Pow, 2014 PDF

Progress in Human Geography
1–22
Urban dystopia and ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
epistemologies of hope sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0309132514544805
phg.sagepub.com
C.P. Pow
National University of Singapore, Singapore
Abstract
This paper takes issue with the dystopian views that have come to dominate research on privatized urban
forms such as gated communities. Urban scholarship on gating is often overwhelmed by recurring case
studies documenting the proliferation of urban fortressing and segregation that often warn of an impending
urban dystopia with cities being besieged by neoliberal forces of privatism. Moving beyond such noir urban
scholarship and universal pessimism, the paper argues for a more ‘hopeful’ research agenda by countering the
overcoded mono-logic of urban fortification and segregation with a more nuanced perspective that under-
scores the differentiating dynamics and contingent nature of urban spaces.
Keywords
comparative urbanism, epistemologies of hope, gated communities, noir urbanism, urban dystopia
Introduction explanations for diverse urban processes and

outcomes.
Urban studies literature over the past decades
However, as Braun (2005: 840) argues, we
has been overwhelmed by dismal accounts on
seem too quickly to ‘believe that capitalism, and
the privatization of the city with the deepening
neoliberal globalization, are larger than life
of urban segregation and social-spatial exclu-
entities and we grant them more reality than the
sion. Since the turn of the 20th century, such
practices that constitute them’. To the extent
dystopic images have figured prominently in lit-
that these neoliberal urban nightmares are seen
erary, cinematic and academic representations
to pervade contemporary urban/geographical
of the modern city, with cities often depicted
scholarship, Robinson (2010) further points out
as dark and dysfunctional places wrecked by
that the deployment of such singular dystopic
endless capitalist crises and social-ecological
narratives is often premised on the assumption
catastrophes (Prakash, 2010: 1). Driven in part
that the urban conditions in many places are
by a discourse of fear and panic, much of this
already dystopic to begin with and that such
‘critical’ urban scholarship suffers from a form
urban dystopia ‘is not an imaginative futuristic
of theoretical determinism that sees cities and
elsewhere but an immediate and present
urban spaces as helpless pawns being assailed
by the ‘brutal tectonics of neoliberal globali-
zation’ (Davis, 2004: 23). Inherent in such
Corresponding author:
deterministic thinking is the reification of C.P. Pow, National University of Singapore, 1 Arts Link,
‘neoliberalism’ that has often been invoked Singapore 117570, Singapore.
a priori as a predetermined set of theoretical Email: powcp@nus.edu.sg
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE on February 26, 2016
2 Progress in Human Geography
geographical elsewhere’, notably in ‘Third number of social tensions ‘between exclusion-

World’ cities of the Global South (Robinson, ary aspirations rooted in fear and protection of
2010: 219). privilege and the values of civic responsibility;
Nowhere are such theoretical determinism between the trend toward privatization of pub-
and dystopian thinking more salient than in the lic services and the ideals of the public good
burgeoning literature on privatized urban forms and general welfare; and between the need for
such as ‘gated communities’.1 Within the geo- personal and community control of the envi-
graphical scholarship and urban studies literature ronment and the dangers of making outsiders
more broadly, interest in gated communities and of fellow citizens’ (Blakely and Snyder, 1997:
privatized urban governance has spawned the 3, emphasis added).
development of a corpus of ‘critical’ literature Indeed, many of the case studies on gated
documenting the global spread of ‘US-style’ communities that endlessly invoke such hyper-
gated urbanism (see Table 1). Accordingly, gated bolic images of a divided city seem to readily
communities are seen as sites and vehicles of subscribe to the idea that ‘cities really are war
urban neoliberalism, a transnational ‘gating zones and that every city must be the same’
machine’ (Vasselinov et al., 2007) that trans- (Virilio, 2005). In this context, this paper hopes
forms cities everywhere into urban fortresses. to move beyond such universal pessimism by
They are further vilified as reactionary and challenging the theoretical and methodological
socially exclusive ‘no-go’ territories that run determinism in gated communities research. It
counter to the modernist urban ideals of open- should, however, be mentioned that this paper
ness, diversity and social equity. does not invalidate the critiques of gated com-
Unsurprisingly, then, the literature on gated munities. As many studies have demonstrated,
communities is almost universally negative to the rise of gated urbanism is not only sympto-
the extent that even when positive aspects of matic of underlying issues of class division and
gating have been identified (see, for example, segregation but also exacerbates these prob-
Glasze and Alkhayyal, 2002; Salcedo and lems under current conditions of ‘global neoli-
Torres, 2004; Huang, 2006; Le Goix and Web- beralism’ (Graham and Marvin, 2001). It
ster, 2006), they are often seen as exceptions should also be qualified at the outset that this
and thus not systematically examined in the paper is not an argument for or against gated
overall theorizing of urban gating. communities/privatized urbanism per se, as if
Fundamentally, gated communities, as such positions could be delineated and marked
Blomley (2003: 22) noted, represent an inter- out so neatly and starkly. Rather, this paper
esting form of proprietary community where takes issue with the totalizing dystopian claims
holders of such ‘common property’ may ‘act and paradigmatic framing of gated commu-
in exclusionary fashion’ and ‘even be seeking nities as being intrinsically the product of an
admission into the realm of private ownership’. overextended neoliberalism that, in its most
Whether by intent or effect, gated communities extreme depiction, symbolizes the ‘evil para-
are underpinned by the capitalistic ‘liberal’ dises’ and ‘dreamworlds of neoliberalism’
ownership model, echoing Walzer’s(1984) (Davis and Monk, 2007).
idea of(Western) liberalism as ‘a world of To the extent that these critiques have
walls’ that keeps things separate through ‘visi- become dominant narratives spurring the serial
ble geographies of property’ such as fences, (re)production of ‘critical’ analysis on gated
gates, signs, maps, etc. (Blomley, 2004: 14). urbanism, they also risk foreclosing the debates
Blakely and Snyder (1997), in particular, con- by overgeneralizing the phenomenon without
sider gated communities as manifesting a careful contextualizing when, where and how
Table 1. Key research themes on gated communities.
Major themes
in Gated Social representation
Communities Role of state and urban Class distinction and Fear of crime and social and packaging of urban
(GC) research Global dynamics of gating governance urban segregation othering landscape
Key emphasis While extensively documented GCs arise in the context of a GCs cited as one of the factors Popularity of GC often seen to GC represented as elite class
and in the US (Blakely and Snyder, ‘neoliberal’ shift in urban leading to urban fragmentation be driven by imminent fear of enclaves associated with status
representative 1997; Davis, 1990; Low, 2003; governance leading to the and sprawl (‘LA model’) and the ‘cities under siege’ (Graham, anxiety, desire for social
work Sanchez et al., 2005), the ‘global withdrawal of the state urban deterioration of urban 2010) and a growing sense of homogeneity, marked by ‘moral
spread’ of GC is also evident in provision, especially in housing, solidarity that reinforces class insecurity especially in South minimalism’ (Low, 2003)
cities in Southeast Asia (Dick policing, etc. distinction and social-spatial Africa and Latin America
and Rimmer, 2003; Connell, segregation (Marcuse, 1997; (Jurgens and Landman, 2006; In Asian cities, GC are often
1999; Leisch, 2003; Waibel, Rise of homeowner Blakely and Snyder, 1997). Coy and Pohler, 2002) seen as ‘transplanted
2006), Africa (Grant, 2005; associations (HOAs) as a form landscapes’ of western
Jurgens and Landman, 2006; of private urban governance As ‘hermetically sealed seces- Even in places with low crime modernity (Wu, 2004; Connell,
Lemanski, 2006), Latin America (McKenzie, 1994). sionary spaces’, GCs are seen rate, fear of crime is used as 1999) and ‘paragons of lifestyle’
(Calderia, 2000; Thuillier, 2006; to contribute to the splintering reason to legitimize gating and (Falzon, 2004); a ‘foreign fancy
Coy, 2006), China (Giroir, Prime examples here include of urban landscape (Graham exclude outsiders and social world’ (Breitung, 2012) and
2006; Wu, 2004; Pow, 2009a), cities in US and Latin America and Marvin, 2001:222) or undesirables ‘golden ghetto’ for elites in
the Middle East (Rosen and where GCs are seen as described as ‘predators’ of Beijing (Giroir, 2006).
