An Essay By Elizabeth Farrelly

An Essay By Elizabeth Farrelly


You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.


Canberra has always been a city of transformation. Of course, all cities experience constant change but

in Canberra, as a designed capital, this process is both unusually conscious and unusually apparent.

Right now, Canberra is changing dramatically - from the ultimate in low-rise, low-density non-city to

high-rise and relatively high density. For us, as Australians, this poses a question. Is this the change we

would choose for our Federal capital? And if not, what?

Personally, I’ve always had a soft spot for Canberra. This is partly the Sydneysider’s classic idea of

Canberra - so easy to move around and so blessed with fine institutions - is a good place for a fun

weekend. It’s partly a lifetime city—lover’s fascination with one of the world’s few planned cities, right

here on our doorstep. And it’s partly that Canberra is, in many ways, almost the direct inverse of


Where Sydney is cramped and crooked, Canberra is open and ordered. Where Sydney is lumpy, coastal

and sub-tropical, Canberra is flat, dry, continental and breezy. Where Sydney’s DNA descends directly

from old London, Canberra is wholly modern. Where Sydney’s origins were punitive and fearful,

Canberra’s were boldly optimistic.

To remodel a swathe of bush and farmland into a created city was audacious; even more daring was to

conceive of that city as a bush capital. For all these reasons, Canberra is an exemplar and an object of

fascination. It is also subject to relentless transformation.

Even before construction began in the 50s, when the site held little more than a sweet stone church and

some dry paddocks, Canberra had undergone at least one transformation. The highly textured City

Beautiful imagined by the Griffins in 1913 had already morphed into the more macho and speedobsessed

dreaming of the mid-century traffic-engineer.

These days, many people yearn to transform Canberra again, turning that 1950s Pleasantville into an

edgy and bustling 21 st century capital. These are transformations are abstract, conceptually led.

Meanwhile, though, on the ground - and regardless of whatever dreams we might have - real-life

Canberra is being moulded by real-life pressures of money and politics into a city of towers.

Out of all this, questions arise. What kind of city are we making, here? Does this take us nearer – either

to the Griffins’ original intentions or to our dream of a bustling, truly urban Canberra – or further

away? To paraphrase Tom Waits, we all wanna know how’s it going to end.

It is now broadly accepted that Canberra as-built in the mid-century differed almost diametrically from

the Griffins’ 1913 design; in attitude, ideology, form and texture.

Where the Griffins proposed low-rise but continuous urban form, reality delivered separate bungalows

and pavilions. Where the Griffins prioritised public transport and a sense of urban community, midcentury

Canberra focused exclusively on the car, turning villages into suburbs, suburbs into far-flung

satellites, streets into malls and roads into highways. This change, driven by two appalling world wars,

transformed the crocheted texture of the Griffin plan - a classic Arts and Crafts texture like so many

hand-worked doilies stitched together - into a coarser, cruder pattern of motorway-linked suburban

centres. This shift was due in part to the militarism of a world traumatised by war and, not unrelated

the mix of masculinism, scientism and instrumentalism that became known as modernity.


Already, after WWI, these influences were evident. As Berlin-based Professor of Planning History Karl

Fischer notes in his seminal history of Canberra 1 , the increased civic importance attached to military

rank became quickly apparent. In a sorry tale that seems now like a harbinger of the Sydney Opera

House tale, ex-WWI officers would consistently mock Griffin and disparage his ideas. The Sulman

Committee, emboldened by this philosophical shift, then set about reducing the Griffins’ plan. With

ruthless efficiency they cut the City Beautiful town centre down to a more modest practicality and

transformed its residential hinterland from a low-rise but urban concept to a conventional garden


Twenty years later, when construction recommenced after WWII, the influence of both militarism and

instrumentalism (in the form of cost-cutting and traffic engineering) became even more pronounced.

Streets that had been envisioned as dense but low-rise local high streets, busy with pedestrian life and

public transit, were transformed into four and six-lane vehicular highways. The surrounding residential

areas became even more dispersed, forming a suburban diaspora of far-flung satellite towns islanded by

remnant “bush” and linked by high-speed roads.

Proposals to make public service positions and land releases exclusive to ex-servicemen increased the

military’s influence throughout the Federal capital. Not surprisingly, this militarism has continued, over

ensuing decades, to shape the plan in tangible ways. The site at the bottom of Mt Ainslie that the

Griffins had designated “casino” – meaning a lively Tivoli-esque pleasure garden - became the War

Memorial. Leading to it, the Griffins’ great green boulevard became a red marching-ground aligning the

War Memorial with the parliament itself. And the third, eastern point of the Federal triangle – which

the Griffins designed “market centre” – became instead the military base of Duntroon.

Clearly, then, the Canberra we have is not the Canberra the Griffins intended, but rather the Canberra

preferred by a cut-and-paste committee-based administration dominated by traffic engineers and military

men. But the question remains. What should happen next? What city form will best deliver the desired

urban intensity without destroying what is good about Canberra? Will the ACT government’s current

headlong push for high-rise development help that transformation or hinder it?

Already much has changed. At first, some fifteen years ago, this seemed welcome. When New Acton

appeared, with its signature combination of funky high-rise and narrow coffee-lanes, it seemed just what

the doctor ordered. Suddenly, thanks to Melbourne architects Fender Katsalidas, Canberra had

moments of explorability. It had narrow walkable lanes and Melbourne-type cafes, nooks and crannies,

streets to be in, not just rampage through. Next off the rank, Kingston Foreshore also brought welcome

change. Large but low-rise, it brought walkable streets and paths, interesting cafes and bars, a new

relationship with the water.

These two neighbourhoods seemed to continue what Civic and Manuka had begun, decades earlier.

Braddon, with its busy brunch strip, started to do something similar at heights somewhat between

NewActon’s 17 storeys and Kingston’s 2-4. Of course, you still had to drive on motorways between these

pockets of civilisation but, pockets there were. This push to urban density, somewhat along Griffin

lines, was further reinforced by the construction of the North Canberra light rail from Gungahlin to

Civic (and now funded for Stage 2, across the lake to Woden).

In parallel, though, a number of less enchanting developments occurred, including the appalling mallsprawl

at Majura Park. This vast big-box shopping centre – which claims to be “conveniently located at

the airport” but still entails a significant drive from the shops to plane and even, in fact, between the


K.F. Fischer, Canberra: Myths and Models; forces at work in the formation of the Australian capital (Institute

of Asian Affairs, Hamburg) 1984


shops (the Bunnings to the Woollies is half a kilometre) – entrenches automobile dependence and

directly contradicts all moves towards densification.

The militarism, too, continues apace – with the post 9/11 repositioning of the immense ASIO building

on Parkes Drive, the strewing of Anzac Parade with ever more war-sculptures (Tobruk, Korea, Vietnam)

and the half-billion-dollar knockdown-rebuild of the Denton Corker Marshall War Memorial museum,

currently proposed.

A small but significant detail, also noted by Prof Fischer, is the extraordinary exercise in what can only

be called official fraud 2 that saw the NCA commission and hang a foyer tapestry that, although

designed by architect Daryl Jackson, purports to be the Griffin plan. And so it is, identical – excepting

one key alteration. The eastern point of the Federal triangle has been changed from “market”, as the

Griffins had it, to “military.” There is no acknowledgement of this amendment and the lettering is

carefully selected to seem original.

A further factor was the 1988 withdrawal by the Federal government from funding responsibility for

much of the ACT. This has meant that the light rail is funded by “value capture” from selling off public

land – in particular the sites of often well-designed but badly maintained public housing - on

Northbourne Avenue and elsewhere. Two ill effects have resulted. First, public tenants have been exiled

to the back of beyond, far beyond the reach of services or decent public transport. And second,

Northbourne Avenue, the city’s primary approach road, with a new crop of high-rise buildings that are

neither blocks nor towers, but something in between like bungalows grown tall.

You might wonder what is wrong with this. If sprawl is the problem, surely density is the answer? Well

no. Density alone is not enough.

Of all the core urban qualities that Canberra lacks – surprise, spatial drama, mystery – the key is the

capacity to delight and seduce the pedestrian. Pedestrians engage with cities in a slow and intimate

manner that enhances curiosity and engagement and in turn encourages in the city’s fabric a textured

quality I have called pokability. This is a word that does not exist, but should, because it is the key

quality of cities – Rome, Venice, London – that we love to walk around, just for the sake of it.

This is all about scale and shape at ground level – the bumps and crevices, innies and outies, that offer

glimpses and enticement to the pedestrian without every quite satisfying the curiosity. It involves streets

that are sufficiently narrow and comfortable, but also interesting and enriching, to make the pedestrian

want to dwell, to explore, to poke about. It requires comfort. A little sunshine, not too much wind, a

deal of intimacy and visual and spatial stimulus. Shops, laneways, cafes, galleries – small things that

reward the spirit of exploration.

True, New Acton, Braddon and Kingston Foreshore have a little of this. Civic has the odd underground

bar. But there’s almost nowhere else. Kingston is low rise and largely pedestrianised. Acton is high rise,

but the streets are carefully crooked and narrow; rooms as much as thoroughfares. What is happening

elsewhere has none of these qualities. No effort is made to enrich pedestrian experience or choreograph

it in interesting ways. Almost everything is evident and predictable. Streets have little definition and

therefore no sense of containment, no drama, no surprise. Much of Canberra’s fine mid-century

architecture is being destroyed for an urban fabric that still offers no real sense of city.

What can be done?



The will to transform Canberra offers a huge opportunity not only for developer and government profit

but also to enrich the city experientially. Public transport is key. In particular, the light rail should be

expanded as a matter of urgency to form a genuine network. Government needs to take hold of the

process, conceptualising Canberra as a series of villages centred on each stop, and encouraging medium

density, medium-rise development that creates lovable urban space.

There are many charming models from which to choose. From two-storeyed terrace and town houses

like Sydney’s inner precincts, to six and eight storeyed garden-centred apartment buildings on the

pattern, say, of London’s Cadogan Square or the ten storey apartment buildings of early 20 th century

Kings Cross. All these define and furnish good civic streets.

It’s not difficult, but it requires government to step up. Developers make buildings but have no interest

in the spaces so defined. Yet these spaces shape our civic lives. Governments must reclaim the

development process. They must recognise the pedestrian experience as primary and require buildings

to shape themselves in order to enhance it.

Then, and only then, might Canberra become a leader, not a laggard, in the epoch-defining challenge to

create global cities that we can inhabit as if they’re localised, twenty-minute walking villages. This is the

good city’s ultimate transformation: to engender in the small human biped that transformative magic

we call love.

© Elizabeth Farrelly 2021


Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!