(Re)introducing gender in Dutch spatial planning praxis
A case study of the restructuring of Utrecht’s station area
Sanne van der Wal
3712524
Master Thesis
Gender Studies
1
2
(Re)introducing Gender in Dutch Spatial Planning Praxis
A case study of the restructuring of Utrecht’s station area
Master Thesis Gender Studies
Faculty of Humanities
Utrecht University
August 14, 2015
Sanne van der Wal
Student number 3712524
sanne_wal@hotmail.com
Mentored by Christine Quinan
c.l.quinan@uu.nl
Cover picture: Sandra de Haan (2003), as used in Tummers (2013). Original caption:
“Communication between social and technical sectors; cartoon by Sandra de Haan for Ruimte
voor Elke Dag.”
3
4
Acknowledgements
This thesis is the result of a year of Gender Studies theories, but it is also partly a product of
my bachelor in Human Geography and Planning. During my study in Gender Studies I kept
seeing links to my bachelor subject within gender theory. This thesis is a result of combining
the ideas and knowledge about gender and space that has formed in my head during the last
year. The unraveling and knotting together of these different threats has been a gradual
process throughout the last couple of months, which I could not have done without the help of
some people. Therefore I want to take a moment here to thank them. First, I want to thank
Christine, my mentor, for the support throughout the whole year and for revising and
commenting on parts of my thesis. Just talking to Christine about what steps to take
throughout the master, often made me feel more confident on how to approach study
assignments in general. Second, I want to thank Dr. Bettina van Hoven and Dr. Ilse van
Liempt for making time to participate in the interviews. Their views on gender in spatial
studies and praxis have been very valuable for this thesis.
Also, I want to thank all the lovely co-students in the Gender Studies masters and the
other people from the “gender community,” for sharing their inspiring views on everything,
from the classroom to the bar. I want to thank my girlfriend for supporting me during this
period, from acting as an alarm clock in the morning to helping me get my mind off the thesis
for a bit by luring me into binge-watching series. Last, I want to thank Né for having a last
look at my thesis. They helped me a lot when I could not see the wood for the trees anymore.
Sanne van der Wal, August 11, 2015
I5
Summary | Samenvatting
Background | Achtergrond
This thesis is about the role of gender in Dutch urban planning. With the help of a case study
of the CU2030 strategic plan, which embodies the plans for the restructuring of Utrecht’s
station area, this thesis on the one hand researches to what extent gender is used in
contemporary urban planning. On the other hand this thesis provides gendered
recommendations for planning policy. Feminist geographers have pointed out that urban
planning praxis has historically been a male dominated field, causing many spaces to reflect
patriarchal structures (Hayden, 1980; Rose, 1993; Sandercock, 1998; Roberts, 2013). Feminist
geographers’ reactions to this are for example the focus on how women’s and men’s daily
lives often differ from each other and thus demand different structures of space (Horelli &
Vespä, 1994) and the focus on different feelings of safety in women and men in spaces
(Valentine, 1989). Such feminist views have influenced Dutch planning praxis in the 1980’s
and -90’s (Tummers, 2013), which is visible in different projects. They are located in the
Netherlands, Austria and Finland, and are described in this thesis. In the course of the 1990’s,
gender disappeared from planning agendas again, due to the favoring of other aspects like
environmental and sustainable planning (Buckingham & Kulcur, 2009) and the idea that
gender equality has already been achieved and we now live in a post-feminist era (Greed,
2005). Moreover, this thesis describes how the decentralization of Dutch planning praxis in
the course of the 1990’s has also caused gender to fall of the planning agenda (Tummers,
2013). The development of Dutch planning as a practical field causes a lack of gendered
knowledge amongst planners and therefore spatial policy and plans are often gender-neutral.
It is seldom questioned who interventions in space serve, since it is seen as serving the “public
interest,” without questioning who this public is exactly and who is excluded from this term
(Larsson, 2006). On a social and planning praxis level it is therefore interesting to ask this
question and to provide a gendered lens, in order to make spaces more inclusive and
comfortable for a variety of different people.
Deze scriptie gaat over de rol van gender in Nederlandse planologie. Met behulp van een
case study van het CU2030 structuurplan, dat de plannen van de herstructurering ven het
Utrechtse stationsgebied behelst, onderzoekt deze thesis enerzijds in hoeverre gender wordt
gebruikt in de huidige planologie en planning praktijk, en anderzijds functioneert deze thesis
als naslagwerk met gender aanbevelingen voor planningsbeleid. Feministische geografen
hebben erop gewezen dat de planning praktijk vooral een door mannen gedomineerd
vakgebied is (geweest), wat tot gevolg heeft dat veel ruimtes gebaseerd zijn op patriarchale
structuren (Hayden, 1980; Rose, 1993; Sandercock, 1998; Roberts, 2013). feministische
geografen beschrijven als reactie hierop bijvoorbeeld het verschil in dagelijks leven tussen
vrouw en man en hoe zij daardoor andere ruimtelijke structuren verlangen (Horelli & Vespä,
1994) en de verschillen in het gevoel van veiligheid tussen mannen en vrouwen (Valentine,
1989). Zulke feministische ideeën hebben de Nederlandse planologie beïnvloed in de jaren
1980 en – ’90 (Tummers, 2013), zoals zichtbaar is in verschillende projecten in Nederland,
Wenen en Finland, welke verder toegelicht worden in de scriptie. In de loop van de jaren
1990, verdween gender weer van de planning agenda, door het voortrekken van onder andere
milieubewuste en duurzame planning (Buckingham & Kulcur, 2009) en het idee dat
gendergelijkheid al bereikt was en we in een post-feministische tijd leven (Greed, 2005). Ook
de decentralisatie van het planningsysteem in de jaren ’90 droeg bij aan het verdwijnen van
gender van de planning agenda (Tummers, 2013). De ontwikkeling van de Nederlandse
planologie als een praktisch veld veroorzaakt een gebrek aan gender kennis onder planners
en daardoor zijn plannen vaak genderneutraal. Er wordt zelden afgevraagd wie profiteren
II
6
van interventies in de ruimte, sinds deze ingrepen gezien worden als dienende het “algemeen
belang”, zonder af te vragen wie in deze categorie, en wie daarbuiten vallen (Larsson, 2006).
Het is daarom interessant op een maatschappelijk en planning praktijk vlak om deze vraag te
stellen en een gender lens aan te reiken, om ervoor te zorgen dat ruimtes inclusiever en
comfortabeler kunnen worden gemaakt voor een divers scala aan mensen.
Research questions | Onderzoeksvragen
In the research the following questions are asked:
Central question: How does gender play a role in the CU2030 strategic plan?
Sub question 1: What are the existing theories that relate gender to spatial planning and how
have they been practiced in spatial planning projects in the past?
Sub question 2: What are the gendered strengths and opportunities in the CU2030 strategic
plan and how can they be utilized?
Sub question 3: What are the gendered weaknesses and threats in the CU2030 strategic plan
and how can they be avoided?
In dit onderzoek zijn de volgende vragen gesteld:
Centrale vraag: Op welke manier speelt gender een rol in het CU2030 structuurplan?
Deelvraag 1: Wat zijn de bestaande theorieën met betrekking tot gender in
planologie/planning en op welke manier zijn deze toegepast op ruimtelijke projecten in het
verleden?
Deelvraag 2: Wat zijn de sterktes en kansen vanuit een gender oogpunt in het CU2030
structuurplan en op welke manier kan hier gebruik van gemaakt worden?
Deelvraag 3: Wat zijn de zwaktes en bedreigingen in het CU2030 structuurplan en op welke
manier kunnen deze vermeden worden?
Method | Methode
This research uses a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) of
the CU2030 strategic plan and contains two expert interviews with academics. The SWOT
analysis is used because the pragmatism of this method forms an opportunity to make
gendered ideas more easily understandable, as well as directly applicable for planning praxis.
The interviews are semi-structured and function as support for the SWOT analysis. Moreover,
the existing body of knowledge will provide the theoretical framework, that is the basis of the
SWOT analysis.
Dit onderzoek maakt gebruik van een SWOT analyse (Sterktes, Zwaktes, Kansen en
Bedreigingen) van het CU2030 structuurplan en bevat twee expert interviews met academici.
Er is gekozen voor een SWOT analyse vanwege de hoge mate van pragmatisme van deze
methode, welke het mogelijk maakt om ideeën over gender beter behapbaar en toepasbaar te
maken voor de planning praktijk. De interviews zijn semigestructureerd en functioneren als
onderbouwing van de SWOT analyse, net als de bestaande literatuur in het theoretisch kader.
Results | Resultaten
The most important strengths of the plan are the focus on enhancing mixed use and on
creating a more lively and safe area by making facilities in Hoog Catharijne more outward
oriented, which will create less desertion of the area during certain times of the day. Also, the
plan discusses accessibility for disabled people (which also improves the space for able
people (Van Hoven, 2015)) and there will be space for a daycare and a homeless/drug addict
center. A crucial weakness is that although there is a focus on making the area lively and safe,
only 1,5 pages are dedicated on how to do this. While it is explained what has to happen
spatially, a social lens is barely applied in the plan. The lack of knowledge about social
structures means that it is not clear how different people will experience the spatial
7
III
interventions. Another weakness is the tension between economics and functionality in the
plan area. Hard economic demands cause a commercialization of spaces, which can threaten
functionality and cause exclusion of groups that do not fit in this consumerist framework (Van
Liempt, 2015). While a strength of the plan is that end-users had the opportunity to voice their
opinion on the plans, the weakness is that these visions only led to minor editorial changes in
the plan. The fact that the plan is written “gender-neutral” is also a weakness that causes an
uncritical use of “public interest” and assumes all people profit from the same spatial
structures. Opportunities for incorporating gender in this (or future) plan(s) are the increase of
knowledge exchange between academic, public and private parties and the rise of multi-media
types that can facilitate platforms between planners and end-users. A threat is the increase of
privatization of spaces and security of these spaces, causing exclusion of certain groups
(based on stereotypes) (Van Liempt, 2015). Another threat is the contemporary backlash
against feminism and the idea that equality is already achieved, as well as the fact that gender
in spatial studies in not seen as an integral part, but as a “side hobby” (Van Hoven, 2015),
causing it to fall off the agenda easily.
De belangrijkste sterktes van het plan zijn de focus op vergroting van de functiemenging en
op het creëren van een levendigere en veiligere omgeving door faciliteiten van Hoog
Catharijne meer naar buiten georiënteerd in te richten, dit voorkomt dat de omgeving
verlaten raakt tijdens bepaalde dagdelen. Het plan bespreekt ook toegankelijkheid van minder
validen (wat ook de toegankelijkheid voor validen kan verbeteren (Van Hoven, 2015)) en er
wordt ruimte gemaakt voor een kinderdagverblijf en een centrum voordaklozen en
drugsverslaafden. Een belangrijke zwakte in het plan is dat slechts 1,5 pagina gewijd is aan
hoe het gebied levendiger en veiliger moet worden, waarin beschreven is welke ruimtelijke
ingrepen gedaan moeten worden, maar een maatschappelijke lens ontbreekt. Het gebrek aan
kennis over maatschappelijke structuren betekent dat het onduidelijk is hoe verschillende
mensen de ruimtelijke ingrepen ervaren. Een andere zwakte is het spanningsveld tussen
economische belangen en functionaliteit in het plangebied. Harde economische eisen
veroorzaken commercialisering van de omgeving, wat de functionaliteit kan bedreigen en
uitsluiting van bepaalde groepen kan veroorzaken die niet in het commerciële kader passen
(Van Liempt, 2015). Terwijl de mogelijkheid voor eindgebruikers om hun mening te geven
over de plannen een sterkte is, is het feit dat deze inbreng slechts heeft geleid tot kleine
redactionele aanpassingen een zwakte. Dat het plan “gender-neutraal” geschreven is, is ook
een zwakte die ervoor zorgt dat “publiek belang” onkritisch gebruikt wordt en de aanname
opwekt dat ieder mens profiteert van dezelfde ruimtelijke structuren. Kansen voor gender in
(toekomstige) plannen zijn de toename van kennisvalorisatie tussen academici, publieke en
private partijen en de opkomst van multi-media opties die een platform kunnen bieden tussen
planners en eindgebruikers. Een bedreiging is de toenemende privatisering van ruimtes en
toezicht van deze ruimtes, wat kan leiden tot uitsluiting van groepen (gebaseerd op
stereotypen) (Van Liempt, 2015). Een andere bedreiging is de huidige weerstand tegen
feminisme en het idee dat iedereen al gelijk is. Ook het feit dat gender in het ruimtelijke
vakgebied geen integraal onderdeel is, maar gezien wordt als een “hobby” (Van Hoven,
2015) is een bedreiging en zorgt ervoor dat het als onderwerp makkelijk van de agenda valt.
Conclusions | Conclusies
Gender does play a role in the CU2030 strategic plan, even though the planning process has
supposedly been gender neutral. Not talking about (gender) diversity in the stage of the planmaking does not mean that the spatial structures that derive from it will affect all people in the
same way. There are certain strengths and opportunities in the plan, from a gendered
perspective, but there are even more weaknesses and threats that can result in an
unsatisfactory station area for certain groups and individuals. If there had been a more critical
8
IV
use of “public interest” in the plan-making from the beginning, it would have been possible to
forestall or at least take these weaknesses and threats into account. By doing this, the new
spatial structures can be made more inclusive and comfortable for a larger range of people.
Therefore, it is the task of the urban planner and of other involved stakeholders to not only
acknowledge (gender) diversity, but to also incorporate it in plan-making. People will never
react to spatial structures in the same way, and by incorporating this in the plan-making we
can be one step ahead of problems that might occur through this often ignored fact.
Gender spelt wel degelijk een rol in het CU2030 structuurplan, ook al is het planningproces
genderneutraal geweest. Het feit dat in het planningproces (gender)diversiteit niet aan bod is
gekomen, betekent niet dat de fysieke ruimte die ontwikkeld wordt door iedereen hetzelfde
ervaren zal worden. Het plan biedt vanuit een gender perspectief zekere sterktes en kansen,
maar er zijn meer zwaktes en bedreigingen in te vinden die voor een onprettig stationsgebied
kunnen zorgen voor bepaalde groepen en individuen. Als vanaf het begin van het
planningproces “publiek belang” kritischer gebruikt was, was het mogelijk geweest om
bepaalde zwakten en bedreigingen te voorkomen, of in elk geval in ogenschouw te nemen.
Hierdoor kunnen nieuwe ruimtelijke structuren op die manier worden ingericht zodat ze meer
inclusief en comfortabel voor verschillende mensen zijn. Daarom is het de taak van de
planner en andere betrokken actoren om niet alleen (gender)diversiteit te erkennen, maar het
ook daadwerkelijk toe te passen in de planvorming. Mensen zullen reageren nooit allemaal
hetzelfde op de ruimte en door dit gegeven te gebruiken in de planvorming kunnen we de
problemen die hierdoor kunnen ontstaan een stap voor zijn.
Recommendations | Aanbevelingen
This thesis suggests that two keywords that are necessary for planners: awareness and
openness. This thesis aims to create the awareness that there are more aspects that have to be
taken into account in urban planning, than is currently done. Planners have to realize that they
do not plan spaces for a homogeneous group of people and that the “average end-user” does
not exist. Therefore, this thesis suggests that end-users and experts on (gender) diversity
should play a bigger role during the plan-making process. Next to the awareness of gender
diversity, planners also have to be open for external influences that might require changing
spatial plans and even the plan-making process itself. This can for example mean using multimedia tools to make it easier for end-users to participate. Also, it is useful to be open to
knowledge from external gender experts that can be hired when gender knowledge is not
sufficient among the actors.