Grant, 2009; Glasze, 2006a), property tax ‘cash cows’ that public resources (Le Goix, GC seen as advocating
Europe (Raposo, 2006; reduce the financial burdens of 2006). ‘defensive urbanism’ (Ellin, Packaging of GC landscape is
Stoyanov and Frantz, 2006; local municipalities (Le Goix, 1997) accompanied by an seen as a form of
Csefalvay and Webster, 2012), 2006) Examples include cities in ‘architecture of fear’ (Flusty, aestheticization of class
etc. North and South America, like 1997) and the militarization of differences (Raposo, 2006)
However, in Western Los Angeles and São Paulo (see urban space in order to secure
Some studies point to European countries such as Low, 2003; Calderia, 2000), safe, sanitized and socially GC is depicted as form of
antecedent forms of enclosed Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Cape Town (Lemanski, 2006), ‘purified’ communities. ‘privatopia’ (McKenzie, 1994)
housing traditions that predate Italy, with a relatively extensive Mendoza, Argentina (Roitman, Low (2003); Dowling et al. that is cut off from surrounding,
contemporary GC phenomena. public sector coupled with high 2006). (2010). leading to privatization of urban
While many of these studies taxing power of local fabric and the spatialization of
emphasize local uniqueness, government, GCs are rarely GCs as a form of ‘club goods’ class warfare.
they also see converging trends found (Csefalvay and Webster, that privilege self-paying mid-
withUS/global style of GC 2012) dle/upper-class residents while GC often criticized as an ‘anti-
development. excluding others (Webster, urban’ development that
In some cases, GC 2002; Glasze, 2006b). promotes ‘urban fortressing’
In China, for example, development is seen as the and ‘panic’ urbanism (Virilio,
contemporary gated extension (rather than A small body of work, however, 2005). The most negative
communities are seen as an withdrawal) of government argues that GCs may actually representation of GC describes
extension of traditional strategies to manage private foster greater social (func- it as a form of ‘urban pathology’
enclosed courtyard housing and housing market and achieve tional) integration, especially (Davis, 1990) and ‘cancer’ of
socialist work-unit housing state goals, for example in when they are located in close the city (Miao, 2003) that builds
3
(continued)
4
Table 1. (continued)
Major themes
in Gated Social representation
Communities Role of state and urban Class distinction and Fear of crime and social and packaging of urban
(GC) research Global dynamics of gating governance urban segregation othering landscape
compounds (Wu, 2004; Huang, Sydney (McGurik and Dowling, proximity to poor neighbour- up ‘toxic’ relationship in urban
2006). 2009a), China (Huang, 2006) hoods or in a foreign setting environment (Sardar, 2010).
Similarly, in Latin America, and Singapore (Pow, 2009b). (Salcedo and Torres, 2004;
most traditional housing com- Manzi and Smith-Bowers, 2006;
plexes are walled and gated see also Glasze and Alkhayyal,
(Low, 2006). In former socialist 2002).
Belgrade, large ‘Western style’
GCs have evolved from historic
gated block homes (Hirt and
Petrovic, 2011) while new
‘middle-class’ GCs in Israel have
evolved from the traditional
kibbutz system (Rosen and
Grant, 2009). Also noteworthy
are historical legacies of ‘apart-
heid suburbanization’ that have
influenced gated township
development in Southern
African cities such as Cape
Town (Morange etal., 2012).
Pow 5
gating takes place in specific urban conditions. privatized urban forms) exist in an over deter-
The paper thus takes onboard Robinson’s chal- mined urban world with multiple co-evolving
lenge to extend ‘the geographical scope of the causes and conjoint effects that cannot be
kinds of empirical studies which dominate the reduced to monolithic frameworks such as neo-
discipline[s], and the kinds of places which are liberalism. Indeed, neoliberalism never acts
paid attention to in the course of theoretical inno- alone to produce hegemonic effects, but ‘only
vation, and scholarly discussion’ (Robinson, in a fairy tale world where everything is priva-
2003: 650). tised, marketised, and commodified’(Castree,
In many respects, this paper’s argument is 2006: 4).
both ontological– by questioning the inherent Set in these terms, this paper challenges the
nature of gating and urban exclusion/segrega- monolithic fallacy of such noir urban explana-
tion – as well as epistemological– by challen- tions by deploying nuanced differentiated
ging our knowledge of gated communities and accounts on the ground to challenge the inevit-
privatized urbanism through more rigorous ability of dystopian reading and pessimistic
grounded comparative exploration and explana- assessment of gated urbanism and the urban
tion. More fundamentally, this paper argues for world. As Blomley (2004) points out, private
a more ‘hopeful’ research agenda that moves properties such as gated communities are a con-
beyond the dystopian determinism and bleak ditional and contingent achievement that is not
urban scholarship on gated communities and reducible to the (dystopian) inner logic and
privatized urbanism.2 operation of neoliberal privatization. Ironically,
By epistemologies of hope, I am referring to the most trenchant critiques of gated commu-
the broad intellectual commitment to seeing and nities (or private property more generally)have
understanding cities as not being hopelessly a tendency to ignore their differentiated and
subsumed to the all-encompassing ‘capitolo- diverse dynamics by reifying the territoriality
centric’ discourses (Gibson-Graham, 1996) of propertied spaces as ‘spatial containers’ of
where diverse logics and rationales of urban antagonistic class relations that are played out
change are invariably captured under the omni- between property owners/‘insiders’ versus
present ‘big N’ of neoliberalism (Sparke, 2006). non-owners/‘outsiders’, private versus public,
The starting-point for such an epistemological as if such supposedly determinate categories
standpoint is not just to recognize the contingent could be readily ascribed at the outset (Blomley,
and ‘less-than-coherent’ nature of capitalism – 2010: 205; Pow, 2009a).
and, by extension, neoliberal urbanism – but To substantiate the arguments, the paper will
also to provide more subtly different and diverse begin by unpacking the ‘negative’ discourses on
accounts that challenge the overly pessimistic gated communities and highlight the theoretical
and dystopian view of an urban world overrun and methodological blinkers inherent in the
by neoliberal forces. By working through spe- existing literature. The paper then proceeds to
cific cases of gated communities in this paper, problematize the dystopian views and assump-
a broader remit here is to extend the critique tions in gated community research before
of the analytical pitfall in urban studies that offering some analytical strategies to counter
tends to frame our understanding of urban poli- such universalizing weakness and dismal per-
tics according to the a priori unitary logic of spectives. In particular, the paper highlights
‘neoliberal urbanism’ and the singular ‘neolib- three inter-related approaches: first, to go
eral master trope’ (McGuirk and Dowling, beyond the analytical fixation on the morphol-
2009a: 276). The paper starts with the pre- ogy/typology of gating to examine the underly-
sumption that gated communities (and other ing functions and diverse social meanings;
second, to incorporate critical insights from com- boundaries (walls, gates, fences) and surveil-
parative urbanism that go beyond the ‘compara- lance technologies to keep out the unwanted
tive gesture’ of merely adding on endless case ‘public’ and undesirable ‘others’. For their
studies to disrupt dominant theories on gating; harshest critics, gated communities have often
and third, to actively engage in what Robinson been diagnosed as an ‘urban pathology’ (Davis,
(2010: 230) calls ‘countercurrents to dystopian 1990) that is associated with destructive forms
tendencies’ by searching for nuanced and differ- of ‘splintering urbanism’ (Graham and Marvin,
entiated accounts of gated communities. In the 2001) and other detrimental social impacts such
conclusion, the paper will signpost an ‘episte- as the excessive encroachment of private prop-
mology of hope’ (Coutard and Guy, 2007) by erty on public spaces, the undermining of tra-
framing our understanding of (gated) urbanism ditional forms of citizenship bonding and
as a co-evolving set of differentiating and contin- civic trust, the exacerbation of social-spatial
gent dynamics that challenge and unsettle the polarization and urban inequality and, ulti-
ineluctable (neoliberal) logic of urban gating and mately, the disintegration and eventual destruc-
exclusion tion of society at large and meaningful public
life (see Caldeira, 2000; Webster et al., 2002;
Low, 2003; Glaszeet al., 2006).
Gated communities and the It is, however, ironic to note that much of
spectre of urban dystopia such ‘critical’ urban scholarship tends to view
For over a decade, urban scholars have been gated communities as a universally dominating
drawn to the study of gated communities. In the urban form originating from North American
late 1990s, a global research network compris- cities (in particular Los Angeles), without ade-
ing a number of interdisciplinary researchers quately considering the local complexities of
from anthropology, geography, sociology, meanings attached to these housing develop-
urban planning, etc., was established (see ment as well as the varied ways that gated com-
http://www.gated-communities.de/). An off- munities and ‘neoliberal’ urbanism take shape
shoot of this research network is a series of in particular urban contexts and are ‘reworked’
international conferences dedicated to explor- in a myriad of different settings. Notwithstand-
ing various thematic issues on urban gating and ing the well-worn debates on the ‘LA School’
private governance with the first one being model of urban fragmentation, paradigmatic cit-
held in Hamburg, Germany, in 1999. Subse- ies such as Los Angeles continue to form the
quent conferences took place in New York City backdrop for some highly important and
(2001), Mainz (2002), Glasgow (2003), New influential analyses of urban gating practices
Orleans (2004), Pretoria (2005), Paris (2007), (Blakely and Snyder, 1997). As such, the
Santiago de Chile (2009), Istanbul (2011) and serial reproduction of case studies on gated
Brighton (2013). In tandem with this, there is communities around the world has invariably
now a burgeoning literature on gated commu- been shaped by a form of determinism with
nities with case studies on virtually every major Los Angeles (and other American cities) as
city in Europe, South America, the Middle East, the theoretical/methodological referent. What
South Africa, Asia and Southeast Asia (see is at stake here is not merely the issue of
Table 1 on the key research themes). which city gets elevated to the dominant sta-
Specifically, it has been argued that a strong tus and circulated as a theoretical model/
territorial logic of exclusion underpins the referent but also how these travelling models
development of gated communities, as demon- shape our critical understanding and evalua-
strated by the setting up of defensive physical tion of emerging case studies of urban gating.
