Spatial Characteristics and Social Interaction in Hybrid Third Places: A Case Study on Three Book Cafes

Abstract

The third place refers to the social environment that is separate from the two usual social environments of the home “first place” and the workplace “second place”. Places that fulfil other functions in addition to food and drink, such as book cafés, where today’s people spend time alone in addition to socializing and which they sometimes use as offices to do their daily work on the computer, have been defined as hybrid third places. This study examines the spatial characteristics of hybrid third places that affect the social interactions between people using these spaces. In this context, comprehensive research was carried out on the literature on the relationship between social interaction and space, third places and the design of consumption spaces such as cafes, coffee houses and book cafes. In the second phase of the study, the impact of spatial characteristics obtained through literature research on social interactions in hybrid third places was revealed through a case study. Participant observation, behaviour maps, surveys and interviews were conducted in three different hybrid third-place book cafes. As a result of the study, it was found that the spatial characteristics of hybrid third places that affect social interaction consist of four main variables, namely physical, atmospheric, social and functional, as well as related sub-variables. For each variable identified in the study, suggestions were developed for the design of third places that would promote social interaction.

1. Introduction

In order to foster a healthy society and a sustainable urban life, cities require meeting places that enable social contact and everyday interaction. Third places are defined as informal social environments distinct from home and work that facilitate socialization and community life [1]. The concept was introduced by Ray Oldenburg in The Great Good Place [1] in which third places are described as settings that compensate for the decline of community ties and the increasing social fragmentation of urban life. In this framework, third places refer to social environments separate from the home (“first place”) and the workplace (“second place”), including cafés, bars, bookstores, libraries, parks, gyms, and similar settings that encourage informal encounters and interaction [2,3].

Since its introduction, the concept of the third place has gained increasing attention across disciplines such as marketing, hospitality, health, leisure studies, architecture, and urban planning [4]. While Oldenburg’s [1] core principles remain influential, recent studies have critically re-examined the applicability of the concept to contemporary urban contexts, exploring emerging third-place typologies and changing patterns of use. Despite this growing interest, the spatial characteristics of newly emerging, multi-functional spaces, such as hybrid third places, where diverse human behaviours and social interaction types coexist, have not been considered holistically in terms of their role in fostering social interaction.

Building on Oldenburg’s framework, several authors have proposed new typologies, including traditional, commercial, spectacular, virtual, and cultural third places [5,6,7]. More recently, the concept of hybridity has been introduced to describe third places that combine multiple functions and social practices. Crick [5] conceptualized hybrid third places as the overlap between physical and virtual environments, while Rosenbaum et al. [8] defined hybrid cafés as venues integrating diverse activities beyond the café function. In this study, hybrid third places are defined as functionally, socially, and spatially hybrid environments that accommodate diverse practices such as working, socializing, observing, producing, and temporary withdrawal.

This hybrid third-place approach reinterprets Oldenburg’s concept in light of contemporary urban life, arguing that third places have evolved from single-function and homogeneous settings into multi-layered environments supporting eating, reading, working, social interaction, and cultural events within the same space. Book cafés and multifunctional cafés exemplify this transformation by bringing together different user profiles and usage scenarios. Through functional diversity, spatial and social flexibility, and the potential for serendipitous encounters, hybrid third places emerge as key spatial actors that support both collective interaction and controlled individual experiences in contemporary urban life [9]. Accordingly, this study examines hybrid third places specifically in relation to social interaction.

2. Materials and Methods

This study investigates the spatial characteristics that influence social interaction in book cafés defined as hybrid third places, incorporating functions such as exhibitions, libraries, workshops, and food and beverage activities. The research first examines existing studies on third places and social interaction, followed by literature on the relationship between space and social behaviour, with a particular focus on consumption spaces such as cafés, coffee houses, restaurants, and cafeterias. Based on this review, spatial characteristics relevant to hybrid third places were identified and examined through a multiple-case study.

Empirical data were collected through participant observation, behaviour mapping, surveys, and semi-structured interviews conducted in three book cafés. A total of 60 users participated in the survey, and 16 interviews were carried out. Participant observations were conducted at different times of day while experiencing various areas of the cafés, enabling the analysis of user behaviour and its relationship with spatial configurations. Surveys and interviews were used to evaluate users’ perceptions of spatial characteristics and their effects on social interaction. The findings reveal the influence of multiple spatial factors on social interaction and provide design-oriented recommendations to support socially interactive environments (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Methodology of the study.

The literature review was conducted systematically along three main axes. The first axis addressed the relationship between social interaction and space, drawing on studies in environmental psychology, spatial behaviour, perception, and user experience, with particular attention to spatial arrangement, visual perception, accessibility, seating configurations, and spatial density. The second axis focused on the concept of the third place and its transformation in contemporary urban life, examining how Oldenburg’s [1] framework has been reinterpreted through digitalization, flexible work patterns, and changing daily practices, and how third places contribute to belonging, everyday encounters, and community formation. The third axis examined social interaction in service and consumption spaces, drawing on the servicescape approach to analyze the effects of physical, atmospheric, and functional characteristics—such as lighting, furniture arrangement, flexibility, and management—on user behaviour and interaction.

By integrating these three axes, the study develops a holistic analytical framework that synthesizes spatial and social interaction parameters scattered across the literature and conceptually classifies the spatial characteristics shaping social interaction in hybrid third places.

3. Factors Affecting Social Interaction in Third Places

Research on factors affecting social interaction in third places builds on the characteristics identified by Oldenburg [1] but varies in scope (Table 1). These factors are associated with research domains such as Oldenburg’s [1] third place theory, public space studies, environmental psychology, and the psychological effects of space. Beyond the physical characteristics of third places, variables including affordability, inclusiveness, sense of security, management, facilities, and the presence of activities play a significant role in fostering social interaction. Despite the breadth of factors identified in previous studies, the literature remains limited in its ability to explain social interaction in hybrid third places. Existing research tends to generalize findings from traditional third-place typologies without sufficiently addressing the functional and spatial hybridity that characterizes contemporary environments. Consequently, how multiple and sometimes contradictory uses—such as working, individual withdrawal, and social engagement—coexist within the same space and shape interaction patterns remains largely unexplored.

Table 1. Studies on factors affect social interaction in third places.

Researcher(s)	Factors That Influence Social Interaction in Third Places	A Fundamental Approach to the Phenomenon
Oldenburg [1]	Neutral Ground, Levelers, Conversation, Accessibility, Presence of regulars, Low profile, Cheerful mood	He takes the concept of the third place from being an abstract sociological concept and reduces it to design and spatial decisions. However, the proposals are quite large-scale. Oldenburg describes the atmosphere of the space but does not explain which design decisions should be used to achieve this. According to Oldenburg [1], the third place is formed by spatial and managerial decisions that make human behaviour possible.
Campbell [10]	Atmosphere, Decoration, Comfort	This study examines third places in retirement communities from an interior design perspective. It does not directly measure social interaction; instead, it focuses on the likeability and frequency of use of the space. It argues that if a space is comfortable, beautiful, and cozy, people will use it, thus increasing social interaction.
Bernhardt and Stoll [11]	Location, Physical design, Management, Facilities, Activities	Oldenburg’s [1] concept of the third place is examined from the perspective of urban economics and spatial planning. Rather than a theoretical discussion, it offers practical and spatial principles on how to create third places that bring communities together. It argues that third places become community gathering points through planned design and proper programming. In other words, the third place does not arise spontaneously; it is designed.
Roberto [3]	Management, Location and Appearance, Atmosphere, Conversation	This study defines the third place not through spatial characteristics but through experience, introducing the concept of Third-placeness: and argues that this experience can be produced with digital tools.
Dana [12]	Location, Road, Entrance, Seating, Food, Lighting, Technology	This study explains the third-place experience entirely through the physical characteristics of the interior space. It focuses on how the design of the interior space affects the users’ third place experience. This study does not directly examine social interaction; it explains that the quality of the built environment provides the third-place experience.
Mehta and Bosson [13]	Personalization, providing shade, Providing seating, Permeability	It investigates how third places influence street life and public social interaction. This study examines how third places contribute to the social life of streets by providing physical conditions that allow people to stop, sit, and linger.
Rosenbaum et al. [8]	Presence of activities	It examines an activity-based third place café designed for seniors and demonstrate that social support, place attachment, and psychological restoration emerge through organized activities rather than merely seating or ambience but, the focus remains on a single user group and structured programs.

