Cities 07

Reasons for Creation of and Move to Gated Community:
I have personally lived in a gated community in Eden Prairie, Minnesota for about ten years now, and my parents are moving out this summer. The name is Bearpath, and it is a golf course, country club, neighborhood, and social network all rolled into one. I have often asked them what the purpose of living there was/is, and to this day, I can not remember a time when I got very clear response. Other than the little things that make living inside “nice” or convenient, or “safe”, there is no reason I can fathom why the same neighborhood without the security and privacy factors, would be an any less desirable place to live. This has led me to believe that there is something specific, or symbolic, about living “within”…and if not, that privacy and a sense of safety are extremely critical factors people take into consideration when buying a home.
When I asked my parents what their reason for living here was, they said it “has nothing to do with the fact that it was inside a gated community.” Apparently, my dad likes to golf and wanted to be close to a golf course, which we live right on, and that they really liked the house and secluded location being near the back, and away from the lone entrance. Their first comment made it seem as though they didn’t want to live inside the gated community as a symbol, but only wanted to enjoy the amenities, and hadn’t brought up the issue of safety on their own. When I asked them what they had to say about safety, they said that being inside is much safer. They assumed the entire perimeter was gated, and said that they were safer from “robbery, or break-ins” living there than if they lived in an ordinary neighborhood where public access was unlimited, along with the security guard, fences, etc. The same concern of safety from crime came from the parents for whom I used to baby-sit for, except they said that they wanted their kids to be able to run around the neighborhood, play with other kids, leave the door unlocked by mistake and not have to worry. The fear of burglary, kidnapping, and other crime says a lot about the creation of and move to Bearpath.
Manual Castells says “Some of the new social movements, the most defensive, the most reactive, have taken and will be taking the form of territorially based countercultures, occupying a given space to cut themselves off from the outside world, hopeless of being able to transform the society they refuse.” Though he is talking about a more futuristic, global social movement, the same concept is rings true in the case of Bearpath or similar places. While it may not seem to be a very big deal and goes unnoticed by the vast majority of society, there is a ‘cutting off’ of the rest of society. Wealthy, primarily white (either by race or through acculturation) individuals who wish to raise families and live a financially pricy lifestyle have left the city not only to suburbs, but also to gated communities in the suburbs, if they have the means. This is to avoid city life altogether, because the attempted changes in the past haven’t worked. Nobody wants to live near crime, and so they get away and use their money as a tool against it, by living completely apart. The reason I mention race, is because of the fact that only a few black people have ever even lived there, and they were professional athletes and a music producer. It is without question a development for the interests of a homogeneous population. Defense has clearly become an important attribute to higher classes as cities have taken on a “crime-ridden” appearance. Why this is doesn’t matter, maybe the increased income gap has something to do with it.
The planners’ intentions for Bearpath were obviously to make money, but the manner in which they did so are representative of Castells’ argument. Space, physically speaking, is one way of separation. On the television show Seinfeld, George talks about how his parents moving to Florida will give him a nice “buffer zone”, and the suburbs act in the same way. From a planners’ standpoint, the location not only has the available land at reasonable pricing that a more urban setting might not offer, but it offers a buffer zone. The other things Bearpath offers are the amenities, golf, locker room and lounge, restaurant, pool, workout facility, tennis courts, walk/bike path, and even home services like lawn care and snowplowing. So, designing and building places like this is no doubt going to have a very high profit margin because of all it offers for a wealthy lifestyle, in a surrounding that is also relatively upper-middle class. “Cities are socially determined…by social actors that impose their interests and their values, to project the city of their dreams and to fight the space of their nightmares.” Manual Castells might as well been describing how gated communities like Bearpath have been developed as a response to fear of crime, and desire to maintain a particular lifestyle in a homogeneous setting. It is clear that the development of the gated community is done to be somewhat socially exclusive.

