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.

1:04

Have you ever walked into a public park, maybe a schoolyard or, I don't know, even just a community square, and you felt the subtle thing like this unspoken sense of whether you really belonged there?

Not just, you know, physically present, but truly at ease, free to use the whole space.

1:21

Yeah, or maybe you've noticed that some bits feel, well, less welcoming, bit less for you.

Like someone else's comfort was kind of put first.

Exactly.

It's that feeling.

It's something I think a lot of us have felt, maybe without even putting a finger on it.

Public spaces.

They're often sold as these like universally accessible neutral places for everyone.

1:41

Like a blank canvas.

Exactly.

But our actual experiences, they tell a very different story, don't they?

There's this hidden language in urban design, and it rofoundly shapes who feels invited in, who thrives, and who, well, kind of gets pushed to the edges.

1:57

Absolutely.

And that's exactly what we're diving into today, how urban spaces, whether it's intentional design or just, you know, how things ended up, can either exclude people or, and this is the exciting part, liberate them.

Designing for liberation.

I like that.

Yeah, exploring that idea, especially for women and girls, and then seeing how those lessons actually ripple out and benefit basically everyone.

2:18

Our focus is this really fascinating case study from Vienna, Austria.

It's all about gender sensitive park design at Einsigler Park and St.

Johan Park, a project they did back between 1999 and 2001.

And this deep dive, it isn't just about looking back at an old project, right?

2:36

Our mission here is to really understand how Vienna figured out there was this critical problem, this exclusion happening in their parks and how they actually tackled it proactively.

Yeah.

What did they do?

Exactly.

We'll look at the innovative methods they used, really participatory stuff, and then crucially link all these insights to this bigger vision of creating truly inclusive public spaces, what we're calling the Feminist park.

3:00

And when we say Feminist Park, just to be clear, we're not talking about, you know, painting everything pink or just planting more flower.

No, definitely not.

We're talking about spaces design like from the ground up to really challenge those traditional power dynamics, to actively include voices that usually get marginalized and to foster genuine safety, a sense of belonging, and real empowerment for everyone.

3:21

But starting maybe with those often overlooked by standards deep planning.

So by the end of this, you, the listener should have a much deeper sense of how these like subtle design choices can really shape feelings of safety, belonging, empowerment.

3:37

Yeah, and why this stuff isn't just about making things look nice, right?

It's fundamental social justice.

It's about equity.

Exactly.

So let's get into it, OK?

So to really get this vision of a feminist park, we need to understand where these ideas come from, and Vienna gives us this like, really powerful early blueprint.

3:54

It really does.

Our main source today is this detailed report from the city of Vienna itself back in 2001, which documented this whole pioneering initiative.

We're looking at the redesign of two specific public parks.

They're in Vienna's Margaret and 5th District Einsteidler Park and St.

4:11

Johan Park, which I think is now called Bruno Kresge Park.

OK.

And this wasn't just like a a minor touch up.

It was a really proactive, socially conscious urban planning project running from 1999 to 2001, and it was driven by some really compelling findings.

4:29

Yeah, what immediately jumps out is the core problem they identified something they actually called the invisible withdrawal.

Powerful phrase.

Isn't it?

And it wasn't just like a hunch.

Researchers found this really stark reality.

Girls, specifically those aged 10 to 13, were spending way less time in public parks compared to boys the same age.

4:47

Yeah, the official report, it actually says only 1/3 of girls this age visit public parks in comparison to boys one. 3rd that's huge.

That's a 2/3 drop in presence.

And it clearly wasn't because they just, you know, preferred being indoors.

Something was pushing them out.

Precisely this invisible withdrawal.

5:04

It was a clear signal that the parks as they were designed then just weren't working for everyone in the community, right?

The study itself points out that the existing open spaces were mainly used by and this is the reports wording, more or less assertive members of the target group.

5:20

Which sounds like a polite way of saying.

