A feminist perspective on the design of the built environment

1

A Feminist Perspective on the Design of the Built Environment: A Canadian Context Amanda Demers McGill University

2 Introduction According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a “concept” is defined as: a general idea or notion, a universal; a mental representation of the essential or typical properties of something, considered without regard to the particular properties of any specific instance or example. In regards to the field of urban planning, a concept helps professionals tackle various issues by organizing their activities in a certain fashion. Concepts evolve over time due to their use and misuse by various key actors in varying contexts. One particular concept that has gained traction in the more recent history of urban studies is a feminist perspective on urban design. Urban scholars have begun looking at this issue critically as of the 1980’s, starting with the ideas of Hayden (1980) to redesign suburban communities to facilitate an easier familial and work balance for women. This concept has been further developed

by Wekerle (1984), who contests that women could move to pre-existing urban centers to achieve this same balance.

As of more recent decades, urban feminist scholars, such as Kern (2010), have shifted the narrative of designing with women’s needs in mind from supporting a family-work balance to the accommodation of single, professional women in urban space. Gentrification has been a negative result of more recent efforts to design cities with women in mind, as modern day urban revitalization plans have targeted middle to upper-class women and have excluded the needs and price ranges of lower-class women. I will be drawing on the analyses of Women in Cities International, a Montreal-based organization, and those of Taylor (2009) to think more critically about how to design urban spaces for all women, through a bottom-up, more inclusive fashion that involves modifying pre-existing infrastructure as opposed to commodifying urban space for a select few.

Scholarly Origins Hayden (1980) is one of the original scholars who calls for urban designers to consider the needs of women in their practices. Coming out of a period of mass media, suburbanization, and consumption, many of the original urban feminist scholars have recognized the sexual division of labor that has come to fruition as a result of the intersection of these factors (Hayden, 1980; England, 1993; McDowell, 1999; Bondi, 1998). As the movement towards mass suburbanization took place, in large part to escape urban blight, the privatization of domestic life took off. Mass consumption, as popularized by the influence of mass media and advertising, forced middle-class women to enter the workforce to help support the family’s bills and the ultimate price of living a privatized life (Hayden, 1980). Hayden contends that, “‘a woman's place is in the home’ has been one of the most important principles of architectural design and urban planning in the United States for the last century…however, women have rejected this dogma and entered the paid labor force in larger and larger numbers,” (Hayden, 1980, p. 170). Thus, over time, societal expectations of the women’s role have shifted from the management of the domestic, private sphere to managing this sphere in conjunction with joining the public sphere by way of the labor force. Therefore, it would be useful for urban design to adapt alongside societal expectations. Hayden suggests that the only remedy for this situation is, “to develop a new paradigm of the home, the neighborhood, and the city; to begin to describe the

3 physical, social, and economic design of a human settlement that would support, rather than restrict, the activities of employed women and their families,” (Hayden, 1980, p. 171), as she believes the current structure of extremely privatized, suburbanized communities hinders women from successfully being able to balance their newfound dual role. Hayden poses the following important questions, “If architects and urban designers were to recognize all employed women and their families as a constituency for new approaches to planning and design and were to reject all previous assumptions about "woman's place" in the home, what could we do? Is it possible to build non-sexist neighborhoods and design non-sexist cities? What would they be like?” (Hayden, 1980, p. 176). Her response: establish HOMES (Homemakers Organization for a More Egalitarian Society) groups across North America, in which members could elect to live in a semi-private commune with about forty residents in each. Each household is entitled to private bedrooms, but the commune is to be designed as to encourage shared spaces amongst the residents in the kitchen and living areas (Figure 1), largely based off of the Scandinavian model. Communal childcare will be facilitated by employing local residents (through paid labor) to watch the children of the commune whilst one or both parents go to work. Hayden pays special attention to the importance of fair pay, as she denounces the exploitation of underpaid, privatized child caretakers, as this practice largely widens the gap between upper/ middle class and lower-class women (Hayden, 1980, p. 176). Therefore, as according to Hayden, urban designers of this time period should take into consideration less privatized communal homeowner models, which would liberate working women from the physical, social, and economic confinement present in these suburban spaces. Hayden’s article is useful to get the ball rolling in designing spaces with women’s needs in mind, to begin this long overdue conversation in attempts to bring about more inclusivity within the field. In addition, she is mindful of the harmful effects of the often exploited childcare labor, which shows that she is attempting to find a solution to these urban issues without perpetuating, or worsening, class inequalities. However, it is important to be critical of her proposals, as she ultimately neglects to consider the needs of women without children.

