Incorporation of Mosques in Danish Municipal Planning

Urban Planning and ManagementAalborg University — June 2011

Christina Rasmussen Maja Busck

Silke Skovsholt

INCORPORATION OF MOSQUES

IN DANISH MUNICIPAL PLANNING

TITLE: INCORPORATION OF MOSQUES IN DANISH MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Theme: Power in Planning

Project Period: Spring semester 2011

Project group: 3

Participants:

_____________________________ Christina Rasmussen

_____________________________ Maja Busck

_____________________________ Silke Skovsholt

Supervisor: Maria Vestergaard

Amount of pages: 79

Amount of appendices: 1 and a CD

Ended: June 6th 2011

Today the major European cities experience increasing cultural and religious diversity, mainly due to immigration. This challenges the host society in its political and legislative settings, and herewith the planning system.

This project centres on the emerging challenge of cross-cultural planning, exemplified in urban planners’ response to Danish mosque projects. The collaborative planning values can be sources of inspira-tion for alternative participatory approaches, but a rather harsh po-litical debate and unclear legislation is challenging planners. The analyses are based upon interviews with a sociologist, a chairman of a mosque association, the director of the Danish Urban Planning Laboratory, and furthermore with five Danish municipal planners en-gaged with the current mosque project.

The planners seem to respond to the controversial mosque projects by ascribing to standard procedures and ad hoc planning. A tendency for downplaying conflicts can be observed, seemingly related to un-certainties about the planner’s role or the distancing from the politi-cal debate. The planners generally perceive the planning system, and the embedded standard procedures, as sufficient; meanwhile some are positive towards incorporating alternative methods. Still minori-ties seem to experience several barriers in the planning system, and planners have here a responsibility for integrating their requests in physical planning. Therefore a deliberate role of the planner and proactive approach is recommended for supporting cultural diversity in cities.

SYNOPSIS

PREFACE

The project is conducted from February 2011 to June 2011 by a project group at Urban Planning and Man-agement 2nd semester, Aalborg University. It takes a point of departure in the semester theme ‘Power in planning’. During the period, the group has received supervision initially from Tim Richardson, and after-wards from Maria Vestergaard.

We would like to thank the following people for par-ticipating in interviews: Sociologist with speciality in religion, Lene Kühle; Chairman of The Association for Mosque and Islamic Centre, Sami Saidana; Director at the Danish Urban Planning Laboratory, Ellen Højgaard Jensen; Project Manager and Senior Architect at BIG, Ole Schrøder and the municipal planners Vida Chris-teller, Finn Larsen, Rikke Sø Andersen, Vivi Høvsgaard and Mona Kølbæk Pedersen. We are really grateful for their help, as they all have contributed with im-portant inputs.

Quotes from the conducted interviews are translated freely by the project group. When quotes are used from Danish literature, they are also translated and marked with a *. References do not appear in the introduction and conclusion, since these reflect the research and findings in the remaining report, and figures without references are made by the project group. One appendix is placed in the back of report, while summaries for the conducted interviews are to be found on the attached CD. The cover illustrations represent the Islamic Crescent Moon and city arms from Copenhagen and Aarhus Municipality.

An extended summary of the report will be presented in an article in Urban Planning News (Byplan Nyt).

Enjoy your reading,

Christina Rasmussen, Maja Busck and Silke Skovsholt

CONTENT

1 |INTRODUCTION 4

1.1 RESEARCH QUESTION 6

2 |CROSS-CULTURAL PLANNING 11

2.1 AN EMERGING CHALLENGE FOR PLANNERS 11 2.2 MINORITIES IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES 14

3 |COLLABORATIVE PLANNING VALUES 17

3.1 CRITIQUE AND RELEVANCE OF COLLABORATIVE PLANNING 19

4 |ANALYSING THE CONTEXT OF MOSQUE BUILDING 22

4.1 THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT 22

4.2 THE DANISH CONTEXT 25

4.2.1 THE PUBLIC DEBATE 26

4.2.2 RIGHTS AND LEGISLATIVE FRAME FOR MINORITIES IN DENMARK 28

4.2.3 RELIGION AND TRADITION IN THE DANISH SOCIETY 31

4.2.4 CURRENT MOSQUE PROJECTS IN DENMARK 33

5 |METHODOLOGY: APPROACH TO EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS 38

5.1 QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS 39

5.2 STRUCTURE AND THEMES 42

6 |THE ROLE OF DANISH PLANNERS IN MOSQUE PROJECTS 44

6.1 THE PLANNERS’ RESPONSES 47

6.1.1 APPROACH AND USE OF METHODS 48

6.1.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INTEREST REPRESENTATION 51

6.1.3 COLLABORATION WITH INITIATORS AND STAKEHOLDERS 52

6.1.4 POLITICAL DEBATE AND COLLABORATION WITH CITY COUNCILS 54

6.2 EXPERIENCED CHALLENGES 55 6.3 REFLECTIONS ON THE PLANNER’S

ROLES AND VALUES 57

7 |BARRIERS AND POTENTIALS IN THE DANISH PLANNING SYSTEM 60

7.1 STATUS AND CAPACITY OF CURRENT PLANNING PROCEDURES 60

7.2 INTEGRATION OF MOSQUES IN MUNICIPAL PLANNING 62

7.3 KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND NETWORK 64

8 |FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND MINORITY RIGHTS IN PLANNING 67

8.1 THE PLANNERS’ ATTITUDE TOWARDS INTEGRATION OF MINORITIES 67

8.2 THE RELIGIOUS MINORITIES’ UNDERSTANDING AND BARRIERS 70

9 |FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND POTENTIALS 72

10|CONCLUSION 77

11|BIBLIORAPHY

APPENDIX 1

/ 79

|INTRODUCTION

1 |INTRODUCTION

The migration of people, causing the plurality of eth-

nicities, culture and religion in society, is a phenom-

enon observed through time. Although many have

highlighted the opportunities of such mingling, it

causes social and cultural frictions as well. The in-

creasing multicultural character of societies, often

considered to be grounded in immigration, results in

new tasks for the host society, which is challenged in

its principles and needs to make a stand on how to

respond to their claims for integration, with respect

to their origins (cultural, religious, etc.). Many au-

thors, among which, sociologists, philosophers and

planning theorists, have reflected on the issues and

consequences of this emerging multiculturalism.

Those researchers have proposed different terms

characterising this new tendency in societies: among

others, cross-cultural, multicultural, poly-ethnic,

multi-religious and cross-religious. This shows both

the variety of focus of these researches but also the

topic as being broad. This planning literature empha-

sises the deeper issues, and eventual conflicts, arising

in such co-existence of people. It highlights as well

the challenge emerging for the host society and its

legislation, and herewith for the planners acting in

the system: constituting principles, such as freedom

of religion, representative democracy, minority

rights, are subject to critical reconsiderations. In this

project the focus is narrowed down to mosque pro-

jects, highly symbolised in physical planning, which is

currently subject to strong opinions, both in the pub-

lic and political debate. The mosques are here per-

ceived as a flash point for cultural controversial is-

sues in planning in general. Therefore it is important

to state that this research can be useful in other cul-

tural planning cases, and it can be argued that the

project instead could have studied the processes of

other types of physical planning projects related to

religion and culture (e.g. religious cemeteries).

The first part of the project, being a preliminary

analysis of the context, takes initially a look at the

emergence of those religious issues in planning, and

the general context for the building of mosques in

Europe, then elaborates on this by looking at the Dan-

ish socio-political and legislative frame for those con-

troversial projects. Looking at planning and minori-

ties in Denmark, it is notable that only few purpose-

built mosques exist, mainly located in provincial cit-

ies, the rest of them being relegated to basements,

warehouses and private apartments, while independ-

ent Muslim schools seem to have an easier way

through the planning system. The Danish society, as it

is today, only reflects its minorities to a very low de-

gree in the physical planning. The debate and pro-

cesses around mosque buildings today raise questions

on integration, the practical aspects of having a mul-

ticultural society, the radicalisation of Denmark by

Islamic groups, the perception of terror, and thereby

represent the deeper issues lying in those projects,

showing the strong symbolic they are attributed, with

both negative and positive aspects. The debates have

further been intensified by statements from the new

/ 79

Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning

Minister of Integration emphasising assimilation ra-

ther than integration. The controversial character of

the topic has for instance been visible in the cases

where members of city councils have been personally

threatened when approving a mosque project.

It is essential to state that the project is not at all

about discussing whether or not mosques should be

built in the Danish cities. The purpose is to study how

the Danish planning system and the Danish municipal

planners are handling the issues related to the sym-

bolic cultural and religious buildings and how they are

to be integrated in a strong host-society like the Dan-

ish one, with rather streamlined traditions for the

urban landscape and layout. The Danish planners are

certainly not experienced in this type of controversial

projects and only weak experiences of integrating

minorities in planning are found in Denmark; here-

with the approach of the municipalities and planners

have varied in the current mosques projects. It seems

thus that the pressing claim from the Muslim minori-

ties, as to get purpose-built mosques, finds itself to

be part of an on-going development in society, upon

which the planners need to reflect and take position.

Herewith the report is highly actual and relevant as

to highlight the existing international and Danish

knowledge and link it to the Danish cases, producing

thereby new knowledge. Furthermore, this responds

to an assumption that a gap between theory and

practice exists: this gap is highlighted by theorists

and practitioners within the international planning

field. Indeed no literature centring on how Danish

planners deal with cultural and religious issues is to

be found. This report takes a point of departure in

the international theories of planning, and then anal-

yses empirically the Danish situation and context, as

to provide more practical perspectives for the Danish

municipal planners.

Dealing with cross-cultural planning issues, might call

for a special approach as to obtain positive and con-

structive processes. The theorists engaging with these

types of projects are often subscribing a collaborative

planning style, which argues to join the different in-

terests through a range of participatory processes.

Having the traditional Danish planning procedure in

mind, it seems interesting to investigate if the pro-

cesses of planning mosques include collaborative val-

ues and methods, or if they are carried out as stand-

ard procedures, being just another building project.

An assumption might be that the planners try to avoid

the eventual conflicts, by sticking to formal proce-

dures and try to renounce the responsibility for the

planning process. Far from accusing the planners and

this possible attitude, we acknowledge that the plan-

ners might fulfil a delicate task, having to match all

parameters at stake, i.e. the visions and recommen-

dations from the city council, the legal framework,

the public debate and, to some degree, the planner‟s

own values. Furthermore, with no past cases in that

matter, the planners might feel insecure of how the-

se issues ought to be handled.

In this context, the role of the planner is rather un-

clear, leaving it much up to him, to translate the ex-

isting paragraphs about freedom of religion in the

Constitution into the Local plans, and combine them

/ 79

|INTRODUCTION

with the local debates and visions, while matching

them with planning regulations1, which are not spe-

cific on the matter of mosques. Torn between the

planning department’s (often technical) planning

style, the political influence of beforehand made de-

cisions, the civil opinion, and eventually planning

values given by the educational background, the

planner has to define his role in a system, which on

paper is liberal but might appear rather discrimina-

tive regarding minority groups’ projects. Moreover, it

triggers the question of the relation between plan-

ning and politics: how they influence each other, how

they situate each other in the system and to what

extent they can and dare to be proactive in those

specific projects. Thus what are the constraints and

the potentials for municipal planners, in relation to

the political debate and the legislative frame? Here-

with power aspects related to the role which planners

undertake in those projects will be integrated. Inter-

views with municipal planners and other stakeholders

currently working on mosque projects will help to

clarify how they perceive the planner’s role in rela-

tion to the described context, the capacity of the

Danish planning system to integrate those minority

planning projects, and finally their view on the ex-

pression of freedom of religion and minority rights in

the physical planning. This should give the overview

of how planners respond to cultural and religious is-

sues, and thereby contribute to fill out the

knowledge gap. The report should hereby lead to a

clearer view of the opportunities to be found in the

1 Such as the Planning law and environmental regulations.

system and the recommendable approaches to such

planning issues, while drawing the planning institu-

tions and the planners into a debate in which they

have been rather absent up till now.

1.1 RESEARCH QUESTION Initially we aimed for a research presenting and pro-

posing tools for planners, in order to handle the pre-

viously mentioned challenges in cross-cultural plan-

ning projects, but since the debate is not even pre-

sent in the planning field, we need to explore the

responses of the planners before equipping them with

tools. Therefore this research is essential as we do

not know how planners handle these issues, and since

the integration of religious minorities in physical

planning is an emergent aspect in planning, which in

the future will be present in (all) cities in Denmark2.

The project will take a point of departure in the re-

search question in the box. All themes elaborated in

the report should be seen in the light of their relation

to at least one of the phrases in the following re-

search question.

2 The need for dealing with these issues might already be pre-sent; but as mosques will be built in some cities, we believe that the initiative from other minority groups will increase.

/ 79


How are theoretical, political and legislative settings

establishing the frame for Danish municipal planners

when dealing with the integration of cross-cultural

projects in physical planning? And how do the plan-

ners respond to these emerging challenges in the

process of mosque building?

Those questions open up for critical reflections upon

the planning processes in relation to considerations

on minorities in Danish planning.

It is relevant to briefly clarify the meaning of select-

ed terms. The theoretical, political and legislative

settings refer to the use of theories in relation to

cross-cultural planning, and to the political context in

Europe and Denmark, where we also investigate the

Danish legislative frame. In relation to the terms Dan-

ish municipal planners, it is important to notice that

the planners are certainly not a homogenous group

since the planners working in Danish municipalities

have different tasks, values, principles and back-

grounds (e.g. architects, engineers or public adminis-

trators). Therefore, they are only defined by their

municipal planning positions. The terms cross-

cultural planning projects encompasses cultural pro-

jects where different ethnicities are involved (e.g. a

Danish planner working, with a Turkish mosque pro-

ject). Respond refers to how planners handle these

challenges. The emerging challenges refer to the

claims from minorities to have their backgrounds and

needs reflected in the urban landscape. The process

refers to the phase going from initial ideas to final

political decision. We acknowledge that the planning

process does not end at the political decision, but

since no purpose-built mosques have been completed

recently in Denmark, we perceive this part of the

process as being crucial. Finally, we use the word

mosques for purpose-built mosques, which reveal

their function through their typology and architecton-

ic expression, may they be traditional-looking or Nor-

dic modern-looking mosques.

When engaging in those issues, relations of power in

planning appear implicitly through aspects such as

the role of the planner in those matters, the plan-

ner‟s capacity to act within the planning system, the

power of information3 and discourses arising through

the national and local debate, and herewith the pow-

er to set the agenda [Forester, 1982]. In this report,

power is generally seen as the capacity or range of

influence granted to the individuals within the plan-

ning system, and the many power relations at play in

the system4. Inspired by Scott‟s three institutional

pillars, regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive

aspects are at stake in the debate around the inte-

gration of minority groups in democratic planning and

in decisions about mosque projects. Here a reference

to the structure-agency relation can be made, as we

acknowledge the two-sided influence where the indi-

vidual planner has a certain ability to act, but institu-

tions in the sense of social structures (like the plan-

3 Forester highlights as well the power lying in the planners‟ use of information. 4 A variety of different types of power can be identified [Haugaard & Glegg, 2003, pp. 1-5].

/ 79

|INTRODUCTION

ning system) constrain as well individual agency

[Scott, 2001].

The methodology in this project takes a strong inspi-

ration in the collaborative approach – as the theoreti-

cal contributions to these emergent challenges and

issues derive from this planning style. For deeper

explanation about the theoretical values and meth-

ods, we refer to the corresponding Chapters 3 and 5.

The report is divided in two major analyses, reflect-

ing the research question. The first analysis looks at

the theoretical, political and legislative settings for

cross-cultural planning, based on literature and ex-

pert interviews. The second analysis reflects on the

planner’s role, response and position in the system,

based on the conducted interviews. Qualitative ex-

plorative interviews have been carried out with an

expert, a stakeholder and planners. In the first analy-

sis, only the interviews with the three people below

are used. The implementation of the second part of

the analysis will be described in Chapter 5. Interviews

are besides planners conducted with:

- Lene Kühle, Sociologist with speciality

in religion, Aarhus University. She is studying

minority groups in Denmark and has carried

out a lot of research about Muslims. Her re-

search has for example resulted in the book

‘Mosques in Denmark’ (2006). She is often

used by the media as an expert and referred

to as a researcher of mosques. In this analy-

sis, she has mainly contributed with reflec-

tions about situating ‘the Muslims’ and

mosques in Denmark.

- Sami Saidana, Chairman of The Associ-

ation for Mosque and Islamic Centre, Aarhus.

He is educated in ethnography, employed at

Aarhus Municipality and here engaged with

social relations and employment. In this

analysis, he has contributed with experiences

and reflections on the development and

planning of mosque from the minority’s side

and helped to clarify the role of Aarhus Mu-

nicipality in the on-going mosque projects in

Gellerup. Furthermore he represents a voice

from the Muslim side.

- Ellen Højgaard Jensen, Director of the

Danish Urban Planning Laboratory, Chief Edi-

tor of ByplanNyt (Urban Planning News), ed-

ucated in geography. Earlier she has been;

manager of 3B Housing Association, project

manager at Urban Renewal in Denmark and

engaged with neighbourhood renewal. The

interview with her was an open discussion

about the planners’ role in relation to the in-

tegration of cross-cultural projects and mi-

nority rights.

/ 79


In line with the two parts of the report, the purpose

of the project is, as already mentioned, on one side,

to explore frames for cross-cultural planning projects

and, on the other side, to investigate the role of the

planner. The subsequent reflections and gathered

knowledge should contribute to mend the gap be-

tween theories and Danish planning practice, to im-

plement the social and philosophical research, car-

ried out in parallel with those emerging challenges,

into Danish planning practices, as to outline some

general guidelines for Danish planners. Hereby, we

address mainly this report to the planners from the

planning departments in the Danish municipalities, as

well as other actors involved in the planning of cross-

cultural project. Furthermore a brief article concern-

ing the conclusions of the report should be published

in ByplanNyt.

However, a critical aspect of the project arises from

the multiplicity of levels and stakeholders involved in

planning. Figure 1.1 presents the many stakeholders

involved in the planning field, and which influence

the municipal planner in his practice. They can con-

tribute to clarify the experiences and possibilities in

cross-cultural planning projects. Here the stakehold-

ers are presented as homogeneous groups, but we

acknowledge their internal diversity.

In the project, not all stakeholders have been drawn

in, which reflects a critical aspect of the project.

Indeed, the interviewed planners and stakeholders

were chosen due to the projects they were assigned,

but citizens and investors might bring other perspec-

tives that have not been encountered in the analysis.

The information has been gathered in an explorative

way, somehow reflecting the actual status of the de-

bate and information on this topic. Since the field is

relatively unknown, a lot of work is still to be done,

but this project in one step in the establishment of

knowledge about cross-cultural planning in Denmark.

/ 79

|INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.1: Situating the municipal planner.

/ 79


2 |CROSS-CULTURAL PLANNING

The following paragraphs present the current context

of mosque projects and how these challenge planners

beyond the physical planning of buildings. The sub-

ject has become highly symbolic and has initiated a

heated debate, covering issues like the integration of

immigrants and how democratic societies should deal

with minority groups. In these sections, we raise

many open questions and examine issues which will

appear as sources of inspiration.

2.1 AN EMERGING CHALLENGE FOR

PLANNERS The increased ethno-cultural diversity in the urban

areas is an emerging challenge in urban planning. In

many cases, the planning system and the planners are

not prepared for this, and therefore fail to respond to

the growing cultural diversity. A range of writers,

including John Forester (Professor of City and Region-

al Planning at Cornell University), Patsy Healey (Pro-

fessor of Town and Country Planning at Newcastle

University), Leonie Sandercock (Professor at School of

Community and Regional Planning, at University of

British Columbia) and Yasminah Beebeejaun (Lecturer

in Spatial Planning at University of Manchester), have

been critical about planners making “decisions with-

out listening equally to the groups within society”

[Beebeejaun, 2004, p. 448]. According to Sandercock,

urban planning reflects the norms and values of the

dominant culture (the host culture) as they are em-

bedded in the legislative framework, in the practice

and attitude of planners. The planning system can

become a media for values, fears and xenophobia:

discrimination becomes thereby visible through physi-

cal planning elements, such as a mosque placed near

the high-way instead of the more desirable locations

[Sandercock, 2000, pp. 13-17]. She furthermore high-

lights the problem of ”planners‟ inability to analyze

issues from a multicultural perspective or to design

participatory processes that bring racial and ethnic

groups into the planning process” [Sandercock, 2000,

p. 14].

The contributions to the debate mainly come from

Anglo-Saxon writers, from countries like Australia,

Canada and USA, which all have a long history of mul-

ticulturalism. These countries might seem far from

the Danish context, which is the main focus in this

project. However these discussions are very relevant

in Denmark, where immigration is bringing in differ-

ent cultures leading to challenges about integration,

minority rights, and freedom of religions, just to

mention a few.

CULTURE AND RELIGION

Before proceeding, we find it useful to briefly clarify

our understanding of the concepts culture and reli-

gion. The concept culture covers many different as-

pects, but can broadly be used to “describe a range

of practices characterizing a group”, e.g. working-

class culture [Knox & Marston, 2007, p. 175]. It is

useful to interpret culture as a dynamic concept, in-

/ 79

|CROSS-CULTURAL PLANNING

fluenced by the changes in society and not necessari-

ly attached to a specific place. Paul Knox (Professor

at School of Public and International Affairs, at Vir-

giniaTech) and Sallie Marston (Professor at School of

Geography and Development, at University of Arizo-

na) elaborate further on the concept of culture by

adding that: “culture is a shared set of meanings that

are lived through the material and symbolic practices

of everyday life” [Knox & Marston, 2007, p. 174].

The „shared set of meanings‟ can be understood as

beliefs, values, practices, and identity-shaping ideas

about religion, language, sexuality, gender and other

aspects of life. This definition can be criticised for

being too broad in the sense that all countries will be

defined as multicultural, although some are almost

ethnically homogeneous (e.g. Ireland) [Kymlicka,

1995, p. 18]. When the term culture is used in this

report, it encompasses only the ethnical and religious

aspects of cultures. We focus thus mainly on one as-

pect of culture, namely religion. According to Knox

and Marston, religion is “a belief system and set of

practices that recognized the existence of a power

higher than humans” [Knox & Marston, 2007, p. 183].

It can be argued that the role of religion in western

societies is declining, but still it functions as a shaper

of everyday life, traditions and as an important as-

pect in the conception of culture and identity. In the

globalised society, people, and herewith religious

practices, are becoming spatially mixed, resulting in

pluralism of religions in different countries [Knox &

Marston, 2007, p. 183].

The emerging demand for freedom of religion (in

practice) from Islamic5 minorities in western coun-

tries for instance, exemplified in the mosques-

building projects, is a trigger for discussions and rein-

forcement of Christian values and nationalistic

movements [Knudsen & Wilken, 1998, pp. 69-70].

This, among other things, constitutes an emerging

challenge for planners.

A CHALLENGE FOR URBAN PLANNERS

As the major cities experience an increasing ethno-

cultural diversity, urban planners face new challenges

that might require a change in the way planning is

carried out (and even the establishment of new insti-

tutions and rules). Katherine Pestieau (Senior Project

Advisor in the Department of Citizenship and Immi-

gration, Canada) and Marcia Wallace (Brownfields

Coordinator at the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Af-

fairs and Housing) have the following perception of

urban planning: “At its best, urban planning both

shapes the form and extent of development in a city,

and is a reflection of the values, goals and priorities

of a local population” [Pestieau & Wallace, 2001, p.

253]. If the population is changing so are the values,

goals and priorities. Therefore there is no homogene-

ous „public interest‟ and, as Sandercock exposes it,

planners encounter a challenge of planning for „mul-

tiple publics‟ and dealing with conflict of interests

that might arise [Sandercock, 2000, p. 13].

