[LETTER TO THE EDITOR]Diogenes [Charles Caswell]
Lithgow Mercury February 20, 1914
Charles Caswell was a member of a three-man team whose design in the Australian Federal Capital competition was favored by John M. Coan, the minority judge. Later, the Government purchased this plan, and some features of it were incorporated in the Departmental Board design. At the time Caswell was working in Lithgow on a major public works project. He wrote this letter, signed "Diogenes" criticizing Walter Burley Griffin's winning design, as he had a meeting of the New South Wales Institution of Surveyors. Caswell, like Lewis Curtis who spoke at the same meeting, seemed determined to use every opportunity to attack the Griffin plan.I have read with much interest your description of the methods employed in the designing of Canberra, in your issue of January 30, couched in terms suitable to the understanding of the "man in the street." This is very good indeed as a means of educating the majority of the uninitiated, and serves the purpose for which it was written admirable; and it is pleasing to see that apparently the art and practice of town planning is becoming a subject of interest. It can hardly be expected, however, that Mr. L. A. Curtis and others taking part in the recent controversy anent the proposed layout of the Federal capital which has appeared in the "Sydney Morning Herald" during the last few weeks, should adopt similar phraseology in their criticisms, which are essentially of a technically professional character, particularly when the controversy is confined to professional men, who naturally confine themselves to technical and professional terms in order to secure precision and conciseness. As your article pleads for more light on the subject of differences between professional men as to the merits of Mr. W. B. Griffin's amended design of Canberra, I hope to help your readers in a general way, rather than do so in a detailed description of its deficiencies or sins of commission.Perhaps it will be remembered that there were three judges appointed to select the best designs for the Federal City, out of some 200 submitted from all parts of the world. These three judges did not agree as to the merits of certain designs. By profession one judge was a surveyor, another an architect, and the other an engineer; but mark the fact that the latter was a mechanical engineer--one who specialises in machinery. No doubt a civil engineer was the class of professional it was intended should adjudicate, but Mr. O'Malley, in making the appointment, did not appear to understand the important difference between the professions. Perhaps, therefore, some of your readers may wish to be enlightened. A civil engineer specialises in the technicalities of sewerage, drainage, roads, and streets as regards grades, location of railways, water supply, and drains, etc., dealing in fact with the construction of great works. The mechanical engineer knows nothing more of the technicalities of these matters than does the average man in the street. His professional knowledge extends only to the economical and practical working of mechanical power. The appointment of a mechanical engineer as a judge of the Federal City designs was a misfit, and it is due to that appointment that most of the trouble and controversy is now arising. Just imagine appointing an engineer of the ironworks or of the small arms factory to design and lay out the Lithgow sewerage works. What would be the result?
To quote from your article on this subject at this stage is appropriate: "There is an inclination for every man to persuade himself that he can do anything, which another man has done, without his training, and that aptitude is more or less equal." The policy of appointing judges representing the professions most concerned was a good one, and if these judges had arrived at a unanimous decision little fear but that the selection would have been in favor of a design which would have embraced the beautiful with the practical. But two judges, viz., the architect and (mechanical) engineer, decided in favor of three beautiful designs which did not embrace the practical, whilst the surveyor selected three designs which embodied civil engineering considerations as their basis. The trouble to-day is that the architects on the one hand, and the civil engineers on the other, are still at variance as to the deficiency of civil engineering considerations in Mr. Griffins design. Therefore it is not a matter for surprise that the difference of opinion between the branches of the professions still exist. The engineers still maintain that Mr. Griffins amended design is imperfect. Mr. Griffin has stated that his original design was completed in less than six weeks, and that he had disregarded the engineering considerations, because they were mere matters of detail to be supplied subsequently. Of the judges the architect might be excused for selecting Mr. Griffins design as the best in the competition, for the members of the architectural profession disclaim any expert knowledge of the ethics of civil engineering, and besides, was not Mr. Griffins work produced in colors of gold, silver, and purpose, in fact a superb example of the draftsman's art, and