Differences between Cohousing and Gated Communities.

A Literature Review*

Maria L. Ruiu, University of Sassari

On the basis of the literature (produced mainly by sociologists, architects, and

geographers) about gated and cohousing communities, this work analyzes how these
communities differ from each other. The analysis suggests that cohousing and gated
communities are different in the nature of relationships between residents and in the rea-
sons why they arise, even if there are some points of similarity. The risk of a degenera-
tion of cohousing in the gated type is linked in particular with a complete
transformation of the grass-roots model (typical of cohousing) to the top-down specula-
tive scheme (typical of gated communities).

Introduction
This article aims to show that cohousing differs from gated communities
even if there are some similarities, in disagreement with what was previously
found by Chiodelli (2009, 2010). In fact, both Chiodelli’s papers regarding
cohousing, “Enclaves private a carattere residenziale: il caso del co-housing”
(Residential private enclaves: the case of cohousing) and “Abbasso il cohous-
ing? Analogie e differenze fra cohousing e le cosiddette gated communities”
(Down with cohousing! similarities and differences between cohousing and the
so-called gated communities), point out that the similarities are in relation to
their “contractual characters” and a prevalence of the upper-middle class in
both cases.
This article intends to clarify the roles of both cohousing and gated com-
munities in the landscape of existing neighborhoods. In general, the literature
describes gated communities as products of market mechanisms, which influ-
ence public policies to create “efficient urban neighborhoods” where everyone
feels safe. On the other hand, cohousing communities are usually described as
independent from speculative developments and more based on the concept of
sharing (material and immaterial) to create a “community lifestyle” inside and a
network of relationships with the wider neighborhood (outside).
It is important to address the differences between these kinds of communi-
ties, mainly in relation to the effects that they produce inside and outside their
borders. At the same time, there is a need to investigate their similarities to

Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 84, No. 2, May 2014, 316–335

© 2014 Alpha Kappa Delta: The International Sociology Honor Society
DOI: 10.1111/soin.12031
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COHOUSING – GATED COMMUNITIES 317

understand whether the two communities are matched or not and to identify
both common positive and negative aspects. This might be helpful also in
terms of social housing policy to better understand the functioning of these
communities to promote innovative projects.
In summary, the true nature of cohousing and gated communities is the
main point this article aims to focus on. In particular, does cohousing follow
the same logic and respond to the same needs of gated communities?
To discuss this point, the meaning of both cohousing and gated commu-
nity concepts will be specified; afterward, the common and different factors in
both models will be outlined, with reference to the existing literature produced
by sociologists, geographers, and architects and finally, from this, some conclu-
sions will be drawn.
What Are Gated Communities?
Sociological literature offers a wide range of alternative definitions of
gated communities: the result of the “[white] culture of fear” (Blakely and Sny-
der 1997; Davis 1998, 1999; Wilson-Doenges 2000; Bauman 2001; Low 2003;
McKenzie 2005; Sanchez, Lang, and Dhavale 2005; Boni and Poggi 2011); a
consequence of the capitalistic society (Harvey 1999; Le Goix 2005; Wu and
Webber 2004); an emerging feature in neoliberal cities (Genis 2007; McKenzie
2005; Rosen and Razin 2008); a privatization of the public space that produces
social exclusion (Blakely and Snyder 1997; Marcuse 1997; Bauman 2001; Low
2001; Glasze, Frantz, and Webster 2002; Le Goix 2005; Vesselinov 2012); a
phenomenon linked with the urban sprawl (Le Goix 2005; Libertun de Duren
2009); a physical manifestation of an “exclusive way of life” among rich peo-
ple (De Rooij 2000; Le Goix 2005; Libertun de Duren 2009; Parker 2006).
Opposed to the latter point, as Sanchez, Lang, and Dhavale point out, data
released by the U.S. Census Bureau as part of the 2001 American Housing Sur-
vey (AHS) show that “low-income renters are actually more likely to live in
walled or gated communities compared to affluent homeowners” (2005: 81).
Probably, the choice of a “gated lifestyle” is related to a desire of safety more
than everything else.
Each of these definitions emphasizes a different way of interpreting the
phenomenon. However, both agree about the link between social segregation
and gated communities.
Gated communities are a more usual phenomenon of the U.S metropolitan
area (California, Florida, Texas, Arizona, and New York) (Pertman 1994),
although examples can be found worldwide: not only in South America (Cal-
deira 2000; Landman and Sch€ onteich 2002; Salcedo and Torres 2004), South
Africa (Hook and Vrdoljak 2002; Kuppinger 2008; Landman and Sch€onteich
2002; Lipman and Harris 1999), Asia (Connel 1999; Dick and Rimmer 1999;
318 MARIA L. RUIU

Waley 2000; Leisch 2002; Miao 2003; King 2004; Wu and Webber 2004), but
also in Europe (Aalbers 2001; Gooblar 2002). According to Simon Parker,
gated communities are the equivalent of gated and guarded residential areas
(2006). In these terms, gated communities are exclusive enclosed developments
with fancy homes, security guardhouse, (electronic) gates, and private facilities
inaccessible to outsiders. Inhabitants take decisions through internal agreements
to manage their common services, promoting forms of “self-segregation” in
which “social groups choose to live in homogeneous enclaves in terms of life-
style” (Parker 2006: 251). In the same way, Low defines gated communities as
residential developments “surrounded by walls, fences or earth banks covered
with bushes and shrubs, with a secure entrance. In some cases, protection is
provided by inaccessible land such as a nature reserve and, in few cases by a
guarded-bridge” (2003: 11). Caldeira, who studies gated communities in Brazil,
often defines them as “fortified enclaves” (Caldeira 1996a,b, 2000).
According to Davis, the “culture of fear” encourages the privatization of
public spaces and the grant of new racist enclaves (euphemistically called
“urban villages”) with the consequent creation of an “apartheid architecture”
(1999). Davis refers to the “renaissance of Downtown” that besides, having
“killed the street,” has “killed the crowd” radically eliminating the heterogene-
ity of the population and creating “neighborhoods of luxury”. The walled and
gated residential neighborhoods become more often “city-fortresses,” with
boundary walls, limited access points, checkpoints, and private police (2009).
Harvey’s definition underlines that gated communities are the result of the capi-
talist society in which the upper-middle class, “terrorized” by crime, drugs, and
risks of the urban context, tries to build “immune communities” to protect itself
against such threats. At the same time, it causes the segregation of “dangerous
classes,” kept far away from that “exclusive gated world” (1999). Bauman
refers to the residents of condominiums that give up the urban life and choose
to live in “quiet and safe havens” (2005). He identifies the need of security
such as a decisive push factor for the creation of new communities protected
by “armed guards” and where public places are replaced by private-controlled
properties (Bauman 2001). According to Young, the “cultural” and “capitalist”
revolutions have contributed to the creation of a “dystopia of exclusion,”
through tangible (barriers, high prices for goods and services) and intangible
barriers (“cultural stereotypes” about “dangerous people”). It led to a progres-
sive “privatization of public space in terms of shopping malls, private parks,
leisure facilities […], together with the gating of private residential property”
(Young 1999: 18–19).The “dystopia of exclusion” tends to identify and spa-
tially circumscribe the outside threat by delineating boundaries of “protected
niches” that exclude “dangerous people.” This “segregation” has to be seen as
a “defensive exclusion” and has produced two main consequences. On the one
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COHOUSING – GATED COMMUNITIES 319

