110 I JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS I Vol. 29/No.

2/2007

consequences of segregation. Although the relationship of GCs to residential segregation is recur-

rent in the scholarly literature, the empirical evidence is quite scarce and contradictory (Atkinson
& Flint, 2004; Gordon, 2004; Le Goix, 2003; Vesselinov, 2006). Reasons for this include different
geographical units of analysis, the different methodologies, and the varying types of data used in
the analyses. Equally important, there is no comprehensive theoretical framework which would
allow one to systematically link not only GCs and segregation but also the study of gating within
the larger context of urban inequality. In this article we use the spatialized sociology of inequality
(Tickamyer, 2000) as a middle range theory, which lays the theoretical foundations for examining
gating in the context of urban inequality. The theory is based (a) on Tickamyer’s (2000) sociologi-
cal framework for incorporating space into the study of inequality and (b) on the political economy
of place (Logan & Molotch, 1987). Thus, our first contribution is that we propose a theoretically
compelling and comprehensive way of analyzing all aspects of GCs—the history, the modern
trends, the motivations of developers, consumers, local governments, and the consequences of
the proliferation of these enclaves—in the context of urban inequality. Second, we argue that
GCs (a) reproduce the existing levels of social stratification and (b) impose a new differentiating
order in the spatial organization of cities. Third, we posit that GCs have become a permanent
feature of urban America and will have an increasing impact on the urban landscape for years
to come.
We begin by very briefly delineating the process of privatization of space. Gated communities
have not emerged in a vacuum; they share some similar characteristics with other attempts to
privatize, to include common interest developments (Low, 2003a; McKenzie, 2003) and planned
developments (Gordon, 2004). We then discuss the specific definition of a GC, its history, and
modern trends associated with it. Next, we apply Tickamyer’s (2000) sociological framework for
incorporating space into the study of inequality. In relation to GCs we discuss (1) issues of scale,
measurement, and systems of inequality; (2) issues of comparative advantages and disadvantages;
and (3) issues of meaning, control, and construction. As a middle range theory, we show that the
spatialized sociology of inequality is particularly useful in generating hypotheses related to urban
inequality, which should be investigated further with the methods of sociological inquiry. We
conclude by relating our discussion of GCs to larger sociological frames of reference and the
much larger social forces which give rise to them.

PRIVATIZATION OF SPACE
Sociology has long relegated the study of space to fields such as geography, environmental
psychology, anthropology, and architecture and planning (Gieryn, 2000). Urban sociologists have
only recently rediscovered space and reclaimed it as a central category of their own analysis,
although conceptualization of space can be traced back to Simmel (Simmel & Wolff, 1985). Two
properties of space, established by Simmel, are particularly relevant for our analysis: exclusivity
(or uniqueness) and the nature of boundaries, which are not spatial by origin but are produced by
people in the context of their relationships. By examining the unique boundaries of GCs with a
logical and consistent sociological theoretical framework, we can better understand both present
and emerging urban social stratification. In the section below we show how people who build and
live in GCs use the exclusivity of space and clear physical boundaries to privatize space for their
own purposes.

Absorbing Public Goods into Private Spaces

The privatization of space occurs when a planned or pre-existing institution such as a housing
development or a business becomes the primary regulator of “public goods” within a specified