“what would a non-sexist city be like?”
reflecting on Dolores Hayden's seminal work + current American cities
I recently read Dolores Hayden's "What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like?" and I've found myself wandering through my own city with fresh eyes, wondering how the spaces around me might be reshaped to be more inclusive and supportive of all residents, regardless of gender. Hayden's paper is not just an academic exercise; it's a radical call to reimagine our urban environments as places that genuinely cater to the needs of everyone, particularly women, who have historically been sidelined in urban design.
What would our cities look like if the architects and planners reflected the real diversity of those who inhabit them?
Hayden's critical eye on the patriarchal underpinnings of our urban environments reveals how deeply gender roles have influenced the design of American cities. The architectural blueprint of suburban America was deeply influenced by the notion that "a woman's place is in the home." This was an implicit principle rather than an explicitly stated one in architectural and urban planning, deeply embedded within the conservative, male-dominated design professions. Our suburbs, conceived as sanctuaries from the chaotic urban core, were built on the ideal of the male breadwinner and the homebound wife, a notion that sharply conflicts with the reality of today's diverse and dynamic family structures. This design philosophy not only dictates the separation of residential zones from commercial hubs but also limits accessible third spaces — community centers, parks, cafes — where people can engage in public life regardless of their domestic roles.
Why do these stark differences exist? Much of it boils down to historical development patterns and cultural shifts in how we perceive public and private life. The rise of suburbia in America, heavily subsidized by government policies that favored nuclear families, entrenched a physical and metaphorical distance between home and workplace. These policies not only isolated women within domestic spheres but also perpetuated urban designs that prioritize private automobiles over public spaces and pedestrian-friendly designs.
The stark differences in urban planning between American cities and their European counterparts also stem significantly from the interests of industrial capitalists like Henry Ford, whose visions reshaped the American landscape. The rise of the automobile industry in the early 20th century, spearheaded by figures like Ford, was not merely a technological revolution but a profound transformation in the urban and suburban design. Ford's advocacy for the automobile as a symbol of personal freedom coincided with his business interests in selling more cars, which influenced urban planning to accommodate and even prioritize private vehicle use over public transportation systems. This capitalist drive was synergistically supported by government policies that heavily subsidized highway construction and favored suburban housing developments over the densification of urban centers. The design of residential areas, promoting the ideal of suburban living, was intricately linked to creating a market for automobiles, which isolated women within domestic spheres and reinforced traditional gender roles, as seen in the suburban development models that prioritized male breadwinners and homebound wives.
Now, imagine if American urban planning were influenced more heavily by the gender-inclusive philosophies that Hayden advocates. Suppose suburbs were reimagined with a multitude of accessible third spaces that encourage spontaneous social interactions. Such a design would not only support diverse lifestyles but also foster communal activities that reduce the isolation typical of many American suburban developments.
Historically, projects like the Fiona House in London were revolutionary, specifically designed to support single mothers with incorporated childcare facilities, highlighting early efforts to tailor residential designs to the needs of women. Similarly, in Scandinavia, service houses provided essential services like childcare and communal kitchens directly within residential complexes, challenging the conventional separation of domestic responsibilities and professional life. The Radburn Plan, developed in the 1920s, attempted to segregate cars from residential green spaces, enhancing safety and community interaction, yet it did not fundamentally challenge the gender norms prevailing at the time. It shows early awareness of integrating functional designs that could later support more gender-inclusive environments.
Moreover, economic policies have historically dictated the design of residential areas, promoting suburbs as ideal environments for the nuclear family, which isolated women and reinforced traditional gender roles, as seen in the suburban development models that prioritized male breadwinners and homebound wives. Addressing these entrenched designs, Hayden also points to the Cuban Family Code of 1974 as a policy initiative aimed at redistributing domestic responsibilities, highlighting how changes in policy can directly influence urban design and family dynamics within public and private spaces.
What if the growing cohort of women in architecture and urban planning were to drive a significant rethinking of our urban landscapes? With women now representing over 40% of architecture school graduates, there's an exciting potential for more balanced, inclusive urban planning that genuinely caters to a broader spectrum of the population. These professionals bring fresh perspectives that challenge the status quo, advocating for urban environments that are not only more equitable but also more integrative—blurring the lines between living, working, and socializing spaces.
Hayden’s proposal for a Non-Sexist City involves not just architectural innovation but a radical restructuring of social relations through the design of our living spaces. She envisions communities where housing, work, and supportive services are interwoven to actively support all genders in both public and private life realms. These ideas suggest a model where architects and urban planners could play a crucial role in dismantling longstanding gender norms by designing spaces that redefine our interaction with the urban environment.
Each walk through my city is now a prospect to spot potential — a chance to reimagine spaces not just as they are, but as they could be: more connected, more integrated, and more reflective of the communities they serve. The path to more inclusive city design is undoubtedly complex and challenging, but as Hayden's insights percolate through the new generations of architects and planners, the journey is not just necessary; it's inspiring. As we envision our future cities, we're not just asking who they serve or what they look like — we're dreaming of what they could become.
As young people, how do we challenge these historical patterns? How do we take part in creating environments that don't just serve a single demographic but truly cater to all?
I'll leave you with some historical, modern, and statistical comparisons of American infrastructure and city design that I find consistently startling… (credit to @carsruinedcity on Twitter)
Chicago-Detroit and Paris-Strasbourg are equidistant city pairs. The Paris-Strasbourg route takes less than 2 hours, with 5x as many trains per day. Chicago-Detroit takes 5h 30m, despite covering the same distance.
Maps of Kansas City’s electrified transit, 1926 vs 2024. Yup, that’s right.
If Cincinnati and Stockholm swapped passenger rail networks, to scale. Both cities have metro populations around 2.3 million people.
If Prague and Denver swapped public rail transportation networks, to scale. Both cities have metro populations around 3 million.
From a place to visit to a place to drive through. Looking West on W Broadway, Council Bluffs, Iowa. 1950s vs 2022.
Let’s not just settle for cities as they are. Let’s work towards cities as they should be, for everyone.
Talk soon.
x, Maalvika
so insightful! gonna read the Hayden article :)