6.0 Lake Burley Griffin as a Designed Landscape
6.1 Introduction
This section documents the key technical and creative aspects of the design and construction of Lake
Burley Griffin and its adjacent lands.
Lake Burley Griffin is central to the designed landscape first conceived by Walter Burley Griffin and
Marion Mahony. This section will focus on the story of this designed landscape before and after Griffin
entered his design in the 1911 international competition for Australia’s Federal Capital. It examines the
various changes since the design, the influences that have shaped these changes and the extent to
which the Lake and its setting remain as a designed landscape.
The two key periods in the planning and development of Lake Burley Griffin were at the end of the
nineteenth and beginning of twentieth centuries, and in the late 1950s. These periods coincide with two
important periods of world-wide creative city development: the City Beautiful/Garden City dialogue at the
close of the nineteenth century and post-Second World War responses to modernist theory and
technological development. These were also key periods in the development of the professions of town
planning, landscape architecture and architecture, and some of the key players involved in professional
discourse during these periods were also involved in the development of Canberra and its lake. While
overseas professionals were involved in this creative discourse through the involvement of Griffin,
Holford and others, Australia can be credited for putting itself, its professionals and its capital on the
world stage.
The design of Canberra and Lake Burley Griffin has very strong pre-cursor influences arising from the
history of town planning and landscape design in Britain and America, and to more specific personal
influences on Griffin himself.1 Australia’s outwardly confident society as it approached Federation, as
well as technical advances, such as inland water management, were also significant influence on
Canberra and its lake.
While many places in Australia had design input at early stages, few if any are like Canberra, where the
retention of an original urban design has been so debated, protected, interpreted (or some say
misinterpreted) on the basis of respecting the core idea against the ravages of time, new ideas and
complacency. This struggle is documented in many accounts of the history of Canberra from those
involved, and this reflects the professional commitment and interest of professionals and professional
institutions for over a hundred years.
The design and planning of Canberra has benefited from a high level of expertise, idealism, access to
finance and government control of planning. KF Fischer in Canberra: Myths and Models (1984) notes:
This rare combination of factors helped to create a city on which the realisation of practically every single planning model
projected was in fact realised.2
And:
The fact that town planners from all over the world—and not just ‘New Town Planners’—travel to Canberra in order to
learn from its experience shows this it has not only been acting as a ‘collecting mirror’ for Western town planning ideas,
but that it has also had important functions of innovation diffusion.3
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
81
Fischer points out the difference between the ‘narrow minded’ specific background to the creation of
Canberra as a capital city versus the expansive Australian and international context of the time, and how
this context had a formative and lasting influence on the design of Canberra and Lake Burley Griffin.4
In the 1980s eminent American urban designer Edmund Bacon stated that the plan of Canberra was a
‘Statement of World Culture’ and ‘one of the greatest creations of mankind’; yet Canberra does not claim
to be an ideal city, despite best intentions. Fischer believes that this is:
not to do with ‘technical planning mistakes’ or intermittent phases of stagnation’ nor with ‘intellectual of creative
deficiency’. The city can at best be a close projection of the values, ways of thinking and practices of the society that
sponsors the city development and that produces and selects its planners. 5
Herein lies the another value of Lake Burley Griffin, that for better or worse, it marks out society’s
changing attitudes to the design of cities. Lake Burley Griffin reflects both changing society attitudes and
to the dogged resilience of the Griffin plan that underscores its unique values and rational good sense.
6.2 Creative and Technical Influences on Griffin’s Design
6.2.1 Town Planning Models
The genesis of the creative and technical inspiration for Canberra and Lake Burley Griffin is most directly
connected to landscape design fashion and theory in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries; in particular, projects and writings associated with the English Landscape tradition and the
work of Capability Brown, Thomas Watley, Repton and Loudon, as well as specific town planning
examples in the nineteenth century in Europe, such as Haussmann’s Paris and Versailles, and in the
USA, such as Washington.
At the end of the nineteenth century, two dominant town planning models were evolving: one centred in
Britain and one in the USA.
In Britain, the Garden City movement was led by Ebenezer Howard and his supporters Raymond Unwin
and Barry Parker. It was based on social, economic and landscape aesthetic philosophies (see Figure
6.1). It recognised the attractions of town and country, and placed emphasis on romantic aspects of
landscape and that all people should have access to the beauty of the ‘country’. The Garden City
movement had a strong interest in changing the traditional nature of land tenure through the reform of
the tax laws and land ownership. These reform aspects were town planning issues discussed at the end
of the nineteenth century in Australia and were also to be taken up in relation to Canberra.6
In America, the City Beautiful movement, led by Daniel Burnham and Charles Mulford Robinson, was
conceived primarily on appearance and order, conveying the impression of commercial success and
order, stability, political order, civic pride and cultural development.7 It was inspired in part by the formal
avenues such as those in Rome under Pope Sixtus V, as well as eighteenth and nineteenth century
examples such as Haussmann’s Paris, Versailles, and European court capitals, as well as more recent
precursors including planning for Washington in the USA and Manila in the Philippines. Like the Garden
City movement, the City Beautiful movement was underpinned by a social theory of human
improvement. For the City Beautiful movement, the visual order and beauty of the city was to be a
redeeming force with social and economic ends, whereas the Garden City movement had a more
specific social foundation to its philosophy.8
Water was a key component of City Beautiful schemes, not only for aesthetic reasons but also as a core
conception of city sanitation and water supply. As noted below, a key town planning conference held in
82
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
Melbourne in 1901—Congress of Architects, Engineers and Surveyors and others interested in the
Building of the Federal Capital of Australia—was influenced by City Beautiful ideas and images such as
those of the Chicago Exposition, 1893. This Congress pushed for the inclusion of water features in the
Federal Capital. This water theme was taken up the 1903 Royal Commission into the Federal Capital,
the brief to surveyor Scrivener who assessed suitable sites and finally, in the competition brief itself in
1911.
Despite their differences, both the City Beautiful movement and the Garden City movement shared the
physical planning ideas of circular avenues and radiating boulevards that are evident in Canberra.9
Other important influences on the design of Canberra and its lake are more directly connected to Griffin.
As residents of Chicago, they were directly influenced by the Chicago Exposition and the City Beautiful
ideas on show there (see Figure 6.2). Griffin was also associated with the Prairie School style of
architecture that emphasised a respectful relationship between architecture and landscape (see Figure
6.3). Established in the 1890s and led by architect Louis Sullivan, its proponents included architect
Frank Lloyd Wright, for whom both Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony worked for some time.10
Griffin described himself as a landscape architect, a profession well established in the early part of the
nineteenth century in the USA and also associated with the City Parks Movement that was led by
Frederick Law Olmstead, responsible for the design of Central Park in New York.
The advocacy for, and implementation of, ornamental water bodies are prominent themes in the history
of landscape design. Lake Burley Griffin was possibly the largest application of a designed, artificial
‘ornamental water’ body, at least in a central city park, contemplated prior to 1912. The use of
‘ornamental water’ in picturesque landscape design can be traced through the work of people noted
above, such as Brown, Repton, and Loudon. Olmstead carried on the work of these English designers
with his use of water in Central Park, New York. The design of water space in Italianate and French
Baroque designs also appears to have influenced the formal aspects of the Canberra lake designs, and
these traditions were picked up in Burnham’s Chicago World Fair plan and appear to be reflected in the
Canberra plan. In the examples above, water provided not only aesthetic, scenic or ‘picturesque’ values,
but may be associated with social values and opportunities for contact with nature in an urban
environment through public walks and pleasure grounds. The creation of open space foreshores
accessible from city areas has a valued tradition as a form of urban recreation, and was designed into
the lakeside parks of the Canberra plan as a primary recreation function.
Design professionals were well aware of these city planning traditions and theories which were
extensively published and debated in the popular press. It was in this context that the assessment of the
design for Canberra would be made and the amendments and changes to the original concept would
evolve.
