A City Centre with a Landscape Margaret Hendry (1980) 'The parliamentary triangle Canberra: a city centre with a landscape.' Landscape Australia Volume 4, pages 268-275. The Parliamentary Triangle-Canberra CANBERRA, a city born out of political necessity has surprised even the most optimistic dreams of its creators. Influenced by the ideals of the garden city movement of the 19th century, this 20th century city has become a sparkling jewel in the landscape. The gem which shines the brightest is the Parliamentary Triangle with the new Parliament House as the pearl of great price. The manner in which it has developed has created a puzzle which will tease the minds of civic designers for ever. The creator, a Chicago landscape architect, Walter Burley Griffin planned Canberra in a grand manner, He created a composition in both time and space, based on the classic civic design solutions expressed in 16th century renaissance Rome, the formalism of Versailles in the following century and more especially the axis in the Capital of Washington coupled with a new dimension - 'the landscape'. In so doing Griffin introduced an immense scale into civic design. This resulted in a composition where the buildings are rarely seen together, but rather as separate elements in space surrounded by the landscape. So the Parliamentary Triangle is a unique composition. Problems of Scale Few cities have the open spaces which adorn the central areas of Canberra. They are visual spaces within which the buildings stand as individual elements. This problem of scale is highlighted by comparison. For example, Parkes Place, located immediately in front of Parliament House, is larger than the piazza of St. Peter's in Rome; Collins Street in Melbourne is equal to the distance between King's and Commonwealth Avenue bridges and finally, the central area of Sydney is about the same size as the Triangle, Fig. 2. Another way to reveal the scale and how it poses problems for the designer is to consider the dimensions and size of the spaces. The Triangle is some 182 ha in area with distances as great as 3.5 km along the central axis, i.e. from the Australian War Memorial to the site of the new Parliament House on Capital Hill, which is the pivot point of a Triangle with arms each 3 km long, Fig.3. The pedestrian feels overwhelmed in the Triangle by the scale. The viewer only sees how the parts fit together with the long or distant views. The land axis reveals both Parliament House and the War Memorial, Fig.4. This is emphasized by the visual openness of the axis, some 3.5 km long and 183 m wide, with Lake Burley Griffin Occupying a little under one third of the length, Fig. 5. All the parts have been designed to ensure this visual openness and wide separation of the buildings so that they stand separately in space. The effect of this is to reduce the apparent height of the buildings. For instance the National Library is some 21 m high, i.e. about the height of a 4-5 storey building but the building appears quite small, Fig. 6. The space in which the Library stands also helps to strengthen this illusion, there are about 715m, approximately the length of four V.F.L. football fields between the Library and its visible neighbour across the land axis, the National Gallery. The immense scale of the area swallows up the pedestrian so that the individual becomes a viewer rather than a user of the space. Even the more recent attempts to grapple with this problem by creating a 'National Place', to become am activity area for the Nation does mot overcome the visual openness. The design and placing of the High Court were influenced by the concept of the 'National Place'. If it is not developed, them the processional way and formal forecourt link will create an even more interesting design problem, and the promised underground car parking a great loss. This sense of visual as well as physical distance results in the viewer in the Triangle being mostly aware of the straight elevations of the buildings. In other Cities, the buildings are usually only seem close up such as in London, across a square or a street, or a park or the end of am avenue. Another example of this visual separation would be the Russell Offices, the second of the pivot points of the Triangle, fig. 7. While the buildings are some 3 km from Capital Hill, they will be seen from the forecourt approach to the new Parliament House as either sectional or skyline elevations. Here is the challenge to the architects and civic designers. How to create a well ordered composition that exploits the potential of all the major elements. These range from an immature Eucalypt forest on the north eastern lake shore in front of the Russell Office Complex linked to, and contrasted with, the adjoining grassland park setting on either side of the land axis, separated by the lake and scattered with a series of unrelated symetrical composition of buildings. So far, the policy in Canberra has resulted in large buildings with simple facades and outlines with an off-white or grey finish. The intention is to give a sense of unity to the composition. The result has been to create a collection of individual buildings monumental in character and size but appearing as separate structural elements in a large park. A question may be posed as to whether this is what Burley Griffin set out to achieve? In the competition plan, the buildings fan out around the hills, so that they appear to move from their centres. Today, as the viewer travels both inside and outside the Triangle, the buildings and their setting, especially the surrounding hills, appear to regroup, so that the scene is