Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MICHAEL A. BURAYIDI
ABSTRACT Planners in the USA and other Western European countries are faced with the
dilemma of how to deal with the demands of an increasingly multicultural population. This
problem has become more acute as the number of immigrants from non-European countries has
grown in the last several decades. This paper examines how this demographic shift impacts on
planning practice. Two planning practice issues are examined; historic preservation and housing
for ethno-cultural groups. The paper discusses why these two issues and other emerging demands
of ethno-cultural groups matter to planners. A suggestion is made for changing the culture of
planning and planning processes to recognize plurality as points of departure in planning
practice.
Introduction
Urban America has always been diverse both in culture and ethnic composition. The
influx of immigrants from European countries to the USA in the colonial era produced
a mix of different ethno-cultural groups. In time, however, many of these groups became
Americanized through a national policy of assimilation. In the last half century, the
American urban landscape has changed drastically. This change has been influenced by
the dramatic increase in the number of immigrants from non-European countries to
prosperous North American and European countries. The U.S. Census Bureau expects
these migration flows to continue, affecting both the politics and spatial structure of the
countries of destination. This shift in immigration has also brought remote ethnic needs
and claims into urban neighborhoods that pose a new challenge for planners. The needs
and demands of these ethnic groups raise moral and practical questions about the
legitimacy of such customs and how to cope with the consequences that these diverse
customs and demands create in the use of urban space and facilities.
At the same time, the spread of capitalism and a worldwide communication infrastructure has fostered a veneer of civic tolerance by enabling diverse ethnic groups to
trumpet their identity claims before a worldwide audience. The world community now
debates the fate of groups previously known only to their neighbors. For urban America,
this means that the needs of ethno-cultural groups can no longer be ignored in the
framing of urban policy and planning.
The point of this paper then is that the increase in the multicultural population and
the recognition and legitimation of the culture of these ethno-cultural groups will
affect planning practice. The paper provides a rationale for action and suggests ways
for coping with this challenge. It begins with a discussion of culture and why it
Michael A. Burayidi, Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Halsey 311, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh,
800 Algoma Blvd. Oshkosh, WI 54901-8642, USA. Email: burayidi@uwosh.edu
1464-9357 Print/1470-000X On-line/03/030259-15 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1464935032000118634
260
M. Burayidi
matters in planning. It then proceeds with examples of how current planning practice
may not appropriately address the unique needs of ethno-cultural groups, and discusses
why the unique needs of these groups matter in planning. It concludes with suggestions
for changing the culture of planning to meet the changing demographic and multicultural needs of the population.
262
M. Burayidi
boosters (including planners), who want to improve the general welfare of residents,
against the values of the Quapaw Native Americans. For GenPower and the community
leaders, it all boils down to economics. Lonoke County, in Arkansas, is one of the
poorest in the country. By developing the site, GenPower would pay a predetermined
amount of money to the local school district, thereby reducing the burden of property
taxes and generate employment for area residents. The Quapaw Native Americans see
it differently. For them, it is not about economics but religion and spirituality. The
Quapaw believe that if the site is disturbed, then the spirit of those who are buried there
will forever be in unrest. The site must therefore be protected from any encroachment.
Environmentalists also enter the foray. They challenged the building of the power plant
near the site because it would obstruct visitors view of the sunrise and disrupt its
cultural integrity. There is hardly a region in the country that has not dealt with these
kinds of value conflicts between Native Americans and developers. Plans for a luxury
townhouse development in White Bear Lake, Minnesota were challenged by Native
Americans because it would disturb a burial ground. Wal-Mart had to abandon plans for
the construction of a superstore in the town of Catskill on New Yorks Hudson River
after an archeological review turned up human bones and artifacts believed to belong to
the Mohican Native Americans. As urban areas in the USA continue to sprawl outwards,
such value conflicts in land use between developers and Native Americans are likely to
grow. The culture that most planners are familiar with may pose a limit to how we see
and manage these kinds of land use concerns.
These new complexities require a change in the culture of planning so that planners
are able to not only recognize differences between interests and values in their practice
but also how to resolve conflicts emanating from such cultural differences. To have an
interest in something is to evaluate it in terms of the benefits one can derive from it.
Interest is associated with welfare, gain or advantage (Campbell & Marshall, 2002,
p. 165). If the Quapaw were merely interested in their welfare as defined by the
community leaders, a compensation for the building of the power plant would have
sufficed. However, the Native Americans had a culture that valued the preservation of
the mound over and above the improvement in their, and the communitys, economic
welfare. As Bollens (2002, p. 37) rightly observed: For members of an urban ethnic
group, psychological needs pertaining to viability, group identity, and cultural symbolism can be as important as objective needs pertaining to land, housing, and economic
opportunities. While interests are negotiable, values usually are non-negotiable.
The Native American position reflects value differences between them and planners,
an outcome of the cultural differences within which they operate. Culture is the beliefs,
norms, values, customs as well as the material artifacts such as clothing, food and art
that set one group apart from others. Culture is acquired through upbringing, affiliation
or ethnicity. Cultural conflicts are made evident when a minority ethnic group enters a
dominant culture. Fenster (1998) for example narrates the cultural conflict that came to
light in the resettlement of Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Although the Ethiopians and
Israelites professed the same religion, they still exhibited different cultures. The
Ethiopian Jews grew up in a rural and extended family environment but the Israeli
planners failed to recognize these differences in their resettlement plans, assuming equal
treatment in the order of liberal democratic citizenship. Thus, the housing that was
designed for the Ethiopian Jews did not take into consideration their unique needs in the
construction of residential space where for example, menstruating and post-partum
women are separated from the men to ensure purity. Such failures have had significant
social costs on the Ethiopians in the form of high levels of suicide and domestic abuse.
Historic Preservation
Historic preservation is becoming an important element of planning practice in the USA.
There are an estimated 1800 historic district commissions in the USA charged with the
responsibility of reviewing development proposals to ensure that they do not negatively
impact on the historic heritage of communities (Hodder, 1999). Some states now require
that historic preservation be included in local comprehensive plans, and in 1997 the
Board of Directors of the American Planning Association ratified a Policy Guide on
History and Cultural Resources. Thus, historic preservation is no longer an afterthought
of planning practice but an integral part of planning activity. Two issues come to the
forefront with regards to historic preservation. The first is how planners resolve conflicts
between growth and preservation. The second is how planners decide which historic
sites and artifacts merit preserving.
With regards to the conflict between growth and preservation, Rasmussen (1997, p. 26)
observed that the combination of burgeoning population and greater determination by
Native American groups to preserve their heritage has led to growing conflict across the
nation between preserving that heritage and accommodating development. In addition,
while many communities now have historic preservation ordinances, the designation of
such sites tend to reflect the dominant viewpoint of what constitutes a historic resource.
Two cases are illustrative of the problem for planners. The first case involves the
Puvungna Native American fight to preserve their religious site at Long Beach, California. The case portrays the prevailing ethnocentrism of current planning practices and
highlights the need for a re-examination of the universalistic value systems that continue
to influence planning practice. The second case, involving the use of Devils Tower in
Wyoming, demonstrates how competing claims to the use of land can be resolved
through the planning process if only attention is given to cultural diversity and the
accommodation of such diversity in planning.
The Puvungna Lawsuit2
The Puvungna lawsuit (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 087212) was filed in
August 1993 against California State University Long Beach (CSLB). The campus of
CSLB sits on what is regarded by the Gabrielino Native Americans as a sacred site
(Figure 1). Indeed, the university once erected a sign that read; Gabrielino Indians once
inhabited this site, Puvungna, birthplace of Chungichnish, law-giver and god. There are
several archaeological sites on campus and one known burial as well as a reburial site.
The 22-acre National Register site included about two acres of community garden plots,
known as the Organic Gardens, which were established on the first Earth Day. The
remainder is open space where the university organized summer camps for many years.
In 1992 CSLB decided to pave the site to create a parking lot and mall. This decision
led to protests by native Americans and other concerned citizens who pitched tents and
held prayer vigils on the site to prevent its destruction. A lawsuit was also filed by the
264
M. Burayidi
Figure 1. Puvungna Sacred Site at the California State University, Long Beach.
Source: Courtesy of Jan Sampson.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of over a dozen Native American
plaintiffs, including not only Gabrielino and other California Native Americans, but also
Native Americans whose tribal affiliation is outside California (as far east as New York)
but who reside in the Los Angeles area.3 The other plaintiff was the Native American
Heritage Commission (represented by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional
Law), a state commission appointed by the Governor and charged with protecting
Native American sacred sites and burial places.
For the Gabrielino Native Americans the universitys actions showed a lack of
understanding of their religious practices. In Western culture this would amount to the
tearing down of a church in order to create a parking lot. The difference here is that there
are no walls to tear down and no permanent fixtures. This has been interpreted by the
university as the absence of any cultural resources on the site.
Native Americans won an important victory on 3 September 1993 when a Los Angeles
Superior Court judge temporarily blocked the universitys planned development of the
site. The court ordered CSLB officials to be restrained and enjoined from causing any
further unnatural disturbance and from baring appropriate Native American access to
the land at issue.
In April 1995, however, the court ruled for the university, arguing that the law
protecting Indian sacred places on public land is unconstitutional because it violates the
principle of separation of church and state. This ruling was overturned on appeal by the
appellate court, which ruled that the university lacked standing in court to raise
constitutional issues since the university is a state agency, and the state cannot defend
itself in court by saying that the laws it passes are unconstitutional. At any rate, the
current President of CSLB has pledged not to commercialize the site but preserve it as
open space.
