Gated and Common Interest Communities in Canada: Retirement Villages, CIDs, and the Evolving Ecology of Privatization

Gated and Common Interest Communities in Canada:

Retirement Villages, CIDs, and the Evolving Ecology of Privatization

Ivan TownshendDept. of Geography

University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

The Privatization of Urban Space, New Orleans, Feb26-28, 2004

Outline• Private communities and gated communities in Canada:

– Problems of definition, enumeration, scale, perception.– Private or Not? Gated or Not?“

• Explicit vs. Implicit gating (function and intent)– Retirement villages: the dominant spatial expression of private

communities.• Conceptualizing RVs / GCs as part of an evolving urban social

ecology of nested and hierarchical privatization.– Preliminary case study of Calgary:

• 1960s/1970s: recreational community developments (PUDs) set the stage for privatization (CIDs, HOAs etc.)

• 1980s /1990s: Flourishing of CIDs and HOAs – RVs as “private” nesting in “public” communities– RVs as “private” nesting in ”private” communities

• Post 1990s: innovation, differentiation, club realms, intangible privatization, and spatial intensification

• Conclusion: Hemming in the public city by the private city.– Do we need to rethink models of the social ecology of the city?

Problems of definition, enumeration, scale, perceptionGrant 2003. “As soon as we began the work we ran into difficulty with the term “gated”. We discovered quickly that planners do not share consensus on the meaning of “gated”.

Iterative attempts at definition:

“Gated communities are multi-unit housing developments surrounded by fences, walls or other barriers, and with streets that are not open to general traffic.”

“Gated communities are multi-unit housing developments with private roads that are not open to general traffic because they have a gate across the primary access. These developments may be surrounded by fences, walls or other natural barriers that further limit public access.”

“Gated communities are housing developments on private roads that are closed to general traffic by a gate across the primary access. These developments may be surrounded by fences, walls or other natural barriers that further limit public access.“

we still found that planners often used the term gated communityto include walled projects with open street access.

When the gate is left in open position most of the time, we still consider the community gated.

A crude enumeration of gated communities in Canada (Grant 2003)

QuebecQuebecQuebecQuebecQuebecQuebecQuebecQuebecQuebec

British ColumbiaBritish ColumbiaBritish ColumbiaBritish ColumbiaBritish ColumbiaBritish ColumbiaBritish ColumbiaBritish ColumbiaBritish Columbia

SaskatchewanSaskatchewanSaskatchewanSaskatchewanSaskatchewanSaskatchewanSaskatchewanSaskatchewanSaskatchewan

ManitobaManitobaManitobaManitobaManitobaManitobaManitobaManitobaManitoba

NunavutNunavutNunavutNunavutNunavutNunavutNunavutNunavutNunavutNorthwest TerritoriesNorthwest TerritoriesNorthwest TerritoriesNorthwest TerritoriesNorthwest TerritoriesNorthwest TerritoriesNorthwest TerritoriesNorthwest TerritoriesNorthwest Territories

Prince Edward IslandPrince Edward IslandPrince Edward IslandPrince Edward IslandPrince Edward IslandPrince Edward IslandPrince Edward IslandPrince Edward IslandPrince Edward Island

New BrunswickNew BrunswickNew BrunswickNew BrunswickNew BrunswickNew BrunswickNew BrunswickNew BrunswickNew Brunswick

NewfoundlandNewfoundlandNewfoundlandNewfoundlandNewfoundlandNewfoundlandNewfoundlandNewfoundlandNewfoundland

Nova ScotiaNova ScotiaNova ScotiaNova ScotiaNova ScotiaNova ScotiaNova ScotiaNova ScotiaNova Scotia

AlbertaAlbertaAlbertaAlbertaAlbertaAlbertaAlbertaAlbertaAlberta

OntarioOntarioOntarioOntarioOntarioOntarioOntarioOntarioOntario

Yukon TerritoryYukon TerritoryYukon TerritoryYukon TerritoryYukon TerritoryYukon TerritoryYukon TerritoryYukon TerritoryYukon Territory

18817

1 1

37

0

6

0

0

0

Source: Grant 2003 (2003 count)

“where entry to the development is or can be restricted by gates across roadways”

Problems of definition, enumeration, scale, perception

• Enumeration is Difficult:– Local Planners don’t know!.– Conceptual fuzziness in definitions.– Little / no planning or land use legislation on gating.– Estimated undercounting by factor of 3– The problem may be too dynamic to enumerate

• Scale:– Planners can’t decide when it’s a “condo” development or a

“community”….threshold problem.• Perception:

– Physically gated and ungated often perceived as the same thing– Completely walled vs partially walled– Vehicular access vs pedestrian access– Open vs closed gates? Perceived and enumerated as gated by

functionally ungated• Order out of chaos? Towards a Typology.

