In a recent paper in the European Journal of Spatial Development Journal, Tony Manzi and Bill Smith-Bowers (2006) attempt to provide what they see as a more subtle approach to these developments, arguing, by way of a critique of some of the author's earlier work (centrally that of Atkinson and Blandy, 2005), that hostility to gated communities is misplaced on several grounds. In this article, it is argued in return, that there are several problems with the positions they adopt, and that these should be considered if we are to effectively discuss how planning practice and housing systems should work with or against these new trends in the built environment.

The author argues that the key 'problematic' raised by gated communities is less one of empirical evidence on their impacts, since much work already points to a range of problems, and rather what these developments forecast for the character and dynamics of the urban spaces and societies we wish to live in. At the heart of the position lies a concern that either bolstering the case for gated communities or seeing them as neutral objects in the landscapes around us risks amplifying the further construction of impermeable boundaries. Critically then the risk is that ignoring the political and normative aspects of gating, as the author believes Manzi and Smith-Bowers do, may lead to further and deeper socio-spatial segregation that itself excludes the voice of social groups least able to challenge or, indeed, reside in gated developments and the additional security that they appear to offer.

Gating offers a relatively new, problematic (based on the empirical evidence) and deeply unpalatable logic of urban development (based on particular political positions and the assessment of that evidence). Its democratisation, through cheaper copies, and extension, through the growth of real incomes for perhaps the top two thirds of the population, presents a distinctive challenge for public policy. In this respect gating raises the need for a planning system capable of articulating a common good espoused around ideals of free movement, social diversity and inclusivity in the built environment.

On the basis of the evidence it is argued with conviction that gated communities are problematic and that they lay ever-greater pressures and problems onto those people who are left outside their boundaries. Power and prestige resides with those who are seeking to partition cities and exclude certain groups – political and economic capital is thereby driving the deployment of this segregatory 'tool'. If concentrations of poverty are problematic then we must also ask what problems concentrated affluence generates for our urban areas. The answer is that gated developments reinforce a social and spatial split between the 'have lots' and 'have nots' and that the latter are excluded from such spaces both physically and by their lack of resources to access security. If we are to move forward on debates about gated residential development it is essential to recognise these impacts and critically think about the kind of socially equitable and justifiable public responses they logically entail.

University of Tasmania
Housing and Community Research Unit - School of Sociology and Social Work
Hobart
Rowland Atkinson (Director)

06/05/2008

Rowland Atkinson

research

Urban Policy > Housing

Housing policy