Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation

I strongly object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. While a renovation is welcome, the revitalisation hides the extent of downsizing the Powerhouse’s function as a museum by drastically reducing its exhibition space and potential to display its collection to the public.

The Department of Planning should reconsider the prior planning decision allowing ‘programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval’. Shouldn’t alarm bells be ringing if Powerhouse management cuts the Museum’s existing exhibition space in half from 15,318m2 to 7,500m2 (SMH May 10 2023, Budget Estimates September 6 2024)? Management’s response to the latest round of public objections is unacceptable, claiming the new museum would have ‘improved flexible international standard exhibition spaces’ that ‘provides new levels of access to the Powerhouse Collection’ (Detailed Response to Submissions, September 10 2024). In the same Budget Hearing, Powerhouse CEO Lisa Havilah admitted from the 3000 objects currently in the Powerhouse’s permanent galleries, only 3 would return. It looks like a serious downgrade in public access to the Powerhouse Collection particularly when ex-Powerhouse Director Terence Measham noted the Powerhouse in 1997 had ‘some ten thousand objects on view in the permanent galleries, as well as about twenty temporary exhibitions each year. And we carry out frequent changes to the permanent displays.’

The confirmed demolition and offsite relocation of the Powerhouse’s Steam Exhibition removes the steam engines from their historical context, stopping the live steam engine demonstrations enjoyed by generations of Australians in the Powerhouse’s original Engine Room. Even though the renovation aims for a ‘5-star Green Star rating’, rebuilding the steam infrastructure at Castle Hill (if it even happens) makes no economic and contextual sense when the infrastructure already exists in Ultimo. The Greenest Star rating would be to reduce unnecessary demolition, instead adapting and re-using existing infrastructure.

Further unnecessary demolition of internal ramps and mezzanines is also supported by heritage consultant Curio to ‘allow for a much greater readability of the fabric’. The previous heritage consultant Alan Croker (the Sydney Opera House’s Heritage Architect) did not support the demolition and had his contract terminated. What made the Powerhouse special were its layers of floors, where visitors could experience the collection and building features at different levels and perspectives. The mezzanines also housed many interesting smaller exhibitions, including a reconstruction of the art deco Kings Cinema that was both cinema and exhibit. It has not been confirmed to return post-renovation, among many other permanent displays such as the Central Station Indicator Board, Strasburg Clock, NSW State Governors Railway Carriage, and the full-sized replica of the Space Station habitation module. It would go a long way for Powerhouse management to be more transparent with the public in confirming which longstanding items from the Powerhouse Collection will return, if not permanently, at least on a long-term exhibition basis.

Plans to renovate and improve the Powerhouse are a good start, but it should not come at the cost of significantly downsizing the Powerhouse’s exhibition space and displayed collection. The argument that ‘management of the museum’s collection is not a planning matter’ should be invalid if museum management uses planning applications to demolish more than half of its existing exhibition space. The proposed plans would be fine for a new museum, but the problem is that this is for the Powerhouse. If plans remain unchanged, the Powerhouse’s external fabric may be ‘revitalised’, but its function as a museum will be greatly diminished

I strongly object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. While a renovation is welcome, the revitalisation hides the extent of downsizing the Powerhouse’s function as a museum by drastically reducing its exhibition space and potential to display its collection to the public.

The Department of Planning should reconsider the prior planning decision allowing ‘programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval’. Shouldn’t alarm bells be ringing if Powerhouse management cuts the Museum’s existing exhibition space in half from 15,318m2 to 7,500m2 (SMH May 10 2023, Budget Estimates September 6 2024)? Management’s response to the latest round of public objections is unacceptable, claiming the new museum would have ‘improved flexible international standard exhibition spaces’ that ‘provides new levels of access to the Powerhouse Collection’ (Detailed Response to Submissions, September 10 2024). In the same Budget Hearing, Powerhouse CEO Lisa Havilah admitted from the 3000 objects currently in the Powerhouse’s permanent galleries, only 3 would return. It looks like a serious downgrade in public access to the Powerhouse Collection particularly when ex-Powerhouse Director Terence Measham noted the Powerhouse in 1997 had ‘some ten thousand objects on view in the permanent galleries, as well as about twenty temporary exhibitions each year. And we carry out frequent changes to the permanent displays.’

