pp. 3187–3197, May 2023, doi: 10.1177/00420980231169669.
- “Knowledge on Loneliness — The Loneliness Lab | Loneliness in urban spaces,” The Loneliness Lab, Dec. 29, 2020. https://www.lonelinesslab.org/knowledge-hub
Designing for connection – Part 2
DESIGNING INTERACTION
In the previous post I have discussed what is important when designing the public space itself. Now it is also important to look at what aspects to consider and incorporate when designing interaction and human connection. To build successful products like installations or experiences that are meant to bring people together and create or nurture connection we must understand key elements that create connections between people.
Human connection comes from a mix of emotional, physical, and psychological factors, all of which can guide how we design interactions that bring people closer together. Physical touch is an important aspect – it releases hormones like oxytocin, reduces stress, and builds trust. Designs can for example use haptic feedback, like vibrations or warmth, to mimic touch or encourage real-life gestures and touch like handshakes or hugs [1]. Physical proximity also plays a big role – being near others naturally makes connection easier. Spaces that bring people closer, like small gathering spots can create more chances for spontaneous interaction. Similarly, eye contact creates intimacy and trust.
Shared experiences are also something that bring people together by creating a sense of belonging and togetherness. Things like group activities, team challenges, or even shared virtual spaces can help foster these bonds [2]. Another aspect that gives people a sense of identity and connection are rituals and traditions. This could mean designing recurring events or encourage and help the development of little rituals specific to an experience [3].
Active listening makes people feel heard and valued, and Emotional sharing deepens relationships when people feel safe enough to open up. Design ideas could include anonymous spaces for sharing or lighthearted prompts that encourage people to talk about their feelings [4].
WHAT DO WELL DESIGNED PLACES AND INTERACTIONS LOOK LIKE?
The Loneliness Lab is a „global collective of people and organizations on a mission to design connection in to the places where we live, work and play.“ They for example made a toolkit for tackling loneliness in areas for people involved in urban planning and helped create several projects and concepts addressing the issue.
Designing public spaces that are inclusive, welcoming, and engaging can significantly impact social interactions and well-being. Accessible wayfinding, paths, and facilities ensure these spaces are available to everyone, especially those with disabilities or those who may feel excluded. Community-generated art empowers locals to reclaim and transform neglected spaces into safer, more inviting areas. Features like lighting, street furniture, and creative installations bring life to underused spaces, as seen in Derry’s pop-up meeting pods paired with mental health training, fostering connection and well-being. Temporary or “meanwhile use” spaces, such as Story Garden in London, allow communities to actively shape their environment while policymakers learn about long-term needs. Programs like this build creative skills and tackle local issues through collaborative projects. Lighting also plays a crucial role, it can help create a feeling of safety and encourage positive behaviors, as seen in Phillips’ LED installations, which extended children’s outdoor playtime and reduced device usage. A sense of place and identity strengthens connections between residents, businesses, and organizations. For example, “Elephant Says Hi!” unites over 30 groups in Elephant and Castle to create a welcoming environment for all. Thoughtful design, such as flexible seating, human-scale areas and elements, and moveable furniture, enhances the comfort of large spaces for both individuals and groups. Long-term administration is vital for sustainability, as demonstrated by the Gillett Square Partnership, which fosters ongoing collaboration to transform a once-deprived area into a vibrant community hub [5].
Further approaches from these ideas could also go more in the direction of installations and artistic displays, that follow a specific goal or have a specific message, for example creating awareness about the topic or making a statement.
Source
- A. H. Tejada, R. I. M. Dunbar, and M. Montero, “Physical contact and loneliness: Being touched reduces perceptions of loneliness,” Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 292–306, May 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40750-020-00138-0.
- V. Chung, R. Mennella, E. Pacherie, and J. Grezes, “Social bonding through shared experiences: the role of emotional intensity,” Royal Society Open Science, vol. 11, no. 10, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1098/rsos.240048.
- D. Robson, “The secret to long-lasting connection? Shared rituals,” Dec. 30, 2024. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241218-michael-nortons-rituals-key-to-connection-family
- S. Myers, “Empathic Listening: Reports on the Experience of being Heard,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 148–173, Apr. 2000, doi: 10.1177/0022167800402004.
