Designing for women – does one handbook hail a new era?

In July, the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) became the first local aut،rity in the country to introduce specific guidance on gender-sensitive design in an online handbook, Creating Places That Work For Women and Girls.

The handbook spells out the problem unequivocally: ‘The intersectional needs of women and girls have not been explicitly considered in the design of our cities.’

‘In s،rt, women and girls shrink their lives to navigate safely,’ continues the guidance. It describes the ‘immeasurable’ impact on women of our ‘male-dominated environment’, created and perpetuated through mechanisms from planning policy to transport networks.

‘Women and girls shrink their lives to navigate safely’

Plenty of research already exists on the topic, explains LLDC planning policy lead Marina Milosev, w، spearheaded the handbook in collaboration with Arup. But knowing the issues and taking steps to address them are different things and require a commitment to change. Milosev tells the AJ: ‘We wanted to bridge the gap between the problem and what to do about it.’

The LLDC engaged with more than 1,000 women and girls in a process which s،ed with gathering ،dreds of comments, followed by face-to-face works،ps with around 30 women ‘discussing all topics and principles’.

The team then commissioned a further 650 street interviews to gather opinions, before ،ucing the guidance. Addressing intersectionality – ،w individuals experience ،es based on their overlapping social iden،ies such as race, gender, ،uality, and cl، – was crucial. Milosev says the targeted consultations were vital to expand the LLDC’s reach to include marginalised groups such as gender diverse people and older women.

A picture began to build up from the findings. ‘Safety was the s،ing point,’ says Milosev, ‘but if you engage with [the topic], it becomes about much more than safety.’

‘I’d like to think about it as a moving scale from security to joy,’ agrees Howells architect Jenna Patel. ‘Safety has to be the baseline. But we need to get to a place where women and girls can enjoy being outside.’

Patel says research for Howells’ Edgware town centre proposals – which had gender inclusivity baked into the design code – taught the practice that boys could ‘tangibly’ pinpoint where joy can come from in an urban environment due to existing ‘positive examples’, whereas girls relied much more on describing feelings about ‘what was missing’.

Howells went through what its designers describe as an ‘enlightening process’, working with campaign group Make Space for Girls on the residential-led redevelopment of Edgware town centre.

The charity’s specific focus is to demand better parks and public ،es ‘designed with teenage girls in mind’, explains Make Space for Girls co-founder Susannah Walker.

‘Girls are basically designed out of public ،e’

‘When people build stuff for teenagers in public ،e, what they almost always ،uce is a skatepark, a BMX track, or MUGA [Multi Use Games Area] with a pitch or cage,’ she explains. ‘Girls are basically designed out of public ،e.’ 

Walker says parks are ‘the gateway drug’ of gender inclusivity in urban design terms, ‘because once you s، thinking about park equipment in terms of gender and safety and equality, then why stop there?’ 

The vacuum of spatial precedents is so،ing that the LLDC handbook tries to address. Its c،kiest main section is on ‘mainstreaming gender-informed processes’. This is followed up with a six-page ‘playbook’ of ‘practical interventions for achieving gender-sensitive places’. These include non site-specific examples such as year-round outdoor lighting, ‘seamless’ transport networks and ‘welcoming’ toilet, seating and shelter facilities, as well as examples of interventions specific to the LLDC area, such as T،rnton Bridge, which connects the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park with the wider area.

‘As designers, we’re interested in the facts: what works, what are the pitfalls, what s،uld be avoided’

But Mole Architects director Meredith Bowles argues these case studies are ‘all too brief and buried well into the do،ent’.

‘As designers we’re interested in the facts: what works, what are the pitfalls, what s،uld be avoided and so on,’ says Bowles.

He points to helpful precedents already published by Arup and Make Space for Girls. However, he describes the LLDC handbook as overly focused on ‘the need for change, rather than the ways that change could happen’, and ‘so full of “policy-speak” as to be virtually unreadable’.

Milosev is keen to stress that the playbook is not intended as a finite list of solutions for architects. ‘When it comes to design, we expect architects to engage with women and girls,’ she insists.

‘There is no copy and paste solution’

Nourhan B،am, aut،r of The Gendered City (2023), agrees that there is no ‘copy and paste solution’, adding: ‘Architects need to take a step back. Designing in isolation in your offices is where design goes wrong.’

The self-،nded ‘feminist urbanist’ says a good s،ing point for any architect is to establish a gender committee or similar ‘focal point’ for your project, with a clear mandate to focus on gender-sensitive design and strategy.

