University of Calgary
PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies

The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2015-02-03

Gated-ness, Income Segregation and Neighbourhood
Cohesion in Two Western Canadian Metropolises
Youssef, Karim Wagih Fawzi
Youssef, K. W. (2015). Gated-ness, Income Segregation and Neighbourhood Cohesion in Two
Western Canadian Metropolises (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
doi:10.11575/PRISM/26259
http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2078
doctoral thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their
thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through
licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under
copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.
Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Gated-ness, Income Segregation and Neighbourhood Cohesion in Two Western Canadian
Metropolises

by
Karim Wagih Fawzi Youssef

A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN

FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
CALGARY, ALBERTA
JANUARY, 2015

© Karim Youssef 2015

ABSTRACT
This research investigated the relation between the degree of gated-ness of a
neighbourhood and the level of neighbourhood cohesion among its residents. Such an investigation
was prompted by the current practice of municipal planners for promoting a grid pattern of streets
for neighbourhoods and linking such a pattern with principles of resilience and connectedness
while at the same time condemning altogether the enclave pattern of curvilinear streets, loops and
cul-de-sacs as being non-resilient and non-sustainable. Municipal planners seem to overlook the
reasons behind the morphological development of postwar suburbs as well as overlook, in
particular, socio-psychological effects of their physical structure and access configuration. This
research introduces new typologies in order to differentiate neighbourhoods along those two
structural aspects. By undertaking a comparative analysis of four case studies in two Western
Canadian metropolises, this research argues that semi-gated neighbourhoods raise cohesion among
residents. The major findings of the research are that residents’ sense of neighbourhood cohesion,
for both its affective and interactive dimensions, increased in the case of neighbourhoods that had
a sense of enveloping space, a sense of entry into a domain that is signalled by the degree of
exclusion and seclusion of the development. This research does not claim that all neighbourhoods
need to be single access ones. Rather, it suggests that in as much as a neighbourhood is successful
in conveying a cohesive image for such a domain, in as much do residents identify with the
neighbourhood and with each other. The aesthetic quality of such a domain plays a role of informing residents who gradually develop an embodied space such that residents of the
neighbourhood could be identifiable from outsiders. Such a process of in-forming and embodiment
sets a common ground for social acceptance, sense of familiarity, and facilitates social interaction
among residents who have developed common norms and values over time.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, and foremost, I would like to acknowledge the support of my supervisor, Dr. Sasha
Tsenkova and the support of my supervisory committee, Dr. Alan Smart and Dr. Ivan Townshend.
Dr. Tsenkova has prepared me well for the production of this dissertation which is a culmination
of five years in the Ph.D. program at the University of Calgary. I would also like to thank the
faculty Vice Dean, Dr. Thomas Keenan, and Dean of the Faculty, Dr. Nancy Pollock-Ellwand, for
accepting me in the program.
Words cannot express the gratitude for having a wonderful person who is an experienced
leader in the field of urban planning and international development, and a very knowledgeable
supervisor who initiated me to research and joint publications with her in the field of social housing
that boosted my self-confidence. Dr. Tsenkova also provided me with opportunities for teaching
assistantships in courses where she was the course manager. Such opportunities exposed me to the
teaching principles and methodology adopted by Dr. Tsenkova that engages students in the course
to develop and perform to the utmost of their abilities. I also gained more knowledge about
sustainable urban planning and community development at the hands of such a great and
understanding person. Dr. Tsenkova always prepared me in advance for the different phases of
this research project: from drafts of the literature review to the research proposal and methodology,
to undertaking a case study and finally to presenting research findings and results. At times, I
wanted, out of enthusiasm, to start the field survey and data collection but Dr. Tsenkova knew
when to bring me back to the drawing board and direct me in such a professional and gentle way.
I would also like to extend my thanks to my supervisory committee. Dr. Smart and Dr.
Townshend have been very supportive for the progress of the research. They provided me with
references throughout the research as well as references that helped me successfully pass the

iii

comprehensive exam. I have also gained knowledge and a better understanding of the social
dimension of neighbourhood planning. Special thanks to Dr. Townshend who travels from the
University of Lethbridge to advise and comment on this research. Dr. Townshend helped me with
methodologically choosing the case studies and with the choice and operationalization of
neighbourhood cohesion and final quantitative analysis methods. Special thanks for Dr. Smart who
initiated me to citation databases and also gave me an opportunity to discuss in his anthropology
class the financial crisis that led to the 2008 global recession and how it relates the use and
exchange value of housing. Such an experience furthered in me a deeper understanding of housing.
I would also like to thank faculty and staff at the University of Calgary, in particular
Jennifer Taillefer for administration of my academic dossier. Special thanks to Peter Peller,
librarian and GIS specialist, for helping me in randomly choosing a sample of addresses for the
case studies in Surrey, B.C. Mr. Peller went above and beyond providing help by discussing with
me my research thesis. He also helped with formulating the steps that were used for choosing the
sample. I would like to thank Peter for meeting with me over a few consecutive weeks, his
generous time allotted to me, and patience.
This research necessitated quantitative analysis. The analysis would not have been possible
without an initiation in IBM SPSS software. My gratitude and thanks for this goes to Gisela Engels,
mathematician and statistician at the University of Calgary. The analysis took several weeks as
data became available and as questions arose on best procedures of statistical rigor to follow.
Gisela was always available to meet with me and her thorough explanations prompted me to delve
deeper into understanding statistical methods. Telephone surveys had to be used in combination
with mail surveys for case studies in Surrey. In this regard, I would like to thank Regina Webb,
writer / phone specialist who has a background in psychology for undertaking relentlessly the task

iv

of contacting residents and filling out an online survey over the phone. The wording of the survey
questionnaire was reviewed by Dr. Paul Papin, academic development specialist at the Student
Success Centre at the University of Calgary, to whom I would like to extend my thanks.
I would also like to thank all residents who participated voluntarily in the research whether
for an interview or a survey questionnaire. I would also like to thank municipal planners in the
City of Calgary and the City of Surrey who agreed and set aside time for an interview even with a
short notice. I would also like to extend my thanks to Fr. Aghathon Shayeb, pastor of St. Mina
Coptic Orthodox Church in Balzac, for his prayers, support and encouragement to continue my
Ph.D. studies.
Special thanks to my father, Dr. Wagih Fawzi, professor of architecture and natural lighting
and my mother, Mrs. Faiza Riad, who always encouraged me to pursue knowledge and
understanding. I am indebted to their encouraging words to persevere and make an original
contribution to the field. Special thanks also to my twin brother, Magid Youssef, who is an
architect, for welcoming me in his home at the final stage of the research and supporting me
financially in different ways all throughout these five years as well as commenting on the research
draft. Magid has generously provided for me travel expenses for attending an ENHR conference
in Edinburgh, Scotland where I presented preliminary results of this research. His wife, Diana
Youssef, has also kindly welcomed me in their home. Special thanks to my brothers-in-law, Dr.
Sedki Gayed and Mr. Rami Azmy, for their generosity and support. Finally, I would like to thank
my wife, Rasha Iskandar, for continuous sacrifices she has made all throughout the PhD program
from initial coursework and preparation for the comprehensive exam, to financial and emotional
support, as well as caring for our baby girls while I was away for travel or busy studying, and for
being patient and tolerant for the dedication needed to undertake this research project.

v

DEDICATION

To my dear supervisor, Dr. Sasha Tsenkova,
To my parents, Dr. Wagih Fawzi and Mrs. Faiza Riad,
To my twin brother, Mr. Magid Youssef, and his family,
To my late grandmother, Mrs. Mary Salib,
To my late sister, Mrs. Gina Gayed and her family,
To my father-in-law, Dr. Azmy Iskandar, to my late mother-in-law, Mrs. Clara Fahmi,
To my dear wife Mrs. Rasha Iskandar, and to my dear daughters, Angelina and Veronica,
To my intercessor, St. Virgin Mary, the Theotokos.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................1
1.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................1
1.2 Problematique .......................................................................................................3
1.3 Research Main Question.......................................................................................6
1.4 Hypothesis and Secondary Questions ..................................................................6
1.5 Definition of Major Terms ...................................................................................7
1.6 Objectives .............................................................................................................8
1.7 Main Argument ....................................................................................................8
1.8 Contribution........................................................................................................10
1.9 Limitations ..........................................................................................................11
FROM SUBURBAN GRID TO ENCLOSED SUBURBS .....12
2.1 Socio-Psychological Arguments ........................................................................15
2.1.1 Sense of Safety ............................................................................................15
2.1.2 Symbolization of Prestige ...........................................................................18
2.1.3 Symbolization of Lifestyle ..........................................................................21
2.1.4 Place-Identity and Self-Actualization .........................................................22
2.1.5 Sense of Interiority ......................................................................................24
2.2 Morphological Arguments..................................................................................25
2.2.1 Historical .....................................................................................................25
2.2.2 Territorial-Ideological .................................................................................27
2.2.3 Developmental-Organic ..............................................................................28
2.3 Moral Argument .................................................................................................32
2.4 Economic argument ............................................................................................35
2.4.1 Property Value .............................................................................................35
2.4.2 Club Goods and the Gating Machine ..........................................................37
2.4.3 Functional Integration .................................................................................39
2.5 Political Argument..............................................................................................40
2.5.1 Fiscal Transfer .............................................................................................41
2.5.2 Post-Socialist Reaction ................................................................................41
2.5.3 Post-Apartheid Geographies........................................................................43
2.6 Metaphors / Images of Gated Residential Developments ..................................44
SOCIAL SPACE AND PHYSICAL SPACE ......................47
3.1 A Dialectic Relation ...........................................................................................47
3.1.1 Soja ..............................................................................................................47
3.1.2 Bourdieu ......................................................................................................49
3.1.3 Marcuse .......................................................................................................52
3.2 Social Consequences of Gating ..........................................................................53
3.2.1 Social Capital ..............................................................................................54
vii

3.2.2 Neighbourhood Cohesion ............................................................................58
3.2.3 Social injustice ............................................................................................64
3.2.4 Privatization of space ..................................................................................66
3.2.5 Social Segregation .......................................................................................72
3.2.6 Income Segregation .....................................................................................74
3.3 How is Gating Changing? ..................................................................................78
3.3.1 Ethnic to Class Segregation to Heterogeneity .............................................78
3.3.2 Crime and Sense of Fear Penetrates the Gates ............................................79
3.3.3 Property Values Not Significantly Different ...............................................80
3.3.4 Fictional Expectations .................................................................................81
3.3.5 Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Less Enforced .....................82
3.3.6 Gated Communities as Edge Cities .............................................................84
3.4 Suburban Street Pattern and Suburban Public Realm ........................................85
3.5 Monadic Space ...................................................................................................90
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .................96
4.1 Theoretical Approach and Conceptual Framework ............................................96
4.2 Operationalization of Concepts ........................................................................100
4.3 Choice of Case Studies .....................................................................................105
4.3.1 Time and Status of Development ..............................................................105
4.3.2 Economic Exclusivity................................................................................110
4.3.3 Housing Diversity......................................................................................113
4.3.4 Diversity of Population .............................................................................114
4.4 Ethics Statement ...............................................................................................117
4.5 Sampling Method .............................................................................................118
4.5.1 Sample Size ...............................................................................................118
4.5.2 Face-to-face and Self-administered Surveys .............................................118
4.5.3 Random Sampling of Addresses ...............................................................119
4.5.4 Phone Sample ............................................................................................120
4.6 Survey Questionnaire .......................................................................................121
4.7 Interview Questions ..........................................................................................123
4.8 Data Analysis – Level I ....................................................................................123
4.9 Data Analysis – Level II ...................................................................................125
4.9.1 The Illustrative Method .............................................................................125
4.9.2 The Analytic Comparison Method ............................................................125
4.10 Quantitative Analysis .....................................................................................126
CALGARY METROPOLITAN AREA ................................130
5.1 Historical Background ......................................................................................130
5.2 Overview of Residential Development after WWII .........................................132
5.3 Overview of Policies Affecting Residential Suburban Development ..............138
viii

VALLEY RIDGE.....................................................................143
6.1 Location and Background.................................................................................143
6.2 Neighbourhood Profile .....................................................................................147
6.2.1 Demography ..............................................................................................147
6.2.2 Housing .....................................................................................................149
6.3 Summary Matrix for Valley Ridge ...................................................................151
6.4 Data Collection and Sample Description .........................................................152
6.4.1 Sample Characteristics ..............................................................................155
6.5 Qualitative Analysis .........................................................................................158
6.6 Interpretation ....................................................................................................166
6.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................169
DISCOVERY RIDGE .......................................................172
7.1 Location and Background.................................................................................172
7.2 Neighbourhood Profile .....................................................................................176
7.2.1 Demography ..............................................................................................176
7.2.2 Housing .....................................................................................................178
7.3 Summary Matrix for Discovery Ridge .............................................................181
7.4 Data Collection and Sample Description .........................................................182
7.4.1 Sample Characteristics ..............................................................................184
7.5 Qualitative Analysis .........................................................................................186
7.6 Interpretation ....................................................................................................195
7.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................198
METRO VANCOUVER ....................................................199
8.1 Historical Background ......................................................................................199
8.2 Overview of Residential Development after WWII .........................................201
8.3 Overview of Policies Affecting Residential Suburban Development ..............203
8.4 Historical Background of Surrey ......................................................................205
EAST CLAYTON.................................................................207
9.1 Location and Background.................................................................................207
9.2 Neighbourhood Profile .....................................................................................211
9.2.1 Demography ..............................................................................................211
9.2.2 Housing .....................................................................................................213
9.3 Summary Matrix for East Clayton ...................................................................216
9.4 Data Collection and Sample Description .........................................................217
9.4.1 Sample Characteristics ..............................................................................217
9.5 Qualitative Analysis .........................................................................................220
9.6 Interpretation ....................................................................................................227
ix

9.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................229
ROSEMARY HEIGHTS ........................................................231
10.1 Location and Background...............................................................................231
10.2 Neighbourhood Profile ...................................................................................234
10.2.1 Demography ............................................................................................234
10.2.2 Housing ...................................................................................................236
10.3 Summary Matrix for Rosemary Heights ........................................................239
10.4 Data Collection and Sample Description .......................................................239
10.4.1 Sample Characteristics ............................................................................240
10.5 Qualitative Analysis .......................................................................................243
10.6 Interpretation ..................................................................................................249
10.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................252
COMPARISON OF CASE STUDIES............................253
11.1 Summary Matrix for Case Studies .................................................................253
11.2 Qualitative Analysis .......................................................................................256
11.2.1 Analysis of Interview Data ......................................................................256
11.2.2 Analysis of Interviews with Municipal Planners ....................................267
11.3 Quantitative Analysis of Survey Data ............................................................274
11.3.1 The Concept of Enveloping Space ..........................................................274
11.3.2 The Concept of Cohesion ........................................................................277
11.3.3 Enveloping Space and Cohesion .............................................................282
11.3.4 Enveloping Space and Other Variable Links ..........................................291
11.3.5 Cohesion and Other Variable Links ........................................................294
11.3.6 Interaction Effects ...................................................................................299
INTERPRETATION ......................................................302
12.1 Symbolic and Functional Aspect ....................................................................302
12.2 The Importance of Location ...........................................................................304
12.3 Persona-Anima ...............................................................................................309
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS........313
13.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................313
13.2 Summary of Key Findings..............................................................................313
13.3 Revisiting the Research Questions .................................................................320
13.3.1 Gender Differences..................................................................................322
13.3.2 Household Income Differences ...............................................................322
13.3.3 Length of Residence Differences ............................................................323
13.4 Affective and Interactive Dimensions of Neighbourhood Cohesion .............323
13.5 Political and Economic Nuances ....................................................................326
x

13.6 Recommendations ..........................................................................................329
13.7 Suggestions for Future Research ....................................................................335
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................338
APPENDIX A: VALLEY RIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE TABLES .............354
APPENDIX B: DISCOVERY RIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE TABLES ......361
APPENDIX C: EAST CLAYTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE TABLES ............368
APPENDIX D: ROSEMARY HEIGHTS NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE TABLES ..375
APPENDIX E: SURVEY AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ..............................382
APPENDIX F: CODE FOR INTERVIEW RESPONSES ..............................................391

xi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Metaphors / Images of Gated Residential Developments ............................................ 44
Table 4.1. Matrix for neighbourhoods by degree of gated-ness ................................................. 104
Table 4.2. Survey Collection Methods ....................................................................................... 122
Table 4.3. Four Items for Calculating the Index of Enveloping Space....................................... 127
Table 6.1. Summary Matrix – Valley Ridge ............................................................................... 152
Table 6.2. Itinerary of data collection for Valley Ridge ............................................................. 153
Table 6.3. Valley Ridge Survey Sample ..................................................................................... 156
Table 6.4. Valley Ridge Interview Sample ................................................................................. 157
Table 7.1. Summary Matrix – Discovery Ridge ......................................................................... 181
Table 7.2. Itinerary of Data Collection for Discovery Ridge ..................................................... 182
Table 7.3. Discovery Ridge Survey Sample ............................................................................... 184
Table 7.4. Discovery Ridge Interview Sample ........................................................................... 185
Table 9.1. East Clayton Survey Sample...................................................................................... 218
Table 9.2. East Clayton Interview Sample.................................................................................. 219
Table 10.1. Rosemary Heights Survey Sample .......................................................................... 241
Table 10.2. Rosemary Heights Interview Sample ...................................................................... 242
Table 11.1. Ranking of Neighbourhoods by Degree of Exclusion ............................................. 255
Table 11.2. Positive aspects impacting quality of life ................................................................ 267
Table 11.3. Comparison of reported crime statistics for each neighbourhood (2012-2013) ...... 269
Table 11.4. Descriptive Statistics for Enveloping Space (across all cases) ................................ 275
Table 11.5. Descriptive Statistics for Enveloping Space by Neighbourhood ............................. 275
Table 11.6. Descriptive Statistics for Cohesion and Three Subscales (across all cases) ............ 278
Table 11.7. Descriptive Statistics for Cohesion and Three Subscales by Neighbourhood ......... 279
Table 11.8. Bivariate Correlations between Enveloping Space and Cohesion Subscales .......... 282
xii

Table 11.9. Valley Ridge Bivariate Correlations, Enveloping Space and Cohesion .................. 285
Table 11.10. Discovery Ridge Bivariate Correlations, Enveloping Space and Cohesion .......... 286
Table 11.11. East Clayton Bivariate Correlations, Enveloping Space and Cohesion................. 288
Table 11.12. Rosemary Heights Bivariate Correlations, Enveloping Space and Cohesion ....... 289
Table 11.13. Interaction Effects for the Set of Independent Variables on Cohesion.................. 300

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 2.1. The homogenization of suburbs in Canada by the 1950s. .......................................... 14
Figure 2.2. Images associated with three main reasons for emergence of GCs............................ 22
Figure 2.3. Suburban fragmentation as the outcome of gated residential development ............... 46
Figure 3.1. Social injustice effects of gating................................................................................. 66
Figure 3.2. The effects of residential privatization ....................................................................... 71
Figure 4.1. A framework for gated-ness ....................................................................................... 96
Figure 4.2. Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 98
Figure 4.3. Operationalization of the concept of neighborhood gated-ness ............................... 102
Figure 4.4. Set of census tracts in Vancouver metropolitan area after first query ...................... 108
Figure 4.5. Set of census tracts in Calgary metropolitan area after first query........................... 109
Figure 4.6. Set of census tracts in Vancouver metropolitan area after second query ................. 111
Figure 4.7. Set of census tracts in Calgary metropolitan area after second query ...................... 112
Figure 4.8. Two census tracts in Vancouver metropolitan area after fifth query ....................... 115
Figure 4.9. Six census tracts in Calgary metropolitan area after fifth query .............................. 116
Figure 6.1. Location Map for Case Studies in Calgary............................................................... 143
Figure 6.2. Physical Layout of Valley Ridge .............................................................................. 145
Figure 6.3. Photo of single family houses in Valley Ridge (Photo by researcher) ..................... 150
Figure 6.4. Photo of single family houses in Valley Ridge (Photo by researcher) ..................... 150
Figure 6.5. Number of survey participants by area of residence in the neighbourhood ............. 155
Figure 7.1. Physical Layout of Discovery Ridge ........................................................................ 173
Figure 7.2. Photo of single family houses in Discovery Ridge (Photo by researcher) ............... 179
Figure 7.3. Photo of single family houses in Discovery Ridge (Photo by researcher) ............... 179
Figure 7.4. Number of survey participants by area of residence in the neighbourhood ............. 183
Figure 9.1. Location Map of Case Studies in Surrey, B.C.......................................................... 207
xiv

Figure 9.2. East Clayton Neighbourhood Plan ........................................................................... 209
Figure 9.3. Photo of single family houses in East Clayton (Photo by researcher) ..................... 214
Figure 9.4. Photo of single family houses in East Clayton (Photo by researcher) ..................... 215
Figure 10.1. Rosemary Heights Neighbourhood Plan ................................................................ 232
Figure 10.2. Photo of single family houses in Rosemary Heights (Photo by researcher) .......... 237
Figure 10.3. Photo of single family houses in Rosemary Heights (Photo by researcher) .......... 237
Figure 11.1. First Reason for choosing to live in current neighbourhood of residence.............. 257
Figure 11.2. Second Reason for choosing to live in current neighbourhood of residence ......... 258
Figure 11.3. Third Reason for choosing to live in current neighbourhood of residence ............ 259
Figure 11.4. First Feature mentioned as a particular feature of the neighbourhood ................... 261
Figure 11.5. Second Feature mentioned as a particular feature of the neighbourhood .............. 262
Figure 11.6. Perception of the effect of access points on sense of safety ................................... 264
Figure 11.7. Perception of sense of attachment to the neighbourhood ....................................... 266
Figure 11.8. Scatterplot for the relation between Cohesion and Enveloping Space ................... 284
Figure 11.9. Correlations and Associations between the Variables............................................ 301
Figure 12.1. Plotting the neighbourhoods along two perpendicular axes ................................... 308

xv

LIST OF SYMBOLS, ABBREVIATIONS AND NOMENCLATURE

Symbol
AHS
ANOVA
CC&Rs
CID
CMA
CMHC
CPTED
CT
DR
EC
ENVSPACE
GC
GIS
HG
HOA
JUS
LRT
MPRE
NCI
NCP
NEIGHBOR
NG
PLACE ATTACH
PSOC
PUD
RCMP
RH
SG
VR

Definition
American Housing Survey
Analysis Of Variance
Codes, Covenants and Restrictions
Common Interest Developments
Census Metropolitan Area
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
Census Tract
Discovery Ridge
East Clayton
Enveloping Space
Gated Community
Geographic Information System
Hybrid Gated Neighbourhood
Home Owner Association
Joint Use Site
Light Rail Transit
Master Planned Residential Estates
Neighbourhood Cohesion Index
Neighbourhood Concept Plan
Neighbourliness
Non-Gated Neighbourhood
Place Attachment
Psychological Sense of Community
Planned Unit Developments
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Rosemary Heights
Semi-Gated Neighbourhood
Valley Ridge

xvi

EPIGRAPH

There is not merely an
opposition but an antinomy between the
experience of solitude and social experience.
Each of them claims the rank of a universal
experience and manages to account for the
other, referring to it particularly as the
degradation of an authentic experience.
- Emmanuel Levinas, 1987: 58

xvii

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction
The privatization of residential space has been increasing since the late 1970s and 1980s
as Common Interest Developments CIDs and since the 1990s as gated communities. The
comparative advantage of gated neighbourhoods over non-gated neighbourhoods is usually
summarized under three rubrics: the rubric of increased safety from crime; the rubric of
preservation of property values; and the rubric of promoting a sense of community (Vesselinov,
Cazessus & Falk, 2007).
Gated private neighbourhoods are considered to be an extreme expression of privatization
of residential space and seem to readily confirm the hypothesis that they are a physical expression
of the ‘dual city’, characterized by increasing social polarization and inequality.
One of the objectives of this research is to test the third rubric mentioned above, namely,
the sense of community or neighbourhood cohesion for semi-gated developments in two Western
Canadian metropolitan areas. The literature has generally invalidated the hypothesis that sense of
community / neighbourhood cohesion in gated neighbourhoods is higher than non-gated
neighbourhoods (Grant, 2007: 493). However, this hypothesis was not empirically tested for the
case of Canadian metropolitan areas.
Rationale
Research has shown that income polarization and inequality have an impact on individual
physical and mental health, social outcomes, and broad economic performance (FCM, 2003).
Canadian metropolises are exemplifying more and more a spatiality of affluence/prosperity in
tandem with a spatiality of poverty. More and more Canadian residents may find themselves
1

spatially confined to a neighbourhood negatively affecting their quality of life in terms of
employment opportunities, services, social networks, neighbourhood and school quality.
At the same time, gated neighbourhoods are perceived as providing a better quality of life
for those within such enclosures. This research aims to shed light on the effects of gated
neighbourhoods in terms of whether such development strategies increase the neighbourhood
cohesion of residents or are merely another housing product in the market that is lucrative for
sale by developers and advantageous to local municipalities through raising property taxes.
Significance
The apparent complacency of planning authorities, especially in several Canadian
provinces, towards formulating guidelines for this form of development (Grant, 2003) needs to
be questioned not from the limited spread of the phenomena of gating in their jurisdictions but
from the limited understanding of the social effects of such developments.
The research contributes to the fields of urban sociology, urban morphology and urban
anthropology as well as environmental psychology and cultural geography by producing
knowledge and understanding of socio-spatial quality of neighbourhood gating. Moreover, the
research findings will be significant to urban planners who design and layout neighbourhoods
with diminished access.

2

1.2 Problematique
Income segregation and polarization
Canadian cities are becoming more and more polarized. A pattern of greater spatial
segregation into both rich and poor areas with a decline of middle-class neighbourhoods is being
entrenched in major Canadian cities. Early signs of ghettoization of the poor and enclavism of
the affluent are being articulated. In general, the traditional concentric zonal model of income
differentiation from center to periphery within Canadian cities still seems to be valid but is
becoming more complex (Townshend & Walker, 2002: 27).
Research by Walks & Bourne (2006) has shown that ghettoization is not prominent in
Canadian cities but the trend is there and gaining momentum. Such ‘incipient’ polarization in
Canadian metropolises had started since the 1970s (MacLachlan & Sawada, 1997) and
researchers are tracking its increase; for example, in Toronto (Hillier & Hulchanski, 2010). In
general, however, Canadian research on neighbourhood inequality and economic segregation
remains relatively sparse.
Income inequality1 and income segregation are two factors that contribute to an increase
in neighbourhood inequality. The disproportional increase in post-tax mean income for the top
decile (for Calgary, +74%) compared to the bottom decile (for Calgary, +4.9%) between 1980
and 2005 has contributed to a significant increase in neighbourhood income inequality, measured
by the Gini coefficient2 (for Calgary, an increase of 81%) (Chen et al., 2011). Similarly, rising

Income inequality has been shown in the U.S. to affect large-scale patterns of segregation of the affluent
rather than the spatial segregation of the poor or small-scale patterns of income segregation (Reardon & Bischoff,
2010).
2
There are three quite different measures of inequality linked to Corrado Gini, which are: the Index of
Dissimilarity, Gini’s Concentration Ratio, and Gini’s Mean Difference.
1

3

spatial economic segregation accounted for a significant share (from one-quarter to one half) of
rising neighbourhood inequality in all major Canadian metropolitan areas of which Calgary and
Winnipeg saw the largest increase in the economic sorting of richer and poorer families3 (Chen
et al., 2011)4.
Neighbourhood Gated-ness
The incipient polarization of Canadian cities has been accompanied since the 1990s by a
parallel

phenomenon

concerning

the

physical

aspect

of

neighbourhoods,

namely,

neighbourhood gated-ness. The three main reasons mentioned in the literature behind gating
are seeking prestige, seeking a lifestyle that values cohesion and a sense of community, or seeking
security; reasons that might appear to correlate readily with rising income segregation and
polarization. The correlation between rising income polarization, reasons behind gating, and the
proliferation of gated neighbourhoods becomes strong in the case of U.S. and Latin American
cities. The correlation, however, becomes less apparent in the case of Canadian cities,
particularly, Western Canadian metropolitan areas such as Calgary and Vancouver5.
In Canadian neighbourhoods, in general, gated-ness has mainly taken the form of implicit
and ornamental gating as opposed to fortified and guarded gated communities such as those in
the U.S. or Latin America (Grant & Mittelsteadt, 2004). This marked difference may be attributed
to the culture of fear that has not proven as strong in Canada as in the U.S. (Grant, 2003). This
makes sense as Canadian cities are generally much safer than their U.S. counterparts. The

3
Some of the effect on neighbourhood inequality attributed here to rising neighbourhood economic
segregation may in fact be driven by rising family income inequality. There are reasons to believe, however, that the
association between rising inequality and segregation may be weaker in Canada than the U.S. (Chen et al., 2011).
4
In a similar and earlier study by Myles et al. (2000), spatial economic segregation was the major factor
behind neighbourhood income inequality for four of the eight Canadian metropolises studied.
5
It should be noted, though, that gated retirement communities are proliferating in the case of Vancouver.

4

question that poses itself then is: “Why are Canadian cities increasingly exemplifying a trend of
implicit gating in spite of being relatively safe?”
Neighbourhood Cohesion
Seeking a lifestyle that values neighbourhood cohesion and a sense of community may be
the stronger reason of the three aforementioned for the rise of implicit gating in the case of
Canadian cities. Conventional suburban development, in spite of offering a different lifestyle
compared to urban neighbourhoods, has not succeeded in filling the need residents have for
fostering cohesion and a sense of community. Once seen as an escape from city problems,
conventional suburbs are generally assessed by several researchers (e.g. Le Goix & Vesselinov,
2012) as increasingly reflecting the problems and pathologies of city centers. A recent study by
Le Goix & Vesselinov (2012) for the cities of Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Seattle argues that gated
developments are becoming to suburbs what suburbs were to city centers.
A contemporary trend, along with New Urbanism, that attempts to redefine suburban
development, especially from the vantage point of cohesion and sense of community, is Gated
Neighbourhoods. Gated neighbourhoods ‘package and sell’ community as a commodity to future
residents and seem to promote community through the homogeneity and commonality of their
residents (Grant, 2007: 493). The physical ‘substratum’ upon which community is promoted in
gated neighbourhoods is articulated by means of diminished accessibility and permeability as
well as the provision of focal points such as leisure amenities within gated neighbourhoods as a
setting for social interaction. However, do gated neighbourhoods promote more cohesion among
residents? Similarly, a second question that poses itself is:

“Is the implicit gating of

neighbourhoods in Western Canadian metropolitan areas contributing to higher neighbourhood
cohesion among residents compared to non-gated neighbourhoods?”
5

1.3 Research Main Question
Is the implicit gating of neighbourhoods in Western Canadian metropolitan areas
contributing to higher neighbourhood cohesion among residents?
1.4 Hypothesis and Secondary Questions
The hypothesis of this research is that: “Implicit gating of new suburban neighbourhoods
in Western Canadian metropolitan areas raises the neighbourhood cohesion of residents”.
The main research question raises a series of secondary questions that might uncover
possible effects pertaining to other variables on cohesion and enveloping space. In particular,
neighbourhood effects on cohesion by gender, household income, and length of residence need
to be investigated. Those three variables, among others, are generally considered in the literature
on neighbourhood cohesion to have an effect (Baum et al., 2009; Forrest & Kearns, 2001; Ziersch
& Arthurson, 2007). The question here concerns whether there are differences across
neighbourhoods. Alternatively, neighbourhood effects on enveloping space by gender, household
income, and length of residence also need to be investigated. The secondary questions are:
1) Are there gender differences in perceived level of neighbourhood cohesion across
neighbourhoods? Alternatively, are there neighbourhood effects on sense of enveloping
space by gender?
2) Across neighbourhoods, do residents differ in their level of neighbourhood cohesion
according to their household income category? Alternatively, are there neighbourhood
effects on sense of enveloping space by household income?
3) Across neighbourhoods, does length of residence within a neighbourhood impact upon
the overall sense of neighbourhood cohesion? Alternatively, are there neighbourhood
effects on sense of enveloping space by length of residence?
6

1.5 Definition of Major Terms
Peripheral suburban neighbourhoods: Suburban neighbourhoods that were built since the
year 2000 on the periphery of Canadian metropolitan areas (e.g. suburban neighbourhoods of
Calgary located along the west side of 69 St SW).
Implicit gating: A type of neighbourhood gating where access and permeability is
diminished, when compared to a grid pattern, without necessarily using explicit gates to signal
entry or a continuous walled boundary surrounding the neighbourhood. In some cases gates are
present to signal entry but merely function as ornamental gating.
Neighbourhood cohesion: a term that consists of three dimensions: psychological sense
of community PSOC, place attachment and social interaction (Buckner, 1988).
Psychological sense of community PSOC: defined by Saymour Sarason as “the perception
of similarity to others, an acknowledged interdependence with others, a willingness to maintain
this interdependence by giving or doing for others what one expects from them, the feeling that
one is part of a larger dependable and stable structure.” (Colombo, Mosso, & De Piccoli, 2001:
460).
Place attachment: “a bond between an individual or group and a place that can vary in
terms of spatial level, degree of specificity, and social or physical features of the place, and is
manifested through affective, cognitive, and behavioral psychological processes.” (Scannell &
Gifford, 2010: 5)
Social interaction: a term equivalent to neighboring, defined by Unger and Wandersman
as: social networking within neighbourhoods as well as social activities such as borrowing or
lending tools, asking for help, and informal visiting (Talen, 2000).

7

1.6 Objectives
The objectives of the research are:


To examine the relationship between neighbourhood gated-ness and neighbourhood
cohesion in Western Canadian metropolitan areas.



To formulate recommendations regarding neighbourhood gated-ness.

1.7 Main Argument
The main argument of the research opposes the contemporary and dominant trend among
urban planners, particularly in the Western hemisphere, that advocates the return to the grid /
modified grid and checkerboard pattern of neighbourhood physical design and condemns enclave
urbanism for being non-sustainable, non-resilient, and lacking in connectivity. The return to a
grid physical structure for the neighbourhood (in terms of accessibility and permeability) seems
to be the logical outcome of the relentless pursuit of contemporary urban planners for increased
connectivity, resilience, and sustainability. However, such a pursuit need not necessarily translate
into a one-way preference for the grid, or modified grid, pattern as ‘the solution’ for
neighbourhood design over and above the curvilinear, loop, and cul-de-sac patterns of enclave
urbanism. Strictly adhering to one or the other pattern is a form of physical determinism and
symbolic violence. Rather, a sensible balance needs to be achieved by re-establishing enclave
urbanism as an equally viable alternative, rather than a pitfall, to neighbourhood design
development.
This research argues, in the first instance, for the social sustainability merits of enclave
urbanism, particularly from the perspective of social psychology of residents within semi-gated
neighbourhoods. The sense of safety, the sense of familiarity, the psychological sense of
community, the neighbourliness, place attachment and the sense of appropriation of space along
8

with benefits of defining neighbourhood boundaries, degree of accessibility, and permeability
have repercussions on the socio-psychological health and well-being of residents as well as to
what pertains to the development of their personal creativity, in as much as such a development
is influenced by the establishment of a clear and memorable neighbourhood identity and image.
Indeed, the idea of a neighbourhood unit stemmed from such concerns with the social dimension
of space.
In a second instance, the research argues for an understanding of a quality of space as
‘enveloping’ that accompanies the creation of a domain or precinct effected through diminished
accessibility to, and limited permeability of, a neighbourhood.
In as much as semi-gated neighbourhoods succeed in creating such a domain, it is argued
that the enveloping quality of space is gradually translated into an embodied quality of space that
is distinguishable and perceivable by residents through their body. In other words, there is a
dialectic relation between the psychological and the physical dimensions of space such that one
is ultimately a reflection of the other. Such a dialectic necessitates the conceptualization of the
body as a place and the conceptualization of place as an enveloping entity. In turn, it also
necessitates an understanding of space as having the capacity to be minutely differentiated into
socio-cultural units that form a mosaic of disparate parts6; i.e. each unit being a concatenation /
envelope.

The mosaic paradigm has been hypothesized as the ultimatum of our postmodern era in the work of Rem
Koolhaas (Delirious New York) and the notion of keno capitalism put forward by Dear and Flusty (1998).
6

9

1.8 Contribution
The contribution that this research makes to the field of urban planning is twofold. First,
at the theoretical level, the research fills the gap in the proliferating literature on gated
communities, particularly the literature that examines the social consequences of gating from the
point of view of residents within gated or semi-gated neighbourhoods. Scholarly research has
mainly focused on examining the social consequences, whether positive or negative, without
explaining the ‘why’ behind the research findings; i.e. as if the term ‘gated community’ was selfexplanatory and connoted such a relation between ‘gated’ and ‘community’. This was due to a
lack of theoretically conceptualizing the relation between gated-ness and neighbourhood
cohesion or other positive outcomes such as social capital. The predominant view by scholars is
that gated communities do not differ from non-gated communities especially in regards to
neighbourhood cohesion among residents as a positive outcome and thus factor out the
importance of the number of access points to the neighbourhood from a socio-psychological
perspective. This research conceptualizes the missing link between gated-ness and
neighbourhood cohesion by the introduction of the enveloping quality of space. Such a quality of
space might have been assumed in the case of gated communities by scholarly researchers but
has not been made expressly explicit nor sufficiently articulated for understanding nuanced
differences in neighbourhood cohesion among even gated communities. Moreover, gated-ness is
conceptualized in this research from a socio-psychological and cultural perspective as
constituting of two processes: exclusion and seclusion. The research calls for applying Kevin
Lynch’s (1960) five elements for the legibility of a city to the scale of the neighbourhood. The
research also builds upon the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1995) and Setha Low (2009) by offering
an understanding of the notion of embodied space through a preamble sense of enveloping space.
10

The research also extends Merleau Ponty’s (1962) phenomenology of the body from a
contingency upon immediate perception to a contingency upon an embodied cognition of space.
Second, at the empirical level, the research fills the gap in the literature for studies on
semi-gated residential developments in Western Canadian metropolises. Neighbourhood
cohesion among residents in semi-gated neighbourhoods has not been examined in the case of
metropolises like Calgary and Vancouver.
1.9 Limitations
There are several limitations for the generalization of the results of this research. The
research has undertaken case studies in Calgary and Vancouver which, although being Western
Canadian metropolises, are nevertheless not representative of Western Canadian metropolises in
general. Each of Calgary and Vancouver are not typical in terms of physical, social, and cultural
development. Moreover, the research has only investigated a couple of neighbourhoods within
each of the metropolises. Neighbourhoods in Calgary and Vancouver exhibit much diversity such
that results from a few case studies do not necessarily extend to a generalization at the
metropolitan level. Limitation of time and resources have not made possible a choice of more
than four case studies. Future research is needed to corroborate the results of this research.
Another limitation concerns the geographic scale of applicability of the concept of
enveloping space advanced in this research. The research has been mainly focused at the
neighbourhood scale.

11

FROM SUBURBAN GRID TO ENCLOSED SUBURBS

Investigating the consequences of gated-ness particularly in terms of income segregation
effect and neighbourhood cohesion requires answering a primordial question: why do we enclose
neighbourhoods, demarcate their boundaries, decrease points of access to neighbourhoods and
decrease their internal permeability?
Many modern cities were originally laid out as a gridiron pattern which allowed flexibility
and accommodation of different land uses, ease of land subdivision, and ease of extending the
grid to allow for urban growth (Grant, 2001; Marcuse, 1987). The orientation and proportional
ratio of the grid differed from city to city ranging from a square grid to markedly long urban
blocks / islets such as those found in Montreal. In most instances, though, neighbourhoods were
embedded in the grid in such a way that it was difficult to identify boundaries or edges of
neighbourhoods except by street names and maps illustrating the limits of each neighbourhood.
The city was considered a totality yet divided early on into quadrants representing a
general socio-spatial differentiation of inhabitants (Eisenstadt & Sachar, 1987). The socio-spatial
differentiation was a function of the location of industry and infrastructure such as railways, the
location of commerce, the location of residences of the affluent and geographical features such
as rivers or mountains. With outward growth and expansion of the city, the pattern took on a
general concentric and sectoral segmentation (cf. Robert Murdie model in Knox & Pinch 2000:
108) progressing from less affluent in the centre to more affluent in the periphery for North
American cities and vice versa for Latin American cities.
This pattern had persisted in cities and was reinforced with the proliferation of postwar
gridiron suburban neighbourhoods of the 1950s and 1960s. Such gridiron suburbs were fully
12

accessible, permeable and were part and parcel of the city. Empirically identifying the boundaries
of where one gridiron neighbourhood ends and the other begins remains a relatively difficult task
to date. Since the 1970s neighbourhood street patterns generally diverged from the grid and are
observed to have changed simultaneously with the neo-liberal economic restructuring of cities. It
is noteworthy to mention that the grid pattern seems to convey a non-hierarchical and democratic
society (Marcuse, 1987) while a less permeable pattern seems to convey an individualism
compatible with a neoliberal society7. Of course, as Grant (2001) notes, there are multiple
significations of the grid pattern such that a one-to-one correspondence between a grid pattern
and diffuse authority may not necessarily be the case as the grid has also symbolized a centralized
and globalized authority.
What explanations could be given to the change in neighbourhood patterns? Of particular
concern, what explanations could be given to gradually limiting accessibility and enclosing
neighbourhoods? Before presenting explanations and arguments for physical change of suburban
neighbourhood patterns and accessibility, it may be instructive to diagrammatically represent
how Harris (2004) describes the suburbanization of Canadian cities. The following is a simplified
diagram by the researcher.

Spiro Kostof (1993) makes a similar observation concerning the permeability of the grid versus the
individualism conveyed by less permeable patterns like the cul-de-sac.
7

13

Elite suburbs
Industrial suburbs
Middle-class suburbs

Suburban Diversity

Suburban Uniformity
starting in the 1950s

Unplanned suburbs

Deeper
Suburban
Conformity starting
in the 1970s

Figure 2.1. The homogenization of suburbs in Canada by the 1950s.
The above figure represents the process of convergence of suburbs from four types in the
beginning of the twentieth century to homogeneous suburbs by the mid-20th c. Harris points to
the increasing role of federal government, which started in the housing field in 1935, in promoting
the emergence of the corporate suburb which, in turn, paved the way for mass builders and the
homogeneity in suburbs found in Canada by the 1950s. Suburban homogeneity was not a concern
as much as privacy and price for residents whose self-expression need not necessarily be reflected
in the physical built environment (Harris, 2004: 144).
Several arguments could be put forward for the subsequent development of the North
American suburb and suburban enclosure worldwide. Some arguments seem more likely than
others to offer a plausible explanation. The overarching argument that is put forward is that gated
suburban residential developments are a continuation of exclusionary suburban practices (Low,

14

2008) and are rooted in the convergence of several streams of development of the suburb (Le
Goix, 2006).
2.1 Socio-Psychological Arguments
2.1.1 Sense of Safety
Neighbourhoods started to become less permeable while remaining outwardly accessible.
This was achieved with the introduction of curvilinear and loop street layouts as well as cul-desacs. The main reason for using this strategy was to deter through-traffic into the neighbourhood
thus reducing noise, pollution, and most importantly, reducing crime. The ‘turn’ towards curved
streets, loops, and cul-de-sacs was not without reason. Indeed, cul-de-sacs were systematically
used to offset residences from noisy motor traffic in the design of Radburn, one of the first culde-sac developments in the U.S., by Clarence Stein and Henry Wright (Charmes, 2010).
This strategy would presumably result in an increase in the sense of privacy within the
neighbourhood and reinforcement of its residential character. Clarence Perry, in devising the
neighbourhood unit, emphasized the importance of curved streets as a strategy for promoting
neighbourhood cohesion (Patricios, 2002). This strategy is a continuity of similar strategies that
commenced in earlier post-war suburbs (Harris, 2004: 165) and that has become a dominant
design paradigm contested recently by New Urbanism and the return to the grid.
A recent review comparing the grid and cul-de-sac patterns found that research is
conclusive regarding negative aspects of permeable grid patterns such as: higher crime rates in
the order of five times; increased risk of pedestrian injuries; less support for an independent
pedestrian network; inefficient use of space as the street grid consumes more open space; higher
infrastructure cost; and three times higher cost of policing as compared to non-permeable cul-desacs (Cozens & Hillier, 2008).
15

Of course, there were other reasons behind the change of street patterns of
neighbourhoods. For example, efficiencies of subdividing land with patterns other than a grid
layout may have been higher in some cases such as a loop layout. From another perspective,
curvilinear streets close the horizon view for inhabitants passing through them and may provide
a sense of enclosure and aesthetic satisfaction. Nevertheless, it can be argued that such concerns
were not the main driving force behind the change of street patterns within neighbourhoods.
Subsequently, neighbourhoods in addition to becoming less permeable became less
accessible by decreasing access points to the neighbourhood. The decreased permeability of
neighbourhoods was not enough to cut off through-traffic especially since many access points to
and egress from the neighbourhood remained. Exercising control over the neighbourhood was a
difficult task for community associations. The internal sections of the neighbourhood where
through-traffic was most frequent divided the neighbourhood and decreased the private
residential character of those sections. In other words, the door was still open to free-riders.
Adding another defensive layer / strategy to deter through-traffic and crime was therefore
necessary.
The debate in the literature on favoring the permeable grid or the non-permeable cul-desac has its roots in the observations of Jane Jacobs and Oscar Newman (Cozens & Love, 2009).
The debate has recently been framed by Cozens & Love (2009) as a debate between ‘the
encounter model’ and ‘the enclosure model’. The encounter model depends on the permeability
of the grid to encourage walking, ‘eyes on the street’, and social interaction. Increased safety is
assumed to be a consequence of increased pedestrian presence. The enclosure model, on the other
hand, depends on limiting permeability of the street pattern in order to discourage occasional
access by strangers, reduce opportunities for crime, and increase control of space by residents.
16

Increased safety and predictability of social encounter is assumed to be a consequence of easily
identifying strangers. In addition, a social filtering process seems to be more efficient in the
enclosure model. For Oscar Newman, private streets seemed to result in a self-selection of likeminded people (Cozens & Love, 2009).
In light of the above, it seemed a more logical progression towards an increased sense of
safety to further define the boundaries of a neighbourhood by erecting enclosing walls and
defining entry points to the neighbourhood by means of gates as a third layer / strategy to deter
through-traffic and crime (Sanchez et al., 2005). Marcuse (1997) uses the term ‘walling out’ to
describe this process of increased seclusion or cutting off from the surroundings. This third layer
of walls is complemented in several gated communities with a fourth layer, namely by means of
patrolling security guards and closed-circuit surveillance systems. If for financial reasons, the
fourth layer is not implemented, other strategies are used such as the addition of an organizational
layer (e.g. neighbourhood watches) or a cultural-symbolic layer through the use of spatial
signalling devices. This is especially true for subsequently-enclosed neighbourhoods (Plöger,
2005). The research by Raposo & Cotta (2009), for instance, shows that sense of security is the
primary motive of residents to relocate to GCs in Lisbon metropolitan area.
Increasing the sense of safety is seen as a response to a ‘psychology of fear’ (Low, 2001).
It is generally argued that the response to a psychology of fear took two forms: escape and control
(Xu & Yang, 2008). The strategy of escape is exemplified morphologically in the process of
suburbanization while the strategy of control is exemplified morphologically in the processes of
re-agglomeration and gating. The response to the sense of fear is similarly explained by Wu
(2005) as a dual process of ‘deconstruction-reconstruction’ of communities. The deconstruction
process explains the emergence of gated communities due to increasing social inequality and the
17

retreat of the elites from the collective society meanwhile the reconstruction process explains
‘community-building’ by the re-configuration of urban space to a territorially-based organization
of gated communities that reflects the shift of control from a hierarchical state. A fortified urban
landscape is formed that may, in turn, increase fear and distrust of the other (Németh, 2009: 6).
Increasing the sense of safety is one of the main reasons for the emergence of gated
communities. There are, however, two other main reasons. They are the need to symbolize
prestige and the need to symbolize a lifestyle (Blakely & Snyder, 1997a).
2.1.2 Symbolization of Prestige
Prestige is symbolized in gated communities through the large size of houses and façade
material, usually stone veneer. Prestige is also communicated through the diversity of housing
styles within gated communities. This is in contrast to the conventional use of vinyl siding on the
façades and smaller sized houses as well as uniformity of architectural style throughout
neighbourhoods not concerned about symbolizing prestige. Rofe (2006) shows that
symbolization of prestige could be so profuse to the point of being signified as a cognitive barrier
preventing outsiders from entry, i.e. the symbolization acts as a virtual wall and initiates a process
of ‘self-othering’ for outsiders. Gated communities are thus defined by Rofe (2006: 312) as: “elite
landscapes that construct a communal persona founded upon belonging and exclusivity”. An
element of display of affluence is combined with an element of seclusion, as Rofe explains, in
order to construct difference and signify exclusion while at the same time symbolically
empowering gated residents.
A question here can be asked recursively whether the symbolization of prestige was
present in neighbourhoods prior to the emergence of gated communities. Prestige was present, of
course, in earlier developments, in subtle and manifest ways at an individual house scale. What
18

has changed is the normalization of prestige to a group phenomenon rather than an individual
expression. This was made possible by packaging prestige via a demarcation of an enclosing
boundary for the neighbourhood.
Aesthetization of the landscape and built environment is used as a strategy to express
prestige (cf. Zukin, 1991). For Young (1990), it is also a form of cultural imperialism and social
oppression. The use of historicized architecture as an instrument of class identity and class
separation for neighbourhoods has been highlighted by Meier & Karsten (2012). Meier & Karsten
nnote that the effectiveness of the symbolization of historicized architecture is contingent upon
appropriation of such symbolism by neighbourhood residents. An example of the use of a
medieval fortress style is found in the gated community of Knyazhye Ozero (or, Duke’s Lake)
located 25 km from Moscow (Blinnikov et al., 2006). Another example is the use of Romantic
Style for the GC of Andromeda Hill, symbolizing upper class residents in Jaffa (Monterescu,
2009: 420). The aesthetization of the built environment would, in some cases, be pursued at the
expense of best practises of climate control. Lara (2011) comments on the aesthetic revivalism
of colonial style architecture in the Brazilian gated community of Alphaville as not effective for
protection from rain and sun.
Here, it could be argued that the use of aesthetic revival of architectural styles in
Alphaville resulted in a hybridization of New Urbanism with the concept of gating. Lara relates
how the initial conception of the project as New Urbanist subsequently transformed into a walled
and guarded residential development. Similarly, Luymes (1997) found that some neo-traditional
developments are also gated. Likewise, in the GC of Kemer Country, Istanbul, the initial
inception of the GC used New Urbanism principles for the formation of its built environment
where historicized pastiche styles are used to differentiate between neighbourhood subdivisions
19

named after old Istanbul neighbourhoods as well as the use of the historical remains of an
aqueduct as a natural boundary (Geniş, 2007). Geniş translates this appropriation of historicized
symbols and Western lifestyles by the gated elites as a struggle for authenticity and identity in
the face of rising local middle-classes’ claim of appropriating the same local symbols but devoid
of Western lifestyles.
Chase (2008) refers to the aesthetic landscape in gated communities in Brazil as taking
either a “manicured” or a “controlled tropical” form. She comments on homeowners’ upkeep of
their private landscape within gated communities as a symbol of their prestige, class and style;
i.e. a new signature / display instrument for the rich. This upkeep, though, requires labor intensive
maintenance that necessitates the hiring of gardeners. Chase emphasizes the symbiotic relation
between the rich homeowners and the poor employees (gardeners) that provides security of
property for the former and security of employment for the latter who mostly live in proximity to
the gated community. This is an example of the negation of segregation by proximity, intimacy,
and circulation. Chase suggests that this type of security through the hiring of gardeners is more
effective than armed patrolling guards with motorcycles roaming the gated community. The
reason lies behind the informal networks created among gardeners that effectively act as
‘gatekeepers’ in filtering ‘good’, from ‘bad’, employees.
Seeking prestige and seeking a sense of security are not mutually exclusive (Sanchez et
al., 2005: 282). In the case of gated communities in Brazil, as Chase demonstrates, prestige and
security had recursive feedback loops. The landscape was used as a signal and marker of prestige.
This necessitated continual upkeep and the hiring of gardeners which, in turn, acted as an informal
layer of security within the gated community. The presence of gardeners reinforced the
prestigious image of homeowners hiring them. In addition, Sanchez et al. (2005) interestingly
20

found in the analysis of AHS 2001 survey that status could not be disentangled from security
when comparing upscale homeowner and downscale rental gated communities. Their findings
suggest that gated renters were as much concerned about status and appearance as gated
homeowners. Similar findings for research on GCs in Latin America such as Texeira de
Andrade’s research for Belo Horizonte’s GCs show that residents of middle- and low-income
groups seek gating predominantly for status rather than for security (Irazábal, 2006: 93).
2.1.3 Symbolization of Lifestyle
Lifestyle in gated communities is symbolized through special amenities present within
the gated neighbourhood ‒ for example, the presence of a golf course or a lake as recreational
amenities or a natural feature such as a forest or urban reserve as aesthetic amenities.
Neighbourhoods not symbolizing lifestyle were, of course, devoid of such amenities. Such
amenities were present prior to the emergence of gated communities. What has changed is that,
like prestige, lifestyle was packaged and sold via associating an amenity with an enclosed
neighbourhood thus diminishing and restricting access to such amenities by free-riders.
The symbolization of lifestyle can be interpreted as a shift from the simple need for
housing as a shelter to housing that includes ‘lifestyle’ options bundled within the neighbourhood
(Kenna & Dunn, 2009). This shift in the meaning of housing is a global trend that is reflected in
marketing strategies that idealize lifestyle options through the use of images of golf courses,
tennis courts, and other leisure activities. The following diagram summarizes the three main
reasons for the emergence of gated communities and the images associated with each.

21

Sense of Safety

Gating as a barrier

Symbolization
of Prestige

Gating as power and class

Symbolization
of Lifestyle

Gating as a club good

Figure 2.2. Images associated with three main reasons for emergence of GCs
A recent trend is the combination of lifestyle gated community and ecological
perspectives to produce the gated eco-estate (Durington, 2006). It is argued that the addition of
ecological concerns is subsumed within a larger trend of eco-tourism and removes any emphasis
on security or fear of crime and rather shifts the focus towards environmental consciousness as
well as effectuating a shift in discourse away from segregation to more positive perspectives
towards GCs.
2.1.4 Place-Identity and Self-Actualization
Neighbourhoods embedded non-differentially in a grid seem to not satisfy the need to
identify with one’s neighbourhood as a place. Though, as Fava observed, the attraction of
suburban neighbourhoods for young middle-class families emanated from the search for
neighborliness and community, suburbs eventually became associated rather with individualism
and a decline of place identity (Walks, 2013). Decline in sense of community in post-war suburbs
became a concern of citizens that prompted developers to create gated communities (WilsonDoenges, 2000). Identifying with one’s neighbourhood remains necessary in order to encourage
neighborliness and community especially for the ecological suburban concentration of families
with children.
22

Realizing the importance of transforming a neighbourhood into a place in its own right
became increasingly necessary especially in the wake of a neo-liberal economic shift and the
concomitant trend of privatization of space. In other words, the privatization of residential space
occurred in succession to the privatization of public space and contributed to the transformation
of neighbourhoods into more well-defined places to which residents could better identify.
Defining a neighbourhood with a boundary does not automatically lead to attaching a
place-making function to the boundary. The mass production of gated communities, for instance,
in Miami, have led to the loss of the place-making function usually attributed to gates. This loss
of place-making was due to the similarity between gated communities and due to the lack of
possibilities for outdoor activities and social interaction (Pufe, 2009).
The importance of individuation of gated neighbourhoods is emphasized by Pufe’s
research findings. From a philosophical point of view, individuation is not merely achieved
through external individuation by means of position in space and state or development in time
(cf. Schopenhauer) but also involves an internal principle of individuation (cf. Leibniz). Applied
to the case of gated neighbourhoods, this would translate to attention to the physical environment
(external individuation) and social environment (internal individuation). The importance of the
social environment as internal individuation has already been suggested by researchers such as
Temkin & Rohe (1998) with their notion of ‘socio-cultural milieu’ that acts to impede the cycle
of neighbourhood decline.
Townshend (2002) argues that the spatial search for the experience of community
especially by seniors in their third-age or phase of their life is a reason for the emergence of agesegregated gated communities or retirement villages which, by virtue of defining a place-based

23

relatively homogeneous community, partially contribute to the self-actualization of that
demographic cohort.
Place-identity, in the case of private neighbourhoods, should not be seen as detached from
the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that ensure compliance of all residents.
Kirby (2008: 85) argues that such private neighbourhoods fill the need of households who do not
have “an organic sense of neighbourhood or community”. Those households depend on CC&Rs,
that is, a set of mechanistic rules, in order to ensure a functioning community.
Neither should place-identity be seen as detached from the symbolism of the built
environment and the relatively homogeneous social environment. Geniş (2007: 792) notes that
the purpose of the symbolic imaginaries inherent in the built environment was to forge a new
definition of authenticity and identity of ‘real Istanbulites’ as opposed to the cultural
heterogeneity and cultural fragmentation and decay of the city proper.
2.1.5 Sense of Interiority
A psychological argument that has been cursorily referred to in the literature on GCs is
the issue of interiority. Pow (2009a) links the notion of privacy in GCs to the notion of interiority,
or sense of interiority. Pow argues that lack of neighborliness in GCs can be attributed to the
conceptualization of increased privacy as interiority; the intention is to depict the gating
experience as an intension of nested enclosures. The reclusion of residents shields their private
life; an attitude that Pow contrasts with the ‘open-door’ policy of old neighbourhoods.
Although Pow empirically interprets interiority in regards to the prevalence of interior
modelling and interior design of housing units in Shanghai, it may also be interpreted from an
alternative psychological perspective in reference to Patrick Geddes’ model of the Notation of
Life (Welter, 2002). According to Geddes’ model, the development of the self passes through a
24

sequence of four phases consisting of: (1) a simple exteriority that refers to practical daily life;
(2) a simple interiority that refers to critical thinking; (3) a deep interiority that refers to the
personal and collective unconscious; and finally (4) an effective exteriority that refers to the phase
of self-realization. The four phases are translated by Geddes into four phases of development of
the city: the city-as-town, the city-as-university, the city-as-monastery, and the city as fullfledged-city.
Applying Geddes’ model to GCs, the third phase of deep interiority and the corresponding
image of city-as-monastery best fits a general conceptualization of GCs as enclosed and secluded
developments with a general emphasis on interiority.
2.2 Morphological Arguments
2.2.1 Historical
Using walls and gates to restrict access is not a new idea concomitant to the emergence
of gated communities. Some cities have been encircled with walls and accessed only through
gates since their morphogenesis and subsequent growth in the form of nested walls. Traces of
walled fortifications are still present in many cities especially in Europe, the Middle East, Latin
America and East Asia. North America also has examples of cities that were once walled; for
example, Montreal and Quebec cities. Cities used walls as a defensive strategy to fend off
enemies and to separate city from countryside. The walling off of residential neighbourhoods via
physical barriers was not common, though, except in the case of work unit compounds in China,
residential neighbourhoods in India, and exclusive neighbourhoods in England and France.
Nevertheless, researchers probing the reasons behind the emergence of gating of
neighbourhoods have looked back at history to see whether there are links or historical
continuities to the phenomenon of gating. Investigating heritage and vernacular landscape in
25

Southern California, Fu (2009) traced how Spanish-Colonial Revival is a precedent for gated
enclaves in California and concluded that collective memory interacts with the real landscape in
producing the gated enclaves. Wu (2005) in China and Sheinbaum (2008) in Mexico, each
concluded that the phenomenon of neighbourhood gating is different and carries new meaning.
For Sheinbaum, despite a continuation of inherited segregation patterns, recent gating is different
due to segregation of commercial activities within GCs. For Wu, gating has changed as a response
to a post-Fordist market transition as well as a response to post-modern diversity. Marcuse (1997)
would agree about the distinctiveness of neighbourhood gating in spite of incorporating old
processes and justifies their appellation as post-Fordist residential developments. Coy & Pöhler
(2002) posit that new GCs are different from older forms of exclusive housing that propagated
Latin American segregation in terms of larger size of projects facilitated by neoliberalism and
deregulation as well as in the more sophisticated security measures and degree of fortification.
Rather than investigating links or continuities, researchers such as Judd (1995) have
compared and contrasted the walled medieval city with enclosed residential developments. Judd
draws similarities in terms of the exclusive function of walls in both. Perhaps it can be argued
that the scales of development are different to merit a comparison as one refers to the city-scale
while the other to the neighbourhood-scale. The difference is not sheer size but also of
differentiation of enclosed land uses within the walls and degree of internal complexity as well
as the nature of external threat. Notwithstanding such non-negligible differences, the walls of
residential developments have evoked a reminiscence of fortified medieval walls. In a similar
fashion, it could be argued that the impermeability of neighbourhoods are reminiscent of the
winding and irregular pattern of medieval streets with a major difference of the absence, or lower-

26

key, in the use of the element of surprise in the urban experience of the neighbourhood via church
towers or distinctive urban elements (Sitte, 1945).
Advancing an alternative historical perspective, Le Goix (2006) traces the emergence of
contemporary GCs in Paris to its 19th c. first suburbs to argue that a significant number of
contemporary GCs have their physical walls and gates coinciding with boundaries of pre-existing
gated elite estates or blue-collar gated developments, also bounded by fences or walls. In some
cases, the original walls were retained in the new development, a phenomenon Le Goix names
‘resilient enclosures’8.
2.2.2 Territorial-Ideological
Another morphological argument is put forward by Charmes (2010). Examining the road
network layout of neighbourhoods, the research by Charmes places gated neighbourhoods along
a continuum of an ‘exclusionary residential territorialisation’ that initiated with Clarence
Stein’s Neighbourhood Concept for Radburn in his use of cul-de-sacs and superblocks and which
then evolved to environmental areas and later into the garden suburbs and, finally, into gated
communities. The outcome of an aggressive physical expression to territorialisation is continued
fragmentation of urban and periurban space (Prajoux, 2005; Coy, 2006).
Territorialisation can be achieved by other subtle means without the use of physical walls
and gates. Flusty has categorized the type of spaces that would result from such subtle means of
territorialisation and exclusion. Bauman (1998: 20) reminds us of Steven Flusty’s typology of
spaces: interdictory space (filtering users), slippery space (space that cannot be reached), prickly

8

The notion of historical trace in the urban landscape raised by Le Goix is echoed in the notion of ‘engrams’
raised by R. Semon in explaining biological morphogenesis. Engrams refer to the physiological traces left by sensory
perceptions and emphasize the role of memory in morphogenetic processes (Cassirer, 1944: 50).

27

space (space that cannot be comfortably occupied), and jittery space (space that is constantly
observed); types of spaces that, as Bauman notes, serve elite residents but disintegrate space for
outsiders.
Le Goix (2006) expands the territorial stream leading to gating by including three other
streams that intricately and progressively converged to culminate in the recent emergence of
gated communities. One stream is that of development in the application of Newman’s concept
of defensible space towards the creation of defended space. The second stream traces the
development of restrictive covenants and private governance that culminated in Home Owner
Associations. The third stream is the development of maintaining exclusivity and community
through Buchanon’s notion of the club. Put differently, Le Goix situates and anchors the
emergence of GCs within a convergence of the historical development of four inter-related
streams and as such Le Goix posits that GCs subscribe to the same underlying logic of suburban
developments.
2.2.3 Developmental-Organic
A third morphological argument may be put forward. It is based on organic theories of
urban development. Rather than being based on typological morphologies such as those applied
by Aldo Rossi or based on morphological units such as those defined by Conzen, developmental
morphologies are better understood as being based on what Sattler calls ‘process morphology’
(Barabé & Brunet, 1993: 5). Process morphology assumes that the dynamics of (urban) form
itself is responsible for the emergence of new forms without necessarily depending on an
underlying ‘genetic’ code (e.g. typology or morphological unit).
The duality between repetitive-unique elements and continuous-discontinuous elements
within an urban mass put forward by Eduardo Lozano could be applicable under the paradigm of
28

process morphology. Gated neighbourhoods, because of the presence of physical walls, present
a discontinuity in the urban landscape as well as present a unique packaged environment amid a
relatively ‘amorphous’ and monotonous suburban development. For Lozano, contrasting urban
elements define urban growth dynamics.
In a parallel way, the emergence of gated residential developments seems to happen,
especially in the case of Canadian metropolises, without any explicit guidelines. Gated
neighbourhoods are generally not mandatory for new neighbourhood construction except in some
places such as for example in China and Singapore. Thus, gated neighbourhoods may be
subsumed under what Holcombe (2012) calls ‘nomocratic’ planning, i.e. the work of the invisible
hand of market forces as opposed to ‘teleocratic’ planning, i.e. top-down. Put succinctly, gated
residential developments are hypothesized as an ‘emergence’.
A diametrically opposed thesis is that by Judd (1995: 146). His thesis is that gated
residential enclosures have replaced organic processes that produced ‘organic’ environments
such as the residential community and, for the case of commercial activity, enclosed malls have
replaced the ‘organic’ marketplace. Judd argues that organic processes have been overtaken by
hierarchical control of corporate bureaucracies and developers. The outcome is not only the
creation of a purified and simulated environment but also, more importantly, an isolated and
secluded one that is more often than not strikingly similar.
Gated neighbourhoods are in one sense an organic outcome of physical morphology and
‘invisible hand’ dynamics and in another sense an impedance to, or negation of, organic
development by virtue / vice of their artificial environment.