Source: J. Grant, Do Canadian planners have the tools to deal with gated communities ?

Impl

icit

gatin

g /

impl

icit

fort

ifica

tion

• Townshend 1997, 1999, 2002 etc.– Commodification of safety, community, well-being, social

homogeneity, fulfillment etc.• Grant 2003:

– Of 257 projects:• 10 have guards• 11 use security video surveillance

– “Our investigations to date DO NOT lead us to believe that Canadian gated projects are primarily about security…”

Security is not the key engine of growth

The crux of the confusion…• Explicit gating vs. implicit gating vs. private space vs.

public space– Explicit gating apparatus is not the same as functional

gating apparatus– Implicit / symbolic gating may be sufficient in Canadian

society:• Effectively achieves the desired “gating”

objective of privatization of space through territorial markers:

– signage– entrance columns (faux gates)– privacy warnings, etc.

“Gating” in Canada is generally simplistic, implicit, symbolic (pomerium)

Dysfunctional explicit gating:Calgary, The Mansions at Prominence Pointe

Dysfunctional explicit gating:Lethbridge, Medican development

Dysfunctional explicit gating:Lethbridge, Fairmount Park Villas

Dysfunctional explicit gating:Lethbridge, Parkridge Estates (mobile homes)

Implicit / symbolic gating:Calgary, The Lake at Heritage Pointe

Implicit / symbolic gating:Calgary, Heritage Pointe (Golf Course)

Implicit / symbolic gating:Lethbridge, Southmeadow Villas

Implicit / symbolic gating:Calgary, Lake Chaparral Village

Implicit / symbolic gating:Calgary, Indian Bluffs (Patterson)

The explicit / implicit problem is not unique to Canada.

Aalbers (2003):

Of American cities:….”though the image of the gated communities is one in which a high solid wall is interrupted by a single gate that is heavily guarded, most walls are not that solid, are interrupted by various gates, or are not even completely walled”.

Of the Netherlands: “On a more abstract level of analysis we could say many communities are gated but not in a physical way”.

• Explicitly and implicitly gated communities are functionally similar.– Effectively create desired “separation” / exclusion

• Same type of “sod-off” architecture • Create “seams of partition” (Atkinson and Flint 2003)

– Limit / control vehicular access (private road network, infrastructure)

– Aim to create a sense of security, community, etc.– Are commodified by developers– Provide similar club realm (CID features, restrictive

covenants etc.)

• Townshend 1994, 1999, 2002 etc.• Grant 2003:

– The vast majority [of GCs] are oriented towards the “active elderly” (Third Age)

• RVs (GCs) need to be considered within the broader evolution of the privatization of space in Canadian cities

“Mature Adult” , “Third Age”, RVs, are the dominant form

of private / gated communities in Canada

Conceptualizing RVs / GCs as part of an evolving urban social ecology of nested and hierarchical privatization.

– Preliminary case study of Calgary:• Calgary is a city of “communities”• The 1960s / 70s “public” community• Late 1960s/1970s: recreational community

developments (PUDs) set the stage for privatization (CIDs, HOAs etc.)

• 1980s /1990s: Flourishing of CIDs and HOAs – RVs as “private” nesting in “public” communities– RVs as “private” nesting in ”private” communities

• Post 1990s: innovation, differentiation, club realms, intangible privatization, and spatial intensification

Calgary is a city of communities

“Normal” array of public / recreational infrastructure (parks, tot lots, etc.)

Boundary identity moderate, permeable

Link to other public domains and communities


Socially homogeneous community ( SES, FAM, housing stock etc.)

Public domain community. Potentially unique “club realm” by virtue of SES, location etc.

Typical 1960s / 1970s PUD:The “public” community.

•The individual community•Unique “identity” (bounding, name etc.)•Limited target market niche (SES, FAM)•Relative social homogeneity

•(SES, FAM etc.)•“Token” housing diversity•Public space•Public infrastructure•Public parks, etc.•Link to “public” “regional” recreational systems, regional and urban public infrastructure etc.

