Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Determination

Powerhouse Ultimo Renewal

City of Sydney

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Concept Proposal for the renewal of Powerhouse Ultimo

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Request for SEARs (1)

SEARs (1)

EIS (39)

Response to Submissions (21)

Agency Advice (17)

Additional Information (10)

Determination (4)

Approved Documents

There are no post approval documents available

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

There are no inspections for this project.

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 21 - 40 of 112 submissions
Timothy Walker
Object
CORDEAUX HEIGHTS , New South Wales
Message
The NSW Liberal Government has shown repeatedly throughout their proposals for this project that they are more interested in making money either for Developers, themselves, or their colleagues, than they are in providing value or services to their constituents.
The Powerhouse Museum in the current Ultimo site is an extremely valuable historical and educational site that is easily accessible through existing public transport. If it were to be moved to the proposed site at Parramatta, the value of the museum to the public will be greatly diminished through a lack of accessibility, loss of historical architecture and exhibits, and will be susceptible to future damage caused by regular flooding of the proposed new site.
John Petersen
Object
SASSAFRAS , Victoria
Message
I oppose the Powerhouse Ultimo Renewal for the redevelopment of the Powerhouse Museum into a fashion, design and creative industries precinct.

My opposition is because of the high likelihood for the waste of large sums of public money ($500 million) to create a White Elephant. There is no publicly available plan or strategy for how the Renewal will deliver public benefit and achieve its stated aims for creative industries. I am also opposed because the proposed Renewal erases a public museum of international standing, denying the people of NSW access to nationally significant heritage collections telling their stories beyond contemporary fashion and design.

I also oppose the proposed Renewal because it diminishes and dumbs down NSW’s cultural life and eliminates learning opportunities for the people of NSW across numerous curriculum linked subject areas beyond the narrow and decontextualised fashion and design. It does this by evicting and erasing an entire ‘museum’, as internationally defined by ICOM, from its purpose built and adapted complex at Ultimo for a fashion and design, education and information ‘facility’ (not a ‘museum’).

I am opposed because the cultural heritage significance of the Powerhouse Museum has not been independently or adequately investigated or researched including for its Sulman award winning integration of 19th century industrial buildings, modernist buildings and adaptive reuse of purpose built structures around in situ industrial movable heritage items of steam technology. The interiors and interior schemes were also included in the Sulman Award. The failure for proper cultural heritage assessment of all building phases to the present day, and a rigorous assessment of modern public architecture, is below accepted and recognised heritage practice in NSW and Australia. The Renewal threatens these buildings without independent, adequate or rigorous heritage assessment.

The Powerhouse Museum complex is already of an international standard, though poorly maintained, and has reached only 33 years of its scheduled 100 year life. I object that the development does not offer a quantified expansion in environmentally controlled exhibition display and collection storage space for a $500 million spend but rather consigns a nationally significant collection (other than a narrow one of contemporary fashion and design) to mothballed storage at Castle Hill severing its 143 history of public collections access, including science and technological and applied arts collections (design is but one component of applied arts) at Ultimo.

The development deprives the people of NSW access to the full range of applied arts and sciences collections currently held by the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences at Ultimo. These are significantly broader than ‘fashion and design’ and encompass steam technology, transport, space, decorative arts, migration and refugee history, Asia, Asia Pacific, First Nations and women’s collections contextualised by Australian social history.

I oppose that the Wran public forecourt is built upon in the Renewal. This greatly and permanently reduces the public and civic realm of the Ultimo precinct and the existing museum complex. This public space will never be returned to Ultimo or the people of Sydney in a city craving additional public open space. It is a significant component of the Sulman Award winning Powerhouse Museum complex and the Wran Building.

The height and bulk of the proposed new building envelope will limit sunlight in the immediate area and created a wall like frontage to Ultimo which will visually spoil and degrade an appreciation of a recognised Ultimo heritage precinct and its small scale of heritage items.

