Citizen disagreement on urban policies and planning decisions is both ubiquitous and fundamental to democracy. Post-political debates debunk the 'consensus approach', which is grounded in Habermasian communication theory, for circumventing disagreement. This article presents a counter argument. Our analysis of the highly institutionalised and consensus-oriented Dutch planning framework shows that this system does not necessarily prevent effective voicing of disagreement. The empirical material demonstrates that consensus is not a pre-defined and static outcome but a dynamic and sensitive process in which urban planning is an instrument. We conclude that planners could facilitate consensus through accommodative roles that address disagreement by taking an adaptive, proactive and more human stance.

We would especially like to thank the many residents and activists in Gülsuyu and Gülensu who made this research possible by providing us with their valuable memories and comments.

This article discusses the relationship between the expert knowledge and the prospects of politicizing and democratizing urban planning. The term ‘experts’ refers mainly to urban planners, yet also includes architects, engineers and lawyers, who are specialized in planning. The article begins with a review of the critical literature on communicative planning, agonistic pluralism, agonistic planning and discussions on what needs to be done in planning focusing on the role of the expert knowledge. It argues that expert knowledge can gain different and multi-dimensional roles in urban planning processes, leading not necessarily to techno-management, yet contributing in their inclusiveness and conflict sensitivity. Encompassing both technical support and objective intermediation for local communities, it can both be utilized to build an agonistic space and help the communities better utilize the existing communicative/collaborative channels to voice their disagreements. By this way, it contributes in the politicization and democratization of planning processes. With this argument, the article also aims to challenge the strict distinction between ‘the politics’ and ‘the political’ as well as the related communicative–agonistic divide. The argument is supported by evidence from a case study on two informally built residential neighbourhoods in Istanbul, where there has been an active citizen opposition and involvement in a planning process.

In this article, I readdress the issue of rationality, which has been so far considered in western liberal democracies and in planning theory as procedural, and more recently as post-political in the post-foundational approach, aiming to show how it can gain a substantive and politicising character. I first discuss the problems and limits of the treatment of rational thinking as well as rational consensus-seeking as merely procedural and post-political. Secondly, utilising the notion of Realrationalität of Flyvbjerg, I discuss how rationality attains a politicising role due to its strong relationship with power. Using the concept of planning rationality aiming at public interest, I present the general position and actions of professional organisations in Turkey, focusing on the Chamber of City Planners, as an example illustrative of my argument. I finally argue that rationality becomes a substantive issue that politicizes planning, when it is put forward as an alternative to authoritarian market logic. In doing so, I adopt the Rancièrian definition of the political, defined as disclosure of a wrong and staging of equality. In conclusion, I first emphasize the importance of avoiding quick rejections of the concepts of rationality and consensus in the framework of planning activity and planning theory and secondly, call for a broader definition of the political; the political that is not confined to conflict but is open to rational thinking and rational consensus.

Laura Tates's book, Post-Rational Planning: A Solutions-Oriented Call to Justice, is about modes of thinking, understanding and acting other than the rational one that can be used in planning and policy-making. She considers these other modes as 'post-rational'. What she understands from rationality is basically reliance on scientific and neutral knowledge in decision-making.Tate has a different style than academics are generally used to; she uses her own drawings, interesting practical examples, and brings together information from a very wide array of resources. Reading it has been an enjoyable experience and it is clear that she has written it with a very positive energy and enthusiasm. Drawing from a highly interdisciplinary research along with author's own background -both a scholar and a practitioner, the book has a much wider scope than urban planning and is more about public policy in general. The geographical focus is North America, and the primary target audience is planning practitioners, while it may well be of interests for researchers in areas such as urban planning, public administration, public relations, communication, media studies and alike. On the other hand, reading the title of the book, the readers may expect some more in-depth and particularly planning related theoretical discussions on postrationality as well as more radical suggestions about its adoption in planning. Tate prefers not to dive into such depths. Her literature reviews are rich but generally descriptive. In addition, as the choice of the target audience requires, she intends to be highly practice oriented. In that sense, she provides the reader with practical suggestions about different thinking patterns, practices and pragmatic techniques to supplement the rational approach, which can be used in planning and policy-making. Tate is quite reasonable in that sense and reminds the readers throughout the book that her call is not for a total abandonment of rationality, but for supplementing it. She finally aims to help planners and policy analysts improve their communication with the decision-makers and the wider public. Although these suggestions are useful and different than the conventional research methods used by planners, how far they are post-rational is questionable, since post-rationality is beyond that, including a radical critique to established modes of rational thinking and acting. More engagement with the existing knowledge, for example, of an agonistic approach and practices in planning (