Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpa20

Download by: [Vancouver Island University] Date: 26 September 2015, At: 21:55

Journal of the American Planning Association

ISSN: 0194-4363 (Print) 1939-0130 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

Pluralistic Planning for Multicultural Cities: TheCanadian Practice

Mohammad A. Qadeer

To cite this article: Mohammad A. Qadeer (1997) Pluralistic Planning for Multicultural Cities:The Canadian Practice, Journal of the American Planning Association, 63:4, 481-494, DOI:10.1080/01944369708975941

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975941

Published online: 26 Nov 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1065

View related articles

Citing articles: 25 View citing articles

Multiculturalism necessitates broad- ening the scope o f pluralism in plan- ning. Ethnic minorities often require a divergent set o f community services, housing facilities and neighborhood arrangements. The multinationalism o f the global economy is further diver- sifying built forms and functions in contemporary cities. Canada, an ac- knowledged multicultural society, has encountered pressures to diversify the way urban facilities, services and struc- tures are provided. How the Canadian planning system has been responding to these pressures is the subject ofthis article. Through case studies and illus- trative examples, the article surveys the range o f planning issues arising from multiculturalism and describes the patterns ofCanadian responses. I t concludes by outlining lessons drawn from Canadian experiences about how multiculturalism extends the meaning o f pluralism in planning.

Qadeer is a professor in the School o f Urban and Regional Planning, Queen’s University, Canada. His longstanding interest in cross-cultural studies o f ur- ban development and planning has led to his exploration o f cultural-sensitive planning in Western countries. On this theme he has contributed a chapter, “Urban Planning and Multiculturalism in Ontario, Canada,” in Race Equality and Planning, edited by Huw Thomas and Vijay Krishnarayan (Avebury, 1994).

Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 4, Autumn 1997. OAmerican Planning Association, Chicago, IL.

Pluralis tic Plannin for Multicu H tural Cities The Canadian Practice Mohammad A. Qadeer

tree can be the source of neighborhood battles, as shown in Toronto by the “nature meets culture” headlines in The Globe and Mail. A Italians and Portuguese like to keep trees short, allowing a better

view of the neighbours. Anglo-Saxons want trees to be tall and leafy, blocking any views from and to neighborhood houses. The Chinese be- lieve trees in front of a home bring bad luck. As if these different prefer- ences were not enough, the city has strict bylaws that prohibit cutting down trees, but allow pollarding (trimming trees into a high bush), which is favored by Europeans (The Globe and Mail 1995a, A10). This example illustrates how multiculturalism permeates even small details of urban life. It also embodies the planning issues that arise from the cultural di- versity of local populations, such as the uniformity of policies and stan- dards, differences in citizens’ wants, equity in accommodating the needs of divergent groups, and public versus private interests in the spatial ex- pressions of cultural values.

These issues form the background of this article. The article has an empirical bias in that it focuses on those institutional accommodations to citizens’ cultural diversity that are observable in planning practice. It delineates how ethnic minorities are finding their “places” in the planning system and the changes in planning policies and standards that are oc- curring in response to cultural and social diversity.’ Thus the broad ques- tion addressed here is how multiculturalism has affected planning policies and strategies in Canada.

Specifically, the article identifies the public issues arising from the divergent requirements for space and services found in different ethnic groups, and the Canadian planning system’s responses. Canada is an appropriate setting for studying these issues. It is an acknowledged

APA JOURNAL’AUTUMN 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015

MOHAMMAD A. QADEER

multicultural society and is explicitly committed to sustaining the cultural heritage of minorities. Its expe- riences may hold lessons for other countries with large immigrant populations.

Mapping the Conceptual Terrain This section identifies the areas or aspects of Ca-

nadian planning likely to be affected by cultural diver- sity.2 To begin with, key terms should be defined.

Multiculturalism as a public philosophy acknowl- edges racial and cultural differences in a society and encourages their sustenance and expression as constit- uent elements of a national social order (Fleras and Elliott 1992; Muller 1993). This philosophy envisages the society as a mosaic of beliefs, practices and cus- toms, not as a melting pot assimilating different racial and cultural groups. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988 defines multiculturalism as a policy “de- signed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heri- tage of Canadians while working to achieve the equality of all.” Multiculturalism has two defining principles: (1) the right to practice and preserve heri- tage, collectively as well as individually; that is, not only are Chinese or Ukranians free to speak their lan- guages at home, but they also have the right to form associations, organize communities, and practice their customs and religions as a group; and (2) equality of rights and freedoms under the law for all individ- uals and communities (Fleras and Elliott 1992, 22-3). Both these principles have direct bearing on urban planning.

Increasingly, the effectiveness of urban planning is assessed by its responsiveness to citizens’ needs and goals. Given that interests and preferences differ by social class, race, gender, and cultural background, the responsiveness of urban planning depends on its abil- ity to accommodate citizens’ divergent social and cul- tural needs and to treat individuals and groups equitably in meeting those needs. To fulfill these re- quirements, the first step is to eliminate overt discrim- ination on the one hand, and cultural biases in the use of land, the housing market, and the provision of ur- ban services on the other hand.

In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the post-1960s social consensus against racism have largely eliminated overt forms of discrimination, particularly of the type, “Blacks or Indians need not apply.” However, the cultural values embedded in his- torical practices, public policies, administrative proce- dures, and regulatory standards are another matter. Planning policies and standards presumably are based on universalist criteria. Often they are backed by his- toric practices and established professional conven-

tions. Yet they originate from social patterns and cultural values of the dominant communities, namely, in Canada, the English or the French. Toronto’s tree bylaw, described earlier, is a case in point. A seemingly neutral regulation about tree maintenance is in fact an embodiment of English/European preferences. Should this bylaw be amended to accommodate the preferences of diverse communities, particularly now that trees have become icons of a new environmen- talism? How should competing values be balanced? This is the challenge of dealing with cultural biases embedded in historical practices.

A Rawlsian framework, Equity Planning, or Pareto Optimality may be theoretical models for mediating among competing interests, but they largely address issues of economic distribution between the rich and the p00r.~ In practice, intercommunity equity in ful- filling social needs is often pursued through political bargaining and administrative procedures. This is par- ticularly the case with planning policies and regula- tions. At present, it is enough to “flag” the cultural predispositions of planning policies and standards as the area of contentions arising from multiculturalism.

A second aspect of urban planning with a bearing on multicultural communities is its reliance on prop- erty development as its instrument. Critics of urban planning have long held its property-centered ap- proach to be a factor that limits realization of its promise to promote people’s welfare and equity, and efficiency. Multiculturalism requires that planning in- struments be both sensitive to and responsive to the social needs of particular communities and therefore calls all the more for people-centered approaches. Any cleavage between social objectives and institutional in- struments is further sharpened by multiculturalism; the appropriateness of instruments can be called into question on the grounds of their relevance to cultur- ally diverse communities.

Probably the most striking impact of multicultur- alism on urban planning comes from the presence of ethnic neighborhoods and ethnic business enclaves. The emergence of ethnic residential and business dis- tricts brings up an enduring concern of urban plan- ning, namely, striking a balance between social segregation and integration.

