Land Man

Introduction

Gated and walled cities are almost as old ashuman urban settlement. With thedevelopment of nation states, public policeforces and air power, walled cities becameredundant as fortresses to keep foreigninvaders and marauding criminal gangs out.

A relatively new trend as an architecturalconcept is that of the gated community.Gated communities are a generic term thatincludes enclosed neighbourhoods that havecontrolled access through gates or boomsacross existing roads, and security villagesand complexes, including lifestylecommunities which provide their enclosed

residents with a range of non-residentialamenities such as schools, offices, shops andgolf courses.

Since the early 1990s gated communitieshave experienced phenomenal growth inSouth Africa, especially in the metropolitanareas of Gauteng. In South Africa gatedcommunities have become popular primarilyas a response to high levels of crime and thefear of crime.

Gated communities raise interestingquestions and have resulted in widespreaddebate around their likely future impact onurban life in South Africa. Do gatedcommunities reduce crime? If so, shouldthey be promoted as a legal mechanism to

ESSAY

URBAN FORTRESSESGated communities as a reaction to crime

KARINA LANDMAN & MARTIN SCHÖNTEICH

One of the consequences of the state’s inability to protect the life and property of all itscitizens—especially in developing countries—is the formation of private alternatives to crimeprevention and control. Gated communities, or enclosed neighbourhoods, are one suchpopular alternative. This article compares the phenomenon of gated communities in twodeveloping countries: South Africa and Brazil. Both countries are plagued by violent crimeand share key human development indicators. The article also explores key issues that havebeen raised around gated communities in both countries. Gated communities can contributeto spatial fragmentation in urban areas, and reflect increased polarisation, fragmentation anddiminished solidarity within society. By excluding other urban residents and people fromsurrounding neighbourhoods, gated communities can contribute to social exclusion,inhibiting the construction of social networks that form the basis of social and economicactivities.

KARINA LANDMAN is an urban designer at the CSIR, Building and Construction Technology department.MARTIN SCHÖNTEICH is a senior researcher at the ISS.

combat crime, and regardless of theirpotential long-term impact on urbandevelopment?

This article compares the phenomenon ofgated communities in two developingcountries: South Africa and Brazil. Bothcountries are plagued by high crime levelsand share key human developmentindicators (Table 1).

Significantly both countries have a highGini index indicating high levels ofinequality.i In fact, of the 173 countrieslisted in the 2002 United Nations HumanDevelopment Report only four countrieshave higher levels of inequality than SouthAfrica or Brazil.

Brazil has a more urbanised populationthan South Africa. This is partly the result ofthe latter’s rigid influx control policies untilthe mid 1980s, which prohibited the freemovement of black people into the cities.Between 2000 and 2015 the proportion ofurbanised people is expected to grow at agreater rate in South Africa (18%) thanBrazil (8%).

Both countries have experienced similarurban development patterns with theformation of large informal settlements orslums on the periphery of most urbancentres. Both countries also have a history ofauthoritarian rule and political repression.The transition from authoritarian rule todemocracy came almost a decade earlier inBrazil (1985) than in South Africa (1994).

Defining gated communities

Gated communities are a globalphenomenon. They occur in various formsin many countries including Argentina,Brazil, India, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Spain,the United Kingdom and the United States.While there are many similarities betweengated communities throughout the world,there are a number of important differencesbetween gated communities in developedcountries and those in developing countries.

There is no common agreement on adefinition or meaning of gated communities.It is accepted that there are different types ofgated communities in different countries,resulting in a multitude of interpretationsregarding types and meta-types.

These differences are also apparent inSouth Africa and Brazil. In Brazil, encloseddevelopments are often referred to as ‘gatedcommunities’.1 Others refer to ‘closedcondominiums’, ‘fortified enclaves’ orsimply to ‘fenced-up areas’.2 Some authorstalk of gated communities as only one partof a larger phenomenon of enclosed areasincluding shopping malls and fenced-inhousing estates.3 Yet others interpret theterm gated community or fortified enclaveto refer to all fenced-in areas or controlledaccess spaces or, in other words, as thecollective name for such urbandevelopments.4

Teresa Caldeira, who has done extensiveresearch on gated communities in Brazil,refers to enclosed areas as ‘fortifiedenclaves’.5 They include office complexes,shopping centres and increasingly other

African Security Review 11(4) • 200272

Table 1: Selected human development indicators for South Africa and Brazil

South Africa Brazil

GDP per capita (US$ 2000) 9,401 7,625Income of poorest 10% as proportion of total income 1.1% 0.7%Income of richest 10% as a proportion of total income 46% 48%Gini index 59.3 60.7Adult literacy rate 85% 85%Proportion of population under 15 years 32% 29%Total fertility rate per woman 3.1 2.3Proportion of population urbanised 57% 81%

Source: UN Human Development Report, 2002

i The Gini index measures inequality over theentire distribution of income or consumption. Avalue of 0 represents perfect equality, and avalue of 100 perfect inequality.

amenities that have been adopted to thismodel: schools, hospitals and entertainmentcentres. The residential component offortified enclaves is the closedcondominium. These can be vertical (luxuryapartments) or horizontal (enclosed securitysuburbs).6

In South Africa some writers use the term‘gated community’.7 A number of otherterms are also used, such as ‘suburbanenclave’, ‘urban fortress’,8 ‘security-park’,9

‘security village’10 and ‘enclosed neigh-bourhood’.11 The policies of some localauthorities refer simply to ‘road closures’,which is only a component of an enclosedneighbourhood or gated community. Thereis not always a consensus on the hierarchicalstructure or interpretation of these terms.

