Environment and Planning A 2008, volume 40, pages 2895 ^ 2913
Enclosed residential neighborhoods in Israel: from landscapes of heritage and frontier enclaves to new gated communities Gillad Rosen, Eran Razin
Department of Geography, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel; e-mail: [email protected]
; [email protected]
Received 20 March 2007; in revised form 20 June 2007; published online 9 September 2008
Abstract. Contemporary studies of gated communities largely associate this phenomenon with global forces, emphasizing recent urban processes that operate across national borders. However, the Israeli experience demonstrates that multiple forces work simultaneously to produce various forms of enclosed residential communities that follow very different evolutionary routes. Older forms of gated spaces such as traditional and frontier enclaves, characterized by religious ^ cultural or ethnonational identities, coexist and evolve alongside newer forms of postwelfare-state market-driven enclaves also referred to as neoliberal enclaves. Although gated enclaves share some similar defining features, they differ significantly in reasons for enclosure, developmental mechanisms and gating effects. The diverse landscape of enclaves results from ongoing interactions of macrosocietal processes influenced by global trends, with place-specific institutional and cultural settings.
Introduction The study of gated communities and private neighborhoods is of growing importance to the understanding of new residential space production (Low, 2003; McKenzie, 1994; Webster, 2002). However, gates, walls, and enclaves have existed for decades and centuries, being key attributes of segregated societies and fragmented space (Boal, 2002; Marcuse, 1997a; Wu, 2005). In addition to factors of self-defense, particular social groups have enclosed themselves within gates on the basis of tradition and culture. More recently, issues of political ideology, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status have been examined and captured the imagination of the media, and political and academic circles, representing distinct identities, interests, motives, values, and lifestyles. Recent studies of gated communities have challenged the overemphasis of global factorsösuch as surveillance, transnational elites, and the diffusion of an American ready-made prototypeöand of factors held in common as globalösuch as crime, fear of violence, and insecurityöin the analysis of contemporary gating processes. Such factors, although crucial for explanation, are only partial; a complementary perspective that emphasizes historical conditions, sociospatial contexts, local mechanisms, and symbolic meanings is, therefore, crucial for the analysis of gated communities (Blandy, 2006; Crot, 2006; Glasze et al, 2006). However, the local perspective as it has been used so far has been mostly limited either to an evolutionary argument, indicating that contemporary forms of gated communities are extensions of long-established residential trends, or to a discontinuous argument, highlighting early forms of enclosed residential neighborhoods that have been replaced by contemporary fortified consumer spaces. The Israeli case is different. We suggest that multiple factors operate simultaneously to produce various forms of enclosed communities characterized by parallel evolutionary routes. Hence, older forms of gated residential spaces, such as traditional and frontier enclaves, coexist and evolve alongside newer forms of postwelfare market-driven enclaves also referred to as neoliberal enclaves.
G Rosen, E Razin
In this paper we discuss the development of different forms of gated enclaves in Israel from an integrative approach. We argue that gating is not limited to the contemporary construction of private neighborhoods and gated communities. Their emergence should be examined in relation to other older forms of existing gated enclaves. We further argue that, although all gated models share similar characteristics, they differ significantly in three aspects: (a) reasons for enclosure and gating (values, local conditions, and processes that are external to these communities); (b) developmental mechanisms [formal and informal actors and institutions (government, NGOs, and market) and their interactions]; and (c) gating effects ösymbols and meanings of closure. The diverse landscape of enclaves results from an ongoing interaction of macrosocietal processes, influenced by global trends, with place-specific institutional and cultural settings. These interactions create new forms of gated enclaves, but also transform existing ones (eg the Kibbutz), although some forms are more resistant to such pressures for change (eg ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities). Our study uses data from different sources, including newspapers, semistructured interviews with gated community managers, real-estate agents, local planners (either from NGOs, such as environmental and civil rights organizations or from governmental agencies) and on-site visits and observations in ten new gated communities and in traditional ethnocultural enclosed neighborhoods in the cities of Jerusalem and Rahat. The paper first introduces the concept of enclosed residential neighborhoods. It then identifies three major types of gated enclaves, discusses their distribution in Israel, and provides a comparative examination focusing on their reaction to changing cultural and economic contexts. Our approach underlines several processes in the production of gated spaces, highlighting interactions of global and local factors. These produce multiple forms of gated enclaves that follow different evolutionary routes. We demonstrate the variation in the phenomenon of gated enclaves not only from a cross-national perspective, but also under similar local conditions, thus emphasizing the significance of values and traditions. We also challenge a tendency to interpret the development of new gated communities in Israel from a narrow perspective that emphasizes top-down political power structures. We argue that such views are reductionism and do not capture the complex roots and nature of the phenomenon. Hence, our analysis suggests more complex explanations that explore the various forces, structures, actors, and their interactions, producing gated enclaves that represent different utopias, values, and traditions. Enclosed residential neighborhoods: between global and local perspectives The tendency to segregate and enclose communities through walls and fences is not a new phenomenon (McKenzie, 1994; Marcuse, 1995). In the past this tendency usually characterized excluded groupsöethnic and religious groupsöwho were either in need of protection or forced by dominant groups to segregate geographically (Marcuse, 1997b). In recent decades, however, the growing tendency to develop enclosed communities both in developed countries and in developing countries (Atkinson and Blandy, 2005; Webster et al, 2002) characterizes the upper and middle classes, which strive towards spatial and social segregation, associated with cultural and social homogeneity, and with increased control and security. Walled communities (Caldeira, 1996), gated communities (Blakely and Snyder, 1997), citadels (Marcuse, 1997a), and exclusive condominiums (Carvalho et al, 1997) all refer to similar developments. These are segregated neighborhoods and settlements that are either fenced or otherwise isolated, and are inclusive only to local dwellers or to permit-service personal. In many such cases, access to areas that were otherwise perceived as open public spacesöstreets, sidewalks, and local parks öis restricted and
Enclosed residential neighborhoods in Israel
