Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation

I strongly object to the Powerhouse revitalisation plans. Despite prior State Significant Development planning decisions allowing “programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval”, the Department of Planning should reconsider this policy. The success of a museum depends on both its exterior and site planning as well as its internal and exhibition planning, particularly if proposed plans drastically reduce exhibition space by 75%!
The demolition of the Engine House’s Steam exhibition and underlying steam infrastructure will destroy the live steam engine demonstration experience enjoyed by generations of Australians. In this era of re-use and sustainability, rebuilding the steam infrastructure makes no economic sense, and there are certainly less intrusive and destructive ways to adapt and re-use the Powerhouse Museum.
Furthermore, apart from 3 objects, museum management has refused to confirm how much of the existing exhibitions will be kept post-renovation. Combined with the estimated 75% reduction in exhibition space, extensive internal demolition of ramps, mezzanines, and the Wran building’s grand galleria windows, it appears not only could the Powerhouse’s buildings be under threat, but also NSW’s state significant heritage of the Powerhouse’s collection and exhibits.
While the current State Significant Development process may not require approval for museum programming, the Department may want to rethink it considering the current trajectory of the Powerhouse revitalisation proposal: it could be a State Significant Development for the wrong reasons.

I object to the Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation SSD in its entirety as it is undeniably a plan to destroy the Powerhouse Museum Complex as a complete and fit for purpose home for NSW's Powerhouse Museum, founded in 1880. The Museum was conceived in 1978 and was then developed over the next decade in close consultation with the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, led by Dr Lindsay Sharp. This SSD, if it proceeds, will result in the destruction of the Sulman award-winning Powerhouse Museum which belongs to the people of NSW. Lionel Glendenning, Architect of Record, Powerhouse House Museum Complex.

I strongly object to the project. I am a former curatorial staff member of the PowerHouse Museum (PHM) and worked with other highly professional staff to plan and design exhibitions for the opening of the PHM in 1988. Its collections are incomparable. They tell the story not only of Sydney and NSW but also of Australia since colonisation. The collections form the backbone, sinews and muscles of our collective memory of this nation, its people and industry, and its interaction with First Nations People and many migrant countries. Shockingly, in less than 40 years of its operation in the existing Ultimo site (recognising its ancestry as the Museum of Applied Arts & Sciences is older than this), the NSW Government, PHM Trustees and developers, inter alios, see fit to grind it into the ground out of sheer ignorance and short-sightedness. Should this ridiculous, ill-planned, misguided, nonsensical, woefully designed project go ahead, the NSW Government and all those associated with the project should hang their collective heads in shame because history will show how appallingly they have behaved - without a speck of integrity - during this campaign to save a hallmark building and the collections that should, by every right under the sun, be on display to tell the narratives that constitute our history. I, for one, will be ashamed to be Australian.

I herewith comment on the proposed revitalisation of the Powerhouse Museum (PHM).
I have visited the PHM probably about 6 times over the last ~ 20 years. In my visits to the Museum, I have seen a very large number and variety of interesting items on display including:
⦁ old locomotives,
⦁ a very large moon model,
⦁ old common items and utensils,
⦁ musical instruments and items,
⦁ appliances,
⦁ full size aircraft,
⦁ road vehicles,
⦁ The Wiggles interactive displays and Big Red Car with my grandchildren,
⦁ countless other interesting displays and exhibited items,
⦁ etc, etc.
People of all ages and backgrounds enjoy spending time there studying whatever interests them.
I have spent several hours looking through several of the documents and drawings included in the Revitalisation pack. It is difficult to gain a full detailed understanding of the works proposed and the detailed end result. Perhaps a day's reading would help.
This is what I would like to see as a result of any work carried out to rejuvenate the PHM:
1. An increase in total areas for exhibiting displays if possible.
2. Sufficient repair and refurbishment to keep the PHM in a good physical state to comfortably withstand external and internal conditions for many decades. It is within a distance from Sydney Harbour where salt spray and salt mist can drift over the buildings. This would require carefully selected and constructed external and internal finishes. Note that coastal sewage treatment plants have been built in extreme coastal corrosion areas with concrete and protective coatings for metalwork that have survived well for several decades. Design life and strict controls should be included in contracts involved with the work. Many construction contractors and certifiers say they know how to do that type of work, but most do not know how to do it and how to control its application which often results in concrete cancer and steelwork corrosion commencing in 5 to 10 years
3. An entrance area that is easily accessible from more than one street and from public transport.
4. As many displays as possible in an increased total display area.
I believe that the PHM display areas should not be reduced in size and that the Parramatta Museum should not be used as any justification to reduce the total display area of the PHM.

