An exclusive lifestyle is not without several costs
22/08/2004 Sunday Star says...

FOR some, the “gated community” is a symbol of pride and prestige, unless it refers to a prison compound. But market trends seem to see more demand for this segment aspiring uncritically to what is considered a posh lifestyle.

There is now a sentiment that an increasing number of gated residential projects, particularly in highly built-up urban centres, fosters social apartheid by cutting residents off from the wider community. A study is reportedly planned to examine the social implications of this “affluent Bantustan” concept, although the conclusiveness of this kind of normative inquiry is often elusive.

But there is also the argument that people are entitled to get what they pay for. However, both contentions are deficient because there are other implications of gated residential communities that must be considered, and also that practices likely to be socially disruptive cannot be left entirely to market forces.

The idea of perimeter fencing and security guards at project entrances instead of individual fences or walls produces other problems. Residents may not keep pets like cats or dogs, for example, without creating a nuisance or danger to neighbours.

There is also the tendency to leave home security to uniformed sentries, rather than take on more personal responsibility as residents of a cohesive community. And some security guards may not be so trustworthy, particularly when they know which homes will be unoccupied for which periods.

Residents often believe they are buying more privacy and security with the gated community, so the concept has grown from condominiums to bungalow lots to even link houses. But how far are such expectations justified?

Apart from security guards, the absence of walls or fences for individual homes encourages break-ins once intruders get past the perimeter fencing. This has been known to happen even in the most prestigious of projects.

Privacy may even be reduced because neighbours and passers-by can see and hear more of what goes on indoors. Just because a colourful advertising brochure promises better privacy and security need not mean these items will be delivered in any satisfactory measure.

Developers of gated projects are morally bound to provide contractual guarantees of security against break-ins. After all, residents pay monthly maintenance bills to cover security and they deserve some form of assurance in return.

Perhaps the housing inquiry can recommend making the maintenance fee that residents pay cover a form of residential insurance. Not only is purse-snatching an everyday activity, but burglary has long been part of our residential landscape.

At the same time, developers should not feel they have to copy just about any practice found overseas. Variations in living arrangements offered to residents here must be studied honestly and realistically in the light of local experience, and modified or discarded as necessary.

For their part, residents should play a more active role in ensuring their own home security. There is nothing quite like coordination and cooperation with fellow residents because, ultimately, good neighbourliness is still the best investment for a healthy, functional community.