Journal of the American Planning Association

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

Pluralistic Planning for Multicultural Cities: The

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

Published online: 26 Nov 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1065

View related articles

Citing articles: 25 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpa20
Download by: [Vancouver Island University]

Date: 26 September 2015, At: 21:55

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

Pluralistic
Plannin for
Multicu tural
Cities

Multiculturalism necessitates broadening the scope o f pluralism in planning. Ethnic minorities often require a
divergent set o f community services,
housing facilities and neighborhood
arrangements. The multinationalism
o f the global economy is further diversifying built forms and functions in
contemporary cities. Canada, an acknowledged multicultural society, has
encountered pressures to diversify the
way urban facilities, services and structures are provided. How the Canadian
planning system has been responding
to these pressures is the subject ofthis
article. Through case studies and illustrative examples, the article surveys
the range o f planning issues arising
from multiculturalism and describes
the patterns ofCanadian responses. I t
concludes by outlining lessons drawn
from Canadian experiences about how
multiculturalism extends the meaning
o f pluralism in planning.
Qadeer is a professor in the School o f
Urban and Regional Planning, Queens
University, Canada. His longstanding
interest in cross-cultural studies o f urban development and planning has led
to his exploration o f cultural-sensitive
planning in Western countries. On this
theme he has contributed a chapter,
Urban Planning and Multiculturalism
in Ontario, Canada, in Race Equality
and Planning, edited by Huw Thomas
and Vijay Krishnarayan (Avebury,
1994).
Journal of the American Planning
Association, Vol. 63, No. 4, Autumn
1997. OAmerican Planning
Association, Chicago, IL.

The Canadian Practice

Mohammad A. Qadeer

tree can be the source of neighborhood battles, as shown in Toronto

by the nature meets culture headlines in The Globe and Mail.
Italians and Portuguese like to keep trees short, allowing a better
view of the neighbours. Anglo-Saxons want trees to be tall and leafy,
blocking any views from and to neighborhood houses. The Chinese believe trees in front of a home bring bad luck. As if these different preferences were not enough, the city has strict bylaws that prohibit cutting
down trees, but allow pollarding (trimming trees into a high bush), which
is favored by Europeans (The Globe and Mail 1995a, A10). This example
illustrates how multiculturalism permeates even small details of urban
life. It also embodies the planning issues that arise from the cultural diversity of local populations, such as the uniformity of policies and standards, differences in citizens wants, equity in accommodating the needs
of divergent groups, and public versus private interests in the spatial expressions of cultural values.
These issues form the background of this article. The article has an
empirical bias in that it focuses on those institutional accommodations
to citizens cultural diversity that are observable in planning practice. It
delineates how ethnic minorities are finding their places in the planning
system and the changes in planning policies and standards that are occurring in response to cultural and social diversity. Thus the broad question addressed here is how multiculturalism has affected planning
policies and strategies in Canada.
Specifically, the article identifies the public issues arising from the
divergent requirements for space and services found in different ethnic
groups, and the Canadian planning systems responses. Canada is an
appropriate setting for studying these issues. It is an acknowledged

APA JOURNALAUTUMN 1997

MOHAMMAD A. QADEER

multicultural society and is explicitly committed to

sustaining the cultural heritage of minorities. Its experiences may hold lessons for other countries with large
immigrant populations.

Mapping the Conceptual Terrain

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

This section identifies the areas or aspects of Canadian planning likely to be affected by cultural diversity.2To begin with, key terms should be defined.
Multiculturalism as a public philosophy acknowledges racial and cultural differences in a society and
encourages their sustenance and expression as constituent elements of a national social order (Fleras and
Elliott 1992; Muller 1993). This philosophy envisages
the society as a mosaic of beliefs, practices and customs, not as a melting pot assimilating different racial
and cultural groups. The Canadian Multiculturalism
Act of 1988 defines multiculturalism as a policy designed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians while working to achieve the
equality of all. Multiculturalism has two defining
principles: (1) the right to practice and preserve heritage, collectively as well as individually; that is, not
only are Chinese or Ukranians free to speak their languages at home, but they also have the right to form
associations, organize communities, and practice their
customs and religions as a group; and (2) equality of
rights and freedoms under the law for all individuals and communities (Fleras and Elliott 1992, 22-3).
Both these principles have direct bearing on urban
planning.
Increasingly, the effectiveness of urban planning is
assessed by its responsiveness to citizens needs and
goals. Given that interests and preferences differ by
social class, race, gender, and cultural background, the
responsiveness of urban planning depends on its ability to accommodate citizens divergent social and cultural needs and to treat individuals and groups
equitably in meeting those needs. To fulfill these requirements, the first step is to eliminate overt 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.
In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and the post-1960s social consensus against racism
have largely eliminated overt forms of discrimination,
particularly of the type, Blacks or Indians need not
apply. However, the cultural values embedded in historical practices, public policies, administrative procedures, and regulatory standards are another matter.
Planning policies and standards presumably are based
on universalist criteria. Often they are backed by historic practices and established professional conven-

1
482

APA JOURNAL AUTUMN 1997

tions. Yet they originate from social patterns and

cultural values of the dominant communities, namely,
in Canada, the English or the French. Torontos tree
bylaw, described earlier, is a case in point. A seemingly
neutral regulation about tree maintenance is in fact
an embodiment of English/European preferences.
Should this bylaw be amended to accommodate the
preferences of diverse communities, particularly now
that trees have become icons of a new environmentalism? How should competing values be balanced?
This is the challenge of dealing with cultural biases
embedded in historical practices.
A Rawlsian framework, Equity Planning, or Pareto
Optimality may be theoretical models for mediating
among competing interests, but they largely address
issues of economic distribution between the rich and
the p00r.~In practice, intercommunity equity in fulfilling social needs is often pursued through political
bargaining and administrative procedures. This is particularly the case with planning policies and regulations. A t present, it is enough to flag the cultural
predispositions of planning policies and standards as
the area of contentions arising from multiculturalism.
A second aspect of urban planning with a bearing
on multicultural communities is its reliance on property development as its instrument. Critics of urban
planning have long held its property-centered approach to be a factor that limits realization of its
promise to promote peoples welfare and equity, and
efficiency. Multiculturalism requires that planning instruments be both sensitive to and responsive to the
social needs of particular communities and therefore
calls all the more for people-centered approaches. Any
cleavage between social objectives and institutional instruments is further sharpened by multiculturalism;
the appropriateness of instruments can be called into
question on the grounds of their relevance to culturally diverse communities.
Probably the most striking impact of multiculturalism on urban planning comes from the presence of
ethnic neighborhoods and ethnic business enclaves.
The emergence of ethnic residential and business districts brings up an enduring concern of urban planning, namely, striking a balance between social
segregation and integration.
Urban planning has long espoused social integration as a guiding value (Gans 1961), aiming to promote communities mixed across races and classes. Yet,
a central process shaping urban structure is the spatial
clustering of activities and social groups based on the
advantages of agglomeration economies as well as on
community sentiments. Such clusters usually occur as
a result of the convergence of a multitude of individ-

