Transcription 

*Transcipt was generated automatically, its accuracy may vary.

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

OK, so let's unpack this.

Have you ever walked through a public park, you know, a vibrant city square, maybe even just your local St. and sort of wondered, was this really designed for everyone?

Or maybe you felt that that subtle tug of unease, like a feeling that this space wasn't quite yours, not quite welcoming.

1:23

Yeah, that sense that you're maybe on edge or just don't quite belong there.

It's a common feeling, actually.

Exactly.

Well, today we're diving deep into a stack of frankly really compelling research.

Research that doesn't just question but fundamentally challenges our usual ideas about urban planning in public spaces.

1:42

We're exploring how the very fabric of our cities, often, you know, pretty unconsciously, has been shaped by a specific, quite narrow perspective.

And that leaves a lot of people feeling excluded or marginalized, right?

Or worse, actually feeling unsafe.

Profoundly unsafe in some cases.

1:58

And it's a it's striking how deeply embedded these traditional perspectives really are in our landscapes, our cities, our parks.

It's like they're built into the foundations.

Literally.

And we're peeling back the layers here, going way beyond just, you know, aesthetics or basic function.

Right.

Just how pretty it looks.

2:14

No, no.

We're looking at fundamental power structures.

Yeah.

Societal norms, historical biases, and how they show up in the most tangible way possible in physical space.

They concrete in the paths and the benches.

Precisely.

And while our main focus today is on the experiences of women and girls, which is critical, the insights we're going to uncover, they really show how these issues echo across many marginalized groups.

2:40

That makes sense.

It becomes pretty clear that when you actively design for one group's liberation, for their genuine inclusion, you often sort of by extension pave the way for a more equitable, more welcoming environment for, well, for everyone.

And so our mission today, for you listening, is not just to shine a light on these often unseen inequalities, you know, the subtle cues, the overt barriers that shape how we live in cities, but to connect them directly to this powerful, really transformative vision, the concept of a feminist park.

3:11

What would a public space that's truly designed for liberation, for genuine universal belonging?

What would that actually look like?

It's a fascinating question.

It really is, and to guide us we'll be exploring some ground breaking work by Arian Pereira and Amelia Malcada Rebillo from 2024.

3:28

A very recent study.

Yes, very current and we're pairing that with extensive research underpinning the Eyes on the Park guidance that's for the Safer Parks Consortium published in 2023.

Right.

And that guidance itself draws really heavily on a crucial University of Leeds study by Barker and colleagues from 2022.

3:47

Exactly.

So these sources, together, they paint this vivid, sometimes challenging, but I think ultimately quite hopeful picture of what our shared spaces could be.

A road map, almost.

Kind of.

So let's start by delving into that critical article by Pereira and Rubella.

Their research directly tackles what they call a significant gap in women's representation and participation in public spaces.

4:08

A gap?

Yeah, that's a good way to put it.

They argue, and I think really convincingly, that traditional urban planning has historically been based on this well, frankly outdated sexual division of Labor.

Right.

Perpetuating stereotypes.

Totally stereotypical gender roles, this rigid idea of public versus private life.

4:28

I mean, think about it, our cities for centuries were mostly planned and designed around this concept of daily life that centered on the male breadwinner.

The linear commute home to work, work to home.

Exactly that linear journey and this perspective, often pushed by, you know, males, civil engineers and architects, it inadvertently created urban spaces that primarily met the needs of what was seen as the traditional family.

4:55

Which often sidelines women's actual lives, their diverse realities.

Absolutely.

It created this profound theoretical and practical gap, effectively pushing women's participation, their real representation in public life, to the margins.

So what did Pereira and Rubella set out to do about that?

5:11

Well, their objectives are pretty ambitious and practical too.

They aim to systematically identify the main characteristics of public spaces, you know what's actually there, Then meticulously analyze the really stark gender differences in how people perceive and actually use those spaces.

5:27

The.

Perception versus reality thing.

Yes, And then, crucially, propose concrete actionable measures for inclusivity, things we can actually do.

Practical steps Good.

And they even go a step further.

