Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Built environment education : a feminist critique and reconstruction Avery, Hinda H. 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1993_fall_phd_avery_hinda.pdf [ 7.29MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054753.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054753-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054753-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054753-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054753-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054753-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054753-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054753-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054753.ris

Full Text

BUILT ENVIRONMENT EDUCATION:A FEMINIST CRITIQUE AND RECONSTRUCTIONbyHinda Hanrietta AveryB.F.A., The University of Victoria, 1977M.F.A., The University of British Columbia, 1985A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(The Centre for Curriculum and Instruction)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA© Hinda Hanrietta AveryIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(SignatureDepartment ofThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate I DE-6 (2/88)iiABSTRACTThis dissertation examines the relationship between builtenvironment education and the discourse which focuses on womenin the built environment. It critiques the major builtenvironment education programs in Britain, the United Statesand Canada, from a feminist art teacher's perspective,showing, with one minor exception, that the spatial andstructural needs of women are not taken into account; itpresents an overview of the literature concerning women in thebuilt environment; and finally, it demonstrates how community-based women-centred initiatives and issues, as documented inthe literature, can, and should be incorporated into builtenvironment elementary and secondary school programs.The principal argument of this dissertation is that thebuilt environment exists predominantly as the expression of anensconced and inequitable social order. As such, the builtenvironment has resulted, and continues to result in theoppression and subordination of women. By not including thespatial and structural needs of women, within a community-based curriculum, and thereby denying the specialcircumstances of female students, most built environmenteducation programs reproduce and entrench these exclusionarypractices.iiiTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT ^  iiTABLE OF CONTENTS^  iiiI. INTRODUCTION  ^11.1 Personal Introduction/Ground  ^11.2 Background to the Study  ^41.3 Feminism  ^81.4 Research Questions ^  131.5 Description of Terms  151.6 Background Information  181.7 Methodology ^  261.8 Outline of Chapters ^  29II. BACKGROUND, CRITICS AND PROGRAMS IN BUILTENVIRONMENT EDUCATION  312.1 Background: The origins of built environmenteducation^  31Britain  31Environmental education^  33Development of urban studies ^  36United States^  40Canada ^  432.2 Critics Voices: Problems and Possibilities. .^46Conceptions of art teachers and subjectmatter  46Advocacy and activism issues ^  552.3 Description and Discussion of Programs^ 60Programs in Britain^  61Front Door Project  61Art and the Built Environment Project (ABE). .^62Design Education Unit  63Royal Institute of British Architects(RIBA) Architects-In-Schools Program ^ 64Building Experiences Trust (BET)  65Built Environment Education Project (BEEP) .^66Programs in the United States^  67GEE! (Group for Environmental Education) .^67Architects-in-Schools Program  68Foundation for Architecture, ArchitectureIn Education (AIE) ^  69Built Environment Education Program (BEEP) .^70American Institute of Architects (AIA):Learning by Design  71Architecture + Children^  72Institute for Environmental Education^ 73Center for City Building Education  74Center for Environmental Design Education. .^75Center for Understanding the BuiltEnvironment (CUBE) ^  76ivThe Architectural Awareness Project forBuffalo (TAAP) ^  77Project Archi-Teacher^  78Textbooks and a conference ^  79Programs in Canada  81Heritage Canada^  81Ministere des Affaires culturelles ^ 82Centre d'interpretation de la vie urbainede la Ville de Quebec^  83Archibus Quebec^  84Vancouver Environmental Education Project(VEEP) ^  85School District No. 42(Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows) ^  86Architectural Institute of British Columbia(AIBC) ^  87Heritage in Education^  88Canadian Publications  89Summary of Built Environment EducationPrograms ^  902.4 Overview of Built Environment Education ^ 91Shared program characteristics ^  91Program omissions ^  94Goals^  97Strategies ^  99Visibility of women in built environmenteducation  1012.5 Conclusion  104III. FEMINIST DISCOURSE ABOUT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT:AN OVERVIEW ^  1063.1 Introduction  1063.2 Guidelines for Feminist Analysis and Research . ^ 1093.3 Women and the Built Environment ^  114Spatial and Structural Discrimination^ 114Female as full-time housewife; maleas breadwinner ^  114Zoning and building regulations^  117Housing^  117Transit  120Public space ^  121Spatial and Structural Priorities^ 125General issues  125Housing^  127Childcare  128Children's issues^  129Park safety  130Support services  130The non-sexist, androgenous city ^ 131Summary^  1323.4 Women in Architecture and Planning  134Why so few women architects,^   134Historical discrimination^  136Schools of architecture  139Planning ^  141Women's structures, women's visions^ 144Planning  154Feminist research in aesthetics,art/architecture criticism, history andproduction ^  155Summary  1583.5 Feminist Advocacy and Activism ^  159Britain  160United States^  162Canada ^  165Conclusion Chapter 3 ^  171IV. CONCLUSION: THE INTEGRATION OF FEMINIST DISCOURSEIN BUILT ENVIRONMENT EDUCATION  1754.1 Feminist Pedagogies: Implications for Practice. ^ 178Feminist collaboration in a built environmenteducation program^  178The role of feminist art teachers ^ 180The role of feminist architects and planners . ^ 181The role of feminist community women  182Obstacles in the inclusion of a feministperspective^  1864.2 Feminist Pedagogies: Implications for Theory. . ^ 1894.3 Feminist Pedagogies: Implications for Research. ^ 1934.4 Prospects: Art Education Committed toCultural Diversity and Individual Rights .^. 1944.5 Conclusion ^  196REFERENCES ^  2011CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.1: Personal Introduction/GroundI am a white, post-middle age art teacher of workingclass origin. I am also a self-defined feminist who is awareof the complexities and problems of such a label. I callmyself a feminist because I assert that patriarchal spatialand structural creations subordinate women and othermarginalized populations. I contend that community-basedwomen-centred initiatives and issues concerning women and thebuilt environment as documented in Canadian, American andBritish literature must become the integral framework forconstructing built environment education programs.I straddle two worlds. In one world, I am active invarious women's communities focusing much of my energies onwomen's relationship to the built environment. Through myactive involvement, I experience first-hand the important workcarried out by women's groups in Vancouver, British Columbia,such as Women in Search of Housing Society (WISHS), Women inHousing, Women in Architecture, and Women in Planning, all ofwhich are struggling to define and gain a rightful place forwomen in the built environment. In my other world as an artteacher who focuses on built environment education, I visitschools and observe teachers involved in built environmentactivities, or I study documents relating to built environmenteducation in Canada, the United States and Britain.2In my experience, these two worlds are vastly separated:there is no connection between built environment education andwomen's struggles to appropriate space in the physicalenvironment. I came to recognize this problem when I startedsearching for information within built environment educationprograms that related to my reading and research on women'sstruggles in the built environment and to my work with women'scommunity groups.In my work with WISHS I witness the anger, frustrationand hopelessness experienced by mature women who do not haveadequate access to urban spaces and structures, for instance,something as basic as proper housing. These women, along withmost other older women, live far below the poverty level andtherefore experience a sense of alienation, dependency andpowerlessness in the settings of their every day lives. Thisdisempowerment is also felt spatially. The danger anddifficulty that members of WISHS experience in public spacesis clearly evident when the women discuss the problems theyhave attending meetings or other events. Many will notventure out after dark unless accompanied by another person.The built environment is not theirs to inhabit in a positivelight: as women grow older they are more and moredisenfranchised.Women's struggles in the built environment and builtenvironment school programs are, after all, both concernedwith urban spaces and structures, but no link seems to exist3between the two. Inevitably I realized how disengaged andsegregated most built environment school programs are from thereal world of women's community struggles. This led to theunderstanding that built environment education should includewomen's design concerns and concurrently, the study ofcommunity-based women-centred initiatives. The adult lives ofmost female students will be directly affected by theirability or inability to appropriate spaces and structures.This crucial fact should not be neglected by built environmentstudies. Female students should be sensitized to their futureneeds and challenges. Communicating women's experiences andcontributions to female students must be a responsibility ofbuilt environment education since knowledge is the first steptowards autonomy.If built environment education is not anchored inrelations connecting it with women's struggles in the builtenvironment (here I use some of Dorothy Smith's [1987]sagacious words), if it is "not articulated in relationscreating linkages outside and beyond the ruling apparatus" (p.225), the process becomes an "alienated mode of knowingsociety" (p. 224) expressing the standpoint of the dominantclass and perpetuating the oppression of women. Thus, thisdissertation critiques built environment education programsfrom a feminist art educator's perspective, with the objectiveof problematizing the lack of connection between community-based women's issues in the built environment and built4environment education programs. My assumptions are based onthe belief that women, of differing class, ethnicity, age,sexual orientation, or level of (dis)ability, must have theopportunity to live autonomously and productively in the builtenvironment. I argue that built environment educationprograms should focus on efforts being undertaken by women-centred communities to appropriate space. If access to spaceis related to status and power, then change in appropriationof space could result in change in society (Weisman, 1992).Although this study is a feminist critique, it isdifficult to situate myself firmly within a particularfeminism. Since radical feminism (which has always enticedme, along with an eclectic mixture that recognizes issues ofclass and ethnicity) is being disputed by other feminisms, itis troublesome to admit my identification with it because Iperceive its shortcomings. For example, initially, it did notinclude issues of class and ethnicity. The many critiquesagainst it, in all its various and complex forms, have raisednumerous and valid philosophical questions. Despite thecritiques, I believe that women, in all our diversity, mustwork together, apart from men, at least at some level of ourlives, in order to reclaim a history and a culture, andthereby, an identity. This process, whatever the label, hasbeen my mainstay over the past thirty five years.1.2: Background to the StudyThis study deals with Canadian, American and British5built environment education programs designed for elementaryand secondary schools and teacher education between 1966 and1992. Most of my commentary can be applied generally to allthese levels because program design does not vary radicallyfrom grade level to grade level. The particular programs wereselected for discussion and analysis because they have gainedstatus and popularity in the world of art education in WesternEnglish-speaking countries. As a result of the energeticefforts of program organizers, thousands of teachers use theseprograms. Some of the programs themselves are easilyaccessible in book or kit form. Teachers are made aware ofprograms through newsletters, advertisements in journals,manuals, booklets, brochures, posters and the like, as well asworkshops, and sometimes conferences.It is not possible to explore all the factors whichimpinge upon a feminist view of the built environment.Scholars are in the process of exploring this field, and thuscontinuing to influence its development. However, there canbe little doubt that the apertures through which many womenview the built environment differ from those through whichmany men view it (see Franck, 1989). How much of thisdifference in perception is based on bio-functional andanatomical differences? (see Erikson, 1963, 1972). Does thefeminine concept of the relation between environment andpeople differ from the masculine because of women's assignedrole as child-bearer and their societally assigned role as6child nurturer? How much of the difference in perceptioncould be due to women's isolation from the sources of socialand institutional power? In other words, how much of thecounter-modelling women develop is traceable to theirexperiences as women?These questions re-introduce the circuitous nature-versus-nurture (inheritance versus conditioning) argument andalthough they deserve examination they may represent anunresolvable dichotomy. While women's needs in design are nowbeing defined, the framing of a women's aesthetic remainsspeculative. It cannot be pragmatically proven that elementsof "connectedness" (the combining of private and public space)and "inclusiveness" are inherently female, or thatarchitecture and urban design will reflect these values whenand if women are equally represented in the professions(Nelson, 1993c). But the possibility exists. Furthermore, itneeds to be recognized that male-centred models have reachedthe limits of their social relevance.These issues, however important, are beyond the purviewof this study, which is based upon the premise that builtenvironment education needs to be about the struggle for humanjustice and social transformation, and that for many studentsthis can be understood through feminist practices, that is,through inclusive visions of communities. Like much ofWestern education, built environment education has a narrowly-defined vision reflecting dominant patriarchal values. Thus7it obscures vast areas relating directly to the lives of amajority of students. The integration of women's experiencesand contributions cannot be overemphasized given the profoundimpact the built environment has on people's lives.The principal argument of this dissertation is that thebuilt environment must be understood as playing a key role inthe subordination and subjugation of women. Othermarginalized groups are also subordinated within the builtenvironment, however the scope of this study is centred onplanning and design issues concerning women. This study showsthat by not including the spatial and structural needs ofwomen and thereby denying the special circumstances of femalestudents, and by not emphasizing that curriculum be community-based, most built environment education programs reproduce andentrench exclusionary practices.The conceptual framework of my analysis is based on thenotion that spaces and structures are socially created andthat their arrangements reflect and support the formation ofgender, race, age, and class relationships. In particular,the conceptualizations in the works of Dolores Hayden (1986)and Leslie Kanes Weisman (1992) have informed this analysis.Both women argue that architecture exists fundamentally as theidiom of an established social order. Both assert thatpatriarchy constructs an architecture of exclusion. They alsoargue that some women design and evaluate structures andspaces with values and concerns different from those of men8(for example, that women are more socially oriented). Theirview is that if new ideas are to be implemented, theconceptual disadvantage created by ensconced social andarchitectural practices must first be acknowledged andovercome. Hayden and Weisman assert that within the socialcontext of built space, feminist criticism and activism have akey role to play in challenging forms and values embodied inthe man-made environment and supporting transformation of thesexist and racist conditions which have shaped the builtenvironment and our experiences within it.1:3 Feminism"Feminism" encompasses a range of discourses andpractices committed to the political, economic and socialequality of women and to a doctrine of social transformationwhich aspires to establish a world for women beyondrudimentary equality (Humm, 1992). Feminism can be seen as adiverse collection of movements which attempt to gain powerfor women in sexual and economic spheres through politicalexpression. Feminism identifies and opposes the ways in whichpatriarchal culture oppresses women on many levels: physical,sexual, interpersonal, social, political, legal, economic,artistic, and educational.Feminist scholarship and theory began predominantly as acriticism of patriarchy and challenged dominant white maleperspectives (Hume, 1992). As a reaction to the conflicts andcomplexities in women's lives, early feminist scholarship9amassed, analyzed and contextualized these experiences andexplicated the social processes which constructed them.Feminist scholarship is now in a difficult but exciting phase;its perspectives and techniques for critical evaluation andanalysis are many, and there is thus no single, overridingfeminist worldview. For instance, some forms of feminism areviewed as limited because they do not adequately reflect thecomplexities of women's lives and the multiple strategiesrequired to bring about change (cf. Hennessy, 1993; Spelman,1988). Despite the flux in feminist perspectives, thefollowing feminist schools of thought have been conventionallyidentified as liberal, radical, socialist, and postmodern.During the late 1950s and early 1960s, women's greaterentry into the labour force produced a liberal feminism (see,for example, Friedan, 1963) which advocated legal equalitybetween the sexes, equal employment opportunities and equalpay for equal work within the capitalist system. Thus, mostliberal feminists reject radical alterations in social andpolitical institutions to achieve complete equality (Kramarae& Treichler, 1985; MacKenzie, 1984; Warren, 1980).Other feminists argued that the "equal rights" of liberalfeminists were conceived mainly in the public sphere and hadlittle relationship to the overlapping of women's public andprivate worlds. For most working-class women, "employmentopportunities" meant earning low wages and enduring financialinsecurity in female job ghettos. This was coupled with a10second shift of demanding domestic work in their own homes.As these facts became apparent, two major streams of feministthought arose: radical and socialist feminism (MacKenzie,1984).Radical feminists argue that conflict between women andmen is the principal historical and social conflict, one whichhas psychological roots reinforced by social practice (Koedt,Levine, & Rapone, 1973; MacKenzie, 1984). Radical feministanalysis is centred on understanding the creation andperpetuation of the concept of gender as an oppressive force.Radical feminists struggle against male power and the socialinstitutions which reproduce and reinforce it. Althoughradical feminism has evolved into a number of forms since the1970s (cf. Daly, 1978, 1992; Hawk, 1979; Rich, 1980; Walker,1983), traditionally, it focuses on the roots of maledomination, claiming that all forms of oppression areextensions of male supremacy, with patriarchy the definingcharacteristic of society. The central thesis of radicalfeminism is the belief that the personal is political (aphrase now taken up by all feminisms) and that woman-centredness can be the basis of a future society (Humm, 1990).Radical feminism contributes to feminist theory in severalways. For example, it brings into focus the gender-basedstructure of society, reconceptualizes reality from a feministstandpoint, develops woman-positive cultural institutions thatgenerate social change, and reveals the masculine bias of1 1traditional knowledge and traditional political theory (Humm,1990).In contrast to radical feminism, socialist feminists(whose ideas grew out of Marxist feminism), argue that theemphasis on gender oppression confines or restricts thequestion of women's oppression to a psychological orbiological level. They assert that radical feminist analysisoverlooks the relation of gender oppression to other forms ofoppression based on class, ethnicity, age, and sexualorientation, which many women sense simultaneously (Harding,1987; Hartsock, 1979; Mackenzie, 1984; Mitchell, 1984;Rowbotham, 1979). They contend that their analysis arises outof an attempt to broaden theories of social change in thematerialist tradition by focusing on the institutions andsocial practices of capitalism (Mackenzie, 1984). "Politicalstrategy is directed at collective confrontation with theseinstitutions and practices in such a way as to challenge thecapitalist system as a whole, and set in motion a transitiontoward a non-sexist socialism" (MacKenzie, 1984, p. 5).Recent socialist feminist theory (for example, Hennessy,1993; Hirsch & Keller, 1990; Spelman, 1988) argues that theterm "woman" is problematic since women do not constitute ahomogeneous group and do not share the same experiences andmaterial conditions. In any inquiry involving women equalattention needs to be paid to class, ethnicity, age, sexualorientation, and (dis)ability. This approach affirms both the12diversity of women and the relationship between genderoppression and other forms of oppression, which cannot beseparated in the experiences of many women. The connectionsbetween these variables are the subject of ongoing debatewithin feminist circles (see, for example, Humm, 1992).Postmodern feminism, a complex, eclectic movement, raisesquestions regarding the notion of women as a universalconstruct (Spelman, 1988); engages in self-criticism(Nicholson, 1990; Roman, 1992); attempts to refine feministconcepts (Nicholson, 1990); claims that nature is constructed,not discovered (Haraway, 1991); and examines the unequalfemale/male power balance within textual discourse (Smith,1987). Modlescki (1991) argues that much of postmodernfeminism with its repudiation of reality as a social construct(this includes women's reality) undermines the goals oftraditional feminism, that is, that much of postmodernfeminism negates the critiques and theories of traditionalfeminism thus delivering feminism back to a pre-feministworld. Each form of feminism has its own politics forconstructing research problems and its own purpose inanalyzing data, and although the literature points to afundamental incompatibility among the divergent feminisms, itcould be argued that they share an ultimate purpose, namely acommitment to women's equality and to an ideology of socialtransformation.The implications of the different feminisms for built13environment education programs mean that educators will haveto be aware that feminism evolves into progressively newidentities of "woman" and that they (educators) may be movingfrom one "feminism" to another: from the first wave which isprincipally concerned with equality in the material sense, tothe second wave which uses women's differences to oppose apatriarchal world (Humm, 1992). And although fundamentallyincompatible, educators can utilize strategies from among thedifferent strands of feminism. For example, from liberalfeminism educators can incorporate the traditional emphasis onequal opportunities (more women in architecture, planning,construction, engineering, etc.), the importance of femalerole models, and the necessity of gender sensitive language.From socialist feminism they can include a recognition ofissues associated with class and race (the "ghetto greening"concept). From radical feminism, they can integrate women'sways of knowing and seeing; the creation of a distinct women'shistory and culture; and the conception of a woman-basedsociety for survival. And from postmodern feminism, they canintroduce the theory/perception of dominant/subordinatediscourse and the argument that subjectivity is ultimate.1.4: Research Questions The fundamental assumption that a feminist-based builtenvironment program educates all students to honour humandifferences and to recognize their capacity for communityaction, is grounded in the literature that focuses on women14and the built environment. If the literature were synthesizedand used to help formulate a feminist-based built environmenteducation program, two key overlapping principles wouldemerge: an emphasis on the diversity of women which leads toself-understanding and determination, and a community-basedapproach which stresses strong civic involvement to transformsocial relations of power. To facilitate the process ofrestructuring built environment education these principleswill need to be incorporated.Thus the primary research questions are:1. Do existing built environment education programs inBritain, the United States and Canada represent women inways that recognize diversity in class, ethnicity, age,sexual orientation, and (dis)ability?2. Are existing built environment education programscommunity based, and do they emphasize active publicparticipation?3. What are the major themes in feminist discourseconcerning the built environment?4. What are the implications, problems and prospects for afeminist-based built environment education?Six "descriptors" serve to characterize whether or notprograms represent women's diversity and if programs arecommunity based: "stated and described", "stated", "stated butvague", "implied", "vague", and "not apparent". The rationalefor the selection of six descriptors derives from the need to15present a range of responses. In other words, the sixcategories describe the extent to which programs respond, to agreater or lesser degree, to the questions asked of them.1:5 Description of Terms In this study, the terms "built environment","architecture" and "urban structure" are used broadly andinterchangeably, to include the design, construction andexistence of buildings and communities. "Architecture" alsorefers to the profession of designing buildings andcommunities. The terms "planning" and "environmental design"refer to the planning and design of communities and theprofession of planning and designing communities.The phrase "spatial and structural needs of women" refersto women's priorities in the built environment in regards tourban spaces and structures. The words "spatial andstructural" are concrete concepts used in the field of design.In this study I intersperse the "spatial and structural needsof women" with sociological values and synthesize them into anew theory of design and concern.The term "gender" in the study signifies a historicalconstruction, a definition of the social and physicalcapabilities and appropriate activities of women and men, andof the nature of femininity and masculinity at any point intime. The gender category "woman" or "man" is formed andreproduced through the activities of women and men, and isaltered as they alter their activities (Klodawsky & Mackenzie,161987). Gender is thus socially constituted and historicallyalterable; "sex", on the other hand, is defined by biologicaldifferences. Butler (1990) and Haraway (1992) argue that"sex" refers to the woman/man contrast, whereas gender couldand does refer as much to woman/woman contrasts and not abinary woman/man contrast. Butler (1990) goes so far as toargue that not only are there no true gender differentiationsbut that we should not assume that there are biologicallydefined sexes. She critiques the notion of fixed genderidentities said to be rooted in nature, bodies, or compulsoryheterosexuality. Instead, a number of different options forhuman behaviour, a "gender-blending", should be recognized.The phrase "gender-equitable curriculum" refers to aremedial approach to conventional curriculum which compensatesfor the traditional Anglo-Saxon, middle-class, male-centredapproach to the choice of subject matter, the selection andprocessing of data and their interpretation (Eyre, 1989).Bryson and de Castell (in press) argue that such a curriculumwould analyze "gender" and the categories of "woman" and "man"as expressions of inequitable socio-political arrangements,and would attempt to clarify the ways in which traditionalmainstream curricula entrench that inequality.The concept of equity (or equitability) faces majorphilosophical hurdles before it can be accepted because itcounters three icons of Western thought: individuality, merit,and equality. It is ahistorical and even hypocritical to17invoke individuality in arguing against equity preciselybecause women and certain minorities have for so long beentreated, not as individuals, but as a group. The concept ofmerit assumes that people start out with the sameopportunities which they can then exploit to the limit oftheir capability. Obviously, members of groups that have beendiscriminated against or oppressed cannot, as a group, haveacquired the same degree of competence as the dominant membersof society. Therefore, they require special compensatorytreatment. Just as important in the consideration of meritis, whose standards are being used? Historically, dominantsocietal groups define competence and merit in terms of theirown attributes and outlooks, a process which confirms andtends to maintain their position of dominance. Raising thepoint about equality is also ahistorical and impractical. Itassumes that people start the race from the same point andwithout imposed handicaps.In brief, because gender-equitable curriculum iscompensatory, it cannot be "equal". It recognizes thehistorical unequal treatment of the sexes and marginalizedgroups. It acknowledges that women have not been dealt withon the basis of individual potential or merit, but as a group,and therefore it compensates them as a group, while at thesame time, recognizing their diversity. According to Kenwayand Modra (1992) and Lather (1991), a gender equitablecurriculum is characterized by negotiation and reciprocity18allowing students to recognize their capability for action,and to thereby gain a sense of self-understanding and esteem."Feminist pedagogy" attempts to subvert genderedclassroom interaction, to bring different voices intoeducational settings, and to implement a non-racist approach(Luke & Gore, 1992). Within the postmodern oxymoron, feministpedagogy advocates an educational style which would freestudents from hierarchical constraints. As a critique ofcultural authority it advocates self-definition and self-determination. It probes "below hegemonic meaning systems toproduce counter-hegemonic knowledge, knowledge intended tochallenge dominant meaning systems" (Lather, 1991, p. 129).Emancipatory education has important implications for womenand others involved in unequal power relations (Lather, 1991).An emancipatory classroom contests and re-configuresdifferences in class, sexuality, and ability (Luke & Gore,1992). Luke and Gore (1992) argue that not only do we need tochallenge inequality in the classroom, but we need to movebeyond classroom practice and contest the foundations uponwhich society is built.1.6: Background InformationArchitecture and environmental design have a place in arteducation. In 1982, 32 percent of American elementary schoolteachers, 29 percent of junior high school teachers and 22percent of senior high school teachers included a unit onarchitecture (Chapman, 1982). "Built environment education",19as it became known, has strong advocates. Laura Chapman(1978), a prominent art educator, asserts that in terms ofdaily lifelong impact on the quality of living, architectureand environmental design are among the most important artforms to be considered in the education of young people. AlanSandler (1989), Director of Education Programs for theAmerican Institute of Architects, reinforces Chapman's claim,stating that architecture is one of the most important forcesaffecting the environment and that "no other art form socompletely pervades our daily lives" (p. 13). David Baker(1988), former editor of School Arts, stresses the criticalneed for teachers to give attention to architecture andenvironmental design and to address architectural issuesbecause "dwellings and . . . environments affect not only ourdisposition, but also our social behaviour, energy andconceptual growth and development" (p. 4). Chapman (1978)sums up this perspective by declaring that "in few other artforms is the problem of encouraging awareness so acute or theneed for thoughtful response greater" (p. 339).Despite the above views, built environment education aspart of art education seldom strongly encourages awareness orthoughtful response to social concerns associated witharchitecture and environmental design, concentrating insteadon styles and aesthetics (Neperud, 1991). Those few programswhich integrate design elements with social concerns rarelyaccord priority to the latter. Some art educators may,20consciously or subconsciously, reinforce the notion that builtenvironment studies should avoid social concerns andconcentrate solely on styles and aesthetics (Avery, 1989).According to art educator Stuart Richmond (1990), "overtlysocial and political concerns can be addressed in socialstudies" (p. 10). But social concerns cannot remainunconnected from design decisions. Political and economicforces form the matrix out of which design decisions are made.Social concerns arise from the consequences of thosedecisions.Canadian visual arts curriculum guides that includeaspects of social issues associated with the built environmenttreat the issues superficially. The Ontario Ministry ofEducation's Visual Arts Guide for Teachers of Primary andJunior Divisions (1985) recommends a three-dimensionalconstruction activity that explores ways to reduce pollutionthrough vehicle design. Students are asked to designpractical and responsible vehicles, but they do not discusswhy polluting cars continue to be manufactured or whatpolitical steps could stop their manufacture. In theintermediate and senior's divisions 1990 Viewing Art Resource Guide a lesson on architecture recommends that students designtheir own public building and develop an understanding of theaesthetic need for a successful marriage between the buildingand the site, while ignoring the political and social natureof public buildings and who it is that designs most public21buildings.The Quebec curriculum guide for secondary schools, Visual Art, General Education (Volume II), 1988, includes anextensive section on Quebec's architectural heritage, somecomments on its modern architecture and some architecturalhistory. An attempt is made to link historical andcontemporary issues with architecture. Contemporary issueshowever, are treated superficially, for instance, whendiscussing suburban development the guide states:The American-style bedroom suburbs which sprawl aroundcities and towns bear witness to the desire of everyfamily to have its own home: a house "with all the modernconveniences" and a bit of green space around it,providing everyone with a place he [sic] can call his[sic] own.Living in the suburbs often involves a good deal oftravelling -- commuting to work or school and driving torecreational facilities and shopping centres -- in orderto maintain the purely residential character of thesuburb. It is almost essential for a family to have atleast one automobile if the train station or bus stop isfar from their house or if the area has no publictransportation.