This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Urban studies and planning This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Australia: Canberra Mid‑importance Civic, Australian Capital Territory is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

City Centre is not particularly long and the info in City Hill is mostly about historical info of City Centre. Looking for feedback before I do the merger and add a redirect for City Hill. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. Historical information is pertinent (this is, after all, an encyclopedia), and all the information there is indeed about City Hill, rather than Civic. Ambi 02:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no strong feelings either way. The information could be merged, appearing as a separate section within the city centre article or it could remain separate. I assume the merger means no information will be excised in the process. Not sure there is going to be much more to be said about city hill, there is quite possibly more to be said on the city centre.--A Y Arktos 11:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the attention the Hill is getting with the potential for redevelopment, I think it is probably worth keeping as is. It is a notable city feature in its own right (with the flag pole and being a point in the Parliamentary triangle), similar to Commonwealth Place or Commonwealth/Kings Parks. I wouldn't suggest that those articles should be merged into the Parkes article. I say keep it. Perhaps reconsider after a decision to redevelop. Am prepared to consider views other people might have. -- Adz 11:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The most recent news I've seen was the knock back of a fairly substantial redevelopment of the site that would have turned it into a large conglomerate of offices. Garglebutt / (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be kept as a seperate article. The hill exists and is a seperate entity from the rest of Civic. Glebe park and mny other parks in the area get their own articles. It is also very notable as a vertex of the parliamentary triangle. --Martyman-(talk) 21:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed {merger} since consensus is to maintain separate article. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, what would people think about moving this back to Civic, Australian Capital Territory, where it was before? Even though it's officially known as City Centre, it's referred to almost universally as Civic, and I think it makes more sense for it to be at that name. This has been bugging me for a while. Ambi 02:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is universally known as Civic, and a move would still allow for the redirect, I think the naming preference should be for the official name.--A Y Arktos 11:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Use common names. No one refers to it as City Centre. Ambi 11:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... yes but - Wikipedia:Naming_conventions suggests "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". Civic is not the official name, wouldn't appear on most maps and would not be known as such to non-residents with no connection to Canberra, ie the majority of readers. I don't feel very strongly about it.--A Y Arktos 11:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but even people from outside don't call the area City Centre (except in the colloquial sense). The area is known in every way as Civic, and is likely to be more well known than "City Centre" to just about anyone. It's not a big deal, but it's something that's been bugging me for a while. Ambi 12:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Civic works for people who are from Canberra, but almost nobody who I know frou outside ACT knows that Civic is called that until they get here, and then they all comment on what a silly name it is. Since the people who are likely to be viewing the page are likely to be from outside Canberra, and are likely to reach it by linking from another page, I'm inclined to leave it as it is. I take your point about using common names, but that guideline seems to relate to people's names, types of music, and presumably plants and other technical/specialist terms. I say leave it as it is. -- Adz 11:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People from outside don't know it as City Centre either. It's a name that just isn't used. If people from outside are referring to the place, it's still going to be as Civic. Ambi 12:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The redirects will of course make whatever name work. I, a local, go to Civic. When I drive there I am pretty sure the signage is "City Centre". I think the bus is really helpful and tells me it is taking me to Dickson - but the buses pull up at the Civic interchange I think. ACT Locate, the ACT Govt online map, shows the area as Canberra Central which contains the Civic Shopping Mall - label appearing over Bailey's Arcade, Petrie Plaza and City Walk. (not sure if this query link will work) They of course are wrong and have no idea what they are talking about, if it is anything, it is not the Civic Shopping Mall :-)! Our article needs to explain about Brunelleschi's Foundling Hospital, Aly Nish (? need to check the building to the south of Garema Place), and the Monaro Mall mosaic that was destroyed when the Canberra Centre was built. It needs to explain when Petrie street turned into Petrie Plaza and whether it was before or after Adelaide's Rundle Mall - quite close in time. It probably needs to locate the Royal Theatre - I could not believe that anyone in this day and age would name a new theatre the Royal - the first time I was asked directions to it, I sent the poor lost people, who were already late for their concert, to Queanbeyan. I was sure there must be an old theatre by that name there, it could not possibly be in Canberra. I am still bemused by the name. We need to do all of this regardless of the name of the article.--A Y Arktos 18:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To potentially re-open a can of worms, the official name is NOT "City Centre" it is just "City". (refer to ACT government website or ABS Census if you don't believe me) I have already made some changes to this page to reflect that but the question that remains is whether the page should be moved to "City, Australian Capital Territory". An argument could also be made to change it back to "Civic, Australian Capital Territory" as that is a recognised locality name (like Manuka) and Civic does appear on some street signs within the City (such as the Bus interchange). MartinL-585 (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point to the ABS Population? I've not found anything and I've tried every possible search terms? Bidgee (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps not everything. Go to 2006 Census QuickStats by location, select the Browse tab or use this link -> 2006 Census Data : View by location Then choose "StateSuburb" as type of location and you can figure the rest out yourself. You should get to this page 2006 Census QuickStats : City (State Suburb) MartinL-585 (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm wrong but I believe is common sense that most people (not residents, not ABS) would refer to this place as the City or Civic Centre of Canberra, not ACT... so why not call it City Centre, Canberra? Elekhh (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Either civic center or city center would be a more suiting article name......city just doesn't sound right, all local residents of a large town will refer to the CBD as the city, that doesn't mean city should be the article name. Wiki ian 01:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, EVERY Suburb in Canberra is named as follows: 'Suburb_name, Australian Capital Territory'. The official suburb name is 'City' - this is stated at the beginning of the article. You can create as many re-directs as you want if it helps to find the article but the article name must adhere to the naming convention of all other Canberra suburbs. MartinL-585 (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to explain the location in terms of Griffin's plan - this relates to the suggested merge of city hill above. Apparently Sulman was planning to surround city hill with twelve Sydney/Melbourne buildings. The Sydney/Melbourne buildings were modelled on Brunelleschi's foundling hospital. For many years they were all there was to Civic.

