Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rptp20

Download by: [Vancouver Island University] Date: 27 September 2015, At: 10:10

Planning Theory & Practice

ISSN: 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

Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, 259–273, September 2003

The Multicultural City as Planners’EnigmaMICHAEL A. BURAYIDI

ABSTRACT Planners in the USA and other Western European countries are faced with thedilemma of how to deal with the demands of an increasingly multicultural population. Thisproblem has become more acute as the number of immigrants from non-European countries hasgrown in the last several decades. This paper examines how this demographic shift impacts onplanning practice. Two planning practice issues are examined; historic preservation and housingfor ethno-cultural groups. The paper discusses why these two issues and other emerging demandsof ethno-cultural groups matter to planners. A suggestion is made for changing the culture ofplanning and planning processes to recognize plurality as points of departure in planningpractice.

Introduction

Urban America has always been diverse both in culture and ethnic composition. Theinflux of immigrants from European countries to the USA in the colonial era produceda 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, theAmerican urban landscape has changed drastically. This change has been influenced bythe dramatic increase in the number of immigrants from non-European countries toprosperous North American and European countries. The U.S. Census Bureau expectsthese migration flows to continue, affecting both the politics and spatial structure of thecountries of destination. This shift in immigration has also brought remote ethnic needsand claims into urban neighborhoods that pose a new challenge for planners. The needsand demands of these ethnic groups raise moral and practical questions about thelegitimacy of such customs and how to cope with the consequences that these diversecustoms and demands create in the use of urban space and facilities.

At the same time, the spread of capitalism and a worldwide communication infra-structure has fostered a veneer of civic tolerance by enabling diverse ethnic groups totrumpet their identity claims before a worldwide audience. The world community nowdebates 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 theframing of urban policy and planning.

The point of this paper then is that the increase in the multicultural population andthe recognition and legitimation of the culture of these ethno-cultural groups willaffect planning practice. The paper provides a rationale for action and suggests waysfor 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: burayidi@uwosh.edu

1464-9357 Print/1470-000X On-line/03/030259-15 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/1464935032000118634

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2015

260 M. Burayidi

matters in planning. It then proceeds with examples of how current planning practicemay not appropriately address the unique needs of ethno-cultural groups, and discusseswhy the unique needs of these groups matter in planning. It concludes with suggestionsfor changing the culture of planning to meet the changing demographic and multicul-tural needs of the population.

The Culture of Planning

Planners have a culture. This culture influences the way they see the world, how theyinterpret their environment, and how they go about reshaping this environment throughtheir 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 theform of five pillars; “rationality, comprehensiveness, scientific method, faith in statedirected futures, and faith in planners’ ability to know what is good for people”.Grounded in this epistemology, planners are accustomed to viewing people as publiccitizens with equal rights, making rational decisions, and subordinating their parochialinterests for the welfare of society as a whole. According to such a liberal democraticview, people participate in public discourse not as members of a group holdingprivileged rights but as citizens, equal and autonomous of group interests. The point ofdeparture in planning practice is an assumption of ‘sameness’ and therefore plannerspay “attention to differences among those for whom plans are made only in terms oftheir ‘deviation’ from the norm” (Fenster, 1998, p. 178). Bollens (2002) found that evenin ethnically polarized societies such as in Northern Ireland, Israel and South Africawhere planners are faced with glaring inequities in resource allocation and powerimbalance among ethno-cultural groups, they prefer to retreat to the comfort of pro-fessional technicality and regulatory control rather than assisting to find solutions topressing issues raised by these groups.