In South Africa it is possible to broadlydistinguish between security villages andenclosed neighbourhoods. Security villagesinclude different types of privatedevelopments with various uses, rangingfrom small enclosed apartment buildingsand townhouse complexes to large officeparks, shopping malls and luxury estates.Security villages are physically walled orfenced off and usually have a controlledaccess point with a security guard. Roads insecurity villages are privately owned, and themanagement and maintenance of such roadsis usually carried out by a privatemanagement body.

Enclosed neighbourhoods are existingneighbourhoods that are closed off throughroad closures, and the erection of fences orwalls around the entire neighbourhood. Theroads within enclosed neighbourhoodsgenerally remain public property. The localcouncil usually remains responsible for theprovision of public services, such aselectricity, water and garbage collection, tocommunities living within enclosedneighbourhoods.12

Crime in South Africa and Brazil

Crime and transitionIn South Africa and Brazil gatedcommunities are often a response to highcrime rates and the fear of crime. Crime

tends to increase during periods of politicaltransition coupled with instability andviolence. This occurred in many LatinAmerican countries, including Brazil, andEastern Europe states during their transitionto democracy. A significant increase in crimewas also experienced in Namibia just beforeand after independence and South Africafrom the mid 1980s onwards.

During these periods of instability,routine policing activities are divertedtowards controlling violence, and crimeconsequently increases. The social bondsholding society together are loosened,making crime more likely. In South Africaanti-crime campaigns in the townships in the1980s were often launched by local streetcommittees and civic organisations as theirinfluence grew. The post-1990 negotiationperiod broke these linkages: not only didstate repression weaken, but transitionbrought intra-community conflict.13

Violence also weakened social control,producing marginalised groups reliant onthe conflict for a livelihood. This alsoincreased levels of crime as disaffectedindividuals—primarily township youth—became engaged in it.

In an overview of the crime situation in anumber of transitional societies, Shawargues:

Dramatic, political, economic andsocial transition may be much moredisruptive of the internal socialorganisation, including that of crimeprevention and control, ofcommunities than has often beenassumed … Changes brought about bythe dramatic impact of the politicaltransition are exacerbated by longerterm processes of industrialisation andurbanisation which have themselveshave had a considerable impact on thechanging nature of community andsocial controls.14

Crime in South AfricaCrime remained more or less constantaround 4,000 incidents of recorded crimeper 100,000 of the population between1975 and 1982, but increased from the mid

Landman & Schönteich 73

1980s, rising dramatically in the early 1990s(Table 2).15

During the first four years after SouthAfrica’s political transition in 1994, overallcrime levels almost stabilised, albeit at veryhigh levels of especially violent crime.Between 1994 and 1997, recorded crimeincreased at an average of only one per centper year. Thereafter levels of recordedcrime, measured from one year to the next,increased at an escalating rate (Table 3).Overall crime levels increased by almost 5%between 1997–98, 7% in 1998–99, and7.6% in 1999–2000.17

The latest available crime statistics at thetime of writing are those for the period April2001–March 2002. During this 12-monthperiod, 5,571 crimes were recorded per100,000 of the population.18 At this levelthe total risk of being a victim of crime perperson per year is 5.6%, even beforeunrecorded crimes are considered.

While murder levels declined after 1994,overall levels of violent crime experiencedthe greatest increase compared to all othercrime categories. Between 1994 and 2000,violent crime increased by 34%, propertycrime by 23%, violent crime againstproperty (i.e., arson and malicious injury to

property) by 10%, commercial crime by 9%,and drug- and drunk driving-relatedoffences by 1% (Figure 1).

Crime levels in the country’smetropolitan areas tend to be higher than inthe country as a whole. Most factorsassociated with high crime rates characterisecities to a greater extent than small towns.Population density, for example, is thoughtto be associated with crime, in that greaterconcentrations of people lead tocompetition for limited resources, greaterstress and increased conflict. Other factorswhich characterise urbanisation, such asovercrowding and high levels of gangactivity, are mainly evident in urban areasand are known to be related to criminalactivity.19

On the basis of 2000 recorded crimefigures, levels of crime in large urban centreswere considerably higher than the nationalaverage (Figure 2). In the Johannesburgpolice area, for example, the crime rate wasover three times the national average. Thatis, in 2000 the average resident of theJohannesburg police area was over threetimes more likely of becoming a victim of arecorded crime than the average SouthAfrican.


Table 2: Percentage change in the number of crimes recorded, over four 4-year periods between1981/82 and 199316

1981/82–1984/85 1984/85–1987 1987–1990 1990–1993

Murder 11% 9% 54% 30%Rape 4% 13% 12% 33%All robbery 2% 18% 32% 43%Assault GBH 3% –2% 3% 17%Burglary 20% 41% –5% 15%

Table 3: Percentage change in the number of crimes recorded, for two 4-year periods between1994 and 2000

1994–1997 1997–2000

Murder –8% –12%Rape 23% 1%Aggravated robbery –18% 59%Robbery (common) 63% 66%Assault GBH 12% 17%Burglary 7% 17%20 most serious and prevalent crimes 3% 21%

Recorded crime levels vary betweencities.20 Johannesburg has significantlyhigher levels of crime than other large SouthAfrican cities. For example, in 2000 justover 18,300 crimes were recorded per100,000 residents of the Johannesburgpolice area, compared to 8,361 for PortElizabeth.

