Feminist design competition entries!

This competition was extremely close and both teams did an excellent job, given the level of familiarity they had with design. I could really tell that the students had been paying attention to our discussions of the relationship between the construction of space and different issues pertaining to gender, including the history of identity politics, key issues in feminist ideology, and emphasizing access through design.

The two submissions were in some ways very similar and in other ways quite divergent, highlighting the differences between different versions of feminist thought.

SAGE (Sex and Gender Equality) submitted designs for a residence hall focused on (you guessed it) equality and choice-based feminism. While some "feminist" buildings previously adopted a womb-like structure to counteract the prevalence of phallic architectural objects, SAGE adopted a 2-story circular structure symbolizing unity. The building has four entrances, none of which is more dominant than the others. The group expressed their belief in intersectionality. They explained this as an idea that emphasizes the shared need for access among all people (rather than the more commonly-held belief in the intersectional nature of identity as having the potential to compound oppression)

Outside the dorm, a communal garden creates extended semi-private space for the residents, where they can lounge or plant flowers and vegetables. Upon entering the building from any of the doors, residents are led straight into the central common areas, facilitating the flow and circulation of people through both public and private space.

On each floor, a central communal location invites students to share space while studying, cooking, or doing laundry. However, even in these public spaces, students have the choice of using more open, public study areas and more private, cubicle-like spaces. This also provides a space for late-night studiers who do not want to disturb their roommates. The halls are divided to allow for students who wish to live in single-sex or co-ed spaces, and there are both double and single rooms. Inside of each room, students may decide on the location of their furniture, because, after all, choice is paramount to SAGE's version of feminism.

SAGE 1st floor:


SAGE 2nd floor:



Friedan Hall, in contrast, emphasizes the view that feminism is about equality that is accompanied by diversity. Here, community and interaction are emphasized over choice through strategies that we may call architectural determinism. All rooms are doubles, encouraging intermingling among students from different backgrounds. Like SAGE, students have the option of living in single-sex or co-ed spaces, with the vast majority of the space consisting of two perpendicular halls that are each gender segregated. The group clarified, however, that the process of applying to live in the dorm would require students to write an essay that explained their commitment to justice not only related to gender, but also queer, international, and other identities. Trans people, for instance, are allowed to live anywhere in the building (with roommate consent), which is not something, the group argues, could happen if there are single rooms. There are both male and female bathrooms in all of the co-ed spaces, within which there are single-stall bathroom and shower spaces. The group clarified that while single-user restrooms were a potential solution, that the number of students in the dorm necessitated a greater number of toilets and showers. Likewise, because the group's approach to feminism is one that encourages interaction between different kinds of people, the more public restroom style was appropriate.

Friedan Hall consists of four towers connected by glass bridges. In the middle of the towers lies a two-floor structure with public spaces inside (a cafe downstairs and study space upstairs). In the spaces between the towers, there is a courtyard with trees and benches. This courtyard is private in the sense that you must enter the dorm to visit it, but serves as an additional communal space for residents.

The first-floor communal space is a cafe, which will be decorated with posters about feminist history. It will also feature a wall where students can write personal messages and make the space theirs. The second floor includes a central lounge space, as well as individual study spaces scattered throughout the quadrants. In each corner of the building lies an essential space, such as laundry, kitchen, or study facilities. This is one of the most interesting parts of Friedan Hall's design: students, by necessity, must enter the living quadrants of other students, facilitating interaction even when they elect not to enter the designated public spaces, such as the cafe.

Friedan Hall 1st floor:



Friedan Hall 2nd floor:



Both groups used very similar forms in their designs, which perhaps points us toward a new feminist design aesthetic. In both residential halls, each floor was divided into four parts, with each providing a different living environment. Also, both dorms provided the choice of living in coed or single-sex halls (though only Friedan Hall specifically mentioned provisions for trans students). Finally, both dorms opted for neutrally-coded spaces. SAGE rejected both the womb and the phallus as forms. Friedan Hall adopted color-coded hallways that did not use traditionally gendered colors, like blue and pink, as a way of indicating their inclusivity.

Where the groups differed primarily was in their endorsements of feminist thought. This translated directly into the designs. SAGE emphasizes equality and the idea that choice and equal opportunity should override differences. Friedan Hall, in contrast, emphasizes equality through respect for and the cultivation of diversity. In a very direct way, this changed the strategies each team used:

Rooms:
SAGE: gave the choice of either single or double rooms, emphasizing that the choice of private space is a necessary feminist goal.
Friedan Hall: argued that allowing people to live in single rooms does not promote understanding and diversity, and so all students must share doubles. For example, they cited the fact that given the choice of single rooms, trans students may opt to live alone instead of with a roommate who may or may not accept them. Friedan Hall plans to use a questionnaire process to ensure that all students living in the dorm are welcoming of many expressions of gender diversity. This is interesting to think about, because the lack of choice also poses risks to students who may end up living with a roommate who is less tolerant than they believe themselves to be.

Communal Spaces:
SAGE: Communal space is centralized, with the kitchen and laundry room, as well as study spaces, in the center of the building. This is based on their equality-focused approach.
Friedan Hall: Although there is centralized communal space, the distribution of necessary facilities in the wings of the building also forces student interaction, making private living spaces in part semi-private. This is based on their approach to promoting interaction and diversity.

Privacy:
SAGE: provided choice and options for privacy in both public and private spaces (including study spaces and bathrooms)
Friedan Hall: made everything open to facilitate interaction, including making bathrooms shared.

Location:
SAGE: Centrally located (taking the place of Dobbs Hall)
Friedan Hall: In a more traditional freshman dorm space (taking the place of McTrimble at the top of frat row).

Both groups could have improved by thinking about the materials of their buildings and the relationship between the inside and outside of the dorm as public and private space. For example, what is the facade made of and how does it reflect what is inside? Can outsiders see in? Is there a reason to place the public spaces at the center of the building, shielded from the outside?

Stay tuned for the final decision later today!

Public restrooms and disability access: why these designs and for which bodies?

-first year student, Shivani Williams, on the design of bathrooms in her residential suite


Pictures 1 and 2: Semi-suite bathroom (disability accessible)

As a resident of Longstreet-means, I have noticed some very interesting aspects of architecture regarding the way that the bathrooms were designed. The first two pictures above were taken in the bathroom in my suite. Because one of my suitemates was in crutches, we were all moved into a disability accessible room. That is why our bathroom is slightly larger than our neighbor’s bathrooms (pictures 1 and 2 are of our bathroom). Pictures 3 and 4 are photos of the hall bathroom on our floor. Unlike the girls, the boys do not have bathrooms in their rooms, but girls are allowed to use the hall bathrooms, too. I found it very interesting that even though our bathroom is supposed to be disability accessible, there is no tub—-just a shower. In the hall bathroom, however, there is a tub with a shower. This seems strange to me, because if a boy had a broken foot, then it wouldn’t be an inconvenience to him to have to use this bathroom, considering he has to use the hall bathroom anyway. However, if a girl had a broken foot, rather than using her own bathroom, she would need to go all the way down to the hall bathroom just to use the tub. Why weren’t the girls' disability- accessible bathrooms built with tubs?

Pictures 3 and 4: hall bathroom (also disability accessible)


The pictures above depict the relationship between bodies and space, and how certain types of spaces can determine who use them. At first glance, photos 1 and 2 appear to promote ease for a person with a disability because the bathroom is quite spacious and has handle bars near the toilet seat. However, when the shower lacks a tub, as seen in picture #2, students with disabilities cannot shower. Though it is feasible for some people on crutches to use this shower, the design does not take into account people in wheelchairs or even people on crutches who do not have the upper body strength to hold themselves up in the shower without some kind of support system. Thus, the lack of a tub where the shower is refutes the notion that all people can use it. As a result, those in wheelchairs and/or on crutches are forced to use the public, hall bathroom where there is a tub integrated into the shower.
Furthermore, not only does the so-called accessible bathroom exclude disabled people in wheelchairs and on crutches, but it specifically excludes female students with disabilities because the bathrooms for female students are integrated into the rooms. If a female student with an impairment is unable to use her own bathroom because of its lack of a tub, she would be forced to take a shower in the hall bathroom, which is unfair because this is a space that she must share with male residents. The female disabled student in this scenario has neither a private space where she can take a shower nor a public space where she can take a shower without the possibility of having to wait for male residents to finish using it. In conclusion, she is being forced into public space, not by her own choice, but because she is female and has a disability, and there is no such personal space for her-- even in her own bathroom.

Feminist Design Competition results

...probably won't be ready until the weekend. Both groups did an excellent job and the contest is very close. I want to scan some of the visuals before I make a final decision so that I can announce it on the blog.

The projects raised a lot of interesting questions about feminism and space. The most obvious is what it means to intend to create a feminist space and how we can know the outcomes. Both groups, in various parts of the project, adopted the position that gender neutrality was a way of achieving equality. That is, if spaces are designed without producing barriers that preclude certain people from inhabiting them, this is an optical outcome. We'll learn more about this idea in a few weeks when we talk about the relationship between disability access and other kinds of access.

Another question that both groups grappled with was how to best incorporate choice without producing trade-offs or confrontations between the interests of different groups. The best example of this is strategies for making residential hall spaces safer and more friendly towards trans students. One group approached the issue by designating spaces in which gender does not determine whether students can share a bedroom or bathroom. The other group indicated that trans students would be mentioned on the dorm application, indicating to potential residents that their participation in a "feminist themed dorm" necessitates their willingness to share even intimate bathroom spaces with others (but that they would be asked consent before being assigned a roommate).

These approaches reveal something about ideology and how spaces work to protect it. Maximizing choice is a way of protecting the inclusion of trans students (and others, I'm just using this as an example here) who might otherwise be forced to live in a hostile environment. Students choosing not to live in the spaces designated as open to gender diversity need not apply. Feminists have long debated the issue of ideological gate-keeping, or the idea that we can designate a metaphorical space for ideology and protect it from intrusion. Gate-keeping can be problematic in some instances because it attempts to establish authenticity, but it can also be useful when it is necessary to delineate one way of thinking from another for the purpose of critiquing dominant structures.

The approaches the students took to their projects showed how complicated the issue of boundary-drawing is in relation to exclusion. In some way, drawing boundaries is inevitable; it then becomes a question of what the boundaries protect and what they exclude. Even more complicated is the idea that design processes can be political and, in this case, feminist.

Is it possible to create a space of openness to difference without closing it off from an outside world that potentially challenges or poses a threat to it? Perhaps this is an issue of scale--drawing boundaries in a localized context could create the conditions necessary to remove barriers on a societal level. Within both groups' building designs, hallways, stairs, and other circulation paths were set up to create flows between the private living areas and the shared semi-public spaces, such as laundry and study rooms. The intention of these layouts is to encourage people, within the confined space of the residential hall, to cross spatial and metaphorical boundaries and inhabit different spaces. Does this strategy scale up to the level of the campus, the city, the region, and the world? Will the development of feminist consciousness in a single space prepare students for taking on more serious change on these other scales?

These are difficult questions to answer, but the fact that the projects raised them reveals a lot about their complexity, as well as the level of detail that went into both of them.

Stay tuned for some visuals, more detailed project descriptions, and the final competition winner!

Final projects

Students taking the course are given the opportunity to design final projects that put their academic and/or creative interests in the context of gender and space. This has precipitated a wide and exciting variety of objects of inquiry and formats of exploration.

The projects are in their initial planning stages, but here is a sneak peek of what readers can look forward to:

-A short, documentary film exploring one individual's relationship to the private spaces of others
-A short story that explores the relationship of a home to the identity practices of three generations of the family that live within it
-Spatial ethnographies that locate group identities and social practices within the structures of the formal spaces they inhabit
-Critiques of scientific research about space and gender
-A website featuring feminist analysis of ancient Chinese architecture

...and more!

Students will also soon be turning in their mid-term projects, which ask them to either do a spatial ethnography or to keep a consumption diary that maps the things they purchase onto a world map. Both projects ask students to reflect on the relationship between the environment and the exercise of power and identity.

Keep reading for updates on how these projects develop!

And we're off!

Two feminist, student design firms, SAGE and More Than Margins, are preparing submissions to the competition. The design process is not yet over, but here's a sneak peak of what is awaiting revelation on Monday:

Whereas feminist design collectives like Matrix sought to counteract the plentiful phallic imagery in architecture with womb-like structures, SAGE (Sex and Gender Equality) is interested in forms that do not fall into either category. Their wide, circular building is centered on the idea of unity and symmetry, but not sameness. Central community spaces on each floor are surrounded by single and double dorm rooms divided into quadrants that access the building's many entrances. Outside, gardens contribute to the feminist sense of the space.

More Than Margins, giving a nominal shoutout to bell hooks' "Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness," takes a more equality-based approach to feminist space. Like SAGE, More Than Margins plans their space around central communal locations, where students from throughout the dorm's four areas can convene to eat, study, or socialize. Each of the four wings is coded with a gender-neutral color (they actually did color theory research about this), and features gender-neutral bathrooms that join separate hallways for male and female students. More Than Margins claims that this combination of public and private space provide room for community while maintaining diversity and difference.