They propose creating a dashboard of urban gender indicators like a tangible tool to actually monitor progress and make sure there's accountability in making our cities truly equitable.

5:49

That's fascinating, measuring the change.

Yeah, putting numbers to it.

And if we connect this to the the broader landscape of urban theory, this research really shows how deep this historical bias runs.

How public spaces just consistently fall short of meeting the diverse needs of women is baked in.

6:07

It really is.

And the article champions this this holistic understanding.

It combines sociological insights into gender dynamics with psychological perspectives on how people actually experience their environment.

So not just the physical stuff, but the feelings too.

Exactly.

The invisible feelings of safety, belonging, whether you feel invited into a space or not.

6:26

And what's particularly forward thinking, I think, is how they move beyond just binary gender notions, OK?

They actively bring in what they call post gender discussions, basically challenging those traditional categories and really emphasizing the essential concept of intersectionality.

6:43

Intersectionality.

So important, crucial.

It means understanding that gender roles, expressions of sexuality, how people participate in public life, even feminist activism itself.

None of it is monolithic.

It's all shaped by this rich tapas history of history, culture, religion, specific societal contexts.

7:02

Complex.

It's complex.

And that's not just academic talk.

It's a vital framework if you want to design truly inclusive spaces that acknowledge the multifaceted identities of all users.

Right.

So building on that foundation, then, let's turn to the Eyes on the Park guidance among the Safer Parks Consortium published in 2023.

7:21

A really practical document.

Very practical and rooted in that extensive on the ground research from the university leads the Barker study from 2022 and this guidance, well, it pulls no punches.

It lays out a really stark, quite concerning reality.

7:36

What's the headline finding?

Women and girls are demonstrably less likely to use parks than men and boys.

Simple as that.

And what's even more troubling is this significant drop off rate for girls as they hit adolescence.

Right when physical activity and social connections are so important.

7:52

Exactly.

Critical developmental period.

And this isn't just, you know, a minor preference or a casual observation.

It's identified as a core systemic problem.

Parks, even though they seem open to all, are simply not experienced as universally safe and welcoming by women and girls.

8:08

And that lack of access, that lack of comfort, it has real impacts.

Significant, often unseen impacts on their lives and the research behind this, the Barker study, it's robust, it's revealing.

They did in depth interviews, focus groups, 67 women, 50 teenage girls, 27 professionals across West Yorkshire.

8:25

Wow, quite a simple.

Yeah, and a key finding, one that genuinely startled me was this colossal perception gap.

Get this?

A staggering 89% of the professionals they interviewed they believe parks were safe for women and girls. 89%. 89 Compare that to only 37% to the women surveyed and just 22% of teenage girls who felt the same way. 22% that finding, that's not a gap host, that's a chasm.

8:52

It's huge.

It raises such a critical question, doesn't it, If the very people designing, managing, maintaining these spaces if they operate with such a fundamentally different perception of safety?

How can the spaces ever be truly inclusive?

Exactly how can we possibly expect them to create environments that are genuinely equitable for everyone?

9:11

It points to this this systemic empathy crisis in urban planning, almost.

That's a powerful way to put it.

And the research, it unequivocally identifies misogyny and harassment not as like isolated incidents, but as daily realities, things that profoundly impact women and girls in public spaces.

9:27

So it needs a 2 pronged approach.

Absolutely.

Broader societal change, challenging these behaviors and specific thoughtful park redesigns.

It's not either.

It's an urgent call for both.

OK, So what does the guidance suggest?

Well, to address this, the Eyes on the Park document offers this really practical, actionable framework 10 core principles. 10 principles.

9:47

And they're cleverly organized under three main themes.

First, eyes on the park.

This emphasizes things like busyness, activity deters bad behavior, natural surveillance, and visible well trained staff.

Makes sense people around.

Second theme is awareness.

10:03

This gets into designing for clear visibility, providing multiple escape routes really important, ensuring proper human scaled lighting, not just harsh floodlights and clear intuitive wayfinding so people don't feel.

Lost knowing how to get out quickly if you need to.

Precisely and the third theme is inclusion.

10:20

This champions fostering a real sense of belonging, promoting familiarity, cultivating a positive image for the park, ensuring equitable access for everyone.

