Neighbor Relations in Public & Private Neighborhoods

Privatised development and thequality of urban life

Andrew Kirby PhDProfessor of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Arizona State University,Phoenix, USA

Sonya Glavac PhDLecturer, School of Behavioural and Cognitive and Social Sciences, Universityof New England, New South Wales, Australia

Extensive residential communities, created by corporate developers and marked by walls and even gates, have

emerged in metropolitan areas across the world. They have been criticised by many urbanists as evidence of a

widespread process – the privatisation of space – which is frequently viewed as a negative development that is

promoting social fragmentation and alienation. In this paper, this assertion is explored, drawing in part upon a

decade of empirical research in the American Southwest, where privatised urban development is especially pervasive;

it is manifested in the widespread construction of shopping malls, office parks and residential communities governed

by legal covenants. Contrary to much academic opinion and popular commentary, the authors have found that such

residential developments, managed by developers and home owner associations, are nonetheless popular with

residents, who assess their quality of life highly and frequently choose to live in such developments again when they

move. The significance of these results is explored in relation to understanding the quality of urban life and what this

may imply for the urban development process.

1. OverviewThe processes of design and construction for new homes have

changed significantly in recent decades. Indeed, one of the

most dramatic aspects of globalisation has been the growth of

large transnational firms producing planned communities,

which have in turn strongly influenced domestic design and

construction standards (e.g. Lang, 2009). A large academic

literature has evaluated such developments, the impacts that

they have had on the built form of cities and their implications

for the quality of life of urban residents.

For the most part, this commentary has been critical. All the

nuances cannot be addressed in a brief article, but it is

possible to provide a summary: this would indicate that new

homes tend to be too large and built to an unnecessarily low

density; are automobile-dependent and thus contribute to

climate change and unsustainable urban forms; promote ill

health by limiting exercise choices; encourage the decline of

civility and erode stable social networks by constructing

neighbourhoods that lack opportunities for interaction; and

promote distrust by erecting walls, gates and other barriers

(e.g. Knox, 2008).

The keywords which describe the outer cities all now have

negative connotations – suburbanisation, sprawl and enclaves

are frequently criticised, not celebrated. In consequence, there

is a rhythmic call for change in the ways in which homes and

neighbourhoods are designed, so that different social outcomes

will be manifested; Pickett and Wilkinson (2009), for instance,

suggest that fewer gated communities would help reduce social

inequalities. Higher density construction with new design

norms will, according to the assurances given, produce a

sustainable city and thereby increase the quality of urban life,

by, inter alia, reducing levels of obesity (Karlenzig, 2010).

Yet as Rybczynski (2010) shows, there has been an almost

perpetual dialectic since 1945 between those promoting high-

density living on the one hand, and those accepting or even

encouraging suburban forms on the other. More problematic

for this discussion is the paucity of systematic empirical

examples available: those arguing for the organic high-density

neighbourhood have tended to draw upon very specific

examples, such as Greenwich Village (e.g. Page, 2011), while

those arguing against the gated community have tended to use

rather weak qualitative methods (see Modarres and Kirby,

2010).

This question of evidence is important throughout urban

studies. For instance, Galster et al. (2001) have shown that

many critiques of ‘sprawl’ are based upon incoherent and

inconsistent uses of the term. Similarly, Dempsey (2008) shows

(in a broad review of the literature) that while terms such as

‘sustainability’ are often loosely employed to connote good

outcomes, terms such as ‘low density’ are associated with

negative social outcomes. However, as she goes on to show,

these relationships are believed to exist but cannot be

demonstrated, and in fact the correlations may even be

reversed:

Urban Design and PlanningVolume 165 Issue DP3

Privatised development and the quality ofurban lifeKirby and Glavac

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Urban Design and Planning 165 September 2012 Issue DP3

Pages 167–175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/udap.11.00017

Paper 1100017

Received 26/05/2011 Accepted 08/02/2012

Keywords: public health/sustainability/town and city

planning

ice | proceedings ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

167

the findings show that living in high density, mixed-use housing

does not necessarily lead to an increase in social interaction, calling

into question the claims that the ‘compact city’ can engender

feelings of safety, a sense of community and opportunities for social

interaction. Furthermore, respondents living in higher density

neighbourhoods reported marginally lower scores of trust and

reciprocity than respondents from lower density neighbourhoods.

