Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Canberra’s development dilemma

Nic Sheehan 27 January 2015 29

dickson flats

Canberra is undergoing a metamorphosis. Until now, it has grown outwards, slowly engulfing farms and spitting them back out as suburbs, terraforming the landscape from grazing pastures to a white collar playground. Shopping centres, cars, cafes, the tame opiates of the archetypal Canberran.

The age and maturity of this town is becoming more obvious, however. As the houses of Gungahlin roll off the assembly line, they spill East towards the New South Wales border, the high-water mark. But the Capital Territory is now emerging from its prepubescent sprawl to push skyward into the third dimension. Like shiny white iPhones, apartment buildings have begun accumulating along the city skyline, full of the promise of progress and a conveniently compact lifestyle. These lofty shoeboxes practically have a use-by date branded alongside the facade, accompanied by the small cracks which will inevitably begin to show in their cheap concrete casings.

Walter Burley Griffin’s legacy ensured that the planning wonks of this town developed a severe allergy to buildings greater than two (okay, five) storeys. The first consequence of this approach to ‘civic design’ is that residents of Canberra are more or less immobile without access to a car. At the time of conception, Canberra and cars were a match; a city of the future using the horse and cart of the future. Today, as Canberrans we have great roads and are practically forced to use them to get anywhere particularly useful or interesting.

The aversion to urban density raises ramifications that are beyond mere convenience and efficient transport. A great deal of the city’s observable history is at stake. Canberra is relatively young, but one hundred years is still sufficient time to accumulate an identity. This urban identity is crafted through buildings and architecture, unobservable from the city blueprint. Certainly, we have some masterful architecture in this city, but mostly on the Federal side of things, things that were meant to be grand. I’m referring to the everyday, the entire aggregate. Alley ways, nooks and crannies. The combined sense of adventure, nostalgia and the numberless impressions left by the ghosts of the past.

Many of the buildings that hold this cultural and intrinsic value are positioned in high-value inner city areas which were developed over fifty years ago. These buildings are small houses with the odd duplex flecked in the mix. In a city which can no longer grow out, but up, the value of this land is being bid over and hiked up by hungry developers ready to cramp more people into less space. Which prevails, economics or history?

If you have strolled through commercial (once industrial) and residential Braddon, the prevailing force is obvious. Red brick duplexes and warehouses have given way to glass and concrete units, the streets dotted with For Sale signs. Having lived in Braddon for a short time abstract memory remains the only connection to a particular period in my life, as that house and the entire street I lived on was flattened, rebuilt and estranged in two short years. Like a contrived hipster, property developers have pumped out elegant urbane living, but the ironic result is industrial scale conformity. My old haunt is now shockingly homogenous.

It is not just the brick and mortar relics of Canberra’s past that are in jeopardy. The burgeoning creative culture, its genesis found in the repurposing of old industrial spaces, is being rapidly undone. Local vendors are faced with hopscotching from location to location as their previous digs are swallowed by apartments and soulless commercial retail space. Inevitably these industrial spaces that are characteristic of such creative shifts will run out. And then what will be left?

Braddon was the first to go. Now the redevelopment creep marches onward to the doormat of this city, Northbourne Avenue. Previously I would have expressed my distaste for many buildings along Northbourne, notably the Dickson ‘junkie’ flats. As one enters Canberra, these boxy, brown blocks appear Orwellian and ominous. I would have described them as ugly. But taste is relative. Bombarded by the slick and new, the old is now rare and precious.

The death of Dickson Towers is in the pipeline. This is where the debate is crystallised and all the shades of grey revealed. The sale and redevelopment of this land would replace the 157 flats with a precinct of 1099 apartments, valued at a total of $70 million. The “economic benefits” of this construction are estimated to be $380 million. Thankfully, the government can’t just do whatever they please. A roadblock in the application has emerged via the ACT Heritage Council.

The buildings are historically significant at a local and national level. In the late fifties the Capital gained increased administrative importance for the Commonwealth as many government departments were being relocated from Melbourne. The flats were built as a direct response to the influx of public servants and a time of rapid growth. They commemorate the growing pains of a city and the political restructuring of a nation. Sydney Archer, one of the architects is counted among Australia’s most important during the last century. His design reflects the Post-War era of Bauhaus and cubism styles, and is the only complex of its type in Australia to truly reflect these German origins.

Another metamorphosis is the government’s vision of a light rail network, with the central nerve of the system being Northbourne Avenue. Personal opinions aside, the project is a bold one that has the potential to rejig the car-centric status quo and alter the design of the city forever.

This is where we come full circle. The sale and redevelopment of the Dickson Towers is part of the ACT government’s plan to finance the light rail. The next growing pain of this City will wipe the memory of the old one. The future will be at the cost of our history.