always changing to a series of asymetrical compositions. If the present layout is compared with the original competition plan, there are a number of significant differences. The Griffin plan shows up a stage setting involving a Casino where the War Memorial stands, a Theatre and Opera House in the position where now two government portal buildings on either side of Anzac Parade are located, Fig.8. On the opposite side of the bank the central watergate was flanked by the Courts of Justice, Government office buildings to Parliament House and then the Capitol on Capital Hill (now the site of the new Parliament House) Fig. 9, with the Governor General's and Prime Minister's residences on either side. It was a composition of a pyramid of buildings, mountains and clouds. This pyramidal effect has not so far been achieved but instead a collection of individual large buildings dispersed in a disjointed landscape setting has emerged. A New Dimension More recently a new dimension has been added to the scene. With a stroke of brilliance, Richard Thorp, the Australian New York based designer of the new Parliament House has tried to capture the essence of this problem and to re-create the pyramid in a different form. On the crest of Capital Hill the design highlights on the skyline a sculptured pinnacle which re¬inforces the landform and provides the stage setting for an ever changing dramatic composition of cloud formation. The sculptural dominance of the national emblem uninhibited by a mass of buildings and associated assembly of cars, heralds in a new exciting era in design. The current plan is for the construction to be programmed so that the buildings can be occupied by Australia Day 1988 - the 200th anniversary of European settlement in Australia, and this will help to overcome problems which have clogged previous designers. Griffin in particular had to contend with a disjointed programme of development. It is easier for the viewer to comprehend the overall composition if the major elements in the design composition are constructed in sequence within a reasonable time. The Griffin plan depended on relatively rapid construction of all the parts to bring the composition together. Perhaps one of the contributing factors that made the Griffin design so difficult to achieve was Griffin's lack of understanding of the economic and political factors and especially the time involved to generate both the need for and the capacity to construct the buildings. He may even not have comprehended the magnitude of the scale of the triangle he created. It has already taken some 50 years to establish the layout. During this time, there have been major changes in both the character, form and the materials used in the buildings. Hopefully, the Thorp design will not be hampered by these disadvantages, and the economic and political climate will allow the design-construction-management skills available to complete the building complex on time within the budget of $220 million based on current prices. Since World War 1 and more particularly the last War, the Australian population has substantially increased and its people have developed a political awareness reflected in the increasing administrative services and accommodation required. So it is not surprising that the scale of building for the new Parliament House is so great. The accommodation will be three times the size of the present Parliament House, some 70 000 m2. It is understandable that the competition design should seek to illustrate a sense of national purpose and pride and even perhaps some political maturity. The New Parliament House The design for the new Parliament House creates a composition in a grand manner using both materials, design philosophies and a sense of history peculiar to our times. The ingenious blending of the double boomerang form into the hill and at the same time fanning the buildings out to take advantage of the 360° views of the crest is challenging. But to remove the hill is an even greater challenge. The extensive earth works proposed will destroy much of the indigenous character of the hill and most of the mature Eucalyptus. The scale of the operation would require one large truck to be filled with earth and rock every minute of each working day for six months. While the concept of providing underground parking, coach areas, plant rooms, etc, plus the parliamentary accommodation is brilliant, it may be questioned whether this is really based on Burley Griffin's basic philosophy. Remember, Griffin's plan provided for the horse and buggy, and Parkes Way was designed by the National Capital Development Commission for modern traffic. The surprise was that the plan could be so easily adapted. Sadly in the transition much of the Parliamentary Triangle has been taken up by car parks. Surely this points to the need for some effective form of public transport being provided within the triangle, such as an underground rail link to avoid these massive areas of landscape destruction, as well as the car occupying prime value land and destroying the visual landscape character. While the design of the new Parliament House and its surrounds is based on 'a plan of intense order and geometric form, but one which results in a pliable and enfolding landscape', it is essential to be aware that the crest of Capital Hill and the landscape will be re-created. A danger exists that a European soft green landscape will emerge and the Griffin concept of hills with indigenous bushland such as Mount Ainslie, Black Mountain and Red Hill are lost, while trying to solve the weight loads on building structures and depth of soil requirements