(Dempsey, 2008).

2. Design and governanceIn the present paper, the authors want to build upon Dempsey’s

findings with regard to the social outcomes of, and quality of life

in, low-density neighbourhoods. This is achieved by inserting an

important intervening variable into the discussion of the relation

between residential design and social outcomes, namely the

governance of residential space. By this is meant the private

planning undertaken by developers, which is in contrast to the

rich tradition of urban and regional planning undertaken by

municipalities and regional governments, now increasingly

eclipsed (Campanella, 2011).

While much emphasis has been placed upon physical issues such

as gates, residential density and walkability, much less attention

has been paid to the issues that surround governance. This is

surprising, insofar as affairs within master-planned communities

are structured by ‘covenants, codes and restrictions’ rather than

municipal ordinances, and while the latter are as old as cities

themselves, complicated legal arrangements defining relations

within communities are relatively new. Their rise is, moreover,

linked to a profound shift in social attitudes, especially but not

exclusively in the USA (Glasze et al., 2006; Nelson, 2005). In the

USA, perhaps one third of the residential stock is now situated

within private developments, a figure that is much higher if only

recent dwellings are considered (notably those constructed in the

past two decades). In Arizona and Nevada, for instance, some

municipalities dictate that all new residential developments are

to be overseen by home owner associations (HOAs) (see

McKenzie, 2005) (see Figures 1 and 2).

Academic assessments of these developments have tended to be

critical, starting with the path-breaking work undertaken by

McKenzie (1994), who argued that a shift towards privatisa-

tion, away from the municipal provision of goods and services,

was a negative phenomenon likely to promote social inequal-

ities. This has been matched by popular press coverage, which

has tended to be uniformly negative and focuses on instances

where individuals have squabbled with HOA boards, have

stopped paying their dues and have ultimately lost their homes

in court. Although residents – voluntarily and individually –

sign contracts before purchase, there is also a vocal minority

that argues that HOAs constitute a common interest – a form

of communalism – that is antithetical to individual property

rights; this critique can, at times, be extreme and has even

resulted in neighbourhood violence (for a review see Kirby

(2003)).

Insofar as the Southwestern USA grew so rapidly between

1945 and 2008, and because so much of that involved low-

density subdivisions with private governance, it constitutes an

excellent case study within which to assess the impacts of such

residential developments. The empirical work reported here

was based upon two different comprehensive questionnaire

instruments administered between 2003 and 2008 in Arizona.

This was prior to the current recession, which has had

devastating impacts on the state (and its neighbouring state

Figure 1. An example of affordable single family housing in a low-

density, common interest development, governed by an HOA, in an

American metropolitan area. Source: author

Figure 2. An example of a gated community in a low-density,

master-planned community in an American metropolitan area.

While much academic opinion has focused upon fear and

insecurity, the reality is more mundane. This is a gate within a

gated community, designed to restrict access to a private golf club.

Source: author


Privatised development and thequality of urban lifeKirby and Glavac

168

Nevada) and may well have changed respondents’ outlooks

and estimation of quality-of-life issues; however, that must be

the focus of another round of empirical work.

3. Overview of resultsAn initial survey was undertaken in neighbourhoods through-

out Maricopa County (which contains metropolitan Phoenix),

and this included both newer and older neighbourhoods,

owner and renter neighbourhoods, and neighbourhoods of

different ethnic composition. The survey design, the definition

of and choice of neighbourhoods, and the empirical analysis

have all been summarised elsewhere (e.g. Harlan et al., 2003;

Kirby et al., 2006; Larsen et al., 2004). Some of the key findings

that are relevant to this discussion are listed below.

(a) Respondents displayed relatively strong neighbourhood

attachment, despite the speed of metropolitan growth and

the frequency with which households tended to move; this

was least true of Latino renters, and higher for affluent

home-owning Anglos (Harlan et al., 2003).

(b) Measures of social capital were not significantly lower in

newer, privatised neighbourhoods, contrary to the pre-

dictions of a collapse in civic mindedness in such

residential developments (see Larsen et al. (2004) for

extended discussion of this debate).

(c) Residents living in gated communities did not display a

heightened sense of fear and insecurity when contrasted

with those living in traditionally open neighbourhoods, as

is widely predicted in the literature (e.g. Low, 2003);

indeed the opposite was found. Residents in gated

communities tended to be rather skeptical of the security

arrangements, while those living in open developments

thought that gates would be desirable as they would add

to safety (Kirby et al., 2006).