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

PLURALISTIC PLANNING FOR MULTICULTURAL CITIES

ual choices and are seldom preplanned. They can take

forms as different as a theater district or a Ukrainian
village.
When the real estate market creates an ethnic concentration, pressure builds for the provision of appropriate services and regulations. In most such
situations, the ethnic communitys needs have to be
reconciled with the requirements of other residents of
an area and also with city-wide objectives. A balancing
act of public policy, making trade-offs among different
objectives and values, is called for.
The present public attitude toward ethnic concentrations reflects the notion that residential or business
concentrations arising from individual choices freely
exercised without prejudice to others should be sustained, whereas socially or racially homogeneous
neighborhoods formed through discriminatory practices and explicit or implicit exclusionary policies
should be recognized as prejudicial to the public interest. This distinction is based on structural factors:
those external to individuals (discriminatory practices
and policies) versus those internal to individuals (motivation and preference, free choice) (Moghaddam
1994, 246). Social segregation at the block or neighborhood level that arises from dispositional factors is
voluntary as long there are no barriers to others who
may want to live there. The acceptability of social segregation or integration in a city is determined by the
process of its formulation and by its function, not by
the density of concentration.
To sum up the foregoing discussion, multiculturalism affects urban planning in two ways. The first is
that it holds planning policies and standards up to the
light of social values and public goals. Are policies equitable both procedurally and substantively in satisfying the needs of diverse individuals and groups? Is
there a cultural bias in their universalist criteria? How
can the competing interests of mainstream and of minority communities be balanced?
Second, multiculturalism recognizes the legitimacy of ethnic neighbourhoods and enclaves. The
emergence of these spatial concentrations affects urban planning by precipitating questions about the internal structure of the city as a whole, and challenging
social policies to balance the advantages of neighborhood homogeneity with the public goals of openness
and equal access by all.
A fundamental effect of multiculturalism is to call
for pluralistic planning approaches and to question
unitary conceptions of public interest and the ideology of master plans. Davidoffs idea of pluralism as
a planning approach comes close to accommodating
multiculturalism (Davidoff 1965). His concept has

roots in equity and a commitment to open bargaining

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

Multiculturalism in Canada
Canada has been a multicultural country from its
beginning. In the mosaic of aboriginal cultures and
languages there, multiculturalism extends back to antiquity. The European settlement, though led by the
two founding communities of the British and the
French, also included Germans, Russians, Chinese,
and Ukrainians, among others. Thus, Canada had
been a multicultural society long before that was acknowledged in federal policy. Canada has long regarded itself as a mosaic of cultures, in contrast to the
United States, which is described by the metaphor of a
melting pot (Hayward 1922). This distinction, albeit
overdrawn, has shaped Canadian attitudes towards
multiculturalism. The Trudeau government in 1971
formally acknowledged a policy of multiculturalism
within a bilingual framework.. . . [to] support and encourage the various cultures and ethnic groups that
give structure and vitality to our society (House of
Commons, The Prime Ministers Statement 1971). In
1988, the Government proclaimed Canadas policy on
multiculturalism, recognizing and promoting the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledging the freedom of all members of Canadian
society to preserve, enhance, and share their cultural
heritage (Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada
1991, 5-6). These policies have given official sanction
to a sociological reality; nonetheless, in practice, official multiculturalism neither ensures that all communities enjoy equal rights and social standing nor
stands as an unquestioned policy.sAs Porter observed,
the Canadian mosaic is organized vertically, with the
English as the top layer (Porter 1965).
How Multicultural is Canada?
The cultural characteristics of the Canadian population are measured by three indicators: ethnic origin,
status as an immigrant, and language(s) spoken at
home. Indicators yield different, though overlap-

APA JOUILVALAUTUMN 1997

1483

MOHAMMAD A. QADEER

TABLE 1. Ethnic origins, Canada, 1991

Ethnicity:
Single Origins*

No.
26,994,045

%
(100.0%)

Total

19,199,790

(71.1)

British
French
East European
South European
Asian and African
Others

5,611,050
6,146,600
946,810
1,379,030
1,633,660
3,482,640

(20.8)
(22.8)
( 3.5)
( 5.1)
( 6.1)
(1 2.0)

Ethn icity:
Multiple Origins*

NO.

Total

7,794,250

(28.9)

British and others

French and others
Other combinations

2,516,840
425,190
4,852,220

( 9.3)
( 1.6)
(1 8.0)

*Only selected categories are reported

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

Source: Statistics Canada (CAT 93-31 5 )

ping images of Canadian society, but all reveal a wide

range of ethnic diversity.
In the 1991 census, a minority of the Canadian
population (44 percent) classified themselves as of either British or French origins only-the two founding
settler communities (table 1).The rest, a majority, either gave more than one ethnic origin or identified
themselves as being of nonfounding communities.
Ethnicity is a significant factor, then, in the personal
identity of the majority population.
Another way of presenting the ethnic diversity of
the Canadian population is to review the proportions
of immigrant groups. In 1991, there were 4.3 million16 percent of the population-recent (post-1961) immigrants in Canada (Badets 1993, 1).Immigrants represented almost one-quarter of the population of
Ontario and British Columbia. Since most immigrants settle in metropolitan areas, Canadian cities
have become strikingly multicultural. In 1991, about
38 percent (1.5 million) of Metropolitan Torontos, 30
percent of Vancouvers, and 17 percent of Montreals
population were immigrants. Even second-tier cities
had high concentrations of immigrants: 24 percent in
Hamilton, 22 percent in Kitchener, 2lpercent in Windsor (Badets 1993, 10-1).
Historically, immigrants came from Europe, but
from 1971 onward the sources of immigration became
increasingly diverse ethnically. In the decade 19811991, Hong Kong was the birthplace of the largest
number of immigrants; Poland was second and the
Peoples Republic of China third. During that decade,
the majority of immigrants came from Asia or the
Middle East. Data show that more of the immigrants
are coming with high levels of education and professional skills (Badets 1993, 1).In 1991, 6.1 percent of
the Canadian population was of African or Asian origin, that is, they were visible minorities. Canada is also
becoming a polyglot country. In 1991, about 13 per-

484 APA JOURNAL-AUTUMN 1997

cent of the Canadian population reported a language

other than English or French as their mother tongue,
an increase from 11 percent in 1981.
On all three indicators-ethnic origins, immigrant
population percentages, and home language-ethnic
diversity in Canada is both wide-ranging and increasing in recent times. Cities are the loci of this multiculturalism. Multiculturalism in Canadian cities is not
altogether new, however, as the next section explains.

