Gender, Place & Culture

A Journal of Feminist Geography

ISSN: 0966-369X (Print) 1360-0524 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cgpc20

From feminist critique to gender mainstreaming —

and back? The case of German urban planning

Sandra Huning

To cite this article: Sandra Huning (2020) From feminist critique to gender mainstreaming —
and back? The case of German urban planning, Gender, Place & Culture, 27:7, 944-964, DOI:
10.1080/0966369X.2019.1618796

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2019.1618796

Published online: 06 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2701

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cgpc20
GENDER, PLACE & CULTURE
2020, VOL. 27, NO. 7, 944–964
https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2019.1618796

From feminist critique to gender mainstreaming —

and back? The case of German urban planning
Sandra Huning
Faculty of Spatial Planning, Dortmund University of Technology, Dortmund, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In spatial planning debates in Germany and other Received 11 July 2018
European countries, a discursive turn from feminist plan- Accepted 2 May 2019
ning critique to gender planning over the past 20 years has
KEYWORDS
led to ambiguous results. On the one hand, feminist claims
Deconstruction; feminist
have been translated into guidelines and criteria catalogues critique; gender planning;
which help planners to consider them in their professional socio-spatial power
practice. On the other hand, this approach to gender main- relations; urban planning
streaming has not made it any easier in planning practice
to address (gendered) power relations and their spatial
expressions. A gap between professional practice and
academic debate has emerged in spite of feminists’ convic-
tion that theory and practice are interrelated. This paper
presents this argument with a particular focus on gender
planning in Germany, and three options how to go on:
a target-group approach oriented towards equal opportuni-
ties, a deconstructive approach looking to overcome
discriminatory practice and a performative approach.
As a consequence, this paper proposes a diversification of
strategies both in professional practice and in academic
research in order to reconcile different rationales and theor-
etical concepts that are used in gender studies, planning
theory and practice.

Introduction
Over the past decades, social-constructivist approaches in understanding
‘space’ and ‘gender’ have been reflected in an increasing body of literature,
particularly in the fields of feminist urban studies and urban geography,
urban history, gender and queer studies. By thinking beyond essentialist
conceptualizations, this research has contributed to a better understanding
of how spatial relations are gendered and how gender relations are
expressed in and through spatial arrangements. It has unravelled in new
ways the structures, agents and processes that stabilize, but potentially also
transform, unequal gender relations in spatial settings.

CONTACT Sandra Huning sandra.huning@tu-dortmund.de Faculty of Spatial Planning, Urban and

Regional Development (SOZ), Dortmund University of Technology, 44227 Dortmund, Germany
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 GENDER, PLACE & CULTURE 945

Beyond critical analysis, the claim to societal critique and transformation

has been common to most, if not all of feminist thought, in spite of the
plurality of feminist theories in academic discourse. ‘Feminism [ … ] is never
just a contested category of thought; it is always also a space of intervention
and political action’ (Peake and Rieker 2013, 9). From a feminist perspective,
theory and practice are inseparably intertwined, and they are necessarily
political, since they either perpetuate or challenge the status quo (Snyder
1995, 92). While new de-constructivist approaches have helped to better
understand gendered spatial orders, they have also evoked new questions
about this entanglement of theory and praxis in terms of the types, contents
and objectives of feminist interventions and political action in contemporary
urban settings, which might actually have transformative potential.
These questions are pressing because of the ‘crisis in contemporary femin-
ism’ that has been related to the incorporation of feminist social movements
into neo-liberal gender governance (Peake and Rieker 2013, 7). This has been
particularly represented by the political strategy of gender mainstreaming. In
many countries and international organisations, gender mainstreaming is an
important reference point for gender policies today. In the European Union
and its member states, it was adopted as a guiding principle in the Treaty of
Amsterdam, adopted in 1999. Since then, its impact has been at least two-
fold: firstly, it has raised awareness of gender inequalities and of the need to
address them in all policies at all political levels, and it has provided analyses
and instruments for strategic action. Secondly, it has shifted political atten-
tion from the critique of capitalist socio-spatial relations to the ‘individuated,
entrepreneurial self which lies at the heart of the neo-liberal project’ (Peake
and Rieker 2013, 9). Gender mainstreaming has been found helpful in devel-
oping imaginaries of a ‘gender-equal city’ if it is conceptualized as ‘process
of revision of key concepts’ but it ‘tends not to challenge the prevailing
order’ (Sandberg and Ro €nnblom 2016, 1759). Thus, a discourse about alterna-
tive and complementary strategic approaches for feminist interventions has
emerged (Peake 2016; Peake and Rieker 2013; also, Rahder and Altilia 2004;
Perrone 2016; Horelli 2017).
This paper presents urban planning in Germany as one case in point
where the ‘mutually reinforcing, reflexive relationship’ (Snyder 1995, 92)
between theory and praxis has been scrutinized over the past decades,
even before the introduction of gender mainstreaming. Urban planning is an
‘applied’ profession which, according to its understanding of itself and its
political mandate, literally aims to organize the ‘construction’ of the built
environment. Potentially, it therefore plays an enormous role in stabilising or
transforming socio-spatial (gender) relations. In the case of Germany, the
Second Women’s Movements considered architecture and urban planning
ideal arenas for a new type of research where ‘the separation between
946 S. HUNING

women as academics and women as object of science’ would be abolished

and theory and practice would be interrelated (Nave-Herz 1993, 84; all
translations by the author). The knowledge feminist academics produced
was directed at planners in practice, and often this knowledge production
resulted in pilot projects by female planners for female city-users, in criteria
catalogues and the founding of women’s planning offices, so that researchers
became planning activists and vice versa.
Gender mainstreaming strategies in planning took up many findings and
experiences of feminist urban critiques and focused on their pragmatic
integration into planning practice. In Germany, it was integrated into several
legal and administrative regulations, thus making it obligatory in all phases
of all planning procedures. Planners who had formerly been neither inter-
ested in nor involved in feminist discourse now became aware of persistent
unequal gender relations and their spatial expressions. At the same time,
gender mainstreaming changed the focus of the discourse when academic
findings and political objectives were translated and adapted to everyday
planning practice. After almost 20 years of gender mainstreaming in planning
— or gender planning, as it is frequently called — it seems today that many
issues have been rhetorically integrated into ‘mainstream’ planning in
Germany, at least where they could connect to more general concerns
of sustainability, accessibility and user-friendliness. But a more systematic
outreach beyond the local level and stereotypical gender roles has not yet
taken place. Social-constructivist analyses of socio-spatial gender orders and
the inherent critique of power relations, directed at societal transformation,
cannot be easily brought in line with gender mainstreaming rationales, so
that important feminist claims were lost sight of. As in other academic and
professional fields, the transfer between academia and professional practice
continues to be difficult.
This paper uses the example of urban planning in Germany to show the
trajectories of feminist thought in urban planning over past decades and to
discuss the contradictions that came up when feminist thought was adapted
to an ‘applied’ profession. In line with the evaluative study ‘30 Years of
Gender in German Planning’ (Bauer and Fro €lich von Bodelschwingh 2017),
which calls for new strategies of integrating gender in urban planning, this
paper discusses future options and strategies. The structure of the paper is
as follows: in the following section, the empirical database of the research
is presented. Afterwards, the paper summarizes the feminist critique of
modernist planning, which was developed in the context of the Second
Women’s Movement from the late 1970s on, and the critical self-reflection
on the achievements by many protagonists during the 1990s. The third sec-
tion shows the changes caused by the introduction of gender mainstreaming
in the late 1990s and how it was operationalized so that it could be easily
 GENDER, PLACE & CULTURE 947

implemented into spatial planning. The fourth section discusses the ambigu-
ities this case shows, before Section 5 addresses the question of where to go
from here: what are the options for transformative gender planning research
and practice? Finally, what open questions and strategic starting points exist
to address the contradictions, so that the ‘mutually reinforcing, reflexive rela-
tionship’ (Snyder 1995, 92) between theory and praxis can be strength-
ened again?

