This article investigates how sociocultural factors of gender differences influence the design and architectural planning of residential environments. In the problem statement, the author emphasizes that traditional architectural approaches often rely on an “average” user model, overlooking the specific needs of various gender groups. As a result, certain residents—particularly women, the elderly, and people with disabilities—may face unsafe and uncomfortable conditions.
The analysis of recent research and publications shows that contemporary professional journals (Gender, Place & Culture, Journal of Urban Design, Urban Studies) increasingly address gender equality issues, introducing the concepts of “gender mainstreaming” and gender-sensitive design. Ukrainian scholarly discussions highlight the lack of systematic approaches to urban planning that consider the interests of all social groups.
The purpose of the article is to develop recommendations for gender-sensitive residential design based on studying the sociocultural underpinnings of gender differences. Achieving this goal involves: 1) identifying the key factors that shape gender-specific scenarios of housing usage; 2) designing recommendations for the architectural planning of residential environments; and 3) laying a foundation for further interdisciplinary research in architecture and sociology.
In presenting the main body of material, the author suggests taking into account the sociocultural dimension of gender by distinguishing between “traditional” and “progressive” perceptions of women’s and men’s roles in society. The text also proposes more active community engagement at the initial stages of project development in order to uncover the real needs of diverse user groups.
The conclusions assert that gender-sensitive planning enhances safety and comfort for all residents while simultaneously reducing gender stereotypes in the use of residential space. Implementing the strategies described in the article will improve the adaptability of housing projects, stimulate further theoretical and practical work on advancing gender equality, social integration, and inclusivity in architecture.
Butler, J. (2006). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge. Retrieved from https://lauragonzalez.com/TC/BUTLER_gender_trouble.pdf
Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. University of California Press. Retrieved from https://lulfmi.lv/files/2020/Connell_Masculinities.pdf https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003116479
Day, K. (2001). Constructing masculinity and women's fear in public space in irvine, california. Gender, Place & Culture, 8(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690120050742
Evans, J., & Jones, P. (2011). The walking interview: Methodology, mobility and place. Applied Geography, 31(2), 849–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.09.005
Jacobs, J. (1992). The death and life of great american cities. Vintage Books.
Hayden, D. (1980). What would a non-sexist city be like? Speculations on housing, urban design, and human work. Signs, Vol. 5,No. 3,Supplement. Women and American City, pp. S170-S187. The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1086/495718
Kern, L. (2020). Feminist city: Claiming space in a man-made world. Verso.
McDowell, L. (2013). Gender, identity and place: Understanding feminist geographies. Polity Press.
Molotch, H. (2004). Where stuff comes from: How toasters, toilets, cars, computers and many other things come to be as they are. Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203011638
Moser, C. O. N. (1993). Gender planning and development: Theory, practice, and training. Routledge.
Oakley, A. (2016). Sex, gender and society. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315243399
Reeves, D. (2004). Planning for diversity: Policy and planning in a world of difference. Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203506523
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002