These studies, focusing on Oldenburg’s [1] third-place studies, address social interactions in third places in different ways. All of the examples given by Oldenburg [1] are single-function spaces (cafe, bar, bookstore, pub) and he describes social interaction as seating + conversation + atmosphere. Campbell [10] reflects a common assumption in the literature that social interaction increases as environmental comfort and aesthetic quality improve. Bernhardt and Stoll [11] highlight location, physical design, management, facilities, and particularly the presence of activities as key factors that encourage social interaction. However, while activities are acknowledged as important, the study does not elaborate on how diverse programs within the same space shape interaction patterns. Roberto [3] introduces the concept of “third-placeness,” shifting the focus from the physical characteristics of third places to the experiential qualities that make a space feel like a third place. Dana [12] explores the third-place experience through the lens of interior design, emphasizing how built environment elements such as entrance, seating, lighting, food services, and technology shape user perception. The study reflects a dominant view in the literature that third place qualities emerge from spatial comfort and interior design attributes. Mehta and Bosson [13] emphasize permeability, seating, shading, and the spatial relationship between the street and the place as key factors supporting social interaction. While this perspective highlights the importance of spatial provisions for staying, it does not address how diverse activities within the same environment may generate social interaction through movement and programmatic overlap. Rosenbaum et al. [8] among the few that highlight the importance of activity engagement in shaping social interaction in third places. However, the focus remains on a single user group and structured programs.

Other related studies include environmental psychology, space and social behaviour, and human-space interaction: Behaviours in Public Places [14] The sociology of sociability [15], social life of urban spaces [16], Personal space [17], Humanistic psychology and environmental design [18], social life and the city [19]. Environmental behaviour [20] Extensive and academically accepted studies on the relationship between social interaction and space have been used to support the arguments presented. These foundational studies provide a behavioural and sociological basis for understanding social interaction in hybrid third places. Building on this behavioural perspective, this study examines how social interaction in hybrid third places emerges not only from ambience but from movement, spatial encounters, and activity overlap within the environment. In the literature, the concept of the third place is mostly defined through practices of sitting, spending time, and conversing. This approach focuses on explaining social interaction through the interior atmosphere of the space and the static presence of the users. In contrast, this study argues that in hybrid third places, social interaction stems primarily from program diversity and overlapping user activities within the space, rather than from the interior qualities of the space itself. User movements, encounters, and interactions are shaped not by the atmosphere of the space, but by the coexistence of different functions and the spatial circulation patterns produced by these functions. In this context, the determinant of the hybrid third place experience is not the ambiance, but the programmatic diversity and the potential for encounters created by overlapping user activities within the space.

4. Social Interaction in Cafés and Café-like Service Environments

This section reviews studies examining cafés and café-like service environments—such as coffee shops, pubs, restaurants, and tea houses—in relation to social interaction. The existing literature encompasses a wide range of settings, including cafés [21], hybrid places combining multiple activities [8], chain cafés [22], traditional cafés [23], urban cafés [24], café service areas [25], coffee shops [26,27], fast food restaurants [28], and pubs [29].

Previous research has identified numerous spatial, atmospheric, and managerial factors influencing social interaction. Germain [22] demonstrated that management strategies, seating arrangements, music, and decoration can limit interaction between strangers in chain cafés, while Lim et al. [23] highlighted the role of ambience—such as furniture, lighting, cleanliness, and noise—in shaping sociality in traditional coffee shops. Similarly, Bookman [24] emphasized the combined influence of interior design and local community involvement in urban cafés. Studies on coffee shops further underlined the importance of environmental qualities including cleanliness, aroma, lighting, views, furniture [26], as well as media resources, technological amenities, novelty, and seating arrangements [27].

Other studies have addressed specific typologies and contextual factors. Tang and Zhang [30] showed that the presence of cats enhances sociability in cat cafés, while Cheang [28] identified accessibility, familiarity, affordability, and meeting opportunities as key determinants of sociability in fast food restaurants. Watts [29] classified the spatial and environmental features that promote interaction in pubs, including spatial dimensions, layout, bar design, lighting, music, acoustics, décor, and patron characteristics. Steigemann [31] further demonstrated that decoration, lighting, background noise, furniture, layout, service organization, and the presence of others collectively shape interaction patterns in cafés.

Focusing on service environments, Xuan [25] showed that customers’ evaluations of the service area positively affect interaction quality and conceptualized the service environment through five dimensions: environmental conditions, spatial layout and functionality, facility aesthetics, signs and symbols, and cleanliness. Finally, Holm [32] found that informal, inexpensive, low-threshold cafés representing urbanity were more strongly preferred by users. Together, these studies illustrate the multifaceted nature of social interaction in café environments (Table 2).

Table 2. Studies on the factors affecting social interaction in cafés and café-like service environments.

Researcher(s)	Scope of the Study	Factors Affecting Social Interaction
Dibazar et al. [33]	The relationship between third place characteristics and social interaction in cafes.	Conversation, friendly atmosphere, accessibility and regulars have the most impact on social interactions. Neutral ground, privacy and distance between people also affect social interaction. Convenient working hours, sense of place and belonging, sense of security increase social interaction.
Tang and Zhang [30]	Social interaction in the cat cafe.	The presence of cats in the cafe supports social interaction.
Germain [22]	Social interaction in chain coffee shops.	Management, Seating arrangement, Music, Decoration
Lim et al. [23]	The relationship between ambience and social interaction in coffee shops.	Artifacts, Cleaning, Furniture, Lighting, Noise
Bookman [24]	Urban Café Sociality.	Interior design and decor, Involvement of the local community.
Waxman [26]	Coffee Shops.	Cleanliness, Aroma, Adequate lighting, View, Furniture
Lozzi [27]	Coffee Shops.	Novelty, Media resources (newspapers, local and national), Wi-fi and power socket, Amenities (Amenities—TV, newspaper, notice board), Seating arrangement
Cheang [28]	Social interaction in fast-food restaurants	Central location (accessibility), Familiar physical environment components, always open, Easy parking, Publicity (attracting people), Suitable environment for meeting facilities, Affordability.
Watts [29]	Factors that increase social interaction in pubs.	The overall size and dimensions of the space, plan and seating options, Amenities, Bar table size and height, Lighting, Music, Sound-acoustics, Cosmetic decor, Regulars.
Steigemann [31]	Social interactions taking place in the café.	Decoration, lighting, background noise and music, furniture, layout, arrangement of goods and services offered (physical and symbolic), and the presence of other people affect social interaction.
Xuan [25]	The relationship between service scape and social interaction in the café	Ambient conditions, spatial layout and functionality, facility aesthetics, cleanliness, signs and symbols.
Holm [32]	Factors influencing the preference of cafes.	Inexpensive, Informal, Low threshold, Represent urbanity

Although the existing literature provides a rich inventory of factors influencing social interaction in cafés and café-like environments, it remains largely descriptive and fragmented. Most studies focus on identifying isolated physical, atmospheric, or managerial variables without offering an integrated conceptual framework to explain how these factors jointly shape social interaction patterns. Moreover, the majority of research concentrates on traditional café typologies, with limited attention to hybrid third places that combine multiple and sometimes contradictory functions. In addition, social interaction is generally treated as a uniform outcome, while differences in interaction types and intensities—ranging from passive co-presence to active conversation—are rarely theorized or systematically examined. Although several studies acknowledge the importance of ambience, layout, and service environments [23,25,31], the causal mechanisms linking specific spatial configurations to distinct forms of social behaviour remain insufficiently clarified. Furthermore, users’ intentions, social roles, and strategies of producing private space within public settings are largely overlooked, despite their growing relevance in contemporary café environments.

Consequently, the literature offers limited insight into how spatial, functional, and social hybridity structures social interaction in contemporary third places, indicating the need for an integrated, multidimensional, and behaviourally grounded approach.

5. The Relationship Between Spatial Characteristics and Social Interaction in Hybrid Third Places

All social interactions are shaped by the physical environments in which they occur, as spatial organization structures both patterns of use and interpersonal behaviour in hybrid third places [34]. Kotler [35] conceptualized the physical environment through the notion of “atmospherics,” integrating sensory dimensions such as visual qualities, sound, tactile conditions, and scent. Building on this perspective, Bitner [36] introduced the concept of “service scape” to describe the physical environment of service settings and identified three core components: environmental conditions, spatial layout and functionality, and signs, symbols, and artifacts. According to the servicescape model, these environmental qualities shape users’ perceptions and trigger emotional, cognitive, and physiological responses, which in turn influence social interactions and behavioural outcomes such as approach or avoidance [37]. Based on this theoretical foundation, the present study conceptualizes the spatial characteristics of hybrid third places through four interrelated dimensions: physical, social, atmospheric, and functional characteristics (Figure 2). Physical characteristics include location, urban relationships, and spatial form; social characteristics refer to privacy, sense of security, belonging, and user-generated social atmosphere; atmospheric characteristics encompass environmental conditions such as temperature, ventilation, and acoustic comfort; and functional characteristics describe activities, actions, and behavioural patterns supported by the space. This framework synthesizes previous studies to explain how spatial characteristics structure social interaction.

