Powerhouse Ultimo Renewal

I object to this proposal for the following reasons:
1. I object to the transformation of the current Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences in Ultimo into a Fashion and Design Information and Education Facility. I think that Sydney needs to retain a science focused museum in or near the CBD to inspire the next generation of future scientists and to educate the community about past technologies.
2. I object to the gutting of the Ultimo Powerhouse Museum’s heritage “core” and the removal of its permanent exhibitions including Transport, Flight and Space, Steam Revolution (working under live steam), Strasbourg clock, Boulton and Watt and No. 1 loco installations in the galleria. These priceless exhibits are unique in Australia and rare in the world and if the collection is dispersed it will be impossible to gather a collection of similar significance again.
3. I object to further long term closures of the museum as it deprives today’s children of access to the museum’s exhibits and today’s children have already lost out on many experiences due to COVID lockdowns etc.
4. The Castle Hill and Parramatta sites are very unlikely to have sufficient exhibition space to appropriately replicate what is currently on display in Ultimo. If the current exhibitions were more or less retained at Ultimo there are ample excellent additional artefacts in the Powerhouse’s many storage facilities that could be displayed at Castle Hill and Parramatta
5. If we want Sydney to be a world class city we should be protecting existing museums (especially science museums and exhibits) and increasing museum exhibition space not decreasing it.

I have a strong background in architectural commentary. After studying painting, ceramics, at Art College in the UK for four years full time I did a three year art history degree at The Courtauld Institute, London University. I wrote most of my degree on architecture following specialist studies taught by world famous architectural historians. I have published on a number of architectural topics including the Australia National Gallery and Glendenning’s Powerhouse additions and adaptations. The latter is one of the most outstanding buildings in Sydney. Along with a few remnants of 19th century sandstone buildings, it is second only to the Opera House. Unique, however, is its interior, a great and dramatic concept from the NSW Architects’ office. If this magnificent complex were to be demolished it would be vandalism of the worst order. It has been admired right around the world for its architecture and museology which have inspired many other projects in Australia and internationally. I wrote two books on the collection and displays which won awards here and the USA.
Terence Measham AM, NDD, BA Hons Lond, MA Open, FRSA. Former CEO and Director 1988-99.

Please see attached submission

I worked at the Museum of Applied Arts & Sciences, Powerhouse Museum, Ultimo from 1988 to 2001. I strongly object to the Environmental Impact statement for the following reasons: Firstly, the proposal to destroy the entire 1988 physical fabric - buildings, structures, facilities & displays - goes against the basic principles of history & museology.
Secondly, narrowing the Museum's focus just to fashion & design, is a short-sighted plan This Museum has been a world class science, technology, transport, history & design museum, with Iconic exhibits such as Boulton & Watt, Loco Number 1, Steam Revolution exhibition, Strasburg Clock etc.
Thirdly, this EIS outlines a potential project which has NO resemblance to the one our Premier, Mr Perrottet announced when Treasurer on 4 July 2020.
Recommend the EIS be rejected & a new one stating the State Government's media release 4 July 2020 should be developed.

'I 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, 2020 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 I- 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.
* 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 later the Tram Depot) 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, 2020
* 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?
* The so-called 'Conservation Management Plan'- over 500 pages of flaccid and misleading text - fails to recognise that the 1988 project is a complete, integrated (buildings and displays) cultural and heritage statement which, according to national and international protocols and norms, should be preserved and maintained properly 'in perpetuity'. It is shamefully, wantonly and expensively inadequate.
* 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 (un) 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, 2020 with appropriate criteria should be developed, subsequent to the Independent Review.

I wish to OBJECT to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Powerhouse Ultimo Renewal submitted by Ethos Urban to the Department of Planning and Environment (26/05/22).
The plan argues for the removal of a substantial proportion of the Powerhouse Museum buildings to make way for commercial redevelopment.
The Powerhouse Museum has been an integral, much loved part of Sydney’s cultural and educational experience and a destination for many national and international tourists. It makes little sense to destroy this to build “new and refurbished spaces for museum operation” (p.29). This proposal involves destruction of the Powerhouse Museum as it is and is incredibly wasteful of public money, especially at such a difficult fiscal time, at both state and federal level. More importantly, it is destructive beyond understanding, and flies in the face of conservation and sustainable restoration.
The EIS argues for its proposal by stating that leaving the existing Powerhouse Museum as is (“doing nothing”, p 29) runs the risk of it “falling behind” in terms of missing out on exhibitions. There are other ways of enhancing and updating the (now much diminished due to hasty and poor decision-making) Powerhouse Museum, at more responsible financial costs and at a lower “carbon footprint”.
I respectfully object to EIS and the proposed course of action and urge you to retain the Powerhouse Museum and preserve its outstanding heritage.