Urban planning has long espoused social integra- tion as a guiding value (Gans 1961), aiming to pro- mote communities mixed across races and classes. Yet, a central process shaping urban structure is the spatial clustering of activities and social groups based on the advantages of agglomeration economies as well as on community sentiments. Such clusters usually occur as a result of the convergence of a multitude of individ-

482 APA JOURNAL - AUTUMN 1997 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015

PLURALISTIC PLANNING FOR MULTICULTURAL CITIES

ual choices and are seldom preplanned. They can take forms as different as a theater district or a Ukrainian village.

When the real estate market creates an ethnic con- centration, pressure builds for the provision of ap- propriate services and regulations. In most such situations, the ethnic community’s needs have to be reconciled with the requirements of other residents of an area and also with city-wide objectives. A balancing act of public policy, making trade-offs among different objectives and values, is called for.

The present public attitude toward ethnic concen- trations reflects the notion that residential or business concentrations arising from individual choices freely exercised without prejudice to others should be sus- tained, whereas socially or racially homogeneous neighborhoods formed through discriminatory prac- tices and explicit or implicit exclusionary policies should be recognized as prejudicial to the public inter- est. This distinction is based on structural factors: those external to individuals (discriminatory practices and policies) versus those internal to individuals (mo- tivation and preference, free choice) (Moghaddam 1994, 246). Social segregation at the block or neigh- borhood level that arises from dispositional factors is voluntary as long there are no barriers to others who may want to live there. The acceptability of social seg- regation or integration in a city is determined by the process of its formulation and by its function, not by the density of concentration.

To sum up the foregoing discussion, multicultur- alism affects urban planning in two ways. The first is that it holds planning policies and standards up to the light of social values and public goals. Are policies eq- uitable both procedurally and substantively in satis- fying the needs of diverse individuals and groups? Is there a cultural bias in their universalist criteria? How can the competing interests of mainstream and of mi- nority communities be balanced?

Second, multiculturalism recognizes the legiti- macy of ethnic neighbourhoods and enclaves. The emergence of these spatial concentrations affects ur- ban planning by precipitating questions about the in- ternal structure of the city as a whole, and challenging social policies to balance the advantages of neighbor- hood homogeneity with the public goals of openness and equal access by all.

A fundamental effect of multiculturalism is to call for pluralistic planning approaches and to question unitary conceptions of public interest and the ideol- ogy of “master plans.” Davidoff‘s idea of pluralism as a planning approach comes close to accommodating multiculturalism (Davidoff 1965). His concept has

roots in equity and a commitment to open bargaining among competing interests that make it particularly relevant (Krumholz 1994). However, multiculturalism, along with feminism, expands the definition of the in- terests to be accommodated beyond race and class, and thus extends the meaning of pluralism. In plural- istic planning, performance measures for policies and standards aim for the equal satisfaction of the needs and preferences of diverse groups. These are the ex- pected directions of change in planning as influenced by multicultura1ism.The following sections examine what actually is happening in multicultural Canada.4

Multiculturalism in Canada Canada has been a multicultural country from its

beginning. In the mosaic of aboriginal cultures and languages there, multiculturalism extends back to an- tiquity. The European settlement, though led by the two founding communities of the British and the French, also included Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Ukrainians, among others. Thus, Canada had been a multicultural society long before that was ac- knowledged in federal policy. Canada has long re- garded itself as a mosaic of cultures, in contrast to the United States, which is described by the metaphor of a “melting pot” (Hayward 1922). This distinction, albeit overdrawn, has shaped Canadian attitudes towards multiculturalism. The Trudeau government in 1971 formally acknowledged “a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework.. . . [to] support and en- courage the various cultures and ethnic groups that give structure and vitality to our society” (House of Commons, The Prime Minister’s Statement 1971). In 1988, the Government proclaimed Canada’s policy on multiculturalism, recognizing and promoting the cul- tural and racial diversity of Canadian society and ac- knowledging the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance, and share their cultural heritage (Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada 1991, 5-6). These policies have given official sanction to a sociological reality; nonetheless, in practice, offi- cial multiculturalism neither ensures that all commu- nities enjoy equal rights and social standing nor stands as an unquestioned policy.s As Porter observed, the Canadian mosaic is organized vertically, with the English as the top layer (Porter 1965).

How Multicultural is Canada? The cultural characteristics of the Canadian popu-

lation are measured by three indicators: ethnic origin, status as an immigrant, and language(s) spoken at home. Indicators yield different, though overlap-

APA JOUILVAL’AUTUMN 1997 1483

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015

MOHAMMAD A. QADEER

TABLE 1. Ethnic origins, Canada, 1991

Eth n i ci ty: No. % Ethn ici ty: Single Origins* 26,994,045 (1 00.0%) Multiple Origins* NO. %

Total 19,199,790 (71.1) Total 7,794,250 (28.9)

British 5,611,050 (20.8) British and others 2,516,840 ( 9.3) French 6,146,600 (22.8) French and others 425,190 ( 1.6)

South European 1,379,030 ( 5.1) Asian and African 1,633,660 ( 6.1) Others 3,482,640 (1 2.0)

East European 946,810 ( 3.5) Other combinations 4,852,220 (1 8.0)

*Only selected categories are reported Source: Statistics Canada (CAT 93-31 5 )

ping images of Canadian society, but all reveal a wide range of ethnic diversity.

In the 1991 census, a minority of the Canadian population (44 percent) classified themselves as of ei- ther British or French origins only-the two founding settler communities (table 1). The rest, a majority, ei- ther gave more than one ethnic origin or identified themselves as being of nonfounding communities. Ethnicity is a significant factor, then, in the personal identity of the majority population.

Another way of presenting the ethnic diversity of the Canadian population is to review the proportions of immigrant groups. In 1991, there were 4.3 million- 16 percent of the population-recent (post-1961) im- migrants in Canada (Badets 1993, 1). Immigrants rep- resented almost one-quarter of the population of Ontario and British Columbia. Since most immi- grants settle in metropolitan areas, Canadian cities have become strikingly multicultural. In 1991, about 38 percent (1.5 million) of Metropolitan Toronto’s, 30 percent of Vancouver’s, and 17 percent of Montreal’s population were immigrants. Even second-tier cities had high concentrations of immigrants: 24 percent in Hamilton, 22 percent in Kitchener, 2lpercent in Wind- sor (Badets 1993, 10-1).

Historically, immigrants came from Europe, but from 1971 onward the sources of immigration became increasingly diverse ethnically. In the decade 1981- 1991, Hong Kong was the birthplace of the largest number of immigrants; Poland was second and the People’s Republic of China third. During that decade, the majority of immigrants came from Asia or the Middle East. Data show that more of the immigrants are coming with high levels of education and profes- sional skills (Badets 1993, 1). In 1991, 6.1 percent of the Canadian population was of African or Asian ori- gin, that is, they were visible minorities. Canada is also becoming a polyglot country. In 1991, about 13 per-

cent of the Canadian population reported a language other than English or French as their mother tongue, an increase from 11 percent in 1981.

On all three indicators-ethnic origins, immigrant population percentages, and home language-ethnic diversity in Canada is both wide-ranging and increas- ing in recent times. Cities are the loci of this multicul- turalism. Multiculturalism in Canadian cities is not altogether new, however, as the next section explains.

