Living together or apart? Gated condominium communities and social segregation in Bangkok

Abstract

Gated residential communities are commonly portrayed as a negative phenomenon, leading to social segregation. However, given gated condominiums are commonly located in older residential areas of cities, it has been argued they have greater potential for social-tenurial mix. Bangkok is now seeing a proliferation of condominium building by transit in such areas. The aim of this research is to establish the extent to which this development results in social segregation. Qualitative interviews were undertaken with gated and non-gated residents in a case study area and the theories of Schutz and the lifeworld were drawn upon to understand the data collected. Findings reveal limited social interactions between the populations and significant physical, social, and symbolic divisions, accentuated by the transient character of the condominiums. Thus, condominiums built in residential areas do not appear to encourage social-tenurial mix. Exploring the subjects’ lifeworlds has also revealed how subjective meanings are constructed and embedded within a particular culture, which is critical to understanding social segregation.

Keywords:

• Gated condominiums
• gated communities
• urban enclaves
• social segregation
• mass transit
• Bangkok

Introduction

Condo living may suit our modern lifestyles, but it also has a major impact on the local community. Condo-dwellers do not sit out front of their shop, chatting to passersby; they do not even necessarily know who their neighbours are. They leave for work in the morning, come home at night after dinner, maybe spend an hour in their air-con gym before hitting the sack. Condo-dwellers do not get their clothes fixed at the local street tailor, do not buy their new brush from the guy with the hand cart – they drive to the nearest community mall and buy everything from their brand name store and supermarket (observations on condominiums in Bangkok – Jansuttipan, 2011).

Enclosed urban spaces such as gated communities, urban villages, exclusive recreational and shopping facilities, and prime office towers have all been seen to symbolize a growing worldwide enclave urbanism (Atkinson & Blandy, 2013). Dominating the literature are residential enclaves, or gated communities, which are ‘walled and gated residential developments that restrict public access’, catering in the main to the middle and upper classes (Atkinson & Flint, 2004, p. 875). They have commonly been viewed as a negative phenomenon as they inhibit social interactions between households living inside and outside the gates, and thus lead to the segregation of social groups (Atkinson & Flint, 2004; Low, 2003; Manzi & Smith-Bowers, 2005; Roitman, 2005, 2013). While gated housing communities have tended to be associated with the suburbs, a form of gated community associated with the privatization of space in urban centres is the condominium. These are multiple residences, mostly high-rise, usually with walls and security-controlled entrances and including a mix of amenities for collective use of the residents (Caldeira, 2000). The fact that units are purchased, with owners involved in the management of the blocks, distinguishes them from apartments.

Though Southeast Asia has long been associated with residential enclaves (Dick & Rimmer, 2003), empirical studies of social group segregation remain sparse, particularly in the case of condominiums. This is also the case in Bangkok, Thailand, which in recent decades has seen a proliferation of condominium building around mass transit stations following the introduction in the late 1990s of a city-wide light rail system. The rail system’s continued expansion away from central commercial and business districts has now meant that the building of condominiums is commonly occurring in older neighbourhoods often dominated by urban working-class households. This has important implications for social relations in Bangkok, for as Rosen and Walks (2013) claim, if condominiums are built in older rental districts, they have the potential to encourage neighbourhood social-tenurial mix rather than social segregation. However, Bangkok is a city with wide disparities in terms of power and wealth (Phongpaichit & Baker, 2015). This, along with the hierarchical nature of Thai society, has been seen to feed into divisions and prejudices towards differing income groups, which is mirrored in a highly segmented and segregated property market (Wissink & Hazelzet, 2016). Though degrees of gatedness vary in different contexts and gated communities are not always exclusive to the very wealthy (La Grange, 2014, 2018; Townshend, 2006), in Bangkok, the high price of land by transit tends to limit affluent households to condominiums in these locations and they nearly always have security arrangements blocking easy access (Moore, 2019). A steep rise in the numbers of gated condominiums into new areas could thus further accentuate intergroup division and prejudice in the city rather than lead to social integration.

Considering this, the broad aim of this research is to use a Bangkok case study to understand the impacts that the development of condominiums by transit has had on social segregation in relation to the differing social groups in the neighbourhoods they have been built. It also seeks to develop a deeper understanding of how any divisions may manifest themselves by exploring how perceptions of the ‘Other’ are constructed in the cultural context of Thailand. The research employs Roitman’s (2013) definition of social segregation, viewing it as a collective process that is ‘the separation of gated community residents from the social groups living in spatial proximity, expressed through the absence of social interactions between them’, social interactions being ‘the direct interchanges of communication, experiences, viewpoints and activities between individuals and groups’ (Roitman, 2013, p. 160). The paper takes a qualitative, case study approach, and draws on Schutz’s (1967) theory of the lifeworld. As noted above, degrees of gatedness can vary in different places (La Grange, 2014, 2018; Townshend, 2006), and thus the article does not assume there is a universal definition. Nevertheless, the condos nearly always have security arrangements blocking easy access, they often possess communal facilities and the demand for condo living expresses a similar desire to establish safe urban enclaves, as the interviews showed. Therefore, the literature on gated communities is helpful in analysing their implications.

The first section explores the international literature on gated communities, followed by Section 2 which considers this in relation to Bangkok. Section 3 then sets out the theoretical and methodological framework for the research. This is followed by an explanation of the research methods and the case study. The results of the research are then presented, followed by a discussion and analysis of these results. The final section presents the conclusions of the article.

