Gated communities are residential areas with restricted access designed to privatize normally public spaces. These developments occur in both new suburban developments and older inner city areas retrofitted to provide security. We estimate that at least three or four million and potentially many more Americans are seeking this new form of refuge from the problems of urbanization.

This rapidly growing phenomenon has become ubiquitous in many areas of the country since the late 1980s. While early gated communities were restricted to retirement villages and the compounds of the super rich, the majority found today are middle to upper-middle class. Along with the trend toward “forting up” in new developments, existing neighborhoods of both rich and poor are using barricades and gates with increasing frequency to isolate themselves.

Gated communities can be classified in three main categories based on the primary motivation of their residents. Two types of “lifestyle” communities provide security and separation for the leisure activities and amenities within. These include retirement communities and golf or country club leisure developments as one subgroup and suburban new towns as another.

In “elite” communities the gates symbolize distinction and prestige. Through both creating and protecting a secure place on the social ladder, these communities become enclaves of the rich and famous, developments for the very affluent, and executive home developments for the middle class.

The third type is the “security zone,” where fear of crime and outsiders is the key motivation for defensive fortifications. This category includes middle-class areas where residents attempt to protect property and property values; working-class neighborhoods, often in deteriorating sections of the city; and low-income areas, including public housing complexes, where crime is acute.

Urban Problems Stimulate Trend to Gating

High levels of foreign immigration, a growing underclass and a restructured economy are changing the face of many metropolitan areas and fueling the drive for separation, distinction, exclusion and protection. Gated communities are themselves a microcosm of America’s larger spatial pattern of segmentation and separation by income, race and economic opportunity. Suburbanization has not meant a lessening of segregation, but only a redistribution of the old urban patterns. Minority and immigrant suburbanization is concentrated in the inner ring and old manufacturing suburbs. At the same time, poverty is no longer concentrated in the central city, but is suburbanizing rapidly.

Gated communities are not yet the normal pattern in the nation. They are primarily a metropolitan and coastal phenomenon, with the largest aggregations being in California, Texas and Florida. However, gates are being erected in almost every state. Real estate developers suggest that the demand for homes in gated communities is increasing, and there is evidence that housing appreciation in such developments is higher than outside the gates.

Fear of crime is the strongest rationale for this new form of community. According to recent reports in Miami and other areas where gates and barricades have become the norm, some forms of crime, such as car theft, are reduced. On the other hand, some data indicate that the crime rate inside the gates is only marginally altered by barricades. Nevertheless, residents report less fear of crime in such settings. This reduction in fear is important in itself, since it can lead to increased neighborly contact, which can reduce crime in the long run.

Policy Issues for Community Life

The development of gated areas is related to the uncoupling of industry from cities and of professionals from the industrial core. Geography compounds current trends toward fragmentation and privatization by undercutting the old foundation of community and providing a new rationale for the lifestyle enclave or gated community based on shared socioeconomic status. This narrowing of social contact is likewise narrowing the social contract.

Privatization- the replacement of public government and its functions by private organizations which purchase services from the market- is promoted as a “benefit” of gated communities, but it may have serious impacts on the broader community. Private communities provide their own security, street maintenance, parks, recreation, garbage collection and other services, thus relieving taxpayers of additional burdens. However, they may also have the unintended consequence of reducing voter interest in participating in tax programs or voluntary efforts to deal with community problems or additional public services such as schools, streets, police or other city and county government programs.

The resulting loss of connection between citizens in privatized and traditional communities loosens social contact and weakens the bonds of mutual responsibility that are a normal part of community living. As a result, there is less and less talk of citizenship. The new lexicon of civic responsibility is that of the taxpayers who take no active role in governance but merely exchange money for services. Residents of privatized gated communities say they are taking care of themselves and lessening the public burden, but this perspective has the potential for redistributing public costs and benefits.

Walled and gated communities are a dramatic manifestation of the fortress mentality growing in America. As citizens divide themselves into homogenous, independent cells, their place in the greater polity and society becomes attenuated, increasing resistance to efforts to resolve municipal, let alone regional, problems.