4

Figure 1: An example sketch of a HOMES commune layout, showing private and public space.

In accordance with Hayden (1980), Wekerle (1984) believes that, “as working women’s circumstances have changed, there is a resultant demand for sweeping changes in urban land use and for services to support women’s new roles and responsibilities,” for, “[as] the lives of women have changed radically, the urban environment in which they live has not,” (Wekerle, 1984, p. 11). They both put forth the notion that, “women are still primarily responsible for childcare and housework even when they are also engaged in full-time employment outside the home,” (Wekerle, 1984, p. 12), as during this time period, the dual-role of motherhood and being a wage-earner was a socially acceptable role for women. However, counter to Hayden’s belief that urban design with women in mind should focus on the restructuring of the domestic, suburban sphere to accommodate women’s childcare needs in a communal way, Wekerle contends that a “women’s place is in the city”. Wekerle also contrasts Hayden’s approach to feminist urban design by way of focusing on the needs of lower-class, head-of-the-family women (as compared to middle class women with bread-winning husbands). Wekerle focuses on women who are heads of their families since as of, “March 1977, they numbered 7.7 million, nearly one out of seven families, the highest level ever recorded,” (Wekerle, 1980, p. 11), exemplifying a growing trend of fatherless families during this time period. She notes that one in three of female-headed families are below the poverty line, thus her ultimate focus here is simultaneously on the needs of low-income women. Wekerle contests that women could find living in the city advantageous to their needs, as, “they are dependent for their very survival on a wide network of social services frequently found only in central city areas,” as city-living, “combines the kinds of housing, jobs, and services which they require,” (Wekerle, 1984, p. 11). The overall density and proximity of services that an urban space provides, in

5 contrast to suburban space, is unmatched. As Hayden proposes HOMES as the solution to increased social services in suburban space, Wekerle puts forth that no alterations in urban design need to be made to reconcile this issue for women, as, “women sometimes coordinate their dual responsibilities by altering the geographic locations of home and work,” (Nealson & Seager, 2005, p. 213), and in this particular example, women could alter their geographic location towards urban centers. Even though HOMES provides a solution to social services in the suburbs, suburban living is not conducive to improving other factors in women’s lives, such as commute time. “Women are severely handicapped because urban planning and the location of public services do not take into account working women’s extreme constraints on time…this is exacerbated because women have much less access to cars than men” (Wekerle, 1984, p. 11, 12). Women at this time are expected to transport children (potentially to care services), do the family’s shopping, and commute to work. In tandem with less access to cars, compounded by the focus of study on lowerclass women with limited financial resources, urban living can reduce the issue of time constraints found in suburban women who live less proximately from services, stores, and places of work. Wekerle goes on to propose that more women should get involved in community and in civic engagement measures, so that their demands can be heard and ultimately met within their respective urban space. Wekerle’s piece is useful in the fact that the needs of lower-class of women with families are not ignored, which shows a more inclusive approach to understanding women’s needs in urban design as compared to scholars prior. However, Wekerle still posits that women are predisposed to be family-oriented, and this analyses still excludes women without kids and family and their respective needs.

