Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2021L01868:reg:4:p25
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2021L01868
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 4 (pt 25/63)
Character Range: 416970–419720

As it had always been understood that this temporary structure would be demolished after a decade or so, its position had not been not a matter of vital concern. By contrast, the provisional building was intended as a semi-permanent structure, with a realisation by many that it might well become a permanent fixture. Its positioning was a matter of the utmost importance. One option the committee examined was a site that Murdoch favoured on a knoll north of Camp Hill, to the west of the Land Axis and near the proposed lake. Although a building in this position would have gravely affected the symmetry of Griffin's plan, Murdoch believed that symmetry could be restored by constructing an administrative building on a corresponding site on the other side of the Land Axis. However, Sulman and his committee rejected the whole scheme as too much of a disturbance to Griffin's plan.15

  Another site that suggested itself was the top of Camp Hill, the position that Griffin had designated for Parliament House in his city plan. But building the provisional structure in this location brought in its train a number of awkward consequences. If this option were pursued, it meant that the structure would later have to be incorporated in the permanent building, or that it would have to be completely demolished to make way for its permanent successor on the same spot, or that another site entirely would have to be found for the permanent building. The first of these alternatives would have eventually resulted in a great deal of disruptive construction work going on in and around the building while Parliament tried to function. This was unacceptable. The second alternative – demolition – was even less satisfactory because it would have entailed still greater disruption to the functioning of Parliament. In contrast to these first two alternatives, the third involved no real practical difficulties and, moreover, enjoyed strong support from several authorities, including Murdoch (as an alternative to his knoll site). These authorities advocated the erection of the provisional building on the top of Camp Hill and the permanent building on Kurrajong Hill, the latter to replace Griffin's proposed Capitol.16

  The Kurrajong Hill proposal did not appeal at all to Sulman or Ross. Sulman considered that the summit of the hill was too windswept and that two-way access between a parliament house built on it and the proposed administrative buildings in the Parliamentary Triangle would be difficult because of the hill's height and the steepness of its approaches. This was despite the fact that Murdoch had produced a scheme for cutting off the top of the hill, levelling an area on which to erect Parliament House and placing a cluster of