Deze scriptie stelt dat twee sleutelwoorden belangrijk zijn voor planners: bewustzijn en
openheid. Deze scriptie heeft als doel om het bewustzijn te creëren onder planners dat er
meer aspecten zijn die in ogenschouw moeten worden genomen, dan nu in de ruimtelijke
planning gebeurt. Planners moeten realiseren dat de ruimte niet gepland wordt voor een
homogene groep mensen en dat de “gemiddelde eindgebruiker” niet bestaat. Daarom stelt
deze thesis dat eindgebruikers en experts op het gebied van (gender) diversiteit een grotere
rol moeten spelen in het planning proces. Naast bewustzijn omtrent diversiteit moeten
planners ook open staan voor externe invloeden, die mogelijkerwijs ervoor zorgen dat de
ruimtelijke plannen of zelfs het planning proces moeten worden bijgesteld. Dit kan
bijvoorbeeld betekenen dat multimedia tools worden ingezet om participeren in het proces
gemakkelijker te maken voor eindgebruikers. Ook kan het nuttig zijn om open te staan voor
inbreng van externe gender experts, bij te weinig gender kennis onder bestaande actoren.
V9
10
Index
Acknowledgements
I
Summary | Samenvatting
II
1. Introduction
13
1.1 Topic and problem statement
1.2 Topic relevance
1.3 Research questions
13
15
16
2. Theoretical framework
18
2.1 The theoretical relationship between spatial studies and gender studies
2.2 Planning theory and planning praxis: the Dutch context
2.3 Existing gendered planning projects and tools for spatial gender analysis
3. Methodology
18
24
27
33
3.1 Case study: methods for analysis
3.2 Expert interviews
33
36
4. Results
39
4.1 Strengths
4.2 Weaknesses
4.3 Opportunities
4.4 Threats
39
40
42
42
5. Discussion & conclusion
44
5.1 Discussion
5.2 Conclusion
5.3 Recommendations
44
47
51
6. Sources
53
7. Bibliography
54
8. Appendices
57
8.1 Interview guide
8.2 SWOT analysis
8.3 Interview transcription shorts
57
60
63
11
12
1. Introduction
“Space is the everywhere of modern thought. It is the flesh that flatters the bones of theory. It is an allpurpose nostrum to be applied whenever things look sticky. It is an invocation which suggests that the
writer is right on without her having to give too much away. It is flexibility as explanation: a term
ready and waiting in the wings to perform that song-and-dance act one more time.”
(Thrift & Crang, 2000; 1)
1.1 Topic and problem statement
“Space” is something that is unavoidable. We can avoid certain spaces, that is certainly true,
but we cannot avoid space itself. A very literal definition of the term “space” is the built
environment that is constituted by humans, and more specifically: by humans who were
educated and trained to make physical interventions in this environment. One of the
professions in which people make these interventions is called “spatial” or “urban planning,”
while the field that mostly researches spatial structures is called “human geography”.
Historically, this profession of the built environment has been dominated by men (Roberts,
2013). Feminist geographers who work with space have pointed this out and suggest that this
is one of the many reasons why built environments are often reflections of patriarchal
structures (Hayden, 1980; Rose, 1993; Sandercock, 1998). As a result, suggestions by
feminist geographers and planners have been made, to incorporate gender (as well as more
intersectional perspectives that include ethnicity, class, sexuality etcetera) in research about
space and policies and practices that constitute space. Suggestions are for example the
introduction of time-space-geography, in which it is outlined how women’s daily life differs
from men’s daily life and that this results in different needs concerning the neighborhood in
which one lives and the options one has to participate in waged labor (Horelli & Vespä,
1994). Another major example of the implication of feminism in spatial studies concerns
safety. As Valentine (1989) points out, women are more likely to be afraid in certain places,
on certain points of the day (especially when alone), due to (predominantly male) violence:
“The predominant strategy adopted by the women I interviewed is the avoidance of
‘dangerous places’ at ‘dangerous times’. By adopting such defensive tactics women are
pressurized into a restricted use and occupation of public space.” (Valentine, 1989; 386).
These influences of feminism in spatial studies also affected the Dutch planning context.
Especially in the 1980s and 1990s, gender and planning initiatives and research in the
Netherlands questioned the quality of the built environment and proposed criteria for urban
planning praxis and policy making. These ideas have led to several concrete projects
13
(Tummers, 2013), as I will explore further in chapter 2.3 of this thesis. Despite these tangible
projects, there is still little knowledge about “gender”1 in spatial development. In the course of
the 1990s, the concept of gender as a whole started to disappear from planning agendas from
national to regional scale (Tummers, 2013). One of the reasons for this disappearance is the
international growth of environmental and sustainable awareness in planning. Through this
process gender inequalities in planning have again been marginalized and ignored and it is
believed amongst many planners that gender is covered within the sustainability agenda
(Buckingham & Kulcur, 2009). Another reason that is given by Greed (2005) is the attitude of
backlash against feminism that currently exists in a lot of popular media. The feeling has
therefore also grown amongst planners and planning theorists that we now live in a postfeminist era, in which equality on a spatial level has already been ‘done,’ that equality is
achieved.
Through this thesis I hope to (re)introduce the concept of gender in spatial planning
praxis and theory. To do so it is necessary to focus on planning theory as well as planning
praxis, since these two fields do not necessarily go hand in hand in the Dutch planning context
(Spit & Zoete, 2009). This may be one of the reasons why, although feminist geographers and
planners did not leave the academic world all at once, gender in planning praxis has never
quite been understood and come to blossom fully. This problem will be further elaborated on
in chapter 2.2. Since the path from planning theory to planning praxis is steep and cannot
always be seen as linear (all planning praxis projects are different, according to time, scale
and type of spatial plan), my focus for the planning praxis part in this thesis is solely on one
project: CU2030. This is the name of the spatial development and restructuring project
concerning the station area of the Dutch city Utrecht (Gemeente Utrecht, 2006). The strategic
plan for this restructuring was published in 2006 and I have chosen to use this plan for my
practical case study in this thesis. Chapter 2.2 will moreover analyze the differences between
types of spatial plans that exist in the Dutch system, since they all have other contexts and
legal consequences for the built environment itself. The chapter will also focus on actors that
are involved in the decision making, and users of these constituted spaces. As for the
theoretical links between gender studies’ philosophical thoughts and spatial studies, chapter
“Gender” is a concept that can be interpreted in many different ways. I believe that gender is not only woman
and man, but should be seen as a spectrum. I partly agree with Butler (1988) that gender is for a large part
performative and based on cultural restraints. But, since the goal of this thesis is to make gender analysis
applicable to planning praxis, most of the theory I use does not contest the traditional gender roles as such.
Although I want to argue that this contestation is crucial, the level of practicality in this thesis and the restricted
space do not allow me to explore this deeply. Also, in this thesis gender is often used as an intersectional
umbrella term that is inclusive of other axes of difference like class, sexuality and ethnicity.
1
14
2.1 explores the relationship between these two (already interdisciplinary) fields on a more
abstract level.
1.2 Topic relevance
Social relevance
One of the most important goals of spatial planning (praxis) has always been to improve
public space in the “public interest” (Spit & Zoete, 2009). However, seldom in mainstream
planning has this term of “public interest” itself been questioned in a more social and
intersectional way (Larsson, 2006). Although spatial planning is a field in which decision are
made based on the involvement of many actors, the question who is this “public” is rarely
asked. When deciding on the construction of a new high-way, economic, ecological and
technical actors are involved in the decision making, but is everyone represented through
these parties? Or, are there marginalized groups in this process that is affected by the spatial
plan, but does not have a voice in the plan making process? A term such as “public interest”
can never be a hundred percent inclusive (Larsson, 2006), and compromises are always made
between different actors (Spit & Zoete, 2009). But whose demands outweigh other’s demands
and who does not have a voice in the process at all? By asking and trying to answer these
questions in this thesis I want to demonstrate that gender is relevant for planning issues.
Through critically looking at interventions in the built environment, this environment can be
made more inclusive of social diversity.
Academic relevance
In this thesis different (interdisciplinary) fields are brought together, including: gender
studies, geography, planning theory and planning praxis. Although the tension between
planning theory and planning praxis in the Dutch context is often mentioned in academic
work, this thesis will not be another essay on this topic. Instead I want to address this
theory/praxis split and use this “weakness” of the spatial planning field to inject a spatial
gendered awareness into the existing academic work. I want to show that not only is it
relevant in a social context to look at gender in space, but also in theory these two concepts
have a historical bond. In the field of gender studies, this bond is often recognized (e.g. Grosz,
1995; Ahmed, 2006). However, the way that space in feminist and gender theories are used, is
often a more abstract notion of “space” – a philosophical one. This space is not a built
environment like a station area. For example in Ahmed’s “Queer Phenomenology” (2006),
they focus on the relationship between bodies and objects in space and the way in which the
purpose of both is created through the type of relationship they have. Also, this relationship
15
can be different if the space in which objects encounter each other is different. Although these
understandings are important for the connections between geography/planning and gender
studies, they are often too abstract to apply in planning theory and praxis. These philosophical
understandings of space are important, but only function in the background in this thesis. The
different uses of the word “space” tie geography, spatial planning and gender studies together,
yet the focus here is on “space” as the built environment, in which bodies move. Since
planning theory and praxis already have a paltry relationship, this thesis aims to constitute
theory taking into account different fields, in order to create a gendered spatial method that
can be directly implemented into planning praxis.
1.3 Research questions
Deriving from the problem statement and relevance of the topic, in this part of the thesis the
research questions are formulated. To improve the practicability of the research, the central
question is disaggregated into three concrete sub questions.
Central question
How does gender play a role in the CU2030 strategic plan?
Sub questions
Sub question 1: What are the existing theories that relate gender to spatial planning and how
have they been practiced in spatial planning projects in the past?
This question is answered by focusing on literature analysis. This method is further
elaborated on in the methodology chapter, whilst the answer to this question forms a part of
the theoretical framework.
Sub question 2: What are the gendered strengths and opportunities in the CU2030 strategic
plan and how can they be utilized?
This question is answered by focusing on the CU2030 case study’s strategic plan, expert
interviews and the existing body of knowledge as outlined in the theoretical framework. The
methods and criteria that are used to analyze the strategic plan and conduct the interviews
are further elaborated on in the methodology chapter.
16
Sub question 3: What are the gendered weaknesses and threats in the CU2030 strategic plan
and how can they be avoided?
This question is answered by focusing on the CU2030 case study’s strategic plan, expert
interviews and the existing body of knowledge as outlined in the theoretical framework. The
methods and criteria that are used to analyze the strategic plan and conduct the interviews
are further elaborated on in the methodology chapter.
17
2. Theoretical framework
This part of the thesis explores the theoretical background and terms that are needed to
understand the importance of gender in spatial planning theory and praxis. This means that
theories from the fields of geography, planning and gender studies are investigated and related
to each other.
2.1 The theoretical relationship between spatial studies and gender studies
In this section planning theory and (gender) geography are linked to theories that derive from
gender studies. In this way I want to emphasize the importance that gender has in the spatial
fields of study. A brief historical and theoretical overview of geography and planning in
relation to gender is provided here to on the one hand show how gender is important for
spatial studies and on the other hand to explore how spatial studies can also be interesting to
gender studies.
In the 1980’s feminist geography and spatial studies started to emerge (Hayden, 1980; Rose,
1993; Valentine & Bell, 1995). One of the first focus points in feminist geography was the
notion of time in relation to space. The founder of time-space-geography is cultural
geographer Torsten Hägerstrand., who in the influential essay “What about people in regional
science?” (1970), attempts to bring back the human in “human geography”. This essay forms
a break with the behaviorist geography that was most influential until the 1960’s, and is more
similar to behavioral geography. Behaviorist geographers believed that all human behavior
must be understood as a result of external incentives that are caused by one’s environment.
Thus, if one alters the environment, the human behavior changes. This is called the “stimulusresponse model,” which was also largely applied to urban planning during the heyday of
behaviorist geography (De Pater & Van der Wusten, 1996; 178). This meant that urban
planners thought that if they just altered the built environment, people would start to alter
their behavior in this particular environment. Feminist responses on behaviorist geography
directly are hard to find, but there are feminist criticisms that focus on behaviorist
psychology. The main criticism against behaviorism is that it removes all agency from the
human being. Also, it presumes some kind of sameness in all human beings: everyone reacts
the same way to (alterations in) their (built) environment (Ruiz, 1995). Behaviorists ignore
cognitive and affective processes of humans altogether: “We do not need to try to discover
what personalities, states of mind, feelings, traits of character, plans, purposes, intentions or
other perquisites of autonomous man really are in order to get on with scientific analysis of
18
behavior.” (Skinner, 1971; 15).
Behavioral geographers’ critique was that all the above mentioned “perquisites of
autonomous man” do matter when analyzing behavior and therefore incorporated the above
aspects of the human in their research. This is for a large part the result of the cognitive
revolution that occurred in psychology in the course of the 1960’s. Behavioral studies assume
that if a researcher wants to explain behavior, they must first look at the individual that is
showing this behavior, not at the individual’s environment. Therefore, behavioral geography
studies “the spatial behavior and acting of individuals and the cognitive and affective
processes that underlie this behavior/acting.” (De Pater & Van der Wusten, 1996; 182).
Critiques on behavioral geography were that it was based on individualism and it assumed
that everyone had unlimited freedom of choice, not limited by (external) constraints (De Pater
& Van der Wusten, 1996). It took shape as the complete opposite of behaviorism and
therefore lost sight of environmental influences on human behavior. Hägerstrand (1970)
addressed this critique and also created a theoretical solution to bring both behaviorist and
behavioral ideas together: “time-geography” (also time-space-geography). He argues that
time is a dimension equal to space: one does not only act in space, but also in time. Also, he
argues that human behavior is not only caused by individual preferences (like in behavioral
studies), but also depends on constraints:
“An individual who migrates into an established society, either by being born into it or by moving into
it from outside (…) will at once find that the set of potentially possible actions is severely restricted by
the presence of other people and by a maze of cultural and legal rules. In this way, the life path
becomes captured within a net of constraints, some of which are imposed by physiological and
physical constraints, some imposed by private and common decisions. Constraints can become
imposed by society and interact against the will of the individual. An individual can never free himself
from such constraints.” (Hägerstrand, 1970; 11)
This idea of combining human agency and existing structures meant that both the humanist
behavioralism and the behaviorist structuralism were both avoided (Rose, 1993). Hägerstrand
describes three different types of constraints that influence the way in which an individual can
travel within the time-space-continuum: (1) capability constraints: physical constraints of the
human body (for example the need to eat and sleep from time to time or the fact that one
cannot be at more than one place at the same time; (2) coupling constraints: social constraints
that demand individuals to be at a certain place at a certain time (for example a job or school
one needs to attend); (3) authority constraints: areas that are (temporarily) inaccessible for
19
certain individuals (these areas can vary from private properties to bars when being
underaged). The possible movements of people in the space-time continuum can then be
symbolized with the help of prisms (figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Daily Prisms (Hägerstrand, 1970; 13)
It is not hard to see why time-geography has become an important part of feminist
geography: time-geography is about the daily life and about what one can and cannot do in
this daily life. Feminist geography has an interest in focusing on women’s everyday lives.
