Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Museums already do a lot: they educate the public, preserve important works of art and culture, and inspire people to create art of their own. But they have the potential to do even more. By adopting principles of urban design, museums can transform into essential "third places"—vibrant social spaces where communities gather, friendships are formed, and societies grow stronger.
"The third place is essential to being healthy and happy because you need to have a place where you can just relax, be yourself, have fun, connect with friends, and meet new people," explains urbanist and psychologist Dr. Tayana Panova.
How we experience a space depends entirely on its design, she says. An engaging environment filled with life makes time fly, whether you are walking down a vibrant city street or exploring a beautiful museum gallery.
Today on Call 'Em Like Museum, Dr. Panova—co-host of The Perfect City podcast and a popular creator exploring how urban design affects our brains—discusses what museums can learn from the design of cities, and vice versa. We also explore the vital, real-world stimulation we get from third places that our screens simply cannot replicate, the right way to integrate technology into an exhibit, and what modern cultural institutions might want to borrow from American shopping malls.
Full transcript of this episode
Subscribe to the newsletter
This episode was hosted, produced, and edited by Eric Johnson from LightningPod
Chapters
Music: www.purple-planet.com
"The third place is essential to being healthy and happy because you need to have a place where you can just relax, be yourself, have fun, connect with friends, and meet new people," explains urbanist and psychologist Dr. Tayana Panova.
How we experience a space depends entirely on its design, she says. An engaging environment filled with life makes time fly, whether you are walking down a vibrant city street or exploring a beautiful museum gallery.
Today on Call 'Em Like Museum, Dr. Panova—co-host of The Perfect City podcast and a popular creator exploring how urban design affects our brains—discusses what museums can learn from the design of cities, and vice versa. We also explore the vital, real-world stimulation we get from third places that our screens simply cannot replicate, the right way to integrate technology into an exhibit, and what modern cultural institutions might want to borrow from American shopping malls.
Full transcript of this episode
Subscribe to the newsletter
This episode was hosted, produced, and edited by Eric Johnson from LightningPod
Chapters
- (00:00) - Introduction
- (02:26) - The Role of Museums in a City
- (06:56) - European vs. American Museums
- (10:17) - Designing Human-Scale Cities
- (15:08) - Smartphones vs. Real-World Stimulation
- (19:33) - The Role of Technology in Museums
- (23:21) - Can Museums Be Third Places?
- (28:53) - Building Community Through Museum Programs
- (35:42) - What Museums Can Learn From Urban Design
- (40:21) - What Cities Can Learn From Museums
Music: www.purple-planet.com
Creators and Guests
What is Call 'Em Like Museum with Eric Johnson?
Call 'Em Like Museum is a weekly podcast exploring how museums really work, and why we love them. Host Eric Johnson talks with museum directors, curators, experts, and passionate fans about what drives them, from homegrown passion projects to world-famous institutions. Each episode digs into museum curation, exhibit design, and the visitor experience — plus the essential question: What's actually worth buying in the gift shop? Season One spotlights museums in the San Francisco Bay Area, including the Walt Disney Family Museum, the de Young Museum, and the Winchester Mystery House.
If you need to reach someplace and
it's further than a 15-minute walk,
you probably won't want to walk there.
This is Dr. Tayana Panova.
She's a psychologist and an urbanist,
which means she has studied the way cities
are designed and how that affects us.
You have to think about, okay, what are
humans on average able to do physically?
What do they on average like to do?
What do they on average need?
Tayana says the ideal version of a city
has everything you need in a 15-minute
walking radius, but there's a catch.
If that walk, that 15-minute walk,
is really dull, all I see is blank
walls and cars zooming past me,
then actually my tolerance is lower.
I don't want to walk 15 minutes.
In a beautiful place like a museum, 15
minutes can pass before you even know it.
But if that walk is lined with shops
and cafes and gardens and there's
a lot of other people because it's
an interesting place, I'm more
willing to walk further, actually.
I'm happy to walk 30
minutes to my destination.
Going to places like museums
stimulates our brains.
When you're out in the real world,
you're co-creating that experience
because when you do something,
the world responds to you.
It's a type of stimulation that we
don't always get from our cities.
And Tayana says that we literally
can't get it from our phones.
What we get from our
screens really isn't enough.
It's not what we were craving exactly.
That's why we need the
real-world experience.
This is Call 'Em Like Museum,
a podcast about how museums
work and why we love them.
I'm Eric Johnson.
Today on the podcast, how do museums
make cities happier and healthier?
Could they replace bars
and cafes as a third place?
And what can cities learn from
the way museums are designed?
Dr. Tayana Panova will answer all
of that and more right after this.
This episode is sponsored
by Transistor.fm.
If you are starting a podcast,
then you should use Transistor.
Upload your audio or video and
they'll publish your episodes to
Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube,
Pocket Casts, Overcast, and
more.
Go to Transistor.fm for
a 14-day free trial.
Have you ever left a museum
without hitting the gift shop?
Yeah, me neither.
Tote bags, hats, desk toys,
all these specific magnets.
I love it all.
And now I'm giving some of it away in the
Call 'Em Like Museum gift shop giveaway.
To enter, all you have to do is sign up
for our free newsletter at likemuseum.com.
That's likemuseum.com.
What is a museum?
What does the word "museum"
mean to you personally?
I think a museum is a place that
houses certain components of culture
or history or art, something that has
been created that has a lot of value and
that we want to share with the broader
community, with the public, something
that people should know about that can
enrich their lives, that can educate
them, that can inspire them, because
we have different kinds of museums.