Yeah, a polite but pretty pointed way of saying these parks were basically dominated by boys and young men, and that created an environment that maybe unintentionally, maybe sometimes intentionally, made girls feel unwelcome or even unsafe.

5:36

It's a structural thing, not just kids being kids.

And that connects directly to this really critical insight.

The withdrawal wasn't just about, say, physical access, but it was deeply tied to a lack of subjective safety.

Yeah, it wasn't just the playgrounds didn't have things girls like.

5:54

It was that they simply didn't feel safe or comfortable in the way the parks were set up.

That feeling of unsafety, even if it's not about, like, overt threats but just discomfort, feeling too exposed, feeling watched constantly, it's incredibly powerful in shaping how we use or, you know, retreat from our environment.

6:11

Absolutely.

Imagine being a young girl.

You want to play, maybe hang out with friends, but you're constantly sort of scanning your surroundings, feeling like you're kind of rooting on someone else's turf.

Yeah, that takes all the fun out of it.

It's a massive psychological barrier.

So recognizing this really informed the core argument and the goals of the whole project, and they were commendably clear, Really ambitious goals.

6:34

What?

Were they aiming for then?

Well, the basic idea was, and again this is from the report, to give girls and young women better positions in public spaces and public parks.

OK, better positions.

What does that mean in practice?

It wasn't about like, building walls or creating girls only zones.

6:50

It was about ensuring fair, equitable access and a sense of belonging for a group that have been, you know, implicitly pushed aside.

It was about leveling the playing field, literally.

Gotcha.

So how did they plan to do that?

So a key part was to incorporate specific interests concerning games, sports and other leisure time activities into public park design.

7:12

So not just sticking in a generic Swing set.

Exactly.

It meant really listening to what girls actually wanted to do, how they like to socialize, what kinds of activities appealed to them.

It's about creating like diverse options that support a whole range of play and social styles, rather than this kind of one-size-fits-all approach which often defaults to boys preferences.

7:33

OK.

That makes sense.

And the safety aspect?

Crucial a really key objective was to raise feelings of subjective safety by means of appropriate design elements.

So tackling that feeling head on.

Directly, it acknowledges the design isn't just about the physical stuff, the benches and paths, but about fostering this emotional state of feeling secure, feeling OK.

7:55

And this could involve specific things like making sure there are clear sight lines you can see what's going on, consistent welcoming lighting, not harsh spotlights and greeting different kinds of spaces, space for groups, but also maybe quieter spots for more private interaction but without feeling like totally hidden or isolated.

8:11

Absolutely.

So the big picture goal then was to get get more girls and young women actually using these outdoor spaces.

Yes, and effectively expanding their physical and social scope of action.

I love that phrase from the report.

Scope of action, Yeah, that's good.

What does it imply?

It's about giving them more agency, right?

8:27

More freedom to move, to explore, to play, just to be in public without feeling hemmed in or marginalized or pressured to act a certain way.

And you think about it, when a young person's world expands like that, just because someone rethought a park, the knock on effects on their confidence, their social skills, their whole development, it must be huge.

8:47

Yeah, you can totally see that.

And there was another layer too, beyond the immediate park users.

Another really powerful long term goal was to increase sensibility for gender questions in general and to have intensive professional exchanges during the planning phase.

9:04

So educating the planners themselves.

Exactly.

This lifted the project beyond just redesigning 2 parks, it aimed to embed this gender sensitive thinking into the actual process of urban planning in Vienna, influencing future projects, raising awareness across the whole city government.

9:21

This wasn't just about on Sailor Park and St.

Johan Park, it was about setting a new standard for how they developed urban spaces, making it more inclusive.

That's the really transformative bit, isn't it?

Taking it from a specific problem to a systemic change.

So, OK, how did Vienna actually do this?

9:38

How did they put these ambitious ideas into action?

Well, the implementation process itself was pretty remarkable, especially looking back from now.

It kicked off with this really intensive but focused 3 month planning phase, April to July 1999.

