H
ave you ever considered how the forces of gentrification and neoliberalism shape not only the physical landscapes of our cities but also the safety and well-being of the women and marginalised communities who inhabit them? Have you considered how these forces are both promoters of women’s safety while simultaneously intruding on other women and marginalised communities?
In this final post, I will delve into this complex interplay between urban revitalization shaped by gentrification and neoliberalism and gender safety. I will explore how cities like Vienna and Glasgow are paving the way for more inclusive urban design, while also uncovering the limitations in their approaches.
This is the final post and thoughts on this thought-provoking book written by Leslie Kern, and I hope the discussion on designing inclusive urban safety becomes not only a topic in the social sciences and urban studies realm, but well beyond that, and becomes a permanent consideration of public decision-making.
Gentrification and neoliberalism
If cities and organizations do consider women’s safety, it is usually done within the framework of commercialization and neoliberal policy.
Take, for instance, rape alarms, a safety tool I had never heard of until I began university. Once again, young girls purchase these safety tools to ensure they make it through the night out unharmed.
Kern also indicates how neighbourhoods are often revitalized by incorporating aesthetic measures to promote a safe environment. This process is called gentrification which Kern defines as a ‘whereby working-class, lower-income neighbourhoods are taken over by middle-class households and businesses’ (Kern2019, p.38).
These aesthetic measures often result in removing groups that society associates with crime and disorder, often targeting people of colour, specifically black communities. Moreover, this revitalization consequently leads to higher renting and buying costs. Notably, all these aesthetic measures are often not accompanied by practical improvements, such as making bus stops safer, better lighting streets, and creating more physically accessible spaces for disabled people. Ultimately, to attain safety, women need to purchase it, and often this purchasing power also comes at the expense of other marginalized groups.
As I write this, while watching the Netflix series documentary ‘Sex Education,’ one of the characters, Isaac, who has disabilities and uses a wheelchair, finally snaps at the fact that the lift has stopped working again, causing him to miss his A-Level Mock exam. The school he attends has been transformed into an academy, Cavendish College, almost presented as a utopian alternative, unexpectedly progressive, with various new technological innovations incorporated into learning and even providing a brand-new community room offering meditation.
“If this college can afford sound baths and community harmony bees, it can afford a working lift. I know it’s not glamorous, but it’s really important.”
Accessibility, inclusivity, and safety should be fundamental and not limited to individuals with economic means or those who are able-bodied. More importantly, a welcoming environment should prioritize practical design over mere aesthetic considerations. His statement effectively encapsulates the fundamental flaw in contemporary thinking, where the ‘woke’ culture of revitalization, often accompanied by extravagant features, frequently overlooks the practical elements that would significantly enhance the lives of vulnerable demographics.
As Kern points out, this process of gentrification can benefit women’s safety, but it primarily benefits those who can afford it. Unfortunately, this purchasing ability rarely extends beyond cis able-bodied white middle-class women. Thus, once again, cities are designed with the aim of profiting from already economically vulnerable groups, and the promotion of ‘safe neighbourhoods’ is a performative act of feminism.
Vienna- city of dreams with a feminist vision
What is the solution to this problem? Well, the solution is actually quite simple, even though mainstream (or should we say “malestream”) urbanists have often labelled it as too complex. By complex, they likely mean “womanly,” which has led to a lack of interest and incentive to address it.
The solution is to collect data, data gathered through various means such as questionnaires and surveys among the demographics often overlooked in urban planning: women, people of colour, sexual minorities, and those with varying levels of physical ability.
Vienna, the city, is leading the way in designing urban spaces specifically with women in mind. They’ve initiated surveys to understand the struggles women face in the city and with urban transit. As we discussed in the previous post, women still carry the majority of caring and childcare responsibilities, making their daily commute between home and work a challenge. Vienna’s urban designers have taken this issue seriously, redesigning areas to enhance pedestrian mobility and accessibility, while also improving public transport services. Furthermore, they’ve introduced an innovative housing development that includes houses and apartment buildings with on-site childcare, health services, and easy access to transit. So, creating more accessible urban spaces is not just possible but essential for achieving safety, gender equality, and equity (Kern 2019, pp. 47-49)
Perez also highlights Vienna’s urbanists’ practice of incorporating gender-segregated data into their planning. Such data led to the development of a housing project known as Frauen Werk Stadt. This apartment building is strategically located next to a tram stop, allowing young children to travel to school independently. It also offers services like GPs, pharmacies, and a nearby supermarket, making it easier for individuals to balance work, care, and household responsibilities. Notably, the apartment building’s layout places the kitchen at the centre of the flat, symbolically bringing household duties into the public eye, thereby challenging the ingrained societal structure that has hidden and unacknowledged such work for so long (Perez 2017, pp.44-46)
Similar projects have begun in the UK, although at a slower pace. A prime example is Glasgow, which aspires to be the first feminist city in the UK. In October 2022, Councillor Holly Bruce passed a motion committing the council to implementing an intersectional feminist town planning agenda. Measures include improved street lighting, accessible public toilets, and a more pedestrian-friendly city structure (Euro News 2022). These measures may seem simple, yet they are hailed as revolutionary, perhaps because we live in a world that defaults to a white male perspective that simply overlooks such matters.
However, Kern highlights a crucial aspect that Perez missed in her research on the gender data gap. While measures to ease the juggling of work and care duties are important, they can inadvertently reinforce the idea that such duties are inherently women’s responsibility, further hindering the achievement of gender equality and equity. Moreover, does the gender mainstreaming agenda in city planning truly encompass women who do not fit the white, married, middle-class, white-collar job categories? (Kerin 2019, p.49)
Final thoughts
Kern argues that both neoliberal and Marxist “critical approaches” are limiting in their own ways. The former reinforces corporatism and policing, while the latter often places too much emphasis on economic measures as the solution to all other issues. Kern believes that social movements, particularly those led by women, play a crucial role in redefining public discussions on urban safety. For instance, the Black Lives Matter movement changed the discourse on policing and safety for Black and people of colour communities. In the UK, the Focus E15 Campaign, led by women who faced eviction threats from their council, brought long-term attention to the importance of social housing amid an era of neoliberalism and gentrification that disproportionately affects low-income households, which in the majority are women and people of colour (Kern 2019, pp. 174-175)
As mentioned, the future of the feminist city may not follow a set blueprint. It involves embracing ambiguity, challenging the epistemology that created cities reinforcing gender, race, and class inequalities, and addressing the gender data gap, as mentioned by Perez. This, coupled with Kern’s emphasis on the role of social movements, can revolutionize the design of the feminist city. Cooperation over one-person leadership and community over individualism are the ways to achieve this transformation.
We must also address the root causes that underlie this epistemology: our socialization with gender norms and roles, and the behaviors that perpetuate gender and racial violence and inequalities. Merely implementing safety measures, such as improved lighting and public transportation, won’t address the core issues leading to gender and racial violence. Furthermore, when designing urban spaces with household and childcare duties in mind, we should avoid normalizing these responsibilities as exclusively women’s natural roles, as doing so hinders progress toward gender equality, particularly in terms of workforce participation and wages.
To create a truly inclusive and safe urban space, we must tackle both the internal and external factors that lay the foundation for our cities.
Hi, I’m Dominika, the sole author of this article. I created this space to connect my ideas and express my political and social commentary in the vast digital void. Here, my consciousness speaks through.