The forting-up phenomenon has enormous policy consequences.What is the measure of nationhood when neighborhoods require armed patrols and electric fencing to keep out other citizens? When public services and even local governments are privatized and when the community of responsibility stops at the subdivision gates, what happens to the function and the very idea of democracy? In short, can this nation fulfill its social contract in the absence of social contact?

Edward J. Blakely, a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is dean and Lusk Professor of Planning and Development for the School of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Southern California. Mary Gail Snyder is a doctoral student in the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of California at Berkeley.

Additional information in printed newsletter:

1. Map of the United States showing concentrations of Gated Communities.

2. Table showing Social Dimensions of Gated Communities.

The Lincoln Institute sponsored a wide-ranging international conference in June on “Land Policies for Urban Development.” A few of the major themes and messages from the presentations are summarized below.

The three most populous developing countries, China, India, and Indonesia, with 40 percent of the world’s population, are entering the stage of rapid urbanization simultaneously. By 2030, they are projected to add an additional 2.2 billion persons to urban areas, increasing the world’s urban population by nearly 80 percent over the 2000 figure of 2.8 billion. The related infrastructure investment needs are likely to reduce or eliminate any perceived savings surplus in the world. Economic growth and urbanization in most East Asian countries have occurred in coastal regions and near ports. In India, however, urbanization and growth are currently focused on inland cities and on information technology rather than on labor-intensive manufacturing. This may be due to weaknesses in traditional infrastructure services, particularly in transport.

A review of property tax practices across 25 countries found an extremely wide range of practices in terms of tax base definitions, tax rate levels, and assessment practices. In most developing countries property tax rates are very low (a fraction of one percent of market values). Nevertheless, property taxes are one of the few revenue sources under local control and are an important component of local government revenues. Simplicity was found to be a virtue of property tax regimes in developing countries, because complexity raises administrative costs and erodes public support for property taxes.

Efforts to measure land values in urban areas of the United States—either by analyzing vacant land sales or by subtracting the value of the structure from property sales—indicate that they have appreciated more rapidly than construction costs since 1985, with a 2005 value between $12 and $24 trillion. This compares to estimates for 1980 of about $3 trillion, suggesting that land values have increased four to eight times in a period when consumer prices have increased only 2.4 times. In addition, land values have been volatile, falling by around 40 percent from 1989 to 1995 in many urban markets before increasing rapidly in the past 10 years.

While average housing prices across the United States have increased faster than construction costs, increases in housing prices have been particularly sharp in urban areas on the West Coast and on the East Coast from the mid-Atlantic region to New England. In these coastal metropolitan areas, median single-family housing prices are nearly five times larger than median prices in the least expensive metropolitan areas in other regions.

Analysis across all U.S. metropolitan areas shows a strong association between the level of housing market regulation and the level of prices—metropolitan areas with the most regulations on residential development have the highest housing prices. Moreover, areas with the highest prices also have low growth rates of housing stocks. Together these findings suggest that rapid growth in housing prices in coastal cities is due in large part to growing impediments on the supply side of the market. Supply constraints may not be only a U.S. phenomenon. A review of planning experience in the United Kingdom showed that urban development corporations, which have the power to overrule local regulations, have been more effective than most other approaches in fostering urban revitalization.

The ownership of second homes (for own use, not for rent to others) has been growing rapidly in the United States, and about 5.6 percent of all U.S. housing units were second homes in 2004. The main determinants of second-home ownership are income, wealth, and age of the household head. Second-home ownership is highest for those in their sixties, suggesting that the aging of the baby boom generation will increase second-home ownership. Additional research (and better data) is required to determine if this trend is related to the location or characteristics of a household’s primary residence.

The complete collection of papers and commentaries presented at the conference will be published as an edited volume in 2007.

We suggest that a better approach is to link IH to the ongoing process of rezoning—either by the developer or by local government initiative—thus treating it explicitly as a vehicle for recapturing for public benefit some part of the gain in land value resulting from public action.

From 2000 to the end of 2005, the value of U.S. residential land and dwellings increased from $14 trillion to $24 trillion. Until about 2002, housing price increases had followed the normal pattern from the mid-1980s, and housing prices grew along with household incomes. But starting in 2002 housing prices began to grow much faster than incomes in most metropolitan areas.

