A Metropolis for the 20^th Century (Canberra)

Grace Sinclair

The history of urban planning in Canberra, such as the debate over where the capital should be located and how it should be designed, reveal a lot of Australia’s place in the world and the major influential planning trends of the twentieth century. Ward (2002) and Freestone (1997) both provide accounts of the progression of planning in Canberra until the involvement of the city’s original designers, the Griffins, was terminated. However, it is also important to look more broadly at the history of the city to gauge to what degree it has been a success.

The ‘battle of the sites’ which took place post-Federation sought to establish a suitable site to build a national capital, revealing the priorities and identities of the then nascent Australian society. The constitution decreed that the capital should be “distant not less than one hundred miles from Sydney” while the parliament would “sit in Melbourne until it meets at the seat of Government” (Freestone, 1997, pp. 4), demonstrating that the major cities of the time were Melbourne and Sydney. It was therefore important that the seat of government sat on the Eastern seaboard, where it could maintain close links to the economic and cultural hubs of the nation. The desire for certain topographical features in the new capital also demonstrates that a unique Australian identity was emerging, as support grew for a ‘Bush Capital’ with strong links to its natural surroundings. This reflected the birth of an Australian identity strongly linked to a connection with the ‘outback’, and the beginning of divergence from British heritage (Brown, 2014). Finally, the many idealistic visions presented for the new capital demonstrated the presence of emerging aspirations in the young country. Ellem (2004) observed that Coulter’s illustration of a utopian ‘New Venice’ perfectly demonstrated the desire of Australians to build a vibrant democracy in the southern hemisphere, while also encapsulating how the fledgling nation still looked towards the northern hemisphere for influence, demonstrated by the European style of buildings in the imagined settlement.

LeIn the plans submitted for the new capital, it is also possible to observe the influence of major twentieth century planning trends on Australia, namely the Garden City and the City Beautiful movements. The Garden City Movement was conceived by Ebenezer Howard with his plan which pictured satellite towns in a circular configuration surrounded by green areas. Early plans for the capital submitted by architect John Sulman in 1909, based on his ‘spiderweb’ principle, featured a radial layout based around a central parliament house, demonstrating the influence of Howard’s original diagram. (Freestone, 1997) Many other early proposals, like Alexander Oliver’s radial plan, also mimicked this design, demonstrating the strength of the Garden City movement (Freestone, 1986).

Figure 1: The Griffins’ design for the Capitol Building. Source: http://www.peo.gov.au/uploads/peo/images/image-library/img-b9a20de25df2884c4834e9d52f3bf6a2.jpg   

Ultimately, the plan which won the 1911 design competition was designed by Marion Mahony and Walter Burley Griffin, who were proponents of the City Beautiful movement. The City Beautiful movement sought to enshrine the city as a civic centre, by featuring wide avenues and grand monuments to inspire civic pride. The trend was particularly popular in America where, in Chicago in 1893, the City Beautiful model had been perfectly epitomised in the ‘White City’, created for the World’s Fair, which Chicagoan Walter Burley Griffin saw and was strongly influenced by (Ellem, 2004).  This can be seen in the Griffins’ plans for Canberra in the inclusion of large, diagonal main avenues, as well as in their original design for the Capitol building, which was a monumental and awe-inspiring design.

Both Ward and Freestone conclude their observations on the history of urban planning in Canberra by foreshadowing the modifications which would be made to the “grand ideas” (Freestone, pp.31) of the Griffins’ original design. These observations are made with a tone that is particularly critical of Australian governance and town planners, who worked in a climate described by Ward (2002) as “time-lagged” (pp75) and who were purportedly undeserving of the Griffins’ “masterpiece” (pp75) which they would go on to corrupt. Certainly, the failure to renew the contracts of the Griffins, severing their involvement in the city’s construction, resulted in many alterations to their original plan. As John Sulman replaced them, the influence of the Garden City movement came to the fore and Canberra was ultimately not constructed in the style of a pure City Beautiful model. The Griffins had no involvement in designing buildings and so emphasis shifted to creating “cottages…mostly single storey” and “simple, pleasing but unpretentious buildings” (Freestone, 1986, pp.14), which were more affordable but also less grand than the awe-inspiring buildings proposed by the City Beautiful movement. Similarly, the Griffins’ residential subdivisions were abandoned, more green areas added, and street corners rounded to greater reflect a Garden City style (Freestone , 1986).

Figure 2: View from the summit of Mount Ainslie, Canberra, 1911 (as originally imagined by Marion Mahony). Source: http://www.jeffreeskewes.com/awards/marion.jpg 

Figure 3: View from Mount Ainslie today. Source: http://www.weekendnotes.com/im/005/04/canberra-from-mount-ainslie-lookout-11.jpg

However, it would perhaps not be justified to characterise these compromises as the result of a backwardness or “parsimony” (Freestone, 1997, pp.31) unique to Australian town planning. Ward (2002) himself notes that many attempts at building the City Beautiful model were compromised in other cities, including Chicago, due to uncertainty about the effectiveness of the design and concerns about cost. Ellem (2004) observes that while Canberra contains compromises in its design, it “remains distinct as the most fully realized, large-scale version of City Beautiful design.” (pp.119). Many critical characteristics of the original design were largely preserved, including the essential layout of the city centre, the grand boulevards and the height restriction on buildings. As Brown (2014) observes, the Griffins’ vision for the city is still very much visible in modern Canberra.

While Ward and Freestone’s evaluation of the history of town planning in Canberra stops at the dismissal of the Griffins, the city’s success should also be evaluated in broader terms that take into account a longer period of town planning and the quality of living that was ultimately achieved in the capital. 2014 OECD rankings showed that Canberra rated highly across housing, environment, civic engagement and safety to be the top ranked region in terms of wellbeing (Riordan, 2014). Therefore, despite its compromises in its ambitious design, Canberra can be viewed as a uniquely realised vision of the City Beautiful that today delivers high quality of life to its inhabitants.

References

Brown, N. (2914). A History of Canberra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                 

Ellem, C. (2004, August). No little plans: Canberra, Via Chicago, Washington DC, The Philippines, and onwards. Thesis Eleven, 123(1), pp. 106-122.

Freestone, R. (1986, November). Canberra as a Garden city 1901 - 1930. Journal of Australian Studies, 10(19), pp. 3-20.

Freestone, R. (1997). The Federal Capital of Australia: A Virtual Planning History. Canberra: Urban Research Program.

Riordan, P. (2014, October 7). Canberra named best place in the world... again. The Canberra Times.

Ward, S. V. (2002). The Emergence of Modern Planning. In J. Chichester, Planning the Twentieth Century. Wiley.