This episode dives into cutting-edge research on how urban design influences feelings of safety, particularly for women and gender-diverse individuals. We unpack a systematic review of literature, exploring gender differences in safety perception, the generalisability of findings, and key policy implications for creating truly secure public spaces.

Directly informs the practical design principles of the Feminist Park, emphasizing evidence-based approaches to enhance safety, reduce fear, and promote inclusivity for all users.

Source for Podcast Episode:

• Book/Paper: "Public space and gendered safety perceptions: A systematic review of design interventions and their impacts"

• Author: Pablo Navarrete-Hernandez, Arielle Vetro, Paz Concha
  Intro/Outro Music: big-band-tv-show-logo-164230 Music by Anastasia Chubarova from Pixabay

0:12

Welcome to the Feminist Park podcast.

I'm Kwame.

And I'm Leilani.

It's great to be kicking off this journey with you all today.

Yeah.

We're diving into work that's really closely tied to the vision behind the Feminist Park project, which was founded by Hussain Stuck.

That project's goal is pretty ambitious, isn't it?

0:28

Imagining these truly equitable public spaces, starting with the idea for an intersectional feminist park right here in Berlin.

Exactly.

And this podcast, well, it's kind of an extension of that.

We're going to be digging into the academic research that, you know, supports and informs that kind of vision.

0:46

We'll be taking these dense, sometimes quite academic papers and really pulling out the core and insights.

And looking at them through specific lenses.

Things like environmental justice, intersectionality, anti colonial thought, queer theory.

All the stuff that helps us think critically about space.

1:03

We're actually starting with some background research that Hussein came across early on, and it highlighted something, well, frankly quite jarring that the benefits we think we all get from urban green spaces, you know, parks and squares and thing like physical and mental well-being, they're often deeply gendered.

1:19

Meaning women and also gender diverse people.

They just don't get the same access or experience those benefits in the same way men do.

Right.

Less equitable access, fewer benefits.

It seems almost counterintuitive, doesn't it?

A park is just a park, open to everyone.

1:35

Today, we're tackling something that hits really close to home for everyone.

It's about our freedom to just move around, be in public, exist in the world.

We're talking about the feeling of safety in public spaces.

It's a feeling, right?

But it profoundly shapes our well-being, our access to everything a city offers, even how much we feel like we belong.

1:54

We're going to dive deep into a fascinating academic article.

It's called Building Safer Public Spaces, exploring gender difference in the perception of safety in public space through urban design interventions.

It was published in Landscape and Urban Planning back in 2021 by Noverito Hernandez, Vetro, and Concha.

2:12

And honestly, this isn't just dry theory.

This research throws up some genuinely surprising facts.

It really challenges some common ideas about what actually makes us feel safe out there.

Yeah, it's fascinating because, you know, urban planners and designers have been trying to make spaces safer for ages, right?

But the actual hard evidence, especially causal evidence, showing that this design change causes that feeling of safety that's often been missing.

2:34

It's been hard to pin down.

And crucially, as some researchers pointed out years ago, like Parker in 2016 and Burt is back in 2008, a proper gendered perspective.

It's often have been absent from the mainstream conversation in urban planning.

So this study is really important because it steps right into that gap.

2:50

It gives us concrete causal insights showing direct links between specific design changes and how safe people feel.

It moves us beyond just assuming things are linked towards actually understanding cause and effect, which is, well, a huge step forward.

OK, so our mission today is to really understand what this research tells us about those links.

3:10

Design, safety, perception.

And more than that, what does it all mean for creating public spaces that are genuinely inclusive?

Maybe even thinking about something radical like a feminist park?

What would that actually look like?

How could design help achieve that kind of liberation for everyone?

3:27

Let's unpack this together and see how shaping our environment can shape our freedom.

So let's start right at the beginning.

At the core problem this article tackles.

Why is perceived safety that feeling such a huge deal in public spaces, especially when we look at women's experiences?

It feels fundamental, doesn't it?

3:42

It absolutely is fundamental, and the article really hammers home just how big a deal it is.

It highlights that worrying about your personal safety isn't just, you know, a minor thing.

It's a major constraint.

It actively limits women's access to public space and how they can actually use it.

3:58

Think about it, if you feel unsafe walking through a certain park after dark or even during the day on a particular St. your freedom to choose that route, your choice to be there, it's just gone.

You might avoid it completely.

Take a longer way round.

As Right and I pointed out in 2013, this actually reduces how much public spaces get used to become less vibrant, less shared, less equitable.