Multiculturalism: Old and New Most thriving cities are multicultural. Phrases

such as “babble of tongues” and “throngs of strangers” were coined to describe the social life of cities. Over and above this general characteristic, Canadian cities have long been strikingly multicultural on account of continual immigration from abroad. Historically, im- migrant ghettos and ethnic enclaves have been the em- blems of urban Canada’s multiculturalism. Winnipeg in the 1920s, for example, was composed of a number of subcommunities distinguished by ethnicity, reli- gion, and class (Artibise 1977, 302). Toronto’s immi- grant quarters were distinctly different from the main city even in the 19th century. The question then is: If multiculturalism is a long tradition of Canadian cities, what is new about it that affects the planning system?

Contemporary ethnic studies distinguish between “old” and “new” multiculturalism (Fleras and Elliott 1992). The old multiculturalism or cultural mosaic was a private affair of immigrants, expected to dissolve or be diluted with their assimilation (Harney 1985, 5-6; Fleras and Elliott 1992,317). It conferred no pub- lic rights. The old mosaic was confined to working class, immigrant districts, typical of Burgess’ zone of transitions, in the heart of a city.

The “new” mosaic is acknowledged by public ideology and official policy. It is based on the post- World War I1 notions of human rights and the

484 APA JOURNAL-AUTUMN 1997 J

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015

PLURALISTIC PLANNING FOR MULTICULTURAL CITIES

equality of citizens. Though still largely driven by im- migration, the new mosaic is also sustained by the cir- culation across national borders of corporations, labor, and information. Tourists and sojourning exec- utives and professionals contribute to the new multi- culturalism. The post-industrial economy and the rise of internationalism and globalization have turned cul- tural diversity into an economic asset. At the same time, they have also accelerated the diffusion of one culture into another. Multiculturalism is, in the words of one observer, “the united colors of capitalism” (Mitchell 1993).

These changes mean that the new multicultur- alism is not limited to the poor and to downtown core areas. It has spread to suburbs, creating bourgeois eth- nic enclaves. It has spawned new spatial and architec- tural forms. The result is that today’s Canadian metropolitan areas are having to consider the rights of ethnics to organize their social lives in accordance with their preferences and values. How such entitle- ments alter the planning system is observable in both its planning process and its policies about neighbor- hood development, housing, and public services. I ex- amine these aspects in the remainder of the article.

Multiculturalism, Social Diversity, and the Planning Process

The cultural and racial diversity of citizens bears on the planning process in three ways. First, it affects the rational-technical component; race and culture have become significant analytical categories for as- sessing public needs and analyzing social conditions. Delineating neighborhoods by ethno-cultural criteria, mapping catchment areas for community services along socio-linguistic lines, and analyzing housing conditions by race and ethnicity are examples of plan- ning methodologies that are emerging with the ac- knowledgement of multiculturalism. They constitute a paradigm shift in the methods of defining a local community, as seen in the analytical work of plan- ning departments.

Second, planners must now be sensitive to the needs of individuals (and groups) in new ways, largely in how they listen to clients and how they interpret and apply regulations to them, particularly those in minority communities. What treatment do persons of color, unusual names, thick accents, or non-English or non-French ancestry get from planning departments? Are there systematic biases in planning procedures and outlook that put minority communities at a dis- advantage? The Royal (British) Town Planning Insti- tute found that ethnic and racial minorities suffered

high refusal rates for development permissions (Krish- narayan and Thomas 1993, 23). No similar study for Canada is known. Yet it is the case that ethnic commu- nities often complain about getting short shrift from planners.

Third, the scope and procedures of citizen involve- ment in the planning process have to be modified to accommodate multicultural policies. It is on this score that the planning process has shown the greatest re- sponsiveness to the diversity of citizens.

Vancouver and Toronto have led in facilitating the participation of ethnic communities in the making of official plans. Vancouver’s city plan process set up “cit- izens’ circles” in neighborhoods and invited ethnic community associations, as well as individuals, to identify needs and articulate their goals. Separate info-lines were set up in four nonofficial languages (Chinese, Punjabi, Spanish, Vietnamese) to give out in- formation and receive comments (City of Vancouver 1993a). Similarly, Metropolitan Toronto and the City of Toronto, separately, set up elaborate consultative procedures that facilitate the participation of ethnic communities. The City of Ottawa hstributes notices and information about planning proposals in the heri- tage languages of an area’s residents and regularly con- sults with ethnic community organizations. The Winnipeg Core Area Plan has similarly attempted to solicit the participation of Native and Ukrainian com- munities. All in all, the formal processes of citizen involvement are beginning to be tailored specifically to include ethnic communities. In metropolitan centers, then, the planning process is beginning to accommo- date multiculturalism, at least in seeking the opinions and input of minorities. The practice has not yet fil- tered down to small cities or the rest of the country, where ethnic communities are not yet a significant po- litical force.

The next step in pluralistic practices of planning is to include minorities on decision-making bodies. Toronto’s proposed official plan urges the city council to include “ethno-cultural and racial communities” in city committees and working groups (City of Toronto 1991, 13). Also important is the appointment co plan- ning departments of professionals from minority communities. The diversity of planners’ backgrounds ensures appreciation of cultural and racial differences. In the same vein, representation of minorities among elected and nominated executives at local and provin- cial levels is a necessary condition for bringing a multi- cultural perspective to public decision-making bodes. On decision-making bodies, the progress towards ac- commodating multiculturalism is slower than that in the participatory aspects of the planning process.

APA JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015

MOHAMMAD A. QADEER

A planning process is a means for developing poli- cies and programs to fulfill diverse needs and goals. Ultimately, it is the relevance and appropriateness of the policies and programs themselves that determine how well planning accommodates diversity. The next section therefore turns to planning issues that arise at the neighborhood level, where multiculturalism is most evident.

Neighborhood Planning: Stability and Change Historically, ethnic residential concentrations have

been features of Canadian cities. Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, of course, had Chinese, French, Jewish, and Italian districts in the late 19th century. Prairie cities had sizable concentrations of Eastern Europeans and Natives, and even a small town, Fort William, On- tario, had a Finnish colony. Clearly, residential segrega- tion by ethnicity and class has been an historical feature of Canadian cities. Kalbach concludes from an analysis of residential segregation in Toronto that “socio- cultural assimilation reflected in declining residential segregation through successive generations can be found only in a few populations of British and other Western and Northern European origins” (Kalbach 1990, 130). In Canada as elsewhere, the barrier pre- sented by physiognomic characteristics was particularly difficult to cross in the process of assimilation. Chinese and West Indians, though they favored blending into the larger society, encountered the most problems in doing so (Breton et al. 1990,257).

The revised immigration law (1968) as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms have transformed Ca- nadian cities. They have eliminated overt discrimina- tion. In addition, immigrants now are by and large better educated, often technicians and professionals or, lately, investors and entrepreneurs. Large propor- tions of recent immigrants are visible minorities. Most settle in metropolitan areas and head directly to the suburbs. They are forming ethnic concentrations in new parts of cities. Furthermore, the urban structure itself is changing. Cities have spilled out to form multi-focal metropolises. Edge cities have emerged. These new urban forms are socially more diverse. Bourne observes that “all of the larger urban areas in Canada except Quebec City show substantially higher indices of diversity in 1981 than in 1971” (Bourne 1989, 319). A new social mosaic is evident in the sub- urbs: Agincourt in metropolitan Toronto, Vancouver’s Richmond area, and Montreal’s West and North Is- land are obvious examples of neighborhoods of the new mosaic. Such ethnic concentrations are evident too in edge cities like Mississauga, Brampton, Rich- mond Hill, and Surrey.