Kindly refer to attachment.

Huge part of steam engine/ locomotive history is uncertain of a future within a publicly accessible site.

Please see attached

I am objecting on the following grounds,

1, The huge expense involved.
2, The reduced floor space. As the exhibition space will shrink by some 75 percent.
3, Concerns expressed by a NSW MLC Mr Robert Borsak on 2gb radio with the current powerhouse museum management team expressing their lack of skills, knowledge and professionalism and mentioned that they all should be dismissed. These comments made by a NSW MLC on national radio who chaired two inquires into the powerhouse museum need to be taken very seriously.
4, The dismantling of the much loved permanent exhibitions that brings great enjoyment to children and families across Australia. Being the steam revolution, transport and space galleries.
5, The dismantling and removal of the original floor of the first 19th century powerhouse engine room that is heritage vandalism.
6, The lack of public consultation and active participation.

I strongly object to the Powerhouse revitalisation plans. Despite prior State Significant Development planning decisions allowing “programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval”, the Department of Planning should reconsider this policy. The success of a museum depends on both its exterior and site planning as well as its internal and exhibition planning, particularly if proposed plans drastically reduce exhibition space by 75%!

The demolition of the Engine House’s Steam exhibition and underlying steam infrastructure will destroy the live steam engine demonstration experience enjoyed by generations of Australians. In this era of re-use and sustainability, rebuilding the steam infrastructure makes no economic sense, and there are certainly less intrusive and destructive ways to adapt and re-use the Powerhouse Museum.

Furthermore, apart from 3 objects, museum management has refused to confirm how much of the existing exhibitions will be kept post-renovation. Combined with the estimated 75% reduction in exhibition space, extensive internal demolition of ramps, mezzanines, and the Wran building’s grand galleria windows, it appears not only could the Powerhouse’s buildings be under threat, but also NSW’s state significant heritage of the Powerhouse’s collection and exhibits.

While the current State Significant Development process may not require approval for museum programming, the Department may want to rethink it considering the current trajectory of the Powerhouse revitalisation proposal: it could be a State Significant Development for the wrong reasons.

I strongly object to the Powerhouse revitalisation plans. Despite prior State Significant Development planning decisions allowing “programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval”, the Department of Planning should reconsider this policy. The success of a museum depends on both its exterior and site planning as well as its internal and exhibition planning, particularly if proposed plans drastically reduce exhibition space by 75%!

The demolition of the Engine House’s Steam exhibition and underlying steam infrastructure will destroy the live steam engine demonstration experience enjoyed by generations of Australians. In this era of re-use and sustainability, rebuilding the steam infrastructure makes no economic sense, and there are certainly less intrusive and destructive ways to adapt and re-use the Powerhouse Museum.

Furthermore, apart from 3 objects, museum management has refused to confirm how much of the existing exhibitions will be kept post-renovation. Combined with the estimated 75% reduction in exhibition space, extensive internal demolition of ramps, mezzanines, and the Wran building’s grand galleria windows, it appears not only could the Powerhouse’s buildings be under threat, but also NSW’s state significant heritage of the Powerhouse’s collection and exhibits.

While the current State Significant Development process may not require approval for museum programming, the Department may want to rethink it considering the current trajectory of the Powerhouse revitalisation proposal: it could be a State Significant Development for the wrong reasons.

