Gated and Common Interest Communities in Canada: Retirement Villages, CIDs, and the Evolving Ecology of Privatization

1. Gated and Common Interest Communities in Canada: Retirement Villages, CIDs, and the Evolving Ecology of Privatization Ivan Townshend Dept. of Geography University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada The Privatization of Urban Space, New Orleans, Feb26-28, 2004

2. Outline • Private communities and gated communities in Canada: • Problems of definition, enumeration, scale, perception. • Private or Not? Gated or Not?“ • Explicit vs. Implicit gating (function and intent) • Retirement villages: the dominant spatial expression of private communities. • Conceptualizing RVs / GCs as part of an evolving urban social ecology of nested and hierarchical privatization. • Preliminary case study of Calgary: • 1960s/1970s: recreational community developments (PUDs) set the stage for privatization (CIDs, HOAs etc.) • 1980s /1990s: Flourishing of CIDs and HOAs • RVs as “private” nesting in “public” communities • RVs as “private” nesting in ”private” communities • Post 1990s: innovation, differentiation, club realms, intangible privatization, and spatial intensification • Conclusion: Hemming in the public city by the private city. • Do we need to rethink models of the social ecology of the city?

3. Problems of definition, enumeration, scale, perception • Grant 2003. “As soon as we began the work we ran into difficulty with the term “gated”. We discovered quickly that planners do not share consensus on the meaning of “gated”. • Iterative attempts at definition: • “Gated communities are multi-unit housing developments surrounded by fences, walls or other barriers, and with streets that are not open to general traffic.” • “Gated communities are multi-unit housing developments with private roads that are not open to general traffic because they have a gate across the primary access. These developments may be surrounded by fences, walls or other natural barriers that further limit public access.” • “Gated communities are housing developments on private roads that are closed to general traffic by a gate across the primary access. These developments may be surrounded by fences, walls or other natural barriers that further limit public access.“ • we still found that planners often used the term gated community • to include walled projects with open street access. • When the gate is left in open position most of the time, we still consider the community gated.

4. Source: Grant 2003 (2003 count) 0 188 17 1 1 0 0 37 6 0 A crude enumeration of gated communities in Canada (Grant 2003) “where entry to the development is or can be restricted by gates across roadways”

5. Problems of definition, enumeration, scale, perception • Enumeration is Difficult: • Local Planners don’t know!. • Conceptual fuzziness in definitions. • Little / no planning or land use legislation on gating. • Estimated undercounting by factor of 3 • The problem may be too dynamic to enumerate • Scale: • Planners can’t decide when it’s a “condo” development or a “community”….threshold problem. • Perception: • Physically gated and ungated often perceived as the same thing • Completely walled vs partially walled • Vehicular access vs pedestrian access • Open vs closed gates? Perceived and enumerated as gated by functionally ungated • Order out of chaos? Towards a Typology.

6. Implicit gating / implicit fortification Source: J. Grant, Do Canadian planners have the tools to deal with gated communities ?

7. Security is not the key engine of growth • Townshend 1997, 1999, 2002 etc. • Commodification of safety, community, well-being, social homogeneity, fulfillment etc. • Grant 2003: • Of 257 projects: • 10 have guards • 11 use security video surveillance • “Our investigations to date DO NOT lead us to believe that Canadian gated projects are primarily about security…”

8. The crux of the confusion… • Explicit gating vs. implicit gating vs. private space vs. public space • Explicit gating apparatus is not the same as functional gating apparatus • Implicit / symbolic gating may be sufficient in Canadian society: • Effectively achieves the desired “gating” objective of privatization of space through territorial markers: • signage • entrance columns (faux gates) • privacy warnings, etc. “Gating” in Canada is generally simplistic, implicit, symbolic (pomerium)

9. Dysfunctional explicit gating: Calgary, The Mansions at Prominence Pointe

10. Dysfunctional explicit gating: Lethbridge, Medican development

11. Dysfunctional explicit gating: Lethbridge, Fairmount Park Villas

12. Dysfunctional explicit gating: Lethbridge, Parkridge Estates (mobile homes)

13. Implicit / symbolic gating: Calgary, The Lake at Heritage Pointe

14. Implicit / symbolic gating: Calgary, Heritage Pointe (Golf Course)

15. Implicit / symbolic gating: Lethbridge, Southmeadow Villas

16. Implicit / symbolic gating: Calgary, Lake Chaparral Village

17. Implicit / symbolic gating: Calgary, Indian Bluffs (Patterson)

18. Aalbers (2003): • Of American cities: • ….”though the image of the gated communities is one in which a high solid wall is interrupted by a single gate that is heavily guarded, most walls are not that solid, are interrupted by various gates, or are not even completely walled”. • Of the Netherlands: • “On a more abstract level of analysis we could say many communities are gated but not in a physical way”. The explicit / implicit problem is not unique to Canada.