denied from the general public. These areas are transformed in some cases from public open spaces to private enclosed places, or in other cases to pseudoprivatized spaces (Wehrhahn and Raposo, 2006). Hence, segregation of these neighborhoods and settlements is based not on restricting the right to purchase houses or apartments in the neighborhood (except for the practical restrictions based on the ability to pay for property and not racial, cultural, or political identities), but on restricting the access of strangers into the compound. An important feature of such developments is their independent governance system, known most commonly as homeowner associations. This form of local governance allows individual control of private property and collective control over common public assets by means of planning and sets of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (McKenzie, 1994). These institutional arrangements, sometimes conceptualized as club realms (Webster, 2001; 2002) or as territorial club economies (Glasze, 2005), provide alternative models for financing civic goods and create new microsocieties (Webster and Glasze, 2006). Gating processes across the globe are not a unitary phenomenon; they involve different levels of enclosure and vary in function of enclosure, security features, amenities, type of residents, tenure, location, size, and policy context (Grant and Mittelsteadt, 2004). Studies suggest that gating is another step in the evolution of residential areas (McKenzie, 1994); it encompasses old and new processes (Marcuse, 1997b) and results from the encounter of global and local cultural processes (Miao, 2003; Wu and Webber, 2004). From a global perspective, the development of gated communities is associated with economic restructuring processes that represent universal structures and principles. The most powerful stratifying factor in the era of globalization is mobility (Bauman, 1998). Social elites travel in space with little interference and fortify themselves from perceived dangers in voluntary ghettos such as gated communities, whereas other social groups experience restrictions on movement (Abrahamson, 2004). Regulating and managing movement of suspected social elementsöwithin and across national borders öwhile sheltering movement of privileged groups, through exclusive privatized spaces, are two complementary pillars of an integrated risk-management system also theorized as an Osmotic global mobility regime (Shamir, 2005). Gated communities are therefore enclosed territorial, cultural, or social units that serve as key local ingredients of global screening mechanisms. They are perceived as a form of enclosed and monitored residential places, alongside other forms of protected nodes such as workplaces, leisure clubs, and social networking destinations (Caldeira, 1996; Davis, 1992). These spaces may be interconnected by segregated and shielded modes of travel (Atkinson and Flint, 2004). From a local perspective, differences between gated communities are primarily explained by social, cultural, and economic local contexts (Glasze et al, 2006). Gating is deeply rooted in American culture. Privatization of space results from development pressures of local entrepreneurs and large corporations, which frequently form coalitions with political leaders (Defilippis, 1997). The social-historical context can be essential to the understanding of gating processes at present, as revealed by comparisons of Spain and Portugal (Wehrhahn and Raposo, 2006) and of Lebanon and Saudi Arabia (Glasze and Alkhayyal, 2002). In China and Russia, gated enclaves date back to the communist regime: work-unit compounds in the former (Wu, 2005) and residential complexes for communist party leaders and economic elites in the latter (Lentz, 2006). In South Africa, current developments are interpreted through historical lenses that reflect memories of the Apartheid regime (Landman, 2006). Therefore, the study of new gated communities needs to consider the conditions under which gating takes form, the images, symbols, and representations that are (re)produced, and the imprints left by earlier forms on society.
G Rosen, E Razin
Comparing gated enclaves in Israel Since its establishment in 1948, the perpetual Arab ^ Israeli conflict has been a predominant factor in public decision making, particularly in issues of security and land development. Thus, fortification of settlements in frontier areas, and increasingly strict security measures that include surveillance technology and guards at shopping centers and public buildings, have become a particularly visible feature of the Israeli landscape. Another cornerstone of Israeli society is the `law of return', granting every Jew the right to immigrate to Israel and automatically become an Israeli citizen. Jewish immigration has created a most diverse society, composed of social groups from many ethnic, cultural, and political backgrounds. Residential segregation in Israel is traditionally associated with a number of social fault lines: settlement type (urban ^ rural), ethnonational (Israeli ^ Palestinian), religious ^ cultural (secular ^ religious), and socioeconomic. Fortified enclaves have been deeply rooted in Israeli society, developing in different institutional and cultural settings. It is difficult to define a single prototype that could be referred to as a typical Israeli gated enclave. Our study suggests a classification into three major groups of gated enclaves, discussing and comparing their characteristics under changing historical settings. The first group, landscapes of heritage, consists of traditional ethnocultural enclosed communities, in which forming an environment that protects unique cultural values, lifestyles, and social cohesion serves as a major motive for enclosure. This group is represented by two cases: ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities also known as Haredim and neighborhoods in the Bedouin city of Rahat. There is considerable variation in the location and scale of the communities within this group; however, the self-contained nature and motivations of enclosure are similar. The second group, fortress landscapes, refers to rural, particularly frontier settlements in Israel and the West Bank, in which gating was motivated by Zionist and socialist ideologies. This group includes two types of frontier settlements: (1) the Kibbutz and Moshav communal or cooperative settlements, and (2) the noncooperative community settlementsöboth emphasizing communitarian and nationalistic inspirations and strongly influenced by state power. The third group, neoliberal enclaves, consisting of fortified towns and new private and gated communities, is based on a desire for prestige, lifestyle, privacy, and security, isolating affluent dwellers from widening disparities, social tensions, nuisances, and hazards of the outside world. These contemporary enclosed urban communities vary considerably from earlier forms in motivation and reasons for enclosure and in the developmental mechanisms. The following sections outline the major attributes of each group. Landscapes of heritage: traditional enclaves Early forms of fortified residential neighborhoods for Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Israel were evident from the second half of the 19th century outside Jerusalem's old city walls. Jewish neighborhoods, for example, were developed by various entrepreneurs and could be characterized by socioeconomic status or religious association. A standard prototype of an enclosed Jewish neighborhood was a row house building. These multi-apartment buildings were designed in rows that enclosed a courtyard with some common amenities. Their exterior formed a protective wall and their iron gates were locked at nights to secure the premises. These neighborhoods reflected attempts to escape from the overcrowding of Jerusalem's old city and to implement social concepts through planning regulations, social institutions, and charters. Although representing new landscapes, these neighborhoods actually preserved traditional patterns of segregation (Kark, 1991). The examples below represent contemporary ethnic ^ cultural enclaves that highlight diverse traditional values and lifestyles.
