GENDER, HOUSE AND "HOME": SOCIAL MEANINGS AND DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE IN

BRITAIN
Author(s): Ruth Madigan and Moira Munro
Source: Journal of Architectural and Planning Research , Summer, 1991, Vol. 8, No. 2,
Special Issue: The Meaning and Use of Home (Summer, 1991), pp. 116-132
Published by: Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43029027

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43029027?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Architectural
and Planning Research

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 116

GENDER, HOUSE AND "HOME": SOCIAL MEANINGS AND

DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE IN BRITAIN

Ruth Madigan
Moira Munro

This paper is concerned with the broad area of research into the meaning of the home and its
relationship to the physical form of housing in Britain. Our particular focus in this papēris on the
ways in which the physical form of housing mediates and structures gender relations. This will be
illuminated by elements of the historical development of housing in Britain and an explanation of
its relationship to changing ideologies and architectural norms. Typically, house design symbolizes
accepted notions of the appropriate function of the home and preferred familial relations, which
notions are in themselves profoundly important in structuring gender relations.

Copyright © 1991, Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.

Chicago, IL, USA All Rights Reserved

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 117

INTRODUCTION

We take as our starting point the assumption that gender is an important dimension of
research, both at the level of meaning and patterns of usage. In other words "h
"home" have different meanings and occupy a different salience in the daily lives of m
women. Housing studies within the Social Sciences at least, have often taken the ho
the basic unit of analysis. This is particularly true in the debate concerning the signific
tenure which has dominated this field for some years (Merrett, 1982; Forrest and Muri
Saunders, 1984). Within such analysis, household experience has been extensively d
tiated along the lines of class, region and ethnicity, but a study of gender requi
desegregation of the household unit and this has brought new insights into the way
households are organized and financed and the implications this has on housing
patterns of use.

Recent work has argued that analysis based on the household obscures the fact th
and men experience housing differently in at least four respects. First, women predom
some low income household types (particularly single parents and single elderly) (L
and further, even in ostensibly similar household forms (e.g. as single people), wom
labor market position means that they do not inevitably enjoy equal access to hous
acted in the market (Watson and Austerberry, 1986). Similarly, there may be suff
crepancies of power within two-adult households to imply the existence of significant d
ces over the enjoyment of the benefits of owner-occupation. Work on the femini
poverty has shown that women may be kept poor even within relatively affluent h
(Glendinning and Millar, 1987). Hence, it would be expected that many women wil
less, either as households or compared to their partners, both from the potential for w
cumulation from housing and also the enhanced access to capital markets that are
derive from owner-occupation.

Second, there are good grounds for believing that the home occupies a greater centralit
lives of women as compared with men, as a result of women's domestic role. Alth
precise division of labor has changed over time there is ample evidence to show th
still take on the major burden of domestic labor and the responsibility for child ca
1983; Green and Hebron, 1988). It seems likely that this will affect their evaluation of a
both as a practical place in which to work and also as a vehicle for personal expression.

Third, housing consumption is likely to have a different salience for men and wom
symbolic level. We have argued in a longer paper (Madigan, Munro and Smith, 1990
meanings of housing consumption coalesce around at least three themes: the display of
and status; the organization of family life; and the quest for safety, security and well-
the broadest sense, all of which should be analyzed in a gender-differentiated framewor
true that a crude equation of women = domestic sphere, men = public sphere
describe the way in which people actually live, but it remains a strong current in the i
family and home in spite of the fact that women are increasingly active in the labor m
Similarly men have, now as always, an emotional and practical investment in home life,
a place of comfort and retreat and also as an outward symbol of status and achievement
because both sexes attach positive meanings to the concept of home (Saunders, 1
1984) does not mean that they seek the same ideal solutions or that they evaluate t
reality in the same way. In our culture the concept of "home" embraces amongst other
ideas of security, affection and comfort which are almost bound to evoke favorable res

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 118

(Franklin, 1986). This does not preclude the possibility that at times our h
stifling, oppressive or even dangerous.

Fourth, a fast-growing area of research has investigated the impact of h

women as mediated by urban structure: the division of the city into strictly
tial and employment zones (Fava, 1980). By the early twentieth century su
represent the ideal of family life in both Britain and the USA: individual dom
monitored respectability (Thompson, 1982, p.8). Thompson further argued tha
the suburbs in Britain at the turn of the 20th Century with its increasing se
and work, created a protected, semi-rural environment for wives and chi
of the private household behind the formality of the public facade encapsulat
of bourgeois family ideology, with its strict demarcation of public and priva
feminine.