These results run counter to the stereotypical image of low-

density suburban developments prevalent in the USA, and in

particular the social relations manifested in privatised com-

munities. Published studies commonly refer to ‘Fortress

America’ and claim a decline in social interactions and a

consequent loss of civic mindedness (e.g. Putnam, 2000).

Concurrently, analysis of national data from the American

Housing Survey (AHS) was undertaken to show that

(a) the levels of segregation in newer cities with higher

proportions of HOAs and gated communities are

marginally lower than in established cities (although

segregation of Anglos, Hispanics and African Americans

remains commonplace: Kirby et al., 2006)

(b) the ethnic group most likely to live in gated communities

(in proportions although not in absolute terms), accord-

ing to the AHS, is Hispanics (Kirby et al., 2006, p. 3)

(c) residential densities in cities with a reputation for

extensive ‘sprawl’ and automotive use (such as Phoenix

or Houston: see Gober (2005)) are higher than com-

monly assumed and tending to rise; contrary to popular

imagination, Detroit has one of the highest sprawl

indices in the USA, while Los Angles has one of the

lowest (Galster et al., 2001). Phoenix has a modest

sprawl score, which is falling as residential densities

continue to rise through the infill construction of

numerous apartment and condominium complexes on

the residential fringe (Atkinson-Palombo and Gober,

2010).

4. Results: a summary of the quality of lifein low-density neighbourhoods

In a follow-up study started in 2006, the present authors turned

explicitly to the study of well-being and neighbouring

behaviours in seven low-density neighbourhoods in Glendale,

Arizona. The neighbourhoods were chosen in pairs: two small,

two medium and two large (to test for neighbourhood size as

an independent variable). In each pair, one had an HOA and

one did not; a seventh neighbourhood with an HOA was

chosen to represent the most recent phase of construction, but

this had no non-HOA counterpart, as city policy mandates

HOAs in all current developments. The neighbourhoods were

also chosen to represent the income range of the municipality,

with median house prices ranging from US $90 600 to US

$120 600, while the median for Glendale as a whole was

US $113 300.

A lengthy questionnaire was administered to 214 households

(see Figures 3 and 4) in these middle-income neighbourhoods,

and a response rate of 29% was recorded (a rate consistent with

earlier published research with similar goals). The survey

explicitly built upon previous studies dealing with community

and neighbouring relations (Farrell et al., 2004; McMillan and

Chavis, 1986).

The data collected on neighbouring behaviours indicated that,

contrary to expectation, residents in these car-dependent sub-

divisions were well acquainted with their neighbours and

interacted with them in varied ways. There were some spatial

differences in neighbourliness between HOAs and non-HOAs,

especially with regard to reciprocity between residents, and the

potential for future research is discussed further by Glavac and

Kirby (2010).

Also questioned was whether there is a difference in the

aggregate level of satisfaction with neighbourhood features

(social, economic and physical) between residents living in

HOA neighbourhoods and those in traditional neighbour-

hoods; this explicitly builds on earlier studies of life satisfaction

such as that undertaken by Sirgy and Cornwell (2002). A series



169

of more detailed questions was also asked, focused on how

residents assessed their neighbourhood in terms of social,

physical and economic attributes.

In the first instance, it can be seen that these respondents had

an extremely high level of satisfaction with their neighbour-

hood. Overall, 90% of the residents surveyed reported that

they viewed their neighbourhood as either an ‘excellent’ or a

‘good’ place in which to live. This held for residents of both

HOA and non-HOA neighbourhoods, although with signifi-

cant differences: as is indicated in Table 1, 57% of HOA

residents surveyed ranked their neighbourhood ‘excellent’,

while 56% of non-HOA residents ranked theirs only as ‘good’.

These results are interpreted below, alongside the other

responses.

Residents were also asked to evaluate different aspects of their

neighbourhood, which were grouped into three components –

physical, social and economic attributes. The scores are not

reported in detail here as there were few differences and these

are summarised in Table 2.