29

2.2.3.1 Systems Theory
Closely related to the developmental-organic argument is systems theory. Notions of
dynamic equilibrium, feedback loops, and emergence come to the forefront. System theory was
applied in the study of gated communities by Karina Landman (2005) in South Africa. Landman’s
focus was set on feedback loops that are either mutually reinforcing or opposing. For instance,
government efforts towards integration and equity with reduced spending on advantaged
communities spurs wealthier areas to further privatize and fortify with increased exclusion of the
poor. The outcome of both reinforcing and opposing loop types is paradoxically converged
towards increased social and physical fragmentation of the urban environment.
Landman argues that the unintended consequences and changes in the state of the system
due to the action of reinforcing loops eventually leads to the weakening of the positive feedback
loop with an outcome that is similar to the action of opposing loops. This reasoning recalls notions
used in developmental-organic arguments of ‘channeling’ or Waddington’s notion of
‘morphogenetic landscapes’ where finalities are path-independent. The social sustainability that
Landman advocates becomes a far-fetched reality in the face of a persistent fragmentation
dynamic and outcome. Hodkinson (2012: 508) describes such persistent fragmentation as:
“enclosure is a logical, evolutionary or continuous feature of market societies”.
It is questionable, though, if the system paradigm is appropriate to represent the dynamics
of the city. Systems theory assumes a hierarchical relation between parts of the system in such a
way that interrelations between parts at different levels in the hierarchy form feedback loops and
are responsible for the phenomenon of emergence. The increasingly fragmented city may be
better represented by a ‘heterarchical’ rather than a hierarchical system because parts or
fragments in a city are heterogeneous and may not necessarily form ‘cross-system’ links. A term
30

in the literature that expresses this fragmentation is Graham & Marvin’s ‘splintering urbanism’.
Another term used in the literature is ‘assemblages’ (Boudon, 2000: 138). The city is presented
more accurately as a mosaic of interdependent parts rather than interrelated parts. In other words,
links between government-spending on disadvantaged areas may not necessarily, as Landman
assumes, influence or reinforce decisions of the wealthy to form private enclaves.
Nevertheless, the thesis by Landman is partially supported by the research findings of
Gallegos (2009) for the border city of Tijuana, Mexico. Gallegos found that the real estate
construction boom is manifested in the rapid expansion of the city with the growth of GCs and at
the same time accompanied by densification of the urban core. Gallegos infers that the
densification of the urban core is systemically related to the construction of GCs.
2.2.3.2 Chaos Theory
According to chaos theory, gated communities emerged as a counterbalance and response
to the social and physical chaos outside the gates. This is perhaps exemplified in the case of Latin
American gated communities that are surrounded by squatter settlements. Giglia (2008)
emphasizes that the emergence of GCs in Mexico is not only a matter of security but also a
reaction to the urban disorder in the use, regulation and control of public space. The relatively
ideal environment of the gated community is contrasted with the surrounding relatively
disorganized environment. Chaos theory postulates the presence of strong attractors which act as
organizing centers for a chaotic mass (Morin, 1982). Such attractors have been also referred to
alternatively as implicit centres that materialize through a process of unfolding (Alexander,
2002). Gated communities are hypothesized to be positioned in the vicinity of attractor locations
and thus have a relatively higher stability and organization than locations further away from such
attractors characterized by a relatively unstable field. Chaos theory does not explain the a priori
31

existence of the attractors but might offer some reasoning behind the locational distribution of
gated communities.
The application of chaos theory to gated communities can be read in the work of Diken
(2004). Diken portrays the postmodern situation as one where chaos and insecurity abound.
Depicting the postmodern condition as disordered and chaotic was also expressed in the work of
Bauman (2001b: 35). Both authors observe that the increasing insecurity and unstable condition
of the urban poor is countered by the emergence of the secure environment of gated communities.
For Diken, the chaos of the outside, on one hand, necessitates the presence of an extreme form of
inclusion realized by gated communities, on the other. Diken uses the metaphor of the ‘camp’ to
express both forms of extreme inclusion and extreme exclusion. The walls of gated communities
form simultaneously a boundary for the enclosed inside and an ‘inverted’, so to speak, boundary
for those outside. The mutual counteraction or mutual reinforcement of the two forms of
development, the disordered and the ordered, is a thesis previously stated by Marcuse (1997).
2.3 Moral Argument
The moral argument for gated neighbourhoods was made by Pow (2007 and 2009a) who
studied gated communities in Shanghai. According to Pow, there are instrumental and intrinsic
judgements of gated communities. Instrumental judgements involve the creation of a safe
environment for rearing children, and a purified environment that excludes the outside world as
well as ensures a maintained environment that preserves property values. The dimensions of
instrumental judgement are thus: nature (biological need and health), truth (leading an authentic
life away from public interference), and justice (eliminating the free-rider problem).
Instrumental judgements are essentially teleological arguments focusing on the goals of
creating such environment(s) in gated communities, whereas intrinsic judgements are based on a
32

morality of good and evil. The good results from a twofold process: first, the good that arises
from a greater awareness and second, the good that arises from a ‘plenitudinous reality’, i.e. a
diverse and complex environment. From this vantage point, Pow argues that gated communities
would be evaluated intrinsically as a source of evil rather than a source of good as they fail on
both accounts of not providing a heightened awareness of reality because they shield individuals
in such purified environments from a diverse reality outside the gates.
What Pow is referring to is perhaps captured by Bickford’s (2000) notion of ‘bounded
space’, i.e. the ‘orchestration’ of who and what one perceives in such a manner that ‘the strange
other’ vanishes from sight. A stigmatizing of the horizon of one’s world in the bounded space of
the ‘similar other’ shapes who are considered as fellow citizens. The effect of bounded space is
assumed to become more pronounced for children raised in gated communities as they could
develop ‘social paranoia’ towards ‘different’ others (Low, 2001). In other words, according to
Bickford, the simple act of physically or legally enclosing / fencing-off formerly public space
involves the creation of ‘purified’ versions, sustained by institutional practices and policies, of
residential space and public space that enact deep forms of segregation. Alluding to such
‘purified’ environments, Coy & Pöhler (2002: 368) hypothesize the possibility of negative
feelings caused by “imprisonment in an ideal world”.
Pow’s argument is not necessarily absolutely valid because it assumes that the diversity
outside the gates offers a ‘better / good’ reality due to its complexity. However, if the argument
is extended to evaluate such an outside, it could be well argued that the diversity and complexity
of that outside is not absolute and there could exist, in principle, a reality that is even more diverse
or complex. Fainstein’s (2005) observation that the effect of social diversity depends on context
balances Pow’s argument for absolute diversity. For Fainstein, a model of the socially just city
33

should be based on Martha Nussbaum’s concept of multiple ‘capacities’ / capabilities rather than,
as generally assumed by planners, on social ‘diversity’.
Equating good to the real or reality raises more questions especially when evaluating
particular environments such as the case of an educational institution where the learning
environment or learning experience could be readily described as ‘gated’ as it presents in many
respects a purified environment. If the same reasoning is further applied to the subject material
that is taught, it would also be deemed not ‘good’ given that, in Husserlian terms, the ‘world of
science’ is essentially a simplification or abstraction of the complex ‘life-world’ or plenum
(Ruggerone, 2013). Another example would be the creation of a simulated environment such as
the ‘disneyfication’ of a main street. Extending the example further, if architecture is defined by
Susan Langer as the illusion of the creation of an ethnic domain, architecture would fail to be
categorized as good because it is not real ‘enough’.
Although Pow acknowledges that gated communities are a constituent of overall urban
form and contribute to the total spectrum of diversity for the outside, gated communities remain
non-transparent, as he argues, and therefore obscure the ‘seeing through’ (a condition for
accessing reality) for both those within and outside the gates (Pow, 2009a). Here Pow assumes
that the outside reality is intrinsically transparent which may not necessarily be the case. The
‘huis clos’ or behind closed doors of, for instance, judicial and governmental administrative
institutions could be a case in point for a largely non-transparent outside. Examples of a nontransparent outside could also be given for popular media that obscures, or partially covers,
certain events.
Bounded-ness and non-transparency, referring respectively to points of view from within
and from without the gates, as conditions for ‘not’ accessing, or hindering access to, reality is not
34

absolutely convincing. In the first case, the degree of social diversity needed to counter boundedness for residents within would always remain relative, and, similarly, in the second case, the
degree of transparency would also always remain relative.
Nevertheless, from a symbolic and cultural point of view, enclosed residential enclaves
symbolize the construction of moral geographies of exclusion (Pow, 2009b). The cultural and
moral superiority of gated residents is symbolized in the orderly built environment as well as the
body care and health of residents; i.e. constructing a layer of symbolic communication in a
Bourdieuan sense. Residents on the other side of the gate or boundary are considered less civilized
and pose general discomfort to the more civilized residents within the enclosure (Pow, 2009a).
Descriptions of the nuisances and discomfort brought about by the less civilized abound in the
literature on GCs and may be summarized by the word ‘vulgar’ (for example, Geniş, 2007: 785).
The moral argument puts into spotlight the disparate cultural differences between urban
and rural or civilized and less civilized. Gating, however, has also been employed to separate
different cultures not necessarily from a moral perspective but from a perspective of difference
in values and lifestyles that otherwise would produce potential conflict. This has been shown in
the research of Glasze & Alkhayyal (2002: 326) for the case of GCs for foreign professionals in
Saudi Arabia.
2.4 Economic argument
2.4.1 Property Value
One argument put forward by Lee & Webster (2006) is that the emergence of boundaries
on urban land is the result of land value appreciation. The explanation is based on capitalist gain
to capitalize on the value of land through a process of land subdivision. They argue that ‘common’
public land due to rising competition and increase of demand for consumption (what they call
35

‘congestion’) will inevitably lead to its subdivision into ‘smaller’ publics / club goods for the
benefit of certain groups. Clear boundaries demarcate the subdivisions and decrease the
transaction costs for real estate developers. It is assumed that such a process would decrease
congestion.
To carry the argument further, land value appreciation has also necessitated the need for
higher density development. The success for the proliferation of Common-Interest Developments
CIDs is argued by Judd (1995: 156) to have persisted due to its ability to re-cast the same principle
of income segregation previously utilized via low-density suburban development into a new
application in the form of CIDs. Segregation was achieved in this new version of the suburb
through covenants, contracts and restrictions (CC&Rs).
Another economic argument is based on the cyclic nature of capitalism (cf. Harvey,
2009). Gated neighbourhoods, termed ‘vulgaria’ by Knox, serve as a re-enchantment for
particular target groups in response to disenchantment with Fordist ‘subtopias’; a disenchantment
that occurred because of the intrusion of the automobile and Fordist standardized subdivision into
the once-enchanted suburbia that were modeled after Ebenezer Howard’s garden city ideal
(Knox, 2005). The re-enchantment is realized via packaging, theming, simulation, and gating.
From a different perspective but also referring to the cyclic nature of economic recessions of
capitalism, Low (2008: 53) argues that the erection of walls is linked to middle class ‘status
anxiety’ from downward social mobility. Walls act as a re-assurance of preservation of property
values for such residents.
A third argument is to preserve property values and shield the neighbourhood from
encroachment of undesired services or land uses that would diminish property values for owners
in case of selling their property in the future. Neighbourhood amenities are also ‘shielded’ from
36

use by non-residents in order to decrease free-riders and misuse / crowding of such amenities (Le
Goix, 2006; Pow, 2009a: 143). In the case of middle-class subsequently enclosed
neighbourhoods, offsetting the effect of free-riders on the use of neighbourhood amenities such
as a neighbourhood park was achieved by informal erection of gates that were subsequently
formalized by authorities (Plöger, 2005).
2.4.2 Club Goods and the Gating Machine
Buchanon’s Club Goods Theory formulated in 1965 was applied to gated neighbourhoods
first by Chris Webster (2001) and also by Manzi and Smith-Bowers (2006). This approach is
based on institutional economics theory. The Club Goods theory explains the emergence and
proliferation of gated neighbourhoods as a result of an institutional ‘gating machine’. Developers
profit by lowering their investment risks due to maintenance of the quality of a gated
neighbourhood development by a self-administered governance structure. This allows the
developers to invest in projects of a larger scale while also providing the common facilities that
attract potential buyers. Local governments encourage this form of development because it
transfers the responsibility for providing services and infrastructure to the residents. Moreover,
this development raises property taxes collected by the local government (Glasze, 2006: 37).
As Roitman (2010) points out in her research, encouraging this form of development by
local government does not necessarily mean that local officials agree with the values behind such
developments. The role of local government is rather expressed as shifting from ‘controller’ to
‘enabler’ of the private sector.
According to Glasze, the Club Goods theory falls short of explaining the regional spread
of gated neighbourhoods in many parts of the world and their absence in other parts. To reach an
explanation, Glasze presents a model which extends the Club Goods theory to include economic,
37

political and social changes due to globalization as well as including the local context (shaped by
actors and institutions) that renders private neighbourhoods potentially desirable. Glasze
emphasizes both the processes of globalization of capital and transnational economic and
symbolic networks as well as the specificity of the symbolism and meaning of this form of
residential development contingent upon local context. As Geniş (2007: 778) argues, the
transition to, or materialization of, dynamics of global market forces needed to be facilitated by
local state actors through enabling large capitalists’ entry into the housing sector and through
public finance support, public investment in infrastructure, and new land use legislations. At the
same time, local symbolism and socio-cultural sensibilities of GCs are furnished by developers,
planners and architects in order to appeal to local residents.
The ‘gating machine’ dynamic briefly described above seems a win-win situation to all
three parties: local government municipalities, developers, and residents desiring such gated
developments. Few empirical studies have proved that a gating machine dynamic is in place
although many empirical studies assume that a gating machine dynamic is a favorable outcome.
Supporting empirical evidence for a gating machine dynamic have been presented in the research
by Suárez-Carrasquillo (2009) in Guaynabo, Puerto Rico. Additional supporting evidence is also
provided in the research by Pow (2009c) for GCs in Singapore, albeit described in a positive
sense of private-public partnership rather than the negative sense of a gating machine scheme.
Pow emphasizes that gating is part-and-parcel of the urban policy development in the land-scarce
Singapore where the government is a key-player benefiting from the sale of land to developers.
However, at the same time, the government is providing quality public housing, a strategy called
‘politics of quality’, as well as providing a new type of gated development called ‘executive
gating’ which is essentially a subsidized gated development by the government for aspiring
38

middle-class Singaporean families who are looking for access to such a real estate product. After
a 10-year period, the gated development is privatized and can then be sold at market prices. Pow
observes that such measures reduce the social and spatial divisiveness of GC landscapes in
Singapore.
Meanwhile, contrary evidence to the hypothesis of a gating machine has been found in an
empirical study conducted by Boyd (2005) for explaining the emergence of gated communities
in the St. Louis, Missouri region. As Boyd explains, local officials, banking executives, and
realtors, after the construction of one or two gated communities, became unenthusiastic to pursue
the gating project. This was due to accessibility issues for emergency vehicles and, more
significantly, to low sales for housing units within gated communities. The most relevant thesis
that Boyd makes is that the marketing of semi- or quasi-gated developments as a fully gated
development has become a trend for developers in St. Louis who are by-passing financial
expenses for privatizing streets while at the same time reaping a premium from future residents
interested in living in a gated development. It is important to note, as Boyd points out, that the
cost of housing construction for the developer does not differ whether the residential development
is gated or non-gated. What Boyd is alluding to is that quasi-gated developments may be a viable
business model compared to the unappealing gated developments.
2.4.3 Functional Integration
The functional integration argument applies to the emergence of GCs in Latin America
rather than North America. In Latin America, GCs have been increasingly situated among lowincome neighbourhoods. This phenomenon of stark contrast and proximity between social groups
is conceived as an uplifting to the low-income area in terms of services, infrastructure, and local
tax-base as well as establishing a sort of functional integration between high-income gated and
39

low-income non-gated residents. In this case, GCs provide employment opportunities for lowincome residents. The research by Salcedo & Torres (2004) in Santiago, Chile evidences this type
of functional integration and shows that the wealthy are not disturbed due to their proximity to
poor neighbourhoods. Improving the quality of life for low-income residents within the same
development, but that were still physically separated, was achieved by the Silvertree GC in South
Africa, receiving an award in recognition (Lemanski, 2006). In the GC of Barra da Tijuca in Rio
de Janeiro, the functional integration or co-existence spurred by the GCs job market has resulted
in the proliferation of new squatter settlements surrounding the GC (Coy & Pöhler, 2002: 361).
A study by Asiedu & Arku (2009) of three communities in Accra, Ghana show considerable
interaction between residents inside and outside of the GC mainly at the economic level.
Although the example of Chile is contrary to the general bias of seeing GCs as instruments
of social segregation, the example of South Africa shows that despite de-racialization of the
mixed development, low-income residents felt socially segregated from high-income residents
resulting in diminishing the sense of belonging of low-income residents who were originally
present before the advent of the GC. The social segregation experience by low-income residents
was induced by three layers of spatial exclusion devices: physical walls and restricted access to
the GC, limited access to the low-income neighbourhood with indirect access to shared shopping
services, and shielding the low-income neighbourhood out of sight from vantage points within
the high-income neighbourhood.
2.5 Political Argument
Grant (2008) argues that the proliferation of GCs within a relatively safe context and a
general level of security in Western nations, particularly, Canada, is due to a neoliberal political

40

economic philosophy that emphasizes property rights and entrepreneurial freedom in parallel
with a gradual retrenchment of state responsibilities and local provision of services.
2.5.1 Fiscal Transfer
The decisive factor according to Csefalvay (2011) for the rise of gated residential
developments, especially in North America, is public choice theory and fiscal federalism theory.
Gated communities, contrary to the previous economic arguments, are not seen as a rational
economic choice but rather as a politically-driven process. The objective of this process is
achieving fiscal transfer and fiscal equivalence between local municipalities and gated residential
developments through micro-urban governance.
Huong & Sajor (2010) reveal the close relationship characterized by cooperation,
partnership, and complementarity between local authorities and homeowner associations as a new
model of micro-neighbourhood governance in Vietnam. The partnership, though, is not from
equal standing in terms of power clout, organization or experience. In the U.S. context, Webster
observes that homeowner associations suffer from the same administrative problems as municipal
governments with a disadvantage of not having administrative experience to effectively resolve
the problems. This situation has resulted in dissatisfaction of resident homeowners with the
contracts and codes they signed into. The literature and empirical evidence on gated communities
indicate that a few interested residents are deeply involved in such micro-governance activities
while others are totally uninvolved with the result that local democracy is jeopardized; a
democracy that Low, Donovan, & Gieseking (2012) call ‘shoestring democracy’.
2.5.2 Post-Socialist Reaction
Other political arguments have been advanced in the literature. For example, Polanska
(2010) explains the emergence of GCs in post-communist Poland as a reaction, in terms of scale
41

of development and housing types, to its communist past. As Polanska notes, this understanding
of GCs should be situated within the wider context of the Polish housing market and spatial
planning practises and available resources at the municipal level. The general argument is that
the undesirability of communist housing has given way to more desirable and exclusive
residential enclaves. Most importantly, the specificity of GCs in Poland is the result of political
change, demand for better housing, and weakness of municipal government vis-à-vis housing
developers.
Polanska’s thesis seems generalizable for other post-socialist European cities examined
by Tsenkova (2009). Tsenkova highlights the socialist legacy that has differentially left its
imprints on the housing markets in post-socialist Europe. Tsenkova argues that divergences had
existed between southeastern European cities within an overarching ‘socialist housing model’;
divergences accruing mainly from the shift in balance between the public and private sectors as
well as from the incremental and disjointed policy decision-making processes which have
accordingly affected individual cities’ path of transformation from a centrally planned to a
market-based economy. Particularly, tenure structure has changed differentially with preferential
emphasis on private ownership as well as diversity in housing provision and the emergence of
differential housing submarkets such as condominiums and luxury gated communities in Sofia,
Belgrade, and Chisinau. The overall transition is characterized as sporadic, non-uniform and not
smooth in terms of role of the state and institutions due, on one hand, to inherent rigidities in the
housing system and, on the other, due to contextual politico-economic factors and a greater role
played by the market (Tsenkova, 2003: 197). The deep imprint of the socialist housing legacy
continues to be a factor inhibiting the formation of a really mature, market-based delivery system
(Tsenkova, 2009: 210).
42

Tsenkova’s main thesis and observations for the pace and quality of transition are not
only applicable to housing in general but seem also applicable to the type of gated communities
in post-socialist European countries such as Bulgaria. The research by Stoyanov & Frantz (2006)
examining GCs in Bulgaria show that the overall size and quality of GCs do not parallel their
U.S. counterparts and the reason given, echoing Tsenkova, is tied to Bulgaria’s socialist past.
Stoyanov & Frantz accordingly argue that though motivations to reside in GCs revolve around
concerns of security and prestige, the specific moderate outcome and pace of embracing GCs
remains contingent upon political legacy and local factors.
2.5.3 Post-Apartheid Geographies
From a political point of view, the emergence of GCs in South Africa is conceived as a
continuation of apartheid geographies and GCs have become a factor in the persistence of
apartheid geographies, or forming rather “a new apartheid” (Lemanski, 2006: 400). Durington
(2006) seems to put forward a similar argument though he cautions against such a generalized
‘racialized’ view of GCs in South Africa. He argues that GCs should not be conceptualized as
internally homogeneous but are rather internally differentiated behind the walls along racial and
social lines. At the same time, however, he argues that white South Africans are forced to fortify
behind gates in an increasingly insecure environment wrought about by inevitable crime. Despite
wavering between the two arguments, Durington agrees with Landman that GCs are a challenge
to the realization of a non-racial society. A similar view is held by Tedong et al. (2014) in their
study of gated residential developments in Malaysia. Tedong et al. conclude that GCs reinforce
and reproduce structures of inequality, class and ethnicity in Malaysia.

43

2.6 Metaphors / Images of Gated Residential Developments
Several images and metaphors can be extracted from the above arguments for the
emergence and development of gated communities. The following is a table summary that
presents such images / metaphors.
Table 2.1. Metaphors / Images of Gated Residential Developments
Psychological

Morphological

Moral
Economic

Political

Sense of Safety

GCs as fortress

Prestige

GCs as enclave

Lifestyle

GCs as club good

Place-Identity and Self Actualization

GCs as island/oasis

Interiority

GCs as monastery

Historical

GCs as microcosm

Territorial-Ideological

GCs as garden city

Developmental-Organic

GCs as unique

System Theory

GCs as fragmentation

Chaos Theory

GCs as order

Instrumental

GCs as authentic

Intrinsic

GCs as paradise

Property Value

GCs as real estate

Package / Thematic

GCs as ‘vulgaria’

Club Goods

GCs as exclusive clubs

Integration

GCs as symbiosis

Fiscal Federalism

GCs as micro-governance

Post-communist

GCs as liberating

Post-apartheid

GCs as apartheid geography

Reiterating the above perspectives, at least three ontological stances can be identified for
gated communities: 1) resurgence; 2) divergence; and 3) emergence. The first, resurgence, was
explored by researchers who viewed gated communities as a continuation of a historical trend of
44

gating medieval cities or residential quarters. Such researchers found that contemporary gating
presented a new form of gating differentiated from mere resurgence of historical trends (cf.
Sheinbaum; cf. Wu). The second, divergence, is the view of gated communities as an aspect of
the postmodern situation that necessitates both the security behind the gates and insecurity outside
(Diken, 2004). It is also a culmination of the phenomenon of gated-ness in the U.S. where social
justice arguments are put forward by gated residents for their double taxation for services within
and outside the gates (McKenzie, 2006).
The third, emergence, was explored by researchers who viewed gated communities as the
next phase in the social (and physical) morphological outcome of suburban development. The
overall conception is that gated communities are to suburbs what suburbs are to the city. In this
view, gated communities present an attempt at reforming community within the suburbs, a reform
to counteract suburbs that have increasingly become diversified in terms of socio-economic status
and cultural ethic. Such a view is in line with Harris’ (2004) tracing of suburban development in
Canadian cities which went from suburban diversity to suburban uniformity and suburban
conformity. In other words, gated communities, with rules, restrictive covenants, and
architectural guidelines, are a continuation, albeit stricter version, of suburban conformity.
Returning to Fig. 2.1 and in light of the above, suburban development due to the
emergence and proliferation of GCs has become physically, socially, and culturally fragmented
(see following figure).

45

Suburban
Diversity

Suburban
Uniformity

Deeper Suburban
Conformity

Suburban
Fragmentation

Figure 2.3. Suburban fragmentation as the outcome of gated residential development

46

SOCIAL SPACE AND PHYSICAL SPACE

3.1 A Dialectic Relation
It is opportune here, in light of the above, to examine the interrelation between physical
space and social space. Gated communities are a recent emergent phenomenon that perhaps
prompts such an examination between the social and the physical.
An ontological understanding of space seems necessary to begin with. What is ‘space’?
Space is understood by many authors as a constitutive component of the social rather than merely
a container, a background, or what Soja (1980) calls, contextual space. This had been the
dominant view in geography in the 1970s (Massey, 1992). In other words, space is seen as a
reflection or mapping of the social; and spatial organization as a form of social construction.
Conversely, in the 1980s, the social was understood as constitutive of the spatial. In other words,
space has an active role and, in turn, shapes the social. That is, there is a dialectic, and
homologous, relation between the spatial and the social (Soja, 1980).
3.1.1 Soja
Soja (1980) roots the dynamics of this socio-spatial dialectic in the development of
capitalism from a competitive industrial capitalism to a monopoly capitalism. The socio-spatial
dialectic thus becomes a dynamic that parallels the shift from control over means of production
or means of consumption to the interweaving and coalescing of control over both production and
consumption; a dynamic that is behind the ‘expanded’, rather than simple, reproduction of
capitalism and propelled by the increasing role of finance capital. Uneven geographical
development at the regional as well as the urban scale is not merely an outcome of physical
differentiation of space but is maintained and actively constructed by capitalism in order to ensure
47

its survival. Put differently, spatial structure, for Soja, should not be subordinated to social space
but is, in effect, at par with the social, albeit not autonomous, in the reproduction of capitalist and
class relations, i.e. a socio-spatial division.
Later, Soja (2010) strongly advocated understanding space as a trialectic of historicality,
spatiality, and sociality. Evidently, Soja wants to include the dimension of time (historicality)
when examining the relation between physical space (spatiality) and social space (sociality). Soja
brings the social and the spatial on the same plane. Likewise, Massey (1992) argues for an
equivalence of the spatial and the temporal such that neither space nor time is subordinate to, or
pre-eminent to, the other; rather, the appropriate notion should be a coalescence, a ‘space-time’9.
Massey opposes Ernsto Laclau’s conceptualization of space as a stasis and of time as dislocation,
possibility, and freedom. For Massey, space carries within it the politics of power and thus she
opposes the de-politicization of space as stasis or background.
When using the term physical space or spatiality, the above-mentioned authors usually
mean spatial structure. The most widespread spatial structure manifested in cities is the coreperiphery structure and is assumed to be generated via a capitalist mode of production (Soja,
1980). The core-periphery structure, in turn, is viewed in dialectic relation with the social and
thus actively constructs it.
Walks (2013) views core-periphery as a process rather than a structure. Such a view offers
a better understanding of the active role of spatial structure. As Walks explains, referring to

9
Philosophers have debated the relation between space and time especially regarding pre-eminence of one
over the other, to even total negation of the other. For instance, for Bergson and Heidegger, time is being. For
Spinoza, there is a dialectic relation between space and time. For Pradine, and Ledrut, space is a dimension of time.
For Kant, Bachelard, Blondel, Neumann, Leibniz, and Cassirer, the relation between space and time is one of
emergence.

48

Lefebvre, urban space results from a first- and second-order synthesis that could manifest
similarly in the urban or the suburban. The first-order synthesis is a dialectic tension between
centrality and dispersion whereas the second-order synthesis is a dialectic tension between
difference and compartmentalization. This second-order dialectic is more pertinent in accounting
for the emergence of private residential enclaves which are relatively homogeneous compared to
the difference and heterogeneity of the urban core. Walks seeks to identify the underlying
conceptual processes that work along an urbanism-suburbanism axis that, at the same time, need
not lead to a singular association between suburbanism and the suburban or between urbanism
and the urban. Rather, the dialectic tension between such processes may manifest elements of
suburbanism in the urban or, alternatively, manifest elements of urbanism in the suburban.
3.1.2 Bourdieu
Bourdieu (1995: 12) defines social space as: “an invisible set of relationships which tends
to retranslate itself, in a more or less direct manner, into physical space in the form of a definite
distributional arrangement of agents and properties”.
At the most fundamental level, space, in a hierarchical society, is hierarchized and
expresses social hierarchies (Bourdieu, 1995). According to Bourdieu, social hierarchy is based
on two differentiating principles: economic capital and cultural capital. The sum total of both
forms of capital determine one’s position in social space. This social position is translated into a
space of “position takings” or stances by the mediation of the space of dispositions or habitus,
i.e. the choices made by social agents in their domains of practices. The domains of practices here
include the body: its moves and movements, its poses and postures. In other words, the body
inscribes within it the structures of social order; structures which, when ‘appropriated’ into
physical space, become incorporated structures and cognitive schemas, a symbolic language that
49

qualifies one’s entry or exit, inclusion or exclusion. Saarinen (1948: 125) had previously
expressed similar observations to Bourdieu’s as: “Every new mental experience sets its traces in
the bodily aspect […]. In this manner his outer aspect develops into an integrality of
characteristics which reflect his inner characteristics”. Low (2009: 28) extends Bourdieu’s notion
of body to the notion of ‘embodied space’. She argues that the ‘bodily experience’ or ‘embodied
reality’ of gating experienced by gated residents should be complemented by the discourse of
fear propagated by those same residents. For Low, this complementarity is the crux of explaining
GCs as a socio-spatial configuration.
Bourdieu’s amalgamation of both economic and cultural capital seems to resolve the ageold question of whether residential spatial distribution is a factor of economic competition or
social choice and cultural values (cf. Feldman & Tilly, 1960). The ‘economic competition’
approach normalizes all social agents to one pursuit and that is a competition for location
differentially valued from city centre to the periphery. The ability to pay determines one’s
physical location in space. The ‘social choice’ approach, on the other hand, differentiates between
social agents in terms of their education and cultural values in choosing the location of their
residence. The potency of Bourdieu’s contribution resides in amalgamating both approaches in
such a way that they are not mutually exclusive. For Bourdieu, ‘economic competition’ is one
filtering layer and ‘social values’ is a second filtering layer.
Bourdieu’s social differentiation parallels a physical differentiation whether by distance,
proximity or vicinity. For Bourdieu this differentiation is applicable at all scales in such a way
that large categorical differences, for example, suburbs versus downtown, are further divided into
smaller categorical differences like, for example, high-income versus low-income suburbs or
northern versus southern suburbs. When applied to gated enclaves, the social differentiation in
50

comparison to neighboring suburbs, by proximity rather than by distance, according to Bourdieu
would translate into a cultural symbolism that further sets apart the gated residents from nongated residents in various social contexts. Some caricaturists have illustrated this cultural
difference as depicting school children coming from gated enclaves as figuratively surrounded
by gates even on school campus. Low has alluded to one way in which kids raised in gated
enclaves would differ from other kids and that is by harvesting with time a ‘social paranoia’.
Bourdieu, definitely, was alluding to cultural difference rather than social fear. In other words,
kids coming from the gated enclaves would tend to socialize together while excluding other kids.
However, empirical research is needed to verify such a hypothesis on social exclusion in mixed
social contexts. One empirical research in that direction which examines social mix in a
neighbourhood and that applies aspects of Bourdieu’s theory of habitus is that by Watt (2009).
Watt refers to Savage et al.’s notion of ‘elective belonging’ to describe middle-class private
estate residents’ uneven spatial attachment and disaffiliated relationship to the proximal lowincome part of the residential development. Residents of the private suburb segregated
themselves symbolically and in their every day practices from 'local' people and places.
For Bourdieu, physical proximity would translate into less social difference (or more
social equality) than would be the case of increasing physical distance. Gated communities in
Latin America defy Bourdieu’s assumption about physical proximity where enclaves of affluence
are situated within, and proximal to, low-income areas. Thus, a sharp change in social status is
observed in Latin America rather than a gradient of social change contingent upon distance.
Evidently, the geographic pattern of poverty and affluence plays a role in gating.
Despite scholarly efforts to understand the dialectic relation between physical space and
social space, the nature of such relation remains ambiguous. Soja justifies the dialectic relation
51

through a homology between the physical and the social; a homology that depicts the dialectic
relation more as a correlation between the two rather than, for example, a dialectic relation of
possibility or a dialectic of opposition, or an assumption of lagging dynamics. Both the physical
and the social are assumed to be completely ‘malleable’, mutually shaping each other, while
explaining away any persistency or path dependency via the dynamic of an over-arching
capitalism. Paradoxically, the socio-spatial dialectic may even develop to a more disjointed
dynamic. Dear & Flusty (1998) extend the dynamic of global capitalism in producing a
postmodern urbanism where the physical is a mosaic, a keno capitalism urban structure, totally
disjointed from social structure.
3.1.3 Marcuse
In effect, the difference between the hyper-segregated ghetto, the exclusive suburb, the
totalizing suburb, and the citadel, as Marcuse (1997) posits, does not consist in manifest physical
boundaries such as walls, which may be implicit and effective through social patterns and legal
restrictions. The difference does not consist in the nature of the periphery but what is the ‘center’
of such areas of concentration, i.e. the social, economic and political relationship to power and
wealth.
The significance of Marcuse’s thesis is that it correlates the division of society into three
socio-economic classes with a physical expression of that division into three corresponding types
of residential urban developments. The stronger the divisions, the clearer the demarcations
between the residential developments even without using manifest physical boundaries. A study
by Hillier & Hulchanski (2010), The Three Cities within Toronto, confirms trends of the threepartite division of society and their spatial partitioning. Marcuse does not exclude social diversity

52

in these areas as long as the diversity, to use Bauman’s terms, is a hybrid diversity (i.e. aesthetic)
and not a balkanized diversity (i.e. tribal) (Bauman 2001b: 90 & 96).
It could be stated that walling for Marcuse, rather than simply acting as edge-defining
boundaries or borders, act effectively as thresholds. The difference between boundary and
threshold is explained by Boudon (2000: 149). A boundary is a separation between inside and
outside with possibility of creating vacuums around the border. A threshold, on the other hand,
is a division of inside and outside where the possibility of links between inside and outside is
present.
The distinction between boundary and threshold is perhaps one of the ways that could put
in a new light the malaise of some researchers, especially anthropologists, with gated
communities. For instance, researchers such as Roitman (2007) emphasized the social
segregation effects of walls as boundary in limiting social interaction between residents inside
and outside the gates except for functional interaction or symbiosis, i.e. providing work
opportunities. The social segregation that Roitman alludes to could well exist without physical
expression and access restriction by means of walls and gates. Perhaps the real malaise of
Roitman for such residential developments is walling that acts as an ‘insurmountable’ threshold
for low-income residents to inhabit or reside in such places.
3.2 Social Consequences of Gating
The social consequences of gating have been generally characterized as negative,
particularly in regards to raising issues of social injustice such as privatization of space,
estrangement, and segregation. Some authors have found positive social consequences of gating
particularly in regards to reducing the scale of segregation and promoting social interdependency
as a form of social integration as well as encouraging neighbourhood cohesion and maintaining
53

social capital. The following is a review of positive consequences of gating followed by a review
of negative consequences.
3.2.1 Social Capital
The concept of social capital has been the focus of policy and research interest since the
early 1990s. Social capital is becoming a key word on the policy agenda of urban regeneration
projects due to its appeal on two particular fronts: the first is a policy response to increasing social
polarization as the gap between rich and poor is ever more widening; the second is a policy
strategy towards sustainable community development. For urban planners, a better understanding
of social capital resides in linking social capital to space. Part of the difficulty in pinpointing and
defining social capital are ‘circular’ arguments that obfuscate its meaning (Smart, 2008).
Moreover, social capital has an ephemeral quality (Middleton et al., 2005) and is considered an
unintended consequence of social networks (Saegert, 2006).
Social capital can be simply conceived as a cumulative by-product of social interaction
and as a quality of social networks. As a cumulative by-product of social interaction, it lends
itself to the larger notions of social cohesion and social sustainability through the establishment
of trust10, common norms, support and reciprocity. For Dale (2005), social capital is not only a
cumulative by-product but also a necessary means of achieving reconciliation and sustainable
community development.
The literature, in general, tends to portray social capital as a positive gain for communities
in terms of the benefits achievable and facilitated through social capital such as social control,

Trust has been found to be controversial in the literature as the majority of authors, starting with Putnam,
consider it to be constitutive of social capital while other authors, trying to stem fluid conceptions of social capital,
see trust rather as an outcome of social capital - Dasgupta (2011).
10

54

economic growth, development of democracy, avoidance of violence as well as, recently,
physical and mental health (Poortinga, 2012). Mohan & Mohan (2002) summarize the usefulness
of social capital in three principal areas: explaining uneven development at various scales;
understanding the comparative performance of governments; and accounting for spatial
variations in health experience.
There may be a dark side to social capital. Smart & Hsu (2007) bring to light the sensitive
balance between social capital and corruption, especially that both rely on networks of trust and
obligation. They examine the concept of ‘guanxi’ in China, as a surrogate for social capital, and
find that the sensitive balance between social capital and corruption is highly contingent on
context and interpretation of others. Empirically, this dark side is manifested in the chaotic
development of gated communities in Pilar, Buenos Aires which according to Libertun de Duren
is the result of planning à-la-carte for developers’ needs in exchange for reciprocal favors to
public authorities. The outcome is an impressive economic development that is realized at the
expense of an increasingly dysfunctional municipality (Libertun de Duren, 2006: 322). The
power of the elite in transforming social, cultural and symbolic capital into economic capital and
political influence is expressed in Smart’s (2008) notion of ‘economy of practices’.
The contribution by Fernandez Kelly highlights the ‘toponomical’ character of social
capital as contingent upon physical location and characteristics (Haynes & Hernandez, 2008)
such that the debate on neighbourhood effects is reinstated11. Linking social capital to place was

11

Staber (2007) has highlighted the negligence of researchers to account for situational context as a factor
affecting social capital. Although Staber focused on regional business clusters, parallels can be drawn for residential
neighbourhoods. He points out five potential types of ‘context effects’ on social capital. These types are: restricted
variability, curvilinear relationships, changing signs, changing causal direction, crossing level of analysis. Analogous
types of context effects can be drawn for residential neighbourhoods. For example, Staber’s ‘restricted variability’
involves taking into consideration the temporal dimension of social capital. Thus, social capital should be

55

undertaken by Romig (2010). He argues that a higher sense of place is a pre-condition for forming
a higher sense of community which is realized through the building of social capital, mostly
bonding social capital. Interestingly, the sense of place alluded to by Romig refers more to the
social environment rather than the physical landscape. The gated master-planned communities
he studied were located in Phoenix where the landscape is generally plain. Residents have chosen
to move into the gated communities looking more for a sense of community rather than prestige.
According to Sampson & Graif (2009: 1597), the link between social capital and place
has been found to correlate with spatially proximal neighbourhoods. Thus, neighbourhoods that
are structurally equivalent, from a social organization perspective, are found to be also
geographically proximate. Nevertheless, the role of social capital in being a reason behind or
consequence of, clustering phenomena is still vague (Staber, 2007).
GCs and private residential developments have been hypothesized to enhance the social
capital of their residents. The enhancement to social capital is hypothesized to be achieved via
cognitive and structural aspects of social capital (Grootaert & van Bastelaer, 2002: 343). This
brings the concept of social capital close to that of cohesion. The cognitive aspect is concerned
with intangible qualities such as common norms and values while the structural aspect is
concerned with the physical presence of formal institutions and formal laws.

differentiated according to stages of its infancy and maturity. Also, ‘curvilinear relationships’ involve achieving a
balanced ‘mix’ between the three dimensions of social capital: bonding, bridging and linking depending upon the
size of the neighbourhood. Likewise, Staber’s ‘changing signs’ considers each neighbourhood unique in determining
which neighbourhood effect affects social capital the most in each case. Meanwhile, ‘changing causal direction’
involves avoiding symmetrical causation between neighbourhood effects and social capital; in other words, avoid
assuming that a decrease in social capital should be associated with a decrease in the corresponding neighbourhood
effect. Finally, ‘crossing level of analysis’ recognizes that it is easier to change the cognitive aspect rather than the
structural aspect of social capital.

56

Williams & Pocock’s (2010) research of two case studies in South Australia and Victoria
show that gated master-planned residential estates (MPREs) contribute to building social capital
through familiarity, availability and social bridging which affect residents’ well-being and their
capacity to participate in private and public life. Alvarez-Rivadulla’s (2007) thesis is that GCs in
Montevideo, Uruguay, similar to gentrification as defined by Butler & Robson, are an instrument
of class reproduction, a way to cope with the uncertainty, and a way to maintain and improve
cultural, economic and social capital. Alvarez-Rivadulla’s thesis is also empirically more clearly
evidenced in the GC of Kemer Country, Istanbul where prospective residents undergo a strict
application process to be accepted as resident within the GC (Geniş, 2007: 784). This application
process probes for, in addition to educational and occupational background, a level of cultural
and social capital commensurate with the orientation and lifestyle of the GC residents in an
attempt to preserve the quality of the place. Access to reside within the GC is facilitated by
referrals from friends or co-workers living within the GC. As Geniş notes, this strategy became
widely used in other upper-class GCs in Istanbul. The importance of Bourdieu’s economic and
cultural capital are being reinstated.
Interestingly, GCs have also been hypothesized to decrease one of social capital’s main
dimensions, namely, civic engagement. The decrease in civic engagement and responsibility is
argued to result from the creation of alternative realties within the gates (Lemanski & Oldfield,
2009) in such a manner that gated residents experience “a weightless urban experience”
(Atkinson & Blandy, 2005: 180). The ‘weightlessness’ is all the more appealing for residents of
those GCs that are well-connected to city centres via freeways; thus, benefiting from services
located within city centres while at the same time not carrying the weight of negative urban
conditions (Irazábal, 2006). An equivalent term to ‘alternative realities’ used in the literature,
57

albeit with connotations of an element of the local, is ‘spatial heteronomy’ (Monterescu, 2009).
In other words, GCs achieve the difficult balance between being localized and being globalized;
between sensitivity to local context and extensity of global and utopian symbolization.
In other words, by fortifying behind gates, gated residents are not only physically
separating from the rest of the city but also civically separating in terms of partial fiscal autonomy
of the gated affluent. This has led some researchers of the phenomena of GCs to refer to residents
outside the gates as those who would qualify as ‘real citizens’. This adds another layer to the shift
from ‘citizen’ to ‘consumer’ alluded to by Nissen (2008) when discussing consequences of
privatization of space.
Although the neighbourhoods studied by Sampson & Graif (2009) were not qualified as
gated, their research establishes a link between neighbourhood social capital and the type of
neighbourhood social organization. They propose a typology differentiating neighbourhoods
according to four dimensions of social capital. If this typology is applied to the case of gated
communities, the Cosmopolitan Efficacy Cluster would best categorize these communities.
What is distinctive about communities in this cluster is their high collective efficacy, or strong
shared expectations, but low local networks. The positional contacts by elites in these
communities result in high level of linking social capital (i.e. vertical networks as defined by
Forrest & Kearns, 2001).
3.2.2 Neighbourhood Cohesion
Buckner (1988) conceptualizes neighbourhood cohesion as a collective-level attribute,
equivalent to ‘sense of community’, which has three dimensions: psychological sense of
community PSOC, place-attachment, and social interaction / neighboring. Some authors, unlike
Buckner, conceptualize neighbourhood cohesion and sense of community SOC as having
58

different meanings. According to Wilson-Doenges (2000), sense of community is simply defined
as social interaction and networks which are not contingent upon the geographical place of a
neighbourhood. In her research paper, she qualifies SOC as “sense of community within the
gates”, a qualification which brings the term SOC closer to local social interaction rather than
social networks non-contingent on geographical place.
On the other hand, Talen (2000: 174), like Buckner, conceptualizes sense of community
as equivalent to neighbourhood cohesion and not merely restricted to social interaction. In
conceptualizing sense of community, she reduces the three dimensions of neighbourhood
cohesion to two: affective forms of community, encompassing PSOC and sense of place; and
interactive forms of community, encompassing social interaction. Social interaction, for Talen,
in turn, encompasses social networks and emotional support.
Callies et al. (2003: 183) observe that the term ‘sense of community’ is borrowed from
the field of community psychology and is defined as: “the feeling an individual has about
belonging to a group and involves the strength of the attachment people feel for their communities
or neighbourhoods.” The use of the term ‘sense of community’ in this research will be used in
the sense provided by Talen as well as Callies et al. and is assumed to be equivalent to
neighbourhood cohesion; with the qualification that the two dimensions of sense of community
are equivalent to the three dimensions of neighbourhood cohesion.
Sense of community seems to have evaded suburban neighbourhoods or, at least, is no
longer a natural outcome of daily life but must be consciously produced and maintained (Callies
et al., 2003). Gated communities are generally advertised to fill the gap of an increasingly absent
sense of community and the term “gated community” has become widely used in the literature.
The extent to which gated communities actually fulfil this need for sense of community is very
59

low as shown in empirical studies throughout the literature. Nevertheless, as Le Goix (2006)
emphasizes, gating of a residential development defines a common territory imbued with shared
values and identities as well as participates in the creation and ‘protection’ of a sense of
community for the gated residents.
A pilot study by Blandy & Lister (2005: 293) show that expectations of neighborliness
was high but only around half of the respondents moving into the GC were seeking a sense of
community. The majority anticipated a low level of informal association with neighbors. The
important role of leisure facilities was highlighted as a factor in contributing to a sense of
community among residents. Another factor that is theoretically assumed to increase sense of
community of residents is self-management and social control of the neighbourhood legalized by
the role of the HOA. Such an assumption is based on residents’ participation as well as norms for
standard behavior for ensuring uniformity of appearance and conformity of the residents.
Regaining a sense of belonging, over and above the physical decay and pollution, within the
urban environment is one of the reasons for residents seeking to live within GCs (Geniş, 2007:
784).
Given that this research examines the relation between gated-ness and neighbourhood
cohesion, it may be fruitful to examine the concept of neighbourhood cohesion from the vantage
point of commodification of community.
3.2.2.1 Commodification of Community
Since 1990s, people are being sold community as lifestyle, prestige and security, in the
case of gated communities, as well as nostalgia, in the case of new urbanism (Grant, 2005: 46).
The ‘social quality’ and ‘purchase power’ of those who buy into such communities are prime
commercial targets in addition to their sensitivity to ‘aestheticization strategies’ (Raposo, 2006:
60

51). Gated communities seeks to create community through the homogeneity and commonality
of their residents while New Urbanism seem to create community though architectural character
and housing diversity (Grant, 2007: 493).
The premise underlying the construction of these types of communities is that of a
physical determinism in shaping ‘community’ (Talen, 2000). The physical emphasis of lifestyle
communities is on amenities such as golf courses and leisure amenities. The physical emphasis
of prestige communities is aesthetics of the built environment and landscape. The physical
emphasis of security communities are the walls and gates. Finally, the physical emphasis of neotraditional neighbourhoods is architectural style and urban form.
Talen (2000: 178) argues against the stress of planners on physical determinism as a way
to create and sustain community; planning such physically-contingent communities if ever
successful will promote social homogeneity and exclusion. In addition, she argues, even if the
physical environment enables and encourages social interaction, such effects do not necessarily
extend deep to forming a sense of community, in the sense of long-term social networks.
What the types of gated communities and neo-traditional neighbourhoods succeeded in
doing is commodifying and selling community as a ‘product’ not as a ‘process’ (Rosenblatt,
2005). What are the implications of commodification on neighbourhood cohesion within such
neighbourhoods? Distilling product from process, to quote Rosenblatt (2005: 7), “engenders a
particular ‘commodified world view’ which impacts on the way we interact with and consider
others.”
For example, other people might be ‘objectified’ within the sold ‘packaged community’.
Another example is that residents within such neighbourhoods may not participate in, and even
withdraw from, a community-building process (Rosenblatt, 2005), especially that they consider
61

themselves buying into a ready-made community with no further obligations except financial
ones. In short, ‘the social’ is purged. The paradox here is residents ‘buying into’ community, or
rather ‘buying’ community, while at the same time not becoming, or wanting to become, part of
that community.
This paradox is resolved by Bauman’s (2003: 11) explanation that seeking a ‘community
of similarity’ not only signifies withdrawal from ‘the otherness outside’ but also from the
‘turbulent’ interaction inside. He refers to Richard Sennett to describe such double withdrawal as
an avoidance mechanism against looking deeper into the other and the associated effort of
negotiating and understanding the other. The paradox is also resolved in another way by
Bauman’s (1998: 20) notion of ‘non-neighbourhood’ condition, i.e. ‘immunity from local
interference’. In other words, commodifying community renders community an object of
observation not participation.
As a commodified object of observation, sense of community, particularly, neighbourly
social interaction is reduced to an encounter between ‘surfaces’ (Bauman, 2001a: 147), i.e. an
encounter not deep enough to create an interactive form of community. The nature of such a
community is best captured by Benedict Anderson’s notion of ‘imagined communities’ where
people may feel part of a community not contingent upon fact-to-face interaction (Rosenblatt,
2009: 131). Other dimensions of neighbourhood cohesion come to the fore like affective forms
of attachment to place and sense of belonging. This should not, however, preclude the fact that
some residents have enlarged their social capital by using “the commodified community form as
a starting point for enlivened community participation” (Rosenblatt, 2005: 12).
The findings of a study by Rosenblatt et al. (2009) of a Master-planned Community in
Australia confirm that affective dimensions of sense of community rather than interactive
62

dimensions are those that are fostered by such types of commodified communities. Thus, in one
way (affective), commodification of community contributes to neighbourhood cohesion but, in
another way (interactive), does not.
An important idea, though, that Rosenblatt brings forward, following Appadurai and the
idea of ambivalence of the commodity form of community, is the tension generated between
those two aspects of sense of community (affective and interactive) in terms of the impact of the
commodification of community. Rosenblatt suggests that such ‘affective-interactive’ tension may
impede the emergence of meaningful social interactions (Rosenblatt, 2005).
However, the reverse may also be suggested; that affective forms of community may
eventually lead to interactive forms and vice versa. The literature corroborates such two-way
linkages between the dimensions of sense of community as defined by Buckner. For example,
Dekker & Bolt (2005) confirm the dialectic relation between attraction-to-neighbourhood and
neighbourly social interaction. Factors positively affecting the former are: length of residence
within the neighbourhood, age, and tenure / ownership (Lewicka, 2010); Hipp & Perrin (2006)
add neighbourhood stability to the above factors. Rosenblatt, of course, is aware of such
literature. What Rosenblatt wants to emphasize is a classification of residents into separate
categories which do not eventually merge or lead to a larger sense of community that
encompasses both groups.
Wilson-Doenges (2000) suggests that there is a difference between the sense of
community in gated communities based on income level when compared with an equivalent nongated community. Her findings indicate that low-income gated communities did not differ from
non-gated low-income neighbourhoods whereas high-income gated communities had a lower
sense of community than equivalent non-gated neighbourhoods.
63

Wilson-Doenges argues that a territorial bulwarking approach increased the sense of
safety but decreased the sense of community for high-income gated residents because of the lack
of social responsibility towards territorial functioning and natural surveillance by gated residents.
Meanwhile, gating had no evident benefit for low-income communities whether in regards to
sense of safety or sense of community. Her research highlights the importance of socio-economic
context when studying the effects of gating.
3.2.3 Social injustice
Social justice is undermined by private ownership of space and the associated privileges
of property rights that limit and constrain available physical public space within the city. Social
justice here is undermined by the difficulty of reaching space or appropriating the use of space.
Soja (2010: 44) describes the commodification of space into privately owned property as an
“under-layer of a thick sedimentation of bounded spaces” that forms a “web of spatial injustice”.
Social injustice is not uniquely attributed to gated residential developments but has also
characterized the suburban. Referring to Lefebvre, Walks (2013) observes that suburban physical
form, devoid of centralized hierarchy, gives the appearance of democratic equality but is actually
an instrument of socio-spatial injustice. Gated residential developments are observed to
consolidate and reinforce socio-spatial injustice by means of a more explicit physical expression.
Atkinson & Blandy (2005) imply that the residential choices of the affluent, through spatial
segregation, impacts negatively and indirectly on prospects and personal development of the
poor.
Most undermining to social justice, is the uneven ‘time-space compression’ (Harvey’s
term) between those inside and those outside enclosed privatized spaces. For the privileged on
the inside, opportunities, mobility and access have augmented to new heights while for the
64

impoverished, marginalized and unemployed on the outside, structural oppression, decreased
mobility, and narrowness of life chances (Merrifield & Swyngedouw, 1997) creates for them
what may be called a ‘time-space rarefaction’. Put differently, as Bauman (1998: 88) remarks,
residents on the inside live in time, while residents on the outside live in space - a ‘confined’
space that Clemmer would include in his term of ‘prisonization’ (Bauman, 1998: 126).
It is “the right to individuality that is being increasingly polarized” (Bauman, 2001a: 96).
What Bauman means is that there is a “growing gap between the conditions of individuals de jure
and their chances to become individuals de facto” (2000: 39) – a gap that, by privatization of
space, has emerged and widened between individuality as fate and individuality as a capacity for
self-assertion; a gap that cannot be overcome by individual efforts alone.
A modern subjectivity incompatible with principles of social justice is doubly reflected
in privatized residential spaces. In one way, a modern subjectivity through categorizing deviant
others and reinforcing the identity of western man – i.e. a dualism between self and the other as
opposed to a relational identity; in another way, a spatialization of inclusion and exclusion as
binary opposites to demarcate who is ‘in-place’ and who is ‘out-of-place’ (Popke, 2003: 302).
Another way by which social injustice may be wrought by gated communities is through
the gradual secession of the elite from society and from both their fiscal and social responsibility.
It is argued that such a secession would affect the social welfare for the poor and disadvantaged
both directly and indirectly. Directly, by a decrease in their tax contributions that go towards
maintenance of disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Indirectly, by the gradual “concentration and
residualization” of those outside the gates (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005: 180).

65

The following figure summarizes the social injustice effects of gating:

Private
ownership of
space

• availability of space
• accessibility to space
• a ‘web of spatial
injustice’

• opportunities

• ‘border-vacuums’

• self-assertion

• mobility
• access

Compartment • prevents overlays of
difference
alization

Exclusion

Separation

facto

• individual de

• categorizing

• ‘archetypal’ users
• constrained uses

deviant others
• ‘binarization’

• ‘bounded space’
• insulation
• cultural estrangement

• Space as neither
public or private
• Consumers vs. citizens

Uneven
time-space
compression
The right to
individuality

Modern
subjectivity

Hybrid
Spaces

Figure 3.1. Social injustice effects of gating
3.2.4 Privatization of space
A general criticism of gated communities involves their creation of environments that are
non-conducive to democracy (Caldeira, 1996: 325) and their de-intensification of urban space
(Brook et al., 1999; McLaughlin & Muncie, 1999: 108) as well as contributing to social
fragmentation and diminution of civic life (Putnam, 2000). The kernel of such general criticisms
that have been readily accepted in the scientific community resides in the loss of public space
that was idealized as a space of democracy, intensification, and civic life. The controversy over
public/private is epitomized in the case of gated communities, or ‘hated communities’ as some
critics would call them (Kirby, 2008: 83).

66

Some authors have toned-down such criticisms by questioning the validity of the kernel;
that is, questioning the extent to which public space had in fact been a space of democracy,
intensification, and civic life. Some researchers argue that public space in the true sense of the
word public never existed (Gaffikin et al., 2010: 498). For Irazábal (2006), the notion of public
space is losing its value in an increasingly blurring relation to sustaining the ideal of universal
rights and equality. As another instance, Kirby (2008) observes that the dichotomy between
public and private is not simple but complex. Kirby argues that privatizing the city does not
necessarily lead to diminishing social life and social relations.
In line with Kirby’s observation on the complexity of the public-private dichotomy, gated
private communities have been typified by Chiodelli & Moroni (2013), who expand the publicprivate dichotomy to a typology of six types of spaces where absolute public or absolute private
only exist theoretically, as complex private spaces due to the contractual substructure binding the
community members of such residential developments.
Moreover, the privatization of space, in a general sense, may lead to a conceptualization
of space that is not easily subsumed as either public or private but conceptualized as a space of
‘hybrid’ character that changes the notion of residents from citizens to consumers as citizenship
itself becomes increasingly privatized (Nissen, 2008).
3.2.4.1 ‘Ex-closure’
The concept of ‘new enclosures’ introduced by Hodkinson (2012) captures two important
effects of privatization of space that affect those on the other side of the privatized space: the first
is an act of dispossession from material / immaterial possessions such as land, home, access to
services and affordable housing, or knowledge. The second is an act of ‘ex-closure’ effected by
a process of capitalist subjectification that submits people and space to the logic of
67

commodification and market competition of neoliberalism. The expected result of such ‘exclosure’ is the differential quality of life experienced by residents within a metropolis depending
on which urban fragment one has access to (Coy & Pöhler, 2002).
3.2.4.2 Power hierarchy and the creation of ‘colonized spaces’
For Marcuse (2010), walled residential enclosures reflect hierarchies of class power and
divisions among people. Marcuse observes that local governments act as accomplices in
furthering the goal of the upper-class private sector. This is achieved through what Marcuse calls
spatial coercion, i.e. attaching a dimension of power to planning policies of restrictive zoning,
suburbanization, gentrification, transportation and housing policy as well as environmental
practices. In line with Marcuse’s observation, Caldeira (1996: 317) argues that gated enclaves
have used and adapted modernist planning instruments in order to eradicate public space and the
“universal rational city” created by modernism. Irazábal (2006: 80) expounds Caldeira’s
argument in Curitiba to argue that this modernist subversion of the rational city, a rationalism
that was criticized for perpetuating social alienation, has been paradoxically used to promote
sense of community and sense of belonging by re-appropriating modern instruments and making
them appealing to higher-income classes.
The outcome of such spatial coercion, according to Halperin, is the creation of a new form
of power: a power that while appearing to retreat has, in effect, expanded and become diffuse
(Kirby, 2008). It appears to retreat through deregulation of local government and has, in effect,
expanded through self-regulation and micro-governance of private residential spaces by means
of formal Home Owner Associations (HOAs). This shift follows what is expressed by Deleuze
& Guattari as a shift from disciplinary societies to societies of control (Urry, 2002: 267), or, to

68

use Bauman’s (2000: 11) term, representing a similar shift from a panopticon society to a postpanopticon one.
The result is the creation of a new type of residential space that may be expressed by what
Foucault has termed ‘colonized spaces’. The social mix within such colonized spaces is
determined by social class rather than by ethnicity (Kirby, 2008: 84 & 85). Thus, as Marcuse
pointed out, hierarchies of class power are reinforced by means of residential enclosures. It should
be stated that strategies of spatial coercion increasingly produced a complexly structured space
that, in order to be effective as a coercive instrument, had to be mingled with social inequality.
The cumulative outcome of spatial coercion is a type of social exclusion that Hilary Silver would
categorize under the paradigm of a dominating exclusion (cf. Hargie et al., 2011: 875).
3.2.4.3 Insulation and Estrangement
As Bickford (2000: 361) posits, “gates … actively construct the relations of separation”,
i.e. placing the Other out of sight; using Claude Lévi-Strauss’ terminology, an ‘emic’ strategy of
spatial separation and selective access / barring (Bauman, 2000: 101). Caldeira’s (1996) work
shows how GCs in Sao Paulo, Brazil symbolize status and are instruments of social separation
that transformed Sao Paulo into a “a city of walls”. It can be argued that this separation gradually
leads with the passage of time to ‘insulation’ within a ‘bounded space’ in such a way that the
separated Other ceases to become a fellow citizen with equal rights. Equally important is the
gradual cultural estrangement (Bauman, 1998 :106) of the Other in terms of developing different
symbols and language, hindering future communication as each belongs to a different ‘life
world’. Bauman (2003: 113) expresses such a situation better: “Social homogeneity of space,
emphasized and fortified by spatial segregation, lowers in its residents their tolerance to
difference and so multiplies the occasions for mixophobic reactions, making city life look more
69

‘risk-prone’ and so more agonizing[…]”. The cumulative outcome of such cultural estrangement
is a type of social exclusion that Hilary Silver would categorize under the paradigm of a
discriminating exclusion (cf. Hargie et al., 2011: 875).
The type of toleration to the different Other and whether the Other is included in the first
place depends on the type of space, based on a typology of public-private ownership and
management (Chiodelli & Moroni, 2013). Enclosing space with borders encourages
compartmentalization (Alexander, 1965), prevents overlapping (cf. Jane Jacobs), and creates,
using Weiher’s term, “border vacuums” which prevent “overlays of difference” (Bickford, 2000).
An expected and logical outcome of insulation and estrangement of the other is, as Low (2001)
points out, a fear of the other, propagated by a discourse of fear and a pathological fear of others.
Setha Low links that discourse of fear to a sense of a loss of place and class separation.
The postmodern condition, or, to use Bauman’s term, the liquid modernity, of our times
articulates such a sense of loss of place and identity as well as class separation that Low alludes
to. A metaphor for such a condition is “the labyrinth” (Bauman, 2000: 138), an artificial
complexity which stratifies people according to their degree of mobility. Those who know the
laws of the labyrinth and master the art of labyrinthine living are at the top of the social pyramid
while the majority are left to navigate the obscurity of the labyrinth. Thus, a filtering process
articulates one’s ‘positionality’ (Harvey, 1992) along the social pyramid and leads to an increased
divide vis-à-vis the otherness of the other.
Bauman’s use of the labyrinth metaphor may seem to be incongruent with the condition
of ‘liquefaction’ he is advancing: that of constant precariousness and instability. Posing this
otherwise, how is an individual’s freedom to choose and act embedded within a rigid complex
structure of the labyrinth? Perhaps a more congruent metaphor would have been the metaphor of
70

“the reticulum” by Kavanough (2007) – impermanent constructions / assemblages of
heterogeneous elements. Bauman (2000: 5) clearly emphasizes that complex societies have
become very rigid as a result of intertwining the freedoms of the subsystems and agents through
deregulation, flexibility and liberalization in such a way that, paradoxically, the system (overall
order) and agents are disengaged and by-pass each other.
This by-passed system is captured in Swyngedouw’s (2009) notion of the ‘post-political
condition’, a political condition that forecloses the political; a condition where neoliberal
capitalism is accepted consensually as an inevitable economic system. Urban problems are not
cast as problems of the ‘system’ or of uneven power relations but are dealt with in a managerial
mode of governance. A post-political populism and a post-democratic condition emerges that
uses a universal language (e.g. ‘the creative city’, the sustainable city’, ‘the green city’) rather
than addressing particular claims of social groups or classes.
The following figure summarizes some effects of residential privatization.

'dispossesion'

'bounded space'
• Bickford, 2000

INSIDE

OUTSIDE

• Hodkinson, 2012

'exclosure'

'social paranoia'

• Hodkinson, 2012

• Low, 2001

'territoriality'
• Wilson-Doenges, 2000

'class power'
• Marcuse, 2010

'moral spatial order'
•Pow, 2009

Figure 3.2. The effects of residential privatization

71

3.2.5 Social Segregation
CIDs, of which gated communities are one type, are a form of privatization that “promotes
segregation different in kind and degree from that produced by simple suburbanization.”
(McKenzie, 1994: 26) This view is corroborated by Blakely & Snyder (1997a) who view GCs
as part of a deeper process of social transformation. Evan McKenzie (1994: 12) has framed CIDs
as privatopias, a deformation of Ebenezer Howard’s garden city ideal due to American
privatism. His argument is that American CIDs focus on the physical plan while dismissing social
and economic aspects of community structure within those developments.
There is a controversy among researchers on whether or not GCs promote or reinforce
patterns of social segregation. Segregation and gated communities have been linked in the
literature and considered by many researchers to be synonymous. However, empirical evidence
corroborating this link is scarce (Vesselinov, 2012). Moreover, the link between segregation and
gated communities has been mainly investigated in terms of social segregation rather than
residential segregation (Roitman & Phelps, 2011). Erkip (2010) who compares two high-income
districts in Ankara, Turkey, one of which is gated, reveals residents’ desires to exclude and
segregate others.
On the other hand, Sabatini et al. (2001) argue that existing research on social segregation
and GCs tends to be biased by the hypothesis that globalization produces social inequalities which
then take physical form through gating. They also argue that previous research has poorly
conceptualized social segregation and equated it with urban inequality. They differentiate
between ‘geographical segregation’ and ‘sociological segregation’ in order to point out that
spatial segregation is weaker in the case of more clearly defined social identities. In their study
of two poor neighbourhoods in each of three Chilean cities, they find that segregation is
72

exacerbated at a regional scale while, at the same time, the scale of segregation is reduced within
poor neighbourhoods as they benefit from their proximity to affluent GCs.
Similar results were found by Roitman (2007) in studying a gated community called
Palmares in Mendoza, Argentina. In proposing a framework for GCs with respect to the microscale of urban social group segregation, Roitman distinguishes between intended segregation and
unintended segregation according to the viewpoints (perceptions) each group has of the other as
well as to the interaction resulting from social practices which, for GCs, she identifies the
following social practices: access to GC; use of services and infrastructure inside / outside a GC;
working inside a GC; and institutional communication (which involves the role of residents’
association). For the empirical case study of Palmares, she focused on the social practice of use
of services and infrastructure and found that the services surrounding the gated community as
well as the use of a shopping mall and shops built mainly for GC residents but located outside
the GC were used by residents inside and outside the gates. The research suggests that the
presence of the GC has raised the quality of services and infrastructure to the benefit of those
outside the gates except for a surrounding slum area whose residents could not afford the use of
services.
GCs are usually being perceived as the secession of the elite from public life. However,
the recent research by Andreotti et al. (2012) shows that although the upper-middle class in the
cities of Milan, Paris and Madrid have outset homophily in their residential preferences and
frequent social relations, they also play a ‘game of distance and proximity’ in their selective
anchoring, local embedded-ness, and ‘partial exit’ strategies in relation to other social groups and
in regards to their presence in the public sphere. Anfreotti et al.’s research suggests that rather
than associating GCs with an extreme form of secession, the residents of such residential
73

developments should be located on a continuum ranging from total immersion in society to
complete dissociation and isolation.
The selective immersion of gated residents is also corroborated by the research of Swearer
(2008). Swearer argues that perceptions of private and public depend on the person and that such
perceptions constitute elements of a personal balance between, what he terms, quietude and
mobility. Gated residents should not be considered as isolationists but should be understood in
the totality of their lived experiences.
This echoes with, and confirms, Brunn’s (2006) pondering of possibilities for gated
residents without gated lives or gated minds. In a way, Brunn would have read Swearer’s thesis
outside-in rather than inside-out. Brunn expands the discussion on gated communities to include
residents outside gates who live gated lives or have gated minds. In other words, Brunn shifts
the focus from a problematic of gated communities to the wider functioning of society that
according to Brunn is replete with psychological, and lived, gated-ness not necessarily confined
to, or attributed exclusively to, gated residents. It is suggested that this shift constitutes an
indirect, albeit entrenching, way of dealing with physical gating as an epi-phenomenon. Similar
observations are drawn by Roitman & Phelps (2009) who, referring to Webster, view GCs as one
element among several other ways by which segregation and fragmentation are maintained,
perhaps more effectively, such as through labor, housing and financial markets.
3.2.6 Income Segregation
Alaily-Mattar (2008) study suggests that GCs compress and package the segregated
spatiality of affluence. Key authors specifically studying the link between GCs and residential
segregation are Elena Vesselinov, Renaud Le Goix and Francisco Sabatini who have drawn on
the five-dimensional segregation indices developed by Massey and Denton (1988). When
74

studying GC-residential segregation, GCs have been reduced to a phenomenon of gating without
particular attention to housing characteristics (except for tenure) within the gates as compared to
outside the gates. This is a gap in the literature that has been intentionally left uncovered by
researchers as GCs are assumed, by Le Goix, Vesselinov and others, as not being internally
different from a conventional residential development except by the added feature of being gated.
The research by Vesselinov (2012) is the first study to situate gated communities within
the context of three theoretical models in the field of urban sociology: place stratification, spatial
assimilation, and ethnic community model. In order to do that, Vesselinov had to conceptually
frame GCs as a different category, and as a separate urban process, than private neighbourhoods
by virtue of having a gated enclosure which denies access to the public. She specifically looks
into the mechanism of selection by minorities, especially Latinos, to live within a GC. She sees
an apparent correlation between the rise of Latino immigrants in the Southwest of the U.S. and
the rise of GCs there. Her findings indicate that Latinos are not inhibited in accessing GCs (place
stratification not applicable); spatial assimilation more readily occurs for Latino owners of higher
socioeconomic status; and, Latinos are not more likely than Whites to gate but Latinos with higher
education are more likely to gate, some in gated ethnic communities, than comparable Whites.
She concludes that there is partial support for all three models (place stratification still being
applicable in the case of Hispanics and Blacks). Vesselinov’s research suggests that Latinos are
increasingly living behind gates and that this indicates their spatial assimilation (Vesselinov,
2012: 446). Vesselinov argues, nevertheless, that this assimilation does not necessarily translate
to decreased residential segregation due to the relative racial homogeneity of, and price premium
for, gated communities compared to non-gated private neighbourhoods.

