10.

1177/0739456X04270127
Sanchez
Security versus
et al. Status ARTICLE

Security versus Status?

A First Look at the Census’s Gated Community Data

Thomas W. Sanchez, Robert E. Lang,

& Dawn M. Dhavale

T he term gated communities for most people conjures up images of exclusive develop- Abstract
ments with fancy homes and equally fancy lifestyles. At the gates stand guards who
For most people, the term gated communi-
screen all nonresidents or the uninvited. Much of the popular and academic literature
ties conjures up images of exclusive devel-
on gated communities promotes this view (see Garreau 1991; Blakely and Snyder 1997; opments with fancy homes and equally
Lang and Danielsen 1997; Stark 1998; Low 2003). These authors also focus on how fancy lifestyles. Much of the popular and
some gated communities closely control the lives of residents, including extreme exam- academic literature on gated communities
promotes this view. Yet the common per-
ples such as limiting the number of guests allowed to parties or the types of vehicles that
ception of gated communities as privi-
one can park in a driveway. leged enclaves turns out to be only partly
Gated communities are also easy targets for social critics who point to their walls as correct based on our analysis of the first
the physical manifestation of a long-standing exclusionary impulse among rich people ever census survey of these places. There
are gated communities composed of
to shut out the less fortunate (including a big chunk of the middle class) (Guterson
mostly White homeowners with high in-
1992, 1993). Such criticism extends to popular culture, including an X-Files episode sev- comes that have a secure main entry—the
eral years ago where a monster eats those who fail to follow the homeowners’ associa- kind of classic gated community in the
tion rules or a Twilight Zone episode where unruly teenagers are turned into fertilizer. public mind. But there are also gated com-
munities that are inhabited by minority
While much of the attention has focused on the demographic characteristics and
renters with moderate incomes. We ex-
geographic distribution of upscale gated communities, little attention has been pected that this dichotomy reflects a di-
devoted to other dimensions of enclosed communities represented by low-income, vide between gated communities, one
renter households. Recent data released by the U.S. Census Bureau as part of the 2001 based on status versus one motivated by
concern for security. Using the 2001 Amer-
American Housing Survey (AHS), shows that low-income renters are actually more
ican Housing Survey (AHS), we attempted
likely to live in walled or gated communities compared to affluent homeowners. to explain the differences between gated
Because class and race are correlated in the United States, the owner and renter distinc- homeowners, nongated homeowners,
tion translates into a separation of high-income from low-income and Whites from non- gated renters, and nongated renter house-
holds.
Whites. While affluent White homeowners in gated communities have been extensively
profiled, the gated, low-income, non-white renters have not. We suspect these two Keywords: gated communities; housing;
worlds reflect a divide between gated communities, one the result of status versus one American Housing Survey
motivated by concern for security.
Security is arguably the motivating force behind the trends in gated communities. Thomas W. Sanchez is currently an associate
professor of urban affairs and planning at
The “forting up” of households, especially affluent households, has been widely Virginia Tech’s Alexandria Center and a
reported. Walls and gates are physical barriers to prevent intrusion by an undesirable fellow with the Metropolitan Institute. He
element associated with crime, drugs, vandalism, and disregard for public or private holds a Ph.D. in city planning from the
property. Walls and gates defend and protect residential space from these activities and, Georgia Institute of Technology. His re-
search has been in the areas of transporta-
Journal of Planning Education and Research 24:281-291 tion, land use, residential location
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X04270127 behavior, and questions of social equity in
© 2005 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning planning, with research being sponsored

