**4.5 The features of gated communities in the study**

The review of literature on types of GCs and experiences with enclaves lead to the suggestion of several variables and functions that differentiate kinds of gating in Ibadan; these include the function of the enclosure; security feature and barriers; amenities and facilities included; types of residents; tenure; location; size; policy context (see **Table 12**). These eight characteristics were expanded into a checklist for this study. Although the features of GCs vary, they all have gates to regulate entrance into the community. A considerable number of GCs maintain around-theclock, on-site security, and many of these communities are walled in as well. If a GC is designed for retired residents, additional amenities were included which include: the clubhouses, recreational centres and the like. At the front entrance gate of a gated community, there is usually either a security guard, an intercom on which you punch in a private access code, or a card reader. Upon admittance, the gate will be open for you. The size of GCs varies dramatically, with small, compact communities at one extreme and large and comprehensive GC on the other extreme. The large communities include not only residential properties but also recreational and entertainment centres, dining, retail and other lifestyle opportunities.

After physical observation of the study areas, the following classification was arrived at as shown in **Table 13** and using the checklist of features defining GCs as shown in **Table 11**. Although walls and gates may look similar across the study areas


**Table 12.** *Checklist of features defining gated* 

*communities*

 *in the study areas.*


**Table 13.** *Classifying*

 *gated* 

*communities*

 *through variety of enclosure in Ibadan.*

*Typological Analysis of Gated Communities Characteristics in Ibadan, Nigeria DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97365*

they have a range of functions that include: physical, economic, social psychological or symbolic as shown in **Table 5** below. **Table 6** shows the features of GCs in the study areas which include: the functions of enclosure, safety feature, amenities and facilities, types of residents, tenure, location, and size and policy context. The gate provides the architecture of control as demonstrated from the physical characteristics of the study areas for both the insider and outsider; it reinforces the need for surveillance and importance for a social order where everybody knows his or her place. Walled and GCs are seen as synonymous but involved different levels of enclosures. This lead to the suggestion that a variety of enclosure in GCs in the study areas as outlined in **Table 13**, which shows the varieties the degree of enclosure proceeds from largely symbolic or psychological, to the full physical, as an architecture of control, became more explicit.
