Jump to content

User:Luisa234

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Walter Burley Griffin’s Vision

[edit]

In 1921, Walter Burley Griffin (architect and landscape architect) designed Castlecrag, a model residential suburb that was sympathetic to the Australian natural environment [1]. Upon arriving in Australia in 1913, Griffin was struck by the natural beauty of the Sydney Habour, and at the first Australian town planning conference; he emphasised that best planning practice should respect the natural character of the site’s landscape [2]. The Greater Sydney Development Association (GSDA) whose shareholders were in favour of Griffin’s ideals, purchased and developed Castlecrag and also appointed Griffin as Managing Director [3]. Griffin’s vision for Castlecrag was based on the notion of careful planning and he was dismayed by the layout of Sydney’s suburbs, which he considered to be unimaginative (grid plan) and unsympathetic towards the environment [4]. Griffin and his wife, Marion Mahony Griffin both firmly believed that development should not lead to the destruction of natural features [5]. This concept was original for the time and is considered to have been influenced by the Garden City movement [6].

Also at the heart of Griffin’s vision for Castlecrag was establishing a sense of community and focusing on their needs [7]. Griffin believed this could be achieved by encouraging social interaction, providing opportunities for people to contribute to their community and planning many parks and recreational spaces [8]. The Griffins lived in Castlecrag from 1925, and actively participated in the community by planting native trees [9]. Marion Mahony Griffin had a passionate interest in the arts and helped instigate the creation of the Haven Scenic Amphitheatre where plays and festivals were held [10]. Community spirit was also fostered through the establishment of groups such as music groups and the Neighbourhood Circle, and through the willingness of residents to help one another in the building of houses [11].

Planning Considerations

[edit]

The roads of Castlecrag were planned to suit the topography of the area; following the natural contours of the land [12]. This contrasted with the grid plan, which was characteristic of many suburbs in Sydney at the time; reflecting Griffin’s belief that the built environment should respect the natural environment [13]. The trees that bordered the roads in Castlecrag were not removed and the roads were barely visible from above [14]. Furthermore, the layout of the streets also provided residents with views of the landscape [15].

Griffin designed reserves that were linked together by a network of walkways, providing the community ample space for recreation and bushwalking whilst retaining the bushland backdrop [16]. The roads, paths and reserves were diligently planned for the convenience and pleasure of the residents and to retain views [17]. Griffin’s plan involved 20% of the land at Castlecrag being set aside for parkland - considerably more than the amount dictated by Council regulations, 2% [18].

Before the development of Castlecrag, the peninsula was being stripped of vegetation for firewood, soil and other needs [19]. The Griffins promoted respect for the natural environment by planting and protecting native trees in both public reserves and gardens and by establishing covenants on the land [20]. The covenants placed restrictions on land uses and construction, which enabled Griffin to protect the character of the area [21]. The covenants prevented the creation of buildings that were out of place, impeded views or were too dominant [22]. The covenants also required residents to pay a levy that supported the ongoing maintenance of reserves, tree planting and other activities designed to safeguard the natural environment [23]. Today, the national, state and local governments as well as heritage organisations acknowledge the importance of protecting the built and natural environment at Castlecrag and have established controls over its management and development [24].

Architecture

[edit]

During Castlecrag’s early years, houses were either designed by Griffin (fifteen were built) or approved by him [25]. Griffin’s houses were characterised by concrete block and stone found at the site, material which matched the natural surroundings (three houses were built using knitlock only) [26]. The use of these materials facilitated the quick and affordable construction of the houses [27]. Griffin’s designs boasted innovations such as the kitchens’ pass-through pantries and twin sinks, the close-to ground floor levels and the picture window [28].