5 The terms Islamic and Muslim will cover the same topics, but we are aware that different discourses might be related to the terms.

/ 79


Pestieau and Wallace have raised the question

whether the planning systems of the host societies

should adapt to these changes: “Growing ethno-

cultural diversity is forcing a debate in many cities

about the appropriate balance between respecting

diversity and defending technical planning norms in

urban development” [Pestieau & Wallace, 2001, p.

253]. This could be understood as a reference to ra-

tional planning theory, but the interpretation of

„technical planning norms‟ can also be expanded to

the country‟s existing planning context (e.g. rules for

facades and environmental regulations). One might

question if there is a need for planners to understand

and engage in „multicultural planning‟ and hereby be

cultural sensitive and inclusive? And is the rational

planner capable of doing this? Pestieau and Wallace

present different views on this matter: “Some argue

that to do so would bias the process of planning,

which has been described as a neutral, technical ac-

tivity” [Pestieau & Wallace, 2001, p. 256]. Pestieau

and Wallace are clearly critical about this under-

standing of planning as a neutral activity and argue

that there will always be biased assumptions imbed-

ded in the so-called „neutral planning process‟.

In correlation with an increasing amount of litera-

ture, addressing the issues of „multicultural planning‟

[e.g. Pestieau & Wallace, 2001, Sandercock, 2000,

Beebeejaun, 2004, Qadeer, 1997], we acknowledge

the need for planners to reflect and respond to the

emerging challenge. Only a few documented exam-

ples exist of planners taking up this challenge, and

actively working with the diversity in cities. Further

questions are how the planners are actually handling

this challenge (to be investigated here in the Danish

context in Paragraph 4.2), and how they ought to

handle it, thereby reflecting both a descriptive and

normative uncertainty.

Sandercock has suggested some interesting normative

outlooks on the challenge of diversity, for instance by

addressing the shortcomings of rational planning.

Often the formulation „managing difference‟ is used,

but this can be seen as the remainder of a rational

way of thinking about urban planning: “By framing

the issue of cultural diversity in the language of

`managing (cities of) difference‟ are we still trying

to dream the rational city? Does „management‟ al-

ways imply, as Foucauldians would have it, contain-

ment, control, manipulation?” [Sandercock, 2000, p.

22]. Sandercock advocates then for at more collabo-

rative and therapeutic approach. Karina Sehested

(Sociologist and Senior Researcher at University of

Copenhagen) states that, in practice, planners do not

subscribe to one theory only but construct their own

hybrid roles with inspiration from different theories

[Sehested, 2009]. Sandercock is only one example out

of many contributions to the debate, but in general a

gap appears to exist between theory and practice

exemplified in the fact that theoretical literature

about cross-cultural planning exists, but the planners

do not seem to apply it in practice. Behind the plan-

ning theories (including the normative aspects about

how planners ought to respond to increasing diversi-

ty), lie the broader discussions about how planners

/ 79


perceive aspects such as cultural diversity, democra-

cy and minorities.

2.2 MINORITIES IN DEMOCRATIC

SOCIETIES In this paragraph, we will briefly elaborate on the

broad topic of how democratic societies handle the

needs and claims from religious minorities: first by

addressing the relation to the planning system, then

studying the relation between the State and minori-

ties, and finally by examining if the Danish society

can be characterised as multicultural.

According to Sandercock, there is a dilemma in the

Western conception of democracy. In a democratic

society, every voice should be heard and have the

same status or vote. However the accepted principle

of the ruling majority is problematic in the context of

increasing diverse societies, because “the right to

difference disappears once the majority has spoken”

[Sandercock, 2000, p. 15]. In this context for the

democratic framework of planning, the modernistic

universalism and „one law for all‟ have only been

questioned by practitioners to a limited degree. In-

stead the planning framework has “generally been

regarded as neutral, or unbiased, with respect to

age, gender, religion, and culture. Applying a critical

lens to this framework reveals, however, that it is

underpinned by all sorts of implicit assumptions”

[Sandercock, 2000, p. 16]. This is in line with the

perspective presented by Pestieau and Wallace. The-

se assumptions or norms reflect the host society and

can, for example, dictate which religious symbols are

accepted in public spaces. The issue becomes evident

in a quote from a planner interviewed by Sandercock:

“Local laws and regulations are framed for the ma-

jority of the community. If the minority can‟t fit in,

then bad luck” [Sandercock, 2000, p. 15]. Thus there

can be found a dominance of the host society and

“the planning system thus unreflectively expressed

the norms of the culturally dominant majority”

[Sandercock, 2000, p. 15].

The core of the problem, according to Sandercock, is

the fear of the strangers or „the other‟. This can re-

sult in a need to define strong identities, and the

relation between the majority and minority tends to

be characterised through a simplistic „us and them‟

[Sandercock, 2000, p. 14]. This view is supported by

assistant professor at the University of Copenhagen

Kate Østergaard (Master in History of Religions and

Minority Studies), who argues that the majority can

stigmatise a group as „different‟ and hereby exclude

them from the society. Although both groups can in-

fluence this situation, the power to set the agenda

lies on the majority‟s side [Østergaard, 2006, p. 63].

This can be regarded as problematic and not compat-

ible with the ideas of inclusive representation: social

groups often complain that they are “not properly

represented in influential discussions and decision-

making bodies” and demand herewith more political

inclusion and representation of minority groups, be-

ing under-represented and suffering from structural

inequalities [Young, 2000, pp. 121-122]. Beebeejaun

/ 79


also engages in this debate and uses a statement

from Harvey to situate the rights of minorities: “The

idea that all groups have a right to speak for them-

selves, in their own voice, and have that voice ac-

cepted as authentic and legitimate, is essential to

the pluralistic stance of postmodernism” [Harvey in

Beebeejaun, 2004, p. 439].

This leads us to a question about which rights minori-

ty groups possess, and therefore which claims they

can make (e.g. the legitimacy of claims for a place of

worship)? Here we can make use of the Canadian pro-

fessor in philosophy Will Kymlicka‟s theory of multi-

culturalism. In his book from 1995, he presents “a

new conception of the rights and status of minority

cultures” [Kymlicka, 1995]. First of all, he sees inte-

gration as a two-way process; the minority groups

must adapt to the country they live in, but the State

should also take the presence of minority groups into

account by adjusting its institutions and legislation6.

Hereafter follows the normative aspect of the theory,

regarding the legitimate rights and claims of minority

groups [Kymlicka, 1995, p. 96].

In order to identify different minority groups,

Kymlicka makes a distinction between multinational

states and poly-ethnic states. The former refers to a

confederation of national minorities into one state

(e.g. due to colonisation or conquest of territories),

while the latter refers to ethnic minority groups in a

country as a result of immigration (which is the case

6 Sami Saidana reflects upon this as well (see Paragraph 8.1).

in Denmark). This is a theoretical distinction; a coun-

try can be both multinational and poly-ethnic, such as

Canada. Kymlicka does not use the term „multicultur-

al‟ because of the ambiguity it leaves between poly-

ethnic and multinational. Furthermore, the term is

sometimes used in a broad way referring to many

aspects of culture, such as sexuality and political be-

liefs [Kymlicka, 1995, pp. 11-18]. Often the plurality

of religions results from immigration and states be-

coming more poly-ethnic and poly-religious, but it

could also arise from native inhabitants converting to

other religions, for instance. The classification of two

types of minority groups (national minorities and im-

migrant/ethnic groups) can be used to determine the

different right of the groups. The rights for national

minorities could be self-government right, while the

ethnic groups might receive some degree of freedom

to practice their culture and maybe get exemptions

from laws (e.g. permission to build a place of worship

if this is not already a possibility in the legislative

framework) [Kymlicka, 1995, pp. 27-31]. This reflects

the thoughts that ethnic minorities should be inte-

grated in the host society and into the discussion

about the fair inclusion of their requirements. Neus

Torbisco Casals (Spanish Professor in Legal and Politi-

cal Philosophy) interprets Kymlicka‟s theory in the

following way: “Rather than aiming to recreate their

cultures within their host state, the main purpose of

recognising the rights of ethnic minorities would

then be to facilitate the integration of immigrants

into their new society” [Casals, 2010, p. 216].

/ 79


We have now realised that democracies have some

embedded problems in dealing with minorities. Fur-

thermore, with Denmark characterised as a poly-

ethnic (and poly-religious) state, there are a lot of

open questions about the legitimacy of specific

claims from minority groups. We will return to this

later, when we examine the legislative context of

planning in Denmark (see Chapter 4.2.2). Kymlicka

has examined how the minority rights ought to be

considered, but there is a huge step from these theo-

ries to the actual planning practice, and the small

scale everyday decisions concerning claims by minori-

ty groups. We will investigate this later in the project

(see Chapter 8). First we will study the collaborative

planning values, since mainly this direction of plan-

ning theory has been dealing with cross-cultural plan-

ning, and subsequently our approach and methodolo-

gy throughout the project are strongly tinted by these

values.

/ 79


3 |COLLABORATIVE PLANNING

VALUES

In the next section, we will investigate the collabora-

tive planning style and the advantage of drawing in-

spiration from its values, in this project. Firstly we

will highlight the hybrid role of Nordic planners, then

outline the collaborative planning style and relate it

to Danish practices, and finally address the critical

aspects of collaborative planning, but also its rele-

vance for the forthcoming analyses. Note that infor-

mation about the collaborative planning style and

values are strongly inspired from the authors‟ essays

in the semester course Planning Theory [Busck, Ras-

mussen and Skovsholt, 2011].

Karina Sehested and Tore Sager (Economist and Pro-

fessor at Norwegian University of Science and Tech-

nology) talk about Nordic planning as being neo-

liberal, nuanced with collaborative values [Sager,

2009 and Sehested, 2009]. This tendency for neo-

liberal and marked-oriented planning can be seen in

the New Public Management and entrepreneurialism,

mentioned by Sager [Sager, 2009]. Although the mar-

ket provides its own rules, which should make it pos-

sible for planning to reduce political influences, also

called „depolitisation‟ of planning processes, in the

case of cultural and religious conflicts, politicians

seem to be the first in sight, when questioning on

who has the responsibility to integrate deeper cultur-

al issues in the public debate and in planning [Sager,

2009, p. 69]. This can be linked to the „political in-

fluenced style‟, since feasibility is an important value

for politicians as well, partly because of their short

election period. It leaves the planner in a position

where he is working for the politics, and supposes a

“faith in the legitimacy of political processes and

elected officials” [Innes & Gruber, 2005, p. 184].

Herewith the question of who defines the public in-

terest and shapes it becomes relevant: is it defined

at the political agenda (representative democracy) or

is it through dialogue with citizens, stakeholders and

so forth (more direct democracy). In line with the

earlier mentioned discussion about planning for many

interests, Sehested mentions the planner‟s role as

developing in response to “changing planning condi-

tions in cities and societies” [Sehested, 2009, p. 245]

and herewith lines up a set of approaches, which

makes it relevant to talk about “the hybrid planning

role among Danish planners” [Sehested, 2009, p.

253], characterised by additional collaborative,

communicative and advocacy values, besides the neo-

liberal and rational planning approaches embedded in

the system [Sager, 2009, and Sehested, 2009].

THE COLLABORATIVE PLANNING STYLE

In order to understand the mixed approaches of plan-

ners in Denmark, it is relevant to outline the collabo-

rative values, and furthermore where and how they

appear in Danish planning. In the following lines, a

theoretical sum-up will clarify what is meant with the

collaborative planning style. The term emerged first

in Anglo-Saxon countries (in United States of America,

Canada and Australia mainly), in the 1980‟s and

/ 79

|Collaborative planning values

1990‟s, and is only recently being transferred into

European and Danish planning practices.

The so-called „communicative turn‟, firstly advocated

by Healey, sets emphasis on the recognition of social

diversity, multiplicity of stakeholders and communi-

ties to be concerned with urban and regional planning

and local policy-making. It developed as a response

to comprehensive or rational planning, which scope

revealed a lack of meaningful public debates and un-

derstanding of the „public interest‟ [Innes, 1996, p.

460]. The main focus in collaborative planning is to

create democratic processes where mutual under-

standing among stakeholders and consensus about

decisions are reached through deliberation and face-

to-face dialogues. Meanwhile, questions have often

been raised on the probability for full consensus, and

how far planners can and should go as to reach con-

sensus. Innes moderates this aspect, affirming that

“decisions must be made only when all, or most,

agree” [Innes & Gruber, 2005, p. 183]. Collaborative

planning is then evaluated on the responsiveness,

freedom of speech, equal opportunities for action,

justice and the bureaucratic neutrality of the pro-

cess, hereby not reflecting stakeholders‟ resources or

status [Sager, 2009, pp. 68-69]. Those aspects will be

kept in mind when we look at the Danish planning

system, in which the planners evolve and where the

ethno-cultural and religious claims (e.g. building of a

mosque) are to be handled. Transparency and inclu-

siveness are here central aspects for the advocated

communication and involvement of stakeholders,

which has to be through “respectful, interpersonal

discursive practice adapted to the need of liberal

and pluralist societies” [Sager, 2009, p. 67].

In order to endorse those values and create a conven-

ient space for communication, the planner assumes

various roles, such as facilitator, mediator, negotia-

tor, enhancing the mutual understanding between

participants and leading to determine the sincerity of

their claims and actions, vital for the dialogue and its

outcome [Innes & Gruber, 2005, p. 183]. In the case

of cultural and religious planning projects, the sociol-

ogist Lene Kühle advocates as well for sincerity and

openness in the dialogue, which permits a more free

exchange of opinions and eased speak-outs, without

harming each other‟s feelings [Kühle, 2011]. Forester

here finds it relevant to make a clear distinction be-

tween three interaction processes in „public delibera-

tion‟: dialogue (“recognition and developing under-

standing”), debate (“establishing the more justified

or sound or trustworthy argument”) and negotiation

(“produce interest-satisfying (mutual gain or lose–

lose) practical agreements on action”) [Forester,

2008, p. 302]. What is important to acknowledge is

that all three processes can result in better or worse

conditions, and that they are linked to three differ-

ent roles of the planner: facilitator, moderator and

mediator. The processes are interconnected but ne-

gotiation is a key aspect, and without it action and

real change will not take place [Forester, 2008, p.

302].

/ 79


THE INTEGRATION OF COLLABORATIVE PRACTICES

The integration of those values into neo-liberal and

rational planning styles challenges local and regional

planning processes and inherent standard procedures,

such as hearings7. Those are often used in the manda-

tory public phase in the Danish planning system. In

these meeting the communication is rather structured

and often one-way, where planners and politicians

hold the agenda of the meeting and mainly inform

the public. The public phase opens up for objections

in a period of eight weeks, after which they are clas-

sified and taken into consideration. This method is

not sufficient in the perspective of collaborative

planning, and therefore other devices should be tak-

en into use, like for example generating ideas in the

initial phase through innovative workshops. Indeed,

collaborative planning supports rather a co-evolution

of the stakeholders within the decision-making pro-

cess, favourable in project with a high diversity and

interdependence of interests [Innes & Gruber, 2005,

p. 186]. If a successful plan, as described by Innes

and Gruber for the collaborative planning style, en-

compasses all the various interests, thereby creating

joint benefits [Innes & Gruber, 2005, p.183], one

could question the actual presence and sufficiency of

collaborative elements in the Danish planning prac-

tices. This shows the conflicts arising between the

diverse planning styles. The planners believe in their

own methods and know-how as being “practically and

morally good” [Innes & Gruber, 2005, p. 184], and

7 Some authors even consider hearings as contradicting collabora-tive values [Innes & Gruber, 2005, p. 184].

might not even have the network or resources to ac-

quire the knowledge of how to be more collaborative.

Margo Huxley and Oren Yiftachel (Geographers from

University of London and Ben Gurion University) ex-

amine the relevance to talk about collaborative plan-

ning as being a new planning paradigm, as they see it

rather as an interesting contribution to the existing

theories, the on-going debates and practices in plan-

ning [Huxley & Yiftachel, 2000, p. 339]. Thus collabo-

rative values contribute as one element in the hybrid

role of planners. Collaborative planning has highlight-

ed the perspective of planning as a learning process

and acknowledgment of all types of knowledge [Innes

& Gruber, 2005, p. 184]. Hereby we refer again to

the co-evolution of stakeholders in planning process-

es, mentioned previously. Even though the theories

and values are seductive as to support democratic,

deliberative and fair planning practices, questions

and critics on the feasible implementation of those

elements have risen along the way, thereby showing

also the limits of collaborative planning.

3.1 CRITIQUE AND RELEVANCE OF

COLLABORATIVE PLANNING Firstly, it can be argued that collaborative planning

theory presents a rather normative view on demo-

cratic processes; however the processes‟ high de-

pendence on a specific context usually makes it diffi-

cult to outline concrete tools, in order to achieve

idealistic objectives and settings, such as the ideal

/ 79

|Collaborative planning values

speech situation [Sandercock, 2000, p. 23]. Further-

more, the concern on fair dialogue and communica-

tion might mislead planners in ignoring non-

communicative actions and factors, influencing the

debate. Meanwhile, such a focus would demand that

planners would have skills in many specific fields,

such as psychology, therapy, etc. [Flyvbjerg & Rich-

ardson, 2004, p. 16]. Also, the emphasis on communi-

cative processes might lead to underestimating

methods and procedures, which are still useful, such

as quantitative data, analysis and strategies. Forester

also highlights this risk of overemphasising “the social

construction of reality” and further states that: “we

must not be so taken with duly criticizing the past

presumptions of rational experts (…) that we discred-

it a reasonable view of objectivity” [Forester, 2008,

p. 300].

Planners are often concerned with achieving and

providing sufficient knowledge in a process seeking

understanding and justification, thereby neglecting

the important negotiation phase, which Forester ad-

vocates for: “we risk participating all day in those

processes of dialogue and debate without ever com-

ing more practically to act” [Forester, 2008, p. 303].

This refers as well to the need for action, mentioned

previously. He further suggests that: “we need analy-

sis of how we (in various coalitions or forms) can pur-

sue justice not only in print but in organizing, build-

ing, legislation” [Forester, 2008, p. 308]. With the

focus set on communicative actions, there is a risk of

damaging the acknowledgement and understanding of

the very wide context, in which planning takes place.

Ignoring the stakeholders‟ power in the discussion

would damage their fair representation and expose

the process to manipulation and repressive power

strategies, without the awareness of the planner;

herewith the „public interest‟ is at play as well

[Sager, 2005, p. 2]. How planners define the „public

interest‟ and how they define the validity of the

communicative process varies from one context to

another: is it the public phase with hearings, as in

Denmark, or a long term therapeutic process with

series of meetings and speak-outs, as presented by

Sandercock [Sandercock, 2000]. Besides, the re-

sources needed for such processes make it difficult to

get political support: with their short term mandate,

politicians would aim for methods, where the out-

come is more sure or precise. The ambiguity of defi-

nitions, tools and a certain political scepticism con-

stitute many challenges to the planners and their

expertise, within the collaborative processes, leading

to doubt and loss of the planners‟ power [Alexander

in Allmendinger, 2009, p. 25].

Those criticisms follow as well with authors pinpoint-

ing a gap between theory and practice. The norma-

tive character of collaborative planning, as men-

tioned previously, does not give concrete devices and

tools for practitioners. Neither practitioners nor theo-

rists seem to work to reduce this gap [Allmendinger,

2009, pp. 25-29]. Healey asks here five questions to

collaborative planning about where discussion should

come about, in which forums would access to dia-

logue be given to the communities; what styles of

discussion are susceptible to open up and reach the

/ 79


communicative objectives; how issues, interests and

arguments should be sorted out and managed in those

discussions; how a new discourse can be shaped

through strategies for planning; and finally how

agreements on strategies and continuous critical re-

view of it can be reached [Allmendinger, 2009, pp.

215-217].

In the light of those considerations, we still consider

the collaborative values as relevant, especially in the

case of cross-cultural planning issues. As Forester

acknowledges the divergence of interests, conflicts

and strong passions, involved in real life participa-

tion, he points that consensus-building and negotia-

tion processes embrace conflicts and recognise dif-

ferences, instead of ignoring or suppressing it [For-

ester, 2008, pp. 301-302]. Thus planners should not

try to suppress emerging conflict in for example the

mosque projects, but instead dig into them using dia-

logue, debate and negotiation methods. These prac-

tical considerations again are very context-related; in

Denmark, where the planning agenda is mainly set by

politicians and decisions are often taken beforehand

in the political arena, it can be questioned how rele-

vant is it to talk about collaborative planning. In

Denmark, the publicity of projects is compulsory: the

hearings allow people to respond on the project, and

thereby might be considered as a possibility for citi-

zen participation and an integration of communica-

tive values into the Danish planning system. The

question of that being sufficient in term of public

participation arises: this lies with the planner’s con-

ception and definition of the legitimacy of the demo-

cratic process. Innes and Gruber even denunciates

hearings as being “counterproductive in collaborative

planning” [Innes & Gruber, 2005, p. 184]. Indeed, the

interests might be represented in a deviant or dispro-

portioned way (e.g. the group ‘Stop Islamisation of

Denmark’ taking over at a hearing, even though they

do not represent a strong proportion of Danish popu-

lation, see Paragraph 7.2). Sager commends as well

that collaborative planning should be “adapted to the

need of liberal and pluralist societies” [Sager, 2009,

p. 67], but one could ask if adaption to the society

means adaption to the system, or rather questioning

the system. If the collaborative contributions are not

given sufficient influence in the existing system, to

which extend can one classify the procedures as be-

ing collaborative? The relevant implementation of

collaborative planning is thus strongly determined by

the planning system at work and the political con-

text.

Reflections on how the collaborative values are em-

bedded in the empirical analysis will be present in

the very beginning of Chapter 5. In the next section,

we will dig into the European and Danish context of

mosque building, especially the political and legisla-

tive settings, since it is important in the understand-

ing of how cross-cultural projects are addressed.

/ 79

|Analysing the context of mosque building

4 |ANALYSING THE CONTEXT OF

MOSQUE BUILDING

In the recent years, the Muslim minorities have initi-

ated projects of mosque building in the major cities

of European countries. This fundamental wish for

places of worship has turned out to be controversial

due to the embedded symbolism and debates it rais-

es; some of the debated issues are integration, assim-

ilation and whether or not Islam is compatible with

the principles and values of European democracy. In

this chapter, we will examine both the general Euro-

pean and the Danish contexts for those issues.

4.1 THE EUROPEAN CONTEXT All across Europe, the tendency for nationalistic

movements gaining support influences the debate and

context of mosque building. Stefano Allievi (Professor

in Sociology and Specialist in Islam) has conducted a

comprehensive research on Islam in Europe. In his

report “Conflicts over mosques in Europe”, the status

of mosque projects in several European countries can

be seen as it were in 2009 (see Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Mosques in Europe [based on the observations in Allievi, 2009, p. 23].

Existing

mosques in EU

Purpose-built

mosques

Under

construction

Approx. 10.869 Approx. 2170 (19%) Approx. 302

The countries with most purpose-built mosques are

Germany, France, Bosnia and the United Kingdom,

with respectively 2600, 2100, 1867 and 850-1500

mosques. Germany has still 200 mosques under con-

struction and France, 60, while the other presented

countries have a few or none [Allievi, 2009, p. 23].