Figure 2. Spatial characteristics of hybrid third places and previous studies. (1. Alexander et al [20], 2. Bernhardt & Stoll [11], 3. Bitner [36], 4. Blower [38], 5. Bookman [24], 6. Brand [39], 7. Bratton [40], 8. Campbell [10], 9. Campbell [41], 10. Cheang [28], 11. Crick [5], 12. Dana [12], 13. Dibazar, et al. [33], 14. Gehl [42], 15. Germain [22], 16. Güney [43], 17. Gür [44], 18. Hampton & Gupta [45], 19. Hickman [46], 20. Holm [32], 21. Jacobs [19], 22. Kato, et al. [47], 23. Kotler [35], 24. Köknar [48], 25. Lim, et al. [23], 26. Lindborg [49], 27. Low [50], 28. Lozzi [27], 29. Manzo [51], 30. Marcus & Francis [52], 31. Mehta & Bosson [13], 32. Milliman [53], 33. Oldenburg [1], 34. Raine [34], 35. Roberto [3], 36. Rosenbaum & Massiah [54], 37. Rosenbaum, et al. [8], 38. Sarıberberoğlu [55], 39. Scharenborg & Larson [56], 40. Scott [57], 41. Seamon [18], 42. Sıramkaya [58], 43. Sommer [17], 44. Steigemann [31], 45. Ünlü, et al. [59], 46. Watts [29], 47. Waxman [26], 48. Whyte [16], 49. Woldoff, et al. [60], 50. Zemke & Shoemaker [61]).

Although numerous studies have examined factors affecting social interaction in third places and cafés, several important gaps remain. First, social interaction is generally treated as a homogeneous concept, without a hierarchical classification of interaction intensity ranging from passive co-presence to active conversation [1,22,23,26,27,33]. Second, spatial characteristics are addressed in a fragmented manner, with studies focusing separately on physical [12,23,26,29], atmospheric [10,31], or managerial factors [3,11,22], while integrated frameworks encompassing physical, social, atmospheric, and functional dimensions remain limited. Third, the causal relationships between specific spatial attributes and distinct forms of social interaction have not been sufficiently clarified [22,23,27,31]. Moreover, existing research predominantly examines traditional café and restaurant typologies, whereas hybrid third places—where working, individual withdrawal, and social engagement coexist—have received limited attention [8]. Finally, the role of the production of private space within public settings has been largely overlooked, despite its growing relevance in contemporary third-place practices [25,27,33].

Although the literature identifies various environmental, spatial, and atmospheric factors affecting social interaction in third places, these studies predominantly conceptualize third places as mono-functional, static environments where conversation is the primary activity. While some studies mention the presence of activities, they do not explore how programmatic diversity and overlapping user activities shape social interaction. There is a lack of research investigating hybrid third places where reading, exhibition, working, and leisure coexist and where social interaction emerges through movement, activity overlap, and spatial scenarios rather than seating and ambience. This study moves beyond ambience-driven explanations of social interaction in third places and proposes that in hybrid environments, social interaction is primarily shaped by programmatic diversity, activity overlap, and spatial movement rather than seating arrangements or atmospheric comfort.

5.1. Location

Centrally located and easily accessible places where users can meet on a daily basis tend to function as more social environments [1,3,11,12,20,28]. Location is closely related to accessibility, as accessible places are typically situated near workplaces or homes and are readily available to meet people’s needs for socialization and relaxation [1]. Places located along individuals’ daily routes are more likely to be frequented [12]. The easier a place is to access without additional effort, the more likely it is that people will use it regularly and incorporate it into their everyday lives [20].

5.2. Space

Successful third places consist of spaces that promote social interaction. The physical characteristics of the space have a direct impact on user experience and behaviour. The size and dimensions of the space, together with its spatial layout and seating configurations, are intrinsically linked to the characteristics of the environment and play a decisive role in shaping patterns, intensity, and forms of social interaction.

5.2.1. General Dimensions and Measures of Space

Users’ behaviour in a space is influenced by its dimensions and proportions, such as height, width, and depth, even if this influence is not consciously perceived. Brand [39] found that higher or sloping ceilings encourage social interaction, indicating that ceiling height affects the perception of room size and social behaviour in space. Room size also plays a significant role: larger and more spacious places tend to better support social interaction [58].

5.2.2. Spatial Layout

Spatial structure plays a key role in encouraging social interaction in service environments such as cafés and restaurants. Spaces that are visually connected, provide wide and uninterrupted views, and have circular or integrated layouts tend to support more intense interaction [58]. Perceived smaller space sizes and subdivided areas increase social interaction by enhancing comfort and a sense of enclosure [29]. When users feel partially protected and their privacy needs are met, they are more willing to engage in social and intimate conversations. While large, undivided spaces may intimidate users and reduce use [52], subdivided and human-scale areas encourage occupancy and interaction [12].

Flexible spatial layouts further enhance social vibrancy by accommodating different activities and group sizes [44]. High levels of visual connectivity support socialization, whereas excessive visual and acoustic separation reduces interaction [18,55,59]. Creating smaller, semi-enclosed seating areas through partitions or half walls improves comfort, supports proximity, and responds to users’ preference for privacy without fully isolating them [29,41].

5.2.3. Layout and Seating Options

Oldenburg [1] identifies seating as the second (after conversation) most important factor in successful third places, emphasizing that arrangements allowing strangers to sit next to each other can promote social interaction. Hybrid third place cafés should offer seating options for individuals, couples, and groups. Large tables support interaction among strangers, whereas smaller tables facilitate quieter and more intimate conversations [60]. Spatial design and furniture mutually shape social interaction [39]. Seating that limits individual work and reduces opportunities for isolation encourages conversation, while layouts that support computer use and access to power outlets tend to promote productivity rather than sociability [27].

Comfortable, movable, and diverse seating increases users’ tendency to linger and supports different patterns of interaction [11,12,26]. Visual contact and physical proximity encourage face-to-face communication [29]. Flexible seating allows users to rearrange the space, form groups, and personalize their environment, strengthening sociability and feeling of being at home [29].

5.3. Ambient Conditions

Ambient conditions in service environments, as defined by Bitner [36], include temperature, lighting, colour, sound, smell, and air quality. Inappropriate ambient settings negatively affect users’ overall perception and comfort, for example, when temperature or background music levels are unsuitable. As these conditions influence psychological states and behaviour, they also shape users’ relationships with the space and with others. Functionally compatible spaces with a comfortable indoor climate are therefore more likely to support social interaction.

5.3.1. Smell, Ventilation and Temperature

Smell, which is closely linked to memory and place experience, is identified by Bitner [36] as an important environmental condition and plays a key role in how individuals attribute meaning to and interpret a space [50]. Although the appropriate scent for cafés is not clearly defined, the prevailing smell of coffee is generally perceived positively and contributes to customer loyalty [26]. Zemke and Shoemaker [61] showed that appropriate scents can enhance interaction behaviour, whereas poor air quality, insufficient ventilation, and unpleasant smells reduce dwell time and social interaction. For this reason, cafés should ensure effective natural and mechanical ventilation and avoid disturbing smells; for example, smoking is prohibited and the use of strong perfumes is restricted in Starbucks to preserve the coffee scent [34]. Thermal comfort is also essential for both indoor and outdoor seating areas, requiring shading and cooling in summer and heating in colder conditions to sustain user comfort and social interaction.

5.3.2. Natural Light and Lighting

Natural light and lighting levels strongly influence social interaction in cafés. Appropriate brightness supports visual contact and the perception of gestures and facial expressions, which are essential for face-to-face communication [29]. While excessive lighting may cause discomfort [39], sufficient and well-balanced natural and artificial lighting attracts users and encourages longer stays [12]. Spaces illuminated by natural light are perceived as more attractive and supportive of social interaction [20,58]. Brand [35,39] found that rooms with windows, especially with greater window height, enhance social attractiveness due to the mood-enhancing effects of daylight. Similarly, Germain [22] reported that cafés with large windows encourage customers to remain longer and engage more in social interaction.

5.3.3. Noise and Acoustic Comfort

Noise control and acoustic comfort significantly influence social interaction in indoor environments [23,26,29,31,36]. Poor acoustic conditions and excessive noise negatively affect psychological comfort, hinder conversation, and reduce willingness to interact [11,29]. Reverberation and inadequate material properties make it difficult to hear others, whereas acoustic comfort increases dwell time and supports communication [26]. Appropriate material choices and design elements are therefore essential for achieving acoustic comfort.