281
282
Figure 1. Multifamily development surrounded by fences.
by the National Science Foundation,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Fannie Mae Foundation, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
Brookings Institution, and state depart-
ments of transportation.
Robert E. Lang is the founding director of
the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia
Tech in Alexandria, Virginia, and an asso-
ciate professor in Virginia Tech’s School of
Planning and International Affairs. Dr.
Lang is coeditor of the new scholarly publi-
cation Opolis: An International Journal of
Suburban and Metropolitan Studies. He also
serves as associate editor for the journal
Housing Policy Debate, and book review edi-
tor for the Journal of the American Planning
Association. He is currently working on a
book for Brookings Institution Press enti-
tled Boomburbs: The Rise of America’s Acciden-
tal Cities.
Dawn M. Dhavale is a doctoral student in
urban affairs and planning at Virginia
Tech in Alexandria and a researcher at the
Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech.
She has conducted research on topics
such as micropolitan areas, census-desig-
nated places, and suburban growth
trends. Her dissertation research focuses
on metropolitan development. She has a
masters in urban and regional planning
from Virginia Tech.
Sanchez et al.
in so doing, also create security both socially and economically.
Protecting residential property values becomes nearly as impor-
tant as physical safety.1
An accurate portrait of who lives in gated communities and
why they choose these places is important to the public policy
debate over community development. In some markets, a signifi-
cant share of affordable rental housing is gated (for an example,
see Figure 1). Many moderate-income households pick gated
communities for reasons that remain not entirely clear. The easy
guess is that they have safety concerns, but an underlying motiva-
tion may be that the gates signal a higher level of amenity and sta-
tus than comparable nongated developments. If residents select
gated apartments primarily for safety reasons, that could signal a
retreat from community engagement and result in what Blakely
and Snyder (1997) describe as “enclaves of fear” (p. 99). In such
places, the relatively less disadvantaged turn their backs on neigh-
bors by hiding behind gates. But if the primary selling point for downscale gated com-
munities is that they are packaged with pools and other amenities then the motivation
may be a lifestyle choice rather than fear. This is an important distinction for public pol-
icy makers because the first motivation signals a potential loss of community while the
latter indicates a consumer choice that may not represents a desire to exclude others.
Therefore the answer to our question, “security versus status?” speaks to the larger
meaning of gated communities. Should planners and policy makers concern them-
selves that the rise of gated communities signals a fundamental shift in the nature of
neighborhood life? Perhaps they should, but only after a careful examination of why
such places attract residents. We find that the new AHS data offers a starting point in
answering basic questions about gated communities that until now have mostly been
speculated on. The AHS for the first time provides baseline data, which in itself
includes the counterintuitive finding that gated communities are more prevalent
among downscale renter than upscale owner markets. The data also provides insight
(albeit limited) into what causes people to choose gated communities and, corre-
spondingly, what implications these motivations have for those concerned with
understanding neighborhood change.
䉴 Background
Residential “fortification” is an underlying theme of previous research on gated
communities. Typical gated communities are entirely surrounded by physical walls
with gates, and sometimes restrict entry with guards or other means of access control.
Enclave communities are removed from the main road and built with a cohesive feel-
ing but lack unbroken physical barriers (Langdon 1994). Enclosed, or security zone,
communities (Blakely and Snyder 1997) are created when once-public streets are
blocked off to create a private community. Enclosed or enclave communities have also
been retrofit with perimeter walls with a guardhouse or gate after the initial construc-
tion. Another permutation is the “blockhome”—an individual home with security
devices well beyond the average security system (Flusty 1997). This article examines
gated communities, both with and without access control.
According to the literature, households more frequently choose gated housing for
security and prestige. The aims of security and prestige appear vastly different, but they
Security versus Status 䉳
are not mutually exclusive and neither aim is principally associ-
ated with household income level. These two desires do not
appear to have much in common, but they do have common
themes, including physical control, psychological benefits,
and protection from crime. The ability to control the physical
environment is one of a gated community’s most powerful abil-
ities. By reducing and screening through traffic, prestige com-
munities create an exclusionary status, and security communi-
ties reduce the perceived risk of intruders and criminals. A gate
or a guard creates an image of either a privileged land or per-
imeter that is difficult to breach (Flusty 1997).
Gated communities can also control the social environ-
ment both directly and indirectly. Indirectly, house prices and
location control community entry, effectively restricting cer-
tain groups or segregating the community by class and race
(Judd 1995; Blakely and Snyder 1997). Affluent Americans
have employed a number of devices to control housing
practices in the past, particularly restrictive covenants—
agreements concerning individual ability to purchase prop-
erty that was conveyed with the house—and large lot, mini-
mum house size, and minimum frontage zoning (Higley
1995). Unlike real estate covenants of the past, gated commu-
nity restrictions are legal and are rarely challenged for being
discriminatory.
By excluding unwanted persons or activities, gates are an
effective way to protect property values. Almost all gated com-
munities have homeowners’ associations to protect property
values by controlling their neighborhood environment
(Fischel 2000; Lang 2003). Blakely and Snyder (1997) charac-
terize gated or walled communities as a means for moderate to
upper income homeowners to separate themselves economi-
cally, socially, and psychically from low-income, minority
households. Walls and gates prevent intrusions associated with
crime, drugs, vandalism, and disregard for public or private
property. In so doing, walls and gates create social and
economic security and project a desired image.
Gated communities offer psychological benefits for some
households. The gate is an affirmation of social status to afflu-
ent households and provides a way to keep out the unknown.
The gate is a reminder of the unpredictability of the world out-
side the gates (Guterson 1992). Gates symbolically remove a
community from the outside world and all of its troubles (Judd
1995). Although residents may actually be no safer inside the
gates, residents in gated communities report that they feel less
safe when outside of their communities (Low 2001).
Gated communities are marketed as safer, but are they
really? The few studies on this topic are mixed. Newman
(1980) reported a decline in crime on private streets as com-
pared to public streets in St. Louis, while others suggest that
there is no difference (Wilson-Doenges 2000; Blakely and
283
Snyder 1997). With the emphasis on security, it is important to
know, Is the prevalence of crime rising, or is the actual inci-
dence magnified? Crime rates are going down, but fear of