Multiculturalism: Old and New

Most thriving cities are multicultural. Phrases
such as babble of tongues and throngs of strangers
were coined to describe the social life of cities. Over
and above this general characteristic, Canadian cities
have long been strikingly multicultural on account of
continual immigration from abroad. Historically, immigrant ghettos and ethnic enclaves have been the emblems of urban Canadas multiculturalism. Winnipeg
in the 1920s, for example, was composed of a number
of subcommunities distinguished by ethnicity, religion, and class (Artibise 1977, 302). Torontos immigrant quarters were distinctly different from the main
city even in the 19th century. The question then is: If
multiculturalism is a long tradition of Canadian cities,
what is new about it that affects the planning system?
Contemporary ethnic studies distinguish between
old and new multiculturalism (Fleras and Elliott
1992). The old multiculturalism or cultural mosaic
was a private affair of immigrants, expected to dissolve
or be diluted with their assimilation (Harney 1985,
5-6; Fleras and Elliott 1992,317). It conferred no public rights. The old mosaic was confined to working
class, immigrant districts, typical of Burgess zone of
transitions, in the heart of a city.
The new mosaic is acknowledged by public
ideology and official policy. It is based on the postWorld War I1 notions of human rights and the

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

PLURALISTIC PLANNING FOR MULTICULTURAL CITIES

equality of citizens. Though still largely driven by immigration, the new mosaic is also sustained by the circulation across national borders of corporations,
labor, and information. Tourists and sojourning executives and professionals contribute to the new multiculturalism. The post-industrial economy and the rise
of internationalism and globalization have turned cultural diversity into an economic asset. At the same
time, they have also accelerated the diffusion of one
culture into another. Multiculturalism is, in the words
of one observer, the united colors of capitalism
(Mitchell 1993).
These changes mean that the new multiculturalism is not limited to the poor and to downtown core
areas. It has spread to suburbs, creating bourgeois ethnic enclaves. It has spawned new spatial and architectural forms. The result is that todays Canadian
metropolitan areas are having to consider the rights of
ethnics to organize their social lives in accordance
with their preferences and values. How such entitlements alter the planning system is observable in both
its planning process and its policies about neighborhood development, housing, and public services. I examine these aspects in the remainder of the article.

Multiculturalism, Social Diversity,

and the Planning Process
The cultural and racial diversity of citizens bears
on the planning process in three ways. First, it affects
the rational-technical component; race and culture
have become significant analytical categories for assessing public needs and analyzing social conditions.
Delineating neighborhoods by ethno-cultural criteria,
mapping catchment areas for community services
along socio-linguistic lines, and analyzing housing
conditions by race and ethnicity are examples of planning methodologies that are emerging with the acknowledgement of multiculturalism. They constitute
a paradigm shift in the methods of defining a local
community, as seen in the analytical work of planning departments.
Second, planners must now be sensitive to the
needs of individuals (and groups) in new ways, largely
in how they listen to clients and how they interpret
and apply regulations to them, particularly those in
minority communities. What treatment do persons of
color, unusual names, thick accents, or non-English or
non-French ancestry get from planning departments?
Are there systematic biases in planning procedures
and outlook that put minority communities at a disadvantage? The Royal (British) Town Planning Institute found that ethnic and racial minorities suffered

high refusal rates for development permissions (Krishnarayan and Thomas 1993, 23). No similar study for
Canada is known. Yet it is the case that ethnic communities often complain about getting short shrift from
planners.
Third, the scope and procedures of citizen involvement in the planning process have to be modified to
accommodate multicultural policies. It is on this score
that the planning process has shown the greatest responsiveness to the diversity of citizens.
Vancouver and Toronto have led in facilitating the
participation of ethnic communities in the making of
official plans. Vancouvers city plan process set up citizens circles in neighborhoods and invited ethnic
community associations, as well as individuals, to
identify needs and articulate their goals. Separate
info-lines were set up in four nonofficial languages
(Chinese, Punjabi, Spanish, Vietnamese) to give out information and receive comments (City of Vancouver
1993a). Similarly, Metropolitan Toronto and the City
of Toronto, separately, set up elaborate consultative
procedures that facilitate the participation of ethnic
communities. The City of Ottawa hstributes notices
and information about planning proposals in the heritage languages of an areas residents and regularly consults with ethnic community organizations. The
Winnipeg Core Area Plan has similarly attempted to
solicit the participation of Native and Ukrainian communities. All in all, the formal processes of citizen
involvement are beginning to be tailored specificallyto
include ethnic communities. In metropolitan centers,
then, the planning process is beginning to accommodate multiculturalism, at least in seeking the opinions
and input of minorities. The practice has not yet filtered down to small cities or the rest of the country,
where ethnic communities are not yet a significant political force.
The next step in pluralistic practices of planning
is to include minorities on decision-making bodies.
Torontos proposed official plan urges the city council
to include ethno-cultural and racial communities in
city committees and working groups (City of Toronto
1991, 13).Also important is the appointment co planning departments of professionals from minority
communities. The diversity of planners backgrounds
ensures appreciation of cultural and racial differences.
In the same vein, representation of minorities among
elected and nominated executives at local and provincial levels is a necessary condition for bringing a multicultural perspective to public decision-makingbodes.
On decision-making bodies, the progress towards accommodating multiculturalism is slower than that in
the participatory aspects of the planning process.

APA JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997

MOHAMMAD A. QADEER

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

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

Neighborhood Planning: Stability and Change

Historically, ethnic residential concentrations have
been features of Canadian cities. Toronto, Montreal,
and Vancouver, of course, had Chinese, French, Jewish,
and Italian districts in the late 19th century. Prairie
cities had sizable concentrations of Eastern Europeans
and Natives, and even a small town, Fort William, Ontario, had a Finnish colony. Clearly, residential segregation by ethnicity and class has been an historical feature
of Canadian cities. Kalbach concludes from an analysis
of residential segregation in Toronto that sociocultural assimilation reflected in declining residential
segregation through successive generations can be
found only in a few populations of British and other
Western and Northern European origins (Kalbach
1990, 130). In Canada as elsewhere, the barrier presented by physiognomic characteristics was particularly
difficult to cross in the process of assimilation. Chinese
and West Indians, though they favored blending into
the larger society, encountered the most problems in
doing so (Breton et al. 1990,257).
The revised immigration law (1968) as well as the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms have transformed Canadian cities. They have eliminated overt discrimination. In addition, immigrants now are by and large
better educated, often technicians and professionals
or, lately, investors and entrepreneurs. Large proportions of recent immigrants are visible minorities. Most
settle in metropolitan areas and head directly to the
suburbs. They are forming ethnic concentrations in
new parts of cities. Furthermore, the urban structure
itself is changing. Cities have spilled out to form
multi-focal metropolises. Edge cities have emerged.
These new urban forms are socially more diverse.
Bourne observes that all of the larger urban areas in
Canada except Quebec City show substantially higher
indices of diversity in 1981 than in 1971 (Bourne
1989, 319). A new social mosaic is evident in the suburbs: Agincourt in metropolitan Toronto, Vancouvers
Richmond area, and Montreals West and North Island are obvious examples of neighborhoods of the
new mosaic. Such ethnic concentrations are evident
too in edge cities like Mississauga, Brampton, Richmond Hill, and Surrey.
The social mix characteristic of the new multicul-