Enclosed residential neighborhoods in Israel
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities (Haredim)
The ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, referred to as Haredim (those who fear), are unique cultural groups in modern Israel, considered fundamental in their religious views and practices. The Haredim communities fear exposure to secularism öa fear rooted in the enlightenment revolution of the 19th century. Numerous Haredi enclavesöneighborhoods, urban quarters, settlements, towns, and citiesöhave been reestablished after World War II across the world, especially in Israel (Shilhav, 1991), North America (the largest concentrations are in New York and Montreal) (Shaffir, 2001), and England. They are replications and recreations of a lost East European Jewish culture destroyed during the Holocaust, and its unique spatial form öthe Shtetl. The Shtetl or Stadt (German word for town) were small towns (usually less than 5000 people), including both Jews and Christians (Bar-Gal, 1985). Sociospatial isolation in these towns was largely imposed on Jews. Haredi communities are immensely diverse, but some major attributes of Haredi enclosures are shared by most subgroups. The new Haredi enclaves established in Israel since the 1950s represent a modified version of a lost lifestyle öa sacred enclosed community protected from outside influence. It is largely a self-imposed way to preserve a traditional ^ religious way of life via spatial segregation and social isolation (Shilhav, 1991). The mechanisms for ensuring such a lifestyle involve limiting exposure to Western secular society. This protective strategy is achieved through multilevel segregation that encompasses place of residence, education, marriage, dress, employment, and transportation (Hasson, 2001). Increased residential segregation is achieved by clustering in urban concentrations, most notably neighborhoods in Jerusalem and Bene Beraq (Gonen, 1995), and building new isolated towns and settlements (figure 1), which are relatively homogenous culturally. This residential separation has both physical and symbolic expressions, for example: (a) defined borders (walls, fences, or signs warning outsiders to act in accordance with internal codes of behavior); (b) separate transportation networks [very low rates of car ownership among ultra-Orthodox Jews intensify pressures for social control also in public transportation, imposed through gender-segregated public buses known as Mehadrin lines (figure 1)]; (c) full closure of traffic access during the Sabbath and on religious holidays; and (d) independent education and governing systems. These mechanisms create well-defined protected territories that for the most part maintain only instrumental interaction with the outside environment, avoiding `pollution' via contact. Hence, although experiencing processes of modernization (but not secularization), unique Haredi cultural ^ religious identity has not been diluted. An example of the instrumental interaction with the state could be seen in the development of Haredi towns and cities in the West Bank (figure 1). These settlements, supported by the state for geopolitical reasons, offered the Haredi community inexpensive housing, proximity to major existing concentrations of Haredim, and social control articulated through sorting committees chaired by Rabbis. About 550 000 ultra-Orthodox Jews live in Israel (Gurovich and Cohen-Kastro, 2004), primarily concentrated in nineteen homogenous enclaves. The development of these ultra-Orthodox communities in Israel demonstrates the ability to replicate former types of enclaves and to reconstruct them in different cultural settings. Their evolutionary paths and sociospatial organization also highlight a condition where the gates do not necessarily create the enclosed community. The production of a protected sacred space, in the case of the ultra-Orthodox Jews, is primarily influenced by cultural and social factors, representing the community's state of gatedness and not the physical expression of the gates.
G Rosen, E Razin
Most of the settlement's population is Haredi Particular neighborhoods of Haredi population Settlements with some Haredi concentration Mehadrin transportation lines
Figure 1. Major Haredi residential concentrations and `Mehadrin' transportation networks, 2006.
Enclosed residential neighborhoods in Israel
Neighborhoods in the Bedouin city of Rahat
Palestinian-Arabs, particularly the formerly nomadic Bedouins, are among the economically weakest populations in Israel. The realities of the Israeli ^ Arab conflict have led to high levels of interlocality and intraurban segregation of Arabs, which are further enhanced by the strong role of extended families in Arab society. Since the 1970s the state has attempted to settle the Bedouin population of Israel's arid and semiarid south in urban settlements (Meir, 1999). As part of these efforts seven Bedouin towns were developed by the government in the Beer Sheva area, and several tribes (extended families) were practically forced to relocate and inhabit them. The remaining Bedouin populations who choose to stay outside these towns live in `unrecognized' spontaneous settlements (Fenster, 1999), challenge state policy of enforced urbanization, and reclaim individual private property rights over state-owned land. This conflict is not limited to a power struggle between the state and local Bedouin communities. It also involves a cultural dimension, in which the state attempts to spatially concentrate development and gain greater sociospatial control, and Bedouin communities wish to spatially spread, thus reviving old values and traditions. From the 1980s onwards, a growing involvement of Israel's Arab minority in local and central government politics could be observedöArabs turning more active and making the most of the emerging judicial activism of Israel's High Court of Justice (Razin and Hazan, 2004). Friction over land and settlement between the Bedouins and the state increasingly involved both a civil rights discourse and nationalistic attitudes associated with competition between Jews and Arabs over land. The city of Rahat is the largest urban concentration of Bedouins, including 37 400 people, with an annual growth rate of 4.5% (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2005). The city has developed since the 1970s as a central-state-backed initiative. This urbanization process was exercised via strong pull factors such as land allocation, new infrastructure, and low prices for permanent housing and by means of state-enforced power. The spatial layout of city neighborhoods and social interactions represents strict preservation and recreation of tribal social structures. The city is composed of about thirty neighborhoods (50 ^ 300 detached houses in each) that are arranged spatially and socially in three major patterns (figure 2). The first type is an enclosed tribal neighborhood; its core area is inhibited by one tribe whereas other social groups seldom live at its outskirts. The second type is an enclosed mixed tribal neighborhood; it accommodates several social groups that for the most part concentrate spatially in different parts of the neighborhood. The third type is a mixed neighborhood developed in new parts of the city, designated for all social groups. The spatial separation between social groups in the city is enforced by the residents themselves. Borders are constructed with both physical (especially via design of single entrances to some neighborhoods) and symbolic elements (mutual acceptance of no go zones) (Fenster, 1999). An additional phase in enhancing internal neighborhoods boundaries has been observed in the early 2000s. Some areas, especially within the second type of neighborhood, have been closed off from each other by barricading newer constructed secondary entrances to their neighborhoods (figure 2). These fortifications were erected by local residents themselves rather than by state agencies, primarily motivated by social reasonsöenhancing social control and creating stronger recognizable boundaries according to tribal affiliation. Although local planners seek to strengthen integration between the various social groups (basing their desire on Western planning values), traditional values remain strong and pull towards a highly segregated and isolated model where cohesion is encouraged within each group. Similarly to extended family compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Glasze and Alkhayyal, 2002), these quarters serve as extensions of private space and as protective communities öa key element being the control over social contacts and modes of behavior of women.
G Rosen, E Razin
Enclosed tribal neighborhood Enclosed mixed neighborhood Mixed neighborhood Barricades
Figure 2. Residential enclosures and barricades at the Bedouin city of Rahat, 2006.
