neighbouring suburbs some 20 to 25 years earlier. As with its contemporary, O'Connor,
publicly constructed housing had a profound impact on Narrabundah. Three quarters of all
houses were buUt by the government. Housing located in Narrabundah performed a special role
within Canberra's public housing system. Put simply, most of Narrabundah was developed as
working class housing, the dwelling stock was intended to accommodate government workers
and their families who were employed in construction or labouring tasks, rather than clerical
officers. One section was developed in the 1940s with numbered streets. Numbers not names
were not attached to the streets because of the intended temporary nature of the development.
Initial intentions were forgotten and the numbered streets remained throughout the period of
117
this study. Residential development in Narrabundah was initiated in the immediate post-War years when Canberra was expected to grow. The suburb offered the dual benefits of being close to the industrial area of Fyshwick as well as several major government institutions in Kingston.
Narrabundah's physical infrastructure differed markedly from other suburbs in South Canberra. Residential lots were smaller, the design of many of the dwellings meaner, and little was done to improve the residential environment. Some sections of Narrabundah were developed with concentrations of 'temporary' dwellings, such as demountable homes. The north east comer evolved into a significant pocket of social deprivation, widi a population of low socio-economic status residing in dwellings of limited amenity. Public sector redevelopment of the housing stock in this part of Narrabundah commenced in the late 1970s (NCDC, 1983a). Other sections of Narrabundah took on some of the characteristics of the suburbs they abutted because of subsequent improvements to the stock or the nature of the dwellings constructed there originally. For example, it is difficult to distinguish between the upper middle class dwellings of Red Hill and nearby houses in Narrabundah.
Five thousand five hundred people lived in Narrabundah at the 1981 Census in 1,980 dwellings, 1,835 of which were occupied. Median household income stood at 517,300. The most pronounced feature of the suburb's occupational structure was the greater proportion of tradesmen and labourers. Twenty two per cent of workers fell within this category compared to 12 per cent for the city as a whole. Just under fifty per cent of persons in the labour force were classified as professional, administrative or clerical workers. Narrabundah's age contributed to a population profile in which their were comparatively few children and traditional families. Children under the age of 14 constituted only 19 per cent of the suburb's population. Households comprised of the head only were die most common type of living arrangement, followed by couples and partners widi children.
Owner occupation was the most common tenure in 1981, accounting for 48 per cent of dwellings. Two hundred and forty nine households, or 13 per cent, owned their dwelling outright while the remaining 644 dwellings were being purchased. Private rental made up 11 per cent of tlie total and public rental a further third. Separate houses were the major component of the dwelling stock, with 83 per cent of all accommodation units. Semi-detached houses and medium density dwellings were the only other housing styles, with five per cent and eight per cent of units respectively.
118
5.2.4. Forrest
Forrest, is the most expensive and prestigious address in Canberra. Its higiily valued status is partly a reflection of its geography. The suburb lies on the flanks of Red Hill and runs down toward Capital Hill and the shopping district of Manuka. Immediately to the West lies Deakin and to the East, Barton, Griffith and Red Hill. All of these suburbs are highly sought after in their own right and contain valuable dwellings. Forrest, therefore, lies at the centre of the belt of desirable accommodation which runs along the northern slopes of Red Hill.
Development began in Forrest, or Blandfordia as it was known originally, in 1926. The suburb developed partly in response to the Commonwealth Government's need to produce high quality housing for senior public servants. Persons appointed to responsible positions in Canberra or transferred at those levels from Melbourne, expected suitable accommodation as a pre-condition of employment A substantial number of government houses were erected in Forrest and the neighbouring suburbs to meet this particular need. The private sector recognised also the quality of Forrest's residential environment and many expensive dwellings were built by individuals. Diplomatic missions recognised the benefits associated with Forrest's location and ambience. A number of embassies were located in the suburb and many of their senior staff live in the vicinity.
A series of planning decisions contributed to the concentration of desirable residences in South Canberra and to Forrest's cachet especially. Griffin's (1918) plan called for the development simultaneously of North and South Canberra. Less expensive government dwellings tended to be constructed in the former. These dwellings were let at lower rents with the result that lower grade public servants and workers of similar status were located on the plains of North Canberra while personnel in more elevated positions were located South of the Molonglo. South Canberra offered the twin advantages of proximity to Parliament House in Parkes and at least partial shelter from Westerly winds by Red Hill. The decision to not further subdivide Forrest had a more direct impact. The major avenues and streets had been set out by Griffin in his gazetted plan of 1918, with the intention of later private subdivision when dwelling construction commenced. Griffin's departure left the matter in the hands of the planners within the Federal Capital Commission who chose not to proceed widi additional land division as any change to the street layout would have required the consent of Parliament (Fischer, 1984). In consequence, Forrest was developed with very large blocks of land indeed.
