Sweet Home Ala Canberra

luther_bendross said :

Whilst as pointed out, the parliamentary triangle and civic have a lot of really nice buildings, that’s where it stops. A drive through Belconnen reminds me of Soviet Russia circa 1979, whereas Crace reminds me of my perineum. However, comparing Canberran architecture to that of Paris and Rome is a bit of a stretch, as one of those three cities was not present during the Renaissance. The same two that were present were built around naturally beautiful rivers and landscapes, the other was placed on a sheep farm as a result of a stalemate between two larger cities and was given a fake lake and free carp.

After looking up “perineum” I laughed so hard my mirkin fell off…

“Have we ever had a proper discussion on sprawl or infill?”

In summary, this is how it would go….

Sprawl gives inner city types more to feel superior about.

Infill gives inner city types more to complain about.

Next.

luther_bendross said :

Whilst as pointed out, the parliamentary triangle and civic have a lot of really nice buildings, that’s where it stops. A drive through Belconnen reminds me of Soviet Russia circa 1979, whereas Crace reminds me of my perineum. However, comparing Canberran architecture to that of Paris and Rome is a bit of a stretch, as one of those three cities was not present during the Renaissance.

Exactly. Drive through the parts built in the ’70s & ’80s of any of the great European cities and you will be unlikely to find the architecture any more pleasing then Belco’ and likely a lot less open space.

AG Canberra said :

Have we ever had a proper discussion on sprawl or infill?

Has any major city or town in Australia? Wasn’t Neville Wran’s last act as Premier to say that Sydney’s urban sprawl should end, no more greenfields expansion…immediately repudiated by his successor, then by his successor, and presumably by the current Premier.

Who was it who said ‘Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.’?

A few years ago I provided a tour of Canberra to a European couple (who were billionaires many times over). After deciding to visit Australia they made a point of spending a week in Canberra. The reason was to see and spend time in a planned capital city.

They were amazed at our space, the town centres and the Parliament buildings. He was excited to see all ‘modern’ buildings and so much grass. She loved that all the institutions were in the central area.

He also thought that Canberra should be preserved in it’s current state and serious discussions should ocur before allowing unchecked sprawl and infill. He reckoned that eventually the unique character of Canberra would change for the worse and we’d end up with a generic city undistinguisable from any other….

Have we ever had a proper discussion on sprawl or infill?

Whilst as pointed out, the parliamentary triangle and civic have a lot of really nice buildings, that’s where it stops. A drive through Belconnen reminds me of Soviet Russia circa 1979, whereas Crace reminds me of my perineum. However, comparing Canberran architecture to that of Paris and Rome is a bit of a stretch, as one of those three cities was not present during the Renaissance. The same two that were present were built around naturally beautiful rivers and landscapes, the other was placed on a sheep farm as a result of a stalemate between two larger cities and was given a fake lake and free carp.

astrojax said :

…and there was the old cameron offices, they won an award – i always wonderdd at the monstrosities they musta beat…

but where are the architectural highlights outside the triangle and city? hyperdome?

In defence of Cameron Offices and buildings of that era, they had a space and light around them. Before the term “breakout room” was invented there were trees and natural light flowing into buildings. While there might be a move back to capturing natural light now it can never be quite the same when developers are intent on maximising every square metre of space fro profit.

Here’s an old RA thread I just found which, ironically, partly illustrates the point:
http://the-riotact.com/?p=3142

Benjamin Offices are another example of where light, space, landscape have been mostly razed for shiny glass, steel and, most of all, maxed out office space.

That’s not to say the modern way is inherently wrong, but more to illustrate that just because something was built largely from what is now considered ugly exposed concrete that it was bad.

In regards to other architectural highlights; firstly, does a city need a minimum number of such buildings to meet some made up criteria of what makes a city good?

