In the planning case studies examined in Chapters Five and Seven it was revealed that ethnocultural diversity is but one -- albeit important -- factor which influences local planning decisions. In the Kensington case study, ethnocultural diversity was linked with other tensions and cleavages in the community. Although ethnic and cultural differences were present in the planning process, factors such as the period of arrival of immigrants and the contrast between residents and business people were more relevant to local decision-making than the ethnocultural group differences. As the redevelopment of George Brown College quickly became a community issue, multiculturalism was only one factor in the formal and informal planning surrounding the redevelopment.

In the Markham case study, multiculturalism was linked with period of immigration, citizenship and deep-seated views over the proper mix of residential and commercial land uses. While conflicts in the community were inappropriately characterized as an ethnic cleavage between Anglo-Saxons and Chinese by some in the media, Chapter Seven revealed that although tensions did exist, reaction to planning for retail condominium developments cut across ethnocultural lines. It was a multicultural mix of established residents who were wary of the malls and the new immigrants who purchased space inside them.

Through a comparison of the two case studies, this chapter reveals that patterns of communication, expectations of the planning process, the source of ethnocultural diversity, and the values of residents in the two communities reflected their urban/suburban differences. Although there was no indication in either case study that local planners had modified their planning practices to address the multiculturalism found in both Kensington and Markham, it was the context of diversity that made the planning outcomes so different. That is, the expectations of the process on the part of residents, developers, planners and politicians differed between the two cases and was reflected in the different manner in which people participated in local planning decisions. This is not to suggest that participation or belonging should be judged more or less favourably in either case study, but that the environment in which planning occurred contributes greater dissimilarity between the two cases than the multiculturalism they share. The two case studies cannot, however, be reduced to generic urban or suburban planning cases. Ethnocultural diversity did affect the way planning progressed: it was a consideration among those making decisions, and in many ways was key to the planning issue generating the kind of local attention it did in each community.

Using the criteria described in Chapter Two and employed in Chapters Five and Seven, this chapter compares and evaluates how cultural diversity challenged participation and belonging in the two case study communities.

Participation can be examined in four distinct ways. The interrelationship between planners, politicians and the public can shed light on both the planning process and the sources of influence on participation within that process. Evaluating the nature of public participation can determine the extent to which participation is proactive or reactive. Tensions between the quality and quantity of participation can be identified. Finally, who participates in the decision-making process can be examined for evidence of inclusive and representative participation. In the following sections participation in the two case studies is examined using each of these four approaches.

Public participation is an important factor affecting the quality of local planning, and is influenced in large part by the interrelationship between the community, local politicians and planners. As Hodge explains:

In both case studies, this three-way relationship played a prominent role.

In the Kensington case study, communication between the politicians and the community resulted in the formation of the Working Group, a group that proved to be a very important player in both the formal and informal planning processes surrounding the redevelopment of the old College site. Although the planning department remained outside of the community’s actions and chose to wait until the issue settled before they fulfilled their obligation to do a planning study on the site, the local planner was generally considered to be knowledgeable and was actively following both the informal and formal activities surrounding the site.

In the Markham case study, the relationship between politicians, planners and the public was also important, although it flowed along more traditionally organized channels. Communication was strongest between the politicians and the planners who shared a pro-development agenda, and the public was included when politicians were looking for a reaction, or planners brought proposals before public meetings.

Within this formal context, community participation in Markham was overwhelmingly reactive. Interestingly, politicians, planners, business people and residents alike seemed to support similar assumptions about the value of a formal process. Indeed, while obviously not all community members agreed with the decisions made by the municipality, they did seem to feel their interests were being served within such a process. By contrast, community participation in Kensington was much more organic and proactive. The redevelopment of the College was viewed in terms of its potential impact on the community, and garnered widespread community interest.

Part of an explanation for why participation in Kensington was more extensive and integral to the planning process than was the case in Markham has to do with the history of participation for each community. As was explained in Chapter Five, Kensington is a community that has responded to change within its borders in the past. Whether fighting bulldozers, or lobbying the City of Toronto for revitalization efforts, Kensington residents have repeatedly stood up and made their voices heard. Within this context, the closure of George Brown College should be seen as yet another important local issue the community felt should be addressed. As a result of this activist history, momentum for public participation existed in Kensington’s associations and influential individuals which could be readily built upon when the campus closure became known.

