Almost winners

Like the Griffin plan, other plans ‘shared a common philosophy: a belief that the city could be conceived of and shaped as a work of art’ (Reps, 1995). Adhering to this philosophy were the plans of both runners-up – Alfred Agache and Eliel Saarinen – and that of Nils Gellerstedt, the third choice of the minority judge. George Taylor, Australian town planning advocate and editor of Building magazine, was critical of the minority placegetters.

Agache

Some thought that it was Alfred Agache’s charming watercolours that earned his plan third place. They depict a hybrid Paris-Versailles on the Molonglo River. Anticipating the needs of the modern era, Agache included an aerodrome in his plan. The city plan had real flaws according to Taylor. The siting of the cemetery and railway yards, in particular, were ‘a huge mistake’ (cited in Reps, 1997).

Saarinen

Eliel Saarinen’s monumental massing of architecture around formal water basins was grand. George Taylor claimed it would have required considerable cut and fill to eliminate hills. He regarded the plan as ‘oppressively formal’ (cited in Reps, 1997).

Griffiths, Coulter and Caswell

The plan favoured by Coane – the minority judge – was that of an Australian consortium of W Scott Griffiths, Charles Coulter and Charles Caswell. Some thought their plan best suited to the site. It was also thought to best provide for drainage and stormwater. The grouping of public buildings, though, was not so well handled. As George Taylor noted, ‘The public buildings seem to be grouped haphazardly around the Houses of Parliament’. And there was ‘an evident hesitancy regarding the disposition of streets, some leading to nowhere in particular’ (cited in Reps, 1997).

	Information and materials The shortlist of 46 Almost winners

Saarinen’s perspective view

Agache’s plan

Agache’s Exedra Place

Australian Consortium’s perpective view