4:20

And for women, these worries are often particularly sharp.

It often leads them to change their plans, maybe travel only in certain times, or avoid areas altogether.

Because scholar rude about this way back in 1997.

And this isn't just about feeling nervous.

It actively stops women from getting the real benefits of public space.

4:36

Things like feeling included socially, feeling like you belong in your community, even just the mental health boost you get from being outdoors in shared spaces.

Global Minaki talked about this in 2005, final more recently in 2016.

So basically, feeling unsafe acts like this invisible barrier.

4:51

It limits opportunities, shapes daily life and effects who gets to fully participate in the city.

And it sounds like the way cities have traditionally been planned, maybe without meaning to, often just overlooked these specific gendered experiences.

Like the default person they were designing for wasn't everyone.

5:08

That's a really key point.

And yeah, the research literature definitely recognizes this.

Planning a design have often failed to properly consider how women use public spaces differently and what their experiences are compared to men.

People like Burgess in 2008, Greed in 2005.

5:24

They've really highlighted this.

A classic example is women's trip chaining.

Trip chaining?

What's that exactly?

It's basically linking lots of short trips together.

So think about someone off at a woman who might drop kids at school, go to work, pick up groceries, maybe check on an elderly parent, then head home.

5:40

That's a complex chain of trips, right?

Multiple stops, multiple purposes.

Now compare that to the model that urban and transport planning often used historically.

The sort of male breadwinners daily trajectory which was basically seen as home to work, work to home.

Much simpler.

5:56

OK.

So the infrastructure wasn't really built for those more complex journeys.

Exactly.

The transport systems, the location of amenities, even the street layouts often just didn't support that kind of multi stop travel pattern efficiently or safely.

And as Greed and Johnson noted in 2014, this can impact everything.

6:14

Access to jobs, childcare, social life.

It's a subtle way design can actually reinforce inequality.

OK, so given all that background, the really big question the study tackles is can changing the actual design of these places, the walls, the lighting, the layout, can that actually shift these deep seated feelings of safety, especially for women?

6:33

And crucially, how do we get solid proof?

How do we move past just ideas or stories and get concrete scientific evidence to show what works and what doesn't?

We need data, right?

Yes, exactly.

That's the gap this research really tried to fill.

Its mode of contribution is providing causal empirical evidence.

6:49

That means showing that A directly causes B, not just that they happen together.

And they did this using a method called a randomized control trial and RCT.

RCTs like they use in medicine to test drugs.

Precisely applying that rigorous method to urban design is pretty innovative.

7:05

It lets you isolate the exact impact of one specific change, filtering out all the other noise.

They used photo simulations, which is a clever way to do it without rebuilding streets.

They focused on three common design interventions that often come up One, adding public toilets, 2 getting rid of solid walls that block views, and three, removing graffiti specifically tags those quick signatures.

7:28

OK, so how did they do it with photos?

They ran an image based RCT.

They got 104 people in London back in 2018.

Participants saw pairs of images, first a controlled picture of a pretty standard London streetscape, then a treatment picture of the same streetscape, but with one of those three changes digitally added, like a wall removed or a toilet block added or graffiti cleaned up.

7:49

After seeing each image, people rated how safe they felt.

This careful setup allow the researchers to pinpoint the effect of just that one design change on people's perception of safety.

Really quite neat.

That is clever.

It gets right to the specific impact.

So what was the main finding?

8:05

What's the big headline take away for us and maybe for city planners listening?

The core argument, the really big take away, is that yes, certain design changes do significantly boost perceived safety.

That part's confirmed.

But, and this is absolutely crucial, these impacts are profoundly gendered.

8:22

Gendered, meaning they affect men and women differently.

Exactly.

And not just slightly differently, significantly differently.

What makes women feel safer might not have the same effect on men, or maybe even no measurable effect at all.

And this finding really underlines why we have to bring a gendered perspective into urban design and planning policies.

8:41

It's not optional if you want effective results.

It tells us that A1 size fits all approach to safety design just won't cut it.

It's inefficient and frankly, it's inequitable.

To get the best results from investments and create truly inclusive spaces, we have to understand and design for these different perceptions.

8:57

OK, right.

Let's dig into those specifics then, because the details really matter here, especially if we're thinking about designing for genuine liberation, maybe like in that Feminist Park idea.

So First off, how did these changes perform overall?

Looking at everyone together, men and women combined, What was the general picture?

9:15

OK.

So when they looked at the whole group, the pooled sample, as they called the interventions, taken together did have a positive and statistically significant impact on perceived safety.