Markham, by contrast, did not have this momentum for public participation to build upon. Planning issues had come up in the past that had attracted community interest and concern, but they had either a localized impact that did not affect the majority of those living and working in Markham (e.g. NIMBY issues), or they were single, focused issues that stirred up widespread participation which dissolved after the issue was settled (e.g. the Official Plan amendments). What makes this so fundamentally different from Kensington is that issues were disconnected, with an entirely new group of actors participating each time. When the development of Asian malls and the corresponding increase in Asian immigration became an issue in Markham, it did attract widespread community attention but there was not the same history with collective participation to build upon as was the case in Kensington.

A legacy of the politicized fights for citizen involvement in the planning process during the 1960s is that most local planning today assumes some level of public participation to be legitimate. Consultation is written into planning legislation as a requirement, yet in many cases planners have encouraged public participation beyond that which is mandated in their Official Plans. In part this is because the public will demand to participate in planning processes in ways they deem meaningful if they are not invited to do so (Marshall and Roberts, 1997).

Some planning professionals also express concern that public participation must be tempered so as to achieve a sense of proportion within the planning process (Seelig and Seelig, 1997). While it may be tempting to equate a greater amount of public participation with "better" planning (Arnstein, 1969), lessons from planning practice illustrate that in reality trade-offs often must be made between goals such as high participation, equitable representation, and cost-efficiency. The effectiveness of a particular public participation strategy is therefore dependent upon a host of factors including the public’s influence, the perceived legitimacy of the process, the degree of controversy raised by the issue, and fixed concerns such as available time and cost (Wallace, Woo and Boudreau, 1997). It is also important to understand that participation is not a static activity. Some individuals will participate through strong central roles in a planning process, while others may move in and out of the process as their time allows, or as their interest is piqued. As well, many more individuals may never become involved in the process, and may yet still be interested in any outcomes that are achieved.

In the Kensington case study, a handful of interested community members formed the Working Group which became the core of public participation. Although not supported by everyone in the community, it was the leadership of these individuals which

can be credited with the non-adversarial, informal planning process that evolved and eventually resulted in what was a favourable outcome for most community members.

In the Markham case study, various interests defined public participation at different points in the process, but overall public participation was significantly less than in Kensington. Developers and residential condominium owners dealt exclusively with the planning department at the beginning of the process. Once the malls were being built, participation in the process spread to the indirect activity of the predominantly Asian buyers of the units, and the reaction of the wider community to the developments.

Despite best intentions to encourage everyone to become involved in community issues, the reality is that in planning processes a relatively small group of people participate, and in unequal ways. Therefore, in evaluating participation in local decision-making one must consider how representative the process is.

In Markham, participation structured within formal channels in the planning process was considered an adequate way of informing the public of local development changes. Given the rarity of a planning process that involves large numbers of interested individuals, the Markham experience of minimal participation is not unusual. What is noteworthy about the Markham case study in this respect is that the Asian newcomers were not represented among those who did participate, a factor that may have contributed to the tensions between the current residents and the recent immigrants.

Complete community participation was also unattainable in the Kensington case study, although for different reasons. Community participation peaked at points when the Working Group actively sought community opinion, but for the most part community members would indirectly or infrequently participate in the process even though they considered the issue to be a community concern. For some in the community, a lack of language and literacy skills contributed to their reluctance to actively participate in the process.

Given that the majority of the public was not involved in the planning processes examined in either of the two case studies, it is important to know the degree to which those silent majority interests were represented within the process. In Kensington, the Working Group appointed itself to represent the community as a whole, and managed to succeed in bridging the residential-business cleavage in the community. The Working Group members, however, were not a representative sample of the various ethnocultural groups found in Kensington.

In Markham the municipality, represented through the Mayor, his Council and the planning department in particular, were said to be the community’s representatives in local decision-making. The municipality supported continued land development, and this seemed to be also supported by Markham’s suburban residents and business people. The form of land development, however, was a more contested topic as the case of the retail condominiums revealed.

The second criterion used to evaluate the impact of ethnocultural diversity on local planning processes is democratic equality. Underlying the level and means of public participation in local decision-making is the degree to which people are empowered to participate as a result of how power is distributed within the community. As the research revealed, power in decision-making was not solely defined by ethnocultural differences, but also the influence and position of certain individuals or interests within the planning process.

In the Kensington case study, participation was largely within an informal planning process, while in the Markham case study it occurred within a more traditional, formal planning format. This difference influenced who was active in local decision-making within the two communities, and by extension who had the greatest influence over those decisions.