Feminist writers (such as McDowell, 1983, Hayden, 1980 and Saegart, 198
tions about the implications of housing developments which segregate re
residential space to such a degree that women are trapped in the domestic env
suburb. This becomes an obstacle to combining paid employment with
sibilities, it marginalizes non-family households, it inhibits women from par
non-family activities and it gives substance to an ideology of domesticity (Fav

There is some evidence that the traditional role of the suburbs may be chang
increased their participation in the labor market and some households see
the city to reduce the costs of commuting and improve access to public trans
and other services (Wekerle, 1984; Little, Peake and Richardson, 1988). C
themselves are changing, so that an increasing number of jobs, especially
cated in suburban areas (van Vliet (ed), 1988). It is apparent that women d
same demands and needs and that no single environment, either subur
provide an unambiguously best living environment (Fava, 1988; Saegart, 1988;

Our aim in this paper is to explore a further dimension of gender inequality

has received rather less attention to date, namely that which is structured in
the physical form of housing. Our purpose is to expose the assumption
domestic space and the sharing of domestic labor that are embodied in the in
nal design of housing and the way this is responding to changing econom
tions.

An immediate problem in attempting to discuss physical design and its impact on women is the
tendency to present women in very conventional roles: mothers with prams facing flights of
stairs, housewives with young children negotiating busy roads, elderly women with heavy shop-
ping bags and a long walk to the bus. All these are important but they serve to confirm rather
than question women's subordination and lack of influence. We believe it is important to locate
these criticisms in the context of an analysis of the structural inequalities and ideologies which
shape women's experience (Matrix, 1984). Without this there is a danger that, instead of a radi-
cal critique, these criticisms will be subsumed under traditional understandings of women as
mothers, carers and housewives. It is that old problem. If we discuss kitchen design on the as-
sumption that women are the main users, are we recognizing the inequality of domestic labor
or reinforcing stereotypes of women in the kitchen? At the very least we need to be sure that
physical design does not trap people in existing roles even if we recognize that physical design
cannot in itself change social relations.

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 119

Before considering some of the practical limitations of contemporary hou

to identify some of the intentions and assumptions implicit in that design, a
role of design in housing production.

THE ROLE OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS

It is commonly assumed that the most important input into the design of housing
from architects. Though architects, by profession have the opportunity to articu
design intentions, a closer analysis of the housing production process quickly reveals th
tects do not have control over the finished product. It is therefore, important to have
derstanding of the part they play in housing production and the interaction of arc
design with other factors which impinge on housing design. It is immediately app
architects have very different roles in the public and the private sector.

In the public sector architects have played a key role in the design process. In the 1930-
again in 1960-70s they were encouraged to adopt experimental technologies in res
housing crisis (Ball, 1974) and to design on a scale which expressed the municipal g
their local authority clients rather than the more homely aspirations of the potential o
The scale of comprehensive redevelopment undertaken in the public sector gave op
for specifically architectural innovation. In particular the radical philosophy of t
movement appeared to offer new solutions for cheap mass-produced, high density
The sparsity of the design and the readiness to experiment with new technologies
housing authorities under pressure to produce quick solutions (Dunleavy, 1981; Rod
Because housing in the public sector has been viewed as a form of social engineerin
of dealing with social problems, architects at this time were also encouraged to build in
designs a range of dubiously grounded academic theories of neighborhood and c
(Bacon, 1986).

In recent years popular/public debate about housing design in Britain has taken the for
attack on Modernism and its architects, who are held responsible for the shortcomings
income housing built in the 1960s and 70s for the public rented sector. These estates ha
criticized for their hard, inhuman environment, for difficulties of access, poor fa
children and a lack of safety from assault. The segregation of roads and pedestria
means long walks down unsupervised, poorly lit pathways, stairways and access
Women, in particular, feel vulnerable at night and resentful by day, negotiating these
routes with heavy bags, prams or small children. Children's play is not visible from th
and the complex levels and entrance ways encourage dangerous activities (Jacobs
Coleman, 1985).