MOSQUES AS SYMBOLS IN THE PUBLIC SPACE

Mosques can be seen as a flash point or symbol for

deeper cultural conflicts [Kühle, 2011]; they symbol-

ise the presence of Muslims in Europe, and reminds us

the fact that there is around 20 million Muslims in

Europe, and still counting. There are a countless

number of Islamic places of worship, but in most cas-

es they are located in apartments, old factories,

warehouses and so on, out of sight from the public

[Wise, 2006 and Kühle, 2006]. The construction of a

building that from the beginning is intended to be a

mosque (and appear as one) is an important symbol

for the Muslims, seen as an acknowledgement of their

religion in Europe. Meanwhile, from the Western so-

ciety‟s perspective, it can be interpreted in many

other ways, such as the invasion of Europe by immi-

grants, the presence of anti-democratic and extrem-

ist movements, but also such as a positive symbol of

our multicultural society. Sune Lægaard (Danish Phi-

losopher and lecturer at Centre for the Study of

Equality and Multiculturalism, at University of Copen-

hagen) addresses this issue about how the Muslims

and the non-Muslims interpret the symbols different-

ly, raising therewith the discussion of which religious

symbols are accepted in the public spaces [Lægaard

(a), 2010, p. 4-6].

/ 79


Using the argument about secularisation, and hereby

the separation of religion and politics, religion can be

seen as something that should be practiced in priva-

cy. However this is a twisted argument according to

Stefano Allievi; on one hand, there is a demand for

nonappearance of religious symbols in the public

spaces, and at the same time, claims are made for

special treatment and the visibility of majority reli-

gions. The latter is due to the status of majority reli-

gions as cultural symbols, but how can we distinguish

culture and religion and thereby determine which

symbols we can accept in the public space? [Kristeligt

Dagblad, 2009]. This question is related as well to the

so-called radicalisation, illustrated in the public de-

bate about where Muslims should practice their reli-

gion: if mosques are visible, some might read their

presence as Islam taking over the Western urban

landscape, while keeping them in their current places

(i.e. apartments, basements and warehouses) would

support their hidden network, and thereby the radi-

calisation, as some would argue. Thus both arguments

for the visibility or the discretion of their place of

worship sustain the radicalisation polemic [Kühle,

2011]. Moreover it raises the question of who owns

the public space and decides how it should look like.

According to Lene Kühle, visibility and appearance

are important factors [Kühle, 2011]. Herewith the

architecture of mosques is crucial, because it influ-

ences the symbolic interpretations. If the mosque has

an architectural style and expression, supporting a

closed and foreign appearance, contradictory to oth-

er buildings in the host society, it might be interpret-

ed as a threat and attempt of the minorities to „rec-

reate their cultures‟. Other mosques are “more mod-

ern and open, where the architecture shows you it's a

mosque that wants a dialogue with the society” says

Copenhagen's former deputy mayor, Bo Asmus Kjeld-

gaard (SF). He adds that he hopes Copenhagen will

get this type of mosques [Wise, 2006]. One of the

leaders in a mosque project in Rotterdam states the

following about the architecture and symbolic value:

"It must not be a building that is dominant and a

symbol of Islam. It has to be a building whose style is

accepted by the majority of the municipality, not

just a symbol for the religion but a symbol for ac-

cepting all mankind" [Wise, 2006]. This shows both

the importance of the majority‟s consent, and the

perception of the mosque as more than a building for

praying, but also a symbol for tolerance and ac-

ceptance of minorities. Sami Saidana (Chairman of

the Association for Mosque and Islamic Centre in Gel-

lerup, Denmark), also sees the permission to build

mosques as an important recognition of minority

rights. He advocates for a modern mosque, which

matches the surroundings and the Danish environ-

ment, but still keeping the characteristic minarets

and dome. His perception is that the elder genera-

tions of Muslim immigrants wish to have a „tradition-

al‟ mosque as they know them from their home coun-

try, whereas the second and third generations of im-

migrants in general feel more integrated and want a

mosque with a Danish appearance [Saidana, 2011].

This might be the case in other countries as well.

/ 79


To sum up the discussions about visibility of minori-

ties and symbols in the public space, Ellen H. Jensen

(Director of the Danish Urban Laboratory) made an

interesting point by drawing the attention to the in-

visibility of cultures, for instance, in residential are-

as. Often it is not possible to determine who is living

in the neighbourhood (or who lived there in the past),

because we leave very few imprints of our lives. The

absence of symbols and markings does not only relate

to religion; nonetheless the religious symbols seem to

be very controversial issues, which are for instance

expressed in the debates and opposition to mosque

projects.

OPPOSITION TO MOSQUE PROJECTS

The mosques projects around Europe have in general

encountered great opposition and one of the main

criticisms has been that they produce extremism and

threatens local cultures [Wise, 2006]. Several events

have intensified the debate and opposition: the 9/11

attacks, the bombings in the subway of London, the

war against terror8 (and the rhetoric following it) and

the caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, with

hereafter the Muslim attacks on Embassies [Wise,

2006]. Herewith follow the discussions about radicali-

sation of Muslims, and how it relates to mosques.

We will just give a few examples of hostile responses

to mosque projects to illustrate the tone in the de-

bate. In Italy, members of the ruling coalition under

8 Note that only ”5 out of 940 planned or achieved terror attacks in Europe have Islamic groups as initiators” [Metroexpress, 2011].

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi have put forward a

bill to block construction of mosques using the argu-

ment that mosques might be used to “spread hatred

for the West” [Wise, 2006]. In line with this, the

Dutch populist parliamentarian Geert Wilders has

called mosques “palaces of hatred” [Maussen, 2005,

p. 3]. In Switzerland, a public vote resulted in the

prohibition on minarets in 2009 [Lægaard (a), 2010,

p. 1]. Finally, the former British Prime Minister Tony

Blair had promised to close some mosques and deport

certain people from those religious communities who

are “deemed to foster violence” [Wise, 2006]. The

situation is thus complex, and some countries, which

are normally perceived as tolerant, have suddenly

changed their viewpoint, leading to contradictions

between the current political debate and the histori-

cal experiences of certain countries. Lene Kühle men-

tions the collaboration between the State and differ-

ent religions: for instance, the Catholics and

Protestants in the Netherlands, where the integration

of Islam is relatively unproblematic, since they al-

ready have different religions in the State regula-

tions. England has traditionally also good experiences

with integrating minorities, exemplified by their first

mosque built in the 18th century [Kühle, 2011]. These

contradictions observed in the Netherlands and Great

Britain should be seen in the context of increasing

support for nationalistic and xenophobic movements

in Europe, with the most recent episode in Finland,

where the party “The True Fins” received 19 pct. of

the votes at the election of April 2011; they fight for

/ 79


national homogeneity and see Islam as a threat for

Finland [Politiken (a), 2011].

In May 2011, The European Council reacted on these

emerging movements in Europe and advocated for

less discrimination and more tolerance. The debate

and negative statements about multiculturalism, aris-

ing from several countries, worries the council, which

functions as the authority supervising whether the

different countries act in respect to the human

rights. Among others, we found examples from Ger-

many, France and England, where the political lead-

ers have made rather harsh statements about the

failure of multiculturalism, and the different cultures

having “catastrophic consequences” for society [DR

(a), 2011]. Perhaps the word „multiculturalism‟ is

confusing the debate, which ends up considering

mainly the Muslim minorities in European countries

and symbolic cases like mosques. These discussions

are important, but according to Stefano Allievi, they

tend to take over the debate: “it is a shame that

they are limited to Islam, because they are serving

populist and partisan interests instead of addressing

the fundamental and principal questions about the

relation between religion and politics” [Kristeligt

Dagblad, 2009].

All of this is relevant for our Danish planning context,

since the debate about mosques have started some

decades ago, but is still not leading to any comple-

tion of a project, in contradiction to other countries.

It is not clear though how much those countries have

changed within their system in order to adapt to

those emerging challenges of cross-cultural planning.

It seems that the municipalities in Denmark are now

somehow competing for the first mosque building,

but the increasing nationalist tendency observed in

Europe might again slow down processes. Further-

more, Danish planning has not produced many theo-

retical thoughts and guidelines for practitioners,

which supposes a need to seek knowledge abroad and

in other disciplines. Here, the political statements

and the contradiction between legal framework, tra-

ditions and the current tone in the debate depict the

complexity of those issues, especially regarding our

democratic perception of society. Meanwhile, politics

and religion are rather closely related in Denmark.

The Danish settings and debate about the planning of

mosques will be elaborated on in the next para-

graphs.

4.2 THE DANISH CONTEXT Knowing the theoretical background and challenges of

cross-cultural planning, and the European context for

mosque building, and with the collaborative values in

mind, we would like to explore the political and legis-

lative settings for the integration of foreign cultures

and religions in the Danish planning system and prac-

tices. Elements, such as political opinions, immigra-

tion policies, scales of action (whether it is national

or municipal), will bring perspectives to the infor-

mation and observations. We will firstly present the

several debate issues about minorities in Denmark,

and how the Danish planning system appears in their

perspective. Examinations of the democratic and lib-

/ 79


eral Constitution, and herewith the clauses for free-

dom of religion, will lead us on to reflections about

the Danes‟ relations to religion and traditions. Final-

ly, we wrap up the chapter with the investigation on

the current building of mosques in the major Danish

cities.

4.2.1 THE PUBLIC DEBATE

The public debate in Denmark comprehends the Eu-

ropean tendencies emphasised in the previous chap-

ter. It has a strong political influence on the agenda

of the integration of religious projects in the physical

planning. As mentioned, the line between legislation

and debate is rather thin. Indeed, with a rather loose

legislation and few experiences, the political debate

can strongly orientate the considerations and attitude

of planners.

As we have seen earlier, Lægaard has addressed, in

several articles, the issues concerning religious sym-

bols in the public spaces, and also the debate about

the „grand-mosques‟ in Copenhagen. He confirms that

“religious symbols are source of still growing politi-

cal controversy” [Lægaard (a), 2010, p. 1*]. Among

other things, he defines how the debate has been

controlled by the Danish People‟s Party and their

campaigns against mosques (see Appendix 1). Other

parties have clearly been reluctant to express their

opinions, meaning that The Danish People‟s Party has

controlled the political debate [Kühle, 2011]; they

are thus powerfully represented in spite of their ac-

tual small number of elected members. The party has

furthermore contributed to shape a negative dis-

course by turning the term „mosque‟ into „grand-

mosque‟. Analyses of the two terms in the public de-

bate has shown that, when the term mosque is used,

the author is generally positive towards mosques, and

whenever the term „grand mosque‟ is used, the au-

thor is mainly negative. This shows the importance of

the terminology used in the articulation of issues, and

analysing those might reveal the deeper values they

embody [Lægaard (c), 2010 and Kühle, 2011]. Moreo-

ver, the use of the terms „the mosque problematic‟ in

the debate, even though it can be seen as topic need-

ing to be examined through many angles, is quickly

deviated into a negative perception of mosques as

being a new problem in society. This supports as well

the misunderstanding points, appearing in the debate

regarding Islam in Denmark, which Lene Kühle reveals

in her book “Mosques in Denmark”: perceptions of

Islam as “medieval, (…) in conflict with democracy

and human rights,(…)incompatible with the Danish

culture”, and “splitting up the unity of the Danish

society” [Kühle, 2006, p. 15].

Further considerations can be found in Lægaard‟s

analysis of the Danish mosque debate, where he has

elaborated specifically on the arguments for and

against mosques. Here, it is relevant to indicate that

the municipal planners can only engage with objec-

tions concerning the architecture and technical fac-

tors, related to traffic and noise pollution for in-

stance. But it is significant how the political debate

has influenced the objecting and defending opinions

about the planning of mosques, reflected then in the

/ 79


public inquiries on Local plans. The different catego-

risations are mentioned below.

Table 4.2: Inquiries for and against the mosques in Local plans [Lægaard (a) and (b), 2010].

Objections against the Lo-

cal plans

Defences for the Local

plans

Security considerations (ex-

tremism, radicalisation etc.)

The legal consideration

(reference to the Planning

law)

Criticism of Islam (percep-

tion of women, undemocrat-

ic etc.)

Freedom of religion

Financing (e.g. from Iran,

Saudi Arabia)

Non-discrimination

Aesthetic (architecture) Integration and inclusion

The neutrality of the Local

plan (not use the word

„mosque‟)

The value of diversity

More recently, significant statements from the newly

elected Minister of Integration Søren Pind reveal his

disinclination towards integration, hereby claiming

himself to be rather a Minister of Assimilation. Fur-

ther reflections on integration and assimilation will

be taken up later, within the legislative frame for

mosque buildings in Denmark (see Paragraph 4.2.2).

These strong statements intensified the public discus-

sion on integration. In general, many forums, existing

or created for this special purpose, take up the de-

bate either about Islam in Denmark or mosques build-

ing, challenging values of democratic deliberation

and minority integration; those forums are initiated

both by Danes and Muslims [Østergaard, 2006, pp. 41-

58]. Facebook illustrates as well interestingly how the

public is taking an explicit stand in the debate on

integration9. A rather explorative research on current

Facebook groups shows the following examples of

number of members [Facebook (a), 2011].

Table 4.3: Facebook groups [Facebook (a), 2011].

This analysis cannot claim to be neither comprehen-

sive nor scientifically valid, as other groups are pre-

sent as well (though with a lower amount of mem-

bers). Message posted in those groups illustrate the

fierceness of the on-going public debate. Here are

two quotes from respectively a „for‟ and an „against‟

group. Maria-Theresa Kjær Larsen member of „Yes to

mosques in Denmark (2)‟ states: “I would really like

to continue the many debates I am a part of in fa-

vour of mosques and Muslims, but because of insane

rumours I am obligated to stop since it shall not de-

9 For instance, many Danes chose to change their Facebook pro-file picture into a portrait of Pind, in a protest against his opin-ions on assimilation, and symbolising “how boring the country will be when we are all the same” [Politiken (b), 2011*].

Facebook group Members

No to mosques in Denmark 122.537

No to grand mosques in Denmark 12.447

Yes to mosques in Denmark 57.541

Yes to mosques in Denmark (2) 288

/ 79


stroy my life. Maybe I continue the fight when the

truth comes one day. Until then I will be on your side

– but passive” [Facebook (b), 2011*]. Henrik Emil An-

dersen a member of „No to grand mosques in Den-

mark‟ states: “Remember to celebrate birthday the

20th of April for Adolf Hitler. 122 years birthday”

[Facebook (c), 2011*]. These statements are not

unique examples. For instance, city council members

in Copenhagen have been subject to threats when

engaging in the debate, and especially when they

voted for the mosque on Vibevej [TV2/Lorry, 2009].

As it develops, the debate has many consequences;

one is that some people might not participate in this

delicate debate unless they feel they possess a solid

argumentation, and engaging in it might lead to con-

flicts on a rather personal level. Another observation

is that people often feel that they have to make a

statement on the mosque issue (i.e. to vote for or

against projects and decide whether we should have

mosques at all), but the Constitution specifies that it

is a rightful possibility, and therefore it is somehow

meaningless to debate.

The media also play a substantial role, and

Østergaard asserts that the majority sets the agenda

through the media [Østergaard, 2006, p. 63-64]. If

the media exclude the minorities‟ voices and possibil-

ity to defend their viewpoint, it becomes rather hard

for them to interfere in the debate. Concerning the

debate about the visibility of minorities, Ellen H. Jen-

sen expresses the peculiarity of not welcoming diver-

sity, as a new tendency in the Danish context. She

states: “It is very surprising and embarrassing that

there isn‟t a [visible] mosque in Denmark – only one

in Hvidovre and it has never created problems – it is

integrated” [Jensen, 2011*]. She explains that one of

the reasons is that “people have become more

afraid” [Jensen, 2011*]. This fear sustains The Danish

People‟s Party campaign and their rhetoric. Here a

reference can be made to Sandercock‟s remark on

the fear of „the other culture‟ (see Paragraph 2.2).

Those few reflections reveal an on-going question of

how a democratic society, such as Denmark, can and

should welcome new cultures: how should the bal-

ance appear in order to respect everyone‟s right to

deliberation within the democratic scene? How can

Danes meet the minorities„ claims, while still sustain-

ing the characteristics of the host society (which

might be the reason for immigrating to the country),

so as to provide space and place for everyone. Those

deep issues need to be addressed, not only by the

politicians but also, by the planning system of the

host country. In the following section, the Danish

planning system and the legislative frame will be ad-

dressed on these matters.

4.2.2 RIGHTS AND LEGISLATIVE FRAME FOR

MINORITIES IN DENMARK

Discussing the rights of ethnic minorities in a liberal

society, Casals specifies that, “in order to provide a

fair system of integration”, policies, and thereby

institutions, rules and practices of the host society,

should integrate a more multiculturalist turn [Casals,

2006, p. 214]. This supposes that the system

/ 79


acknowledges the cultural diversity brought by the

immigrant groups and accommodates to it in a re-

sponse to the minorities‟ group rights [Casals, 2006,

pp. 214-215]. He questions then: “Yet how can multi-

cultural policies become compatible with the claims

of liberal nationalism?” [Casals, 2006, p. 215]. In the

next section, we will examine the Danish planning

system as it is today, and the legislative background

in relation to integration of minorities.

Denmark is defined as a democratic country. Even

though it has a liberal legislative frame, some Mus-

lims come to perceive the Danish State as counteract-

ing the physical planning of religion-related buildings,

such as mosques or Islamic cemeteries, although the

establishment of Muslim independent schools has

been rather unproblematic. Myths and contradictions

thus raise the confusion about the Danish State and

its planning system [Kühle, 2011]. We will first look

at the liberal legislation, as part of the investigation

of multicultural integration on the national level,

then at the planning system and its application on the

local level, within the municipalities.

The Danish Constitution contains some sections on

religion and freedom of religion10, which are the fun-

damental prerequisites for “the presence of Islam in

Denmark” [Kühle, 2006, p. 25*]. It is stated that be-

liefs do not have consequences on the civil and politi-

cal rights. The rather liberal legislative frame techni-

10 The paragraphs in the Constitution, regarding the freedom of religion, are the 67th and 70th [Østergaard, 2006].

cally allows minorities to build institutions such as

schools, cemeteries, places for worship. But besides

the Constitution, politicians have in general been

“cautious on outlining laws, which could regulate the

conditions for religious minority groups” [Kühle,

2006, p. 34*]. The flexibility of the frame as such (or

rather its lack of clear guidelines), makes it difficult

and uncertain for any claim or project arising from

the minorities [Kühle, 2011 and Kühle, 2006, p. 34].

The reactions to deal with minorities in Denmark can

therefore be characterised as ad hoc attitude [Kühle,

2006, p. 33]. In her article „Assimilation as a funda-

mental character of Danish immigration politics‟,

Charlotte Hamburger has defined a model of immi-

gration policies, dividing them in three approaches:

“assimilation (to equalise), integration (to join sev-

eral parts to a main one) and segregation (to differ-

entiate)” [Hamburger, in Østergaard, 2006, p. 64*].

They can be defined in parallel to a scale of reaction

of the minority group towards a discriminating socie-

ty, as illustrated in Figure 4.1.

/ 79


Hamburger mentions that the so-called „integration

policy‟ in Denmark is rather one of assimilation, since

it does not define clear guidelines and attitude to-

wards integration. This policy might paradoxically

lead to further segregation and conflicts [Østergaard,

2006, p. 65]. Here though, Lene Kühle highlights that

differences are to be found between the national and

local level of integration and interaction with the

minority groups. Indeed, where some municipalities

(i.e. encompassing planners and politicians) have de-

veloped excellent contacts with the minorities and

their representatives, others show few signs of col-

laboration and dialogue, such as Copenhagen Munici-

pality, where the planning administration is closer to

the heated national and political debate [Kühle,

2011]. Sami Saidana, a voice from the Muslim minori-

ty, states that: “The society cannot force assimila-

tion. Integration is his own project neither Løkke‟s

[Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen] nor the Minis-

try of Integration‟s” [Saidana, 2011*].

It is useful to remind the reader that the Danish plan-

ning system, in its different levels (i.e. national, re-

gional and municipal), has to reflect the political vi-

sions for national development [Miljøministeriet,

2006]. Thereby, the line between political debate

and planning legislation can be very thin, as already

Figure 4.1: Reaction patterns towards discrimination and consequent policy [based on Hamburger in Østergaard, 2006, pp. 64-65].

/ 79


mentioned. The national Planning law states the vi-

sions and guidelines to be carried out through the

Municipal and Local plans. Nonetheless, the frame is

incomplete when it comes to planning for ethnic and

religious minorities: nothing refers explicitly to reli-

gion and cultural minorities11. This makes the process

of mosque building ambiguous, in terms of translating

and applying the Planning law and other environmen-

tal regulations, outlined on the national level

[Miljøministeriet, 2009, and Jensen, 2011]. This justi-

fies the differentiated approaches from one munici-

pality to another, and increases the difficulty for mi-

norities on one side, to understand the legislative

framework, and for planners on the other side to ap-

ply it. At the local planning level, this can lead to the

avoidance of public meetings, in order to keep the

publicity and the consequent risk of uproar down.

Decisions responding to claims from the minorities

(e.g. in terms of educational or religious institutions)

are susceptible to incite heated debate, which munic-

ipal planners and Muslim organisations try to elude

[Saidana, 2011]. Examples of barriers to the integra-

tion of Islam in Denmark are perceived by Muslims at

several levels of the legislation: at the national level,

legal initiatives such as the law on preaching visa

(forkyndervisum); at the municipal level, the difficul-

ties of completing a mosque project; and at the local

level, the pricing of sites being risen because the

seller knows that the developer intends to build a

mosque [Kühle, 2011 and Kühle, 2006, p. 34].

11 The only references to „culture‟ concerns cultural heritage and broad aspects of culture [Miljøministeriet, 2009].

Thus, although the national perspectives seem open

and friendly towards the integration of minorities and

their claims, practical issues at the local scale and a

genuine fear for speaking out, addresses the reality

of the democratic system and the freedom of reli-

gion. In the next section, we will investigate the

Danes‟ relation to religion and traditions, as well as

the legislative frame for the freedom of religion.

4.2.3 RELIGION AND TRADITION IN

THE DANISH SOCIETY

Denmark can be considered as a strong host society

for religious minorities, since the country is secular-

ised and “being religious in Denmark, is a minority in

itself” [Kühle, 2011]. Still the State and government

are closely related to the Christian church (i.e. Evan-

gelic-Lutheran): the „Church Ministry‟ exemplifies this

special status. Religion is thus very ambiguous in the

Danes‟ life: it is a personal matter, which is rather

hidden but an omnipresent element though, for in-

stance the fact that Danes still pay „church taxes‟ to

the State, supporting and funding hereby the national

church [Knudsen & Wilken, 1998, pp. 70-73 and

Østergaard, 2006, p. 74]. In general, the Danish soci-

ety does not relate explicitly to religion and beliefs

[Kühle, 2011]. It can be postulated that in general

religiosity is more of a tradition in the Danes‟ percep-

tion than a belief. For instance, the presence and

multiplicity of churches is a typical trait of the Danish

landscape, and their bells are beyond the law on

noise pollution. A shift is appearing though, with ide-

as such as replacing the bells calling in for religious

/ 79


service by text messages. Thus Christianity is debated

here as well. Eventually, the society‟s approach to

religious issues and challenges is rather ad hoc and

local [Kühle, 2011], which shows as well in the plan-

ning system.

