I read a book that had a section in it called 'The Privatization Of Common Fates' which discussed how the concept / idea of privatisation can extend into domestic life.
The gated community is a prime example.
Not everyone is consciously trying to exclude or segregate (although some are happy to), but the consequent effect of security / gates/ CCTV is precisely that.
The need for high security is largely a psychological one, and allowing this attitude to permeate your outlook leads to societal decay.
I'm reminded of Banksy's gag: "Crimewatch has ruined the countryside".
Two thousand posts in and people are still rattling on about "gated communities", based on the pathetically simplistic premise that because this development has a
gate, it is therefore a
gated community and subject to the criticisms (quite reasonably) aimed at the kind of communities that that term refers to in common parlance when discussing urban development and design.
The kind of gated communities that operate as enclaves designed to isolate their residents from their surroundings, that are studied as indicators of massive wealth disparity, the privatisation of urban space and so on, are not blocks of flats with a modestly sized residents-only communal area. A block of flats with a modestly sized communal area only accessible to its residents is a long-established and common arrangement in cities across the planet, and certainly not unusual in any way in London. It's an arrangement that is common in many types of housing from social housing through to private developments and through many different eras.
A true gated community is one where the residents simply do not need to engage with the area outside their gates, either because (a) within the gates there are various amenities such as shops, leisure facilities and so on, or (b) because they enter and exit from it in the safety of their car which can take them directly to amenities elsewhere. Or some combination of (a) and (b). In other words it's an arrangement that effectively allows people to circumvent the need to use "public" space (except perhaps whilst in their car on a public highway) if they so wish.
That is obviously not the case here, and it's pretty disingenuous to try and hijack the terminology of "gated communities" in an attempt to make this development seem much more sinister than it is. The residents of this development will be coming and going by foot, via that notorious gate, and passing directly onto the street just like anyone else living on Coldharbour Lane, whether they live in the Barrier Block, in a mansion/tenement flat, terrace house or whatever. When they want to go to the shops, go for a drink, get the bus, get the tube to work, they will step onto the street just like anyone else. They aren't living in some segregated world with no need to venture beyond their own privatised amenities. If they were slipping in and out of a giant underground carpark in fancy cars (or any cars), then it would be a bit different, and then perhaps the term "gated community" would be a little more apt. But that's not what this is.
In fact I would argue that someone with a car living in a semi-d somewhere in suburban zone 6 would have much greater capacity to live the "gated community" lifestyle than anyone living in this development; a much greater likelihood to ignore their local area and the facilities within it.
The fact that the private courtyard looks like it's going to be actually quite pleasant seems to be taken as a target for criticism...
how dare these people have a pleasant communal area? It feels to me like it would draw less ire from some on here if it was just a utilitarian car park - which is a pretty bog-standard feature of lots of housing developments. It's ok to gate off the courtyard at the back of the legoland building, apparently, because it's a car park and it's uncontroversial to have a private parking area (never mind the fact that it's also blocked to pedestrians). If there's going to be a courtyard I'd rather it was one designed to be a pleasant area for the shared use of residents than something to facilitate private car ownership and all the harm that does.
By the way it goes pretty hard against my grain to be defending the design of a Barratts development, given some of the stuff they do, both in terms of their general approach to design, and all the business with dodging the affordable housing requirements in this particular case.
It's right that people should make a noise about the changes to the planning conditions that they pursued and Lambeth allowed. If people google Brixton Square and find out about that history, and it deservedly tarnishes Barratts reputation, that's good. But it's a bit embarrassing that half the thread is just going round in circles with this simplistic notion that it's a "gated community" and giving the impression that's what people are, or should be, het up about. Get a grip urban75.
.