Lionel Glendenning’s Wran Building colonnade on Harris Street was admired by Harry Seidler and echoed and continued in his neighbouring Ian Thorpe Swimming Centre to create a civic precinct with amenity along Harris Street. I am opposed to the bulk of the proposed Harris Street building that diminishes access to the existing integrated complex of museum buildings and I am concerned that the Wran building will be demolished severing the relationship between Harry Seidler and Lionel Glendenning’s two buildings. The cultural heritage significance and relationship of the design of the two buildings to form a civic precinct has not been independently assessed to inform the conservation management of the Wran Building and its threatened public forecourt in this Renewal.

I object and state my opposition to the stated fact that the Powerhouse will no longer be a ‘museum’ but a ‘facility’ and this will deprive the people of NSW and Australia access to a nationally significant collection and culture and learning opportunities at Ultimo. The Powerhouse Museum, as a public museum, does not have a legislated role in developing creative industries, domestic retail or international trade or industry assistance and development and therefore I am opposed to this proposal for such a facility on the site of the Powerhouse Museum. The Renewal is also understood to be for a Lyric Theatre or theatre for musicals potentially at the Harwood Building. I note that the proposal seeking submissions is for a fashion and design, education and information ‘facility’ (not a ‘museum’) and is not specified for an entertainment facility of any description. The Renewal therefore cannot include a theatre for entertainment purposes on site under the Renewal proposal subject to this submission.
Name Withheld
Object
ARTARMON , New South Wales
Message
I am dismayed at the proposal, to chop and change a wonderful, historic institution of our city. I have a number of concerns about the proposed changes:
- the rearrangements will strip the Powerhouse of its integrity as an industrial building
- building a large building on the forecourt and moving the entrance will detract from the presence of the building. The new "brick" in the front will be just awful. Buildings should be allowed to sit comfortably on their site and have some presence, not be squeezed for every centimetre.
- I am concerned about the commercialisation of the site, which should be retained as a museum-only venue.
- re-branding the museum as a fashion and arts centre will severely reduce the interest and patronage of the public and leave the institution open to be re-purposed again in the future, through lack of support. This places the future of the whole institution at risk.
- Sydney needs high quality, high interest, facilities actually IN the city to attract people. We need museums and activities to attract visitors/tourists (make a vibrant city) and also to stimulate interest in the city from locals.
- the current site is the most easily accessible site for visitors from Southern Sydney, Eastern Sydney, Northern Sydney, Central Coast and should be developed as an exciting museum of science and technology.
The current plans are a travesty.
Christopher Roberts
Object
LILYFIELD , New South Wales
Message
'I Chris Roberts of 5 Justin St Lilyfield NSW 2040 am writing to OBJECT to the EIS in respect of the redevelopment of the Ultimo Powerhouse Museum site
for the following reasons:

Context:

In the more than 2,000 pages of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) there is no credible justification for the intent behind the
plans to erase all trace of Lionel Glendenning’s Sulman award winning museum architecture, or its complementary, world-class 1988 integrated displays
and radically alter the museum’s purpose, form, functions and facilities. A museum designed in 1988 for a working life of more
than 100 years is being trashed after just 33 years at a staggering cost of $500 million; with massive, unnecessary
and unsustainable demolition and redevelopment. Still the EIS badges this waste as sustainable
without any acceptable calculations demonstrating this unsupported claim.

The strategic justification in the EIS is the 'NSW Cultural Infrastructure
Plan 2025+'. This policy was released in February, 2019 and reflects the intent of the 2018 Business
Case when the Powerhouse Museum was moving to Parramatta and its Ultimo site was up for sale and
redevelopment. Broad circumstances have now drastically evolved, this proposal bears no resemblance to the
NSW's Government 4 July, 2021 media release claiming to 'save' the Powerhouse Museum, and its cost is not justified in the face
of huge fiscal challenges caused by natural disasters and the COVID epidemic in NSW.