Therefore time-geography has proven itself as a good methodology as its aim is to research
everyday life: “Examining the lives of women requires attention to the ordinary, to the
unexceptional, because women are excluded from arenas of power and prestige (…)” (Rose,
1993; 30). In this examination of everyday life the starting point was the recognition of the
differences between men’s and women’s lives, based on the public/private tension in
patriarchal society (Millett, 1969). Both authors refer to the fact that women historically were
the ones who stayed at home to do unpaid work like raising children and doing the household,
while men participated in waged labor outside of the house and occupied power positions in
the public sphere. Yet, changes in this structure have been causing a new problem in timegeography: the increased pressure that women experience between domestic work and waged
work outside of the private sphere (Rose, 1993). Although Rose stated this in 1993, other
20
feminist geographers still note this as a contemporary field of tension (Roberts, 2013;
Tummers, 2013). This tension is a problem involving capability and coupling constraints, for
example, one cannot be at work outside of the house and do domestic work at the same time
(capability constraint) and for example one needs to be at the house when the kids come home
from school (coupling constraint).2
One of the main criticisms on time-geography comes from humanist thinkers.
Although human agency is incorporated in Hägerstrand’s time-geography, the human seems
to be just a point in time. According to its critique, time-geography is not able to incorporate a
living body subject that has memories, feelings, knowledge and imagination (De Pater & Van
der Wusten, 1996; 193). Hägerstrand acknowledges this in his reflection on time-space
geography as he wrote later: “[these] capabilities [are] too rich for any conceivable kind of
symbolic representation but decisive for the direction of paths. People are not paths, but they
cannot avoid drawing them in space-time.” (Hägerstrand, 1982; 324). Next to this criticism
feminist thinkers also pointed at the uncritical use of time-geography in feminist articles
(Rose, 1993; Roberts, 2013). Almost all feminist time-geography articles point at the
(stereo)typical roles of women in society and the impact that has on their ability to move
around in the space-time continuum. Rather than critiquing these roles, these articles instead
take them at face-value. Women’s roles and the way in which women are represented in
theory are hardly questioned and therefore this way of practicing feminist time-geography, it
can be argued, is still operating within a phallogocentric framework. Feminist time-geography
in this form, as Rose (1993) states, does not criticize patriarchal oppression .
I want to extent Hägerstrand’s idea of human bodies drawing paths in space-time, to
Sara Ahmed’s phenomenological “lines” (2006). In relation to time-geographical paths,
Ahmed’s queer phenomenology can be the missing link to show how spaces and the built
environment can be not ideal or even oppressing to certain individuals and groups. Simply
stated, phenomenology is about the relationship between subjects and objects in space (and
time) (Ahmed, 2006). The use of phenomenology therefore allows me to talk about the
relations that the built environment in a certain place has with the human subject. Ahmed’s
concept of “lines” can be understood as emotion and affect based equivalents to
Hägerstrand’s paths, which in opposition lack these complex human capabilities. Ahmed
2
What is important to state in this theorization and example in the face of intersectionality is that mainly white
feminists used time-geography as a starting point for their critiques. Rose (1993) also acknowledges her focus on
white women, but does not incorporate an intersectional analysis. I do recognize that also my example here is not
very intersectional. An intersectional analysis inside the time-space continuum could incorporate a disabled
woman, for whom it is even harder to move in time-space or a non-white woman who may also have to deal with
authority constraints for not being accepted in certain places.
21
describes “vertical lines” as being normative life lines, of which many aligned lines exist.
They argue that this alignment is due to “straightening devices” that hold things in place.
These straightening devices can be partly conceptualized in line with what Hägerstrand names
constraints. I would furthermore argue that these are mainly coupling and authority
constraints. For example a normative line or path would consist of being at work/school at the
right times (coupling constraints) and obeying the rules concerning what places you can and
cannot enter (authority constraints). There are a many lines/paths that measure up to this
condition: “Lines disappear through such processes of alignment, so that when even one thing
comes “out of line” with another thing, the “general effect,” is “wonky” or even “queer3”.”
(Ahmed, 2006; 66). This means that individuals or groups who do not want to follow the
normative lines or because of different causes simply cannot align with the normative lines
are deemed as queer. Different from Hägerstrand’s paths, Ahmed’s lines are not necessarily
bound to the space-time continuum, but can be placed in it. This is because of the
impossibility to place emotions and other subjective capabilities in this continuum. Therefore,
where Hägerstrand’s paths can only say something about people’s capabilities in space-time,
Ahmed’s lines can also describe more subjective lines and are more orientated towards
subjective expressions. This is visible in their use of lines in relation to sexuality and space.
They describe heteronormativity as one of the vertical lines, and queer lines (here, queer
demarcates a non-heteronormative sexuality/identity) as lines that are not completely vertical,
but are wavy and only sometimes align or cross normative lines. In the face of the use of
spaces, this can mean that certain spaces can become dangerous or inaccessible to individuals
whose lines do not align with vertical lines. For example, it could be dangerous for queer
people to just walk around in a public environment, because one could become victim of
emotional or physical violence by people who happen to be on the normative line. Ahmed
argues that this can be caused by moments of disorientation: people who walk the normative
path are not used to a queer presence in a normative environment and in such a moment of
disorientation can react negatively to a queer appearance. This can result in for example
harassment of the individual that causes this disorientation. In extension, Doan (2011)
therefore argues that queering planning is a good method to create safe(r) spaces. She argues
that built environments that do not necessarily only serve the needs of dominant groups and
In this thesis “queer” is a concept mostly used according to the quote: “Queer is by definition whatever is at
odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. It is an identity without an essence. ‘Queer’ then, demarcates
not a positivity, but a positionality vis-à-vis the normative.” (Halperin, 1997; 62).
3
22
normative uses are safer and more pleasant for marginalized people and types of use, but also
for people who belong to the majority.
The above introduction of the notion of queering planning, this framework is the step from
geography to urban planning in this framework. Geography is an essential part within spatial
studies, and without it urban planning cannot exist. Simply stated, geography is the spatial
study that researches uses of spaces, and urban planning applies the knowledge gained in
geography to improve the built environment (Spit & Zoete, 2009). But, while gender concepts
in geography are seen more and more, urban planning seems to lack integration of gender. I
agree with Larsson (2006) that this is due to a number of reasons: (1) Spatial planning (praxis)
is based on the assumption of being ‘gender neutral’ and focuses on a general public interest;
(2) Few planners are familiar with gender concepts; (3) Planning practice and policy are
mainly based on “equal opportunities” models; (4) Urban planning is mainly a field developed
by practitioners, based on their practical experiences and policies. Here, I specifically want to
focus on the idea of “equal opportunities” that is prevalent in urban planning. Larsson notes
critically: “(…) the term equal opportunities may be understood to mean ‘sameness’ –
implying that women should become (like) men.” (Larsson, 2006; 510). With this
interpretation of equal opportunities models, links with important feminist thinking become
visible: namely, the underlying idea of sexual difference thinking. Sexual difference thinking
derives from psychoanalysis and states that we live in a phallogocentrist society. This means
that everything is understood from a masculine perspective, even the feminine: “This
feminine bears no immediate or even direct relationship to real-life women. It is a typically
masculine attitude, which turns male disorders into feminine values.” (Braidotti, 1994; 124).
In this light, feminine is the complete opposite of masculinity: it embodies a lack. Sameness,
within the structures of phallogocentrism would mean, as Larsson accurately argues, that
women should become like men. Sexual difference thinkers (like Irigaray, Braidotti and
Grosz) argue that woman is not opposite to man and feminine is not opposite to masculine,
but that woman and feminine are intrinsically different than man and masculine. Sexual
difference is not meant as a literal sexual difference that can be perceived by looking at ‘the
sex’ of bodies, but it is an ontological notion that moves beyond the language of identity and
gender (Grosz, 2005). This sexual difference does not yet exist, because we still live in
phallogocentrism. In order to achieve this sexual difference, Irigaray (1985) and Grosz (2005)
suggest that we must change thinking and language itself. They are not implying that there are
only two types of sexual being, woman and man, but at least two types of sexual being who
23
are “irreducibly different, and not adequately representable under a single mode or image.”
(Grosz, 2005; 177).
Thus, when one relates the equal opportunities model in planning with sexual
difference, it reduces women4 to the embodiment of a lack. Thinking of time-geography based
equal opportunities planning, this model would mean that the built environment is not
adjusted to the needs of women (for example businesses close to residential areas so that
women are able to work and take care of children), but that women should have the same
‘opportunities’ as men (for example encouraging women in the waged labor market not to
have children). Larsson (2006) also states this problem and argues that the equal opportunities
model often glorifies men’s actions in everyday life (like waged labor) and undervalues
‘typical’ women’s tasks (like domestic work). She also states that it is remarkable that in her
research planning agencies and municipalities who worked with gender did not have any
knowledge that reached beyond heteronormative roles and uses of space.
Other attempts and models have been used to incorporate gender in planning (praxis),
both successful and unsuccessful. Chapter 2.3 elaborates on this more in depth and contains
examples of existing gendered planning methods.
2.2 Planning theory and planning praxis: the Dutch context
Before looking into gendered planning methods in chapter 2.3, this chapter elaborates on
planning theory and praxis in the Dutch context. Planning praxis is a field that is mainly
developed by practitioners themselves and is bound to (inter)national, regional and municipal
policies (Larsson, 2006; Spit & Zoete, 2009).
I want to begin by introducing the basis of Dutch urban planning and its processes. Planning
starts with the “problem identification” and the “problem analysis”. In these two phases the
problem, that is either social or spatial, is acknowledged after which the components of this
problem are researched (Spit e.a., 2010). An example of a problem that requires spatial
intervention can be the physical decay of the built environment or a general feeling of
unsafeness in a remote area of the city. Then a “requirements program” is decided on (most
of the times these are requirements that are posed by the (local) government) after which the
task of the planner is to create the framework in which the deciding party can state its goals
(Spit e.a., 2010). This means that in this stage the planner only states what is (spatially)
4
And possibly other individuals and groups who directly suffer under phallogocentrism. Although, Grosz (2005)
and Braidotti (1994) both argue that also people who are men or embody a masculine identity suffer from
phallogocentrism, but they are less likely to feel or acknowledge this. This would substantiate Doan’s (2011)
argument that creating queer spaces is better for minorities as well as dominant groups/individuals.
24
possible, and others (for example the responsible government) make decisions within these
preconditions. After this, the “plan generation” can start. It is usually only from this stage that
third parties are joining the planning conversation. After the plan generation is finished, an
“ex ante evaluation” takes place in which the plan is verified against the posed goals and
preconditions. The responsible government must then approve the plan so that it can be
executed. When the plan (whole or part) has been executed, an “ex post evaluation” is held in
which the concerned parties evaluate if and how they have reached the posed goals, and what
they can learn from that for future projects. This whole process is usually not as linear as it is
described above, rather it is a cyclical iterative process in which previous steps must be
consistently thought through (Spit & Zoete, 2009; Spit e.a., 2010).
In the post-war period until 1990, the Dutch central government had more influence on
local spatial planning, which is why in the 1980’s gendered planning initiatives were applied
more easily and broadly. In the 1990’s the process of decentralization began, whereby the
central government delegated many spatial tasks and decision-making to lower governments,
mainly the municipalities (and partly provinces) (Tummers, 2013). With this significant
change in the planning system, the central government intended to make planning a more
bottom-up system, to replace the top-down process it was. The reason for this alteration was
the understanding that local governments are closer to their citizens and therefore can make
more accurate decisions on what an ideal built environment would look like (Spit & Zoete,
2009; Spit e.a., 2010). This was a very promising change, because with the decentralization,
more local actors could be involved in decision making and more research could be done on
citizens’ needs concerning the urban environment. Alas, the decentralization has been a
difficult process, since all governmental layers had to find their way in all the new tasks
again. Some smaller municipalities who do not have sufficient knowledge on spatial problems
are still having trouble with the newly assigned responsibilities. One of the reasons gender
disappeared from the planning agenda has been due to this decentralization, because this
process was prioritized. Also, there was some general gendered knowledge available on a
national planning level, but local governments had often never encountered gender theories
and the planners in these organizations, thus, could not work with it. This has been a major
setback for feminist planning initiatives that just started to get included: “During the late
1990s, the centrally coordinated ‘emancipation policy’ was reduced to part of the workpackage of a Secretary of State, the national and regional emancipation agencies closed and
budgets and subsidies were cut. The remaining VBW [women building housing] network reoriented itself towards European programmes such as Gender Mainstreaming” (Tummers,
25
2013; 111). From 2000 gender mainstreaming was demanded in EU planning policy. Gender
mainstreaming is seen as “a process of revision of key concepts ‘to grasp more adequately a
world that is gendered.” (Roberts, 2013; 9). But, due to the bottom-up character of Dutch
planning the gender mainstreaming requirement never really reached plan-making in the
Netherlands, because it is a too top-down concept, coming from EU-level (Tummers, 2013).
Also, gender mainstreaming has been criticized for not being transformative or being able to
contest any gender relations. Moreover, since planning practitioners throughout the EU are
not trained to apply gender in their work the term is often written off as an empty cry by a
distant governmental level (Roberts, 2013).
To understand how the contemporary system of bottom-up planning in the
Netherlands works it is important to incorporate different types of plans in this framework.
The most important plan for this thesis is the strategic plan.5 With the decentralization it
became necessary to change the national planning act. A completely new act was made, the
Wro (Wet ruimtelijke ordening), the Spatial Planning Act. This act does not concretely state
what is seen as “good planning,” but it states how every smaller scale government should
arrange the procedural part of spatial intervention and policy (Spit e.a., 2010). According to
this act each local government is required to compose a strategic plan. A strategic plan (or
strategic vision), is a plan that describes uses of and intervention in spaces on the long term.
Such a plan is not legally binding, but is an indication of what is happening in the built
environment for the coming decades. The Wro does not state what must be in the strategic
plan, so local governments can decide themselves on what aspects in relation to space they
think are important to describe in this document. Strategic plans have to be created in
consultation with relevant stakeholders, but it is not stated what kind of stakeholders these
should be (Spit e.a., 2010). This is an opportunity for stakeholders that are committed to give
marginalized groups a voice. For example, feminist or queer initiatives that represent
women’s and queer people’s spatial interests. But, because the strategic plan is a fairly new
planning instrument, many planning practitioners are struggling with it. Oppressed voices are
therefore often forgotten in the process and strategic plans tend to be more technical than
social, due to a tunnel vision caused by lack of knowledge (Spit e.a., 2010; Tummers, 2013).
Another problem that arises with implementing gender in the current planning system is that it
One should take into account that in this thesis the strategic plan is explained according to the “Utrechtse
Planologische School,” so the vision that is dominant in urban planning in Utrecht. In other places different
understandings of the strategic plan may exist. De Utrechtse Planologische School argues that all actors in the
strategic plan, be they governmental or private parties, have a more or less equal position with respect to each
other (Spit e.a., 2010; 11-12). Other schools may argue that governmental parties are (still) dominant in this
process.
5
26
is not clear on what level it has to be implemented. In the strategic plan gender is often
dismissed because the opinion is that it is better to implement it in smaller scale plans, like the
zoning plan or even on neighborhood level plans. However, the experience is that when
gender is dismissed to a smaller scale plan, it does not get incorporated at all. Because the
strategic plan is used as a guide for the zoning plan, but lacks a gendered lens, it is forgotten
or ignored in the zoning plan (Larsson, 2006). In contrast to the strategic plan, zoning plans
are legally binding. This means that when a zoning plan is presented, the depicted uses of
space and possible spatial interferences are binding for all actors and citizens in that (part of
the) municipality (Spit & Zoete, 2009). Hence, the focus of this thesis is on the strategic plan,
which I consider the planning level on which it is most effective to do a gender intervention.
