The beginnings of private interests in public space:

Condemning the growing trend placing more and more public amenity and open space in private hands, Low describes the history behind the American phenomena of widespread gated communities and their appropriation of public open space from the wider community. Citing racism as the introduction of the gated residential community as a viable and socially acceptable option (Low, p.87), the trend has only escalated with the establishment of zoning laws, local police patrols and quiet laws that encourage the desire for seclusion and class segregation. Pronounced as the ‘impoverishment of the public realm’, Low quotes 16 million Americans living in gated communities in 1998 (Low, p.86), illustrating the degree in which the precedence of gated communities have infiltrated settlement patterns throughout the United States.

What is the ‘gated community’?

Gated residential communities are owned by private developers providing private policing of their premises and allowing only ‘a certain public’ to use its privatized public facilities (Low, p.83). Contained within these walls is restricted access to public spaces and services such as the streets, parks and facilities all closed off from non-residents with entrance gates operated by a guard, key or electronic identity card (Low, p.84). For these reasons, public resources within these gated premises cannot actually be considered as for the public use, since access is not open to non-residents.

The appeal of the gated community:

There are a number of reasons explaining the appeal of the gated community that contribute to the phenomenal trend of gated communities in America. Providing a separation between the upper-middle-classes and lower income population, gaining entrance has become the distinction between the ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ classes. The suburban designs of gated communities also enable people of different income groups to have virtually no contact with one another – deemed as the desirable end as shown in the emergence of the ‘pod’, ‘enclave’ and ‘cul-de-sac’ designs of the 1900s. Advertisements promoted the security, exclusiveness, and ‘extraordinary level of amenities’ at the centre of these new walled cities (Low, p.88).

These additional amenities are catered to by the planning regulations themselves. With incentive zoning packages for common interest development housing (ie. gated communities), these incentives allow developers to maximize their profits by building to a higher density on land that has been zoned low-density (Low, p.88). This is exactly what developers want and contributes to being the preferred developmental option in the US. The justification for this zoning is that the public will be the beneficiary of additional open space or public amenities achieved through increased housing density and other zoning concessions’ granted to large scale developments (Low, p.96). The result is a sad indication of reality.

The reality of the gated community:

Low accuses gated communities of taking public open space and amenities and using them for private interests, and by using taxpayers’ money to maintain infrastructure, private parks, tennis courts, club houses, and swimming pools without nongated residents being able to enjoy any of these superior amenities they are helping to upkeep. Low quotes the example of Hidden Hills, a gated community the size of a city, which placed its ‘city hall’ outside the gates so that they would not have to be opened to admit non-residents. With literally no enhancement of useable public space or amenities for nongated residents, Low compares taxpayers as unwittingly ‘trading higher-density housing for privatized open spaces and reduced public amenities (Low, p.96)’, as well as helping to subsidize the very creation of their loss of amenity.

Another example Low uses to highlight the unfair advantage gated communities enjoy in funding is the $30 million loan taken out by one such gated community for parks, roads and beautification of its neighbourhoods, only to be too expensive for gated community taxpayers to repay. The entire municipality (including nongated community residents) ended up paying for it (Low, p.94).

In spite of this, Low argues that gated communities are actually looked upon favourably by municipalities and states who do not have to provide and maintain infrastructure, amenities and facilities, but still be able to collect property taxes from residents (Low, p.88). Low attributes the rise of private communities (gated and nongated) as a response to the ‘inability of local governments to supply services in rapidly growing areas (Low, p.96)’, where the private housing market has been forced to intervene and provide for communities.

Gated communities are now lobbying for rebates on the triple taxation occurring for some (homeowners association fee, county and city taxes), and even rebates on taxes paid to maintain public roads (Low, p.99). If they are successful, it will mean that gated community residents can use public highways, parks and services without having to pay for them.

Questions:

• The concept of gated communities: how appealing does it seem? would you like to live in one?
• Are gated communities justified in taking over public open space and amenity?
• Is it fair to require residents to pay for municipal expenditures they do not use (or which does not lie within their gated community)?