In more detail, specifically:

* The 'Final' or completed version of the PHM in mid-1988 was a comprehensive cultural statement of the period
and dismemberment is wilful destruction of an heritage construct / museum in every sense of the word. Nothing like it
has occurred anywhere else in the world. In UK, for example, it would be treated with complete astonishment and disdain.

* The destruction of the entire 1988 physical fabric- buildings, structures, facilities and displays - especially the relatively unchanged
large-scale transport and energy exhibits- contradicts every core tenet of museology and history.
The displays were developed to fit and integrate within Lionel Glendenning's new buildings and
the restored power station buildings, in their entirety, and represented the museum's collecting and curatorship spanning from the late 1870s
until 1988. They were a world leading mix of creative, sustainable museological theory, practice and experiences which remain a core historical
statement of NSW's history, evolution and context.

The entire building complex was, equally, a world class example of structural recycling, in-fill and creative interpretation.

* The PHM Ultimo can easily and far less expensively be updated and new experiences added at a cost of around $250 million, not $500 million plus. Both Mr Glendenning and Dr Lindsay Sharp- Founding Director- attest to this fact and stand ready to assist a reviewed set of criteria for an amended EIS.

* The EIS outlines an unnecessarily huge and over-scaled project, which clearly leaves the restored Tram Shed (now 'Harwood' building: the original reason for the Ultimo Powerhouse) available for commercial redevelopment. In so doing the EIS proposes duplicating the purpose-designed professional facilities currently located in the Tram Shed.
This is an outstanding example of waste, unsustainable practice and heritage destruction. There are many more. (Please see attached illustration)

* The professional museum and curatorial staff, plus educational capacity, has been reduced to a rump. The PHM - on that basis- can no longer be regarded as
a functioning museum of even State, national, let alone international proficiency. Since the relevant educational staff are almost entirely lacking,
the designation of seven levels of the new build proposed for 'education and display' is profoundly misleading.


* The sheer unsustainable waste of embodied carbon in destroying the built structures from 1988 and their replacement with yet more concrete, steel, glass and
fossil derived materials is completely against any evidence-based sustainability protocols. Any new structures will have to be massively carbon positive over many decades
to even approach net carbon loading- this is virtually impossible. Any detailed sustainability calculations appear entirely absent.

* There is no publicly accepted Business Case and any secret so-called Business Case has to have massive commercial elements to even begin to
pretend Treasury/Consolidated Revenue subsidy of PHM will not have to be hugely increased to run three enormous new or redeveloped sites. Inevitably,
any such Business Case based on present misleading assumptions will prove profoundly inaccurate. An entirely new, evidence-based Business Case needs to be developed
by experts, to include the coterminous operations of three major sites spread over Sydney, and to also include accurate calculations of carbon-loads over project lifetimes
and a correct, comprehensive risk register backed by data.

* The EIS outlines a potential project which is profoundly not what Mr Perrottet - now NSW Premier- announced when Treasurer in July, 2021

* The provision for family experiences, informal and formal learning (historical and contemporary) based on professional visitor research- as thus far expressed in
the PHM's temporary exhibition program- is also profoundly sub optimal. Where is the evidence- based exhibition planning, who is undertaking it, what is the intellectual and cultural philosophy underpinning it and when will it be discussed with the various publics and communities served by the PHM?

* If all of the above is even remotely accurate how can any Government justify spending approximately $2 billion on the three main projects while simultaneously facing
demands which run into the tens of $ billions caused by present and future natural disasters/climate change and epidemics?

* The entire cultural planning and fiscal debacle under the aegis of the MAAS Board of Trustees should now be reviewed.

* Given all of the above this EIS should be rejected and a new one carrying out the Government's media undertaking of 4 July, 2021 with appropriate criteria
should be developed, subsequent to the Independent Review.'

If you have friends, family or a partner who is willing to assist can you please ask them to make
a separate submission objecting to this cultural travesty.

There is no personal risk in doing so.

Thank you for any assistance you may be able to provide.