Pow 7
Indeed, the policy mobility critique (Peck Downtown fortress buildings, gated communities,
and Theodore, 2010; McCann and Ward, tourist bubbles, and enclosed malls have popped
2011) is as relevant for interrogating the up on virtually all urban areas; their proliferation
modus operandi of public policy think tanks can be cited as evidence that the L.A. school has it
as it is for academic groupies and their peri- right. But it requires a great leap of faith to con-
clude that sanitized, enclosed, privatized, fortified
patetic ‘schools of thought’ (e.g. LA School).
enclaves are replacing all public spaces. (Judd,
Like mobile urban policies, the metonymic 2005: 127)
tagging of urban phenomena, models and the-
ory to particular places (for example Los It must, however, be acknowledged that dysto-
Angeles, Chicago or New York), people or pic writings have long formed the foundation
institutions travels ostensibly with a licence for urban reform programmes. Robinson
of academic credibility and, sometimes, a (2010:221), for example noted that for 19th-
‘parochial universalism in which the [aca- century British reformers the depiction of urban
demic’s] home town stood for the world’ life as dystopic served to mobilize sentiment and
(Jacobs, 2012: 909). resources for improvements of the working class
Insofar as ‘Western’ urban models are seen to and marginalized groups. Notwithstanding its
provide object lessons and ‘best practices’ that close ties to utopian impulses, the mobilization
are disseminated zealously to developing cities of the dystopian genre in much of contemporary
around the world, it is paradoxical to observe urban studies literature, however, tends towards
that even dystopian traits associated with ‘para- an anti-utopian perspective with its ‘shock value’
digmatic cities’ such as the fragmented/centre- of urban chaos and class warfare that forecloses
less Los Angeles are readily transposed to ‘any sense of possible pathway towardsan alter-
case studies in the Global South. This may not native urban future’ (Robinson, 2010: 220).
be all that surprising after all, as Robinson In this context there is, hence, a danger of
(2010: 218) notes that in Western-based urban oversubscribing to such pessimistic views with
studies the recent deployment of dystopic nar- research on gated communities reaching an
rative forms has often merged with decades- intellectual impasse with the serial reproduc-
old habits of projecting a host of unwanted (if tion of dismal case studies rehashing the same
not unimaginable) features of cities onto storyline of an urban dystopia rife with fear and
‘Third World cities’. For instance, Manila has urban segregation. And as Robinson (2010:
been described as the ‘Los Angeles of the tro- 226) further warns, dystopian urban writing
pics’ (Connell, 1999) whereas São Paulo’s can ‘profoundly misrepresent the city, drawing
urban fortification and segregation is seen as it toward a unitary representation, a singular
being comparable to and indeed a mirror image narrative of the future, and thus limit opportu-
of Los Angeles (Caldeira, 2000: 10). nities for imaginative interventions’.
Yet in a tongue-in-cheek review of urban At stake here is also the broader question of
studies, Dennis Judd (2005: 125) chastises how we write about and represent cities through
urban scholars for their alleged infatuation with our methodological decisions. As such, we need
noir urban scholarship and doomsday prediction to interrogate more deeply not just the ‘geogra-
of ‘Mad Max’ cities. As Judd (2005: 125) phy of gated communities’ but also consider
argues, this love affair between urban scholars more critically the ‘geography of gated commu-
and noir can be traced back to two storylines – nity research’ by critically reflecting on where
‘one told by the Chicago school in the 1920s and our knowledge and theories about urban gating
1930s, the other version articulated, more come from and the implications of particular
recently, by the L.A. school’. As he elaborates: ways of urban representations (see Roy, 2009).
Beyond noir urbanism: Unsettling prima facie evidences of neoliberal privatiza-

gated communities research tion and urban segregation without paying close
attention to their underlying functions, diverse
Based on the earlier critiques, the paper will
social meanings and symbolism. Such fixation
now offer some analytical strategies to counter
on the urban morphology of gating could be
the theoretical/methodological weakness in the
attributed to the fact that some of the highly
literature on privatized urbanism. Following
cited work on gated communities first emerged
Blomley (2004), the paper seeks to ‘unsettle’
in the ‘practice’ oriented fields of architecture
and challenge the dominant view of gated com-
and urban planning that tend to privilege the
munities as hegemonic propertied spaces that
morphological analysis of urban forms (see, for
undermine the social-spatial integrity of cities,
example, Ellin, 1997; Blakely and Snyder,
leading to a sense of urban despair and hopeless-
1997). As Grant (2004) reveals in her interviews
ness. Significantly, private property such as the
with urban planners in Canada, one of the pri-
gated community is not seen as a pre-given
mary concerns with gated communities was
monolithic entity but exists fundamentally as a
with the ‘visual impact of long walls’ and their
diverse set of social relations among people
disruption to street connectivity. Undoubtedly,
concerning the use and ownership of things.
the privileging of visual data in urban analysis
Propertied spaces are thus not a closed system
meant that highly visible forms of boundaries
that is independent of social and political life
in gated developments (walls, fences, gates,
but is produced and sustained through forms
etc.) are often exaggerated and all too readily
of social interaction and relationality that are
perceived to exert a uniform function of urban
constantly subject to negotiation, social contin-
segmentation and exclusion.
gency and appropriation. In particular, this
It bears remembering that ‘urban processes
paper takes as its starting-point a view of prop-
are invariably complex with a good deal of feed-
erty as a ‘conditional achievement, ever threat-
back effects, non-linearity and unpredictability’
ened by unwanted relationality and boundary
(Roitman et al., 2010: 19). In other words, the
crossing’ (Blomley, 2010: 203). By challenging
relationship between the physical form of gates
the inevitability of dystopian reading and pessi-
and their purported link to social-spatial exclu-
mistic assessment of gated urbanism, this paper
sion is hardly straightforward and taken-for-
makes an argument for a more hopeful research
granted. One could, for example, think of the
agenda that balances the often stark perspective
presence of gates without necessarily engender-
of privatized enclave and urban segregation
ing a sense of community in much the same way
with a more complex and nuanced view that
that the mere presence of gates does not always
recognizes the variegated and contingent nature
signal exclusion. Conversely, socially exclusive
of urban gating.
communities can and do exist without the
deployment of gating. In fact, some of the pre-
dominantly white middle-class suburbs in
Reading beyond the gates as visual symbols North America are arguably prime examples
of neoliberal exclusion and segregation of residential communities that can be highly
The first strategy proposed is to go beyond the exclusionary yet exist without the physical
analytical fixation on the morphology of gated presence of gates (Baumgartner, 1988; Duncan
communities. At the outset, it is observed that and Duncan, 2003).
there is a tendency for urban researchers to Importantly, as Marcuse (1997) points out,
focus on the apparent (visual) form and typol- ‘boundary’ itself is a neutral term since practi-
ogy of gating and enclosures, treating them as cally everything in the urban world has a
Pow 9
boundary by default. Yet what really matters is the 1980s, these contemporary gated develop-
the social signification and effects of boundaries ments should not be viewed wholly in the same
and how people make sense of these boundaries (negative) light as gated communities in North
and their social meanings and connotations. America. Indeed, upscale gated communities
What is being suggested here is for urban in China are not so much seen as symbols
researchers to read beyond the apparent visual of oppression and exclusion but instead serve
form of gates and attend to the contingent as an emulative model of the ‘good life’ that
social-political meanings and diverse connota- even the urban poor aspire to (Pow, 2009a).
tions of urban gating without assuming, a priori, As Breitung (2012: 290) notes:
that the presence of gates always necessarily
signals urban segregation and exclusion. The estates are seen as a foreign ‘fancy world’
Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that is partly admired and partly ignored; but there
are few signs of hostility. What was occasionally
that empirical evidence does not systematically
criticized is that the walled estates complicated
support the dystopian view that gated commu- access to the fields and orchards, but most inter-
nities are necessarily perceived to be oppressive viewees not only accepted the separation but even
and divisive urban forms. Arguably, the social approved of it.
meanings and perceptions of gated enclaves
appear to be more ambivalent and their social That the presence of gates and walls in con-
impacts more contingent than what has been temporary China is not readily perceived as a
presented in the literature. negative form of social exclusion should not
Indeed, a case can be made for conceptualiz- come as a surprise as practically all forms of
ing and historicizing gated communities as housing, even for lower-income groups, are
‘but one of a range of instances of urban gating often gated and secured. Similarly, Glasze and
in the long history across time and space’ where Alkhayyal (2002) have argued, gated enclaves
urban gating was once embedded in the larger in Arab cities are not an entirely new phenom-
unit of the city (Sassen, 2010: xi). By doing so, enon and their design follows the principle of
it encourages researchers to read beyond the the socio-spatial organization of many old
narrow interpretation of the gated urban form towns in the Arab world. In the Saudi capital
and open up an analytical terrain to examine of Riyadh, for example, gated communities for
how the evolution of urban gating in particular foreigners are not perceived as a wholly nega-
cities has inflected contemporary development tive development or a symbol of exclusion but
of gated communities and their reception. instead serve as a cultural buffer zone for West-
In China, for example, where there has been a ern expatriates to negotiate the strict cultural
long tradition of walled residences from the restrictions of the puritanical Islamic world out-
ancient walled compounds of the gentry to the side and to avoid potential lifestyle conflicts
enclosed work unit compounds during the with the religious locals (Glasze, 2006a).