1
486

APA JOURNALAUTUMN 1997

turalism is also reflected in the fashionable districts of

central cities. Here clubs, bars, boutiques, gift shops,
and restaurants offering a variety of ethnic goods intermingle, serving youth, yuppies, and tourists. Even
new waterfront developments-Harbourfront, Granville Island, and Old Montreal-are hip places by virtue of the cultural diversity of their commercial
establishments. These new expressions of multiculturalism mix ethnicities to create cosmopolitan districts.
Thus, multiculturalism now serves two functions.
First, it fulfills the social needs of ethnic communities,
and, second, it weaves diversity of both activities and
built forms into urban and regional structures. These
functions bear directly on neighborhood planning,
which must mediate between the competing interests
of stability and change.
Socially, neighborhoods change continually; residents leave or die, and new households move in. Yet
neighborhoods are considered stable as long as the
change is incremental. With the movement of a new
ethnic group, a different social class, or new activities
into a neighborhood, however, the rate of change accelerates to the point that it reorganizes a local community, disturbs the social patterns, and necessitates
the realignment of neighborhood services. Multiculturalism comes to permeate an area through such a
process of change. Although the process is largely
market-based, the planning system is called upon to
intervene as different groups of residents respond to
marked change in a neighborhood.
Old residents come calling on the planning institutions to protect their interests. The new arrivals seek
fair treatment and accommodation of their needs and
preferences. Zoning challenges, public hearings, and
school board meetings become battlegrounds for
these competing groups. Neighborly spats or personal
biases often are pursued through planning hearings
and appeals. The planning system becomes an arena
not only for contesting ethnic interests, but for more
personal conflicts as well. It may or may not have the
mandate, resources, or instruments to resolve social
conflicts and fulfill the demands of divergent groups.
The systems effectiveness lies in separating public policy issues from interest group agendas. If it succeeds
in balancing competing interests fairly, it will have fulfilled its mandate. These lessons come through in the
case histories, reported in the next section.

Case Histories of Planning

Responses to Multiculturalism
Metropolitan Toronto: Agincourts Chinese M d s
Agincourt, in Scarborough, is an example of a typical Canadian planning systems response to the is-

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

PLURALISTIC PLANNING FOR MULTICULTURAL CITIES

sues precipitated when a racial and cultural minority

settles in an established neighborhood. Agincourt is a
neigborhood in the incorporated suburb, Scarborough, in the Greater Toronto Area. As Scarboroughs
population rose, Chinese restaurants, grocery stores,
and travel agencies opened. In 1983 a developer proposed to convert a roller skating rink into an indoor
Chinese shopping mall, the Dragon Centre. It met
opposition from the community and the local alderman due to its ethnic character, but which was expressed as concerns about design. The city council
approved the mall with modifications in parking requirements and restaurant space. The mini-mall of
32,500 sq. ft. has about 25 units, including a bank, a
large restaurant, noodle shops, a beauty salon, a grocery, a butcher, and a bakery, and electronic goods and
book stores.
From 1984 through 1987, eleven other malls, plazas or office complexes for Chinese clientele were developed. Only a few were built specifically for Chinese
businesses, but the others were in fact leased mostly
by stores dealing in Chinese goods. The malls, with
areas of 10,000-42,000 sq. ft., are typical neighborhood plazas: an L-shaped building for stores, set
across an office block enclosing a parking lot. Their
designs have to follow city guidelines. Apart from signage and decorative features, their architecture is not
distinctively Chinese; planning and design guidelines
preempted that.
All but two of the developments needed zoning
changes. Some cases needed official plan amendments,
as well, for site configurations, the mix of proposed
commercial, office or industrial uses, or parking requirements. An issue specific to Chinese commercial
use was the inclusion of large banquet halls and restaurants as mall anchors. These became symbols of the
malls Chinese character and stimulated neighborhood objections that targeted parking and congestion.
The planning department steered through these
controversies by taking a neutral stance toward users
ethnicity, supporting openness in the real estate market, and limiting planning interest to matters of physical development. The parking requirements for
restaurants were raised, and site layouts were closely
monitored in response to neighborhood concerns. The
city council was buffeted by, on the one hand, its commitment to promote development and, on the other,
by having to accommodate pressures from resistant
neighborhoods. It steered a gingerly course between
ethnic provocations and the passions about neighborhood stability versus change. By addressing specific
zoning and site plan issues and by providing a forum
for contending interests, the planning process helped
to manage neighborhood change. It did not offer a

grand physical or social design, but it worked incrementally to promote mutual adjustment.
Vancouver: Monster Homes in Kerrisdale and
South Shaughnessy
A similar strategy is evident in the case of the
Monster Homes of Vancouver. In the 1980s, Vancouver aggressively elicited capital from Hong Kong and
Taiwan. Immigrating entrepreneurs and professionals
then fueled the real estate boom, driving up housing
prices. In Kerrisdale and Shaughnessy, which are leafy
Victorian neighborhoods, Asian immigrants rebuilt
homes to suit their tastes and activities. Within the
zoning envelope, the newcomers used the permissible
coverage and setbacks to create massive and lavish
homes nicknamed Monster Homes. The long-time residents fiercely demanded that the city prohibit such
development. The controversy simmered for about
two years, often assuming ethnic overtones (Mdcleuns
1994).
The planning system had been caught by surprise,
since the new homes conformed to the regulations. A
strategy similar to that described in the Toronto example was pursued. The Mayor and the City Council
designated the neighborhoods as a special study area
and asked the Planning Department to review the
RS-1 Zoning. The Planning Department held public
hearings that brought together representatives of the
original residents and the new Asian residents to hammer out a compromise resulting in the adoption of
new (1993) design guidelines. They required builders
of homes to take into account streetscape, the architecture of adjacent homes, and the landscape. The
maximum allowable size was unchanged, but brought
under design control.
These measures diffused the public controversy,
but added about six weeks of development review to
the approval process for new homes in these neighborhoods, as compared to the three days it used to take
to get a building permit. A classic confrontation of
neighborhood change versus tradition was managed
by developing a design policy and tuning up the
zoning by-laws. Here, again, the planning process addressed mainly design concerns and steered a
middle position between contending interests. The
lesson here, too, is that planning should ensure fair
treatment and limit its interventions to mandated policy issues.
Metropolitan Toronto: Kingsview Park (The
Dixon Case)
The Dixon case, on the other hand, is an example of cultural and racial tensions arising entirely

APA JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997

/487

MOHAMMAD A. OADEER

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

from changes in the tenure mix of the housing market

and the demographic mix of the community. Here the
central question is how to reconstitute a local community after dramatic demographic changes.
A television documentary and numerous newspaper articles have made the Dixon Complex notorious
as an example of a neighborhood gone awry.
Kingsview Park is a highrise condominium complex
of six buildings containing 1,794 apartments, built in
1971 along the four-lane Dixon Road in Etobicoke,
a suburban municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.
Kingsview Park was first inhabited by young families
and empty-nesters who were mostly owner-occupants;
about half had migrated from Europe shortly after
World War 11.
Within a few years of its development, the social
composition of this complex began to change. As
young owner-occupants moved out, the vacancies
were filled by recent immigrants from Southern Europe and Asia. The proportion of renters rose steadily,
to about 12 percent in 1977.
Torontos property boom of the 1980s attracted
speculator-investors, absentee owners who rented
out apartments while waiting for capital gains. By
1989-91, 25 percent of the apartments were renteroccupied. Then, because of high vacancies and downturn in the property market, occupancy gradually
filtered down in the rental market to the Somalis who
had come in the most recent wave of immigration.
By 1994, poor Somalis occupied 59 percent of the
rental units and were 35 percent of Kingsview Parks
population. This change in the complexs tenure-mix
and social composition precipitated ethnic tensions
and cultural conflicts between white owner-occupants
and the Condominium Board, and black tenants. A series of confrontations between Somali youths and the
management and security personnel culminated in a
riot that spilled onto Dixon Road and blocked traffic
on July 30, 1993. This breakdown of the local community prompted public intervention.
The Mayor and the Municipal Council of Etobicoke responded to the riot by forming the Dixon
Road Community Response Team and the Task Force
on Residential Overcrowding. The Planning Department was represented on these bodies. The Task Force
recommended a review of security and management
in the buildings, race and cultural sensitivity training
for security personnel, and formation of residents
committees, along with other measures. The planning
issue was framed as a matter of housing occupancy:
overcrowding in rented apartments became the focal
point of the Task Force. The issue targeted mostly Somali households, which tend to be large and have long
been viewed as harboring friends and relatives.

J
488

AFA JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997

Conventional urban planning had no defined role

in this profound cultural clash; yet there were continual calls from one or the other parties for the planning
department to get involved despite the fact that on
these issues it had little authority. The need was for
social planning and community organization. Instead,
the proposed solutions to the Dixon Complex include regulations to discourage overcrowding and a
recommendation to amend provincial legislation to
allow municipal inspectors the authority to enter private dwelling without warrants. In short, the planning
response to this social and cultural clash was simply
to tune up property standards and create the statutory
instruments to enforce them.
These cases illustrate public issues precipitated by
the diversification of forms, functions, and populations in neighborhoods. The Canadian planning system usually muddles through such changes. It favors
neighborhood stability, but promotes development. It
has neither the authority nor the tools to intervene
forcefully in real estate markets propelled by individual choices. And, indeed, multiculturalism calls into
question current notions about stability and social
mix in neighborhoods. It adds another reason for reexamining the social assumptions of urban plans, already being questioned on other grounds. Sewell concludes that stable residential neighborhoods may not
be a good place to call home and cites conclusions of
other observers in support of his observations (Sewell
1994, 67). Social harmony and balance, rather than
stability alone, should be the guiding principle for
multicultural neighborhoods- this is the lesson from
the Dixon case.
The overarching implication of the Canadian experience is that the role of the planning system in
managing social change in neighborhoods is limited.
In particular, planning regulations cannot and should
not be based on the characteristics of clients, though
policies aiming to satisfy peoples needs do have to
apply performance measures. It follows, then, that the
planning system has not forged any systematic approach to sustain and promote cultural diversity of
neighborhoods.

Ethnic Business Enclaves

Multiculturalism also manifests itself in the commercial structure of cities, in the form of ethnic business enclaves, whether as sectoral specialization such
as Koreans dominating the flower trade or Punjabis
managing the taxi service, or spatial enclaves like the
concentration of restaurants, food stores, and dress
boutiques in Chinatown or the Greek village. Both are
distinct economic formations in which ethnic solidarity and cultural norms undergird the transactions

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

PLURALISTIC PLANNING FOR MULTICULTURAL CITIES

among establishments as well as among owners, managers, and workers (Portes and Bach 1985).
In Canadian cities, local businesses of ethnic
neighborhoods have been the basis of their cultural
economies. Often they have extended their markets
beyond their surrounding neighborhoods. In fact, not
all immigrant-owned businesses target ethnic populations; many serve mainstream markets. An historical
example of ethnic entrepreneurs in the mainstream
economy is seen in the Chinese eateries that Chinese
cooks who had been laid off by the Canadian Pacific
Railway started in little villages of the Prairie provinces in the late 19th century. To this day, they are the
main restaurants/hotels in small places-commercial
manifestations of the old multiculturalism.
Since the 1970s) a new and vigorous form of ethnic business enclaves has emerged in Canadian metropolitan areas. Torontos revitalized Chinatown and its
Chinese suburban malls and office clusters, its Indian
bazaars and Greek villages, and its Punjabi malls are
obvious examples. Similar clusters have emerged in
Vancouver and Montreal, and on a small scale in Calgary and Winnipeg. These enclave commercial districts serve metropolitan markets, creating a niche
in the regional economy. They have been created
through private initiatives; they were not planned or
even anticipated by planning authorities.
City planning has often come to acknowledge the
enclaves once they have been formed. Its reactive role
consists of sustaining and consolidating them, frequently in the face of some local opposition that is
expressed as concern about density and traffic, but
that has an ethnic and racial subtext. At best, the planning system takes a circumscribed view of its jurisdiction in such situations. Focusing on development
issues and regulatory requirements, it uses them as
the means for mediating among competing interests
and groups. The planning system faces a dilemma: it
cannot plan or zone by the characteristics of persons,
yet it has to acknowledge the cultural bases of an enclaves economy.

Ottawa:Somerset Heights
Ottawas Somerset Heights area, the citys hub of
multicultural commercial establishments, illustrates
the planning systems response to the formation of an
ethnic business enclave, as recounted by Marc Labelle
(1992).
Ottawa, the capital of Canada and center of a regional municipality, has been a bicultural city, though
with the French language and culture not always obvious. In the past twenty-five years, however, the city
has undergone a social and cultural transformation.
Its Francophone population has gained prominence,
and recently Italians, East Europeans, and Asians have
become a presence.
Somerset Street has evolved into the center for Ottawas ethnic businesses. Between Bay and Rochester
Streets, it has become the spine of Ottawas Chinatown or, more accurately, of a multicultural neighborhood. Its modest homes, which had declined in the
postwar period, have been revived by immigrantsItalians and Chinese at first, and more recently, Arabs,
South Asians, and Africans. Since 1971, dim sum halls,
Chinese restaurants, groceries, and gift shops have
made the area into a Chinatown. In the late 198Os,
Vietnamese businesses started to appear, and now Caribbean and Middle Eastern stores are also springing
up. The area has become a multicultural business enclave with a predominance of East Asian stores. The
story of its transformation is shown in table 2.
Over a 30-year period, 1961-1991, area businesses
increased from 60 to 101, mostly ethnic establishments. The Asian (Chinese) businesses dominated the
street after 1971, steadily increasing from about 8 percent of ethnic businesses to 81 percent in 20 years.
With the commercial transformation, the Asian population in the area has increased and a gradual gentrification of the neighborhood has occurred.
Ottawas City Planning Department responded
to the neighborhood change in the following
manner.