I strongly object to the Powerhouse revitalisation plans. Despite prior State Significant Development planning decisions allowing “programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval”, the Department of Planning should reconsider this policy. The success of a museum depends on both its exterior and site planning as well as its internal and exhibition planning, particularly if proposed plans drastically reduce exhibition space by 75%!
The demolition of the Engine House’s Steam exhibition and underlying steam infrastructure will destroy the live steam engine demonstration experience enjoyed by generations of Australians. In this era of re-use and sustainability, rebuilding the steam infrastructure makes no economic sense, and there are certainly less intrusive and destructive ways to adapt and re-use the Powerhouse Museum.
Furthermore, apart from 3 objects, museum management has refused to confirm how much of the existing exhibitions will be kept post-renovation. Combined with the estimated 75% reduction in exhibition space, extensive internal demolition of ramps, mezzanines, and the Wran building’s grand galleria windows, it appears not only could the Powerhouse’s buildings be under threat, but also NSW’s state significant heritage of the Powerhouse’s collection and exhibits.
While the current State Significant Development process may not require approval for museum programming, the Department may want to rethink it considering the current trajectory of the Powerhouse revitalisation proposal: it could be a State Significant Development for the wrong reasons.

I strongly object to the Powerhouse revitalisation plans. Despite prior State Significant Development planning decisions allowing “programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval”, the Department of Planning should reconsider this policy. The success of a museum depends on both its exterior and site planning as well as its internal and exhibition planning, particularly if proposed plans drastically reduce exhibition space by 75%!
The demolition of the Engine House’s Steam exhibition and underlying steam infrastructure will destroy the live steam engine demonstration experience enjoyed by generations of Australians. In this era of re-use and sustainability, rebuilding the steam infrastructure makes no economic sense, and there are certainly less intrusive and destructive ways to adapt and re-use the Powerhouse Museum.
Furthermore, apart from 3 objects, museum management has refused to confirm how much of the existing exhibitions will be kept post-renovation. Combined with the estimated 75% reduction in exhibition space, extensive internal demolition of ramps, mezzanines, and the Wran building’s grand galleria windows, it appears not only could the Powerhouse’s buildings be under threat, but also NSW’s state significant heritage of the Powerhouse’s collection and exhibits.
While the current State Significant Development process may not require approval for museum programming, the Department may want to rethink it considering the current trajectory of the Powerhouse revitalisation proposal: it could be a State Significant Development for the wrong reasons.

I strongly oppose the plans for revitalizing the Powerhouse. Despite previous decisions allowing programming of museum spaces without approval, the Department of Planning should reconsider. A museum's success hinges on its exterior and internal planning, especially if proposed plans drastically reduce exhibition space by 75%! Demolishing the Steam exhibition and its infrastructure will eliminate a cherished experience for Australians. In this era of sustainability, rebuilding the steam infrastructure is economically nonsensical. There are less intrusive ways to adapt the Powerhouse. Moreover, the museum management has only confirmed the retention of three objects post-renovation, coupled with the substantial reduction in exhibition space and extensive internal demolition, it poses a threat not only to the Powerhouse's buildings but also to NSW's heritage. While current regulations may not require approval for museum programming, the Department should reconsider given the potential negative impact of the revitalization proposal.

The destruction of the Powerhouse as a working museum by creating spaces for events and for hire is an act of cultural vandalism. There are more than enough government and non-government event spaces in Sydney already. Public Museums are rare and hard-won and long-won institutions. This one should be saved by halting the current plans for the Ultimo site. It is vital to save a world standard Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences at the Ultimo site.

Please see submission attached. Thank you, Andrew Grant

I strongly object to the Powerhouse revitalisation plans. Despite prior State Significant Development planning decisions allowing “programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval”, the Department of Planning should reconsider this policy. The success of a museum depends on both its exterior and site planning as well as its internal and exhibition planning, particularly if proposed plans drastically reduce exhibition space by 75%!

The demolition of the Engine House’s Steam exhibition and underlying steam infrastructure will destroy the live steam engine demonstration experience enjoyed by generations of Australians. In this era of re-use and sustainability, rebuilding the steam infrastructure makes no economic sense, and there are certainly less intrusive and destructive ways to adapt and re-use the Powerhouse Museum.