^(p. 39)It goes on to state that the modern suburb has led to acertain uniformity in housing and that "this homogeneityleaves little room for originality except in interior22decoration and landscaping, where the tastes and imaginationof the occupants can have free rein" (p. 39). There is nomention that the suburban single family dwelling is out ofreach for most low-income people, most of whom are women; thatit makes grossly inefficient use of natural (and human)resources; that it is usually situated inconveniently awayfrom paid work, public services and transit; and that itisolates women who do not have a car. There is also nomention that suburban development misguidedly assumes thateveryone belongs to a nuclear family. No social issues areincluded in the units' objectives, which include "to name somemodern architects and their work"; "to describe thecharacteristics of these works"; and "to compare . . . thecharacteristics of modern architecture with those oftraditional architecture" (p. 146). Examples relating to theobjectives are strictly stylistic. No women are mentionedamong the several examples of architects and their work.The only statement in British Columbia's Elementary Fine Arts Curriculum Guide (B.C. Ministry of Education, 1985) thattouches on a social issue associated with the builtenvironment is the suggestion that students "describe whatdifferent buildings are used for and how they make you feel"(p. 57). The guide also suggests that students question "ifsome buildings are old and wrinkled" (p. 57). For lessonenrichment, it recommends that students "relate facades ofbuildings to faces" (p. 57). The guide does not explain why23it suggests these trivial pursuits (nor does it state why itdenigrates old age). In the Secondary Art Guide (B.C.Ministry of Education, 1983), the only mention of a socialissue is the suggestion that students "recognize the role ofsculpture in today's consumer society in the areas ofarchitecture" (p. 168). There is no elaboration of thisconfusing recommendation.However, the British Columbia Secondary Art MediaResources Guide (1983), which provides information on films,videotapes and other teaching aids for the secondary artcurriculum, integrates some social issues. Within the themeentitled, "Main Street and the Built Environment", recommendedvideo tapes investigate harmonious, functional human shelter,examine if buildings have been designed for human needs, andexplore the question of what contributes to well-planned,attractive spaces for community living. But how many teachershave ordered these tapes? And why are these issues notmentioned in the guides themselves?Since social issues in the built environment are notgiven priority in the elementary or secondary art guides ofBritish Columbia, no forum exists for exploring one of themajor social issues in current education debate: gender andsexual discrimination. Eliminating gender and sexual bias inbuilt environment education entails (a) stressing women'sdiversity and discussing their spatial and structuralconcerns, (b) incorporating a feminist perspective in24historical and contemporary architectural and planningstudies, (c) introducing women architects and planners andpresenting their design and planning contributions, and (d)producing non-sexist models of communities utilizingcommunity-based women-centred initiatives as teachingexamples. Although the issue of gender is acknowledged inBritish Columbia's Year 2000, the 1989 curriculum draft doesnot delineate it in the visual arts section of the fine artsstrand.There are no Canadian art textbooks that integratewomen's spatial and structural issues. American art educationtextbooks dealing with the built environment also fail tomention women's design concerns (see for example, Approaches to Art in Education [Chapman, 1978] and Art, Culture andEnvironment [McFee & Degge, 1980]). To date, art educationjournals have not run articles on women's spatialperspectives. Moreover, there are no examples where teachereducation or inservice programs have integrated the issues.A strong feminist movement does exist however toeradicate gender bias in education. In Canada the movementstarted in the early 1970s when women's groups at the federal,provincial and local levels addressed the problem of sexism ineducation. In 1971, the British Columbia Teachers' Federation(BCTF) began a two year study on the status of women ineducation. The investigations revealed a problem seriousenough to warrant the institution of a BCTF Status of Women25program. At the provincial level, an Advisory Committee onSex Discrimination in Education was set up, and the Departmentof Education created a position to address issues related tosexism. In 1975 the United Nations declared InternationalWomen's Year and numerous women's groups and nationalorganizations were asked by the Federal Government toparticipate in planning Canadian activities. The involvementand concern of the BCTF, the Ministry of Education and theFederal Government helped to create an awareness of the needfor Canadian-produced, non-sexist curricular material forclassroom use (Hurst, Pedersen, Shuto, 1981).Feminist revisionism has attempted to enter art education(cf. Garber, 1990; Hagaman, 1990; Hicks, 1990). Two feministart educators, Georgia Collins and Renee Sandell (1984),focused on gender-related biases in art education in WomenArt, and Education. One of the more scholarly art educationjournals, Studies in Art Education, devoted an entire editionto gender-related issues (Volume 32, Issue 1, Fall, 1990). Asfar back as 1974, women art educators founded the Women'sCaucus of the National Art Education Association (NAEA). Anofficial position statement, adopted in 1976, declares that"The National Art Education Association's Women's Caucusexists to eradicate sexual discrimination in all areas of arteducation and to support women art educators in theirprofessional endeavours" (Collins & Sandell, 1984, p. 128).The Women's Caucus began to hold its own program sessions at26the NAEA conventions in 1976. Presentations and workshopssince then have focused on stereotypes in art, women's historyand political issues, and women artists past and present. TheCanadian Society for Education Through Art Convention (1991)included a special symposium on women's issues in arteducation titled "Through Whose Eyes: Equity and Art Educationin Canada". Papers included topics on gender and imagery andfeminist teaching models and practices. Feminist efforts atrevisionism in art education have led the way toward afeminist critique of built environment education.It is within a feminist context that built environmenteducation programs are discussed in the next chapter. Doprograms recognize women's diversity and do they integrate thespatial and structural concerns of women? Do they includeexamples of community-based women-centred initiatives?Efforts to achieve integration will open a wide door of socialand ethical issues that challenge cultural assumptions aboutthe worth and appropriate treatment of women and marginalizedpeople.1.7: MethodologyThis study uses "analytical design", a qualitativeresearch design which, in contrast to experimental research,derives its descriptions and interpretations from acompilation of selected documents and/or oral testimonies(Coombs & Daniels, 1991; McMillan & Schumacher, 1989). Thepurpose of analytical design is to understand an event,27movement or problem, by careful detailed description andanalysis. The researcher identifies, studies, and thenstrictly synthesizes the data to provide an understanding ofevents that may not have been directly observable. Thisinformation is then carefully interpreted and an attempt ismade to provide explanations and clarification of thecollective educational meanings that may underlie currentpractices and issues (McMillan & Schumacher, 1989). In otherwords, analytical research seeks to provide concreteinterpretations of the concepts we use to formulate curricularstudies and programs. McMillan & Schumacher (1989) claim thatanalytical studies suggest generalizations, or syntheses of"facts", about events, and state explanations, orinterpretations of generalizations. Examples of analyticalresearch include concept analyses, concept interpretation,conception development, and conceptual structure assessment(Coombs & Daniels, 1991; McMillan & Schumacher, 1989).In the case of feminist critique, the researcher upholdsa value position while analyzing a concept. Thus thisparticular study commences from a feminist value positionwhich influences the methodology. However, given socialsciences' current need to assert itself as a legitimatescience (the demand for quantification is an example ofpositivist imperative in scholarship), some elaboration orlegitimization of the methodology used in this dissertation isnecessary. While self-corrective techniques which carefully28check the validity and reliability of data and minimize thedistorting effect of personal bias are necessary, as Lather(1991) states, censoring the subjective (in this case,feminist) aspect of methodology and interpretation can concealimportant qualitative aspects of phenomena.Feminist literature is pointing to problems andcontradictions implicit in any literal documentary analysis.According to Dorothy Smith (1987) those who insist on"scientific" objective data may be naive. Smith contends thatsince documents are constructed within institutionalframeworks, they must meet the expectations of thatinstitution, and therefore cannot be impartial. Documents arealso used to construct a particular reality which is thenaccorded the status of truth. Certain meanings areinstitutionally sanctioned, and certain texts that areintended to be critical or politically challenging aremitigated or "contained" by the institution in which they arehoused.Any document, for example an academic paper, or adoctoral dissertation, carries with it the values of theinstitution in which it is created. Progressive documentscreated within mainstream institutions reflect the inevitablecontradiction that is faced by the activist academic: beingensconced within the very paradigm in which change is sought.By the same token, because this present document is alsosituated within an institutional structure, it will29necessarily reflect the values of that institution in someway, and in doing so, cannot fully maintain its original,critical stance.In this study the sources related to built environmenteducation programs and women's spatial and structural issuesinclude books, journals, manuals, reports, newsletters,newspaper articles, brochures, theses, dissertations,curriculum guides, bibliographies, video tapes, posters,personal correspondence, and oral and written testimonies fromselect individuals.1.8: Outline of Chapters The study is divided into four chapters: Chapter I, therationale for the critique, discusses feminism, the researchquestions, description of terms, the background to theproblem, and the methodology.Chapter 2, "Background, Critics and Programs in BuiltEnvironment Education", is divided into four parts. It (a)offers background information on the origins of builtenvironment education; (b) discusses the concerns critics haveexpressed about this field; (c) describes 26 British, Americanand Canadian built environment education programs, questioningboth their representation of women and their capacity toencourage community action; and (d) reports major findings,drawing conclusions based on a critical feminist analysis.Chapter 3, "Feminist Discourse About the BuiltEnvironment: An Overview", scans a diverse range of literature3 0and classifies it under certain themes: (a) feministguidelines for research and analysis; (b) gender assumptionswhich contribute to women's subordination and alternativelywomen's spatial and structural priorities; (c) the position ofwomen in architecture and planning which encompasses thereasons behind the dearth of woman architects as well asfeminist approaches to planning and design; and (d) grass-roots and professional feminist advocacy and activism.Chapter 4, "Conclusion: The Integration of FeministDiscourse in Built Environment Education", focuses on feministpedagogy and its implications for practice, theory andresearch. It (a) explores the possibility of a collaborationof feminist art teachers, architects, planners, and communitywomen to develop a feminist-based program and addressespossible viewpoints that may be held by teachers who regardthe inclusion of women's spatial and structural issues asproblematic; (b) discusses the views some feminists holdregarding feminist pedagogy and its implications for theoryand practice; (c) explores its implications for research; and(d) offers a discourse on the affirmation of the rights ofstudents within art education, and explains how the inclusionof a feminist-based built environment program serves toactualize the potential for action of female and othermarginalized students.31CHAPTER 2BACKGROUND, CRITICS AND PROGRAMSIN BUILT ENVIRONMENT EDUCATIONThis chapter presents an overview of built environmenteducation in Britain, the United States and Canada. Itexamines background information relating to the origins ofbuilt environment education, considers the views of critics,evaluates, from a feminist perspective, the major programspast and present in the three countries, brings together thefindings, and discusses the hegemonic implications of builtenvironment education programs.2.1: Background: The Origins of Built Environment EducationBritain. Martin and Wheeler (1975) claim that theenvironmental education movement, forerunner of builtenvironment education, originated in nineteenth centuryBritain at a time when industrialization threatened toalienate women and men from nature. During this period themanufacturing of industrial materials, powered by steam,caused cities to grow at an unprecedented rate. By the mid1800s living conditions for the working classes in Britainwere deplorable. Patrick Geddes (1854-1933), a ScottishProfessor of Botany, began to focus on this urban crisis.Repelled by the horrors created by the industrial revolutionand displeased with school and university pedagogy, Geddescommitted himself to the improvement of both environment andeducation. In 1889 he established an urban study centre, the32Outlook Tower, in Edinburgh. He saw a close connectionbetween the quality of education and the quality ofenvironment, and argued that children brought into contactwith the profound realities of their environment would notonly improve academically, but would also develop a creativeattitude toward their surroundings. Human life could prosper,he posited, only if citizens turned their cities and townsinto beautiful and functional living places (Martin & Wheeler,1975). As early as 1910, as an "advocate planner", heexpressed the need for civic education and citizenparticipation in the design of the physical environment andclaimed that through citizen participation "the essentialharmony of all the interests involved in the city aresatisfied" (Antoniades, 1980, p. 176). Geddes was to becomeknown as the founding father of environmental education butafter his death his ideas were somewhat misrepresented bygroups focusing largely on rural conservation concerns (Martin& Wheeler, 1975).During the inter-war period, British educators JohnWilliam Adamson and Sir John Adams, along with American JohnDewey, perhaps under the influence of Friedrich Froebel, werepersuading British teachers that learning for young childrentook place through contact with the environment -- usingconcrete rather than abstract situations and fosteringobservations of the real world. George Joseph Cons' andCatherine Fletcher's book, Actuality in the School: An33Experiment in Social Education, (1938), dealt with bringingindividuals from the community into the classroom, so thatchildren could learn about their lives and their work. Thisapproach added a new dimension to the ideas about socialeducation and served to balance what had become the moredominant "nature" focus in environment studies (Martin &Wheeler, 1975).In Britain, the term "environmental studies" became partof an overall progressive teaching strategy advocated by thepost- 1945 teacher training colleges. No one at that time,however, foresaw environmental studies as a potential threatto capitalism. The late 1960s in Britain were crucial yearsfor the evolution of environmental education and marked thejoining together of the apolitical, naturalist practices ofenvironmental studies and the committed activism ofenvironmental education (Martin & Wheeler, 1975).Environmental education. During the 1940s conservationwas becoming a focus for British rural advocacy groups. TheNature Conservancy, instituted in 1949, recommended togovernment an educational policy to protect the countryside,and in 1958, the Council of Nature was formed to popularizethe problems of wildlife. In 1965, a conference held at theUniversity of Keele brought together for the first timerepresentatives of various academic disciplines concerned withlandscape, agriculture, forestry, and nature conservation. Itwas agreed that "environmental education" should "become an34essential part of the education of all citizens, not onlybecause of the importance of their understanding something oftheir environment but because of its immense educationalpotential in assisting the emergence of a scientificallyliterate nation" (Martin & Wheeler, 1975, p. 7).Another conference was held in 1968 at the City ofLeicester College of Education, with the goal of bringingtogether teachers interested in developing environmentalstudies in schools and colleges. The environmental problemsthat today are recognized as critical, had then not receivedglobal recognition, and participants came looking backwards torural conservation rather than forward to the environmentalproblems in the world around them. Even though the guestspeaker promoted environmental studies as the mostrevolutionary form of educational study within living memory,the focus was on method, using the environment as a tool orstarting point to teach other subjects, rather than as subjectmatter itself. The conference did however recommend theformation of a Society for Environmental Education (SEE) towork towards teaching for the improvement of the environment(Martin & Wheeler, 1975).Identifying the exact nature of environmental education'srelationship to environmental studies and academic disciplineswas difficult at the time. Some of this confusion came fromthe tendency of academics in various disciplines to assign theword "environmental" to their own subject, whether it was35ecology, geography, architecture, or rural studies. Somestressed the educational value of using the biological andphysical environment as a basis for studies, while others wereconcerned with the need to promote a sense of personalresponsibility for the environment. The use of the term"environmental studies" as a synonym for environmentaleducation, or to describe a method of study within particulardisciplines, and also as the name of a new and developingsubject in its own right, further contributed to the confusion(Carson, 1978; Martin & Wheeler, 1975).The year 1968 is regarded as the time when the concept ofenvironmental education made its first real impact on thethinking of teachers. In 1970, the British Schools Councildeveloped "Project Environment" to investigate therelationship between rural studies and environmentaleducation. From 1968 to 1970, the number of environmentalstudies courses in colleges almost doubled. By 1971 theenvironmental education movement had gained momentum and thefield of geography was now changing its focus from the man-land relationship to the techniques of "spatial analysis". Asteachers started to teach environmental studies, geographersdeveloped techniques for teaching about the human environment,such as simulation games, perception studies and issue-basedenquiries (Martin & Wheeler, 1975).The growth of the environmental education movement in the1960s was spurred on by what Max Nicholson (1970) more36generally called the "Environmental Revolution", which put anew emphasis on the concern for lives and landscapes.Ecologists and conservationists formed the strongest pressuregroups, but were quickly joined by economists like J. K.Galbraith who raised the question of why some societiesenjoyed so much private wealth in the midst of public squalor.In Britain, the first publication to popularize the concept of"environmental quality" in urban areas was Colin Buchanan's1964 report, Traffic in Towns (Martin & Wheeler, 1975).Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) had also been influentialin both Britain and North America. In the United States, Anneand Paul Ehrlich (1970) and Barry Commoner (1970), wereintroducing ecology as a buzz word in the environmentaldebate.Development of urban studies. During World War II, theimprovement of living standards for the vast working classbecame a major concern of the British public. Urban planningbecame not only an administrative activity but also apolitical activity when the prospects for post-warreconstruction reached expression in the Town and CountryPlanning Act of 1947. As planning legislation increased andas planners exercised increased control over the environment,conflict at both local and national levels intensified (Martin& Wheeler, 1975). This intensification, plus the developmentof urban studies, which came about during the late sixties inBritain when the environmental revolution took a new twist,37became major influences on built environment education.Due to the unpopularity of decisions made by planners,especially around unwanted urban developments, it becameevident that planning was not operating in accord withdemocratic procedures. In 1969, the Government published theSkeffington Report, People and Planning, which recommendedcreating structures for public participation in planning andthe teaching of planning in schools. It states that:. education about town planning should be 'part ofthe way in which all secondary schools make childrenconscious of their future civic duties', that it shouldbe 'part of their liberal and civic studies within placesof further education', and that the training of teachersshould include 'a similar emphasis on civic studies,including the philosophy of town and country planning.'(Adams & Ward, 1982, p. 13)In 1970 the Department of Environment was created and theword "environment" was expanded to include not only thenatural but also the "built" environment. With thepublication of the Skeffington Report, the "revolution" becamea search to find methods of involving the working class inquestions of environmental policy. A new urban-proletariatinfluence, having its origins in the thinking of Geddes,Kropotkin and Marx, emerged (Martin and Wheeler, 1975).The next important educational development in Britain,was what Martin and Wheeler (1975) called "education for38environmental participation" a step which perhaps had thegreatest influence on the formation of built environmenteducation. This development occurred when the Town andCountry Planning Association (TCPA), a voluntary environmentalpressure group, appointed two teachers, Colin Ward and AnthonyFyson, to initiate an education unit. Before training asteachers, Ward had been involved in architecture, had editedenvironmental journals, and had written several books on urbanenvironmental concerns; Fyson had studied geography at Oxfordand had been involved in town planning. Both men reflectedthe values of a radical populist culture which had started totake hold in the late sixties. It was their belief that theTCPA's role should be to promote education for communitycontrol of the environment and that the skills to manage theenvironment be accessible to all people and not only to anarticulate minority. Under the rubric of "streetwork" (seeWard & Fyson, 1973), they advocated an "issue-based" or"problem-oriented" approach to the environment, and developedtechniques and facilities, including town trails, simulationgames and urban studies centres, for active environmentallearning.The TCPA Education Unit met three objectives: itpublished a monthly Bulletin of Environmental Education (BEE),established town trails in urban areas, and campaigned for thesetting up of urban study centres. These activities weremotivated by the work of Patrick Geddes, up-dating and39focusing on his concept of education for citizenship andduplicating his idea of the urban study centre. The radicaleducational philosophy of Paul Goodman and de-schooler, IvanIllich, was promoted as an educational strategy in the pagesof BEE (Martin & Wheeler, 1975).In May 1971, the first issue of BEE ran an article byMichael Storm titled "School and Community, an issue-basedapproach" which the TCPA Education Unit used as a "manifesto".Storm asserted that an issue-based curriculum would notresemble the courses then being called environmental studies,but rather that students in this new program would be moreinterested in advocacy/lobbying tactics and the mechanics ofenvironmental decision-making than with the recording ofexisting land use. Based on the educational recommendationsof the Skeffington Report and a conflict-centred curriculumfor environmental studies, the TCPA Education unit focused onunderstanding community issues in an urban context (Martin &Wheeler, 1975; Storm, 1971).BEE proved to be an influential medium for introducingplanning and architecture education into the schoolcurriculum. The views and trends expressed in BEE weresanctioned by the Government report on the human habitat, "HowDo You Want to Live?". The report was presented at the UnitedNations Conference on Human Environment, held in Stockholm in1972, and recommended that environmental education and theexercise of citizenship go hand in hand -- that it promote40public participation in decision-making and aim at developinga critical, moral and aesthetic awareness of surroundings(Martin & Wheeler, 1975). Built environment education wasfurther advanced in Britain with the Department ofEnvironment's (DOE) report of 1979 titled "EnvironmentalEducation in Urban Areas" which stressed that such a studyshould assist people to understand, analyze and improve theirlocal environment (Adams, 1990).Although similar movements arose in the United States andCanada to parallel those of Britain over the last century, theBritish example offered a strong model for the emergence ofbuilt environment education.United States. In the United States, the committedactivism of environmental education grew out of ideas ofGeorge Perkin Marsh (1801-1882), who, in 1864, documented thedegree to which the earth's resources were being depleted. Hepredicted that such exploitation could not continue withoutultimately exhausting the "bounty of Nature". Marsh's warningwas heeded in the United States (but not in Europe), as vastareas of forest and prairie had already been ravaged.Conservation was thus supported in the United States, whichbecame the first industrialized country in the world to takeseriously the preservation of its natural environment and tointroduce conservation studies in schools (Martin and Wheeler,1975).The work of Barry Commoner (1970) and Anne and Paul41Ehrlich (1970) to put ecology on the national agenda resultedin the growth of several environmental organizations. By1970, inspired mainly by ecological considerations, demandsfor school curricula oriented towards environmental educationobjectives were increasing in the United States.The term "environmental education" has had a long historyin the United States; nearly all the life science curriculummeetings since the 1900s had promoted it. In 1970, when othercountries were just starting to develop environmentaleducation programs, the United States passed an EnvironmentalEducation Act, defining officially the term "environmentaleducation" for the first time. Although the term stressedecological concerns, it covered a broad spectrum includingurban studies. The United States Code, Congressional andAdministrative News (1970, Volume 3), defined environmentaleducation as:. . an integrated process which deals with man'sinterrelationship with his natural and man-madesurroundings, including the relation of populationgrowth, pollution, resource allocation and depletion,conservation, technology, and urban and rural planning tothe total human environment. Environmental education isa study of the factors influencing ecosystems, mental andphysical health, living and working conditions, decayingcities, and population pressures. Environmentaleducation is intended to promote among citizens the42awareness and understanding of the environment, ourrelationship to it, and the concern and responsibleaction necessary to assure our survival and to improvethe quality of life. (p. 4706)Thus the Act reintroduces the "Geddes link" betweenenvironmental education and planning. Specifically, thefunctions of the act were to administer grants and contractsto "institutions of higher education, State and localagencies, regional educational research organizations, andother public and private educational institutions (includinglibraries and museums) to support research, demonstration, andpilot projects, and to support operational programs" (UnitedStates Code, 1970, Volume 3, p. 4707).The Act was designed to provide Americans with theknowledge and insight to develop their resources in a non-destructive manner. All levels of education, from preschoolthrough adult and continuing education were included.Teachers and other educational personnel were encouraged touse it to expand the learning experiences of their students,to release themselves from the confines of the school buildingand to enter into and work with the local community. The Actpostulated that children should learn about their communityenvironment by "being in it, and from their direct experiencein it" (United States Code, 1970, Volume 3, p. 4705). Itstrongly emphasized supporting teachers "in their quest todevelop and refine their capabilities to comprehend the43ecological cycle and to use the community, be it natural orman made, as a classroom" (United States Code, 1970, Volume 3,p. 4705).Canada. In Canada early influences on what has becomebuilt environment education, were seen in four areas: (a)nature studies, (b) the establishment of planning schools, (c)the formation of environmental groups, and (d) the creation ofinterdisciplinary environmental studies degree programs. Theearliest environmentalists in schools in Canada were thoseteachers interested in rural education and natural history. Atradition of relating children's education in school directlyto personal experience outside the classroom began as early asthe 1890s, mainly through field study related to naturalhistory and elementary science (Sutherland, 1976). Whenprogressive educators James Wilson Robertson, Loring W. Baileyand J. W. Gibson promoted nature studies in schools by takingstudents out of doors, in a sense, they pioneeredenvironmental education in Canada (Sutherland, 1976). LikeDewey, who followed them, they believed that learning foryoung people took place through contact with the environmentand encouraged teachers to use concrete situations rather thanabstract ones for learning. However, field studies remainedisolated from other educational thought and activity, evenamong biologists and geographers in schools (Carson, 1978).Although these early Canadian educators did not deal directlywith the built environment, they did encourage teachers to44foster involvement in the world outside the classroom(Sutherland, 1976).Schools of Community and Regional Planning wereestablished after World War II, in response to the federalgovernment's post war planning program. The Marsh Report of1944 dealt with Canada's expected post-war housing problemsand asserted that housing should deal not only with shelterbut with community issues. The report helped to establish thelink between community and regional planning and socialconcerns.In the 1960s and 70s, environmental groups such as theSierra Club and the Canadian Nature Federation (an offshoot ofthe Audubon Society), inspired by their United Statescounterparts, began to form in Canada. Awareness ofenvironmental issues began to spread to institutes of highereducation. Interdisciplinary degrees for the study ofenvironmental problems were introduced into the universitiesstarting in the late 1960s. Initially, these programs wereseen mainly as "environmental science" with an emphasis onnatural sciences, particularly ecology. Environmentalstudies, which followed, had a greater emphasis on socio-economic content. York University established the Faculty ofEnvironmental Studies in 1968 in response to a need for newapproaches to deal with environmental problems and issues.This was the first environmental studies program establishedin Canada, and from the start the faculty adopted a45comprehensive holistic approach. The program took intoaccount the totality of interacting factors which influencedthe behaviour of individuals, groups and communities. Theoverall objective of the program was to promote anappreciation of the complexity of relationships within andamong environmental systems, an understanding of the processesof environmental change, and the search for more effectivemeans of managing human activities. Studies encompassorganizational and social environments as well as built andnatural environments. Planning, design and management ofbuilt environments remains the major interest of studentsEnvironmental studies at Canadian universities have grownto include a wide range of topical concerns including health,energy, environment and behaviour, waste management, impactassessment, and, in the case of York University, women'sissues. Research and curriculum development reflect ongoingexperimentations with new models of action research andanalysis, as well as with new approaches to the acquisition,development and application of knowledge. In parallel, thereis a closer examination of value and ethical perspectives.In what way do these activities apply to the study of thebuilt environment in elementary and secondary schools? Aresome of these topical concerns reflected in school programs inCanada, the United States and Britain? Documentation revealsthat most programs do not acknowledge new models of actionresearch and analysis, nor do they strongly examine value and46ethical perspectives. The reason for these omissions may bethat individuals specializing in environmental studies, bothin and out of universities, do not become directly involved ineducation. Or, conversely, art education programs in Canadianuniversities may not encourage an interdisciplinary approach,and thus students preparing to become art teachers remainisolated from other related disciplines. The insularity ofart education is a serious and pervasive problem. The nextsection presents the discourse of critics on art education, asit relates to built environment education, and on builtenvironment education itself.2.2: Critics Voices: Problems and Possibilities Starting in the late 1970s, a few critics began to voicetheir concerns regarding built environment education. Amongthem was one of the leading proponents of built environmenteducation, art educator Eileen Adams (1977, 1990). Herarguments, voiced over a decade and a half ago, are stillrelevant today. Another British critic, Brian Goodey (1978),also had concerns which apply to current programs, and athird, American Ronald Neperud (1991), repeats argumentssimilar to those of Goodey's.Conceptions of art teachers and subject matter. In 1977,Eileen Adams expressed serious concerns about what she saw asa precarious relationship between art education and builtenvironment education. She contended that the study of thebuilt environment was not easily incorporated into art47curriculum in a coherent way because, (a) traditionally,disciplines were isolated from each other, and (b) artteachers were not open to new concepts and ideas. Accusingart teachers of elitism, Adams claimed they were moreinterested in exotic subject matter than in the visual andother sensory ideas that comprised their environment. Shedescribed how her colleague, Colin Ward, roused teachers intoacknowledging the subject by provoking them. In his workshopshe would declare that art education had nothing to do with thebuilt environment, in the hope that teachers would attack himfor his shortsighted view. Despite his prodding, they werenot provoked. Many teachers were confused about the purposesof art education and therefore found it difficult to relate tobuilt environment education. Although art education wassupposed to be a method for communicating response to theenvironment and a means of identifying and transmittingcultural values, teachers did not connect these concepts tothe study of the built environment. When art teachers wereasked to define their philosophy none included social content.The closer the art activity was to what was considered "finearts", the greater its relevance and legitimacy. The builtenvironment was sometimes considered as reference material formaking art products but rarely as a comprehensive study in itsown right.Some commentary regarding teachers' attitudes is requiredhere because the apparent inability to relate art education to48built environment education may reflect the widespreadconditioning, particularly within the pedagogic community, ofdistinct (and confining) disciplines. This has a strongideological basis in the traditional Western model ofdepartmentalization and specialization. Moreover, teachersmay lack confidence in integrating material from sourcesbeyond their specialization. The unease many teachers feel ineradicating self-imposed boundaries may rest on theformidable, if not impossible, challenge to "know everything"in related fields. What has to be accepted, therefore, toachieve the integration of built environment education intoart education, is the fact that broadening the context willenrich the discipline.The goal of "Art and the Built Environment Project",which Adams helped develop, was to define the relationshipbetween environmental study and art education. It provided acomprehensive rationale for the inclusion of the builtenvironment in art education and it defined the contributionsthat art teachers could make to built environment education.Adams was convinced that art teachers could contribute morethan other teachers to an affective approach to the study ofthe built form. This approach permitted alternative ways ofperceiving and learning and provided a necessary complement tothe objective scientific study of towns.But Adams was sceptical about the willingness of artdepartments to integrate activities on visual appraisal and49critical analysis. She concluded on a pessimistic note,saying that there was a bias in art education that stressedthe importance of art and craft, the making of art products,and traditional working methods, relying heavily on the use of"expressive" media which favour the expression of internalfeelings. She claimed there was a place for "impressive"media in art education, which favour the expression ofexternal forms. Since art and craft was given priority inmost British schools, such subjects as visual education,graphicacy, design education, and conceptual art, were notwell integrated. In built environment education, Adamsargued, the above art-related disciplines share equal value.Hence, her main point was that Art and the Built Environmentwas a holistic study and allowed for a more integratedapproach than have traditional art education methods.Since 1977 Adams has continued to write about the linkagebetween art, design and urban environmental concerns. In a1990 article she is more optimistic about the futurerelationship of art, design, built environment studies andcurriculum development. By then, she had promoted andwitnessed almost two decades of built environment education inBritain. She now believes that teachers may see the builtenvironment as an ever-present resource to be explored, thatthey view it in critical or design terms, and that they mayrequire students to make value judgements about environmentalquality and put forward proposals for change. In this article50she also presents a critical analysis of the importance ofdesign study in built environment education, claiming that itintensifies experience and influences perception. It alsoemphasises analysis and criticism and initiates activities inwhich students conceptualise possibilities for change.These ideas bear close scrutiny, says Adams (1990), butthey will be short-lived unless there are attempts toinstitutionalise them. She claims this has been taking placein several ways, for example, through curriculum developmentinitiatives such as inter-professional working parties, andschool examinations. However, the study of the builtenvironment must be specifically acknowledged by, and includedin, the British National Curriculum in at least three areas:art and design, technology and geography. Since the study ofthe built environment is multi-disciplinary, it can provideone of the most useful means of connecting subject areas in aneducational system newly committed to cross-curricularactivities. Adams concludes with a focus on the need for acollaboration between art educators and architects, what shecalls the inter-professional partnership. Individual contactsbetween architects and teachers should continue to beencouraged whenever possible, not just through officialprojects but through informal contacts, architecture workshopsand urban studies centres.Adams continues to play a major role in built environmenteducation, as educator, advocate, author, and critic. Her51contribution to this field is worthy of special praise.Perhaps more than any other individual in Britain, she hasbrought an awareness of the importance of built environmentstudies.Further issues in built environment education are raisedby other critics. Brian Goodey (1978) critiques the manner inwhich the built environment is integrated in British schools.His intention is not to explore education through theenvironment, but to examine education about the builtenvironment and in the environment. There are a number ofapproaches to built environment education which include thestudy of (a) the planning process, (b) building conservation,(c) social geography (the human condition in urban areas), and(d) socially-concerned urban issues. According to Goodey,there are flaws in each of these methods mainly because thereis a lack of direct involvement with existing communities.Although the topic of human conditions in urban areas tends tobe too controversial for most curricula, the whole point inteaching urban studies is the two-way flow of informationbetween school and community, each a major resource for theother. Like Ward and Fyson (1973), and Adams (1977; 1990),Goodey stresses the need for human interaction and