Fortress landscapes: frontier settlements in Israel and the West Bank Davis's ``Fortress Los Angeles'' (1992) deals with the militarization of urban space as a consequence of conflicts between excluded social groups (ethnic minorities, the poor, gangs, and the homeless) and the middle ^ upper classes that construct secured enclaves. In Israel, the fortification of space, particularly of rural settlements in frontier areas, has been a marked symbol for most of the 20th century. These settlements are considered as spatial solutions to a geopolitical conflict between Jews and Arabs (Carmon, 1994). Thus, the fortification of rural areas by developing Jewish frontier settlements (the Kibbutz, Moshav, Mitzpim, and community settlements) has significantly increased the spatial distribution of enclaves as well as highlighted their perceived symbolic role. The Kibbutz and Moshav
The Israeli Kibbutz and Moshav are communal rural settlements, some of which date to the early 20th century. They were developed as strongholds of labor Zionism and up to the 1970s symbolized flagship developments and role models for the new Zionist state. They were embraced as an important mechanism to secure national interestsö mainly to spread the Jewish population over extensive areas (figure 3) and to settle frontier areas, as symbolized by the Tower and Stockade initiatives of the late 1930s (overnight fortress developments in frontier areas of Palestine). These communities were based on the values of cooperation (collectivism and socialism) and Zionism (Gavron, 2000; Sherman, 1993). One could also suggest that these cooperative forms represented utopian visions of an egalitarian just society, an antithesis to private village settlementsöthe Moshavot (Sherman, 1993). A most apparent feature of these ideological enclaves was their institutional social screening mechanisms öspecial agricultural cooperative associations and social sorting committees that ensured ideological and cultural cohesion. Apart from their self-contained social nature and rural locations that have reinforced isolation, Kibbutzim and Moshavim have also been physically enclosed, mostly in frontier areas. These settlements have been gated and fenced, with entrances usually controlled at night by guards as a means of security.
Enclosed residential neighborhoods in Israel
Subdistrict boundary Kibbutz
Figure 3. The geographical spread of Kibbutz and community settlements in Israel and the West Bank, 2006.
G Rosen, E Razin
In 2005, 717 Kibbutzim and Moshavim still had a combined population of 347 200 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2005). However, these ideological enclaves have experienced radical institutional and ideological transformations since the late 1980s. The fall of the Labor Party, which led the Zionist movement and the state of Israel for nearly half a century, in the 1977 elections, and the rise to power of the rightwing Likud, cut off considerable political and financial support previously given to the Kibbutzim and Moshavim. Geopolitical priorities shifted elsewhere, largely towards the development of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza strip; the communal and cooperative settlements being no longer at the forefront of settlement efforts. Furthermore, economic restructuring, deep financial crisis in agriculture, and extensive out-migration transformed these settlements from an ideological icon to just one of many interest groups (Sherman, 1993). These settlements were further placed at a crucial crossroad as a result of growing real-estate pressures for rezoning agricultural land during the 1990s. Although some of the Kibbutzim and Moshavim have managed to preserve their cooperative features with little change, most have experienced various levels of privatization. A radical change of the egalitarian Kibbutz could be seen in its reformation, mostly through market mechanisms, to a renewed Kibbutz that incorporates capitalistic values and private property (Lehavi, 2005). Other forms of change practice more cautious strategies by developing private noncooperative neighborhoods alongside existing Kibbutzim, thus reinventing themselves as private suburban neighborhoods. Whereas, for the most part of the 20th century, these flagship developments were primarily characterized by their ideological and institutional enclosure, at present enclosure is symbolized more in its spatial and physical form; perimeter fencing and entry gates are closed at nights, and the development of new isolated private neighborhoods is replacing the construction of integrated collective residential units. Security measures are taken in frontier areas as emergency measures, but also in core locations within metropolitan areas especially to ensure the protection of private amenities and to increase residential privacy. These transformations mark radical institutional (Lehavi, 2005) and cultural changes. Older meanings and identities of social solidarity and collectivism are being infiltrated by newer values and images of individualism, capitalism, and consumption, associated with external influences of global modelsö private suburbs and gated communities. This process forms a unique mix of cultural and physical representations of two utopiasöthe egalitarian utopia being challenged by the `privatopia' dream that combines Ebenezer Howard's utopian garden city idea with American privatism (McKenzie, 1994). As such, there is an embedded tension within the contemporary Kibbutz. The desire to preserve older collective symbols and myths encounters a cultural shift in which new values and identities affect the social and physical reproduction of space. Hence, a culturalist perspective (Borer, 2006) is a constructive way to study such changes. Community settlements
Community settlements have been a form of rural and exurban settlement that evolved in the late 1970s, when the fading of socialist ^ cooperative ideologies reduced the feasibility of establishing new Kibbutzim and Moshavim (Gonen, 1995). This new settlement type and its spatial distribution (figure 3) reflect a major change in Israeli politics and a radical ideological transformation (Newman, 1984). The community settlements were not cooperative ^ egalitarian communities. Rather, they were based on principles of shared community life and high standards of living. They lacked an agricultural economic base and in most cases lacked any significant economic base, instead relying on residents commuting to nearby regional and metropolitan centers.
