Suburban bubbles: emerging suburban gated communities in the Prague Urban Region

Abstract

Gated communities, which physically embody prestige and exclusivity through their security features and gating practices, started proliferating in the United States and were subsequently copied by other countries worldwide. However, even when replicated, the suburban gated communities in the Prague Urban Region differ in terms of size and the function of their security features and gating practices. Applying the typology of Blakely and Snyder, the research results propose a new type of development: the bubble community. This term refers to social separation with rather weak and temporary enclosure practices. The research findings indicate that bubble communities are usually small developments with weak gating practices and security features, where residents prefer to live in their own small social bubbles. Analyzing data acquired from extensive field mapping, field survey, and photo documentation, the research focuses on the physical distribution and spatial and physical characteristics of the two surrounding administrative districts: Prague-West and Prague-East.

Keywords:

• Gated communities
• suburbs
• gating practices
• security features
• Prague Urban Region

1. Introduction

The concept of fencing in the wealthy has its roots in antiquity; however, what we now refer to as gated communities began to proliferate in the United States in the second half of the twentieth century (Blakely & Snyder, 1997). At present, gated communities are a widespread phenomenon and their numbers are continually increasing worldwide, despite some controversy (Marcuse & van Kempen, 2000). A gated community is a residential complex of single-family homes in the suburbs, and the US model is a textbook example that has had a significant global impact. In some countries, however, they are less common, particularly in Latin America (with the exception of Argentina) and Asia, where high-rise buildings are more common and are usually built in highly urbanized and densely populated areas (Hwang & Kim, 2020; Kang et al., 2022; Roitman, 2010; Thuillier, 2005). The typology of gated communities proposed by Blakely and Snyder (1997) – lifestyle, prestige, and security zone – through which gated communities in the US have been thoroughly analyzed, has served as a benchmark for studies conducted in various countries to identify similarities and differences between gated communities in the US and elsewhere. Consequently, numerous studies have yielded interesting results from this comparison, enriching the existing body of literature on the diversity of gated communities (e.g. Akgün & Baycan, 2012; Blandy, 2006; Galychyn, 2017; Grant & Mittelsteadt, 2004; Güzey & Özcan, 2010; Hook & Vrdoljak, 2002; Leisch, 2002; Webster, 2002).

Blakely and Snyder (1997) first defined gated communities as “residential areas with restricted access in which normally public spaces are privatized” (p. 2). Subsequent definitions of gated communities have largely focused on their physical aspects (Roitman, 2010), such as gating practices (how the development is enclosed – wall, fence, gate, etc.), security features (CCTV cameras, security guards, home security systems, etc.), and the appearance of the security features (style, size, and level of security). According to Caldeira (2000), gates, walls, and other security features not only are physical elements but also imply high social status and prestige. Moreover, she calls these physical aspects “aesthetics of security,” whereby the more secure a community is, the higher its status.

With enclosing gated communities, the public space is privatized, thus reducing the interaction among residents living in and outside of gated communities and deepening socio-spatial segregation (Blakely & Snyder, 1997). In Prague, as in other Central and Eastern European (CEE) cities, gated communities emerged after the fall of socialism (Glasze, 2005; Hirt, 2012; Hirt & Petrović, 2011; Kovács & Hegedűs, 2014; Michálek, 2019; Polanska, 2014; Smigiel, 2014). This has brought about socio-spatial inequalities (Cassiers & Kesteloot, 2012; Marcińczak, Musterd & Stępniak, 2012; Sýkora, 2009), with gated communities physically embodying wealth, consumption, style, and social status (Gądecki, 2014; Hirt, 2012; Polanska, 2010a; Sardar, 2010). Futhermore, the symbolic values and rhetoric associated with different styles of gated communities and their location in the city (inner city and suburbs) make them even more appealing in the housing market.

Research in Europe, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, has examined the emergence of gated communities in their local context and in the city as a whole (e.g. Bodnar & Molnar, 2010; Brabec, 2014; Brabec, & Sýkora, 2009; Brabec & Machala, 2015; Cséfalvay, 2009; Gądecki, 2014; Gąsior-Niemiec et al., 2009; Hirt, 2012 Cséfalvay & Webster, 2012; Hirt & Petrović, 2011; Kovács & Hegedűs, 2014; Polanska, 2010b; Smigiel, 2014), as well as in particular zones of the city, such as suburbs (e.g. Güzey, 2014; Kajdanek, 2009; Mantey, 2017). The existing knowledge on gated communities in Prague and Czechia comes mainly from Tomáš Brabec, who mapped gated communities; analyzed and described their development, primarily focusing on the role of supply factors; and explained the consequences of those developments in urban areas (Brabec, 2014; Brabec & Machala, 2015; Brabec & Sýkora, 2009). Since 2015, no further research has been conducted on gated communities in Czechia, and many topics have been insufficiently researched. These include the types of gated communities, their physical appearance, and their security features. The purpose of this paper is to expand upon the research on gated communities by providing new knowledge and perspectives on the degree of security and separation of gated communities in the Prague Urban Region, specifically the outer suburbs, for three main reasons. First, suburban areas are traditionally perceived as places that enable gating practices (Hirt 2012). Thus, suburban areas around one of the largest cities in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) would serve as ideal sites for studying gated communities. Second, Blakely and Snyder (1997) mainly used suburban gated communities as case studies, which makes it more comparable with gated communities selected for this study. Third, on all suburban developments built after the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, there is detailed information based on extensive field research covering the outer suburbs of Prague, which has not been fully disseminated until now. This paper seeks to analyze the spatial and physical characteristics of gated communities to understand how they are manifested (i.e. the socio-spatial separation and spatial interruption of the built environment, which can have wider social implications), and argues that characteristics such as strong security and separation are not a necessary precondition.

