In The Name of Equity

          Inequality is an immensely detrimental issue. Since the dawn of civilization, issues like inequality have been deeply rooted in society to a point that every solution becomes a temporary one. Case in point, in the architecture profession the best example of this phenomenon is the Pritzker Prize. Since the award’s inception in 1979, only six women have won this prestigious award. It is also worth noting that only one Pritzker laureate is of African descent: this year’s winner, Francis Kere. I point this out as the prime example because inequality has always been rampant, throughout history and across many disciplines and professions, including ours. The architecture profession used to be a premium boys club, thankfully, we have moved away from those ideologies and have since become more open-minded. While not completely tolerant, the progress we, as a profession, have made is still commendable regardless.

          Nonetheless, the fact remains that inequality runs rampant in society.

          While our profession is rectifying its position of the matter, there is still a way to go to solve the problem.  While there are many problems regarding inequality, there aren’t as many solutions to solve the issue. We are still stuck and fighting a system that refuses to be changed. With that, the question that we must answer these days is: “How can inequality, starting with gender inequality, be solved through our architecture?” While I focused my question on the issue of gender inequality, many forms of inequality exist today. Since gender is the prime issue, I shall focus this essay on that topic. It is, after all, within this topic that we can expand and progress our society in a better direction.

          Have you ever noticed that the cities we inhabit quickly became obsolete? In my opinion, the cities that we inhabit shouldn’t have fallen into obsolescence so quickly. Case in point, there are many reports and research that always ask the same question: “how do women feel safe at night in the city?” Granted that the phrasing may differ per source, the fact that this question is being asked over and over points to one inevitable conclusion: women do not feel safe in cities at night. To an extent, there are also reports and research regarding the LGBTQ+ side of the coin. Unifying both ideas beg the question: “Are cities only safe for men and nobody else?” To an extent, the answer is yes. While all genders are subjected to the same dangers of crime and abuse, women and the LGBTQ+ community have it worse. In fact, a good number of those aforementioned reports and research indicate that women have a hard time going out at night because they feel like they have to “look over their shoulders” while walking down the street. On top of that, the LGBTQ+ community feels the same way in that regard. There are reports of abuse among the LGBTQ+ community due to their preference for clothing. Since society is still easing into the idea of the LGBTQ+ community, there is understandably a myriad of aspects that they need to wrap their head around. What is unacceptable, however, is the choice of violence to things that they have yet to understand.

          It is in this regard that architecture and urban design must step in. We must find a way, not to solve the problem, but to help give a sense of security to those afflicted.

          For example, there are a lot of dangers caused by the afterthought urban design of main congregation areas in a city (offices, restaurants, malls, etc.) and the subsequent commute routes/stations (i.e. bus station, train station, etc.). In this regard, we must help create a safer atmosphere between the two points of interest. One significant problem that many have found with these areas is the lack of proper light, foot traffic, and security presence. The activity of walking from an office, or a restaurant, to a transport station should feel safe regardless of if the activity is done alone or with a companion. Yet, that hard reality is that walking down a poorly lit street with minimal foot traffic attracts abuse to the aforementioned genders. While architecture can’t solve the existing problem directly, properly designing thoroughfares between places of work/pleasure is a way of solving a piece of the problem. Creating thoroughfares with healthy foot traffic and proper lighting limits the occurrence of abuse. Admittedly, it will never truly eliminate the possibility, but the fact remains that designing proper thoroughfares will significantly reduce abuse. In summary, a healthy thoroughfare creates a bubble of security and reduces the risk of abuse. A healthy thoroughfare has proper lighting, healthy foot traffic, and if possible, has the presence of security personnel. This bubble I described should be found not only in streets and walkways but in all areas of the city. It’s simply easier to describe and prescribe solutions to something that many people have experience in dealing with. 

          Nonetheless, the issues of abuse are not limited to streets and walkways. They happen everywhere. One of the new responsibilities of designers worldwide is to create more safety bubbles, such as this, than blind spots in the systems of the city.

          The parameters I stated may have been considered by the urban planners of old, but they understandably lacked the context of the future generations to implement more apt measures to counteract abuse. Since we are here now, that is one of our new roles in society. Gender, in many ways, affects society greatly, but the cities we live in weren’t built for us. The unfortunate reality is that they were built with the idea of us in mind and not the reality of our situation. The rest of the responsibility to design for the needs of our time falls directly on our shoulders and no one else’s.

          On top of the obvious problems, we should be mindful not to create new inequalities while trying to chase new ideas. We mustn’t sacrifice inclusion for the sake of new ideas or new concepts. One step forward two steps back is still a step back. We must strive for true equity in our designs to promote inclusivity every step of the way and every step of the design process. We must be more active in listening to the needs of those affected as opposed to designing based on limited experience. Gender indeed affects design in many ways, now more than ever. These days, gender affects design and orients it toward the common good. Conversely, the incorrect application of limited knowledge is a detriment to the goals of gender inclusivity. Essentially, we must bring the stakeholders into the design process and meet their needs as they see fit. We must treat gender equity these days as the new norm of design and treat the design process as a social issue and not a simple design issue.

          Promoting gender equity in all places doesn’t diminish what is meant for other genders, as such, it is only logical to treat this issue as an everyday societal issue. The solutions of which are simple and complex. It forces us to be more receptive to the actual needs and actual problems of those afflicted. We must listen to the whole story and not to the portions that we have filtered and picked out. More importantly, we, as a profession, have been trained and educated to understand a wide array of subjects. How can we be master builders if we refuse to accept reality as it is?

          To conclude, a survey conducted by The Architect’s Journal UK revealed that 73% (down from 80%) of LGBTQ+ architects were ‘out’ in the workplace while 30% believe that their gender orientation has become a hindrance to career progression. These statistics are very reminiscent of the ‘golden age’ of the architecture boys club. If we want true gender equity in our designs and society, we must first shed the stigma within our ranks, then focus outward. A broken system, by itself, cannot fix other broken systems. In my opinion, there are three things we can do, as a profession, to help solve this problem: Design from informed perspectives, Promote a collaborative approach to design issues, and finally, Shed prejudice and give way for dialogue. We must shed the ideals of old and embrace a new era of creativity and inclusion. The era of the renaissance was only given birth after what can be conceived as the worst of times, and we all know the old adage, the night is darkest just before the dawn. This is one of the great issues of our time, and we, as a profession, must be prepared to meet it and defeat it head-on. Only after we have done these, in my opinion, can we help society strive for better equity and inclusivity. It is, after all, a healthy, inclusive, and creative society that gave birth to the renaissance. I have no doubt that overcoming this issue will do the same for our generation.