hand, there are “armored havens” where people (potential victims of crime)
escape; on the other hand, there are “ghettos” where crime is concentrated. This
theory is supported by Davis when he refers to “fortress cities brutally divided
between ‘fortified cells’ of affluent society and ‘places of terror’ where the
police battles the criminalized poor” (1999). Harvey defines the phenomenon of
gated communities as an “urban apartheid” that incorporates in the United
States more than 32 million individuals who live in “a residential community
association” (1996). Harvey’s analysis shows a trend to multinuclear societies
where people prefer to live in their walled “niches.” In this vein, Renaud Le
Goix (2005) emphasizes the importance of security within gated communities
whose residents feel part of a “club,” rather than a “community.” He highlights
that the main reason behind gated communities is a “preventive protection of
the neighborhood” and “residents are supplied with their own security, roads,
amenities, etc., in a private governance effort to avoid the spillovers of urban
residential and industrial developments: crime, increasing through traffic, free-
riding of the amenities, urban decay and decreasing property values due to
unwanted land-use” (Le Goix 2005: 23).
According to these definitions, the aim of gated communities is to “wipe
out the different” to which is “arbitrarily” attributed the role of “threat.” In
these terms, it is easy to understand how walls and gates, as physical barriers,
become symbols of prevention and protection of intrusion by the uninvited
(Garreau 1991; Blakely and Snyder 1997; Lang and Danielsen 1997; Stark
1998; Low 2001, 2003). In gated communities, people share facilities, ser-
vices, and security systems that are different in each community because they
depend on internal agreements. Gated communities might be interpreted both
as the “private” answer to the market and policies’ failures and as a “privi-
leged elitist status” over the “others” (Le Goix 2005). In fact, as McKenzie
argues, the City of Las Vegas and Clark County promote common interest
development housing to maintain low taxes minimizing demands on local gov-
ernment (2005).
Low’s empirical findings show that residents of gated communities are
homogeneous, mainly from the middle and upper-middle class, and they “are
looking for a place where they feel comfortable and secure, but this seemingly
self-evident explanation reflects different underlying meanings and intentions”
(2003: 10). In other words, people choose to live in gated communities to sat-
isfy their individual needs and desires, but likewise, there is a strong element
of prestige and desire to protect themselves.
In contrast to the aforementioned theories, Logan points out a positive
interest in studying gated communities and common interest developments in
specific contexts to consider their different meanings (as cited in Manella
2008). In fact, he observes that it is very difficult to prove that those who live
320 MARIA L. RUIU

in a gated community have limited relationships with people from the outside.
On the other hand, gated communities might be much more closed if they arise
in contexts characterized by high crime rates and inequality as forms of defense
from the outside. According to this view, gated communities, especially those
that stand outside the urban center, arise, not as a response to the need of
exclusivity, but because people look for “something new”: “escape from the
crowded city” (if they stand outside), or simply an attempt to saving money
(often it is easier to buy a house cheaply in the suburbs where more often these
communities are located). For Logan, it is very hard to prove that people who
live in a gated community are merely looking for an exclusive, isolated and
protected place to live. In this vein, there are some authors that point out the
different aims of gated communities in each country: Wu and Webber point
out that in China, the foreign gated communities indicate a high level of status
and a greater presence of amenities in comparison with non-gated develop-
ments (2004); using the 2001 AHS, Sanchez, Lang, and Dhavale show that
gated communities are more prevalent among downscale renters than upscale
owner markets, and the concern for crime is higher among gated renters in
comparison with non-gated renters and gated homeowners (2005); Rosen and
Razin argue that gated communities in Israel are the results of an unregulated
(by the state) market mechanism: They lead the privatization of the space,
according to neoliberal urban forms, based on class and prestige. Third-sector
organizations are emerging in the development of gated projects related to
social and environmental justice (2008).
According to these approaches, gated communities are a product of market
mechanisms and developers, which influence public policy. In synthesis, for
many scholars, security is one of the major ingredients in the formation of
gated communities and this need begins to create an “efficient urban neighbor-
hood” where everyone feels safe. However, the explanations for gated commu-
nities could be different in each country in relation to the research of prestige,
market logics, and policy system.
What Are Cohousing Communities?
Regarding cohousing communities, just a limited literature exists mainly
produced by architects who focus on physical layouts, available common facili-
ties, legal forms, decision-making processes (Fromm 1991; McCamant and
Durrett 1998, 2011; Bamford 2001; Field 2004; Meltzer 2005; Scotthanson
and Scotthanson 2005; Williams 2005; Lietaert 2007; Sargisson 2010), on
internal social dynamics (Blank 2001; Field 2004; Williams 2005, 2008; Bou-
ma and Voorbij 2009; 2011; Sargisson 2010; Jarvis 2011; Chatterton 2013),
and relations between cohousing and the environment (Bamford 2001; Brown
2004; Chatterton 2013; Meltzer 2005; Sargisson 2010; Williams 2008). Only
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COHOUSING – GATED COMMUNITIES 321