socialist era, gated communities are often seen This is, of course, not to suggest that gated
to be ‘unremarkable’ and embedded in the communities in China and Saudi Arabia are
strong collectivist culture and political control entirely free from any social conflicts. Rather,
in Chinese urban society rather than an expres- the point here is that more attention should be
sion of the discourse of fear and neoliberal pri- given to the contingent social meanings and
vatism (Huang, 2006). While it is true that perceptions of gated communities rather than
newer forms of upscale gated communities in accepting unverified a priori assumptions about
the form of enclosed commodity housing estates their negative impacts based on a narrow mor-
have rapidly emerged since economic reform in phological reading of the physical form of gates
and enclosures. In other words, researchers need gating and issues revolving around the different
to be acutely aware of the diverse ways in which temporalities and local context of urban gating
gated communities are embedded in a set of including historical antecedents of gated urban
wider territorial and spatial-temporal contexts designs as well as the different roles of local/
as well as the diverse urban outcomes and prac- national states and urban actors (planners, prop-
tices of gating. The next section will elaborate erty developers, civil society, etc.) that collec-
further on the need for a more comparative tively shape the diverse urban outcomes.
approach. Indeed, several edited volumes on gated
communities have already taken on board
such comparative challenge (see, for example,
Comparative gated urbanism Bagaeen and Uduku, 2010; Atkinson and
A second task confronting researchers of gated Blandy, 2006; Glaszeet al., 2006), but such
communities is to widen the geographical refer- ‘comparative gestures’ with the juxtaposition
ence of their selected case studies (especially of case studies from different parts of the world
from the Global South) and be wary of general- still do not go far enough ‘to engage with each
izing from specific cases to the entire city or other or with more general or theoretical under-
even a partial representation of the city. As soon standings of cities’ (Robinson, 2011: 2). More
as we embark on the task, it will be apparent that importantly, as Lees (2012: 157) warns, we
the highly variegated nature of gated commu- need to deploy comparative urbanism in a way
nities both in terms of their origin as well as that ‘does not fall back into modernist ideas
their diverse socio-spatial impacts will mean about universalism, scientism and problematic
that researchers need to take grounded compara- discourse on developmentalism, especially
tive analysis more seriously. when we are researching the Global South’.
While comparative urbanism has been To parallel Lees’ (2012) argument on gentri-
widely discussed, it remains rather ambiguous fication research, comparative urbanism in the
what such an approach entails. For Nijman context of gated community studies would
(2007: 1), comparative urbanism refers to the entail not just the decentring of dominant narra-
attempt to develop ‘knowledge, understanding, tives of gated urbanism away from the Global
and generalization at a level between what is North but also take on the postcolonial chal-
true of all cities and what is true of one city lenge by eschewing arguments that contempo-
at a given time’. More specifically, Nijman rary gated communities are yet another case
(2007: 4) has identified several fundamental study of imitative forms of ‘Western’ urbanism
issues in comparative urbanism including that have been copied (from the Global North)
questioning the spatial identification of the and transplanted onto urban landscapes in the
city itself and the wider urban, economic and Global South. More critically, such a compara-
political system it is in; the role of the state or tive approach will go some way to decentre the
city-state relations; the relationship between dominance of the LA School model of urban
globalization and the urban and in particular its fragmentation and its ingrained dystopian
ramifications on urban processes, networks and orientation.
categories; and lastly, interrogating the conver- Ward (2010), in particular, has further advo-
gence hypothesis that is often invoked in glo- cated a relational comparative approach, empha-
balization debates. sizing the interconnected trajectories of ‘how
For researchers on gated communities, com- different cities are implicated in each other’s
parative urbanism throws up several interesting past, present and future’ that ‘moves us away
questions on the global dynamics of urban from searching for similarities and differences
Pow 11
between two mutually exclusive contexts and communities research by treating different case
instead towards relational comparisons that use studies as co-evolving on the same comparative/
different cities to pose questions of one another’ analytical plane and provide the impetus to
(Ward, 2010: 480). Such an approach can pro- move beyond the serial reproduction of case
vide a useful corrective to existing research on studies that takes the ‘Global North’ as an
gated communities where comparative work has (implicit) reference point of comparison. Such
a tendency to be quickly reduced to the rather an approach further provokes critical questions
perfunctory task of describing how a particular about the inter-connections and constitutive
local case study ‘measures up’ to the supposed dynamics of gated urbanism across different
global prototype (e.g. the LA School). cases as well as exposing potential ‘slippages,
It is important to qualify that this is not to dis- openings and contradictions’ that challenge the
miss the value of local insights generated from universalizing accounts on the ‘global spread’
regional case studies but to see them as produc- of gated noir urbanism (see Hart, 2006: 996).
ing a form of ‘strategic essentialism’ that is In many ways, Setha Low’s (2005) ‘layered
‘fine-grained and nuanced but exceeds its model’ of cross-cultural analysis of fear, priva-
empiricism through theoretical generalization’ tization and the state is an important step for-
(Roy, 2009: 822). Importantly, rather than to see ward in this direction. Drawing on data from
case studies (from the Global South) as merely the United States, Latin America and China,
the ‘additive or predictive assimilation’ of Low compares a series of dimensions (such as
Southern experiences into already existing para- domestic architecture, settlement patterns, role
digmatic models or theoretical frameworks, the of the state and governance structure, citizen-
point here is to use them as a resource to ‘dislo- ship, cultural meanings, identity, cultural pat-
cate’ the Euro-American centre of theoretical terns of sanctions, degrees of privatization,
production by articulating ‘deep relationalities’ fear of crime and others, etc.) across the three
of cities that go beyond the North-South, core- regions. By working through different exam-
periphery binary models of global urbanization ples, Low’s work goes beyond merely listing the
(Roy, 2009: 821). converging and diverging trends of urban gating
Similarly for Hart (2002), the point of such in the three regions but is an attempt to bring
comparative work is not to argue for ‘unique- onboard a multi-layered form of comparative
ness and endless differences’ or to measure analysis by provoking questions about the three
locally-specific examples or variants against a regions across time and space.
universal yardstick (or paradigmatic case). On the notion of fear, for example, Low
Rather, as Hart (2006: 996) points out, the focus argues that ‘although the language and a reli-
is on how objects and places ‘are constituted in ance on a global discourse of fear makes people
relation to one another through power-laden sound the same, it refers to quite distinct phe-
practices in the multiple, interconnected arenas nomena’ in different cities (Low, 2005: 15).
of everyday life’. By treating fear as a culturally and socially con-
More critically for this paper, such a rela- structed (local) phenomenon rather than a uni-
tional comparative strategy also offers an alter- versal driver of urban gating, a comparative
native to what Hart (2002) rejects as the ‘impact approach makes us question how fear is experi-
model’ of globalization that sees gated commu- enced and understood relationally across vari-
nities as the result of an inexorable neoliberal ous urban contexts and implicated in the
global logic and its inevitable (negative) impact proliferation of gated communities in the differ-
on local society. Fundamentally, a relational ent regions and cultures. For example, while
comparative approach can invigorate gated fear of crime is purportedly one of the main
impetuses behind urban gating in the US, a rela- gating. We can, for example, ask why urban gat-
tional comparison with other cities elsewhere ing is relatively less popular in the UK than in
examines how fear is being produced and con- the US (MacLeod, 2004). Goold et al. (2010),
stituted in diverse urban contexts, for instance for example, have suggested that gated commu-
in Latin America cities where urban violence nities may not have taken off in Britain because
and crime are reportedly much higher than in there are already established enclaves in the
the US (Roitman, 2006), and in Chinese cities highly segmented society or that many people are
with relatively low crime rates where fear of simply opposed to gating on aesthetic grounds.
‘others’ – particularly migrant workers from the Insofar as the above examples all point to the
countryside – is constructed as a result of both multiplicities and differentiated dynamics of
historical prejudices against rural ‘outsiders’ gated communities and privatized urbanism, it
as well as more contemporary anxieties over the is important to note that the objective here is not
heterogenization of urban populations (by class, to celebrate ‘seeing difference for difference’s
ethnicity, etc.). The latter is also articulated sake’ but ultimately to mobilize these multiplici-
(albeit in different ways) in US and Latin Amer- ties and differences to ‘work against the dissim-
ican cities where such urban fear and anxieties ulation of a singular, overcoded, explanatory
are encoded in the talk about ‘niceness’ and nos- framework’ (Jacobs, 2012: 906). These differ-
talgia for a traditional sense of community ences are not simply empirical variations or
(Low, 2005: 19). Clearly, the point here is not anomalies on the fringes but an integral part of
merely to identify similarities and differences what Webster (2011) sets out as constructing
between case studies but to trace their intercon- ‘refutable theories’ about urban gating which
nected trajectories and ‘relate contextually spe- will be elaborated in the next section. As Jacobs
cific [urban] dynamics and outcomes to broader (2012: 906) has pointed out, working with multi-
meso-level transformations’ (Brenner, 2004:1). ple cases should not be seen as ‘addition’ or add-
In addition, a comparative approach also ing one more city case to the project of building
poses several important questions on the varie- or reaffirming general urban theory but rather as
gated nature of gating across time and space. ‘subtraction’. Drawing on Deleuze’s formula of
For example, given the long history of walled ‘n-1’, Jacobs further emphasizes that the ‘moral
and gated domestic architectures in China and imagination of comparative research’ is inclined
Latin America, why are gating and private com- towards thinking of multiples as subtracting from
munities keenly supported by the Chinese state the all-encompassing explanatory power of a sin-
where state control of the housing market gularized causal account in order to expose vari-
remains strong and ignored in Latin American ous slippages and contradictions. This will be
with the withering of state support in housing further elaborated in the next section.