recommendscommunity-related projects with practical outcomes andinvolving environmental professionals such as planners,architects, surveyors, and even developers. Goodey arguesthat it is more important to study planning processes in the52urban system rather than visual attributes. While discussing"values" in environmental education, he raises salientquestions: Are children trained as observers of the localscene or as participants? Are they encouraged to acceptexisting power distributions or to upset them? In the samevein as Ward and Fyson (1973), he claims that the school canserve as a valuable, and relatively neutral, informationagency for the community. But he warns such a role requiresrigour and effort which seem to be beyond the wishes of someteachers. A similar point is made regarding issue-basedprojects, those based on environmental conflicts which ariselocally and are the subject of a public debate. An issue canbe integrated into a variety of school programs, but often ahasty student exploration may not provide a truerepresentation of the facts. The preparation and cooperationrequired in planning issue-based projects involving thecommunity are seldom as contained as they appear. Accordingto Goodey, it is better to consider activities that relate to,or are a part of, a larger scheme, that is, less immediateissues, and raise them as part of a well-designed program.His criticism is also aimed at "futures" projects whichoften revolve around the planning and designing of an idealcity or community, an "end state" solution, which seems to betypical of all educational levels. Planning and designing forthe future is the ultimate goal of most built environmenteducation programs, and it is the role of the planning53profession. However, according to Goodey, in an educationsetting these techniques encourage a science fiction view ofthe world in which the best of modern technology is applied tocurrent conditions at a stroke. Promoting this way ofthinking does not introduce students to the political processnecessary to alter the built environment. Built environmentstudies tend to overlook the importance of politics,sociology, economics and psychology, the four social scienceswhich hold the key to an understanding of the processes whichchange the urban fabric.Goodey brings up more points to bear in mind. Whilepractical work challenges the persistent barrier betweenschool and community, the examination of community issues inthe classroom may cause concern within the community itself.Other considerations are: subject breadth and informationprovision; inter-relatedness of community issue-basedprojects; age-appropriateness; and finances (economicconstraints make this type of study an easy target for cut-backs). But built environment education should be approachedfrom an integrated perspective, and Goodey ends on anoptimistic note -- the local community remains, and with itthe resources, text and workshop for the development of such astudy.Ronald W. Neperud (1991) found that in the United Statescurrent built environment curriculum is dealt with largelyfrom an aesthetic and stylistic focus, that is, as a study of54the formalistic elements. In his examination of the contentof environmental studies in a number of American States, heconcludes that they fail to address social concerns and maynot develop sympathetic views of surroundings. He argues thata study of architecture focusing solely on the formalisticelements is similar to other discipline-based art educationwhich neglects social and cultural contexts. Neperudmaintains that environmental education must start withengaging very young children in understanding how surroundingsaffect them and how their actions affect their surroundings.Reiterating the other critics before him, Neperud contendsthat today, more than ever, there is a need for environmentaleducation based on a socially aware interactive relationshipbetween individuals and their surroundings.The views of the three critics cited are worth noting;all describe problems inherent in the study of the builtenvironment. For example, the view of teachers that thesubject is not an essential element in art and design, thatthe integration of built environment education does notinvolve the community in a coherent way, and that builtenvironment education has tended to focus on aesthetic anddesign concerns while overlooking the socio-political reality.However, what these critics have failed to recognise is therelationship between the planning and design of the builtenvironment and spatial cognition within the context of gendersocialization and oppression (discussed in Chapter 3) and thus5 5the parallel in built environment education .Advocacy and activism issues. Another problem thatneither Adams nor Neperud raise -- Goodey mentions it inpassing -- (which this study elaborates in the followingchapters) relates to advocacy and activism issues in builtenvironment education. There appears a point where builtenvironment education programs come to a halt in artclassrooms, and that point is usually when the "implementationstage" warrants discussion. As evidenced in the documentationin the following section, programs seldom encourage raisingquestions on how solutions, using realistic politicalstrategies, can be implemented into existing communities, letalone making real attempts at implementation. Althoughpolitical activism is often aired, for instance in thefollowing statements by four major American programs, thereare no clearly stated and described examples where this hastaken place:GEE! (Group for Environmental Education) maintains thatone approach to the study of the built environment is through"real" world problems. The group claims that eventually everyteacher is drawn toward the problems confronting the communityand that learning to work with real life problems andalternatives is the final goal. The Built EnvironmentEducation Program (BEEP) argues that the objective in teachingbuilt environment education is to raise the consciousness ofindividuals so that they take an active role in the56development of physical forms of society. BEEP contends thattheir field trips provide an opportunity to relate what hasbeen taught in the classroom to the actual elements that existin the "real" world and to make students aware of theapplicability of their education to the "real" world. Theprogram also contends that students exhibit a higherenthusiasm for learning when the learning environment has beenmade more "real", and when students can take an immediateactive role in the exploration, observation, identificationand contribution to what is being examined. The Center forEnvironmental Design Education encourages teachers to developin students the critical link between classroom education andthe community life surrounding them. In City BuildingEducation, students take on the roles of City Hall, zoningoffices, the banking system and so forth. The exercises indesigning structures and public policy are supposed to expandstudents' capabilities and understanding of the way thingswork, and lead to reflection on the way things should work.Reflecting on the way things should work is a necessarycomponent in the study of the built environment. However, dothe above programs lead only to reflections that take place inthe classroom? Or do they lead to a strong emphasis onresponsible action? As shown, several programs recognise theimportance of community involvement and responsible action,but no cases of student political action are apparent in theprograms studied. The programs do not appear to be decidedly57action oriented, and seem to avoid controversial issues.It is interesting to note a contradiction in the UnitedStates' Environmental Education Act of 1970. It stresses thateducational activities related to environmental educationshould include involvement in the community, that the learningexperience derives from community involvement, and that"responsible action" is "necessary to assure our survival andto improve the quality of life" (U.S. Code, 1970, Volume 3, p.4706). It goes on to state, however, that the term"educational activities" should not "include any kind ofpolitical activities" (U.S. Code, 1970, p. 4707). It alsostates that the Commissioner for the Office of EnvironmentalEducation, in selecting grantees or contractors forenvironmental education funding, "will distinguish betweeneducational activities and activities of a political nature"(U.S. Code, 1970, p. 4707). Such a statement implies thataction taken to improve the quality of life in the builtenvironment should in no way be "political" -- a ratherimpossible request. Surprisingly, the contradiction in thesestatements has not been brought to public attention.If the purpose of built environment education is toencourage young people to become visually literate regardingtheir surroundings, and to participate at some level in theplanning and decision-making processes, then programs wouldneed to include social and political contexts. As Adams(1977) states, built environment education should involve not58only a knowledge of the physical world, but be concerned withattitudes and values: how people feel about their environment,how they relate to it, how they affect it. Logically, builtenvironment education should function in a matrix oftechnical, aesthetic, social, and political considerations.Programs must be grounded in an understanding of the spatialand social needs of individuals and communities: any actiontaken from such a perspective is by nature, political.If built environment education is a tool for achievingenvironmental change, then a total view of the community needsto be introduced, both in and out of the classroom. Thistotal view, like life itself, will include conflict. As Wardand Fyson (1973) maintain, controversy and conflict are whatmake a subject interesting and relevant to students.Currently, built environment education programs may give themisguided impression that the built form is constructed in acompletely conflict-free socio-political environment and thateveryone's physical and aesthetic needs are recognized andmet. Moreover the built environment is primarily presented asthough it was independent of political and economicinfluences.Built environment curricula at all levels, andparticularly in teacher education programs need to introducestudents to the manner in which decisions are made in theircommunity, and to encourage students to learn how they cantake part in the decision making process. Bernard Crick59(cited in Ward & Fyson, 1973), argues that civic educationmust be aimed at creating citizens, and that educators canstart with the real issues of the moment. Laurie Hicks(1990), a feminist art educator, contends, like Goodey (1978)before her, that if art education only offers students enoughknowledge and skills to be appreciative consumers of thecultural mainstream then it is only serving to maintain thestatus quo rather than teaching students to critically analyzetheir physical and social environment.The integration of an issues-based approach with apolitical advocacy and activism component will be complex andchallenging and may not appeal to many art educators. Theymay not be interested in local community conflict or inactivities of a political nature. Encouraging this particularapproach is a colossal task because Canadians live in a well-entrenched system which functions according to a particularideological bias. Our living and working environments serve agender-biased, capitalist, corporate society which promotesconsumption over self-determination. Fully supportive andlife-enhancing environments will be achieved only when membersof upcoming generations decide that they want suchenvironments, and are equipped with the means to create them.What follows in this chapter is a brief description andassessment of past and current built environment educationprograms in Britain, the United States and Canada, the purposeof which is to help determine if and in what ways programs60promote supportive and life-enhancing environments inclusiveof all people. The last section of this chapter bringstogether the findings, discusses the omissions in theprograms, and presents a conclusion.2.3: Description and Discussion of Programs The discussion in this section stems from a feminist viewpoint which advocates that programs, (a) focus on the spatialand structural needs of women in ways that recognize diversityin class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and levels of(dis)ability, thereby encouraging self-worth and self-determination in all students, and (b) encourage a community-based approach that emphasizes the importance of active publicparticipation thereby transforming social relations of power.The assumption is made that women's spatial perspectives andcommunity-based women-centred initiatives should be anintegral part of the learning process.A page is devoted to each major built environmenteducation program and three entries take place: First, adescription of the program is presented. Second, two researchquestions are asked and one of six observations serves as ananswer: "stated and described", "stated", "stated but vague","implied", "vague", and "not apparent". Third, some briefcommentary is offered. The discussion begins with thepioneering British programs, followed by American and Canadianprograms. Also discussed are the contributions of certainCanadian and American individuals.61Programs in BritainFront Door ProjectIn 1974, the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA)joined the Royal College of Art at Pimlico School in London aspart of the research on Design in General Education. Thisbecame known as the Front Door Project, and from 1974 to 1976,a pilot scheme was conducted to bring architects and artteachers together in a working partnership to develop aprogram of architecture and design studies based on aninvestigation of the local area. Eileen Adams, the artteacher who would become one of the strongest advocates ofbuilt environment education, was employed by the ILEA tocoordinate the project. Colin Ward, of the Town and CountryPlanning Association (TCPA) was also involved. The Front DoorProject led the way to what became an innovative nation-wideprogram, the Art and the Built Environment Project.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? VagueIs the program community-based and did it emphasize activepublic participation? Stated by vagueAlthough this program is based on an investigation of thelocal area, it is not apparent if there was an emphasis on thediverse population. Given the progressive nature of theorganizers, this may have been the case.62Art and the Built Environment Project (ABE)The term "built environment education" gained popularityin Britain in 1976 when Colin Ward and Eileen Adams developedArt and the Built Environment (ABE), a curriculum developmentproject based in the Education Unit of the Town and CountryPlanning Association (TCPA) from 1976 to 1980, and in theDesign Education Unit at the Royal College of Art from 1980 to1982. The aim of the Project was to develop "streetwork"techniques and materials to enhance students' environmentalperception. Conferences, courses and BEE (Bulletin of Environmental Education) introduced teachers to the conceptsand in 1980 a nationwide network of teachers, architects andplanners was set up to promote the Project. When fundingended in 1982, ABE became a self-perpetuating activity. TheProject established the study of the built environment as anormal part of art curriculum.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? VagueIs the program community-based and did it emphasize activepublic participation? ImpliedSince "streetwork" was advocated it could be assumed thataspects of community-based involvement occurred. But thefocus was still on what places looked like and how theirappearance could be improved.63Design Education UnitThe Design Education Unit at the Royal College of Art wasfounded in 1978 as a result of a research project into thestate of design education in secondary schools. An extensionof the Art and the Built Environment Project, it was concernedwith "design" in the broadest sense -- adapting theenvironment to the individual and the community's physicalneeds. Coordinated by Eileen Adams and Ken Baynes, startingin 1980, the aim was to expand the range of art teaching inthe area of critical awareness and to develop design studiesthrough the direct study of the urban environment. This wasaccomplished nationwide by the establishment of inter-professional curriculum development groups (see Art and the Built Environment Project). The Unit provided a nationalfocus and support system for the work through in-service,conferences, courses, and publications.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? VagueIs the program community-based and did it emphasize activepublic participation? Stated but vagueAlthough the aim was on adapting the environment to meetphysical needs, there is no direct statement concerning thespatial and structural needs of women. The amount offirsthand community involvement is not clear.64Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Architects-in-Schools ProgramIn 1984, as a result of the popularity of the ABE Projectand the Design Education Unit (Eileen Adams had made concertedefforts to involve registered architects), and because theneed for a formalized architects-in-schools program wasidentified, British architects entered the school system. In1985 the RIBA established its first full time post to co-ordinate and develop its educational interests. In 1987 the"Architects-in-Schools" program was initiated. The RIBA'spublication Architects-in-Schools, (1987) contains reports ofthe first year of architect residencies throughout England andWales. According to the Institute, their education program isthe pinnacle of success. The Institute played a leading rolein organizing the International Conference on BuiltEnvironment Education held in Cambridge, England, in 1992.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? Not apparentIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? Not apparentThe RIBA subsidizes individuals to conduct series of workshopsin schools. This is a reformist rather than areconstructivist approach. It's goal appears more concernedwith the formalistic aspects of the built environment.65Building Experiences Trust (BET)The Building Experiences Trust (BET), a collaboration ofprofessionals within the construction industry was establishedin 1990 in London to help develop initiatives in the field ofbuilt environment education. The Trust has an internationaloutlook and believes its mission is to play a significant roleas promoter of built environment curriculum in the schoolsystem in all countries throughout the world. The Trustinstigated the International Built Environment EducationConference in Cambridge in 1992, which brought togethereducators, designers and those in the construction industry,with the objective of establishing a global network.Publications to date are linked to National Curriculum in thearea of Design and Technology, for example, Design Technologyand Built Environment (Record & Frost, 1990), a teacher'shandbook for using the built environment.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? Not apparentIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? Not apparentA question that remains unanswered, and one that needs to beraised, is the motive behind the industry's involvement inbuilt environment education. Of the 21 Trustees, only one isa woman.66Built Environment Education Project (BEEP)Established in 1991, the Built Environment EducationProject (BEEP) is a triangular partnership of the ConstructionIndustry Training Board (CITB) in the city of Birmingham, alocal education college, and local primary schools. The CITEintends, ambitiously, to establish a national network of fiftycurriculum centres that will provide facilities for schoolswishing to use construction as a basis for cross-curricularlearning. BEEP's objectives include enhancing children'sawareness of their own local environment and fosteringpositive attitudes toward the role played by the constructionindustry. An unique emphasis on women, girls, ethnic andracial minorities, and people with disabilities, and positiveaction to counter stereotyping and its effects, forms animportant area of the Project's work. BEEP is working towardsimplementing anti-racist practice in all planned projects.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? Stated and describedIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? Stated but vagueThis is the only program in Britain, the United States orCanada that mentions implications for women. Although allactivities have an equal opportunities element it is not clearif women's spatial and structural perspectives are presented.67Programs in the United States GEE! Group for Environmental EducationThe formation of the Group for Environmental Education(GEE!) in 1966 launched built environment education in theUnited States. GEE!'s genesis was precipitated by a jointproject of the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Instituteof Architects (AIA) and the Philadelphia School District andby an increased professional concern with the need foreducational programs related to the urban environment. Thegroup's conceptual goals were to develop the individual'sawareness and understanding of the urban environment, toinstill confidence in the individual's judgments of theenvironment and to enable the individual to control and changethe environment. GEE! attempted to establish these goals intwo main areas, teacher training and creative publications.In 1972 GEE! marketed its work nationally and internationally.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? VagueIs the program community-based and did it emphasize activepublic participation? Stated but vagueAlthough the Group was composed of architects, planners,educators, and media specialists, there is not a strongemphasis on community-based initiatives. Rather the builtenvironment is treated in a more generalized context.68Architects-in-Schools ProgramIn 1976, the architecture component of the Artist-in-Schools program of the National Endowment for the Arts placedarchitects in residencies in elementary and secondary schoolsthroughout the United States. Called the Architects-in-Schools program, the sponsors subsequently publishedArchitects-in-Schools Planning Workbook, a resource guidedesigned for the architect in residence. The program wasinstigated and coordinated initially by Aase Eriksen, anarchitect trained in Sweden. Her contribution was animportant one and the program had a tremendous impact (seeEriksen, undated, 1974, 1977, 1979; Eriksen & Wintermute,1983). She was also editor of Built Environment Education, aquarterly similar in format to BEE. Many of the builtenvironment education programs presently in use in the UnitedStates followed from this program.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? VagueIs the program community-based and did it emphasize activepublic participation? VagueBy the early 1970s the concept of involving architects ineducation was gaining popularity in the United States.However, despite the women's liberation movement, gender-biasin the built environment had not become an issue.69Foundation for Architecture, Architecture in Education (AIE)The Foundation for Architecture, established in 1980 as anon-profit organization by the Philadelphia Chapter of theAmerican Institute of Architects, saw as its mission theincorporation of the study of the built environment ineducation. In 1981, in a joint venture with the PhiladelphiaSchool District, the Departments of Architecture at Universityof Pennsylvania, Temple University, and local architecturefirms, the Foundation developed an architectural program forthe Philadelphia public school system. Called Architecture inEducation (AIE), the program aims to encourage theappreciation and understanding of the architecturalenvironment, its heritage, and its relationship to othercivilizations and cultures. The AIE basic program,administered by Rolaine Copeland, utilizes a team of trainedarchitect volunteers, architecture students, and teachers.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? VagueIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? VagueAlthough the program also includes the relationship of thebuilt environment to human needs, the main foci appear to bearchitecture history, structural principles and theinteraction of the natural and built environments.70Built Environment Education Program (BEEP)The Built Environment Education Program (BEEP), a projectof the California Council, [of] The American Institute ofArchitects (CCAIA), advocates that teachers and architectswork together in the classroom with a focus on therelationship between the built environment and the naturalenvironment. The program claims to focus on stimulatingobservation and awareness, group interaction and technologicalexploration. As such, students learn to think analyticallyand to use problem solving skills. BEEP's cross-curricularstructure implies that subjects such as mathematics,geography, social studies, and English are integrated into thecurriculum. The program is supposed to acquaint students with"real life" decision making, and that a heightenedunderstanding of architectural elements helps them build astronger perception of the environment.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? VagueIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? VagueDespite the fact that the goals of the program includelearning the skills necessary to influence the quality of theenvironment, stress does not appear to be on empowering womenor using community-based initiatives as learning tools.71American Institute of Architects (A1A): Learning by DesignStarting in 1966, the American Institute of Architects(AIA), the national organization of the architecturalprofession, has been involved in elementary and secondaryeducation across the States in an effort to integrate human-designed environmental concerns into the classroom. In itsperceived role as education catalyst the AIA lobbied atgovernment levels for effective legislation dealing witharchitectural education. In 1980, the organization developeda primary and secondary education program, "Learning byDesign" and that same year the first Sourcebook of curriculumand resource information was published. A second edition,entitled The Sourcebook II: Learning by Design was publishedin 1988. Like its original, it was compiled by architects andeducators, and is a collection of educational resourcesdesigned for use by architects and teachers.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? VagueIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? VagueAlthough the goal is to develop in every student the skills todesign a quality human environment, the program does notappear to be strongly community-based nor is there a focus onthe spatial and structural needs of women.72Architecture + ChildrenArchitecture + Children was created in 1987 by AnneTaylor, program director for the Institute of the same name,in Seattle and Albuquerque. The Institute, a non-profitorganization, develops built environment education curriculumfor students at every age level, runs teacher trainingprograms and organizes exhibitions. Taylor, who also teachesat the University of New Mexico School of Architecture andPlanning and is director of the Institute of EnvironmentalEducation, Albuquerque, believes that as a "connector" thestudy of architecture and design, using the natural, built,and cultural environment, can be the key to the integration ofall subject areas. Taylor is keenly interested in NativeAmerican and Hispanic cultures and cosmology, particularly theway these cultures view, plan, design, and construct theircommunities. The program is being adopted in cities in Japan.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? ImpliedIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? ImpliedA multicultural and spiritual tone permeates Taylor's work.Her holistic approach is unique in the field of builtenvironment education. She has chosen to focus on culturalaspects as a route towards change.73Institute for Environmental EducationSituated at the University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque,under the directorship of Anne Taylor, the Institute forEnvironmental Education combines academic research, teachertraining, professional development, and community service inits objective of quality environmental design and improvedenvironmental understanding. Interdisciplinary studies, whichintegrate the fields of architecture, planning, education, andenvironmental psychology are offered. Incorporating theArchitecture + Children curriculum, students are guidedthrough a series of design experiences that mirror the designstudio, focusing on problem solving and aesthetic judgement-making. The Institute has conducted studies and designprojects on alternative environments that enhance learningopportunities for young and disabled persons, and for specificcultural groups such as Native Americans and Hispanics.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? ImpliedIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? ImpliedThis program plus Architecture + Children, the Center for CityBuilding Education (following page), and the British BEEP arethe only built environment education programs mentioningdesign that relates to disabled persons or ethnic minorities.74Center for City Building EducationThe Center for City Building Education is a non-profiteducational corporation with support from the California ArtsCouncil, the National Endowment for the Arts, the U.S. Officeof Education, participating school districts, and privatedonations. The program has been a main-stay of environmentaleducation since 1969, through the efforts of founder anddirector, Doreen Nelson. The Center boasts severalpublications under the rubric of "The City Building System",an urban design curriculum, which links traditional subjectareas and includes spatial skills and three-dimensionaldecision-making. Center consultants organize planningsessions with teachers and work in the classroom as resourcepersons. The system is used in elementary, secondary,university, and adult education. Classes are designed toaccommodate disabled, immigrant and gifted persons.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? VagueIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? Stated but vagueSince classes are designed to accommodate disabled, immigrantand gifted persons it can be assumed that community-basedinitiatives form a part of the program. This may or may notinclude community-based women-centred initiatives.75Center for Environmental Design EducationThe College of Environmental Design and the School ofEducation at California Polytechnic University, through theCenter for Environmental Design Education, provide curriculumtraining (courses and degree programs) in City BuildingEducation, under the guidance of Doreen Nelson, to studentsbefore, during, and after they become school teachers.Training is also available within the university's LiberalStudies Program and the General Education Program. The Centeris in the process of developing a curriculum for educatorsthat will focus on the critical link between classroomeducation and the existing community. Also planned are amagistral degree program, offered in both The School ofEducation and the College of Environmental Design, and aseries of other institutes, seminars, and presentationstargeted to reach 1000 school educators each year.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? VagueIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? Stated but vagueAlthough it is not clear if there is a direct focus onrepresenting women, there is acknowledgement of the criticallink between the existing community and the education system.It is not evident if this link stresses public participation.76Center for Understanding the Built Environment (CUBE)The Center for Understanding the Built Environment(CUBE), located in Prairie Village, Kansas, with art historianGinny Graves as director, introduces teachers to what itbelieves are the basic concepts, methods and materials neededto teach built environment education. CUBE has approximately30 different curriculum packages available for sale, all ofwhich were prepared in collaboration with design professionalsand teachers. The program offers a workshop called "BoxCity", where students collaborate and create buildings out ofboxes, giving them an opportunity to debate how theircommunities should be shaped. CUBE publishes an"archiSources" catalogue which lists publications, audiovisuals, toys, and so on, and, together with an internationalnetwork of architecture educators, publishes archiNEWS, whichoffers notices of courses and workshops, and teacher networks.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? VagueIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? VagueThis is an energetic program which manages to reach hundredsof teachers across the United States. Although it debates howprogram participants' communities should be shaped, issues ofgender, class and ethnicity appear to remain in the background.77The Architectural Awareness Project for Buffalo (TAAP)The Architectural Awareness Project for Buffalo (TAAP) isa non-profit educational organization which provides a varietyof programs and guided walking tours of Buffalo'sarchitectural heritage to schools and community groups. TAAP,founded in 1979, is sponsored by an outreach group known asthe "Friends of the School of Architecture and Planning" ofthe University of Buffalo. The organization assists theSchool in carrying out activities that involve and serve thecommunity. TAAP offers a wide range of topics: neighbourhoodperspectives, design concepts, architectural history, andhistoric preservation. Many of the programs are specificallydesigned for children aged 7 to 12 years. The organizationboasts that a broad interdisciplinary context is presented andthat the program can be used in art, social studies,industrial arts, and home economics.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? Not apparentIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? VagueThe program claims to involve and serve the community andpresent neighbourhood perspectives. However it is unclearwhom it involves and serves and whose perspective is offered.No claim is made that it serves the needs of community women.78Project Archi-TeacherProject Archi-Teacher, the educational wing of Olsen andAssociates, Architects, based in Champaign, Illinois, is adesign education program that offers a series of workshops toequip teachers with the information needed to integrate thestudy of design and architectural history. The workshopsinclude instruction in aesthetics, architectural history, andcity planning. Participants receive teaching manuals andvisual aids that are designed to integrate architecture withcore curriculum areas; lessons in architectural history aretailored as extensions of the existing history curriculum.The program promotes the recognition of architectural stylesand the identification of characteristics of buildingsconstructed in particular historical periods. Duringclassroom hands-on sessions, architect-consultants supervisestudents' designs for site plans and buildings.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? Not apparentIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? Not apparentIt is unclear if the city planning component -- the site plansand architectural designs -- take into consideration thespatial and structural needs of women. Social and politicalquestions are not mentioned.79Textbooks and a ConferenceTwo significant art education textbooks and a conferencehave aspired to incorporate the study of the built environmentinto art education. June King McFee's and Rogena Degge'sbook, Art, Culture, and Environment: A Catalyst for Teaching,published in 1980, became a benchmark in art education becauseof its particular focus on the cultural and physicalenvironments. The book attempts to incorporate a holisticapproach to art and the built environment by extending therange of what is considered art -- studying art as culturalcommunication. The text is concerned, in particular, thatchildren become aware of their role in shaping culture and thebuilt form. The key teaching strategy is the exploration ofthe children's environment -- taking children out of theclassroom and into the world surrounding them, and offeringthem first-hand experience at seeing and sensing. One of thechapters specifically focuses on "Art and EnvironmentalDesign", and in particular on how cities evolve. Although itoverlooks women's spatial and structural needs, and onlyindirectly suggests active public participation, as an arteducation textbook, and as a reference guide for beginning artteachers, this has by far the most comprehensive introductionto the built environment.The well-used textbook, Approaches to Art in Education,by Laura Chapman (1978), introduces teachers to the study ofthe built environment in the chapter on "Architecture and80Environmental Design". An important influence on arteducation, the book demonstrates that architecture andenvironmental design are important art forms in the educationof children. Although it does not specifically mentionwomen's design perspectives, or directly stress the importanceof public participation, the book does discuss how theenvironment and the structures within it affect behaviour.Together with Discover Art (1985), another of Chapman'spublications, the book also offers teachers ways to overcomeinadequate feelings about presenting architectural andenvironmental concepts to children. It does this byintroducing ideas for studying architectural heritage,analyzing architecture in society and encouraging personalexpression within architectural forms.A built environment education conference, initiated byJoanne K. Guilfoil, art educator at Eastern KentuckyUniversity, took place in 1990 at Shakertown. Kentucky middleschool teachers of art, history, social studies, and scienceattended. Workshops, which partnered architects with teams ofteachers, offered a basic understanding of the history ofAmerican and Kentucky architecture, examined the principles ofarchitectural practice, and scanned built environmenteducation programs being used in the United States. Althoughliterature on women's issues in the built environment was notincluded, a concise "Annotated Bibliography on EnvironmentalDesign Education" was produced for the conference.81Programs in Canada Heritage CanadaIn 1982, Heritage Canada and the Canada Council sponsoreda workshop in Quebec on youth education and the builtenvironment. Called "Heritage Canada Symposium, Youth andEducation", it was organized by planner Chantal QuintricLeveille and heritage advocate Judy Oberlander. The Canadian,American, British, and French participants compared theirachievements in their respective countries and defined whatconstitutes youth heritage education. They also discussed howto sensitize youth to the built environment and how to bestintegrate the topic area into education. A recommendation wasmade that the director of Heritage Canada hire a specialcoordinator to promote built environment education and to makeit a focus for Heritage Canada. Unfortunately funding for therecommendation was lacking and the goal was never achieved.