Gender and Urban Space

SO40CH28-Spain
ARI
25 April 2014
V I E W
Review in Advance first posted online

on May 5, 2014. (Changes may
still occur before final publication
online and in print.)
I N
C E
10:39
D V A
Gender and Urban Space

Daphne Spain
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

by Universidade Estadual de Maringa on 05/24/14. For personal use only.
Department of Urban and Environmental Planning, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,

Virginia 22904; email: [email protected]
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014. 40:28.128.18
Keywords
The Annual Review of Sociology is online at

soc.annualreviews.org
cities, suburbs, patriarchy, feminine, masculine, transgender
This articles doi:

10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043446
Abstract
c 2014 by Annual Reviews.

Copyright
All rights reserved
Applying a gender perspective to cities reveals how spatial structure and

social structure are mutually constitutive. This article reviews the ways
cities have reected and reinforced gender relations in the United States
from the turn of the twentieth century to the present. First, I discuss
ways in which women in industrial cities challenged the ideology of
separate spheres. Next, I suggest that the postWorld War II city was
shaped by an era of high patriarchy similar to the architectural high
modernism of the same era, and in the third section, I explore how that
urban structure limited womens opportunities outside the home. In the
fourth part, I examine changes in the concept of gender as it expanded
beyond masculine and feminine categories to include lesbians, gays, and
transgender individuals. The article ends with a review of how womens
and gay rights movements, gentrication, and planning practices have
shaped a more gender-neutral contemporary metropolis.
28.1
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
SO40CH28-Spain
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
INTRODUCTION

Fluid over the life course, historically bounded,

and determined more by what one does than
by what one is, gender is socially constructed
(Butler 1990, DEmilio 1983, Deutsch 2007,
Jurik & Siemsen 2009, Massey 1996, West &
Zimmerman 1987). Space is also socially constructed (Gieryn 2000, Harvey 1973, Lefebvre
1991, Soja 1996). According to Lefebvre
(1991), space is produced by those who use it
every day; to the extent that spaces reect social norms, they also embody gender relations
(Knopp 2007, Nusser & Anacker 2013). I use
space and place interchangeably, but the
words have slightly different meanings. Space
consists of abstract geometries, such as distance
or size, which can be measured (Logan 2012).
Space must meet three criteria, though, to qualify as a place. A place is a unique geographical
location, whether a city park or region of the
country; place takes material form in buildings,
streets, rocks, or trees; and place is invested
with meaning, which can vary by the individual
or groups (Gieryn 2000). Blurred boundaries
between gender/sex and space/place pervade
the literature. Introducing urban to the mix
further complicates the task of dening terms.
Recognizing that urban can be applied to a
wide range of places, throughout this review
I distinguish between the metropolitan area,
(central) city, and suburb as ideal constructs.
Empiricists looking for census denitions of
these places will nd them elsewhere (Frey
et al. 2006, Lang & Dhavale 2006).
This article reviews the scholarship on
gender and urban space by looking rst at how
women in the turn-of-the-twentieth-century
American city challenged prevailing attitudes
about their proper place. Next, I examine
how patriarchal values were built into the
postWorld War II American metropolis and,
third, how gender inequalities were reinforced
by that urban structure. At the end of the
twentieth century, the concept of gender had
become more complicated, as gay, lesbian,
and transgender individuals challenged the
dichotomies of feminine and masculine, an
28.2
issue I address in the fourth section. And in

the fth, I review ways in which womens
and gay rights movements, gentrication, and
urban planning practices have shaped a more
gender-neutral contemporary metropolis for
the twenty-rst century.
The study of space and gender is necessarily
interdisciplinary; in addition to sociology, it
incorporates architecture (Ahrentzen 2003,
Colomina 1992, Weisman 1992), geography
(Bondi & Rose 2003, Domosh & Seager 2001,
Hanson & Pratt 1995, McDowell & Sharp
1997, Rose 1993), history (Deutsch 2000,
Flanagan 2002, Ryan 1990, Simons 2001),
and urban planning (Doan 2011, Greed 1994,
Fainstein & Servon 2005, Forsyth 2011). I
drew from early scholarship in these elds
while writing Gendered Spaces (Spain 1992),
in which I demonstrated that the mandatory
(for cultural or religious reasons) separation
of women and men in homes, schools, and
workplaces reinforces gender inequality.
Gendered Spaces dealt with the mandatory
separation of the sexes at the scale of individual buildings. Subsequently, I have addressed
urban spaces created voluntarily by women on
behalf of others (Spain 2001) and for themselves (Spain 2015). Cities also include spaces
created by the private and the public sectors
that become gendered through their clientele.
The nineteenth-century department store was
clearly a womens place, for example, and the
saloon a place for men. Engagement with these
spaces is typically voluntary and therefore exempt from the status implications of mandatory
gender segregation. In contrast, institutionalized gendered spaces produced by the public
sector, like prisons, are decidedly mandatory. I
provide examples of such spaces throughout the
review.
Two disclaimers are in order: First, although
women of color and the lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender (LGBT) community of any
race or ethnicity experience more intensely than
whites the inequalities associated with urban
spatial practices, the vast majority of the literature on space and gender is about non-Hispanic
whites (for exceptions, see Ginsburg 2011,
Spain
SO40CH28-Spain
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
Hurst & Zambrana 1981, Leavitt & Saegert

1990, Moore 1986, Ridd 1981, Ritzdorf 2000,
Spain 2000). Second, I focus on American examples, although similar patterns characterize
cities in other countries that have adopted the
American model of suburbanization (Ginsburg
2011, Hirt 2008, Jarvis et al. 2009, Novak &
Sykora 2007, Terlinden 2003, Werner 1980).

WOMEN AND THE AMERICAN

CITY AT THE TURN OF THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY
The late-nineteenth-century city was the site
of industrial production, where factory smoke
fouled the air, immigrant laborers were packed
into suffocating tenements, and skyscrapers in
the central business district symbolized corporate wealth. Railways transporting goods and
passengers converged in the heart of downtown, as did streetcar lines from distant residential neighborhoods. Women in public were
suspect at the turn of the century; if unaccompanied by a man, they were at risk of being
thought a prostitute. Middle-class women wore
long skirts, gloves, and hats to look respectable
when they ventured downtown to shop at one
of the new department stores like Wanamakers
in Philadelphia or Marshall Fields in Chicago
(Isenberg 2004). Gender relations at the turn of
the twentieth century were so scriptedat least
for the middle and upper classesthat the ideology of separate spheres was taken for granted
(Rothman 1978).
Chicago became the prototypical city
for Ernest Burgess, Robert Park, and their
colleagues (Park & Burgess 1925 [1967]).
Burgesss Concentric Zone theory seemed
an apt description of the way cities would
expand. Chicago School scholars conducted
countless studies of the spatial distribution of
the population by race and ethnicity; less well
known is their research on natural areas of
hetero- and homosexual practices. None of
that research, however, examined how spatial
arrangements affected womens opportunities
in the city (Heap 2003). The Concentric Zone
theory thus bears reexamination from a gender
perspective. Although Burgess said nothing