of the artists skill? But what can be said for the judgment of the engineer, who selected a design for first prize whose author admits that he never gave engineering features any consideration whatever? Evidently this judge considered that this beauteous specimen of art outweighed all omissions of practicability. Mr. Griffin calls himself "a landscape architect." The architects are of opinion that his profession is in the main the most important; on the other hand the engineer considers his should have the first consideration. It mattered not to Mr. Griffin what the difference of level was; whether the location of streets produced grades of 1 in 8 or 1 in 100; he set himself out to produce a design based on artistic ideals, and so he gave us a formal design which was given first prize in the competition, not because it was practical and efficient, but because beautiful effect was produced on paper. Let us imagine a design for the town of Lithgow when it was a bare of buildings as Canberra. Let the design extend from the top of Hassans Walls on the south to the heights of the range on the north, with Farmers creek flowing through the centre. The situation is similar to that of Canberra, but of course considerably steeper. Mr. Griffin's original design paid no attention to the contours or the broken nature of the ranges, but he conceived a fixed or formal design to cover all this ground as though it was quite level, the result was that his design provided grades of 1 in 8 in his main avenues, and only by enormous excavations in the removal of high hills could certain parts be made practicable. Farmers Creek as a substitute for Molonglo River, had, for instance, to be dammed, and fantastic basins were proposed; these basin foundations were shown as to be first excavated from the slopes to a depth of 60 feet in places. No sewerage or drainage was proposed although the conditions of competition made it mandatory to do so, so that these basins for the ornamental water flowing through the centre of the city were not protected from the filth of the city flowing into them and grossly polluting them.
Mr. Griffin has actually stated publicly that the objections on the score of pollution are not worth considering, as they are unfounded. Let your readers imagine the effect of the drainage of a city 10 times greater than their own town of Lithgow, escaping into a stagnant lake formed by damming Farmers Creek. Can there be any doubt what the effect will be? These deficiencies and omissions in the original design are what caused the production of the minority report by M.J.M. Crane [i.e. J. M. Coane], and are now causing the severe criticism of Mr. L. A. Curtis and other civil engineers. It is not necessary to prophesy that this design, which has not embodied practical considerations, must eventually lose a deal of its character as the demands of engineering problems present themselves.
In one of your issues of August, 1912, you noted the caustic criticisms of Mr. Curtis, who then predicted that Mr. Griffin's design would never materialise. The prediction has been verified, for Mr. Griffin has amended his design to a large extent, but there is a vast deal of alteration to be done yet. Mr. Curtis urges that sewerage and drainage should be provided for, that the ornamental lakes designed by Mr. Griffin interferes with the opportunity of converting it into a magnificent aquatic sporting course, and that no provision has been made for sporting grounds of various kinds. What attraction will there be to the people to make homes at Canberra if the lake be so polluted, and that it becomes a nuisance? And that sporting of any kind may not be indulged in owing to the fact that no areas have been provided for the purpose. A racecourse requires at least 100 acres of so, golf links about the same; athletics, and cricket grounds are absolutely essential if the characteristics of the Australian public are to be catered for. No, Mr. Griffin has found that these features interfere generally with the formal beauty of his design on paper, so they must find space elsewhere. The result will be that Canberra will never be popular as a place of residence, and so far as we can see at this early stage, if Mr. Griffins amended design is carried out, there are few features of attraction which will draw a large population.
There is no doubt that the process of creating a capital city for the Australian Commonwealth has been a huge muddle, from the time of apportioning the value of the prizes--which were absurdly inadequate to the importance of the occasion--to the present time in the appointment of one man--a landscape architect--to direct the construction of Canberra at an outlay of some millions of pounds sterling, when the construction of engineering works in the earlier stages will far exceed architectural works in degree of cost, and of which the landscape artist by the nature of his profession can have little expert knowledge.
The politician again has interfered too largely in this important national matter to the disparagement of the expert and his work, until now the creation of Canberra is dangerously close to becoming a big national blunder, rather than a national opportunity successfully grasped.--Yours, etc.