And this is key embracing Co.

Production Co Production meaning.

Designing with the community, not just for them, especially with the women and girls who will use the space.

10:38

OK, getting their input right from the start.

Essential.

So when we bring these two powerful research narratives together, Pereira and Rebello in Portugal and Brazil, the Safer Parks Consortium in the UK, despite the different locations.

10:53

The picture is remarkably consistent.

Undeniably, our public spaces are anything but gender neutral, and this deeply impacts who uses them, how they feel when they're there, and what they can ultimately do or experience in those spaces.

It's systemic, woven right into the urban fabric.

11:09

And it demands systemic solutions.

OK, so now let's shift gears slightly.

Let's get into a more granular analysis using that intersectional lens you mentioned earlier.

Yes, absolutely critical.

Because it lets us see beyond just a single experience.

Recognizing that women aren't this monolithic group, their interactions with public spaces are profoundly shaped by how gender mixes with other parts of identity.

11:32

Like race, class, sexuality, age, disability.

Exactly.

All those layers create unique, often vastly different experiences.

And it's in those layered realities that we see the true depth of exclusion, but also maybe the potential for liberation.

11:50

Well said.

Where should we start?

Let's begin with the feminist and gender perspective.

Drawing heavily from Pereira and Rubella's work, they highlight this crucial but often overlooked difference in how men and women typically move around cities.

12:05

The mobility patterns.

Right men's patterns often quite linear, right That direct home to work and back commute, mostly driven by their traditional role in paid work.

The straight line on the map.

Pretty much, yeah.

Women's daily routines, though often much more complex Multi stop journeys.

12:20

They have this great term for it, polygonal mobility.

Polygonal mobility.

I like that describes it well.

Doesn't it?

It's not just longer distances, it's more intense.

Shorter trips, lots of stops linking home with child care, school runs, shopping, maybe caring for elderly relatives mostly within their own neighborhood.

12:36

The 2nd shift mapped onto the city.

Totally.

This polygonal pattern directly reflects those enduring caregiving responsibilities and our public transport, our paths, our parks.

They've largely been designed for that linear journey, implicitly ignoring the constant fragmented needs of people navigating these complex routes.

12:58

So what does that mean for parks specifically?

Well, think about it.

If a park is far from a bus stop, lacks safe direct paths to schools or shops, or doesn't have things for both kids and older people, it becomes an obstacle for someone on that polygonal journey, not a refuge.

13:14

Right, it had stress, not relief.

Exactly, a mother might just skip the park entirely if it adds too much time or perceive risk to her already packed schedule just because the city wasn't designed for her reality.

And the case study in Belem really showed this, didn't it?

It did portal to Amazonia.

They observed men primarily using it for sports courts, open fields, women mostly childcare, supervising kids on playgrounds and accompanying elderly people.

13:38

So the park becomes an extension of domestic duties for women.

Pretty much reinforcing traditional gender roles right there in public space.

It's less about personal leisure or independent activity for them, and they're also understandably more sensitive to practical things like playgrounds, shaded areas, drinking fountains, the health benefits because of those primary caregiving roles.

14:01

And this difference in mobility and role, it leads directly to safety being the absolute top concern for women, doesn't it?

It creates this starkly different reality compared to men's experience.

Hugely different.

The Bulame study found insecurity was the biggest factor.

Almost half the women, 49.3% for not using that park more often.

14:20

But for men lack of free time was the main thing.

Only 35.3%.

That disparity is massive.

It really underscores that pervasive shadow of sexual assault, the general harassment women live with, that constant underlying vigilance that men typically just don't experience in the same way.

14:35

That constant risk assessment.

Exactly, and the Eyes on the Park research, especially the qualitative stuff from Leeds, illustrates this so vividly.

Women and girls routinely doing mental risk assessments, scanning escape routes, checking sight lines, clocking who else is around and what they're doing.

14:52

Things men often don't even think about.

Right.

They express strong dislikes for design elements that create vulnerability.

Hidden corners, thick overgrown bushes, high fences that feel like traps, enclosed spaces like those multi use games areas, MUGAS which often feel male dominated.