Enclosed residential neighborhoods in Israel
The key motivation for the development of community settlements was in most cases geopoliticalöthese settlements have played a major part in a strategy to increase Jewish presence and territorial control over areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and over areas within Israel, where the large Arab presence has been perceived as challenging national security and identity (Newman, 1984). Physically, most of these settlements are fenced, gated, and sometimes guarded at night, whereas socially most are formally organized as communal (but not cooperative) associations. In practice, these are enclosed communities that retain strong social and cultural cohesion. This is achieved by keeping the communities relatively small (usually under 500 families) and applying social screening mechanisms (tests and interviews that serve to sort candidates). Accepted residents are obligated to follow certain local rules and codes of behavior. In the early 2000s there were 120 community settlements that accommodated 74 800 people (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2005). About half of these community settlements were developed in the occupied West Bank territories. Some of the West Bank enclaves were essentially suburban neighborhoods öoffering real-estate opportunities for middle-class populations looking to improve their quality of life (Gonen, 1995). Others öusually deeper in the territoriesöwere established by ideologically committed religious groups, driven by religious biblical ^ historical motives, but lacking the socialist roots that dominated Kibbutzim and Moshavim in earlier decades. Many of the West Bank Jewish settlements are heterogeneous; some are religious and others are either secular or mixed (Goldberg, 1993). Because of the embedded security situation in these areasöparticularly since the first Palestinian Intifada (uprising) commenced in 1987öthey have been transformed into highly enclosed and protective enclaves that are fenced, gated, guarded (sometimes even patrolled regularly by the military), and interconnected by protected routes. They could, therefore, be interpreted as parts of a comprehensive system of separationsöphysical and electronic (walls, trenches, checkpoints, traffic control) between Israeli and Palestinian people (Klein, 2005). To follow Bauman's (1998) emphasis on mobility as the major stratifying factor and Atkinson and Flint's (2004) idea of interconnected protected nodes, the odd setting in the West Bank could be conceptualized as a single territory built up of two separate systems that are highly differentiated by security and mobility. One system includes highly protected networks of connected Jewish gated enclaves, alongside a second system of disconnected Arab ethnic clusters, considered by some as hyper-ghettos.(1) Community settlements within Israel's boundaries are also considered exclusionary. Although not cooperative, their residents are members of a communal association. Those who desire to purchase lots or secondhand houses in such settlements need to gain the approval of a membership committee that examines their suitability to community life in the particular settlement, including adherence to specific ideologies and values (for example, transcendental meditation in one of these settlements in the Galilee). A particular controversy emerged over denial of Arabs by these membership committees, based also on the fact that these settlements were established by the Jewish Agency, whose charter proscribes selling properties to non-Jews (Newman, 1984). A landmark ruling of the High Court of Justice, in the year 2000, concerned the case of the Kaadan family, living in the Arab town of Baka al-Garbiya, who unsuccessfully tried to buy a home in the nearby community settlement of Katzir. The ruling stated that the state cannot discriminate directly or indirectly between Jews and Arabs in the (1) A
symbolic link between these local ideological enclaves and the global spread of gated communities could be seen when searching the Internet for `gated communities and Israel'. When using the Google search engine, nearly all results are of West Bank communities.
G Rosen, E Razin
allocation of state-owned land; this applies also when the land is allocated to the Jewish Agency. This ruling has led to significant changes in sorting procedures, although the institutional setting has not changed dramatically (committee members represent a number of public stakeholders including the Ministry of Construction and Housing, the Jewish Agency, the regional council, and the settlement itself ). Kaadan was refused again by the Katzir membership committee, but later on membership committees for large community settlements were abolished, discriminative criteria such as army serviceöan obvious way to exclude Palestinian citizens öwere eliminated, and an appeal committee for unaccepted candidates was formed. Thus, Kaadan was finally able to lease a lot from Israel's Land Administration in Katzir. Other changes influencing many community settlements refer to motivations for gating and developmental mechanisms. As in the case of the renewed Kibbutz, factors such as market forces, lifestyle preferences, and new ideals of individualism and privacy have influenced developmentömarket forces, particularly real-estate-driven initiatives, replacing previous state intervention. Such changes have a potential to create a new model of residential communities (Lehavi, 2005). Hence, many community settlements represent new forms of exclusionary gated enclaves that were initially established as frontier outposts. These outposts conform to the definition of an ethnonational utopia, later on becoming segregated middle-class enclaves that fit a class-based privatopia dream. Fortified and privatized neighborhoods The third group of gated enclaves includes two new forms of enclosed communities. Evident in Israel mainly since the 1990s, they are neither traditional communities seeking to defend endangered ethnoreligious lifestyles nor rural settlements in frontier areas. These enclosures symbolize marked changes in society and space, emphasizing values and interests sometimes referred to as neoliberal. Whereas some older forms of traditional ethnocultural enclaves and frontier settlements have been transformed, being influenced by ideals of class-based privatopia, attributes of these new forms are also influenced by unique Israeli realities reflected by the older forms. These new forms vary considerably in reasons for enclosure and in their developmental mechanisms. Fortified towns and neighborhoods
Class-motivated segregation could be noticed as early as the 1950s, when efforts were taken to establish isolated and exclusive municipal authorities for the affluent. These attempts, however, were sporadic and only partly successful, particularly the exurban villages of Savyon (an upper-class island in the Tel Aviv metropolis) and Omer (a middle ^ upper class settlement in the Beer Sheva metropolis) (Gonen, 1995). Deliberate construction of exclusionary communities based on class seems to have gained momentum only since the 1980s. Ideological transformation and erosion of welfare state mechanisms have been associated also with trends towards privatization of various activities of consumption (extensive development of private shopping malls and power centers), infrastructure (toll roads), education (private colleges), health insurance, and pensions. Under these circumstances, various social groups apply planning and design strategies to enhance control over their near surroundings. Reasons for enclosure vary considerably, although a buzzword used to catalyze enclosure is `the need for security'. This fuzzy concept conceals a variety of meanings, motivations, and values. Growing numbers of towns and cities attempt to fortify themselves. Affluent towns in core areas of the country, especially in the Tel Aviv metropolis, carry out different protective measures to ensure crime prevention and privacy. Some small upscale
Enclosed residential neighborhoods in Israel
suburban municipalities (for example, Kefar Shemaryahu) keep close track of all entries to their municipal area during night hours. Others (for example, Caesarea) close off entrances during night hours and some even use electronic gates, guards, and patrols. Towns in the national periphery (such as the city of Arad) sometimes construct earth barricades and trenches and try to monitor social elements suspected as involved in crime. One could argue that the separation between rich and poor is occasionally associated with a more complex explanation also associated with ethnicity. A clear expression of these processes could be seen in the development of new walls, barriers, and fences between Arab and Jewish residential areas. An earth embankment (1 ^ 1.5 km long and 4 m high) was constructed in 2002 between Caesarea and the Arab settlement of Jisr Az-zarqa. Two other sets of walls (4 m high and approximately 2 ^ 4 km long) were raised between Moshav Nir Zvi and the Arab neighborhood Pardes-Snir in Lod, and between the Arab neighborhood Jawarish and the Jewish neighborhood Ganei-Dan, both in the city of Ramla. In all of these cases, the construction of walls and barriers aimed to prevent crime, but can be interpreted also in the context of Arab ^ Jewish tensions, particularly evident in mixed Arab ^ Jewish cities (Falah, 1996; Yiftachel and Yacobi, 2003). Therefore, unlike the motivations and mechanism for enclosure described in rural frontier settlements, in this category of fortified towns, a mixture of motivationsöfear of crime, status and class-based segregation, ethnonational conflict, and, some would suggest, urban terror (Savitch, 2005)öand of agents (governmental, NGOs, and private sector) are involved in the construction of fortified enclaves. New gated communities and private neighborhoods
New gated communities share common features with older traditional forms of gated enclaves discussed above, but are also fundamentally different. Older forms of gated enclaves have represented strong religious, kinship, ideological, or cultural collective identities, as well as ethnonational desires. They displayed a kind of public regulative segregation regime. In contrast, new forms are for the most part developed by the private sector, represent profit motivations (Lehavi, 2005), and lack significant public intervention. These forms reflect demand for lifestyle, prestige, and privacy by individuals ö the privatopia-like vision. However, despite the label `gated community', it is questionable whether these neighborhoods form cohesive communities in a way similar to traditional and frontier enclaves. The origins of new gated communities in Israel could be traced, in the 1990s, to the development of leisure-oriented compounds and assisted living for elderly people of the middle and upper classes. Gated communities have begun to proliferate in the late 1990s and early 2000s, being strongly influenced by the North American model. They include both urban condominium complexes and suburban gated communities of single-family houses, such as the exclusive seaside village of Arsuf. These conform to communities defined elsewhere as lifestyle and leisure compounds, retirement villages for elderly people, and professional urban complexes. Other forms of enclosed complexes can be found alongside gated communities. These include condominiums and private neighborhoods that apply control measures, both physical (intercom, surveillance technologies, fences, and design) and social (via housing price and amenities on site). Another important variation is the development of pseudogated communities resembling those in Portugal and Spain (Wehrhahn and Raposo, 2006). These developments are legally open to anyone, but signs, design, barriers, and sometimes even security guards create in practice an image of privatized public open space.