Reference:

Low, S. 2005, "How Private Interests take over public space: zoning, taxes and incorporation of gated communities", The Politics of Public Space, ed. Low, S., Smith, N., Routledge, New York, ch5 (23p)

10. Services 13th May, 2008 02:41:33   [#] [5 comments] 

This paper examines the increase of private local governments within the U.S and explores the benefits and complexities such organisations can have on the American society.

In 1988, the US Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) officially announced that the ‘governance of local communities in the United States can be said to exist increasingly in two worlds, one public and one private’ (p.1).

Today, there are now more than 250,000 neighbourhood associations in the United States, about ten times the number of general purpose municipalities. Each of these associations has established a constitutional arrangement for neighbourhood governance with the specific provisions of each neighbourhood’s private constitution found within its declaration (p.14).
The declaration is not a contract but, as a covenant running with the land, is effectively a constitution establishing a regime to govern property held and enjoyed in common (p.15). The association’s constitution lays out the rights and responsibilities of owners within the association and can be written in many different ways to suit the specific needs of the individual neighbourhoods (p.15). As Nelson explains, ‘reflecting their private status, associations’ constitutional options are broader than the political options available to local governments in the public sector’ (p.15).

A Divided Society?

The reading begins by exploring whether the developments of private neighbourhood associations will bring about a divided society.
Nelson highlights a number of arguments against the rise of neighbourhood associations.

The first concern raised the fear that those who live in private neighbourhoods will become ‘increasingly segregated from the rest of society’.
Furthermore, it is claimed that the ‘newly private character of suburban areas will divert our citizenry from pressing national and international concerns including poverty, racial discrimination, and other urgent matters’ (p.2).
Members of a Californian neighbourhood association have explained that they ‘can tax you, limit religious expression, impose fines for failing to follow rules, and tell you what colour to paint your house’ (p.4).

Perhaps the most interesting claim that Nelson included in his paper was by Richard Louv who sees an old ‘America I’ being replaced by a new 'America II' in which neighbourhood associations are prominent. In Louv’s view, the ultimate consequences will be harmful:

“Now we are moving into new tribes, into condo communities and urban villages and new small towns. The selectivity of these new tribes ultimately means that a few members have the key to the future. The new tribes operate wonderfully for those who can afford, through money or knowledge, to buy into them. But this privilege comes at a price.
America is fragmenting into subsocieties, regions, sections, information –rich and information poor, instead of defining what we want – security, economic stability, community, home – and then trying to get that for all the people” (p.3).

An interesting factor highlighted by Nelson explains that criticisms of neighbourhood associations typically neglect a crucial factor, that the privatisation of the American neighbourhood did not begin with nor has it been confined to, neighbourhood association. Indeed, the rise of suburban zoning first effectively privatised many American neighbourhoods’ (p.4).

Arguments in favour of Private neighbourhoods

Although there are vast criticisms of neighbourhood associations, the rise of private neighbourhood associations demonstrates that many Americans prefer the private route. As Nelson suggests, one reason for this rise is that people may want a greater control over their neighbours’ actions.

Furthermore, defenders of neighbourhood associations claim that the ‘tight restrictions create environments that frequently promote happiness and peace of mind’ (p.8). The restrictions imposed by neighbourhood associations seek to serve unit owners’ overall interest, ‘these restrictions act to control spillovers that can harm property values’ (p.8).

It is also believed by many that gated communities reflect a growing unwillingness to share a common residential environment with other kinds of people. ‘Fear of crime is a main reason many people live in gated communities.. Among other things, the security gate stands as a symbol of common values and social bonds’ (p.8).

There are major differences between the rights of those within a public or private sector. One major difference is that a private neighbourhood association can discriminate in admitting residents to the neighbourhood in various ways that most likely would not be legal for a municipal government. Nelson uses the example of a neighbourhood association for senior citizens that can exclude younger people from living there permanently.

