CONCLUSION

Figure 21: Gamma Tokyo 1985

From exploring Jane Jacobs efforts in 1950s America, to Caroline Perez’s recent research published in Britain in 2019 and combining this with the primary research conducted for this exploration into the overshadowing of female expectations, it is apparent that urban planning still creates struggles for females in cities globally. Previously concerns of patriarchy have been the leading influence of female inclusion in the city, but lately the increasing exposure of misrepresented future city visualisations could also arguably be contributing to the reproduction of inequalities. This dissertation has attempted to explain and the identify the gap in literature; bringing together the criticism of gender inequalities produced in the urban environment and how these are reproduced through patriarchal thinking, and in particular through visualisations.

In modern planning practice it is recognised that “to bolster competitiveness, city governance must become more ‘creative’” (Gerhard, et al., 2017, p. 3) which is leading to the adoption of the ‘smart city’ concept; using technology to systemise and automate city structure and systems. The term ‘smart city’ has only recently been used to describe new city design however the concept of systemisation and efficiency have long been the philosophy of many previous planners, like Robert Mo

ses and Le Corbusier, both of whom have created plans to revolutionise the urban. However, what both planners arguably failed to understand is the complex functioning of public spaces, neighbourhoods, residential areas and the relationship of functions in the wider city context. A city cannot be progressively planned by looking at it from the sky, to appreciate the intricacies of neighbourhood relationships, the complexity of travel patterns and the emotional connection to place, planning must start from its users, those who inhabit the city, use the city and visit the city.

Jane Jacobs understood the importance of localised understanding, her book The

Death and Life is based on personal experience from being a New York citizen and from observing her neighbourhoods’ goings-on. Her thoughts on eyes-on-thestreet, mixed-use spaces and busy-ness all stem from understanding people’s behaviours and actions and how the city functions for each individual. A believer in ‘organised chaos’, Jacobs recognises the messiness of life and that attempting to control and systemise city life through utopian design is not possible and instead further adds to marginalisation.

34

In particular Jacobs observations distinferent time periods Jacobs, Terlinder and guish the female and her needs and rePerez are able to demonstrate, with examquirements in comparison to her male ples, the effects of this control continualcounterparts. It is not only Jacobs that has ly excluding women from public life. The researched this difference, but also Ull studies by these feminist authors inspired Terlinder author of City and Gender. She this exploration and have hence been identifies the woman as the ‘private’ and the narrative of analysis for this research. the male as the ‘public’ by relating the stereotypical roles of each gender to their Through the primary research and literafunctions in the city space and the resultture collection an argument has developed ing divide created through male orientatfor an increased requirement for female ed urban design and the female orientatinclusion in planning and representation ed domestic realm. Traditional stereotypes in positions of power, namely government are an element of patriarchal thinking, the councils and planning bodies. Placing idea that the male is the ‘working man’ and women in these decision making roles has ‘superior gender’, a thinking that is prevbeen recently discussed by Engendered as alent in the design and control of cona way of eliminating the overshadowing of temporary societies. Terlinder describes female perspectives and place women in a public space as being “overlaid with male position to challenge the “decisions which connotations” (Terlinder, 2003, p. 10) an exclude women in the interest of simplicidea also explored in Caroline Perez’s work. ity” (Perez, 2019, p. 241) and instead crePerez argues that “whiteness and maleness ate spaces that are more ‘gender neutral’. are implicit. They are unquestioned. They The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) are default” (Perez, 2019, p. 23). Perez’s dereleased a Gender Mainstreaming Toolkit bates that women are invisible in all spheres in 2004 to act as a guide for planners in of life, although her work is not specifically order to ensure that planning decisions addressing the work of urban planning her were made with more consideration of the discussion mentions women in urban life, female demographic. The toolkit encourwith reference to transport provision and ages a more considerate approach when public spaces. All these feminist authors creating and implementing planning polrecognise that urban environments have icy. However, this toolkit, arguably acts as been designed with a male-bias due to a ‘tick in a box’ rather than understanding traditional beliefs in patriarchy and stereothe real benefits and implications of the types. Despite studying through three difpolicy on all members of the community.