G Rosen, E Razin
The development of these complexes is based on class rather than on culture or ethnicity considerations; this is most evident from their locations. We identified at least 29 gated projects that altogether include 6200 residential units in 2006, mostly located in the northern affluent urban and suburban parts of the Tel Aviv metropolis (figure 4). About 200 additional projects with 24 500 units can be considered gated according to `softer' definitions that include smaller projects and those that are less strictly Number of gated communities 12 3 2 1
Figure 4. The spread of gated communities in Israel, 2006.
Enclosed residential neighborhoods in Israel
guarded and enclosed. The controversial upscale gated community of Andromeda Hill, established in 1998 near poor Arab neighborhoods in Jaffa, has been a source for public debate and protest that has tended to emphasize the role of Jewish ^ Arab tensions in the (illegal) closure of the neighborhood (Monterescu and Fabian, 2003). However, most gated projectsö25 of 29öare located at locations where ethnic fault lines are not evident (Rosen and Razin, 2007), thus Jewish ^ Arab tensions and other frictions associated with religion or ethnicity cannot be assumed to be a motive in their formation. All of these twenty-nine gated communities employ enhanced security measures that include a perimeter wall or fence, surveillance cameras, and gates that are in most cases controlled by security guards. Access to areas otherwise perceived as open public spaces is usually restricted and denied to the general public, transforming these areas from public open spaces to private enclosed places. Therefore, more strikingly than in older types of gated enclaves, segregation of these communities is based not on restrictions on the right to purchase houses or apartments and to live in the area, but on restricting the access of strangers into the public areas of the compound after it has been populated. Whereas the embedded security problems in Israel require strict security measures that include surveillance technology and guards securing shopping centers and public buildings, Israeli neighborhoods are considered rather safe, except for property crimeöburglaries and car theft. Thus, the new form of gating cannot be assumed to be motivated by an exceptional need for security, such as that prevalent in South Africa and many other metropolitan areas in the developing world. Conclusion Gated communities have emerged on the Israeli public agenda only in the early 2000s, as a local expression of a global trend. However, examination of the Israeli experience demonstrates that an ongoing process of segregation and enclosure has been influenced by local cultural and historical settings as well as by external trends, producing a diversified landscape of gated enclaves that have both stable and changing characteristics. The particular ethnoreligious diversity in the Holy Land, the prolonged Jewish ^ Arab conflict, and the predominance of socialist ^ cooperative ideologies in early Zionism all had a major role in producing that diversity. Each type of enclave can be interpreted as representing a kind of sociospatial utopia ö an artificially created island that functions as an isolated, coherently organized, and largely closed space economy (Harvey, 2000). Landscapes of heritage (table 1) are traditional ethnocultural gated enclaves, in which the protection of unique cultural values and lifestyles serves as a major motive for enclosure. Developmental mechanisms consist of the action of formal (religious) and informal community organizations. Gating effects consist of sharply defined sociospatial segregation and fragmentation of space according to religious, ethnic, and kinship lines, as well as preservation of traditional social forms and protection of minorities. The symbolic sociospatial utopia created is therefore based on traditional, kinship, or religious values. The gates are not the defining attribute of the enclosed community; rather the defining attribute is the condition of gatedness characterized by multilevel segregation and isolation. Fortress landscapes (table 1) refer to frontier settlements, most notably Kibbutzim and community settlements, in which gating was motivated by Zionist and socialist ideologies. Developmental mechanisms concerned both grassroots and governmental initiatives, which were characterized by a continuous process of developing new types of communitarian enclaves strongly supported by government resources. Gating effects concern a most distinct pattern of rural development in Israel, particularly in frontier
G Rosen, E Razin
Table 1. Major types of gated enclaves in Israel, 2006. Type of enclave
Landscapes of heritage: traditional ethnocultural
Fortress landscapes: frontier settlements
Neoliberal: fortified and privatized neighborhoods
Haredi Jewish communities Neighborhoods in the Bedouin city of Rahat
Kibbutzim and Moshavim Mitzpim and community settlements
Fortified towns Gated and private complexes
Shtetl Arab quartered cities
Zionist-socialist ideology, tower, and stockade Kibbutzim, Moshavim
Shopping malls Leisure-oriented compounds, assisted living for elderly people
Cultural ± religious Cultural ± extended families
Ideology Ideology and lifestyle
Agents of enclosure
NGOs Extended families
Zionist movement and state actors
Local authorities Private
Primarily symbolic but also spatial Social control and physical barriers
Physical and symbolic
Primarily symbolic Physical and symbolic
regions but in exurban space as well. Their development represents a quest for an egalitarian utopia at the local level and a broader vision of Jewish national revival. Neoliberal landscapesöfortified and privatized neighborhoodsödisplay a classbased desire for lifestyle, privacy, and prestige. For the most part, gated communities are initiated and developed by the private sector, sometimes forming coalitions with local governments or even NGOs. Gating effects include not only clearer spatial representation of class-based segregation and greater fragmentation of urban space, but also the emergence of a new level of sociospatial exclusion, based primarily on restrictions on free access in urban space, symbolizing a privatopia dream associated with values of individualism and capitalism. Links and interactions between different types of enclaves were also observed. Traditional ethnocultural gated enclaves are most resistant to change, but do display processes of replication and adaptation. Older forms of cultural enclosures like