Bartlett School of Planning

BENVGPL4: Pillars of Planning

Critical Debates in International Planning Essay

Session: 2012-2013

Student Number: 12085186

Are New Urbanism and Gated Communities ‘two sides of the same coin’ (Grant, 2007)? Critically Compare and Contrast the Spatial and Social Characteristics of the Movements using International Examples of Both.

Word Count: 2,129

Introduction

New Urbanism and Gated communities today provide alternative options to our contemporary cities; they provide a choice of housing for those who can afford the relatively high cost paid for security, privacy, amenities and governance. New Urbanism’s most influential products are construction of mixed-use and creation of pedestrian –oriented neighbourhoods Trudeau and Malloy (2011). On the other hand, gated enclaves represent a type of urbanism where public space has been privatized, failed to generate the desired diversity, and to an extent shunned the city (Le Goix & Webster 2008; Grant 2007). This paper will attempt to highlight and explain the features and characteristics of both theories and address the point that they are ‘club realms’. Criticism of the theories namely sprawl, segregation and exclusion will be explained subsequently. The paper will then go on to analyse the ‘coin’ that these 2 theories represent, following this, the author’s personal take on the relevance of the literature will be provided and the side he chooses to identify with and reasons for this. International examples from Canada and China will then be used to further ratify the argument and characteristics for both. Finally, a suitable conclusion will be reached to tie both theories together as one coin.

Definitions, features and characteristics of New Urbanism and Gated Communities

According to (Grant, 2007 p 5) “new urbanism calls for an urban environment with an animated and attractive public realm that advocates connected and pedestrian-friendly streets that encourage natural surveillance (eyes on the street) and a variety of transportation options as alternatives to the car”. It’s designs incorporate a mix of uses, housing and people and reflect a desire to hug and allow age, income and ethnic diversity in a compact form (Grant, 2007). On the reverse side of the coin, “gated communities seek to create safe and quiet private realms that separate the home environment from the city” (Grant, 2007 p 7).

Suburbanization as defined by Ekers et al. (2012 p 3), “the combination of non-central population and economic growth with urban spatial expression” is a key feature of new urbanism and gated communities. This means that enclaves and urbanism lead to the growth of suburbs most observed in the US and Canada. The 2 schools share other similarities as highlighted by Grant (2007), these are in design standards, security concerns, provision of amenities, population identities and governance or management practices. In terms of design, it is understood that they exhibit high standards that are prescribed through codes or guidelines. With regards to security, defensive design and surveillance matters feature in gated enclaves and new urbanism. The former is of the view that houses near the street with windows in the front overlooking public areas, real and physical barriers like fences, walls and padlocks may enhance safety. On the other hand, New Urbanism advocates eyes on the streets, public spaces like parks or differences in height from street to house (Grant, 2007).

In terms of social amenities they both exhibit high end quality like basketball courts, swimming pools, cinemas and theatres. These result in extremely expensive cost of purchasing such forms of accommodation. With respect to locational characteristics, majority of these settlements occur in greenfield sites at the periphery of the city. Although it is important to note that some do exist in the inner city infill sites and brownfield former industrial developments as Hebbert (2003) identified that the new urbanism Charter unwraps with the crucial principle that the metropolitan area should be the unit for planning purposes. In terms of population profiles of inhabitants, densities tend to be higher in new urbanistareas, this is a result of the smaller lots and narrower streets (Grant, 2007). Gated estates on the contrary, are made of condominiums, town houses and small-lot dwellings. Privatization of the public land in residential neighbourhoods is increasing Kohn, (2004). This is a major pull of these communities as they offer private governance and control which the conventional city cannot provide, hence the flight to the suburbs. New Urbanism and gated enclaves are lifestyle possibilities for those who can afford them, in other words ‘countries’ for the upper and middle classes. They create club realms for the inhabitants Grant (2007).

