Canberra as a planned city - How early modernist and American influences shaped Canberra.

To what extent has early modernist and American influences shaped Canberra as the capital city we see today?

The 20^th century oversaw many drastic changes as well as new inventions and technologies which would eventuate as pivotal tools and affluences in many western cultures. Along with these new elements came along a new page in urban and town planning. It was a century filled with change and a hungry desire for new directions and approach. It was during this period however where Australia witnessed a new birth of a city, a new capital in the name of Canberra. Canberra steadfastly evolved over a period of 100 years which oversaw new changes and philosophies in the approach of planning, with the likes of Le Corbusier leading the modernist charge, as well as rapidly growing American ‘Empire’ to which its cultural influences would spill across the Pacific. These influences would allow neighbourhood units to thrive, long transit freeways to connect place to place, employment to become a great possibility as well as the administrative centres which would house the Commonwealth government of Australia. Through this essay we will be assessing the modernist and American influences through plans, events, people as well as the competition which started it all.

Early Urban Planning - Pat WIlliams

There is no one definition of urban planning, but can be defined as a technical and political process concerned with the use of land and design of the urban environment, including transportation networks, to guide and ensure the orderly development of settlements and communities. It concerns itself with research and analysis, strategic thinking, architecture, urban design, public consultation, policy recommendations, implementation and management. (Taylor, 2007)Urban planning has been evident since the 5^th century mainly in the Egyptian civilisations, but recent archaeological digs are showing planning in most civilisations with buildings and sewage systems being efficiently placed in a settlement. Planning In early Australia was very minimal with most cities being placed on the east coast for trade purposes like most cities. Much like America and early Britain, the lack of strict development regulations saw dense urban neighbourhoods quickly sprawl out of hand eventually turning to slums. (Stout, 1998). This was evident in early Sydney (figure 1) and Melbourne, although this type of early planning was basic, usually only about the placement of infrastructure with no population growth, economics or environmental studies. Planning today has moved from just placement to a range of areas to a range of areas outlined in the definition above such as design and consultation. Between 1901-1930 Canberra offers the best example of ideas and events associated with the garden city movement. In the initial design and location of Canberra as the capital several criteria had to be followed, the most significant includes 100miles from Sydney and agricultural background. This shows that a garden city influence was evident from the beginning.

The beginning of the 20^th century was the beginning of ‘city beautiful’ approach to town planning in Australia. (Freestone, 1986). This introduced the British Garden City movement developed in the early 20^th century by Ebenezer Howard known for his publication ‘Garden Cities of Tomorrow’ (1898). His strong dedication and advocacy to the Garden City model movement largely influenced the design of Canberra. During this time the garden city was accepted by most with George Taylor explaining in 1914 ‘We can build it as a model city and it’s sweetness will spread; for a garden city is a hundred times more useful, because of the inspiration it creates’ (Taylor, 1914)

Griffin’s design was mostly geometrical but took into account the topography of the site as well. This being an aspect of the garden city in his original plans, also including his tree lined streets and use of parks and gardens. (Freestone, 1986). The whole Manuka retail-complex was designed under the Garden City idea, each residence having open frontage to the street and having garden out the front. (Freestone, 1986). The garden city idea later created satellite towns surrounded by green belts. This saw the city and its suburbs being separated by these green belts (open land), the original idea of it being to prevent the possibility of the city becoming congested. 

The early planning of Canberra illustrates many aspects of the garden city outside of Australia including aspects of Washington D.C. Although Canberra was not initially designed as a garden city the geometrical contours and care for topography of Griffin’s plan and the Garden City advocacy from Howard saw the movement largely influence the way Canberra has been planned.

White immigration started as early as 1827 with blocks of land being used for farming and trade purposes. Later in 1901 the federation of states created the commonwealth of Australia, creating links to Britain, Which saw us join them in WW1 and the idea of Canberra as the Capital city. This saw many British immigrate to Australia due to freedom and work opportunities. Also during this time increased European migration was evident, this was because of the white Australia policy only allowed ‘similar skinned’ people into Australia. Skilled workers were also needed for the design and creation of Canberra and other major cities, attracting everyone from engineers, surveyors and architects all the way to laborers and farmers to Australia to start a new life. This diversity influenced Canberra’s future planning and the way Canberra functioned into the future. Major immigration Australia began during WWII, during the abolition of the white Australia policy, further diversifying and growing Australia and its need for planning.

Modernist Planning - Alex Troy Elsworth Adkins

Modernist planning is a relatively recent move in planning theory. Modernist planning theory began around the 1890’s in America (USA) when people started moving from rural and regional areas to urban areas and large cities. This shift from rural to urban areas saw populations of cities boom; between the 1860’s and 1910’s New York’s population went from 470,000 to 5 million people, Philadelphia’s population tripled to 1.5 million and Chicago’s population went from 112,000 to 2.1 million in the same time frame. This obviously put a lot of stress on infrastructure and planning. Modernist planning theory was put forward to solve these problems, a fundamental part of modernist planning is buildings and being able to build larger and taller buildings to house everything from people to business, (LeGates & Stout, 1998).This began with the birth of the skyscraper which happened in Chicago in 1885 with the world insurance building but since then skyscraper have grown to become taller and cover the landscape of large cities to create their identity, (History, 2013).