By contrast, architects play a surprisingly minor role in the design of housing for vol
large-scale, speculative) builders in the private sector, which accounted for a full 84 per
housebuilding in Britain in 1987 (Social Trends, 1989). Private sector architects hav
within a very conservative design philosophy and they have a relatively low status with
profit maximizing regime of the volume builders. In a rare series of articles on "Volum
ing" Davison (1987) underlines the market constraints on architects operating in th
private housing. The role of the architect in designing mass housing is, he shows, first
mize the number of dwellings on a site and second, to enhance the external app
order to improve marketability. It is only in the new high density urban housing deve
in which he sees opportunities for architectural innovation. As Leopold and Bish

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 120

point out, the volume builders look to standardization as a means of mini

and technical difficulties and to assess development possibilities quickly
available (Booth, 1982). Private builders believe they must cater to the buyers w
a degree of exclusiveness and for cars parked within the curtilage (Leopold an
240). These minimum requirements tend to produce a suburban solution of a r
models subtly differentiated according to price and style (Booth, 1982). S
design is important from a marketing point of view (Lawrence, 1985).

Within this remit a range of styles has emerged, each redolent with social m
it is the outside of the house, particularly the front of the house which main
bolic significance and which receives most attention. Ravetz (1989) has argued
with external appearances is part of the masculine world of class differe
much in Victorian housing as in present day estate agents' displays), whereas
from the interior is largely unacknowledged. The styling tends to be nos
brief flirtation with Scandinavian modern in the 1960s) (Oliver et al, 198
for consoling images, images which conjure up ideas of community, stabi
(Forty and Moss, 1980). As Forty and Moss indicate, the pseudo- vernac
mean that rustic imagery of the country cottage or the coziness of the ninetee
yard) is popular both as a marketing device and as a political strategy. Builder
overcome any opposition to new developments from planners and residents if
in tune with, or a variant of the local surroundings. Even in the public sector
now appears to have been abandoned, quite explicit revivals are currently
for example in the resurgence of the art-nouveau style of Charles Rennie Ma
gow, or neo-Georgian designs in Liverpool.

In this paper we would like to concentrate on the evolution of design in

looking at the sort of volume-built speculative housing which most people liv
the one-off architect design. This is partly because building in the public sec
such a small proportion of total housebuilding, but also because we belie
speculative housing sector that popular tastes are molded. The retreat fr
redevelopment, the decline in public investment and widespread dissat
products of Modernism have brought about a convergence between the co
of the private mass market and the designer products produced by arch
tectural movement Postmodernism has made a virtue of the eclecticism whic
a feature of the market oriented speculative builder (Jencks, 1977). In o
something of the symbolic meanings attributed to contemporary housing des
appropriate to look at the evolution of the volume-built house and
ideologies of family, class and gender.

THE HISTORIC EVOLUTION OF MASS HOUSING

Architectural historians have demonstrated how a single dominant house form, th

house in England (Muthesius, 1982) and the tenement in Scotland (Worsdall, 1979)
stantly reinterpreted to reflect the increasing differentiation of the class structure in
nineteenth century. Historical referents (for example classical, gothic or regenc
deployed as status symbols to provide a subtle differentiation between classes.

Matrix (1984) argue that the design of the Victorian (late nineteenth century) "ge
town house" reflected the internal hierarchy of the bourgeois family with the public m

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 121

FIGURE 1. Plans of terrace houses constructed in Birmingham during the 1870's. (Source: RJ

domain at the front of the house and the private feminine domain confined t
tisan household enjoyed lower space standards than the middle classes, bu
same distinctions between front and back, public and private, masculin
Lawrence (1987) discusses the concentration of family life in the back roo
small working class terraced houses (see Fig. 1). Worsdall (1979) commen
which in Scottish tenements even quite modest households reserved a parlor f
unused while the family lived at the back in the kitchen. As Lawrence (1985)
the fundamental difference in approach by designers who viewed the home in
functional light and the occupants, who imbued the internal space with (d
bolic meanings. It is the front of the house which displays the socio-eco
household, while the back has a more utilitarian design, often in cheaper
reflects the demands of domestic labor (wash houses, bin shelters, trad
Children, particularly young children, remain confined to the back regi
sphere.

For the poorer working class the public masculine domain was likely to be outside in the street
and the pubs. Muthesius (1982) suggests that the more respectable and status conscious the
household, the greater the differentiation between front and back, the public sphere of the
street and the parlor and the private sphere of the kitchen, the yard and the back lane. Hence
during the Victorian period, the ideal of the bourgeois family became crystallized not merely as
the norm of social propriety for the middle classes, but also increasingly for the working clas-
ses. It was a model which relied centrally on female domesticity.