I would at this point like to criticize the existing literature by saying they pay too much attention to Canada and the United States, whilst ignoring countries in the global south and the Far East. Surely, these regions too contain gated enclaves and new urbanist settlements probably not on the scale of North America. For example, in Nigeria and South Africa, the most important reason for employing gated communities is safety. Crime rates are particularly high due to the high rate of unemployment and illiteracy, so the middle and upper class who can afford to live in these estates resort to them. These communities share some of the same characteristics as their western counterparts such as security guards, private waste collection, zoning and gates. It terms of the social realm, one tends to notice a trend with regards to calibre of people with similar interests, level of education and exposure, lifestyles and status in the society. In fact, in the city where I reside, there are particular residential areas for academics, politicians, business men and people in the medical profession. The reason for this is down to word of mouth as availability of land is spread mostly in the place of work.

It is also important to note that some ironies exist between principle and actual practice in new urbanism. According to Grant (2006) four ironies can be highlighted, these are in terms of traditional forms and modern tactics, public and private realms, urban and suburban enclaves and finally democratic and elitist. In some cases, application of these new urbanism principles reduced the supply of housing by gentrification. It is a bit ironic that instead of making cities more affordable and inclusive, new urbanism weakens the supply of affordable housing and relegates the poor to the suburbs thereby creating inequality and alienation which results in the growth of exclusive enclaves despite the best intentions of planners (grant, 2006). These are the major criticisms of new urbanism and gated communities.

Gated communities as club goods are a response to both real and perceived issue of crime, vandalism and social behaviour. They can help increase social cohesion within the neighbourhood by involving a wide spectrum of communities and groups to create management vehicles which can reduce crime, increase safety and enhance the local environment by preventing unapproved entry. Gating is a feature of the growth of ‘global city regions’ and the intensification of inequality and proximity which has accompanied urban growth and globalisation of the free market Manzi & Smith-Bowers (2005). I believe that as individuals gather wealth, violence or the fear of it becomes a major preoccupation dragging them towards forms of fortress settlement surrounded by walls and guarded entries as highlighted by (Scott 2002) c.fManzi & Smith-Bowers (2005).

According to (Manzi & Bowers 2005) “Enclaves can be analysed in economic terms as form of holding property rights developed through collective action of individuals for individual mutual benefits. They therefore offer a range of scarce goods such as secure and guaranteed parking, enhanced security, common appearance and rules governing the use of managed communal areas”. This is a sort status symbol and form of protection common in Nigeria. Estate Associations are also a feature of gated communities that provide a type of government for these communities that are in charge of security provision, waste collection, and street lightning etc. Le Goix & Webster (2008) are of the view that the perspective of gated communities include ownership, governance and management. For example they have some kind of Home Owners Association brought together by their common interests and charged with the day to day running of the enclave

Two of the strongest critiques are that new urbanism adds to sprawl and generates socially exclusive communities. The critiques have rebranded the movement as the “New Suburbanism” and “suburbs in disguise” (Marshall, 1996 c.f Trudeau and Malloy, 2011). New urbanism creates sprawl at the periphery of the city as greenfield sites are eaten up to make way for their creation, this is one of the problems obvious in the US today. So also, gated communities segregate and exclude unwanted people form their enclaves with fences, walls, gates and barriers. Inhabitants of these communities have buy in to the apparent sense of safety with the occurrence of these physical exclusionary entities. However, studies have shown that these barriers do not necessarily prevent crime; they in some cases attract crime as criminals view them as affluent areas and naturally become interested in them.

To answer the question of both sides of the same coin, yes I agree that new urbanism and gated communities are two sides of the same coin as they seek to address shortcomings of contemporary cities, however, they also exhibit damaging effects on the public realm. Planners need to harness the positives from both theories and implement for better cities for people to live in. I found the literature on these 2 theories and practices quite relevant as they touched on important aspects and characteristics of the 2 schools of thought, even though most of the literature focuses on the Western world and neglects the global south. Without ignoring new urbanism, I prefer to side with gated communities simply because I have grown up in a third world country and seen its advantages and its features create safer neighbourhoods without contributing to sprawl. The next part of the paper will attempt to solidify the discussion with international examples of both theories.

