ABSTRACT
In this chapter the context of the planning system and the representation of women therein will be introduced (Greed, 1993a: Part I gives a fuller account). It is easy to blame the planners for the gendered nature of towns and cities, for if we assume a direct link between the nature of the built environment and town planning, this implies that the planners have unlimited power. But planners are only one set of actors within the development process which creates the built environment. Others include private-sector developers and their professional advisers, politicians, and, more broadly, urban theorists, other urban economic and social policy makers, and a variety of cultural and entrepreneurial trend setters. The nature of the planning system is problematic at source, because of its legal scope and limited powers, rather than because of ‘who’ the planners are. Even if more chief planning officers were women it might not follow that cities would be better (cf. Greed, 1988), or that planning policies would be different. One must consider the nature and organization of the planning system, the limitations it offers to change, and the types of women and men who are attracted to, and accepted by, the planning subculture. The efficacy of the planning system in addressing women’s needs is influenced by the style of management, policy priorities, level of political support and professional perspective adopted by the planner, over and above the legal requirements of ‘his’ job. The imprint of gender relations on space is not a mechanistic process, and is more likely to be achieved through the spread of ideas, and visions than through enforcement of planning policy.
