Feminist design competition - final results!

The two submissions showed us a number of important things about the relationship between gender, space, and feminist design practices. The first, and most important, has to do with how we define what words like "feminist" and "gender" mean. When we say that feminism is about "equality" or "difference," who are we talking about being equal or different? Relatedly, when we talk about preserving respect for difference while promoting equality, how do we plan to go about doing this and what do we do when trade-offs inevitably occur? The answers to these questions are complicated. In fact, feminists have been, for some time, concerned with answering these questions in order to further political agendas.

Throughout the semester, the class has discussed ways that space can be oppressive, either by design or by default. We have also looked at many examples of ways that design can be a political practice of perpetuating or altering exclusionary spatial practices. This is a unique and empowering position for designers, we've found, because it rebuilds the built environment that forms the basis for our daily interactions. The current trend toward "green" architecture and Ecological Urbanism comes in part from a recognition that design is not merely aesthetic and has the capacity for social change.

The questions that remain are whether we have chosen the right kind of political agenda and whether our designs can achieve that agenda. SAGE and Friedan Hall, as the previous post explains, adopt very different approaches to feminism, not only as a way of thinking but as a method for design. SAGE is focused on equality that does not privilege any particular identity. Friedan Hall, while also at times concerned with maintaining neutrality, also builds in innovative ways of getting residents to interact, share space, and become aware of different lifestyles and opinions. There are pros and cons to each approach that are debated between the second and third wave feminists. I won't reiterate them here, but suffice it to say that I thought that both groups achieved their particular feminist approach very well through their designs. There were places that both could have improved, but given the constraints of the exercise, I was very impressed with what was produced.

To that end, and giving a nod toward the consensus between the groups that rejecting hierarchy is a desirable feminist practice, the outcome of this contest is a tie. Deciding in favor of either team would require choosing a superior form of feminist thought, rather than who had the better design, because both teams achieved their goals equally.

Both teams will receive extra credit for this assignment. Congrats to all involved!