6.2.2 Professional Involvement in Canberra’s Planning
In Australia at the end of the nineteenth century, architects, engineers and surveyors were the
professionals mostly involved in the building of cities. Professional organisations in Australia were
initially offshoots of those formed in Britain.11 However, existing and new professional groups in Australia
increasingly recognised the need to promote the interests of Australian members and maintain
Australian standards, adapted to national conditions. In 1913 the Town Planning Association of NSW
was formed with architect John Sulman as its first president.
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
83
In 1890, Sulman had presented a paper to the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science
that condemned the grid pattern layout of cities and advocated a radial and concentric method of
planning and the integration with parks and gardens.12
The 1901 Congress, noted above in Section 6.2.1, met at the time of the first Federal Parliament and
discussed requirements for a new capital. They were successful in ensuring that the Royal Commission
that was established to choose the site for the capital included people with a professional background.
At the urging of Sulman and others, the idea of a world wide competition for the Federal Capital was
promoted as:
The very best design on the most modern lines for this City, which should be an example to the rest of the world.13
The London Town Planning Conference 1910 organised by the Royal British Institute of Architects was a
forum to discuss town planning concepts, and this attracted a ‘who’s who’ of speakers from both the City
Beautiful and Garden City Movements. John Sulman prepared a paper on the future Australian capital,
and this conference was specifically referred to in the Federal Capital competition brief.14
The development of professional thought in Australia was also effected by the activities of Griffin and
Marion Mahony Griffin in Canberra, and afterwards in Melbourne and at Castlecrag. Griffin commented
on the lack of lack of landscape expertise at the time and the potential of professional development in
Australia:
Landscape Architecture … is a term as yet unused (in Australia) … The landscape gardener with an appreciation for and
equipped with the unique technique of Australian flora is the great desideratum for a legitimate art that can be distinctive
of Australian, and Australia alone. May he come before his medium is destroyed.15
While Griffin was not strictly accurate and landscape architecture was a term that had indeed been used
in Australia, the sentiment accurately reflects the paucity of its use in urban design. Canberra represents
for the first time the design of a city by a landscape architect and one where landscape is integrated into
the wider structure of the city and not just as an isolated element or ornament.
While the practice of town planning goes back to the colonial founders, the planning and design of
Canberra and Lake Burley Griffin can rightly claim to be a key part of the growth of all of the professions
associated with urban development, and were perhaps a foundation stone of both the town planning and
landscape architecture professions in Australia.16 The creation of landscape architecture as a
professional body is strongly associated with the National Capital Development Commission established
prior to, and responsible for, the construction of the lake.
6.2.3 Planning for the Capital Reflects Changes in Australian Society
The era of Federation marked a growing confidence in Australia as a nation and created an receptive
climate for progressive town planning models discussed. Debate was intense (and at times parochial)
about the location, physical design and appearance of the capital. The Constitution required that the
new capital be a distance from Sydney. This was generally understood to mean a new city in a rural
landscape (the bush). The image promoted was that of a beautiful new city in a picturesque landscape
setting enhanced by water.17
The integration of landscape and the city was accepted as necessary to beautify the city but was also
related to ideas of social reform and individual freedom, reinforced by the Garden City principles that
were being promoted in Australia. Public places, radial tree-lined avenues, picturesque parks and
84
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
ornamental water were promoted as evidence of cultural progress and civic pride.18 Severe droughts at
the turn of the century further stimulated interest in water harvesting projects.
The scale of the lake primarily for ornamental purposes represents a radical commitment to the public
realm and is a potent symbol of civic consciousness and of national confidence in Australia at the time.
An outcome of the 1901 Congress, noted above, was that a first consideration for the new capital was
necessity of abundant water supply for domestic water, sanitary services and ‘the creation of artificial
lakes and the maintenance of public gardens, fountains’19 (see Figure 6.4).
The 1903 Royal Commission set down the main features of ideal water supply for a large city—good
reliable rainfall, mountain catchment suitable storage location, elevation to allow for gravitation method of
supply and an ability to supply water and to contain an ornamental lake.20 The Canberra site was
recommended as most suitable by surveyor Scrivener who also made recommendations regarding the
suitability of the site for ornamental water.21
The competition was launched on 30 April 1911. Water considerations formed part of both the
‘Requirements’ and ‘Description’ in competition documentation. ‘Ornamental Water’ was listed as a
requirement with specific information provided on the location weirs such that it was clear that a lake was
intended.22 Emphasis was placed on the ability of the site to provide extensive views and a fashion for
romantic picturesqueness was portrayed in descriptions and illustrations of the site.23
Figure 6.1 One of the diagrams used by Ebenezer Howard in 1898 to explain the Garden City model
form of planning that was influential in the planning of Canberra. (Source: Griffin Legacy, p 41)
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
85
Figure 6.2 The Court of Honor, Chicago, World’s Fair 1893; a City Beautiful influence of the plan of Canberra and Lake Burley Griffin.
(Source: Reid 2002, p 33)
Figure 6.3 Walter Burley Griffin and Marin Mahony Griffin’s scheme for Rock Glen, Iowa, showing
the strong relationship between landscape and architecture in Prairie School designs. (Source: Griffin
Legacy, p 33)
86
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
Figure 6.4 Robert Coulter’s romantic vision for the Federal Capital was the frontpiece of the 1901 Congress of Planners that discussed
planning for the capital city. (Source: Reid 2002, p 22)
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
87
6.3 Walter Burley Griffin’s Plan for Canberra and the Lake
6.3.1 General Features of the Scheme
I have planned a city not like any other in the world. I have planned an ideal city. (Walter Burley Griffin, 1913)
To view Griffin’s winning scheme for Canberra as the sum of the design influences and professional
interest noted above misses the point that this was, and remains, a unique and exquisite design linking
the natural landform with the city’s structure in a way that still speaks to all those who experience it.
Griffin had studied the topographic maps and researched the climate and geology to achieve a harmony
with nature in preparing his competition entry.
Griffin’s plan for Canberra used the natural hilly topography and the flood plain of the Molonglo River to
organise the structure of the city. The flood plain became a chain of lakes designed as an integrated
expression in landscape with both symbolic and practical considerations (see Figure 6.5).24 The centre
of composition—the Land Axis—is an imaginary line drawn from Mount Ainslie to Mount Bimberi in the
distance passing through Capital Hill. The Water Axis intersects the Land Axis at right angles on an
imaginary line drawn from Black Mountain and crossing the flood plain (see Figure 6.7).
Griffin’s plan was and is regarded as a high point in the context of world discourse on town planning. It
incorporated the idea of landscape in an organic way by regarding architecture as the logical outgrowth
of environment:
The Griffin plan is organic, its interconnected civic, social and functional parts capable of acting as a single organism.
The functional city form achieves an aesthetic harmony in three dimensions.25
A key innovation of Griffin was the use of landscape features as reference points in what would
otherwise be a City Beautiful plan of axial avenues and vistas terminating on public buildings.26 Griffin
said that the landscape would express itself:
almost without the assistance of man’s handiwork.27
The design can be seen as the distillation of long traditions of designed landscapes emanating from
Britain, geometric ordering of classical origins practiced in Europe and America, and overlaid with new
social principles and democratic ideology.28 While the cumulative massing of buildings and use of
terminal buildings at the axes was typical of the City Beautiful movement, the outward-going
relationships with the landscape that extend as far as the Brindabella’s and the snow-covered Mount
Bimberi is a breakthrough to the more contained views of other City Beautiful compositions, such as
Washington.