There were three main causes for this acceleration in housing prices. First, the interest rate for 30-year fixed rate mortgages declined from 7 percent in 2001 to 4.6 percent in 2003, buoying housing prices. Second, starting in the early 2000s mortgage originators began to reduce lending standards and to offer high-risk mortgage instruments such as no-document mortgages and other subprime mortgage instruments. Finally, the national policy to increase home ownership supported the latter trend because increased mortgage availability seemed to increase housing affordability.

These changes led to the rapid growth in mortgages with high loan-to-value ratios and to the approval of borrowers with modest financial reserves. This increasing risk of mortgages was assuaged by the belief that “housing prices could not decline,” which was based on national housing price indices dating back a few decades. Of course, in several metropolitan areas housing prices had declined from 1989 to the mid-1990s, but the national price index had only flattened out in this period.

Nationally, house prices softened in 2006 and fell 30 percent to the present time, while housing starts declined precipitously from 2.27 million in 2006 to 500,000 now, a level well below the typical low point of 1 million starts experienced in the past half dozen recessions. The reduction in housing starts eliminated millions of construction jobs and contributed significantly to the rapid increase in the unemployment rate.

The accompanying financial crisis reduced employment more broadly as part of a severe recession. Mortgage defaults and subsequent foreclosures spiked, caused by the severe housing price decline that left many homeowners “under water” with a mortgage greater than their house value, combined with the loss of household income from unemployment and the tightening of lending standards that made refinancing impossible for many households. From 2006 through 2009, 6 million homes were foreclosed, and 2010 has seen another 2.9 million foreclosure filings. Foreclosure rates are likely to have peaked, and filings in December 2010 were a quarter lower than those in December 2009. But foreclosure rates remain far above historic levels—in 2005 banks foreclosed on about 100,000 homes. The lack of recovery in housing and other construction has in turn been a factor in the slow reduction in unemployment.

House prices may now be stabilizing—national housing prices rose in the second quarter of 2010, but have declined modestly in the third and fourth quarters. This has led some analysts to forecast a possible second round of price declines. In any case, the likely slow decrease in unemployment will continue to restrain income growth and demand for home ownership. Clearly, housing will not lead the economy out of this recession. Needed now is regulatory reform to prevent the repetition of a housing bubble and an inevitable subsequent housing bust and its related financial meltdown.

While some modest steps have been taken in this direction, much remains to be done and the announced reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have increased uncertainty about the course of future mortgage finance. The realization by households that housing price appreciation is not inevitable will likely slow the shift to ownership by younger households and encourage older empty-nesters to move their assets to investments less risky than housing. The resulting growth in rental demand will focus in denser parts of metropolitan areas and give some impetus to smart growth outcomes. Housing demand will be robust only in several years, driven by long-term growth in incomes, population, and household formation.

The United States is emerging from a great recession whose major hallmark has been the collapse of national housing prices, which grew by 59 percent from 2000 to 2006 and then fell 41 percent by 2011, all in constant dollars. Nationally, real house prices in 2011 were 6 percent below levels in 2000. The housing price collapse had unanticipated contagion effects that helped produce the accompanying financial crisis and the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. The share of U.S. mortgages that were delinquent by 90 days or more rose from about 1 percent in 2006 to over 8 percent in 2010. The economic and social costs of this house price bubble and subsequent collapse have been immense.

The benefits of preventing future house price bubbles is obviously great, but realizing such benefits will require that policy makers learn to detect price bubbles as they are forming and then implement policies that will attenuate or mitigate them. A recent Lincoln Institute policy focus report, Preventing House Price Bubbles: Lessons from the 2006–2012 Bust, by James Follain and Seth Giertz, addresses the challenges of diagnosing and treating price bubbles in the real estate market. Their report builds on extensive statistical analysis available in several Lincoln Institute working papers.

While it is common to summarize the recent housing market bust using national indicators (as in the first paragraph above), these national indicators don’t account for great variations in both the levels and changes in housing prices across metropolitan areas. For example, from 1978 to 2011, constant dollar housing prices in Dallas, Texas and Omaha, Nebraska varied by less than 20 percent from their 1978 levels; those in Stockton, California nearly tripled from 1978 to 2006, but by 2011 fell back to their 1978 levels. Local housing markets are all influenced by national economic and financial policies and conditions, but these large differences across metropolitan markets indicate that local conditions play a very important role as well.

