Planning Theory & PracticeISSN: 1464-9357 (Print) 1470-000X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rptp20 The Multicultural City as Planners’ Enigma MICHAEL A. BURAYIDI To cite this article: MICHAEL A. BURAYIDI (2003) The Multicultural City as Planners’ Enigma, Planning Theory & Practice, 4:3, 259-273, DOI: 10.1080/1464935032000118634 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1464935032000118634 Published online: 01 Dec 2010. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 315 View related articles Citing articles: 9 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rptp20 Download by: [Vancouver Island University] Date: 27 September 2015, At: 10:10 Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, 259–273, September 2003 The Multicultural City as Planners’ Enigma Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 MICHAEL A. BURAYIDI ABSTRACT Planners in the USA and other Western European countries are faced with the dilemma of how to deal with the demands of an increasingly multicultural population. This problem has become more acute as the number of immigrants from non-European countries has grown in the last several decades. This paper examines how this demographic shift impacts on planning practice. Two planning practice issues are examined; historic preservation and housing for ethno-cultural groups. The paper discusses why these two issues and other emerging demands of ethno-cultural groups matter to planners. A suggestion is made for changing the culture of planning and planning processes to recognize plurality as points of departure in planning practice. Introduction Urban America has always been diverse both in culture and ethnic composition. The influx of immigrants from European countries to the USA in the colonial era produced a mix of different ethno-cultural groups. In time, however, many of these groups became ‘Americanized’ through a national policy of assimilation. In the last half century, the American urban landscape has changed drastically. This change has been influenced by the dramatic increase in the number of immigrants from non-European countries to prosperous North American and European countries. The U.S. Census Bureau expects these migration flows to continue, affecting both the politics and spatial structure of the countries of destination. This shift in immigration has also brought remote ethnic needs and claims into urban neighborhoods that pose a new challenge for planners. The needs and demands of these ethnic groups raise moral and practical questions about the legitimacy of such customs and how to cope with the consequences that these diverse customs and demands create in the use of urban space and facilities. At the same time, the spread of capitalism and a worldwide communication infrastructure has fostered a veneer of civic tolerance by enabling diverse ethnic groups to trumpet their identity claims before a worldwide audience. The world community now debates the fate of groups previously known only to their neighbors. For urban America, this means that the needs of ethno-cultural groups can no longer be ignored in the framing of urban policy and planning. The point of this paper then is that the increase in the multicultural population and the recognition and legitimation of the culture of these ethno-cultural groups will affect planning practice. The paper provides a rationale for action and suggests ways for coping with this challenge. It begins with a discussion of culture and why it Michael A. Burayidi, Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Halsey 311, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, 800 Algoma Blvd. Oshkosh, WI 54901-8642, USA. Email:
[email protected] 1464-9357 Print/1470-000X On-line/03/030259-15 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/1464935032000118634 260 M. Burayidi matters in planning. It then proceeds with examples of how current planning practice may not appropriately address the unique needs of ethno-cultural groups, and discusses why the unique needs of these groups matter in planning. It concludes with suggestions for changing the culture of planning to meet the changing demographic and multicultural needs of the population. Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 The Culture of Planning Planners have a culture. This culture influences the way they see the world, how they interpret their environment, and how they go about reshaping this environment through their practices. The culture of planning is one that is rooted in the enlightenment values of rationality, scientism, and universalism. Sandercock (1998, p. 62) summarized these influences in the form of five pillars; “rationality, comprehensiveness, scientific method, faith in state directed futures, and faith in planners’ ability to know what is good for people”. Grounded in this epistemology, planners are accustomed to viewing people as public citizens with equal rights, making rational decisions, and subordinating their parochial interests for the welfare of society as a whole. According to such a liberal democratic view, people participate in public discourse not as members of a group holding privileged rights but as citizens, equal and autonomous of group interests. The point of departure in planning practice is an assumption of ‘sameness’ and therefore planners pay “attention to differences among those for whom plans are made only in terms of their ‘deviation’ from the norm” (Fenster, 1998, p. 178). Bollens (2002) found that even in ethnically polarized societies such as in Northern Ireland, Israel and South Africa where planners are faced with glaring inequities in resource allocation and power imbalance among ethno-cultural groups, they prefer to retreat to the comfort of professional technicality and regulatory control rather than assisting to find solutions to pressing issues raised by these groups. The reliance on technical rationality and regulation to the solution of urban problems was and is still reflected in Euclidean zoning ordinances and was at the core of the urban renewal program in the USA. For example, pre-war zoning laws separated the suburban home from other land uses and make it difficult to juggle the duties of child care, work and play for households. Euclidean zoning laws also failed to respond to changing socio-cultural conditions and reality as women began entering the formal labor sector and as the composition of