Abstract
Master planned communities are identifiable features in the Australian suburban landscape. Most of these residential developments include a district centre, comprising retail, commercial, cultural, leisure and educational services. These centres are often marketed as ‘village centres’ and key sites for the production of ‘community’. Indeed, the name ‘master planned community’ implies the production of a tangible phenomenon: ‘community’. I argue that community is not a tangible phenomenon that can be planned for and known. This argument is demonstrated using a case study of the Golden Grove Development. The aim of this study is to acknowledge and contest suburban government. The paper illustrates how the Golden Grove district centre discourses worked or not to produce ‘educated/good community’ subjects. Quests by planners and developers to produce ‘community’ seem determined to survive. This paper highlights the need to recognise and acknowledge the meanings and values inherent in community discourses to inform more democratic planning practices.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
