Decision Making and Design of Urban Space

Built environments are said to reflect the values ​​of the societies that built them. However, in industrial and post-industrial civilizations, built environments are often more a manifestation of the specific values of the people who have the power to build them. Jane Dark, a feminist geographer, argued that any settlement is an inscription in the space of social relations in the society that built it; our cities are patriarchies written in stone, brick, glass and concrete. The built environment has a level of permanence and durability that, if done conservatively, can represent ideas that are no longer in line with the values and needs of today's communities.[25]​ The commodification of space can also lead to a built environment that does not recognize, respond to or respect the historical, cultural and social influence of a specific place, which is why buildings play an important role in normalizing or promoting inequality.[26]​ The buildings and infrastructure that define our cities have a direct and significant influence on the way people live their lives and the choices they have. available.[24]​ Cities are designed and planned by architects, urban planners, engineers and legislators, all fields that have historically been dominated by men. Thus, women have lacked representation and participation in the planning of urban space. According to the AIA's Women in Architecture department, in 1958 only 1% of registered architects were women. Registered architects are women.[27] Women in the field continue to face challenges such as having their voices heard, encountering glass ceilings, and being excluded from leadership positions.[27] Social geographer Liz Bondi") argues that simply adding women to the profession does not necessarily mean that patriarchal systems are being challenged. Women in the fields of design and planning can still enforce patriarchal systems, often due to how strongly they are embedded in our professional culture and education.[28] Biases in research conducted by the field are also generated by "citation reliability", where articles are mostly written and influenced by a strict typology of middle-aged white men.[29] Additionally, the inclusion of women in the field and as imagined users of urban environments has also been been disproportionate according to race, social status and sexual orientation.[30]​ Feminist urbanism establishes that cities have been designed based on a generalization of users, a focus on the family nucleus and a neutral design concept.[31]​ Architecture has also been based on the ideal of gender as binary and has supported traditional gender roles that take men as the main users of the city.[32]​ Both concepts are increasingly less representative of the realities of contemporary societies. Major assumptions about behavioral patterns and a focus on planning that takes the typical urban citizen to be a white, heterosexual, able-bodied, middle-income man has produced spaces that ignore the needs of other groups.[33] Women experience the city with physical, economic, and social barriers that are gendered or inappropriate for their unique set of needs. Inés Sánchez de Madariaga argues that recognizing women as urban individuals and understanding the key differences in the way they experience everyday life in cities (compared to men) is an important step in achieving just and equitable urban environments.[34]​.

Theory

Theories of feminist urbanism study the historical causes and impacts of female exclusion from urban environments, urban scholarship, design and decision-making. The theories also present the different ways in which urban environments pose barriers for women to live prosperous, independent and balanced lives, while recognizing the greater opportunities and freedoms that cities can provide for women. The theory of feminist urbanism is derived from the ideals of feminism.

The common ones

It is a theory and socioeconomic movement that opposes capitalist and patriarchal ideals of property and work, in favor of a socialist collaboration between communities to fulfill the responsibilities of domestic work and care. Common goods in the context of feminist urbanism refer to shared spaces and shared resources.[35]​ Urban agriculture, community gardens, daycare centers and shared kitchens are some examples of these types of spaces that allow different forms of cooperation and collaboration in basic daily activities. The theory proposes embracing local culture and resources, rejecting the universalization of space or politics, rather adapting them to the needs of different communities.[36]​ In Evicted, Matthew Desmond shares how communities in struggling neighborhoods in Milwaukee helped each other with payments, errands, and other emergencies, more than communities in wealthier neighborhoods. These exchanges of favors increased the stability of the community members and created a much more supportive and “human” environment. However, Desmond notes that communities that have experienced trauma are less likely to engage in collaborative actions to improve their quality of life. He notes that a community that saw its own pain so clearly had difficulty feeling its potential.[37] Commons theory is often associated with a move away from private property and commodities as they begin to divide and alienate our spaces and our communities. In her book, Re-Enchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Commons, Federici defines the commons as a collective reappropriation and a collective struggle against the ways in which we have been divided” and as a practice of “putting more and more of your life beyond the reach of commodification or extraction.”[38] She argues that living in a world driven by competition and individual prosperity at the expense of others is a recipe for defeat. Capitalism in the context of quality of life, has failed to provide equitable access to resources and has not met the basic needs of many populations, leaving them in vulnerable economic, political and social contexts.[39]​[40]​ Federici argues that The Commons can be a way to oppose capitalism by working together as a way of survival and prosperity.[38]​ This theory, in recent years, has become popular in conversations about climate change, since resources and shared spaces are ways to reduce waste, increase density and promote greener, sustainable, walkable and accessible spaces for all.[41]​.