TABLE 2. Evolution of Okawas Somerset Heights

Ethnic Businesses No.
Year

1961
1971
1981
1991

Total N u m b e r o f Businesses

60
76
88
101

(%)

29
35
49
85

(48.0)
(46.1)
(55.6)
(84.2)

Asian Businesses No.

(as % o f Ethnic Business)

2
2
28
69

( 7.8)
( 5.7)
(57.1)
(81.2)

Source: Marc Labelle 1992. tables 7 and 8

APA JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997

/489

MOHAMMAD A. QADEER

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

1964 Ottawa Citys comprehensive zoning bylaw

designated Somerset Heights as a General
Commercial Zone permitting commercial uses
for the ground floor and dwellings above.
1977 The Dalhousie Neighbourhood Plan designated the area for mixed land use-i.e. ground
floor commercial uses and residences above; pedestrian orientation emphasized.
1984 The citys new zoning bylaw maintained the
area as a General Commercial Zone.
1988 Somerset Street West Planning Study recommended Multicultural Village as the areas
theme, and encouraged ethnic expression and
the establishment of a Business Improvement
Area (BIA).
1989 The citys Community Improvement Plan projected streetscape improvements and other
capital works.
1992 A new official plan designated the areas as
Neighbourhood Linear Commercial, recognizing the areas distinctive character and allowing
mixed uses and pedestrian orientation.
Up to 1986, the Planning Department ignored the
cultural dimension of the neighborhood change and
maintained the fiction of uniformity. Only with the
Business Improvement Area (BIA) designation, and
consequent capital works including the development
of a Chinese community center, and signage and
streetscape in 1988, were the cultural characteristics
of the area officially acknowledged. Still, the official
plan policies have not given much weight to ethnic
commercial activities. They continue to treat the area
as Neighbourhood Linear Commercial. Multiculturalism is evident in the facilities and services developed,
but not in the citys zoning and land use policies. The
planning response has been reactive and restrained.
The case of the Scarborough shopping malls also
illustrates city plannings reactive role in such developments. Once the malls were being developed, Scarboroughs city planning department duly accommodated
them, first by resolving some contentious issues and
then by upholding developers rights in the face of
neighborhood opposition. Yet north of Scarborough,
in Markham, Chinese shopping malls have become a
lightning rod for ethnic confrontation. An intemperate remark by the deputy mayor about the excess of
Chinese malls driving away old residents has precipitated fierce public arguments about the ethnic
composition of the community (The Globe and Mail
1995b, AG).
The policy issues that ethnic enclaves bring to the
fore include the need for multilingual signage to ensure equal access, culturally sensitive services, and de-

APA JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997

sign guidelines for built forms and aesthetics that are

both diverse and harmonious. Another issue that
arises is the vulnerability of businesses to changing
tastes and demands. The demographics of ethnic business enclaves tend to shift among groups, so planning
policies should recognize the prospect of change. Supporting an enclaves special cultural character while
keeping it open to all is the key challenge for multicultural planning in commercial areas. Canadian metropolitan areas have usually accommodated business
enclaves through exceptions and variances of their
statutory plans, as numerous thriving enclaves attest.
These enclaves have, however, added a new element to
the urban commercial hierarchy, necessitating reconsideration of planning policies and standards.

Housing Choices
Multiculturalism gives rise to two issues in the
housing market. First is the question of discrimination against ethnic minorities in access to housing.
Apart from visible physiognomic difference and class,
language, cultural origin, or religion could also be the
basis for restrictive practices in the market. Post-1960s
legislation, including the Landlord-Tenants Act, has
combined with the influence on the market of demand
by ethnic minorities to eliminate overt forms of discrimination. There are cases of refusal to rent to Africans or East Indians, but they are sporadic and subject
to legal recourse. The legacy of systematic bias against
immigrants and visible minorities in the mortgage
market, local codes, and housing standards is being
exposed and eroded.
The second housing issue, more directly related to
multiculturalism, is the matter of housing choices for
ethnic minorities. Although their requirements do not
differ from mainstream norms for housing type, location, and utilities, their preferences for dwelling size,
layout, and neighborhood differ significantly. Most
immigrants want single-family homes (Clayton Research 1994), but ethnic groups differ even among
themselves in their choices of interior designs and
community facilities.
The stereotypes are that Portuguese prefer two
kitchens, Italians like large lots for gardens, and the
Chinese notion of Feng-Shui predisposes them against
houses on cul-de-sacs. Neighborhoods in proximity to
schools with language classes and to appropriate religious associations and cultural institutions are also
preferred. Immigrants of modest income may want
the option of dividing a home to create a rental apartment; their affluent counterparts prefer large homes,
for prestige as well as for prospects of gathering together the extended family. For ethnic groups, these
culturally based preferences, differing by economic

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

PLURALISTIC PLANNING FOR MULTICULTURAL CITIES

class, are measures of housing satisfaction. They often

fall within the purview of building, safety, and public
health codes; and of planning standards, particularly
for occupancy densities, household use, and the definition of a family. Often these do not accommodate
ethnic minorities preferences. Case studies reported
earlier, particularly the Monster Homes and the Dixon
cases, illustrate the divergence between the norms presumed to be universal and the minority groups
choices for home and family. Ironically, the very participatory procedures meant to give citizens a voice in
planning provide the convenient means for some local
groups to resist the accommodation of others divergent needs and tastes. Public hearings on planning
regulations have often been turned into the tools of
NIMBYism and ethno-racism.
The overall effect of multiculturalism is to reveal
the cultural biases embedded in the so-called universal
standards. It follows that rethinking the bases of housing standards and planning policies is necessary, not
only to accommodate divergent preferences, but also
to integrate diverse architectural and functional elements into coherent local and regional idioms. The
convenience and satisfaction of both old and new residents have to be ensured through balanced development. This is the agenda of planning from the
multicultural perspective.