Residential gated communities and social segregation

The particular concern within the literature is that residential gated communities exasperate urban social segregation. This is because the creation of enclaves of affluent households, whose needs and security are provided for within their developments, impacts upon the social interactions, sense of community, and solidarity between differing social groups (Atkinson & Flint, 2004; Blakely & Snyder 1997; Caldeira, 2000; Sennett, 2007; Wissink, 2013). This segregation has often been expressed in terms of not only a physical divide, but one that is social and symbolic, given the contrasting social backgrounds and values and priorities of the populations in question. For instance, Roitman (2005) found that gated communities in Argentina had created ‘two different worlds’, as knowledge of and contact with others was limited and residents held largely stigmatizing and discriminatory views towards the ‘Other’. In Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Roitman and Recio (2020) identified a ‘different culture’, with the more individualistic lives of the gated community residents, who were often away from the neighbourhood, set against the more communitarian lives of the lower middle-class kampung families living outside. In London, Davidson (2010) framed the limited social interactions and very different tastes, priorities, and lifestyles of the residents of new gated condominiums by The Thames and the working-class households living outside as ‘disjunctured lifeworlds’. The harm may extend beyond the communities themselves, according to Atkinson and Flint (2004, p. 875), as they represent a further node in ‘time-space trajectories of segregation’. People shield themselves not only in their homes but also in their choice of transport, which can act as a corridor to avoid dangerous encounters, and the places they go to, such as private schools and exclusive shopping malls.

Some scholars have sought to recognize that gated communities may have positive impacts because the mixing of homogeneous groups living within the walls could foster a sense of community (Blandy & Lister, 2005; Şerife, 2007). The development of affluent communities in working class neighbourhoods may also provide new opportunities for social interactions in the local vicinity as spatial proximity could promote relations in the realm of functional exchange when lower income residents provide services for higher-class households (Salcedo & Torres, 2004), or lead to interactions in local ‘contact zones’, which are the shared services and amenities that may exist or emerge as the neighbourhood develops (Wissink & Hazelzet, 2016).

Other research, however, paints a more complex or contradictory picture. Roitman (2005; 2013) questions the potential for increased social interactions through functional exchange or in local contact zones, finding little evidence for this in Argentina. Interactions that did occur in contact zones were neither intended nor personal in nature. Blakely and Snyder (1997) acknowledge the existence of community bonding in gated communities but found this arises from common interests and income level rather than through the interactions of households. It may also be the case that households do not seek community building (Álvarez-Rivadulla, 2007) or find this elsewhere. For instance, noting that the middle classes have long been associated with greater connections and activities outside of the neighbourhood compared to the working class, Wissink and Hazelzet (2016) claim that the dominant realm of social interactions cannot be restricted to where one lives, especially given the ‘mobilities’ and flows of contemporary cities. Rather, encounters take place and exist in a multitude of locations, or ‘activity spaces’ (Wang et al. 2012; Wissink & Hazelzet, 2016).

Like gated housing communities, research into gated condominiums has tended to view their enclosed nature as limiting the contact and interaction of those living within and outside (Caldeira, 2000; Cruz & Pinho, 2009; Davidson, 2010; Kleibert & Kippers, 2016). However, given the vertical living arrangements, attention has often focused on social relations within the buildings, with the literature tending to find weak social ties between residents (Gifford, 2007), this also being the case in cities distinguished by high-rise gated developments in the Global East, such as Singapore and Hong Kong (Appold & Yuen, 2007; Karsten, 2015; La Grange & Yau, 2021). Again though, it may be that bonding with one’s immediate neighbours is not a priority. In Sao Paulo, for instance, residents valued the isolation that a gated condominium provided (Caldeira, 2000). In addition, in the case of Hong Kong, weak social ties amongst condominium residents were associated with the busy everyday routines of younger households working away from the neighbourhood, a global outlook in seeking contacts, and the favouring of close family bonds over non-familial ones that could lead to reciprocal obligations (Forrest et al., 2002; La Grange & Yau, 2021). Generally, however, empirical research exploring the opinions and perceptions of the people living in gated condominiums as well as in the surrounding community remains limited in the literature.

Gated communities and condominiums in Bangkok

Residential gated communities are common to Southeast Asia and are often associated with a new and developing consumer-oriented middle class seeking privacy, security, and status (Leisch, 2002; Pow, 2009; Young, 1999). A house in the suburbs offers escape from congested and polluted cities to green spaces and a quieter environment (Askew, 2002; Dick & Rimmer, 2003; Roitman & Recio, 2020), while a condominium offers the convenience of city centre living (Kleibert & Kippers, 2016; Moore, 2019). In the case of Bangkok, Wissink and Hazelzet (2016) have viewed urban enclavism as permeating through the housing market. This was initially evident in the proliferation of gated housing estates in the suburbs during the 1970–1990s and the resulting exodus from the city of the newly married middle-classes to live there, something which Hamilton (2002, p. 465) described as a ‘fundamental shift in the interaction between material, space, and the social which hitherto had seen rich and poor living side by side in the city, in the same areas’.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the city centre predominantly saw the building of luxury condominiums for affluent Thais and expatriates (Askew, 2002), which have long been seen to be polarizing in nature. For instance, Cohen (1985 p.18) observed how the predominantly higher-class residents occupying these spaces were ‘rarely seen on the street, but mostly rush through it in their cars’, leading to streets that lacked social integration and a community feel. In a similar vein, Askew (2002) and De Wandeler (2002) saw them as autonomous and isolated from the surrounding street scene due to their plush onsite facilities, with inhabitants focusing their activities such as work and entertainment in other parts of the city. Despite this, more recent empirical research by Wissink and Hazelzet (2016) found that condominiums were the least attractive form of accommodation for all social groups in relation to other types of housing, with most occupiers not seeing themselves as living there more than 3 years. They also had the lowest levels of interaction between residents living there. Following interviews with residents of five condominiums in Bangkok, Boonjubun (2019) questioned the socially divisive nature of gated residential developments in Bangkok as gating is ubiquitous to the city, with both the poor and rich living behind gates. Also, amenities were found to be available to outsiders, and interactions with outsiders were commonplace. However, the interactions noted tended to be vendor-client orientated and, emphasizing the exclusivity of condominiums for the affluent, amenities in the middle-class buildings remained restricted to the residents.