The reliance on technical rationality and regulation to the solution of urban problemswas and is still reflected in Euclidean zoning ordinances and was at the core of the urbanrenewal program in the USA. For example, pre-war zoning laws separated the suburbanhome from other land uses and make it difficult to juggle the duties of child care, workand play for households. Euclidean zoning laws also failed to respond to changingsocio-cultural conditions and reality as women began entering the formal labor sectorand as the composition of the traditional American family shifted. “As more womenhave become wage earners the physical constraints of this type of city have becomeapparent. Child care is rarely close to employment centers … mass transit is scheduledfor rational commutes to work rather than the erratic movements of women responsiblefor both domestic duties and paid work” (Sandercock & Forsyth, 1992, p. 50). Hence, thesuggestion by new urbanists for the development of mixed-use neighborhoods thatcontain not only housing, but also shops, schools, places of worship and recreation. Thisis 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 neighborhoodsfor urban renewal. Ethnic neighborhoods were regarded as dysfunctional and blightedand therefore earmarked for revitalization although to these groups, they were vibrantplaces. An argument can be made that these decisions did not reflect the cultural naivetyof planners but show a difference in interests between these communities on the one

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2015

The Multicultural City 261

hand and developers and politicians on the other. Developers wanted to make moneybuilding profitable facilities and politicians wanted to increase the tax base of theircommunities. Even so, the use of only monetarizable measures in assessing the worth ofthe neighborhoods indicates that a distinct value system prevailed in the decision criteriaused, one that has cultural origins.

Enlightenment values that privilege objective knowledge and facts over passion andfeelings, elevate scientific rationality above other forms of discourse, and that underscorethe importance of the physical rather than the symbolic meaning of space, still prevailand dominate planning practice. In a recent analysis of the redevelopment of SouthFlorida’s Eastward Ho! Turner & Murray (2001, p. 318) found that “There is a nearlycomplete focus on how to transform the physical plane as a means to preserve theecological region with little attention to the social aspects of such a transformation”. Andthat the focus of the redevelopment plan was the “economic and physical revitalizationof space, not necessarily people”.

Despite this general bias of planners, there is a growing body of literature and fieldpractices that point to other directions. Under the umbrella of postmodernism, thisliterature is rooted in a pluralist understanding of society. The multicultural conceptionof citizenship recognizes ethnic diversity and allows participants to embody theirethno-cultural traditions and values even as they participate in the public sphere asequal democratic citizens. This, it is argued, strips the universalizing tendencies ofmodernistic planning and advances the public sphere by giving these groups a voice inthe decision-making process.

Such effort is aimed at sensitizing planners to the diversity of the urban public realmand the need for planners to embrace planning processes that are inclusive of all groupsand address the concerns of a multicultural constituency. To this end, Baum (2000)suggests that planners encourage community members to discuss their culture and howit 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 construc-tion process and to embrace other ways of knowing that had been marginalized in theprocess of modernity”. Qadeer (1997, p. 482) admonishes planners to work for theelimination 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 departurerather 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 oughtto 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 sodoing improve the general welfare. In their professional practice, planners come intocontact with groups that have values and interests that are different from those ofplanners. These value differences are stark when planners encounter ethno-culturalgroups and conflate the public debate on planning matters. For example, planners andthe community groups with whom they work may attach different meanings to wordsand phrases, and they may have different ways of interpreting and evaluating data (formore on this see Burayidi, 2000b). Take the decision by GenPower LLC to build a $350million power plant near Toltec Mounds in Arkansas and string power lines to thenearby communities (Parker, 2001). The project pitted the interests of community

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

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 communityleaders, it all boils down to economics. Lonoke County, in Arkansas, is one of thepoorest in the country. By developing the site, GenPower would pay a predeterminedamount of money to the local school district, thereby reducing the burden of propertytaxes and generate employment for area residents. The Quapaw Native Americans seeit differently. For them, it is not about economics but religion and spirituality. TheQuapaw believe that if the site is disturbed, then the spirit of those who are buried therewill 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 plantnear the site because it would obstruct visitors’ view of the sunrise and disrupt itscultural integrity. There is hardly a region in the country that has not dealt with thesekinds of value conflicts between Native Americans and developers. Plans for a luxurytownhouse development in White Bear Lake, Minnesota were challenged by NativeAmericans because it would disturb a burial ground. Wal-Mart had to abandon plans forthe construction of a superstore in the town of Catskill on New York’s Hudson Riverafter an archeological review turned up human bones and artifacts believed to belong tothe 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 togrow. The culture that most planners are familiar with may pose a limit to how we seeand manage these kinds of land use concerns.