Yeah, quick but intense.

9:55

And it involved this really diverse group 6 consultant planning offices working together with interested park visitors, female planning experts and sociologists.

Wow, that's quite a mix.

Technical expertise, social science and lived experience all in the room.

Exactly.

All focused on this one specific gender challenge.

10:13

And what's maybe even more impressive, and something you don't always see in big city projects, was the level of community engagement.

How deep did they go with that?

The report mentions numerous meetings with residents, affected people in general, a group of active mothers, representatives of schools or kindergartens.

10:30

It sounds like they really went out there.

So definitely not just a top down thing.

Far from it, it seems they deliberately centered the voices of the people who'd actually be using these spaces, especially the girls and women, making sure the design solutions were really grounded in what people needed and wanted.

10:47

And all this consultation apparently LED up to a big one day workshop in July 99 where they hammered out joint goals.

It feels like a really strong example of participatory planning in action.

And there was also that special office involved, right?

Yes, absolutely critical detail.

11:04

The whole project was overseen by the Office for Planning and Housing Construction, methods that take account of women's and everyday needs.

The fact that such an office even existed back then is pretty amazing.

It really is, and it's central guiding role here just underscores Vienna's institutional commitment.

11:21

It wasn't just a nice idea, it was embedded in their structure, making sure these principles were actually applied and had teeth.

OK, so planning, community engagement, expert oversight, what happened next?

Well after that intense planning phase they held a Europe wide design competition.

11:38

To get fresh ideas.

Exactly inject some innovation. 2 planning offices were chosen, Tilia for Einsadler Park and Costa Lica for Saint Johan Park.

They did the detailed design work in 2000 and the actual construction the alterations happened in 2001.

11:54

So a pretty efficient timeline overall from identifying the issue to ribbon cutting.

Yeah, considering the depth of engagement, it seems like they moved effectively the whole process, you know, from spotting the problem, talking to everyone, getting expert input, and then actually building it.

It really showcases this comprehensive, deeply thought out approach to urban design with social justice right at its core.

12:15

OK, now that we've got that solid grounding and what Vienna did, let's really get into our deep dive mission and unpack this using those intersectional lenses we talked about.

Right, because while the project brilliantly started with Girls needs these principles of designing for liberation, they affect so many different groups, don't they?

12:33

Absolutely.

Looking at it through multiple perspectives really helps us see the full implications, especially for this idea of a feminist park.

So let's start where the project started, the feminist and gender perspective.

Makes sense, And what just leaps out immediately is how this whole thing is basically a textbook case of applying A feminist lens directly to city planning.

12:55

How so?

Well, it doesn't just vaguely talk about equality.

It directly confronts, using the report's language again, gender roles, experiences, or inequalities in urban spaces.

By seeing that invisible withdrawal and actively responding to girls specific need, it tackles how urban design, often without meaning to, ends up being gendered.

13:15

It creates spaces that implicitly favor one type of experience, usually male, over others.

And it was so specific about the impact, wasn't it, identifying that measurable negative effect on girls aged 10/13?

Exactly, leading to less time in parks that reduce scope of action.

13:33

And we need to remember, this isn't just about playtime being cut short.

It's about their fundamental right to be in public space.

Their right to move freely, feel safe, explore, develop social skills, physical confidence.

All these things happen in public spaces.

When young girls pull back from those spaces, they miss out on really vital opportunities for growth and just, you know, being themselves in the world.

13:55

So by redesigning the spaces to specifically cater to girls interests and safety needs, what norms were they challenging?

They were actively challenging those unspoken patriarchal norms that have historically shaped so much urban design.

You know, the assumption of the public space is primarily for a loud, active, often male users and everyone else just has to fit in around that.

14:16

And the way they did it, involving that all female group comprised of planners and one sociologist to specifically monitor and analyze the gender aspects, that's huge.

Yeah.

Tell me more about that group.

Why was that significant?

