Transient political expediency was wrecking the design of Canberra, a leading architect said yesterday, and another called for the demolition of Black Mountain Tower.
Dr Enrico Taglietti condemned both Federal and ACT Governments for political expediency which led to ad-hoc developments. He cited the magistrates building, Gareth’s Gazebo and “”the most sacred Canberra place, Acton Peninsula (the Bennelong Point of the Australian capital) succumbing to an ephemeral political promise to build some health facility on its soil”.
It was imperative “”for us to make sure Canberra’s future development be as beautiful as the chosen site deserved.
“”Great beautiful cities must be totally designed,” he said. “”The planning of Canberra should not be in terms of individual buildings merely to satisfy current temporary functions, but in terms of aesthetically integrated precincts.”
Dr Taglietti was speaking at a forum at the University of Canberra on “”Future Options for Canberra”. It was a lead-up to the September “”Canberra: Face of the Nation?” conference sponsored by the university, the Canberra Business Council, the ACT Government and the National Capital Planning Authority.
Another leading architect, Professor Judith Brine, Dean of the Faculty of Environmental Design at the University of Canberra, called for a rectification of past mistakes to achieve Burley Griffin’s ideal.
The Black Mountain Tower should go, she said. It detracted from Parliament House as the centrepiece of the city. It was a self-seeking feature and “”a symbol of the power of an over-large corporate monopoly.”
She thought “”the mishmash of the defence conglomerate” should be replaced with a proper administrative centre and that City Hill should be developed as the cultural centre of Canberra. Parkes Way, the “”overblown freeway” that connects the two, would be reclaimed for the city.
However, she said that with the constant friction between the national and local planning bodies these sorts of grand gestures would be impossible. The present two rival planning bodies was the least likely set-up to achieve proper planning for Canberra.
The beauty of the Griffin plan was the way it linked the natural and built-up environment with the use of important natural sites for important buildings. However, it had been subverted “”by self-seeking features that detract from the whole”.
The Griffin plan had a timeless message. It was not just a plan for ordering the nation’s centre, “”it has the potential to be a symbol of a feeling for land and city which particularly suits Australia.
The National Capital Planning Authority, incidentally, has a similar idea as Professor Brine for the hypotenuse of the Griffin triangle. However, it has, as Professor Brine says, had some friction with ACT authorities over development on City Hill, among other things.
Cities expert Professor Max Neutze called on the Federal Government to rekindle its interest in Canberra lest it become just another provincial city. But former Grants Commission chairman Justice Else-Mitchell said Canberra’s national element was complete and the Federal Government should retreat to the Triangle leaving the rest of Canberra with a few exceptions to become more like the rest of Australia.