Plan it Like Lewisham: with Women & Children in Mind

I don’t consider myself a feminist, I don’t see myself as disadvantaged because of my gender, I’m happy I was born a woman for so many different reasons, and I’d never really thought about how the design of the space in which I live could be limiting to me because I’m female.

But my thinking changed abruptly last week following a visit to the park with my daughter.

Did You Know Playgrounds Aren’t Gender Neutral?

My daughter and I were very happily playing together when a group of boys came to the park. The boys watched everything my daughter was doing and had to do it ‘better’ – to them that meant higher, faster, louder, first.

They were just showing off to her, to each other, to anyone who was watching. They didn’t mean any harm. But my daughter quickly lost pleasure in what we were doing and asked to go home.

She was really dejected. She didn’t want to compete for space.

It wasn’t a case of not wanting to share – she shares community space without even thinking about it. But she felt vulnerable because the boys were oblivious to their physicality.

She’s no wallflower and she’s wilful when she feels she needs to be, but in this situation she was losing out to the boys for space and turns on the equipment, and in terms of her access to enjoyment of the park.

So she gave up after one too many physical shoves aside.

She very quickly got over it on the way home - however, the feeling of upset has stayed with me, and led me to think about the space in which we live, and to realising it is often responsible for limiting us.

Why Space and Place is Influenced and Created with Men in Mind

Research has shown me my revelation is nothing new – oh well!

The (very few) women involved in design, architecture, planning and the built environment have been hammering the message home for many years that too much space and place is designed only with men in mind.

Let’s get this clear – I don’t think for a minute that this is a conscious exclusion policy among all men involved in planning. It’s simply a result of the dominance, in terms of number and influence, of able-bodied men in planning, design and construction.

Why wouldn’t such men build things at a certain height, ensure men and women have an equal number of public toilets and create play space for boys and girls to share?

We cannot expect them to be intuitively and naturally sensitive to the vulnerabilities, differences and needs of women, or less able-bodied people, or male and female children.

We Need Understanding Not Necessarily Equality

It’s not even about equality – after all, an equal number of public toilets doesn’t equal equality! Women need more than men even if the public space in question is used by equal numbers of men and women.

And if you don’t know why, it’s because women can’t wee in public as easily as men do and so always head to public toilets rather than trees and hedges - and because women need cubicles which take up more space than a line of urinals.

What’s more, a seemingly gender neutral space like a park can become limiting for girls – as highlighted by my daughter’s experience above, and as evidenced by research from Vienna.

Research into the use of public parks in the Austrian city was conducted between 1996 and 1997, and according to Clare Foran, an associate editor at The Atlantic, it “showed that after the age of nine, the number of girls in public parks dropped off dramatically, while the number of boys held steady. Researchers found that girls were less assertive than boys. If boys and girls would up in competition for park space, the boys were more likely to win out.”

Involve Women & Children in Planning and Placemaking

A 2008 article in the Women section of The Guardian by Viv Groskop entitled Sex and the City chose to examine the work of British women attempting to not only influence town planning, but revolutionise it.

Whilst the article is brilliantly researched and written and taught me a lot, because it’s written by a woman for women I personally think it’s too challenging and confrontational to have a positive influence on the men who need to read it!

The good news is there is a swelling tide of voices urging change in the urban and built environment – change that comes from the perspective of inclusivity.

Research by Dr. Gemma Burgess of Cambridge University, that was presented at the Royal Geography Society's annual conference in 2008, illustrated the fact that despite the introduction in 2007 of gender equality planning regulations, British spaces were still being designed by men with men in mind.

Since then there has been some change - and a lot of research to back up the need for change and even the resultant value in change.

Let’s Look at Lewisham’s Lead

Lewisham in south-east London was cited by Dr. Burgess in her aforementioned research as having made positive progress at least in terms of its thinking about inclusivity and the need to consider the requirements of men, women and children equally.

Dr. Burgess advised the Royal Geography Society's annual conference that Lewisham planners: “asked themselves, 'Where have we decided to build new office blocks?' They realised that where they were located was no good for anyone wanting to combine work and home, so now they are thinking: 'Where can we get mixed development to make it easier for those people?'"

Resultant mixed developments have produced far more functional space that not only enables flexible working, but it enables women to have access to childcare and shopping, banking etc., making life easier.

Placemaking Success is Built on Inclusivity

Placemaking is a bit of a popular buzzword and concept at the moment, but I have every confidence it’s a concept that’s justifiably and finally gaining the traction it deservedly merits.

Placemaking is all about the creation of quality public space – from a pavement to a library, from a new housing development to a park and everything in between and besides – which embraces the participating community at every level.

In practice that can mean involving residents in decisions about changes to the urban environment around them, it can involve direct public engagement, and - at the risk of sounding like someone on the Way Ahead Task Force in W1A - it has to ensure inclusivity. By this I mean the inclusion of the requirements, limitations, desires etc., of everyone who will or may encounter that space.

Quality Research Helping to Map the Future Path for Planners

A brilliant article by Caroline Criado-Perez in CityMetric entitled “What works for men doesn’t work for everyone”: why cities need to start planning with women in mind brings together some of the massive body of evidence that exists that supports the need for change.

Examples of research she cites and examines include:

• How Sweden started clearing pavements and cycle paths of snow before roads to enable the safer and easier passage of women and children
• How, following on from the above cited public park research in Vienna, city officials divided large open areas into smaller semi-enclosed spaces
• How realisation that traditional human scale for buildings, as promoted by Swiss architect Le Corbusier, meant a 6-foot male
• How Sweden (again) transformed public multi-storey car parks into safer places for women with the use of more glass, better lighting and increased patrols
• How Sweden (again) made night travel on public transport safer by allowed lone female passengers to request stops and by drivers only allowing the single passenger off at that time
• And how aforementioned Lewisham “shifted its policy on employment site provision, to provide more local jobs to benefit women and reduce long-distance commuting. (Women tend to make more complex journeys than men as a result of their shouldering the majority of the childcare and household burden)”

There is massive value in all of this research because it is informing everyone – man, woman, child. And it is available to all those directly involved in the creation of space and place.

What’s more, it exists so that those already seeking the best placemaking approach to a project haven’t got to second guess the potential needs of the community that will be served by place.

I’m hopeful this research and the dissemination of it can and will transform the way spaces are created in the future, and pave the way for effective change in the built environment.

There is Quantifiable Commercial Value in Inclusion

And finally, just in case you’re still not convinced that considering the needs, sensitivities, risks and requirements of every woman and child and man using a space, place or service is important, can I end by saying that there is actually commercial value in so doing.

This is evidenced in many ways – for example, Sweden discovered that more women used their public transport once they made it safer for them. This brings more money to the public transport system and even cuts road usage and related emissions etc.

Those who redesigned their car parks to make them safer for women also saw a big uptake in the numbers of female drivers using them – and therefore paying parking charges.

Lewisham has enabled more women to work more easily, and more effectively juggle the lion’s share of the domestic burden they shoulder. This has led to more paid nursery places being taken up, and more direct economic contribution from women within the community.

Of course, there’s far more to the inclusion of all points of view in urban planning than money, but if that’s the lowest level it has to come down to I hope I’ve still managed to prove to you that it’s worth thinking of children and women as well as men when creating space and place.