"The Americanisation of Australian Planning" - Robert Freestone (2004)

The following post touches on Robert Freestone text of the Americanisation of Australian Planning, introduces the theme of American planning and its influence on Australian planning and evaluates the impacts this influence has had on modern Australia.

Many aspects of modern Australia are subjected to the influence of American ideals despite the obvious colonial connections with Britain. In the words of Philip and Roger Bell (1993); modern Australian society steers between “British cultural imperialism and Coca-colonisation alike.” This connection is identical in Australian urban and regional planning.

American influence of Australian planning was extremely prominent during the City Beautiful movement of the 1890s and 1900s (The City Beautiful Movement, n.d.) where Australia sought to improve their “uninteresting colonial cities despoiled by utilitarianism, devoid of world class public spaces and landmarks, and lacking civic pride” (Freestone, 2004). This movement led to the introduction of open public and green spaces with immense focus on the arts and design.

During the WW1 era the focus for Australian planning redirected toward city functionality. Australia continued to seek inspiration from our American partners; this was extremely beneficial during this movement due to Australia’s individualised nature – “we think of my piece of land, of my lot, of my garden, while our American neighbours think of their city” (Peddle, 1917). This saw the introduction and growth of American land-use zoning regulations, playground system and comprehensive urban master plans to achieve cities with exemplary “efficiency, economy, specialization, and coordination” (Freestone, 2004).

Post-Great Depression and pre-WW2 saw an influx of American planning ideals into Australia. Particular focus went on urban areas, with ‘renewal projects, innovative site planning, large-scale slum clearance, rehousing schemes, new-style master plans, freeway planning, greenbelt towns and Radburn-style planning’ (the typical design used during the 1970s for public housing) becoming more prominent (Freestone, 2004).

Post WW2, with massive population booms and further technological breakthroughs British inspired greenbelt and public open spaces offered immediate post war planning solutions. Beyond the 1950s American planning practices offered solutions to Australian cities problems including transportation problems. Common solutions included the development of multi-lane freeways and corridor development – for example Canberra’s “Y Plan” (Wright, 2001). But essentially, these practices were initiated to address American-like “automobilism and consumerism” which cultivated the world. These characteristics ultimately led to the rise of not only multi-lane freeways and sprawling suburbs, but also planned shopping malls (Freestone, 2004). This shift of focus not only altered Australian planning, but planning worldwide.  

Negative Impacts of American Planning Practices

Despite playing a vital part in Australian planning history, American planning practices do not always offer a favourable solution. Freestone (2004) concurs with this connotation where he states “American cities offer as many negative warnings on urban trends as positive solutions”. This does not necessarily have to mark the beginning of a long negative period for Australian planning. Australia can learn from the mistakes and model the successes American planners encountered in response to these challenges. Freestone (2004), when quoting the work of Saxil Tuxen captured this – “Australia could learn from America’s good examples ‘without falling prey to… its many faults,’ such as its laissez faire organisation of utilities and the ‘ugly face of commercialism.’”   

Planning activities during the 1980s in Australia were to be centred around reversing the issues our cities experienced due to American planning influence, particularly the automobile and freeway dominance. This dominance heavily contributed to Australia ranking amongst the top three countries with the lowest population density (Australia with approximately 3 people per square kilometre) in the world (World Atlas, as of 2006). A key focus-point during this time was on freeways “environmental damage, social dislocation and property acquisition impacts” (Freestone, 2004).

However these efforts were to be in vain with freeways returning “in the 1990s as links between good transportation infrastructure and urban economic growth were reaffirmed” (Freestone, 2004). It is ironic that only just in the last decade that we again are trying to densify our population and minimise the impacts of freeways. This is outlined in an ‘the Australian’ article by Annabel Hepworth (2012) where the then Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese called the urban planners in the 18 major cities to develop a mechanism for large-scale urban renewal in suburbs close to the city centres and transport hubs.