One hundred and eighty of the 383 houses in Forrest were constructed by the Federal Capital Commission or the Department of the Interior. Nine houses remained in public ownership in 1981. The remainder of the suburb's occupied dwelling stock at the 1981 Census was made up
119
of 56 medium density units and five semi-detached houses. Sixty five per cent of households owned or were purchasing their dwelling. Of thai tenure, just over half owned their dwelling outright Surprisingly, the category 'other tenants', which is usually construed to mean private rental households, constituted 22 per cent of the total. It is probable that many of the households within this classification were either members of legations or were recipients of housing assistance from their employer. Monthly mortgage repayments appeared within the census data as two distinct clusters: 26 per cent of households had mortgage commitments of less than $100 per month, while 34 per cent repaid more than S399.
The 1,200 residents of Forrest in 1981 lived in households consisting of 'head, spouse and dependants', 'head only' and 'head and spouse only', in that order. Twenty nine per cent of households were comprised of traditionally-defined families, slighdy more than 28 per cent of households consisted of a person living alone. There was, somewhat surprisingly, a significant proportion of the population aged 14 years or less. Twenty two per cent of the residents of Forrest fell within this category on 1981, just below the metropolitan figure of 29 per cent. It is likely that the age of the suburb in combination with the size and quality of the dwelling stock resulted in a second generation of upwardly mobile families settling in the suburb. More tiian half of all households in Forrest had incomes in excess of $26,000 at the 1981 Census. The structure of die workforce matched the income profile of the suburb. Professionals constituted 35 per cent of the workforce in 1981 while three quarters of the population active economically at the time of the census fell within the combined categories of professional, clerical and administrative workers.
5 . 2 3 . Kingston
Eastlake, known now as Kingston, was one of the first residential areas in the ACT, with the first dwellings erected in 1922. The first commercial and residential leases offered in the ACT in 1924 were for sites in Kingston and had been preceded by the construction of government cottages. The Causeway was a distinct and separate residential precinct within the suburb and was comprised totally of government housing. The Causeway was set up to house construction workers and their families and was distant from the major body of the suburb, both physically and socially. It was bounded by Jerrabombera Creek and Lake Burley Griffin to the North, the Canberra Railway Station to the South and government utilities, such as the Government Printing Office and the Bus Depot, to the West Dwellings in the Causeway were not available for purchase by the tenants and declined over the years from an originally low standard. The Causeway was a distinct niche within Kingston's residential scene and must be recognised as such in any description of housing processes in that suburb.
120
Kingston has had a mixed history. It was not developed on the grand scale that marked housing construction in many other parts of South Canberra. Many of the dwellings erected privately were described in the Record of Building Permits as 'cottages' rather than 'residences', although some more substantial dwellings were built. Kingston did, however, perform an important role within Canberra. The shopping centre in the centre of Kingston was one of the most important retailing and commercial areas in the Territory from the 1920s through to the 1950s and the strength of its commercial function reflected the health of its local community (Fischer, 1984).
Kingston declined after Second World War as its population aged, its dwelling stock deteriorated slighdy and as urban growth moved further afield (Wensing, 1984). Kingston's population declined from over 1,000 persons in 1947 to just under 700 in 1966. The NCDC decided upon redevelopment for Kingston/Griffith because of the suburb's age and pressure for change from the residents. The redevelopment policies were announced in 1970 after consultation with the community. The plans favoured comprehensive redevelopment on sites of more than one acre (.4 h^) and emphasised private redevelopment by lessees acting jointly. The Commonwealth, for its pan, initiated redevelopment with the upgrading of its properties on Section 18. The Kingston Guest House and four adjoining cottages were demolished and 104 flats erected in their place. The private sector, however, took a considerable amount of time to commence redevelopment activities. The first concrete proposals were not submitted for Kingston until 1975/76 and there was sustained speculative investment in leases in the intervening years (Wensing, 1984).
By 1980 only four redevelopment projects had been completed by the private sector. As Wensing (1984) noted, the considerable period in which redevelopment was planned but not implemented resulted in a marked reduction in physical and social standards. In plain terms, Kingston suffered from planning blight. Landlords holding properties for speculative gain did not maintain those dwellings. Owner occupants were encouraged to leave the area by the rise in the rateable value of their land, associated with the change in plannmg designation. Home owners who stayed in their homes faced increased rates as the notional value of their dwelling rose rapidly. Redevelopment meant that the housing market in Kingston was dominated by the land component, which discouraged invesunent in the buildings themselves.