The skyscraper allowed modernist planning to house the large populations of cities. A large part of modernist planning is also transport and the motor car, with the automobile becoming more popular and affordable more and more people owned it, (Benevolo, 2013). Modernist planning set out to try and make commuting as easy as possible. The motorway and freeway were built, more roads and bigger roads were built basically in modernist planning theory getting from A-B should be as easy as possible so massive roads were built, (LeGates & Stout, 1998). Then physical and psychological problems started to emerge from environmental degradation, pollution, no areas of recreation or green spaces. People who could started moving out of the cities in to suburbia and then commuting in creating sprawl, more pollution and more need for roads, (Richard T LeGates, 2013). These were issues which planners had to address and Ebenezer Howard’s garden city movement directly addressed but this also caused a shift in modernist planning. Modernist planning no longer just looked at building taller and making so called ‘megacities’ modernist planning shifted to try and become a sustainable form of planning theory. Modernist planning shifted its focus to the community and open spaces were included for recreation, 4-12 story developments, with shops and cafés at the base, offices close by and everything within walking distances; New urbanism, (LeGates & Stout, 1998). New urbanism Kingston foreshore Development Canberra is a modernist city; it displays all aspects of modernism. Modernism didn't really start in Australia to around the 1910’s when people relocated from the ‘bush’ to the cities, Canberra is a planned city and it came about in 1913 when modernist planning theory was really taking hold in Australia due to most of Australia’s planning being influenced by the US. Canberra began with a quick influx of people mainly public servants to build this capital with exciting plans put forward by Burley Griffin. What was not foreseen by the government or Canberra was the First world War and Second World War along with the depression had crippled Australia and strangled and enthusiasm for Canberra. Canberra’s future was uncertain but the National capital planning and development committee (NCPDC) wouldn’t let Canberra fail the lake was built, other government departments were moved to Canberra and built around Parkes and Barton. Civic centre was developed with shops and business by the NCPDC and they looked to the federal government for Canberra to have its own University and ANU was established in Acton in 1948, (Reid, 2002).Canberra from the 1940’s to plans for Canberra now. Canberra’s architecture then changed its landscape taking a much more modernist planning view from the 1950’s onward building many more apartments and housing more people also new parliament house and other key landmarks like the high court, national gallery and national museum, (Gordon, 2006).while this encouraged people to come to Canberra and with apartments and taller building there was more room to house them, the people who came to the ‘bush capital’ to live wanted the bush life style so Belconnen, Woden, Tuggeranong areas were created to house people and with Canberra’s population reaching over 100,000 people and every household owning a car Canberra’s road system become front and centre. The national capital development commission (NCDC) came up with a solution the ‘Y plan’ this was based on the modernist planning theory of getting people from A-B as quick as possible. The plan was developing Canberra as a Y with Belconnen and Gungahlin as the top two point’s central Canberra around Civic and parliament in the middle and Woden to Tuggeranong at the base, (Reid, 2002).

The plan is based on sprawl and requires people to spend a lot of time in a vehicle and polluting a lot. With a shift for Canberra to have a viable public transport system and double in size over the next 50years sprawl isn’t seen as a viable option and new modernism is seen as the way to go for Canberra planning with developments like Kingston foreshore, city to the lake, south quay and more high-rise developments varying from 4-28stories with Belconnen and Woden planned to have the tallest building in Canberra in the coming years infill modernist planning a new urbanism styled planning is the future of Canberra’s planning, (ACT Government, 2013).

Americanization of Australian Planning – Joseph Sutton

Modernism has been a part of an Americanization of planning that has influenced Australian cities. Canberra was designed during the early phases of urban planning models and Walter Burley Griffin’s plan was the start of American planning ideas being introduced to Canberra.