Institutions and Services

Not only spatial and architectural forms, but also
social institutions and community services are affected by multiculturalism. Ethnic communities contribute new ceremonials, sports, practices, and
organizations to the public life of a locality. Most of
these institutions and services are provided privately,
but public responsibility lies in facilitating their development and in a fair distribution of public funds for
social programs. Multiculturalism requires ensuring
equal opportunities to develop mosques and temples
as well as churches; baseball diamonds and soccer
fields; Highland dance troupes and Caribbean carnivals; and language classes as well as ballet schools.
Canadas planning system is fitfully accommodating
such diversity of institutions and services. How this
institutional learning is evolving is illustrated by the
case of Islamic mosques.
Recent waves of Muslim immigrants from the
Middle East, Eastern Europe, and South Asia have necessitated the building of mosques and Islamic centers. The building of a mosque or Islamic center for a
congregation typically moves through three stages. In
the beginning, someones living room serves as the
gathering place for weekly prayers, which leads to renting a hall or buying an unused church for congrega-

tional gatherings, and finally to the stage of building

a new mosque. At each of these three stages, there are

planning issues. From the changes in the use of an existing building to the building of a new mosque, at
numerous points public approvals and planning permissions are required. Yet many existing zoning and
sire plan regulations for religious uses are based only
on the requirements of churches; therefore, mosques
have to be developed through variances to planning
standards and policies. In one case, a minaret had to
be designated as a clock tower, though once built its
function and integrity were so obvious that the local
council happily dispensed with the installation of a
mock clock. Each proposal creates a battleground reverberating with ethno/racial overtones, as proponents and opponents contend over parking standards,
lot coverage, etc.6
Yet precedents and experiences that embody the
multicultural perspective are accumulating; one by
one, thirty mosques have been established in the Toronto area. The planning system obviously is accommodating mosques, gurdwaras and temples, but
systematic policies and standards that embrace such
options have not appeared. Planners have been more
open to such developments than have their political
bosses.
A similar process is under way with the provision
of other social and cultural services. For example, varying burial customs require revisions in the regulatory
standards for cemeteries and operations of crematoriums. Other examples of services for which demands
are mounting are multilingual kindergartens, heritage
language courses, soccer or cricket fields, banquet halls
and social clubs. Many of these institutions and services require physical development, and others may
necessitate changes in the policies for public grants.
A Meals-on-Wheels service, for example, may have to
provide ethnic foods to serve a non-English/French
population appropriately. Even a service such as family
counseling has cultural dimensions. Toronto, for example, has six family and womens centers specializing
in counseling South Asian women. Similar developments are taking place wherever there are strong pressures of demand and community initiatives. From
Caribbean parades to Iranian film festivals and Yiddish poetry readings, Canadian cities support a rich
and diverse artistic and cultural life. Little by little,
cultural diversity is being acknowledged by precedents
being established in the planning system. Toronto,
Vancouver, and Montreal are leading in the development of culturally-sensitive modes of planning. Metro
Torontos Social Development Strategy recognizes
diversity and commits to nondiscrimination in the
sharing of the citys resources and opportunities.

APA JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997

1491

MOHAMMAD A. QADEER

Translating these goals into policies, standards, and

practices is the challenge that remains to be met.7

Conclusion

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

In the preceding sections, we have reviewed a

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

emerged in the suburbs. Immigrants businesses are

opening new lines of production. Ethnic communities have carved out distinct artistic, cultural, and
religious lives in the cities. In short, multiculturalism is now a defining character of Canadian cities.
A Trinidad-born commentators observation sums
up the situation: In the 30 years Ive been in Canada, its cities have changed beyond what could have
been predicted. They have loosened up (Alexis 1995,
C19). Although most of these changes have come
from private initiatives, the planning system and
other public institutions can take credit for accommodating them.
The planning process is becoming more inclusive by
seeking out ethnic communities participation in
public debates. Their diverse cultures are beginning
to be acknowledged at the procedural level, and their
concerns are being aired as a part of the planning
process. Professional planners are relatively more responsive to minorities interests than is the political leadership.
The policy response to multiculturalism is still reactive and ad hoc. Even in Toronto and Vancouver, the
needs of ethnic communities are accommodated
through amendments, exceptions, or special provisions to statutory plans, policies or programs. Despite its acknowledgement as a social condition,
cultural and racial diversity is not reflected in planning policies. Planning standards and criteria continue to be based on unitary conceptions of citizens
needs. Systematic attempts to forge pluralistic visions of urban plans and programs are only haltingly emerging.
Conceptually, planning measures that accommodate
multiculturalism can range from procedural changes
and administrative adaptations to redefining the
goals and ideologies that inform policies and programs. This range of measures can be represented
as a ladder of increasingly wide-ranging and general
principles of planning (figure 1).

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

6

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

Provision o f specific public facilities and services for ethnic communities

Special District designation for ethnic neighborhoods and business enclaves

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

2

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

Facilitating access by diverse communities t o the planning department

FIGURE 1.

J
492

A ladder of planning principles supporting multiculturalism

APA J0URNAL.AUTUMN 1997

PLURALISTIC PLANNING FOR MULTICULTURAL CITIES

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

The Canadian planning system has largely reached

level 3 in responding to multiculturalism of its metropolitan areas, and levels 4 and 5, in part, in Toronto
and Vancouver. The pluralism of planning approaches
is gradually emerging. Yet it raises many critical questions about the philosophy and substance of planning
that have not been addressed.
What does the multicultural vision for a city or region mean? It has an aura of post-modernism about
it, architecturally as well as functionally. It diverges
from the uniformity of modernist practice (Savage
and Warde 1993,139), envisioninginstead a contemporary city that harmonizes distinctive aesthetics,
structures, and practices. Forging such a vision and
translating it into policies, programs, and standards
defines the scope of multicultural planning-a diversity of policies and programs that goes beyond simply advocacy for the disadvantaged.
To meet the diverse needs of a multitude of communities, planning policies and programs should be
modified in two ways: (a) to make specific provisions
for the religious and cultural facilities of significant
ethnic groups, and (b) to formulate performancebased criteria for the provision of common facilities
and services, i.e. schools, parks, welfare, etc. The
fairness of planning policies is to be judged by the
comparability of outcomes rather than by the mechanical uniformity of approach.
The recognition of ethnic and social diversity calls
for flexibility in planning norms and practices. At
the same time, projecting some degree of certainty of
outcomes is essential for effective and accountable
planning. Thus a balance of certainty and flexibility
is another requirement necessitated by multiculturalism. Probably an inclusive planning process can
provide the necessary certainty and consistency,
while performance-based standards and criteria can
assure a reasonable level of flexibility.
Multiculturalism also raises the issue of social integration versus segregation. The lesson learned so far
in this regard is that involuntary segregation or prescriptive ghettoization is both illegal and immoral;
but planning that provides choices for individuals
and groups to attain a livable environment through
the diversity of forms and facilities is desirable. The
concentration of one or another group in an area by
choice is within the scope of public values as long as
others are not systematically excluded. Freedom of
choice is the defining value for public policy.
To conclude, multiculturalism in planning is preeminently a matter of awareness of race and culture
among planners and public officials. A good starting
point for promoting pluralism in the planning sys-

tem will be to entrench the Human Rights Code in

planning policies and programs and to make cultural and racial discrimination a legitimate basis for
planning appeals. Equally important will be employment equity and the representation of minorities on
public bodies.
AUTHORS NOTE
The research for this article was funded by a grant from the
Ministry of State Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada.
The financial support is gratefully acknowledged. The research for the Vancouver case study was performed by Kim
Flick, and that for the Dixon Complex by Kelly Grover. The
source for the Ottawa case study is Marc Labelle, Ethnic Businesses as Instrument ofDeuelopment (Masters Report, School of
Urban and Regional Planning, Queens University, Canada).
Jackie Bells editorial assistance has helped clarify many
ideas. The views expressed here, however, are entirely the authors responsibility.