I am very relieved that the NSW Government has decided to retain the Powerhouse Museum (PHM) on its current site. However, I have two main concerns for its future:
(a) My greatest concern is for the future of the large items in the Steam Revolution, and Transport, Flight and Space displays. I strongly feel that they should remain where they are, along with their associated items, large and small. In other words, this unique collection must NOT be broken up.
(b) My concurrent concern is that the PHM should remain a Museum of Technology, Science and Engineering. It already has a world-class reputation in that field.
If (a) and (b) can be fulfilled, then I would be happy with the Planning Proposal (PP) at this stage.

But unfortunately there seems to be some confusion over what exactly is to stay within the Museum and what the Museum's purpose will be:
It has been said that the PP is to transform the PHM from a Museum of Applied Arts & Sciences to a Fashion & Design Information and Education Facility; and furthermore, that the CMP allows the gutting of the heritage core and removal of its permanent exhibitions, namely Transport, Flight and Space, Steam Revolution as well as the Strasbourg Clock, the Boulton & Watt Engine, and Locomotive No. 1. I would be very much against that.
My understanding was that the Catalina, Boulton & Watt engine and Locomotive No.1 are to remain; therefore the retention of the items in (a) is extremely important in completing the collection and ensuring its integrity.
The collection MUST be retained as a whole; if it is broken up it will never again have the same value and impact. Indeed, this would be a real disgrace on the reputation of any government which allowed that to happen.
According to a Media Release from the NSW Premier's Dept. in 2020, the PHM would now "continue to provide an outstanding visitor experience in the areas of technology, science, engineering and design". This implies that the PHM would continue in its present role as a world-class Museum of Applied Arts & Sciences, secure in its fit-for-purpose building, as the centrepiece of the proposed "renewal". Could not the "fashion hub" be an adjunct to what is already there? - not take it over and eviscerate it. We must not forget what an extraordinary collection it is:
Henry Ergas, freelance columnist writing in The Australian newspaper, said, "The building and its storage facilities are uniquely designed to house the Museum's extraordinary collection, which ranges from some of the world's most valuable engines to priceless examples of Australian craftsmanship and innovation...a cultural inheritance first formed from the material displayed at the great Sydney Exhibition of 1879 which has been enriched since then by generous donations and carefully curated acquisitions". Note the word "carefully": these donations are also an important part of the collection. Part of the value of the collection lies in its size and coverage.
This confusion may be because of the unknowns of the results of the Design Competition. I hope that the entrants in the competition will be made aware of the international value and importance of the PHM's unique collection and reputation, so that they can consider these as part of their brief.

As a former long-serving President and Trustee of the Powerhouse Museum (1999-2010), I am making this brief statement of objection to the 'renewal' of the Powerhouse Museum in Ultimo in the strongest possible terms. This saga has been nothing more than a long and sorry story of public deceit and a wanton waste of public resources - and nothing appears to have changed. My views are on the public record and much of what I (and many others) predicted has been borne out to be true. What started as a miserable land-grab under the guise of supporting the cultural needs of western Sydney, has now morphed into a 'renewal' project that is, in its essence, nothing more than the unjustified and catastrophic destruction of a beloved and award-winning public edifice and cultural institution. It is unfortunate (though no doubt intended) that the timeframe for submissions is so short. But my brevity should not be construed as some sort of tacit acceptance of this bizarre and insulting proposal. In short, it is a disaster for the people of NSW, and those who advocate it behind closed doors should be brought forward to the public place and exposed for what they are seeking to do to the precious legacy that is the Powerhouse Museum and its unrivalled collection.

The Powerhouse at Ultimo is an iconic, award-winning building that re-used several highly-significant historic structures to store and display one of the most extensive technological collections in the world. Its significance rivals the Harbour Bridge and the Opera House as an exposition of the former history of Sydney, and Darling Harbour in particular, as a centre of transport and industry with the Darling Harbour railways, the Tramsheds and the Powerhouse all evoking the previous incarnation as a busy trading port.
The housing of the globally-significant Boulton-Watt steam engine in a purpose-built, operating setting, together with Locomotive No 1 and the highly-significant technology display of operating engines has been engineeered brilliantly, and was designed to be a permanent exhibition where these items could be conserved and displayed for the next century and more.
I consider that the proposal poses real harm to a highly-significant and irreplacable collection, and that the process of dismantling and moving these items poses a very real and tangible threat to them. Furthermore, I don't consider that the threat to the collection from this proposal has been adequately assessed and considered. The siting of this collection within the Powerhouse Museum building is an extremely important part of its heritage significance, displaying a period where the NSW Government finally recognised the significance of a collection that had been in storage for decades, and bringing it into the open in a setting where it could be displayed and conserved, and available to be appreciated by the citizens of NSW and the world.
The current proposal is a blatant attempt by the NSW Government to destroy an incredibly significant, iconic and irreplaceable heritage precinct to generate real estate dollars. This is NOT what Governments are for, and neither should the Planning laws allow such shallow and short-sighted decisions to go through. I consider that the Powerhouse and its collection are of World Heritage significance, and the current process should be recognising this and seeking to retain and enhance this world-significant precinct.