A particular driver for the growth of condominiums in the last two decades has been the introduction of a city-wide mass transit system, with development focused adjacent to transit lines and stations (CBRE, 2012; Knight Frank, 2017). End-users tend to be affluent, single-person households, opting to live in the city rather than remaining with their families, preferring one-bedroom units close to mass transit stations (CBRE, 2012). Data on the number of actual condominiums in the city is not available, but their significant growth is evident from the total number of units, standing at around 40,000 in 2008 but growing to over 650,000 by 2021 (Knight Frank, 2017, 2021) and the fact that condominiums as a share of the housing stock in Bangkok increased from 16% in 2000 to 31% in 2010 (NHA, 2013). Unlike the property states of places such as China, Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, where comprehensive planning and very large scale coordinated development has been common, supporting different forms of high-rise, high density gating (La Grange, 2018; Pow, 2009) development in Bangkok is predominantly through the private sector and characterized by the ad hoc construction of mostly single blocks (PRCUD, 2013). Buildings tend to be high-rise (over 12 floors) but some are mid-rise (8–12 floors). Though there are a mix of unit sizes, recent focus has been on one-beds to broaden the market and cater to the young population seeking a new home (CBRE, 2012; Katharangsiporn, 2021).

This development by transit raises further questions over the social segregation of Bangkok communities. Due to transit expansion, many developments are now positioned in midtown and suburban areas, which are more residential in nature (CBRE, 2012; Katharangsiporn, 2021). Some blocks also have direct walkways to transit, as do some of the places they connect to, thus meaning any street contact could be completely avoided. Though cheaper condominiums in the suburbs are also growing as property prices continue to rise and the mass transit system expands (Knight Frank, 2021; Katharangsiporn, 2021), even the lower-priced units at three million baht ($90,000) still require either cash or a mortgage and thus exclude those on the lowest incomes. Purchase or renting, particularly by transit and nearer to the centre, thus tends to be restricted to the affluent or wealthy. Recent research has found little social mixing between those living in condominiums and longer-term residents from the surrounding neighbourhood in transit areas (Moore, 2015), yet generally there has been very little in-depth empirical research examining the perceptions or experiences of the residents in these locations nor more generally in relation to gated communities in the city.

Social relations and the lifeworld

This article draws on Schutz’s (1967) theory of the lifeworld, and in particular, the concepts of typification and a ‘contemporaneous lifeworld’, as a framework to explore the issue of gated communities and social segregation. The lifeworld is the ‘taken for granted’ sense of reality, or habitual sense of the world, and the way in which is it lived by individuals (Harrington, 2006). Intersubjectivity is central to Schutz’s understanding of the lifeworld, as one’s lifeworld emerges and is experienced from one’s interaction with society and those within it. It is a biographically determined situation, with the social world conceptualized and defined before the individual is born into it, meaning that the self is situated culturally, historically, and linguistically. To understand the lifeworld and the workings of the subconscious, one must understand ‘typification’ (Schutz 1967), which is when habitual perceptual schemas are formed that simplify inputs that are perceptually complex. In terms of groups, members are ‘at home’ or have a sense of ‘belonging in the same situation’ when they have a common system of typification and relevances (Schutz, 1967, p. 82).

In seeking to draw out this common system of typification and relevances, it is critical to understand the hierarchal nature of Thai society. Pongsapich (1998, p.39) claims that: ‘[W]ithout the recognition of some sort of hierarchy, it would be very difficult, perhaps impossible, for the Thai to perceive how social relations can be organised’. Though Western concepts of ‘class’ are used to understand Thai society (Ungpakorn, 1999), it is one’s position in the hierarchy, or status, a phenomenon historically associated with one’s aristocratic birth right called Sakdina, and through Buddhist teachings, that is still seen to pervade Thai society today (Vorng, 2017). This is encapsulated in common typifications categorizing citizens as, for example, ‘rich’ and ‘poor’, ‘older’ and ‘younger’, ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ (Gullette, 2014; Pinches, 1999; Vorng, 2017). In contemporary Thai society, one’s social status is often appraised relative to others with new words, such as ‘inter’ to describe the international school elite and ‘hi so’ (high-society), to describe wealthy families whose lives revolve around expensive and modern shopping malls and international restaurants, designer clothes and accessories, and prestigious universities (Vorng, 2017).

