As an island continent with major river systems all human access to, and often into, Australia, across time, has at some stage been via water. Many researchers interested in the ways people relate to the lands they occupy, have for some time years explored the notion of reading the stories of communities using the tapestry of markings they have left on the land. But the land offers only parts of the landscape stories of Australia's communities. Have marks have been left on the water? Can watermarks also offer translations into stories of human interactions with place? A study framework co-developed by the author in 1994 for the identification of historic cultural landscapes was successfully floated onto the water as the basis for the study of The Brisbane River as an Element of Designed Landscapes. The study received a gold award for heritage conservation in 2001 from the National Trust of Queensland. Subsequently Central Moreton Bay as an Element of Designed Landscapes, was completed as a sequel to the study of the Brisbane River.

In 2000 a number of research projects were commissioned to investigate a variety of aspects concerning the cultural significance of the waterways of South East Queensland (SEQ), through the Brisbane River Management Group (BRMG), and the South East Queensland Regional Water Quality Management Strategy (SEQRWQMS). One of these investigations concerned the role the Brisbane River has played, and continues to play, as an element of the designed landscapes associated with its cultural and physical environment. The study was undertaken jointly by Jan Seto, Architect and Landscape Architect, as primary consultant, supported by Margaret Cook, consultant historian.

The study, The Brisbane River as an Element of Designed Landscapes, was commissioned in April 2000 by Waterways Planning, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on behalf of the BRMG and project managed by Stewart Armstrong of the Cultural Heritage Branch of the EPA. The brief called for a "an overview or context study of the way the River has been, and is being, used as an element of designed landscapes along the River and within its riparian influence, with particular attention to public landscapes". In responding to this aspect of the brief the consultants stated,

The sequel study, Central Moreton Bay as an Element of Designed Landscapes was commissioned in July 2001 by the Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership. It was intended that the theoretical framework and study methodology that the consultant team had successfully applied to the initial study of, The Brisbane River as an Element of Designed Landscapes in 2000 would again be the methodology used for this new study of the designed landscapes of Central Moreton Bay. This new brief noted that the project mission was,

Both projects focused on the water as a determinate of the uses of the land adjoining it, and examined the response of these designed landscapes to both the land and water uses they serviced. The contribution of the respective water-bodies to the shaping of the designed landscapes which they bordered was emphasised, rather than studying how the individual designed landscapes studied might have incorporated references to their watery interfaces. Although the author had spent a lifetime of "mucking around in boats" across both these water-bodies the discipline of the systematic framework adopted for field observations and field recording revealed a number of surprises, tested a number of preconceptions and confirmed a range of "gut feelings" about these familiar waters when subjected to this unfamiliar level of scrutiny.

Design Theory in relation to many aspects of the Built environment has been well documented and discussed over time. The application and understanding of this design theory in the broader environment of cultural landscapes, particularly in Australia, has only recently begun to be investigated and discussed. The discussion is not confined to designers of landscapes as this extract from an address by Bruce Gyngell, noted film and television producer, given as the inaugral Eugene Goosens lecture at the Sydney Opera house in 1993 illustrates well,

I’m not the person to undertake the task of critical historian, but I think I’m able to suggest some avenues and perhaps bush tracks of inquiry.

The first is our peculiarly Australian notions of distance and the horizon. Having recently returned from ten years in Europe, I’m struck once again by the different way in which we look at things. In Europe, centuries of urbanisation produce a span of vision over short distances. Our horizon is not limited by the brick wall of a towering building just a few yards away, nor by the lowered clouds of an overcast sky. Here we have the brightest blue and the highest sky imaginable, and we think we can see eternity. We look wider, we look further as a matter of course, and that shows visually in our productions. It shows also in the way in which we conceive what might be attempted. We look at a wider range of possibilities, we see things in greater depth. Something of this generosity of spatial vision comes across in the programs we export. They are like us, they look like us, people viewing them in other cultural backgrounds like what they see, like the way we see.  1

In defining the "Designed Landscapes" to be studied the brief for these projects called for the consideration in the first instance of the definition used by the World Heritage Convention. A detailed discussion of the definition developed by the World Heritage Convention is published in both the study volumes. 2

In 1997 a substantial report entitled A Theoretical Framework for Designed Landscapes in Australia (TFDLA) was published in three volumes. Its publication was the culmination of a national research project involving eight separate research projects, one undertaken in each State and Territory in Australia under the National Estate Grants programme overseen by the Australian Heritage Commision.

