I’m pretty sure I would move to a city anywhere in the world based primarily on the availability of high quality 24 hour third places.
replies(3):
Where though?
West coast and Gulf Coast where Ive lived have very few.
You see them not necessarily in places like wall street, but more in places with strong intellectual culture like universities and artsy neighborhoods.
I can use the existence of a country club as a useful signal about a place without being a member, or having any interest in it.
Also points towards local labor law and market.
I don't think it's a concern, first of all. Second, store owners will kick out non-paying customers as they have since time immemorial. You might as well ask how someone deals with pan handlers at the intersection on the way to their drive-through Starbucks. If the person is just sitting in a corner not bothering anyone, maybe someone will buy them a coffee, or maybe they'll be annoyed that it's too loud and leave, or perhaps they just look homeless but they're just mistaken for your run of the mill startup founder?
There are also lots of homeless people in other parts of the world. How do people in Paris or London deal with them? I don't understand why this exists an American-centric view here for such a general concern. Homelessness isn't unique to the United States, yet virtually every country on the planet has coffee shops you can walk into.
Kicking people out of anywhere, regardless of their housing status, is a relatively extreme conflict, compared to the normal happenings at a diner, cafe, or bar. Panhandlers aren't a good comparison because no one's trying to hang out at the intersection.
As to your question about the difference between America and Europe: If there even is much of a difference, I suspect it is influenced by socialized medicine and the significant differences in involuntary commitment[1]. In America you can be severely mentally ill, sleeping rough, and disruptive to the community, but unless you break a pretty serious law, no one can make you get help. And that's if you survive contact with the police.
Maybe in practice, it's not that different over there, but it seems like they have more tools and resources to handle mental health crises, which would lessen the rest of the population's assumption that unhoused = dangerous.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment_by_coun...
Bringing up something doesn't mean it's a valid concern, or maybe better put it doesn't mean it's a concern worth discussing.
> Kicking people out of anywhere, regardless of their housing status, is a relatively extreme conflict, compared to the normal happenings at a diner, cafe, or bar. Panhandlers aren't a good comparison because no one's trying to hang out at the intersection.
I don't disagree that the interactions are different, but maybe you haven't had a pan handler toss a drink on your car or bang on your window or scream at you in your face? In terms of concern, they are pretty close.
The problem with this conversation is that the OP is framing the conversation as "how do we deal with this random and rare hypothetical situation that only applies to urban environments" to cast doubt on the creation or continued support of people getting together in these third places. So just as much as they are worried about that, I'm worried about the pan handlers bothering me and throwing stuff at my car at the highway intersection. :)
Calling it an American-centric problem doesn't make sense either.
> As to your question about the difference between America and Europe...
It was a bit of a rhetorical question. There aren't any substantial differences in "how we handle the homeless" with respect to coffee shops in a city or whatever the "concern" is here.
> Maybe in practice, it's not that different over there, but it seems like they have more tools and resources to handle mental health crises, which would lessen the rest of the population's assumption that unhoused = dangerous.
It would be hard to really qualify but in my experience it's about the same, though I think homeless people* in the United States tend to be more aggressive with their pan handling or escalation toward violence. Some are on drugs shipped in from somewhere and even though we do provide services (perhaps they are inadequate?) to help, it doesn't appear to be enough. Part of the reason people believe that homeless == dangerous tends to be because of a few negative interactions, which can be quite scary and intimidating and make you avoid a place.
Ultimately, "uh oh what if a homeless person comes to the Third Place" is not a concern because those rare potential interactions don't get to dictate how everyone lives their lives and it's not a strong enough of a concern to matter in this conversation context.
* Homelessness exists in many forms, many of those hidden from us in day-to-day view and I think we should continue to provide support to people to help ensure they don't become homeless in the first place. But at the same time we can recognize the anti-social behavior of some and address that. In the context of this conversation there's no "worry" about a homeless person walking in to a coffee shop - mind your own business, but the worry is one who is aggressive or belligerent, or disturbing others who have a right to peace regardless of the situation someone else finds themselves in.
We do have coffee shops, but as others have pointed out, many are getting rid of seating. I think a membership route is the only way to enforce something more exclusive.
Why would you kick out a paying customer? If they're being disruptive though it doesn't matter if they bought a coffee. Businesses can deny services and request that you leave the premises. There is very little potential for litigation for discrimination.
> 2. Minimum wage employees shouldn't have to play the role of enforcers. A mentally-ill/drug-addled person can snap and cause a dangerous scene. Getting the cops involved is possible, but time-consuming and a pain.
That's just life. There's no other answer here. You deal with uncomfortable situations and that's all there is to it.
> It's America-centric because we don't have a social safety net for people. In the UK, for example, the NHS has avenues for people to get treated. The homeless you do run into tend to pose a much lower risk, anecdotally.
It would be nice if you knew more about the social services that we do offer people in the United States before claiming something like this. Turn off the news and social media and do your own research instead.
Now that isn't to say (and I honestly don't know one way or the other) that social services in the United States couldn't be better, but that's tangential to the conversation in my opinion.
> We do have coffee shops, but as others have pointed out, many are getting rid of seating. I think a membership route is the only way to enforce something more exclusive.
I emphatically say fuck that. I will go to a coffee shop, buy coffee, sit down and enjoy the coffee, preferably with some friends, and if someone wants to come in and be belligerent and threatening then we'll call the cops or participate in physically kicking them out if the employees can't handle it. I will not live in a world where others are going to disrupt normal everyday experiences and ruin everyone else's lives just because they're assholes or drugged out. Nope. Not me and not the town where I live.
In some countries, low cost of human labor enables staffing of low-volume businesses, including opening hours with low traffic.
There’s no magical distinction between a coffee shop manager and barista.
I’m not suggesting that a barista or even the manager have some sort of moral or legal obligation to kick some asshole out of a store. They don’t have to do it. There are options. But generally speaking we all experience uncomfortable situations and you just deal with them like an adult in the best way you know how.