Consistently high levels of violentcrime—and the extensive media coverage ofit—result in significant increase in publicfeelings of insecurity. For example, annualHuman Sciences Research Council (HSRC)

public opinion surveys in South Africa ask anationally representative sample ofrespondents about their feelings of personalsafety. In 1994, almost three-quarters ofrespondents said they felt safe. At the end of2000, respondents were almost equallydivided with 44% feeling safe and 45%feeling unsafe.21 (The HSRC’s 2001 surveydid not include a question on feelings ofpersonal safety.)

Crime in BrazilIn Brazil crime and violence, particularly


Source: SAPS, CIAC

Source: SAPS, CIAC

Figure 1: Percentage change in the number of crimes recorded, 1994–2000 and 1999–2000

Figure 2: Recorded crime rates in selected South African urban police areas, 2000

murder, increased after the country’stransition to democracy in the mid 1980s.The number of violent deaths or deathsresulting from external causes increasedfrom 70,212 in 1980 to 117,603 in 1998 (anincrease of 68%). Over the same period thenumber of deaths resulting from murder oraggression increased from 13,910 to 41,916(201%). The number of deaths resultingfrom aggression as a proportion of the totalnumber of violent deaths increased from20% to 36%.22

From the available evidence it appearsthat in Brazil the risk of violent crime isunequally distributed in differentgeographical areas and social groups. Thegrowth of violent crime is, to a significantextent, concentrated in urban andmetropolitan regions. Murder rates arehighest at the periphery of large urban areas.It is in these regions that the problems ofpoverty, unemployment and the lack ofadequate housing and basic services,including health, education, transport,security and judicial services, are mostacute.23

Explanations for the growth of crime andviolence in Brazil emphasise thecontribution of factors underminingsociety’s capability to ensure the rule of lawand basic civil, political and social rights for

the majority of the population. Suchexplanations also focus attention on the longhistory of authoritarianism, racialdiscrimination and social inequality inBrazil. Attention is also focused on thelimited capacity of democratic governmentsand civil society organisations to strengthenthe rule of law and the institutions andpractices necessary for securing citizenshipand human rights.24

Violent crimeBy global standards both South Africa andBrazil have high levels of violent crime.25

Every third crime recorded in South Africa isviolent in nature (i.e., involving violence orthe threat of violence). In the US, consideredto be a relatively violent society, violentcrime makes up 15% of all recorded crime.During 1998, 59 murders were recorded inSouth Africa per 100,000 of the population.In Brazil the rate was 21 per 100,000.26

Other countries in Southern Africa andmany parts of Latin America, for whichfigures are available, have significantly lowermurder rates (Figure 3).

Comparing gated communities inSouth Africa and BrazilSecurity in Brazil means fences and walls,


Source: Interpol, 1999

Figure 3: Number of recorded murders per 100,000 population, 1998

24-hour guards, as well as a wide array oftechnologies such as video monitoring andsensor activated alarms. Security has becomea way of life in Brazil or, as Caldeiraexplains, only with ‘total security’ is the newconcept of housing complete.

Similar sentiments are evident in SouthAfrica. For many urban South Africanssecurity measures in and around their homesis not enough. They want to live in a moresecure environment in terms of the largerarea surrounding their homes. In this waythe idea of ‘total security’ is becomingincreasingly popular. This has led to theincrease of security villages and enclosedneighbourhoods in urban areas.

In Brazil fortified enclaves include officecomplexes, shopping centres and otherspaces adapted to conform to this model.The main characteristics of fortified enclavesare that they are:• private property for collective use;• physically isolated, either by walls, empty

spaces or other design devices;• turned inwards and not to the street; and• controlled by armed guards and security

systems.27

It is unclear whether Caldeira sees enclosedneighbourhoods (existing neighbourhoodsclosed off by street closures) as fortifiedenclaves, although they do occur in Brazil.In South Africa enclosed neighbourhoodsare a form of a gated community. The broadcharacteristics of gated communities inSouth Africa are therefore similar with theaforementioned ones for Brazil, except thatthey are not completely privately owned. Inmost cases the roads within enclosedneighbourhoods remain public property.However, a small number of localauthorities permit residents’ associations topurchase roads within an enclosedneighbourhood. In such cases the area isconsidered as private property for thecollective use of the residents of the enclosedneighbourhood who are responsible for itsmaintenance.

As already alluded to, the residentialcomponent of fortified enclaves in Brazil areclosed condominiums. In Brazil, verticalclosed condominiums (usually luxury

apartments) are concentrated in inner cityareas, but are also increasingly being built inoutlying areas. They are enclosed by wallsand tend to have large areas and facilities forcommon use.

A good example of a closed condominiumis lha do Sul (Island of the South). This is amiddle-class high-rise complex of six high-rises, each with 80 three-bedroomapartments, located in the western zone ofSão Paulo.28 Many older apartment blocksin central city areas are also converted toclosed condominiums, with a wide array ofsecurity features.

