The Increase of Prestige Gated Communities in Consumption Culture and The Reasons for Their Increasing Popularity
Keywords:Gated enclaves, Prestige communities, User satisfaction, The post occupancy evaluation, Konya, Meram Yeniyol Residential Settlement
Gated communities are the new forms of residential settlements, which emerged as a response to changing urban dynamics, becoming increasingly common across the world. Fenced or walled off from the surrounding and limiting the access of the nonresidents, gated communities are in an attempt to create an alternative way of living by eliminating the disadvantages of the ordinary city life and providing secure, well-managed, well-maintained and peaceful environments. On the other hand, gated communities are open to ongoing discussions and controversies. Gating attitude is mostly criticized in many fields, especially causing corruptions on the social and physical cohesion of the cities. Turkey is also witnessing these conflicts by the growing number of private residential areas.
The start of constructing gated communities for higher-income people in Konya after 1990 points out a significant transformation in terms of city planning, city management and urban class relations. These housing areas having controlled-entrances are the settlement areas that are based on automobile ownership, separated from their environment using barriers such as walls-fences etc., and differentiating from urban life in terms of physical texture and socio-economy. The basic question to be answered is, why people choose to live in these prestige islands. In the this study ,the formation period and formation factors of the gated communities were evaluated with the examples in Konya and the parameters providing user satisfaction in these houses were investigated. With the findings of survey, the models for gated communities in Konya such as Meram Yeni Yol Houses was taken into consideration as the sampling area. The user profile and common characteristics of these houses, the reasons for preferring these houses, the satisfactions of their users were analyzed by the help of polls and oral interviews. In the conclusion chapter, the findings of the poll study from which various results were also derived were evaluated. The reasons for preferring gated communities and user profile were defined, and some foresights and suggestions were made on the future of these houses.
Arradamento Mimarlık, (2003). Dosya: Kapalı Siteler, Vol. 07-08/2003, pp.56-77, İstanbul,
Atkinson, R. and Flint, J., (2004). Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time-space trajectories of segregation, Housing Studies, 19 (6), pp. 875–892.
Bilgin, İ., (1988). “Modernleşmenin ve Toplumsal Hareketliliğin Yörüngesinde Cumhuriyet’in İmarı” in Yıldız Sey (ed.), 75 Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık, Tarih Vakfı Yayınları: İstanbul,
Bilgin, İ., (2002). Türkiye’nin Modernleşme Süreci İçinde Konut Üretimi, İhsan Bilgin’in Yazılarından Platform 2002, Konut Alanları, Arkitera Forum,
Blakely, E. J. and Snyder, M. G., (1997). “Divided We Fall: Gated and Walled Communities in the United States.” in Architecture of Fear. Ed. N. Ellin, New York: Princeton University Press, pp. 85-99.
Blakely, E. J. and Snyder, M. G., (1997a). Gating America, California.
Blakely, E.J., and Snyder, M.G., (1997b). Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States, Brookings Institution and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Blakely, E. J. and Snyder, M. G., (1999). Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press,
Blandy, S., Lister, D., Atkinson, R., Flint, J., (2003). Gated communities: A Systematic Review of the Research Evidence, CNR Paper 12, UK.
Calderia, T., (1996). ‘Fortified Enclaves: The New Urban Segregation, Public Culture’, vol. 8. p., 303-328,
Dillon, D., (1994). Fortress America: more and more of us living behind locked gates. Planning, 60, 2–8.
Drake, St. C. and Cayton, H. R., (1945). Black Metropolis: A Study of Negro Life in a Northern City. New York: Harcourt,
DuBois, W. E. B., (1996) . The Philadelphia Negro; A Social Study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
Foucault, M., (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books,
Gooblar, A., (2002). ”Outside the Walls: Urban Gated Communities and their Regulation within the British Planning System”. European Planning Studies 10(3), 321-334.
Grant, J., (2003). Planning Responses to Gated Communities in Canada, International Gated Communities Conference: Building Social Division or Safer Communities 18-19 September, 2003, University of Glasgow, 1-11.