Database
This paper describes the trajectories that feminist thought has taken in urban
planning in Germany until today. For this purpose, documents and academic
texts produced by feminist planners and gender planners from the late
1970s on were collected in order to analyse key objectives, proposed strat-
egies and ways of implementation and how these were transformed over
time. One key publication series was the journal Frei
R€aume, published by
the Feminist Organisation of (female) Planners and Architects (Feministische
Organisation von Planerinnen und Architektinnen, FOPA). FOPA was founded
as a platform for the exchange of professional experiences, the presentation
of academic findings and new projects in practice, and for common debate
(Huning 2018). Among the journal’s authors were both academics and prac-
ticing architects and planners. Some of the founders and authors became
professors in architecture and planning schools and in urban sociology
departments. There they pursued their topics and ideas, and passed on their
knowledge and experience to young planning students. Some became mem-
bers of municipal women’s planning advisory boards, which were installed in
some cities from the late 1980s on.
In addition, further publications by key authors and protagonists were
considered, some of whom continued to publish their academic findings,
personal professional experiences and professional activities with regard to
space and gender in other — mostly German national — journals, edited
volumes and conference proceedings; but also in workshop reports, bro-
chures and guidelines. Some original papers, paper and book collections
came from personal archives. Other sources for this paper are interviews
with and reports by key protagonists that were published in the course of
the 2000s, when some of them retired and reflected on the trajectories of
feminist thought from their personal point of view (see e.g. Hnilica 2003;
Rodenstein 2003, 2005). Personal communications in informal and formal
working groups, workshops and discussions both with second-wave feminist
planners and younger planners from the past 20 years complete the empir-
ical base.
948 S. HUNING

The material was assembled and studied in order to track the main trajec-
tories that feminist thought and debate in planning have taken since the
late 1970s, as found in the publications, documentation and published oral
histories. For the purpose of this paper, a key storyline was carved out which
admittedly cannot represent the broad range of ideas, confrontations and
experiences of decades, but instead intends to give an overview of the main
topics and discussions. Afterwards, this paper presents some reflections on
potential futures of gender planning in the light of recent transformations of
gender studies and urban planning. This should open up a discussion rather
than give final answers to the dilemma of translating between academia and
practice, not only in urban planning in Germany.

Trajectories of feminist planning critique in Germany until the 1990s

Feminist planning critique in Germany resembles in many regards the cri-
tique that was presented by feminist movements in the U.S., Canada, the
Netherlands, Scandinavia and elsewhere from the late 1970s on. In post-war
West Germany, cities had been rebuilt following contemporary modernist
ideals. A key normative guideline for planning at the time was to provide
housing for the ‘normal’ nuclear family with a breadwinning husband and a
care-taking housewife. Care work was private, and housing and infrastructure
policies hardly considered any household types beyond the nuclear family.
According to the rationalist spirit of the time, planners defined their task as
experts to create spaces ‘for a common good’ that would along the way pro-
vide optimal conditions for industrial production in a capitalist society.
As elsewhere, West German feminists criticised the unequal recognition of
production and reproduction in planning and architecture (Do €rho
€fer 1983,
23; also see Franck 1985). The standardised housing layouts of social housing
units, with their hierarchical division of space, did not meet the needs of
care and family work mostly undertaken by women. Functional divides on
the urban scale resulted in great distances between housing areas and
industrial and business districts. Many new housing areas lacked green
spaces, infrastructures and facilities for shopping, education, childcare, health
services and other services. This also meant that there were no jobs for
women — who often did not have a driving licence and/or a car — close to
their homes. Housewives were attributed the role of the devoted wife and
mother; this arrangement was safeguarded institutionally and legally, e. g. by
husbands’ legal right to decide whether their wife could get a driver’s license
or a paid job. The mobility, flexibility and thus independence of women
were hindered.
As planners and architects, women were excluded from and discriminated
against in their professional environments. They had to fight for the
 GENDER, PLACE & CULTURE 949

recognition of their diplomas, working experiences and competences

(Rabenschlag 1983; Weissmu €ller 2017). In renovation and modernisation proj-
ects, the voices of female residents remained unheard (Moldenhauer 1986).
In East Germany, in contrast, the collectivization of reproduction was a key
political objective. The establishment of childcare facilities at the workplace,
local infrastructures and services supported the full-time employment and
economic independence of women. Women were particularly promoted in
technical professions, which in East Germany included architecture and plan-
ning (Droste and Huning 2017). Although gender equality could not be fully
achieved in East Germany either (Nickel 1992), many of the deficits that were
criticised in West Germany were less apparent.
In the context of the 1st European Meeting of Female Planners (1.
Europa €ische Planerinnentagung), the ‘Berlin Charter’ (Charta von Berlin) was
published in 1991. It defined eleven guiding principles as ‘basics for a
new spatial order’ (Bendkowski and Burmester 1993, 228f): (1) the devolu-
tion of the gendered division of labour, (2) the social and economic inde-
pendence of women as a starting point for each urban and regional
spatial pattern, (3) the organization of the workplace so that everyone
can take responsibility for his/her own reproduction, (4) the public organ-
ization of care work, (5) the adaption of spaces to different needs and
phases in life, so that people can take care of themselves independently,
(6) the right to housing, (7) the symbolic representation of individual and
collective histories of men and women, majorities and minorities in spatial
patterns, (8) the safe, convenient and cheap organisation of transport,
with a focus on public transportation, bike and pedestrian traffic, (9)
optional participation of every adult in construction work, (10) economic
and environmentally-friendly use of natural resources, and (11) the same
civil, political, economic, cultural and social rights and realities for all
women and men; no more violence. The ‘Berlin Charter’ was written in
the ‘utopian present tense’ and explicitly avoided defining concrete crite-
ria, because ‘such guidelines tend to distance themselves from their con-
texts and to act against their original intentions’ (Bendkowski and
Burmester 1993, 226; also see Bacchi and Eveline 2009, 2). In contrast,
other authors pleaded for naming concrete criteria and indicators, so that
the relevance of feminist thought and analysis for planning practice would
become clearer for mainstream planning. One example was the criteria
catalogue for safe public spaces published by FOPA (Siemonsen and
Zauke 1991), which included criteria such as lighting in housing entrances,
the design of parking spaces, or the height of trees and bushes in parks.
By the late 1990s, a variety of pilot projects had been implemented
since the 1980s, but fundamental reforms in urban planning had not
taken place.
950 S. HUNING