Similarly, in South Africa many inner-cityapartment buildings are increasingly usingsimilar measures to improve the security oftheir occupants. Examples include the high-density flatland areas of Hillbrow(Johannesburg), Sunnyside (Pretoria), GreenPoint (Cape Town), and Albert Park(Durban).

Since the late 1970s horizontal closedcondominiums are being built in Brazil,mostly in the outer regions of metropolitanareas. In São Paulo, developers beganbuilding living places similar to US ‘newtowns’ or ‘edge cities’. These are suburbanareas that combine residential developmentswith office and commercial centres. Some ofthe most famous of these types ofdevelopments in Brazil are Alphaville andTambore, which are located on the outerperiphery of the larger São Paulometropolitan area.

Alphaville is divided into many walledresidential areas (residencias), each enclosedby three-and-a-half metre high walls andaccessible only by one controlled accesspoint—the main entrance gate. Between thevarious residential areas there arecommercial nodes with smallerneighbourhood shops and restaurants. Tothe one side of the larger Alphaville there isan office-building complex and a largercommercial hub containing a shoppingcentre. The Alphaville concept isincreasingly spreading to other cities inBrazil, where similar developments haveeither been built or are in the process ofbeing built. Plans are also on the table to


build Alphavilles in Brasilia, Rio de Janeiroand Porto Alegro.

In South Africa security villages have avariety of uses, ranging from smallertownhouse complexes to larger office parksand luxury estates. The distinguishing factorof security villages is that they are purpose-built by private developers, with securitybeing the crucial design requirement,although lifestyle requirements are alsoimportant.

Secure townhouse complexes mainly forresidential purposes, and office parks, arelocated throughout the cities, from centralneighbourhoods to higher incomeneighbourhoods on the urban periphery.Larger security estates (similar to thehorizontal condominiums of Alphaville) aremostly located on the urban peripherywhere bigger portions of land are available,as well as natural elements such as rivers,dams, and patches of trees which canenhance the layout of such estates. Theseestates offer an entire lifestyle package in asecure environment. Security estates includea range of services (garden services, refuseremoval), and a variety of facilities andamenities (golf courses, squash courts, cycleroutes, hiking routes, equestrian routes,water activities).

While large South African security estatescontain similarities with the character,services and facilities of the horizontalclosed condominiums in Brazil, they differ insize. Most of the luxury security estates inSouth Africa occupy only between ten and50 hectares. While two ambitious estatesoccupy larger areas, namely Heritage Park inthe Cape Town metropolitan area (200hectares) and Dainfern in Johannesburg(350 hectares), they are much smaller thanthose in Brazil. For example, Alphavilleoccupies 19,000 hectares and houses 35,000residents. Alphaville alone has moreresidents than the entire population of manysmaller towns in South Africa, such as PortShepstone (KwaZulu-Natal) and Bloemhof(North-West) which both have a populationof 30,000 people.

A 2002 survey conducted by the Centrefor Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)

Building and Construction Technologyrevealed that large security villages/estates inSouth Africa tend to be located in eithermetropolitan areas (around large cities suchas Johannesburg, Pretoria or Cape Town) orin coastal towns (such as Plettenberg Bay,Mossel Bay, Port Elizabeth or Richards Bay).Other areas with a larger conglomeration ofsecurity villages include recreational sites orareas close to natural amenities such asHartebeespoort Dam near Pretoria.

Another type of gated community—a typeof fortified enclave—are enclosedneighbourhoods. These are existingneighbourhoods to which access iscontrolled through road closures or themonitoring of access points into and out ofthe neighbourhood, thereby allowing accessto be controlled. A number of Brazilian citieshave responded to high crime levels throughenclosed neighbourhoods—especially neigh-bourhoods in high-income areas. In SãoPaulo, for example, the city government isincreasingly granting permission toneighbourhoods who want to control accessinto their areas. In Rio de Janeiro enclosedneighbourhoods tend to occur in areas thatare located next to lower-income areas(favelasii).

It is interesting to note that enclosedneighbourhoods are concentrated in thelarger cities in Brazil, which also have thehighest crime rates. However, as crime andviolence spreads to medium sized andsmaller cities, fortification, both of buildingsand neighbourhoods, is becomingincreasingly widespread. This can be seen inthe burgeoning of Alphavilles across Brazil,as well as the enclosure of neighbourhoodsin smaller cities such as Curitiba.

Neighbourhoods in South Africa are


ii A favela generally refers to a set of shacks builton seized land. Although people own theirshacks, they do not in most cases own the landbut occupy it illegally. The Braziliangovernment is, however, beginning to allowpeople to acquire land in favelas legally. Favelasusually have limited or no access toinfrastructure such as sewage facilities and pipedwater. Generally favela residents obtainelectricity by illegally tapping into existingelectricity lines.


closed off through road closures, usually incombination with the construction of fencesor walls around such neighbourhoods.Roads are closed either temporarily by gatesor booms spanning the road, or permanentlyby fences. Access into these neighbourhoodsis restricted and controlled by a few accesscontrol points, either in the form of remotecontrolled gates or security manned gates orbooms. The size of enclosedneighbourhoods varies from small cul-de-sacs with fewer than ten houses to largeneighbourhoods with up to 4,000 houses.Residents must apply for the right to restrictaccess to their local municipality and canonly do so for security reasons.