These new complexities require a change in the culture of planning so that plannersare able to not only recognize differences between interests and values in their practicebut also how to resolve conflicts emanating from such cultural differences. To have aninterest 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 thecommunity leaders, a compensation for the building of the power plant would havesufficed. However, the Native Americans had a culture that valued the preservation ofthe mound over and above the improvement in their, and the community’s, economicwelfare. As Bollens (2002, p. 37) rightly observed: “For members of an urban ethnicgroup, psychological needs pertaining to viability, group identity, and cultural symbol-ism can be as important as objective needs pertaining to land, housing, and economicopportunities”. 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 artthat set one group apart from others. Culture is acquired through upbringing, affiliationor ethnicity. Cultural conflicts are made evident when a minority ethnic group enters adominant culture. Fenster (1998) for example narrates the cultural conflict that came tolight in the resettlement of Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Although the Ethiopians andIsraelites professed the same religion, they still exhibited different cultures. TheEthiopian Jews grew up in a rural and extended family environment but the Israeliplanners failed to recognize these differences in their resettlement plans, assuming equaltreatment in the order of liberal democratic citizenship. Thus, the housing that wasdesigned for the Ethiopian Jews did not take into consideration their unique needs in theconstruction of residential space where for example, menstruating and post-partumwomen are separated from the men to ensure ‘purity’. Such failures have had significantsocial costs on the Ethiopians in the form of high levels of suicide and domestic abuse.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2015

The Multicultural City 263

To illustrate the need for sensitivity to pluralism in planning, cases from two fields ofplanning practice are discussed below. Each case examines the extent to which conven-tional practices satisfy the goal of planning, understood as the improvement of thegeneral welfare, and how a multicultural planning practice, if applied to the cases, mayhave yielded a different response and outcome. The two practice fields considered arehistoric preservation and housing for minority groups.

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 theresponsibility of reviewing development proposals to ensure that they do not negativelyimpact on the historic heritage of communities (Hodder, 1999). Some states now requirethat historic preservation be included in local comprehensive plans, and in 1997 theBoard of Directors of the American Planning Association ratified a ‘Policy Guide onHistory and Cultural Resources’. Thus, historic preservation is no longer an afterthoughtof planning practice but an integral part of planning activity. Two issues come to theforefront with regards to historic preservation. The first is how planners resolve conflictsbetween growth and preservation. The second is how planners decide which historicsites 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 byNative American groups to preserve their heritage has led to growing conflict across thenation between preserving that heritage and accommodating development”. In addition,while many communities now have historic preservation ordinances, the designation ofsuch 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 thePuvungna Native American fight to preserve their religious site at Long Beach, Califor-nia. The case portrays the prevailing ethnocentrism of current planning practices andhighlights the need for a re-examination of the universalistic value systems that continueto influence planning practice. The second case, involving the use of Devils Tower inWyoming, demonstrates how competing claims to the use of land can be resolvedthrough the planning process if only attention is given to cultural diversity and theaccommodation of such diversity in planning.

The Puvungna Lawsuit2

The Puvungna lawsuit (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 087212) was filed inAugust 1993 against California State University Long Beach (CSLB). The campus ofCSLB 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 onceinhabited this site, Puvungna, birthplace of Chungichnish, law-giver and god”. There areseveral 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. Theremainder 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 decisionled to protests by native Americans and other concerned citizens who pitched tents andheld prayer vigils on the site to prevent its destruction. A lawsuit was also filed by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

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 Americanplaintiffs, including not only Gabrielino and other California Native Americans, but alsoNative 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 AmericanHeritage Commission (represented by the Center for Human Rights and ConstitutionalLaw), a state commission appointed by the Governor and charged with protectingNative American sacred sites and burial places.

