Inclusi e
communi ies,
exclusiona y ci y,
planning n/a?
Mapping
condomínios echados
semi-quan i a i ely
in Lisbon, Cascais
(and Ba ei o)
Simone Tulumello
Alessand o Colombo
20.
482 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
in oduc ion: mapping u ban inclusion/exclusion?
I one is seeking a p o o ypical exempli ica ion o exclusiona y u ban
de elopmen , he ga ed communi y is wha hey a e looking o . Ga ed
communi ies a e esiden ial de elopmen s, o igina ing in he usa and
lou ishing all a ound he u ban plane . They a e cha ac e ised, i s , by spa ial
seclusion wi h espec o he ou e u ban space – mo e o en in he o m o
mul i- illa enced es a es; and, second, a iable deg ees o social homogenei y.
Ga ed communi ies a e idealised and ad e ised as inclusion spaces among
pee s sha ing he same class – and ypically, i silen ly, he same sel -pe cep ion
o ace/e hnici y – and exclusion spaces wi h ega d o u ban “ou sides”,
conside ed o be dange ous, chao ic o simply oo mixed. In he usa, he
success o ga ed communi ies a e he Second Wo ld Wa was associa ed wi h
he “whi e ligh ”, he abandonmen , by whi e middle and uppe classes, o
“inne ci ies” whe e black (and poo ) immig an s we e se ling in; and hence
subu banisa ion.
The lou ishing o ga ed communi ies in he usa and a ound he wo ld,
pa icula ly in me opoles in he Global Sou h, has been s udied a leng h.1
Pow’s ecen e iew (2015) o c i ical schola ship on ga ed communi ies
emphasises he endency o p ojec one s e eo ype, he usa p o o ype,
wo ldwide; and he isk ha his may end up o eclosing a mo e nuanced
unde s anding o ga ed esiden ial de elopmen s in di e en con ex s.2 In line
wi h his wa ning, we will engage he inclusion/exclusion dicho omy om
a socio-spa ial pe spec i e by explo ing condomínios echados (c s, li e ally
“enclosed condominiums”), he Po uguese e sion o ga ed communi ies. c s
a i ed in Po ugal ela i ely la e, in he 1980s, and, as we shall show, hough
concep ually adhe en o he usa ga ed communi ies, ha e many peculia
cha ac e is ics, which will help us e hink he inclusion/exclusion dicho omy
as amed in heo ies based on cases in he usa and he Global Sou h.
This endea ou is in line wi h discussions abou he capaci y o Sou he n
Eu opean cases o p oblema ise uni e salis ic u ban heo ies (Bap is a 2013;
1 To ge a sense o he a ie y o geog aphical con ex s and disciplina y/ heo e ical pe spec i es, see
Caldei a (2000), Low (2003), A kinson and Flin (2004), Glasze Webs e and F an z (2006), Pe i (2007),
and Akgün and Baycan (2012).
2 Le us ema k ha Pow (2015), in e es ed in building a less dismal accoun o ga ed communi y
de elopmen s and seeking an “epis emology o hope”, ends up dismissing some c i ical accoun s a he
ligh ly.
inclusi e communi ies, exclusiona y ci y, planning n/a? 483
Tulumello 2017a). Sou he n Eu opean ci ies show qui e peculia pa e ns o
u ban de elopmen when compa ed o he expe iences o o he Eu opean
and Anglophone coun ies, and pa icula ly he way la e p ocesses o
subu banisa ion ha e been accompanied by es uc u ing pa e ns made up o
coun e -u banisa ion and gen i ica ion (Mo elli Ron os and Sal a i 2014). As a
esul , he con empo a y socio-spa ial pa e ns ound in con ex s cha ac e ised
by low le els o seg ega ion (A baci and Malhei os 2010), oge he wi h he
dimensions o spa ial inequali y associa ed wi h hem, can only pa ially be
accoun ed o by dicho omic discussions o spa ial inclusion/exclusion.
Agains his backd op, we ha e h ee goals. Fi s , o p esen a socio-
spa ial pic u e o c p oli e a ion pa e ns in he Lisbon Me opoli an A ea
by p esen ing a “semi-quan i a i e” map (Tulumello 2017b and below) o c s
in Lisbon and Cascais (and Ba ei o, whe e none we e ound). Second, o
discuss he ole o u ban policy and planning – and o he la e ’s “absence” o
eluc ance o s ee u ban de elopmen – in opening and closing he space o
c s. And, hi d, o use he Po uguese case o e iew explana o y and analy ical
concep s gene ally associa ed wi h ga ed esiden ial de elopmen s – abo e all
he associa ion o ga ed communi ies wi h subu ban li e. In conclusion, we
should open he way o u he discussion by sugges ing ha he concep s
o agmen a ion and pola isa ion can p o ide a loose , hough no less
igo ous, amewo k o complemen he inclusion/exclusion dicho omy in he
concep ualisa ion o con empo a y spa ial (in)jus ice pa e ns.