35

An understanding that can only be developed through community submergent and engagement, an approach highlighted in all literature resources. The ‘toolkit’ produced by the RTPI could be criticised as an ineffective structured approach to a messy and complicated subject.

Despite criticism of the RTPI toolkit it is evident that changes in planning practice policy is attempting to become gender streamlined in acknowledging the existing imbalances. However, the imagery discussed in this research are often created without a gender streamlining toolkit and are regularly produced by private planning corporations. This research does not intend to claim that future city visualisations are intentionally representing gender imbalance, but rather that the three images presented are arguably, inadvertently excluding women. The focus groups have demonstrated the effects of automatic male perspective and how this differs from the female perspective. For a female, her experiences of using and operating within the city’s public spaces can vastly differ from those of a male, “this is due to pre-existing gender inequalities that dictate patterns of movement, the use of different public services and buildings, and participation in public and domestic spheres” (Engender, 2019). The reproduction of gender inequalities in urban planning is creating exclusion and as the discussion has developed these are reproduced in city design through traditional, arguably patriarchal, thinking in planning practise. The designing and imagining of future city environments are currently presented in visualisations and within the sci-fi genre and are also inevitably influenced by this patriarchal thinking, therefore projecting concepts that are designed with a male bias. The endless circulation of imagery, on modern online platforms, produces a societal blindness and as a result visualisations of city futures are arguably unconsciously absorbed as unquestionable fact. However, when given the opportunity women can be critical and often offer different perspectives and ideas for future city design.

As we progress into the future it is important that future city design continues to strive for gender neutrality and to prevent the inadvertent exclusion produced in imagery more consideration should be given to visual design to ensure that individual aspirations for the future are not guided by a male-biased thinking.

Bibliography

Akkawi, Y., .2018. Science Fiction Has Helped Predict the Future of Technology. Here’s Why We Should Be Worried. [On- line] Available at: https://www.inc.com/ yazin-akkawi/what-science-fiction-hastaught-us-about-predicting-future-andwhy-we-should-be-worried.html [Ac- cessed 12 February 2020]. Anderson, B., 2006. Imagined Communi- ties. 3rd ed. London: Verso. Annas, J., 1978. New Worlds, New Words: Androgyny in Feminist Science Fiction. Science Fiction Studies, 5(1), pp. 143-165. Appadurai, A., 1990. Disjuncture and Dif- ference in the Global Cultural Economy. Public Culture, 2(2), pp. 1-24. Badger, E., 2012. The Evolution of Urban Planning in 10 Diagrams. [Online] Available at: https://www.citylab.com/ design/2012/11/evolution-urban-plan- ning-10-diagrams/3851/ [Accessed 11 February 2020]. Barton, K. C., 2015. Elicitation Techniques: Getting People to Talk About Ideas They Don’t Usually Talk About. Theory and Research in Social Education, 43(2), pp. 179-205. BCDA, 2018. New Clark City. [Online] Available at: https://bcda.gov.ph/pro- jects/new-clark-city[Accessed 6 February 2020]. Beauvoir, S., Borde, C. & Malovany-Chev- allier, S., 2011. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage. Beukes, L. et al., 2017. Science Fic- tion when the Future is Now. Nature, 552(7685), pp. 329-333. Bracher, J., 2018. The Philippines is build- ing a green, disaster-resilient city. [On- line] Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/ style/article/new-clark-city-philippines/in- dex.html[Accessed 6 February 2020]. Bryman, A., 2016. Social research meth- ods. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cederholm, E. A., 2011. Photo-elicitation and the construction of tourist experienc- es; photographs as mediators in inter- views. In: T. Rakic & D. Chambers, eds. An Introduction to Visual Research Methods in Tourism. London: Routledge, pp. 92- 105. Cyr, J., 2019. Introduction. In: Focus Groups for the Social Science Researcher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1 -17. Demanarig, D. L. L. & Acosta, J., 2016. Phenomenological Look at the Experienc- es of Filipina Correspondence or Internet Brides. Sage Open, 6(2). Dunn, N., Cureton, P. & Pollastri, S., 2014. A Visual History of the Future, London: Foresight, Government Office for Science. Engender, 2019. Gender Matters Roadm- ap; Public Space. [Online] Available at: https://gendermatters.en- gender.org.uk/content/public-space/ [Accessed 24 January 2020]. Engendered, 2019. Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women: shadow report from the four nations of the UK. [Online]