75

In a previous study, Vesselinov (2008) sees gating and segregation as sharing common
mechanisms of: fear of crime, fear of heterogeneity, and pursuit of high property values. She thus
infers that gating most likely reinforces segregation. Vesselinov conceptualizes gating and
segregation as belonging to the process of urban inequality with gating offering the advantage of
segregating without the need for residents to move to outer urban rings. The counter-evidence
that she deals with is the fact that GCs are becoming more diversified in terms of tenure, race,
and class (based on American Housing Survey 2001) as well as the fact that GCs are spreading
in areas with low levels of segregation in the U.S. The case is not clearly made by Vesselinov as
her argument oscillates between White gating due to fear of heterogeneity (Low’s hypothesis)
and Latino gating as being accustomed to this form of residence before immigrating to the U.S.
In contradiction to Vesselinov’s argument concerning the racial segregation effect of
GCs, Le Goix’s (2005) research on the relation between GCs and residential segregation in
southern California suggests, using the notion of discontinuity, that rather than being
differentiated from their surrounding by race or ethnicity, GCs are income- and age-segregated.
This segregation is at a local scope but, at a larger scope, gates contribute to the spatial integration
of social territories. His hypothesis is that GCs locate in ethnic buffer zones, a location
intentionally chosen by developers in order to avoid issues usually related to ethnic diversity such
as crime (Le Goix, 2005: 337). He concludes that GCs do not increase segregation in themselves
but belong to a larger process of urban space production, a ‘gating’ machine, by public-private
partnerships; increasing property taxes reaped by governments and increasing profit for
developers.
Assessing the link between GCs and residential segregation depends on how GCs are
conceptualized. Joint research by Le Goix & Vesselinov (2012) poses the important question of
76

whether GCs are a new form of suburban community, with the intention of drawing parallels
between GCs and the original suburban movement for White segregation. Their thesis is that GCs
are driven by the same intention for segregation in the face of increasing diversification of
suburbs and inclusion of Blacks. Suburbs are also evidencing many problems and pathologies of
city centres (Blakely & Snyder, 1997b). Le Goix & Vesselinov’s findings for Phoenix, Las
Vegas, and Seattle, indicate that gated residents are older in age; consist of a higher proportion
of married couples, a lower proportion of singles, and higher education levels; and are more
affluent than non-gated residents for all three metropolitan areas. From a racial segregation point
of view, all three areas show levels of segregation that resemble the traditional division between
centre city and suburbs.
A type that Le Goix & Vesselinov find as rarely being the case is the location of GCs in
low-priced homogeneous areas. This finding is contrary to the abundance of cases found in Latin
American cities. GCs in Latin America, especially those at the periphery, are generally located
within low-income areas. The explanation for locating within low-income areas is given by
Libertun de Duren (2006). She argues that the decentralization of planning controls led to
different responses between well-serviced and poor municipalities towards GCs. The former,
well-serviced municipalities, perceived GCs as a threat and competition to their services while
the latter poorer municipalities perceived GCs as an opportunity to enhance economic activity
and the level of services within their municipality.
Sabatini, Cáceres, & Cerda`s (2001) argument is that this location reduces the scale of
residential segregation and encourages functional integration between rich and poor as well as
impeding ghetto-formation within surrounding poor areas (Sabatini & Salcedo, 2007). Studying
GCs in Santiago, Chile, Sabatini & Salcedo (2007) point to the dispersion of the rich from city
77

centres into residentially segregated enclaves as a reflection of economic globalization and
increase in inequality that reinforces residential segregation – an argument Sabatini has labelled
the “mirror effect”. They challenge arguments that see the dispersion of the elites as a sectoral
geographic expansion by arguing that the expansion has leap-frogged and is discontinuous. In
addition, other Latin American cities have dispersed residential enclaves of the elites which
cannot be seen as sectoral growth. Another argument that they challenge is the hypothesis that
the presence of elite enclaves within low-income areas will eventually lead to the relocation of
the poor as land prices surrounding the GC increase – i.e. similar to a gentrification process.
Sabatini & Salcedo do not see this happening in the near future due to title deeds that have been
distributed to families in low-income areas.
3.3 How is Gating Changing?
Several theses have been advanced in the literature on how gating has changed.
3.3.1 Ethnic to Class Segregation to Heterogeneity
A first empirical study to assess the relative diversity of planned unit developments
(PUDs), of which GCs are a special type, and their contribution to metropolitan area segregation
is that by Gordon (2004). The findings of the study indicate that PUDs are ethnically more
homogeneous and income-wise more diverse (with respect to middle and high income) than other
neighbourhoods in the U.S. However, they do not contribute to metropolitan-wide segregation.
Private communities, in general, have manifested a shift from racial or ethnic segregation
to more class-based segregation. This observation is corroborated by the research of Le Goix
when studying the segregation effects of gated private residential developments. The explanation
of this shift stems from correlating the emergence of private communities with the rise of an
economically powerful segment of the middle-class (Kenna & Dunn, 2009).
78

However, class has given way to diversity and heterogeneity by the inclusion of renters.
According to AHS 2001, renters are almost 2.5 times more likely to live in gated communities
(Sanchez et al., 2005: 285). Empirical research shows that, in general, GCs are becoming more
diverse in terms of tenure, race and class (cf. Vesselinov, 2008). This appears, though, to be true
for middle-class GCs which are more likely to accommodate diversity. GCs that have exclusive
location continue to have a high price premium to reside within them.
Empirical research on GCs in Rio de Janeiro evidence the shift, on one hand, to more
heterogeneity that is paralleled by a trend of smaller apartment sizes and lower high rise
apartment buildings, and on the other hand, to exclusive luxurious GCs for the richest of the rich
(Coy & Pöhler, 2002: 361).
The research by Dowling et al. (2010) for 11 case studies in Sydney, Australia also
corroborate the hypothesis of increased heterogeneity of residents in GCs when compared to their
surrounding ‘open’ neighbourhoods. Their findings, moreover, contradict the implicit assumption
that gated developments are associated with higher degrees of privatism and exclusivity than
open developments. Gated MPREs were found to have the lowest income levels and highest
perceived social diversity. Open developments ranked higher on privatism than gated or
symbolically enclosed ones; meanwhile, symbolically enclosed MPREs evidenced higher levels
of social interaction and use of facilities.
3.3.2 Crime and Sense of Fear Penetrates the Gates
The fear from crime temporarily fades away when moving into a gated community but
then the fear settles in once again with increasing incidents of crime within the gates. Research
findings indicate that perceived safety and actual crime rates do not differ significantly between
gated and non-gated high-income neighbourhoods. Increased fortification has, in South Africa,
79

paradoxically increased the level of fear (Landman, 2005). Empirical data show that despite strict
security measures in one of the oldest and largest GCs in Latin America, namely, Alphaville in
São Paolo, crimes increased by 30% and are becoming a problem (Coy & Pöhler, 2002: 363;
Irazábal, 2006: 89). In response to the increase in crime in peripheral GCs, Coy (2006) posits that
a recent phenomenon of inner-city terraced gated housing, or ‘condominios horizontais’, in São
Paolo is taking place and contributes towards stemming the trend of an inner-city shrinking
population.
Part of the reason for persistence of fear behind the gates is the uncontrolled accessibility
of non-residents into the gated community, for example, maintenance workers, and service
personnel (Low, 2001). The accessibility by non-residents generally produces feelings of
insecurity but, in some cases, has added an indirect layer of security as mentioned further above
through the informal networks established between gardeners (Chase, 2008). Meanwhile, gated
residents in Kemer Country, Istanbul first thought that the excessive security measures and
security guards was unwarranted but after moving into the GC, excessive spending to maintain
such a high security level seemed more and more necessary (Geniş, 2007: 791).
3.3.3 Property Values Not Significantly Different
Property values are not very different from surrounding neighbourhoods except for the
case of exclusive gated communities on the beachfront. Decrease in property values may also be
envisioned in the future when issues of maintenance and repairs arise over the long term and
affect the quality of the GCs (Goodman et al., 2010). Vesselinov and Le Goix (2013) pose the
important question of whether the price premium of GCs affect house price patterns between
gated and non-gated areas. On average, price trends are undifferentiated regardless of being gated
or non-gated Common Interest Development (CID). However, in the most desirable areas such
80

as Orange County, Santa Barbara, or Thousand Oaks, GCs have contributed to measurable price
growth. This is the case where GCs correlate with stronger price differentiation patterns (higher
Price Distance Index), compared to adjacent non-gated CIDs. However, in clustered and denser
developments, GCs show a strong equalization and homogenization in price pattern with their
surroundings (e.g. Santa Ana). What Le Goix & Vesselinov are suggesting is that there are two
types of GCs: one upper-class and located on the coastline and the other ordinary middle-class
GCs contiguous to other similar GCs.
3.3.4 Fictional Expectations
The communal function of clubhouses remains symbolic and not everyone benefits from
amenities such as golf courses. Many residents buying into gated communities were generally
disappointed about expectations they had. The findings in the literature on GCs indicate that there
are differences between motivational factors to reside in a GC and satisfaction levels after moving
in a GC. Blandy et al. (n.d) point out that dissatisfaction of residents with GCs may result from
implicit expectations for neighbourliness and community involvement in GCs. For example,
Blandy et al. refer to the research by Burke & Sebaly in Brisbane, Australia who found that street
vitality was more evident in the non-gated neighbourhood as children were not restricted to play
in the street. Meanwhile, in the case of the GC, children were prohibited to play in the street. By
following a different methodological approach than other similar studies, Townshend’s (2002)
study showed that high levels of satisfaction were found for both groups of residents residing
within and outside a GC (i.e. a kind of synergy existed between the residents and their residential
environment for both groups).
On a contrary note, Lara (2011) raises the issue of incompatibility between the lifestyle
advertised and sold in gated communities and the actual implemented lifestyle. Particularly, Lara
81

highlights the separation of houses from lakes by means of fences as well as the non-completed
development of commercial activities within the gated community of Alphaville. The relation to
the physical environment is not the only aspect that disappointed gated residents. In the research
of Glasze & Alkhayyal (2002: 331), gated residents were disappointed to find after moving in
that their neighbors were not international citizens like Americans and French as advertised.
The term ‘fictional expectations’ coined by Beckert (2013), though suggested in the
context of rational decision-making theory, is assumed to be applicable to all human action and
best captures a general aspect of disappointment with GCs. ‘Fictionality’ as defined by Beckert
(2013: 220) is: “the inhabitation in the mind of an imagined future state”; the creation of a world
of its own, different from reality. Representations of such a future state is the basis of present
human action, i.e. a type of situated rationality. Applying this to the case of residents’ decision
to move to a GC, it can be argued that many residents based their decision on fictional
expectations of the quality of neighborliness and sense of community or involvement they
pictured themselves to enjoy based on advertisements of the community aspect of GCs.
3.3.5 Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Less Enforced
CC&Rs have been a source of tension for residents within GCs, especially in the U.S.
where litigation is common in order to enforce the rules (McKenzie, 2006). McKenzie argues
that residents are not fully aware of what they are signing into and even questions the logic by
which residents voluntarily subscribe themselves to such rigid rules which, in many cases, may
interfere with their personal freedom, their basic civil rights, or freedoms of expression. Maxwell
(2003) highlights, referring to Winokur, that subscription is a voluntary, above and beyond the
current restrictions and by-laws, to the process of rulemaking by the HOA and to new rules
enacted after the initial consent.
82

One of the hypotheses in the literature concerning how gating is changing concerns the
enforcement of CC&Rs as explained by Romig (2010). In a mature gated master-planned
community in Phoenix, where current residents are not the original owners who had originally
bought their property from the developer, Romig identifies a temporal process that changes the
original hand-over of the neighbourhood from developer to HOA; a change from a normative
community governed by laws and enforced by fines to a lived community, in the Lefebvrian
sense, where everyone knows what to expect. Lax enforcement of CC&Rs should be interpreted,
though, with the increasing heterogeneity within the gated community due to the influx of migrant
Mexican families as well as interpreted while taking into consideration the cycle of natural
physical decline and demographic change of a neighbourhood. Increasing heterogeneity did not
diminish social capital. This observation is corroborated by Sampson & Graif (2009) and negates
what Putnam’s (2007) ‘constrict theory’ would predict.
Romig seems to depict such a normative-to-lived transformation as a path for the
transformation of gated communities to ‘successful’ neighbourhoods with conventional
dynamics of appropriation of place and sense of community. A probable dark side to this
appropriation via the building of social capital is the creation of a situation of “negotiated coexistence”12 where violations of CC&Rs are tolerated and overlooked vis-à-vis an increase,
particularly at the stage of maturity of the development, in local social network exchange and
social capital; in other words, a decrease in collective efficacy and social control. This inverse

Browning (2009) used the term ‘negotiated co-existence’ to explain the paradoxical decrease in informal
social control over crime within a neighbourhood despite high level of local social capital.
12

83

relationship between collective efficacy and local networks is corroborated by the research of
Sampson & Graif (2009).
3.3.6 Gated Communities as Edge Cities
Although the emergence of an edge city as defined by Garreau has not been fully realized
because of continued dependence of such new forms of development on city centres in terms of
employment and services, a recent trend manifested in Brazil is the emergence of large-scale
peripheral developments that combine Garreau’s concept of edge city with the concept of gated
communities such as Alphaville Graciosa (Irazábal, 2006: 86). It is a hybrid semi-gated
development trend that combines commercial and retail services with residential development.
The intention is towards a more self-sufficient subdivision by creating the necessary critical mass
and scale for the viability of businesses and hence, the semi-accessibility to commercial zones of
the development. Yet, the development is still not considered a full-fledged edge city. Similar
trends of creating large-scale semi-gated developments and ‘gated cities’ such as Piedro Roja are
found north of Santiago de Chile (Borsdorf & Hidalgo, 2008). These private cities are connected
via private roads for the exclusive use of the affluent; thus, creating a larger network of
exclusionary spaces.
Up to this point, the literature review has presented an overview of different approaches
to the causes and social consequences of the phenomenon of gating. Given that this research
focuses more on the socio-psychological aspects of gating, the following final two sections of the
literature review will give more attention to the physical form of suburb developments and
introduce the concept of monadic space as a preamble to presenting the conceptual framework
especially that the concept of monadic space fills an important gap in conceptualizing the link
between gated-ness and neighbourhood cohesion.
84

3.4 Suburban Street Pattern and Suburban Public Realm
Michael Southworth and Eran Ben-Joseph negatively criticize the North American
suburban environment as uniform and unresponsive to suburban residents or larger geographic
context. Southworth & Ben-Joseph (1995) attribute this to modern city planning zoning
regulations for the functional partitioning of space into mono-functional zones (separate zones
for residential, commercial, manufacturing, services, civic institutions, etc.) as well as the setting
of rigid standards for street patterns that do not allow functional accessibility or livability. Such
streets are described from such a vantage point as ‘under-developed’ and create a suburban public
realm that Southworth & Parthasarathy (1996) refer to, borrowing Baumgartner’s term, as ‘moral
minimalism’ (i.e. minimal socializing with acquaintances in public spaces). Noteworthy, they
do not find the suburbanization of retail, office, and manufacturing as a compensation for the lack
of mixed-use zoning. They seem to be longing for Lang et al.’s (2006) anticipation for a process
of ‘suburban gentrification’ where more urban elements, than Garreau’s Edge Cities, would be
incorporated and render suburbs more pedestrian-friendly with mixed uses.
As Southworth & Parthasarathy (1996) contend, the development of the suburban street
pattern has reinforced the effect of single-use zoning and low density on the suburban public
realm. They observe that the postwar suburban grid pattern ‘legacy’ of ‘street as passageway’
(rather than ‘street as place’) continued in subsequent developments of suburban street patterns.
A legacy that has been, so to speak, ‘institutionalized’ by the American planning system. Major
influences on the development of the postwar suburb have been the Regional Planning
Association of America’s (RPAA) inspirations from Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City ideal to
address the loss of sense of community in neighbourhoods, recommendations of the Federal

85

Housing Administration (FHA) that regretfully dropped the key concept of a shared green space,
and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
Southworth & Parthasarathy (1996: 260) argue that few access points to a neighbourhood
and a hierarchical street pattern discourage, respectively, passing through the neighbourhood for
vehicles and pedestrians. In addition, the retreat of a suburban house behind the garage and a
front façade dominated by a garage-scape has competed against the porch-scape. Such an
arrangement symbolizes the decline of the role of ‘the street as place’ resulting in a banal
suburban public realm.
New Urbanism attempted to recover the suburban public realm by distilling design
principles from traditional American small towns (Southworth & Pathasarathy, 1997). Among
the principles adopted was a return to a grid pattern of streets in order to de-concentrate vehicular
traffic and allow re-appropriation of the street by pedestrians in order to avoid defining the street
as a mere passageway. A mix of uses (libraries, an elementary school, a day care, places of
worship, office and retail uses) was to be included in such neo-traditional neighbourhoods to cater
to the daily needs of residents, encourage walking, and promote social interaction. The monotony
of the linear grid was to be mitigated by landmarks and civic buildings at strategic junctions in
the grid. A full range of housing types were laid out with laneway rear access for garages, freeing
the front façade for wider porches that transition seamlessly with the expected new suburban
realm of ‘street as place’. Houses were to have more transparency onto streets that were narrower
as utilities now passed through rear laneways.
Of course, from an architectural point of view, the interior plan of the house had to be
designed to allow for front and rear entrances. In addition, being used less frequently, the front
entrance, usually framed by a porch, becomes not unlike a false façade and a nostalgia through
86

the use of classic architectural styles. At the same time, suburban space becomes polarized to a
front and a rear; a front that may not be functioning as semi-public realm for ‘porch’ interactions
and a rear that may not be aesthetically interesting as the front façade and becomes hidden from
surveillance, a site for opportunistic crime, and other issues raised by CPTED.
Faced with a dilemma for satisfying both connectivity (i.e. the encounter model) and
privacy (i.e. the enclosure model), Southworth & Ben-Joseph (2004: 31) pose a key question that
remains unanswered by urban planners to date: “Might it be possible to satisfy both sets of
criteria: privacy, safety, quiet, and lower construction costs, as well as connectedness, identity,
and structure?”. The solution appears to be intermediate between the two models: On one hand,
starting by the encounter model, the gridded pattern may be curtailed in terms of number of
intersections to minimize car accidents and allow for appropriation of enclosed spaces by
residents.
On the other hand, starting by the enclosure model, the cul-de-sac and loop pattern may
be impregnated with destinations that disaggregate the mass of low density residential use with
the addition of pedestrian connections between cul-de-sacs as well as the provision of greenways
to allow a connected bicycling experience. Cul-de-sacs could be designed as hammerheads or
formal square configurations (after the example of Hampstead Garden Suburb in London) to
avoid amorphous and bulbous forms, better define open space, and avoid pie-shaped lots.
Evidence points to tilting the balance in favor of adopting the second approach; i.e. modifications
in the cul-de-sac model towards pedestrian connectedness rather than starting from the first
approach, the New Urbanism model. For example, Southworth & Prassarathy (1997: 32) point
out that in the very first neo-traditional development in Seaside, Florida, residents made
modifications that defeated the concept behind the design. Residents have grown shrubs and
87

erected privacy screens on the front porches that impacted on the intended transparency of the
front façade and, in practical terms, turned away from the suburban public realm to which the
porch intended to provide a complementary setting for visible social interaction. Moreover, a few
residents requested the addition of rear porches to overlook the backyards; here, signs of duality
between front and rear can be raised again. Importantly, Seaside residents implemented strategies
to discourage passers-by from ‘trespassing’ on their residential domain or disrupting their sense
of privacy and security. In other words, the open grid became practically transformed into
territorial domains and defeats the grid concept of providing route options for pedestrians to walk
freely and efficiently between destinations. In other words, New Urbanism does not seem to have
restored the suburban public realm and left neo-traditional neighbourhoods navigate the problems
of the grid both social (in terms of sense of appropriation of space, sense of space enclosure,
sense of security, and safety for children to play) as well as physical (in terms of cost of roads,
adaptability to topography and ecologically sensitive areas, as well as increased rate of accidents).
Reconciliation via an intermediate approach between the deficiencies of land use patterns
of the cul-de-sac model and the spatial problems of the open grid pattern seem to converge
towards Marshall’s (2006) suggestion for the use of the term ‘semi-urban’ instead of ‘suburban’
to describe suburban environments. Marshall wants to move away from a framing of suburban
developments as sub-urban to an alternative view as autonomous entities in themselves. Vaughan
et al. (2009) also advocate the same: suburban space as a distinctive emergent domain. Such a
paradigm moves away from a centripetal-centrifugal paradigm for urban morphological
development (and the binary debate between a compact city model versus a diffuse one) to one
defined by locational preferences, tolerances and aversions to distance and density. In other

88

words, an urban form that has the full spectrum from a bounded neighbourhood unit to an open
structure; i.e. suburban forms that are not mutually exclusive.
Noteworthy, the missing quality in Southworth and Ben-Joseph’s unresponsive suburban
neighbourhoods, that either take an amorphous suburban form or a grid pattern, is perhaps the
quality of individuation or uniqueness; a quality that Lynch (1960: 5) referred to, at the scale of
the city, as an “environmental image”, a “structural understanding”, which is the product of
immediate perception as well as memory. Lynch links such a quality for physical settings (i.e.
legibility) with social functions as well. For Lynch, it is not only a question of familiarity with a
physical setting but, importantly, a question of distinctiveness. As Lynch explains, legibility is a
function of three aspects of a physical setting: individuation (identity), structure, and meaning;
the first two, as Lynch points out, are more contingent upon physical manipulation than the third
one. This research argues that the number of access points to a neighbourhood and the
permeability of its street pattern contribute towards increasing the quality of individuation of a
neighbourhood.
The following section introduces the concept of individuation, being a central concept to
this research, and further argues for establishing a link between individuation and the
phenomenology of the body; a link philosophically established by Merleau-Ponty (1962) who
views the body as a ‘body-subject’, possessing knowledge. However, in contrast to MerleauPonty’s phenomenological approach of immediate perception and the role of the body as a space
of expression, this research raises the importance of mediate cognition (Lynch’s structural
understanding) and the role of the body as a space of impression.

89

3.5 Monadic Space
The philosophical problem of individuation was articulated and developed since Plato’s
‘form-instances’ of ideal forms, Sophists’ non-accidental forms and Aristotle’s doctrine of ‘formessences’ or hylomorphism with principles of extrinsic unification (that which does not affect the
essence, i.e. form) and intrinsic unification (that which affects the essence, i.e. matter). In the late
medieval era, individuation developed to the conceptualization of unique forms (haeccitas) and
in the Enlightenment philosophical era with Leibniz’ concept of monads: hierarchically
concatenated, unique individual substances incorporating the dimension of individual history as
an individuating reality (Krois et al., 2007). This research borrows the term from Leibniz to
conceptualize a type of space that may be called ‘monadic’, or enveloping, space without strict
adherence to Leibniz’ metaphysical philosophy of monadology.
A property of space, particularly its degree of enclosure, has been studied by Sitte (1945)
and urban designers commending the quality of medieval squares while highlighting an important
role of space enclosure in the process of place-making. It is argued that the sense of enclosure
within a space impacts on the inscription of meaning and symbolic role of the place. Expressed
differently, the process of place-making where time is embedded in space and, vice versa, space
embedded in time is contingent upon the degree of enclosure of a space. Notably, such an
embedding of symbolism and memory in the built environment impacts upon the psychological
health of urban inhabitants (Haffner, 2013).
If the concept of space enclosure is extended beyond the perception of the immediate
context to a wider sense of enclosure within a larger expanse of space, one may conceive of a
property of space as enveloping. Parallel to the role of enclosing space in the process of place-

90

making, this research argues that enveloping space plays a similar role in the process of bodyshaping.
In order to articulate the relation between enveloping space and body-shaping, concepts
such as embodiment (or embodied space) need to be introduced while equally viewing the body
as a location inextricable from place. ‘Embodiment’ simply means the instantiation or
materialization of a process. It is argued that the body-shaping process affects one’s orientation
to, and position within, society (Shilling, 2005). Put differently, the body, as Merleau-Ponty
observed, becomes a factor of individuation (Krois et al., 2007).
Enveloping space concerns the wider context which is larger than, and encompasses, the
immediate context. A neighbourhood that has a single access is not in the immediate perception
of residents except when entering or exiting the neighbourhood. However, a single access for a
neighbourhood has a big impact. It adds to the dimension of enclosure a dimension of formmaking. It is the forming of a domain (or field) which is signalled and identified by the single
entry. Rather than just relegated to a background situation, or merely a physical transition, the
(en)veloptive space informs and ex-forms residents towards the forming of an embodied space, a
kind of structural coupling with the space, a coupling which is also imprinted at the psychological
level if the application of theories of Jean Piaget are extended to include adult mental processes
of development, i.e. a sort of embodied cognition.
The idea that the body is shaped, and shapes, its environment is not a new one. Urban
geographers such as Grosz in 1992 have called for a research agenda that explores such a dialectic
relation which consists of complex feedback loops between bodies that are psychically, socially,

91

sexually, and discursively produced by environments upon which such bodies, in turn, imprint
and project themselves (Longhurst, 1997)13.
A recent thesis that has extended such an argument for a dialectic relation between one
who inhabits a place and the place itself posits that the relation is even one of congruence and
interchangeability. That is, place is a reflection of the person and the person becomes constituent
of a place, each indistinguishable and inseparable from the other while having the characteristic
of encompassment (Araujo, 2013: 143). Such a thesis is still in its early development phases,
though. It is based on the New Psychoanalysis theory of the Self where the ‘I’ is not viewed
through a paradigm of western individuality but is decentralized and fragmented through a
paradigm of formations that consist of a ‘pole’ (having a focus and fringe, i.e. an unlimited
extension of the ‘I’) placed in a homogeneous background. Knowledge, under this
conceptualization of ‘I as person’, then becomes a transaction among formations, i.e. including
oneself in the relation, rather than produced through the classical distinction between subject and
object.
The present research may contribute to the development of the above thesis by
emphasizing the role of the body (and its movement) as an intermediary link between place and
person for enacting such transactions. The present research also grounds the above thesis
empirically by positing that the imprint of place upon the body, in turn, recursively contributes
to the definition of the place itself.

This is analogous to the concept of structural coupling which is well advanced in bio-morphological
development studies of form. Qualifying the relation as ‘structural’ means that the relation is not one-to-one or
deterministic. That is, there is a range of imprints from the environment on physical form and vice versa.
13

92

From an epistemological perspective, knowledge is formed through, using the
terminology of Serge Robert (1993), a paradigm of interactive rationalism rather than paradigms
of critical rationalism (Karl Popper and Rudolph Carnap) or applied rationalism (G. Bachelard).
Interactive rationalism according to Serge Robert consists of an interminable process of
progressive harmonization between psychological experience (internal) and physical experience
(external). Hypothesizing a harmonic relation between the psychological and the physical is
echoed in the work of Eric Neumann (on the development of the Self passing from an
intermediate phase of embedded-ness to a centering of the personality) as well as Carl Jung (cf.
his notion of synchronicity). The overall trend (or the asymptotic axis) of the interactive process
is that the physical built environment becomes a reflection of the psychological and, vice versa,
the psychological (including behavioral and social comportment) is shaped by the physical
environment. Ledrut (1968: 184) summarizes the process at the scale of the city, which may be
applied to the scale of the neighbourhood. Ledrut observes that each city (or neighbourhood) has
a physical structure expressing its collective conscious which in turn, directly and indirectly
affects the social life and personality of its residents14.
Having established a link between the psychological (the development of the Self) and
the physical (in terms of experiences and physical structure of built environment), the main tenet
that the body, as an active indispensable intermediary in such a process, is shaped (imprinted
upon) correspondingly needs further elaboration.

Research examining the relation between physical structure and social interaction has been undertaken
by Bill Hillier’s space syntax analysis.
14

93

Reference to Tucker (2011) is instructive in this regard. Tucker observes that the body is
more than a biological entity and space is more than a geographical entity; more importantly,
referring to relational process philosophy, both the body and space are products of interconnected processes. The spatial turn that cultural geographers called for twenty or thirty years
ago where definition of a space (or place) is relative effectively follows a linguistic turn where
the definition of a word in linguistics is relative depending on grammatical context but also on
the changing relation between signifier and signified. Notably, the spatial turn, unlike the
linguistic turn, is time dependent; a characteristic that ascribes uniqueness to a space which is
contingent upon the relational constitution of events. Thus, psychological experiences are not
merely internal but are also produced externally in a relational way. Such an inter-connectedness
between the internal and the external was expressed by Gilles Deleuze in his use of the term
‘individuation’. Stated differently, the fluid relational configuration of external forms become
‘folded’ as forms of individualization (Krois et al., 2007).
In order to link the body to relational psychological experiences, Tucker borrows
Deleuze’s

concept

of

the

process

of

‘territorialisation’-‘de-territorialization’-‘re-

territorialization’ to posit that bodies can be both territorialized and territorializing; i.e. subject to
forces that are internal and external. In other words, body and space are inter-connected in a
relational and fluid way. Bodies, as space, become a ‘place’ of flows and shaped by such flows
of information.
A final thread in the argument for the specificity of the physical configuration of a
neighbourhood, particularly the number of access points to the neighbourhood and its degree of
enveloping space, in its relation to body-shaping or imprinting upon the body is necessary.

94

The argument advanced by Tucker conceptualizes the relation between body and space
under a paradigm of flows. It thus facilitates the conceptualization of a relation between flows;
space is here conceptualized as an external relational flow that inter-connects with the body that
is conceptualized as the locus of internal relational flow. The outcome of such relationality is a
fluid definition for each of space and body as a nodal point for those flows. Importantly, however,
there is a possibility that space becomes rarefied in an extreme way from its physical structure
and configuration when all the weight, so to speak, is put on its fluid character through events
taking place within the space. Definitely, events and social interaction within a space have a
bearing on the qualitative experience of the space as a place. The present research, however,
posits that the balance between ‘a space of flows’ and ‘a space of places’, to borrow Castells
terms, should be maintained by not excluding altogether the physical structure of the space, in
terms of both enclosure (immediate context) and ‘envelopture’ (larger physical context).
Likewise, the physical structure and form of the body should not be altogether excluded from the
equation either.

95

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 Theoretical Approach and Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework is the link between the literature review and the empirical
research strategy. A theoretical framework is a general framework that accounts for many
explanations. Meanwhile, the conceptual framework is less general / more specific than the
theoretical framework and presents how the researcher conceptualizes the dynamics between the
concepts. Operationalization of the concepts then leads to how each concept is measured and
forms part of the questionnaire design.
From the literature review section that presented the different approaches to
understanding the reasons behind gating and social consequences of gating, a framework could
be constructed by distilling a notion that summarizes each of the five main arguments (sociopsychological, morphological, moral, economic, and political) – see following figure.
SocioPsychological

SOCIAL

Morphological

PHYSICAL

Moral

CULTURAL

Economic

EXCLUSION

Positive Social
Consequences
• SOCIAL CAPITAL
• NEIGHBOURHOOD

FRAGMENTATION

COHESION

SECLUSION

Negative Social
Consequences

PRICE

• SOCIAL INJUSTICE
• PRIVATIZATION OF

APPRECIATION

SPACE

• SOCIAL SEGREGATION
Political

POWER
DIFFUSION

Figure 4.1. A framework for gated-ness
96

Referring to the above figure, gated-ness is expressed primarily as a statement of social
exclusion, physical fragmentation, cultural seclusion, price appreciation, and power diffusion. As
such, gated-ness is at once a symptom of the postmodern condition (cf. Diken, Bauman, Marcuse)
as well as a ‘double’ solution (escape and control – cf. Xu & Yang, Wu) in the face of increasing
suburban heterogeneity and decline (cf. Le Goix, Vesselinov). Most importantly, gated-ness
becomes necessary to forge a sense of community in suburbs where such a sense seems to have
been evaded (cf. Callies et al.) and the term ‘gated community’ attests to that function.
The dimensions or reasons behind gating need not necessarily be read at the same plane.
Although the political, economic, and morphological reasons behind gating provide strong
justification, and a bedrock layer, for the emergence of such a phenomenon especially within a
neoliberal and capitalist regime, the socio-psychological (sense of safety, symbolization of
prestige and lifestyle, self-actualization, and sense of interiority) and moral / cultural reasons (cf.
Pow) form a second ‘superstructure’ layer of justification for gated-ness. The prominence of
socio-psychological and socio-cultural reasons could be read in the seminal work of Blakely and
Snyder (1997a), Fortress America, where sense of safety, prestige, and lifestyle were found to be
the three main reasons behind gating while political, economic, and morphological reasons form
the ‘infrastructure’ layer. Such a layering of dimensions stems from exigencies of theoretical
analysis. A similar layering of the economic, political, social and cultural dimensions was done
by Serge Robert (1978: 61) where the economic was the infrastructure layer, the political was the
‘inter-structure’ layer, and the cultural-ideological was the superstructure in his epistemological
theories of knowledge.
Towards delineating a conceptual framework for the present research, a theoretical
progression from the infrastructure layer (the physical, economic, and political) towards the
97

superstructure (social and the cultural) was hypothesized. If one is to apply such a progression to
the phenomenon of gated-ness, it becomes comprehensible that economic and physical barriers
would translate generally into social homogeneity and cultural bounded-ness, respectively. The
first half of the following diagram (see fig. 4.2) delineates such a theorization under the rubrics
of two processes15: EXCLUSION and SECLUSION.
There remains, however, a conceptual link to be theorized between gated-ness and
neighbourhood cohesion in order to account for the readily accepted connection between ‘gated’
and ‘community’. The literature on gated communities has left this gap open on the assumption
that the term is self-explanatory and scholarly research has mainly focused on social
consequences of gating without a clear conceptualization of the quality of space produced in such
residential developments. As shown in the following figure, such a quality of space was
conceptualized here as an enveloping space.

Qualitative
Analysis

Quantitative

Analysis
Figure 4.2. Conceptual Framework

Political barriers were not included as part of the diagram, but could have provided a third stream of
processes for theorization of gated-ness.
15

98

The conceptual framework (see fig. 4.2) has guided this research when collecting data
and formed a basis for providing an explanation that links the independent variable (the degree
of gated-ness of a neighborhood) with the dependent variable (the level of neighborhood
cohesion). As shown in the diagram, the degree of gated-ness simultaneously affects two
parameters of space: the degree of exclusion (through ‘exclusive’ gating) and the degree of
seclusion (through physical / ‘reclusive’ gating). ‘Exclusive’ gating tends to produce
neighborhoods that are relatively homogeneous through a process of sorting residents according
to their income level. This economic sorting is achieved through controlling minimum lot sizes
and subdivision regulations, through controlling housing types and minimum house size as well
as location, which factors into selling price of properties. The end result of such ‘exclusive’ gating
is spatial exclusion.
Physical gating tends to produce neighborhoods that are relatively bounded (in the
meaning of the term used by Bickford, 2000) through a process of nesting residents spatially
according to ease of access to their dwellings. This nesting is achieved by preferring peripheral
locations and by convoluting space in order to reach a particular neighborhood and residential
dwellings within the neighborhood. The end result of such physical gating is spatial seclusion.
The initial explanation that this research hypothesized is that a particular type of space is
formed as a result of neighborhood gated-ness. Such a type of space was called an ‘enveloping
space’ or a ‘monadic space’; adopting the terminology of Leibniz in his paradigmatic view of
space as being comprised of concatenated ‘monads’.
This new conception of space may contribute to the literature on neighborhood gating and
add a further layer in explaining why a non-gated neighborhood differs from a semi-gated
neighborhood in terms of neighborhood cohesion. Semi-gated neighborhood provides for its
99

residents a sense of enveloping space in such a way that space is more informing, and ex-forming
(an analogous term to embodied space), for its residents than a non-gated neighborhood. The
theoretical approach is mainly a phenomenological one. However, rather than linking immediate
perception to phenomenology of the body (cf. Merleau-Ponty), the structural configuration of a
neighbourhood (particularly, number of access points and permeability) provides a base for
linking mediate cognition to phenomenology of the body.
Future research is needed in order to investigate whether such a conception of space as
enveloping would account for other differences between gated neighborhoods and non-gated
neighborhoods.
4.2 Operationalization of Concepts
According to the following figure (see fig. 4.3), the degree of gated-ness of a
neighborhood can be operationalized by measuring gated-ness through two dimensions:
economic and physical gating. Gated-ness can also be determined by a social dimension such as
age-restricted residential developments. Such gated developments are termed in the literature
retirement communities.
This research does not focus on retirement communities and thus age-restricted
communities will not be part of the chosen case studies. While retirement communities are
proliferating in Vancouver, this is not the case in Calgary. Comparing the metropolitan area of
Calgary with that of Vancouver necessitates that the case studies be comparable in terms of
demographic profile with respect to age spectrum.
Operationalizing neighborhood gated-ness was performed as follows:

100



Economic barrier: average size of single-family homes, diversity of housing types, and
mean household income. Such quantitative indicators were compared in relation to city
average.



Physical barrier: number of access points and degree of nesting.
The concept of neighborhood cohesion was operationalized by measuring it through three

dimensions (after Buckner, 1988):


Psychological sense of community



Place attachment



Neighborliness or social interaction
A neighborhood cohesion index (NCI) was calculated that accounts for these three

dimensions. A questionnaire, as developed by Buckner (1988) and that uses a 5-point Likert scale,
was the instrument for measuring neighborhood cohesion.
The questionnaire was extended to include a few more questions than that developed by
Buckner in order to probe for sense of residents of an enveloping space and if the space is
informing and ex-forming. Additional questions inquired for residents’ observations and
perceptions of their neighborhood in terms of whether their neighborhood has a different pace of
activities or events, different social practices, a code of dressing, and chance social interactions
as well as whether they perceive the landscape as appealing. The questionnaire was
complemented with interviews with residents in order to get a more in-depth understanding of
their responses.

101

one or two access points

Total no. of main access
points to the neighborhood

Physical

four or more access points

Degree of nesting

Gated-ness

three access points

necessary no. of changes in
direction to reach a dwelling

more than 2400 sq.ft.

Average size of single-family
dwelling

between 1800-2400 sq.ft.

less than 1800 sq.ft.

% of detached single-family
houses

% semi-detached houses

Economic

Diversity of housing types
% of townhouses

% of apartments

more than $345 /sq.ft.

Average selling price / sq.ft.

between $245-$345 /sq.ft.

less than $245 /sq.ft.

Figure 4.3. Operationalization of the concept of neighborhood gated-ness
102

Using the above operationalization of the concept of gated-ness, neighborhoods were
divided into two main groups: a) Semi-gated and b) Non-gated.
Alternatively, if a neighborhood was categorized as fully gated (i.e. having a restricted
entry with gates / guards where residents use physical card passes or digital code access), such a
neighborhood was not included among the population of case studies to be sampled. The reason
for not including such gated neighborhoods is that this research focuses on semi-gated-ness as
the more prevalent form of neighborhood design in Canada, especially in Calgary. Also, given
that Canadian cities are relatively safer than, for example, U.S. counterparts, the use of explicit
physical gating is much less. The assumption that implicit ‘economic’ gating is more prevalent
in relatively new neighborhoods becomes more credible.
A neighborhood was categorized as semi-gated if it has one or two access points without
restricted entry protocols and has a high ‘economic’ gated-ness in terms of high average size of
single-family dwelling (more than 2400 sq. ft.), low degree of diversity of housing types (more
than 85% single-family and semi-detached houses), and high average selling price per square foot
(more than $345 /sq. ft.).
Equivalently, a neighborhood was categorized as semi-gated if it has at most three access
points as well as a high degree of nesting, measured as having a total number of more than three
changes in direction to reach the main entry of any one of the dwellings by the shortest or most
direct route possible after entering the neighborhood in addition to the ‘economic’ gated-ness
criteria described in the previous paragraph.
On the other hand, a neighborhood was categorized as non-gated if it has three or more
access points and with a low degree of nesting (measured as having a total number of three or
less changes in direction to reach the main entry of any of the dwellings by the shortest or most
103

direct route possible) as well as having low degree of ‘economic’ gating in terms of average
single-family house size of less than 1800 sq. ft., relatively diverse housing types (less than 85%
single-family and semi-detached housing), and an average selling price of less than $245 / sq. ft.
A change in direction in this study means a change in the cardinal orientation by
increments of 45º for curvilinear streets and increments of 90º for orthogonal streets. The total
number of changes in direction is equal to the total number of increments of the specified angles
taking into account the geometry of the streets.
The following 2x2 matrix shows the possible categorizations of neighborhoods as well as
designates which ‘cells’ are considered in this study as semi-gated and which are considered nongated. The cells designated as case B or case D in the matrix represent hybrid cases. That is, a
neighborhood having physical gated-ness but relatively low ‘economic’ gating (case B); or a
neighborhood having relatively high ‘economic’ gating and high physical accessibility (case D).
It can be generally assumed that ‘hybrid’ gating types such as those categorized under cases B
and D may be less common but actually do exist.
Table 4.1. Matrix for neighbourhoods by degree of gated-ness
HIGH ‘ECONOMIC’ GATING
1 OR 2 ACCESS POINTS
3 ACCESS POINTS
4 OR 4+ ACCESS POINTS

Case A: Semi-Gated (SG)
Case D: Hybrid-Gated (HG-D)

LOW ‘ECONOMIC’ GATING
Case B: Hybrid-Gated (HG-B)
Case C: Non-Gated (NG)

After having categorized relatively new neighborhoods into either a semi-gated, nongated, or hybrid, the following step was the determination of the sampling frame and the sampling
method for the cases and the target resident population.

104

4.3 Choice of Case Studies
The rationale for selection of case studies was based on the maturity of development of
the neighborhood. The rationale was to choose suburban neighborhoods in each metropolitan
area that:
a) Have been developed at approximately the same time.
b) Are spatially contiguous or located close to each other in such a way that contiguous
neighborhoods to the chosen cases are contiguous. In general, the chosen neighborhoods
would be within the same socioeconomic ecological sector in each metropolitan area.
Satisfying this criterion assumes that planning norms and overall context influencing the
physical form of the neighborhoods is controlled for.
c) Have similar social attributes for their residents.
The above criteria controlled for spatial / locational differences, length of residence, and
other social differences in such a way that comparison of the cases is valid.
4.3.1 Time and Status of Development
The population of neighbourhoods from which the case studies will be chosen are
neighbourhoods whose time of development is the 2000s and whose construction status is
completed and not still building out. This criterion is based on the time period of proliferation of
gated communities since the 1990s according to international literature. A precedent for a private
enclosed residential development, Lake Bonavista, is found in Calgary and was built in 1967.
Since then, the experiment of restricting entry to a private neighbourhood has not gained traction
within the City limits. The more common approach and preferred model has been the creation of
‘semi-gated’ neighbourhoods where implicit gating is achieved through physical and economic

105

barriers. For Vancouver, gated communities still prevail but predominantly in the form of
retirement communities.
The criterion that the neighbourhood status be built out and not still building out is related
to the dependent variable of the research, neighbourhood cohesion. Choosing a case study whose
status is built out, the research aims at measuring a sense of neighbourhood cohesion for residents
who have moved into the neighbourhood and resided for more than a year. Some researchers,
however, have argued that the sense of neighbourhood cohesion is relatively prominent for
residents who move into a new neighbourhood at the same time (Gruis et al., 2006: 82) based on
the assumption that they would have similar needs and would be more open to social encounters
with the purpose of being introduced to their neighbours and for access to information. In order
to avoid results for only an ‘initial’ sense of neighbourhood cohesion upon moving into a
neighbourhood, cases will be chosen for neighbourhoods that have been built out and mostly for
residents who resided for at least a year.
Data at the neighbourhood level rather than individual census tracts has been found for
Calgary from the open data catalog based on the 2011 Census data. The data shows that there
have been 18 neighbourhoods in Calgary constructed in the 2000s, of which 5 are still building
out16. However, similar data was not found for Vancouver metropolitan area after consulting open
data catalogs for Metro Vancouver and separate municipalities such as Vancouver, the district of
North Vancouver and Surrey.

16

This gives a population of 13 neighbourhoods: One neighbourhood in the East sector: Applewood Park;
three neighbourhoods in the Northeast sector: Abbeydale, Coral Springs, and Monterey Park; two in the North sector:
Country Hills Village and Coventry Hills; three in the Northwest sector: Hamptons, Royal Oak, and Tuscany; one
in the south: Bridlewood; and three in the West sector: Crestmont, Discovery Ridge, and Valley Ridge.

106

Thus, in order for the method of choice of case studies be consistent for both Calgary and
Vancouver, data at the census tract level rather than the neighbourhood level was used as a basis
for the choice of neighbourhood case studies. Using a consistent method has the advantage of
replicating the method in other studies focused on metropolitan areas.
Five queries were carried out using a GIS software called MapInfo Professional by the
help of Dr. Townshend. A map was prepared with the objective of having a comprehensive view
of both Calgary and Vancouver in the same map so that queries / criteria could be run
simultaneously for both metropolitan areas. The preparation of the map necessitated that the
census tract data be connected to the unique identification number: for Calgary, 825; and
Vancouver, 933 so that all census tracts of both metropolitan areas are included in the map. In
addition, another layer for the road maps was added in order to facilitate legibility of the map as
well as help determine the location of chosen census tracts within each metropolitan area. To
decrease file size, the road map was truncated to include only the roads for both Calgary and
Vancouver metropolitan areas.
In order to determine the census tracts whose housing inventory has been built since 2001,
the 2006 census data was used17. The percentage of housing [HSG] was calculated using MapInfo
software by using the following calculation:

% 𝐻𝑆𝐺 =

17

𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 2001 𝑡𝑜 2006
× 100
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑝𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑖𝑛 2006

Cumulative profiles for 2006 Census tract data was obtained from: http://dc1.chass.utoronto.ca/census/

107

A query was then run for identifying census tracts whose percentage of constructed
housing after 2001 was greater than or equal to 50. The query resulted in a total of 20 census
tracts: 7 in Vancouver and 13 in Calgary, one of which is in the municipality of Airdrie.
The following maps show the location of the identified census tracts after the first query:

Vancouver 2006 census data (1st query; n=7)

Figure 4.4. Set of census tracts in Vancouver metropolitan area after first query

108

Calgary 2006 census data (1st query; n=13)

Figure 4.5. Set of census tracts in Calgary metropolitan area after first query

From the above maps for the first query, census tracts identified in Metro Vancouver are
mostly located in the municipality of Surrey while almost all identified census tracts are located
in Calgary with a predominant concentration in the Northwest and West sectors of the city.

109

4.3.2 Economic Exclusivity
As the research is mainly concerned with the phenomenon of exclusivity or elitism,
successive queries were used to filter the possible case studies for the research. The second query
was used to identify the CTs that have above average dwelling value [AVDWEL ≥ 1.0]. As a
preparatory step for this query the following calculation was performed using average dwelling
value from the 2006 census data:

𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 =

𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑑𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡
𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒

The 2nd query resulted in a total of 10 CTs: 3 in Vancouver, in the municipality of Surrey
and 7 in Calgary as the following maps show:

110

Vancouver 2006 census data (2nd query; n=3)

Figure 4.6. Set of census tracts in Vancouver metropolitan area after second query

111

Calgary 2006 census data (2nd query; n=7)

Figure 4.7. Set of census tracts in Calgary metropolitan area after second query
This second query has reinforced the preliminary results of the first query. For Vancouver,
the three census tracts identified are all located within Surrey while in Calgary 5 out of 7 census
tracts are located in the Northwest and West sectors of the city.
The third query was used to identify census tracts that had a ratio of average household
income above the CMA average [AVHHINC ≥ 1.0] calculated as follows:

112

𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 =

𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡
𝐶𝑀𝐴 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒

The results of this query identified nine CTs by the elimination of one of the census tracts
in Calgary (that located in the North sector) and none for Vancouver where three CTs remained
identified from the previous query.
4.3.3 Housing Diversity
A fourth query sought to filter census tracts according to diversity of housing by a simple
calculation of an index of housing diversity18 [INHSGDIV] as follows:

𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝑜𝑓 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐷𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 =

2
1− ∑𝑛
𝑖=1 𝑃𝑖

1 − 1𝑛

; Where 𝑃𝑖 = proportion in the ith category of housing types19; n = no. of housing types;
In order to ensure comparability among case studies with similar housing diversity, a midrange for the index of housing diversity was used to filter out cases that had a complete
specialization in one type or a complete diversity. Accordingly, a range for the index of housing
diversity was set between 0.3 and 0.7; that is, 0.3 ≤ INHSGDIV < 0.7.
The results of this 4th query did not filter out any of the census tracts for either Vancouver
or Calgary. Thus, there remained a total of nine CTs: 3 in Surrey and 6 in Calgary.

This index has been derived from the index of ethnic diversity by Dr. Townshend.
An index of 0 = no diversity (complete specialization or 100% of one category of housing type. An index
of 1 = complete diversity or even shares in all categories of housing types.
18

19

113

4.3.4 Diversity of Population
In line with choosing case studies that have some exclusivity, the fifth and final query
sought to eliminate census tracts that had a visible minority 50% and over [i.e. VISMIN < 50].
The reason for eliminating census tracts having a majority of visible minority population is to
avoid cases with a particular social structure that may impact upon levels of neighbourhood
cohesion. Specifically, the 5th query calculated the percentage of total visible minority population
as follows:

% 𝑉𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 =

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑝𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡
× 100
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑠 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡

The results of this query identified a total of 8 census tracts with the elimination of one of
the census tracts in Surrey.
Figures 4.8 and 4.9 show the final 8 CTs: 2 in Surrey and 6 in Calgary.

114

Vancouver 2006 census data (5th query; n=2)

Figure 4.8. Two census tracts in Vancouver metropolitan area after fifth query
The road map underlay allowed the researcher to identify the two neighbourhoods in
Surrey that correspond to the resulting two census tracts from the query by extracting information
using MapInfo for the street names and then referring to Google Maps. The two neighbourhoods
in Surrey are: East Clayton (CT 9330183.04) and Rosemary Heights (CT 9330180.01).

115

Calgary 2006 census data (5th query; n=6)

Figure 4.9. Six census tracts in Calgary metropolitan area after fifth query
The following step necessitated reference to the 2011 Census Tract Boundaries to identify
if the 2006 census tracts resulting from the above query have been further subdivided. In the case
of Surrey, the two census tracts were not subdivided. However, for Calgary, each of the census
tracts in the Northwest sector was subdivided into four census tracts while each of the West sector
census tracts was subdivided into three smaller census tracts. Thus, the total number of census
tracts for both sectors of the city in 2011 amounts to 17 CTs corresponding to the neighbourhoods
116

of Royal Oak, Tuscany, Valley Ridge, Crestmont, Cougar Ridge, West Springs, Aspen Woods,
Springbank, and Discovery Ridge.
Applying the criterion of build-out status to the neighbourhoods of Calgary eliminated
Cougar Ridge, West Springs, and Aspen Woods. When a criterion of population size of
neighbourhoods was added, the neighbourhood of Crestmont was eliminated as it has the least
size compared to other neighbourhoods; a total population of only 1,430 in 2011 when compared
to the usual average of 4,000. For practical reasons, the relatively large neighbourhoods in
population size were also eliminated as it would not be feasible to cover by a single researcher in
terms of resources. Accordingly, the neighbourhoods of Royal Oak, Tuscany, and Sprinbank
were eliminated with population sizes of the order of 18,000. The two remaining neighbourhoods
of Valley Ridge and Discovery Ridge are comparable and serve the purposes of the research in
that both belong to the same West sector of Calgary, have a comparable population size (5,042
and 4,398 respectively according to 2011 census) and both have a visible minority of 15% or less
(15.0% and 12.6% respectively).
The choice of the four case studies in Vancouver and Calgary are:
Vancouver (Surrey), B.C.

Calgary (West Sector), AB

East Clayton

Valley Ridge

Rosemary Heights

Discovery Ridge

4.4 Ethics Statement
The research protocol has been granted ethics approval for conducting the research. The Conjoint
Faculties Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary found the proposed research
involving human participants to be in accordance with University of Calgary Guidelines and the
Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.
117

4.5 Sampling Method
4.5.1 Sample Size
In order to determine a sample size that reflects the targeted population as precisely as
needed, an online sample size calculator was used. The following is a link to an online sample
size calculator: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm that has been used to determine an
estimate of the sample size needed for a neighborhood. An input for the confidence level and
confidence interval are entered in the online calculator that outputs the sample size. For example,
using a confidence level of 95% typical for most research and a confidence interval of 10, gives
a required sample size of 94 (for a random sample) for a neighborhood of 5,000 residents
4.5.2 Face-to-face and Self-administered Surveys
Survey participants were recruited on site, door-to-door, during field visits to each of
Valley Ridge and Discovery Ridge neighbourhoods. Care was taken to target participants from
different areas within the neighbourhood so as to avoid bias of sampling while also targeting a
suitable sample (ranging from 5 to 15 participants) from each sub-area within the neighbourhood
depending on the size of the sub-area as well as willingness of residents to participate. Care was
also taken to conduct interviews after every 8th survey (or so) with a participant or two from each
sub-area. This was not the case for East Clayton and Rosemary Heights where interviews were
conducted continuously during the field visit. Nevertheless, care was taken to choose participants
from different areas of those neighbourhoods.
For most of the face-to-face surveys, the researcher read the questions to the participants
and marked their responses. In several instances, participants would agree to participate and fill
the survey in the presence of the researcher or, in other fewer instances, ask the researcher to stop
by after a period of time to collect the survey.
118

4.5.3 Random Sampling of Addresses
ArcGIS 10.1 software, Geospatial Modeling Environment (GME) software random
sampling tool, and digital mapping technology (DMTI) spatial CANMAP Postal Code Suite were
used for creating a random sample of addresses in East Clayton and Rosemary Heights with the
help of a GIS specialist at the University of Calgary. The following were the steps used for
sampling:
1) The first step consisted of downloading the 2011 census tract boundary shape file from
Statistics

Canada

website

(http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-

recensement/2011/geo/bound-limit/bound-limit-2011-eng.cfm) and selecting the census
tracts for East Clayton (9330183.04) and Rosemary Heights (9330180.01).
2) The selected census tracts were then clipped using the address shape file
(cadAddressesSHP.shp) contained in Surrey Property dataset downloaded from Surrey
Open Data Catalogue (http://www.surrey.ca/city-services/658.aspx) to produce address
shape files for East Clayton and Rosemary Heights.
3) Postal codes polygon shape files (BCldu.shp local delivery unit polygon file) were then
spatially joined to the addresses in the corresponding shape files for East Clayton and
Rosemary Heights.
4) In order to eliminate vacant lots, green space, and lots under construction, a ‘select by
location’ tool was used to select lots from Surrey Property lots shape file
(cadLotsSHP.shp) that intersected with the buildings shape file (facBuildings.shp) from
Surrey Property dataset.
5) In order to eliminate addresses that referred to strata type lots (i.e. lots that had an address
referring to more than one unit), a ‘select by attribute’ tool was used to select lots that had
a plan type = subdivision.
6) The set of selected addresses after elimination of vacant and strata lots were then spatially
joined to the zoning shape file (IndZoningBoundaries.shp) contained in Surrey Planning
dataset in order to identify addresses that had a residential category.

119

7) Addresses with a residential category were then selected under the Zoning field in order
to eliminate business addresses, schools, senior homes, etc.; (i.e. excluding general
agricultural zones, neighbourhood commercial zones, one acre residential zones, and
special care housing). In the case of East Clayton, ‘comprehensive development zones’
were also excluded to filter out commercial areas; this was not done with Rosemary
Heights due to the smaller number of addresses and lack of large commercial zones within
the neighbourhood.
8) A random sample of 73020 addresses in each of East Clayton and Rosemary Heights was
then generated using GME’s random sampling tool. This created a new RNDSAMP field
in the address shape files with a value of 1 for those addresses in the sample and a value
of 0 for the excluded addresses.
9) The selected addresses with RNDSAMP field =1 were then exported to .csv file and
opened in Excel in order to construct the full mailing address by concatenating the fields
for house number, road name, postal code, and the addition of ‘Surrey, B.C’. Each address
was then printed on Avery white mailing labels 1 ½” x 4”.
4.5.4 Phone Sample
The low overall response rate by mail (4% to 5%) necessitated the use of a complementary
sampling method for data collection. Either an online survey or a phone survey could be used in
order to reach the required sample size. Having forward sortation area (FSA) and postal code
information from mail address sampling could be used in either method to obtain email addresses
and phone numbers of target sample population. For an online survey, email addresses of
residents could be rented from a third party at a lower cost of time (with the help of a software
for email blast) and money than a phone survey. However, the drawback of email list rentals is

The number 730 was determined based on an expected response rate of 13%. Such a high response rate
was based on the initial response rate of 75 hand-delivered packages in the case of Valley Ridge. The cost of
resources (e.g. postage stamps, printing, and return envelopes) to sample a larger number of addresses was also a
factor.
20

120

that the list is opt-in by consumers and may not satisfy random selection of the sample. Moreover,
there is a limitation on querying the data by FSA rather than by postal code.
A phone survey was chosen as a complementary method for data collection. A list of
1,000 randomly selected names and phone numbers was purchased from InfoCanada for each of
two FSAs, V4N (area for East Clayton) and V3S (area for Rosemary Heights) from a database of
9,512 and 15,469 entries respectively. Given that the FSA included other entries outside of East
Clayton and Rosemary Heights, only 152 entries were found that belong to the target sample
population. Calls were made by an experienced call center specialist to 152 persons from the
initial list of 2,000 entries with a total of 30 responses retained.
Another more focused list of 600+ entries for each of the two neighbourhoods was then
requested from InfoCanada. Calls were made by the same call center specialist to over half of the
entries of each list in order to reach the required sample size in each neighbourhood. The phone
survey commenced mid-April and finished late-May with a response rate of about 15% and an
average of 2 participants per hour for a total of 44 hours taken to contact residents of each
neighbourhood.
4.6 Survey Questionnaire21
A survey questionnaire was conducted using a mix of methods in order to achieve
required sample size. The survey questionnaire was conducted either by phone, door-to-door, or
self-administered by mail using Canada Post service. In a very few cases, an online survey
questionnaire was filled by participants using Survey Monkey. The survey questionnaire was

21

Please see appendix E for survey questionnaire.

121

reviewed for grammatical accuracy and ease of comprehension for the general public by an
academic development specialist from the Student Success Centre at the University of Calgary.
Mailing out the survey was done for the two cases in Surrey. A total of 1,460 packages
were delivered to residential addresses in East Clayton and Rosemary Heights. For East Clayton,
360 packages were delivered at the doorstep of randomly selected addresses by the researcher
during a field visit on March 5, 2014 with the help of a map of the neighbourhood that showed
the selected addresses and an additional 370 packages were sent by post to the remaining
randomly selected addresses on March 13, 2014 from Calgary. For Rosemary Heights, a total of
730 packages were all sent by post on March 18, 2014 from Calgary. The envelope size of the
total package was 7 ½” x 10 ½” containing a cover letter, a consent form to be signed by the
participant, the survey questionnaire, and a prepaid / business reply mail return envelope (size 5
⅞” x 9 ⅝”, Quick Strip closure). The consent form explained the purpose of the research, any
foreseeable risks and benefits of the research as well as what was required of voluntary
participants and what type of personal information would be collected.
The following table summarizes the survey collection methods used by each case study.
Table 4.2. Survey Collection Methods
Valley Ridge
Date

Discovery
Ridge

Jan./Feb. 2014 April 2014

In-person (doorto-door) or selfadministered
Online
By post
By phone
1

East Clayton

Rosemary Heights

Mar./Apr./May 2014

Mar./Apr./ May 2014

√

√

x

x

x1

x1

x

x

√

x

√

√

x

x

√

√

Only one resident in the neighbourhood has used the online survey
122

Overall, the field survey (and interviews) took a period of four months from late January
2014 to late May 2014. Care was taken to include residents from different parts of each
neighbourhood, i.e. residents along main boulevards as well as residents further within the
neighbourhood and along cul-de-sacs.
4.7 Interview Questions22
In addition to the survey questionnaire, semi-structured interviews were conducted with
12 residents from each case study in order to get more in-depth knowledge of responses of
residents.
Participants included residents who serve on the board of the Homeowner Association or
community association when applicable in order to obtain their perception of neighborhood
cohesion in their community. Almost all of the 48 interviews were conducted face to face except
for one which was conducted by phone and a few that were self-administered during field visits.
Interviews were also conducted with municipal planners of the City of Calgary and Surrey
in order to obtain their responses on how they perceive the gated-ness of neighborhoods as a
strategy in their planning decisions.
4.8 Data Analysis23 – Level I
The data collected was reviewed and analyzed in three consecutive passes: 1) open
coding; 2) axial coding; and 3) selective coding. This coding phase was performed by using a
software application called nVivo 10 for qualitative data analysis. In the first pass, open coding
involved assigning initial codes, tags, or labels to chunks of data (clauses, sentences and
paragraphs) in order to condense the mass of data into categories. A list of themes / categories

22
23

Please see appendix E for interview questions for residents and municipal planners.
Reference for Data Analysis section: Neuman, 1991.

123

was made at the end of the open coding and was subject, in the second pass of coding, to
reorganizing, sorting, combining and discarding some categories in order to help in finding
emergent themes.
The second pass, axial coding, shifted the focus from the mass of data to the codes and
labels assigned in the open coding pass in order to identify the axis of key concepts and work
towards organizing the themes. During this pass of axial coding, effort was made to relate the
concepts / themes and group them into clusters in order to stimulate thinking about linkages
between the concepts.
A third pass of data coding (selective coding) was performed after having identified the
major themes emerging from the axial coding pass. This pass involved selectively looking at the
collected data in order to find supporting or conflicting evidence for the major themes as well as
re-organize and elaborate on these themes.
During the three passes of the data coding phase as well as subsequent to the field survey
and field visits, analytic memos were written in order to make explicit thoughts and ideas that
emerged during the coding process. Coding passes were interrupted in order to write the analytic
memos. Such analytic memos formed the basis for interpreting the data in the final research
report. To be effective, reference to data locations was included in each analytic memo to
facilitate retrieval and cross-checking of data. Analytic memos were also dated and grouped by
theme and combined when deemed necessary after periodic reading of memos.

124

4.9 Data Analysis – Level II
Data analysis generally means the search for patterns in data. The patterns are then
interpreted in terms of social theory or the specific context where the pattern occurs. Two specific
data analysis methods were used in order to complement the data coding phase and find patterns
in the data: the illustrative method and the analytic comparison method.
4.9.1 The Illustrative Method
This method of data analysis uses empirical evidence to illustrate or support a theory. The
underlying theory provides the categories or rubrics under which the data may be categorized.
Data may either support or contradict the theory. Data from multiple cases provides parallel
demonstrations of the theory and the applicability of a model in several cases.
This method was useful in organizing the collected data and providing a theoretical lens
through which data may be analyzed for the search of patterns. It was also useful in bringing out
any anomalies that one of the case studies may have exhibited when trying to explain it using a
particular social theory.
4.9.2 The Analytic Comparison Method
The illustrative method was balanced by the use of the analytic comparison method.
Unlike the illustrative method where an underlying theory or model provides a framework for
organizing the data, the analytic method provides more flexibility by allowing for the
development of ideas from regularities or patterned relations within the data of a particular
context. In this research, the particular context is Western Canadian metropolitan areas. Focus
was put on a few of the regularities in the case studies which were contrasted with alternative
explanations while teasing out regularities that may not be limited to a particular context.

125

In order to apply the analytic comparison method, the “method of difference” was used
rather than simply looking for what is common in the compared cases (cf. “method of agreement”
- in terms of common causes and common outcomes). The method of difference is stronger and
provides a ‘double application’ of the method of agreement. Cases were grouped into sets
according to their similarities (positive cases) and differences (negative cases) with regard to
causes and outcomes. Key causal features were then identified that would explain why cases may
have some similarity to other cases but differ in outcome due to the lack of key / critical features;
in other words, why similar cases exhibited different outcomes.
4.10 Quantitative Analysis
The survey questionnaire consisted of 23 questions to which residents responded on a 5point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Responses were coded using an
ordinal scale from 1 to 5 where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree except for two
questions that underwent reverse coding: question no.5 (I would like to move out of this
neighbourhood) and question no.15 (I rarely have neighbours over to my house to visit). Such
coding and reverse coding of responses follows the analysis done by Buckner when comparing
the Neighbourhood Cohesion Index (NCI) of three Maryland suburban neighbourhoods in
Washington, DC.
The first step of analysis consisted of calculating an enveloping space construct as the
mean value of four items of the questionnaire that were added to Buckner’s survey instrument.
The following is a table that shows the questions for the four items included in the quantitative
analysis for the index of enveloping space and the dimension of enveloping space it pertains to.

126

Table 4.3. Four Items for Calculating the Index of Enveloping Space
Item
19

Dimension
of
Enveloping Space
People in my neighbourhood work together to keep children safe Informing

20

I consider my neighbourhood to be unique

21

There are certain dress codes, social practices, or events that Ex-forming
characterize my neighbourhood
It is easy to distinguish residents from non-residents who are Ex-forming
walking in the neighbourhood

23

Question

Informing

As shown in the above table, two items pertain to the informing dimension of Enveloping
Space and two other items pertain to the ex-forming dimension of Enveloping Space. The
informing dimension concerns cognitive evaluation by residents of the social and physical
environment of the neighbourhood (items 19 and 20, respectively). Item 19 probes in a succinct
way for a cognitive understanding of unity of purpose among residents for caring for children in
a suburban environment. An assumption here is that caring for other children in a neighbourhood
is an indicator of common values while at the same time providing an ‘enveloping’ sense for
children in a social way. Item 20 probes in a succinct way for a cognitive understanding of the
uniqueness of the neighbourhood. An assumption here is that the more the cognitive sense of the
uniqueness of the neighbourhood, the more informative the environment is to residents.
The ex-forming dimension concerns perceptual evaluation by residents of external
appearance of other residents.

Item 21 probes in a succinct way for outward perceptual

characteristics in terms of social practices and events as well as to what pertains to particular
dress codes that may be followed by residents. An assumption here is that such outward and
visible manifestations communicate a certain aura for the neighbourhood. Item 23 probes in a

127

succinct way and complements item 21 for manifested behaviours or visible cues that
differentiate residents from non-residents walking in the neighbourhood. An assumption here is
that there are certain perceivable cues that may not be as visibly prominent as social events.
A fifth item (Item 22) was initially subsumed under the construct of Enveloping Space
and which probed for an evaluation of the aesthetic appeal of the landscape. However, for some
residents, the question was not well defined and needed to be posed differently to clearly probe
for an aesthetically informing environment. Moreover, four items rather than 5 items were used
in order to increase the reliability of this construct. Cronbach’s Alpha was found to be 0.592 using
4 items, which was larger than the reliability of 5 items. Nevertheless, the value of Cronbach’s
Alpha is less than the acceptable value of 0.7 which suggests that the additional items of the
questionnaire need to be further developed in future research to fully account for the construct of
enveloping space. Following Buckner’s methodology, the Interclass Correlation Coefficient ICC
was checked to be about 0.3, which suggests that enough homogeneity exists for emergence of a
neighbourhood-level attribute and that enough within-neighbourhood variation exists to look for
important sub-group differences.
The second step of analysis consisted of calculating a NCI for each case study as the mean
value of responses to 18-item questionnaire. Three dimensions of the neighbourhood cohesion
construct were also calculated for each case study by referring back to Buckner’s grouping of
items for the three components of neighbourhood cohesion. Following Buckner, psychological
sense of community grouped all the even items; place attachment comprised items 1, 5, and 13;
and neighbourliness comprised items 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, and 17. Thus, this research replicates the use
of Buckner’s survey instrument and subscale items for each of the three components of
neighbourhood cohesion as has previously proven to be robust in the work of Wilkinson,
128

Townshend, and other researchers. In other words, principal component analysis PCA was not
used as a statistical method to verify the dimensionality of the construct of neighbourhood
cohesion.
The third step of analysis consisted of calculating the correlation bonds between the
construct of enveloping space and the construct of neighbourhood cohesion and its subscales over
the whole data set from the case studies. Then, correlation bonds were calculated for each
neighbourhood in order to illustrate differences between neighbourhoods. A scatterplot and linear
regression analysis were then conducted in order to see if enveloping space is a good predictor of
the level of neighbourhood cohesion over the four neighbourhoods.
The fourth step of analysis consisted of examining associations between enveloping space
and other factors in the literature that are assumed to have an impact upon the neighbourhood
cohesion of residents; in particular, gender, length of residence, and household income. In the
case of gender, an eta coefficient was calculated given that gender is a nominal variable.
Meanwhile, for length of residence and household income, Spearman’s coefficient was calculated
based on a ranking of categories for each of length of residence and household income.
The fifth step of analysis consisted of examining associations between neighbourhood
cohesion and the three factors identified in the literature as having an impact: gender, length of
residence, and household income in order to corroborate (or invalidate) the literature on
neighbourhood cohesion as well as bring out further differences across the neighbourhoods.
The final step of analysis consisted of examining interaction effects between enveloping
space, gender, household income, and length of residence as predictors of cohesion. The
statistical method used in this step was a generalized linear model, univariate analysis of variance
ANOVA.
129

CALGARY METROPOLITAN AREA

Calgary Metropolitan Area includes: Calgary, Airdrie, Cochrane, Chestermere and a few
villages. The introductory section presents a brief historical background for the city of Calgary
given that the case studies chosen for Calgary CMA are located within the city of Calgary.
5.1 Historical Background24
The morphogenesis of the city of Calgary stems from the favorable geographic location
as a meeting place and trading post between 1867 and 1875 for the Siksika and other natives such
as the Tsuu T’ina, the Nakoda, and the Pikuni, at the confluence of the Bow and the Elbow Rivers,
even though the rivers were not usable for navigation. Calgary at that time was reached through
major freight ways such as Edmonton Trail and Macleod Trail and was the site of whiskey trading
due to its proximity to Fort Benton, Montana till the arrival of the NW Mounted Police (NWMP)
in 1874 to secure the area.
The presence of the NWMP encouraged retail shops to locate at Calgary. These initial
steps towards becoming a commercial hub were coupled with a change of activity from buffalo
hunting to ranching and farming; buffalo hunting ceasing in 1879 with the near-extinction of the
buffalo. In 1877, Treaty 7 assigned land reserves to the First Nations in Southern Alberta.
Although ranching and farming have been risky industries in Calgary, they have formed the
economic base of the city. The boom-bust periods for Calgary became linked to productivity
cycles of the hinterland.