Lindsay
(Dr Lindsay Sharp)
Thomas Warwick James
Object
Woollahra , New South Wales
Message
I am writing to OBJECT to the EIS in respect of the redevelopment of the Ultimo Powerhouse Museum (now Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences) site for the following reasons:
In line with the more respected and admired Museum institutions around the world, the housing of the Jewels (the jewel box) is considered as important an issue as the jewels it contains. The two make up a museum’s presence. It was inspirational to house the Phm’s wonderful collection in the highly appropriate Powerhouse buildings. The two components complement each other. The location, close to the city and other complimentary institutions and easy accessibility for visitors is essential. Any move that compromised the original and inspired concept is a tragedy for the museum, for Sydney and for the Powerhouse buildings.

Jolyon Warwick James Honorary Associate of Powerhouse Museum
Sydney Living Museums
Support
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Message
Letter attached
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
LAPSTONE , New South Wales
Message
I object to the project because it is poorly conceived and is without a publicly accessible Business Case. It can in no way justify the extraordinary $500M budget, which can only be understood if it is for a very major series of constructions designed to support commercial activities. It is telling that the "Powerhouse Ultimo Renewal" does not include the word "Museum". All projects of State Significance size should benchmark comparable global examples. If Powerhouse Ultimo is so unique that there are none, then it is incumbent that the project articulates where the differences are articulates the need for the (to be developed) new paradigms . There is no benchmark example that either Powerhouse Ultimo (and for that matter Powerhouse Parramatta) have been able to articulate.

The NSW State Govt July 4, 2020 media release said the Powerhouse Museum in Ultimo has been "saved". This has proven false.

Re "creative industries/creative hubs" etc. It is not core business of Museums with their recurrent funding to be supporting industry. The Powerhouse Parramatta project which is more advanced in detail planning is a shockingly badly designed facility that fails on most museum design principles and infrastructure. Operationally it will be a disaster. This gives one little confidence that Powerhouse Ultimo, with it's poorly articulated, indeed secretive, objectives will provide any cultural benefit to the NSW public. It will certainly provide no fiscal benefit.

I have over 40 years of museum experience across most major NSW museums and consider the above comments prudent and based upon facts, not just opinions.
Brigid Dowsett
Object
GLADESVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Dear Sirs,
Objection to SSD-32927319 - Concept Proposal for the renewal of Powerhouse Ultimo
I am writing to strongly object to the EIS in respect of the above proposed redevelopment of the Ultimo Powerhouse Museum site and to add my voice to many others who have been fighting against this totally unacceptable outcome. How can it be be that a museum designed for a working life of more than 100 years is being dismantled after just 33 years - and at enormous cost to the NSW taxpayers who have already invested in this museum through direct funding, taxpayer funding, donations and volunteer time.

It is shameful that a government in Australia would even consider such a plan of action; it is tantamount to cultural vandalism to dismantle and demolish a much loved and highly regarded institution that is perfectly placed within a suite of significant heritage-listed buildings. It is notable as a ground-breaking and renowned adaptive re-use of industrial heritage. This site should not be viewed as a 'development opportunity' by this current NSW Government which has been responsible for the ongoing downgrading of what was an internationally significant and respected Museum of Applied Arts & Sciences.

The Museum's collections, scholarship and programs play a critical role in supporting learning and appreciation of history, education and community engagement - and above all, custodianship and care of our shared heritage and a knowledge source for future generations. The renewal of the original cultural institution in 1988 as a legacy from the Australian Bicentennial was a huge undertaking requiring enormous resources and expertise to achieve. This combined expertise should not be underestimated in terms of the investment that is proposed to be dismantled. The architectural design by Lionel Glendenning won the Sulman Award in 1988 - one of Australia's architectural community's most significant awards - because it was recognised as a world class creation of the museum's purpose, form, function and facilities.

The NSW government's disregard for the millions of dollars of existing investment in this facility, creating purpose built environments, security systems, laboratories, storage and environmental conditions to preserve our inherited assets, as well as the technology to maintain priceless technology in working condition, is to be condemned.