Griffin’s plan was influenced by the L’Enfant Plan that was used to design Washington DC. Both Canberra and Washington have been planned with major landmarks being on a certain angle and distance away from each other. The areas surrounding the centre of the city are noted for having low density buildings and many parks situated near a lake. The street layout is also arranged with hexagonal and triangular angles spiralling off each other, these main roads being major tree lined avenues lining up with the city’s landscape and topography with a grid layout of roads filling in between. The angles and shapes that the major landmarks of both cities have been designed on make for good scenery for residents and visitors. Griffin also took inspiration from the Burnham Plan which occurred in his home city of Chicago in 1909 which was based on having the city closely situated to lake. This concept is based on the City Beautiful movement and the ideas of the Garden City. The ideas are based on having a capital city that is aligned perfectly to make for a healthy city with beautiful environments and scenery. Having been designed by an American, there would always be an influence from American planning ideas in Canberra and that would develop as planning entered the Modernist period. (aph.gov.au)

Walter Burley Griffin had a very strong relationship with Frank Lloyd Wright. Wright was a very influential planner in America who had strong designs for housing. His ideas were very architectural based which added more American influence to Australia’s capital. Added American influence came when the competition to design Parliament House was awarded to architect Romaldo Giurgola who had spent most of his career in America. Adding a further American influence to Canberra, this time it was the most important building in the country. (griffinsociety.org)

The relationship between America and Australia was at its strongest around the 50’s and it was then that Canberra begun to fully develop into the city it is today. At the time American planning theories were introduced to Canberra. Heavy use of the car lead to highways being built in America and being introduced to Australia, they were used to connect the new town centres of Woden and Belconnen to the centre of Canberra and the city has continued to expand. This has altered the design of central Canberra with Parkes Way becoming a major road taking traffic away from Constitution Avenue, one of the main roads in Griffin’s plan. The major use of highways however has made Canberra’s heavy use of the use of car a problem with very little public transport causing congestion on roads. The first shopping mall was introduced to Australia during the 1950’s. They were a sign of American consumerism and were the centre part of Woden and Belconnen. The Shopping mall helped shape the way in which Civic works now, away from the original plan of having the major shopping complexes situated around the Sydney and Melbourne Buildings. (Freestone, 2004) (Legates Stout 1998)

The neighbourhood unit is an American planning theory that is very evident and noticeable and the majority of Canberra suburbs. Designed by Clarence Perry, the neighbourhood unit was introduced to Canberra during the 40’s and was a very popular model with Canberra planners. The idea was that the school and local shops are located in the centre of the suburb. The residential houses are located around the major complexes in the suburb. The main idea behind this is that everyone can find their daily needs within their own neighbourhood. The schools and shops are often surrounded by green spaces and parks adding to the Canberra theme of the garden city. This a major influence from America that is seen in all town centres and is the most influential American planning theory to have an impact on America. It serves as a low density version of New Urbanism which comes from the ideas of Modernism. (Freestone 2010)

All of these models and ideas came to Canberra during and part of the Modernist movement in urban planning. The design of Canberra today has been influenced by American ideas during the Modernist period and shapes the city that we now know today.

Canberra as a ‘planned’ city -  Boutros Hanna

Canberra is one of the very few cities around the world to be labelled a ‘planned’ city (others which include Washington and Brasilia). Its planning process since the founding of the nation’s capital has never gone unnoticed. Its finely-implemented neighbourhood units (inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright), its well-coordinated freeways which connect all parts of Canberra, and its approach to the Garden City concept all makes Canberra unique among the rest of the other major cities in Australia. Canberra’s story of how it came to being was indeed that of blood, sweat and toil.  

Australia had just become a nation in 1901 however a new nation needs a new capital city. Sydney and Melbourne fought intensely for the nations bragging rights to host the nation’s capital. However, a compromise was ultimately reached and recorded in section 125 of the Australian Constitution that Melbourne would temporarily host the nation’s capital until a new location (needed to at least 100 miles from Sydney) was discovered and built (Reid, 2002). Charles Scrivener, the surveyor responsible for an appropriate sight, had preference a horseshoe-shaped territory which needed to include a large water catchment. Canberra was ultimately chosen which then allowed competitors to begin work on their drafts to design the new capital city. The competition was announced in April 1911 and many competitors worldwide participated, not to a surprise that the majority of those entrants were from the United States. One entrant, Chicago-based Landscape Architect Walter Burley Griffin, would submit a draft heavily inspired by Washington DC’s planned elements and outlines (Griffin, 2008). Burley’s design of asymmetric elements were designated to accommodate public buildings. Griffin, in his writings says that “The prime object of the Capital City is not an intensive commerce of the throng but the housing of various specialized deliberative and educative activities demanding rather the quiet zones”. His winning design was an arrangement of axes which would place education in one zonal are opposite a variety of headquarters. The Executive, judiciary and legislative components would feature as the predominant elements of the proposal. Garden frontages were initially formed through these coordinated axes so that they did not primarily serve as thoroughfares for communication (Griffin, 2008). Another element of Griffins design proposal were the protection of surrounding hills. This ensured the pristine landscape of Canberra was well preserved (Reid, 2002).

