Taylor Jenks GLST 391 March 22nd 2013 Re-establishing the Community in Community Planning: A look at Why International

Development Doesnt Have a Universal Blueprint Globalization as a process as said by Manfred B. Steger is the expansion and intensification of social relations and consciousness across world-time and worldspace(. As it has come to be accepted, this also includes the political and economic realm as well, often associating it with the potential loss of national or cultural identity and the creation of economic interdependence and vulnerability. An aspect too often not considered in its entirety as a player in the globalization game is the Community Planning practice; both the expansion of its custom and ideals, and more currently its association with irresponsible implementation and undesirable consequences. Community Planning when done properly is invaluable, as it provides a map for guiding decisions regarding economics, land use, housing, social services, and environment for 5 to 15 years, however when placed in the context of International Development and Foreign Aid, the values seem to become lost. With scale and Distance planners face the challenges of culture, historical context, varying economic stages, and political and infrastructural underdevelopment; the involvement of the Community in the Planning process becomes encumbering and often because those funding the project already have visions for the development, such consultation isnt pursued. Although weve been privileged with numerous planning ideals throughout history, (some effective and some not so much,) the international development

setting does not always act as a fitting place for application of these principles in their original form. Via what some may argue as the globalization process, planning principles have travelled from original Greek and Roman cities, through medieval times, to industrial Europe and expanding out with its colonies, adjusting to the new demands and concerns of each era and each region (Hodge.) Planning practices have been developed out of response to many of historys challenges. The Garden City Movement began in response to the housing and living conditions in Britains industrial cities; the City Efficient/Scientific Movement due to the lack of infrastructure and services resulting in horrific water quality, public waste disposal, and the common occurrence of fires and flooding; and finally the City Beautiful Movement purely out of concern for the shabby appearance of cities and the desire for monumentality and coherence, eventually with the intention of creating a harmonious social order in the United States (Hodge). These principles travelled throughout Europe, to the United States, and eventually Canada as well as others, however the early 19th century industrial context was much different than what faces the developing nations of today. John Friedmann suggests that each nation will endure each of the four stages of regional development and with them, accompanying levels of primacy, (The concentration of population in a few large urban centers within a nation,) which would be to say that if we just let things play out, there will come a time and place to instill the already trialed planning models (Navid). But with the high population concentration of developing urban regions and uneven distribution of development efforts, as Andrew Raphael notes, there is question as to how long a nation can afford before regional inequalities lead from urban evolution to national revolution.

Especially when in many instances it can be argued the colonizing western world is to blame for their colonies current economic situations. The evolutionary model of development may not be best suited for modern efforts (Navid). To let things be might be to continue unnecessary suffering, but to try to Leap-frog the development process can also have negative impacts for example if one was to focus development on a new urban sector to draw populations in without however building foundations of employment and infrastructure, they may look like theyre doing good by being modern, but in fact they are missing a crucial step in the process to becoming self sufficient. Here arises the next question of where to focus development, whether in Urban or Rural settings (Richardson). Although there may not be one answer to the question there are a number of factors to take into account: as mentioned before, primacy follows a pattern dependent on the stage of development that the nation or region is in (Navid). If they are extremely underdeveloped often primacy doesnt exist yet as they develop and reach an industrial age primacy increases, consuming urban centers and then declining in the modern age, once development spreads to surrounding regions; at which point development is less of a concern for the purposes of this paper (Navid). So should development encourage the concentration of populations to these urban cores and economic centers to maximize the potential benefits? Or should they try to disperse people to sectors where the absorptive capacity pressures are less intense (Navid)? Should development focus on urban intervention with social services and infrastructure, or in rural settings where Harry Richardson claims strategies are simpler, and more easily transferred and adopted from one institution to another? The concept that one answer can be given for development

