{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0142602495543672, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035650623885918, 'mean_word_length': 5.567251461988304, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Australian Urban Planners: Hybrid Roles and Professional Dilemmas?

This article argues that a hybrid role for urban planners has emerged within the largely neoliberalised spaces of contemporary Australian governance. This role is one that transcends previously rigid or clearly defined sectoral positions to blend public, private and community responsibilities in novel and complex ways. The first section of the article briefly sketches the historical shifts that have led to this hitherto unseen hybrid role. The second section explores the notion of hybridity as a paradoxical professional ‘third space’ where dominant ideological discourses shaping planning practices such as neoliberalism can be both resisted and/or reinforced. Whilst the third section of the article shifts to ground the hybridity metaphor in real people and places through selected narratives from case study research into the shift to performance-based planning in Queensland under the ‘Integrated Planning Act 1997’. Finally, the future of this hybrid professional role is considered within the context of an uncertain global financial climate.