Monday, December 10, 2007
[“New Suburbia”: This is one of a series on the changing aspects of suburbia.]
Left-leaning social critics have long disparaged the phenomenon of “gated communities” as an anti-social reflection of white suburbanites trying to hide from “the other,” with unsavory undertones of racism and an irrational fear of crime (when the suburbanites aren’t worried about their children being poisoned by Chinese toys). Transportation planners sometimes fret that the isolated nature of gated communities makes integration into road systems difficult. Barbara Ehrenreich recently published an essay arguing that gated communities don’t really provide the safety that they offer, referring to anecdotes and studies about crime within gated neighborhoods.
To me, the gated community is an unsurprising manifestation of the human desire for a sense of security –- whether or not it is effective. Haven’t fancy Manhattan apartment houses always had a doorman? Don’t middle-class walkup apartments have a locked door and a buzzer system? Hasn’t the European vernacular of townhouses often presented a forbidding aspect to the street, with life centered on a secluded courtyard (unlike the British vernacular of a more inviting front door)? Aren’t fences and gates far more ubiquitous in many other non-Western nations, which can’t be tarred with charges of American racism?
To the extent that Ehrenreich is correct that a gated community provides no refuge from crime, I would like to use this assertion to bolster my contention that the old chestnut about a sharp dichotomy between “city” and “suburb” makes little sense in today’s America. Affluent old neighborhoods in big cities that have no gates (and yes, many “cities” include single-family homes) often have low crime rates, while gated communities in suburbs can be plagued by crime, especially if they are offer moderate-cost housing (a growing phenomenon) or are close to a poorer neighborhood. Land use law acts like an ostrich if it clings to outmoded notions about a homogeneous and bland realm of suburbia.
[Note: Comments must be aproved and thus take some time to appear online.]
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Can UberPOOL Make Carpooling Cool?
- Are Earth Day cookies an endangered species?
- Fordham Urban Law Center's Sharing Economy | Sharing City Conference - April 24
- Land Use, Telescopes and Sacred Land in Paradise
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances