Gated Communities and Spatial Inequality

ABSTRACT:

In this article we analyze gated communities as a nexus of social and spatial relations within the context of urban inequality. We apply Tickamyer’s (2000) sociological framework for incorporating space into the study of inequality, which allows us to substantiate the arguments that the process of gating increases urban inequality. The contributions of this article are three: (1) We generate a new systematic theoretical approach toward the study of gated communities, which we consider as middle range theory; (2) We argue that gated communities reproduce the existing levels of social stratification and that they also define a new, permanent differentiation order in the spatial organization of cities in the United States (in this respect we also arrive at six hypotheses, which can be tested in future research); (3) We introduce the term “gating machine,” where the combination of the interests and actions of local governments, real estate developers, the media, and consumers suggest that prevailing structural conditions assure the future proliferation of gated communities.

Notes

1 The data for this analysis come from the 2001 National Sample of the American Housing Survey (AHS). The AHS is the largest, regular national housing sample survey in the United States. It is the only representative survey in the United States that contains questions related to GCs. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the AHS to obtain up-to-date housing statistics for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The AHS is a panel sample of housing units, initiated in 1973, carried out annually through 1984, and biannually since then. The AHS contains both a national sample and a sample of selected metropolitan areas. The measure of whether or not a household lives in a GC is based on “yes/no” answer to the question: “Is your community surrounded by walls or fences preventing access by persons other than residents?”

2 The category “Others” include all householders who have selected a race/ethnicity other than those listed or have chosen more than one category. Typically, this category included about 1% of the studied population. While we cannot make many claims about this group, we do know that 40% of respondents in this category are foreign born.

3 We also calculated the median home values and median monthly rent by racial and ethnic divisions. Results from these calculations yielded similar results as those discussed here.

4 For our purposes, social class is divided into three well-recognized categories based on a comparison between household income and the national poverty line: “lower class” ($0–$27,000; the upper limit was set at 150% above the poverty threshold, which according to the Census Bureau was $18,104 for a family of four in 2001), “middle class” ($27,001–$73,000; the upper limit was set at 400% above the poverty line), and “upper class” ($73,001 and above). The social class measure is based on household income, but also includes “other income”: from savings, business enterprises, or bonds and stocks. Therefore, we decided to increase the upper bound of the middle class category so that is reflects both income and wealth.

5 For a more thorough explanation of the stratification among types of gated communities, see Blakely and Snyder (1997).