the traditional American family shifted. “As more women have become wage earners the physical constraints of this type of city have become apparent. Child care is rarely close to employment centers … mass transit is scheduled for rational commutes to work rather than the erratic movements of women responsible for both domestic duties and paid work” (Sandercock & Forsyth, 1992, p. 50). Hence, the suggestion by new urbanists for the development of mixed-use neighborhoods that contain not only housing, but also shops, schools, places of worship and recreation. This is in contrast to “suburbia, which is the result of zoning laws that separate uses, [and] is composed of pods1 highways and interstitial spaces” (Duany & Plater-Zyberk, 1994, p. xvii). Adherence to the enlightenment values also influenced the selection of neighborhoods for urban renewal. Ethnic neighborhoods were regarded as dysfunctional and blighted and therefore earmarked for revitalization although to these groups, they were vibrant places. An argument can be made that these decisions did not reflect the cultural naivety of planners but show a difference in interests between these communities on the one Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 The Multicultural City 261 hand and developers and politicians on the other. Developers wanted to make money building profitable facilities and politicians wanted to increase the tax base of their communities. Even so, the use of only monetarizable measures in assessing the worth of the neighborhoods indicates that a distinct value system prevailed in the decision criteria used, one that has cultural origins. Enlightenment values that privilege objective knowledge and facts over passion and feelings, elevate scientific rationality above other forms of discourse, and that underscore the importance of the physical rather than the symbolic meaning of space, still prevail and dominate planning practice. In a recent analysis of the redevelopment of South Florida’s Eastward Ho! Turner & Murray (2001, p. 318) found that “There is a nearly complete focus on how to transform the physical plane as a means to preserve the ecological region with little attention to the social aspects of such a transformation”. And that the focus of the redevelopment plan was the “economic and physical revitalization of space, not necessarily people”. Despite this general bias of planners, there is a growing body of literature and field practices that point to other directions. Under the umbrella of postmodernism, this literature is rooted in a pluralist understanding of society. The multicultural conception of citizenship recognizes ethnic diversity and allows participants to embody their ethno-cultural traditions and values even as they participate in the public sphere as equal democratic citizens. This, it is argued, strips the universalizing tendencies of modernistic planning and advances the public sphere by giving these groups a voice in the decision-making process. Such effort is aimed at sensitizing planners to the diversity of the urban public realm and the need for planners to embrace planning processes that are inclusive of all groups and address the concerns of a multicultural constituency. To this end, Baum (2000) suggests that planners encourage community members to discuss their culture and how it affects their vision for improving their welfare. In my own book, (Burayidi, 2000a, p. 3), I called on planners to broaden their “understanding of the knowledge construction process and to embrace other ways of knowing that had been marginalized in the process of modernity”. Qadeer (1997, p. 482) admonishes planners to work for the elimination of “discrimination on the one hand, and cultural biases in the use of land, the housing market, and the provision of urban services on the other hand”. Wallace & Milroy (1999) suggest that planners should consider difference as the point of departure rather than assuming a unitary public interest. Forester (2000, p. 1) implores planners to “learn not only about ‘the facts’ at hand but inquire about value too, asking what ought to be honored, protected, sustained, or developed”. The Complex Web of Planning, Culture, Interests and Values Planning is concerned with helping people identify and meet their needs, and by so doing improve the general welfare. In their professional practice, planners come into contact with groups that have values and interests that are different from those of planners. These value differences are stark when planners encounter ethno-cultural groups and conflate the public debate on planning matters. For example, planners and the community groups with whom they work may attach different meanings to words and phrases, and they may have different ways of interpreting and evaluating data (for more on this see Burayidi, 2000b). Take the decision by GenPower LLC to build a $350 million power plant near Toltec Mounds in Arkansas and string power lines to the nearby communities (Parker, 2001). The project pitted the interests of community Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 262 M. Burayidi boosters (including planners), who want to improve the general welfare of residents, against the values of the Quapaw Native Americans. For GenPower and the community leaders, it all boils down to economics. Lonoke County, in Arkansas, is one of the poorest in the country. By developing the site, GenPower would pay a predetermined amount of money to the local school district, thereby reducing the burden of property taxes and generate employment for area residents. The Quapaw Native Americans see it differently. For them, it is not about economics but religion and spirituality. The Quapaw believe that if the site is disturbed, then the spirit of those who are buried there will forever be in unrest. The site must therefore be protected from any encroachment. Environmentalists also enter the foray. They challenged the building of the power plant near the site because it would obstruct visitors’ view of the sunrise and disrupt its cultural integrity. There is hardly a region in the country that has not dealt with these kinds of value conflicts between Native Americans and developers. Plans for a luxury townhouse development in White Bear Lake, Minnesota were challenged by Native Americans because it would disturb a burial ground. Wal-Mart had to abandon plans for the construction of a superstore in the town