Critical to understanding social relations in an urban setting is also the contemporaneous nature of the lifeworld (Schutz 1967). There is a world of consociates, or ‘we-relationships’, in which social reality is experienced directly through face-to-face contact as people share a community of time (inner-consciousness) and space (physical proximity), with interactions taking place in all aspects of an individual’s life in terms of work and leisure. They thus have a ‘merged biography’ and a shared subjective meaning context. In contrast, in the world of mere contemporaries, relationships are indirect and built around an objective meaning context. With no shared community of time and space, relationships are ‘they-orientated’, and characterized by a degree of anonymity and remoteness. The ‘Other’ is categorized by what a particular type are like and will typically do in given situations. Schutz also referred to an ‘intermediate zone’, typical of modern urban life (Zhao, 2015). Here, there are ‘co-located contemporaries’, with whom one shares a community of space but not time. While individuals may be in close proximity in daily life, relationships are impersonal and transitory, without a shared flow of consciousness.

This conception of the lifeworld and the workings of the subconscious through typification thus provides a method for which to understand not only the tensions and variations in the perceptions of social relationships between differing social groups, but also insights into the way subjective meanings are constructed and embedded within a particular cultural and historical context.

Methods and the case study

The research is based on a case study undertaken in the residential Klong San district of Bangkok (see Figure 1), the capital of Thailand, which has a population of around 8.3 million. Interviews took place over several months in 2015. This area was selected for the study because it had recently seen the extension of the elevated light rail system, or ‘Skytrain’, into the area and two new stations (Krung Thonburi and Wongwian Yai), and the subsequent building of a significant number of new condominiums. This new line over the Chaophraya River opened quick access to the nearby business area of Silom in Sathon, and meant that prestigious educational establishments and commercial shopping districts were within easy reach. Though caution is needed in assuming that all transit areas in a city are similar (Gospodini, 2005), there are broad similarities in many of the areas where the lines are now expanding, which is through older rental districts outside of the central city areas. This research thus represents a case of what may be occurring in a multitude of other places around the city.

The ‘gated communities’ are the condominiums constructed soon after the completion of this mass transit extension line in 2008, of which 24 had been built between 2004 and 2015, with more constructed since. The interviews for this study took place in two large high-rise condominiums, both just metres from the Krung Thonburi station. They are typical examples of the buildings being constructed by transit to cater for the middle-classes. They have a diverse range of facilities, such as saunas and swimming pools, and large numbers of units (882 in total), often referred to by residents as ‘rooms’, comprising studios, one-beds, and two-beds. All are self-contained and range from 26 to 77 m² in size. Both were walled off from the neighbourhood, with 24-hour security guards, key cards to enter by car or access the building’s units and facilities, and CCTV. Restricting outsiders is easily enforced as they are single blocks with single entrances and security guards tend to become familiar with residents. Outsiders are usually those visiting friends and family or wishing to speak to reception about renting or buying. The extent to which privacy is protected was reflected in the fact that the author could only get access after negotiation to two developments, others rejecting the approaches. Thus, although degrees of gatedness can vary across cities (La Grange, 2018), these can be considered as highly gated. Housing in the neighbourhood is predominantly rows of shophouses, in which it is common for households to carry out their trades in the open-fronted ground floor of the house, though there also exist areas of wood-constructed housing. Households from several communities living in these types of accommodation around the other station, Wongwian Yai, were interviewed.

The two populations under study will henceforth be referred to as the ‘condominium residents’ and ‘neighbourhood residents’, and data collected regarding their general social and demographic profiles, activity spaces, and where they originated from are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of household’s social and demographic profiles, activity spaces, and origins.

	Neighbourhood	Condominium
Monthly income (baht)	Most below 20,000^1	Range of 20,000 to over 200,000
Occupation	Services, crafts, food vendors, small business owners	Managers, Professionals, Technicians, students
Tenure	Majority renting/leasing. Some owner occupiers	Majority owner occupiers
Age	Average age 54: majority 45–64	Average age 33: majority 25–34
Education	Most not educated above secondary school	Majority with university education
Household composition	Majority married with children or single parents. Also, single and sharing with relatives/friends	Majority single. Also married with children and sharing with friends
Activity spaces	Most worked and socialized in the local neighbourhood	All worked outside of the neighbourhood, mostly in the city centre. Socializing took place in other locations of the city.
Origins	Lived in the local area many years. Originally either migrated from the provinces or born and bred locally.	New to the area. Born in Bangkok or the provinces.

Though a small number of the neighbourhood residents were affluent, the district has been traditionally working-class, which is reflected in most of the profiles, which can be seen to differ significantly from those living in the condominiums. A particular characteristic of the condominium residents at this location is that many previously lived and often still had a family home in the western suburbs of Bangkok, moving to Klong San to avoid a long commute to the city.

There is no public housing database to gather names or addresses, so purposive sampling and snowballing were used to find interview subjects. For condominium residents, the interviews had to take place within boundaries set by the two developments, which was to interview in the lobby area. A total of 23 were interviewed. A total of 25 neighbourhood residents were interviewed, found through walking around the neighbourhood and snowballing in several cases. A small number of the neighbourhood residents interviewed had recently left the area due to displacement and so were interviewed elsewhere. There were disadvantages to this purposive sampling method in terms of possible selection bias and sampling error, but options were limited given the circumstances and difficulty of access, particularly the condominiums. The validity of the sample is supported, however, as the household profiles and social mix reflect that found in previous research around this locale (Moore, 2015).