Modern Interpretations in a Canadian Context Kern (2010) focuses on the gendering of reurbanisation processes, specifically, those of which are currently occurring within the context of downtown Toronto. As according to the 2002 city plans, “Toronto’s future is one of growth, of rebuilding, of reurbanising and of regenerating the City… wherein reurbanisation facilitates the privatisation, commodification, and securitisation of urban space and urban life in the city’s quest for a competitive position in the global urban hierarchy,” (Kern, 2010, p. 364). Kern contends that the primary tactic towards urban revitalization being undertaken in Toronto is condominium development. Thus, Toronto is in the midst of a largescale built form change, in which the development of condominiums in the downtown area has been on the rise over the past few decades (Figure 2). Kern contends that, “gender is a significant dimension of this process, as women make up a high percentage of condominium purchasers, and condominiums are extensively marketed to this demographic group,” in which, “our understandings of gender roles and relations are manipulated and reproduced to promote [these] reurbanisation agendas,” (Kern, 2010, p. 363). Upon interviewing a sample of Toronto’s condominium developers, Kern inquires about their motives and target audiences for their condominium plans.

Overall, she finds that they largely, “[position] home ownership as a source of financial freedom for young women,” (Kern, 2010, p. 369) as well as repeatedly emphasizing women’s need for security, in which the pricey features in their downtown condos are set to “resolve” through 24-hour reception desks and surveillance cameras. “The

6 invocation of these subject positions suggests that there is a particular subset of gendered stereotypes that are purposefully mobilised here – the 30-something, logical, stability-seeking young female professional – in order to both explain and promote the purchase of condominiums by young and/or single women,” (Kern, 2010, p. 370).

Thus, the processes of reurbanisation in downtown Toronto are being executed by urban developers through the built form of condominiums, ultimately guided by the state under a vision of competitive regeneration. However, the plans and the processes are excluding lower-class women. Urban developers, guided by a capitalist system, are commodifying and magnifying women’s desires for safety in a profit-laced scheme. Thus, although Kern focuses on a more inclusive vision for women in the sense that urban design is not about only reconciling family and work life, but considering a professional life too, she also highlights an important pitfall in modern day feminist urban design.

For, city life, “can center on the universal need to engage with others, both friends and strangers… [but] inclusion in public spaces will be limited until those who come to find engagement and friendship also have the opportunity to live nearby,” (Taylor, 2005, p. 29), as currently lower-class women are largely excluded from benefits of living in downtown Toronto by the rising prices of rent. Even though the ultimate vision of urban developers to “provide safety for women” and to revitalize the downtown core sound like positive feats, “it is indeed tricky business to harness private moneys to serve public will… urban designers have an important role to play in defining and realizing the public interest and objectives in these public-private partnerships,” (Taylor, 2005, p. 288). There is an increasing call for action within the field of urban studies for urban planners and developers to take responsibilities in their projects to be socially just and inclusive, ultimately beneficial for all.

Figure 2: The amount of condominium units in downtown Toronto: as of 2000 (left); as of 2015 (right).

Women in Cities International (WICI), a Montreal-based organization, conducted a survey in 2014 based on an analysis of semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, non-participatory observations, and exploratory walks with a sample of residents from the Montreal neighborhood of Parc-Extension to determine, “the specific needs of women and girls in terms of prevention and reduction of violence,” (Desroches, 2014, p. 6) in this neighborhood.

Right away, the approach taken here by WICI contrasts to the previous scholars, as WICI is conducting an analysis in line with a feminist perspective of the design of the built environment by way of directly interviewing a sample of