Not all local municipalities in SouthAfrica allow road closures. A CSIR surveyconducted in early 2002 of 117municipalities that responded in SouthAfrica established that more municipalities(37) had received applications for roadclosures than those who had given theirapproval (23). Thus, despite the demand notall applications are approved. Some localauthorities refuse permission for roadclosures because of anticipated problemsrelated to traffic control, urbanmanagement, accessibility anddiscrimination. Despite this, and given thegrowing demand, it is likely that enclosedneighbourhoods will continue to grow, bothin number and in size.

While the number of applications forneighbourhood enclosures and thedevelopment security estates continue togrow, local authorities are often unprepared.The CSIR survey indicated that while 37 ofthe 117 municipalities that responded to thesurvey had received applications for roadclosures, only 12 had an actual policy onroad closures. Moreover, only one province(Gauteng) makes legal provision for roadclosures for security purposes at a provinciallevel. There is no national policy to guidedecision making on gated communities inthe country.

The CSIR survey has shown that mostroad closures occur in metropolitan areas,such as Johannesburg, Pretoria and CapeTown. At the time of writing there were an

estimated 300 legal road closures in the cityof Johannesburg. Only 79 neighbourhoodshad gone through the formal applicationprocess and only 23 had been officiallyapproved by the new City of JohannesburgMunicipality (established in December2001). It is estimated that there are currentlymore than 500 illegal road closures.Although Pretoria has fewer road closures,the demand has increased dramatically overthe past two years. The metropolitan area ofTshwane (which officially came intoexistence in December 2001, and whichincludes Pretoria) has received 81applications for neighbourhood enclosures,of which 47 had been approved at the timeof writing.

Gauteng is the province with the highestnumber of municipalities that have receivedapplications for neighbourhood enclosures.This can be partly explained by the fact thatGauteng is the most urbanised province(97%) in South Africa, and thatneighbourhood enclosures are an urbanphenomenon (Figure 4, over page).

A more appropriate explanation for thehigh number of gated communities inGauteng, is the high level of crime and thefear of crime in the province. In 2000,Gauteng was the province with the highestrates of robbery, theft of motor vehicle andcommercial crime. By contrast LimpopoProvince had the lowest rates in 13 out ofthe 15 serious and prevalent crimes recordedby the police.29 A national HSRC surveyconducted in late 2000 found that almosttwo-thirds (62%) of Limpopo Provinceresidents felt safe, compared to only 34% inGauteng. According to the survey, residentsin Gauteng were the least likely to feel safecompared to residents of the otherprovinces.30

Spatial fragmentation and separation

A number of leading authors on gatedcommunities highlight the potential gatedcommunities have to contribute to spatialfragmentation in urban areas. It is arguedthat gated communities reflect an increasingpolarisation, fragmentation and diminished

solidarity within urban society.31 In Istanbul,fortressed spaces successfully serve tosegregate the growing middle class from thesurrounding landscapes of self-constructedsquatter settlements.32 Manila is beingreconstructed as a “decentralised spatialsystem resembling an archipelago whoseislands are interconnected by bridges”.33

The ‘islands’ are “the exclusive, walled-inneighbourhoods where the upper strata areensconced”.34 The result is summarised byAllen:

When differences are negotiatednegatively in the city in this manner[through a hard spatial boundary], theoutcome is a form of segregation andexclusion which reinforce existingsocial and economic inequalities.35

Many writers argue that gated communitiesin Brazil are exacerbating an existing patternof urban segregation.36 Spatially, gatedcommunities are exacerbating urban sprawland segregation by creating physicalboundaries and barriers all over the city.Gated communities can also lead to theprivatisation of public space or thereservation of certain spaces for exclusiveuse by certain homogeneous social groups.In addition, it is changing the nature of theexisting public spaces. Most people living in

enclosed areas no longer make use of thestreets, and public spaces are no longer usedand shared by all urban residents. Thesespaces are now abandoned to the poor, thehomeless and street children, who are leftvulnerable to violence and abuse by variouscontrol groups, including criminals and thesecurity forces.

There are some indications that SouthAfrica is heading in a similar direction asBrazil. Certain types of gated communitiesin South Africa, due to their nature, size andlocation, are starting to contribute to urbansprawl, fragmentation and separation. Theyare creating physical barriers in many SouthAfrican cities. As gated communities increase(both in numbers and size), so is theirimpact. The consequences for cities andlarge metropolitan areas in South Africacould be divisive. As Bremner points out:

Those dynamics are producing anincreasingly disparate, separate city.The gaps between the townships, theinner city and the suburb are widening.The chances that people of this city willdevelop a sense of shared space, ofshared destiny, grow slimmer by theday.37

Spatial separation caused by gatedcommunities in South Africa often give rise


Source: Statistics SA

Figure 4: Proportion of people living in urban and non-urban areas in South Africa, 1996

to practical problems regarding efficienturban management and functioning. By itsnature a gated community physicallyseparates a specific area from itsenvironment and creates zones or pockets ofrestricted access within the urban fabric.This forces motorists and pedestrians to takealternative routes, which are often longer.Enclosed neighbourhoods therefore impacton the daily activity patterns of people, aswell as the urban form and its functioning.They also have the potential to influenceresidents’ lifestyles and use-patterns. Therehave been cases in Johannesburg andPretoria where public facilities such asschools, libraries, parks and postal facilitieshave been enclosed, forcing non-residents tonegotiate controlled access points when theywish to make use of these facilities as part oftheir daily activities.

