The
city of Canberra was planned in detail from the very beginning. Walter Burley Griffin’s comprehensive city
plan was adhered to and executed from the very beginning. Since construction began 100 years ago,
Canberra has evolved in many ways; some in accordance with the Griffin plan and
others in spite of it. By examining the
city planning practices that were common during Griffin’s time, we can gain
insight into the methodology of his Canberra plan. While looking to the past is important, the
city of Canberra must also look to the future and decide how it will continue
to grow. Will the Griffin plan serve as
the law of the land or will it be ignored?
Will the “bush capital” atmosphere remain or will new development bring
density to the ACT?
In 1911, when Griffin developed his plan,
there was widespread distaste for high-density, urban cities. In the latter part of the 19th
century, such density was blamed for the spread of disease in many areas. As a result, planners “later promoted more
comprehensive, or systematic, changes, singling out congestion or overcrowding
as the root of urban problems” (Birch 58).
For this reason, city design shifted to a more decentralized style. Making these designs more plausible was the
advent of the automobile and rapid spread of technology. As more and more people owned personal
automobiles, cities began to see that “the power of transportation and
communications technologies could actually permit decentralization of populations
and industry throughout regions” (LeGates and Stout).
This
trend of decentralization accommodated and, perhaps, facilitated Griffin’s
planning of a “bush capital.” Since the
trend of the time was to avoid the development of a dense urban core, Griffin
planned a sprawling city consisting of several networked suburbs. Between these suburbs would be areas of open,
undeveloped land that preserved typical Australian bush landscape. The design was popular at the time and served
the young city well. 100 years later, it
is interesting to look back and contemplate how the plan has succeeded and,
consequently, how it has come up short.
It is important to consider this when making current planning decisions
and, perhaps more importantly, looking to the future of Canberra.
When
examining Canberra’s present state and making planning decisions for the
future, a debate commonly ensues about the relevance of the Griffin plan. Is it outdated? Should the city strictly adhere to a plan
that could not have foreseen some of the issues Canberra faces today? Many people talk about trends in areas such
as fashion, music, business, and the like.
Are there trends in city planning as well? Perhaps the idea of a low-density, sprawled
city was, in actuality, a trend. “Trend”
may not be the best word, but it certainly seems that the basis of Griffin’s
plan would not be a popular idea in contemporary city planning.
Lifestyle trends today show that people want
denser environments where their wants and needs are easily accessible and
attainable. Gone are the days when
everyone willingly jumps in their car to drive from suburb to suburb or from
suburb to town in order to live their lives.
Studies show that most young people and significant numbers of their
parents and grandparents are abandoning big yards and bonus rooms for smaller
homes and closer neighbors. This echoes
the growth and popularity of new urbanism trends in planning and
development. It seems evident that
Canberra and the Griffin plan are the exact opposite of this school of thought.
If the majority of people want to see increased
development in denser areas, why then does Canberra continue to grow
outward? With plenty of space within
Canberra’s core, should the city look to promote infill projects? It seems that development in Canberra will
not change course any time soon. In
fact, a large, new suburban project is underway at present.
Canberra is a very young city compared to the
majority of other major Australian cities, having just celebrated its 100th
birthday this year. It is a planned city and because of its age and the fact
that it was created after the invention of the car, this has led to the city
growing outwards with plenty of open spaces in the middle. Walter Burley
Griffin first designed a city that was more compact, with attached housing and
public transport like trams and trains connecting the city to the suburbs.
Then, after he left the project a lot of his plans and concepts were forgot or
not incorporated in to later plans for future growth.
The idea of the Australian dream, with the
quarter acre block also effected the growth of Canberra with many families
wanting to live in quieter suburbs with the locals shops close by and the
ability to drive to work, rather than walk or take public transport.
Today, the ACT Government has developed plans
to ensure that Canberra grows less outwards but rather on open land located
closer to the city be developed to allow for higher density living. This will
mean that more apartments will be built in areas closer to the city and the
ability to have better public transport, like trams are more of a reality.
Googong is a planned township in New South
Wales just south of Queanbeyan, near Googong Dam and is located 16 Kilometres
from Canberra city. The concept for this new township has been in the planning
process for over 20 years and construction commenced early this year with the
first residents expected to be able to move in in January next year. The
concept is for a totally sustainable community that is environmentally
friendly, with grey water to be recycled and used for gardens and houses to
have high energy ratings.