- “Knowledge on Loneliness — The Loneliness Lab | Loneliness in urban spaces,” The Loneliness Lab, Dec. 29, 2020. https://www.lonelinesslab.org/knowledge-hub
Designing for connection – Part 1
In the last blogposts I have established, that public spaces offer a great opportunity for design to combat loneliness. Concepts like Third Places provide and ideal starting point for designers to tackle the loneliness issue ans shape social networks.
Based on my current research I would say that designing against loneliness means designing for connection. But what is important when designing public spaces with the purpose of community building in mind? How do we design spaces to nurture connection? In the following I will take a closer look at design principles, guidelines and important aspects for spaces, installations and interactions and maybe even seemingly counterintuitive design approaches addressing the problem.
DESIGNING PLACES
Designing places to combat loneliness and foster connection requires thoughtful consideration of how we interact with our environment. Accessibility is the foundation, ensuring that spaces are inclusive, safe, and easy to navigate for everyone, such as parks, libraries, or pocket spaces (a micro space serving a function different to the room or area it’s located in) seamlessly integrated into neighborhoods. Creating spaces that feel welcoming also starts with comfort – designing environments that invite people to stay. Incorporating nature boosts mental health and also fosters sociability. Adding elements of activation, like strategically placed seating, amenities, and refreshments, brings energy and encourages interaction.
It’s also important to offer choice and flexibility. People have different needs – sometimes we crave stimulation, and other times we just want a quiet spot to rest. Spaces that adapt to these preferences are more likely to feel inclusive. Designing at a human scale (the proportion of space in relation to human dimension, eg. not making spaces too large or small) adds to this sense of comfort that naturally invite connection. A strong sense of place is equally essential. Spaces that reflect local culture and shared values signal belonging and create identity. Purposeful programming (placemaking), or giving a space a specific focus – like catering to a particular group with shared needs or interests – can lower barriers to connection. For example, a park designed with community gardening in mind brings people together over a shared activity, making it easier to strike up conversations and build connections [1,2,4]. The project “the loneliness lab” uses a metaphor to define the essential elements of place making. The physical environment is considered the „hardware“ (buildings, parks), the programming of these spaces is the „software“ (activities, events, services) and the policies and standards that bring people together and prevent loneliness are the „code“ [3].
Thoughtful integration of technology can also enhance these spaces, make them more accessible and extend the sense of community beyond the physical world. But technology should always support the space, not take over, and it needs to be used carefully so it doesn’t get in the way of the real human connections these spaces are meant to create. [2]
In practice this means understanding the unique needs of a community. Conducting a needs assessment helps identify gaps in existing spaces and uncovers the types of activities people value most. Collaboration is equally vital – partnering with local businesses, organizations, and community groups builds a support network that strengthens the foundation of these spaces. Securing funding through grants, sponsorships, and partnerships ensures their creation and long-term sustainability [2].
Third places are more than just physical spaces, they play a crucial role in reducing social isolation by encouraging meaningful connections and interactions. They also act as places for civic engagement, giving people opportunities to participate in and contribute to their communities. Beyond this, third places support well-being by providing spaces where people can relax, connect with others, and share experiences. They promote a sense of belonging, strengthen social bonds, and cultivate vibrant, inclusive communities [2].
SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLES
“Gathering place” in Tulsa is a concept of a park that offers a diverse amount of activities from learning and education to events and culinary experiences: „Gathering Place aims to serve as a cornerstone for our vibrant community while improving social, economic, and environmental sustainability in Tulsa.“
https://www.gatheringplace.org/
“The High Line” in New York used to be an old elevated abandoned railroad track and was transformed into a park and community space in the middle of the city. Ideas for dEsigns were created through contests by anyone who wanted to participate and much of it is therefore created by public participation. Most of it is supported by funding and it offers many activities from food, art, performance and nature: „The High Line is both a nonprofit organization and a public park on the West Side of Manhattan. Through our work with communities on and off the High Line, we’re devoted to reimagining the role public spaces have in creating connected, healthy neighborhoods and cities.“
https://www.thehighline.org/
The implications for interaction design projects could be developing design guidelines, such as workshops or a framework, to guide the creation of third spaces for urban planners, architects, community leaders or involved citizens. Another approach could be to create a platform that fosters the development of communities dedicated to designing third places tailored to their needs, thereby encouraging active citizen participation in urban planning.