The plan contained symbolic meanings in its layout, relationship with the landscape and grouping of its
functional elements. Renowned urban planner Edmond Bacon saw in the Canberra plan ‘a microcosm
of Australia’ that is symbolic of the land and a nation as a whole.29 Professor James Weirick noted in
2004 that:
We have a great diagram of representative democracy (Canberra) and it was predicated on the idea that as you would
move about the city you would understand the bounded domain of powers and responsibilities of the institutions which
our constitution created and our role as individuals in that great schema. 30
At the heart of Griffin’s composition was the lake—a formal segmental lake with two adjacent circular
basins that complemented the architectural character of centre of city and functioned as an auditorium
88
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
for people to engage in the theatre of the city. It was to be a place that Griffin saw as a ‘playground for
the city’.
Griffin also described the central part of the city metaphorically as:
… an amphitheatre, with Mount Ainslie on the north in the rear, flanked on either side by Black Mountain and Mount
Pleasant, all together forming a top gallery; with slopes to the water, the auditorium; with waterway and flood plain, the
arena; with southern slopes reflected in the basin, the terraced stage set with monumental Government structures
sharply defined rising tier on tier …31
The central basin of the lake separated the Government Group on the south and the Recreation Group
in front of the Municipal Axis, now Constitution Avenue. Griffin saw the Recreation Group on the north
side of central basin as the most popular part of the public domain and filled with national cultural
attractions was ‘an appropriate front’ for a commercial area behind. It was to be connected to the
commercial ‘throng’ and tramway on Constitution Avenue, and linked by public walks flowing down to the
lake side promenades.
The three formal basins were related to the Water Axis and were defined by circular and straight
shorelines designed for drives and promenades. The straight southern bank of the central basin
reinforced the water axis.32 Even in these central areas, Griffin respected the underlying landscape and
the geometric curves of the west basin follow the contours of the Molonglo River basin.33
Away from the centre and the three formal basins, the lake extended into suburban areas in a
naturalistic way with two naturalistic lakes.34 The margins of these outer lakes would be ‘returned to the
primeval condition’ but Griffin’s plans also provided for waterfront centres in some parts of the outer lake
(for example, in the area of what is now Yarralumla Bay).35
Griffin envisaged all of the water bodies as integral to the city and used main traffic bridges to separate
water bodies of different character.36 The importance of the water bodies to the overall composition can
be seen in Griffin’s competition plans of 1911 (see Figure 6.5).
A key element of the plan for the lake was the importance of trees and other plantings used to reinforce
the importance of landscape. A Continental Arboretum was planned for the West Lake area to include
flora from around the world.37 One of the first tangible expressions of the future lake were the first
plantings made in 1915 under the guidance of Charles Weston.38
6.3.2 Comparisons with Other Urban Models
A key theme of Canberra and its lake is the ongoing tension between the City Beautiful aspects at the
core of Griffin’s scheme and the Garden City aspects that many British trained professionals had as a
background. As well, perhaps, Australia’s cultural disposition at that time was for the less urban aspects
that were part (but by no means all) of the Garden City model. Freestone has pointed to the complicated
relationship between the ideas of the Garden City movement and Griffin’s Canberra39, although there are
some traces of the Garden City tradition in Griffin’s winning entry that combined ‘academic’ city plan
concepts with the more socially advanced concept of the Garden City40:
Griffin himself emphasised the subordination of the less formal Garden City elements under the City Beautiful principles.
He pointed out that the less formal design principles ‘permissible to the minor distributing streets’ in the residential streets
demanded a ‘contrasting dignity and severity in the connecting avenues that form the backbone of the system’. On the
whole, Griffin’s plan reflects the definitely urban character of the City Beautiful more strongly that the straightforwardly
anti-urban spirit expressed in Howard’s words (of the Garden City movement).41
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
89
As noted above, in Section 6.2.2, the Chicago Exposition was an important influence on Griffin (see
Figure 6.2). In Canberra, Griffin built on the ‘Court of Honour’ that was in the Chicago exhibition, with the
Government Group on the land axis and added a ‘midway garden’—a formal plaisance 600 foot wide on
the same land axis (now Anzac Parade). The lake separates this arrangement, and the difference was
emphasised in the different functions of buildings on the north and south sides of the lake.
Just as Griffin’s design for Canberra reflects aspects of both City Beautiful and Garden City urban design
models, the design of the lake itself has a central role in linking the functional parts of Canberra that
reflect these models. Both the formal and informal aspects of the lake design aids its linking role in the
meeting of these urban models. The lake is also the setting for the different types of civic residential and
recreational precincts in the plan that have a genesis in the these urban models.
6.3.3 Early Problems and Changes
The problems in implementing creative ideas generated through design competitions is one of the great
themes of Australian history, and this is what faced the Griffins when they arrived in Canberra. Although
Griffin was awarded the winning prize, the Federal Government was not legally bound to use his design
and shortly after the announcement of results, a Departmental Board was formed by the Federal
Government to report on sustainability and adoption of proposals. The Departmental Board then
recommended that a plan for the layout of the city be prepared by itself. Professional groups objected
strongly to both this process and amended plan and this resulted in a long period of conflict and distrust
between professional groups and the government and its departments.42 It took a change in government
and the urging of professional groups to have Griffin reinstated to lead the implementation of the plan in
1913.
Notwithstanding the unique aspects of Griffin’s plan, there were some practical limitations and also
criticisms of the plan relating to the pattern of residential development and retail facilities.43 British
commentators saw the inspiration of Garden City planning as missing from Griffin’s plan and advocated
the Garden City model at least for residential areas.44
There were also some practical issues to be resolved. The Griffin lakes would have meant one third of a
million cubic metres of earth needed to be removed.45
After visiting Canberra in 1913, Griffin amended the lake scheme to make the central basin wider and to
make allowance for topographic features and contours around the lake (see Figures 6.8 and 6.9). The
wider lake reduced the strong visual relationship between functional groups either side of the central
basin.
In 1918 other minor amendments were made (see Figure 6.10). The Griffins left Canberra in 1920 after
facing years of attrition from some politicians and their departments. The strong geometry of the lake,
including the circular basins in the 1912 competition scheme, had already been slightly eroded.
What has remained of Griffin’s design and his town planning ideas are the major elements of the road
network and the City Beautiful emphasis on the perspective effect of avenue, axis and vista, as well as
on the related visual aspects of urban development. This was to become one of the most strongly
formative influences for the further planning of Canberra, whereas the City Beautiful ideal concepts of
architectural accentuation by means of numerous monumental buildings were soon given up, largely
under the influence of the following years of war and economic crises.46
While not constructed for some time, the concept of the lake weathered the planning ‘drought’ that was
to come to remain a core element of Griffin’s legacy.
90
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
Figure 6.5 Griffin’s 1911 competition entry for the Federal Capital has the lake as its centrepiece. (Source: Reid 2002, p 19)
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
91
Figure 6.6 The City Hall reflected on the waters of West Basin in the Griffins’ 1911 competition entry.
Figure 6.7 The formal components of the Griffin 1911 plan in relation to the lake.
92
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
Figure 6.8 After Griffin’s arrival in Australia the central basin was made wider and some topographic features were accounted for in
the 1913 Preliminary Plan. (Source: Griffin Legacy, p 15)
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
93
Figure 6.9 The form of the lake in Griffin’s 1913 plan (see also Figure 6.8).
Figure 6.10 The form of the lake in Griffin’ plan.
94
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
6.4 A Dry Argument—1920 to the 1950s
6.4.1 Protection and Pragmatism
After the realities of the First World War, the concept of shaping Canberra as a grand national symbol
lost its immediate appeal and it assumed a more egalitarian cast as a place for people to live in.47 There
was a shift to more a domestic focus, with domestic gardens and places to swim and picnic.48
There were cost issues associated with the 1930s Depression and the scale of the city layout. The
Federal Capital Advisory Committee made a contribution in establishing a framework around which city
could develop. This included commencing the planning for the lake, planting trees near its margins, and
establishing a garden city focus of suburban development. While there was continued commitment to
idea of the lake, building compensation and the impounding weirs for ornamental water was moved to a
later stage.