The chap e is o ganised as ollows. We begin by p esen ing he spa ial
inclusion/exclusion dimensions in e na ional schola ship associa es wi h ga ed
communi y de elopmen s; and he peculia i y o he Po uguese case. We
hen discuss he changes in planning law ha made c p oduc ion possible
du ing he 1990s. A e he me hodological ema ks, we p esen he esul s o
he c mapping in Lisbon and Cascais (and Ba ei o). Finally, we se ou some
explana o y a gumen s o he di e en pa e ns ound in he h ee ci ies, be o e
a heo e ical discussion on inclusion/exclusion and agmen a ion/pola isa ion.
inclusi e communi y, exclusiona y ci y?
om ga ed communi ies o condomínios echados
The socio-economic p oduc ion o us ga ed communi ies can be unde s ood
om wo con e ging pe spec i es. F om he supply side, ga ed communi ies
484 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
we e one componen o he subu banisa ion o Ame ican ci ies, a ca e ully
planned de elopmen al s a egy uelled by, on he one hand, economic suppo
o home owne ship and p i a e anspo a ion s a ed wi h he New Deal and,
on he o he , he discu si e cons uc ion o “inne ci ies” as dange ous places
(see Beau ega d 2003 [1993]). F om he demand side, ga ed communi ies we e
he e o e one answe , among many,3 o he eques o “sa e spaces” (Eps ein
1998) o he eme gen middle-classes, inc easingly conce ned by he g owing
di e si y in ci ies es uc u ed by indus ialisa ion and black immig a ion om
he u al Sou h. Ga ed communi ies o e middle-class subu bani es a sense o
inclusion wi hin homogeneous social communi ies4 – a sense o communi y
ha dly achie ed in subu bs, whe e public spaces a e i ually inexis en . The
achie emen o such an inclusion is he e o e g ounded on he secession om
he ou e u ban space – g an ed by he physical seclusion o he se lemen s,
he o e o common se ices ha educe he need o go in o in he u ban
space and he ca as a sa e “bubble” (Amendola 1997, 169) o he una oidable
mo emen s wi hin he ou side; in o he wo ds, on he exclusion o dange ous
“o he s” (Sibley 1995).
Howe e , hings a e mo e complica ed. Fo one, aspi an buye s ha e
o accep a se ies o es ic ions, such as he p ohibi ion o p ac ice ce ain
ac i i ies, he possibili y o ecei e gues s a ce ain hou s o he day only
o he de ac o go e nance by he de elope . To ge in o a ga ed communi y,
one has o accep being excluded om he ui ion o ce ain igh s (wi hin
he communi y) and spaces ( he u ban spaces om which o ideally secede).
Locking ou dange s and di e si y is paid o by locking onesel in: by one’s own
“enclosu e” (Tulumello 2017a, 56). As such, he ga ed communi y cons i u es
a peculia space whe e inclusion/exclusion a e con inuously nego ia ed and
con adic ed – e en wi hin he pa adigma ic usa example.
The Po uguese case adds u he laye s. To begin wi h, c s ha e appea ed
ela i ely la e, since he 1980s. This is pa ly because o he ela i ely la e
eme gence o pa e ns o consump ion associa ed wi h he subu banisa ion o
he main u ban egions o Lisbon and Po o. Raposo (2002; 2008), he au ho
o he mos comp ehensi e esea ch on he social p oduc ion o c s, showed
how hey sha e some spa ial and social cha ac e isa ions wi h usa ga ed
3 Fo a discussion o he a ie y o u ban o ms eme ging in connec ion wi h ea s o c ime, diso de
and di e si y, see Tulumello (2017a, chap e 4).
4 See Low (2003) o a ich an h opology o he cons uc ion o communi y in usa ga ed communi ies.
inclusi e communi ies, exclusiona y ci y, planning n/a? 485
communi ies while, a he same ime, ha ing hei own pa icula ea u es.
On he one hand, c ad e ising analysis shows he cen ali y o he dyad
secu i y/p i acy, as exempli ied by one slogan: “i ’s a jungle [sel a] ou he e.
I ’s g ea you’ e in he e” (Quin a da G aciosa ad e isemen , quo ed in Raposo
2002, 334). On he o he , howe e , ad e ising p omises do no seem o be
comple ely kep . Conside his exce p om an in e iew wi h a c esiden :
I was bo n in a illage in T ás-os-Mon es, I’ e li ed in Angola o a long ime… I need
space and ligh . So, when I ound ou abou i , I came he e. O cou se, he e a e hings I like
ha I don’ ha e he e: he neighbou hood g oce , he bu che … I I like i o no ? The e’s
no poin in wonde ing whe he I like i o no … I ’s be e o like i . Among he ho ible
a ailable places… (Fá ima, in e iewed in Câncio 2008 [2005], 124; ou ansla ion).
No only is Fá ima no eally exci ed by li e in a c ; she eels he inclusion in
a “non-neighbou hood”, wi hou he adi ional ea u es o Po uguese owns,
as a loss – he cos o be paid o he inclusion in he c s may be mo e expensi e
han o us subu bani es. Bu he e is mo e, he e y aspi a ion o be included
in a ga ed communi y seems a bi a odds wi h a di e en socie al con ex ,
in which, o ins ance, he e y cons uc ion o he local “communi y” is less
cen al han in he usa.5 As such, he demand o ga ed communi ies needs
be unde s ood on di e en g ounds: he possibili y, o a g owing bu no ye
a luen , middle-class o access some acili ies i could no a o d ou side c s
(Raposo 2002, 349); and, due o he low le els o seg ega ion in Po uguese
ci ies, he idea o he u ban e i o y being “insu icien ly seg ega ed” (Raposo
2008, 126). F om a supply side, hen, c s o e ed he possibili y o expand
he ma ke o semi-luxu y acili ies o wide social classes, hence os e ing
u ban accumula ion p ocesses. Wi h ega d o spa ial dynamics, c s can
be s udied o hei ole in me opoli an es uc u ing o e ime, and hei
implica ions o u ban policy and land-use managemen pa e ns. Indeed, c
p oduc ion (may ha e) had ele an consequences in o he u ban asse s. This
shall be explo ed when discussing ins i u ional p ocesses; o a he , he spa ial
planning dimension.