The 850 persons resident in Kingston at the 1981 census occupied 346 dwellings. Forty eight dwellings, or 12 per cent of the total stock was unoccupied. The dwelling stock included 124 separate houses, 41 semi-detached houses and 176 medium density units. Eighty one per cent of houses had been built by the public authorities and eighty seven of those remained in public
121
ownership. It should be noted that the majority of those houses were located in die Causeway. Twenty seven per cent of households only, were purchasing or owned their home in 1981. Public rental was the most common tenure with 55 per cent of all households while private rental accounted for the remaining 15 per cent.
Kingston possessed an unusual demographic profile at the 1981 census. Families were a small part of the suburb's population. Just less than ten per cent of households fell within the parameters of the conventional use of that term. 'Head only' households accounted for 40 per cent of the total, with couples and sole supporting parents making up 23 per cent and 15 per cent of living arrangements respectively. There were relatively few children in Kingston. Persons 14 years of age or less constituted 19 per cent of the population. The substantial number of government dwellings, and government owned flats especially, would have been responsible largely for the atypical population characteristics. The median income of SI3,300 reflected the sizable presence of public housing. Forty per cent of Kingston's labour force fell within Canberra's main employment categories of clerical, administrative and professional occupations. Tradesmen and labourers were slighdy over represented at 15 per cent of the labour force.
5.2.6. ChiHey
The suburb of Chifley was founded in Woden in 1966 during the years of feverish growth within Canberra. Physically, the suburb is like many laid out by the NCDC during the 1960s. Chifley was planned as a neighbourhood in which the community of individual families was brought together by a school and shopping facilities located at its geographic centre. The streets were set out with a series of distributor and lesser roads in order to reduce traffic through residential areas and maximise the householder's amenity. Under this planning regime, the new suburbs were disposed around a a town centre, intended to serve as a major employment node and retailing centre. Chifley was part of the rapid expansion of owner occupation in Canberra in the 1960s and is typical of much development in this period. Chifley can be contrasted with O'Connor which was established earlier to house a comparable population. O'Connor was developed for a population that would reside in public rental housing while Chifley's establishment was attuned to owner occupation. Even government dwellings were sold quickly into owner occupation.
There were roughly 1,040 private dwellings in Chifley at the 1981 Census, eight hundred of which were houses. The Department of the Interior built 362 or 45 per cent of all detached dwellings. The 242 flats in Chifley were buUt privately and were comprised of several large blocks of units located on the Eastern side of the suburb, overlooking Melrose Drive. Data
122
from the Roll Books of the Valuation Branch of the Australian Tax Office indicated that 45 per cent of all detached dwellings were erected by the householders after the purchase of a block of land. The home buyers either engaged a builder to construct a dwelling for them or undertook the building work themselves. One third of the remaining 240 houses were developed and sold on a speculative basis by the financial body, Mercantile Credits. Seven other building construction firms erected more than ten dwellings and in total they accounted for 107 units, or 44 per cent of all completed houses. Hookers and A. V. Jennings were prominent companies within this group.
Chifley's demographic and socio-economic profile reflected its status as a middle-class suburb in which the majority of residents were conventional families. Chifley demonstrated characteristics which typify suburban life. The preponderance of traditional families with children reinforced this point A quarter of Chifley's population was less than 15 years of age in 1981. Families comprised of 'head, spouse and dependants' were a third of all households at the census. The other major household categories were persons by themselves and couples, which made up 29 per cent and 19 per cent of the total respectively. Both would have been far less common in the absence of the privately-rented flats. Chifley's median household income was marginally above the metropolitan median at S21,300. Its occupational structure paralleled the general pattern within the ACT. Like the ACT as a whole, sixty per cent of the workforce fell within the categories covering professional, administrative and clerical workers.
Fully 78 per cent of occupied private dwellings in 1981 were owned or were being purchased. The latter was the most significant component of owner occupation, accounting for 80 per cent of that tenure. All 67 dwellings occupied by public tenants were houses. Private rental was restricted largely to the blocks of flats along the eastern boundry of the suburb. The 234 households renting from private landlords matched closely the 210 identified as medium density housing.
5.2.7. Kambah
Kambah is the most northerly suburb of the district of Tuggeranong. It was the first suburb to be developed in Canberra's most recent New Town, with construction commencing in 1974. Tuggeranong had been planned on different principles than those that guided development earlier in Woden, Weston Creek and Belconnen. Firstly, it was designed as a much larger New Town. The original plans envisaged that Tuggeranong would develop with a population in the vicinity of 110,000, compared to a planned peak of 70,000 in Woden/Weston Creek and 80,000 to 90,000 in Belconnen. The new district was to have boasted amenities such as its own university (McCoy, 1976). Secondly, residential areas were planned as territorial units rather