The social mix characteristic of the new multicul-

turalism is also reflected in the fashionable districts of central cities. Here clubs, bars, boutiques, gift shops, and restaurants offering a variety of ethnic goods in- termingle, serving youth, yuppies, and tourists. Even new waterfront developments-Harbourfront, Gran- ville Island, and Old Montreal-are “hip” places by vir- tue of the cultural diversity of their commercial establishments. These new expressions of multicultur- alism mix ethnicities to create cosmopolitan districts.

Thus, multiculturalism now serves two functions. First, it fulfills the social needs of ethnic communities, and, second, it weaves diversity of both activities and built forms into urban and regional structures. These functions bear directly on neighborhood planning, which must mediate between the competing interests of stability and change.

Socially, neighborhoods change continually; resi- dents leave or die, and new households move in. Yet neighborhoods are considered stable as long as the change is incremental. With the movement of a new ethnic group, a different social class, or new activities into a neighborhood, however, the rate of change ac- celerates to the point that it reorganizes a local com- munity, disturbs the social patterns, and necessitates the realignment of neighborhood services. Multicul- turalism comes to permeate an area through such a process of change. Although the process is largely market-based, the planning system is called upon to intervene as different groups of residents respond to marked change in a neighborhood.

Old residents come calling on the planning insti- tutions to protect their interests. The new arrivals seek fair treatment and accommodation of their needs and preferences. Zoning challenges, public hearings, and school board meetings become battlegrounds for these competing groups. Neighborly spats or personal biases often are pursued through planning hearings and appeals. The planning system becomes an arena not only for contesting ethnic interests, but for more personal conflicts as well. It may or may not have the mandate, resources, or instruments to resolve social conflicts and fulfill the demands of divergent groups. The system’s effectiveness lies in separating public pol- icy issues from interest group agendas. If it succeeds in balancing competing interests fairly, it will have ful- filled its mandate. These lessons come through in the case histories, reported in the next section.

Case Histories of Planning Responses to Multiculturalism Metropolitan Toronto: Agincourt‘s Chinese M d s

Agincourt, in Scarborough, is an example of a typ- ical Canadian planning system’s response to the is-

486 APA JOURNAL’AUTUMN 1997 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015

PLURALISTIC PLANNING FOR MULTICULTURAL CITIES

sues precipitated when a racial and cultural minority settles in an established neighborhood. Agincourt is a neigborhood in the incorporated suburb, Scarbor- ough, in the Greater Toronto Area. As Scarborough‘s population rose, Chinese restaurants, grocery stores, and travel agencies opened. In 1983 a developer pro- posed to convert a roller skating rink into an indoor Chinese shopping mall, the “Dragon Centre.” It met opposition from the community and the local alder- man due to its ethnic character, but which was ex- pressed as concerns about design. The city council approved the mall with modifications in parking re- quirements and restaurant space. The mini-mall of 32,500 sq. ft. has about 25 units, including a bank, a large restaurant, noodle shops, a beauty salon, a gro- cery, a butcher, and a bakery, and electronic goods and book stores.

From 1984 through 1987, eleven other malls, pla- zas or office complexes for Chinese clientele were de- veloped. Only a few were built specifically for Chinese businesses, but the others were in fact leased mostly by stores dealing in Chinese goods. The malls, with areas of 10,000-42,000 sq. ft., are typical neighbor- hood plazas: an L-shaped building for stores, set across an office block enclosing a parking lot. Their designs have to follow city guidelines. Apart from sig- nage and decorative features, their architecture is not distinctively Chinese; planning and design guidelines preempted that.

All but two of the developments needed zoning changes. Some cases needed official plan amendments, as well, for site configurations, the mix of proposed commercial, office or industrial uses, or parking re- quirements. An issue specific to Chinese commercial use was the inclusion of large banquet halls and res- taurants as mall anchors. These became symbols of the mall’s Chinese character and stimulated neighbor- hood objections that targeted parking and congestion.

The planning department steered through these controversies by taking a neutral stance toward users’ ethnicity, supporting openness in the real estate mar- ket, and limiting planning interest to matters of physi- cal development. The parking requirements for restaurants were raised, and site layouts were closely monitored in response to neighborhood concerns. The city council was buffeted by, on the one hand, its com- mitment to promote development and, on the other, by having to accommodate pressures from resistant neighborhoods. It steered a gingerly course between ethnic provocations and the passions about neighbor- hood stability versus change. By addressing specific zoning and site plan issues and by providing a forum for contending interests, the planning process helped to manage neighborhood change. It did not offer a

grand physical or social design, but it worked incre- mentally to promote mutual adjustment.

Vancouver: “Monster Homes” in Kerrisdale and South Shaughnessy

A similar strategy is evident in the case of the “Monster Homes” of Vancouver. In the 1980s, Vancou- ver aggressively elicited capital from Hong Kong and Taiwan. Immigrating entrepreneurs and professionals then fueled the real estate boom, driving up housing prices. In Kerrisdale and Shaughnessy, which are leafy Victorian neighborhoods, Asian immigrants rebuilt homes to suit their tastes and activities. Within the zoning envelope, the newcomers used the permissible coverage and setbacks to create “massive and lavish” homes nicknamed Monster Homes. The long-time res- idents fiercely demanded that the city prohibit such development. The controversy simmered for about two years, often assuming ethnic overtones (Mdcleun’s 1994).

The planning system had been caught by surprise, since the new homes conformed to the regulations. A strategy similar to that described in the Toronto ex- ample was pursued. The Mayor and the City Council designated the neighborhoods as a special study area and asked the Planning Department to review the RS-1 Zoning. The Planning Department held public hearings that brought together representatives of the original residents and the new Asian residents to ham- mer out a compromise resulting in the adoption of new (1993) design guidelines. They required builders of homes to take into account streetscape, the archi- tecture of adjacent homes, and the landscape. The maximum allowable size was unchanged, but brought under design control.

These measures diffused the public controversy, but added about six weeks of development review to the approval process for new homes in these neighbor- hoods, as compared to the three days it used to take to get a building permit. A classic confrontation of neighborhood change versus tradition was managed by developing a design policy and “tuning up” the zoning by-laws. Here, again, the planning pro- cess addressed mainly design concerns and steered a middle position between contending interests. The lesson here, too, is that planning should ensure fair treatment and limit its interventions to mandated pol- icy issues.

Metropolitan Toronto: Kingsview Park (The “Dixon” Case)

The “Dixon” case, on the other hand, is an ex- ample of cultural and racial tensions arising entirely

APA JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997 /487

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015

MOHAMMAD A. OADEER

from changes in the tenure mix of the housing market and the demographic mix of the community. Here the central question is how to reconstitute a local commu- nity after dramatic demographic changes.

A television documentary and numerous newspa- per articles have made the “Dixon Complex” notorious as an example of a neighborhood gone awry. Kingsview Park is a highrise condominium complex of six buildings containing 1,794 apartments, built in 1971 along the four-lane Dixon Road in Etobicoke, a suburban municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Kingsview Park was first inhabited by young families and empty-nesters who were mostly owner-occupants; about half had migrated from Europe shortly after World War 11.

Within a few years of its development, the social composition of this complex began to change. As young owner-occupants moved out, the vacancies were filled by recent immigrants from Southern Eu- rope and Asia. The proportion of renters rose steadily, to about 12 percent in 1977.