provision due to neoliberal policies? These are
indeed difficult questions to tackle given that
there are always complex webs of cause and
Searching for nuanced and
effect in gating (Roitman et al., 2010: 20). But differentiated accounts
what is certain is that there is seldom a single If comparative analysis aims to highlight the
unitary explanation on the phenomenon of historical and social contingencies of gated
urban gating, nor is there always a straightfor- developments, the third analytical challenge
ward conclusion to be drawn that invariably confronting researchers is to venture beyond
points towards a dismal urban future. It is also the stark ‘black and white’ portrayal of urban
noteworthy that even within the Global North gating as a zero-sum game between oppressive
there are significantly different responses to gated communities versus the public city and
Pow 13
dominant elite residents versus the excluded gated communities and offer contrary evidences
‘others’. Indeed, as Ong (2011: 9) points out, and differentiated accounts that counter and
‘urban environments are animated by a variety complicate the overcoded mono-logic of urban
of transnational and local institutions, actors gating and segregation.
and practices that cannot be neatly mapped out
in advance as being on the side of power or on
the side of resistance, as if positions could be so a) Gated communities are socially
unproblematically delineated’. undesirable urban developments that lead
In particular, I want to advance a more to greater urban segregation
nuanced and differentiated account of the con- As pointed out earlier in Table 1, there have
tingent social impacts of gating and how people been numerous recurring arguments on gated
(both residents and non-residents of gated com- communities as a socially and spatially divisive
munities) live in/with, adapt to or appropriate urban form that segregates urban residents by
gated living in their everyday lives. More spe- physical and institutional barriers. However, it
cifically, this would mean actively searching for is not a foregone conclusion that gated commu-
and exploring context-dependent and even con- nities will invariably lead to greater urban seg-
trary evidences that act as ‘countercurrents to regation. In fact, it may be argued that it is
dystopian tendencies’ (Robinson, 2010: 230). pre-existing and underlying social fragmenta-
To reiterate, the point here is not to jettison tion that leads to gated enclaves emerging in the
existing theories and explanation on urban gat- first place (Roitman et al., 2010: 20). Scholars
ing but rather to complement them while at the such as Webster (2002), Salcedo and Torres
same time guarding against the analytical dan- (2004) and Manzi and Smith-Bowers (2006)
ger of subscribing to a form of dystopian deter- went even further to suggest that gated commu-
minism that assumes gated communities as a nities may in fact foster social integration,
universally ‘bad’ urban form. It is also impor- especially in the Global South with high
tant to note that it is not the intention here to income inequalities. The crux of their argu-
replace one extreme form of narrative with ment is that for gated communities located in
another or to displace the universal dystopian or near low-income neighbourhoods, the closer
arguments with naively optimistic counter- geographical proximity reduces the geographi-
claims of exceptionalism. Rather, the aim here cal scale of segregation and produces opportu-
is to attend to the indeterminacy, multiplicity nities for functional integration (Roitman et al.,
and simultaneity of urban life with its messy 2010: 5). According to Salcedo and Torres
‘co-evolution of problems and solutions’ (Amin (2004: 29):
and Thrift, 2002: 4).
Furthermore, given that most of the existing Any dispersion of existing forms of segregation,
work on gated communities tends towards uni- even through the development of gated commu-
versalizing accounts of urban fortressing and nities, is positive and encourages social integra-
segregation, the paper contends that the analyti- tion. The poor get from their new neighbors
jobs, consumption in their convenience stores
cal weight should be tipped more towards
and, more importantly, the dignity of living in a
exploring countervailing arguments and exam-
district that is not stigmatized as a center of drug
ples that ‘interrogate the figure of ‘‘difference’’ addiction, poverty or crime.
itself as it has become operative in the field of
urban studies’ (McFarlane and Robinson, Yet, as Robinson (2010: 226) notes, ‘in sty-
2012: 766). In this respect, the paper will now lized form, the dualistic imagination of gated
briefly examine three key arguments against suburban utopias existing alongside revanchist
exclusions and enclosures of the urban poor often present in the wider society of America’.
misses so much of the mundane diversity and The point here again is not to ignore the poten-
social interaction of cities’. tial problems of urban segregation associated
To this extent, urban researchers have often with gated communities but to provide a more
overlooked the mundane aspects of the every- nuanced and complex understanding of gated
day life and social interdependency of different communities beyond the well-worn bleak story-
social groups that sustain the daily routine life line on segregation, exclusion and fortressing.
within gated communities. Non-resident labour
(usually drawn from surrounding poor neigh-
bourhoods) such as maids, cleaners, gardeners
b) Gated community residents are anti-
and even security guards, etc., constitute the social elites who turn their back on society
mainstay in the household service economy To the extent that gated communities have been
within the gated enclaves. This is particularly vilified as a regressive form of urban develop-
marked in many cities in the Global South, ment, residents of these gated enclaves have
which cannot function without the cheap labour often been characterized as anti-social urban
of the service class (see Pow, 2009a; Leisch, elites who lead ‘gated lives’ with ‘gated minds’
2002). As such, the spatial logic of urban gating (Brunn, 2006). In the popular press, gated com-
is never absolute and needs to be understood munity residents have been accused of having a
through the very formation of such ‘constitutive ‘bunker mentality’ and gated developments are
outsiders’ who function as an integral part of seen to ‘churn a vicious cycle by attracting like-
gated communities. In this sense, gated commu- minded residents who seek shelter from outsi-
nities are far from being hermetically sealed ders and whose physical seclusion then worsens
spatial containers but are bound up in ‘unwanted paranoid group thinking against outsiders’
relationality’ of overlapping networks of labour (Benjamin, 2012).
that form the backbone in the reproduction of It is, however, overly simplistic to assume that
daily life behind the gates. Importantly, a gated residents of gated communities are necessarily
community is thus not a ‘coherent system of dis- ‘anti-social’ urban elites and, indeed, empirical
criminations and categorizations, but is itself evidence has shown that it is not just the urban
expressive of multiplicity and flow’ (Blomley, middle class who are residing in gated commu-
2010: 205). nities – lower-income housing estates have also
It is also debatable whether gated commu- been ‘gating up’ to safeguard their property
nities are socially undesirable urban forms. against crime. Beyond such class reductionist
Grant (2004) in particular has argued that gated arguments, empirical evidence also suggests that
developments may actually contribute to some it is not always the expressed intention of gated
levels of positive urban development by sup- community residents to segregate themselves
porting state planning goals such as increasing from the outside world. ‘Residents’ preference
residential densities, high design standards, for gates is sometimes in response to security
quality open space, safe environments, and a concerns but there is no desire to detach them-
sense of community (see also Pow, 2009b).As selves from surrounding communities socially’
MacLeod (2004: 20) notes, ‘even Blakeley and (Roitman et al., 2010: 7). In such cases, residents
Snyder, who are not entirely sympathetic to the do not consciously buy into gated lifestyles
principles underpinning gated communities, because of the presence of gates but instead
admit that in most of the gated complexes they gating is packaged as part of the housing devel-
studied, there was evidence of a greater commu- opment. In other words, urban gating is a by-
nal spirit and of neighbourhood bonds than is product (or unintended effect) of the overall
Pow 15
packaging of real estate development and not to supposedly determinate categories such as
the key feature that motivates residents to live property.
in these enclosed neighbourhoods (Wu, 2004). Within gated community research, public-
It is also debatable whether gated commu- private debates often draw rather selectively
nities signal the ‘revolt of the elites’ who are on various definitions of public and private that
eager to secede from the city or withdraw from emphasize one or more of the following ten-
meaningful participation in civic/political life. sions: public provision versus private provision
In Walk’s (2010) study on the voting patterns of civic goods and services; state planning ver-
of Canadian residents living in gated commu- sus market function; efficiency versus equity in
nities, he argues that while they appear to lean service delivery as well as private space versus
to the right, there is little reason to believe that shared public space (Glasze et al., 2006; Web-
gated community residents as a whole are opt- ster, 2002). In the latter, gated communities
ing to remove themselves from the democratic have often been seen as the encroachment of
political process. In fact, ‘gated communities private property on public streets and amenities
may even represent new forms of political which, if left unchecked, will lead to the even-
engagement’ at the local community level tual demise of public space. Drawing on the
where their residents negotiate amongst each case of São Paulo in Brazil, Caldeira (2000) for-
other in the quasi-collective ‘club’ atmosphere, cefully argues how fortified enclaves in the city
such as in a homeowners association (Walk, represent an attack on the modern ideals of pub-
2010: 22–3). Similarly, the emergence of home- lic space. Similarly, the spread of gated commu-
owners associations in Chinese gated communities in Los Angeles has led Mike Davis (1990)
nities with officials elected by residents is also to warn of a ‘post-liberal’ city where the
seen to promote a (limited) form of grassroots defence of private luxury enclaves has given
democracy and civic involvement rather than a birth to an arsenal of security systems that vio-
complete withdrawal from the public sphere late shared public spaces and an obsession with
(Read, 2003). the securing of social boundaries through defen-
sive architectural designs (see also Ellin, 1997).