International Examples of Gated Communities and New Urbanism

Chinese cities were not originally geared towards capital accumulation under socialism; the state decided all methods of production. Wu (2009 p 3) argues that, “the landscape was monotonic, mainly compromising suburban industrial belts and matchbox like multi storey apartments without skyscrapers dominating the skyline. The tallest structure was probably the monument used to present the superiority of socialism”. With the demise of socialism and the advent of capitalism, Chinese cities began to adopt western style forms of design and planning. As Wu, (2009 p 10) put it, “one might speculate that the foreign design style is introduced to attract expatriates or transnational immigrants because of their cultural affinity with European or American styles of living”. Gated communities in China in terms of built form are divided into 2: apartment complexes (high-rise) and villa compounds (low-rise) (Wu & Webber 2004). They went on to state reasons for gated communities in Beijing included security, social status, better housing standards, access to international schools, better amenities like hospitals, shopping centres and supermarkets, sense of community. They go on to conclude that, “foreign gated communities are formed for various reasons beyond the simple security problem. These communities are truly clubs in terms of service provision and governance. The existence of Gated Communities should be traced back to the building process” (Wu & Webster 2004 p 8). Gated communities in Beijing are clustered in the Northeast and east of the city and are attracting luxury housing projects to the area. This is due to the uneven distribution of globalisation (Wu & Webster 2004).

Toronto’s unique social political and economic dynamics continue to influence new urbanistic development to the ‘good city’ (Moore 2010). Characteristics of 4 master planned communities in the Greater Toronto Area on brownfield and greenfield sites is another international example. The projects in Cornell, Town of Markham, Montgomery Village, Town of Orangeville, King West Village, City of Toronto and The Beach, City of Toronto were developed to intensify and regenerate suburban ethic to the city. They are characterised by hybrid processes and forms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the paper has tried to present the author’s case of affirming that gated communities and new urbanism are two sides of the same coin. The abundant literature on the topics was sufficient and relevant enough to give a personal insight, however, it was noted that there is a dearth in studies of the global south. The paper began by introducing the debate and then it went into the feature and characteristics of the theories, similarities and differences were also presented. Then major criticisms of the schools were highlighted and explained. Justifications of the author’s point of view were then presented and finally two international examples of Beijing and Toronto were utilised to back the argument. From my findings, I will say that yes new urbanism and gated communities are two sides of the same coin.

References

  1. Ekers, M., P. Hamel and R. Keil (2011), 'Governing suburbia: modalities and mechanisms of suburban governance', Regional Studies, 46(3), 405-422.
  2. Peck, J. (2011), 'Neoliberal suburbanism: frontier space', Urban Geography, 32 (6), 884-919.
  3. Grant, J. (2007) ‘Two sides of a coin? New Urbanism and Gated Communities’, Housing Policy Debate 18, 481-501.
  4. Le Goix, R. and C. Webster (2008), 'Gated communities', Geography Compass, 2 (4), 1189-1214.
  5. Wu, F. (2009), ‘Neo-Urbanism in the Making Under China’s Market Transition’ City, Vol.13, No. 4 pp 418-433.
  6. Wu, F. (2010), ‘Gated and Packed Suburbia: Packaging and Branding Chinese Suburban Residential Development’, Cities, Vol. 27, pp 385-396.
  7. Wu, F. and Webber, K., (2004) ‘The Rise of “Foreign Gated Communities” in Beijing: Between Economic Globalization and Local Institutions’, Cities, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp 203-213.
  8. Trudeau, D. and Malloy, P. (2011), ‘Suburbs in Disguise? Examining the Geographies of the New Urbanism’, Urban Geography, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp 424-447.
  9. Manzi, T. and Smith-Bowers, B. (2005), ‘Gated Communities as Club Goods: Segregation or Social Cohesion?’,Housing Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp 345-359.
  10. Moore, S. (2010), ‘More Toronto, Naturally’ but too Strange for Orangeville’: De-universalizing New Urbanism in Greater Toronto’, Cities, Vol. 27, pp 103-113.
  11. Grant, J. (2006), ‘The Ironies of New Urbanism’, Canadian Journal of Urban Research, Vol. 15, Issue 2, pp 158-174.
  12. Hebbert, M. (2003), ‘New Urbanism – the Movement in Context’, Built Environment, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp 193-209.