2025 is the centenary of the gazettal of the Griffin street plan layout for Canberra. The Society thanks Brett Odgers for the article and its extensive research with this title that was published in the Canberra Historical Journal, new series no 69, September 2012.
To commemorate this significant centenary, below is an edited version of that article updated by Brett Odgers in May 2025.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The year 1925 was particularly busy for the administrators of Canberra and significant for Griffin’s plan. The Federal Capital Commission (FCC), headed by John Butters, took over from John Sulman’s Federal Capital Advisory Committee (FCAC). As Minister for Works and Railways from 1918 to 1921, Littleton Groom had established the FCAC and removed Walter Burley Griffin in order to resolve ‘the battle of the plans’ and facilitate the speedy and efficient development of Canberra as the Seat of Government and a viable city. Groom had been Minister for Home Affairs 1905-1906 during ‘the battle of the sites’.
Stanley Melbourne Bruce was Prime Minister of Australia from 1923 to 1929 and a constant supporter of the development of Canberra as a national cultural centre and exemplar of Australia’s aspirations, achievements and nationhood.
In 1921 Minister Groom had given clear directions to the FCAC to work ‘on the basis of acceptance of the plan of the layout of the Federal Capital by Mr W.B. Griffin’. Yet even before their first formal meeting the FCAC members ‘departed from the Government’s direction’ by determining that aspects of Griffin’s Plan were too expensive and variations would be necessary. (1) They worked instead for the restoration of the infamous Board Plan of 1913, made significant changes to Griffin’s design, abandoned his Market Centre, downgraded Constitution Avenue (Capital Terrace), continued to focus development in the ‘Initial City’ at Manuka/Kingston and initiated Garden City ‘Australian cottages’ suburban development – Sulman’s ‘picnics’ rather than urban life – at odds with Griffin. (2)
According to CS Daley, Groom really wanted a unified system of control, accountable to the Minister and Parliament, and was an advocate of forcing the transfer of Parliament and the Public Service away from Melbourne to Canberra. Groom was also determined that Griffin’s Plan for the National Capital should be reaffirmed and safeguarded. (3) Groom was supported by Prime Minister Bruce and, presumably, the Minister for Home and Territories, Senator George Foster Pearce, although the latter is not on record as carrying any brief for Griffin personally or his Plan. (4)

As Attorney General 1921-25 Groom pressed for a Washington model for the planning of Canberra, in two basic respects: firstly an independent, well resourced and powerful commission, …; secondly ,… he wanted statutory and procedural protection for the Griffin design for the National Capital. (5)

Thus the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1924 established the FCC, which started operation on 1 January 1925, without any further reference to the FCAC, and enshrined the Griffin Plan by gazettal of 19 November 1925. Amendments to the Plan required submissions to the Minister and approval by both Houses of Parliament.

Walter Burley Griffin’s era as Director of Planning and Construction had been terminated by the Government in 1920 when he returned full time to his practices in Melbourne and Sydney. He only involved himself with Canberra subsequently to give evidence to the federal Parliamentary Works Committee, arguing against the planned temporary Parliament House in 1924 and endorsing the Australian War Memorial in 1928.

What did the Griffin Plan comprise? During 1913-1920 he had subjected his winning Plan of 1912 to numerous explanatory accounts, overlays, changes and supplementary detailed designs. Marion’s 1911 presentation drawings incorporated perspectives, sectional elevations, architecture and location of major public buildings, infrastructure and vistas. Walter produced successive plans for staging of development (the 1913 Preliminary Plan), the Government Group 1914, Plan for Road, Rail and Waterway levels 1915, City Railway 1916, detailed Northern Subdivisions 1916 and the influential Plan of Main Axial Lines 1917 ‘matching the city framework to the topography’. (6)

The Griffin Legacy project of the National Capital Authority 2002-2004 aimed to describe thoroughly, review in detail and enlarge appreciation of the Griffin Plan. The NCA’s 2004 publication The Griffin Legacy: Canberra the Nation’s Capital in the 21st Century assessed the sources of Griffin’s Plan, its enduring elements and unrealised potential. The project discovered a wealth of additional, detailed plans and material prepared by Griffin covering particular subdivisions of varying densities and locations (including Civic Centre and ranging from grid pattern to informal, contour conforming streets across many neighbourhoods), street hierarchies, Causeway Dam and East Basin, specific infrastructure, landscape design, suburban railway and tram network, diagram of land use functions, cross sections of boulevards, banks and promenades around ornamental waters, vistas and topographical landmarks, afforestation of parks and inner hill and the 1915 design of a Continental Arboretum and Botanical Reserves. (7)