Some aspects of Griffin’s houses in Castlecrag were unusual and unconventional such as the treatment of stonework, the window details and the flat roofs [29]. Flat roofs were favoured over pitched roofs as they prevented the obstruction of views, provided vantage points where one could experience a view of the landscape and allowed for a rooftop garden [30]. Another atypical feature of Griffin’s houses was the unusual location of the kitchens and bathrooms [31]. These rooms were situated at the front of the house even though convention was to have these rooms at the back of the house [32]. The houses were designed in such a way so that the living rooms located at the rear; faced a view or park on the inner side of the allotment [33]. Griffin’s houses did not have front fences and built structures were minimal within ten metres of each property [34]. This, in addition to many of the houses being single story and boasting colours of the natural surroundings exemplifies Griffin’s objective which did not involve establishing imposing and artificial built structures, but rather to have the buildings blend in with the environment; retaining the bush setting [35]. Thus, Griffin’s designs were remarkably different from the uniform designs at the time - houses with red, pitched roofs - which Griffin detested [36].

There has since been development in Castlecrag that has not respected Griffin’s ideals [37]. However, the Willoughby City Council is aware of the importance of Castlecrag and has imposed controls over development in the area [38]. The purpose of the controls is to preserve the character of Castlecrag, encouraging the construction of buildings, which respect the original houses designed by Griffin and the natural landscape [39].

References

[edit]

(The) Castlecrag Progress Association. (2011). Castlecrag history and time line. Retrieved May 3, 2011 from http://castlecrag.org.au/history/history.htm

(The) Castlecrag Progress Association. (2011). Property and development. Retrieved May 3, 2011 from http://castlecrag.org.au/builtenvironment/builtEnvironment.htm

Chambers, C. (2006-11). Griffins and the Australian bushland. Retrieved May 3, 2011 from http://www.griffinsociety.org/Lives_and_works/a_bushland.html

Freestone, R. (1982). The garden city idea in Australia. Australian Geographical Studies, 20, p.24-48.

Leslie, E. (1988). Municipality of Willoughby: The suburb of Castlecrag a community history. New South Wales: Willoughby Municipal Council.

O’Donoghue, M. (2006-11). Castlecrag, Sydney. Retrieved May 3, 2011 from http://www.griffinsociety.org/Lives_and_works/a_castlecrag.html

Spathopoulos, W. (2007). The Crag: Castlecrag 1924-1938. Blackheath: Brandl & Schlesinger.

Walker, M., Kabos, A., & Weirick, J. (1994). Building for nature: Walter Burley Griffin and Castlecrag. Castlecrag: Walter Burley Griffin Society Incorporated.

Willoughby City Council. (2011). Conservation areas: Griffin – Castlecrag. Retrieved May 4, 2011 from http://www.willoughby.nsw.gov.au/your-neighbourhood/heritage/Place/Heritage-Conservation-Areas/6/

Model Company Towns

[edit]

During the late nineteenth century, model company towns materialised as enlightened industrialists recognised that many poor workers were living in appalling conditions [40]. These industrialists wished to combat the unsanitary and congested conditions common to working class districts in order to create better living conditions for workers [41]. Model company towns such as Port Sunlight (1888) and Bournville (1895) were influential in regards to their building and planning innovation [42]. The ideas generated from these model towns are regarded as having a significant influence on the Garden City movement[43].

The model company town is concerned with creating a productive and prosperous company [44]. Enlightened industrialists believed this could be achieved by providing a healthier residential environment for their employees [45]. Planning a model company town involved the fusion of new notions of house design and layout [46]. The paternalism of the enlightened industrialist was exhibited in his desire to provide an environment for his employees that was aesthetically appealing and which included well-designed residences, parks, schools, libraries and meeting halls [47]. The industrialist also wished to contribute to his workers’ wellbeing by providing social programs such as sporting events and functions [48]. This however, highlights the power and immense control possessed by the company owner who could shape the lifestyle and activities of his employees to serve his own interests and those of the company [49].

The creation of model company towns was particularly evident in Britain during the latter half of the nineteenth century with the creation of Saltaire, Bournville, Port Sunlight, Creswell and New Earswick, and coincided with the housing reform movement which emphasised the improvement of housing for the working class [50]. These model towns contrasted with the overcrowded conditions in British working class districts which were often characterised by congested housing, unsanitary conditions, poor provision of open space and facilities [51]. Model company towns promoted the idea of orderly, planned town development as well as the notion of planning for the needs of the community in order to provide healthier living conditions [52].