The planning process in Kensington was dominated by a handful of interested community members. A community where personalities matter a great deal (planner A-K, 1996a; business interest A-K, 1997; business interest B-K, 1997), influence was exercised in local decision-making through coalition-building relationships. Added to the influence of individuals was the powerful role played by the Working Group, particularly in articulating the community’s interests. The Working Group’s efforts to adopt the structure of a non-profit organization helped to increase its influence in the formal planning process, and to be considered a player in the "politicking" that occurred alongside government representatives and prospective developers.

In the Markham case study, local decision-making was deemed the purview of the municipality and, therefore, the Mayor, Council and the planning department had the greatest influence over the planning process surrounding retail condominium developments. Developers brought forward the applications to build Asian malls, thereby initiating the formal planning process within a pro-development climate among local politicians and planners. The indirect pressure of Asian immigrants and the market potential they represented as retail consumers and potential retail unit owners was another source of indirect influence on the planning process in Markham.

In Kensington, there was greater community control and power than in Markham. The powerful role of the Kensington community was facilitated by outsiders (planners, politicians, community service providers) but was ultimately the result of resident action early on. Given the importance of the site to the community, the closure of George Brown College generated an informal planning process within which some residents in particular took on an informed role.

The community consensus that developed over what to do with the site was also a powerful tool. It was the process of securing this consensus that helped give the Working Group influence within Kensington, and the consensus itself gave legitimacy to the Working Group in their political activities beyond the community’s borders. Once the formal planning process began, the developer, the municipality and the planning department had substantial influence. Because the Kensington community had opted for a pro-active role early on, however, its collective interests remained a strong influence even at this stage and the formal process lacked the acrimony and frustration that could have occurred if the process had proceeded more conventionally.

In Markham, the community’s power within local decision-making was more limited and reactive. Community members did have a forum to make their views known through the public consultation mechanism created by the Mayor’s Advisory Committee, where concerned individuals and groups were able to bring written briefs and presentations to its members. Beyond this special venue, community concerns tended to be over parking, traffic, noise and the like and were dealt with by the planning department on a site-specific basis within the typical channels of community consultation. Despite the potential for a more proactive approach on the part of Markham residents (as had occurred with the previous Official Plan amendments), there was never the kind of collective community response in this case that was evident in the Kensington case study.

Neither Kensington nor Markham has a homogeneous population. Instead, the two communities are differentiated along lines of ethnicity, culture, period of immigration, citizenship, and/or interests, which add considerable complexity to an understanding of how local decision-making works in each context. Given this differentiation, it was relevant to explore the impact of planning decisions on various collectivities within the communities, and how they were involved in the planning process. Social structures and associations is the third criterion used to evaluate the impact of ethnocultural diversity on local planning processes in the two case studies.

Kensington’s ethnocultural diversity is not manifested in local ethnocultural associations. Whether due to the growth of ethnocultural groups beyond the borders of the Kensington community, or the lack of a single group large enough to play a dominant role in local decision-making, ethnocultural associations are not the central affiliation or source of identity for people in Kensington. In this case study, the primary community differentiation was a historical cleavage between residents and business people. Beyond this cleavage is the differentiation that occurs within these two groups in the form of multiple associations and informal alliances.

Within this environment, the Kensington community functions in practice not through associations, but instead through the leadership of individuals who act as spokespersons for different interests. It is for this reason that the Working Group’s continued success as a collective, organized association is unusual for Kensington. The dominance of influential people, however, continues to be a natural and useful way to accomplish local goals. Many of the community’s influential leaders are in some way connected to the Working Group and its various subcommittees, a factor that has contributed to its ability to exist beyond the George Brown College issue it was created to attend to.

Ethnocultural differences form a strong cleavage within Markham. In part, these ethnocultural differences are manifested geographically (north vs. south). Within the decision-making process, however, ethnocultural differences are not structured by associations in the community. In fact, in the case of Asian mall developments, the planning process cannot be reduced to a race relations issue. Community members from multicultural backgrounds were often found on the same side, expressing very ordinary planning concerns about increased traffic or parking. More relevant cleavages seemed to be between established residents and newcomers, and between residential and commercial interests, and within ethnocultural groups.

In Markham, ethnocultural diversity has not traditionally been structured by associations. The diverse membership of Markham’s business associations, ratepayers’/residents’ associations, and social service, charity and fund-raising organizations are a marker of the integration that has occurred for established immigrants in the community.