Indeed, as we just described it, the Danish society

contains strongly embedded traditions, and has

therewith a strong identity. The ethno-cultural dif-

ferences to be found are thus mostly due to immi-

grating groups. The religious differences are as well

represented within the minorities, affecting thereby

their religious rights and claims. Muslims are not the

only religious minority, but with Islam as second most

practised religion in Denmark, they are the main rep-

resentatives [Østergaard, 2006, p. 18 and Kühle,

2011]. The question arises then on the space given to

other minorities, both in the public debate and in the

legislative frame: the same issues affect them, even

if the decisions might have been taken in relation to

Muslims (e.g. in the case of the preaching visa)

[Kühle, 2006, p. 27-28 and Kühle, 2011]. Moreover, as

previously stated, Østergaard points out that “the

majority group can have prejudices over the minority

group” [Østergaard, 2006, p. 64*] and therewith de-

termines the agenda of the on-going debate. The de-

bate rarely considers the diversity of Muslims groups

and opinions. A simplistic division into moderate and

fundamentalist Muslims is also sustained by the me-

dia, and can be considered as a component for the

radicalisation discourse [Østergaard, 2006, pp. 72-73

and Kühle, 2011]. Muslims, being depicted as the

greatest minority, have been considered as one mass

of people to be faced and dealt with [Østergaard,

2006, pp. 69-73]. This highlights the potential misun-

derstanding from the host society‟s side; Muslims are

indeed divided in a plurality of groups, differing eth-

nically, religiously (each with their imam and reli-

gious practices) and on the reasons of their presence

in the country [Kühle, 2011 and Østergaard, 2006, pp.

18-19].

Freedom of religion is consequent to the principle

that any citizen has equal rights, and is stated within

the Constitution 12; but freedom of religion does not

go in pairs with equality of religions. The „Church

Ministry‟ has approved some Muslim communities and

Imams; however their acknowledgement does not

follow per se. Changes in the legislation lead to a

shift from the acknowledgement of religious commu-

nities, to the approval of communities, by the

„Church Ministry‟. The approved communities gain

fiscal advantages; four years residence permits for

their imams, as well as the right to wed and bury,

which corresponds to the rights of the acknowledged

community. Still the approved communities suffer

from a symbolic differentiation towards the acknowl-

edged community, and do not possess the same legal

rights (those are not specified in the source)

[Østergaard, 2006, pp. 73-75]. Lene Kühle mentions

as well that organisations have the possibility to not

pay taxes from the received funding: while Christian

churches get their members to contribute to the

12 The paragraphs in the Constitution, regarding the freedom of religion, the status of the Church Ministry and State religion, are the 4th, 6th, 66th, 67th, 69th, 70th [Østergaard, 2006].

/ 79


community through donations, Muslim organisations

have stronger financial difficulties since they have no

income. Although they can get support from the in-

ternational Muslim diaspora, and Denmark has close

relations with for instance Saudi Arabia, it is not well

perceived if funding comes from (former) dictator-

ships [Saidana, 2011 and Kühle, 2011]. It is here

symptomatic that, even though Denmark provides the

constitutional frame for freedom of religion, Muslims

in Denmark are rather lost and confused about its

explicit expression in the Danish society. This shows

especially when comparing with neighbour countries,

where the State collaborates and supports much more

those minorities. For example Lene Kühle refers here

to Norway where minority religions can get subsidies

from the State [Kühle, 2011].

Østergaard highlights the importance of religion, as

an identity factor for immigrants: indeed, when they

have moved from everything they know, and cannot

even relate to the territory and society they have

migrated to, religion becomes an important marker.

In that sense, international movements, in form of

the Muslim diaspora, provide them with a network

beyond boundaries: “it is characteristic for an ethnic

group, living in diaspora, that the religious orienta-

tion often will be different from the host country‟s,

which allows it [the ethnic group] to mark itself from

other groups” [Østergaard, 2006, p. 75*]. With this in

mind, the reflection on society‟s imprint on a territo-

ry takes all its relevance: religious buildings should

then logically be positioned near the community who

identifies itself through them. As churches have been

built in the centre of villages and cities, mosques

would have a logic place close to the Muslim commu-

nities, and the so-called ghettos find a coherent re-

sponse to the need of identifying yourself to your

neighbourhood and living place [Jensen, 2011]13.

4.2.4 CURRENT MOSQUE PROJECTS

IN DENMARK

The Danish context, as previously described, presents

the settings for the building of mosques, with a set of

presumptions, misunderstandings and an open legisla-

tive frame, leading to frustration about a complicat-

ed process [Kühle, 2011]. Currently, Denmark has

about 115 existing mosques and 3 purpose-built, situ-

ated in Odense, Svendborg and Hvidovre [Kühle,

2006, p. 29 and pp. 63-65].

In this project and through the interviews, we have

engaged with most of the current projects; only a

smaller project in Braband is not used. It is interest-

ing though to notice the similarities between Copen-

hagen and Aarhus, in having both a mosque open for

all Muslims and a smaller project responding to the

claims of one single group. In Table 4.4, we present

the main mosque projects in Denmark. The cases are

13 Discussion with, among others Ellen H. Jensen, about the loca-tion of mosques, concerned whether a mosque should be located in the so-called ghettos or in the city centre: the former advocat-ing for mosques being situated close to where Muslims are living, the latter enhancing the visibility of mosques as a symbol for the multicultural society and enhancing a flow of diverse people [Jensen, 2011].

/ 79


all emerging purpose-built mosque projects. We

acknowledge that other smaller projects might exist.

Some projects, such as the Battery and the Gellerup

project, aim for building a mosque for all, or at least

many different Muslims communities, and herewith

hold a share in the discourse for achieving a Danish

Islam, with all the consequent issues and discussions.

The mosques are reflecting different planning para-

digms according to the type of project: either build-

ing a mosque for one specific community or for all

Muslims as a gathering point for them or a cultural

landmark and a symbol of cultural diversity.

In the light of these initiatives and projects for

mosques in Denmark, it is relevant to raise the ques-

tion whether the Danish planners and the planning

system is fit for the challenges this might imply. To

use the words of Forester and Sandercock, these are

challenges of “dealing with differences” and “manag-

ing our co-existence in shared space” [Forester, 2009

and Sandercock, 2000, p. 13]. For this planners can

find inspiration in ideas about deliberative processes

and collaborative planning values, which is also a

source of inspiration in the methodology of this pro-

ject.

/ 79


Table 4.4: Mosque projects in major Danish cities14.

Mosque project Gellerup, Aarhus Sintrupvej, Brabrand, Aarhus

Current status Approved by the city council | Project is on standby

| Founding is missing

Approved by the city council | Ground is

bought | Construction might take place when

the existing building has been demolished

Project start Ca. 2001 Unknown

Target group Open for different Muslim associations Turkish Sunni-Muslims

Capacity 800 Unknown

Architectural

style

A Danish mosque with traditional mosque elements

like dome and minarets

Traditional mosque (probably) with two 13-15

meter high domes and spires of up to 24 me-

ters

Initiator The Federation of Islamic Association Turkish Culture Association

Involved stake-

holders

Aarhus Municipality and city council | Gel-

lerupsekretariatet | Association for Mosque and

Islamic Centre | Brabrand Housing association |

COWI

Aarhus Municipality and city council | Di-

yanet15

Financing Raised 1.1 mill. (50 mill. needed) | do not want to

receive international funding

20 mill. | founding may come from the Euro-

pean network of Turkish Muslims

Relevant charac-

teristic

Prestige project | Involvement of non-Muslims |

„Mosque‟ is not mentioned in the municipal plans |

A modern mosque, part of a culture house | Partly

integrated in the master plan for renewal of the

area

Rather unproblematic process | Limited at-

tention in the media

14 [Saidana, 2011, Christeller, 2011, Andersen, 2011, Høvsgaard, 2011, Pedersen, 2011, Kühle, 2011, Schrøder, 2011, BIG, 2011, Jydske Vestkysten, 2010, Københavns Kommune (a), 2009, MFR, 2010, Schousboe, 2010 and Avisen.dk, 2011]. 15 One of the greatest Turkish Muslim organisations, considered as an expression of a liberal, moderate Islam.

/ 79


Mosque project The Battery, Njalsgade/Artellerivej, CPH Vibevej 25, Northwest, CPH

Current status Approved by the city council | Local plan is geared

for it | Founding is missing

Approved by the city council | Heated debate

about funding has probably slowed the process

| Organisation Ahlul-Bait bought the site in

2002 (former machine factory)

Project start First Local plan in 1992 | Project start in 2005 Change of land use in the Municipal plan of

2005 allowing the building of a mosque

Target group Sunni-Muslims but open for all Shia-Muslims

Capacity Ca. 3000 Ca. 900

Architectural

style

Combination of Islamic and Modern Scandinavian

architecture (white)

Traditional Shia-mosque with 24 meter high

dome and two 32 meter high minarets (blue

tiles)

Initiator The Muslims Joint Council (MFR) | Jutlandic inves-

tors

Ahlul-Bait16 in Denmark

Involved stake-

holders

Copenhagen Municipality and city council | BIG | Bo

Bach Gruppen | PK3 (landscape architects) |

Grontmij | Hasløv & Kjærsgaard (urban planning

consultants)

Copenhagen Municipality and city council |

Ahlul-Bait in Denmark

Financing Unknown (expensive) | Long time perspective |

Wants to be independent | Might be supported by

founding in the Middle East

Ca. 40-50 mill. | Criticised for receiving money

from the theocracy in Iran, among others

Relevant charac-

teristic

Prestige project | Part of a new urban district the

Battery | Openness to the public spaces around

Placed between existing residential blocks from

the 1920-30‟s and industrial buildings from the

1990‟s | Already a house functioning as a

mosque on the location

16 Group of Muslims loyal to the 12 imams of the Prophet Muhammad‟s household, and their descendents.

/ 79


Mosque project Allehelgensgade, Roskilde Vollsmose, Odense17

Current status Approved by the city council The municipality is waiting for the budget

from Islamic Religious Community

Project start Expected to be built in 2011 -

Target group Turkish Sunni-Muslims -

Capacity Ca. 1500 -

Architectural

style

With domes and two minarets Middle Eastern architecture style

Initiator Among others Roskilde Cultural Association Among others Islamic Religious Community

Involved stake-

holders

Roskilde Municipality | Roskilde city council | Ros-

kilde Museum | Roskilde Cultural Association

Many contacts

Financing Roskilde Cultural Association only expects to collect

3 out of the 10-12 mill.

Might be financed by international funds

Relevant charac-

teristic

Located in the city centre close to the cathedral |

Good collaboration between the Muslim society,

museum and municipality | Already a house func-

tioning as a mosque on the location since 10 years

Initial phase

The following pictures show the variety of expressions in the mentioned projects. These pictures are examples and

should be perceived as ideas rather than definitive drawings.

17 In Odense, the municipality has received many propositions and requests, but none has led to a planning and building process.

Page A

MOSQUES ILLUSTRATIONS

Illustrations for the presented mosque projects, currently running in Copenhagen, Aarhus and Roskilde.

THE COPENHAGEN PROJECT OF THE BATTERY

Figure B

Figure A

Figure A: Visualisation of men’s great praying hall [Københavns Kommune (b), 2009] Figure B: Visualisation of the facade to Njalsgade [Københavns Kommune (b), 2009] Background: Visualisation of the Battery [BIG, 2006]

THE COPENHAGEN PROJECT OF VIBEVEJ

Figure C

Figure D

Figure C: Visualisation of the mosque on Vibevej [Berlingske, 2010] Figure D: 3D perspective of the mosque on

Vibevej [DR (b), 2011]

Page C

THE AARHUS PROJECT IN GELLERUP

Figure E

Figure F

Figure E: Perspective from the courtyard [Møller, 2007, p.11] Figure F: Perspective [Møller, 2007] Background: Perspective [Møller, 2007, p.25]

THE ROSKILDE PROJECT

Figure G Figure H

Figure I

Figure G: Perspective of backyard [SN, 2011] Figure H: Existing mosque [Kulturplakaten, 2011] Figure I: Visualisation of the facade [DR (c),

2011]

/ 79

|Methodology: approach to empirical analysis

5 |METHODOLOGY: APPROACH TO EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

In this chapter, we will firstly describe why we

consider the empirical analysis as inspired by the

previously presented collaborative planning, and how

advantages can be drawn from the related values.

Hereafter we will elaborate on the use of qualitative

interviews with planners and outline some reflections

upon the completion of the analysis.

We find it relevant and useful to take inspiration

from collaborative planning in this research and its

focus on planning processes. Having the collaborative

values in mind when we analysed and described the

settings for the mosque projects and the related

processes, the collaborative ideas give us as well a

hint in the considerations about which types of

information to collect and use in the empirical

analysis: “The information that counts in

collaborative planning is what stakeholders agree is

true. (…) Stakeholder knowledge about the problem,

each other’s interests, and likely reactions to

proposals is also essential. Collaborative planners

paid attention not only to quantitative analyses, but

also to stories and anecdotes” [Innes & Gruber, 2005,

p. 184]. Therefore it is important and relevant that

we focus on planners and other stakeholders’ stories

and narratives, through qualitative explorative

interviews (the specific approach and method is

explained later).

Innes and Gruber point out the need for a mutual

understanding in collaborative planning, built out

from dialogue and striving to solve shared problems

[Innes & Gruber, 2005, p. 183]. This project should

therefore take departure in dialogue with different

actors in and around the planning field. We aim to

shape a better understanding of the role of the

planner; if planners become more aware of their own

position, they might get better at stating and

explaining it, contributing thus to the share of

knowledge and the building of a bigger

understanding, and hereby preparing them and the

various actors to the processes in cross-cultural

planning. Once shared, we hope that this gathered

knowledge will help point out weaknesses and give

hints to improvements for both the planning system

and the planners’ practices. It is important to clarify

that this will not solely be an analysis of the

participatory processes in the light of collaborative

values, but a broader analysis of the planners’

responses to the emerging challenge of cross-cultural

planning. The various interviewees and stakeholders

in the mosque projects provide the background for

highlighting useful skills, knowledge and inspiration

sources.

/ 79


5.1 QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS This paragraph explains the use of methods in the

empirical analysis, centring on the study of municipal

Danish planners roles in the integration of cross-

cultural projects in physical planning. Since no Danish

literature exist within this field, it has been neces-

sary to conduct a range of interviews, as to compile

an analysis of the current planning roles and ap-

proaches to the planning of mosques in Denmark. A

purpose of the analysis is to situate planners‟ roles

and practices in the system, thereby taking a point of

departure in the planning system as it is today, it can

be argued to be rather a descriptive analysis. It is

further relevant to discuss critically and reflect on

the planners‟ responses, drawing in considerations

about the Danish planning system and the constraints

and opportunities it offers to planners and minority

groups in Denmark. Thereby the analysis continuously

includes normative reflections. The weight on quali-

tative interviews, with descriptive and normative

elements, is in line with the collaborative values pre-

sented in the previous section and Chapter 3.

Interviews with five municipal planners from three

municipalities constitute the foundation for the em-

pirical analysis. In the analysis, we have decided to

refer to the municipal planners by the title „Planner

X‟, using the first letter of their surname. The munic-

ipal planners are hereby regarded as the group illus-

trating our case, while the private planner will be

regarded as an external contributor to the definition

of the municipal planner‟s role (see also Figure 1.1).

It is important to state that the analysis will not focus

on the details in the mosque projects, but on how the

planners have proceeded. Interviews have been car-

ried out with the following planners:

- Planner C (Vida Christeller): Copenha-

gen Municipality, Architect and planner in

Centre for Urban Design, Technical and Envi-

ronmental department. Originally from New

Zealand and has been an employee at Copen-

hagen Municipality for three years. Engaged

with the Battery and her working areas are

among others local planning, strategies and

building projects.

- Planner L (Finn Larsen): Copenhagen

Municipality, educated in municipal admin-

istration. Engaged with the mosque project at

Vibevej and in general with administration and

legal planning issues in local plans.

- Planner A (Rikke Sø Andersen): Odense

Municipality, educated in Urban Planning and

Management, employed in the municipality

since 2007. Working with local and municipal

planning, retail and planning in business areas,

and is therefore engaged with mosque re-

quests.

- Planner H (Vivi Høvsgaard): Odense

Municipality, educated in engineering. Em-

ployed in the municipality since 1998. Building

expert.

/ 79


- Planner P (Mona Kølbæk Pedersen):

Roskilde Municipality, Architect and planner.

Composed the Local plan for the area includ-

ing the mosque.

- Ole Schrøder, Project Manager and

Senior Architect at Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG).

Project manager for the Battery and responsi-

ble for contacts to external partners. Experi-

ence in international master plans. In this

analysis, he is considered as an example of a

private planner.

From these descriptions, it is clear that the planners

have very different backgrounds. However, this situa-

tion is not unfavourable for the analysis since they

cover different aspects of planning, and all represent

planners engaged in local planning, with experiences

in mosque projects. Besides the different back-

grounds, the experiences of the planners are also

different, because of the diversity and different stag-

es of the mosque projects. The planners in Odense

have received and dealt with many project proposals

and have therefore more general experiences, but all

of the projects are in an early stage; the discussions

with the planners here was thus mainly linked to the

beginning of the planning process. The projects in

Roskilde and Copenhagen are fewer in number, but at

a more advanced stage, enabling us to discuss their

experiences from later steps in the process.

Since we aimed for exploratory interviews, some

were conducted with two planners at the same time

(i.e. in Odense and Copenhagen). In the first case,

the two planners constructively completed and sup-

ported each other‟s statements and opinions. In the

other, we felt that one of the planners was leading

the conversation, with a possible tacit power regard-

ing his seniority and knowledge; we concede that a

divergence in the given answer might have been

clearer, if those two planners were interviewed indi-

vidually.

It is important to notice that mosque projects might

currently be running in other municipalities; there-

fore the interviewees are not eligible to cover all

experiences. Moreover it would have been interesting

to elaborate on the current mosque projects in Aar-

hus, but the relevant municipal planners were even-

tually not inclined to discuss the topic with us, even

though we had a positive first response. The given

reasons were the lack of time and the perception

that they were not able to discuss these issues, be-

cause they had not been that engaged with them.

Besides the municipal planners in Aarhus engaged

with the Local plans for the mosque, we contacted

the following people to clarify important issues in the

development of mosques: Marianne Steenberg

(Brabrand Housing Association); Rasmus Cassøe

(COWI); The Muslims Joint Council; Centre for Con-

flict Management; Kamal Qureshi (SF), politician and

debater particularly engaged in the debate around

mosques in Copenhagen; Anna Mee Allerslev (R), Min-

ister of Integration in Copenhagen Municipality and

/ 79


Birte Siim, professor at Aalborg University, engaged

with multiculturalism and democracy. These contacts

did not result in interviews, either because they did

not respond, desire to engage, or because they per-

ceived their focus area to be divergent from ours.

In general, we have experienced that the process of

arranging interviews has been very resource demand-

ing. It is our perception that some respondents have

been sceptical to talk to us due to the controversial

subject, although we tried to make it clear we did

not want to discuss their personal values, criticise

their approach nor debate if mosques should be built

or not. Because of this scepticism and a desire to

situate the planner from other perspectives, we ex-

perienced a need to draw in external stakeholders

and the expert Lene Kühle (see Chapter 1). These

interviews made it possible to go beyond the planners

themselves and draw in relevant experiences about

their collaboration with planners, and they also con-

tributed with interesting reflections on the overall

debate about the integration of cross-cultural pro-

jects in Danish planning.

The interviews were carried out with inspiration from

Conducting Research in Human Geography, Chapter 7

in Kitchen and Tate, 2000. Since the field is relatively

unknown and the analysis is mainly based on the in-

terviews, they had an explorative form. The inter-

views were semi-structured and took of a point of

departure in a Danish interview guide, consisting of

about 3 to 4 pages with defined questions. The ques-

tions were categorised in groups mainly centring on

the planner‟s background, the procedures in the

mosque project, their perception of barriers and po-

tentials in the Danish planning system, and broader

discussions about the planners‟ attitude and respon-

sibility towards the integration of cross-cultural pro-

jects and minorities in physical planning. Since the

interviews were very subjective dealing with the in-

dividual planner‟s experiences and opinions, we did

an effort in being open and leaving our prejudices at

the door. In practice, this resulted for instance in a

careful selection of terms toning down negative-laden

terms, such as „problem‟ and „conflict‟. An example

of an interview guide can be seen in Appendix 2, and

comprehensive Danish summaries from all interviews

are to be found in Appendix 3-9. The structure of the

interviews changed along the way as new questions

were continuously raised. Therefore the interview

guides functioned more as checklists of what we

would like to discuss in the interviews. We were very

open to this evolutionary approach beforehand since

the interviews had indeed a qualitative character

taking a point of departure in the individual respond-

ent. Therefore the interview guide was changed ac-

cording to the experiences from each interview.

/ 79


5.2 STRUCTURE AND THEMES Before beginning the empirical analysis, it is relevant

to present reflections on how to approach it and fur-

thermore, to clarify its structure. Having the earlier

presented research question in mind, the forthcoming

analysis will deal with the second part, i.e. how the

Danish planners respond to cross-cultural planning

projects. Additionally, critical reflections will be

made regarding the planners‟ response in relation to

considerations on minorities in Danish planning.

Again, it might be relevant to state that even though

this project is concerning mosques building, the re-

search will be applicable in other cross-cultural plan-

ning issues. This is the case as the specific mosque

projects are not the actual focus: the key elements

here are the planner and the planning process.

We are aware that critique could be raised concern-

ing the relatively few interviews we use as grounding

sources of information, but, as one justification for

this, we emphasise the collaborative values of the

narratives, individual experiences and perceptions.

Moreover, all the municipalities, working with

mosque projects that we know about, have been con-

tacted and only representatives from Aarhus are miss-

ing in this project. Therefore we consider the repre-

sentation to satisfying, although we only have input

from one or two planners from each municipality.

Furthermore, we acknowledge and try to avoid the

pitfall of making generalisations based on a few

statements, especially in the part where we discuss

more general topics, such as the responsibility to in-

tegrate minorities in planning.

As mentioned, the analysis takes a point of departure

in the discussions with the planners, and quotes from

all interviews are translated freely by the project

authors. During the analysis reflections, interpreta-

tions and deductions are also made, for example

about things not being said. The analysis also empha-

sises the forward-looking aspects by discussing the

planners‟ perceptions of the barriers and possible

solutions. The interviews with the external stake-

holders will continuously be integrated. The analysis

is structured around a set of themes, which reflect

the themes from the previous paragraphs, the inter-

view guides, and the discussions with the planners

and other respondents (see Figure 5.1). Each theme

includes first a descriptive part, mainly based on the

interviews, and then a reflective part, as mentioned.

The proportion between these two elements changes

during the analysis, as the knowledge accumulation

makes it natural for the reflections to constitute a

bigger share in the later paragraphs.

/ 79


Figure 5.1: Structure of themes in empirical analysis.

/ 79

|The role of Danish planners in mosque projects

6 |THE ROLE OF DANISH PLANNERS IN MOSQUE PROJECTS

The analysis will proceed through the presented

themes, in Figure 5.1, thereby investigating how the

interviewed planners have handled mosque projects,

and how they perceived the process and the system,

when dealing with cross-cultural planning. From here

on, we elaborate on the second part of the research

question: how do the planners respond to these

emerging challenges in the process of mosque

building, and furthermore critical reflections upon

the planning processes in relation to considerations

on minorities in Danish planning. As described in

Chapter 5.2, the forthcoming analysis combines

descriptive and reflective elements, where the latter

can be found as a closure of each theme. The

reflections will refer as well to other themes and

take in perspectives from external stakeholders and

experts. Since the analysed themes are closely

connected and relevant in several situations, some

overlaps will naturally occur. References to the

interviews will not appear explicitly since quotes and

statements are clearly related to their author (the

interview summaries can be found in Appendix 3-9).

Initially it is relevant to see how the planners

perceive their role in general and in cultural and

religious18 planning projects.