Overall, Nelson predicts that, ‘given the different ground rules under which private governments work, these changes amount to at least a small revolution in local government – with potentially even greater consequences in the years to come’ (p.1).

Questions:

• Do you agree with Louv that private neighbourhood associations will divert attention away from pressing international and national issues to more local issues? In your opinion, is this a concern?

• Private local neighbourhood associations have the ability to decide who can live in a particular neighbourhood. Do you think this process of social segregation contributes to a happier neighbourhood? Why/ Why not?

• Would having private local neighbourhood associations throughout Melbourne better address the needs and values of a neighbourhood?

• Do you believe that private local neighbourhood associations would protect or enhance the value of one's property?

Reference:

Nelson, R. 2005, "Introduction: A Constitutional Revolution", Private Neighbourhoods and the Transformation of Local Government, The Urban Institute, Washington D.C (18p)

10. Services 11th May, 2008 15:38:25   [#] [4 comments] 

The reading by Stretton explores the growth of cities, the interests involved in creating them, and the inequalities that arise through the development of high density single city centres within large metropolitan areas, such as Melbourne and Sydney. Stretton’s chapter ‘Interests’ within his book Ideas for Australian Cities was published in 1975 yet it still raises some very valid points and arguments that apply to modern Australian cities today. In doing so, he argues about the effects that size and density can have on our cities, particularly relating to the socio-economic differences that large cities and high densities can create amongst society; Stretton suggests it has become the rich versus the poor within our major cities. No doubt this chapter and book was written to purposely address such problems by challenging common planning views and concepts about having big cities and higher densities. It is therefore addressed to planners and city residents alike in order to achieve a desired form of city growth that can benefit society as a whole. Stretton argues that changes in city growth, within Australian cities, need to be made to avoid the social issues that encumber many large cities and high density areas. Being a product of its time, however, it does not argue about the merits that higher densities bring to cities, such as environmental factors and sustainability.

Stretton begins by stating that growth, to a certain extent, is good for many institutions, shops and industrial centres as bigger numbers mean better services and goods can be provided. If there are enough people, more specialised services and goods can be provided than the normal basic needs. However, above a million people or so, single-centred Australian cities begin to do more harm than good as they “…further unequalize their people in direct proportion to their population and density” (Stretton 1975, p.315). Stretton goes on to argue that most of societies needs can be provided by a city of half a million or so, and that the rich mostly benefit by having larger cities as additional ‘specialisations’ can be supported. Therefore the rich have a vested interest in letting their cities grow as big as possible. Each additional million people over the initial million bring with it more problems, both social and economic, as well as increased congestion and travel times.

Larger cities with their traffic congestion and longer travel times mean that people spend more time commuting to and from work, with less people inclined to travel for social means. Stretton goes on to argue that smaller and more compact cities don’t have this problem; accessibility is much better and travel and social visits are both easier and quicker between different localities. Up to a point a city’s growth multiplies opportunities for new and varied acquaintances. Beyond that point distance and travel times, deteriorating trust between strangers and the severances with each change of address increase alienation. “For many, the biggest cities are the loneliest of all places” (Stretton 1975, p.323); this point, however ironic it may be, affects everyone whether they’re rich or poor.

Single-centred growth, as Stretton explains, accelerates the rate of demolition and replacement in and around the city centre to meet population demands and the need for good accessible land. This higher density and younger building stock means prices and rents are much higher than usual, which tends to push poorer people to the outer suburban perimeter, an issue that has been raised over the last few weeks, especially concerning housing affordability. Higher urban densities have their benefits in efficiency, shorter journeys and improving public transport services for everyone, however the expensive building costs mean that generally only the rich can afford dense inner city living and the benefits that go with this. Either way, rising numbers and larger cities mean that people either lose the city or the common experience of family life on private ground (Stretton 1975, p.317).