5 In gene al, and cu ing a e y long s o y sho , Eu opean socie ies ha e a common poli ical and
cul u al adi ion ha is mo e cen ed on he ole o socie y (and hence on he social pac and wel a e
s a e), on he one hand; and indi idual posi i e igh s, on he o he , han on he alue o he local
communi y. See, o ins ance, he deba e be ween Tonnies (1887) and Webe (1968 [1958]), and he
usa-Eu ope compa ison by No on and Bie i (2014).

486 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
he ole o planning: c s om semi-in o mal
eali y o uncom o able ac
Though c s a e linked wi h gene al, ul ima ely global, social ans o ma ions,
hey do no happen independen ly o local ins i u ional p ocesses. Speci ically,
being a p oduc o u ban de elopmen and he cons uc ion indus y, c s
happen wi hin a amewo k o egula ions and planning p ac ice (Le Galés
and Vi ale 2015; Tulumello 2015), whose analysis says much abou c s’ social
p oduc ion. In pa icula , i is wo h discussing he way, du ing he 1990s,
planning laws made he de elopmen o c s o mally possible; and he ole o
spa ial planning in he managemen o c p oduc ion mo e gene ally.
Up un il he ea ly 1990s, Po uguese egula ions abou land owne ship and
u banisa ion p ocedu es made he p oduc ion o ypical ga ed communi ies
impossible.6 On he one hand, he legal egime o allo men ope a ions, as
de ined in Dec ee-Laws 289/1973 and 400/1984, obliged de elope s, in he
name o he land’s social unc ion and u banisa ion being seen as an eminen ly
public unc ion, o ans e he unbuil pa s o he de eloped pa cels (s ee s,
public spaces, g een spaces and public acili ies) o he municipali y. On he
o he , he egime o p op iedade ho izon al, (ho izon al owne ship), ins i u ed
by Dec ee-Law 40333/1955 o egula e he owne ship o p i a e and common
pa s o esiden ial dwellings,7 only applied o indi idual mul i-s o ey
dwellings. In p ac ice, he egimes o eclosed he possibili y o c ea e mul i-
apa men building o mul i- illa enced allo men s wi h sha ed common
a eas and acili ies – while c s made up o indi idual apa men buildings wi h
enced a eas we e possible i licensed as “p i a e wo ks” (ob as pa icula es).
Mul i-dwelling c s al eady exis ed a ha ime, so hey we e being p omo ed
in a semi-in o mal amewo k (Raposo 2002).
Things changed in he ea ly 1990s. Fi s , Dec ee-Law 448/1991 in oduced
he possibili y o exchange he ans e o unbuil a eas wi h ei he plo s o
land ou side he pa cel o u banisa ion ees. Second, Dec ee-Law 267/1994
amended he p op iedade ho izon al by explici ly ex ending i o mul i-
dwelling es a es. In sho , he new egimes in oduced and egula ed he
6 The ollowing is based on he discussion by Raposo (2002, 335-363), and on he analysis o he
legisla i e documen s e e ed o.
7 Li e ally, by allowing he pa celisa ion in ho izon al sec ions (i. e. he la s o a mul i-s o ey dwelling)
owned indi idually and p esc ibing he sha ed owne ship o common pa s.
inclusi e communi ies, exclusiona y ci y, planning n/a? 487
p oduc ion o enced es a es wi h se e al dwellings, common a eas and
se ices.
Raposo (2002, 335-363) discusses how he in oduc o y pa s o he
a o emen ioned laws sys ema ically e e o he need o adap he legisla ion
o new social eali ies, he e o ms being jus i ied by he need o adap he
legisla ion o he “e olu ion ha happened in he meanwhile” (Dec ee-Law
267/1994).8 Though i was no made explici , his e olu ion can be seen in
he semi-in o mal eme gence o he phenomenon o c s. As such, legisla ion
app oached he issue as a so o ine i able end, which maybe was no o be
endo sed, bu would no be en o ced o ough – a e all, he decade o 1985-
1995 was cha ac e ised by a con inui y o cen e- igh go e nmen s (led by
Aníbal Ca aco Sil a), which s ongly pushed o a neolibe al ans o ma ion
o he Po uguese s a e.9
Wha legisla ion made possible s ill had and has o go h ough local
planning egula ions. The 1990s we e also he decade o he i s gene a ion
o comp ehensi e mas e plans in Po ugal10 and, mo e gene ally, o he
de elopmen o spa ial planning as a sys ema ic p ac ice, a e he de egula ion
o he 1980s. So le us ake a look a he municipal mas e plan egula ions
adop ed by he places ocused on in his s udy: Lisbon (1994), Cascais (1997)
8 The o iginal egime o p op iedade ho izon al had been in oduced du ing he dic a o ship o Es ado
No o (1933-1974). A ha ime, legisla ion also men ioned he necessi y o adap o new social eali ies.
The Dec ee-Law 40333/1955 e e ed o he “g a e p oblems” associa ed wi h common p ope y,
including he p omo ion o “p omiscui y”, he idea o Po ugal as a coun y o “owne s” being cen al
o he sel - ep esen a ion o he dic a o ship. As such, he in oduc ion o he p op iedade ho izon al o
some ex en ma ked he acknowledgemen , by he legisla ion, o he impossibili y o gi ing all ci izens
ull access o p ope y (Raposo 2002, 342-343).