While millions of dollars have been spent on the case and the legal battle continues
over the fate of Puvungna, it must be questioned what role, if any, planners have played
in this stalemate and how this case may affect planning practice? The site is zoned
institutional, that is, for university use. The fight then is not between Native Americans
and the city but between them and the university. In a sense, planners have absolved
themselves of the problem.
Long Beach city planners, however, cannot be let off the hook. The City of Long Beach
has a historic ordinance that reads in part:
The City of Long Beach has recognized certain buildings and neighborhoods
as having special architectural and historical value. The City Council designates historic landmarks, historic districts, historic places and objects by city
ordinance. Historic landmark status for buildings in Long Beach may be
designated if they have historic and/or architectural value. Historic districts
are areas containing groupings of older houses that are intact and unaltered.
(http://www.ci.long-beach.ca.us/plan/content/historicpreservation.html.
Accessed 12 May 2003).
The ordinance seems to protect physical artifacts such as buildings but not land that is
in its natural state. Because the Puvungna religious site is left in its natural state, it is not
recognized by planners as historic. The fact that the Puvungna religious site was not
specifically identified in the land use map as a cultural resource worth preserving is a
major shortcoming of the citys land use plan and of the ethnocentrism that guides the
selection of historic sites in the city for preservation. The Supreme Courts decision in the
case between the Navajo and the US Forest Service further attests to this ethnocentrism.
When the U.S. Forest Service planned to log and construct roads in a forested area, the
Navajo challenged the plan because it infringed on their religious practices. In a decision
by the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Sandra OConnor, writing for the court, justified the
agencys actions by stating that the land in question was not actively used by the Navajo
for religious services and did not have a religious site. As Meyer & Reaves (2000)
observed, such a decision imposed a Judeo-Christian value system on the Navajo who,
like the Puvungna, have a different criteria for designating religious and historic sites.
Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association v. Babbitt, No. 988021
The case of the Devils Tower National monument offers a contrary approach to the
dominant planning practice. The Devils Tower is a 600-foot mountain located in
northeastern Wyoming (Figure 2). The historical and religious use of Devils Tower and
surrounding areas by Lakota people was acknowledged by the Fort Laramie Treaty of
1868. In 1906, President Roosevelt declared the Devils Tower a national monument,
noting that it is a natural wonder and an object of historic and great scientific interest
[and] warning is hereby given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, or
destroy any feature of the natural tower (Presidential Proclamation No. 458, 34 Stat.
3236, 3237, 24 September 1906).
The tower is known to Native Americans as Mato Tipila or Bear Lodge, and is a
sacred religious site for many Native American tribes. The tower is also used by
recreational and commercial climbers. Over the past 30 years, the number of rock
climbers at the tower increased dramatically affecting not only the environment but also
the religious practices of Native Americans. To address these conflicts in land use, the
National Park Service adopted a Final Climbing Management Plan (FCMP) for Devils
Tower National Monument, which in part asked climbers to voluntarily refrain from
using the site in the month of June when Native Americans engage in the Sun Dance and
other ceremonies.
266
M. Burayidi
Although the plan was welcome by Native Americans and led to the reduction in
climbers in June, the Bear Lodge Municipal Use Association and other climbers challenged the FCMP. The group sued the Department of Interior, arguing that the FCMP
violated the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from sponsoring, supporting, or becoming entangled in religious affairs. On 26 April 1999 the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Court dismissed the climbers lawsuit, ruling that the
climbers lacked standing and claimed no injury from the FCMP. The U.S. Supreme court
upheld the ruling and declined to review the case as was requested by the plaintiffs.
This case shows that proactive planning that is culture-sensitive is capable of accommodating and addressing competing land use claims. This, however, is often the
exception rather than the rule.
Housing for Ethno-cultural Minorities
Another area where planners will be increasingly called upon to intervene is in the
provision of housing for ethno-cultural groups. The concern here is threefold: first, to
what extent do the specific housing needs of ethno-cultural groups matter?; second, does
the existing housing stock adequately serve the shelter needs of ethno-cultural groups?;
and, third, how might scarce public resources be allocated to more effectively serve the
housing needs of ethno-cultural groups? To help answer these questions, consideration
is given to the housing adequacy and living arrangements of ethno-cultural groups as
they are impacted by current planning practices.
268
M. Burayidi
270
M. Burayidi
professional practice. He notes that people may choose to practice in the high ground or
in the lowland of professional practice. He asks: Shall the practitioner stay on the high,
hard ground where he can practice rigorously, as he understands rigor, but where he is
constrained to deal with problems of relatively little social importance? Or shall he
descend to the swamp where he can engage with the most important and challenging
problems if he is willing to forsake technical rigor? (Schon, 1983, p. 42).