The primary goals of this paper are (i) to analyze the physical distribution, the spatial and physical characteristics, and the security features of gated communities in the Prague Urban Region; (ii) to understand the prevalent types of gated communities in the area and (iii) to make a contribution to the proposal of a new type of gated community and the theoretical development of the idea of gated communities. Using empirical evidence the paper attempts to answer how many gated communities are located in the Prague Urban Region and where they are located (metropolitan scale), including their position within the municipality (local scale) and their relative location to other residential areas. Additionally, this paper examines the connection between the gating practices and security features of gated communities and the surrounding socio-economic environment, in order to better understand the true function of the security features. Finally, this paper analyzes the information gathered and suggest its own interpretation of gated communities in the Prague Urban Region, thereby contributing to the existing literature by proposing suburban bubble - a new type of gated community that exists in the suburbs of Prague.

This paper is divided into six sections. The second section briefly presents some of the key elements and concepts of gated communities, their typology, and how they emerged both in Western and in Central and Eastern European contexts. This is followed by a literature review in the third section, and a discussion of the specificities of gated communities in Prague and its suburbs. In the fourth section, the case study area and methodology is outlined. The fifth section critically analyzes the results in the framework of the typology proposed by Blakely and Snyder (1997), offering suggestions for expanding the typology in the Central and Eastern European context. The sixth section explores the concept of “bubble communities”, which can provide useful insights into the context-specific features of gating in Czechia. The last chapter summarizes the empirical findings into five concluding generalizations.

2. Gated communities: types and spatial characteristics

The phenomenon of self-segregation (separation) through the use of physical barriers by a group of people who cohabitate in the same place and share certain characteristics is referred to as a gated community. The variety of names used to describe gated communities indicates its global presence and multiformity (Marcuse & van Kempen, 2000); however, for most gated communities, a general typology could be applied. Blakely and Snyder (1997) suggested this typology in their study Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United States. According to Blakely and Snyder, there are three essential gated communities: (i) lifestyle, (ii) prestige, and (iii) security zone. Lifestyle gated communities are known for their amenities and services, indicating that the community is self-sufficient (as a new town) or offers a complete living experience and a special lifestyle (e.g. golf courses and other leisure amenities, retirement communities, etc.). The second type of gated communities consists of luxurious high-end residences for the wealthiest and celebrities. Security zone gated communities are the most common type, and are often found in areas with high crime rates and fear of crime; this type emphasizes gating practices and security features.

Various theories explain the proliferation of gated communities as resulting from a fear of crime and a polarized society (Araujo & Queiroz, 2018; Atkinson, 2008; Blakely & Snyder, 1997; Cséfalvay & Webster, 2012; Low, 2004), but these theories are not necessarily applicable to post-socialist contexts. In Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), while gated communities have become more prevalent since the end of socialism, crime rates and social polarization are lower than in the US (Brabec & Machala, 2015; Cséfalvay, 2009, Cséfalvay & Webster, 2012; Jíchová et al., 2019; OECD, 2021; Šimon & Jíchová, 2022). In Czechia, the overall crime rate has declined since the beginning of the 1990s. This could be perceived as one sign of the end of economic and social transformation (Jíchová et al., 2019). In contrast to Asia and Africa, where security features are used to address crime and ethnic conflict (Breetzke et al., 2014; Landman & Schönteich, 2002; Miao, 2003), in CEE cities, gated communities are more often used to express prestige than to provide protection (Brabec & Machala, 2015; Cséfalvay, 2009, Kajdanek, 2009; Cséfalvay & Webster, 2012).

In addition to the physical security features that clearly identify gated communities (Blakely & Snyder, 1997; Gądecki, 2009; Grant & Mittelsteadt, 2004), developers also employ an "invisible wall" (McKenzie, 1994, 2006) that enables privacy, a degree of separation, and a set of regulations for homeowners and visitors (Blandy & Lister, 2005). These are the so-called Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) (Blakely & Snyder, 1997; Chen & Webster, 2005). In the US, CC&Rs are often highly restrictive, with a wide scope of measures (see Fraser, Bazuin, & Hornberger, 2016). In China, gated communities are mainly managed by an “ad hoc group of local government officers, property managers, developers, and homeowner representatives who are not necessarily elected” (Miao, 2003, p. 49). On the other hand, research conducted in Europe barely mentions the existence of CC&Rs, suggesting that CC&Rs of gated communities in Europe are probably less restrictive. In Prague, for example, residents have refused some security measures, such as private security services with a reception desk, due to the high monthly costs (Brabec, 2014), which has reduced the scope of the restrictive measures. Nevertheless, developers continue to advocate gates and other security features in order to increase the price of housing and maintain the value of the property (Bible & Hsieh, 2001; Blakely & Snyder, 1997).

The built environment, with its diverse units, reflects the changing needs of people and is considered a physical manifestation of (local) culture at a certain time (Barke, 2018; Grant & Rosen, 2009; Soja, 1980). The spatial characteristics and design of gated communities have been widely debated, and attempts have been made to explain their implications in their local context (Charmes, 2010; Clement & Grant, 2012; Grant & Rosen, 2009; Gyorgyovichné Koltay, 2018). The research of Grant and Rosen (2009) in Canada and Israel delineates the significance of culture and history in producing the physical form and design of gated communities. In Israel, due to historical events and conflicts, taller and stronger fences and other security features are more commonly utilized. In Canada, where the safety concerns of the residents and crime rates are lower, short fences and arm gates are used (Grant, 2005; Grant & Rosen, 2009). On the contrary, in Japan, the level of security has been emphasized much more than in the US, even though the crime rate has been decreasing in recent years (in Japan, the average crime rate is three times lower than in the US) (Galychyn, 2017). However, in the US, fear of crime is one of the primary reasons for the increasing securitization of gated communities, rather than objective risk (Blakely & Snyder, 1997; Low, 2004, 2017). Examples of retrofitting gated communities in Seoul (Kim, 2018) and Mendoza (Roitman, 2005) to enhance exclusivity and improve security due to (potential) burglary and preventing entry of non-residents have been noted. On a larger scale, however, across different cultures, walls and gates are quite similar to each other and share the same functions (physical, symbolic, economic, and social) (Grant & Mittelsteadt, 2004). Sonia Hirt (2012) used the example of gated communities in Sofia to demonstrate the place-specific culture of post-socialist cities. By referring to privatism, she described a cultural condition whereby people respond to the “failures of the socialist and post-socialist public realm” (p. 4). This reaction is manifested in the preference for private ownership, and the privatization and enclosure of public space (Hirt, 2012; Lehečka, 2019). In China, cultural traits are expressed in a higher extent of privatization (lack of public spaces) and a weak interaction between public and private (Miao, 2003).