A key element of the statistical work by Follain and Giertz is to use metropolitan housing markets as the unit of observation for their analyses, which are based on annual data (for 1980 to 2010) and quarterly data (for 1990 to 2010) for up to 380 metropolitan areas. Their econometric work indicates that house price bubbles can be detected across metropolitan areas and that price changes and the accompanying credit risk vary greatly in size. Stress tests, such as those used to evaluate mortgage credit risk, can be useful indicators of potential price bubbles at the metropolitan level.

Because the levels and changes in housing prices vary greatly across metropolitan areas—with bubble-like price increases in some and essentially stable prices in others—Follain and Giertz conclude that policy measures to mitigate housing bubbles should be tailored to target metropolitan areas or regions rather than be applied uniformly across all metropolitan areas at the national level. Thus monetary policy would be an unattractive intervention to counter house price increases in a few metropolitan areas, because it would affect financing terms across both frothy and stable housing markets. Instead, Follain and Giertz favor policy interventions that would target those metropolitan areas with high price increases. The policy they advance would raise the capital reserve ratio that banks are required to hold against mortgages that they finance in those areas. Such countercyclical capital policies would both dampen house price increases and strengthen the reserves of the issuing banks, improving their ability to withstand any unexpected financial shocks.

Applying prudential housing market policies at the metro-politan level seems to be an obvious thing to do; so why has it not been done before? A major part of the answer is that housing market analysis is benefitting from a revolution in the availability of spatially disaggregated data at the metropolitan, county, and even zip code level. The data required to inform policy interventions targeted at the metropolitan level have only recently become widely available, and such data underpin the empirical work carried out by Follain and Giertz. For more information on their analysis, see http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/2245_Preventing-House-Price-Bubbles.

Las personas que trabajan conmigo por lo general se sorprenden de hasta qué punto mi canon filosófico deriva de las películas no convencionales de bajo presupuesto, especialmente de la década de 1980. Cuando busco sabiduría, suelo recurrir a las enseñanzas de la película “Repo Man” (traducida al español como “Los recolectores”) o, en el caso de este ensayo, a la obra maestra alegórica de Terry Gilliam, “Time Bandits” (“Bandidos del tiempo”). En esta película, un grupo de trabajadores públicos son empleados por el Ser Supremo para rellenar los agujeros que quedaron en el continuo espacio-tiempo por el apresuramiento de haber creado el universo en siete días: “Verán, fue un trabajo algo chapucero”.

Igual que los bandidos del tiempo, los gestores de políticas generalmente tienen la tarea de rellenar agujeros: agujeros literales, como los baches de las calles, o agujeros más teóricos, que son los artefactos de los mercados privados disfuncionales. Uno de los grandes agujeros que la política ha tratado de rellenar durante décadas es la oferta inadecuada de viviendas sociales. Por ejemplo, los economistas especializados en vivienda de los Estados Unidos se han vuelto bastante expertos en hacer el seguimiento del tamaño de este agujero, que cada vez es más difícil de rellenar desde que el gobierno federal se comprometió a tratar el tema como una prioridad de política nacional a partir de la Ley de Vivienda de 1949, que fue parte de la legislación conocida como Fair Deal del expresidente Harry S. Truman.

Tal vez nuestro fracaso colectivo para resolver el déficit de viviendas sociales en los últimos 66 años tenga que ver con un análisis incorrecto del problema y con la conclusión de que pueden diseñarse soluciones basadas en el mercado con el fin de resolver la discordancia entre la oferta de viviendas sociales y la demanda de las mismas. En su discurso del Estado de la Unión de 1949, el presidente Truman resaltó que, para poder suplir las necesidades de millones de familias sin una vivienda adecuada, “la mayoría de las viviendas que necesitamos deberán ser construidas por el sector privado sin subsidios públicos”.

Para apoyar esta idea, me desviaré brevemente hacia la teoría del mercado. Partiendo del enfoque matemático para analizar la economía que predomina hoy en día, un mercado es, simplemente, un sistema de ecuaciones diferenciales parciales que se resuelve mediante un único precio. Las ecuaciones diferenciales parciales captan las decisiones complejas que toman los consumidores y los productores de bienes, y concilian los gustos, las preferencias y los presupuestos de los consumidores con las complejidades técnicas derivadas de producir un bien para así llegar a un precio que despeje el mercado mediante el acuerdo de todas las operaciones que los proveedores y consumidores de bienes están dispuestos a realizar.