Changed legal frameworks, multiple pilot projects and situational analyses, as well
as the participation of women in numerous committees, have caused only little
improvement in the everyday life of women and not significantly transformed
political space and administrative action. To rely upon male comprehension, and to
hope that measures for improvement will be initiated once the discrimination of
women has been shown, has not been sufficient. Women are allowed to enter the
€ger
‘stage’ of spatial planning, but the ‘rules of the game’ are still set by men. (Gru
2000, 27)

One case in point was the International Building Exhibition Emscher Park
(IBA, 1989-1999). International Building Expositions have been a tool for
urban development in Germany ever since the early 20th century (von Petz
2008). They are a framework for the assembly of international architecture
and innovative solutions to contemporary urban problems. The IBA Emscher
Park was the first one dedicated to a whole region and not to a city.
Located in the Ruhr region in West Germany, it initiated a new type of
regional ‘landscape park’ — marketing industrial heritage as ‘industrial cul-
ture’ — and model projects for new ways of living and working in a post-
industrial region. The lack of recognition of women as change agents and of
‘women’s issues’ as relevant topics motivated women from the region to
found the interdisciplinary working group ‘Women and IBA’. Members were
equal opportunities officers from all 17 municipalities and counties in the
region, representatives of women’s projects and female planners and archi-
tects. The working group developed a catalogue of requirements for IBA
projects, particularly in terms of the reconciliation of paid and unpaid work
through urban planning, a focus on the use value of space, participatory
processes and the support of female employment (Sturm 1993, 136f). In
1993, however, it was found that only five out of 81 IBA projects explicitly
targeted women’s needs (Sturm 1993, 138) and that the actual achievements
of feminist interventions had been limited in spite of the great engagement
of many women and contrasting rhetoric by IBA representatives:
The women who won the competitions or the female jury members are
highlighted in the sense of being token women, the women’s projects are not only
geared towards the media, but also serve as fig leaf or even as running-board for
patriarchal modernisation, used to put off the women who make demands and to
have their ‘playground’ without the basic structures being questioned. (Sturm
1993, 147)

Critics warned that a mere ‘modernisation of patriarchal structures’, as

promoted by projects with a focus on local everyday life and on women
merely as caretakers, would only support women in fulfilling their role as
housewives, mothers and employees, but not lead to a fundamental reform
of planning thought (Rodenstein 1993, 21). They pleaded for a re-orientation
of feminist critique and objectives, not least because the new communicative
planning paradigm (Innes 1995) had taken the place of rationalist planning
 GENDER, PLACE & CULTURE 951

and led to more cooperative governance structures. Any concessions that

had been made in terms of the formal integration of ‘women’s issues’ into
planning procedures lost their impact once these procedures were — at
least partly — replaced by more informal negotiations (Rodenstein 1998,
143). As more stakeholders were invited to participate in planning processes,
women’s councils and other representatives of women’s groups certainly
became more involved, but their voice was less audible. The more successful
the Second Women’s Movement was in terms of the promotion of women’s
rights, the more difficult it became to justify the specific consideration of
gender inequalities. A re-orientation of feminist critique seemed necessary. In
addition, theoretical re-orientations in gender studies and the emergence of
queer studies required thinking beyond formerly used binary conceptions of
gender and sexuality. Addressing sex and gender as social constructions
challenged the notion of men and women as collective subjects. Women-ori-
ented approaches lost their ground:
If women are not women, but constructed as women in a social (and cultural)
process, then every planning that refers explicitly to ‘women’ or single groups of
‘women’ contributes to the constant reconstruction of the dualistic gender order
and stabilises the (constructed) gender hierarchy based on this dual structure.
(Becker 1998, 156)

Lastly, the claim of ‘white’ academic feminists to represent all women —

independent of different experiences and social positions due to categories
such as e.g. ‘race’ and ‘class’ — was also challenged. New conceptions of
‘intersectionality’ and ‘interdependency’ attracted attention to the interrela-
tion of different societal structural categories and their influence on privilege
and discrimination.

Gender mainstreaming in planning (gender planning) in the 1990s

Shortly after its introduction in the European Union in 1999, gender main-
streaming was called a ‘potentially revolutionary concept’ (Pollack and Hafner-
Burton 2000, 434), because it promised a shift from ‘women’s issues’ to gen-
der relations. The translation into planning led to an adjustment of feminist
issues and demands: a shift towards the planning process (instead of concrete
design guidelines), the reference to different realities for (different groups of)
men and women and a less accusatory impetus increased the connectivity of
gender planning to mainstream planning practice. For its implementation by
planning practitioners who had no feminist background, guidelines, checklists
and criteria catalogues were developed, often based on earlier feminist analy-
ses (BMVBS and BBSR 2006; Frauenbeirat Stadtplanung im Bezirk Mitte 2002;
Gru€ger 2000; Senatsverwaltung fu €r Stadtentwicklung 2011; Stadtentwicklung
Wien 2013). For example, the Gender Planning Checklist for the city of
952 S. HUNING

Dortmund (adopted in 2003) contains, among other aspects, under the head-
ing ‘Services and Infrastructure’ the following boxes to be checked:

 Women-/family-specific public facilities

 Community facilities close to housing (bike racks, spaces for pushchairs)
 Accessibility of paths, facilities, and shared spaces

The heading ‘Open spaces’ includes the following criteria:

 Flexible design of public recreation/open spaces and sports facilities for

a. small kids
b. kids
c. older kids
d. adolescents
e. adults
 Diversified open spaces near housing areas.

Dortmund’s gender planning strategy is certainly much more elaborate

than this short extract suggests. The checklist was developed by the city’s
women’s office and the urban planning department, and it is comple-
mented by context papers which explain the background of each criter-
ion. But it is an example of the pragmatic approach and the objective of
making the implementation as easy as possible for all planners.
Probably the most comprehensive strategy was pursued by the city of
Vienna, capital of Austria, which is even today still considered a best practice
case for gender planning in German-speaking countries (Irschik and Kail
2013). Here, gender in planning was first addressed in 1991, and from 1998-
2008, a co-ordination office was in place. The list of achievements is long:
from women-suitable housing competitions to gender-sensitive park design
to the establishment of a pilot district, Vienna has covered all sectoral fields
of planning and proposed best practices to other municipalities and plan-
ning agencies in several publications (Stadtentwicklung Wien 2013). The list
of reports, best practice studies, pilot projects etc. is long in Germany,
Austria and other European countries (BMVBS and BBSR 2006; Damyanovic
2013; Sanchez de Madariaga and Roberts 2013; Schro €der and Zibell 2004;
Wankiewicz 2013; Zibell and Schro €der 2007; Zibell 2009). Usability of spaces
for different groups — and often particularly for women and girls — lies at
the heart of many projects.