Icons no longer there include Rogers that became Youngs, the Civic Hotel, the Blue Moon cafe. Others ....?

Icons still there include Gus's (mentioned but not the planning battle he had to sit people outside.), Woodstock pizza, Fletcher Jones (mentioned - don't know when it came). Others ....?

The height of new development was the Monaro Mall in the 60s.

Not sure what it is called now, but it was the Canberra Building Centre building and later the Advance bank building, and is above the Boulevarde - I think it was the first tall office building to hit the 13 story limit and must have been built in the 70s. Before that there was the T&G building with its clock and other tall buildings, presumably built in the 60s, on the west side of Civic near University Avenue.

Perhaps we could have a timeline of development by decade - drafted here on the talk page as it will take a little research to pull it together.--A Y Arktos 19:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the commercial centre of Canberry - I think there was a baker's shop in what is now Commonwealth Gardens and a post office somewhere between that and St Johns. Not much of a centre but probably also a store somewhere.

Griffins plan. Sulman's Sydney/Melbourne buildings.

• The railway line to civic was washed away in 1922 floods and never rebuilt.[1]
• Reid House stood where the Casino and Conference Centre are today and was one of a number of government hostels built of fibro cement.[2]
• Melbourne and Sydney buildings opened by the prime minister Stanley Bruce in December 1927. Was this when he balked at "Civic" or was that a separate occasion?
• Snow's was one of the first retail businesses established in Civic.[3]

Civic hotel???

• Ally Nish, one of the territory's retrenched architects founded the first sports' store[4]

anything much???

• Radio station 2CA had been founded by AJ Ryan in his Kingston store in 1931. Shakespeare, owner of the Canberra Times, challenged Ryan's use of his lease - ie radio station in breach of lease conditions. Ryan moved 2CA to what is now Symonston. In 1940 2CA moved to purpose built building on the corner of Mort Street and Northbourne Avenue.[5]
• The Melbourne and Sydney Buildings, begun in 1926, were finally completed in 1946.[6]

My grandmother thought postwar Europe was better than this. My grandparents went to shop in Sydney for school uniforms (Canberra High) and for furniture.

• This picture illustrates what she was talking about[7] Garema Place under development.

There must have been a lot of development in this decade. See this picture for what was there in 1961 Roger's? Nish building in what is now Garema place

• Monaro Mall opened 6 March 1963 - this image of the newspaper lists the shops.[8]

Offices in the west of the city? The Griffin centre? Canberra Theatre

The boulevarde complex Redevelopment, such as of the Civic picture theatre Jolimont centre replaces the old police buildings

• Pedestrian plaza closed off [9]

Merry go round brought in

• Gus Petersilka argued about outdoor coffee drinking. His cafe was established 1969. The arguments must have been in the 70s. He was voted Canberran of the year in 1978. [10]
• Woodstock restaurant - opened for 34 years in 2005 [11]
• [12] Woolworths was still in civic - both supermarket and opposite the variety store. Coles had a supermarket in teh Monaro Mall. I think the supermarkets moved out in the 70s.

