The Compound City. How walls are replacing urban life.

Cities are often described through their buildings, their infrastructure, their growth. But what defines them more deeply is something less visible: the way space is shared, or not shared, between the people who inhabit them.

There is a delicate balance in every urban environment between what is private and what is collective, between what belongs to individuals and what belongs to everyone. This balance is not fixed. It shifts over time, influenced by economic pressures, cultural expectations, and the way we respond to uncertainty.

In recent years, this balance has been changing.

Not through a single decision or a clear urban vision, but through a gradual accumulation of choices that, taken individually, appear reasonable. A building that turns inward. A space that becomes controlled. A service that moves from public to private. Each step is small, often justified, rarely questioned.

And yet, over time, these decisions begin to reshape the structure of the city.

What was once continuous becomes fragmented. What was shared becomes selective. What was accessible becomes conditional.

The city does not disappear, but it starts to behave differently.

It becomes less of a common ground, and more of a collection of separate environments, each one operating according to its own logic.

This essay is an attempt to look at that shift more closely.

Not as a sudden transformation, but as a process. One that is already visible, already widespread, and whose consequences are still unfolding.

A dense and continuous urban fabric in Saigon, where life unfolds without clear boundaries. This is the kind of city that compounds attempt to escape from — but also the one they gradually fragment.

The Promise of Safety

There is a moment, in almost every rapidly growing city, when the wall appears. It does not arrive as a problem, but as a solution. The city has become too dense, too chaotic, too unpredictable. Traffic is difficult, public space is uneven, services are inconsistent. Living in the city starts to feel like something to manage, rather than something to enjoy.

And so, a different idea of urban life begins to take shape. Not outside the city, but within it. A controlled piece of territory, clean, green, organized, protected. A place where everything seems to work better.

The compound.

I have seen this model expand rapidly in Vietnam over the last twenty years, but it is no longer limited to developing contexts. Variations of the same logic are now visible across Europe and many other parts of the world. Whether it takes the form of high-rise residential clusters or low-density villa enclaves, the underlying structure remains the same: a private environment separated from the city, designed to offer a better version of urban life by filtering out its complexity.

The Illusion of a Better City

At first glance, it works. Inside the compound, the streets are quieter, the greenery is maintained, access is controlled. There is a sense of order, of predictability, even of comfort. It feels safer, more livable, more refined than the city outside.

But this impression is deceptive, because what the compound offers is not an improved city. It is a reduced one.

Life inside becomes simplified, repetitive, insulated. Encounters are limited to a relatively homogeneous group of people, often sharing similar economic and social conditions. The diversity that defines urban life is reduced, and with it the possibility of friction, negotiation, and unexpected interaction. What remains is a curated environment, where most variables have already been decided in advance.

In this sense, the compound does not enhance urban life. It replaces it with a controlled simulation.

A controlled and curated environment, where nature, space, and life are carefully composed. A vision of the city simplified — and separated from the complexity outside.

Fragmenting the Urban Fabric

The consequences of this shift are not immediately visible, but they become evident when these enclaves begin to multiply. A single compound may appear harmless, even beneficial. But a city composed of compounds starts to behave differently.

Continuity breaks down. What was once a connected fabric becomes a series of isolated fragments. The street, which historically functioned as the primary space of exchange, movement, and social interaction, loses its role. It is no longer a place where the city unfolds, but a residual space between private territories.

And when a space is no longer shared, it is no longer cared for.

The city, in between compounds, becomes something ambiguous. Not empty, but neglected. Not designed, but left over. A kind of urban “in-between” where no one feels fully responsible, and where the sense of collective ownership begins to disappear.

The Expansion of the Compound Logic

What is often overlooked is that this logic does not remain confined to residential spaces. It expands into other domains of urban life.

Healthcare becomes privatized and enclosed. Education follows similar patterns. Retail concentrates into large, controlled environments such as malls, replacing the distributed network of local shops.

The city gradually loses its continuity. Moving through it is no longer a fluid experience, but a sequence of entries and exits, thresholds and permissions. One moves from one controlled system to another, rather than through a shared and accessible urban fabric.

In this condition, the idea of the city as a common ground begins to dissolve.

A controlled entrance that defines who can enter and who cannot. The city is no longer continuous, but divided into spaces of permission.

The Paradox of Safety

The compound is built on a powerful and understandable premise: the desire for safety. Reduced traffic, controlled access, and surveillance do create a sense of protection, at least in the short term. But safety in a city is not only a technical condition. It is also a social one.

It depends on visibility, on presence, on the informal recognition that emerges from repeated encounters. It depends on the feeling that the space around you is also inhabited, observed, and collectively maintained.

When these elements are removed, safety becomes dependent on control alone. And control, by definition, requires constant reinforcement.

The more space is privatized and protected, the more the remaining city becomes fragmented and underinvested. Risk is not eliminated; it is displaced. And over time, this displacement undermines the very conditions that make urban life resilient.

