THE CITY AND INTEGRATION OF
IMMIGRANTS :
URBAN PLANNING POLICIES FOR
MULTICULTURAL CITIES
Dr. Mohammad Qadeer &
Dr. Sandeep Agrawal
MULTICULTURALISM
Multiculturalism is largely misunderstood in the
mass media
 Two sided coin:

One side is the right to cultural diversity
 The other side is the common ground laws, economy,
technology, politics, official languages and civic
culture, including national values and everyday
norms.

TWO DOMAINS OF SOCIAL LIFE
Public= law, economy, politics, public health and
welfare, technology, national culture, and
identity, official language(s) and norms and
values common across a country.
 Private= family and marriage, community
affairs, religion, heritage languages, identity,
customs and etiquettes.

COMBINATIONS OF CULTURES OF DOMAINS
Public
 Unitary
 Unitary
 Diverse
 Diverse

Private
Unitary
Diverse
Unitary
Diverse
= Melting pot
= Multiculturalism
= US of pre civil rights
= Apartheid
TWO SIDES OF MULTICULTURALISM
Sub-cultural diversity and common ground
 Common ground is the shared legal, economic,
political and administrative institutions,
infrastructure, and services as well as values
of national sweep and mores of everyday
behaviour and temperament. Multiculturalism
can be practiced only if there is a common ground
to negotiate across differences.

MULTICULTURAL CITY

It is a city where different (sub)cultural
identities and interests are grafted on its
geographic and institutional structures as rights.
These cultural expressions are imprinted as
ethnic enclaves, commercial districts, places of
worship and community institutions and
incorporated in city politics, economy, laws,
symbols and everyday behaviours. Space,
infrastructure and services a significant part of
the common ground.
MULTICULTURAL CITY





City is an instrument of integration through daily
encounters with ‘others’.
It acculturates immigrants and in the process absorbs
their interests and values in the common ground.
The rights to be different are counterpoised by the
imperatives of conforming to the norm and values of
societal institutions.
A multicultural city is steeped in the social rights of
individuals and communities to cultural differences
and religious freedoms.
A multicultural city combines three pillars of the civic
organization: diversity, equality and integration.
PURPOSE
To take a measure of how planning practice is
responding to cultural diversity;
 To examine the planning institutions’
responsiveness to cultural diversity; and
 To empirically assess the culturally-sensitive
policies adopted by municipalities in the US and
Canada using a Multicultural Policy Index.

METHOD
Survey questionnaire based on Policy Index
 109 municipalities were approached (stratified
sampling)
 42 (38.5%) responses: 23 US and 19 Canadian
municipalities

POLICY INDEX
1) Providing minority language facilities, translations
and interpretation in public consultations.
2) Including minority representatives in planning
committees and task forces as well as diversifying staff.
3) Including ethnic/ minority community organizations
in the planning decision –making processes.
4) Routinely analyzing ethnic and racial variables in planning analysis.
5) Studies of ethnic enclaves and neighborhoods in
transition.
6) Recognition of ethnic diversity as a planning goal in
Official/ Comprehensive Plans.
7) Citywide policies for culture-specific institutions
in plans, e.g. places of worship, ethnic seniors homes,
cultural institutions, funeral homes, fairs etc.
8) Policies /design guidelines for sustaining ethnic
neighborhoods.
9) Policies/ strategies for ethnic commercial areas, malls
and business improvement areas.
10) Incorporating culture/ religion as an acceptable reason for site- specific
accommodations / minor-variances.
11) Accommodation of ethnic signage, street names and symbols.
12) Policies for ethnic specific service needs.
13) Policies for immigrants’ special service needs.
14) Policies/ projects for ethnic heritage preservation.
15) Guidelines for housing to suit diverse groups. .
16) Development strategies taking account of intercultural needs.
17) Promoting and systemizing ethnic entrepreneurship for
economic development.
18) Policies/ strategies for ethnic art and cultural services.
19) Accommodating ethnic sports (e.g. cricket, Bocce etc) in
playfield design and programming.
Language,
representation
and inclusion
Land use and
development
Community
Services
FINDINGS
Canadian large (>500,000) cities have adopted a
higher number of policies (15.4 out of possible 19)
 Large American cities follow most of the policies
(12.6 vs. 15.4)

Policies
Figure -2
Adopted policies by the size of cities in the US/Canada
US Municipalities
Canadian Municipalities
Small
Small
Large
Medium Cities
Large
Medium Cities
Cities
Cities
less
Cities
Cities
less
over
100than
over
100than
500,000 500,000 100,000 500,000 500,000 100,000
Total number
of adopted
policies
63
91
28
77
58
45
Total number
of cities
5
14
4
5
5
9
12.6
6.5
7
15.4
11.6
5
Mean number
of policies per
city
Source: The Survey
FINDINGS