What does this mean? At the end of the day there is no clear answer. Canberra, in many ways, needs change. To remain a viable city for the future, urban density is key. The light rail has the potential to be a visionary and transformative project. But it would be a shame to erase and rebuild the entire physical identity of our city. Much like the farms of old, urban Canberra as we know it will degrade and die with monoculture. Diversity, a mix of the old and new, is the ticket to a vibrant and wonderful city.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
29 Responses to
Canberra’s development dilemma
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Grrrr 5:17 pm 29 Jan 15

Clearly the author hasn’t made much effort to get around by bike. It’s actually a fairly easy city to be bike-mobile in.

I can’t see the Heritage value in Dickson Flats. Maybe if they had the tiniest bit of aesthetic or functional value – but to me they just don’t. If the new design has 500, 1000 or 2000 residences I’m not fussed – but try and come up with some great architecture, please!

beardedclam 3:26 pm 29 Jan 15

Best article I have seen written on here. Ever.

Postalgeek said :

I just hope Canberra doesn’t repeat old mistakes made around the world and gets wrapped up in concrete.

Any planning authority worth its salt will be seeking developments that integrate plants and hanging gardens to diffuse the heat sink effect, not to mention significantly improving the aesthetic. In this day and age we should be well beyond brutalist architecture that is a blight for so many reasons.

something like CentralPark in Sydney. I notice Sekisui House are building in Canberra now. http://centralparksydney.com/live/one-central-park
great integration of plants and light.

dungfungus 10:57 am 29 Jan 15

Babby said :

Maya123 said :

Babby said :

Why do we need such a large population increase in Canberra all of a sudden?

Whether Canberra people want a large population is immaterial. It will happen while no federal government will be responsible and will slow the runaway high immigration. Therefore locally we must plan for more people than we should have.

The ACT Government has a program of sponsoring large numbers of immigrants to move to the ACT, apparently as part of some sort of ‘Big Canberra’ plan. Interestingly, they use a skills shortage list, but when people arrive they can find themselves unable to obtain work in their field, and have to apply for other less specialised jobs. I have no data on this, it’s just something I have observed quite a few times. They seem to prefer the idea of living in Sydney but they were sponsored by the ACT Government, so how long this current wave of immigrants stay in Canberra it will be interesting to see.

International students are keen to study at Australian universities right now because they have a stronger international reputation than their domestic institutions. Everyone is aware this will change in time.

Wouldn’t it be sad/funny if in ten years we had a whole lot of high rise apartments with no one in them! Ah well, so long as the developers are winning.

They would compliment the already vast array of empty shops, warehouses and decaying commercial buildings. Parts of Canberra are getting a Detroit ambience already.

rosscoact 9:45 am 29 Jan 15

chewy14 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Why don’t we look for alternatives to the current housing options? How about underground?
Without resorting to demolishing the heritage of this city, is there a possibility of going underground instead as there is certainly plenty of space down there and also some benefits? Heating and cooling is apparently much cheaper with the added insulation of the soil.
We aren’t exactly an earthquake prone location and with the design of modern houses and apartments there isn’t much of a view to be had anyway so why not go subterranean? There is also the great selling point of being safer in an apocalyptic catastrophe or indeed bushfires.

Yeah, perhaps one of the new Gungahlin suburbs can be renamed Hobbiton. Northsiders were always a bit short and hairy anyway.

So you’ve met my mother-in-law then?

chewy14 9:26 am 29 Jan 15

wildturkeycanoe said :

Why don’t we look for alternatives to the current housing options? How about underground?
Without resorting to demolishing the heritage of this city, is there a possibility of going underground instead as there is certainly plenty of space down there and also some benefits? Heating and cooling is apparently much cheaper with the added insulation of the soil.
We aren’t exactly an earthquake prone location and with the design of modern houses and apartments there isn’t much of a view to be had anyway so why not go subterranean? There is also the great selling point of being safer in an apocalyptic catastrophe or indeed bushfires.

Yeah, perhaps one of the new Gungahlin suburbs can be renamed Hobbiton. Northsiders were always a bit short and hairy anyway.

Babby 7:41 am 29 Jan 15

Maya123 said :

Babby said :

Why do we need such a large population increase in Canberra all of a sudden?

Whether Canberra people want a large population is immaterial. It will happen while no federal government will be responsible and will slow the runaway high immigration. Therefore locally we must plan for more people than we should have.

The ACT Government has a program of sponsoring large numbers of immigrants to move to the ACT, apparently as part of some sort of ‘Big Canberra’ plan. Interestingly, they use a skills shortage list, but when people arrive they can find themselves unable to obtain work in their field, and have to apply for other less specialised jobs. I have no data on this, it’s just something I have observed quite a few times. They seem to prefer the idea of living in Sydney but they were sponsored by the ACT Government, so how long this current wave of immigrants stay in Canberra it will be interesting to see.