Perhaps ironically, politicians during this period continued to protect the Griffin plan against the
pragmatism of the departments and demand accountability for change. A plan was gazetted in 1925
that included the lake. Politicians could foresee the problem of being in the seat of Federal parliament
but being in a city that did not look like a Federal Capital (see Figure 6.10). Nevertheless, while:
the protocol of Parliament’s protection of the Griffin plan continued an alternative ‘garden town’ plan, not Griffin’s Organic
City, evolved as the desired end product. A half-truth took hold, that Canberra was being built on some kind of Griffin
basis modified to suit changing requirements. Griffin continued to be held responsible (erroneously) for the suburban
character, labelled Garden City, which the residents liked, and for the confusing dispersed layout which they did not.49
6.4.2 The Lake Concept Survives (Just)
After the Second World War, planning for Canberra was still being undertaken by government
departments who were listening perhaps too closely to local concerns. In 1950 the East Lake was
removed from the gazetted lake plan. The impact of flooding this valuable dairy farming area was
discussed as well as other technical water management issues. With the benefit of hindsight, it may be
reasonable to say that this part of the lake could be removed without impacting the values of the
combined formal and less formal parts of the lake retained. The NCPDC that had been established in
1938 did not protect the Griffin plan; for example it changed Constitution Avenue to be reserved for
departmental rather than public buildings and balanced city planning principles with the core of the Griffin
plan.50 In 1953 the Department of Interior reduced the West Lake to become ‘Ribbons of Water’ in
response to pressures from the local golf club and nearby racecourse, then located in the area to be
flooded (see Figure 6.11). The Federal Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Works was
outraged at the departmental action to remove West Lake and reinstated it. It was the politicians, not the
departments, that were to be most instrumental in seeing the lake constructed. The Parliamentary
committee noted:
The lakes scheme, the Government Triangle, and the formal arrangement of Commonwealth and Kings Avenue effect
the placing of bridges considerably. Progress of the city and planning of buildings are urgently needed demanding
positive action.51
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
95
Figure 6.11 The future lake area was used as farming land in the 1920s–1950s. (Source: Reid 2002, p 195)
Figure 6.12 The removal of the East Lake and the ‘Ribbons of Water’ concept for the West Lake.
96
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
6.5 Reflecting a Resurrection of National Pride—Late 1950s to the early
1970s
6.5.1 Post War Society and Modernism
The central parts of Canberra are ‘graveyards where departed spirits await the resurrection of national pride’ (1955
Senate Inquiry)52
In the immediate postwar period, Canberra grew fairly rapidly but it no longer carried significant political
patronage, nor reflected strong national sentiment.53 Australia faced other priorities.
The resurrection of national pride, as quoted above, that provided for the completion of Griffin’s lake,
appropriately named after him, would wait until a dose of post-Second World War confidence was
coupled with the determined support of politicians; in particular, the Prime Minister Robert Menzies. This
environment also coincided with the rise of international modernism that provided the needed
professional and creative environment and the technical tools to do the job, even if this meant that in
doing so, the landscape envisaged by the Griffins lost many symbolic meanings and became mostly a
functional and aesthetic response.54
With good economic circumstances in the 1950s, interest in town planning re-emerged and modernist
thought and design reinforced the importance of town planning and landscape design, not as a romantic
interpretation of nature, but as modern scientific vision of rational order for affluent, leisured and mobile
society. Such a reawakening was reflected in the 1951 Jubilee Year Federal Congress on Regional and
Town Planning of the Town Planning Institute of Australia held in Canberra. A resolution of this
Congress established the Regional and Town Planning Institute of Australia.
Modernist design conceptualised urban spaces and buildings differently to when Griffin was planning for
buildings to collectively define public spaces and where the lake was treated as a positively defined
space. Modernist design conceptualised urban space differently: independent buildings and monuments
in free space, scattered through park-like settings and with water bodies as neutral ground within which
the buildings and monuments sit. Griffin’s plan was reviewed in this new context.55
The postwar environment brought other changes. A general one was that in addition to economic
issues:
it became apparent that the image projected by the American City Beautiful movement had little relevance for Australia.56
A more specific influence and practical issue was the irresistible rise of the motor car, the resultant
creation of the traffic engineer and the impact these two factors had on town planning.
6.5.2 Chook Sheds, the Senate Inquiry and Menzies
In 1954, the 250 foot high (76m) Australian–American Memorial, a gift of the US government, was built
in front of the Russell Corner of the Parliamentary Triangle, thus destroying the potential to complete a
key part of the Griffin plan associated with the lake. Against this background and the various poorly
managed departmental decisions about development in central Canberra (including the proposed
deletion of the West Lake), and as a result of pointed questions from Senators about new houses in
Canberra looking like ‘chook sheds’, an inquiry was undertaken by the Senate into the national
commitment to building Canberra.
The 1955 Parliamentary Select Committee under Senator JA McCallum was thorough and reflected an
interest in both the spirit and detail of Griffin’s plan:
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
97
The Committee is in agreement with the statement made by the president of the Australian Planning Institute, Mr Veale,
that, ‘The principal features of the Griffin plan should be maintained at all costs. It is a grand plan and something that we
should hold on to’.
And:
That the examination of the question of the lakes be proceed with immediately; and that the final decision be
implemented as soon as possible; but that provision of the three central basins be regarded as obligatory.
(Recommendation No. 60 of Senate report) 57
Another key recommendation was that planning for Canberra needed to be centralised in one authority
not in a generalised Federal department.
6.5.3 Bring on the Planners
It (the late 1950s plans for the lake’s central area) threw away the picture and kept the frame.58
The ‘Menzies’ Government’ once again turned overseas for the creative and technical help needed in
getting Canberra restarted, and it engaged British planner William Holdford to recommend a way
forward. Holford had an international reputation from his involvement in the redevelopment of postwar
London and was on the competition committee for the Brazilian capital of Brasilia. Holford, and
examples like Brasilia brought together the concepts of landscape, town planning and modernism.59
The brief Holford responded to included requirements to enhance open space, facilitate vehicular and
pedestrian access and expand urban recreation. Under the influence of modernism, earth contouring
and sweeps of plant masses were brought together using picturesque aesthetic principles to modulate
form and colour.60
In 1957 William Holford provided his Observations on the Future of Canberra to Parliament. Holford put
up two models for the future of the central lake area to deliberately play on Parliament’s heart strings and
sense of national pride: a gravel pit or a unified city. Holford really needed the lake as a unifying
element. The recommendations supported Menzies’ choice for the Parliament House beside the lake (in
Holford’s view, Capitol Hill, Griffin’s first choice, should be reserved for the Queen and her
representatives).
Holford’s recommendations were focused on providing a park-like setting around the lake, as well as for
new vehicle roads. The lake edges were made far less symmetrical and geometric. In particular, the
east and west basins were considerably less circular than envisaged by Griffin. Another key change
was the splaying of the ends of the south bank of the central basin, apparently in response to water flow
and associated potential erosion issues of the underlying Molonglo River.61 Holford noted that with the
splays, the west and east basins lost Griffin’s circular form but that ‘their roughly circular form and lesser
extent are differentiated to Central Basin’.62 By making the north edge of the central basin less formal
compared to the south bank, Holford stated that the central basin would ‘gain interest by the contrast’
(see Figures 6.12 and 6.13).63
In response to traffic pressures, Parkes Way was introduced in Holford’s 1957 report Observations on
the Future Development of Canberra, ACT, as a ‘fast motor road threaded through Griffin’s plan’ and
effectively came at the expense of the local access around the lake envisage by Griffin.64 It replaced
Constitution Avenue as a key link between Commonwealth Avenue and Kings Avenue, and it dissected
Commonwealth Park on the north side of the central basin. This change also removed amount of area
necessary for Griffin’s Recreation Group function and its connection to the commercial area beyond.