15:10

Yeah, I can see that.

And critically, the presence of other women is consistently mentioned as reassuring.

It signals shared experience.

Natural surveillance.

Sense of safety in numbers.

Kind of.

And this fear isn't just about specific incidents.

It's about a broader context where women, gender minority groups, too, face stigma, judgment, harassment just for being in spaces deemed inappropriate for them.

15:31

Like MUGAS or skate parks?

Particularly those, yeah, teenage girls especially, see them as male territories, exclusionary they often and avoid them because of the constant threat or actual reality of harassment.

OK, so that's the problem laid bare.

How do we translate this into actual change into design?

15:48

This is where it gets really inspiring.

I think both sources advocate for designs that actively encourage women's presence and participation, not just passively allow it.

Actively encourage.

Think about Vienna.

They've been doing gender mainstreaming since the 90s.

16:04

Real Trail Blazers.

Their park revamps offer brilliant examples, like they strategically placed hammocks and platforms near paths.

Hammocks.

Yeah, not just decoration, but specifically to encourage teenage girls to linger, socialize, claim space in a way traditional benches often don't allow.

16:22

That's clever, subtle, but effective.

Isn't it?

And they redesigned multi use games areas so they couldn't be dominated by one group, usually boys.

Multiple entrances, flexible use, inviting a broader range of users.

Breaking down that territoriality.

Exactly.

These aren't just minor tweaks, they're deep, thoughtful, gender aware design interventions.

16:40

Designing for inclusion means that multiple visible entrances and exits, never feeling trapped.

Wider paths for strollers, wheelchairs, groups walking together.

Better human scaled lighting, illuminating paths without harsh glares or deep shadows.

Dividing big zones into smaller manageable sub zones, each with a purpose, variety and comfort.

17:00

Places to rest too.

Crucially, abundant areas for rest and lingering shelter from sun or rain and specific games or facilities.

Netball, volleyball courts.

Things known to attract a more diverse crowd beyond the usual male sports.

But it's not just physical design, is it?

17:17

Not at all.

Community empowerment is key.

Measures that genuinely boost women's autonomy, support their economic independence, maybe micro businesses in the park and foster active citizenship.

Getting involved in how the space is run.

Absolutely.

Local community organizations play a vital role here, helping women voice their needs, express concerns, and strengthen their right to participate meaningfully in producing and governing urban space.

17:40

OK, that's a really comprehensive look at the gender lens.

What about moving to a queer theory perspective?

Because public spaces often assume a kind of heteronormativity, right?

They absolutely do, built on deeply heteronormative assumptions, often unspoken, designing for a specific kind of normal.

17:58

So what happens when we bring in queer theory, acknowledging that non normative uses of space or people challenging that design face unique barriers?

Well, Pereira and Rubilo explicitly acknowledge this.

They mentioned violence associated with gender and other intersectional groups, specifically naming ethnic minorities and LGBT plus people.

18:17

Sadly persists in many places.

So it's not abstract, it's a real threat.

A lived reality, public spaces meant for all can become sites of discrimination, aggression, targeted harassment for those whose identities don't fit traditional norm.

Which forces us to broaden our idea of safety, doesn't it?

18:34

Beyond just a male female binary.

Immediately and the Barker research provides compelling qualitative data here.

It highlights that aspects of identity, specifically including LGBTQ plus status, significantly amplify women's existing feelings of unsafety in parks.

So it adds another layer of vulnerability.

18:51

Yes, some participants reported that LGBTQ plus individuals were seen as more likely targets for verbal harassment.

There was this palpable sense that age combined with LGBTQ plus status, made one so vulnerable to harassment, especially after dark.

19:08

Well, not just physical threat, but that fear of being targeted for who you are.

Exactly that pervasive fear of judgement, ostracization, attack.

And it gets even more nuanced when you think about inclusive design solutions.

How so?

Critically, some of the girls in the Barker study expressed legitimate concerns.

19:26

They worried that creating women only areas in parks could end up excluding trans or non binary people.

Right, that's a really important point, a tricky balance.

It is striving for safety for one marginalized group.