The Neighborhood

There is, however, another model. Less controlled, less spectacular, and for this reason often underestimated. Yet it remains one of the most resilient and powerful structures ever developed in urbanism.

The neighborhood.

Not as a nostalgic idea, and not as a simplified “residential zone,” but as a spatial, social, and functional system that allows the city to exist as a shared environment.

A neighborhood is not defined by walls. It is defined by relationships.

It does not separate itself from the city, but it creates a recognizable piece of it. A place where distances are short, where daily life can unfold without constant displacement, where movement is not dominated by speed but calibrated around people.

Streets, in this context, are not corridors for traffic. They are spaces of coexistence. Traffic is slowed down, not through barriers, but through design. Intersections are negotiated. The scale changes. The presence of people becomes more important than the flow of vehicles.

This alone transforms the experience of safety. Not because access is restricted, but because space is continuously inhabited.

Children can use the street. Not because it is private, but because it is legible, predictable, and socially controlled. There is a difference between surveillance and presence. The neighborhood relies on the latter.

Small-scale urban agriculture embedded in the neighborhood. A space where cultivation becomes a form of social connection.

Living Together

Services are not external destinations. They are embedded within the fabric. A small grocery store, a café, a school, a place to sit, a place to meet. These are not amenities added later, but essential components of the system.

They generate movement, but also permanence. They create reasons to stay, not just to pass through.

And through repetition, something more complex begins to form.

People start to recognize each other. Not necessarily as friends, but as familiar presences. A shopkeeper, a neighbor, someone walking their dog, someone sitting on the same bench every morning. These micro-recognitions accumulate over time and create a subtle but powerful form of social cohesion.

This is where the neighborhood produces something that no compound can replicate.

A sense of belonging without exclusion.

You are part of the space not because you are inside a controlled boundary, but because you participate in its everyday life.

Green space, in this model, is not decorative and not isolated. It is not something you access only if you belong. It is integrated into the structure of the neighborhood itself. Trees along streets, shared gardens, small open spaces, sometimes even productive landscapes such as urban agriculture.

These elements are not aesthetic additions. They are part of the ecological and social functioning of the place. They contribute to climate, to comfort, to interaction.

They are lived, not observed.

The neighborhood also allows for something that the compound actively prevents: permeability. The possibility to move through, to cross, to discover. It is not a closed system, but a porous one. It connects rather than interrupts.

This does not mean it is exposed or vulnerable. It means that its identity is not based on exclusion, but on structure.

In many ways, the neighborhood achieves what the compound promises, but through completely different means. It can be calm, safe, green, and livable. But it does so without withdrawing from the city, and without weakening it.

Instead of creating islands, it creates continuity.

And this distinction is fundamental.

Because a city is not made of isolated environments. It is made of connections. Of transitions. Of shared spaces that allow different lives to intersect without collapsing into each other.

The neighborhood operates precisely at this level. It mediates between the individual and the collective. Between the private and the public. Between the house and the city.

And in doing so, it becomes the true unit of urban life.

Everyday life spilling into the street. The neighborhood is not designed as a system, but lived as a shared condition.

A Different Urban Future

Today, the way we live in cities is changing again, and not in a marginal way. The relationship between home, work, services, and mobility is being reconfigured, often quietly, but with significant spatial consequences.

For a long time, the dominant model of the contemporary city was based on movement. The assumption was that people would travel daily across large distances — from residential areas to offices, from peripheral zones to central ones, from one specialized function to another. The city was organized as a system of separation connected by infrastructure.

That model is now under pressure.

Work is increasingly hybrid. Many services have become digital. Everyday life is less dependent on constant displacement and more anchored to the immediate environment. What once required movement across the city can now happen within a much smaller radius — sometimes entirely within the neighborhood.

This does not mean that cities are shrinking, but that their internal logic is shifting.

Distance matters differently. Proximity gains value.

In this context, the quality of the local environment becomes critical. Not as a secondary condition, but as the primary space where daily life unfolds. The street you walk every day, the small public space nearby, the presence of services within reach — these are no longer marginal elements. They define the livability of the city in a direct and continuous way.

This is where the contrast between compounds and neighborhoods becomes even more relevant.

The compound is designed as a self-contained world. It anticipates this shift toward localized life, but responds to it through isolation. It internalizes services, controls access, and creates a closed environment where everything is managed within defined boundaries.

The neighborhood, on the other hand, responds to the same shift through integration. It supports proximity without cutting itself off from the city. It allows daily life to happen locally, while still remaining part of a larger, continuous urban system.

This distinction is subtle, but decisive.

Because the future of cities will not be defined only by density or infrastructure, but by how well different layers of life can coexist within walkable, accessible, and shared environments.

A city of compounds can function at the level of the individual unit, but struggles at the level of the whole. It produces efficiency locally and fragmentation globally.