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 122

FIGURE 2. Floor plan and view of houses built at Fulborn Road, Cherry Hinton, from 193
(Source: RJ Lawrence, 1987.)

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 123

Inter-war housing in Britain has generally been understood as a scaled do

Victorian model, retaining the parlor at the front and the domestic private s
Thus, the so-called living-room was preserved for best while living continued
(see fig 2). Burnett (1978) has argued that there was a convergence of ho
twentieth century as the size of middle-class housing declined and the s
working class housing grew. The Tudor Walters Report of 1918 set space s
ing class housing which were in some ways more generous than present day s
1974). In response to working class representation, however, Tudor Walters re
house as the basic model, despite arguments from officials that keeping o
use only represented a waste of space. The parlor still held social and sym
which respectable working people wished to defend.

For the middle classes the decline of servants, smaller families, the introd
domestic technologies, the rise of owner-occupation and the aesthetic im
City Movement" produced important revisions in housing styles in the 1920s
1978; McKean, 1987; Oliver et al, 1981) including a more rustic styling which
semi-detached house and the cottage flat (four flats in a building which
semi-detached dwellings). As an architectural movement Modernism alth
the avant-garde in the 1930s, had a rather limited impact on the design of sp
in this period (Gould, 1977). In the private sector at least it tended to pro
style to add to the existing menu. The flat-roofed, metal-windowed, white w
came to epitomize Modernism took their place as a minority taste alon
numerous examples of rustic cottages and Tudor semi-detached houses.

The parlor house with its connotations of public and private, front and b
feminine remained the dominant house form until the 1950s. But from then on the volume built
estate house was increasingly designed around one single living room (Hole and Attenburrow,
1966). Since post-war kitchens were typically a small work area rather than a social space this
left the household with only one public area (see fig.3)

To some extent this change in design can be explained in relation to commercial pressures.
Building plots have become smaller as land prices have risen. The spread of owner-occupation
and the need, therefore, to sell housing to lower income households has produced further pres-
sure on space standards and profits. At the same time the Modern aesthetic which values a
sense of light and space, produced a less cluttered look which gained ground in popular taste.
The new house type is a compromise between declining overall space standards and the desire
to achieve a sense of spaciousness by providing one relatively large room which runs the full
length of the site.

We wish to explore some of the practical implications, but also the symbolic meanings attached
to the demise of the parlor house. How does the change in design relate to changes in family
ideology and gender relations? Despite a growth in the number of adult households, the design
of houses is still framed in terms of the nuclear family, although some assumptions here have
changed. The ideal of family organization no longer conforms to the hierarchical model of the
nineteenth century, but is presented as a democratic grouping centered on marriage as a
partnership between two equals (Fletcher, 1973; Mount, 1982; Parsons, 1986). This is directly
reflected in the provision of undifferentiated, common space presumed to be jointly used by
the new democratic couples and their children. Despite this ideological shift the division of
labor remains intact. Women's role may have changed but it is not allowed in this idealized
model to challenge the differentiation between the sexes. Indeed the 1950s saw a very powerful

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 124

TWO BEDROOM HOUSE

DIMENSIONS

Living Room
167" X 11*9" (5.06m X 3.58m)
Kitchen / Dining Room
IWxIOS" (3.58m X 3.23m)
Bedroom 1
9'5" X 9'0" (2.86m x 2.75m)
Bedroom 2
1 1 *9" x 8'6" (3.58m x 2.60m)

THREE BEDROOM HOUSE

DIMENSIONS

Lounge
15*8" x 11*6" (4.78m x 3.50m)
Dining
10*6" x 8*8" (3.20m x 2.65m)
Kitchen
13'2" x 5'8" (4.00m x 1.72m)
Bedroom 1
ir8"x75" (3.55m x 2.26m)
Bedroom 2
12*6" x8'5" (3.80m x 2.56m)
Bedroom 3
9'ir x5'11" (3.02m x 1.80m)

FIGURE 3. 1980's combined living/dining room design.

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 125

reassertion of familial values and a restatement of femininity as the role m

(Wilson, 1980; Birmingham Feminist History Group, 1979; Heron 1985). The
also saw a growth in consumerist ideology in which the home featured as th
consumption and women as major consumers (Tomlinson, 1990). Indeed the w
pansion in home-ownership and suburban development can be seen as part
(and according to Rees and Lambert, 1985, state-aided) strategy for creatin
markets which fueled the postwar economic boom (Castells, 1972; Harvey,
1981).