of Catskill on New York’s Hudson River after an archeological review turned up human bones and artifacts believed to belong to the Mohican Native Americans. As urban areas in the USA continue to sprawl outwards, such value conflicts in land use between developers and Native Americans are likely to grow. The culture that most planners are familiar with may pose a limit to how we see and manage these kinds of land use concerns. These new complexities require a change in the culture of planning so that planners are able to not only recognize differences between interests and values in their practice but also how to resolve conflicts emanating from such cultural differences. To have an interest in something is to evaluate it in terms of the benefits one can derive from it. Interest is associated with “welfare, gain or advantage” (Campbell & Marshall, 2002, p. 165). If the Quapaw were merely interested in their welfare as defined by the community leaders, a compensation for the building of the power plant would have sufficed. However, the Native Americans had a culture that valued the preservation of the mound over and above the improvement in their, and the community’s, economic welfare. As Bollens (2002, p. 37) rightly observed: “For members of an urban ethnic group, psychological needs pertaining to viability, group identity, and cultural symbolism can be as important as objective needs pertaining to land, housing, and economic opportunities”. While interests are negotiable, values usually are non-negotiable. The Native American position reflects value differences between them and planners, an outcome of the cultural differences within which they operate. Culture is the beliefs, norms, values, customs as well as the material artifacts such as clothing, food and art that set one group apart from others. Culture is acquired through upbringing, affiliation or ethnicity. Cultural conflicts are made evident when a minority ethnic group enters a dominant culture. Fenster (1998) for example narrates the cultural conflict that came to light in the resettlement of Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Although the Ethiopians and Israelites professed the same religion, they still exhibited different cultures. The Ethiopian Jews grew up in a rural and extended family environment but the Israeli planners failed to recognize these differences in their resettlement plans, assuming equal treatment in the order of liberal democratic citizenship. Thus, the housing that was designed for the Ethiopian Jews did not take into consideration their unique needs in the construction of residential space where for example, menstruating and post-partum women are separated from the men to ensure ‘purity’. Such failures have had significant social costs on the Ethiopians in the form of high levels of suicide and domestic abuse. The Multicultural City 263 To illustrate the need for sensitivity to pluralism in planning, cases from two fields of planning practice are discussed below. Each case examines the extent to which conventional practices satisfy the goal of planning, understood as the improvement of the general welfare, and how a multicultural planning practice, if applied to the cases, may have yielded a different response and outcome. The two practice fields considered are historic preservation and housing for minority groups. Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 Historic Preservation Historic preservation is becoming an important element of planning practice in the USA. There are an estimated 1800 historic district commissions in the USA charged with the responsibility of reviewing development proposals to ensure that they do not negatively impact on the historic heritage of communities (Hodder, 1999). Some states now require that historic preservation be included in local comprehensive plans, and in 1997 the Board of Directors of the American Planning Association ratified a ‘Policy Guide on History and Cultural Resources’. Thus, historic preservation is no longer an afterthought of planning practice but an integral part of planning activity. Two issues come to the forefront with regards to historic preservation. The first is how planners resolve conflicts between growth and preservation. The second is how planners decide which historic sites and artifacts merit preserving. With regards to the conflict between growth and preservation, Rasmussen (1997, p. 26) observed that “the combination of burgeoning population and greater determination by Native American groups to preserve their heritage has led to growing conflict across the nation between preserving that heritage and accommodating development”. In addition, while many communities now have historic preservation ordinances, the designation of such sites tend to reflect the dominant viewpoint of what constitutes a historic resource. Two cases are illustrative of the problem for planners. The first case involves the Puvungna Native American fight to preserve their religious site at Long Beach, California. The case portrays the prevailing ethnocentrism of current planning practices and highlights the need for a re-examination of the universalistic value systems that continue to influence planning practice. The second case, involving the use of Devils Tower in Wyoming, demonstrates how competing claims to the use of land can be resolved through the planning process if only attention is given to cultural diversity and the accommodation of such diversity in planning. The Puvungna Lawsuit2 The Puvungna lawsuit (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 087212) was filed in August 1993 against California State University Long Beach (CSLB). The campus of CSLB sits on what is regarded by the Gabrielino Native Americans as a sacred site (Figure 1). Indeed, the university once erected a sign that read; “Gabrielino Indians once inhabited this site, Puvungna, birthplace of Chungichnish, law-giver and god”. There are several archaeological sites on campus and one known burial as well as a reburial site. The 22-acre National Register site included about two acres of community garden plots, known as the ‘Organic Gardens’, which were established on the first Earth Day. The remainder is open space where the university organized summer camps for many years. In 1992 CSLB decided to pave the site to create a parking lot and mall. This decision led to protests by native Americans and other concerned citizens who pitched tents and held prayer vigils on the site to prevent its destruction. A lawsuit was also filed by the Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 264 M. Burayidi Figure 1. Puvungna Sacred Site at the California State University, Long Beach. Source: Courtesy of Jan Sampson. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of over a dozen Native American plaintiffs, including not only Gabrielino and other California Native Americans, but also Native Americans whose tribal affiliation is outside California (as far east as New York) but who reside in the Los Angeles area.3 The other plaintiff was the Native American Heritage Commission (represented by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law), a state commission appointed by the Governor and charged with protecting Native American sacred sites and burial places. For the Gabrielino Native Americans the university’s actions showed a lack of understanding of their religious practices. In Western culture this would amount to the tearing down of a church in order to create a parking lot. The difference here is that there are no walls to tear down and no permanent fixtures. This has been interpreted by the university as the absence of any ‘cultural resources’ on the site. Native Americans won an important victory on 3 September 1993 when a Los Angeles Superior Court judge temporarily blocked the university’s planned development of the site. The court ordered CSLB officials to be “restrained and enjoined … from causing any further unnatural disturbance … and from baring appropriate Native American access to the land at issue”. In April 1995, however, the court ruled for the university, arguing that the law protecting Indian sacred places on public land is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of separation of church and state. This ruling was overturned on appeal by the appellate court, which ruled that the university lacked standing in court to raise constitutional issues since the university is a state agency, and the state cannot defend itself in court by saying that the laws it passes are unconstitutional. At any rate, the current President of CSLB has pledged not to commercialize the site but preserve it as open space. While millions of dollars have been spent on the case and the legal battle continues over the fate of Puvungna, it must be questioned what role, if any, planners have played in this stalemate and how this case may affect planning practice? The site is zoned The Multicultural City 265 Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 ‘institutional’, that is, for university use. The fight then is not between Native Americans and the city but between them and the university. In a sense, planners have absolved themselves of the problem. Long Beach city planners, however, cannot be let off the hook. The City of Long Beach has a historic ordinance that reads in part: The City of Long Beach has recognized certain buildings and neighborhoods as having special architectural and historical value. The City Council designates historic landmarks, historic districts, historic places and objects by city ordinance. Historic landmark status for buildings in Long Beach may be designated if they have historic and/or architectural value. Historic districts are areas containing groupings of older houses that are intact and unaltered. (http://www.ci.long-beach.ca.us/plan/content/historicpreservation.html. Accessed 12 May 2003). The ordinance seems to protect physical artifacts such as buildings but not land that is in its natural state. Because the Puvungna religious site is left in its natural state, it is not recognized by planners as historic. The fact that the Puvungna religious site was not specifically identified in the land use map as a cultural resource worth preserving is a major shortcoming of the city’s land use plan and of the ethnocentrism that guides the selection of historic sites in the city for preservation. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case between the Navajo and the US Forest Service further attests to this ethnocentrism. When the U.S. Forest Service planned to log and construct roads in a forested area, the Navajo challenged the plan because it infringed on their religious practices. In a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Sandra O’Connor, writing for the court, justified the agency’s actions by stating that the land in question was not actively used by the Navajo for religious services and did not have a religious site. As Meyer & Reaves (2000) observed, such a decision imposed a Judeo-Christian value system on the Navajo who, like the Puvungna, have a different criteria for designating religious and historic sites. Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association v. Babbitt, No. 98–8021 The case of the Devils Tower National monument offers a contrary approach to the dominant planning practice. The Devils Tower is a 600-foot mountain located in northeastern Wyoming (Figure 2). The historical and religious use of Devils Tower and surrounding areas by Lakota people was acknowledged by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. In 1906, President Roosevelt declared the Devils Tower a national monument, noting that it is “a natural wonder and an object of historic and great scientific interest [and] warning is hereby given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, or destroy any feature of the natural tower” (Presidential Proclamation No. 458, 34 Stat. 3236, 3237, 24 September 1906). The tower is known to Native Americans as ‘Mato Tipila’ or ‘Bear Lodge’, and is a sacred religious site for many Native American tribes. The tower is also used by recreational and commercial climbers. Over the past 30 years, the number of rock climbers at the tower increased dramatically affecting not only the environment but also the religious practices of Native Americans. To address these conflicts in land use, the National Park Service adopted a Final Climbing Management Plan (FCMP) for Devils Tower National Monument, which in part asked climbers to voluntarily refrain from using the site in the month of June when Native Americans engage in the Sun Dance and other ceremonies. Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 266 M. Burayidi Figure 2. The Devils Tower. Source: Courtesy of the United States National Park Service. Although the plan was welcome by Native Americans and led to the reduction in climbers in June, the Bear Lodge Municipal Use Association and other climbers challenged the FCMP. The group sued the Department of Interior, arguing that the FCMP violated the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from sponsoring, supporting, or becoming entangled in religious affairs. On 26 April 1999 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Court dismissed the climbers’ lawsuit, ruling that the climbers lacked standing and claimed no injury from the FCMP. The U.S. Supreme court upheld the ruling and declined to review the case as was requested by the plaintiffs. This case shows that proactive planning that is culture-sensitive is capable of accommodating and addressing competing land use claims. This, however, is often the exception rather than the rule. Housing for Ethno-cultural Minorities Another area where planners will be increasingly called upon to intervene is in the provision of housing for ethno-cultural groups. The concern here is threefold: first, to what extent do the specific housing needs of ethno-cultural groups matter?; second, does the existing housing stock adequately serve the shelter needs of ethno-cultural groups?; and, third, how might scarce public resources be allocated to more effectively serve the housing needs of ethno-cultural groups? To help answer these questions, consideration is given to the housing adequacy and living arrangements of ethno-cultural groups as they are impacted by current planning practices. The Multicultural City 267 Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 Housing Occupancy and Overcrowding4 One of the roles of planners is to ensure that adequate housing and community services are provided for residents of the community. One indicator of housing adequacy and affordability is the extent of overcrowding that exists in housing units in a community. In the US, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) requires that planners identify their communities’ current and future housing needs and devise programs to address these needs through the use of this national Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds. A preliminary review of these programs indicated that half of the communities applying for funding used overcrowding as one measure of their communities’ housing need (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development et al., 1992). Data from the U.S. Census Bureau show an increase in the incidence of overcrowding. For occupied housing units, the incidence of overcrowding increased from 4.9 per cent in 1990 to 5.7 per cent in 2000. Myers & Baer (1996) reported a similar trend for rental housing units. For example, they note that between 1980 and 1990 the incidence of overcrowding in rental housing units rose from 7 per cent to 8.9 per cent. They also observed that overcrowding is more prevalent among recent immigrants, Asian, and Hispanic households than it is for white and African-American households. Furthermore, the authors note that overcrowding among Asian households does not decrease until you exceed 80 per cent of median incomes. The conventional explanation for overcrowding is that there is a shortage of affordable housing. The logical policy direction to ameliorate the problem is thus to increase the availability of housing that is affordable to these groups. In the USA such policies have typically included supplementing incomes of low-income households through housing vouchers or subsidizing production costs in the form of low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC) for developers of such housing. In each instance, planners are involved in arranging, recommending and administering these funds. They also help select qualified tenants who reside in these subsidized housing units. The problem is that programs and policies that are directed solely to increasing the availability of the affordable housing stock would not substantially decrease overcrowding rates among the ethno-cultural groups that these programs are meant to help and may lead to an inefficient use of the nation’s limited housing dollars. In the study by Myers & Baer (1996), overcrowding among Asian households did not diminish even for higher-income households, suggesting that affordability may not be the problem. A similar study by Choi (1993) led her to dismiss income as the major explanatory variable in overcrowding among Asian households. Instead, she noted that Asians have a cultural preference for living in close quarters compared to other racial or ethnic groups. Pader (1994) found space use both within and outside the house to be culturally differentiated. In her study of sleeping arrangements in Mexican families, she noted that the manner in which space is arranged and used by Mexican families is designed to foster interdependence and sharing, not independence (see Figure 3). By contrast, houses in the USA are designed to ensure privacy, develop individualism and a sense of independence. “Cross-culturally”, Pader (1994, p. 129) observed, “it is common to find more people sharing sleeping quarters and beds than would be acceptable by the dominant U.S. standards—and doing so by preference, not economic necessity”. The implication of these findings is that understanding the cultural context of overcrowding is important to devising an appropriate public policy. As Myers & Baer (1996) rightly concluded from their study: “By the traditional definition of overcrowding, the problem is growing, but at the same time the policy issues it presents are changing. Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 268 M. Burayidi Figure 3. Living arrangement in a Mexican housing unit. Source: Courtesy of Ellen-J. Pader. The resurgence of overcrowding exposes deep cultural differences among Americans in their living arrangements and preferred standards” (p. 76). They suggest that rather than focusing on increasing affordable housing for ethno-cultural groups, planners should instead direct their efforts to increasing the level of neighborhood services such as schools, parks and rubbish collection, since these services would have greater impact on the welfare of these groups than an increase in the affordable housing stock. Here we see that sensitivity to ‘pluralism’ leads to the crafting of more efficient and more effective programs and a better use of public funds by planners. Immigrant Housing for Hmong Families in the City of Oshkosh The City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin is located in the mid-western region of the USA. It is predominantly white with minorities making up only 7.3 per cent of the city’s population in the 2000 Census. In the 1980s as part of a US resettlement program for refugees from south-east Asia, the city became home to several Hmong5 families. The Hmong had an agrarian culture and large families. Thus, it was not uncommon to have 6 to 10 children in a household. As families were resettled in the City of Oshkosh, city planners were involved in trying to find housing for these families. Using Western standards of housing, it was felt that a minimum of a three-bedroom house or apartment was needed for the large families. After a tedious search, housing was found for these families. On one such occasion, a three-bedroom house was found for a family of six. It was reasoned, the parents would share a bedroom and the four children would pair up in each of the other two bedrooms. Several weeks after the families were resettled, a city planner went to visit one of the families to see how they were doing in their new housing. To her surprise, she found that the four children all crowded into one of the bedrooms while the third bedroom stood idle. After probing into the situation, she realized that Hmong families preferred their children to share the same bedroom since this bred closer bonds between Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 The Multicultural City 269 the siblings. As discussed above, this is contrary to the one person per room standard used by the United States Census Bureau in determining overcrowding. The substantive goal of housing standards is to provide for health, hygiene and safety. The overcrowding standards, however, tell us very little about the size of the rooms nor do they take into consideration the different cultural norms of a multicultural public. For the Hmong, a standard one bedroom for parents and a large bedroom for the children would have been the preferred housing type. Such a provision could still ensure that health, safety and hygiene is maintained and would meet the cultural needs of the group. The shortcoming of current housing standards is that they lead to the production of standardized housing. This is excellent for those who choose to live in such setting. However, the standards do not meet the needs of a diverse culture with different tastes and ways of life. This example points to the need for planners to provide housing choices and neighborhood differentiation that will accommodate the different housing needs of a diverse population. Despite the restrictive zoning and housing codes, several culture-oriented housing schemes are thankfully springing up across the country. Under the generic/umbrella name of ‘intentional communities’, they include co-housing, co-operative housing, and even some neo-traditional style communities such as Cerro Gordo in Cottage Grove, Oregon. According to the Cohousing Network, cohousing is a “collaborative housing that attempts to overcome the alienation of modern subdivisions in which no one knows their neighbors, and there is no sense of community”. Residents typically have their own housing unit but share common community facilities such as lounges, dining area, recreation facilities and childcare. With this type of housing, residents “participate in the planning and design of the community so that it directly responds to their needs” ⬍ http://www.cohousing.org/resources/whatis.html ⬎ . These culture-oriented housing developments may be based on interest such as the ACME Artist Cooperative in Chicago and the Bright Morning Star community in Seattle for writers, musicians and the performing arts or ideology such as the communitarian Cambridge cohousing in Cambridge, MA, or the environmentally based Earthhaven in Black Mountain, NC and the Garden O’Vegan in Hawaii or religion, such as the Abode of the Message in New Lebanon, NY. In a sense, such housing is culture-sensitive, meets people’s needs, and above all, is affordable. This type of housing, however, is often seen as an aberration to the norm and residents may feel a stigma for living in such neighborhoods. Besides, several city zoning ordinances continue to make such housing and neighborhood types difficult to build. This may account for the limited number of these living arrangements in urban areas. For example, 54 per cent of the communities listed in the 1995 Communities Directory of the Coop Housing Network are rural, 28 per cent are urban, 10 cent have both rural and urban sites, and 8 cent do not specify ⬍ http://www.cohousing.org/resources/ whatis.html ⬎ . Untangling the Multicultural Enigma The cases cited in this paper present some troubling observations for the planning profession. How do planners resolve the conflicting land use claims of a diverse public? How do we design housing and building codes and neighborhoods to meet the housing needs of all groups in a community? How do planners ensure that what we selectively preserve for posterity reflects everyone’s view of their history? In his classic book, The Reflective Practitioner, Scho¨n (1983) talks about the dilemmas of Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 270 M. Burayidi professional practice. He notes that people may choose to practice in the high ground or in the lowland of professional practice. He asks: “Shall the practitioner stay on the high, hard ground where he can practice rigorously, as he understands rigor, but where he is constrained to deal with problems of relatively little social importance? Or shall he descend to the swamp where he can engage with the most important and challenging problems if he is willing to forsake technical rigor?” (Scho¨n, 1983, p. 42). This is the challenge facing the planning profession. We can continue to practice planning as it has always been and risk making ourselves irrelevant to much of society or we can take the bold challenge and descend to the swampy lowland where problems are much more messy and solutions difficult. The latter is suggested. To make planning relevant to a multicultural public, planners have to face the challenge of professional ‘messyness’ and address the problems that matter to society. This requires a change in the culture of planning so that in tackling problems of the urban environment, planners are cognizant of both the ‘real’ and the ‘symbolic’ meaning attached by different groups to the environment. Planners should also consider the psychological as well as the objective ends of their plans. Yet, this is the area of untidiness and one that would pose the most challenge for planners. Nevertheless, there are several pointers in the planning literature to processes that have worked in other settings and that could provide a guide to planners facing multicultural problems. They include therapeutic techniques (Sandercock, 2000), dispute resolution methods (Susskind, 1995; Susskind & Cruickshank, 1987; Susskind & Field, 1996), and dialogue approaches (Baum, 1999, 2000; Forester, 1999, 2000; Healey, 1996). However, while these processes and the practice examples they provide are beneficial, they are for the most part reactive in nature. That is, they are designed to address multicultural problems after they arise not before they occur. Planning after all is about pre-emption, not reaction. As the case studies discussed here show, cities have not been planned to accommodate diversity and so there is a failure to see that different cultures may have different ways of defining what is valuable and therefore worth preserving. Cities are not designed to provide a choice for residents that do not fit the standardized housing and neighborhoods that are built, necessitating application for variances to accommodate housing for those who do not fit the nuclear family tradition. In the USA, processes have not been set up other than the adversarial approach to resolving conflicts, and so when such an approach fails in a multicultural situation, there is a scramble for alternatives that take longer to set up because few planners are competent enough to use the therapeutic, dialogue and dispute resolution approaches that a multicultural society calls for and needs. In essence, the institutions and planning processes were not designed with ‘difference’ in mind. This is the major obstacle to multicultural planning. The reactive approaches are knee jerk reactions that may solve ad hoc problems. What is needed is a redesign of the planning system for managing diversity without which planners’ efforts, even when well intentioned, will only produce limited short-term gains. Although rare, there are emerging examples of proactive multicultural planning processes at work. There has already been a description of how proactive planning averted problems in the use of the ‘Devils Tower’. Another pioneering example of proactive planning is the cultural plan prepared by the City of Vancouver, Washington. The plan evolved from a series of public meetings of city staff with the diverse groups, organizations and residents of the community. The cultural plan that emerged embodied policies and programs resulting from the expressed fears, concerns, interests and values of the city’s multicultural public. The stated goal of the plan is “to nurture collaborative efforts, foster diversity and celebrate the richness of the community”. The Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 The Multicultural City 271 plan also states that “cultural issues will become an integral part of city policy and partnerships; their legitimacy and importance will be acknowledged as part of the City of Vancouver’s core values” ⬍ http://www.ci.vancouver.wa.us/chservices/culture/ plan/intro.shtm ⬎ (accessed 12 May 2003). The cultural plan is not just about the preservation of cultural artifacts, but one that is supportive of the diversity of the people who live in the city. In addition to the plan document, the city also appointed a cultural commission to oversee its implementation. Because of the open and inclusive process that was used in preparing the plan, the diverse groups in the community had a buy-in and a stake in the success of the plan because it reflects their needs.6 Perhaps if other communities had adopted Vancouver’s example, the conflicts that seem to erupt between ethno-cultural groups and planners may not have occurred. This example also shows that it is possible to reconcile the principles of a liberal democracy with the requirements of multiculturalism. However, planners must be able to recognize when culture matters and when it does not. Even for those cultural issues that are identified to be important, not all may require planning intervention. Some can be resolved through the legal system (for example through anti-discrimination laws), and others through market processes (for example, retail outlets that provide goods to ethnic communities). Deciphering these differences requires skills that can be acquired through diversity education and training. To this end, planning schools and organizations such as the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) and the American Planning Association (APA) should provide opportunities for planners to receive cultural sensitivity training. Many professions ranging from physicians to teachers, librarians and businesses are now urging their members to engage in such training. This is an acknowledgement that with cultural diversity has come the need for cultural awareness and competence to work with a diverse clientele. The planning profession has so far not entered the foray although this has become an important aspect of planning practice. Cultural sensitivity in planning will enhance (i) communication skills of planners so that they are able to interact with a multicultural public; and (ii) give planners a better understanding of the beliefs, values and customs of different cultural groups so that they develop insight into the lenses through which these groups operate. Cultural sensitivity training has the potential of making planners culturally competent and planning culturally effective. When planners are culturally competent, they learn the principles that help them to discern the pertinent beliefs and customs of cultural groups and so are able to help provide plans that reflect the needs of these groups. When plans are culturally effective they blend the conventional planning techniques and strategies with the felt needs and world views of cultural groups to produce programs and policies that make positive changes in the well being of these groups. Planners can become culturally sensitive in several ways. First, there is the need for curriculum changes that require students in planning schools to immerse themselves in cultural group settings so as to learn through