Toronto’s property boom of the 1980s attracted speculator-investors, absentee owners who rented out apartments while waiting for capital gains. By 1989-91, 25 percent of the apartments were renter- occupied. Then, because of high vacancies and down- turn in the property market, occupancy gradually filtered down in the rental market to the Somalis who had come in the most recent wave of immigration.

By 1994, poor Somalis occupied 59 percent of the rental units and were 35 percent of Kingsview Park‘s population. This change in the complex’s tenure-mix and social composition precipitated ethnic tensions and cultural conflicts between white owner-occupants and the Condominium Board, and black tenants. A se- ries of confrontations between Somali youths and the management and security personnel culminated in a riot that spilled onto Dixon Road and blocked traffic on July 30, 1993. This breakdown of the local commu- nity prompted public intervention.

The Mayor and the Municipal Council of Etobi- coke responded to the “riot” by forming the Dixon Road Community Response Team and the Task Force on Residential Overcrowding. The Planning Depart- ment was represented on these bodies. The Task Force recommended a review of security and management in the buildings, race and cultural sensitivity training for security personnel, and formation of residents’ committees, along with other measures. The planning issue was framed as a matter of housing occupancy: overcrowding in rented apartments became the focal point of the Task Force. The issue targeted mostly So- mali households, which tend to be large and have long been viewed as harboring friends and relatives.

Conventional urban planning had no defined role in this profound cultural clash; yet there were contin- ual calls from one or the other parties for the planning department to get involved despite the fact that on these issues it had little authority. The need was for social planning and community organization. Instead, the proposed solutions to the “Dixon Complex” in- clude regulations to discourage overcrowding and a recommendation to amend provincial legislation to allow municipal inspectors the authority to enter pri- vate dwelling without warrants. In short, the planning response to this social and cultural clash was simply to tune up property standards and create the statutory instruments to enforce them.

These cases illustrate public issues precipitated by the diversification of forms, functions, and popula- tions in neighborhoods. The Canadian planning sys- tem usually muddles through such changes. It favors neighborhood stability, but promotes development. It has neither the authority nor the tools to intervene forcefully in real estate markets propelled by individ- ual choices. And, indeed, multiculturalism calls into question current notions about stability and social mix in neighborhoods. It adds another reason for re- examining the social assumptions of urban plans, al- ready being questioned on other grounds. Sewell con- cludes that “stable residential neighborhoods may not be a good place to call home” and cites conclusions of other observers in support of his observations (Sewell 1994, 67). Social harmony and balance, rather than stability alone, should be the guiding principle for multicultural neighborhoods- this is the lesson from the Dixon case.

The overarching implication of the Canadian ex- perience is that the role of the planning system in managing social change in neighborhoods is limited. In particular, planning regulations cannot and should not be based on the characteristics of clients, though policies aiming to satisfy people’s needs do have to apply performance measures. It follows, then, that the planning system has not forged any systematic ap- proach to sustain and promote cultural diversity of neighborhoods.

Ethnic Business Enclaves Multiculturalism also manifests itself in the com-

mercial structure of cities, in the form of ethnic busi- ness enclaves, whether as sectoral specialization such as Koreans dominating the flower trade or Punjabis managing the taxi service, or spatial enclaves like the concentration of restaurants, food stores, and dress boutiques in Chinatown or the Greek village. Both are distinct economic formations in which ethnic solidar- i ty and cultural norms undergird the transactions

488 AF’A JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997 J

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015

PLURALISTIC PLANNING FOR MULTICULTURAL CITIES

among establishments as well as among owners, man- agers, and workers (Portes and Bach 1985).

In Canadian cities, local businesses of ethnic neighborhoods have been the basis of their cultural economies. Often they have extended their markets beyond their surrounding neighborhoods. In fact, not all immigrant-owned businesses target ethnic popula- tions; many serve mainstream markets. An historical example of ethnic entrepreneurs in the mainstream economy is seen in the Chinese eateries that Chinese cooks who had been laid off by the Canadian Pacific Railway started in little villages of the Prairie prov- inces in the late 19th century. To this day, they are the main restaurants/hotels in small places-commercial manifestations of the old multiculturalism.

Since the 1970s) a new and vigorous form of eth- nic business enclaves has emerged in Canadian metro- politan areas. Toronto’s revitalized Chinatown and its Chinese suburban malls and office clusters, its Indian bazaars and Greek villages, and its Punjabi malls are obvious examples. Similar clusters have emerged in Vancouver and Montreal, and on a small scale in Cal- gary and Winnipeg. These enclave commercial dis- tricts serve metropolitan markets, creating a “niche” in the regional economy. They have been created through private initiatives; they were not planned or even anticipated by planning authorities.

City planning has often come to acknowledge the enclaves once they have been formed. Its reactive role consists of sustaining and consolidating them, fre- quently in the face of some local opposition that is expressed as concern about density and traffic, but that has an ethnic and racial subtext. At best, the plan- ning system takes a circumscribed view of its jurisdic- tion in such situations. Focusing on development issues and regulatory requirements, it uses them as the means for mediating among competing interests and groups. The planning system faces a dilemma: it cannot plan or zone by the characteristics of persons, yet it has to acknowledge the cultural bases of an en- clave’s economy.

TABLE 2. Evolution of Okawa’s Somerset Heights

Ottawa: Somerset Heights Ottawa’s Somerset Heights area, the city’s hub of

multicultural commercial establishments, illustrates the planning system’s response to the formation of an ethnic business enclave, as recounted by Marc Labelle (1992).

Ottawa, the capital of Canada and center of a re- gional municipality, has been a bicultural city, though with the French language and culture not always obvi- ous. In the past twenty-five years, however, the city has undergone a social and cultural transformation. Its Francophone population has gained prominence, and recently Italians, East Europeans, and Asians have become a presence.

Somerset Street has evolved into the center for Ot- tawa’s ethnic businesses. Between Bay and Rochester Streets, it has become the spine of Ottawa’s Chi- natown or, more accurately, of a multicultural neigh- borhood. Its modest homes, which had declined in the postwar period, have been revived by immigrants- Italians and Chinese at first, and more recently, Arabs, South Asians, and Africans. Since 1971, dim sum halls, Chinese restaurants, groceries, and gift shops have made the area into a Chinatown. In the late 198Os, Vietnamese businesses started to appear, and now Ca- ribbean and Middle Eastern stores are also springing up. The area has become a multicultural business en- clave with a predominance of East Asian stores. The story of its transformation is shown in table 2.

Over a 30-year period, 1961-1991, area businesses increased from 60 to 101, mostly ethnic establish- ments. The Asian (Chinese) businesses dominated the street after 1971, steadily increasing from about 8 per- cent of ethnic businesses to 81 percent in 20 years. With the commercial transformation, the Asian popu- lation in the area has increased and a gradual gentrifi- cation of the neighborhood has occurred.

Ottawa’s City Planning Department responded to the neighborhood change in the following manner.

Year Total Number of Businesses Ethnic Businesses No.

(%) Asian Businesses No.