c) Gated communities represent the However, even to speak of a ‘post-liberal’
city overrun by privatized urban spaces pre-
bulldozing of public spaces by neoliberal sumes the prior ‘public’ nature (myth?) of the
private forces city. As Webster (2002: 398) argues, few urban
A final critique of the dystopian scholarship on spaces are truly public in the sense that they pro-
gated communities pertains to the myth of the vide uniform benefits and equal access to the
universal public and the failure by urban entire city’s inhabitants, and even public realm
researchers to contextualize the protean mean- facilities cannot totally avoid the inclusion-
ings of the public and private (Weintraub, exclusion problem; most still exclude, for
1995). As Blomley points out (2004: 283):‘one example, by monetary or time costs of travel
of the most consequential of categorical bound- or by congestion.
aries relating to the spatial order of property is Even in Western liberal democratic cities,
that which separates the realm of private owner- public spaces such as urban parks and gardens
ship from the sphere of public ownership’. have been a product of collective historical
However, the categorical distinctions between achievement that is subject to renegotiation. In
public and private are in reality much more fluid other words, a more subtle classification of
and contingent as people may live in more com- urban space rather than the simple division into
plicated and overlapping worlds when it comes public and private realms is necessary, not least
because much of the contemporary scholarship that has now been encroached by gated commu-
on gated communities has failed to fully capture nities and other private forces. In other words,
the nuanced ‘realities of publicness and private- most city-building initiatives in the Global
ness within cities’ (Webster, 2002: 400). South are already private to begin with –being
It is further debatable whether gated commu- funded privately by rich and poor alike and
nities represent the all-encompassing forces of reflecting their (different) interests and values,
neoliberal privatization and the eclipse of the though it must be stated that ‘in terms of the
public state. The South African case is instruc- Western political left’s conventional under-
tive here. As Morange et al. (2012) point out, standing of the public–private divide, the pre-
gated residential developments in South African ponderance of private space in much of Asia
cities such as Cape Town are not simply the resembles a dystopian urban nightmare’ (Hogan
product of contemporary neoliberal forces but et al., 2012: 61).
have co-evolved from inherited (post) apartheid Even in places where the state-driven public
urban social dynamics that are underpinned by sector is dominant, such as in China, the prolif-
earlier layers of racial segregation.3 In other eration of private gated communities does not
instances, Thompson (2013: 87) points out that necessarily signal the decline of the public and
several studies have shown how master-planned the onset of a dystopian city overrun by post-
gated estates have been developed with ‘state or liberal privatism. While gated communities are
local government actors leveraging private often cast in a negative light in Anglo-American
investments in infrastructure’. For example, literature, the rise of private housing markets
McGuirk and Dowling (2009b) argue that and gated communities in post-socialist China,
master-planned private estates in Sydney have for example, could be interpreted as potentially
been channelled towards various strategic direc- increasing personal/household autonomy away
tions defined by the state such as provision of from authoritarian state control rather than rep-
affordable housing and incorporating ecologi- resenting the bulldozing of public spaces by pri-
cally sustainable design. Indeed, ‘more-than- vate forces (Pow, 2007; cf. Hirt and Petrovic,
market logics of care and socialization’ can 2011).
conceptually co-exist with logics of profit and In summary, what the preceding discussion
privatization (McGuirk and Dowling, 2009b: hopes to achieve through some of these
130). Seen in this light, gated communities are counter-examples and contrary evidences is to
not yet another urban manifestation of ‘actually challenge the overall urban dystopianism and
existing neoliberalism’ but are something other pessimism and also offer different ways of
than ‘purely’ neoliberal – that is, an articulation knowing and theorizing gated communities. In
between neoliberal urban policies and the con- doing so, researchers have to confront the ques-
joint effects of a host of other social-historical tion of how to deal with ‘empirically refutable
urban processes (Castree, 2006: 4). hypotheses’ and variegated outcomes that coun-
In the Global South, Hogan et al. (2012: 61) ter the theoretical determinism and pessimism
further point out that many of the urban infra- in gated community research.
structure projects (including housing) have long It needs to be reiterated that this paper does
been undertaken by the private sector due to the not ignore or downplay the problem of urban
relatively weak public sector and ‘there has segregation and social exclusion. If anything,
often not been anything public to undergo priva- the paper heeds the call by urban scholars like
tization through neoliberalization’ in the first Blomley (2004: xv) to ‘take property more seri-
place. Thus there is an analytical danger here ously’, while at the same time avoiding essen-
of accepting the myth of an erstwhile public city tializing and reifying the power of private
Pow 17
property. As Blomley (2004: 15) argues, the from comparative urbanism; and the third
arbitration of what counts as (private) property strategy is to actively search for more nuanced
is not an objective categorization but an active and differentiated accounts of gated commu-
form of boundary place-making and purifica- nities that complicate the overcoded logic of
tion. As a corollary to this, the social production urban gating and segregation.
and consumption of property (in this case gated As demonstrated in the paper, empirical evi-
communities) is always an ongoing construc- dence does not consistently point to cases of
tion and constant negotiation of power in and exclusion and segregation and, even if it did, the
over urban space and never a straightforward story is much more nuanced, differentiated and
process that leads inevitably to the theoretical complex than those typically portrayed and
cul-de-sac of a bleak urban world dominated often points to the co-evolution of problems and
by segregation and social division. solutions (Amin and Thrift, 2002: 4). Gated
urbanism is not a deterministic and coherent
system of exclusion and discrimination that is
Conclusion: Towards independent from the messy urban dynamics
epistemologies of hope of flow and multiplicities.
To return to the central theme of this paper, it More critically, empirical examples should
has been argued that there is a tendency for not be seen as merely providing yet another
researchers of gated communities to search for case study that adds to the overarching theory
stories that support a universalizing argument of urban exclusion/segregation. Rather, coun-
of urban dystopia and decline. This tendency tervailing arguments about urban gating from
both ignores and downplays the complexity of multiple case studies can serve a useful metho-
gated communities and also leads to a kind of dological and heuristic function of ‘subtracting
resignation, cynicism and pessimism that is from the all-encompassing explanatory power
intellectually and politically disabling. Not of singularized causal accounts’ and ultimately
least, dystopic narrative functions to ‘structure ‘reading urban difference in the name of pro-
the description of problems in particular ways ducing alternative futures’ (Jacobs, 2012: 908).
and to shape, if not constrain, the form of possi- To this extent, this paper hopes to point
ble responses’ (Robinson, 2010: 221). towards an argument for a more hopeful
What this paper aims to do is to go beyond research practice and an epistemology of hope
the stereotypical one-dimensional view of that seeks to formulate different ways of know-
gated communities and offer a more complex, ing and understanding of the politics of urban
situated understanding of gated communities space by challenging the inevitability of a dis-
that reveals not only cases of exclusion and mal urban future (Coutard and Guy, 2007). To
polarization but also spaces of indeterminacy draw inspiration from the words of Raymond
and contingencies that challenge and unsettle Williams (1983: 268), it is when ‘inevitabilities
dominant assumptions and notions of the sin- are challenged, [that] we begin gathering our
gularity of the power of private property and resources for a journey of hope’. As Amin and
urban spaces. Specifically, the paper offers Thrift (2002: 5) point out, the trajectories of cit-
three analytical strategies to counter such noir ies have to be seen as an ‘ordering of uncer-
urbanism scholarship: the first strategy is to tainty’ and research should actively seek to
go beyond the analytical fixation on the mor- reveal how cities and urban development could
phology of gated urban forms to consider its be seen as a set of potentials which contain
contingent social cultural meanings; the sec- unpredictable elements where ‘each urban
ond strategy is to incorporate critical insights moment can spark performative improvisations
which are unforeseen and unforeseeable’ (Amin as differentiating and contingent, a world built
and Thrift, 2002: 4). In this sense, what we typi- around the open equation’ of (hopeful) multi-
cally take for granted as the city as an analytical/ plicities rather than the singular paradigmatic
empirical object and, by extension, the urban case’ (Jacobs, 2012: 904–5). Such a hopeful
life or urbanism are not pre-given static entities approach is important, for as Thrift (2005:
with predetermined pathways but are continu- 355) warns, the ‘relentless negativism about the
ously being assembled and produced through future in the present’ is not only unhelpful
‘an unfolding set of uneven practices that are – butin fact ‘is likely to lead to despair, surely
while being more or less open or enclosed –never the ultimate political sin’. Not least, as Harvey
inevitable, but always capable of being produced (2004: 239) further points out: ‘If our urban
otherwise’ (McFarlane, 2011: 221). world has been imagined and made then it can
By challenging and unsettling the dominant be reimagined and remade’.
representation of gated communities and dysto-
pian urbanism, this paper is not arguing that the Acknowledgements
city has become more just and equitable or that I would like to thank the participants at a seminar
urban segregation is no longer a problem confront- organized by the Oxford Programme for the Future
ing cities. Rather, this paper’s argument parallels of Cities for their comments on an earlier version
Coutard and Guy’s (2009) call for a more hopeful of this paper. I am also very grateful to the anon-
research agenda that is both ontological (by recog- ymous referees and editors of the journal for their
nizing that gated communities and the nature of generous feedback and suggestions. The usual dis-
private (neoliberal) urbanism are not the same claimer applies.
everywhere and their social meanings and impacts
are highly contingent) and epistemological (that Notes
our knowledge of gated communities needs more 1. The term ‘gated community’ needs to be treated with
rigorous grounded comparative exploration and caution given its connotations associated with ‘US-style’
urbanism and academic boosterism (Beauregard, 2003).
explanation that account for empirically refutable
Typically, gated communities have been defined as
evidences). As JK Gibson-Graham (1996: 3)
‘walled or fenced housing development to which public
reminded us, ‘representations of capitalism are a access is restricted, characterized by legal agreements
potent constituent of the anticapitalist imagina- which tie the residents to a common code of conduct and
tion, and as such depictions of ‘‘capitalist hege- (usually) collective responsibility for management’
mony’’ deserve a skeptical reading’. In doing so, (Atkinson and Blandy, 2005: 178). While not entirely
a more complex, situated understanding of gated synonymous, alternative terms have been proposed such
communities and private urbanism will emerge as gated residential developments (GRDs), master-
that will reveal both cases of urban fortressing, planned estates (MPEs), common-interest developments
exclusion and segregation and also adaptation, (CIDs), etc. (Morange et al., 2012; Thompson, 2013;
contestation and appropriation. McKenzie, 1994, 2011).