The interviews lasted 45–90 minutes and were recorded and transcribed. For those with limited or no English, mostly neighbourhood residents, an interpreter was used and the interviews translated. To ensure anonymity, Thai nicknames different to their own were used. The interview schedules collected the subject’s housing biographies and focused on a loose list of topics exploring the everyday perceptions, experiences, activities, and social interactions of the two populations. Given the conceptual framework, the data were analysed through a careful discourse analysis. From this, systematic patterns within the data emerged. This was most evident in the way social interactions and relations within or between the two populations were ‘we’ or ‘they’ oriented, this division emerging as physical, social and symbolic in nature. This thus established the basis for the two broad themes of the discussions that follow.

Research findings

They-orientations: physical, social, and symbolic barriers to interaction

Divisions between the households from both populations can be seen in the sense of physical, social, and symbolic barriers. The physical barrier is the built form, as the transit line and most condominiums have been constructed along the main road running through the district, as illustrated in Figure 2a. There are also some local businesses and small shops along this main road, but very few houses. Those wishing to access the mass transit will not have to be walking through the neighbourhood or come face-to-face with neighbourhood residents, as reflected in the views of this condominium resident:

The neighbourhood? I honestly do not get to see much of the people in the neighbourhood because we are right in front of the BTS so I just go right out and when I come back I just come right in. (Bua, 23, single female)

Some are deeper into the sois (small side streets), yet regardless of this, the condominiums are all walled-off from the local communities around them (see Figure 2b) and protected by security, thus still meaning social interactions are unlikely, as Tum, a former resident of the neighbourhood, made clear when asked if the new residents shopped or mixed locally:

No, no. They just go in their condos. We lived in the small community. Those people just drove into the condos and the condos’ walls were high. They didn’t really care. They just drove up to the car park and they were gone. They didn’t really come to meet with us. (Tum, 34, male sharing with relatives)

Zones of contact exist with small locally owned restaurants in the locale and new zones have emerged around transit stations, where many street vendors, some who live locally, have set up stalls to sell food, as seen in Figure 2c. Some condominium residents occasionally frequent the restaurants and one explained how she chatted regularly to the food vendors by the Skytrain station when purchasing. But interactions tended to be limited to this and were thus vendor-client oriented rather than intimate.

Generally, though, there was not a sense that people sought actively to avoid mixing with other social groups or harboured outward hostility or animosity. Rather, a lack of interaction was a situation created by the urban landscape:

It’s not that we want to limit them or don’t want them to be involved, but we don’t know how to talk to them because it’s like we live in different places. We never see them; we only see the condos. And we don’t know them. How can we talk then? That’s all. (Tui, 54, female married with children)

Thus, even though they live in close proximity to each other, there is a sense of living far apart. Segregation though can also be seen as social and symbolic, for with residents rarely physically meeting or mixing, opinions of the ‘Other’ had to be constructed by drawing on their preconceived notions of those seen to be of a differing social class and status. Neighbourhood residents typified the lives of those in a condominium with being easy and luxurious compared to their more difficult situations. A case of this was seen in Poom when asked if she felt the lifestyles of those in condominiums differed from hers:

Of course it is different. The people living in the condos are “hi so” [high society]. They have cars. They go up to their rooms. They eat at the malls, 7-11. But as for me, I have to make my own food. I made chilli pastes for food. Our lifestyles are very different. They don’t have to do much. They do not have to do anything. They just buy instant food and bring it up [to their units] and eat. Some of them work at the office. Some are owners. They eat nice luxurious food. Not like us. (Poom, 52, female married with children)

Portrayals from popular media were also drawn upon to frame the newcomers lives as reflective of overt consumerism and the moral decline of society:

It’s like the society has changed. Just like in the drama [Thai soap opera], they work, and they have an affair more than before, in the condos. Like in the drama when they steal people’s husbands and wives. Teenagers and working people [contractual employees/office workers] are like that. Their way of life is not like ours. They have to get dressed up and carry expensive bags - not sure if there is any money in those bags or not. I think they are like that. (Som, 39, female married with children)

There was generally no desire to emulate these lifestyles, with a condominium unit often compared to ‘living in a box’. As Muang (60, female), stated in relation her lifestyle compared to the newcomers: “Different. It’s because I have already thought about it, I don’t – I am a simple person. I don’t want to be high like them” [laughs].

Condominium residents too were left to rely on preconceived views of neighbourhood residents; however, in this case it was related to issues of safety, with security a main reason for feeling confident to live there. This was evident regarding visiting the small local restaurants. Though a few people said they went, most were apprehensive due to safety concerns:

It seems like if you walk alone late or the middle of the night, it’s not good for you, right? Because it’s the…I’m not talking about poor people or rich people, but it’s just about the people that live there. It seems not ok. Mostly I think it’s ok [the local area]. You can live here and be safe. But I think it’s not good to walk outside late, things like that. It’s not that safe. (Asnee, 37, single male)

Though Asnee claims this is for him not about being ‘rich’ or ‘poor’, several people related this to status and class. The concern was about those who are lower or working class, resulting in the attribution of certain pathologizing traits to these groups:

I don’t think it’s safe because at the back of the condominiums it’s, uhm, chum-chon [working class]. Chum chon is a community for labour or lower working class. In Thailand, the criminals, kamagong, always come from the men who have a low income. Not everybody. (Noi, 36, single female)

For these residents, such views were not based on any knowledge or personal experience of crime or threats locally, but rather the perception of the types of people living around them.

