A central tenet of its design was to eschew the usual means by which a city is “planned”, and effectively start from scratch, on paper. Current day town planning has to contend with serious design flaws in too many cases due to a town or city having begun as ribbon development: a main street or so as CBD, away from which people reside, and between these they travel. Looking at the massive problems this creates when a city grows to the size of Sydney, Canberra’s original planning concept showed foresight.

Part of the planning of Canberra was to create spaces wherein those who lived would be able to find employment, shop and commute to their usual activities all within a smaller radius of the home. These districts were intended to be largely self-fulfilling. It was also obviously designed with the parliamentary triangle as a central (in many ways celebratory) theme, the focus of which is Parliament House.

While this plan has resolved many of the problems faced by growth from ribbon development, one of the criticisms it attracts is that the city has “no soul”. There is an argument to be had about the value of, say, things like housing to the shoreline, which of themselves create a certain character and human dynamic, however, it’s not widely known that Canberra was planned to be functional two hundred years from implementation (ie, minus the problems, and flourishing from its conceptual benefits). Hence, that argument will probably best be answered then.

It was also headed up by a team of visionary planners back in the seventies (particularly, through the National Capital Development Commission [NCDC]), which sought the best of world’s planning practice, very much inspired by the knowledge Canberra was sitting on the verge of the benefits of its original design concepts in growing contrast to other Australian cities. This team was also sought after from various international planners. A small example of this was the way the planners first approached new districts for development by taking careful stock of the district’s natural amenity, and designing from that for the human good. A significant tree, for tiny instance, had roads steering well clear of it, in the understanding that people’s lives would be enriched by its qualities (again, a very small example).

Moreso, however, was the striving to implement a design which enriched the human condition, and would go on to do so over time – obviously central to town planning itself but Canberra’s later planners lifted from the original concept a dedication to go well beyond the need to be best-functional. There was a belief in the human condition which was cause for celebration as to lift and inspire it.

All of this may support the argument that Canberra is “over-planned”. And what Maybeck is talking about above is fascinating – one wonders what would have happened had he been involved, or where he’d have taken this visionary event. However, I hope this small input serves to highlight how much of what he is quoted as saying here has actually happened.

As an aside, one of the frustrations the planners in the NCDC had was how the media and from it the public would refer to “Canberra” when talking about matters political, as in “Canberra has rejected that proposal” or “It’s up to Canberra to now make that call”, when the whole focus of their efforts was to continue something wholesomely remarkable for the resident. You can still hear these references today, but it’s less prevalent.

Perhaps that was a design flaw, created by celebrating its conception as the home of Parliament. But for sure, it’s a work in progress, and we’ll be long dead before a proper assessment of its vision can be more fully grasped.

And on release the process of optimisation should just keep on going.

Perversely given the previous example, tax law is often much like that, with half a dowen major amendments a year and 40-odd smaller, and significant reviews of specific areas every year or so.

So maybe it is just a matter of appropriate incentives (such as tax revenue!)