Chiodelli points out the connection between cohousing and gated communities
(2009, 2010).
The cohousing idea originated in the 60s in Denmark, and mainly spread
in Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Great Britain, North America, and to a lesser
extent, Germany, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Cohousing com-
munities consist of private homes around a common network of services
(shared kitchen, dining rooms, child care facilities, libraries, laundries, gymna-
siums, cafeterias, offices, gardens, guest rooms, etc.).
Cohousing communities combine rented and privately owned homes and,
in some cases, completely “all-rented” communities. Usually, ownership (or
rental) contracts set an amount of work expected from each adult member per
month (babysitting, preparing a community meal, gardening, conducting main-
tenance work, and bookkeeping) (Sargisson 2010). In addition to shared ser-
vices, one of the recurring features is the car-free area: Usually, the parking
area is limited and located outside to preserve natural areas and to ensure play
areas for children. Moreover, car-sharing and bike-sharing systems are often
available. Usually, residents in cohousing communities share weekly meals
(prepared or not together) in the common space. The number of shared meals
and the ways they are prepared changes in each community (Blank 2001). The
size of the sites varies depending on the number of inhabitants, services, eco-
nomic resources, and on whether the community is built on an existing site or
on a new one.
According to field, the basic conditions for a cohousing are identified as
follows:

1. intentionality;
2. design for facilitating the processes of socialization;
3. presence of private and common facilities;
4. group size to support the community dynamics;
5. control and self-management (2004: 10).

Usually, a cohousing community takes a long time to be fully developed,

because it requires the provision of a cohesive group, common goals, and a
physical site (Brenton 2008). Each group defines both physical structure and
internal tasks: The key elements are the interaction and participation in the
common life.
Bamford points out the “intentional designed neighbourhood” as one of
the main characteristics of cohousing projects (2001). Sargisson defines inten-
tional communities as “groups of people who have chosen to live […] together
for some common purpose” (2000: 1). The common aims in cohousing
communities can be identified, firstly, in the intention to create a “friendly
322 MARIA L. RUIU

neighbourhood” to restore and redefine relationships among neighborhood units

(what we can call neighborliness) as well as a means to escape “alienated, iso-
lated and disconnected social life in the city” (Sargisson 2010); secondly, in
the creation of community life, while maintaining an element of privacy. In
fact, groups take part in each aspect of the community development: designing
physical layouts, managing sites collectively, and sharing common facilities
and spaces, but they have private homes and they do not have a shared eco-
nomic system (usually, they manage a common fund in relation to basic essen-
tials). Williams (2005) and Jarvis (2011) point out that cohousing shares some
purposes and design strategies with new urbanism. Like cohousing, new urban-
ism aims to encourage social interaction in a “community environment” also
through design principles. Jarvis defines cohousing as a “clustering of smaller-
than-average private residences [which are used in order] to maximize shared
open spaces for social interaction, common facilities for shared daily use, and
non-hierarchical consensus-based resident management” (2011: 560). In the
same way, Williams refers to cohousing as a “nonhierarchical” housing system,
which, in addition to the design structure, encourages social interaction within
neighborhoods (2005). As Sargisson points out, cohousing is based on a con-
cept of sharing (not only spaces, but also properties, decision-making pro-
cesses, and experiences): It is not wedded to any particular tenure structure and
it tends to be different from the products of the speculative development of
individual homes for commercial sale or rent (2010). Participation in the deci-
sion-making process is thought for some scholars as a key element in social
interaction (Fromm 1991; McCamant and Durrett 1998; Brenton 1998), but can
also be a catalyst for conflicts (Williams 2005). The number of inhabitants is
crucial because it allows for a “community lifestyle,” even though some mem-
bers are absent and they do not take part in common activities. At the same
time, the group cannot be too large because the decision-making process could
become problematic. According to field, the “ideal” number is between about
10 and 40 adults to develop proper social dynamics (2004). Almost all scholars
(Field 2004; Fromm 2000; Jarvis 2011; Lietaert 2007; Meltzer 2005; Renz
2006a,b; Sargisson 2010; Scotthanson and Scotthanson 2005; Williams 2005)
point out the difficulty in managing the decision-making process collectively,
even if the majority of communities refer to “consensus system” (see Pickerill
and Chatterton 2006). “Consensus” is the heart of the system of governance in
cohousing communities even if it requires time, patience, and a strong willing-
ness to solve eventual internal conflicts (Sargisson 2010).
The self-management takes into account many aspects of the cohousing
daily life, not only the decision making about the site and internal life, but also
the informal mutual help among cohousers (Jarvis 2011; Williams 2005). Infor-
mal help is defined by Hoch and Hemmens, as “the qualities of the social
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COHOUSING – GATED COMMUNITIES 323

relationships within which helping occurs […]. Formal and informal helps
appear more parallel than complementary in that both provide help for virtually
the same kinds of problems” (Hoch and Hemmens 1987: 433). This happens
within cohousing communities where the level of informal mutual help may
depend on the degree of heterogeneity, residential stability, age of the commu-
nity, and personal factors (Williams 2005).
The Italian cohousing Web site (www.cohousing.it/content) indicates, as
characteristics of cohousing, the “economic benefits” as guaranteed by sharing
services and reducing costs. However, it could be argued that the high cost of
the sites and construction is sometimes responsible for the failure of groups.
For this reason, those inhabitants of the communities born spontaneously, with-
out any kind of public aids, are mainly from the medium-high economic–social
status. In fact, as stated on Cohousing Partners Web site:
Cohousing homes typically cost more than other new condos or townhomes, for several rea-
sons: cohousing neighborhoods offer generous common facilities that are unheard of in tradi-
tional attached housing developments. Cohousing projects typically incorporate
environmentally sustainable features that cost more in the short run, although they often pay
off over time (Cohousing Partners 2012a).

As Williams highlights, “residents bear all financial costs and risks associ-
ated with the project (2008: 270). They raise their own capital for the develop-
ment and are personally liable for ongoing costs”. At the same time, in
Northern Europe (Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands), some cohousing
communities are state-financed, forming part of the state social housing policy
(see Sargisson 2010), and the social housing sector adopts cohousing principles
in a top-down logic (Williams 2008). In the United Kingdom, where cohousing
mainly follows a grass-roots model, some communities are able to keep costs
down: Lilac cohousing (Leeds) creates affordable housing through a Mutual
Home Ownership Society (see Chatterton 2013). Threshold center (Gillingham,
Dorset), Cohousing Woodside (North London), and Baltic Wharf Cohousing
Group (Totnes, Devon) collaborate with housing associations; Hedgehog Co-op
(Brighton, East Sussex) is a self-build community. In the first case, a minimum
net income is required and it ranges from £15,000 for a one bed flat to
£49,000 for a four bed flat (Chatterton in press); in the second (Cohousing
Woodside and Baltic Wharf Cohousing Group are still developing), a housing
association provides social housing; in the third, households have been engaged
in the building process. Generally, people who live in cohousing communities
tend to be characterized by both economic and ideological (from the political
ideas to religious faith) heterogeneity, although the intention to create a “com-
munity life” often involves the adhesion to a common “ideological base” (at
least minimally), such as, in some cases, the environmental care.
324 MARIA L. RUIU