The previous two sections are the paragon of why theory and praxis in planning are so
distant from each other. Chapter 2.1 focused on the study behind urban planning, chapter 2.2
focused on planning as a praxis. It is already hard to see the similarities in those two chapters,
for urban planning theory does not really show how planning praxis works. This is because
practitioners are usually not (ex) urban planning academics, but they learn their “craft”
through practical experience (Larsson, 2006; Van Hoven, 2009). Also, since the planner
functions as a mediator between different public and private actors, the fact whether gender is
incorporated also depends on the interests and knowledge of these stakeholders (Spit & Zoete,
2009).
2.3 Existing gendered planning projects and tools for spatial gender analysis
The previous sections have elaborated on the bonds between spatial studies and gender
studies and on the Dutch context of planning praxis. When reading these sections it becomes
clear that there is a need for feminist/gendered planning, because not everyone has the same
experience of the built environment or the same expectations of certain spaces (chapter 2.1).
The knowledge that has been gained through the years that often space is gendered and thus
gender should be a legitimate part of planning praxis, seldom seeps from theory into praxis
due to the theory-praxis split that exists in Dutch urban planning. As chapter 2.2 has shown,
the new organization of Dutch planning provides major chances for the incorporation of
gendered ideas, as decentralization of planning and the strategic plan with mandatory input
from different stakeholders are strong opportunities for bottom-up initiatives. Nevertheless is
gender seldom incorporated in these strategic plans (and gender also lacks in smaller scale
plans). This section explores successful and unsuccessful projects in which attempts to
incorporate gender in planning have been made. These examples find their origin both in the
27
Netherlands as well as in other European countries. It is important to bring these projects into
the discussion because they illustrate theoretical understandings of gender in planning that are
then easier to understand in a planning praxis context.
The first method of gender aware planning that is discussed here is a planning instrument that
is called “GIA” (Gender Impact Assessment): “(…) an ex ante evaluation method, designed to
identify possible gender effects in general policy and to aid development of alternatives that
promote gender equality” (Meesters & Oudejans, 2005). The GIA is based on the existence of
structural inequalities between women and men and locates these inequalities in four different
domains: private life, employment, knowledge and citizenship. It was developed by the
central government in 1992 (Verloo & Roggeband, 1995). GIA’s are executed with five steps
(figure 2.2)
Figure 2.2: The five steps of GIA (Verloo & Roggeband, 1995; 5)
The GIA is not necessarily a planning instrument as Verloo & Roggeband (1995) argue, as it
was originally designed to analyze potential effects of all new governmental policies on
gender in society. GIA was promoted by different municipal organizations to be implemented
in (local) planning. There are three examples of municipalities who have (partially) applied
GIA to spatial plans: Den Haag (1999), Zoetermeer (2001) and Wolvega (2004). The
municipality of Den Haag used site visits, plan analyses, literature and interviews and surveys
with potential home-buyers in the neighborhood where the plan was being made for.
Zoetermeer only looked at the literature and plans, and had no interaction with the
neighborhood’s citizens, while Wolvega did a plan analysis and had a response group that
came together from time to time (it is not stated what kinds of people were included in this
group). The outcome of all three studies that the municipalities did is a focus on the
importance of participation and new ways of working together: both Den Haag and Wolvega
point to the necessity to include new stakeholders in the projects, but do not suggest concrete
28
stakeholders (Tummers, 2013). Alas, there is no documentation available on the monitoring of
these projects, so it is hard to know if the gendered recommendations have really been
applied. It would be interesting to delve deeper into these projects and research if the GIA has
had effects, but due to the limited space in this thesis I am not able to do this.
Tummers points at the fact that in all three cases the GIA made generic
recommendations that “echo policy goals, but are not sufficiently concrete for local planners”
(Tummers, 2013; 116). This can be the result of a lack of knowledge and therefore an
inability to make more specific recommendations, but it can also be caused by the difficulty to
apply theory in praxis. A gendered recommendation that is too generic must then be
interpreted by the plan-makers and –executers themselves, but due to a lack of gender
knowledge on this level of the plan-making, there is a high chance that the recommendations
are attenuated or not implemented in the execution at all (Tummers, 2013). Although GIA has
been a successful instrument in other policy fields, it is not used in urban planning anymore.
Tummers explains the “failure” of GIA in Dutch urban planning is caused by at least two
factors: (1) GIA was originally not specifically designed for the planning field, therefore it
often failed to take into account the specific features and policies of Dutch planning; and (2)
the proposed criteria and the GIA itself never became embedded in mainstream planning
procedures. Two other types of impact assessments, the “MER” (environmental impact
assessment) and the “Watertoets” (regarding water storage and flooding risks), which have the
same technical character are now legal requirements for spatial plans, but GIA has been the
forgotten sibling. Gender is often still interpreted as “women, the other” and this has serious
implications for the effectiveness of equal opportunities policies and urban planning (Hudson
& Rönnblom, 2007).
The next example I want to use is an example from Vienna, Austria. I chose this
example because this city has been ranked highest quality of living in the world by Mercer
Study for the last five rankings in a row (in comparison: Amsterdam ranks 11th in 2015)
(Mercer, 2015). One of the 39 factors on which the ranking is based is transportation and this
is also the field on which Vienna has focused their gender aware planning. One of the projects
that included gender aware planning (on a transportation level) is the district of Mariahilf.
This is a relatively small district of Vienna, but is the home to 30.000 citizens (Statistik
Austria, 2015). It is an old neighborhood and has a lot of small streets, so the government
wanted to look at how they could improve the mobility so that it would fit modern day types
of transportation and mobility (Irschik & Kail, 2013). In order to include gender in this
process, data was first collected about modes of transportation. It turned out that there was a
29
slightly gendered modal split (distribution of persons over types of transportation) between
men and women: 56 per cent of all trips made on foot are by women and 58 per cent of all
trips by car are taken by men. Also, people who are homemakers, children and elderly people
are more likely to make trips on foot (Social Data 2006; as stated by Irschik & Kail, 2013).
According to Irschik & Kail, pedestrians have long been a blind spot of transport planning,
disadvantaging certain groups, like women, disabled and lower class people. Therefore, one
of the recommendations of the gendered analysis was to improve the pedestrian network by
broadening sidewalks, improving street lights on sidewalks and creating safe street crossings.
Also, Mariahilf has a height difference of 31 meters between the highest and lowest point and
a lot of stairs make it hard for disabled and elderly people to go from A to B.
While gendered knowledge is often very low in planning, in the project in Vienna
seven municipal departments were involved and budget funds from the Urban Planning and
Women’s Departments were used for research and to hire external experts. The most
important factor, however, was the openness of officials and “standard” planning stakeholders
to include new, innovative topics and parties. Irschik & Kail also state that the strength of this
project was that when the process of plan-making and ex ante evaluation was completed, the
gender experts and stakeholders were still involved in the process. With the use of GIA in
three Dutch towns as described in the last paragraph, the implication of gendered research
findings into concrete plans and execution of these plans went wrong, due to, as I argued, a
lack of knowledge. In comparison, in the case of Vienna gender experts were able to facilitate
part of the planning process in order to support urban planners who have never worked with
gender before. After the success of this project, other districts of Vienna and plan-makers in
other sectors than transportation started showing interest in gender mainstreaming their
projects, leading to an upward positive spiral for gendered planning since 2006. This also
meant that on the one hand plan-makers became more interested in the topic and thus were
eager to educate themselves further and on the other hand more stakeholders and
governmental departments were willing to invest in the distribution of this knowledge.
Meaning more budgets were made available to hire external experts. Of course to be able to
make this project a success, different methods have been used. Because a lot of the available
methods were either outdated or not applicable to the city of Vienna, they created their own
tools and methods. One of the used methods has been a “social space analysis” in which
research is done on different uses and opinions about spaces by different groups. Gender and
other intersectional characteristics came almost automatically into view. The way in which
implementation of these kinds of research was accomplished has been a combination of
30
complete involvement of gender experts in combination with an eagerness of mainstream
planners to incorporate gender in their plans (Irschik & Kail, 2013). It is hard to say how this
openness towards gender planning was “suddenly” created in Vienna. Irschik & Kail state that
it is possible that planners finally saw that this gendered planning is not “women’s planning,”
but that also other people than women could profit from this. For example, the Vienna plans
never state which gender profits from what kinds of spatial interventions. When a plan
focusses on “people with unpaid work,” it will state that exact term. Irschik & Kail underscore
that in this way it speaks to more people than when it is associated with “women” (although
women do mostly make up the biggest group in this category). Also, they argue the problem
of consolidating traditionally seen roles for women and men is avoided in this way. There are
some notes I would like to state here though, because not using “woman” to make gendered
proposal more appealing does sound somewhat doubtful. It can also be seen as a
phallogocentric trap: the word “woman” is interpreted as something bad that planning does
not want to relate to and by removing this word and replacing it with a more vague
description, suddenly planners, stakeholders and governments are open to the ideas. Also,
while Irschik & Kail argue that it is less affirmative of stereotypical gender roles, it still does
not contest them. People who live non-(hetero)normative, or queer, lives are not made visible
through this way of analyzing uses of space.
The last example in this chapter has a somewhat different character and can be seen as
a useful tool to bridge top-down and bottom-up initiatives and policy, while also acting as an
opportunity for a public-private-people partnership. In Helsinki, Finland, the NGO Helka was
established in 1964. Helka (Helsinki Neighborhoods Association) is an (online) platform that
is meant to stimulate neighborhood participation, irrespective of characteristics like sex, age,
gender, class and ethnicity:
“The big gender issue for Helka is the vision of a local supportive community. The challenge
is to co-develop locally sustainable structures that will encourage both women and men to
construct a better daily life. The nature of the vision is quite soft. It is rather an instrument for
sustaining daily life than a goal that is based on hard values.” (Pirjo Tulikukka, director of
Helka; as quoted by Horelli & Wallin, 2013; 238).
The organization has different websites for different neighborhoods and via this way updates
the citizens on (planning) projects and updates the local governments and private stakeholders
on the wishes that citizens have. This project is part of a planning method that is called
“gender-sensitive e-planning,” which was developed to sustain everyday life on local scale in
a society that is becoming more and more focused on larger scale issues (Horelli & Wallin,
31
2013). It is part of “everyday life studies,” that is gender sensitive according to feminist
geographers, because of the historically different uses and demands of space in relation to
gender and other concepts like ethnicity, ability and class. For example, women usually need
a more mixed use of space than men (in a context that does not challenge stereotypical gender
roles) (Rose, 1993; Irschik & Kail, 2013; Tummers, 2013). Helka therefore does not
necessarily focus on gender, but it is important to note that the majority of citizens
participating in this community-based collaboration are women (Horelli & Wallin, 2013). An
example of a concrete project of Helka was the ‘Urban Mediator’: a program that encouraged
adolescents to help with the planning of a city park: “The use of the Urban Mediator enabled
the boys and girls who took part in the planning process to think and act as masters of
technology, instead of being passive users and mere consumers.” (Horelli & Wallin, 2013;
239). If people from different genders, classes, ethnicities etcetera can be encouraged to take
part in such bottom-up projects and when local governments and private stakeholders are also
eager to accept these new contributions to their work, spaces can be made more comfortable
for all users. Gender-sensitive e-planning is a non-committal form of intervening in planning:
there is no guarantee of success for the citizens who participate in it, and this is also what the
director of Helka argues: “One of the biggest challenges is the balancing between our soft
visions and the hard demands coming from the market.” (as quoted in Horelli & Wallin, 2013;
240). In some ways bottom-up initiatives thus have to be able to create some goodwill
amongst the local governments and private stakeholders, which is a constant challenge that
differs from country to country and even within the countries themselves. For the planning of
Utrecht’s station area that means that threats and weaknesses of mainstream planning have to
be found, that can be strengthened with the opportunities that gender-sensitive planning can
provide. The next step then is to convince public and private parties and planners that gender
is a factor that cannot be left out. As the above examples show, there is not one way to come
to a gendered from of planning, but there are a lot of options, varying from policy-led
gendered interventions (as is the case for the GIA) to interventions that come from the endusers themselves (the example of the Helka project).
32
3. Methodology
This chapter explains the methodology and the methods that are used for this research, and
also elaborates on the choices that are made in this thesis concerning the chosen methods and
the case study.
This thesis is based on a deductive way of conducting research, which means that the
theoretical framework derives from the problem statement and the research question(s). The
knowledge that is gained in the theoretical framework is determinative for the methodology
and methods that are used to do the research itself and therefore for the answering of the
research question(s) (Mayring, 2000; Schaeken e.a., 2007). For my research I use mixed
methods, since the research is comprised of different parts that require different approaches.
This means that the theoretical framework is constituted through a literature analysis, coming
from the fields of urban planning, geography and gender studies, then a gendered SWOT
analysis of the CU2030 strategic plan is conducted (chapter 3.1), additionally, interviews with
gender planning/geography academics are held (chapter 3.2).
3.1 Case study: methods for analysis
Strategic plan CU2030
To explore how gender plays a role in current planning praxis, a case study is selected: the
CU2030 strategic plan. The strategic plan is a compulsory document for local governments
under the new Wro (Spatial Planning Act) (Spit e.a., 2010), however, this is not the reason
that the CU2030 strategic plan was created. The reason that the city council decided to make a
strategic plan for the station area too had to do with the size of the project; it would affect
many stakeholders and citizens of Utrecht. During the establishing of the zoning plan for the
area, problems occurred concerning various topics. The ‘Raad van State’ (Council of State)
determined that there were legal problems concerning the air quality in the area during and
after the plan execution and that the level of detail was legally insufficient for a zoning plan.
Because a higher level of detail was unwanted for such a big plan area and for the duration of
the plan and because a more holistic view of the plan area was needed, it was decided to first
make a strategic plan (Gemeente Utrecht, 2006). This plan, on which my analysis is based, is
easily accessible on a special CU2030 website, along with all other planning and policy
documents.6
Since this document is also a spatial study, I find it necessary to include some of the
6
http://cu2030.nl/pagina/achtergronddocumenten (only available in Dutch language).
33
plan’s details in this methodology. The plan area’s edges are on the east side Smakkelaarsveld
and the train track between the Daalsetunnel and Leidseveertunnel, on the south side the
Moreelsepark, on the west side the Merwedekanaal and on the north side the Graadt van
Roggenweg and the Daalsetunnel (figure 3.1). The rest of the content of the strategic plan will
be discussed in the results (chapter 4).
Figure 3.1: Strategic plan map station area Utrecht (Gemeente Utrecht, 2006)
Taking into account that the plan-making process has already been completed (the strategic
plan was presented in 2006), my gendered intervention takes place in the “ex post”
evaluation. Although this reduces the chance that my critiques and recommendations in this
thesis will still be applied to the physical restructuring of this area, I aim for the critiques and
recommendations to at least be addressed on a social level and hope they can influence future
projects.
The analysis method of the strategic plan derives from a geography/planning perspective,
since merely feminist methods are hardly applicable to spatial policy documents. Also, since I
aim to make an intervention in planning, I want my analysis to be as clear as possible to the
34
more pragmatic field of planning. The SWOT analysis is a method that is often seen in
geography and planning, both to test the fitness of policies from different angles, as well as
the usability of spaces. I want to use this analysis since it meets the level of pragmatism in
spatial praxis. It is originally developed for business purposes around the 1960’s-70’s
(Humphrey, 2005), and it is a clear method that can bridge the gap between feminist (spatial)
studies and planning praxis. ‘SWOT’ is short for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats (figure 3.2). Strengths are the characteristics of a project that give it an advantage
over others, weaknesses are characteristics that give the project a disadvantage over others,
opportunities are elements that the project could exploit to create an advantage and threats are
elements in the project’s environment that could create problems. Strengths and weaknesses
are both factors that have an internal origin and are thus advantages or disadvantages that can
be strengthened or weakened by the plan- and policy-making. Opportunities and threats have
an external origin and have to be taken into account by the plans too, but it is also possible
that these elements only present itself later, because external factors cannot always be
controlled (Pickton & Wright, 1998). A SWOT analysis example of the restructuring of
Utrecht’s station area from a mobility perspective can for example be: (1) strength: central in
the Netherlands; (2) weakness: lack of space to build; (3) opportunity: better accessibility; (4)
threat: mobility increase.