Security features in place:
Beginning with the choice in location, being one of the wealthier suburbs, and one of the further ones on the southwest side of the city, bordering rural Minnesota. While the reason for this is only logical to the planner, as I’ve mentioned already, it serves as the main feature of security. After all, what kind of moron would build an expensive housing development with a golf course in the city where it would stand out like a sore thumb and be far more susceptible to crime? It is better off being in the suburbs where the poor or inner-city residents don’t even know of its existence.
The traffic and roadways are another important part of the land. Covering the distance from the city to suburbs is a pretty simple freeway route, and just last year an even more direct freeway to Bearpath’s entrance was completed, courtesy of the city and state government. The thing about the roadways in Bearpath is that there are only two entrances. There is the main entrance, with a fancy little gatehouse where everyone must enter. There is also a back gate, which runs along a small, unpaved roadway and is locked permanently unless there is some large object for which it needs to be opened. This is the way of keeping track of every person that enters and leaves. I remember how big of a pain in the butt it was because you have to call ahead every time a person you know is coming to your house, even for pizza delivery. There are cameras surrounding the clubhouse, the back gate, front gate, and two along the main roadway, so that it is impossible to drive without it being on a video monitor. So you can see how there is constant monitoring of the flow of traffic. I find this symbolic of the rest of the United States as well, and probably every country though I haven’t been to many of them. The way to buckle down on crime and make things safer is by having checkpoints and controlling the flow of traffic.
The most interesting thing I noticed had to do with the use of land as a gate. I don’t know the exact reason for not having gates around the entire complex, but after walking the perimeter there were significant breaks in the actual gating. Every part of the border that was next to an outside street was not only lined with pine trees, which have grown significantly larger the past ten years, but also a rod iron fence. Wherever there is some open land or woods, or a stream or pond, there is often no fence or ordered planted trees to keep people out. In the place were I live, there is the width of the golf course, golf cart path, some landscaping, and then only ordered trees, with no fence, separating Bearpath’s property from the public park behind our house. It was clearly most important from the planner’s standpoint to fence of the more easily accessible sections of the community, and even more important to monitor the roadways and cars. It’s like the only way to travel in suburbia in the modern day, and often throughout urban centers, is by vehicle. For this reason, they emphasize only one entrance with cameras to record each vehicle entering.

The symbolic nature and view from the outside:
Just two nights ago I was having dinner with a guy who works for the local news station, Fox 9, and he had told me a story about when he first moved to the Twin Cities only a few months ago. He was driving with a coworker and as they passed the entrance to Bearpath, he saw the gatehouse, and said to his coworker “whoa, what is that place!” His friend replied, “you don’t need to worry about it, you’re never gonna live there” in a joking manner, of course. I mention this story because it says something about the presence of Bearpath. Driving by, one can hardly see the houses, and they wonder what is inside. This leads to curiosity, and just as the guy I just talked about, some people who live in the surrounding neighborhoods feel the same way. “For the first few years we lived here, we would drive by and it looked so beautiful, we weren’t sure what it was. I didn’t even know there were homes in there, I thought it might just be a country club.” This is how they felt, and they also mentioned to me how they actually felt that Bearpath being near their home only increases the value of their place, and so had no problem with it. So, they viewed it an entity, but approved it for its effect on their homes value.
When I asked that same couple if they would feel safer living in Bearpath versus their own home, they said no, not really. Crazy enough, I got the same response from another set of parents I talked to who live in a small, Bearpath-like neighborhood right across the street from the main entrance. Many members of Bearpath, who don’t live inside the gates, live here. This family said they wouldn’t feel safer at all having security guards, because it is Eden Prairie where the worst crimes are so miniscule. There is indeed something symbolic about there actually being gates and security. From the outside view there is no belief that it is any safer, and they are only left to feel that the gates are there to make the residents “feel safe” or maintain privacy.
To determine this, I went back to my interviews with my parents. They said they feel safer, but also were most interested in the amenities, and seclusion of their home. While our home does provide quite a bit of privacy from the outside, it still exists on a golf course where the members who golf walk past every round they play. So, the gates of Bearpath only really provide the feeling the safety, and perhaps some increased privacy. This isn’t because they are inefficient or don’t work, but because there is no need for them in Eden Prairie. The main people my parents said they had to worry about from a safety standpoint are the construction workers and maintenance men who in and out of the gates. Because of the actuality that there is no real threat, it is apparent that the only real reason for the gates is to create a sense of safety, or to be symbolic about who belongs.
From here, we go to the theories on the message space sends about whose there according to Sharon Zukin. Zukin says that she sees “public culture as socially constructed on the micro-level” and also that “People with economic and political power have the greatest opportunity to shape public culture by controlling the building…” The residents and builders of Bearpath surely have the power to shape the area in which they live. Though she is referring to commercialization in the city, the same thing is clearly going on at Bearpath 25 miles away. When entire blocks like Block-E incorporate speakers in the overhanging lights in their doorways playing a certain type of music, such as opera, they send the message to loiterers that they don’t belong. Bearpath gating, lining up trees along its perimeter, having its own flag flying just under the American flag in front of the lone entrance at the gatehouse, has its own similar message to people driving by. The image says that this place is something special, for the wealthy, and almost like you can look, but can’t touch…and the guy I mentioned at the beginning of this section got the message I think.
The most conclusive arguments one can make about the actual results of the implementations of features that Bearpath has are not so much about the symbolic nature of the gated community, but rather life on the inside.