International students are keen to study at Australian universities right now because they have a stronger international reputation than their domestic institutions. Everyone is aware this will change in time.

Wouldn’t it be sad/funny if in ten years we had a whole lot of high rise apartments with no one in them! Ah well, so long as the developers are winning.

wildturkeycanoe 5:39 am 29 Jan 15

Why don’t we look for alternatives to the current housing options? How about underground?
Without resorting to demolishing the heritage of this city, is there a possibility of going underground instead as there is certainly plenty of space down there and also some benefits? Heating and cooling is apparently much cheaper with the added insulation of the soil.
We aren’t exactly an earthquake prone location and with the design of modern houses and apartments there isn’t much of a view to be had anyway so why not go subterranean? There is also the great selling point of being safer in an apocalyptic catastrophe or indeed bushfires.

dungfungus 10:23 pm 28 Jan 15

HiddenDragon said :

Surely it all boils down to the fact that the ACT Government is heavily reliant on revenue derived from property and property development, and that fact of life will largely determine what does and does not happen with planning and development in the ACT – all the rest is essentially window-dressing and embroidery to pay lip service to fashionable values, and appease and divert those who have the time and energy to get worked up about such things.

The bigger question, which occasionally gets worried at, but is never honestly confronted is about employment – will there be enough people, with enough money, to buy and maintain (at the hoped-for prices) all the ticky-tacky boxes which are being planned and constructed? Time will tell……

“heavily reliant on revenue ”
– oh!, that is the best politically correct description of “broke” that I have ever heard.

HiddenDragon 7:14 pm 28 Jan 15

Surely it all boils down to the fact that the ACT Government is heavily reliant on revenue derived from property and property development, and that fact of life will largely determine what does and does not happen with planning and development in the ACT – all the rest is essentially window-dressing and embroidery to pay lip service to fashionable values, and appease and divert those who have the time and energy to get worked up about such things.

The bigger question, which occasionally gets worried at, but is never honestly confronted is about employment – will there be enough people, with enough money, to buy and maintain (at the hoped-for prices) all the ticky-tacky boxes which are being planned and constructed? Time will tell……

jgsma 6:18 pm 28 Jan 15

I agree that the buildings in their present state are horrible, but some imaginative refurbishment may work wonders. What is nice about them is the green space they sit in with some trees. The monstrosity of the modern tower at the corner of Mouat St and Northbourne Ave has little merit either, especially with so little green space. Is that what is planned as in-fill along Norhbourne Ave? Equally horrible.

As for higher density town-house type development – have a look at the slums of the future (or now!) in the small streets/lanes in Gungahlin: Boreham St and Grocott Lane for example. Surely planners/designers can do better.

dungfungus 1:31 pm 28 Jan 15

miz said :

Babby said :

The thing with development in Canberra is no one seems to care much what form it takes. Those who are pro-development right now seem to believe Canberra must develop every small parcel of land as soon as possible, with inelegant architecture and town planning.

It looks like Canberra in its growing maturity is going through a phase of self-doubt. Tired of hearing everyone talk about our town as ‘clean’ and ‘well planned’, now we have grotty shopping centres, shoddy road surfaces, and chaotic planning decisions to prove just how disordered we can be. And to counter our tradition of peaceful, low-density planning, a sudden insistence that Canberra must embrace high-density development, no matter how this may affect the longstanding nature of the town and its unique characteristics, as if the city must face up to the harsh realities of life in the 21st century. Really? Why?

Canberra is a city with wide open spaces and abundant natural life. Most of us like it as it is. Plus there is more land right over the border.

I have two questions. Why do we need such a large population increase in Canberra all of a sudden? And when are we going to get a Canberra ICAC?

+1 million.
Particularly the ICAC suggestion.

Who needs an ICAC when we have The Canberra Times?

miz 8:56 am 28 Jan 15

Babby said :

The thing with development in Canberra is no one seems to care much what form it takes. Those who are pro-development right now seem to believe Canberra must develop every small parcel of land as soon as possible, with inelegant architecture and town planning.

It looks like Canberra in its growing maturity is going through a phase of self-doubt. Tired of hearing everyone talk about our town as ‘clean’ and ‘well planned’, now we have grotty shopping centres, shoddy road surfaces, and chaotic planning decisions to prove just how disordered we can be. And to counter our tradition of peaceful, low-density planning, a sudden insistence that Canberra must embrace high-density development, no matter how this may affect the longstanding nature of the town and its unique characteristics, as if the city must face up to the harsh realities of life in the 21st century. Really? Why?

Canberra is a city with wide open spaces and abundant natural life. Most of us like it as it is. Plus there is more land right over the border.

