Page 518 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 19 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
mixed-use development that is sprouting up along Constitution Avenue and in the recent restoration of University Avenue through the ANU to an unbroken, open boulevard, as it was when I went to uni there.
Many people in Canberra’s planning, architecture and heritage communities believe that the Griffins’ legacy should be nationally heritage listed, along with other key features of the national capital. Currently there are listings for individual places like Old Parliament House, but there is nothing that brings together the whole designed landscape. Because so much of this landscape is federally controlled, this heritage listing needs to be on the federal government’s national heritage list. The federal government has been working on a listing for the parliamentary triangle, the lake and the inner hills as a result of several nominations by Canberrans. However, the national listing process needs the cooperation and support of the ACT government.
I was saddened earlier this term to discover through committee hearings that the ACT government appeared to be stalling on the listing process, and that is why I am moving this amendment. While I understand that the attitude has been more cooperative recently, I believe that it is important for the Assembly to make its view clear that the national listing should go ahead.
I briefly touch upon the most obvious concern that might be raised about such a heritage listing—that is, it will stop our city being able to serve the needs of our local community in areas such as housing, transport and a transition to a low or preferably zero carbon future. This need not be the case, provided the listing is carefully drafted and sensitively administered. For example, it should allow future housing supply in and around the city centre while blocking proposals that are excessively high or have too much visual impact.
Many cities around the world are successful while having much more widespread heritage protection than we are talking about here. It is also important to recognise that the Griffins envisaged a far denser city than the one we have at the moment, not as tall perhaps but with many more people living in areas like Constitution Avenue. The Griffins also envisaged a train going into Civic and trams. We should not see the Griffin legacy as in any way stopping public transport. The Griffin plan, if protected with a heritage listing, would not be a call to freeze our city.
I echo Ms Lawder’s comments about Marion Mahony Griffin. The biggest gap in naming is not, of course, of Sir Walter Burley Griffin. He has a lake named after him, and that is Canberra’s biggest landmark. Everybody who moves to Canberra quickly learns the name of the lake. Marion Griffin only has the viewpoint on the top of Mount Ainslie named after her, and very few people are even aware that that is named after her. Yet historians say that Walter’s entry only won the design competition because of Marion. He was allegedly something of a ditherer, and apparently history says he would not have even got the competition entry finished and submitted without her pressure. When it came to judging, it was her artist’s impression that swayed the final decision. She is considered to have been one of the finest architectural artists of her generation. I also second Ms Lawder’s comments about her role as a female architect and the importance of that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video