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? Not apparentIs the program community-based and did it emphasize activepublic participation? Not apparentDuring the workshop the Canadian participants discussed thepromotion of built environment education on a national levelhowever "sensitizing youth" in specific issues of gender,class and ethnicity did not enter into the discourse.82Ministere des Affaires CulturellesBased in Quebec City, and directed by Suzanne Bernier,the Ministere des Affaires culturelles for the province ofQuebec funds several organizations and activities to raiseawareness of the built environment. Instead of an educationoffice, which the Ministry believed was unnecessary, itdeveloped a number of projects geared to school age children.Included are: Architectural Landscape Analysis and ANeighbourhood on the Waterfront: A Walk through Old Quebec,which enable students to understand the establishment,development and evolution of a village and neighbourhood, andas a corollary, to identify the age and function of buildingsin their own village, neighbourhood or street. La Randonnee de decouverte: Une initiation a l'environment urbain offersguidelines for teachers who wish to create a walk through aneighbourhood or other urban area.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? VagueIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? VagueAlthough these activities enable students to understand thedevelopment of the urban form over time and thereby therewould be discussion about political and social implications,the focus appears to be on what environments look like.83Centre d'interpretation de la vie urbaine de la Ville deQuebec (Urban Life Interpretative Centre of Quebec City)Begun in 1987, the Centre d'interpretation de la vieurbaine de la Ville de Quebec was founded by the then Mayor ofQuebec and supported by the city council. Now administered byChristine Bardou, activities include: Archibus (seedescription next page) and exhibitions on architecture,landscape architecture, history of design, and urbanism. TheCentre's education program is focused around their variedexhibitions; its urban games, which also relate to theexhibitions, have been developed around the history of design,urbanism and the natural environment. Funded by the City ofQuebec, the non-profit society employs three full-time staffincluding an educator, six part-time educators and eight toten volunteers. Of the corporate sponsors, McDonald'sRestaurants is the most conspicuous.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? VagueIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? VagueOther corporate sponsors include Bell Canada, Ultramar OilCompany and the Bronfman family. One can speculate on themotives of the sponsors and if these sponsorships have anyinput on what is included or not included in program content.84Archibus QuebecSponsored specifically by McDonald's Restaurants,Archibus Quebec offers young people throughout the province anintroduction to town planning and architecture through bustours and visits to sites in different sections of QuebecCity. Organizers believe that by making comparisons withQuebec City the young visitors gain a better understanding oftheir own city, small town or village. The tours, the resultof a collaboration between the Conseil des monuments et sitesdu Quebec and the Centre d'interpretations de la vie urbainede la Ville de Quebec, are aimed primarily (but notexclusively) at students in the intermediate grades ofelementary school. Tours include: "The Architecture ofLeisure in Quebec City", "Public Buildings in the TwentiethCentury", "The Heart of a City", "The Quartier Saint-Roch",and "The Quartier Montcalm".Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? Not apparentIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? Not apparentTours are conceived by historians who carry out the research,write the scenarios, and plan the routes. They are assistedby architects, town planners, and professional artists.Gender, class and ethnicity are not primary issues.85Vancouver Environment Education Project (VEEP)Built environment education appeared on the west coast ofCanada in 1971 with the formation of the Vancouver EnvironmentEducation Project (VEEP). Founded by educator C. J.Anastasiou, of the Faculty of Education, University of BritishColumbia, the project's goal was to produce environmentaleducation materials for the schools of British Columbia,written by local teachers, in order to make students aware of,and appreciate, the natural and built environment. Startingin 1972, a series of manuals on the built environment werepublished, for example, Vancouver Houses (1972), Shopping Centres (1972), Community Studies for Primary Children (1973),and B.C. Urban History: Discovering the Past in the Present (1974). Distribution of the manuals, both nationally andinternationally, was through the British Columbia Teachers'Federation Lesson Aids Service.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and(dis]ability)? Not apparentIs the program community-based and did it emphasize activepublic participation? Not apparentThis project went on to receive international recognition andwas featured in the British journal Bulletin of Environmental Education (BEE), however the visual aspect of places remainedthe major focus.86School District No. 42 (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows)Only one school district, Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, inthe lower mainland of British Columbia has made a concertedeffort to initiate built environment education on a districtwide level. Under the initiative of teacher Stan Thomson, theBritish program Art and the Built Environment and the Americanprogram Architecture in Education (AIE) have been adapted foruse by primary and secondary schools. The ArchitecturalInstitute of British Columbia (AIBC) education committee (seefollowing page) is currently working with the district toestablish a program. The first Architecture and ChildrenWorkshop was conducted in the winter of 1992 for teachers andarchitects. Emphasis is on students' participation in studioand field work and on the integration of theory and practice.Displays of students' work are often held in communitysettings.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? Not apparentIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? Not apparentThomson has managed to bring the built environment to mostschools in this district and students' models are clearlyimpressive. However, like most programs, his deals mainlywith the physical and visual aspects of the built form.87Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC)In 1991, the Architectural Institute of British Columbia(AIBC) conducted a research study on architectural educationin public elementary schools. The purpose of the research wasto examine programs developed by the architectural professionin other locations, and to conduct background research intoopportunities for developing links between the Institute andelementary and secondary schools in British Columbia. TheAIBC has since embarked on an education program and initialsteps linked architects with educators. Its current focus isthe placement of architects in schools. The goal of both theInstitute's elementary and secondary school program is to makestudents and the general public aware of the breadth andcreative problem-solving skills architects bring to issuesranging from urban design to structural innovation. Theultimate aim is to raise the architectural quality of cities.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? Not apparentIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? Not apparentAlthough this program attempts to give youngsters the "tools"they will need to effect positive changes to theirenvironments, there is no apparent discussion that centresaround the empowerment of women.88Heritage in EducationIn 1992, the Heritage Society of British Columbialaunched an education program to raise local heritageawareness. To this end, a kit was published titled Heritage in Education, promoting the development of lessons andactivities especially for teachers. Efforts are being made bythe Society to work with the Ministry of Education and toincorporate the kit in schools. An umbrella organization forheritage groups in the province, the Society includes heritageadvisory committees, preservation and historical societies,museums, and aboriginal groups. Originally the regionalcoalition of Heritage Canada, the organization is especiallyconcerned with the preservation of structures that bestreflect the culture. The Society conducts seminars, workshopsand an annual conference; one of the goals is to produce moreeducational materials for schools.Does the program represent women (in ways that recognizediversity in class, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and[dis]ability)? Not apparentIs the program community-based and does it emphasize activepublic participation? Not apparentThis program's priority is the preservation of a builtenvironment which it sees as diminishing rapidly. There is noapparent interest in historical studies dealing with women inthe built environment.89Canadian PublicationsAn innovative Canadian publication, Practical Suggestions for Environmental Design Education, by art educator GraemeChalmers (1978), is a concise set of lesson plans, aids andactivities produced for art and general classroom teachers.Although it does not directly represent women, a section inthe manual suggests active public participation. Chalmers, ofthe Faculty of Education at the University of BritishColumbia, has been a major force in inaugurating builtenvironment education in both Canada and the United States.He was also instrumental in publishing a series of workbooksdesigned to acquaint students with the architectural featuresof classical and pseudo-medieval buildings in their community(see Chalmers, 1979; 1980), as well as co-producing atransatlantic annotated bibliography on built environmenteducation resources (see Taylor, Chalmers, & Purser, 1981).Two books, written by Chantal Quintric Leveille, an urbanplanner in Quebec and educator at the Montreal Museum of FineArts, and published by the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts andHeritage Montreal, contributed to the promotion of builtenvironment education in Canada: Le sentier du patrimoine (1981), features a walk through old Montreal which focuses onthe city's heritage buildings, and This Building is also a Museum (1982), suggests ways of exploring the Museum thatconcentrates on architecture rather than on works of art.There is no recognition of women's issues in the publications.FRONT DOOR PROJECTART AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENTDESIGN EDUCATION UNITROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTSARCHITECTS-IN-SCHOOLS PROGRAMBUILDING EXPERIENCES TRUSTBUILT ENVIRONMENT EDUCATION PROJECTVagueVagueVagueNot apparentNot apparentStated, describedStated, vagueImpliedStated, vagueNot apparentNot apparentStated, vagueGROUP FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATIONARCHITECTS-IN-SCHOOLS-PROGRAMFOUNDATION FOR ARCHITECTURE,ARCHITECTURE IN EDUCATIONBUILT ENVIRONMENT EDUCATION PROGRAMAMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS:LEARNING BY DESIGNARCHITECTURE + CHILDRENINSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATIONCENTER FOR CITY BUILDINGEDUCATIONCENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNEDUCATIONCENTER FOR UNDERSTANDINGTHE BUILT ENVIRONMENTTHE ARCHITECTURAL AWARENESS PROJECTOF BUFFALOPROJECT ARCHI-TEACHERVagueVagueVagueVagueVagueImpliedImpliedVagueVagueVagueNot apparentNot apparentStated, vagueVagueVagueVagueVagueImpliedImpliedStated, vagueStated, vagueVagueVagueNot apparentHERITAGE CANADAMINISTERE DES AFFAIRES CULTURELLESCENTRE D'INTERPRETATION DE LA VIEURBAINE DE LA VILLE DE QUEBECARCHIBUS QUEBECVANCOUVER ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATIONPROJECTSCHOOL DISTRICT NO.42ARCHITECTURAL INSTITUTE OFBRITISH COLUMBIAHERITAGE IN EDUCATIONNot apparent^Not apparentVague^VagueVague VagueNot apparent^Not apparentNot apparent^Not apparentNot apparent Not apparentNot apparent^Not apparentNot apparent Not apparent90Summary of Built Environment Education Programs Represents^Communitywomen^actionBRITAINUNITED STATESCANADANo program clearly states and describes that it representswomen in ways that recognise diversity, nor does it clearlystate and describe that it is community-based and emphasizesan active public participatory process. Of the 20 activeprograms in Britain, the United States and Canada, only fiveappear to have the intention: Built Environment EducationProject, Architecture + Children, Institute for EnvironmentalEducation, Center for City Building Education, and Center forEnvironmental Design Education.912.4: Overview of Built Environment EducationThe overview in this section, first, brings together someshared characteristics and other general information about theprograms just described. Second, it attempts to identifycertain omissions in the programs and links these omissions tothe dominant mode of thinking out of which present programgoals and strategies arise. Third, it explores the leadershiprole of women in built environment education. Finally, itdraws a conclusion based on the analysis.As mentioned in Chapter 1, this study uses an analyticalresearch design (Coombs & Daniels, 1991; McMillan &Schumacher, 1989). The method is applicable primarily, butnot exclusively, to researching phenomena which do not lendthemselves to strict quantitative analysis. There is,therefore, an inferential aspect to qualitative research inwhich the data are synthesized to provide an understanding ofevents not accessible by empirical observation. This type ofresearch is used to provide an interpretation of the conceptsand strategies used to formulate built environment curricularstudies, and of the hegemonic assumptions implicit in thoseconcepts. The analysis acknowledges particular feministvalues guiding the selection of analytical criteria and theinterpretation of concepts, and therefore this study admits toa certain degree of partiality.Shared program characteristics. The majority of builtenvironment education programs in Britain, the United States92and Canada are not systematically different from one toanother. The language used to describe goals, objectives andcurricula is similar in both tone and content. Most of theprograms include an aesthetic component (how to improve thelook of the structure, site or space) a field experiencemodule, and a heritage or history segment.Unlike most education curricula, the majority of builtenvironment education programs are initiated outside theeducation system. Architectural institutes or other groups orindividuals create the programs and then attempt to interestschools or school districts to accept them. For instance, thefirst American program, GEE!, was initiated by thePhiladelphia Chapter of the AIA; Project Archi-Teacher wasorganized by architects; the Architectural Awareness Projectfor Buffalo (TAAP) was founded and sponsored by "Friends" ofthe School of Architecture and Planning; and Heritage inEducation was created by a heritage society.In Britain, the construction industry is currentlyplaying a leading role in initiating built environmenteducation programs. Of the three existing major programs inthat country, two are organized by the industry: the BuildingExperiences Trust (BET) and the Built Environment EducationProject (BEEP). The BET went so far as to organize theInternational Built Environment Education Conference inCambridge in the spring of 1992 and is presently carrying on avigorous campaign to promote built environment education93throughout the world.In Canada, school districts or Ministries of Education donot play a major role in the introduction of built environmentstudies, although there is occasional mention in some visualarts curriculum guides. Only one provincial governmentinitiated and continues to sponsor a built environmenteducation program: the Ministere des Affaires culturelles, forthe province of Quebec. This omission on the part ofministries of education and curriculum developers could be dueto a lack of awareness or conceivably a lack of interest. Anattempt by this author to acquire funding from the Ministry ofEducation in British Columbia for a built environment programfocusing on women's perspectives was refused on the groundsthat the subject was too narrow in scope, too advanced forelementary or secondary students and too specialized for aplace within the curriculum.There are a few examples of initiative by individualswithin education or other academic fields. Two programs thatare currently running were initiated by art teachers: AnneTaylor's Architecture + Children and Doreen Nelson's Centerfor City Building Education. One Canadian program, in SchoolDistrict No. 42 (Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, B.C.) was initiatedby an elementary school teacher, Stan Thomson. The Center forUnderstanding the Built Environment (CUBE) was created by arthistorian Ginny Graves.Five American programs, the AIA's Learning by Design,94Architecture in Education (AIE), Architecture + Children,Built Environment Education Program (BEEP), and Center forCity Building Education, are similar in four key aspects: theytake an interdisciplinary approach; use a collaboration ofteachers and architects in both planning and teaching; provideintensive teacher-training programs; and publish teacherguides.But other characteristics that many built environmenteducation programs share are in the form of serious omissions:The experiences and contributions of women in the builtenvironment are not included in most programs in the threecountries studied, nor is there a strong focus on community-based education encouraging public participation.Program omissions. The majority of built environmenteducation programs in Britain, the United States and Canadaadhere to a format and approach which does not specificallyintegrate an awareness of issues affecting women. Sincewomen's experiences are diverse by nature, this omissionincludes issues associated with gender, class, ethnicity, age,sexual orientation, and (dis)ability. Despite a growing bodyof work on women and the built environment, published sincethe 1970s, this documentation is not yet being read or used bythe majority of teachers and curriculum developers orarchitects and planners involved in education. Even thoseeducators, architects and planners who have or should have anawareness of issues associated with women and the built95environment may believe that they do not belong in builtenvironment education. For example, when a proposal for aninterdisciplinary course (involving Art Education, the Schoolof Architecture, the School of Planning, and LandscapeArchitecture) at the University of British Columbia wassubmitted, a unit on "Gender Issues in the Built Environment"(which would have included issues concerning marginalizedgroups) was rejected by the School of Architecture on thegrounds that it was inappropriate for such a course. When asuggestion was made to the Architectural Institute of BritishColumbia that their education program establish a sub-committee to focus on women's spatial and structural issues,the proposal was rejected outright by an officer. Asmentioned, the Ministry of Education in British Columbia alsorejected a proposal which would have focused on women'sspatial perspectives.Another glaring omission is that the majority of theprograms examined do not appear to provide sufficientattention to a model of community participation whichacknowledges the primacy of local decision-making. Sincedecision-making in public life often excludes marginalizedgroups, the integration of this topic would necessarilyinclude issues associated with class and ethnicity.All built environment programs studied appear to havebeen designed and initiated by individuals of Western Europeandecent, which may account for the lack of a multi-racial96approach. There is little documentation that suggests thatthe majority of programs are attempting to integrate gender-equitable multi-racial methodology. Most continue to betaught from a Western Eurocentric perspective and, in fact,when analyzing the programs, one gets the impression that theworld is mostly male, white and middle class. The majority ofprograms tend to focus on a process of acquiring technicalskills and knowledge geared to the dominant culture. Thus,they may not be addressing the experiences of non-white ornon-mainstream children and adolescents.Only five programs appear to explicitly attempt tointegrate certain social, cultural and political concerns: TheBritish BEEP, Architecture + Children, the Institute forEnvironmental Education, the Center for City BuildingEducation, and the Center for Environmental Design Education.BEEP attempts to incorporate a non-mainstream approach byincluding implications for women, the disabled and minorities;it is the only program which contains the word "women" in itsliterature. While this program demonstrates sympathy towardssocial issues, it may be unrealistic to expect a programdesigned, organized and sponsored by the construction industryto demonstrate a natural sensitivity in these areas. Of theother four programs which include aspects of social andcultural issues, Architecture + Children introduces NativeAmerican and Hispanic cultures and cosmology; the Institutefor Environmental Education conducts studies and design97projects on alternative environments that enhance learningopportunities for disabled persons as well as specificcultural groups such as Native Americans and Hispanics; theCenter for City Building Education offers classes designed toaccommodate disabled and immigrant persons; and the Center forEnvironmental Design Education is developing a curriculum foreducators that will focus on the critical link betweenclassroom education and the existing community.Many of the other programs claim to examine therelationship between architecture and human needs andaspirations, for example the American BEEP, CUBE, Learning byDesign, BET, and the Royal Institute of British Architects(RIBA) Architects-in-Schools program; but whether thisrelationship is a primary focus is not clear. It is also notclear whose needs and aspirations are examined. The AIEprogram alleges that it explores social and technologicalissues, but which issues in particular are not stated. Whilethis program maintains that it encourages the appreciation andunderstanding of other civilizations and cultures, it is notevident whether this means past cultures or non-mainstreamcontemporary cultures.Goals. All the programs strive for visionary andinspired goals in their mission statements. But do the goalsrelate to practice? An analysis shows that programs aim toassist students to: (a) develop an awareness and understandingof the urban environment, (b) acquire a sensitivity toward the98built environment, (c) cultivate discriminatory skills toappraise critically the built environment, (d) gain confidencein judging the built environment, (e) obtain techniques todesign a quality human environment, and (f) take part in thecreation and management of the environment. Genuinelyinclusive programs however, need to look at historicallymarginalized communities. All of the above stated goals arecommendable if they can also take into consideration women'sexperiences of the urban landscape, and the experiences ofothers who are not traditionally represented in urban theoryplanning and design. By whose standards, we must ask, do wecritically appraise the built environment, and by whosedefinition do we understand and appreciate a "quality"environment?Present normative methods of education cannot yield asuccessful model for a radical set of pedagogical systems. Itcan be speculated that built environment programs areresistant to change for a number of reasons: lack ofawareness; denial; fear of the unknown; inertia; or vestedinterests. Denial here refers to the hegemonic myth that lifeand social configurations are as they should be, "natural" andjust. Fear of the unknown could be another barrier: thebenefits of change often are not understood until after changehas been made.Cui bono, who benefits, is the key to understanding themaintenance of the built environment education system or,99indeed, any system, which, in the context of the greatest goodfor the greatest number, has apparently outlived itsusefulness. In the case of built environment education,including feminist precepts would be an additional challengeto an already threatened patriarchal system. At stake areposition, status, and power, and these are not likely to berelinquished easily, regardless of any real or allegedunderstanding of the feminist movement.Strategies. Even if built environment education programgoals were not at issue, an analysis of the strategiesemployed is needed to determine how they affect programs.Often two opposing strategies appear in built environmenteducation: The first is the volunteer team approach advocatedby the early British ABE Project and the Design EducationUnit. This approach encourages teachers, architects andplanners to collaborate and to plan and teach jointly. It isconcerned with community issues, and its goal is education forparticipation: to create links between school and community,and teach students how to participate effectively in shapingthe environment. Unfortunately, neither of these programs arestill in existence. The second approach, advocated by theRIBA, the Architectural Institute of British Columbia, andother programs, places architects in schools to conductarchitectural workshops on the formalistic aspects ofarchitecture.The two approaches invariably come into conflict. In100Britain, the volunteer community-oriented team approachadvocated by the ABE Project has been superseded by the RoyalInstitute of British Architects' (RIBA) Architects-in-Schoolsresidency program in which architects are paid to conductclassroom sessions. Such a change in presentationsignificantly alters the educational content. Most architectsare not, as professionals, trained in the social issues that abuilt environment program would need to incorporate. Theirfocus, understandably, is on formalistic, aesthetic, andtechnical considerations, and not on an analysis of wheretheir particular set of judgements and values comes from, orwhom those judgements affect. The change in orientation inBritain is untimely since the first approach appears to be farmore conducive to meeting stated program goals.It would appear then, that an architect-in-schoolsprogram, by reinforcing a kind of professional superiority ormystique, could hinder rather than promote citizenparticipation in the built environment. Teaching from astrictly formalistic perspective probably does more tomaintain the status quo than to critically analyze it. It isthe purpose of this dissertation to demonstrate the need toprogress to a new level of educational programming. It isasserted here that this may take place only if those involvedin built environment education acquire a grass-roots feministperspective. In community-based women-centred initiatives wefind areas where women are developing an awareness and101understanding of the built environment, gaining confidence tocritically appraise the built environment, and cultivating theskills required to design a quality human environment.Visibility of women in built environment education.Women have had considerable influence on built environmenteducation and continue to be in the forefront of the movement.They have contributed to the field by developing programs andtextbooks and organizing conferences. Some programs have beeninitiated by female art teachers while other women play majorroles in administering programs. The dominant leadershipcomes from eight women: British art educator Eileen Adams,Canadian planner Chantal Quintric Leveille, and six Americanwomen: Aase Eriksen (now working in Denmark), Anne Taylor,Ginney Graves, Rolaine Copeland, Doreen Nelson, and Joanne K.Guilfoil. The two major Canadian projects, the Ministere desAffaires culturelles' program, and the Centre d'interpretationde la vie urbaine de la Ville de Quebec, are administered bywomen, Suzanne Bernier and Christine Bardou, respectively.The only art education textbooks that deal with the builtenvironment in any significant manner come from three women:June King McFee, Rogena Degge and Laura Chapman.The active leadership demonstrated by women raises somequestions: do some women educators share a common experiencethat causes them to focus on built environment education? Dotheir programs differ in any way from those initiated by men?Will the presence of women in leadership positions eventually102facilitate the integration of spatial and structural issuesconcerning women? Questions such as these, althoughimportant, may not serve a useful purpose at this time. Toconceive of differences is extremely problematic given thegender bias that is consciously and unconsciously structuredinto almost all aspects of the built environment. To escapethe pervasive effects of this type of socialization and positmethods of resistance to the hegemonic constraints ofpatriarchal capitalist culture requires a certain amount ofcritical distance -- a distance that is difficult to achieve(Armstrong, 1993). Female art teachers will have to develop afeminist critical practice before their programs differ fromthose of men. Nevertheless some aspects of their programsreflect this leaning.From the descriptions in the literature and personalcorrespondence, it appears that women focus more on non-aesthetic issues. Eileen Adams stresses communityinvolvement, and her publications, geared specifically toteachers, are an engaging mix of social and political issues,often concisely expressed in the form of innovative comicstrips. She is calling for changes in teaching methods and inbasic attitudes, and stresses that study of the builtenvironment is a cross-curricular activity that breaks downbarriers and opens new possibilities. Anne Taylor, whoorganized a built environment education conference in thespring of 1993, which brought together educators and designers103from around the globe, believes in a cross-cultural approachand brings to it spiritual and metaphysical expressions. JuneKing McFee also advocates cross-cultural awareness in designand the built form. She was stimulated to write her textbookafter visiting the riot-torn areas in American cities duringthe 1960s and early 70s where she was strongly disturbed bythe political decisions that destroyed environments,particularly ethnically developed low-income neighbourhoodcommunities. She is a supporter of equal opportunity and anecologist. Laura Chapman argues that students have the rightto know that the built environment is a product of multi-layered decision-making and as citizens, they can beparticipants in the process of shaping the built environment.Chapman was influenced by post-World War II's constructionboom, witnessing the consequences of misplaced priorities inlarge and small scale projects. Her travels introduced her toa sense of locale and culture and she believes thatinconsiderate or ill-conceived aesthetic design have socialand cultural consequences well beyond the immediate locationsin which they are found. Ginny Graves asserts that lack ofdesign literacy is destroying cities and therefore she isbringing "art" to built environment education, but in a muchbroader context and in a more "real life" situation. Shecontends that once people are aware of the issues andchallenges of the built environment, they begin to make betterchoices, accept responsibility for, and make an impact on104their environment in meaningful ways. Joanne K. Guilfoil, oneof the few art educators acknowledging publicly issues ofgender in the built environment (she recently wrote a reviewof Discrimination by Design: A Feminist Critique of the Man-Made Environment [1992], by Leslie Kanes Weisman), states thatthe politics of public space belongs on the art educationagenda as much as it does on the feminist agenda and thatbuilt environment education should play a role in formingattitudes that honour human difference. This role shouldinclude developing in students an understanding of theinfluence architecture has on human social behaviour.2.5: ConclusionThe analysis presented indicates that most current builtenvironment education programs in the three countries studieddo not represent women's diversity nor are they stronglycommitted to community action. Furthermore, most programs donot cover the total range of integratable educationalknowledge. The overview of the discourse on women's spatialperspectives in the following chapter testifies that there isa vast amount of overlooked material available for teacheruse. Thus, this study demonstrates that systemic inequitiesoccur in the majority of built environment education programs.They ignore the spatial and structural concerns of women andconcomitantly issues of gender, ethnicity and class.Built environment education in Canada, the United Statesand Britain reflects, for the most part, a one sided male105Eurocentric view. Like much of Western education it istherefore a miseducation of the majority. Minnich (1988)argues that the majority of humankind has been excluded fromeducation and the creation of knowledge: built environmenteducation is no exception. The failure of most programs toconsider aesthetics and gender, ethnicity and class at atheoretical as well as an empirical level, implies that thereis an immense need for new educational research to look atspatial design and cognition in the context of socializationand oppression.To conclude this chapter, the following points must bemade: There are tremendous gaps in built environmenteducation; there is little, if any, research being done inCanada in this field and subsequently no grants to supportsuch research. There is no central data source and the ERICsource is minimal (less than 12 entries). Committees need tobe formed at all levels of the education system to explore theintegration of issues concerning women and the builtenvironment. The following chapter presents these issues asthey appear in the discourse focusing on women and the builtenvironment and describes some community-based women-centredinitiatives.106CHAPTER 3FEMINIST DISCOURSE ABOUT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT:AN OVERVIEWHaving examined the omissions in most existing curriculumin built environment education, what can we learn about thebuilt environment from feminist discourse? Since feministliterature identifies diversity in class, ethnicity, age,sexual orientation, and (dis)ability it affirms the inherentworth and capacity for self-determination of all women. Anybuilt environment education program that represents women willneed to make use of this discourse. Where and when did thediscourse begin? What are the major themes?3.1: IntroductionFeminist discourse concerning the built environmentintensified in the United States in the mid 1800s when a fewrural and urban feminists insisted that the design ofcommunities and housing did not serve the needs of women. Thesingle family home was condemned as both oppressive andisolating for women because excessive demanding domestic workcould not be shared. The goal of these early feminists was toplan, design and build communities and housing that ended theconfinement of women to household labour. Rural and urbancommunal and cooperative facilities which socialized domesticlabour and allowed women to gain economic independence wereboth envisioned and developed (Hayden, 1981).As feminist views on housing and other aspects of society107began to spread, a backlash began. In 1903, the editors of anAmerican architectural journal asserted that the cooperativeapartment house was the most dangerous enemy that Americandomesticity had ever encountered (Hayden, 1981). Post WorldWar I, post-Bolshevik Revolution anti-communist hysteriaactivated an attack on American feminists by red-baiters whoequated communal and cooperative living arrangements withcommunism (Hayden, 1981; Papachristou, 1976). Fuelling thisfire, "The Woman Patriot", a bi-monthly American publicationbased in Washington, D.C., "Dedicated to the Defense of TheFamily and The State AGAINST Feminism and Socialism" ran anarticle in 1923 titled "How Reds are Organizing Women"(Papachristou, 1976, p. 200). By the end of the 1920s, manypoliticians and business men insisted that economic growth andprosperity depended upon keeping women out of the labour forceand in the home (Hayden, 1981).World War II ushered in an extraordinary transformationin both gender roles and spatial organizations. During thisperiod, the American government's construction of wartimehousing communities in regions involved in arms manufacturingcreated unique changes to the built form. For the first time,communities were designed and constructed to serve the needsof women. Although these communities were short-lived, theydemonstrated that the American government, in conjunction withhousing developers, urban planners and architects, had theeconomic and ideological capacity to restructure the built108environment to better suit the needs of working women (Hayden,1981).However, during the postwar period of the 1940s theexpanding capitalist economy targeted the home as a market formanufactured consumer goods. Capitalist developers launchedhuge campaigns to sell small suburban homes purchased withgovernment-subsidized mortgages. Subsequent suburban sprawlhad detrimental effects on working women by separating themfrom areas of paid work, services and cultural life (Hayden,1981). This isolation, induced by powerful political andeconomic interests, helped to silence the women's movement forover 25 years.The 1960s saw a re-emergence of the Women's LiberationMovement. This was a time of change: The job market opened up(partly as a consequence of the space race and Viet Nam Warmilitary spending); the anti-war and civil rights movementswere activated; contraception became more widespread; andurban life resurged. In this milieu women, once again, beganto articulate their dissatisfaction with the built environmentand this articulation provided the initial basis for a rapidlygrowing body of work. Research continues to be carried out indisciplines such as architecture, planning, urban geography,sociology, anthropology, environmental studies, women'sstudies, and architectural and urban history.Three dominant themes have appeared in the research.First, studies which focus on women's lives and constraints in109the built environment. These include historical researchestablishing links between the development of suburbanenvironments based on single-family home ownership and thedevelopment of capitalism, as well as research on the spatialand structural needs of women. Second, historical andcontemporary studies based on women's experiences andcontributions in the architectural and planning professions;these include research that examines the existence of afeminist approach to design and planning. Third, reports onpolitical advocacy and action developed and organized byfeminists.The overview in this study is divided into four sections.The first section examines guidelines for feminist analysisand research in the built environment. The second, third andfourth sections explore the major themes in the literature:(a) the inter-relationship between gender and the constructionof urban space and the architectural changes that would berequired to alleviate gender discrimination, (b) the status ofwoman architects and planners and the question of a feministdesign sensibility, and (c) the current trends in feministorganizations and lobbying efforts.3.2: Guidelines for Feminist Analysis and ResearchIn her paper, "Is there a Feminist Analysis ofArchitecture?" Jos Boys (1984a) stresses the need for anexploration of the way a "male-defined" world constructs andperpetuates one particular set of meanings in space through110"architectural" examples. She suggests that whilearchitecture does not control women's lives, it acts inconjunction with other social and economic factors to keepwomen in their "place". Male-defined ideas about appropriatelocalities for homes and work places are related toappropriate behaviour for women in these two locations. Boysexplicates the paradoxical male desire to categorize women intwo entirely incompatible ways: as pure unsullied beings inthe home and as readily available sex objects in the workforce. Thus, in a male-defined view of the world, women'ssexuality can be defined by the place in which she issituated. Ascribing these two categories to women requires asplit in the sphere of home and work and therefore one of themajor themes of contemporary feminism has been the rejectionof the separation of private and public space in women'slives.Since public space traditionally belongs to men, manywomen view it as the site of dangerous and uncontrollableevents. Boys (1984a) argues that the architectural andplanning professions have failed to recognize the mechanics bywhich women's fears are constructed and the differences inspace usage between women and men. This failure brings tolight the urgent need for a feminist analysis of architecture.According to Boys, feminist methods of analysis ofarchitecture are based upon an understanding that environmentsare not neutral, that there is a relationship between111architecture and a sexist social structure. In many cases,feminist work develops from a strong dissatisfaction withcurrent architectural and planning practice, in both processand product and from a personal sense of dislocation.Most feminist work exposes the ways in which the world ismale-defined and demonstrates how women's social experiencehas been kept notably absent. Boys (1984a) asserts thatthrough a feminist critical assessment of architecturalhistory, the hegemonic meanings beneath a man-made world arerevealed. Feminist architectural practice is therefore aboutproducing more "appropriate" environments for women: socially,spatially and symbolically. Any feminist analysis ofarchitecture should take into account the contradictionsbetween architectural theory and women's material conditions.Feminist research should evolve from an appreciation of thediversity of women's experience. It should critically analyzewomen's subjugation in society and it should look atarchitecture as the physical embodiment of a set of political,social and economic priorities. A feminist analysis canconfront a multiplicity of issues simultaneously, beginningwith the way in which the physical composition of the builtenvironment disallows women equal access to resources.Secondly, it can explicate the way in which the builtenvironment legitimizes and naturalizes this inequality.Finally, it can demonstrate how architects consistentlyconstruct their own socialized experience as "the norm".112Although Jacqueline Leavitt (1980a) addresses the samequestions as Boys (1984a), she does so from the position of afeminist planner. In her essay, "Research Needs andGuidelines on Women's Issues: Planning, Housing and CommunityDevelopment", Leavitt reviews and recommends approaches toresearch about women and planning. She identifies women'sissues and demarcates problems that affect groups of specificwomen such as female-headed households or battered wives.Leavitt stresses that in any research dealing with women andthe built environment variables such as class, ethnicity andage should be taken into consideration and feminists shouldattempt to build coalitions across these class and ethniclines. Leavitt warns that middle-class bias and falseuniversalization are not automatically offset by femalefeminist planners. Just as issues surrounding women have beenidentified largely with the white middle-class women'smovement, (although this is changing), most women planners arealso white and by education and income belong to themiddle-class. Those biases may inform their findings.Leavitt is also critical of the research practice gap whichoccurs when an academic approach does not offer solutions thepractitioner can apply or when what is produced by thecommunity-based planner is too site-specific. For Leavitt, itis crucial to have theory that relates to practice and viceversa.Leavitt (1980a) proposes the development of research113guidelines which could provide a comprehensive framework andhelp bridge the research practice gap. These guidelines,which parallel Boys' (1984a), recognize (a) that whilepatriarchy affects all women, household organizations shouldbe analyzed by class, sex, age, and ethnic group, and (b) thatidentification of women's issues in planning should relate tofeminist theory and feminist history since they are criticalto understanding underlying patterns in planning. Thehistorical focus of planning on suburban development helped tocreate conditions that perpetuated women as domesticstereotypes, incorporated into current planning. Only with anincrease in the number of feminist planners, and impetus fromfeminists outside planning, is it possible to deconstructstereotypes and present realistic images of women bothhistorically and currently.Leavitt (1980a) contends that even after acceptance ofthe basic research guidelines, patriarchal barriers make itdifficult to come to terms with women's issues in planning,for example, the organization of planning and the disjuncturebetween the public nature of planning and private needs.These external variables affect both research and policyimplications. Patriarchal assumptions in housing include thepresumption that a male will be present or that female-headedhouseholds are either temporary or involve deviant females.Planning continues to be organized around physical categoriesrather than social and economic issues. Because there has114been a de facto assumption that everyone belongs to a nuclearfamily, special groups have been ignored; for example: olderwomen, disabled women, lesbians, women of colour, and singlemothers. Given the functional nature of planning, feministresearch which focuses on gender and the built environment iscritical. The following sections examine the three majorthemes in the discourse.3.3: Women and the Built Environment The first major theme that is evident in the literaturefocusing on women and the built environment is theinterrelationship between gender and the construction of urbanspace. This theme both examines how urban spatial andstructural arrangements discriminate against women andreinforce their inequality and alternatively the kinds ofspaces and structures that would serve to facilitate women'sneeds.Spatial and Structural DiscriminationFemale as full-time housewife; male as breadwinner. Forthe last five decades most North American housing consisted ofsingle-family suburban dwellings designed for predominantlywhite nuclear families with prescribed roles and activitiesfor women and men. This rigid gender system determines thedesign and location of dwellings and places of work; in turn,these settings support the ideologies that generated them.For many women, however, the ideological construct of "woman"has lost its connotations of full-time nurturing and has115instead become associated with the dual roles of jugglingdomestic work and paid work. For these women the cities andsuburbs in which they live no longer fit their lives; rathertheir environments have become another set of problems toconfront (Andrew & Milroy, 1988; Bowlby, 1984; Boys, 1984a;Franck, 1985; Hayden, 1986; Kjellberg Bell & Sayne, 1990;Klodawsky & Mackenzie, 1987; Klodawsky & Spector, 1988;Leavitt, 1980; Mackenzie, 1988; Saegert, 1985; Spain, 1992;Weisman, 1992; Wekerle, 1980, 1985).In Canada, by the early 1960s, the dominance of two-parent families began to decline, while mother-led, single-parent families and elderly households increased (Klodawsky &Spector, 1988). Statistics Canada (1991) reveals that thefastest growing family type is now the mother-led single-parent, that the majority of women with dependents have takenon some form of wage earning work, and that women withpreschool age children constitute a population with one of thelargest employment growth rates. These demographics, however,are seldom taken into consideration by the architectural,planning and building professions.The Montreal-based Standing Committee on Urban Planning,Housing and Public Works (1989) asserts that city planning anddevelopment in Montreal have remained "asexual" reflectinglittle concern for the status and needs of women; a view whichis emphatically echoed by many women. Gerda Wekerle(1979-1980) argues that because there are few women in the116architectural and planning professions, Canadian cities areplanned by men for men. House design, neighbourhood planningand the organization of transit systems, reflect the fallacyof the predominance of the nuclear family and perpetuate thedomestic isolation of women.Historically, the "ideal" family life had a function.Socially created male and female roles affirmed men'sdominance in the public realm of work and politics and women'sisolation in the private realm of the home. This gender-baseddivision of labour reinforced women's and men's social,political and economic relationships (Hayden, 1986). DoloresHayden (1986) claims that in the United States post-warsegregation of roles by gender was so pervasive that it wasextended to justify housing which segregated the poor,minorities and the elderly. A spatial prototype for marriedsuburban bliss concealed economic deprivation and racial andage segregation. Hayden asserts that post-World War II citiesmark the triumph of an "architecture of gender" on a nationalscale, the end result of which is housing, neighbourhoods andcities designed to constrain women physically, socially andeconomically. This issue was explored in a project organizedby women planners in Toronto. Taking their lead from WomenPlan London (Taylor, 1985), Women Plan Toronto broughttogether various women's groups who described discriminationin (a) zoning and building regulations, (b) housing, (c)transit, and (d) public space. Research confirms this117discrimination.Zoning and building regulations. Saegert (1985), Wekerle(1980), and Wheeler (1990) point out that in North Americaresidential zoning by-laws and building regulations have beenbased on male defined activities. Residential zoning by-lawsrequire the segregation of home and work, preventinghome-based businesses, thereby making it more difficult forwomen to combine career and family roles. Zoning limits thelocation of childcare facilities forcing women to either forgochildcare or seek it outside of their neighbourhoods. Zoningordinances which necessitate the construction of single-familyhomes on large lots and which bar moderate and low-costmultifamily and extended family units discriminate againstlow-income women (Wekerle, 1980). Furthermore, zoningordinances which place a narrow restrictive interpretation onthe term "family" make it illegal for single parents, olderwomen or lesbians to share a house in a single familyneighbourhood. Cooperative living and group homes, such astransition houses for battered women, are often consigned totransitional neighbourhoods with urban problems (Wekerle,1980).Housing. Almost two decades of Canadian studies havedocumented how the needs of women have been ignored in theplanning and design of housing. Surveys and hearings carriedout in the mid 1970s showed that women often experience severediscrimination in housing (Wekerle, 1980). This topic was the118focus of the Fall, 1990 volume of Canadian Woman Studies inwhich journal contributors, Novac (1990), Amana (1990), Other(1990), Wheeler (1990), and LaDuke (1990) reiterate thatsingle women on low and uncertain incomes, single parents,elderly women, lesbians, women of colour, aboriginal women,and women with disabilities, face extreme difficulty inobtaining housing. In her investigation of Canadian housingpolicy, Novac argues that access to housing is still regulatedby false and discriminatory concepts of the realities ofpeople's lives. Amana shows that women living innon-traditional families such as lesbians are liable to beignored or discriminated against. Wheeler stresses thatbecause housing is directly connected to wealth, the housingand land development industries have not focused on what makeshousing work for women and children. LaDuke clearlyillustrates how poverty is a woman's issue with emphasis onthe lives and experiences of women of colour, particularlyaboriginal women marginalized by lack of control over theirliving conditions.A conference entitled "Older Women and Housing:Challenges and Choices", (co-sponsored by Women in Search ofHousing Society [WISHS] and Simon Fraser University) tookplace in Vancouver in the spring of 1993. The primaryobjective of the conference was to articulate the colossalproblems faced by mature women. Conference proceedingsdemonstrated how securing housing is a critical issue119especially for older women because they may be disadvantagedas a result of physical or mental disability and/or poverty,retirement, or death of a spouse.Organized by Montreal's municipal Standing Committee onUrban Planning, Housing and Public Works (1989), a conferenceon "Women and Urban Spaces: Living in Montreal Everyday", alsorevealed critical housing issues. The conference report,called "Women and the City", showed that poor women experiencehousing discrimination in a number of ways: typically, theyare tenants frequently paying excessive rents and living ininadequate conditions with insufficient control over theirenvironments. Another report, produced in Vancouver, B.C. bythe Non-Profit and Community-Based Housing Network (1992)found that women make up the majority of social housing users.A study by Klodawsky and Spector (1988) found that mother-ledfamilies with income levels well below those of other familytypes are predominantly renters. In 1982, approximately 68percent of mother-led families rented in comparison to justover 26 percent of other families with children.Is action being taken to resolve the housing problem ofmother-led families? When considering the lack ofavailability of low-income housing for women, Jowsey (1984)expounds on how government, private developers and architectsare "dragging their feet" in their approach to affordablehousing solutions for women. Indifference is only part of theproblem. Architects, like developers, are profit-motivated120and prestige-hungry and therefore housing solutions for womendo not have high ranking priority. To compound theseproblems, women often do not have a strong voice in housingmatters. According to the Non-Profit and Community-BasedHousing Network (1992), equal representation by women does notexist on design panels, in managing and developing housing orin the management levels of housing administration. Thesesituations are not confined solely to Canada or the UnitedStates. According to British housing activist, Sheila Button(1986), the low priority given women's housing needs is aresult of women's lesser involvement in the design andconstruction of housing. Male clients hire male architects,who in turn, hire male construction workers, who are guided bymale contractors.A disturbing trend has appeared alongside the awakeningawareness of women's housing and social service needs.Vancouver developers are constructing residential towers thatcontain units as small as 280 square feet (the smallest inNorth American and roughly the size of two parking stalls).The builders defend their actions by asserting that theprospective female tenants are far more concerned withlocation and social amenities than suite size (Appelbe, 1990a,1990b; Magee, 1992) but there is no evidence that women wereconsulted about or participated in these design decisions.Transit. Studies beginning in the late 1970s show thatwomen are the majority of public transit users, yet little121effort has been made to provide adequate transportation forthem (Wekerle, 1979-1980). METRAC (The Metro Action Committeeon Public Violence Against Women and Children) (1989-1990c)found that women constitute 58% of all Toronto TransitCommission (TTC) users as well as 66% of "transit captives"(those who have no driver's license, car, or access to a car).Klodawsky and Spector (1988) correspondingly report thatroughly 47 percent of mother-led single-parent families inCanada have no access to a car and are forced to rely solelyon public transit. Further studies focus on the mobilityconstraints imposed upon women because of their travelpatterns and dependence on public transit. For instance,childcare responsibilities incline women to confine themselvesto a much smaller work-preference area than men, whichdiminishes their chances of successfully competing in the jobmarket, and limits them to lower-paying local jobs (Fox, 1983;Klodawsky & Spector, 1988; Michelson, 1973; Pickup, 1984;Rosenbloom, 1978; Wekerle, 1979-1980).Public space. A number of studies demonstrate thatdiscrimination against women often occurs in public space.Hayden (1986) and Wekerle (1980) show how attention must bepaid to the nature of this space and how it inhibits women'sparticipation in public life. Historically, women's changingrelationship to the private and public realms and thediminution of women's public roles occurred with theindustrial revolution and urbanization (Boulding, 1976).122Sennet (1974) describes how "public" came to mean a life spentoutside the family, a quality bolstered by the proliferationof public spaces for men and the designation of the home as arefuge from the world. Women were not considered stalwartenough to associate with strangers in the cafes or clubs or topartake of the pedestrian parks which emerged in theeighteenth century. In the nineteenth century, the publicsphere was defined as an immoral domain where women were atrisk and the mere presence of women in public spaces wassufficient to provoke anger and violence (Sennett, 1974).Franck (1985), Hayden (1986), Loyd (1975), Rapoport (1982),Tognoli (1979), and Weisman (1992) report that there is a longstanding cultural expectation that the public world is men'sdomain.The notion that certain spaces in the built environmentare gender determined, some belonging to men and others towomen, has devastating implications for women. Boys (1984b)describes how this notion is reinforced in the early educationof girl children. Restrictions on the use of spaces aresystematically taught to young girls. Female children aresocialized to stay off the street through an implanted fear ofstrangers and by restrictions on street games and activities.Girls learn to take up as little space as possible on thestreet, whereas boys are encouraged and learn that they canexercise their power by taking up space.These gender-related responses remain ingrained and123manifest themselves in the fears and restrictions that womenexperience in the built environment. In "The City: Off Limitsto Women," two French urbanists, Enjeu and Save (1974), arguethat the city consists of an endless series of "keep out"signs for women. For example, women lounging in bars, eatingalone in restaurants or strolling alone in public parks stillmeet with marked social disapproval. Wiedermann (1985), in"How secure are public open spaces?" asserts that withincities, women are limited in their use of parks. Throughinterviews with 160 women in Berlin, Wiedermann found thatmany women feel threatened in public parks because they areoften sites of sexual violence.In a report, entitled "The City for Women: No SafePlace", MacLeod (1989) found that 56 percent of Canadian womenare afraid to walk in their own neighbourhoods after dark.Read (1990), Rebick (1992) and Pickup (1984) found that womenoften stay home, keep their children home, distrustneighbours, shop and eat out less, fear using undergroundparking and fear getting into an elevator with a lone manalready on board. Fear of sexual harassment or physicalassault also prevents many women from going out unaccompaniedor from using public transit. Similarly, Lof land (Cited inJowsey, 1984), reveals that women's fear of urban public spacenot only denies them the pleasures of the "street" but bydissuading their presence, actually increases the danger andthe inhospitality of the "street". Hayden (1986) describes124how access to public space is especially difficult for olderwomen and may even cause some women to withdraw from publiclife.Results of a study conducted in 1982 by the City ofToronto reveal a correlation between urban developmentpractices and violence against women. A large number ofassaults against women took place in an "empty space" of theurban system, vacant lots, parking lots or spaces betweenapartment buildings. Assaults were also linked with the useof public transit and often occurred in the proximity of a busor metro stop. METRAC (1989-1990a) maintains that in Canada,the sexual victimization of women and children is pervasiveand is only nominally discouraged; a fact that isstatistically confirmed. In Canada a woman is raped every 17minutes or subjected to some form of sexual assault every 6minutes (Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women,1985). In spite of these statistics, the threat of violenceagainst women has not been a topic in open-space planning.Stressing that women's fear of violence is a valid planningissue, the Standing Committee (1989) argues that since urbandevelopment defines the use of the city, it is unacceptablethat there are still sites or sectors that women fear.Feminist research continues to explore how women aregiven the message that they are "out of place" (see Spain,1992). Hayden (1986) and Weisman (1992) demonstrate theeffects of sexist and violent advertising in public space.125Billboards, bus and bus-stall poster images of women,pornography shop window displays, department store mannequins,and magazine covers in stands demoralize and depersonalizewomen as objects. Nelson (1993b) and Weisman (1992) show howmany structures in cities alienate women. Towers andskyscrapers visually and spatially dominate the cityscape andassert their own symbolic masculine presence. With theirimposing height and internal hierarchical spatial organizationthese structures represent "barometers of male achievement"(Nelson, 1993b, p.5), forming a constructed backdrop of powerand dominance designed to intimidate (Nelson, 1993b).Research is also examining women's actual use of public spaceand facilities in attempting to formulate the kinds of changesthat would make women feel "in place" in the urban environment(cf. Spain, 1992; Weisman, 1992). What specifically arewomen's urban spatial and structural priorities? Thefollowing discourse explicates and envisions the kind of urbanenvironment women are demanding.Spatial and Structural Priorities General issues. Much of the current research on thearchitectural and planning needs of women arises from theperspective of women as users of the urban environment.Studies that document the housing and neighbourhood needs ofmother-led families as well as those of the elderly callattention to the critical link between housing and servicesand between neighbourhood environment and community support126(Ahrentzen, 1985; Anderson-Khlief, 1981; Berheide, Banner, &Greckel, 1981; Gutowski, 1981; Hayden, 1986; Hitchcock, 1981;Klodawsky, Spector, & Hendrix, 1983; McClain & Doyle, 1984;Lawton & Hoover, 1981; Roberts, 1991; Wekerle & Mackenzie,1985). Empirical work on the needs of single mothers, mothersin the labour force and elderly women found that supportiveneighbourhood environments included a wide range of housingoptions, for example, cooperative and social housing,single-parent housing and "granny flats" (Hayden, 1980, 1986;Saegert, 1985; Wekerle, 1985). Brown (1978), Rothblatt (1979)and Weiss (1980) in their research on the neighbourhood needsof single mothers found that facilities within walkingdistance, accessible public transit and close proximity tohome, work and community services were critical (cited inWekerle, 1985). They also found that a supportiveneighbourhood is one which accepts the single parent and herchildren, is safe and has other single parent families. Theneeds of women in the labour force are similar to those ofsingle mothers: a neighbourhood environment that includesservices such as childcare, jobs, commercial facilities, andgood access to public transit. For elderly women aneighbourhood environment that incorporates these elementsallows them to live independently instead of moving toinstitutions (Wekerle, 1985). Newcomer (1976) found that forlow-income elderly women, distance from a given service is thesingle most important issue. The study suggests that on-site127locations are needed for senior centres and laundromats, aone-block radius for public transit, a three-block radius foroutdoor areas, and a three-to six-block radius for basicservices such as shops, banks, and so forth.Housing. In their discussion on single-parent familyhousing in Canadian cities, Klodawsky and Spector (1988)recommend ten assessment criteria for evaluating the adequacyand amenability of family housing. These includeaffordability, accessibility (close to services, schools andemployment), availability (sufficient units suitable forfamily rearing), security of tenure, appropriateness offacilities for children, household maintenance (at areasonable level of repair), opportunities for sharing andsupport (community-based support and information facilities),privacy, suitability for transition (flexible financial andhousing arrangements in both the short and long run), andcost-effectiveness in the use of public and private funds tocreate the most effective mix of public, private, and thirdsector housing.The Standing Committee on Urban Planning, Housing andPublic Works (1989) recommended a specific set of designguidelines for single-parent family housing: well-insulated,sound-proofed units with direct access to the exterior; unitspreferably on the first floor or at most the second floor tominimize activity constraints with strollers and parcels;units with a back yard or a sufficiently large balcony for use128by children and supervising adults; and units with largemulti-purpose rooms for children and parents. France (1985)and Leavitt (1982, 1984, 1985) also explore certain featuresof housing planned especially for single parents whichincluded permanent, nonprofit, cooperative housing projectsand philanthropic projects targeted at mother-led families.France and Leavitt also address the need for short-term (threeto six months) second-stage housing for battered women andtheir children. The Standing Committee on Urban Planning,Housing and Public Works (1989) similarly concurred with theurgent need for housing for battered women.Childcare. Wekerle (1979-1980) insists that zoningby-laws should require childcare spaces in all housingdevelopments and public buildings. The Greater VancouverRegional District (GVRD) (1990), under its "Regional Actions"plan, agreed with this view and requested that the federal andprovincial governments participate both in policy inventionand funding for an experiment in cross jurisdiction planning.The Children's Advocate (1990) of Vancouver maintains thataffordable, licensed, quality childcare facilities forchildren of working parents are crucial.The Civic Childcare Strategy (Planning and SocialPlanning Departments, 1990) of Vancouver identified work sitedaycare for infants and toddlers as a top priority.Statistics confirm this critical need for childcare preferablyat work sites: The Planning and Social Planning Departments of129the City of Vancouver, report that in 1986 the majority ofwomen in British Columbia with preschoolers were in the labourforce. Similar statistics were revealed at the national levelin 1988 by the Canadian National Childcare Study. A 1990report entitled Childcare in the City of Vancouver, emphasizedthat it is expedient for the City to implement a comprehensiveapproach to its role in the creation of childcare facilities.Children's issues. As well as raising the issue ofchildcare facilities, the Committee on Urban Planning, Housingand Public Works (1989) stressed that children have a right tothe city and that the urban environment should be redevelopedin a way that recognizes the place of children. The Committeeoffered an extensive set of planning guidelines dealing withrecreational and ergonomic standards: (a) recognizingchildren's need for playgrounds, recreational facilities andplaces of rest; (b) developing play areas and parks with highsafety standards to minimize the risks of accidents andassaults; (c) consulting with residents regarding the need forplay areas, parks and schools; (d) evaluating alleyways aspotential sites for play areas; (e) planning the activities ofmunicipal recreational services based on the working hours ofparents and on school holidays and summer vacations; (f)establishing ergonomic standards for interiors and exteriorsof buildings to solve the problems of strollers in revolvingdoors, metro escalators, metro doors, and the step-up tobuses; and (g) developing spaces in both women's and men's130public washrooms to accommodate infants.Park safety. METRAC (1989-1990b) along with otherwomen's groups in Toronto reported on factors that neededattention in public parks. These included lighting,visibility, entrapment possibilities, movement predictors suchas pathways, sign information, visibility of parkstaff/police, public telephones, assailant escape routes,maintenance levels (for example, replacing damaged lights andsigns in neglected areas) and parks programming information.Seven recommendations were correspondingly made to the city ofToronto: (a) research the limitations on women's use of parks,(b) train all staff in women's safety issues, (c) improvesigns so that women know their location in the parks and theirnearest exit points as well as the nearest likely access toother users and to park staff, (d) consider events andprogramming which would increase use of the park therebyreducing isolation, (e) improve lighting and provide more(illuminated) telephone and washroom facilities, (f) encouragegreater police visibility in the park, and (g) improve safetyat TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) points.Support services. In addition to the more common supportservices, women need "women centred" political, social,economic, and medical spatial structures. These include theneed for women's resource centres, ethnic cultural centres,lesbian support centres, lesbian adult care homes, maturewomen's support centres, media-watch service centres, feminist131educational centres, women's presses, bookstores, bars,spiritual centres, credit unions and banks, midwife-run birthcentres and women's health care and abortion clinics (Birkby &Weisman, 1975; Weisman, 1981, 1992). Women in crisis needrape crisis centres, storefront legal services and, asmentioned earlier, battered women's shelters (in 1980, atleast one Canadian woman in five was battered by her spouse[Standing Committee, 1980]). Emergency housing for victims ofrape, and halfway houses for women prostitutes, alcoholics,addicts, and prisoners are also required (Jowsey, 1984;Weisman 1981, 1992; Wekerle et al., 1980). The glaring needfor these facilities evidences women's oppression anddisenfranchisement within patriarchal capitalist society(Weisman, 1981, 1992).The non-sexist androgenous city. A number of feministarchitects and writers (Gilman, 1979; Hayden, 1980; Hayden,1986; Saegert, 1985; Spain, 1992; Weisman, 1992) have givenconsiderable thought to the concept of the creation of anon-sexist androgenous city.In "What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like?" Hayden (1980)speculates that the conventional home would function for, notagainst the employed woman and her family as it would not beremoved from shared community space and community services.The proposed program for a non-sexist city would involve smallparticipatory groups of women and men which Hayden calls"HOMES" (Homemakers' Organization for a More Egalitarian132Society). Hayden asserts that the program must involve men onan equal basis in the unpaid labour associated withhousekeeping and childcare. The establishment of experimentalresidential centres with innovative design concepts would alsobe a necessity. Spatial and structural arrangements wouldoffer supportive services which reinforce women's economic andsocial independence while maximizing their personal choicesabout childrearing.In "The Androgenous City: From Critique to Practice,"Saegert (1985) offers some feminist guidelines or "feministplanning" to correct the masculine biases seen in cities andcommunities. She suggests accessible cooperative programsthat provide affordable housing for women and the integrationof housing development, economic development and socialservices. The key to such integration lies in makingresources available to women through programs which requirethem to exercise leadership and authority. The purpose ofsuch programs would be to move toward community environmentsthat serve the needs of women rather than perpetuating urbanforms and services that are biased against them.Summary. The physical form of urban environments and thepolicies that govern the creation and use of such environmentshave traditionally been based on patriarchal male definedvalues, goals and activities. Zoning by-laws and buildingregulations which prevent the integration of home and work,housing policies which prevent the construction of low-cost133housing or the sharing of single family dwellings by unrelatedindividuals, public transportation systems which are hostileand inadequate, and public spaces which are conceived asdangerous, all demonstrate that design and planning issues arewomen's issues.The gender dichotomy of work/home public/private whicharose out of industrial capitalism requires theover-consumption of goods induced by separate suburbanhouseholds as well as a strict division of labour along genderlines: male as breadwinner, female as housewife. In reality,women are a majority in the paid labour force, they use publicspace, and the sanctuary identified with the suburban home isan outdated myth. Demographic changes including women's needto earn an income, the delaying of marriage, rising divorcerates, and gay and lesbian relationships all spell the demiseof traditional gender roles. Corporations moving to thesuburbs bring service jobs with them and the restructuring ofindustries means that more people will be working part-time orworking out of their homes (Hayden, 1986; Nelson, 1993a).Although gender roles are being challenged and theurban-suburban scene is becoming obsolete, women's positionsmay not be improving. The literature stresses that womenrequire urban spatial and structural creations that are "womencentred": that combine affordable housing, jobs, servicefacilities, good public transit, and safety.Do women lack "women centred" spaces and structures134because there are few women involved in design and planning?The following literature raises this question but it alsoexamines the context in which women architects and plannerswork and presents examples of women's architectural visions.3.4: Women in Architecture and Planning A second major theme in the literature on women and thebuilt environment centres around women in the architecturaland planning professions. These writings can be divided intothree categories: first, discussions of historical andcontemporary conditions for women in the professions, second,historical studies describing the achievements of women, andthird, an analysis of the impact of women on the design ofstructures and spaces.Why so few women architects? Only 9 percent of the totalregistered architects in Canada are women (Klowdasky, 1985).At the beginning of 1992, 7 percent of the architectsregistered with the Architectural Institute of BritishColumbia were women. Out of a total of 502 architecturalfirms in B.C. only 13 list woman architects as majorshareholders.Carolyn R. Johnson (1974) states that women have alwaysrepresented a small percentage of the number of practisingarchitects. The traditional assumptions that architecture isa "man's profession" and that women lack the technicalintelligence, stamina and the practicality in business mattersnecessary to become competent architects has been firmly135entrenched from the advent of the profession (Johnson, 1974).Ortrude B. White, Chair of the American Institute ofArchitects' Women in Architecture Committee, writes that whenshe was a student the belief that architecture was anunsuitable career for women was reiterated many times by herschool principal, guidance counsellor and numerous others(American Architectural Foundation, 1988).To this day, women still face extraordinary obstacles inthe architectural field as a result of these prejudices.Difficulty in finding employment, lower salaries than men andlack of promotional opportunities are only a few of theproblems women encounter (Johnson, 1974; Women inArchitecture, 1992). Women's advancement is further hinderedby a limitation clause which stipulates that architects needto accumulate three years of approved work experience andregister as practising architects within a five year period: a"five year window". This restriction plus the high feesinvolved in registration make entry into the professiondifficult for those women who have chosen to work part-time.Moreover, once architects establish architectural firms,additional fees are required. Because women often have lessmoney than men due to their part-time employment and wagediscrepancy, they may have difficulty in starting their ownfirms. An additional discriminatory factor is that part-timeemployment is difficult to find in the field. In order toovercome the bias structured into the profession many women136architects have expressed the need for a personal exceptionpolicy, for example, maternity leave (Women in Architecture,1992).Historical discrimination. Sexual discrimination againstwomen has been pervasive throughout the history of thearchitectural profession. When women have managed to becomearchitects, they often faced insurmountable prejudice. EllenPerry Berkeley (1980) points out that woman architects of thenineteenth and early twentieth century excelled in domesticarchitecture but were disallowed any professional credibilityby a ruling handed down in an 1876 editorial in The AmericanArchitect and Building News, 1:1, stating "the planning ofhouses is not architecture" (p. 205). Thus women were oftenrelegated to the fringe of the profession because of this biasagainst domestic architecture (Gwendolyn Wright, 1977).Early Canadian woman graduates of architecture in the1920s and '30s found entry into the male-dominatedarchitectural field particularly onerous. For some women thisdiscrimination coupled with the economic depression of thetime, was insurmounable. Jean Hall, who graduated from theUniversity of Toronto in 1923, is responsible for what isbelieved to be the first building designed by a Canadian woman(a four-plex, built in Toronto in 1925). After thiscommission however, the only job she could find was processingmedical claims. Marjorie Hill, the first female to graduatein architecture from the University of Toronto in 1920, had to137take up weaving and glove-making during the '30s and did notreceive an architectural commission until 1940 (Grafton,Grierson & Clark, 1986).There are no heroines in modern architectural studies,however it could be argued that a number of women deserve thisstatus. Julia Morgan, for example, designed over 800buildings, but in traditional architectural history she isviewed as more of a phenomenon than an architect (Kampen &Grossman, 1983). The discrimination that Morgan encounteredin her career has been documented by Sara Boutelle (1981,1988), Cary James (1990), Natalie Kampen and Elizabeth G.Grossman (1983), Ginger Wadsworth (1990), and Gwendolyn Wright(1977). At the University of California at Berkeley, whereMorgan was the first woman to graduate as an engineer, malestudents resented her taking mathematics and science. In astudio in Paris preparing for architectural entranceexaminations to the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, she was physicallyand mentally harassed. Although she was graded harshly byentrance examiners, instructors were astonished at herintelligent work. When she received her certificate, it wasanticipated that she would confine her work to design sinceinspecting buildings under construction was seen as toohazardous for women. After Morgan returned to the UnitedStates, her employer John Galen Howard boasted that althoughhe had one of the most talented designers, he did not have topay her a decent salary because she was a woman (James, 1990;138Wadsworth, 1990). When Morgan quit her job shortly afterhearing this, she continued to face various types ofdiscrimination. Boutelle (1981) reports that she was givenless credit than the contractor for a bell tower she designedin 1904. It was also believed she was not capable ofunderstanding the concept of reinforced concrete, yet all ofMorgan's work withstood the San Francisco earthquake of 1906.Wright (1977) describes how critics called the domestic strainand scale of her work a sign of weakness, claiming that shestayed with a few safe, small types without moving on tolarge-scale projects. Towers were not on Morgan's agendabecause her clients were mostly women who did not demand suchprojects.Marion Mahony Griffin, who was one of Frank LloydWright's top designers, is another woman who deservesarchitectural recognition, according to Natalie Kampen andElizabeth G. Grossman (1983). But in the views of two malecritics, she is an uncreative figure, lacking imagination,dependent first on Wright and then on her husband, WalterGriffin. In one study, the critic claims that she adoptedGriffin's style just as she had adopted Wright's, developingit with a "fanciful" touch. He argues that she was capableonly of decorative elaboration and that consistentarchitectural invention was beyond her (Kampen & Grossman,1983). In contrast however, feminist critics believe thatMahony may have created many of the drawings that were later139credited to Wright, and that her book of drawings may have hadan influence on the Bauhaus school in Germany (Berkon, 1977).Mary Elizabeth Jane Colter, chief architect, designer anddecorator for the Fred Harvey Company, (the developer ofhotels and restaurants for the Atchison, Topeka and Santa FeRailroad), faced similar discrimination to that of MarionMahony (Kampen & Grossman, 1983). A reviewer in the Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (March, 1982),questions Colter's decorative approach to design and calls herearlier work overt eclecticism. The harsh criticism of herwork was unjustified because for almost fifty years, from 1902to 1948, Colter designed hotels and restaurants which affirmedtravellers' romantic vision of Native American and Spanishculture (Grattan, 1980; Kampen & Grossman, 1983).A recent example of sexism targeted at women architectscomes from Denise Scott Brown (1989), an architect inpartnership with her husband Robert Venturi. She states thather experience of discrimination continues at the rate ofabout one incident a day and that journalists who approachtheir firm only want to "deliver Venturi" (p. 244). (Venturiwas invited to submit a design for the new public library inVancouver, but not Brown). She contends that the battle forturf and the race for status among critics still means thatwomen's work is marginalized. Many projects which have beenattributed to Venturi are in fact Brown's.Schools of Architecture. A tremendous barrier which140prevented women in Canada and the United States from becomingarchitects was the fact that before 1916 they were neitherencouraged nor even allowed to enter schools of architecture.Prior to this time, women usually worked their way up throughapprenticeships and faced the difficulties both in studios andon-sites that this entailed. It was considered improper forwomen to work under the "harsh" conditions (climbing ladders,mingling with mechanics and labourers) that the job demanded(Wright, 1977; Berkeley, 1980).Some of these difficulties were partially alleviated whenthe Cambridge School of Architecture and LandscapeArchitecture was established in 1916. As the firstinstitution to offer formal training in architecture andlandscape architecture exclusively to women, the CambridgeSchool was a milestone in the history of architecture. Morethan 400 women graduated with certificates or degrees duringthe quarter-century in which it operated. In 1938 SmithCollege appropriated the School because university affiliationbecame a requirement for architectural schools. Despite itssuccess and the laudable practices of its graduates, theSchool was forced to close its doors in 1942 due to a supposedfinancial deficit (Anderson, 1980).In Canada, the University of Toronto established thefirst architectural school in 1890, but for almost thirtyyears the School had no female students. McGill'sarchitectural school in Montreal was established in 1896,141however no women were permitted entry until 1937 (Crafton,Grierson, & Clark, 1986). The teaching of architecture at theUniversity of British Columbia started in 1946 and one yearlater the school admitted two women, Jane Ellerton Best andPamela Charlesworth nee McTaggart-Cowan, both of whomgraduated in 1952. For a decade following their graduation,there were no other women students. The School hired itsfirst female faculty member, Catherine Wisnicki in the mid1960s and she remained the only full-time female instructorfor 18 years. In fact, for a number of years, she was theonly full-time female faculty in a school of architecture inCanada. Several more Canadian universities have establishedSchools of Architecture but female faculty remain underrepresented.Planning. Canadian women have been employed longer andmore prominently in planning than in architecture (Klowdasky,1985). Fran Klowdasky (1985) states that although women areconcentrated among the less experienced members of theprofession this tendency is not quite as pronounced as inarchitecture. In 1981, 19 percent of Canadian planningpractitioners were women (Klowdasky, 1985).Jacqueline Leavitt (1980b) explores the American planningprofession's influence on woman planners and the profession'srebuttal of feminism. By 1980, even though women wereentering the planning profession in greater numbers (15percent of American planners were women), salary142discrimination was still evident and women's issues as part ofplanning content were largely ignored or stereotyped. Leavitttraces planning's bias against women to the period from 1890to 1920 when planning developed as a profession. Middle-classwomen were instrumental in promoting city planning through thecooperative housekeeping movement, club work and civicimprovement activities in the public sphere. A campaignagainst these women was launched to re-emphasize women's"proper" place in the home resulting in few women entering theplanning profession.Leavitt (1980b) claims that from about 1930 to 1970 thesmall number of women practitioners performed the sameplanning functions as men, and were indistinguishable as asubset of planners. However, in the seventies, probably as aresult of the woman's liberation movement, women plannerssurfaced as a distinguishable group. This was most evidentwithin the national membership organization, the AmericanPlanning Association. In March of 1979, the APA Boardapproved the establishment of the technical division "Planningfor Women". Remarkably enough, one year later, in 1980, thePlanning and Women division had become the largest of the 13technical divisions.As the number of woman planners grew, it could be assumedthat women's issues in planning would become prominent, butLeavitt (1980b) asserts that by 1980 this had not occurred.At this time, planners could choose from among three143approaches: to ignore gender distinctions, to consider genderdistinctions as a technical problem or to include feministadvocacy in their work. Leavitt's interviews with plannersemphasize what is evident in planning journals and conferencepapers, that the neglect of gender discrimination wassucceeded by some analysis of gender distinctions from atechnical perspective.Leavitt (1980b) considers why so few planners have chosenthe third approach, feminist advocacy. She explains that thedismissal of this approach can be understood by examining thestructure and history of the profession, the strength of maledomination in society and particularly in planning. Maledomination is duly evident in the reading list recommended forpreparation for the American Institute of Certified Planners'(AICP) exam. The literature is overwhelmingly written by menand either reflects stereotypes of women or ignores them alongwith other marginalized groups. Given this discriminatorymilieu, woman planners have abstained from raisingnon-traditional planning issues preferring to be distinguishedas planners rather than as women. Leavitt contends that insearch of authenticity, planning has affiliated itself withmainstream ideology disregarding women and othernon-mainstream groups. Leavitt's prognosis is thus bleak.She maintains that the profession will largely disregardsubstantive issues raised about women and gender relations inthe home, the workplace, in planning, and in society as a144whole.Women's structures, women's visions. In relatively smallnumbers, Canadian women are graduating as architects, enteringthe architectural workforce and successfully practisingarchitecture. What kinds of structures do these womenarchitects design? Do they design space differently from menand do they share a collective vision?Margrit Kennedy (1981), a practising architect, arguesthat the form architecture might take in response to femalepriorities and values cannot be described with the samecertainty as male-dominated architectural forms simply becausethere are fewer examples of female architects' work. Kennedymaintains, however, that there are some examples of anonymousarchitecture, remnants of settlements of matriarchies (cf.Lobell, 1989) and built examples from female architects whichsuggest that there are significant differences between anenvironment shaped mainly by feminine values and one shaped bymasculine values. She goes on to say that although it isimpossible to define clear and exclusive categories for femaleand male architecture, it may in fact be possible todistinguish female and male priorities in architecture. Forexample, Kennedy sees the female principle as moreuser-oriented (an emphasis on functional issues) and moresocially-oriented, whereas the male principle is moredesigner-oriented (an emphasis on formal issues) and moreprofit-oriented. She argues that women may be better prepared145to be architects because they have been conditioned duringchildhood to be person-oriented, emotional, and later trainedto be rational and logical. In contrast, male architects areseldom offered an education which includes affective andsocial learning. Kennedy's view was confirmed in a workshoporganized by Women in Architecture (WIA), a Vancouver basedgroup, the purpose of which was to establish objectives. Thewomen chose "social concerns" as having top priority.Architect Doris Cole (1973), claims that because womenhave rarely been part of the organized architecturalprofession, they have used their architectural skillsindirectly to improve the social and physical character of theenvironment. Sue Cavanagh (1987), like Kennedy and Cole, seesa relationship between women and a socially responsiblearchitecture. Cavanagh asserts that women's experiences ofworking and bringing up children give them valuable insightsinto urban spatial needs, and that woman architects may offerwhat is presently lacking in the profession -- a betterunderstanding of the physical problems within the urban fabricand a particular knowledge and understanding of children'sneeds.By contrast, socialist feminists have a different view.Nunzia Rondanini (1981), an architect, claims it is notpossible to derive an exclusively female architectural style.She believes that women do not have a different architecturalsensibility but rather they share a common history of146oppression. She stresses that women architects should notassume their imagination is free until their condition is alsofree. Rondanini contends that the goal of architects shouldbe to seek an alternative to a capitalist, racist and sexistuse of architecture by working towards fundamental economicand political change.The all-women British design group, Matrix FeministArchitectural Co-operative, espouses a radical feministperspective. Matrix (1992) claims that a feminist approach tothe design of buildings and space is one that aims atre-shaping power relationships between the expert and thelayperson, allowing women clients to be involved in every stepof the design process. Matrix (1984) argues however, thatarchitects who are women and/or come from a working-classbackground acquire an outlook similar to that of middle-classmale architects which is why buildings designed by womenshould not be expected to possess qualities distinct fromthose designed by men. Matrix speculates that theseexpectations may change as women architects become more awareof feminist issues.Two American feminist architects, Noel Phyllis Birkby andLeslie Kanes Weisman (1975) agree with Matrix, contending thatwomen in architectural schools are forced to adoptmale-defined processes and criteria, which discourage afeminist analysis of architecture. This point is reiteratedin Lesley Gibbs article entitled, "Who Designs the Designers?"147(1987). Gibbs cites Elsie Owusu who maintains that womenarchitects often succumb to the all-pervasive patriarchalattitudes as soon as they begin their architectural training.She claims that women forget their pragmatic approach insupport of a male-intellectualized detachment that has noconnection with the eventual user of their buildings. What isnot clear in this argument however, is whether a feministanalysis of building can come only from women outside theprofession or whether a feminist perspective among women inschools of architecture can emerge through political struggle.Using a more ideological value-laden perspective, KarenFranck (1989) claims that the traits that distinguish women'sways of knowing and analyzing appear in social architecturalinquiry conducted by women, in alternative communitiesproposed by women and in architectural projects designed bywomen. However, she cautions that the existence of suchqualities and their differentiation of women from men areperhaps suggestive. On the other hand, Franck argues thatsince women's and men's experiences differ, so will their waysof knowing and analyzing. If women's relationship to theworld is one of connection while men's is one of separation,the definition of femininity (self-in-relationship) and thedefinition of masculinity (denial of connection) haveimportant implications for architecture. Franck summarizesfeminist literature that identifies feminist ways of knowingand analyzing into four characteristics which she uses to148present a feminist approach to urban planning and design:Connectedness and Inclusiveness, Ethic of Care and Value ofEveryday Life, Value of Subjectivity and Feelings, and Valueof Complexity and Flexibility.According to Franck (1989), Connectedness andInclusiveness is the integration of categories and posits analternative to dualistic thinking. In designing,connectedness takes on three forms: a close relationshipbetween designer, client and user, the desire for closerconnections between spaces and the integration of oppositetypes of spaces. Feminist research develops more inclusive,complex domains and rejects oppositional and hierarchicaldualisms such as the dualisms of public/private, city/suburb,work/home, production/reproduction, men/women. Thesedichotomies are applied in traditional theory and practice asif they were separate and unrelated. The ideology ofseparation makes everyday activities more difficult to pursueprecisely because of the spatial distances that the ideologygenerates. In exposing the existence and consequences ofdualisms, feminists call for a closer spatial connectionbetween prevailing segregated activities. For example, inDolores Hayden's redesign of 40 suburban houses into acommunity, she connects social activities, wage work and homelife through the provision of on-site jobs, good publictransportation and shared services and facilities. SuzanneMackenzie, Jacqueline Leavitt, Susanna Torre and Matrix also149integrate services with housing as a way of reducing privateand public domains.The Ethic of Care and Value of Everyday Life are thedominant characteristics of women's social and architecturalresearch, women's design work and women's proposals foralternative communities. Historically, these ethics appearedin the housing reforms of Catherine Bauer, Edith Elmer Woodand in the work of Elisabeth Coit. Colt was particularlyconcerned with the daily lives of families in her surveys ofconditions in New York public housing between 1938 and 1940.Jane Jacobs' priority is the support and enhancement of dailyexperience. In her work she shows how these experiences arebeing disregarded by the large-scale, single-use superblockdevelopments in urban renewal. Clare Cooper Marcus andDolores Hayden take similar approaches, concentrating on theeveryday lives of residents and equating these with the aimsof architects. Troy West and Jacqueline Leavitt illustrate aconcern for the needs of different kinds of family structuresin their design for the new American House and architects inthe Matrix group draw upon the experiences of their clients toproduce a more functional architecture (Franck, 1989).The Value of Subjectivity and Feelings allows forpersonal experience to be a source of information for design.Examples of this occurred as early as 1929 when Eileen Graydenounced modernism because it exaggerated technology andlacked emotion and intimacy. Many of Jane Jacobs's insights150were drawn from her own experience of living on Hudson Streetin Greenwich Village. Clare Cooper Marcus investigated thedeep-seated meanings of home by using Gestalt techniques whereparticipants role-play their own homes (Franck, 1989).The Value of Complexity and Flexibility is associatedwith multiple use and the need for flexibility andtransformation. Eileen Gray argued that modern design lackedintimacy because it over emphasized simplicity. Womenarchitects have continued to voice their desire for greatercomplexity. Margrit Kennedy includes complexity among herfemale principles in architecture while Jane Thompsonadvocates an architecture that comprises both the aesthetic ofthe industrial age, valuing simplification and the earlieraesthetic embodied in religion and magic which valuedcomplexity. Multiple use of space and transformation of spacewere primary in Troy West's and Jacqueline Leavitt's newAmerican House (Franck, 1989).Although Franck's (1989) discourse follows earlierfeminist thinking in architecture and other fields, it isstill only part of a new effort to outline a feminist approachto architecture. Franck claims that there are other qualitiesthat could be explored as well: cooperation and collaboration,organic systems of spatial organization and form-making andmetaphors based on hearing and touching used to balance theexclusive reliance on the metaphor of vision in Westernarchitecture. Because Franck's discourse draws entirely upon151literature from Western industrialized capitalist society, sheadmits that the concerns and examples described may be trueonly for some women in this society. One way for women toexpress their desire for greater and different forms ofconnectedness however, is to examine the concerns of olderwomen, lesbians, women of colour, disabled women and women inother societies and other circumstances.Karen Keddy (1992a), a Canadian architect whoincorporates Franck's concepts, explores the redesigning ofinstitutional buildings from a feminist point of view. Shefocuses on the Technical University of Nova Scotia School ofArchitecture in Halifax where she completed her degree inarchitecture. She argues that the goal of feminist theory inarchitecture is to create environments which reflect, supportand respond to women's experience, challenge acceptedapproaches to design, assign different priorities to designissues, and give equal importance to issues consideredmarginal or irrelevant in mainstream architecture. Keddy'sfeminist critique of the School of Architecture questions theexisting programmatic layout, the spatial and formalqualities, organization of spaces, and the lack of attentionto female students' or staff members' experience andperception. She points out two facts that have beenoverlooked in the design process: firstly, that womenexperience a sense of vulnerability at night when they enter,walk through and work in a building and secondly, that the152traditional enclosed division of space establishes a hierarchyof importance. Keddy's critique calls for a cooperative teamapproach to design (which would produce non-hierarchicalspaces more conducive to growth and learning) rather than anego-generated approach. She particularly questions thehierarchical duality of categories that exist in the design ofeducational institutions: public/private, faculty area/studentarea and intimate/monumental.Influenced by Franck (1989), Keddy (1992a) offers five"Feminist Principles" with accompanying examples of "DesignAllies" (where these principles can be found). Like Franck,Keddy's first principle is "connectedness", a qualityexpressed by closer spatial and visual connection, integrationof opposite types of spaces, overlapping of spatial domainsand interdependency between spaces and multiple use. Theallies are Susanna Torre's conceptual model entitled "House ofMeanings", a matrix organization that allows opposites,inside/outside, public/private to interact and Maya Lin'sVietnam War Memorial because the human scale coexists with themonumentality of the memorial itself. The second principle,"flexibility", acknowledges change, transformation andadaptability. An ally is Susanna Torre's "House of Meanings"which responds to growth and change occurring within families.Allies for the third principle, "attention to everydayactivities and daily experience as a source of design ideas",are Eileen Gray's interior house design/furniture because her153beds have clocks and reading lights built into the headboardsand Lilly Reich's furniture because her chairs were designedin the modern style but with backs contoured to the body. Thefourth principle is the "non-hierarchical organization ofspace" the ally of which is Lilly Reich's open plan apartmentdesign with equally divided spaces that allow rooms to bemultifunctional rather than having a hierarchical fixedfunction organization. Finally, the fifth principle, "givinghigher priority to interior design" acknowledges theimportance of textures, colours and furnishings that are usedto create spaces. An ally is Margaret Helfand Adlersberg'sapartment where large furniture is designed to create "rooms"within larger rooms, with each side of the piece addressing adifferent room. For example, one side contains a bookshelfholding items for the livingroom whereas the other sidecontains a desk and bookshelf for an office.Keddy (1992a) contends that within the design process, anoverlay of decisions is arrived at by considering severaldifferent factors simultaneously. This represents aninclusive approach to design rather than the top-downtheory/method/product strategy. The design is situation andsite-specific and does not employ a universal formula toinform the theory. For example, the process involves takingmany small ideas and weaving them into one cohesive wholerather than creating undesirable compromise by having one "bigidea" imposing rules on the design. Keddy suggests basic154criteria for creating a dialogue between existing buildingsand "feminist" intervention: expressing feminist architecturalprinciples and using counterpoints rather than creating an"argument" between the redesign and the existing building.For instance, she stresses that her architectural programemphasizes greater building security for women by creatingcirculation routes to improve the connections between spaces.She claims that once feminist principles are understood andmerged with existing fundamental principles of architecture, amore inclusive expression of designing for all human beingswill be brought to the design challenge.Planning. Jacqueline Leavitt (1980b) argues that thereare negative forces, both in the planning profession and ingraduate training schools which prevent women planners frominitiating feminist approaches or principles through theirplanning work. Most graduate training does not prepare femaleplanners with the research background or confidence to developfeminist precepts or methods. Feminist planning principlesare at the fringe of the profession, a fact that Leavittsubstantiates with her surveys of research in professionaljournals. She questions professional accrediting exams, themake up of panels at professional conferences, courses inplanning schools, the shortage of women faculty members whocan bring a sensitized view to feminist issues, and a lack offunds for women's projects. Nevertheless, Leavitt states thatwith the emergence of "Planning and Women" within the American155Planning Association there exists a countervailing force thatmay positively affect female practitioners and by extension,their planning approaches.Feminist research in aesthetics, art/architecture criticism, history, and production. Another body of feministresearch that relates to the built environment focusesspecifically on design-related disciplines. In spite of adiversity of approaches, feminist research in aesthetics,criticism, history, and production has developed a pattern ofconsistency. In their early first generation studies,feminist scholars researched the "lost woman" in eachdiscipline, striving to include them and their work. Thesecond generation questioned the disciplines, identifying andexamining critically underlying assumptions about therelevance of subjects, methods of data collection, kinds ofquestions guiding research, and interpretational bias. Theyargued that not only should the study of the disciplines beopened up to include women but that the disciplines themselvesshould be reconstructed to provide feminist epistemology(Hagaman, 1990). What follows is a brief overview of thechallenges posed by feminist research to those canons ofdesign which relate to built environment education.Aesthetics: Traditionally, aesthetics is consideredgender-neutral, with no basis for sexist content. Feministphilosophers, however, contend that aesthetics is value-ladenand its alleged universals reflect gender, class, and156culturally specific ideologies based largely on the experienceof Eurocentric male theorists. Feminist philosophersvigorously deny the possibility of a neutral, unbiased view onany philosophical issue. Rather, they insist that allknowledge is based on experience and contend that the point ofview forming the basis for conventional knowledge is groundedin the male experience which is then universalized as thehuman experience (Hagaman, 1990).Criticism: Feminist architecture critics claim thatformalist criteria can not provide objective standards (Kampen& Grossman, 1983). The importance of the context within whichwomen lived and worked and the utilitarian as well asdecorative characteristics of their work, led to aninvestigation of the differences with which women and menperceive and comprehend reality (cf. Cole, 1973; Franck, 1989;Kennedy, 1981) and the attribution of these differences tosocial conditioning rather than biological determinism (cf.Birkby & Weisman, 1975; Rondanini, 1981; Weisman, 1992).History: Feminist research shows that information aboutwomen architects is lacking in traditional texts, includingthose used in art teacher training programs (cf. Gombrich,1989; Janson, 1987). Even the most recent editions ofstandard texts are devoted almost exclusively to malearchitects, providing contemporary students with a version ofhistory little changed from the traditional model (Hagaman,1990). Some feminists believe that male assumptions about157architecture are so thoroughly institutionalized it may not bepossible to interpret the female experience. Advocating amethodology in which the concepts of gender, class, andideology are understood as historical processes, feministsview the eponymic method of attributing developments to"genius" or "great architect" as reflective of male tradition(Kampen & Grossman, 1983).Production: As mentioned earlier, feminists argue thatenvironments shaped by feminine values would differ from thoseshaped by masculine values. Although strict definition andcategorization of female and male architecture is not possiblecurrently, it may be possible to distinguish female and malepriorities (Kennedy, 1981). Some researchers claim that theconsciousness of women architects in the past reflected thestate of the women's movement at large. Recent growth inawareness of feminist issues, approaches and principles maythen offer a new potential for feminist design and education(Franck, 1989; Keddy, 1992a, 1992b; Matrix, 1984; Spain, 1992;Weisman, 1992).Many points can be drawn from an overview of feministresearch in aesthetics, criticism, history, and production.Hagaman (1990) contends that the most forceful are the clearrelationships of concerns and criticism across the fourdisciplines. In each area, feminist scholars have attemptedto claim a place for the work of women and to uncover biasesinherent in women's representation within the disciplines.158Feminist scholars have adopted a deconstructive stance,challenging the very frameworks and processes of thesedisciplines (Hagaman, 1990). Aesthetics, criticism, history,and production should be an integral part of built environmenteducation. Integrating a feminist perspective changesattitudes and practices, thus it "degenders" the disciplines.Summary. Sexual discrimination towards women in thearchitectural and planning profession exists, bothhistorically and currently, a fact which may account for thescarcity of women architects and planners. Some feministsargue that a feminist approach to architecture and planningexists and appears in the "values" or "qualities" inherent inthe work of some women. A body of research dealing with thedisciplines of aesthetics, criticism, history, and productionalso postulates a feminist "pattern". Although negativeforces surface in the planning profession, the formation ofthe women's division within the American Planning Associationconstitutes a "countervailing force" that supports feministperspectives. How can this "force" be intensified andexpanded to reach more woman architects, planners and women ingeneral? What strategies should be undertaken to encouragemore women to become actively involved in shaping the builtenvironment at both the professional and grass-roots level?The following literature addresses these questions andincludes examples and situations where women have strengthenedtheir role by creating structures and spaces to meet their159needs.3.5: Feminist Advocacy and ActivismA third major theme in the literature on women and thebuilt environment focuses on feminist political activity.Several feminist critics argue that more feminists must becomearchitects and planners while more architects and plannersmust become feminists (Berkeley, 1980; Cavanagh, 1987; Gibbs,1987; Klowdasky, 1985; Roberts, 1991; Spain, 1992; Weisman,1981, 1989, 1992; Wekerle et. al., 1980).They suggest a number of possible strategies: (a) promotea feminist analysis of how design and planning decisions aremade and how they adversely affect women, and advocate thatexisting decision-making processes include more input andcontrol by women users; (b) raise gender issues in the builtenvironment in existing women's groups and promote this topicin women's studies and other programs; (c) encourage morewomen to enter the architectural, planning and buildingprofessions; (d) ensure that more girls receive career advicein school on future employment in these professions; (e)support scholarship and practical research about women and thebuilt environment; (f) pressure architecture and planningschools to incorporate knowledge based on feminist discourse;(g) establish all-women's professional schools of architectureand planning; (h) encourage women architects and planners tonetwork and to establish independent group practices thatcater to grass-roots women's organizations; and (i) strengthen160the economic base and skills of women so they have theresources to create their own spaces and structures, andpromote attempts by women to become producers of alternativearchitectural environments.Some of these recommendations have been and are beingimplemented. Starting in the 1970s, women architects andplanners organized to challenge the bias against women in theprofessions and in the built environment. Their concern withurban spatial and structural arrangements led them to becomemore active within the academic world, within the community atlarge and in self-help movements (Boys, Ainley, & Farish,1989; Kampen & Grossman, 1983; Leavitt, 1980b; Weisman, 1989).The following are examples of women's organizations that focuson the built environment in Britain, the United States andCanada.BritainIn the 1970s, women architects in London establishedMatrix Feminist Architectural Co-operative, an all-woman,multi-racial cooperative, the first of its kind in Britain tospecialize in working with women. Each member is both anemployee and a director of the company with an equal voice inits operation. Matrix starts from the premise that a buildingbelongs to the client and/or the users, thereby it developedstrategies to involve the client in the design process. Thecooperative has designed a Black women's centre, aneducational resource centre for Asian women, a children's161centre, housing cooperatives and a school. Feasibilitystudies include a lesbian centre and a women's alcoholtreatment centre (Matrix, 1992). The group is also involvedwith design and construction education. Publications include:Making Space: Women and the Man-made Environment; Building forChildcare - Making Better Buildings for Under-Fives; and A JobDesigning Buildings.Women's Design Service (WDS), also London-based, wasestablished in the '80s especially for women who had beenoverlooked by mainstream design and planning decisions. WDSoffers information and resources on women's issues relating tothe design and planning of the built environment. Theorganization identifies themes, researches, publishes anddistributes their findings. Several booklets have beenpublished to date along with a quarterly journal, WEB. Newsletter of Women in the Built Environment. Additionalresources include an extensive library and a travellingexhibit. Further feminist advocacy was developed by womenmembers of the Faculty of the Built Environment at South BankPolytechnic who organized conferences, seminars and workshopsaddressing issues relating to women's experience in the builtenvironment (Boys, Ainley, & Farish, 1989).Focusing on the housing needs of low income women,Housing for Women (HFW) is an umbrella organization whichrepresents [the merging of] two women's groups: The Over FortyAssociation for Women Workers and the Mary Curzon Housing162Trust. The organization provides accommodations for single-person households and single parents; a particular focus is onwomen of colour, disabled women, lesbians, and women withAIDS. At present, HFW concentrates on the London area, whereit has 600 properties in management and another 100 beingdeveloped. Outside London, and especially in south Wales andthe Midlands, sister organizations are being formed.United States In the 1970s, American women architects and plannersbegan to challenge their second-class status and to establishalternative professional organizations (Kampen & Grossman,1983; Martin, 1986; Torre, 1977). Their aim was to expose theprejudice and discrimination against women in the professions,to challenge the definition of what constitutes "good" designand to build alternative environments designed with the needsof women in mind (Kampen & Grossman, 1983).One such group, the Cambridge-based Women ArchitectsLandscape Architects and Planners (WALAP) proposed changingthe very structure of the design professions (Torre, 1977).WALAP advocated for the creation of an all-women's practice asa nonhierarchical, cooperative venture and also argued forwork-related schedules that related to women's lives (Martin,1986).Another feminist organization focused on the needs of itsmembers. Founded during the middle 1970s and based in NewYork, the primary goal of the Alliance of Women in163Architecture (AWA) was professional development emphasizingindividual achievement within the system. The organizationheld a symposium on "Sexual Politics and Design" and created atask force to study discrimination in the profession resultingin the AIA Affirmative Action Plan of 1975 (Kampen & Grossman,1983; Martin, 1986).The need for an all-women's academic institution wasrecognized by a group of women architects and planners whostarted the Women's School of Planning and Architecture(WSPA), the first and only school to be completely founded,financed and run by women for women. From 1975 to 1981, WSPAran four summer programs on college campuses. Courses andtopics were designed to meet the needs of the participants,for instance: "Transitions: Designing the Future as if WomenMattered" (Martin, 1986; Weisman, 1989, 1992).Within the architectural profession, the Women inArchitecture Committee, of the American Institute ofArchitects (AD) pressured the AIA to adopt affirmative actionby increasing membership and participation of women, promotingemployment policies that assured women equitable pay andimplementing programs to address the needs of women in theprofession. The committee urged schools of architecture toincrease women faculty, advised secondary school teachers andguidance counsellors that architecture is a career option forwomen and heralded the contributions that women architectshave made to the built environment (Policy Statement, EX-97).164Organization for Women Architects and Other DesignProfessionals is an independent women's group based in the SanFrancisco region. Organized by architect, Mui Ho, there are300 members drawn from the San Francisco region. A non-hierarchical group with a rotating chair, their meetings(which alternate between San Francisco and Berkeley) are opento anyone in the design field and activities range fromchanging legislation to social events. Similar groups existin Los Angeles and San Diego.Planning For Women arose out of the American PlanningAssociation in 1979. Member's objectives included raisingfeminist issues in the