Gerhard, U., Hielscher, M. & Wilson, D., 2017. Introduction. In: Inequalities in the Creative City: A New Perspective on an Old Phenomenon. New York: Palgrave Macmil- lan US, pp. 3-7. Glaeser, E., 2011. The Challenge of Urban Policy. The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(1). Graham, S., 1965. Vertical: the city from satellites to bunkers. London, New York: Verso. Graham, S. & Marvin, S., 1996. Splintering Urbanism. London: Routledge. Griffiths, H., 2017. The Future of Street Lighting; the potential for new service de- velopment. [Online] Available at: https:// iotuk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ The-Future-of-Street-Lighting.pdf [Ac- cessed 5 March 2020]. Gurstein, M., 2014. Smart Cities vs Smart Communities: Empowering Citizens not Market Economics. [Online] Available at: https://gurstein.word- press.com/2014/11/06/smart-cit- ies-vs-smart-communities-enabling-mar- kets-or-empowering-citizens/ [Accessed 20 October 2019]. Griffiths, H., 2017. The Future of Street Lighting; the potential for new service de- velopment. [Online] Available at: https:// iotuk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ The-Future-of-Street-Lighting.pdf [Ac- cessed 5 March 2020]. Gurstein, M., 2014. Smart Cities vs Smart Communities: Empowering Cit- izens not Market Economics. [On- line] Available at: https://gurstein. wordpress.com/2014/11/06/smart-cit- ies-vs-smart-communities-enabling-markets-or-empowering-citizens/ [Accessed 20 October 2019]. Husserl, E., 1973. Introduction: The sense and delimination of the investigation. In: E. Husserl, ed. Experience and Judgement: Investigations in a Genalogy of Logic. Ev- anston: North-western University Press, pp. 31-38. Jacobs, J., 1958. Downtown is for the Peo- ple, New York: Forum Magazine Time Inc. Jacobs, J., 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Penguin Books. Jarvis, H., Kantor, P. & Cloke, J., 2009. Cities and Gender. London and New York: Rout- ledge. Joss, S., 2015. Smart Cities: From Concept to Practice. In: S. Joss, ed. International Eco-Cities. University of Westminster, pp. 1-8. Koolhass, R., 2014. My thoughts on the smart city in European Commission. [On- line] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/archives/ commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/ my-thoughts-smart-city-rem-koolhaas.html [Accessed 2 May 2019]. Lumsden, K., 2012. ‘You are what you re- search’: researcher partisanship and the sociology of the ‘underdog’. Qualitative Research, 13(1), pp. 3-18. Maffei, N. & Fisher, T., 2013. Historicizing shininess in design; Finding meaning in an unstable phenomenon. Journal of Design History, 26(3), pp. 231-240. Matrix, 1984. Making Space: Women and the Man-Made Environment. London: Pluto.