Large and medium size
Canadian cities have higher avg.
number of policies than
American cities
Reverse is the case with respect
to small cities
In all sampled cities, land use
and development policies tend to
Policy Cluster
be less culturally-sensitive.
Planning process policies are
Planning Process
more inclusive
(Policies # 1-5)


Large and medium size cities
Use and
follow most of the policies that Land
Development
(Policies # 6-11,14)
promote the inclusion of ethnics’
interest and voices in planning Community Services
(Policies #
decision-making.
12,13,15,16-19)
Provision of community services
is the second most common
practice.
Source: The Survey
Figure - 4
Standardized Means of Policy Clusters
Standardized Means of Policy Clusters per City
US Municipalities
Canadian Municipalities
Large
Cities over
500,000
Medium
Cities
100500,000
Small Cities Large Cities Medium
less than
over
Cities 100100,000
500,000
500,000
Small Cities
less than
100,000
6.4
2.7
3.5
6.2
4.2
1.7
3.6
1.9
2.3
4.8
4.0
1.6
4.6
2.6
2.3
6.2
4.6
2.1
FINDINGS


Most of the cities have adopted policies aiming at protecting ethnic
heritage, including the heritage of indigenous people, promoting
ethnic art, culture, fairs and parades, signage and street names.
None adopted any city-wide policies for the development of ethnic
neighbourhoods, places of worship and other cultural institutions.
Figure - 3
Incidence of Policies
No. of Cities adopted a policy
US Municipalities
Canadian Municipalities
No. Policies
Large
Cities
over
500,000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Involvement + Consultation
Representation in Planning Communities
Participation in Decision-making
Routinely Analyzing Ethnic Characteristics
Studies of ethnic enclaves
Ethnic Diversity as a goal
City-wide policies for cultural institutions
Policies/guidelines for ethnic areas
Policies for ethnic business areas
Culture/religion for site-specific accommodations
Ethnic Signage/Streetnames
Ethnic-specific service needs
Immigrants special services
Ethnic heritage preservation projects
Housing to suit diverse groups
Providing for Inter-cultural needs
Promoting ethnic entrepreneurship
Promoting ethnic art and culture
Accommodating ethnic sports
Total
Source: The Survey
5
4
5
4
5
3
0
1
1
3
5
4
4
5
2
2
2
4
4
63
Medium
Cities
100500,000
7
7
6
4
3
5
0
1
0
4
9
3
6
8
4
5
3
10
6
91
Small
Cities
less than
100,000
2
3
3
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
2
1
2
3
0
2
1
2
1
28
Large
Cities
over
500,000
4
5
4
4
5
5
0
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
3
4
4
5
5
77
Medium
Cities
100500,000
3
2
3
4
3
4
0
2
2
3
4
3
3
5
3
4
2
4
4
58
Small
Cities
less than
100,000
1
3
2
3
2
6
0
1
0
1
3
3
4
4
2
2
0
5
3
45
Total
22
24
23
20
19
24
0
9
6
17
27
19
24
30
14
19
12
30
23
FINDINGS
% of immigrants has no or weak association with
the number of policies adopted.
 % of immigrants has no significant affect on the
policies adopted in Large and medium size cities.
 Small cities show significant correlation between
% of immigrants and number of adopted policies.

Figure - 5
Correlation Matrix
Variables
Sample
Percentage of Immigrant vs. Number of Adopted Policies
Percentage of Immigrant vs. Number of Adopted Policies
Percentage of Immigrant vs. Number of Adopted Policies
Percentage of Immigrant vs. Number of Adopted Policies
Percentage of Immigrant vs. Number of Adopted Policies
Percentage of Immigrant vs. Number of Adopted Policies
Source: The Survey
All Cities
US Cities
Canadian Cities
All Large Cities
All Medium Cities
All Small Cities
Number
(N)
r
(Pearson
Coefficient)
42
23
19
10
19
13
0.533
0.393
0.459
-0.018
0.459
0.747
P-value
(2-tailed)
<0.0001
0.063
0.048
0.960
0.048
0.003
INTERPRETIVE DISCUSSION

Representation in the planning process


Equitable city and reasonable accommodations


Ethnic minorities are well represented in the
decision-making process
Despite low incidence of city wide policies for the
development of ethnic places of worship and so on,
such developments are pervasive through out Canada
and the US.
Restructuring community services and carving a
common ground

Cities respond to ethnic diversity in the provision of
services but it is largely reactive rather than
proactive.
CONCLUSIONS
Culturally-sensitive planning in North American
is a work in progress.
 Large- and medium-size cities of metropolitan
regions do better on this front than small,
exurban municipalities.
 Canadian cities are more responsive to culturally
diversity than the US cities.
 Planning institutions are generally responsive to
the demands of diverse communities.
 The complexity of balancing diversity, equality
and public interests is the challenge of planning
practice.