But overall, I think the point of a
museum is to carry some kind of value
into the lives of people, enrich their
lives in some way through education
or inspiration or just experiencing
something that maybe they don't have
access to in their day-to-day lives
but that is still very valuable.
Yes.
And what was your first
experience with going to museums?
My most memorable experience of museums
from childhood is when I went to the
Chicago Museum of Art, and on the basement
level, there's these incredible miniature
houses from throughout history, like
three-dimensional, very detailed miniature
homes from the 1900s, 1800s, kind of
what a typical home would look like.
And I love miniature things.
So seeing that was just incredible for
me, the level of skill and passion it
takes to create something like that.
And even as a child, I was just so
enamored with what they created and what
they put on display for all of us to see.
And every time we went to that museum,
I would insist that we go — because I
think it's a permanent exhibit — that
we go and we see the three-dimensional
homes, the miniatures, and I just was so
inspired by them to create art myself.
I remember around that same time
period of my life, I was doing
little clay miniatures because I
was trying to emulate what I saw.
And so for me, the experience of that
museum was that it inspired me and it made
me want to be also creative and artistic.
And I think that's one of
the great magics of museums.
Do you remember how old you were,
approximately, when you saw this?
I think I was probably 9, 8 or 9.
So you were bringing in sort of
maybe old enough to have play pretend
with dolls and toys and things like
that and all of a sudden it's art.
Yes.
There's something that is
art that's in a museum.
Yes, it was elevated.
So it's not just play anymore,
it's in a museum, so that gives it
a sense of a weight and prestige.
It's not just something
that I'm doing for fun.
It's something that
actually has real value.
If you continue with it and you become
really good at it, it can be elevated.
It could have a platform to
be shared with other people.
I thought that was really incredible.
You talk a lot about how the design of
our cities affects us, how it affects
our feelings, our moods, our psychology.
What does a museum do for a city?
What does that mean when you
put a museum in the context of
a bigger organism like a city?
We often talk about landmarks
and focal points in cities.
So I like to think of it as a city
is sort of like a web or a network.
And in a typical web or network, you have
your lines and then you have your nodes.
So your lines are like your streets,
your connections, and your nodes are
the things that you walk to or drive to.
They're the destinations,
they're the places you end up at.
It could be a big main square, for
example, if we're talking about a
public space, but it can also be
something like a museum, a destination
that you go towards and that you
end up at and you spend time there.
So the museums in our cities are
some of the main nodes and thus
the important … I like to say
the gems and the crown of the city.
So you might spend a day walking
and exploring and walking around
the connections, the lines of the
network, and then you end up at that
node and spend some hours there.
And it's kind of like a feeling of
fulfillment that, after your journey,
you end up at something that's really
incredible and multifaceted like a museum.
Ideally then it brings you to other
maybe unexpected nodes, other things
that are kind of more serendipitous
as part of the city organism.
Yes.
Especially if, for example, in a
well-designed city, that node, that
museum, would not be standing alone in
a sea of parking lots or empty streets.
It would be sort of
the heart of the space.
And so around it, you would have other
valuable and interesting places kind
of feeding into it and feeding off
of it, feeding off of that energy.
Because when you have a node,
a destination, you have a lot
of foot traffic, you have a
lot of people going there.
So if you have a lot of foot traffic
and people in that area, then logically
the best thing to do is put more
things around it so the people who
are already there can then go to
those other secondary destinations.
And then whether they're businesses,
they can patronize businesses or they can
go to cafes or public squares to play.
But it's sort of the hub or the
heart, I would say the nexus of
the space is that focal point,
that destination, like a museum.
And then it has ripple effects around
it that energize the rest of the space.
Now, you grew up in the
U.S. suburbs, right?
And then you lived for a time in Spain?
Yes.
I was wondering if you could speak to
the difference in museums in Europe
versus the U.S., cities versus suburbs.
I know there's a lot of
variables here at play.
I suspect that where the museum is,
who builds it, and the culture around
the museum drastically changes.
I assume it's quite different in
these different types of places.
For sure.
I think that the way that the museums
are handled, it really impacts
the character of the city and the
experience of being in the city.
And Barcelona is a great example
because some of Barcelona's most
famous museums are actually the
houses, the buildings, that the
famous architect Antoni Gaudi built.
So he built these homes
that were lived in.
They're normal homes, they're
integrated into the main streets.
They're just like once they were a
normal building and now they are a
museum because they're so exceptional
and beautiful and interesting.
He's so famous for his creative way
of designing structures that those
structures he created are now used and
not to be lived in, but to be visited.
And they're the most popular
museums in Barcelona.
And they're right in the
center and they're also just
embedded into the streetscape.
So it's not a building that it looks
like a museum, it's a building that
looks like a building — a beautiful
and interesting one, sure, but
it still melds into the street.
It looks ordinary.
It's very much integrated.
It's very integrated.
And so you see a huge line of people
lining up to this museum that also
is integrated into the streetscape.
And I find that very interesting
because it also means that the museum
experience is very smoothly integrated
into the experience of just being out
and about in the city and on the street.
You're walking past a cafe, a
store, and then boom, a museum.
It's very much seamless.
And so it makes it also seamless to
experience the museum aspect of whether
it's a visit or whether you're living
there, it's not like something you
really necessarily have to go out of
your way or make a day around because
it's just right in the heart of the city.
It's just a part of the
streetscape and the center.
And so I think that that
makes it more accessible.
Whereas if it's a building that has
to be gone to specifically, you have
to kind of make a whole day around it.
For example, in Chicago where I grew
up, a lot of the buildings, a lot
of the museums, they're incredible.