(as % of Ethnic Business)

1961 1971 1981 1991

60 76 88

101

29 (48.0) 35 (46.1) 49 (55.6) 85 (84.2)

2 ( 7.8)

28 (57.1) 69 (81.2)

2 ( 5.7)

Source: Marc Labelle 1992. tables 7 and 8

APA JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997 /489

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015

MOHAMMAD A. QADEER

1964

1977

1984

1988

1989

1992

Ottawa City’s comprehensive zoning bylaw designated Somerset Heights as a General Commercial Zone permitting commercial uses for the ground floor and dwellings above. The Dalhousie Neighbourhood Plan desig- nated the area for mixed land use-i.e. ground floor commercial uses and residences above; pe- destrian orientation emphasized. The city‘s new zoning bylaw maintained the area as a General Commercial Zone. Somerset Street West Planning Study recom- mended “Multicultural Village” as the area’s theme, and encouraged ethnic expression and the establishment of a Business Improvement Area (BIA). The city’s Community Improvement Plan pro- jected streetscape improvements and other capital works. A new official plan designated the areas as Neighbourhood Linear Commercial, recogniz- ing the area’s distinctive character and allowing mixed uses and pedestrian orientation.

Up to 1986, the Planning Department ignored the cultural dimension of the neighborhood change and maintained the fiction of uniformity. Only with the Business Improvement Area (BIA) designation, and consequent capital works including the development of a Chinese community center, and signage and streetscape in 1988, were the cultural characteristics of the area officially acknowledged. Still, the official plan policies have not given much weight to ethnic commercial activities. They continue to treat the area as Neighbourhood Linear Commercial. Multicultur- alism is evident in the facilities and services developed, but not in the city’s zoning and land use policies. The planning response has been reactive and restrained.

The case of the Scarborough shopping malls also illustrates city planning’s reactive role in such develop- ments. Once the malls were being developed, Scarbor- ough‘s city planning department duly accommodated them, first by resolving some contentious issues and then by upholding developers’ rights in the face of neighborhood opposition. Yet north of Scarborough, in Markham, Chinese shopping malls have become a lightning rod for ethnic confrontation. An intemper- ate remark by the deputy mayor about the “excess” of Chinese malls driving away old residents has pre- cipitated fierce public arguments about the ethnic composition of the community (The Globe and Mail 1995b, AG).

The policy issues that ethnic enclaves bring to the fore include the need for multilingual signage to en- sure equal access, culturally sensitive services, and de-

sign guidelines for built forms and aesthetics that are both diverse and harmonious. Another issue that arises is the vulnerability of businesses to changing tastes and demands. The demographics of ethnic busi- ness enclaves tend to shift among groups, so planning policies should recognize the prospect of change. Sup- porting an enclave’s special cultural character while keeping it open to all is the key challenge for multicul- tural planning in commercial areas. Canadian metro- politan areas have usually accommodated business enclaves through exceptions and variances of their statutory plans, as numerous thriving enclaves attest. These enclaves have, however, added a new element to the urban commercial hierarchy, necessitating recon- sideration of planning policies and standards.

Housing Choices Multiculturalism gives rise to two issues in the

housing market. First is the question of discrimina- tion against ethnic minorities in access to housing. Apart from visible physiognomic difference and class, language, cultural origin, or religion could also be the basis for restrictive practices in the market. Post-1960s legislation, including the Landlord-Tenants Act, has combined with the influence on the market of demand by ethnic minorities to eliminate overt forms of dis- crimination. There are cases of refusal to rent to Afri- cans or East Indians, but they are sporadic and subject to legal recourse. The legacy of systematic bias against immigrants and visible minorities in the mortgage market, local codes, and housing standards is being exposed and eroded.

The second housing issue, more directly related to multiculturalism, is the matter of housing choices for ethnic minorities. Although their requirements do not differ from mainstream norms for housing type, loca- tion, and utilities, their preferences for dwelling size, layout, and neighborhood differ significantly. Most immigrants want single-family homes (Clayton Re- search 1994), but ethnic groups differ even among themselves in their choices of interior designs and community facilities.

The stereotypes are that Portuguese prefer two kitchens, Italians like large lots for gardens, and the Chinese notion of Feng-Shui predisposes them against houses on cul-de-sacs. Neighborhoods in proximity to schools with language classes and to appropriate reli- gious associations and cultural institutions are also preferred. Immigrants of modest income may want the option of dividing a home to create a rental apart- ment; their affluent counterparts prefer large homes, for prestige as well as for prospects of gathering to- gether the extended family. For ethnic groups, these culturally based preferences, differing by economic

4 APA JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015

PLURALISTIC PLANNING FOR MULTICULTURAL CITIES

class, are measures of housing satisfaction. They often fall within the purview of building, safety, and public health codes; and of planning standards, particularly for occupancy densities, household use, and the defi- nition of a family. Often these do not accommodate ethnic minorities’ preferences. Case studies reported earlier, particularly the Monster Homes and the Dixon cases, illustrate the divergence between the norms pre- sumed to be universal and the minority groups’ choices for home and family. Ironically, the very partic- ipatory procedures meant to give citizens a voice in planning provide the convenient means for some local groups to resist the accommodation of others’ diver- gent needs and tastes. Public hearings on planning regulations have often been turned into the tools of NIMBYism and ethno-racism.

The overall effect of multiculturalism is to reveal the cultural biases embedded in the so-called universal standards. It follows that rethinking the bases of hous- ing standards and planning policies is necessary, not only to accommodate divergent preferences, but also to integrate diverse architectural and functional ele- ments into coherent local and regional idioms. The convenience and satisfaction of both old and new resi- dents have to be ensured through balanced develop- ment. This is the agenda of planning from the multicultural perspective.

Institutions and Services Not only spatial and architectural forms, but also

social institutions and community services are af- fected by multiculturalism. Ethnic communities con- tribute new ceremonials, sports, practices, and organizations to the public life of a locality. Most of these institutions and services are provided privately, but public responsibility lies in facilitating their devel- opment and in a fair distribution of public funds for social programs. Multiculturalism requires ensuring equal opportunities to develop mosques and temples as well as churches; baseball diamonds and soccer fields; Highland dance troupes and Caribbean carni- vals; and language classes as well as ballet schools. Canada’s planning system is fitfully accommodating such diversity of institutions and services. How this institutional learning is evolving is illustrated by the case of Islamic mosques.

Recent waves of Muslim immigrants from the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and South Asia have ne- cessitated the building of mosques and Islamic cen- ters. The building of a mosque or Islamic center for a congregation typically moves through three stages. In the beginning, someone’s living room serves as the gathering place for weekly prayers, which leads to rent- ing a hall or buying an unused church for congrega-

tional gatherings, and finally to the stage of building a new mosque. At each of these three stages, there are planning issues. From the changes in the use of an ex- isting building to the building of a new mosque, at numerous points public approvals and planning per- missions are required. Yet many existing zoning and sire plan regulations for religious uses are based only on the requirements of churches; therefore, mosques have to be developed through variances to planning standards and policies. In one case, a minaret had to be designated as a “clock tower,” though once built its function and integrity were so obvious that the local council happily dispensed with the installation of a mock clock. Each proposal creates a battleground re- verberating with ethno/racial overtones, as propo- nents and opponents contend over parking standards, lot coverage, etc.6

Yet precedents and experiences that embody the multicultural perspective are accumulating; one by one, thirty mosques have been established in the To- ronto area. The planning system obviously is accom- modating mosques, gurdwaras and temples, but systematic policies and standards that embrace such options have not appeared. Planners have been more open to such developments than have their political bosses.