For the Gabrielino Native Americans the university’s actions showed a lack ofunderstanding of their religious practices. In Western culture this would amount to thetearing down of a church in order to create a parking lot. The difference here is that thereare no walls to tear down and no permanent fixtures. This has been interpreted by theuniversity as the absence of any ‘cultural resources’ on the site.

Native Americans won an important victory on 3 September 1993 when a Los AngelesSuperior Court judge temporarily blocked the university’s planned development of thesite. The court ordered CSLB officials to be “restrained and enjoined … from causing anyfurther unnatural disturbance … and from baring appropriate Native American access tothe land at issue”.

In April 1995, however, the court ruled for the university, arguing that the lawprotecting Indian sacred places on public land is unconstitutional because it violates theprinciple of separation of church and state. This ruling was overturned on appeal by theappellate court, which ruled that the university lacked standing in court to raiseconstitutional issues since the university is a state agency, and the state cannot defenditself in court by saying that the laws it passes are unconstitutional. At any rate, thecurrent President of CSLB has pledged not to commercialize the site but preserve it asopen space.

While millions of dollars have been spent on the case and the legal battle continuesover the fate of Puvungna, it must be questioned what role, if any, planners have playedin this stalemate and how this case may affect planning practice? The site is zoned

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2015

The Multicultural City 265

‘institutional’, that is, for university use. The fight then is not between Native Americansand the city but between them and the university. In a sense, planners have absolvedthemselves of the problem.

Long Beach city planners, however, cannot be let off the hook. The City of Long Beachhas a historic ordinance that reads in part:

The City of Long Beach has recognized certain buildings and neighborhoodsas having special architectural and historical value. The City Council desig-nates historic landmarks, historic districts, historic places and objects by cityordinance. Historic landmark status for buildings in Long Beach may bedesignated if they have historic and/or architectural value. Historic districtsare 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 isin its natural state. Because the Puvungna religious site is left in its natural state, it is notrecognized by planners as historic. The fact that the Puvungna religious site was notspecifically identified in the land use map as a cultural resource worth preserving is amajor shortcoming of the city’s land use plan and of the ethnocentrism that guides theselection of historic sites in the city for preservation. The Supreme Court’s decision in thecase 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, theNavajo challenged the plan because it infringed on their religious practices. In a decisionby the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Sandra O’Connor, writing for the court, justified theagency’s actions by stating that the land in question was not actively used by the Navajofor 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 thedominant planning practice. The Devils Tower is a 600-foot mountain located innortheastern Wyoming (Figure 2). The historical and religious use of Devils Tower andsurrounding areas by Lakota people was acknowledged by the Fort Laramie Treaty of1868. 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, ordestroy 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 asacred religious site for many Native American tribes. The tower is also used byrecreational and commercial climbers. Over the past 30 years, the number of rockclimbers at the tower increased dramatically affecting not only the environment but alsothe religious practices of Native Americans. To address these conflicts in land use, theNational Park Service adopted a Final Climbing Management Plan (FCMP) for DevilsTower National Monument, which in part asked climbers to voluntarily refrain fromusing the site in the month of June when Native Americans engage in the Sun Dance andother ceremonies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

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 inclimbers in June, the Bear Lodge Municipal Use Association and other climbers chal-lenged the FCMP. The group sued the Department of Interior, arguing that the FCMPviolated the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from sponsoring, sup-porting, or becoming entangled in religious affairs. On 26 April 1999 the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Tenth Circuit Court dismissed the climbers’ lawsuit, ruling that theclimbers lacked standing and claimed no injury from the FCMP. The U.S. Supreme courtupheld 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 accom-modating and addressing competing land use claims. This, however, is often theexception rather than the rule.