The proposed enormous waste of taxpayer funds to create something that reflects only a part of this vital institution's original purpose and destroys its purpose-built facilities is reprehensible. The removal of the world significant technology long associated with the history of our nation and this part of Sydney, and that sits so importantly within the historical context of the creative industries - is beyond understanding. Why would you propose the removal of the Catalina and Locomotive 1, and at what unacceptable cost? Why are you putting at risk the Boulton and Watt Steam Engine - one of only two in the world that cost millions to install in its current location with technology to maintain and run the engine?

How can this proposal possibly be justified, particularly at a time of recurring natural and social disasters requiring absolute priority in terms of financial expenditure? This government committed to retaining the Powerhouse Ultimo Museum on 4 July 2020, with our current Premier being quoted at that time as stating that the Museum had been "saved". It is extremely disappointing to discover two years later that we could not rely on this expectation.

Please, Mr Perrottet, abandon this proposal which does not represent renewal but is a massive, costly and highly unsuitable redevelopment. A revised Business Case is needed that is evidence-based, embedded in the principles of ecological sustainability and satisfies the general public that this government cares about the custodianship of our cultural and industrial heritage and believes in preserving the living history of our city.
This EIS should be soundly rejected.

As I only discovered today that this EIS public exhibition was closing, please accept my brief objection, even if a little late.
Thank you, Brigid Dowsett
Batemans Road, Gladesville, 2111
21 July 2022
Name Withheld
Object
NORTH WILLOUGHBY , New South Wales
Message
I am in favour of investment in educational and cultural activities but object to the form of this proposal.
The Powerhouse Museum is a noted technical icon but the STEM aspects of its heritage are not being valued. This includes the downgrading and destruction of existing exhibits most notably the Boulton and Watt steam engine, which the Powerhouse itself noted is one of the earliest rotative steam engines to be built and the oldest still in existence. And also one of the oldest to still work regularly under steam. As just one example of this downgrading of industrial technology in this proposal.

At a time when the the NSW Government is actively trying to promote STEM subjects to all its citizens this downgrade irreparably detroys exisiting exhibits and heritage.

Textile technology is also to be valued but why downgrade existing exhibits celebrating STEM centred items in situ. The new Parramatta site could easily be the location for the new and expanded textile technology exhibits rather than gutting the existing STEM exhibits and focus of the Ultimo Powerhouse site and buildings.

The existing buildings seem to be undervalued and treated in a disposable manner too. Other museums overseas build on their heritage and existing buildings. This proposal treats aspects of the existing buildings and whole buildings as if they have only peripheral value to the mission of the Museum in both educating and conserving the technology and history on site.

The whole upgrade project seems to betray the ethos and mission of the Museum, and for some reason the expanding of the textile aspects of its mandate seem to be given more importance and look to be outweighing the value of the existing STEM aspects to the detriment of these items and exhibits and the heritage contained in them, especially in their current location.

Expansion of the textile and design aspects of the museum should not come at the cost of in situ existing exhibits. Any expansion can be accommodated at the new Parramatta site, as just one option to achieve both retention of the value of existing exhibits and expansion of the textile and design elements.

A more sympathetic approach should also be taken with the buildings. Less destruction of existing building envelopes and features should be the aim. As mentioned, overseas museums seem to value the heritage buildings housing their collections more. The heritage contained therein is part of the value of the whole package entrusted to the trustees and managers of museums. The approach under this proposal doesn't appear to have a high appreciation of these aspects of being a custodian of the items under stewardship.
International Council of Museums
Object
BALGOWLAH HEIGHTS , New South Wales
Message
Dear Minister and DIrector,
I am submitting an attached letter of objection on behalf of Adjunct Professor Alex Marsden, Vice Chair, ICOM Australia objecting to the proposed concept for the Powerhouse Museum Ultimo.
Yours sincerely

Dr Toner Stevenson
Attachments
Andrew Grant
Object
NORTHBRIDGE , New South Wales
Message
Please refer to attachment

Thank you
Attachments
Thomas Walder
Comment
CHERRYBROOK , New South Wales
Message
Firstly, I wish to compliment the authors of the report for their thoroughness. Everything that has been included so far has been well thought out, and I am quite impressed with the discussion on how to activate currently underutilized areas.
Creating active spaces which show of the heritage form would go a long way to helping make the museum a more memorable and interesting place. Using the turbine hall as a backdrop to a goods line entrance will create a fantastically iconic new entrance for visitors to museum.