More redevelopement Extension of the city towards the south and across Consitution Avenue: White industries development (now 51 Allara and Crowne Plaza) which bulldozed Reid Hostel) The now Customs building, then called something else) 2 Constitution Ave (Tax Building) was called the Amdahl Building) Redevelopment on the north of the Canberra Times Building (or was that the 90s) and they moved out to Fyshwick, 2CA radio station building (and they moved to Gunghalin) Tidying up of Veterans Park (to make sure it was not a pleasant place for old Veterans to linger in poor things) The architect Tagliettti had an argument about not putting colonades with pillars on his building that replaced Noah's hotel on Marcus Clarke street One of the buildings on Northbourne Avenue must have created a real tizzy at the planning offices because of its vertical rather than horizontal lines.

• 1982 - the bus interchange shelters were created [13]

Moves of the banks from University Avenue (ANZ, Westpac, Banque Nationale de Paris...) Apartment buildings erected in Civic

• The Silverton building on Moore Street - collapse and demolition {http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2001/week08/2935.htm hansard questions]

  The building was demolished in 1995. Approval for demolition was granted on 29 September 1994 by the former Department of the Environment, Land and Planning, under the then Labor Government. The existing approval of 22 July, 1999 is for a 7 storey office tower building with basement car parking and ground floor retail. The approval is valid for two years from the date of approval. A new application for a 7 storey office tower and ground floor retail, with basement car parking, was lodged 10 May 2001 and is currently being considered by Planning and Land Management. The original building was demolished, as it was found to be structurally unsound. The original lease for the site was issued in 1982. The provisions of the lease required the lessee to erect a building, carparking and a colonnade at a cost of not less than two million dollars. These works were completed as required by the lease, and a certificate of compliance was issued. The original lease did not contain the usual clause providing, in effect, that the lessee must not fail to use the land for the purposes expressed in the lease. Further, when the development approval of 29 September 1994 was granted, it approved demolition but did not require the lessee to construct a replacement building. The Government's ability to require the lessee to develop the land has therefore been limited. A Compliance Certificate is not issued until the building and development covenants of the lease have been complied with. The Compliance certificate for this lease was issued in December 1983.

Laughable attempts to describe the west of the city as an "arts precinct"; the Street Theatre Mor redevelopment of the Griffin centre and the carpark next to it.

• City West Redevelopment - joint with ANU [14], [15] --Martyman-(talk) 04:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Square, Canberra is a stub and Ibeleive should be part of this article, seaparated only when it develops enough content if ever--A Y Arktos\^talk 20:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objections there. It's utterly non-notable apart from the fact that the Legislative Assembly and Canberra Theatre adjoin it - no one ever uses it if not going to either of those. Rebecca 03:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Nobody calls it anything but "Civic". I know that sounds odd, but if we are going to discount odd place names in Wikipedia, there's a lot of places with odd names. I propose to move this article to the actual common name, but if anybody wants to quote wikipolicy, feel free.

And yes, I've read the discussion above. It's been several years now and Civic is even more entrenched. --Pete (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also agree with moving this to Civic, Australian Capital Territory per WP:COMMONNAME Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No contrary voices in a week. Anybody know how to do this? --Pete (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just move the article Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damnit, it needs an admin to move it - I accidentally moved the talk page alone but the page itself needs an admin. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

moved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I tried to do a move (Civic -> City), expecting it to be rejected, only to find it wasn't. I disagree with re-naming this article as "Civic" rather than "City".

To say "no-one calls it anything but Civic" is not true. The reason why I believe this article should be called City is to ensure that ALL Canberra suburbs with entries on Wikipedia are recorded using their official, gazetted names. Alternative or locality names (such as Manuka or Duntroon) are fine with re-directs and additional articles, and I accept that Civic is a recognized locality name (which also applies to parts of Braddon and Acton), but for the sake of a standard which is consistent across the ACT, the name used here should be City. MartinL-585 (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected against moving until a consensus is reached to change to a different title. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we use WP:COMMONNAME to determine article titles, I think that "Civic" is clearly the better option. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not fully convinced that 'Civic' meets the condition of being the most "commonly used name as determined by reliable sources" - you will not find Civic on any map or government list of names (such as Geoscience Australia or ACT Planning). However, Wikipedia style also says "Where an undisputed official name exists: - it should always be provided early in an article's introduction, bolded at its first mention and, where appropriate, italicised." So to that end, I've modified the lead paragraph to do just that. In which case, I can live with the title remaining as Civic, so long as it is clearly stated that it is not the official name. MartinL-585 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that every copy of the Canberra Times for decades has included articles using "Civic". Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]