Low and balanced sound levels allow users to hear each other clearly and may even stimulate interaction by encouraging conversation [29]. Bernhardt and Stoll [11] found that moderate background ‘buzz’ in third places enhances sociability by attracting people and providing acoustic masking for privacy. Similarly, the presence of ambient human noise allows users to retreat, observe, and join others when desired, increasing spatial attractiveness [54]. While silence or the absence of music can encourage interaction in some contexts [29], controlled background music is often used to maintain privacy and mask unwanted sounds. As Bitner [36] notes, excessive or disturbing noise causes physical discomfort and avoidance behaviour, underscoring the importance of acoustic control for sustaining social interaction.

5.3.4. Music

Bitner [36] identifies music as a key environmental dimension in service settings, strongly influencing customer behaviour and interaction [2,11,26,29,31,35,36]. In cafés, background music can reduce social barriers and facilitate face-to-face interaction [62], while also shaping users’ perception and meaning of the social environment. Music tempo and type affect customers’ length of stay [53]; high tempo and loud music hinder communication and reduce dwell time [22]. Although background music may impede conversation, it can also support privacy through acoustic masking [47]. The type and volume of music contribute to the overall atmosphere and communicate cues about the environment [49]. However, the specific effects of musical characteristics remain limited, as complex music and lyrics have been shown to significantly reduce speech recognition and conversational clarity [56].

5.4. Aesthetics and Interior Design

According to Oldenburg [1], third places should have simple and unpretentious décor to appeal to a broad public. Watts [29] found that interiors reflecting the local community and creating comfort encourage social interaction, while casual and cozy furnishings increase dwell time [10]. In contrast, dirty, worn, or uncomfortable furniture reduces preference and the social value of the environment. Furniture arrangement and spacing influence proximity and interaction, and seating capacity shapes both user density and patterns of use [18].

Decoration is a key determinant of atmosphere and identity, encompassing colour, materials, textures, signage, furnishing style, and wall treatments. Campbell [41] identifies homely and casual décor as a defining feature of third places and reports higher use and preference for new and well-maintained interiors. Colour acts as an immediate emotional stimulus, while material quality, artwork, and personal objects convey symbolic meaning and create an overall aesthetic impression that supports comfort, sense of place, and social interaction [36].

5.5. Amenities and Activities

Amenities are tangible or intangible services and facilities that add value to service environments and play an important role in shaping social interaction in third places and cafés [11,27,29,60]. Common amenities include newspapers, Wi-Fi, power outlets, television, books, and bulletin boards [27]. While internet access may attract more customers [29], it may also weaken the sense of community characteristic of third places [63]. Amenities that increase dwell time, such as outdoor seating, meeting areas, and free Wi-Fi, tend to enhance active social interaction [11]. Bulletin boards further support community engagement by enabling information sharing and communication among individuals and local groups [24].

Oldenburg [1] notes that games and shared activities create a cheerful atmosphere and encourage sociability. Contemporary cafés increasingly host workshops, conversations, and reading events that help break social barriers. Research shows that shared emotional states increase communication and the likelihood of dialogue [40]. Rosenbaum et al. [8] found that cafés offering social activities alongside food and drinks promote well-being, facilitate friendship formation, and support more intensive forms of social interaction.

5.6. Social Components

In the formation of a third place, social components are as influential as physical ones in promoting social interaction. Users construct meaning through shared presence and are shaped not only by direct interactions but also by the surrounding social atmosphere. The social and physical environments form an integrated whole that mutually influences behaviour. In cafés, key social components include the presence of regular customers and the attitudes of management and staff. Their impact is closely related to the inclusivity of the space and its capacity to bring diverse users together.

5.6.1. Presence of Regulars

Regular patrons are a defining feature of third places that promote social interaction [4,5,33,46]. Oldenburg [1] identifies the presence of regulars as the most important factor linking third places to sociability. Through repeated visits, users encounter others with similar routines, develop familiarity, and form attachment to the place [64]. Such revisited and emotionally bonded spaces are therefore more socially successful. Over time, users become ‘familiar strangers,’ feeling comfortable in each other’s presence even without direct interaction.

5.6.2. Management and Staff

Management-related factors such as opening hours, service quality, staff behaviour, and house rules shape the social environment of cafés. Customers’ length of stay is influenced by management attitudes, staff friendliness, and the social character of the space [26]. Watts [29] describes the bartender as a key social facilitator who encourages interaction and helps build a regular clientele, while Manzo [51] and Bernhardt and Stoll [11] emphasize the role of friendly staff in supporting face-to-face interaction.

Inclusivity is central to sociability in third places. Cafés that are open, affordable, and welcoming to diverse user groups enable people to feel safe, included, and part of a community [11]. In contrast, restricted access, high prices, formal requirements, and dress codes characterize less inclusive environments and limit social interaction [12].

5.7. The Relationship with the City

Cafés function not only as places of consumption but also as urban third places that foster social life and vitality [16]. By attracting people and creating lively social environments, successful third places contribute to economic balance, sense of place, and sense of community in the city [11]. In this context, observation and being observed play a central role in urban socialization, as individuals tend to follow the behaviours of others and seek inclusion through daily public practices [48].

Jacobs’s concept of ‘eyes on the street’ [19] highlights the relationship between observation, safety, and urban sociality. Cafés that visually and physically connect to the street through large windows or outdoor seating support this dynamic by enabling users to see and be seen. Facade design, entrances, permeability, personalization, seating, and shaded outdoor areas therefore influence social interactions both within the café and in the surrounding urban space.

5.7.1. Facade and Entrance

The entrance and façade of a café shape its relationship with public space and the city and directly influence the social environment within. Entrance design and street connection affect social interaction by enabling visual access and informal evaluation before entry [12,16,32,54]. When passers-by can see into the space, visual contact encourages spontaneous entry without deliberate decision-making [12]. For this reason, entrances should be clearly perceptible, physically accessible, and perceived as distinct places within the urban fabric [52]. Visible, inviting, and intriguing entrances that allow visual interaction attract users and support socialization.

5.7.2. Personalization

Personalization refers to the modification of the physical environment of space by management to a specific design style. Personalizing the street façade of a social space attracts passers-by, encourages entry, and creates moments to pause and observe, thereby generating opportunities for conversation and social interaction [13]. Notice boards created by users in the social space, local decorations referencing various historical events and place identity are examples of personalization options.

5.7.3. Permeability and Landscape

Permeable and transparent façades allow passers-by to perceive activities inside cafés and foster a sense of invitation and participation [13,32]. Visual access lowers the barrier to entry by enabling potential users to evaluate the interior in advance [32], while blurred boundaries between street and interior successfully attract people and support socialization [12]. The mutual desire to see and to be seen links street life and café life: passers-by are drawn to visible activities, and café users engage with the urban scene. Accordingly, seating is often oriented toward active public areas [42]. Café terraces, large windows, and visually open transitions connect interior and exterior spaces, creating a continuous social environment between the café and the street [24].

5.7.4. Presence of Seating

Sidewalk cafés function as ‘eyes on the street,’ creating lively social environments while contributing to urban safety [13]. They support contemporary forms of socialization such as observing urban life, seeing and being seen, feeling part of the community, and engaging in solitary presence within a public setting.

5.7.5. Presence of Shading Elements

Outdoor areas should include hard surfaces, shading elements, and weather protection to ensure comfort [11]. In third places such as cafés, outdoor seating combined with food and social activities encourages longer stays and promotes sociability [13].

6. Case Study on Three Book Cafes Defined as Hybrid Third Places

The spatial characteristics and social interaction relationships obtained through literature research were reinforced by case study conducted in three book cafes, which are defined as hybrid third places. The case study was conducted in three book cafes with the same concept, located in the Üsküdar district of Istanbul and operated by the Üsküdar Municipality: Nevmekan Bağlarbaşı, Nevmekan Selimiye, and Nevmekan Sahil (Figure 3). The Nevmekan cafes, chosen as the case study area, possess hybrid third-place characteristics because they are structures that combine diverse functions such as a cafe, exhibition hall, and library. Although these spaces are called book cafes, they differ from traditional book cafes. In NevMekan book cafes, where the cafe acts as a catalyst, people can spend time and participate in various activities without paying any fees. In NevMekan book cafes, the boundaries between different functions within the space are often unclear. This allows people with varying levels of social interaction and behaviours to coexist.

Figure 3. Nevmekan book cafes’ locations in Üsküdar, İstanbul. (Snazzy maps).

The selected cafes were evaluated through participant observation, surveys, and interviews based on the following criteria: location, overall size and dimensions of the space, layout and seating options, natural light and lighting, spatial design, aesthetics and interior design, noise and acoustic comfort, music, management and staff, inclusiveness, presence of regulars, facilities, activities, ambient conditions, scent, relationship with the city (facade and entrance, personalization, permeability, seating units), and related aspects such as interior architecture, ceiling height, colors, cladding materials, furniture, location of electrical outlets, view, availability of outdoor seating, flexible furniture, and other important features.