about separate spheres, his diagram placing
the central business district at the center and
residential areas at the periphery also depicted
the distance between mens and womens roles
in the capitalist city: Men produced goods in
the public sphere downtown, and middle-class
women reproduced labor in the private sphere
of the home in the outer zones.
Numerous case studies of late-nineteenthcentury cities illustrate how women challenged
assumptions about their proper place. Cities
provided opportunities to blur boundaries between the private and the public spheres.
Middle-class women in San Francisco who took
streetcars to shop downtown were traversing
the distance from Burgesss outer zone to the
inner zone. As long as relatively few women
rode the streetcar, etiquette demanded that a
gentleman give up his seat to a lady. But as
more women used public transportation to visit,
shop, or go to work in ofces and stores, there
was greater competition for seating. Etiquette
books began to advise riders that able-bodied
men and women should relinquish their seats
to the elderly or inrm. As women in public became more common, standards of proper conduct changed as well (Sewell 2011).
Once downtown, women who could afford
to visit a department store would enter an
Adamless Eden, as one proprietor called his
store (Sewell 2011). Men worked as clerks, but a
department store was a womens environment.
It often included a tearoom where it was acceptable for a woman to dine alone, unlike the
male spaces of restaurants where a woman had
to be escorted by a man. As with streetcars, once
women became regular customers, they steadily
expanded the number of places they occupied to
include lunchrooms and theaters. These same
places, and the streets and sidewalks that connected them, became central to organizing exuberant womans suffrage campaigns in 1896
and 1911. Womens greater presence in public
gave them the power to achieve political equality with men (Sewell 2011).
Women in Chicago campaigned for the municipal vote repeatedly between 1871 and 1933,
www.annualreviews.org Gender and Urban Space
28.3
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
arguing that running a city would be a logical

extension of running a home. Wealthy philanthropists, like Louise de Koven Bowen, as well
as rank and le women activists fought successfully to achieve the political power that produced better garbage collection, clean milk, and
prenatal care under the banner of municipal
housekeeping. Beginning with relief efforts after the Great Fire of 1871, women struggled to
make Chicago more livable rather than more
protable; womens vision of a city of homes
where the local government would make citizens welfare its top priority contrasted sharply
with mens city of big shoulders, in Carl
Sandburgs words (Flanagan 2002, p. 1).
Bowen inuenced more than the struggle for
suffrage. By funding Jane Addamss Hull House
settlement, Bowen contributed directly to the
creation of a new gendered space in the city.
Londons Toynbee Hall, the original settlement house Americans used as their model, was
occupied solely by men. In the United States,
however, settlement houses were a largely female endeavor led by white, college-educated
women such as Addams, Vida Scudder, and
Mary Kingsbury Simkhovich. Residents both
lived and worked in the house, where they offered citizenship classes, public baths, kindergartens, and libraries to immigrants before municipalities provided such services. Settlement
pioneers created a new profession for themselves at the same time they gave immigrants
a place to escape from deplorable tenements
(Spain 2001).
Bowen and Addams both belonged to the
Womans City Club of Chicago. The Womans
Club promoted a municipal housekeeping
agenda and wielded some inuence on the 1893
Worlds Columbian Exposition and on architect Daniel Burnhams City Beautiful plan of
1909. The real power and money to alter the
city lay with the elite, white, all-male Commercial Club that commissioned Burnhams City
Beautiful plan, but the wives of Commercial
Club members sometimes exerted the power
bestowed by their husbands. Bertha Palmer,
wife of real estate tycoon Potter Palmer, was
elected president of the Board of Lady Man-

SO40CH28-Spain
28.4
agers for the Columbian Exposition. One of

her rst decisions was to insure that the fair
would include a separate Womans Building
to showcase womens accomplishments (Spain
2001, pp. 208, 215).
Women in Boston, like those in Chicago,
shaped public spaces to suit their own needs.
Vida Scudders Denison House settlement,
the Boston Womens Trade Union League,
and the Womens Educational and Industrial
Union (WEIU) lobbied successfully for the
municipal government to provide health
clinics, school lunches, and kindergartens for
the poor. The WEIU deliberately located
its headquarters at the center of the citys
legislative power corridor, at 264 Boylston
Street, and its lunchrooms around the city
increased the number of places women could
claim. The leaders of the WEIU wanted to
create public space where middle-class and elite
women could appear without being declassed
and working women could appear in public
without having their virtue questioned by
being on the streets (Deutsch 2000, p. 145).
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, department stores, settlement
houses, and womens clubs were gendered
spaces in the industrializing cities, as were saloons, restaurants, and business clubs. They
gave men and women different destinations in
the city. No signs were needed to indicate which
sex belonged in which space; it was simply understood who belonged where. Thus, the idea
of separate spheres became encoded within the
public spaces of the city. Yet women often encroached on the public sphere, sometimes quietly and other times raucously, to declare their
rights. Women had a presence in the city that
many traditional histories neglect; one has to
apply a gender lens to reveal it.
THE POSTWORLD WAR II

AMERICAN CITY
Just as Chicago was the model for urban theory
at the beginning of the twentieth century, Los
Angeles became the prototypical metropolitan area after World War II. Cities no longer
Spain

SO40CH28-Spain
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
concentrated economic activities at the center,

and multiple nodes were interspersed among
other land uses in the postmodern metropolis. Density was lower than in the industrial
city, and the population was distributed across
sprawling suburbs (Davis 1990, Dear 2000, Soja
2000). These spatial changes were accompanied by economic restructuring that turned the
city from a site of production into a site of
consumption (Zukin 1991). If one associates
production with men and consumption with
women, it would be reasonable to think that
the city became more feminized after the war.
In fact, however, postwar economic prosperity
produced its own set of separate spheres.
The postwar American metropolitan area
developed during an age of high patriarchy,
the social equivalent of architectures high
modernism of the same era. High modernist
architecture, as popularized by its prophet Le
Corbusier, was characterized by total state control of rational, functional urban design (think
1950s public housing in the United States).
Outside the United States, Brasilia was its
showcase accomplishment. The new inland city
of Brazil was designed by Corbusier disciple
Oscar Niemeyer to replace the chaotic coastal
Rio de Janeiro as the nations capital. All the
public spaces were planned, streets were designed for cars rather than pedestrians, and
housing was arranged in super blocks to which
people were assigned according to their occupations. The entire monumental city was built
from the ground up in four years and opened to
international acclaim in 1960. However, its future was less successful than its designers hoped.
Residents had few opportunities to shape their
own homes, neighborhoods, or public gathering spaces, and the imposition of European
standards on Brazilian culture was a disaster.
Rather than the zenith of high modernism,
Brasilia stands as its biggest failure (Scott 1998).
With its emphasis on rationality, control
of the environment, and professional expertise,
high modernism exhibited distinctly masculine
characteristics. Patriarchy, as a system of social
structures and practices in which men as a group
dominate women as a group (Walby 1989),
ourished in the United States during the same

