Immigration has been a familiar source of debate and political discussion in Canada. To date, this debate has taken place almost exclusively at the national level. It is the federal government’s constitutional responsibility to determine who will enter Canada as an immigrant each year and under what terms. Although immigration is an area of shared jurisdiction, most provinces have not pursued a strong role in immigrant settlement leaving this also to the federal government. Immigration is linked to a national debate over multiculturalism and the value placed on diversity in both practice and policy. As well, individuals and groups debate the economic and social impacts of federal immigration policy and programs from a national perspective.

Despite legislative control at the federal level, immigration is an increasingly important local issue in Canada. Upon entry to the country, immigrants impact upon local communities as they establish themselves within Canadian society. Furthermore, this local impact is overwhelmingly an urban one. Newcomers to Canada have long been attracted to cities and their promise of employment opportunities, community and family ties, and a range of settlement services. According to the 1996 census, 85 per cent of all immigrants to Canada live in a census metropolitan area (CMA). Compared to just over one-quarter of the Canadian-born population, 62 per cent of all immigrants are living in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, the three largest metropolitan areas (Statistics Canada, 1997; Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 1997). Although immigrants represent 17.4 per cent of the nation’s population, many urban centres located across Canada (especially those in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia) have a proportion of immigrants higher than this national average (see Figure 1.1).

This immigration has fostered an ethnoculturally diverse society, especially in Canada’s urban and suburban centres. A testimony to the diversity of Canada’s immigration, projections for the next century suggest that the proportion of visible minorities in Canadian cities will continue to increase steadily across the country (Vincent, 1995). Diversity, however, challenges the ways in which people participate and belong in communities. This is the primary focus of this dissertation. More specifically, it addresses the following question: How does ethnocultural diversity challenge the way we participate and belong in our communities, as seen through urban and suburban planning processes? This research question is based on three inter-related themes: diversity, planning and citizenship. Taken together, these three themes provide the means by which to examine the links between immigration and cities in general, and the impact of ethnocultural diversity on participation and belonging as seen through local decision-making within heterogeneous communities.

This dissertation explores the challenges that ethnocultural diversity poses for urban and suburban planning, and what this in turn says about the way in which we live together as citizens in such heterogeneous environments. While tensions between Canadian-born citizens, past immigrants and recent newcomers certainly contribute to how Canadians participate in local decision-making and the degree to which they feel they belong in ethnoculturally diverse communities, this dissertation is not specifically about race relations. Using one land use planning example from both an urban and a suburban community in the Toronto metropolitan area as case studies, this research explores the varied ways in which demographic changes from immigration are both challenging traditional planning practice, and forcing adjustments among new and old members alike.

In both case study areas used in this research, immigrants make up a sizable proportion of the total population, yet immigrant groups are not the focus of the research. Immigration is an important force of demographic change for Canadian cities and is discussed at length in the dissertation. Ultimately, however, this dissertation aims to explore the impact of ethnocultural diversity on urban and suburban planning, and in so doing refine our understanding of how we participate and belong amidst such diversity. In looking for evidence of what will later be described as "local citizenship", the research is informed by a variety of perspectives and points of participation within the case study communities. Place of birth or period of immigration therefore does not form the boundaries of the perspectives used, but rather intersects various positions of power and interest within the local planning processes explored.

As the largest city in Canada and home to the largest immigrant population, Toronto provides an excellent backdrop against which to examine the impact of immigration on local decision-making. Of all Canadian cities, Toronto has been the most affected by immigration, both in terms of overall numbers and diversity. According to the 1996 Census, Toronto attracts nearly one-third of Canada’s immigrants (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 1997). An urban region home to nearly four million people, 42 per cent of Toronto’s population are immigrants (Statistics Canada, 1997). Just under two-thirds (58 per cent) of these immigrants are recent arrivals (1981-1996) (see Figure 1.2).

Toronto’s diversity is evident in the varied source countries of its immigration. As Table 1.1 indicates, all of the top ten places of birth represent less than 10 percent of the total immigrant population. When recent immigrants are isolated from the total immigrant population and compared, a pattern similar to that of Canada as a whole emerges. Asian immigration has outpaced European immigration since the 1970s, and among Toronto’s recent immigrants Poland is the only European country in the top ten places of birth. Although not as numerically large as their Asian counterparts, immigrants from the Caribbean also make a significant showing among Toronto’s recent immigrant population. Toronto’s diversity is perhaps most vividly represented in the visible minority data that is available for the first time in the 1996 Census. The Toronto CMA is home to 42 per cent of Canada’s visible minorities; representing 32 per cent of the Toronto CMA total population (Statistics Canada, 1998).

