打印

作者

Oona Morrow;Brenda Parker

来源

URBAN GEOGRAPHY,Vol.41,Issue4,P.607-624

语言

英文

关键字

Gender,Care,Commons,Cities,Feminist

作者单位

Rural Sociology Group, Wageningen University and Research , Wageningen, Netherlands

摘要

Given profound urban challenges amplified by COVID-19, we need to center anti-racist feminists’ lenses on care, commoning, and collectivity in our cultivations and analyses of urban change. We join a chorus of feminists who critique the devaluation, erasure, and isolation of care in the cities that we build and the stories we tell about them. But this is well-traversed territory, the ‘me too’ tale of every feminist who dreamsa different city or kind of urban theory. So, we outline a research agenda rooted in intersectional feminist imaginations and transformations that live around us. Neither nomadic nor confined to the home, care, commoning and collectivity can be aspirational, spatial, and practical. Inspired by Dolores Hayden and intersectional feminists, we ask: What kinds of socio-spatial imaginations can produce just, sustainable cities and who makes them? What material practices enable social change and improve everyday life, and at what scales might struggles for just cities be waged? KEYWORDS: GenderCareCommonsCitiesFeminist Introduction It is a profound historical moment in the United States, and in cities across the world which are currently grappling with the crisis of care that Covid 19 has laid bare. In response we are seeing a clear demand for collective care, in which care workers in all their shapes are protected and valued as essential workers and mutual aid and collectivity, rather than securitization and policing, are the preferred forms of help. Households are reworking the socio-spatial relations of social reproduction, questioning what the spatiality of home, work, and family mean during physical distancing, and negotiating what bodies, kin, and earthly others we share our vulnerability with. Prior to this current crisis, feminist and intersectional imaginations, energy and activism were spilling over, on twitter, in homes, at voting booths, and in protests on streets. Intersectional coalitions and independent efforts by black, immigrant, feminist and other activists are mobilizing voters, challenging police violence and the invisibility of racism, articulating hopeful visions for a more inclusive society. Not without conflict or contestation, womyn of all races and classes are speaking out against sexual violence and misogyny, their ability to move safely throughout the city (Falú, 2014; Viswanath, 2013), and some report that they are fed up with carrying out the “emotional labor” of households and communities alone. In some places headlines even read “Can a city be feminist?” (Rustin, 2016) At the same time, in cities around the world, cooperatives, mutual aid, and commons have [re]gained traction among a broad coalition of actors aligned around the values of social and solidarity economy, community economies, and de-growth. The efficacy of these current movements, as well as the legacies and strategies of feminist and anti-racist movements to revolutionize the everyday life worlds of social reproduction (or home in the broadest sense of the term), can be seen in a steady stream of experiments aimed at creating more caring, cooperative, sustainable, and anti-capitalist cities. Such experiments include urban and community agriculture; cooperative and co-housing; worker cooperatives; community kitchens, fridges, and day cares; and countless forms of informal mutual aid that are being negotiated over community meals, garden beds, and kitchen tables (Akuno et al., 2017; Davies et al., 2017; Huron, 2015; Hudson, 2018; Healy et al., 2018; Loh & Agyeman, 2018). And this isn’t the first time such urban and social transformations have been in play, with feminist scholars and activists of different races and ethnicities at the forefront (Lerner, 1974; Nembhard, 2014; Parker, 2012). We believe it is a useful time to revisit historical endeavors by female urban reformers described by Dolores Hayden and others in light of contemporary and ongoing activists efforts to reshape urban provisioning, housing, environments and economies. In her book, The Grand Domestic Revolution, Hayden (1982) introduces readers to a number of utopian feminist interventions in the built environment (such as community kitchens, kitchenless apartments and collective housing) that take place in late nineteenth and early twentieth century America. We take inspiration from research on the critical geographies of home (Brickell 2012; Blunt & Dowling, 2006), to conceptualize these domestic revolutions as simultaneously material, symbolic, and imagined and constantly made and remade through the labors of social reproduction, taking place at multiple geographic scales. We also engage with and sit amongst a cadre of feminist urban geographers theorizing urban inequalities, politics, and activism (Jupp, 2017; Klodawsky et al., 2013) and calling for more just, “carefull” urban spaces (Power & Williams, 2019; Williams, 2017), as well safer and more inclusive cities (Viswanath, 2013). In doing so, we bring Hayden’s domestic revolution into dialogue with a broader set of domesticities, materialities, spatialities, and political struggles beyond the home. Many of the practices we are interested in understanding as sites of domestic revolution can also be theorized through lenses of citizenship and the right to the city (Falú, 2014), social reproduction (Katz, 2001), and commoning (Federici, 2011). And while we see the value all of these perspectives and draw on them in our previous work (Morrow & Dombroski, 2015; Morrow & Martin, 2019; Parker, 2016, 2015; Werner et al., 2016), they are sometimes at risk of becoming free-floating abstractions unmoored from a historical-material-feminist grounding in the everyday life of diverse women, cities, and households. Thus, while extant urban literatures on social reproduction, commoning, citizenship, and the right to the city all have important contributions to offer, they sometimes miss the broader connection between home, care, and urban transformation that materialist feminists bring to the table. Or they may fail to grapple with the full extent to which violences, inequalities, and identities have shaped different women’s experiences of and conceptions of home, place, city, and planning (e.g. Hooks 1990; Isoke, 2013; Sweet, 2015). The progressive, utopian, and communitarian experiments described by Hayden as well as black feminists such as Jessica Gordon Nembhard sought to shift the relationship between production and social reproduction, and improve the working and living conditions of women; implementing among other things a spatial and design-fix for the crisis of social reproduction and racism in industrializing cities. Hayden and others describes how female activists of the time capitalized on ideologies surrounding women, home and motherhood to launch a “municipal housekeeping” agenda that transformed urban spaces, services, and politics. By arguing that the city was an extension of the home, women – mostly, but not all, white and elite – legitimated their presence as activists and agents of change in the public sphere and transformed homes, neighborhoods, and cities. Some of these experiments and practices have been lost from memory, and those involving black women and communities of color were not sufficiently recorded by Hayden. Others, such as public sanitation, have stuck with us and become a taken for granted part of urban infrastructure and design (with their history seldom attributed to women), and still others are being forcefully brought back in the name of sustainability, care, and anti-capitalist politics. However, the vision of gender equity in cities based on care, collectivity and creativity articulated by early feminists remains under-realized. So too, do ideals of racial and class justice in cities that were too seldom articulated by white female reformers but were often central in the organizing efforts of women of color (Lerner, 1974; Nembhard, 2014; Chatelain, 2015). We believe the insights from the Grand Domestic Revolution are relevant for urbanists today. This is true of both its’ quiet accomplishments and hardy silences. Traversing Hayden and other feminist scholarship and coupling it with critical intersectional vision leads us to pose at least three questions. What kinds of socio-spatial imaginations do we need to produce just and sustainable cities and who makes them? What material and spatial practices can enable social change and improve everyday life? And at what relational scales might struggles for an inclusive, safe, equitable, and sustainable city be waged? In a perhaps non-linear way, we begin to explore these questions with the robust tools and practices that intersectional feminists offer. And we invite other scholars to join us in search of answers. But first, for the uninitiated, a bit about Dolores Hayden and the Grand Domestic Revolution. Introduction to grand domestic revolution(s) “Their insistence that all household labor and child care become social labor was a demand for homelike and nurturing neighborhoods.”