9 I is in e es ing o no e ha he ea ly 1990s we e cha ac e ised by di e en a emp s o sol e
he issues o in o mal and semi-in o mal u banisa ion. In o mal se lemen s (bai os de la a) we e
add essed by he Special P og amme o Rehousing (pe , P og ama Especial de Relojamen o),
which p o ided inancial esou ces o he clea ing up o he se lemen s and he p o ision o
social housing; Illegal allo men s we e add essed h ough upg ading and egis a ion unde he
p o isions o U ban A eas wi h Illegal Genesis (augi, Á eas U banas de Génese Ilegal). The
di e en app oaches o di e en issues – clea ing “slums”, upg ading illegal allo men s and legalising
c s – a e elling o he di e en powe o ac o s a s ake, an issue ha dese es discussion ha we
ha e no space o he e.
10 The municipal mas e plans (Planos Di e o es Municipais, pdm) we e in oduced in 1982, bu only
du ing he 1990s, when, o ins ance, he mas e plans became a compulso y ins umen o apply o eu
unds, hey we e sys ema ically adop ed all a ound he coun y.
488 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
and Ba ei o (1994).11 In gene al, he issue o c s is no explici ly men ioned
in he plans. As a as egula ions a e conce ned, he e is a dis inc app oach
in Lisbon and Cascais, on he one hand, and Ba ei o, on he o he , wi h
ega d o ope a ions o allo men . While Lisbon and Cascais ully emb aced
he changes o Dec ee-Law 448/1991, he Ba ei o plan mean ans e ing
he unbuil lands in allo ed a eas o he municipali y, making he p oduc ion
o mul i-apa men building o mul i- illa c s de ac o impossible – and his
begins he explana ion as o why we did no ind any c s in Ba ei o, as will
be discussed below.
We shall now ocus on Lisbon and Cascais by using he in e iews we
conduc ed o compa a i e esea ch on spa ial planning and u ban secu i y
(Tulumello 2017c). Planne s in hese ci ies, much in line wi h he ea ly 1990s’
legisla o s, conside c s some hing pe haps undesi able bu ine i able. A
planne in Cascais s a ed “i c s appea ed, he e mus ha e been a necessi y,
namely wi h ega d o secu i y”.12 An in e es ing poin is he peculia
(Po uguese) ision o enclosed collec i e spaces, some hing ha , all a ound
u ban Eu ope, is no au oma ically associa ed wi h c s – hink, o ins ance,
o he I alian and Ge man adi ion o cou ya ds in collec i e esiden ial
buildings. The planne s we in e iewed seem o sha e he gene al idea ha
unbuil spaces should emain public, as exempli ied by an in e iew wi h a
planne in Lisbon abou a de ailed plan, in a social housing dis ic , which
in oduced enclosed blocks wi h semi-public cou s. Asked whe he his was
conside ed an ins umen o imp o e he hie a chisa ion o open spaces, he
planne ema ked: “we don’ wan o make c s!” I is qui e elling how he
planne el he need o jus i y a decision ha , elsewhe e, would be ega ded
as absolu ely no mal: “since ely, we el ha a p i a e use and managemen
by he esiden s could be in e es ing when compa ed o spaces open o
e e yone”. The planne added ha hey did no eel his was an a ack on
he ui ion o public space, pa icula ly in a neighbou hood whe e public
spaces a e e y “gene ous”.
11 Respec i ely adop ed by he Resolu ions o he Council o Minis ies 94/1994, 96/1997 and 26/1994.
12 This is a he e y leas p oblema ic in a coun y and me opoli an egion whe e c ime a es a e
his o ically among he lowes in he wo ld – and pa icula ly in Cascais, which has among he lowes in
he egion (Tulumello 2017c).
inclusi e communi ies, exclusiona y ci y, planning n/a? 489
no es on me hodology and con ex :
mapping c s semi-quan i a i ely
Agains he backd op se ou in he p e ious sec ions, ou empi ical
con ibu ion o he discussion is p esen ing and discussing he i s sys ema ic
map o c s in wo, plus one, municipali ies: Lisbon and Cascais, and Ba ei o
whe e he e we e none (see discussion below). Roi man and colleagues (2010,
9) emind us how he li e a u e on ga ed communi ies has no sys ema ically
add essed he s udy o he way hese de elopmen s ans o m u ban ab ics
by “segmen ing he physical ci y […] and c ea ing physical and emblema ic
ba ie s”. Indeed, in he as li e a u e abou ga ed communi ies and simila
de elopmen s, besides ou own wo k on ga ed esiden ial es a es in Pale mo
(Tulumello 2017a, 60-62), we we e only able o ind wo examples o sys ema ic
maps o ga ed communi ies (De Du en 2006; Akgün and Baycan 2012) –
whe e, by he way, he maps only ep esen he loca ion, and no he shape
o size, o he de elopmen s. The poin is p obably ha mapping c s and
ga ed communi ies is an ex emely complex ask, o he e y simple eason
ha sys ema ic da a abou hese de elopmen s a e collec ed by planning and
local au ho i ies i ually nowhe e. This is ce ainly he case in Lisbon and
Cascais, as he planne s we in e iewed con i med. This p oblem ex ends o
u ban o i ica ion and p i a isa ion p ocesses in gene al (Tulumello 2017b)
– see also a ecen epo in The Gua dian (2017) on he di icul y o mapping
p i a ised public spaces in London.