1. The awareness of race and class differences and their

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

bearing on policies and programs is longstanding. Cultural, religious, gender, and lifestyle differences are beginning to be recognized.
The Canadian planning system is hierarchical and autonomous, centered in provinces. By and large, provincial ministries hold the authority to approve local and
regional plans, define their scope and jurisdiction, lay
down priorities, oversee procedures, and initiate housing and community service programs. Similarly, provincially appointed boards are the appellate bodies, and
often provincial ministers are the final arbiters in contentious matters. Municipalities prepare, adopt, and
enforce statutory plans, development policies, and standards under provincial legislation and delegated authority. This is a barebones description of the planning
system in Canada.
Rawls postulates two principles of justice: (1) equal
rights of each person to basic liberties, and (2) the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged consistent with the
just savings principle (Rawls 1971,302-3). Equity Planning refers to the planning approach that explicitly aims
at improving the welfare of the disadvantaged (Krumholz 1982). Pareto Optimality is an economic decision
criterion.
In this article, our primary focus is on the multiculturalism of immigrants, old and new. Planning issues relating to aboriginal communities are not discussed,
because they are a topic by themselves.
In Canada, there has been a consistent stream of opinion directed against multiculturalism. See Bibby 1990
and Bissoondath 1994.
The proposal for a mosque in East York ran into opposition from the City Council and the neighborhood
Cypriot-Greek community center. Although the Council

APA JOURNALmAUTUMN 1997

1493

MOHAMMAD A. QADEER

narrowly approved the proposal, the parking requirements have been interpreted in such a way that the development remains in limbo. See the Toronto Star 1995.
7. A vast chasm persists between goals and policies even in
those jurisdictions that proclaim promotion of diversity
and acknowledgement of multiculturalism as their
planning goals. The City (not Metro) of Torontos official plan process defined facilitating and accommodating cultural diversity as its goal, but the draft plan has
no policies explicitly addressed to this goal. Similarly,
Vancouvers City Plan has no specific policies addressing
ethnic and cultural aspects of neighborhoods. After an
inclusive planning process, the Plan has shied away
from dealing with ethnic issues.

Downloaded by [Vancouver Island University] at 21:55 26 September 2015

REFERENCES
Alexis, Andrt. 1995. Taking a Swipe at Canada. The Globe and
Mail, January 7, 1995.
Artibise, Alan F.J. 1977. Divided City: The Immigrant in
Winnipeg Society, 1879-1921. In The Canadian City, edited
by Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan F.J. Artibise. Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart.
Badets, Jane. 1993. Canadas Immigrants: Recent Trends. Canadian Social Trends (summer): 8-11.
Bibby, Reginald W. 1990. Mosaic Madness: The Potentialand Poverty of Canadian Life. Toronto: Stoddart.
Bissoondath, Neil. 1994. Selling Illusions. Toronto: Penguin.
Bourne, Larry. 1989. Are New Urban Forms Emerging? Empirical Tests by Canadian Urban Areas. The Canadian Geographer 33,4 312-28.
Breton, Raymond, Wsevolod Isajiw, Warren Kalbach, and Jeffrey Reitz. 1990. Ethnic Identity and Equality. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
City of Toronto Planning and Development Department.
1991. City Plan: The Citizens Guide. The Official Plan Proposal Report.
City of Vancouver. 1993a. City Plan Tool Kit. Vancouver, B.C.
City of Vancouver. 1993b. Ideas Book. Vancouver, B.C.
Clayton Research Associates. 1994. Immigrant Housing Choices,
1986. Ottawa: Research Division, Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation.
Davidoff, Paul. 1965. Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.
Journal of the American Institute ofplanners 31,4 331-8.
Elder, Phil. S., and Janet M. Keeping. 1986. The Charter of
k g h t s and Community Planning. Pkm Canada 26,s: 210.
Fleras, Augie, and Jean L. Elliott. 1992. Multiculturalism in
Canada. Scarborough: Nelson Canada.
Gans, Herbert J. 1961. The Balanced Community: Homogeneity or Heterogeneity in Residential Areas? Journal of the
American Institute of Planners 26, 3: 6.
Globe and Mail. 1995a. November 17, 1995: A10.
Globe and Mail. 1995b. August 23, 1995: AG.
Harney, Robert F. 1985. Ethnicity and Neighbourhoods. In
Gathering Place: Peoples and Neighbourhoods of Toronto, 1934-

i
494

APA JOUFAL.AUTUMN 1997

1945, edited by Robert F. Harney. Toronto: Multicultural

History Society of Ontario.
Hayward, Victoria. 1922. Romantic Canada. Toronto: MacMilIan & Co.
House of Commons. 1971. Statement by the Prime Minister. Ottawa, October 8, 1971.
Kalbach, Warren. 1990. Ethnic Residential Segregation and
its Significance for the Individual in an Urban Setting. In
Ethnic Identity and Equdity, edited by Raymond Breton and
Wsevolod W. Isajiw et al. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Krishnarayan, Vijay, and Huw Thomas. 1993. Ethnic Minorities
and the Planning System. The Royal Town Planning Institute.
Krumholz, Norman. 1982. A Retrospective View of Equity
Planning: Cleveland 1969-79. Journal of the American Planning Association 48,2: 163-78.
Krumholz, Norman. 1994. Advocacy Planning: Can It Move
the Center? Journal of the American Planning Association
60,2: 150-1.
Labelle, Marc. 1992. Ethlzic Businesses as Instrument of Development. A Masters Report submitted to the School of Urban
and Regional Planning, Queens University, Canada.
McLeans. 1994. Weekly Feb. 7, 1994.
Mitchell, Katharyne. 1993. Multiculturalism, or the United
Colors of Capitalism? Antipode 25,4: 263-94.
Moghaddam, Fathali M. 1994. Ethnic Segregation in a
Multicultural Society. In The Changing Canadian Metropolis:
A Public Policy Perspective, Vol. one, edited by Frances
Frisken. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies
Press, University of California.
Muller, Thomas. 1993. Immigrants and the American City. New
York: New York University Press.
Multicukurahm and Citizenship Canada. 1991. Multiculturalism: What Is It About? 0ttawa.
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Undated. New Realities: New Directions, A Social Development Strategy f i r Metropolitan Toronto. Toronto.
Porter, John. 1965. The VerticalMosaic. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Portes, Alajandro, and Robert L. Bach. 1985. Latin Journey.
Berkeley: University of California.
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory ofJustice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reitz, Jeffery G. 1980. The Survival of Ethnic Groups. Toronto:
McGraw-Hill.
Savage, Mike, and Alan Warde. 1993. Urban Sociology, Capitalism and Modernity. Hampshire: MacMillan.
Sewell, John. 1994. Houses and Homes. Toronto: James Larimer and Co.
Thomas, Huw, and Vijay Krishnarayan. 1994. Race Disadvantage, and Policy Processes in British Planning. Environmentand PlanningA, 26: 1891-1910.
Toronto Star. 1995. Why a Proposed Mosque Stirred Up a
Hornets Nest. October 8: F4.