(Hayden, 1982, p. 5) As a lifelong project and across her many works including the Grand Domestic Revolution (1981), Dolores Hayden raised serious critiques about the uneven position and labors of women, and the role of design and planning in reinforcing and challenging these labors in homes, neighborhoods and cities (1978, 1982, 1989, 2002, 2004). An architect, urbanist, historian and poet, Hayden noted that patterns of space – such as single-family homes, each with their own kitchen – isolated women and made domestic work invisible, reinforcing and reflecting the devaluation of work like child care, cooking and laundry. This arrangement served men in heterosexual marriages well, but overburdened women and often drained their creative and economic potential and independence. Female reformers thus proffered alternative domestic imaginaries. In the 1800s, for example, Charlotte Perkins Gilman proposed the “feminist apartment house”, where mothers and fathers would collectively help with child care, and paid, and in-house specialists in domestic science would relieve women of chores so they could work outside the home. In 1870s in Cambridge, Massachusetts, women formed a collective bakery and laundry, where households paid a subscription fee to receive services. The experiment was short lived, with husbands undermining the enterprise through humor, disparagement, or direct orders. However, these efforts as well as those of black women who combined paid work and domestic work in Jim Crow cities (Landry, 2001), were an early inspiration for feminist movements in the 1970s, including the wages for house work movement (Dalla Costa & James, 1972; Federici, 1974). In related efforts, in the late 1800s female urban reformers applied notions of domesticity and care in endeavors to make industrial cities more safe and “homelike.” Co-opting domestic imaginaries, women of various races and ethnicities engaged with urban politics, housing, food safety, and health in cities that were seen as crowded, corrupt, and incorrigible. They drew upon “naturalized” maternal and moral authority to transform material practices (Lerner, 1974; Boris, 1989; Dickson, 1987; Marston, 2000, Parker 2012), challenge political corruption and improve urban services like sanitation. Their efforts were bolstered in part by anxieties about safety, sexuality and changing gender norms, and legitimized the civic maternalism of female reformers who provided shelter, domestic training, and “moral supervision” for newly arriving, single, working-class women (Flanagan, 2002). But they also addressed safety, poverty, racism, segregation, and the squalor of housing for immigrants (Lerner, 1974; Wirka, 1996; Spain, 2001; Chatelain, 2015). With regard to health, women reformers of all races provided food for families, built public baths, and shed light on unsanitary urban conditions. They enacted early forms of environmental activism, advocating for garbage incineration instead of landfills (Rosenthal, 2018). The spatially unjust siting of such facilities and other environmental burdens would later bring a much more diverse group of environmental justice activists to take up the broom of municipal housekeeping in American cities (Gomez et al., 2011; Krauss, 1993; Mann, 2011; Peeples & DeLuca, 2006; Rainey & Johnson, 2009). Women challenged conventional and uneven domestic and urban relations in imaginative and multi-scalar ways, based on ideals of collectivity, creativity and care. For example, the Jane Addams Settlement House in Chicago offered cooperative domestic life to professional women and married couples who served low-income immigrants. The community of over 50 members held jobs as teachers, scientists, artists, nurses and more. Living out a type of queer domesticity (Jackson, 2010) residents lived and worked collaboratively and sometimes quietly romantically. And restructuring “home” was often linked to broader transformative aims. For black female reformers – who often worked separately from white women due to racism- these aims included creating safe spaces for women from racist and sexual violence from white men and creating economic opportunities for black women who were shut out of most labor markets (Landry, 2001; Lerner, 1974; Nembhard, 2014). In Chicago, the “Jane Club” cooperative housed striking women factory workers who taxed themselves 3 USD for shared food, quarters and services. With secure homes and social networks, workers were more likely to hold firm with their strike requests. The same phenomenon is described by Nembhard (2014), who found that black cooperatives created physical and temporal space for community organizing, and by Huron (2015) in her research on limited equity housing cooperatives. Invoking domestic ideologies and new imaginaries, historic reformers and feminists reworked spatial and material practices to transform not just households but also the city and the state. These women held influential policymaking positions in city, state, and national government, helping to institutionalize the field of urban planning. Catherine Bauer – an activist, journalist, and planner – led a reform movement that inspired progressive, federal housing programs within the Public Works Administration beginning in 1933 (Radford, 1996). Jane Addams helped institutionalize sanitation as a core component of city planning. Women reformers (in a movement still relevant today) critiqued the City Beautiful and City Functional movements, arguing instead for City Social, which would integrate social services into physical design and prioritize neighborhood self-determination and community organization leadership (see Wirka, 1996). We recognize similar language and aims being taken up in contemporary calls for social infrastructure (Klinenberg, 2018), and while we tend to agree that libraries and civic spaces are good for cities – absent a critical feminist imaginary we risk pursuing design fixes for social inequalities that fail to engage or benefit those urban residents most impacted by inequality, and offer lifestyle amenities for those already well-off. Without explicitly taking the intersectional concerns of gender, race, citizenship, bodily difference, and safety into account these public infrastructures risk being underutilized and exclusionary, further denying some womyn’s right to the city (Falú, 2014). Learning from the failures of social infrastructures designed by and for elite white women may offer inspiration to critical efforts to rethink ambiguous terms such as safety, quality of life, sustainability, livability, and revitalization that are being used to buttress some urban imaginaries and deny others. Early material feminists challenged both the separation of household and public spheres and the economic separation of the domestic economy. Simultaneously, these women sought to increase women’s rights in the home and bring homelike nurturing into public life. Far more than contemporary urban theorists, material feminists saw space as a social and economic product, and therefore argued that the entire physical environment of cities and towns must be redesigned to reflect equality for women (Hayden, 1982, pp. 7–8). While many but not all of these endeavors described by Hayden involved white and elite women, there were simultaneous and pressing endeavors led by women of color to challenge the tremendous inequalities, violence, and lack of resources that they faced in cities – including the still common (in the early 1900s) practice of lynching. As Lerner (1974) writes at the same time as Hayden was researching her book, black women’s clubs organized and delivered services in hundreds of black communities, in places that largely had no infrastructure due to racism. Female black leaders like Ida B Wells-Barnett and Phyllis Wheatley organized womens’ clubs in Chicago. There members operated a kindergarten, brought prominent cultural and political leaders to town for lectures and were politically active against lynchings, police brutality and discrimination. They