The planning of gated communities varies across countries and regions. As previously mentioned, there are three distinct types that emerge for various reasons in different contexts (Blakely & Snyder, 1997). In some cases, streets and developments were not initially designed to become gated communities, but residents eventually decided to close off their streets with a gate or a boom barrier. Similar practices have been researched in Marseille (Dorier & Dario, 2018), which also constrained traffic flow and limited soft mobility. This phenomenon, known as a posteriori gating (Dorier & Dario, 2018), is largely attributed to increasing fear and criminality in areas considered safe at the time of the neighbourhood’s construction. According to the study on ‘a posteriori’ gating conducted by Dorier and Dario (2018) in Marseille, there could be various reasons for this practice, such as having difficulties parking, limiting car traffic, ensuring children can play safely outside, maintaining roads, and enhancing the value of the real estate" (p. 9). They go on to say that a posteriori gating "appears to be highly determined by the contexts in which they are located, such as sources of traffic, wild parking, and proximity of socially deprived housing estates" (p. 9). In Malaysia, for example, due to increasing fear and safety concerns, residents living in older neighbourhoods have created boundaries and taken control over their neighbourhoods (Tedong et al., 2014).

Considering the various choices made by different actors regarding the (re)shaping and controlling of gated communities, as well as when and where they emerge, it is evident that power relations play a role (Massey, 1994). In some cases, residents have implemented small-scale adjustments to existing gated communities and have also decided to discontinue security services. Even though gated communities are often imposed to some degree, individual preferences prevail (Giddens, 1984).

Based on the evidence collected in this study regarding gated communities in the suburbs of Prague, the paper proposes a new type of gated community, the "bubble communities", to contribute to the existing literature on the diverse physical manifestations and transitory and changing nature of gated communities. Bubble communities represent developments with a less restricted approach to security and spatial separation, allowing for bottom-up modifications over time. The term "bubble" is employed to evoke the idea of a weak and temporary enclosure. Our research findings indicate that this weak enclosure takes the form of agricultural land and natural surroundings encircling gated communities. These bubble communities are often situated at the ends of narrow side streets. Also, gates and security features primarily define space rather than provide absolute protection. Moreover, division between public and private space is more blurred and less strict, which is usually not common for gated communities. The concept of temporariness in bubble communities refers to the physical changes (a posteriori enclosure) and the temporal utilization of security features and enclosure practices (e.g. keeping gates open during daylight hours).

3. Gated communities in Prague and its suburbs

Gated communities have been debated in the context of the privatization of public space (Glasze, 2005; McKenzie, 1994). In 2014, the Public Space Office of the Prague Institute of Planning and Development (IPR Praha) published the Public Space Design Manual, which "defines in particular the principles and rules for designing public spaces" (Public Space Office, 2014, p. 12). According to the manual, gates should emphasize the importance of the area, rather than serve to segregate, so gated communities, as segregated monofunctional residential properties, are deemed inappropriate in Prague (p. 50). On a smaller scale, for the Palmovka neighbourhood in the 8th district of Prague, an analytical study for preparing the development plan (Palmovka Vision 2030) views gated communities as a negative phenomenon that isolates new residents and causes social issues in the locality (UNIT architekti s. r. o., 2017, p. 161). Furthermore, the OECD (2017) published a report in which gated communities are seen as a risk to Prague’s low socio-spatial segregation and its future. This raises the question: if the public officials in charge of urban planning and development of Prague along with an influential intergovernmental organization both advise against gated communities, why are local authorities issuing building permits for them? Results from a questionnaire survey of municipal Prague politicians conducted by Brabec (2014) show that political parties advocating neoliberal economic policy, who incidentally constitute the majority of municipalities, have a positive attitude towards gated communities. Moreover, as part of neoliberal policy and competitiveness in the housing market, and as new economic conditions of the post-industrial city (Brabec, 2014), gated communities are considered by developers as an innovation and a new trend in post-socialist cities (Brabec, 2014; Smigiel, 2014). Although careful market research has not been conducted (Brabec & Machala, 2015), developers likely considered gated projects attractive to the public (Grant & Mittelsteadt, 2004; Kovács & Hegedűs, 2014; Low, 2004). In Budapest, for instance, research conducted by Cséfalvay (2011) has shown that although security considerations were important, other elements influenced people’s decisions to move to a gated community. This evidence enables us to recognize not only neoliberal governance at the local level and the complexity of public and private interests (Bodnar & Molnar, 2010), but also the glocal (Swyngedouw, 1997) power dynamics between the developer (private) and the local government (public) (Cséfalvay & Webster, 2012; Kovács & Hegedűs, 2014; Smigiel, 2014).

Gated communities in the suburbs of Prague have relatively distinctive trajectory and context in which they have emerged. Suburbanization in Prague began with the fairly scattered construction of small-scale development projects (Ouředníček & Temelová, 2009; Špačková et al., 2016). Although the initial phase of suburbanization dates back to the interwar period, the process reinvigorated the dissolution of socialism (Ouředníček, 2003). Nevertheless, the emergence of gated communities did not coincide with suburbanization, as was the case in Western countries (Brabec, 2014; Kovács & Hegedűs, 2014).