“Fenced in”, claustrophobia, Jacobs disapproving of the social result:
The most interesting discovery of mine during this project is not that the gates and security features are pretty useless in for people live in Bearpath, and the claustrophobia residents can sometimes feel. Jane Jacobs believes very strongly in neighborhoods where the members of the community serve as the security, by proving what she calls “the eyes on the street”. She would in no way agree that the current security of Bearpath is the best way to keep the area safe. In an effort to fortify the perimeter of Bearpath, the planners have made an enclave that doesn’t promote internal social interaction. This is apparent to me not only from living there and knowing how annoying it is to drive 1.2 miles at 20 mph while stopping for five stop signs every day, call the gatehouse every time someone comes over, and feeling like people are going to kick me off the golf cart path every time I walk on it, even when its not in use. My mom said how she hates running inside Bearpath because “the next day, everybody is calling me or mentions how they saw me running the day before.” People are so bored or something that they have to watch outside the windows to see what’s going on in the neighborhood. Without overdoing it, I think you get the idea.
Jane Jacobs says, “streets and sidewalks, the main public places of a city, are its most vital organs.” To her, they are very representative of the life of the city. The fact that the streets of Bearpath are a rather awkward place to be unless your driving your car, and that they do not promote social interaction shows how the social life as a daily occurrence is lacking. People call each other on the phone to make plans, or meet at the clubhouse or pool, but even on the nicest days of the year, the entire neighborhood seems to be indoors and unfriendly. The environment created by planners doesn’t promote this type of interaction that would actually be a better form of safety, because of the monitoring of “eyes on the street” and the community knowing one another. While the eyes on the street are supposed to create a safe environment with constant flow and forced interaction, the lack of a sidewalk in Bearpath makes these eyes on the street a source of paranoia. One begins to feel claustrophobic, as they can’t even complete their daily rituals without this feeling.
Jane Jacobs talks about how interaction of this sort should work in suburban settings. “City residential planning that depends, for contact among neighbors, on personal sharing…and that cultivates it, often does work well socially, for self-selected upper-middle-class people.” Unfortunately, it can’t take place in areas outside of the city where the developers don’t implement tools that require interaction promoting social cohesion.
“In settlements that are smaller and simpler than big cities, controls on acceptable public behavior, if not on crime, seem to operate with greater or lesser success through a web of reputation, gossip, approval, disapproval, and sanctions, all of which are powerful if people know each other and word travels.” I couldn’t agree more and it is obvious such as in the case of my mom running and people commenting on how they saw her the next day. To the contrary, if people gossip about how they see the wilder kids of other families in the neighborhood using golf carts in an inappropriate manner, they take control of the situation and public behavior within the community as well.

