Finding an ideal procedure for planning has always preoccupied theorists. The urgency of this task arguably has increased as imperatives and participants have diversified over the last half-century. Theorists have often advocated the communicative model of Jürgen Habermas in this period. This article investigates the theoretical shortcomings of communicative theory in planning and postulates the possible contributions of a phenomenological approach in especially complex planning situations. It also reviews past instances in which a phenomenological approach has been useful and suggests some contemporary episodes in which it could prove useful again.
BlaisP.2011. Perverse Cities: Hidden Subsidies, Wonky Policy, and Urban Sprawl. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
5.
BolanR. S.1980. “The Practitioner as Theorist: The Phenomenology of the Professional Episode.” Journal of the American Planning Association46 (3): 261–74.
6.
CampbellS.1996. “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development.” Journal of the American Planning Association62 (3): 296–312.
7.
DaltonL. C.1986. “Why the Rational Paradigm Persists: The Resistance of Professional Education and Practice to Alternative Forms of Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research5:147–52.
8.
De NeufvilleJ. I.1987. “Knowledge and Action: Making the Link.” Journal of Planning Education and Research6 (2): 86–92.
9.
DryzekJ. S.1993. “Policy Analysis and Planning: From Science to Argument.” In The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, edited by FischerFrankForesterJohn, 213–32. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
10.
EtzioniA.1968. The Active Society. New York: Cormier-Macmillon.
GoffmanE.1971. Relations in Public. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
19.
GriffinB.MoyerT.1975. “Saratoga’s the Name of the Game.” Planning41 (8): 11–12.
20.
HabermasJ.1971. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
21.
HabermasJ.1979. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
22.
HealeyP.1992. “Planning through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory.” Town Planning Review63 (2): 143–62.
23.
HirschhornJ.2003. “Behind Enemy Lines at the Anti-Smart Growth Conference.” Planetizen, March3, http://planetizen.com/node/79 (accessed May 2013).
24.
HurleyP. T.WalkerP. A.2004. “Whose Vision? Conspiracy Theory and Land-Use Planning in Nevada County, California.” Environment and Planning A36:1529–47.
25.
HusserlE.1999. “Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy, First Book.” In The Essential Husserl, edited by WeltonDonn. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
26.
HuwT.HealeyP.1991. Dilemmas of Planning Practice: Ethics, Legitimacy and the Validation of Knowledge. Aldershot, UK: Avebury Technical.
27.
HuxleyM.YiftachelO.2000. “New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory.” Journal of Planning Education and Research19 (4): 333–42.
28.
InnesJ. E.1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14: 183–189.
29.
InnesJ. E.BooherD. E.2010. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London: Routledge.
30.
KantI.2011. The Critique of Pure Reason. Seattle, WA: Pacific Publishing Studio.
31.
KoireR.2011. Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21. Santa Rosa, CA: Post-Sustainability Institute.
32.
KuhnT. S.1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edition.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
LewisS.1976a. “Antiplanners Are Coming, Antiplanners Are Coming.” Planning42 (2): 11–13.
34.
LewisS.1976b. “New York’s Adirondacks: Tug of War in the Wilderness.” Planning42 (8): 9–15.
35.
Marleau-PontyM.1964. The Primacy of Perception. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.
36.
MooreS. A.2007. Alternative Routes to the Sustainable City. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
37.
MorrisM.2001. Rethinking the Communicative Turn: Adorno, Habermas, and the Problem of Communicative Freedom. Albany: State University of New York Press.
38.
MugerauerR.2000. Language and the emergence of environment. In Dwelling Place and Environment, edited by SeamonD.MugerauerR.51–70. Malbar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
39.
NorgaardK. M.2011. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
SellarsW.1963. Science, Perception and Reality. Atascadero: Ridgeview.
53.
SeamonD.MugerauerR.2000. “Dwelling, Place and Environment: An Introduction.” In Dwelling Place and Environment, edited by SeamonD.MugerauerR.51–70. Malbar, FL: Krieger.
54.
SellarsW.1963. Science, Perception and Reality. Atascadero: Ridgeview.
SorensenA. D.DayR. A.1981. “Libertarian Planning.” Town Planning Review52 (4): 390–402.
57.
StaleyS.2000. “Reforming the Zoning Laws.” In Guide to Smart Growth: Shattering Myths, Providing Solutions, edited by ShawJ. S.UttR. D.Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation and the Political Economy Research Center.
58.
StrongA. L.1975. Private Property and the Public Interest: The Brandywine Experience. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
59.
Tewdwr-JonesM.AllmendingerP.1998. “Deconstructing Communicative Rationality: A Critique of Habermasian Collaborative Planning.” Environment and Planning A30:1975–89.
60.
ThrogmortonJ. A.1991. “The Rhetorics of Policy Analysis.” Policy Sciences24 (2): 153–79.
61.
YlvisakerP.1970. “Utter Chaos or Simple Complexity.” In Planning 1970: Selected Papers from the ASPO National Planning Conference, New York City, April 4-9, 1970, 6–16. Chicago: ASPO.
62.
ZucottiJ. E.1974. “How Does Jane Jacobs Rate Today?” Planning40 (5): 23–27.
