Do Gated Developments in Isle of Dogs Segregate Local Communities? Aleksejus Ragovskis University Of East London MAASD Urban Ecology 2013/14 Gated Development in the Isle of Dogs Abstract The aim of this paper is to understand the social segregation caused by gated developments in the Isle of Dogs, Docklands. It is based on a research related to this field also as interviews with the Isle of Dogs’ residents from gated developments and social housings. The aim of this report is to understand the causes of segregation and analyze them from the point of view of local residents as well as finding a reasonable conclusion on what should be done in order to create sustainable and safer communities. In the last tree decades the Isle of Dogs have been through a major transformation and has a quite high concentration of the gated developments and social housings. The study addresses the issues of why gated developments have emerged in the UK and have focused on the social and physical segregation of local communities. Introduction Large number of gated developments in the Isle of Dogs, which restrict public access, is portrayed as a simple ‘expression of lifestyle choice’, that is reflecting status and more importantly provides the security from the ‘dangers of urban life’ (Atkinson, R., 2004). With a slogan ‘Live above all else. Live at Pan Peninsula’ advertises new developments. But what effect it has on the local communities and social cohesion in the Isle of Dogs? Gated Developments, by mean of residential developments with a restricted access by non-residents, in Britain if compared to other countries, is a fairly new phenomenon. There is no up to date information on such developments, but according to the studies curried out back in 2004 there was an estimate of one thousand gated developments across the country (Atkinson, R., 2004), and now this number is much higher. Majority of these developments are based in London and South East of England, especially in the Isle of Dogs, which is part of Docklands. Walled or fenced housing developments, to which public access is restricted, are often guarded by using CCTV and a security person who segregates people in a spatial way. People that are not residents of this development are restricted with access through these areas leaving them with a limited choice of walkways and they have to find their way around these enclosed spaces through ‘access tunnels’ that often has a large footprint. In some cases gated developments also own a part of the riverside and access to it is also restricted, resulting in the Thames path being blocked and people have to walk around the developments. 1. Beginning of the Gated Development in the Isle Of Dogs The gated developments in the Isle of Dogs have emerged simultaneously with the development of Docklands. This “phenomenon of the gated developments was ‘virtually non-existent until the first gated developments in the newly emerging Docklands’ (Minton, 2009: 61). Docklands that once were a largest dock site in Europe started to decline in 1960 onwards due to the changes in industry and between 60’s and 70’s 150,000 jobs were lost (Innes, 2009:4) causing serious social deprivation. The need for acceleration of the decline transformed Docklands and its population. Government created London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) 1981-1998, was selling parts of the land in Docklands and received money that were invested back into Docklands together with private and public investments. (Innes, 2009:17). Isle of Dogs at that time was a site with the biggest concentration of council housing in the UK located more inland and the surrounded land was sold to the private owners. Steele J. argues that the redevelopment of the Isle of Dogs lead by LDDC had not benefited towards the local communities as much, because most of the riverside sites were sold for private apartment blocks (Archis Nr5, 1998). Still, finance district was built together with apartments for the workers of the finance. But local communities south of Canary Wharf were very poor and British planners wanted to surround new developments with a security, because the new residents were simply scared of the local population (Minton, 2009). And in the last 15 years population in the Isle of Dogs has doubled, reaching estimate of 47,000 people. 2. Why people moves in to gated developments? Why people choose to live in the gated developments is a complex question that has no straightforward answer. Some choose it because of the investment, some because of the fear of crime and for some it is a way to show their wealth. There is no research curried out in the Isle of Dogs to explain it either, but back in 1997 Castell curried a postal questionnaire in one of the developments just north of the Isle of Dogs, in Bow Quarter. It revealed that “facilities and security were the main reason” for moving into the gated development and “community was an insignificant factor”. (Blandy, Lister, Atkinson, Flint 2003:11). Based on this evidence one can create an opinion that security and comfort are overriding importance against the community. Furthermore in 2002 telephone survey of random 1001 respondents in UK showed general public attitude towards gated developments; 50% of all respondents said that gated developments is a good thing, 43% said not a good thing and 7% didn’t know. Out of all respondents 61% was living in the gated developments (Blandy, Lister, Atkinson, Flint 2003:9). Among a number of factors that influenced a decision to move in, the main ones were calm traffic, setting and prestige. 3. Crime Last year the metropolitan police, recorded 27564 crimes in the Borough of Tower Hamlets. Majority of this crime consists of violence against the person 6405, motor vehicle crime 2716, and 1485 residential burglary (Met Police Statistics 2013). If to compared other regions in London, it is average or even small number. For instance Islington Council recorded 24979 total crimes, Soutwark - 32508, Haringey - 21267, with highest being Westminster Council where 56439 crimes was recorded. Unfortunately there are no studies curried out in order to relate these crimes to the gated developments in the Isle of Dogs, but as an example Blakely and Snyder’ study can be used. In California back in 2000 crime rates of two developments were compared, one was gated and the other not. The study revealed that there is “no significant differences between these neighborhoods” (Blandy, 2007:4). A record shows that there is a crime in Isle of Dogs and Blandy suggests that “it is now recognized that crime and anti-social behavior is concentrated in deprived urban neighborhoods”(Blandy 2007:4). From this statement we can see the link between a crime and gated developments and why people choses gated developments motivated by the fear of crime. They want to isolate themselves from the deprived areas. It is not surprising that British Labour Party’ politician David Blunkett back in 2004 called for spread of the gated communities to “make available to the many what is currently available to few”, motivated that it would return a ‘sense of community safety’ (The Guardian 2004 Jan 22). But what gating really does is that isolates communities from each other leaving people ignorant to the surrounding territories and reducing collective efficacy. Analysis of the British Crime Survey 2003/4 suggested that “lack of collective efficacy in an area is a strong predictor of anti-social behavior” (Wood 2004). It is understandable that new residents in the area, especially that is surrounded by the deprived area like in Isle of Dogs, wants to surround themselves with a sense of security, but at the same time it is regrettable response to the crime, as gated developments decreases collective efficacy and permeability of the space. It also reduces ‘natural surveillance’ that can be a cause of the increased crime. Gating of privatised areas, “limits natural surveillance from passers by, and from occupants of the dwellings” (LDF, Lewisham Council 2006:12). Lewisham Council for example is against gated developments and clearly states that “council will normally reject development that takes place within a gated environment”, and instead suggested to deal with a security by ensuring that “development is permeable, and overlooked as much as possible” (LDF, Lewisham Council 2006:12).By creating more collective communities, where people would know each other more, would be more benefitial to the collective efficacy. 4. Physical Segregation One of the most obvious segregations that happen in the Isle of Dogs is physical segregation. Part of it was created by the London Docklands Development Corporation when decision was made to sell the riverside land for the private developments and many gated developments were built along the river. It interrupted the riverside walk – Thames Path, leaving residents of social housing with limited access to the riverside. The private land that is accessible on foot often interrupts walkway along the river, because both ends of it are blocked and people are forced to walk around it (Fig.1.). The same situation repeat itself along the river many times, people often are forced to walk around such developments and use the same roads that cars are using. 1. Private riverside of gated community (left and right view), Midland Place, Isle of Dogs Different forms of physical segregation can be observed in the Isle of Dogs. In some cases private properties are restricting the entrance to the property not with physical obstructions, but by law. One of the examples would be Ironmongers Place (Fig.2). Owner of the land is not obliged by law to allow a public access unless this is a common road for public use.