However, this report does have one considerable shortcoming which must be addressed.

I find the Unique character analysis (6.3, 7.10, ) to be flawed. The silhouette from the courtyard at the corner Harris and Macarthur st is an iconic look for the museum. This is lacking in the view analysis (3.11), and basically omitted in visual impact analysis. The only photos of this view being obscured by trees, with no comment being given.

When news or blogs need an establishing shot photo the museum, this is the angle that's used, as it is particularly recognisable. This report itself does this in 5.1 The unique character analysis does identify heratage areas of value and interest, with opportunity but they themselves are not as iconic as the current main entrance. The visual impact analysis does include mention of the importance of iconic views, but fails to take this one into consideration. Not using a view which clearly shows this iconic silhouette is a problem .

Overall, there are inadequate protections for the iconic facade of the current main entrance. Discussion about a new building in this area conflicts with the goals elsewhere in the document. Any new structure to activate this area should be kept minimal.
While the Wran building, being only 34, is not currently a heritage item, it is part of the museum's iconic look - Particularly from the North and South sides. Additionally, It's use of the principles of ballance, and use of similar roofing materials to tie it into the historic core make it a great example of how to add a modern extension to a historic place.
There should be more discussion of how these principles are demonstrated here already, and how future interventions can do the same.


Consider modifying the envelope of any hight extension to within the wran building. It makes sense for them to occur there, rather than removing heratage material, but it is important we retain this part's iconic look. The last thing Syndey needs is another giant box monolith, like the uninspiring plans for the Parramatta site.

The area known as the vault is the second most iconic location within the powerhouse, after the hall of transport history. It is there as a reference to the Garden Place, the original Sydney exhibition hall which was effectively an ancestor of the current powerhouse museum.
But this report fails to mention and consider the significance of this, or discuss how the current built form is already a response to the history of Sydney, and the museum as an institution. This also needs required to be retained.

Consider recommending the retention of a secondary entrance near the current main one. Perhaps as an exit, or as a cafe area, or an outdoor exhibit area with structures to accommodate that.



Should the project have budget to spare, consideration should go towards buying and demolishing Urbanest, which as discussed - blocks the views from the city, and limits opportunity for connections over the light rail.

While current proposals for the future of the museum are centered around fashion, and there is talk about Parramatta being the new flagship, anyone can see that this will never work out.
One goes to the powerhouse to see the a huge range of things, and the history of Technology and design as a whole had always been it's forte. Ultimo needs to embrace this, or all the effort to renew it will be a waste.

If a tourist could only visit one of the three Museums, it's going to be the iconic powerhouse. Parramatta needs to embrace a separate role, with a new separate focus, such as the cutting edge, or scientific principles, so they can stand out.

Even if it can't be said outright due to government meddling, guidelines need to have an understanding that this will remain the iconic museum it was always intended to be.

The community groups, newspapers, and many interested individuals who were involved in the effort to save the powerhouse are still watching this project closely.

