PurposeOntario (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/approachDifferential 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 dispute case law from Victoria to explore and showcase critical management, residential, and policy issues facing MOP communities in Toronto and Melbourne. FindingsThe article proposes a theory-building typology for formally recognising and reproducing 'community' as an affective performance across MOP governance contexts: cosmopolitan, civic-citizen, and neighbourly. These ideal types account for differential community affects that may determine alternative dispute resolution remedies, address neighbourhood and metropolitan NIMBY-ism in urban consolidation, and bridge the critical policy and civic gap regarding limited but aspirational knowledge about MOP vertical-tenured community characteristics in and beyond (case) law and land-use planning. Research limitations/implicationsStrong cross-jurisdictional MOP community lessons exist as other cities follow the legal and governance structures of Toronto and Melbourne despite differing architecture and contingencies. This ar
↧