They're huge museums, but a lot of them,
even when they're in the center, they're
kind of separate from the downtown area.
They're not really woven into it.
Some of them are.
The Chicago Museum of Art is very much
within the downtown, but there's some
other ones, like for example, I think it's
the Museum of Science and Industry that
are some ways away and you have to kind
of navigate a sea of parking, drive there.
And it just doesn't feel as
seamless to go, if you're going
to Chicago, to go to that museum.
You kind of have to make your
day around going to that museum.
And so those are two
different experiences.
They have pros and cons because,
for example, while the Barcelona
museums, those Gaudi buildings,
are fairly compact, the museum in
Chicago that I mentioned is enormous.
So you have a different
experience of museum life.
You have the one that's a little bit
more fine-grained and then you have
one that's sort of like ba-boom.
It's its own world, in a sense.
So it's good to have that variety.
Well yeah, I mean this is something
that you talk about a lot, which
is human-scale design for cities.
Can you define what "human scale" means
just in a general kind of urbanism sense?
Yeah.
So I would define human scale to mean
that the city or whatever the case may
be, the community, the town, the suburb,
is designed in a way where it reflects
and adapts to human abilities, human
physical abilities, and human typical
needs and desires, likes, and wants.
So if you want to design a
human-scale place, you have to
think about, okay, what are humans
on average able to do physically?
What do they on average like to do?
What do they on average need?
The average human, for example, when
they walk, what radius of space can
they reach within a 10-minute walk?
Because after around 10 minutes of
walking, if they haven't reached their
destination, maybe they get frustrated.
And that's very common.
If you need to reach someplace and
it's further than a 15-minute walk,
you probably won't want to walk there.
You maybe want to bike
there or drive there.
It gets a little bit inconvenient if it's
past the 15-minute radius of walking.
15-minute cities means that everything
that you might need or want on a daily
basis is within that 15-minute radius
of walking so you can reach it easily.
It's convenient.
And then so that's kind of
like the physical aspect.
And also you have the mental aspect
and the emotional aspect, which
is, for example, what do people
like to see if they're walking?
If that walk, that 15-minute walk, is
really dull, really boring, all I see
is blank walls and cars zooming past
me, then actually my tolerance is lower.
I don't want to walk 15 minutes.
Actually that's too long.
It's going to feel like a longer walk.
Yeah.
I actually want to walk less
time because it's boring and
it's not pleasant or enjoyable.
But if that walk is lined with shops
and cafes and gardens and there's
a lot of other people because it's
an interesting place, I'm more
willing to walk further, actually.
I'm happy to walk 30 minutes
to my destination then.
So we have to think about what people
also like, what stimulates their brains,
what makes them happy, what's pleasurable
for them, and also what they need.
Because if you're walking, the average
person needs a few different things.
For example, they need places to sit.
So many people, maybe they have physical
disabilities or they're older and they
need to rest at regular intervals,
or even they might be able-bodied but
they just need to tie their shoe or
have a snack or go on a phone call.
It's normal for a person to want to
sit down when they're walking, every
10 minutes or so, for whatever reason.
So people in general need to sit.
They don't like when the
sun's beating down on them.
One, they don't like
it; two, it's dangerous.
You can have a heat stroke
if it's too sunny and hot.
So we need to have shade.
So if we're expecting people
to walk, we need to have
shady places for them to walk.
And then they also might need refreshment.
People get tired and they get
thirsty and they get hungry at
regular intervals throughout the day.
We eat like five or six times
throughout the day when you
count snacking and drinking.
So there needs to be
places to eat and drink.
All those considerations about the
physical needs of the human body and also
the mental and psychological/emotional
needs, when we think about those
and then we design them into the
environment, then that environment
becomes people centric, human centric,
because it's designed for the person.
Yeah.
I have two thoughts on this.
One is that you mentioned the
ba-boom type of museum, one
that's big and it's imposing.
It looks very out of the ordinary,
unlike the ones in Barcelona.
So part of me is like some aspect, some
amount of the effect of the museum,
is [that] you're going to a special
space, someplace that feels special.
So that's one aspect of it.
And the other though I had is that
I think if you had to rank things
that are most important to have in a
15-minute city, I would rather have
easy access to cafes and to grocery
stores and to banks and to libraries.
Those feel like those are more essential
everyday needs for a walkable city.
So maybe it doesn't matter that
the museums are harder to get to.
What are your thoughts on that?
That's a good point.
It's a question of frequency.
So the things I mentioned before — eating,
drinking, sitting down — those are things
we do frequently throughout the day.
So naturally we should have more
of those kinds of places, more
places to eat, drink, and sit.
We don't go normally to
multiple museums a day.
So it makes sense to have few of them
with further distances between them.
They don't have to be on every
walk from A to B. That's okay.
But that's also part of the value
of the museum is that it is a
special experience and we need those
kinds of experiences in our day.
So our day is something that can be
pleasurable and enjoyable in a variety
of ways, but still it's mundane.
The rhythm of life is fairly standard
and predictable and that's fine, that's
wonderful, that creates a sense of
stability and comfort, but occasionally
we do want a special experience.
We do want something that is unique
from our normal humdrum of daily
life, and the museum provides that.
The big question that I'm trying to answer
in this podcast is why do we love museums?
Why are we going to them now in
an era when we can get so much
stuff on our phones at home?
We have access to any piece of art
basically that's ever been created.
Almost any piece of art, you could
see a picture of it on your phone.
And yet I made a whole day of
going to the de Young when their
Monet in Venice exhibit opened.