Figure 3.2 SWOT analysis (Agrinomics I.T. Consulting, 2015)
Although the ‘simplicity’ of the SWOT analysis is an opportunity to make a gendered
analysis more easily applicable to planning praxis, there is also a risk on an academic level.
Because, while the model has been praised for its practicality and simplicity, used uncritically
it can become a ‘naive’ tool, leading to inherent shortfalls and strategic errors: “SWOT should
35
not be viewed as a static analytical tool with emphasis solely on its output. It should be used
as a dynamic part of the (…) development process.” (Pickton & Wright, 1998; 101). Pickton
& Wright continue to argue that “the realities of planning reveal that strategy formulation is
more likely to be somewhat more incremental, non-rational and irregular; more ‘organic’ than
‘mechanic’” (Pickton & Wright, 1998; 101), thus using the SWOT analysis merely as a
mechanic tool is unwanted. Instead of focusing on the output of such a model it is important
to focus on the process of data collection as well (Pickton & Wright, 1998). The way I
interpret this is that one also has to take into account the hidden subjectivity of such a
straightforward model. While the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are often
presented in spatial policy documents as objective givens that portray the benefits of all
stakeholders and users of spaces, some strengths and opportunities may embody weaknesses
and threats to stakeholders and users that are not incorporated in the plan-making. Hence, the
subjectivity of the person(s) that make the SWOT analysis has to be taken into account, which
means that also my own position as a researcher who will apply this analysis is important. As
a gender studies and former spatial studies student who is occupied with ideas about gender
and sexuality most of the time, it is apparent that my view on spaces is different from (spatial)
researchers who do not actively engage with these topics or who are even unaware of the
spatial influence of these topics. Also, my position as a queer, white, middle-class researcher
influences my standpoint7, which enables me to see topics like gender and sexuality, but may
also cause blindness for other topics.
3.2 Expert interviews
Next to my own analysis of the CU2030 strategic plan, I also will use the expertise of
academics who have been concerned with gender geography and planning (who will be
introduces later on in this chapter). Originally, the idea was to interview planners who have
been involved in the strategic plan-making process, but the chance of a lack of gendered
knowledge among these practitioners was assumed to be too high, with the risk of no gender
theoretical fruitful interviews. Therefore, I have chosen to interview academics who have
sufficient knowledge about the topic. This way, the interviews can be feasible to support the
gendered recommendations for urban planning that are made in this thesis. If there will be a
continuation regarding topic after this thesis it is interesting to talk to planners, policymakers
7
For further reading on standpoint theory see, for example, Harding, S. (1991) Feminist Standpoint
Epistemology. In: Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 119-137 or Collins,
P.H. (1991) Defining Black Feminist Thought. In: Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge, pp. 19-41.
36
and stakeholders that have been incorporated in the process of the strategic plan-making.
However, in this research of the topic it is too early to include these actors.
Interview structure
The interview form used in this thesis is a physical, face-to-face, semi-structured and openended type of interview. This means that I, the interviewer, will have little control on how
participants should answer the questions. However, there are some questions that I would like
answered, and different questions and approaches are used for different participants (HesseBiber, 2014). It does not matter in which order the questions appear, nor is it important to stay
strictly on-topic all the time, because interesting things can be said when the conversation
wanders away from the original questions: “I have some control then in how the interview is
constructed in terms of, for example, the sequence of questions and the specific content of
each question. (…) I have an agenda; but it is not tightly determined, and there is room left for
spontaneity on the part of the researcher and interviewee.” (Hesse-Biber, 2014; 186-187). I
have opted for an open-ended interview that poses slightly different questions to different
participants, because the respondents are all experts on the topic of gender and
geography/planning, but they have a slightly different expertise. Thus, it is more useful to ask
specific questions, determined by their expertise, to each of them. Because they are experts on
the topic, I decided that a structured interview would possibly limit them too much in their
answers, which could limit the information that I could get from them. On the other hand,
with an unstructured interview the risk is high that the respondent and I get off-topic, which
can be prevented through the semi-structured interview. Typical feminist approaches to indepth interviewing as described in Hesse-Biber (2014) that are often used to create trust
between the researcher and interviewee do not apply here, since the interviews are on an
expert level and do not necessarily include personal lives and lived experiences of the
interviewees.
A semi-structured interview is based on an ‘interview guide,’ to assure to discuss a
specific set of issues and concerns with the respondent: “An interview guide is a set of topical
areas and questions that the interviewer brings to the interview.” (Hesse-Biber, 2014; 193). I
have created the questions according to Weiss’ (1994) method of starting with a ‘substantive
frame’ that is organized topically. The concrete interview questions derive from these topics.
First, a ‘topics-to-learn-about-list’ is set-up, which differs per respondent, then, these topics
become a ‘line-of-inquiry’ that is pursued during the interviews. According to Weiss (1994;
48), the interview questions are constructed and organized in a way that they get at the
37
information that relates to these lines. The creation of an interview guide (even if it remains
unused during the actual interview) is important, because it helps isolating key issues and thus
increases the effectiveness of the interviews (Hesse-Biber, 2014). The complete interview
guide can be found in the appendix (8.1).
Selection of respondents
Both respondents are experts on the topic of gender and geography/planning. One of the
interviewees, Dr. Ilse van Liempt, is an assistant professor at Utrecht University. She works at
the Geosciences faculty and teaches courses in Urban Geography as well as in Human
Geography and Planning (the latter one being my former Bachelor program). She is one of the
few teachers in this field at Utrecht University that has experience in both spatial studies and
gender studies, and we have worked together before during my bachelor thesis. Her scientific
expertise is on migration, qualitative research, surveillance, gender and public space. She
worked on publications like “Super-diversity and the art of living in ethnically concentrated
areas” (2015) and “Safe Nightlife collaborations: Multiple actors, conflicting interests and
different power distributions” (2015) (Utrecht University, 2015). Because of her extensive
work in diversity and safety in urban areas and the focus on factors like gender in this, I
selected her for one of my expert interviews. The topic I decided to discuss with her is mainly
safety in relation to gender in the station area (before and after the restructuring) (appendix
8.1).
The other expert on the topic I selected for an interview is Dr. Bettina van Hoven. She
is associate professor in Cultural Geography at the Faculty of Spatial Sciences at the
University of Groningen. Her scientific expertise is on qualitative research, participatory
methodologies, inclusion and exclusion, wellbeing, livability and the urban context (RUG,
2015). I asked her to participate in an interview because of one of her articles I used as
background information for this thesis: ““Can You Write a Memo on Why We Have to do
Gender, Please?” An Experiential Account of Teaching Gender Geography in the
Netherlands” (2009). In this article she talks about the reasons why gender was never really
included in geography and planning in the Netherlands. The topic I mainly want to discuss
with her is the implementation of gender in spatial studies; what her experiences are with this
and how she thinks including gender topics more could be possible (appendix 8.1).
The information from these interviews is used to strengthen the findings in my SWOT
analysis of the CU2030 strategic plan and to support the argumentation for the gendered
intervention and recommendations that are made for the station area of Utrecht.
38
4. Results
In this chapter, the results of the SWOT analysis are presented and, if possible, supported by
the outcomes of the interviews with Van Hoven (2015) and Van Liempt (2015). The
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are based on the existing body of knowledge,
the interviewees views and, my own views as a (queer) former spatial studies student. This
chapter only presents the results of the analysis and does not yet interpret and relate the results
of the SWOT and interviews to the theoretical framework, this will be done in the discussion
section (chapter 5.1). The complete SWOT analysis scheme can be found in the appendix
(8.2).
4.1 Strengths
One of the strengths that is very apparent in the strategic plan is, that the intended changes are
making the area more heterogeneous regarding its uses: “In general, a higher level of mixed
use is pursued, in order to create a more lively area.” (Gemeente Utrecht, 2006; 22). The plan
contains a mixed use including living, shopping, culture, offices and public facilities. For
example, 1000 extra apartments are built and there is room for a new variety of shops. This
diversity of shops is needed to attract and welcome different kinds of people (although it is
not further specified which groups are targeted). Additionally, building housing spaces in the
area is important to harbor a sense of safety and prevent spaces from becoming deserted at
night, as Van Liempt (interview 2) (2015) mentions. This may especially make the area more
attractive to women, because women more often than men state to feel unsafe in deserted and
nightly environments. Besides a safer feeling in women, men also profit from safer spaces
because they have a higher chance of being the victim of criminality (Van Liempt, 2015).
Also, the plan emphasizes that the station as well as the adjacent shopping center Hoog
Catharijne were very inward oriented before, because entrances to offices and shops were
mostly inside the large building, which left the ground floor on the outside deserted. In the
restructuring all shops and offices will have a ground floor outside entrance, to avoid
desertion and improve accessibility from different height levels. Another strength is that the
plan also focuses on accessibility for disabled people. Not only is this profitable for people
who happen to have reduced mobility, but adjustments for disabled people make spaces more
pleasant to able bodied people too, Van Hoven (interview 1) (2015) states. Furthermore, Van
Liempt (2015) argues that the station has become safer because station exits are now closed or
secured at night. This resulted in a decline of homeless people and drug users that resided in
39
the station at night. However, she admits that this is also a form of exclusion. A strength in the
strategic plan concerning the same issue is that space is allocated for a center for homeless
and addicted people. Other strengths of the plan, that can be argued on the basis of the
theories which I have presented in the theoretical framework are the flexibility of the type of
plan, the focus on public transport, pedestrian and cyclist routes. Also the fact that there has
been the possibility for external parties and end-users to have a say in the plan before it was
published is a strength. A more in-depth engagement with the above briefly mentioned
strengths will be done in chapter 5.1, as these topics have not been part of the interviews.
4.2 Weaknesses
While one of the main goals stated in the plan is to make the plan area more livable and safe,
it seems to be a hollow sentence, since only 1,5 out of 90 total pages are dedicated to these
two topics. There are technical adjustments stated in the plan that may lead to an increase of
livability and safety, like the creation of entrances to shops and offices on the outside of the
station, but there is no substantive research presented on if and how these adjustments can
support the goal. Social structures are absent in the interventions taken to achieve this goal.
The absence of analysis of social structures is relevant for the whole plan. For example,
another goal is to connect different parts of the plan area and to connect different ‘target
groups’ (that are not further specified in the plan) through this. The plans focus once again on
how to do this physically, but fails to address social structures about the “target groups” in
different city parts they wish to connect. Van Liempt (2015) also addresses the fragmentation
of the plan area and states that the station is psychologically and physically far away from
other parts of the inner city. She mentions that she would like to see a more open character of
this space, to prevent this fragmentation. Van Hoven (2015) emphasizes the value of social
aspects in planning and states that through shaping spaces with social structures in mind, it is
possible to make different groups of people encounter each other in the same spaces. She
argues it is important to think about possibilities to make different kinds of people encounter
each other in the same space, because, only when they physically encounter each other it is
possible to reduce social fragmentation. On the other hand Van Liempt argues that bringing
different identities together in one space can also create more conflict, due to clashing ideas
and values. This lack of a social lens causes a blindness for gender and other axes of
difference. A major weakness of the plan when critically read through the research questions
of this thesis, is that it lacks words like gender, ethnicity, class and sexuality. Hereby, it
becomes clear that the plan reasons from a general “public interest”, the interest of the
40
majority, without questioning if marginalized groups (based on different genders, ethnicities,
classes and sexualities) also automatically profit from these spatial interventions. Van Hoven
argues that one of the reasons why diversity is often ‘forgotten’ in plans is because white men
are often in charge of the spatial plans. However, she supports that diversity would be
important for the creation of livable spaces. She argues furthermore that also in urban
planning studies many teachers are men, who tend to focus on a spatial policy point of view
instead of on social structures.
The tension between economics and consumerism and functionality is another
weakness in the plan. An example is the demolition of housing on the Van Sijpesteinkade
next to the station. The historical buildings in this street were inhabited by squatters that also
organized social events, but have had to make way for new apartments, even though the
majority of inhabitants of the neighborhood had stated that they were happy with the
buildings and with the squatters inhabiting them (IndyMedia, 2014). The plan states that new
housing projects are one of the ways in which other projects in the station area are financially
funded. Another example of the tensin between economic interests and functionality is the
building of the ‘Rabobrug,’ a bridge that enables cyclists and pedestrians to cross the train
tracks. The owner of Hoog Catharijne wrote a letter of objection, because the bridge would
mean that less people have to cross the mall when going to the other side of the tracks. The
Council of States, however, decided that in this case safety was above commercial interests
and the bridge is being built (DUIC, 2014). Van Liempt mentioned two other effects that the
economic versus functionality tension and the commercialization of space can have. In the
case of Hoog Catharijne she mentioned, for example, that there are just a few benches, which
means that if you want to sit down you would have to buy something to eat or drink in one of
the restaurants or cafés. Van Liempt states that another effect of the commercialization is
exclusion of people who are not interesting to the shops of Hoog Catharijne, which she thinks
is not on the first hand based on social difference, but mainly on economic interests.
Nevertheless, exclusion is relevant for people who do not want to buy something, and a result
can be exclusion of homeless people or for example teenagers spending time there, which are
social differences.
A strength of the plan, as mentioned above, is that external parties and individuals had
the opportunity to make suggestions before it was published (chapter 4.1), but the weakness is
that the suggestions only lead to minor editorial changes, as stated in the plan. Van Hoven
stated it is important that the professional field must accept that others might turn their plan
upside down, but that these external interventions may make the plan even better and that
41
different perspectives, especially those of end-users, are valuable.8
Another weakness that did not come up in the interviews is the fact that this plan’s
flexibility has been restricted by the fact that certain aspects of the plan pre-existed in legally
binding plans and had to be incorporated in the strategic plan.
4.3 Opportunities
An opportunity for integrating gendered planning ideas into planning practice is the focus on
knowledge valorization within universities. Van Hoven (2015) illustrates this dynamic by
mentioning the many projects Groningen University facilitates in association with public and
private parties. One example of this is the development of urban labs in which spatial
problems are highlighted from different academic and practical disciplines. She says
(gendered) observations that seem to be repetitive in the academic field are often seen as very
new and innovative by more praxis-oriented parties. Thus, these cooperation projects can be
helpful to introduce concepts, such as gender, in planning praxis.
Another opportunity that both Van Hoven and Van Liempt (2015) address is the rise
of different multi-media types that can be used easily to include end users in the plan-making
process. Van Hoven suggests that (online) sounding boards and even mobile apps are
opportunities to create more end user participation.
4.4 Threats
One of the threats that is related to the economic-functionality weakness is the privatization of
spaces. Many spaces in the plan area are owned by private corporations and are surveilled by
security companies and CCTV. While Van Liempt (2015) first states that the station area has
become a safer space through privatization, security and CCTV, she later on in the interview
mentions that these changes have produced and still do produce exclusion based on
stereotypes. The examples of exclusion based on people’s ascribed characteristics, which she
gives, are (Moroccan) youth who are told by security that they cannot spend their time
somewhere or trans* people that do not feel comfortable with the degree of control and
visibility. The first example is a form of (racial) profiling, in which such a group is profiled as
dangerous, she argues, while a shopping mother with a stroller would never be seen that way.