Nielsen, J. M., 1990. Feminist Research Methods: exemplary readings in the social sciences. Colorado: Westview Press. NYC Department of Records and Informa- tion Services, n.d. New York City Planning & Robert Moses’ Vision of Downtown. [Online] Available at: https://www.archives.nyc/ city-planning# [Accessed 10 February 2020]. O’Neil, C., 2016. Weapons of Math De- struction; Book Tour. [Online] Available at: https://weaponsofmathde- structionbook.com/ [Accessed 27 Febru- ary 2020]. Owton, H. & Allen-Collinson, J., 2013. Close But Not Too Close: Friendship as Method(ology) in Ethnographic Research Encounters. Journal of Contemporary Eth- nography, 43(3), pp. 283-305. Perez, C. C., 2019. Invisible Women; Ex- posing Data Bias in a World Desinged for Men. 1st ed. London: Chatto & Windus. Pink, S., 2005. Introduction: Situating Visual Research. In: S. Pink, L. Kurti & A. I. Afonso, eds. Working Images: Visual Research and Representation in Ethnog- raphy. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 1-11. Prosser, J., 2005. Introduction. In: J. Pross- er, ed. Image-based Research: A Source- book for Qualitative Researchers. Phila- delphia: Taylor and Francis, pp. 1-11. Purcell, M., 2013. Possible Worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the Right to the CIty. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(1), pp. 141-154. Reeves, D. & Sheridan, C., 2003. Gender Equality and Plan Making: The Gender Mainstreaming Toolkit, London: Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI). Reinharz, S., 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford: Oxford Universi- ty Press. Rose, G., 2014. On the relation between ‘visual research methods’ and contempo- rary visual culture. The Sociology Review, 62(1), pp. 24-26. Rose, G. & Willis, A., 2019. Seeing the smart city on Twitter: Colour and the affective territories of becoming smart. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37(3), pp. 411-427. Schutz, A., 1971. Tiresias, or our Knowl- edge of Future Events. Collected Papers, pp. 277-293. Shephard, W., 2019. Should we build cit- ies from scratch?. [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian. com/cities/2019/jul/10/should-we-buildcities-from-scratch [Accessed February 2020]. Shutz, A., 1971. Tiresias, or our Knowl- edge of Future Events. Collected Papers, 2(1), pp. 227 - 293. Sidewalk Labs, 2019. Toronto Tomorrow: A new approach for inclusive growth,: Side- walk Labs LLC. Sidewalk Labs, 2020. [Online] Available at: https://www.sidewalklabs.com/ [Ac- cessed 9 December 2019]. simplyIC, 2012. The power of imagery in communitcations. [Online] Available at: https://simply-communicate. com/power-imagery-communications/ [Accessed 26 February 2020].

SmartCitiesWorld, 2017. Bosch’s Smart Vision for the Future. [Online] Available at: https://www.smartcitiesworld. net/news/news/boschs-smart-vision-for-thefuture-1868 [Accessed 9 December 2019]. Terlinder, U., 2003. City and Gender: Inter- national discourse on Gender, Urbanism and Architecture. Opladen: Leske and Budrich. Tillman-Healy, L., 2003. Friendship as Meth- od. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(5), pp. 729-749. Uberoi, E., Bellis, A., Hicks, E. & Browning, S., 2019. Commons Breifing Papers; Women in Parliament and Government. [Online] Availa- ble at: www.parliament.uk [Accessed 4 Feb- ruary 2020] United Nations, D. o. E. a. S. A., 2019. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision, New York: United Nations. Whitzman, C., 2007. Stuck at the front door: gender, fear of crime and the challenge of creating safer space. Environment and Plan- ning A, 39(1), pp. 2715-2732. WICI & Jagori, 2010. Third International Con- ference on Women’s Safety: Building Inclu- sive Cities Confernece Background Paper. [Online] Available at www.femmesetvilles.org [Accessed 25 January 2020] Willis, K. & Aurigi, A., 2017. From digital to smart and beyond. In: K. Willis & A. Aurigi, eds. Digital and Smart Cities. London: Route- ledge, pp. 448 - 454. Wired, 2018. Why Science Fiction Is the Most Important Genre. [Online] Available at: https://www.wired. com/2018/09/geeks-guide-yuval-noah-harari/ [Accessed 12 February 2020].

