Date post: | 24-Oct-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | rasmussenchristina |
View: | 27 times |
Download: | 0 times |
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
Page 4 / 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
Page 5 / 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
Page 6 / 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.
Page 7 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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].
Page 8 / 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.
Page 9 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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.
Page 10 / 79
|INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.1: Situating the municipal planner.
Page 11 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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-
Page 12 / 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.
Page 13 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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
Page 14 / 79
|CROSS-CULTURAL PLANNING
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
Page 15 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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].
Page 16 / 79
|CROSS-CULTURAL PLANNING
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.
Page 17 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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
Page 18 / 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].
Page 19 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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
Page 20 / 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
Page 21 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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.
Page 22 / 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].
Page 23 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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.
Page 24 / 79
|Analysing the context of mosque building
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
Page 25 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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-
Page 26 / 79
|Analysing the context of mosque building
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
Page 27 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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
Page 28 / 79
|Analysing the context of mosque building
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
Page 29 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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.
Page 30 / 79
|Analysing the context of mosque building
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].
Page 31 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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
Page 32 / 79
|Analysing the context of mosque building
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].
Page 33 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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].
Page 34 / 79
|Analysing the context of mosque building
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.
Page 35 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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.
Page 36 / 79
|Analysing the context of mosque building
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.
Page 37 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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]
Page 38 / 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.
Page 39 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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.
Page 40 / 79
|Methodology: approach to empirical analysis
- 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
Page 41 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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.
Page 42 / 79
|Methodology: approach to empirical analysis
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.
Page 43 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
Figure 5.1: Structure of themes in empirical analysis.
Page 44 / 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.
Page 45 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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.
Page 46 / 79
|The role of Danish planners in mosque projects
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.
Page 47 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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-
Page 48 / 79
|The role of Danish planners in mosque projects
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-
Page 49 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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
Page 50 / 79
|The role of Danish planners in mosque projects
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.
Page 51 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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
Page 52 / 79
|The role of Danish planners in mosque projects
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.
Page 53 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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
Page 54 / 79
|The role of Danish planners in mosque projects
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.
Page 55 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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-
Page 56 / 79
|The role of Danish planners in mosque projects
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
Page 57 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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-
Page 58 / 79
|The role of Danish planners in mosque projects
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
Page 59 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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.
Page 60 / 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-
Page 61 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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.
Page 62 / 79
|Barriers and potentials in the Danish planning system
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-
Page 63 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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-
Page 64 / 79
|Barriers and potentials in the Danish planning system
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
Page 65 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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
Page 66 / 79
|Barriers and potentials in the Danish planning system
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.
Page 67 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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.
Page 68 / 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-
Page 69 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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
Page 70 / 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.
Page 71 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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.
Page 72 / 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
Page 73 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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
Page 74 / 79
|Future perspectives and potentials
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
Page 75 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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-
Page 76 / 79
|Future perspectives and potentials
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.
Page 77 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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
Page 78 / 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,
Page 79 / 79
Incorporation of mosques in Danish municipal planning
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.
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/
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.
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.
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
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