the Shtetl and the Arab quartered city were reconstructed and adjusted to changing local conditions. Fortress/frontier gated enclaves are most adaptable to change; their physical structure, constructed to support egalitarian or communitarian ideological ideals, can easily be transformed to serve class-oriented gated communities. The reformation of a renewed Kibbutz and the development of enclosed private new neighborhoods alongside existing Kibbutzim and renewed Kibbutzim are indicators of crossovers between the different forms of enclaves. The development of gated retirement villages inside Kibbutzim (Tel-Yitshak), Moshavim (Arugot, Bnei-Dror, and Nordiya), and `fortified' towns (Omer) is another aspect of these processes. The idea of tailor-made community planning (Carmon, 1994) is therefore constantly readjusting itself. Such transformations recall Harvey's (2000, page 179) statement: ``Utopias of spatial form get perverted from their noble objectives by having to compromise with the social processes they are meant to control. We now see also that materialized utopia of the social process have to negotiate with spatiality and the geography of place and in so doing they also lose their ideal character,
Enclosed residential neighborhoods in Israel
producing results that are in many instances exactly the opposite of those intended (e.g. increasing authoritarianism and inequalities rather than greater democracy and equality).'' Recently established gated communities clearly represent the replication of readymade concepts imported, as they are, from abroad. However, these gated communities are also influenced by older forms of enclosures that are unique to the Israeli local context. The transformation of older frontier rural settlements blurs the distinction between older and newer forms in public debates. The older physical forms of gated enclosuresö legitimized by principles of egalitarian ideologies and multiculturalismöcan set a precedent that simplifies, perhaps obscures, the emergence of this new exclusionary form. Gated enclaves have thus far had significant roles in Israeli society. They cannot be simply addressed as black holes in space but rather, and in accordance with Atkinson and Flint's (2004) suggestion, should be addressed as nodes in independent local mobility regimes. As shown in the three major categoriesölandscapes of heritage (the Haredi Jewish communities), frontier settlements (West Bank community settlements), and fortified and private neighborhoods (gated communities) öresidential enclaves are in fact protected residential nodes interconnected by shielded modes of travel (gender-segregated public bus lines, separate road systems controlled by the army, and toll roads, accordingly). Israelis have lately looked at the development of new gated communities from a narrow perspective that tends to overlook the complexity of the social production of gated enclaves and to emphasize top-down political structures. Other countries have also documented cases where central government uses gated community development as a buffer tool to promote social stability and political control (Glasze and Alkhayyal, 2002; Wu, 2005; Wu and Webber, 2004). The top-down approach may indeed be useful in the case of frontier enclaves. However, examination of the two other forms of gated enclavesölandscapes of heritage and neoliberal landscapes öreveals other forces, interests, and values that are involved in the social production of gated residential spaces. Hence, analysis of gated enclaves should not be limited to studying top-down structures. This paper thus demonstrates that the production of various forms of gated enclaves should be explained through an integrative approach. Gating is neither limited to the contemporary construction of neoliberal fortified landscapes known as gated communities, nor a solely top-down phenomenon, stereotypically attributed in the Israeli case to government settlement policies and Arab ^ Jewish tensions. Newer forms develop in parallel evolutionary routes alongside older fortress-like enclaves that emphasize ethnonational conflicts, religious ^ cultural enclosures, and particular historical circumstances. Furthermore, new global values, ideas, and models have infiltrated and interacted with local models of enclosure, thus creating and recreating a dynamic landscape of multiple forms of gated enclaves. Acknowledgement. We thank Jill Grant, Anne Shlay, and Mark Gottdiener for most useful comments. References Abrahamson P, 2004, ``Review essay liquid modernity: Bauman on contemporary welfare society'' Acta Sociologica 47 171 ^ 179 Atkinson R, Blandy S, 2005, ``Introduction: international perspectives on the new enclavism and the rise of gated communities'' Housing Studies 20 177 ^ 186 Atkinson R, Flint J, 2004, ``Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time ^ space trajectories of segregation'' Housing Studies 19 875 ^ 892 Bar-Gal Y, 1985, ``The Shtetl: the Jewish small town in Eastern Europe'' Journal of Cultural Geography 5 17 ^ 29
G Rosen, E Razin
Bauman Z, 1998 Globalization: The Human Consequences (Columbia University Press, New York) Blakely E, Snyder M, 1997 Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States (Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC) Blandy S, 2006,``Gated communities in England: historical perspectives and current developments'' GeoJournal 66 15 ^ 26 Boal F W, 2002, ``Belfast: walls within'' Political Geography 21 687 ^ 694 Borer I M, 2006, ``The location of culture: the urban culturalist perspective'' City and Community 5 173 ^ 197 Caldeira T, 1996, ``Fortified enclaves: the new urban segregation'' Public Culture 8 303 ^ 328 Carmon N, 1994, ``Achieving population dispersal through tailor-made community planning: an Israeli experiment in the Galilee region'' Environment and Planning A 26 639 ^ 656 Carvalho M,Varkki R G, Anthony H K, 1997, ``Residential satisfaction in Condominios Exclusivos (gate-guarded neighborhoods) in Brazil'' Environment and Behavior 29 734 ^ 768 Central Bureau of Statistics, 2005 Statistical Abstract of Israel 56 (Central Bureau of Statistics, Jerusalem) Crot L, 2006, `` `Scenographic' and `cosmetic' planning: globalization and territorial restructuring in Buenos Aires'' Journal of Urban Affairs 28 227 ^ 251 Davis M, 1992, ``Fortress Los Angeles: the militarization of urban space'', in Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End to Public Space Ed. M Sorkin (Hill and Wang, New York) pp 154 ^ 180 Defilippis J, 1997, ``From a public re-creation to private