18 Both terms have been used in the interview guides.

Planner P from Roskilde Municipality perceives that

the planner’s role is generally “to illustrate as clearly

as possible what the consequences of the proposal

[for a project] will be” [A819]. Furthermore, she

points out that the planners role is to guide the

stakeholders, so the project proposals match the

political vision for the city. Additionally, reflecting

her profession as an architect, her role as a

professional is to give recommendations to how a new

building can fit into the urban landscape. According

to projects with a cultural and religious character,

she has made no special thoughts about changes in

her role. She adds that it does not matter if the

project relates to Christianity, Islam or another

religion. The administration20 can propose ideas and

give assistance in how projects can be carried out and

implemented. In addition, she also points out that if

the municipality receives many requests (for building

mosques) it is the planner’s role to identify suitable

location sites. Herewith she points at the need for

the municipality to both wait for the project

proposition and to initiate projects. “The role is not

just to sit and wait for project to come and then

write a few paragraphs” [A8]. This is part of what she

defines as the new planning culture and challenge for

planners. She further mentions that the planners are

concerned with identification and prevention of

issues, however “it is the politicians who decide”

[A8].

19 Refers to Appendix 8. 20 Danish: Forvaltning.

/ 79


Planner A from Odense Municipality stresses that the

planner’s role is to “create a forum where the actors

can meet” [A7], which appears democratic and

acknowledges different cultures. Problems concern-

ing culture might occur; the Danes are used to

democratic processes, and to present their opinions

openly, whereas the Muslims might have a different

tradition. She wonders if the planner in the case of

polemical projects should act as a mediator in

community planning. However, she doubts this and

stresses instead that: “the role of the municipality is

the formal part of the process – to secure that all

legal demands are obtained. The rest is up to the

politicians – if it [the mosque] should be build or not.

It is important to distinguish what your role is as a

public employee" [A7]. She further points out that

municipal planners can provide professional

recommendations and advice, but the decision is

political. In Copenhagen Municipality, Planner C and

Planner L both agree that planning projects with

cultural and religious character “are not different

from other cases” [A9].

Reflection

A short reflection and comparison here about the

planners’ perception of their role makes the

foundation for the discussions throughout the

analysis. The expressions from Planner C and Planner

L here and throughout the interview might suggest

that they subscribe a technical planning style. Ideas

related to this planning style are also emphasised by

Planner A, stressing the formal part as the planners’

arena. However this conflicts with some of her other

statements, which also reveal proactive and

communicative values. Planner P puts emphasis on

the planner’s role as professional informant, but also

in shaping ideas and plans, thereby showing a more

normative aspect. These observations on the

planner’s perceptions can also reflect how one’s

planning style probably evolve over time, from newly

educated (Planner A) to experienced planner (Planner

P), but also that planning values are evolving within

the planning education21.

Generally, there is a tendency for the planners to

define their role in relation to other actors (mainly

the politicians), and thereby emphasise things that

are not directly situated within their role. The

planners from Odense and Roskilde both mention the

political decisions and how the planners should

support these in their work. The relation between

politicians and planners will be analysed in Paragraph

6.1.4. It is further relevant to investigate which

expectations minority groups and other stakeholders

have to the planners.

EXPECTATION TO PLANNERS

Planner P from Roskilde has not experienced that

minority groups have (special) expectations to the

planners. This experience is shared by Planner L, who

states that the expectations are not different from

any other building project. Planner H has dealt with

21 We have highlighted previously the difference in background of the planners. What is meant here is an evolution in what is taught within the planning education programs, but also the establish-ment of new education programs.

/ 79


several religious minorities’ requests and states that

the expectations to the planners are very different,

for instance one Muslim organisation “expected that

the municipality would find a building site for them”

[A7]. Generally, the municipalities advise the Muslim

organisations to hire a professional consultant, partly

to raise their understanding of the Danish planning

system. Both Planner A and H perceive that this con-

sultant planner is performing other roles than the

municipal planners are supposed to do.

Ellen H. Jensen also talks about consultants, but in a

slightly different way; she considers it as part of the

planner’s role to see where and when to reach out for

professional advice. Thus she is in favour of the mu-

nicipal planners using consultants of different kinds,

to deal with demanding situations reaching further

than the skills of the planner. She gives the example

that planners could collaborate with consultants in

the local areas of the mosque projects, or seek for

assistance and advice within localities, for example

by calling for an integration consultant. District re-

newals are good places to look for such collabora-

tions.

Lene Kühle notices that since planners have a broad

role and are dealing with many projects you cannot

expect them to have specific knowledge, for instance

about the cultural and religious issues. Additionally,

she points out, that strong stakeholders might not

need planners.

Reflection

It can be perceived as critical if the minority groups

have different or no expectations to how the planner

should act. This links up to the various definition of

the planner’s role; if the planners cannot agree on

their own role in cases of cultural and religious pro-

jects, how should the minorities know and react ac-

cording to it? Furthermore, it is a bit unclear what

the roles of the consultants are and should be. How is

this different from the role of the municipalities?

Should consultants help and facilitate mosque pro-

jects and inform minorities about the Danish planning

system? Or is it up to the minority groups to organise

themselves and fight their way through the democrat-

ic system? Do the planners have a role in taking care

of the interests of weak stakeholders, like some mi-

nority groups? These are some of the broad questions

which are important to have in mind when defining

the role of municipal planners. Some of these ques-

tions will be discussed in Chapter 8.

Despite the municipal planners’ general perception of

the consultants as being important actors performing

completing roles, it seems that there is a ‘grey zone’

in the distribution of roles since the municipal plan-

ners have trouble explaining who the private planning

consultancies are, and which tasks they undertake.

This distinction of roles might also vary across munic-

ipalities and be dependent on the politics and tradi-

tions within the local planning departments.

/ 79


6.1 THE PLANNERS’ RESPONSES Before analysing how the planners have responded in

the specific projects, it is relevant to briefly com-

plete the earlier presented data about the different

cases in Table 4.4, with information provided by the

planners. As mentioned in relation to the table, ref-

erences will be given to the current projects in Co-

penhagen (the Battery and Vibevej), Aarhus (Gel-

lerup) and Roskilde and the more general experiences

from Odense.

THE CONTEXTS OF THE MOSQUE PROJECTS

Odense Municipality receives continuously requests

from different (often minor) Muslim organisations.

The first request for a mosque was received about

five years ago, and since then the number of requests

has increased; currently they receive about two re-

quests every month, for mosques, schools or commu-

nity halls. According to the planners, the Muslim as-

sociations often demand for a ‘package’, consisting

for instance of a mosque and a community hall, which

complicates the process. The majority of the requests

are concerning locations in Vollsmose or the sur-

rounding area. Generally, the requests differ, but

often the architectural drawings are not dimensional-

ly stable and, in some requests, it is not clear which

organisation the initiator represents. At the moment,

the Islamic Culture Association has a building site and

sketches, but they are not yet specific enough. Fur-

thermore, three mosque projects are running in the

city council. Generally all projects are on a very early

stage, and therefore no specific comments are made

to the individual projects, rather the focus is the ex-

periences from the last five years.

In Roskilde Municipality, the situation is very differ-

ent as they do not receive that many requests. Only

one mosque project is running for the moment, and

as shown in Table 4.4, the process has been rather

unproblematic. Furthermore, the project proposal

was almost complete when the municipality received

it.

In Copenhagen Municipality, Planner C stresses that

the Battery is not perceived as a mosque project,

rather it is about urban regeneration and how the

urban space functions and relates to the city -

“therefore it was considered just as any other pro-

ject, where there is the possibility for building a

mosque” [A9]. She hereby points to the fact that the

building of a mosque is not a requirement today as it

was in the previous Local plan. The project on Vibev-

ej is only concerning the mosque building, which will

replace an old factory currently functioning as a

mosque.

The mosque project in Gellerup, Aarhus, is also part

of bigger project: a renewal of a so-called ‘ghetto’

area. The mosque used to be part of the renewal pro-

ject, but has been extracted from the master plan.

Furthermore, the larger project is a bit different be-

cause a special administration (i.e. the Gellerup Sec-

retary) was established, consisting of both the munic-

ipality and a housing association (i.e. Brabrand Bolig-

forening) [Aarhus Kommune, 2010]. Since no inter-

/ 79


views have been carried out with planners from Aar-

hus Municipality, the input to this case is obtained

through the interview with Sami Saidana and Lene

Kühle, as well as various articles and websites.

Again, it is relevant to stress that the planners are

the case rather than the projects, and focus will

therefore be on their approach, use of methods and

collaboration with stakeholders. We acknowledge

that the planners’ approach is not the only key factor

for the planning processes, and the different contexts

and parameters in the cases constitute the arena for

the projects, therefore playing a significant role.

6.1.1 APPROACH AND USE OF METHODS Generally this topic has been difficult to discuss with

the planners. This might be due to the methods lying

implicit in the procedures, and that their use partly

exists in the planners’ tacit knowledge. Additionally,

the topic is to some degree hypothetical for some of

the planners, as the mosques are still not built. Fur-

thermore, some methods in the planning processes

might have been carried out in other departments in

the municipality (e.g. in collaboration with integra-

tion consultants or with the environment depart-

ment). In general the municipal planners’ approach

has been to stick to standard procedures and to avoid

going into the political debate around the deeper

issues; they did not discuss political opinions at the

hearings, stating that this was not the right forum for

it, without proposing alternative forums.

Roskilde Municipality sent out a PR-message about

the project, but since it did not lead to any reactions

they did not expect much uproar. Because of this

there were taken no special regards or used a special

approach. Planner P underlines that due to the con-

text of the project, i.e. an existing mosque already

situated on the site, the planning process has been

characterised by ad hoc planning. She highlights that

the project has not been a ‘problem case’ at all. The

municipality chose to make an additional initiative by

setting up cranes to indicate the height of the mina-

rets, and Planner P explains that they wanted to “tell

and visualise what they [the politicians] had to de-

cide upon” [A8]. They invited as well the press to the

‘stunt’. This is not part of the standard procedure,

but a special initiative to visualise the project, due to

the important concern on how politicians and citizens

received and accepted the project. In general, Plan-

ner P highlights that it is relevant to get an overview

for example by conducting a stakeholder analysis in

the beginning of a project. Furthermore she explains

the two sides of such an active approach: it favours a

good image of the municipal planning administration,

but is very resource demanding.

In relation to the two projects in Copenhagen, the

planners find the standard procedure robust and suf-

ficient, but Planner L adds that they have to consider

each project, and if there is a risk of uproar, the mu-

nicipality might prepare a press strategy. Because of

the size of the Battery, there has been a lot of pre-

paratory work and the project has, according to Plan-

/ 79


ner C, been tough to run, but still the process has not

been prolonged.

The numbers of requests for mosques in Odense Mu-

nicipality made them discuss the subject and define a

strategy; the municipality started to systematise how

they should proceed in relation to noise, traffic, etc.

This systematisation also meant that the municipality

decided that all so-called ‘service areas’ are suitable

for mosques. This influenced the forthcoming pro-

cesses since the Local plans now opened up for

mosques. In 2006, the planning department showed a

proactive role by identifying four possible sites for

mosques (although this number was quickly reduced

by the traffic department due to noise and traffic

issues). Planner A mentions that the planning de-

partment chose to identify suitable sites, since the

department of building permission “wanted planning

instead of ad hoc” [A7]; in the Local plan for Volls-

mose, they hereby ”responded the wishes before

they were proposed” [A7]. In this process, the munic-

ipality was in dialogue with Islamic Culture Associa-

tion, as they tried to harmonise their wishes with the

possibilities, but this turned out to be difficult due to

the reduced number of possible building sites. Today

the process is more ad hoc, where the municipality

respond to the incoming requests case by case. Still,

Planner A evaluates that the Municipality has gained

experience through the process of changing the pro-

cedural frame. According to her, the shift back to ad

hoc is a result of a change in the team; the head of

the planning department sets the agenda and overall

approach for the department, and the former was

more focused on minorities than the current manag-

er. This shows that, even though the system (at a

national level) does not seem to give a proper frame

for a proactive approach, some municipalities have

shown engagement in relation to the specific claims

and projects of mosque building. The commitment of

the individual planners seems to be the catalyst of

such proactive stance.

It is difficult for us to determine the approach and

strategy of the municipal planners in Aarhus, but ac-

cording to Sami Saidana, the planners have not been

very visible in the project and the Association for

Mosque and Islamic Centre has only had very little

contact to them. It is our impressing that the plan-

ners have struggled with the debate around the

mosque, which blurred the planning and promotion of

the master plan for Gellerup. Therefore the mosque

itself was left out of the plan. The process in Gel-

lerup has been and is still complex and controversial,

and the planners are unclear about their role: a

phone call with one of the private planners (Rasmus

Cassøe) reveals that focus has been held on the mas-

ter plan and the renewal of Gellerup, avoiding decla-

rations about the mosque.

Reflection

As mentioned earlier, this showed out to be a diffi-

cult topic to discuss; however we have achieved an

overall idea about how the municipalities approach

the projects. They all seem to use some kind of

standard procedure, reacting as requests are coming

and mostly planning ad hoc. Genuinely uncertainties

/ 79


occur about what this ad hoc approach builds upon,

and how it influences the future of other approaches,

more strategic and collaborative oriented. Referring

back to the discussions on collaborative methods and

processes and their relevance for cross-cultural plan-

ning (see Chapter 3), it can be argued that substan-

tial investments in the early stage of the process, by

means of a strategic planning22 and integration of

collaborative elements, would be preferable rather

than ad hoc problem solving, which can seem rather

coincidental. However flexibility in the process and

adjustments to the context are important. Therefore,

in these cases, it could be recommendable to lay

weight on the strategic and collaborative planning

perspectives, in order to make explicit both regula-

tive and normative institutions; then eventually dur-

ing the process, unforeseen problems can be handled

ad hoc.

In the same idea, Ellen H. Jensen addresses the ne-

cessity for proactive approaches in general, in order

to avoid surprising situations. Identification of stake-

holders at the beginning of a process can highlight

how planning should be carried out. She acknowledg-

es that municipalities are not very proactive. Howev-

er, all of the planners mentioned the relevance of

some kind of preliminary examination about the risk

of uproar and conflicts that might arise, but this

practice does not seem to be prominent in any cases.

22 The term ‘strategic planning’ here does not refer exclusively to the strategic planning style theories, but rather to a proactive approach where issues and possible solutions are analysed be-forehand.

Especially the planners in Roskilde and Copenhagen

found the standard procedure sufficient, whereas

Odense, due to the many requests, found it necessary

to make adjustments in the process and showed tem-

porarily a more proactive approach. In Roskilde and

Odense, they were open towards the potential need

for additional methods in the process. The use of a

crane to visualise the project in Roskilde is a small

event, but might have had a huge impact on the pro-

cess in demystifying the project. In Copenhagen,

Planner L mentions the possible need for a press

strategy; this can be perceived as remarkable that

the worry is rather on the handling of the media than

the cross-cultural issues.

Eventually, two types of mosque projects can be

identified: mosques being part of a bigger scale pro-

ject or those located on a single site (either as a ren-

ovation of an existing mosque or as a new building

project). The responses seem to differ according to

these different situations. In the bigger projects, the

planners are explicitly trying to avoid calling it a

mosque project, hereby keeping the focus on the rest

of the plan. Combined with the various planning

styles, defined previously and characterised as their

hybrid role, this shows the implicit power lying with

the planner and his way of engaging in the process.

/ 79


6.1.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INTEREST REPRESENTATION

The involvement of the public is a vital part of plan-

ning processes, especially according to collaborative

planning values. Here it is relevant to discuss whether

the planning processes only have consisted of the

legal hearing phase or also additional events. In gen-

eral the possibilities for the public to participate in

the projects have been through public meetings and

written objections.

In Copenhagen, the public interest has been different

in the two projects. The objections the city council

has received are indicators of the public opinion. The

Battery received 93 objections from many parts of

the country, while 1153 objections have concerned

the project on Vibevej [DR (b), 2011]. This is a very

high amount, and Planner L underlines that the gen-

erally high amount of objections on the two cases:

”demand time and resources – but we can handle it”

[A9]. It should be stated that a lot of the objections

concerned positive or negative advocacies of whether

or not a mosque should be built, and thereby these

objections were not relevant to debate. The Copen-

hagen planners stressed this aspect, as only objec-

tions concerning the appearance or technical aspects

(such as traffic and noise) would be taken into ac-

count. But since they have explicitly stated that dur-

ing the hearing phase, comments, amendments and

objections were welcome, confusion arises on how

the comments relating to other topics than architec-

ture and technical considerations are integrated, and

why ask for amendments if they are anyway consid-

ered unfit in the planning process [DR (b), 2011]. Fur-

thermore, in relation to the agenda of the public

meetings, Planner L underlines that politics are not at

discussion here.

Planner P states that “if a project seems to create

debate then initiative is taken to hold a public meet-

ing, but the overall topics will not be touched” [A8].

Thereby she points to the fact that the frame for the

meeting is set, and thereby discussions of whether

the project should be carried out or not are not at

stake – in line with Planner L’s statements. In the

process of the Battery, Planner C explains that they

have local representatives in the area, and that the

planners have encouraged these to engage with the

citizens earlier than usual, due to the size of the ur-

ban project. Although, the planners in Odense have

had several requests, they state that questions con-

cerning public participation are so far hypothetical,

but they acknowledge that the public participation

might take other forms than usual, and that the Mu-

nicipality will have to attain new knowledge in this

field. As an example they question if public meetings

should be separated by gender as to fit the Islamic

traditions, and to secure the representation of both

genders in the project.

Reflection

We had anticipated that the planners would have

reflected more on the process, with thoughts on al-

ternative participatory methods, in order to meet the

challenges of controversial projects and deal with the

/ 79


conflicts arising from cultural differences (see Chap-

ter 223). Again, it seems like the standard procedure

is often used, but with a few additional events, if the

planners consider it necessary. As highlighted earlier,

participatory processes can be considered to reflect

communicative values. The public meetings are

strongly orientated by the planners, leaving out con-

siderations on politics. But, referring back to the

planner’s role, generally influenced by political vi-

sions of the city, how can planning be parted so from

politics, especially in cases of cross-cultural planning?

Critical questions arise as well when referring back to

the thin line between public debate and the open

legislative frame. It seems that in cases of such ambi-

guity, the public participation and fair representation

of all interests in the deliberative phases is even

more important.

In the case of additional public meetings, it is unclear

which outcome was reached and which influence they

had on the process; and so it is for the identity and

precise role of the local representatives drawn into

the process (i.e. in the case of Copenhagen). There-

fore, it is not possible to analyse whether there is

coherence between the purpose and the outcome of

these events.

23 Sandercock and Beebeejaun have, among others, elaborated on these aspects in their articles.

6.1.3 COLLABORATION WITH INITIATORS AND STAKEHOLDERS

The collaboration discussed in this section covers for

instance dialogue with initiators and involvement of

stakeholders. In several projects, the initiators have

taken voluntary measures (in form of declarations as

to not call for prayer from the minarets) in order to

obtain acceptance of the projects; these will be dis-

cussed later on. Planner P from Roskilde explains that

all external contacts and collaboration happened

through the municipal architect, and were concerned

with the appearance of the mosque and illustrations.

She states that: “Often we do not have contact with

the final users – like in other projects” [A8]. Further

she points out that they received an almost complete

project proposal and that the municipality therefore

only should “add a few paragraphs” [A8]. Thereby it

can be considered if the project is closer to a building

project rather than a comprehensive urban planning

project.

Planner C says that in the case of the Battery, there

has not been great involvement of Muslims Joint

Council, but “they was drawn into the process

through the developer” [A9]. Ole Schrøder from BIG

has been in dialogue with the Muslims Joint Council,

concerning the architecture of the mosque (e.g. the

symbolic value of the minarets and dome). As there is

no checklist on how to build a mosque, the aim was

to develop ideas and reach an agreement about a

project that could be implemented in the Local plan.

/ 79


In Gellerup, the collaboration between the municipal-

ity and the initiators has been lacking, and Sami Sai-

dana was missing support for instance in form of a

municipal contact person. In his opinion, the munici-

pality has sent “bad signals” [A4] to the Muslim com-

munity, exemplified in a case where a public servant

exercised a non-legitimate veto power in relation to a

building site that was about to be sold for the mosque

project. The initiators have though received im-

portant voluntary support from employees in the in-

volved housing association, but unofficially and out-

side working hours and therefore outside the official

system. These perspectives from Sami Saidana dis-

prove the assumption of Lene Kühle, saying that the

association was well organised, thereby not in need

of the intervention of a municipal planner. Moreover,

the inhabitants in Gellerup voted for the plan in De-

cember 2010, and it seems that some voted yes to

the controversial demolishment of buildings because

the plan made the building of a mosque more likely

to happen [Boligen, 2010 and Saidana, 2011]. The

initiator represented by Sami Saidana are pleased

about this situation, where the mosque is not part of

the plan, because they felt the debate was negative

and reduced the possibilities for a mosque.

Related to the public debate and the sensitivity of

the topic, the planners in Odense experience that the

initiators ‘masks’ the term mosque, for instance by

naming the project wedding facilities. Planner A ex-

plains “sometimes we have to ask very directly [if it

is a mosque they are requesting] – they are maybe

afraid of how we will react” [A7]. They generally

observe that the initiators are careful about using the

term ‘mosque’, but they state that “the municipality

is positive so they do not have to ‘wrap it in’” [A7].

Planner A sees this as a consequence of the debate,

which according to her shows that “Danes are not

always that tolerant” [A7].

Reflections

The collaboration with initiators and stakeholders

seems rather important given the lack of national and

legal guidelines, and the fierceness of the debate. As

standard procedures have shown to still fill a big part

within the process, technical collaboration on the

projects (i.e. with architects and urban consultants)

appear in line with the rational approach. Although

they state that the municipal planners have limited

contact with the final users, they have still initiated

events such as public meetings, where among others

the final users might show up. Therefore we see this

as an indicator of the limited contact and dialogue at

the public meetings.

It is remarkable how the sensitivity of the public de-

bate, and the power of the political debate, influ-

ence collaboration initiatives as well. Especially in

the case of Aarhus, it seems that public servants try

to avoid the controversial aspects of the debate by

collaborating in a more informal way. It can thus be

argued that the planning system and politics do not

ease any collaboration, and therefore those cross-

cultural projects are strongly dependent on the per-

sonal engagement and values of stakeholders. This

illustrates again the thin line between the debate and

/ 79


the legislation, confusing both the public, the stake-

holders and the planners.

6.1.4 POLITICAL DEBATE AND COLLABORATION WITH CITY COUNCILS

The national debate has been described in Paragraph

4.2.1, and here it is relevant to study how the plan-

ners relate to the city council and the political de-

bate, and how this has influenced the current plan-

ning projects. With exception of the Danish People’s

Party, the parties in the city councils of Copenhagen,

Odense and Roskilde have all been positive about the

building of mosques in their municipalities. The roles

of the other parties have been different, as some

have played a clear supporting role and many have

been passive. All planners highlight that the debate

around mosque is highly political, and that it is not a

municipal planner’s task to enter this political de-

bate. The clear support from Odense City Council

makes it interesting to hear if the planners think an

election with a changed council and mayor can make

a difference in the strategy for the municipality and

the current projects. The planners notice that the

Social Democrats and The Conservatives are regularly

switching the crucial position as mayor, but since

both parties support mosques, they claim that an

election would not influence the projects.

The political debate influences the planners’ work

but, despite the focus on the Copenhagen mosque in

the national debate, the involved planners do not see

political aspects in the cross-cultural planning pro-

jects, which should be considered in the administra-

tive department of planning. It seems that the out-

come of the debate does not move them in their task

as planners. The national debate might have slowed

down the Copenhagen projects. Therefore the first

mosque to be built might rather be outside the capi-

tal, where the national debate is not as mingled with

the local planning discussions. This assumption was

supported by Lene Kühle, Ellen H. Jensen and the

interviewed planners from Odense and Roskilde Mu-

nicipality.