So generally, these kinds of changes do make people feel safer.

Yes, the data confirm that on average, people felt safer with these design interventions in place compared to the control images.

9:36

There was a measurable positive effect overall.

OK.

That's good baseline info.

But was there one intervention that stood out?

Did one particular change have the biggest impact for the whole group?

Yes, there was a clear winner for the overall sample.

Removing solid walls, walls that block sight lines, was the only intervention that had a statistically significant and quite strong positive impact on perceived safety for the group as a whole.

10:01

Wow.

OK.

So opening things up, increasing visibility.

Exactly.

This finding gives really strong empirical backing to Jane Jacobs classic eyes on the street idea from way back in 1961.

Her argument was that more visibility, more chances for people to see each other informally, what she called natural surveillance, make spaces feel safer and more alive.

10:23

Solid walls do the opposite, right?

They create hidden spots, isolated corners.

Removing them literally opens up sight lines, increases that potential for natural surveillance.

And this study shows pretty clearly that enhances perceived safety for people generally.

10:39

That's fascinating, A decades old theory getting concrete proof like that.

So what about the other to public toilets and cleaning up graffiti tags?

They didn't move the needle for everyone in the same significant way.

That's right.

For the overall group, while the effect was positive, people tended to feel slightly safer.

10:55

The increase in perceived safety from removing tags or adding public toilets was not statistically significant.

Meaning it could have just been chance.

Essentially, yes.

The data wasn't strong enough to confidently say that these interventions consistently made everyone feel significantly safer.

It doesn't mean they had no effect on anyone, but their impact wasn't broad or strong enough across the whole sample to reach statistical significance.

11:18

It really highlights that we need new ones here.

Not every intervention we might think is good actually has a measurable, universal impact on that feeling of safety.

OK, this is where it gets really interesting, isn't it?

Because the study then specifically breaks it down by gender.

11:34

This feels like where the insights for something like a feminist park might really come from.

What happened when they separated the results for women and men?

Yes, this is absolutely where the gendered perspective becomes critical.

And honestly, the findings here are quite revealing and challenge some common assumptions.

11:51

First, they did an initial check.

They look at how safe men and women felt just looking at the control images, the typical London streetscapes without any changes.

OK, the.

Baseline.

Exactly.

And here's the surprise.

On average, women and men felt equally safe viewing these baseline images.

There was no statistically significant difference between them.

12:09

Wow, really?

So the common idea that women always feel less safe than men in public, that wasn't reflected in this baseline data.

Not in this specific context, looking at these typical streetscapes, no.

It's a really important nuance.

It suggests the difference isn't necessarily this universal baseline gap everywhere.

12:27

However, and this is the crucial part, the picture changes dramatically when you introduce the design interventions.

The study found that the interventions had a clear statistically significant positive impact on perceived safety only for women.

Only for women.

12:43

Yes, for men there was still a slight positive trend, but the increase was much smaller and it wasn't statistically significant.

It could have been random chance.

So the changes work significantly for women, but not really measurably for men.

Precisely, it suggests that while baseline perception might be similar in these particular St. scenes, women are demonstrably more sensitive to these kinds of design improvements.

13:06

Their feeling of safety is more positively impacted by these specific changes.

And this strongly supports those feminist theories that emphasize how safety perception is gendered, how design can address specific anxieties that women might experience more acutely.

It really points to the need for design to target these sensitivities.

13:24

That's a.

Huge finding.

So let's breakdown those 3 interventions again, but this time looking specifically at the impact on women versus men.

Let's start with removing those solid walls.

OK, removing solid walls for women.

This intervention showed a very strong and highly statistically significant increase in perceived safety.

13:43

The effect was large and undeniable in the data.

Really powerful for women then.

Extremely.

It strongly supports that gendered view of eyes on the street.

It suggests women feel significantly less safe in places where they feel isolated, where sight lines are blocked or potential help might not see them, or vice versa.

14:01

Opening things up clearly provides a major boost to their sense of security.

Now.

For men, removing solid walls also had a positive effect on their perceived safety, but like the overall trend for men, it was not statistically significant.

Interesting.

So a positive nudge for men, but a really significant leap for women.

14:19

Exactly.

That difference is stark.

It really shows how features enhancing visibility disproportionately benefit women's perceived safety.

OK, what about the graffiti, specifically the tags you said?

How did clearing those up affect men and women differently?

Right.

Eliminating graffiti tags for women.

14:36

This had a weakly significant positive impact on perceived safety.