When we s a ed o engage wi h his opic in Lisbon in 2011, we soon
ealised ha he only way o mo e owa ds a sys ema ic mapping o ga ed
esiden ial de elopmen s was o use a plu ali y o sou ces o compensa e o
he absence o a comple e single sou ce. This mean ha only h ough a long-
e m engagemen could we expec o collec a easonable amoun o da a, and
we ended up deeming he p elimina y maps p oduced du ing a six-mon h
esea ch pe iod in 201113 unsa is ac o y (Tulumello 2017b). A e se e al
ounds o upda ing and in eg a ing da a be ween 2013 and 2016, we a e now
con iden ha he maps we p esen he e igo ously depic he s a e-o - he a
o c s in Lisbon and Cascais, bu wi hou being able o a i m once and o all
ha we ha e mapped all o hem. This is why we call hese maps, which o e
a comp ehensi e and sys ema ic ep esen a ion o he p oblem, o a he e y
13 And a ailable in Tulumello’s PhD disse a ion (2012).
496 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
Figu e 20.4
Figu e 20.5
Numbe o housing uni s in c s in Lisbon (le ) and Cascais ( igh )
Tempo al s ages o p oduc ion o c s in Lisbon (le ) and Cascais ( igh )
Sou ce: ou elabo a ion.
Sou ce: ou elabo a ion.
o he his o ic cen e, in he wes e n pa o he own; while c s only sp ead
owa ds he in e io a a la e s age. In Lisbon, he main expansion a e he
1990s happened in he cen al de elopmen axes, only sp eading a ound he
ci y a e 2005, wi h a concen a ion in he dis ic o Al a de Lisboa, and,
amid egene a ion and gen i ica ion p ocesses, eaching he his o ic cen e.
Al a da Lisboa, loca ed in he no h o he municipali y and o he wes o
he ai po , is a pa icula case. The o iginal plan o he dis ic , designed

inclusi e communi ies, exclusiona y ci y, planning n/a? 497
du ing he 1980s, en isaged a mixed dis ic made up o social and ee ma ke
housing. While du ing he 1990s, social housing was buil hanks o unding
by he na ional Special P og amme o Rehousing, he managemen company
had ouble in launching he ee ma ke de elopmen s. Only in he la e 2000s
we e he i s de elopmen s comple ed and, in a e i o y ha had long been
ma ked by he p esence o in o mal se lemen s being by ha ime seen as a
“social housing dis ic ”, hei being ad e ised as c s seemed an app op ia e
way o o e come he conce ns o he middle and uppe classes.20
Finally, we ha e compa ed he geog aphical sp ead o c s wi h he his o ical
p og ession o he p o essional-manage ial employee a e – whose geog aphy
we conside a good indica o o social pola isa ion – b oken down a he
local council le el (Figu e 20.6). The maps show inc easing a es o e he las
h ee decades, con i ming he economic g ow h and specialisa ion o bo h
20 See he websi e o he managemen company o he de elopmen ad e ising: h p://sgal.
al adelisboa.com/en/.
Figu e 20.6 c s and p o essional-manage ial employee a e, 1991, 2001 and 2011 in Lisbon
(abo e) and Cascais (below)
Sou ce: ou elabo a ion; da a on p o essional-manage ial employees, Ins i u o Nacional de Es a ís ica, bg i censuses.
498 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
ci ies. The pa e ns o pola isa ion, howe e , a e qui e di e en . In Cascais
he e is s ong pola isa ion and, in ac , socio-economic seg ega ion, be ween
he weal hie coas al a eas and he inne ones, wi h ga ed-communi y-like
c s almos exclusi ely concen a ed in he leas weal hy a eas. Though one
eason mus be he a ailabili y o mo e land o mul i- illa de elopmen s,
he pe cep ion o hese a eas as he leas homogeneous and he p esence, o
ins ance, o la ge social housing neighbou hoods, mus play a signi ican ole
in he p oduc ion o mo e o i ied es a es. In Lisbon, pola isa ion pa e ns a e
e y di e en , and show a complex blend o di e en si ua ions, wi h di e en
axes o weal h, much mo e spa ially mixed wi h a eas less economically
de eloped and social housing neighbou hoods. Though ea lie s ages o c
de elopmen a e loca ed, as we sugges ed, in weal hie zones, he e has been a
p og essi e sp ead in o di e en a eas.
discussion: (un)planned spaces o inclusion/exclusion
Ou mapping in Lisbon, Cascais and Ba ei o has con i med he exis ence
o a numbe o peculia ai s o c s and hei p oduc ion in Po ugal. Wi h
ega d o he ole o c s and simila de elopmen s in eshaping u ban and
me opoli an e i o ies, while ga ed communi ies a e gene ally conside ed o
be a subu ban phenomenon, we ha e seen how hey can become, and indeed
a e mos ly used in me opoli an Lisbon as, ins umen s o es uc u ing
dense u ban a eas. This is pa icula ly e iden in a cen al, dense ci y such
Lisbon, bu e en in Cascais, in coexis ence wi h ypical examples o “p ime”
subu ban de elopmen . Wi h ega d o empo al s ages, we ha e seen he c
phenomenon booming a e 1995. Though we ha e no de ini i e da a o make
conclusions on causal ela ionships, his aises he ques ion as o whe he
he legisla i e and planning changes in ended and did egula ise, o a he
p oduce, he c phenomenon in he i s place. Mi o ing discussions abou
gen i ica ion (Hamne 1991), i is a he in e sec ion o supply and demand
side explana ions ha his discussion should ocus. Fo ou pu poses, su ice
o say ha , du ing he ea ly 1990s, na ional legisla ion and municipal planning
(in Lisbon and Cascais) did open up he space o c s, a he e y leas .
