Purpose Ontario (Canada) and Victoria (Australia) are internationally recognised for best practice in Multi-Owned Property (MOP) living and law. Yet both jurisdictions struggle with the emerging urbanism associated with condominium MOP. This article aims to advance best practice by gaining insights into key MOP issues and challenges facing policy-makers and communities in Toronto and Melbourne. Design/methodology/approach Differential ways of recognising community in regulating and resolving challenging issues attending MOP urbanism will be examined typologically against public policy and political theory perspectives on community and collaborative approaches to social sustainability. A rich mixed-data analysis is used to develop a typology around three pillars of MOP community governance: harmonious high-rise living, residential-neighbourhood interface, and metropolitan community engagement. The article interrogates Canadian policy and law reform documents engaging Ontarian residents, and Australian disp...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rebecca Leshinsky (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: