How contemporary colonialism limits the potential of Indigenous placemaking

Indigenous Peoples in Canada have lost so much throughout the process of colonization: their people, their traditional practices and heritage, and their land and the deep connection to it. Furthermore, forced assimilation of Indigenous Peoples into western society has further resulted in the loss of their identity and culture with 52 per cent of Indigenous Peoples calling Canada’s cities their home today.¹
 
From the perspective of urban planning and design, Indigenous placemaking in the built environment is a concept that is becoming increasingly popular in many Canadian cities as a way to promote ongoing reconciliation efforts. Indigenous placemaking differs from conventional placemaking in that it is driven by the unmediated participation of Indigenous Peoples in urban design processes according to their own knowledge and methods.² However, it is important to note that while the intent of Indigenous placemaking is to provide Indigenous Peoples with a platform to project their worldviews and foster a sense of place in cities, that is rarely achieved within the context of contemporary colonialism. Even though Indigenous communities are separate from settler communities in their cultures, traditions, and ways of life, they are still required to comply with settler procedures and policies. In other words, the colonized continue to be colonized by the governmental organizations using subtle methods.
 
While Indigenous placemaking encourages the representation of Indigenous practices and traditions in cities, these activities are developed according to and within a eurocentric urban-planning framework. It is important to note that the people for whom these places are being created for are just participants in the process; they have no real decision-making power. The scope of such projects is already predetermined by governmental policies, with the municipality or the federal or provincial government having the final say before development even begins. Furthermore, with an already limited understanding of Indigenous design methods on the part of planners and decision makers, developing creative design that does justice to Indigenous design methods becomes very difficult, more often than not resulting in outcomes that fit only within western ideals.³ Moreover, these designs might be perceived as inappropriate or incompatible with the surrounding area as they might not conform to the policies that are already in place. This not only undermines the true authenticity of Indigenous expression, but it also distorts the very representation of it.
 
According to the Indigenous Place Making Council of Canada, placemaking should be a collaborative process towards reconciliation aimed at creating places that restore Indigenous visibility in Canadian society and project Indigenous identity, worldviews, and values.⁴ However, if Indigenous placemaking is still controlled by non-Indigenous procedures, standards, and rules, is it truly Indigenous? Will it truly help in fostering a sense of place and connection among the Indigenous population living in cities?
 
The differences between Indigenous and settler cultures need to be recognized, respected, and celebrated. A radical but fundamental transformation of government processes is needed that allows Indigenous placemaking to ensure it reflects Indigenous culture efficiently. The empowerment and representation of urban Indigenous communities must go beyond conventional activities such as art installations and naming procedure as these activities are merely settler interpretations of Indigenous placemaking. Indigenous placemaking, instead, should be about the opportunity to challenge spatial production and placemaking beyond tokenism.
 
Indigenous Peoples should not just be participants in the creation of spaces that are meant to increase their sense of place and belonging. The Indigenous Place Making Council of Canada’s calls for collaboration to achieve reconciliation, but Indigenous placemaking will be more effective if Indigenous Peoples and communities have true autonomy in this collaboration. The land that Canadian cities is built on belongs just as much to Indigenous Peoples, and they should be given equal opportunity to determine how to best represent their culture. These communities should be allowed to make decisions outside of a framework that is inefficient in capturing their needs for the appropriate representation of their cultures. In an ideal placemaking approach, Indigenous communities decide what should be presented and how it is designed without any limitations on design and programming by officials and administration offices.⁵ If Canada really wants to achieve true reconciliation with Indigenous communities, it must look at ways to convert this ideal approach into a realistic one.
 
References
1 Statistics Canada. 2017. “Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Key Results from the 2016 Census.” http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025a-eng.p
2 Sarem Nejad, Ryan Walker & David Newhouse (2020) Indigenous placemaking and the built environment: toward transformative urban design, Journal of Urban Design, 25:4, 433-442, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2019.1641072
3 Sarem Nejad, Ryan Walker & David Newhouse (2020) Indigenous placemaking and the built environment: toward transformative urban design, Journal of Urban Design, 25:4, 433-442, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2019.1641072
4 Sarem Nejad, Ryan Walker & David Newhouse (2020) Indigenous placemaking and the built environment: toward transformative urban design, Journal of Urban Design, 25:4, 433-442, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2019.1641072
5 Sarem Nejad, Ryan Walker & David Newhouse (2020) Indigenous placemaking and the built environment: toward transformative urban design, Journal of Urban Design, 25:4, 433-442, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2019.1641072