This project was initiated following discussion with senior officers of the Australian Heritage Commission. A lack of heritage recognition for designed landscapes was identified by Juliet Ramsay's 1991 report Parks, Gardens and Special Trees: A classification and assessment method for the Register of the National Estate. The need to place such designed landscapes in a theoretical framework to assist the Commission in its work thus became apparent. Whereas previously, gardens had formed the major category of designed landscapes considered by the Commission, it was widely recognised that other categories were equally deserving of recognition. The study covers the continent of Australia and the island state of Tasmania, but not Australia's external territories.
This work is intended to be a first step in an on going National project to give
these designed landscapes the recognition they deserve. 3

It should be noted at the out-set that this study confines itself to the water landscapes designed predominantly by European immigrants to South East Queensland post 1820, their descendants, and further waves of immigrants, both from external and internal population migrations. The cultural landscapes of the Indigenous peoples of this country, to the present time, were considered in a parallel and complementary investigation. Indigenous relationships with this land did not cease with European contact. It is recognised that the creation of designed landscapes significant to the indigenous peoples of this region continues as an ongoing process, a viable and vital part of the contemporary community aspirations.

The framework proposed for the study of these designed landscapes was developed by Sim and Seto in 1996 for the Queensland Branch of the Australian Garden History Society and published in the Inventory of Historic Cultural Landscapes in Queensland, Final report, Stage 1 1996 (IHCLQ) 5. Subsequently the methodology was successfully applied to a study of A Theoretical Framework for Designed Landscapes in the Northern Territory. 6

The study methodology used as a framework a typology of landscapes based on the primary land-use for which they were created as a basis for a variety of investigative purposes. It is this landscape typology which has been used as the basis for field identification and accompanying discussion notes of the designed landscapes of the Brisbane River and Central Moreton Bay.

The typology is based on a two-tier system of classification. The first subdivision involves identifying the landscape to be studied as one of ten primary "landscape categories". Subsequently the landscape is then further recognised within one of the eighty-four described sub categories of "landscape type". As these landscape categories and types refer to a primary "land-use" (which may change over time) rather than "a design style or design period" this framework for recording and discussion was readily floated out across the water in relation to water use.

In the first instance The Broader Riparian Landscapes were considered as the geographical and historical contexts for the detail of the designed landscapes to be studied. In designed landscape terms the designation of these Broader Riparian Landscapes was both visual and perceptual rather than being defined in terms of a static, and/or physically delineable study area, or a defined river catchment. There are places where the perceived landscape may stretch to a distant horizon, for example the wide deltaic landscapes of the lower reaches of the river. At other locations there is little physical discrimination between the riverbed and banks and the broader riparian landscape, for the purposes of this study. This is particularly the case in areas with high banks topped by relatively flat surrounding topography.

An identification of a subdivision system within each Broader Riparian Landscapes into physically smaller study areas also needed to be made to enable a comprehensive consideration of designed landscape places along the River. Perhaps it should not have been surprising that the smaller landscape units recommended coincided with the historical division of the River into "reaches". This result evolved through a distillation of thoughts and trialed approaches rather than an initial and/or convenient premise. Consideration of the field notes regarding changes in land-uses, and observed subtleties in designed landscape character, led to the use of "reaches" as the appropriate unit for detailed field analysis, presentation of the results of that analysis, and ongoing investigation.

"The Reaches" are a significant landscape feature of the Brisbane River. Geographically the Brisbane River meanders, particularly where it flows through the Brisbane City Council Local Government Area. The named reaches coincide with the straighter stretches of these meanders and display a surprising degree of unity with respect to common land-use activity, river use activity, and landscape character, along each reach of river. The following list details the landscape units considered for this study.

When I began planning the fieldwork for this research in July 2001 my first course of action was to seek out a range of general literature and images of this catchment area. … After more frustrating days, digging deeper and seemingly getting no-where I remarked to my consultant historian that "Catchment Area 12 was the big hole in the middle of Moreton Bay, filled with water." Later a colleague who is a resident of the southern Moreton Bay region made a very similar observation when informed of my work on this consultancy commission. 9

In the first instance a broader landscape base was identified to provide the geographical and historical context for the detail of the designed landscapes to be studied. In designed landscape terms the designation of these "broader landscapes" was again both visual and perceptual. In the Central Bay, the perceived landscape generally stretches to the horizon, near or far, and is ultimately visually delineated by some elevated ground be it coastal escarpment, island, or distant mountain range. Only the view north along the shipping channel hints at the vastness of distance implicit where the sea meets the sky. Even here this view is more of a vista, contained by the arcane mound of Moreton Island to the east and the mainland to the west.