Housing for Ethno-cultural Minorities

Another area where planners will be increasingly called upon to intervene is in theprovision of housing for ethno-cultural groups. The concern here is threefold: first, towhat extent do the specific housing needs of ethno-cultural groups matter?; second, doesthe 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 thehousing needs of ethno-cultural groups? To help answer these questions, considerationis given to the housing adequacy and living arrangements of ethno-cultural groups asthey are impacted by current planning practices.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2015

The Multicultural City 267

Housing Occupancy and Overcrowding4

One of the roles of planners is to ensure that adequate housing and community servicesare provided for residents of the community. One indicator of housing adequacy andaffordability is the extent of overcrowding that exists in housing units in a community.In the US, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) requires that plannersidentify their communities’ current and future housing needs and devise programs toaddress these needs through the use of this national Housing and Urban Development(HUD) funds. A preliminary review of these programs indicated that half of thecommunities applying for funding used overcrowding as one measure of their com-munities’ 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 centin 1990 to 5.7 per cent in 2000. Myers & Baer (1996) reported a similar trend for rentalhousing units. For example, they note that between 1980 and 1990 the incidence ofovercrowding in rental housing units rose from 7 per cent to 8.9 per cent. They alsoobserved that overcrowding is more prevalent among recent immigrants, Asian, andHispanic households than it is for white and African-American households. Further-more, the authors note that overcrowding among Asian households does not decreaseuntil you exceed 80 per cent of median incomes.

The conventional explanation for overcrowding is that there is a shortage of affordablehousing. The logical policy direction to ameliorate the problem is thus to increase theavailability of housing that is affordable to these groups. In the USA such policies havetypically included supplementing incomes of low-income households through housingvouchers 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 inarranging, recommending and administering these funds. They also help select qualifiedtenants who reside in these subsidized housing units. The problem is that programs andpolicies that are directed solely to increasing the availability of the affordable housingstock would not substantially decrease overcrowding rates among the ethno-culturalgroups that these programs are meant to help and may lead to an inefficient use of thenation’s limited housing dollars.

In the study by Myers & Baer (1996), overcrowding among Asian households did notdiminish even for higher-income households, suggesting that affordability may not bethe problem. A similar study by Choi (1993) led her to dismiss income as the majorexplanatory variable in overcrowding among Asian households. Instead, she noted thatAsians have a cultural preference for living in close quarters compared to other racial orethnic groups. Pader (1994) found space use both within and outside the house to beculturally differentiated. In her study of sleeping arrangements in Mexican families, shenoted that the manner in which space is arranged and used by Mexican families isdesigned to foster interdependence and sharing, not independence (see Figure 3). Bycontrast, houses in the USA are designed to ensure privacy, develop individualism anda sense of independence. “Cross-culturally”, Pader (1994, p. 129) observed, “it is com-mon to find more people sharing sleeping quarters and beds than would be acceptableby the dominant U.S. standards—and doing so by preference, not economic necessity”.

The implication of these findings is that understanding the cultural context ofovercrowding 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.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

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 intheir living arrangements and preferred standards” (p. 76). They suggest that rather thanfocusing on increasing affordable housing for ethno-cultural groups, planners shouldinstead direct their efforts to increasing the level of neighborhood services such asschools, parks and rubbish collection, since these services would have greater impact onthe welfare of these groups than an increase in the affordable housing stock. Here we seethat sensitivity to ‘pluralism’ leads to the crafting of more efficient and more effectiveprograms 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 ispredominantly white with minorities making up only 7.3 per cent of the city’s popu-lation in the 2000 Census. In the 1980s as part of a US resettlement program for refugeesfrom south-east Asia, the city became home to several Hmong5 families. The Hmong hadan agrarian culture and large families. Thus, it was not uncommon to have 6 to 10children in a household. As families were resettled in the City of Oshkosh, city plannerswere involved in trying to find housing for these families. Using Western standards ofhousing, it was felt that a minimum of a three-bedroom house or apartment was neededfor the large families. After a tedious search, housing was found for these families. Onone 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 theother two bedrooms.

Several weeks after the families were resettled, a city planner went to visit one ofthe families to see how they were doing in their new housing. To her surprise, shefound that the four children all crowded into one of the bedrooms while the thirdbedroom stood idle. After probing into the situation, she realized that Hmong familiespreferred their children to share the same bedroom since this bred closer bonds between

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2015

The Multicultural City 269

the siblings. As discussed above, this is contrary to the one person per room standardused 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 nordo they take into consideration the different cultural norms of a multicultural public. Forthe Hmong, a standard one bedroom for parents and a large bedroom for the childrenwould have been the preferred housing type. Such a provision could still ensure thathealth, safety and hygiene is maintained and would meet the cultural needs of thegroup. The shortcoming of current housing standards is that they lead to the productionof 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 tastesand ways of life. This example points to the need for planners to provide housingchoices and neighborhood differentiation that will accommodate the different housingneeds of a diverse population.

Despite the restrictive zoning and housing codes, several culture-oriented housingschemes are thankfully springing up across the country. Under the generic/umbrellaname of ‘intentional communities’, they include co-housing, co-operative housing, andeven some neo-traditional style communities such as Cerro Gordo in Cottage Grove,Oregon. According to the Cohousing Network, cohousing is a “collaborative housingthat attempts to overcome the alienation of modern subdivisions in which no one knowstheir neighbors, and there is no sense of community”. Residents typically have their ownhousing unit but share common community facilities such as lounges, dining area,recreation facilities and childcare. With this type of housing, residents “participate in theplanning 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 theACME Artist Cooperative in Chicago and the Bright Morning Star community in Seattlefor writers, musicians and the performing arts or ideology such as the communitarianCambridge cohousing in Cambridge, MA, or the environmentally based Earthhaven inBlack Mountain, NC and the Garden O’Vegan in Hawaii or religion, such as the Abodeof the Message in New Lebanon, NY. In a sense, such housing is culture-sensitive, meetspeople’s needs, and above all, is affordable.

This type of housing, however, is often seen as an aberration to the norm and residentsmay feel a stigma for living in such neighborhoods. Besides, several city zoningordinances 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 ofthe Coop Housing Network are rural, 28 per cent are urban, 10 cent have both rural andurban 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 planningprofession. 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 housingneeds of all groups in a community? How do planners ensure that what we selectivelypreserve for posterity reflects everyone’s view of their history?

In his classic book, The Reflective Practitioner, Schon (1983) talks about the dilemmas of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2015

270 M. Burayidi

professional practice. He notes that people may choose to practice in the high ground orin 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 isconstrained to deal with problems of relatively little social importance? Or shall hedescend to the swamp where he can engage with the most important and challengingproblems if he is willing to forsake technical rigor?” (Schon, 1983, p. 42).

This is the challenge facing the planning profession. We can continue to practiceplanning as it has always been and risk making ourselves irrelevant to much of societyor we can take the bold challenge and descend to the swampy lowland where problemsare much more messy and solutions difficult. The latter is suggested. To make planningrelevant 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 inthe culture of planning so that in tackling problems of the urban environment, plannersare cognizant of both the ‘real’ and the ‘symbolic’ meaning attached by different groupsto the environment. Planners should also consider the psychological as well as theobjective ends of their plans. Yet, this is the area of untidiness and one that would posethe most challenge for planners. Nevertheless, there are several pointers in the planningliterature to processes that have worked in other settings and that could provide a guideto planners facing multicultural problems. They include therapeutic techniques (Sander-cock, 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 theyprovide are beneficial, they are for the most part reactive in nature. That is, they aredesigned 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 accommodatediversity and so there is a failure to see that different cultures may have different waysof defining what is valuable and therefore worth preserving. Cities are not designed toprovide a choice for residents that do not fit the standardized housing and neighbor-hoods that are built, necessitating application for variances to accommodate housing forthose who do not fit the nuclear family tradition. In the USA, processes have not beenset up other than the adversarial approach to resolving conflicts, and so when such anapproach fails in a multicultural situation, there is a scramble for alternatives that takelonger to set up because few planners are competent enough to use the therapeutic,dialogue and dispute resolution approaches that a multicultural society calls for andneeds. In essence, the institutions and planning processes were not designed with‘difference’ in mind. This is the major obstacle to multicultural planning. The reactiveapproaches are knee jerk reactions that may solve ad hoc problems. What is needed is aredesign 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 planningprocesses at work. There has already been a description of how proactive planningaverted problems in the use of the ‘Devils Tower’. Another pioneering example ofproactive 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 embodiedpolicies and programs resulting from the expressed fears, concerns, interests andvalues of the city’s multicultural public. The stated goal of the plan is “to nurturecollaborative efforts, foster diversity and celebrate the richness of the community”. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2015