Besides emphasising he peculia i ies o he phenomenon in me opoli an
Lisbon, we adop ed a compa a i e pe spec i e in o de o discuss o he
explana o y dimensions. The di e ences among ou h ee cases a e
inclusi e communi ies, exclusiona y ci y, planning n/a? 499
signi ican and add laye s o he discussion o he condi ions necessa y o c
de elopmen s.
Cascais is, o e all and despi e he abo emen ioned peculia i ies, he case
whe e we ound a mo e ypical pa e n o ga ed communi ies, us s yle: he
p esence o la ge, subu ban mul i- illa c s p o ided wi h ameni ies and
spa ially secluded om a seg ega ed u ban ab ic – indeed, an example o a
weal hy, i (and!) unequal, own.
In Lisbon, c s a e ins ead a componen o u ban es uc u ing p ocesses;
and concen a ion (in weal hy a eas), di usion and “mix” pa e ns (in he case
o Al a de Lisboa abo e all) also coexis due o he dense socio-economic
pola isa ion, almos in absence o seg ega ion. Agains his backg ound, i is
wo h coming back o he issue o he social p oduc ion o c s. In Lisbon,
in absence o he physical seclusion om he u ban ab ic and o he ypical
spa ial ameni ies o ga ed communi ies, his is la gely limi ed o he p o ision
o secu i y, which we can now conside in pe spec i e. On he one hand,
secu i y de ices a e no exac ly “ ough” in some cases: a good example is
he condominium DueDomani – loca ed in Chelas, a dominan ly social
housing dis ic – ad e ised as a condomínio semi-p i ado (semi-p i a e
condominium) and su ounded by a one me e all ence wi hou locks
(Tulumello 2015, 496). On he o he , du ing ou ieldwo k we ound a g ea
numbe o condominiums wi h 24/7 pa olling and cc s, e y simila o
neighbou ing c s bu no ad e ised as such – and he e o e no included
on ou maps. I is e y ha d, when no impossible, o dis inguish be ween
c s and non-c s in Lisbon, i no o he ac ha some a e labelled so. This
makes us e lec on he ac ha c s in me opoli an Lisbon a e o en no hing
mo e and no hing less han a p omo ional s a egy (supply side) and hence an
ins umen o middle class sel - ep esen a ion (demand side).
This should be kep in mind while hinking abou he absence o c s in
Ba ei o. On he one hand, we canno downplay he ole o planning. As we
discussed, he 1994 municipal mas e plan made he cons uc ion o mul i-
dwelling c s impossible and, mo e gene ally, he dominance o a s a u o y
app oach o land use managemen (Tulumello 2017c) may ha e had a ole
in p e en ing semi-in o mal de elopmen s such c s. A he same ime,
howe e , land use managemen ailed in p e en ing ano he dimension o
in o mal u banisa ion, and speci ically illegal allo men s, which can be ound
h oughou Ba ei o – o he ex en ha a special ask o ce o hei upg ading
and egula isa ion exis s in he municipal planning depa men . Mo eo e , as
500 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
he case o Lisbon shows, one does no eally need much mo e han ad e ising
and some secu i y de ices o p oduce and sell c s. As such, o he dimensions
mus come in o play, abo e all he ac ha Ba ei o is among he leas (possibly
he leas ) sui able municipali y in he me opoli an egion o c s. As a as
loca ion is conce ned, Ba ei o is among he municipali ies wo s se ed by
highways and connec ions o Lisbon – being in he leas a ou able posi ion
wi h ega d o he wo b idges connec ing he sou he n bank o he Ri e
Tagus o cen al Lisbon. As a as socio-economic composi ion is conce ned,
he his o y o Ba ei o, i s cha ac e isa ion as an indus ial hub and ecen
pos -indus ial decline, ha e no helped in d awing he middle and uppe
classes owa ds he municipali y.
conclusion: om inclusion/exclusion
o agmen a ion/pola isa ion
Two dimensions s emming om he mapping o c s in me opoli an Lisbon a e
pa icula ly use ul when conside ing he inclusion/exclusion dicho omy. Fi s ,
we ha e seen how some peculia ai s o he Po uguese planning adi ion
and u banisa ion egula ions ha e impeded he c ea ion o p i a ely owned
collec i e spaces in mode n imes, in he name o a mode nis concep ion o
u ban planning and o land as public compe ence.21 We canno help bu no ice
how his is in con as wi h he his o ical de elopmen o Po uguese ci ies
h ough blocks (qua ei ões), whe e dwellings enclose open spaces ha can be
sha ed o di ided among he single esidences (quin ais, backya ds). In a way,
some c ypologies, and he legal amendmen s ha opened up he space o
hem, ended up ( e)c ea ing he possibili y o a heal hy ins umen o u ban
design and planning. As he planne in Lisbon eminded us, when public
spaces a e al eady gene ous (as is he case in me opoli an Lisbon gene ally),
p i a ely owned common open spaces a e good o bo h he esiden s (who
enjoy he p o ec ed open spaces) and he ci y (in e ms o managemen o
public space).22
21 The idealisa ion o he ci y as a con inuous, e dan public space pinpoin ed by high- ise dwellings
was one o he cen al aspec s o Le Co busie ’s wo k.