also set up homes for women and girls. Similarly, black women’s clubs in Tuskegee led “mothers’ meetings” where they provided educational discussions, advice on child care, home economics, vegetable gardening and sewing. They also ran a small library and took part in suffrage and political activities (Boris, 1989; Lerner, 1974; Shaw, 1991). Importantly, as Lerner, 1974, p. 167) points out, in contrast to many of the endeavors described by Hayden, “black club women frequently successfully bridged the class barrier and concerned themselves with issues of importance to poor women, working mothers, and tenant farm wives.” Similarly, while the white reformers Hayden described recognized and challenged racial discrimination, many still believed that the city held the power to guide and cleanse the moral behaviors of poor immigrant, black children, and families. Conversely, even the more elite and morally righteous black female reformers note that lack of resources rather than moral failure was the main problem (Chatelain, 2015). Alternative imaginations of home, social reproduction, care, and infrastructure The material feminist legacy can stimulate the spatial imagination by providing feminist visions of other ways to live. (Hayden, 1982, p. 28) Female architects and urban reformers from diverse backgrounds were notable for their spatial imagination and their ability to nurture alternative visions for what cities and homes could look and feel like. The home could be redesigned to socialize, industrialize and even remove domestic labor, thus supporting new performances of gender and motherhood in the city. Cities could be transformed into safe, sanitary, caring, and “domesticated” environments through the provision of basic infrastructure and social services that enabled social reproduction at multiple sites and scales. It was thus possible to create an everyday feminist infrastructure in the city. Unlike other urban visionaries, who drew on the metaphors of ecosystems (Park & Burgess, [1925] 2019) and machines (Molotch, 1976) to envision new ways of managing resources and growth in cities, utopian feminists and urban reformers began with the home, but they did not end there. The imagination of home they cultivated cut across multiple geographic scales and practices. And made the twin demands for redesigning the home to support socialized domestic labor, while also making the entire city more “home like.” These kinds of claim challenge the division between domestic life and public citizenship, and show the significance of collective home and community spaces for realizing safe and inclusive cities, where women can practice citizenship. These spatial imaginaries sometimes drew on quite traditional imaginaries of white women as guardians of home and the domestic sphere, responsible for tidying up, caring for others, and nurturing – at whatever scale. Taking greater control over that sphere, reorganizing work on a collective basis, utilizing modern technology to make it more efficient, and extending the spatiality and social relations of this sphere beyond the private family was one path toward pre-suffrage women’s emancipation and right to the city. In the progressive era city, women in the municipal housekeeping movement mobilized around the ideal and imaginary of home, to make demands for more home-like and nurturing urban environments that might improve home-making conditions for women across the city. The rhetoric and practice of municipal housekeeping at times drew on these rather gendered, essentializing, and normative notions of home to remake the city and ultimately shift some practices of social reproduction and collective care – in the form of municipal services, onto the city. However, the persons and concerns that fell under the caring remit of municipal housekeeping for white women were also limited, they did not for example, include racism, slavery, the civil war, eugenics, or lynching in the Jim Crow era. Furthermore, the moralizing principles of progressive era women’s movements with regard to the regulation of sex workers and the prohibition of alcohol were often linked to gendered ideals of racial purity (Boris, 1989; Epstein, 1986). Such examples show the possibility and problematics of stretching the emotional and moral geographies of home (beyond the presumed nuclear home, of white suburban America), and are relevant to contemporary debates about geographies of responsibility and care (Lawson, 2007; Massey, 2004). Feminist interventions in the home perform the double movement of opening up (making the private-public) and rescaling the home (making home everywhere), in order to make women’s domestic work visible, and challenge the inequitable working conditions and public policies that threaten social reproduction. Imaginaries of home by intersectional feminists are critical to understanding how we “dwell” differently, and what political possibilities exist in that place. Black feminist thinkers such as bell Hooks (1991) and Isoke (2011) have for example, examined the home, as a site of belonging and resistance from which to survive and contest white supremacist heteropatriarchal cities. And Landry (2001) points out that black women – to whom traditional notions of domesticity did not apply in a Jim Crow era – led the way in imagining more progressive notions of home and roles for women. In contemporary cities, we also see contestations over the imaginary and feeling of home. For migrants and refugees with geographically distant or destroyed homes, producing home-cooked meals and sharing them with others, can be a critical mode of home-making (Longhurst et al., 2009; Marte, 2012; Supski, 2006). Urban spaces are also constantly being reimagined as home space though temporary interventions, such as sidewalk furniture, hanging laundry, cook outs, pop-up greens and picnic spaces, and the use of public space for domestic practices (Crawford, 1994, 1995, Koch and Latham 2013). These forms of DIY urbanism (Colomb, 2017; Finn, 2014; Iveson, 2013) create home like environments that may feel safe for some urban residents, while implicitly and explicitly excluding others, including people experiencing homelessness (LaFrombois, 2017). Yet, how and where we imagine home also effects who we are willing to share it with. Across the U.S. white nationalists promote imaginaries of a racially pure homeland, while armed home owners seem to imagine their homes and neighborhoods as bunkers, worth killing for. We also observe the unencumbered experience of “feeling at home in the world” characterized by the historic flaneur (Buck-Morss, 1986; Wilson, 1992) and the contemporary digital nomad (Müller, 2016), as a uniquely masculine mode of dwelling, free of the friction of sexism, transphobia, bodily difference, and hostile infrastructure (Mott & Roberts, 2014). Imaginaries of home are personal, but also relational and shared. We have seen women mobilizing around an undeniably patriarchal imaginary of home and family, while simultaneously using this imaginary as a strategic frame for doing feminist politics and communicating urban problems related to sanitation and public health, thereby increasing (some) women’s access and influence in urban politics (Boris, 1989; Marston, 2000). As should be clear by now, different imaginaries of home do different things, and these imaginaries are not evenly accessible or inhabitable. This leads us to wonder what other imaginaries of home have not been rendered into social policy and neighborhood infrastructure? How can we cultivate an imaginary for the home and city of the future, without falling back on nostalgia for an ideal home and city that never existed? While these re-imaginings of home in the city are admittedly partial, they offer powerful historical lessons on the construction, uses, and limitations of spatial imaginaries. They show that the imaginaries (local, home, domestic, etc.) we construct and hold dear can influence the politics, publics, and practices we mobilize around. There is a pressing need for alternative visions of urban life, and these can take inspiration as well as critical lessons from female reformers’ endeavors in the early 1900s. Cities are deeply unequal, unjust, and unsafe places; social reproduction remains highly privatized; and existing collective urban infrastructures are crumbling. The notion of “nurturing” cities is anathema to many residents – especially those who are routinely subject to violence, displacement, and exclusion in both public and private spaces. Housing crises have become epidemic at a time when more and more is being downloaded