Case Study Methodology, Implementation, and Data Analysis

In the book cafes where the case study was conducted, participant observation, behaviour maps, interviews, and surveys were used.

Participatory Observations: The aim of the observations was to identify the spatial characteristics that encourage social interaction and the activities performed by users within the space. Spatial characteristics included distinct features such as location, layout, furniture, decoration, and relationship with the city, while social interactions such as chatting, watching the street, or preferring to be alone and observe other people were observed along with the users’ social roles. Various notes were taken during the observations. The observations were conducted as participant observations, with participants spending varying periods of time between 1 and 5 h as customers in cafes at different times of the day.

Behaviour Maps: Social interactions observed during the study were categorized into four different levels based on their intensity, and the locations where these interactions occurred were marked on the floor plans. This marking was done during three different time intervals throughout the day (10:00–12:00/14:00–17:00/19:00–21:00). These behavioural maps were combined to reveal the overall usage of the space. This allowed for an analysis of the relationship between the seating arrangement and overall design of the space and the social interactions that took place. The behavioural maps also aimed to identify the most popular seating units in the space, the seating unit preferences of users with different social roles, and user circulation within the space.

Survey and Interview Applications: A survey consisting of open-ended and multiple-choice questions was conducted with a total of 60 randomly selected individuals in book cafes. Interviews were conducted with 16 individuals selected from those who participated in the face-to-face survey. Participants were asked to answer questions of their choice from the open-ended survey or to provide other comments about the establishment. The survey was conducted both online and in person, and participants were randomly selected from cafe users over the age of 18 on different days. The survey investigated the satisfaction levels of users with the spatial characteristics of the cafe and the factors influencing their choice of the cafe, based on their various social interactions.

NevMekan Book Cafes as a Hybrid Third Place

Nevmekan book cafes fit the definition of a hybrid third place with their multi-layered structures that bring together different activities such as eating and drinking, reading, working, socializing, and organizing cultural events and exhibitions. These buildings, originally intended for different functions but transformed into book cafes by the Üsküdar municipality, allow people to spend time there without paying any fees or ordering food and drinks. While varying in location and with diverse spatial characteristics, they all share similar functions, including exhibition spaces, food and beverage areas, and reading areas.

Nevmekan Bağlarbaşı: Originally an electricity factory, the building was converted into a book cafe in 2015. The ground floor and mezzanine of this industrial heritage building are used as a book café (Figure 4). Offering flexible seating and a wide selection of books, the cafe also serves food and drinks. The basement houses an exhibition hall, showcasing a historic tram car and an electric motor. Operated by the Üsküdar Municipality, the building is free to visit. There are seating areas in both the front and back gardens.

Figure 4. Interior view of Nevmekan Bağlarbaşı.

Nevmekan Selimiye: Nevmekan Selimiye was created by the restoration and adaptive reuse of the historic Selimiye Hamam (Turkish bath) by the Üsküdar Municipality. The building is located in a densely populated residential area where neighbourhood life is still preserved. While the building itself serves as an exhibition space, it also functions as a café and library, hosting various exhibitions and cultural and artistic events. A portion of the two-story building is used as a bath museum. The private rooms on the second floor are generally preferred by students and people working on their computers (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Interior view of Nevmekan Selimiye.

Nevmekan Sahil: Located on the Üsküdar coastline and originally a wedding hall, the building covers an area of eight thousand square meters, with three thousand square meters indoors and five thousand square meters outdoors. It houses a library, a book café, an exhibition hall, and venues for events such as talks and concerts. Nevmekan Sahil is situated in a location that can be considered the centre of the city. The book café, located under a central dome, offers tables with sea views and quiet study areas, as well as a parking lot, a children’s play area, and outdoor seating areas (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Interior view of Nevmekan Sahil.

7. Data Analysis: Social Interaction in Hybrid Third Place Book Cafes

Participatory Observation: In this study, hybrid third-place cafes were observed at different times of the day, and various inferences were made about the behaviour of cafe users and the characteristics of the cafe space. Participant observations conducted in book cafes, a hybrid third-place setting, identified the social roles and interactions of users in five main groups.

Regulars: According to Oldenburg [1] regulars are users who facilitate the adaptation of newcomers to the space and play a decisive role in the formation of the social atmosphere of the third place.

Users Who Utilize the Space as a Productive Environment: These users are now using third places not only for socializing but also for work and production, thanks to technological advancements. In this context, hybrid third places can be defined as “homes away from home” as well as “offices away from offices”; they are particularly preferred by student groups and freelancers.

Loners: loners constitute an important part of today’s urban cafe culture. In Nevmekan book cafes, a large part of this group consists of “productive loners”; as defined by Hampton and Gupta [45] they participate indirectly in the social environment of the space by hiding behind books or computer screens. The relative separation of the space from the street, together with the opportunity to wander among the shelves, supports this form of use.

Social guests: Social guests are the largest user group, consisting of two or more people who use the space to spend time chatting. This group interacts only with other users outside their own group, in a manner consistent with Goffman’s [14] concept of “civil inattention.” It has been observed that social guests prefer private, corner, and semi-enclosed areas within the space.

Explorers: Those who explore hybrid third spaces are the group that distinguishes them from traditional third places and most strongly influences the social atmosphere of the place. These places, which meet the quest for innovation and discovery through events such as exhibitions, talks, and workshops in historical buildings, become points of attraction for city dwellers and tourists. This group is one of the fundamental reasons for the emergence of the contemporary understanding of third places and hybrid third places (Table 3).

Table 3. The social roles and social interactions of hybrid third-place users.

Social Role	The Social Interactions They Engaged in and Their Impact on the Social Character of the Space
Regulars	According to Oldenburg [1], they help newcomers to the place to integrate.
Users Who Utilize the Space as a Productive Environment	They consist of freelancers or students who work in isolation within their ‘protective shields’. They can be individual or in groups. They are thought to be detrimental to socialization. However, even if collaborative groups are not actively involved, they still engage in social interaction with each other.
Loners	Loners may use the cafe as a productive space, or they may engage in passive social interaction by observing the street or other cafe patrons.
Social Guests	It refers to groups that come together for conversation. They engage in active social interaction.
Explorers	It refers to a group of people who come to a place to see and be seen, seeking novelty. They may interact at different levels. They may be alone or in a group.

Socializing extracts the serious essence of life, leaving only the pure pleasure of togetherness and the companionship of others [15]. Building on Simmel’s [15] definition of socializing in third places, Oldenburg [1] states that conversation is the primary activity in these settings. The most intense social interaction that occurs in a cafe setting is people have a conversation with each other. Therefore, in this study, conversation has been termed ‘First-Order Intensity Social Interaction’. The ability for people to see and hear each other without feeling disturbed, and to position themselves appropriately, are fundamental conditions necessary for this interaction to take place. Conversation in a cafe setting usually takes place among ‘social guests. People might gather in a cafe to work together, to produce something individually or collectively. Unlike the sterile environment of a library, a cafe allows people to have brief interactions and short conversations during short breaks while working. The interaction between these users, who work and produce together, is coded as ‘Second-Order Intensity Social Interaction’. This type of interaction requires people to be able to sit together at a table. Amenities such as tables for 4–5 people, internet access, and power outlets enable people to work together and develop social interaction. Second-degree intensity social interaction generally occurs among those who ‘use the space as a productive area.’ A cafe environment is not merely a place where active social interactions take place. Rather, it is a public space-like environment where people who do not know each other engage in passive social interaction. Instantaneous interactions between people sharing the same space, such as making eye contact, encountering each other, observing the surroundings and other people, and being observed, are coded as ‘Third-Degree Intensity Social Interaction’. Interactions such as customers visiting a cafe alone, sitting at a table by the sidewalk and watching people pass by, or micro-interactions occurring among people moving around the cafe, lingering to order, or looking at a painting on the wall, can be considered in this category. Third-level intensity social interactions, which occur among everyone using the cafe, take place to the extent that the space offers people opportunities for lingering and encountering other people. In hybrid third-place cafes, decorative elements such as displayed items, bookshelves, or various paintings increase the likelihood of interactions at this level (Table 4).

Table 4. Social interaction intensity levels and actions performed by cafe users.