Housing, City Planning, Land And Environmental Planning Department (City Division), (2003). Gated Communities and The Restriction of Access to Public Places.
Landman, K., (2000). An overview of enclosed neighborhoods in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.
Landman, K., and Scho¨nteich, M., (2002). Gated communities as a reaction to crime. South African Security Review, 11, 71–85.
Low, S. M., (2001). The edge and the center: Gated communities and the discourse of urban fear. American Anthropologist, 103, 45–58.
Marcuse, P., (1997). Walls of fear and walls of support. In N. Ellin (Ed.), Architecture of fear (pp. 101–114). New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.
Massey, D. S. and Denton N., (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
McGoey, C. E., (2003). Gated Community: Access Control Issues. Crime Doctor, http://www.crimedoctor.com/gated.htm. Accessed in 29/10/2003
Moobela, C., (2003). Gated Communities: The Evolutionary Pattern Of Social Networks in Urban Regions, Paper Presented at the Conference: "Gated communities: building social division or safer communities?", Glasgow, September 18-19.
Roitman, S., (2003). Who Segregates Whom, Presented at the Conference: "Gated communities: building social division or safer communities?", Glasgow, September 18-19,.
Tekeli, İ., (1991). Kent Planlaması Konuşmaları, Ankara: Mimarlar Odası Yayınları,
Tekeli, İ., (1998). “Türkiye’de Cumhuriyet Döneminde Kentsel Gelişme ve Kent Planlaması”, in Yıldız Sey (ed.), 75 Yılda Değişen Kent ve Mimarlık, Tarih Vakfı Yayınları: İstanbul,
Townshend, I. J., (2002). "Age-Segregated And Gated Retirement Communities In The Third Age: The Differential Contributions Of Place-Community To Self- Actualisation", Environment And Planning B, Vol. 29, No. 3, Pp. 371-396,
Venkatesh, S. A., (2000). American Project. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
Wacquant, L., (2004). “What is a ghetto? Constructing a sociological concept,” pp. 129–147 in N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. London:Pergamon Press,
Webster, C., (2002). Property Rights and The Public Realm: Gates, Green Belts, and Gemeinschaft. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 29: 397-412,
Wilson-Doenges, G., (2000). An exploration of sense of community and fear of crime in gated communities. Environment and Behavior, 32, 597–611.
Wilson, W. J., (1979). The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
Wilson, W. J., (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
Wilson, W. J., (1996). When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Knopf,
Yıldız, E., (2011). ‘Konya’da Dışa Kapalı Konut Yerleşmelerinde Kullanıcı Memnuniyeti Araştırmas’ı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, S.Ü.Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya,
How to Cite
1. The International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) open access articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license lets the author to share (copy and redistribute) his/her article in any medium or format.
2. ICONARP cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
The author must give appropriate credit, provide a link to ICONARP, and indicate if changes were made on the article. The author may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the ICONARP endorses the author or his/her use.
The author may not use the article for commercial purposes.
If the author remix, transform, or build upon the article, s/he may not distribute the modified material.
The author may share print or electronic copies of the Article with colleagues.
The author may use the Article within his/her employer’s institution or company for educational or research purposes, including use in course packs.
3. The author authorizes the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) to exclusively publish online his/her Article, and to post his/her biography at the end of the article, and to use the articles.
4. The author agrees to the International Journal of Architecture and Planning (ICONARP) using any images from the Article on the cover of the Journal, and in any marketing material.
5. As the author, copyright in the Article remains in his/her name.6. All papers should be submitted electronically. All submitted manuscripts must be original work that is not under submission at another journal or under consideration for publication in another form, such as a monograph or chapter of a book. Authors of submitted papers are obligated not to submit their paper for publication elsewhere until an editorial decision is rendered on their submission. Further, authors of accepted papers are prohibited from publishing the results in other publications that appear before the paper is published in the Journal.