Unless otherwise cited, references for the historical background of Calgary were obtained from Local and
Alberta Histories Collection http://www.ourfutureourpast.ca/loc_hist/browse.aspx.
24

130

The advent of the railway and telegraph in 1883 boosted Calgary as a regional commercial
center controlling surrounding ranching and farming industries. The orthogonal grid was imposed
on the town to facilitate selling of lots. Wives were able to reunite with their husbands and the
population grew between 1883 and 1885 from 100 to 1,000. Retail shops relocated from banks
of the Bow and Elbow Rivers to Stephen Ave (8th Ave) and Atlantic Ave (9th Ave), forming the
nucleus of a business district in proximity to the Canadian Pacific Railway CPR station. Shops
were not only selling goods but were also a meeting place for residents as well as offering credit
to customers. Wagons were still being used along Edmonton Trail till 1891 when railways
connected Calgary to Edmonton. Less than a year after the arrival of the train station, Calgary’s
first depression occurred in 1884.
The second depression occurred a couple of years later after the severe winter of 1886.
During that year, the Great Fire devoured most of the 70 wooden downtown buildings and a bylaw issued on the following day mandated that all public buildings in the business district be
constructed of brick or stone and roofs be covered with tin. Outside the main business district, all
other buildings were entirely of wood. Local stone quarries provided the stone to re-build but
were soon used up by 1914. The first sandstone building was the Knox Presbyterian Church built
in 1887 (when Calgary had electricity) and two of the last buildings built with sandstone in 1914
were the Alberta Court of Appeal and Mewata Armouries. The period from the late 1880s to early
1890s was a prosperous time for two-storey office block construction as well as hotels but was
followed with a mid-1890s depression and a cholera epidemic, exacerbated by drainage and waste
disposal problems.
The early suburbanization of Calgary is traced back to the introduction of two streetcars
in 1909, and reaching 70 streetcars in 1915 (Neill, 2011). During the boom years for Calgary
131

from 1910-1912, the population grew to 45,000 with 25% of the population working in the
construction industry. In 1911, Calgary tripled in size from 12 sq. miles to 36 sq. miles including
11,350 houses.
The year 1912 was a prosperous year for Calgary especially with the discovery of oil at
Turner Valley but was followed with a panic in 1913 and the onset of WWI. The streetcar was
eventually replaced with trolley coaches and gasoline buses in 1950.
Slow growth after 1912 till end of WWII, accompanied by civic policy and formal policy
in 1920 to restrict growth, prevented the clustering of businesses along streetcar lines; i.e.
downtown dominance. The inter-war years were a hard time for Calgary and its prairie hinterland.
Population growth was natural as migration balanced out with those that left Calgary in the 1930s.
In 1931, population reached 83,760 of whom 70,000 were of British descent; giving
Calgary a dominant Anglo-Celtic character. The discovery of oil in Leduc in 1947 changed the
synergetic dependency of Calgary and its hinterland as the prime ‘crop’ became oil. Headquarters
of oil companies started re-locating to Calgary, putting it on the international scene by the mid1960s; Calgary gained a new ‘urban’ status. Modern high-rise office towers gradually replaced
residential land use in the downtown core. Calgary changed as population grew from 100,000 in
1946 to 315,700 in 1965 and correspondingly increased in size from about 40 sq. miles to
approximately 156 sq. miles.
5.2 Overview of Residential Development after WWII
Foran (2009) attributes major responsibility for residential development after 1945 to
CMHC’s lending policies in terms of amortization periods, down payments and insurance;
policies that encouraged the proliferation of single family houses and, by the 1950s, resulted in a
lack of affordable housing by denying lower incomes to qualify for mortgages. Another major
132

factor in the outcome of residential development was the City’s zoning policies; a tool used to
protect property and land values. Large developers came to the residential scene in the early
1970s, replacing the local builder-developers. Looking for economies of scale, large developers
demanded a minimum ongoing three-cycle land supply (land undergoing construction, land in
the process of subdivision application, and a supply of raw land). They were able to convince the
City to approve expansion at a time when only 60% of serviced land between 1946 and 1952 had
been built up at a sparse density of 18 persons per hectare, i.e. 7.3 persons per acre (Foran, 2009:
28). Moreover, expansion was approved despite a detailed report in July 1953 by the Calgary
District Planning Commission and the City of Calgary Planning Department as well as a plan in
the fall of 1953 to restrain expansion. Particularly, two local developers ‒ Kelwood Corporation,
formed in 1953 and Spyhill Development, incorporated in 1953 ‒ were the initiators in pushing
forward the first subdivisions that epitomized a congruence of interests between local buildingdevelopers and city officials. Such a congruence of interests became the norm for developer-city
agreements for future developments where the developer installed the utilities and the city
promised annexations that proceeded shortly after the development. One such residential
subdivision was Glendale, located west of 37th street SW, another was Thorncliffe Heights in the
north, and yet another was Meadowlark, just outside the city’s southern limits.
The outward expansion reinforced a mono-centric and uni-city and was realized by
contiguous growth, annexations, and discouragement of fringe communities. Annexations,
though carried out by the City, were sometimes initiated and promoted by developers in order to
enable lower land acquisition costs. In this sense, developers were a primary factor in directing
urban growth especially after the decision of the City in 1954 to delegate the development and
construction of residential subdivisions to private enterprise, a decision based on the issue of cost,
133

time and installation of utilities. According to Foran (2009: 20), feasibility and cost for providing
underground utilities were determining factors for the direction, timing, and nature of physical
growth in post-war Calgary. For instance, the city annexed land to the west in 1956 extending
beyond 45th Street to 53rd Street and 26th Ave. In 1957, 25 square miles were annexed to the south
to Anderson Road, increasing the city’s area to 74.4 sq. miles. According to Foran (2009: 49),
the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of utilities installation dictated direction of development to
the south more than to the west.
The next major annexation of over 70 sq. miles occurred in the early 1960s when the
City’s area reached 154 sq. miles with the annexations of Bowness and Montgomery in the
northwest, Midnapore in the south, and Forest Lawn in the east. These annexations, however,
were propelled by the City rather than initiated by developers. This is in contrast to the developerinfluenced annexations in the late 1970s which added 25 sq. miles to Calgary’s area. Such
annexations maintained the uni-city status of Calgary and paved the way for relatively
unrestrained suburban growth (at a density of 12 persons per acre in the 1963 plan and a density
of 22 persons per acre in the 1970 plan to a ‘flexible’ density in the 1978 plan) albeit deficient in
low cost housing and green space.
The post-war suburbs were repetitive and unimaginative in their designs, qualities which
attested to maximization of the profitability of private developers. A General Plan was adopted
in 1963 to provide directions for future growth but, in effect, maintained the ‘business-as-usual’
status quo rather than an instrument of change. Few developers offered some initiatives. For
example, Ellis Keith of Kelwood Corp. in 1967 created two artificial lakes: one for his
development in Lake Bonavista and another for the private development of Lake Bonaventure
which raised the value of lots and, accordingly, the property taxes collected by the City especially
134

for the 150 lots fronting Lake Bonaventure that had exclusive private use of the lake. This strategy
was emulated by other developers in different parts of the city as, according to the Planning
Department in 1976, lakes provided a sense of community (Foran, 2009: 145). A second major
amenity was the provision of golf courses by Kelwood and Carma in residential developments
such as Willow Park, Maple Ridge, and Varsity Acres. In the case of Willow Park, the golf course
amenity was an afterthought by the developer in order to boost sales which were lagging. Land
for this type of amenity was in some cases donated by the developer to the City in return for
waiving acreage assessment fees as well as including the 10% reserve requirement for the
subdivision within the amenity space.
The 1934 Zoning Bylaw25 promoted low density development designated as R2 (two
family residences / semi-detached) which also allowed R1, or single family dwellings. A new
zoning Bylaw adopted in 1958 did not change the R2 classification and added RR1 or restricted
single family zoning that allowed greater lot size and lower density.
Foran (2009: 73) argues that the Neighbourhood Plan / Unit Model that was developed to
consolidate community identity (by defining neighbourhood boundaries with arterial roads and
natural features) gave the City a rationale for a ‘layered’ zoning approach for each
neighbourhood. The typical zoning rationale or pattern was a transition from the periphery with
commercial and R2 zones facing arterial roads to the center of a neighbourhood with R1
designated zones; with the condition that Row housing, accepted by the City in 1960, did not face
R1. Notwithstanding, developers undermined the neighbourhood plan concept by an incremental

The 1929 Town Planning Act legislated Alberta municipalities to enact comprehensive zoning bylaws.
Since the adoption of the first planning act in 1913, Alberta has substantially rewritten its planning act in the years
1929, 1950, 1963, and 1977.
25

135

development of neighbourhoods that intersected major arteries as well as boundary conflicts
between adjacent neighbourhoods.
General plans of 1963, 1970, 1973, and 1978 were adopted by the City for future growth.
The 1963 plan set the stage for subsequent plans by implicit and explicit acceptance of the
inevitability of outward low-density growth in all radial directions. Rather than being based on
the neighbourhood concept, the 1963 plan called for ‘sector plans’, i.e. development of large
geographical sectors of the city in order to act as a frame of reference for future developer
subdivisions. After 1973, sector plans were replaced by ‘design briefs’ that were more
prescriptive and offered more guidance to developers. Nevertheless, their effectiveness was
always put into question as the sprawling pattern of Calgary’s growth was never really restrained
and provision of low cost and affordable housing became more and more difficult as the cost of
servicing land and construction costs escalated. As Foran states, housing prices had doubled and
then quadrupled by the end of the 1970s. This may attest to the monopoly exercised by the three
major developers: Carma, Daon, and Genstar. However, as Foran remarks, a monopoly in the
mid-1950s and early 1960s by Kelwood and Carma hadn’t raised housing prices; it is rather the
rising land values between 1968 and 1977 due to doubling of construction costs and quadrupling
of land servicing costs as well as the escalating cost of land that had risen more than six-fold
(from $4,900 in 1968 to $30,000 in 1977); in other words, monopoly did not lead to price
collusion (Foran, 2009: 221).
Rising housing costs and land upheld for policy review had instigated developers to plead
the City for more annexations with the rationale that more land supply would lower the rate of
increase of house prices and the cost of serviced lots. Two cases in point that furthered
annexations albeit with the purposes of compensation were developer lands in Fish Creek and
136

Nose Hill Parks. Developers aimed at capitalizing on the scenic views offered by those natural
environments despite their knowledge that those areas were initially reserved for park purposes.
One of the planning tools that would be utilized and initiated by developers in such a case was
density transfer. The risk taken by developers such as Carma, Kelwood and Wesco Property
Developments Ltd. paid off through different forms of compensation which included land
purchases from developers by the City, land swaps, and additional annexations as well as, in the
case of Carma, monopoly of land development in the north and northwest.
Despite changing City-developer relations in terms of more lengthy and complex
agreements relative to the 1950s and the imposition of heavier financial burdens on developers,
the form of residential development in the late 1970s did not differ especially with respect to
zoning practices and the extent of provision of low cost housing. As Foran (2009: 190) argues,
development control could have been used as an instrument to counteract the rigidity of zoning
bylaws but the zoning mentality prevailed even when developers applied for developing
apartment buildings in transitional areas26. Of course, the City acted to the benefit of established
communities and single family dwellings (R1 zoning) so as to avoid potential conflict raised by
NIMBY-ism (Not In My Back Yard) and prevent devaluation of existing properties. In a sense,
the gap that Hulchanski (1981: 40) mentioned between planners’ view of zoning and real estate
interests seemed to close. In closing the gap, zoning as a planning instrument was reduced to a
regulative and negative role rather than a constructive and positive one that a broader
understanding of zoning would have accomplished. For instance, developers tried to maximize

The term ‘land use bylaw’ originated in the 1977 Planning Act to bring together the two concepts of
zoning and development control in one hybrid regulatory system (Medeiros, 2011).
26

137

commercial zoning in their subdivisions in order to act as nodes that would allow adjacent higher
density residential developments. However, the extent to which this was possible was limited by
the density policy of 22 persons per acre (Foran, 2009: 194).
In order to provide low cost housing in the early 1970s, the City allowed reduced lot
frontages to 40 ft. which led to the demise of the suburban bungalow housing type. As increased
densities were generally perceived as leading to a diminished quality of life, the pattern persisted
for low suburban densities with high concentrations, a pattern that led to a lack of community
cohesiveness (Foran, 2009: 213).
By the late 1970s, affordable housing remained an issue especially since the City did not
go into residential land banking. The City was also reluctant to integrate low cost housing in
overall subdivision designs. More often than not, the City and developer maintained interest in
social housing only when federal and provincial financing were available.
5.3 Overview of Policies Affecting Residential Suburban Development
Calgary has successfully avoided ‘leapfrog’ development since the 1950s by adopting a
policy of contiguous and serviced development that was facilitated by the Unicity model of
growth (Taylor et al. 2010). It can be argued that such a policy for contiguous development
facilitated embarking of current policy on the sustainability wagon. In the mid-1990s, policy
became more focused towards sustainable suburban development with The Sustainable Suburbs
Plan (SSP). The SSP had been issued prior to the development of suburban neighbourhoods of
Valley Ridge and Discovery Ridge. From a social perspective, communities were to be designed
to be more socially diverse with higher densities and adaptable to changing lifestyles as well as
foster a strong sense of belonging to a community. Daily services were to be met within the
community so as to reduce dependence on private vehicles. From a fiscal perspective, costs of
138

development were to be minimized by a more compact urban form and the use of less
infrastructure. From an environmental perspective, environmentally sensitive areas were to be
protected and integrated into the regional open space system and air pollution would be
minimized by reduced vehicle trips.
Many of the sustainable suburbs principles have been applied to the neighbourhoods of
Valley Ridge and Discovery Ridge, particularly in regards to the environmental perspective such
as integration with the regional pathway system as well as ‘ecological’ landscaping / xeriscaping.
However, perhaps due to competing big box retail not a far distance away, daily services were
not being met within the neighbourhood. The trend towards working from home and starting
home businesses is gaining traction in those communities and may contribute to fewer vehicle
trips. From a social perspective, both neighbourhoods lack the presence of a building to function
as a community facility for gathering residents in events and special occasions, or in the unlikely
event of a natural disaster. In terms of minimum densities as indicated in the SSP (7 units/acre,
i.e. 17 units/hectare), Discovery Ridge comes closer in achieving the minimum density than
Valley Ridge that has a density of 6 units/acre (14.8 units/hectare). An elementary school is not
present within either of the neighbourhoods, though a joint-use site (JUS) has future provision
for an elementary school in Discovery Ridge.
The innovative policy adopted by the SSP was the introduction of a Growth Area
Management Plan as an intermediate level between the General Municipal Plan and the new
Community Plan, a type of comprehensive, collaboratively developed, plan that replaces the Area
Structure Plan (ASP) and eliminates the need, and time expended, for the developer’s concept
plan. Its intention is to deal with issues upfront rather than in a piecemeal fashion of the outline
plan as well as provide a framework for the Community Plan / ASP. Being a little older than
139

Discovery Ridge which had a community plan, Valley Ridge had a concept plan submitted to the
City by the developer (Barbican Developments Ltd.). The SSP clearly frames curvilinear street
patterns as less sustainable from a transit-oriented perspective than a modified grid pattern.
Emphasis of sustainability is placed on public transit rather than social aspects such as
appropriation of space and sense of safety, for instance. The utility and pragmatic layout of the
grid in terms of transit, services, and infrastructure supersedes the social (and cultural) aspect of
the curvilinear street pattern in terms of the creation of ‘micro’-neighbourhood units that foster a
sense of appropriation, sense of orientation, and safe environment for kids to play. If the degree
of internal connectivity of the street pattern is calculated by the link-to-node-ratio, Discovery
Ridge and Valley Ridge clearly represent a curvilinear cul-de-sac pattern with ratios of 1.15 and
1.20 respectively27.
What the SSP succeeded in achieving is the development of outer-ring suburbs built at
higher densities than inner-city suburbs. Less land has been consumed with new suburban
developments, falling from 6.5 ha per 100 new residents in the last decade of the 20th century
(1991-2000) to 2 ha per 100 residents in the first decade of the 21st century (2001-2011) (Taylor
et al. 2014). In addition, Calgary avoided leapfrog development since 2005 by refusing extension
of trunk water pipes to settlements outside Calgary’s corporate boundaries that are not contiguous
or planned at urban densities. It also halted the proliferation of scattered country residential
developments west of the city but not individual acreages, which might be problematic in the
future.

The link-to-node ratio was calculated by the researcher. For Discovery Ridge, there were 114 links and
99 nodes to give a ratio of 1.15:1. For Valley Ridge, 170 links and 142 nodes gave a ratio of 1.20:1.
27

140

The Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and the Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP) are
the key policy documents that guide smart growth and mobility in Calgary since 2009. The 2009
MDP represents a profound shift in policy objectives towards intensification with 50% of
population growth to be accommodated over the next 60 years within the then-current built-up
area. Since 2009, area structure plans (ASPs) are required for new suburban areas with a target
to surpass 60 people plus jobs per gross developable hectare. Those documents are the outcome
of the process called PlanIt Calgary which was set by Council in 2007 in view of integrating land
use planning and transportation planning. The PlanIt document planned for sustainably
accommodating 1.3 M more people in the following 60 years. Attaining the objectives of PlanIt
Calgary fulfil the goals of ImagineCalgary, a 100-year long-range vision for Calgary, approved
by Council in 2006. The subsequent time planning scales are a 30-year, 10-year, 4-year, and
yearly plan. The Route Ahead is Calgary’s public transit 30-year plan. In 2011, The City of
Calgary also developed the 2020 Sustainability Direction where targets were set to be met by
2020, i.e. in a span of 10 years. The 4-year Business Plan and Budget sets shorter term outcomes,
strategies, and actions that align with the 10-year plan and provide direction for the steps needed
to fulfill the longer term plan. The Business Plan is implemented, in turn, through the Annual
Work Plan.
Urban containment policies such as PlanIt and ImagineCalgary may have caused house
prices to soar, with the average Calgarian being marketed out of homeownership. From a
pragmatic perspective, the growth management policy seeks to prioritize and sequence
development according to accessibility to transit, capacity of existing infrastructure, cost for the
city and readiness to proceed, proximity to employment opportunities, availability of community
services and land supply, as well as contiguous growth. At the same time, however, it is about
141

maintaining a balanced supply of land in developed and developing areas that ensure competitive
residential markets; in other words, a type of unbounded containment that encourages centripetal
incentives for intensification (Taylor et al. 2010). Having a 15-year planned land supply and a 3to-5-year of serviced land as targets of the MDP, the current capacity provides for 30,000 multifamily housing and more than 12,000 single family lots to be subdivided and built upon with
5,600 expected single family lots to be added in the spring of 2014 28. Nevertheless, the point of
view of developers, as expressed in the public media, is that such figures detract from the fact
that priorities are set in very specific sectors of the city, creating a land crunch, or a suburban
freeze, with escalating house prices that raise the bar for homeownership.

28

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/City+plan+calls+prioritizing+growth+Calgary+edges/9615921/story.html

142

VALLEY RIDGE

6.1 Location and Background
The following map shows the location of the two case studies in the West sector of
Calgary.

Figure 6.1. Location Map for Case Studies in Calgary
Source of base map: City of Calgary
143

Valley Ridge is a single-access neighbourhood located at the western gateway to the city
of Calgary, about 17 km from downtown. Valley Ridge land area is approximately 268 ha (663
acres). The land was annexed to the city in 1981. It is bounded on the north by the Bow River
that separates Valley Ridge from the neighbourhoods of Tuscany and Bearspaw (located in the
Municipal District of Rocky View just outside the city of Calgary corporate limits) and on the
south by the TransCanada Highway (a four lane, divided expressway). The western boundary is
defined by the city of Calgary’s corporate limit (bordering the Municipal District of Rocky View
No. 44) and the eastern boundary is the Provincial Transportation and Utility Corridor (Stoney
Trail ring road) that separates Valley Ridge from the neighbourhoods of Greenbriar and Bowness.
Access to the neighbourhood is currently from a single access point via the TransCanada
Highway interchange (see figure 6.2). A second access point from Bowfort Road via Greenbriar
area (crossing Stoney Trail) is envisioned in the future to accommodate increased traffic capacity
from additional stages of development within Valley Ridge.
The Valley Ridge area was formerly the site of Happy Valley Park and Campground as
well as a small inactive gravel extraction site. Happy Valley Park was a privately operated,
commercial recreation venture comprising a public golf course, swimming pool, ski hill and other
recreation facilities. Of these facilities, only the 18-hole golf course in the river terrace remains.
Tri-Media Studios Ltd. purchased Happy Valley Park in the late 1970s before the area was
annexed to the city of Calgary on Jan. 1, 198129. Due to an economic downturn in 1982, a proposal
by Tri-Studios Ltd. for a multi-use development centered around a movie/television/recording
studio on the Valley Ridge lands was never implemented. The land was acquired by Barbican

29

The lands immediately south of the TransCanada Highway were annexed July, 1989.

144

Developments Ltd.30 in 1989, and a revised concept proposal was submitted to the City in June,
1990.

The Estates
townhouse
development
(55 units)
The
Lodge
Seniors’
Residence
(133 units)

Valley Pointe
Estates

Shopping
Center

Single access to the neighbourhood
Figure 6.2. Physical Layout of Valley Ridge from TransCanada Highway
Source of base map: City of Calgary
Valley Ridge is a residential community accommodating a population of 5,055 in 1,700
dwelling units (2011 Census) at a density of 1,542 persons / km2 and a net residential density of
12.3 to 14.8 units per hectare (5 to 6 units per acre). The open space system is comprised of linear

Barbican Developments Ltd. was incorporated on 26 July 1996 with a registered address in Delta, BC
and is currently inactive and discontinued (Source: Corporations Canada, 21 May 2013) due to, according to
interview data of one of the residents in Valley Ridge, bankruptcy. Barbican Developments Ltd. owned most of the
land within Valley Ridge (259.8 ha).
30

145

and neighbourhood parks, tot-lots, a community recreational playfield site (area 4.0 ha, with two
baseball diamond fields, a soccer pitch, and a child playground), and a privately owned 18-hole
golf course (202 ha) which allows some public access. The golf course was extended with an
addition of nine holes. There exists a local commercial seven-store strip mall (a convenience store
/ gas bar, drycleaner, pizza shop, restaurant bar and grill, a medical center, and a liquor store)
near the entrance to the community.
A regional shopping center, Calgary West Retail Market, (with 650,000 ft2 of retail,
restaurant, entertainment, and amenities) on a total site area of 130 acres developed by Shape
Properties Corp., Vancouver, BC, is planned for construction in the summer of 2014 just opposite
Valley Ridge with a frontage of 1,400 ft. along the TransCanada Highway and adjacent to the
neighbourhood of Crestmount.
Valley Ridge site area consists of two basic topographic units (the river valley bottom and
an upper plateau area) comprised of six major landforms: a) a smooth uniform upland slope (10%
average gradient), located in the southwest corner of the area; b) gently rolling uplands located
in the central portion of the area with a complex network of depressions where slopes generally
reach a maximum of 15%; c) a flat upland in the eastern part of the area; d) a steeply sloping Bow
River valley escarpment, with slopes in excess of 22%; e) five ravines that perform important
drainage functions; f) a two-level river terrace, the lower of which contains both the floodway
and floodplain of the Bow River. The ravines and escarpment within Valley Ridge separate the
river valley bottom from the upper plateau area and provide habitat that is suitable for numerous
mammals: Mule and White-tailed Deer, Red Fox, American Badger, Canada Lynx, Long-tailed
Weasel and Varying Hare (Barbican Developments Ltd., 1990).

146

The uneven topography of the site area, coupled with a single access point and two
overhead electric power transmission lines (240kV and 138kV) that run through the western and
southwestern portion of the site, has differentiated the neighbourhood into spatially polarized
areas with a relatively homogeneous suburban type of development: single-detached housing and
curvilinear street pattern dominated by loops and cul-de-sacs. The predominant form of housing
is single-family (93.9%) but other housing types are also included such as townhouses (6%) and
apartment units. Valley Ridge has a community association with voluntary membership for $35
annual fee that allows resident members to participate in recreational, social, and educational
programs. However, there is no physical building that would function as a community centre.
Importantly, residents of Valley Ridge have not formed a Home Owners Association (HOA) that
would otherwise mandate annual membership fees and enforce restrictive covenants associated
with private properties in the neighbourhood. Development is occurring in three areas within the
neighbourhood: the Highlands, the Valley Brook, and The Estates.
6.2 Neighbourhood Profile
With a total population of 5,055 in 2011 (5,276 in 2013 - civic census data) living in 1,771
dwellings, Valley Ridge has an average of 2.89 residents per dwelling (or 2.86 residents per
single-family dwelling and 1.68 residents per townhouse unit) compared to 2.59 for Calgary. The
following are some highlights of the demographic and housing profile of the neighbourhood. For
time series data and more information, please see appendix A.
6.2.1 Demography
Population of the neighbourhood has grown by 12.83% in 5 years from 2006 to 2011.
About 17% of Valley Ridge neighbourhood’s population are above 60 years of age while more
than 32% are less than 20 years of age and 56% are between the ages of 20 to 60. Time series
147

data shows a decrease in percentage for the age group of less than 4 years old (decreasing from
9.82% to 7.30%) and a more noticeable decrease for the age group of 20 to 39 years old
(decreasing from 35% to 21%). Meanwhile, there was a noticeable increase in percentage for
seniors in the age group 60 to 74 years (an increase from 8.15% in 2006 to 12.23% in 2011).
Such changes in age group structure were accompanied by other demographic and social
changes.


Diversity. Immigrant population increased by 2% to reach 21.4% in 2011. In 2006, recent
immigrants residing in Valley Ridge were mainly from South Korea and Pakistan
followed by the United Kingdom while in 2011, recent immigrants were mainly from the
United Kingdom followed by the Philippines, Italy, and China.



Social isolation. The percentage of persons living alone increased from 2.7% in 2006 to
3.5% in 2011, increasing the probability of social isolation.



Families. Notably, the percentage of lone-parent families in Valley Ridge increased from
5.5% to 7.5%, signaling an increase of families with financial burden. This is paralleled
with a prevalence of low income households after tax to 2.8% in 2011 compared to 1.5%
in 2006.



Marital Status. Meanwhile, there was a relative stabilization in marital status as a higher
percentage of Valley Ridge neighbourhood’s population is married (about two-thirds)
when compared to the City as a whole (50%). In addition, the percentage of divorcees
decreased by 1%.



Mobility. There was also a lower turnover rate in the population. The percentage of
movers in the five-year period between 2006 and 2011 decreased from one-half to one148

third of the residents. In other words, more and more people are choosing to remain in the
neighbourhood.


Occupation. The occupation structure remained approximately the same except for the
percentage of residents having an occupation in education, law, and government services
who have increased from 8% to 12% whereas residents having an occupation in trades,
transport and equipment decreased from 8% to 5%.



Average Household Income. In 2006, average household total income of Valley Ridge
residents was about 73% higher than the average of household total income of Calgary.
This ratio decreased in 2011 to around 53% higher (i.e. 1.5 times) than the average
household total income in Calgary.

6.2.2 Housing


Tenure. The overwhelming majority of dwellings in Valley Ridge are owned (98%) rather
than rented (2%) with 42.12% of private dwellings constructed after the year 2001.



Dwelling Units. The following two photos show images of single family houses that are
predominant within the neighbourhood. In Valley Ridge, single family houses represented
almost 96% of dwelling unit types in the census year 2011 and the remaining 4% are
townhouses. New single family houses are being developed in Valley Pointe Estates at
the far west end of the neighbourhood while The Estates townhouses are being developed
in proximity to the golf course club close to the river.



Dwelling size. Average number of rooms (or bedrooms) per dwelling in Valley Ridge is
8 (3.1) compared to 6.7 (2.8) for Calgary. Average size of houses is 2,342 sq. ft. The
maximum size of recently built condos is 2,253 sq. ft (average size was not available).
149

Figure 6.3. Photo of single family houses in Valley Ridge (Photo by researcher)

Figure 6.4. Photo of single family houses in Valley Ridge (Photo by researcher)

150



House Price. In 2013, there were 112 houses sold in Valley Ridge with an average sale
price of $581,812. Thirteen condos were sold in 2013 with an average sale price of
$391,821. Average price per sq. ft. for houses and condos is $413 and $333 respectively.



Value of dwelling and Affordability. Average value of dwellings in 2011 was $546,847.
This is compared to an average value of $460,202 in 2006. Median assessed value of
single residential properties in Valley Ridge went up 60.45% from a value of $311,000 in
2006 to $499,000 in 2011 (Calgary Herald Data Centre). Number of owner and tenant
households spending 30% or more of household total income on shelter costs was 205,
representing 12% of households, according to 2011 census.



Natural Areas, Park space, and Walk score. Valley Ridge has 108,607 m2 of natural areas
per 1,000 residents compared to an average of 62,641 m2/1,000 people for Calgary.
However, Valley Ridge has just above average of park space for its population as
compared to the average of Calgary neighbourhoods. Specifically, Valley Ridge has
35,500 m2 / 1,000 people which is just above the average of 32,726 m2 for Calgary. The
Walk score for Valley Ridge is 13.75, which is far from the average of 43.09 for Calgary
neighbourhoods. Paved pathways in Valley Ridge are 0.98 km /1,000 residents, which is
above the average of 0.64 for Calgary (Calgary Herald Data Centre).

6.3 Summary Matrix for Valley Ridge
The following table presents a summary matrix for Valley Ridge while applying the
operationalization of the concept of gated-ness (cf. figure 4.3).

151

Table 6.1. Summary Matrix – Valley Ridge
Valley Ridge
Population in 2011

5,055

Population density (persons / km2)

1,542

Residential density (units / acre)

Sociodemographic

% of population aged 20 to 60 years old

56%

% of persons living alone

3.5%

% of lone-parent families

7.5%

% of immigrant population

21.4%

% of low income households

2.8%

Turnover (% of non-movers over 5 years)

66.4%

Average number of persons / household

2.9

Average number of children at home

1.1

Average household income
Physical

Economic

6

Land area

$167,992
268 ha

No. of access points to the neighbourhood

1

Degree of nesting

9

% of owned dwellings

98%

Average size of houses

2,342 sq. ft.

% of single-family houses

96%

% of semi-detached dwellings

0%

% of townhouses

4%

Average value of dwelling
Average selling price / sq. ft.
% of households spending more than 30% of
total household income

6.4 Data Collection and Sample Description
The following is an itinerary of data collection for Valley Ridge:

152

$546,847
$413
12%

Table 6.2. Itinerary of data collection for Valley Ridge
Day 1

Date
Time
Hours spent
Temp.

Areas
covered

Car Stations
(see map
below)
No. of
surveys
Prepaid
return
envelopes
(delivered
hand-to-hand)
Responses
returned by
post
Mail
Response
Rate
Total no. of
surveys

Jan.
20, 2014
2:306:00 pm

Day 2

Jan.
21, 2014
10:30
am - 4:00 pm

Day 3

Jan.
27, 2014
4:307:00 pm

Day 4

Jan.
28, 2014
1:004:00 pm and
6:30-8:00
4.5
3 ºC
but felt
moderately
cold
Valley
Creek Crescent
and Valley
Stream Close
Valley
Creek Road
and Valley
Creek Place

Day 5

Day 6

Feb.
18, 2014
4:207:20 pm

Feb.
20, 2014
4:306:30 pm

3
-2 ºC
but felt very
cold – felt like
-7 ºC
Valley
Ponds Way,
Valley Ponds
Crescent and
Valley Springs
Terrace

2
-2 ºC
but felt very
cold – felt like
-7 ºC
Valley
Glen Heights
and Valley
Brook Circle

3.5
-8 ºC

5.5
-2 ºC
but felt chilly

2.5
-11 ºC

Valley
Woods Place,
Valley Woods
Way, Valley
Woods
Landing,
Valley Ridge
Green, and
Valley Ridge
Court
No. 1
and 2

Valley
Ridge Point,
Valley Crest
Gardens,
Valley Crest
Close, and
Valley Crest
Rise

Valley
Stream Circle,
Valley Stream
Place and
Valley Stream
Manor

No. 3,
4 and 5

No. 6

No. 7
and 8

No. 9
and 10

No. 11

13

25

13

15

11

7

14

10

23

27

0

0

2

2

4

6

N/A

N/A

14%

20%

17.4%

22.2%

N/A

N/A

15

27

17

21

11

7

Two additional surveys were done with residents walking in the neighbourhood who live
in Valley Pointe Way (new single family development at the west end of the neighbourhood).
They had moved in the neighbourhood less than a year (around 11 months) ago. One additional

153

survey, later received by post, did not mention any specific address but was included in the
analysis.
The total number of survey participants are 98 + 3 = 101. For a population size of 5,042
in 2011, the sample size (for a confidence level of 95% and confidence interval of 10) was
calculated to be 94 using an online sample size calculator.
Only two of the 101 participants (who returned the survey by post) did not provide name,
a street name or address. Thirteen participants did not provide their name; of which four did not
provide their household income bracket and two did not provide their gender.
Fourteen additional participants did not provide information for their household income
bracket; giving a total of eighteen participants declining to provide their household income.
All 101 participants answered the 23 questions of the survey. Average pace of survey was
4 surveys per hour. Many houses had pets in them, predominantly dogs, and this was a
characteristic of almost all of the areas surveyed. This may speak to the need for security or a
way of socializing when taking daily walks.
Several potential participants declined to participate either due to being busy, on a
business call, performing work at home, on their way out, on their way to pick up their children
or husband from work, on their way to soccer training, or not interested in participating, or
preparing for dinner. A few declined from behind the door, signalling “no thanks”. Some were
not eligible to participate because they were either under 18 years of age, were staying as visitors
to friends and family for a short period, or were not residents such as babysitters and house maids.
A very few were sick and could not participate. All residents were polite in declining to
participate.

154

Figure 6.5. Number of survey participants by area of residence in the neighbourhood
6.4.1 Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of the survey sample of 101 residents are shown in the following table:

155

Table 6.3. Valley Ridge Survey Sample
VALLEY RIDGE SURVEY SAMPLE
Male
Female
Gender
Not given
Total
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 5 years
Length of
5 to 8 years
Residence
8 to 10 years
Over 10 years
Total
Less than 24k
24k to 36k
36k to 48k
48k to 60k
60k to 75k
Household
75k to 90k
Income*
90k to 115k
115k to 130k
Over 130k
Not given
Total

Number
51
48
2
101
10
7
20
16
13
35
101
3
1
0
1
8
7
8
16
38
19
101

Percentage
50.5%
47.5%
2%
100%
9.9%
6.9%
19.8%
15.8%
12.9%
34.7%
100%
3.0%
1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
7.9%
6.9%
7.9%
15.8%
37.6%
19.4%
100%

*Upper limits in the questionnaire were actually $1 less (e.g. $35,999 for an upper limit of $36k)
in order to avoid indecisiveness on the part of participants for which income bracket they belong. In the
table the upper limits have been simplified to facilitate legibility.

As can be seen from the above table for survey sample characteristics, the ratio of male
to female respondents is almost equal (ratio of 1.06:1). For length of residence in the
neighbourhood, over one-third of the respondents resided for over 10 years while roughly from
one-sixth to one-fifth of respondents resided for one of these three categories: less than two years,
2 to 5 years, 5 to 8 years; and one-eighth of respondents resided from 8 to 10 years. For household
income bracket, over half (53.4%) of the sample had an income greater than 115k per year; 4%
(retired seniors) had a household income less than 36k/year and about one-fifth of the sample did
156

not report their household income bracket. No respondents recorded an income between 36k and
48k/year and almost a quarter of respondents (23.7%) had an income between 48k and 115k per
year.
Characteristics of the interview sample of 12 residents are shown in the following table:
Table 6.4. Valley Ridge Interview Sample
VALLEY RIDGE INTERVIEW SAMPLE
Male
Female
Gender
Not given
Total
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 5 years
Length of
5 to 8 years
Residence
8 to 10 years
Over 10 years
Total
Less than 24k
24k to 36k
36k to 48k
48k to 60k
60k to 75k
Household
75k to 90k
Income*
90k to 115k
115k to 130k
Over 130k
Not given
Total

Number
6
6
0
12
1
2
2
2
3
2
12
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
3
3
2
12

Percentage
50%
50%
0%
100%
8.3%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
25.0%
16.7%
100%
0.0%
8.3%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
25.0%
25.0%
16.7%
100%

*Upper limits in the questionnaire were actually $1 less (e.g. $35,999 for an upper limit of $36k)
in order to avoid indecisiveness on the part of participants for which income bracket they belong. In the
table the upper limits have been simplified to facilitate legibility.

As can be seen from the above table for interview sample characteristics, the ratio of male
to female respondents is exactly equal (ratio of 1:1). For length of residence in the neighbourhood,
one-fourth of the respondents resided between 8 and 10 years while one-sixth of respondents
resided for one of these four categories: 1 to 2 years, 2 to 5 years, 5 to 8 years, and over 10 years;
157

and one respondent resided for less than a year. For household income bracket, half (50%) of the
sample had an income greater than 115k per year; 8.3% (retired senior) had a household income
less than 36k/year, 8.3% had a household income of 36k to 48k /year, and one-sixth of the sample
did not report their household income bracket. No respondents recorded an income less than
24k/year or between 48k and 90k/year; and one-sixth of interviewees had an income between 90k
and 115k per year.
Qualitative data analysis of the 12 interviews and quantitative data analysis of the 101
survey participants were conducted with the help of NVivo v.10 software for qualitative analysis
and IBM SPSS v.21 software for quantitative analysis.
6.5 Qualitative Analysis
The first question asked residents if they were planning to stay in the neighbourhood for
more than five more years. Most of the interviewees planned to stay more than five years in the
neighbourhood. This was common among those who have resided for only two or three years and
for those who have resided for six or seven years, as well as those who have resided for ten or
more years. Particular concerns for some interviewees were house size and retirement as factors
that would affect their choice to move. House size was small for one of the interviewees
(interview no. 4) who resided for four months. She had a very high sense of neighbourhood
cohesion, typical for newcomers to a neighbourhood but was disappointed for lack of services
and amenities within the neighbourhood. For another interviewee (interview no. 5) who resided
for 9 years, she wanted to move to another house with a larger backyard. Retirement was a factor
in regards to downsizing to a smaller abode. Nevertheless, those who wanted a larger house or
backyard and those who were close to retirement, all wanted to stay within the neighbourhood
except for one interviewee (interview no. 9) who was not an owner, was not attached to the
158

neighbourhood, and intended to buy a house in another neighbourhood. Another interviewee
(interview no. 1) pointed to the issue of safety for kids especially for houses overlooking major
roads in Valley Ridge such as Valley Ridge Drive and Valley Ridge Boulevard. Although the
interviewee has only spent 2 years in the neighbourhood, he may be looking forward to move to
another part of the neighbourhood for safety of his kids. Thus, the general impression is that the
neighbourhood has a certain appeal to residents such that they intend to stay in the
neighbourhood.
The top three reasons interviewees gave for choosing to live in their current
neighbourhood:
1. Location. Location was important both with respect to ease of access to downtown and
proximity to medical services (e.g. Foothills Hospital) as well as easy access to major highways
(TransCanada Highway and Stoney Trail) and, accordingly, proximity to mountains to the west
(close to Banff National Park) as well as connectedness to North Calgary and airport in the
northeast.
2. Green spaces. Abundant green space provided within the neighbourhood was the
second reason for choosing to live in Valley Ridge. Ample green space is due to the golf course
amenity, parks and green banks of the Bow River. The age of developed trees and walking / bike
paths that wove through the green spaces and that connected to walking trails at the scale of the
city allowed residents to enjoy the green space.
3. Wide streets, quiet neighbourhood, demography of the neighbourhood and
neighbourliness of residents, house design and house price were among the top reasons but,
overall, fared less well than location or abundance of green space. Two interviewees (interview
no. 2 & 5) added that the presence of family members within the neighbourhood was a major
159

reason for choosing to live in Valley Ridge. One of the twelve interviewees, who had previously
lived in a gated community in the U.S. (Muirfield Village in Dublin, Ohio) added that the single
access to the neighbourhood gave her a sense of safety for herself and her kids, similar to what
she had experienced in the gated community. Rather than moving to another gated community
with codes, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that would be burdensome, the semi-gated
neighbourhood of Valley Ridge offered a compromise especially with the absence of a
homeowner association enforcing the CC&Rs.
When asked what particular features Valley Ridge has that are not found in other
neighbourhoods, interviewees gave an iteration of the above three top reasons. Interviewees
mentioned ease of access to downtown and mountains; proximity to the Bow River and Bowness
Park, with nice walkways; ‘good’ greenery and abundance of trees / green space and parks
compared to other neighbourhoods; the golf course and panoramic views; the ice skating and
hockey rink and proximity to Canada Olympic Park. One other interviewee remarked that the
single access to the neighbourhood was a unique feature that ensured that only residents of the
neighbourhood had reason to access the neighbourhood. This gave her a sense of safety and sense
of familiarity with other residents. The single access feature was also mentioned by another
interviewee who observed that the limited access prevented drive-through(s) and promoted his
sense of safety. Two other interviewees remarked that the shortage of services within the
neighbourhood was a characteristic feature in a negative sense.
Neighbourhoods that were perceived to be as appealing to live in as Valley Ridge are:
Crestmount, Cougar Ridge, Discovery Ridge, Aspen Woods, and Springbank acreages, Tuscany,
Bowness, Brentwood, University Heights, Parkdale and Wildwood. Reasons that interviewees
gave for similar appeal to other neighbourhoods were: general location on the edge of the city,
160

and closeness to the countryside in the case of Tuscany and Discovery Ridge; the green space,
trees and parks in the case of Wildwood, Bowness, Brentwood, University Heights and Parkdale;
developed trees, house design, and neighbourliness of residents in the case of Cougar Ridge;
mountain views and widely spaced houses in the case of Springbank.
Three interviewees (interview no. 3, 8 & 11), however, did not perceive any other
neighbourhood in Calgary as appealing. Valley Ridge was a perfect choice for them. On the other
hand, one interviewee (interview no. 9) perceived the neighbourhood to be similar to almost any
other neighbourhood in Calgary except those that had services and amenities. Although this
observation was made by an interviewee who is not an owner and who did not have a sense of
place attachment to the neighbourhood, the view of the ordinariness of the neighbourhood was
shared by many survey respondents who, surprisingly, did not find their neighbourhood to be
unique in spite of its attractive characteristics. Here, an important point for interpretation is raised
from such an apparent paradox between the general appeal of the neighbourhood and the
acceptance of its ordinariness.
Neighbourhoods that were mentioned to be superior to Valley Ridge were newer
communities such as Aspen Woods, Tuscany, Discovery Ridge, and Crestmount due to the higher
price of houses, higher income bracket of residents, and perception that houses in those
communities were larger. Bearspaw and Springbank stood out as the most mentioned and
perceived to be superior due to larger yards and large estate houses that were widely spaced.
Nevertheless, five out of twelve interviewees found that Valley Ridge was second to none. They
couldn’t mention any neighbourhood to be superior to Valley Ridge. This speaks to the presence
of some sort of resonance between the neighbourhood and its residents; a resonance at the sociopsychological and cultural level. Similar values and lifestyle choices (moral aspect) as well as,
161

perhaps, convergent social and developmental paths among residents seem to attract such
residents to the same neighbourhood; other neighbourhoods (that may have larger yards and
houses) for such residents do not resonate with them at the internal or external psychological
level or experience.
All interviewees, except one (interview no. 10) who is retired and with relatively low
income, observed that the neighbourhood is not affordable to low income residents. Reasons
given for exclusion of low income residents were the relatively high house prices that increased
over time; the predominance of single family houses on account of multi-family housing /
townhouses; and limited public transit options and less frequent bus service on weekends makes
it difficult for low income families to reside in the neighbourhood. One interviewee (interview
no. 11) mentioned that some renters, who had rented a house at the end of the road from where
she lived, could not get along due to transport issues as they did not have a car. Concerning
accessibility for lower middle income, interviewees mentioned that as new townhouses and
condos are being added, the range of options is enlarged. For example, The Lodge at Valley Ridge
senior retirement community, with 133 one-bedroom and two-bedroom suites, may be affordable
for lower middle income seniors. Interviewees remarked that the condos sell for not less than
$350k.
When explicitly asked about the effect of a single access to the neighbourhood with
respect to their sense of safety, five out of twelve interviewees affirmed that their sense of safety
increased with the addition of two interviewees (interview no. 2 & 6) who also affirmed their
increased sense of safety due to a single access but pointed out the drawbacks in terms of
evacuating the neighbourhood in an emergency or traffic blockage due to accidents on the
highway. Four interviewees explicitly negated an effect of a single access on their sense of safety
162

and one interviewee (interview no. 1) was ambivalent: “I haven’t felt unsafe because of it”.
However, when interviewees were asked if a single access affected their willingness to stop and
talk with residents in the neighbourhood, only one (interview no. 2) out of twelve interviewees
felt that she was more willing to stop and talk, arguing that the single access limits the presence
of outsiders and increases the probability of meeting with people who are residents of the
neighbourhood. This speaks to the effect of the single access more on the affective dimension
rather than the interactive dimension of neighbourhood cohesion. Nevertheless, eleven other
interviewees negated any effect of a single access on their willingness to stop and talk, arguing
that the neighbourhood is inherently friendly or that it was natural for them to be confident to talk
to any person in the community regardless of the single entry.
Six questions were then posed to interviewees who responded on a five-point Likert scale
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The questions probed for observations of residents in
regards to the four components of neighbourhood cohesion: one question concerned each of
PSOC and neighbourliness; and two questions concerned each of place attachment and
enveloping space. The interviewees strongly agreed or agreed in regards to their observations for
five of the six questions with a couple of interviewees being ambivalent in regards to place
attachment and neighbourliness. The appeal of the landscape and sense of safety scored very high
without any ambivalence or disagreement among the twelve interviewees; those two aspects were
followed by PSOC which was almost unanimous among the interviewees except for one
interviewee (interview no. 1) who was ambivalent concerning his perception of similarity with
other residents and agreement on values or what is important in life. Thus, there is an overall
sense of similarity among residents, particularly from a cultural and moral aspect.

163

The only question that had large controversy was the last question that probed for the
effect of an enveloping space by asking if residents observed a particular lifestyle, events or
activities that encouraged them to stop and talk with other residents. Five out of twelve
interviewees either strongly disagreed (n=1), disagreed (n=2), or remained ambivalent (n=2).
Seven interviewees, on the other hand, either agreed (n=4) or strongly agreed (n=3). The
neighbourhood seems to have few events or activities that may be observed by residents yet many
agree that the neighbourhood is characterized by a particular lifestyle (especially by virtue of its
location / situation and the large golf course expanse).
When asked to elaborate on aspects of the neighbourhood that contributed to their sense
of community or aspects that positively impacted the quality of their life, interviewees recalled
seasonal activities such as Halloween, Christmas, winter activities like sled rides, and the
presence of an ice rink, children soccer events, a yearly common garage sale, the small parks for
children, and the golf course amenity. One senior interviewee pointed out socializing monthly
via dinner parties.
The size of Valley Ridge was mentioned by two interviewees (interview no. 1 & 2) as a
factor for community ‘feel’. One interviewee, comparing Valley Ridge to Tuscany, commented
that she wouldn’t want to live in Tuscany due to its sheer size. The other interviewee, comparing
Valley Ridge to Discovery Ridge, observed that Discovery Ridge has a more community feel
because of its smaller size relative to Valley Ridge. The interviewee also remarked that the site
topography of Valley Ridge also had an effect on sense of divisiveness within Valley Ridge
(‘those down the hill’ versus ‘those up the hill’) but remarked that Discovery Ridge’s site
topography is also divisive because of the hill. The literature on neighbourhood cohesion

164

confirms the effect of size of the neighbourhood on the cohesion of residents (cf. Townshend as
well as Buckner).
Other interviewees highlighted the neighbourliness aspect: ‘good neighbours’, the
community newsletter, planned events, and communal interest to make neighbourhood families
feel welcome when moving into the community. This observation was complemented by an
interviewee who finds that the number of families with children in her immediate neighbourhood
that share the small children’s park to be an important aspect of socializing with other neighbours.
The perception of the presence of children within the neighbourhoods seems to be unevenly
distributed in different areas of the neighbourhood as some perceived the neighbourhood to be a
retirement community while others conglomerated in areas where families with children chose
to reside due to the presence of a small park.
Three interviewees referred back to location with respect to access to highways (translated
into well plowed streets in winter), access to big shopping malls, and proximity to nature, the
river, and pathway system while at the same time having easy access to downtown as an important
contributor to their quality of life. One of the interviewees (interview no. 11) who has been a
resident for 10 years and has children commented plainly that: “I consider it as any other
neighbourhood” while at the same time expressing that she liked the area.
The psychological sense of community was expressed by one of the interviewees
(interview no. 4) as an aspect that affected her quality of life. She argued that the expensive house
prices for an average person excluded low income households while aggregating higher income
households through establishing commonalities. She was implicitly referring to the ‘housing
ladder’ when commenting that the commonalities did not solely emanate from the expensive
house prices but more importantly from: “what people went through to get here”.
165

Valley Ridge does not have a Homeowner Association (HOA) nor restrictive covenants.
Membership is voluntary for the community association ($35/year). Dealing with the community
association is informal via emails. People are informed of events through the community
newsletter. One senior interviewee (interview no. 8) who had resided for more than 10 years
commented that the community association has a weak / ‘amateur’ administration evidenced by
the landscaping of the neighbourhood which is not well managed.
6.6 Interpretation
The general impression is that the neighbourhood has a certain appeal to residents such
that they intend to stay in the neighbourhood. Valley Ridge is appraised by its residents as the
best community in Calgary especially in terms of low residential density and generous expanse
of green space due to the golf course that intersperses the residential units. The locational
advantages are also a characteristic of the neighbourhood. There seems to be a trend of
transformation of the neighbourhood into a retirement community though some residents already
perceive it as such. The lack of young children in some parts of the neighbourhood definitely
reinforced such a perception. The transformation is evidenced by an increasing percentage of
persons over 60 years old. In addition, the newly built construction work involves erection of
manor houses for seniors. In other words, efforts are being made to help seniors age in place. The
aging demographic may be a factor of appeal to seniors. In addition, as commented by one of
residents, medical services easily accessible from Valley Ridge due to proximity to Foothills
Hospital may be an important factor for many seniors choosing to stay in Valley Ridge.
The presence of ethnic diversity was felt in the area of Valley Crest Close and the design
of the houses was markedly different from other areas of Valley Ridge that had larger and more
aesthetically pleasing designs and whose entrances had more grandeur such as Valley Ridge
166

Point. Though the general impression was that the residents had a strong place attachment to the
neighbourhood, there was a sense of hidden malaise either from the ordinariness of the
neighbourhood in their perspective or from the increasing ethnic mix in the neighbourhood.
Perhaps, the feeling of malaise was also felt by residents who perceived the neighbourhood to be
governed by a few. Such perceptions were noticed especially when residents were answering
survey question no.6: If people in my neighbourhood were planning something, I’d think of it as
something ‘we’ were doing rather than something ‘they’ were doing. Some residents expressed
their disapproval for the new shopping mall that would be constructed beside Olympic Park. They
perceive the proximity of such a large scale commercial development as disrupting the peace of
the neighbourhood. Lastly, the physical isolation of the neighbourhood may also be a contributing
factor to the general malaise. Further research is needed to verify if such general malaise is felt
more by young single adults than by seniors within the manor houses.
There were a few sub-neighbourhoods within the neighbourhood of Valley Ridge. This
was felt from observations during the field survey and perceptions by one of the survey
participants who considered Valley Ridge to be composed of different sub-neighbourhoods or
parts reinforced by the topography of the neighbourhood. The physical structure of the
neighbourhood also contributed to the compartmentalization of the neighbourhood by a street
layout that was not only nested but also branched into three separate parts.
Residents on the main spine or boulevard expressed the importance of the single access
to the neighbourhood more often than residents who were living at the end of a cul-de-sac street.
The latter residents felt they had control over their immediate environment and this sense of
control evaded any establishment of a link of their sense of safety with a single access to the
neighbourhood. In contrast, however, residents along the main boulevard felt that the single
167

access was important in adding to their overall sense of safety and willingness to interact with
other people in the neighbourhood. Given that most of the neighbourhood is designed with a culde-sac and loop pattern of streets, preliminary analysis showed that there were no differences in
regards to any of the components of neighbourhood cohesion construct by area of residence in
the neighbourhood. Thus, it was not clear if there were differences between those residing on culde-sacs and those on the main boulevard. However, the assumption in the literature is that those
residing on main boulevards are more extrovert and engage in social interaction than those nested
further deep in the neighbourhood. Further research is needed to test this assumption.
The effect of the single access was somewhat jeopardized by access to the neighbourhood
from Bowness Park from residents of other neighbourhoods. This may have decreased the overall
feeling of containment. Moreover, the single access is starting to be problematic especially that
new construction and extension of the neighbourhood are almost complete. The single access
may be providing a sense of safety but a second access point is needed from a logistic perspective.
As qualitative analysis showed, some malaise also came from the social ‘misfit’ that a
resident had with the prevalent social status in the neighbourhood. In other words, single middleaged persons living alone had a low sense of neighbourhood cohesion when compared to seniors
(who perceived the neighbourhood as a retirement community) and even a much lower sense of
neighbourhood cohesion when compared to families with children especially that activities in the
neighbourhood mainly revolved around children (soccer tournaments and Halloween) and the
aggregation of families was particularly influenced by the presence of parks.
The external situation of the neighbourhood is reflected in the presence of particular
services within the neighbourhood, particularly, the presence of a gasoline station in the

168

commercial center of the neighbourhood which lends the neighbourhood an appellation of a
‘highway suburb’.
A final point needs to be made concerning the physical structure of the neighbourhood.
Valley Ridge presents itself as a neighbourhood with a clear boundary (bounded by highways
and the Bow River) with a single access point, yet lacking a clear focus for the entire
neighbourhood. The two possible centers: the shopping center and the golf course, have not
succeeded in acting as a clear focal point. The reason is that the golf course covers a large expanse
of the neighbourhood and is very diffuse to act as a focal point while the shopping center (with
an adjacent large playground) is not centrally located within the neighbourhood but, due to
economic reasons, is located close to the single access point. The shopping center contains a
gasoline station and thus necessitates a location accessible and close to TransCanada Highway.
As we shall see, this is in contrast with the case of Discovery Ridge where the shopping center
and playground are centrally located and far from the single access point; a location which can
be expected to be economically less performing at the wider city scale than a peripheral location
vis-à-vis the neighbourhood.
6.7 Conclusion
This chapter investigated the sense of neighbourhood cohesion of the Calgary
neighbourhood of Valley Ridge. Neighbourhood cohesion was found to be high especially in
regards to place attachment (see chapter 11 for comparison of case studies). Three factors stand
out as contributing to the high sense of place attachment: a physical dimension: the design of the
neighbourhood (particularly the abundance of green open space); a structural dimension: the
locational advantage of the neighbourhood vis-à-vis the city and the mountains; and a
demographic dimension: the type (professionals) and age (seniors) of residents.
169

Nonetheless, the three factors were somewhat jeopardized. The physical dimension was
somewhat jeopardized in several areas of the neighbourhood due to the uniformity and relatively
bland architectural style of the houses; a factor which may have contributed to a feeling of lack
of uniqueness of the neighbourhood in terms of physical characteristics31. The social dimension
was jeopardized due to the increasing ethnic diversity within the neighbourhood as well as the
increasing perception of the neighbourhood in the later stages of its development as a retirement
community. Finally, the structural dimension is being somewhat jeopardized due to future plans
for development both within (to absorb new families while also encouraging aging-in-place) and
in proximity to the neighbourhood (the project for the regional shopping center) which aroused
concern of some residents for increased traffic, disruption of the overall environment of peace,
and the need of another access point for logistic reasons.
The absence of a homeowners’ association impacted upon the upkeep of the landscape
and effective snow removal in winter. The maintenance and upkeep of the landscape is mainly
through municipal efforts, budget and timetable. A community association with voluntary
membership and low membership fees was not able to fill the gap in the absence of a formal
homeowners’ association. Thus, the standards of quality for the overall landscape were at city
standards rather than being set at higher standards that would be maintained by a larger budget
through mandatory membership in a homeowners’ association enforced by covenants attached to
property titles.

Less than half of survey respondents (49.5%) considered Valley Ridge to be unique, including only 9%
who strongly agreed that the neighbourhood was unique.
31

170

There was a diminished sense of containment in Valley Ridge due to accessibility of the
neighbourhood from Bowness Park and due to the use of a common exit from TransCanada
Highway with the neighbouring community of Crestmont. The diminished sense of enveloping
space was also due to the increasing presence of ethnic diversity in the neighbourhood as well as
due to relative blandness in the architectural style of houses.

171

DISCOVERY RIDGE

7.1 Location and Background
Discovery Ridge is a single-access neighbourhood located at the western limit of the city
of Calgary, about 17 km from downtown. Discovery Ridge land area is approximately 360 ha
(890 acres), or 278 ha (688 acres) net of the Elbow River. The land was annexed to the city in
1995. The neighbourhood was once planned to be called New Discovery and was to be a gated
community when the development of the neighbourhood first began 32. However, it was never
gated and the community can be accessed by the public. It is bounded on the north by the
Provincial Transportation and Utility Corridor (Highway 8 / Glenmore Trail) that separates
Discovery Ridge from the neighbourhood of Springbank Hill and Signal Hill and on the south by
the Tsuu T’ina Sarcee Nation Reserve. The western boundary is defined by the city of Calgary’s
corporate limit (bordering the Municipal District of Rocky View No. 44) that separates Discovery
Ridge from Elbow Springs Golf Club and Elbow Valley exclusive estate homes neighbourhood.
The eastern boundary is the Elbow Valley Constructed Wetland33 that separates Discovery Ridge
from the northeast corner of the Tsuu T’ina reserve that was once used as a military base and
training ground during WWI, the interwar years, and WWII34. Access to the neighbourhood is

There exists a residential enclave in the neighbourhood that is gated where access is restricted for residents
by use of an entry code. This type of nesting of a gated enclave within a larger common interest development is
typified by Townshend (2006) as “two-tier privatization”.
33
Construction of earthworks and structures was completed in late 1995 and the wetlands were planted in
the spring of 1996. The layout of the Elbow Valley Constructed Wetland is based on the pond-marsh-pond design
for wetland stormwater management and waste water treatment (City of Calgary Constructed Wetland Task Force,
June 2004: 8. Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement: A design primer for the development industry)
34
The First World War was a strong catalyst in the decision to lease the northeast corner of the nation
reserve land to the military after years of negotiation (Lackenbauer, P.W. 2011: 63. Battle Grounds: The Canadian
Military and Aboriginal Lands).
32

172

currently from a single access point via at the intersection of Glenmore Trail and 69th Street. A
second access point was recently proposed by a developer in order to develop more housing in
the neighbourhood. However, the plans of the developer for a second access were denied by the
community with support from the alderman (for location map, see figure 6.1; for physical layout,
see figure 7.1).
Glenmore
Trail
Single access to the
neighbourhood
from
Highway 8 (Glenmore
Trail)

Shopping
Center and
townhouses

Elbow
Valley
Wetlands

Griffith
Woods

Community playground
and JUS
Figure 7.1. Physical Layout of Discovery Ridge
Source of base map: City of Calgary
The Discovery Ridge area was formerly the site of what was known as Jackson’s Valley35
with dense conifer trees, White Spruce, Balsam Poplar, Trembling Aspen, and wildlife. The area
was used for agricultural and ranching purposes36. Horses and cattle extensively grazed portions

Email communication with author of Glamorgan and its Neighbourhood School (2008), written in
commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the opening of Glamorgan Elementary School.
36
The major landowner of Discovery Ridge was Power Farms with land totaling 242 hectares in addition
to three other private landowners in the area.
35

173

of the area. A large part of Discovery Ridge is now a natural environment reserve called Griffith
Woods Regional Park (area: 93 ha) which supports a habitat for a wide variety of wildlife: whitetailed and mule deer, coyotes, weasels, hares, beavers, porcupine and muskrat as well as
occasional visits by moose, elk, black bear, lynx, skunk, fox, cougar and over 70 species of birds.
Griffith Woods is one of Calgary’s three ‘special protection’ natural environment parks along
with Inglewood Bird Sanctuary and Weaselhead Natural Area at the western end of Glenmore
Reservoir37.
The natural and environmentally significant areas are designated as open space and
managed in accordance with The City of Calgary Natural Area Management Plan, the Calgary
Urban Park Master Plan, and the Calgary River Valleys Plan. Meanwhile, the Discovery Ridge
development was affected by the following policies and studies: The East Springbank Area
Structure Plan; the City of Calgary / M.D. of Rocky View Inter-municipal Development Plan;
Calgary Transportation Plan; Sustainable Suburbs Study; Transit Friendly Design Guide; The
City of Calgary Environmental Policy, Principles and Goals; Calgary Restricted Development
Area and Transportation / Utility Corridor; Calgary General Municipal Plan; Floodway /
Floodplain Studies.
Discovery Ridge is a residential community accommodating a population of 4,398 in
1,653 dwelling units (2011 Census) at a density of 1,200 persons / km2 and a net residential
density ranging from 9.9 to 14.8 units per hectare (4 to 6 units per acre) on the plateau to 25 units
per hectare (10 units per acre) in the core area.

Because of the connection of Griffith Woods to Weaselhead Natural Area, it has direct connection to
wildlife habitat outside the city.
37

174

A community commercial and retail core is located centrally within the community. It
contains local retail and office (1,858 – 3,716 m2), recreational and community uses, high density
multi-family housing, open space, and a transit stop. The core connects with the river valley lands
via the road network and regional pathway and trail system. The road network has been designed
to accommodate public transit along the ‘spine’ road through the community core. The open
space system is comprised of linear and neighbourhood parks (2 acres), tot-lots (0.5 acres), a
community recreational playfield or joint-use site JUS (area 4.0 ha, with a soccer pitch, a child
playground, and recently constructed ice hockey rink and two tennis courts).
Discovery Ridge site area consists of two basic topographic units: 1) the river valley with
a major east-west escarpment that extends the entire southern end of the area and a north-south
ravine that bisects the area and functions as the major natural drainage course for lands in East
Springbank to the north; and 2) an upper plateau area. Much of Discovery Ridge is characterized
by the Elbow River floodway, representing approximately half of the plan area.
The uneven topography of the site area, coupled with a single access point and an
overhead electric power transmission line (138kV) that run through the southern portion of the
site, has differentiated the neighbourhood into spatially polarized areas with a relatively
homogeneous suburban type of development: single-detached and duplex housing with a
curvilinear street pattern dominated by loops and cul-de-sacs. The major form of housing is
single-family (55.3%) but other housing types are also included such as duplexes (6.4%),
townhouses (3.8%) and apartment units (34.5%). The diversity of housing types accommodates
a broad spectrum of population groups and lifestyles. Discovery Ridge has a community
association (DRCA) with voluntary membership for $25 annual fee that allows resident members
to participate in recreational, social, and educational programs. However, there is no physical
175

building that would function as a community centre. Residents of Discovery Ridge, unlike Valley
Ridge, have a Home Owners Association called New Discovery Homeowner Association
(NDHA) that mandates annual membership fees of $300 and enforces restrictive covenants
associated with private properties in the neighbourhood.
7.2 Neighbourhood Profile
With a total population of 4,395 in 2011 (4,332 in 2013 - civic census data) living in 1,605
dwellings, Discovery Ridge has an average of 2.74 residents per dwelling (or 3.43 residents per
single-family dwelling, 2.29 residents per duplex, 1.95 residents per townhouse unit, and 1.46
per apartment unit) compared to 2.59 for Calgary. The following are some highlights of the
demographic profile of the neighbourhood. For time series data and more information, please see
appendix B.
7.2.1 Demography
Population of the neighbourhood has grown by 32.27% in 5 years from 2006 to 2011.
About 10% of Discovery Ridge neighbourhood’s population are above 60 years of age while
more than 31% are less than 20 years of age and 59% are between the ages of 20 to 60. Time
series data shows a decrease in percentage for the age group of less than 4 years old (decreasing
from 10% to 8%) and a more noticeable decrease for the age group of 20 to 39 years old
(decreasing from 29% to 23%). Meanwhile, there was a noticeable increase in percentage for
seniors in the age group 60 to 74 years (an increase from 6.3% in 2006 to 8% in 2011).
Such changes in age group structure were accompanied by other demographic and social
changes.


Diversity. Immigrant population increased by 6.7% to reach 23% in 2011. In 2006, recent
immigrants residing in Discovery Ridge were mainly from South Korea followed by the
176

U.S. while in 2011, recent immigrants were mainly from the United Kingdom followed
by Venezuela. In 2011, the aboriginal population and visible minority have almost
doubled their percentage compared to 2006 census.


Social Isolation. The percentage of persons living alone increased from 5.6% in 2006 to
8.6% in 2011, increasing the probability of social isolation.



Families. Notably, the percentage of lone-parent families in Discovery Ridge decreased
from 8.5% to 6.3%, signaling an decrease of families with financial burden. This is
paralleled with a decrease in the percentage of low income households after tax to 2.8%
in 2011 compared to 3.6% in 2006.



Marital Status. Meanwhile, there was a relative stabilization in marital status as a higher
percentage of Discovery Ridge neighbourhood’s population is married (about two-thirds)
when compared to the City as a whole (50%). In addition, the percentage of divorcees
decreased by 1.3%.



Mobility. There was also a lower turnover rate in the population. The percentage of
movers in the five-year period between 2006 and 2011 decreased from 90% to 50% of
the residents. In other words, more and more people are choosing to remain in the
neighbourhood.



Occupation. The occupation structure remained relatively the same except for the
percentage of residents having an occupation in education, law, and government services
who have increased from about 10% to 14% whereas residents having an occupation in
business, finance and administration decreased from about 20% to 17.5%.

177



Average Household Income. In 2006, average household total income of Discovery Ridge
residents was double the average of household total income of Calgary. This ratio
decreased in 2011 to around 75% higher than the average household total income of
Calgary.

7.2.2 Housing


Tenure. The overwhelming majority of households in Discovery Ridge are owned
(83.5%) rather than rented (16.5%) with 92.72% of private dwellings constructed after
the year 2001.



Dwelling Units. The following two photos show images of single family houses that are
predominant within the neighbourhood. In Discovery Ridge, single family houses
represented only 56% of housing types in the census year 2011. This percentage
represents a decrease of almost 15% from the census year 2006 due to the addition of 5storey apartment buildings in a complex named The Wedgewood’s.

178

Figure 7.2. Photo of single family houses in Discovery Ridge (Photo by researcher)

Figure 7.3. Photo of single family houses in Discovery Ridge (Photo by researcher)

179



Dwelling size and average number of rooms per dwelling. Average number of rooms (or
bedrooms) per dwelling in Discovery Ridge is 8 (3.1) compared to 6.7 (2.8) for Calgary.
Average size of houses and condos is 2,518 sq. ft. and 1,011 sq. ft. respectively.



House Price. In 2013, there were 45 houses sold in Discovery Ridge with an average sale
price of $824,653. The average sale price may have temporarily decreased due to the June
2013 flood. Forty three condos were sold in 2013 with an average sale price of $414,418.
Condos prices seem to have been impacted more than houses due to the flood. Average
price per sq. ft. for houses and condos was $396 and $344 respectively.



Value of dwelling and Affordability. Average value of dwellings in 2011 was $712,974.
This is compared to an average value of $671,302 in 2006. Median assessed value of
single residential properties in Discovery Ridge went up 80.07% from a value of $431,500
in 2006 to $777,000 in 2011. Number of owner and tenant households spending 30% or
more of household total income on shelter costs was 310, representing 19% of households,
according to 2011 census.



Natural Areas, Park space, and Walk score. Discovery Ridge has 298,228 m2/1,000
residents compared to an average of 62,641 m2/1,000 people for Calgary. However,
Discovery Ridge has less park space for its population than the average of Calgary
neighbourhoods. Specifically, Discovery Ridge has 19,200 m2 / 1,000 people which is
less than the average of 32,726 m2 for Calgary. The Walk score for Discovery Ridge is
9.75, which is far from the average of 43.09 for Calgary neighbourhoods. Paved pathways
in Discovery Ridge are 1.18 km /1,000 residents, which is above the average of 0.64 for
Calgary (Calgary Herald Data Centre).
180

7.3 Summary Matrix for Discovery Ridge
The following table presents a summary matrix for Discovery Ridge while applying the
operationalization of the concept of gated-ness (cf. figure 4.3).
Table 7.1. Summary Matrix – Discovery Ridge
Discovery Ridge
Population in 2011

4,395

Population density (persons / km2)

1,200

Residential density (units / acre)

Sociodemographic

% of population aged 20 to 60 years old

58.9%

% of persons living alone

8.6%

% of lone-parent families

6.3%

% of immigrant population

23.1%

% of low income households

2.8%

Turnover (% of non-movers over 5 years)

50.1%

Average number of persons / household

2.74

Average number of children at home

1.3

Average household income
Physical

Economic

6 (10 in core area)

Land area

$193,091
278 ha

No. of access points to the neighbourhood

1

Degree of nesting

9

% of owned dwellings

83%

Average size of houses

2,518 sq. ft.

% of single-family houses

56%

% of semi-detached dwellings

6.5%

% of townhouses

3%

Average value of dwelling
Average selling price / sq. ft.
% of households spending more than 30%
of total household income

181

$712,974
$396
19%

7.4 Data Collection and Sample Description
The following is an itinerary of data collection for Discovery Ridge:
Table 7.2. Itinerary of Data Collection for Discovery Ridge

Date
Time
Hours spent
Temp.
Areas covered

Car Stations
(see map below)
Total no. of
surveys

Day 1
Apr. 7,
2014
11:001:15 pm and 3:156:30 pm
5.5
17 ºC
Discovery
Ridge Blvd,
Discovery Ridge
Terrace,
Discovery Ridge
Cir
Discovery
Ridge Blvd,
Discovery Ridge
Gardens,
Discovery Ridge
Manor
No. 1, 2, and 3

Day 2
Apr. 8,
2014
2:00-4:00
pm and 4:30-7:15
pm
4.75
20 ºC
Discovery
Ridge Way,
Discovery Ridge
Park, Discovery
Ridge Mt,
Discovery Vista
Point, Discovery
Ridge Heights

No. 4 and 5

No. 6

No. 7

32

32

26

4

182

Day 3
Apr. 10,
2014
4:00-8:30
pm

Day 4
Apr. 14,
2014
3:30-4:15
pm

4.5
15 ºC
Discovery
Dr., Discovery Pl,
Discovery
Heights

0.75
16 ºC
Discovery
Ridge Rise

Discovery
Ridge Rd,
Discovery Ridge
Ct, Discovery
Ridge Crescent

Figure 7.4. Number of survey participants by area of residence in the neighbourhood
The total number of survey participants are 94, of which 93 filled the questionnaire on
site. One of the 94 participants who is president of the Discovery Ridge Community Association
filled a survey online. None of the surveys was delivered by post. In general, participants were
more comfortable providing their first name only or declining to give any name as well as
providing a postal code instead of an exact address. Forty-nine participants did not provide their
name; of which twelve did not provide their household income bracket and one did not provide
the gender. Seven additional participants did not provide information for their household income
bracket; giving a total of nineteen participants declining to provide their household income.
Of the 94 participants, 93 answered each of the 23 questions of the survey while one
participant (no. 46) answered 22 questions and left one without a response (question no. 4: asking

183

about meaningfulness of the friendships and associations in the neighbourhood). Average pace
of survey was 6 surveys/hour. Several potential participants declined to participate either due to
being busy, on a business call, performing work at home, on their way out (e.g. board member to
attend the Community Association meeting), on their way to pick up their children, or not
interested to participate, or preparing for dinner. Some were not eligible to participate because
they were either under 18 years of age. All residents were polite in declining to participate.
7.4.1 Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of the survey sample of 94 residents are shown in the following table.
Table 7.3. Discovery Ridge Survey Sample
DISCOVERY RIDGE SURVEY SAMPLE
Male
Female
Gender
Not given
Total
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 5 years
Length of Residence
5 to 8 years
8 to 10 years
Over 10 years
Total
Less than 24k
24k to 36k
36k to 48k
48k to 60k
60k to 75k
Household Income*
75k to 90k
90k to 115k
115k to 130k
Over 130k
Not given
Total

Number
42
51
1
94
3
12
22
20
15
22
94
0
0
1
0
3
1
7
6
57
19
94

Percentage
45%
54%
1%
100%
3.2%
12.8%
23.4%
21.3%
16.0%
23.4%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
0.0%
3.2%
1.1%
7.4%
6.4%
60.6%
20.2%
100%

*Upper limits in the questionnaire were actually $1 less (e.g. $35,999 for an upper limit of $36k)
in order to avoid indecisiveness on the part of participants for which income bracket they belong. In the
table the upper limits have been simplified to facilitate legibility.

184

As can be seen from the above table, the ratio of male to female respondents is
comparable. For length of residence, about a quarter of the respondents resided for over 10 years
or between 2 to 5 years while roughly one-sixth to one-fifth of respondents resided for one of
these two categories: 5 to 8 years and 8 to 10 years. For household income, the majority (67%)
of the sample had an income greater than 115k/year; none had a household income less than
36k/year and one-fifth of the sample did not report their household income bracket.
Characteristics of the interview sample of 12 residents are shown in the following table:
Table 7.4. Discovery Ridge Interview Sample
DISCOVERY RIDGE INTERVIEW SAMPLE
Male
Female
Gender
Not given
Total
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 5 years
Length of Residence
5 to 8 years
8 to 10 years
Over 10 years
Total
Less than 24k
24k to 36k
36k to 48k
48k to 60k
60k to 75k
Household Income*
75k to 90k
90k to 115k
115k to 130k
Over 130k
Not given
Total

Number

7
5
0
12
0
0
7
2
2
1
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
3
12

Percentage
58%
42%
0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
58.3%
16.7%
16.7%
8.3%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
75%
25%
100%

*Upper limits in the questionnaire were actually $1 less (e.g. $35,999 for an upper limit of $36k)
in order to avoid indecisiveness on the part of participants for which income bracket they belong. In the
table the upper limits have been simplified to facilitate legibility.

