Prijsvraag Canberra inzending

De uitslag van de prijsvraag voor Canberra is inmiddels openbaar. Ben helaas niet geselecteerd voor de tweede ronde, zoals ik 2 berichten eerder al schreef. Maar goed, nu kan mijn inzending dus wel op het net. Kunnen jullie eindelijk eens zien waar ik afgelopen januari zo hard aan heb zitten werken.... Hieronder de toelichtende tekst van de inzending. In het Engels, maar dat lukt vast om je daar doorheen te 'worstelen'. Het is tenslotte door een Nederlander geschreven ;-)

De 4 panelen staan er tussendoor. En op het eind is er een link naar een pdf van de panelen, voor het onwaarschijnlijke geval je er iets beter naar zou willen kijken.

CABAHN ('the egg', Wiradjuri language) 

Canberra reviewed

Canberra is loved by many and repulsive to others. Both are understandable. Canberra is safe, spacious and green, with no traffic jams. It's a city for cars and quarter-acre blocks, the realisation of an Australian dream. But Canberra also lacks urbanity. Urban liveliness and a creative vibe are absent. The city is almost hostile to visitors. Is that a worthy capital?

As a planned city, Canberra is a typical representative of its time. A direct reaction on the trauma of the overcrowded, unhealthy Western cities of the 19^th century. The Griffin plan replied with separation and monumentalism, like most other designed capitals in the 20^th century. The ground plan is a strong symbolic story, combined with the separation of government, army and civic city. National institutes are concentrated in their own separate area. The civic part was spaciously designed. However, because of the technology and customs of that time, it was still a relatively dense, mixed and walkable city. The Griffin plan was a blue-print, but in reality only the ground plan was constructed. During execution the ideal of separation was carried through further. Canberra became one big car-based suburb, with all functions separated. This killed the urbane. The urban liveliness that exists in Canberra is there in spite of, not thanks to the city.

But the 'rewards' of separation and monumentalism don't stop there. Separation has become the paradigm of planning. We practice it everywhere; in zoning cities and structuring traffic. We isolate universities in secluded campuses and do the same with the elderly, the poor, the mentally sick and the dead. We do it on all scales, from city to plot. We do it in food production, till a level that children don't know milk comes from a cow. It was all well intended, to ban the appalling conditions of urban slums, but by now has far-stretching side-effects. Most importantly separation leads to ignorance and intolerance. We are slowly creating an intolerant society, where polarisation, fundamentalism and an everybody-for-his-own mentality are the norm.

The disputable effects of monumentalism are less distinct. It can create a grandeur that appeals to many and harvest admiration. No wonder sun-kings and dictators are fond of it. But is it the best form for a democracy? Shouldn't a democratic nation rather derive its pride from the development and achievements of its people? Monumentalism can easily be used as superficial symbolism, without touching the fundamental values and identity of the nation.

Canberra shows us the flaws of 20th century planning. To change its paradigms we need to change in three crucial matters: growing, identity and integration.

 

Growing

Canberra has proven as no other, that a blue-print cannot foresee the future of a city. The design, especially for civic, changed dramatically due to the unforeseen mass-introduction of cars. These developments will only continue, proven the rapid changes internet and mobile phones are causing. We easily fixate on the built aspect of a city and forget the life in it. But in essence a city is a living organisation, not a gathering of dead constructions. It is constantly growing, modifying and reshaping itself. This requires a design method that is able to deal with change. We have to start growing cities instead of building them.

The new city of Cabahn starts with events through whole Australia. Long before the first brick is laid, the city will be growing in the minds of the people. While this imaginary city emerges, the site will be prepared. The second stage will be erecting temporary buildings, connected to existing farms and a ray of activities. The focus lies on creating liveliness, while the urban fabric is still flexible. Only then the city will start to settle. Not according to a predetermined design, but steered by guidelines. Although there is no end-plan, there is always a dream, a coarse idea of the future of the city. To inspire people and give direction, flexible enough to take on everybody's contributions and be adjusted with time.

Identity

Every city has an identity. It's what people relate to, what makes them feel home. The more positive that identity, the better off its people and the more successful the city. The ideal capital ought to give that home-feeling to the whole nation; make every citizen proud and the country flourish.

The identity of Cabahn is based on two key characters of Australia: the majority living in cities along the coast and the vast outback, representing the wealth of the land (traditions, minerals, and so on). Cabahn is literally located in between, connected in multiple ways. To the population by main infrastructure, broadband and events. To the outback by the city's economy. To the aboriginal and colonial heritage by transposing it into narration and history for the new city. These are only outlines for the identity of Cabahn, that will be further developed and deepened in the growing process, involving the whole nation.

Integration

Separation is perfect for analysis. Every scientific and design process starts with a thorough analysis by separation. It leads to insights and knowledge. But to implement that knowledge, theory or design is needed. This requires integration. In our enthusiasm to improve our cities, we mistook the analysis method for design-principle. Instead of separate, we need to start to integrate our society again.

We don't accept that politicians form their own congregation, separated from the public. It distorts their perception and harms democracy. But the same counts for governmental buildings. In a democratic society, governmental buildings have to be integrated in the city, spread out and mixed in. And for the same reason, government can't be the sole base for a capitals economy. The capital, like every city, needs its own economic base. For Cabahn this base is found in utilizing the two key qualities of Australia: outback and coastal population. Cabahn will become a front-runner in developing new technologies to solve our worldwide challenges (food, water, energy, and so on), using the unique potentials of the land combined with the innovative talent of the cities.

Integration will also be the norm for every part of the city, from districts till single buildings. Every area, no matter the density, is multi-functional. Every plot is both consuming and producing. Executed in different ways, this creates a broad variety of living environments, integrating a vast range of personal choices. Neighbourhoods become safe and lively breeding grounds for tolerance and innovation in a city that produces more than it consumes.

National dream

An integrated city is by its nature a sustainable city. Preventing 19^th century slum-situations by integrating knowledge we achieved through separation. The knowledge is not new. All techniques to make it happen are already available. We 'only' need to apply them. That however is an enormous job, especially in existing urban areas. Uninhibited by existing urban patterns, the fresh start of Cabahn gives a unique opportunity to set an example. This will inspire other cities and towns to follow. And give Australia more reason to be proud of its achievements. 

Panelen CapiTHetical inzending CABAHN