Canberra

peter_j

Christopher Vernon wrote recently in the Canberra Times, and in Landscape Architecture Australia, that there has been some differences of opinion following a recent review of the Griffin and Mahoney city plan. The National Capital Authority's Griffin Legacy Project (2004) surveys the history of the plan, and at its end makes recommendations on how the plan might be built upon. The document has since been swallowed into the city's urban design framework.

Consuming nearly a quarter of the document's content, the final section unveils and advocates a sweeping array of new urban design, "Propositions and Strategic Initiatives", for the capital. Although somewhat camouflaged by such benign terms as "extension" and "strategy", this collection of design proposals in reality amounts to a large-scale real estate development plan....

That the NCA here promoted its own design vision as effectively encapsulating what Griffin might have done would attract close public scrutiny and eventually lead to controversy.

So what is the NCA advocating? According to Vernon:

In short, if these propositions were to be implemented, then central Canberra's "suburban" character, albeit distinctive in itself, would be overcome, if not eliminated, by extensive high-density urban infill.

It seems that Canberra is to be developed, at some profit, into a 'proper' city, a denser city. A lot of Australians might think this is a good thing, maybe Griffin & Mahoney would too, as the city is hard to understand as an urban place - it's flat, spread out, is seen as a bit dull (hard to avoid with all those pollies), and is dependent on cars.

To this Vernon says, "Yet to be considered is the possibility that Canberra just might be the nation's "most Australian" city, one expressive of an unconventional and decidedly antipodean urbanism."

CANBERRA TIMES 23.02.07

GRIFFIN LEGACY

FBE Rocks

canberra is sub-urban full stop. the 'city' is like a local mall