Model Company Towns in Britain

[edit]

Model company towns around the mid-nineteenth century such as Copley (1849) near Halifax, and Saltaire (1853) close to Bradford were characterised by improved dwellings for workers which contrasted with working-class housing in other industrial villages and cities [53]. These model company towns prompted the creation of others such as Port Sunlight, Bourneville and Creswell within an environment of reform [54].

Port Sunlight (1888) in Cheshire, was established by William Hesketh Lever (later Lord Leverhulme) of Lever Brothers – a soap and tallow manufacturer [55]. The earlier layout of this model company town was planned to suit the undulating topography of the site [56]. Port Sunlight catered for the Lever Brothers employees through the provision of improved housing (cottages of varying designs and materials) and gardens, as well as social and community facilities including an auditorium, school, tennis courts and bowling greens [57]. Port Sunlight combined the use of formal and informal planning elements such as straight streets close to the town centre and curved streets in the residential areas [58]. This combination of the formal and informal represented a new feature of British town planning [59].

Bournville (1895) near Birmingham, was established by the Cadbury brothers, George and Richard [60]. George and Richard Cadbury chose to transfer the Cadbury factory to this new site in order to provide their employees with improved living conditions and a country environment that they could enjoy - a far cry from the busy, smoky city centre of Birmingham [61]. The firm provided education in the form of a compulsory academic course and workers were given the opportunity to complete commercial or technical training [62]. Cadburys also encouraged their workers to get involved in the social life of Bournville through the provision of sports facilities, athletic and cultural clubs, as well as social events such as summer parties [63]. George Cadbury, a Quaker, preached Christian values such as respectability, thrift and sobriety and sought to unify the Bournville community through rituals such as gift giving between employer and employee [64]. The firm also established work councils such as the Women’s Works Council and supported trade unions [65].

Bournville represented the union of industry and nature as the company town boasted the attractiveness of the countryside and low-density development characterised by well-built and visually appealing dwellings [66]. Unlike Port Sunlight, Bournville catered for a mixed community where residences were not restricted to the workforce only [67]. Bournville illustrated how, towards the end of the nineteenth century, low-density development was being emphasised along with the provision of open air, space and sunlight [68]. Bournville’s gardens, parks, tree-lined streets, its sense of spaciousness and country setting enhanced its aesthetic appeal and demonstrated George Cadbury’s endeavour to provide workers with a healthy, beautiful and well-ventilated environment [69].

The Bolsover Company developed two exemplary mining communities in Derbyshire during the late nineteenth century, Bolsover (1891) and Creswell (1896) [70]. The Bolsover Company aimed to provide improved living conditions for the miners and their families in these model industrial villages [71]. The houses at Creswell were built in concentric circles, and within these circles was large open parkland and a bandstand [72]. Not only did the Bolsover Company aim to provide better housing, but they also wished to improve workers’ moral fibre, believing that the provision of facilities and the promotion of workers’ welfare would discourage drunkenness, gambling and bad language [73]. The Bolsover Company provided facilities deemed beneficial for employees at both villages including clubhouses, bowling greens, cooperative society stores, cricket pitches and schools [74]. During the early years of these model industrial villages, the Bolsover Company organised various events intended to enhance community life such as flower shows, lectures, sporting events, concerts, teas and dances [75].