19. Explicitly and implicitly gated communities are functionally similar. • Effectively create desired “separation” / exclusion • Same type of “sod-off” architecture • Create “seams of partition” (Atkinson and Flint 2003) • Limit / control vehicular access (private road network, infrastructure) • Aim to create a sense of security, community, etc. • Are commodified by developers • Provide similar club realm (CID features, restrictive covenants etc.)

20. “Mature Adult” , “Third Age”, RVs, are the dominant form of private / gated communities in Canada • Townshend 1994, 1999, 2002 etc. • Grant 2003: • The vast majority [of GCs] are oriented towards the “active elderly” (Third Age) • RVs (GCs) need to be considered within the broader evolution of the privatization of space in Canadian cities

21. Conceptualizing RVs / GCs as part of an evolving urban social ecology of nested and hierarchical privatization. • Preliminary case study of Calgary: • Calgary is a city of “communities” • The 1960s / 70s “public” community • Late 1960s/1970s: recreational community developments (PUDs) set the stage for privatization (CIDs, HOAs etc.) • 1980s /1990s: Flourishing of CIDs and HOAs • RVs as “private” nesting in “public” communities • RVs as “private” nesting in ”private” communities • Post 1990s: innovation, differentiation, club realms, intangible privatization, and spatial intensification

22. Calgary is a city of communities

23. Typical 1960s / 1970s PUD: The “public” community. Public domain community. Potentially unique “club realm” by virtue of SES, location etc. “Normal” array of public / recreational infrastructure (parks, tot lots, etc.) Link to other public domains and communities “Normal” array of public / recreational infrastructure (parks, tot lots, etc.) Socially homogeneous community ( SES, FAM, housing stock etc.) Boundary identity moderate, permeable

24. Link to other public domains, other communities with unique identities Network of “equal” communities amidst “normal” social differentiation? Implications for the urban socio-spatial fabric: Public regional infrastructure (roads etc.) Stage 1 (<1970): growth trajectories growth trajectories • The individual community • Unique “identity” (bounding, name etc.) • Limited target market niche (SES, FAM) • Relative social homogeneity • (SES, FAM etc.) • “Token” housing diversity • Public space • Public infrastructure • Public parks, etc. • Link to “public” “regional” recreational systems, regional and urban public infrastructure etc. growth trajectories growth trajectories Eg. High SES sector Public regional recreation / amenities The urban realm

25. HAM, 1992 COU, 1991 HAR, 1991 Late 1960s / 1970s: recreational community developments (PUDs) set the stage for privatization (CIDs, HOAs etc.) ARB, 1992 VAR, 1972 VAL, 1992 • Golf course communities • Originally “private” • Now semi-private / • Lake Communities • Private + public rec space • Single or multiple HOA • Controlled, guarded access to private zones • Separate “Club” features COR, 1992 LKB, 1968 WIL, 1965 DOU, 1986 SHS, 1986 MCK, 1982 MID, 1977 SUN, 1980

26. 1970s Experimentation: “Recreational Communities” (Explicitly Bundled “EQPs”) Single tier privatization Golf course communities Artificial lake communities “Gated” / secure recreational compound. Strict partitioning of community space into public / private domains Non-gated, non secure partitioning of community space. “optional” / semipublic amenity. Boundary permeability. “Bonus” recreational infrastructure, EQPs etc. The commodification factor. Extra-local public voluntary Link to private domain HOA Link to other public domains Link to other public domains “Normal” array of public / recreational infrastructure (parks, tot lots, etc.) Boundary identity strengthened thru link to private space Boundary identity not strengthened thru explicit link to private space Moderately homogeneous community ( SES, FAM, housing stock etc.)

27. Lake Bonavista

28. HOA HOA HOA voluntary voluntary voluntary Implications for the urban socio-spatial fabric: Emerging complexity and fractionation Latent Stage 2 (1970s/80s): • The individual community • Unique “identity” (bounding, name etc.) • Limited target market niche (SES, FAM) • Relative social homogeneity • (SES, FAM etc.) • “Token” housing diversity • Public space • Public infrastructure • Public parks, etc. • Link to “public” “regional” recreational systems, regional and urban public infrastructure etc. • Emerging recreational communities, private and quasi-private space Estab. 1 tier Estab. 1 tier Latent The urban realm