In understanding Griffin’s Plan or plans, there is also the matter of the Blacket Royal Commission 1917, appointed by the Hughes Government to investigate the conflicts between Griffin, Minister William O. Archibald and departmental officers, particularly over infrastructure and failure of communication and cooperation. The Commissioner found in Griffin’s favour. Notably, Griffin’s plea for investigation into a decentralised wastewater reuse and pollution control scheme, together with Lakes water storage and flood control, was upheld over the Department’s planned metropolitan wide main sewer with a distant Molonglo River outfall. No positive changes ensued. Griffin’s proposed wastewater management and pollution control scheme looks especially advanced today. (8)

Griffin had consistently and clearly, in his explanatory accounts, his correspondence with Minister O’Malley in particular and his sustained advocacy, emphasised the three themes of vision, democracy and art as fundamental to his Plan. The vision presumed a strong national sentiment in the new democratic Federation of Australia and in favour of the new national capital. The Griffins’ Canberra was, moreover, envisaged as an ‘ideal city’ exemplifying their command of organic architecture, a concept derived from progressive architects in Chicago, described aptly by Paul Reid as ‘based on careful observation of nature, buildings should appear to grow easily from their site, but each part should conform to the pattern of the whole of a design’. (9)

Australia’s nationhood, democracy and federal constitution were to be portrayed by the great National Triangle, the Capitol, the location of Parliament House on Camp Hill, the grouping of Government Departments within the Triangle and the juxtaposition of the municipal centre and civic institutions across the Lake. The base of the Triangle was designated a commercial terrace, bounded by high density residential areas on one side and by cultural, recreational and sporting facilities on ample parklands adjacent to formal lake basins (smaller than the present flood basin). Other specified land uses included residences of the Governor-General and the Prime Minister, the High Court, hospital and university.

Griffin consistently expounded additional principles and criteria, especially the landscape architecture represented by his geometry, spatial land use plans and conformity to the hills, terrain and surveyed topography. He insisted on horizontal building masses in the light especially of the adverse social and environmental impacts of the high rise buildings of Chicago. His planned Causeway dam and elevated East Lake were designed for flood control, ecological and municipal landscape purposes, as well as being linked with his proposed decentralised wastewater management scheme.

Griffin developed a unique synthesis of City Beautiful and Garden City elements. He provided a host of grand boulevards, from the central city to the periphery and terminal landscape features. The axial lines, principal avenues, urban densities and mixed land uses were designed to facilitate communication, accessibility, transport and connectedness. The civic aspects of his ‘ideal city’ extended to community cohesion and development. His suburban plans provided for safe spaces for children and housing affordability, illustrated by the cheap and attractive ‘artisans’ cottages’ he designed whilst Director of Planning and Construction for the Federal Capital.

In 1918 Griffin produced his last comprehensive design. It covered all the ‘city and environs’ but some compromises and pragmatic adaptations, presumably measured under Griffin’s control, sacrificed a good deal of the coherence and organic order of the 1912 competition winning plan and ‘beautiful geometry of the outlying areas’. A second version of his 1918 Plan emphasised the urban densities along the main avenues.
The finally gazetted Plan was authorised by Senator Pearce on 19 November 1925. It has of course the great merit of preserving the sustainable core framework of National Triangle, the Land and Water Axes and central avenues or boulevards, while allowing future flexibility. …

The 1925 gazetted plan has been amended, through the statutory procedures, 98 times over the years – Draft Amendments 99 (Molonglo New Town Centre) and 100 (Knowles Place/University Avenue/Courts Precinct) issued in 2024 are extant.

The Walter Burley Griffin Society has consulted and contested many of the Draft Amendments that have challenged the Griffin principles for Canberra, especially the NCA’s Griffin Legacy Amendments 56-61 (2004-2007) and also subsequent Development Proposals and Projects.
The submissions have always been written out of concern to get the best outcomes for the broad community, and have been in response to the rapid development of Canberra and the increasing power of private sector developers.