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Leslie, 1988, p.73
  2. ^ Walker, Kabos & Weirick, 1994, p.8; Chambers, 2006-11
  3. ^ Walker et al., 1994, p.9
  4. ^ Chambers, 2006-11
  5. ^ Walter Burley Griffin Society Inc, 2006-11
  6. ^ Johnson, 1971 cited in Freestone, 1982, p.37
  7. ^ Spathopoulos, 2007, p.58
  8. ^ Spathopoulos, 2007, p.58
  9. ^ Walker et al., 1994, p.33
  10. ^ The Castlecrag Progress Association, 2011
  11. ^ Walker et al., 1994, p.33-35
  12. ^ Spathopoulos, 2007, p.54
  13. ^ Spathopoulos, 2007, p.54
  14. ^ Leslie, 1988, p.84
  15. ^ Leslie, 1988, p.73
  16. ^ Leslie, 1988, p.94
  17. ^ Chambers, 2006-11
  18. ^ Leslie, 1988, p.84
  19. ^ Walker et al., 1994, p.32
  20. ^ Willoughby City Council, 2011
  21. ^ Leslie, 1988
  22. ^ Leslie, 1988; Willoughby City Council, 2011
  23. ^ Leslie, 1988, p.74
  24. ^ The Castlecrag Progress Association, 2011
  25. ^ O’Donoghue, 2006-11
  26. ^ Leslie, 1988; Walker et al., 1994
  27. ^ Walker et al., 1994, p.22
  28. ^ Walker et al., 1994
  29. ^ Walker et al. 1994, p.37
  30. ^ Leslie, 1988, p.76; Willoughby City Council, 2011
  31. ^ Walter et al., 1994, p.37
  32. ^ Walter et al., 1994, p.37
  33. ^ Walter et al., 1994, p.37
  34. ^ Willoughby City Council, 2011
  35. ^ Willoughby, 2011
  36. ^ Leslie, 1988, p.75
  37. ^ O’Donoghue, 2006-11
  38. ^ The Castlecrag Progress Association, 2011
  39. ^ Willoughby City Council, 2011
  40. ^ Parsons, 1985, p.639
  41. ^ Garner, 1982, p.xi
  42. ^ Jackson, 1985
  43. ^ Jackson, 1985; Garner, 1992
  44. ^ Gaskell, 1979
  45. ^ Gaskell, 1979, p.440
  46. ^ Gaskell, 1979
  47. ^ Garner, 1992, p.4
  48. ^ Garner, 1992, p.4
  49. ^ Garner, 1982, p.xi
  50. ^ Cherry, 1979, p.51; Parsons, 1985
  51. ^ Gaskell, 1979; Cherry, 1979
  52. ^ Cherry, 1979
  53. ^ Garner, 1982, p.87
  54. ^ Garner, 1982
  55. ^ Jackson, 1985, p.47
  56. ^ Jackson, 1985; p.47
  57. ^ Cherry, 1979, p.314; Jackson, 1985
  58. ^ Hebblethwaite, 1987, p.155
  59. ^ Hebblethwaite, 1987, p.155
  60. ^ Dellheim, 1987
  61. ^ Dellheim, 1987, p.20
  62. ^ Dellheim, 1987, p.29
  63. ^ Dellheim, 1987, p.29
  64. ^ Dellheim, 1987, p.30
  65. ^ Dellheim, 1987, p.42
  66. ^ Dellheim, 1987, p.31; Cherry, 1979, p.314
  67. ^ Jackson, 1985, p.49
  68. ^ Cherry, 1979, p.317
  69. ^ Jackson, 1985, p.49
  70. ^ Gaskell, 1979
  71. ^ Gaskell, 1979
  72. ^ Gaskell, 1979, p.446
  73. ^ Gaskell, 1979
  74. ^ Gaskell, 1979, p.446
  75. ^ Gaskell, 1979, p.447

References

[edit]

Cherry, G.E. (1979). The town planning movement and the late Victorian city. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 4, 306-319. Dellheim, C. (1987). The creation of company culture: Cadburys, 1861-1931. The American Historical Review, 92, 13-44.

Garner, J.S. (1982). The model company town. Massachusetts: The University of Massachusetts Press.

Garner, J.S. (1992). The company town: Architecture and society in the early industrial age. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Gaskell, M. (1979). Model industrial villages in S. Yorkshire/N. Derbyshire and the early town planning movement. The Town Planning Review, 50, 437-458.

Hebblethwaite, R. (1987). The municipal housing programme in Sheffield before 1914. Architectural History, 30, 143-179.

Jackson, F. (1985). Sir Raymond Unwin: Architect, planner and visionary. London: A. Zwemmer Ltd.

Parsons, K.C. (1985). Review of the model company town: Urban design through private enterprise in nineteenth-century New England. The New England Quarterly, 58, 639-643.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Luisa234&oldid=427741162"