as a whole is naive. Not only does the idea of transferring cookie cutter plans from one situation to another not seem rational, but also because each situation must be looked at individually, necessary to an effective process therefore is the participation of the local public. Buluh Kubu in Kota Bharu, Malaysia as a case study is a great example of where development ignored the suggestions and desires of the community, and turned its focus instead to a western model of commercialization and modern building practices (Raphael). Kota Bharu is a region in northwestern Malaysia with ties to the former Siam Kingdom of Thailand and the Kelantan region, which historically had a British advisor installed to take advantage of the trading route (Raphael). With a limited economy due to its location and size, and the domination of such by the Chinese, the national government showed interest in the early 1970s in developing the region as a major indigenous Malay city, to try and catch their people up (Raphael). Focus was on the Buluh Kubu region in particular, as former Sultanic land, high inmigration and one of the least developed towns in the region (Raphael). Land rights could rarely be traced, leaving much of the population as squatters, although regardless of the fact that many citizens had come for opportunities, they proved to have intentions of permanent settlement not just transient workers (Raphael). Much of the region however was without basic amenities (Raphael). When asked by researcher Andrew Raphael what their top three issues were with the area, most highly noted by the citizens were: 1) the common problem with floods and drainage (5-6 meter floods yearly,) 2) the high incidences of fire, and 3) the lack of garbage disposal. Nothing was noted about social issues such as theft etc. suggesting a

strong communal atmosphere. However when proposals for development were generated, all three put forward by developers focused on extremely large commercial centers, hotels, cinemas, office buildings, and largely a City Beautiful ideal, all the while displacing the local families, with the hopes of re-inserting them into the more modern plan once it was finished. What was severely lacking was the community involvement in the process. When asked, 80% of Buluh Kubu residents said that they had participated in the election in 1979, demonstrating their appreciation for social contribution, yet why were their suggestions regarding planning initiatives not taken into consideration (Raphael)? A challenge facing planners in international settings as noted earlier is the cultural context in which theyre working. In the case of northwestern Malaysia, two major ideals persisted: a strong professional expert, climate, in which those who were trained to do the job know best, limiting the need for further input; and because of its political history under Party-Islam who were often in disagreement with the Federal government, citizens were unwilling to openly criticize government proposals, and likely the opportunity to do so was only given after a decision had been made; really more of a formality than a gesture of social responsibility (Raphael). This highlights two key factors in international planning: developers must be politically sensitive, and more likely than not, democracy is a necessity both, in order to avoid a fear of retribution, and for any public consultation to be effective. In the case of centralist governments, giving citizens a chance to voice their opinion means re-distributing a small portion of their valued power. Should the opposite attitude be taken and participation encouraged however, the outcome can be an increase in government trust and the likelihood of development being effective.

In the end, proposals for Buluh Kubu went through, displacing the community. Because of the Sultanic land claims, only portions of payouts were given to each family, preventing them from being able to purchase anything comparable in the new city, and subsequently forcing them to the hinterlands. The commercial center that was developed as multi-story shop houses meant inaccessible lease rates and a setting not congruent with traditional Malay open stall trading practices; not surprisingly most ensuing businesses were Chinese which opposed initial development intentions (Raphael). Similar to the challenge facing indigenous populations of BC, the traditional Malay people, due to a crooked past, did not have ownership titles to the land on which they were squatting, yet they still had the natural instinct to provide shelter for themselves and their families. Rather than stripping from them what they had managed to build on their own, Raphael questions why development efforts were not focused on providing titles to the land and basic services to these dwellings, which alone would improve the living conditions immensely. Although standards would not be as high as those in the western world, the people themselves didnt see the simplicity as an issue, but rather the lack of basic health oriented social services were (Raphael). Weve seen an unfortunate pattern in development where slums are cleared to make way, often for new forms of social housing such as the domestic projects in Africville Halifax and the Regent Park development in Toronto (Remembering Africville). In both cases the collective that sustained these communities was lost with their structures and although new ones were put in their place they were ultimately deemed to be planning failures; yet we continue the approach in

