Canberra and the Urban Social Process
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Ryan,
Sarad Chalise and Tim Mahoney
|
|
26/11/2012
|
|
|
Canberra can be defined as a city of compromise, designed by
an idealist, built by pragmatics and declared out-dated before the paint had
finished drying. Now, in the 21st century, Australian planners are
once again looking to the past for inspiration for Canberra’s future. Not all
planning theory can be applied to Canberra, the city has never suffered
overcrowding, pollution or lack of purpose, but perhaps it has lacked in identity.
What follows is a treatise on Canberra’s relation to seminal planning theories
throughout the last century. The gestation of the city as a place people can be
healthy and free through to the impact of technology and social revolution
before talking about Canberra’s future in the world. Canberra is a young city
and with a strong foundational understanding of its origins and development the
planners of tomorrow can shape it into not just a capitol we can be proud of
but a truly global city serving as an inspiration to others around the world.
Urban Planning is a technical and political process
concerned with the control of the use of land and design of the urban environment
which includes the development of settlements, communities, sanitation,
transportation, infrastructure etc. In the developed countries of Western
Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, urban planning process and
architecture have gone through various paradigm shifts in the last 200 years.
Firstly there were the industrialized cities of the 19th century,
where development was largely controlled by businesses and elites. But in the
early stage of the 20th century, the movement began to provide for
citizens, especially factory workers, with healthier environments through various
proposals. In the mid-20th century, the citizen participation
movement started to enable people to participate in planning, to enable power
holders to educate participants and also allow citizens to have their say in
decision making as well as implement citizen controls on planning process
(Arnstein, 1969).
There are many planning theories and processes which have
influenced at various stages of planning history, but the Americanisation of
Australian planning is one of the most important theories to influence urban
planning theory in Australia. America has been central to the 20th
century world sweeping process in the exercise of profound economic, military,
ideological diplomatic, bureaucratic and cultural power. Even though Australia is
a British colony, they have been adapting American ideas for more than a
century, reflecting close connections, economically, politically and
culturally. American planning has touched across broader aspects of the built
environment, especially architectural design and the auto mobilization of
everyday life in Australia (Freestone, 2004).
Since the arrival of the American fleet in Sydney harbour in
1908, the importance of American- Australian political-military alliance has
been profound. For all their commonality as new settler societies, Australia
and America have crafted quite distinct national discourses, the former aware
of its peripheral place in the world and later far more certain and confident
of its centrality as a world power (Spillman, 1997). American ideas have been
demonstrably assimilated into Australian Planning theory, ideology and practice
over an extended period. One of the examples is improvement in physical form
and public infrastructure and beautification of the city of Sydney and its
suburbs in 1909. The recent example was designing of modern city of Canberra by
American architecture.
Canberra is the capital city of Australia. It is
Australian’s largest inland city and the eight largest city overall. The site
of Canberra was selected for the location of the nation’s capital in 1908 and
since then it is a laboratory of 20th and 21st century planning and urban
design. The site for building Canberra city was selected by American architectures
Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahoney Griffin. The city was heavily
influenced by the garden city movement and incorporates significant areas of
natural vegetation. Since the original city beautiful design, Canberra’s
planning and design has been progressively updated, building on past plans with
whatever the current practice was at the time (Australian Capital Territory,
2011). Canberra urban design is similar to the United States capital city
Washington DC, one of the most apparent reasons is Canberra was designed by an
American architect. The evident of similarity between Washington DC and
Canberra are featured broad streets and avenues radiating out from rectangles,
providing room for open space and landscaping.
The urban areas of Canberra are organized into hierarchy of
districts, town centres, group centres, local suburbs as well as other
industrial areas and villages. The Canberra central district is substantially
based on Walter Burley Griffins designs. Within the central area of the city
near Lake Burley Griffin, major roads follow a wheel and spoke- pattern rather
than a grid. The development of different suburbs has helped to develop the
different communities. Though the Canberra has influenced by Americanisation of
Australian planning, it is also influenced by modernism and early planning
because of friendly and peaceful environment in Canberra created by garden city
and city beautiful movement.
There have been many substantial issues that have arisen
from Richard LeGrates Modernism and Early Urban Planning theories. These
largely focus around the modernism of planning and how early urban planning
movements have evolved over the past two centuries through key works including
the Garden City Movement, City Beautiful and Park's movement. All of these
movements apply to planning practices in Canberra as aspects from each were
used in crafting the nation's capital as a planned city, particularly the Garden
City Movement and Park's movement. These
have resulted in Canberra becoming an interconnected location of large open
areas and extensive implementation of outdoor recreation areas including parks
and walks around Lake Ginninderra and Lake Burley Griffin.
Many of these modernism planning movements were as a result of the world’s industrial revolution and the effects it had on cities and large urban areas. This was a period of time when people were moving from rural areas to city living in order to give themselves better life opportunities through working in factories which quickly became the scene of extremely horrific health standards. Urbanisation remains a key component of Canberra as a planned city today as increasing amounts of people seek inner city living, although instead of moving for employment movements are becoming increasingly based around better access to services such as health care professionals, social services, transport and recreation.
Modernism planning movements created a massive increase in factory workers leading to residential and urban areas becoming areas of disease and poverty stricken slums. It was these consequences that sparked early urban planners into action in attempts to drastically improve the image of cities and increase standards of living through the Garden and City Beautiful movements.
The key to the Garden City movement was to eliminate congestion and keep large areas of open country side accessible. In Ebenezer Howard’s original plan of the Garden City, it would consist of 6000 acres, with a township of 1000 acres surrounded by a greenbelt of 5000 acres, which would be able to support a total population of 32,000 (Howard, 1902). Designing a city that would draw people away from the dirty slums seen in the early 1900's of London would also include several municipal services and infrastructure, this included amenities, parks, public gardens and asylums.
Many of these modernism planning movements were as a result of the world’s industrial revolution and the effects it had on cities and large urban areas. This was a period of time when people were moving from rural areas to city living in order to give themselves better life opportunities through working in factories which quickly became the scene of extremely horrific health standards. Urbanisation remains a key component of Canberra as a planned city today as increasing amounts of people seek inner city living, although instead of moving for employment movements are becoming increasingly based around better access to services such as health care professionals, social services, transport and recreation.
Modernism planning movements created a massive increase in factory workers leading to residential and urban areas becoming areas of disease and poverty stricken slums. It was these consequences that sparked early urban planners into action in attempts to drastically improve the image of cities and increase standards of living through the Garden and City Beautiful movements.
The key to the Garden City movement was to eliminate congestion and keep large areas of open country side accessible. In Ebenezer Howard’s original plan of the Garden City, it would consist of 6000 acres, with a township of 1000 acres surrounded by a greenbelt of 5000 acres, which would be able to support a total population of 32,000 (Howard, 1902). Designing a city that would draw people away from the dirty slums seen in the early 1900's of London would also include several municipal services and infrastructure, this included amenities, parks, public gardens and asylums.
The Garden City
movement can be seen as one of the earliest attempts by planners to integrate
aspects of sustainability into urban design. The Garden City movement revolved
around a plan that had a view of integrating both urban and rural ideals with
relatively small populations that would be surrounded by peaceful settings of
farmland and countryside.
These large urban
areas would be fully self-reliant, equipped with public recreation areas,
streets and neighbourhoods lined with trees, healthcare facilities and of
course parks. These large urban areas would also be interconnected to nearby
cities through infrastructure such as rail and boats.
The City Beautiful and
the ideals behind its planning are seen throughout Canberra today and are a
fine example of past planning theories impact on modern planning. The designs
were based on creating a sense of power and grandeur when buildings were being
created. The designs used can be seen throughout Canberra's inner city
buildings and are a classic example of planning ideas from the City Beautiful time frame.
Theories and plans such as the Garden City and City
Beautiful movement have since been adopted into modernist planning, with
Canberra being a good example of the movements spoken about previously.
Although despite the evolution of cars it can be seen that Canberra is still able
to maintain its position as a Garden City.
This is seen in particular through the suburbs of Belconnen,
Bruce and Woden where examples of public
parks, walkways and houses are lined with trees that still greet people as they
go about their day to day life. This then creates a peaceful atmosphere that
allows people to enjoy the lifestyle of a largely populated urban area whilst
still being placed in a rural setting.
Despite the friendly and peaceful atmosphere that the Garden
City and City Beautiful movements create these also bring to light a number of
issues in terms of Canberra as a planned city. Through the inevitable movements
of technology and increased use of cars the values set in place are slowly
being degraded and almost forgotten.
One of the issues faced by Canberra as a planned city is
keeping large open public spaces whilst still maintaining areas for housing
development and space for expansion of public services. Although it is important to integrate urban
and rural aspects in to the nation's capital, in order for sustainable planning
into the future these views will need to be altered as the growing needs of an
expanding population have to be met. Future planning and expansion may see the
demise of current large open areas and parks to pave way for businesses and an
increase in density of housing.
Many planning theorists have argued throughout the years
that a planner has a responsibility to the people. A sort of review process, by
which plans may be tried and tested, and those found wanting discarded. David
Harvey argues that a planner is not simply a designer of the built environment,
nor is he a tool for developers and politicians to wield in sculpting
demographics, environment and industry. Rather, each planner must understand
that a connection exists between all aspects of planning, that he/she has a
responsibility to the residents and visitors to the urban space and enjoys a
great deal of power in how individuals and collectives live their lives and
such power must be tempered with care. Ultimately the planner controls who has
access, who prospers and who is marginalised. Canberra is no exception, a city
begging for the understanding brought forth from the idea that a city is not a
location, not a collection of buildings, but an organism living, breathing and
growing.
Canberra is a city born of competition, built as the epitome
of the Garden City and City Beautiful movements, raised amid the post-war boon
of private transport and economic surplus, Canberra now finds itself a city
racked by indecision. While debates move back and forth about Canberra’s future,
the population and its needs continue to grow. While proposals are tabled and
then shelved again, developers are continuing to build in an effort to meet
demand. And as Canberra is treated as a playground or test bed for the ‘real’
cities of Sydney and Melbourne she becomes bloated by failed experiments and
out-dated ideas. Instead of treated as an urban form Canberra is simply a place
in the mould of the 1950’s with trends tacked on at the edges.
The concept of cities as processes is not a new one, David
Harvey speaks about cities and the need to see them as more than boxes in which
things happen, but rather that cities and processes define one another and the
space/time around them, “…space and time
do not exist outside of process: process defines space/time.”(Harvey, 1997).
This Einsteinium idea, that all cities must be fluid, allows the urban space to
be considered not just for our generation or for the one to follow, but as
ever-evolving, ever-changing organisms that exist in the form most suited for
the current iteration only to shed its skin ready to face the challenges of the
future.
While these ideas have far reaching consequences for all
aspects of a city how can we use this in the context of Canberra? Walter Burley
Griffon, the planner considered by so many to be either a saint or sinner for
his work cannot be ignored, but it is important to remember his work is in the
past and we must not let it constrain our desire and imagination for Canberra’s
future. Planners should never feel constrained by a sense of now, dates like
2020 or 2050 are meaningless numbers chosen more for their marketability rather
than any real predictions of important events. The Canberra Plan is designed to
“…guide the development of the Territory
over the coming generation.”(ACTPLA, 2007) a goal
that while worthy, is extremely short-sighted. The planner should instead begin
to explore the idea that any plan must adapt according to the needs of the city
and cease to focus on the current needs at the expense of the future. As areas
like Weston Creek flounder the official line is to inject new life, usually
through money, as though a city is a mould and people simply the filling. (Canberra
Times, 2012) Any plan for Canberra should not just include maps of today, or
even maps of tomorrow, but rather a four dimensional journey through the life
of a living, evolving creature designed to adapt and thrive regardless of any
challenges it may face. Instead of people being the stuffing, they must be
treated as the life blood.
This treatment of Canberra as an organism rather than a
place helps to eliminate another source of friction, the environmental one. While
many argue for the improvement of our cities from an ecological perspective,
any others tell of a need to limit the impact of mankind on the world, both
suffer from a misunderstanding of what a city is. As stated by David Harvey “When does the built, constructed
environment end and ‘the natural environment’ begin? Go and look in a field of
wheat and say where nature begins and society ends. You can’t do it.”
(Harvey, 1997) this attitude, while familiar, is incorrect. Canberra is not an
imposition placed upon a virgin landscape, nor is it simply the temporary home
of few people, rather it is, and must be treated as, an interconnected form
that moves and changes through time. Whether or not you consider the city, and
Canberra in particular, to be an invasive species or not, the urban form is
here to stay and the world must evolve with it.
These ideas of Canberra are not intended to provoke
revolution in the planning world, but rather to encourage the modern planner to
question the status quo. Any method of constructing a plan becomes out-dated as
soon as it is implemented but only through constant re-evaluation can the
planners of the world be ready to face tomorrow. The only constant in planning
seems to be the need to fix the issues created by the last generation’s
well-meaning input into the field. Perhaps the problem is not one of new
developments and problems, but rather the attitude planning has as being
forever constrained by the now. Surely it is better to be criticised for being
too ambitious rather than to be forever resigned to implementing temporary solutions.
References
Arnstein, S., 1969, A ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planner,
P240-243
Australian Capital Territory, 2011, an Urban Design Protocol for Australian Citizens, viewed on 25th
November http://www.urbandesign.gov.au/downloads/files/AustralianCapitalTerritory_Urban_Design_Factsheet.pdf
Freestone, R., 2004, the Americanisation of Australian
Planning, Journal of Australian Planning
Spillman, L., 1997, Nation
and Commemoration: Creating Nation Identities in the United States and
Australia, Cambridge University, Cambridge
Wendy, L. et all, 2006, Events
that Shaped Australia, New Holland p106
Howard, 1902, Garden
Cities of Tomorrow, Viewed 21/11/2012, http://archive.org/details/gardencitiestom00howagoog
David Harvey, 1997, Contested
Cities: Social Process and Spatial Form, p. 234
ACTPLA, 2007, The
Canberra Plan, Viewed 22/9/2012, http://apps.actpla.act.gov.au/spatialplan/1_future/1B_context/index.htm
Canberra Times, 2012, $45m
for new pool, oval at Weston Creek, Viewed 22/9/2012, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/45m-for-new-pool-oval-at-weston-creek-20120926-26k3v.html
David Harvey, 1997, Contested
Cities: Social Process and Spatial Form, p. 236