She concludes with the remark that it is hard to find a balance between harboring a safe
environment and making an environment inclusive. Van Hoven (2015) sees this security as an
8
The concrete interventions that were made by external people and institutions were not published in the plan, so
in this case I am unable to judge what kind of ideas were brought up and to what extent they were actually
incorporated before the plan was published.
42
exclusionary mechanism, a territorial issue, practiced by the majority. Making spaces more
inclusive for marginalized groups can derogate the dominant group’s status, and so
A threat that is especially dangerous in combination with the weakness of the plan
being written in a ‘gender-neutral’ way is the contemporary backlash against feminism. Van
Hoven mentions it is argued by a lot of geographers and planning professionals that we
already live in a post-feminist era in which equality for everyone is achieved. She further
states that gendered knowledge in spatial studies and praxis is generally low. This is a threat
that worsens through the increase of pressure (time and money wise) on planning academics.
This pressure, coming from the university and external parties and the increase of workload
caused gender to disappear from the spatial studies agenda. For Van Hoven this meant that
she could not continue the gender geography courses and projects that she was doing ten years
ago, because gender was seen too much as a side hobby and not as an integral part of spatial
studies. This caused other topics to be prioritized over gender in spatial studies. This is a
dangerous development, since planners are not taught about gender in their studies, which will
most likely further enhance the lack of knowledge in the field of praxis. In the strategic plan
this prioritizing is visible too. Environmental issues and economic problems are abundantly
illustrated, while social diversity is a minor subject.
The last threat is the limited involvement of end-users in the strategic plan. While
people had the opportunity to reveal their ideas before the publication, only 28 individuals
contributed in the participation month. A reason for this low involvement rate can be that one
really has to pay attention when the plans are open for response, that it is often expected that
one has read the whole plan and that one either has to go to the town hall or should write an
official letter of objection to respond. This is in line with the fact that both Van Hoven and
Van Liempt argue that this process limits the accessibility of spatial plans to very few people.
During these participation periods few people are reached and the threshold to get involved is
generally too high for citizens that do not have any planning knowledge.
43
5. Discussion & Conclusion
The first part of this chapter (5.1) discusses the findings of the SWOT and interviews on the
basis of the existing body of knowledge, as outlined in the theoretical framework. Moreover,
it scrutinizes the choice of methods and possible methodological biases and errors on data
validity and it addresses general strengths and limitations of the research. The discussion,
then, forms the basis of the conclusion (section 5.2), in which the answers to the research
questions are stated. Finally, the recommendations section (5.3) reflects on whether there is a
need for more research and proposes how to translate the findings of this thesis into spatial
policy and praxis.
5.1 Discussion
As outlined in the last chapter, one of the strengths in the strategic plan is the focus on mixed
use, which is, according to everyday life studies, a crucial aspect of a woman-friendly
environment (Rose, 1993; Irschik & Kail, 2013; Tummers, 2013). This demand of women for
a more mixed environment that includes shops, offices, public transport and housing is based
on feminist theories that derive from Hägerstrand’s (1970) space-time-geography. Certain
coupling constraints that are based on the public/private split, in which women are the ones
who stay at home for domestic tasks and raising children (Millet, 1969), can be softened or
even avoided by a more mixed use of space (Rose, 1993). For example, the planning of a
daycare in the station area allows women to participate in waged labor, because they do not
have to take care of their children all day. Also, a mixed environment with offices and
housing, means that one loses less time commuting from home to work and back, which
creates more opportunities for participating in waged labor, while also being able to be home
in time when children come out of school. In addition to avoidance of certain space-time
constraints through mixed use, Van Liempt (2015) argues in the interview that mixed use also
enhances safety in the station area. This is true for all genders, since these spaces are
generally less deserted throughout day and night times. As Valentine (1989) argues, women
are more likely to avoid certain spaces at certain times because they are afraid and are
therefore pressurized into a restricted use of public space. If a mixed use in the station area
(together with a more outward oriented character of offices and shops) means a livelier
environment, this can then open up spaces for women. Another strength of the plan I showed
based on the theoretical framework is the focus on pedestrian (and cyclist routes). As Irschik
& Kail (2013) have pointed out through the gender sensitive planning project in Vienna,
44
women are more likely to make trips on foot. This is also true for lower class and disabled
people. The plan of Utrecht’s station area puts emphasis on the pedestrian routes, but contrary
to the project in Vienna, this does not seem to have a gender sensitive motive behind it. This
might be because no gender sensitive stakeholders were involved, so it seems to serve a
“general” public interest, that “coincidentally” rather than intentionally also functions as a
gendered strength.
Summarizing I want to state that although the strategic plan includes some strengths
from a gendered perspective, it is also apparent that there has been a substantial lack of
gendered knowledge. As outlined in the theoretical framework earlier, based on Larsson
(2006), gender is not concretely mentioned in the plan and no gender experts were involved
during the plan-making process. It seems to be true in this case, that since practitioners learn
their practice mainly through practical experience, they did not learn how to use a gendered
lens (Larsson, 2006; Van Hoven, 2009). The analysis of the strategic plan in this thesis
confirms Larsson’s statement that through this lack of knowledge, plans are stated from a
“gender-neutral” perspective and focus on a general “public interest,” without asking who is
included or excluded from this term. This process in itself is a way of ignoring that exclusions
through the planning of spaces are happening. That also resonates with Van Liempt’s (2015)
statement that the train station has become safer with the policing of exits, yet also resulted in
the exclusion of homeless people. Because, for whom is the station area safer now? Most
likely not for these homeless people. Based on Larsson’s (2006) warning regarding an
uncritical use of “public interest,” and by taking into account sexual difference thinkers’
theories, the gender neutral style of the CU2030 strategic plan and the uncritical use of
“public interest” most likely reinforces phallogocentrist spatial ideas. The fact that urban
planning historically is a profession dominated by men (Hayden, 1980; Rose 1993; Roberts,
2013) is also a cause of the phallogocentrist character of planning.
Another interesting finding I want to discuss here is the goal in the strategic plan to
make the station area feel more lively and safe to users, while on the other hand only
dedicating 1,5 page of the plan to how to achieve this goal and without mentioning underlying
social structures. The pages only mention spatial interventions that have to make sure that the
area becomes more lively and safe, which seems to be close to ideas from behaviorist
geography, as presented in the theoretical framework. This means that the plan seems to
reason from a “stimulus-response model”, assuming that if one alters the environment, the
human behavior will automatically change (Pater & Van der Wusten, 1996). With this
approach in the document, some kind of sameness is presumed (all people will react to and
45
feel the same about the environment) and all agency is removed from the human being (Ruiz,
1995). Larsson (2006) also warned about this idea of sameness and gender neutrality in plans.
The CU2030 plan seems to have fallen into, what I want to call a phallogocentric trap of
uncritical analysis. By assuming “the users” as a homogenous group, planners ignore spatial
needs of marginalized groups. This ignorance of different spatial demands can even be
dangerous to certain groups of people, because when these people cause disorientation in
heteronormative spaces, that are designed particularly for the dominant group, they can more
easily become victim of harassment or violence (Ahmed, 2006). Meaning a heteronormative
construction of space supports heteronormativity. As Van Liempt (2015) argued in the
interview, while visibility can make (cisgender) women feel safer, it can also make trans*
people feel unsafer. Since behaviorist geography and the stimulus-response model was
something of the 1960’s (Pater & Van der Wusten, 1996), the question remains how it is
possible that planning praxis lags so much behind, in relation to geography and planning
theory. But more important is the question how this gap can be filled.
In both interviews, as well as in the SWOT analysis, the tension between different
aspects of planning came to my attention. For example, the CU2030 strategic plan is more
economically than socially oriented, which is a common problem in spatial fields of study and
practice (Van Hoven, 2015). The director of Helka (the gender sensitive spatial project
described in the theoretical framework) also pointed out that one of the biggest challenges is
to balance “soft visions” and hard market demands when trying to influence planning.
Unfortunately, right now, gender is seen as a soft vision or a “side hobby” as Van Hoven
(2015) states. Therefore the question becomes how we can either make soft visions more
visible in planning, or how we can make social factors, like gender and other axes of
difference, from a soft vision into a hard demand. Van Hoven suggests to use “diversity”
rather than “gender,” although I have tried to use gender in the most broad sense of the word
in this thesis. This suggestion also points to a weakness in my thesis, as I could have taken
more intersectional factors into account. The reasons that gender is the most apparent axe of
difference in this thesis is that (1) there is a lack of space to focus on all possible axes of
difference individually and (2) geography and planning literature with an intersectional focus
is very hard to find. This is even more true for literature that also takes into account the Dutch
planning context. What has been my own major challenge and concern while working on this
thesis has been my inability to let go of the gender binary (on an academic level). This is also
due to a lack of available literature, causing to make it nearly impossible to allow a nonbinary approach in the methodology and to make arguments about it. Unfortunately, I did not
46
have enough supporting theory to create research methods and tools to include non-binary
identities, but creating these could be a future research topic. The lack of theory on this aligns
with Larsson’s (2006) experience when researching gender in urban planning in different
municipalities, because she argued that even municipalities that worked with gender had no
knowledge that reached beyond heteronormative roles. Thus, next to the question how we can
make gender a valid spatial agenda point, it is also important in what form we want to present
gender as a concept in planning and to what extent the term includes intersectionality.
Therefore, I want to end this chapter with some open questions. Is it useful to state that
planning praxis should first incorporate heteronormative ideas of gender (uses of space from
the viewpoint of men and women, as a binary system), before we try to take it a step further
and queer heteronormative ideas or is doing so one step forward and two steps back and
should we fight for the complete “queering of planning” (Doan, 2011) all at once? Further
research and discussion on the topic could help in answering these ethical questions.
5.2 Conclusion
In this section the answers are outlined per sub question, after which the strongest statement
that can be made according to my research is the conclusion to the central question.
Sub question 1: What are the existing theories that relate gender to spatial planning and how
have they been practiced in spatial planning projects in the past?
The answer to this question can be found in the existing body of literature as outlined in the
theoretical framework. Summarizing, there are many ways to link spatial planning and gender
to each other. However, the main theories that I have used in this thesis are Hägerstrand’s
(1970) time-space geography in relation to women’s everyday life (e.g. Rose, 1993) and
Ahmed’s (2006) heteronormative versus queer lines. Through the combination of these three
main theories I outlined the fact that people of different genders (and sexualities, ethnicities
etcetera) use and experience spaces in different ways. In order to satisfy these different
demands, the built environment should facilitate these different spatial demands, so that
everyone can profit from the space, whilst also feeling comfortable and safe within it.
Nevertheless, as for example Larsson (2006) points out, due to the practical and
phallogocentric character of planning praxis, spatial needs of non-dominant groups are often
forgotten or ignored. This often leads to the reinforcement of phallogocentric spaces that feel
uncomfortable to marginalized groups. As Doan (2011) argues these spaces are actually not
ideal for anyone, also not for the dominant group, although they might not feel the
exclusionary forces directly. This string of thoughts is related to the arguments of sexual
47
difference thinkers in feminist theories (like Irigaray, 1985; Grosz, 2005, since the assumed
“sameness” of end-users of the built environment hurts women (and other oppressed groups),
because they suffer most notably from phallogocentrism. Although issues around gender are
sometimes discussed in spatial theory, planning praxis often lacks gender sensitivity.
Nevertheless, in the theoretical framework I introduced three planning projects that included
gender as a component. In all three projects, the knowledge that not everyone demands the
same kinds of spaces is incorporated. In the Dutch neighborhood projects this resulted in a
focus on mixed spatial use in the plan-documents, with the help of a partial Gender Impact
Assessment. I would like to argue that the project in Vienna is an even better example of
gender sensitive planning in which gendered expertise was provided by experts outside of the
original group of municipal planners. The willingness to fund spatial gender research and the
hiring of external experts shows a great openness of the municipality and planning
practitioners to incorporate new views within their project and field. The Finnish Helka
project was made more gender sensitive by incorporating end-users’ views during the spatial
plan-making. The end-users could easily engage, because of the approachable character of the
project, through the use of e-planning and different forms of multi-media (Irschik & Kail,
2013).
Through linking existing gendered and spatial knowledge in the theoretical framework
I made clear that a gendered lens in planning can offer more inclusive spaces that are not only
oriented toward functionality for dominant groups. The three examples of gendered planning
show that there are different ways to accomplish this, ranging from policy-led gendered
methods (top-down), to end-user-led (bottom-up) gendered initiatives.
Sub question 2: What are the gendered strengths and opportunities in the CU2030 strategic
plan and how can they be utilized?
There are a couple of strengths in the CU2030 plan for the renewed station area from a
gendered perspective. The increase of mixed use and outward orientation of facilities in the
area enhance safety. Moreover, the fact that there is attention for the needs of disabled people
and homeless and addicted people and that a daycare will be facilitated emphasizes that the
plan not only focusses on one group of people. The possibility that external parties and endusers had an opportunity to engage with the plan before it was published is also good from a
gender perspective, because it means that not only planning practitioners’ lens is incorporated
in the plan, but actors that might have other spatial needs can also voice these demands and
make suggestions. The fact that there is more and more knowledge exchange between the
48
university and public as well as private actors is a great opportunity to teach actors about
gender issues in space and can provide more gender-aware input in these input-possibilities in
(future) plans. Concerning end-users’ input in plans, the explosion of multi-media options
offers a great opportunity to make voicing their spatial needs easier and communication
between public-private-people more accessible, as is also visible in the Finnish Helka project
(Irschik & Kail, 2013). Concerning the progress of the CU2030 plan execution, it may be
already too late to incorporate a range of other actors and end-users in the project at this
moment, yet it is interesting to explore the opportunities that came up in this thesis for future
projects. These opportunities include a theoretical the foundation to foster and create new
strengths and existing strengths of spaces from a gender perspective.
Sub question 3: What are the gendered weaknesses and threats in the CU2030 strategic plan
and how can they be avoided?
The weakness that is most notable in the plan is the complete absence of gender-diversity. It is
written as if all end-users are the same and have the same spatial demands, which is visible
through the fact that although one of the aims of the plan is to create a safer and livelier
environment, the space dedicated to this in the plan is limited. In this limited space the
emphasis lies on spatial interventions, without anyhow incorporating research of social
structures in this. Thus, the plan assumes that through physical changes, social changes will
follow (see also the stimulus-response model (De Pater & Van der Wusten, 1996)). This
reinforces the idea of sameness in the end-users and disregards any possible agency in the
development of their own environment (Ruiz, 1995). This weakness becomes even more
dangerous when end-users do not get involved with the plans when they have the chance to,
as has been the case for CU2030. To avoid this planners (and other actors) have to think about
how they can make planning issues appealing and accessible to end-users. As stated, this is
for example possible through utilizing the opportunity that multi-media provides. The other
weakness and issue that planning has to deal with, also in the CU2030 plan, is the tension
between functionality and economics. Money is needed to execute the plans and the actors
that can provide the money often have their own economic agenda. In this case Hoog
Catharijne, the shopping mall adjacent to the station, has an interest that is focused on
consumerism, which can have negative effects on spaces from a gendered lens. This for
example visible in the exclusion of people that do not spend money in this space or that are
stereotyped as “threats”, as outlined in chapter 4.2. The fact that a lot of spaces are privately
owned and that there is private security in the station area contributes to this particular
49
weakness, because this means that there is a constant selection going on of who is wanted and
who is unwanted in this space. Other threats that this spatial project has faced/is facing are the
low level of gendered knowledge amongst planners and the common thought that we live in a
post-feminist era in which gender equality is already achieved. This threat is hard to avoid,
since the increased pressure on geography and planning academics (time and money wise)
often causes gender to fall off the agenda. The opportunity of knowledge exchange between
academics and practitioners can make gender-knowledge in planning praxis increase, but this
means that also in academia there must be significant attention for gender issues (in spatial
studies). Also, an openness from planning practitioners and theorists is needed to allow
gender-experts to incorporate their knowledge in the spatial fields.