Holford tried to reduce its impact on Commonwealth Park through plantings.
98
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
The Holford plan has been described as what both the professionals and public always wanted, ‘the
marriage of Garden City and Radiant City’ (Le Corbusier’s modernist town model).65
In February 1961 following the establishment of the NCDC (see below), William Holford prepared a
further Advisory Report on the Landscape of the Canberra Lake Scheme, Canberra ACT for the National
Capital Development Commission. A Central Basin Panorama included Commonwealth Park:
It can be seen that the function of the lakeside park in the landscape of the city is to bind together three separate and
independently designed groups, the monumental avenue leading to Mount Ainslie, the Russell precinct one side and the
concentric rings of City Hill on the other.66
Features of note described in Holford’s Advisory Report of 1961 include:

the landscape screening of some of the architectural groupings along the north side of the lake
beyond Constitution Avenue;

the north bank of the lake to have an informal character, except for the central section;

the unbalanced shape of the central basin needed the islands (Aspen Island) to restore the visual
balance67;

the location of Parliament House on the lake’s edge was allowed for by a straight edge on the south
bank;

a round point and terraces and central quay feature at the end of the land axis on the north bank
(the round point was built around Parkes Way but the central quay was not built); and

Oldfield’s [Blundell’s] Cottage was a ‘symbolic foil for the majesty of Parliament House opposite’.68
A feature of the report were the designs for the two bridges. Kings Avenue Bridge was designed as an
enclosing screen to the ‘less interesting’ East Basin (and a continuous strip of lights were to provide a
band of light at night), and Commonwealth Avenue Bridge was seen as a frame and gateway to the
(presumably more interesting) west basin (and with an open pattern of globe shaped lamps and vertical
‘pencils’ at each end).69 Holford stated that the two bridges and roads resolved ‘fitting characteristically
twentieth century features into a formal scheme conceived 50 years ago for a different world’. Holford
claimed that the overall scheme ‘provided a balance between the traditional order of Griffin’s geometry
and the freer elegance of modern road engineering’.70
Following the first Holford report in 1957, Menzies had moved to quickly establish the single planning
and design coordination agency for Canberra, the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC).
John Overall, a commissioner from 1958-72, during the time of the lake construction, recognised the
importance of support from professional bodies in confirming directions for the NCDC.71 The NCDC later
included a large range of technical disciplines in its design and construction programs, in particular the
construction of the lake.
6.5.4 Critiques of the Lake and Central Area
The history of the planning and design of Canberra has been the subject of intense analysis and critical
reassessment. The period immediately before and after the construction of the lake has attracted
significant comment from a number of writers including KF Fischer and Paul Reid.
Fischer in Canberra Myths and Models 1984 stated that during this period, there was a fundamental
change in the conception of the city where the grand civic design and large scale building masses in the
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
99
Griffin design were rejected, but that it had been difficult to find a design philosophy to replace it and that
the continuing search for meaning in the central area was closely related to the national search for
cultural identify.72 However, in Fischer’s view, even the lack of a design at that time was meaningful in
that it reflected Australia’s cultural youth and uncertainty. In Griffin’s plan the content of the
Parliamentary Triangle was Municipal, National and Market functions: for the most general democratic
purpose and ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ but the triangle was then re-interpreted by later
plans and thoroughly ‘purified’ to read Central Business, National and Defence/Secret Service.
Fischer believed that there had been a ‘semantic impoverishment of the (central) area’ and that open
spaces became mere urban design elements, where spaces around buildings were seen as having a
civic and symbolic meaning beyond recreation. Fischer made the point that much of the parkland
around the lake has been designed for being viewed from cars and lookouts, but is virtually inaccessible
for pedestrians from the nearby shops and offices.73 He compared the central area around the lake to
Chandigarh (Punjab, India), designed by Le Corbusier, and Brasilia, which have a supra-human scale
that reflects aspects of totalitarianism, and that this supra human monumentality was not the same as
Griffin’s more intensely built up and peopled landscape. Fischer noted that the NCDC turned an
embarrassment into a virtue where the large open spaces inside the Parliamentary Zone became a ‘vast
national place’.
Paul Reid was a director of the NCDC, and Canberra Following Griffin is, at times, an intense account of
the general loss of direction that was defined so eloquently by the Griffins.
Reid felt that Trevor Gibson (chief planner of Canberra 1949 to 1958), Peter Harrison (NCDC) and (Sir)
William Holford all ‘twisted’ Griffin’s plan. Gibson turned Griffin’s star centres and avenues into traffic
ways and interchanges, Harrison picked up some aspects of Griffin’s geometry and missed others, and
Holford made it all picturesque. All were defeated by the traffic engineers. Holford built designs from the
opinions of Gibson and Harrison and was supported by the Senate inquiry: ‘that Griffin’s design could be
reduced to its central figure; that the rest of the plan needed revision for modern conditions and that the
city would be constructed of vegetation’.74 For Reid, they all used issues of modernism to justify
changes, and the plans they provided were a ‘combination of garden city and modernism with bits of
Griffin’:
They (modernist planners) saw it as a foundation upon which to erect their own ideas’.75
In this sense, Reid saw Lake Burley Griffin as a reflection of what went on around it more than changes
in its plan form.
In Reid’s opinion, Peter Harrison, the first NCDC Chief Planner and former Senior Lecturer in Town
Planning at the University of Sydney and a key person at the 1951 Jubilee Year Federal Congress on
Regional and Town Planning, ‘threw away the picture and kept the frame’76 in relation to his ideas for the
central area.
On the NCDC plan of 1959 for the central area, Reid states that ‘through the middle of the triangle the
informal lake intentionally blurred relationships’.77 In commenting on Holford’s changes to the straight
southern shore of the central basin, Reid states that’ it (Griffin’s plan) revealed the primary triangular, it
had nothing to do with symmetry as proposed by Holford’78, and that ‘the Lake shores are treated not as
parts of the city but as contrasts to it’.
The comments by Reid and Fischer, both of whom admired Griffin, and similar ones contained in the
more recent The Griffin Legacy79, are understandable professional critiques of the changes made to
Griffin’s plan. This Heritage Assessment acknowledges these town planning critiques and evaluates
100
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
them alongside a broad historical assessment that addresses the practical issues, the creative
environment and the nature of society during at the time when the lake was finally implemented.
6.5.5 The Lake Constructed and Early Development—1963 to mid-1970s
The construction of the lake was a considerable technical achievement and construction effort, and
called on the expertise and experience used in the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. One of the
first structures built was Scrivener Dam which also utilised the latest hydraulic flood gates.
In the late 1950s, the NCDC invited Dame Sylvia Crowe to advise on the landscaping around the lake
and, in particular, to assist in the design of Commonwealth Park. Dame Crowe was a prominent
landscape designer, and a formative influence on landscape architecture practice in the UK who had
published a number of books in relation to modernist landscape theory and practice.80 Dame Crowe was
accompanied to Australia by Richard Clough, who remained in Canberra to head the NCDC landscaping
efforts.81 As had been done in the 1920s, a significant program of tree planting was undertaken by the
NCDC. Over 400ha of planting was undertaken in two stages under the direction of Richard Clough.
The Clough planting plan and its implementation under the NCDC is a significant achievement of
landscape architecture for the nation, and was the centrepiece of a body of work and a team of
landscape professionals around which the profession of a landscape architecture came to be fully
established in Australia.82
An aspect of ‘modernism’, evident in the landscape planning of the lake, was the ecologically-based,
conservation-oriented approach to working with native vegetation and regional identity. While the source
of this progressive approach can be traced, via Griffin, at least back to Olmsted and the national parks
movement in North America, its application in Canberra when the lake was constructed was still seminal
(albeit, mixed with usual park planting approaches).