185

As can be seen from the above table for interview sample characteristics, the ratio of male
to female respondents is comparable (ratio of 1:1.4). For length of residence in the
neighbourhood, the majority (58.3%) of the respondents resided between 2 and 5 years while
one-sixth of respondents resided for one of these two categories: 5 to 8 years, and 8 to 10 years.
One respondent resided for more than 10 years while none had resided for less than 2 years. For
household income bracket, three-quarters (75%) of the sample had an income greater than 130k
per and a quarter of the sample did not report their household income bracket. No respondents
recorded an income less than 130k/year.
Qualitative data analysis of the 12 interviews and quantitative data analysis of the 94
survey participants were conducted with the help of NVivo v.10 software for qualitative analysis
and IBM SPSS v.21 software for quantitative analysis.
7.5 Qualitative Analysis
The first question asked residents if they were planning to stay in the neighbourhood for
more than five more years. All of the interviewees, independent of their length of residence in
the neighbourhood, planned to stay more than five years in the neighbourhood except for one
interviewee who might be forced to move due to family circumstances rather than for reasons
pertaining to the neighbourhood. Particular reasons to stay for some interviewees were suitable
house size, location of the neighbourhood, kids attending nearby schools, natural amenities
(forest and river), and sense of community between residents as well as good quality of life.
Overall, there was a general appeal to remain within the neighbourhood.
The top three reasons interviewees gave for choosing to live in their current
neighbourhood:

186

1. Location. Location was important for half of the interviewees both with respect to ease
of access to downtown (i.e. proximity to work) and access to major highways (Glenmore Trail
and, in the near future, Stoney Trail) as well as proximity to nature / outdoors (Griffith Woods
Park and trail system pathways). Though location was also an important factor for the case of
Valley Ridge, Discovery Ridge differs in that the neighbourhood is more secluded than Valley
Ridge given that it is not as easily accessible by residents from surrounding communities by
reason of natural and artificial boundaries such as the Elbow River, golf course, Griffith Woods
Park, Tsuu T’ina Indian Reserve, and Elbow Valley Wetlands.
2. Single entry point. A single access to the neighbourhood was the second major reason
for a quarter of the interviewees and was stated explicitly by residents of Discovery Ridge. The
single entry point, which led to the identification of the majority of people in the neighbourhood
as residents of the neighbourhood, contributed to a higher sense of safety and a sense of
neighbourliness. Connecting the single entry aspect with a higher sense of safety and sense of
neighbourliness was explicitly articulated by the interviewees. The two major reasons are
expressed succinctly by one interviewee (interview no. 4) as: “I like the forest. I like my
neighbours. It’s safe.” Though the public have access to Griffith Woods Regional Park, the single
access to the neighbourhood gave residents a sense of appropriation of, and identification with,
the park as well as a sense of stewardship. The effect of a single access was expressed more
commonly by residents of Discovery Ridge compared to residents of Valley Ridge.
3. Clean and non-transient, demography of the neighbourhood, house design and house
price were among the top reasons but, overall, fared less than location or sense of safety and
neighbourliness. Two interviewees (interview no. 6 & 10) added that the presence of family
members and prior knowledge of people within the neighbourhood or adjacent area was a major
187

reason for choosing to live in Discovery Ridge. As expressed in the literature on neighbourhood
cohesions, a non-transient neighbourhood population characterized by a low turnover rate
positively contributes to a higher sense of cohesion among residents. Residents develop a sense
of stability which is augmented by the presence of family and acquaintances in the neighbourhood
and surrounding areas.
When asked what particular features Discovery Ridge has that are not found in other
neighbourhoods, interviewees gave an iteration of the above three top reasons with an addition
by one interviewee (interview no. 12) of a less social mix compared to other neighbourhoods and
by another interviewee (interview no. 9) of the presence of a strong designated school. Although
the percentage of immigrants in Discovery Ridge (23%) is slightly higher than that of Valley
Ridge (21%), the perception of ethnic mix by residents in Discovery Ridge is lower than Valley
Ridge. This might be due to the concentration of ethnic enclaves in particular areas in Valley
Ridge compared to a more diffuse distribution in Discovery Ridge.
Interviewees mentioned ease of access to downtown and mountains; proximity to the
Elbow River and nice walkways; and the pristine natural reserve of Griffith Woods. Three
interviewees (interview no. 5, 9, & 10) remarked that the single access to the neighbourhood was
a unique feature that ensured that only residents of the neighbourhood had reason to access the
neighbourhood. This contributed to their sense of safety and sense of familiarity with other
residents. The single access feature also limited access, prevented drive-through(s) and reduced
the level of traffic in the neighbourhood. Other interviewees noted the general cleanliness of the
neighbourhood and particular design features such as the presence of architectural controls (e.g.
black chain fences), the presence of walkways that separated the backyards of houses from being

188

contiguous while eliminating the presence of lanes, as well as the enjoyment of mountain views
from some vantage points.
Neighbourhoods that were perceived to be as appealing to live in as Discovery Ridge are:
Aspen Woods, Aspen Landing, Elbow Valley, Wildwood and Glamorgan. Reasons that
interviewees gave for similar appeal to other neighbourhoods were: similar look of houses,
mature trees / landscaping of the neighbourhood, as well as being safe and established
neighbourhoods in the case of Wildwood and Glamorgan that also give a sense of community.
Half of the interviewees, however, did not perceive any other neighbourhood in Calgary
as appealing. Discovery Ridge was a perfect choice for them with the distinction for one of the
interviewees (interview no.4) that his neighbours were respectful. Interestingly, one interviewee
(interview no. 9) who was a resident of the neighbourhood for six years extolled the
neighbourhood layout indirectly by stating that neighbourhoods that lack definite boundaries (in
the sense of an open grid layout with many access points) also generally lack a sense of
community. This remark clearly relates the physical boundary condition of neighbourhoods to
positive social effects such as sense of community.
Neighbourhoods that were mentioned to be superior to Discovery Ridge were established
‘historical’ communities and close to downtown such as Mount Royal, Britannia, Scarborough,
Kensington, and Wildwood. Other superior neighbourhoods mentioned had higher prices and
houses with larger lots such as Elbow Springs, Elbow Valley, Stone Pine, and Aspen Landing.
Nevertheless, five out of twelve interviewees found that Discovery Ridge was second to none.
They couldn’t mention any neighbourhood as superior to Discovery Ridge. Even when such
interviewees acknowledged superior location or better quality houses of other neighbourhoods,

189

Discovery Ridge remained incomparable in terms of park and mountain access as well as the
presence of sense of community and suitability for retirement for some residents.
Three quarters of interviewees observed that the neighbourhood is not affordable to low
income and lower middle income residents. Reasons given for exclusion of low income residents
were the relatively high house prices that increased over time; being in the average range of $600k
and up. Interviewees who acknowledged the presence of a full range of housing options such as
semi-detached houses, condos and townhouses still considered the neighbourhood mostly
exclusive but not highly exclusive; expressed succinctly by one of the residents as: “inclusive as
can be” given the high density of apartments with no room to expand due to constraints of the
environmental reserve.
When explicitly asked about the effect of a single access to the neighbourhood with
respect to their sense of safety, eight out of twelve interviewees affirmed that their sense of safety
increased; expressed by one interviewee (interview no. 9) as: “one entry point has a big impact.”.
The single entry was perceived as decreasing opportunistic crime. Interestingly, two interviewees
(interview no. 10 & 11) looked at the single entry from another perspective. They saw it in terms
of difficulty of evacuating the neighbourhood in an emergency or traffic blockage due to
accidents on the highway. Their worry was appeased either by presence of nearby services such
as a fire station and good bus service or by choosing to live as close as possible to the single entry
to facilitate egress. Two other interviewees (interview no. 4 & 6) explicitly negated an effect of
a single access on their sense of safety.
However, when interviewees were asked if a single access affected their willingness to
stop and talk with residents in the neighbourhood, only three (interview no. 1, 5, & 9) out of
twelve interviewees felt that they were more willing to stop and talk, arguing that the single access
190

limits the presence of outsiders and increases the probability of meeting with people who are
residents of the neighbourhood. Nevertheless, nine other interviewees negated any effect of a
single access on their willingness to stop and talk, arguing that the neighbourhood is inherently
friendly or that it was natural for them to be confident to talk to any person in the community
regardless of the single entry or their knowing most of their neighbours.
Six questions were then posed to interviewees who responded on a five-point Likert scale
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The questions probed for observations of residents in
regards to the four components of neighbourhood cohesion: one question concerned each of
PSOC and neighbourliness; and two questions concerned each of place attachment and
enveloping space. The interviewees strongly agreed or agreed in regards to their observations for
all of the six questions with a couple of interviewees being ambivalent in regards to PSOC.
The appeal of the landscape and sense of safety scored very high without any ambivalence
or disagreement among the twelve interviewees; those two aspects were followed by an aspect of
sense of enveloping space which was almost unanimous among the interviewees except for one
interviewee (interview no. 12) who was ambivalent. Only two residents disagreed about lifestyle,
events or activities that encourage them to stop and talk with residents. The only component that
had some controversy was PSOC. Concerning similarity with other residents and agreement on
values or what is important in life, three interviewees were ambivalent and only one disagreed
while the remaining three quarters mostly agreed (only one strongly agreed). Concerning the
contribution of friendly residents to their sense of belonging, only two disagreed and the
remaining ten either agreed (n=6) or strongly agreed (n=4). A possible interpretation for
ambiguity in the PSOC and sense of similarity with other residents is the differential influx of
residents to the neighbourhood that is contingent upon phase of development. Residents
191

mentioned that they were able to buy into the neighbourhood when house prices were relatively
low. However, with the development of the neighbourhood and the spiking of house prices, a
new, so to speak, category of residents with different values, occupation and economic status
started to populate the neighbourhood. Such a differential influx has caused a few interviewed
residents to feel a sense of dissimilarity with the new others and described them consistently as
“snobby”.
When asked to elaborate on aspects of the neighbourhood that contributed to their sense
of community or aspects that positively impacted the quality of their life, interviewees recalled
seasonal activities such as polar bear dip in winter, spring cleanup and garage sale, pancake
Stampede breakfast, and the yearly barbecue. Two interviewees (interview no. 1 & 6) pointed out
socializing via the neighbourhood coffee shop / pub. Some projects such as starting a community
garden are also bringing residents of similar interests together. One interviewee (interview no.
12) referred to the recent flood of June 2013 as a contributing factor to more people caring for
the neighbourhood and thinking about other neighbours who are not just personal friends. Thus,
working towards a common goal, accommodating sustainable practices, or facing the effects of
natural disasters have all generated activities, opportunities for participation, and venues of
communication for developing shared understanding among residents and sensitizing them about
issues of their neighbourhood while at the same time developing sense of neighbourhood
cohesion.
The good bus service was mentioned by three interviewees (interview no. 2, 6, & 10) as
improving the quality of their life by improving access to the rest of the city. The bus service was
especially important for their children to learn how to use it and who could also go to a
recreational facility nearby. The newly constructed extension of the C-train transit line to the west
192

end of Calgary with a terminus at the intersection of 69 St and 17th Ave SW has further
contributed to the ease of connection of the neighbourhood with the rest of the city especially for
teenagers whose mobility, and accordingly quality of life, may have been limited by lack of transit
options. Suburbs have definitely been stigmatized by lack of mobility options and infrequent
transit service. Nevertheless, the stigma is gradually reduced with provision of light rail transit
and may impact on higher hedonic house prices.
Other interviewees highlighted the cleanliness and quality of landscaping in public spaces
as well as the relatively secluded aspect of the neighbourhood; as one interviewee (interview no.
1) expressed this: “slightly away from the ‘hustle and bustle’”. Again, the forest park as a natural
amenity and the wildlife that is commonly seen in the neighbourhood were mentioned as
positively contributing to the quality of life and tranquil environment sought by residents of the
neighbourhood. It should be noted that the standards of cleanliness and quality of landscaping
are higher than municipal standards given that the homeowner association complements efforts
of the City of Calgary for landscaping (installation and maintenance of benches along walking
trails, maintenance of trees, plantation of shrubs, irrigation, etc.) and snow removal. Other
interviewees highlighted the neighbourliness aspect: strong community and good community
association board that established a good relationship with the alderman’s office.
The non-transience of residents was a contributing factor to a feeling of cohesiveness
when one interviewee (interview no. 11) compared Discovery Ridge to her previous
neighbourhood of residence where they were original owners and couldn’t develop a feeling of
cohesiveness because of high turnover of residents moving in and out. It may be argued that the
non-transience contributes to a sense of stability for the neighbourhood and, with time, to a sense
of familiarity with other residents.
193

Contrary to Valley Ridge, Discovery Ridge does have a Homeowner Association (HOA)
and restrictive covenants. Membership in the Homeowner Association is mandatory where a large
part of annual membership fees goes towards landscaping, snow removal, and garbage collection
in order to complement the services offered by the city. Presently, there are experiments with
xeriscaping medians along Discovery Ridge Boulevard. It is found to be less costly than
converting the green medians to hard landscaping. The City contributes around $20,000 to the
neighbourhood, collected from property taxes. This represents a ratio of approximately 1:25 of
revenue from membership. Legal action can be taken against owners who do not pay given that
ownership titles have encumbrances tied to the titles for payment of the fee38.
Issues that the board is currently dealing with are mitigation against future floods and
replacement of work not well carried out by the original developer. For example, fences and walls
were intentionally located on private property so that responsibility to maintain retaining walls
does not fall onto the City. In addition, the homeowner association is currently collaborating with
the Parks Dept. of the City of Calgary for planting trees in Griffith Park and around water ponds
within the neighbourhood for beautification.
Some residents find that the homeowner association is very formal with organized
meetings while others observe a mix of formal and informal methods of dealing with issues and
yet others observe that both the homeowner and community association deal with all issues
formally. In general, a notice is sent before formal action is taken against non-compliant residents.
Concerning neighbourhood governance, it is usually difficult to reach a quorum when voting. For
example, from 1,635 residents, 10% are required to attend in person or by proxy (i.e. 164 owners:

38

It should be noted that 15 villa units and 24 townhouse units are not legally encumbered.

194

one unit = one vote). If the quorum is not reached, the meeting is adjourned for the following
week where the quorum requirement is reduced to 5%, largely fulfilled by proxy of the president.
An interview with the Chairman of the board of directors of the homeowner association
highlighted the issue of more power allocated to condo owners as they represent about 30% of
homeowners in Discovery Ridge. In general, residents are not actively involved in the
homeowner association. Likewise, a very small number of residents are members of the
community association. However, membership is rising over the years as efforts to educate
residents about the mission of each association are made.
Membership for the community association is voluntary. According to one of the board
members of the community association, residents become reluctant to pay the voluntary
membership in the community association after having paid for the mandatory homeowner
association fee. In addition, some residents are still confused on the purpose of having two
separate associations. People are informed of events through the community newsletter.
However, one interviewee (interview no. 8) who had resided for nine years commented that the
community association sometimes makes decisions without providing proper communication.
7.6 Interpretation
Discovery Ridge has many features that contributed to a higher sense of neighbourhood
cohesion than the case of Valley Ridge. Unlike Valley Ridge, the single access to the
neighbourhood was referred to by residents of Discovery Ridge and a link was established
between the single access and a sense of safety that affected accordingly their social interaction
level and their overall sense of neighbourhood cohesion.
The site topography that divided Discovery Ridge into three parts paralleled the division
of the neighbourhood into three or four neighbourhoods. The area closest to the single entry and
195

on either side of the roundabout was an area that was built earlier than the rest of Discovery Ridge
and residents were able to secure homeownership before house prices rose subsequently. This
area sloped downward towards the second area of Discovery Ridge that has the commercial core
and the concentration of townhouses and apartment buildings. This second area constitutes the
active area of the community where a lot of activities take place in the community playfield. It
acts like a hub from which access is possible to the hill atop which represents the third area of
Discovery Ridge or access to Griffith Woods that represents an anchor and natural identitymarker for the community. Observations during the field survey as well as responses of
interviewees revealed the hill area as the place of residence of several committee and board
members of the Community Association and Homeowner Association. Such members have lived
a long time in the neighbourhood and have witnessed the transfer of neighbourhood management
from the developer to the homeowner association. The stability of key residents atop the hill was
definitely a factor of continuity for a growing sense of neighbourhood cohesion over time as
residents become familiar to each other and children grow up together. This should not mask the
fact that a discrepancy in age between a graduate student who was at some earlier time older than
other younger kids as a teenager engendered in him feelings of no sense of belonging. Such
feelings were not overcome with the passage of time. In Discovery Ridge, a lesser social
discrepancy (teenage vs. children) was a disintegrating factor. Similarly, in the case of Valley
Ridge, social status was also a disintegrating factor. For example, as mentioned before, there was
a single person without kids who felt no sense of place attachment or belonging to the community
where activities centered around families with children. It can be inferred that similarity of stage
in life affects the sense of belonging as well as sense of place attachment to a neighbourhood
especially suburban neighbourhoods designed for a particular social category with expected and
196

conformed cultural attitudes. This drive towards similarity in life-cycle stage and commonality
of needs as well aspirations for self-realization, may be one of the reasons of proliferation of agesegregated retirement communities. Perceptions of cultural discrepancies were also noted by an
interviewee who perceived that residents of condos (townhouses and apartment blocks) would
generally have different behavioural standards that is physically symbolized by the unsightly
integration of such types of housing with surrounding single family residences.
Additional aspects of the neighbourhood contributed to a high sense of neighbourhood
cohesion despite social and cultural discrepancies among residents. The role of the homeowner
association cannot be understated in its efforts to maintain a strong image for the neighbourhood
by raising quality standards of maintenance. A clean and well-maintained landscape at higherthan-city standards definitely played a role in the symbolization and conveyance of an exclusive
image for the neighbourhood. It also indirectly conveys an image to visitors for the cohesiveness,
shared values, and mutual understanding between community members reflected in an orderly
and aesthetic environment. Definitely, this argument may go further to maintain that an aesthetic
environment has an impact on the quality of social interactions as well as behavior and attitude
of residents. The orderly aesthetic environment in the case of Discovery Ridge is counteracted
by the disorderly and pristine forest of Griffith Woods. This contrast between order and disorder
adds an important dimension to the neighbourhood. It renders the neighbourhood a resort. The
neighbourhood is secluded by virtue of its single access and is disconnected from other
neighbourhoods by virtue of its boundary conditions and also has a natural focus, the pristine
forest. The internal pattern of streets follows principles of enclave urbanism rather than throughtraffic routes of the modified grid pattern. Thus, the neighbourhood provides for its residents a
suburban experience that is truly an escape from an urbanized environment, i.e. approaching the
197

qualities of a resort; quoting one of the interviewed residents: “a destination neighbourhood”.
This is definitely different from a suburban experience devoid of a natural amenity that would
otherwise act as a focus and a relief.
7.7 Conclusion
This chapter investigated the sense of neighbourhood cohesion of the Calgary
neighbourhood of Discovery Ridge. Neighbourhood cohesion was found to be very high
especially for place attachment and PSOC (see chapter 11). The role of Griffith Woods as a
natural amenity for the community and as a resort from the (sub)urban experience contributed to
the uniqueness of the neighbourhood. The single access to the neighbourhood and locational
advantages are also unique characteristics. However, the single access to, and non-permeability
of, neighbourhoods with populations in the vicinity of 5,000 residents are not justified from a
logistic perspective and caused some residents to choose dwellings close to the entry point.
Provincial regulations for limiting access from provincial highways to one point supersede
municipal egress requirements from the neighbourhood and, coupled with the boundary
conditions of each of the neighbourhoods, necessitated such a single access configuration.
Meanwhile, from a social perspective, residents explicitly related the single access to contributing
to a higher sense of cohesion in the case of Discovery Ridge more than Valley Ridge. This may
in part be due to the more secluded location of Discovery Ridge compared to Valley Ridge and
the more central location vis-à-vis the neighbourhood of the core community activity and
commercial center. Moreover, the quality of the landscape was better maintained in Discovery
Ridge due to a formal homeowners’ association.

198

METRO VANCOUVER

Vancouver Metropolitan area is the third largest population center after Toronto and
Montreal. Metro Vancouver comprises 21 municipalities, one electoral area and one treaty First
Nation (Tsawwassen) with its major urban center being the city of Vancouver with over 600,000
inhabitants.
Of the 21 municipalities, 12 are towns and cities and include: Vancouver, Richmond,
Burnaby, New Westminster, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam, Delta, Surrey, White
Rock, Bowen Island, West Vancouver and Vancouver’s North Shore. Thirteen of the 21
municipalities include land in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) with five municipalities:
Delta, Langley, Pitt Meadows, Richmond, and Surrey encompassing 90% of the ALR within
Metro Vancouver.
8.1 Historical Background39
Before being incorporated as a city in 1886 and changing its name from Granville to
Vancouver, there were disparate areas that were already claimed by Natives, the Hudson Bay
Company, and individuals who settled in the area between Burrard Inlet and the Fraser Valley.
By 1800, the area still had little strategic value to outsiders. It was not before the Fraser River
gold rush of 1858 that the Vancouver area became dramatically reshaped and the new crown
colony of British Columbia was created.
Land for military and government reserves as well as land for townsites was set aside.
The first Vancouver Military Reserve is today’s Stanley Park. Today’s West End was the district

Unless otherwise cited, the source for the reference for the historical background section was:
http://www.vancouver-historical-society.ca/blog/
39

199

of the “Bricklayers’ Claim”, a 160-acre of land claimed by three individuals in 1862. Also in
1862, the two McCleery brothers each took 160 acres of land in what was to become South
Vancouver. Royal Engineers surveyed a few townsites such as the Hastings and the Granville
townsites. Although Hastings had the city’s first hotel, wharf, post office, museum, and
subdivision, the commercial focus of activity was further west at Gastown (named after a bar
owner); an area located within the Granville townsite that was laid out from Coal Harbour to
False Creek in 1870. Hastings townsite was later amalgamated in 1911, extending Vancouver’s
east boundary to Boundary Road.
The catalyst for development of the city of Vancouver was the decision of the Canadian
Pacific Railway CPR to establish a future railway terminus station and port in Vancouver. A total
of 6,280 acres of land was granted for the railway as a result of secret negotiations between the
provincial government and CPR in 1884. In 1886, shortly after incorporation of the city40, and in
the same year of Calgary’s Great Fire, Vancouver’s Great Fire consumed the wooden settlement
of Granville and Gastown. The difference between the similar catastrophic events for the two
cities, though, is that the Great Fire of Calgary happened after the advent of the railway station
whereas, for Vancouver, the Great Fire occurred before the arrival of the first train in 1887. The
CPR facilitated the influx of Anglo-Scots from Ontario and the British Isles who soon
outnumbered the existing diverse population.
Vancouver’s economy was driven by outside capital and big companies. British and
American capital supported the establishment of nine sawmill companies along the city’s

Vancouver’s first boundaries were Stanley Park to the west, Nanaimo Street to the east, and 16th Ave to
the south between Trafalgar and Ontario Streets. CPR land holdings carried on south of 16 th Ave into unincorporated
farming area to 57th Ave and abutted various districts lots claimed by individuals.
40

200

waterfront. The CPR, which is Montreal-based, influenced the naming of streets and
neighbourhoods in Vancouver. For instance, Marpole and Cambie were named after CPR
executives and senior employees.
Coal Harbour became an industrial neighbourhood with a diverse labour force while the
Bricklayers’ Claim (West End) retained a residential character. Grand homes of the upper class
were part of the mix of housing in the West End before WWI when the affluent began abandoning
the area in 1907 for the newly developed neighbourhood of Shaughnessy Heights, south of
Vancouver’s 1886 boundary of 16th Ave. The street layout of Shaughnessy was curvilinear and
marked a social and physical differentiation from the homogeneous grid pattern of Vancouver
streets. In 1929, Shaughnessy became a Vancouver neighbourhood with the amalgamation of the
municipality of South Vancouver.
Vancouver’s electric streetcar began in 1890 and defined business and social activity
along both sides of its lines until the 1950s when the streetcar was overtaken by cars and buses.
Buses, the elevated skytrain of 1986 and the subterranean Canada Line of 2010 have contributed
to the rise in residential density of downtown Vancouver.
8.2 Overview of Residential Development after WWII
After WWII, large numbers of Western and Eastern Europeans immigrated to Vancouver,
gradually replacing the prevalent Anglo-centered society. By 1961, Greater Vancouver’s
population had reached more than 800,000, double that of 20 years earlier with the majority of
the population residing in the suburbs. In the 1960s, Asians began arriving in a more welcoming
Vancouver. By 1981, two-thirds of Greater Vancouver’s population lived outside the central city.
Viewing maps of historical residential growth patterns from the year 1961 onwards, an
overall expansion of the pattern was seen to occur in Richmond in the 1980s and Surrey in the
201

1990s as well as Port Coquitlam, Delta, and Langley, well through the 2000s; the growth rate of
Port Coquitlam and Surrey was around 15% annually. The second largest city in Metro
Vancouver to accommodate about one-fifth of immigrants to Vancouver is Surrey. South Surrey,
in turn, is accommodating the out-migration of population from Vancouver and Richmond
seeking less dense developments and less concentrations of particular ethnic groups from East
Asia.
Although the outward expansion of the residential pattern is mainly characterized by lowdensity North American suburban development, a study in 2007 by Metro Vancouver staff
estimated that 78% of new housing development over a decade occurred within the 1991 urban
base (i.e. intensification) while only 22% occurred in new urban areas. In addition, a study done
in 2008 by Seattle based Sightline Institute concluded that Metro Vancouver had a more compact
residential urban growth pattern with 62% of residents living in compact communities (averaging
50 residents per hectare) compared to Seattle or Portland with 24% and 28%, respectively.
Annual average population growth in Metro Vancouver has been about 36,000 per year
with the bulk of regional growth (75%) resulting from absorption of about 13% of total
immigrants to Canada (Metro Vancouver, 2009). The largest share of Metro Vancouver’s growth
(40%) is projected to be accommodated in Surrey, White Rock, and Langley. The dominant form
of housing being built is single-detached housing, typical of North American suburban
development, but ground-oriented housing is in demand due to the aging of the baby boomer
generation and the cost of housing.
The overall suburban landscape in Metro Vancouver is generally characterized by
relatively compact town centers originally developed along streetcar lines and modern nodes
along rapid transit routes and hubs (with high walkability levels) as well as low-density
202

residential development characteristic of the automobile and highway era. This nodal pattern of
metropolitan development was adopted by long range planning of the Lower Mainland regional
planning board (LMRPB) and continued by the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) /
Metro Vancouver with the development of the SkyTrain rapid transit system. Five of the nine
regional cities, including downtown Vancouver and Surrey Metro Centre, are on SkyTrain lines.
In addition to the nodal strategy, Metro Vancouver has adopted a corridor residential
intensification strategy (Filion and Kramer, 2012). The outmigration of the population from the
city of Vancouver to the suburbs, coupled with a polycentric nodal metropolitan structure, has
been paralleled with a shift in job growth towards regional centres.
8.3 Overview of Policies Affecting Residential Suburban Development
Hans Blumenfeld, when commenting on the first plan for the Greater Vancouver Regional
District (recently renamed in 2007 to Metro Vancouver) in 1973, warned that the excessive
allocation of an agricultural land reserve would make housing unaffordable and any efforts to
reduce vehicle driving would be futile (O’Toole, 2007). His review proved to be accurate with
the highest housing prices and high traffic congestion that is characteristic of Vancouver today.
Perhaps, a central planning process was not successful in dealing with the problems of the region.
A central planning process was made possible by the Municipal Act, passed in 1965 which
divided the province of British Columbia into regional districts of which one of the four Lower
Mainland regions was The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD, formed in 1967 and
interrupted between 1983 and 1995). The ideas for a Livable Region were formulated in a policy
statement in 1975 and included in the 1980 Official Regional Plan (ORP) which was a revision
of the earlier 1966 ORP plan (a plan that had restricted the amount of land available for

203

development). It viewed the region as polycentric as opposed to the mono-centric region of the
1966 plan.
In 1990, a new vision for Vancouver’s future was created by the GVRD publication of
Creating Our Future: Steps towards a More Livable Region and comprehensively revised in
2011. Vancouver has put sustainability and liveability on the agenda way before Calgary, about
15 years in advance (Taylor et al., 2014: 35). The situation in Vancouver was less favorable given
that British Columbia’s Lower Mainland was politically fragmented into individual
municipalities that necessitated regional institutions to coordinate municipal action.
Subsequent to the legislation of the Growth Strategies Act in 1995, The Livable Region
Strategic Plan (LRSP) was published in 1996 and was meant to be a comprehensive growthmanagement plan. It established a Green Zone of about 210,000 ha (about 72% of the region of
which 53,700 is the agricultural land reserve) for non-urban land use designations. It called for a
compact metropolitan area and building complete communities by balancing jobs and housing as
well as diversity of housing types (townhouses and apartments) and increasing transportation
choices (transit, cycling, walking) for each of the 21 municipalities in the region.
Results of recent research confirmed higher suburban densities with the construction of
attached low-rise / ground-oriented housing accounting for half of all construction in expansion
areas. This is compared to 24% in Calgary. Urban containment policies have definitely impacted
upon skyrocketing house prices, but the impact of global speculation in Vancouver’s housing
market is also a considerable factor.
The adoption of the ‘complete communities’ policy by Vancouver and Calgary is
transforming suburbs into denser developments with diverse housing types and mixed land uses
that encourage walking, cycling, and the use of public transit. There remains a difference between
204

the two metropolitan areas: the fragmented patchwork and piecemeal urban development
paradigm in Vancouver versus the large master-planned developments in Calgary; a difference
that is a direct reflection of urban containment policies in Vancouver, especially the constraint of
the agricultural land reserve established in 1973 and further reinforced by the Green Zone in
1996, the positioning of Vancouver as the western gateway of immigrants to Canada, as well as
the trend of accommodating a higher percentage of ground-oriented development in new
suburban communities. While Vancouver has a longer tradition of inter-municipal cooperation
and regional regulatory institutions, Calgary is a de facto regional government as it absorbs the
majority of the metropolitan population.
8.4 Historical Background of Surrey
Surrey was incorporated as a municipality in 1879 and became a city in 199341. One-third
of Surrey is protected as park land, agricultural land, and green space which gave it the name “the
city of parks”. The eastern boundary of Surrey was the current 192 St. A half mile strip was added
to reach a total area of 371.4 sq. km that extended to 196 St, separating it from Langley, making
Surrey more than double the size of the City of Vancouver (115 sq. km).
Growth before the 20th century was slow and was not stimulated until the completion of
the New Westminster Southern Railway in 1891 as well as the opening of Hall’s Prairie Road,
Coast Meridian Road and Crescent Road in the 1880s. By 1901, the population of Surrey had
grown to 4,802.
During the 1920s, Surrey was parceled into 2 ½, 5, and 10 acre parcels in a grid pattern
(Laven, 2008). The population tripled by 1941 as farmers moved out from the prairies in the mid-

41

http://www.surreyhistory.ca/development.html

205

1930s and took up land which was smaller than the initial parceling and affordable. By the 1950s,
Surrey saw rapid growth of population (1st wave of population growth) in the north end with the
removal of tolls from the Pattullo Bridge in 1952. However, employment opportunities within
the municipality were not available for 75% of the population. The 1960s and 1970s saw
continued growth in population based on transportation improvements and widening of King
George Highway as well as the employment attraction of the Newton Industrial area. The
population of Surrey in 1981 reached 147,138.
The second wave of population growth in Surrey was in the 1990s as population doubled
that of 1981 with the development of more industrial parks and town centers that offered
employment opportunities to 80% of the working population. As the population count increased,
so has the ethnic mix of the population become more diverse. Of the 347,825 people in 2001,
66% were born in Canada, 33% were foreign born (two-fifths of whom immigrated between 1991
and 2001). From 1998 to 2008, Surrey’s population had grown by over 100,000 residents with
10,000 newcomers each year. In response to pressure of rapid population growth, capital
investment programs such as Build Surrey have invested $470 M since 2010 to help Surrey’s six
communities develop into higher-density transit-oriented communities.
Planning in Surrey is directed by the objectives of the municipality’s Official Community
Plan (OCP) which is followed through by means of individual neighbourhood concept plans
(NCPs). To initiate an NCP, agreement needs to be obtained from 51% of owners of 70% of the
affected land and an extensive public consultation process is a mandatory component of the NCP.
A typical NCP area is about 100 hectares and is usually designed by private consultants hired by
the City.

206

EAST CLAYTON

9.1 Location and Background
East Clayton, formerly called Serpentine Flats or Serpentine Valley, is located in the
northeastern edge of Cloverdale district on the Surrey/Langley border. It is bordered on the west
by 188 St, on the north by 72 Ave (formerly, Jericho Road), on the east by 196 St (formerly, Kells
Road), and on the south by Fraser Highway (formerly, Old Yale Wagon Road) and 64 Ave
(formerly, Bose Road) – see location map fig. 9.1.

Figure 9.1. Location Map of Case Studies in Surrey, B.C.
Source of base map: City of Surrey
The area was named Clayton in 1889 by postmaster John George, after his native Clayton,
Ohio. The original subdivision in the city of Surrey consisted mainly of single-family homes and
207

one acre real estate properties generally conforming to the historical agricultural grid. East
Clayton was originally known as Clayton Heights and also referred to as Clayton Hill as it was
located on high ground above the flats of the Serpentine River where dairy farming and feed
crops was the main industry. Poultry farming was practised on the high ground as it required less
capital investment and smaller land parcels that were purchased by returning soldiers from World
War I.
The neighbourhood concept plan NCP for East Clayton was approved by City Council in
March 2003 and amended in 2008 following petitions from developers, based on market demand,
to change a portion of land uses to single family dwellings with front car access (see fig. 9.2). In
July 2004, City Council approved the final NCP for an extension of East Clayton to the North
(known as East Clayton North) and, in April 2005, approved the final NCP for a secondary
extension to the west (known as East Clayton West). Current NCP plans are in process for a larger
extension up north as far as 76 Ave (known as West Clayton)42.

The NCP for West Clayton was approved by Council on Feb. 28, 2011 and approved for an extension
area on June 25, 2012.
42

208

Figure 9.2. East Clayton Neighbourhood Plan
Source: City of Surrey

209

The East Clayton NCP plan was championed as the first ‘green infrastructure’ sustainable
community in Surrey and British Columbia that is based upon sustainable principles. It would
provide a blueprint for the development of other sustainable communities in North America43.
The NCP plan was developed as the first phase of the Headwaters Project by the City of Surrey
Department of Planning and Development in partnership with Patrick Condon holder of the James
Taylor Chair in Landscape and Livable Environments at the University of British Columbia, the
Pacific Resources Centre, and a multi-constituent advisory committee involving various levels of
government. The design process involved a four day design charette in the spring of 1999
representing many stakeholders with a wide range of interests and individuals with sufficient
authority to negotiate new standards dynamically, or delegated to represent larger constituencies
such as local landowners.
East Clayton comprises an area of 250 ha and forms the developed part of the census tract
9330183.04 of total area 720 ha. East Clayton is a residential community accommodating a
population of 14,034 in 5,192 dwelling units (2011 Census) at a density of 1,950 persons / km2
and a net residential density of 40 units per hectare (16 units per acre). The open space system is
comprised of linear and neighbourhood parks. The major business areas are located in a plaza at
the intersection of Fraser Highway and 188 St which includes a large array of amenities including
restaurants, medical clinics, major banks, cafes and pet stores. Many schools are found in the
neighbourhood such as the newly built Hazelgrove Elementary, Katzie Elementary School as
well as Clayton Heights Secondary School just west of the study area.

East Clayton Community Development Plan was awarded the 1999 BC Energy Award for Green
Infrastructure, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities Excellence Award in 2003 for Planning Innovation,
and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Sustainable Community Award for Residential Development in 2006.
43

210

The topography of East Clayton site area consists of a gently sloping upland region. The
area is defined primarily by two distinct ridgelines: 1) the first runs approximately parallel to 192
Street and drains the site towards McLellan Creek and Nicomekl River on the southeast; and, 2)
the second diagonally crosses the northern portion of the site and drains the site in a westerly
direction to the Serpentine River. The site did not present difficult construction challenges as
slopes in the site range from 6 to 9%.
Regardless of the relatively even topography of the site area, the neighbourhood is
differentiated, flanking 192 St, into spatially polarized areas with a relatively mixed suburban
type of development: single-detached housing, lane houses, coach and carriage homes, and
townhouses as well as 300 acreage properties. The predominant forms of housing are singlefamily (46%) and townhouses (38%) but other housing types are also included such as apartment
units less than 5 storeys and duplexes. A ‘special residential’ category also allowed a mix of
small-scale businesses with residential units. In addition, access to rented secondary units in the
rear was made possible as 60% of lots have rear-lane access.
9.2 Neighbourhood Profile
With a total population of 14,034 in 2011 living in 5,195 dwellings, East Clayton has an
average of 2.70 residents per dwelling compared to 3.06 for Surrey. The following are some
highlights of the demographic and housing profile of the neighbourhood. For time series data and
more information, please see appendix C.
9.2.1 Demography
Population of the neighbourhood has grown by 239.64% in 5 years from 2006 to 2011.
About 7% of East Clayton neighbourhood’s population are above 60 years of age while more
than 32% are less than 20 years of age and 56% are between the ages of 20 to 60. Time series
211

data shows a decrease in percentage for the age group between 15 and 19 years old and a more
noticeable decrease for the age group of 40 to 59 years old in favor of an appreciable increase in
the age group of 20 to 39 years old from 25% in 2006 to 35% in 2011. This is an indication of
the increase in young couple families choosing to live in the neighbourhood.
Such changes in age group structure were accompanied by other demographic and social
changes.


Diversity. In 2006, recent immigrants residing in East Clayton were mainly from East
Asia and Southeast Asia while in 2011, recent immigrants were mainly from India
followed by South Korea. In 2011, the aboriginal population percentage has decreased
slightly to 3.5% while the visible minorities have reached 22.6% compared to 2006 census
(4.23% and 17.7%, respectively).



Social Isolation. In 2011, around 8% of the population and around 12% of seniors were
living alone. This represents an increase of about 3% and 2% respectively, indicating that
there is a probability of isolation for increasing numbers of the population. In addition,
those who neither speak English or French are more than 1% of the population.



Families. Notably, the percentage of lone-parent families in East Clayton increased from
11.5% to 13.9%, signaling an increase of families with financial burden. This is paralleled
with a prevalence of low income households after tax to 10.3% in 2011 compared to 3.8%
in 2006.



Marital Status. Meanwhile, there was a relative stabilization in marital status as a higher
percentage of East Clayton neighbourhood’s population is married (63%) which reflects

212

the percentage of the City as a whole (60%); however, couples in common law
relationships in East Clayton are double the percentage of that of the city of Surrey.


Mobility. The neighbourhood has been absorbing a high influx of population. In 2011,
just above three quarters of the residents of East Clayton lived at a different address than
they did in 2006. The neighbourhood is appealing to entry level families, especially
couples with children.



Occupation. The occupation structure remained relatively the same except for the
percentage of residents having an occupation in education, law, and government services
who have increased from 7.7% to 12% and residents having an occupation in management
who increased from 11.3% to 15.6%, whereas residents having an occupation in trades,
transport and equipment decreased from 18.8% to 16% as well as those who have an
occupation in sales and services (a decrease from 21.4% to 17.8%).



Average Household Income. In 2006, average household total income of East Clayton
residents was just above 18% higher than the average of household total income of Surrey.
This ratio decreased in 2011 to just above 8% higher than the average household total
income of Surrey.

9.2.2 Housing


Tenure. The overwhelming majority of households in East Clayton are owned (80.5%)
rather than rented (19.5%) with 90.45% of private dwellings constructed after the year
2001.



Dwelling Units. The following two photos show images of single family houses that are
predominant within the neighbourhood. In East Clayton, single family houses represented
213

46% of housing types in the census year 2011. This percentage represents a decrease of
21% from the census year 2006 due to the addition of townhouses that almost doubled in
percentage from 2006 to 2011.


Dwelling size and average number of rooms per dwelling. Average number of rooms
(bedrooms) per dwelling in East Clayton in 2011 was 7.8 (3.3) – ranked 82 out of 410
neighbourhoods in 2006 – compared to 6.5 (2.8) for Surrey. Average size of houses is
2,266 sq. ft. The average size of condos is 1,200 sq. ft. and apartment units, 800 sq. ft.

Figure 9.3. Photo of single family houses in East Clayton (Photo by researcher)

214

Figure 9.4. Photo of single family houses in East Clayton (Photo by researcher)


House Price. House prices in Cloverdale area increased in 2014 by 49% from prices in
2005. The average price for detached houses in April 2014 was $615,741, and for
townhouses, $355,305.



Value of dwelling and Affordability Average value of dwellings in 2011 was $469,005
(median $450,478). This is compared to an average value of $539,521 in 2006 (ranked
153 out of 407 neighbourhoods in Metro Vancouver) and $544,819 for Surrey (median
$500,746). Number of owner and tenant households spending 30% or more of household
total income on shelter costs was 1,785, representing 34.43% of residents, according to
2011 census, compared to 30% of residents for the city of Surrey.

215

9.3 Summary Matrix for East Clayton
East Clayton

Sociodemographic

Physical

Population in 2011

14,034

Population density (persons / km2)

1,950

Residential density (units / acre)

16

% of population aged 20 to 60 years old

66.3%

% of persons living alone

8.3%

% of lone-parent families

13.9%

% of immigrant population

19.1%

% of low income households

10.3%

Turnover (% of non-movers over 5 years)

23.9%

Average number of persons / household

2.7

Average number of children at home

1.1

Average household income

$89,776

Land area

250 ha

No. of access points to the neighbourhood
Degree of nesting

Economic

More than 4
3

% of owned dwellings

80.5%

Average size of houses

2,266 sq. ft.

% of single-family houses

46%

% of semi-detached dwellings

1%

% of townhouses

38%

Average value of dwelling
Average selling price / sq. ft.
% of households spending more than 30% of
total household income

216

$469,005
$207
34%

9.4 Data Collection and Sample Description
Twenty five survey responses were returned by mail from a total of 730 packages
delivered to residential addresses in East Clayton. This represents a response rate of about 3.5%
which is typical of mail surveys.
In order to reach the required sample size, the mail out survey was complemented with a
telephone survey. The pace of collecting surveys by phone was on average 1.5 to 2 survey
responses per hour. Eleven survey responses were collected from an initial list of 1,000 residents
with V4N postal code who reside in East Clayton. A total of 379 calls were made to residents
from a more focused list of 600 records in East Clayton. Sixty three responses were collected.
This represents a response rate of 16.6% which falls within the range of typical response rates of
phone surveys. Three survey responses were not retained for analysis because participants did
not complete the survey.
The total number of survey participants were 25+11+60 = 96. For a population size of
14,034 in 2011, the required sample size (for a confidence level of 95% and confidence interval
of 10) was calculated to be 95 using an online sample size calculator.
9.4.1 Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of the survey sample of 96 residents are shown in the following table.

217

Table 9.1. East Clayton Survey Sample
EAST CLAYTON SURVEY SAMPLE
Male
Female
Gender
Not given
Total
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 5 years
Length of
5 to 8 years
Residence
8 to 10 years
Over 10 years
Total
Less than 24k
24k to 36k
36k to 48k
48k to 60k
60k to 75k
Household Income*
75k to 90k
90k to 115k
115k to 130k
Over 130k
Not given
Total

Number
46
49
1
96
6
17
38
18
14
3
96
10
3
4
2
2
2
8
1
7
57
96

Percentage
47.9
51.0
1.0
100%
6.3
17.7
39.6
18.8
14.6
3.1
100%
10.4
3.1
4.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
8.3
1.0
7.3
59.4
100%

*Upper limits in the questionnaire were actually $1 less (e.g. $35,999 for an upper limit of $36k)
in order to avoid indecisiveness on the part of participants for which income bracket they belong. In the
table the upper limits have been simplified to facilitate legibility.

As can be seen from the above table for survey sample characteristics, the ratio of male
to female respondents is almost equal (ratio of 1:1.07). For length of residence in the
neighbourhood, 3% of the respondents resided for over 10 years and 6% resided less than a year.
Also, roughly two-fifth resided from 1 to 2 years or from 5 to 8 years and another two-fifths
resided between 2 to 5 years and one-seventh resided between 8 to 10 years. For household
income bracket, over half (59%) of the sample did not report their household income. This has
been a drawback of undertaking a phone survey as participants were more reluctant to give out
218

this information when compared to face-to-face surveys. Meanwhile, 8% had an income greater
than 115k per year; 10% had a household income less than 24k/year and 7% reported a household
income between 24k and 48k. In addition, 2% reported a household income in each of these three
categories: 48k to 60k, 60k to 75k, and 75k to 90k.
Characteristics of the interview sample of 12 residents are shown in the following table:
Table 9.2. East Clayton Interview Sample
EAST CLAYTON INTERVIEW SAMPLE
Male
Female
Gender
Not given
Total
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 5 years
Length of
5 to 8 years
Residence
8 to 10 years
Over 10 years
Total
Less than 24k
24k to 36k
36k to 48k
48k to 60k
60k to 75k
Household
75k to 90k
Income*
90k to 115k
115k to 130k
Over 130k
Not given
Total

Number

2
10
0
12
2
1
3
3
2
1
12
1
1
1
0
0
2
3
0
4
0
12

Percentage
83.3
16.7
0.0
100%
16.7
8.3
25.0
25.0
16.7
8.3
100%
8.3
8.3
8.3
0.0
0.0
16.7
25.0
0.0
33.3
0.0
100%

*Upper limits in the questionnaire were actually $1 less (e.g. $35,999 for an upper limit of $36k)
in order to avoid indecisiveness on the part of participants for which income bracket they belong. In the
table the upper limits have been simplified to facilitate legibility.

As can be seen from the above table for interview sample characteristics, the ratio of male
to female respondents is uneven (ratio of 1:5). For length of residence in the neighbourhood, half
of the respondents resided between 2 and 8 years while one-sixth of respondents resided for either
219

less than a year or from 8 to 10 years; and one respondent resided from 1 to 2 years or for over
10 years. For household income bracket, one-third (33.3%) of the sample had an income greater
than 130k per year; a quarter had an income between 90k and 115k. 8.3% had a household income
in one of these three categories: less than 24k/year, 24k to 36k, and 36k to 48k and one-sixth of
the sample reported a household income between 75k and 90k. No respondents recorded an
income between 48k and 75k/year or between 115k and 130k.
Qualitative data analysis of the 12 interviews and quantitative data analysis of the 96
survey participants were conducted with the help of NVivo v.10 software for qualitative analysis
and IBM SPSS v.21 software for quantitative analysis.
9.5 Qualitative Analysis
The first question asked residents if they were planning to stay in the neighbourhood for
more than five more years. Most of the interviewees planned to stay more than five years in the
neighbourhood. This was common among those who have resided for only two or three years and
for those who have resided for six or eight years. The community ‘feel’, being family-oriented,
the design of the neighbourhood and the proximity of schools and amenities were reasons given
by interviewees for planning to stay especially for those that have kids attending school. One
interviewee (interview no.6) liked the house design and another (interview no.1) deemed the
neighbourhood beautiful and safe.
However, one of the interviewees (interview no.2) gave a double negative response: “not
want to not live here” and another interviewee (interview no.10) was not sure stating that the
neighbourhood is rapidly losing its appeal with too many people and too many houses while at
the same time not offering enough things for children to do. From these initial responses, one can
detect some ambivalence among residents in regards to its appeal and functionality. Despite the
220

presence of many parks in the neighbourhood, these areas remain passive playing areas that may
not provide enough stimulation for kids.
The top three reasons interviewees gave for choosing to live in their current
neighbourhood:
1. Housing cost, newness and design of the neighbourhood. The affordability of
owning a house in the neighbourhood, expressed by a third of interviewees, coupled with the
cleanliness of a new neighbourhood with brand new houses and new neighbours (translated to
‘better people’), was a major reason for moving to the neighbourhood. The style of houses and
townhouses was also appealing and the neighbourhood was considered a walkable and safe area
for kids.
2. Location. With East Clayton centrally-located, residents have the advantage of being
close to Langley and close to Surrey. This translates to ease of commute to work and proximity
to services and amenities such as schools, banks, shopping and parks.
3. Close to family. Close to parents and family was the third top reason for choosing to
live in the neighbourhood.
When asked what particular features East Clayton has that are not found in other
neighbourhoods, interviewees repeated the above three top reasons. Interviewees mentioned the
design of the neighbourhood where young families were in mind, an abundance of parks, and
safer and cleaner streets than other neighbourhoods as well as the nice walkable areas. A
characteristic of the neighbourhood was expressed by one of the interviewees (interview no.4)
as: “close to everything yet removed”. This is a noteworthy remark that speaks to a residential
quality of a neighbourhood for being ‘removed’, i.e. distanced from the hustle and bustle of

221

traffic, noise, and free-riders. Yet, at the same time, it speaks to the importance of location and
ease of access to services and amenities.
Five out of twelve interviewees deemed the neighbourhood like most other
neighbourhoods with no particular features. On a negative note, two other interviewees remarked
that the tight spacing of houses (tightly spaced to the extent that they resembled townhouses as
expressed by one interviewee – interview no.2) with no yards meant less privacy and also set
easy targets for crimes such as car theft. The latter interviewee (interview no.10) added that high
crime rates resulted from the mix of housing types: low income rentals (or coach houses) with
expensive houses. The extracted formula is: low income rentals + expensive houses = high crime
rate.
Moreover, the shortage of parking and schools within the neighbourhood was a
characteristic feature in a negative sense. The issue of parking also extended complaints to the
inconvenience of two-way circulation on some streets that provided for parking: a car entering
the street had to wait for the other opposing car to pass.
Neighbourhoods that were perceived to be as appealing to live in were other
neighbourhoods in Langley, South Surrey or White Rock area which are safe and family-oriented.
Cloverdale beside Cloverdale Athletic Park and Walnut Grove in Langley were perceived to have
the same style of housing and a close-knit community and neighbourhood ‘feel’. Tsawwassen
was perceived as the only area in the lower mainland that was close to amenities and family
friendly that made it as appealing. Markedly, residents’ perception of equally appealing
neighbourhoods was based on another quality that was important for the entry level families: the
family-oriented aspect of such neighbourhoods. However, the pervading perception was that all
‘non-spread-out’ / compact developments in Surrey were similar with cookie-cutter homes tightly
222

spaced to maximize profit and with the qualification that those more traditional homes, at least,
had yards. The presence of a backyard for kids to play in is an important aspect for families
seeking their first house purchase. Designers of East Clayton decided to substitute backyards of
laneway houses and amalgamate the yards into parks in view of increasing outdoor green spaces
available for residents (thus enhancing the overall image and functionality of the neighbourhood)
and also increasing settings for social interaction rather than providing private backyards. Such a
configuration may appeal to some residents who would not want to maintain a backyard (mowing
the lawn, planting, etc.)
Four interviewees, however, did not perceive any other neighbourhood as appealing. East
Clayton was a top choice for them. On the other hand, one interviewee (interview no.10) who
had resided in the neighbourhood for nine years perceived the neighbourhood to be transforming
rapidly into a low class area. The reasons behind such an accelerated downward transformation
are the wide range of incomes able to access dwellings in the area; in particular, the introduction
of coach houses and secondary basement suites to house lower income residents as well as the
high population density that ‘overcrowds’ access to services, availability of parking spaces, and
servicing capacity of schools.
Neighbourhoods that were mentioned to be superior to East Clayton were those in the
Burnaby area which provided a mixture of both quiet suburban and busy urban as well as those
in North or West Vancouver, UBC, and White Rock which were more expensive with larger lots,
or had an ocean view, or areas with acreages; i.e. areas that were not so packed / jammed with no
space or natural scenes such as that of a forest. Here, it becomes apparent that residents
acknowledge that East Clayton provides a ‘mixture’ of suburban and urban features albeit without
the grandeur of owning a large house and lot. Though, from an economic standpoint, such
223

residents would maintain that East Clayton resonates better than the superior neighbourhoods
with respect to their current needs and values in life.
From a price point of view, East Clayton was the top choice, though not unanimously as
one interviewee (interview no.5) also stated: “As a whole on what it offers, not top choice”. One
interviewee (interview no.10) compared the East Clayton neighbourhood to those in Holland
which were “way more superior” in terms of overall atmosphere, stores within walking distance,
biking lanes, coffee shops, outdoor markets and buildings that are sustainable. Such a comment
speaks to the shortcomings in the design of East Clayton, particularly in regards to social and
physical sustainable design. In other words, zoning for a mix of uses in East Clayton for
residential, commercial, recreational, entertainment and retail functions did not result ipso facto
in a vibrant ‘atmosphere’ nor did it result in what is conceptualized as ‘complete streets’.
However, the neighbourhood is affordable for diverse income groups. Seven interviewees
observed that the neighbourhood is affordable to low income residents especially when compared
to Vancouver standards. One of the seven (interview no.10) expressed affordability of the
neighbourhood ironically: “affordable to too many people”. What makes East Clayton affordable
is the presence of different housing options such as coach houses and basement suites which helps
finance the mortgage. Five interviewees, however, perceive the neighbourhood as not affordable
to low income people as houses are in the range of $600k but, at the same time, they say it is not
an exclusive neighbourhood.
When explicitly asked about the number of access points to the neighbourhood and its
effect on their sense of safety, three out of twelve interviewees affirmed that there were really
only one or two functional access points to the neighbourhood despite being planned out as a grid
with many access points. Eight others observed that there were many access points to the
224

neighbourhood, of which five found that it did not bear on their sense of safety. However, when
interviewees were asked if the number of access points affected their willingness to stop and talk
with residents in the neighbourhood, only two (interview no.2 & 8, of those who saw only two
functional access points) out of twelve interviewees felt that they were more willing to stop and
talk, but it was only clear for one of them (interview no.2) for establishing a link with limited
access points. For the other, the link was unclear when arguing that most neighbours go out for a
walk around the neighbourhood and visit each other. Nevertheless, ten other interviewees negated
any effect of number of access points on their willingness to stop and talk.
Six questions were then posed to interviewees who responded on a five-point Likert scale
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The questions probed for observations of residents in
regards to the four components of neighbourhood cohesion: one question concerned each of
PSOC and neighbourliness; and two questions concerned each of place attachment and
enveloping space. There was at least one disagreement for each of the questions and one strong
disagreement for place attachment and one strong disagreement for events and activities that
encouraged one to stop and talk with other residents. The sense of safety had the highest score
with three strongly agreeing opposed to two disagreeing due to increased perception of crime
rates. An appealing landscape came second with two strongly agreeing opposed to one
disagreeing and two not sure followed by PSOC / sense of similarity with others. Following suit,
sense of place attachment and friendliness of neighbours fared equally, with the bar tilting more
towards friendliness than sense of place attachment. Finally, the least scored was the question for
lifestyle, events, and activities.
When asked to elaborate on aspects of the neighbourhood that contributed to their sense
of community or aspects that positively impacted the quality of their life, interviewees recalled
225

the role of schools in terms of quality of schools, teachers and sports coaches, the parks and
walkable places in the neighbourhoods as well as mutual respect of neighbours, the family
lifestyle and presence of lots of kids. One interviewee (interview no.2) remarked that the
neighbourhood is not dominated by one particular ethnic group as is the case in Richmond, B.C.
that is dominated by southeast Asians and Indo-Canadians. That is, although immigrant and
visible minority presence may be perceived as increasing, this was more tolerable than the case
of dominance by one particular ethnic group.
Another (interview no.5) highlighted the shared view of neighbours especially in regards
to taking care of their homes on the outside so as to not worry about neighbours ‘striking up the
boundary’. This was facilitated by the fact there was not much yard space. The house design was
also a factor that contributed to residents’ quality of life, but it was only “a small part of the big
picture” of being placed in a neighbourhood where the quality of people is paramount. One
interviewee (interview no.8) specifically mentioned the sense of community and community /
sporting events. These views were opposed by two interviewees who found nothing contributing
to their quality of life in the neighbourhood. On an ironic note, a third interviewee (interview
no.9), who had resided for more than 10 years, mentioned overcrowding contributing in a
negative sense towards her quality of life.
East Clayton does not have a Homeowner Association (HOA) nor a community
association. Dealing with resident issues is informal via emails through efforts of one person who
is known to the residents. There is no newsletter to inform people of events nor is there a block
watch set up as in other neighbourhoods that have many kids. As mentioned by one interviewee
(interview no.2), order is partially maintained by some ‘loose’ directions from the city of Surrey

226

on how to maintain trees and partially from parking control persons. For those belonging to a
strata council, meetings when issues are discussed are mainly formal.
9.6 Interpretation
East Clayton surfaces as belonging to a distinct category of neighbourhoods from the
other three neighbourhoods studied in this research. The design of the neighbourhood is
experimental in nature and set out to apply sustainability principles (such as accommodating
higher residential densities than other suburban neighbourhood, diversity of housing types –
laneway houses and coach houses, narrow streets, and implantation of swales for storm water
management).
However, one of the negative outcomes of physical analysis of such a design is the high
percentage of hard surfaces in the neighbourhood that was found to be equivalent to other ‘nonsustainable’ neighbourhoods. Designers, planners, and analysts recognized that the grid pattern
is not necessarily efficient as it may seem to be. On the contrary, the percentage of streets in a
grid pattern is higher than an enclave urbanism pattern of cul-de-sacs and loops. A higher yield
in terms of unit density and opportunities for terminating vistas were definitely possible had urban
planners recognized that the grid is not the most efficient solution; neither from a solely economic
perspective nor from a visual or social perspective (in terms of defensible space and appropriation
of space).
Moreover, the use of a grid pattern combined with laneway housing types configures the
space of the neighbourhood into ‘front’ and ‘back’ facades; back facades that are aesthetically
uninteresting, lanes that are prone to be unsightly when transformed to a dumping or storage area,
and known for more incidences of crime or infractions due to reduced surveillance by pedestrians
or police. Noteworthy during field visits were cars parked outside of the garages and encroaching
227

on the lane causing bottlenecks along the lane. The reason some chose to park outside the garage
may be due to the fact that the minimum sizes of garages does not allow large cars to park without
keeping the garage door open, making a house prone to ‘opportunity crime’ from the rear side.
In addition, parking spaces were not calculated for an increased need for parking spaces resulting
from the use of both coach houses and secondary suites; owner residents should have chosen to
use one housing type, not both.
The inclusion of new types of housing such as coach houses was prohibited after such
experimenting within Metro Vancouver. As much as the coach houses and secondary suites
contributed to higher density as well as a higher income mix of residents, as much was the effect
of density especially in scarcity of parking spaces and the effect of mixing residents of disparate
income correlated with higher crime rates in the area especially theft of (and from) vehicles. As
one interviewee commented (interview no.2), the common threat brought the residents together.
One of the survey participants went above and beyond the survey questionnaire and
included within the return envelope a newspaper article by Amy Reid from The Now Newspaper
dated Tuesday, March 18, 2014 with the title: “Where the streets have no space”. The lack of
parking spaces prevented socializing as guests did not have a place to park. Moreover, one of the
residents who had moved to East Clayton in 2006 complained about the close proximity to her
neighbours which was inconvenient for her; she wished the houses were farther apart. She
commented that: “East Clayton may have been a good idea on paper for the person who designed
it, and for the developers that made money, but it is really a high-density, congested mess”.
The City has increased the minimum lot size in the future plan of West Clayton to twoand-a-half feet wider and deepened the lots to allow for a larger garage and parking stall behind
the garage. There are also plans to extend transit service to the area along Fraser Highway in
228

order to reduce reliance on private vehicles for commute. The density has also had repercussion
on the capacity of schools in East Clayton to accommodate the increase in the number of students.
The problems are not solely from over-capacity but also from the aspect of design of the
neighbourhood itself. During the field visit, it was observed that the neighbourhood was divided
along 192 St with a lot of through traffic. That is, spanning a neighbourhood, as an entity, over a
grid of streets including major ones for traffic basically divides the neighbourhood physically (by
not allowing easy traversing by pedestrians) and socially (by different housing types and
demography). In addition, the traffic along 192 St decreased the sense of safety for children
walking back from school and, coupled with a train whistle that resounded very frequently,
caused a lot of ambient noise in the neighbourhood.
The neighbourhood was also divided by housing types. As will be discussed in the case
of Rosemary Heights (next chapter), there was a large area of acreages in East Clayton which
were hedged and separated from the rest of the community by tall trees and shrubs. The provision
of a diversity of housing types, though fulfilling calls for social justice, caters to particular income
groups and a social demographic so much so that the neighbourhood as an entity is in effect
internally divided in such a way that socialization patterns as well as physical patterns of
appropriation and familiarization with the neighbourhood (through walking, jogging, or enjoying
outdoor spaces, for example) are affected accordingly.
The question remains if such a model for neighbourhood design should be emulated in
terms of physical, social, communal and environmental aspects.
9.7 Conclusion
This chapter investigated the sense of neighbourhood cohesion of the Surrey
neighbourhood of East Clayton. The neighbourhood was designed to be a blueprint for
229

sustainable neighbourhood development especially in regards to green infrastructure principles,
diversity of income groups, housing types, and mix of uses. The physical design of the
neighbourhood as well as its location, intermediate between Surrey and Langley, appealed to
residents who sought advantages of a mix of suburban and urban qualities in their residential
environment. The physical ‘cohesiveness’ of the compact housing layout, the presence of
abundant parks and two elementary schools was reflected in a neighbourhood cohesion index
which was found to be moderately high especially in regards to place attachment and
neighbourliness. East Clayton is a functional neighbourhood for young families with many parks
for children to play in and friendly neighbors. The neighbourhood has been flipped inside-out so
to speak by reducing the front and backyards and transferring the extra space to allow for more
recreational parks. Issues of crime perceived to be associated with high density and lack of
parking spaces as well as under provision for amenities such as schools are currently taking a toll
upon the residents.

230

ROSEMARY HEIGHTS

10.1 Location and Background
Rosemary Heights is an affluent suburban neighbourhood in the district of South Surrey
located about 15 km from downtown Surrey and about 14 km from the Pacific Highway Port of
Entry to the U.S.A. Rosemary Heights has a land area of approximately 303 ha (749 acres). It is
bounded on the north by 40 Ave and the Nicomekl River that separates Rosemary Heights from
the agricultural land reserve, and bounded on the south by 32 Ave that separates it from Rosemary
Heights Business Park. The western boundary is defined by Highway 99 (Vancouver Blaine
Hwy); the eastern boundary is the 160 St and Morgan Creek Golf Course that separates Rosemary
Heights from the more affluent neighbourhood of Morgan Creek. Access to the neighbourhood
is usually from 152 St (that divides Rosemary Heights into Central and West areas) or from 32
Ave via Vancouver Blaine Hwy and King George Boulevard. Two major gateways were
incorporated in the design of the neighbourhood, one at the intersection of 152 St and 34 Ave and
the other at the intersection of 32 Ave and 156A St (for location map, see figure 9.1). The
following figure shows the plan of the neighbourhood.

231

Figure 10.1. Rosemary Heights Neighbourhood Plan
Source: City of Surrey
The NCP planning process for Rosemary Heights began in 1995. It produced the first of
five master planned neighbourhoods for the area known as Grandview Heights adjacent to the
exclusive retirement community of Morgan Creek (Laven, 2007). Traditionally the area south of
40th Ave was rural, but with development pressure increasing in the early 1990s, the area was
seen as a potential for development and future growth. Areas adjacent to a high profile
neighbourhood, Morgan Creek44, were opened up for development.
The NCP plan was developed in two stages based on the planning principles established
by Council in July, 1994 for the Rosemary Heights Local Area Plan following two years of
detailed planning and public consultation. The first stage concerned the physical plan (land uses

The neighbourhood included the Morgan Creek Golf Course, luxurious residences, signature residential
enclaves and two gated communities (Laven, 2007).
44

232

and densities) of the neighbourhood with a proposed hierarchical road system, land for school,
parks and open space as well as broad servicing concepts. The plan was designated as a mixed
use urban village, typical of current trends in Surrey and was approved by Council in April, 1996.
Land areas were designated as either urban (URB), suburban (SUBURB, for existing one acre
and half-acre lots), or multiple residential (RM). Large areas of land (19 ha out of 101 ha for
residential growth) were allocated to townhouse development to increase residential density
along with 3-storey garden apartments fronting 152 St. The second stage concerned more detailed
servicing concepts, the proposed phasing for the development, and design guidelines as well as a
financial strategy for the provision of services and amenities within the neighbourhood.
Rosemary Heights is a residential community accommodating a population of 6,910 in
2,275 dwelling units (2011 Census) at a density of 2,289 persons / km2 and a net residential
density of 14 units per hectare (6 units per acre). The open space system is comprised of a linear
park (width 30 m and area 5.8 ha) and two neighbourhood parks (each with an area of 2.2 to 2.4
ha) adjacent to the two elementary schools within the neighbourhood. A local commercial centre
is near the entrance to the community on 34 Ave.
The topography of Rosemary Heights’ site area consists of two basic topographic units:
1) a deep ravine system (Barbara Creek) bisecting the Rosemary Heights West neighbourhood
and the Nicomekl floodplain comprising a significant riparian forest (11.5 ha) of high
environmental sensitivity adjacent to the banks of the river, and 2) an upland area with stands of
mixed upland forest contiguous to the riparian forest. The ravines and riparian areas within
Rosemary Heights provide habitat that is suitable for migratory waterfowl, upland game birds,
raptors, and a diverse population of passerines. .

233

The uneven topography of the site area has differentiated the neighbourhood into spatially
polarized areas with a relatively homogeneous suburban type of development: single-detached
housing and a curvilinear loop collector road system with cul-de-sacs. The majority of housing
is single-family and semi-detached dwellings (68.8%) but other housing types are also included
such as townhouses (27%), duplexes and apartment units. There is no physical building that
would function as a community centre. Residents of Rosemary Heights have not formed a Home
Owners Association (HOA) that would otherwise mandate annual membership fees and enforce
restrictive covenants associated with private properties in the neighbourhood. There are a few
strata developments that are gated residential enclaves within the neighbourhood such as
Carrington and The Wedgewood.
Development is occurring in Rosemary Heights West area with projects such as The
Edgewater from Barber Creek Development Ltd., a cluster of five buildings with 201 apartments
units, mostly one- and two-bedrooms.
10.2 Neighbourhood Profile
With a total population of 6,910 in 2011 living in 2,275 dwellings, Rosemary Heights has
an average of 2.90 residents per dwelling compared to 3.06 for Surrey. The following are some
highlights of the demographic and housing profile of the neighbourhood. For time series data and
more information, please see appendix D.
10.2.1 Demography
Population of the neighbourhood has grown by 17.5% in 5 years from 2006 to 2011 to a
count of 6,910. About 20% of Rosemary Heights’ population are above 60 years of age while
more than 27% are less than 20 years of age and above 50% are between the ages of 20 to 60.
Time series data shows a decrease in percentage for the age group between 0 and 4 years old and
234

a more noticeable decrease (about 7%) for the age group of 20 to 39 years old in favor of an
appreciable increase in the age group above 60 years old from about 15% in 2006 to 20% in 2011.
This is an indication of the increase in seniors choosing to live in the neighbourhood. Such
changes in age group structure were accompanied by other demographic and social changes.


Diversity. In 2006, recent immigrants residing in Rosemary Heights were mainly from
Eastern Asia while in 2011, recent immigrants were mainly from Taiwan followed by
South Korea. In 2011, the aboriginal population percentage has decreased slightly to 1.7%
while the visible minority have reached 24.8% compared to 2006 census (2.1% and
21.8%, respectively).



Social Isolation. In 2011, about 4% of the population and about 10% of seniors were
living alone. Those who neither speak English or French are about 2.5% of the population.



Families. Notably, the percentage of lone-parent families in Rosemary Heights increased
from 8.9% to 10.5%, signaling an increase of families with financial burden. This is
paralleled with a prevalence of low income households after tax to 8.4% in 2011
compared to 27.8% of households in the top decile.



Marital Status. Meanwhile, there was a relative stabilization in marital status as a higher
percentage of Rosemary Heights neighbourhood’s population is married (70%) which is
greater than that for the percentage of the City as a whole (60%); however, the percentage
of couples in common law relationships in Rosemary Heights reflect the percentage of
that of the city of Surrey.



Mobility. The turnover in population is decreasing as more and more residents decide to
stay in the neighbourhood, especially those that see the neighbourhood as a place for
235

retirement. Just above two fifths of the residents of Rosemary Heights in 2011 lived at a
different address than they did in 2006 and this almost reflects the percentage of movers
for the city of Surrey.


Occupation. The occupation structure remained relatively the same except for the
percentage of residents having an occupation in education, law and government services
who increased from 6.8% to 11% whereas residents having an occupation in management
decreased from 26% to 21%.



Average Household Income. In 2006, average household total income of Rosemary
Heights’ residents was more than twice as higher than the average of household total
income of Surrey. This ratio decreased in 2011 to more than one and one-half higher than
the average household total income of Surrey.

10.2.2 Housing


Tenure. The overwhelming majority of households in Rosemary Heights are owned
(94.5%) rather than rented (5.0%) with 83.70% of private dwellings constructed after the
year 2001.



Dwelling Units. The following two photos show images of single family houses that are
predominant within the neighbourhood. In Rosemary Heights, single family houses
represented 56.7% of housing types in the census year 2011. This percentage represents
a decrease of 3.8% from the census year 2006 due to the addition of townhouses that
increased in percentage from 23% in 2006 to 26.6% in 2011.

236

Figure 10.2. Photo of single family houses in Rosemary Heights (Photo by researcher)

Figure 10.3. Photo of single family houses in Rosemary Heights (Photo by researcher)
237



Dwelling size and average number of rooms per dwelling. Average number of rooms (or
bedrooms) per dwelling in Rosemary Heights in 2011 is 8.6 (3.4) – ranked 17 out of 410
neighbourhoods in 2006 – compared to 6.5 (2.8) for Surrey. Average size of houses is
2,391 sq. ft. for single family houses and 2,195 sq. ft. for compact single family houses
while townhouses range in size from 1,783 to 2,139 sq. ft.



House Price. House prices in South Surrey increased in 2014 by 70% from prices in 2005.
The average price for detached houses in April 2014 was $974,456, and for townhouses,
$452,297.



Value of dwelling and Affordability. Average value of dwellings in 2011 was $797,380
(median $751,688). This is compared to an average value of $670,367 in 2006 (ranked 61
out of 407 neighbourhoods in Metro Vancouver) and $544,819 for Surrey (median
$500,746). Number of owner and tenant households spending 30% or more of household
total income on shelter costs was 510, representing 22.47% of residents, according to
2011 census, compared to 30% of residents for the city of Surrey.

238

10.3 Summary Matrix for Rosemary Heights
Rosemary Heights
Population in 2011

6,190

Population density (persons / km2)

2,289

Residential density (units / acre)

Sociodemographic

% of population aged 20 to 60 years old

52.2%

% of persons living alone

3.6%

% of lone-parent families

10.5%

% of immigrant population

26.4%

% of low income households

8.4%

Turnover (% of non-movers over 5 years)

57.7%

Average number of persons / household

2.9

Average number of children at home

1.1

Average household income
Physical

Land area

$137,406
303 ha

No. of access points to the neighbourhood

4

Degree of nesting

5

% of owned dwellings

94.5%

Average size of houses

2,391 sq. ft.

% of single-family houses
Economic

6

% of semi-detached dwellings
% of townhouses

56.7%
12%
26.6%

Average value of dwelling
Average selling price / sq. ft.
% of households spending more than 30%
of total household income

$797,380
$333
22.4%

10.4 Data Collection and Sample Description
Forty two survey responses were returned by mail from a total of 730 packages delivered
to residential addresses in Rosemary Heights. This represents a response rate of 5.75% which is
239

a little higher than typical of mail surveys. One of the mail survey responses was incomplete with
8 questions left unanswered, so it was not retained for analysis. Moreover, four completed mail
surveys were received but with no indication of address or postal code. It was not evident if those
four surveys belonged to East Clayton or Rosemary Heights, so they were not retained for
analysis.
In order to reach the required sample size, the mail out survey was complemented with a
telephone survey. The pace of collecting surveys by phone was on average 1.5 to 2 survey
responses per hour. Nineteen survey responses were collected from an initial list of 1,000
residents within V3S postal code who reside in Rosemary Heights. One of the 19 survey
responses was not retained due to being incomplete. A total of 291 calls were made to residents
from a more focused list of 600 records in Rosemary Heights. Forty responses were collected, of
which one was not retained for being incomplete. This represents a response rate of 13.7% which
is typical for response rates of phone surveys.
The total number of survey participants were 41+18+39 = 98. For a population size of
6,910 on 2011, the required sample size (for a confidence level of 95% and a confidence interval
of 10) was calculated to be 95 using an online sample size calculator.
10.4.1 Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of the survey sample of 98 residents are shown in the following table:

240

Table 10.1. Rosemary Heights Survey Sample
ROSEMARY HEIGHTS SURVEY SAMPLE
Male
Female
Gender
Not given
Total
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 5 years
Length of
5 to 8 years
Residence
8 to 10 years
Over 10 years
Total
Less than 24k
24k to 36k
36k to 48k
48k to 60k
60k to 75k
Household
75k to 90k
Income*
90k to 115k
115k to 130k
Over 130k
Not given
Total

Number
64
33
1
98
4
13
34
13
13
21
98
4
4
5
2
1
4
3
2
25
48
98

Percentage
65.3%
33.7%
1.0%
100%
4.1%
13.3%
34.7%
13.3%
13.3%
21.4%
100%
4.1%
4.1%
5.1%
2.0%
1.0%
4.1%
3.1%
2.0%
25.5%
49.0%
100%

*Upper limits in the questionnaire were actually $1 less (e.g. $35,999 for an upper limit of $36k)
in order to avoid indecisiveness on the part of participants for which income bracket they belong. In the
table the upper limits have been simplified to facilitate legibility.

As can be seen from the above table for survey sample characteristics, the ratio of male
to female respondents is unequal (ratio of 1.94:1). For length of residence in the neighbourhood,
about one-fifth of the respondents resided for over 10 years while roughly from one-seventh to
one-eighth of respondents resided for one of these three categories: 1 to 2 years, 5 to 8 years, and
8 to 10 years; and over one-third of respondents resided from 2 to 5 years. For household income
bracket, about half (49%) of the sample did not report their household income. This has been a
drawback of undertaking a phone survey as participants were more reluctant to give out this
information when compared to face-to-face surveys. Meanwhile, about a quarter (25.5%) had an
241

income greater than 130k per year; 8% had a household income less than 36k/year and 8%
reported a household income between 36k and 75k. In addition, 9% reported a household income
between 75k and 130k.
Characteristics of the interview sample of 12 residents are shown in the following table:
Table 10.2. Rosemary Heights Interview Sample
ROSEMARY HEIGHTS INTERVIEW SAMPLE
Male
Female
Gender
Not given
Total
Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
2 to 5 years
Length of
5 to 8 years
Residence
8 to 10 years
Over 10 years
Total
Less than 24k
24k to 36k
36k to 48k
48k to 60k
60k to 75k
Household
75k to 90k
Income*
90k to 115k
115k to 130k
Over 130k
Not given
Total

Number
5
7
0
12
0
0
2
4
2
4
12
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
4
5
3
12

Percentage
41.7%
58.3%
0%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
33.3%
16.7%
33.3%
100%
0.0%
8.3%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
41.7%
25.0%
100%

*Upper limits in the questionnaire were actually $1 less (e.g. $35,999 for an upper limit of $36k)
in order to avoid indecisiveness on the part of participants for which income bracket they belong. In the
table the upper limits have been simplified to facilitate legibility.

