Is our city like no other, rapidly becoming a city like any other? Q&A with Emeritus Professor Ken Taylor
TRAM #actlightrail #tram #cbr
A photo posted by @mapie_84 on
With Canberra’s 12 kilometre light rail project from Gungahlin to Civic set to begin with the cutting down of trees on Northbourne avenue, before the July 2 Federal Election, there has been a growing divided response from Canberra’s population and experts.
According to a draft environmental impact statement released in 2015, the construction of the line from Gungahlin to Civic would see 860 trees removed along the 12-kilometre route.
Although the government plans to offset the damage of removing these trees by replanting 1,800 new Eucalyptus mannifera or Brittle Gum in the project’s impact zone, many people remain upset.
Canberra has a natural landscape setting, combined with amenities that not many other Australian cities can compete with, as well as an international reputation as one of the only successful planned cities.
But our city is starting to change, and Emeritus Professor Ken Taylor, an expert on historic urban landscape within the Australian National University’s Centre for Heritage and Museum Studies argues that this change isn’t for the better.
Q. Can you outline what the original vision for the city of Canberra was?
A. The vision was that it was to be the city and the landscape. The choice of the site, long before anybody had ever heard of Griffin, was all about landscape. When you look at the instructions given to Charles Scrivener, the NSW surveyor, to find a site, it was all to do with landscape and this is why the site of Canberra was chosen. In Griffin’s plan he had mixed densities, with terraced housing, detached housing and so on.
Q. So how does the plan of the light rail align with this vision?
A. Originally Northbourne Avenue was going to have buses down the center as a rapid transport system, that was the NCDC plan. John Soleman planted these trees so that a row could go in the middle. The proposal is to remove these in one swift swing, which I think is appalling. Whilst putting the tramway down, the Eucalyptus Elata will be replaced with Brittle Gum. They call it ‘Brittle Gum’ because it drops its branches. I think the destruction of this beautiful avenue is a dereliction of a politician’s duty and is only being done for political purposes. Adding to this, the idea of a tram down there is daft. I’m not against the idea of a tram itself, but not down the center of Northbourne Avenue.
From a logistics point of view, you’re going to have people crossing three laneways of traffic to get to the tram stops. Plus, because of all the junctions on Northbourne, the tram is going to greatly disrupt normal traffic. The other thing is, and I’m not popular for saying this, but they’ve wheeled in experts from all over the world to tell us how to go about this, and most of them don’t know anything about the history of the planning of this city and why it is a city like no other. But Canberra is rapidly becoming a city like any other now. Because the vision for the city is gone. I’m not against medium-density, not at all, the city has to have its density increased, but its come at the expense of open space.
Q. So it’s the combination of increased density housing and the light rail that you think is bad?
A. If Northbourne avenue is going to be lined with this sort of stuff it will be a dismal failure, there will be no sense of place. The light rail will ruin the boulevard and take years for it to get back into any sort of shape. In talking up the light rail they are very carefully avoiding talking about the places where it hasn’t been successful. I can’t see how the densification of Northbourne avenue has to be linked to light rail, what’s wrong with buses?
Q. Estimated to only be used by a very small fraction of the population, do you think enough has been done with this development to ensure that the rail will reach and cater for the largest number of people possible?
A. The argument that is put forward for lightrail is that it will be extended and will be extended out to the airport. But even if they do this, if I’m going to the airport, and I’m not within wheelie suitcase distance of a tram, am I going to get a tram? Am I going to get a bus into civic to then get on a tram? No.
It seems to me, that they’re not willing to understand how people operate, think and then act. It’s vandalism to this beautiful city. At the moment, public transport is only used by about 7% of the population. People aren’t going to use public transport more because there’s a tram, and especially not when they have to walk a quarter of a mile to get on it.
Q. What will this mean for the ‘grand boulevard entrance’ to the city?
A. Oh we’ll have a glowing new entrance. But what’s wrong with the one we’ve got? Andrew Barr said that the grand boulevard to the nations capital is a long held aspiration and the current gateway falls short of local and visitor expectations. Strange because when I take visitors along Northbourne, including international ones, it’s exactly the opposite reaction.
Q. What do you think this will mean for Canberra’s identity?
A. I think that it will obviously change it and I think it will be for the worse. But the matter that concerns me is that I do not see anywhere in the planning field in Canberra, a strong clear vision for this city, in terms of maintaining its sense of place and its meaning. The city is being planned by external forces. You go to Red Hill and look down and you can see bald patches appearing with trees disappearing everywhere through the city. There was until Stanhope stopped it, an urban forest renewal program, where this was being looked at, area by area of long term planning, but not now. Now we see low common denominator urban architecture that you can find anywhere. What we’ve got now is what a former colleague of mine, referred to as the ‘greying of Canberra’, concrete everywhere. With no room for any tree planting.
Be the first to comment!