Stay tuned for the final results on Monday!

Design competition

This week in class, we have been reading from Part III of the reader. Most of these readings discuss: what difference the gender of the designer makes to design itself, why the under-representation of women in the architecture profession matters, and whether there is a feminist method of design. To explore these ideas, the students have been divided into two design firms, who will respond to the following prompt. Stay posted for the results on Friday!

Feminist Design Competition

In the tradition of existing themed residence halls on campus for first years, which promote ecologically-aware or internationally diverse living communities, Emory University seeks submissions for a new, co-ed residential hall. The theme is “Feminist Spaces.” The goal of the dorm will be to promote feminist community through consciousness raising, community activities concerning the history of women and their status in society, and a shared sense of responsibility around the relationship between gender and space. Students of all genders will be given the opportunity to apply to live in the residential hall.

Submissions must take account of the following:

1. Overall concept: What is distinctly feminist about the residence hall, its spaces, the design process, its inhabitants, and the experience of the space itself?
2. Room layouts: provide a drawing, including furniture, of a sample room, or several if each will be different
3. Floor layouts: the residence hall may only have two floors. Provide one drawing of each floor, indicating the location of bedrooms, bathrooms, and other spaces. Think about what rooms you need, as well as how people will move between them and through the building. Where will they enter and exit? Are there community spaces? If so, how will they be accessed?
4. A choice and justification of location: to make space for the new dorm, Emory will demolish an existing building. Proposals should indicate which building the new dorm will replace and provide a drawing that places the new dorm within the context of its future surrounding buildings. Think about how spaces on campus relate to one another and how you would want a new, feminist dorm to be situated.
5. Residents: who lives there? What do they look like? What are their study habits? What do they do for fun? What are their genders? Are genders segregated or allowed to live together? How will the space provide for the feminist programs and activities the dorm must provide? How will you divide public and private space? Where do RA’s and SA’s live?
6. Research plan: How will you find out information about potential residents and how they will experience and use the space? What examples or sources of information can you draw upon? What knowledge do you already have that can help you design the building?

What is "natural?" What is "fake?"

--Nicole Gage

New York Fries’ advertisement for french fries depicts a woman holding a cup filled with fries,which are described in the text of the advertisement as “real” and “fresh”. Beneath the image of the woman, there is text that reads “Real Fries in a Fake World”. The woman in the image has very clearly dyed, blonde hair, a low-cut shirt, extreme breast enhancements, and a very slim body. On the surface, the advertisement seems to be condemning practices that change the true representation of an individual; however, once examined more closely, it becomes clear that, through their advertisement, New York Fries is merely perpetuating the subjection of women and their roles in society.

The text that is presented in the ad claims that the world is fake, and illustrating this point is the image directly above it. This text can serve two purposes. First, the“fake world” can be interpreted in a constructivist manner. For example, the world could be fake in that the socially constructed reality dictates that women should get breast enhancements and wear tight clothing. Another way to interpret the phrase “fake world”, however, is that women are the representation of what is fake. This creates the necessarily following idea that men are “real”. The division that this short phrase creates can lead to concepts of the self versus other, and can act as a division between genders.

Also, the woman is holding out food, which indirectly places her in the domestic realm of space that is associated with the kitchen and serving men. In the ad, she is not consuming the french fries, so there is no reason to believe that she is not going to serve them to someone else. The fact that the woman is associated with the distribution of food perpetuates the idea that she should be a homemaker or should reside in a domestic sphere.

Finally, the particular spaces that the woman occupies in this image are very important to its overall meaning. The woman’s hand that is not gripping the cup of fries is intentionally placed near her genitals, which is erotic and depicts her as an object to be viewed sexually. Also, she holds the french fries in front of her unnaturally large breasts, drawing attention to her body instead of to the food. Finally, the woman’s breasts are centered in the image and are the first thing a person’s eyes would naturally come across, especially since they are enhanced and take up a large portion of the image to begin with. This also allows people who see the ad to view her in a sexual manner, and detracts from what is supposed to be the ad’s main concern.

Overall, the advertisement portrays women as inferior by calling them “fake”, associating them with the home and food production, and portraying them as sexual symbols or objects. The advertisement also uses the “fakeness” it complains of to sell a product. By attracting people to an image that represents the fake, the company is going against their claim that fake things are unfavorable, and using them to sell fries. The subjection of women can be seen by the image and the text and how they interact, and these ideas are perpetuated as they continue to exist and are used to sell more products.