Fox draws on parallel American experience to make links between postwar social and
economic changes in family relations and the houses that families live in:
Most prominent as instrumenty symbol and artifact of the new suburban culture was the
detached single family suburban house on its grassy plot The house styles favored by
postwar suburbanites evolved in conjunction with day-to-day activities of the isolated
structure family. The differences from the typical business-class suburban house of the 1920s
were considerable , and very revealing of the cultural changes under way ... All traces of the
nineteenth centuiy "parlor" for formal entertaining disappeared ... The new suburban house
style emphasized both family unity and individuality . By the on-set of adolescence at the
latest , all children required a room of their own ... Rooms for interacting with visitors and
non-resident relations ... could disappear as the locus of activity shifted to eating and
recreational activity rooms suitable only for family members .
(Fox, 1985: p .65-66)

Certainly these design changes have not always been welcomed. Attfield (1989) suggests that
the new fashion in design was often resisted by the initial occupants. This is particularly true for
those being compulsorily rehoused by local authorities who had a restricted choice of house
and virtually no influence over design decisions. The families who moved into Modern postwar
housing in British New Towns often ignored, and in the eyes of contemporary architects
sabotaged, the design by covering picture windows with lace curtains, camouflaging clean lines
with frills and flounces and heavily patterned furnishings. In the new, more open-plan, living
rooms they arranged furniture to recreate the cozy parlor of their parents' home. Conversely,
as the style achieved popularity, many occupants of the small interwar parlor house have
created a more open plan effect by demolishing the intervening wall to create a variant on the
modern contemporary design.

As Scoffman (1984) notes, when planners designed estates which in the interests of safety
aimed to segregate pedestrians and road traffic, they frequently created layouts which con-
travened basic social conventions regarding the meaning of front and back. Vehicle access and
parking organized to the rear of the house meant that visitors arriving by car entered the house
through the back yard, past the bins and directly into the kitchen rather than using the correct
pedestrian-only, access to the front door. Ironically in view of the safety considerations,
children also played at the back of the houses, attracted by the hard surfaces of the vehicle ac-
cess routes and the focus of domestic activity to the rear. The front thus remained pristine and
formal but the planners' objectives were defeated.

It is important to remind ourselves that most households live in housing built for a different
generation with different patterns of use in mind. New housing should therefore be flexible,
able to accommodate different household types and different future sets of demands. It was
with this in mind that the last major government report on housing (Parker Morris, 1961),
which though it set high space standards for public sector housing until the 1970s, nonetheless

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer. 1991) 126

abandoned attempts to detail patterns of domestic life as earlier reports had

ters, 1918; Dudley, 1944) and settled instead for general guidelines. This
was a period in which flats rather than houses were being constructed in the
partly a response to the growing belief that undesignated spaces gave greater
This may be true in flats where rooms are less differentiated, but houses in
rooms upstairs generally provide the same floor space as those downstair
very clearly designated; upstairs are private bedrooms, downstairs is da
(Lawrence, 1987). In a small house with an open plan ground floor this may h
reducing ways in which space can be used.

GENDER DIFFERENTIATION AND HOUSING DESIGN

It has been suggested that the abolition of the front parlor and its replacement with the th
lounge-dining room may at some level reflect the new "democratic" family ideology (see W
son, 1986) but what implications does it have for the privacy of household members? There
inevitably something of a gulf, between the ideal and the reality for most people. Fox
speaks of twin goals of family unity and individuality but the latter is hard to express in a
house where private space is severely limited (Cooper Marcus and Sarkissian, 1986) (and
sider the restricted space in the contemporary house in fig. 3). How are non-family househ
served by contemporary housing design? A single public room implies a degree of commun
which may not exist in family households, let alone in other household groups (Allan and C
1988).

Having only one public room implies that this space, the most heavily used in the house, is per-
manently on display. There can be no "back region" (Saunders and Williams, 1988) restricted to
household members and intimates only. Most people have, in any case, abandoned the main-
tenance of a room kept mainly for show to outsiders. To what extent does this reinforce the
message of consumerism that every aspect of life is open to scrutiny and commercialization? Is
the other face of the labor saving home a demand for higher standards and a house which is not
just clean but tasteful, in a way which changes according to commercially sponsored fashion
every few years, expanding the skill and the time to be expended on consumption? (Cowan,
1976). It has been shown that despite great advances in domestic technology, women's work in
the home has not been greatly reduced, being directed towards ever higher standards of clean-
liness (Hardyment, 1988). Women clearly bear the brunt of the work involved in maintaining
this consumerist ideal (Bose, 1982; Loyd, 1981).

