seeing as it is extremely unlikely that i will be conducting a site visit anytime soon, or even know anything about Canberra i decided to do a quick internet search.
One of the essential aspects of Canberra’s plan focuses on land use, which was designed to address the problems with national capital use, the employment centres, towns, and open spaces (Tomorrow’s Canberra, 1970). In terms of national capital use, it was suggested that the Parliamentary triangle, which could be the symbol of capital city, should be set up on the southern side of Lake Burley Griffin (Tomorrow’s Canberra, 1970); the employment centres, which was designed to relieve the transportation pressures of central areas, should continue being developed in the residential districts (Tomorrow’s Canberra, 1970); for three towns, the original Inner Canberra, Woden-Weston Creek to the south-west Inner Canberra, and Belconnen to the north-west Inner Canberra, residential areas draw most of the attentions and they were looked as the major land use areas, and for creating more liveable societies, shopping centres, schools and road systems would be specially developed, and rental densities would be limited (Tomorrow’s Canberra, 1970); the major land uses in the open spaces were broad-acre uses, hill and forest areas, major recreational space and rural land (Tomorrow’s Canberra, 1970). Broad-acre uses are the uses of the large outside areas (Tomorrow’s Canberra, 1970). Though A.C.T restrains these areas from over-expanding, the city’s need for variety requires the suitable use of these areas (Tomorrow’s Canberra, 1970). An additional aspect of land uses is the recreational space. Since increasingly citizens of Canberra are now pursuing exciting sports, which requires large amount of money, the use of these areas should be increased (Tomorrow’s Canberra, 1970).
Due to the dependency of the existing two-lane highways, the traffic pressure was increasingly heavy, so the adjustment of transportation became an essential part in 1970-1980’s plan (Tomorrow’s Canberra, 1970). The most important aspect is the need of developing various freeway routes to link the residential districts (Tomorrow’s Canberra, 1970). Therefore, the public transportation-arterial road, which was prepared to be built and the arms of Y plan, would be the main access between towns, and parkways, which were surrounding the towns, would became the major elements for single town (National Capital Development Commission, 1975). Moreover, airport terminal and parking were another two crucial aspects (Tomorrow’s Canberra, 1970). The Morshead Drive and rail terminal off Wentworth Avenue would continue to be treated as the significant elements, while a new design of railway, which would be more direct from Yass via Majura Valley, was defined as the future major airport terminal (Tomorrow’s Canberra, 1970). However, due to the influence of Griffin’s plan for Canberra, which designed the city and Capital Hill as the centre of traffic system, the development of transportation has a number of limitations, which should be further discussed (Tomorrow’s Canberra, 1970).
Utilising and capturing the picturesque of the landscape was essential to the success of the Griffins’ design and was achieved by integrating the territory’s topography into their design rather than designing to avoid it. An example of this is the Molonglo valley which was utilised as a position for an artificial, grand central lake which satisfied part of the design criteria (
Lake Burley Griffin). With respect to capturing the picturesque, the Griffin’s lake centrepiece was a selling point of their design. It is likely that the Griffins were familiar with, and influenced by, the work of fellow Chicagoan
Daniel Burnham whose 1909 Plan of Chicago, also known as the
Burnham Plan, which focussed on reclaiming and improving the Chicago’s lakefront for public enjoyment.
Another significant design point was that the city itself was nestled in between Mount Ainslie and Mount Bimberi and used their collective picturesque amenity as visual foci for the street layout and to convey civic power. Hence, the Griffins aligned democracy with the most powerful force of all: nature. Consequentially, given it was so severely overshadowed, the traditional methodology of using grand architecture to convey power was rendered less significant. This approach was strongly influenced by Pierre Charles L’Enfant’s 1792 design for Washington, DC. L’Enfant’s design included wide, tree-lined avenues that would visually connect significant topographical sites over the city. He therefore drew on the picturesque by ensuring views of the landscape and notably the wilderness of the unchartered west, which beckoned “[American] democracy’s westward expansion.”.
[10]The Griffins’ also capitalised on an emerging theme within the new colony which recognised the bush, referring to the country’s extensive native vegetation, as a national identity. Critical to the success of the Griffins’ design was their use of gold and sepia which contrasted other entries that depicted a lush, green capital. The Griffins’ approach better represented Australia’s unique conditions and, more importantly, celebrated them.
Finally, Washington, DC also offered another influence for the Griffins with respect to Burnham et al’s 1902
McMillan Plan for the city. Although the Griffins were predominantly influenced by pre-modern planning, notably the L’Enfant’s inspired emphasis on the picturesque, they achieved this emphasis through well-orchestrated geometric street organisation representative of the contemporary
City Beautiful movement. The movement was strongly implemented in the McMillan Plan which in turn inspired Canberra’s grand axes, views, and effective central focal point.
i expect that if i want to change alot of Griffin's design, i'm going to need to be able to justify it.
Current Statistics related to Canberra and the Government:
- 1911: Population of the Australian Capital Territory: 1,714
- 1930: Population 9,000
- 1945: Population 13,000
- 1957: Population 39,000
- 1960: Population 50,000
- 1966: Population 96,000
- 1971: Population 146,000
- 1976: Population 203,100
- 1983: Population 235,000
- 1988: Population 270,000
- 2000: Population 311,000
Although it is the capital city of the nation, Canberra is relatively small. The general consensus is that the city is boring, there is nothing there and it's difficult to get around.
i have found some data related to Canberra and the lifestyle of its inhabitants. not sure how useful it will be, but it is interesting to look at.
The quick stats give information on Canberra in relation to living, working, playing and learning.
for eg. 92% of the population is over 65 years old! and Canberra is above average in the amount of cultural institutions it offers (art galleries, movie theatres etc)
coming back to the general consensus that Canberra is boring, and the course statement that it should be 'the place to be'
i researched how Canberra compares to other Australian cities in the tourism industry.
Canberra is ranked the 10th most visited city by international visitors and the 11th most visited by domestic travellers.
and finally, seeing as the assignment revolves around Parliament, and Parliament is the thing that Canberra is the most associated with, a public opinion poll paper regarding the australian government was found.
it's also very interesting, for instance, the majority of Australians believe the government is only for a few big groups and not for each individual, and do not believe the government can be trusted.
i'm not sure how this information will be relevant yet, but i believe it'll help sway some design decisions later on.
...Canberra isn't as boring as everyone says it is.