crime is rising (Colvard 1997). With intense media coverage
and contradicting statistics, the perception of crime can
increase regardless of actual changes in crime rates (Glassner
1999). For instance, polls show that Americans are increasingly
afraid of being the victim of crimes in both public and private
spaces (Lofland 1998). Current information specific to loca-
tion and situation is rarely available. Research in this regard
suggests that targeted information can reduce inflated per-
ceptions of crime (Stone 1996).
Gated communities may deter crime by using some of the
crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)
concepts. It is generally believed that crime reduction can
occur through group behavior and environmental changes
(Newman 1972). Gating is “target hardening,” making the
potential target much more difficult to access (Crowe 1991).
However, this access restriction simultaneously affects the legit-
imate users of the environment. Engaging the community is
paramount, and enclosing or restricting areas makes residents
feel responsible for the area, drawing them together through
shared responsibility—by having more “eyes on the street”
(Jacobs 1961). Yet gates may counterintuitively make commu-
nities less safe. Once the responsibility for vigilance has passed
to a hired security force or an electronic code system, neigh-
bors may be less likely to keep watch on suspicious people or
activities in the neighborhood (Lang and Danielsen 1997;
Blakely and Snyder 1997).
Media accounts and academic research has referred to low-
income gated communities as security zones. Many have been
retrofit on significant decline (National Public Radio 1995;
Financial Times 1997; Low 1997; Davis 1990). One of the few
studies to address low-income gated communities looked at
the difference between low- and high-income gated and
nongated communities in terms of safety and “sense of com-
munity” (Wilson-Doenges 2000). For high-income house-
holds, gated communities, contrary to commonly held percep-
tions, had a lower sense of community.2 In addition, there was
no reported difference in the sense of community between
low-income gated and nongated communities. While crime
rates differ little between gated and nongated communities in
low- and high-income neighborhoods, low-income house-
holds did not report any difference in perception of safety or
community cohesion. The high-income groups did not report
differences by day, but at night, the high-income gated com-
munity residents reported feeling safer than their nongated
counterparts. The high-income gated residents also felt that
their neighborhood was safer than other neighborhoods, even
though there were no differences in actual crime rates
284
between neighborhoods. The low-income communities did
not report any comparative safety differences.
Gated communities are paradoxical. They are marketed as
close-knit communities while effectively reducing the inter-
action between neighbors. Internally, they are hotbeds of
volunteerism, yet they may reduce civic engagement in the
larger community (Lang and Danielsen 1997). There is no
clear consensus on whether they reduce crime or protect prop-
erty values. Much of the evidence on these topics is anecdotal
and contradictory. Developers and planners also contend that
gates can increase a feeling of community (Blakely and Snyder
1997), despite research that suggests otherwise (Wilson-
Doenges 2000; Merry 1993). Related to this is the gated resi-
dents’ disengagement from the local community and involve-
ment only in issues relevant to their immediate community
(Lang and Danielsen 1997).
Closing off previously public streets and building new gated
communities can restrict public community space to those that
live in the gated community. The newly private spaces are
sometimes “militarized” with cameras and other security
devices (Davis 1990, 223-63; Judd 1995). New communities are
built with private roads, swimming pools, meeting areas, and
other amenities that are not open for public use. Many walled
or gated neighborhoods are selected because of these ameni-
ties and for privacy, however, not the feeling of community
(Merry 1993). Some research suggests that the desire for pri-
vacy increases with household income. Consequently, by
choosing higher levels of protection, residents also forgo typi-
cal levels of neighborhood social interaction. Social control is
no longer exercised by direct face-to-face contact, but instead
by authority figures, usually a private security force employed
by the association.
The role of social control was historically more personal,
with neighborhood forums compared to today’s guards and
association board pronouncements (Baumgartner 1988). This
is likely a reflection of the self-selection of residents who value
privacy and wish to restrict certain social contact, as well as dis-
solution of community. Some do not care about their neigh-
bor’s opinions so much as they want to avoid being fined or
face lawsuits for not abiding by the association rules. Sending a
security guard to complain about a neighbor’s barking dog
avoids the risk of a negative confrontation.
䉴 Research Approach
While much of the discussion surrounding gated commu-
nities focuses on perceived civic and social costs of exclusive
and homogenous neighborhoods, little research has at-
Sanchez et al.
tempted to distinguish household types that reside in these
types of communities. One explanation for this is that until the
2001 AHS, no nationwide household data existed that would
allow such distinctions. Using survey responses from questions
that characterize household types, unit types, community
types, residential location, mobility status, along with indica-
tors of residential preferences are analyzed to determine
whether security or status are effective predictors of who lives
behind walls and who does not. Drawing from the previous
research, we hypothesize that indicators of status will play a sig-
nificant role in distinguishing households living in gated com-
munities. In addition, we expect that indicators of safety may
be more important for low-income renters, especially those in
urban core areas.
䉴 Methods
The 2001 AHS added forty new questions ranging from
types of home financing, country of origin for household
members, and community attributes of residential locations.
For the first time, the national sample included questions to
distinguish gated communities, two of which are
• Is your community surrounded by walls or fences prevent-
ing access by persons other than residents?
• Does access to your community require a special entry sys-
tem such as entry codes, key cards, or security guard ap-
proval?
Using responses from these two questions, we examine the
characteristics of households that live in “walled” or “access
controlled” communities. This analysis segments these house-
holds by tenure status, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
and household composition relative to walled and access
controlled communities.
The responses to these questions are first used to profile the
households by neighborhood types and also to detect the pri-
mary differences between homeowners in gated communities,
homeowners in nongated communities, renters in gated com-
munities, and renters in nongated communities. If gates or
walls surrounding communities provide safety, security, or
other psychological benefits, it should be reflected in the
responses provided about neighborhood quality, preference,
and satisfaction. The attractiveness and benefit of particular
amenities should also be expressed in the household
responses for reasons that the current residential unit and
neighborhood were selected.
Along with descriptive statistics, a discriminant analysis was
performed to distinguish the four household types on the basis
of thirty-four selected variables from the AHS. Discriminant
Security versus Status 䉳 285