decades as high modernism. Men held political and economic power unavailable to women
and used that power to create an ideology that
made it seem normalto women and to men
that women could accomplish less in the public sphere than men. Immediately after World
War II, Rosie the Riveters gave up their jobs to
returning veterans and returned to the home.
Those who remained in the labor force earned
approximately 60 cents for every dollar earned
by men, partly because employed women were
concentrated in the low-paid helping occupations of teaching, nursing, and library science.
Because fewer women than men were enrolled
in college, womens potential for the professions and higher earnings looked bleak (Spain
& Bianchi 1996, pp. 59, 111).
These traditional gender expectations were
inscribed on the urban landscape. Feminist
scholars view the man-made environment
as just that: the material manifestation of a
patriarchal society. Marxist feminists point out
that the division of household labor by which
men produce and women reproduce is at the
heart of the patriarchal capitalist city (Appleton
1995, Brown 1987, Markusen 1981, Rose 1984,
Walby 1989). Mens labor in the public realm
is paid and visible; womens household labor
is unpaid and invisible, reinforcing gender
inequalities both inside and outside the home.
The separation of home from work is the
spatial manifestation of this division of labor.
In fact, the centrality of the patriarchal form
of household organization [is] a necessary and
causal condition responsible for contemporary
urban structure and its problems (Markusen
1981, p. 24).
Gender ideology has changed signicantly
since the 1950s (Davis & Greenstein 2009),
but cities have lagged behind the pace of this
change. Built of concrete and steel, mired in
outdated zoning laws, and vulnerable to economic cycles, cities can change only incrementally. But change they have, as explained below
in the nal section.
The exodus to the suburbs after World
War II was fueled by federal policies and by
28.5
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
private industry eager to meet the pent-up demand for housing following the Depression and
the war. The G.I. Bill subsidized homeownership for veterans, if they were white, and
massive highway construction accompanied by
cheap gasoline prices made commuting between central city jobs and suburban homes easy
and affordable (Swift 2011). William Levitt was
featured on the cover of Life magazine, celebrated for exporting his model for Levittowns
in New York and Pennsylvania to developers
around the country. Because racial discrimination was legal, the suburbs became increasingly white and the cities increasingly black.
The decades of peak housing construction after the war cemented the pervasive racial residential segregation that still limits wealth accumulation and upward mobility for African
Americans (Baxandall & Ewen 2000, Krysan &
Farley 2002, Massey & Denton 1993).
Suburbanization also spatialized gender inequalities. Factories and ofces located in the
central city were populated by men during the
day, while homes in the suburbs were occupied
by women and children. The suburbs were designed around the assumptions that, for whites,
women were the sole unpaid caretakers in the
private sphere and men were the only wage
earners in the public sphere. Historian Elaine
Tyler May (2008, p. 1) argues that the nuclear
family in the nuclear age sought escape from
Cold War tensions by creating a secure, private nest removed from the dangers of the outside world. Wives were in charge of feathering
that nest with the newest appliances and home
furnishings, and Mrs. Consumer played a signicant role in the restructuring of the postwar
economy (Hayden 1984; see also Spigel 1992).
Sociologists were among those perpetuating the spatial reication of gender stereotypes.
Schwartz (1976, pp. 33435) thought the association of male with urban and female with suburban was logical:

SO40CH28-Spain
Not only to the gender of the daytime population does suburbia owe its essential femininity, but also to the domesticity which is
its very raison detre, and to its correspond28.6
ing alienation from the serious work which

has always taken place within the masculine
province of the city. . . . The suburbs, in this
sense, conform to the Freudian conception
of femininity: passive, intellectually void, instinctually distractive. . . .
In the article Masculine Cities and Feminine Suburbs, environmental psychologist

Saegert (1980) challenged Schwartzs simplistic characterization of urban space. Saegert recognized that more women were entering the
labor force and that jobs were moving to the
suburbs, making the suburban home less a domestic retreat than the myth suggested. Furthermore, many mothers thought it was easier
to raise children in the city than in the suburbs owing to the lack of suburban public transit and other resources. Sociologists Shlay &
DiGregorio (1985) found that men were more
satised with suburban than city life, whereas
women liked features of both places. Women
appreciated the low-density and racial and socioeconomic homogeneity of the suburbs but
missed the diversity and proximity of services
in the city.
Inscribing gender assumptions into the
American urban landscape caused little concern as long as most jobs were still in the city
and few women were employed. But during the
1970s, jobs continued to migrate to the suburbs
along with the population, and more wives had
to seek employment as the one-paycheck family became untenable; by 1980, the majority of
American women were in the labor force (Spain
& Bianchi 1996, p. 81). Second-wave feminism
created new opportunities and expectations for
women, and rising divorce and out-of-wedlock
birth rates made it imperative for women to seek
economic independence. That often involved
establishing their own households, but zoning
laws stood in the way.
Municipal zoning separates residential from
commercial uses and limits the number of
unrelated people who can live together under
the same roof. The precedent for single-use
zoning was set in 1926 with the Supreme Court
decision in the case of Village of Euclid v. Ambler
Spain

SO40CH28-Spain
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
Realty Co. With this landmark ruling upholding

the constitutionality of zoning, the Court
declared that the town of Euclid, Ohio, had
the right to exclude from residential districts
all apartment houses, businesses, retail stores,
and shops. Furthermore, the Court considered
apartment buildings to be a mere parasite,
constructed in order to take advantage of the
open spaces and attractive surroundings created
by the residential character of the district. . .
(quoted in Perin 1977, p. 48). The residences
being protected, of course, were all singlefamily detached homes. In 1974, the Supreme
Court declared, in Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas,
that no more than two unrelated individuals
could live together in a single-family home,
a decision upheld in 1991 by the Connecticut
Supreme Court (Ritzdorf 2000). Such zoning
made it difcult for single parents to nd child
care, shops, employment, and housing within
reasonable proximity of each other (Ritzdorf
2000). Singles or parents who wanted to share
housing expenses with nonfamily members
ran afoul of zoning laws. It was difcult to
nd alternatives to the traditional house with
a large yard in a low-density suburban neighborhood. The features that once made suburbs
so appealing became obstacles to new gender
realities.
Postwar cities exhibited three types of gendered spaces institutionalized by the public sector. The rst was public housing. Changes in
federal rules determining eligibility drove out
the working families for whom public housing was originally intended, giving priority to
the poorest of the poor. Those, of course, were
African American women and their children.
The second type, almost a corollary of public
housing, was prisons. The war on drugs initiated in the 1980s incarcerated thousands of
black men in cities across the country. Expansions of military bases throughout the Sunbelt
constituted the third type of gendered space
to become more visible after the war. Military
bases are federal reservations for men, similar
to reservations for Native Americans in their
purpose to contain a particular population in
a regulated space. Cities with a strong military
presence look very different from those lacking a base: They have more tattoo and massage
parlors, car lots, and payday loan businesses.
WOMEN AND THE

POSTWORLD WAR II CITY
Gendered assumptions inuenced womens
daily lives in the postWorld War II city and
hence their status relative to mens. In fact,
much of the scholarship during the 1980s was
fueled by feminists outrage over the gender inequalities perpetuated by urban spatial designs
that everyone took for granted. This section
illustrates how feminists strove to make visible,
and challenge, the invisible infrastructure that
reinforced gender inequalities (Andrew &
Milroy 1988, Ardener 1981, Hayden 1981a,
Matrix 1984, Mazey & Lee 1983, Ryan 1990,
Sandercock 1998, Stansell 1986).
Sociologists published some of the earliest
research on women and cities. Wekerle and
colleagues (1980) edited volume New Space
for Women included a section entitled Urban
Design: The Price Women Pay. Appearing
in this section were Favas (1980) Womens
Place in the New Suburbia and Popenoes
(1980) Women in the Suburban Environment:
A U.S.-Sweden Comparison. These authors
held land-use patterns that separated home,
work, and services responsible for limiting
womens options in American suburbs.
Kellers (1981) edited volume, Building for
Women, was published a year after that by
Wekerle et al. Kellers chapter reported her results from a mid-1970s survey of residents of
Twin Rivers, a planned suburban community in
New Jersey. She found that husbands worked
outside the community while wives stayed at
home to cover domestic chores and childrearing, that many women reported loneliness and
boredom, that a majority expressed the desire
for local child care facilities, and that the housing stock was designed around the assumption
that all residents would be members of a heterosexual married-couple family. Keller took
planners to task for designing an environment
locked into such dated gender stereotypes. Her
28.7
SO40CH28-Spain
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
words, written before the majority of women

were in the labor force and as divorce rates were
peaking, are worth repeating:
It is. . .noteworthy, in this era of high divorce
rates, that the aftermaths of divorce were not
considered when designing the community;
there are few apartments, especially reasonable ones, little local employment, and no public transportation except for the special morning and evening commuter buses that carry
the men, and some women, back and forth to
outside jobs. (Keller 1981, p. 74)