In Prague, suburban areas and gated communities are particularly attractive to the wealthier population searching for a different lifestyle (Ouředníček, 2003; Ouředníček & Temelová, 2009; Sýkora, 2009). One of the reasons for moving to these suburban gated communities is to escape the unfavourable conditions in inner-city areas (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005; Cséfalvay, 2009; Csizmady & Csanádi, 2009; Kajdanek, 2009) and a possibility to live in private detached house (Horňáková & Špačková, 2024). In fact, the crime rate in the suburban zone of Prague is significantly lower than in inner-city districts (Temelová et al., 2016). Additionally, research on the residential satisfaction and intention of Prague’s suburbanites to move has demonstrated that the reasons for relocation are mainly driven by life-cycle changes (Horňáková & Špačková, 2024; Špačková et al., 2016). Furthermore, the advantages touted in real estate advertisements, such as proximity to nature and natural parks, a healthy environment, privacy and peace, and opportunities for outdoor sports and leisure activities, and also appealing to new residents. A similar trend in Wroclaw’s suburbs was noted by Kajdanek (2009), who observed that developers often use the word cosy “to evoke positive association with a non-urban environment” (p. 56).

In a manner similar to that seen in Poland (Polanska, 2010a), Czech media reports have been incorporating the latest news on the development of gated communities. Gated communities have generally been met with a negative reception in the Czech context, as they have been associated with exclusivity, segregation, and inaccessible and highly secured (sub)urban areas, which underscore the difference between rich and poor and spatially divide them. Media outlets in Prague and throughout Czechia have suggested that gated communities are detrimental to the cities and their inhabitants, as they lead to the privatization of once-public spaces (Koukal, 2018) and to social exclusion (Hnídková, 2012) and are a consequence of inadequate spatial planning and the lack of long-term vision in local governments (Hanák, 2014).

4. Study area and methodology

As gating is one of the characteristics of suburban development, this study analyzes various types of gating practices in residential areas that fit the general definition of gated communities. According to this definition, residential areas where more than three families live and that fully or partially restrict access to the public and provide exclusive services (club goods; Webster, 2002), facilities, and spaces to their residents. During the research, however, “quasi-gated communities” were also encountered, which made it difficult to differentiate between gated and non-gated communities. These “quasi-gated communities” are described as “a spatial transition between what might be an explicitly gated community (secure gates, walls, access controls) and an implicitly gated community (partial walls, symbolic gating, uncontrolled access, physical separation)” (Youssef & Tsenkova, 2020, p. 22).

This study focuses on the Prague Urban Region, one of the most intensively suburbanized regions in the whole CEE. This region consists of the capital city of Prague and two surrounding administrative districts: Prague-West and Prague-East. Because the aim of this research is to analyze suburban gated communities in Prague, it focuses only on the two surrounding administrative districts and not on the capital city itself. To this end, extensive field mapping was conducted within 200 municipalities of Prague-West and Prague-East districts in 2019 and 2020. In those two years, students of a geography bachelor’s programme, supervized by three tutors, participated in mapping using ArcGIS Collector software. Each residential and commercial development built after 1989¹ was recorded and visualized in ArcGIS online. The starting point of the research was filtering the data collected in ArcGIS Collector in the field research on all residential and commercial areas in the Prague Urban Region. The data contained information on the location, area size, site and housing construction characteristics, public space, roads, sidewalks, lighting, mailboxes, benches, playgrounds for children, and security features, including CCTV cameras, security agencies, fencing, entrance barriers, and no-entry signs. In the database, there are 811 residential areas, of which 155 have security features. After a thorough analysis of the data, which involved field visits and the use of Google Earth, Google Maps, and Mapy.cz, from the 155 residential areas with security features, 30 residential areas were pre-selected for further analysis and field research due to presumptions that they might be gated communities (Table 1). As not all residential areas with security features are gated communities, the field research aimed to make a final selection of residential areas that fit the definition of gated community, namely residential areas that restrict access to the public, and share some exclusive services (club goods), facilities, and common spaces.

Table 1. Number of residential areas with and without security features in Prague Urban Region.

	Total number of residential areas: 811
	Residential areas with security agency	Residential areas with gates or entrance barriers	Residential areas with prohibited entry sign	Residential aresas with fence or wall	Residential areas with CCTV cameras
Yes	11	12	24	44	62
No	738	747	736	650	659
No info	62	52	51	56	90
Partly	/	/	/	61	/

Source: Own field research.

The typology framework first proposed by Blakely and Snyder (1997) in the second chapter of their work is often used as a benchmark. By determining the type (lifestyle, prestige, or security zone), they identified four features: functions of enclosure, security features and barriers, amenities and facilities included, and type of residents. To gain a deeper understanding of gated communities and their types, the typology was used to set up a field survey, which was amended to include new features such as the surrounding environment and geographic position in relation to the municipality it belongs to, size, housing type, more detailed security features and gating practices, and other specificities. This research focused solely on suburban gated communities, as the typology was developed from the analysis of mainly suburban gated communities in the US (Blakely and Snyder, 1997). Each one of those 30 residential areas was visited, observed, photo-documented, and assessed in a field survey. Finally, the number was scaled down to 17 after the field visits, during which we reevaluated the data, carried out observations, and in some instances had informal conversations with the gated communities’ residents (Table 2). The remaining residential areas were excluded from the analysis, as they did not meet the criteria delineated in the definition (i.e. the access was not restricted to the public, less than three families were living there, and/or the shared spaces were semi-public).

Table 2. Number of gated communities in Prague Urban Region and area occupied in square metres.

Gated communities	Gated residential area
17	227,449.40 sq m

Source: Own field research.