onto individuals and households, who have become progressively more isolated and atomized. As feminists have long pointed out and has become more salient during this covid-19 crisis, homes are often places where gendered violence flourishes (see Fenster, 2005; Sweet & Ortiz Escalante, 2010). Thus, the ongoing isolation and privatization of home in the city have consequences for women’s safety, public health, housing affordability, social cohesion, consumption, and sustainability – and still uneven gendered divisions of labor. Yet, there is ample opportunity to invest in more collective and inclusive urban infrastructure and services to alleviate pressures on individuals and households. But mobilizing around those causes will also require new imaginaries. Thus, the tools and strategies that feminist materialists utilized to further their visions of home and urban life that are safe for all are worth visiting and extending and problematizing in the contemporary urban context. They beg the question, what would a feminist spatial imaginary look like for cities of today and tomorrow? Are there other existing or emergent feminist spatial imaginaries that are being mobilized ? … we think so! Material-spatial transformations Spatial imaginations require material support. As Hayden writes, “It requires a spatial imagination to understand that urban regions designed for inequality cannot be changed by new roles in the lives of individuals (Hayden, 1982, p. 28)”. Thus, material environments and urban infrastructures play an underappreciated role in fostering some social (as well as nature-society) relations and forms of care while hindering others. For example, the free-standing house associated with American values of freedom and individuality is also tied to processes of individualization, isolation, unsustainable energy use, and increased consumption (Crabtree, 2006; Hayden, 1978, 2002; Mallett, 2004). In addition, homes are imbued with violent histories of settler colonialism, racist violence, and wealth dispossession (Cowen, 2004; Veracini, 2012; McKittrick, 2006; Satter, 2009). Conversely, as Jacobs (2016) and countless urbanists have observed, the density of cities, combined with the design of apartment buildings, and the width of sidewalks could foster a sense of solidarity, community, and care – as well as surveillance. And even the most generously designed public infrastructure can become unsafe if it is underutilized, unlit, or neglected and questions of gender and safety are not considered in the design process (Falú, 2014). Feminist architects and activists of the early 1900s grasped the ways in which material environments shape labor and social relations. Home economists conducted Taylorist motion studies to redesign kitchens for greater efficiency. Communitarians and cooperators designed rural communes and urban and suburban housing with centralized eating, dining, laundry, and child care facilities. These material supports would, in theory, enable women to spend fewer hours in the drudgery of housework – or at the very least spend fewer hours doing this work alone. This would offer women the time to engage in paid work, or other more fulfilling activities, and allow them access to networks of support. The community kitchens in Carthage, reportedly, allowed women time and safe space to devote to suffrage efforts, their children, learning to drive a car, and doing a bit of writing (Dolores Hayden, 1982, p. 208). The idea was that compensating women for their domestic work in and out of the home would somehow translate into political power (even absent the right to vote). For some women (primarily white and middle class), these experiments led to immediate improvements in their lives. In some cases, living collectively and practicing “queer” domesticities enabled people with diverse genders and sexualities to engage in social transformations that benefitted low-income women, immigrants and other marginalized populations (Jackson, 2010; Metzger, 2009). In parallel but interdependent projects that reveal the uneven racial and gendered systems of power at the time, black women created living, social and working spaces in Washington DC, Baltimore, Chicago and elsewhere. In these centers, women participated in canning and sewing cooperatives and learned strategies for economic independence; lived collectively and affordably as domestic service organization participants (i.e. union members); took vocational and liberal arts courses, including black history; and received training to help them earn higher wages (Lerner, 1974; Nembhard, 2014, pp. 146–152). These spaces allowed an exponential form of caring and community and empowerment and also protected black women from assaults on their safety. Feminist design interventions such as the kitchenless apartment and community kitchens offered an infrastructure for managing everyday life in a patriarchal society. However, the labor in these kitchens often remained highly feminized, racially segregated and poorly paid (Dalla Costa and James 1972, Trogal, 2016). Without challenging the broader social and economic relations around social reproduction, changes to the built environment offered at best design fixes for racism and patriarchy and workarounds that allowed women to reclaim their time and produce even more. For example, during war time community kitchens became even more mainstream in response to new labor demands on women in the workforce. “There was the general belief that the social and technological advances developed during wartime would become the basis of civilian progress in peacetime” (Hayden, 1982, p. 226). Yet, many of these efforts ultimately failed because they were not economically viable. Husbands paying (quite low prices) for food in a community kitchen, still amounted to men paying women for services they were accustomed to receiving for free. The nub of the problem was the economic value of a housewives’ or servant’s day: “the value of the housewife’s labor in buying and cooking the food for the family” had to be rightly estimated. If not, even the neighborhood dining club which saved a woman’s health could be closed because it “did not pay.” These challenges around valuing and compensating care work are still very present in American cities, and have led to the formation of worker cooperatives led by care workers as well as volunteer childcare cooperatives (Matthew & Bransburg, 2017; Nembhard, 2014; Stinard-Kiel, 2017). Less explored is the impact of these material transformations, not just on work, but on meaning and imaginaries. Public kitchens, for example, would make food provisioning work more collective and shared, make healthy meals more accessible to those without the time to prepare them, and change the meaning of food work itself by making it public and compensated (Hayden, 1982). But taking food public also risks stripping food it of its intimacy, affective investments, and distinct ties to family and place – while also transforming this element of homework into social work (quite literally). Public kitchens may even “expand women’s reproductive tasks, always assuming that poor women have an endless supply of time and energy” (Schroeder, 2006, p. 666). They may also overlook the meaning-making and sense of identity or accomplishment linked to cooking with and for one’s own family, utilizing traditional recipes and culturally appropriate food (Christie, 2006). Being able to exert autonomy and control over food and kitchen space may be all the more important for people who have experienced displacement, and the loss of home. The conditions of labor for women workers are influenced by the location of this work, as well as the social and economic value attached to it. Moving domestic tasks like cooking, laundry, and child care out of the private home and into the community home allowed such practices to be accessed, exploited, and monetized in new ways. Some of these economic relations took the form of producers and consumers cooperatives. But many more took the form of highly exploitative feudal or capitalist relations that characterize the childcare sector in North America (Pratt, 2004). The insights of “material feminism” (Hayden, 1982) continue to influence urban planning and architecture, but have been largely wedded to capitalism rather than feminism. Many of the same amenities that made home life more liberating for socialist and communitarian women, also promise to make life easier for today’s urban elites and tech workers, whose time is too valuable for individualized forms of social reproduction. And whose tech and work centered lifestyles may actively interfere with their ability to practice community, contributing to new forms of urban loneliness and alienation. As a result, shared spaces for social reproduction are rapidly becoming required lifestyle amenities in offices, condos (Kern, 2011), master planned estates (McGuirk & Dowling, 2009), and today’s luxury boarding houses (Coldwell, 2019). We critique the ways in which feminist design interventions have become mainstream to the benefit of some urban residents and not others, and can conclude they are only as transformative as their architects and dwellers. We lack abundant examples of feminist, nonhierarchical interventions in the built environment that are actually created by and for the most marginalized city dwellers. But there are many emergent possibilities. For example, municipalities could stop and reverse the rapid disinvestment, destruction, and privatization of affordable public housing in American cities and build new public housing that incorporated feminist design principles to support collective food provisioning and child care – through community kitchens, nurseries, and gardens (see Ullmann, 2013). There are also many existing public infrastructures, such as libraries and schools, that could be retrofitted to support grand domestic revolutions through food provisioning, community spaces, and public procurement. Finally, there is potential to use solidarity-oriented forms of property and finance, including community land trusts, to make existing forms of collective living such as co-housing and limited equity housing cooperatives more accessible and inclusive. Feminist scholars have long argued that these options, especially when combined with multiple services, are important and effective for women (e.g. Saegert & Benitez, 2005; Wekerle, 1988). Other transformations As demonstrated in the works of numerous feminist designers, activists, and planners, home, care, and social reproduction in all of their material, imagined, and socio-spatial forms can be powerful sites for urban transformations. With a contemporary critical feminist theory lens, we must note the violence and dispossession faced by women in the 1900s that are invisible in the Grand Domestic Revolution, including but not limited to racism and intimate partner or sexual violence. We should remain vigilant about regressive and exclusionary imaginaries of home, care and social reproduction. However, we also see a reason to be hopeful about an urban politics that is rooted in people’s everyday experiences of social reproduction and a demand that everyone have a right to housing, care, safety, and feeling “at home” in the city. For example, the success of Moms 4 Housing, a group of homeless women who occupied and eventually purchased (via the Oakland Community Land Trust) a foreclosed home in California, gives us reasons for optimism (Ho, 2020; Solomon, 2020), as does the “kitchen table urban planning” by Latina women who work across home and community to make spaces more accessible, responsive to and safer for immigrants and their often mixed-status families (Sweet, 2015). These domestic revolutions show the role that urban planning, housing, and advocacy can play in creating safe and inclusive cities where women can exercise their right to the city. However, we also recognize that women’s safety in both public and domestic space, is a necessary precondition for this organizing work to even occur. We are excited about an anti-racist feminist materialist approach that would encourage investment in the many vital infrastructures that help us to common social reproduction and care in the city. This project could take inspiration from not just Dolores Hayden but other historical and current forms of collectivity and commoning, including those led by Latina “kitchen table planners” and black and queer feminists who created the Maroon House in Washington D.C. The Maroon House is an intentional and collective house run by Black Queer Womyn and Femmes which offers a shared neighborhood hub for organizing resistance, events, and mutual aid including a free food pantry. Such efforts would underpin radical urban transformations that take into account the uneven gendered labors and relations upon which our cities our built, but also the deep racial and other inequalities that preclude the flourishing of caring, nurturing homes and cities. But where to begin? Starting from the material realities of home and care brings attention to the material flows – food, waste, water, and energy, and infrastructures including transportation, information communication technology, pipelines, libraries and schools – that home and care practices are embedded in and facilitated by. Prioritizing the gender sensitive design, care, maintenance, equitable distribution, and democratic governance of these “caring infrastructures” would give urban politics (as theory and practice) a very different starting point than debates on economic development, neoliberalism, planetary urbanism, or post-politics. Plans to build stadiums over homes might be more easily dismissed, and cities would be accountable for the collective consumption as well as care of their residents – rather than their business tenants. There are contemporary examples as well as some from recent history, that position home and care as the starting point for more just and sustainable lives and cities (Williams, 2016). These endeavors might be closely scrutinized and perhaps widely shared, serving as inspiration for a contemporary feminist materialist politics that draws from but goes beyond the experiments featured in the Grand Domestic Revolution. In our research, for example, we have explored the growth in urban homesteading (Parker & Morrow, 2017), and efforts to create more collective infrastructures for urban food provisioning – such as community kitchens and food cooperatives for shared canning and yogurt making (Morrow & Dombroski, 2015; Morrow & Martin, 2019). We are also excited about contemporary efforts to create urban food commons in cities, through DIY urban infrastructures such as community fridges that help users to decommodify and share surplus food without stigma (Morrow 2019a, 2019b), as well as community kitchens and cooking projects that bring locals, migrants, and asylum seekers into intimate contact over shared meals, collective cooking, and sharing knowledge about traditional recipes. However, here too, we would like to see the public sector takes a greater role by, for example, funding these initiatives for the social services they provide, offering the use of public land and buildings, and combatting the forms of financial speculation and gentrification that too often displace such vital community spaces. There are also abundant collective feminist endeavors and urban spaces that sprung up in the 1940s–1980s in the United States and in Europe, each particular to their time and circumstances. Black women living in public housing in Baltimore formed food cooperatives to better meet daily needs and practice autonomy while also organizing for housing, economic, and welfare rights (Williams, 2004). In 1970s London, women-only squatting communities offered practical solutions to the lack of housing for single mothers and single women and fulfilled political ambitions for radical feminists, including women of color. According to Wall, “squats delineated a spatial framework for the women’s liberation movement in the 1970s, providing for women’s centres, refuges from domestic violence, workplaces, and nurseries as well as homes” (Wall, 2017, p. 83). Daphne Spain (2016) recounts the evolution of “women’s centers” in the United States where diverse women gathered, lived together, developed shared libraries and shared missions, debated gendered social exclusions, and created momentum for a broader feminist movement. And Wekerle (1988) have described the evolution of women-led housing cooperatives in Canada in the 1980s, while Jessica Gordon Nembhard has carefully charted black cooperatives and the role of women leading them, often with goals of broader economic and political autonomy (Nembhard, 2014, 2014, p. 167). We can also expand our notion of grand domestic revolutions, to recognize practices such as the Black Panthers school breakfast program as attempts to stretch the boundaries of domesticity and create more caring and revolutionary school spaces (Heynen, 2009). This domestic revolution was a renowned success for transforming social reproduction through school feeding at the federal level. However, as with numerous feminist interventions, whose architects and authors