There were no doubts about America’s influence on Canberra as a ‘planned city’. The freeways, housing, neighbourhood units as well as the axis that form the political circles of Canberra. Bear in mind that Canberra was built from a raw site as a result of a compromise – just like Washington. Griffin compares Washington’s geographical location to Canberra’s, asserting “Washington, located politically near the earliest settles coast of a continental area equivalent to Australia, was to represent the civic ideal of an autonomous nationality” (Griffin, 2008). Griffin had apparently worked with the famous Frank Lloyd Wright for a number of years leading up to the competition. It was his time at Wrights studio where he gained most of his influence for designing Canberra as the future capital of Australia. Organic architecture seemed to be the lesson of thought from Lloyd Wright’s studio that invoked Griffin’s future aspirations for Canberra. “Based on careful observation of nature, building not only should appear to grow easily from their site, but each part should conform to the patter of the whole of the design” (Griffin, 2008).

Canberra’s planning during the course of the 20^th century oversaw the Federal Capital Commission (1925-1930) which its primary role was to construct and administer Canberra. Their proposals included the 1925 Gazette proposal which contrasted Griffins road plan as well a proposed government group which was designed to build an administrative centre which was again further entailing Griffins proposal. Canberra grew steadfastly during the course of the 20^th century however 1966 oversaw a new proposal which further exacerbated America’s influence in Canberra alone. The National Capital Development Commission invited American transport consultants to assist in updating a transport plan which would accommodate a further 500,000 people. This plan would ultimately envisage the future growth in Canberra’s suburbs. This plan was called the Spatial Plan or simply the ‘Y’ Plan as proposal radiated from the city centre (Overall, 1995). Woden and Tuggeranong would form the tail of this plan while the northern suburbs of Belconnen, Gungahlin and Sutton would form the two branches which would ultimately form the ‘Y’ shape. This plan was designed on the assumption that Canberra would remain a car-reliant society where its citizens would use public transport to a minimal extent. This plan provided a development of ‘satellite’ towns in which town would have a major shopping centre, office blocks and entertainment facilities which would serve as a ‘magnet’ in drawing people away from the city centre. The freeways would serve as transit links which was aimed at attempting to avoid large numbers of vehicles through local neighbourhoods. School ovals, community facilities and churches were to be within walking distance from the home. These elements of implementation within the 1967 Spatial Plan reverberate strongly around local communities in the United States. Most neighbourhoods from the 1950’s had implemented these proposals which were first evident during the post war era.

Overall, Canberra has been highly influenced by America alone. The Modernist movement began in American and would become a dominant force in planning throughout most of the 20^th century. The movement successfully implemented transport in cities and towns to accommodate its citizens, especially the motor vehicle through the idea of the freeways. The New Urbanism, as mentioned by Robert Freestone, is the most influential aspect of the Modernist Movement in the United States as well as the neighbourhood unit. Through these elements, Canberra was able to transform into a capital which can be recognized with similarities to Washington D.C. Walter Burley Griffin, who was inspired by the new American planning theories has successfully managed to make Canberra an ever-evolving city with its sustainable and adjustable elements. Canberra will continue to grow as a capital city if the legacy of Walter Burley Griffin continues to live on through our planning and ideas. It is important that we understand that what we plan today in the nation’s capital may affect future generations yet unborn.

Peer Review: Our group consisted of Boutros Hanna, Alex Adkins, Pat Williams and Joseph Sutton. We had collaborated together on how the modernist movement and American influence played out in the planning process of Canberra. We were lucky enough to meet with a man who has overseen the expansion of Canberra throughout the decades, former chief planner Geoff Campbell. Through our meeting with him on the 28^th November, 2013, he was able to elaborate on the Spatial Plan of 1967, the Federal Government and theNCDC’s role in Canberra’s planning and the neighbourhood units which are evident around Canberra today.  Alex Adkins did his research on the modernist movement and their influences in Canberra, Pat Williams pursued the earlier forms of planning which led to the coming of the modernist and American influences. Joseph Sutton explained America’s strong influence on Canberra during the many years of planning while Boutros assessed Canberra from within including the design competition and the Y plan of 1967.

 

 

 

References

ACT Government, 2013. Territory Plan. [Online]
Available at: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2008-27/current/default.asp
[Accessed 27 November 2013].

An Ideal City - The 1912 Competition to Design Canberra. 2013. An Ideal City - The 1912 Competition to Design Canberra. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.idealcity.org.au/. [Accessed 27 November 2013].

Benevolo, L., 2013. Origins of Modern Town Planning. [Online]
Available at: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/origins-modern-town-planning
[Accessed 27 November 2013].

Capital City Conundrum: An Exploration of Canberra as the Nation’s Capital, 2012, accessed from http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/Canberra (Accessed 26-11-13)

Freestone, R., 1986. Canberra as a Garden City 1901-1930. s.l.:s.n.

Freestone, 2004, The Americanisation of Australian Planning, accessed from http://learnonline.canberra.edu.au/pluginfile.php/786893/mod_resource/content/1/Freestone%2C%202004%2C%20The%20Americanisation%20of%20Australian%20Planning.pdf (Accessed 26-11-13)

Gordon, D. L., 2006. Planning Twentieth Century Capital Cities. Middlesex: Routledge. History, 2013. Home Insurance Building. [Online] Available at: http://www.history.com/topics/home-insurance-building
[Accessed 27 November 2013].