It wasn't just about having women present on a committee, it was about empowering A dedicated group of female experts to oversee the gender specific elements, ensuring that women's perspectives and expertise were central to the analysis and the solutions.

14:45

It centered their experience in a way that's often missing.

And this feminist lens, it led to actual physical design changes, right?

Things you could see and touch.

Absolutely tangible elements aimed at empowerment, like introducing those small structured common areas which can be used by several groups at the same time, and the multifunctional play areas.

15:05

How did those help girls specifically?

Well, they directly addressed the needs identified in the research.

These weren't just random additions.

They were designed to motivate girls to be more physically active, maybe, but also to engage in different kinds of play and socializing.

It breaks down that old idea that certain types of, say, vigorous play are just for boys.

15:24

It offered more options.

And what about the quieter spaces?

Ah yes, the places for secluded retreat.

From a gender perspective, this was incredibly insightful.

Why?

Because it acknowledges a really basic truth.

Not everyone wants to be in the middle of the action all the time.

15:41

Girls particularly might appreciate spaces for quieter activities, maybe just talking with friends or even just observing without feeling totally exposed or vulnerable.

It respects different comfort level.

Exactly.

It directly tackles those feelings of unsafety or discomfort that can lead to that withdrawal.

15:59

It's a subtle design choice, but profoundly empowering because it offers control over 1's level of engagement and visibility.

And the sports areas you mentioned, something about those being gender neutral?

Yes, the gender neutral ball game activity field.

This was an accidental naming.

16:16

It was explicitly designed to break down those traditional, often a rigid, gendered ideas about certain sports.

Like footballs for boys, netballs for girls, that kind of thing.

Precisely that kind of thing.

It's a direct challenge, creating a space where everyone feels equally invited to play whatever ball game they want.

16:33

It's active design for inclusion, not just hoping it happens.

It sends a clear message this space is for all kids, regardless of gender stereotypes around sports.

OK, and the final feminist take away.

It has to be the institutionalizing of this thinking, the existence and the active role of that special office for planning and housing construction methods that take account of women's and everyday needs.

16:57

Right, the system change again.

Yeah, it shows a systemic long term commitment.

It wasn't just a single project that ended, it was embedding these principles into policy, aiming for a continuous citywide improvement towards equity in public spaces.

That's a massive win from a feminist perspective.

17:12

Building on that foundation, let's try looking through a queer theory lens now.

You said the Vienna Report doesn't explicitly mention LGBTQIA plus experiences.

No, it doesn't.

Not in the sections we've focused on, anyway.

OK.

But the projects success in, like you said, expanding their scope of action for girls, How does that implicitly challenge the kind of heteronormative assumptions that often underpin urban design?

17:37

It's a really good question, and this is where that ripple effect becomes clear.

See Mainstream urban design, often without even thinking about it, caters to a very specific traditional user profile.

Like who?

Think you know the nuclear family outing?

Very binary ideas about how boys play versus how girls play.

17:53

Maybe even assumptions about what kind of public displays of affection are normal or acceptable spaces might be implicitly designed for loud, active play for boys or quiet, passive observation for girls, reinforcing those stereotypes.

When you consciously break that mold, like Vienna did for girls by introducing diverse play options, retreat spaces, multifunctional areas, you inherently create spaces that are potentially more welcoming to a much wider specter of identities and ways of being.

18:22

Including people whose gender identity or sexual orientation doesn't fit those traditional boxes.

Exactly, by making space for one group that was marginalized by the default design start to crack open the door for others who also don't fit that narrow norm.

So enhancing safety for girls might also mean enhancing safety for queer people.

18:41

I think that's a very reasonable inference that focus on feelings of subjective safety achieve through things like visibility in main avenues, constant all over lighting, and transparent design.

Those elements inherently benefit anyone who might feel vulnerable in public spaces, and unfortunately LGBTQIA plus people often face harassment or discrimination just for being themselves in public.