If the project fails to take seriously what people love about this museum, they will take up the fight again, and a lot of money and time will end up being wasted.
Andrew Wilson
Object
NEWTOWN , New South Wales
Message
I, Andrew Wilson, am writing to OBJECT to the EIS in respect of the redevelopment of the Ultimo Powerhouse Museum site for the following reasons:
1. The destruction of the entire 1988 buildings, structures, facilities and displays - especially the relatively intact large-scale transport and energy exhibits- contradicts every fundamental tenet of conservation practice and represents a significant financial and cultural loss for the people of New South Wales.
2. The proposed redevelopment envelope will cut through the remaining archaeological deposits in the courtyard and to the north of the existing museum building. While the NSW Heritage Council’s listing only refers to the former power stations the National Trust nomination includes the whole area defined in the cadastral plans. Archaeological deposits relating to the early development of the Pyrmont peninsular are increasingly rare and should not be placed at risk, especially given the controversial and vigorously contested nature of the proposed redevelopment.
3. The nature of the proposal(s) has changed significantly since first announced and the Government owes it to the people of New South Wales to review the entire process and put forward a clear, cohesive and fully justified proposal for proper public assessment.
Hunters Hill Trust
Object
HUNTERS HILL , New South Wales
Message
Objection to SSD-32927319 - Concept Proposal for the renewal of Powerhouse Ultimo

The Hunters His Trust writes in objection to the EIS in respect of the above proposed redevelopment of the Ultimo Powerhouse Museum site. We wish to add the Trust's voice to others in the community who have been fighting for a just outcome. It is simply outrageous that a museum designed for a working life of more than 100 years is being dismantled after just 33 years at a staggering cost to the NSW taxpayers who have already invested in this museum through direct funding, taxpayer funding, donations and volunteer time over more than a century of its existence.

No other country in the world would embark on such a path of cultural vandalism of dismantling and destroying a much loved and regarded cultural institution that is within a suite of significant heritage-listed buildings and is a ground-breaking and renowned adaptive re-use of industrial heritage. This site is not a 'development opportunity'!

The current NSW Government has been responsible for the ongoing dismantling and diminution of what was an internationally significant and respected Museum of Applied Arts & Sciences - sitting alongside similar cultural institutions around the world as custodians of our important social, technological and creative history. Its collections, scholarship and programs played a critical role in supporting learning and scholarship, education and community engagement and above all - custodianship and care of our heritage and knowledge for future generations.

The renewal of the original cultural institution in 1988 as a legacy from the Australian Bicentennial was a magnificent undertaking requiring enormous resources and expertise to achieve. This combined expertise should not be underestimated in terms of the investment that is proposed to be dismantled. The architectural design by Lionel Glendenning won the Sulman Award in 1988 - one of our Australian architectural communities' most significant awards that recognised its world class creation of the museum's purpose, form, function and facilities.

The Trust is dismayed at the disregard for the millions of dollars of existing investment in this facility creating purpose built environments, security systems, laboratories, storage and environmental conditions to preserve our inherited assets as well as the technology to maintain priceless technology in working condition.

The proposed enormous waste of taxpayer funds to create something that reflects only a part of this fine institution's original purpose and destroys such purpose-built facilities is unconscionable. The removal of the world significant technology long associated with the history of our nation and this part of Sydney - and that sits so importantly with the history of the creative industries is incomprehensible. The creative industries sit alongside the development of our technological advancements and have in the previous heydays of the museum been seen energetically as part of and in context to this. Why are we proposing the removal of the Catalina and Locomotive 1 and at what cost? Why are we putting at risk the Boulton and Watt Steam Engine - one of only two remaining in the world, and like several other steam engines of the Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo, operating with live steam.
Attachments
John Wade
Object
EGLINTON , New South Wales
Message
The Powerhouse Ultimo Renewal is not a renewal but the destruction of a valuable NSW asset, a major custodian of the state's social, industrial and artistic history. The current proposal to try to make it a 'creative' hub is doomed to failure, an attempt to combine irreconcilable functions. To turn it into a large-scale fashion centre is to trivialise creativity and the concept of 'work' and to trash the history and effort of all those who have worked genuinely hard to build our society and economy. Like the rebuilding of the Sydney Football Stadium, it is a profligate use of public resources to satisfy short term political outcomes. Revamp the Powerhouse, provide it with a maintenance budget, and put your fashion centre elsewhere. The current Museum was underfunded by successive NSW Governments and the new 'creative' proposal will fall over as soon as the budgets get slashed so that funds can be redirected to hospitals and other essential government services. Very poor planning and very poor economic management by a government beset by scandals.
Irma Havlicek
Object
UMINA BEACH , New South Wales
Message
I, Irma Havlicek, am writing to OBJECT to the EIS regarding the redevelopment of the Ultimo Powerhouse Museum site for the following reasons:

It is a shameful waste of taxes at any time to destroy a building which ought to have some 70 years of valuable life remaining.