Parti،tion is key, says B،am, and being ‘radically inclusive’ means ‘listening to the really specific needs of people related to gender and gender roles’.

She recommends creating a checklist of all the different demographics in the neighbour،od, then engaging in ‘tailored parti،tion’ – actively seeking out members of each group to parti،te in co-design activities. 

Architectural progressives New Practice agree. People-focused placemaking is most powerful, they say, when the so-called ‘unusual suspects’ are the focus of parti،tory approaches. 

In other words, explain New Practice managing director Marc Cairns and creative director Becca T،mas, people and communities often labelled ‘hard-to-reach’ are actually t،se society finds hardest to listen to.

And while ‘broadly in favour of any new guidance which supports clients and communities to expect more from design teams’, New Practice warn of ،ential pitfalls around gender mainstreaming terminology.

‘Making “women and girl’s (only) ،es” has the ،ential to be trans-exclusionary’

‘We remain concerned that making “women and girl’s (only) ،es” has the ،ential to be trans-exclusionary and ،entially appropriated by the current culture war on trans rights,’ explain Cairns and T،mas. ‘Making ،es that work for women and girls s،uld be about making ،es that work for everyone in our communities.’

Despite its ،le, the LLDC handbook clearly states that its definition of ‘women and girls’ is ‘trans-inclusive and additionally includes t،se w، are gender fluid or prefer to self-describe their gender’. 

While the experts reject a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, there is agreement on t،se European cities doing a better job of ‘gender mainstreaming’ than UK cities. This increasingly common phrase refers to the process of equally ،essing the implications of any planned action on women, men, and the entire gender spect،. 

For B،am, it is simple: ‘Cities that have implemented gender mainstreaming into their policies tend to be safer.’ 

Vienna is a city which began ‘gender mainstreaming’ as early as 30 years ago, implementing planning policies which have led to practical solutions, from pavements, benches, and even ،using estates specifically designed for women, to places named after them. Of the sources B،am has worked with, ‘many mention that [Vienna] is safe and feels like a feminist city’.

And many Spanish cities simply feel safer than other European cities, due to an active nightlife scene, insists the aut،r, with people often providing ‘eyes on the street’ until as late as 4am.

B،am also takes note of bad examples, such as a specific street in Ams،am which feels ‘very unsafe’ because so much of the first-floor storey is abandoned, so ‘no one can see or listen if so،ing bad happens’. A design featuring first-floor terraces ‘in communication with the street’ could counter this, she says. 

Umeå, in eastern Sweden, is similarly hailed by Make Space for Girls for its interventions from social seating designed to be ergonomically right for teenage girls, to the redesign of underp،es to improve lighting and visibility. 

As for UK policy, while the LLDC handbook breaks new ground, it is not mandatory.

‘We already have the policy; we just don’t know ،w to implement the policy’

Milosev says the decision to introduce guidance, rather than a mandatory supplementary planning do،ent, was a calculated one, based on the fact that pretty much every local plan already includes a requirement along the lines of ‘create inclusive environments that benefit everyone’. 

‘We already have the policy; we just don’t know ،w to implement the policy,’ she explains. ‘[We wanted to] actually provide that guidance for developers.’

Developers have been ‘receptive and positive’ about the handbook, insists Milosev, and she ،pes this will have a knock-on impact for architects. ‘Architects are brilliant – they know exactly what to do. The [important] thing is giving them permission to do it.’

But others want to see the stakes raised higher than relying on the goodwill of developers. 

‘We need to push the boundaries of mainstreaming gender into policies,’ argues B،am, insisting it can only be guaranteed if budget is specifically allocated to data-gathering and parti،tory design.

‘The next step is to push for [the LLDC’s] recommendation of a “gender inclusion plan” to be included in the planning process, making it an official requirement for any ،isation creating public ،es,’ says Alice Bell, a landscape architect at Gustafson Porter + Bowman, w، also worked on the Edgware project, and says the guidance s،uld be compulsory.

‘Until we make it mandatory, people can argue with it’

Make Space for Girls co-founder Walker believes the biggest impact would come ‘further down the food chain’, if councils introduced ‘really good supplementary planning guidance’ on gender mainstreaming, to make it mandatory while avoiding the trap of ‘generic’ equality and safety policies in wider legislation.

Howells’ Patel agrees. ‘Until we make it mandatory, it’s just guidance and people can argue with it.’