19:05

So a park that feels safer for a young girl because it minimizes hiding spots, maximizes sight lines, feels open and well lit, is almost certainly going to feel safer for a queer teenager or a trans person, or a non binary adult too.

OK I see that connection.

What about how spaces are used?

Could these design choices support like non normative?

19:23

Potentially, yes.

Think about those places for secluded retreats, again alongside the open areas.

These could subtly support uses or expressions of self that maybe require a bit more privacy or a less exposed setting.

Like what?

Well, maybe a quiet conversation between friends.

19:40

We're figuring things out.

Or just a space to be without feeling like you're constantly on display.

Not all public interaction needs to be loud or central.

For someone navigating their identity, having a quiet corner, a less scrutinized space, can be really valuable.

And even that gender neutral activity field, while focused on girls and boys, suddenly moves beyond rigid binary expectations.

20:02

It creates a more inclusive vibe for anyone who doesn't conform to gender stereotypes and how they play or move, affirming that their way of being active is also valid here.

It creates a kind of psychological permission slip you belong here to.

It's about creating more options, isn't it?

A richer menu of ways to comfortably exist in public.

20:18

OK, let's shift the lens again to the migrant and racial justice perspective.

Vienna, as the report notes, is incredibly diverse people from 184 different nationalities.

Yeah, huge diversity, significant populations from Serbia, Germany, Turkey, Poland, Romania mentioned specifically.

20:36

So while the article doesn't explicitly connect the park design to, say, racialized experiences, what can we infer?

How could these principles address disparities faced by migrant or racialized communities?

I think what's profoundly relevant here is the principle of designing for a specific marginalized group, in this case girls.

20:56

That whole process is highly transferable.

How so?

If you can identify a group, whether it's based on gender, ethnicity, migration status, whatever that is underrepresented space feels unsafe or is implicitly excluded, and then you intentionally designed to address those specific needs, that model works.

21:14

It's about recognizing difference isn't a problem to be ignored, but a reality to be designed for.

Right, because assuming a typical user often just means assuming the majority cultures norms.

Exactly.

And many migrant communities, for instance, might have different cultural norms around using public space, different traditions of play, different ways families interact in public.

21:33

A design process sensitive to gender needs, like Vienna's opens the door to be more sensitive to cultural needs too, if you apply the same listening process.

And that inclusive community engagement part seems crucial here.

Absolutely huge.

Remember those numerous meetings with residents affected people in general.

21:51

In a city as diverse as Vienna, that approach would have, almost by definition, engaged various migrant and racialized communities.

If done properly.

If done properly, yes, But that participatory model itself is vital for ensuring that the specific needs, concerns, and cultural practices of these communities are actually heard and incorporated.

22:11

It's how you avoid that systemic exclusion that often happens when decisions are made far away from the people affected.

Can you give an example?

Sure, imagine designing a park for a community where, say, intergenerational gatherings are really central to social life.

But you only put in swings in a skate park.

22:29

You've missed the need for comfortable seating for elders to watch kids, maybe shaded areas for families to share food, spaces that support their way of using public space.

Listening prevents those kinds of misses, OK?

And connecting this to the bigger picture, access to green space itself.

22:44

Yeah, equitable access to good quality green space is a massive social justice issue, and it often intersects with racial justice.

Ensuring public parks are truly welcoming and safe for all residents, regardless of their background or origin directly fights potential disparities because often migrant and racialized communities might live in neighborhoods with fewer or lower quality parks.

23:06

Or they might feel less welcome insisting parks due to subtle social cues, maybe language barriers, or design choices that don't reflect their needs.

So a project like Vienna's, aiming for universal comfort and safety, makes a real step towards fixing that inequality.

23:22

It helps foster a sense of belonging, of civic identity for everyone.

It says this green space is for you too.

Making sure public infrastructure benefits everyone, not just certain groups.

OK let's look through the class and socio economic lens now.

Again inferring connections.