A similar process is under way with the provision of other social and cultural services. For example, var- ying burial customs require revisions in the regulatory standards for cemeteries and operations of crematori- ums. Other examples of services for which demands are mounting are multilingual kindergartens, heritage language courses, soccer or cricket fields, banquet halls and social clubs. Many of these institutions and ser- vices require physical development, and others may necessitate changes in the policies for public grants. A Meals-on-Wheels service, for example, may have to provide ethnic foods to serve a non-English/French population appropriately. Even a service such as family counseling has cultural dimensions. Toronto, for ex- ample, has six family and women’s centers specializing in counseling South Asian women. Similar develop- ments are taking place wherever there are strong pres- sures of demand and community initiatives. From Caribbean parades to Iranian film festivals and Yid- dish poetry readings, Canadian cities support a rich and diverse artistic and cultural life. Little by little, cultural diversity is being acknowledged by precedents being established in the planning system. Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal are leading in the develop- ment of culturally-sensitive modes of planning. Metro Toronto’s “Social Development Strategy” recognizes diversity and commits to nondiscrimination in the sharing of the city’s resources and opportunities.

APA JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997 1491

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015

MOHAMMAD A. QADEER

Translating these goals into policies, standards, and practices is the challenge that remains to be met.7

Conclusion In the preceding sections, we have reviewed a

range of issues arising from the multiculturalism of Canadian cities and the planning system’s responses in dealing with them. This review suggests some gen- eral conclusions.

Multiculturalism is an expression of the social di- versity in contemporary cities. The traditional source of multiculturalism, namely immigration, is now complemented by forces of globalization that scramble national (cultural) boundaries and pro- mote rapid circulation of information and people. The diversity of lifestyles and cultures has become a resource in post-industrial cities. The cultural and racial diversity of populations is raising issues of fairness in fulfilling the social needs of groups according to their preferences. Diversity requires that in the service of ethnic neutrality, pub- lic policies should not foster insensitivity to the sys- tematically different needs and requirements of diverse populations (Thomas and Krishnarayan 1994). These values necessitate, on the one hand, the elimination of discrimination in the markets for housing and urban facilities and services, and, on the other, the promotion of a plurality of spatial forms and functions to fulfill citizens’ needs to their satisfaction. The effectiveness of a planning system lies in meeting these criteria. By and large, ethnic communities are flourishing in Canadian cities. Overt discrimination is rare. The in- stitutional biases are being exposed and aired. Cana- dian cities are strikingly diverse, vibrant, and orderly-a far cry from their historical reputation of being clean, safe and dull. Much of this change is attributable to the diversity of forms and functions emerging through market processes and individuals’ initiatives. Ethnic residential concentrations have

emerged in the suburbs. Immigrants’ businesses are opening new lines of production. Ethnic communi- ties have carved out distinct artistic, cultural, and religious lives in the cities. In short, multicultur- alism is now a defining character of Canadian cities. A Trinidad-born commentator’s observation sums up the situation: “In the 30 years I’ve been in Can- ada, its cities have changed beyond what could have been predicted. They have loosened up” (Alexis 1995, C19). Although most of these changes have come from private initiatives, the planning system and other public institutions can take credit for accom- modating them. The planning process is becoming more inclusive by seeking out ethnic communities’ participation in public debates. Their diverse cultures are beginning to be acknowledged at the procedural level, and their concerns are being aired as a part of the planning process. Professional planners are relatively more re- sponsive to minorities’ interests than is the politi- cal leadership. The policy response to multiculturalism is still reac- tive and ad hoc. Even in Toronto and Vancouver, the needs of ethnic communities are accommodated through amendments, exceptions, or special provi- sions to statutory plans, policies or programs. De- spite its acknowledgement as a social condition, cultural and racial diversity is not reflected in plan- ning policies. Planning standards and criteria con- tinue to be based on unitary conceptions of citizens’ needs. Systematic attempts to forge pluralistic vi- sions of urban plans and programs are only halt- ingly emerging. Conceptually, planning measures that accommodate multiculturalism can range from procedural changes and administrative adaptations to redefining the goals and ideologies that inform policies and pro- grams. This range of measures can be represented as a ladder of increasingly wide-ranging and general principles of planning (figure 1).

7 A multicultural vision o f the development strategy for a city or region

6 Cultural and racial differences reflected in planning policies and acknowledged as bases for equitable treatment

5 Provision o f specific public facilities and services for ethnic communities

4 Special District designation for ethnic neighborhoods and business enclaves

3 Accommodation o f diverse needs through amendments and exceptions, case by case

2 lnclusionary Planning Process-participation by and representation o f multicultural groups on planning committees

1 Facilitating access by diverse communities to the planning department

FIGURE 1. A ladder of planning principles supporting multiculturalism

492 APA J0URNAL.AUTUMN 1997 J

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015

PLURALISTIC PLANNING FOR MULTICULTURAL CITIES

The Canadian planning system has largely reached level 3 in responding to multiculturalism of its metro- politan areas, and levels 4 and 5, in part, in Toronto and Vancouver. The pluralism of planning approaches is gradually emerging. Yet it raises many critical ques- tions about the philosophy and substance of planning that have not been addressed.

What does the multicultural vision for a city or re- gion mean? It has an aura of post-modernism about it, architecturally as well as functionally. It diverges from the “uniformity of modernist practice” (Savage and Warde 1993,139), envisioning instead a contem- porary city that harmonizes distinctive aesthetics, structures, and practices. Forging such a vision and translating it into policies, programs, and standards defines the scope of multicultural planning-a diver- sity of policies and programs that goes beyond sim- ply advocacy for the disadvantaged. To meet the diverse needs of a multitude of commu- nities, planning policies and programs should be modified in two ways: (a) to make specific provisions for the religious and cultural facilities of significant ethnic groups, and (b) to formulate performance- based criteria for the provision of common facilities and services, i.e. schools, parks, welfare, etc. The fairness of planning policies is to be judged by the comparability of outcomes rather than by the me- chanical uniformity of approach. The recognition of ethnic and social diversity calls for flexibility in planning norms and practices. At the same time, projecting some degree of certainty of outcomes is essential for effective and accountable planning. Thus a balance of certainty and flexibility is another requirement necessitated by multicultur- alism. Probably an inclusive planning process can provide the necessary certainty and consistency, while performance-based standards and criteria can assure a reasonable level of flexibility. Multiculturalism also raises the issue of social inte- gration versus segregation. The lesson learned so far in this regard is that involuntary segregation or pre- scriptive ghettoization is both illegal and immoral; but planning that provides choices for individuals and groups to attain a livable environment through the diversity of forms and facilities is desirable. The concentration of one or another group in an area by choice is within the scope of public values as long as others are not systematically excluded. Freedom of choice is the defining value for public policy. To conclude, multiculturalism in planning is pre- eminently a matter of awareness of race and culture among planners and public officials. A good starting point for promoting pluralism in the planning sys-

tem will be to entrench the Human Rights Code in planning policies and programs and to make cul- tural and racial discrimination a legitimate basis for planning appeals. Equally important will be employ- ment equity and the representation of minorities on public bodies.

AUTHOR’S NOTE

The research for this article was funded by a grant from the Ministry of State Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada. The financial support is gratefully acknowledged. The re- search for the Vancouver case study was performed by Kim Flick, and that for the “Dixon Complex” by Kelly Grover. The source for the Ottawa case study is Marc Labelle, Ethnic Busi- nesses as Instrument ofDeuelopment (Master’s Report, School of Urban and Regional Planning, Queen’s University, Canada). Jackie Bell’s editorial assistance has helped clarify many ideas. The views expressed here, however, are entirely the au- thor’s responsibility.