As can be seen from the above table for interview sample characteristics, the ratio of male
to female respondents is almost equal (ratio of 1:1.4). For length of residence in the
neighbourhood, one-third of the respondents resided between 5 and 8years or over 10 years while
one-sixth of respondents resided for 2 to 5 years or 8 to 10 years. None of the respondent resided
242

for less than two years. For household income bracket, a quarter did not provide this information.
Two-fifths reported an income over 130k and one-third reported an income of 115k to 130k. No
respondents reported an income less than 115k/year.
Qualitative data analysis of the 12 interviews and quantitative data analysis of the 98
survey participants were conducted with the help of NVivo v.10 software for qualitative analysis
and IBM SPSS v.21 software for quantitative analysis.
10.5 Qualitative Analysis
The first question asked residents if they were planning to stay in the neighbourhood for
more than five more years. Most of the interviewees planned to stay more than five years in the
neighbourhood. This was common among those who have resided for only two or three years and
for those who have resided for six or seven years, as well as those who have resided for ten or
fifteen years. That is, the neighbourhood has a general appeal for residents, independent of the
length of stay within the neighbourhood. Particular concerns for some interviewees were
affordability and retirement as factors that would affect their choice to move. Affordability was
an issue for an interviewee (interview no.6) who had resided for more than ten years. Retirement
was a factor (interview no.12) in regards to downsizing to a smaller abode. Nevertheless, those
who were close to retirement, all wanted to stay within the neighbourhood even if they
downsized. The predominant reason given by interviewees who planned to stay was having kids
in school in the neighbourhood or young adults going to the local university. The presence of a
school within the neighbourhood, like the case of East Clayton, was an important aspect for
residents of a particular social category (families having children) whose children could walk or
bike to school. A few mentioned that they planned to stay because they liked the neighbourhood
and the neighbours.
243

The top three reasons interviewees gave for choosing to live in their current
neighbourhood:
1. The local school. The presence of a good school in the neighbourhood was a major
factor for residents choosing to live in Rosemary Heights. The school was complemented with
other amenities such as a good church and parks. Contrary to other cases, where location was of
paramount importance. A high quality school located within the neighbourhood played an
important part in the daily life of residents with children. Residents contributed towards building
the school and had a sense of ownership of the facility. The school also became a focal point for
community gatherings and events.
2. Family close by. The second reason for choosing to live the neighbourhood was the
presence of family either within the neighbourhood or in close by neighbourhoods such as White
Rock. Also, the fact that residents were used to the area and had lived in the neighbourhood
beforehand was a factor. This second factor also fared more than location in choosing to live in
the neighbourhood. This speaks to a familiarity with the area both from a physical aspect (living
close by) and from a social aspect (having family, friends or acquaintances) in the neighbourhood.
Indeed, this social aspect had a bearing upon the establishment of a ‘tightly-knit’ community as
described by two of the residents (interview no.1 & 4).
3. Location, quiet / safe neighbourhood, and design / ‘format’ of the neighbourhood
(spacing of houses and abundance of green space), sense of community, and community ‘essence’
were among the top reasons but, overall, fared less than the presence of the school or family ties.
The proximity to highways facilitated commute to work and to shopping / farmers’ market as
well as travel to the U.S. (particularly Seattle) and to nearby recreation areas (e.g. ocean).

244

When asked what particular features Rosemary Heights has that are not found in other
neighbourhoods, interviewees repeated the above three top reasons. Interviewees mentioned the
elementary school that was attracting people; less crime and abundance of greenery, parks and
the golf course; and a close-knit and friendly community.
One other interviewee (interview no.6) who had resided for more than ten years remarked
that the neighbourhood was not so secluded for him as the neighbourhood was close to the
highway and bus stop, but in a convenient way as the roads are not so busy. Again, the quiet
aspect of a neighbourhood is balanced by a good connection to the city via a highway and transit
service. Such a balance definitely resonated with residents’ temperament and feel for what a
neighbourhood should be. Two other interviewees (interview no.9 & 11) remarked that there was
nothing special about the neighbourhood except being a little more ‘rural’ than other
neighbourhoods.
Neighbourhoods that were perceived to be as appealing to live in as Rosemary Heights
are: White Rock, Morgan Creek, Crescent Beach and Sunshine Hills in Delta. Reasons that
interviewees gave for similar appeal to other neighbourhoods were: general location on the edge
of the city or South Surrey area (where there is more sunshine and it rains less) – Morgan Creek
being the most proximal and comparably safe; the value of real estate for neighbourhoods
fronting the beach such as Crescent Beach; the common age group (+45 yrs.) and society level
for White Rock despite having smaller but more expensive houses; and the much older and more
financially established neighbourhoods such as Sunshine Hills.
Four interviewees, however, did not perceive any other neighbourhood to be as appealing
although one of the four (interview no.6) expressed concerns that the neighbourhood used to be
quiet and is recently getting loud. Having a good connection with the city, with the growth of the
245

city over time, tilts the ‘quiet-busy’ balance towards the busy side and may impact upon what
original residents considerable tolerable for them.
Seven of the twelve interviewees did not perceive or mention any neighbourhoods to be
superior to Rosemary Heights. The neighbourhood that were perceived to be superior was the
nearby neighbourhood of Morgan Creek and neighbourhoods close to the beach or in Northern
and West Vancouver which had larger and more expensive houses. It was clear to residents that
neighbourhoods that were more exclusive and having higher real estate value did not necessarily
translate into a superior neighbourhood when other factors are weighed in such as the
functionality of, and sense of community within, the neighbourhood.
Eight of the twelve interviewees observed that the neighbourhood is not affordable to low
and lower middle income residents. Reasons given for exclusion of low income residents were
the relatively high house prices (estimated by one of the residents to be in the range of $900k)
that increased over time; multi-family housing / townhouses that were still out of reach for low
incomes; and non-central location makes it difficult for low income families to reside in the
neighbourhood. Concerning accessibility for lower middle income, four interviewees mentioned
that rentals and the presence of townhouses / condos enlarged the range of options.
Residents were divided when explicitly asked about the number of access points to the
neighbourhood and the effect with respect to their sense of safety. Three confirmed that there
were one or two access points to the neighbourhood while nine confirmed that there were more
than two (one affirmed there were four points). The reason for the division was given by one of
the interviewees who mentioned that most of the access points are blocked off because of the
nearby high-end neighbourhood of Morgan Creek with its exclusive golf course. Four out of
twelve interviewees affirmed that their sense of safety increased; two from those who said there
246

were a few access points (while remarking the drawbacks in terms of an emergency) and two
from those who said there were one or two access points.
When interviewees were asked whether the number of access points affected their
willingness to stop and talk with residents in the neighbourhood, only two (interview no.4 & 12)
out of twelve interviewees felt that they were more willing to stop and talk, arguing that multiple
access points allowed / (represented) access by different types of people (young and old) and by
different ethnic backgrounds. Put differently, the more access points meant more diverse
experiences with a wider spectrum of people. Nevertheless, ten other interviewees negated any
effect of access points on their willingness to stop and talk, arguing that there was no bearing at
all.
Six questions were then posed to interviewees who responded on a five-point Likert scale
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The questions probed for observations of residents in
regards to the four components of neighbourhood cohesion: one question concerned each of
PSOC and neighbourliness; and two questions concerned each of place attachment and
enveloping space.
The interviewees strongly agreed or agreed in regards to their observations for five of the
six questions with a couple of interviewees being ambivalent in regards to PSOC. The appeal of
the landscape and friendliness of neighbours scored very high without any ambivalence or
disagreement among the twelve interviewees; those two aspects were followed by place
attachment which was almost unanimous among the interviewees except for one interviewee
(interview no.3) who was ambivalent and one (interview no.6) in disagreement who was
transiting from the neighbourhood. Sense of safety and enveloping space also scored high except
for one (interview no.3) being not sure for sense of safety and disagreeing concerning the lifestyle
247

and events that encourage her to stop and talk with residents. The least score was PSOC
concerning the perception of similarity with other residents and agreement on values or what is
important in life; three were ambivalent and one (interview no.6) disagreeing.
When asked to elaborate on aspects of the neighbourhood that contributed to their sense
of community or aspects that positively impacted the quality of their life, several interviewees
highlighted several aspects for the role of the school in the neighbourhood. One interviewee
(interview no.7) stated that the school is usually where most relationships are formed. The
proximity of the school allows children to walk to school. Children also go to the local church
and this forges friendships inside and outside of classrooms. The school contributed to the sense
of cohesion of the close-knit community and the feeling of being ‘all together’. As one
interviewee (interview no.1) phrased it: “We all know each other very well through school and
fund raising”. The playfields of the school and new playgrounds provide opportunities to meet
with other people who may be walking their dogs.
The school was important so much so that an interviewee (interview no.2) pondered that
the picture may be different for the sense of community on the other side of the neighbourhood
far from the school. The sense of community was strong, expressed by one of the interviewees
(interview no.4) as: “it felt like a community when you came into it”. Residents are usually
exercising and running and socialize via house parties where new residents are greeted. During
the site visit, a cohort of upper-middle aged residents were seen running in an orderly fashion
with lights attached to their caps. This reflected a sense of safety and neighbourliness of the
community.

248

Other interviewees highlighted the neighbourliness aspect where everyone watches over
others’ houses and children especially for the cul-de-sac enclaves and there is communal interest
to make neighbourhood families feel welcome when moving into the community.
Aspects of the neighbourhood were also highlighted. For example, the peacefulness and
quietude of the neighbourhood contributed to having more tolerance for the other as stated by
one interviewee (interview no.6). In addition, the proximity of a fire station gave some sense of
safety. As another example, the big yards of half-acreages and one acre lots were great for kids.
One resident who previously lived in Richmond, B.C (interview no.4). said the relative
homogeneity of residents compared to high concentration of Asians in Richmond, B.C. impacted
upon her sense of belonging in Rosemary Heights.
In spite of the positive aspects, a few interviewees commented that there were no common
areas, townhouses were constantly being built with negative environmental and social effects as
trees were being cut to make way for the new townhouses, and the increased density is impacting
on the overall quietude of the neighbourhood. Residents expressed a need for a high school.
Rosemary Heights does not have a Homeowner Association (HOA) nor a community
association. Only strata developments have an annual general meeting for residents of the
complex. Residents in Rosemary Heights are informed of events informally as there is no
community newsletter. Issues are dealt with through residents’ efforts. There is a neighbourhood
block watch that gives residents information on crimes around the area.
10.6 Interpretation
Rosemary Heights is a neighbourhood with a high sense of neighbourliness. The high
sense of neighbourliness is promoted by the role the elementary school plays in uniting the
community through community events and regular communication.
249

Three or four different neighbourhoods existed in Rosemary Heights. The first, a familyoriented school-focused community that contributed to the building of the school and looks
forward to building a high school. The school contributed to the community by maintaining a
sense of community among residents and newcomers. A second, a non-school-focused
community maintained a sense of community through a common exercising routine and walking
in the neighbourhood such that the sense of appropriation of the neighbourhood was maintained.
The third, gated residential enclaves of townhouse developments within Rosemary Heights where
access is controlled and exclusive to residents of townhouses. The fourth, residents of large lots
flanking 156 St who did not feel a sense of belonging and who sensed a precariousness of an
unstable future redevelopment.
It is necessary to highlight some comments of one survey participant who went above and
beyond the questionnaire by sending a written letter lamenting the development of the
neighbourhood over time. He resides in the Morgan Creek Golf Course community that is part
of Rosemary Heights’ census tract and states that the turnover point for the neighbourhood started
about 2 years ago.
Prior to that, the neighbourhood had houses that were all built over a short period and had
rules relating to house colour and landscaping requirements / upkeep. The residents who moved
in, though ethnically diverse, had similar values and were proudly committed to maintaining the
original concept of the neighbourhood with the establishment of a real sense of community. As
people moved out and newcomers moved in, they were welcomed to the neighbourhood and
effort was made to make them feel welcome and get to know the new neighbours.
About two years ago, houses were being sold to offshore buyers, mainly from Mainland
China who paid top dollar for the houses but have not become part of the community. They do
250

not communicate with other residents and yard maintenance is neglected to the point that
complaints have been sent to the City. Moreover, houses have remained vacant for long periods
of time (3 or 4 months) such that routine maintenance is not done. There is a high turnover for
such houses (with absentee owners) where different people show up and stay in them and leave
(akin to a timeshare) without communicating with other residents either out of ignorance of the
language or no desire to speak. Property values are affected due to lack of maintenance resulting
in more houses being put up for sale.
An interviewee (interview no.10) who is another resident that resides in the same area
pointed out on a map that the area they are living in seems to be detached from both Rosemary
Heights and Morgan Creek. The interviewee pointed out that the acreage and half acreage houses
along 156 St are not integrated with the rest of Rosemary Heights while at the same time not
considered part of Morgan Creek. This resulted in a sense of not belonging to either
neighbourhood. He foresaw the acreage houses east of 156 St being sold with larger residential
developments taking their place.
The issue of an unclear boundary defining each of the two neighbourhoods compounded
with a different house type (acreages and half acreages) prevented the residents from establishing
a sense of belonging to either neighbourhood. Moreover, the acreage houses were of poorer
quality than the facing half acreages which sent a signal of dilapidation of that strip of houses
along 156 St that is part of Rosemary Heights as well as a signal of instability as to what type of
development would replace such acreages.

251

10.7 Conclusion
This chapter investigated the sense of neighbourhood cohesion of the Surrey
neighbourhood of Rosemary Heights. Neighbourhood cohesion was relatively high especially in
regards to the dimensions of place attachment and neighbourliness (see chapter 11 for comparison
of case studies). Rosemary Heights is, perhaps, the highest among the compared neighbourhoods
in terms of establishing a high sense of neighbourliness for its residents. However, a trend that
has started a couple of years ago raises signals of transformation of part of the area into a
timeshare with absentee owners not keen on becoming part of the community. Other malaises
expressed by residents are the constant development of townhouses that encroaches upon the
natural environment. A recent university graduate residing in the neighbourhood also raised
issues of loss of tranquility due to increased density have also been raised.

252

COMPARISON OF CASE STUDIES
11.1 Summary Matrix for Case Studies
Case Study
Population in 2011
Population density (persons /
km2)

Sociodemographic

Physical

Economic

Valley
Ridge

5,055
1,542

Discovery
Ridge

4,395
1,200

East
Clayton

14,034
1,950

Rosemary
Heights

6,190
2,289

Residential density (upa)
% of population aged 20 to
60 yrs.

6
56%

6 (10, core)
58.9%

16
66.3%

6
52.2%

% of persons living alone

3.5%

8.6%

8.3%

3.6%

% of lone-parent families

7.5%

6.3%

13.9%

10.5%

% of immigrant population

21.4%

23.1%

19.1%

26.4%

% of low income households

2.8%

2.8%

10.3%

8.4%

Turnover (% of non-movers
over 5 years)
Avg. number of persons /
household
Avg. no. of children at home

66.4%

50.1%

23.9%

57.7%

2.9

2.7

2.7

2.9

1.1

1.3

1.1

1.1

Average household income

$167,992

$193,091

$89,776

$137,406

Land area (ha)
No. of access points to the
neighbourhood
Degree of nesting
Connectivity Index (link-tonode ratio)

268
1

278
1

250
More than 4

303
4

9
1.20

9
1.15

3
1.48
(Laven,2007)

5
1.19
(Laven,2007)

% of owned dwellings

98%

83%

80.5%

94.5%

Avg. size of houses (sq. ft.)

2,342

2,518

2,266

2,391

% of single-family houses
% of semi-detached
dwellings
% of townhouses
Average value of dwelling
Average selling price/sq. ft.
% of households spending
more than 30% of total
household income

96%
0%

56%
6.5%

46%
1%

56.7%
12%

4%
$546,847
$413
12%

3%
$712,974
$396
19%

38%
$469,005
$207
34%

26.6%
$797,380
$333
22.4%

253

From the above summary matrix as well as from qualitative data and observations, the
four neighbourhoods could be ranked along two dimensions of gated-ness (EXCLUSION and
SECLUSION) as conceptualized in the conceptual model (refer to fig. 4.2).
In terms of exclusion, a rough indicator may be the diversity of housing types within a
neighbourhood on the assumption that the less the diversity of housing types, the more exclusive
the neighbourhood. Within a particular metropolis or city, single family houses in general have
the highest market value when compared to other housing types. Thus, in the case of Surrey
neighbourhoods, Rosemary Heights may be ranked higher than East Clayton in terms of degree
of exclusion due to a predominance of single family houses in the former versus the latter. Such
a ranking is also confirmed when comparing the average value of dwellings or the average cost
per square foot which are higher in Rosemary Heights than East Clayton.
The case of Calgary neighbourhoods is not as simple to rank. Valley Ridge has a higher
percentage of single family houses than Discovery Ridge but, at the same time, the average value
of dwellings in Discovery Ridge is much higher than Valley Ridge. Nevertheless, Discovery
Ridge may be ranked higher than Valley Ridge in terms of degree of exclusion given that the
average value of dwellings is a better indicator than simply taking into consideration the
percentage of single family houses. Moreover, interview responses of Valley Ridge residents
suggested that Discovery Ridge was considered to be more exclusive than Valley Ridge.
If one is to rank all four neighbourhoods in terms of degree of exclusion, the average
value of dwellings cannot be taken as an absolute value but has to be compared as a ratio to the
average value of dwellings within the respective metropolitan area or city. The following table
shows the ranking of neighbourhoods in terms of ratio of average dwelling value with respect to
the metropolitan average as an indicator of degree of exclusion.
254

Table 11.1. Ranking of Neighbourhoods by Degree of Exclusion
Neighbourhood

Average Value
of Dwelling

Discovery Ridge

Ratio of Average
Dwelling Value (with
respect to the City
Average)
$712,974
1.56

Ratio of Average
Dwelling Value (with
respect to the
Metropolitan Average)
1.53

Valley Ridge

$546,847

1.20

1.17

Rosemary Heights

$797,380

1.46

1.15

East Clayton

$469,005

0.86

0.68

Note: Ratios were calculated from average dwelling value data of 2011 Census Data (Statistics Canada)

In terms of seclusion, the ranking of neighbourhoods may be performed according to the
number of access points, the degree of nesting and the locational context of the neighbourhood.
As such, the four neighbourhoods may be ranked from highest to lowest degree of seclusion as:
Discovery Ridge (DR), Valley Ridge (VR), Rosemary Heights (RH), and East Clayton (EC). DR
and VR are both single access neighbourhoods and have higher degree of nesting than the
neighbourhoods of RH and EC. DR can be considered more secluded given its locational context
(Griffith Woods forest and Indian Reserve) and its low degree of connectivity vis-à-vis other
contiguous neighbourhoods than the case of VR.
Thus, in terms of both degree of exclusion and degree of seclusion, the ranking of the four
neighbourhoods remains consistently as: DR, VR, RH, and EC. However, if ranking is performed
by degree of exclusion relative to the City average, the ranking becomes: DR, RH, VR, and EC.
Referring back to table 4.1., the neighbourhoods could be categorized by their degree of gatedness by taking into consideration the number of access points to the neighbourhood as well as
whether there is high or low economic gating. DR and VR would be categorized as semi-gated.
RH as hybrid-gated (HG-D) and EC as non-gated.
255

11.2 Qualitative Analysis
11.2.1 Analysis of Interview Data
A total of 48 interviews were conducted with residents of the four neighbourhoods; i.e.
twelve interviews for each neighbourhood. Interview responses were coded into four main
categories: locational characteristics, neighbourhood characteristics, housing characteristics, and
other. Each of the main categories included a number of rubrics that were identified from common
responses of individual interviewees. For the main categories of locational and housing
characteristics, each included four rubrics while nine rubrics were included for each of the other
two main categories (see appendix F).
11.2.1.1 Reasons for choosing the neighbourhood
A larger percentage (about 92%) of interviewed residents of Discovery Ridge planned to
stay in the neighbourhood for more than five years compared to the other three neighbourhoods
(75%). The first reason given by interviewees for planning to stay more than five years was
neighbourhood characteristics for East Clayton and Valley Ridge whereas, for Discovery Ridge
and Rosemary Heights, the first reason for planning to stay was location.
The first reason in order of importance for choosing to live in the neighbourhood was
somewhat different for Discovery Ridge and East Clayton than the reason for planning to stay.
The first reason for choosing to live in the neighbourhood is summarized in the following figure:

256

Figure 11.1. First Reason for choosing to live in current neighbourhood of residence
From the above figure, it can be deduced that neighbourhood characteristics remained the
primary reason for choosing to live and stay in the neighbourhood for residents of Valley Ridge
and location remained the primary reason for choosing to live and stay in the neighbourhood for
residents of Rosemary Heights. For Discovery Ridge, neighbourhood characteristics were the
primary reason to choose to live in the neighbourhood while location was the primary reason to
stay. For East Clayton, location and other factors were the primary reason to choose to live in the
neighbourhood while neighbourhood characteristics were the primary reason to choose to stay.
The second reason in order of importance for choosing to live in the neighbourhood is
summarized in the following figure.
257

Figure 11.2. Second Reason for choosing to live in current neighbourhood of residence
As seen, neighbourhood characteristics is very prominent for residents of East Clayton
where two thirds stated neighbourhood characteristics to be the second primary reason to choose
to live in the neighbourhood. Location is very prominent for residents of Valley Ridge for over
half of the interviewed residents. For Discovery Ridge, neighbourhood characteristics remained
the first and second primary reasons for choosing to live in the neighbourhood. For Rosemary
Heights, neighbourhood characteristics was the second primary reason followed by location.
The third reason in order of importance for choosing to live in their respective
neighbourhoods is summarized in the following figure.

258

Figure 11.3. Third Reason for choosing to live in current neighbourhood of residence
As seen, half of the interviewed residents in Rosemary Heights and Valley Ridge declared
location as the third primary reason. Thus, location remains the second and third primary reason
for choosing to live in Valley Ridge. Neighbourhood characteristics remains the second and third
primary reason for interviewees of East Clayton. For Discovery Ridge, neighbourhood
characteristics remains the top three reasons for choosing to live in the neighbourhood.
11.2.1.2 Particular Features
Concerning perception of particular features that are unique to the neighbourhood,
examination of the cell frequencies showed that two thirds (66.7%) of residents in East Clayton
did not perceive any particular features unique to the neighbourhood while the percentage of
259

residents who did not perceive particular features in all the other neighbourhoods was less than
17%. The difference between East Clayton and the other neighbourhoods was significant at p <
.01 (p = .006)45. In other words, an association was found between type of neighbourhood and
perception of residents of unique features in their neighbourhood.
The following figure shows that when asking for perception of particular features not
found in other neighbourhoods, locational characteristics still fared highly for Discovery Ridge
and Valley Ridge, almost on par with neighbourhood characteristics. The neighbourhood that
stood out from other neighbourhoods under study in terms of first feature of neighbourhood
characteristics was Rosemary Heights, cross-referencing to location for Rosemary Heights that
was found as the first and third primary reason of choosing the neighbourhood. Category no.23
(age and demography of the neighbourhood, neighbourliness, and integrity of people) was the
most prominently mentioned (5 out of 12) of neighbourhood characteristics for Rosemary
Heights. For Valley Ridge and Discovery Ridge, on the other hand, it was amenities within the
neighbourhood (category no.24) followed by a single entry (category no.21) that were most
prominently mentioned of neighbourhood characteristics.

Significance was calculated using Fisher Exact Test for small sample size (software R, version 3.1.0). A
chi square test was not used as frequencies of expected counts in 50% of cells in the contingency table were less than
5.
45

260

Figure 11.4. First Feature mentioned as a particular feature of the neighbourhood
Concerning mention of a second feature that characterized their neighbourhood, the
following figure shows the results obtained. Discovery Ridge stands out from the other
neighbourhoods in terms of second feature of neighbourhood characteristics followed by Valley
Ridge. For Rosemary Heights, location and neighbourhood characteristics were equally
important.

261

Figure 11.5. Second Feature mentioned as a particular feature of the neighbourhood
Concerning perception of residents of the existence of superior neighbourhoods than their
current neighbourhood of residence, roughly half of interviewees in the three neighbourhoods of
Valley Ridge, Discovery Ridge, and Rosemary Heights were affirmative in that there existed
superior neighbourhoods especially in terms of house value but not when considering the whole
package of what their neighbourhoods offer. For East Clayton, 10 out of 12 interviews
acknowledged the existence of superior neighbourhoods that have larger properties, less density,
natural amenities, and scenic views. However, in terms of cost of owning a house, East Clayton
was the top choice.
262

Concerning perception of residents of affordability of their respective neighbourhoods,
the order of neighbourhoods from most affordable to least affordable was: East Clayton,
Discovery Ridge, Rosemary Heights, and Valley Ridge. Two thirds of interviewed residents in
East Clayton perceived their neighbourhood to be affordable compared to one third in Discovery
Ridge, one fourth in Rosemary Heights, and one twelfth in Valley Ridge. An association between
type of neighbourhood and perception of affordability was found to be statistically significant at
p < .1 (p = .075)46.
11.2.1.3 Effect of number of access points
Concerning the perception of residents of the effect of the number of entry points to the
neighbourhood and their sense of safety, roughly over two fifths of the residents in Rosemary
Heights and East Clayton, 58% of residents in Valley Ridge, and two thirds of residents in
Discovery Ridge affirmed that the number of entry points affected their sense of safety. Although
some residents, however, in East Clayton, did not make a clear connection between the number
of entry points and perception of safety, one resident clearly affirmed that there were practically
only two entry points to the neighbourhood and that it definitely impacted on her perception of
safety within the neighbourhood. The following figure summarizes the results of residents’
perception of the effect of the number of entry points on their sense of safety.

Significance was calculated using Fisher Exact Test for small sample size (software R, version 3.1.0). A
chi square test was not used as frequencies of expected counts in 50% of cells in the contingency table were less than
5.
46

263

Figure 11.6. Perception of the effect of access points on sense of safety
Concerning the perception of residents of the effect of the number of entry points on their
willingness to stop and talk to other people in the neighbourhood, from two thirds to above 90%
of interviewed residents negated an effect. Only one-twelfth in Valley Ridge, one-sixth in
Rosemary Heights and East Clayton, and one-fourth in Discovery Ridge affirmed an effect.
When residents were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale whether the landscape was
appealing and contributed to their sense of community, a statistically significant association at p

264

< .05 (p = .034)47 was found between type of neighbourhood and perception of an appealing
landscape. Examination of cell frequencies showed that 83.3% of interviewed residents in
Discovery Ridge strongly agreed that the landscape was appealing and contributed to their sense
of community while the percentage who strongly agreed in all other neighbourhoods was less
than 50% (in the case of East Clayton, the percentage was less than 20% with a quarter who were
not sure or disagreed).
All of the interviewed residents felt safe in their neighbourhoods except for two in East
Clayton who did not feel safe.
Most of the interviewed residents felt attached to their neighbourhood with none being
unsure or disagreeing for Discovery Ridge compared to four in East Clayton. Rosemary Heights’
residents had the highest percentage of strong agreement (50%); however, it also had two who
were unsure or disagreed in their sense of attachment – see following figure.

Significance was calculated using Fisher Exact Test for small sample size (software R, version 3.1.0). A
chi square test was not used as frequencies of expected counts in 50% of cells in the contingency table were less than
5.
47

265

Figure 11.7. Perception of sense of attachment to the neighbourhood
Sense of neighbourliness and friendliness of residents was strongest for the
neighbourhood of Rosemary Heights (100%) followed by Valley Ridge (83.3%) who either
agreed or strongly agreed.
Sense of similarity with other residents in the neighbourhood was strongest for the
neighbourhood of Valley Ridge (over 90%) followed by East Clayton (66.7%) who either agreed
or strongly agreed.
The perception of residents of lifestyles, events, and activities that characterize their
neighbourhood was strongest for Rosemary Heights (over 90%) followed by Discovery Ridge

266

(75%) who either agreed or strongly agreed. No disagreement was recorded for those two
neighbourhoods.
The following table summarizes what aspect positively impacted the quality of life of
interviewed residents in their neighbourhood (table cells show number of respondents mentioning
that aspect).
Table 11.2. Positive aspects impacting quality of life
Positive impact on quality of life
Neighbourhood
Valley Ridge
Discovery Ridge
Rosemary Heights
East Clayton

Location
4
2
3
1

Neighbourhood
Characteristics

House Design
5
6
6
3

Other
1
0
1
2

As seen, neighbourhood characteristics were mentioned by half of the interviewed
residents as positively improving their quality of life for the neighbourhoods of Discovery Ridge
and Rosemary Heights. For Discovery Ridge, characteristics mentioned were urban design
features such as quality of landscape, architectural controls, and bus service. For Rosemary
Heights, it was the age and demography of the neighbourhood and neighbourliness of residents.
Location was a second principal factor for positively improving the quality of life of residents in
Valley Ridge and Rosemary Heights. House Design was mentioned as positively impacting the
quality of life mostly for residents of East Clayton.
11.2.2 Analysis of Interviews with Municipal Planners
Calgary
An interview was conducted with three municipal planners (manager of new community
planning, coordinator, and approving officer) at the City of Calgary. Municipal planners had a
267

1
4
0
2

clear vision of promoting more connectivity and walkability in new suburban neighbourhoods.
During the interview they presented the example of the new community of Rangeview in the
southeast where more access points are encouraged as well as a modified grid pattern with the
double goal of increasing alternative traffic routes and walkability as well as future ease of
redevelopment and increased densification. The aim of promoting connectivity definitely
necessitated discouraging the erection of walls around neighbourhoods or controlling access to
neighbourhoods. The reason for the emergence of single access neighbourhoods such as
Discovery Ridge and Valley Ridge is determined by provincial control on access points to
neighbourhoods directly accessed from highways such as Hwy 8 and TransCanada Hwy. The
neighbourhood of Shawnessy Slopes was mentioned as having a similar single access
configuration although the termination of the main spine connects to the adjoining neighbourhood
of Evergreen. Issues of single access involved congestion and higher speeds along larger roads
as opposed to dispersing the traffic throughout the neighbourhood as well as small-scale retail to
meet the daily needs of residents. For example, in the case of Discovery Ridge, residents have
difficulty exiting the neighbourhood due to high traffic on Hwy 8.
The manager of new community planning and subdivision pointed that the issue is broader
than a reduction to a single access. The curvilinear network discourages walkability and does not
meet the daily needs of residents. That is, a direct link was established between a single access to
a neighbourhood and a curvilinear or cul-de-sac pattern. The major argument is the dichotomy
between, to use Cozens and Love’s terminology, the encounter model and the enclosure model.
When asked if semi-gated neighbourhoods are more effective at crime prevention than open grid
neighbourhoods with through traffic, the municipal planners argued that there was no evidence
of such effectiveness and crime statistics needed to confirm such effectiveness. The reasoning
268

was that, following Jane Jacobs, the more ‘eyes on the street’ and the more active the area, the
more crime would be deterred than in a quiet area without such natural surveillance. As we shall
see, such a view was shared univocally by municipal planners in Surrey.
Crime statistics were consulted by the researcher. The following table shows crime
statistics over two years 2012-2013 for the neighbourhoods of Valley Ridge and Discovery Ridge
compared to Mckenzie Towne which is an example of applying new urbanism principles.
Table 11.3. Comparison of reported crime statistics for each neighbourhood (2012-2013)
Crime Type

Valley Ridge

Discovery
Ridge

Mckenzie
Towne

Tuscany

Residential Break and
12
18
41
47
Enter
Theft from Vehicle
36
35
97
110
Theft of Vehicle
5
2
39
30
Social disorder
192
243
1236
612
Physical disorder
22
35
139
89
Assault
1
1
35
3
Violence
4
1
16
9
Source: adapted from http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Statistics/Calgary-Police-statisticalreports.aspx
If the proportional difference in population is taken into account in a rough proportion of
1:3 between Valley Ridge and Mckenzie Towne, then the number of break and enter crimes or
theft from vehicle in Valley Ridge become equal to Mckenzie Towne. In other words, the enclave
model did not differ from the encounter model for these two types of crimes. However, in the
case of assault, the encounter model was a much riskier neighbourhood than the enclosure model;
about 18 times riskier. Other types of crime such as physical and social disorder were in the ratio
of 1:6 between Valley Ridge and Mckenzie Towne. In other words, if the population difference
is taken into account, the encounter model had twice the crime rate for these types of crime than
the enclosure model. Theft of vehicle was in the ratio of about 1:8, i.e. around two and a half
269

times more likely in the encounter model than in the enclosure model. If Mckenzie Towne is to
be compared to Tuscany which has a comparable population number, crime statistics are almost
the same except for clear differences in terms of assault and violent crime (see above table) as
well as social and physical disorder which was higher in Mckenzie by 2 and 1.5 times respectively
when compared to Tuscany.
It should be noted that such an argument remains to be corroborated by thorough research
for the difference between the encounter model and the enclosure model in terms of crime.
Nevertheless, two points could be highlighted. First, preliminary data did not provide evidence
that the encounter model performed better than the enclosure model from the point of view of
eyes on the street especially in terms of the types of crime that were prevalent. On the contrary,
the evidence suggests that the encounter model had higher crime rates than an enclosure-model
neighbourhood with a similar population count or a semi-gated neighbourhood when proportional
difference is taken into account. Second, the encounter model uses more percentage of streets
when compared to the enclosure model. This translates into more surveillance, more street
cleaning, and according to CPTED, more probability for opportunistic crime in the laneways.
The idea of a linear park in the enclosure model replacing the laneway of the encounter model as
a separation between the backyards of houses is functionally and aesthetically more successful
and, importantly, provides safer pathways for pedestrian and cycling movement. Such a linear
park also performs on the environmental front by providing continuous pathways for various
fauna. Most importantly, the linear park offers a different experience to the neighbourhood that
is neither a frontal or dorsal one but an interspersed and interweaving one which opens up a new
dimension for appropriation of space by residents who like to walk and bike while enjoying the
natural environment away from the ‘straight-jacket’ of the grid.
270

The municipal planners maintained that the integration of land uses to create a pleasant
streetscape and to provide ease of access especially for transportation and transit impels the
renunciation of isolated pods that do not promote social cohesion. Moreover, isolated pods raise
issues of movement of people and goods as well as fire safety. In short, planners see no positive
benefits for gated developments.
The conception of the municipal planners was focused on the city scale more than the
scale of individual neighbourhoods. For transit bus service to circumnavigate the labyrinth of
curvilinear patterns from neighbourhood to neighbourhood is a challenge, for operators as well
as commuters when time for circumnavigation becomes a pressing factor. One could argue that
snow removal would also be more challenging in a curvilinear pattern than a gridiron one. Yet,
such practical issues need to be balanced against social considerations such as appropriation of
space by residents, safety (especially for children), and, most importantly, promoting
neighbourhood cohesion through such a sense of safety and sense of appropriation that is
definitely higher in the enclosure model. Orientation within the neighbourhood becomes more
difficult in a diffused grid pattern compared to a hierarchical clustered one. Moreover, vistas and
perspectives of the linear grid are monotonous compared to the possibility of axial views in a
curvilinear pattern. More frequent street intersections is translated into higher probability for
accidents.
The understanding of municipal planners is that a grid configuration would impel vehicles
to slow down and be more cautious rather than speeding through the main spine of the
neighbourhood. The argument is unresolved and remains open on the merits of practical
considerations versus social and symbolic considerations; planning at the scale of the city or the
scale of the neighbourhood.
271

Surrey
Two interviews were conducted with managers of community and area planning at the
City of Surrey. Both municipal planners agreed on the overall objective of promoting
connectivity. While both maintained that gating may be beneficial in terms of sense of
neighborliness for gated residents, one of the planners perceived effects to be negative on the
long term in heightening the sense of fear (Setha Low’s thesis). Nonetheless, both agreed that
gated developments are not beneficial to society at the larger scale; one planner viewed the
negative effect from a practical viewpoint of maintenance and redevelopment while the other
planner viewed the effect from a social perspective particularly for residents of small scale
developments.
The manager of area planning commented that gating at a small scale of a townhouse
development (i.e. an enclave) may increase the sense of familiarity but also gives a false sense of
security. Moreover, the small enclave excludes itself from the outside and increases paranoia of
gated residents. The general perception is that such gated residents appeal to a certain social
segment, predominantly seniors, who may be, perhaps unintentionally, self-serving and not attend
to neighbourhood-wide issues. In general, seniors are more concerned about safety while young
families with children are generally more open to neighborly interaction. The planners thought
that gated developments are age-related and an outward expression of fear for those to whom
such developments have an appeal.
A townhouse (or strata) development has the right to erect a gate without needing to apply
for a permit unless there is an issue with a public pathway / right-of-way. The response by
municipal planners is to mandate the units of the townhouses to front the street rather than having
the back of units on the street. In the case of single-family houses, double-fronting lots are not
272

allowed unless the situation is unresolvable. The reason is that a double-fronting lot translates
into the back of the house fronting one of the streets. Stated differently, environmental design is
used to mitigate the effect of small scale gating as well as mitigate the concerns of CPTED for
open grid street pattern.
While there are no municipal guidelines that promote gating, gating is controlled
indirectly through fire codes and regulations. For example, one cannot build an 8 ft. fence as a
general regulation; such a regulation discourages ‘offensive’ gating. In addition, development
permit guidelines discourage gating. For example, front doors have to face the street and property
lines are demarcated by fences 4 ft. high while not being walled off but permeable. Informal
practices for encouraging a gridded subdivision pattern are generally adopted. The manager of
area planning maintained that defensible space is achieved by design and by approaching the
issue in a positive way by means of a design panel review that consists of an architect, an urban
designer, one reviewer for handicap access, and one RCMP for security and CPTED issues.
The manager of community planning pointed out that gating in Surrey happens at a small
scale due to the fragmentary nature of development that is in contradistinction to master-planned
communities in Phoenix, for example. Moreover, such gated developments are townhouses, not
single-detached units. The manager maintained that, after Kevin Lynch, some degree of
neighbourhood insularity at a small grain would not be detrimental and may promote a sense of
safety, privacy, a sense of ‘containment’, and a sense of neighborliness but, at the community
scale, political issues become significant. Particularly, a real problem of maintenance may arise
as such developments advance in their life-cycle. This is particularly the case for poorly-built
developments from the 1970s. Another problem is obtaining unanimous approval of all owners

273

for re-development. In other words, large scale gated developments are not beneficial at the
societal level.
There are current development proposals such as Grandview Heights where Chinese
investors are proposing bare-land strata developments with two gates to cater to a certain
demographic (seniors and affluent residents); the demand for such developments is there. The
general strategy adopted by municipal planners is to limit townhouse block size to 200 m x 150
m in order to mitigate the effect of gating on the wider neighbourhood in terms of circulation. In
cases where block sizes are larger, a public road or right-of-way is inserted so as to discourage
the gating off of a larger block.
11.3 Quantitative Analysis of Survey Data
A total of 389 survey responses were collected from all four neighbourhoods: 195 surveys
from residents of the two neighbourhoods in Calgary and 194 surveys from residents of the two
neighbourhoods in Surrey.
All of the 389 participants responded to all 23 questions except for nine participants each
of whom did not respond to one question. Four did not respond to question 4 concerning the
friendships and associations with others in the neighbourhood. Two did not respond to question
20 concerning the uniqueness of the neighbourhood. Three did not respond to questions 6, 14,
and 18 concerning respectively sense of collaboration with others, sense of similarity to others,
and sense of community.
11.3.1 The Concept of Enveloping Space
The first step of quantitative analysis consisted of investigating the concept of enveloping
space. The following is a table of results for descriptive statistics over pooled data of all cases.

274

Table 11.4. Descriptive Statistics for Enveloping Space (across all cases)

Total Cases

N
387

Minimum
1.25

Maximum
5.00

Mean
3.28

Std. Deviation
.57

As shown in the above table, the total number of cases was 387 given that two cases were
excluded from the initial data set because a response was not provided by two surveyed residents
for one of the four items of the questionnaire used to calculate the mean value of enveloping
space. The minimum value was 1.25 and the maximum value was 5.00 indicating that there was
a wide range of responses. The mean value was 3.28 and the standard deviation was .57,
indicating that there was a moderate to a relatively high sense of enveloping space (ranging from
a mean value of 2.71 to 3.85) among 68% of respondents.
The next investigation determined whether enveloping space differed between
neighbourhoods in intensity. The following table shows that neighbourhoods differed in sense of
enveloping space.
Table 11.5. Descriptive Statistics for Enveloping Space by Neighbourhood
Enveloping Space (mean of 4 items)
Mean

Std.
Deviation

Neighbourhood

N

Minimum

Maximum

Valley Ridge

101

2.00

4.25

3.1312

.55294

Discovery Ridge

94

2.00

5.00

3.5186

.57763

East Clayton

95

1.25

4.50

3.1868

.55898

Rosemary Heights

97

2.00

4.50

3.3119

.53404

Total

387

1.25

5.00

3.2842

.57328

The above table shows that Discovery Ridge (DR) was highest among the four
neighbourhoods in intensity with a mean value of 3.52 and was followed by Rosemary Heights
(RH), East Clayton (EC), and Valley Ridge (VR) with mean values of 3.31, 3.19, and 3.13
275

respectively. In addition, of the four neighbourhoods, DR had the highest standard deviation,
indicating that it is a neighbourhood where variance is higher among residents in their sense of
enveloping space than the other four neighbourhoods, particularly when compared with RH
which had a lower standard deviation and variance. The above table also shows that EC had the
lowest minimum value of 1.25 compared to the other three neighbourhoods that had a minimum
value of 2.00.
Given that there were differences among the four neighbourhoods, it remained to be
determined whether such differences in mean values across neighbourhoods were statistically
significant. A one-way ANOVA test was conducted to examine the effect of neighbourhood on
enveloping space in terms of differences in degree of gated-ness. Results of the test showed that
there was a significant effect of neighbourhood on enveloping space at the p < .001 level for the
different degrees of gated-ness [F (3,383) = 9.17, p < .001]. A Tukey post-hoc test was then
conducted in order to determine which neighbourhoods had significant differences in their mean
values. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the neighbourhood of DR
(M = 3.52, SD = .58) significantly differed from the neighbourhoods of VR (M = 3.13, SD = .55)
and EC (M = 3.19, SD = .56) and marginally differed from the neighbourhood of RH (M = 3.31,
SD = .53). Homogeneous subsets showed DR in a separate subset from the other three
neighbourhoods that were included in a second subset. No other significant differences were
found between the other three neighbourhoods in the mean value of enveloping space.
These results suggest that a high level of gated-ness of a neighbourhood does have an
effect on the sense of enveloping space of residents. Specifically, the results suggest that when a
neighbourhood has a high ranking in terms of degree of gated-ness for both aspects of exclusion

276

and seclusion (refer to section 11.1), which is the case of DR, residents of the neighbourhood
have a higher sense of enveloping space.
Meanwhile, the neighbourhood of VR did not have a significant difference in the mean
value of enveloping space compared to RH because the degrees of exclusion of VR and RH are
almost similar if the ratio of average dwelling value with respect to the respective metropolitan
area is taken as an indicator of the degree of exclusion (values of 1.17 and 1.15, respectively).
Nevertheless, the mean value of enveloping space for RH was higher than VR although the latter
has a higher degree of seclusion than the former. This discrepancy may be explained by referring
to the degree of exclusion at the municipal level where the ratio of the average dwelling value
with respect to the city average in RH (1.46) is much higher than VR (1.20). Such a result suggests
that the degree of exclusion (at the municipal rather than the metropolitan level), as one aspect of
gated-ness, has a higher impact than degree of seclusion, as the other aspect of gated-ness, in
affecting residents’ sense of enveloping space.
11.3.2 The Concept of Cohesion
The second step of quantitative analysis consisted of investigating the concept of cohesion
and its three subscales: PSOC, Place Attachment, and Neighbourliness. Buckner’s NCI was
calculated as the mean value of the 18-item questionnaire and the subscales were calculated
according to Buckner’s categorization of items of the questionnaire that belonged to the
respective subscale (see Methodology, Chapter 4). It should be noted that none of the 389 cases
were excluded for the subscales of Place Attachment and Neighbourliness. However, 7 cases
were excluded (one from DR and 6 from EC) from a total of 389 cases for the subscale of PSOC,
due to missing data. The following is a table of results for descriptive statistics over pooled data
of all cases.
277

Table 11.6. Descriptive Statistics for Cohesion and Three Subscales (across all cases)
Buckner’s NCI

Buckner’s
PSOC scale
(9 items)

Buckner’s Place Buckner’s
Attachment
Neighborliness
(3 items)
(6 items)
1.56
1.33
1.33

Minimum

1.72

Maximum

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

Mean

3.75

3.75

4.02

3.63

Std.

.57

.57

.70

.73

Deviation
As seen in the above table, the NCI over all cases had a value of 3.75 and ranged from a
minimum value of 1.72 to a maximum value of 5.00. The NCI value is considered relatively high
on a 5-point scale and suggests that, on average, residents of all four neighbourhoods had a
moderately high sense of neighbourhood cohesion. The standard deviation in the NCI indicates
that there was a moderate to moderately high variance among residents in their sense of cohesion
where about 68% had an NCI value between 3.18 and 4.32.
Concerning the three subscales, each had a maximum value of 5.00 and minimum values
of 1.56, 1.33, and 1.33 respectively for PSOC, Place Attachment, and Neighborliness. Also, the
results show that, of the three subscales, Place Attachment had the highest mean value compared
to PSOC and Neighborliness. Such a result suggests that residents of the four neighbourhoods,
on average, had a relatively strong sense of place attachment. The largest variance among
respondents was found in the subscale of Neighborliness and the least variance was found in the
subscale of PSOC.
The next investigation determined whether there were differences in the expression /
manifestation of cohesion and the three subscales for the four neighbourhoods. The following
table shows descriptive statistics for each of the neighbourhoods.
278

Table 11.7. Descriptive Statistics for Cohesion and Three Subscales by Neighbourhood

Neighbourhood
Valley Ridge

Discovery Ridge

East Clayton

Rosemary Heights

Total

Buckner
Cohesion
(18 items)
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation

Buckner PSOC Buckner Place Buckner
Scale
Attachment
Neighborliness
(9 items)
(3 items)
(6 items)
101
101
101
101
2.28
2.44
1.67
1.33
4.78
4.89
5.00
4.83
3.7420
3.7349
4.1617
3.5429
.53803
.52210
.72359
.76727
93
93
94
94
1.89
1.89
2.67
1.50
4.94
4.89
5.00
5.00
3.9415
3.9164
4.3652
3.7535
.57876
.59648
.55319
.79527
90
90
96
96
1.72
1.56
1.33
1.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.5889
3.5951
3.6632
3.5747
.60823
.59900
.63889
.68521
98
98
98
98
1.94
2.00
1.33
1.33
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.7341
3.7347
3.9082
3.6463
.52519
.53576
.67143
.66117
382
382
389
389
1.72
1.56
1.33
1.33
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.7525
3.7461
4.0240
3.6277
.57329
.57174
.69978
.73079

The NCI for DR was found to be the highest of the other three neighbourhoods. VR and
RH followed DR and had NCI’s that were almost equal with values of 3.74 and 3.73 respectively.
Finally, EC had the lowest NCI of the four neighbourhoods and the largest variance among
residents in their overall sense of cohesion. RH had the least variance among its residents in their
sense of cohesion.

279

Among the three subscales, PSOC for these case studies turned out to be a better indicator
for the overall index of cohesion than the other two subscales. This result is confirmed for all four
neighbourhoods where a higher mean value of Place Attachment was countered by a lower mean
value of Neighborliness. This points to the importance of neighbours and neighborly interaction
for the overall sense of cohesion of a neighbourhood to be raised.
DR consistently had the highest mean value for each of the three subscales compared to
the other three neighbourhoods. Diametrically opposed to DR was EC which had the lowest mean
value for each of the three subscales compared to the other three neighbourhoods. Alternatively,
VR and RH had a closely equal mean value for the subscale of PSOC and where VR superseded
RH in Place Attachment, RH superseded VR in Neighborliness.
Such results at the overall NCI and three subscales suggest that the four neighbourhoods
could be ranked in descending order as follows: DR, VR, RH, EC. Although VR and RH are
almost equivalent, the differences in the subscales of Place Attachment and Neighborliness
between the two neighbourhoods, if taken at face value, render VR to be at a slightly higher rank
than RH. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that the variance among residents is higher in the
case of VR than RH for both subscales which may suggest putting RH ahead of VR in the ranking
on the premise that there is more consistency among residents in RH than VR in their sense of
cohesion. Given that there were differences among the four neighbourhoods, it remained to be
determined whether such differences in mean values across neighbourhoods were statistically
significant. A one-way ANOVA test was conducted to examine the effect of neighbourhood on
cohesion and the three subscales of cohesion in terms of differences in gated-ness. Results of the
test showed that there was a significant effect of neighbourhood on overall cohesion at the p <
.001 level for the different degrees of gated-ness [F (3,378) = 6.09, p < .001] as well as a
280

significant effect of neighbourhood on two of its three subscales; namely, PSOC [F (3,378) =
5.02, p = .002] and Place Attachment [F (3,385) = 20.96, p < .001] at the p < .01 level for the
different degrees of gated-ness. There was no significant effect of neighbourhood on the third
subscale: neighborliness.
For overall Cohesion, post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that only
two neighbourhoods significantly differed from each other: DR (M = 3.94, SD = .58) and EC (M
= 3.59, SD = .61). There were no significant differences in overall cohesion between any of the
other neighbourhoods. This result suggests that residents of DR which ranks higher in terms of
gated-ness had a significantly higher sense of cohesion than residents of EC which is relatively
lower in its degree of gated-ness. . However, it should be noted that differences in the degree of
gated-ness between neighbourhoods must be high in order to see an effect on overall cohesion
level. This explains why no significant differences were found between either VR or RH and EC.
For PSOC, post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that only two
neighbourhoods significantly differed from each other: DR (M = 3.92, SD = .60) and EC (M =
3.60, SD = .60). There were no significant differences in overall cohesion between any of the
other neighbourhoods. Again, this result suggests that residents of DR which ranks higher in
terms of gated-ness had a significantly higher psychological sense of community than residents
of EC which is relatively lower in its degree of gated-ness. However, it should be noted that
differences in the degree of gated-ness between neighbourhoods must be high in order to see an
effect on the average level of PSOC in a neighbourhood. This explains why no significant
differences were found between either VR or RH and EC.
For Place Attachment, post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that EC
(M = 3.66, SD = .64) significantly differed from each of the three other neighbourhoods: DR (M
281

= 4.37, SD = .55), VR (M = 4.16, SD = .72), and RH (M = 3.91, SD = .67). Post-hoc comparisons
also indicated that RH (M = 3.91, SD = .67) significantly differed from each of the Calgary
neighbourhoods: DR (M = 4.37, SD = .55) and VR (M = 4.16, SD = .72).
These results suggest that high levels of gated-ness really do have an effect on Place
Attachment. Specifically, the results suggest that when neighbourhoods have a high level of
exclusion and seclusion, residents have a higher level of Place Attachment. It should be noted
that differences in the degree of gated-ness of a neighbourhood need not necessarily be high in
order to see an effect on residents’ sense of place attachment.
11.3.3 Enveloping Space and Cohesion
Given that there were differences between neighbourhoods in terms of cohesion, its
subscales, and sense of enveloping space, the third step of quantitative analysis consisted of
investigating whether there was a correlation between enveloping space and cohesion.
A Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated for assessing bivariate correlations
between Enveloping Space and overall Cohesion as well as between Enveloping Space and each
of the three subscales of Cohesion. The following is a table of the results obtained.
Table 11.8. Bivariate Correlations between Enveloping Space and Cohesion Subscales
Buckner Cohesion
(from 18 items)

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Buckner PSOC Scale
Pearson Correlation
(from 9 items)
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Buckner Place Attach Scale
Pearson Correlation
(from 3 items)
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Buckner Neighborliness
Pearson Correlation
(from 6 items)
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

282

Enveloping Space
(mean
.421** of 4 items)
.000
380
.448**
.000
380
.234**
.000
387
.353**
.000
387

The results of the above table show that Enveloping Space was significantly and
positively correlated with overall Cohesion (r = .421, p < .01) as well as significantly and
positively correlated with each of the three subscales at the p < .01 level. The highest bivariate
correlation was between Enveloping Space and PSOC (r = .448) and the lowest bivariate
correlation was between Enveloping Space and Place Attachment (r = .234). Overall, the results
indicate that there was a moderately strong and positive correlation between Enveloping Space
and Cohesion. Increases in Enveloping Space were correlated with increases in Cohesion and its
three subscales, though less so for the subscale of Place Attachment.
The correlation results necessitated checking for a linear regression of Cohesion with
Enveloping Space. A scatterplot confirmed the existence of a linear relation as shown in the
following figure.

283

Figure 11.8. Scatterplot for the relation between Cohesion and Enveloping Space
Simple linear regression analysis was used to test if enveloping space significantly
predicted neighbourhood cohesion index. The results of the regression indicated that enveloping
space significantly predicted neighbourhood cohesion index scores [β = .421, t (381) = 9.03, p <
.001] and also explained a significant proportion (17.7%) of the variance in cohesion index scores
[R2 = .177, F (1,378) = 81.543, p < .001]. The linear relation is generally expressed by a line of
slope 23º. The next step after investigating correlation bonds across all the cases was
determination of the correlation bonds (or strengths of different pathways) for each of the four
neighbourhoods.
284

Valley Ridge. For VR, the following is a table of results obtained.
Table 11.9. Valley Ridge Bivariate Correlations, Enveloping Space and Cohesion

Buckner PSOC Scale
(from 9 items)

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Buckner Place Attachment Scale
Pearson Correlation
(from 3 items)
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Buckner Neighborliness Scale
Pearson Correlation
(from 6 items)
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Buckner Cohesion
Pearson Correlation
(from 18 items)
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
**
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Enveloping Space
(mean of 4 items)
.370**
.000
101
.213*
.032
101
.186
.063
101
.316**
.001
101

As seen in the above table, in the case of VR, Enveloping Space was significantly and
positively correlated to overall Cohesion (r = .316, p =.001) as well as significantly and positively
correlated to two subscales: PSOC (r = .370, p < .001) and Place Attachment (r = .213, p < .05).
However, no significant correlation was found with the subscale of Neighborliness. It seems that
in the case of VR the quality of gated-ness differed from that of other neighbourhoods particularly
in regards to neighborliness. Though the quality of gated-ness in VR helped in creating a sense
of enveloping space for residents that seemed to correlate with overall neighbourhood cohesion,
psychological sense of community and place attachment, the sense of enveloping space did not
correlate with a sense of neighborliness in the neighbourhood, a sense which was the lowest in
comparison with the other three neighbourhoods. There may be many reasons for the low sense
of neighborliness in VR. One of the reasons this research points to is the quality of gated-ness of
VR, particularly in terms of degree of exclusion, which jeopardized establishing a clear
285

correlation between a sense of enveloping space and neighborliness. Other reasons that may have
compromised the degree of neighborliness in VR are the absence of a school or community center
within the neighbourhood and the peripheral location of the shopping center that would otherwise
have functioned as a focal point for social interaction. In other words, the neighbourhood seems
to be deficient in an important aspect of neighbourhoods: the establishment of a high sense of
neighborliness among residents. The neighbourhood is then reduced in such a case to a mere
geographic entity where the physical ‘packing’ of houses and physical characteristics of the
neighbourhood overshadow social dimensions such as that of neighborliness.
Discovery Ridge. For DR, the following is a table of results obtained.
Table 11.10. Discovery Ridge Bivariate Correlations, Enveloping Space and Cohesion

Buckner PSOC Scale
(from 9 items)
Buckner Place Attachment Scale
(from 3 items)
Buckner Neighborliness Scale
(from 6 items)
Buckner Cohesion
(from 18 items)

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

Enveloping Space
(mean of 4 items)
.368**
.000

N

93

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

.065
.531

N

94

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

.267**
.009

N

94

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)

.314**
.002

N

93

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

**

As seen in the above table, in the case of DR, Enveloping Space was significantly and
positively correlated to overall Cohesion (r = .314, p < .01) as well as significantly and positively

286

correlated to two subscales: PSOC (r = .368, p < .001) and Neighborliness (r = .267, p < .01).
However, no significant correlation was found with the subscale of Place Attachment.
It seems that in the case of DR the quality of gated-ness differed from that of other
neighbourhoods particularly in regards to place attachment. Though the quality of gated-ness in
DR helped in creating a sense of enveloping space for residents that seemed to correlate with
overall neighbourhood cohesion, psychological sense of community and neighborliness, the
sense of enveloping space did not correlate with a sense of place attachment in the
neighbourhood, a sense which was the highest in comparison with the other three
neighbourhoods.
There may be many reasons for the high sense of place attachment in DR. In DR, there
are many symbolic and natural features that renders the neighbourhood not unlike a resort.
Residents of the neighbourhood enjoy a secluded location with views of the Rocky Mountains as
well as enjoy exploratory promenades in Griffith Woods natural forest. Thus, it may be stated
that in the case of DR, the sense of enveloping space need not correlate with a sense of place
attachment that would have been high regardless of the relatively high degree of gated-ness of
the neighbourhood. This points to the importance of combining the natural and the symbolic with
the suburban in peripheral neighbourhoods in order to augment residents’ sense of place
attachment.
East Clayton. For EC, the following is a table of results obtained.

287

Table 11.11. East Clayton Bivariate Correlations, Enveloping Space and Cohesion

Buckner PSOC Scale
(from 9 items)
Buckner Place Attachment Scale
(from 3 items)
Buckner Neighborliness Scale
(from 6 items)
Buckner Cohesion
(from 18 items)

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

Enveloping Space
(mean of 4 items)
.554**
.000
89
.491**
.000
95
.532**
.000
95
.564**
.000
89

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

**

As seen in the above table, in the case of EC, Enveloping Space was significantly and
positively correlated to overall Cohesion (r = .564, p < .001) as well as significantly and positively
correlated to all three subscales: PSOC (r = .554, p < .001), Place Attachment (r = .491, p < .001),
and Neighborliness (r = .532, p < .001).
It should be noted that the correlation strengths in EC are the highest among the four
neighbourhoods under study. In addition, the correlation bonds between Enveloping Space and
each of the three subscales of Cohesion in EC are nearly equal in strength. Unlike VR where
neighborliness had a non-significant correlation and unlike DR where place attachment had a
non-significant correlation, all the three subscales in EC had significant correlations with
enveloping space. This suggests that in EC the sense of enveloping space may play a more
important role than the case of the other three neighbourhoods. Although EC may have an
abundance of parks dispersed in the neighbourhood, a mix of uses, and a shopping center as
settings for social interaction, it seems that they are not playing a large enough role such that
288

neighborliness remains strongly correlated with enveloping space. Alternatively, EC does not
have the symbolic and natural features that are characteristic of DR and, thus, place attachment
in EC remains correlated with the establishment of a sense of enveloping space. Concerning the
third subscale PSOC, it becomes more and more apparent as one is delving into individual
neighbourhoods that PSOC remained correlated with enveloping space in all three
neighbourhoods thus far. In other words, the preponderance of other factors in the
neighbourhoods that may have diversely affected PSOC have not overshadowed the positive and
significant correlation between PSOC and enveloping space.
Rosemary Heights. For RH, the following is a table of results obtained.
Table 11.12. Rosemary Heights Bivariate Correlations, Enveloping Space and Cohesion

Buckner PSOC Scale
(from 9 items)
Buckner Place Attachment Scale
(from 3 items)
Buckner Neighborliness
(from 6 items)
Buckner Cohesion
(from 18 items)

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

Enveloping Space
(mean of 4 items)
.419**
.000
97
.026
.802
97
.413**
.000
97
.393**
.000
97

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

**

As seen in the above table, in the case of RH, Enveloping Space was significantly and
positively correlated to overall Cohesion (r = .393, p < .001) as well as significantly and positively

289

correlated to two subscales: PSOC (r = .419, p < .001) and Neighborliness (r = .413, p < .001).
However, no significant correlation was found with the subscale of Place Attachment.
It seems that in the case of RH the quality of gated-ness differed from that of other
neighbourhoods particularly in regards to place attachment. Though the quality of gated-ness in
RH helped in creating a sense of enveloping space for residents that seemed to correlate with
overall neighbourhood cohesion, psychological sense of community and neighborliness, the
sense of enveloping space did not correlate with a sense of place attachment in the
neighbourhood, a sense which was ranked third over the four case studies.
Unlike DR that had natural and symbolic features that contributed to residents’ high sense
of place attachment, RH does not have similar characteristic features. Emphasis in RH is more
on the social dimension of neighborliness among residents, the functionality of the
neighbourhood, landscaping and the architectural design of houses rather than emphasizing
symbolic features such as close proximity to the ocean. Moreover, a considerable part of the
neighbourhood contains one acre residential lots with houses that are old and often vacant and
not integrated with the rest of the neighbourhood. The same situation exists in EC where one acre
lots form a ‘blind area’ in the neighbourhood. Also, new townhouse developments were replacing
pristine environments in RH causing loss of tranquility in the neighbourhood. Residents in RH
may have the second highest average sense of enveloping space among the four neighbourhoods
but the sense of place attachment did not correlate with increasing sense of enveloping space for
residents.

290

11.3.4 Enveloping Space and Other Variable Links
The fourth step of quantitative analysis investigated whether there were associations
between enveloping space and each of three variables: gender, household income, and length of
residence within a neighbourhood.
Gender
Over all the 389 cases, there was a weak association between gender and enveloping space
(eta = .020). That is, gender was not found to be a good predictor of enveloping space. However,
is there a neighbourhood effect on enveloping space by gender? In order to answer that question,
an ANOVA test was conducted across the four neighbourhoods separately for males and females.
For males, the results of the test showed that there was a significant neighbourhood effect on
enveloping space at the p < .05 level [F (3,199) = 3.241, p = .023]. Post-hoc comparisons using
the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean value for males in DR (M = 3.47) significantly
differed from the mean value of males in VR (M = 3.13). However, no significant differences
were found between the other neighbourhoods.
For females, the results of the test showed that there was a significant neighbourhood
effect on enveloping space at the p < .01 level [F (3,175) = 4.879, p = .003]. Post-hoc comparisons
using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean value for females in each of VR (M = 3.17)
and EC (M = 3.16) significantly differed from the mean value of females in DR (M = 3.54).
However, no significant differences were found between the other neighbourhoods.
The above results by gender suggest two things. The first is that males and females in
DR significantly differed from their counterparts in VR. That is, the quality of gated-ness in DR
was different than VR in terms of the effect on the sense of enveloping space for both genders.
Again, such a quality could be attributed to the higher degree of exclusion and seclusion in DR
291

versus VR. The second is that it was only females who differed significantly in their sense of
enveloping space between DR and EC. Meanwhile, differences in the quality of gated-ness of the
two neighbourhoods did not result in significant differences among males. That is, it was the
sense of enveloping space for females, rather than males, in EC which was more affected by the
quality of gated-ness of the neighbourhood. This may suggest differences between males and
females in acquiring and developing a sense of enveloping space. However, further research is
needed in order to verify this claim.
Household Income
Over all the cases, there was a weak association between household income and
enveloping space (Spearman’s rho: rs = -.038, not significant, p > .05). That is, household income
was not found to be a good predictor of enveloping space. However, is there a neighbourhood
effect on enveloping space by household income? In order to answer that question, an ANOVA
test was conducted across the four neighbourhoods separately for each of three household income
groups (less than 60k, 60k-130k, and more than 130k). For the less-than-60k group, the test was
not applicable as there were too few cases. For the 60k-130k group, the results of the test showed
that there was a significant neighbourhood effect on enveloping space at the p < .001 level [F (3,
75) = 6.643, p < .001]. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean
value for the 60k-130k group in DR (M = 3.69) significantly differed from the mean value for the
60k-130k group in EC (M = 2.73). There were also significant differences for the same income
group between VR and EC as well as between VR and DR but the differences were marginally
significant in both cases (p = .043 and .047, respectively).
Finally, for the more-than-130k income group, the results showed that there was a
significant neighbourhood effect at the p < .001 level [F (3, 123) = 10.448, p < .001]. Post-hoc
292

comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean value for the more-than-130k
income group in DR (M = 3.56) significantly differed from their counterparts in each of the other
three neighbourhoods, VR (M = 3.06), EC (M = 2.61), and RH (M = 3.04).
From the above results, both the 60k-130k and the more-than-130k income group in DR
significantly differed from their counterparts in EC, which further confirms that those two
neighbourhoods are very different in their quality of gated-ness especially in as much as concerns
the effect on the sense of enveloping space of household income groups whether for moderate or
high income categories. The results also suggest that DR is significantly different from the other
three neighbourhoods in terms of the quality of gated-ness for the more-than-130k group in their
sense of enveloping space. Taken together, it becomes apparent from the results that residents in
DR had a higher sense of enveloping space regardless of their household income level, which
speaks to residents’ sense of being cognitively contained in a particular realm that is reflected in
a sense of uniqueness of the neighbourhood, particular social practices and events, as well as the
ability to recognize residents from non-residents in the neighbourhood.
Length of Residence
Over all the cases there was a weak association between length of residence and
enveloping space (Spearman’s rho: rs = -.024, not significant, p > .05). That is, length of residence
was not found to be a good predictor of enveloping space. However, is there a neighbourhood
effect on enveloping space by length of residence? In order to answer that question, an ANOVA
test was conducted across the four neighbourhoods separately for each of five groups of length
of residence (less than 2 yrs., 2-5 yrs., 5-8 yrs., 8-10 yrs., and over 10 yrs.). For the first four
groups of length of residence, the results did not show any significant neighbourhood effect.
Meanwhile, for the over-10-yrs. group, the results showed that there was a significant
293

neighbourhood effect on enveloping space at the p < .01 level [F (3, 77) = 6.530, p = .001]. Posthoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean value for the over-10-yrs.
group in DR (M = 3.64) significantly differed from their counterparts in each of VR (M = 2.95)
and EC (M = 2.58).
The above results suggest that those residing more than 10 years in DR had a higher sense
of enveloping space than residents in either VR or EC who also resided for more than 10 years
in those neighbourhoods. It may be assumed that as one resides longer in a neighbourhood, the
sense of enveloping fades away as one gets used to the qualities of the enveloping space within
the neighbourhood. Such an assumption seems valid in the case of VR and EC but was not the
case for residents in DR who still had a sense of enveloping after residing in the neighbourhood
for more than 10 years. Accordingly, this may suggest that the quality of enveloping space has,
so to speak, a renewable aspect which should be maintained over time. It may be argued here that
the presence of a formal homeowners’ association in DR has contributed to maintaining an
aesthetically pleasing landscape. In addition, there were recent installations of tennis courts, a
hockey rink and future plans for a skating rink, all coordinated by efforts of the homeowners’
association. Where other neighbourhoods are showing signs of a natural life-cycle of
neighbourhood decline, consistent effort is being put in DR to counteract such a cycle.
11.3.5 Cohesion and Other Variable Links
The fifth step of analysis investigated whether there were associations between overall
cohesion and each of three variables: gender, household income, and length of residence within
a neighbourhood.

294

Gender
Over all the 389 cases, there was a weak association between gender and cohesion (eta =
.104). That is, gender was not found to be a good predictor of cohesion. However, is there a
neighbourhood effect on cohesion by gender? In order to answer that question, an ANOVA test
was conducted across the four neighbourhoods separately for males and females.
For males, the results of the test showed that there was a significant neighbourhood effect
on cohesion at the p < .05 level [F (3,196) = 3.202, p = .024]. Post-hoc comparisons using the
Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean value for males in DR (M = 3.93) significantly differed
from the mean value of males in EC (M = 3.59). However, no significant differences were found
between the other neighbourhoods.
For females, the results of the test showed that there was a significant neighbourhood
effect on cohesion at the p < .05 level [F (3,173) = 2.814, p = .041]. Post-hoc comparisons using
the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean value for females in DR (M = 3.94) significantly
differed from the mean value of females in EC (M = 3.63). However, no significant differences
were found between the other neighbourhoods.
Once again, the neighbourhoods of DR and EC react differently in regards to the effect
on cohesion. Males and females in DR had a higher sense of cohesion than males and females in
EC. In other words, the enclosure model represented by DR resulted in higher overall cohesion
for residents than the encounter model represented by EC. This result remained valid independent
of whether residents were male or female.
Meanwhile, none of the gender groups for the remaining two neighbourhoods differed
significantly from their counterparts in EC. This may be explained in light of the aspect of
seclusion that is a characteristic quality of DR when compared with VR or RH. In other words,
295

differences in the aspect of exclusion between EC and the neighbourhoods of VR and RH were
not as important as differences in seclusion between EC and DR when pertaining to overall sense
of cohesion by gender.
Household Income
Over all the cases, there was a weak association between household income and cohesion
(Spearman’s rho: rs =.101, not significant, p > .05). That is, household income was not found to
be a good predictor of cohesion. However, is there a neighbourhood effect on cohesion by
household income? In order to answer that question, an ANOVA test was conducted across the
four neighbourhoods separately for each of three household income groups (less than 60k, 60k130k, and more than 130k). For the less-than-60k group, the test was not applicable as there were
too few cases; meanwhile, there were no significant results for the 60k-130k group. As for the
more-than-130k group, the results showed that there was a significant neighbourhood effect at
the p < .001 level [F (3, 123) = 6.407, p < .001]. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test
indicated that the mean value for the more-than-130k income group in DR (M = 3.99)
significantly differed from their counterparts in each of the other three neighbourhoods, VR (M
= 3.61), EC (M = 3.24), and RH (M = 3.59).
Again, the results suggest that DR is significantly different from the other three
neighbourhoods in terms of the quality of gated-ness for the more-than-130k group in their sense
of overall cohesion. Here, it may be argued that the quality of seclusion of the neighbourhood
takes precedence over the quality of exclusion in terms of effect upon sense of cohesion.
Definitely, DR was ranked as having more exclusion and more seclusion than the other three
neighbourhoods. However, an exclusion effect of the neighbourhoods did not ‘trickle down’ from
one neighbourhood to another; that is, neither did VR nor RH differ significantly from EC,
296

considered as having the least exclusion. One may assume that exclusion differences between
DR and EC were appreciable enough to warrant a significant difference between the two
neighbourhoods or one may assume that the aspect of seclusion is an important aspect for the
more-than-130k group in developing a sense of neighbourhood cohesion. The latter assumption
is more probable given that, although DR may exhibit exclusion, the neighbourhood is inclusive
in terms of diversity of housing types with the presence of a considerable percentage of apartment
units in its housing stock. Thus, the more differentiating factor may be the higher degree of
seclusion resulting from the locational and situational characteristics of the neighbourhood as
well as the internal street layout of the neighbourhood; physical characteristics that are argued in
this research to lead to a moral and cultural bounded-ness conducive to cohesion.
Length of Residence
Over all the cases there was a weak association between length of residence and cohesion
(Spearman’s rho: rs = .077, not significant, p > .05). That is, length of residence was not found to
be a good predictor of cohesion. However, is there a neighbourhood effect on cohesion by length
of residence? In order to answer that question, an ANOVA test was conducted across the four
neighbourhoods separately for each of five groups of length of residence (less than 2 yrs., 2-5
yrs., 5-8 yrs., 8-10 yrs., and over 10 yrs.).
For the first four groups of length of residence, the results did not show any significant
neighbourhood effect except for marginal significance for the less-than-2 yrs. group [F (3, 66) =
2.815, p = .046]. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean value
for the less-than-2 yrs. group in EC (M = 3.47) significantly differed from their counterparts in
DR (M = 4.01).