Los prestigiosos economistas Arrow, Debreu y McKenzie demostraron la existencia teórica de un conjunto único de precios capaz de resolver simultáneamente la cuestión del “equilibrio general” de todos los mercados en una economía nacional o mundial. Un importante aspecto de esta contribución (que obtuvo el Premio Nobel) fue la observación de que un único precio despejaba cada mercado: un mercado, un precio. No se esperaba que un único precio mantuviera el equilibrio en dos mercados. Pero este es el defecto fundamental del mercado de la vivienda: en realidad, no es un mercado, sino dos. Los mercados de la vivienda proporcionan tanto lugares para vivir a los consumidores locales como bienes de inversión comercializables en todo el mundo, gracias a los grandes mercados de capital al servicio de los inversores a nivel mundial. Esta condición de mercado doble describía más al sector de viviendas ocupadas por sus propietarios; sin embargo, con la proliferación de los fideicomisos de inversión inmobiliaria (REIT, por su sigla en inglés), los mercados de alquiler se encuentran ahora en la misma situación.

Los mercados de bienes de consumo se comportan de manera muy diferente a los mercados de inversión, ya que responden a “reglas básicas” distintas. En lo que a la oferta se refiere, los precios de los bienes de consumo se derivan de los costos de producción, mientras que los precios de los mercados de inversión tienen que ver con los beneficios esperados. En relación con la demanda, factores tales como gustos y preferencias, ingresos de las familias y características demográficas determinan el precio de la vivienda como lugar donde residir. La demanda de vivienda con fines de inversión está relacionada con aspectos tales como la liquidez y las preferencias de liquidez de los inversores, las ganancias esperadas de inversiones alternativas, o las tasas de interés.

En los países desarrollados, los mercados de capitales mundiales y el mercado de la vivienda colisionan a nivel local, con pocas probabilidades de reconciliación. Los hogares a nivel local compiten con los inversores a nivel mundial para decidir el tipo y la cantidad de viviendas que se producen. En los mercados que atraen la inversión mundial se produce una gran cantidad de viviendas, aunque la falta de viviendas sociales es aguda y empeora con el paso del tiempo. Esto se debe a que una gran parte de las viviendas nuevas se produce para maximizar las ganancias de la inversión y no para suplir las necesidades de vivienda de la población local. Por ejemplo, no escasean los inversores mundiales dispuestos a participar en el desarrollo de apartamentos de US$100 millones en la Ciudad de Nueva York; sin embargo, escasean las viviendas sociales por la dificultad de conseguir fondos para desarrollarlas. En los mercados que han sido abandonados por el capital mundial, los precios de las viviendas caen por debajo de los costos de producción, por lo que existe un excedente de viviendas que se acumula y se deteriora. En casos extremos como el de Detroit, el orden del mercado sólo puede recuperarse mediante la demolición de miles de viviendas y edificios abandonados.

Tal vez sea este el momento de reconsiderar el análisis que llevó al presidente Truman (y a miles de gestores de políticas de vivienda después de él) a concluir que podemos forjar soluciones basadas en el mercado ante el desafío de proveer de vivienda a la población del país. Truman concluyó que “al producir pocas unidades de alquiler, frente a una proporción demasiado grande de viviendas de alto precio, la industria de la construcción se está excluyendo a sí misma rápidamente del mercado debido a los precios”. No obstante, Truman se refería al mercado de la vivienda para residir, no para invertir. Resulta importante destacar que la cantidad de unidades habitacionales en oferta en los países desarrollados como los Estados Unidos excede en mucho la cantidad de hogares. En el año 2010, el Censo de los EE.UU. calculó que en el país existían 131 millones de unidades habitacionales y 118 millones de hogares, y que una de cada siete unidades habitacionales se encontraba vacante. Resulta aún más impactante que, en los Estados Unidos, este excedente de la oferta de viviendas es una característica de todos los mercados metropolitanos del país, incluso de aquellos mercados metropolitanos con una escasez extrema de viviendas sociales. En 2010, el 8,5 por ciento de las unidades habitacionales se encontraban vacantes en el Gran Boston, un 9,1 por ciento en el área de la Bahía de San Francisco, y un 10,2 por ciento en Washington D.C. El problema radica en que muchas familias no tienen suficientes ingresos para acceder a las viviendas que están disponibles.