Implications for the urban socio-spatial fabric:

The urban realm

growth trajectories

growth trajectories

growth

trajec

tories

Eg. High S

ES secto

r

growth tra

jectorie

sStage 1 (<1970):

Link to other public domains, other communities with unique identitiesNetwork of “equal” communities amidst “normal” social differentiation?

Public regional infrastructure (roads etc.)

Public regional recreation / amenities

Golf course communitiesOriginally “private”Now semi-private /

Lake CommunitiesPrivate + public rec spaceSingle or multiple HOAControlled, guarded access to private zonesSeparate “Club” features

LKB, 1968

MCK, 1982

SUN, 1980

MID, 1977

COR, 1992

ARB, 1992

DOU, 1986WIL, 1965

SHS, 1986

VAL, 1992

VAR, 1972

HAM, 1992 COU, 1991 HAR, 1991

Late 1960s / 1970s:recreational community developments (PUDs) set the stage for privatization (CIDs, HOAs etc.)

1970s Experimentation: “Recreational Communities” (Explicitly Bundled “EQPs”)Single tier privatization

Artificial lake communities

Golf course communities


“Bonus” recreational infrastructure, EQPs etc.The commodification factor.

Boundary identity strengthened thru link to private space

“Gated” / secure recreational compound. Strict partitioning of community space into public / private domains

Link to other public domains

HOALink to private domain

Non-gated, non secure partitioning of community space.“optional” / semipublic amenity.Boundary permeability.

Boundary identity not strengthened thru explicit link to private space


Moderately homogeneous community ( SES, FAM, housing stock etc.)

volun

tary

Extra-local public

Lake Bonavista


•(SES, FAM etc.)•“Token” housing diversity•Public space•Public infrastructure•Public parks, etc.•Link to “public” “regional” recreational systems, regional and urban public infrastructure etc.•Emerging recreational communities, private and quasi-private space

Implications for the urban socio-spatial fabric: Emerging complexity and fractionation

The urban realm

Stage 2 (1970s/80s):

HOA

volun

tary

HOA

volun

tary

volun

tary

HOA

Latent

Esta

b. 1

tier

Latent

Esta

b. 1

tier

Golf course communitiesOriginally “private”Now semi-private /

Lake CommunitiesPrivate + public rec spaceSingle or multiple HOAControlled, guarded access to private zonesSeparate “Club” features

LKB, 1968

MCK, 1982

SUN, 1980

MID, 1977

COR, 1992

ARB, 1992

DOU, 1986WIL, 1965

SHS, 1986

VAL, 1992

VAR, 1972

HAM, 1992 COU, 1991 HAR, 1991

1980s /1990s: Flourishing of CIDs and HOAs in suburban periphery .

Also:a) 1980s: RVs as “private” nesting in “public” communitiesb) 1990s: RVs as “private” nesting in ”private” communities

Mckenzie Lake

1980s: Simultaneous Emergence of Niche Sub-Communities(e.g retirement villages)

CID / HOA

Explicitly gated Implicitly gated

Private space

Private road network / infrastructure Private amenities

CID / HOA

PermeableImpermeable???

Functionally similar (identical?)

Private domain community. Unique “club realm” by virtue of covenants, HOA etc.

Private domain community. Unique “club realm” by virtue of covenants, HOA etc.

Not quite Sun City!


1980s: Niche Sub-Communities (e.g retirement villages)Type 1: Nesting within older “public” communities. Incipient privatization of space.

Boundary identity moderate, permeable

Link to other public domains and communities

CID / HOA

Sub-community private domain (explicitly gated)

CID / HOA

Sub-community private domain (implicitly gated)


Moderately homogeneous community ( SES, FAM, housing stock etc.)

Public domain community. Potentially unique “club realm” by virtue of SES, location etc.

Pre 1994 Comm District w ith min 1 "Villla" development

Census Tract

0 5 10

kilometres

The origins of “nested” private “retirement villages”

(GCs?), ca. 1984 to 1994


•(SES, FAM etc.)•“Token” housing diversity•Public space•Public infrastructure•Public parks, etc.•Link to “public” “regional” recreational systems, regional and urban public infrastructure etc.•Emerging niche communities (retirement villages, explicitly gated, implicitly gated)


Stage 3 (early 1980s):

HOA

volu

ntar

y

The urban realm

HOA

volun

tary

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

Latent

Latent

Incipien

t

Incipien

t

Incipient

Incipient

Esta

b. 1

tier

Esta

b. 1

tier

The urban realm


HOA

“Bonus” recreational infrastructure, EQPs etc.The commodification factor.