A city of neighborhoods, instead, may appear less controlled, less optimized in isolation, but it builds coherence over time. It creates a structure where different parts reinforce each other rather than compete or disconnect.

In this sense, the future is not about choosing between local life and urban life.

It is about making them coincide again.

And this can only happen through forms of urbanism that are open, connected, and capable of supporting everyday life without withdrawing from the city itself.

The domestic space expands beyond its traditional role. Work, care, and social life overlap again, reshaping the structure of the neighborhood.

A Choice

The compound is based on separation. The neighborhood on relation.

And ultimately, the city depends on which of these two logics we decide to reinforce.

Because a city made of compounds is no longer a city. It is a landscape of controlled fragments, surrounded by spaces that no longer belong to anyone.

And when that happens, the sense of safety we were trying to achieve becomes increasingly fragile, precisely because the shared ground on which it depends has been eroded.

In the end, the choice is not between safety and openness. It is between isolation and participation.

And cities, if they are to remain cities, can only survive through the latter.

Design Principles for Real Neighborhoods

If the neighborhood is the foundation of a livable city, then its design cannot be left to intuition or nostalgia. It requires clear principles, not as rigid rules, but as a framework capable of guiding decisions across different contexts.

The first principle is permeability. A neighborhood must be open, not in the sense of being exposed, but in the sense of being connected. Streets, paths, and public spaces should allow movement through the area, not just into it. This continuity is what keeps the city legible and alive. When movement is interrupted by barriers, the neighborhood stops being part of the city and becomes an enclave.

Closely related to this is the idea of gradation. The transition from public to private space should not be abrupt. It should unfold gradually, through semi-public and semi-private conditions — a shared courtyard, a shaded threshold, a small front space. These intermediate zones are essential, because they allow interaction without forcing it. They create comfort, but also openness.

Mobility must be rebalanced. Streets should not be designed primarily for speed, but for coexistence. This does not mean eliminating cars, but redefining their role. Traffic can pass, but it should not dominate. Narrower sections, visual friction, and shared surfaces can slow movement naturally, making space safer without the need for control.

Mixed use is not an optional quality; it is a structural necessity. A neighborhood that only contains housing cannot sustain urban life. Small shops, services, schools, and workplaces must be embedded within walking distance. These functions generate daily rhythms, attract different users, and keep spaces active throughout the day.

Green space must be conceived as infrastructure, not decoration. Trees, soil, water, and biodiversity should be integrated into the spatial system of the neighborhood, not added as isolated elements. A line of trees along a street is not only a visual improvement; it modifies climate, defines space, and supports ecological continuity. Small gardens, permeable surfaces, and shared green areas contribute to both environmental performance and social interaction.

Visibility is another key condition. Spaces that are seen are spaces that are used, and spaces that are used are spaces that tend to be safer. This does not imply surveillance, but presence. Open fronts, active edges, and a mix of functions ensure that public space is continuously inhabited, rather than intermittently controlled.

Finally, there is the principle of responsibility. A neighborhood works when people feel that the space around them is also theirs. This is not something that can be imposed, but it can be supported through design. When spaces are accessible, understandable, and used daily, they invite care. When they are isolated, oversized, or undefined, they are easily abandoned.

These principles do not produce a specific form. They produce a condition.

A neighborhood that is open but protected, active but calm, structured but adaptable.

And most importantly, a neighborhood that does not withdraw from the city, but contributes to making it stronger.

A Conclusion

In the end, the problem is not the compound itself, and it would be too easy to frame it that way. In many cases it responds to real needs, to a desire for order, for calm, for a form of everyday life that the surrounding city often struggles to provide.

What matters is what happens when this model is repeated, again and again, until it becomes the dominant way of building the city.

Because cities are not defined by single decisions, but by their accumulation. What appears reasonable at the scale of one project can produce a very different condition when multiplied across an entire urban landscape.

A city made of compounds does not collapse because each compound fails. It slowly loses something else: the space in between. The shared ground that connects different parts, the continuity that allows movement, recognition, and a basic sense of belonging.

As this ground weakens, so does the city itself. Not in a dramatic way, but gradually, almost imperceptibly. Spaces become less used, less cared for, less understood as part of a collective environment. And with this, the conditions that support everyday safety begin to erode.

At that point, protection no longer comes from the city, but only from separation from it.

And this is a fragile condition, because it depends on something that is simultaneously being weakened: the city outside.

What is at stake, then, is not simply a question of form, but of how we choose to inhabit urban life. Whether we see the city as something to withdraw from, or something to remain part of, even in its complexity.

The difference between a compound and a neighborhood is not only physical. It reflects two fundamentally different positions.

One isolates in order to function. The other connects in order to work.

And in the long run, it is this second condition that allows the city to remain a place that can still be shared.

EXPLORE MY PUBLICATIONS