From the information shown in Table 2 the following can be

seen: first, that there is little difference in the assessment of

physical and social attributes by respondents living in HOA

neighbourhoods, and those living in the paired neighbour-

hoods without an HOA. In fact, there is only one measure in

these two groups that shows statistical difference and that is

the quality of upkeep of homes and yards, which was perceived

to be higher by HOA residents. This is in contrast to the

economic attributes: four of the five were assessed differently

Figure 3. One of the neighbourhoods surveyed in the data

collection phase of this research. It is a low-density development

governed by an HOA



170

(i.e. higher) by those living in HOAs when contrasted with the

traditional neighbourhoods.

All these five variables are consistent with what is known about

HOAs, namely that they are notorious for emphasising the

standards of upkeep of homes, yards and common interest

spaces; and that HOAs are associated with higher costs of

living (manifested in homeowner dues) but also higher home

values and consequently higher economic status of residents.

The present authors infer that it is the weight given to these

variables that causes more HOA residents to rank their

neighbourhoods as ‘excellent’ than do non-HOA residents.

The goal so far in this paper has been to present a streamlined

argument, using only percentages for clarity. However,

extensive statistical testing on the data has also been under-

taken in order to confirm the inferences. Multiple discriminant

analysis (MDA) was used to test whether it is possible to assign

residents to an HOA or a non-HOA neighbourhood on the

basis of their responses across the questionnaire results. The

MDA was unable to correctly assign a majority of respon-

dents, indicating that neighbourhood governance is not a good

predictor of respondent responses; put another way, there is no

significant difference between the HOA and non-HOA

neighbourhoods on these measures.

Brown Street

Drive

Drive

Avenu

e

Tract

A

Cochise

Trac

t B

Driv

e

Trac

t E

Aven

ue

57th 57th

Driv

e

Cheryl

Brown

Comet

Cochise

Aven

ue

Avenue

Tract CTract G

Aven

ue58

th Tract J

Tract I

Tract A

Cannon Drive

Drive

Marbrisa Ranch _ North

Peoria

Peoria

North

Tract D

8

19 8 7 6 5

229

223

222 221220219218 217

224225226227228

230

235 234 233 232231

1239456715

2

3

4

5

910 11

12

13

31

24 25 262322

2829 2730

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

2324

2526

2728293031323334353637

38

39

40

55

56

57

58

59

66 67

79137

188

171

172 173174

175176177

178

204

205206207208

209210

211

212 213 214215216

203202201

200199198197196 195 194 193

179180181182

183184185186 187

170169

168167

166165

164 163

162 161189

190

191

192

138160

159158157

156155154

139

140

141 IH

136

135

134

80

93

94 95 96 97 98 99 100

101102103104105106107

108 109 110 111 112 113 114

92 91 90 89 88 87

81 82 83 84 85 86

78 77 76 75 74 73

68 69 70 71 72

54

5352 51

50

4948

41

42

43

4445

46

47

14 13

121

2

34

11

10

16

15 1413

121110

9

8Tract C

Cochise

Tract H

58th

58th

Lane

Tract A

Tract A

Lane

Avenue

Drive

Drive

Driv

e56

th

Brown Street

Beryl

Trac

t B

58th

Lane

Aven

ueDriv

e

59th

Ave

nue

Avenue

Tract G

North Lane

North Lane

Peoria

Tract F

Driv

e

PeoriaAvenue

Figure 4. Resident-respondents were provided with maps of their

neighbourhood in order for them to indicate the neighbours with

whom they interact



171

Linear structural equations were also used to test behavioural

differences between the neighbourhoods in the context of

neighbouring behaviours. It is becoming clear from an

emerging body of research that ‘neighbourhood fragmentation’

is associated with various etiologies, including serious mental

health outcomes (Ivory et al., 2011), and it is suggested here

that the absence of neighbouring is consistent with other

measures of fragmentation that appear in the literature.

Consequently, it is argued that statistical analysis of neigh-

bouring variables is an important approach to identifying

neighbourhood attributes.

An initial two-group design was used to compare HOA and

non-HOA neighbourhoods, in order to explore if the nine

neighbouring variables (such as ‘lending things’, or ‘chatting

with neighbours’) contributed equally to the latent variable

‘neighbourliness’. No significant differences were found, and

the experiment was repeated using a single model. This is

shown in Figure 5. The structural equation indicates that for

every standardised unit (z-score) increase in the variable HOA,

there is a 0?02 standardised unit change in ‘neighbourliness’,

which is not statistically significant. The present authors regard

this as an important validation of the inferences that have been

made from the data, namely that governance is not an

important independent variable when trying to understand

residents’ attitudes and behaviour.

