Cities aren’t built for women — it’s time to change that
Article Date: 03 December 2025
Article URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03930-8
Article Image: 
Summary
Leslie Kern argues that conventional urban planning and design have long prioritised male patterns of use and mobility, leaving women underserved and often unsafe in cities. Despite growing diversity in planning professions, infrastructure, transport and zoning still tend to favour linear, peak-hour commuter journeys and single-use districts — patterns that do not match the multi-stop, off‑peak, care-centred trips more commonly undertaken by women.
The article highlights concrete consequences: physical barriers for caregivers (staircases, lack of buggy access), safety concerns arising from ‘dead zones’, and longer journeys caused by separated residential and service zones. These issues contribute to demographic shifts, as families with young children increasingly find cities unaffordable or impractical.
Kern points to successful, gender-sensitive interventions — Bogotá’s ‘care blocks’, Los Angeles Metro’s Gender Action Plan, and Glasgow’s feminist town‑planning motion — as examples of how policy, budgeting and design can be changed to make cities fairer, safer and more liveable for everyone.
Key Points
- Historically male-dominated planning professions have produced urban systems that often ignore women’s lived needs.
- Transport systems are typically designed for linear, peak commuting, not for multi-stop, off‑peak trips associated with care work.
- Single‑use zoning creates isolated ‘dead zones’ that reduce safety and accessibility, disproportionately affecting women.
- Lack of accessible childcare, combined with housing pressures, is pushing families with young children out of cities.
- Practical policy responses exist: Bogotá’s care blocks, LA Metro’s measures for off‑peak frequency and safety, and Glasgow’s feminist planning motion.
- Gender-sensitive planning benefits everyone — it fosters safer, more inclusive, sustainable and socially connected urban environments.
Why should I read this?
Short and sharp: if you care about making towns and cities actually work for people — not just for rush‑hour commuters — this article spells out the mismatch. It’s full of real examples you can point to when arguing for better transport, childcare access and safer public spaces. No jargon, just the straight dope on why current planning still defaults to men’s lives and how that can change.
Context and relevance
This piece is timely as urban populations grow and policymakers wrestle with housing, transport and care crises. It connects gender equality to core planning issues: mobility, safety and the distribution of services. For urbanists, councillors, transport planners and community campaigners, the article reframes ‘good city design’ to include care infrastructure and gendered travel patterns — an approach that intersects with sustainability, social policy and economic inclusion.
Author style
Punchy and persuasive: Kern blends research evidence with on-the-ground examples to make a clear case that gender-blind planning has measurable harms. The tone makes the argument feel urgent — this is not abstract theory but practical, actionable critique that should matter to decision-makers now.