It was important for me to
go to the physical place to
see those real paintings.
And so I was wondering if you could talk a
bit about our relationship with technology
and the stimulation that it provides.
Could you talk about why people default
to their phones and then why they might
opt to go someplace else, why they
would go to a place like a museum?
For sure.
So I think that in general,
people go on their phones to
fulfill certain needs and wants.
For example, the need to be stimulated.
We want to see interesting things.
Our brains are a very complex
organic machine so they need constant
stimuli to process a novelty.
And that's what we get from
our phones when it's not
available in our surroundings.
Many people live in places that are
perhaps not very interesting or the
interesting things aren't easy to access
or they're too expensive, so there's a
cost barrier, but their brains still crave
stimulation and interesting experiences.
So what do their brains do?
They seek that out in
whatever way it's available.
And nowadays, in the 21st century,
that's in our phones, on our screens.
Everything, like you
said, is on technology.
The problem is that what we see online,
it's not equivalent to what we can
experience in the real world because
what we see online is one or two
dimensional versus five dimensional,
like the five senses in the real world.
You only see or hear something
when you consume it from the phone,
like a video you only see and hear.
You don't smell, you can't
touch or taste anything.
It's only a limited amount
of senses that are engaged.
Also, you can't really co-create it.
You're just consuming it.
You're absorbing it, you're
watching a video on TikTok,
but you're not co-creating it.
Whereas when you're out in the
real world, you're co-creating
that experience because when you do
something, the world responds to you.
You can move something and then somebody
can have a reaction to that and move it
back or have a conversation with you.
It's a very multilevel,
multifaceted experience.
It's more interesting and your brain
is more active in different ways.
So it's very different
than what we get online.
What we get online is very simple, it's
very instant, it's very superficial.
I like to compare it to junk food
where junk food is also, in a sense,
something that feeds us, but it
doesn't give us any nutritional value.
So we can eat it when we're hungry, it's
easy to acquire, it's usually cheap, it's
tasty, it gives us some satisfaction,
but because it doesn't offer us real
nutritional value, it doesn't really
fill that hole, that gap, that hunger.
And it's the same thing with
the world and our phones.
That's the same kind
of relationship we see.
We have this hunger, this
craving, this desire.
We can't fulfill it in the real
world if it's not available to us, if
it's not built into the environment.
So we fulfill it with our technology,
with our screens, but what we get
from our screens really isn't enough.
It's not what we were craving.
It's not the real thing.
And even if we don't actively consciously
realize that, we do have a sense of it.
It feels like, oh, I'm still hungry.
I'm not satisfied.
That's why we need the
real-world experience.
We need to actually go and see it
in person and feel it and be with
other people in that space and maybe
have conversations with them, get
closer to see the texture of the
paintings, be able to walk around,
speak with the people who work there
who are knowledgeable about the art.
All of those levels of experience
are very satisfying and interesting,
and we can't get that online.
We can't get that through a screen.
And crucially, in my case,
eavesdrop on what other people
are saying about the art.
Always fun.
That's also part of the
museum experience, for sure.
Always fun, yeah.
Hey, if you're enjoying the episode,
then make sure to follow the podcast
in whatever app you're using right now.
It's free and it makes sure that new
episodes will show up automatically.
If you're on YouTube, then
hit subscribe there too.
Thank you so much.
On this podcast, we believe that
everyone's experience with museums
is deeply personal, and that's why
we want to hear your museum stories.
If you've got one, and I bet
you do, please submit it at
our website, likemuseum.com.
Just go to the website, likemuseum.com,
and click "submit a museum
story" at the top of the page.
It might just make it
into a future episode.
Thanks.
There are some folks, though, who say that
we should be using technology more as part
of the museum-going experience, right?
Who say there should be
interactive aspects of any exhibit.
Maybe we should be using our
phones to do a guided tour.
I think at that de Young exhibit that I
mentioned, I think Anthropic, the creators
of Claude, had some sort of side exhibit
where you could talk to a similacra of
Claude Monet or something like that.
It was something weird.
I didn't do it.
But how do you feel about the way that
museums either currently use technology
or sort of this idea that maybe we
should be using it more in museums?
I think technology is very broad.
There's a lot of different ways that we
can embed it into every aspect of life.
Doesn't mean we should, but we can,
and there are great ways to do it.
If the technology is emphasizing
or enhancing the original
creation in some way, I think
it could be something beautiful.
For example, a lot of cities now are
doing this thing where they project
art onto the walls of a space.
For example, in Las Vegas, in Japan,
in Barcelona, there's this … In
Japan, I think it's called Team Labs.
And then there's variations of
it, basically where it's like
projections onto the walls of this
dark building and you walk through
it and it feels three dimensional.
When I went to one in Las Vegas, it
was projections of paintings, but
those paintings were kind of brought
out of their frames and it felt like
you were inside of the painting.
So they adapted a two-dimensional
painting, made it 3D and more
—
Yeah.
Okay.
It made you feel like you were inside
of the painting, walking around it,
and maybe some of the characters
in the painting were moving.
They still looked like their original
versions, but they were alive, in a sense.
So it respected the original art by
keeping the visuals all the same,
but it breathed new life into it
through the power of technology.
I think that's an interesting way
to incorporate technology into art.
And it also attracts new
audiences, younger audiences.
It gets younger people interested in
art who maybe think that going to a
museum is sort of an outdated thing.
This is a way to put that same art
in front of them in a fresh way.
And so it also gives them contact
with that art, which is valuable.
So there's many different ways to do
that, I think, but there's also ways that
maybe take away from the experience of
the original creation, and then I don't
think that it really adds much value.