Ambiguities in gender planning

€r Urbanistik,
Recently, the German Institute for Urbanism (Deutsches Institut fu
Difu) conducted a survey of the state of the art of gender planning in
 GENDER, PLACE & CULTURE 953

German-speaking countries. The empirical basis of this survey was four case
studies: Berlin, Munich, Rhein-Ruhr region, and Vienna, all of them consid-
ered to be proactive pioneers in gender planning. Based on this selective
sample, the survey came to the result that
Many demands of gender-adequate planning [ … ] have reached the ‘mainstream’
long ago. ‘Gender’ can be found in many planning processes even if it is not
explicit. Good planning processes consider ‘gender issues’ as a matter of course
[ … ] Wrapped up in ‘family-adequate’ or ‘everyday planning’, the transfer is easier.
(Bauer and Fro€lich von Bodelschwingh 2017, 9)

The word ‘feminism’ is hardly ever used. Protagonists from Vienna

adopted the expression ‘Fair Shared City’ in order to ’use language that can
be understood easily’ (Irschik and Kail 2013, 223). They argue that in order to
convince planners to consider ‘gender issues’, it is necessary to tell them
exactly what to do, and that academic terms and debates are not helpful in
this regard:
Arguments conducted at an advanced level of sophisticated reflection might be
interesting for academic discussion and pilot projects, but not for mainstreaming.
Introducing too much complexity loses influence. It is definitely not helpful to
explain to the obdurate technicians of the ‘malestream’ that gender roles are in a
state of permanent diversification and change. In the cut and thrust of practical
planning, you have to tell your colleagues what they should change in their
approaches to policies, procedures and design to support gender equality in the
final material outcome. (Irschik and Kail 2013, 223)

This quote shows the general irritation of practitioners with social con-
structivism, which has gained importance in both interpretative planning
and urban gender studies. From a social-constructivist point of view, spaces
can be effective media of both reproduction and renunciation of hegemonic
(gender) orders (Bondi and Rose 2010; Frank 2008; 2012; Roberts 2013; van
den Berg 2012). However, to understand how this works means inviting com-
plexity rather than abandoning it. Some authors have warned ‘against har-
bouring any “secret wish for a simple idiot-proof instrument” ‘because
‘simplified check-lists’ do not meet the necessary ‘elevated level of concep-
tual sophistication’ (Eveline and Bacchi 2005, 507). Other authors argue that
to avoid conflicts for the sake of acceptance or even self-censorship means
that ‘the possibilities to profit from a theoretically informed analysis’ are
diminished (Benschop and Verloo 2006, 30).
The above-mentioned Difu survey found that topics introduced by femi-
nists, such as the ‘mixed-use city’, accessibility, the avoidance of spaces of
fear (‘Angstra€ume’) or shared spaces for encounter, hardly meet any resist-
ance today, however they remain unrelated to their feminist roots. At the
same time, the survey found that the successful implementation of these
topics still depends to a significant degree on individual engagement, and
954 S. HUNING

that planning which aims to meet the needs of different social groups and
genders is still not valued by professional peers (Bauer and Fro €lich von
Bodelschwingh 2017, 71).
Some authors claim that the general problem is that the ‘formal commit-
ment to implement gender mainstreaming does not bind actors to realize
gender equality in any specific way’ (Çag lar 2013, 338). In EU policies, it has
been found that gender-equality objectives are only part of the agenda if
they (have been adapted to) conform to other policy priorities (Stratigaki
2004). The Difu survey came to similar results. Since gender planners usually
avoid positivist urban designs and any partiality for (particular groups of)
women, it becomes to some extent arbitrary. Professionals in planning — as
in other disciplines — interpret gender mainstreaming and the policy prob-
lems it is supposed to solve with ‘lay knowledge and normative — mostly
conservative — assumptions about appropriate gender roles and gender
lar 2013, 339). The stereotypes that are sometimes reproduced
relations’ (Çag
in this context lead to critiques of feminist academics and planners, for
whom gender planning does not go ‘far enough’.
To sum up: gender planning has to take several contradictions into
account when it comes to its being of use for professional practice. Some
core issues of feminist planning critique are still as up-to-date as they were
in the late 1990s: the gendered division of labour, the subordinate role of
care and its privatization often remain unaddressed in planning; the same
is true for the requirements for an independent life — in both social and
economic terms — not only for women, but also for the elderly and other
residential groups. To take these issues seriously would mean the social
and material re-organisation of housing, workplaces and transportation in
terms of e.g. more facilities and better services to support reproduction
and care work and to reconcile paid and unpaid work; spatial structures
that encourage new forms of collective self-organisation and co-responsi-
bility, such as co-housing and co-working; or safe and convenient transpor-
tation means beyond the car (also see Col
lectiu Punt 6 2015, 16ff). It
would also mean more comprehensive participation processes and an
explicit recognition of urban diversities. Gender planning, instead, often
focuses on the integration of the everyday needs of men and women into
planning, which certainly improves the user-orientation of planning, but
runs the risk of stabilizing conservative gender roles. Gender planning cata-
logues run the risk of the oversimplification and reduction of ‘feminist cri-
tique’ to ‘women’s issues’, when gender relations are not systematically
reflected. The implementation of gender planning still depends on individ-
ual engagement or on its compatibility with other policy targets, such as
safety, sustainability etc. The questions is: where can gender planning go
from here?
 GENDER, PLACE & CULTURE 955

Gender planning options

The Difu survey which evaluated gender mainstreaming in planning
found that:
… although a successful implementation of gender mainstreaming in the form of a
target group-oriented planning —which considers the needs of different groups
and is commonly accepted — is described, a milestone seems to have been
reached. Now the question comes up of how gender can be developed further in
€lich
planning and how it could be carried into a broader practice. (Bauer and Fro
von Bodelschwingh 2017, 72)

To move forward, gender planning is sometimes re-named ‘genderþ’ or

‘gender/diversity’ in order to signal that it is not about men and women,
but about the living conditions of different genders and social groups. For
many planners, the term ‘diversity’ seems to be more plausible than
‘feminist’ or ‘gender’ planning. But quite often diversity policies do not
have much in common with the transformative claims of feminist con-
cepts, particularly when the categories used to specify any kind of diver-
sity are defined in essentialist ways, and their social construction is not
taken into account. Diversity policies tend to focus on the better integra-
tion and recognition of individuals from different genders/age groups/cul-
tures etc., but they usually do not aim to overcome institutional and
structural questions of inclusion and exclusion: ‘Expressions of difference
as “diversity” allows the reading of social and cultural forms of difference
in terms of descriptive plurality, at the same time dropping the social rela-
tionships that create difference out of sight’ (Rahder and Altilia 2004, 114).
Participation processes that address different target groups run the risk of
losing sight of gender equality and gender justice (Eveline and Bacchi
2005, 504; Gwisdalla 2007, 68). The same can be true for diversity man-
agement (Bacchi and Eveline 2009, 7). The transformative impetus of fem-
inist concepts, which is linked to a critique of power and society, might
get lost.
For several years, there has been a lively discussion about new ways for
feminism and gender in planning (Rahder and Altilia 2004; Fainstein 2000).
New concepts such as ‘engendering urban planning’ (Horelli 2017) include
the self-made city, do-it-yourself urbanism and similar initiatives which do
not necessarily refer to the ‘gender’ label themselves, but relate to key issues
of feminist planning critique (also see Perrone 2016).
This next section is dedicated to three options for gender planning
derived from feminist critique and approaches to planning found in practice
(Huning 2013, 2014). The list is certainly not exhaustive, but it aims to dis-
cuss how planning intervention can be framed in the light of femin-
ist analysis.
956 S. HUNING

Gender planning as target-group-orientation

The question of who is included in participatory planning processes and
who is excluded continues to be virulent. As a consequence, planners try to
reach out to social groups who seem to be neglected in ‘regular’ planning
practice, who are distinguished by gender (F€arber 2005), ethnic and/or cul-
tural background or education level (H€außermann 2005). While this may lead
to better knowledge of these groups’ needs and to a more diverse planning
experience, ‘[t]he danger in affirming difference is that the implementation
of group-conscious policies will reinstate stigma and exclusion’ (Young
2005, 86).
One-dimensional target group definitions along gender divisions obviously
cannot even come close to reflecting the diversity and heterogeneity of their
supposed members, so that target groups must be differentiated in more
detail along categories such as age, ‘race’ or social status. Intersectional anal-
yses have given some insight into the complicated attribution of privilege
and discrimination. In practice, however, it is certainly difficult to fully con-
sider the interdependence of social inequality categories in bureaucratic
planning procedures. The categories used for target group definitions are
thus often pragmatic (sometimes essentialist), and their social construction is
usually not taken into account. However, this approach can be helpful for
planners to find out particular needs and wishes for housing layouts, park
designs or public transportation patterns: Who will benefit if a project is
designed in a certain way, whose needs might be left out? Who will be most
affected by a planning decision, e.g. when a particular bus route is
closed down?
The definition of target groups with presumably ‘special’ or ‘different’
needs saves planners from the necessity of rethinking planning practice in
more general terms and to make plurality a constitutive moment of plan-
ning. The key dilemma is that, on the one hand, target groups have to be
named and, on the other hand, their supposed members might be reduced
to the categories used for target group definitions. Iris Marion Young argues
that political strategies may become effective in favour of disadvantaged
groups when these groups participate in their production: ‘If oppressed and
disadvantaged groups can self-organize in public and have a specific voice
to present their interpretation of the meaning of and the reasons for group-
differentiated policies, then such policies are more likely to work for than
against them’ (Young 2005, 96).
Another argument in favour of target group perspectives is that a collect-
ive subject may be more effective and powerful than a fragmented move-
ment. If ‘strategic essentialism’ is unavoidable when it comes to the pursuit
of certain political objectives (Spivak 1988), a pragmatic approach, such as
the focus on target groups, can make planners, who are otherwise not
 GENDER, PLACE & CULTURE 957

interested in sophisticated feminist arguments, aware of the diversity of

socio-spatial resources, needs and patterns.

Prevention of discriminatory spatial (planning) practice

A second option is the prevention of discrimination through planning: in
what ways are spatial needs and appropriation patterns, which are attributed
to certain social groups, a result of power relations, legal and cultural institu-
tions and therefore changeable? Through which mechanisms and processes
does spatial planning contribute to their reproduction (Becker 1998)? This
resonates with a ‘process understanding’ of gender: ‘Viewed as a verb, gen-
der could be seen as an inescapably unfinished gender-ing process in which
the body both informs and resonates with relations of power and privilege’
(Eveline and Bacchi 2005, 501). From this perspective, the focus of decon-
struction is directed away from ‘othered’ individuals and groups towards
mechanisms and processes of exclusion and discrimination, such as sexism,
heteronormativity, racism, and disabling, in order to make them visible.
Gender planning in this sense analyses institutions rather than group prefer-
ences in order to transform them.
To pursue this approach, it is necessary to identify sexist, racist, heteronor-
mative and disabling mechanisms and processes. In her vision for a ‘non-sex-
ist city’, Dolores Hayden (1981) discussed discriminatory and gendered socio-
spatial patterns and proposed more or less radical ideas to overcome them.
For Hayden, the gendered division of labour, the public-private distinction
and gender stereotypes were the mechanisms which needed to be overcome
in a non-sexist city. These mechanisms are still at work in urban life and also
in many planning processes. They have been analysed by feminist critics
from the late 1970s on, but today they have become subtler: In contrast to
the 1980s and 1990s, the political goal of gender equality is rhetorically
more or less uncontested, but gender stereotypes and institutional arrange-
ments still support the gendered division of labour. By deconstructing the
(old and new) mechanisms of discrimination, discriminatory practice
becomes visible and identifiable. Planning institutions and procedural guide-
lines can be reformed to overcome structural inequalities through the plan-
ning process and to tackle their outcomes as well.

Performative planning
In contrast to target group approaches and the deconstruction of discriminating
institutions, performative planning focuses on ‘planning itself as performative
practice aiming to set the stage for multiple interventions by a variety of stake-
holders, citizens and artists’ (Altrock and Huning 2015, 150). It calls for
958 S. HUNING

(sometimes utopian) spaces of opportunity which — at least in theory — help to

unravel power relations and different modes of spatial appropriation.
Performative urban spaces are established as ‘stages for performance, learning
and experience’ (Marling, Jensen, and Kiib 2009, 864f). People develop their
opinions on certain matters in performative participative processes (Turnhout,
van Bommel, and Aarts 2010). Usually without any reference to feminism or gen-
der, the starting point is the deconstruction and sometimes reconstruction of
spatial identities, histories and relations. Performative planning aims to initiate
opportunities for stakeholders to interpret, deconstruct and negotiate the past
and future of urban development in a particular setting, e.g. by offering opportu-
nities for ‘storytelling’ (see Throgmorton 2003). Which of the many stories related
to a place become common knowledge, and which ones remain unheard,
reflects (gendered) power relations. It is therefore important to create opportuni-
ties for a variety of storytellers and stories (Sandercock 2003) in order to address
these power relations and allow conflict and politicization (Sandberg and
Ro€nnblom 2016, 1760).
Performative planning is based on the observation that subjective posi-
tions are fluid. ‘The idea of identity as a unity is a fiction, since subjectivities
are always in the process of becoming [ … ] Subjects are multiplicities; every-
one represents more than one fixed identity; class, gender and race disrupt
and recombine’ (Cupers 2005, 735). Urban planning can make this visible
through the symbolic and functional dedication of space and in participatory
processes which address city users not as particular target groups, defined
according to socio-demographic attributions, but as residents, employees,
pedestrians, park users etc. Since not all those who are involved in the pro-
cess of ‘doing/performing’ have the same resources and are able to express
their opinion in the same way, the middle-class bias of performative plan-
ning projects and the danger of its becoming an ‘enactment of social privi-
leges’ (Heim LaFrombois 2017, 433) must be reflected. Stressing the
performative dimension of planning acknowledges the emergence of identity
categories — among them gender — in the process itself, and the social
construction of space is the object and purpose of the planning process. In a
way, it comes quite close to the idea(l) of deconstructivist planning.