Over 30 years ago, Keller recognized the power

of the built environment to enhance or detract
from womens opportunities outside the home.
Despite her warning to planners (and I would
add developers), most suburban neighborhoods
are still bound by municipal ordinances that
prohibit retail or services within their boundaries, and few have adequate public transit.
Women and the American City, edited
by Stimpson and colleagues (1981), included
contributions from the pantheon of feminist authors writing about women and urban
space: Jo Freeman, Dolores Hayden, Jacqueline
Leavitt, Ann Markusen, Susan Saegert, and
Gerda Wekerle. One of these pioneering scholars of women and space deserves special mention, Dolores Hayden. Her now-classic article,
What Would a Nonsexist City Be Like? appeared in the Stimpson volume. Haydens answer was: Adopt cooperative housing designs
that provide cooked food and child care, as in
the Marieberg house in Sweden, the Steilshoop
Project in Germany, and Nina West Homes
in Great Britain. Implementing such innovations in the United States would require women
and men to establish a union called Homemakers Organization for a More Egalitarian Society (HOMES) to recongure existing suburban
neighborhoods (Hayden 1981b).
A few years later, Hayden (1984) published Redesigning the American Dream: The Future of Housing, Work, and Family Life. The
book addressed the disparity between the massive single-family detached housing stock con28.8
structed after World War II and the decline of

the nuclear family as the predominant household type. It opened debate among architects
and planners about appropriate designs for
new American families. Franck & Ahrentzens
(1991) edited volume, New Households, New
Housing, was a direct response to Haydens
challenge. It included chapters on cohousing
in Denmark, the Congregate House for single parents designed by Jacqueline Leavitt, and
Canadian womens housing cooperatives as alternatives to the single-family detached home.
Another topic introduced in the Stimpson
volume was womens sense of vulnerability in
public places. Researchers have consistently
found that women, far more so than men, are
afraid of cities (Gordon et al. 1981, Miethe
1995, Pain 2001, Riger et al. 1978, Schafer et al.
2006, Stanko 1995). When women avoid certain places or modify their daily activities out
of fear, they are forfeiting opportunities to engage in political, economic, or social pursuits.
Feminist geographer Valentine (1989) calls
womens fear of cities the spatial expression of
patriarchy.
The greatest inhibition to womens mobility is their fear of sexual assault, and rape by a
stranger ranks at the top of that fear hierarchy.
Feminist scholars have argued that rape is the
ultimate expression of patriarchy. It is the way
all men control all women, by actually carrying out the deed or threatening to. Added to
the fear of rape is the reluctance to report it
to the authorities, who for many years blamed
the victim for dressing provocatively or being
in the wrong place at the wrong time (Bevacqua
2000, Brownmiller 1975, Walby 1989). In fact,
womens anxiety about danger in public places
may be a fear of men: Confronting womens
fear means confronting the danger women face
at the hands of their partners, acquaintances,
clients, and coworkers, as well as other potential violence from men inside and outside the
home (Stanko 1995, p. 46). It is understandable, then, that women may actually prefer the
night life in gay neighborhoods because they
are safer from potential heterosexual predators
hanging out in straight bars (Quilley 1997).
Spain

SO40CH28-Spain
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
The paradox of womens fear of street

crime is that women are far more likely to
experience physical and sexual violence in
the home than in public (Domosh & Seager
2001, Pain 2001). Women are also more likely
to be raped by someone they know than by
a stranger (Bevacqua 2000). The sum of all
their fears can lead women to withdraw from
urban life (Miethe 1995). The most crippling
fear of public space is agoraphobia, the fear of
leaving the house and moving among strangers.
Agoraphobia aficts far more women than men
(da Costa Meyer 2000).
In contrast to this body of literature was
Wilsons (1991) The Sphinx in the City, which
celebrated the liberating potential of cities for
women. She acknowledged the gender dualities of the city, citing its triumphal scale and
abandoned industrial regions as masculine and
its enclosing embrace and labyrinthine corridors as feminine. Wilson rejected the idea that
women need safety and protection, focusing instead on the spontaneity and freedom associated
with the city. By recognizing the benets of the
city for women, Wilson differentiated herself
from the ranks of feminists who saw only the
negative side of cities.
EXPANDING THE CONCEPT

OF GENDER
In the beginning, there was sex and there
was gender. This was the rst sentence in
West & Zimmermans (1987) groundbreaking article, Doing Gender, which appeared
in the rst issue of Gender and Society. The
authors were writing about how lesbian and
gay identities develop and change over the life
course. Contrast their opening with the following headline from the June 15, 2013, Washington Post: M or F? Outdated IDs Worry
Transgender Individuals (Leff 2013). Within
two decades, transgenders joined lesbians and
gays in the public consciousness and in the literature on gender and space (Connell 2010;
Doan 2007, 2010, 2011; Meadow 2010; Schilt
2006; Schilt & Westbrook 2009; Valocchi
2005).
Gays and lesbians have a different relationship than heterosexuals to public spaces in
the city. A queerscape is larger than a closet
and usually involves outdoor and unbuilt landscapes, according to Ingram (1997a, p. 31).
Parks, especially at night, serve as meeting
places for marginalized groups, with few indoor
options other than bathhouses, bars, and public
washrooms. Sociologist Humphreys (1975), in
his infamous study of toilet sex among gays
in public restrooms, noted that the men he observed seemed to have a stronger sentimental
attachment to the building than to their sexual
partners (also see Ingram 1997b). It is doubtful, however, that twenty-rst-century gay activists would consider Humphreys a pioneer
among scholars of gender and space (see Myslik
1996, Namaste 1996, Podmore 2001, Valentine
1996).
Urban space presents particular challenges
for transgendered individuals. In addition to
experiencing the same type of harassment as
gays and lesbians (Doan 2007, Namaste 1996),
transgenders confront a tyranny of gendered
spaces in mens and womens public restrooms
or while buying clothes in a shopping mall
(Doan 2010). Urban spaces just for transgenders are less common than those for gays and
lesbians. LGBT community centers, bars, and
bookstores cater more to the LG crowd than
the T crowd. Instead of establishing permanent places, transgenders often gather at conventions like the Fantasia Fair Gathering in
Provincetown, Massachusetts, or the Southern Comfort Convention in Atlanta, Georgia
(Doan 2007).
Expanding concepts of gender also meant
acknowledging masculinity rather than focusing only on women (Connell & Messerschmidt
2005). Publications now devoted to men and
masculinity were unheard of during the early
wave of research. Schrock & Schwalbe (2009)
trace the rst mainstream sociological treatment of masculinities from the 1980s, but studies of the relationship between masculinity
and space are rare (for exceptions see Burke
2012, Kimmel 2008, Pascoe 2007). Sociologist
Kimmel insists that discussions of gender must
28.9
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
include men. In Guyland: The Perilous World

Where Boys Become Men, Kimmel (2008) argues
that middle-class boys learn what it means to be
men in places like game rooms, sports bars, and
fraternity housesalso known as man caves
because of the absence of women. Lowerincome boys might join gangs and learn to defend their turf from older men. Although none
of these places specically excludes women,
their boundaries are as clear as a sign declaring no girls allowed hung on the door of a
boys clubhouse.
Architect Lupkin is one of the few designers
attentive to masculinity and space. In Manhood
Factories, Lupkin (2010) argues that the typical
nineteenth-century Main Street YMCA, a
brick building standing only three or four
stories tall, was instrumental in redening masculinity at the turn of the twentieth century.
The YMCAs leisure spaces, its dorms, and its
educational facilities were key elements in a
spatially segmented system of class, race, and
gender that helped dene a culture of corporate capitalism in the modern city (Lupkin
2010, p. xvi). It is difcult to think about the
YMCA without considering its counterpart,
the YWCA. Constructed for single women,
the YWCA was equally dedicated to dening
proper gendered behavior in the industrializing
city. Young women living apart from their
families were subject to curfews and mandatory
religious meetings, and house mothers insured that male visitors were restricted to visits
to the parlor. In this way, the YWCA protected
womens virtue in a morally dangerous city
(Meyerowitz 1988, Mjagkij & Spratt 1997).