Stretton argues that the combination of policies concerning indefinite growth around a single metropolitan centre and of rising density, as advocated by many metropolitan planners, is the fastest cause of such inequality within major cities. This leads to further segregation and the formation of ghetto areas, which are generally left alone by those in power (the rich) as they are seen as ‘incurable’.

Stretton also suggests that Melbourne’s city centre doesn’t properly serve the needs of the entire municipality, as the catchment area is too large. An alternative growth option put forward by Stretton proposes new city centres located to efficiently serve the needs of outer areas, to combat the inequalities of further growth and higher densities. Growth patterns based on smaller cities or many-centred linear cities are Stretton’s ideal.

While Stretton believes that more research into many aspects of big and little cities is needed, he also believes that many Australians are ignorant and unconcerned with leaving their children these single-centred cities of millions of people, filled with social problems and inequality that can only get worse as they grow larger.

Very big cities are growing everywhere and are relatively recent in history, and it is only now that we are discovering and beginning to pay the social and personal costs of their sudden growth in this century. Stretton concludes by stating that fortunately there is still time to do a good deal about changing our cities for the better, but that conclusion was made over thirty years ago.

Questions:

• Are Australian cities such as Melbourne and Sydney becoming too big for their own good?
• Should we have built new city centres for every half million or million users as Stretton suggested? Is this still an option today, for example in Dandenong?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of big cities?
• Are small cities or multi-centred cities the answer to urban growth, as Stretton suggests, or are higher urban densities within our large cities preferable?
• Are we too focused on environmental values, by advocating more compact and higher density cities, than other social and personal values?
• It has been over thirty years since publication. Has Melbourne changed for the better or worse since then?

Reference:

Stretton, H. 1975, “Interests”, Ideas for Australian Cities, Georgian House, Melbourne, ch.11.

10. Services 11th May, 2008 02:05:22   [#] [7 comments] 

The Nature of the Neighbourhood explores the idea that neighbourhoods are a nexus of contacts that assign rights over private and shared resources. “The organisations that govern those contracts and the contacts themselves; evolve over time in response to changes in the value of resources and changes in the costs of exchanging and combining property rights” (Webster, 2003). Webster’s article is a concise paper, with many different opinions and evidence to support his work. His aim is to develop an institutional theory of the neighbourhood.

Webster considers neighbourhoods as economic entities, and within the paper many theories are raised that could be related to the nature of neighbourhoods in an economic sense. These theories Webster raises with the reader are; bid-theory, tieboutian theory, local public goods theory, christallers model, club theory and lastly, central place theory. Webster discusses these theories in his paper, but then Webster moves on to his own thoughts.

Webster proposes that order emerges in cities as individuals seek to reduce the costs of co-operating with each other. From this idea, he lists five different orders, with four propositions. The first being the subdivision rule. “As cities grow, and resources become scarcer, property rights tend to become more clearly delineated and resources made fragmented. Neighbourhoods, just like cities and economies tend to evolve by progressive subdivision of rights and resources” (Webster, 2003).

Webster’s second proposition is the combination rule, followed by the public domain rule. Webster states, “A resource will be left in the public domain if the costs of assigning property rights over it exceed the value this created” (Webster, 2003). The last rule Webster places forward is the subsidiary rule. Webster discusses that the total value of a neighbourhood, and essentially to its residents, is increased if agents influence the value of the area through their work.

The article concludes that a neighbourhood strives when, “all those who have an influence on the total value of a neighbourhood, have a residential claim in the benefits created by the resources that they influence” (Webster, 2003).

Questions to think about.

• Do you agree with Webster that neighbourhoods are a nexus of contacts that assign rights over private and shared resources? If not, why?
• Do you think that the neighbourhoods are economic entities?
• What factors influence your thoughts on what a good neighbourhood is? Do you think your answer is shared by others?

Reference:

Webster, C. 2003, “The Nature of the Neighbourhood”, Urban Studies, Vol. 40, I. 13, P. 2591

10. Services 9th May, 2008 17:11:37   [#] [0 comments]