participant observation that compliments the standard data collection and analysis process that is so prevalent in many US planning schools. Second, through cultural workshops, practicing planners may gain the competence of working and practicing planning for a multicultural public. These changes should be mandated by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) accreditation body. Experience shows that voluntary compliance is unlikely to work. In conclusion, planning is about helping people to reflect on their needs and to find 272 M. Burayidi creative ways to meet these needs. This objective cannot be achieved if people feel estranged from the process. The potential for this feeling of alienation is more so for multicultural groups than it is for those in the dominant culture. This means that extraneous efforts have to be found to bring these groups into the process. The modest suggestions made here provide a starting point for planners to help the ‘whole public’ to reflect on and take action to meet their needs. Notes Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. These are usually single use zones that do not permit other uses within the district. This section has benefited from the insights provided by Eugene E. Ruyle, Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Long Beach, to whom I am indebted. Puvungna has become a sacred site not only for the Gabrielino, but for all Indians in the area, since what is sacred to one Indian tribe is sacred to all Indian tribes. The U.S. Census Bureau defines overcrowding as a situation in which there is more than one person per room in a housing unit. The Hmong are an ethnic group from China and fought alongside the USA during the Vietnam war following which they were persecuted by the Northern Vietnamese and had to flee their homeland. This section benefited from correspondence with Leann Johnson, Manager of Cultural Services, City of Vancouver, WA, to whom the author is indebted. References Baum, H. (1999) Forgetting to plan, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, (Fall), pp. 101–113. Baum, H. (2000) Culture matters, but it shouldn’t matter too much, in: M.A. Burayidi Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society (Westport, Praeger Publishers). Bollens, S.A. (2002) Urban planning and intergroup conflict: confronting a fractured public interest, Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(1), pp. 22–42. Burayidi, M.A. (2000a) Urban planning as a multicultural canon, in: M.A. Burayidi Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society (Westport, Praeger Publishers). Burayidi, M.A. (Ed.) (2000b) Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society (Westport, Praeger Publishers). Campbell, H. & Marshall, R. (2002) Utilitarianism’s bad breadth: a re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning, Planning Theory, 1(2), pp. 153–187. Choi, S-Y. (1993) The determinants of household overcrowding and the role of immigration in Southern California. Doctoral dissertation (Los Angeles, The University of Southern California). Duany, A. & Plater-Zyberk, E. (1994) The neighborhood, the district and the corridor, in: P. Katz The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community (New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc.). Fenster, T. (1998) Ethnicity, citizenship, planning and gender: the case of Ethiopian immigrant women in Israel, Gender Place and Culture, 5(2), pp. 177–190. Forester J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press). Forester, J. (2000) Multicultural planning in deed: lessons from the mediation practice of Shirley Solomon and Larry Sherman, in: M.A. Burayidi Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society (Westport, Praeger Publishers). Healey, P. (1996) The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation, Environment and Planning B, 23(2), pp. 217–234. Hodder, R. (1999) Redefining a southern city’s heritage: historic preservation planning, public art, and race in Richmond, Virginia, Journal of Urban Affairs, 21(4), pp. 437–454. Meyer, P. & Reaves, C.R. (2000) Objectives and values: planning for multicultural groups rather than multiple constituencies, in: M.A. Burayidi Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society (Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers). Myers, D. & Baer, W.C. (1996) The changing problem of overcrowded housing, Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter, 62(1), pp. 66–85. Pader, E-J. (1994) Spatial relations and housing policy: regulations that discriminate against Mexican-origin households, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 13(2), pp. 119–135. Parker, S. (2001) Suburban sprawl spurs fights over sacred Indian sites, Christian Science Monitor, 93(184), pp. 1–2. Qadeer, M. (1997) Pluralistic planning for multicultural cities, Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(4), pp. 481–494. Rasmussen, M. (1997) Communities try to balance growth, Indian heritage, Planning, 63(4), pp. 26–27. Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities (New York, John Wiley and Sons). Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015 The Multicultural City 273 Sandercock, L. (2000) When strangers become neighbors: managing cities of difference, Planning Theory & Practice, 1(1), pp. 13–30. Sandercock, L. & Forsyth, A. (1992) A gender agenda: New direction for planning theory, Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 58(1), pp. 49–60. Scho¨n, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (New York, Basic Books). Susskind, L. (1995) Resolving conflicts the kinder, gentler way, Planning, May, 61(5), p. 16. Susskind, L. & Field, P. (1996) Dealing with an Angry Public (New York, The Free Press). Susskind, L. & Cruickshank, J. (1987) Breaking the Impasse (New York, Basic Books). Turner, R.S. & Murray, M.S. (2001) Managing growth in a climate of urban diversity: South Florida’s Eastward Ho! initiative, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(3), pp. 308–328. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Office of Research and Evaluation (1992) The Local CHAS: A Preliminary Assessment of First Year Submissions (Washington, DC). Wallace, M. & Milroy, B. (1999) Intersecting claims: planning in Canada’s cities, in: T. Fenster (Ed.) Gender Planning and Human Rights (London, Routledge). Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 10:10 27 September 2015