Why Community May Be the Most Important Infrastructure of All
)
What makes a place work?
For generations, the answer seemed straightforward. Build the houses. Build the roads. Build the schools. Add some parks and shops, and eventually a community will emerge.
This assumption has shaped the way we plan and build cities across Australia. It's the modern planning equivalent of the old saying: "If you build it, they will come."
But what if we've got it the wrong way around?
As Victoria prepares to deliver 2.24 million new homes by 2051, a growing number of planners, developers and community leaders are asking whether physical infrastructure alone is enough. Can a new suburb truly succeed if the social connections, local networks and sense of belonging that underpin strong communities are missing?
This is the idea behind "community as infrastructure", the belief that social infrastructure should be considered just as essential as roads, schools and utilities.
The stakes are high. Research consistently shows that socially connected communities are healthier, more resilient and more economically productive. Conversely, social isolation is linked to poorer health outcomes, lower wellbeing and weaker local economies.
So, as Australia embarks on one of the largest housing expansions in its history, how do we ensure we're building more than houses? How do we create places where people genuinely want to live, connect and belong?
I spoke with Pauline Turner, creator of the Community Builders Program and Community Development Strategist at Woodlea, about why community-building deserves a place alongside traditional infrastructure in the way we think about growth, development and the future of our cities.
You've spoken about the idea of "community as infrastructure". What does that concept mean to you, and why do you believe social connection should be treated with the same importance as roads, schools, and utilities?
When I talk about community as infrastructure, I'm really talking about the things that help people feel connected, supported, and like they belong. We're very good at planning roads, pipes, buildings, and services - and all of those matter - but a place only really works when people have relationships, trust, and somewhere to connect with one another.
For me, social connection is just as important as the physical stuff because it shapes health and wellbeing in really tangible ways. When people feel connected, they're healthier, more engaged, and more likely to support each other. That's not just good for individuals; it's good for the whole community and even the economy. Healthier, more connected communities are more self-sufficient, and they tend to require less financial support through welfare and crisis services down the track.
We know from research on social capital that communities with strong connections - where people trust each other and have real relationships - are more resilient, more cohesive, and better able to look after their own. You don't really notice social infrastructure until it starts to fray - until isolation, loneliness, and disconnection become visible as real problems. That's when you see the cost, both in human terms and in the extra pressure on health, mental health, and support systems. That's why I see it as just as critical as any other form of infrastructure.
It wasn't until 2019 that social infrastructure was formally recognised within Australia's national infrastructure planning framework. Why do you think community and social connection have historically been overlooked in conversations around development and city building?
I think community and social connection have been overlooked because, unlike physical infrastructure, the impact isn't immediately evident when it's missing. When a road isn't built or a pipe is delayed, you see and feel the problem straight away - and you can measure and quantify it from the outset. But when social infrastructure is missing, the consequences don't show up right away. It's only later, as the social fabric starts to fray, that you see the isolation, weaker networks, and increased pressure on services.
There's also been a long assumption that community will just happen naturally once development is complete. But in our rapid greenfield growth areas, that's not how it works. Traditionally, communities grew organically from small, tight-knit groups who relied on one another from the start, often across generations. People moved around less, and there was deeper place-based identity. Now, we're starting communities from scratch - everyone moving in at roughly the same time, knowing no one, with no pre-existing connections. That's a fundamentally different starting point, and that kind of community doesn't emerge by accident; it needs to be scaffolded, nurtured, and intentionally created.
What we're seeing socially now is the impact of that missing piece in planning during the rapid growth phase. The impacts are visible and measurable: higher isolation, weaker local networks, and more pressure on health, mental health, and support services. That's why the importance of social infrastructure is finally emerging - we're seeing what happens when it's not there.
In the wake of Covid, growing social isolation, and increasingly frequent natural disasters, do you think resilient communities have become more important than ever? Has this changed the way we should think about urban development?
Absolutely - I think resilient communities are more important than ever. During Covid, I worked in a support team with families in isolation who were at risk and didn't have other familial or community support. That experience really showed me how critical those connections are during times of stress or disaster. When environmental factors remove your opportunity to directly link into or tap into supports - whether that's mandatory isolation, a flood, a bushfire, or something else - who helps you in those times? Covid highlighted that for many people, that network simply doesn't exist.
That experience drove me to make some huge life changes. I left the corporate workforce to pursue work in the community sector - work that lets me use my skills and talents for my community's benefit and building connection to the people around me. I wanted to build something better for my kids and the future of our community.
And yes, I do think it changes the way we should think about urban development. We can't just ask whether a place has houses, roads, and services. We also have to ask whether it has the social fabric that helps people support each other in a crisis - places to gather, local connections, and a sense of belonging people can lean on.