analysis produces linear combinations of the independent Table 1.

variables to predict group (tenure and community type) mem- Top 10 metropolitan areas.
bership. We hypothesized that the resulting discriminant func- % Access
tions would provide useful insights about the distinguishing Top 10 Metropolitan Areasa % Walled Controlled
characteristics between gated and nongated households as
Atlanta 7.4 5.5
well as by ownership status. We anticipated that the factors Boston 3.5 0.6
related to status, such as unit size, unit and neighborhood Chicago 5.3 1.3
design, community facilities, school quality, and construction Dallas 17.8 13.4
Detroit 2.3 1.2
quality, would be more strongly associated with gated home-
Houston 26.7 21.9
owners. On the other hand, we expect that factors related to Los Angeles 18.2 11.7
safety, such as levels of neighborhood crime, abandoned build- New York 5.2 1.7
ings, barred windows, broken windows, and neighborhood Philadelphia 2.0 0.8
Washington, DC 4.3 2.6
cleanliness, would be associated with gated renters.

a. Alphabetic listing based on 2000 population.

䉴 Results more likely to be white compared to renters (86.4 percent

Of the 119,116,517 housing units represented by the AHS,
106,406,951 were occupied year-round, with 7,058,427 (5.9
percent) households reporting that they lived in communities
surrounded by walls or fences and 4,013,665 (3.4 percent)
households reporting that access to their communities was
controlled by some means.3 Only respondents who said they
lived in a walled or fenced community answered the survey
question about controlled access, which means that nearly 60
percent of the walled or gated communities also had con-
trolled entries (i.e., gates). The percentages of walled or con-
trolled-access communities vary by region of the country, with
households in the West having a higher likelihood of living in
walled communities (11.1 percent), followed by the South (6.8
percent), the Northeast (3.1 percent), and the Midwest (2.1
percent). One explanation for the regional distribution of
walled and gated communities is that they are more prevalent
in new construction, with significant amounts of new residen-
tial development in the West and South. The regional concen-
tration of walled and gated households is also reflected at the
metropolitan scale (see Table 1).
Owner versus Renter
Household Characteristics
Contrary to the notion that primarily affluent homeowners
live in gated communities, the results of the AHS survey show
that renters are nearly 2.5 times more likely to live in walled or
fenced communities and over 3 times as likely to have con-
trolled entries. These renters include households in public
housing projects, which often have walled and gated design
elements. The survey data also show that owners and renters
have significantly different demographic profiles, with owners
compared to 67.1 percent), to have higher incomes ($73,548
compared to $35,831), to have older heads of households
(fifty-two years old compared to forty-two years old), and to
have slightly larger households (2.7 persons compared to 2.3
persons). Tables 2, 3, and 4 provide a comparison of house-
hold characteristics relative to tenure status.
Table 5 shows these household characteristics across the
income groups (quartiles), which indicate that higher income
households are actually less likely to live in walled or gated
communities compared to lower income households. Higher
income households are also predominantly white, younger,
and have more persons than the lower income groups.
Community Types
Examining community types across the dimensions of race,
ethnicity, and tenure status shows that Hispanics, whether
homeowners or renters, are more likely to live in walled or con-
trolled entry communities than whites or blacks. In contrast,
black homeowners are the least likely group to live in either
type of community, with the rates for black renters falling be-
tween those of white and Hispanic households (see Table 6).
The question arises about why there are smaller propor-
tions of blacks living in walled or controlled access commu-
nities. Is it a function of the housing market not providing
adequate choice for this segment of the population (affluent
blacks) or simply an aversion to walled or gated communi-
ties? To test this, a subsample that included only responses
from the Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Detroit, Mem-
phis, and Washington, DC, metropolitan areas was analyzed.
While blacks constitute 12.5 percent of the nation’s house-
holds, in these metropolitan areas, they represent nearly 30
percent. It would seem that affluent blacks would have a
286 Sanchez et al.

Table 2.
Demographic characteristics of walled and unwalled developments.
% Mean Mean
% Access % % % Mean Household Household
Households Walled Controlled White Black Hispanic Agea Income Size

All 5.9 3.4 80.3 12.5 8.2 48.76 61,481 2.55

Walled/fenced 100.0 56.7 70.6 14.6 15.7 47.00 60,562 2.29
Not walled/fenced 0.0 0.0 81.0 12.3 8.8 48.89 61,566 2.57
Access controlled 99.7 100.0 70.8 14.8 13.8 45.70 66,343 2.12
Access not controlled 98.6 0.0 70.3 14.4 18.0 48.60 52,749 2.52

a. Mean age of household head.