planning and development ofcommunities, cities, regions, states, and the nation,promoting professional growth and competence of personsinterested in these issues and fostering the examination ofthese issues in both government and educational institutions(Leavitt, 1980b).The Women's Development Corporation, begun by womenarchitects and planners, is an independent all-women's grouppractice based in Rhode Island that caters to grass-rootswomen's organizations. Opening up economic developmentpossibilities for non-professional women is a priority andattempts have been made to train and/or hire women plumbers,carpenters and electricians. The Corporation's first programwas located in a multi-ethnic neighbourhood where more thanhalf of the residents were single, widowed or divorced women.165It included planning cooperative housing that provided meansfor women to gain housing-related skills and jobs, such asbuilding construction, maintenance and housing management(Atrim, Aitcheson, Forrester Sprague, 1981).In response to the growing number of women enteringarchitectural and planning schools, some institutions haveimplemented curricula focusing on issues relating to women.Among these institutions are Lawrence Institute of Technology,the University of Michigan, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, University of California at Berkeley and theUniversity of Wisconsin (Martin, 1986).CanadaLike their British and American counterparts, Canadianwomen have established organizations to advocate the interestsof women in the built environment. Many of these initiativeshave taken place in three Canadian cities: Toronto, Montrealand Vancouver.Toronto, Ontario Women Plan Toronto (WPT) is a community planning andadvocacy group which focuses on safety, transportation andhousing. The organization has carried out safety audits,initiated housing action groups, formed a board with WITCH(Women in Toronto Creating Housing) and OWN (Older Women'sNetwork) to develop cooperative housing, and established ahousing circle which produced a Woman's Directory listingarchitects and engineers. The organization pressured the166Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) to accommodate women withstrollers and to stop cut-backs in night transit. It has alsoworked with Transaction, the coalition addressing the mobilityneeds of the disabled (May/June 1991 newsletter).Publications include a newsletter and booklets: Our SharedExperiences, Women Plan Toronto: Resource List, and Our Needs, Our Communities, Let's Plan: A Community Planning Manual for Women in Metro Toronto and Ontario.An organization and a network with a feministperspective, Women in Toronto Creating Housing (WITCH) acts asa support group and information source for women in thedevelopment of housing. It has been defined as abrain-storming group, a think tank, a study circle, and anincubator group (Sayne, 1990). The Older Women's Network(OWN) focuses on the needs of mature women, establishes linkswith similar groups and develops low cost housing for olderwomen.Women's Perspectives on Housing and the Environment(WOPHE) is a grassroots organization seeking to improvehousing and related problems. WOPHE provides a networkopportunity for women who have not had a strong influence inhousing policies due to poverty, language barriers, lack ofinformation, and other forms of isolation and discrimination.The goal is for women to work together and strategize forneeded changes. WOPHE is not intended for those workingprimarily as specialists on housing and the environment, or167for those representing housing organizations.Women and Environments Education and DevelopmentFoundation (WEED) was born out of the journal, Women andEnvironments. The Foundation's objective is to conductresearch on issues relating to women in the fields ofplanning, design and community development. One of its majorprojects was the conference, "Charting a New EnvironmentalCourse: Women and the Environment" held in 1990.Metro Action Committee on Public Violence against Womenand Children (METRAC) was established in 1984 by the Councilof Metropolitan Toronto. It involves volunteer members from awide range of backgrounds, including urban planners,politicians, police, social workers, rape crisis centreworkers, and representatives from various women'sorganizations. The committee has established a comprehensive,multidisciplinary approach to violence prevention. METRAC's"Safe City" project resulted in the City of Toronto's urbansafety report, Safe City: Municipal Strategies to Prevent Violence Against Women and Children.To encourage feminist scholarship and activism somefemale members of the Faculty of Environmental Studies (FES)at York University developed a graduate students' programcentred around women's issues. The Faculty has since gainedthe reputation of offering one of the few graduate programs inNorth America where students can focus on women andenvironments.168Montreal, Quebec In 1989, because of pressure by women's groups, themunicipality of Montreal established the Standing Committee onUrban Planning, Housing and Public Works specifically to lookat women's spatial and structural needs. In its urbanplanning report "Women and the City", the Committeerecommended the establishment of an all-woman's committee toevaluate the impact of development projects and programs onwomen, to propose measures to meet the specific needs of womenin urban development and to ensure that women are consultedthroughout the establishment of urban plans and programs.Vancouver, British Columbia Women in Architecture Cvas0 was established in 1992 inresponse to the concerns of women architects. A major focusis on the architectural work environment, for example the needfor part-time work and flexible work hours, parenting leave,and pay/opportunity equity (allowing part time architects tobecome partners in firms and granting credit for part timeinternship). Other issues of concern include thegender-biased language in documents and the drop-out rate ofwomen architects. Activities include supporting theprofessional development of women and popularizing the work ofwomen architects.A group of professional women planners, the Women inPlanning Group, organized, in 1992, a steering committee tolaunch a project that examines women's issues in the context169of community planning. The major objective of the project isto encourage women's active participation in the planningprocess. The focus is predominately on the role planners canplay in involving community women.Women in Search of Housing Society (WISHS) also began in1992 and was the creation of a group of mature women, all ofwhom were in acute need of housing. The society's goal is toprovide long term housing for single, low income women from 40to 64 in age. The founder of WISHS had previously beensuccessful in initiating a woman's housing cooperative named"Brambles" in Burnaby, British Columbia. This development,the first ever built especially for mature females has beenhailed as a bench mark project. WISHS is currently developinga second housing cooperative in the city's West Side.Entre Nous Femmes Housing Society (ENF) was founded in1984 to provide safe and affordable housing communitiesprimarily for mother-led families. The society has initiateda number of housing developments and presently their units areoccupied by 60 - 70 percent single parents. The remainder ofthe units are held by two parent families, singles, couplesand seniors.Founded in 1991, the Sanctuary Foundation is attemptingto organize long-term housing for battered women seekingrefuge from abusive spouses. The Foundation is workingtowards the lease of an apartment building that will enablebattered women to rent suites.170Fear of public space has prompted Vancouver women toorganize an advocacy group to examine safety issues related topublic transit. The Transit Users Group on Safety (TUGS)focuses specifically on Sky Train stations in Vancouver andNew Westminster. Their goal is to conduct safety audits ofthis particular form of public transit and inform the TransitCommission of their findings.Through the lobbying efforts of a grass-roots daycareaction coalition in 1990, Vancouver is now committed to athree-year Civic Childcare Strategy. Included in the plan area review of city-held land to produce an inventory of sitesthat could accommodate childcare facilities, theimplementation of design guidelines for childcare centresconstructed in high-density developments, the construction andequipping of childcare facilities as a condition of rezoning,and an agreement from developers to construct childcarefacilities.As a result of Vancouver's soaring housing costs aNon-Profit and Community-Based Housing Network was formed in1992. Made up of both grass-roots and government subsidizedhousing organizations, the network formulated recommendationsfor the Province's Housing Commission and stressed the factthat because women made up the majority of social housingusers, the Province should enact employment equity to ensurethat women are employed on design panels, in managing anddeveloping housing and in the management levels of housing171administration. Women's groups attending these meetings sawthe need to network and established Women In Housing. Thenetwork represents 15 women's organizations who are working tomeet the shelter needs of women on a multiplicity of levels.Scanning the advocacy and activism of feminists, it isplausible to speculate that examples of their organizationscould be included in built environment education curricula.Integrating community-based women-centred initiatives will bea first step in creating more inclusive programming.Conclusion Chapter 3 Beginning in the early 1970s, British, American andCanadian literature documented the concerns women have aboutthe built environment. The main objective in much of thiswork is to point out that women's opportunities have beenrestricted by the organization of cities into densely settleddowntowns and sprawling suburbs. The literature suggests thata very limited model of women's needs and characteristics hasbeen assumed and that many women have been seriously affectedby this oppressive model (Klowdasky, 1985). Added to theoppressive aspects of the built environment is the fact thatthere are few women architects and planners to advocate for oreffect change on a large scale. Sexual discrimination againstwomen architects and planners has had a long history andcontinues to exist to this day. Addressing these oppressiveand discriminatory forces, feminist writers have pointed out anumber of avenues where women are working toward progressive172changes:• Women as users and lobbyists: Women's groups areparticipating in wide lobbying campaigns to change policies,for example, WDS, Matrix, HFW, Women's DevelopmentCorporation, WPT, METRAC, WEED, WITCH, OWN, WOPHE, WISHS, ENF,Sanctuary Foundation, Women In Housing, and TUGS.• Women as professionals: Women's professional organizationsare supporting both the concerns of architects and plannersand promoting concepts that will help modify the builtenvironment to better meet women's needs (Klowdasky, 1985),for example AWA, WALAP, WSPA, Organization for WomenArchitects and Other Design Professionals, WIA, Women inPlanning Group, and the AIA's and APA's Women's Committees.• Women as producers: Women architects and planners areestablishing independent group practices that cater tocommunity groups and grass-roots women's organizations(Klowdasky, 1985), for example, Women's Design Service, Matrixand Women's Development Corporation.• Women as educators: Women educators are advocating changesin the education system and teaching courses on women's issuesin schools of architecture and planning, for example SouthBank Polytechnic, MIT, University of Michigan, University ofCalifornia at Berkeley, and York University. Additionalresponses include the publication of books, journals, reports,bibliographies, theses, and dissertations; establishingarchives; and organizing exhibits and conferences.173Feminists have a crucial role to play in the builtenvironment. By addressing the impact that the builtenvironment has on gender relations and by emphasizing that itis possible to alter and change policies and plans, feministscan encourage a move away from the oppressive aspects ofexisting urban spatial arrangements. They can developplanning and design strategies which demonstrate new ways ofworking, new forms of housing and new personal relations. Notonly is it necessary to look at the restrictions whichenvironments impose but also to look at the environments thatfeminists have created and to consider what visionaryenvironments can offer. Feminist analysis can liberateimaginations and make new forms of living possible:Feminists are largely responsible for resuscitating .'humanity' from a static somnolence, making it evidentthat 'human' is an androgynous category, one which isconstantly changing as women and men alter gendercategories through altering their activities. We neednow to join this concept of an androgynous and mutable'human' to a concept of 'environment' which is equallyactive. (Klodawsky & Mackenzie, 1987, p. 31).The issues and contributions delineated in summary formin this chapter represent the kinds of knowledge that will bevaluable for built environment curriculum within arteducation. A valid source for illuminating these issues arefeminist architects and planners who specialize in such174matters and women users of diverse age, class, ethnicity,sexual orientation, and (dis)ability. Ideally, feminist arteducators and other women involved in the built environmentcould provide information and perspectives. Thus builtenvironment education curricula should be grounded in apragmatic and grass-roots context and developed by a coalitionof feminist art educators, architects and urban planners incollaboration with a cross section of community women. Thefeminist coalition could gather information which looks to newsources as guidelines, that is, sources that relate to women'slives, that present realistic visions.While the introduction of women's spatial and structuralperspectives into the education mainstream would be aprogressive step, education systems do not have a history oftaking progressive steps (Bloom, 1988; Hirsch, 1988).Educational institutions that fail to respond constructivelyto paradigmatic changes can lose their relevance to theoutside social milieu. They persist but are rivalled by newemerging systems which attract social energies (Bloom, 1988;Hirsch, 1988). It is within this context that feministpedagogy and its implications for practice, theory andresearch are discussed in the final chapter.175CHAPTER 4CONCLUSION:THE INTEGRATION OF FEMINIST DISCOURSEIN BUILT ENVIRONMENT EDUCATIONAs was concluded in Chapter 2, systemic inequities occurin most built environment education programs. They revealbias against, and/or ignorance of issues of gender, ethnicity,class, age, sexual orientation, and (dis)ability. The specialcircumstances of women are consistently ignored, and thus,environmental inequities remain unexamined. Moreover, mostbuilt environment education programs in the three countriesstudied do not cover the total range of integratableeducational material. The overview of feminist discourseabout the built environment testifies to a vast amount ofmaterial currently being overlooked that could be madeavailable for teacher use.Built environment education in Canada, the United Statesand Britain reflects, for the most part, a one-sided maleEurocentric view. In education in general, the concepts andtheories developed and reinforced by an historicallyprivileged elite have set the agenda, making it difficult tointroduce educational imperatives that account for othersignificant populations: women, and people of both visible andinvisible minorities. Built environment education is noexception. In its exclusion of the experiences of hugesegments of the population, it misrepresents the design needs176and considerations of a much more complex and diversecommunity, reinforcing the value system of a minority elite.Can this exclusive stance be altered? A desire forchange may be indicated in the rising concern for the qualityof city life in both North America and Britain. Campaigns forstronger community participation in political decision-makingare becoming more vociferous. But the frequent failures ofthese campaigns force individuals and organizations toquestion what is essential to successful, effectiveparticipation. One answer is an innovative educationmovement, one that encourages people, of all genders, ages andethnicities to take a strong stance in shaping theirenvironment. The notion of public participation in theplanning process reintroduces the "Geddes link" betweenplanning and built environment education.It would be unrealistic not to acknowledge that politicaland economic pressures within a capitalist system make builtenvironment issues complex and problematic. Individuals andcommunities get caught in patterns of interdependence witheconomic and social forces beyond their control. Builtenvironment education programs in Canada, the United Statesand Britain may not, as a whole, acknowledge the depth towhich a capitalist economy structures our existence. Thisdeficiency points to a need to question epistemologicalprinciples and practices within a patriarchal capitalistparadigm.177Built environment education should be about the existingand complex physical world. As an extension of the community,programs should teach skills and embrace and inculcate valuesthat will serve all students. Traditionally, most builtenvironment programs have avoided controversy: they have notaccepted complexity and conflict as potential working models.If built environment education programs are to deal with realcommunities and cities, they will need to include women'sconcerns. Programs must make their contribution to the activecommunity, which in large measure consists of women of diverseage, culture, and ethnicity. (A 1992 report of a study forthe Advertising Council of Canada predicts that by 2000 thevisible minority population of Toronto will be 45 percent andof Vancouver, 39 percent).The crucial questions are: Do existing built environmenteducation programs in Britain, the United States and Canadarepresent women in ways that recognize diversity in class,ethnicity, age, sexual orientation and (dis)ability? Areexisting built environment education programs community-based,and do they emphasize active public participation? Theseconcepts are based on the fundamental belief that a feminist-based built environment program educates all students tohonour human differences and to recognize their potential foraction in the community. To this end two key principles areparamount in a feminist-based program: an emphasis on thediversity of women which leads to their self-understanding and178determination, and a community-based approach which stressesstrong civic involvement. A program embodying theseprinciples can be a model for art education curricula. Oncefeminist principles are understood and are integrated intobuilt environment education, a more inclusive expression ofdesign will evolve.What are the problems and possibilities for feministpedagogy in built environment education? This concludingchapter discusses implications for practice, theory andresearch. The first section, which focuses on implicationsfor feminist practice, presents a visionary scenario whichexplores the collaborative effort of feminist art teachers,architects, planners, and community women in designing anddeveloping a feminist-based program. It also discussespossible viewpoints that may be held by teachers who regardthe inclusion of women's perspectives in built environmenteducation as questionable or problematic. Second, itdiscusses feminist pedagogy and its implications for theory;third, its implications for research. Finally, it offers adiscourse on the affirmation of individual rights in arteducation, and explains that the inclusion of a feminist-basedbuilt environment program serves to validate the experiencesof female and other marginalized students.4.1: Feminist Pedagogies: Implications for Practice Feminist collaboration in a built environment education program. Since most art teachers have not had the opportunity179to study architecture and planning, they may lack bothconfidence and professional skills in these areas (Adams,1990). Therefore, to develop a feminist-based program,feminist architects, planners, and community women, of diverseclass, age, ethnicity, sexuality, and (dis)ability, need tobecome significant facilitators. Diversity in this group isessential in order to present various role models and to raisespecific cultural issues to a multi-ethnic and multi-culturalschool population. Some of the tasks this coalition couldundertake include both curriculum development and instruction.In designing a feminist program within art education, oneof the many major hurdles this team will have to face is theincorporation of socio-political content. The main focus ofart education is still predominantly on the traditional formalfine and studio arts: drawing, painting, printmaking,sculpture, and art history. As was shown in Chapter 2, if thebuilt environment is included, it is usually dealt with from arepresentational, expressive, or design aspect, and the focusis primarily on the aesthetic dimension. Streetscapes arepainted, clay houses are moulded, and models of imaginedfuture environments are planned and constructed.Introducing a socio-political context means that, beforedesigning a building, street, neighbourhood, or city, studentswill need to question the relationship between design and theneeds of a diverse population. Key points that are pivotal tochanging the urban fabric are: (a) human differences must be180honoured; special attention should be given to the needs ofwomen, children, the elderly, minorities, and the disabled;(b) spatial and structural arrangements have a dramatic affecton everyone; they influence not only the way people interactwith others, but with whom they interact, and how theyexperience themselves; (c) powerful political and economicinterests dominate the development of the built environmentand contribute to physical, social and economic deprivation;and (d) women architects and planners are seriously under-represented in their professions, a fact which suggests thatwomen's ideas and approaches are not being incorporated in thebuilt environment. What specific issues need to be addressedregarding a coalition of feminist art teachers, architects,planners, and community women who will undertake to develop aneducation program which is based on the above key points?The role of feminist art teachers. A number ofdeterrents within the school structure itself present achallenge to art teachers whose interest is the implementationof a feminist built environment program. For example: (a)Schools are continually asked to accommodate new studies andprograms, and the demands made on them far outstrip thelimited services they were initially designed to deliver; (b)at the junior and senior secondary levels the timetable(usually made up of one-hour blocks) is not conducive to fieldexperience; (c) the limited budgets of most schools may notprovide transportation costs to sites, or other required181expenses; and (d) classrooms may lack appropriate space forlarge scale drawing, model building and displays.Another major problem in instituting such a program isthe greater demand on teachers' time and energy. Forinstance, workshops will need to explain why such a program isan essential component of the education system and concertedaction will need to be taken to convince those in decision-making positions to incorporate it in the curriculum. Sinceschools do not usually encourage the assistance of outsidefacilitators, extra effort will have to be made to involvefeminist architects, planners and community women.Thus, before attempting to implement a feminist-basedprogram the following challenges will need to be considered:(a) collaborative working relationships with a diverse groupof feminist architects, planners and community women; (b) astrong, realistic, well organized program-outline that has anevaluative and disseminative component, and that meets budgetguidelines; (c) support from administrators, teachers andparents; (d) flexible time structuring in school; (e)acceptance of movement and activity in and out of the schooland within the community; and (f) adequate space in the schoolbuilding for model-making and model displays.The role of feminist architects and planners. Acollaboration with feminist architects and planners willenable teachers to embark on new progressive ground.Knowledge of environments which feminist architects and182planners possess can provide teachers and students with a newvocabulary to describe their experiences within the urbansetting. This type of articulation could allow a betterunderstanding of the complex sets of relationships amongspaces, structures and people, giving students and teachersthe ability to understand, analyze and judge built form andspace, and to deal positively with change (Adams, 1990).By introducing the literature that focuses on women andthe built environment, feminist architects and planners caninspire and motivate female students to participate in thefuture planning, design and management of their surroundings.Sharing their own history and position in the current statusquo could help demystify the image, practices and jargon oftheir professions. Those who work with local governments knowthe political and bureaucratic decision-making process andhave insights into its strengths and weaknesses. Revealingthis information to students could help them to understand howthe decision-making process works, assist them in formulatingopinions and encourage them to question solutions. It mayalso reveal potential future areas for advancement. Sincethey bring a feminist perspective to issues, feministarchitects and planners can also serve as role models forfemale students.The role of feminist community women. The input offeminists from diverse grass-roots organizations would beessential to a curriculum grounded in women's experience.183Their involvement would help promote a link between schoolsand the multi-cultural communities they serve. Feministcommunity women could supply a list of local women's groupsthat need a task accomplished and encourage students to becomeinvolved at some level. Instruction in the community isconsistent with general principles of education, such as theimportance of engaging the learner in an active manner withthe subject material (Shepherd & Ragan, 1982). This givesstudents opportunities for public participation, cooperativeworking relationships and problem-solving using real-life asopposed to simulated situations. Publications of communitygroups such as newsletters and reports could be used asteaching material. Thus the involvement of community womencould provide alternative sources of information that relateto women's lives. Community-based, women-centred initiativesoffer models for new progressive curriculum.Returning to reality, there are difficulties which shouldbe acknowledged in developing a feminist issue-based approach.The demands of organization and preparation are such thatthere are increased risks inherent with such a strategy.There is also a danger of looking at women's spatial andstructural needs as small isolated units, rather than as partof a larger problem, and of choosing a series of isolatedprojects which will not bring about significant communitychange. Problems could also arise from an inter-professional/grass-roots collaboration. Feminist teachers,184architects, planners, and community women may not becompatible in approach, teaching style, or in theirphilosophical, social, political, and aesthetic viewpoints.Feminists, given their diversity, may not share basicprinciples.However, it can be argued that the benefits that mayarise out of a feminist coalition greatly outweigh the risksand problems of implementation. As Adams (1990) suggests,attitudinal change in educational practice often comes notfrom within a system, but from external pressure. Architects,planners and community women are the best equipped to exertpressure for change in built environment education. Thedesign and development of a feminist-based program is a muchneeded, constructive and, in a more progressive climate,realizable probability. A four-way flow of information amongthe organizers, each an important resource for the other,could evolve into a working relationship that unitesexperience and results in a broad-based program.The concept of a collaboration is not new; it goes backto, and is based on, the Art and the Built Environment Projectand the Design Education Unit in Britain in the 1970s andearly '80s, which maintained that a collaborative effort isessential in built environment education. The concept of anissue-based program is also not new. In the early 1970s inBritain, Collin Ward and Anthony Fyson (1973), as well asother educators such as Mog and Colin Ball (1975) argued its185indispensability to any successful program. What is new inthis study is the concept of a collaboration among anethnically and culturally diverse group of feminists thatdeals specifically with the creation and implementation of afeminist-based built environment program.Nevertheless, a critical realistic examination of theproblems inherent in program development raises more complexand challenging questions concerning a feminist program:1. How can feminist architects, planners and communitywomen be prompted to participate in a feminist-based builtenvironment program? How can they be encouraged and supportedto make a long-term commitment to program design anddevelopment?2. What can be done to convince the educationestablishment that community-based women-centred initiativeshave a critical place in general education, and offer newprogressive models for curricula? What can be done toconvince the bureaucracy that outside feminist professionalsand community women have important contributions to make to abuilt environment education program?What if actual attempts were made to implement afeminist-based built environment program? What would thereaction be from those within the Canadian school system? Theeducation world can be very inward-looking and resistant tochange; and teaching practices often continue long after theiroriginal need has diminished or disappeared. Consolidating186the spatial and structural needs of women in built environmenteducation may be a colossal challenge because there are fewsupporters in the field of art education. What specificallymay be the attitudes of those who do not support theintegration of a feminist-based program?Obstacles in the inclusion of a feminist perspective.Sexist practices in schools are often clearly apparent in theovert elements of the education system: within the curricularchoices that are available (or not available), or within thelesson content itself (Eyre, 1989; Hurst, Pedersen, & Shuto,1981). In many schools, the structure and scheduling ofcourse electives, or sometimes the teachers themselves,implicitly or explicitly channel students into courses"appropriate" to their sex; for example, home economics forgirls, or drafting and carpentry for boys (Eyre, 1989; Hurst,Pedersen, Shuto, 1981). This reinforces traditional sex rolestereotyping with the hidden imputation that girls are notcapable of entering certain professions, for example,architecture or construction. Ironically, these notionssurvive along-side a strong feminist movement which has beenactive for over two decades.A major consideration in the development of a builtenvironment program which integrates women's spatial andstructural perspectives is the reaction of the teachersthemselves. The following is a speculative list of problemsthat could hinder the realization of a feminist-based program:187• Teachers may not be feminists and may not view women'sspatial and structural needs as a necessary part of thecurriculum. Many teachers do not consider themselvesfeminists and do not want to be seen as feminists. Some maybe misogynist or threatened by a feminist perspective, and maytherefore find it intimidating to implement.• Male teachers may not relate easily to issues specific towomen. Women's experiences of the built environment aredifferent from those of men. It may be difficult or eventroublesome for some male teachers to understand women'sexperiences. They may recognize only their own experiences asbeing normal or worthwhile.• Teachers may argue that the art room is not the proper placeto introduce social or political issues. Some teachers maybelieve a feminist-based art education program promotespartisan ideologies and political ends, or that women's issuesbelong solely in women's studies or social studies.• Teachers may contend that some students will not be capableof grasping concepts related to women's spatial and structuralneeds or that they may be bored by the concepts. Women-related issues may be seen as too adult-oriented and thereforean onerous task to maintain young students' interest,particularly that of young males.• Teachers may see a feminist-based built environment programas too time-consuming. Teachers are continually asked tointegrate subjects without the necessary support system.188Since a built environment program from a feminist perspectivedemands a non-traditional approach, its implementation may betime-consuming. Teachers may not be able to incorporate yetanother topic into their already over-loaded curriculum.• Teachers may be concerned that if they introduce the topicof women's spatial needs they may not receive support, or thatthere may be a backlash from conservative school trustees,administrators, or parents. Since the topic is relativelynew, there may not be enough initial support to carry itthrough. There may be resistance from parents who see it asunnecessary or too radical. A conservative administrationlikewise may see the topic as having no place within theschool system.