It is important to note that by “residential area” we are referring to a residential project that contains three or more family dwellings, built around the same period on a larger plot of land, that is physically or aesthetically clearly divided and distinct from the surrounding suburbs. In fact, in many cases, there is a thin line between residential areas (or, in many instances, quasi-gated communities) and gated communities. For example, privatized streets are a clear indicator of a gated community. However, privatized green fields with amenities strictly for residents, such as parking spaces and playgrounds, are ambiguous, especially since most new developments are planned in such a manner. Therefore, the study’s biggest challenge was differentiating between the two types.

In light of the findings in Budapest (Kovács & Hegedűs, 2014), this research utilized a typology of gated residential developments and identified the following: a) gated apartment complexes (buildings with three or more storeys), b) gated condominiums (buildings up to three storeys), and c) suburban gated residential parks (single-family dwellings – detached, semi-detached, and terraced).

The research also examined the position of the gated community in relation to its closest surrounding: (i) adjacent development (attached to the already existing suburban neighbourhood), (ii) an infill (built within the existing suburban neighbourhood), or (iii) standing alone (built outside the existing suburban neighbourhood without being attached to any residential area). Additionally, how the area could be perceived was also taken into account, including (i) rich/upper middle class, (ii) poorer residential area, (iii) rundown or abandoned, (iv) agricultural land or nature, or (v) industrial site. In most cases, the results were a combination of these elements, for instance, upper middle-class residential areas and agricultural land. Also, taking the wider scale into consideration, the location within the municipality was noted, namely if the gated community is centrally located or in the outer parts of the municipality. It is important to note that residential areas built prior to the Velvet Revolution (1989) were not analyzed.

5. Results

We start the empirical part with a general comparison of the number of gated communities in the city of Prague (i.e. within its administrative boundaries) and in its outskirts (Prague-East and Prague-West). Tomáš Brabec (2014) mapped a total of 54 gated communities, and eight years later, using the same methodology, Jakub Kraft counted 73 gated communities in Prague. Notably, less than 10 had suburban character (i.e. were located in the peripheral zone with detached family houses) (Kraft, 2022). Comparing the city and its suburban zone, there are 10 times more gated communities per square kilometer in Prague than in its hinterland, though the average number of gated communities per population is more or less the same². The majority of the suburban gated communities (11) are located in the Prague-East administrative district, while 6 gated communities are found in Prague-West district. Although the research identified clustering in Jesenice and its surroundings (south of Prague), gated communities are generally scattered throughout the Prague Urban Region (Figure 1). This may be due to Jesenice’s statute as one of the fastest-growing suburban towns in the Prague Urban Region and in Czechia as a whole. However, the gated communities located in and around Jesenice vary greatly in terms of size, architectural type, and location.

Figure 1. Location of the gated communities within the Prague Urban Region.

Source: Own field research.

In the majority of investigated cases, the architectural type of gated communities is composed of several detached or semi-detached single-family houses, with only two gated communities featuring terraced houses for single families. Conversely, the proportion of gated condominiums is low, and the proportion of apartment houses on the hinterland of Prague is even smaller, due to the suburban environment and lifestyle that allows families to occupy a single-family house with a garden, which otherwise would be difficult to obtain in the city. Interestingly, gated communities with detached or semi-detached single-family houses in the case of the Prague Urban Region are rather small, ranging from 3 to 26 families, or on average around 8 families per gated community. This could be attributed to infill developments with strictly limited space, although they are typically located on the fringe of the built-up area and could expand in size of the territory and the number of dwellings. Additionally, small-scale development in the form of infills and smaller projects adjacent to the former settlements is a characteristic feature of Czech suburbanization. Many new suburban houses were located within existing built-up areas as a result of splitting former parcels with already existing older houses or on vacant plots inside former villages or towns (Ouředníček, 2007; Zévl, Ouředníček, 2021). This could explain the existence of the big plots of land used for the five gated communities built as infill developments.

However, according to the findings, 70.6% of the gated communities are located at the edge of the residential area as adjacent developments (see Appendix) and surrounded by agricultural land or nature (Figure 2). For that matter, few are even quite tucked away from the rest of the neighbourhood. Being surrounded by agricultural land and nature is also the main characteristic and distinctive feature of suburban gated communities, and “it is perceived as a planning strategy that responds to consumer preferences for suburban living in low-density developments integrated in the natural environment” (Youssef & Tsenkova, 2020, p. 22). Within our researched territory these natural areas often involve smaller forests, parks, and ponds, but rarely a natural park, as with Průhonice Park near Jesenice. Additionally, adjacent developments can problematically hinder street network connectivity by the increasing number of gated communities on the outskirts of suburban settlements. Moreover, these developments enhance car-dependancy, as they are not well connected – or not connected at all – by public transport and have cul-de-sac street networks. This can lead to it taking 15 min to drive to commercial or public health facilities. Furthermore, in the majority of cases, there are usually no public spaces within walking distance, which can limit social interaction with non-gated community residents. However, the positive aspect of these cases is that the entrances are mainly on the main road or a road that directly leads to the area, not requiring residents to detour using a secondary road.

Figure 2. Aerial view on gated communities and their surroundings: 1) Infill development in Jesenice, a narrow corridor leads to the gated community. 2) Gated community in Jesenice standing alone surrounded by agricultural land and nature. 3) Gated community as adjacent development, mainly surrounded by a natural park. 4) Gated community as adjacent development in Odolena Voda, ‘a posteriori’ gating.

Source: Google Maps, 2021.

It is important to study the location and local context of new gated neighbourhoods, as this can explain the emergence of various gating practices. Regarding the location, gated communities, as mainly new, affluent residential areas, were in most cases built in their “natural habitat”, surrounded by wealthy and middle-class residential areas. Interestingly, the two gated communities surrounded by poorer residential areas were gated a posteriori, meaning they were previously the side streets of main roads closed off by residents. This a posteriori gating practice indicates that the residents of these streets did not feel safe and were acquiring more privacy. Considering that both gated communities are situated on the main street that crosses the suburban settlement, additional factors that could explain the a posteriori gating practice are insecurity, exposure, and nuisance caused by traffic.