7 women to gain explicit knowledge of their needs of the urban space. Therefore, WICI is taking a bottom-up approach to designing cities for women, unphased by the potential motives of various private and public sector actors and avoiding making presumptions about women’s desires. Similar to Toronto, but on a much smaller scale, Parc-Extension is also going through the processes of gentrification featuring the built form increase of condominiums. Despite this, participants reveal that they feel less safe in Parc-Extension than the rest of Montreal and more than half the female residents mentioned that the fact of being a woman affects their safety (Desroches, 2014, p. 10). Before Parc-Extension decides to push forward with condominium building and the commodification of safety, we need to look critically at what women really want out of their city. By surveying the participants, WICI found that women participants generally agree that, “avoiding going out after sunset is absolutely normal,” and that ultimately there’s a need for intervention to rectify these perceived safety issues in their urban environment (Desroches, 2014, p. 11). The observations listed by the participants thus far are in line with the earlier sentiments shared of valuing safety in downtown Toronto. Could the urban design of cities be altered with these needs for safety for women in mind? Could pre-existing infrastructure and spaces be changed to become safer, instead of privatizing and commodifying urban space to attain the same goal? WICI found upon surveying its participants that, “visibility is an important factor of insecurity for women in Parc-ex...lighting is poor in many areas of the neighborhood, especially on residential streets, in parks, at metro stations, and back alleys...at sundown, women’s perceptions of safety changes…perceptions of cleanliness and maintenance [also] affect perceptions of safety,” (Desroches, 2014, p. 12). Additionally, women evaluated the overall perception of their urban environment, based on the seven principles for safe planning of public spaces, lower than the men (Figure 3). Overall, from this survey we can see that there are many pre-existing infrastructural changes (better lighting, cleaner environments, more inclusivity) that could help reduce women’s fears and increase a primary desire of feeling safe in a given urban environment. By way of changing infrastructure that already exists across the urban space, we could increase the feeling of safety to all women regardless of class or family-status, without commodifying it for only the upper and middle class women. Therefore, I would argue that WICI has the most inclusive, bottom-up approach to urban design and city planning, compared to previous scholars who have previously made their marks in this field. For, in regards to urban plan and design, “success in our endeavors increasingly depends on the recognition that the essence of designing for urbanism is collaboration, a close intellectual and practical partnership with those who embody local knowledge…” (Taylor, 2009, p. 286). Urban planners and designers need to gather more surveys, knowledge, and information for the residents they are designing for, as opposed to being uncritical of the agendas proposed by the state or other top-down actors.

8

Figure 3: Evaluation of the perceived urban environment by residents of Parc-Extension (1= poor; 10= strong).

Conclusion Ultimately, the concept of designing cities for women has evolved over time through both scholarly literature and practice. Some of the original urban feminist scholars, such as Hayden (1980) and Wekerle (1984) used this concept to advocate for the ultimate need to reconcile home and work spaces to ease the tensions of being a working family woman. These original critiques failed to include the needs of all women (specifically women without families), and their approaches to determining what women need out of urban design were largely assumed and never verified. Kern (2010) is a prime example of the evolution of the concept of designing cities for women, as she analyzes the needs of women without family factors in mind. Although many women agree on valuing safety in their urban space, private sector developers are taking advantage of this need and commodifying it in efforts to maintain a targeted, “desirable� population in the city, as seen in urban revitalization efforts in downtown Toronto.

This alludes to a large pitfall of this concept: gentrification. To avoid excluding certain women from the concept of building urban design for women, we can look to Women in Cities International’s surveys of women of all classes, demographics, and family statuses to deduce that safety is in fact a primary need for women in cities. However, we need to be both critical and cautious in our approaches as city planners to not exclude certain women in the quest for safety. A more ethical approach that urban planners may take to fulfill their roles and responsibilities as privatepublic liaisons towards creating inclusive spaces, as mentioned by Taylor (2009), is to work on reframing preexisting urban infrastructure to create safety for all women, instead of commodifying this feature for only an exclusive few.

9

References Bondi, L. (1998). Gender, Class, and Urban Space: Public and Private Space in Contemporary Urban Landscapes. Urban Geography, 19, 2, 160-185.

Desroches, M. (2014). Where are the Women and Girls? 1-24. Retrieved February 19, 2018, from http://femmesetvilles.org/publication/wici-publication/ England, K. V. L. (1993). Suburban Pink Collar Ghettos: The Spatial Entrapment of Women?. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 83, 2, 225-242.

Hayden, D. (1980). What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design, and Human Work. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 5.

Kern, L. (2010). Gendering reurbanisation: women and new-build gentrification in Toronto. Population, Space and Place, 16, 5, 363-379.

McDowell, L. (1999). Gender, identity, and place: Understanding feminist geographies. Minneapolis:

10 University of Minnesota Press.

Nelson, L., Seager, J., & Wiley InterScience (Online service). (2005). A companion to feminist geography.

Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Taylor, M. J. (2009). Urban design looking forward. In A. Krieger & W. S. Saunders (Eds.), Urban Design (pp. 285-290). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Wekerle, G. R. (1984). A woman's place is in the city. Antipode, 16(3), 11-19.