| This research is a journey through the subjective experiences of men and women in low-income households in three cities across the world: Phoenix, London, and New Delhi. It examines the gendered nature of spaces in their housing, how this is understood differently in different cultures, and, hence, interpreted as “masculine” or “feminine.” It examines the feelings of belonging that are rooted to real or imaginary places, and how this is related to identity formations of particular social groups. Through the personal narratives and experiences of the urban poor in these three cities, this research examines concepts of spatial segregation, representational spaces, human agency, and the production of geographic inequalities. It thus deconstructs generalized sociospatial theories and practices and highlights their complexity by presupposing a different “politics of location” in which to articulate resistance.; The ethnographic studies of public housing in these three cities find that safety and crime are the prime concerns of women everywhere. Yet, space is perceived differently from different gender, age, race, and ethnic positions. In all three cities, spatial narratives and practices construct powerful ideologies through which masculinity and femininity are understood. The architects and planners along with the local authorities are also involved in an image-making process, where the poor are housed behind middle-class facades to remove the very signs of poverty. Yet, there were both subtle and obvious expressions of human agency in all three cities, where users reorganized space to suit their values, beliefs, identities, and ideologies.; From local narratives, the research moves to a more global analysis of discourses on economic growth, sustainable communities, and regeneration of neighborhoods. It indicates how spatial practices and the environmentalist and feminist movements have been hijacked for capital accumulation. It discusses how nation-states, local authorities, planners, policy makers, and architects use claims to objectivity and moral order to valorize certain social groups while condemning others. As seen in this research, it is always the poor, the marginalized, and the “others” who pay the price in the production of space for economic gains. |