Contemporary design also raises questions about the assumptions made in relation to domestic
labor and the likely impact of design on domestic labor. The modern kitchen, often designed as
a starkly functional workspace may segregate the housewife/cook from the social center of the
house. But does it assume one single user (reduced space standards often imply that it is very
small)? Is the technological kitchen designed to give the impression that modern housework
can be done effortlessly, at the flick of a switch? It can surely be no accident that the fitted
kitchen emerged in a period of increased demand for women's paid labor and effectively rein-
forced the view that domestic labor can be combined with paid employment outside the home,
without any significant threat to a gender-based division of labor (Boys, 1984, p.27; McKenzie
and Rose, 1983). We are now seeing a move away from the overly high-tech hard surface
kitchen towards a more folksy, wood paneled image. Even refrigerators are disguised to look
like antique cupboards rather than the metallic boxes they really are (what could be more post-

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 127

modern?). In the more spacious house this may signify the reinstatement of
cial space. For others the new style is just that, a fashion without any special u

Perhaps the biggest change in the postwar period has been the revolut
children. More and more children have rooms of their own, often elab
study/bedrooms with TV, computers and so on, even in quite modest hou
continue to share bedrooms and public space. Better equipped househol
workroom for men, but women rarely have space of their own. Privacy is ty
terms of the segregation of adults and children. But where do adults go for
other? As Katherine Whitehorn put it:
Women have real difficulty in knowing what if anything is their own exact t
sense a woman controls the whole house , but in another she may feel s
personally but her side of the wardrobe .
(Whitehorn, 1987)

CONCLUSION

The attempt to analyze the differential impacts of housing design on men and
revealed the weakness of analysis based on the experience of the household in
Opening-up the household raises questions about the different needs of househ
and the ability of contemporary housing to meet these needs. In spite of the centra
of housing to most people's lives, it is remarkable that there has been very little rec
about the relationship between housing design and usage, in sharp contrast t
proaches generated by the major reports in the public sector (Tudor Walters, Du
Morris).

There are, however, many clues as to the differential impact that housing design might have on
men and women and where the symbolic meanings endowed by women might be expected to
differ from those of men. Despite the emergence of a new familial ideology, stressing the com-
panionate, partnership ideals of marriage, it is apparent that salient inequalities between men
and women persist. Women are expected to take the responsibility for domestic labor (and in
the great majority of households still undertake by far the greatest share of such work). Child-
rearing is typically women's responsibility and is closely associated with the home (in both a
symbolic and a physical sense). Women are expected to shape the interior of the house so that
it expresses her own personality, enables a comfortable family life and exhibits good taste,
color sense and displays her skill as a consumer. Women bear the responsibility for the impres-
sion of order and comfort that is given to visitors. It is, however, essential to be aware of the
seduction of stereotyping in such discussion and avoid the implication that such traditional
divisions shape or dominate the majority of women's lives. The analysis of contemporary hous-
ing design, and its gender-differentiated consequences, must be located in the context of the
process of housing production.

What little discussion there has been in Britain about contemporary housing has become crys-
tallized in an acrimonious debate in which Prince Charles is one of the best known con-
tributors. Since this debate has been triggered by an almost universal dislike of Modernism
(concrete housing estates in the public sector and soulless office blocks in the private sector)
Postmodernism has been heralded by some as providing a more user friendly environment. If
the reality matches the ideal, women, children and men might all be expected to live and work
in a more manageable environment, better adapted to their needs. However, it is clear that the

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 128

process of housing production is not dominated by design decisions, but t

concerns are paramount. In this context it is not sufficient to complain that
not heard in the design process and that architects in particular are not sensi
to women's needs.

