How Can Gender and Inclusivity Shape Design Process and Outcomes in the Built Environment?

A summary of insights from the Women in Property Thames Valley Hub round-table discussion, sponsored by iB Architects. 

Introduction 

As the architecture and construction industries confront questions of equity and inclusion, the design of our buildings and cities is under fresh scrutiny. Gender and inclusivity are not niche considerations; they define how people move, interact, and feel safe within the spaces we create. 

Opening the discussion, Nikita Lad of iB Architects introduced her own background and research; namely her master’s thesis at Cardiff University, which explored female student perceptions of the built environment. She noted how the tragic 2021 murder of Sarah Everard sparked wider reflection on how public spaces can amplify vulnerability rather than security. Her study asked: when women move through urban environments, is their sense of fear purely psychological or is it influenced by design and environment? 

This round table discussed design practice, workplace culture, and the building of equitable, sustainable environments for all. The conversation revealed how the profession’s own culture, the planning system, and the physical environment play a role, and how each must evolve to deliver equitable, sustainable design outcomes. 

Representation Shapes Design Thinking 

One of the strongest threads throughout the discussion was that ‘who’ designs directly affects what gets designed. The built environment industry still reflects an imbalance - women represent less than a third of chartered UK architects (RIBA, 2025), and diversity across ethnicity, disability and socio-economic background remains limited. 

Participants argued that this lack of representation filters into decisions both subtle and structural: how safety is prioritised, what is considered “standard,” and whose lived experiences are treated as reference points. The group noted that even something as routine as specifying sanitary bins or configuring public toilets exposes gaps in perspective - “equal” provision rarely means equitable design. 

Inclusive design starts with inclusive teams. When design practices reflect a wider mix of people, their collective understanding of space broadens, producing environments that respond to more than one kind of user. 

Consultation: From Tick-Box to Co-Creation 

Across the group, there was frustration with consultation processes that feel tokenistic or defensive. Participants agreed that too often, consultation is conducted after design decisions are made, reducing engagement to compliance rather than collaboration. 

Several participants shared examples where early, meaningful engagement transformed outcomes — such as inclusive housing projects where residents shaped communal spaces, or developments that worked directly with disability advocacy groups. In each case, genuine dialogue replaced prescriptive design. 

Round table members agreed that consultation should be reframed: bringing people into the conversation early, valuing residents as local experts, and treating engagement as an ongoing feedback loop. This approach aligns with progressive models such as the GLA’s Safety in Public Space (2024) framework and Vienna’s Gender Mainstreaming policy, both of which place user participation at the core of design governance. 

Lived Experience: Designing for How Spaces Feel 

Much of the discussion centred on lived experience, particularly how gender and identity influence perceptions of safety, comfort and belonging. Participants reflected on how design decisions can unintentionally heighten fear or exclusion. Poor lighting, obstructed sightlines, isolated routes, and inactive ground floors were cited repeatedly as examples of design failures that disproportionately affect women, young people, and the elderly. 

But the group also recognised that inclusivity extends far beyond visible accessibility. Invisible or psychological barriers such as noise, lighting, temperature, or even the absence of social activity can impact people’s comfort and confidence in space. 

A key theme was the concept of contextual safety: understanding that a street, park, or transport route may feel secure at midday but intimidating at night. Participants linked this to the idea of “female mobility” (the right to move freely and confidently through the city) as central to equitable urbanism. These insights reinforce findings from ongoing research and initiatives like Women in Cities International, which advocate for design that supports agency rather than containment. 

Process, Policy and the Planning Gap 

Even where inclusive principles are well understood, the system that governs design can still work against them. The round table discussed how rigid planning processes, narrow policy interpretation, and fragmented communication often undermine inclusivity in practice. 

Examples included accessible toilets built incorrectly despite clear regulations, developments that prioritised form over function and kerb-less streets good for wheelchair access but hazardous for the visually impaired. Participants described these issues as symptoms of “siloed” thinking and evidence of the conflict that often occurs when designing for inclusivity. 

There was consensus that inclusivity must be embedded in the process, not just the outcome. This includes revisiting planning frameworks to allow flexibility and contextual judgement and incorporating post-occupancy evaluation as a requirement rather than an optional extra. Currently, RIBA Stage 7, which assesses how spaces perform for users, is rarely commissioned. Making it standard and a more holistic evaluation beyond environmental factors could create accountability and ensure lessons feed back into future projects. 

From Inclusivity to Sustainability: Culture as the Connector 

Perhaps the most striking conclusion was that inclusivity and sustainability are inseparable. When communities feel safe, connected, and represented, the social and economic sustainability of a place improves. Inclusive environments encourage active travel, intergenerational living, and long-term stewardship all of which are central to resilient cities. 

Participants noted the cultural shift needed within the profession: inclusivity must become instinctive, not procedural. One described it as “designing with empathy,” translating awareness of difference into tangible design choices. 

The discussion also touched on the role of future demographics. The so-called ‘baby boomer’ generation, for example, will soon demand ‘later living’ housing that prioritises autonomy, community and accessibility, a reminder that inclusive design today is also about futureproofing for tomorrow. 

Ultimately, the group agreed that designing for inclusion is designing for sustainability. It delivers better social outcomes, more cohesive communities, and environments where people can thrive physically, mentally, and socially. 

Conclusion 

The Round Table affirmed that gender and inclusivity are not specialist concerns, they are fundamental to creating better, more sustainable design. But awareness does not happen in isolation; it comes from exposure and being in spaces, conversations, and communities beyond our own experience. 

As participants reflected, if you are not ‘in the room’, you cannot develop the awareness needed to design for others. Real inclusivity grows through proximity; seeing, listening, and engaging with difference first-hand. That is why initiatives like these conversations matter: they expand perspective and challenge assumptions that shape everyday design choices and ‘best practice’ concepts. 

The group also recognised that this awareness must reach those who ‘hold the purse strings’. The value of inclusivity is not abstract but in fact measurable in outcomes: safer streets, healthier communities, stronger social cohesion, and more resilient developments. Communicating that value in clear, evidence-based terms is key to shifting mindsets and funding priorities. 

Ultimately, the message is simple but powerful: inclusive design begins with inclusive dialogue. Exposure builds empathy, empathy informs better decisions, and those decisions create places that work for everyone. 

Around the table with iB Architects were: 

Anna Hoskyns (The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association) 

Caroline Dimascio (Dimascio Property Experts) 

Danielle Wilden (The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association) 

Ellie Perkins 

Ian Blake (iB Architects) 

Jasmine Hounslow (iB Architects) 

Jasmin Solaymantash (Edge Urban Design) 

Josepha Horne (Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP) 

Karen Mumford (The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association) 

Nicky Brock (Carter Jonas)- Chair of the Thames Valley Hub for Women in Property  

Nikita Lad (iB Architects) 

Penny Dixon (iB Architects) 

Sarah Murray (Edge Urban Design)