Interaction Intensity	Definition of Social Interaction and Users Who Engage in It	Type of Interaction
First-Degree Intensity	Conversation: Face-to-face conversation, usually between two or more people who know each other. It is often cheerful and is the most intense type of social interaction in a cafe.	Planned interactions
Second-Degree Intensity	Working together: This includes small, often quiet but enjoyable social interactions with familiar strangers sharing a desk, such as brief conversations and eye contact.	Passive interactions Incidental interactions
Third-Degree Intensity	Instantaneous Interactions: This includes passive social interactions such as making brief eye contact, encountering someone, observing the surroundings and people, and being observed. It usually occurs between people who do not know each other.	Passive interactions
Fourth-Degree Intensity	Low-Interactions: Interactions carried out by solitary individuals who create their own private spaces with protective shields such as books and screens. Typically undertaken by those who use the space for productivity.	Para-social interactions

Nowadays, cafes are not always frequented by people eager for social interaction. Some people avoid social interaction and create their own private space within the cafe. They generally use computers or reading materials as “portable involvement shields” as described by Goffman [14], and therefore engage in almost no social interaction with other customers. Their basic behaviour is consistent with Goffman’s [14] “civil inattention.” These low-level interactions, typically undertaken by those using the space for productivity, are coded as “Fourth-Order Intensity Social Interaction” (Table 4).

Behaviour Maps

Although the management of NevMekan Bağlarbaşı has not set any rules, those who use the space as a productive area generally prefer the first floor. The ground floor is used by groups for conversation. The library, tram, and electric motor on display on the ground floor, as well as the piano on the first floor, create a setting for social interaction between people who do not know each other (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Social interaction intensity maps of Nevmekan Bağlarbaşı.

At NevMekan Selimiye, face-to-face conversations, usually between two or more people who know each other, are defined as First Degree Intensity Social Interaction. These typically take place on the ground floor and in the garden. Collaborative work, defined as Second Degree Intensity Social Interaction, occurs mostly in small rooms on the first floor. In these units, where each user has their own table and can sit at a certain distance from other users, people who know each other work together, engage in short conversations, and meet new people. Passive social interactions, defined as momentary interactions such as eye contact, encounters, observing the surroundings and people, and being observed, usually occurring between people who do not know each other, are defined as Third Degree Intensity Social Interactions. These interactions take place at the cafe entrance, in front of the payment counter, in circulation areas, and in the exhibition area. Low-intensity interactions, which are carried out by solitary individuals who create their own private spaces with protective shields such as books and screens, are defined as Fourth Degree Intensity Social Interactions. Due to the small compartments in the interior, the number of people engaging in this type of interaction inside is quite low. However, it was observed that certain tables on the ground floor were being used for this purpose. In the garden, this type of interaction was seen among users sitting near the building entrance who were using their mobile phones as protective shields (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Social interaction intensity maps of Nevmekan Selimiye.

The arrangement of the exhibition hall, café, and reading room at NevMekan Sahil as separate spaces, unlike the other two cafés, has resulted in significantly different social interactions among users. In this building with very high user circulation, the library, the artworks in the exhibition hall and the building’s interesting details create a setting for Level 3 social interaction. The café, where people who know each other chat, supports Level 1 social interaction, while the piano located there creates an environment for interaction among those who do not know each other. The library, located in the basement of the building, is a productivity area where Level 4 social interaction takes place (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Social interaction intensity maps of Nevmekan Sahil.

A behavioural mapping study conducted at Nevmekan book cafes identified four different levels of social interactions by users, determined the intensity of these interactions, and analyzed the relationship between these interactions and the characteristics of the space. The results obtained are as follows.

• At Nevmekan Bağlarbaşı, the open spaces and a large part of the ground floor are used for socializing, while the mezzanine floor, a quieter and more peaceful area with large tables, serves as a productivity space.
• Nevmekan Selimiye is primarily used for productivity. This is due to its design, which consists of private rooms for 4–5 people, and its location within a residential area.
• Nevmekan Sahil, due to its location, is frequently used by many anonymous visitors. The library, which serves as a productivity area, is physically separated. Tables facing the sea view are the most popular spots and are generally preferred by groups coming to socialize.
• In a physical space, objects that capture the user’s attention, such as reading materials, pianos, historically significant or noteworthy items, and paintings on the walls, provide momentary distraction and encourage social interaction. Similarly, payment points are locations where nonverbal social interaction is at its highest among strangers.
• Partially enclosed seating units, offering a high degree of privacy but visually dominating the overall space, are used by groups who utilize the space for productivity rather than active social interaction.
• Seating units separated from the ground by a certain height difference, located in the centre of the space (away from windows without a view), and in a position overlooking the street when weather conditions permit, are preferred by groups using the space for socialization (first-degree social interaction).
• The main factors determining the distribution of groups or individuals using the space for productive purposes with their computers are the location of power sources and the management decisions made by the cafe.
• Seating units that offer a commanding view, a distinctive design, greater comfort compared to other seating units, and a sense of exclusivity to the customer are more preferred by social groups, and they tend to stay in these units for longer periods.
• The relatively large size of the space, the excessive space between seating units, and the high user turnover with low stay durations negatively affect social interaction among foreigners, reducing the length of stay for users outside of the groups present for socialization and negatively impacting spontaneous interactions.
• Families with children tend to prefer sitting near areas designated for children’s play, such as a children’s book section, which allows families with children and the children themselves to come together and interact.

Survey and Interviews

As part of the study, 25 questions were asked to 28, 13, and 18 people, respectively, at Nevmekan Bağlarbaşı, Nevmekan Selimiye, and Nevmekan Sahil cafes; 12 of these questions were multiple-choice and 13 were open-ended. A total of 16 people randomly selected from among those who completed the survey, were also interviewed. During the interviews, users were asked detailed questions about the characteristics of the space and their reasons for using it. The results obtained from surveys and interviews can be summarized as follows.

User Profile: According to the survey results, Nevmekan Selimiye has the highest percentage of regulars (13.3%), while this rate is 5.3% at Nevmekan Bağlarbaşı. No participant indicated that they were a regular at Nevmekan Sahil. This discrepancy is thought to be influenced by the cafes’ locations. Nevmekan Sahil, being in a central location, has a more heterogeneous user profile. 20% of Nevmekan Sahil users stated they live in another city, compared to 15% for Nevmekan Bağlarbaşı.

Reasons for Visiting: NevMekân cafes are visited for various reasons, including studying, socializing with existing friends, using the library, visiting exhibitions, or attending events. In all three cafes, the primary reason for visits was to meet with existing friends (Nevmekan Bağlarbaşı 78.9%—Nevmekan Sahil 80%—Nevmekan Selimiye 66.7%). The percentage of visitors coming to study was 36.8% for Nevmekan Bağlarbaşı, 60% for Nevmekan Selimiye, and 13.3% for Nevmekan Sahil. The spatial arrangement and layout contributed to this. Nevmekan Selimiye’s layout, consisting of small rooms, and its perception as a quiet and peaceful place, increased its use for productivity

The survey results indicate that NevMekan book cafés function as hybrid third places that exhibit significant differences in intended use, user profiles, and spatial perceptions, while also displaying shared patterns (Table 5). The values that indicate statistical significance among the survey results shown in Table 5 are highlighted with a colored background. The findings reveal that the primary purpose of use in all three venues is socializing with friends, with this being particularly high at NevMekan Sahil, while study and computer use are more prominent at NevMekan Selimiye. It appears that the vast majority of users come to these venues with people they know, that the motivation to meet new people is quite low, and that third places primarily serve the function of maintaining existing social relationships. NevMekan Sahil appears to have a more open appeal to the wider city. While the attractiveness of the interior, affordability, and library/study facilities were decisive factors in the venue selection, NevMekan Selimiye stands out particularly in terms of economic accessibility and library infrastructure. Behavioural patterns show that while conversation and eating/drinking are the dominant activities in all venues, viewing the scenery, spending time with family, and participating in activities are more strongly evident at NevMekan Sahil. In terms of spatial perception, NevMekan Selimiye is considered a calmer, more peaceful, and private environment, while NevMekan Sahil has a higher noise level but strong potential for visual experience and interaction with the city. In terms of emotional experiences, the study reveals that productivity and a sense of privacy are more prominent in NevMekan Selimiye, the perception of belonging and sociability is relatively balanced in NevMekan Bağlarbaşı, and positive emotions are more prominent in NevMekan Sahil. An examination of interaction patterns reveals that chance encounters are limited, small talk is relatively more frequent, especially at NevMekan Selimiye, and deep interaction with strangers generally remains at a low level. Overall, the findings suggest that hybrid third places function more to maintain existing relationships, promote individual productivity, and support emotional well-being through spatial experience rather than establishing new social relationships, and that each space attracts different social roles depending on its location, program, and physical characteristics.

Table 5. Results of the survey and inferences based on the obtained data.