Social exclusion and polarisation

By contributing to spatial segregation gatedcommunities also result in social andeconomic segregation. Enclosed neigh-bourhoods exclude other urban residents,casual passers-by and people fromsurrounding neighbourhoods. This can leadto social exclusion, creating a barrier tointeraction among people of different races,cultures and classes, thereby inhibiting theconstruction of social networks that formthe basis of social and economic activities.

Although law-enforcement expertsdebate the efficiency of such systems infoiling professional criminals, there isno doubt that they are brilliantlysuccessful in deterring unintentionaltrespassers. Anyone who has tried totake a stroll at dusk through aneighbourhood patrolled by armedsecurity guards and signposted withdeath threats quickly realises howmerely notional, if not utterly obsolete,is the old idea of freedom of the city.38

This is also the case in Brazil where gatedcommunities have created a greater distancebetween different social groups. Alreadyhigh levels of inequality are exacerbated byspatially enforcing certain restrictions in

terms of the use of urban space.Consequently residents’ daily interactionswith people from other social groupsdiminish substantially, and for many peoplepublic encounters occur only withinprotected and homogeneous groups. Theimpact is substantial, as Caldeira explains:

In the materiality of segregated spaces,in people’s everyday trajectories … intheir appropriations of streets andparks, and in their constructions ofwalls and defensive facades, socialboundaries are rigidly constructed.Their crossing is under surveillance.When boundaries are crossed in thistype of city, there is aggression, fearand a feeling of unprotectedness, in aword; there is suspicion and danger.Residents of all social groups have asense of exclusion and restriction. Forsome, the feeling of exclusion isobvious, as they are denied access tovarious areas and are restricted toothers. Affluent people who inhabitexclusive enclaves also feel restricted;their feelings of fear keep them awayfrom regions and people that theirmental maps of the city identify asdangerous.39

Apart from increasing social exclusion anddistance between various groups this form ofspatial segregation can complement urbanviolence. On the one hand, the fear of crimeis used to justify almost any form of securityand violence. On the other hand, theproliferation of reports of crime in everydayconversation becomes the context in whichresidents create stereotypes, as theyautomatically label different social groups asdangerous, to be avoided and to be targetedby the police and private security officers.40

Spatial separation could therefore haveimportant social repercussions in SouthAfrica. Certainly in Brazil fortified enclavescontribute to higher levels of inequality,fear, suspicion and feelings of vulnerabilityin those ‘outside’ the boundaries. Fortifiedenclaves in Brazil also contribute to thetransformation of urban spaces. Some publicspaces are privatised (and so prohibitaccess), while others are neglected,


abandoned and relinquished to violence andillegal forms of control.

Legal implications

At the time of writing there was no nationalpolicy to guide decision makers on gatedcommunities in the country. As has beenalluded to above, presently only one SouthAfrican province makes provision for roadclosures for security purposes at a provinciallevel.41

The Gauteng Provincial Legislaturepassed the Rationalisation of LocalGovernment Affairs Act in 1998.42 The Actpermits municipal councils in Gauteng toimpose a restriction on access to any publicplace, under certain conditions, “for thepurposes of enhancing safety andsecurity”.43 This can be done at the initiativeof a municipal council, or at the request ofindividuals or private organisations.

Individuals or private organisations thatapply to a municipal council for authorisationto restrict access to a public place must:• submit in writing a description of the

circumstances giving rise to theapplication, and the estimated number ofpeople—and the category of people—thatmay be affected by a restriction of access;

• furnish proof that at least two-thirds ofthe persons affected by the circumstancesgiving rise to the application approve ofthe proposed restriction; and

• pay a non-refundable administration feeas determined by the municipal council.44

After receiving an application a municipalcouncil must meet with the applicants andthe South African Police Service to enablethe municipal council to determine themerits of the application and the terms andconditions for granting the authorisation.Before imposing a restriction a municipalcouncil must announce its intention to do soin the Provincial Gazette and a localnewspaper circulating in the area concerned.Members of the public must be invited tocomment on a proposed restriction, andtheir comments must be considered by amunicipal council before imposing arestriction.45

Once a municipal council consents to arestriction, it is valid for two years only. Thisperiod may, however, be extended providedcertain administrative procedures are met.46

Anyone who restricts access to a publicplace without having obtained authorisationin terms of the Act is guilty of an offence andis liable, on conviction, to a fine orimprisonment for a period not exceedingfive years, or both a fine andimprisonment.47

It can be argued that restricting access topublic places in South Africa may be inconflict with the general tenor of theDevelopment Facilitation Act of 1995. TheAct promotes efficient and integrated landdevelopment through a set of generalprinciples as the basis for future landdevelopment.48 These principles include therejection of low density, segregated,fragmented and mono-functionaldevelopment in favour of integrated andmixed-use settlements. In terms of the Act,‘planning’ should meet the objectives ofequity, efficiency, protecting the public goodand the environment, and ensuring the gooduse of scarce resources.