We-orientations: activity spaces and the ‘home’

A key factor relevant to this locale in understanding social segregation is connected to the differing location and nature of the ‘activity spaces’ of the two populations, as this revealed where a sense of connectedness to others was found. For the neighbourhood residents, activity spaces revolved mostly around their homes and the local area. They explained how there was a strong sense of community where they lived as they had regular face-to-face interactions with their neighbours, through both socializing and working locally. This ‘normal’ existence was contrasted to the more privatised and detached lives of the condominium dwellers:

We live like normal people. We live in a normal community. It’s actually not that different. People who live in condos wake up and go to study. As for us, when we wake up, we talk to each other if there is anything. But people in condos get up and leave. They go their own ways. They don’t really know each other. (Fah, 47, female married with children)

Or as Tum explained:

I think I am happier. I walk around and I know people. In the condo, they don’t even know people next door. To make it simple, I know all the vendors from the front of the soi to here. Living in a condo is not like this. They come down to buy stuff and that’s it. They don’t know anyone. (Tum, 34, male sharing with relatives)

This intimate world of the neighbourhood residents can be contrasted with those in the condominium, whose activity spaces were either in the condominium through use of the onsite facilities or in other places. However, the nature of the relationships with those they shared their living space with was very different to that of those outside. All explained how they did not know other people living in their building, which was often related to the fact that they had busy lifestyles that meant they just came home and went to their units:

The environment for me it isn’t that friendly because everyone goes in and then we all just go to our separate floors and go into our unit. If you don’t come down to the grassed area or to the swimming pool and all that, there’s not any chance to meet other people. (Yui, 30, female sharing with sister)

This was even the case with immediate neighbours:

Here it’s just people living in the room. When people come back, right, from work, everyone just goes into the room. Even on the same floor, right? Next door, we just don’t know each other. (Fon, 31, female sharing with sister)

The perceptions that neighbourhood residents had of those in the condominiums, a lifestyle lacking in social interactions at home, was thus a reality. Despite this, condominium residents still had a sense of belonging, built around the feeling that they were with like-minded people of the same status or class as them. For instance, one resident, Art (57, male), who was residing in a condo with his wife and children, which he had bought for them to access school, spoke of few interactions but felt that he was surrounded by other people of a similar background, with other condominium dwellers labelled by him as a ‘new generation’ and ‘educated’. He also explained how he felt ‘the class of people is quite close’ with a ‘good mind set’. In a similar way, another younger resident related this to status:

I think most people are like gentle, they’re ok, they’re not like bad people. I think everyone is just the same background, maybe same education, same status. They’re gonna do the same thing, not harm each other, not do things that are bad. (Jula, 25, single female)

Preconceived views around the types of people who would be occupying the other units thus led to a sense of bonding and reassurances of security and safety rather than this arising from any sustained face-to-face contact or interactions.

However, where a sense of connection to others was strongest was in relation to other people and places not connected to their condominium unit or the neighbourhood. This was firstly around the city centre, which they now had such easy access to and from via transit, which was, alongside the building’s facilities, the main reason for purchasing a unit in this location. Characteristics of the neighbourhood itself rarely featured in the decision. Social contact and interactions arose through work and the common activity of eating out after work with friends and colleagues before coming home. Particularly for the large number of young people living there who had grown up in the parental home, often further out of town, the aim was to make use of the city centre facilities which they could not do before:

My life has changed in the way that I think I spend more time outside than at [the parental] home before. Because I’m in a condo and it’s very close [to town], I tend to go out meeting friends for dinner, socializing and all that and then just go back into the condo quite late at night. (Yui, 30, female sharing with sister)

The important difference that a condominium by transit had made could also be seen in the large number of parents who had purchased a unit for their young children still at school to reside in, often alone, during the week, but only if the unit had immediate and unfettered access to mass transit, avoiding any need to pass through the neighbourhood. But at a deeper level, most residents retained strong connections to the place which they still viewed as their ‘home’, which was their own or the parental home, often in the suburbs. Their housing estates were described with fondness, being somewhere that was family-oriented with a community spirit, and they spoke of the activities they got involved in there, such as celebrating religious festivals. Nearly all the young people explained how they would go back to their parental home at the weekends, and in relation to longer-term life planning, they saw themselves as leaving the city to buy a house and be nearer relatives in the future when they would want their own family. Also, older residents were often using a unit on an occasional basis, to see their children or access the city for work or leisure and had usually purchased a unit with its long-term investment potential in mind. The condominium was thus viewed very differently by the many residents who had their own home or a family home elsewhere: ‘Basically it’s more of a temporary place for me, I don’t really live at the condo like home, I only sleep there and in the morning, I have to rush out’ (Yui, 30, female sharing with sister). Such phrases as ‘temporary place’ to describe the condominium were common, with it also described often as a ‘hotel’, and by one resident as ‘hollow’ to symbolize how it felt at weekends when most people had left.