This is the challenge facing the planning profession. We can continue to practice
planning as it has always been and risk making ourselves irrelevant to much of society
or we can take the bold challenge and descend to the swampy lowland where problems
are much more messy and solutions difficult. The latter is suggested. To make planning
relevant to a multicultural public, planners have to face the challenge of professional
messyness and address the problems that matter to society. This requires a change in
the culture of planning so that in tackling problems of the urban environment, planners
are cognizant of both the real and the symbolic meaning attached by different groups
to the environment. Planners should also consider the psychological as well as the
objective ends of their plans. Yet, this is the area of untidiness and one that would pose
the most challenge for planners. Nevertheless, there are several pointers in the planning
literature to processes that have worked in other settings and that could provide a guide
to planners facing multicultural problems. They include therapeutic techniques (Sandercock, 2000), dispute resolution methods (Susskind, 1995; Susskind & Cruickshank, 1987;
Susskind & Field, 1996), and dialogue approaches (Baum, 1999, 2000; Forester, 1999,
2000; Healey, 1996). However, while these processes and the practice examples they
provide are beneficial, they are for the most part reactive in nature. That is, they are
designed to address multicultural problems after they arise not before they occur.
Planning after all is about pre-emption, not reaction.
As the case studies discussed here show, cities have not been planned to accommodate
diversity and so there is a failure to see that different cultures may have different ways
of defining what is valuable and therefore worth preserving. Cities are not designed to
provide a choice for residents that do not fit the standardized housing and neighborhoods that are built, necessitating application for variances to accommodate housing for
those who do not fit the nuclear family tradition. In the USA, processes have not been
set up other than the adversarial approach to resolving conflicts, and so when such an
approach fails in a multicultural situation, there is a scramble for alternatives that take
longer to set up because few planners are competent enough to use the therapeutic,
dialogue and dispute resolution approaches that a multicultural society calls for and
needs. In essence, the institutions and planning processes were not designed with
difference in mind. This is the major obstacle to multicultural planning. The reactive
approaches are knee jerk reactions that may solve ad hoc problems. What is needed is a
redesign of the planning system for managing diversity without which planners efforts,
even when well intentioned, will only produce limited short-term gains.
Although rare, there are emerging examples of proactive multicultural planning
processes at work. There has already been a description of how proactive planning
averted problems in the use of the Devils Tower. Another pioneering example of
proactive planning is the cultural plan prepared by the City of Vancouver, Washington.
The plan evolved from a series of public meetings of city staff with the diverse groups,
organizations and residents of the community. The cultural plan that emerged embodied
policies and programs resulting from the expressed fears, concerns, interests and
values of the citys multicultural public. The stated goal of the plan is to nurture
collaborative efforts, foster diversity and celebrate the richness of the community. The
272
M. Burayidi
creative ways to meet these needs. This objective cannot be achieved if people feel
estranged from the process. The potential for this feeling of alienation is more so for
multicultural groups than it is for those in the dominant culture. This means that
extraneous efforts have to be found to bring these groups into the process. The modest
suggestions made here provide a starting point for planners to help the whole public
to reflect on and take action to meet their needs.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
These are usually single use zones that do not permit other uses within the district.
This section has benefited from the insights provided by Eugene E. Ruyle, Professor of Anthropology at
the University of California, Long Beach, to whom I am indebted.
Puvungna has become a sacred site not only for the Gabrielino, but for all Indians in the area, since what
is sacred to one Indian tribe is sacred to all Indian tribes.
The U.S. Census Bureau defines overcrowding as a situation in which there is more than one person per
room in a housing unit.
The Hmong are an ethnic group from China and fought alongside the USA during the Vietnam war
following which they were persecuted by the Northern Vietnamese and had to flee their homeland.
This section benefited from correspondence with Leann Johnson, Manager of Cultural Services, City of
Vancouver, WA, to whom the author is indebted.
References
Baum, H. (1999) Forgetting to plan, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, (Fall), pp. 101113.
Baum, H. (2000) Culture matters, but it shouldnt 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. 2242.
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) Utilitarianisms bad breadth: a re-evaluation of the public interest
justification for planning, Planning Theory, 1(2), pp. 153187.
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. 177190.
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. 217234.
Hodder, R. (1999) Redefining a southern citys heritage: historic preservation planning, public art, and race in
Richmond, Virginia, Journal of Urban Affairs, 21(4), pp. 437454.
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. 6685.
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. 119135.
Parker, S. (2001) Suburban sprawl spurs fights over sacred Indian sites, Christian Science Monitor, 93(184),
pp. 12.
Qadeer, M. (1997) Pluralistic planning for multicultural cities, Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(4),
pp. 481494.
Rasmussen, M. (1997) Communities try to balance growth, Indian heritage, Planning, 63(4), pp. 2627.
Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities (New York, John Wiley and Sons).