Secondly, in their own way, the following all form part of what makes Canberra Canberra:
Government House
The Shine Dome
Canberra School of Art
Melbourne & Sydney Buildings
Mt Stromlo telescopes
Manuka Pool
Any number of embassy/high commission buildings

There’s a reasonable amount of moderately significant residential architecture in town, too, as shown by the Canberra House website.

astrojax said :

but where are the architectural highlights outside the triangle and city? hyperdome?

LOL I’ll pay that one.

But I am a quiet fan of the new Belconnen Arts Centre, and the Tuggeranong Arts Centre, although dated, is not a bad looking pile.

On a broader note, though, I feel that Canberra is rather more humble than its international counterparts. The very idea of plonking parliament down into the hill reflects something characteristic of Australia; we’re not that showy, and we’d rather let the land speak for itself. As much as I like Sydney’s Opera House, international visitors were raving about Cadi (Sydney Harbour) for centuries before that was built.

As much as I would like to see a more focused urban centre and some kind of architectural marvel, such things come with inherent problems. For me, places like Sydney, Paris and London are inspiring places to visit, but Canberra’s built for living in. It’s (mostly) functional, but at the same time (mostly) pleasing aesthetically. Not many of the world’s great cities have managed this blend particularly well (Washington DC and Edinburgh are pretty good as well IMHO).

astrojax said :

Pommy bastard said :

What does Neil Young think about us then?

i really don’t rekkun neil is thinking about us at all, sadly. he’s just an old man – i mean, look at his life, eh?

A high voice and ridiculously straight hair

astrojax said :

…but where are the architectural highlights outside the triangle and city? hyperdome?

Massive dishes out at the Deep Space Tracking Station?

…and there was the old cameron offices, they won an award – i always wonderdd at the monstrosities they musta beat…

i also think the old administration (now john gorton) bld and its (now treasury) counterpart are quite nice. the high court, strangely, has grown on me and its sense of space is delicious for its function.

will second the house on the hill – stunning architecture – and the museum. have to dissent on oph – pretty ordinary really, waste of a great location…

but where are the architectural highlights outside the triangle and city? hyperdome?

Pommy bastard said :

What does Neil Young think about us then?

i really don’t rekkun neil is thinking about us at all, sadly. he’s just an old man – i mean, look at his life, eh?

I agree with Holden Caulfield and Thumper, we’ve got some pretty good buildings, new and old. Unfortunately we also have a lot of conspicuously shabby uninspiring areas (someone please fix up the Sydney and Melbourne BUildings, so much potential!).

Holden Caulfield said :

In fact, so far as monumental/grand architecture goes, I’d say Canberra holds its own quite well. There’s something to cater to all architectural tastes as well.

I agree, there is also the Carillon, telecom tower, the National Library, even that weird orange thing at the National Museum. Considering it is not possible of anything in Canberra to be more then 100 years old, I think we are doin’ all right.

Pommy bastard said :

What does Neil Young think about us then?

I’m wonderin’ why he isn’t speakin’ out? Maybe he just decided to walk on the beach? (I’m pissed off he didn’t come to Canberra in 09′)

Old Parliament House is pretty special too…

Quite. I’d give a big tick to most of the buildings inside the triangle to be honest. To me, all have their own unique identity and charm.

“Where is Canberra’s … architectural answer to Paris’s Eiffel Tower, Rome’s Coliseum or D.C.’s Congress?”

Have you missed the building on the hill?

Not sure about anyone else, but I reckon that’s a pretty special piece of architecture. The Australian War Memorial is not too bad, either.

In fact, so far as monumental/grand architecture goes, I’d say Canberra holds its own quite well. There’s something to cater to all architectural tastes as well.

What does Neil Young think about us then?

I guess people have to live somewhere…and I am not talking about the hordes coming to make us a BIG CANBERRA, but just the bods who need to come here for work, or the local kiddies who grow up and want to rent or buy a home, or the students or retirees.

I am not a the big option at all but our house prices are bad news and the only way to improve it is to increase the number of homes available…..

“a city for sale and doomed to quick destruction, if it should ever find a buyer”