Griffins, D, 2008. The Writing of Walter Burley Griffin. 1st ed. Melbourne: Cambridge Press.

Legates Stout, 1998, Modernism and Early Planning, accessed from http://learnonline.canberra.edu.au/pluginfile.php/786876/mod_resource/content/1/LeGates%20%20Stout%2C%201998%2C%20Modernism%20and%20Early%20Urban%20Planning.pdf (Accessed 26-11-13)

Overall, J, 1995. Canberra: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow. 1st ed. Canberra: Cambridge Press.

Reid, P., 2002. Canberra Following Griffin. 1st ed. Canberra(ACT): National Archives of Australia.

Urban Nation: Australia’s Planning Heritage, 2010, accessed from http://books.google.com.au/books?id=dUrqBbqbZfkC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=neighbourhood+unit+canberra&source=bl&ots=PUShd6r-JV&sig=h-Ue5bAYPRH3mbxVa7uKFprrYXw[PH1] &hl=en&sa=X&ei=FymXUuivL82aiAf90oGgCA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=neighbourhood%20unit%20canberra&f=false

Robert Freestone, p.196. (Accessed 28-11-13)

Walter Burley Griffin Society: Significance and Influence http://www.griffinsociety.org/Introducing_the_Griffins/significance.html#flw (Accessed 28-11-13

Seminar Eight: The Americanization of Planning

The last seminar reading for Planning Theory brings us to perhaps, in my opinion, the most highly regarded piece of planning writing in Australian Planning theory. This piece, written by Robert Freestone, examines the major external influences on Australian planning during the post war era and....... don't expect any surprises here.  Its seems appropriate for Australian practitioners to travel abroad for inspiration on how to enhance the livability of cities through transport, infrastructure and technology considering Australia was one the youngest nations coming into the 20th century. The rapid rise of the American 'empire' during the 20th century through its wealth, technology, military, as well as its education allowed the flood gates to open for foreign practitioners from Australia and other nations to search for new ideas which could be beneficial back home. This was highly the case for Australia in the planning spectrum. You don't need to look far for for American influence at the start of the 20th century on home soil. Australia's capital city design competition entrants were predominantly Americans, with Chicago landscape architect Walter Burley Griffith winning out the prize.
Although many new ideas from the New World allowed Australia to advance at the beginning of the 20th century, WWII served as a critical 'watershed' in its influence on a global scale, especially in planning. When it comes to questioning whether Australia could have overlooked America's 'way' of planning and retained their sights on a more traditional 'British' approach I believe that there had to be a sense of inevitability at that time because America's fast-growing towns and cities, as well as its vast acceleration in its inventions and technology, during the 20th century served as a base line for other nations who were more aligned to pedestrian-friendly cities as they have 'successfully' managed to integrate the freeways and residential areas in a more pragmatic way. American towns and cities was the answer to the main problems of traffic congestion, suburban infrastructure and inner-city redevelopment. My final verdict on this piece of writing is that Australia had no option. The Pacific Ocean was simply our transmitter to the USA and considering Australia forged a fruitful relationship with the US during the Second World War America's influence was always destined to exacerbate economically, politically, and socially. Australian planning was indeed Americanized.

                        American Planning managed to successfully integrate the automobile in its newly-developed cities.

Seminar Seven: New Directions in Planning Theory

New Directions in Planning Theory by Susan Fainstein offers a captivating insight into the predominant theories of planning that are played out in a more capitalist political economic environment. Fainstein discusses the main three theories at hand; the Just City, New Urbanism and the Communicative Model. She elaborates on the three theories and how they have been put to practice by planners and other practitioners of the field during the period of the post-war era.

Fainstein explains that the Just City complex model reverberates on the theory that citizen participation is critical for positive outcomes to be delivered through developments in planning. However, there must be a clear understanding that this model is more aligned to Marxist views and socialism. This model, though may seem like a pleasant idea on paper, cannot be successful in a capitalist climate where market influence are at the forefront of developments, something which is contradictory to socialist views.
The New Urbanism theory is a more common idea taken up by planners, especially during the 1980's and 1990's. Its the idea that buildings, from shops to post offices, are to be of a convenient walking nature from the home. The New Urbanism also supports a fuse in land use and building density. Despite its vast negative environmental implications, this theory seems more pragmatic for this modern age.....well for the time being at least.
The Communicative Idea, meanwhile, is more about facilitating and mediating between groups of interests and stake holders. This theory model solely bases its philosophy on the idea of citizen participation. Despite this theory being extremely common amongst planners since WWII it has sometime failed due to the inability to be able to come to a consensus that is favourable for all groups of interest, therefore failing to implement a plan that can be suited for the majority of the population.

                              Sometime mediating stake holders can be extremely difficult,
                                       especially when all options on the table may not favour all groups
                                       of interest. The guy on the left, meanwhile, is adamant to get his
                                       choice of proposal recognized....lol

Today's 'Polis': Urban Morphology in Mexico City

Urban Morphology is the study of the processes and formations of human settlements. Through this, the study seeks to better understand the characteristics and dimensions as well as spacial structure of cities, towns, neighbourhoods as well as metropolitan areas. This is done by examining the patterns of its most fundamental components and the way it has been developed. One particular city caught my mind when in comes to urban morphology, Mexico City. Here are a few photos which illustrates the ancient geometric plans which define the urban metropolis that is Mexico City today.

Seminar Six: Anglo-American town planning theory since 1945: three significant developments but no paradigm shifts

Myself and our fellow class member Skye Chan had the opportunity to present a presentation in this seminar about a topic which I found very profound in the sense of planning today. The reading Anglo-American town planning theory since 1945: three significant developments but no paradigm shifts by Nigel Taylor explains the great theoretical changes and understanding of town planning during the course of the post World War II era. These changes were brought about through, what Taylor calls, a 'paradigm shift'. This paradigm shift explained by Taylor is in reference to the shift from the modern to the post-modern era during the mid twentieth century. Taylor also explains about how theorists and academics applied this concept of a 'paradigm shift' to town planning. This article is simply a discourse between academics and theorists who believed that planning should be seen in a more systems analytical sense and the planners and architects who see it simply as an exertion of design. I believe that the new theorists were within their own rights to claim that the artistic elements of planning were in fact 'outdated'. How can planning be sustained if it were to continue to focus heavily on design alone whilst we live in a world of vast social, political, economical and environmental change? towns are always subject to change because of these elements which contribute heavily to them. For towns to be sustainable and conformable us planners must expand our tuition beyond the areas of design and be more aware of these much broader issues. This paradigm changed the strategic aspect of planning, from the more universal, longer term approach to the much short-term, localized approach. I believe that this was the most fundamental change for planning because planning cannot be universally implemented in cities and towns which range in difference complexity, population growth etc. For each town are each to their own, or distinct to one another.

The shift from modernism to postmodernism was also a topic of debate for theorists since 1945 and Taylor has given us a brilliant interpretation of how this shift was perceived during the last half of the last century. We must understand that, as I've shown in a video during the seminar, there is no exact definition for postmodernism. It is a complex term that can be interpreted in many ways in discourse to modernism therefore the reason why postmodern theorists such as Jane Jacob and Christopher Alexander accused the modern thinkers like Le Corbusier and Ebenezer Howard for their 'outdated' modern beliefs. 

How can we achieve sustainability and adaptive towns and cities when we are constantly faced with the paradigm which continuously exacerbates the changes we see today? Taylor's reading highlights the importance that we simply cannot allow to continue to believe or understand that planning solely serves the purpose of design alone. We need to be better equipped to understand change, albeit we like it or not, through elements such as politics and economics, because through that we can make a positive difference in our world.

A great example of how one generation perceives a paradigm shift to another generation. Funny that.

Seminar Five: The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation

This seminar's reading The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation by P Healy elaborates on the shifting change in the role of spatial strategy formation in the area of planning. Healy embodies 5 steps which he sees more suitable for planners in which they can engage with all parties involved in policy making or development proposals. These steps explains how members of the community should engage and the style these discussions should reverberate on in order for policies to be implemented and discussions to be seen as a success for all parties involved. Healy also attempts to identify the meaning of 'community' He also refers to two meanings of community; the first is more spatially based, whilst the second is more stake based. It is important to accommodate the stakeholders in discussions as they hold the key for what is deemed more beneficial for their community. Healy believe that, despite conflicting interests amongst parties of interest, a resolution/s can benefit ALL parties and not a singular party which we had previously discussed in past seminars. Inclusionary argumentation, which perceived by Healy, follows up from the 5 step proposal of consultation but is emphasized more on analysis of argumentation brought forward by each party. Healy also mentions the importance of language during these discussions.

I believe that planning should always put all party interests on the table and not a singular interest at heart because a more engaged community will always produce better outcomes which will perhaps be more beneficial for all parties. Healy has re-emphasized this importance of citizen participation whilst also pointing out some other important aspects of spatial planning in which we had discussed before in previous seminars. Healy has demonstrated through his writings of this text that spatial form, despite its ever-evolving surroundings, is more pragmatic through citizen participation rather than simply just theoretical propositions.   