You have to be so careful not to create new barriers for others.

It highlights the need for really careful, empathetic, multi layered consideration and inclusive design that genuinely embraces all gender identity.

19:49

So.

What does that look like in practice?

Well, the Safer Parks guidance, while legally using women and girls, explicitly states it recognizes that other marginalized genders are affected by these issues.

And believes the guidance will help them feel safer too.

So it's an acknowledgement.

It's more than that.

I think it points to a broader vision of liberation, one that actively understands and addresses the needs of a diverse spectrum of identities, striving to make public spaces not just physically safe, but truly welcoming and affirming for everyone.

20:20

Which might mean practical things like non gendered restrooms.

Could be or visible signs of LGBTQ plus allyship programming that celebrates diverse communities.

It's about creating that atmosphere of true belonging.

OK, let's shift our gaze again now to a migrant and racial justice lens.

20:37

Pereira and Rebillo's Belen case study sounds particularly relevant here.

It's incredibly stark.

They describe these strong processes of class and racial segregation literally etched into the cities geography.

Historically, the drier, more desirable areas were mostly occupied by a white local elite, while the flood prone, environmentally precarious areas became home to Riverside dwellers, often descendants of enslaved people and recent immigrants.

21:03

Wow, so planning decisions reinforcing segregation?

It's a living example of how urban planning, historically and ongoing, can perpetuate systemic racism and colonial legacies, pushing low income and racialized communities into precarious settlements, often lacking basic infrastructure and services.

21:21

A pattern seen worldwide, unfortunately.

Absolutely.

And these aren't neutral outcomes.

They're direct results of planning decisions, intentional or not, that value some lives and lands over others.

And the Barker study brings us down to personal experiences in UK parks.

It really does, profoundly.

21:36

The qualitative data reveals these deeply personal, often painful experiences.

Muslim participants, for instance, reported a heightened risk of harassment directly due to their religious identity feeling targeted for wearing a headscarf.

That quote was powerful.

A lot of times your religion or what you are wearing points at headscarf that makes me feel feel vulnerable.

21:56

It makes people think they can do something.

It's chilling.

It's not just appearance, it's the symbolic weight making one a visible target.

And other groups too, yes.

Asian women spoke about facing exclusionary racist stereotypes, like assumptions about their English skills, compounding their insecurity.

22:14

Women of color expressed significant discomfort, feeling conspicuous and predominantly white areas.

That fear of shared prejudice.

Exactly.

Fearing harassment where people might share the same views about my ethnicity and my religion.

It's that psychological burden of racialized surveillance.

22:30

And for black girls, there was an added layer with policing.

Acutely painful, a sense of spatial exclusion being perceived as suspicious by police, especially in posh, mostly white areas, one girl said.

If I see a police officer, I'd probably go home then stay in the park.

22:46

Feeling threatened by the very people meant to protect.

Awful.

It's awful, so the solutions have to address this directly.

Both sources point towards fostering familiarity and belonging, creating spaces where people feel safer because they see similar people experience less prejudice.

23:02

So racism itself is a barrier to using parks?

A profound barrier actively excluding people, which means there's an urgent need for visible signs of welcome and diverse representation in park imagery in staff and culturally sensitive representative naming of places that reflects the true diversity of the community.

23:21

OK, let's connect this now to class and socioeconomic perspectives because money, or lack of it obviously shapes access to that portal.

Die Amazonia study seems key again.

It's a stark illustration of how economic inequalities are literally built into the landscape.

23:36

That park is in a region with huge areas of urban poverty and precarious housing.

And the income disparity was significant.

Huge average monthly income for women around $700.00 versus our $945 for men, a 35% gap.

Wow.

And historically, the poorer communities lived in the floodplains.

23:53

Out of necessity, yes.

It gave them proximity to the city Center for work, but it's simultaneously solidified that deep class and racial segregation.

And the park project itself, the rehabilitation, it didn't necessarily help them.

24:09

It was profoundly influenced by property developments nearby.

These developments effectively denied the legitimacy of those traditional Riverside settlements and in doing so made the now highly valued waterfronts inaccessible to many of the original low income residents.

24:25

Classic gentrification.