Another broader implication of this paper is 2. The call for a more ‘hopeful’ research agenda is not to
hark back to some form of ‘blueprint utopia’ that has
to caution against ‘over theorizing’ urban dysto-
come under intense criticism by anti-utopian theorists
pia and to guard against the excesses of noir
such as Karl Popper, Hannah Arendt and Isaiah Berlin
urbanism, as such dystopian scholarship too (Jacoby, 2005). Rather, this paper identifies with Amin
easily bleeds from ‘critical analysis into politi- and Thrift’s (2002: 4) ‘politics of hope’ to break free
cal dead end’ (Robinson, 2010: 230). We need from intellectually and politically disabling pessimism
a commitment to an epistemology of hope in muchcontemporary urban scholarship. To be sure, cri-
that animates our research by recognizing tiquing dystopic research should not be seen as an end in
the ‘political potential of a world understood itself but serves as the critical first step towards the
Pow 19
realization of a ‘utopic geography’ (Anderson, 2006) that Castree N (2006) From neoliberalism to neoliberalisation:
challenges and disrupts ‘dominant assumptions about Consolations, confusions, and necessary illusion. Envi-
social and spatial organization, and for imagining other ronment and Planning A 38: 1–6.
possibilities and desires’ (Pinder, 2002: 238). Connell J (1999) Beyond Manila: Walls, malls and private
3. I want to thank one of the referees for pointing this out spaces. Environment and Planning A 31: 417–439.
and alluding to the relevant literature. Coutard O and Guy S (2007) STS and the city: Politics and
practices of hope. Science, Technology and Human
Values 32(6): 713–734.
References Coy M (2006) Gated communities and urban fragmenta-
Amin A and Thrift N (2011) Cities: Reimagining the tion in Latin America: The Brazilian experience. Geo-
Urban. Cambridge: Polity Press. Journal 66: 121–132.
Anderson B (2006) ‘Transcending without transcendence’: Coy M and Pohler M (2002) Gated communities in
Utopianism and an ethics of hope. Antipode 38(4): Latin American mega-cities: Case studies in Brazil
691–710. and Argentina. Environment and Planning B 29:
Atkinson R and Blandy S (2005) International perspectives 355–370.
on the new enclavism and the rise of gated commu- Csefalvay Z and Webster C (2012) Gates or no gates? A
nities. Housing Studies 20: 177–186. cross-European enquiry into the driving forces behind
Atkinson R and Blandy S (eds) (2006) Gated Commu- gated communities. Regional Studies 46: 293–308.
nities: International Perspectives. London: Routledge. Davis M (1990) City of Quartz. London: Vintage Books.
Bagaeen S and Uduku O (eds) (2010) Gated Communities: Davis M (2004) Planet of slums. New Left Review 26
Social Sustainability in Contemporary and Historical (March/April): 5–34.
Gated Development. London: Earthscan. Davis M and Monk D (eds) (2007) Evil Paradises:Dream-
Baumgartner M (1988) The Moral Order of a Suburb. worlds of Neoliberalism. New York: The New Press.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dick H and Rimmer P (2003) Cities, Transport and Com-
Beauregard R (2003) City of superlatives. City and Com- munications: The Integration of Southeast Asia since
munity 2(3): 183–199. 1850. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Benjamin R (2012) The gated community mentality. New Dowling R, Atkinson R and McGuirk P (2010) Privatism,
York Times, 29 March. privatisation and social distinction in masterplanned
Blakely E and Snyder M (1997) Fortress America: Gated residential estates. Urban Policy and Research 28(4):
Communities in the United States. Washington, DC: 391–410.
Brookings Institution Press. Duncan J and Duncan N (2003) Landscapes of Privilege:
Blomley N (2004) Unsettling the City: Urban Land and the The Politics of the Aesthetic in an American Suburb.
Politics of Property. London: Routledge. London: Routledge.
Blomley N (2010) Cuts, flows, and the geographies of prop- Ellin N (ed.) (1997) Architecture of Fear. New York: Prin-
erty. Law, Culture and the Humanities 7(2): 203–216. ceton Architectural Press.
Braun B (2005) Writing geographies of hope. Antipode Falzon M (2004) Paragons of lifestyle: Gated communities
37(4): 834–841. and the politics of space. City and Society 16(2): 145–167.
Breitung W (2012) Enclave urbanism in China: Attitudes Flusty S (1997) Building paranoia. In: Ellin N (ed.) Archi-
towards gated communities in Guangzhou. Urban Geo- tecture of Fear. New York: Princeton Architectural
graphy 33(2): 278–294. Press, pp. 47–59.
Brenner N (2004) New State Spaces: Urban Governance Genis S (2007) Producing elite localities: The rise of gated
and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford: Oxford Uni- communities in Istanbul. Urban Studies 44: 771–798.
versity Press. Gibson-Graham J-L (1996) The End of Capitalism (As We
Brunn S (2006) Gated minds and gated lives as worlds of Know It). Oxford: Blackwell.
exclusion and fear. GeoJournal 66:5–13. Giroir G (2006) The purple jade villas (Beijing): A golden
Caldeira T (2000) City of Walls: Crime, Segregation, and ghetto in red China. In: Glasze G, Webster C and Frantz
Citizenship in São Paulo. Berkeley, CA: University of K (eds) Private Cities: Global and Local Perspectives.
California Press. London: Routledge, pp. 142–152.
Glasze G (2006a) Segregation and seclusion: The case of of the South African security park. Geoforum 33:
compounds for western expatriates in Saudi Arabia. 195–219.
GeoJournal 66: 83–88. Huang Y (2006) Collectivism, political control and gating
Glasze G (2006b) Some reflections on the economic and in Chinese cities. Urban Geography 27: 507–525.
political organization of private neighbourhoods. In: Jacobs J (2012) Commentary:Comparing comparative
Atkinson R and Blandy S (eds) Gated Communities: urbanisms. Urban Geography 33: 904–914.
International Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. Jacoby R (2005) Picture Imperfect: Utopian Thought for
34–46. an Anti-Utopian Age. New York: Columbia University
Glasze G and Alkhayyal A (2002) Gated housing estates in Press.
the Arab world: Case studies in Lebanon and Riyadh, Judd D (2005) Everything is always going to Hell: Urban
Saudi Arabia. Environment and Planning B: Planning scholars as end-time prophets. Urban Affairs Review
and Design 29: 321–336. 41(2): 119–131.
Glasze G, Webster C and Frantz K (eds) (2006) Pri- Jurgens U and Landman K (2006) Gated communities in
vate Cities: Global and Local Perspectives. London: South Africa. In: Glasze G, Webster C and Frantz K
Routledge. (eds) Private Cities: Global and Local Perspectives.
Goold B, Loader I and Thumala A (2010) Consuming London: Routledge, pp. 109–126.
security? Tools for a sociology of security consump- Le Goix R (2006) Gated communities as predators of pub-
tion. Theoretical Criminology 14(1): 3–30. lic resources: The outcomes of fading boundaries
Graham S (2010) Cities under Siege: The New Military between private management and public authorities in
Urbanism. London: Verso. southern California. In: Glasze G, Webster C and
Graham S and Marvin S (2001) Splintering Urbanism: Frantz K (eds) Private Cities: Global and Local Per-
Network Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and spectives. London: Routledge, pp. 76–91.
the Urban Condition. London: Routledge. Le Goix R and Webster C (2006) Gated communities, sus-
Grant J (2004) Why planners are ambivalent about gated tainable cities and a tragedy of the urban commons.
communities. Available at: mall.lampnet.org/filemana- Critical Planning 13. Available at: http://halshs.
ger/download/247/gated_communities.pdf (accessed 9 archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/11/00/46/PDF/FINAL_
July 2014). LeGoix-Webster_062006_diff.pdf (accessed 9 July 2014).
Grant R (2005) The emergence of gated communities in a Lees L (2012) The geography of gentrification: Thinking
West African context: Evidence from Greater Accra, through comparative urbanism. Progress in Human
Ghana. Urban Geography 26: 661–683. Geography 36(2): 155–171.
Hart G (2002) Disabling Globalization: Places of Power in Leisch H (2002) Gated communities in Indonesia. Cities
Post-Apartheid South Africa. Berkeley: University of 19: 341–350.