Accommodation

In the United States, at the end of the century, millions of immigrants living in industrial cities began to move to suburbs that offered better living conditions. After World War II, suburban living flourished, especially among middle-income white families, with the help of Federal Housing Administration loans and VA mortgages that made single-family homes in these outlying areas much more affordable. White flight also played an important role in this movement of whites to the suburbs as black families moved from the South to northern cities. Developers overmarketed the suburbs as affordable prefabricated neighborhoods, perfect for nuclear families, in which men worked and women did the housework. Betty Friedan called this assumption that women do only housework and childcare the mystique. feminine*.[44]​ These housing developments were predominantly car-dependent, far from commercial spaces, economic centers and other services, which increased the difficulty of managing domestic tasks and professional demands. Consequently, this strict separation of housing from job opportunities and services laid the foundation for a more dramatic gender division of labor.[45] Women could not easily access job opportunities, participate in political life, or socialize beyond their immediate environment. Today, suburban housing typologies remain, but they do not adequately respond to the realities of heterogeneous families and contemporary life. Most cities provide more opportunities for women to meet the multiplicity of demands placed on them in terms of access to services over shorter distances than suburbs or rural areas. However, cities are often not built for care work activities and pose multiple barriers to women's mobility, safety, and equitable access to spaces.[46]​ For example, housing in cities can be much more expensive, especially in walkable areas, and public transportation without adequate amenities can prevent families from moving comfortably.[47]​ Additionally, a lack of childcare spaces in offices can prevent men and women from balancing the demands of work and paternity. Many of the solutions to responding to urban problems have been market-based, requiring additional payment to access convenient services such as childcare, safe housing or neighborhood services.[46]​ Additionally, urban departments still struggle to respond to the changing needs of families.[48]​.

Housing in both urban and suburban settings can be made more egalitarian by responding to families' needs for affordable, accessible, sustainable and well-connected services, allowing both men and women to participate equally in shared domestic and professional work.[49] Bringing care work to the forefront of urban design and making services accessible from distance and diverse transport networks can improve the quality of life of urban families and is an important way to promote equal access to resources and opportunities for all genders.[50] Dolores Hayden argued that a new, more inclusive way of designing and thinking about homes, neighborhoods and cities is necessary to support the activities of employed women.[49] To transform housing, Dolores Hayden states that men and women must participate equally in paid and unpaid work, we must eliminate segregation in housing by class, race, age and other factors, minimize unpaid domestic work and waste, and maximize housing options. recreation. social activities and basic needs. In addition to this, housing developments need to apply the theory of the commons to offer collective spaces. Finally, all services must be accessible through well-designed pedestrian networks and complemented by other infrastructure needs, such as shade systems, seating, public toilets, etc.[49]​ In The Grand Domestic Revolution, Dolores Hayden describes multiple projects since the century that have sought to socialize domestic work and foster collaboration in domestic environments.

Decision Making and Design of Urban Space

Built environments are said to reflect the values ​​of the societies that built them. However, in industrial and post-industrial civilizations, built environments are often more a manifestation of the specific values of the people who have the power to build them. Jane Dark, a feminist geographer, argued that any settlement is an inscription in the space of social relations in the society that built it; our cities are patriarchies written in stone, brick, glass and concrete. The built environment has a level of permanence and durability that, if done conservatively, can represent ideas that are no longer in line with the values and needs of today's communities.[25]​ The commodification of space can also lead to a built environment that does not recognize, respond to or respect the historical, cultural and social influence of a specific place, which is why buildings play an important role in normalizing or promoting inequality.[26]​ The buildings and infrastructure that define our cities have a direct and significant influence on the way people live their lives and the choices they have. available.[24]​ Cities are designed and planned by architects, urban planners, engineers and legislators, all fields that have historically been dominated by men. Thus, women have lacked representation and participation in the planning of urban space. According to the AIA's Women in Architecture department, in 1958 only 1% of registered architects were women. Registered architects are women.[27] Women in the field continue to face challenges such as having their voices heard, encountering glass ceilings, and being excluded from leadership positions.[27] Social geographer Liz Bondi") argues that simply adding women to the profession does not necessarily mean that patriarchal systems are being challenged. Women in the fields of design and planning can still enforce patriarchal systems, often due to how strongly they are embedded in our professional culture and education.[28] Biases in research conducted by the field are also generated by "citation reliability", where articles are mostly written and influenced by a strict typology of middle-aged white men.[29] Additionally, the inclusion of women in the field and as imagined users of urban environments has also been been disproportionate according to race, social status and sexual orientation.[30]​ Feminist urbanism establishes that cities have been designed based on a generalization of users, a focus on the family nucleus and a neutral design concept.[31]​ Architecture has also been based on the ideal of gender as binary and has supported traditional gender roles that take men as the main users of the city.[32]​ Both concepts are increasingly less representative of the realities of contemporary societies. Major assumptions about behavioral patterns and a focus on planning that takes the typical urban citizen to be a white, heterosexual, able-bodied, middle-income man has produced spaces that ignore the needs of other groups.[33] Women experience the city with physical, economic, and social barriers that are gendered or inappropriate for their unique set of needs. Inés Sánchez de Madariaga argues that recognizing women as urban individuals and understanding the key differences in the way they experience everyday life in cities (compared to men) is an important step in achieving just and equitable urban environments.[34]​.