Or maybe it doesn't take away, but it
doesn't really contribute anything in
particular or it tries to do something
that doesn't quite land, but that's okay.
It's a trial-and-error thing.
But I think the important thing
for technology is to appreciate
and respect the original creation
and the original creator.
Nowadays we're seeing a lot of — you
even mentioned it — you can speak
to the artist, something like that.
I personally don't like that idea
because that was a human being and
that human being did not consent to
have their identity sort of hijacked
by technology and to say things that
maybe they wouldn't have said or to have
conversations that they wouldn't have had.
I'm not personally a fan of that
just because it takes something from
someone who can't consent to their
identity being taken and used that way.
So one, it's not authentic, and two,
it's just not fair to that person.
But there's a lot of nuance.
And that's distinct, I guess, from having
a placard, having a tour guide, having
someone who's adding context kind of
on the margins, like an outside of the
art as opposed to representing "this is
the artist," the ghost in the machine.
Yeah.
If it's something the artist said, if
it's we know the artist said that, and
then they have, let's say, a visual
of the artist that speaks through the
power of technology so you can see
them saying that thing that we know
that they said, maybe that's more okay.
Can we talk a bit about third places?
This is something that I
know you care a lot about.
Yeah.
First, maybe let's define
what is a third place?
A third place is a place where
you go to relax or connect with
people or just kind of be yourself.
And it's best understood in the
context of the first and second place.
So Ray Oldenberg was the creator of this
concept, and he described it in this way:
where the first place is your home, the
second place is your job, and the third
place is the place that you go outside
of work or home where you can do the
other things that you like to do on a
regular basis, such as relax, unwind, meet
with friends, have a drink, or a small
pleasure, like a pastry, something tasty.
He talks about the tripod, the
third leg of the tripod of life.
You need all three legs in
order for you to have a stable,
healthy, happy life experience.
And so the third place is essential
to being healthy and happy because you
need to have a place where you can just
relax, be yourself, have fun, connect
with friends, meet new people, etc.
And importantly, he also explained that
it has to have a low barrier to entry,
which means the third place has to either
be free or it should be affordable.
So most people should be able
to afford to go to it every day.
So it needs to have a low financial
barrier to entry, for example,
like the cost of a small coffee.
Unfortunately, nowadays
—
Not in San Francisco.
[laugh]
That's crazy.
The price of a small coffee on
average in San Francisco is $6.
So that makes third places
kind of hard to come by.
Not only that, but the majority of cafes
in San Francisco and other cities in
America close at like 3:00 or 4:00 PM,
whereas work lets out at 5:00 or later.
So how are people supposed
to experience those places?
Yes.
So it's very difficult to
find a third place these days.
Especially if you are not a drinker
or if you just don't want to default
to alcohol as your nonwork activity.
Even if you do want a drink,
nowadays the price of a drink
at a bar, it's incredibly high.
And also higher-end bars with higher
prices fall out of the category of third
places because they're not accessible
and because when it's higher end,
there's more expectations of behavior,
whereas a third place should be casual.
And so in terms of alcohol, a
pub is considered a third place,
whereas a more higher-end bar isn't.
Right.
One of the ideas that I'm pulling on
with this show is I'm investigating
whether museums could be third places.
What do you think about that idea?
What is maybe getting in the way,
that [is] preventing museums from
fulfilling this need in our societies?
I think one of the important parts
of third places, which I touched
on earlier, is that there aren't
really expectations of behavior
there that are particularly rigid.
So you kind of have more
freedom of behavior.
Of course, there's always rules and
social norms about how you should behave.
For example, you can't go shouting, even
if you're at a cafe, you can't speak
too loudly and disturb other patrons.
But in general, it's more casual and you
kind of have some freedom of behavior.
In museums, though, there are more rules.
You have to be quiet and respectful.
You have to follow a predetermined
path through the rooms.
You can't really touch the art
or interact with it too much.
It's a bit more limiting.
There's kind of expectations for how
you should experience the museum,
which makes it less of a third place.
That doesn't mean it can't be, though.
I think that museums can be third
places if they create spaces or halls
where, for example, the limitations
on behavior are lifted a little bit.
It's more in museums, there's often
areas that are specific to children
where you're allowed to touch things.
You're allowed to touch, you're
allowed to play, you're allowed to sit.
There's movable parts and you're
invited to engage with the art.
That kind of a space is more likely to be
a third place just because you have more
freedom of behavior and you can kind of
relax and not have to worry about breaking
something or doing something wrong.
I think that that's one way that
we can create parts of a museum
that are more third-space friendly.
Also, another way that I've seen it
done is there's cafes in museums.
For example, there's a fantastic cafe in
London in the, I think it's the Albert
and Victoria Museum, which is free.
And then there's a wonderful cafe in
it that you can just go as a cafe, you
don't have to go to the museum, you
can just go get a pastry or a drink and
it's beautiful and it's fairly noisy.
You don't have to be quiet.
It's just a very standard cafe.
And then if you want to, you
can go to the museum as well.
So the fact that the third place is
within the museum means that it's
more likely that you will be inspired
to visit the museum before or after.
So that's a great way to combine the two.
And then the third way I would say
that you can make a museum more of a
third place or third-place friendly
is if you let the soul of the museum
or whatever is being displayed
within the museum spill out into
the outside, into the public realm.
And we do see a lot of museums do this
where they'll put an exhibit on the
sidewalk in front of the museum or they'll
have their grounds and on the grounds
that are in public, they'll put certain
photographs or sculptures or something
that represents an exhibit going on inside
and makes you curious, and that way they
get more people to visit the museum.