Urban renewal benefits developers, pushes out locals.

Playing out in real time, it really shows how economic inequalities aren't just abstract numbers.

They're physically encoded into our cities, shaping who gets to benefit from public spaces.

And the lack of varied facilities in that.

24:42

Park exactly lots of sports courts but not enough adequate playgrounds or spaces for the elderly.

This absence disproportionately effects women given their caregiving roles.

Back to that polygonal mobility.

Right, they need spaces that meet multiple needs at once.

Play area, bench for grandma, safe path.

24:59

If the park doesn't offer that, it limits their already constrained time and energy for public life.

And the real estate speculation around the park just makes it worse.

Undeniably, voraciously acquiring land, effectively privatizing public resources, pricing out locals.

But the Eyes on the Park guidance does offer some potential solutions like what it recommends promoting active travel routes, walking, cycling, reducing reliance on costly transport and actively encouraging businesses like food trucks, exercise classes, childcare providers to use the park.

25:31

Diversifying offerings.

Creating opportunities.

Exactly, generating income, micro entrepreneurship possibilities for locals, making spaces more vibrant and economically accessible.

That Toronto example is great.

The pop up market in RV Burgess Park gave immigrant women real business opportunities.

25:47

Addressing economic needs within the park itself?

That's smart.

Very smart.

OK, final lens, Ableism and disability justice.

Pereira and Rubella noted that women often use public spaces while caring for people with disabilities.

A poignant detail, it highlights those often invisible yet immense caregiving roles falling mainly on women.

26:07

And it underscores a double bind.

How so?

If spaces aren't accessible, it creates barriers not just for the person with the disability, but also for their caregiver, who's often a woman.

It severely limits their ability to engage with public life, access services, experience, leisure too.

26:23

An inaccessible park is a barrier for two or more.

Right, it impacts the whole support network.

Which makes us ask, how does physical design or its lack directly impact this group and worsen vulnerabilities Barker ET al.

Provide Incredible, powerful insights here.

26:39

Like what?

Women with physical disabilities felt significantly less able to defend themselves or escape threats due to reduced mobility. 1 participant said starkly she wouldn't be able to reach safety running from people from a bad area.

That constant heightened anxiety dictating where you can go.

26:55

Exactly, and a recurring theme often overlooked but critical from both sources, the lack of good quality, accessible public toilets.

Yes, the toilet issue seems minor, but it's huge.

It's not minor at all.

For many, it's an insurmountable barrier.

27:10

One woman explained she just couldn't use parks for long because she needed a toilet nearby and the existing ones were unreliable or poorly kept.

And this effects so many people.

Disproportionately effects older women, teenage girls, parents with young kids, and of course individuals with various disabilities.

27:28

Make spontaneous or long park visits impossible.

So what are the design solutions?

The Eyes on the Park guidance lists concrete things.

Not just general accessibility but specific facilities.

Wheelchair accessible play equipment that truly integrates kids.

27:44

Regularly spaced benches so older people can rest on walks.

Practical things that make a real difference and they.

Heavily emphasize the need for good quality public toilets, individual, easy to find, clean, safe, as a fundamental signal of welcome and a necessity for extended park use for everyone.

27:59

But it's more than just physical access.

Yes, the research touches on embodied inequality, how feeling different or vulnerable can exclude you.

So for a feminist park, we need to think beyond ramps about the whole sensory environment.

Quiet zones.

Clear signage.

28:16

Exactly.

Quiet zones for sensory sensitivities, clear signage for cognitive disabilities.

Is the whole environment one of welcome and security for people with diverse physical and cognitive needs, ensuring they can participate fully, feel safe, comfortable, truly part of the community?

28:34

Wow.

OK, we've just unpacked an incredible amount of rich, challenging, deeply human centered research.

So what does all this mean for the feminist park?

That concept we're exploring?

It feels profoundly clear that these insights don't just inform our understanding, they powerfully validate the absolute necessity of spaces like that, and they illuminate really clearly the blueprint for how to design them.

28:57

Absolutely.

This research provides an exceptionally robust theoretical and historical context for the feminist park of vision.