22 See Tulumello (2015; 2017a, 88-91) o c i ical discussions o he implica ions o he mode nis
concep ion o public space o mee ing o he ness and eelings o sa e y in he public space.
inclusi e communi ies, exclusiona y ci y, planning n/a? 501
Second, we ha e seen how c s a e o en a simple “label” a ached o qui e
o dina y eal es a e p oduc s. In hese cases, hen, he double mo emen
o inclusion (among pee s) and exclusion (o o he s and om o he s) loses
spa ial meaning, while social meaning becomes pu ely symbolic – and he e
lies he s a kes peculia i y o he Po uguese case in he global a ena. On he
one hand, his makes sense in me opoli an ab ics whe e spa ial seg ega ion
is ela i ely low and he encoun e wi h o he ness is much mo e common han
in hose con ex s whe e ga ed communi ies we e bo n and a e lou ishing. On
he o he , we ind he e u he e idence o he seconda y, i ma ginal, ole o
he cons uc ion o “communi y” in c p oduc ion, Po uguese s yle.
Though hese a gumen s add some nuances o mains eam c i ical
discussions abou ga ed communi ies as inclusi e/exclusiona y de ices,
ou poin is no o unde play he c i ical implica ions o ga ed esiden ial
de elopmen s o u ban jus ice. Fo ins ance, he ac ha he possibili y
o collec i e p i a e spaces emains limi ed o hose who can a o d access
o luxu y and semi-luxu y housing shows how c s, in sca cely seg ega ed
con ex s, a e capable o eshaping inclusion/exclusion pa e ns o ce ain
bene i s – such as access o p o ec ed open spaces – in complex and nonlinea
ways. As such, a he han sea ching o “epis emologies o hope” (Pow 2015)
wi h ega d o exclusiona y u ban de elopmen s, ou conce n is o deepen he
unde s anding o he complex ways exclusion/inclusion is ( e)p oduced.
Th ee agendas o empi ical esea ch and heo e ical/me hodological
de elopmen eme ge. Fi s , we see li le engagemen wi h planning as an
ins i u ional p ac ice in in e na ional li e a u e abou ga ed communi ies; in
o he wo ds, wi h laws, no ms, and plans, p og ammes and policies. Ou wo k
– and ha o Raposo (2002) –, howe e , has shown he cen ali y o na ional
and local ins i u ional and egula o y amewo ks in he unde s anding o
how c s can sp ead, and inclusion/exclusion pa e ns be eshaped, in di e en
con ex s.
Second, we ha e shown some limi s ha he inclusion/exclusion
dicho omy i sel has in explaining socio-spa ial phenomena in con ex s whe e
seg ega ion is low. In he me hodological app oach o semi-quan i a i e
mapping, and in he heo e ical concep s o pola isa ion and agmen a ion,
we he e o e ound he g ounds o a loose , bu no less igo ous, amewo k
o esea ch. By isualising he mic o- ela ions o inequali y wi h ega d o
u ban de elopmen (pola isa ion) and he c acks gene a ed by spa ial en i ies
such as c s ( agmen a ion), we we e able o explo e he g ain o socio-spa ial

502 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
phenomena on a scale ha adi ional seg ega ion analysis ails o unde s and.
This opens up i ually unlimi ed possibili ies o u he discussion, o
ins ance, in he s udy o p oximi y/connec i i y ela ions be ween c s and
social housing neighbou hoods, o he concen a ion/di usion o c s and
public space and acili ies.
In conclusion, le us e u n o he ole o c s in ecen egene a ion and
gen i ica ion p ocesses in Lisbon. As ou da a is comp ehensi e only up un il
he pe iod 2013/2015, we a e ully awa e ha many changes may be aking
place now ha Lisbon has suddenly become a cen e o a ac ion o ou is s,
in e na ional s uden s, middle-class o eign pensione s and s a uppe s, bu
also in e na ional eal es a e g oups and pla o m capi alism behemo hs such
Ai Bnb (see Viei a e al. 2016). Amid a u bulen socio-economic es uc u ing
ha s a ed om he his o ic neighbou hoods and is sp eading as owa ds and
beyond he consolida ed u ban co e, new o ms o exclusiona y de elopmen
a e eshaping he u ban ab ic: luxu y blocks o la s, p ime s uden apa men
blocks,23 hyb id o ms o sho - en al dwellings, o gi e jus a ew examples.
These new de elopmen s, hough inse ed in he u ban co e, a e c ea ing new
o ms o inclusion/exclusion, which link he ci y o global ne wo ks o weal h,
capi al and mobili y, while c ea ing local disconnec ions – e. g. by making
housing una o dable o i ually e e y “ egula ” wo ke in Lisbon, o pushing
o a social cleansing o his o ically mixed neighbou hoods. Agains his
backd op, e en he scale o analysis ha we ha e p esen ed he e may become
oo wide o explo e new dynamics o inclusion/exclusion – and he es less
sea ch o new sys ema ic and ine-g ained me hodological app oaches is
he e o e much needed.