But also they give the public access
to the museum's insides, which maybe
they don't normally have access to
or if there's like a ticket that they
can't afford, they can still experience
the museum outside in some way.
And if there's seating and refreshments,
for example, then you have a third place.
One of the classic examples of a
third place is the bowling alley.
"Bowling Alone" is the Putnam book.
And the idea is that after
work, you'd be going to this
place, you'd be playing a game.
And bowling is very specifically great for
socialization because you're taking your
turn, you're sitting down in different
combinations, you're interacting with a
lot of people in a very small amount of
time, but also bowling is really loud.
And as you said, museums
are really quiet by default.
How can a museum or another institution
of cultural heritage, how can they
encourage socialization, encourage people
to be interacting with one another and
to be having this sort of, I don't want
to say forced community, but really
nudging people towards community in
the way that a bowling league does?
I think one of the best ways to
do that is through programming.
If they have programming which invites
certain groups of people in to do a
particular activity, and then it will
attract people who like that activity,
and then they'll naturally have
something to bond over, break the ice,
and they can meet like-minded people.
For example, in New York City, in
one of the art museums, they had
a sketching activity or a drawing
activity where, in one of the halls
between the exhibits, they had paper
and pencils and sketch pads, and then
people who liked art or drawing were
invited to just sit down and draw.
And so it was a room full of
people sprawled out on the floor
or on beanbag chairs or on tables.
All of them were sharing pencils
and drawing each other or drawing
certain artworks that they'd seen.
It was a very casual, relaxed environment
and very easy to start a conversation
with somebody or say, "Oh, I love what
you're drawing. What inspired you?"
It creates an environment where it's easy
to connect with people because you already
see that that person has a shared hobby,
a shared interest as you, like drawing.
And so you have immediately something
you can talk about and bond over.
So programming is a good way to do it.
There's all different
kinds of programming.
It could be programming
that's really art focused.
It could even be something like a concert,
invite people to dance or even teach them
a particular dance from a certain country.
And then you have, again, breaking
the ice because people see that it's
okay to interact with each other.
One of the biggest barriers to
people connecting with strangers is
that they don't know if it's okay.
And they don't know if they're
bothering somebody by going up to
them and starting to talk with them.
In a normal environment, even in a
coffee shop, you don't know if that
person's there to work, to study,
to be alone with their thoughts.
And so you don't want to bother them.
But if you have programming where the idea
is to do something fun and interactive,
then you go into it knowing that
that's acceptable and that's expected.
What do we know about the difference
in psychology of talking to a stranger
in one of these programs, in one of
these real-world environments, as
opposed to talking to them online?
Are those two things very different?
Yeah.
I mean, it's totally different.
And I think that that's … One of the
issues with technology right now, I
would say, is that it makes you feel like
you are connecting and communicating,
but it's such a different beast from
what it means to really communicate
with a person in the real world.
It's such a different experience what
you do on your phone on a messaging
app or on Instagram direct messaging.
What you do there is completely different
from the experience of speaking to
a person in vivo, in the real world.
Yeah.
Even if you don't know nothing about them,
even give way less information about them.
Exactly.
That's even harder to do.
Yes.
It's even harder to connect with someone
that you know nothing about because
there's all these different things
that you have to navigate in order to
make them feel comfortable, in order
to keep the conversation pleasant,
because that person may have a very
different personality from you, may
have very different opinions from you.
You don't know anything about them.
And so in order to create a
connection, a bond with them, you
have to be able to navigate those
differences in a respectful way.
And that is difficult to do when
the internet puts those people
kind of in opposition to each
other, like on Twitter or whatever.
The things that go viral are usually
extreme opinions or extreme ideas
that get people angry, they create
friction and they have people in
the comments arguing, fighting.
But if you meet somebody in the real world
at an art event or at a concert and they
say something that you don't agree with,
you can't get angry and confrontational
with them because that's just not the
way that it works with human connection.
People are all different and just
because you have some sort of difference
in opinion doesn't mean that it's
acceptable for you to become angry
or aggressive in your conversation.
You have to keep the peace.
You have to be harmonious.
And that's a big part of coexistence
with different kinds of people is
that you have to be able to coexist
with people who are different from
you and navigate tricky conversations.
Even if it's someone who you don't
agree with, you have to show them
respect, you have to hear them out, you
have to have patience and tolerance.
All of those skills are something
that needs to be practiced
in order to be mastered.
And if the only way that we're
encountering those situations is online
where everybody's protected by anonymity
and so there's no consequence to being
confrontational or aggressive, then
you don't learn, you can't do that.
You can't do that in the real
world because in the real world
there is consequences for acting
that way in a disrespectful manner
because that person will get upset.
They'll get upset, maybe they'll
get angry, they might get sad.
They'll give you feedback that
is uncomfortable and it just
creates a lot of friction.
Online, there's no real consequence
because you're protected by
layers and layers and layers
of anonymity and distance.
You're not really in contact
with what happens after you say
something that's maybe a bit tricky.
Whereas in the real world you have to
immediately respond and so you have to
be able to manage it and you have to know
what's the best way to cushion certain
things you say or how to manage your
expressions or your body language when
you hear something that you don't like.
It's a very complex process and it's
not something that you can teach someone
or that you can take a course on.
It's something that you
learn with practice.
So I talk often about the plasticity
of the brain and how people who
grew up in an environment where
third places are abundant and they
have constant interactions with
strangers, they learn naturally all
these processes of communication
because that's just life for them.
And so when they become adults, it's
very easy for them to speak with anybody.