As noted above, the two major bridges were constructed in 1960 to 1961 using the latest pre-stressed
concrete construction.
The flooding and completion of the lake in October 1964 was widely reported in international press and
was a significant event in Australia, resulting in a rapid growth in tourist visitation and investment in
Canberra.83
In 1969 the Carillon bell tower was constructed on Aspen Island (Figure 6.14) and in 1970 the Captain
Cook Water Jet was inaugurated in a location near the Commonwealth Bridge. These two vertical
elements were carefully designed and symmetrically sited either side of the Griffin Land Axis.
Much of the planning at the time the lake was constructed was based on Menzies and Holford’s plan to
locate the permanent Parliament House near the lake. Parliament voted to reject this idea and to locate
Parliament House on Capital Hill—a decision that was implemented between 1980 and 1988. Major
building in the Parliamentary Triangle paused for the next decade partly because of the need to
restructure the planning approach with the relocation of the Parliament.
The National Library of Australia was completed in 1968, the same year as the proposed lakeside
Parliament House was overturned. It became the first major building constructed on the shore of Lake
Burley Griffin in the area designated for the Government Group in Griffin’s plan (see Figure 6.15). Its
prominent setting on the lake edge makes it a visual landmark of the city and allows reflection of the
building on the lake surface, enhancing its grace. The National Library included a forecourt on an axis to
the proposed Parliament House on the edge of the lake. Along with several later buildings which front
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
101
the southern shore of Lake Burley Griffin, the National Library contributes to the planned aesthetic
qualities of the Parliamentary Triangle and the central basin of Lake Burley Griffin.
Following the filling of the lake in 1964, a number of issues remained in terms of planning and
management, including vehicular access, the management of the former East Lake area and water
quality and quantity, although water quality was addressed generally with the creation of Googoong Dam
south of Queanbeyan.84
At the end of this period, Reid concluded that the lake and surrounds had become ‘picturesque parkland
at the heart of a suburban city’.85
Figure 6.13 Holford’s scheme, as shown on an NCDC plan, showing a curved Parkes Way, less geometric northern edge to Central
Basin, splayed edges to the south and park-like landscaping. (Source: Reid 2002, p 268)
102
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
Figure 6.14 The Carillon, 2006. (Source: Geoff Ashley)
Figure 6.15 Changes made by Holford in the framework for the lake as constructed.
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
103
Figure 6.16 The National Library of Australia, constructed in 1968, was the first major building constructed beside the lake. (Source:
NCA)
104
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
6.6 A Post-Modern Lake: Symbolism and Icon Making—1980s to the
Present
6.6.1 Lake Burley Griffin in the 1970s and 1980s
The decision to locate Parliament House on Capital Hill rather than in a lakeside position ushered in a
new era of lake foreshore development.
Although the High Court was shown on NCDC plans from 1960, it was not until the late 1960s that it was
decided that the Court should have a prominent and permanent building of its own. Subsequent cabinet
approval for the siting of the new High Court required it to be at an equivalent level to the National
Library.86 Roger Johnson, NCDC’s chief architect, had planned a large, open and asymmetrical
composition to fit in Griffin’s triangle. This concept was developed with the evolution of the designs for
the High Court as well as the National Gallery of Australia, for which there was a design competition run
by the NCDC. Following the announcement of the winners, Edwards Madigan Torzillo and Partners
(later Edwards Madigan Torzillo and Briggs), the site of the National Gallery was moved to the lakeshore
beside the High Court.87 Madigan’s designs were conceived as sculptures of form and space at the
scale of the city, which would stand behind the lake, and were intended to be seen diagonally across
National Place against Parliament House on Camp Hill (see Figure 6.16).88
In parallel to these formal planning decisions, changing public perceptions, as well as a growing sense of
national identity provided by the lake, had wide-ranging effects on planning in the vicinity of the lake.
The decision to construct a communications tower on top of Black Mountain generated strong public
feeling, reflecting a growing concern for the protection of the natural landscape.89 In 1973 the NCDC
proposed the construction of the Molonglo Parkway along the base of Black Mountain, across Sullivan’s
Creek and linking up with Parkes Way. This generated public opposition to the possibility of the
destruction of some of the natural landscape surrounding the lake.90 This period therefore saw a shift in
the attitude of the public towards the development of the lake and its surrounding landscape. Although
an artificially created landscape, in the short period since the lake was filled, it had become highly valued
in the minds of the people of Canberra.91
6.6.2 Late 1980s to the Present
The Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 (ACTPLM Act) established
the National Capital Planning Authority (NCPA) as a Commonwealth agency to ensure that Canberra
and the ACT were planned and developed in accordance with their national importance. From 1996, the
NCPA was renamed the National Capital Authority (NCA) in recognition of the Authority’s wider role
beyond planning. The intention of the NCA is to ‘realise the promise of the city plan and the ideals of the
founders through our strategic blueprint for the future planning of Canberra, the Griffin Legacy’92, as well
as to address the challenge of translating the abstract idea of national significance into a tangible and
enforceable planning instrument.93 The National Capital Plan, first published in 1990, provides a
framework for the development of the capital, including the significant development on the lake’s
foreshores.
Commonwealth Place, resulting from a national design competition, was officially opened in 2002 and is
centred on Griffin’s Land Axis. Reconciliation Place was also officially opened on 22 July 2002. The
location of Reconciliation Place reflects a willingness to adapt the formality of the planned axis to
incorporate a feature of particular significance to contemporary Australians. The conceptual design
includes a pathway extending across the Parliamentary Zone around a central mound of artworks which
will be added to over time. The promenade thus created by Commonwealth Place and Reconciliation
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
105
Place are the partial realisation of Griffin’s original design, which intended to provide a waterfront terrace
to the Government Group in the Molonglo Bourlevarde, as well as a public space, the Water Gate,
marking the crossing with the Land Axis94 (see Figures 6.7 and 6.18). In 2005 the Commonwealth Place
Forecourt was added providing a contemporary interpretation of Griffin’s Water Gate.
The Acton Peninsula, on the western edge of the city, initially the site of the Royal Canberra Hospital, a
prominent site just outside the central triangle also became a focus for redevelopment. The NCPA’s
objective was to provide a setting for a major national building on the peninsula and in 1992 undertook
wide public consultation in the process of the site’s redevelopment. However, the peninsula land was
controlled by the Territory Government, and in 1997 the Federal Government was able to take control of
the land by means of a land-swap with the Territory Government, in which the Peninsula was exchanged
for the Kingston Foreshore area.95 The subsequent redevelopment of both sites has had a significant
impact on the landscape surrounding the lake, with the sites occupying the southern shores of Griffin’s
West and East Basins.
Built to replace the demolished Canberra Hospital, the construction of the National Museum of Australia
presents a foil to the geometry of Griffin’s Plan for the West Basin with a simple circle and axis to City
Hill. Rather, the axes have become a ‘tangled vision’ of Griffin’s straight lines, with an assembly of
brightly coloured, irregular forms. This reflects the vision of the architects to present the story of
Australia not as one, but many stories woven together96 (see Figure 6.19).
The redevelopment of the Kingston Foreshore represents another aspect to the development of the
lake’s foreshores, embracing Griffin’s plan that had nodes of development near some of residential
areas around the lake, including Kingston and Yarralumla (see Figure 6.20).
In the development on the lake foreshore since the late 1980s, it is therefore possible to see a
juxtaposition between development as having a national design role and expressing Australian
narratives in places such as Commonwealth Place, Reconciliation Place and the National Museum of
Australia, and also a civic and urban design role, as seen in places such as the Kingston Foreshores.