Weakly significant so.

Yeah, the statistical evidence was less robust than for removing walls, but it was still there, suggesting an effect.

It lends some support to the broken windows theory from a gendered perspective.

14:53

That theory by Wilson and Kelling from 1982 suggests visible signs of disorder like litter, broken windows, or maybe certain types of graffiti can signal a lack of control and increase fear of crime for women.

Perhaps these tags enhance feelings of unease or vulnerability more acutely, but it's important, and the authors are careful here.

15:12

Perceptions of graffiti very hugely.

They specifically studied togs.

What about large murals or artistic street art?

That might be perceived very differently, right?

Yes, some street art can make a place feel more vibrant, more cared for even.

Exactly.

Research by people like Shove and Bannis or Van der Veen and Van Eyck suggests that well executed street art can be seen positively not as disorder.

15:34

So the type of graffiti really matters now for men.

Interestingly, removing the graffiti tags had a negative but not statistically significant impact on their perceived safety.

Negative.

They felt slightly less safe.

The trend was in that direction, though not statistically significant.

15:51

It's speculative, but maybe men don't associate tags with danger in the same way, or perhaps see their removal as making the space feel more sterile or less authentic.

It's an interesting contrast, anyway.

That is fascinating.

OK, finally the public toilets.

16:07

This one comes up so often in discussions about making cities work better for women.

What did the study find here regarding perceived safety?

This is probably the most surprising finding of the three, given the focus on toilets for women's access.

The study found no significant impact on perceived safety for either gender from simply adding public toilets to the scene.

16:25

No significant impact at all for women either.

Not on perceived safety, no.

The data just didn't show a measurable increase in how safe people felt when a toilet block was added to the image, regardless of gender.

Now, let's be really clear.

This absolutely does not mean public toilets aren't important.

16:42

They are fundamentally crucial for women's actual mobility and ability to use public space.

Biological needs.

Caregiving roles.

Women often need access to facilities more frequently or urgently, and as we discussed, they often make longer, more complex journeys.

16:58

Greed, Falcon and Gorel, many others have shown this.

You simply can't participate fully in public life without them.

Right, they're essential for practical access.

Exactly.

But what this study suggests is that their mere presence in a picture didn't automatically make women feel safer in that environment.

17:14

It implies that other factors might be more dominant for perceived safety.

Or maybe it's not just having a toilet, but the design of it is well lit, clean, visible, maintained.

Is it located near activity or tucked away in a dark corner?

So a dodgy looking toilet block might actually make you feel less safe.

17:31

Precisely.

A poorly designed or maintained facility could easily detract from safety perception, so it's a crucial distinction essential for mobility and access.

Yes, automatically boosting perceived safety just by existing?

Apparently not, according to this study.

17:46

Depends how they're done.

That difference between access and perceived safety is really key.

So it begs the question, why these gender differences?

Why are women in this study at least more sensitive to removing walls or tags, even if their baseline feeling was similar?

What explains that?

The study discusses 2 main ideas from the literature.

18:03

The first is the vulnerability hypothesis.

This basically argues that women experience higher rates of certain types of victimization in public spaces, particularly things like street harassment, sexual harassment, and assault.

Witsman, Payne.

Many others have documented this unfortunate reality.

18:21

So this real or perceived high vulnerability leads to a greater sensitivity to environmental cues that might signal risk.

Design changes that reduce that perceived risk, like opening up sight lines, removing signs of neglect, would therefore logically have a bigger impact on women's feeling of safety because they're addressing these very real, deeply felt concern.

18:41

OK, that makes intuitive sense.

What's the other hypothesis?

The other one is the emotional gender stereotypes hypothesis.

This idea suggests that society socializes men and women differently regarding fear.

Men are often taught to suppress fear, to project strength, maybe believe their physical ability protects them, leading them to downplay risks.

18:59

Tullick wrote about this back in 2000.

Women, on the other hand, might be socialized to be more aware of risks, more cautious, perhaps more permitted to express fear.

So 1 is about actual vulnerability, the other about socialized emotional responses.

Kind of.

But the study's findings, especially the strong effect of removing walls for women and the weaker but still present effect of removing graffiti, seemed to learn more towards supporting the vulnerability hypothesis.

19:26

The results suggest these design changes are resonating because they address tangible aspects of the environment that relate to women's real or perceived vulnerability in public space.

It feels less about just expressing emotion differently and more about responding to design cues that genuinely impact their assessment of risk.

19:44

Right now, the study itself, like all good research, points out its own limitations.

