Angela van der Kloof and Patrick Bek take a deeper look into the pioneering career of Henriëtte van Eys. She fought the dominant approach to urban planning of her time, which prioritized men working outside the home over everyone else. We hope this article inspires you to get involved in your community as well!
Image: bestaandewijk.nl
“Imagine a world where your phone does not fit in your hand, the drugs you’re prescribed don’t work for your body, and the endless hours you work each week are not recognized or appreciated.” Chances are this sounds familiar to you if you are a woman, writes activist and award-winning journalist Caroline Criado Perez in Invisible Women (2019).
The world around us is designed based on male assumptions. Women experience the disadvantages of this in many ways, such as in the way they experience their physical environment and travel daily.
Henriëtte van Eys (1935) is a Dutch feminist urban planner who, from the 1970s onward, championed urban planning and mobility policy with an eye for activity and travel patterns of target groups in vulnerable positions, often invisible in policy. Van Eys led ‘Buro voor ruimtelijke vormgeving van Eys’ for 20 years and consulted governments such as Gemeente Rotterdam.
As part of Women’s History Month, we’d like to highlight some of her ideas in this blog. Patrick Bek, senior researcher on equity at the Hogeschool Rotterdam, came across Henriette van Eys during his PhD research on transport poverty at TU Eindhoven: ‘No bicycle, no bus, no job’.
Patrick: Searching for Dutch discussions on transportation poverty, I stumbled upon Henriëtte van Eys. She fought for better accessibility and social safety for vulnerable groups, such as children, women, the elderly and the unemployed. Despite decades of advocacy for equal opportunities, spatial and transportation policies continued to ignore these groups. The rise of the automobile improved mobility mainly for men working outside the home, while others experienced poorer accessibility and more traffic unsafety. Van Eys made room for the voices of these groups.
Angela: Inspired by your enthusiasm about the ideas of Henriëtte van Eys, I read the article ‘It is always quiet in the new housing projects’ that she wrote with Hedy d’Ancona for the magazine Opzij in 1977. In a few sentences, they describe the new housing estates of that period: spread-out single-family lots with decorative greenery, sandboxes, trellises and one area for some stores, post office and community center. Also a supply of schools and a few main roads for vehicular traffic in the neighborhood, “for the rest, the car is tamed or kept out” and “It is always quiet—sun or shine.”
They then explain why urban planners, policymakers and politicians thought this was a good design for these neighborhoods as a “man’s stronghold,” and that this relates to the division of roles between men (paid work outside the home) and women (housework, childcare, and other unpaid work).
Angela: As new construction and employment grew more and more separated, it became more difficult for women to combine their care and parenting tasks with paid work. At the same time, men were travelling longer to work, leaving even less time for care and parenting tasks. The result was that necessary services became inaccessible. The growth of car ownership and use partially compensated for this, resulting in greater car dependence.
The design of new housing developments, according to the writers, was not conceived from the perspective of those who raise children. The sandbox at the foot of residential buildings, for example, costs parents more time than in residential buildings that offer more chances for cooperation, such as “collectivization of household chores … and covered play areas in residential neighborhoods.”
What could a collectivization of tasks and amenities mean for, say, the 15-minute city and Mobility as a Commons? If we organize more communally in residential buildings, do we need less mobility?
Finally, traffic-free routes to schools. Why didn’t the new neighborhoods prioritize safe and independent routes to school for children? Van Eys and D’Ancona blame it on the planners who assumed that mothers have enough time to bring and pick up children to school anyway.
Patrick: “In the fall (1984) issue of ‘De Vogelvrije Fietser’, the ENFB Cyclist Association’s Magazine, Henriëtte van Eys argued that public spaces were primarily designed for men working outside the home.
Van Eys said:
“Spatial planning has traditionally been a men’s affair. This is visible in the spatial layout, in the amount of money set aside for different uses and in the accessibility of facilities. The economically most important group, the workers outside the home, who make money, who build the national product, gets the most investment: for their travel, for their recreational needs.”
Patrick: Van Eys criticized the economic focus on ‘productive’ groups and the skewed distribution of resources: highways and soccer fields, but no daycares or safe playgrounds. According to her, policy makers and urban planners ignored other target groups, such as housewives, the elderly and the unemployed. This manifested itself in amenities but also in the lack of safe (and shorter) walking routes through city neighborhoods, cutting back on bus routes, exchanging play space for parking spaces, etc.
Based on research in Rotterdam, she also challenged local governments to design with people in vulnerable positions in mind and prioritize pedestrians, cyclists and public transport—especially in Rotterdam, where despite only 25% of residents having access to a car, commuting by car was leading.
Angela: What also stands out to me are Van Eys’ statements about density of development and what, in her view, should be done with the space that then remains. She did not advocate urban densification because people working outdoors were a minority. With that, in Van Eys’s view, it was necessary to design the home and living environment so that people had things to do in and around their homes, and in the immediate vicinity; that they could pursue hobbies and did not have to go far away for entertainment. She saw a house with a garden as a minimum for people to have their own private area. Then, there is less need for expensive sports and recreational facilities and less traffic. For the spaces that remain in the neighborhoods, Van Eys suggested that “these [are] even parking spaces or streets that you can break up later.”
Patrick: As a feminist advocate for a more socially just city, Van Eys emphasized that decision-making is always political. If you leave those decisions to a dominant, homogeneous group that is not critically questioned about their assumptions, then needs of other groups are overlooked. That dominant group was not necessarily part of a conspiracy according to Van Eys, but a group that claims the most space and money in spatial planning at the expense of others through a narrow view.
Van Eys had high hopes. In the 1980s, she saw a growing contingent of female urban planners and female city council members. Because how do you make a difference in politics? When are you visible? “When your group gets big enough,” Van Eys concluded.
Interested in hearing more from our experts about how communities can be designed to offer mobility and independence to all? Check out this post from our blog or reach out to Angela van der Kloof directly!