Furthermore, apart from 3 objects, museum management has refused to confirm how much of the existing exhibitions will be kept post-renovation. Combined with the estimated 75% reduction in exhibition space, extensive internal demolition of ramps, mezzanines, and the Wran building’s grand galleria windows, it appears not only could the Powerhouse’s buildings be under threat, but also NSW’s state significant heritage of the Powerhouse’s collection and exhibits.

While the current State Significant Development process may not require approval for museum programming, the Department may want to rethink it considering the current trajectory of the Powerhouse revitalisation proposal: it could be a State Significant Development for the wrong reasons.

To whom it may concern — Powerhouse Museum upgrade

I write as someone who has a deep understanding of both science and the arts and the relationship between the two. My MSc was in ecology, while my PhD spanned sociology of the arts and environmental sociology. I worked for over 40 years in ecological restoration and natural resource management as a practitioner, researcher and in environmental policy. I have published widely in ecological restoration and on the role of the arts in shaping environmental behaviour.

I am very concerned about the direction being taken on the Powerhouse Museum, from being an excellent applied science and technology museum to one that appears to be prioritising contemporary art, fashion and holding events.

I am worried that by closing the museum for 3 years while renovations are being carried out, major exhibitions will be lost: in particular the hall of steam with all its working steam engines, the interactive science activities spaces and the extraordinary transport exhibitions that include trains, trams, planes, through to the excellent space exhibitions. The incredible achievement of the team of engineers who keep the steam engines running is something that should be given prominence as it is an achievement worth celebrating.

Further I am concerned that the public space outside the museum is going to be converted into accommodation.

My understanding of this issue is that the renovations could be achieved without closing the museum or moving the major exhibits.

There is considerable expertise in the community from previous Powerhouse Museum directors and senior staff who should be actively involved in the redesign and renovation process and it is apparent that this expertise is being disregarded.

Please refer to attached letter

Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation
Planning Portal nsw.gov.au (major projects)

I STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposal.

My reasons are as follows:

“Revitalisation” apparently means gutting the building, removing 75% of the exhibition spaces, spending $350M on providing 3 large areas for corporate parties and venue hire. Lack of routine maintenance does not excuse demolition and cultural vandalism.

It seems that this means:
Only 25% of Ultimo’s previous exhibition space. 3 large empty spaces now only suited to parties & venue hire. Vast empty spaces are not necessary for international exhibitions: see the highly successful Ramses Exhibition at the Australian Museum.
- Collections “decanted” - dislocated, broken up and carelessly moved to a location where they have no collective integrity and cannot be viewed anyway.
- Collections no longer in accessible central location - visitors to Sydney cannot trek out to Castle Hill with limited time/restricted hours.
- extra cost + damage re transport to & from Castle Hill.
- $350M waste, to create 3 large empty spaces for events, not collections.
Future costs are unbudgeted: moving collections, storage space at Castle Hill for large objects, conservation/restoration of objects for both the move & display purposes, staff acquisition & training, etc.
- Destruction of a world class museum for no purpose, cultural vandalism.
Slur on Australia’s international reputation. “No civilised society destroys a museum” - Jennifer Sanders, former Deputy Director of PHM. This destructive saga “unprecedented” in museum history here or overseas - Dr Lindsay Sharp, PHM Founding Director. Expert advice ignored: Glendenning, Croker (White Bay), & Sharp.

I do not want a fashion hub; I want a museum of science, technology, engineering, industrial heritage, power and transport, and space exploration, an Applied Arts & Sciences Museum/Technology Museum.

The worst part of the whole proposal is the breaking up of the collection. That is, the destruction of a significant collection of technological artefacts: “Australia’s best exhibition of planes, trains, working steam engines, science and applied arts - our history” as the Powerhouse Museum Alliance says, so that, “These collections will never be seen together again”. A collection existing in bits and pieces does not have the same value or impact.