Sources
- HKS Architects, “Healing Loneliness: Six Ways to design for Social Connection and Community | HKS Architects,” HKS Architects, Jun. 24, 2024. https://www.hksinc.com/our-news/articles/healing-loneliness-six-ways-to-design-for-social-connection-and-community/
- M. Abdelhamid, “Third place theory: creating community spaces,” Urban Design lab, Oct. 20, 2024. https://urbandesignlab.in/third-place-theory-creating-community-spaces/
- “Knowledge on Loneliness — The Loneliness Lab | Loneliness in urban spaces,” The Loneliness Lab, Dec. 29, 2020. https://www.lonelinesslab.org/knowledge-hub
- “Eleven Principles for Creating Great Community Places.” https://www.pps.org/article/11steps
What are Fourth Spaces?
After discussing the concept of third places (informal gathering spots like cafes, libraries, and parks) I would now like to shine light on a relatively new idea that has emerged in the recent years: fourth spaces. While third places serve as a “home away from home,” fourth spaces are (depending on the definition) a response to the increasing blurring of physical and digital boundaries in our lives. They go beyond the physicality of third places, incorporating hybrid, inclusive, and adaptive elements to address the evolving ways people connect and build community today. But what exactly are fourth spaces, and how can they shape a sense of belonging?
Definition
Like with loneliness and Third Places there isn’t one single definition for fourth spaces. Some interpretations focus on the physical world and informal interactions in places that are undefined, similar to third places, while others place more emphasis on the digital world [3] and how it interacts with physical spaces. Fourth spaces can be seen as in-between places, blending traditional environments with digital layers. Not all definitions consider the digital aspect in the same way, but all highlight the role of these spaces in fostering spontaneous, casual connections that contribute to shared public life. [1, 2]
Fouth Places as the “in-between” [3]
Fourth Spaces as the digital realm [5]
Fourth spaces can counteract the impersonal aspects of “non-places” by embracing in-betweenness and publicness in their design. These spaces often include open, diverse layouts that are intentionally flexible, allowing people to adapt them for various uses that encourage spontaneous interactions.
Novel typologies – new forms of spatial design
Fourth space frameworks blend elements from traditional public spaces with modern innovations, such as integrating green spaces into urban environments or combining digital and physical interactions. In the context of fourth spaces, typology focuses on creating new forms of environments that encourage interaction, creativity, and adaptability to meet modern societal needs. These strategies ensure inclusivity and dynamic social interactions, creating environments where diverse individuals can connect and feel a sense of shared experience. By doing so, fourth spaces move beyond sterile functionality, fostering creativity, community, and belonging. [3]
An example approach to actively creating a fourth space is a project called „The Commons“. It is described as: „A modern-day town square for communal meaning-making, personal discovery, and self-expression in the heart of San Francisco.“ This concept focuses mostly on creating a place that is versatile and open in its functionality and can become whatever it needs to be at any given time. So in reference to the earlier definition, this is less an approach of combining digital and real world places, and follows more the idea of in-between places and meaning-making. They themselves define Fourth spaces as follows: „A physical space that facilitates meaning-making through intentional programming and pluralistic discussion, where individuals explore questions of ultimate concern without seeking conclusive answers. It honors the authenticity and uniqueness of each person’s path while fostering deeper bonds through consistent encounters in a supportive holding environment.“ [4]
Designing Fourth spaces is not an easy task, since it is quite hard to grasp what exactly fourth places are and how they fit into our lives. In terms of digital Fourth spaces the concept is just now emerging and changing constantly. It is important to clearly define the Fourth space in order to utilize it for designing in the context of loneliness. Is a fourth space an in-between place with unlimited potential that needs to be programmed and directed? Or is it the digital world that has emerged in the past few years? And if so, do we integrate it into the real world and try to find ways to combine the two? Or is it maybe even those places where the two meet?
Sources
- P. S. Aelbrecht, “‘Fourth places’: the contemporary public settings for informal social interaction among strangers,” Journal of Urban Design, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 124–152, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1080/13574809.2015.1106920.
- “The fourth place and re-imagining the city | Urbanarium.” https://urbanarium.org/journal/fourth-place-and-re-imagining-city
- D. Hardegger, “A First Holistic ‘4th Space’ Concept,” Mdpi, p. 72, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.3390/proceedings2022081072.