297

Meanwhile, for the over-10-yrs. group, the results showed that there was a highly
significant neighbourhood effect on cohesion at the p < .001 level [F (3, 77) = 10.188, p < .001].
Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean value for the over-10yrs. group in EC (M = 2.24) significantly differed from their counterparts in each of DR (M =
3.90), VR (M = 3.82), and RH (M = 3.59).
Here, not only do the results for the over-10-yrs. group confirm differences between the
neighbourhoods of EC and DR but also point to other differences between EC and each of VR
and RH. Residents residing in EC for over 10 years had the lowest sense of cohesion than their
counterparts in all the other three neighbourhoods. It should be kept in mind that these are
residents who have lived in the neighbourhood during the gradual development of the
neighbourhood and witnessed changes that the neighbourhood may have undergone over time.
Perhaps, one of the signs of a successfully aging neighbourhood is a high sense of cohesion
among residents residing for more than 10 years in the neighbourhood. Put differently, if the
sense of cohesion among residents gradually decreases rather than increases over time, one may
assume that the neighbourhood is developing in a way that is not socially favorable for existing
residents. In the case of EC, residents expressed the gradual densification of the neighbourhood
over time and sense of overall crowded-ness due to the development of new townhouses, the
inclusion of a new housing type (coach houses) to allow for more densification and social
diversity, as well as the mixed use zoning of residential with commercial uses, allowing
secondary suites, the tight packing of houses, and insufficient street parking spaces coupled with
difficult maneuvering along narrow streets for two-way traffic. Such problems surely aggravate
over time and residents residing over 10 years within the neighbourhood have definitely noticed
rapid changes for the unfolding of the neighbourhood’s intended design plans.
298

The case is somewhat different for long-time residents in the other three neighbourhoods
where experimentation in implementing sustainable design principles was not an essential part of
their initial design as that of EC. Nevertheless, the neighbourhoods of RH and VR are now
densifying by the development of new townhouses and the quality of neighbourhoods is changing
both internally as well as externally. For instance, in the case of VR, a regional shopping center
is planned for construction in proximity to VR and will definitely impact upon demand for
housing and vehicular traffic in VR. DR is not totally immune as the west leg of the Stoney Trail
ring road has been recently approved leading to more connectivity for DR at the city scale.
Nevertheless, the situational seclusion of DR would help to mitigate such external changes.
11.3.6 Interaction Effects
The sixth step of analysis investigated for whether there were interaction effects for the
set of independent variables: Enveloping Space, Gender, Household Income, and Length of
Residence as predictors of overall Cohesion. Towards that end, a generalized linear model GLM
Univariate ANOVA test was used where Cohesion was the dependent variable and the fixed
factors were: Enveloping Space, Gender, Household Income, and Length of Residence. The
following is a table of results obtained.
The names of variables in the table are indicated as follows:
ENVSPACE4 = Enveloping space calculated from 4 items of the questionnaire
HHINCORDINAL = Household Income ranked as an ordinal variable in 9 categories.
NEWLOR = Length of Residence ranked as an ordinal variable in 5 categories.

299

Table 11.13. Interaction Effects for the Set of Independent Variables on Cohesion
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Buckner Cohesion (from 18 items)
Source
Corrected Model
Intercept

Type III Sum of
Squares
64.581a
1068.357

df

Mean Square
164
.394
1
1068.357

F

Sig.

1.456
3949.165

.034
.000

ENVSPACE4
Gender
HHINCORDINAL

13.697
.188
1.173

13
1
8

1.054
.188
.147

3.895
.694
.542

.000
.407
.821

NEWLOR
ENVSPACE4 * Gender
ENVSPACE4 *
HHINCORDINAL

.653
1.424
5.837

4
7
25

.163
.203
.233

.603
.752
.863

.662
.629
.651

ENVSPACE4 * NEWLOR
Gender * HHINCORDINAL

8.677
.938

27
5

.321
.188

1.188
.693

.275
.630

Gender * NEWLOR
HHINCORDINAL *
NEWLOR

.477
1.501

4
12

.119
.125

.441
.462

.779
.930

ENVSPACE4 * Gender *
HHINCORDINAL

1.532

3

.511

1.887

.139

ENVSPACE4 * Gender *
NEWLOR

3.944

8

.493

1.822

.086

ENVSPACE4 *
HHINCORDINAL *
NEWLOR

.142

1

.142

.526

.470

Gender * HHINCORDINAL *
NEWLOR

.144

1

.144

.532

.468

ENVSPACE4 * Gender *
HHINCORDINAL *
NEWLOR

.000

0

.

.

.

20.290
3459.454

75
240

.271

84.870

239

Error
Total
Corrected Total

a. R Squared = .761 (Adjusted R Squared = .238)

300

The results show that the overall model is significant at the p < .05 level. The following
are key findings from the results of the univariate test:
1) Enveloping Space was the only independent variable that had a significant effect on
cohesion at p < .001.
2) Each of the variables of Gender, Household Income, and Length of Residence did not
have a significant effect individually on cohesion.
3) Moreover, there was no significant interaction effect on cohesion for different
combinations of the four variables: Enveloping Space, Gender, Household Income, and
Length of Residence.
The above key findings reinforce the conceptual model of this research (see fig. 4.2)
where enveloping space is conceptualized as a better predictor for overall sense of cohesion than
other variables that were generally considered in the literature on cohesion to have an effect such
as length of residence, household income, and gender. The following is a diagram that illustrates

r =.448

ENVELOPING

r =.234

SPACE

r =.353
r =.421

eta=.104

rs= .101 n.s.

rs=.077
n.s.

LOR

PSOC
PLACE ATTACHMENT
NEIGHBORLINESS

Figure 11.9. Correlations and Associations between the Variables

301

COHESION

RANK BY SECLUSION:
DR, VR, RH, EC

HHINC

rs=-.024 n.s.

RANK BY EXCLUSION:
DR, RH, VR, EC

Gender
rs=-.038 n.s.

eta=.029

the correlation strengths and associations between the variables under study.

INTERPRETATION
12.1 Symbolic and Functional Aspect
Comparing the four neighbourhoods qualitatively and quantitatively, it can be clearly
inferred that two neighbourhoods stand out diametrically opposed to each other: Discovery Ridge
on one hand and East Clayton on the other. Discovery Ridge scored highly on all four components
meanwhile East Clayton takes the fourth position in the index of neighbourhood cohesion. If one
is to typify these neighbourhoods, one neighbourhood would be categorized among the symbolic
neighbourhoods and the other would be categorized among the functional neighbourhoods.
Neighbourhood characteristics were important second and third reasons for residents’ choice of
living in East Clayton. This seems to be in contrast with the absence of unique features in the
neighbourhood of East Clayton. Such a paradox can be interpreted by an understanding of their
choice and perception of the neighbourhood in terms of functional characteristics. Stated
differently, the functional characteristics of the neighbourhood make the neighbourhood
desirable but without any unique features that would otherwise contribute to symbolic
characteristics of the neighbourhood. In the case of Discovery Ridge, the natural forest of Griffith
Woods contributes to the uniqueness of the neighbourhood and, coupled with low-key presence
of commercial functions within the neighbourhood, rendered the neighbourhood more symbolic.
Put differently, there is a cultural chasm differentiating the two neighbourhoods. One
neighbourhood advocates symbolic importance and the other neighbourhood advocates
pragmatic importance. Between these two poles: symbolic and functional, the neighbourhoods of
Valley Ridge and Rosemary Heights can be relatively categorized. The order of the four
neighbourhoods along this axis would be: Discovery Ridge, Valley Ridge, Rosemary Heights,
and East Clayton. The symbolism of Discovery Ridge and Valley Ridge stand out from that of
302

Rosemary Heights and East Clayton due to a stronger visual connection to the mountains in the
case of Calgary neighbourhoods than in Surrey neighbourhoods; the latter have access to natural
features such as the ocean but not directly visible from within the neighbourhoods. The
symbolism is also established in Calgary neighbourhoods through the site topography of the
neighbourhoods by the presence of a hill and river escarpments which are less pronounced
features in Surrey neighbourhoods. The functionalism of Surrey neighbourhoods stands out more
than Calgary neighbourhoods in terms of the presence of schools within the neighbourhoods as
well as more developed commercial experience than the relatively secluded neighbourhoods of
Calgary.
The differentiation along the symbolic-functional axis is also expressed by the
prominence of two aspects of sense of community. The interactive aspect of sense of community
becomes more prominent in the case of Surrey neighbourhoods whereas the affective aspect of
sense of community becomes more prominent in the case of Calgary neighbourhoods. We find
Rosemary Heights scoring the highest among the four neighbourhoods in terms of
neighbourliness and Calgary neighbourhoods scoring higher in terms of place attachment than
Surrey neighbourhoods.
The presence of an elementary school in Rosemary Heights was a catalyst in uniting the
community together through communal events and use of the school playfield by the community
as well as a catalyst in promoting a sense of liveliness in the neighbourhood as children walk to
school. In East Clayton, the elementary school also contributed towards the functionalism of the
neighbourhood albeit in a different way than Rosemary Heights. The school in East Clayton acted
as a catalyst through the quality of teaching and teachers of the school that attracted many to the
community. In other words, it can be inferred that for Rosemary Heights the school was an
303

outcome of community that, in turn, reinforced, the sense of community while for East Clayton,
the community was an outcome of the school.
Age of the neighbourhood might be a factor differentiating the single access
neighbourhoods in Calgary given that Valley Ridge is an older neighbourhood than Discovery
Ridge. Also, isolation seems to be greater in Discovery Ridge than Valley Ridge. As seen in the
primary reasons for choosing to live in the neighbourhood, residents of Discovery Ridge have
emphasized the single access to the neighbourhood while residents of Valley Ridge emphasized
location. This translates again to a difference between extroversion and introversion or a greater
isolation for residents in Discovery Ridge. This reading appears to be in contrast to the housing
types within the neighbourhoods where Valley Ridge has a higher percentage of single family
dwellings (read as introversion) than Discovery Ridge.
12.2 The Importance of Location
Quantitative analysis of qualitative data, on one hand, shows that neighbourhood
characteristics rather than location takes precedence for the two neighbourhoods of Valley Ridge
and Discovery Ridge. This is in contrast with qualitative analysis where location showed
precedence for Valley Ridge. An explanation is that most residents of the two neighbourhoods
do not evaluate their neighbourhood as particularly unique, though less so for residents of
Discovery Ridge than Valley Ridge. Thus, location rather than neighbourhood characteristics
becomes the decisive factor. If ones gauges the preponderance of first and second reasons for the
two neighbourhoods, one will find that location becomes the more prominent reason. For the
residents of the neighbourhoods of Rosemary Heights and East Clayton, their evaluation of
uniqueness of the neighbourhood is even less when compared to the case studies of Calgary.

304

Thus, it can be deduced that location is even more prominent a factor in the choice of residents
to reside in a particular neighbourhood.
However, it can be argued that location, through the relation of the neighbourhood to the
city and surroundings, has a bearing upon the creation of a place identity for each neighbourhood;
a place identity that attracts particular residents to each of the respective neighbourhoods. Indeed,
each of the neighbourhoods was fulfilling a function for its residents other than housing. To the
extent that this was the case through external individuation (cf. Schopenhauer; Pufe, 2009),
residents were able to relate to the neighbourhood through the process of place identity. What
was common among the four neighbourhoods was the image / ideal concept behind the design.
This image is not just from the internal design of the neighbourhood (e.g. widely-spaced single
family housing) but also has much to do with the relation of the neighbourhood to the urban part
of the city; it is essentially a relation of ‘suburbanity’. What the neighbourhoods have in common
is that all are suburban and family-oriented (although tending to be transformed to retirement
communities, except for East Clayton). Residents who fit best within such a profile were the most
to enjoy a better outcome in experiencing neighbourhood cohesion.
In the case of East Clayton, the suburban ideal was overlapped with the urban ideal. The
result was a suburb that sought an ‘urban’ feel, i.e. a ‘suburban-urban’ neighbourhood (e.g. the
mix of commercial boutiques and residential as well as medium density). The location of East
Clayton is intermediate between Surrey and Langley such as to maximize upon the overlap with
the urban. The foreseeable demise of East Clayton emanates from the invasion of the urban city
(translated into problems of crowding and crime) into the neighbourhood rather than mere
overlapping, with accompanying feelings of a ‘Durkheimien’ anomie characteristic of urbanity,
especially felt by residents along 192 St. The other three neighbourhoods, contrastingly, had a
305

more tangential relation to the city, an aspect which was a major reason for why the residents
chose to live in these neighbourhoods.
In the case of Rosemary Heights, the tangential relation meant more connection with
nature, represented by farms and the rural landscape, but also having a tangential relation meant
connecting outwards to the U.S border and the ocean nearby. Such a neighbourhood may be
called “the border suburb”.
Valley Ridge has a better connection with surrounding neighbourhoods than Discovery
Ridge, but at the same time Valley Ridge may be called a “highway suburb” (e.g. gasoline
station in the commercial centre of the neighbourhood and location along Calgary-Banff travel
road). Exiting the neighbourhood doesn’t mean transitioning into other districts of the city but
traveling on a high-speed road. This reinforces the tangential connection to the city and avoids
contact with the city to reach other places via the ring road. Such a neighbourhood may also be
called a “ring road suburb”.
Discovery Ridge is also connected to a highway but is not a highway suburb like Valley
Ridge but is being transitioned into a ring road suburb with approved plans for the west leg
extension of the ring road. Discovery Ridge poses as a ‘destination neighbourhood’48 more than
Valley Ridge though both have only a single access to their neighbourhood. The difference is that
Discovery Ridge has a focal point that is stronger than Valley Ridge, namely, the Griffith Woods
natural reserve park compared to the artificial golf course in Valley Ridge. The stronger focal
point and more relative seclusion of Discovery Ridge compared to Valley Ridge require it to be
named “the one-dimensional satellite suburb”. The one-dimensionality is also by reason of

48

The term was used by one of the interviewee residents in Discovery Ridge.

306

the internal street layout of the neighbourhood where addresses are mainly referred to by four
major spines within the neighbourhood without much lateral extension beyond those four major
spines. This aspect may have contributed to reinforcing the neighbourhood cohesion for residents
along a common spine. Usually, a spine is a dividing element for houses flanking the spine, but
in the case of Discovery Ridge, traffic is relatively calmed as one advances more along the spine
especially that the neighbourhood is non-permeable, i.e. without through traffic that may be
otherwise caused by a grid pattern or a large circular loop pattern. In this sense, the
neighbourhood has a layout of a tree (cf. Alexander, 1965 ‘The city is not a tree’).
Although Valley Ridge also has a tree pattern of streets, the spines in Valley Ridge are
divisive because of deeper lateral extension beyond the one-dimensionality of the spine. In both
neighbourhoods, correlating with the branching of the spines into four major ones, there are at
least four different neighbourhoods within each neighbourhood. However, this did not translate
into four different indices of neighbourhood cohesion. The survey data for Valley Ridge was
initially coded by street name and zone within the neighbourhood and analysis of differences in
neighbourhood cohesion construct by street or by zone did not reveal significant differences
between different parts of the neighbourhood. Such was the case as each of the four areas
represented different units that appealed to the same kinds of residents who were able to get along
together. Although residents expressed the divisive aspect of the site topography (those on top of
the hill and those down by the river), all residents had a similar overall sense of neighbourhood
cohesion. Such a result suggests that the sense of enveloping space is expressed at the larger
neighbourhood level and not at an enclave level (cul-de-sac / loop) where the sense would be
more of enclosing space rather than enveloping space.

307

If the four neighbourhoods are plotted roughly relative to two axes: the symbolicfunctional and the enveloping-exveloping, the ranking of the neighbourhoods becomes:
Discovery Ridge, Rosemary Heights, Valley Ridge and East Clayton.

Enveloping
Discovery Ridge
Rosemary Heights
Valley Ridge
Functional

Symbolic
East Clayton

Exveloping
Figure 12.1. Plotting the neighbourhoods along two perpendicular axes
Ex-veloping refers to the decrease in the sense of exclusion and seclusion of a
neighbourhood. The arrows in the above plot refer to the tendency of each neighbourhood to
transform according to present dynamics. Discovery Ridge is tending towards reinforcing the
symbolic dimension and outward appearance of the neighbourhood (e.g. experiments with
xeriscaping medians). Functional aspects have already been added recently such as an ice rink
and tennis courts in the joint use playfield area. Nevertheless, such functional elements also serve
towards communicating a certain symbolism to the neighbourhood. Rosemary Heights, on the
other hand, is tending towards functional transformation (e.g. addition of a high school for the
308

neighborhood and more townhouse developments). East Clayton is tending, unwillingly, toward
exveloping by the invasion of urbanity ‘problems’ into the neighbourhood. Valley Ridge is also
tending toward exveloping through adding a second access point albeit out of necessity in order
to accommodate density from new construction. It may be foreseen that the tendencies to
exveloping may be accompanied by a gating of areas within the neighbourhoods in order to gain
more control over their residential environment in terms of traffic and crime.
12.3 Persona-Anima
An apparent paradox was present between neighbourhoods that are, on one hand,
attractive for residents while at the same time seen as ordinary or not unique by the same
residents. In other words, each neighbourhood, like a human being, had two aspects: the outward
aspect, or persona, and the inward aspect, or anima (using the terminology of Carl Jung). From
the persona level, the neighbourhoods all offered strategic locations and offered strong reasons
for residents to choose to live and remain in the neighbourhood to benefit from advantages of
location. As argued above, this locational aspect also resonated with the establishment of a place
identity for residents.
From the anima level, each of the neighbourhoods was reduced to the suburban barebones
of houses packed decently together. The persona is promoted by developers to market the
attractiveness of the neighbourhood but the anima is experienced after moving into the
neighbourhood. Evan McKenzie alluded to this paradox from a different perspective. He pointed
out the aberration of the suburban neighbourhoods from the garden suburb ideal by emphasizing
the physical on account of the social or communal. Each of the neighbourhoods claimed to be a
community but only promoted a sense of community. Perhaps, Rosemary Heights stood out
among the neighbourhoods in promoting a community rather than just a sense of community.
309

Extending McKenzie’s argument, one can argue that the social has an emancipatory role
for the physical. Each of the four neighbourhoods conveyed an imaginary or an ideal form for
residential development albeit imperfect; imperfections surface and become more pronounced
with time in terms of long-term effects (e.g. sociability of residents). The factor that could restore
the physical to a stronger connection with the ideal is the social. The importance of having good
neighbours is emphasized and makes a difference for both the affective and interactive aspects of
neighbourhood cohesion as well as for outcomes for the relation of the individual to society as a
whole. Echoing Shilling’s (2005) perspective on the body, the neighbourhood is similar in that it
is a source for the creation of social life, a location for the structural properties of society, and a
vital means through which individuals are positioned and oriented towards society. Stated
differently, the social aspect of the neighbourhood emancipates the physical from a Platonic
reference of an ideal to an Aristotelian reference of a relative; and even further to a Levinasian
(Levinas, 1998: 51) ‘being as social experience’ perspective or even a Deleuze-and-Guattarian
‘being as fragmentation’ and relational reference.
As mentioned above, there may be four or five areas in the neighbourhood or animas
experienced differently within the same outward persona depending upon location within the
neighbourhood as well as social status (e.g. single persons without families and young adults
moving out from the neighbourhood) and immediate neighbours. Such a differentiation could be
replicated ad infinitum to a theorization of space as constituted of monads or socio-cultural units.
For some residents of the four neighbourhoods, no superior neighbourhoods were
referenced and for such residents their neighbourhoods are second to none. Choosing to reside in
a neighbourhood is not just a rational choice or economics of location but is also contingent upon
a psychological layer for the resonance of the neighbourhood with the future residents in terms
310

of their own temperament in such a way that residents accept the asymmetry of market
information when looking to buy a house. For example, one of the interviewees in Rosemary
Heights mentioned among the positive features that the neighbourhood is not so secluded for him.
In other words, the degree of seclusion of the neighbourhood resonated with the personality of
the person. Such a resonance is also a factor of the overall ambience or ‘atmosphere’ of the
neighbourhood which may be argued to be dependent on the degree of seclusion of the
neighbourhood. Indeed, there is what may be called a ‘resortification’ of residential
neighbourhoods by the provision of resort features such as a golf course or lake, etc. while at the
same time controlling the degree of seclusion of neighbourhoods. This trend is more apparent in
the cases of Calgary than in Surrey. The advent of services in the neighbourhood would probably
be the next step toward this process of ‘resortification’ which includes services for seniors but
also services for enhanced communication (e.g. wireless connection).
The process of ‘resortification’ could be seen opposite to a process of ‘urbanification’
promoted by city officials for less secluded residential neighbourhoods, more connectedness and
permeability to allow through traffic (and thus free-riders). The urbanification-resortification
forms one axis against which the degree of permeability [enclavism (cul-de-sac pattern) or open
grid structure] forms a perpendicular axis along which neighbourhoods could be plotted. Thus,
four main types of neighbourhoods result:
a) The resorted neighbourhood: with a boundary and focal point / center, a natural or
artificial amenity and, usually an enclave street pattern.
b) The functioned neighbourhood: having no boundary and no focal point or quasi-focal
points like a retail or commercial center or park; and, usually, a grid pattern.
c) The simulated neighbourhood: having only a boundary and no focal point while having
an enclave pattern.
311

d) The blended neighbourhood: having only a focal point and no clear boundary or quasiboundary while usually having a grid pattern.
In the above typology, Discovery Ridge would come close to a resorted neighbourhood;
East Clayton and Rosemary Heights, functioned neighbourhoods; Valley Ridge, a simulated
neighbourhood (the golf course is diffuse and does not function as a focal point; the shopping
center is peripheral with respect to the rest of the neighbourhood). Overall, if a boundary and
focal point speak to anything, they speak to the contingency of their presence in a true
neighbourhood. The absence of both negates any identification of a neighbourhood except by
means of analytic boundaries such as census tracts. The idea of a grid connecting neighbourhoods
from all sides with other neighbourhoods may lead to confusion for residents about which
neighbourhood they belong to. This case was explicitly expressed by a resident whose house was
situated between Rosemary Heights and Morgan Creek. He expressed the view that he doesn’t
feel like he belonged to either. He thought that he had bought into the neighbourhood of
Rosemary Heights as his house is within the census tract for the neighbourhood. However, after
moving in, he started to realize that he was within an intermediate position belonging to neither
Rosemary Heights nor Morgan Creek. In other words, he felt left out from both communities.
This remark by the resident raises a flag to municipal planners to not pursue connectivity blindly
as a panacea for suburban ills.
Also, the model of a grid pattern has been used in postwar suburbs and has been found to
unduly increase the number of intersections, the efficiency of land use (as a higher percentage
goes towards streets that may not function at their intended capacity or be safe for children to
appropriate and play in). In addition, appropriation and stewardship of the spaces becomes more
difficult for residents who find residential streets as being more public and allowing free-riders.
312

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13.1 Introduction
Today’s mindset for “the new planning culture” (cf. Chilla & Schulz, forthcoming) is
definitely entrenched in increased connectivity, resilience, and sustainability. Translated to
physical structure, the modified open grid of New Urbanism is elevated while the loop and culde-sac pattern of Enclave Urbanism is dismissed. Such broad and rough depiction of a
deterministic relation between physical structure and ideal planning principles needs a whole
research agenda to substantiate. The present research does not claim to settle the dispute but to
shed light on the importance of striking the correct balance between the two approaches.
Discarding enclave urbanism would definitely impact upon the psychological health and needs
of residents for sense of space appropriation, sense of safety, and sense of neighbourhood
cohesion. Tilting the balance excessively towards either approach is a form of ‘symbolic
violence’ or cultural imperialism (Young, 1990) – “a monopoly situation of determining the
‘good and the beautiful’ in respect of housing” (Røe, 2014: 499). Through the introduction of the
concept of monadic space or enveloping space, a link may be established between enclave
urbanism and neighbourhood cohesion in such a way that enclave urbanism is not discarded from
the banner of sustainability but altogether constitutive of social sustainability while at the same
time striking a balance from a blind pursuit for ultimate connectivity.
13.2 Summary of Key Findings
The present research has examined the relationship between degree of gated-ness at the
scale of a neighbourhood and the level of neighbourhood cohesion among residents. The
relationship was examined through a comparative analysis of four neighbourhoods in two
313

Western Canadian metropolises: Calgary and Vancouver. The chosen neighbourhoods were all
peripheral suburban neighbourhoods and relatively new residential developments with
comparable land area (ranging from 270 ha to 300 ha). The two cases in Calgary were single
access neighbourhoods, located at the west sector of the city and equidistant from the downtown
core while the two cases in Surrey had at least four access points and relatively equidistant from
the downtown core as well with one of the cases (Rosemary Heights) in the affluent district of
South Surrey and the other (East Clayton) in the less affluent district of Cloverdale. In terms of
residential density, the case of East Clayton was set apart at a medium density of 16 units/acre
from the other three cases that had a sparse density of 6 units/acre. East Clayton was intentionally
designed to be a blueprint for sustainable residential development with the introduction of new
housing types to allow for a social mix by income and social status as well as an internal grid
pattern of streets with laneway housing. The other three cases, on the other hand, were designed
with an enclave pattern of streets (loops and cul-de-sacs). Meanwhile, the topography of the cases
in Calgary differed markedly from that of the cases in Surrey due to the presence of a hill and
ravines in the former cases in contrast to a relatively even slope in the latter cases.
Both cases in Surrey had, in addition to single-family housing, acreage houses as well as
townhouses. East Clayton had the largest percentage of townhouses (38%) of the four case
studies; Rosemary Heights had the largest percentage of semi-detached houses (12%); Valley
Ridge had the largest percentage of single-family dwellings (96%); and Discovery Ridge had the
largest percentage of apartment units (33%). The disparity in the mix of housing types between
the four case studies was not reflected and did not correspond to the level of neighbourhood
cohesion among residents. Thus, a ranking of neighbourhoods by housing mix and level of
neighbourhood cohesion was not evident.
314

The following is a summary of key findings of the research:
1) Neighbourhoods differed in physical structure and access configuration.
The four neighbourhoods were typified differently according to the presence or absence
of a focal point and boundary. The presence of a focal point alone would not be sufficient for
establishing a sense of enveloping space at the neighbourhood level but has to be accompanied
by a defining boundary for the neighbourhood as well as an enclave pattern of streets so that a
sense of enveloping space is clearly established. Neighbourhoods that satisfy these three
structural aspects may well be typified as resorted neighbourhoods especially when the focal
point is a natural amenity. Though also having a focal point, a blended neighbourhood falls short
of being a destination neighbourhood given that the two other structural aspects are absent. A
similar argument could be made for the difference between a simulated and a functioned
neighbourhood where in the former a focal point is missing, in the latter a clear boundary is
missing.
2) Similar yet different suburban neighbourhoods.
As mentioned, the four cases are similar in that they are all peripheral suburban residential
developments that were relatively recently developed. Yet each was typified in this research in a
different category. Valley Ridge was typified as a highway and ring road suburb; Discovery
Ridge, a destination suburb; East Clayton, a suburban-urban suburb; and Rosemary Heights, a
border suburb. Importantly, other than differing in locational situation as well as housing mix,
they differed in an important aspect that this research advances, namely, the aspect of enveloping
space that is contingent upon the degree of gated-ness (exclusion and seclusion) of their
respective residential developments. For degree of exclusion, the ranking of the neighbourhoods,
based on average dwelling value with respect to the city, is: Discovery Ridge, Rosemary Heights,
315

Valley Ridge, and East Clayton. For degree of seclusion, the ranking of neighbourhoods, based
on number of access points, degree of nesting, and geographic situation, is: Discovery Ridge,
Valley Ridge, Rosemary Heights, and East Clayton. Taking both rankings into consideration as
well as neighbourhood characteristics such as type and location of amenities within the
neighbourhood, the overall ranking should be: Discovery Ridge, Valley Ridge, Rosemary
Heights, and East Clayton. Such a ranking was corroborated when calculating NCI with Valley
Ridge and Rosemary Heights almost on par. When considering individual components of NCI,
Rosemary Heights fared better than Valley Ridge in terms of neighbourliness (without statistical
significance) while Valley Ridge scored higher than Rosemary Heights in terms of place
attachment (with statistical significance). If the sense of enveloping space is solely considered,
the ranking of neighbourhoods becomes: Discovery Ridge, Rosemary Heights, Valley Ridge, and
East Clayton.
3) Demographic change of neighbourhoods was rapid.
In the cases of Valley Ridge and Rosemary Heights, demographic change was mainly in
age structure. Those two cases showed signs of an aging population and were readily perceived
by residents as transforming into retirement communities. Senior residents opted to stay within
their respective neighbourhood even when downsizing to a smaller abode. In the case of East
Clayton, demographic change was mainly in increased population density as secondary suites
became rented out, rapidly leading to crowding in elementary schools within the neighbourhood
and limited availability of parking spaces.
4) Physical change of neighbourhoods was rapid and imminent.
Relatively intensive townhouse development was a cause of malaise for residents of
Rosemary Heights, gradually diminishing the original sense of tranquility within the
316

neighbourhood. It was perceived by residents to encroach upon pristine environments.
Townhouse developments in Rosemary Heights usually took the form of gated enclaves. In the
case of East Clayton, the percentage of townhouses were almost on par with single-family
dwellings which, as one interviewee remarked, were packed so closely to each other that they
were almost equivalent to a townhouse development. Meanwhile, new townhouse developments
in Valley Ridge were targeted for a senior population (e.g. The Estates Manor).
The presence of acreage houses within Rosemary Heights and East Clayton was perceived
by residents as potential sites for future development into medium density developments. The
acreage houses did not fit within the overall residential scheme of either neighbourhood and
presented a source of nuisance in terms of aesthetic compatibility as houses were old and in some
cases not inhabited but shut off with wooden boards.
5) Structural and situational change of neighbourhoods were imminent.
In the case of Valley Ridge, a new regional shopping centre will be built facing the
neighbourhood across TransCanada Hwy and a second entry point to the neighbourhood became
logistically necessary with expansion of the neighbourhood further to the west. Such changes
aroused concern of residents for impact upon tranquility of the residential environment. In the
case of Discovery Ridge, the west leg extension of the ring road would increase connectivity of
a neighbourhood that is the most secluded of the four cases. In the case of East Clayton,
extensions to the north and west are already planned.
6) Calgary cases symbolically differed from Vancouver cases.
Although the four cases were situated in Western Canadian metropolises, the cases in
Calgary differed from the cases in Vancouver in at least two significant ways. First, as argued
earlier, the cases in Calgary exhibited a stronger symbolism than those in Surrey (Vancouver)
317

due to differences in topography, particularly, the presence of a hill and ravines which clearly
divided the neighbourhoods in Calgary physically and symbolically (those living atop the hill or
along the river versus those on the plateau) as well as due to distant views of mountains from
vantage points within both neighbourhoods.. Meanwhile, the cases in Surrey were divided either
by through traffic streets such as 192 St (in the case of East Clayton) or by proximity to the
elementary school (in the case of Rosemary Heights) – those in proximity considered themselves
to be a tightly knit community versus those ‘on the other side’ of the neighbourhood.
7) Calgary cases differed from Vancouver cases in terms of neighbourhood cohesion.
Calgary cases had a higher sense of place attachment while Vancouver cases had a higher
sense of neighbourliness. Put differently, Calgary cases exhibited an affective dimension of
cohesion while Vancouver cases exhibited an interactive dimension of cohesion.
8) Enclosure model outperformed the Encounter model in terms of social sustainability.
The case of East Clayton, as representative of the Encounter model and a model of New
Urbanism, fell short on almost all components of neighbourhood cohesion examined in this
research when compared with the other three cases which are representative of the Enclosure
model. East Clayton residents, compared to residents of the other three cases, had the lowest
sense of place attachment, the lowest psychological sense of community, and fared the third in
sense of neighbourliness and sense of enveloping space, only preceding Valley Ridge for those
latter components.
Moreover, issues of crowding in schools within the neighbourhood, lack of on-street
parking spaces, lack of adequate maneuvering room or circulation on two-way streets, and lack
of sufficient residential privacy due to physical ‘cohesiveness’ of houses, as well as issues of
crime were strongly voiced by residents of East Clayton in popular media, during interviews, as
318

well as discussions initiated with RCMP. The situation in East Clayton was summarized by one
of the residents as being ‘a good idea on paper’ but in reality ‘a congested mess’.
Preliminary analysis of crime statistics for neighbourhoods in Calgary that were also
modelled after New Urbanism principles such as McKenzie Towne with respect to equally sized
neighbourhoods such as Tuscany or with respect to Valley Ridge, after taking into consideration
proportional differences in population, showed that particular types of crime were more
prominent in the Encounter model in the order of one and one-half to 18 times that in the
Enclosure model. Such preliminary analysis corroborates conclusive results of CPTED research
for the social non-sustainability of the grid and difficulty / cost of surveillance for laneways as
well as higher rate of accidents.
9) Impact of globalization on neighbourhood cohesion in Rosemary Heights.
Neighbourhood cohesion is diminishing in Rosemary Heights due to the impact of
globalization. Referring to a typed letter attached to a received survey by mail from one of the
residents, the issue of loss of sense of community was strongly voiced. The issue raised was the
phenomenon of absentee owners from mainland China who invested in buying real estate in the
exclusive neighbourhood of Rosemary Heights and then rented the house to temporary residents.
Renters did not communicate with original residents of the neighbourhood, did not maintain the
outward appearance of the house (cutting the lawn), and stayed for a few months before the house
was left vacant waiting for other renters. The resident pointed out that the issue was not social or
racial diversity especially that original neighbourhood residents made sure to welcome
newcomers to the neighbourhood irrespective of their diverse background. The issue was the high
turnover and the presence of ‘unknown’ people in the neighbourhood who cared less for the
overall physical look of the neighbourhood.
319

10) The social as an emancipation of the physical.
The neighbourhood, as a socio-physical entity, acts as – echoing Shilling’s (2005)
perspective on the body – a source for the creation of social life, a location for the structural
properties of society, and a vital means through which individuals are positioned and oriented
towards society. Each of the four neighbourhoods conveyed an imaginary or an ideal form for
residential development that relates the physical to the social. However, as Evan McKenzie
argued, the North American suburb, in general, has fallen short of the garden suburb ideal by
emphasizing the physical over and above the social or communal. Such a deviation between the
physical and the social was, however, less pronounced in the case of Rosemary Heights where
residents expressed themselves as a closely knit community. This research suggests that an
important quality of space that needs to be fostered when designing a neighbourhood is the sense
of enveloping space, a link that relates physical and economic gated-ness to affective and
interactive dimensions of neighbourhood cohesion. Accordingly, such a quality of space is
reflected in, and reinforced by, the psychological similarity among residents that affects the
establishment of a sense of belonging as well as a sense of place attachment to a neighbourhood
especially suburban neighbourhoods designed for a particular social category with expected and
conformed cultural attitudes.
13.3 Revisiting the Research Questions
The answer to the main question for whether implicit gating in Western Canadian
metropolitan areas contributed to a higher sense of neighbourhood cohesion among residents was
confirmed by the research results and findings for the case studies in two Western Canadian
metropolises. In general, the more the degree of implicit gating, the more residents enjoyed and
exhibited a higher sense of neighbourhood cohesion. Physical, structural, and demographic
320

changes, however, bear upon such a formula and have affected the overall sense of
neighbourhood cohesion in the case of Valley Ridge compared to Discovery Ridge or Rosemary
Heights. As mentioned in the research limitations, generalization of the results is not possible for
other Western Canadian metropolises given that Calgary and Vancouver are not typical
metropolises.
The case studies showed that in as much as the degree of implicit gating led to the creation
of a sense of enveloping space, in as much as the level of neighbourhood cohesion was raised
among residents. Quantitatively, there was a moderate correlation that was statistically significant
(at p < .001) between sense of enveloping space and neighbourhood cohesion as well as a
statistically significant (at p < .001) correlation between enveloping space and each of the three
subscales of cohesion. A scatterplot confirmed the existence of a linear relation and a simple
linear regression indicated that enveloping space significantly predicted neighbourhood cohesion
index scores and explained a significant proportion (17.7%) of the variance in neighbourhood
cohesion scores. The linear relation is generally expressed by a line with a slope of 23º.
It is important to point that even though the concept of Enveloping Space is significantly
correlated with Cohesion, the degree of explanation remains small (about 18%). Other variables
or factors need to be taken into consideration to account for the majority (82%) of variation in
Cohesion (at least in this study). Some of the variation could be attributed to hours actually spent
in the neighbourhood depending on the daily schedule of residents. Other factors could be the
degree of ethnic diversity of residents, the extent of family ties and friendships within the
neighbourhood, the layout and frequency of nodes for social interaction and leisure activities, the
services provided within the neighbourhood, the rate of crime, a common threat (e.g. natural
disasters), the level of environmental pollution (ambient noise, air quality, cleanliness of storm
321

water ponds, etc.), driving behavior within the neighbourhood, and finally, physical
characteristics of the neighbourhood such as overall area and population size, as well as overall
integrity of the design of the built environment.
Thus, it should thus be acknowledged that Enveloping Space, though shown in this
research to be important as a neighbourhood-level attribute, has nevertheless a partial
relationship to Cohesion in such a way that urbanists need to consider other social, environmental,
and physical factors that bear upon the sense of cohesion of residents.
13.3.1 Gender Differences
Neighbourhood effects on enveloping space by gender showed statistically significant
differences between males and females in Discovery Ridge and, respectively, males and females
in Valley Ridge. In addition, females in Discovery Ridge differed significantly from females in
East Clayton in their sense of enveloping space.
Neighbourhood effects on cohesion by gender showed statistically significant differences
between males and females in Discovery Ridge and, respectively, males and females in East
Clayton.
13.3.2 Household Income Differences
Neighbourhood effects on enveloping space by household income showed statistically
significant differences for the 60k-130k group between Discovery Ridge and East Clayton as well
as marginally significant differences for the same group between Valley Ridge and each of
Discovery Ridge and East Clayton.
Likewise, for the more-than-130k income group, statistically significant differences were
found between Discovery Ridge and each of the other three neighbourhoods: Valley Ridge, East
Clayton, and Rosemary Heights.
322

Neighbourhood effects on cohesion by household income showed statistically significant
differences only for the more-than-130k income group between Discovery Ridge and each of the
other three neighbourhoods: Valley Ridge, East Clayton, and Rosemary Heights.
13.3.3 Length of Residence Differences
Neighbourhood effects on enveloping space by length of residence showed statistically
significant differences only for the over-10-yrs. group between Discovery Ridge and each of
Valley Ridge and East Clayton.
Neighbourhood effects on cohesion by length of residence showed statistically highly
significant differences for the over-10-yrs. group between East Clayton and each of the other
three neighbourhoods: Valley Ridge, Discovery Ridge, and Rosemary Heights as well as
marginal significance for the less-than-2 yrs. group between East Clayton and Discovery Ridge.
13.4 Affective and Interactive Dimensions of Neighbourhood Cohesion
Placing the dimension of monadic space vis-à-vis the construct of neighbourhood
cohesion adds to both of its analytic dimensions: the interactive and affective. The interactive
becomes part of the environment that surrounds the individual, by performing the interaction or
activities visibly. Stated differently, social interaction is one way of imprint (or mimesis) towards
forming norms and social culture. Likewise, the affective is also part of the environment as one
appropriates the environment by a process of internalizing. That is, another way of imprint is the
affective dimension and may be attained or increased by appropriation of space (e.g. by activities
of walking in the neighbourhood). Walking is usually thought of in terms of physical and health
benefits. The concepts of monadic and embodied space extend the meaning of walking to an
appropriation of space, thus effectuating an imprint through the affective dimension of
neighbourhood cohesion. Importantly, an alteration occurs at the exterior level (i.e. the process
323

of ex-forming or transformation) and also at the interior level (i.e. the process of in-forming or
morphism49). Arguably, the alteration is a result of processes of cognitive assimilation that may
be qualified, after Jean Piaget, as longitudinal (diachronic), transversal (synchronic), and
stratified (superposition). Importantly, the assimilation involves social and cultural adaptation;
both of which are arguably a function of the inhabitation of space (cf. G. Bachelard’s notion of
inhabitation). Accordingly, there is a factor of time for the enveloping space to be embodied.
There is thus a difference between monadic space and embodied space. The transfer and
establishment of world views are an outcome of this process of ex-forming and informing. In
other words, the neighbourhood and its physical characteristics shape the world view of its
residents.
A dimension of space that qualifies such an environment can be called (en)veloptive (or
simply veloptive) and is argued in this research to be contingent upon the number of access points
to a neighbourhood. The quality of enveloping the environment essentially acts as a ‘surrounding’
but also contributes to the process of form-making that consists of recursive cycles of ex-forming
and in-forming; recursive cycles analogous to the notion of ‘causative formation’ in studies of
bio-morphogenesis. It may be instructive to understand the ex-forming and in-forming cycles
through the ‘embodied cognition’ model where it is hypothesized that knowledge is rendered
particular to a particular knower’s embodiment, i.e. the very structure of reason is contingent
upon one’s embodiment (Krois et al., 2007).

49

The notion of morphism is borrowed from the mathematical theory of Categories by Henriques and
Ascher (1990). The distinction between morphism and transformation is that the former involves change of content
while the latter involves change of form.

324

The physical structure of a space is important in so far as it affects ways of accessing a
space (contingent upon degree of enveloping) and, in turn, ways of experiencing a space
(contingent upon degree of enclosing). Such an understanding connects the perceptual realm of
immediate perception with the cognitive realm of mediate cognition. The work of Kevin Lynch
is a precursor in establishing that connection between the perceptual and the cognitive by
explaining that the legibility of a city depends on the perceptual identification of five elements:
nodes, districts, edges, paths, and landmarks. It can be similarly argued that the legibility of a
neighbourhood depends on the presence, to a greater or lesser extent, of nodes, districts (meant
here as identifiable areas within the neighbourhood), edges (a clear boundary for the
neighbourhood), paths, and landmarks. Applying the basic elements of Lynch for a legible
neighbourhood definitely impacts on ease of orientation within the neighbourhood as well as
upon making the physical structure and form of the neighbourhood memorable to its inhabitants
/ residents. The important role of memory (cf. Henri Bergson) cannot be overstated in terms of
influencing the creativity of residents in the neighbourhood. There is nonetheless a lack of
empirical research relating memory to creativity with respect to the physical structure and form
of a neighbourhood or city.
Such connections between the perceptual and the conceptual as well as between memory
and creativity fade away when urban planners advocate, almost in a symbolically violent way, a
non-hierarchical open grid street pattern to increase connectivity and flexibility (or resilience) for
future redevelopment at the expense of ease of orientation, social aspects such as appropriation
of space, as well as cultural and cognitive aspects that impact upon the creative function of
inhabitants. Cultural geographers and social psychologists have long been calling for such
important connections to be made.
325

13.5 Political and Economic Nuances
From an urban planner’s perspective, this research raises several political and economic
nuances associated with the design of neighbourhoods particularly in regards to the aspect of
neighbourhood cohesion of residents. The first concerns the physical size of a neighbourhood
and amenities or services to be included in the neighbourhood. It is generally acknowledged that
the larger the size of a neighbourhood, the less neighbourhood cohesion among residents.
However, from an economic point of view, there are population thresholds for including
amenities such as an elementary school within a neighbourhood. The neighbourhood unit concept
included an elementary school as the center of a neighbourhood and accessible for children
walking to school. The demographics of neighbourhoods, however, change rapidly and the
natural life cycle of an aging demographic threatens the viability for continued operation of an
elementary school.
Case studies of this research such as Valley Ridge and Rosemary Heights already show
signs of transformation into a full-fledged retirement community, rendering an elementary school
gradually obsolete. It may be argued that a larger neighbourhood such as East Clayton is in a
better position than other neighbourhoods to sustain capacity for elementary schools. The
situation is compounded when residents of exclusive neighbourhoods opt for private schools,
denomination-specific schools, or pursue other educational settings for their children. In the case
of Discovery Ridge, the presence of a panoply of school options has also affected the
neighbourhood cohesion of residents (as remarked by one interviewee) as children residing in the
same neighbourhood attend different schools and parents within the neighbourhood attend
different school events and meetings. In other words, the proximity of many schools was a
divisive factor for the community.
326

Similarly, there is the issue of economics of provision of a local shopping center in the
neighbourhood. With the dominance of big box retail, shopping malls, and gourmet restaurants,
the local shopping center in a neighbourhood loses its viability as prices of daily items tend to be
higher and choices tend to be limited. Even if particular services are available in the shopping
center such as a barber shop, convenience store, or dry cleaning facility, such services may not
necessarily be used by residents of the neighbourhood due to their daily routine of going to their
workplace or weekly routines of shopping.
In addition, the location of services was pointed out as a differentiating factor between
the single access neighbourhoods of Calgary. Locating services in the core of the community
allows equal access by residents and may encourage walking to such services. This is the case in
Discovery Ridge. However, in Valley Ridge, the peripheral location of services may impact upon
the frequency of use of such services as well as impacting upon the effective functioning of the
shopping center as a setting for social interaction. At the same time, locating services at the
periphery speaks of the economics of catering to a wider demographic from other
neighbourhoods. This is a negative aspect for the central location of services at the core of
Discovery Ridge, especially in the case of being a single access neighbourhood, as it impacts on
the profitability of store and office owners given that customers and clientele are in most cases
limited to residents of the neighbourhood.
The second political and economic nuance concerns the quality of the neighbourhood and
maintenance of that quality. Of the four cases studies, Discovery Ridge was the only
neighbourhood that formed a homeowners’ association (HOA). The HOA took over
responsibility from the developer for the neighbourhood after a period of five years. The HOA
raised the quality standards acceptable by the City particularly with respect to landscaping,
327

garbage collection, and snow removal. It is also an organized way of communicating with the
City. From a political perspective, the HOA (having good relations with the alderman) was able
to detract proposals from a developer to add a second entry point to the neighbourhood. By
contrast, residents of Valley Ridge complained about the amateur role of their community
association with respect to upkeep of the landscape and effective snow removal. Maintaining an
aesthetic and safe environment definitely impacts upon property and real estate value of homes
in the neighbourhood.
The third nuance concerns a physical aspect at the scale of the city. Semi-gated
neighbourhoods definitely raise concerns of traffic that funnels to one artery or spine. Designing
neighbourhoods as a tree structure lends itself to such a concern. Municipal planners argue that
it is difficult to control speeding cars on such local arteries or spines which detract from an overall
calm residential environment and also impacts on volume of traffic on highways. The solution of
planners, from a theoretical standpoint, was to afford alternative routes out from the
neighbourhood such that traffic does not funnel (or bottleneck) causing backlogs in other places
with no options for steering away from the backlog. Concerns of municipal planners are from the
vantage point of engineering and traffic concerns at the scale of the city. However, as this research
has shown, providing many connections and through traffic in the neighbourhood impacts upon
the social dimension of neighbourhood cohesion and sense of safety for children as well as
appropriation of space within the neighbourhood. This research does not advocate a ‘one solution
fits all’ approach but advocates planners to strike the correct balance between the grid pattern
(encounter model) and the cul-de-sac (enclosure model) taking into consideration physical,
social, cultural, economic, and political dimensions of neighbourhood design.

328

The fourth nuance concerns densification of neighbourhoods. Current trends in
Vancouver and Surrey (and catching up in Calgary) are towards ground-oriented townhouse
development rather than single family residences. This definitely makes more sense for
developers in terms of economies of quantity and modularity in construction. As seen in the case
studies, the development of townhouses in neighbourhoods such as Rosemary Heights has raised
NIMBY-ism (Not In My Back Yard) especially that such development is happening at the
expense of pristine natural environments. Moreover, issues of overcrowding of services were
well voiced out by residents whether concerning the capacity of schools to enroll students or the
availability of parking spaces in the case of East Clayton; not to mention issues of mixing
different social categories and income groups such as different patterns of social activities,
different physical and spatial needs, as well as different values, behaviours and cultural norms
(apartment and townhouse residents different from single family ones).
The fifth nuance concerns the design of houses within the neighbourhood. A characteristic
that differentiates the case of Discovery Ridge than Valley Ridge is in the variety of expression
in the design of single family houses and their internal plans. The architectural design of houses
and their variety, while at the same time maintaining a unity in the design of the residential
environment, are argued to be important for establishing a memorable image of the
neighbourhood, an aesthetic appreciation of the environment, and an in-forming process in terms
of psychological experience as well as long term impacts upon the creativity of residents and
their self-realization.
13.6 Recommendations
In light of the research results and key findings, several recommendations should be made.
The first recommendation concerns the legibility of a neighbourhood. It is paramount for urban
329

planners to not only be cognizant of legibility of the city as advocated by Kevin Lynch but also
apply his five elements (edges, nodes, paths, landmarks, and districts) at the scale of the
neighbourhood. In a postmodern era where the spatial structure of cities is becoming more and
more a mosaic (or a keno capitalism model), the contribution of Kevin Lynch (in his 1960 seminal
work, The Image of the City) in relating the perceptual and conceptual experiences of inhabitants
in a legible gestalt becomes all the more invaluable. This research suggested the importance, from
a social perspective, of a legible neighbourhood especially in regards to a well-defined edge for
a neighbourhood as well as clear and ‘legible’ entry points to the neighbourhood whether for
single access neighbourhoods (such as cases in Calgary) or multiple access neighbourhoods (such
as cases in Surrey). This research has also suggested the importance of having a focal point (that
acts like a node) within a central location in the neighbourhood rather than along the periphery
as would be dictated by sheer economics. In the cases of Calgary neighbourhoods, their edges
were defined by natural boundaries such as a river or forest and there were clear entry points that
signal a transition into a particular domain. The case of Discovery Ridge exhibited a higher sense
of neighbourhood cohesion due in part to the central location of the shopping center than the case
of Valley Ridge where the shopping center is peripheral.
The second recommendation concerns the size of the neighbourhood. It is accepted in the
literature that the larger the size of a neighbourhood, the less the sense of cohesion among
residents. Thus, from a social perspective, neighbourhoods should be planned for accommodating
around 5,000 residents (which is what was suggested in the neighbourhood unit by Clarence Perry
and Clarence Stein) rather than accommodating residents in the order of 14,000 where
establishing a sense of cohesion becomes difficult.

330

The third recommendation concerns the internal pattern of streets and permeability of a
neighbourhood. This research has suggested that the more a neighbourhood is permeable with
through traffic routes and easy access by outsiders and free-riders, the more a neighbourhood is
prone with more incidents of crime (e.g. assault and car theft), less sense of safety for children to
play along busy streets, and less appropriation of public space by residents. Municipal and urban
planners who are pursuing ideals and principles for a resilient, sustainable and connected
residential environment should acknowledge that the grid, or modified grid, is not a “one solution
fits all”. Current policy and trends among municipal planners in many Western countries has
condemned the curvilinear pattern and enthroned the grid as a ‘naturally’ resilient structure for
reasons of ease of land subdivision and future densification as well as physical extension of
developments. Although this makes perfect sense from a developer or economic point of view, it
disregards other important dimensions such as the perceptual (closed vistas, orientation, and
visual memory), the social (neighbourhood cohesion and social control), the psychological (selfrealization as well as creativity), and the cultural (common moral values), i.e. in short the reasons
behind the morphological development of suburbs.
The fourth recommendation concerns the scale at which gated developments would be
allowable. Current trends of development and urban policy in Surrey is to allow 200 m by 150 m
parcels of land to be gated if desired by residents, usually for a strata development of townhouses,
so as not have a physical impact on traffic flow. This research suggests that the sense of
enveloping space is established more at the scale of the neighbourhood than a mere sense of
enclosure at smaller scales which may not raise the sense of neighbourhood cohesion among
residents.

331

The fifth recommendation concerns the mix of housing types. This research suggests that
mixing housing types in a diverse way (such as the case of East Clayton in Surrey) had a negative
outcome and the experiment of coach houses was discontinued. In addition, for future
development in West Clayton, lot frontages were to be increased by two and a half feet. Packing
houses of different types together may seem to make perfect economic sense as well as satisfy
calls for social justice. However, in practice, different housing types accommodate socially and
culturally different people. Residents with disparate needs, disparate values and disparate social
comportment may have a reduced sense of tolerance especially when not comprehending the
challenges of, for example, raising a family with young children.
The sixth recommendation concerns the synergy between a residential environment and
residents of a neighbourhood. As Townshend (2002) showed, high levels of satisfaction were
found for both groups of residents residing within and outside a GC. This research suggests in a
similar way that neighbourhoods resonated with people’s expectations, personalities and
temperaments such that asymmetry in information on the housing market was not important as
long as a neighbourhood resonated internally and externally with residents. The higher the
resonance with the neighbourhood, the higher the satisfaction and sense of neighbourhood
cohesion. Thus, neighbourhoods could be situated theoretically along a wide spectrum from a
totally secluded one to a totally connected one. The more secluded ones would resonate with
more introverted and ‘suburban’ personalities and the more connected ones would resonate with
more extroverted and ‘urban’ personalities. Forcing one half of the spectrum on the other is
argued here to be a form of symbolic violence. The synergy is not solely contingent upon the
structural configuration of the neighbourhood but also on the physical, locational and situational
configurations as the following recommendations allude to.
332

The seventh recommendation concerns the physical design and architectural style of the
built environment within neighbourhoods. The aesthetics of the built environment has a bearing
on informing residents and shaping their world views as well as their orientation in society.
Again, this does not mean that the landscape needs to follow a French-style ‘manicured’ layout
rather than an English-style ‘organic’ layout. Rather, a whole spectrum of landscape styles may
be adopted with a variety commensurate with, and aesthetically satisfactory for, the type of
residents within a neighbourhood. Prescriptive planning by-laws for a tree to be planted every so
many metres does not contribute to an overall aesthetic statement for a neighbourhood nor does
it necessarily imbue a neighbourhood with an identity. For instance, the abundance of parks
within East Clayton definitely was an advantage to residents and, arguably, encouraged walking
throughout the neighbourhood. However, the experience would have been more appreciated if,
in addition to their functional role, the parks were also aesthetically stimulating and active rather
than passive green areas.
A similar statement could be made for architectural styles of houses, townhouses, and
apartment units. The importance of a designed environment with architectural elements that have
sufficient variety (and unity) definitely impacts upon the perceptual, orientation, and aesthetic
experience, which is suggested here to have long-term impacts on memory functions and
creativity of residents.
The eighth recommendation concerns the importance of the locational situation of
neighbourhoods. Not only does the structural configuration and internal structure of the
neighbourhood matter, but also their relation at a wider scale to other neighbourhoods and other
parts of the city or metropolitan area. Despite the relative seclusion of Discovery Ridge and
Valley Ridge, the proximity of the downtown core was important to residents. At the same time,
333

it was important for residents that the location of their respective neighbourhoods maximized
ease of commute to other parts of the city (for commute to work or travel by plane) as well as to
recreational facilities and getaways such as mountain resorts. Connectivity as an ideal principle
for sustainable development is encouraged. However, this need not necessarily translate into an
internal grid structure at the scale of a neighbourhood. Rather, it is the subtle balance between
creating a residential environment catering to basic social and psychological needs of residents
while at the same time catering to logistic and physical needs at the wider scale of the city. This
latter point raises the following recommendation.
The ninth recommendation concerns the change in the external situation as well as
demographics of a neighbourhood. There is a natural life cycle of physical decline and an
increasingly aging demographic that are already manifesting in some of the studied cases.
Projects at the city scale such as ring roads, regional shopping centres, and extension of transit
services definitely impact upon the continued vitality and social sustainability of a
neighbourhood. In the case of Calgary, the extension of the west leg of the LRT (and the future
west section of the ring road) has reduced the relative seclusion of Discovery Ridge vis-à-vis the
city and may provide relief for the social isolation of suburban teenagers that may be otherwise
‘locked’ in the suburbs. Such projects would also have an impact on house prices by increasing
demand due to ease of commute. A similar remark could be made for the future regional shopping
centre close to Valley Ridge. Neighbourhood redevelopment is not a readily undertaken task.
Notwithstanding, the re-engineering of the external situation of a neighbourhood may introduce
a new vitality for, and re-definition of, the neighbourhood. Of course, some residents expressed
drawbacks of such projects. Nevertheless, in the long term, from a neighbourhood redevelopment
perspective, such projects may provide part of the solution to counteract decline.
334

Finally, the tenth recommendation concerns, to use Temkin and Rohe’s (1998) term in
their social capital model of neighbourhood development, the importance of the creation of a
‘socio-cultural milieu’ in order to stem the decline of neighbourhoods. This research suggests
that an increase in the affective and interactive aspects of residents’ sense of neighbourhood
cohesion would gradually lead to fostering connections with a wider range of residents and
establishing social connections and a social network that would function as a social safety net
from financial downturns (e.g. economic recessions) or natural disasters (e.g. recent floods in
Calgary) as well as maintain an active participation in social events, social committees, and, as
the case may be, homeowners’ association board, general assembly meeting, and committees.
13.7 Suggestions for Future Research
Future research is needed to balance the relentless pursuit of the new planning culture for
implementing a grid pattern (encounter model) for neighbourhoods by acknowledging the
advantages of the loop and cul-de-sac pattern (enclosure model) in terms of other economic,
social and cultural perspectives. The widening of perspectives and enlarging of planning
practitioners’ understanding that the relation between the physical structure of suburban
neighbourhoods and the social consequences of that form is not a simple one-to-one
correspondence. The open grid does not necessarily imply, in a practical sense, choice of travel
routes (especially when taking into consideration, for example, territorial behaviour) nor is the
pattern necessarily an efficient way to move from point A to point B. The problems of the culde-sac model on the other hand seem to be related more to land use patterns and the physical
design of the cul-de-sac itself. The way forward seems to create a hybrid model to make use of
the social, cultural, and environmental advantages of the enclosure model as well as the physical
and economic advantages of the encounter model. It has been suggested in this research that
335

commencing from the enclosure model may provide more gains than trying to adapt a neotraditional model. Such a hybrid model should not be viewed as a new ‘cookie-cutter’ pattern for
suburbs; rather, it should help in defining suburban neighbourhoods as ‘semi-urban’ autonomous
entities that are unique, not by serendipity, but by design.
Future research is needed to understand how to undertake the difficult task of
neighbourhood design and neighbourhood redevelopment, not solely from a physical design
exercise but also from a social and cultural standpoint. Although a hybrid ‘enclosure-encounter’
model sheds some light on the way forward, the task of neighbourhood design and redevelopment
needs to be framed from the beginning as a task for social sustainability in mind, parallel to
environmental, governance, and economic sustainability. Neighbourhoods undergo a life cycle
of physical decline and aging. Research is needed to evaluate the resilient capacity of different
neighbourhood designs to undergo redevelopment and how to gradually transform them, if the
case may be, into retirement communities. In other words, how to facilitate aging in place.
Also, future research is also needed to investigate the difficult link between the perceptual
and the conceptual especially in regards to impacts of the physical environment and structural
configuration on memory and creativity. This is the least link to be investigated by researchers
except for some implications for research on long-term neighbourhood effects. However, a
separate research agenda should, using longitudinal and diachronic studies, examine the effect of
perceptual images of the neighbourhood (in terms of architecture quality, aesthetics of urban
design strategies used, as well as degree and sequence of spatial enclosures within a
neighbourhood) and the effect of physical structure (in terms of access configuration, nesting
depth, vistas, and pathways) on the creative capacity of residents.

336

Lastly, and importantly, future research is needed to verify the application of the concept
of enveloping space at various geographic scales, starting with the scale of city and its physical
structure (e.g. entry points) to the scale of quadrants, sectors, communities, and neighbourhoods
as well as the scale of different sub-areas, settings within a neighbourhood, and residential
enclaves. In this research preliminary analysis for the case of Valley Ridge has not confirmed
differences between sub-areas or residential enclaves in terms of cohesion or sense of enveloping
space. There may be several reasons why that was the case. Although the concept of a monadic
space theoretically assumes applicability ad infinitum whether at minute or large scales, there
may be many factors that affect, on one hand, a consolidated sense of enveloping space or, on the
other hand, a diffuse sense of enveloping space. Future research should definitely identify those
factors as well as the significance of designing neighbourhoods to accelerate the process of bodyshaping, social acceptance, shared norms, and even cultural adaptation.

337

REFERENCES
Ades, J., Apparicio, P., Seguin, A.-M. (2012). Are new patterns of low-income distribution
emerging in Canadian metropolitan areas? The Canadian Geographer 56, 339-61.
Alaily-Mattar, N. (2008). Beyond gated communities? Detachment and concentration in
networked nodes of affluence in the city of Beirut. Urban Design International, 13(4), 263271.
Alexander, C. (2002). The Nature of Order: An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of
the Universe. The Center for Environmental Structure, California.
Alexander, C. (1965). The city is not a tree. Architectural Forum, 122, 30–32.
Alvarez, M. J. (2005). Golden Ghettoes : Golden Communities and Class Residential Segregation
in Montevideo, Uruguay. Working Paper: Research and Training Network Urban Europe.
Andreotti, A., Le Galès, P., Fuentes, F. J. M. (2013). Controlling the urban fabric: The Complex
Game of Distance and Proximity in European Upper-Middle-Class Residential Strategies.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 576-597.
Araujo, R. (2013). The City is Me. UK / Chicago, USA: Intellect Bristol.
Asiedu, A. B., Arku, G. (2009). The rise of gated housing estates in Ghana: Empirical insights
from three communities in metropolitan Accra. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 24, 227-247.
Atkinson, R., Blandy, S. (2005). Introduction : International Perspectives on the New Enclavism
and the Rise of Gated Communities. Housing Studies, 20(2), 177-186.
Barabé, D. Brunet, R. (1993). Morphogenèse et Dynamique. Éditions Orbis Publishing, Québec.
Barbican Developments Ltd. (1990). Valley Ridge Concept Plan. IMC Consulting Group Inc.
Baum, F. E., Ziersch, A. M., Zhang, G., Osborne, K. (2009). Do perceived neighbourhood
cohesion and safety contribute to neighbourhood differences in health? Health & Place,
15(4) : 925-934.
Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: on the frailty of human bonds. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA
USA: Polity Press; Distributed in the USA by Blackwell Pub.
Bauman, Z. (2001a). Community: seeking safety in an insecure World. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press.
Bauman, Z. (2001b). The individualized society. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA : Polity Press; Blackwell.
338

Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization : the human consequences. New York : Columbia University
Press.
Beckert, J. (2013). Imagined futures: fictional expectations in the economy. Theory and Society,
42(3), 219-240.
Bickford, S. (2000). Constructing Inequality. Political Theory, 28, 355–376.
Blakely, E. J., Snyder, M. G. (1997a). Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States.
Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, Mass.: Brookings Institution Press and Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy.
Blakely, E. J., Snyder, M. G. (1997b). Divided We Fall: Gated and Walled Communities in the
United States. In N. Ellin (Ed.), Architecture of Fear. New York: Princeton Architectural
Press.
Blandy, S., Lister, D. (2005). Gated Communities: (Ne)Gating Community Development?
Housing Studies, 20(2), 287-301.
Blandy, S., Lister, D., Atkinson, R., Flint, J. (n.d.). Gated Communities : A Systematic Review
of the Research Evidence: University of Glasgow and Sheffield Hallam University.
Blinnikov, M.; Shanin, A.; Sobolev, N.; Volkova, L. (2006). Gated communities of the Moscow
green belt: newly segregated landscapes and the suburban Russian environment.
GeoJournal, 66(1/2), 65-81.
Borsdorf, A., Hidalgo, R. (2008). New dimensions of social exclusion in Latin America: From
gated communities to gated cities, the case of Santiago de Chile. Land Use Policy, 25(2),
153-160.
Boudon, P. (2000). Catégoriser la forme spatiale, in Ostrowetsky, S. (éd. dir.) Processus du sens :
Sociologues en villes no.2. Les Cahiers du CEFRESS, L’Harmattan, France.
Bourdieu, P. (1995). Physical Space, Social Space and Habitus, Vilhelm Aubert memorial
lecture, Department of Sociology, University of Oslo & Institute for Social Research.
Boyd, R. E. (2005). Gated-Community Emergence in the Metro East: Residential Growth and
Development in St. Clair County, Illinois. PhD Dissertation. Faculty of Graduate School of
St. Louis University.
Brook, C., Mooney, G., Pile, S. (1999). Unruly Cities?: Order / Disorder. Florence, KY, USA:
Routledge.
Browning, C. R. (2009). Illuminating the Downside of Social Capital: Negotiated Coexistence,
Property Crime, and Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods. American Behavioral Scientist,
52(11), 1556-1578.
339

Brunn, S. D. (2006). Gated minds and gated lives as worlds of exclusion and fear. Geojournal,
6, 5-16.
Buckner, J. C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighbourhood cohesion.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 16(6), 771-791.
Caldeira, T.P.R. (1996). Fortified Enclaves: The New Urban Segregation. Public Culture, 8, 303328.
Callies, D. L., Franzese, P. A., Guth, H. K. (2003). Ramapo Looking Forward: Gated
Communities, Covenants, and Concerns. The Urban Lawyer, 35(1), 177-202.
Cassirer, E. (1944). An Essay on Man: an introduction to a philosophy of Human Culture. Yale
Univ. Press. New Haven and London.
Charmes, E. (2010). Cul-de-sacs, Superblocks and Environmental Areas as Supports of
Residential Territorialization. Journal of Urban Design, 15, 357-374.
Charron, M. and R. Shearmur (2005). La segregation économique comme un phénomène
complexe: Une analyse spatio-temporelle du cas montréalais. The Canadian Geographer
49, 332-51.
Chase, J. (2008). Their Space: Security and Service Workers in a Brazilian Gated Community.
Geographical Review, 98(4), 476-495.
Chen, W. H.; Myles, J., Picot, G. (2011). Why have poorer neighborhoods stagnated
economically, while the richer have flourished? Neighborhood income inequality in
Canadian cities. Working Paper No. 82. Canadian Labour Market and Skills Researcher
Network.
Chilla, T., Schulz, C. (forthcoming). Spatial Development in Luxembourg: Mimetic Evolution or
Emergence of a New Planning Culture. European Planning Studies
Chiodelli, F., Moroni, S. (2013). Typology of Spaces and Topology of Toleration: City Pluralism,
Ownership. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(2), 167-181.
Colombo, M., Mosso, C., De Piccoli, N. (2001). Sense of community and participation in urban
contexts. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 11(6), 457-464.
Coy, M. (2006). Gated communities and urban fragmentation in Latin America: the Brazilian
experience. Geojournal, 66(1/2), 121-132.
Coy, M., Pohler, M. (2002). Gated communities in Latin American megacities: case studies in
Brazil and Argentina. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29(3), 355-370.
Cozens, P., Hillier, D. (2008). The Shape of Things to Come: New Urbanism, the Grid and the
Cul-De-Sac. International Planning Studies, 13(1), 51-73.
340

Cozens, P., Love, T. (2009). Manipulating Permeability as a Process for Controlling Crime:
Balancing Security and Sustainability in Local Contexts. Built Environment, 35(3), 346-365.
Cséfalvay, Z. (2011). Searching for Economic Rationale behind Gated Communities: A Public
Choice Approach. Urban Studies, 48(4), 749-764.
Dale, A., Onyx, J. (2005). A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital & Sustainable Community
Development. UBC Press: Vancouver, Toronto.
Dasgupta, P., Serageldin, I. (2000). Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. The World Bank,
Washington, D.C.
Dear, M., Flusty, S. (1998). Postmodern Urbanism. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 90(1), 50–72.
Dekker, K., Bolt, G. (2005). Social Cohesion in Post-war Estates in the Netherlands: Differences
between Socioeconomic and Ethnic Groups. Urban Studies, 42(13), 2447-2470.
Diken, B. (2004). From refugee camps to gated communities: biopolitics and the end of the city.
Citizenship Studies, 8, 83-106.
Dowling, R., Atkinson, R., McGuirk, P. (2010). Privatism, Privatisation and Social Distinction
in Master-Planned Residential Estates. Urban Policy and Research, 28(4), 391-410.
Durington, M. (2006). Race, space and place in suburban Durban: an ethnographic assessment of
gated community environments and residents. Geojournal, 66(1/2),147-160.
Eisenstadt, S. N., Sachar, A. (1987). Society, Culture, and Urbanization. Newbury Park, Calif.:
Sage Publications.
Erkip, F. (2010). Community and neighbourhood relations in Ankara: An urban-suburban
contrast. Cities, 27, 69-102
Fainstein, S. S. (2005). Cities and Diversity. Urban Affairs Review, 41, 3-19.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, FCM. (2003). Falling Behind: Our Growing Income Gap.
Feldman, A. S., Tilly, C. (1960). The interaction of social and physical space. American
Sociological Review, 25(6), 877-884.
Filion, P., Kramer, A. (2012). Transformative Metropolitan Development Models in Large
Canadian Urban Areas: The Predominance of Nodes. Urban Studies, 49(10), 2237-2264.
Foran, M. (2009). Expansive Discourses: Urban sprawl in Calgary, 1945-1978. AU Press,
Athabasca University.
Forrest, R., Kearns, A. (2001). Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood. Urban
Studies, 38(12), 2125-2143.
341

Fu, A. S. (2009). Landscapes of Spanish-Colonial Mythology, Visual Culture, and Urban
Development in Southern California. PhD Dissertation. Graduate School of Binghamton
University, State University of New York.
Gaffikin, F., McEldowney, M., Sterrett, K. (2010). Creating Shared Public Space in the Contested
City: The Role of Urban Design. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 493-513.
Gallegos, B. V. C. (2009). Tijuana: Border, Migration, and Gated Communities. Journal of the
Southwest, 51(4), 457-475.
Geniş, Ş. (2007). Producing Elite Localities: The Rise of Gated Communities in Istanbul. Urban
Studies, 44(4), 771-798.
Giglia, A. (2008). Gated Communities in Mexico City. Home Cultures, 5(1), 65-84.
Glasze, G. (2006). Some Reflections on the Economic and Political Organization of Private
Neighbourhoods. In R. Atkinson, S. Blandy (Eds.), Gated Communities: London and New
York: Routledge.
Glasze, G. (2006). Some Reflections on the Economic and Political Organization of Private
Neighbourhoods. In R. Atkinson, S. Blandy (Eds.), Gated Communities: Routledge: London
and New York.
Glasze, G. & Alkhayyal, A. (2002). Gated housing estates in the Arab world: case studies in
Lebanon and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,
29(3), 321-336.
Glasze, G., Webster, C., Frantz, K. (2006). Private Cities: Routledge: USA and Canada.
Goodman, R., Douglas, K., Babacan, A. (2010) Master Planned Estates and Collective Private
Assets in Australia: Research into the Attitudes of Planners and Developers, International
Planning Studies, 15(2), 99-117.
Grant, J. L. (2008). Challenging the public realm: gated communities in history. Working Paper.
Grant, J. L. (2007). Two sides of a coin? New urbanism and gated communities. Housing Policy
Debate, 18(3), 481-501.
Grant, J. L. (2005). Planning the Good Community: New Urbanism in Theory and Practice.
Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.
Grant, J. L. (2003). Planning responses to gated communities in Canada. Paper presented at the
Gated communities: building social division or safer communities? Glasgow.
Grant, J. L. (2001). The dark side of the grid: power and urban design. Planning Perspectives,
16(3), 219-241.