Discussion

Drawing on Schutz’s theory of the lifeworld has revealed how social relations and divisions manifest themselves between and within the populations. Between the populations, relations can be broadly categorized as the co-located contemporary social relations of the modern city (Schutz, 1967; Zhao, 2015). There is physical proximity but they feel they are living in ‘different places’. Any interactions are rare, impersonal, and transitory, and not constitutive of a shared community of time (inner-consciousness), with divisions created via physical barriers given the position and enclosed nature of the buildings. The limited interactions that do occur tend to be vendor-client oriented. This provides further empirical support to the claims that gated communities inhibit social interactions between households living inside and outside of residential enclaves (Atkinson & Flint, 2004; Caldeira, 2000; Kleibert & Kippers, 2016; Low, 2003; Roitman, 2013). Social relations and interactions within each population also differed significantly. The neighbourhood residents were in a world of consociates as social reality is experienced directly through face-to-face relationships, with a shared a community of time and space as they come from the same social background and interact with one another in close physical proximity, which is sustained over time. In contrast, a degree of anonymity and remoteness characteristic of co-located contemporaries remains with condominium residents. This again is consistent with previous research that notes a lack of social interactions or deep social ties between those living in gated condominium communities (Appold & Yuen, 2007; Caldeira, 2000; Gifford, 2007; Karsten, 2015; La Grange & Yau, 2021; Wissink & Hazelzet, 2016).

However, understanding how subjects typify allows a more nuanced and deeper qualitative understanding of the social and symbolic divisions between the populations. As residents rarely meet, they typify to construct an image of each other and, like elsewhere (Davidson, 2010; Roitman, 2005; Roitman & Recio, 2020; Wissink & Hazelzet, 2016), views of the ‘Other’ are often negative and discriminatory in nature, though in this cultural context they are based around perceived differences in their status. For neighbourhood residents in particular, references to being ‘rich’ or ‘poor’ in categorizing themselves and others were common, but contemporary indices of status (Vorng, 2017) connected to being ‘hi-so’, frequenting exclusive shopping malls, and the moral decline of society were also prevalent in labelling gated condominium residents. This stood in comparison to how a ‘simple’ and ‘normal’ existence symbolized their own lives, built around local connections and interactions in a close-knit housing community. The typification used by condominium residents also tended to be stigmatizing, focused particularly on concerns of safety, a common theme in the global urban social segregation literature (Atkinson & Blandy, 2013). Typification of both groups thus tended to be reductionist and pathologizing in nature.

Regarding the social relations of the communities each population lived within, the need for typification differed. For neighbourhood residents, they found a sense of community and understanding of each other in their regular interactions and a shared subjective world. However, consistent with the view that feelings of community bonding in gated communities can arise without the interactions of households (Blakely & Snyder, 1997), condominium residents still had a sense of being a part of a cohesive social grouping, in this case, through perceived similarities in their class position and levels of education and wealth. Typification and relevances constructed around symbols of status thus fostered a feeling of ‘belonging in the same situation’ (Schutz, 1967, p. 82) for these residents despite rarely meeting or interacting.

The notion that the divide is not just physical but also social and symbolic is consistent with the ‘disjunctured lifeworlds’ found in London (Davidson, 2010). However, strong parallels can also be drawn with research from the local region, such as in Manila, The Philippines, where gated condominiums were unaffordable, ‘disconnected’ and ‘virtually inaccessible’ for the urban poor (Kleibert & Kippers, 2016) or Indonesia, where a social and symbolic divide was especially reflected in the stark contrast between the community-oriented, socially integrated lives of the kampung and the more isolated, busy, and individualistic lives of those living within the walls (Guinness, 2002; Roitman & Recio, 2020). These contrasts highlight how the segregation between populations in this locale must also be understood in terms of the differing way that each population relies on and needs their neighbourhood and neighbours, and the importance of ‘activity spaces’ (Wissink & Hazelzet, 2016; Wang et al., 2012). For the poorer neighbourhood households, the residential space of the locale is of priority as they rely more on their immediate social networks for their everyday needs, such as work and leisure. However, the condominium residents have no real sense of place and have little interest in building a sense of community because they use the place mainly as a ‘hotel’, leaving the area early, and coming home late. They are often absent from the neighbourhood, satisfying their own needs, such as for work, recreation, food, and education, in activity spaces elsewhere without establishing bonds with other people in the local area, either inside or outside their condominium.

The fact that, in an urban setting, a neighbourhood’s younger, middle-class population may spend a significant time away from their home as they work elsewhere is not unusual (Forrest et al., 2002). However, in other places, for example Sao Paulo, Singapore, and Hong Kong, households do not view their units as ‘temporary places’ and, even if social interactions around the home are limited, they may still have a sense of emotional attachment to where they live (Caldeira, 2000; Forest et al., 2002; Pow, 2009). Important to understanding the transient character of the condominium in Bangkok may thus be that emotional attachments are found elsewhere, as many condominium residents returned ‘home’ to be with family often, leaving the building ‘hollow’ at weekends. Longer-term, younger residents also saw their future in being closer to their family, often in the suburbs, once they planned to have children of their own. Further research is needed, but this may reflect the enduring importance of reciprocity in the form of loyalty, gratefulness, and obligation to one’s parents in Thai culture (Knodel, 2014). This resonates with findings from Hong Kong (La Grange & Yau, 2021), where a strong desire to maintain close family bonds may reduce the need for non-familial ones, possibly weakening social ties in the condominiums, but in the case of Bangkok, this has also led to significant time away from the neighbourhood and a lack of a desire to lay down roots there. A further factor in this detachment is the general preference for a house over a condominium in Bangkok, as also noted by Wissink and Hazelzet (2016), which is more affordable and in a cleaner environment in areas outside of the city. This again differs from Sao Paulo, where the condominium is now the preferred type of accommodation, many of which are built in the suburbs (Caldeira, 2000), or high-rise cities, such as Hong Kong or Singapore, where living in condominiums is more ubiquitous and an aspiration to achieve homeownership for many (La Grange, 2014; Forest et al., 2002; Pow, 2009).