Central question: How does gender play a role in the CU2030 strategic plan?
The most straightforward answer to this question that can be stated after the research of the
strategic plan would be: it does not play a role at all. Because it seems that gender and many
other axes of difference have not been involved consciously in the plan-making at all.
Nevertheless, this cannot mean that gender does not play a role in the CU2030 plans and plan
area. After analyzing the strategic plan from a gendered lens, the discovery of certain
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that are apparent in the plan are a proof of the
relevance of gender in plan-making. With this research I want to show, that although gender
and other diversity aspects are not concretely mentioned in spatial plan-making, they do play
a role, even when ignored by planners. Gender plays a role on the side of the spatial needs and
demands that end-users have and gender plays a role on the side of the experience of spaces:
both can differ regarding people of different genders. Therefore, the constant uncritical use of
urban planning as serving the general “public interest” is ignorant and can foster the
marginalization of certain groups. This idea of a standard model of end-users in these spaces
reinforces an outdated idea in which all people respond the same way to spatial structures and
changes therein. Speaking from the analysis of this thesis, therefore, it is the task of all actors
that are involved in spatial plan-making to acknowledge the (gender) diversity of their endusers and to actively incorporate this in their plan-making. The next and final section proposes
guidelines for planning practitioners on how the incorporation of gender in the plan-making
process can be accomplished.
50
5.3 Recommendations
This section makes recommendations for planning practitioners and actors that are involved in
urban planning. The aim is to make the field more inclusive and aware regarding people’s
diversity and the difference in spatial needs that derive from that. Furthermore, this section
also provides some recommendations for additional research that needs to be done about
gender and diversity in (Dutch) urban planning theory and praxis.
I suggest that two keywords are necessary to keep in mind for planning practitioners and the
academic field of planning: awareness and openness. With this thesis I have tried to create the
awareness that there is more to take into account than classical planning praxis currently does.
Planners (in praxis and in academia) need to realize that the public for which they plan spaces
is not homogeneous, and therefore the assumed “average” type of end-user is non-existent.
Taking into consideration the masculine dominated discourse within planning praxis, it is not
strange that gendered thoughts have not been incorporated for a long time, neither is it
surprising that the gendered knowledge in the field is low. However, what is surprising is the
lack of cooperation between planning praxis, external (gender) experts and end-users.
Although planning has become a more bottom-up profession, I think end-users should get a
bigger role in the planning of the spaces they use. Next to the awareness of the role of
(gender) diversity, planning praxis, thus, has to be open for external influences that might or
might not require changing the spatial plan or plan-making process. Concretely, this can for
example mean: (1) to hire experts on (gender) diversity when there is not enough knowledge
in the planning department in the university or (local) government or in the planning agency
themselves. (2) Using multi-media tools it could be made easier for end-users to participate in
the planning process. This should be applied not only when the plan is already finished, but I
suggest these tools can open up the whole plan-making process for end-user participation.
Also, instead of just making the plan available for end-users for one month, try to actively
approach these people to increase participation and use multimedia and social media
platforms to lower the threshold. In this way, people can easily voice their opinion. Finally,
also an openness for the suggestions would be required. Because, although as a planner a plan
may look satisfying, if the end-users do not approve it, it may be useful to revise parts of the
plan. (3) Finally, opening up academic urban planning by not only focusing on mainstream
planning, but also incorporating diversity issues and existing theories on for example
queer(ing) planning could be a fruitful approach. This would mean creating a more
interdisciplinary urban planning field, with a constant incorporation of new disciplines. All
51
these new influences from other disciplines can also be beneficial for the creativity in urban
planning itself.
There are more concrete steps that can be taken towards a more gender aware and diverse
planning field, also on the side of research. An important point, for example, is that this thesis
still has a high technical approach, and does not directly include end-user’s voices. It would
be interesting for further research to also interview the end-users of Utrecht’s station area and
to focus on the feelings they have in the area. Furthermore, a next step that arises from this
thesis is involving the planners and actors that were active in the planning process of CU2030
and finding ways to work together with them to implement more gender aware and diversity
focused urban planning.
52
6. Sources
Agrinomics I.T. Consulting (2015) SWOT Analysis. http://www.agrinomicsconsulting.com/services/businesscase-studies/s-w-o-t-ananlysis/. Accessed: May 28, 2015.
DUIC (De Utrechtse Internet Courant) (2014) Raad van State geeft toestemming voor de Rabobrug: ‘Veiligheid
belangrijker dan commercie’. http://www.duic.nl/nieuws/raad-van-state-geeft-toestemming-voor-de-rabobrugveiligheid-belangrijker-dan-commercie/. Accessed: June 16, 2015.
Gemeente Utrecht (2006) CU2030 Structuurplan Stationsgebied Utrecht.
http://cu2030.nl/images/Structuurplan_stationsgebied_December_2006_nav_raad.pdf. Accessed: April 14, 2015.
Gemeente Utrecht (2015) Structuurvisie. www.utrecht.nl/stedenbouw/afd-breed/structuurvisie. Accessed: May
23, 2015.
Hoven, van, B. (2015) Personal Communication, June 10.
Humphrey, A. (2005) SWOT Analysis for Management Consulting. SRI Alumni Newsletter.
http://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/brochures/dec-05.pdf. Accessed: May 28, 2015.
IndyMedia (Vrij Media Centrum Nederland) (2014) Nieuw pandje in Utrecht.
https://www.indymedia.nl/node/21347. Accessed: June 16, 2015.
Liempt, van, I. (2015) Personal Communication, June 11.
Mercer (2015) 2015 Quality of Living Rankings. Available: https://www.imercer.com/content/quality-ofliving.aspx. Accessed: May 25, 2015.
RUG (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen) (2015) Staff > dr. Bettina van Hoven. http://www.rug.nl/staff/b.van.hoven/.
Accessed: May 29, 2015.
Statistik Austria (2015) Tabellen zur kleinräumigen Bevölkerungsprognose für Österreich. Available:
www.statistik.at. Accessed: May 25, 2015.
Utrecht University (2015) Staff Geosciences > dr. Ilse van Liempt. http://www.uu.nl/staff/ICvanLiempt/0.
Accessed: May 29, 2015.
53
7. Bibliography
Ahmed, S. (2006) Queer Phenomenology. Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham: Duke University Press.
Braidotti, R. (1994) The Ethics of Sexual Difference: The Case of Foucault and Irigaray. In: Nomadic Subjects.
Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia University Press,
pp. 124-135.
Buckingham, S. & R. Kulcur (2009) Gendered Geographies of Environmental Injustice. In: Antipode. Vol. 41
(4), pp. 661-683.
Butler, J. (1988) Performative acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.
In: Theatre Journal. Vol 40 (4), pp. 519-531.
Doan, P.L. (2011) Why Question Planning Assumptions and Practices About Queer Spaces. In: Queerying
Planning. Challenging Heteronormative Assumptions and Reframing Planning Practice. Farnham: Ashgate, pp.
1-18.
Greed, C. (2005) Mainstreaming equality into strategic spatial policy making: Are town planners losing sight of
gender? In: Construction Management and Economics. Vol. 23 (10), pp. 1059-1070.
Grosz, E. (1995) Introduction. In: E. Grosz. Space, time and perversion: Essays on the politics of bodies. New
York & London: Routledge, pp. 1-8.
Grosz, E. (2005) The Force of Sexual Difference. In: Time Travels. Feminism, Nature, Power. Durham: Duke
University Press, pp. 171-183.
Hägerstrand, T. (1970) What about people in regional science? In: Papers of the regional science association.
Vol. XXIV, pp. 7-21.
Hägerstrand, T. (1982) Diorama, path and project. In: Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie. Vol.
73, pp. 323-339.
Halperin, D.M. (1997) Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayden, D. (1980) What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design and
Human Work. In: Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Special Issue Women and the American City.
Vol. 5 (3), pp. 170-187.
Hesse-Biber, S. (2014) Feminist Approaches to In-Depth Interviewing. In: S. Hesse-Biber (ed.) Feminist
Research Practice. A Primer. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, pp. 182-232.
Horelli, L. & K. Vespä (1994) In Search of Supportive Structures for Everyday Life. In: I. Altman & A.
Churchman (eds.) Women and the Environment: Human Behavior and Environment. New York: Plenum, pp.
201-206.
54
Horelli, L. & S. Wallin (2013) Gender-Sensitive E-Planning for Sustaining Everyday Life. I. Sánchez de
Madariaga & M. Roberts (eds.) Fair Shared Cities. The Impact of Gender Planning in Europe.
Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate, pp. 231-247.
Hoven, van, B. (2009) ‘Can you write a memo on why we have to do gender please?’ An experiential account of
teaching gender geographies in the Netherlands. In: Journal of Geography in Higher Education. Vol. 33 (3), pp.
315-325.
Irigaray, L. (1985) The Sex Which is Not One. In: The Sex Which is Not One. New York: Cornell University
Press, pp. 23-33.
Irschik, E. & E. Kail (2013) Vienna: Progress Towards a Fair Shared City. In: I. Sánchez de Madariaga & M.
Roberts (eds.) Fair Shared Cities. The Impact of Gender Planning in Europe. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate, pp.
193-229.
Larsson, A. (2006) From equal opportunities to gender awareness in strategic spatial planning. Reflections based
on Swedish experiences. In: The Town Planning Review. Vol. 77 (5), pp. 507-530.
Mayring, P. (2000) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung. Vol. 1 (2), art. 20.
http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2384. Accessed: April 14, 2015.
Meesters, M.J. & A. Oudejans (1998, revised 2005) Handleiding Emancipatie-effectrapportage. Den Haag:
Ministerie SZW/DCE.
Millett, K. (1969) Theory of Sexual Politics. In: Sexual Politics. Online version:
https://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/millett-kate/theory.htm. Accessed: May 18, 2015.
Musterd, S & B. de Pater (2003) Eclectic and pragmatic: the colours of Dutch social and cultural geography. In:
Social and Cultural Geography. Vol 4 (4), pp. 549-563.
NIROV (Nederlands Instituut voor Ruimtelijke Ordening en Volkshuisvesting, werkgroep emancipatie) (1986)
Toetsingscriteria op bestemmingsplannivo vanuit de vrouwelijke gebruiker gezien. The Hague: NIROV.
Pater, de, B. & H. van der Wusten (1996) het geografische huis. de opbouw van een wetenschap. Bussum:
Coutinho.
Pickton, D.W. & S. Wright (1998) What’s swot in strategic analysis? In: Strategic Change. Vol. 7, pp. 101-109.
Roberts, M. (2013) Introduction: Concepts, Themes and Issues in a Gendered Approach to Planning. In: I.
Sánchez de Madariaga & M. Roberts (eds.) Fair Shared Cities. The Impact of Gender Planning in Europe.
Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate, pp. 1-18.
Rose, G. (1993) Feminism & Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
55
Ruiz, M.R. (1995) B.F. Skinner’s Radical Behaviorism: Historical Misconstructions and Grounds for Feminist
Reconstructions. In: Psychology of Women Quarterly. Vol. 19, pp. 161-179.
Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis. Chichester: Wiley.
Schaeken, W., G. de Vooght, A. Vandierendonck, G. d’Ydewalle (1999) Deductive Reasoning and Strategies.
Abington: Taylor & Francis.
Skinner, B.F. (1971) Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
Spit, T. & P. Zoete (2009) Ruimtelijke ordening in Nederland. Een wetenschappelijke introductie in het
vakgebied. Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers.
Spit, T., S. van Schagen, P. Zoete, D. Schut (2010) Visie op structuurvisies. Eefde: Focus Libris.
Thrift, N. & M. Crang (2000) Introduction. In: N. Thrift & M. Crang (eds.) Thinking Space. London: Routledge,
pp. 1-30.
Tummers, L. (2013) Gendered Perspectives on Spatial Planning and Housing in the Netherlands. In: I. Sánchez
de Madariaga & M. Roberts (eds.) Fair Shared Cities. The Impact of Gender Planning in Europe.
Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate, pp. 107-129.
Valentine, G. (1989) The Geography of Women’s Fear. In: Area. Vol 21 (4), pp. 385-390.
Verloo, M. & C. Roggeband (1996) Gender Impact Assessment: The Development of a New Instrument in the
Netherlands. In: Impact Assessment. Vol. 14, pp. 3-20.
Weiss, R.S. (1994) Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York:
Free Press.
56
8. Appendices
8.1 Interview Guide
Dr. Bettina van Hoven
1. Gender in spatial studies (academics)
Why is gender important in spatial studies on an academic level? Waarom is gender
belangrijk in ruimtelijke studies op een wetenschappelijk niveau?
In Human Geography? In social geografie?
In Spatial Planning? In planologie?
What are your experiences with trying to include gender as a substantial part of spatial studies
(at Groningen University)?
Wat zijn je ervaringen met pogingen om gender te incorporeren in ruimtelijke studies (aan de
RUG)?
Were departments open to it? Stonden departementen er voor open?
What kind of resistance was there? Wat voor weerstand liep je tegenaan?
What were the successes in the attempts? Wat zijn de successes in deze pogingen?
(How) do you think that gender can become a substantial part of spatial studies?
(Hoe) denk je dat gender een wezenlijk onderdeel van ruimtelijke studies kan worden
gemaakt?
What are necessary/effective to make spatial studies more gender inclusive? Welke
strategieën zijn nodig/effectief om ruimtelijke studies meer gender inclusief te laten worden?
2. Gender in planning praxis
Why is gender important in planning praxis? Waarom is gender belangrijk voor de planning
praktijk?
How do you think that gender can become a substantial part of planning praxis? Hoe kan
ervoor gezorgd worden dat gender een wezenlijk onderdeel wordt van de planning praktijk?
57
What strategies are necessary/effective to make planning praxis more gender inclusive? Welke
strategieën zijn nodig/effectief om de planning praktijk meer gender inclusief te laten
worden?
Is this a task that has to come from the academic field or from practice
itself? Is dit een taak die vanuit de wetenschap moet komen of vanuit de planning praktijk
zelf?
How can the academic field of gender studies/spatial studies
facilitate this? Hoe kan dit vanuit de wetenschap van gender studies en ruimtelijke studies
gefaciliteerd worden?
How can this be facilitated directly from the praxis itself (hire
more gender experts on local level/pressure or knowledge from EU/national level/education
of planners etc.)? Hoe kan dit vanuit de praktijk zelf gefaciliteerd worden?
Dr. Ilse van Liempt
1. Gender in the old/current station area
What were/are the gendered implications that the old/current station area had/has on people?
Wat waren/zijn de gegenderde implicaties die het oude/huidige stationsgebied had/heeft op
mensen?
Looking at for example safety/reachability/accessibility etcetera? Lettend op
bijvoorbeeld veiligheid, bereikbaarheid, toegankelijkheid etcetera?
What were the concrete weaknesses/threats of the old station area (with regard to
gender)? Wat waren de zwaktes/bedreigingen van het oude stationsgebied, rekening houdend
met gender?
What were the concrete strengths/opportunities of the old station area (with regard
to gender)? Wat waren de sterktes/kansen van het oude stationsgebied, rekening houdend met
gender?