To verify if “good housing” might “have positive external effects” (Gibb

and Hoesli 2003), it is necessary to consider the relationship between cohous-
ing and the local context where it settles. The declared aim of many communi-
ties is to achieve not only a high degree of harmony within itself, but also
communication with the outside world to break down the barriers (physical and
“psychological”) between the “inside” and “outside.”
A Comparison between Cohousing and Gated Communities
According to Chiodelli, gated and cohousing communities cannot be dis-
tinguished (2009; 2010). However, Chiodelli’s analysis focuses on the common
structural factors as residential functions, contractual communities, and associa-
tions, while completely ignoring goals, safety aims and developing processes
that produce differences between cohousing and gated communities.
Before accounting the similarities and differences between cohousing and
gated communities, it is important to emphasize that both types of community
have their own organization that cannot be generalized. This means that it is
possible that some cohousing can be closer to the gated communities model,
and others can be completely different from it.
The first common feature concerns the sense of safety, although both
models have different sources. In fact, gated communities defend their spaces
against external threats by erecting barriers and using control systems to cre-
ate a sense of safety; in cohousing, often, there are no barriers around the
communities, but there is, in the same way, a high perception of safety. In
fact, as stated on the Cohousing Bristol Web site, “Safety is in knowing
your neighbours – not in walls and barriers” (Cohousing 2012). Around the
houses, there are not barriers or boundaries, and usually, there are not barri-
ers around the entire community. However, four of five communities studied
by Bouma and Voorbij in the Netherlands have safety systems for entering
buildings (2009). At the same time, even if gates or control systems are
present, cohousing projects are usually oriented to the wider community,
firstly, organizing many activities that involve people from outside, and sec-
ondly, keeping the gates open during the day. This means that cohousing
communities intend to create relationships with the wider context beyond any
fences: The high rate of people present (internal or external) contributes to
increase the sense of safety among residents. Although in cohousing commu-
nities, tools and technologies for surveillance are not much diffused, it has
been suggested that people from outside are urged to follow the rules
because they are monitored by an invisible eye that belongs to the commu-
nity. Unlike gated communities, cohousing does not have any evident control
points (e.g., places where there are cameras): The “surveillance” inside seems
to be exercised in an “invisible” way. In fact, as stated on Cohousing
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COHOUSING – GATED COMMUNITIES 325

Partners Web site, safety and security depend on a “neighbourhood watch

system”:
we know all our neighbors, we have an excellent neighborhood watch system built into our
communities […]. Then there’s more than one person to watch out for the property of an
absent resident. All eyes on the common areas’ means that even in quite an urban area, many
cohousers will feel comfortable leaving their front door unlocked when they go to the com-
mon house to pick up laundry, and will not require that their community be accessible only
thorough a locked gate (Cohousing Partners 2012b).

Digging deeper, the findings obtained by Williams in two communities in

California show that physical design creates surveillance opportunities: “densi-
ties and accessibility were the key design features influencing the strength of
support networks in the community” (2005: 203). Following the model scheme
created by Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durret, the cohousing physical lay-
out has in the center the common spaces (and buildings) by which residents
exercise control on the surroundings. But at the same time, there is a reciprocal
control between the surroundings (homes) and the center (common spaces) to
guarantee internal order (1998; 2011). The “overseers” (inhabitants) benefit
from such control as well and exert a “power” by “watching” their visitors. In
other words, the architectural design in addition to the cohousers’ “intentional-
ity” to become a “friendly neighbourood” (but always “watching” the common
stuff) creates a safe environment within the communities.
In contrast, Low explains that in gated communities, the sense of safety
increases, but not a “real” safety, because, theoretically, anyone could elude
controls and jump the walls. In this vein, Blakely and Snyder argue that fancy
and high surveillance technologies have a symbolic role because they increase
the perception of safety (1997). Low points out that her research team found it
difficult to obtain an entry into gated communities and to contact residents in
relation to the closure of these communities. When she describes her sister’s
house in a gated community (San Antonio, Texas), she points out the presence
of a wall, which encircles the house, and the blocked views from the first floor
(2003: 4). Inhabitants of gated communities depend much more on surveillance
systems (or guards) that focus on the outside to keep out the “unauthorized.”
Following Abu-Ghazzeh, we can state that when residents feel they share
something, they possess the psychological security to be surrounded by people
they can trust (1999). This could be true in both types of communities, but in
cohousing communities, the sense of security depends more on a high degree
of trust, both internal and external. In fact, generally in cohousing, there are
“semi-public” spaces (and public within the community) accessible from the
outside (Jarvis 2011; Ruiu 2013; Sargisson 2010); while in gated communities,
“public spaces are privatized” (McKenzie 1994; Blakely and Snyder 1997).
People in gated communities, as well as in cohousing, share facilities and
326 MARIA L. RUIU