Despite this evidence of integration, recent newcomers from Asia have not as readily become part of the social fabric of Markham. The creation of parallel organizations and associations has contributed to the separation between newcomers from established residents, a fact that gained a political expression with the crisis that erupted from the Deputy Mayor’s comments. Cleavages based on ethnocultural differences, period of immigration and citizenship are evident within the community, although they have entered the planning process veiled as generic concerns of parking, traffic, garbage, odour and signage.

From one perspective, Kensington can be seen as a disorganized community with multiple and often competing associations claiming to represent the community’s interests. Amidst this complexity and sometimes confusion are influential individuals who represent coalitions of local interests. From another perspective, however, this apparent disorganization can be seen as a historical element of continuity for the community -- that is, the creation and re-creation of alliances and associations as community issues arise. During the research, both residents and business people alike were quick to give examples of other instances where community interests coalesced (and Kensington’s history of community activism supports this), invariably at times when the community felt threatened in some way.

The fourth and final criterion used to evaluate the impact of cultural diversity on local planning processes is solidarity and tolerance. Discovering what community members share in common was perhaps the most interesting and challenging aspect of this research. This criterion was crucial to understanding the depth to which residents felt a sense of belonging in a shared space. The degree to which diversity was tolerated, and what in fact citizens involved in the decision-making process collectively shared, was explored through observation as well as in the reflections of those who live and work in Kensington and Markham.

Evaluating the case studies in terms of solidarity and tolerance is challenging in that unity or collective action within a community is ultimately something practical rather than theoretical. Reflections of those interviewed caution us against assuming that community participation necessarily indicates community unity.

From a practical perspective, the greatest sense of community solidarity is derived from a commonly shared identity in an urban or suburban location. By choosing to live and/or work in an expressly urban or suburban community, people in Kensington and Markham were illustrating a preference that in some ways served as a basis for collective or common action. In this way, place, and the social environment it supported, was the strongest force of solidarity:

The solidarity which springs from a common place can be found in socially isolated suburban communities. In fact, the suburbs have long been criticized for being nothing but a home for people sharing a suburban lifestyle, rather than collectivities or communities with a shared purpose. Charged with lacking density, ambiance, civic substance (Meeker, 1989) and generally a sense of place (Kunstler, 1993), many argue that the "suburbs are essentially lifestyle enclaves, not really neighbourhoods or communities," and that:

In Markham, the sense of place that is shared by community members has two facets. Some of Markham’s long-time residents nostalgically hold onto a small town identity. However, because of increased immigration many people in Markham base their identity in their suburban realities of economic growth and ethnocultural diversity. The degree to which the affinity for a suburban lifestyle can be translated into a sense of community in Markham is questionable, however.

Although suburban communities have been extensively criticized for lacking an organic sense of place or sense of community, it is important that urban communities not be idealized at the other end of the spectrum. Kensington has a community solidarity that springs from its urban, diverse environment that attracts immigrants, urban professionals, and business people alike. This solidarity is evident whenever an issue captures widespread community interest, as was the case with the planning example of the closure of George Brown College. In fact, as was addressed in Chapter Four, Kensington has a long history of collective action around issues that had an impact upon the community as a whole. This solidarity arising out of diverse interests, however, does not extend beyond a shared desire to protect the urban identity that those who live and work in Kensington are attracted to.

This dissertation has consistently emphasized the impact of ethnocultural diversity on participation and belonging in two heterogeneous communities. Implicit in this focus, and indeed, the starting point for the criteria used to evaluate the impact of diversity, is the idea that involvement in local decision-making can be an active expression of community membership.

Participation within ethnoculturally diverse communities, as the research revealed, is often complex. In the Markham case study, ethnocultural diversity was linked with class differences. Immigration had changed the multicultural composition of the community and forced an adjustment on the part of newcomers and established residents alike. When this new diversity began to take on an identifiable form in the economic life of the community, however, it was seen as more threatening than the integrative patterns of earlier groups of immigrants. Financially able to create businesses and social structures, these newcomers stood out from both the Canadian born and earlier immigrants in Markham. Despite these challenges brought on by ethnocultural diversity, some of those interviewed for this research were searching for solidarity and strength that could be fostered amidst the diversity in interests and viewpoints as well as the ethnocultural differences.

By contrast, in Kensington diversity is so embedded in the community’s history that it is seen as a source of strength, a source of community solidarity. Through ethnocultural diversity has come differences in language, income, interests and issues, yet the historical pattern of immigration has had a unifying effect on the community.