The development follows the New Urbanism
Model as well as containing many of the elements of A Just City Model. The New
Urbanism model allows for residents daily needs to be within a 5 minute walk
and contains lots of open spaces, parks and recreational facilities which
Googong will contain and this is said to improve the standard of living in the
area. The Googong development also follows the Just City model which presents
the idea that the development is a ‘utopia’ where everyone’s needs are catered
for and the standard of living is high. This ‘utopia’ idea can be seen through
the advertisements of Googong and by the description of the master plan on
their website. One of the
characteristics of this model is that it is more aimed at middle to high income
earner which Googong seems to be aiming at.
As Googong is located near Canberra it can be
considered to be part of Canberra’s urban sprawl and will be attracting many
people from Canberra and the surrounding area who will be commuting to Canberra
for work. it will contain over 16,000 people when complete, however it will not
contain large areas of employment, therefore the majority of residents will
have to commute to Canberra for work causing greater congestion of the roads
and because it is located in New South Wales, public transport will be an issue
for the people living there.
This whole development is the opposite of
urban infill that the ACT Government is trying to encourage and will influence
more urban sprawl developments to occur close to the ACT border. There needs to
be an agreement with the ACT government and the Queanbeyan City Council on
encouraging urban infill with the council. This could mean the council opening
up land located closer to the ACT border but within Queanbeyan’s urban
area.
One of
the theories that was looked at over the course, was the theory of
communicative planning of an urban environment. This theory is based on having
a community involvement in the planning process. Communicative approach to
spatial planning can be looked at in five points. The five points are where the
discussions should take place, what style of conversation it should be, how new
ideas and problems can be sorted out, creating a new discourse and finally
agreeing to an idea and critiquing (Healy, 1996). These ideas and questions are
important when having a conversation with a community. This part of the essay
will look at how communicative planning theory has been used in Canberra in the
areas of Googong Township and the Kingston Foreshore. These new developments in
Canberra are perfect examples on seeing whether they have followed the
communicative planning theory and as well as if they succeeded in using it.
The
new township of Googong, is a current example of an urban environment being
planned. Community engagement for the Googong project has been mostly done by a
company called Elton Consulting. This company consults on urban and regional
planning and also is a communication and engagement entity. Elton consulting
has been with the project from its beginning and has worked on consulting with
the community. The communicative planning that Elton Consulting has done for
the project has been creating a project website, facilitating stakeholder
workshops, creating documents for the project and also dealing with community
enquiries for the project (Googong, 2011). All of these are great communicative
planning techniques, but for this project there does seem to be a lack of
actual two way communication between the consulting team and the community
participants. Therefore there has been arenas and forums of conversation, but
less communication between stakeholders for ideas of the project. Consequently
this means that the Googong project has only followed the communicative
planning theory to a small extent. Reasons for this can be seen as the fact
that it is a new development in area where no people a living at the moment,
with closest urban residents being Queanbeyan and the suburb of Jerrabomberra.
Leading to less discussion needing to happen with the community. Though this is
a long term project and there needs to be continual conversation with the
public so they have an understanding of what is happening in the area.
On
other the hand the Kingston Foreshore found close to the civic centre and other
neighbouring communities would have to follow the communicative theory of
planning to be successful. Unlike Googong the plan of Kingston Foreshore has
come to fruition and is now a hub of community and residential activity. The
Kingston Foreshore communicative planning was run by the Kingston Foreshore
Development Authority (KFDA) until 2004 when it merged with Land Development
Authority (LDA). Although this has occurred community engagement has continued.
Many events were held in 2009 and these were a community briefing, a vision
workshop, community information displays and a planning workshop (ACT
Government, 2013). These forums and arenas for discussion helped to get the
community involved in the process of creating the Kingston Foreshore. Also
there has been earlier community engagement from the KFDA, where in 2000 a
community group called the Community Liaison Group (CLG) was created. Members
included local residents of the area and the Manuka Local Planning Advisory
Committee. The job of CLG was to be part of a participatory consultation of the
Kingston Foreshore (Kingston Foreshore, 2003). Although it was dissolved in
2003 it had put a lot of effort in contributing to the project as a whole. The
Kingston Foreshore therefore is a much better example of communicative planning
because people were involved in the project and actually got to have a
discourse with the developer and gave their own ideas for the project. Making
the project have a more community made feel than the Googong development. It is
necessary for the Kingston Foreshore development to do this because it is being
constructed in an already urbanised area and to have people on side for the
project it necessary for community support. Both of these examples show how
communicative planning is happening in present day Canberra.
The city of Canberra as a planned city
provides an interesting study into the theories of contested cities and the
boundaries between the natural and built environments, and the concept of
Americanisation of Australian planning.
The application of these theories to Canberra have resulted in planning
issues such as predominately low density detached living choices, urban sprawl
and largely unsustainable planning practices.
The idea of contested cities explores the interplay between process and
form, suggesting that cities are the product or result of the continuous evolution
of process, which includes the issues surrounding the blurred boundaries
between the natural environment and the built physical form of the city
(Harvey, Jewson & MacGregor, 1997).
In Canberra, this idea is especially prevalent given that Griffin’s
Canberra was to be a city nestled into the landscape, that there was a fluidity
between physical structure and natural beauty.
This is evident in the land and water axis on which Canberra was built,
for example the links between Black Mountain and Mount Ainslie, and the link
from Mount Ainslie to Parliament House (Taylor, 1999). Griffin’s integration of natural and built,
has proven to be a continuing theme for contemporary Canberra, with nature
reserves located nearby most suburbs, providing a link to landscape and
cementing the idea that the city exists within the natural landscape, rather
than independently. However, this may
contribute to the destruction of some ecosystems. Since 1913 the city has expanded and new
methods of planning have been implemented to accommodate rising population pressures,
this contributes to the idea of a city as a process, that is required to
continue evolving in order to remain relevant and able to adequately fill the
needs of the people who exist within it.
The removal of boundaries between the natural and built environments
will continue to be a relevant theme for the planning of Canberra not only
presently, but into the future as well, with the Canberra Planning Strategy (2012) highlighting the need for
Canberra to preserve its landscape and emphasises that planning should always
keep landscape as a focal point of its ideas, never moving too far away from
Canberra as a bush city and capital (Environment and Sustainable Development
Directorate, 2012). This includes the Googong
development in New South Wales, which aims to deliver the benefits of city
living with its proximity to Canberra, with the beauty of living amongst nature
and the landscape. The idea of the
Googong development is to remove the barriers between nature and living, so
that they are no longer viewed as separate entities that are in competition
with each other, rather as two parts of a whole.
Canberra is also a good example of the
Americanisation of Australian planning, as can be seen through the City
Beautiful influence on the Griffin’s design, and also in the 1960’s and 1970’s
plans for Canberra in terms of utilising the automobile to the fullest
extent. This culminated in the adaption
of the ‘Y-Plan’, featuring town centres linked by arterial roads (Freestone,
2004). This is evident in the planning
of Civic as the major town centre linked with the other major hubs of Woden,
Belconnen, Tuggeranong and Gungahlin.
The development of infrastructure around cars as the primary mode of
transport is an American concept that has greatly impacted upon the way
planning in Canberra has been approached and implemented. This type of theory has resulted in
environmentally and potentially economically unsustainable practices, which
have caused issues in terms of planning.
Again Googong provides an interesting example of how the prevalence of
cars and independent transport shape the way in which planning is
approached. Major roads linking the
Googong township to both Canberra and Queanbeyan have encouraged this type of
sprawling development to arise.
The original planning concept of Canberra, as
conceived by the Griffin’s, still remains at the heart of planning principles
in the city. However, over time the
city’s planning has evolved and this has been reflected in the development of
Canberra in the post-World war period.
Influential theories include New Urbanism, communicative planning and
changes in the dynamics of a ‘contested city’.
Canberra as a planned city has progressed largely from the Griffin’s
plan, into a city dominated by, at times, conflicting theories on
planning. Whether this evolution of
Canberra stands as a testament to the urban philosophy of the Griffin’s remains
to be seen.
References:
ACT Government (2013, June 26). Planning and Land Authority - Kingston Centre master plan. Retrieved November 25, 2013,
from
http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/significant_projects/planning_studies/kingston_centre_planning_project
Birch, E. (2009). Modernism and Early
Urban Planning. The Urban and Regional
Design Reader, 58-66.
Environment and Sustainable
Development Directorate (2012). ACT Planning
Strategy: Planning for a sustainable city. Canberra.
Freestone, R. (2004). The
Americanisation of Australian Planning. Journal of Planning History, 3,
187-214.
Googong: planning for a new town - EltonConsulting News. (2011). Retrieved November 24,
2013, from
http://eltonconsulting.com.au/news/april-2011/googong-planning-for-a-new-town/
Harvey, D., Jewson, N., &
Macgregor, S. (1997). Contested Cities: Social Process and Spatial form. In Transforming Cities (pp. 231-237).
Healy, P. (1996). The Communicative
Turn in Planning Theory and it Implications for Spartial Strategy Formations. Planning and Design, 23, 217-234.
Kingston Foreshore (2003). Kingston Foreshore Development Authority: Annual Report 2002-2003.
LeGates, R., & Stout, F. (1998).
Modernism and early urban planning. In U. Birch (Ed.), The Urban and
Regional Planning Reader
Taylor, K. (1999). Picturesque
Visions of a Nation: Capital City In The Garden. The New
Federalist, 3(1),
74-80. Retrieved from University of Canberra E-Reserve