Conclusion

A transformative agenda means challenging the norms and practices that

produce gender inequalities, by highlighting and intervening in the gendering
process of policymaking. (Eveline and Bacchi 2005, 506)

[T]he best protection against political capture, for example by a tick-a-box

system of paper trails, is precisely this politics of ‘doing’ and the social
changes it generates (Bacchi and Eveline 2009, 14).
 GENDER, PLACE & CULTURE 959

Against the background of an increasing gap between academic planning

research and planning practice, the options for gender planning which have
been presented above can be neither complete nor final. In an ideal world,
all three approaches have some potential to contribute to a socio-spatial re-
organisation of care work, to support different groups’ independent living
and independent mobility, to extend the participation of residents from dif-
ferent backgrounds, and to promote the equal use of public spaces. In the
world as it is, the success of these approaches depends foremost on individ-
ual engagement and on the compatibility of projects with other political
agendas, because economic power relations and neoliberal agendas have
much influence on planning, and feminist knowledge is not an asset for indi-
vidual career strategies.
A diversification of strategies might be the most promising way to move
forward. A critical (self-) reflection of planners both in academia and in the
professional fields might help to re-create common spaces where gender
planning as a powerful political tool can be elaborated. How can academic
concepts become compatible and translatable, what are the key opportuni-
ties and constraints? What positive effects can be achieved with which gen-
der planning option, and how they can be used to transform planning in the
long run (see e.g. Larsson 2006; Sandberg and Ro €nnblom 2016). Lastly,
innovative spatial interventions by resident groups and social movements
can help to better understand where there is actual elbowroom for trans-
formation in planning under contemporary conditions (see e. g. Horelli 2017;
Perrone 2016; instructive examples were also presented in a session series at
2018’s AAG conference in New Orleans under the heading ‘Feminist urban
theory for our time’; also see Peake and Rieker 2013; Peake 2016). Looking at
these kinds of counter-hegemonic projects and narratives might actually be
a project with great potential not only for feminist urban geography, but
also gender planning.
As was shown in the introduction of this paper, feminists of the Second
Women’s Movement had hoped that architecture and planning might be
ideal arenas for overcoming the distinction between academia and societal/
professional practice. This paper has shown that the gap between academia
and practice has increased over time. ‘Practical’ and ‘theoretical’ knowledge
is appreciated quite unequally today, and they cannot be easily related to
each other. An open debate, without any claim to the once and for all, one-
fits-all solution from any side, might help to release a new and powerful
movement, which is at the moment prevented by the above-mentioned gap.
It may actually be time to add to the debate about pragmatic — sometimes
technocratic — implementation strategies more comprehensive feminist spa-
tial imaginaries (for a more general call for spatial imaginaries see Davoudi
et al. 2018). Relating these imaginaries to an upcoming broader debate on
960 S. HUNING

new forms of social reproduction, new urban movements and other initia-
tives for social innovation will be an important step.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my colleagues at the Faculty of Spatial Planning’s Urban and
Regional Sociology department and the members of the ARL working group “Gender in
Spatial Development in Europe” for inspiring debates on the topic and for sharing their
experiences. I also appreciate the time and support by three anonymous reviewers whose
comments helped me to improve the paper. I take full responsibility for all
remaining errors.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor
Dr.-Ing. Sandra Huning is lecturer and researcher at the Faculty of Spatial Planning,
Dortmund University of Technology. She studied spatial planning in Dortmund, Germany,
and Grenoble, France, and received her PhD at Berlin University of Technology. Her
research focuses on the link between urban gender studies, planning sociology and the-
ory. She was a member of the International Working Group “Gender in Spatial
Development” at the German Academy for Spatial Research and Planning (ARL) and of
the Women’s Advisory Board of Berlin’s Senate Department for Urban Development.
Currently, she is involved in research on multi-level socio-environmental policies in the
context of housing and on new ways to employ social media and online services to
establish intercultural spaces of dialogue in urban development. Sandra is co-editor of the
German language planning theory book series “Planungsrundschau”.

ORCID
Sandra Huning http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6885-7516

References
Altrock, Uwe, and Sandra Huning. 2015. “Cultural Interventions in Urban Public Spaces
and Performative Planning: Insights from Shrinking Cities in Eastern Germany.” In Public
Space and Relational Perspectives: New Challenges for Architecture and Planning, edited
by Chiara Tornaghi and Sabine Knierbein, 148–166. New York: Routledge.
Bacchi, Carol, and Joan Eveline. 2009. “Gender Mainstreaming or Diversity Mainstreaming?
The Politics of ‘Doing.” NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 17 (1):
2–17. doi:10.1080/08038740802689133.
Bauer, Uta, and Franciska Fro€lich von Bodelschwingh. 2017. 30 Jahre Gender in der Stadt-
und Regionalentwicklung: Erfahrungen und Perspektiven. With the assistance of A.
B€
uttner. Berlin: DIFU.
 GENDER, PLACE & CULTURE 961