international settings. Why? Again attempting to leapfrog through the system, planners are trying to achieve immediate results rather than building a community that will work itself through the system and become self-sufficient. Potentially with low interest loans in the future, (if they were provided ownership which could be used as leverage against their loans,) they can make improvements to the dwellings as they see necessary. Having title to the land will also promote settlement and financial and emotional investment into the community in which these people have informally been a part of for some time (Raphael). This idea of a more guided planning system versus a controlled planning system is not to say that all things should be left to the judgment of the community; regulations on building codes to prevent fire, and flood, and allow connection to services such as water and sewer are most certainly necessary and should be compulsory. These understandably would be under the jurisdiction of the professionals, most likely instated for the time being, and funded by the efforts of local or federal governments and international support alike. Its the superfluous standards that are placed on people who have had very little chance to mature that discredit the intentions of international planners; conveying them as self interest[ed] in career advancement, as Raphael suggests, and maintaining an image associated with the developments in their name. The topic of foreign professionals raises a critical point as well, in that development should not aim, unfortunately as many do, to create a dependence on the skills, methods and technology of the western world. It should rather, be an interim solution while locals are educated in the processes necessary to maintain

their own tailored system. Governing bodies become necessary to regulate building and future development as it becomes more prominent, even if its still traditional in nature; the intent of these bodies would then be to ensure such local goals are followed in future proposals. Locals education and practice in such fields will only help perpetuate regional development, as they hopefully mix indigenous ingenuity with some acquired foreign suggestions to create locally accepted, sustainable practices. The development of an Official Community Plan can be extremely valuable in such circumstances, in that the community has an agreed upon set of goals to coordinate their development in the economic, industrial, environmental, and social sectors with. Help from international professionals to initiate this plan may be warranted when regions are unfamiliar with the process, however efforts should be made to relinquish management to locals soon after. This is one practice that is present in the western world that can be relocated to any nation; with the caveat that the contents of such plans will differ immensely. An important aspect is that development needs also to cater to multiple income or educational brackets to prevent the Brain Drain effect of local planners and professionals, they as skilled residents are vital to regions human resource base, and should be encouraged, although to continue developing, also to remain a part of the communities that need them. In the case of Buluh Kubu, we see a prime example of how the installation of unsuitable planning techniques can completely alter the intentions of the professionals who pursue them (Raphael). Rather than relocating the objectives and practices of modern western worlds into communities at a completely different stage in their fruition, with the hopes of catching them up, instead turn to the

communities who the planning process was initially intended to support, for guidance on what they actually require. By doing so, the challenges surrounding cultural values can also be addressed empathetically, and quite possibly avoid extremist backlash. As a local law and therefore common practice in Canada, public consultation seems ethical, so why should it be any different in an international setting? If we are to preach social responsibility in consumer habits then we should be doing the same in development assistance. The communities in desperate need of assistance are in no position to criticize what is being offered to them, so with the power of aid, comes a responsibility of the international community to do good with it. The Philanthropic debate concerning the influence to determine what is prioritized in aid, and the sometimes-capitalist intent of such, is pertinent to the international planning community, as too often plans are laid with self-motivated intentions and a consequence of dependence or ultimately ineffectiveness (Nickel). The balance between Utopian ideals and Community influence on which planners are taught to work is crucial to creating an effective plan, but because a balance has been struck with one framework, is not to say it should be repeated in every international context. With the argument that globalization threatens the feeling of place in many regions, the more unique a community is, the more important it is to hold onto that, and involvement of the local population is crucial to such preservation.

Works Cited Hodge, Gerald, and Gordon, David L.A. Planning Canadian Communities. Toronto: Thomson Nelson. 2008. Print. Navid, Iraj. "Primacy and National Urban Planning Strategy in Developing Countries." Texas A&M University, 1981. Texas, United States: ProQuest. Web. 21 Mar. 2013. Nickel, Patricia Mooney, and Angela Eikenberry. 2010. Philanthropy in the era of global governance, In Third Sector Research, Rupert Taylor (ed), 269-279. Springer: New York. Raphael, Andrew Joel. Responsive Community Planning in Developing Countries: The Kota Bharu, Buluh Kubu Case Study. Diss. University of Toronto, Ontario, 1976. Print. Remembering Africville. Dir. Shelagh Mackenzie. Narr. Delvina Bernard. National Film Board of Canada, 1991. Web. Richardson, Harry W. "National Urban Development Strategies in Developing Countries." Urban Studies 18.3 (1981): 267-83. Print. Steger, Manfred B. Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.