have been erased from history, the caring intervention of the Black Panthers to revolutionize school meals as public goods is also rarely attributed to them. Conclusion In this intervention, we argue for anti-racist feminist-materialist urban theory and politics that are capable of imagining, activating, designing, and materializing cities that facilitate care, commoning, and collectivity. We take inspiration from the possibilities that unfold, when activists, designers, and dreamers take diverse-gendered lives and complex renderings of home and care as starting points for urban transformations. In some places, this begins with a recognition of the mutually enforcing relation between public space, citizen safety, and gender (Falú, 2014). While Dolores Hayden has been one of our time travelers and muses, she offers a partial witness to the grand domestic transformation of cities. Absent from her pages are the numerous grand transformations that have been waged by black, immigrant, and queer women, who have created collective urban home spaces for contestation and care in the face of racist, colonial, capitalist, and heteronormative denigration and destruction. Also, invisible were the costs of capitalism, colonialism, and a gendered, white, resource-intensive domesticity to our shared environments, including the air and water and biodiversity we need to thrive and survive. If we want a truly radical grand domestic revolution in cities – that facilitates anti-racist commoning for a solidarity economy rooted in care, we must more fully draw on multiple and geographically diverse stories and subject positions to de-center the patriarchal, capitalist, colonial imaginaries of home, women, and domesticity that perniciously tag along in many feminist movements and urban transformations designed by and for white western women. We need to expansively and reflexively theorize and practice care, commoning and collectivity to cultivate just, imaginative, and material-spatial urban transformations for all. We invite our fellow urbanists to take these themes seriously (including the gender and racial injustices that underpin them) and to join us in this endeavor. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. References Akuno, K. , Nangwaya, A. , & Jackson, C. (Eds.). (2017). Jackson rising: The struggle for economic democracy and Black self-determination in Jackson, Mississippi. Daraja Press  [Google Scholar] Blunt, Alison , & Dowling, Robyn . (2006). Home . Routledge. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Boris, Eileen . (1989). The power of motherhood: Black and white activist women redefine the “political”. Yale J.L. & Feminism , 2(1), 25–50. [Google Scholar] Brickell, Katherine . (2012). ‘Mapping’ and ‘doing’ critical geographies of home. Progress in Human Geography , 36(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511418708  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Buck-Morss, Susan . (1986). The flaneur, the sandwichman and the whore: The politics of loitering. New German Critique , 39 , 99–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/488122  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Chatelain, M. (2015). South side girls: Growing up in the great migration. Duke University Press doi:10.1215/9780822375708  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Christie, Maria Elisa . (2006). Kitchenspace: Gendered territory in central Mexico. Gender, Place & Culture , 13(6), 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690601019828  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Coldwell, Will (2019) ‘Co-living’: The end of urban loneliness – Or cynical corporate dormitories? The Guardian . Retrieved January 29, 2020, from. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/03/co-living-the-end-of-urban-loneliness-or-cynical-corporate-dormitories  [Google Scholar] Colomb, Claire . (2017). The trajectory of Berlin’s ‘Interim Spaces’: Tensions and conflicts in the mobilisation of ‘temporary uses’ of urban space in local economic development. In J.Henneberry (Ed.), pp. 131-149. Transience and permanence in urban development . Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119055662.ch9  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Cowen, Deborah . (2004). From the American lebensraum to the American living room: Class, sexuality, and the scaled production of “domestic” intimacy. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space , 22(5), 755–771. https://doi.org/10.1068/d19s  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Crabtree, Louise . (2006). Disintegrated houses: Exploring ecofeminist housing and urban design options. Antipode , 38(4), 711–734. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2006.00473  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Crawford, Margaret . (1994). Mi casa es su casa and ADOBE LA. Assemblage , 23(24), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/3171186  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Crawford, Margaret . (1995). Contesting the public realm: Struggles over public space in Los Angeles. Journal of Architectural Education , 49(1), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1995.10734658  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Dalla Costa, Mariarosa , & James, Selma . (1972). The power of women and the subversion of the community . Falling Wall Press. [Google Scholar] Davies, Anna R. , Edwards, Ferne , Marovelli, Brigida , Morrow, Oona , Rut, Monika , & Weymes, Marion . (2017). Making visible: Interrogating the performance of food sharing across 100 urban areas. Geoforum , 86, 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.09.007  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Dickson, Lynda F. (1987). Toward a broader angle of vision in uncovering women’s history: Black women’s clubs revisited. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies , 9(2), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/3346191  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Epstein, Barbara L. (1986). The politics of domesticity women, evangelism, and temperance in nineteenth-century America . Wesleyan University Press. [Google Scholar] Falú, Ana . (2014). Inclusion and right to the city. City, Social Inclusion and Education . International Association of Educating Cities. https://www.edcities.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/03/ana-falu-EN.pdf [Google Scholar] Federici, Silvia (1974). Wages against housework . Retrieved January 29, 2020, from. https://thecommoner.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/04-federici.pdf  [Google Scholar] Federici, Silvia (2011). Feminism and the politics of the commons. The Commoner . Retrieved January 29, 2020, from. http://andandand.org/pdf/federici_feminism_politics_commons.pdf  [Google Scholar] Fenster, Tovi . (2005). The right to the gendered city: Different formations of belonging in everyday life. Journal of Gender Studies , 14(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589230500264109  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Finn, Donovan . (2014). DIY urbanism: Implications for cities. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability , 7(4), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2014.891149  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar] Flanagan, Maureen A. (2002). Seeing with their hearts: Chicago women and the vision of the Good City, 1871-1933 . Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] Gomez, Antoinette M. , Shafiei, Fatemeh , & Johnson, Glenn S. (2011). Black women’s involvement in the environmental justice movement: An analysis of three communities in Atlanta, Georgia. Race, Gender & Class, 18(1/2), 189-214. Retrieved June 29, 2020. from www.jstor.org/stable/23884875 [Google Scholar] Hayden, Dolores . (1978). Two utopian feminists and their campaigns for kitchenless houses. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 4(2), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1086/493607  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Hayden, Dolores . (1982). The grand domestic revolution: A history of feminist designs for American homes, neighborhoods, and cities . MIT Press. [Google Scholar] Hayden, Dolores . (1989). What would a non-sexist city be like? Speculation on housing, urban design and human work. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 5(3), S170–S187. https://doi.org/10.1086/495718  [Google Scholar] Hayden, Dolores . (2002). Redesigning the American dream: The future of housing, work, and family life . WW Norton. [Google Scholar] Healy, Stephen , Borowiak, Craig , Pavlovskaya, Marianna , & Safri, Maliha . (2018). Commoning and the politics of solidarity: Transformational responses to poverty. Geoforum . [Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar] Heynen, Nik . (2009). Bending the bars of empire from every ghetto for survival: The black panther party’s radical antihunger politics of social reproduction and scale. Annals of the Association of American Geographers , 99(2), 406–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/000456008026837000456008026837  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Ho, Vivien (2020, January 21) Mothers who occupied vacant Oakland house will be allowed to buy it. The Guardian . Retrieved January 29, 2020, from. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/21/mothers-who-occupied-vacant-oakland-house-will-be-allowed-to-buy-it  [Google Scholar] Hooks, B . (1990). Yearning. Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics South End Press, Boston  [Google Scholar] Hudson, Laura . (2018). New York City : Struggles over the narrative of the solidarity economy. Geoforum , (March), 0–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.04.003  [Google Scholar] Huron, Amanda . (2015). Working with strangers in saturated space: Reclaiming and maintaining the urban commons. Antipode , 47(4), 963–979. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12141  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Isoke, Z . (2013). Urban black women and the politics of resistance. Springer doi:10.1057/9781137045386  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Isoke, Zenzele . (2011). The politics of homemaking: Black feminist transformations of a cityscape. Transforming Anthropology , 19(2), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-7466.2011.01136.x  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Iveson, Kurt . (2013). Cities within the city: Do-it-yourself urbanism and the right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 37(3), 941–956. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12053  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Jackson, Shannon . (2010). Toward a queer social welfare studies. In M.Hamington (Ed.), Feminist interpretations of Jane Addams . pp. 159-180. Penn State Press. [Google Scholar] Jacobs, Jane . (2016). The death and life of great American cities . Vintage. [Google Scholar] Jupp, Eleanor . (2017). Home space, gender and activism: The visible and the invisible in austere times. Critical Social Policy , 37(3), 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018317693219  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Katz, Cindi . (2001). Vagabond capitalism and the necessity of social reproduction. Antipode , 33(4), 709–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00207  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Kern, Leslie . (2011). Sex and the revitalized city: Gender, condominium development, and urban citizenship . UBC Press. [Google Scholar] Klinenberg, Eric . (2018). Palaces for the people: How social infrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life . Broadway Books. [Google Scholar] Klodawsky, Fran , Siltanen, Janet , & Andrew, Caroline . (2013). Urban contestation in a feminist register. Urban Geography , 34(4), 541–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.799316  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Koch, R. , & Latham, A . (2013). On the Hard Work of Domesticating a Public Space. Urban Studies , 50 (1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012447001  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Krauss, Celene . (1993). Women and toxic waste protests: Race, class and gender as resources of resistance. Qualitative Sociology , 16(3), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990101  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] LaFrombois, M. E. H . (2017). Reframing the reclaiming of urban space: A feminist exploration into do-it-yourself urbanism in Chicago. Lexington Books  [Google Scholar] Landry, Bart . (2001). Black working wives: Pioneers of the American family revolution . University of California Press. [Google Scholar] Lawson, Victoria . (2007). Geographies of care and responsibility. Annals of the Association of American Geographers , 97(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00520.x  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Lerner, Gerda . (1974). Early community work of Black club women. The Journal of Negro History , 59(2), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/2717327  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Loh, Penn , & Agyeman, Julian . (2018). Urban food sharing and the emerging Boston food solidarity economy. Geoforum , (August), 99, 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.08.017  [PubMed], [Google Scholar] Longhurst, Robyn , Johnston, Lynda , & Ho, Elsie. (2009). A visceral approach: Cooking ‘at home’ with migrant women in Hamilton, New Zealand. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers , 34(3), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2009.00349.x  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Mallett, Shelley . (2004). Understanding home: A critical review of the literature. The Sociological Review , 52(1), 62–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.00442  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Mann, Susan A. (2011). Pioneers of US ecofeminism and environmental justice. Feminist Formations, 23(2), 1-25. Retrieved June 29, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/41301654 [Google Scholar] Marston, Sallie A. (2000). The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography , 24(2), 219–242. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200674086272  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Marte, Lidia . (2012). Dominican migrant cooking: Food struggles, gendered labor, and memory-work in New York City. Food and Foodways , 20(3–4), 279–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/07409710.2012.715967  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar] Massey, Doreen . (2004). Geographies of responsibility. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography , 86(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2004.00150.x  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar] Matthew, Rebecca A. , & Bransburg, Vanessa . (2017). Democratizing caring labor: The promise of community-based, worker-owned childcare cooperatives. Affilia , 32(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109916678027  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] McGuirk, Pauline , & Dowling, Robyn . (2009). Neoliberal privatisation? Remapping the public and the private in Sydney’s masterplanned residential estates. Political Geography , 28(3), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2009.05.004  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] McKittrick, Katherine . (2006). Demonic grounds: Black women and the cartographies of struggle . U of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar] Metzger, J . (2009). What Would Jane Say?: City-building Women and a Tale of Two Chicago's. Lake Claremont Press  [Google Scholar] Molotch, Harvey . (1976). The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology , 82(2), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1086/226311  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Morrow, Oona , & Dombroski, Kelly . (2015). Enacting a postcapitalist politics through the sites and practices of life’s work. In KatieMeehan & KendraStrauss (Eds.), Precarious worlds: Contested geographies of social reproduction (pp. 82–98). University of Georgia Press. [Google Scholar] Morrow, Oona . (2019a). Sharing food and risk in Berlin’s urban food commons. Geoforum , 99, 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.09.003  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Morrow, Oona . (2019b). Community self-organizing and the urban food commons in Berlin and New York. Sustainability , 11(13), 3641. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133641  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Morrow, Oona , & Martin, Deborah G. (2019). Unbundling property in Boston’s urban food commons. Urban Geography , 40(10), 1485–1505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1615819  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Mott, Carrie , & Roberts, Susan M. (2014). Not everyone has (the) balls: Urban exploration and the persistence of masculinist geography. Antipode , 46(1), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12033  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Müller, Annika . (2016). The digital nomad: Buzzword or research category? Transnational Social Review , 6(3), 344–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/21931674.2016.1229930  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar] Nembhard, Jessica G. (2014). Collective courage: A history of African American cooperative economic thought and practice . Penn State Press. [Google Scholar] Park, Robert E. , & Burgess, Ernest W. ([1925] 2019). The city . University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar] Parker, B. (2012). Gender, cities, and urban planning: Looking forward and looking back. In R.Weber & R.Crane (Eds.), Oxford handbook of urban planning (pp. 609–633). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] Parker, Brenda . (2015). Reproduction … amplified: Life’s work for African American women in Milwaukee. In KatieMeehan & KendraStrauss (Eds.), Precarious worlds: Contested geographies of social reproduction (pp. 118–136). University of Georgia Press. [Google Scholar] Parker, Brenda . (2016). Feminist Forays in the city: Imbalances and interventions in urban research. Antipode , 48(5), 1337–1358. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12241  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Parker, Brenda , & Morrow, Oona . (2017). Urban homesteading and intensive mothering:(re) gendering care and environmental responsibility in Boston and Chicago. Gender, Place & Culture , 24(2), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2016.1277186  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Peeples, Jennifer A. , & DeLuca, Kevin M. (2006). The truth of the matter: Motherhood, community and environmental justice. Women’s Studies in Communication , 29(1), 59–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2006.10757628  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar] Power, Emma R. , & Williams, Miriam J. (2019). Cities of care: A platform for urban geographical care research. Geography Compass , 14(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12474  [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Pratt, Geraldine . (2004). Working feminism . Temple University Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Radford, Gail . (1996). Modern housing for America: Policy struggles in the New Deal era . University of Chicago Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Rainey, Shirley A. , & Johnson, Glenn S. (2009). Grassroots activism: An exploration of women of color’s role in the environmental justice movement. Race, Gender & Class , 16(3-4), 144-173. [Google Scholar] Rosenthal, Cindy S. (2018) Reviving municipal housekeeping . Retrieved January 29, 2020, from. https://inhabitingtheanthropocene.com/2018/02/14/reviving-municipal-housekeeping/  [Google Scholar] Rustin, Susanna (2016) Can cities be feminist? Inside the global rise of female mayors. The Guardian . Retrieved January 29, 2020, from. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/oct/12/global-rise-female-mayors  [Google Scholar] Saegert, Susan , & Benitez, Lymari . (2005). Limited equity housing cooperatives: Defining a niche in the low-income housing market. Journal of Planning Literature , 19(4), 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412204274169  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Satter, B . (2009). Family properties: Race, real estate, and the exploitation of black urban America. Macmillan  [Google Scholar] Schroeder, Kathleen . (2006). A feminist examination of community kitchens in Peru and Bolivia. Gender, Place & Culture , 13(6), 663–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690601019844  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Shaw, Stephanie J. (1991). Black club women and the creation of the national association of coloured women. Journal of Women’s History , 3(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.1353/jowh.2010.0065  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Solomon, Molly (2020) Moms 4 Hosing celebrate win in battle over vacant house . NPR Morning Edition. Retrieved January 29, 2020, from. https://www.npr.org/2020/01/22/798392207/moms-4-housing-celebrate-win-in-battle-over-vacant-house?t=1580309291044  [Google Scholar] Spain, Daphne . (2001). How women saved the city . U of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar] Spain, Daphne . (2016). Constructive feminism: Women’s spaces and women’s rights in the American city . Cornell University Press. [Google Scholar] Stinard-Kiel, Sarah (2017) Charity? Ally-Ship? Solidarity? Exploring racial tensions in collectivized caregiving. Society and Space Magazine. https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/charity-ally-ship-solidarity-exploring-racial-tensions-in-collectivized-caregiving  [Google Scholar] Supski, Sian . (2006). ‘It was another skin’: The kitchen as home for Australian post-war immigrant women. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography , 13(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690600573630966369060057363  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Sweet, Elizabeth L. (2015). Latina kitchen table planning saving communities: Intersectionality and insurgencies in an anti-immigrant city. Local Environment , 20(6), 728–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.968840  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Sweet, Elizabeth L. , & Ortiz Escalante, Sara . (2010). Planning responds to gender violence: Evidence from Spain, Mexico and the United States. Urban Studies , 47(10), 2129–2147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009357353  [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Trogal, Kim . (2016). Caring: Making commons, making connections. In DoinaPetrescu & KimTrogal (Eds.), The social (re)production of architecture. politics, values and actions in contemporary practice (pp. 159–174)). Routledge. [Google Scholar] Ullmann, Franziska . (2013). Choreography of life: Two pilot projects of social housing in Vienna. In Inez Sanchezde Madariaga & MarioRoberts (Eds.), Fair shared cities: The impact of gender planning in Europe (pp. 415–443). Routledge. [Google Scholar] Veracini, Lorenzo . (2012). Suburbia, settler colonialism and the world turned inside out. Housing, Theory and Society , 29(4), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2011.638316  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Viswanath, Kalpana . (2013). Gender inclusive cities programme: Implementing change for women’s safety. In CarolynWhitzman, CrystalLegacy, CarolineAndrew, FranKlodawsky, MargaretShaw, & KalpanaViswanath (Eds.), Building inclusive cities (pp. 91–105). Routledge. [Google Scholar] Wall, Christine . (2017). Sisterhood and squatting in the 1970s: Feminism, housing and urban change in Hackney. History Workshop Journal , 83(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbx024  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Wekerle, Gerda . (1988). Canadian women’s housing cooperatives: Case studies in physical and social innovation. In CarolineAndrew & Beth MooreMilroy (Eds.), Life spaces: Gender, household, employment (pp. 102–140). University of British Columbia Press. [Google Scholar] Werner, Marion , Strauss, Kendra , Brenda, Parker , Orcezk, Reecia , Derickson, Kate , & Bonds, Anne . (2016). Feminist political economy in geography: Why now, what is different. And What For? Geoforum , 79, 1–5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016718516302627 [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Williams, Miriam. J. (2016). Justice and care in the city: Uncovering everyday practices through research volunteering. Area , 48(4), 513–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12278  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Williams, Miriam. J. (2017). Care‐full justice in the city. Antipode , 49(3), 821–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12279  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Williams, Rhonda Y. (2004). The politics of public housing: Black women’s struggles against urban inequality . Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] Wilson, Elizabeth . (1992). The invisible flâneur. New Left Review , 191(1), 90–110. [Google Scholar] Wirka, Susan M. (1996). The city social movement: Progressive women reformers and early social planning. In Mary CorbinSies & ChristopherSilver (Eds.), Planning the twentieth-century American city (pp. 55–75). John Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]