23 Collegia e Ma ques de Pombal is a pe ec example, www.collegia e-ac.p /en/.
inclusi e communi ies, exclusiona y ci y, planning n/a? 503
A ailable wo ks abou c s in he Lisbon me o, wi h he o al numbe o c s ound pe municipali y
e ei a e al.
2001
aposo
2002
soa es
2003*
aposo, co a 2007
(unpublished epo , da a
published in aposo e al. 2012)
pe ei a
2010
ulumello
2012
p esen
s udy
Time ame Be o e 2001 1985-1998 Be o e 2002 1985-2004 1985-2004 wi h ew
upda es a e wa ds Be o e 2012 Be o e 2016
Type o da a Coun Coun and lis
wi h u he da a
App oxima e
coun
Coun and lis
wi h u he da a
Coun and lis wi h
u he da a
Coun , lis
and map
Coun
and map
Sou ce o da a O iginal
esea ch
O iginal
esea ch
Fe ei a e al. 2001,
sligh ly upda ed
Raposo 2002
and o iginal esea ch
Raposo, Co a 2007,
sligh ly upda ed
Raposo 2002 and
o iginal esea ch
All he o me and
o iginal esea ch
Lisbon 62 23 45<x<90 38 ——— 49 81
Cascais 86 43 ~90 89 91 ——— 127
Amado a 1 1 1 1 ——— ——— ———
Lou es 1 0 1<x<22 1 ——— ——— ———
Ma a 10 5 1<x<22 18 ——— ——— ———
Odi elas 0 0 1 0 ——— ——— ———
Oei as 31 7 ~45 11 ——— ——— ———
Sin a 15 6 1<x<22 14 ——— ——— ———
V F anca de Xi a 1 0 1 2 ——— ——— ———
To al me opoli an no h 207 85 n/a 174 n/a n/a n/a
Ba ei o 1 0 1 0 ——— ——— 0
Alcoche e 1 0 1<x<22 1 ——— ——— ———
Appendix 20.1
504 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
e ei a e al.
2001
aposo
2002
soa es
2003*
aposo, co a 2007
(unpublished epo , da a
published in aposo e al. 2012)
pe ei a
2010
ulumello
2012
p esen
s udy
Almada 7 1 1<x<22 5 ——— ——— ———
Mon ijo 2 0 1<x<22 0 ——— ——— ———
Palmela 6 3 1<x<22 4 ——— ——— ———
Seixal ——— 0 1<x<22 1 ——— ——— ———
Sesimb a 7 2 1<x<22 5 ——— ——— ———
Se úbal 10 6 1<x<22 8 ——— ——— ———
To al me opoli an sou h 34 12 n/a 24 n/a n/a n/a
Me opoli an Lisbon 241 97 n/a 198 n/a n/a n/a
* The CF numbe s a e ep esen ed on a map o he me opoli an egion wi h ci cles p opo ional o he coun o each municipali y, g ouped in classes, esul ing in he alues
p esen ed he e.
Con inua ion…
Appendix
inclusi e communi ies, exclusiona y ci y, planning n/a? 505
acknowledgemen s
This chap e s ems om coope a ion be ween Simone Tulumello’s pos -doc p ojec (“Which
“secu e ci ies”? A c i ical app oach o secu i y and eelings o ea in u ban planning in
Sou he n Eu ope”, unded by c , s h/bpd/86394/2012) and he p ojec “expe s – Making
sense o planning expe ise: housing policy and he ole o expe s in he P og ama Especial
de Realojamen o (pe )” ( unded by c , p dc/a p-eu /4309/2014 c ).
____________________________________
simone ulumello
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
A . P o . Aníbal Be encou 9 — 1600-036 Lisboa, Po ugal
simone. ulum[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0002-6660-3432
____________________________________
alessand o colombo
isc e-iul, Dinâmia-ce
colom[email p o ec ed]m
o cid.o g/0000-0002-9910-8999
____________________________________
e e ences
agkün, A. A., T. Baykan. 2012. “Ga ed communi ies in Is anbul. The new walls o he ci y”.
Town Planning Re iew, 83 (1): 87-109.
amendola, G. 1997. La ci à pos mode na. Magie e pau e della me opoli con empo anea.
Rome: La e za.
a baci, S., J. Malhei os. 2010. “De-seg ega ion, pe iphe alisa ion and he social exclusion
o immig an s: Sou he n Eu opean ci ies in he 1990s”. Jou nal o E hnic and Mig a ion
S udies, 36 (2): 227-255.
a kinson, R., J. Flin . 2004. “Fo ess uk? Ga ed communi ies, he spa ial e ol o he eli es
and ime-space ajec o ies o seg ega ion”. Housing S udies, 19 (6): 875-892.
bap is a, I. 2013. “The a els o c i iques o neolibe alism: U ban expe iences om he
‘bo de lands’”. U ban Geog aphy, 34 (5): 590-611.
beau ega d, R. 2003 [1993]. Voices o Decline. The Pos wa Fa e o us Ci ies. New Yo k,
Rou ledge.
caldei a, T. 2000. Ci y o Walls. C ime, Seg ega ion, and Ci izenship in São Paulo. Be keley:
Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess.
câncio, F. 2008 [2005]. Cidades sem Nome. C ónica da Condição Subu bana, 2nd ed. Lisbon:
Tin a da China.
de du en, N. L. 2006. “Planning à la ca e: The loca ion pa e ns o ga ed communi ies
a ound Buenos Ai es in a decen alized planning con ex ”. In e na ional Jou nal o U ban
and Regional Resea ch, 30 (2): 308-327.