Becker, Ruth. 1998. “Zu kurz gesprungen? Anmerkungen zum vielschichtigen Unbehagen
u €
€ber den Stand feministischer Planung - Uberlegungen zu einer Neuorientierung.”
Frei
Ra€ume, 10: 151–170.
Bendkowski, Halina, and Hillevi Burmester. 1993. “Initiierung einer neuen Streitkultur - ein
erster Versuch.” In Raum greifen und Platz nehmen: Dokumentation der 1. Europa €ischen
Planerinnentagung, edited by Christine Ahrend, Hillevi Burmester, Dagmar Ewald,
Stefani Misere, Ursula Pieschel, and Petra Rau, 223–29. Zurich: Edition Ebersbach.
Benschop, Yvonne, and Mieke Verloo. 2006. “Sisyphus’ Sisters: Can Gender Mainstreaming
Escape the Genderedness of Organizations?” Journal of Gender Studies 15 (1): 19–33.
doi:10.1080/09589230500486884.
BMVBS and BBSR. eds. 2006. Sta €dtebau f€ €nner. Bonn: BBSR.
ur frauen und ma
Bondi, Liz, and Damaris Rose. 2010. “Constructing Gender, Constructing the Urban: A
Review of Anglo-American Feminist Urban Geography.” Gender, Place & Culture 10 (3):
229–245. doi:10.1080/0966369032000114000.
 lar, G€
Çag ulay. 2013. “Gender Mainstreaming.” Politics & Gender 9 (03): 336–344. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X13000214.
Col
lectiu Punt 6. 2015. Women Working. Urban Assessment Guide from a Gender
Perspective. Barcelona: Col
lectiu Punt 6.
Cupers, Kenny. 2005. Towards a Nomadic Geography: Rethinking Space and Identity for the
Potentials of Progressive Politics in the Contemporary City. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research 29 (4): 729–739.
Damyanovic, Doris. 2013. “Gender Mainstreaming as a Strategy for Sustainable Urban
Planning.” In Fair Shared Cities, edited by Ines Sanchez de Madariaga and Marion
Roberts, 178–192. Farnham: Ashgate.
Davoudi, Simin, Jenny Crawford, Ruth Raynor, Bryonie Reid, Olivier Sykes, and Dave Shaw.
2018. “Policy and Practice Spatial Imaginaries: Tyrannies or Transformations?” Town
Planning Review 89 (2): 97–124. doi:10.3828/tpr.2018.7.
Do€rho €fer, Kerstin. 1983. “Le Corbusier und die Menschenschwester oder: Frauenspezifische
Probleme im Wohnumfeld.” Frei
Ra €ume, 1: 17–31.
Droste, Christiane, and Sandra Huning. 2017. “Frau Architektin und Frau Architekt:
Gesellschaftliche Rahmenbedingungen f€ ur die Werdeg€ange von Architektinnen in BRD
und DDR: Ms. Woman Architect and Ms. Architect. Social Frameworks for the Careers of
Women Architects in West and East Germany.” In Frau Architekt: Seit mehr als 100
Jahren: Frauen im Architektenberuf/Over 100 Years of Women as Professional Architects,
edited by Mary Pepchinski, Christina Budde, Wolfgang Voigt, and Peter Cachola
Schmal, 59–67. T€ ubingen: Wasmuth.
Eveline, Joan, and Carol Bacchi. 2005. “What Are we Mainstreaming When we Mainstream
Gender?” International Feminist Journal of Politics 7 (4): 496–512. doi:10.1080/
14616740500284417.
Fainstein, Susan S. 2000. “New Directions in Planning Theory.” Urban Affairs Review 35 (4):
451–478. doi:10.1177/107808740003500401.
F€arber, Christine. 2005. “Partizipation und Gender-Kompetenz in der St€adtebaupolitik.” In
Was Bewirkt Gender Mainstreaming? Evaluierung durch Policy-Analysen, edited by Ute
Behning and Birgit Sauer, 203–218. Frankfurt/Main: Campus.
Franck, Karen A. 1985. “Social Construction of the Physical Environment: The Case of
Gender.” Sociological Focus 18 (2): 143–160.
Frank, Susanne. 2008. “Gender Trouble in Paradise. Suburbia Reconsidered.” In Gender in
an Urban World – Special Issue of Research in Urban Sociology, edited by Judith DeSena,
127–148. London: Emerald.
962 S. HUNING

Frank, Susanne. 2012. “Changing Cities – Changing Gender Relations.” In Theorizing and
Practising Gender Sensitive Planning in European Discourse, edited by Gender Archland,
74–83. Hannover: Leibniz-Universit€at.
Frauenbeirat Stadtplanung im Bezirk Mitte. 2002. Frauenbelange in der verbindlichen
Bauleitplanung, in der Bereichsentwicklungsplanung, in st€adtebaulichen Vertr€agen: Ein
Praxis-Leitfaden. Berlin: Bezirksamt Mitte.
Gr€uger, Christine. 2000. Nachhaltige Raumentwicklung und Gender Planning. Dortmund:
Blaue Reihe.
Gwisdalla, Miriam. 2007. “Eine Stadt fu €r alle? Gender und Diversity in der r€aumlichen
Planung.” Femina Politica 1: 67–77.
H€außermann, Hartmut. 2005. “Politisches Vertrauen und Partizipation.” vhw FWS 6:
298–301.
Hayden, Dolores. 1981. “What Would a Nonsexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing,
Urban Design, and Human Work.” In Women and The American City, edited by
Catherine Stimpson, 167–184. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heim LaFrombois, Megan. 2017. “Blind Spots and Pop-up Spots: A Feminist Exploration
into the Discourses of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Urbanism.” Urban Studies 54 (2): 421–436.
doi:10.1177/0042098015604078.
Hnilica, Sonja. 2003. “Eine Frage der Generation? Interviews mit Kerstin Do €rho€fer,
Christiane Erlemann, Myra Warhaftig und Ulla Terlinden”. In Building Power. Architektur,
Macht, Geschlecht, edited by Do €rte Kuhlmann, Sonja Hnilica and Kari Jormakka,
105–138. Vienna: edition selene.
Horelli, Liisa. 2017. “Engendering Urban Planning in Different Contexts – Successes,
Constraints and Consequences.” European Planning Studies 25 (10): 1779–1796. doi:
10.1080/09654313.2017.1339781.
Huning, Sandra. 2018. “New Roads – New Goals. Positions of Feminist Planning’.
Frei
R€aume No. 10, Edited by the German FOPA (Feminist Organisation of (Female)
Planners and Architects) in 1998.” Local Environment 23 (9): 907–911. doi:10.1080/
13549839.2018.1506755.
Huning, Sandra. 2014. “Deconstructing Space and Gender? Options for ‘Gender Planning’”.
In Le Tournant Spatial Dans les etudes Genre, edited by Camille Schmoll and Lucia
Direnberger, 77–98. Paris: Les Cahiers du Cedref.
Huning, Sandra. 2013. “Ambivalences of Gender Planning.” 23.01.2013 (URL: http://www.
metropolitiques.eu/Ambivalences-of-Gender-Planning.html).
Innes, Judith E. 1995. “Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and
Interactive Practice: Closing the Theory-Practice Gap.” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 14 (3): 183–189. doi:10.1177/0739456X9501400307.
Irschik, Elisabeth, and Eva Kail. 2013. “Vienna: Progress Towards a Fair Shared City.” In Fair
Shared Cities, edited by Ines Sanchez de Madariaga and Marion Roberts, 103–230.
Farnham: Ashgate.
Larsson, Anita. 2006. “From Equal Opportunities to Gender Awareness in Strategic Spatial
Planning: Reflections Based on Swedish Experiences.” Town Planning Review 77 (5):
507–530. doi:10.3828/tpr.77.5.2.
Marling, Gitte, Ole B. Jensen, and Hans Kiib. 2009. “The Experience City: Planning of
Hybrid Cultural Projects.” European Planning Studies 17 (6): 863–885. doi:10.1080/
09654310902794018.
Moldenhauer, Heide. 1986. “Behutsame Stadterneuerung in Berlin - F€ ur, mit, von und
gegen Frauen: Erfahrungen einer Architektin. ”Frei
Ra €ume 2: 64–70.
 GENDER, PLACE & CULTURE 963

Nave-Herz, Rosemarie. 1993. Die Geschichte der Frauenbewegung in Deutschland. Hannover:

Schlu€tersche Verlagsanstalt.
Nickel, Hildegard Maria. 1992. “Frauenarbeit im Beruf und in der Familie –
Geschlechterpolarisierung in der DDR.” In So nah beieinander und doch so fern:
Frauenleben in Ost und West, edited by Agnes Joester and Insa Scho €ningh, 11–24.
Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus.
Peake, Linda. 2016. “The Twenty-First Century Quest for Feminism and the Global Urban.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 40 (1): 219–227. doi:10.1111/1468-
2427.12276.
Peake, Linda, and Martina Rieker, eds. 2013. Rethinking Feminist Interventions in the Urban.
London: Routledge.
Perrone, Camilla. 2016. “Grounds for Future Gendered Urban Agendas: Policy Patterns and
Practice Implications.” Town Planning Review 87 (5): 589–606. doi:10.3828/tpr.2016.36.
Pollack, Mark D., and Emily Hafner-Burton. 2000. “Mainstreaming Gender in the European
Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 7 (3): 432–456. doi:10.1080/
13501760050086116.
Rabenschlag, Anne. 1983. Architekt sein – ist nicht schwer, Architektin werden aber sehr
€ume 1: 70–71.
Frei
Ra
Rahder, Barbara, and Carol Altilia. 2004. “Where Is Feminism in Planning Going?
Appropriation or Transformation?” Planning Theory 3 (2): 107–116. doi:10.1177/
1473095204044777.
Roberts, Marion. 2013. “Gender, Fear and the Night-Time City.” In Fair Shared Cities, edited
by Ines Sanchez de Madariaga and Marion Roberts, 49–64. Farnham: Ashgate.
Rodenstein, Marianne. 1993. “Feministische Stadt- und Regionalforschung – Zum Stand
der Diskussion st€adtischer Lebensverh€altnisse.” In Raum greifen und Platz nehmen:
Dokumentation der 1. Europa €ischen Planerinnentagung, edited by Christine Ahrend,
Hillevi Burmester, Dagmar Ewald, Stefani Misere, Ursula Pieschel, and Petra Rau, 20–35.
Zurich: Edition Ebersbach.
Rodenstein, Marianne. 1998. “Von der frauengerechten zur nicht-sexistischen Stadt. Ein
Pl€adoyer fu
€r eine neue Perspektive in der feministischen Stadt- und Regionalplanung.
€ume 10: 142–150.
”Frei
Ra
Rodenstein, Marianne. 2003. From the Local Level to the Global Level and Back Again.
How Feminism Has Spread. In City and Gender. International Discourse on Gender,
Urbanism and Architecture: International Women’s University 2000, edited by Ulla
Terlinden, 19–40. Opladen: Leske þ Budrich.
Rodenstein, Marianne. 2005. “Gruppe ‘Frauen, Steine, Erde’: Frauen-R€aume-Architektur-
Umwelt.” In Schlu €sselwerke der Geschlechterforschung, edited by Martina Lo €w and
Bettina Mathes, 135–147. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag fu €r Sozialwissenschaften.
Sanchez de Madariaga, Ines, and Marion Roberts, eds. 2013. Fair Shared Cities: The Impact
of Gender Planning in Europe. Farnham: Ashgate. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/
docDetail.action?docID¼10740174.
Sandberg, Linda, and Malin Ro €nnblom. 2016. “Imagining the Ideal City, Planning the
Gender-Equal City in Umeå, Sweden.” Gender, Place & Culture 23 (12): 1750–1762. doi:
10.1080/0966369X.2016.1249346.
Sandercock, Leonie. 2003. “Out of the Closet: The Importance of Stories and Storytelling
in Planning Practice.” Planning Theory & Practice 4 (1): 11–28. doi:10.1080/
1464935032000057209.
Schro€der, Anke, and Barbara Zibell. 2004. Auf den zweiten Blick: Sta €dtebauliche
Frauenprojekte im Vergleich. Hannover: Peter Lang.
964 S. HUNING

Senatsverwaltung f€ ur Stadtentwicklung. 2011. Gender in Mainstreaming Urban

Development. Berlin: SenStadt.
Siemonsen, Kerstin, and Gabriele Zauke. 1991. Sicherheit im o €ffentlichen Raum. Zurich:
Edition Ebersbach.
Snyder, Mary Gail. 1995. “Feminist Theory and Planning Theory. Lessons from Feminist
Epistemologies.” Berkeley Planning Journal 10: 91–106.
Stadtentwicklung Wien. 2013. Handbuch Gender Mainstreaming in der Stadtplanung und
Stadtentwicklung. With the assistance of Doris Damyanovic, Florian Reinwald and
Angela Weikmann. Vienna: Magistrate department 18 – Stadtentwicklung und
Stadtplanung.
Stratigaki, Maria. 2004. “The Cooptation of Gender Concepts in EU Policies: The Case of
‘Reconciliation of Work and Family.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State
& Society 11 (1): 30–56. doi:10.1093/sp/jxh025.
Sturm, Gabriele. 1993. “Die H€alfte der Planung? Das Beispiel der Beteiligung von Frauen
an (Wohn) Projekten der Internationalen Bauausstellung Emscher Park.” In Die Moderne
im Park? Ein Streitbuch zur Internationalen Bauausstellung im Emscherraum, edited by
Sebastian M€ uller and Klaus M. Schmals, 133–148. Blaue Reihe. Dortmund.
Throgmorton, James A. 2003. “Planning as Persuasive Storytelling in a Global-Scale Web
of Relationships.” Planning Theory 2 (2): 125–151. doi:10.1177/14730952030022003.
Turnhout, Esther, Severine van Bommel, and Noelle Aarts. 2010. “How Participation
Creates Citizens: Participatory Governance as Performative Practice.” Ecology and Society
15 (4): 26. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art26.
van den Berg, Marguerite. 2012. “Femininity as a City Marketing Strategy: Gender Bending
Rotterdam.” Urban Studies 49 (1): 153–168. doi:10.1177/0042098010396240.
von Petz, Ursula. 2008. “St€adtebau-Ausstellungen in Deutschland 1910-2010.” DISP 174 (3):
24–50. doi:10.1080/02513625.2008.10557015.
Wankiewicz, Heidrun. 2013. “European Regional Development Programmes for Cities and
Regions: Driving Forces for Gender Planning?” In Fair Shared Cities, edited by
Ines Sanchez de Madariaga and Marion Roberts, 131–153. Farnham: Ashgate.
Weissmu €ller, Laura. 2017. “Die unsichtbare Architektin.” In Frau Architekt: Seit mehr als 100
Jahren: Frauen im Architektenberuf/Over 100 Years of Women as Professional Architects,
edited by Mary Pepchinski, Christina Budde, Wolfgang Voigt, and Peter Cachola
Schmal, 17–24. T€ ubingen: Wasmuth.
Young, Iris Marion. 2005. “Justice and the Politics of Difference.” In Gender and Planning. A
Reader, edited by Susan S. Fainstein and Lisa J. Servon, 86–103. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Zibell, Barbara, ed. 2009. Gender Building: Gender Building: Sozialra €umliche Qualita €ten im
€
offentlichen Hochbau. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Zibell, Barbara, and Anke Schro €der. 2007. Frauen mischen mit. Qualita €tskriterien f€
ur die
Stadt- und Bauleitplanung. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Website European Institute for Gender Equality (http://eige.europa.eu/gender-mainstream-
ing/what-is-gender-mainstreaming), last access: 22 March 2018