29. HAM, 1992 COU, 1991 HAR, 1991 1980s /1990s: Flourishing of CIDs and HOAs in suburban periphery . Also: a) 1980s: RVs as “private” nesting in “public” communities b) 1990s: RVs as “private” nesting in ”private” communities ARB, 1992 VAR, 1972 VAL, 1992 COR, 1992 LKB, 1968 WIL, 1965 DOU, 1986 • Golf course communities • Originally “private” • Now semi-private / SHS, 1986 • Lake Communities • Private + public rec space • Single or multiple HOA • Controlled, guarded access to private zones • Separate “Club” features MCK, 1982 MID, 1977 SUN, 1980

30. Mckenzie Lake

31. CID / HOA 1980s: Simultaneous Emergence of Niche Sub-Communities(e.g retirement villages) Explicitly gated Implicitly gated Impermeable??? Permeable Private domain community. Unique “club realm” by virtue of covenants, HOA etc. Private domain community. Unique “club realm” by virtue of covenants, HOA etc. CID / HOA Private road network / infrastructure Private amenities Private space Functionally similar (identical?)

33. Not quite Sun City!

34. CID / HOA CID / HOA 1980s: Niche Sub-Communities (e.g retirement villages) Type 1: Nesting within older “public” communities. Incipient privatization of space. Public domain community. Potentially unique “club realm” by virtue of SES, location etc. Sub-community private domain (explicitly gated) “Normal” array of public / recreational infrastructure (parks, tot lots, etc.) Link to other public domains and communities “Normal” array of public / recreational infrastructure (parks, tot lots, etc.) Moderately homogeneous community ( SES, FAM, housing stock etc.) Sub-community private domain (implicitly gated) Boundary identity moderate, permeable

35. The origins of “nested” private “retirement villages” (GCs?), ca. 1984 to 1994

36. HOA HOA HOA voluntary voluntary voluntary HOA Implications for the urban socio-spatial fabric: Emerging complexity and fractionation Latent Stage 3 (early 1980s): Incipient Incipient • The individual community • Unique “identity” (bounding, name etc.) • Limited target market niche (SES, FAM) • Relative social homogeneity • (SES, FAM etc.) • “Token” housing diversity • Public space • Public infrastructure • Public parks, etc. • Link to “public” “regional” recreational systems, regional and urban public infrastructure etc. • Emerging niche communities (retirement villages, explicitly gated, implicitly gated) Estab. 1 tier Estab. 1 tier HOA Incipient Incipient Latent The urban realm The urban realm

37. CID / HOA CID / HOA HOA “Normal” array of public / recreational infrastructure (parks, tot lots, etc.) 1980s: Niche Sub-Communities (e.g retirement villages) Type 2: Nesting within newer “recreation” communities. Two-tier / nested privatization of space. “Gated” / secure recreational compound. Strict partitioning of community space into public / private domains “Bonus” recreational infrastructure, EQPs etc. The commodification factor. Sub-community private domain (explicitly gated) “Normal” array of public / recreational infrastructure (parks, tot lots, etc.) Resident link to private domain Link to other public domains Boundary identity strengthened thru link to private space Increasingly heterogeneous community ( SES, FAM, housing stock etc.) Sub-community private domain (implicitly gated)

38. HOA HOA HOA Implications for the urban socio-spatial fabric: Emerging complexity and fractionation Stage 4 (late 1980s): • The individual community • Unique “identity” (bounding, name etc.) • More diverse target market niches (SES, FAM) • Increasing social variety • (SES, FAM etc.) • “Token” housing diversity • Public space • Public infrastructure • Public parks, etc. • Link to “public” “regional” recreational systems, regional and urban public infrastructure etc. • Private RVs / GCs communities nesting in newer “private” CID community districts • 2 tier privatization of space. The urban realm

39. Post 1990s: innovation, differentiation, club realms, intangible privatization, and spatial intensification • Emergence of new “thematic” forms of CID. • Environment • E-Communities • Minor recreation amenity (ponds etc.) • New Urbanism themes etc. • Growing importance of “Resident Club” as the (organizing basis for new thematic CID focus). • “Intangible” privatization? • Almost universal CID / HOA in all new subdivisions • Continuation of private RVs as nested 2nd tier .

40. Examples: Lake Communities. Lake Chaparall

41. Examples: Lake Communities. Lake Chaparall

42. Examples: Theme park (non-gated) Somerset

43. Examples: Theme park (non-gated) Somerset

44. Examples: New Urbanism MacKenzie Towne

45. Examples: Environment Crestmont

46. Examples: Environment Cranston

47. Hanson’s Ranch “Communities forever program”

48. Examples: E-Community Copperfield

49. Martha’s Haven

50. Examples: Club Realms… Tuscany