SO40CH28-Spain
THE CONTEMPORARY
METROPOLIS
The metropolitan area of the twenty-rst century is a product of previous eras of development overlaid by political, economic, and
technological changes. The concept of separate
spheres has become outdated as more women
have entered colleges and the labor force and as
their potential for economic independence has
increased. Compared with the early and mid28.10
twentieth century, men and women are more

likely to attend coeducational schools and work
in the same buildings (Spain 1992). But urban
gendered spaces still exist. When a city invests
in a sports stadium or a festival marketplace, it
is inscribing gender expectation of its users into
the urban landscape.
Since the middle of the twentieth century,
women activists in the United States have
fought for a more egalitarian city. Women
were the primary participants in social reform
movements to establish equity in the delivery of urban services, e.g., medical clinics and
programs for seniors (Fainstein & Fainstein
1974). The National Welfare Rights Movement of the 1960s, orchestrated by poor African
American women, succeeded in increasing benets and expanding eligibility for welfare recipients (West 1981). Struggles for tenants rights
were led by poor women who stood up to landlords in the private and public sectors (Leavitt
& Saegert 1990). Many of the participants in
these social justice movements lived in public
housing (Spain 1995).
The 1970s womens movement known as
the second wave waged an intense campaign
for womens rights that had spatial consequences for the city. Like women at the turn
of the twentieth century demonstrating for the
vote, second-wave feminists took to the streets
to demonstrate for equal pay and reproductive
rights. When Betty Friedan called a Womens
Strike for Equality Day on August 26, 1970,
tens of thousands of women turned out, just as
thousands of suffragists had paraded for their
cause in Washington, DC, in 1913 (Mueller
1994). Unlike suffragists, however, contemporary feminists built their rights into the city
with womens centers, credit unions, and feminist health clinics. These places, created by and
for women, declared womens rights to public
space (Gelb & Gittell 1986, Spain 2011).
Among the places second-wave feminists
created in cities and college towns across the
country, womens centers were the most important. These centers provided safe havens for
women to explore different life options from
those of wives and mothers; they also helped
Spain

SO40CH28-Spain
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
women train for jobs, educate themselves about

the womens movement, and gain condence.
Womens centers launched numerous projects
that evolved into separate institutions. Feminist
bookstores, self-help clinics, and domestic violence shelters came to life when volunteers in a
womens center dedicated themselves to a particular cause. Feminist bookstores connected
local women to intellectual and social trends in
the larger feminist movement. Self-help clinics
provided information and services to insure
womens reproductive rights, and shelters for
victims of domestic violence declared that
women would not be beaten. None of these
places existed before 1970. They ourished
because feminists dedicated thousands of hours
and considerable personal savings to assert
their rights to the city. Rarely possessing the
resources to buy property or construct new
buildings, activists rented existing buildings and
modied them to suit their needs. They were
voluntarily gendered spaces that empowered
women.
The gay rights movement was energized
in 1969 around a particular urban place:
New York Citys Stonewall Inn. When police raided the bar and its patrons fought back,
gay men were claiming their rights to public space. Public opinion about homosexuality
has changed dramatically since then, so much
so that some preservationists are lobbying to
have Stonewall Inn declared a historic landmark
(Dubrow 2011). Lesbians also met in bars before Stonewall, but police were less likely to
raid those premises, perhaps because homophobic male police ofcers were less threatened by
women. The ghts that broke out in lesbian
bars were between lesbians themselves, disagreeing over who was dancing with whom or
whether someone was leaving with their partner
(Kennedy & Davis 1993). Clandestine activities of the early and mid-twentieth century have
been replaced by public acknowledgment of homosexuality. The Queer Spaces Sign Project in
New York City, for example, installed pink Masonite triangles on lamp posts to celebrate gay
and lesbian places (Hertz et al. 1997).
Castellss mapping of San Franciscos gay

male culture was one of the rst to explore
the relationship between homosexual subcultures and space. Castells proposed that spatial concentration is fundamental to the development of gay identity. He argued that gay
men are more likely than lesbian women to
establish urban neighborhoods because mens
tendency toward dominance extends to territorial aspirations, whereas lesbians emphasis
on relationships transcends space, making lesbians placeless (Castells 1983, p. 140; Castells
& Murphy 1982). Urban planners Adler &
Brenner (1992) challenged Castellss analysis,
arguing that womens lower incomes, responsibility for children, and vulnerability to male
violence had more to do with their location decisions than the bonds of lesbian relationships
(see also DEmilio 1983).
Gays and lesbians have played signicant
roles in the revitalization of American cities
(Forsyth 1997, Lauria & Knopp 1985). Commercial areas catering to gays and lesbians, such
as San Franciscos Market Street and Chicagos
Halsted Street, display highly visible rainbow
ags to attract the local clientele and, increasingly, tourists. Gay and lesbian community centers, bookstores, and health clinics have become
staples in many cities, and gay and lesbian parades and festivals temporarily transform city
streets. Because being out in public often subjects gays and lesbians to harassment (Namaste
1996), queer activists have led efforts to make
public spaces safer (Forsyth 2011). Welcoming
gays and lesbians, in fact, has become a hallmark
of creative cities (Florida 2005).
Gay men pioneered the gentrication
of urban neighborhoods. As residents and
as entrepreneurs, gay men established cultural and commercial enterprises that bolstered the neighborhoods gay identity (Castells
1983, Knopp 1990, Lauria & Knopp 1985).
Lesbians have also established their own neighborhoods, in Northampton, Massachusetts,
(Forsyth 1997) and Park Slope in Brooklyn
(Rothenberg 1995). In an ironic twist, many in
the LGBT community are now being displaced
28.11
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
from the very neighborhoods they helped popularize (Doan & Higgins 2011).
Gentrication initiated by women and the
LGBT community presents a special challenge
to the postwar division of urban space. The process of inner-city neighborhood upscaling is fueled by couples dubbed DINKs (Dual-Income
No Kids) as well as by gays and lesbians who reject the suburbs in favor of living in the central
city. By seeking greater acceptance of nontraditional lifestyles in walkable, dense, mixed-use
communities, gentriers escape everything associated with the suburbs: the nuclear family, a
single-family detached house with its lawn, and
dependence on cars. Because of the proximity
of homes to services (such as grocery stores and
day care facilities) and the availability of public transit, single mothers often nd it easier to
balance work and family life in the city than in
the suburbs (Bondi 1998, Rose 1984, Wekerle
et al. 1980).
As gentrication was gaining momentum,
urban planners and designers began to think
differently about how cities should function.
Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk
(practicing as DPZ) on the East Coast, and
Calthorpe (1993) on the West Coast, began to promote New Urbanist (NU) principles. NU incorporates neo-traditional design
with high-density mixed uses to create more
walkable, environmentally sustainable neighborhoods (see the Congress for the New Urbanism founded in 1993, http://www.cnu.org/
history). DPZ designed Kentlands, Maryland,
to include a variety of housing types built with
local materials, rental and owner-occupied options, shops and businesses, and extensive walking trails (Duany et al. 2000). One drawback of
existing NU communities is that they are far
removed from public transit and do little to reduce car dependence. But NU ideas have been
instrumental in persuading planners to abandon single-use zoning and to offer developers incentives for transit-oriented development
(Chatman 2013). NU appears to hold more potential than traditional suburbs for women to
pursue opportunities outside the home.