services, and each community differs from others in terms of size, security sys-
tems, and amenities in relation to the internal agreements. However, different
from cohousing communities, in gated communities, facilities or spaces are
available only for their residents (Low 2003: 12). Gated communities are
entirely “private” and they tend to produce social exclusion because they do
not make available facilities for outside (Blakely and Snyder 1997; Marcuse
1997; Bauman 2001; Low 2001; Glasze, Frantz, and Webster 2002; Le Goix
2005; Vesselinov 2012). This thesis is supported by Williams who underlines
that in cohousing communities, the activities and spaces are often open to the
outside to encourage an integration with the wider context, “unlike gated
communities, where residents from the wider community are excluded”
(2005: 201).
Although it is possible that some cohousing can be closer to the gated
communities model, vice versa, we can state that in cohousing communities,
safety is based on neighborhood watching more than on surveillance systems,
while in gated communities, the sense of security depends on barriers and on
using control systems. In fact, the issue of safety within cohousing seems to
have much more to do with Jane Jacobs’ definition about the “eyes upon the
street” rather than with a system of surveillance (Jacobs 1964). She refers to a
“look” that takes place in public rather than private or semiprivate spaces: She
particularly refers to the street and sidewalk. The spontaneous social control
helps to “inhibit” those behaviors considered inappropriate by the “commu-
nity.” Cohousing, usually, does not have fences because it aims to create “pub-
lic” places enjoyed also by “foreigners.” These intentions can be supported by
Jacobs’ reflection about the creation of activities, cultural and entertainment
places, to attract as many people as possible on the streets, because people need
reasons to use streets and sidewalks. Usually, within cohousing communities,
there are organized activities, meetings, services that are “public” and poten-
tially accessible to people who do not belong to the community. On the con-
trary, it seems to be that in gated communities, the sense of safety increases in
accordance with the “denial” of access and the “reclusion” in protected places.
In short, cohousing was not created to ensure safety; however, in gated
communities, even if some scholars do not stress safety as the primary goal
(see Rosen and Razin 2008; Sanchez, Lang, and Dhavale 2005; Wu and Web-
ber 2004), a majority of scholars indicate safety as one of the primary aims, in
particular in the United States, Latin America, and South Africa (Low 1997,
2003; Davis 1998; Caldeira 2000; Ellin 2001; Coy and Pohler 2002; Landman
and Sch€ onteich 2002; Jurgens and Gnad 2002; Landman 2004; Lemanski 2004,
2006; Rodgers 2004; Coy 2006).
The second common feature regards the exclusion of the poorest people:
In both cases (in most of the projects), costs of access are higher, even in
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COHOUSING – GATED COMMUNITIES 327

relation to the facilities available. Findings obtained by Rosen and Razin show
that “the new gated communities are predominantly a product of market mecha-
nisms, representing class-based segregation rather than ideology, ethnic identity
or security considerations” (2008: 1718). In the same way, cohousing is often
characterized by high costs of access (costs of dwellings, maintenance, and ser-
vices), in particular, if it is a private initiative (grass-roots model); however, it
tends to be different from products of the speculative development of individ-
ual homes for commercial sale or rent. In fact, cohousing is almost always
managed by non-profit organizations. Williams underlines that cohousing com-
munities tend to be homogenous in terms of race, religion, income, and educa-
tion. This is the reason why some groups are “excluded” from joining
cohousing communities “because they felt they would be socially and culturally
isolated” (2008: 272). Likewise, some cohousers point out the prestige in living
in cohousing communities in relation to the higher resale values and the pres-
ence of “luxurious” facilities. However, different forces produce cohousing pro-
jects from the forces that generate gated communities: in the first case, it is
often grass-roots forces that produce cohousing projects (if they were born in
private contexts); in the second case, top-down logic (from market to target)
produces the “desire” to live in gated communities. Some scholars emphasize
gated communities as an “emerging feature of the neo-liberal city”: Market and
third-sector organizations are influencing the production of gated spaces (Rosen
and Razin 2008: 1718). The interest of developers in these communities
depends on the opportunity to “pursue higher density in order to maintain prof-
its despite rising land costs” (McKenzie 2006: 187). In addition, homeowner
associations provide those facilities that would normally be government respon-
sibilities because services are directly managed by members (McKenzie 2005;
McKenzie 2006). This means that gated communities produce a significant
change in local governance, because they provide those services and infrastruc-
ture that were provided by institutions before. This could be true for cohousing
communities as well, however, with the important difference that their services
are often open to the outside, while in gated developments, they are owned,
managed, and enjoyed only by residents. In addition, in gated communities, the
top-down logic encourages a speculative system because developers maximize
profit through mass production (McKenzie 2006). On the other hand, grass-
roots and social oriented systems, often used in cohousing communities, place
cohousing out of any speculative logic: When groups adopt resident-led mod-
els, they are responsible for every aspect (from recruitment to operational pro-
cesses). Even though they collaborate with external partners, they are involved
in all phases of the process. The other side of the coin regards the speculative
cohousing model that emerged in the United States in which developers are
responsible for the production (Williams 2008). The speculative approach
328 MARIA L. RUIU

might degenerate into the same logic on which gated communities are based
that could cause the community to lose the reason why it was born.
The third common feature focuses on what Chiodelli calls a “contractual
character”: in both cases, inhabitants decide through internal agreements, how
to manage their joint services (2009; 2010). In cohousing and gated communi-
ties, there are rules regarding the public life and shared spaces (so, everyone
has to consult the other residents before making changes to the common area).
As Sargisson points out, the nature of commitments within communities varies
from group to group, and sometimes, groups specify a minimum time commit-
ment per month (2010). Often residents sign a “contract” when they buy the
house and it includes a wide range of collective activities and work (for exam-
ple, gardening, cooking, maintenance work, babysitting, and cleaning). Jarvis
calls this system the “infrastructure of daily life,” that involves all aspects of
cohousers’ “public life” (2011). These sets of rules and agreements affect the
behavior of members because they create the cohousers’ community life (Bou-
ma and Voorbij 2009; Meltzer 2005). In cohousing, as well as in gated com-
munities, the contractual character reviews the rules that are necessary for the
“correct” functioning of the communities, but in cohousing communities, it
aims also to promote the “social life” inside (and outside). In cohousing com-
munities, the rules might be read as the key to “recruit” (or self-select) mem-
bers and verify the “compatibility” of them (Williams 2008). It means that the
cohousing lifestyle is not suitable for all, because people need to share values
(see Bouma and Voorbij 2009; Sargisson 2010). Similarly, in gated communi-
ties, not everyone is suitable for a “gated lifestyle,” but it is more linked with
the feeling of being part of a “club” rather than a “community” (Le Goix
2005). In contrast, in gated communities, developers are not interested in
recruiting members in relation to specific values. At the same time, as outlined
above, cohousing communities that are developed by external developers in a
speculative way tend to be very similar to gated projects.
Furthermore, in gated communities, the intimate link between the residents
and the sense of community is not a key element. The evidence from Wilson-
Doenges indicates that the sense of community does not increase inside gated
communities (2000). However, Low finds that a group might develop a strong
sense of community, in relation to the physical proximity and shared spaces.
But this is not a predetermined aim; it is a secondary result. As Lang and Dan-
ielsen argue, the paradox of gated communities implies a reinforcement of an
“inward-focused community culture” and an involvement in local community
life only in relation to relevant issue to their community (1997). Once again,
gated communities look inside, more than they do outside. In contrast, people
usually decide to create a cohousing development to build a “strong” sense of
community and an “intentional” friendly neighborhood (Field 2004; Jarvis
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COHOUSING – GATED COMMUNITIES 329