In Roskilde, many members of the city council were

present at the public meeting, and as Planner P

points out, guessing about the motives, it seemed

clear that the local politicians wanted to express

their support to the mosque. Planner P underlines

that the national debate is in general not clear

enough, and also raises a question about how you can

lead this debate24. Sami Saidana sees “the debate

only for its own sake” [A4] and as a barrier for the

projects. A destructive public debate can be consid-

ered critical, but if this debate is needed, how should

the planners respond to it? In this ‘debate about val-

ues’, should the planner take notice of these deeper

conflicts? An additional question is how to facilitate a

more constructive debate, and here planners might

have an important role as information providers, thus

avoid debating on a false knowledge basis (such as

mentioned by Planner P).

24 She mentions the example of a church building project in Trekroner, where a misunderstanding in the press about munici-pal funding of the church caused an outcry.

/ 79


Reflection

From the interviews, we get the impression that the

planners try to make a clear distinction between their

own role and the role of the politicians, where the

planners are trying not to engage in the political

sphere (e.g. reject to discuss political statements,

when they appear at public meetings). In order to

understand the relation between planners and politi-

cians, we can draw in a traditional and alternative

model. In the traditional model, the roles are clear:

elected politicians set up goals and make decisions,

and planners are experts who advise politicians to

help them achieve their goals. This distinction of

roles and a homogeneous public interest has been

criticised, arguing for instance that the traditional

model ignores the diversity of society. Whereas in the

alternative model, planners are not just neutral serv-

ants for local governments; they shape the environ-

ment they are acting in and can influence on the pol-

icy, for instance in the knowledge they provide and in

the implementation of political decisions. The role

and legitimacy of the planning profession is though

more difficult to determine here. According to

Sehested, a solution for planners can be to consider

themselves as ‘network managers’ with a deliberative

role, connecting various parties and facilitating and

mediating between different interests [Malcom, 2011,

Kitchen, 1997 and Sehested, 2009].

From the interviews, it is our perception that a corre-

lation to the traditional model is a general tendency

in the standard planning procedure, whereas a more

proactive approach can be seen as an example of the

alternative model. It might be useful for planners to

acknowledge the complex relation to the politicians,

and be more open about the political aspects of plan-

ning.

6.2 EXPERIENCED CHALLENGES It is relevant to study the challenges occurring during

the planning processes and the planners’ and minori-

ties’ expectations. In relation to the mosque project

on Vibevej, Planner L underlines that they were

aware that the project would stir up some reactions,

mainly due to religious beliefs (i.e. opposition to Is-

lam), political statements and reactions related to

the financing issue (i.e. financial support from Iran).

These arguments generally go in line with the argu-

ments for and against mosques presented by Lægaard

(see Paragraph 4.2.1). Also in Roskilde, Planner P

explains that they expected uproar, which did not

happen: “the neighbours had no trouble with the

people who used the place – they were mostly afraid

of the building getting bigger and ‘taking sun’ from

their gardens and so” [A8].

A main issue in the debate has been the location of

mosques and the visibility of these buildings. Planner

P argues: “if it did not lie in a backyard it might have

been a bigger problem” [A8]. She means thereby that

a mosque located in the city centre could be “a

breach with how ‘you’ build in Roskilde” [A8], refer-

ring here to the facade regulations. Furthermore, she

points out that a highly visible location could raise a

more heated debate as the building might be per-

/ 79


ceived as a ‘thorn in the sight’ of the opponents. The

location discussion is important in planning and in the

political debate, both on the national and local level.

The concern of the optimal location of mosques of-

fers two main possibilities: either in the city centre

or in specific suburbs, where a majority of the inhab-

itants have another ethnicity than Danish. Planner A

expresses: “the politicians really want mosques but

do not agree about the location. The municipality

would like to have cultural institutions in the city

centre… But issues25 make it difficult to place them

in the city centre” [A7]. Planner H adds that Islamic

Religious Community did not want a mosque in the

middle of Vollsmose, because they thought that “no

Danes would visit the mosque if it was placed in

Vollsmose” [A7]. Planner A adds that the city centre

now has a bazaar, which is popular and creates pre-

conditions for an ethnical mix, but then she questions

also to what extend the municipality can demand –

“that the location should be in the city centre,

meaning that they should find parking, and establish

it underground?” [A7]. In addition, she states that

they have experienced that minor projects are easier

to handle if they are placed in the outskirt of the city

as only neighbours have a stake in it.

Another challenge connected to the location discus-

sion, has been the noise regulations and discussions

about minarets, already mentioned earlier. Besides

the debate about calling for prayer, Odense Munici-

25 These issues are related to traffic, noise, parking and land prices, among other aspects.

pality has encountered a problem when placing

mosques in industrial areas, because the noise regula-

tions for cultural institutions might mean restrictions

on companies and industries. Further, as we have

already touched upon, the architecture and visibility

represents a challenge of balancing different inter-

ests. Planner C mentions the work on open facades in

the Battery mosque with cafes, marked etc., to make

it more integrated in the surrounding area (functional

as well as aesthetical) and enhance the cultural func-

tion of the building. Planner A in Odense has wit-

nessed propositions, where the orientation of the

mosque (i.e. towards Mecca) mismatches the Danish

urban layout.

Reflection

In general the planners expected some debate and

conflicting opinions to occur; in some cases, those

prospects were met, while in others, the project

showed to be rather unproblematic. For the moment,

the main challenges seem to concern the location of

mosques, and herewith their impact on the close

neighbourhood and the symbolic of their situation;

thereby it is also the topic on which most experiences

are developed. Firstly, concerning the impact of their

location, the public debate often reveal some sort of

NIMBY’ism, sustained by concerns on physical aspects

such as noise, shadow, lack of correlation to the ur-

ban settings, and so on. This suggests growing expec-

tations and regulations on sites appointed to mosque

buildings, and therefore enhanced difficulties for

planners to select a suitable location. Furthermore,

the debate rarely points at the restrictions imposed

/ 79


to industries and companies, due to the presence of a

cultural institution in their immediate neighbour-

hood; thereby mosques might be unwelcome even in

industrial and service areas. Eventually, financing of

the projects plays a great role in their location as

well; if placed in the city centre, initiators have to

gather the fund for an expensive building site and for

basement parking. This questions the legitimacy of

the expectations and requests addressed to mosques,

their initiators, and the Muslim groups in general. It

challenges as well the earlier stated goodwill from

the local politics, the city council and the municipal

planners. It seems that the planners are here tangled

between the political visions, the legislative require-

ments and their own professional knowledge and val-

ues.

Secondly, concerning the symbolic of the location the

planners in Odense advocate for a mosque in the city

centre to sustain a cultural diversity of people. This

argument is being in contrast with Ellen H. Jensen’s

view, which points out that placing a mosque far

from the users can be discriminatory in relation to

the Danes, who have near access to their churches.

Should places of worship not be close to the living

area of the local communities? The central or periph-

eral location of mosques refers back as well to the

discussion about symbolic values attributed to

mosques.

Finally, observations show that, in the cases of mod-

ern mosque projects, much emphasis is given on the

open facades and visual accessibility. This work might

be just as important, if not more, in the cases of the

more traditional mosques. Planner H highlights a po-

litical desire to have integrated mosques, which non-

Muslims can visit. Planner C also talks about demysti-

fication of the Battery mosque, achieved by its open-

ness to the public sphere. Those considerations, and

negotiations, seem relevant also in bringing down to

earth the debate and symbolic value accorded to

mosques.

6.3 REFLECTIONS ON THE PLANNER’S ROLES AND VALUES

As a way of rounding of the analysis and reflections

on the planner’s role, it is relevant to reflect upon

the planners’ experiences, values and ambitions. The

planners’ educational background and current work

tasks are, as described diverse and not all planners

have worked with similar projects before: only the

planners in Odense seem to have some experiences.

Meanwhile the Copenhagen planners claim that there

is no difference in the planning process between

mosque projects and any other building project,

which made it rather difficult to discuss their experi-

ences. Attached to the planners background and ex-

periences, lies a range of values which certainly in-

fluence their individual role as a planner. Indeed, it is

relevant to draw in the discussion about the value-

neutrality of planners. Forester stresses that value-

/ 79


free planners are blind to biases26 in the planning

process [Forester, 1999, p. 241], which relates some-

how to the Copenhagen planners, who in general

seemed to have difficulties understanding what we

meant by ‘projects including cultural and religious

issues’. Thereby we are certainly not sustaining that

they are value-neutral but rather that they, only to a

lower degree, were explicit about their values and

values in planning.

In the interviews, it was discussed whether the plan-

ners felt that they sometime experienced to com-

promise with their personal values in their job,

though this was difficult since their personal, political

and professional values were hard to distinguish from

each other. However questions related to whether

the planners perceived they can and should be politi-

cal in their work were easier to discuss. Planner P

talks about the dilemma of separating personal values

from professional values, where you as a person can

be political, but as a planner are tied up to what is

being expressed by the municipality and the politi-

cians. If she wants to comment on a political issue,

for example in the media, she would do it as a citizen

and not as a municipal planner. From the discussions

with Ole Schrøder, we got the impression that the

private planners have a slightly different relation to

values as they are allowed (and expected) to be more

explicit about the principles underlying their pro-

jects. This reflects somehow the perception of public

26 Values are embedded in the planning system, in the ascribed approaches, methods, and in the religious background of planners (see Paragraph 2.1).

employees as being more value-neutral than private

planners. Nevertheless Planner A says that as a plan-

ner you will always have your own political convic-

tions, but you will sometimes have to undertake

compromises. She does not see this as a problem

though, and mentions that you learn to deal with it.

Planner H states that they are not bounded as plan-

ners, which could be interpreted in the limits of po-

litical influence on planners and the projects they

undertake. The latter comment contradicts to what

Planner P mentions, and in the light of observations

on the system and the political debate, it seems

again a blindness to not acknowledge the hierarchical

influence of the municipal politicians in the planning

department. Furthermore, if no limits are given by

politics, then planning could be expected to take on

more initiative, as the planners could be perceived to

have more power to engage in the processes of those

projects, and to act in the debate.

The choice of following the legal procedures or being

proactive, does not only reflect one’s values as a

planner but certainly also one’s ambitions. Ellen H.

Jensen mentions the importance of the planning

managers; as described previously, they can orientate

the agenda of the planning department. They hereby

endorse a great responsibility, which can be seen as

an expression of their values and ambitions in plan-

ning. According to Planner A, it is all about creating

the best city, which we perceive as a view shared

probably by all planners. However the statement is

rather normative and thus all planners will not share

the same pictures of the best city, and therefore not

/ 79


take action in the same way. Meanwhile this should

not be seen as a problem, but rather as one more

reason for a proactive planning approach, because if

all just follow the standard procedures, not even one

planner’s perception of the best city is likely to hap-

pen. On behalf of our values and the conducted in-

terviews, we therefore identify a need for planners to

recognise their own values, reflect upon them and

explicitly try to bring them into their jobs. This is

neither a rapid nor an easy process, but since several

studies have shown that the planning system is built

up from a set of values, and that planners themselves

praise a lot of values, it would be hard to conclude

that these values should continuously be hidden or

neglected in today’s planning projects. Moreover,

references to a bigger discussion about the percep-

tion of the planner’s role and the planning field seem

relevant here. If planners are only expected to follow

standard procedures, it can be questioned whether

planning educations should be reduced to an educa-

tion in public administration. Although this might be

carrying it to extremes, it can be relevant in future

discussions of planners’ proactivity.

No matter which approach and values the planners

subscribe, it is important to keep in mind that the

planners do not all possess the same amount of influ-

ence. An analysis of their influence must be conduct-

ed according to their background, current tasks,

planning role, use of methods etc. In the beginning of

this chapter, a planner pointed out that a main task

of the planner is to be an informant. It is important

to notice that the planners hold a lot of power in this

position, since they more or less deliberately choose

which information to present and how to present it

(both to the politicians, influencing their decision,

and the public influencing the debate). Here the mul-

tiple and conflicting responsibilities of the planner is

relevant to have in mind, because the combination of

informing, supporting political visions, giving profes-

sional recommendations, and having personal values

can result in conflicted situations, where the infor-

mation might not always turn out to be unbiased.

This is sustained by Planner P who stresses that you

have power in this action of providing information

and that the opinion of the planner will have an im-

pact. Ellen H. Jensen highlights as well the multiplici-

ty of parameters and interests that planners have to

consider; she mentions their responsibility to ‘fill out

the circle’ of interests, hereby assuring that all

stakeholders get the chance to express themselves,

but still having in mind to prioritise. Both Planner P

and Ellen H. Jensen reveal here the complexity of

handling the power lying with the planning task, striv-

ing towards objectivity and liability towards the

stakeholders, but still acting in accordance to one’s

own values.

The next section of the analysis will look at the Dan-

ish planning system, as the frame in which the plan-

ners are acting, and examine how cross-cultural pro-

jects and processes are compatible with the existing

planning frame.

/ 79

|Barriers and potentials in the Danish planning system

7 |BARRIERS AND POTENTIALS IN THE DANISH PLANNING SYSTEM

In the following paragraphs, the focus is the planners’ perception and experience of the Danish planning system. This analysis builds on questions and discus-sions about the opportunities given by the Danish planning system to handle cross-cultural planning projects, as well as the constraints. The objective is to lift the discussion from the individual planner to the level of the planning system, and discuss how municipalities are capable of dealing with these planning issues. We acknowledge that, in these dis-cussions, we generalise on the basis of a small num-ber of interviews, and these planners expressions are not representative for all Danish planners, but they are still illustrative of those few planners working with these particular projects.

7.1 STATUS AND CAPACITY OF CURRENT PLANNING PROCEDURES

The planning of mosques is a relatively new challenge for the Danish planners and is therefore not yet a natural part of the considerations and processes. Planner A’s experience is the following: “We try to make a project, which must fit into a legislation which has not really taken a stand in this matter” [A7]. Lene Kühle agrees with this in saying that the Danish State has not decided how to frame this, re-sulting in the projects being treated differently and the initiators not knowing what to expect. Hence the

planners all follow some kind of standard procedure for municipal planning, with slight variations in the different municipalities. However their perception of the sufficiency of the procedure varies.

The planners in Copenhagen Municipality consider the standard procedure to be sufficient in general, also for mosque projects. They show a general conception that the system is geared to deal with those tasks (as well as any) and that the cultural and religious issues, as well as their integration into the democratic sys-tem, are affair for politics, not for the planning ad-ministration. Planner A from Odense Municipality says that the Planning law sets the minimum require-ments. In her opinion, planners must make an as-sessment of risks in each case, including for instance an identification of stakeholders and their influence. In controversial cases, it can be a good investment to make additional public meetings (e.g. in the very beginning of the process), where interested people from the local area can participate. Thereby the mu-nicipality can anticipate conflicts. She does not feel an immediate economic constraint, and refers to the political goodwill, pointing that public meetings have been held in cases, where it was considered neces-sary. Planner A concludes that: “Traditionally Odense Municipality does not conduct that many public meetings, but this is not because the board of direc-tors are not responsive towards this (…) if the plan-ners consider it necessary [she mentions the case of mosque building], she feels that there is support for arranging the necessary meetings or debates” [A7]. Planner P sees as well the advantages of public meet-

/ 79


ings, conducted in different ways, as to integrate people’s opinion. The political will to listen to the citizens and their claims is present, which means that the planner would have a wide possibility of actions as to do so.

Ellen H. Jensen sets those reflections into perspective by affirming that, if a municipality does not allege the resources for the involvement of stakeholders, thereby assuring a sufficient preliminary work, the consequences damaging the process can be wide-ranging. It is positive that the planners do not feel economic constraints in relation to the use of sup-plementary methods, but according to Ellen H. Jen-sen intensive involvement of stakeholders is only achievable in a few cases due to the prioritisation of resources.

In relation to the Battery, Ole Schrøder experienced that the standard procedures were not sufficient. As presented earlier, he sees the private planner in a different position than the municipal planner in that sense that he can (more easily) challenge the legisla-tive frames and procedures. Since the project was so unusual and experimenting (not only because of the mosque), the process of convincing the municipality to make changes in the Local plan, was very impor-tant. BIG expressed and visualised the project by means of a huge model, which they invited the city council to see and discuss with them, as to create a feeling of “sympathy and joint responsibility” [A6] for the project. Ole Schrøder questions whether this is the best way of doing it, as the long and compli-

cated process might result in developers giving up on the projects, thereby reducing positive and alterna-tive developments of Copenhagen. He praises the high ambitions from the municipal side, but point to the risk of getting lost in bureaucracy.

Reflection The discussion is somehow hypothetical; the planners say that the system is favourable, i.e. economic re-sources, possibilities for additional events, the will of the city council etc. But these planners have only to a limited degree made use of additional events. They might perceive the frame as open, but it can be ques-tioned if they will actually make use of this possibility to go beyond the standard procedures.

Ole Schrøder seems to find some limitations of the standard procedure, as he explains how it has to be changed in order to initiate new and innovative pro-jects. These extended procedures from the private planners side can be resource demanding, which might entail that only strong companies are able to get through with their projects. Many of the mosque initiators are minor organisations, which do not pos-sess this high amount of resources, thus are not able to influence the city council and the legislative frame in the same way.

/ 79


7.2 INTEGRATION OF MOSQUES IN MU-

NICIPAL PLANNING The previous section emphasised the planners‟ gen-

eral views on the system, and we would now like to

focus more on planning at municipal scale, especially

the planning process and the Local plans, as these

were described by the planners.

The Constitution sets the frame for the national Plan-

ning law, as depicted previously. But the national

legislation cannot be considered as explicit and firm,

and the variety of interpretations in the different

municipalities might be a symptom of a lack of con-

siderations and instructions at the national level. In

order to define the space and place for mosques,

change is needed in the definition of the different

land uses specified at the Local plans. Until now, the

municipalities have integrated the projects in diverg-

ing ways. Some have made adaptations from case to

case, while others have more generally redefined the

land uses in the Local plan. As described earlier

Odense Municipality defined all service areas as sites

open for mosque building; whereas Roskilde Munici-

pality has only changed the Local plan for the specific

site.

Copenhagen Municipality places mosques under the

term „cultural institutions‟, on the same level as

churches, synagogues, libraries and theatres, and

thus making no special considerations about mosques.

Planner C adds that any Local plan encompasses cul-

tural uses. Planner L points that those are the possi-

bilities given by the Constitution and Planning law

and planners cannot advocate for more: this would be

a task for the politicians.

Reflection

This lack of definition, of in which areas to build

mosques, might lead to confusion and misunderstand-

ing among the mosque initiators, believing that

mosques are not allowed or welcome anywhere. Ac-

cording to Planner L, the reach of the Local plan, and

the related procedure, is not political. However

summaries and personal experiences from the hear-

ings in Copenhagen show a contradicting reality

where interest groups have influenced the agenda

and induced political discussion (linking to the discus-

sion about public participation in Paragraph 6.1.2)

[Københavns Kommune, 2010]. A detailed blog from a

citizen participating at the hearing on the mosque on

Vibevej explains how the group „Stop Islamisation of

Denmark‟, dominated the hearing. Further, the blog-

ger explains that a proponent mosque group was also

present, however not as well represented as the oth-

er. He points out that both groups influenced the

hearing and ignored the formal agenda and instead

discussed the larger frames of the issues – fundamen-

tally if the mosque should be built or not: “As the

hearing progressed I realised how this evening

changed from being a hearing about a Local plan to

be a debate about values” [Islam i Danmark, 2010*].

This quite contradictory perception of the hearing

and the process in general questions Planner L‟s re-

peated statements about the process being robust

and the hearing only dealing with formal and tech-

/ 79


nical issues. It can further be questioned if his de-

fence of the procedures, and the motives behind, is

due to his position and education in administration.

In the light of these reflections on the hearing, it can

be interesting to discuss how we proceed with this

knowledge. It seems like it is difficult to leave out

political discussions in the process. In line with the

collaborative ideas about acknowledging and embrac-

ing conflicts instead of downplaying them [Forester,

2008, pp. 301-302], alternative forums for these dis-

cussions might be needed, such as workshops or speak

out sessions.

We recognise that the planners mainly talk about the

Local plans, local planning processes and ad hoc

planning, reflecting their practice at the local level.

However other municipal and national plan frames

seem to have unexploited potentials, and here the

politicians play an important role in making more

clear frames for the municipal planners‟ work. For

instance the Municipal planning frame27 and the Na-

tional planning report from the Ministry of Environ-

ment28 could include more proactive elements in re-

lation to cross-cultural planning and give hints to in-

terpretations of the unclear legislations and guide-

lines for the municipalities.

TERMINOLOGY IN THE LOCAL PLANS

The interviewed planners have highlighted some in-

teresting concerns about the use of words in the pro-

27 Danish: Kommuneplanramme. 28 Danish: Landsplanredegørelse.

jects and plans. Furthermore, how they speak about

the plans shows a difference in the confidence and

care when talking about the topics and projects.

There is a clear difference between creating oppor-

tunities for mosques and writing the term „mosque‟ in

the Local plans.

In Copenhagen, Planner C reminds us that the first

Local plan for the Battery had different prospects for

the use of the site: the building of a mosque was a

precondition for the further development and build-

ing of the plot, and it should be the first building on

the site. By request from the investors, the munici-

pality revised this Local plan as to allow them to start

building any part of the plot, and opening the re-

quirements for a mosque to any kind of cultural insti-

tution. The site on Vibevej, on the other hand, al-

ready contains a mosque; the Local plan is therewith

designed specifically for this purpose, although it had

to be open enough to encompass other functions, in

case that the Muslim association could not gather the

finances. Indeed, Planner L explains that, if the Local

plan did not allow anything else than a mosque, the

municipality could end up being forced to buy the

site, if the finances were lacking from the develop-

er‟s side.

Reflection

The use of the denomination „mosque‟ in the Local

plan is thus both restrictive and risky, which leads to

other practices in order to keep the Local plans open

enough as to avoid prohibiting the development of

the sites (and herewith the city) and raise an unde-

/ 79


sired uproar around the plans. However when the

mosque is not specified in the plan, the initiators

have to compete with other projects, making the

realisation of a mosque more uncertain.

When looking at the location of mosques and the

terminology used in Local plans, a similar classifica-

tion of mosques in terms of land use would be appro-

priate, thereby defining areas fitting the require-

ments appointed to such religious buildings. This

could help the municipal planners to find suitable

places for mosques and for initiators only to elabo-

rate on mosque proposals in predefined areas. How-

ever more research should be done upon this topic to

be able to suggest the parameters of the optimal cat-

egory. Interesting inspiration to this categorisation

and the handling of mosques in the national legisla-

tion can for instance be found in Belgium, where cul-

ture and religion are more clearly distinguished in

land use categories [ACQU, 2011].

VOLUNTARY DECLARATIONS

Planner C and Planner L mention the discussion, often

raised by the public and appearing through the objec-

tions, about the noise nuisance arising from the es-

tablishment of a mosque. In order to ease the pro-

cess, some Muslim organisations have provided the

municipality with a declaration stating that they will

not call for prayer and use the minarets for such pur-

pose. This cannot be requested by the municipality,

but once it has been made, they can sanction them if

they do not stick to the declaration once the building

has been constructed. Such declarations have been

used in both projects in Copenhagen, and have had a

determining effect on the pace of the process: pro-

jects presenting this declaration have been approved

faster. In Roskilde, the initiators of the mosque pro-

ject decided to lower the height of the minarets to

respond to the objections. Furthermore, the minarets

will only be symbolic, not allowing access to their

top; thus it is not possible to call for prayer from the

minarets.

Reflection

The voluntary declarations have been important for

the approval of the plans, and they show an initia-

tive, from the Muslim organisations, of adjusting to

the host society. Ole Schrøder mentions the debate

around the minarets and declarations about not call-

ing for prayer, as a criterion presented by some poli-

ticians. This questions the voluntary character of the

declarations and indicates the implicit power lying in

the political discussions, even though their presented

claims are not legally founded.