23:39

The report mentions Vienna is a big city with a shortage of open areas.

What's the significance of public parks in that context, especially for people with less money?

Well, in dense cities, public parks become absolutely vital communal resources, don't they?

Especially for residents in lower socioeconomic brackets who maybe don't have private gardens, backyards or the money for private gyms or sports clubs.

23:59

They're essential, not optional extras.

Exactly.

So when these crucial public spaces are designed poorly, or feel unsafe, or implicitly exclude certain groups, it hits lower income communities hardest.

It basically denies them access to essential resources for health, well-being, play and social connection.

24:19

It deepens existing class inequalities.

So a well designed inclusive park becomes a tool for equity.

Absolutely.

It ensures that everyone, regardless of their income, has access to quality green space that supports health and builds community.

The report also said the redesign enriched the particular district and residents experiences.

24:38

How does that play out socio economically?

That enrichment of public amenities likely has a disproportionately positive effect on communities that rely heavily on public resources.

It directly improves quality of life.

It offers safe, engaging places for healthy activities, for kids to play, for neighbors to connect things that might otherwise be unavailable or unaffordable.

24:58

In areas with maybe crowded housing and few private amenities, a great public park becomes an even more critical asset.

It directly impacts the daily lives and opportunities of working class families and individuals.

And how was this funded?

Does that tell us anything?

Yeah, the funding structure was interesting, it said.

25:14

Structural measures like basic repairs maybe we're covered by the local districts budget, but the specific gender specific measures were financed by Vienna's central budget.

What does that split suggest?

It highlights a significant public investment specifically aimed at social benefit.

25:31

It shows commitment from both the local district and the central city government.

It underscores that the city saw this not just as routine maintenance, but as a valuable investment in the well-being and equitable access of his residence, particularly those who rely most on public services.

25:48

It signals that public green spaces are seen as fundamental social infrastructure worth investing in for everyone's benefit.

OK, final lens ableism and disability justice.

The project's main focus was girls, but the report also mentioned aiming to increase safety for elderly people and parents with little children.

26:06

How do the design changes connect to Universal Design and Disability Access?

What's really cool here is how solutions designed for one group often end up benefiting many others, aligning beautifully with universal design principles.

Like what?

Well, many of the things done to make the park feel safer and more comfortable for girls and older people directly help people with various disabilities, for example, that focus on clear arrangement and lighting of paths.

26:31

How does that help?

Clear paths and good lighting are absolutely crucial for people with visual impairments to navigate safely.

They're also vital for people with mobility challenges, ensuring routes are easy to follow and free of obstacles.

It's not just about feeling safe from prime, it's about basic usability and dignity.

26:49

And the transparency aspect.

Yeah, constant all over lighting and transparent design.

That improves navigability for sure, but it also reduces perceived barriers for someone with maybe sensory sensitivities or certain cognitive disabilities.

A confusing, dark or visually cluttered space can be really disorienting or anxiety inducing.

27:09

A clear, well lit, transparent design makes the park feel more predictable, easier to process mentally.

It lowers stress and makes it more accessible for a much wider range of neurological profiles.

It tackles both psychological and physical barriers at once.

27:25

What about the different types of spaces?

The multifunctional areas.

Also highly relevant, those diverse and adaptable spaces, the multifunctional zones in the small structured areas, can better accommodate different physical abilities and needs.

Not everyone can or wants to use a big open sports field, right?

27:42

But having smaller, perhaps quieter areas or zones adaptable for different activities allows for varied levels of engagement.

It means more people, including those with physical, developmental or sensory disabilities, can find a comfortable and engaging way to actually use the park, whether it's for quiet reflection, gentle movement or just social connection, without being forced into activities that don't suit their abilities or needs.

28:04

OK, so this whole deep dive into Vienna, it feels like it provides such a solid real world foundation for this concept of the feminist park, doesn't it?

It absolutely does.

It's not just a theory anymore.