These seem really important if we're thinking about applying these ideas broadly or about that feminist park concept.

What caveats did the authors mention?

Yes, they were very upfront about this, which is great.

They emphasize that their findings come from a convenient sample.

20:02

Remember, it was people on a London University campus St. in the summer of 2018.

So mostly students, younger adults in a relatively well off area.

Likely, yes.

That demographic isn't representative of everyone in London, let alone people in different cities or countries with different cultures and contexts.

20:19

So we can't just assume these exact results would hold true for, say, older women in a different neighborhood or women in a complete different city.

It's not a universal blueprint.

Exactly.

The authors are clear.

While the effects they found are probably real, the magnitude or even the specifics might vary significantly across different groups and places.

20:39

And this brings us to a really critical point.

The category women itself isn't monolithic, is it?

Kimberly Crenshaw's work on intersectionality from decades ago really highlighted this.

Our identities are layered.

The study acknowledges this directly.

They say future research absolutely needs to take an intersectional perspective.

20:57

We need to understand how these perceptions might differ for women of different ethnicities.

Do experiences of racism or feeling like an outsider impact perceive safety in ways to interact with design?

Researchers like Demon and Chicato or Sandburg and Ron Blum have looked into this.

Older women, their physical mobility maybe fear of falling could make different design elements crucial caregivers.

21:19

Often women juggling kids are dependents.

Their safety concerns include the people they're with making things like safe crossings or accessible play areas vital, and women with disabilities.

How do physical barriers, accessibility issues, or perhaps heightened vulnerability intersect with design and safety?

21:36

Whitman and Gargulo have explored this.

Right.

So many layers beyond just gender.

Absolutely.

Each group might experience public space and perceive safety uniquely based on these intersecting identities.

This study is a vital piece of the puzzle, but it remind us that designing for women needs to embrace this complexity and one other key limitation they mentioned.

21:56

The study used photo simulations visuals only.

Right.

Real life involves more than just sight.

Totally sound, traffic, noise, shouting, silence, smell, pollution, food decay, temperature, even the feel of the pavement under foot.

All these sensory inputs shape our experience and perception of a space in reality.

22:16

The photos are a great controlled way to isolate visual factors, and the authors argue it likely gives a conservative estimate.

If it shows up visually, it's probably even stronger in real life, but still it doesn't capture that full sensory picture.

That's another area for future research.

OK, so bearing all that richness, the specific findings, the gender differences, the crucial limitations and intersectional points, what does this all mean for something like the Feminist Park?

22:41

How does this research actually inform the vision of creating spaces designed for liberation?

How do we translate this into practice?

This research provides really valuable evidence based foundations for designing something like a feminist park.

It helps move it from just a concept to something grounded in what we know actually impacts women's experience.

22:59

First, it directly informs design principles.

The huge impact of removing solid walls for women that tells a feminist park design team.

Prioritize open sight lines, eliminate blind spots.

Think really carefully about landscaping and structures to maximize natural surveillance, permeability, transparency.

23:17

These become key goals.

And the finding on graffiti.

Even though weaker, it suggests that a sense of care, order, and prompt maintenance addressing things like tags quickly contributes to that feeling of safety for women.

So a feminist park would likely emphasize meticulous upkeep, maybe community stewardship to maintain that sense of being cared for.

23:35

It's a practical design, guidelines drawn straight from the data.

Exactly.

Second, it powerfully validates the necessity and mission of such a space.

The fact that these interventions significantly boosted perceived safety specifically for women, even when the baseline feeling was similar, That's a powerful argument for why we need spaces intentionally designed with women's experiences front and center.

23:58

It shows the gender attentive planning isn't just about fairness and theory, it's a practical way to close real perception gaps and ensure women can equally enjoy public life.

A feminist park isn't just symbolic, it's a direct evidence based response to needs highlighted by this kind of research.

24:13

It gives it real justification.

It does.

Third, it highlights challenges and nuances we need to grapple with.

That public toilet finding is a perfect example.

It tells us that for a feminist park, just sticking in some toilet blocks isn't enough for perceived safety.

Yes, they're essential for access, but their design matters hugely for safety perception.

24:34

We need to think about their location, visible near activity, their lighting, maintenance, maybe even staffing.

The UN Women report mentioned making them better situated and maintained to prevent harassment.

It forces a more sophisticated approach than just ticking a box.

Right, the quality and integration is key.

24:50

Absolutely.

And finally, critically, the study's own limitations push us towards emphasizing intersectional design for a feminist park.