SO40CH28-Spain
28.12
CONCLUSIONS
Gender and urban space as a topic of interdisciplinary scholarship emerged during the 1980s.
Initiated by feminists, the earliest work deconstructed the ways in which the man-made environment was the material manifestation of a
patriarchal society that created gender inequalities. Those inequalities took shape in the industrializing American city as separate spheres
for women and men. From this perspective,
Burgesss Concentric Zone theory mapped the
gender realities of the day. Yet many middleclass women challenged their proper place in
the outer residential rings by riding streetcars
into the downtown to shop, dine, attend the
theater, and demonstrate for the vote.
The postWorld War II city represented by
the Los Angeles school lacked a central business district but developed masculine cities and
feminine suburbs in an era of high patriarchy.
Single-use zoning relegated homes to the suburbs and commerce to the city during an era of
peak suburban housing construction. Relatively
few middle-class women were in the labor force;
they stayed home and produced the baby boom.
By the 1970s, however, the womens movement contributed to greater opportunities for
women, and rising divorce and out-of-wedlock
births reduced the prevalence of nuclear families. Zoning that dened a family by traditional
norms made it difcult for single women and
their children, as well as LGBT households, to
nd housing in the suburbs. Second-wave feminists contributed to changes in the use of urban space by creating places that met womens
demands for their new rights to reproductive
health and personal safety.
As the research on gender and urban space
matured, scholars added LGBTs to the study
of women and cities. Like women, members of
the LGBT community are subject to harassment on city streets and in public facilities. But
also like women, LGBTs have been active in
reconguring urban space, rejecting the suburban model of nuclear families and single-family
detached housing for the mixed-use zoning and
higher density of gentrifying neighborhoods in
Spain
SO40CH28-Spain
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39

the city. The NU design movement emerged as

gentrication was accelerating. NU promotes
walkability; reduced dependence on driving; accessibility to public transit; and the proximity of home, work, and services. Although NU
communities so far lack some of these features,
they promise to reduce some of the barriers to
womens full participation in public life.
Cities of every era have exhibited a type
of gendered space. Some have been nanced
by the private sector, as in nineteenth-century
department stores that catered primarily to a
female clientele and saloons that served men

almost exclusively. Others have been a product of public-sector investments in public housing, prisons, and military bases. Public-private
partnerships have produced sports stadiums and
festival market places for gender-specic economic development purposes. Still others have
been voluntarily created by and for women in
the form of womens centers and domestic violence shelters. These places are all visible reminders of the power of gender norms to shape
urban space.
SUMMARY POINTS
1. Since the late nineteenth century, women have engaged in spatial practices that challenge
separate spheres for women and men.
2. Social norms prevalent in the United States after World War II built patriarchal assumptions into the metropolitan landscape. Those assumptions, in turn, reinforced gender
inequalities.
3. The concept of gender has expanded beyond traditional masculine and feminine categories to include LGBT identities.
4. Womens and gay rights movements, gentrication, and New Urbanist planning practices
have produced more gender-neutral metropolitan areas in the twenty-rst century.
5. Gendered spaces at the urban scale have been produced by volunteers, the private sector,
and the public sector.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any afliations, memberships, funding, or nancial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Ann Forsyth, Jim Wright, and the late Suzanne M. Bianchi for helpful comments on an
earlier draft of this review.
LITERATURE CITED
Adler S, Brenner J. 1992. Gender and space: lesbians and gay men in the city. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 16:2434
Ahrentzen S. 2003. The space between the studs: feminism and architecture. Signs: J. Women Cult. Soc.
29(1):179206
Andrew C, Milroy BM, eds. 1988. Life Spaces: Gender, Household, Employment. Vancouver: Univ. B.C. Press
Appleton L. 1995. The gender regimes of American cities. In Gender in Urban Research, ed. JA Garber, RS
Turner, pp. 4459. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Ardener S, ed. 1981. Women and Space: Ground Rules and Social Maps. London: Croom Held
28.13
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
Baxandall R, Ewen E. 2000. Picture Windows: How the Suburbs Happened. New York: Basic Books
Bevacqua M. 2000. Rape on the Public Agenda: Feminism and the Politics of Sexual Assault. Boston: Northeast.
Univ. Press
Bondi L. 1998. Gender, class, and urban space: public and private space in contemporary urban landscapes.
Urban Geogr. 19(2):16085
Bondi L, Rose D. 2003. Constructing gender, constructing the urban: a review of Anglo-American feminist
urban geography. Gend. Place Cult. 10(3):22945
Brown C. 1987. The new patriarchy. In Hidden Aspects of Womens Work, ed. C Bose, R Feldberg, N Sokoloff,
pp. 13760. New York: Praeger
Brownmiller S. 1975. Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. New York: Simon & Schuster
Burke KJ. 2012. A space apart: Kairos and masculine possibility in retreats of adolescents. J. Men Masculinities
Spiritual. 6(2):7793
Butler J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge
Calthorpe P. 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York:
Princeton Archit. Press
Castells M. 1983. The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. Berkeley:
Univ. Calif. Press
Castells M, Murphy K. 1982. Cultural identity and urban structure: the spatial organization of San Franciscos
gay community. In Urban Policy Under Capitalism, ed. N Fainstein, S Fainstein, pp. 23760. Beverly Hills:
Sage
Chatman DG. 2013. Does TOD need the T? On the importance of factors other than rail access. J. Am. Plan.
Assoc. 79(1):1731
Colomina B, ed. 1992. Sexuality and Space. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Archit. Press
Connell C. 2010. Doing, undoing, or redoing gender? Learning from the workplace experiences of transpeople.
Gend. Soc. 24(1):3155
Connell RW, Messerschmidt JW. 2005. Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept. Gend. Soc. 19(6):829
59
Davis M. 1990. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. New York: Vintage
Davis SN, Greenstein TN. 2009. Gender ideology: components, predictors, and consequences. Annu. Rev.
Sociol. 35:87105
DEmilio J. 1983. Capitalism and gay identity. In Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality, ed. A Snitow, C
Stansell, S Thompson, pp. 10016. New York: Mon. Rev.
da Costa Meyer E. 2000. La donna`e mobile. In Gender and Architecture, ed. L Durning, R Wrigley, pp. 15569.
New York: Wiley
Dear M. 2000. The Postmodern Urban Condition. Oxford: Blackwell
Deutsch FM. 2007. Undoing gender. Gend. Soc. 21(1):10627
Deutsch S. 2000. Women and the City: Gender, Space, and Power in Boston, 18701940. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press
Doan P. 2007. Queers in the American city: transgendered perceptions of urban space. Gend. Place Cult.
14(1):5774
Doan P. 2010. The tyranny of gendered spacesreections from beyond the gender dichotomy. Gend. Place
Cult. 17(5):63554
Doan P, ed. 2011. Queerying Planning: Challenging Heteronormative Assumptions and Reframing Planning Practice.
Surrey, UK: Ashgate
Doan P, Higgins H. 2011. The demise of queer space? Resurgent gentrication and the assimilation of LGBT
neighborhoods. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 31(1):625
Domosh M, Seager J. 2001. Putting Women in Place: Feminist Geographers Make Sense of the World. New York:
Guilford
Duany A, Plater-Zyberk E, Speck J. 2000. American Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American
Dream. New York: North Point
Dubrow G. 2011. Lavender landmarks revisited: advancing an LGBT preservation agenda. See Doan 2011,
pp. 5370

