The rise of the notion of ‘inclusion’ in urban planning, seen in phrases like inclusive city , calls for a critical analysis of its evolving meaning and its spatial, social and political implications. Paradoxically, the meaning of urban inclusion has narrowed such that it now primarily refers to accessibility for people with disabilities. At the intersection of urban studies and critical disability studies, our article investigates the conceptions, criteria and modes of production underlying the implementation of urban inclusion in Singapore's ‘Enabling Village’, a purportedly inclusive space opened in 2015. We use a mixed‐methods approach, analysing official narratives and conducting site visits to understand the site as both an appropriated and a branded space. We show that, in Singapore, the inclusion agenda interacts with the city‐state's distinctive approach to planning and governance, where social issues are ‘engineered’ and give rise to replicable operational models. Our hypothesis is that implementing the inclusive city through the production and promotion of ‘inclusive’ urban projects such as the Enabling Village fuels the expansion of Singapore as a state‐led ‘entrepreneurial city’ (Harvey, Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 1989; 71(1):3–17). In particular, operationalising ‘urban inclusion’ in this way allows for the reinvention of Singapore as a global urban model.