2011; Sargisson 2010). The common life could be explained by material needs:
Individuals choose to live in a community with people that share same values.
As Biraghi points out, it is “obvious” that a community creates a strong sense
of security because people manage their spaces directly and trust their neigh-
bors (2011). In this vein, Brenton underlines that the participative process
“becomes the means by which they get to know each other, develop a sense of
ownership and grow a sense of group cohesion and commitment to their neigh-
bours” (2008: 5). This system allows people to get to know each other in con-
trast to developers and housing associations whose approach is to bring
strangers together.
The big difference between gated and cohousing residents is the motiva-
tion behind the creation of such facilities: In the first case, even though schol-
ars identify different motivations, none of this relates to the willingness to be a
part of a community. In the second, we can define cohousing as a “community”
because the primary goal is the mutual exchange (both material and immate-
rial).
The possibility that cohousing can “degenerate” into a gated community is
linked with the speculative market system that produces top-down logics. This
risk is tangible in American projects, which often create cohousing communi-
ties that are the results of marketing forces, making the sense of community
lower because people do not know each other.
Conclusion
Contrasting to Chiodelli’s argument, the comparison between cohousing
and gated communities suggests more differences than similarities. The differ-
ences between cohousing and gated communities can be summarized under
four categories: sense of safety; degree of closure to the outside; sense of com-
munity; motivations; and aims.
In relation to the issue of safety, we can conclude that often gated commu-
nities are residential systems where safety is “the star” around which the sys-
tem revolves (in particular in the United States, Latin America, and South
Africa), while cohousing “being a community” is “trust-centric.” Unlike gated
communities, within cohousing projects, the “surveillance” is exercised in an
“invisible” way that is closer to the “social control” as defined by Jane Jacobs.
In relation to the issue of the degree of closure to the outside, unlike gated
communities, activities and spaces in cohousing are often open to the outside
to encourage the integration within the wider context. This shows that cohous-
ers’ willingness to take part in the wider neighborhood produces effects on it:
When they make their facilities available for the outside, they inevitably affect
the external context (especially if the communities arise in the countryside or
in suburbs). In fact, they offer facilities and spaces to the wider neighborhood
330 MARIA L. RUIU

trying to create friendly relationships with it. Therefore, cohousing might pro-
duce positive externalities in the wider context increasing the degree of trust
among neighbors (often “perfect strangers,” in particular in urban contexts)
through the participation in common activities and events. In this vein, the trust
might be considered as the lubricant of the social and exchange relations inside
and outside the communities.
In relation to the issue of the sense of community, cohousing communities
consist of “intentional” groups that decide to build a “strong” sense of commu-
nity and a friendly neighborhood through a collaborative and participatory sys-
tem. Cohousers live together with people that share the same values and their
sense of community becomes stronger also because they manage their spaces
directly and trust their neighbors. In gated communities, the development of
the sense of community is not a primary aim, but it could be a secondary result
consequent to the proximity of people.
The “contractual character” and the prevalence of the upper-middle class,
indicated by Chiodelli as the trait d’union between cohousing and gated com-
munities, do not emerge from the literature review as key elements for this
approach.
However, despite these differences, it is possible that some cohousing
examples can be similar to the gated communities model, vice versa. We can
state that in gated communities, the sense of security depends much more on
barriers and using control systems than cohousing communities where more
often the control is exercised by an “invisible eye”; the “contractual character”
in gated communities is linked with the membership of a “club” where people
are requested to respect certain rules, while in cohousing, the “contract” regards
the “infrastructure of daily life,” which involves rules and agreements about
cohousers’ community life as well as promoting the “social life” inside (and
outside). The exclusion of the poorest people in gated communities is mainly
the result of market mechanisms, while cohousing tends to be different (much
more social and grass-roots oriented) from the products of a speculative
scheme. However, poorer people are often excluded from cohousing communi-
ties because the absence of external funds (private or public) may increase the
costs of access (because the projects are entirely financed by residents). These
higher costs can become invisible barriers that avoid the access of poorer peo-
ple. In both cases, the exclusion can be related to economic reasons: While in
gated communities, to become part of the system, the need of a higher income
threshold is often crucial (so, people tend to exclude themselves), the situation
within cohousing is that the economic aspects tend to appear secondary to the
community building. In the latter case, the high economic status seems to be
hidden behind the intentionality to become part of a community; however, in
gated communities, higher prices could become an explicit factor of exclusion.
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COHOUSING – GATED COMMUNITIES 331

In cohousing communities, this mechanism does not exist a priori, but it

emerges when cohousers need the money to implement the project.
In short, gated community members buy an “admission card” to become
part of the club; cohousers more often create their club and, even if everyone
could access, only those who can afford the costs become members. How-
ever, the greatest risk that cohousing communities become gated develop-
ments is linked to the speculative system. It can be argued that the
engagement of external developers could produce a loss of the sense of com-
munity and intentionality, as well as the lack of cohesiveness within the
group, which could happen likewise in gated communities. In addition, the
top-down logic and mass production could be promoted by governments
because cohousing provides services to the wider community directly man-
aged by its members.
An empirical research about the comparison between gated and cohous-
ing communities could be helpful. Besides identifying the different aims and
structures, it is important to understand how to support the birth and the
growth of these two types of communities. There is a need to investigate the
potential roles of the public actor and the partnerships between the private
and public sectors in the development process to avoid those speculative con-
sequences mentioned above. These preliminary results aim to provide a first
demarcation between the two types of communities and underline, depending
on the literature considered, how these communities differ (or are similar)
each other.

ENDNOTE

*Please direct correspondence to: Maria Laura Ruiu, Department of Political Science, Com-
munication and Information Engineering, University of Sassari, Via Casimiro De Magistris 31,
07100 Sassari, Italy; e-mail: mlruiu@uniss.it. The present research was partially financed by P.O.R.
SARDEGNA F.S.E. 2007–2013—Obiettivo competitivita regionale e occupazione, Asse IV Capitale
umano, Linea di Attivita l.3.

REFERENCES

Aalbers, Manuel. 2001. “The Double Function of the Gate. Social Inclusion and Exclusion in Gated
Communities and Security Zones.” Paper presented at the Eurex Seminar, Amsterdam,
September. Retrieved July 10, 2012. <www.shakti.uniurb.it/eurex/library/AlbersXGated%
20Communities.pdf.Cohousing Network>.
Bamford, Greg. 2001. “Bringing Us Home: Cohousing and the Environmental Possibilities of
Reuniting People with Neighbourhoods.” Paper presented at Situating the Environment 2001
332 MARIA L. RUIU

Conference Proceedings, The University of Queensland, St Lucia Campus, February 15–16.