Vienna showed it works and it gives us really tangible evidence to point to.

28:20

What's the most compelling piece of validation for you?

For me, it's the stark empirical evidence it provides for exclusion.

Vienna's project just unequivocally show that public spaces often aren't neutral.

They get designed, consciously or not, in ways that push certain groups out, in their case particularly girls.

28:38

Right, that invisible withdrawal.

Exactly that finding only 1/3 of girls aged 1013 using the parks compared to boys.

It validates the whole premise.

It shows why intentional, inclusive design isn't just a nice to have, it's an absolute necessity.

28:54

It gives us the why for a feminist park, backed by data showing the real impact of supposedly neutral design.

And they didn't just identify the problem, they showed they could fix it, right?

The quantifiable impact The project proved that specific design changes could genuinely offer a wider scope for action for girls, could motivate them to spend more time in the park and, crucially, could significantly boost their subjective safety.

29:17

So it makes a real difference.

It shows that feminist parks can achieve tangible positive results.

It moves beyond just good intentions to demonstrating measurable improvements in people's lives and experiences.

It's a powerful real world case study we can learn so much from.

29:34

How does it inform the actual design principles for a future feminist park?

Well, it really underscores that successful design has to go way beyond just how things look, the aesthetics.

It has to fundamentally focus on fostering those feelings of subjective safety.

And how do you design for a feeling?

29:50

Through very practical things.

Proper lighting, Warm, consistent, clear sight lines, No hidden scary corners, Transparent layouts.

These aren't just buzzwords, they're actionable design specs that directly affect how safe and comfortable you feel.

They build trust and encourage people to actually stay and use the space.

30:08

And the variety of spaces seems key to.

Absolutely the idea of diversity of spaces.

Feminist park shouldn't be monolithic, just one big field or one type of playground.

It needs to consciously include a mix.

Yes, open areas for groups, but also those places for secluded retreat.

30:23

Why is that mix so important?

Because it caters to the reality that people have diverse needs.

Needs for privacy, quiet time, intimate chats, different kinds of social interaction.

It acknowledges people use public space in many ways and have different comfort levels with being visible.

30:39

It's about offering choice and respecting individual ways of being.

What about the play areas?

Vienna's success with those small, structured common areas usable by several groups, and especially that gender neutral ball game activity field really informs the goals.

30:56

It shows the value of versatile, inclusive recreation that actively challenges gender norms in play.

So everyone feels invited to join in.

Yes.

It fosters this sense that any activities open to you, regardless of your gender.

It promotes boundless possibilities, which is so important for kids.

31:12

And the process they use, the community engagement.

That deeply collaborative planning process, the numerous meetings involving residents, affected people and significantly, a group of active mothers, that underscores a core principle for the feminist park participatory design.

31:28

Meaning the park has to genuinely reflect the needs and desires of its diverse users, not just what planners or architects think people need.

That Co creation where the community has a real seat at the table from the beginning is absolutely essential if the design is going to be truly liberating.

31:46

Looking back, Vienna feels quite ahead of its time, starting this in 1999.

Totally.

It serves as this pioneering, almost prophetic historical precedent for gender sensitive urban planning.

It predates a lot of the current buzz around it.

It's a concrete, real world example of how a city government can take the lead in making public spaces more equitable.

32:08

And it offers a blueprint, right?

They talk about rolling it out across all districts.

Yeah.

That ambition to ensure that each of the 23 city districts has a redesigned gender sensitive park shows a commitment to scaling up, moving beyond just pilot projects to real systemic change.

That's a huge inspiration for the feminist park concept becoming more widespread.

32:26

And that special office they have?

Yes, the Office for Planning and Housing Construction methods that take account of women's and everyday needs.

Its existence in his role offer a structural model.

How do you embed feminist urban planning principles right into the city's bureaucracy?

32:44

They showed one way.

So it's not just project by project, but a sustained effort.

Exactly.

That's the kind of systemic, foundational change that the broader vision of feminist parks really aims for.