It shows it's rooted in genuine societal need.

It's not just a nice idea.

Not at all.

It's a critical, urgent response to centuries of urban planning that often inadvertently perpetuated and solidified gender inequalities.

29:17

The historical overview, especially from Pereira and Rebello, shows planning overwhelmingly reinforced patriarchal norms, designing for a narrow traditional family structure women's lives mostly in the private sphere.

Highlighting the need to actively dismantle those legacies.

29:32

Exactly.

And the findings we've discussed?

They directly inform the core foundational design principles of a feminist park.

What should be prioritized?

OK, what are those key principles?

1st and absolutely non negotiable safety as the foundation.

The overwhelming emphasis on safety for women, girls, all marginalized groups has to be paramount.

29:53

And that means more more than just bright lights.

Much more designing for high visibility, multiple clear escape routes, appropriate human scaled lighting that illuminates without creating scary shadows.

And crucially, it challenges that old patriarchal idea that fear is just a women's problem or an individual's fault.

30:10

Shifting the burden onto systemic issues and design.

Precisely Second, inclusion through radical diversity.

A feminist park has to go beyond vague, open to all slogans.

It needs to explicitly, intentionally welcome and cater to diverse users.

30:26

So swings for kids, seating for adults.

Inviting hammocks for teenage girls.

Fully accessible facilities for people with disabilities.

Visible, unambiguous signs of welcome for racialized and LGBTQ plus communities.

Real diversity and offerings. 3rd principle.

30:43

Actively recognizing and accommodating caregiving roles, putting in those essential amenities, Well maintained safe toilets, ample shade, diverse playgrounds.

Catering directly to that polygonal mobility and the caregiving responsibilities women often handle.

Allowing for genuine rest in leisure.

30:58

Creating opportunities for leisure that isn't invaded by other duties.

Allowing women to truly relax in public space. 4th.

Actively challenging and dismantling male dominance in specific areas.

Like the MUGAS or skate parks?

Exactly.

Learning from Vienna, from Sweden's inclusive skate parks, Consciously designing facilities like MUGAS to prevent single group takeover.

31:20

Multiple access points, flexible scheduling, varied equipment to encourage shared use.

Breaking down that territoriality.

Makes sense.

And the last one.

Finally, symbolic representation is profoundly vital.

Examples like the Women's Square in Juan Pessoa or that powerful Listen Puma statue in Umay, they show the immense power of naming public art memorials to honor and celebrate historically invisible communities.

31:48

Fostering belonging.

Challenging the male default in memory.

Exactly.

It fosters deep belonging and directly challenges that pervasive androcentrism in urban signage and collective memory.

And the research really validates the necessity of this, doesn't it?

It's not just suggesting, it's a good idea.

It screams necessity.

32:04

That perception gap alone 89% of professionals feeling parks are safe versus only 22% of teenage girls.

That tells us current approaches are fundamentally broken.

They're failing.

Utterly failing.

Women and girls aren't just opting out casually, they're actively avoiding spaces, limiting their activity, cutting back social lives.

32:21

Feeling this profound exclusion, A Feminist park confronts these challenges head on, designed specifically to dismantle these barriers.

The issues highlighted in security segregation, lack of infrastructure, systemic bias, these are precisely what a feminist park aims to overcome, shifting the burden of safety from individual women onto the intentional design and management of the space itself.

32:43

And crucially, as you said, designing with women, not just for them.

Absolutely essential Co production the success of projects in Vienna Umiel Herb Barking, Bradford.

It proves that genuine collaboration with diverse women and girls is vital for authentic conclusion, for a real sense of ownership, for spaces that truly reflect users needs and dreams.

33:04

Listening to lived experience building from that wisdom.

Which brings us to that foundational question, Can a park truly achieve liberation if it doesn't fundamentally challenge the broader societal structures creating inequality in the 1st place?

Right.

Can design alone do it?

33:20

The feminist park concept informed by this research wouldn't just be a nice green space, it would be a powerful statement, a living example of urban design as an active tool for social justice, systematically dismantling exclusion, rebuilding with equity, empathy, empowerment at the core.

33:37

A microcosmos of the society we want.

