Must we pay to belong?
By Gs Dr Nur Aulia Rosni
Where would you go this evening if you wanted to be around people but did not want to buy anything? Not home. Not your workplace or campus. Just somewhere comfortable where you could sit, talk, read, watch the world go by or feel that you were part of it.
For many young people, that question is surprisingly difficult to answer. We have cafes, shopping centres and beautifully designed spaces. Yet staying in many of them comes with an unspoken condition: buy a drink, order a meal or keep moving. It is easy to blame phones for keeping young people indoors, but that avoids a harder question: if recreation is costly, streets feel unsafe, and teenagers are treated as a nuisance, where exactly are they expected to meet?
Urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg used the term “third place” for the informal spaces beyond home, our first place, and work or school, our second. A third place might be a neighbourhood cafe, park, library, warung, community hall or a familiar corner where people meet regularly. Its value is not determined by how impressive it looks. The attraction is often the people one might encounter, not a scheduled programme or polished setting.
This is why public space, placemaking and third place should not be treated as the same thing. A new plaza may be a public space. A colourful mural or weekend event may be placemaking. But neither automatically creates the familiarity, trust and everyday interaction that make a genuine third place. Those qualities grow slowly through regular use, good management and a sense that people are allowed to stay.
Commercial places can also become meaningful third places. A mamak restaurant or neighbourhood cafe may offer familiarity, conversation and a low-cost place to meet. At their best, third places also bring together ages and backgrounds that might otherwise remain in separate circles. The problem begins when almost every comfortable social setting requires spending, or when free alternatives are too far away, poorly maintained, unsafe or unwelcoming.
The concern is not merely sentimental. In 2025, the World Health Organization reported that about one in six people worldwide experiences loneliness, with adolescents and younger people among the most affected. It would be inaccurate to claim that disappearing third places alone cause loneliness or severe social withdrawal. Human wellbeing is shaped by many personal, family, economic and social factors. Still, when accessible gathering places disappear, one everyday route to friendship, informal support and community life disappears with them.
Perhaps we should assess our shared places through the lens of four simple freedoms. Can people arrive without spending too much on transport? Can they stay comfortably, with shade, seating and toilets? Can they remain without being required to purchase something? Most importantly, can people of different ages, incomes, abilities and backgrounds feel that they belong?
These questions connect different areas of city planning. Land-use planning determines where parks, libraries, community facilities and small local businesses are located. Transport planning decides whether people can reach them affordably and safely. Urban design shapes the shade, seating, crossings, lighting and building edges that make people want to stay. Placemaking helps communities give those spaces identity and life.
The answer is not to build one perfect plaza for everyone. Different groups need different kinds of places. Teenagers may want somewhere informal where they are not treated as a nuisance. Families may need safe play areas and toilets. Older people may need shade and seating. Students may simply need a place where they can spend two hours studying without buying another cup of coffee.
A good city is not only one that helps us move efficiently from one destination to another. It is also one that gives us reasons to pause, encounter other people and become part of something larger than ourselves. The question is therefore not simply how many public spaces we have. It is whether ordinary people can truly use them, and whether they are welcome to stay.
The author is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Malaya, and may be reached at nurauliarosni@um.edu.my