Table 3.
Demographic characteristics of walled and unwalled owners.
% Mean Mean
% Access % % % Mean Household Household
Owners Walled Controlled White Black Hispanic Agea Income Size

All 4.3 2.1 86.4 8.7 6.5 52.14 73,548 2.66

Walled/fenced 100.0 49.2 84.4 6.3 10.6 54.52 86,731 2.41
Not walled/fenced 0.0 0.0 86.6 8.8 6.4 52.04 72,998 2.67
Access controlled 100.0 100.0 87.2 4.0 7.1 54.95 105,467 2.22
Access not controlled 98.9 0.0 82.0 8.4 13.9 54.13 68,773 2.59

a. Mean age of household head.

Table 4.
Demographic characteristics of walled and unwalled renters.
% Mean Mean
% Access % % % Mean Household Household
Owners Walled Controlled White Black Hispanic Agea Income Size

All 11.6 7.3 67.1 20.5 14.9 41.58 35,831 2.33

Walled/fenced 100.0 62.6 59.7 21.3 19.7 41.01 39,758 2.20
Not walled/fenced 0.0 0.0 68.1 20.4 14.3 41.65 35,333 2.35
Access controlled 99.6 100.0 60.6 21.6 17.9 39.94 42,003 2.05
Access not controlled 98.4 0.0 57.8 20.8 22.4 42.66 35,527 2.44

a. Mean age of household head.

Table 5.
Income and demographic characteristics for walled and controlled access residents.
% Mean
% Access % % % % Mean Household
Income Quartile Walled Controlled Owner White Black Hispanic Agea Size

1. < $20,000 7.5 4.1 51.0 73.0 19.4 10.7 55.05 1.93
2. $20,000-$40,000 7.1 4.1 60.0 78.4 14.1 11.2 47.93 2.39
3. $40,001-$71,768 5.8 3.1 73.6 83.4 9.5 9.1 45.18 2.81
4. > $71,768 6.1 3.8 88.3 86.6 6.7 5.8 46.50 3.12

a. Mean age of household head.

Table 6.
Tenure and race/ethnicity by community type.
% Fenced or Walled Communities % Controlled Entry Communities
a a
White Black Hispanic White Black Hispanic

Owner 4.2 3.1 7.0 2.1 1.0 2.3

Renter 10.3 12.0 15.2 6.6 7.6 8.7

a. Includes heads of households reporting race/ethnicity as white Hispanic and black Hispanic.
Security versus Status 䉳 287

Table 7.
Descriptive statistics.
Gated Nongated Gated Nongated
Variable Homeowner Homeowner Renter Renter Total
a
Marital status 0.602 0.646 0.315 0.300 0.536
Household income 87,794 73,172 39,735 35,461 61,819
# of persons in household 2.407 2.672 2.221 2.362 2.561
White 0.850 0.868 0.599 0.686 0.806
Black 0.060 0.087 0.208 0.201 0.123
Asian 0.057 0.023 0.081 0.038 0.030
Other (race) 0.034 0.022 0.112 0.075 0.041
Hispanic 0.105 0.063 0.202 0.145 0.092
Male 0.607 0.630 0.534 0.480 0.584
Central city status 0.266 0.221 0.536 0.432 0.293
Northeast region 0.099 0.184 0.094 0.227 0.190
Midwest region 0.082 0.259 0.086 0.214 0.235
South region 0.421 0.366 0.421 0.325 0.358
West region 0.397 0.192 0.399 0.234 0.217
People in neighborhood are bothersome 0.023 0.034 0.049 0.049 0.039
Liked unit because of room layout/design 0.097 0.062 0.148 0.111 0.080
Liked unit because of exterior appearance 0.051 0.034 0.064 0.046 0.039
Liked unit because of construction quality 0.058 0.031 0.041 0.030 0.031
Liked unit because of size 0.070 0.046 0.127 0.123 0.071
Liked unit because of yard/trees/view 0.041 0.035 0.049 0.048 0.039
Moved to obtain higher quality unit 0.033 0.029 0.050 0.061 0.039
Chose neighborhood for its looks/design 0.087 0.054 0.128 0.095 0.069
Chose neighborhood because of good schools 0.027 0.028 0.061 0.059 0.038
Neighborhood has neighborhood crime 0.121 0.122 0.245 0.216 0.153
Windows covered with metal bars 0.051 0.034 0.077 0.065 0.045
Windows broken 0.021 0.037 0.030 0.065 0.044
Factories/other industry within a half block 0.020 0.025 0.063 0.060 0.036
Mobile homes within a half block of unit 0.147 0.138 0.056 0.087 0.121
Bodies of water within a half block of unit 0.276 0.171 0.141 0.123 0.160
Neighborhood police protection satisfactory 0.941 0.925 0.945 0.922 0.926
Community recreational facilities avail 0.606 0.317 0.558 0.335 0.340
Abandoned/vandalized buildings within a
half block 0.016 0.037 0.053 0.075 0.048
Trash/junk in streets/properties in a
half block 0.044 0.069 0.127 0.145 0.092
Buildings with bars on windows within a
half block 0.073 0.057 0.116 0.116 0.076
Weighted N 2,959,717 65,567,497 3,682,851 28,072,568 100,282,633

a. “Marital Status” is a dichotomous variable where married = 1 and unmarried = 0.