The increasing reliance on market pressures as determinants of provision

concentration on style rather than substance bear witness to the changin
from being regarded as an engine for social improvement to being a con
other. In social policy literature this change has been identified as the "recom
housing. The focus of attention here, as in public debate, has switched from
tic property, with emphasis on tenure changes and fluctuating proper
modification has meant that housing outcomes are once again a direct reflect
of market power. This is likely to reinforce existing inequalities between me
tematic attempts to alter such relations are beyond the control of housing an
ners. A more wide-ranging debate about the inter-relationships betwee
domestic labor and household relationships can nonetheless promote a clim

REFERENCES

Allan G, Crow G (1988) Constructing the domestic sphere : the emergence of the modem
post-war Britain. Paper presented at the British Sociological Association A
Conference, Edinburgh.

Attfield J (1989) Inside pram town: a case study of Harlow house interiors, 1951-1961. In
tfield and P Kirkham (Eds.), A view from the interior. London: The Wo
Press, pp. 215-238.

Bacon C (1986) The rise and fall of deck access housing. Department of Town and
Planning, Working Paper 64, University of Sheffield.

Ball M (1974) British housing policy and the house building industry. Capital and Cl
99.

Birmingham Feminist History Group (1979) Feminism or femininity in the nineteen-fifties?

Feminist Review 3:48-65.

Booth P (1982) Housing as a product: design guidance and resident satisfaction in the private
sector. Built Environment 8:20-24.

Bose C (1982) Technology and changes in the division of labor in the American home. In E
Whitelegg, et al.(Eds.), The changing experience of women. Oxford: (Open Univer-
sity and Martin Robertson, Oxford) pp. 226-238.

Boys J (1984) Is there a feminist analysis of architecture? Built Environment 10(l):25-34.

Burnett J (1978)^4 social history of housing 1815-1970 . London: Methuen.

Castells M (1972) The urban question . London: Arnold.

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 129

Coleman A (1985) Utopia on trial London: Shipman.

Cooper Marcus C, Sarkissian W (1986) Housing as if people mattered. Lon

California Press.

Cowan RS (1976) The "Industrial Revolution" in the home: Household technology and social
change in the 20th century. Technology and Culture 17:1-23.

Cowan RS (1983) More work for mother . USA: Basic Books.

Davison I (1987) Volume Housing (1, 2 and 3). Architects' Journal 2nd Sept 186(35) :63-67; 9th
Sept 186(36) :59-65; 18(37):61-65.

Dudley WHE (1944) Chair. Design of dwellings. CHAC, London: HMSO.

Duncan NG (1981) Home ownership and social theory. In JS Duncan (Ed.), Home and identity,
Cross-cultural perspectives. London: Croom Helm.

Dunleavy P (1981) The politics of mass housing: Britain 1945-75. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Egar R, Sarkissian W, Male D (Brady) and Hartmann L (1988) Coping with the suburban
nightmare: Developing community supports in Australia. In W van Vliet (Ed.),
Women , housing and community. Aldershot: Avebury, pp. 39-46.

Fava SF (1980) Women's place in the new suburbia. In GR Werkele, R Peterson, and D More-
ly (Eds.), New space for women. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, pp. 129-149.

Fava SF (1988) Residential preferences in the suburban era: A new look? In W van Vliet (Ed.),
Women , housing and community. Aldershot: Avebury, pp. 47-55.

Fletcher R (1973) The family and marriage in Britain. Penguin, Hamandsworth.

Forrest R, Mûrie A (1988) Selling the welfare state. London: Croom Helm.

Forty A, Moss H (1980) A housing style for troubled consumers: The success of the pseudo-
vernacular. Architectural Review 167:73- 78.

Fox K (1985) Metropolitan America: Urban life and urban policy in the USA. London: Macmil-
lan.

Franklin AS (1986) Owner-occupation, privatism and ontological security: a critical reformula-

tion. Working Paper 62. School for Advanced Urban Studies, University of Bristol.

Glendinning C, Millar J (1987) Women and poverty in Britain. London: Harvester Press.

Gould J (1977) Modem houses - Britain 1919-1939 . Architectural History Monographs No.l,
Society of Architectural Historians, Great Britain.

Green E, Hebron S (1988) Women's leisure, What leisure? Macmillan, London.

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 130

Hardyment C (1988) From mangle to microwave: The mechanization

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Harvey D (1973) Social justice and the city . London: Arnold.

Hayden D (1980) What would a non-sexist city be like? Speculations on ho

and human work. Signs 5:170-187.

Heron L (1985) Truth , dare or promise, London: Virago.

Hole WV, Attenburrow JJ (1966) Houses and people : A review of user stu
Research Station . London: HMSO.

Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities . New York: Vintage/Random House.