Club goods, which are exclusive rights and privileges offered to residents of gated communities in the Prague Urban Region, are varied. Services that ensure a more comfortable and luxurious life correspond to the formulations of Borsdorf and Hidalgo (2010), according to whom gated communities with only basic amenities, such as private parking spaces, are mainly intended for lower-middle-class income groups. In reality, most gated communities have parking spaces, some outdoor space for socializing, and a playground for children, while only a few have a swimming pool, tennis court, or football field. This indicates that in proportion to the number of gated communities, affluent people tend to live in the city, where more gated communities offer more luxurious services. On the contrary, less wealthy and middle-class people tend to live in the suburbs. The exclusive nature of club goods and the lack of public and recreational spaces may exacerbate socio-spatial disparities and impede social cohesion (compare Mantey & Sudra, 2019).

Although fences and gates or boom barriers are present at each selected gated community, as well as CCTV cameras in most cases, gated communities are not highly secure and protected places. The gates and fences are generally medium-height, and some of the gates and boom barriers were open at the time of the field research (Figure 3). Moreover, two gated communities were supposed to have 24-h security guards on-site (not remote guarding), but only one was staffed during the visit. All developments lacked vehicle control systems, imposing entrance gates (clear signs of luxury), and the need for a detour, indicating lower socio-spatial differentiation and implicit privatism due to the soft demarcation of boundaries. Therefore, by looking at the design and spatial characteristics of gated communities in the Prague Urban Region, the gating practices and security features are reflected in the local socio-cultural reality, which is the safer and calmer environment in the suburbs of Prague (Temelová et al., 2016). Thus, in these cases, enclosure practices reinforce the boundary that divides the private from the public domain, rather than providing protection and security.

Figure 3. Photographs of gating practices and design. 1) Mid-height fenced gated community in Řitka. 2) Mid-height gate in Jesenice. 3) Lifted up arm gate in Křížkový Újezdec. 4) Open gate in Psáry.

Photo: First author.

According to Blakely and Snyder (1997), lifestyle and prestige communities are typically initiated by the developer, while the residents initiate the security zone type to secure their homes. Research on each of the 17 gated communities showed that only 6 gated communities were started by developers and 4 were initiated by the residents themselves. Unfortunately, there was no information about the initiator of the gated community for the rest. Although the lack of knowledge is open to various interpretations, research on the suburbs of Prague shows that new detached family houses especially are quite often built out individually on purchased building lots and only partially as part of developers’ projects. Zévl and Ouředníček (2021) contend that this situation was even strengthened after the economic crisis, which forced people to purchase smaller plots for individual construction. This may be inferred from the architectural style and the urban planning perspective; however, this cannot be confirmed for certain.

Finally, gauging from the results, there is no unique characteristic or identifiable pattern of gated community development in the Prague Urban Region. First, gated communities here are spatially scattered, with a smaller clustering in and around the town of Jesenice like a series of smaller and larger bubbles located within the suburban built-up area. Second, most of the gated communities consist of detached or semi-detached single-family houses, as is typical for suburbs. Third, on average, they are mid-sized, although some very small ones, less commonly, are for about 3 families. Fourth, the majority of the gated communities are built as adjacent developments to the existing suburban settlements and are surrounded by agricultural land or attractive natural sights. Fifth, gated communities fit in and respond to their natural habitat: (i) they are mainly located in areas where other middle-class people live, or (ii) residents react to potential insecurity and create gated communities by a posteriori gating. Sixth, gated communities in the Prague Urban Region are not highly secured and their closeness is temporal and fragile as in case of bubbles, which corresponds to the socio-cultural reality of a safe and calm suburban environment. Last, the results have shown that initiators of gated community development are diverse, with no preferred location for building gated communities by any actors.

6. Critical turn: contextual approach

Although gated communities appear and are named differently throughout the world, they are most often associated with the US. gated communities in the Prague suburban zone differ from those in the US and share more similarities with gated communities from other Central and Eastern European countries. As delineated in the theoretical framework, local nuances and circumstances have shaped the appearance and operation of gated communities around the world, resulting in numerous forms. Simultaneously, the impact of global trends should not be underestimated.

The question then arises: which gated communities should be used as a benchmark – those from the US, which are diverse, or those from Central and Eastern Europe? Can we even refer to these developments with the American term "gated communities"? Or should we consider these developments a unique phenomenon and contextualize them, thereby avoiding bias from other similar occurrences around the world? There is no doubt that a comparative approach facilitates the appearance of new ideas, knowledge and understanding, as scholars such as Robinson (2016) contend. However, there is a pitfall that must be avoided, which is a lower degree of generalization that overlooks the complex interactions and mutual influences of both internal and external factors. Moreover, the results of the comparison depend solely on the chosen subjects.

The typology of Blakely and Snyder (1997) is chosen as a benchmark for analyzing gated communities in the Prague Urban Region, despite the clear selection bias. The reason is obvious: there are no other typologies found in the literature that could be used to determine the types of gated communities in the Prague Urban Region. Therefore, the main research goal of determining the types of gated communities in the hinterland of Prague raises the question of whether Western concepts are suitable and useful for theoretical thinking and as analytical tools in CEE cities (Ouředníček, 2016), and if the study can modify or expand this typology.

As previously noted, Blakely and Snyder (1997) identified three types of gated communities: lifestyle, prestige, and security zone. The prestige type is characterized by economic class and status, although this type can be applied to both the wealthiest and the well-off middle class. This type is recognizable by its emphasis on aesthetics and image, often featuring impressive landscapes and locations. All things considered, only a few gated communities in the Prague Urban Region could be characterized as the prestige type of gated community. These are, for instance, gated communities with single-family houses in Jesenice and Mnichovice (Figure 4), which are highly secured, big luxurious villas with swimming pools, tennis courts, and football fields, in addition to being located next to natural parks.