- “The Commons” https://www.thesfcommons.com/
- T. Masuku, “The fourth place,” Showit Blog, Jun. 15, 2024. https://ticamasuku.com/the-fourth-place/
The living room of society
When talking about loneliness and human connection so called „third places“ often come up. The term was first coined by Ray Oldenburg who defined first places (home), second places (work) and finally the idea of third places, which he defines as spaces for „informal, free social interaction“, for example libraries, cafés, restaurants, museums etc. He even goes so far as to say that as places of free speech (and allowing a certain level of equality), third spaces can be seen as the “precursors of democracy“. They are places in which we meet friends and strangers, foster connections and create new ones [1]. This is especially interesting when talking about loneliness, since even small and short social interactions can improve mental wellbeing and create a feeling of belonging and connection [2].
When designing Third Places it is important to remember that they are dynamic spaces that are constantly changing, evolving and adapting: „A public space cannot be finished any more than the city in which it resides can be“ [3]. This also means that a key element of a good public space is good management, to be able to keep up with the needs and constant changes of the communities and people. Big issues when creating spaces (besides real estate prizes and restrictive regulations [4]) has been that much of the planning and building has been done from the top down, by experts such as architects and urban planners. The main factor however are the people: „Normal citizens are the best experts that you can ask for when planning how a place should be designed or used“ [3]. Citizen participation could therefor be an interesting topic for the design process of third places, asking questions like How can people be motivated to engage and participate in community building? And How can we make Third Spaces accessible for all people? [5]
“Libraries shouldn’t shush, they should roar”
In her Talk Maarya Rehman makes an interesting case about libraries as good Third Places, even or especially in the digital age. She opens up an entirely new angle to think about libraries, describing her own experience when she was given the opportunity to reopen a library in Pakistan. Rehman states that a place like a library doesn’t have just one function and can be many different things to many different people, depending on their needs. Another important attribute – as mentioned previously – is that Third Places act as social levelers. This means that it doesn’t matter who a person is (where they come from, how much money they make, etc), in Third Places like libraries they are simply a citizen. Finally she makes the point, that the existence of these Places in the real world is as relevant as ever with a large amount of our lives shifting into the digital online world where our connections become intangible data and we are constantly overloaded with information. Libraries can take many forms and help people connect over one thing at a time. Be it a common interest or a shared problem that can be solved together. [6, 7]
Several places have taken up this idea and basic concept of a library and adapted it to their needs. One of the most famous examples is Finland with its Oodi library, that not only rents out books, but is an entire three story building detected to bringing people together for creative collaboration, co-working and connecting [7]. It has a restaurant and cafe for people to eat and chat, but also several different areas of creative work like sewing machines. It is a small ecosystem with everything that is needed for different types of communities and connection. It makes co-working possible but also offers workshops for people to learn and bond over new experiences. Studios with expensive equipment can be rented to work on projects and create together. It is also inclusive to all generations offering family solutions for people with children. All in all it is an incredibly diverse place, designed for many types of different interaction and existing for many different people and a very interesting starting point for thinking about the potentials of public spaces.
Oodie Public Library, Finland https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oodi
Sources
- R. Oldenburg, The great good place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. Da Capo Press, 1999.
- J. Murray, “Are third places the cure for loneliness?,” Wondermind, May 16, 2024. https://www.wondermind.com/article/third-place/
- “To make a great third place, get out of the way.” https://www.pps.org/article/to-create-a-great-third-place-get-out-of-the-way
- C. Diaz and S. M. Butler, “‘Third places’ as community builders,” Brookings, Sep. 14, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/third-places-as-community-builders/
- M. Lerner, “Redefining third spaces: Modern approaches to informal urban gathering places – Urban Land Magazine,” Urban Land, Aug. 16, 2024. https://urbanland.uli.org/redefining-third-spaces-modern-approaches-to-informal-urban-gathering-places
- M. Rehman, “Libraries – the good (third) place,” TED Talks. [Online]. Available: https://www.ted.com/talks/maarya_rehman_libraries_the_good_third_place?subtitle=en
- “Home – Oodi,” Oodi, Jan. 02, 2025. https://oodihelsinki.fi/en/
Connection as the opposite of loneliness
Having explored loneliness in depth – what it is, how it’s defined, and how it manifests – I now want to approach the topic from a different angle. Rather than solely asking how we might design loneliness away, we should also consider its opposite: connection. I want to take a closer look at how we can foster connection and community. This perspective could serve as a powerful starting point for design. After all, connection is a basic human need. In one of the best known models of human needs (Maslow’s Pyramid) it is located on the second and third level: social security, love and belonging and sense of connection [1]. This is also backed by the self-determination theory of Deci and Ryan, who propose three basic human needs, one of them being relatedness (feeling socially connected to others) [6]. Just as loneliness can isolate and harm our well-being, connection has the potential to uplift and create belonging.