Theory

Theories of feminist urbanism study the historical causes and impacts of female exclusion from urban environments, urban scholarship, design and decision-making. The theories also present the different ways in which urban environments pose barriers for women to live prosperous, independent and balanced lives, while recognizing the greater opportunities and freedoms that cities can provide for women. The theory of feminist urbanism is derived from the ideals of feminism.

The common ones

It is a theory and socioeconomic movement that opposes capitalist and patriarchal ideals of property and work, in favor of a socialist collaboration between communities to fulfill the responsibilities of domestic work and care. Common goods in the context of feminist urbanism refer to shared spaces and shared resources.[35]​ Urban agriculture, community gardens, daycare centers and shared kitchens are some examples of these types of spaces that allow different forms of cooperation and collaboration in basic daily activities. The theory proposes embracing local culture and resources, rejecting the universalization of space or politics, rather adapting them to the needs of different communities.[36]​ In Evicted, Matthew Desmond shares how communities in struggling neighborhoods in Milwaukee helped each other with payments, errands, and other emergencies, more than communities in wealthier neighborhoods. These exchanges of favors increased the stability of the community members and created a much more supportive and “human” environment. However, Desmond notes that communities that have experienced trauma are less likely to engage in collaborative actions to improve their quality of life. He notes that a community that saw its own pain so clearly had difficulty feeling its potential.[37] Commons theory is often associated with a move away from private property and commodities as they begin to divide and alienate our spaces and our communities. In her book, Re-Enchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Commons, Federici defines the commons as a collective reappropriation and a collective struggle against the ways in which we have been divided” and as a practice of “putting more and more of your life beyond the reach of commodification or extraction.”[38] She argues that living in a world driven by competition and individual prosperity at the expense of others is a recipe for defeat. Capitalism in the context of quality of life, has failed to provide equitable access to resources and has not met the basic needs of many populations, leaving them in vulnerable economic, political and social contexts.[39]​[40]​ Federici argues that The Commons can be a way to oppose capitalism by working together as a way of survival and prosperity.[38]​ This theory, in recent years, has become popular in conversations about climate change, since resources and shared spaces are ways to reduce waste, increase density and promote greener, sustainable, walkable and accessible spaces for all.[41]​.

Accommodation

In the United States, at the end of the century, millions of immigrants living in industrial cities began to move to suburbs that offered better living conditions. After World War II, suburban living flourished, especially among middle-income white families, with the help of Federal Housing Administration loans and VA mortgages that made single-family homes in these outlying areas much more affordable. White flight also played an important role in this movement of whites to the suburbs as black families moved from the South to northern cities. Developers overmarketed the suburbs as affordable prefabricated neighborhoods, perfect for nuclear families, in which men worked and women did the housework. Betty Friedan called this assumption that women do only housework and childcare the mystique. feminine*.[44]​ These housing developments were predominantly car-dependent, far from commercial spaces, economic centers and other services, which increased the difficulty of managing domestic tasks and professional demands. Consequently, this strict separation of housing from job opportunities and services laid the foundation for a more dramatic gender division of labor.[45] Women could not easily access job opportunities, participate in political life, or socialize beyond their immediate environment. Today, suburban housing typologies remain, but they do not adequately respond to the realities of heterogeneous families and contemporary life. Most cities provide more opportunities for women to meet the multiplicity of demands placed on them in terms of access to services over shorter distances than suburbs or rural areas. However, cities are often not built for care work activities and pose multiple barriers to women's mobility, safety, and equitable access to spaces.[46]​ For example, housing in cities can be much more expensive, especially in walkable areas, and public transportation without adequate amenities can prevent families from moving comfortably.[47]​ Additionally, a lack of childcare spaces in offices can prevent men and women from balancing the demands of work and paternity. Many of the solutions to responding to urban problems have been market-based, requiring additional payment to access convenient services such as childcare, safe housing or neighborhood services.[46]​ Additionally, urban departments still struggle to respond to the changing needs of families.[48]​.

Housing in both urban and suburban settings can be made more egalitarian by responding to families' needs for affordable, accessible, sustainable and well-connected services, allowing both men and women to participate equally in shared domestic and professional work.[49] Bringing care work to the forefront of urban design and making services accessible from distance and diverse transport networks can improve the quality of life of urban families and is an important way to promote equal access to resources and opportunities for all genders.[50] Dolores Hayden argued that a new, more inclusive way of designing and thinking about homes, neighborhoods and cities is necessary to support the activities of employed women.[49] To transform housing, Dolores Hayden states that men and women must participate equally in paid and unpaid work, we must eliminate segregation in housing by class, race, age and other factors, minimize unpaid domestic work and waste, and maximize housing options. recreation. social activities and basic needs. In addition to this, housing developments need to apply the theory of the commons to offer collective spaces. Finally, all services must be accessible through well-designed pedestrian networks and complemented by other infrastructure needs, such as shade systems, seating, public toilets, etc.[49]​ In The Grand Domestic Revolution, Dolores Hayden describes multiple projects since the century that have sought to socialize domestic work and foster collaboration in domestic environments.