7.3 KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND

NETWORK To investigate if and how the planners make use of

networks and shared knowledge about mosque pro-

jects, we asked them where they gather their inspira-

tion and knowledge for the projects, and which

knowledge sharing networks they are familiar with

inside and outside of the planning field. Furthermore,

we discussed the necessity and potentials of these

/ 79


networks, especially regarding the difficulties ap-

pearing with outlining guidelines for those highly con-

textualised projects.

In Odense Municipality, the projects are discussed by

experts on building, traffic and environment, besides

in the planning department. No exchange of experi-

ences with other municipalities has taken place, alt-

hough Planner H points that it would be a good idea.

Planner A adds that if other municipalities have col-

laborated on such matters, they have not been aware

or engaged in those discussions. Planner H suggests

taking up the debate at the Days of the Planning

law29, for instance. Thereby they express a potential

to discuss this matter across municipalities.

In Copenhagen, Planner L affirms that religious issues

are none of the planners‟ concerns. This indicates

that he does not see a need for knowledge-sharing

among planners. Planner P is more open and mentions

that networks would be relevant when working with

such issues that concern several planners, but no sta-

ble network exists in Roskilde. She sees it as the

planner‟s task to be able to see the limits of his

knowledge and then ask for help, search for the miss-

ing information, contact other municipalities and

make use of his own personal network, within or be-

yond the internal municipal network of various ex-

perts working there. Moreover she worries that, if

guidelines were to be established, it would be a mess

to work with and implement in each case, therewith

29 Danish: Planlovsdagene.

being confusing rather than a helpful device. Besides

it would be necessary to identify a responsible for

outlining them; and how should he be selected?

Eventually, Planner A points to a main critical point

in the knowledge-sharing: “there is not a lot of expe-

rience yet” [A7], upon which planners can draw. For

example, the legislation on noise nuisance induces

difficulties in their administration, because of the use

of the term „church‟, and nothing mentioning the

mosques. This reveals „grey zones‟ where the legisla-

tion is not up to date yet: is a mosque a church, a

cultural centre or a service institution? Due to lacking

experience, the proposed knowledge-sharing should

not only be among practitioners, since inputs from

planning research can be a catalyst for the network.

Reflection

The different stances towards knowledge-sharing and

networks reveal a diverging openness towards the

debate and different interest in getting more capable

at handling the challenge and supporting the mosque

projects. Although some planners seem to insist on

sticking to standard procedures, it could still be ben-

eficial with knowledge sharing on legal and practical

issues, for instance how the different municipalities

have dealt with integration of mosques in the Local

plans. Indeed, the many translation possibilities and

approaches, appearing through the Local plans, re-

veal the confusion around the way to handle mosques

in planning. Ellen H. Jensen confirms and adds that

“it would be a good idea with common guidelines in

this matter” [A5], on a national level. However, it

/ 79


might be problematic to outline national guidelines

for those issues, due to several reasons: the im-

portance of the context, the lack of experience, the

existence of already many guidelines, rules and laws

upon which the planner has to base his work, and

that he has to interpret in each project. More guide-

lines would add to the legislative and normative maze

planners already work in.

The planning system in the sense of legislation is not

showing a clear stance in relation to mosque building,

but at the same time the planners in general do not

perceive the system as a barrier for these projects

and the planning process (besides the private planner

Ole Schrøder). However it is our impression that the

difficulties with interpreting legislation and adjusting

the Local plans are somehow barriers. Furthermore,

it seems like the system is not fit for embracing all

aspects of these projects, especially not the discus-

sions concerning values and political opinions. As the-

se issues continuously appear during the planning

process, the planners somehow have to respond, and

if the planning system and the planners reject to dig

into these discussions, who should then do it? We

acknowledge that the role of the planner should be

delimited, but as important actors in society, they

have to take part in the responsibility of managing

co-existence of people, thereby being open for future

cross-cultural planning tasks. The system, in the

sense of standard procedures and routines in the

planning departments, seems here to be a barrier.

/ 79


8 |FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND

MINORITY RIGHTS IN PLANNING

In this paragraph, we will open up for general reflec-

tions and discussions, concerning freedom of religion

in practice and the integration of minorities‟ right in

planning, herewith the planner‟s responsibility in the-

se matters. Furthermore we examine and reflect on

the minorities‟ understanding of the system, using

both the planners and Sami Saidana‟s perspectives.

8.1 THE PLANNERS’ ATTITUDE TO-

WARDS INTEGRATION OF MINORITIES The questions used to trigger these discussions and

reflections among the planners concerned how the

planners perceive that freedom of religion and dis-

crimination can be expressed through physical plan-

ning (referring to Sandercock, 2000). Furthermore,

we discussed if and how the planner should take the

needs and claims from minority groups into account.

In Copenhagen, as mentioned earlier, Planner L does

not differentiate between different types of build-

ings, thus the planners claim to treat them equally.

Planner C refers to other controversial elements in

the urban landscape, such as signs and billboards

where foreign languages appear; but those cases are

framed by laws for that particular purpose. In Oden-

se, Planner A highlights the political goodwill and

interest in establishing possibilities for minorities in

the Local plans. The politicians are aware of the mi-

norities, and therefore they are integrated in the

physical planning. Planner P from Roskilde wonders

how far planners and politicians can go in determin-

ing which symbols are allowed, and which are not.

The debate here is not clear enough, neither for mi-

norities‟ religious symbols nor for the Christians‟ rep-

resentations. In some cases, Christianity and churches

are targets for discussion as well.

When asked about the planner‟s role in the acknowl-

edgement and integration of minority groups into

planning, Planner L replies that they should not be

recognised more favourably than the majority – “no

differential treatment” [A9]. In Roskilde and Odense,

the planners seem though to have some consideration

on the dialogue with minority groups. In Odense,

Planner H mentions as well their attempt to dialogue,

and Planner A adds that this communication concern

is for any project. They are though still aware of the

political issues at stake. As previously mentioned, the

councillor30 is particularly attentive to good service

to all citizens; therewith the planner‟s role is to ad-

vocate for both minorities and other interests. Plan-

ner A mentions that they feel a need from the minori-

ty groups for support and acknowledgement of the

projects, which goes beyond the municipality‟s work

(although they sometimes give positive feedback on

projects to encourage the initiator to proceed). “It is

important how we meet them” [A7], says Planner A

and adds that the initiators are anxious about how

30 Danish: rådmand.

/ 79

|Freedom of religion and minority rights in planning

their proposals are received in the municipality. The

planners try as well to guide the disadvantaged

groups. Here Planner A understands the role of the

planner as well as consultant or advocate. Sami Sai-

dana expresses though that if minorities want to gain

influence, it is up to them, as much as the system, to

integrate them. There is thus a two-sided relation in

the sense that the system gives the equal opportuni-

ties to all, while it is the minority groups‟ task and

responsibility to communicate, take the initiative of

integrating themselves and understanding the sys-

tem‟s functioning (this can be seen a correlation to

the theories by Kymlicka, see Chapter 2). Sami Sai-

dana further points out, that such initiatives can con-

tribute to his self-perception as an equal citizen, ra-

ther than a problem for society.

In continuation, the planners‟ approach to integrating

minorities‟ projects in physical planning has been

debated in the interviews, herewith the considera-

tions on freedom of religion and the possibilities giv-

en by the legislative frame. The share of other eth-

nicities than Danes varies from one municipality to

another, leading to different experiences. For in-

stance, Planner A reveals that, in Odense, the politi-

cians are interested in meeting, even anticipating,

the needs of those groups by initiatives and invest-

ments in Vollsmose. Planner P from Roskilde recog-

nises the absurdity of approving meeting rooms for all

others than Muslims; still she points that the foreign

character in the architectural expression, is not

matching the building typology found in Roskilde, and

that traffic issues can be real barriers for the process,

slowing it down or prohibiting its physical outcome.

She carries on about this breach with the existing

building traditions, saying that “if it [the mosque in

Roskilde] was not situated in a backyard, the project

might have been more problematic” [A8]. Mosque

projects cannot be obstructed due to the function

itself, but the local legislation can be a barrier.

The architect Ole Schrøder has also made reflections

about the appearance of a mosque and stresses the

importance of it being integrated in its urban con-

text. It should be a natural part of the urban life, and

not be hidden in a suburb in an old factory (here re-

ferring to the mosque project at Vibevej). As Copen-

hagen is high ranked on many lists with liveable cit-

ies, he considers it natural that there should be room

for everybody. He finds it amusing to reflect on the

town arms (byvåben) of Copenhagen showing three

towers with spires, two stars and a half-moon, and

how this can be interpreted as a symbol of diversity

and plurality of cultures.

Both integration initiatives and the legal framework

for freedom of religion open as well for the discussion

on where the deeper cross-cultural issues ought to be

addressed. Here Planner P mentions the wider re-

sponsibility, as society, which is not debated so

much, i.e. to listen to those who are not favoured

when expressing their claims. As previously men-

tioned, in Odense, a former head of the urban plan-

ning department had a high focus on minorities. Fur-

thermore Planner A refers to experiences in New Zea-

land, where planning is dealing way more with cross-

/ 79


cultural issues; if it was not because of current cut-

backs in the municipal budgets, she thinks Denmark

could get inspired by such attitudes. This can be

linked to the point where she expresses the need for

new knowledge to handle more controversial issues in

planning (like the mosques projects).

Reflection

With the open and liberal legislative planning frame,

the responsibility for integrating minority groups, and

their projects, is at different levels of the planning

system. Minorities have the responsibility for taking

initiatives supporting their integration. While some

planners consider that, as part of the society, they

have a civic duty to open up, listen, communicate

with disadvantaged groups; others suppose that since

the system is established for all, no special considera-

tion or treatment is needed. Meanwhile, looking at

mosques projects, some architects, planners and de-

velopers have initiated designs of Northern or Scandi-

navian looking mosques, integrating the Nordic build-

ing traditions, as symbols of integration and the host

society‟s acceptance of (religious) minorities. The

Battery is here a clear example. Planner L mentions

as well the existence of another project in Copenha-

gen, where the developer has expressed the will for

such Nordic looking mosque on a site where a Muslim

centre is currently located. The initiators from one of

the mosque projects in Gellerup have the same ambi-

tions of building a „Danish mosque‟.

Planner C mentions the existence of many mosques in

Copenhagen; but does it mean that the debate is ex-

aggerated, and that the minorities‟ right to have

their own place of worship is already addressed?

However the purpose-built mosques are more than a

place of worship; Marcel Maussen (Master in Political

Science and Philosophy at University of Amsterdam)

states that “purpose-built mosques symbolize Muslim

communities‟ desire to participate in the social and

physical spaces of urban Europe” [Maussen, 2005, p.

4]. In relation to the architecture of mosques, he

adds that: “the „modern mosques‟ would symbolically

embody the willingness of Muslim communities to

genuinely integrate in host societies” [Maussen,

2005, p. 4]. This indicates the strong symbolic values

of mosques concerning integration and acceptance of

diversity. Negative aspects are also often attributed

to mosques, exemplified by the different acceptance

of mosques and Muslim independent schools. Earlier,

we have mentioned how the processes of establishing

these schools predominantly have been unproblemat-

ic. This view is shared by Planner H, who adds that

neighbours do not comment and complain as much

about Muslim school projects. This is remarkable,

given the fact that many schools are functioning as

mosques, with special praying rooms, and further

because the schools receive notable economic subsi-

dies from the State in contrast to the mosques.

Several planners have commented on the increased

barriers occurring in the process of building a mosque

on a highly visible location (e.g. in the city centre),

than in a discrete location (e.g. in a backyard or the

suburbs). These expressions can be seen as rather

inoffensive with reference to the local municipal

/ 79

|Freedom of religion and minority rights in planning

planning frame. On the other hand, they can also be

symbols of the Planning law and local planning tradi-

tions as having an embedded discriminative character

by trying to avoid or hide whatever does not fit into

the conservative view of how the city ought to ap-

pear. Thereby, the symbolic aspects of integration

and arguments related to acceptance of minorities

might be questioned. This discussion can also be re-

flected in the perception of differential treatment in

relation to whether requests from minorities should

be handled with special attention. Planner P states

clearly that it is not the role of the planner to carry

out differential treatment. The translation of the

Danish terms „differential treatment‟ is „discrimina-

tion‟. This triggers the question of „differential

treatment‟ as often being connected to negative as-

pects, and thereby raising a discussion on whether

this is the case in reality, or rather if giving preferen-

tial treatment to some groups can have a positive

outcome.

8.2 THE RELIGIOUS MINORITIES’ UNDER-

STANDING AND BARRIERS The most appropriate stakeholder to answer the

question concerning minorities‟ perception of the

Danish system and minority rights is Sami Saidana. He

experience how minorities in Denmark, and especially

Muslims, sometimes have difficulties finding their way

through the system. Furthermore, he explains how he

is experiencing administrative barriers for mosques

projects in the Danish planning system. In 2005, the

project in Gellerup received preliminary approval

from the municipality, for a possible location of a

mosque; however the land use of the site was

changed to a business/industrial area, thereby ob-

structing the mosque plans. According to him, this

was mainly due to the Liberal party31. Furthermore,

the previously explained use of unauthorised veto is

expressing an unwillingness to acknowledge the

mosque projects. As Sami Saidana sees it, the legisla-

tion is open towards mosques, but in practice the

initiators encounter barriers for realisation of the

projects set up by politicians and planners. The initi-

ators behind the ten year long project in Gellerup

keep on fighting, as “citizens with limited resources

and forces, who experience being up against a sys-

tem, a giant apparatus, which is well-organised and

articulated” [A4]. Despite these barriers, Sami Sai-

dana is more optimistic than ever about the project.

He is devoted to the task of improving minority rights

in the welfare society and to bridge between Muslims

and Danes. In the frame of the democratic society, he

fights for basic rights, such as a “place for people to

express their culture in worthy surroundings” [A4].

Barriers to religious projects, such as mosques, are to

be found at many levels of the system: at the nation-

al and local level with the debate, in the Planning

law, with the multiple rules and considerations on the

integration of buildings in the urban environment,

and so on. However, barriers arise as well through

the type of project itself: a little mosque or renewal

31 Danish: Venstre.

/ 79


of an existing mosque seems to generate less reaction

than a prestige project such as the Battery or the

project in Gellerup. Planner H mentions the possible

barrier in the harsh discussion itself, leading to pre-

sumptions about municipalities‟ attitude and influ-

encing the self-esteem of the Muslim minorities. The

planners at Copenhagen Municipality underline that,

in any doubt, the religious groups can seek for ad-

vice, at consultants and architects knowing the ex-

pectations and functioning of the legislative system.

Both the Battery and the project on Vibevej had an

urban consultant on the case. Planner L has the im-

pression though that the minorities in general know

how the system works.

In Odense, Planner A points to the difficulties experi-

enced due to requests without any information on

which organisation is sending them. Planner H men-

tions here as well the possibility to take a consultant

on the case, but acknowledges that these are big in-

vestments in something they are not even certain to

get approved. Planner A carries on by referring to

cases where they received drawings without scale or

connection to the surroundings, and therefore diffi-

cult to fit into the urban settings of the building site.

She does not advocate for a mosque perfectly fitting,

but the drawings and the traditional style mosques

seem though as a considerable barrier and a lacking

understanding of the Danish legislation. Planner A

says that they try to be forthcoming, but the Muslim

groups are careful and do not seem to expect much

of them. Furthermore, they have to own the ground

or have the authority to build a mosque on the site,

before starting up a case.

Reflection

Planner L has the impression that the Muslim organi-

sations have a good understanding of the system, but

at the same time the municipality recommends the

use of consultants. This seems contradictory; if they

understood the system (and had the sufficient com-

petences and time), they would not need consultants,

unless the real need of these consultants is to break

through the barriers in the system. Given the diversi-

ty of the Muslim organisations, their understanding of

the system also seems to differ. Some of the well-

organised groups like Association for Mosque and Is-

lamic Centre in Gellerup, have a rather good under-

standing of the system, but still encounter barriers.

Thereby again indicating that the lacking understand-

ing is not the only barrier (which might be solved by

consultants), but also the system itself; not only in

the sense of legislation, but also the procedures and

routines of the planners.

In the previous three chapters we have dealt with the

role of the Danish planners, the barriers and possibili-

ties given by the planning system and the wider dis-

cussions concerning freedom of religions and how

minority rights can and should be integrated in physi-

cal planning. In the forthcoming chapter we will

elaborate on broad guidelines for Danish planning in

the future.

/ 79

|Future perspectives and potentials

9 |FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND

POTENTIALS

In this paragraph we take a starting point in the plan-

ners‟ perception, reflections and ideas described and

analysed in the previous paragraphs. This summary of

ideas will be completed with the knowledge we have

gained during the first chapters of the project. Since

the projects are very diverse and highly context de-

pendent, it is impossible to make a detailed script for

the mosque projects. Therefore the purpose is not to

set up a manual, but instead to present broad guide-

lines to take into consideration.

CONSTRUCTIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES

The projects in themselves can be controversial, but

also the planners‟ approach can be seen as controver-

sial. In general the planners claim to make no differ-

entiation between religions, with reference to the

Constitution and freedom of religions. However as

Christianity has a special position in the Danish socie-

ty and the planning system, it is given a number of

advantages, and the idea about treating religions

equally by using standard procedures might seem like

a false assumption. The minorities often face chal-

lenges in their projects, partly because they are per

definition more controversial and diverging from the

norms of society. Freedom of religion is for sure not

equality of religion [Østergaard, 2006, pp. 73-75], but

how should planning deal with the Christian bias?

In relation to the deeper debates about minorities,

Lene Kühle questions if these will be addressed in the

future, because of this controversy and the fact that

politicians often do not dare or wish to engage in this

debate. Also the planners seem, to various degrees,

to ascribe an avoidance strategy, which in our opinion

is insufficient. The planners highlight that the hear-

ings are not a good forum for addressing deeper is-

sues, as the planners do not want to be political. This

questions where to find an alternative forum, and

who has the responsibility for this? Again, it seems

somehow straightforward to address the responsibil-

ity to the city councils and municipalities and indeed

to be shared across social, technical and economical

departments. Even though part of the responsibility is

placed at the municipality, the State, and here the

national politicians, are in charge of allocating re-

sources and prioritising relevant themes on the politi-

cal agenda. However it is essential to state that since

the integration of minorities in planning is not a „po-

litical brand‟, the municipalities should not just wait

for national attention and extra economic resources

before beginning this process.

PROACTIVE MUNICIPALITIES AND PROCESSES

Planner P gives a set of overall ideas and proposals

for how to improve the process of dealing with cross-

cultural planning projects. First of all to ensure a

broad knowledge foundation, explain causal relations

and keep people informed. A concrete example could

be to arrange public meeting in a different way to

share information and “let people present their opin-

ions” [A8]. Furthermore, a general idea from the

/ 79


planners has been to be more active in the beginning

of a project. However the ad hoc approach seems to

be accepted (and sometimes also preferred) by plan-

ners; we do not see this approach as sufficient. We

have already been discussing a new approach to plan-

ning or new planning culture, where the municipali-

ties take a more proactive role. Ellen H. Jensen

agrees with this emerging development and says that

planning in general would benefit from being more

proactive, thus being at the forefront of the devel-

opment and avoid surprises, i.e. failing projects and

short-sighted solutions. This can be perceived as a

reference to the importance of strategic elements in

planning.

Planner A brings up a question about how big a role

the municipalities should have in “making things

germinate” [A7]. How can municipalities in practice

be proactive, and to which degree should they aim

for this approach? Certainly a discussion about this

among Danish planners would be relevant combined

with a discussions and clarification of the planners‟

role. We see it as important that the planners‟ role is

not reduced to being passive and only dealing with

the formal elements of planning. The values, initia-

tives and personal engagement of the planner are

important, as the planner play an active role in shap-

ing the living environment.

USE OF ALTERNATIVE PARTICIPATORY METHODS

We asked the planners about the „ideal process‟ and

which alternative methods they could wish to bring

in, but in general they did not have many inputs to

this. Planner A, as the youngest of the planners,

seems to be more open and curious about alternative

methods. She states that “it could be fun as a plan-

ner to try out alternative methods” [A7], to engage

other citizens than the resource strong people, who

often constitute the majority attending the public

meetings. She talks about initiating events from the

bottom, and mentions temporary activities and pro-

jects with the aim of creating ownership among the

citizens towards an area. These open thoughts cannot

though be seen as realistic proposals, directly appli-

cable to the mosque projects. As a response to the

case about the organisation „Stop Islamisation of

Denmark‟ taking over a hearing, Planner A advocates

for an alternative approach, though without specify-

ing what this would entail. She furthermore mentions

the new knowledge the municipality might need in

order to take into account the different cultures in

participatory processes, for instance in separate pub-

lic meetings for men and women.

The possibilities for using alternative methods are

wide, according to the theorists working with collabo-

rative planning, like the previously mentioned au-

thors Sandercock, Forester, Innes and also various

practitioners (see for instance Cornell University,

2005). Another more practical example is “The Com-

munity Planning Handbook” written by researcher

and project consultant (specialised in community

planning and design) Nick Wates, providing an over-

view and guide to “methods of community planning”

such as action planning events, activity weeks and

design workshops [Wates, 2000, p. 2 and p.23]. It is

/ 79


also worth remembering the critical perspective from

Forester about the risk of making dialogue and de-

bate, but forgetting the next step of negotiation,

thereby seemingly subscribing to collaborative values,

but without really making a change [Forester, 2008,

p. 302]. In the case of mosque projects, where the

overall decisions are made politically, negotiation

might seem a bit artificial. However this can still be a

relevant method, in combination with dialogue and

debate, for reaching practical and mutual beneficial

agreements among stakeholders with diverging inter-

ests, for instance concerning the architecture and

function of the mosque.

Is it realistic that the Danish planners will find useful

inspiration in these ideas? And how should they get

information about them? As the planning system is

relatively flexible and open for alternative methods,

it seems to be more up to the individual planners to

take the initiative to integrate them in the planning

practice. It is our perception that the increasing focus

on collaborative values has impacted the planning

educations, and therefore it might be expected that

newly educated planners could transmit these ideas

to the planning departments.

We acknowledge that arguments can be raised for

and against the standard procedure and alternative

approach (based collaborative values), and the rough

sketch on Figure 9.1 indicates the potentials and risks

inherent in each of them. The standard procedure

might be interpreted as conflict avoidance, but could

as well be a natural approach in unproblematic cases

to keep things simple and avoid provoking a debate.

The alternative approach might have the risk of incit-

ing conflicts because of the eager to „dig deep‟, but

in other cases this approach might be the only possi-

ble way to reach a result and acceptance of a pro-

ject.

This figure is of course simplified, and in reality a

combination of the two approaches would probably

be most optimal; the standard procedure making the

foundation, supplemented by alternative elements,

such as public participation events, depending on the

projects and context. We would argue that the

mosques projects would benefit from integrating

more of these alternative elements in the process,

due to the controversy, heated debate and symbolism

attached to them.

As an expert with interests in how the first Danish

purpose-built mosque will be accomplished, Lene

Kühle advocates for local action and not too media

exposed, but at the same time publicity and trans-

parency are important factors in making the minori-

Figure 9.1: Risks and potentials of standard

procedure and alternative approaches

/ 79


ties and their projects a part of the city. The

mosques should be public to build understanding, and

the debates should be defused by showing interest

and respect towards others, viewing the mosques as a

resource instead of a problem. Lene Kühle recom-

mends for instance that more open house events

could be arranged. We agree with these ideas ac-

knowledging the importance of a more informed, pos-

itive and constructive debate about the mosque pro-

jects in Denmark and in general the acceptance of

minority rights in practice.