• Teachers may be uncomfortable working with feministarchitects, planners and community women. They may view thecollaborative model as a loss of professional autonomy andcontrol. With the exception of team-teaching, teachers havebeen accustomed to working alone. It may be too demanding forteachers to adjust to a teaching model that advocates a non-traditional approach.Other serious problems pertaining to the development offeminist-based built environment studies need consideration:No commitment or interest exists within most teacher educationprograms, nor do schools, school districts or teacherassociations present the topics during inservice workshops orconferences. How then could these studies be offered to189teachers? Should feminist-based built environment educationcourses seek integration in non-traditional settings, as inschools of architecture or planning or women's studiesdepartments? But schools of architecture and planninggenerally do not offer education courses, nor do women'sstudies programs.Ideally, feminist-based built environment educationcourses could be offered by collaborating faculties ordepartments of education, architecture, landscapearchitecture, planning, and women's studies. But woulduniversities be willing to offer such interdisciplinarycourses? Would they be willing and able to employ a team ofinstructors from three or four different faculties to teachthe courses? Would qualified feminist instructors beavailable and would they be able to work together? Thesekinds of questions, as well as questions related to theory andresearch in feminist pedagogy, as discussed in this nextsection, would need to be addressed prior to any kind ofprogram development.4.2: Feminist Pedacrogies: Implications for TheoryIn their discussion of feminist pedagogy in schools, JaneKenway and Helen Modra (1992) highlight the differentperspectives which exist within school-based and women'sstudies-based work. They suggest first of all, that feministpedagogies comprise a diversity of voices and practices, andthat they exist in a broad assortment of educational systems.190Education classes in universities, distance education,nonformal adult education, technical education, and smallpockets of the public school system are places where feministsare developing curricula and teaching/learning practices.They further suggest that communication between thesepedagogical sites and perspectives is somewhat limited andthat while each must attend to its own specializations,additional knowledge can be gained from the work of others.For instance, those in schools who are facing opposition togender-inclusive curriculum, will find in the literature onprogressive education theoretical frameworks that are usefulin revealing the origins of such opposition. The authors arenot suggesting uncritical endorsement of one discipline byanother within the field of feminist educational thought.However, they point to the experience of many women's studiespractitioners coming from disciplines other than education,and struggling to articulate a theory of education without thebenefit of all the theoretical tools available. They assertthat researching and theorizing feminism's own educationalpraxis and disseminating this information is one way ofadvancing the field.Kenway and Modra (1992) also point out the emphasisfeminist pedagogies place on how meanings are made in theeducational process: both in the sense students make ofinformation, and the specific information/material whichinfluences their sense-making. The authors raise tough191questions: How do students receive and replay the main messagesystems which feminist teachers develop for them, and whatpart do these message systems play in shaping and reshapingtheir thinking? Why is it that some students are moreresponsive to a feminist pedagogy than others? Indeed, whichfeminist pedagogies draw more positive response and why? Theauthors admit that these kinds of questions are not new to thefield. Noticeably absent from the literature, however, is aconsistent effort at theory construction. In the view ofKenway and Modra, the work of Lather (1992), Lewis (1992) andEllsworth (1992) is helpful for the practice-based theorizingwhich can help to prevent pedagogical prescriptions fromsolidifying into fixed "truths". Their reflections since 1989return to two key issues: female authority, and dialogue inthe feminist classroom. They conclude that, given thedifferences between and among students and teachers, dialogueis far more difficult to elicit than feminist educators everenvisioned. They stress that dialogue should be a goal ofpedagogy and not a pre-requisite for it. Finally, they statethat power, truth and authority have always been importantphilosophical concepts to feminist pedagogy, but that thepostmodern influence on contemporary feminist theories demandsa re-thinking of such concepts. Postmodern feminisms analyzepower, truth, politics, and human nature from perspectiveswhich are markedly different from the more traditionalfeminist pedagogies. The questions that these feminisms raise192are fundamental, and at once promising, because they are moreproductive than consensus, but menacing, because they mayresult in demoralizing discourse, prevent exchange of ideas,and split the feminist academic community into contentiousblocs (Hirsch & Keller, 1990). Furthermore, postmodernism'sexhaustive relativistic considerations can create frustratingtheoretical stalemates. The authors finish by saying thatsome painstaking theoretical work is ahead for feminists, andthose with a specific concern for praxis will be confrontingthe need for persistent and radical re-evaluation for sometime.Jennifer Gore (1993) claims that feminist pedagogyattempts to establish itself as a regime of truth, and indoing so, ignores the real needs of teachers, students andschools. As a result of this insularity, Gore argues,feminist pedagogy and discourse has clearly failed to have anywide-spread influence on educational policy and practice, oron teacher education. Gore also claims that tremendousbarriers are in place for those who seek to understand newpedagogies. Many of these barriers stem from the fundamentaltension that arises from having to work within the veryparadigm in which change is sought. Specifically, Gorefocuses on radical pedagogic discourses and questions why herown attempts to educate within a feminist framework so oftenfelt like failures. In her analysis of feminist pedagogicpractices, Gore has identified ways to move beyond the193apparent postmodern paralysis by focusing on realistic praxisthat has a direct relevance to teachers' and students' lives.How do the discussions presented above relate to afeminist-based built environment education program? Thisstudy, bearing in mind the observations of Kenway and Modra(1992) and Gore (1993), stresses that any theory and researchfocusing on women's spatial and structural needs in builtenvironment education, must be grounded in real-world contexts-- in, for example, existing schools, teachers, and students,and concomitantly, community-based, women-centred initiatives.In this way the gap between theory, research and practice maybe bridged. In order to take the suggestions out of the naiveand into the "real" (that is, out of the insularity of theoryand research), this discussion attempted to foresee what couldtake place should a feminist pedagogy, in the form of afeminist-based built environment curriculum, enter the schoolsystem.4.3: Feminist Fedex:roc:ries: Implications for ResearchThere is virtually no research in Canada focusing on theintegration of women's spatial and structural needs in builtenvironment education. No Canadian policies exist toincorporate community-based women-centred initiatives orissues concerning women as documented in the literature.There is likewise no investigation of institutional attitudesassociated with feminist pedagogy in the field. Nor do anygrants exist to support such research.194More research in this area is necessary to add both tothe knowledge base and the credibility of the subject matter.As mentioned in Chapter 2, the failure of most builtenvironment education programs to deal with aesthetics andgender at a theoretical as well as an empirical level,suggests that there is a great need for new educationalresearch to look at spatial design and cognition in thecontext of gender socialization and oppression. Researchneeds to be carried out at all levels of the education system,elementary, secondary and post-secondary and should include:(a) development of an interdisciplinary knowledge base, (b)feminist pedagogical teaching methods, (c) pragmatic methodsof introduction, (d) the integration of Canadian content, (e)textbook content and design, and (f) the long term impact thata chronic lack of women's perspectives, knowledge, andprofessional representation has on female (and male) students.The development of scholarship on the spatial andstructural needs of women in built environment education alsorequires greater collaboration among scholars, educators andpolicy makers, since the topic by its very nature cuts acrossdisciplinary lines and encourages social action. When theseissues are addressed systematically better programs willdevelop with a greater capacity to serve all students.4.4: Prospects: Art Education Committed to Cultural Diversityand Individual Rights Art educator Laurie Hicks (1990) argues that the195objective of art education should not be to empower studentsto take their place in the development of mainstream culture,but to enable them to resist hegemonic practices which devalueand oppress them. In this context, empowerment is notconceived as a process of acquiring technical skills andknowledge, but as a process of cultural action based on theaffirmation of individual rights. Art education committed toempowerment would advocate two goals: to acknowledge thecultural diversity of society, and to equip students withanalytical and practical tools to transform social relationsof power (Hicks, 1990).The first goal increases students' knowledge andawareness of their own cultural backgrounds as well as of thediverse cultural traditions which make up the world. Aneducation that stresses diversity seeks to expose themechanisms by which diversity is minimized in the interests ofthe dominant culture. Feminist education empowers students byencouraging them to value the "otherness" of people, as wellas of themselves. The second goal focuses attention on thecontextual character of art and architecture, as well as thecontextual character of all thought and interpretation.Students are encouraged to understand art and architecture asculturally defined and validated forms of communication. Theinclusion of non-traditional, cross-cultural, or controversialforms of art and architecture therefore broadens students'visual frame of reference. The ability to analyze critically196and contextually enables students to resist dominant culturalconstraints and power relationships and to act out of a senseof social responsibility (Hicks, 1990).Thus, the goals of a feminist-based built environmenteducation program are to, (a) empower female students andother students of marginalized status, (b) to criticallyassess the built form within a diverse contextual framework,and (c) to affirm student's presence and input in what is nowa male-constructed world. A society in which women of diversebackgrounds and lifestyles can share equally with men in thedesign, construction and management of their living andworking environments is entirely feasible.4.5: ConclusionThis dissertation met four objectives: It (a) critiquedbuilt environment education programs in Britain, the UnitedStates and Canada from a feminist perspective, (b)demonstrated that most programs are not representative ofwomen's diversity nor strongly committed to community action,(c) presented an overview of the literature on women and thebuilt environment, and (d) illustrated why and how feministdiscourse should, and can, be incorporated into builtenvironment education programs in ways that bring a newdimension to the study of aesthetics, criticism, history andproduction.A number of built environment education programs exist inthe Western world and elsewhere. The International Built197Environment Education Conference, held in Cambridge, England,in 1992, and the Architecture + Children Summit inAlbuquerque, U.S.A., in 1993, invited delegates from Britain,other European countries, the United States, Canada, India,and Japan. Although many of these programs are impressive inscope, and have a good deal of funding to carry out theircurricula, and although there is mention of social issuesassociated with the built environment in some programs, theynevertheless focus mainly on formalistic criteria, that is, onwhat places look like. This is understandable given thatarchitecture and urban design have always emphasized theaesthetics of buildings and physical spaces, to the exclusionof social issues. However, this dissertation demonstratesthat such a singular focus may be problematic in builtenvironment education, because it overlooks important socialand political implications.The primary purpose of examining built environmenteducation programs in Britain, the United States and Canada,was to discover if any represented the spatial and structuralneeds of women. With one minor exception, these needs werefound to be lacking in the programs of all three countries.Such an oversight could be expected given the "newness" offeminist discourses in the built environment, but thisoversight now needs addressing and amending. On examiningfeminist discourse about the built environment, it was foundthat they could be classified under certain thematic topics:198(a) feminist analysis and research, (b) discrimination againstwomen in the built environment, (c) women's spatial andstructural priorities, (d) status of women in architecture andplanning, (e) the question of female design sensibility, and(f) feminist advocacy and activism.The principal argument of this dissertation is that thebuilt environment must be understood as playing a key role inthe subjugation of women. This study shows that by notincluding the spatial and structural needs of women, and bynot emphasizing that curricula be community-based, most builtenvironment education programs serve to miseducate students byreinforcing exclusionary practices. However, integrating afeminist perspective in built environment education may nothave many proponents in the field of art education. Thisdissertation concluded by describing some of the many problemsthat may arise on taking up this challenge: sexist attitudes,administrative resistance, and resource and financial factors.It also described why facing this challenge is critical ifwomen are to become effective in the planning and constructionof the built environment.What does it mean to be a woman in a world planned,designed and built mostly by Eurocentric men? What does itmean when this fact is not brought to the attention ofstudents? Because schools at all levels neglect to addressthis question, the repercussions for many women are far-reaching: The lack of decent affordable housing, childcare,199and support facilities will continue to be ignored. Womenwill continue to feel out of place and fearful on the streets.Schools and institutes of architecture and planning willcontinue to perpetuate a male norm, and women's perspectiveswill continue to be overshadowed. The already tenuous foot-hold women have in the professions will continue to beundermined by discrimination; consequently their influencewill remain minor. If women's spatial and structural issuesare not raised in built environment education, women willremain disempowered in their physical surroundings.Current normative methods of education cannot offer asuccessful model for the radical changes that are needed.Institutional practices need to begin considering marginalcommunities. Emphasis needs to be placed as much onfunctional systems as on formal ones: what are women doingthat works? This should be a model for curriculum.To this end, the education system could be a decidingfactor, and the questions then become: How can teachers beinstilled with a confidence in working with feminist issues?How can they better educate girls and boys of diverse class,ethnicity, and culture to accept differences and theheterogeneity of environments? How can a potential backlashagainst new progressive programs and movements be prevented?Educators cannot be expected to effect progressive changewithin a conservative institution. A feminist-based builtenvironment program may not find a place in current mainstream200education, a possibility which may point to the need for aserious review of educational practices.Incorporating and integrating the recommendations in thisdissertation will be a first step in creating a non-discriminatory built environment education. This study positsthat educators and all students would benefit from a feministperspective of the built environment and that the builtenvironment needs to be seen as "a moveable, malleable, andpolitically charged instrument, both analytic and strategic"(Klodawsky & Mackenzie, 1987, p. 33). Feminists in theprofessions and in grass-roots community groups are realizingthis, and the elemental changes they are attempting toactivate in this "politically charged instrument" need to berecognized by our education system. This dissertationadvocates such a challenge.201REFERENCESAdams, E. (1977, October). Art and environment. BEE 78: Bulletin of Environmental Education, 3-8.Adams, E. (1990). Teachers and architects: Collaborationin education. In D. Thistlewood (Ed.). Issues indesign education (pp. 110-124). United Kingdom:Longman in association with the National Society forEducation in Art and Design.Adams, E. & Ward, C. (1992). Art and the built environment. United Kingdom: Longman.Ahrentzen, S. (1985). Residential fit and mobility amonglow income, female-headed family households in theUnited States. In W. van Vliet, E. Huttman, S. Fava(Eds.). Housing needs and policy approaches: Trends in thirteen countries (pp. 71-87). Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press.Amana, R. (1990). Becoming a "real" dyke: Employment andhousing. Canadian Woman Studies, 11, (2), 43-45.American Architectural Foundation. (1988). That exceptional one: Women in american architecture 1888-1988.Washington, D.C.: The American Architectural Foundation.Anderson, D. M. (1980). Women, design, and the Cambridge school. West Lafayette, Indiana: PDA PublishersCorporation.Anderson-Khleif, S. (1981). Housing needs of single-parentmothers. In S. Keller (Ed.). Building for women (pp.20221-37). Lexington: D. C. Heath.Andrew, C., & Milroy, B. M. (Eds.) (1988). Life spaces: gender, household, employment. Vancouver: University ofBritish Columbia Press.Antoniades, A. C. (1980). Architecture and allied design: An environmental design perspective.Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.Appelbe, A. (1980a, October 17). Mini suites way of future.Vancouver Courier, 1; 10.Appelbe, A. (1990b, November 4). VLC director says criticsoff-base. Vancouver Courier, 1-2.Armstrong, D. (1993). I want to live in Mattapoisett: Or thecritical importance of feminist utopias. Unpublishedmanuscript.Atrim, K., Aitcheson, S., & Forrester Sprague, J. (1981).Women's development corporation. Heresies 11, 3, (3),19-20.Avery, H. (1989). The potential role of the art teacher, theurban planner, and community groups in built environmenteducation. Art education, 42, (5), 53-57.Baker, D. W. (Ed.). (1988, December). The third dimension:Places. School Arts, 88, (4), 4.Ball, C., & Ball, M. (1975). Community studies. In G. C.Martin & K. Wheeler (Eds.). Insights into environmental education (pp. 82-88). Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Berheide, C. W., Banner, M. G., & Greckel, F. R. (1981).203Family types, housing preferences, and community services in a metropolitan area. Skidmore College, SaratogaSprings, New York.Berkeley, E.P. (1980). Architecture: Toward a feministcritique. In G. Wekerle, R. Peterson, D. Morley (Eds.).New space for women (pp. 205-218). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.Berkon, S. F. (1977). Marion Mahony Griffin. In S. Torre(Ed.). Women in American architecture: A historic andcontemporary perspective (pp. 75-79). New York: WhitneyLibrary of Design.Birkby, N. P., & Weisman, L. K. (1975). A woman builtenvironment: Constructive fantasies. Quest: A Feminist Quarterly, 2, (1), 7-18.Bloom, A. (1988). The closing of the american mind. NewYork: Simon and Schuster.Boulding, E. (1976). The underside of history: A view of women through time. Boulder, Colorada: Westview Press.Boutelle, S. H. (1981). Women's networks: Julia Morgan andher clients. Heresies, II, (3), 91-94.Boutelle, S. H. (1988). Julia Morgan: Architect. New York:Abbeville Press.Bowlby, S. (Ed.) (1984). Introduction. Built Environment,10, (1), 4-5.Boys, J. (1984a). Is there a feminist analysis ofarchitecture? Built Environment, 10, (1), 25-35.204Boys, J. (1984b). Women and public space. In Matrix, (1984).Making space: Women and the man made environment (pp. 37-54). London: Pluto Press.Boys, J., Ainley, R., & Farish, M. (1989). Making a place forwomen; A resource handbook on women and the built environment. London, England: Women's Design Service andSouth Bank Polytechnic.Brown, D. S. (1989). Room at the top? Sexism and the starsystem in architecture. In E. P. Berkeley, & M. McQuaid(Eds.). Architecture: A place for women (pp. 237-246).Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.Bryson, M. & de Castell, S. (in press). En/gendering equity.On some paradoxical consequences of (participating in)institutionalized programs of emancipation. Educational Theory.Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge,Chapman and Hall.Button, S. (1986). Why women have housing difficulties. InHC Seminar Reports: The housing difficulties womenexperience and some remedies. Housing Review, 35, (6),196-198.Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. (1985,February). Sexual assaults. Ottawa, Ontario.Canadian Press. (1992, December 24). School of Architecturetarget of harassment probe. Vancouver Sun, E 16.Carson, S. McB. (Ed.). (1978). Environmental education: 205principles and practice. Sevenoaks, Kent County,England: Edward Arnold Publishers.Cavanaugh, S. (1987). Environmental education in schools andcolleges. WEB Newsletter of Women in the Built Environment 6, 12-13.Chalmers, G. (1978). Practical suggestions for environmental design education. Canadian Society for Education ThroughArt, Booklet #5. Publications Office, Faculty ofEducation, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C.Chalmers, G. (1979). Greek and Roman buildings. Vancouver,B.C.: Western Education Development Group, University ofBritish Columbia.Chalmers, G. (1979). Romanesque and gothic buildings.Vancouver, B.C.: Western Education Development Group,University of British Columbia.Chapman, L. H. (1978). Approaches to art in education. NewYork: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.Chapman, L. H. (1982). Discover art. Worcester, Mass.: DavisPublications.Children's Advocate. (1990, August, 31). Civic childcare strategy. Childcare in the city of Vancouver. Manager'sreport. Vancouver, British Columbia: City of Vancouver.Cole, D. (1973). From tipi to sky scraper: A history of women in architecture. Boston, MA: i press.Collins, G., & Sandell, R. (1984). Women, art and education.Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.206Commoner, B. (1970). Science and survival. New York:Ballantine Books.Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. R. B. (1991). Philosophicalinquiry: Conceptual analysis. In E. C. Short (Ed.).Forms of curriculum inquiry (p. 27-41). Albany, N.Y.:SUNY Press.Daly, M. (1978). Beyond god the father: Toward a philosophyof women's liberation. New York: Beacon Press.Daly, M. (1992). Outercourse: The be-dazzling voyage. SanFrancisco, CA: Harper.Ehrlich, P. (1970). Population, resources, and environment.San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Ellsworth, E. (1992). Why doesn't this feel empowering?Working through the repressive myths of criticalpedagogy. In C. Luke, & J. Gore (Eds.). Feminisms and critical pedagogy (pp. 90-119). New York: Routledge.Enjeu, C., & Save, J. (1974). The city: Off-limits to women.Liberation, 8, 9-15.Ergonomics Group. (1992, August). Ergonomic concerns relating to integration of immigrant and aboriginal populations into the workplace. A report preparedby Ergonomics Group, British Columbia ResearchCorporation. Project No: 6-08-009. Vancouver, B.0Eriksen, A. (undated). Architects-in-schools: How to make it work. Philadelphia, PA: Educational futures, Inc.Eriksen, A. (1974). Learning about the built environment.207National Association of Elementary School Principals.Arlington, VA.Eriksen, A. (Ed.). (1977). Architects-in-schools planningworkbook. Philadelphia, PA: National Endowment for theArts and Educational Futures, Inc.Eriksen, A. (Ed.). (1979). Architects-in-schools, 1978-1979.Philadelphia, PA: National Endowment for the Arts andEducational Futures, Inc.Eriksen, A., & Wintermute, M. (1983). Students, structures, spaces. Activities in the built environment.California: Addison Wesley.Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.Erikson, E. (1972). Play and actuality. In M. Piers (Ed.).Play and development: A symposium (pp. 127-167). NewYork: Norton.Eyre, L. (1989). Gender equity and home economics curriculum.Illinois teacher of home economics, 33, (1), 22-25.Fox, M. B. (1983). Working women and travel. APA Journal,49, 156-170.France, I. (1985). Hubertusvereniging: A transition point.Women and Environments, 7, 20-22.Franck, K. A. (1985). Social construction of the physicalenvironment: The case of gender. Sociological Focus, 18,(2), 143-160.Franck, K. A. (1989). A feminist approach to architecture.Acknowledging women's ways of knowing. In E. P.208Berkeley, & M. McQuaid (Eds.). Architecture: A place forwomen (pp. 201-216). Washington and London: SmithsonianInstitute Press.Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York: Norton.Gibbs, L. (1987). Who designs the designers? Internalisedradical, sexual and political attitudes. WEB Newsletter of Women in the Built Environment,  6, 4.Garber, E. (1990). Implications of feminist art criticism forart education. Studies in Art Education, 32, (1), 17-26.Gilman, C.P. (1979). Herland. New York: Pantheon.Gombrich, E. H. (1989). The story of art. Englewoods, NJ:Prentice Hall.Goodey, B. (1978). The city. In S. McB. Carson (Ed.).Environmental education. Principles and practices (pp.23-42). London: Edward Arnold.Gore, J. (1993). The struggle for pedagogies: Critical andfeminist discourses as regimes of truths. New York:Routledge.Grafton, L., Grierson, J. R., & Clark, M. P. (1986). For the record: Ontario women graduates in architecture 1920- 1960. An exhibition. Toronto, Ontario: University ofToronto.Grattan, V. (1980). Mary Colter. Builder upon the red earth.Flagstaff, Arizona: Northland Press.Greater Vancouver Regional District Development ServicesCommittee (1990, September). Creating our future: Steps209to a more livable region. A report. Vancouver, BritishColumbia: Greater Vancouver Regional District.Gutowski, M. (1981). Housing-related needs of the suburbanelderly. In M. Powell Lawton, & S. L. Hoover (Eds.).Community housing choices for older Americans. NY:Springer.Hagaman, S. (1990). Feminist inquiry in art history, artcriticism, and aesthetics: An overview for art education.Studies in Art Education, 32, (1), 27-35,Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association Books.Harding, S. (Ed.). (1987). Feminism and methodology: Social science issues. Bloomington and Indianapolis: IndianaUniversity Press.Hartsock, N. (1979). Feminist theory and revolutionarystrategy. In Z. R. Eisenstein (Ed.). Capitalist patriarchy and the case for socialist feminism (59). NewYork: Monthly Review Press.Hawk, S. (1979). Spiral dance. San Francisco, CA: Harper.Hayden, D. (1980). What would a non-sexist city be like?Speculations on housing, urban design, and human work.Signs, 5, (3), 170-187.Hayden, D. (1981). The grand domestic revolution. Cambridge,Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Hayden, D. (1986). Redesigning the american dream: The future of housing, work and family life. New York and London:210W.W. Norton and Co.Hennessy, R. (1993). Material feminism and the politics of discourse. New York: Routledge.Hicks, L. E. (1990). A feminist analysis of empowerment andcommunity in art education. Studies in Art Education,32, (1), 36-46.Hirsch, E. D. (1988). Cultural literacy: What every american needs to know. New York: Vintage.Hirsch, M., & Keller, E. F. (Eds.). (1990). Conflicts infeminism. New York: Routledge.Hitchcock, J. (1981). Neighborhood form and Convenience: Acity-suburban comparison. Major Report No. 19. Toronto:Center for Urban and Community Studies. University ofToronto.Hurst, W., Pedersen, D., & Shuto, L. (1981). Breaking the mould. Lesson aids to explore sex roles, K-7.  Preparedfor the Department of Education, by the Status of WomenOffice, British Columbia Teachers' Federation.Humm, M. (1990). The dictionary of feminist theory.Columbus: Ohio state University Press.Humm, M. (Ed.). (1992). Modern feminisms: Political, literary, cultural. New York: Columbia University Press.Hodge, G. (1991). Planning Canadian communities: Anintroduction to the principles, practice andDarticipants. Scarbourough, Ontario: Nelson Canada.James, C. (1990). Julia Morgan. (American women of211achievement series.) New York: Chelsea House.Janson, H. W. (1987). History of art for young people. NewYork: Abrams.Johnson, C.R. (1974). Women in architecture: An annotatedbibliography and guide to sources of information.Monticello, Illinois: Council of Planning Librarians.Jowsey, G. (1984). Spaces: Building in a new direction.Herizons, 2, (4), 20-24.Kampen, N., & Grossman, E.G. (1983). Feminism and methodology: Dynamics of change in the history of art andarchitecture. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Centerfor Research on Women.Keddy, K. (1992a). Once an existing institutional building(School of Architecture - T.U.N.S.) is illuminated by afeminist critique, how can it be redesigned from afeminist point of view? Unpublished Master ofArchitecture -- First Professional Thesis. TechnicalUniversity of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Nova Scotia.Keddy, K. (1992b). Thesis synopsis. Once an existinginstitutional building (School of Architecture -T.U.N.S.) is illuminated by a feminist critique, how canit be redesigned from a feminist point of view?Unpublished Master of Architecture -- First ProfessionalThesis. Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax,Nova Scotia.Kennedy, M. (1981). Seven hypotheses on female and male212principles in architecture. Heresies 11, 3, (3), 12-13.Kenway, J. & Modra, H. (1992). In C. Luke, & J. Gore (Eds.).Feminism and critical pedagogy (pp. 138-166). New York:Routledge.Kjellberg Bell, J., & Sayne, P. (1990). Editorial. CanadianWoman Studies, 11, (2), 5.Klowdasky, F. (1985). Employment opportunties for women inarchitecture and urban planning. Problems and prospects.Ottawa, Ontario: Women's Bureau Labour Canada.Klodawsky, F., & Mackenzie, S. (1987). Gender-sensitive theory and the housing needs of mother-led families: Some concepts and some buildings. Feminist perspectives.Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Research Institute for theAdvancement of Women (CRIAW).Klodawsky, F., & Spector, A. (1988). New families, newhousing needs, new urban environments: The case ofsingle-parent families. In C. Andrew, & B. M. Milroy(Eds.). Life spaces: Gender, household, employment (pp.141-158). Vancouver: University of British ColumbiaPress.Klodawsky, F., Spector, A., & Hendrix, C.^(1983). The housing needs of single parent families in Canada.Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Canada.Koedt, A., Levine, E., & Rapone, A. (Eds.). (1973). Radical feminism. New York, N.Y.: Quadrangle Books.Kramarae, C., & Treichler, P. A. (1985). A feminist 213dictionary. London: Pandora Press.LaDuke, W. (1990). Third world housing development andindigenous people in North America. Canadian WomanStudies, 11, (2), 12-14.Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart. Feminist research andpedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge(Chapman and Hall).Lather, P. (1992). Post-critical pedagogies: A feministreading. In C. Luke, & J. Gore (Eds.). Feminism andcritical pedagogy (pp. 120-137). New York: RoutledgeLawton, M. P., & Hoover, S. L. (1981). Community housing choices for older americans. New York: SpringerPublishing.Leavitt, J. (1980a). Research needs and guidelines on women's issues: Planning, housing and community development.Papers in planning. PIP 17. Columbia UniversityGraduate School of Architecture and Planning.Leavitt, J. (1980b). Planning and women, women in planning.Graduate School of arts and Sciences, DoctoralDissertation. Columbia University. DissertationInformation Service. University Microfilms International. Ann Arbor, Michigan.Leavitt, J. (1982). Aunt Mary and the shelter-service crisis for single parents. Chicago: Association of CollegiateSchools of Planning.Leavitt, J. (1984). The shelter plus issue for single214parents. Women and Environments, 6, 16-20.Leavitt, J. (1985). A new american home. Women and Environment, 7, 14-16.Lewis, M. (1992). Interrupting patriarchy: Politics,resistance and transformation in the feminist classroom.In C. Luke, & J. Gore (Eds.). Feminism and critical pedagogy (pp. 167-191). New York: Routledge.Lobell, M. (1989). The buried treasure. Women's ancientarchitectural heritage. In E. P. Berkeley, & M. McQuaid(Eds.). Architecture: A place for women (pp 139-157).Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.Loyd, B. (1975). Woman's place, man's place. Landscape, 20,10-13.Luke, C., & Gore, J. (Eds.). (1992). Feminisms and critical pedagogy. New York: Routledge.McClain, J., with Doyle, C. (1984). Housing and women.Toronto: James Lorimer.McFee, J., & Degge, R. (1980). Art, culture and environment: A catalyst for teaching. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Mackenzie, SI (1984). Editorial introduction. Antipode. ARadical Journal of Geography, 16, (3), 3-10.Mackenzie, S. (1988). Building women, building cities: Towardgender sensitive theory in the environmental disciplines.In C. Andrew, & B. M. Milroy (Eds.). Life spaces: Gender, household, employment (pp. 13-30). Vancouver:University of British Columbia Press.215MacLeod, L. (1989). The city for women: No safe place.Report commissioned by the Department of the Secretary ofState. Ottawa, Ontario.McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (1989). Research ineducation: A conceptual introduction. Glenview,Illinois; London, England: Scott, Foresman and Company.Magee, S. (1992, March 25). Work begins on VLC mini-suiteproject. The Vancouver Courier, 1.Martin, G.C., & Wheeler, K. (Eds.) (1975). Insights into environmental education. Harlow, Essex County, England:Oliver and Boyd.Martin, R. (1986). The difficult path: Women in thearchitecture profession. Doctoral Dissertation. TheUniversity of Michigan. Dissertation InformationService. University Microfilms International. AnnArbor, Michigan.Matrix. (1984). Making space: Women and the man-made environment. London: Pluto Press.Matrix Feminist Architectural Co-operative Ltd. (1992,Summer). Matrix: A radical approach to architecture.The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research,  9, 2.1-11.METRAC (Metro Action Committee on Public Violence AgainstWomen). (1989-1990a, Fall/Winter). METRAC: A catalystfor change. Women and Environments, 12, (1), 4-5.METRAC (Metro Action Committee on Public Violence Against216Women). (1989-1990b, Fall/Winter). The High Park safetyaudit. Women and Environments, 12, (1), 12-13.METRAC (Metro Action Committee on Public Violence AgainstWomen). (1989-1990c, Fall/Winter). Moving forward onpublic transit. Women and Environments, 12, (1), 10-11.Michelson, W. H. (1973). The places of time in thelongitudinal evaluation of spacial structures by women.Research paper no. 61. Toronto: Center for Urban andCommunity Studies. University of Toronto.Ministry of Education, Province of British Columbia. (1983).Secondary Art 8-12 Media Resources. ProvincialEducational Media Centre.Minnich, E. (1988). Reconstructing the academy: Women's education and women's studies. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.Mitchell, J. (1984). Women: The longest revolution. London:Virago.Modleski, T. (1991). Feminism without women: Culture and criticism in a post feminist age.  New York: Routledge.Modlich, R. (1987). Women plan Toronto: Shared experiences and dreams. Women plan Toronto: Implications for cityplanning. Toronto: Reggie Modlich.Modlich, R. (n.d.). Our needs, our communities, let's plan. A community planning manual for women in metro Torontoand Ontario. Toronto, Ontario: Women Plan Toronto.Nelson, D. (1980). City building educational programs: 217Architectural consultant edition. Santa Monica, CA:Center for City Building Education Programs.Nelson, J. (1993a). Unplanned obsolescence. Unpublishedmanuscript.Nelson, J. (1993b). Blueprint errors. Unpublishedmanuscript.Nelson, J. (1993c). Deconstructing architecture: Towards awoman's design ethic. Unpublished manuscript.Neperud, R. W. (1991, [1] March 22 [2] April). Apropositional view of environmental experiencing.Presented at (1) NAEA Symposium on EnvironmentalDesign Education Re-examined in a Post-Modern Era.Atlanta. (2) ERA Symposium: The Meaning ofEnvironment in Post-Modern Art Education. Chicago.Newcomer, R. (1976). An evaluation of neighborhood serviceconvenience for elderly housing project residents. In P.Suedefeld, & J. Russell (Eds.). The behavioral basis of design. Environmental Design Research Association(EDRA). Proceedings of the Seventh InternationalConference, Volume 1 (pp. 301-307). Stroudsburg, PA:Dowden, Hutchinson, Ross.Nicholson, L. J. (Ed.). (1990). Feminism/Postmodernism. NewYork: Routledge.Nicholson, M. (1970). The environmental revolution.London: Hodder & Stoughton.Non-Profit and Community-Based Housing Network. (1992, June21826). Non-profit housing workshop. Recommendations froma workshop of non-profit and community based housingorganizations. Vancouver, British Columbia.Novac, S. (1990). Not seen, not heard: Women and housingpolicy. Canadian Woman Studies, 11, 2, 53-57.Other, A. (1990). Working on the "hard" side. Canadian WomanStudies, 11, 2, 59-60.Papachristou, J. (1976). Women together: A history in documents of the women's movement in the United States.New York: Knopf.Pickup, L. (1984). Women's gender-role and its influence ontravel behavior. Built Environment, 10, (1), 61-68.Planning and Social Planning Departments. (1990, December 6).Proposed rezoning-Bentall V. Provision of daycare services. Vancouver, B.C.: City of Vancouver.Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Read, J. (1990, September 28). Women's fear affects all ofus. The Province, 14.Rebick, J. (1992). No means no. Public letter by theNational Action Committee on the Status of Women,regarding their nation-wide "No Means No" CampaignToronto, Ontario.Rich, A. (1980 Summer). Compulsory heterosexuality andlesbian existence. Signs, 5, (4), 631-660.Richmond, S. (1990, March 30, 31). Contemporary perspectives 219on the visual arts curriculum. Symposium on the FineArts in Education -- Music, Visual Art, Drama, Dance --Prompted by the new British Columbia Schools Curriculum,"The Year 2000". Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C.Roberts. M. (1991). Living in a man-made world. Genderassumptions in modern housing design. London andNew York: Routledge.Roman, L. G. (1992). Whose voices speak with whom?Historical studies in education/Review d'histoire de l'education, 4, (2), 295-305.Rondanini, N. (1981). Architecture and social change.Heresies 11, 3, (3), 3-5.Rosenbloom, S. (1978). Women's travel issues: Research needs and priorities. Washington, DC.: U.S. Department ofTransportation.Rowbotham, S. (1979). Beyond the fragments: Feminism and themaking of socialism. London: Merlin.Saegert, S. (1985). The androgenous city: From critique topractice. Sociological Focus, 18, (2), 161-176.Sandler, A. R. (Ed.). (1988). The source book 2: Learning by design. Washington, DC: The AmericanInstitute of Architects Press.Sandler, A. R. (1989, September). Learning by design.The AIA elementary and secondary education program.Art Education, 42, (5), 13-16.Sayne, P. (1990). Women in Toronto creating housing:Participation and process. Canadian Woman Studies, 11,(2), 38-41.Sennett, R. (1974). The fall of public man: On the social capitalism. New York: Vintage Books.Shepherd, G. D., & Ragan, W. B. (1982). Modern elementary curriculum. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: Afeminist sociology. Toronto: University of TorontoPress.Spain, D. (1992). Gendered spaces. Chapel Hill, N.C.:University of North Carolina Press.Spelman, E. V. (1988). Inessential woman: Problems of exclusion in feminist thought. Boston, Massachusetts:Beacon Press.Standing Committee on Urban Planning, Housing and PublicWorks. (1989). Women and the city. Report of thecommittee on the problems of women in an urbanenvironment. Montreal, Quebec: The City of Montreal.Statistics Canada. (1990, November). Labour force study.Table No.8, Catalogue No. 71-001. Ottawa, Ontario.Stimpson, C. R., Dixler, E., Nelson, M. J., & Yatrakis, K.(Eds.). (1981). Women and the American city. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.Storm, M. (1971, May). Schools and the community: Anissue-based approach. Bulletin of Environmental 220221Education, 1, 1-4.Sutherland, N. (1976). Children in English Canadiansociety. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Taylor, A. P., Chalmers, G., & Purser, R. S. (1981). Ideas for built environment education: A transatlantic annotated bibliography of useful books, periodicals, monographs, kits, packages, films, filmstrips, organizations, museums. Monticello, Illinois: VanceBibliographies.Taylor, B. (1985, Spring). Women plan London: The women'scommittee of the Greater London Council. Women andEnvironment, 1, (2), 4-6.Tognoli, J. (1979, October). The flight from domestic space.Men's roles in the household. The family coordinator,28, (4), 599-607.Torre, S. (Ed.) (1977). Women in American architecture: Ahistoric and contemporary perspective. New York: WhitneyLibrary of Design.Truscott, B. (1991, December 15). Alderman calls fororperating grants as city resuces centres. The VancouverCourier, 6.United States Code. Congressional and AdministrativeNews. 91st Congress -- Second Session. (1970).Volume 1. The environmental education act. United States Code. Congressional and AdministrativeNews. 91st Congress -- Second Session. (1970).222Volume 3. The environmental education act. Wadsworth, G. (1990). Julia Morgan: architect of dreams.(Biographies series.) Minneapolis, Minnesota: LernerPublications.Walker, B. G. (1983). The woman's encyclopedia of myths and secrets. New York: Harper and Row.Ward, C., & Fyson, A. (1973). Streetwork: The exploding school. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Warren, M. A. (1980). The nature of woman: An encyclopediaand guide to the literature. Inverness, California:Edgepress.Weisman, L. K. (1981). Women's environmental rights: Amanifesto. Heresies 11, 3, (3), 6-8.Weisman, L. K. (1989). A feminist experiment. Learning fromWSPA, then and now. In E. P. Berkeley, & M. McQuaid,(Eds.). Architecture: A place for women (pp. 125-133).Washington, London: Smithsonian Institution Press.Weisman, L. K. (1992). Discrimination by design: A feminist critique of the man-made environment. Chicago:University of Ilinois Press.Wekerle, G. (1979-1980). Urban planning: Making it work forwomen. Status of Women News, 6, (1), 2-5.Wekerle, G. (1980). Women in the urban environment. Reviewessay. Signs, 5, (3), 188-214.Wekerle, G. (1985). From refuge to service centre:Neighbourhoods that support women. Sociological 223Focus, 18, (2), 79-95.Wekerle, G. (1986). Space and women's safety. Urban Resources, 3, (2), 28.Wekerle, G., & Mackenzie S. (1985, Spring). Reshapingthe neighbourhood of the future as we age in place.Canadian Woman Studies, 6, 69-72.Wekerle, G., Peterson, R., & Morley, D. (Eds.). (1980). Newspace for women. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Wheeler, K. (1990). Gimme shelter: Toward housing as a right,not a commodity. Canadian Woman Studies, 11, (2), 63-66.Wiedermann, D. (1985). How secure are public open spaces?Garten and landschaft: Journal for landscape architectureand landscape planning, 6, 26-29.Women in Architecture. (1992). Compilation of notes fromJanuary 22 and February 5, 1992 meetings. Women inArchitecture group. c/o Architectural Institute ofBritish Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.Wright, G. (1977). On the fringe of the profession: Women inAmerican architecture. In S. Kostof (Ed.). Thearchitect: Chapters in the history of the profession(pp. 280-308). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054753/manifest

Comment

Related Items