Reason for Using the Space	Bağlarbaşı	Selimiye	Sahil	Inferences
Studying/Doing work on the computer	46.4%	53.8%	33.3%	NevMekan Selimiye is preferred as a productive space thanks to its spatial design. In contrast, at NevMekan Bağlarbaşı, the library functions as a decorative element.
To hold my work-related meetings.	3.6%	23.1%	11.1%
Socializing with friends	78.6%	69.2%	88.9%
Meeting new people	0%	0%	0%
Participating in events	14.3%	0%	16.7%
Visiting the exhibition hall	14.3%	7.7%	38.9%
Using the library	3.6%	23.1%	22.2%
To see/experience the structure more closely	21.4%	30.8%	22.2%
Spending time alone	32.1%	46.2%	38.9%
Socializing in the space	Bağlarbaşı	Selimiye	Sahil	Inferences
I usually spend time alone.	57.1%	46.2%	38.9%	NevMekan Sahil is preferred by families and social groups. This is due to its location and amenities such as parking and a children’s playground.
I go alone and meet new people.	0%	7.7%	5.6%
I go alone and usually I accidentally run into someone I know.	7.1%	0%	11.1%
I usually go with people I know.	85.7%	84.6%	94.4%
User’s location	Bağlarbaşı	Selimiye	Sahil	Inferences
I live in the same neighbourhood as the book cafe.	25%	30.8%	5.6%	NevMekan Sahil appeals to tourists and the entire city thanks to its location and exhibition hall.
I live in Üsküdar.	46.4%	30.8%	33.3%
I live in Istanbul.	46.4%	38.5%	50%
I live in another city.	2%	7.7%	11.1%
Reasons for choosing this place	Bağlarbaşı	Selimiye	Sahil	Inferences
Service quality and menu	25%	69.2%	44.8%	Although the menu and prices are the same, NevMekan Selimiye is considered more affordable. This is because people spend more time there.
Because of its affordable price	32.1%	92.3%	61.1%
The cafe’s interior is attractive.	67.9%	76.9%	61.1%
Having amenities such as internet access and a power outlet.	35.7%	53.8%	33.3%
The seating arrangement and the suitability of the tables	39.3%	53.8%	38.9%
Having a library/study facility	50%	76.9%	44.4%
The exhibition hall/museum section is worth seeing.	25%	23.1%	22.2%
Behaviours exhibited while spending time in a place	Bağlarbaşı	Selimiye	Sahil	Inferences
Conversation	82.1%	76.9%	88.9%	The sea view at NevMekan Sahil positively impacts the social atmosphere.
Food and drink	75%	84.6%	88.9%
Being busy with the computer	50%	53.8%	38.9%
Joining an online meeting/online class	10.7%	15.4%	11.1%
Reading books—studying	35.7%	38.5%	44.4%
Watching the street/view	10.7%	23.1%	44.4%
Spending time with family	14.3%	23.1%	33.3%
Participating in events	17.9%	7.7%	27.8%
Perception of space	Bağlarbaşı	Selimiye	Sahil	Inferences
It makes you feel at home/comfortable	28.6%	53.8%	33.3%	NevMekan Sahil is crowded, and people spend very little time there. Due to the dome, NevMekan Sahil has poor acoustic comfort.
Peaceful	46.4%	76.9%	27.8%
Noisy	21.4%	15.4%	61.1%
Spacious	57.1%	61.5%	44.4%
Interesting and surprising	57.1%	61.5%	55.6%
The feeling experienced in the place	Bağlarbaşı	Selimiye	Sahil	Inferences
I feel like I’m a part of the community.	42.9%	30.8%	38.9%	Despite having a separate libraryspace, NevMekan Sahil is a space that offers more of a social and public experience than a productivity space.
I feel more social.	46.4%	38.5%	33.3%
I feel more productive.	42.9%	46.2%	11.1%
I feel more positive and cheerful.	28.6%	30.8%	38.9%
I feel like I’ve created my own private space (high level of privacy).	17.9%	76.9%	22.2%
Interactions experienced in the space	Bağlarbaşı	Selimiye	Sahil	Inferences
Meeting familiar strangers by chance	39.3%	23.1%	21%	Nevmekan Selimiye offers the ideal space for productive individuals to engage in social interaction.
I never accidentally meet anyone I know.	46.4%	46.2%	53.3%
I engage in small talks with people I don’t know.	14.3%	30.8%	23.2%
I meet and have conversation with strangers	0%	7.7%	0%

In the interviews, users’ perceptions of spatial characteristics and social interactions were examined, and recurrent or semantically similar terms were coded (Table 6). The findings show that variations in location and accessibility—from central to neighbourhood and coastal contexts—play a decisive role in shaping usage profiles and social atmosphere. In terms of spatial size and organization, large, multi-functional areas with views allow for more public and intensive use, while smaller, multi-room or inward-facing arrangements enhance the perception of privacy and tranquillity. Interior qualities such as seating arrangement, cleanliness, furniture, and ambiance directly affect user comfort and the duration of their stay, while facade, entrance, and permeability characteristics determine the perceived appeal and inviting nature of the space. Usage patterns and activities differ along the axes of productivity, socialization, and recreation; facilities such as libraries, museums, and children’s playgrounds diversify the social function of the space. Environmental comfort parameters such as natural light, acoustics, music, ventilation, and temperature shape user satisfaction and social interaction potential through positive or negative sensory experiences. Overall, the picture reveals that the social atmosphere in hybrid third places is produced not only depending on the program and user profile, but also on the holistic interaction of spatial arrangement, environmental comfort, and contextual characteristics.

Table 6. Spatial characteristics and codes generated based on user responses.

Spatial Characteristics	Codes Generated Based on User Responses.
	NevMekan Bağlarbaşı	NevMekan Selimiye	NevMekan Sahil
Location and Accessibility	centrally located, on the main road, close	Neighbourhood, residential area	In the city centre, by the seaside, near the square.
Dimensions of the space	High ceilings, spacious.	Multi-roomed, Small	Very large, vast areas
Spatial organization	Mezzanine floor, mixed use.	Atrium, Garden, Water	Multifunctional, with separate spaces, domed.
Plan Layout and seating options	Flexible, versatile, comfortable.	High level of privacy.	Sea view, many seating options.
Cleanliness	Clean	Very clean	Dusty
Furniture	Overly patterned, comfortable	functional	Modern, adequate
Ambiance	Historic, authentic	peaceful	very crowded
Facade and entrance	Hidden, difficult to find.	unpretentious	Impressive, eye-catching
Seating areas (garden)	Useful, calming.	Courtyard, Spacious	Inadequate, Uncomfortable
Permeability	Introverted	Introverted	View
Usage	Sociable	Productivity	Food and drink
Events	Interesting events	I’m not aware of the events.	I’m following the events.
Opportunities	Library	Museum	Parking, children’s playground
Social Atmosphere	Students, young people	Neighbourhood residents, young people	Children, tourists
Natural light and lighting	Sufficient, insufficient in the evenings.	Sufficient daylight.	Insufficient lighting
Acoustic comfort	Sufficient acoustics	Calm, serene	Noisy, Echo
Music	Piano sound	Instrumental music	Piano sound
Ventilation and smell	Food smell/unpleasant	It smells nice	lack of ventilation, stuffy
Temperature	Too hot (upper floor)	Comfortable	Comfortable, suitable temperature.

The data obtained from the case study confirms Alexander et al. [20], who defines the street cafe as a place where people can sit lazily, legitimately, be visible and watch the world go by. Hybrid third places strengthen the identity of the neighbourhood in which it is located and makes a unique contribution to the lives of its users, exactly as Alexander et al. [20] describes. In addition, the Street Cafe pattern (Opening to the street, Place to wait, Different chairs, Stair seats, sitting wall, Canvas roof, building complex) defined by Alexander et al. [20] remains valid today. However, with the developing technology and changing socialization practices, the provision of seating units with varying levels of privacy can be added to these features. These findings suggest that the social experience in hybrid third places is strongly related to the underlying design patterns of the space [20] where spatial configuration, surfaces, and functions guide movement, affordances, and user flows, ultimately shaping the perceived atmosphere. The field study also showed that Mehta and Bosson’s [13] findings regarding café and street life remain valid. Outdoor seating units and shading elements that protect against sun, rain, etc. directly affect the sociality of hybrid third places.

The survey, interview, and behavioural mapping studies conducted within the scope of this research revealed the effect of spatial characteristics on social interactions in hybrid third places (Table 7).

Table 7. Characteristics that increase social interaction in hybrid third places.