SITUATING THE PLANNER: NETWORKS AND ROLE

Networks can be crucial for the diffusion of experi-

ences from different projects, and ideas for new ap-

proaches. Our initial idea about a national network of

municipal planners discussing the cross-cultural issues

was met with different opinions by the planners, and

in general they found it difficult to exchange

knowledge because of the contextualised character of

the projects. However on the more local scale, plan-

ners could make more use of their personal and pro-

fessional networks to share knowledge. Besides, na-

tional network organisations, like Urban Planning La-

boratory, might take up the debate. According to

Ellen H. Jensen only a few planners have interest in

the specific case of mosque building, and therefore

the topic might be integrated in a broader debate

and networking in relation to cross-cultural issues in

district renewal, and with inspiration in neighbour

countries. Despite the scepticism about discussing

these subjects among municipal planners, we still see

a need for it; even though the projects are very dif-

ferent according to for instance size, purpose, loca-

tion, initiator etc., guidelines can still be relevant on

a broader scale. This is especially relevant in the case

of understanding and interpreting the national legis-

lation, and how mosques ought to be integrated in

the Local plans. Here recommendations could be out-

lined concerning how to categorise a mosque, and

which land use typology is suitable. Further, a more

active use of national and municipal planning frames

would be a good possibility to underline visions about

urban diversity and minority rights. Moreover guide-

lines could be outlined about how the process could

be carried out and which signs to be aware of. Here-

by the first step is to acknowledge that these plan-

ning projects might need another approach and use of

methods than traditional planning projects.

As described earlier, Ellen H. Jensen advocates that

planners make more active use of consultant, when

their own skills are insufficient. The planners have to

find alliances in the local areas, for instance social

workers and integration consultants. As the planners

already collaborate with the employees in the district

renewal, it should be possible to also do it in the case

of cross-cultural projects. An example of a recom-

mendation could concern the collaboration with so-

cial and integration departments in the municipality

early in the process. Hereby the municipality could

see the request of a mosque as a possibility to build

up a broader understanding about the minorities‟

need and desires in physical planning in general. Here

it is relevant to keep in mind, as Ellen H. Jensen

stresses it, that the managers from the planning de-

/ 79


partments play an important role in defining the

agenda and overall approach in the department, and

identifying the competences and limitations of the

municipal planners.

The initiators of the mosques projects can as well

benefit from using consultants, and some already

does. Others might not have the resources to hire

one, and in these cases it can be discussed if the mu-

nicipalities should try to assist them more than they

do today, showing an advocacy planning approach

(e.g. by establishing a planning aid section in the mu-

nicipalities). This is linked to the complex debate

about the planners‟ responsibility towards minorities,

and in our opinion, this is an issue that needs to be

addressed in order to clarify the planner‟s role. It is

our clear perception that it is the planner‟s job to do

an effort in representing all citizens. This includes of

course representing and integrating the needs and

desires from the minorities, especially if they are

somehow disadvantaged, due to legal and procedural

barriers, lacking resources and misunderstanding of

the planning system.

/ 79


10 |CONCLUSION

The increasing cultural and religious diversity in ma-

jor cities represents a challenge to urban planners,

which is exemplified in mosque projects all across

Europe; conflicting interests and harsh public debates

force planners to reconsider their role and responsi-

bilities towards minorities in planning.

In the first chapters it was explored how the theoret-

ical, political and legislative settings are establishing

the frame for Danish municipal planners, when they

are dealing with the integration of cross-cultural pro-

jects in physical planning. Through theoretical studies

we observed how complex these projects can be,

because of the existence and expression of deeper

issues in society, which management questions the

balance between the host society and ethnic minori-

ties. The planners are somehow biased in their work

because of the values of the host culture, embedded

in the planning system. Both Sandercock and

Kymlicka underline these perspectives and further-

more point that principles of representative democ-

racies have some embedded problems when dealing

with the integration of minorities‟ claims. Inspiration

to enhance the representation of all stakeholders has

been found in collaborative planning values as they

provide suitable principles to establish understanding

and a constructive environment in planning projects.

These values reflect the ethno-cultural changes in

society by acknowledging the need to plan for and

with multiple publics. Despite their suitability in

cross-cultural planning, these values seem non-

existing within the Danish planning system and in

planners‟ standard approach to the processes in cur-

rent mosque projects.

The political settings have been investigated through

studies of both the European and Danish context.

Shared aspects were found regarding discussions of

religious symbols in the public space and the symbols

attributed to minorities. A fierce debate occurs about

the integration of religious planning projects, where

strong oppositions to mosques have been experienced

throughout Europe, and indeed also in Denmark. The

political discussions in Denmark have been strongly

imprinted by the Danish People‟s Party and the Minis-

ter of Integration claiming to enhance assimilation,

while other parties are reluctant to take a stand. The

legislative settings for cross-cultural planning pro-

jects in Denmark are grounded in the Constitution

and characterised as democratic and liberal. The

Planning law provides no further specifications, and

therefore leaves it rather open to the planners to

interpret and implement it in the Local plans. Alt-

hough freedom of religion is stated in the Constitu-

tion, the reality of practice shows different percep-

tions, such as minorities experiencing a range of bar-

riers to the completion of their planning requests.

Thus these theoretical, political and legislative set-

tings give the frame in which we investigated the

current mosque projects in Denmark. With at least six

projects in process at the moment, and more munici-

palities and initiators in line to get the „first real

/ 79

|Conclusion

mosque‟ in Denmark, this research seems highly rele-

vant. The projects are very diverse, stretching from a

Muslim group‟s specific request for a place of worship

to a prominent mosque, symbolising a Danish Islam

addressing both Muslims and non-Muslims. The second

part of the research question, concerning the plan-

ners‟ response to the emerging challenges in the pro-

cesses of mosque building, is examined through the

empirical analysis based upon qualitative interviews.

When looking at the planners‟ responses in the

mosque projects, it is remarkable that they mainly

define their role in relation to other stakeholders,

mostly the politicians. Standard procedures are often

favoured, while the collaborative approach, the re-

lated participatory methods and collaboration with

minority groups, and citizens in general, seemed re-

markably limited. In light of the legislative settings

and the highly influential political debate, the inte-

gration and management of those projects are indeed

challenging planners. The experiences from the plan-

ners reveal concerns, such as the selection and loca-

tion of sites destined to mosques, the matching of

the projects into the urban landscape, the uncertain-

ty of how to implement the existing planning and

environmental regulations. Uncertainties about the

legislation, and the plurality of parameters to be tak-

en into consideration, seem to justify a tendency for

ad hoc planning, rather than proactive methods an-

ticipating eventual conflicts. However some planners‟

reflections show an interest and potential need for

implementing alternative methods. Hereby the plan-

ners‟ values, ambitions and level of influence are

embedded in the role they undertake, reflected in

their responses in mosque projects.

Furthermore, we have discussed the capacity of the

Danish planning system; here barriers and potentials

are emphasised concerning the integration of mosque

projects in the traditional procedures. This highlights

the variety of perceptions, and herewith the uncer-

tainty of how some regulations should be translated

to municipal planning, especially the classification of

mosques in terms of land use in the Local plans. In

general the planners perceive the planning system as

sufficient for handling all types of projects, including

mosques. However the planners have not challenged

the system and standard procedures. Moreover, ob-

servations are made about how minority groups pre-

sent their requests cautiously, with concern for the

municipality‟s acceptance, and how conflicts are

downplayed. This relates to the need of taking initia-

tives and act in a proactive way, in order to get pro-

jects approved, but also to obtain acceptance of the

projects in the public and political debate. Guidelines

and inspiration to approaches and methods could be

drawn from networks and knowledge-sharing on the

topic. Although this would require the use of alterna-

tive forums, since politics is officially not at debate

in the planning procedures and documents.

The previous aspects open up for critical reflections

upon the planning processes in relation to freedom of

religion and minority rights in Danish planning.

Thereby we address the need for planners‟ to take on

responsibility in integrating minorities in planning,

/ 79


and question to what extend they should engage in

their advocacy. Considerations on the use of consult-

ants have been made, both for the sake of minority

groups, but also for the municipal planners who need

to acknowledge the limits of their capacity. The initi-

ative and responsibility regarding integration is also

on the minorities‟ side, while the system is responsi-

ble for providing the opportunities for their integra-

tion.

Finally, perspectives and potentials has been pre-

sented for forthcoming cross-cultural planning pro-

jects, and for the municipal planners assigned to the

future cases. Recommendations are made to enhance

a constructive environment and debate for integrat-

ing the deeper issues in cross-cultural planning pro-

jects, instead of ignoring and suppressing them with

justification in the standard procedures. In general,

the municipalities are advised to a proactive ap-

proach and the use of alternative participatory meth-

ods. Herewith the position of the planner and his en-

gagement appear as crucial; this requires the plan-

ner‟s ambitions and values to be stated explicitly, as

to use them in a constructive way. Herewith we see

planners as having a task of supporting cultural diver-

sity in the urban spaces, so that cities can draw the

benefits of increased ethno-cultural diversity.

11 |BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allievi, S., 2009. Conflicts over Mosques in Europe: Policy issues and trends – NEF Initiative on Religion and Democracy in Eu-

rope. Network of European Foundations. London: Alliance Publishing Trust.

Allmendinger, P., 2009. Planning Theory. Second Edition. Hampshire: Palgrave.

Andersen, R. S., 2011. Odense Municipality. Personal correspondence on May 4, 2011.

Association de Comité de Quartier Ucclois (ACQU), 2011. Demande d‟un Certificat d‟Urbanisme du: note explicative du

12/01/2011 – Réaffectation d‟un site industriel et logements en un équipement de culte. January 12, 2011.

Avisen.dk, 2011. Stormoske på vej til Roskilde. January 17, 2011.

Beebeejaun, Y., 2004. What's in a nation? Constructing ethnicity in the British planning system. Planning Theory and Practice

5(4), 437-451.

Berlingske Media, 2010. København godkender moske på Amager. September 2, 2010.

Berlingske, 2010. Strid om to moskéer. February 25, 2010. Retrieved on June 02, 2011. http://www.b.dk/danmark/strid-om-

nye-moskeer

BIG, 2006. References: BAT – Battery. Retrieved on March 6, 2011. http://www.big.dk/projects/bat/slides/BAT_UK.pdf

BIG, 2011. BAT | Faste Batteri. Retrieved on May 19, 2011. http://www.big.dk/projects/bat/

Boligen, 2010. Da Gellerup sagde ja til sin helhedsplan. December 30, 2010.

Busck, M., Rasmussen, C., & Skovsholt, S., 2011. Essays from examination in the course „Planning Theory‟. April 8, 2011. Aal-

borg University.

Casals, N. T., 2010. Chapter VI: Multiculturalism, ethnic minorities and the limits of cultural diversity, in Group Rights as Hu-

man Rights: A Liberal Approach to Multiculturalism (Law and Philosophy Library). Springer.

Christeller, V., 2011. Copenhagen Municipality. Personal correspondence on May 6, 2011.

Cornell University, 2005. Collections: Profiles of Planners and Mediators. Practitioner interviews conducted by John Forester

and Scott Peter. Retrieved on May 26, 2011. http://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/fit117/COLL_Planners.htm

DR (a), 2011. Vi skal se mere positivt på indvandring. P3 Nyheder. Maj 11, 2011.

http://www.b.dk/danmark/strid-om-nye-moskeer

http://www.b.dk/danmark/strid-om-nye-moskeer

http://www.big.dk/projects/bat/slides/BAT_UK.pdf

http://www.big.dk/projects/bat/

DR (b), 2011. København siger ja til to moskeer. January 17, 2011.

DR (c), 2011. Debatten om ny moske forstummede. January 15, 2011.

Facebook (a), 2011. Search words: “Moskeer i Danmark”. May 15, 2011.

Facebook (b), 2011. Ja til moskeer i Danmark! (2). Retrieved on May 30, 2011. http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Ja-til-

moskeer-i-Danmark/285880896321

Facebook (c), 2011. Nej til stormoskeer i Danmark. Retrieved on May 30, 2011. http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=23847520816&v=wall

Flyvbjerg, B. & Richardson, T., 2004. Planning and Foucault. In Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory. Aalborg Universi-

ty.

Forester, J., 1982. Planning in the Face of Power. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48:1, 67-80.

Forester, J., 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Massachussets: MIT Press.

Forester, J., 2008. Are Collaboration and Participation More Trouble than they‟re Worth? Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 9, No. 3, 299–304.

Forester, J., 2009. Dealing with Difference: Dramas of Mediating Public Disputes. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hamburger, C., 1990. Assimilation som et grundtræk i dansk indvandrerpolitik. Politica – tidsskrift for politisk videnskab, Year

22 nr. 3.

Haugaard, M. & Glegg, S. R., 2009. Introduction: Why Power is the Central Concept of the Social Sciences. In The SAGE Hand-

book of Power. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Høvsgaard, V., 2011. Odense Municipality. Personal correspondence on May 4, 2011.

Huxley, M. & Yiftachel, O., 2000. New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory, Jour-

nal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 333-342.

Innes, J. E., 1996. Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal, Journal of the

American Planning Association, 62:4, 460-472.

Innes, J.E. and Gruber, J., 2005. Planning Styles in Conflict: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Journal of the

American Planning Association, 71(2), 177-188.

Islam i Danmark, 2010. Kaos ved høring om moskeprojekt! Blog from November 11, 2010. Retrieved on

http://islamdk.dk/indlaeg/lokalplan-moskeprojekt/

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Ja-til-moskeer-i-Danmark/285880896321

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Ja-til-moskeer-i-Danmark/285880896321

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=23847520816&v=wall

http://www.pgsn.aau.dk/intranet/planogmiljo/em8/BilagPID/PlanningandFoucault.pdf

http://www.pgsn.aau.dk/intranet/planogmiljo/upm8/PT,%20materiale/Huxley%20&%20Yiftachel%20%282000%29%20New%20paradigm%20or%20old%20myopia%20-%20unsettling%20the%20communicative%20turn%20in%20planning%20theory.pdf

http://www.pgsn.aau.dk/intranet/planogmiljo/upm8/PTmateriale/Innes%20%281996%29%20Planning%20through%20consensus%20building.pdf

http://www.pgsn.aau.dk/intranet/planogmiljo/upm8/PTmateriale/InnesGruber2005_PlanningStylesinConflict.pdf

Jensen, E. H., 2011. Dansk Byplanlaboratorium. Personal correspondence on May 6, 2011.

Jydske Vestkysten, 2010. Danske moske-planer strander på økonomien. August 9, 2010.

Jyllands-posten, 2010. Moské kan ligge midt i Gellerup. Oktober 28, 2010.

Kitchen, R. and Tate, N. J., 2000. Conducting Research in Human Geography. London: Prentice Hall.

Kitchen, T., 1997. Working with elected members. Chapter 3 in: People, Politics, Policies and Plans: The city planning process

in contemporary Britain, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Knox, P. L. and Marston S. A., 2007. Human Geography: places and regions in global context. Fourth Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Knudsen, A. and Wilken, L., 1998. Kulturelle Verdener – kultur og kulturkonflikter i Europa. Columbus.

Københavns Kommune (a), 2009. ”VIBEVEJ 25 ”. Startredegørelse: Indstilling om redegørelse for igangsætning af forslag til lokalplan ”Vibevej 25”. Københavns Kommune.

Københavns Kommune (b), 2009. Bilag 4: Tegnestuen BIG‟s nye forslag til en moské ved Njalsgade. Retreived on March 6, 2011. http://www.kk.dk/eDoc/Teknik-%20og%20Milj%C3%B8udvalget/04-11-2009%2015.00.00/Referat/09-11-

2009%2011.06.27/4924341.PDF

Københavns Kommune, 2010. Bilag 2: Referat af borgermøde den 1. juni 2010, vedrørende lokalplanforslag Vibevej 25.

Københavns Kommune.

Kristeligt Dagblad, 2009. Minaret-debat er billede på vestlig identitetskrise. December 15, 2009.

Kühle, L., 2006. Moskeer i Danmark – islam og muslimske bedesteder. First edition. Højbjerg: Forlaget Univers.

Kühle, L., 2011. Aarhus University. Personal correspondence on April 20, 2011.

Kulturplakaten, 2011. Roskilde Museum dokumenterer historien om lokal moske. February 5, 2011. Retrieved on May 24, 2011.

http://www.kulturplakaten.dk/roskilde-museum-dokumenterer-historien-om-lokal-moske/

Kymlicka, W., 1995. Multicultural citizenship. First edition. New York: Oxford.

Lægaard, S. (a), 2010. Religiøse symboler, religionsfrihed og det offentlige rum: 'Stormoskeer' i København? Tidsskriftet

Politik, årgang 13, nr. 4, December 2010.

Lægaard, S. (b), 2010. Religiøse symboler, religionsfrihed og det offentlige rum: Stormoske i København? Dias show from Workshop om stormoskeer, religionsfrihed og det offentlige rum, August 17, 2010. Center for studier af lighed og

multikulturalisme. Københavns Universitet.

http://www.kk.dk/eDoc/Teknik-%20og%20Milj%C3%B8udvalget/04-11-2009%2015.00.00/Referat/09-11-2009%2011.06.27/4924341.PDF

http://www.kk.dk/eDoc/Teknik-%20og%20Milj%C3%B8udvalget/04-11-2009%2015.00.00/Referat/09-11-2009%2011.06.27/4924341.PDF

Lægaard, S. (c), 2010. „Grand-mosque‟ projects in Copenhagen: Intersections of respect, tolerance and intolerance in distri-

bution of public space. In: The Journal of the Central European Political Science Association, 6: 3, December 2010.

Larsen, F., 2011. Copenhagen Municipality. Personal correspondence on May 6, 2011.

Malcom, T., 2011. Planners and Politicians: The Exercise of Power through Discourse. Dias show for the course „The Delibera-

tive Practitioner‟. March 2, 2011. Aalborg University.

Maussen, M., 2005. Making Muslim Presence Meaningful: Studies on Islam and Mosques in Western Europe. Amsterdam School

for Social science Research. University of Amsterdam.

Metroexpress, 2011. Islamister står bag få terrorangreb i Europa. April 29, 2011.

Miljøministeriet, 2009. Planloven – Bekendtgørelse af lov om planlægning. Retrieved on Maj 18, 2011.

https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/r0710.aspx?id=127131#K4

Miljøninisteriet, 2006. Fysisk planlægning i Danmark. Retrieved on May 21, 2011.

http://www.lpa.dk/Topmenuen/om_planlaegning/Planlaegning_i_DK/Generelt_om_planlaegning.htm

Møller, C.F., Schønherr Landskab, Søren Jensen Rådgivende Ingeniørfirma & Forbundet af Islamiske Foreninger, 2007. Mosque and Islamic Centre in Aarhus. March 7, 2007. Retrieved on March 4, 2011. http://mosquedenmark.org/project/moskeogislamiskcenter_aarhus.pdf

Muslimernes Fællesråd (MFR), 2010. Spørgsmål og svar om den kommende stormoské på Amager. Retrieved on May 24, 2011. http://www.mfr.nu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=55

Østergaard, K., 2006. Danske Verdensreligioner – Islam. Danske Verdensreligioner. København: Gyldendal.

Pestieau, K. and Wallace, M., 2001. Challenges and Opportunities for Planning in the Ethno-culturally Diverse City: A Collec-tion of Papers-Introduction. Planning Theory & Practice, 4:3, 253-258.

Politiken (a), 2011. Så er Finland med om bord. April 24, 2011.

Politiken (b), 2011. Søren Pind-kloner er overalt på Facebook. March 11, 2011.

Qadeer, M. A., 1997. Pluralistic Planning for Multicultural Cities: The Canadian Practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63:4, 481-494.

Sager, T., 2005. Communicative Planners as Naïve Mandarins of the Neo-liberal State? European Journal of Spatial Develop-

ment. December, 2005.

Sager, T., 2009. Planners‟ Role: Torn between Dialogical Ideals and Neo-liberal Realities. European Planning Studies 17(1), 65-

84.

http://mosquedenmark.org/project/moskeogislamiskcenter_aarhus.pdf

http://www.mfr.nu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=55

http://www.pgsn.aau.dk/intranet/planogmiljo/upm8/PT,%20materiale/Sager%20%282009%29%20Planners%27%20role%20-%20torn%20between%20dialogical%20ideals%20and%20neo-liberal%20realities.pdf

Saidana, S., 2011. Chairman in the Association of Mosque and Islamic Centre, Aarhus. Personal correspondence on May 2, 2011.

Sandercock, L., 2000. When Strangers Become Neighbours: Managing Cities of Difference. Planning Theory & Practice 1(1), 13-20.

Schousboe, K., 2010. Kirken i København – nye kirker og moskeer på vej. Retrieved on May 24, 2011.

http://www.kirkenikoebenhavn.dk/Tema/kirkebygninger-og-moskeer/projekterede-kirker-og-moskeer.aspx?p=1

Schrøder, O., 2011. Bjarke Ingels Group. Personal correspondence on May 5, 2011.

Scott, W. R., 2001. Institutions and Organizations. Chapter 3 and 4. London: Sage.

Sehested, K., 2009. Urban Planners as Network Managers and Metagovernors. Planning Theory & Practice 10(2), 245-263.

Sjællands Nyheder (SN), 2011. Moske-plan vedtaget. January 27 2011. Retrieved on April 14, 2011. http://www.sn.dk/Moske-plan-vedtaget/Roskilde/artikel/109230

TV2/Lorry, 2009. Trusler mod Politikere. September 14, 2009. Retrieved on May 24, 2011.

http://www.tv2lorry.dk/soeg?q=trusler+til+medlemmer+af+borgerrepr%E6sentationen&to=0

Wates, N., 2000. The Community Planning Handbook. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Wise, M. Z., 2006. New European Mosques. Travel and Leasure, April 2006. American Express Publishing Corporation.

Young, I. M., 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Aarhus Kommune, 2010. Helhedsplan Gellerup Medarbejdere. Retrieved on May 23, 2011. http://www.helhedsplangellerup.dk/da/Om-os/Gellerupsekretariatet/Medarbejdere.aspx

COVER ILLUSTRATIONS

BIG, 2006. References: BAT – Battery. Retrieved on March 6, 2011. http://www.big.dk/projects/bat/slides/BAT_UK.pdf

Design Publicité, 2011. Design Publicité: Stickers arabe. Retrieved on June 2, 2011. http://designpublicite.com/stickers2.html

National Geographic Society, 2009. Istanbul, Turkey, Blue Mosque, 1997. Retrieved on June 2, 2011.

http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/enlarge/blue-mosque_pod_image.html

Wikipedia, 2011. Københavns byvåben. February 20, 2011. Retrieved on June 3, 2011.

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B8benhavns_byv%C3%A5ben

Wikipedia, 2011. Aarhus. June 2, 2011. Retrieved on June 3, 2011. http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus

http://www.pgsn.aau.dk/intranet/planogmiljo/upm8/PT,%20materiale/Sandercock%20%282000%29%20When%20Strangers%20Become%20Neighbours%20Managing%20Cities%20of%20Difference.pdf

http://www.pgsn.aau.dk/intranet/planogmiljo/upm8/PT,%20materiale/Sehested%20%282009%29%20Urban%20planners%20as%20network%20managers%20and%20metagovernors.pdf

http://www.sn.dk/Moske-plan-vedtaget/Roskilde/artikel/109230

http://www.sn.dk/Moske-plan-vedtaget/Roskilde/artikel/109230

http://www.big.dk/projects/bat/slides/BAT_UK.pdf

http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/enlarge/blue-mosque_pod_image.html

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B8benhavns_byv%C3%A5ben

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus

APPENDIX 1: CAMPAIGN FROM THE DANISH PEOPLE’S PARTY

Appendix I: Campaign against mosques from the Danish People’s Party [Læggard (b), 2010].

Turkish mosque in Istanbul — Danish mosque ‘the Battery’ in Copenhagen

Incorporation of Mosques in Danish Municipal Planning

Documents

Transcript of Incorporation of Mosques in Danish Municipal Planning