According to an official resourcedocument on the Act, all parts and elementsof a settlement should reinforce andcomplement each other, and integration isunderstood as being:• between rural and urban landscapes;• between different elements of spatial

structure and land uses; and• different classes.49

In South Africa restricting access to publicspaces may also be vulnerable toconstitutional challenge. According to theconstitutionally entrenched South AfricanBill of Rights, “everyone has the right tofreedom of movement”.50 This right—as allother rights contained in the Bill of Rights—applies to all law and binds all organs ofstate.51

Rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited“only in terms of law of general applicationto the extent that the limitation is reasonableand justifiable in an open and democraticsociety based on human dignity, equalityand freedom”, taking into account such


factors as the nature of the right, theimportance of the purpose, nature andextent of the limitation, and less restrictivemeans to achieve the purpose of thelimitation.52

Conclusion

Evidence in South Africa and other countriesshow that the increase in urban crime, whichhas taken place for the past 30 to 40 years,cannot be reversed by more or betterpolicing. In fact, over the past few decadeshigh urban crime rates have become anormal social fact in many societies.

This perceived normality of high crimerates, together with the widelyacknowledged limitations of the criminaljustice system, have begun to “erode one ofthe foundational myths of modern societies:namely, the myth that the sovereign state iscapable of providing security, law and order,and crime control”.53 One of theconsequences of the recognition that thestate cannot protect the life and property ofall citizens—especially in developing high-crime societies—has been the developmentof private alternatives to crime preventionand control. Gated communities are onesuch popular alternative.

Yet, despite the limitations on what thestate can do in terms of crime prevention, itstill has a responsibility towards collectiveaction where applicable. Dealing with urbanspaces is one such affair in need of collectiveaction, rather than allowing a laissez-faireapproach where all (including the privatesector) are left alone to do what they please.Many social problems, such as socialexclusion and spatial segregation, which willnot be solved on their own can be exploitedby societies’ powerful. Experience fromBrazil suggests that a lack of interventionfrom local governments, and theuncontrolled growth of gated communities,can exacerbate existing patterns of spatialsegregation and social exclusion. This, inturn, undermines democratic consolidationin a country that is still recovering fromyears of authoritarian rule.

Gated communities are generally

favoured by those who can afford them. Thefact that property values usually increaseafter an area is enclosed, and becomes agated community, shows that home ownersallocate a positive economic value to theperceived protection such enclosures afford.So far no comprehensive empirical dataexists to show conclusively whether gatedcommunities experience a sustainedreduction in crime, or whether suchcommunities contribute to the overallreduction in crime in a city. This is animportant area for future research,especially in a country such as South Africawhere the critical voices opposed to thepoorly regulated growth in gatedcommunities appears to be on the increase.It may ultimately come down to balancingthe need for efficiency (in terms of crimereduction) with that of equity (in terms of amore democratic society).

Notes1 C do Lago, Socio-spatial structuring in Greater

Metropolitan Rio de Janeiro: A reproduction ortransformation of conditions in the (lack of)access to urban space? International seminar onsegregation in the city, Lincoln Institute,Washington, 2001.

2 Barbadosa, Urban spatial segregation and socialdifferentiation: Foundation for a typologicalanalysis, International seminar on segregation inthe city, Lincoln Institute, Washington, 2001.

3 C do Lago, op cit.4 P R Caldeira, Building up walls: The new

pattern of spatial segregation in São Paulo, inUNESCO Report ISSJ 147/1996, BlackwellPublishers, 1996a, pp 55-66; P R Caldeira,Fortified enclaves: The new urban segregation,Public Culture 8, 1996b, pp 303-328; P RCaldeira, City of walls: crime, segregation andcitizenship in São Paulo, University of CaliforniaPress, 2000.

5 P R Caldeira, Building up walls: The newpattern of spatial segregation in São Paulo, opcit, pp 55-66; P R Caldeira, Fortified enclaves:The new urban segregation, op cit, pp 303-328;P R Caldeira, City of walls: crime, segregationand citizenship in São Paulo. Villaça, Segregationin the Brazilian metropolis, Internationalseminar on segregation in the city, LincolnInstitute, Washington, 1998; and V G de Araujoand S Ribeiro, Interference of urban andenvironmental norms in urban spatialsegregation: The case of Brazilian federallegislation, International seminar on segregation


in the city, Lincoln Institute, Washington, 2001.6 P R Caldeira, City of walls: crime, segregation

and citizenship in São Paulo, op.cit.7 D Hook and M Vrdoljak, Gated communities,

heterotopia and a ‘rights’ of privilege: A‘heterotopology’ of the South African security-park. WITS Housing Seminar, 17 May 2001; KLandman, An overview of enclosedneighbourhoods in South Africa, CSIRPublication, Pretoria, 2000.

8 A Lipman and H Harris, Fortress Johannesburg,environment and planning B: Planning anddesign 26, 1999, pp 727-240.

9 D Hook and M Vrdoljak, From power to power:Strydom Square and the security park. Urbanfutures conference, Johannesburg, 10-14 July2000; and D Hook and M Vrdoljak, Gatedcommunities, heterotopia and a ‘rights’ ofprivilege: A ‘heterotopology’ of the SouthAfrican security-park, op cit.

10 L Bremner, Crime and the emerging landscapeof post-apartheid Johannesburg, in H Judin andI Vladislavic, Blanc_architecture, apartheid andafter, Nai Publishers, Rotterdam, 2000 and KLandman, An overview of enclosedneighbourhoods in South Africa, op cit.