5. Summary and evaluation

The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the subjective

evaluations of life quality offered by residents of low-density

neighbourhoods in Arizona, where explosive growth has

mostly occurred in suburban settings. Further, because much

of this growth has taken place in privately governed, master-

planned communities, this study has focused explicitly upon

Respondent rating of

neighbourhoods Excellent Good Fair Poor Total

All respondents 47 43 8 1 99%

HOA 57 34 5 1 97%

Non-HOA 32 56 8 2 98%

Table 1. Ratings of neighbourhoods as a place to live, percentage

of respondents; rounding errors and missing responses mean that

row totals do not equal 100%

Quality of neighbourhood

attributes as assessed by

respondents

Physical features. Total seven

variables

Social features. Total seven

variables

Economic features. Total

five variables

Variables displaying no

statistical differences between

HOAs and non-HOAs

The upkeep of public areas Social interaction with

neighbours

Property taxes

Street lighting People living in the

neighbourhood

Noise Privacy

Density Respect for property rights

Proximity of private facilities Safety

Proximity of public facilities Community ties

Diversity

Variables displaying statistical

differences between HOAs and

non-HOAs

The upkeep of homes and

yards

Home values

Economic status

Cost of living

Neighbourhood improvements

Table 2. Differences between non-HOAs in assessment of the

quality of neighbourhood attributes as assessed by respondents



172

governance as an independent variable in the determination of

urban life quality.

Privately governed neighbourhoods have absorbed many of

the criticisms already levelled against low-density suburban

developments over the past half century, while receiving

additional negative comments that are specifically directed

towards HOAs, which are often seen to be too powerful and

too regimented. In consequence, residents of privately gov-

erned neighbourhoods might be expected to report a low

quality of life when questionnaire instruments are administered

and to display lower levels of neighbouring activity. Surveys –

such as those routinely undertaken by developers – have

instead reported positive subjective evaluations of HOAs, but

these do not seem to act as counterweights to the critical

academic position; indeed, McKenzie (2011, p. 29) goes so far

as to suggest that representatives of the development industry

ask ambiguous questions in order to produce the outcomes

they desire – that is, favourable endorsements of common

interest developments and HOAs.

The present authors want to emphasise that although the

results reported here are based on a small survey, the

neighbourhoods were carefully chosen to be representative of

the municipality in question. The questions themselves were

carefully adapted from instruments developed in related but

different fields, and there is no question of them being biased

towards an industry viewpoint. Nor do the authors believe that

the results represent merely self-selecting residents – the tens of

millions living in HOAs are continually being added to, a

Neighbourliness

Y1Conversation

Λ11=0.59

Λ21=1.00

0.83 0.51Є1 Є2 Є3 Є4 Є5 Є6 Є7 Є8 Є9

0.57

θЄ23=_0.16

θЄ15=0.13

Minimum fit х2 = 29.84,df=32, P=0.58Root mean square error of approхimation (RMSEA) = 0.0(<0.05)Comparative fit index=1.00(>0.95)Goodness of fit index=0.96(>0.95)

θЄ56=0.11

0.60 0.69 0.67 0.64 0.70 0.59

Λ31=0.94

Λ41=0.90

Λ51=0.79

Λ61=0.82

Λ71=0.85

Λ81=0.79

Λ91=0.91

Y2Lent

Y4Outing

Y6Problem

Y8Assist

Y3Helped

Y5lnformation

Y7Social

Y9Issue

Y11=0.02 HOA

Figure 5. Linear model of ‘neighbourliness’ in the sampled

neighbourhoods; no significant differences were found between

HOAs and non-HOAs



173

reality partly explained by one item revealed in the earlier

Phoenix research, where it was found that a large majority

reported that they would move to another HOA when

changing homes (Kirby et al., 2006).

Despite, then, the negative expectations of life quality and

residential satisfaction predicted within the literature, in this

research it has been found that the opposite is true. In the low-

density setting used as a context for the current research, it was

observed that the majority of respondents rated the attributes

of their neighbourhood to be ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. When

neighbourhoods were contrasted based upon governance –

HOA as opposed to non-HOA – relatively little difference was

found. Only five of the 19 variables on which respondents were

asked to comment displayed significant differences. All are

linked to the appearance and the value of the neighbourhoods;

in all five cases, HOA respondents rated their neighbourhoods

higher than did respondents in traditional, non-HOA neigh-

bourhoods.