Figure 6.17 The High Court of Australia, 2006. (Source: Geoff Ashley)
106
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
Figure 6.18 Commonwealth Place Forecourt, 2006. (Source: Geoff Ashley)
Figure 6.19 The Museum of Australia, Commonwealth Bridge and the Captain Cook Memorial Jet, 2006. (Source: Geoff Ashley)
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
107
Figure 6.20 The development of Kingston Foreshore represents the Griffin plan regarding development nodes and proposes a
reinforcement of the East Basin geometry, 1998. (Source: Colin Stewart Architects in Canberra Following Griffin, p 339)
108
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
6.7 Conclusions
Griffin Plan Qualities Retained
Lake Burley Griffin is an essential part of what defines Canberra; it is an essential element of the Griffin
plan for Canberra and befits its status as the nation’s capital. The essential qualities of the Griffin plan
for Canberra’s lakes to link and unify the axes, vistas and avenues is retained in Lake Burley Griffin. As
Donald Leslie Johnson states:
As Griffin prophesised, the city was not divided but became one. The vistas avenues and mountains became united by
the locus of the lake. It became a sensitive and monumental landscaping achievement. 97
The lake remains a core element in the larger urban landscape of Canberra and beyond to the
mountains, and links the city to its underlying landform by still allowing an appreciation of the river basin
from which it is formed. As noted by Professor Ken Taylor AM in Canberra: City in the Landscape:
One of the glories of Canberra, perhaps even the jewel in the crown, is Lake Burley Griffin.98
The principal form of the lake is remarkably similar to Griffin’s 1918 plan, except for the deletion of East
Lake (see Figure 6.20 that overlays the current lake on the 1918 plan). The key combination of formal
and informal aspects of Griffin’s lakes is retained and key functional arrangements of the city around the
lake have also been retained. The role of the lake as a visual link between government and civic
functions on its opposite banks has been retained, although the intensity of the planned relationship has
been weakened in implementation. The more informal ‘natural’ West Lake is generally as planned by
Griffin in 1913 as a complement to the more formal basin areas.
Griffin Plan Qualities Lost
Some elements of Griffin’s plan have been lost in the construction of the lake and the adjacent lands.
The changes to the lake’s plan are relatively minor compared to other lost aspects of the Griffin design.
The formal geometry and association with the two axes in the central areas has been impacted; in
particular, the de-emphasis of the east and west basins but also the geometry and symmetry of the
central basin. There is a lack of intensity to the built form surrounding the lake in the central area (in
particular, the lack of the Recreation Group but also in the Federal Groups area on the south side) that
was in Griffin’s plan. The central area has become a more unified park-like setting, where in Griffin’s
plan the lake formed a unifying feature between different functional elements. The foreshores of the lake
reflect Holford’s preference for informality in the meandering lake shore and the stylised informality of
plantings by Crowe and Clough.
The loss of the East Lake is not essential to an appreciation of the formal and less formal parts of the
lake as there is sufficient evidence of these formal and informal characteristics in the central basins and
West Lake respectively.
The changes around the central basin during construction design were in response to functional issues
arising from the course of the flooded Molonglo River, new issues of traffic management and modernist
conceptions of open space aesthetics. Lake Burley Griffin can be seen as a reflection of what went on
around it perhaps more than the physical changes in its form and plan.
Associations with Important Design Styles and Periods
The design of Lake Burley Griffin strongly reflects two key periods of creative and technical
accomplishment: one when the lake was planned associated with the City Beautiful/Garden City
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
109
discourse and one when the lake was constructed associated with International Modernism. The overall
form of the lake is most strongly associated with its original conception, while the edge shape and edge
treatments and details, such as islands, are more reflective of its time of construction.
Canberra and Lake Burley Griffin can be compared favourably to several other examples in the world
relating to these two key periods of late nineteenth and mid-twentieth design theory, such as
Washington (City Beautiful) and Brasilia (Modernism).
The history of the design and implementation of Lake Burley Griffin is evidence of an evolving
relationship between modernist theory and the Garden City movement; both tend to the open space end
of the urban spectrum and, as Reid states it, is ‘the marriage of Garden City and Radiant (Modernist)
City’.
The design of Lake Burley Griffin and associated lands is evidence of tensions between Griffin’s
primarily City Beautiful plan and the Garden City ideas, and that tensions related to these ideas continue
to be expressed in debate over the use of the lake and nature of appropriate development near its
edges.
What is fascinating is the layers of various creative responses over time in a ‘design rich’ environment
less fettered by the ‘normal’ constraints of other places (where the design process was fettered, it was
more from the interaction between designers and design bureaucracies). The layers in this design
narrative include the English school of landscape design, the City Beautiful and Garden City
movements, the public parks and national parks movements, the Prairie School, modernism and, most
importantly, the seminal nature of the Griffin scheme as reflected in the international design competition
for Canberra.
Associations with Important Persons and Groups in the Creative and Technical Professions
Important persons involved in the creative and technical aspects of the design and construction of Lake
Burley Griffin include Walter Burley Griffin, Marion Mahony, Charles Scrivener, John Sulman, Charles
Weston, Lindsay Pryor, Sir William Holford, Dame Sylvia Crowe, Richard Clough, Peter Harrison, Trevor
Gibson, and Sir John Overall. Contributors in the many government departments are less publicly
acknowledged.
Lake Burley Griffin has been described as a manifestation of the battle between professionals,
bureaucrats and politicians, and this has an historical importance apart from its impact on creative and
technical values.
Many professions have been involved in planning design and construction of Lake Burley Griffin,
including town planners, architects and landscape architects, engineers and surveyors. The bodies that
represent these professions have also had an active part in the history of Lake Burley Griffin. In the
case of landscape architects and town planners in Australia, the growth of the profession in Australia has
a strong association with the history of Canberra and Lake Burley Griffin.
National and International Recognition of Lake Burley Griffin’s Creative and Technical
Qualities
The design of Lake Burley Griffin strongly reflects world practice and theory at the end of the nineteenth
century and was seen as such by contemporary writers and it is still seen as very important by
professionals in the areas of town planning and landscape architecture. The NCDC won the National
Australian Institute of Landscape Architects Award for Excellence in the 1980s for the lake foreshore
landscape.
110
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
Ongoing recognition of the creative and technical qualities of the design of Lake Burley Griffin, as well as
the other lands of national significance within Canberra and the ACT, is reflected in recent suggestions
for the potential World Heritage listing of Canberra.99
Important Elements of Lake Burley Griffin
Elements of creative and technical excellence constructed as part Lake Burley Griffin include Scrivener
Dam, Commonwealth Avenue Bridge and Kings Avenue Bridge, the Carillon, the Captain Cook Water
Jet, Commonwealth Park, the islands and the lake’s retaining walls.
Important Elements Adjacent to Lake Burley Griffin
Elements of creative and technical excellence constructed adjacent to the lake that form an important
part of its setting and where the lake forms an important part of their setting include the National Library,
High Court of Australia, the National Gallery of Australia, the Carillon and the Museum of Australia. The
lake is also a key element in a comprehensive metropolitan park system that extends to and beyond the
borders of the ACT.
The adjacent lands of Stirling Ridge and the Arboretum site do not have elements of creative or technical
achievements.
Technical Achievements in the Design and Construction of Lake Burley Griffin
There were technical achievements in the construction of the lake, the bridges and dams, and the
associated landscaping that included the pre-planting of trees. The construction was well managed and
drew on earlier experiences such as the Snowy Mountains scheme (see Section 5.0).
Perception of Creative Aspects Associated with Lake Burley Griffin
Creative aspects of Griffin’s design and the design works associated with its later implementation can be
easily appreciated today, including:

the link between the axes and landscape;

the relationship between formal and informal parts of the lake;

strong links with both close and distant topography and features;

the relationship between vertical and horizontal elements (in particular, the modernist elements
added at the time of construction);

as a unifying/linking element that also reflects and intensifies (literally mirrors) its surrounding setting
of buildings;

the strong landscape character of pre-planted trees in arboretums and later planting schemes of
clusters of colour against dark green etc; and

its ambience as a reflecting pond; a serene place at the physical and spiritual centre of the nation’s
capital.