It is this diversity that attracts Kensington’s many visitors, has earned the community’s market the special protection status (Area of Special Identity) from the City of Toronto’s planning department, and was even considered a primary selling feature for the new condominiums to be built on the old George Brown College site.

Amongst those who live and work in Kensington, though, it is widely acknowledged that the community is a collection of individuals with differing and often opposing perspectives. Despite their ability to come together over specific community issues, a more broad-based and consistent solidarity has proved to be elusive for those who seek it.

Examining the degree to which tolerance existed within the case study communities was a useful balance to some of the more idealistic observations and reflections about community solidarity. For example, while ethnocultural diversity was generally described as a strength by community members, the planning examples revealed the challenges of achieving full or representative participation amidst such diversity. Discovering the degree to which tolerance for diversity exists within the two communities could therefore illuminate the strength of community solidarity.

In the Kensington case study, tolerance was a practical necessity given its high density, multiple group associations, and the mix of residential and commercial uses. While some readily described the community as tolerant and pointed to its ethnocultural diversity, others contradicted this by suggesting that what could be mistaken for tolerance was in fact the absence of any one ethnocultural group large enough or powerful enough to dominate the community.

In the Markham case study, intolerance was given a political expression as rapid immigration spurred a demographic shift in the community’s composition. According to many in Markham, the Mayor’s Advisory Committee and its subsequent report was an important political gesture in quieting things down, but did little to resolve the community’s actual internal conflicts over what membership and belonging are to mean amidst Markham’s ethnocultural diversity. Moreover, given the recency of Markham’s demographic changes, tolerance may still be out of reach. Active members of the community see building solidarity within its diverse population as a more constructive and practical goal than addressing the intolerance that does exist.

The redevelopment of George Brown College in Kensington, and the development of Asian malls in Markham provide evidence of the ways in which ethnocultural diversity challenges participation and belonging in urban and suburban communities. While ethnocultural diversity is but one factor of many that affect local decision-making processes, these case studies also raise some interesting questions about the challenges of diversity for urban and suburban planning, an issue which is increasingly relevant for planning practice in other Canadian cities.

As was stated in Chapter One, and repeated throughout this dissertation, immigration and ethnocultural diversity in Canada’s urban landscape are not new phenomena. What has changed within the last quarter-century is that immigration settlement is no longer aimed so intensively on the inner-city. Immigration settlement patterns are spreading the impact of immigration, and its resulting multiculturalism, to all parts of cities -- urban and suburban alike. While some of this is due to increasing numbers of well-educated, professional and financially stable immigrants entering Canada, immigrants from all parts of the economic spectrum are arriving in Canadian urban and suburban centres.

This immigration is having a qualitatively different impact on Canadian cities than in the past. Not only do the populations of Canada’s largest cities include increasing proportions of immigrants, but there is also an increased ethnic, racial, and class diversity in Canada’s suburban immigrant population. Qadeer articulates what these new challenges mean for planning practice:

The impact of shifting immigration patterns and some of the challenges they present for urban and suburban communities in the Toronto metropolitan area is illuminated by the comparison of Kensington and Markham in this dissertation.

Diversity is widely considered by planners to be a source of strength and vibrancy for cities (Leung, 1994), and the impacts of ethnocultural diversity are spreading into new areas of urban and suburban planning. Yet are planners in Canada’s diverse cities engaging in "multicultural planning"? On a most basic level, ethnocultural diversity is important because demographic analysis (such as population projections) is often the basis upon which planners make decisions about economic and physical growth. More significant are the challenges of facilitating citizen participation in planning and local decision-making. Although an issue in some ways inseparable from larger debates over the role of citizens in local decision- and policy-making (Qadeer, 1994: 190), traditional means of involving the public have undoubtedly been put into question where social norms, language barriers and a mistrust of the process itself on the part of newcomers can conspire to make planning tools like the public meeting especially ineffective. Especially in cities (like Toronto) where minority groups are large enough or visible enough to present a political force, efforts have been made to solicit their participation through translation services and multi-lingual documentation. Recognizing that a diverse population requires diversity in the way services are delivered is an important first step for the planning profession, and this has been where planners have been most successful in accommodating ethnocultural diversity within the planning process.

Beyond the participatory aspects of the planning process, ethnocultural diversity is also challenging the way communities are defined and understood by planners. Arguing that we must "...give up the search for a safe place, a homogeneous community, and to embrace difference and diversity," Sandercock suggests that "We could call this the need to plan for multiple publics and for diversity, rather than for the (myth of the) public interest and homogeneity" (Sandercock, 1995: 85-86). Such an approach demands that structural changes to planning processes and policies be made -- critically examining how plans are written, what assumptions underlie their application, who sits at the decision-making table, and who the planners themselves are.