Figure 4. Aerial view on the gated community in Mnichovice.

Source: Google Earth, 2021.

In this analysis, the lifestyle type causes the most confusion, raising the question of which characteristic is considered a distinctive lifestyle marker in Prague. There are two key points to highlight. First, Brabec and Machala (2015) identified 59 gated communities in Prague and only 5 in Prague’s suburbs in 2012. This meant that even though the number of gated communities grew in both Prague and its suburbs, proportionally in Prague city the number of gated communities was much higher than in its suburbs in 2012. Currently, the ratio of urban to suburban is 73:17, which is almost the same intensity per inhabitant but with a tenfold higher spatial concentration in the city. This suggests that, in Prague, gated communities predominantly an urban phenomenon, while in the US they are mainly a suburban phenomenon.³

Second, after analyzing the advertisements that promote gated communities located around Prague and its suburbs, it is evident that both discourse and semiotics play an important role in creating an image of a distinctive lifestyle. This suburban way of living is associated with a healthy lifestyle in close proximity to nature and far away from the noisy and chaotic urban environment, the possibility of sport and leisure activities in nature, a peaceful and safe living environment, and families having their own outdoor private space (garden, back and/or front yard) for various activities. Some gated communities even have the word zahrady (“gardens” in Czech) in their name, as well as symbols in their logos like leaves. Therefore, due to their distinctiveness, compared to mainstream models of gated communities in Prague, most gated communities in the Prague Urban Region could be considered to belong to the lifestyle type and preference for a more rural style of housing (Figure 5). These preferences have been for a long time supported by the recreational character of many suburban localities, especially within the southern part of Prague’s hinterland (Vágner et al., 2011).

Figure 5. Aerial view on a gated community located next to Průhonický natural park.

Source: Google Earth, 2021.

The research results suggest two examples of “a posteriori” gating by residents of existing neighbourhoods, which fits the description of a security zone type. Unlike prestige and lifestyle communities, in which the security features are incorporated into the plan of the gated communities, security features in security zone communities are added by residents in an effort to increase privacy and security. These two cases are in Křížkový Újezdec and Odolena Voda (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Photograph of the ‘a posteriori’ gating in Odolena Voda.

Photo: First author.

Although certain characteristics can be used to categorize some of the gated communities, the defining elements of each type are not mutually exclusive. Goals, such as aspiring to a particular lifestyle, safety, or prestige, may vary from one another, yet they can still share certain elements in common. These elements may be tangible, such as physical security features for protection, or intangible, such as social imaginaries.

If this typology is excluded from the analysis and only the research findings are considered, some contextual characteristics become apparent. For example, gated communities in the Prague Urban Region tend to be relatively small, providing a higher degree of privacy and moderate security. In addition, the correlation between this research and studies previously conducted around Prague is useful. In particular, the research on social ties among new and old suburbanites has shown that new residents see themselves as isolated from old residents, and they perceive physical distance (e.g. large distances between houses or a lack of connecting roads) or social distance (e.g. the demographic difference in the form of "young and rich" and "old and poor") (Špačková & Ouředníček, 2012). Furthermore, the research on the social environment and social capital in the Prague Urban Region brings to mind Richard Florida’s (2002) concept of "quasi-anonymity" and finds the same tendencies among new residents who are looking for a pleasant environment, safety, and privacy, rather than being exposed or socializing (Špačková & Ouředníček, 2012). Finally, according to the information found on political affiliation and gated community formation, many security features are more likely to result from the bottom-up initiatives of residents, rather than just the policies of local governments and projects of developers.

In conclusion, our research findings suggest that the developments analyzed in the Prague Urban Region can be characterized as "bubble communities". These communities typically (i) enjoy a higher degree of privacy by being surrounded by agricultural land and natural areas, (ii) are tucked away at the end of some small side-streets, (iii) are small developments with few families, (iv) are gated and have security features for enclosure rather than for protection and security, and (v) are the bottom-up initiatives of residents. In this context, the term bubble refers to (i) the enclosure practices in terms of physical barriers that are generally weak and sometimes temporary, as well as (ii) the separation of lifestyles or social groups that exist within the social bubble of quazi-anonymous separated areas.

7. Conclusion

This article aimed to determine the type of gated communities in the Prague Urban Region. Based on the research results, the following conclusions can be drawn. First, although the idea of gated communities may have been imported to Czechia, they have been adapted to local circumstances, namely in the suburban zone, in which crime rates and social polarization are low. Thus, only a few of the gated communities could be deemed luxurious, while the rest are inhabited by the middle-class. Additionally, the field research showed that gated communities are not highly protected, but instead have lower fences, sometimes with gates or boom barriers open, and no security guard. Another distinctive characteristic of gated communities is that they are more secluded and get more privacy by being surrounded by agricultural lands and nature, which may suggest that the security features serve more to maintain the high prices of housing, and gated communities could be interpreted as forms of separation, rather than segregation.

Second, although disproportionate in number, the research has identified two cases of a posteriori gating that allude to asymmetric power relations (Massey, 1994). As a posteriori gating comes after the neighbourhood is already built out, a question then arises: if the research would have also covered residential areas built before the Velvet Revolution, would more a posteriori gating be found? Moreover, gating practices and security features need to be negotiated between individual owners and local authorities, and the costs are non-negligible. Also, streets need to stay either open or approachable to emergency vehicles. So, to decide to install gates and security features, it would be necessary to demonstrate a potential danger against which individuals want to protect themselves. For that reason, the occurrence of a posteriori gating is low.

Third, noting the difference between the capital city of Prague and its two surrounding districts, the research indicated that in the suburbs, the individual preferences and choices of people are more expressed and less influenced by the interests and visions of local authorities. These conclusions, on one hand, appear as the antithesis of theories that the majority of gated communities emerge from top-down planning and the application of neoliberal policies, and, on the other hand, they suggest that agency prevails over structure (Giddens, 1984). This is reflected in the overall rejection of planning and large-scale projects as symbols of the socialist era and the turn to individualization in lifestyles, which is evident in the character of suburban housing.