The confirmed demolition and offsite relocation of the Powerhouse’s Steam Exhibition removes the steam engines from their historical context, stopping the live steam engine demonstrations enjoyed by generations of Australians in the Powerhouse’s original Engine Room. Even though the renovation aims for a ‘5-star Green Star rating’, rebuilding the steam infrastructure at Castle Hill (if it even happens) makes no economic and contextual sense when the infrastructure already exists in Ultimo. The Greenest Star rating would be to reduce unnecessary demolition, instead adapting and re-using existing infrastructure.

Further unnecessary demolition of internal ramps and mezzanines is also supported by heritage consultant Curio to ‘allow for a much greater readability of the fabric’. The previous heritage consultant Alan Croker (the Sydney Opera House’s Heritage Architect) did not support the demolition and had his contract terminated. What made the Powerhouse special were its layers of floors, where visitors could experience the collection and building features at different levels and perspectives. The mezzanines also housed many interesting smaller exhibitions, including a reconstruction of the art deco Kings Cinema that was both cinema and exhibit. It has not been confirmed to return post-renovation, among many other permanent displays such as the Central Station Indicator Board, Strasburg Clock, NSW State Governors Railway Carriage, and the full-sized replica of the Space Station habitation module. It would go a long way for Powerhouse management to be more transparent with the public in confirming which longstanding items from the Powerhouse Collection will return, if not permanently, at least on a long-term exhibition basis.

Plans to renovate and improve the Powerhouse are a good start, but it should not come at the cost of significantly downsizing the Powerhouse’s exhibition space and displayed collection. The argument that ‘management of the museum’s collection is not a planning matter’ should be invalid if museum management uses planning applications to demolish more than half of its existing exhibition space. The proposed plans would be fine for a new museum, but the problem is that this is for the Powerhouse. If plans remain unchanged, the Powerhouse’s external fabric may be ‘revitalised’, but its function as a museum will be greatly diminished.

I implore you, do not allow the powerhouse museum to be effectively halved in size and the bulk of the exhibits removed, that is not a renovation a museum needs! It's a building of great value to the people of Australia and the exhibits inside even more so, to downgrade it would be an insult to present and future visitors.
Do not take away it's charm, it's heritage, it's accessibility or it's interactive and non interactive exhibits.

Reducing the amount of venue space and removing 95% of all permanent exhibitions is not what I would call "revitalisation".

I strongly object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. While a renovation is welcome, the revitalisation hides the extent of downsizing the Powerhouse’s function as a museum by drastically reducing its exhibition space and potential to display its collection to the public.

The Department of Planning should reconsider the prior planning decision allowing ‘programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval’. Shouldn’t alarm bells be ringing if Powerhouse management cuts the Museum’s existing exhibition space in half from 15,318m2 to 7,500m2 (SMH May 10 2023, Budget Estimates September 6 2024)? Management’s response to the latest round of public objections is unacceptable, claiming the new museum would have ‘improved flexible international standard exhibition spaces’ that ‘provides new levels of access to the Powerhouse Collection’ (Detailed Response to Submissions, September 10 2024). In the same Budget Hearing, Powerhouse CEO Lisa Havilah admitted from the 3000 objects currently in the Powerhouse’s permanent galleries, only 3 would return. It looks like a serious downgrade in public access to the Powerhouse Collection particularly when ex-Powerhouse Director Terence Measham noted the Powerhouse in 1997 had ‘some ten thousand objects on view in the permanent galleries, as well as about twenty temporary exhibitions each year. And we carry out frequent changes to the permanent displays.’

The confirmed demolition and offsite relocation of the Powerhouse’s Steam Exhibition removes the steam engines from their historical context, stopping the live steam engine demonstrations enjoyed by generations of Australians in the Powerhouse’s original Engine Room. Even though the renovation aims for a ‘5-star Green Star rating’, rebuilding the steam infrastructure at Castle Hill (if it even happens) makes no economic and contextual sense when the infrastructure already exists in Ultimo. The Greenest Star rating would be to reduce unnecessary demolition, instead adapting and re-using existing infrastructure.