I have two questions. Why do we need such a large population increase in Canberra all of a sudden? And when are we going to get a Canberra ICAC?

+1 million.
Particularly the ICAC suggestion.

Postalgeek 8:31 am 28 Jan 15

I just hope Canberra doesn’t repeat old mistakes made around the world and gets wrapped up in concrete.

Any planning authority worth its salt will be seeking developments that integrate plants and hanging gardens to diffuse the heat sink effect, not to mention significantly improving the aesthetic. In this day and age we should be well beyond brutalist architecture that is a blight for so many reasons.

Maya123 10:40 pm 27 Jan 15

Kalliste said :

My biggest question is, do people actually call them Dickson Towers? I really hope not.

I don’t think any amount of paint is going to help out these flats, same as the Lyneham Flats up the street. They’re never going to be attractive and I imagine they are boxes of ice in winter and you feel like melting lava in summer.

While I’ll agree many of the new flats (specifically along Flemington) are pretty damn ugly, they’re not on the scale of Dickson Flats and, hopefully, they have better energy ratings.

I think visually these buildings have a lot of interesting potential. People thought Hotel Acton was a dump. Now look at it. It just takes someone with vision and imagination. Sadly most people lack this and can’t see what can be done and dismiss a building; saying better to bulldoze it.
Energy wise, they are likely terrible, but there is retrofitting, which can improve energy ratings. Even most modern builds only aim for the lowest energy rating they can get away with. They are better than most older buildings, but they could be so must better. In Canberra houses can be built that need no air-conditioning and almost no heating; ie no need to heat most days of winter; only a few days. But very few are built this way. I wonder if most modern houses (the majority which are built to the lowest energy standard that will be passed) perform better than a good retrofitted house.

Maya123 10:28 pm 27 Jan 15

Babby said :

Why do we need such a large population increase in Canberra all of a sudden?

Whether Canberra people want a large population is immaterial. It will happen while no federal government will be responsible and will slow the runaway high immigration. Therefore locally we must plan for more people than we should have.

Babby 8:22 pm 27 Jan 15

The thing with development in Canberra is no one seems to care much what form it takes. Those who are pro-development right now seem to believe Canberra must develop every small parcel of land as soon as possible, with inelegant architecture and town planning.

It looks like Canberra in its growing maturity is going through a phase of self-doubt. Tired of hearing everyone talk about our town as ‘clean’ and ‘well planned’, now we have grotty shopping centres, shoddy road surfaces, and chaotic planning decisions to prove just how disordered we can be. And to counter our tradition of peaceful, low-density planning, a sudden insistence that Canberra must embrace high-density development, no matter how this may affect the longstanding nature of the town and its unique characteristics, as if the city must face up to the harsh realities of life in the 21st century. Really? Why?

Canberra is a city with wide open spaces and abundant natural life. Most of us like it as it is. Plus there is more land right over the border.

I have two questions. Why do we need such a large population increase in Canberra all of a sudden? And when are we going to get a Canberra ICAC?

Kalliste 8:07 pm 27 Jan 15

My biggest question is, do people actually call them Dickson Towers? I really hope not.

I don’t think any amount of paint is going to help out these flats, same as the Lyneham Flats up the street. They’re never going to be attractive and I imagine they are boxes of ice in winter and you feel like melting lava in summer.

While I’ll agree many of the new flats (specifically along Flemington) are pretty damn ugly, they’re not on the scale of Dickson Flats and, hopefully, they have better energy ratings.

Masquara 7:32 pm 27 Jan 15

I know a woman who lives in one of the Bauhausian guvvie 1950s townhouses in Lyneham, one street away from Northbourne, and her townhouse/apartment is gorgeous inside. Beautifully planned and with impeccable aesthetics. Not one of the new flats I’ve seen in the inner north is as good lifestyle-wise.

dungfungus 6:18 pm 27 Jan 15

gazket said :

ACT Heritage Council is just creating red tape.

All those old apartments are well past their use by date and are breeding ground for mold and rising damp and scumbags.

Like the camping ground between LBG and old Parliament House perhaps?

Maya123 4:13 pm 27 Jan 15

miz said :

The Dicko flats look terrible mainly because of the years of (what I would call strategic) neglect. You know, the ‘neglect it -> people complain and/or stop using it -> government decides it is ripe for development because people complain and/or stop using it’ pathway.
However, it seems that strategy wasn’t wholly successful in this case.

Agreed. Those building would look so much better with some maintenance…and a more imaginative paint job. And why be limited by only two colours! With murals for instance they could become art installations. The buildings’ limitations are only because of lack of imagination. The maintenance would include insulation. I don’t dislike the look of the basic buildings; only the neglect and the colour scheme.
Then the surrounds could do with some work.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site