342

Grant, J., Mittelsteadt, L. (2004). Types of gated communities. Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 31(6), 913-930.
Grootaert, C., van Bastelaer, T. (2002). The Role of Social Capital in Development: An Empirical
Assessment. West Nyack, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Gruis, V., Visscher, H., Kleinhans, R.J. (2006). Sustainable neighbourhood transformation. OTB
Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology.
Haffner, J. (2013). The View from Above: The Science of Social Space. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Hargie, O., O’Donnell, A., McMullan, C. (2011). Constructions of Social Exclusion among
Young People from Interface Areas of Northern Ireland. Youth & Society, 43(3), 873-899.
Harris, R. (2004). Creeping Conformity: How Canada became Suburban, 1900-1960. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Harvey, D. (2009). Social Justice and the City (Revised Edition). Athens, GA, USA: University
of Georgia Press.
Harvey, D. (1992). Social Justice, Postmodernism and the City. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, 16, 588–601.
Haynes, B. D., Hernandez, J. (2008). Place, Space and Race: Monopolistic Group Closure and
the Dark Side of Social Capital. In Networked Urbanism: Social Capital in the City, edited
by Talja; Blokland and Mike Savage. Hampshire, England; Burlington, USA: Ashgate.
Henriques, G., Ascher, E. (1990). Morphismes et Catégories : comparer et transformer.
Neuchâtel, Suisse: Delachaux & Niestlé S.A.,
Hillier, H. H., Hulchanski, J. D. (2010). The Three Cities within Toronto: Income Polarization
among Toronto's Neighborhoods, 1970-2005: Centre for Urban and Community Studies.
Univ. of Toronto.
Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., Jurs, S. G. (2002) 5th Ed. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences. Wadsworth Publishing.
Hipp, J. R., Perrin, A. (2006). Nested loyalties: Local networks' effects on neighbourhood and
community cohesion. Urban Studies, 43(13), 2503-2524.
Hodkinson, S. (2012). The new urban enclosures. City, 16, 500-518.
Holcombe, R. G. (2013). Planning and the invisible hand: Allies or adversaries? Planning Theory
12(2), 199-210.
Hulchanski, J. D. (1981). The Origins of Urban Land Use Planning in Alberta, 1900-1945.
Research Paper No. 119. Centre for Urban and Community Studies. University of Toronto.
343

Huong, L., Sajor, E. (2010). Privatization, democratic reforms, and micro-governance change in
a transition economy: Condominium homeowner associations in Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam. Cities, 27(1), 20-30.
Irazábal, C. (2006). Localizing Urban Design Traditions: Gated and Edge Cities in Curitiba.
Journal of Urban Design, 11(1), 73-96.
Jones, M. (1999). Structuration Theory. In W. Currie, R. Galliers (Eds.), Rethinking management
information systems: an interdisciplinary perspective: Oxford University Press, New York.
Judd, D. R. (1995). The Rise of the New Walled Cities in Liggett, H., Perry, D. C. (ed.). Spatial
practices: critical explorations in social/spatial theory. Sage Publications.
Kavanaugh, L. (2007). Architectonic of Philosophy : Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz. Amsterdam, NLD:
Amsterdam University Press.
Kenna, T.E., Dunn, K.M. (2009). The Virtuous Discourses of Private Communities. Geography
Compass, 3(2), 797-816.
Kirby, A. (2008). The production of private space and its implications for urban social relations.
Political Geography, 27, 74-95.
Knox, P. (2005). Vulgaria: The Re-enchantment of Suburbia. Opolis, 1(2), 33-46.
Knox, P., Pinch, S. (2000). Urban Social Geography: An Introduction. 4 ed. Essex, England:
Pearson Education Ltd.
Kostof, S. (1991). The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings Through History. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Krois, J. M., Rosengren, M., Steidele, A. (2007). Embodiment in Cognition and Culture.
Amsterdam, NLD. John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Landman, K. (2005). The storm that rocks the boat: the systemic impact of gated communities
on urban sustainability. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography. Systemic impacts and
sustainability of gated enclaves in the City of Pretoria, South Africa, Feb. 28 – Mar. 3.
Lang, R., LeFurgy, J., Nelson, A. C. (2006). The Six Suburban Eras of the Unites States. Opolis,
2(1), 65-72.
Lara, F. L. (2011). New (Sub)Urbanism and Old Inequalities in Brazilian Gated Communities.
Journal of Urban Design, 16(3), 369-380.
Laven, B. (2008). Surrey, B.C.: an overview of development trends.
Laven, B. (2007). Private Streets in Public Neighbourhoods: The Consequences of Townhouse
Development on Neighbourhood Connectivity in Surrey, B.C. Master Thesis. Dalhousie
University
344

Le Goix, R. (2005). Gated communities: Sprawl and social segregation in Southern California.
Housing Studies, 20(2), 323-343.
Le Goix, R. (2004). Gated communities as generic patterns in suburban landscapes. Paper
presented at the International Conference: The Privatization of Cities in a Historical
Perspective: US/British/French Comparisons. June 3 & 4. University of Paris.
Le Goix, R., Vesselinov, E. (2013). Gated Communities and House Prices: Suburban Change in
Southern California, 1980–2008. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
37(6), 2129-2151.
Le Goix, R., Vesselinov, E. (2012). From picket fences to iron gates: suburbanization and gated
communities in Phoenix, Las Vegas and Seattle. GeoJournal, 77(2), 203-222.
Ledrut, R. (1968). Sociologie Urbaine. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.
Lee, S. & Webster, C. (2006). Enclosure of the urban commons. GeoJournal, 66(1-2), 27-42.
Lemanski, C. (2006). Spaces of Exclusivity or Connection? Linkages between a Gated
Community and its Poorer Neighbour in a Cape Town Master Plan Development. Urban
Studies, 43(2), 397-420.
Lemanski, C., Oldfield, S. (2009). The parallel claims of gated communities and land invasions
in a Southern city: polarised state responses. Environment and Planning A, 41(3), 634-648.
Lévinas, E. (1998). Entre nous: on thinking-of-the-other. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lévinas, E. (1987). Time and the Other and Additional Essays. Trans. R. A. Cohen. Pittsburgh:
Duquesne University Press.
Lewicka, M. (2010). What makes neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place
scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 35-51.
Ley, D., Lynch, N. (2012) Divisions and Disparities in Lotus-Land: Socio-spatial income
polarization in Greater Vancouver, 1970-2005. Research Paper 223, Cities Centre,
University of Toronto.
Libertun De Duren, N. (2006). Planning à la Carte: The Location Patterns of Gated Communities
around Buenos Aires in a Decentralized Planning Context. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, 30(2), 308-327.
Longhurst, R. (1997). (Dis)embodied geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 21(4), 486501.
Low, S. M. (2009). Towards an anthropological theory of space and place. Semiotica, 175, 2137.

345

Low, S. M. (2008). Fortification of Residential Neighborhoods and the New Emotions of Home.
Housing, Theory and Society, 25(1), 47-65.
Low, S. M. (2001). The edge and the center: Gated communities and the discourse of urban fear.
American Anthropologist, 103, 45-58.
Low, S., Donovan, G. T., Gieseking, J. E. N. (2012). Shoestring Democracy: Gated
Condominiums and Market-Rate Cooperatives in New York. Journal of Urban Affairs,
34(3), 279-296.
Luymes, D. (1997). The fortification of suburbia: investigatng the rise of enclave urbanism.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 39(2-3), 187-203.
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.
Maclachlan, I., Sawada, R. (1997). Measures of Income Inequality and Social Polarization in
Canadian Metropolitan Areas. Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien, 41(4), 377397.
Manly, B. F. J. (2004). Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer, 3rd Ed. CRC Press.
Manzi, T., Smith-Bowers, B. (2006). Gated Communities as Club Goods: Segregation or Social
Cohesion? Chapter 10 in R. Atkinson, S. Blandy (Eds.), Gated Communities: Routledge:
London and New York.
Marcuse, P. (2010). The forms of power and the forms of cities: building on Charles Tilly. Theory
& Society, 39(3/4), 471–485.
Marcuse, P. (1997). The ghetto of exclusion and the fortified enclave: new patterns in the United
States. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(3), 311-327.
Marcuse, P. (1987). The grid as city plan: New York City and laissez-faire planning in the
nineteenth century. Planning Perspectives, 2(3), 287-310.
Marshall, S. (2006). The Emerging ‘Silicon Savannah’: From old urbanism to new suburbanism.
Built Environment, 32(3), 267-280.
Massey, D. (1992). Politics and Space/Time. New Left Review I, 196.
Massey, D. S., Denton, N. A. (1988). The Dimensions of Residential Segregation. Social Forces,
67(2), 281-315.
Maxwell, K. (2003). Gated Communities and Homeowners Associations in Canada. Paper
presented at the Canadian Institute of Planners Conference. July 6-9. Halifax, Nova Scotia.
McGuirk, P., Dowling, R. (2009). Master-planned residential developments: Beyond iconic
spaces of neoliberalism? Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 50, 120-134.
346

McKenzie, E. (2006). Emerging trends in state regulation of private communities in the U.S.
GeoJournal, 66(1/2), 89-102.
McKenzie, E. (1994). Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private
Government. New York: Yale University.
McLaughlin, E., Muncie, J. (1999). Walled cities: surveillance, regulation and segregation In
Pile, S.; Brook, C.; Mooney, G. (Eds.); Unruly Cities? Order/Disorder. Florence, KY, USA:
Routledge.
Medeiros, N. (2011). A New Land Use Bylaw for the City of Calgary, Alberta. Paper to the fifth
international conference of the International Academic Association on Planning, Law and
Property Rights. Faculty of Law, University of Alberta. May 25-28th.
Meier, S., Karsten, L. (2012). Living in commodified history: construction class identities in
neotraditional neighborhoods. Social & Cultural Geography, 13(5), 517-535.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception. Trans. Colin Smith. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Merrifield, A., Swyngedouw, E. (1997). The Urbanization of Injustice. New York: New York
University Press.
Metro Vancouver (2009). Metro 2040 Residential Growth Projections. Draft Regional Growth
Strategy Backgrounder.
Middleton, A., Murie, A., Groves, R. (2005). Social capital and neighbourhoods that work.
Urban Studies, 42(10), 1711-1738.
Mohan, G., Mohan, J. (2002). Placing social capital. Progress in Human Geography, 26(2), 191210.
Monterescu, D. (2009). To Buy or Not to Be: Trespassing the Gated Community. Public Culture,
21(2), 403-430.
Morin, E. (1982). Science avec conscience. Librairie Arthème Fayard. France.
Neill, D. L. (2011). Historic Districts and Their Role as Sustainable Regenerators of Downtown
City Life. Ph.D. Thesis. Faculty of Environmental Design. University of Calgary.
Németh, J. (2009). The Closed City: Downtown Security Zones and the Loss of Public Space.
Paper presented at the City Futures ’09: An International Conference on Globalism and
Urban Change, Madrid.
Neuman, W. L. (1991, 3rd Ed.). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. U.S.A., Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Neumann, E. (1989). The Place of Creation. Princeton Univ. Press, New Jersey.
347

Nissen, S. (2008). Urban Transformation from Public and Private Space to Spaces of Hybrid
Character. Czech Sociological Review, 44(6), 1129-1149.
O’Toole, R. (2007). Unlivable Strategies: The Greater Vancouver Regional District and the
Livable Region Strategic Plan. Public Sources, 88. The Fraser Institute, Vancouver, B.C.
Patricios, N. (2002). The Neighborhood Concept: A Retrospective of Physical Design and Social
Interaction. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 19(1), 70-90.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/nicholas_patricios/16
Plöger, J. (2005). The emergence of a “City of Cages” in Lima: neighborhood appropriation in
the context of rising insecurities. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography, Dossiers,
Systemic impacts and sustainability of gated enclaves in the City, Pretoria, South Africa,
Feb. 28 – Mar. 3. http://cybergeo.revues.org/6785
Polanska, D. V. (2010). The emergence of gated communities in post-communist urban context:
and the reason for their increasing popularity. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,
25, 295-312.
Poortinga, W. (2012). Community resilience and health: The role of bonding, bridging, and
linking aspects of social capital. Health & Place, 18(2), 286-295.
Popke, E. J. (2003). Poststructuralist ethics: subjectivity, responsibility and the space of
community. Progress in Human Geography, 27, 298-316.
Pow, C.-P. (2009a). Gated Communities in China: Class, privilege and the moral politics of the
good life. Routledge: Canada and US.
Pow, C.-P. (2009b). Neoliberalism and the aestheticization of new middle-class landscapes.
Antipode, 41, 371–390.
Pow, C.-P. (2009c). Public intervention, private aspiration: Gated communities and the
condominisation of housing landscapes in Singapore. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 50(2), 215227.
Pow, C.-P. (2007). Securing the 'Civilised' Enclaves: Gated Communities and the Moral
Geographies of Exclusion in (Post-)socialist Shanghai. Urban Studies, 44(8), 1539-1558.
Prajoux, V. F. (2005). Gated communities, urban structure, Santiago de Chile. Working Paper
PUG 069.
Pufe, F. (2009). Unlocking Miami’s suburban gated communities: a semiotic and iconographic
approach. Articulo – revue des sciences humaines, 5.
Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century
The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137-174.
348

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American Community. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Raposo, R. (2006). Gated communities, commodification and aestheticization: The case of the
Lisbon metropolitan area. GeoJournal, 66(1), 43-56.
Raposo, R., Cotta, D. (2009). Quartiers Sécurisés, Perceptions du (Dès)ordre socio-spatial et
mé(con)fiance envers l’état: le cas de la métropole de Lisbonne. Déviance et Société, 33(4),
593-612.
Reardon, Sean F., Bischoff, Kendra. (2011). Income Inequality and Income Segregation.
American Journal of Sociology, 116(4), 1092-1153.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist
Theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5, 243-263.
Robert, S. (1993). Les Mécanismes de la découverte scientifique: Une épistémologie
interactionniste. Ottawa : Les Presses de l'Univ. d'Ottawa.
Robson, B. T. (1975). Urban Social Areas, Theory and Practice in Geography. Great Britain:
Oxford University Press.
Røe, P. G. (2014). Analysing Place and Place-making: Urbanization of Suburban Oslo.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2), 498-515.
Rofe, M. W. (2006). New Landscapes of Gated Communities: Australia’s Sovereign Lands.
Landscape Research, 31(3), 309-317.
Roitman, S. (2010). The changing image of suburban areas in Latin America and the role of the
local government. Florence Conference, July 22-25. Everyday Life in the Segmented City.
Roitman, S. (2007). Social practices and viewpoints: A conceptual framework for the analysis of
urban social group segregation and gated communities. Conference paper presented at the
Private Urban Governance & Gated Communities, Paris.
Roitman, S. (2005). Who Segregates Whom? The Analysis of a Gated Community in Mendoza,
Argentina. Housing Studies, 20, 303-321.
Roitman, S., Phelps, N. (2011). Do Gates Negate the City? Gated Communities' Contribution to
the Urbanisation of Suburbia in Pilar, Argentina. Urban Studies, 48(16), 3487-3509.
Roitman, S., Phelps, N. (2009). Does the ‘closed’ city contribute to the ‘open city’? The recent
growth of Pilar, Argentina. 10th N-AERUS Conference, Rotterdam. October 1-3.
Roitman, S., Webster, C., Landman, K. (2010). Methodological Frameworks and
Interdisciplinary Research on Gated Communities. International Planning Studies, 15, 3-23.

349

Romig, K. (2010). Community and Social Capital in Upper-Income Neighborhoods: An
investigation in Metropolitan Phoenix. Urban Geography, 31(8), 1065-1079.
Rosenblatt, T. (2005). Lakeside Living: Commodifying Community in a Master-Planned Estate.
Paper presented to the State of Australian Cities Conference, December. Brisbane.
Rosenblatt, T., Cheshire, L., Lawrence, G. (2009). Social Interaction and Sense of Community
in a Master Planned Community. Housing, Theory and Society, 26(2), 122-142.
Ruggerone, L. (2013). Science and Life-World: Husserl, Schutz, Garfinkel. Human Studies 36(2),
179-197.
Saarinen, E. (1948). Search for Form: A fundamental approach to art. Reinhold Publishing Corp.
New York.
Sabatini, F., Salcedo, R. (2007). Gated communities and the poor in Santiago, Chile: Functional
and symbolic integration in a context of aggressive capitalist colonization of lower‐class
areas. Housing Policy Debate, 18(3), 577-606.
Sabatini, F., Cáceres, G., Cerda, J. (2001). Residential Segregation Pattern Changes in Main
Chilean Cities: Scale Shifts and Increasing Malignancy. Paper presented at the International
Seminar on Segregation in the City, Madrid.
Saegert, S. (2006). Building Civic Capacity in Urban Neighborhoods: An Empirically Grounded
Anatomy. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(3), 275-294.
Salcedo, R., Torres, A. (2004). Gated Communities in Santiago: Wall or Frontier? International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(1), 27-44.
Sampson, R. J., Graif, C. (2009). Neighborhood Social Capital as Differential Social
Organization: Resident and Leadership Dimensions. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(11),
1579-1605.
Sanchez, T. W., Lang, R. E., Dhavale, D. M. (2005). Security versus Status? A first look at the
Census’s Gated Community Data. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24, 281291.
Scannell, L., Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1-10.
Sheinbaum, D. (2008). Gated Communities in Mexico City: an historical perspective. Urban
Design International, 13(4), 241–252.
Shilling, C. (2005). The Body in Culture, Technology and Society. Sage Publications.
Sitte, C. (1945). The Art of Building Cities: City Building according to its Artistic Fundamentals.
Translated by Charles T. Stewart. Reinhold Publishing Corporation.
350

Smart, A. (2008). Social Capital. Anthropologica, 50(2), 409-416.
Smart, A., Hsu, C. L. (2007). Corruption or Social Capital? Tact and the Performance of Guanxi
in Market Socialist China. In M. Nuijten, G. Anders (Eds.), Corruption and the Secret of
Law: A Legal Anthropological Perspective: Ashgate.
Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking Spatial Justice. Minneappolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Soja, E. W. (1980). The socio-spatial dialectic. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 70(2), 207-225.
Southworth, M., Ben-Joseph, E. (2004). Reconsidering the Cul-de-sac. ACCESS Magazine,
1(24), 28-33. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.
Southworth, M., Ben-Joseph, E. (1995). Street Standards and the Shaping of Suburbia. Journal
of the American Planning Association, 61(1), 65-81.
Southworth, M., Parasarathy, B. (1997). The suburban public realm II: Eurourbanism, new
urbanism and the implications for urban design in the American metropolis. Journal of
Urban Design, 2(1), 9-34.
Southworth, M., Parasarathy, B. (1996). The suburban public realm I: Its emergence, growth and
transformation in the American metropolis. Journal of Urban Design, 1(3), 245-263.
Staber, U. D. O. (2007). Contextualizing Research on Social Capital in Regional Clusters.
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(3), 505-521.
Stoyanov, P., Frantz, K. (2006). Gated communities in Bulgaria: interpreting a new trend in postcommunist urban development. Geojournal, 66(1/2), 57-63.
Suárez-Carrasquillo, C. A. (2009). City marketing and gated communities: a case study of
Guaynabo, Puerto Rico. PhD Dissertation. Department of Political Science. Graduate School
of the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Swearer, H. R. (2007). An Ethnographic Study of Perception of Public and Private in Two GCs.
PhD Dissertation. Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Swyngedouw, E. (2009). The Antinomies of the Postpolitical City: In Search of a Democratic
Politics of Environmental Production. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 33(3), 601-620.
Talen, E. (2006). Design That Enables Diversity: The Complications of a Planning Ideal. Journal
of Planning Literature, 20(3), 233-249.
Talen, E. (2000). The Problem with Community in Planning. Journal of Planning Literature
15(2), 171-183.

351

Taylor, Z.; Burchfield, M.; Kramer, A. (2014). Alberta Cities at the Crossroads: Urban
development challenges and opportunities in historical and comparative perspective. The
School of Public Policy, 7(12), 1-43. SPP Research Papers.
Taylor, Z.; Burchfield, M.; Moldofsky, B.; Ashley, J. (2010). Growing Cities: Comparing urban
growth patterns and regional growth policies in Calgary, Toronto, and Vancouver.
http://www.neptis.org/publications/growing-cities
Tedong, P. A., Grant, J. L., Wan Abd Aziz, W., Ahmad, F., Hanif, N. R. (2014). Guarding the
Neighbourhood: The New Landscape of Control in Malaysis. Housing Studies, 29(8),10051027.
Temkin, K., Rohe, W. M. 1998. "Social capital and neighborhood stability: An empirical
investigation." Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), 61-88.
Townshend, I. J. (2006). From public neighbourhoods to multi-tier private neighbourhoods: the
evolving ecology of neighbourhood privatization in Calgary. GeoJournal, 66, 103-120.
Townshend, I. J. (2002). Age-segregated and gated retirement communities in the third age: the
differential contribution of place-community to self-actualization. Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design, 29(3), 371-396.
Townshend, I. J., Walker, R. (2002). The structure of income residential segregation in Canadian
Metropolitan Areas. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 25, 25-52.
Tsenkova, S. (2009). Housing Policy Reforms in Post-Socialist Europe: Lost in Transition.
Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
Tsenkova, S. (2003). Housing Policy Matters: The Reform Path in Central and Eastern Europe in
Lowe, S., Tsenkova, S. (eds.). Housing Change in East and Central Europe: Integration or
Fragmentation? Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Tucker, I. (2011). Psychology as Space: Embodied Relationality. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 5(5), 231-238.
Urry, J. (2002). Mobility and Proximity. Sociology, 36, 255-274.
Vaughan, L., Griffiths, S., Haklay, M., Jones, C. E. (2009). Do the suburbs exist? Discovering
complexity and specificity in suburban built form. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 34(4), 475-488.
Vesselinov, E. (2012). Segregation by Design. Urban Affairs Review, 48(3), 417-454.
Vesselinov, E. (2008). Members Only: Gated Communities and Residential Segregation in the
Metropolitan United States. Sociological Forum, 23(3), 536-555.

352

Vesselinov, E., Cazessus, M., Falk, W. (2007). Gated Communities and Spatial Inequality.
Journal of Urban Affairs, 29, 109-127.
Walks, A. (2013). Suburbanism as a Way of Life, Slight Return. Urban Studies, 50(8), 14711488.
Walks, A. R. (2010) New Divisions: Social polarization and neighbourhood inequality in the
Canadian city. In Bunting, T., Filion, P. and Walker, R. (eds.) Canadian Cities in Transition:
New Directions in the 21st Century (Fourth edition), 170-190.
Walks, A. R., Bourne, L. S. (2006). Ghettos in Canada’s cities? Racial segregation, ethnic
enclaves and poverty concentration in Canadian urban areas. The Canadian Geographer, 50,
273-97.
Walks, A. R., Maaranen, R. (2008). Gentrification, social mix and social polarisation: Testing
the linkages in large Canadian cities. Urban Geography, 29, 293-26.
Watt, P. (2009). Living in an oasis: middle-class disaffiliation and selective belonging in an
English suburb. Environment and Planning A, 41(12), 2874-2892.
Webster, C. (2001). Gated Cities of Tomorrow. The Town Planning Review, 72(2), 149-170.
Welter, V. M. (2002). Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the City of Life. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass. and London, England.
Williams, P., Pocock, B. (2010). Building 'community' for different stages of life: physical and
social infrastructure in master planned communities. Community, Work & Family, 13, 7187.
Wilson-Doenges, G. (2000). An exploration of sense of community and fear of crime in gated
communities. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 597-611.
Wu, F. L. (2005). Rediscovering the ‘gate’ under market transition: from work-unit compounds
to commodity housing enclaves. Housing Studies, 20(2), 235-254.
Xu, M., Yang, Z. (2008). Theoretical debate on gated communities: genesis, controversies, and
the way forward. Urban Design International, 13, 213-226.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.
Ziersch, A., Arthurson, K. (2007). Social Capital and Housing Tenure in an Adelaide
Neighbourhood. Urban Policy and Research, 25 (4): 409-431.
Zukin, S. (1991). Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. University of California
Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles.

353

APPENDIX A: VALLEY RIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE TABLES
Data Source for Tables:
Statistics Canada. 2012. GeoSearch. 2011 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-142-XWE. Ottawa,
Ontario.
Statistics Canada. 2013. National Household Survey (NHS) Profile. 2011 National Household Survey.
Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-004-XWE. Ottawa. Released September 11, 2013.

A.1. POPULATION GROWTH
Census Year

2001

Valley Ridge

2006

2011

3,105

4,480

Percentage
increase
(2006 to 2011)
5,055
12.83%

A.2. POPULATION BY AGE GROUP AND GENDER
Age

Year

0-4

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

5-14
15-19
20-39
40-59
60-74
75+

Valley Ridge
Male
Female
145
235
185
220
280
345
105
115
170
535
550
485
550
765
885
70
180
315
15
90
95

160
195
185
190
275
350
65
115
125
555
690
580
510
690
895
85
185
305
0
130
150

City of Calgary
Number
305
430
370
410
555
695
170
230
295
1,090
1,240
1,065
1,060
1,455
1,780
155
365
620
15
220
245

354

Percentage
Number Percentage
(%)
(%)
9.82
53,455
6.14
9.60
59,685
6.09
7.30
80,860
6.66
13.20 115,940
13.31
12.39 118,540
12.10
13.71 141,715
11.67
5.48
59,005
6.77
5.13
65,710
6.71
5.82
75,200
6.19
35.10 292,140
33.54
27.68 319,710
32.33
21.01 379,340
31.23
34.14 246,705
28.32
32.48 292,740
29.89
35.11 361,560
29.76
4.99
74,175
8.51
8.15
85,680
8.75
12.23 121,720
10.02
0.48
29,715
3.41
4.91
40,415
4.13
4.83
54,435
4.48

A.3. MARITAL STATUS
Valley Ridge
Population

Year

Population
15+

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Never Legally
Married
Common Law
Relationship
Legally
Married
Separated
Divorced
Widowed

Number

City of Calgary
Percentage
(%)

2,385
3,490
4,000
445
705
755
135
195
215
1,620
2,230
2,665
40
45
60
120
160
145
25
155
160

100
100
100
18.66
20.20
18.88
5.66
5.59
5.38
67.92
63.90
66.63
1.68
1.29
1.50
5.03
4.58
3.63
1.05
4.44
4.00

Number
701,740
801,270
992,270
188,000
219,360
286,320
56,140
66,265
82,915
353,370
398,250
499,685
20,940
22,325
23,405
56,205
63,725
61,865
27,085
31,345
38,075

Percentage
(%)
100
100
100
26.79
27.38
28.86
8.00
8.27
8.36
50.36
49.70
50.36
2.98
2.79
2.36
8.01
7.95
6.23
3.86
3.91
3.84

A.4. MOBILITY OF POPULATION
Valley Ridge
Population

Year

Movers 5+ yr.

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Non-movers
5+ yr.

Number

City of Calgary
Percentage
(%)

2,205
2,275
1,515
600
1,775
3,000

78.61
56.17
33.55
21.39
43.83
66.45

355

Number
446,405
480,650
471,025
371,150
438,950
538,875

Percentage
(%)
54.60
52.27
46.64
45.40
47.73
53.36

A.5. FAMILIES
Valley Ridge
Population

Year

Total Census
Families

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Married
Couples
Common Law
Relationship
Single Parent

Number

City of Calgary
Percentage
(%)

1,005
1,370
1,525
880
1,195
1,300
70
100
110
55
75
115

100
100
100
87.56
87.23
85.25
6.97
7.30
7.21
5.47
5.47
7.54

Number
238,705
268,845
296,425
174,540
195,960
215,755
28,035
33,115
37,600
36,135
39,770
43,070

Percentage
(%)
100
100
100
73.12
72.89
72.79
11.74
12.32
12.68
15.14
14.79
14.53

A.6. SOCIAL ISOLATION
Population

Year

Valley Ridge
Number

Total Persons
Living Alone

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

80
115
170
0
30
45
10
25
30

Seniors
Living Alone
Persons Who
Speak Neither
English or
French

Percentage
(%)
2.57
2.66
3.46
0.00
12.50
10.59
0.32
0.56
0.59

356

City of Calgary
Number
Percentage
(%)
79,165
99,415
110,000
19,855
23,145
24,760
15,890
20,590
25,425

9.10
10.17
10.16
26.26
26.10
24.80
1.82
2.10
2.34

A.7. DIVERSITY
Population

Year

Aboriginal
Population

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Immigrant
Population
Visible
Minority
Population

Valley Ridge
City of Calgary
Number
Percentage (%) Number
Percentage (%)
20
0.64
19,760
2.27
155
3.46
24,420
2.49
175
3.56
28,905
2.67
435
14.01
190,140
21.83
850
18.97
242,750
24.78
860
21.42
298,820
27.61
240
7.73
162,905
18.70
670
14.96
232,460
23.73
715
14.53
325,390
30.07

A.8. EDUCATION
Valley Ridge
Population
(aged 25-64)
No Certificate,
Diploma or
Degree
High School
Diploma
Trade
Certificate
College
Diploma
Below
Bachelor’s
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Above
Bachelor
Degree

Year
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Number

City of Calgary
Percentage (%)

205
80
50
210
400
410
255
165
180
555
610
755
175
150
155
800*
800
800
*
470
430

9.32
2.99
1.80
9.55
14.95
14.75
11.59
6.17
6.47
25.23
22.80
27.16
7.95
5.61
5.58
36.36*
29.91
28.78
*
17.57
15.47

Number
99,945
63,960
58,165
68,195
125,865
135,325
75,300
51,130
54,205
160,380
117,110
127,630
59,010
32,365
37,545
150,710*
123,335
157,275
*
54,955
73,385

*In 2001 Census, bachelor degree and above are counted together

357

Percentage (%)
15.55
11.25
9.04
10.61
22.13
21.03
11.72
8.99
8.42
24.95
20.59
19.83
9.18
5.69
5.83
23.45*
21.69
24.44
*
9.66
11.40

A.9. OCCUPATION
Valley Ridge
Occupation

Year

Management

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Business,
Finance, and
administration
Natural and
Applied Sciences
Health
Occupations
Occupations in
education, law
and government
Occupation in art,
culture,
recreation, sport
Sales and Service
Occupations
Trades,
Transport, and
Equipment
Operators
Natural
resources,
and agriculture
Manufacturing
and utilities

Number

City of Calgary
Percentage (%)

365
450
450
480
510
580
265
400
375
120
235
220
165
205
340
60
70
85
315
450
445
115
215
135
25
40
50
20
20
20

18.91
17.34
16.67
24..87
19.65
21.48
13.73
15.41
13.89
6.22
9.06
8.15
8.55
7.90
12.59
3.12
2.70
3.15
16.32
17.34
16.48
5.96
8.29
5.00
1.30
1.54
1.85
1.04
0.77
0.74

358

Number
61,895
64,820
72,585
106,005
121,920
122,555
55,355
67,885
77,990
24,035
30,635
36,665
36,735
44,520
63,930
14,610
18,005
16,400
122,960
137,410
143,640
72,355
86,065
88,890
8,085
9,810
8,720
19,640
18,370
15,090

Percentage (%)
11.77
1073
11.23
20.16
20.18
18.96
10.53
11.24
12.06
4.57
5.07
5.67
6.99
7.37
9.89
2.78
2.98
2.54
23.38
22.74
22.22
13.76
14.24
13.75
1.54
1.62
1.35
3.73
3.04
2.33

A.10. AVERAGE AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Year
Average
Household
Total Income
Median
Household
Total Income

Valley Ridge

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

City of Calgary
117,782
165,249
167,992
104,947
123,903
144,800

Percentage higher

72,663
95,620
109,698
57,879
67,238
81,256

62.09
72.82
53.14
81.32
84.28
78.20

A.11. TENURE
Population

Year

Owned

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Rented

Valley Ridge
City of Calgary
Number
Percentage (%) Number
Percentage (%)
1,045
98.58
230,820
69.32
1,455
97.98
280,085
72.80
1,665
97.94
306,740
72.44
15
1.42
102,135
30.68
30
2.02
104,660
27.20
35
2.06
116,675
27.56

A.12. DWELLING UNITS
Valley Ridge
Type

Year

Single Detached

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006

Semi-Detached

Townhouse

Duplex

Apt > 5 storeys

Apt < 5 storeys

Number

City of Calgary
Percentage (%)

1,010
1,415
1,625
35
0
0
0
70
75
0
0
5
0
0
0
10
0

95.73
95.29
95.59
3.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.71
4.41
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00

359

Number
198,395
222,430
248,755
20,705
22,130
25,495
30,945
34,835
37,400
11,315
16,300
16,655
24,045
26,075
29,485
45,805
60,850

Percentage (%)
59.59
57.81
58.75
6.22
5.75
6.02
9.29
9.05
8.83
3.40
4.24
3.93
7.22
6.78
6.96
13.76
15.82

Other singleattached
Movable
dwelling
Total

2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,055
1,485
1,700

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
100
100

63,535
205
125
155
1,545
2,000
1,935
332,960
384,745
423,415

15.01
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.46
0.52
0.46
100
100
100

A.13. PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION
Period of
Construction
Before 1960
1961 to 1980
1981 to 1990
1991 to 2000
2001 to 2005
2006 to 2011
Total number of
occupied private
dwellings

Valley Ridge
Number

0
10
10
1,005
455
291
1,771

Percentage (%)

360

0.00
0.56
0.56
56.75
25.69
16.43
100

Cumulative Percentage

0.00
0.56
1.13
57.88
83.57
100

APPENDIX B: DISCOVERY RIDGE NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE TABLES

B.1. POPULATION GROWTH
Census Year

2001

2006

Discovery Ridge

2011

325

3,325

Percentage
increase (2006
to 2011)
4,398
32.27%

B.2. POPULATION BY AGE GROUP
City of Calgary

Discovery Ridge
Age

Year

0-4

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

5-14

15-19

20-39

40-59

60-74

75+

Male
20
195
185
25
280
410
0
95
165
50
420
465
65
565
790
10
120
150
0
10
45

Female
10
140
170
10
255
355
15
90
105
50
540
555
50
515
780
20
90
185
0
10
45

Number

Percentage
(%)

30
335
360
35
535
750
15
185
270
100
960
1,025
115
1080
1,570
30
210
350
0
20
80

361

9.23
10.08
8.17
10.77
16.09
17.03
4.62
5.56
6.13
30.77
28.87
23.27
35.38
32.48
35.64
9.23
6.32
7.95
0.00
0.60
1.82

Number
53,455
59,685
80,860
115,940
118,540
141,715
59,005
65,710
75,200
292,140
319,710
379,340
246,705
292,740
361,560
74,175
85,680
121,720
29,715
40,415
54,435

Percentage
(%)
6.14
6.09
6.66
13.31
12.10
11.67
6.77
6.71
6.19
33.54
32.33
31.23
28.32
29.89
29.76
8.51
8.75
10.02
3.41
4.13
4.48

B.3. MARITAL STATUS
Discovery Ridge
Population

Year

Population 15+

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Never Legally
Married
Common Law
Relationship
Legally
Married
Separated

Divorced

Widowed

Number

City of Calgary
Percentage (%)

265
2,460
3,285
55
505
735
0
130
200
200
1,575
2,070
0
55
55
10
150
160
0
45
65

100
100
100
20.75
20.53
22.37
0.00
5.28
6.09
75.47
64.02
63.01
0.00
2.24
1.67
3.77
6.10
4.87
0.00
1.83
1.98

Number
701,740
801,270
992,270
188,000
219,360
286,320
56,140
66,265
82,915
353,370
398,250
499,685
20,940
22,325
23,405
56,205
63,725
61,865
27,085
31,345
38,075

Percentage (%)
100
100
100
26.79
27.38
28.86
8.00
8.27
8.36
50.36
49.70
50.36
2.98
2.79
2.36
8.01
7.95
6.23
3.86
3.91
3.84

B.4. MOBILITY OF POPULATION
Discovery Ridge
Population

Year

Movers 5+ yr.

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Non-movers 5+
yr.

Number

City of Calgary
Percentage (%)

305
2,680
2,015
0
305
2,025

100
89.63
49.88
0
10.20
50.12

362

Number
446,405
480,650
471,025
371,150
438,950
538,875

Percentage (%)
54.60
52.27
46.64
45.40
47.73
53.36

B.5. FAMILIES
Discovery Ridge
Population

Year

Total Census
Families

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Married
Couples
Common Law
Relationship
Single Parent

Number

City of Calgary
Percentage (%)

110
995
1,190
100
845
1,020
10
65
95
0
85
75

100
100
100
90.91
84.92
85.71
9.09
6.53
7.98
0.00
8.54
6.30

Number
238,705
268,845
296,425
174,540
195,960
215,755
28,035
33,115
37,600
36,135
39,770
43,070

Percentage (%)
100
100
100
73.12
72.89
72.79
11.74
12.32
12.68
15.14
14.79
14.53

B.6. SOCIAL ISOLATION
Population

Year

Total Persons
Living Alone

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Seniors Living
Alone
Persons Who
Speak Neither
English or
French

Discovery Ridge
Number
Percentage (%)
10
185
380
0
15
40
0
35
35

3.08
5.56
8.65
0.00
10.71
15.69
0.00
1.05
0.80

363

City of Calgary
Number
Percentage (%)
79,165
99,415
110,000
19,855
23,145
24,760
15,890
20,590
25,425

9.10
10.17
10.16
26.26
26.10
24.80
1.82
2.10
2.34

B.7. DIVERSITY
Population

Year

Aboriginal
Population

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Immigrant
Population
Visible
Minority
Population

Discovery Ridge
City of Calgary
Number
Percentage (%) Number
Percentage (%)
0
0.00
19,760
2.27
20
0.60
24,420
2.49
50
1.12
28,905
2.67
105
32.31
190,140
21.83
545
16.39
242,750
24.78
1,030
23.12
298,820
27.61
35
10.77
162,905
18.70
420
12.63
232,460
23.73
1,020
22.87
325,390
30.07

B.8. EDUCATION
Discovery Ridge
Population
(aged 25-64)
No Certificate,
Diploma or
Degree
High School
Diploma
Trade
Certificate
College
Diploma
Below
Bachelor’s
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Above
Bachelor
Degree

Year
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Number

City of Calgary
Percentage (%)

0
65
40
15
185
320
10
85
165
60
345
425
30
105
120
130*
760
985
*
480
545

0.00
3.21
1.54
6.12
9.14
12.31
4.08
4.20
6.35
24.49
17.04
16.35
12.24
5.19
4.62
53.06*
37.53
37.88
*
23.70
20.96

Number
99,945
63,960
58,165
68,195
125,865
135,325
75,300
51,130
54,205
160,380
117,110
127,630
59,010
32,365
37,545
150,710*
123,335
157,275
*
54,955
73,385

Percentage (%)

*In 2001 Census, bachelor degree and above are counted together (total = 130)

364

15.55
11.25
9.04
10.61
22.13
21.03
11.72
8.99
8.42
24.95
20.59
19.83
9.18
5.69
5.83
23.45*
21.69
24.44
*
9.66
11.40

B.9. OCCUPATION
Discovery Ridge
Occupation

Year

Management

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Business,
Finance, and
administration
Natural and
Applied Sciences
Health
Occupations
Occupations in
education, law
and government
Occupation in art,
culture,
recreation, sport
Sales and Service
Occupations
Trades,
Transport, and
Equipment
Operators
Natural
resources,
and agriculture
Manufacturing
and utilities

Number

City of Calgary
Percentage (%)

40
420
510
40
380
400
30
310
435
15
215
140
25
190
320
20
110
85
35
215
300
20
50
95
0
30
0
0
10
0

18.18
21.76
22.32
18.18
19.69
17.51
13.64
16.06
19.04
6.82
11.14
6.13
11.36
9.84
14.00
9.09
5.70
3.72
15.91
11.14
13.13
9.09
2.59
4.16
0.00
1.55
0.00
0.00
0.52
0.00

365

Number
61,895
64,820
72,585
106,005
121,920
122,555
55,355
67,885
77,990
24,035
30,635
36,665
36,735
44,520
63,930
14,610
18,005
16,400
122,960
137,410
143,640
72,355
86,065
88,890
8,085
9,810
8,720
19,640
18,370
15,090

Percentage (%)
11.77
1073
11.23
20.16
20.18
18.96
10.53
11.24
12.06
4.57
5.07
5.67
6.99
7.37
9.89
2.78
2.98
2.54
23.38
22.74
22.22
13.76
14.24
13.75
1.54
1.62
1.35
3.73
3.04
2.33

B.10. AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Year
Average
Household
Total Income
Median
Household
Total Income

Discovery Ridge

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

City of Calgary

141,285
194,226
193,091
22.32
128,844
143,441
134,226

Percentage higher

72,663
95,620
109,698
57,879
67,238
81,256

94.44
103.12
76.02
122.61
113.33
65.19

B.11. TENURE
Population

Year

Owned

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Rented

Discovery Ridge
City of Calgary
Number
Percentage (%) Number
Percentage (%)
115
100
230,820
69.32
1,135
96.19
280,085
72.80
1340
83.49
306,740
72.44
0
0.00
102,135
30.68
45
3.81
104,660
27.20
265
16.51
116,675
27.56

B.12. DWELLING UNITS
Discovery Ridge
Type

Year

Single Detached

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001

Semi-Detached

Townhouse

Duplex

Apt > 5 storeys

Number

City of Calgary
Percentage (%)

115
810
905
0
120
105
0
35
35
0
0
5
0

100
68.35
56.21
0.00
10.13
6.52
0.00
2.95
2.17
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.00

366

Number
198,395
222,430
248,755
20,705
22,130
25,495
30,945
34,835
37,400
11,315
16,300
16,655
24,045

Percentage (%)
59.59
57.81
58.75
6.22
5.75
6.02
9.29
9.05
8.83
3.40
4.24
3.93
7.22

Apt < 5 storeys

Other singleattached
Movable
dwelling
Total

2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

175
535
0
45
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
115
1185
1610

14.77
33.23
0.00
3.83
1.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100
100
100

26,075
29,485
45,805
60,850
63,535
205
125
155
1,545
2,000
1,935
332,960
384,745
423,415

6.78
6.96
13.76
15.82
15.01
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.46
0.52
0.46
100
100
100

B.13. PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION
Period of
Construction
Before 1960
1961 to 1980
1981 to 1990
1991 to 2000
2001 to 2005
2006 to 2011
Total number of
occupied private
dwellings

Discovery Ridge
Number

0
0
0
115
1000
465
1580

Percentage (%)

367

0.00
0.00
0.00
7.28
63.29
29.43
100

Cumulative Percentage

0.00
0.00
0.00
7.28
70.57
100

APPENDIX C: EAST CLAYTON NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE TABLES

C.1. POPULATION GROWTH
Census Year

2001

East Clayton

2006

2011

1,776

4,132

Percentage
increase (2006
to 2011)
14,034
239.64%

C.2. POPULATION BY AGE GROUP AND GENDER
Age

Year

0-4

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

5-14

15-19

20-39

40-59

60-74

75+

East Clayton
Male
Female
35
185
780
130
300
795
80
135
330
245
735
2,915
275
550
1,605
135
160
375
30
50
85

35
175
715
100
245
820
70
145
320
210
740
3,185
285
535
1,610
110
150
425
30
40
85

City of Surrey
Number

Percentage
(%)

70
360
1,495
230
545
1,615
150
280
650
455
1,475
6,100
560
1,085
3,215
245
310
800
60
90
170

368

3.95
8.69
10.64
12.99
13.15
11.50
8.47
6.76
4.63
25.71
35.59
43.43
31.64
26.18
22.89
13.84
7.48
5.70
3.39
2.17
1.21

Number
23,475
24,550
29,160
51,625
54,975
59,585
24,745
28,250
33,130
99,985
106,860
128,410
96,930
116,745
135,725
34,435
42,875
57,785
16,635
20,725
24,455

Percentage
(%)
6.75
6.22
6.23
14.84
13.92
12.72
7.11
7.15
7.08
28.75
27.05
27.42
27.87
29.56
28.99
9.90
10.85
12.34
4.78
5.25
5.22

C.3. MARITAL STATUS
East Clayton
Population

Year

Population 15+

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Never Legally
Married
Common Law
Relationship
Legally
Married
Separated

Divorced

Widowed

Number

City of Surrey
Percentage (%)

1,470
3,240
10,925
495
1,005
2,850
110
310
1,310
660
1,580
5,650
40
80
360
105
180
560
60
85
195

100
100
100
33.67
31.02
26.09
7.48
9.57
11.99
44.90
48.77
51.72
2.72
2.47
3.30
7.14
5.56
5.13
4.08
2.62
1.78

Number
272,725
315,450
379,500
76,930
90,190
100,530
14,360
16,890
20,825
139,730
161,445
210,295
8,905
9,565
9,690
18,160
20,445
19,430
14,640
16,915
18,730

Percentage (%)
100
100
100
28.21
28.59
26.49
5.27
5.35
5.49
51.23
51.18
55.41
3.27
3.03
2.55
6.66
6.48
5.12
5.37
5.36
4.94

C.4. MOBILITY OF POPULATION
East Clayton
Population

Year

Movers 5+ yr.

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Non-movers 5+
yr.

Number

City of Surrey
Percentage (%)

340
2,905
9,450
1,370
865
2,965

19.88
77.06
76.12
80.12
22.94
23.88

369

Number
157,405
67255
193,390
164,715
320,320
240,615

Percentage (%)
48.86
17.35
44.56
51.13
82.65
55.44

C.5. FAMILIES
East Clayton
Population

Year

Total Census
Families

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Married
Couples
Common Law
Relationship
Single Parent

Number

City of Surrey
Percentage (%)

505
1,220
3,990
380
930
2,780
35
150
655
90
140
555

Number

Percentage (%)

100
100
100
75.25
76.23
69.67
6.93
12.30
16.42
17.82
11.47
13.91

97,875
111,760
131,065
75,230
86,860
101,160
7,435
8,640
10,380
15,210
16,260
19,525

100
100
100
76.86
77.72
77.18
7.60
7.73
7.92
15.54
14.55
14.90

Percentage (%)

City of Surrey
Number

Percentage (%)

6.20
5.44
8.27
14.29
10.64
12.61
0.56
0.60
1.42

21,665
25,595
30,145
8,050
8,995
9,680
15,110
21,485
26,650

6.27
6.53
6.51
22.18
20.71
18.09
4.37
5.47
6.38

C.6. SOCIAL ISOLATION
Population

Year

Total Persons
Living Alone

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Seniors Living
Alone
Persons Who
Speak Neither
English or
French

East Clayton
Number
110
225
1,160
35
25
70
10
25
200

370

C.7. DIVERSITY
Population

Year

Aboriginal
Population

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Immigrant
Population
Visible
Minority
Population

East Clayton
City of Surrey
Number
Percentage (%) Number
Percentage (%)
115
6.48
6,900
2.00
175
4.23
7,630
1.94
495
3.53
13,305
2.87
365
20.56
114,725
33.18
775
18.74
150,230
38.28
2,680
19.09
187,845
40.54
120
6.74
127,015
36.73
730
17.65
181,005
46.12
3,165
22.55
243,760
52.61

C.8. EDUCATION
East Clayton
Population
(aged 25-64)
No Certificate,
Diploma or
Degree
High School
Diploma
Trade
Certificate
College
Diploma
Below
Bachelor’s
Degree
Bachelor’s
Degree
Above
Bachelor
Degree

Year
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Number

City of Surrey
Percentage (%)

285
210
530
160
590
2,400
230
345
960
310
625
2,015
85
145
880
140*
345
1,290
*
130
630

23.55
8.79
6.09
13.22
24.69
27.57
19.01
14.44
11.03
25.62
26.15
23.15
7.02
6.07
10.11
11.57
14.44
14.82
*
5.44
7.24

Number
47,320
31,955
32,700
33,600
61,985
73,755
31,270
24,015
23,630
59,005
39,880
46,145
21,030
14,825
19,720
33,685*
26,720
38,375
*
15,480
22,605

*In 2001 Census, bachelor degree and above are counted together

371

Percentage (%)
20.95
14.87
12.73
14.87
28.85
28.71
13.84
11.18
9.20
26.12
18.56
17.96
9.31
6.90
7.68
14.91
12.44
14.94
*
7.20
8.80

C.9. OCCUPATION
East Clayton

City of Surrey

Occupation

Year

Management

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001

50
280
1,380
140
525
1,675
35
95
490
20
135
500
50
190
1,125
15
95
420
260
530
1,575
220

5.13
11.31
15.60
14.36
21.21
18.94
3.59
3.84
5.54
2.05
5.45
5.65
5.13
7.68
12.72
1.54
3.84
4.75
26.67
21.41
17.81
22.56

18,090
19,755
25,055
33,630
37,960
38,430
8,795
10,460
12,560
8,560
11,060
14,390
10,125
11,640
22,500
3,925
4,205
5,145
44,680
53,100
59,595
31,515

10.21
9.52
10.46
18.98
18.29
16.05
4.96
5.04
5.24
4.83
5.33
6.01
5.72
5.61
9.40
2.22
2.03
2.15
25.22
25.58
24.89
17.79

2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

465
1,430
115
90
100
70
70
150

18.79
16.17
11.79
3.64
1.13
7.18
2.83
1.70

39,600
44,130
5,435
6,580
5,610
12,385
13,210
12,060

19.08
18.43
3.07
3.17
2.34
6.99
6.36
5.04

Business,
Finance, and
administration
Natural and
Applied Sciences
Health
Occupations
Occupations in
education, law
and government
Occupation in art,
culture,
recreation, sport
Sales and Service
Occupations
Trades,
Transport, and
Equipment
Operators
Natural resources,
and agriculture
Manufacturing
and utilities

Number

Percentage (%)

372

Number

Percentage (%)

C.10. AVERAGE AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Year
Average
Household
Total Income
Median
Household
Total Income

East Clayton

City of Surrey

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

60,780
86,961
89,776
57,307
76,093
81,749

Percentage higher
63,197
73,552
82,789
53,957
60,168
67,702

-3.82
18.23
8.44
6.21
26.47
20.75

C.11. TENURE
Population

Year

Owned

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

Rented

East Clayton
City of Surrey
Number
Percentage (%) Number
Percentage (%)
450
76.92
82,695
71.46
1,245
87.99
98,655
75.23
4,180
80.46
111,660
73.05
135
23.08
33,020
28.54
170
12.01
32,485
24.77
1,015
19.54
41,185
26.95

C.12. DWELLING UNITS
East Clayton
Type

Year

Single Detached

2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006

Semi-Detached

Townhouse

Duplex

Apt > 5 storeys

Number

City of Surrey
Percentage (%)

575
950
2,390
5
0
50
0
285
1,995
5
95
275
0
0

98.29
67.14
46.01
0.85
0.00
0.96
0.00
20.14
38.40
0.85
6.71
5.29
0.00
0.00

373

Number
64,060
56,790
64,515
3,175
3,505
3,345
10,820
15,000
20,900
13,385
23,320
27,410
2,665
2,610

Percentage (%)
55.36
43.30
42.21
2.74
2.67
2.19
9.35
11.44
13.67
11.57
17.78
17.93
2.30
1.99

Apt < 5 storeys

Other singleattached
Movable
dwelling
Total

2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011
2001
2006
2011

60
0
85
410
0
0
10
0
0
5
585
1,415
5,195

1.15
0.00
6.01
7.89
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.10
100
100
100

3,800
19,770
28,050
31,345
170
160
100
1,665
1,705
1,440
115,710
131,140
152,855

2.49
17.09
21.39
20.51
0.15
0.12
0.07
1.44
1.30
0.94
100
100
100

C.13. PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION
Period of
Construction
Before 1960
1961 to 1980
1981 to 1990
1991 to 2000
2001 to 2005
2006 to 2011
Total number of
occupied private
dwellings

East Clayton
Number

130
245
70
50
1,060
3,630
5,185

Percentage (%)

374

2.51
4.73
1.35
0.96
20.44
70.01
100

Cumulative Percentage

2.51
7.23
8.58
9.55
29.99
100

APPENDIX D: ROSEMARY HEIGHTS NEIGHBOURHOOD PROFILE TABLES

D.1. POPULATION GROWTH
Census Year

2001

2006

Rosemary Heights

1,589

2011
5,881

Percentage
increase (2006
to 2011)
6,910
17.50%

D.2. POPULATION BY AGE GROUP AND GENDER
Rosemary Heights
Age

0-4
5-14
15-19
20-39
40-59
60-74
75+

Year

Male

City of Surrey

Female

Number

Percentage
(%)

Number

Percentage
(%)

2006

250

225

475

8.11

24,550

6.22

2011

240

250

490

7.09

29,160

6.23

2006

380

405

745

12.71

54,975

13.92

2011

525

465

990

14.32

59,585

12.72

2006

175

170

345

5.89

28,250

7.15

2011

200

230

430

6.22

33,130

7.08

2006

740

865

1,605

27.39

106,860

27.05

2011

675

780

1,445

20.90

128,410

27.42

2006

870

945

1,815

30.97

116,745

29.56

2011

1,020

1,140

2,165

31.31

135,725

28.99

2006

325

305

630

10.75

42,875

10.85

2011

455

480

940

13.60

57,785

12.34

2006

90

155

245

4.18

20,725

5.25

2011

170

285

455

6.58

24,455

5.22

375

D.3. MARITAL STATUS
Population

Year

Rosemary Heights

City of Surrey

Number

Number

Percentage (%)

Percentage (%)

2006

4,635

100

315,450

100

2011

5,430

100

379,500

100

Never Legally
Married

2006

1,020

22.01

90,190

28.59

2011

1,025

18.88

100,530

26.49

Common Law
Relationship

2006

260

5.61

16,890

5.35

2011

290

5.34

20,825

5.49

2006

2,850

61.49

161,445

51.18

2011

3,510

64.64

210,295

55.41

2006

80

1.73

9,565

3.03

2011

105

1.93

9,690

2.55

2006

220

4.75

20,445

6.48

2011

215

3.96

19,430

5.12

2006

205

4.42

16,915

5.36

2011

285

5.25

18,730

4.94

Population 15+

Legally Married
Separated
Divorced
Widowed

D.4. MOBILITY OF POPULATION
Population

Movers 5+ yrs.
Non-movers 5+
yrs.

Year

Rosemary Heights

City of Surrey

Number

Number

Percentage (%)

Percentage (%)

2006

4,480

85.01

67255

17.35

2011

2,600

42.28

193,390

44.56

2006

790

14.99

320,320

82.65

2011

3,550

57.72

240,615

55.44

376

D.5. FAMILIES
Rosemary Heights

City of Surrey

Number

Number

Population

Year

Total Census
Families

2006

1,800

100

111,760

100

2011

2,045

100

131,065

100

Married Couples 2006

1,510

83.89

86,860

77.72

2011

1,685

82.4

101,160

77.18

Common Law
Relationship

2006

130

7.22

8,640

7.73

2011

145

7.09

10,380

7.92

Single Parent

2006

160

8.89

16,260

14.55

2011

215

10.51

19,525

14.9

Percentage (%)

Percentage (%)

D.6. SOCIAL ISOLATION
Rosemary Heights

City of Surrey

Population

Year

Total Persons
Living Alone

2006

185

3.23

25,595

6.53

2011

240

3.62

30,145

6.51

Seniors Living
Alone

2006

35

8.05

8,995

20.71

2011

70

9.86

9,680

18.09

2006

110

1.92

21,485

5.47

2011

165

2.49

26,650

6.38

Persons Who
Speak Neither
English or
French

Number

Percentage (%)

377

Number

Percentage (%)

D.7. DIVERSITY
Rosemary Heights

City of Surrey

Number

Number

Population

Year

Aboriginal
Population

2006

120

2.09

7,630

1.94

2011

115

1.73

13,305

2.87

Immigrant
Population

2006

1,555

27.11

150,230

38.28

2011

1,750

26.38

187,845

40.54

2006

1,250

21.80

181,005

46.12

2011

1,645

24.79

243,760

52.61

Visible Minority

Percentage (%)

Percentage (%)

D.8. EDUCATION
Population
(aged 25-64)

Year

Rosemary Heights

City of Surrey

Number

Number

Percentage (%)

Percentage (%)

No Certificate,
Diploma or
Degree

2006

130

3.80

31,955

14.87

2011

50

1.34

32,700

12.73

High School
Diploma

2006

740

21.64

61,985

28.85

2011

775

20.75

73,755

28.71

Trade
Certificate

2006

230

6.73

24,015

11.18

2011

215

5.76

23,630

9.2

College
Diploma

2006

660

19.3

39,880

18.56

2011

870

23.29

46,145

17.96

Below
Bachelor’s
Degree

2006

325

9.50

14,825

6.9

2011

415

11.11

19,720

7.68

Bachelor’s
Degree

2006

945

27.63

26,720

12.44

2011

900

24.1

38,375

14.94

Above Bachelor
Degree

2006

390

11.4

15,480

7.2

2011

510

13.65

22,605

8.8

378

D.9. OCCUPATION
Rosemary Heights
Occupation

Year

City of Surrey

Percentage
(%)

Number

Percentage
(%)

Number

2006

820

25.95

19,755

9.52

2011

710

20.85

25,055

10.46

Business, Finance,
and administration

2006

620

19.62

37,960

18.29

2011

745

21.88

38,430

16.05

Natural and Applied
Sciences

2006

270

8.54

10,460

5.04

2011

255

7.49

12,560

5.24

2006

215

6.80

11,060

5.33

2011

225

6.61

14,390

6.01

Occupations in
education, law and
government

2006

215

6.80

11,640

5.61

2011

375

11.01

22,500

9.4

Occupation in art,
culture, recreation,
sport

2006

75

2.37

4,205

2.03

2011

110

3.23

5,145

2.15

Sales and Service
Occupations

2006

655

20.73

53,100

25.58

2011

670

19.68

59,595

24.89

Trades, Transport,
and Equipment
Operators

2006

205

6.49

39,600

19.08

2011

195

5.73

44,130

18.43

Natural resources,
and agriculture

2006

30

0.95

6,580

3.17

2011

30

0.88

5,610

2.34

Manufacturing and
utilities

2006

55

1.74

13,210

6.36

2011

90

2.64

12,060

5.04

Management

Health Occupations

379

D.10. AVERAGE AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Year

Rosemary Heights

City of Surrey

Percentage higher

Average
Household
Total Income

2006

152,180

73,552

106.90

2011

137,406

82,789

65.97

Median
Household
Total Income

2006

120,254

60,168

99.86

2011

108,669

67,702

60.51

D.11. TENURE
Population

Year

Owned

2006
2011
2006
2011

Rented

Rosemary Heights
City of Surrey
Number
Percentage (%) Number
Percentage (%)
1,905
96.95
98,655
75.23
2,150
94.51
111,660
73.05
60
3.05
32,485
24.77
125
5.49
41,185
26.95

D.12. DWELLING UNITS

Type

Year

Single Detached

2006
2011
2006
2011
2006
2011
2006
2011
2006
2011
2006
2011
2006

Semi-Detached
Townhouse
Duplex
Apt > 5 storeys
Apt < 5 storeys

Rosemary Heights

City of Surrey

Number

Number

Percentage (%)
1,190
1,290
305
275
450
605
15
65
0
0
0
40
0

60.56
56.70
15.52
12.09
22.90
26.59
0.76
2.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.76
0.00

380

56,790
64,515
3,505
3,345
15,000
20,900
23,320
27,410
2,610
3,800
28,050
31,345
160

Percentage (%)
43.30
42.21
2.67
2.19
11.44
13.67
17.78
17.93
1.99
2.49
21.39
20.51
0.12

Other singleattached
Movable
dwelling
Total

2011
2006
2011
2006
2011

0
5
0
1,965
2,275

0.00
0.25
0.00
100
100

100
1,705
1,440
131,140
152,855

0.07
1.30
0.94
100
100

D.13. PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION
Period of Construction
Before 1960
1961 to 1980
1981 to 1990
1991 to 2000
2001 to 2005
2006 to 2011
Total number of occupied private
dwellings

Rosemary Heights
Number
Percentage (%)
Cumulative Percentage
0
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
25
1.10
1.10
345
15.20
16.30
1,510
66.52
82.82
390
17.18
100
2,270
100

381

APPENDIX E: SURVEY AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

Assigned Participant Number:

Participant information:

Name:

Address:

Length of Residence in Current Neighbourhood:
__less than 1 year

__1 to 2 years

__5 to 8 years

__8 to 10 years

Gender:

__2 to 5 years
__more than 10 years

_female

_ male

Household income bracket ($/year):
__Less than $24,000

__$24,000-$35,999

__$36,000-$47,999

__$48,000-$59,999

__$60,000-$74,999

__$75,000-$89,999

__$90,000-$114,999

__$115,000-$129,999

__over $130,000

382

E.1. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Overall, I am very happy to be living in this neighbourhood.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

2. I feel like I belong in this neighbourhood.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

3. I visit my neighbours in their homes.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

4. The friendships and associations I have with other people in my neighbourhood mean a
lot to me.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

Agree,

Strongly agree

5. I would like to move out of this neighbourhood.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

6. If the people in my neighbourhood were planning something, I’d think of it as something
“we” were doing rather than something “they” were doing.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

383

Agree,

Strongly agree

7. If I needed advice about something I could go to someone in my neighbourhood.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

8. I think I agree with most people in my neighbourhood about what is important in life.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

9. I believe my neighbours would help me in an emergency.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

Agree,

Strongly agree

10. I feel loyal to the people in my neighbourhood.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

11. I borrow things and exchange favours with my neighbors.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

12. I would be willing to work together with others on something to improve my
neighbourhood.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

13. I plan to remain a resident of this neighbourhood for a number of years.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

384

Agree,

Strongly agree

14. I like to think of myself as similar to the people who live in this neighbourhood.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

Agree,

Strongly agree

15. I rarely have neighbours over to my house to visit.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

16. I have a strong feeling of fellowship for the people who live in this neighbourhood.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

17. I regularly stop and talk with people in my neighbourhood.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

18. Living in this neighbourhood gives me a sense of community.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

19. People in my neighbourhood work together to keep children safe.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

Agree,

Strongly agree

20. I consider my neighbourhood to be unique.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

385

21. There are certain dress codes, social practices, or events that characterize my
neighbourhood.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

22. Having a well-maintained landscape is important to me.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

23. It is easy to distinguish residents from non-residents who are walking in the
neighbourhood.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

24. I live in the neighbourhood of: … …

386

Agree,

Strongly agree

E.2. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR RESIDENTS

Assigned Participant Number:

Participant information:

Name:

Address:

Length of Residence in Current Neighbourhood:
__less than 1 year

__1 to 2 years

__5 to 8 years

__8 to 10 years

Gender:

_ male

__2 to 5 years
__more than 10 years

_female

Household income bracket ($/year):
__Less than $24,000

__$24,000-$35,999

__$36,000-$47,999

__$48,000-$59,999

__$60,000-$74,999

__$75,000-$89,999

__$90,000-$114,999

__$115,000-$129,999

__over $130,000

387

1) How long have you been living in your current neighbourhood? Do you plan to remain as
a resident of this neighbourhood for more than five years? Why or Why not?
2) Why did you choose to live in your current neighbourhood? Could you give three reasons
in order of importance?
3) Do you think your neighbourhood has particular features that are not found in other
neighbourhoods? If yes, could you state some of those features?
4) Are there any neighbourhoods that you perceive to be as appealing to live in as the
neighbourhood you are currently living in? In what ways are the neighbourhoods equal?
5) Are there any neighbourhoods that you perceive to be superior to the neighbourhood you
are currently living in? In what ways is the superior neighbourhood different?
6) Do you consider your neighbourhood affordable to people of different income categories
(e.g. low income and middle income) or do you consider it an exclusive neighbourhood?
Why?
7) As far as access to your neighbourhood is concerned, are there many entry points to your
neighbourhood or only one or two?
a. Does this affect your sense of safety in the neighbourhood?
b. Does this affect your willingness to stop and talk with residents in the
neighbourhood?
8) Would you say that your neighbourhood gives you a sense of community? If so, in which
of the following ways:
a. The physical landscape is appealing.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

Agree,

Strongly agree

b. You feel safe.
Strongly disagree,

c. You feel attached to the neighbourhood.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

d. The residents are friendly and this contributes towards your sense of belonging.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

e. You perceive other residents to be similar to you and you would agree with many
residents on what is important in life.
388

Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

f. The lifestyle, events, and activities in the neighbourhood encourage you to stop
and talk with other residents in your neighbourhood.
Strongly disagree,

Disagree,

Not sure,

Agree,

Strongly agree

g. Other. Please elaborate.
………………………………………………………………………………
9) In your opinion, is your neighbourhood community or homeowner association dealing
with residents’ issues in an informal way?
10) Are there any other aspects of your neighbourhood that, in your opinion, positively
impact the quality of your life here?

E.3. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR RESIDENTS SERVING ON THE BOARD
Same as questions 1-8 above, plus:
9) Could you name a few of the issues that the Board is currently dealing with?
10) In your opinion, do you feel residents are supporting the decisions of the Board or have
there been conflicts? How are these conflicts usually resolved?
11) Would you say that residents are actively involved in neighbourhood issues? What
encourages or discourages their involvement?

389

E.4. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR MUNICIPAL PLANNERS
Key informant:
Name and Position:
Gated neighbourhoods are defined as: residential neighbourhoods to which accessibility is
reduced by means natural or physical barriers such as walls. Access to the neighbourhood is
restricted by means of gates that require an identification code or entry pass to open the gates.
Semi-gated neighbourhoods are defined as: residential neighbourhoods to which accessibility
is reduced by means of natural or physical barriers. However, access to the neighbourhood is not
restricted; no identification code or entry pass is needed. Gates may be present to identify the
neighbourhood.
Non-gated neighbourhoods are defined as: residential neighbourhoods that are easily
accessible due to the presence of many access points to the neighbourhood.
1) Please identify some of the neighbourhoods in your municipality that are either gated or
semi-gated?
2) In your opinion, does your municipality encourage or discourage the erection of walls
and gates around neighbourhoods? Why?
3) Is there a rising trend for the proliferation of gated neighbourhoods in your municipality?
4) In your opinion, how successful have gated or semi-gated neighbourhoods been? What
are some of the issues (e.g. physical access, social, political) that have arisen because of
the gating of a neighbourhood?
5) Are there any municipal guidelines for planning gated neighbourhoods?
If not, how have some developments become gated if there were no explicit provisions
for allowing or preventing such developments?
6) Are dwelling types for low-income residents mandated? Are there any plans to mandate
a percentage of dwellings for low-income residents in upscale communities?
7) Do you think gated and semi-gated neighbourhoods are more effective at crime
prevention than open neighbourhoods that have several access points and several roads
with through traffic?
8) Are residents of gated or semi-gated neighbourhoods more proactive in approaching
your municipality and cooperating with you on resolving neighbourhood issues such as
landscaping and snow removal? Could you give an example?
9) Are property assessment values by your municipality estimated at a higher price for
neighbourhoods that are gated or semi-gated?
10) In your opinion, are there any advantages (social or economic) of gating a
neighbourhood?
11) In your opinion, are there any disadvantages (social or economic) of gating
neighbourhoods?
12) Are there any comments you would like to add or issues you would like to highlight that
were not mentioned in the interview?
390

APPENDIX F: CODE FOR INTERVIEW RESPONSES
0 = No features; as any other neighbourhood; a zero was added to the code if the response
referred to an aspect in a negative sense
10 = Location
11 = easy access to downtown / proximity to work / easy access to major highways
12 = proximity to mountains (or ocean) / ‘not in the city’ (close to city limits / national
border)
13 = close to river, river parks, walking and bike trails
14 = close to services
- Medical (hospital)
- Recreational (COP)
- Schools
- Shopping Malls
- Church
- Fire station
- Financial (Bank)
20 = Neighbourhood Characteristics
21 = single access / one entry point / no drive through
22 = quiet neighbourhood / secluded
23 = age and demography of the neighbourhood / neighbourliness / integrity of people
24 = amenities within the neighbourhood
- Walking paths
- Parks / green spaces
- Golf course
- Natural amenity (forest)
- Ice rink / hockey rink / tennis courts
- Shops / dining within neighbourhood
25 = urban design
- Views / vistas
- Quality of landscape (clean) and developed trees
- Site topography
- Wide streets / wide spacing of houses
- Size of the neighbourhood
- Architectural controls
- Bus service
- Walkable / sidewalks
- Parking spaces (250 = not enough)
26 = low crime / sense of safety
27 = traffic on major road or boulevard within the neighbourhood
28 = similarity to previous neighbourhood of residence (280 = dissimilarity)
29 = uniqueness
391

30= House design and price
31 = Interior: open floor plan
32 = Purchase Price
33 = House size
34 = Exterior: architectural style
40 = Other
41 = close to family / friends (either within neighbourhood or surrounding
neighbourhoods)
42 = house available
43 = planned events / community newsletter / strong community association
44 = retirement / empty nesters
45 = family circumstances
46 = natural catastrophe (e.g. flood)
47 = low turnover of residents and cohesion
48 = can’t afford to stay
49 = used to live in the neighbourhood before
Particular Features
0 = not sure / no particular features
1 = No
2 = Yes
Affordable
0 = not sure
1 = Not affordable
10 = not for low income but affordable for middle income
2 = Yes
20 = not affordable for middle income but not exclusive
Affect sense of safety
1 = No
10 = No, but there is a counter aspect (live close to the single entry / fire services are close)
2 = Yes
20 = Yes, but there is a negative aspect (e.g. ‘bottleneck’ / egress)

392