Towards better recognising ‘community’ in multi-owned property law and living

R. Leshinsky, Clare Mouat

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    6 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    © 2015, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Purpose – 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. Design/methodology/approach – 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. Findings – 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. Research limitations/implications – 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. Originality/value – 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.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)484-501
    JournalInternational Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis
    Volume8
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2015

    Fingerprint

    Best practice
    Governance
    Theory building
    Dispute
    Politicians
    Alternative dispute resolution
    Consolidation
    Governance structure
    Content analysis
    Jurisdiction
    Policy reform
    Canada
    Law reform
    NIMBY
    Evaluation
    Remedies
    Ontario
    Public policy
    Property management
    Community engagement

    Cite this

    @article{d0dd0d16e7ff4940b12dcb348a833ba0,
    title = "Towards better recognising ‘community’ in multi-owned property law and living",
    abstract = "{\circledC} 2015, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Purpose – 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. Design/methodology/approach – 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. Findings – 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. Research limitations/implications – 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. Originality/value – 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.",
    author = "R. Leshinsky and Clare Mouat",
    year = "2015",
    doi = "10.1108/IJHMA-07-2015-0031",
    language = "English",
    volume = "8",
    pages = "484--501",
    journal = "International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis",
    issn = "1753-8270",
    publisher = "Emarald Group Publishing Ltd",
    number = "4",

    }

    Towards better recognising ‘community’ in multi-owned property law and living. / Leshinsky, R.; Mouat, Clare.

    In: International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2015, p. 484-501.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Towards better recognising ‘community’ in multi-owned property law and living

    AU - Leshinsky, R.

    AU - Mouat, Clare

    PY - 2015

    Y1 - 2015

    N2 - © 2015, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Purpose – 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. Design/methodology/approach – 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. Findings – 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. Research limitations/implications – 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. Originality/value – 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.

    AB - © 2015, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Purpose – 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. Design/methodology/approach – 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. Findings – 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. Research limitations/implications – 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. Originality/value – 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.

    U2 - 10.1108/IJHMA-07-2015-0031

    DO - 10.1108/IJHMA-07-2015-0031

    M3 - Article

    VL - 8

    SP - 484

    EP - 501

    JO - International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis

    JF - International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis

    SN - 1753-8270

    IS - 4

    ER -