11 K Landman, An overview of enclosedneighbourhoods in South Africa, op cit.

12 Ibid.13 See M Shaw, Partners in crime? Crime, political

transition and changing forms of policing control,Research report no. 39, June 1995, Centre forPolicy Studies, Johannesburg, pp 9-28.

14 M Shaw, Crime and policing in transitionalsocieties—conference summary and overview,in, Crime and policing in transitional societies,Seminar Report 8, 2001, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, pp 10-11.

15 L Glanz, The not so long arm of the law,Indicator Crime and Conflict 5, Autumn 1996, p10.

16 E Sidiropoulos et al, South Africa Survey1997/98, South African Institute of RaceRelations, Johannesburg, 1998, pp 29-30.

17 Provincial crime specific statistics for the periodJanuary to December 1994 to 2000, CrimeInformation Analysis Centre, Pretoria, 2001,<http://saps.org.za/8_crimeinfo/bulletin/942000/index.htm>.

18 Annual report of the national commissioner ofthe South African Police Service, 1 April 2001 to31 March 2002, Pretoria, 2002, pp 24-25.

19 L Glanz, South African cities under siege,Indicator Crime and Conflict 2, Winter 1995, p17.

20 Because the boundaries of city governments donot match those of the SAPS, the city analysis inthis article is based on a selection of ‘policeareas’ that best represent the cities discussed.

21 Human Sciences Research Council, Attitudes tonational issues in South Africa, Pretoria, 1994and 2000.

22 P de Mesquita Neto, Crime, violence and

political uncertainty in Brazil, in Crime andpolicing in transitional societies, Seminar Report8, 2001, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, p 78.

23 Ibid, pp 77-79.24 Ibid, p 80.25 S Masuku, South Africa: World crime capital?,

Nedbank ISS Crime Index 5(1), January–February 2001, pp 16-21.

26 International crime statistics:1998, INTERPOL,Lyons, 1999.

27 P R Caldeira, Fortified enclaves: The new urbansegregation, op cit, p 314.

28 P R Caldeira, City of walls: crime, segregationand citizenship in São Paulo, op cit, pp 257-8,260.

29 Specific crimes per 100 000 of the populationfor the provinces during the period January toDecember 2000, Crime Information AnalysisCentre, Pretoria, 2001, <http://www.saps.org.za/8_crimeinfo/bulletin/200106/jd2000.htm>.

30 M Schönteich, Sleeping soundly. Feelings ofsafety: Based on perception or reality, NedbankISS Crime Index 5(2), March–April 2001, pp. 2-3.

31 K Frantz, Gated communities in US-Americancities. Conference on gated communities as aglobal phenomenon. Hamburg, 1999.

32 Aksoy & Robins 1997 cited in S Graham and SMarvin, Splintering urbanism: Networkinfrastructures, technological mobilities and theurban condition, Routledge, London, 2001.

33 Connell, Beyond Manila: Walls, malls, andprivate spaces, Environment and Planning 31,1999, pp 415-439.

34 N X M Tadiar as cited in Connell, op cit, p 435.35 J Allen, Worlds within cities, in Massey, Allen &

Pile (eds), City worlds, Routledge, London,1997, p 90.

36 P R Caldeira 2000, City of walls: crime,segregation and citizenship in São Paulo, op. cit.;L Kowarick, Urban spoliation, social strugglesand citizenship: Aspects of our recent history.Paper of the University of São Paulo, São Paulo,Brazil, 2001; and C do Lago, Socio-spatialstructuring in Greater Metropolitan Rio deJaneiro: A reproduction or transformation ofconditions in the (lack of) access to urbanspace?, op cit.

37 L Bremner, op cit, p 10.38 M Davies, Fortress Los Angeles: The

militarisation of urban space, in M Sorkin (ed.),Variations on a theme park: Scenes from the NewAmerican city and the end of public space, Hilland Wang Publishers, New York, 1992, p 174.

39 P R Caldeira, Fortified enclaves: The new urbansegregation, op cit, p 324.

40 Ibid.41 C Spinks, A new apartheid? Urban spatiality,

(fear of) crime, and segregation in Cape Town,South Africa, Working Paper Series 1(20), 2001,Development Studies Institute, p 26.

42 Rationalisation of Local Government Affairs Act


no. 10 of 1998. The Act came into operation on19 March 1999.

43 Section 43, Rationalisation of LocalGovernment Affairs Act no. 10 of 1998.

44 The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipalitycharged an administration fee of R2,500.

45 Section 44(1), Rationalisation of LocalGovernment Affairs Act no. 10 of 1998.

46 Section 46, Rationalisation of LocalGovernment Affairs Act no. 10 of 1998.

47 Sections 47 and 53, Rationalisation of LocalGovernment Affairs Act no. 10 of 1998.

48 Development Facilitation Act no. 67 of 1995.

49 Resource document and manual on chapter 1:Principles of the Development Facilitation Act of1995, National Development and PlanningCommission, Pretoria, 1999, p 14.

50 Section 21(1), Constitution of the Republic ofSouth Africa Act, no. 108 of 1996.



53 D Garland, The limits of the sovereign state, TheBritish Journal of Criminology 36(4), Autumn1996, p 448.


Land Man

Documents

Transcript of Land Man