As examples from planning practice illustrate, meeting these challenges of ethnocultural diversity is not an easy or natural extension of the planning profession. Rooted in a tradition of the universal application of plans and policies, most planners work within a structure that assumes some degree of homogeneity in terms of the community or public interest. The national professional body, the Canadian Institute of Planners, has paid some attention to issues of diversity in its Statement of Values. Planners are encouraged to "respect diversity" and to foster "meaningful public participation by all individuals and groups and seek to articulate the needs of those whose interests have not been represented" (Canadian Institute of Planners, 1994). Despite this pluralistic language, the Statement is only a collection of guidelines for action, rather than enforceable codes. In Ontario’s planning legislation, by contrast, people are described as generic and undifferentiated:

What this means in practice is that diversity is addressed as an exceptional circumstance to be accommodated in planning processes. As multiculturalism collides with planning on a case-by-case basis, planners struggle to deal with the impacts of diversity while at the same time holding onto "formal policies [that] remain ‘blind’ to [the] ethnic and cultural characteristics of a proposal" (Qadeer, 1994: 192).

This is not to suggest that the planners at work in such diverse communities are not sensitive and aware of the challenges diversity poses for local decision-making and the planning process in particular. As this dissertation revealed, some planners do acknowledge that ethnocultural diversity is changing the urban and suburban environments they operate within and is challenging the tools and assumptions their profession has traditionally depended on.

In the Kensington case study, ethnocultural diversity was recognized as a strength of the neighbourhood by both the City and the community. Public participation in the formal and informal aspects of the planning process attempted to include the diverse groups through translation services, multi-lingual documentation, and, to a limited degree, in the varied representation of groups. Despite these efforts, though, much of the community’s diversity was not evident in the faces of those who held positions of power or influence in regards to the planning example at issue.

In the Markham case study, by contrast, the community’s diversity was not directly addressed in the planning process, yet it was conflicts arising out of this diversity that politicized the issue of retail condominium development. Moreover, it was the distinctive impact of culture on this new commercial development form that contributed to local planners’ uncertainty. They wanted to encourage alternatives but found their existing tools inadequate to deal with the numerous concerns these malls brought with them.

While some planners are dealing with the challenges of ethnocultural diversity within the context of planning processes out of necessity, at most there has been an increased awareness in the planning profession that it must adapt to the needs of diverse groups. The planning process has been altered to incorporate diversity through creative public participation mechanisms, especially in those Canadian cities where multiculturalism is most present and visible. Yet the more structural changes required to engage in multicultural planning -- that is, planning that acknowledges "the cultural biases embedded in the so-called universal standards" (Qadeer, 1997: 491) -- are far from a reality.

Importantly, "multicultural planning" does not demand the conceptualization of another substantive area of planning like "social planning" or "environmental planning". Rather, multicultural planning necessitates a new consciousness among planners about the very perceivable force of change immigration continues to bring into Canadian communities, and the challenges the resulting ethnocultural diversity poses within the planning process. Furthermore, in acknowledging the impact of ethnocultural diversity, planners need not assume that the outcome of their efforts will necessarily be different. What will and should change is the process of local decision-making, so that the varied ways in which people participate and belong in their communities is legitimately reflected through the evolution of pluralistic visions of plans and policies. As Hodge explains:

Sandercock is more critical of current planning practice, and the distance that has to be travelled before ethnocultural diversity truly informs planning practice:

Immigration and the resulting ethnocultural diversity have had, and will continue to have, an unavoidable impact on Canadian cities and by extension the way they are planned, governed and function. As this research illustrated, the challenges this creates within heterogeneous communities have not been resolved -- especially within the suburban communities such as Markham where diversity is a relatively recent phenomenon. The challenges will be resolved by addressing the unequal and varied ways in which people participate and belong in their communities. Recognizing the "multiple publics" that inhabit our multicultural cities is a first step. The solutions, however, go beyond recognition and tolerance of diversity. What is necessary is that the institutions and structures of local decision-making must be accepted as legitimate by all groups. The goal of multicultural planning, then, is not so much to create a more tolerant, accepting, and accommodating planning process as it is to ensure that the decision-making process is one all community members see as legitimate.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Titlepages - chapter:   1 |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  - Appdxa - biblio