Australia: An American Planning Experiment

The Reading: The Americanization of Australian Planning by Robert Freestone

There is no denying that American is a global cultural force. From Hollywood to Coca-Cola to the music on the radio, there seems to be an America obsession. Even the Presidential Election will be, and has been, covered regularly across all Australian TV stations. The same can be said for American influences on Australian town planning. While Australia has its origins as a British penal colony, it seems the Land of the Free provided more inspiration than what some may call our colonial oppressors.

Let’s take, for example, the Australian Federal Capital Competition which ran from 1911 to 1912. This, of course, is the competition to design Canberra, and was one of the first global planning competitions. Freestone points out that 20% of entrants were American, and obviously the winner, Walter Burley Griffin, was American also. Thus Canberra, often cited as the pinnacle of Australian urban planning, or at least the laboratory for Australian planning ideas, was conceived by an American designing in the City Beautiful movement. There is no doubt that Griffin’s training in Chicago influenced his designs, and also the Washington Plan of 1901 helped form the vision for Canberra. 

Freestone acknowledges there are distinct eras within Australian planning, all influenced by concurrent American periods of planning thought. However, I think Australian planning has suffered from this adoption of foreign ideas. All modern planning developed throughout the 20^th Century, spawning from a reaction against overcrowded cities and lead outwards by the car revolution. Modernist planning developed around the car, and I think that methodology trapped a lot of planning ideas. The suburban ideal is often seen as American, but Australian also strive for it. Canberra is unique in that every suburb is pretty much ‘suburban’, even if there are only pockets of single dwelling housing blocks in some areas. 

I think modernist planning ultimately suffered from too much a physical determinist ideal. Planning grew in the direction of the car, as did our lives. Now that it is understood that we can move beyond the car, planning needs to catch up. Freeman analyses traffic studies and freeway design in Australian and again draws parallels to American with all state and territory capitals in Australia having traffic consultation undertaken by American individuals or firms throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Both countries now suffer from disconnection due to large freeways which bisect communities and isolate pedestrians. However, Freeman also discusses that new urbanism, both in America and Australia, does not provide a solution. While it aims at improving walkability and pedestrian friendly zones, it too is a manifestation of physical determinism.

Which development looks better?

Freeman concludes that perhaps there has been an Australianization of American planning, rather than his original suggestion. Both are new countries and it is easy to see how they developed together in areas formerly uninhabited. While Europe is often cited as the ultimate innovator of urban lifestyle and integration of human scale amongst the built environment, it is ultimately American influences which have provided the stimulus for Australian planning. Perhaps now, in the supposed Asian Century, Australian planning can look further afield to countries with spiraling populations in limited space, rather than continuously increasing urban areas outward. With an increasing percentage of people living in urban areas, planning must address people living together, in multigenerational developments, rather than in individual houses separated from their neighbours by fences and private gardens.