1. The awareness of race and class differences and their bearing on policies and programs is longstanding. Cul- tural, religious, gender, and lifestyle differences are be- ginning to be recognized.

2. The Canadian planning system is hierarchical and au- tonomous, centered in provinces. By and large, provin- cial ministries hold the authority to approve local and regional plans, define their scope and jurisdiction, lay down priorities, oversee procedures, and initiate hous- ing and community service programs. Similarly, provin- cially appointed boards are the appellate bodies, and often provincial ministers are the final arbiters in con- tentious matters. Municipalities prepare, adopt, and enforce statutory plans, development policies, and stan- dards under provincial legislation and delegated author- ity. This is a barebones description of the planning system in Canada.

3. Rawls postulates two principles of justice: (1) equal rights of each person to basic liberties, and (2) the great- est benefit of the least-advantaged consistent with the just savings principle (Rawls 1971,302-3). Equity Plan- ning refers to the planning approach that explicitly aims at improving the welfare of the disadvantaged (Krum- holz 1982). Pareto Optimality is an economic decision criterion.

4. In this article, our primary focus is on the multicultur- alism of immigrants, old and new. Planning issues relat- ing to aboriginal communities are not discussed, because they are a topic by themselves.

5. In Canada, there has been a consistent stream of opin- ion directed against multiculturalism. See Bibby 1990 and Bissoondath 1994.

6. The proposal for a mosque in East York ran into opposi- tion from the City Council and the neighborhood Cypriot-Greek community center. Although the Council

APA JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997 1493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015

MOHAMMAD A. QADEER

narrowly approved the proposal, the parking require- ments have been interpreted in such a way that the de- velopment remains in limbo. See the Toronto Star 1995.

7. A vast chasm persists between goals and policies even in those jurisdictions that proclaim promotion of diversity and acknowledgement of multiculturalism as their planning goals. The City (not Metro) of Toronto’s offi- cial plan process defined facilitating and accommodat- ing cultural diversity as its goal, but the draft plan has no policies explicitly addressed to this goal. Similarly, Vancouver’s City Plan has no specific policies addressing ethnic and cultural aspects of neighborhoods. After an inclusive planning process, the Plan has shied away from dealing with ethnic issues.

REFERENCES

Alexis, Andrt. 1995. Taking a Swipe at Canada. The Globe and Mail, January 7, 1995.

Artibise, Alan F.J. 1977. Divided City: The Immigrant in Winnipeg Society, 1879-1921. In The Canadian City, edited by Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan F.J. Artibise. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

Badets, Jane. 1993. Canada’s Immigrants: Recent Trends. Ca- nadian Social Trends (summer): 8-11.

Bibby, Reginald W. 1990. Mosaic Madness: The Potentialand Pov- erty of Canadian Life. Toronto: Stoddart.

Bissoondath, Neil. 1994. Selling Illusions. Toronto: Penguin. Bourne, Larry. 1989. Are New Urban Forms Emerging? Em-

pirical Tests by Canadian Urban Areas. The Canadian Geog- rapher 33,4 312-28.

Breton, Raymond, Wsevolod Isajiw, Warren Kalbach, and Jef- frey Reitz. 1990. Ethnic Identity and Equality. Toronto: Uni- versity of Toronto Press.

City of Toronto Planning and Development Department. 1991. City Plan: The Citizen’s Guide. The Official Plan Pro- posal Report.

City of Vancouver. 1993a. City Plan Tool Kit. Vancouver, B.C. City of Vancouver. 1993b. Ideas Book. Vancouver, B.C. Clayton Research Associates. 1994. Immigrant Housing Choices,

1986. Ottawa: Research Division, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Davidoff, Paul. 1965. Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute ofplanners 31,4 331-8.

Elder, Phil. S., and Janet M. Keeping. 1986. The Charter of k g h t s and Community Planning. Pkm Canada 26,s: 210.

Fleras, Augie, and Jean L. Elliott. 1992. Multiculturalism in Canada. Scarborough: Nelson Canada.

Gans, Herbert J. 1961. The Balanced Community: Homoge- neity or Heterogeneity in Residential Areas? Journal of the American Institute of Planners 26, 3: 6.

Globe and Mail. 1995a. November 17, 1995: A10. Globe and Mail. 1995b. August 23, 1995: AG. Harney, Robert F. 1985. Ethnicity and Neighbourhoods. In

Gathering Place: Peoples and Neighbourhoods of Toronto, 1934-

1945, edited by Robert F. Harney. Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario.

Hayward, Victoria. 1922. Romantic Canada. Toronto: MacMil- Ian & Co.

House of Commons. 1971. Statement by the Prime Minister. Ot- tawa, October 8, 1971.

Kalbach, Warren. 1990. Ethnic Residential Segregation and its Significance for the Individual in an Urban Setting. In Ethnic Identity and Equdity, edited by Raymond Breton and Wsevolod W. Isajiw et al. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Krishnarayan, Vijay, and Huw Thomas. 1993. Ethnic Minorities and the Planning System. The Royal Town Planning In- stitute.

Krumholz, Norman. 1982. A Retrospective View of Equity Planning: Cleveland 1969-79. Journal of the American Plan- ning Association 48,2: 163-78.

Krumholz, Norman. 1994. Advocacy Planning: Can It Move the Center? Journal of the American Planning Association

Labelle, Marc. 1992. Ethlzic Businesses as Instrument of Develop- ment. A Master’s Report submitted to the School of Urban and Regional Planning, Queen’s University, Canada.

60,2: 150-1.

McLean’s. 1994. Weekly Feb. 7, 1994. Mitchell, Katharyne. 1993. Multiculturalism, or the United

Colors of Capitalism? Antipode 25,4: 263-94. Moghaddam, Fathali M. 1994. Ethnic Segregation in a

Multicultural Society. In The Changing Canadian Metropolis: A Public Policy Perspective, Vol. one, edited by Frances Frisken. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies Press, University of California.

Muller, Thomas. 1993. Immigrants and the American City. New York: New York University Press.

Multicukurahm and Citizenship Canada. 1991. Multicultur- alism: What Is I t About? 0 ttawa.

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Undated. New Reali- ties: New Directions, A Social Development Strategy f i r Metro- politan Toronto. Toronto.

Porter, John. 1965. The Vertical Mosaic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Portes, Alajandro, and Robert L. Bach. 1985. Latin Journey. Berkeley: University of California.

Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory ofJustice. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press.

Reitz, Jeffery G. 1980. The Survival of Ethnic Groups. Toronto: McGraw-Hill.

Savage, Mike, and Alan Warde. 1993. Urban Sociology, Capital- ism and Modernity. Hampshire: MacMillan.

Sewell, John. 1994. Houses and Homes. Toronto: James Lari- mer and Co.

Thomas, Huw, and Vijay Krishnarayan. 1994. Race Disad- vantage, and Policy Processes in British Planning. Environ- mentand PlanningA, 26: 1891-1910.

Toronto Star. 1995. Why a Proposed Mosque Stirred Up a Hornet’s Nest. October 8: F4.

494 APA JOUF”AL.AUTUMN 1997 i

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

21:

55 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2015