Further unnecessary demolition of internal ramps and mezzanines is also supported by heritage consultant Curio to ‘allow for a much greater readability of the fabric’. The previous heritage consultant Alan Croker (the Sydney Opera House’s Heritage Architect) did not support the demolition and had his contract terminated. What made the Powerhouse special were its layers of floors, where visitors could experience the collection and building features at different levels and perspectives. The mezzanines also housed many interesting smaller exhibitions, including a reconstruction of the art deco Kings Cinema that was both cinema and exhibit. It has not been confirmed to return post-renovation, among many other permanent displays such as the Central Station Indicator Board, Strasburg Clock, NSW State Governors Railway Carriage, and the full-sized replica of the Space Station habitation module. It would go a long way for Powerhouse management to be more transparent with the public in confirming which longstanding items from the Powerhouse Collection will return, if not permanently, at least on a long-term exhibition basis.

Plans to renovate and improve the Powerhouse are a good start, but it should not come at the cost of significantly downsizing the Powerhouse’s exhibition space and displayed collection. The argument that ‘management of the museum’s collection is not a planning matter’ should be invalid if museum management uses planning applications to demolish more than half of its existing exhibition space. The proposed plans would be fine for a new museum, but the problem is that this is for the Powerhouse. If plans remain unchanged, the Powerhouse’s external fabric may be ‘revitalised’, but its function as a museum will be greatly diminished.

I strongly object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. While a renovation is welcome, the revitalisation hides the extent of downsizing the Powerhouse’s function as a museum by drastically reducing its exhibition space and potential to display its collection to the public.

The confirmed demolition and offsite relocation of the Powerhouse’s Steam Exhibition removes the steam engines from their historical context, stopping the live steam engine demonstrations enjoyed by generations of Australians in the Powerhouse’s original Engine Room. Even though the renovation aims for a ‘5-star Green Star rating’, rebuilding the steam infrastructure at Castle Hill (if it even happens) makes no economic and contextual sense when the infrastructure already exists in Ultimo. The Greenest Star rating would be to reduce unnecessary demolition, instead adapting and re-using existing infrastructure.

While I appreciate the drive to modernise the interior of the building, the proposed complete demolition of the powerhouse's interior seems wildly unneccessary. It has not been confirmed to return post-renovation, among many other permanent displays such as the Central Station Indicator Board, Strasburg Clock, NSW State Governors Railway Carriage, and the full-sized replica of the Space Station habitation module. For the most part, these items tell important stories about the history of Sydney, NSW and Australia more broadly that make them well suited for a museum in the centre of the city. It would go a long way for Powerhouse management to be more transparent with the public in confirming which longstanding items from the Powerhouse Collection will return, if not permanently, at least on a long-term exhibition basis.

Plans to renovate and improve the Powerhouse are a good start, but it should not come at the cost of significantly downsizing the Powerhouse’s exhibition space and displayed collection. The argument that ‘management of the museum’s collection is not a planning matter’ should be invalid if museum management uses planning applications to demolish more than half of its existing exhibition space. The proposed plans would be fine for a new museum, but the problem is that this is for the Powerhouse. If plans remain unchanged, the Powerhouse’s external fabric may be ‘revitalised’, but its function as a museum will be greatly diminished.

I strongly object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. While a renovation is welcome, the revitalisation hides the extent of downsizing the Powerhouse’s function as a museum by drastically reducing its exhibition space and potential to display its collection to the public.

The Department of Planning should reconsider the prior planning decision allowing ‘programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval’. Shouldn’t alarm bells be ringing if Powerhouse management cuts the Museum’s existing exhibition space in half from 15,318m2 to 7,500m2 (SMH May 10 2023, Budget Estimates September 6 2024)? Management’s response to the latest round of public objections is unacceptable, claiming the new museum would have ‘improved flexible international standard exhibition spaces’ that ‘provides new levels of access to the Powerhouse Collection’ (Detailed Response to Submissions, September 10 2024). In the same Budget Hearing, Powerhouse CEO Lisa Havilah admitted from the 3000 objects currently in the Powerhouse’s permanent galleries, only 3 would return. It looks like a serious downgrade in public access to the Powerhouse Collection particularly when ex-Powerhouse Director Terence Measham noted the Powerhouse in 1997 had ‘some ten thousand objects on view in the permanent galleries, as well as about twenty temporary exhibitions each year. And we carry out frequent changes to the permanent displays.’