Jencks C (1977) The language of post-modern architecture. London: Academy.

Land H (1983) The structure of disadvantage. London: Heinemann.

Lawrence RJ (1985) Survey 6: Urban history, housing and politics in Britain. Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space 3:323-336.

Lawrence RJ (1987) Housing dwellings and homes: Design theory, research and practice.
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Leopold E, Bishop D (1983) Design philosophy and practice in speculative house-building.

(Part 1 and Part 2) Construction Management and Economics 1:119-144 and 233-
268.

Little J, Peake L, Richardson P (Eds.) (1988) Women in cities. London: Macmillan.

Loyd B (1981) Women, home and status. In JS Duncan (Ed.), Home and identity. London:
Croom Helm, pp. 181-197.

McDowell L (1983) Towards an understanding of the gender divisions of urban space. Environ-
ment and Planning D: Society and Space 1:59- 72.

McKean C (1987) The Scottish thirties . Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

McKenzie S, Rose D (1983) Industrial change, The domestic economy and home life. In J
Anderson, S Duncan, R Hudson (Eds.), Redundant spaces in cities and regions.
London: Academic Press.

Madigan R, Munro M, Smith SJ (1990) Gender and the meaning of the home. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 14:625-647.

Matrix (1984) Making space: Women and the man-made environment. London: Pluto Press.

Merrett S (1982) Owner-occupation in Britain . London: RKP.

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 131

Mount F (1982) The subversive family. London: Allen and Unwin.

Muthesius S (1982) The English terraced house . London: Yale U.P.

Oliver P, Davies I, Bentley I (1981) Dunroamin. London: Barrie and Jenkin

Parker Morris (1961) Chair. Homes for today and tomorrow . CHAC Lond

Parsons T (1986) The family. Essays in sociological theory. New York: Free

Pähl R (1984) Divisions of labor. Oxford: Blackwell.

Powell C (1974) Fifty years of progress: The influence of Tudor Walter

public authority housing. Built Environment October:532-535.

Ravetz A (1989) A view from the interior. In J Attfield and P Kirkham (Eds.)
interior. London: The Women's Press, pp. 187-205.

Rees G, Lambert J (1985) Cities in crisis. London: Arnold.

Rodger R (Ed.) (1989) Scottish housing - the twentieth century . Leicester Uni

Saegert S (1980) Masculine cities and feminine suburbs: Polarized id

realities. Signs 5:96-112.

Saegert S (1988) The androgynous city: From critique to practice, in

Women , housing and community. Aldershot: Avebury, pp. 23-38.

Saunders P (1984) Beyond housing classes: The sociological significance o

rights in the means of consumption. International Journal of Urban
Research 8:201-227.

Saunders P (1990)^4 nation of homeowners. London: Hyman.

Saunders P, Williams P (1988) The constitution of the home: Towards a research agenda.
Housing Studies 3:81-93.

Scoffman ER (1984) The shape of British housing. London: Longmans.

Thompson FML (1982) The rìse of suburbia. Leicester: Leicester U.P.

Tomlinson A (Ed.) (1990) Consumption , identity and style. London: Routledge.

Tudor Walters (1918) To consider questions of building construction in connection with the
provision of dwellings for the working classes in England and Wales , and Scotland.
London: HMSO.

Van Vliet W (1988) (Ed.) Women, housing and community . Aldershot: Avebury.

Watson S (1986) Women and housing or feminist housing analysis. Housing Studies 1:1-10.

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
8:2 (Summer, 1991) 132

Watson S, Austerberry H (1986) Housing and homelessness: A feminine p

RKP.

Wekerle GR (1984) A women's place is in the city. Antipode 16(3).

Whitehorn K (1987) What's ours is really mine. Observer 4 October.

Wilson E (1980) Only halfway to paradise : Women in postwar Britain 1945-1968. Tavistock.

Worsdall F (1979) The tenement: a way of life. Edinburgh: Chambers.

Additional information may be obtained by writing directly to the authors at the Department of
Sociology, and the Center for Housing Research, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8RT,
United Kingdom.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank an anonymous referee for useful comments on this paper and R
editorial assistance and his kind permission to use illustrations from his book, Homing , Dwellings an

AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Ruth Madigan is a lecturer in the Department of Sociology and Moira Munro is a lecturer in the Ce
Research at Glasgow University.

This content downloaded from

191.126.28.22 on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 01:29:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms