The National Capital Authority has promised to make the Parliamentary Triangle more accessible and relevant to all Australians.
Its new chief executive Annabelle Pegrum says one of the main tasks of the authority in the next century “”is to rebuild Canberra in the hearts of the Australian people”.
One of the six functions of the authority is to “”foster an awareness of Canberra as the National Capital”, according to the ACT (Planning and Land Management) Act, and Act of the Federal Parliament. The other five involve the planning of the city and commission works on behalf of the Commonwealth and engage in consulting work.
Since its inception in 1989, the authority has done far less in the field of planning Canberra than the Act suggests it ought. It even dropped the word “”planning” from its name, even though the Act said, “”There shall be an Authority by the name of the National Capital Planning Authority”. It has virtually turned inward, concentrating on the triangle and the central national area. When it has looked beyond it has leapt over the suburban hinterland and engaged in consulting overseas and in the now defunct Better Cities program.
There is a reason for that. The territory was to have its own planning authority to deal with the suburban hinterland. The Act requires it, but successive ACT Governments have happily ignored the spirit if not the letter of the Act by refusing to set up a planning authority with adequate independence and staff and solid community input through a board. Rather planning and land use have been dealt with under departmental arrangements under a minister where the philosophy has weighed towards letting those who want to build to build what they want rather than looking at an overall strategy that integrates transport, employment and aesthetics. The departmental approach has been too legalistic with little attention to value judgements about quality. If a building fits the rules it goes ahead, however abominable. And it is obviously impossible to make rules to fit every land-use situation.
It may well be that a develop-as-you-please policy will result in a better city, but the evidence suggests to the contrary. There has been too much commercial and office concentration in Civic at the expense of Gungahlin with little heed to later transport problems. Much residential development at Gungahlin has been too crammed with too little public infrastructure and space. There has been too much given to large developers at the expense of small business.
The National Capital Planning Authority sat by with a policy of letting the territory get on with it.
The two bodies have had their successes. The national body has done well in drawing attention and rectifying the deterioration of the national infrastructure assets in the city when the prevailing mood was that Canberra as a new city did not need much maintenance.
The territory (in the absence of a planning body) has done well in preparing the groundwork for hi-tech companies.
Otherwise, the territory has been reactive only, more or less on a policy of you can build what you like unless there is huge public pressure. Better planning and better attention to aesthetics would have obviated a lot of the aggro, which still continues, though at somewhat of a lesser pace as building has turned down in the Howard-induced recession.
When it picks up, as it will because Canberra is enormously resilient, the two levels of government should look at their planning functions. Development need not and should not be curtailed, but a better balance can be struck between the residential amenity, transport mix, small business needs and big business needs.
That, of course, will not happen while the ACT virtually abandons statutory planning and while the federal body is ashamed of the very word.
That brings us back to Ms Pegrum’s admirable aspiration to make Canberra a place Australians want to visit and enjoy. She is correct to point to some of the unfriendly elements of the triangle. AT the weekend the area between the National Gallery and National Library has many people cycling, roller-blading, flying kites, walking and looking at the vista across the lake, but there are no places to buy even a snack, let alone a sit down meal with indoor-outdoor eating choices to take advantage of the northern aspect over the lake. By all means liven up the triangle to make it more friendly to visitors. It is a difficult task because of its sheer space. Indeed, when a map of our triangle is overlaid on maps of larger and older cities, its size is not out of place. But Canberra has a much smaller population and fewer visitors. Even so much could be done by allowing more visitor-oriented commercial activity in the area.
That said, the authority will not “”re-build Canberra in the hearts of the Australian people” unless it recognises that Canberra is unique because it is a planned city whose lay-out was carefully integrated with the surrounds and that that unique quality can only be retained by tempering individual desires for land use and building with an overriding vision. This vision goes beyond the triangle and central national area.
No doubt Australians will continue to visit Canberra, if only because it is the capital. Getting them to enjoy the experience is a worthwhile aim, so is the aim of getting them to be uplifted by the experience — that it is possible to create a built environment in harmony with the bush surrounds and where buildings are in harmony and proportion to each other.
Failure to fix on that vision will result in the city being seen more as a “”theme park” to use Ms Pegrum words than a national capital.