Fourth, the decision to both apply and not apply the typology proposed by Blakely and Snyder was made in order to be more precise in the analysis of gated communities in the Prague Urban Region, and to critically evaluate the widely accepted definition and typology of gated communities. The more general interpretation of Prague’s gated communities as bubble communities does not fit into any of the types proposed by Blakely and Snyder, thus raising the question: are the gated communities in the Prague Urban Region actually gated communities? This open question invites other researchers to make their own interpretations. As in other studies (e.g. Grant & Mittelsteadt, 2004), the research findings here demonstrate that gated communities are embedded in their context-specific environments and adapted to local circumstances. Consequently, when analyzing gated communities, we can learn about both the context and cultural dimensions, and vice versa.

Lastly, understanding the physical distribution of gated communities, their location relative to their surroundings, and their gating practices and security features is not enough to comprehend the social implications of gating. Although the current number of gated communities is low, the emergence of gated communities as adjacent developments, which a majority of them are, can lead to spatial fragmentation and disruption in suburban zones. This can in turn impede the flow of the infrastructure, particularly the street network, and hinder soft mobility (Mantey & Sudra, 2019; Sun, et al., 2020). Conversely, as many of the gates are open, they can become a regular and accepted part of suburban neighbourhoods and may even disappear as the relationship between new suburbanites and former residents gradually improves (Špačková & Ouředníček, 2012).

This research suggests that further investigations should focus on residential preferences and the demand side of gated community formation, perceptions of the residents and public about gated communities, the role of the local government in gated community formation, and the impact of gated communities on the socio-spatial environment. Moreover, from a geographical and historical point of view, the comparison of gating practices in different cultures and the tendency towards collectivism or individualism, which largely influence the willingness to live in a commonly separated environment, could be interesting. This is evident, for example, in a comparison of the formation of gated communities in Bulgaria (Hirt, 2012) or Serbia (Hirt and Petrović, 2011), where the Ottoman tradition of enclosed housing is mentioned in both cases. Similarly, the “gated mindset” in China was distinguished recently (Chiu-Shee et al., 2021). The tradition and history of the formation of cities in different cultures can thus be an important explanatory factor for differentiating current developments of gated communities in post-socialist countries.

Data sources

CZSO (2024) Public database with population data for 2023 year. Czech Statistical Office, Prague. Available online at https://vdb.czso.cz/vdbvo2/faces/cs/index.jsf?page=vystup-objekt&katalog=33115&pvo=DEM130062-1

Google Earth (2021). Aerial photos of selected localities.

Google Maps (2021). Aerial photos of selected localities.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Adela Petrovic

Adela Petrovic (M.A. & M.Sc.) is a PhD candidate and lecturer at Charles University’s Department of Social Geography and Regional Development. Her research primarily delves into urban transformation processes. More information: https://urrlab.cz/en/member/adela-petrovic/

Martin Ouředníček

Martin Ouředníček is a professor at the Charles University in Prague, leader of the research team of Urban and Regional Laboratory based in the Department of Social Geography and Regional Development. His research centers on urban geography, planning, regional development, segregation, thematic cartography, GIS, urbanization, theoretical aspects of social geography, and urban and community studies. More information: https://urrlab.cz/en/member/martin-ourednicek/

Notes

1 We focus on the development after the change in political and economic systems, which reorganized municipal administration, housing policy, and responsibilities in planning. The period before and after the Velvet Revolution is therefore not comparable. The majority of socialist housing construction was realized by state companies, especially within the regional and district centres, while investment was limited in smaller municipalities and prohibited in small villages (see Ouředníček, 2003, 2007).

2 Prague had 1,380 thousand people in an area of 496 square kilometers, while districts Prague-East and Prague-West had together 360,000 people living within 1,330 square kilometers at the end of 2023 year (CZSO, 2024).

3 In the US, 52 percent of the population lives in the suburbs while in Czechia it is only 5 percent (Ouředníček et al., 2019).

Appendix.

Gated communities in the Prague Urban region with additional details on location, building type, development type, number of apartments, area in square metres, gating practices and security features.

Table

No.	Location	Type	Position	No. apartments	Area in sq meters	Gate	Fence	Arm gate	CCTV	Guard	Street sign	Speed bump
1	Prague West, Horoměřice	Gated condominiums	infill	12	2,939.69
2	Prague West, Ptice	Semi-detached and single family houses	adjacent	5	6,603.70
3	Prague West, Jesenice	Detached houses for single or more families	stands alone	∼3	36,214.94
4	Prague West, Jesenice	Terraced houses	infill	8	3,999.30
5	Prague West, Jesenice	Single family houses	adjacent	9	61,066.60
6	Prague West, Jesenice	Gated condominiums	infill	12	6,296.90
7	Prague West, Psáry	Single family houses	adjacent	11	20,329
8	Prague West, Dobřichovice	Gated apartment houses	infill	83	4,790.44
9	Prague West, Černolice/Nový Dvůr	Terraced houses and some semi-detached houses	adjacent	∼12	5,794.60
10	Prague West, Řitka	Gated condominiums	adjacent	36	10,031
11	Prague West, Průhonice	Gated apartment houses	adjacent	∼23	3,218.80
12	Prague East, Křížkový Újezdec	Single family houses	infill	3	6,488.10
13	Prague East, Odolena Voda	Single family houses	adjacent	∼3	5,295.30
14	Prague East, Popovičky	Single family houses	adjacent	∼6	9,745.43
15	Prague East, Šestajovice	Gated condominiums	adjacent	120	17,911.78
16	Prague East, Škvorec	Single family houses	adjacent	26	14,432.32
17	Prague East, Mnichovice	Single family houses	adjacent	3	12,291.50