Temporary uses are often subject of criticism as they can have gentrifying effects that can lead to marginalization, segregation and displacement of users if they are not protected (Bishop & Williams 2012; Madanipour 2017). Nevertheless, temporary uses also have the potential to support community, as they can enhance informal social encounters, strengthen a sense of belonging and provide opportunities for participation (Bishop & Williams 2012; Cotič & Uršič 2024; Németh & Langhorst 2014). Particularly, cultural temporary uses are criticized for being an instrument of city marketing, for its ephemeral nature, for contributing to the privatization of urban places and for promoting exclusion, precariousness and vulnerability of their users (Egger 2025). Without denying these gentrifying effects, this research intends to provide a complementary understanding of cultural temporary uses by determining social values and emphasizing that they also have various positive effects on community. Therefore, this research aims to analyze how cultural temporary uses in Munich function as third places and thereby support community despite their ephemeral and uncertain nature, drawing on Ray Oldenburg’s (1999) concept of third places. Thus, by conducting semi-structured interviews with organizers and artists involved in two cultural temporary uses in Munich, Bahnwärter Thiel and Happy End Hotel, the research question addressed is: How do cultural temporary uses in Munich function as third places and thereby support community? The analysis is based on the eight characteristics of third places according to Oldenburg (1999) and simultaneously engages with the critiques of this concept. The findings of this research suggest that cultural temporary uses not only have gentrifying effects, but can also function as third places for some, as they can promote inclusion, informal social interaction, a sense of belonging and support community. Furthermore, cultural temporary uses can go beyond the key characteristics of third places and act as places of creative expression. However, the research also reveals that these places are not universally accessible and can replicate exclusionary dynamics. The research concludes that the positive effects of cultural temporary uses on community are not necessarily related to their temporary nature, but rather to their social relevance, use and organizational practices and structures.