greater opportunity to choose walled or gated communities in
those metros where they make up a substantial proportion of
their respective populations. The survey results indicate, how-
ever, that black homeowners in the six selected metros are
actually less likely to live in walled or gated communities com-
pared to national averages. Only 1.6 percent of black home-
owners lived in walled or fenced communities, with only 0.3
percent living in communities with controlled entries. On the
other hand, 11.8 percent of black renters lived in walled or
fenced communities, and 8.4 percent lived in communities
with controlled entries in these metros—virtually the same
rates as for all renters across the United States.
Table 7 shows the descriptive statistics for the thirty-four
selected variables and the four classes of household types. As
expected, there are several clear differences among tenure sta-
tus, as well as gated status. Compared to renters, homeowners
are more likely to be married, affluent, white, and residing in
suburban locations. Homeowners also reported having fewer
instances of bothersome neighbors, less crime, and fewer
abandoned buildings, litter, and barred windows compared to
renters. Homeowners were less likely to be near industrial land
uses but more likely to be near mobile home sites. Land-use
zoning and the locational preferences of homeowners explain
being further from factories and industrial sites. Mobile homes
288
are also more likely to be located away from central cities at the
urban fringe or outlying areas. It is surprising to note that
homeowners (especially gated homeowners) did not report
school quality, unit design, exterior appearance, or quality of
construction as significantly different locational factors com-
pared to the other household types. In fact, for gated home-
owners, good schools, unit size, and unit appearance were not
as important as they were for gated renters, nor was obtaining a
higher quality unit a major factor in homeowner’s reasons for
moving to their current location.
Overall, gated homeowners separate themselves from poor
quality residential environments by choosing neighborhoods
that have fewer physical signs of deterioration like broken win-
dows, trash, and barred windows. While renters reported that
they perceived higher levels of crime where they lived com-
pared to homeowners, there was virtually no difference
reported between gated and nongated homeowners in this
regard. In addition, gated households reported that neighbor-
hood police protection (used to measure perceptions of
safety) was satisfactory slightly more often than did nongated
households, whether they were homeowners or renters.
While it is difficult to directly observe the degree to which
status plays a role in location patterns, we expected that the
physical appearance of the housing or neighborhood would
emerge as a consistent set of indirect measures. The survey
results suggest that residence size, design, and appearance
were often as important for renters as they were for homeown-
ers. And while it was expected that gated households would
feel safer with respect to crime, there was no significant differ-
ence reported between gated and nongated homeowners, with
gated renters reporting higher levels of concern for crime
compared to nongated renters. There was also virtually no dif-
ference in the perception of police protection across tenure or
gated status.
Discriminant Analysis
The discriminant analysis included the thirty-four inde-
pendent variables shown in Table 7, with household type
(gated homeowners, nongated homeowners, gated renters,
and nongated renters) as the criterion variable. The indepen-
dent variables fell into three general categories that repre-
sented demographic characteristics and safety considerations.
The model was able to correctly classify approximately 71 per-
cent of more than 100 million households observations. In the
first function (gated homeowners), six demographic variables
had the strongest explanatory power (see Table 8). These
results serve to reinforce the stereotype of gated homeowners
as being married, affluent, white, and living in the suburbs. It
Sanchez et al.
was anticipated that the variables associated with status would
play a more substantial role, especially for this group. The vari-
ables related to the size of the unit, room layout/design, neigh-
borhood appearance, landscaping, view, and school quality
were negatively correlated with the likelihood of being a
homeowner in a gated community, contrary to what was ex-
pected. In terms of the perception of safety variables, gated
homeowners were less likely to be concerned about crime and
had less neighborhood trash or junk and fewer buildings with
bars on the windows near them. The second and third func-
tions do not exhibit patterns of discriminant loadings as clearly
as the first function.
䉴 Discussion
This article presents the first analysis of AHS data that
included survey responses about households in walled and
gated communities. One notable finding was the prevalence of
low-income, racial minority renters reporting that they lived in
walled or gated residential developments. This represents a
departure from even the most recent literature profiling the
characteristics of gated communities (see Low 2003). With
these findings, we expected that residential preferences would
play a significant role in distinguishing patterns of residential
location type. In particular, we hypothesized that variables
associated with security and status would differentiate gated
homeowners from nongated homeowners, gated renters, and
nongated renters. This was not, however, supported by the
descriptive statistics or discriminant analysis presented here.
Despite the results of the discriminant analysis that show
demographic variables explaining a high degree of variation
among household types compared to expressed preferences
for residential unit or community characteristics associated
with perceived security or social status, obviously, demo-
graphic characteristics are endogenous and highly correlated
with residential opportunity and preferences. Additional
research is needed to untangle these dimensions to better
understand the motivations of households that choose walled
or gated residential environments.
The results of the analysis also prompt a reexamination of
what it means to be “walled” or “fenced” and how it affects resi-
dential space. Walled or fenced communities are usually de-
picted as a function of affluence or exclusivity, whereas the
opposite may actually be more accurate. Mobile home parks
and public housing projects are typically enclosed spaces, but
these barriers do not effectively provide increased safety or any
measure of status.
The implications of this research will likely extend beyond
the demographic differences among gated and nongated
Security versus Status 䉳 289