For me, that means planning for connection as intentionally as we plan for physical infrastructure. A resilient community is built through stronger relationships, trusted local spaces, and people who feel they belong and look out for one another.
Beyond the reasons mentioned above, what do you see as some of the biggest threats to building strong, connected communities today? Are there broader social, economic, or planning challenges that are weakening community infrastructure?
I think there are a few intersecting threats, and they all tie back to how much our way of building community has changed compared with how it used to happen.
In the past, communities tended to grow organically around family networks, shared resources, and transport routes. People lived, worked, and socialised in the same area, often across generations. There was more stability and deep place-based identity. That kind of setting naturally built strong bonds.
What we're doing now is quite different. We're essentially bringing communities into greenfield suburbs all at once, where everyone arrives at roughly the same time, knowing no one, with no pre-existing connections or place-based identity. When you combine that with the pace of growth, long commutes, time poverty, and cost-of-living pressure, it becomes much harder for organic community to emerge.
There's also a missing piece in terms of "third places" - informal spaces outside home and work where people can just hang out without spending money. In many new estates, those are thin or absent, so there's nowhere for casual interaction to happen.
Robert Putnam's work on social capital also feels really relevant here. He talks about bonding capital - close ties with family and tight groups; and bridging capital - connections across wider networks and both being essential. In new growth areas, people often arrive with weakened bonding capital, and bridging capital doesn't form automatically. You need to create the conditions for it.
On top of that, when you have rapid population change, high mobility, and weak local institutions, community cohesion becomes harder to sustain. That's exactly what we're seeing: rapid growth, high turnover, and social infrastructure that hasn't kept pace.
So, the biggest threats are really this combination: the shift from organic to engineered community, the pace of growth, economic pressure on households, and a planning system that hasn't yet treated connection as core infrastructure. The result is a place that may function technically but feels socially thin, and that shows up in isolation, weaker networks, and more pressure on services.
Can you tell us more about Woodlea and the thinking behind the Community Builders Program? What gap did you feel was missing in the traditional development model, and what outcomes are you hoping to create through the initiative?
At Woodlea, from the outset, the vision was to create a community - not just a development. That vision is always front and centre in every decision we make. That's what created the scaffolding to support a program like Community Builders in the first place.
The program came from a pretty simple observation: we were missing the ongoing, human work of connection, belonging, and local leadership.
We know that when people move into a new estate all at once without pre-existing connections, they need the conditions to form bonds. But there's also huge latent potential that too often goes untapped. A survey of new communities in Melbourne’s Outer West conducted by the Good Neighbours Movement found that 26% of residents want to be involved in community life but don't know how or what opportunities exist. These are people bringing skills, knowledge, experience, and passion into these new communities - and the program is about unlocking that.
It's about deliberately creating the conditions for connection - giving residents space, support, and resources to turn their ideas into action, build confidence, and shape the future of their place together. We're supporting both close, trusted relationships with neighbours and broader connections across different groups, as well as linking residents with authorities, services, and organisations that can support them.
The outcomes we're hoping for are pretty straightforward: residents who feel a real sense of ownership and belonging, local leaders who emerge from the community itself, and a social fabric that's strong enough to support people through everyday life and through challenges. We want Woodlea to be a place where people don't just live side by side, but actually know each other, support each other, and shape their community together.
The Victorian Government has set ambitious housing delivery targets over the coming decades. Do you believe community led development models like this can scale alongside rapid population growth, and what needs to change across the industry to make that possible?
Yes, I do believe community-led models can scale alongside rapid population growth - and I'd go further than that. I think it's not just scalable, it's an essential component of the process. If we're going to build places that work socially as well as physically, community building has to be part of the core development model, not an add-on.
Right now, we often measure success by the number of homes delivered, the speed of construction, and housing yield. But if we're serious about building places that work, we need to give equal weight to social outcomes, local capacity, and the health of community life. That means treating community building as core infrastructure, not an optional extra.
We're looking at 180,000 new homes in Victoria across 27 new PSPs in the next 10 years - that's 27 new communities. Imagine where we'll be if we continue down the current path… We'll have 27 places that are physically complete but socially thin, and the consequences will show up in isolation, weaker networks, and increased pressure on health and support services.
What needs to change across the industry is a shift in mindset and practice. Community building needs earlier investment, better collaboration with residents, councils, and community organisations, and more willingness to create the conditions for and adopt flexible models like the GROW framework through programs like Community Builders. It also means being prepared to measure and report on social outcomes, not just physical ones.
If we're serious about housing targets, we have to be serious about what makes those homes part of functioning neighbourhoods. Community-led models can absolutely scale - but only if we're willing to build the conditions for people to live well together, not just build more houses.