recreation: the transformation of public space in south street seaport'' Journal of Urban Affairs 19 405 ^ 417 Falah G, 1996, ``Living together apart: residential segregation in mixed Arab ^ Jewish cities in Israel'' Urban Studies 33 823 ^ 857 Fenster T, 1999, ``Space for gender: cultural roles of the forbidden and the permitted'' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17 227 ^ 246 Gavron D, 2000 The Kibbutz Awakening from Utopia (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD) Glasze G, 2005, ``Some reflections on the economic and political organization of private neighborhoods'' Housing Studies 20 221 ^ 233 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 29 321 ^ 336 Glasze G, Webster C, Frantz K, 2006, ``Introduction: global and local perspectives on the rise of private neighborhoods'', in Private Cities: Global and Local Perspectives Eds G Glasze, C Webster, K Frantz (Routledge, London) pp 1 ^ 8 Goldberg G, 1993, ``Gush Emunim new settlements in the West Bank: from social movement to regional interest group'', in Local Communities and the Israeli Polity Ed. E Ben-Zadok (State University of New York Press, New York) pp 189 ^ 208 Gonen A, 1995 Between City and Suburb: Urban Residential Patterns and Processes in Israel (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants) Grant J, Mittelsteadt L, 2004, ``Types of gated communities'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31 913 ^ 930 Gurovich N, Cohen-Kastro E, 2004 Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Geographic Distribution and Demographic, Social and Economic Characteristics of the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Population in Israel 1996 ^ 2001 (Central Bureau of Statistics, Jerusalem) (in Hebrew) Harvey, D, 2000 Spaces of Hope (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh) Hasson S, 2001, ``Territories and identities in Jerusalem'' GeoJournal 53 311 ^ 322 Kark R, 1991 Jerusalem Neighborhoods: Planning and By-laws 1855 ^ 1930 (Magnes, Jerusalem) Klein M, 2005, ``Old and new walls in Jerusalem'' Political Geography 24 53 ^ 76 Landman K, 2006, ``Privatising public space in post-apartheid South African cities through neighborhood enclosures'' GeoJournal 66 133 ^ 146 Lehavi A, 2005, ``New residential communities in Israel: between privatization and exclusion'' Haifa University Law Review 2 63 ^ 140 (in Hebrew) Lentz S, 2006, ``More gates, less community? Guarded housing in Russia'', in Private Cities: Global and Local Perspectives Eds G Glasze, C Webster, K Frantz (Routledge, London) pp 206 ^ 221 Low S, 2003 Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America (Routledge, New York) McKenzie E, 1994 Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
Enclosed residential neighborhoods in Israel
Marcuse P, 1995, ``Not chaos, but walls: postmodernism and the partitioned city'', in Postmodern Cities and Spaces Eds S Watson, K Gibson (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 243 ^ 253 Marcuse P, 1997a, ``The enclave, the citadel, and the ghetto: what has changed in the post-Fordist US city'' Urban Affairs Review 33 228 ^ 264 Marcuse P, 1997b, ``The ghetto of exclusion and the fortified enclave: new patterns in the United States'' The American Behavioral Scientist 41 311 ^ 326 Meir A, 1999 Tension Between the Negev Bedouin and the State: Policy and Practice (The Floersheimer Institute for Policy Studies, Jerusalem) (in Hebrew) Miao P, 2003, ``Deserted streets in a jammed town: the gated community in Chinese cities and its solution'' Journal of Urban Design 8 45 ^ 66 Monterescu D, Fabian R, 2003, ``The `golden cage': gentrification and globalization in the Andromeda Hill project'' Theory and Criticism 23 141 ^ 178 (in Hebrew) Newman D, 1984, ``Ideological and political influences on Israeli rurban colonization: the West Bank and Galilee mountains'' Canadian Geographer 28 142 ^ 155 Razin E, Hazan A, 2004, ``Municipal boundary conflicts between Jewish and Arab local authorities in Israel: geography of administration or geopolitics?'' Geografiska Annaler, Series B 86 79 ^ 94 Rosen G, Razin E, 2007, ``Gated communities in Israel: a new phase of spatial segregation'' Israeli Sociology 9 103 ^ 126 (in Hebrew) Savitch H V, 2005, ``An anatomy of urban terror: lessons from Jerusalem and elsewhere'' Urban Studies 42 361 ^ 395 Shaffir W, 2001, ``Fieldwork among Hassidic Jews: moral challenges and missed opportunities'' The Jewish Journal of Sociology 43 53 ^ 69 Shamir R, 2005, ``Without borders? Notes on globalization as a mobility regime'' Sociological Theory 23 197 ^ 217 Sherman N, 1993, ``Kibbutzim and Moshavim: from ideological symbol to interest group'', in Local Communities and the Israeli Polity Ed. E Ben-Zadok (State University of New York Press, New York) pp 211 ^ 239 Shilhav Y, 1991 A `Shtetl' (Small Town) Within a Modern City: A Geography of Segregation and Complement (Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, Jerusalem) (in Hebrew) Webster C, 2001, ``Gated cities of tomorrow'' Town Planning Review 72 149 ^ 170 Webster C, 2002, ``Property rights and the public realm: gates, green belts, and Gemeinschaft'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 29 397 ^ 412 Webster C, Glasze G, 2006, ``Conclusion: dynamic urban order and the rise of residential clubs'', in Private Cities: Global and Local Perspectives Eds G Glasze, C Webster, K Frantz (Routledge, London) pp 222 ^ 237 Webster C, Glasze G, Frantz K, 2002, ``The global spread of gated communities'' Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 29 315 ^ 320 Wehrhahn R, Raposo R, 2006, ``The rise of gated residential neighborhoods in Portugal and SpainöLisbon and Madrid'', in Private Cities: Global and Local Perspectives Eds G Glasze, C Webster, K Frantz (Routledge, London) pp 170 ^ 189 Wu F, 2005, ``Rediscovering the `gate' under market transition: from work-unit compounds to commodity housing enclaves'' Housing Studies 20 235 ^ 254 Wu F, Webber K, 2004, ``The rise of `foreign gated communities' in Beijing: between economic globalization and local institutions'' Cities 21 203 ^ 213 Yiftachel O, Yacobi H, 2003, ``Urban ethnocracy: ethnicization and the production of space in an Israeli `mixed city' '' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 21 673 ^ 693
ß 2008 Pion Ltd and its Licensors
Conditions of use. This article may be downloaded from the E&P website for personal research by members of subscribing organisations. This PDF may not be placed on any website (or other online distribution system) without permission of the publisher.