California Press. Lemanski C (2006) Spaces of exclusivity or connection?
Hart G (2006) Denaturalizing dispossession: Critical eth- Linkages between a gated community and its poorer
nography in the age of resurgent imperialism. Antipode neighbour in a Cape Town master plan development.
38: 977–1004. Urban Studies 43: 397–420.
Harvey D (2004) The right to the city. In: Lees L (ed.) Low S (2003) Behind the Gates: Life, Security and the
The Emancipatory City?Paradoxes and Possibilities. Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America. London:
London: SAGE, pp.236–239. Routledge.
Hirt S and Petrovic M (2011) The Belgrade wall: The pro- Low S (2005) Towards a theory of urban fragmentation: A
liferation of gated housing in the Serbian capital after cross-cultural analysis of fear, privatization and the
socialism. International Journal of Urban and Regional state. Cybergeo. Available at: http://www.cybergeo.
Research 35: 753–777. eu/index3207.html (accessed 9 July 2014).
Hogan T, Bunnell T, Pow CP, Permanasari E and Morshidi McCann E and Ward K (eds) (2011) Assembling Urbanism:
S (2012) Asian urbanisms and the privatization of cit- Mobilizing Knowledge and Shaping Cities in a Global
ies. Cities 29(1): 59–63. Context. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hook D and Vrdoljak M (2002) Gated communities, het- McFarlane C (2011) Assemblage and critical urban praxis:
erotopia and a ‘rights’ of privilege: A‘heterotopology’ Part one. City 15(2): 204–240.
Pow 21
McFarlane C and Robinson J (2012) Introduction: Experi- Pow CP (2007) Constructing a new private order: Gated
ments in comparative urbanism. Urban Geography communities and the privatization of urban life in
33(6): 765–773. post-reform Shanghai. Social and Cultural Geography
McGuirk P and Dowling R (2009a) Neoliberal privatiza- 8(6): 813–833.
tion? Remapping the public and the private in Sydney’s Pow CP (2009a) Gated Communities in China: Class, Pri-
masterplanned residential estate. Political Geography vilege and the Moral Politics of the Good Life. London:
28: 174–185. Routledge.
McGuirk P and Dowling R (2009b) Master-planned Pow CP (2009b) Public intervention, private aspiration:
residential developments: Beyond iconic spaces Gated communities and the condominization of hous-
of neoliberalism? Asia Pacific Viewpoint 50: ing landscapes in Singapore. Asia Pacific Viewpoint
120–134. 50(2): 215–227.
McKenzie E (1994) Privatopia: Homeowner Associations Prakash G (2010) Introduction: Imaging the modern city,
and the Rise of Residential Private Governance. New darkly. In: Prakash G (ed.) Noir Urbanism: Dystopic
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Image of the Modern City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
McKenzie E (2011) Beyond Privatopia: Rethinking Resi- University Press.
dential Private Government. Washington, DC: The Raposo R (2006) Gated communities, commodification
Urban Institute. and aestheticization: The case of the Lisbon metropol-
MacLeod G (2004) Privatizing the City? The Tentative itan area. GeoJournal 66: 43–56.
Push towards Edge Urban Developments and Gated Read B (2003) Democratizing the neighborhood? New pri-
Communities in the United Kingdom, Final Report for vate housing and homeowner self-organization in
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Available at: urban China. The China Journal 49: 31–59.
http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/cscr/odpm/Privatizing. Robinson J (2003) Political geography in a postcolonial
pdf (accessed 9 July 2014). context. Political Geography 22(6): 647–651.
Manzi T and Smith-Bowers B (2006) Gated communities Robinson J (2010) Living in dystopia: Past, present,
as club goods: Segregation or social cohesion? Housing and future in contemporary African cities. In:
Studies 20(2): 345–359. Prakash G (ed.) Noir Urbanism: Dystopic Image
Marcuse P (1997) The enclaves, the citadel, and the ghetto: of the Modern City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
What has changed in the post-Fordist US city. Urban versity Press.
Affairs Review 33: 228–264. Robinson J (2011) Cities in a world of cities: The compara-
Miao P (2003) Deserted streets in a jammed town: The tive gesture. International Journal of Urban and
gated community in Chinese cities and its solution. Regional Research 35(1): 1–23.
Journal of Urban Design 8: 45–66. Roitman S (2006) Who segregates whom? The analysis
Morange M, Folio F, Peyroux E and Vivet J (2012) The of a gated community in Mendoza, Argentina. In:
spread of a transnational model: Gated communities Atkinson R and Blandy S (eds) Gated Communities:
in three Southern African cities (Cape Town, Maputo International Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp.
and Windhoek). International Journal of Urban and 112–130.
Regional Research 36(5): 890–914. Roitman S, Webster C and Landman K (2010) Methodolo-
Nijman I (2007) Introduction: Comparative urbanism. gical framework and interdisciplinary research on
Urban Geography 28(1): 1–6. gated communities. International Planning Studies
Ong A (2011) Introduction: Worlding cities, or the art of 15(1): 3–23.
being global. In: Roy A and Ong A (eds) Worlding Rosen G and Grant J (2009) Armed compound to broken
Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Glo- arm: The cultural production of gated communities.
bal. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 1–22. Annals of the American Association of Geographers
Peck J and Theodore N (2010) Mobilizing policy: Models, 99(3): 575–558.
methods, and mutations. Geoforum 41:169–174. Rosen G and Grant J (2011) Reproducing difference:
Pinder D (2002) In defence of utopian urbanism: Imagin- Gated communities in Canada and Israel. International
ing cities after the ‘end of utopia’. GeografiskaAnna- Journal of Urban and Regional Research 35(4):
ler: Series B 84: 229–241. 778–793.
Roy A (2009) The 21st century metropolis: New geogra- Virilio P (2005) City of Panic. Oxford: Berg.
phies of theory. Regional Studies 43(6): 819–830. Waibel M (2006) The production of urban space in
Salcedo R and Torres A (2004) Gated communities: Walls Vietnam’s metropolis in the course of transition:
or frontier? International Journal of Urban and Internationalization polarization and newly emer-
Regional Research 28(1): 27–44. ging lifestyles in Vietnam society. TRIALOG 89 –
Sanchez TW, Lang R and Dhavale D (2005) Security versus 2/2006: 43–48.
status? A first look at the census’s gated community Walk A (2010) Electoral behaviour behind the gates: Par-
data. Journal of Planning Education and Research 24: tisanship and political participation among Canadian
281–291. gated community residents. Area 42: 7–24.
Sardar Z (2010) Opening the gates: An East-West transna- Walzer M (1984) Liberalism and the art of separation.
tional discourse? In: Bagaeen S and Uduku O (eds) Gated Political Theory 12(3): 315–330.
Communities: Social Sustainability in Contemporary Ward K (2010) Towards a relational comparative approach
and Historical Gated Developments. London: Earthscan. to the study of cities. Progress in Human Geography
Sassen S (2010) Foreword:Urban gating: One instance of a 34: 471–487.
larger development? In: Bagaeen S and Uduku O (eds) Webster C (2002) Property rights and the public realm:
Gated Communities: Social Sustainability in Contem- Gates, green belts and gemeinschaft. Environment and
porary and Historical Gated Developments. London: Planning B 29: 397–412.
Earthscan. Webster C (2011) Constructing refutable theories about
Sparke M (2006) Political geographies of globalization: (2) urban enclosure dynamics. Keynote paper delivered
Governance. Progress in Human Geography 30: 1–16. at the 6th International Conference of the Research
Stoyanov P and Frantz K (2006) Gated communities in Network on Private Urban Governance and Gated
Bulgaria: Interpreting a new trend in post-communist Communities, 9 September, Istanbul.
urban development. GeoJournal 66: 57–63. Webster C, Glasze G and Frantz K (2002) The global
Thompson C (2013) Master-planned estates: Privatization, spread of gated communities. Environment and Plan-
socio-spatial polarization and community. Geography ning B 29: 315–320.
Compass 7(1): 85–93. Weintraub J (1995) Varieties and vicissitudes of public
Thrift N (2005) Panicsville: Paul Virilio and the aesthetic space. In: Kainitz P (ed.) Metropolis:Center and Symbol
of disaster. Cultural Politics 1(3): 337–348. of Our Times. New York: New York University Press.
Thuillier G (2006) Gated communities in the metropolitan Williams R (1983) Towards 2000. London: Chatto and
area of Buenos Aires, Argentina: A challenge for town Windus.
planning. In: Atkinson R and Blandy S (eds) Gated Wu FL (2004) Transplanting cityscapes: The use of ima-
Communities: International Perspectives. London: gined globalization in housing commodification in
Routledge, pp. 34–46. Beijing. AREA 36: 227–234.
Vesselinov E, Cazessus M and Falk W (2007) Gated com- Wu FL (2005) Rediscovering the ‘gate’ under market tran-
munities and spatial inequality. Journal of Urban sition: From work-unit compounds to commodity hous-
Affairs 29(2): 109–127. ing enclaves. Housing Studies 20: 235–254.

Pow, 2014 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pow, 2014 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Progress in Human Geography

epistemologies of hope sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Introduction explanations for diverse urban processes and

geographical elsewhere’, notably in ‘Third number of social tensions ‘between exclusion-

Beyond noir urbanism: Unsettling prima facie evidences of neoliberal privatiza-

You might also like