The presentation of the field information for the designed landscapes of Central Moreton Bay was undertaken in the same strict and systematic format as the study for the designed landscapes of the Brisbane River. There were two subtle differences. These were developed in response to refining the approach of the work on the river. The first page for each detailed designed landscape unit included here general field notes on the designed landscapes recorded along with the table and map format which had been used for the Brisbane River study. The second page for each discussion area included observations made about the particular designed landscapes of the place considered across five aspects derived from the field work recording sheets, 'Gazing Seawards', 'Looking Landwards', 'Moreton Bay Waters', 'Littoral Landscapes' and 'The Shoreline'. Also included were appropriate photographic illustrations for these five aspects of the landscapes. In selecting the photographs the choice was made to interpret both the headings of Moreton Bay Waters and Littoral Landscapes in terms of the way people used these places and had perhaps modified these, or adjacent landscapes, in order to facilitate each use. Thus people and/or boating activities are depicted in the photographs of Moreton Bay Waters while Littoral Landscapes consider the many ways people access and use this ever-changing inter-tidal environment and the design of the structures introduced to the landscape to facilities these activities.

It is worth noting again for both studies that the function of the tabular presentation of the analysis of the fieldwork phase of this study was aimed at revealing design patterns in the landscape and design issues arising from this patination rather than identifying particular designed landscape themselves.

Firstly, this next step is a consolidation and summary of observations made during the field work phase of this study with reference to the ten designed landscape categories developed under the IHCLQ framework methodology. Secondly, from these observations, a number of specific places have been selected as "Indicative Designed Landscapes" from each of the ten landscape categories for further study and/or comment. The key word here is "Indicative". Landscapes selected to illustrate and support the discussion have as far as possible been selected from outside the realms of those landscapes or landscape types currently noted on Heritage Registers at either Local Government or State Government levels. In looking outside the existing Heritage Frameworks for exemplar "Indicative Designed Landscapes" it is intended to widen the debate regarding "What is a Designed Landscape"? It was sought to draw attention particularly to the part the natural activities of water processes play as design tools in designing landscapes with a water component. The resulting designed landscapes are often overlooked as contributors to our cultural heritage. These landscapes are either less impressive to the point of being "ordinary" (and therefore presumed unimportant) or more difficult to describe in an inclusive manner than those types of landscapes usually considered as having a value as "designed cultural heritage". "Extant fabric" need not necessarily be expressed through a physically material entity. This is one of the great challenges facing land management decision-makers. It is difficult to be able to "feel" the "sense of the landscape" as an outsider, describe that "sense" in ways which will not trivialise the connections a person or community may have with that land or a particular landscape, and then to be able to translate this description into appropriate land management actions. Just because something is difficult however does not mean that it should not be attempted.

The vivacity generated by the diversity of land and water uses, which is currently a major component of the attractiveness of the designed landscapes of the Brisbane River, is slowly disappearing from this magnificent waterway.

This observation was the trigger for the identification of twelve Signature Riverscapes. Three of the proposed Signature Riverscapes, 4.05 Bridges to the Taylor Range, 4.06 Town Reach and 4.07 The Story Bridge include the designed landscapes already recognised as "symbolic of Brisbane" as reflected in the range of souvenir postcards available of city images. The remaining nine Signature Riverscapes have been identified for their embodiment of aspects of "the working life" of the Brisbane River in conjunction with distinctive aspects of its natural beauty and unique natural environment.

The Rural Fringe
    Pastoral reminders within the City Limits
In the Shade of the Corinda Cliffs
    River Destinations
Indooroopilly Reach
    Natural and Cultural Heritage in Confluence
Kayes Rocks
    Open the Garden Gate
Bridges to the Taylor Range
    Spanning the City Spaces
Town Reach
    Maritime Fascinations, an Enduring Appeal
The Story Bridge
    Icon of the City
Humbug Corner
    The Ebb & Flow of River Commerce
Hamilton Reach
    Living and Working the River
Gateway to Brisbane
    Bridges and Boats, and Planes
Fort Lytton and Signal Hill
    Defending the State
Port of Brisbane, Fisherman Island Facility
    The Giraffes of Moreton Bay

SIGNATURE BAYSCAPES

Central Moreton Bay must be regarded as a series of nodes, interlinked by a myriad of trails all with their particular contributory tracks, paths and sites differentiating each route, however imperceptibly, from the next. For those readers unfamiliar with this waterway note that it is a wide and relatively shallow expanse of water. Much of the maritime travel across of its surface is governed by tide times and marked channels across this otherwise seemingly "boundless main". The designed landscapes of Central Moreton Bay describe their particular place within the totality of the experience of the bay. This point needed to be acknowledged within the framework of the requirements for this study. In doing so three regional landscapes already identified by the Regional Landscape Strategy 11  for South east Queensland were acknowledged.