The Multicultural City 271

plan also states that “cultural issues will become an integral part of city policy andpartnerships; their legitimacy and importance will be acknowledged as part of the Cityof 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 thepreservation of cultural artifacts, but one that is supportive of the diversity of the peoplewho live in the city. In addition to the plan document, the city also appointed a culturalcommission to oversee its implementation. Because of the open and inclusive processthat was used in preparing the plan, the diverse groups in the community had a buy-inand a stake in the success of the plan because it reflects their needs.6 Perhaps if othercommunities had adopted Vancouver’s example, the conflicts that seem to erupt be-tween ethno-cultural groups and planners may not have occurred. This example alsoshows that it is possible to reconcile the principles of a liberal democracy with therequirements of multiculturalism.

However, planners must be able to recognize when culture matters and when it doesnot. Even for those cultural issues that are identified to be important, not all may requireplanning intervention. Some can be resolved through the legal system (for examplethrough anti-discrimination laws), and others through market processes (for example,retail outlets that provide goods to ethnic communities). Deciphering these differencesrequires skills that can be acquired through diversity education and training. To thisend, planning schools and organizations such as the American Institute of CertifiedPlanners (AICP) and the American Planning Association (APA) should provide opportu-nities for planners to receive cultural sensitivity training. Many professions ranging fromphysicians to teachers, librarians and businesses are now urging their members toengage in such training. This is an acknowledgement that with cultural diversity hascome 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 animportant aspect of planning practice.

Cultural sensitivity in planning will enhance (i) communication skills of planners sothat they are able to interact with a multicultural public; and (ii) give planners a betterunderstanding of the beliefs, values and customs of different cultural groups so that theydevelop insight into the lenses through which these groups operate. Cultural sensitivitytraining has the potential of making planners culturally competent and planningculturally effective.

When planners are culturally competent, they learn the principles that help them todiscern the pertinent beliefs and customs of cultural groups and so are able to helpprovide plans that reflect the needs of these groups. When plans are culturally effectivethey blend the conventional planning techniques and strategies with the felt needs andworld views of cultural groups to produce programs and policies that make positivechanges in the well being of these groups.

Planners can become culturally sensitive in several ways. First, there is the need forcurriculum changes that require students in planning schools to immerse themselves incultural group settings so as to learn through participant observation that complimentsthe standard data collection and analysis process that is so prevalent in many USplanning schools. Second, through cultural workshops, practicing planners may gain thecompetence of working and practicing planning for a multicultural public. Thesechanges should be mandated by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning(ACSP) accreditation body. Experience shows that voluntary compliance is unlikely towork.

In conclusion, planning is about helping people to reflect on their needs and to find

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2015

272 M. Burayidi

creative ways to meet these needs. This objective cannot be achieved if people feelestranged from the process. The potential for this feeling of alienation is more so formulticultural groups than it is for those in the dominant culture. This means thatextraneous efforts have to be found to bring these groups into the process. The modestsuggestions made here provide a starting point for planners to help the ‘whole public’to reflect on and take action to meet their needs.

Notes

1. These are usually single use zones that do not permit other uses within the district.2. 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.3. 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.4. The U.S. Census Bureau defines overcrowding as a situation in which there is more than one person per

room in a housing unit.5. 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.6. 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).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

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 theAmerican Planning Association, Winter 58(1), pp. 49–60.

Schon, 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 (Washing-ton, DC).

Wallace, M. & Milroy, B. (1999) Intersecting claims: planning in Canada’s cities, in: T. Fenster (Ed.) GenderPlanning and Human Rights (London, Routledge).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

couv

er I

slan

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

10 2

7 Se

ptem

ber

2015