The Global Spread of Gated Communities

Abstract

The global spread of gated communities One of the most striking features of recent urbanisation is the rise in popularity of privately governed residential, industrial, and commercial spaces. In many rapidly urbanising countries, gates and guards appeared at a time of double-digit economic growth and generated little public or academic commentary öthey were simply part of the surreal economic and spatial transformation that engulfed so many countries in the last two decades of the 20th century. In more established urban economies, proprietary developments seem more obviously to enclose what were previously regarded as public domains. This led to widespread discussion about the implications for civic society, fiscal solvency, social exclusions, and efficient service delivery and about the impact of global capital and real estate markets on urban social and spatial structure. In a study that compared condominiums in Sa¬ o Paulo with gated communities in Los Angeles, Caldeira (1996, page 320) concluded`T he Garden City model, modernist design and city planning, and now the fortified enclaves,`outer cities', and theme parks are part of the repertoire from which different cities around the world are now drawing.'' Developers, landowners, investors, and consumers have together shaped a new genre of modern urban habitat. An increasingly sophisticated mass market has emerged in entire neighbourhoods, comprising homes, community infrastructure, services, and microurban governance. Gates and guards are just one part of a bigger package. The phenomenon is a spontaneous one and it has spread rapidly within and between countries. Its significance lies not so much in the physical impact of gated developments, though this may pose challenges to urban designers, but in their underlying sociology, politics, and economics. In short, they challenge the spatial, organisational, and institutional order that has shaped modern cities. Up to now, discussion about the causes and consequences of proprietary developments (also called club communities) has been largely inspired by observations in the big cities of the USA. In their much-cited study, Blakely and Snyder (1997) estimated that up to 9 million US residents live in 3 million units in around 20 000 proprietary residential communities bounded by walls and entrance gates. By 1999 Phoenix, Arizona had 320,000 of its citizens, or 12% of the Metro Phoenix population, living in 641 gated communities (Frantz, 2001). Using data from the Community Association Institute, in figure 1 (see over) we sketch the boom of gated and guarded condominiums and communities in the USA. More significant is the rise in the number of community associations. These are contractual associations that deliver some form of neighbourhood-level governance in the form of regulations and local civic goods and services on the basis of assessments (fees) collected from members. The Community Association Institute estimates that by 2002, 47 million Americans were living within 231 000 community associations and that 50...

Emerging Chinese Cities: Implications for Global Urban Studies

“…Fourth, gated communities are seen as the outcome of consumer clubs (Webster, Glasze, and Frantz 2002) and private governance, lifestyle choice, and concern for security (Blakely and Snyder 1997). In the Chinese case, though, the development of gated communities is promoted by developers as a place-branding tactic to enhance the attractiveness of underdeveloped suburbs (F. Wu 2010a).…”

Enclosure of the urban commons

“…We do not review the empirical evidence for the global spread of private neighbourhoods, which is one outcome of the rising demand for common resource rights reassignment in cities. This topic is reviewed elsewhere (see Webster, Glasze, & Frantz, 2002 and the collection of papers in the same journal issue; Glasze, Webster, & Frantz, 2005). Neither do we review the theoretical literature that underpins our argument, which is also reviewed elsewhere (Barzel, 1997;Webster, 2002Webster, , 2003aWebster and Lai, 2003).…”

(Dis)connected communities and sustainable place-making

“…The perverse overlap between the disconnection of a gated community (Webster et al 2002, Pow 2009) and the "sustainable communities" policy discourse is picked up on more generally by Rogerson et al (2010, p. 516) in their critique of the (previous) UK Government 's Sustainable Communities Strategy (ODPM 2003). Citing the work of Atkinson et al (2005), they note how "these potentially contradictory planning ideals" have been reflected in much of the national sustainable communities guidance provided to local planning authorities in recent years.…”