Table 8.
Structure matrix from discriminant analysis.
Function
Variable 1 2 3
a b
Marital status 0.621 –0.139 –0.337
Central city –0.435b –0.076 –0.240
Household income 0.421b –0.241 0.145
White 0.408b 0.057 0.326
Hispanic –0.282b –0.129 –0.123
Black –0.264b 0.096 –0.134
Liked unit because of size –0.263b 0.005 0.181
Neighborhood has neighborhood crime –0.237b 0.019 –0.141
Trash/junk in streets/properties in a half block –0.234b 0.132 –0.017
Buildings with bars on windows within a half block –0.198b 0.008 0.114
# of persons in household 0.191b 0.093 –0.162
Factories/other industry within a half block –0.184b 0.047 –0.079
Liked unit because of room layout/design –0.177b –0.085 –0.016
Chose neighborhood for its looks/design –0.158b –0.091 0.033
Abandoned/vandalized buildings within a half block –0.147b 0.142 0.040
Windows covered with metal bars –0.143b –0.050 0.018
Chose neighborhood because of good schools –0.141b 0.043 –0.002
Liked unit because of yard/trees/view –0.067b –0.010 0.064
Community recreational facilities available –0.074 –0.566b 0.156
Midwest region 0.120 0.373b –0.144
Asian –0.110 –0.209b –0.140
Liked unit because of exterior appearance –0.068 –0.074b –0.013
Neighborhood police protection satisfactory 0.002 –0.071b –0.035
Bodies of water with a half block of unit 0.115 –0.220 0.435b
b
Male 0.256 –0.088 –0.361
b
Northeast region –0.052 0.309 0.325
b
Windows broken –0.107 0.164 0.245
b
Mobile homes with a half block of unit 0.129 –0.004 0.198
b
South region 0.052 –0.188 –0.194
b
Moved to obtain higher quality unit –0.140 0.063 0.182
b
Liked unit because of construction quality 0.000 –0.100 0.139
b
People in neighborhood bothersome –0.069 0.052 –0.087

Note: Pooled within-groups correlations between discriminating variables and standardized canonical discriminant functions. Variables
ordered by absolute size of correlation within function.
a. “Marital Status” is a dichotomous variable where married = 1 and unmarried = 0.
b. Largest absolute correlation between each variable and any discriminant function.

