Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Academia Open

Engineering

Vol 9 No 1 (2024): June

The Social Divide: Impact of Gated Communities on Urban Interaction



(*) Corresponding Author
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21070/acopen.9.2024.8387
Published
January 2, 2024

Abstract

This study delves into the social ramifications of gated communities, particularly their influence on urban social interaction and city segregation. Utilizing space composition methodology, the research hypothesizes that gated communities diminish social interaction and contribute to urban segregation. Through a comparative analytical approach, two residential projects in Holy Karbala Governorate were examined in their existing gated state and in a hypothetical non-gated scenario. The findings substantiate the hypothesis, revealing that gated communities indeed lower clarity and integration values, which are pivotal for understanding and interacting within urban spaces. While these communities exhibit high internal social interaction, they lack city-level social engagement, thereby not supporting the social logic theory. Furthermore, the isolation of these residential projects from the broader urban fabric is linked to diminished quality of life and inefficient urban space usage. The study highlights the negative implications of gated communities on urban social dynamics, underscoring the need for reconsidering urban planning and residential project designs to foster more inclusive and socially vibrant urban environments.

Highlights : 

  • Gated communities significantly reduce clarity and integration in urban spaces, hindering broader social interaction and understanding of the urban environment.
  • Despite fostering high internal social interaction, gated communities fail to support city-level social engagement, leading to urban segregation.
  • The isolation of gated residential projects from the urban fabric contributes to a decreased quality of life and inefficient use of urban spaces.

Keywords : Gated Communities, Urban Segregation, Social Interaction, Urban Planning, Space Composition Methodology

References

  1. E. J. Blakely and M. G. Snyder, Fortress America: gated communities in the United States, vol. 65, no. 1. Washington DC and Cambridge, MA: Brookings Institution Press and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1997. doi: 10.2307/1061366.
  2. A. H. Touman, GATED COMMUNITIES: PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION OR SOCIAL DESTRUCTION TOOL? Grenoble2: Université PIERRE MENDES FRANCE, 2002.
  3. A. A. Gülümser, “A New Trend in Urbanization: Gated Communities in Istanbul unpublished Master Thesis Supervised by Assoc.” Prof. Dr. Tüzin Baycan Levent, Institute of Technology and Science, Istanbul Technical University, 2005.
  4. M. Coy and M. Pöhler, “Gated communities in Latin American megacities: case studies in Brazil and Argentina,” Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 355–70, 2002.
  5. U. Jürgens and K. Landmann, Gated communities in South Africa. Us, 2006.
  6. K. Landman, “GATED COMMUNITIES AND URBAN SUSTAINABILITY: TAKING A CLOSER LOOK AT THE FUTURE.” Pretoria, South Africa, s.n, pp. 2–7, 2000.
  7. T. B. Levent and A. A. Gülümser, Gated Communities in Istanbul: The New Walls of the City. Istanbul: EURODIV PAPER, 2007.
  8. M. O. AJIBOLA, O. C. OLOKE, and A. O. OGUNGBEMI, “Impacts of Gated Communities on Residential Property Values: A Comparison of ONIPETESI Estate and Its Neighborhoods in IKEJA, Lagos State, Nigeria,” J. Sustain. Dev., pp. 72–79, 2011.
  9. A. Aurigi, Making the digital city. USA: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2005.
  10. M. SORKIN, Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space. New York: Hill and Wang, 1992.
  11. P. MARCUSE, “The Ghetto of Exclusion and the Fortified Enclave: New Patterns in the United States,” Am. Behav. Sci., vol. 41, pp. 311–326, 1997.
  12. T. Manzi and B. S. Bowers, “‘So many managers, so little vision: registered social landlords and consortium schemes in the UK.,’” Eur. J. Hous. Policy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 57–75, 2004.
  13. G. O. Rogers and S. Sukolratanametee, “‘Neighborhood design and sense of community: Comparing suburban neighborhoods in Houston Texas.,’” Landsc. Urban Plan., vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 325– 334, 2009.
  14. E. Casey and S., The Fate of Place". California: The Regents of the University of California, 1997.
  15. D. S. S. Al-Haidari, “Spatial Belonging in Residential Communities".” 1996.
  16. W. E. Arnold and J. L. Buley, Urban Communication". U.S.A., Winthrop Publishers, Inc, 1977.
  17. B. Hillier, Space Is The Machine – A Configurational Theory Of Architecture". Cambridge University Press, UK, 1996.
  18. B. Hillier, “The Architecture of the Human Object",” in Ekistics, Jan./April, 1989.
  19. B. Hillier and H. J, The Social Logic Of Space". Cambridge University Press, UK, 1984.
  20. P. Schumacher, The Autopoiesis of Architecture, Volume II :A New Agenda for Architecture. Wiley, 2012.
  21. H. A. S. Alwan, “Sociology of Daily Life of Urban Space,” J. Assoc. Arab Univ. Eng. Stud. Res., no. ue 2, Volume 22, 2015.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.