Whereas people who don't have access
to a lot of third places and situations
where they encounter strangers and
they do all of that on the screen,
on the phone, they don't learn
those mechanisms for communication.
They don't master them and then
they feel uncomfortable and anxious
and stressed when faced with those
situations in the real world.
So we need more third places
to give people that practice.
Is there something that you think
museums can learn from the way
cities are designed — good cities are
designed — that they can apply to make
the experience better for their patrons?
I think that the way that the museum
flows can certainly be inspired by a
city that flows well, because a museum
can be very confusing to navigate and
you might have your map or screens that
help you get into certain wings, but the
best way to get people flowing through a
museum is by establishing good principles
of urban design, which is the way that
the paths are set, having focal points.
Because a lot of the times when people
navigate a space, they don't think
about cardinal directions — east,
west, north, south — they think
about themselves in relation to
a certain focal point they saw.
So when you have focal points set
up like a big sculpture at a certain
intersection, a key intersection,
and then that helps people navigate
and know, oh, okay, I was there
before, I'm going to go that way now.
So basically making the museum intuitive
to navigate, which is also something we
talk about is super important for cities.
Cities should be intuitive to navigate.
You should have a sense of where
to go even if you're not looking
at your map because it should feel
natural to go in that direction.
And we can do that by designing,
for example, the level of detail.
When you're at a fork in the road
and you see one street that has a lot
of things going on there, a lot of
storefronts, a lot of street trees and
flowers and benches and awnings, and
then you have one where it has less of
those things, you're much more likely
to go in the direction with more things.
When you have a higher density
of detail and goings on that
attracts direction of foot traffic.
If you want people to go in a certain
direction, then you have to make it
appealing to go in that direction through
the addition of features and details
that are engaging and appealing to them.
So the same happens in museums.
If you want people to go in a certain
direction, then put something there that
catches their eye that they want to see
closer up and then that'll move them
naturally in that direction like a magnet.
So it's a lot about those kinds
of subconscious aspects of flow.
I think a good example to also look
to is the mall, the American mall.
Really?
Yeah.
So the American mall is very expertly
designed to make the average visitor
move through it in a way where they
cover the maximum amount of surface
area so that they see the maximum amount
of stores and shop in more places.
So it's actually very calculated how
the stores are set up, how the common
areas are set up, how the escalators
are set up so that, for example,
there's not escalators in convenient
places, there's escalators in places
where perhaps you are forced to do
a full circle before you reach it.
And that way you see more
storefronts and you shop more.
So it's very strategically
designed, the average mall, in
a way that increases profit.
But if you have a different
motivation — for example, increasing
the visibility of art — you can
still use those same principles,
but just with a different goal.
One time my partner and I, we were in
Greece and we went to the archeology
museum in Heraklion, on Crete, and
it was like going through an Ikea.
We were going through this linear
path of all this ancient pottery,
more pottery, more pottery.
And we were like, yes, it's incredible
it's preserved, and we are learning
about history, but we were so tired.
By the time we got to the second
half of the museum, we were going
faster and we were not appreciating
the full scope of what the museum
had to offer because it didn't really
encourage us to move in a way that
was human scale or that was conducive
to the amount of energy that we had.
And you felt trapped, probably.
Not exactly trapped, but it's more
that we reached the second half of the
museum where they're getting to more
modern history and we felt like we
didn't have the same level of energy.
Honestly, we should've
just stopped for a coffee.
It's really partly on us.
But that's also a great point.
If you're going to have that kind
of a design where a person has to be
walking a long, long time, in order
to increase their endurance, you have
to offer them refreshment areas, rest
areas, so that they have the energy
to continue and to see the rest of it.
So those are things that we have
to think about when we want to
direct the movement of foot traffic.
Okay, this person has
been walking a while.
We have to think about that.
So what are they going to want
to do after that long walk if we
want them to continue walking?
So all those aspects
need to be thought about.
And reversing the previous question,
what can cities learn from museums?
Are there any design principles that we
can take from the way the museums are
laid out or the way they do programming
that can help build a better city?
Well, I think that one of the main issues
we have with cities, especially modern
cities, I mean, maybe this is a little
bit too on the nose, a little bit too
obvious, but it's the lack of beauty.
The lack of beauty, it's the lack of art.
So what museums do is they appreciate
and their existence is because they
understand that people love beauty.
People love creativity.
People love seeing it.
They're willing to pay money to see it.
That's something that
cities need to understand.
People like looking at beautiful things.
People will pay more money
to be surrounded by beauty.
That's why we have museums.
So a city should also
incorporate those concepts.
It should incorporate beauty.
It should incorporate visual
interest, cultural enrichment,
because that's what people like.
If you have a city that offers none
of that, it's just glass walls and
concrete and steel and featureless
buildings, people don't like that.
They don't like that.
And I think that a lot of modern
architecture, a lot of modern urban
planning, is designed with the value
system of architects or certain
subsets of urbanists or planners that
have a certain vision of utopia or
futuristic, whatever the case may be.
And they lose track of the fact
that a city is for the people.
So a city should be designed with
what the people like in mind,
what the people want in mind.
And so when we have conversations about
the way modern cities look and feel, most
people, the average person will usually
say, "Cities are so ugly these days.
Why do we have all of these oddly shaped
oblong buildings or rectangular towers?
This isn't pretty." And then a more
sophisticated architect will say,
"Ahaha, you understand nothing.
This is actually very elevated and
sophisticated." It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter from a philosophical
or intellectual standpoint,
this is groundbreaking art.
This building is part of the public realm.