How did Griffin react to the gazettal of his Plan in 1925? Walter and Marion, with their extremely busy practice and lively circle of friends, moved to Sydney in 1924. There appears to be no direct communication with relevant ministers and officers although Walter visited Canberra in March 1926. Interviewed by The Canberra Times, he ‘had nothing but constructive thoughts to offer’, whilst deploring the loss of the railway to the north side, paucity of native flora and social segregation with housing. (10)

Walter and Marion were invited to the opening of the provisional Parliament House on 9 May 1927. (11) They stayed at the Hotel Ainslie and are recorded as observing proceedings from the President’s Gallery in the Senate Chamber.

The Canberra Times celebrated the occasion with a 27-page broadsheet issued on 8 and 9 May 1927, containing copious articles about every aspect of the evolution of the National Capital, its statesmen, planners and builders, together with visiting VIPs and celebrities. Incredibly, neither Griffin nor his Plan is mentioned at all. …

Walter and Marion’s writings reveal that he was embittered by the Canberra experience. They would not have accorded much importance to the 1925 gazettal of his Plan as they were more focussed on the intrinsic merits of the Plan and the democratic instincts of the Australian people. They despaired of the bureaucrats and administering authorities who had already violated ‘the aesthetic, social and economical principles’ of the Plan. (12)

Griffin’s last published comment on Canberra was the article ‘Canberra in Occupation’ published in Thomas Shakespeare’s Canberra Annual. (11) The tone of the article is not bitter, but is optimistic. As summarised by Dustin Griffin, grandnephew of Griffin and editor of The Writings of Walter Burley Griffin, the article addresses ‘Recapitulation and Projection in the hopes that his plan may still serve as a guide to future development’. … (13)

The FCC was decidedly un-democratic and paid scant attention to Griffin’s plans, gazetted or otherwise. However, the FCC managed from 1925-1930 to achieve remarkable development of public buildings, housing and community amenities, including fine architecture, in the National Capital.

The 1925 gazetted National Capital Plan was a far cry from the 1912 Plan but Griffin remained the most prescient of his contemporary Canberra believers in seeing the potential for ultimate realisation of his vision and design framework. In spite of enormous changes during the Griffins’ twenty years in Australia, it became apparent in due course that fundamental elements of their vision and Plan would survive the vicissitudes of 1925 and endure, in fact or in prospect, in part due to that modest inscription on the statute book. Similarly, it is well understood and increasingly manifesting, that there remains significant and unrealised potential in Griffin’s winning Plan.
Brett Odgers
May 2025

Endnotes

1. Peter Harrison, Walter Burley Griffin, Landscape Architect, Canberra, National Library of Australia, 1995.
2. Paul Reid, Canberra Following Griffin: a Design History of Australia’s National Capital. National Archives of Australia, 2002, chapters 7 and 8.
3. David Carment, ‘Sir Littleton Groom – Forgotten Founder’, Canberra Historical Journal, new series no.1, March 1978.
4. Jim Gibbney, Canberra 1913-1953, Canberra, AGPS 1988, p.74.
5. Charles Daley, As I Recall, Canberra, CDHS, 1994, p.52; C.S. Daley in Canberra – A Nation’s Capital, H.L. White (ed.), Sydney, Angus & Robertson, 1954; Alasdair McGregor, Grand Obsessions: the Life and Work of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin, Camberwell, Vic., Penguin Lantern, 2009, p. 343.
6. Reid, pp. 143-146.
7. National Capital Authority, The Griffin Legacy – Canberra, the Nation’s Capital in the 21st Century, Canberra, NCA, 2004.
8. J. Weirick, ‘100th Anniversary of Walter Burley Griffin: Griffin and Canberra’ Utzon Lecture, University of NSW, 23 May 2012.
9. Reid, p.43.
10. McGregor, p.344; Gibbney, p.126.
11. Gibbney. pp.42-3.
12. Federal Capital of Australia Press, vol.1. 1934, pp.44-6 (only three volumes of the Canberra Annual appeared, in 1934. 1936 and 1940).
13. Dustin Griffin (ed.), The Writings of Walter Burley Griffin, Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp.107-114.