By acknowledging it couldn't cover all women's experiences, it reminds us that a truly liberating space must think beyond binary gender.

25:06

It has to consider older women, women with disabilities, women of color, queer women caregivers.

It means designing for universal accessibility, diverse cultural needs, different ways people move and use space.

It pushes the feminist park concept to be deeply inclusive, aiming for liberation for all women in all their diversity.

25:25

So after this really deep dive into the research, what stands out most to you?

This study offers concrete tools moving beyond just guessing.

What makes people feel safe?

What's the big practical take away for, say, city leaders or planners who genuinely want to make their cities more inclusive?

I think the most powerful thing is the potential for proactive evidence based design.

25:44

It poses the question, how do cities stop relying on guesswork or old habits and start using actual David to guide safety interventions?

The photo simulation technique itself is fascinating.

Imagine planners using similar methods as a low cost way to test design options before they build.

26:01

Like mocking up different St. designs and getting feedback.

Exactly.

Testing different lighting types, bench placements, pathway materials, and crucially, gathering gender disaggregated data, maybe even data across other demographic lines to see how different groups respond to the prototypes.

26:17

It allows for testing, refining, iterating before spending millions on construction.

It means investments are much more likely to be effective and equitable because they're based on understanding how they'll actually be perceived on the ground.

It's about designing with diverse communities using evidence, not just designing for them based on assumptions.

26:35

It feels like a much smarter, more responsive way to shape our cities.

But thinking beyond just the feeling of safety itself, are there wider benefits to getting this right?

Does designing for perceived safety have other positive ripple effects for the city?

Oh absolutely.

The article touches on this too.

26:51

When public spaces feel safe and inviting, people use them more intensively.

And that active use can be a real economic driver.

Think about it, more people enjoying parks and squares, boost local recreation, maybe attracts tourism, increases foot traffic for nearby shops and cafes, Well used safe spaces can even increase surrounding property values, as CAB noted back in 2004.

27:14

So investing in safety, particularly for women who might otherwise avoid certain areas, isn't just social good, it's potentially good for the local economy too.

Exactly.

It's not an either.

Creating vibrant, active, safe spaces benefits everyone socially and economically.

When people feel comfortable and secure, they participate more fully in the life of the city.

27:32

They support local businesses.

They contribute to a sense of community.

It creates a positive cycle.

Conversation really drives home how deeply our built environment is tangled up with our sense of freedom, our sense of belonging.

It's not just concrete and steel.

It's shaping our experience of life.

27:48

And if we know that thoughtful, gender attentive planning backed by research like this can demonstrably help women feel more confident and less fearful in public spaces, as Levy suggested, it makes you wonder, doesn't it, what other invisible barriers are baked into our current city designs?

28:04

Barriers affecting people based on age, ability, race, income, sexuality.

And if we could dismantle those barriers through conscious design, what would it truly feel like to be in a public space where you felt completely liberated, completely unconstrained by the design around you?

Where the environment itself actively supported your presence, your joy, your right to just be there?

28:24

It's a powerful thing to aim for, isn't it?

Thank you for joining us on this deep dive.

We really hope exploring this research has given you a fresh way to look at the streets, parks, and squares you move through every day.

Maybe it's sparked some thoughts about how we can all push for more thoughtful, more inclusive design in our own communities, helping build cities where everyone truly feels they belong.

28:44

Until next time, keep exploring, keep questioning, and keep demanding more from our shared spaces.

This knowledge is a tool really, a tool for seeing your city differently and potentially for helping to change it.

It's been a really insightful deep dive.

I think this document provides such a vital framework, especially for projects like the Feminist Park Project that are trying to build something fundamentally different.

29:05

It shows just how interlinked urban design and social justice are.

It really does, but it also shows the scale of the challenge right?

It requires sustained effort, real commitment and a genuine willingness to shift power dynamics in how cities get made and managed.

Definitely.

29:21

It makes you think about how we ensure those voices, the ones that have been excluded, are actually heard and centered.

There's another quote from Sarah Ahmed in the Handbook that feels relevant here.

Go on, she says.

If you have to shout to be heard, you are heard as shouting.

29:39

That's powerful.

It makes you ponder, doesn't it?

How can the design of public space itself work differently?

How can it amplify the voices of those who've been historically silenced, ensuring their needs are met without them having to shout just to be noticed?

How can design itself listen?

That's a really provocative thought to end on a.

29:56

Lot to think about.

Indeed, thanks for joining us for this deep dive.