Yup, I do. Let's hear your counter-argument, this ain't gonna be pretty. "He" is the default universal/unisex pronoun because for so long, the male perspective has been considered - well, the default. 'He' as such is not end-all-and-be-all proof, 'he' is an example.

If, in general, the people who design cities tend to be men, it is safe to assume that in general their perspectives, which have driven the design, shape the design; therefore it is safe to assume that unless they have opted out of their perspectives by bringing in females or soliciting female POVs, the male perspective and experience have been predominantly what have shaped city design. Besides that, one may argue that inherent, underlying city design (i.e., the original grid structure of Philadelphia, or what-have-you) has been shaped by the populace's use of that land - for instance, roads and walks that are paved after being down into existence by common use. However, considering that concept, one must understand that historical use by the majority would then create such groundwork, and historically, women have not been travelers (in American cities, I'll caveat) and if they have been, typically it has been as travelers with male companions. Moreover, even giving female travelers, it is very easy to posit that they were not the majority, considering that it was not typical for females to travel unaccompanied or undirected by males until well into the 20th century.

Unless you consciously consider the perspective of others in a given situation you are bound to follow your own perspective. I'm not saying anyone sat down and said "We're going to design this city for men." I'm saying that when men are the group in charge, it is not likely they will also consider the perspective of women, particularly when for so long women have been considered a less class. Why bother consider the women's perspective? As a result, in general, I think it is extremely safe to say that cities have been designed with the male, and not female, populace in mind.