Seminar Four: Contested Cities - Social Process and Spatial Form

Hey guys and girls, I'm back again. Just another delayed response to a seminar however today I'll be reviewing seminar four's Contested Cities: Social Process and Spatial form by David Harvey. Harvey, in this article, urges us current and future planners to make a more malleable approach in the way we plan to make cities "more flexible and adjustable" so that future generations can alter their surrounding based on 'their' current social, economical and environmental climate. He also discourages design as a means for solving social-related issues. He emphasizes the need for tuition in the terms that cities be seen as an exertion of process rather than simply just 'things'. One of Harvey's most elaborate themes in this text is the need to place further importance on communities. I have to agree on some of the aspects provided to us here by Harvey such as the importance to build communities that less 'alienate' people from amongst each other. I have never believed in gated communities (one of the examples provided by Harvey) because of the vast implications, albeit both socially and economically. One example of a gated community is based on my own experience where in the Sydney south-west area of Campbelltown (area of Sydney with very low socio-economic status) a large gated community exists where its surroundings are simply small wooden homes and large factories (half of them highly decayed). I've been inside this gated community and immediately realized the obvious difference between the inside and the outside. House are much larger, locals driving in BMW's and Mercedez and people are more acquainted with each other, where as on the outside, houses are much smaller, utes and Holdens dominate the automobile scenery and the most working people are dressed in fluro-coloured tradies shirts. It is these segregations and alienation which demoralizes the sense of community. Cities have a much lesser sense of community which needs to be addressed so that future generations yet unborn may experience that sense of community within their own cities and not the alienation in which we have and are currently experiencing. Process is the epitome of planning theory for us planners (well my opinion anyway) because short term plans which are adjustable and well sustained produce much better outcomes. Spacial form and social processes need to be better understood by planners in better light so that cities can become more functionable and well sustained.

Seminar Three: A Ladder of Citizen Participation

This article by Sherry Arnstein illustrates the deepening problem of planning development implementations in regards to the participation of citizens in many major cities (Arnstein used some major American cities as examples to her arguments). She has gone further on her criticism of this issue by developing what she called 'The Eight Rungs of citizen participation'. This ladder created by Arnstein can be seen as a form of hierarchy which illustrates eight levels of citizen participation; from the lowest form which is 'non-participation' of manipulation and therapy  (which she sees as those who are seen by the upper half of the hierarchy as uneducated and therefore needed to be cured of their ignorance) to the highest level of 'citizen power' consisting of citizen control and delegated power. She sees the highest form as the ones who generally 'obtain the majority of decision-making'. These people are generally of higher status or simply just wealthy. She has also argued about the growing hyperplaurism in some American cities. I have to agree with Arnstein's statement that many groups or community factions are overpowering government's functioning ability because their growing influence is actually hard to contain considering many citizens want to participate and have their voices heard. It is to my belief that this is perhaps the most sensitive topic of discussion of planning because one of the most fundamental aspects of planning, as planners, is to listen very carefully to citizen demands. The problem is that the citizen power of participation, who have the greater influence on decision making, are likely to have not visited a development site which is of discussion. Us planners need to be very aware that participation, regardless of where citizens sit on this 'rungs ladder', is very crucial when deciding on which is more suitable and acceptable when coming to development proposals. We cannot allow ourselves to distinguish citizens based on this ladder because the final development may not suit client requirements. Might as well go back to medieval times and plan according to merchant demands and leave out the voices of the majority who are of middle or poor class statuses.

Seminar Two: Modern and Early Urban Planning

This reading by Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout explain the the rapid growth of cities during the period after the Industrial Revolution. The growth of factories in inner city and urban areas as well as the establishment of the transportation hubs and markets led to rapidly increased population shifts from regional and rural areas to urban metropolises. All these events which eventuated from the course of the Industrial Revolution is the reason why Urban and Regional Planning is seen as a profession today. It is highly unusual to praise difficult situations for the recognition of the planning profession but as planners we must understand that sometimes dim circumstances can lead to positive outcomes and this reading seems to demonstrate that clearly. If we look at the post-Industrial Revolution in cities it was evident that the rapid population that accompanied that wasn't going to magically fall in place where everyone would be housed without any problems. The lack of planning at the time led to extreme shortages in housing which of course led to urban slums and increased poverty. The Great Depression called upon the government to take action during the greatest financial crisis of the modern era. The New Deal implemented by Franklin D. Roosevelt led to the creation of thousands of jobs such as construction of many new post offices. Large scale projects were put in place such as the Hoover Dam which generated plenty of jobs.

The turn of the 20th century, in my opinion, is one of the most pivotal of the modern era due to evolving cities, new movements (such as The Parks Movement),as well as the upbringing of many academics and architects who stimulated new ideas and approaches such as Le Courbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright. I was quite intrigued when I read that Le Courbusier orchestrated the theory that cities should serve as the 'administration centre of the bureaucratic, technocratic state'. Also, Lloyd's idea of the 'Usonion' House couldn't have come at a better time especially during the course of the post Second World War where a population boom scattered most suburban areas outside of major cities in the United States. Frederick Law Olmsted was also a significant figure in improving the urban setting. He realized that real plans should 'distinguish' from nominal paper plans as it 'actually expresses the collective will of the community'. This led to vast changes in which master plans are created and explained. These new ideas as well as the idea of separation of pedestrians and automobiles formulated the modern urban setting as we see it today. All these developments are essential for a Planners understanding of the modern urban setting as it provides the backbone for future references in which we can look back and figure out where and how they got it right in such difficult circumstances. Overall, this reading was extremely stimulating and I highly recommend this read to Planners and Planners-in-training.