It Is (was) a priceless collection of technological and industrial artefacts, carefully curated and housed in a fit-for-purpose building, adjacent to its conservation, repair and storage facility that was the conveniently-located Harwood Building. The large steam artefacts were accompanied by their context of the Steam Revolution display.

Irreplaceable heritage items include the 3 large items which are (apparently) still in situ and in danger of damage. Incidentally, another piece worth mentioning is one of Shackleton’s sledges: one of four sledges from the 1907-09 Nimrod expedition has been saved from export by the UK Arts Minister; it and an expedition flag together are apparently worth 227,500 pounds. So this is how we treat our heritage items, and valuable ones at that. And they are irreplaceable.

I am very concerned for the care and safety of the collection items: some have apparently already been damaged, either carelessly within PHM or in transit to Castle Hill, e.g. the Bleriot airplane reportedly “severely damaged”. Apparently Dick Smith has fears for the safety of his donated aircraft; and others - including staff - feared for the safety of the Catalina which was lowered to ground level for functions so guests could place their champagne glasses on its wings. Loco No 1 suffered a similar insult.

The cost to finance this destruction is $350 million. In the current climate justifying that cost seems difficult to understand. The promise of jobs arouses suspicion: jobs for whom? what about the continued sacking of museum staff?? Who benefits from the destruction of the Ultimo site?
Why the continual emphasis on changing the entrance/linking to Goods Line?
“Deliver important community well-being”: our community well-being has been destroyed.
 
Stimulating our historical memories is important for our mental health, and important for our historical perspective, to enjoy seeing again things from our individual pasts, to extend our wonder and imagination; and to learn new things about the history of our country.

It is an extraordinary step to take, to destroy a significant and internationally-renowned Museum, and one which is situated in a building tailor-made for it. In June 2020 Henry Ergas, freelance columnist commenting in The Australian newspaper on the first version of PHM destruction, said that this would be “one of the greatest acts of cultural vandalism in Australian history”. He continued, “the museum, whose purpose is to showcase science, the applied arts and technology, is in a world-class building that will not need replacing for many decades. Moreover, that 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 International Exhibition of 1879 and 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. The path of the PHM’s destruction has been pursued anything but carefully.

I agree entirely with all that the Heritage Council has said in its Notice of Intention to consider listing, including that the “PHM Complex is of potential State heritage significance, in its innovative approaches to both power generation and museology in the history of NSW….a state-of-the-art museum by world standards….a lauded highly influential early example of adaptive reuse of industrial heritage, recognised nationally and internationally….an important educational and cultural institution and tourist destination”, and that the Wran Building, together with the PHM Complex, “has potential State significance for its associations with notable political, design and museum figures”.

The Minns State Labor Govt. has dealt in broken promises and secrecy: its statement that the Museum will “continue to deliver an applied arts & sciences program” is dishonest in not revealing that this will be a mini-version, a travesty of its former self. Museum Management/Create NSW: Same team created by previous Lib Govt. is apparently responsible for all 3 incarnations of this disastrous project. Same disastrous CEO: a CEO who has treated the collection with disdain and disregard for its worth and safety, who is apparently incapable of understanding museums and what they are for, let alone value them, and who is quoted as saying in 2021 that her intention was “to ignore the weight of history, language and architecture” in Ultimo.

Do we really have to cater for the lowest (brain-dead) common denominator? I have come to the sad conclusion that the State Govt is not capable of caring about this issue because they are simply not bright enough to understand it. Why else would they think of turning a heritage museum into a contemporary arts centre? Could it be because they can shrink the museum into a token shop front for empty spaces for parties and venue hire, and run it cheaply with no museum staff? I am angry that it has come to this.

I urge the Govt to immediately cancel the project; proceed to do necessary repairs and maintenance; restore and re-open the PHM as it was, namely an Applied Arts & Sciences Museum/Technology Museum. And thereby save M of $$ and reassure the people of NSW and beyond.

NB Saturday 18 May - ICOM’s International Museum Day: theme of “Museums for Education & Research”. (International Council of Museums). If only.


Jennifer Jungheim
205/150 Bronte Rd Waverley NSW 2024