for Eucalypts. On the other hand the Thorp design does show a great awareness of most of the significant elements which Griffin used to control the form of his design, particularly the main road framework, (Fig. 10.) the lake, now Lake Burley Griffin, and the land axis 'The Land Axis of Canberra as a fundamental gesture of the City, a line around which all other design has evolved in circular and radial directions'. These are two dimensional elements and important to the form of the Triangle but lack the third dimension, particularly the topographical and landscape character. These last two qualities have given the Griffin plan a uniqueness that the new Parliament House on Capital Hill could lose. Perhaps this may well be the reason for Griffin choosing Camp Hill for Parliament House and Lord Holford (Holford and Partners, London) selecting the Lakeside site. On the other hand, the Thorp solution of placing the building complex low so that the new landscape and elevation height of the position recreates the image of Capital Hill is imaginative. It overcomes the problem of Victorian architectural images and period styling that has given the Parliament House a Grecian facade and the Westminister Houses of Parliament a Gothic form which bears no relation to either their function or any sense of unity of purpose or design. The concept of the building avoids the monumentality of these buildings imposed on the landscape, but seeks to discover the spirit behind 'the Greek monumentalization of an acropolis, in which there is a continuity from the most minute elements of the architectural order to the massive form of the building itself, yet all of which is congruent with the landscape. While the land axis remains the key element of the composition and continues to extend without interruption across the hill, Fig. 11. this could be too forced, particularly with the link between the existing and the new Parliament Houses, resulting in similar problems to the 'National Place' in front of the existing House. The danger exists that this House could become isolated in space and its scale drastically reduced. It is essential that part of the design philosophy should include forest scale planting of indigenous trees between these two buildings, not only to hide the scars in the landscape but also to draw the building elements together into one single composition. While the concept of the curvilinear walls separating the malls and the courts within and without the building complex are an exciting design prospect, Fig. 12, care needs to be taken not to create a spatial aloofness particularly with the forecourt and ceremonial areas. The major problem facing the designers is to weld the structures and progressive development with its inherent site work and untidy scars into the general view, especially from the surrounding hills. The Overall Landscape The overall landscape character also needs to be monitored in the light of the 1961 recommendations by Lord Holford setting the scene for Canberra's landscape development. His recommendations outlined the need to maintain and re-inforce the natural landscape with its grey/brown colour dominating, using irrigated landscapes and flowering trees and shrubs in selected areas for the formal arms of the triangle. A danger exists with the large scale alteration to the natural landscape of Capital Hill, that the recreated landscape becomes a series of emerald green spaces used in a decorative manner to the buildings without relating it to the immense scale of its landscape setting. Griffin has provided through the main road framework a magnificent site, not only for the new Parliament House but also to act as a central pivot point, Fig.13. During the time he was the Federal Capital Director of Design, he constructed the main roads and avenues establishing the structural pattern of the roads radiating from Capital Hill, and the main artery to the City, Northbourne and Commonwealth Avenues, Fig. 14. This has proved to be a far sighted action for it enabled the fabric of the plan to be developed at a later date. Both the lake and the road pattern are two dimensional on plan, but it is the third dimension of the buildings in space which has caused both the planners and designers to puzzle about this insoluble problem of space, structure and time. Perhaps the Thorp design emphasises the problem even more. The question that should be raised may well be that the designers, after Griffin, saw it as an architectural problem rather than one of landscape. For example, Griffin made the landscape a dominant element in the overall composition of Canberra, and in particular the Parliamentary Triangle, but he did not fully exploit the importance of the relationship between the massing of the buildings and the trees to form an integrated composition. The competition plan showed three components geometrically integrated together. These are: - • the hills used to terminate and to act as climaxes to the avenues in a formal composition, • the triangle used in place of the rectangular grid based on intersecting co-ordinates and • circles and the triangle form the Parliamentary Triangle. These three elements combined together to form a strong framework were woven together with a chain of lakes (now the water axis) Fig. 15. Griffin's concept was based on a geometrical layout set in an immense area using the landscape as the dominant element. Development within the Triangle has been the subject of tight controls. The one which had the most influence was the Gazetted plan. This is a statutory instrument which provides for parliament to control any changes to the