Al final, los bandidos del tiempo decidieron, en lugar de rellenar los agujeros que existían en el tejido de espacio y tiempo, aprovecharse de ellos para “hacerse indecentemente ricos”. Los bandidos querían capitalizar las imperfecciones celestiales de la misma manera que los inversores mundiales desean obtener rentabilidad de las dislocaciones del mercado a corto plazo. A fin de ilustrar los peligros de la especulación desmedida en los mercados no regulados, consideremos un relato apócrifo de un mercado muy diferente. En 1974 en Bangladesh, se sugirió que, debido a las copiosas lluvias que habían caído durante la temporada de siembra, era posible que existiera una escasez de arroz en la temporada de cosecha. Para anticiparse a dicha escasez, el precio del arroz comenzó a subir. Especuladores expertos en bienes comercializables se dieron cuenta de que obtendrían una buena rentabilidad del arroz que mantuvieran fuera de mercado. A pesar de que la cosecha real produjo abundante arroz, la interacción entre las expectativas del mercado y las manipulaciones del mercado por parte de los inversores en bienes comercializables generó una de las peores hambrunas del siglo XX, que causó aproximadamente un millón y medio de muertes relacionadas con el hambre. Esta hambruna no fue el resultado de una escasez real de alimentos. La colisión entre el mercado de bienes y el mercado de inversión especulativa causó tal aumento del precio del arroz que hizo que quedara fuera del alcance de las poblaciones locales, lo que dio como resultado que las familias sin tierras sufrieran una tasa de mortalidad tres veces más alta que las familias con tierras.

Tal vez la vivienda y el alimento sean aspectos demasiado importantes para ser administrados por los mercados no regulados. En vista de los daños que puede provocar el conflicto entre el mercado de bienes y el mercado de inversiones en las poblaciones locales, quizá las políticas públicas deberían concentrarse en proteger una parte del mercado —y del público— de los estragos de la especulación. En este número de la revista Land Lines, describimos algunas medidas incipientes para producir constantemente viviendas sociales, aislándolas de la especulación mediante fideicomisos de suelo comunitario, viviendas inclusivas y cooperativas de vivienda. Miriam Axel-Lute y Dana Hawkins-Simons examinan los mecanismos necesarios para organizar fideicomisos locales de suelo comunitario. Loren Berlin describe las medidas tomadas a fin de preservar la vivienda social en forma de viviendas prefabricadas y promover la accesibilidad permanente a dichas viviendas mediante la conversión de comunidades de viviendas prefabricadas en cooperativas de patrimonio limitado.

En artículos más admonitorios, Cynthia Goytia analiza las formas en que las comunidades de bajos ingresos en ciudades de toda América Latina eluden las regulaciones sobre vivienda que aumentan los costos de la misma, y producen sus propias viviendas accesibles pero por debajo de los estándares en asentamientos informales. Finalmente, el artículo de Li Sun y Zhi Liu trata de la precaria condición del 25 por ciento de los hogares urbanos en China que compraron viviendas sociales con derechos de propiedad inciertos en terrenos de propiedad colectiva ubicados en la periferia en rápido desarrollo de las ciudades y en “aldeas urbanas”, es decir, asentamientos que, anteriormente, eran rurales y en la actualidad están rodeados de construcciones modernas. A medida que los mercados de capital se intensifican en estos países, la rivalidad entre la vivienda como un bien de inversión y la vivienda como un lugar para vivir probablemente exacerbará la informalidad en las ciudades de América Latina y hará más precarios los derechos de propiedad de las familias chinas. Después de casi setenta años de medidas fallidas para lograr que los mercados privados suplan las necesidades de vivienda social de la población, tal vez sea el momento de desarrollar, y de exportar, otro enfoque que se fundamente en una comprensión más realista de la complejidad del mercado de la vivienda y del mercado del capital.