Immigration and the resulting ethnocultural diversity are most acutely felt at the local level. Yet, despite attracting recent national attention and research funding, the link between cities and immigration has failed to capture the attention and imagination of a majority of Canadian planners -- both academic and professional.

Working on the front lines of Canada’s changing urban landscape, planners are well-placed to understand the multicultural impact of immigration. A review of the planning literature, however, reveals that very little has been written on issues of immigration and local planning. Despite the related history of urban development and immigration, the ethnocultural diversity of North American cities is rarely a topic for contemporary planning debates. Citing a very short list of exceptions within American literature, Laws laments that "despite the obvious links between cities and immigrants, surprisingly little appears in the recent planning literature, and in urban studies more broadly, on the urban dimensions of immigration and the consequences for urban planning" (Laws, 1994: 92-93). Unfortunately, the same can be said for Canadian planning literature (Wallace, 1997). Where ethnocultural diversity is mentioned, it tends to be in passing as a future concern, and not addressed as part of the basic elements or context of planning practice (Hodge, 1998: 439-40).

In an effort to overcome the lack of Canadian research on immigration and cities, the federal government has established the Metropolis Project, a joint venture between eight federal departments and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, worth $8 million over six years (Metropolis Canada, 1997: 4). Four Centres of Excellence were established across the country for research on immigration and integration in Canadian cities. This long term research initiative aims to encourage research that moves away from the traditional preoccupation of immigration as a national issue and towards a recognition of the urban reality of Canadian immigration. Of the research projects Metropolis has funded, however, very few have addressed the link between ethnocultural diversity and urban planning.

Diversity from immigration promises to be an important source of change for the future of Canadian cities, and there is a place for planning -- a profession where demographic analysis is a valuable tool in dealing with issues of physical and economic growth -- to take a lead role in understanding the impact of that diversity (Knack, 1997: 10). As Canadian cities experience significant demographic shifts through immigration, urban and suburban planning practice is facing challenges to its traditional tools and assumptions. Multiculturalism is entering the context of planning decisions in ways it never did before. Whether changing house numbers to be sensitive to Asian cultural practices, addressing neighbourhood disputes over in-fill housing in older areas (sometimes called monster homes), or adjusting parking requirements for places of worship with a regional catchment area and a capacity not defined by pew seats, the reality of multiculturalism is colliding with established assumptions in the everyday practice of planning.

One example of this collision is in the realm of public participation. Social norms, language barriers, and a mistrust of the process on the part of newcomers can conspire to make the traditional forum of the public meeting an ineffective planning tool. Translation services and multi-lingual documentation are a first step toward accommodating an ethnoculturally diverse community. Adopting more community-based planning and searching for alternative means of involving the public in local decision-making may also be necessary if resident participation amidst such diversity is to be ensured. A second step is more substantive in nature, requiring structural changes. As Sandercock points out:

We could look around the room when we are in planning meetings and ask whether the faces present represent the diversity of the population... We could deconstruct our plans (planning documents, regulations, legislation) to see who is the subject; who is the object; who is the knower, the author; and what interaction there has been between the author and the community (Sandercock, 1995: 86).

In many ways, these challenges to planning practice are not new, echoing the efforts of activists and concerned citizens in the 1960s and 1970s to have an increased role in the process of local decision-making (Arnstein, 1969). Out of this legacy has come a greater commitment to public participation within both planning theory and practice. Planning legislation, however, has remained rooted in language which refers to people and the public as generic and undifferentiated (Wallace and Moore Milroy, forthcoming). Within this traditional framework, ethnocultural diversity is dealt with in planning practice only on a case-by-case basis as "formal policies remain ‘blind’ to the ethnic and cultural characteristics of a proposal" (Qadeer, 1994: 192).

This dissertation addresses the following question: How does ethnocultural diversity challenge the way we participate and belong in our communities, as seen through urban and suburban planning processes? To answer this question, the economic, social, political and cultural implications of land use planning are explored in two case studies, both ethnoculturally diverse communities located in the Greater Toronto Area.

The first case study is the redevelopment of the George Brown College site in the inner-city community of Kensington in downtown Toronto. The second case study is the development of retail condominiums (or so-called Asian theme malls) in the suburban Town of Markham located just north of Toronto (see Map 1.1). While ethnocultural diversity is the major focus in these case studies, differences based on class, gender, place of birth, or citizenship will also be addressed where they intersect with ethnocultural differences.

While similar in terms of their ethnocultural diversity, the two case studies illustrate some key differences in how cities are planned. Kensington occupies a downtown urban location, and planning in the Kensington case is necessarily influenced by the community’s density. Land use occurs in a mixed environment, with commercial, residential, institutional and even some former industrial uses occurring adjacent to one another. The George Brown redevelopment case study is an example of the typical form for new development initiatives within such a dense, urban environment.

