Workshop Report: Planning theories and Canberra as a Planned City

            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 19^th 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 100^th 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