Fortified enclavement of the clubhouse:
More specific to Caldiera’s theories about fortified enclaves, and the forms of separation and exclusion, are in the design of the clubhouse. “The enclaves use modernist conventions to create spaces in which the private quality is enhanced beyond any doubt and in which the public…is deemed irrelevant.” This quote is suitable to each of my articles, but as you will see, the planners of the clubhouse create a space for the members to enjoy and not have to even deal with the workers or staffThough there is only one vehicular entrance, there are a few entrances to the actual clubhouse and two parking lots. One of the lots is for the members, a large one, which employees often park in the back of, and a lot specifically for employees to the lower side of the clubhouse. This lot is secluded with landscaping, being lowered to the ground to the side of a retaining wall with a variety of trees and shrubs, and it lies in between the clubhouse and a pond, an area where nobody but the workers would ever have to pass through. There is one employee entrance and four members entrances. When in the clubhouse, the only workers members even see are the secretary to greet all enterers at the main entrance, the salesmen in the golf shop and golf pros, the waitresses and hostess to the restaurant, and the shoe cleaner or locker room attendant. Any worker that doesn’t have to interact with actual member is hidden away in workrooms and vent-like tunnels. The employee entrance has hallways with access to the kitchen, golf cart maintenance, laundry, cleaning rooms, etc., and only a few connections to the area that the members mingle in. In fact, the only way I even know of these hallways and workrooms’ existence is because a high school friend of mine was a caddy, became a bus boy, and has showed me around the entire network. Each of Caldiera’s arguments about fortified enclaves is intentionally produced here. “In these cities, residents’ everyday interactions with people from other social groups diminish substantially, and public encounters primarily occur inside of protected and relatively homogeneous groups.” Though I could write an entire paper on this alone, I wanted to point out how much trouble designers must have went through to make the members’ experience of life so exclusive.

Compiling the evidence to make a bigger picture:
“Private enclaves and the segregation they generate deny many of the basic elements, which constituted the modern experience of public life”, says Caldiera. The fact of the matter is that the group of individuals who live in a gated community not only cut off the outside world, but they only reproduce privatization of life and diminishment of public social life. The reason for this is completely justified, as the fear of crime seems very real, but also the desire to have a nice lifestyle and raise a family with sheltered children is understandable as well. It is just unfortunate that the fear of violence leads to such fortification, but as Caldiera says, these types of enclaves “appeal to those who are abandoning the traditional public sphere of the streets to the poor, the ‘marginal,’ and the homeless…it is difficult to maintain the principles of openness and free circulation…as a consequence, the character of public space and citizens participation in public life changes.” The way I think it “changes” is that it dies, and becomes private, for those who can afford. This occurs in “Whose Culture? Whose City?” by Zukin, who describes the commercialization of culture that tends to come out of failing public space and privatization. The suburban, gated community that I have discussed is only a small yet representative part of the societal changes taking place.
The end result and future seems grim, but fortunately theorists like Jane Jacobs have ideas on how to get back to being a cohesive, productive, enjoyable society. She describes a some people as having “hobgoblins in their heads…who never feel safe no matter what the objective circumstances are” and these people need to get real. Once they do, I think she feels that people will begin to use the sidewalks more, and this casual use will act as policing, creating safety and even more use. To some extent, this is a cyclical relationship, but she also stresses the importance of people having a reason to use the streets. While this implementation could be done within the gated community to make it better, it would better be done in the rest of the city, eliminating the need for such enclaves.
References:

Interview #1 Bill and Joanne Edlefsen, my parents. Bearpath residents.

Interview #2 Mike and Jody Mooney, family friends, Bearpath residents.

Interview #3 Arthur and Zlata Karpas, family friends, local residents.

Interview #4 Kevin and Cheryl Boyce, neighbors, local residents of Big Woods.

Jane Jacobs: “The Uses of Sidewalks: Safety” In City Reader, edited by Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout, 114-118. London: Routledge, 1996.

Jacobs, Jane: “The Uses of Sidewalks: Contact”. The Death and Life of Great American Cities 55-69. New York: Vintage Books, 1992 (1961).

Manuel Castells: “Cities, Information, Global Economy” In City Reader, edited by Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout, 136-147. London: Routledge, 1996.

Sharon Zukin: “Whose Culture? Whose City?” In City Reader, edited by Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout, 136-147. London: Routledge, 1996.

Teresa Caldiera: “Fortified Enclaves: The New Urban Segregation.” Public Culture 8,
no 2., 303-328. 1996.

Word Count: 4,363