DIOGENES. [LETTER TO THE EDITOR]Diogenes [Charles Caswell]
Lithgow Mercury February 20, 1914Charles Caswell was a member of a three-man team whose design in the Australian Federal Capital competition was favored by John M. Coan, the minority judge. Later, the Government purchased this plan, and some features of it were incorporated in the Departmental Board design. At the time Caswell was working in Lithgow on a major public works project. He wrote this letter, signed "Diogenes" criticizing Walter Burley Griffin's winning design, as he had a meeting of the New South Wales Institution of Surveyors. Caswell, like Lewis Curtis who spoke at the same meeting, seemed determined to use every opportunity to attack the Griffin plan.
I have read with much interest your description of the methods employed in the designing of Canberra, in your issue of January 30, couched in terms suitable to the understanding of the "man in the street." This is very good indeed as a means of educating the majority of the uninitiated, and serves the purpose for which it was written admirable; and it is pleasing to see that apparently the art and practice of town planning is becoming a subject of interest. It can hardly be expected, however, that Mr. L. A. Curtis and others taking part in the recent controversy anent the proposed layout of the Federal capital which has appeared in the "Sydney Morning Herald" during the last few weeks, should adopt similar phraseology in their criticisms, which are essentially of a technically professional character, particularly when the controversy is confined to professional men, who naturally confine themselves to technical and professional terms in order to secure precision and conciseness. As your article pleads for more light on the subject of differences between professional men as to the merits of Mr. W. B. Griffin's amended design of Canberra, I hope to help your readers in a general way, rather than do so in a detailed description of its deficiencies or sins of commission.
Perhaps it will be remembered that there were three judges appointed to select the best designs for the Federal City, out of some 200 submitted from all parts of the world. These three judges did not agree as to the merits of certain designs. By profession one judge was a surveyor, another an architect, and the other an engineer; but mark the fact that the latter was a mechanical engineer--one who specialises in machinery. No doubt a civil engineer was the class of professional it was intended should adjudicate, but Mr. O'Malley, in making the appointment, did not appear to understand the important difference between the professions. Perhaps, therefore, some of your readers may wish to be enlightened. A civil engineer specialises in the technicalities of sewerage, drainage, roads, and streets as regards grades, location of railways, water supply, and drains, etc., dealing in fact with the construction of great works. The mechanical engineer knows nothing more of the technicalities of these matters than does the average man in the street. His professional knowledge extends only to the economical and practical working of mechanical power. The appointment of a mechanical engineer as a judge of the Federal City designs was a misfit, and it is due to that appointment that most of the trouble and controversy is now arising. Just imagine appointing an engineer of the ironworks or of the small arms factory to design and lay out the Lithgow sewerage works. What would be the result?
To quote from your article on this subject at this stage is appropriate: "There is an inclination for every man to persuade himself that he can do anything, which another man has done, without his training, and that aptitude is more or less equal." The policy of appointing judges representing the professions most concerned was a good one, and if these judges had arrived at a unanimous decision little fear but that the selection would have been in favor of a design which would have embraced the beautiful with the practical. But two judges, viz., the architect and (mechanical) engineer, decided in favor of three beautiful designs which did not embrace the practical, whilst the surveyor selected three designs which embodied civil engineering considerations as their basis. The trouble to-day is that the architects on the one hand, and the civil engineers on the other, are still at variance as to the deficiency of civil engineering considerations in Mr. Griffins design. Therefore it is not a matter for surprise that the difference of opinion between the branches of the professions still exist. The engineers still maintain that Mr. Griffins amended design is imperfect. Mr. Griffin has stated that his original design was completed in less than six weeks, and that he had disregarded the engineering considerations, because they were mere matters of detail to be supplied subsequently. Of the judges the architect might be excused for selecting Mr. Griffins design as the best in the competition, for the members of the architectural profession disclaim any expert knowledge of the ethics of civil engineering, and besides, was not Mr. Griffins work produced in colors of gold, silver, and purpose, in fact a superb example of the draftsman's art, and of the artists skill? But what can be said for the judgment of the engineer, who selected a design for first prize whose author admits that he never gave engineering