The Most Unheard Voices In The City & City Planning
Why is there so few women in our city planning department and why is there so few if any women speaking out about how this city is planned and developed?
We at Scaledown have been aware of this for some time on our own blog, that it is always us males that are posting, we’ve looked and invited women to write and post but with no luck.
All About Cities by Wendy Waters, in a November blog points the way that women living in cities do and are making decisions on where they live and work and how they do both: Women’s decisions shape cities
The choices and experiences of women are shaping 21st century cities–in fact, they also did so in the past, an often-overlooked phenomenon.
From the often-overlooked link above:
The birth control pill turns 50 this week. This technology has arguably been a key ingredient in shaping 21st century North American and European economic and urban life. And yet, I don’t ever recall hearing urban theorists mention it. So here’s the argument for the Pill as a key technology in shaping the new urban geography emerging today.
First, consider the choice to have fewer children. In 1959 women in the US and Canada had on average 3.7 to 3.9 children in their lifetimes. To look after this larger household, one person needed to make this their full-time job and the family needed the space offered in the suburbs. The division of labour in the household and separation of residential from industrial and commercial spaces fit society.
Today, women in Canada have 1.6 children in their lifetime, on average. In the US, although the national average fertility rate is 2.1, among college-educated women the number is closer to that of Canada.
This allows for a different urban development pattern, motivated in part by the choices of working women.
So if the demographics are changing, are our city planners and developers aware of the need of working women with children?
Second, the expanding knowledge economy requires clusters of educated, innovative people. Women earn 55% of bachelor’s and master’s degrees in the US and Canada. Knowledge-based companies (which could be anything from engineering firms to accounting, computer programing, or advertising) need to attract and retain talent. They need women, as well as men, in order to keep their positions filled.
These big, structural changes in society and the economy require changes in the urban environment to accommodate them.
One change that is happening is a shift toward higher-density living closer to employment nodes such as downtowns and town centers. Living in condominiums or (luxury) apartment rentals, are two more visible housing choices that many individuals and families are making in order to balance career and family or in the absence of children other lifestyle choices. There is also stealth density happening in the formerly-single-family neighbourhoods whereby duplexes, triplexes, and extra suites in houses are adding homes closer to employment nodes.
In larger metros (think Toronto, Chicago, etc.), where much of the housing is in the suburbs, and a long commute to downtown, we may see companies specifically locating satellite offices in the suburbs in order to hire the hidden talent pool of educated women who are available while their kids are in school. Rather than being motivated by less expensive real estate prices in certain suburban business parks (as they were in the past), one Toronto-based commercial real estate broker told me that attracting the “9 to 3 labour pool” is motivating some of his clients’ decisions.
If women won’t or can’t come to them downtown, they’ll go to where the women are. Not all women like (or will be able to afford) high-density urban living, but they’re still educated and talented.
I don’t think that it is so much of women asking/demanding but the city not listening or asking them when major developments come to their desk. As an example, Big Boxer employment in the bad lands surrounding Windsor have predominantly female employees with or without families, in most cases to get to those jobs they need a car and daycare, these are huge financial costs for a job at or just above the minimum wage, even for the educated women mention in the blog, driving kilometres to an isolated office park (Rhodes Drive for example) can be stressful.
The Wendy Waters continues:
If women won’t or can’t come to them downtown, they’ll go to where the women are. Not all women like (or will be able to afford) high-density urban living, but they’re still educated and talented.
What I expect to change in the suburbs, in response, is the type of office space in demand. Isolated business parks may not be as attractive as office space in closer proximity to residential areas, perhaps attached to the community shopping centre or in a suburban “town center.”
Certainly, the types of jobs and careers available to the woman who chooses close-to-downtown, or downtown living for her family may be different than those in the suburbs. The suburbs have traditionally offered more service-oriented “back office” type positions that are frequently lower paying. However, this could change.
To some extent these isolated examples (so far) of moves to where the women are go against other urban workplace trends I’m seeing. In particular, some major Canadian corporations have been or are in the process of consolidating their operations into a single downtown location (rather than have offices scattered throughout the metro areas). Or maybe the motivator is the same: going where the people you want to hire live.
The location of job space is perhaps at a cross roads. But it will be women’s choices that shape where new office space will be, as it always has been.
Are developers and urban planners listening to women in this city and in the sub-urban towns that surround Windsor, from the development going on, it doesn’t seem to be the case. That is why we need the women of this city to start writing and participating in this city, since they are about 50% of our city!
I’m hoping that by presenting this blog and the fact that more women are making the decisions on where to live and work, that they would take an interest in their city and its planning decisions, that they will come forward to us a Scaledown to write for us about their concerns and ideas, this city can not afford not hear from fifty per cent of population!
Tags: All About Cities, dowtown, intensification, knowledge economy, Suburbs, urban development, Wendy Waters, women
Post Feedback
Interesting post. This is one of those areas where it might not be entirely reasonable to equate Windsor to other cities.
My sense of the housing choices of professional women in Windsor is that they either choose to live somewhere most convenient to the person with the most arduous commute or they choose to live near their extended families for the benefits of childcare. Unlike cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Chicago and New York, it is my observation that Windsorites are mostly lifers who have large local extended families. In those other cities, professional women (which is what I know), have chosen to live there and do not have the benefit or parents or grandparents willing to help with the chores. Therefore, while those women may choose to live in denser environments with easy public transportation and child care options, in Windsor, women with children choose the suburbs because of proximity to family who do not choose to live in dense environments.
Addiitionally, by comparison to those major centres, no on in WE has a major or arduous commute in any event. It is easier to get to Leamington from Windsor than it is from Markham to Toronto (or vice versa). So the issue of commuting and satellite work environments is not the same.
However, the issue of public transportation is significant and for people in low paying jobs there are serious issues about taking the bus to jobs at night or in areas such as Rhodes Drive, Sandwich or Legacy Park where the service is slow or non-existent.
I agree with what Margaret says. This is a complex question though, and there are more angles to women’s general lack of participation than can reasonably fit into one blog post.
I’ve been speaking up lately about food security issues in our city, and while at first glance this might appear to be somewhat off-topic, to my mind, it speaks to something that often directly affects women more than men.
When it comes to urban planning, as a woman, I am most interested in being able to live somewhere that allows easy walking or bicycle access to farmers markets and nice stores, whether to buy food or other things. It’s also important to me for my children to be able to walk or cycle to their school and to their friends’ houses safely by themselves. Urban planning in Windsor has for the most part not enabled the majority of Windsorites to do this.
Issues like this are generally seen as somewhat secondary to the city’s perceived primary priority of economic development. It’s easy to categorize economic development as a male-dominated domain, and (in feminist circles at least) get caught up in semantic arguments without addressing what’s really going on. If women spoke up more about their urban environment, politicians might realize that liveability issues are much more important to economic development than they seem to realize. Also, if women felt their opinions were taken seriously (and not marginalized as peripheral), they might be encouraged to participate more in the decision-making process. I say “might” because many women are often disappointingly unwilling to change things in the political sphere. I suppose many men are equally lazy on the political front, but because they already have the dominant voice, it’s not as noticeable.
I hope that comes across as constructive. I don’t want to sound as if I’m whining about not being taken seriously - I do believe people have an obligation to speak up on matters they feel strongly about, and sometimes we have to remind those who make the decisions that there are other priorities which are important to a large swathe of the population.