But what is connection? And what makes it meaningful instead of superficial? Many people nowadays consider themselves well connected. They largely attribute this to connections via technology based mediums like social media. But while this bridges distances, it undermines deep human connections due to digital distractions and overload and lack of crucial elements for meaningful and deep connection.
In a world dominated by digital distractions, fostering meaningful connections requires intentional effort. The ease of digital interaction often leads to diminished presence – multitasking during family time, taking calls on dates, or scrolling through social media instead of engaging with friends. These habits dilute the depth of our relationships. To counter this, we can focus on strategies like prioritizing thoughtful communication, using technology to enhance rather than replace connections, building emotional literacy, practicing presence, and stepping away from devices. By doing so, we can recenter on genuine human connections and enrich our relationships, seeking out quality interactions over digital convenience [3]. This can even mean just short exchanges with people we love to increase wellbeing and make us feel better [2].
„our relationships have broadened in scope yet diminished in depth. In our pursuit of speed and convenience, we’ve inadvertently sacrificed the intentionality and deliberate slowness that enrich connections.“ [3]
There are of course several definitions of connection, each with different focus and intention. I have chosen this one as it considers interaction and fits into the research conducted thus far:
„connection is the dynamic, living tissue that exists between two people when there is some contact between them involving mutual awareness and social interaction. The existence of some interaction means that individuals have affected one another in some way, giving connections a temporal as well as an emotional dimension.“ [7]
In reference to non-places I would like to add this quote:
„Technology makes it easier to connect but often replaces in-person contact with less meaningful interactions. Even the increase in self-service kiosks and checkouts at stores cuts down on small talk with strangers, which can help with feeling connected. The shift to remote work and Zoom calls means we might be seeing our colleagues less, leading to fewer opportunities for socializing.“ [2]
It is however worth mentioning that even small talk can enhance well-being, build relational diversity, and foster belonging. Research shows casual interactions improve mood, energy, and confidence, even for introverts. Overcoming the “liking gap” (underestimating others’ enjoyment of conversations) helps people feel more connected. Techniques include viewing small talk as a “treasure hunt,” using shared surroundings as conversation starters, and moving from surface topics to personal ones. Compliments on unique self-expression or avoiding sensitive topics can deepen interactions. Practicing small talk strengthens social confidence and thereby the feeling of belonging and capability of creating connection [4].
Based on general research and theories on connection, the following summarizes the key elements of genuine human connection:
Emotional Presence – Feeling seen, heard, and understood is critical for connection (active listening and empathy)
Shared Experiences – Shared activities and experiences foster a sense of belonging and mutual understanding
Trust and Vulnerability – Trust allows people to share their true selves, and vulnerability strengthens emotional bonds
Physical Proximity and Touch – Nonverbal communication, such as eye contact, hugs or other forms of physical contact create a sense of closeness (connection is a neuro-biological phenomenon)
Shared Values and Goals – Having common beliefs or working toward shared objectives builds connection
Reciprocity – Giving and receiving support and care create mutual feelings of appreciation and connection
Relevant paper and an extensive look at connection: “The connection prescription: Using the power of social interactions and the deep desire for connectedness to empower health and wellness”
Sources
- Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 - D. Henley, “The secret to feeling less lonely in only 8 minutes,” Thrive Global, Apr. 05, 2024. https://community.thriveglobal.com/the-secret-to-feeling-less-lonely-in-only-8-minutes/
- C. Steinhorst, “The way people people has forever changed — focuswise,” Focuswise, Mar. 18, 2024. https://www.focuswise.com/blog/from-superficial-to-significant-transforming-how-people-connect-in-the-digital-age
- A. Haupt, “7 Ways to Get Better at Small Talk—And Why You Should,” TIME, Jun. 01, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://time.com/6280607/small-talk-tips-benefits/
- J. Martino, J. Pegg, and E. P. Frates, “The connection prescription: Using the power of social interactions and the deep desire for connectedness to empower health and wellness,” American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 466–475, Oct. 2015, doi: 10.1177/1559827615608788.
- Deci E L, Ryan RM. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum; 1985
- Dutton JE, Heaphy E. The power of high quality connections. In Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE, eds. Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler; 2003:263-278 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262725459_The_Power_of_High_Quality_Connections