As an owner resident living in Pyrmont for over 40 years and a regular visitor to the Powerhouse Museum with family and overseas visitors I am appalled at the planned proposal to transform this current Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences into a Fashion and Design Information and Education Facility. Surely the TAFE college up the road could accommodate this more appropriately.
This is no longer a museum or is it going to be of any strong interest to young children or the general public who have wondered and been inspired by the Science and Technology held within this Museum.
The (potential) demolition of the Sulman Prize - winning Wran Building and Galleria, to be replaced by a 31m new building is a shock. What architect could design such a monstrosity to replace this award winning building?
The construction of a new 25m building on the Harris St forecourt and the closure of the Harris St entrance would effectively mean the Powerhouse “turning its back” on Ultimo, its traditional home since 1893.
Who thought 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 was a good idea? Who has costed this and for why? It is an unbelievable mess of an idea and I so strongly object to this proposal.
Please, please reconsider.

The MAAS Powerhouse Museum in Jones Street Ultimo is significant for its architecture, collections and exhibition philosophy. The proposal involves dismembering this important museum by opening the way for key components of the building complex, including the Wran building, to be demolished, for key parts of the collection, particularly the highly significant objects relating to `steam revolution' to be removed and for the scope and content of the exhibitions to be downgraded, so that Sydney's Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, one of the great museums of the world, can be turned into a fashion museum. This is not renewal it is destruction. It is dismembering the buildings, dispersing the collections and changing the exhibition philosophy so that the Powerhouse Ultimo ceases to exist. The scheme is completely flawed and is a profligate waste of public money. Far better outcomes would be achieved by respecting the built form, collections and exhibition philosophy of the Powerhouse Museum Ultimo and refreshing the building and its exhibitions. Do not proceed with this flawed scheme.

'I, Rick Scott-Murphy of 3/2 Barney Street, Kiama, NSW 2533, 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.'

As a local resident who has for many years enjoyed taking my children to the Powerhouse and seen them benefit from the various exhibits, I am appalled that there will no longer be anything of interest to children, according to this proposal.
Demolishing most of the existing building and replacing with a nondescript tower is architectural vandalism.
Most distressing of all is the proposal to gut the Museum’s heritage “core” and remove its outstanding and irreplaceable permanent exhibitions.

I 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 willful 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 musicological 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.

* 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

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.

The powerhouse in its present form provides a wonderful opportunity for children in the area to access a museum and to enjoy a break in the landscape of high rise with the wonderfully spacious and set back forecourt . The planned alterations will add to the overcrowded Harris Street and replace a museum with tall and sun blocking buildings as well as replacing a museum that appeals to all age groups with a museum catering to a far more narrow field of interest . My 5 local residing grandchildren and I visit the Powerhouse almost weekly . The children are all members of the museum and are devastated at the possibility of loosing it.in this densely populated part of Sydney the Powerhouse provides an oasis in Harris street and provides opportunities for local school children to visit a museum on foot and on a regular basis. Please do not adopt these changes

I, Cara Fletcher-Murphy, am writing to OBJECT to the EIS in respect of the redevelopment of the Ultimo Powerhouse Museum site for the following reason:

It is vitally important to preserve exemplar architecture for future generations, the Powerhouse Museum, awarded the Sulman Prize, is an obvious case in point. An update of the current building would provide a balanced approach to modernisng its functionality while preserving it's historical significance.

I am writing to OBJECT to the EIS in respect of the redevelopment of the Ultimo Powerhouse Museum site for the following reasons:
In the more than 2,000 pages of the 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 and this proposal bears no resemblance to the NSW's Government 4 July 2020 media release (att) claiming to 'save' the Powerhouse Museum. Furthermore, its cost is not justified in the face of huge fiscal challenges caused by natural disasters and the COVID epidemic.

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 a 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, and facilities contradicts every core tenet of museology and history.

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

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.

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/Con Rev 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 completely 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 on 4 July 2020.

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 2020 with appropriate criteria should be developed, subsequent to the Independent Review.

Thank you and best wishes,

'I NICHOLAS COFFILL f 36 Elliot St Gloucester 2422, am writing to OBJECT to the EIS in respect of the redevelopment of the Ultimo Powerhouse Museum site
for the following reasons:



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.

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.'

Thank you for accepting this objection.

I 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.'