Griffin plan through the control of the layout of roads. All variations to the plan must be gazetted and tabled in Parliament. So the Gazetted plan of 1925, Fig. 16. devised by Sir Littleton Groom and Charles Daly, safeguarded the form and layout of the Parliamentary Triangle. This coupled with the decision of Cabinet in 1964, that any buildings to be placed in the Triangle must have the approval of Cabinet, further controlled the form and amount of development allowed. Added to this, is the problem of obtaining Cabinet approval for a landscape plan that might have included the removal of any tree from the Triangle and the fact that there had been an attitude not to do anything until the new Parliament House site was resolved. The result has been an open area with large monumental buildings, each with its own landscape often an embellishment to particular buildings. Fig 17. The crux of the design problem is how the spaces in between the buildings have been handled, Fig. 18. Most of the early tree planting was experimental, some such as the Sequoias were unsuccessful. They were usually planted in a formal layout related to the geometry of the road and building forms. Overall the approach was too limited and resulted in the use of single trees in lines, avenues or sparse groups rather than as a mass relating to the scale and composition of the spaces between the buildings. The result was a municipal park rather than creating a composition of volumes and voids of buildings and spaces within a landscape, related to specific uses. This attitude continued until recently, with the result that the landscape development is haphazard and often out of scale, for example the development of the National Rose Garden, which does not relate to the scale or function of the Triangle. The landscape became more associated with individual buildings or was used to try to hide the building. More recently, it has been used to help create ceremonial forecourts or to relate the buildings together. Figs. 18 and 19. The Parts of the Triangle Overall there are problems with the way the parts of the Triangle relate to each other, for example, the land axis has two parts -- Anzac Parade, which functions well, and the section near the present Parliament House which does not. The width of the former, is equivalent to the length of the V.F.L. football field in the Melbourne Cricket Ground. The formal planting of tall growing Eucalypts along Anzac Parade helps strengthen the land axis and at the same time acts to reduce the scale and length of the axis as well as the visual separation of the adjoining residential areas. This planting defines the vista sight lines and supports the monumentality in the civic design philosophy, most probably based on repeating the idea behind the axis of similar length at Versailles, Washington and New Dehli. The two portal buildings on the southern end define the width and punctuate its length. But the area on the southern side of Lake Burley Griffin does not function so well. The buildings are visually separated and it is too difficult for the pedestrian to move from one building to the next. The reason for this may be illustrated with a further comparison, that is the land including the land axis in Anzac Parade is the width of one V.F.L. football field and the area between the National Library and Gallery is equal to four. The ground surface has become divided by roads and disjointed with car parks. The tree planting has been more related to individual buildings because it has been carried out over a long period of time. In order to draw all these unrelated elements together there needs to be massed planting of evergreen Eucalypts along the enclosing arms of Kings and Commonwealth Avenues and on Camp Hill to provide a backdrop to the National Library, Parliament House, Treasury, Administration Block and the National Gallery and Law Courts. This is particularly important as the planting of both avenues on the boundary of the apex of the Triangle consists of deciduous trees. The object was to ensure that these lines registered strongly in the overviews from the surrounding hills. The massed evergreen planting of Eucalypts and Wattles is important also to act as a foreground link to the new Parliament House. Within this area, near the existing Parliament House, there is a need to use bold mass planting of trees to draw into an overall landscape composition the separate precinct approach to each building and especially for the trees to be seen against the sharp lines of their elevations. This is particularly important as the size, massing, form and materials of the buildings vary considerably and it is only colour which is the common element. The planting so far has been mostly out of scale with the Triangle. This has resulted in a small scale and open landscape of a variety of different species of trees in which a variety of different shaped and proportioned buildings stand. The use of fewer species of trees in the larger spaces and more massed planting, especially Eucalypts, to create divisions as well as to help articulate the space, especially those associated with the individual buildings would help bring the parts of the Triangle together and emphasise the land axis. The buildings should relate to each other and appear in a landscape with more unifying elements to draw the structures together to form an overall composition, and so help to fulfill the Griffin Dream. The scale of the planting should visually draw the major buildings and structures together, so that the pedestrian is no longer overwhelmed by the immense scale and the effect of horizontal distance.