But to do so now when due to Covid there is a dire need of funding to better staff and equip our hospitals is unconscionable.

I worked at the Powerhouse Museum for 22 years. Visitors were awe-struck when entering the magnificent building. However successive ill-conceived architectural changes since 2000 have seriously diminished its integrity, harmony and usefulness.

The Powerhouse Museum building in Ultimo ought to be returned to the award-winning design as conceived by Lionel Glendenning, enlightening the public with objects and exhibitions in celebration of human ingenuity across the fields of applied arts and sciences - as intended. Reducing the purpose of the museum to just displaying fashion and design when the purpose-designed soaring interiors are ideal for displaying large objects such as aircraft is tantamount to sacrilege.
Office of Jamie Parker MP
Object
Croydon Park , New South Wales
Message
Please refer to the attached submission from Jamie Parker MP
Attachments
Leone Huntsman
Object
PYRMONT , New South Wales
Message
I oppose the proposal for a so-called ‘Powerhouse Ultimo Renewal’, especially the following:
- the transformation of the current Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences into a “Fashion and Design Information and Education Facility”;
- the gutting of the Museum’s heritage “core” and removal of its permanent exhibitions including Transport, Flight and Space, Steam Revolution (working under live steam) and Strasbourg clock, Boulton and Watt and No.1 loco installations in the Galleria.

We are residents of Pyrmont. When they were very young, we took our grandchildren (8 in number, all close in age) to various Museums. The Powerhouse was their favourite. They gazed in wonder at the Boulton and Watt mechanism, loved exhibits allowing interactions with scientific or engineering processes, and looked up in awe at the giant steam locomotives. Their great-grandfather had been a railway electrician and played a vital role in keeping tracks maintained for those very steam locos.

Their interest in science and technology was stimulated by these early experiences, and it is no surprise that at least two of them have pursued careers in those fields. They also discovered how there were links to their own family history and led to the telling of stories that might not otherwise have been shared.

All this will be destroyed for coming generations of children if the Powerhouse is moved. There is easy access to the Powerhouse site from greater Sydney, and country and overseas visitors can similarly include a day at the Powerhouse in their time here. It is convenient for parents and grandparents seeking to nurture young minds. Our grandchildren were not interested in the fashion and design special exhibitions, nor the other ‘blockbuster’ exhibitions which have been designed to make money or to entertain rather than stimulate intellectual activity. Neither were we.

For all these reasons, I oppose the proposal.

Leone Huntsman
203/19 Cadigal Avenue Pyrmont 2009.
Australian Museum
Support
DARLINGHURST , New South Wales
Message
See attachment
Attachments
Warwick Henry
Object
Chapel Hill , Queensland
Message
The present plans to destroy the current Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo are a colossal waste of NSW funds and will mean the loss of a wonderful asset. There is such a wealth of meaningful, irreplaceable exhibits, such as the operational stationary steam engine, steam locomotive and train, Whittle early jet engine, historic aeroplanes, to name but a few of hundreds of large items and thousands of small, but important and educational items.
The existing museum is so well situated, with good proximity to the city centre with its setting alongside the tram lines it served with the actual powerhouse for Sydney's tram system.
There is so much for people of all ages to learn about that will be lost forever if the museum and the building are destroyed.
I know that it has been said that a new museum is to be built out near Parramatta. That will, at eye-watering expense and no overall gain, desecrate a beautiful existing area.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-32927319
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Museum, Gardens & Zoos
Local Government Areas
City of Sydney
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister

Contact Planner

Name
Renah Givney