This paper aims to advance best practice by gaining insights into key multi-owned property (MOP) issues challenging policymakers and communities. Ontario (Canada) and Victoria (Australia) are internationally recognised for best practice in MOP living and law. Yet, both jurisdictions struggle with the emerging urbanism related to condominium MOP.
Different ways of recognising community in MOP urbanism will be examined against public policy and political theory perspectives promoting social sustainability. A rich mixed-data and content analysis method is relied upon which synthesises three pillars of MOP community governance: harmonious high-rise living; residential-neighbourhood interface; and metropolitan community engagement. The article cross-examines Canadian policy and law reform documents and Australian dispute case law from the state of Victoria to explore and showcase critical MOP management, residential and policy issues.
A theory-building typology formally recognises “community” as an affective performance across MOP governance contexts: cosmopolitan, civic-citizen and neighbourly. These ideal types differentiate community affects in and beyond (case) law and land-use planning: from determining alternative dispute resolution remedies; addressing neighbourhood and metropolitan NIMBY-ism in urban consolidation to bridging the critical policy and civic gap between the limits and aims of socially sustainable MOP vertical-tenured community affects.
Strong cross-jurisdictional MOP community lessons exist, as other cities follow best practice in legal and governance structures to effect change at the frontiers of twenty-first century urbanism.
Past studies emphasise classifying dispute issues, single-issue concerns or historical and life cycle evaluations. This theory-building article advances why and how community must be better understood holistically across community contexts to inform cutting-edge governance practices.
Leshinsky, R. and Mouat, C.M. (2015), "Towards better recognising ‘community’ in multi-owned property law and living", International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 484-501. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHMA-07-2015-0031Download as .RIS
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2015, Emerald Group Publishing Limited