SO40CH28-Spain
28.14
Spain

SO40CH28-Spain
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
Duncan N, ed. 1996. Bodyspace: Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality. New York: Routledge
Fainstein NI, Fainstein SS. 1974. Urban Political Movements: The Search for Power by Minority Groups in American
Cities. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Fainstein SS, Servon LJ, eds. 2005. Gender and Planning. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Fava S. 1980. Womens place in the new suburbia. See Wekerle et al. 1980, pp. 12950
Flanagan MA. 2002. Seeing With Their Hearts: Chicago Women and the Vision of the Good City, 18711933.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Florida R. 2005. Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge
Forsyth A. 1997. Out in the valley. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 21:3660
Forsyth A. 2011. Queerying planning practice: understanding non-conformist populations. See Doan 2011,
pp. 2151
Franck KA, Ahrentzen S, eds. 1991. New Households, New Housing. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Frey WH, Wilson JH, Berube A, Singer A. 2006. Tracking American trends into the twenty-rst century:
a eld guide to the new metropolitan and micropolitan denitions. In Redening Urban and Suburban
America: Evidence from Census 2000, Vol. 3, ed. A Berube, B Katz, RE Lang, pp. 191234. Washington,
DC: Brookings Inst.
Gelb J, Gittell M. 1986. Seeking equality: the role of activist women in cities. In The Egalitarian City: Issues of
Rights, Distribution, Access, and Power, ed. JK Boles, pp. 93109. New York: Praeger
Gieryn T. 2000. A space for place in sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26:46396
Ginsburg R. 2011. At Home with Apartheid: The Hidden Landscapes of Domestic Service in Johannesburg. Charlottesville: Univ. Virginia Press
Gordon MT, Riger S, LeBailey RK, Heath L. 1981. Crime, women, and the quality of urban life. See Stimpson
et al. 1981, pp. 14157
Greed CH. 1994. Women and Planning: Creating Gendered Realities. New York: Routledge
Hanson S, Pratt G. 1995. Gender, Work, and Space. New York: Routledge
Harvey D. 1973. Social Justice and the City. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
Hayden D. 1981a. The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Hayden D. 1981b. What would a non-sexist city be like? Speculations on housing, urban design, and human
work. See Stimpson et al. 1981, pp. 16784
Hayden D. 1984. Redesigning the American Dream: The Future of Housing, Work, and Family Life. New York:
Norton
Heap C. 2003. The city as a sexual laboratory: the queer heritage of the Chicago School. Qual. Sociol. 26(4):457
90
Hertz B-S, Eisenberg E, Knauer LM. 1997. Queer spaces in New York City: places of struggle/places of
strength. See Ingram et al. 1997, pp. 35770
Hirt S. 2008. Stuck in the suburbs? Gendered perspectives on living at the edge of the post-communist city.
Cities 25:34054
Humphreys L. 1975. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Chicago: Aldine
Hurst M, Zambrana RE. 1981. The health careers of urban women: a study in East Harlem. See Stimpson
et al. 1981, pp. 10923
Ingram GB. 1997a. Marginality and the landscape of erotic alien(n)ations. See Ingram et al. 1997, pp. 2752
Ingram GB. 1997b. Open space as strategic queer sites. See Ingram et al. 1997, pp. 95126
Ingram GB, Bouthillette A-M, Retter Y, eds. 1997. Queers in Space: Communities, Public Places, Sites of Resistance.
Seattle: Bay
Isenberg A. 2004. Downtown America: A History of the Place and the People Who Made It. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Jarvis H, Kantor P, Cloke J. 2009. Cities and Gender. New York: Routledge
Jurik NC, Siemsen C. 2009. Doing gender as canon or agenda: a symposium on West and Zimmerman.
Gend. Soc. 23(1):7275
Keller S. 1981. Women and children in a planned community. In Building for Women, ed. S Keller, pp. 6776.
Lexington, MA: Heath
28.15
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
Kennedy EL, Davis MD. 1993. Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold: The History of a Lesbian Community. New York:
Routledge
Kimmel M. 2008. Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. New York: Harper
Knopp L. 1990. Some theoretical implications of gay involvement in an urban land market. Polit. Geogr. Q.
9:33752
Knopp L. 2007. From lesbian and gay to queer geographies: pasts, prospects, and possibilities. In Geographies
of Sexualities: Theories, Practices, and Politics, ed. K Browne, J Lim, G Brown, pp. 2128. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate
Krysan M, Farley R. 2002. The residential preferences of blacks: Do they explain persistent segregation? Soc.
Forces 80(3):93779
Lang RE, Dhavale D. 2006. Micropolitan America: a brand new geography. In Redening Urban and Suburban
America: Evidence from Census 2000, Vol. 3, ed. A Berube, B Katz, RE Lang, pp. 23758. Washington,
DC: Brookings Inst.
Lauria M, Knopp L. 1985. Toward an analysis of the role of gay communities in the urban renaissance. Urban
Geogr. 6:15269
Leavitt J, Saegert S. 1990. From Abandonment to Hope: Community-Households in Harlem. New York: Columbia
Univ. Press
Lefebvre H. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell
Leff L. 2013. M or F? Outdated IDs worry transgender individuals. Washington Post, June 15, p. A5
Logan JR. 2012. Making a place for space: spatial thinking in social science. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 38:50724
Lupkin P. 2010. Manhood Factories: YMCA Architecture and the Making of Modern Urban Culture. Minneapolis:
Univ. Minn. Press
Markusen AR. 1981. City spatial structure, womens household work, and national urban policy. See Stimpson
et al. 1981, pp. 2041
Massey D. 1996. Masculinity, dualisms, and high technology. See Duncan 1996, pp. 10926
Massey DS, Denton NA. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Matrix. 1984. Making Space: Women and the Man-Made Environment. London: Pluto
May ET. 2008. Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era. New York: Basic Books
Mazey ME, Lee DR. 1983. Her Space, Her Place: A Geography of Women. Washington, DC: Assoc. Am. Geogr.
McDowell L, Sharp JP, eds. 1997. Space, Gender, Knowledge: Feminist Readings. London: Arnold
Meadow T. 2010. A rose is a rose: on producing legal gender classications. Gend. Soc. 24(6):81437
Meyerowitz JJ. 1988. Women Adrift: Independent Wage Earners in Chicago, 18801930. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Miethe TD. 1995. Fear and withdrawal from urban life. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 539:1427
Mjagkij N, Spratt M, eds. 1997 . Men and Women Adrift: The YMCA and the YWCA in the City. New York:
NYU Press
Moore HL. 1986. Space, Text and Gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Mueller C. 1994. Conict networks and the origins of womens liberation. In New Social Movements: From
Ideology to Identity, ed. H Johnson, E Larana, J Guseld, pp. 23463. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press
Myslik WD. 1996. Renegotiating the social/sexual identities of places: gay communities as safe havens or sites
of resistance? See Duncan 1996, pp. 15669
Namaste K. 1996. Genderbashing: sexuality, gender, and the regulation of public space. Environ. Plan. D: Soc.
Space 14:22140
Novak J, Sykora L. 2007. City in motion: time-space activity and mobility patterns of suburban inhabitants
and the structuration of the spatial organization of the Prague metropolitan area. Geogr. Ann. 89B:14767
Nusser SP, Anacker KA. 2013. What sexuality is this place? Building a framework for evaluating sexualized
space: the case of Kansas City, Missouri. J. Urban Aff. 35(2):17393
Pain R. 2001. Gender, race, age, and fear in the city. Urban Stud. 38:899913
Park R, Burgess EW. 1925 (1967). The City. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Pascoe CJ. 2007. Dude, Youre a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Perin C. 1977. Everything in Its Place: Social Order and Land Use in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press