It is appropriate to ask at this juncture why the quality of life in

private communities is of relevance to urban design profes-

sionals, and three responses are offered to this question. The

first is that statements have been made that low-density

residential developments are unsustainable and that no more

should be built. Yet this would clearly be a mistake if taking

into account subjective measures of life quality. As this small

but representative sample indicates, residents in HOAs are

more satisfied than their counterparts and controlling HOAs

would not obviously increase self-assessments of residential life

quality.

A second context is that private neighbourhoods have

increased in importance precisely as municipal government

has unravelled during decades of fiscal uncertainty. The fact

that HOA residents reveal high levels of satisfaction does not,

of course, cause the authors to suggest that privatisation is a

simple alternative to traditional forms of governance. But the

corollary is, however, true: it would be hard to find strength in

HOAs if their own residents were universally critical of them.

This is not an unimportant issue, as many HOAs find

themselves in poor financial territory, just like their encom-

passing municipalities. Their reasons for this differ somewhat:

many HOAs have found themselves in trouble because they

embraced speculative investors rather than owner-residents,

and the default of the former has left a smaller number of the

latter to pay the fixed costs of maintenance. This, however, is a

short-term challenge, and it would be an unwarranted step if

governments used financial hardship to try to dismantle

HOAs, as commonly occurs (see McKenzie, 2011).

The third context is the most difficult to grasp. At the current

time, it is becoming more usual to question accepted wisdoms

about cities and even to reflect upon the ‘triumph of the city’

(Gleaser, 2011). For the most part, this means a celebration of

central cities, with their creative forces, and not the low-density

cities of endless suburbs and corporate campuses. And yet it is

a basic reality that any urban growth that occurs in the USA

and Europe in the next two or three decades must take place in

suburbs and not central cities (see Modarres and Kirby, 2010).

It is also the case, for fiscal reasons, that private development

will play a significant role in this growth. Consequently, it is

important to understand that there is a significant proportion

of the residential population who find a high quality of life in

suburban settings that are brought to fruition by way of

private corporations.

It is also the case that private development is extremely

important beyond Europe and the USA – in Latin America,

and increasingly in China and India. While this is an

exploratory study, it is positioned as a model for the empirical

research that is necessary in these disparate settings as

residential development accelerates again at some juncture.

6. ConclusionsThe issues that surround private governance in the USA are

many and they are complex. Common interest developments

and HOAs are frequently the recipients of highly fragmented

and even contradictory commentary, in which ‘economists,

libertarians, design advocates, progressives and critical theor-

ists’ have all mapped their normative positions across these

mundane residential developments (McKenzie, 2011). But as

McKenzie also goes on to remind the reader, the reality is that

some 60 million people live in such private spaces in the USA,

and that the numbers have continued to rise elsewhere, notably

in China.

The empirical research reported here is exploratory in nature,

consisting of a relatively small sample taken within a single

municipality. It is, however, valuable as a quantitative study

that complements earlier qualitative and non-empirical com-

mentaries. Its value lies, the present authors believe, in the

clarity of the results. Building on previous survey instruments

for the measurement of life quality, the responses summarised

here are clear in pointing to a high level of personal satisfaction

in the low-density neighbourhoods surveyed. Some nuanced

differences have been found, but in general governance is not

a predictor of subjective quality of life measures or of

neighbourliness.

The authors are confident that the survey materials used in this

study could be used in other contexts, especially in other

political–economic and cultural settings where global corpora-

tions are replicating housing designs found throughout Europe

and the USA. Any similarities and contrasts would be valuable

additions to understanding of the urban development process.



174

AcknowledgementsResearch support from the National Science Foundation and

the Provost’s Office of Arizona State University’s West campus

is gratefully acknowledged, as is the support and participation

of all who worked on the projects and of course those residents

who gave their time to answer questions.

REFERENCES

Atkinson-Palombo C and Gober P (2010) New housing

construction in Phoenix: Evidence of ‘new suburbanism’?

Cities 27(2): 77–86.