Retrieved June 12, 2012. <http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:13658>.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 2001. Community. Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Oxford, UK: Polity.
———. 2005. Fiducia e Paura Nella Citta Milano, Italy: Mondadori.
Biraghi, Giacomo. 2011. “Come il Cohousing puo Cambiare le Metropoli Contemporanee.”
Retrieved September 20, 2011. <http://www.cohousing.it/images/stories/approfondimenti/
il_cohousing_e_la_citta.pdf>.
Blakely, Edward J. and Mary Gail Snyde. 1997. Fortress America: Gated Communities in the
United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press and Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy.
Blank, Joani. 2001. “Common Meals in Cohousing Communities.” Cohousing Journal (Winter): 20-
34. Retrieved September 20, 2011. <http://www.joaniblank.com/cohousing/CommonMeals/>.
Boni, Federico and Fabio Poggi. 2011. Sociologia Dell’architettura Roma, Italy: Carocci.
Bouma, Jantine and Liek Voorbij. 2009. “Factors in Social Interaction in Cohousing Communities.”
Paper presented Conference Proceedings Lifecycle Design of Buildings, Systems and
Materials Enschede, The Netherlands, June 12-15.
Brenton, Maria. 2008. The Cohousing Approach to ‘Lifetime Neighbourhoods’. London: Housing
Learning & Improvement Network: Factsheet n.29.
Brown, Jason R. 2004. Comparative Analysis of Energy Consumption Trends in Cohousing and
Alternate Housing Arrangements. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Caldeira, Teresa P. R. 1996a. “Building up Walls: The New Pattern of Spatial Segregation in S~ao
Paulo.” International Social Science Journal 48(1):55–66.
———. 1996b. “Fortified Enclaves: The new Urban Segregation.” Public Culture 8(2):303–328.
———. 2000. City of Walls: Crime, Segregation and Citizenship in Sao Paulo Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Chatterton, Paul. 2013. “Towards an Agenda for Post-Carbon Cities. Lessons from Lilac, the UK’s
First Ecological Affordable Cohousing Community.” International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 37(5):1654–1674.
Chiodelli, Francesco. 2009. “Abbasso il Cohousing? Analogie e Differenze fra Cohousing e le
Cosiddette Gated Communities.” Paper presented at the XXX Conferenza Italiana di Scienze
Regionali, Firenze, September 9–12.
———. 2010. “Enclaves Private a Carattere Residenziale: Il Caso del co-Housing.” Rassegna
Italiana di Sociologia 51(1):95–116.
Cohousing, Bristol, 2012. “Principles of Cohousing. More About Social Sustainability.” Retrieved
October 2, 2012. <http://www.cohousingbristol.org.uk/principles-of-co-housing/more-social-
sustainability.php>.
Cohousing Partners, 2012a. “How Much Does Cohousing Cost?.” Retrieved October 4, 2012.
<http://www.cohousingpartners.com/faq.html#12>.
Cohousing Partners, 2012b. “What About Safety and Security?.” Cohousing Partners. Retrieved
October 4, 2012. <http://www.cohousingpartners.com/faq.html#14>.
Connell, John. 1999. “Beyond Manila: Walls, Malls, and Private Spaces.” Environmental and
Planning A 31:417–439.
Coy, Martin. 2006. “Gated Communities and Urban Fragmentation in Latin America: The Brazilian
Experience.” GeoJournal 66:121–132.
Coy, Martin and Martin Pohler. 2002. “Gated Communities in Latin American Megacities: Case
Studies in Brazil and Argentina.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 29
(3):365–370.
Davis, Mike. 1998. Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster New York, NY:
H. Holt.
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COHOUSING – GATED COMMUNITIES 333

———. 1999. Citt a di Quarzo. Indagando sul Futuro di Los Angeles Roma, Italy: Manifestolibri.
De Rooij, Louise. 2000. California Dreaming. Woonconcepten uit de San Fransisco Bay Area.
Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Nai Uitgevers.
Dick, Howard W. and Peter J. Rimmer. 1999. “Beyond the Third World City: The New Urban
Geography of South-East Asia.” Urban Studies 35(12):2303–2321.
Field, Martin. 2004. Thinking About Cohousing. The Creation of Intentional Neighborhoods
London, UK: Diggers and Dreamers.
Fromm, Dorit. 1991. Collaborative Communities: Cohousing, Central Living, and Other New
Forms of Housing With Shared Facilities New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
———. 2000. “American Cohousing: The First Five Years.” Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research 17(2):94–109.
Garreau, Joel. 1991. Edge City: Life on the new Frontier New York, NY: Doubleday.

Genis, Serife. 2007. “Producing Elite Localities: The Rise of Gated Communities in Istanbul.”
Urban Studies 44(4):771–798.
Gibb, Kennet and Martin Hoesli. 2003. “Developments in Urban Housing and Property Markets.”
Urban Studies 40:887–896.
Glasze, Georg, Klaus Frantz and Chris J. Webster. 2002. “The Global Spread of Gated
Communities.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 29(3):315–320.
Gooblar, Aron. 2002. “Outside the Walls: Urban Gated Communities and Their Regulation Within
the British Planning System.” European Planning Studies 10(3):321–334.
Harvey, Davis. 1999. Justice, Nature & the Geography of Difference Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Hoch, Charles and George C. Hemmens. 1987. “Linking Informal and Formal Help: Conflict Along
the Continuum of Care.” Social Service Review 61(3):432–446.
Hook, Derek and Michele Vrdoljak. 2002. “Gated Communities, Heterotopia and a ‘Rights’ of
Privilege: A ‘Heterotopology’ of the South African Security-Park.” Geoforum 33:195–219.
Jacobs, Jane. 1964. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. The Failure of Town Planning
London, UK: Penguin Books.
Jarvis, Helen. 2011. “Saving Space, Sharing Time: Integrated Infrastructures of Daily Life in
Cohousing.” Environment and Planning 43:560–577.
Jurgens, Ulrich and Martin Gnad. 2002. “Gated Communities in South Africa: Experiences from
Johannesburg.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 29(3):337–353.
King, Anthony D. 2004. Spaces of Global Cultures: Architecture Urbanism Identity. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Kuppinger, Petra. 2008. “Exclusive Greenery: New Gated Communities in Cairo.” City & Society
16(2):35–61.
Landman, Karina. 2004. “Gated Communities in South Africa: The Challenge for Spatial Planning
and Land use Management.” Town Planning Review 75(2):151–172.
Landman, Karina and Martin Sch€onteich. 2002. “Urban Fortresses. Gated Communities as a
Reaction to Crime.” African Security Review 11(4):71–85.
Lang, Robert E. and Karen A. Danielsen. 1997. “Gated Communities in America: Walling out the
World?” Housing Policy Debate 8(4):867–877.
Le Goix, Reneaud. 2005. “Gated Communities: Sprawl and Social Segregation in Southern
California.” Housing Studies 20 (2): 323–344.
Leisch, Harald. 2002. “Gated Communities in Indonesia.” Cities 19(5):341–350.
Lemanski, Charlotte. 2004. “A new Apartheid? The Spatial Implications of Fear of Crime in Cape
Town, South Africa.” Environment and Urbanization 16(2):101–112.
———. 2006. “Residential Responses to Fear (of Crime Plus) in Two Cape Town Suburbs:
Implications for the Post-Apartheid City.” Journal of International Development 18:787–802.
334 MARIA L. RUIU

