Conquering condos from within: Condo-isation as urban governance and knowledge

Abstract

The inner governance of condominiums profoundly matters for understanding urban governance and life but has so far been neglected in urban studies. This article examines its relation to development and suggests how several overlooked institutional processes, forms of knowledge and corresponding agents render the condominium possible through relations of governance. These multiple, reinforcing institutional elements -juridification, financialisation and commodificationare constituents of an urban governmental process we refer to as 'condo-isation'. Drawing on interviews with condominium owners and condominium industry representatives and on related qualitative data in Toronto, Canada, we illustrate overlap between condominium development and inner condo governance and elaborate these institutional processes, agents and knowledges. We conclude by discussing implications of our analysis for existing concepts and future urban studies research.

Displacement by disruption: short-term rentals and the political economy of “belonging anywhere” in Toronto

“…As one of North America's largest condominium market, this form of housing really became central to Toronto's re-urbanization strategy in the late 1990s on the heels of Federal disinvestment in social housing in the early 1990s (Lehrer & Wieditz, 2009;Lippert & Steckle, 2016;Rosen & Walks, 2013, 2015. Today, Lehrer, Keil, and Kipfer (2010) include Toronto among cities aspiring to the "New Metropolitan Mainstream" which portray themselves as "open-minded, neoliberal, productivist, culturalistic, consumerist and growth oriented" (p. 82).…”

Sari vs. Dim Sum – Business Improvement Areas and the Branding of Toronto's Ethnic Neighbourhoods

“…Toronto's Official Plan from 2006 has encouraged private sector inner‐city development via loosened land use regulation and intensification, which has led to redevelopments in condominium tenure, especially downtown (Lehrer & Wieditz ; Quastel et al ; Rosen & Walks ). This shift from urban dispersal to concentration in downtown unites the interests of private sector industries and the state with consumers interests, fuelling the replacement of industrialisation by the financialisation of condominium mortgages as a main driver of urban growth (Rosen & Walks ; Lippert & Steckle ). The interrelated gentrification and displacement have reshaped the social fabric of the city (Kipfer & Keil ; Walks & August ; Lehrer & Wieditz ) in ways which severely affect traditional migrant neighbourhoods.…”

Corporatizing security through champions, condos and credentials

“…The relevance of condos as a corporatizing realm of urban security is clearer when considered as the result of a process. Condo corporations result from a process called “condoization” (Lippert & Steckle, 2016) or “condoism” (Rosen & Walks, 2015) that is corporatizing urban space and security arrangements. Condo statutes as well as efforts of large corporate developers, property management, and security firms have made this possible.…”

“…Once corporate condo developers (or builders) establish enhanced security and related rules in new condo buildings (Lippert, 2012), condo corporation boards upon taking formal control of the building from the developer as required by statute must ensure these security arrangements are maintained or further enhanced. In doing so condo corporations are reshaping security governance with often detrimental effects on the public good and immediate constituents in their coercion and exclusion of some residents; fraudulent board election practices; and keeping information including security deliberations secret from residents (Lippert & Steckle, 2016; McKenzie, 2011). As one condo property manager interviewed for a security trade magazine remarked: “The boards are very concerned with security.…”