SO40CH28-Spain
28.16
Spain

SO40CH28-Spain
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
Podmore JA. 2001. Lesbians in the crowd: gender, sexuality, and visibility along Montreals Boul. St-Laurent.
Gend. Place Cult. 8(4):33355
Popenoe D. 1980. Women in the suburban environment: a U.S.-Sweden comparison. See Wekerle et al. 1980,
pp. 16574
Quilley S. 1997. Constructing Manchesters new urban village: gay space in the entrepreneurial city. See
Ingram et al. 1997, pp. 27592
Ridd R. 1981. Where women must dominate: response to oppression in a South African urban community.
In Women and Space: Ground Rules and Social Maps, ed. S Ardener, pp. 187204. London: Croom Helm
Riger S, Gordon MT, LeBailly R. 1978. Womens fear of crime. Victimology 3:27484
Ritzdorf M. 2000. Sex, lies, and urban life: how municipal planning marginalizes African American women
and their families. In Gendering the City: Women, Boundaries, and Visions of Urban Life, ed. K Miranne, AH
Young, pp. 16982. New York: Rowman & Littleeld
Rose D. 1984. Rethinking gentrication: beyond the uneven development of Marxist urban theory. Environ.
Plan. D: Soc. Space 1:4774
Rose G. 1993. Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: Univ. Minn.
Press
Rothenberg T. 1995. And she told two friends: lesbians creating urban social space. In Mapping Desire:
Geographies of Sexualities, ed. D Bell, G Valentine, pp. 15065. London: Routledge
Rothman SM. 1978. Womans Proper Place: A History of Changing Ideals and Practices, 1870 to the Present. New
York: Basic Books
Ryan MP. 1990. Women in Public: Between Banners and Ballots, 18251880. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ.
Press
Saegert S. 1980. Masculine cities and feminine suburbs: polarized ideas, contradictory realities. Signs 80(5):S96
111
Sandercock L, ed. 1998. Making the Invisible Visible: A Multicultural Planning History. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Schafer A, Huebner BM, Bynum TS. 2006. Fear of crime and criminal victimization: gender-based contrasts.
J. Crim. Justice 34:285301
Schilt K. 2006. Just one of the guys? How transmen make gender visible at work. Gend. Soc. 20(4):46590
Schilt K, Westbrook L. 2009. Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: gender normals, transgender people,
and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gend. Soc. 23(4):44064
Schrock D, Schwalbe M. 2009. Men, masculinities, and manhood acts. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35:27795
Schwartz B. 1976. Images of suburbia: some revisionist commentary and conclusions. In The Changing Face of
the Suburbs, ed. B Schwartz, pp. 32540. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Scott JC. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New
Haven: Yale Univ. Press
Sewell JE. 2011. Women and the Everyday City: Public Space in San Francisco, 18901915. Minneapolis: Univ.
Minn. Press
Shlay A, DiGregorio D. 1985. Same city, different worlds: examining gender- and work-based differences in
perceptions of neighborhood desirability. Urban Aff. Q. 21(1):6686
Simons W. 2001. Cities of Ladies: Beguine Communities in the Medieval Low Countries, 12001565. Philadelphia,
PA: Univ. Pa Press
Soja EW. 1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Soja EW. 2000. Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Oxford: Blackwell
Spain D. 1992. Gendered Spaces. Chapel Hill: Univ. N.C. Press
Spain D. 1995. Public housing and the beguinage. In Gender in Urban Research, ed. JA Garber, RS Turner,
pp. 25670. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Spain D. 2000. Black women as city builders: redemptive places and the legacy of Nannie Helen Burroughs. In
Gendering the City: Women, Boundaries, and Visions of Urban Life, ed. KB Miranne, AH Young, pp. 10518.
New York: Rowman & Littleeld
Spain D. 2001. How Women Saved the City. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Spain D. 2011. Womens rights and gendered spaces in 1970s Boston.Front.: J. Women Stud. 32(1):15278
28.17
ARI
25 April 2014
10:39
Spain D. 2015. Constructive Feminism: Building Womens Rights into the City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.
In press
Spain D, Bianchi SM. 1996. Balancing Act: Motherhood, Marriage, and Employment Among American Women.
New York: Russell Sage Found.
Spigel L. 1992. The suburban home companion: television and the neighborhood ideal in post-war America.
In Sexuality and Space, ed. B Colomina, pp. 185218. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Stanko EA. 1995. Women, crime, and fear. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 539:4658
Stansell C. 1986. City of Women: Sex and Class in New York, 17891860. Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press
Stimpson CR, Dixler E, Nelson MJ, Yatrakis KB, eds. 1981. Women and the American City. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
Swift E. 2011. The Big Roads: The Untold Story of the Engineers, Visionaries, and Trailblazers Who Created the
American Superhighways. Boston: Houghton Mifin
Terlinden U, ed. 2003. City and Gender: International Discourse on Gender, Urbanism, and Architecture. Opladen,
Ger.: Leske + Budrich
Valentine G. 1989. The geography of womens fear. Area 21:38590
Valentine G. 1996. (Re)negotiating the heterosexual street: lesbian productions of space. See Duncan 1996,
pp. 14655
Valocchi S. 2005. Not yet queer enough: the lessons of queer theory for the sociology of gender and sexuality.Gend. Soc. 19(6):75070
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974)
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. , 272 U.S. 365 (1926)
Walby S. 1989. Theorizing patriarchy. Sociology 23(2):21334
Weisman LK. 1992. Discrimination by Design: A Feminist Critique of the Man-Made Environment. Urbana: Univ.
Ill. Press
Wekerle G, Peterson R, Morley D, eds. 1980. New Space for Women. Boulder, CO: Westview
Werner K. 1980. Swedish women in single-family housing. See Wekerle et al. 1980, pp. 17588
West C, Zimmerman DH. 1987. Doing gender. Gend. Soc. 1(2):12551
West G. 1981. National Welfare Rights Movement: The Social Protest of Poor Women. New York: Praeger
Wilson E. 1991. The Sphinx in the City: Urban Life, the Control of Disorder, and Women. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press
Zukin S. 1991. Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

SO40CH28-Spain
28.18
Spain

Gender and Urban Space

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender and Urban Space

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender and Urban Space

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SO40CH28-Spain

Review in Advance first posted online

Gender and Urban Space

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Department of Urban and Environmental Planning, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014. 40:28.128.18

The Annual Review of Sociology is online at

cities, suburbs, patriarchy, feminine, masculine, transgender

This articles doi:

c 2014 by Annual Reviews.

Applying a gender perspective to cities reveals how spatial structure and

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Fluid over the life course, historically bounded,

issue I address in the fourth section. And in

Hurst & Zambrana 1981, Leavitt & Saegert

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

WOMEN AND THE AMERICAN

perspective. Although Burgess said nothing

arguing that running a city would be a logical

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

agers for the Columbian Exposition. One of

THE POSTWORLD WAR II

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

concentrated economic activities at the center,

ourished in the United States during the same

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

ing alienation from the serious work which

In the article Masculine Cities and Feminine Suburbs, environmental psychologist

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Realty Co. With this landmark ruling upholding

WOMEN AND THE

words, written before the majority of women

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Over 30 years ago, Keller recognized the power

structed after World War II and the decline of

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

The paradox of womens fear of street

EXPANDING THE CONCEPT

include men. In Guyland: The Perilous World

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

twentieth century, men and women are more

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

women train for jobs, educate themselves about

Castellss mapping of San Franciscos gay

www.annualreviews.org Gender and Urban Space

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

the city. The NU design movement emerged as

female clientele and saloons that served men

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014.40. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

You might also like