Creative and Technical Values Associated with Later and Recent Changes
The dynamic relationship between the ‘ideal’ and an historic and cultural reality is an important emerging
theme in relation to the creative and technical values of Lake Burley Griffin. There is a difference
between the Griffin plan and the reality of an evolving place and how some of these changes (for
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
111
example, modernist structures and spaces) have their own historical and now, possibly, social
significance. There is a need, therefore, to give due consideration and weight to the modernist period in
regard to the heritage values of Lake Burley Griffin. The designed Lake Burley Griffin we have can be
expressed by the equation of: Lake Burley Griffin equals the Griffin ideal, plus history, plus society.
In recent years, the open spaces left from the modernist period of the lake’s central margins have been
re-evaluated in relation to national symbol making, and this has resulted in the inclusion of memorials
and the like associated with nationally important symbols and gestures. National symbols and
memorials are not a panacea or replacement for complex and meaningful place making in the area of
central Lake Burley Griffin and its surrounds.
What has become of Griffin’s lake ‘Playground of the City’—has it become the ‘Parkland of the City’?
While there are opportunities to recover aspects of the Griffin plan, these need to respect the history of
the time of its actual construction and changes in society, and what the community now values.
Figure 6.21 The current lake overlaid on the original 1918 plan.
112
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
6.8 Endnotes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
While Walter Burley Griffin has prime attention for the design of Canberra, his wife Marion Mahony, an architect of considerable standing in
her own right, was very strongly involved in the design for Canberra and accompanied Griffin to Australia to implement the design. Marion
Mahony’s exceptional watercolours on linen (see Figure 6.5) were probably a key part of the design’s success. The collaborative roles of
Marion and Walter are discussed in several recent publications including The Griffins in Australia and India edited by Jeff Turnbull and Peter
Navaretti.
Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 1.
Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 8.
Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 9.
Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 1.
Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 11.
Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, pp 36-37.
Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 11.
Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, Figures 10 and 11, pp 18-19.
National Capital Authority, 2004, The Griffin Legacy: Canberra the nation’s capital in the 21st Century, Commonwealth of Australia, p 33.
Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, p 40.
Firth, op cit, p 39.
Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 17.
Fischer, op cit, p 17.
Walter Burley Griffin, Advance! Australia, 1928, quoted in The Griffin Legacy, p 35.
Firth 2002, Ramsay pers comm.
Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, p 52.
Firth, op cit, p 53.
Firth, op cit, p 56.
Firth,op cit, p 57.
Firth,op cit, p 60.
Firth, op cit, p 77.
Firth, op cit, p 76.
Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, p 79
National Capital Authority 2004, The Griffin Legacy: Canberra the nation’s capital in the 21st Century, Commonwealth of Australia, p 34.
Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 20.
Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 24.
Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, p 86.
Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg.
Weirick J, 2004, ABC Compass program http://www.abc.net/compass/s108992.htm.
National Capital Authority, 2004, The Griffin Legacy: Canberra the nation’s capital in the 21st Century, Commonwealth of Australia, p 48.
Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 24.
National Capital Authority 2004, op cit, p 52.
Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, p 80.
National Capital Authority 2004, op cit, p 52.
Firth, D 2000, op cit, p 81.
National Capital Authority 2004, The Griffin Legacy: Canberra the nation’s capital in the 21st Century, Commonwealth of Australia, p 86.
Freestone, R 1989, Model Communities: The Garden City Movement in Australia, Nelson, p 121.
Freestone, R 1989, Model Communities: The Garden City Movement in Australia, Nelson, p 115.
Freestone, R 1989, Model Communities: The Garden City Movement in Australia, Nelson, p 121.
Fischer, KF,1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs Hamburg, p 29.
Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, p 84.
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
113
Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 29.
Freestone, R, 1989, Model Communities: The Garden City Movement in Australia, Nelson, pp 118–119.
45 J Birrell Uni Qld quoted in Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 30.
46 Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 30.
47 Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, p 108.
48 Firth, op cit, p 108.
49 Reid, P 2002, Canberra Following Griffin: A Design History of Australia’s National Capital, National Archives of Australia, p 201.
50 Reid, op cit, p 204.
51 Reid, P 2002, Canberra Following Griffin: A Design History of Australia’s National Capital, National Archives of Australia, p 208.
52 Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs, Hamburg, p 64.
53 Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, p 145.
54 Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, p 145.
55 Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, p 145
56 Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs Hamburg.
57 Reid, P 2002, Canberra Following Griffin: A Design History of Australia’s National Capital, National Archives of Australia, p 225.
58 Reid, P 2002, Canberra Following Griffin: A Design History of Australia’s National Capital, National Archives of Australia, p 226.
59 Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, p 194.
60 Firth, op cit, p 194.
61 Holford, W 1961, Advisory Report on the Landscape of the Canberra Lake Scheme, Canberra ACT for the National Capital Development
Commission, p 2.
62 ibid.
63 ibid.
64 Observations on the Future Development of Canberra, ACT, Government Printers, Canberra, 1957.
65 Reid, P 2002, Canberra Following Griffin: A Design History of Australia’s National Capital, National Archives of Australia, p 249.
66 Holford, op cit, frontpiece.
67 Holford, op cit, p 6.
68 Holford, op cit, p 10.
69 Holford, op cit, p 19.
70 Holford, op cit, p 1.
71 Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, p 194.
72 Fischer, KF 1984, Canberra: Myths and Models, Institute of Asian Affairs Hamburg, p 144.
73 Fischer, op cit, p 72.
74 Reid, P 2002, Canberra Following Griffin: A Design History of Australia’s National Capital, National Archives of Australia, p 242.
75 ibid, p 230.
76 ibid, p 226.
77 ibid p 265.
78 ibid, p 243.
79 National Capital Authority 2004, The Griffin Legacy: Canberra the nation’s capital in the 21st Century, Commonwealth of Australia, p 100.
80 Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, < http://www.aila.org.au/>.
81 Michael Spackman pers comm 2006.
82 National Capital Authority 2004, The Griffin Legacy: Canberra the nation’s capital in the 21st Century, Commonwealth of Australia, p 104.
83 Firth, D 2000, Behind the Landscape of Lake Burley Griffin: landscape, water, politics and the national capital 1899–1964, University of
Canberra, p 190.
84 Firth, op cit , p 195.
85 Reid, P, 2002, Canberra Following Griffin: A Design History of Australia’s National Capital, National Archives of Australia, p 270.
86 Reid, P, 2002, Canberra Following Griffin: A Design History of Australia’s National Capital, National Archives of Australia, p 294.
87 Reid, P, op cit, p 296.
88 Reid, P, op cit, p 325.
43
44
114
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Lansdown, RB, ‘Changing values towards the landscape as exemplified in Canberra’, in G Seddon and M Davis (eds), Man and landscape
in Australia: Towards and Ecological Vision, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1976, p 337.
Lansdown, RB, op cit, p 338.
Lansdown, RB, op cit, p 338. These conclusions are also supported in this Heritage Assessment—see Section 7.0.
National Capital Authority 2006, <www.nationalcapital.gov,au>, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Reid, P, 2002, Canberra Following Griffin: A Design History of Australia’s National Capital, National Archives of Australia, p 327.
The Griffin Legacy, p 125.
Reid, P, op cit, p 334.
Reid, P, op cit, p 338.
Johnson, Donald L, The Architecture of Walter Burley Griffin, p 24.
Taylor, K, 2006, Canberra: City in the Landscape, Halstead Press., Ultimo, p133.
Taylor, K, letter to the Secretary of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital & External Territories Parliament House Canberra,
29 April 2008.
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009
115
116
Lake Burley Griffin—Heritage Assessment—Final Report, October 2009