The article “What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design, and Human Work” by Dolores Hayden discusses how cities' physical structure and design limits women economically, physically, and socially in society. The article talks about how typical suburban neighborhoods put an emphasis on private property and facilities, such as kitchens or laundry rooms. This article got me thinking about how modern planning practices perpetuate this inequality in urban design and disadvantages society in many aspects. There is an urban planning practice called Euclidian/ single use zoning. Single use zoning separates land use by type, only allowing one type of activity to take place on that plot of land, such as only residential, or only retail. This leads to lower density in cities and contributes to urban sprawl. As depicted in the article in this quote, “The greatest part of the built environment in the United States consists of ‘suburban sprawl’: single-family homes grouped in class-segregated areas, crisscrossed by freeways and served by shopping malls and commercial strip developments.”, most development is done using single use zoning. The article talks about how current urban structure can isolate women from society if they do not have access to forms of transportation. Denser cities where mixed use zoning is used would allow for more resources to be in walking proximity to the home, allowing for less transport needs. Mixed use zoning allows for multiple types of activities to take place on one lot, such as apartments above shops and restaurants, multiple types of shops or business sharing a lot, etc. This would be beneficial in creating a more just city because it could allow for communal facilities, or even facilities that cross private property lines. The article says “Because of residential zoning practices, the typical dwelling will usually be physically removed from any shared community space-no commercial or communal day-care facilities, or laundry facilities, for example, are likely to be part of the dwelling's spatial domain. In many cases these facilities would be illegal if placed across property lines.” Many current zoning practices are outdated, focus on private ownership, and create lower density areas that do not facilitate community interaction.
Hayden, Dolores. 1980. “What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design, and Human Work.” Signs 5(3):170-187.
Hi Mena, I love the topic you chose, and the way you presented your content. When examining the construction of cities through a lens of what is needed for women, disabled individuals, and people living in poverty, the problematic nature of single use zoning is made apparent. The number one issue that arises with single use zoning, as you stated, is the physical removal and separation of people and resources, and relies on the use of private transportation for individuals to access necessary resources. In the United States, public transportation exists to help combat these issues, but the transport options are inaccessible, sparse, and inconvenient.
ReplyDeleteThis poses the question of who these cities are built to serve, and the answer is not the average consumer or resident of these cities.
Single-use zoning is pretty interesting (and makes me think about those articles we talked about in class about "normal" ways to be using spaces). This makes me think a lot about the buildings and spaces we have on campus - like they can only exist as campus buildings. And in the summer, they are ultimately empty and unused. When I went to Germany a few summers ago, my friend's campus had turned (I think) five of their campus buildings into temporary housing for those displaced by the Syrian Civil War. Which I thought was a fantastic use of space, these buildings are generally empty anyway. And the campus was located centrally to the main resources in town (the grocery store, the library, public transportation, etc.). I wonder if this leads into the construct of a just city, thinking of ways to dismantle the normative ways of using buildings and spaces. Being people-first instead of building-first.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post. I’ve noticed that a lot of cities in the US look super similar, and I think a big part of that is due to how prevalent single use zoning is. Neighborhoods and commercial strip developments are almost always next to each other, rather than within, making it difficult to access basic needs if there is no transportation available. Furthermore, people have less incentive to form communities with their neighbors because all they share is where they live. Single use zoning promotes car-centric, consumer-based cities, which is simply not viable for many. Like you said, mixed use zoning would create more tightly knit communities as well as make basic needs more accessible. For example, I’ve known many older people, often disabled, who have trouble traveling to the grocery store, doctor’s office, etc. Because of this, they have other people provide their needs for them, whether those other people be family members, friends, or a hired caretaker. However, some people do not have others to help them and must manage everything themselves. This is where mixed use zoning would be helpful, as it promotes communal living and puts basic needs closer in proximity.
ReplyDeleteMena, I really enjoyed reading your post. I like how you examine the ways in which single-use zoning is limiting women's abilities to thrive in a city and have all of the resources they need close to them. As you mention, the current urban structure has isolated women and is still doing so in many cities around the U.S. today. I appreciate how you propose mixed use zoning as a possible solution to the problem that single-use zoning is causing women in and all people living in cities. I also like that you emphasize the importance of community in cities, since that is ultimately what make cities what they are and serve the purpose they do, which is to connect with people.
ReplyDelete