By contrast, the Markham case study offers a look into planning within a suburban context. Markham is located just north of Toronto, where planners have been preoccupied with managing growth in what has been primarily undeveloped, rural lands. Along with a rapid increase in population, Markham is experiencing a boom in residential, commercial, and industrial development within its borders. The retail condominiums involve "greenfields development," a typical form for development initiatives within such an open, suburban environment.

Canadian cities are not uniformly impacted by immigration, and the two case studies also address this reality. In fact, the source of the ethnocultural diversity found in each case study reflects the evolution of federal immigration policies. 

Traditionally, Canada’s immigration program admitted mostly people with a skill that was needed in the Canadian economy, and the relatives of earlier immigrants. Inner-city communities like Kensington have been the traditional receiving areas for these immigrants for many decades, offering close proximity to a network of government and non-profit sector services, as well as opportunities to meet basic needs such as affordable housing and employment. This settlement pattern is often perpetuated as newcomers seek out locations where family, friends, or others from their ethnic or cultural group have settled and can provide additional support.

Since the 1990s, Canadian immigration policy has been shifting toward economic immigrants. Immigrants admitted largely on the basis of economic criteria do not fit the now stereotypical image of immigrants who enter Canada at the bottom of the socio-economic hierarchy and work their way up through society (Porter, 1965). Business immigrants in particular can afford suburban lifestyles, and are often in a position to create employment for themselves and others. These suburban newcomers mark a change in traditional immigration settlement patterns and illustrate the varied ways in which Canada’s urban centres are being impacted by immigration. Thus, while similarly multicultural, the respective urban and suburban context of Kensington and Markham mean the two communities represent very different planning environments in Toronto’s metropolitan area and are being impacted by immigration in very different ways.

As discussed in the final chapter of this dissertation, care must be taken when trying to apply the lessons of the two case studies to other urban and suburban communities. It is true, for example, that ethnocultural diversity has a divisive impact in some Canadian communities; indeed some multicultural communities function very poorly socially and/or economically as a result. The case studies chosen here, by contrast, have to be seen as relative success stories. It was important for this research, however, that the case study areas chosen did function relatively well and in many respects held together as communities. Along with diversity and planning, citizenship is the third key component of this research. The elements of citizenship, defined by local participation and belonging, are arguably only evident in communities that function successfully. This does not mean the research could not be revised to look at "unsuccessful" cases, but this would be a different dissertation, and is not the objective here.

This dissertation is organized into nine chapters. Following this chapter’s introduction to the connection between cities and immigration, Chapter Two explains the methodology of the dissertation, including the criteria used to evaluate participation and belonging in the two case studies, the comparative case study approach used, and how the data were collected and analyzed.

Chapter Three provides a factual basis for understanding the source of ethnocultural diversity found in Canadian cities today. In this chapter an historical overview of federal immigration policy is presented, with emphasis on how federal policy has structured the demographic character of Canadian society over the last century. This overview helps to explain the differing immigrant settlement patterns found in the two case study areas used in this research.

Chapters Four and Five focus on the urban case study in Kensington. Chapter Four offers a context for the planning case to be examined, presenting a detailed description of the Kensington community, including a brief history and an empirical portrait of its ethnocultural diversity. Chapter Five moves to the particulars of the case study, providing a detailed understanding of the ways in which people participated in the planning process. Structured by the criteria introduced in Chapter Two, information is drawn from both document and interview data.

Chapters Six and Seven focus on the suburban case study in Markham, and follow the format of the previous two chapters. Chapter Six provides a historical and empirical context for the planning case study examined in this research. Chapter Seven explores the case study in light of the criteria from Chapter Two, using both document and interview data.

Chapter Eight compares and contrasts the two case studies. Based on the criteria introduced in Chapter Two, participation and belonging in the two communities are evaluated with an aim to identifying the impact of ethnocultural diversity. The chapter closes with a discussion of ethnocultural diversity within the context of urban and suburban planning, and the currency of what seems to be a burgeoning concept: "multicultural planning". Specifically, the changes needed in the planning process to address the impact of multiculturalism on local participation and belonging are explored.

In Chapter Nine, a summary of the dissertation is offered within the framework of its three interrelated themes: diversity, planning and citizenship. It is argued that conceptually this research speaks to our sense of citizenship -- a notion that is relevant beyond formal rights and obligations and can be seen in the active practices of decision-making that we engage in within local communities -- and that the planning process offers a venue to explore the ways in which people exercise their local citizenship within local decision-making structures. The chapter closes with some suggested directions for future research.

_________________________________________________________________

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