Boundary identity strengthened thru link to private space


Resident link to private domain

Increasingly heterogeneous community ( SES, FAM, housing stock etc.)

“Gated” / secure recreational compound. Strict partitioning of community space into public / private domains

CID / HOA


CID / HOA



1980s: Niche Sub-Communities (e.g retirement villages)Type 2: Nesting within newer “recreation” communities. Two-tier / nested privatization of space.

•The individual community•Unique “identity” (bounding, name etc.)•More diverse target market niches (SES, FAM)•Increasing social variety

•(SES, FAM etc.)•“Token” housing diversity•Public space•Public infrastructure•Public parks, etc.•Link to “public” “regional” recreational systems, regional and urban public infrastructure etc.•Private RVs / GCs communities nesting in newer “private” CID community districts•2 tier privatization of space.


Stage 4 (late 1980s):

HOA

HOA

The urban realm

HOAHOAHOA

HOAHOA

The urban realm

HOAHOA

volun

tary

volun

tary

volun

tary

volun

tary

HOAHOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

volun

tary

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

volun

tary

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

volun

tary

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

volun

tary

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

Est. 2 tier

Est.

1 t

ier

Est.

1 t

ier

Est. 2 tierEst. 1 tier

Est. 1 tier

Est.

2 t

ier

Est.

2 t

ier

Est. 1

tier

Est. 1 ti

er

Incipient

Incipient LatentLatent

Est.

1 t

ier

Est.

1 t

ier

Est. 1 ti

er

Est. 1 ti

erLatentLatent

Incipient

Incipient

Incipient

Incipient

Post 1990s: innovation, differentiation, club realms, intangible

privatization, and spatial intensification

• Emergence of new “thematic” forms of CID.– Environment– E-Communities– Minor recreation amenity (ponds etc.)– New Urbanism themes etc.

• Growing importance of “Resident Club” as the (organizing basis for new thematic CID focus).

• “Intangible” privatization?• Almost universal CID / HOA in all new subdivisions• Continuation of private RVs as nested 2nd tier .

Examples: Lake Communities.

Lake Chaparall

Examples: Lake Communities.

Lake Chaparall

Examples: Theme park (non-gated)

Somerset

Examples: Theme park (non-gated)

Somerset

Examples: New Urbanism

MacKenzie Towne

Examples: Environment

Crestmont

Examples: Environment Cranston

Hanson’s Ranch

“Communities forever program”

Examples: E-Community Copperfield

Martha’s Haven

Examples: Club Realms… Tuscany

Examples: Hidden pods / “prestige cells”

Rocky Ridge Point

0 5 10

kilometres

Main Thematic Basis for CD HOA, CID, Club

Pre 1992 Golf Course Comm (8)Pre 1992 Lake Comm (6)Post 1992 Golf Couse Comm (1)Post 1992 Lake Comm (1)Post 1992 "Environment" Comm (8)Post 1992 New Urban Concept (3)Post 1992 E-Community (3)Post 1992 "Other" (e.g. w ater theme park) (3)

Census Tract

The evolving and differentiated

thematic focus of “Community District” CIDs / HOAs over the

last 30 years

0 5 10

kilometres

Post 1994 CD w ith min 1 "Villa" development

Census Tract

The spatial expansion and infilling of

community districts with “nested” private “retirement villages”

(GCs?), ca. 1995 to 2004


> 1990s: New “Trend” / “Theme” Communities

“Bonus” “natural environment” features.Theme / water park, E-Communities,New Urbanism etc.Little physical manifestation of “privatization”

Boundary identity moderate, club community identity


Resident link to “idea” domain and “clubhouse”


“Intangible” / transparent boundary,“Ideas”, “Technology”

“private clubhouse”

“Normal” array of public / recreational infrastructure (parks, tot lots, etc.)HOA


HOA

> 1990s: New “Trend” / “Theme” Communities

“Bonus” “natural environment” features.Wetlands,Theme / water park, E-Communities,New Urbanism etc.Little physical manifestation of “privatization”

Boundary identity moderate


Resident link to “idea” domain and “clubhouse”


“Intangible” / transparent boundary,“Ideas”, “Technology”

“private clubhouse”

CID / HOA


CID / HOA



•The individual community•Unique “identity” (bounding, name etc.)•More diverse target market niches (SES, FAM)•Relative social heterogeneity

•(SES, FAM etc.)•“Token” housing diversity•Some Public space•Some Public infrastructure•Some Public parks, etc.•Continued Link to “public” “regional” recreational systems, regional and urban public infrastructure etc.•Private RVs / GCs communities nesting in newer “private” CID community districts. More complex variety in types, club realms, etc.•Continued 2 tier privatization of space.