2. Gender in the plans of the new station area
What are the gendered implications that the new station area may have on people? Wat zijn de
gegenderde implicaties dat het vernieuwde stationsgebied zou kunnen hebben op mensen?
58
What are possible weaknesses and threats? Wat zijn mogelijke zwaktes en
bedreigingen?
What are possible strengths and opportunities? Wat zijn mogelijke sterktes en
kansen?
3. Utopian gender sensitive station area
What changes would you make to the current and/or renewed station area to make it more
gender sensitive? Wat voor veranderingen zou je willen aanbrengen aan het huidige en/of
vernieuwde stationsgebied om het meer gender sensitief te maken?
How do you think that these changes could be implicated in (future) plans? Op welke
manier denk je dat deze aanpassingen het best kunnen worden doorgevoerd in (toekomst)
plannen? > bridge to questions about how to incorporate gender in planning praxis.
59
8.2 SWOT analysis
Strengths
1. In the plan it is continuously mentioned that one of the goals is to have as many different
uses as possible in the plan area. The focus is on a mixed use with living, shopping, culture,
offices and public facilities.
2. This strategic plan is a very flexible form of plan-making. This plan is not legally binding,
which makes making adjustments fairly easy.
3. There is a focus on public transport and cyclist and pedestrian routes in and around the
station.
4. In the plan one of the aims of the restructuring is to make the station and the adjacent
shopping center ‘Hoog Catharijne’ more outward oriented and more accessible from different
height levels.
5. After the strategic plan was formulated, but before the plan was legally published it has
been open to suggestions from external parties and individuals for about a month.
6. Facilities like a homeless/drug addict center and a daycare are mentioned in the plan to be
available in the station area.
7. In the plan there is attention for the accessibility of the station and adjacent buildings by
disabled people.
60
Weaknesses
1. The goal to make the station area a more livable and safe area keeps coming back in the
document as a hollow sentence. Only 1,5 page is dedicated to how this can be established.
2. This strategic plan lacks the topic gender (as an intersectional understanding) as a whole
and reasons from a general public interest.
3. Focus seems to be on economics and consumerism more than on functionality.
4. The suggestions that were made by external parties before the publication of the plan only
led to minor editorial changes.
5. Parts of this strategic plan were already established in higher plan levels (the municipal
strategic plan and the masterplan for the station area), which limits the flexibility.
6. While one of the main goals in the strategic plan is connecting of different parts of the city
and thereby different ‘target groups,’ social structures are not incorporated at this point.
7. On ground floor of station and Hoog Catharijne mostly shops and offices, no housing.
61
Opportunities
1. Increase of discussions around topics of gender and ethnicity in media and society.
2. It is possible through the high level of use of internet to create accessible platforms for
end-users of spaces (for example the people who use the station area), so that they can be
involved in spatial plan-making processes.
3. Knowledge valorization between universities and public/private actors.
Threats
1. The train station and Hoog Catharijne are owned and surveilled by private companies.
2. Gendered knowledge amongst most involved parties is low.
3. Increase of pressure on geography and planning students and academics (time- as well as
moneywise) causes gender to fall off the agenda in spatial studies.
4. Citizens and end-users of spaces are not involved enough with spatial plans (for example,
only 28 individuals contributed to the strategic plan when they had the chance).
5. There is a contemporary backlash against feminism in which is argued that we already live
in a post-feminist era in which equality for everyone is already achieved.
62
8.3 Interview transcription shorts
In this appendix the two interviews that were conducted for this thesis are presented. Since the
interviews were held in Dutch the texts are not literal transcriptions of the interviews, but are
translated recaps of what was said during the interviews. The original sound fragments are in
my possession and can be retrieved at any time.
Interview dr. Bettina van Hoven
Question researcher: Why is gender important for spatial studies?
Answer respondent: To me, gender is one of the characteristics that structures how people
experience space. Because of the gender roles that are put upon them by society, they use
different spaces at different times. That also means that they encounter different people and
this is an important part of the construction of their identity. Also, axes of difference like
ethnicity and ability are often taken into account, but gender is the connecting factor. Why
gender is also important in spatial studies is because white men are often the ones that are in
charge of the construction of physical spaces, and therefore the diversity aspect is often
forgotten.
In what way can certain spaces be attractive for one gender, but not for other genders?
There is an example of a research in the UK in which women feel intimidated while going out
when there are a lot of men urinating in public spaces. Also, there is a general problem of
public toilets for women. For example when I was pregnant myself, it was difficult to go to an
inner city without knowing where the public toilets were, because I had to use the toilet more
often, which can be the case for elderly people too. Also, as a parent with a stroller one can
feel uninvited in spaces because some spaces are not fit to move around in with a stroller.
Spaces can be unfit for a mother to breastfeed children, because they are too visible and
people who see it will not accept it.
Do you think that when a space is made more pleasant for marginal groups it
automatically becomes more pleasant for everyone, including the dominant group?
The theory states than when you make spaces more livable for women, it automatically
becomes more pleasant for other groups too. The same counts for places that are adjusted to
disabled and elderly people.
But, on the other hand, one of the reasons I can think of why the dominant group works that
63
well is because they profit from exclusionary mechanisms. Making spaces more accessible
and comfortable to marginalized groups can therefore derogate the dominant group’s status,
because all of a sudden everyone can use ‘their’ spaces. In this context it can also be a
territorial issue. We have to look critically at this dominant group, maybe something has to
happen there too.
You wrote an article about a trying to start up a gender and geography course within
Groningen University (together with the University of Amsterdam). How did that go,
were departments open to it?
I did have to argue why gender is important in spatial studies. It also helped that the students
and teachers were very diverse, especially in nationality and type of study. So everyone
contributed to the topic in their own way. But, the students, especially at the beginning, were
skeptical about the relevance of gender. They had the idea that it was making things difficult
to raise gender as a topic and they were of the opinion that everyone is equal in the
Netherlands by now. This project was 10 years ago.
Why did this project/course not continue?
A lot of pressure comes from within the university and also from external parties on how we
spend our time. A course like this is less interpreted as the core business of the study and is
therefore difficult to maintain. More general urban issues in the discipline are then prioritized
over gender. It is seen as a hobby on the side.
What were the successes of this project/course that are still visible today?
I think the students that participated have started to see things differently after taking the
course, they do now see the relevance of gender in spaces and everyday life. On the other
hand on a higher level in the university I actually think that we did a step back concerning
gender issues in spatial studies, of which high workload is one of the causes.
What strategies can be used in the contemporary academic environment to underscore
the importance of gender in spatial studies and to make sure that it will no longer be a
loose fragment, or a ‘side hobby’?
The emphasis should be put on the focus on diversity and ethics that derives from feminist
geography. These two things are very important for spatial studies, because space is the most
important enabler or obstacle for what a person can or cannot do. But, we are not just
64
automatons who, when the space is good, are fine. But, the space does provide important
structures.
Therefore it is important to raise these feminist issues in the education, because we educate
the people who are going to be responsible for the spaces. Especially for planning I think it is
true that a lot of teachers are men and they theorize more from a planning policy point of view
that is used in planning praxis. I myself as a geography teacher am more focused on the user
perspective and I think that this perspective, in which gender cannot be ignored, should also
be incorporated more in planning studies.
The concrete strategies that then can be used are the constant mentioning of diversity and
ethics in for example field trips and also offering a critical lens to students. Also, it can
sometimes be useful to avoid the word ‘gender’. On the one hand this is a word that is not
really common in Dutch language, and on the other hand with ‘diversity’ you have the chance
to reach a larger audience.
Also, planners should be stimulated to take walks with the end users of spaces so that they can
talk with them about what they consider as a pleasurable space and what they do not consider
as such.
In your article you mention that one of the problems of gender and planning is that
often planners gain their knowledge not in university, but in practice itself. How is it
possible to influence this praxis directly?
Currently there is a focus on knowledge valorization within the universities, which means that
there are many collaborations between the academic world and public and private actors.
These projects are opportunities to share knowledge with these more practical oriented
parties. Often, we tell these parties things that are very obvious and often repeated in the
academic world, but that are innovative in the eyes of public and private actors.
One of the problems within planning praxis is often a tension between public and
private parties, or social and economic interests. How could you facilitate the changes
that are needed from a social aspect, but still satisfy economic interests?
I think that it is important to show the value of social aspects and at the same time search for
the direct or indirect influence that they can have on economic dynamics.
What do you think that the academic world can do for planning praxis?
65
Off course educate students about diversity, because we, for a large part, produce the people
who are active in planning praxis. Diversity is very important when trying to create livable
spaces for different sorts of people. We also have to look at how it is possible to make these
different people physically encounter each other in spaces a positive way. This is important to
create ties between these people, otherwise they will never be able to mean something to each
other.
What changes have to occur from planning praxis itself?
Awareness is very important. Planning is often busy with architecture and what things look
like, but functionality must not be forgotten. What can be facilitated from planning praxis are
for example sounding boards with end users, so that this functionality from different
perspectives can be guaranteed. These sounding boards must then be facilitated so that not
only retired men can participate in the plan-making, but it should be easily accessible to
everyone. This can be done with for example the help of online platforms or even a mobile
app. Important is that the professional field communicates openly and that they are open to
the fact that other people may turn their original plan upside down. The professional field
must accept that sometimes their fantastic plans may not be so fantastic after all. But, they
also have to realize that maybe when these interventions from outside are applied their plans
may even turn out to be better. They have to see this as positive challenges. This can also
include including for example small creative businesses and setting up urban labs in which
different people and parties discuss their desires.
Since different plans from different planning agencies are often evaluated and then the best
plan is chosen to continue with, maybe the degree in which the end-user is involved in the
creation of the plan should be an official indicator in this decision making.
What has to be kept in mind is that it often takes only small adjustments in spaces to improve
the livability.
66
Interview dr. Ilse van Liempt
What effects did the old station area have on people of different genders, sexualities
etcetera?
I immediately think about safety. Before, it was very unsafe. All exits were open and during
nighttime it was a central space for the homeless from all over the country. Because of that
many entries/exits are now closed at night and through the privatization of the station and
adjacent buildings the station has been swept clean of homeless people and junks. Also, there
has been an increase of private security and CCTV. Because of that it has become a safer
space for women, or maybe everyone, but before it was a very unsafe situation.
Would you say the privatization and constant control in this area have necessarily
improved the space?
To me it is a very unappealing space, because I don’t like these kinds of shops. But I would
say that for many people it is more of a space for passing through, rather than a space in
which one stays for longer periods of time. This can be seen in for example the shortage of
benches. If you want to sit, you have to buy something to eat or drink and this is caused by the
privatization and commercialization of this space.
This tension between functionality and economics is very important, but I don’t exactly know
what kind of gender implications this has. What is often visible in Hoog Catharijne are many
shopping women and their men standing outside of shops, waiting for them.
In extension to this, a thing I do have some problems with in this thesis is that a lot of the
gender geography and planning theory reinforces gender stereotypes, rather than
criticizing these stereotypes.
One of my students wrote their thesis on trans* people in public spaces. What is evident in
their research is that often visibility is an important topic. The trans* people that are included
in the research mention that in some spaces their visibility is a good thing and in other spaces
it can be uncomfortable or even dangerous.
The transwoman that was interviewed emphasized a feeling of unsafeness and linked this to
her being a woman. But, even in this case one can fall in the trap of stating that women
necessarily feel or are less safe in public spaces.
It is also hard for me to incorporate a non-binary view in this thesis.
67
Often planners start from a heteronormative ideal when thinking about how spaces should be
designed, and you can also look at what deviates from that norm. That can for example be a
woman that does not fit in this normative idea of a woman or a man that does fit in the
normative idea of a man.
Do you agree with Doan (2011) that a space that is more inclusive of deviant groups, is
automatically a better space for everyone?
That is about inclusive planning and the ideal is then that you are exposed to all kinds of
diversities. You would expect from Utrecht that this would be possible, in opposition to
maybe the situation in a smaller village. Research shows that people are more and more
exposed to a diverse range of identities in public space, but that this results in people choosing
life lines in which they encounter people that are more identical to them. So, people have
certain automatic strategies to deal with this diversification, namely, they seek comfort in
being around like-minded people. For me for example this means that I would not go into a
football bar because this often means loud and drunken men, that I do not want to come in
conflict with. So, maybe if the ideal is to get all different identities together in the same spaces
this would also create more conflict. But, I think for the station area the interventions that
have to be done to create a more inclusive space can be small interventions that everyone can
benefit from.
I do see a problem with security though, because the idea of security is that you exclude
certain groups/individuals. These security ideas can be based on stereotypes, for example, a
group of Moroccan boys that is told to move along by security personnel. This is also realted
to gender and ethnicity. It is a form of profiling, by deciding what groups of people are
dangerous and what groups of people are not. A shopping mother with a stroller would not be
seen as a threat while other people do.
It is hard to find a balance between harboring a safe environment and making an environment
inclusive.
How do you think that these concerns can be made applicable to planning praxis?
In the case of your thesis I think it would be useful to make a policy brief. Write an A4 on
your findings and do recommendations on how this can be kept in mind in planning praxis.
On a larger scale than this thesis, what then could these recommendations/strategies be
to implement gender issues in planning praxis?
68
The easiest would be to hitch onto the safety issue. You can point out that there is a big
difference between the feeling of safety and the statistics around criminality. Because, men
have a higher risk of being a victim of criminality, but women are more likely to feel unsafe.
The subjective safety, so how people feel about spaces, is something that planning can
improve. As a planner you can design spaces in a way that people feel more welcome and
safe.
What we saw when researching nightlife in the inner city of Utrecht, we noticed that there
was an underrepresentation of ethnic youth, while this is not a representation of Utrecht’s
citizens.
Are they actively excluded or not?
No, but they go to other places like IJsselstein and Rotterdam, because they feel more
welcome there. A feeling they do not have in Utrecht’s inner city. This is an implicit form of
exclusion that is more due to the type of bars and clubs Utrecht offers. The existence of these
particular bars, etcetera, is an indirect message that they are not welcome. When thinking of
Hoog Catharijne this space is pretty inclusive in this sense, everyone is welcome to spend
their money there. In Hoog Catharijne the exclusion is more relevant for people who are not
buying anything. This counts for the kids that hang around and homeless people, the people
who do not consume anything. They are excluded on the ground of economic interests.
There is an interesting tension going on between shopping, commerce and the train. This is a
tension between going from A to B as fast as possible and leisure. They are two different
groups and it is an interesting question of how these groups can be combined in one space.
I think right now the focus is too much on the private interests and security and not on the
public interest. This means asking questions like why are there no benches and why is it not
an appealing place to stay in for longer amounts of time?
What I’ve always found unwanted about Hoog Catharijne and the station is that it is,
psychologically and physically, so far away from everything. Why doesn’t it have a more
open character? So, that you do not have the feeling that you are entering some kind of other
world.
Also, diversity in the kinds of shops is very important to attract and welcome different kinds
of people. Just like diversity in facilities, so mixed use, is also very important to harbor the
sense of safety, and prevent spaces from becoming deserted at night.
69
In the strategic plan there is also a division between cafés and restaurants and nighttime
bars and clubs. Did you find any interesting things about different experiences around
these kinds of facilities in your research about nightlife?
I found that there is a split between the visions of the planner and the end-user. For example,
24 hour licenses for clubs are often given to clubs located at the city’s edges, because there
less nuisance is generated. But, the end-user, the clubber, thinks it is less comfortable and safe
to have to travel that far to and from the club. Also, girls we interviewed for the project let us
know that they prefer to cycle home from a club, because they are then faster and feel safer,
while boys didn’t really think about that.
70