Lisa Piquemal
N9535918
Australian Art, Architecture and Design ________________________________
ESSAY: THE GRIFFINS
QUT - Queensland University and Technology
24.03.2016
1/5
In 1901, Australia was composed of six independent colonies. The Commonwealth of Australia needed to build a new capital city: Canberra, half way between Melbourne, the former capital city, and Sydney (Canberra. National Archives, 2002). Griffin won the International competition in 1911 which was organized in order to design Canberra’s city plan. The main bias is the consideration of the landscape features contrary to most architects at that time and also improving Australian democracy. Canberra embodies the concept of Organic City employed by Griffin which results in ordering the city plan adapting to the site, “the natural environment” and functions, “the needs of people” as stated Reid (2002). Those concepts nutrited Griffin’s visions regarding the image of a Garden City and the desire of an Australian democracy. This essay will state the following argument: the evolution of Canberra is influenced by Griffin’s city plan which remains to preserve a national identity answering the utopian visions of the past such as democracy and garden city. This essay will afford three aspects which are the geometric adaptation to the site following the utopian vision of a Garden City, the functional character of Griffin’s city plan following the utopian vision of the Australian democracy and how Canberra conserves Griffin’s ideals affecting social values, ensuring the evolution of Canberra and its national democratic identity. Griffin’s plan of Canberra is inspired by the architect’s utopian vision of the Garden City’s concept which consequently influences the evolution of the city. The site is an essential feature for Griffins in the design of Canberra’s city plan. Firstly, Griffin’s design is conceived geometrically following the topography of the site engendering a sense of harmony in the way of planning nodes and streets as reported Reid (2002, p. 64). This is primordial because Griffin’s architecture respects the site and adapts to its characteristics enhancing the natural environment creating a sensitive feeling for the inhabitants and visitors. As stated Turnbull (1998, p.106), Griffin envisages to design a geometric plan determined by physical and visual axes according to the landscape of valleys, rivers and mountains which center is the lake surrounded by a functional organic triangle that we will discuss later on. A such relevant harmony between the city and the environment establishes a “monumental landscape”. This is evident because this demonstrates that Canberra’s plan is based on the topography but also transforms the landscape perception. The site is related party with the city’s evolution which relationship is described as transcendental ensuring Canberra’s identity. Griffin established relationships between the different activities of Canberra for the sake of democracy but this concept is controversial regarding the urban plan. The plan for the new capital by Griffin appears to be today disproportionate depending on his intention of creating a Garden City. According to the site, the architecture includes empty spaces in parks and green belts for example, creating separate and independent elements of the city opposed to the past democratic vision - which wasn’t the case as Griffin considered that the location of axes and buildings constituted an integral ensemble. (Vanags 2006). This is significant
2/5
because it demonstrates that the original Griffin’s plan lost his unity over time, partly because of some elements of the Garden City, resulting in a disconnection between the different parts of the city which works against the primary idea of democracy. Griffin programmed public transport axes such as tramway line to facilitate accessibility but this project didn’t achieve (Robinson 2007). It is meaningful as distribution is the main actual issue in Canberra according to the over scale. Griffin focuses on the Order of site resulting in an organic city that depends on the environmental elements inspired by the concept of Garden City ensuring a sensitive apprehension of the city. Nevertheless, integrating nature in the plan produces a system in which each center are distant from one to another, limiting accessibility and interconnection.
The Australian government elected Griffin as the architect of the new capital city for sharing a utopian vision of democracy. One of the main particularities of the city plan which responds to the national and functional identity of Canberra is its connected functional organization. Canberra’s urbanism following Griffins is represented by a connected system in which all the functions are related ensuring the utopian vision of a democratic Australian city. According to Turnbull (1998, p.106), Canberra’s plan is based on an organic functional triangle depending on the lake: the governmental and administrative activities are located South which is identified by the Capitole, the North is reserved to the inhabitants where take place the Market and the Civic center, and there are also many cultural institutions. This means that Griffins designed an organic triangle which represents the three main centers of Canberra in order to allocate functions with the government in one side and citizens in the other side. They are both related by the form but they are distinct by their use ensuring hierarchized activities. The symbol of Canberra is represented by the Parliament which building and location play an essential role for the Australian identity. By its concentric urban design, the place of the Australian Federation occupies its center enhanced by the Capitol Hill ensuring the national identity (Griffin’s Canberra - as it still might be 1977). Griffin exposes the Capitol Hill as the national symbol of Canberra in order to reinforce its democratic status geometrically and geographically in a larger scale answering the Government’s desire of a world distinction. Griffins initially attributed to the Capitol Building the image of the Australian influence with the Oriental world but it was diverted into the government place (Saunders, K. 1999). Following Griffin's’ plan for Canberra, the government appropriates itself the Capitol Building reinforcing its status but it affects the organic triangle’s primary vision which was founded for the people as well who consequently feel less involved in their city . Griffin’s ideals for a democratic Australian capital city are well applied considering the design of an organic triangle focusing on functional centers in which public buildings are accessible. Canberra is a well-organized city composed by different centers and districts providing hierarchized activities. Griffin was inspired by the concept of “form follows function” (Griffin, W. 2006). This is relevant in the designed city plan of Canberra that permits equal accessibility thanks to the triangle shape ensuring the democratic character of the city and its evolution. Nevertheless, Canberra developed a stronger national identity by 3/5
transferring the Government on the top of the Capitol Hill ensuring a democratic and national identity within a concentric plan.
Canberra following Griffins’ plan is evolving over time with the difficulty to anticipate the future of functional centers. While the population and activities are expanding in the suburbs, the three functional centers of Canberra become lifeless (Griffin’s Canberra - as it still might be 1977). It shows that the triangular city center of Canberra perceived by Griffin lacks activity due to a change of people’s occupations forming deserted areas - contrary to his ideal plan - ensuring a peripheral evolution of the city. In parallel, the inhabitants of Canberra are adapting to the plan and the urban evolution ensuring their participation to its future development. The social life of Canberra is not evident in Griffin’s project, people are imposed to live apart from the administrative part of the city so they appropriate public spaces by “activating” them while creating their proper identity Griffin’s p.222. The effect of the geometry in Griffin's’ plan imposes people to live decentralized and marginalized but they find new alternatives to use the spaces as their own ensuring the feeling of a national identity and their contribution to the evolution of the Australian capital city. As people are living outside the city, the social dimension of Canberra is therefore dealing with its geometric plan which development renders centers empty. The national identity is primary based on the functional organic triangle accompanied by a democratic thinking but in today’s context, the generation of Canberra occupies Griffin’s places and modifies them by their use and activities ensuring a new social national identity.
Griffin’s utopian visions for the plan of Canberra is effective as he answered both political (democratic) and environmental contexts thanks to the organic repartition of functions through a triangle. This represents the desire of expanding democratic values ensuring relationships between the three main centers of the city sharing the government and the people’s activities. Canberra is also determined by axes enhancing the environment provoking a sensitive apprehension of the city. Failures appear over time while the city evolves, like the lack of unity between each functional centers produced by the over scale of the monumental Garden City and the decentralized movement of the population, making the accessibility more difficult.. A change of function of the Capitol Hill reinforces the National identity which is the reason why inhabitants feel less involved in the city meanwhile they are progressively decentralized from the triangle. However, they adapt to the Griffins’ city plan and activate empty spaces ensuring the evolution of the city while demonstrating a new national identity over the geometric Griffin’s plan.
4/5
Word count 1510
Reference List
Canberra. National Archives. 2002. A Vision Splendid. How the Griffins imagined Australia’s capital. Canberra. National Archives. Griffin , W. 2006. “Building for Nature”. Modernism and Australia, Melbourne. Meigunyah Press : p.251-257. Reid, P. 2002. Canberra Following Griffin: a design history of Australia's national capital. National Archives Robinson, S. 2007. “A New vision for Canberra”. Property Australia: Vol 21, Issue 5, 28-30 Saunders, K. 1999. “Visionaries and planners: Washington, D. C. and Canberra. Pierre L'Enfant's and Walter Burley Griffin's visions.” Canberra Historical Journal : Issue 43, 9-19. Turnbull, J. 1998. Dreams of Equity. Watson, Ann, Beyond architecture : Marion Mahony and Walter Burley Griffin. Sydney. Powerhouse Publishing. Vanags, G. 2006. “Visions of a National Capital : the Griffin Plan for Canberra.” Agora : Vol 41, N°3, 39-43 Griffin’s Canberra - as it still might be. 1977. Royal Australian Planning Institute.
5/5