Stage 5 (early 2000s):

The urban realm

HOA

HOA

HOAHOAHOA

HOAHOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

HOA

HOA

…More complex types

The urban realm

HOAHOA

volun

tary

volun

tary

volun

tary

volun

tary

HOAHOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

volun

tary

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

volun

tary

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

volun

tary

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

volun

tary

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

Est.

1 t

ier

Est.

1 t

ier

Est.

2 t

ier

Est.

2 t

ier

Incipient

Incipient LatentLatent

Est.

1 t

ier

Est.

1 t

ier

Est. 1 ti

er

Est. 1 ti

erLatentLatent

Incipient

Incipient

Incipient

Incipient


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

Conclusion: Hemming in the public city by the private city?.

• Do we need to rethink models of the social ecology of the city to include the new privatization of space?

• An inverse pomerium?

0 5 10

kilometres



Census Tract

The evolving and differentiated

thematic focus of “Community District” CIDs / HOAs over the

last 30 years

A new suburban model?

Hemming in by CIDs

0 5 10

kilometres

Pre 1994 CD w ith min 1 "Villa" development


Census Tract

The picture in 2004: Community districts

with at least one “retirement villa”

(GC?)

Nested RVs parallel the CID trend…multi-

tier privatization

0 5 10

kilometres

% Pop Change 96-01

75 to 100 (8)50 to 75 (14)25 to 50 (9)0 to 25 (79)

-18 to 0 (73)



Census Tract

Situating private RVs within the urban

social fabric:POP CHANGE

0 5 10

kilometres

CT AVG Household Inc.2001

93,000 to 238,000 (34)80,000 to 93,000 (26)70,000 to 80,000 (24)63,000 to 70,000 (22)59,000 to 63,000 (18)52,000 to 59,000 (30)

0 to 52,000 (29)



Census Tract


social fabric:SES

(Household Income)

0 5 10

kilometres

Avg Value Dwellings

243,000 to 518,000 (34)194,000 to 243,000 (41)160,000 to 194,000 (55)115,000 to 160,000 (49)

0 to 115,000 (4)



Census Tract


social fabric:SES

(value of housing)

0 5 10

kilometres

% Aged 55-84

40 to 50 (1)30 to 40 (3)20 to 30 (46)10 to 20 (100)0 to 10 (33)



Census Tract


social fabric:FAM / AGE

(The Third Age?)

0 5 10

kilometres

% Families with Children at Home

80 to 100 (5)60 to 80 (110)40 to 60 (59)20 to 40 (8)0 to 20 (1)

% Aged 55-84

40 to 50 (1)30 to 40 (3)20 to 30 (46)10 to 20 (100)0 to 10 (33)



Census Tract


social fabric:FAM / AGE

(Families with Children at home)

Last word…

• McKenzie (2003)– “the pomoerium was not necessarily a real wall,

although it had physical markers. It was a symbolic, sanctified boundary that separated civilization from barbarism, order from chaos, and civil peace from anarchy”

0 5 10

kilometres



Census Tract

The public place-community

realm?

The private-public place-community realm (club realm)?

Boundary tangibility and permeability?

Higher order private CID “club-realm”

0 5 10

kilometres



Census Tract

The public place-community

realm?

The private-public place-community realm (club realm)?

Boundary tangibility and permeability?

RVs as Nested private space and club realm within higher order private “club-realm”

Acknowledgements

The urban realm

HOA

volun

tary

volun

tary

HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

volu

ntar

y

HOA

HOA

HOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

volu

ntar

y

HOA

HOA

HOA

volun

tary

HOA

HOA

HOA

volu

ntar

y

HOA

HOA

HOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

Est.

1 t

ier

Est.

2 t

ier

Est.

2 t

ier

Incipient Latent

Est.

1 t

ier

Est. 1 ti

erLatent

Incipient

Incipient


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOA

CID / HOA


HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

CID / HOACID / HOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

HOAHOA

Documents

Gated and Common Interest Communities in Canada: Retirement Villages, CIDs, and the Evolving Ecology of Privatization