Image References

Front Cover | Authors Own. Figure 1 | Dunn, N., Cureton, P. & Pollastri, S., 2014. A Visual History of the Future, London: Foresight, Government Office for Science. Figure 2 | Reeves, D. & Sheridan, C., 2003. Gender Equality and Plan Making: The Gender Mainstreaming Toolkit, London: Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI). Figure 3 | Dunn, N., Cureton, P. & Pollastri, S., 2014. A Visual History of the Future, London: Foresight, Government Office for Science. Figure 4 | Manhattan News., 2017. Flashback to the ‘50s and heroic moms’ protest. [Online] Available at: https://www. thevillager.com/2017/06/flashback-tothe-50s-and-heroic-moms-protest/ [Accessed 3 March 2020] Figure 5 | Enclyclopedia Britannica., 2020. Simone de Beauvoir. [Online] Availabel at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/ Simone-de-Beauvoir [ Accessed 2 March 2020] Figure 6 | Paletta, A., 2016. Story of cities #32: Jane Jacobs v Robert Moses, battle of New York’s urban titans. [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/ cities/2016/apr/28/story-cities-32-newyork-jane-jacobs-robert-moses [Accessed 27 February 2020] Figure 7 | Paletta, A., 2016. Story of cities #32: Jane Jacobs v Robert Moses, battle of New York’s urban titans. [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/ cities/2016/apr/28/story-cities-32-newyork-jane-jacobs-robert-moses [Accessed 27 February 2020] Figure 8 | Zinkin, T., 2014. From the archive, 11 September 1965: An awkward interview with Le Corbusier. [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian. com/artanddesign/2014/sep/11/le-corbusier-india-architecture-1965 [Accessed 27 February 2020] Figure 9 | Perez, C. C., 2019. Invisible Women; Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. 1st ed. London: Chatto & Windus. Figure 10 | Rose, G., 2019. Inadvertent Exclusion in Future Visions of Smart Cities. [Online] Available at: https://www.urbantransformations.ox.ac.uk/blog/2019/ inadvertent-exclusion-in-future-visions-of-smart-cities/ [Accessed 21 November 2019]. Figure 11 | Dunn, N., Cureton, P. & Pollastri, S., 2014. A Visual History of the Future, London: Foresight, Government Office for Science. Figure 12 | BCDA, 2018. New Clark City. [Online] Available at: https://bcda.gov. ph/projects/new-clark-city [Accessed 6 February 2020]. Figure 13 | Bolduc, D., 2017. How Bosch is preparing for autonomous cars. [Online]

Available at: https://www.autonews.com/ article/20171124/COPY01/311249984/ how-bosch-is-preparing-for-autonomouscars [Accessed 20 November 2019] Figure 14 | Sidewalk Labs, 2020. [Online] Available at: https://www.sidewalklabs. com/ [Accessed 9 December 2019]. Figure 15 | Laurence, P., 2016. The Blind Claims of Jane Jacobs’ Race Blindness. [Online] Available at: http://becomingjanejacobs.com/blog/2016/10/2/theblindness-of-claims-of-jacobs-race-blindness [Accessed 20 February 2020] Figure 16 | Reeves, D. & Sheridan, C., 2003. Gender Equality and Plan Making: The Gender Mainstreaming Toolkit, London: Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI). Figure 17 | Sidewalk Labs, 2020. [Online] Available at: https://www.sidewalklabs. com/ [Accessed 9 December 2019]. Figure 18 | Authors Own. Figure 19 | Authors own. Figure 20 | Paletta, A., 2016. Story of cities #32: Jane Jacobs v Robert Moses, battle of New York’s urban titans. [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian. com/cities/2016/apr/28/story-cities-32- new-york-jane-jacobs-robert-moses [Accessed 27 February 2020] Figure 21 | Dunn, N., Cureton, P. & Pollastri, S., 2014. A Visual History of the Future, London: Foresight, Government Office for Science.