Have a Great Week

Boutros Hanna

Seminar One: Arguments For and Against Planning

The reading Arguments for and Against Planning by Robert E. Klosterman with the following presentation conducted by Alex and James in seminar three presented four highly debated topics which have been controversial not only within the profession of planning but during the course of the 20th century. The arguments for and against planning in the fields of economics, Pluralism, Traditionalism and Marxism have sparked intense discussions in the academic world about the validity of planning.

The economic arguments in the reading presented quite startling approaches in which planning and reducing regulations was called upon to be abandoned in favour of private entrepreneurship and competition among market forces. It is sensible to believe that markets should in itself allow to flow within the framework of Laisser-Faire. I believe that government interference is required in an event of a recession or, worse, depression. Planners must understand the economic situations that reverberates around them so they can properly assess situations for example an increase to land values can affect constructions to new transportation systems a community may require. Economics play an integral part of a planner’s profession and planners must always be aware of the economic surroundings. Planning must remain as it is and never in the hands of entrepreneurial opportunists who undervalue the importance of this profession. 

The arguments brought forward by Pluralists, Traditionalists and Marxists all provide different views and alternatives for the profession of planning. However as planners we must understand that not all ideologies can fit into an ever-changing world. The arguments brought forward by the three ideologies reflect the need to recognize planning as a mean of serving the interests of societies but they differ when arguing the processes in which this must be done in. All arguments amongst the three ideological perspectives clearly state that planning must never be undermined in the modern era as it is required to represent the vast interests of an ever-changing society. I believe to an extent that government intervention should be relative in communities where it is needed most and not to a point where it is not required and can lead to heavy negative impacts. 

In conclusion, the reading sets an understanding that us planners must be aware of groups which potentially pose dangers to interests of communities. The reading was intriguing and very stimulating and does indeed set the standards for what planners need to know in order to succeed in the profession. 

Here are some of the photos taken from the second seminar in which we were split into groups and instructed to come up with ideas and areas in which planning contributes to or affects. 

Fifty Theses on Urban Planning and Urban Planners - My response

As a newcomer to the field of Urban Planning I initially believed that the profession was primarily structured to serve several purposes of the community such as deciding on where major transport facilities should be placed and how they would generate revenue based its location and economic geography, however it is interesting that the author of "Fifty Theses on Urban Planning and Urban Planners" Raphael Fischler claims it to be "ill-defined". He elaborates further by claiming that their is a large uncertainty within the profession due to the ever-evolving cities, small communities and economic sectors. It strikes me to understand that an Urban Planner is someone who in this day and age must have his two hands full, such as taking responsibilities beyond the realms of what this profession is 'suppose' to serve. The profession of Planning rose from the heights of the industrial Revolution to serve the rapidly growing middle-class however, today, it must instigate ways to ensure the positive progress of cities and local communities. I find it interesting that Urban planning stems out to all other forms of professions such architecture and engineering (multi-disciplinary field) in order to be able to prepare plans. He is reasonable to say that this profession is for the "bright, motivated and courageous" due to the intensity of this profession in pursuit of  improving our way of life in cities and communities. However I do believe that someone like an architect or an engineer should at least share some of our responsibilities considering planners work in the same arena. They are educated as we are and should have studied the foundations of management and being able to converse and assist with clients. However, I do accept the greater responsibilities laid onto us planners in cities and communities. Campuses, airports, broadband networks, environmental awareness, population growth, infrastructure are all evolving elements within our communities and there is no doubt that Urban Planners will need to step up to the plate and ensure that the future is bright for cities and local communities.

Who I am.

Hey everyone,

Just a bit of myself firstly. I'm Boutros Hanna but I'd prefer to be called Peter. I'm a sports junkie, watching all kinds of sport but would spend more hours of the week sitting in my man cave watching either the NRL or the English Premiership (Go the Knights and Liverpool). I'm of Egyptian heritage but born and bred in the urban parts of Sydney.
I'm a new kid on the block in this Urban Planning course after undertaking a course in design for a couple of years (which turned to no avail). It was the relentless reading in urban planning during the winter break which shifted my academic direction from the field of design to planning. I do not like to make any premature calls on my aspirations for the future but this planning course may indeed set the grounds for what lies ahead.
Over the next couple of weeks I will be posting my responses to the seminars which will be critically analyzed and I hope you all could take a few minutes to read and respond to my seminar responses.

Take it easy and see you in class,

Pete