But it wasn't all smooth sailing, was it?

The report mentioned Challenge No.

And it's important to acknowledge those the case study is quite candid, that much sensitization work was necessary and that political support was important to convince parts of the municipal authorities of this woman specific issue.

33:12

What does that tell?

Us It's a crucial reminder that creating these equitable spaces involves overcoming resistance.

It means challenging long held assumptions, probably navigating some bureaucracy, and needing continuous advocacy and education to get by in political will is key.

33:27

It's not automatic.

It's often a struggle.

And just copying Vienna's design elements isn't enough.

Right.

The article wisely warns that while design ideas are easily transferable, the actual concrete planning for specific locations does require participation by experts specialized in this subject.

33:46

Meaning context matters.

Hugely A feminist part.

Can't be a cookie cutter solution.

The core principles apply everywhere, yes, but how you implement them has to be carefully tailored.

You need local expertise and deep community collaboration to make sure it genuinely fits the unique needs and cultural context of that specific place.

34:06

It's nuanced, not copy paste.

Did the report mention anything beyond just the physical design?

Yes, and this is really interesting to talk about the need for ongoing support, it said.

Regular pedagogic care will enable them girls to take their space with confidence and establish new social rules in their parks.

34:23

Pedagogic care like programming or staff?

It suggests that, yeah, that the physical design, while crucial, might not be enough on its own.

A truly liberating space might also need social programming, community activities, maybe mentorship, ongoing support to help actually shift the culture of how the space is used and shared.

34:40

So it's holistic design plus social support.

Exactly.

The physical space creates the possibility, but sometimes you need social support to help those new, more equitable dynamics really take root and flourish.

Wow, this has been such a rich exploration for me.

34:57

What really stands out is just how powerful intentional, thoughtful design can be, especially when it's driven by this clear social justice goal.

It's not just about making things look better, it's about actively changing social dynamics, making people feel like they belong and genuinely, like we said, designing for liberation.

35:15

It's a profound lesson, isn't it?

How the world we build around us shapes our lives, our interactions, our sense of self.

And Vienna's example started with that specific problem of girls withdrawal and evolving into this broader model.

It really makes you think.

Yeah, it raises that big question, if public parks can be so thoughtfully redesigned with this gender sensitive, really human centered lens, where else can we apply these principles?

35:39

Right.

What other spaces need this kind of thinking?

Think about it.

Beyond parks, where are the unseen spaces in our own towns and cities?

Schoolyards.

Public squares, community centers, libraries, even maybe the digital spaces we spend time in.

35:56

Online spaces too.

How could we take Vienna's lessons that focus on subjective safety, listening to diverse needs, expanding everyone's scope of action, and apply them to those often overlooked areas?

What happens if we start asking not just is this functional or is it efficient, but who is this really for?

36:14

Who might be feeling excluded here, even subtly, and how can we redesign it to empower everyone?

Which brings us to a final provocative thought for you, our listener, to maybe chew on.

The source mentioned that idea of establishing new social rules in the parks.

Right, facilitated by the design and the pedagogic care.

36:30

Exactly.

It suggests design can actually help shift how we interact with each other in public.

So the question is, what new social rules could we collectively create in our public spaces if we truly put liberation, equity and inclusion first for everyone?

And how could design choices, big or small, actively help those new, more just rules emerge and stick?

36:50

It's a big question.

It is.

So we invite you take a look at your own local public spaces through some of these intersectional lenses we've talked about today.

Ask yourself, who feels most comfortable here?

Who seems hesitant?

Who is this space really designed for deep down?

37:08

And who might it be even accidentally shutting out?

And then think what changes, physical or social, even small ones, could make a real difference in fostering that true sense of belonging and liberation for absolutely everyone in your community.

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

37:29

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.

37:46

It requires sustained effort, real commitment and a genuine willingness to shift power dynamics in and 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.

38:05

Go 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?

38:26

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.