Space Characteristic	Characteristics That Increase Social Interaction According to Data Obtained from Survey and Interview Results
Location and Accessibility	Locations that are close to homes, workplaces, and easily accessible on foot or by public transport encourage social interaction. Centrally located venues are visited by more users. However, crowds and a heterogeneous user profile negatively impact sociability.
Dimensions of the space	Spacious, high-ceilinged spaces with suspended ceilings offer diverse visual experiences and encourage social interaction. Large areas with undefined voids and insufficient furnishings undermine people’s sense of security and negatively impact social interaction.
Plan Layout and Spatial Arrangement	Spaces that are perceived as a whole but divided into sub-units encourage social interaction. Private sub-sections, such as verandas, might deter newcomers, but they both foster interaction between people who already know each other and facilitate interaction between strangers in the same space. Having different functions—such as cafes, libraries, and exhibitions—in the same space with undefined boundaries, rather than as separate sections, increases social interaction. Seating units that stand out and visually dominate the space are more preferred and perceived as more social.
Seating Arrangement	The variety of seating arrangements, catering to different needs for both group and individual users, encourages social interaction. Seating arrangements too close together compromise the sense of privacy.
Threshold, Facade	A facade that provides a visual connection with the public space and the street invites people inside and increases social interaction. Spaces with personalized facades facing the street are more preferred by people.
Management	Venues run by local authorities can be more economically inclusive and more accessible to people. However, these venues should aim to appeal to all segments of society.
User Diversity	People who come together for a common purpose can motivate each other, and seeing different people and sharing a space with them also positively affects social interaction and socialization.
Personnel and Service	The attitude of the staff and the quality of service directly influence social interactions within the venue. Users who have brief conversations with the staff feel more comfortable in the space.
Natural Light and Lighting	Natural light encourages social interaction. Areas of a space that do not receive sunlight are less preferred. For social interaction, people need to be able to see each other’s faces clearly. Low or high light levels are uncomfortable and reduce the likelihood of social interaction.
Interior Design	A simple interior design, free from dark and eye-straining decorations and featuring pastel colors, encourages social interaction. Decorative elements such as paintings, wall sconces, mirrors, and furniture, placed within a specific context, enrich the space and support social interaction.
Furniture	New, clean, and comfortable furniture creates a conducive environment for social interaction.
Acoustic Comfort	Loud music, noise from the street, and noise from other customers negatively affect social interaction. The sound of water can be used to mask unwanted sounds.
Thermal Comfort	Heating and cooling operations in both indoor and outdoor spaces, adapted to seasonal conditions, affect the social aspect of the place.
Indoor Air Quality	Food smells or other unpleasant smells in a venue negatively affect social interaction.
Functional Diversity	The combination of different functions (reading areas, cafe, exhibition spaces, meeting areas) enhances social interaction.
Events	Organized events help more people get to know and visit the venue, but if these events interfere with regular functions, they deter regulars and negatively impact social interaction.
Opportunities	Reading materials, internet access, parking, and a children’s play area encourage more people to use the space.
Historical Value	Historically significant buildings create a shared value and are visited by more people. Authentic spaces enhance social interaction.

8. Conclusions

As a result of the study, the following conclusions were drawn, and recommendations were developed regarding spatial design that encourages social interaction. The existing literature emphasizes that social interaction occurring in third-place settings is defined as Atmosphere–Seating–Conversation–Social Interaction. The social interaction in these hybrid third-place settings, analyzed in this study and considered to meet the socialization needs of modern humans, occurs as follows: program diversity–activity overlap–movement in space–unplanned encounters–social Interaction. Existing studies explain social interaction in third places mainly through ambience, physical environment, and seating conditions of mono-functional spaces such as cafes and pubs. However, this study shows that how hybrid third places, where reading, exhibition, working, and leisure coexist, generate social interaction through spatial program diversity and user activity scenarios rather than environmental comfort. The study concludes that the relationship between spatial characteristics and social interaction largely aligns with the literature. However, the study also yielded various findings regarding the concepts of Hybridity, Historical sites and shared values, Management/Affordability, and Location.

Hybridity: Spaces that are socially, functionally, and spatially diverse are successful in bringing different people together and creating a social atmosphere. Hybrid third places are micro-public spaces where urban dwellers can meet other urban dwellers who are like them.

Historical sites and shared values: Structures that hold historical and societal value are more successful in fostering a sense of place and social interaction. People want to spend time in places that connect them to their community.

Management/Affordability: Third places are locations that individuals frequently visit in their daily lives. Therefore, providing free and affordable amenities in these places, and having them managed by non-profit organizations, will make them more inclusive and accessible spaces.

Location: The existing literature emphasizes that the third place should be located close to home and the workplace. However, according to the results of this study, third places located in more central locations of the city increase user density and heterogeneity in user profiles, transforming the space into more of a public area than a third place, and thus reducing satisfaction with the experienced social interaction. Third places located within the residential fabric at the neighbourhood scale are more successful spaces due to their regular patronage, the calm and peaceful atmosphere they provide, and the opportunities to encounter familiar strangers and establish weak social ties.

Space: People find spaces with high ceilings more spacious and spend more time there. People want to protect their privacy while socializing, so spaces divided into sub-sections with partition walls and various elements are more preferred. Divided spaces are better for social interaction than one large room. The variety and flexibility of seating arrangements allow for more efficient use of the space. Users feel more comfortable in spaces that can be personalized with interventions according to their needs.

Ambient Conditions: Ambient conditions such as smell, temperature, ventilation, natural light, lighting, acoustic comfort, and music affect people’s psychological state and behaviour, and therefore influence social interactions. The data obtained in the field study are consistent with the literature. However, it was observed that tolerance to noise varied among different social roles. For example, groups and couples who used the cafe space for socializing were less disturbed by noise than alone people and those who used the space for productivity.

Aesthetics and Interior Design: Clean, new, stylish spaces with comfortable furniture and attractive decor are preferred by people. Considering that today’s cafes are designed with a specific concept, the field study found that seating arrangements with small variations (such as different upholstery colour variants of the same armchair, areas created with different tables and lighting units, areas that differ in height from the floor) were found to be more appealing to users and made them feel like they were in a personalized space.

Opportunities and Activities: It is unthinkable for modern third places to be independent of technology. Therefore, unlike in previous years, the availability of wireless internet service contributes to the social aspect of the space by bringing together diverse social roles. Furthermore, the third-place’s virtual presence on various social media platforms and the periodic exhibitions, workshops, and talks attract new visitors from different parts of the city. The existing literature suggests that the presence of reading materials provides opportunities for leisure time and increases social interaction. However, the field study showed that books were used as a decorative element, and people, except for children, showed little interest in them, yet were very pleased with their presence.

Social Components: Existing literature argues that regular patrons of third places contribute to the social atmosphere and help newcomers adapt to the environment. However, field research in hybrid third places reveals that, due to high user heterogeneity, patrons rarely interact with one another. Instead, frequent visitors feel more comfortable engaging with staff, as they are familiar with the social setting. Although management policies aim to increase accessibility—such as allowing users to stay without placing an order and minimizing unsolicited staff interaction—these practices are largely unknown to users and may be misinterpreted as low service quality. Additionally, while literature suggests that elements such as cats can enhance social interaction by becoming part of the place identity, observations indicate that some users are disturbed by their presence.

The relationship with the city: Regardless of their social role, visitors to the third-place desire to interact with the city and its inhabitants in some way. Therefore, the presence of tables and shading elements related to the street is important. Especially in places like Istanbul, where the climate is suitable for spending a large part of the year in open and semi-open spaces, open spaces and the threshold established with the city gain importance. During the case study, it was observed that seating units with views and allowing for visual interaction with the street were the most popular locations.

In conclusion, hybrid third places are spaces where different levels of social interaction take place, responding to the socialization needs of today’s people. Hybrid third places are where people create their own private spaces, seeing and being seen, socializing with friends, or ignoring everyone around them to work on their computers, read books, or watch the scenery, thus becoming part of their community and developing a sense of belonging. In today’s world, where life outside the home and the workplace is becoming increasingly important and complex, these places should be considered more than just places to spend time; they should be treated as social spaces and designed in the context of new needs. In this study, the spatial characteristics of hybrid third places that are integrative and promote social interaction are identified through a literature review and case study. Spatial features structure the interaction between the people who use the space. In order for people using a space to interact socially with each other, they must first feel comfortable and peaceful. In this context, comfort-related parameters such as light, temperature, ventilation and colour scheme are just as important as the spatial structure. Hybrid third places are intensely interactive areas that are used by people for different purposes. In this context, the spatial characteristics that a café that is a hybrid third place must have in order to be a successful, social interaction-promoting and inclusive socialization space were merged with information from the literature to form the “Parameters of social interaction in hybrid third place cafés”. The parameters for social interaction consist of seven main factors and related sub-factors, namely ‘location’, ‘space’, ‘environmental conditions’, ‘aesthetics and decoration’, ‘facilities and activities’, ‘social components’ and ‘relationship with the city’. For hybrid third spaces to be more successful in fostering social interaction, future studies need to focus on different user profiles, different types of social interaction, and the spatial requirements of these interactions within these spaces.