households over time. While issues of housing affordability,
satisfaction, and choice are implicit to examining residential
location behavior, increased personal safety and security con-
cerns may also be a more prominent factor given the events of
September 11, 2001, and threats of terrorist attacks. Additional
data from subsequent AHS surveys and other survey research
efforts can be used to test whether safety concerns will be
reflected in residential development and patterns of
household demand.
The first journalistic account based on these preliminary
findings revealed some interesting case accounts from resi-
dents of rental gated communities. Haya El Nasser (2002), in a
cover story for USA Today, found that safety was just one dimen-
sion of why people chose to live in these places. In conversa-
tions with residents of rental gated communities in suburban
New Orleans, El Nasser reported the following:
Gated access is “a safety issue not so much from criminal ele-
ments,” says Henry Shane, president of an architectural
firm in New Orleans that has developed 25 gated apartment
complexes, including some for moderate-income renters.
“It limits the amount of people who can come in.”
That’s what drew waitress Gina Rojas to one of Shane’s
developments. Harper’s Ferry is not fancy. But the iron
gates at all the entrances give it a tidy look and discourage
outsiders from parking in spaces reserved for tenants or lit-
tering the grounds. (p. A2)
In their fieldwork for an upcoming book on fast-growing
suburbs, Lang and Lefurgy (forthcomimg) found that a key
290
Figure 2. Gated rental under construction in Moreno Valley, California.
reason why so many gated rental communities appear in the
suburbs is that these places are acceptable to middle-income
homeowners. Gated rental communities blend seamlessly into
places dominated by master-planned community develop-
ment. This community acceptance of affordable gated renters
resulted in the city of Moreno Valley, California, requiring that
all new multifamily housing be gated (see, e.g., Figure 2).
In addition to further statistical work, researchers should
now focus on ethnographic and descriptive analyses of rental
gated communities, especially those in the suburbs. These
places have so far gone largely unstudied, despite the fact that
the majority of gated community residents live in rental units.
Our own preliminary read of rental gated communities (and
El Nasser’s work) hints at a myriad of motivational forces
behind a preference for these types of units. We suspect that a
major factor may be that gated rental developments signify
“middle-class” respectability that distinguishes these places
from typical suburban garden apartments. As noted above, it
may even be that the gates are bundled with a host of other
amenities (such as pools) that give these developments a
higher quality of life than the nongated apartment complexes.
An ethnographic account of rental gated communities is
needed to uncover the complicated forces that lie behind the
decision to live in these places.
Finally, because 2001 was the first year that questions on
gated communities were included on the AHS, there is no way
to determine whether the increasing popularity of these places
is tending toward a more racially integrated mix of residents.
The 2001 AHS provides the first national glimpse at these pat-
terns, and subsequent national and metropolitan surveys will
be useful for detecting these trends.
Sanchez et al.
Authors’ Note: The authors wish to thank Patrick Simmons, Diane Zahm,
Karen Danielsen, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments
on previous drafts.
䉴 Notes
1. We realize that the two concerns are not mutually exclusive.
Upscale gated communities typically sell security, but the walls are
often more a marketing tool to signify high status (Blakely and
Snyder 1997; Lang and Danielsen 1997). Downscale gated commu-
nities offer security as a more pragmatic response to high crime in
comparable nongated neighborhoods (Blakely and Snyder 1997).
2. Wilson-Doenges (2000) refers to “sense of community” as
the “set of networks among people who share interactions”
(p. 598).
3. This does not include high-rise structures with locked or
guarded entries.
䉴 References
Baumgartner, Mary Pat. 1988. The moral order of a suburb. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Blakely, Edward J., and Mary Gail Snyder. 1997. Fortress America:
Gated communities in the United States. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press and Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy.
Colvard, Karen. 1997. Crime is down? Don’t confuse us with the
facts. HFG Review 2 (1): 19-26.
Crowe, Timothy. 1991. Crime prevention through environmental design.
Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Davis, Mike. 1990. City of quartz: Excavating the future in Los Angeles.
London: Verso.
El Nasser, Haya. 2002. Gated communities are not just for the
wealthy. USA Today, December 16, pp. A1-2.
Financial Times. 1997. The birth of enclave man. September 20.
Fischel, William. 2000. The home voter hypothesis: How home values
influence local government taxation, school finance and land use poli-
tics. Hanover, NH: Department of Economics, Dartmouth
College.
Flusty, Stephen. 1997. Building paranoia. In Architecture of fear,
edited by N. Ellin, 47-60. New York: Princeton Architectural
Press.
Garreau, Joel. 1991. Edge city: Life on the new frontier. New York:
Doubleday.
Glassner, Barry. 1999. The culture of fear. New York: Basic Books.
Guterson, David. 1992. No place like home: On the manicured
streets of a master planned community. Harper’s Magazine,
November, pp. 55-64.
. 1993. Home, safe home. Utne Reader, March-April.
Higley, Stephen R. 1995. Privilege, power and place: The geography of
the American upper class. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New
York: Random House.
Security versus Status 䉳
Judd, Dennis R. 1995. The rise of new walled cities. In Spatial prac-
tices, edited by H. Ligget and D. C. Perry, 144-65. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lang, Robert E. 2003. From virtue to value: Redefining the role
of homeownership in America. Keynote talk by Robert Lang
at the Western Knight Center for Specialized Journalism,
the Annenberg School for Communication, University of
Southern California. March 31. http://www.mi.vt.edu/
ConferenceSchedule/USC%20Web%20Posting.doc.
Lang, Robert E., and Karen A. Danielsen. 1997. Gated communi-
ties in America: Walling out the world? Housing Policy Debate 8
(4): 867-77.
Lang, Robert E. and Jennifer Lefurgy. Forthcoming. Boomburbs:
The rise of America’s accidental cities. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Langdon, Philip. 1994. A better place to live. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press.
Lofland, Lyn. 1998. The public realm: Exploring the city’s quintessential
social territory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Low, Setha M. 1997. Urban fear: Building fortress America. City
and Society, (Annual Review): 52-72.
291
. 2001. The edge and the center: Gated communities
and the discourse of urban fear. American Anthropologist 103 (1):
45-58.
. 2003. Behind the gates: Life, security and the pursuit of happiness
in fortress America. New York: Routledge.
Merry, Sally Engle. 1993. Mending walls and building fences: Con-
structing the private neighborhood. Journal of Legal Pluralism
33:71-90.
Newman, Oscar. 1972. Defensible space: New York: Macmillan.
. 1980. Community of interest. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
National Public Radio Transcript. 1995. L.A. gated communities.
In Rights and the common good, edited by Amitai Etzioni. New
York: St. Martin’s Press.
Stark, Andrew. 1998. America, the gated? Wilson Quarterly 22 (1):
58-79.
Stone, Christopher. 1996. Crime and the city. In Breaking away: The
future of cities, edited by C. Stone, 83-103. New York: The Twenti-
eth Century Fund Press.
Wilson-Doenges, Georjeanna. 2000. An exploration of sense of
community and fear of crime in gated communities. Environ-
ment and Behavior 32 (5): 597-611.