The decisions made to select particular places within Central Moreton Bay as "Signature Bayscapes" proved to be extremely difficult. In making these decisions reference was made to sentiments expressed on a number of occasions by Ken Taylor, an Australian academic and landscape architect who has shown a keen interest in, and is recognised and respected for, his scholarship in the field of Cultural Landscapes.

A further notable aspect of the movement in Australia has been that the commonplace, the ordinary, everyday places of Australian history have found a cherished position alongside the famous icons of national identity and great symbolic significance. 12

Drawing further from Ken Taylor's work in Australia, the work of D.W. Meing and others in the United States of America and the work of the Common Ground organisation in the United Kingdom it is proposed for this study that a third grouping of designed landscapes, that of " Valued Ordinary Cultural Landscapes", be considered in relation to their cultural heritage value to the Place of Central Moreton Bay. Thus it was recommended that the cultural heritage contribution of Moreton Bay to the designed landscape places associated with this waterway be considered in the following way.

Regional Landscapes for Central Moreton Bay

The Glasshouse Mountains
Moreton Island,
The Small Islands of Central Moreton Bay

Signature Bayscapes

Pine River and Hayes Inlet Estuary, including the backdrop of the D'Aguilar Range and the foreground of the Hornibrook and Houghton Highways.
    Connections
Port of Brisbane, Fisherman Islands Facility
    The Giraffes of Moreton Bay
Fort Lytton and Signal Hill
    Defending the State
St. Helena Island
    Punishing the reprobate
Waterloo Bay
    A Window to the Bay

· The omnipresence of the Glasshouse Mountains Regional Landscape is strongest in Deception Bay. This overshadows to a degree the local significance that could otherwise be attributed within the individual designed landscape study units considered here.

· The Glasshouse Mountains cannot be viewed from the shoreline or immediate coastal waters area of the Redcliffe Peninsula, the form of Moreton Island terminates the vistas to the east and the Small Central Bay Islands are blimps on the southern horizon from here. Hence the designed landscapes of all the foreshores of the head of the Redcliffe Peninsula stand independently in their significance as components of a valued "ordinary" cultural landscape.

· The designed landscapes of Bramble Bay to the north and west sit within the regional context of the landscapes of the Glasshouse Mountains and the frame of Moreton Island to the East. Study units h) Woody Point Jetty to Clontarf Point and i) Clontarf Point to Decker Park, Brighton are also components of the Signature Bayscape Connections, including the Pine River and Hays Inlet estuaries, with the backdrop of the D'Aguilar Range and the foreground of the Hornibrook and Houghton Highways.

· Study units j) Decker Park to Cliff Street and k) Cliff Street to mouth of Cabbage Tree Creek, Shorncliffe relate to once again to Moreton Island and the Glasshouse Mountains but at a level where these Regional Landscapes do not dominate the immediate local character. Hence the designed landscapes of the shoreline of these study units also stand independently in their significance as components of a valued "ordinary" cultural landscape.

· Study Units l) Cabbage Tree Creek to Juno Point, in Bramble Bay and m) Juno Point to Wynnum Creek in Waterloo Bay are separated, almost as a mirror image by the Signature Bayscape, The Giraffes of Moreton Bay. This relationship will continue to strengthen as the facilities at the Port of Brisbane Fisherman Islands Facility continue to expand.

· The designed landscapes of the mainland shoreline of the study units of Waterloo Bay are completely visually and functionally entwined with two of the three regionally significant landscapes identified for Central Moreton Bay, namely Moreton Island, and the Small Central Bay Islands. Three of the four nominated Signature Bayscapes the Port of Brisbane, Fisherman Islands Facility, Signal Hill and St. Helena Island are also prominent features of this designed landscape study unit, as is the already established Bayside Regional Park.

· This is a case in terms of the cultural heritage value of a designed landscape where the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. Waterloo Bay itself warrants recognition not only as a valued "ordinary" cultural landscape within Central Moreton Bay but also as a Significant Bayscape of Central Moreton Bay.

for The Brisbane River
The study continues to inform the further development of
The River Experience - Draft 1 Brisbane River Corridor Management Plan, 1999

for Central Moreton Bay
The Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership was formed in July 2002. This study was available at the inception of this "whole of government" working group in order to inform the
Development of an overview of Moreton Bay as an historical cultural landscape as a contribution to SEQRWQMS objective of
· Recognition/use of cultural heritage information in the development of the water quality strategy.

Nothing in the world
Is as soft, as weak, as water:
nothing else can wear away
the hard, the strong
and remain unaltered. 13