Campanella TJ (2011) Jane Jacobs and the death and life of

American planning. In Reconsidering Jane Jacobs (Page M

and Mennel T (eds)). American Planning Association,

Chicago, USA, pp. 141–160.

Dempsey N (2008) Does quality of the built environment affect

social cohesion? Urban Design and Planning 161(DP3):

105–114.

Farrell SJ, Aubry T and Coulombe D (2004) Neighborhoods and

neighbors: do they contribute to personal wellbeing?

Journal of Community Psychology 32(1): 9–25.

Galster G, Hanson R, Ratcliffe M et al. (2001) Wrestling sprawl to

the ground. Housing Policy Debate 12(4): 681–717.

Glasze G, Webster C and Frantz K (2006) Private Cities.

Routledge, New York, USA.

Glavac S and Kirby A (2010) An exploratory analysis of

neighborliness in public and private neighborhoods.

Western Regional Science Association Annual Conference,

Sedona, AZ, paper available from the authors.

Gleaser E (2011) The Triumph of the City. Penguin Press, New

York, USA.

Gober P (2005) Metropolitan Phoenix. University of

Pennsylvania Press, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Harlan S, Rex T, Larsen L et al. (2003) Central Arizona – Phoenix

Long-Term Ecological Research Project Contribution No. 2.

Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA.

Ivory VC, Collings SC, Blakely T and Dew K (2011) When does

neighbourhood matter? Multilevel relationships between

neighbourhood social fragmentation and mental health.

Social Science and Medicine 72(12): 1993–2002.

Karlenzig W (2010) The death of sprawl. In The Post-Carbon

Reader (Heinberg R and Lerch D (eds)). Watershed Media,

Healdsburg, CA, USA, pp. 295–313.

Kirby A (2003) When extreme political ideas move into the

mainstream. In The Spaces of Hate (Flint C (eds)).

Routledge, New York, USA, pp. 209–228.

Kirby A, Harlan SL, Larsen L et al. (2006) Examining the

significance of housing enclaves in the metropolitan US.

Housing, Theory and Society 23(1): 19–33.

Knox PL (2008) Metroburbia USA. Rutgers University Press,

New Brunswick, Canada.

Lang J (2009) International urban design: theory and practice.

Urban Design and Planning 162(DP1): 7–17.

Larsen L, Harlan SL, Bolin B et al. (2004) Bonding and bridging:

Understanding the relationship between social capital and

civic action. Journal of Planning Education and Research

24(1): 64–77.

Low S (2003) Behind the Gates: Life, Security, and the Pursuit of

Happiness in Fortress America. Routledge, New York,

USA.

McKenzie E (1994) Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the

Rise of Residential Private Government. Yale University

Press, New Haven, CT, USA.

McKenzie E (2005) Constructing the Pomerium in Las Vegas.

Housing Studies 20(2): 187–203.

McKenzie E (2011) Beyond Privatopia. Urban Institute Press,

Washington D.C., USA.

McMillan DW and Chavis DM (1986) Sense of community: A

definition and a theory. Journal of Community Psychology

14(1): 6–23.

Modarres A and Kirby A (2010) The suburban question: Notes

for a research program. Cities 27(2): 114–121.

Nelson RH (2005) Private Neighborhoods and the

Transformation of Local Government. Urban Institute,

Washington D.C., USA.

Page M (2011) More than meets the eye. In Reconsidering Jane

Jacobs (Page M and Mennel T (eds)). APA, Chicago, USA,

pp. 3–14.

Pickett K and Wilkinson R (2009) The Spirit Level: Why Greater

Equality Makes Societies Stronger. Bloomsbury Press,

London, UK.

Putnam C (2000) Bowling Alone. Simon and Schuster, New

York, USA.

Rybczynski W (2010) Makeshift Metropolis. Simon and

Schuster, New York, USA.

Sirgy JM and Cornwell T (2002) How neighborhood features

affect quality of life. Social Indicators Research 59(1): 79–

114.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the

editor at [email protected]. Your contribution will be

forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered

appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as

discussion in a future issue of the journal.

Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in

by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-

dents. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing

papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate

illustrations and references. You can submit your paper

online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,

where you will also find detailed author guidelines.



175

Neighbor Relations in Public & Private Neighborhoods

Documents

Transcript of Neighbor Relations in Public & Private Neighborhoods