Pluralism and Multiculturalism

This week’s reading Pluralistic Planning for Multicultural Cities by Mohammad A. Qadeer explores planning issues that arise from the cultural diversity of local populations. This includes issues such as the uniformity of policies and standards, equity in accommodating the needs of divergent groups and planning for the expression of cultural values, needs and wants. The author (Mohammad A. Qadeer) promotes multiculturalism which is where cultural identities are supported and maintained and believes pluralistic planning which aims to achieve equal opportunities of diverse groups is a necessity in the modern world as multiculturalism permeates even the smallest details of urban life.  

Qadeer in the article describes that the main effect of multiculturalism on the physical urban environment is that of the forced ethnic spatial concentrations or ethnic enclaves that develop due to the agglomeration of ethnic communities. Although the article focuses on enclaves and pluralism planning in Canada a historically multicultural society this can be applied to Australia where ethnic agglomerations or enclaves are observable in major cities for example Sydney. In Sydney enclaves add to the environment promoting diversity in terms of shopping, food and cultural experience and I believe is an asset to the community and “Little Italy” in Leichardt is an example of this were a large proportion of Italians have settled bringing with them a cultural mix to the greater Sydney community.

Pluralistic planning to allow and supply these enclaves with facilities and infrastructure that support their cultural heritage, business and social traditions is often controversial but an obligation of the planner who is obliged to meet the needs of all members of society. In the article Qadeer discusses some controversial points in Canada where discrimination in terms of housing prices and rentals has been reported against ethnic groups which would be against pluralistic planning that is planning for equality which is not documented but I believe also to a extent occurs in Australia. Overall multiculturalism post World War has been a major factor in the change of city demographics and therefore pluralistic planning has also become of importance for planners to promote equity for all.

"Old" New Urbanism "The Downtown is for People"

This week’s reading by Jane Jacobs “The downtown is for People”(1958) is a very influential and critical writing that emphasises the importance of creating cities and in particular streets for people. Jacob’s career as a journalist see’s an unbiased view of the work of planners and Jacob’s in this article is highly critical of planners such as Ebenezer’s Howards Garden City movement and in particular major redevelopments which were happening at the time that she believed would not “revitalize the downtown but deaden it”.

Jacob’s believed that planners became seized with dreams of order and were fascinated with scale models which took away from the atmosphere and exuberance of the downtown. She preached that to create a downtown for the people you must get out there and walk with the people. Jacob’s criticised that modernist planning didn’t consider the pedestrian level and she believed the downtown should be a place of variety with short, pedestrian friendly narrow streets and an atmosphere that is as active in the day as it is in the night (Two Shift Theory). Melbourne is Australia’s best example of such street life with cafes, shopping and business mixed between short and narrow pedestrian friendly streets and streets that accommodate cars creating a vibrant community atmosphere.

Although many of Jacob’s views and opinions on the disapproval of planning and particular planners are questionable and even offensive to some, I believe her work in general has improved planning for the better especially planning downtown urban centres for people. Her work questioned planning notions that hadn’t been questioned before and in doing so allowed for improvement and I believe even promoted public involvement and engagement in planning as Jacobs wasn’t a planner yet her views proved that non planners can make valid contributions to the planning of cities.

New Directions in Planning

In this week’s reading, New Directions in Planning Theory, Susan Fainstein discusses and critiques three schools of planning theory, which are the Communicative, New Urbanism and Just Theory contemporary planning models. These models emerged in response to post industrialization planning issues and where seen as a method of improving the quality of life in capitalist’s economies.

The Communicative Model:

The Communicative model promotes that the planner’s primary function is to listen to all stakeholders’ needs and wants and forge a consensus with the community without showing any bias or technocratic leadership. A deficiency of this approach as outlined in the article however is the gap between rhetoric and action that is the length of time between participatory and communicative processes to the physical implementation of the plan. This is a long process which many see as a flaw of this process in planning.

New Urbanism Model:

New Urbanism refers to the design orientated practical approach to planning which focuses on the urban design of plans and there outcomes rather than the process. New urbanism resembles planning theories from early planning theorists such as Ebenezer Howard however is criticised for its overreliance on physical determinism which doesn’t allow it to address social justice issues adequately. It must be noted however that physical planning can to an extent address social issues as physical planning is often considered a starting point to address such issues.

Just City Model:

The Just Theory model is described by Susan Fainstein as a political economic planning model that is endorsed to combat inequality through civil participation and the equal distribution of wealth of resources. To me this approach is more philosophical and idealistic as unlike the previous two models it doesn’t in the reading that is stipulate a feasible approach to improve the quality of life rather an aspiration and idealistic approach of what a perfect society should be.

These models all pending on individual circumstances are feasible however realistically society and planners need to find a balance between all three approaches in the modern mixed planning environment to optimise their cities potential. A mixture of theories at the one time historically has not been the norm but as the planning profession grows and so too does society it is the most likely approach to future planning directions.