Libertun de Duren, Nora R. 2009. “Urban Planning and State Reform. From Industrial Suburbs to
Gated Communities.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 28: 310–322.
Lietaert, Matthieu. 2007. Cohousing e Condomini Solidali Firenze, Italy: Editrice Aam Terranuova.
Lipman, Alan and Howard Harris. 1999. “Fortress Johannesburg.” Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design 26(5):727–740.
Low, Setha M. 1997. “Urban Fear: Building Fortress America.” City and Society 9(1):53–71.
———. 2001. “The Edge and the Center: Gated Communities and the Discourse of Urban Fear.”
American Anthropologist 103(1):45–57.
———. 2003. Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America
New York: Routledge.
Manella, Gabriele. 2008. Nuovi Scenari Urbani. La Sociologia del Territorio Negli USA Oggi
Milano, Italy: FrancoAngeli.
Marcuse, Peter. 1997. “The Ghetto of Exclusion and the Fortified Enclave: New Patterns in the
U. S.” American Behavioral Scientist 41:311–326.
McCamant, Kathryn and Charles Durrett. 1998. Cohousing. A Contemporary Approach to Housing
Ourselves. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.
McCamant, Kathryn and Charles Durrett. 2011. Creating Cohousing. Building Sustainable
Communities. Canada: New Society Publishers.
McKenzie, Evan. 1994. Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private
Governments. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
———. 2005. “Constructing The Pomerium in Las Vegas: A Case Study of Emerging Trends in
American Gated Communities.” Housing Studies 20(2):187–203.
Meltzer, Graham. 2005. Sustainable Community. Learning from the Cohousing Model Canada:
Trafford.
Miao, Pu. 2003. “Deserted Streets in a Jammed Town: The Gated Community in Chinese Cities
and Its Solution.” Journal of Urban Design 8(1):45–66.
Parker, Simon. 2006. Teoria ed Esperienza Urbana. Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino.
Pertman, Adam. 1994. “Home, Safe Home: Closed Communities Grow.” Boston Globe, March 14, p. 2.
Pickerill, Jenny and Paul Chatterton. 2006. “Notes Towards Autonomous Geographies: Creation,
Resistance and Self-Management as Survival Tactics.” Progress in Human Geography 30
(6):730–746.
Renz, Mary A. 2006a. “Paving Consensus: Enacting, Challenging, and Revising the Consensus
Process in a Cohousing Community.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 34
(2):163–190.
———. 2006b. “The Meaning of Consensus and Blocking for Cohousing Groups.” Small Group
Research 37:351–376.
Rodgers, Dennis. 2004. “‘Disembedding’ the City: Crime, Insecurity and Spatial Organization in
Managua, Nicaragua.” Environment and Urbanization 16(2):113–124.
Rosen, Gillad and Eran Razin. 2008. “The Rise of Gated Communities in Israel: Reflections on
Changing Urban Governance in a Neo-Liberal Era.” Urban Studies 46(8):1702–1722.
Ruiu, Maria L. 2013. “Il Cohousing e la Sottile Linea tra Spazio Pubblico e Spazio Privato: The
Community Project.” Sociologia Urbana e Rurale 100:105–118.
Salcedo, Rodrigo and Alvaro Torres. 2004. “Gated Communities in Santiago: Wall or Frontier?”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 28(1):27–44.
Sanchez, Thomas W., Robert E. Lang and Dawn M. Dhavale. 2005. “Security Versus Status? A
First Look at the Census’s Gated Community Data.” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 24:281–291.
Sargisson, Lucy. 2000. Utopian Bodies. London, UK: Routledge.
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COHOUSING – GATED COMMUNITIES 335

———. 2010. “Cohousing: A Utopian Property Alternative?” Centre for the Study of Social and
Global Justice. Retrieved February 20, 2013. <http://www.psa.ac.uk/2010/UploadedPaperPDFs/
1225_1085.pdf>.
Scotthanson, Chris and Kelly Scotthanson. 2005. The Cohousing Handbook. Building a Place for
Community. Canada: New Society Publishers.
Stark, Andrew. 1998. “America, the Gated?” Wilson Quarterly 22(1):58–79.
Vesselinov, Elena. 2012. “Segregation by Design: Mechanisms of Selection of Latinos and Whites
into Gated Communities.” Urban Affairs Review 48(3):417–454.
Waley, Paul. 2000. “Tokyo: Patterns of Familiarity and Partitions of Difference.” Pp. 127–157 in
Globalizing Cities: A New Spatial Order, edited by P. Marcuse, R. Van Kempen. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Williams, Jo. 2005. “Designing Neighbourhoods for Social Interaction: The Case of Cohousing.”
Journal of Urban Design 10(2):195–227.
———. 2008. “Predicting an American Future for Cohousing.” Elsevier 40:268–286.
Wilson-Doenges, Georjeanna. 2000. “An Exploration of Sense of Community and Fear of Crime in
Gated Communities.” Environment and Behavior 32(5):597–611.
Wu, Fulong and Klaire Webber. 2004. “The Rise of ‘Foreign Gated Communities’ in Beijing:
Between Economic Globalization and Local Institutions.” Cities 21(3):203–213.
Young, Jock. 1999. The Exclusive Society. Social Exclusion, Crime and Difference in Late
Modernity. London, UK: Sage Publications.