features any consideration whatever? Evidently this judge considered that this beauteous specimen of art outweighed all omissions of practicability. Mr. Griffin calls himself "a landscape architect." The architects are of opinion that his profession is in the main the most important; on the other hand the engineer considers his should have the first consideration. It mattered not to Mr. Griffin what the difference of level was; whether the location of streets produced grades of 1 in 8 or 1 in 100; he set himself out to produce a design based on artistic ideals, and so he gave us a formal design which was given first prize in the competition, not because it was practical and efficient, but because beautiful effect was produced on paper. Let us imagine a design for the town of Lithgow when it was a bare of buildings as Canberra. Let the design extend from the top of Hassans Walls on the south to the heights of the range on the north, with Farmers creek flowing through the centre. The situation is similar to that of Canberra, but of course considerably steeper. Mr. Griffin's original design paid no attention to the contours or the broken nature of the ranges, but he conceived a fixed or formal design to cover all this ground as though it was quite level, the result was that his design provided grades of 1 in 8 in his main avenues, and only by enormous excavations in the removal of high hills could certain parts be made practicable. Farmers Creek as a substitute for Molonglo River, had, for instance, to be dammed, and fantastic basins were proposed; these basin foundations were shown as to be first excavated from the slopes to a depth of 60 feet in places. No sewerage or drainage was proposed although the conditions of competition made it mandatory to do so, so that these basins for the ornamental water flowing through the centre of the city were not protected from the filth of the city flowing into them and grossly polluting them.
Mr. Griffin has actually stated publicly that the objections on the score of pollution are not worth considering, as they are unfounded. Let your readers imagine the effect of the drainage of a city 10 times greater than their own town of Lithgow, escaping into a stagnant lake formed by damming Farmers Creek. Can there be any doubt what the effect will be? These deficiencies and omissions in the original design are what caused the production of the minority report by M.J.M. Crane [i.e. J. M. Coane], and are now causing the severe criticism of Mr. L. A. Curtis and other civil engineers. It is not necessary to prophesy that this design, which has not embodied practical considerations, must eventually lose a deal of its character as the demands of engineering problems present themselves.
In one of your issues of August, 1912, you noted the caustic criticisms of Mr. Curtis, who then predicted that Mr. Griffin's design would never materialise. The prediction has been verified, for Mr. Griffin has amended his design to a large extent, but there is a vast deal of alteration to be done yet. Mr. Curtis urges that sewerage and drainage should be provided for, that the ornamental lakes designed by Mr. Griffin interferes with the opportunity of converting it into a magnificent aquatic sporting course, and that no provision has been made for sporting grounds of various kinds. What attraction will there be to the people to make homes at Canberra if the lake be so polluted, and that it becomes a nuisance? And that sporting of any kind may not be indulged in owing to the fact that no areas have been provided for the purpose. A racecourse requires at least 100 acres of so, golf links about the same; athletics, and cricket grounds are absolutely essential if the characteristics of the Australian public are to be catered for. No, Mr. Griffin has found that these features interfere generally with the formal beauty of his design on paper, so they must find space elsewhere. The result will be that Canberra will never be popular as a place of residence, and so far as we can see at this early stage, if Mr. Griffins amended design is carried out, there are few features of attraction which will draw a large population.
There is no doubt that the process of creating a capital city for the Australian Commonwealth has been a huge muddle, from the time of apportioning the value of the prizes--which were absurdly inadequate to the importance of the occasion--to the present time in the appointment of one man--a landscape architect--to direct the construction of Canberra at an outlay of some millions of pounds sterling, when the construction of engineering works in the earlier stages will far exceed architectural works in degree of cost, and of which the landscape artist by the nature of his profession can have little expert knowledge.
The politician again has interfered too largely in this important national matter to the disparagement of the expert and his work, until now the creation of Canberra is dangerously close to becoming a big national blunder, rather than a national opportunity successfully grasped.--Yours, etc.
DIOGENES.
Selected, scanned, edited, provided with headnotes, and formatted as a web document by John W. Reps, Professor Emeritus, Department of City and Regional Planning, West Sibley Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA. Tel: (607) 255-5391, Fax: (607) 255-6681, E-mail: jwr2@cornell.edu To Top of Page To Homepage