The confirmed demolition and offsite relocation of the Powerhouse’s Steam Exhibition removes the steam engines from their historical context, stopping the live steam engine demonstrations enjoyed by generations of Australians in the Powerhouse’s original Engine Room. Even though the renovation aims for a ‘5-star Green Star rating’, rebuilding the steam infrastructure at Castle Hill (if it even happens) makes no economic and contextual sense when the infrastructure already exists in Ultimo. The Greenest Star rating would be to reduce unnecessary demolition, instead adapting and re-using existing infrastructure.

Further unnecessary demolition of internal ramps and mezzanines is also supported by heritage consultant Curio to ‘allow for a much greater readability of the fabric’. The previous heritage consultant Alan Croker (the Sydney Opera House’s Heritage Architect) did not support the demolition and had his contract terminated. What made the Powerhouse special were its layers of floors, where visitors could experience the collection and building features at different levels and perspectives. The mezzanines also housed many interesting smaller exhibitions, including a reconstruction of the art deco Kings Cinema that was both cinema and exhibit. It has not been confirmed to return post-renovation, among many other permanent displays such as the Central Station Indicator Board, Strasburg Clock, NSW State Governors Railway Carriage, and the full-sized replica of the Space Station habitation module. It would go a long way for Powerhouse management to be more transparent with the public in confirming which longstanding items from the Powerhouse Collection will return, if not permanently, at least on a long-term exhibition basis.

Plans to renovate and improve the Powerhouse are a good start, but it should not come at the cost of significantly downsizing the Powerhouse’s exhibition space and displayed collection. The argument that ‘management of the museum’s collection is not a planning matter’ should be invalid if museum management uses planning applications to demolish more than half of its existing exhibition space. The proposed plans would be fine for a new museum, but the problem is that this is for the Powerhouse. If plans remain unchanged, the Powerhouse’s external fabric may be ‘revitalised’, but its function as a museum will be greatly diminished.

I want to again object in the strongest possible terms to this project.

Let me start with the title of the project, an Orwellian misuse of the English language. The honest title of the project should be "Powerhouse Museum Evisceration".

I say this because the proposed "revitalisation" will be the culmination of a process of stripping a world-leading museum of its collections, its buildings, its curatorial expertise, and hence its very functions. What remains will be a "multifunctional art space" with a few remnants of the museum collection for flavouring. A Powerhouse veneer will remain, but the vital organs will be gone - hence "evisceration"

However, it is not too late. While the award winning 1988 buildings have been modified, they are not yet completely ruined. The collection has been moved (and some components damaged prior to and during the move) but could be returned and restored. Management and curatorial staff qualified to run a museum and interested doing so could be recruited. Sydney could once again have an institution that continues the proud heritage of the original Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences and its award winning redevelopment as the 1988 Powerhouse Museum.

I am currently in London where I will be visiting both the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum, both closely related in total scope to the Powerhouse Museum as it was. These cultural institutions have grown and developed in response to changing times, but have retained their integrity and purpose. As a result, they attract tourists from all over the world.

In contrast, these plans for the Powerhouse disregard its heritage, will complete the process of destroying a world class museum, and destroy a tourist destination, as there will be nothing of value left to see.

The Powerhouse is a unique exhibition space purpose built for the steam train housing and demonstrations. Collections like the Strasburg clock, Govenors Railway carriage ,Space station replica and Kings Cinema along with other important collections and exhibits need care and consideration. What an embarrassment and appalling disrespect it would be to leave these exhibits without a proper place to be maintained and enjoyed in the centre of Sydney.

I strongly object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. While I support a renovation of the museum, the current revitalisation strategy obfuscates the extent of downsizing the Powerhouse will undergo. I believe this will impact on the function of the museum by drastically reducing its exhibition space and potential to display its collection to the public.

The Powerhouse management has stated that they will cut the Museum’s existing exhibition space in half from 15,318m2 to 7,500m2.

Furthermore, the confirmed demolition and offsite relocation of the Powerhouse’s Steam Exhibition removes the steam engines from their historical context, stopping the live steam engine demonstrations enjoyed by generations of Australians in the Powerhouse’s original Engine Room. Even though the renovation aims for a ‘5-star Green Star rating’, rebuilding the steam infrastructure at Castle Hill (if it even happens) makes no economic and contextual sense when the infrastructure already exists in Ultimo. The Greenest Star rating would be to reduce unnecessary demolition, instead adapting and re-using existing infrastructure.