It is meant to serve the public.
It's not just an expression of your
artistic sensibility as the architect.
It's not a statue that is supposed to
just serve you and what you believe is
beautiful or interesting or sophisticated.
It's supposed to be something that can
enrich the lives of the public because
it's those people who will be seeing
it every single day and it's a very
important component of their life.
So it can't be designed in a selfish way.
It has to be designed in a way where
it resonates with the people who live
there, which means it has to embody
something of the culture of the place.
And there's ways to do that
in creative and novel ways.
You can use those principles or you can
take those elements of art and history
and shape them in new and modern ways
that's creative, that's groundbreaking,
but still keep the essence true to itself.
You still keep the personality
and identity of the city and the
people within the building's design.
But we see very little of that nowadays.
We just see these buildings and nobody
understands why they were designed
that way, what's the value of them, and
then it causes a lot of frustration.
And so I think what cities can learn
from museums is that people like
beautiful things and people want to
be surrounded by beautiful things.
It's really not a concept that should
be hard to grasp, yet here we are.
All right.
We are wrapping up here, but we have
a very important question we need to
answer, which is, imagine that you
are in a museum and, most importantly,
you are in a museum gift shop.
What do you buy in the gift shop?
I love the museum gift shops.
I love the museum gift shops because you
can take a piece of history with you.
You can take a piece of
the museum home with you.
I find that so fascinating.
And usually they have some of the most
amazing souvenirs in the whole city
you'll find in the museum gift shops.
I was in a museum in Vienna and oh,
I wish I could remember the name,
but it was a very difficult name.
It's the name of this artist that had
this very unique style, a little bit
surrealist, a little bit Picasso-esque.
Anybody who's been to Vienna
knows what I'm talking about.
The museum itself is very
beautiful and interesting.
It looks like the Gaudi
museums in Barcelona.
I did some digging after the podcast,
and I’m pretty sure this this is the
KunstHausWien in Vienna, which features
the work of Friedensreich Hundertwasser.
And let me just say, this
place looks cool as hell.
I’ll put a link in the show notes.
In the gift shop, there was these
sticker books where you could create
a visual building or work of art
that imitated his style by having
…
So the stickers were basically patterns
that he used often or motifs or components
and colors that he would use a lot.
And so you can kind of mix and match
those to create your own work of art
that sort of imitated his work of art.
And I found that to be so much fun
and so interesting because you feel
like you're really engaging with the
way he thought and the way he created
and you got a better understanding of
why he used those colors and patterns.
So that was the last thing I think I
bought at a museum gift shop, and I think
that was so creative and I would probably
buy another one if I saw it again.
Last question for you.
I think you've said that Barcelona is your
favorite city in the world, is that right?
Yes.
What is your favorite museum in
the world that you've been to?
Oh, that's such a good question.
My favorite museum … I mean,
I'm probably going to be very
cliché, but I do love the Louvre.
Nothing wrong with that.
It's just so big and there's just
so much in there and just so … You
can spend a whole day there.
You have sculptures and paintings.
And I love the way it's … the
place it's located in Paris.
I think something I talk about often
about Paris, what I love about Paris is
the way that it lays out its landmarks
because you can see them from afar.
For example, when you're at the
museum, the Louvre, from its
grounds, you can see the Eiffel
Tower and you can see other features.
And if you walk straight out of it,
you'll pass through the Tuileries
Gardens and you'll go up the
Champs-Élysées into the Arc de Triomphe.
So the way that the focal points
and the landmarks are laid out and
connected by the Grand Boulevard so
that you're naturally flowing between
them and can see them and navigate
them from the perspective of the
other one, I think is so brilliant.
It's so genius.
It feeds into that concept of the
intuitive city where you don't even
need a map because from here I can see
my next destination, and then the path
from A to B is a magnificent street in
itself, so I'm just naturally flowing
through the city in the best possible
way because it's designed so well.
So because of not only the experience
of the Louvre internally, but also the
way it's situated and its relationship
to the other landmarks and streets
in Paris, I would choose that one.
Another thing about the Louvre, someone
told me that it has a McDonald's.
Does it?
This is what I've been told.
I think this is new.
And so future season of Call 'Em
Like Museum, I got to have the budget
to go to Paris and do a profile
of the Louvre McDonald's, I think.
I'm sure it's also beautiful because
—
I suspect so, right?
I think I was once in a Paris McDonald's
and it was magnificent inside.
[laugh]
It had no relation to our version
of McDonald's, which is fascinating
how they adapt it to their culture.
And that's another thing we talked about.
It should reflect the people and the
context in order to really have value.
Well, that's for a future season, but
for now, Tayana Panova, thank you so
much for coming on Call 'Em Like Museum.
Thank you so much for having me.
This was a pleasure.
Thanks again to Dr. Tayana
Panova for coming on the podcast.
You can find her on Instagram,
TikTok, and YouTube at dr.tpanova.
And that's spelled P-A-N-O-V-A.
She's also the co-host of the podcast
The Perfect City, with Ariel Viera.
I was inspired by her answer to the
gift shop question, so I found a
book of museum stickers — which is
perfect for all ages, not just kids.
I'm giving it away to one lucky
subscriber of the Call 'Em
Like Museum email newsletter.
To enter, just sign up for the
newsletter at likemuseum.com.
Call 'Em Like Museum is hosted
and edited by me, Eric Johnson.
It's produced out of my podcast
agency in San Francisco, LightningPod.
Our marketing specialist is Julia
Wilde, artwork by Rhe Civitello.
Thank you for listening to this episode.
I'll see you at the museum.