Beautifully put.

So after this really extensive deep dive, what does all this incredibly rich, challenging, but ultimately hopeful information mean for you, our listener?

We've unpacked a huge amount today.

We really have.

33:53

From deep historical biases in planning to those profoundly personal experiences of fear and exclusion, all through that vital intersectional lens, we've seen how design choices, conscious or unconscious, have shaped our cities in ways that too often exclude women and countless others.

34:09

Which really makes us ask again, if public spaces are meant for everyone, why do so many still feel implicitly designed for that default male?

So we invite you, listening, to become an active observer in your own community.

What can you see about the spaces around you?

34:25

Who lingers comfortably?

Who rushes through?

Who avoids certain areas?

Maybe at certain times?

Become urban detectives in a way.

Kind of.

Consider that rule of 10 from the project for Public spaces, suggesting a great place needs at least 10 different overlapping attractions or reasons to be there to appeal to a wide variety of people. 10 things How many does your local park have?

34:48

And crucially, do they genuinely cater to diverse ages, abilities, interests, cultural backgrounds?

And think about that complexity.

Pereira and Rebello found people holding traditional views on gender, nature, but progressive views on roles.

How might you, in your own sphere, challenge those unspoken assumptions about who public spaces are for?

35:07

And this is where it gets really transformative.

I think the sources emphasized that physical changes in parks, better lights, more facilities, they're important, yes.

But they don't fix the root cause.

Exactly.

Which is societal misogyny, harassment, violence.

This isn't just about concrete.

35:23

It's about changing hearts and minds, challenging ingrained attitudes and behaviors.

It's the deeper work.

It is consider the Eyes on the Park guidance again, recommending local authorities ensure gender balance in park staff provide active bystander training for everyone involved with parks.

35:39

Concrete actions.

Things you could potentially advocate for locally.

Remember that guidance is a public resource.

You can access it, read it, share it with local decision makers to spark real change.

Use the knowledge.

Yes.

So next time you visit a park, go beyond just enjoying the green.

35:57

Look closely.

Are there varied seating options beyond path, benches, hammocks, group seating?

Are escape roads clear?

Multiple accessible?

Do facilities cater to teenage girls beyond just skate parks and MUGAS?

Those small observations reveal so much and.

Connecting this to the profound bigger picture, the experiences of women and girls in public spaces, they're like a Canary in the coal mine for broader societal equity.

36:19

A barometer.

A perfect barometer.

When we commit to designing for their liberation, undressing their needs for safety, belonging, diverse use, we aren't just designing for one group.

We inadvertently but powerfully design for the liberation of so many others.

36:36

Children, elderly, disabled people, racialized communities, LGBTQ plus folks.

Everyone benefits.

The journey towards a feminist park isn't just about concrete and greenery.

It's about fundamentally rethinking what a truly just, equitable, inclusive society looks like, starting from the ground up.

36:53

The spaces we share.

It's reimagining, belonging itself.

This deep dive has truly given us such a powerful, multifaceted lens to view our cities.

The idea that a park could be a conscious site of liberation, meticulously designed to counteract centuries of exclusion.

37:08

It's incredibly ambitious, but it feels profoundly necessary.

It really does.

But it starts with listening, right?

Daring to see the unseen challenges and having the courage to imagine and then actually build spaces where everyone, truly everyone, feels safe, welcomed, empowered and fully free to just be.

37:24

And the essential take away here, I think, is that designing for liberation demands we first acknowledge that public space isn't inherently equitable or neutral.

It never has been.

Right, that neutrality is a myth.

It requires intentional, deeply intersectional design and that ongoing, dynamic engagement to dismantle those deeply embedded inequalities.

37:46

And it prompts us all to consider what truly makes the space public, if not all members of the public feel they have an unquestionable right to exist, thrive, and feel safe and welcome within it.

That question.

That question, I think, is where the real work begins.

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

38:07

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.

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

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

38:24

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

Definitely.

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.

38:43

Come on, she says.

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

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?

39:04

How can design itself listen?

That's a really provocative thought to end on.

A lot to think about.

Indeed, thanks for joining us for this deep dive.