Piecing Together Planning Priorities

The work grouped in the section Diversity and Difference in Planning explores just how problematic these conceptualizations can be. The papers come from Toronto, one of the most multicultural cities in the world, and while in a sense they relate to that particular setting, readers will find that the critical analyses and the recommendations fit well with experiences elsewhere. Goonewardena, Rankin and Weinstock draw on contemporary social criticism to conceptualise diversity in Canada and to situate planning in that complex context. They then focus on planning education, reporting on efforts to diversify planning schools in Ontario, and recommending actions for the Canadian Institute of Planners, the Association of Canadian University Planning Programs and individual planning schools. Rahder and Milgrom share some of these concerns and critically examine how contemporary planning theory has begun to make space for social differences in planning processes. They argue, however, that communicative action, an approach that has gained some credibility as an emergent paradigm over recent years, does not sufficiently provide for intercultural relations; and they argue for planners to embrace notions of redistributive justice. Their paper also provides recommendations for the reform of planning education. The final piece in the Difference and Diversity section is an invited comment by Beth Moore Milroy, who gives support to the overall concerns of the papers and provides useful context. She does this by taking us through replies to several ostensibly innocuous questions, honing in on such key themes as role, substance and consequence; and by elaborating concepts of equity and justice that can move planning forward.