These factors may have important implications for social segregation as it appears to have detached households from the neighbourhood beyond that of an absence through everyday working routines. It should also be noted that an important determinant in this is transit, distinguishing it from the earlier waves of condominium building (Askew, 2002; De Wandeler, 2002). Echoing the proposition of Atkinson and Flint (2004, p.875), these gated communities may now symbolize a further node in “time-space trajectories of segregation” as it is specifically their position by transit that allows many more households, often young women but also school children, to move to and live alone in lower-income areas as they feel protected not only in their building but also in the safe passage they have via the Skytrain to reach other, often exclusive, activity spaces in the city.

Conclusions

This research has made several important conceptual and empirical contributions to the gated communities literature. The findings suggest that gated condominiums, even when placed into older rental districts, do not necessarily encourage neighbourhood social-tenurial mix and, supporting the broad view in the literature, hinder social interactions and integration within the neighbourhood and within the condominiums themselves. The analysis using Schutz’s lifeworld has also allowed a more nuanced understanding of urban social relations occurring in Bangkok. The division apparent between the populations is not just physical, but social and symbolic, with typification, primarily associated to prejudices around status, revealing how ‘Othering’ is culturally, historically, and linguistically situated. Schutz’s concepts of contemporaneous social relations and typification thus provide a potential analytical framework for a deeper and more qualitative understanding of the impacts of gated communities on urban social segregation elsewhere. The research has also revealed the importance of accounting for the differing ways households need and rely on a neighbourhood. Condominium residents have invested financially but not emotionally into the local area and depend on spaces outside of the locale for social interactions. Condominiums by transit in Bangkok are thus ‘temporary places’ for many, reflecting a new trend in patterns of everyday living and interaction, which in turn may accentuate urban social segregation.

The rich and poor once again living in close physical proximity in transit-oriented locations but divided by ‘walls’ can therefore be seen as a ‘new way of organising social differences in urban space’ (Caldeira, 2000, p.4). However, the extent to which this is impacting upon social cohesion in the city should not be overstated. Consistent with previous research in Bangkok (Wissink & Hazelzet, 2016), though prejudices were evident, outward hostility or animosity towards others was uncommon. As noted by Álvarez-Rivadulla (2007), researchers may rely too heavily on an idealized past as those living in gated communities may never have interacted with those of lower social classes equally regardless of whether public spaces were shared. Bangkok has long been considered as socially divided, with the poor and rich living separate lives (Vorng, 2017), a key moment in this being the movement of the middle classes to gated communities in the suburbs (Askew, 2002; Hamilton, 2002). It is difficult to disentangle the relative influences of the degree of gatedness or other socio-economic differences to the types of social interactions, but clearly, though occurring in new settings, these urban social relations also reflect deep and long-standing divisions between classes.

It is not easy to see how the polarization generated by the rise of gated condominiums by transit can be addressed in Bangkok. As noted above, divisions between the rich and poor are deeply ingrained in Thai society. In addition, given the lack of state involvement in transit-oriented development and the high land costs at such locations, it is unlikely that policies that are more inclusive to low-income households, such as state-subsidized, low-cost condominium development, will arise. To-date, the few social interactions in the case study area that do occur are vendor-client oriented. It was not possible to establish if functional exchanges have arisen, but since the completion of this study, a small community mall was built in the area providing a potential new ‘contact zone’ and it is possible more commercial development will arise in the area. However, as noted elsewhere (Roitman, 2005, 2013) it remains questionable as to whether such zones will result in interactions that are of a more personal nature.

These factors highlight limitations of the research in that it has not been possible to account for how social practices, interactions, and views may change over time, nor how this may vary in other transit areas or other areas of the city where some condominium dwellers who have left the suburbs are now spending more time. It is possible that some of the views held in the study are influenced by the more limited time condominium residents have lived in the area and the types of amenities available locally. Our understanding of urban social relations and gated communities in Bangkok could thus be enriched by further research that considers changes over time, investigates other transit locations that have seen condominium development, and explores how interactions could be evolving in other parts of the city.

Figure 1. The location of the case study district of Klong San in Bangkok. Source: www.123rf.com.

Figure 2. Clockwise from top left: (a) condominiums by the mass transit line (b) a condominium walled off from local neighbourhood housing (c) street vendors selling at Krongthon Buri station (d) a typical soi of shophouses. Photos: author.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the respondents for their time and co-operation and in addition, Barry Goodchild, Angela Maye-Banbury, Paul Hickman and Rionach Casey for their help in the supervision of the Sheffield Hallam University doctoral thesis on which this article is based.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Russell David Moore

Russell David Moore holds a doctorate from Sheffield Hallam University and an MA in Housing Policy and Practice. He has published several papers and presented at conferences in Southeast Asia on the topics of homelessness, urban development and gentrification.

Notes

1 As of December 2020, the national average wage in Bangkok was 21,846 baht per month, Bank of Thailand https://www.bot.or.th/App/BTWS_STAT/statistics/BOTWEBSTAT.aspx?reportID=738&language=ENG (consulted March, 2022)