Plans to renovate and improve the Powerhouse are a good start, but it should not come at the cost of significantly downsizing the Powerhouse’s exhibition space and displayed collection. The argument that ‘management of the museum’s collection is not a planning matter’ should be invalid if museum management uses planning applications to demolish more than half of its existing exhibition space. The proposed plans would be fine for a new museum, but the problem is that this is for the Powerhouse. If plans remain unchanged, the Powerhouse’s external fabric may be ‘revitalised’, but its function as a museum will be greatly diminished.

The destruction of this important Sydney Institution is almost complete.
It has been a shocking abrogation of the responsibilities of a series of NSW Government ministers of both parties.
Sydney does not need to spend further millions on more art galleries. In contrast to our art galleries, the Powerhouse was the only institution which fully represented Innovation in Technology, Social History, Design, Australian achievement and a collection of the best objects and ideas from around the world. Australian achievements are vital to our history and the knowledge of our culture which the original Powerhouse did so brilliantly, with countless awards for its excellent exhibitions and online presence.
The dramatic REDUCTION of exhibition space of the expensive new plan is seriously weird - illogical!
It's hard to imagine why young artists are to be given such prominence over our history with accomodation and workspaces in both Ultimo and Parramatta to the exclusion of the extraordinary MAAS collections and its stories.
I vehemently object to the plans for the Ultimo Powerhouse.

The Powerhouse Museum recently demonstrated via its 1001 Objects exhibition what a wonderful institution, collection & team can create. The proposal for removal, depletion, dumbing down & separation augers a terrible long term dialogue for users, public education,joy & understanding. A small group of angry managers seem to have got it horribly wrong. Reducing to half the space & 3 present objects is mad. Think of The Met in New York! Let us not send things to Castle Hill where it is lost largely to Sydney. Why give up so much in the brilliant Ultimo site & buildings? Yes it needs refreshing, but not killing dead by compromise & small mindedness.

See attachment

PLEASE DO NOT DESTROY the Museum and waste public money needed elsewhere in doing so;
WHY REJECT specialist advice and judgments warning against this destructiveness?! ! WHY Reject specialist recommendations about whether renovation is needed and how, if so, it can be completed without closing the Powerhouse and putting unique exhibits at risk and inaccessible?!
WHY close it and destroy fragile exhibits with removal/relocation?!
WHY take away a valued heritage and excellent exhibitions from local residents, local students, tourists, researchers etc ?!
WHY set yourselves up for accusations of corruption and unreliability and a reputation for broken promises and untrustworthiness in government?!
WHY call the Parramatta exhibition a name that is irrelevant to the location and false?! There are plenty of exhibits and names relevant to the area’s own heritage and culture. WHY should they want something secondhand? It is deluded to imagine tourists from cruise ships and on short stays will be able or willing to travel all that way.
PLEASE TAKE NOTE of the submissions from far more erudite researchers and specialists than myself.
I am a local resident who visited the fabulous Powerhouse Library and heard of the excellent and valuable support it gave the Australian film industry! So unethical to run down such expertise and resources.
Moreover I greatly enjoyed most of the wonderfully creative exhibitions and always took my visitors to the exhibitions which they enjoyed as much as I did. Living in the city I do not have a car, relying on public transport or walking.
WHY emphasise how far apart your experiences and resources are from those of us who live here and demonstrating your contempt for us?!
People rarely vote for politicians who display their lack of respect for their constituents
AGAIN PLEASE NOTE/READ AND HEED the detailed and informative submissions against this expensive and destructive project

I strongly object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. While a renovation is welcome, the revitalisation hides the extent of downsizing the Powerhouse’s function as a museum by drastically reducing its exhibition space and potential to display its collection to the public.

I spent my childhood roaming the Powerhouse museum, learning everything there was to know from the steam train exhibit and the space exhibit.
I look forward to the time I get to take my kids to visit the same steam train- I can’t imagine the Powerhouse without some of its major attractions.

Please see attached submission.

I strongly object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. While a renovation is welcome, the revitalisation hides the extent of downsizing the Powerhouse’s function as a museum by drastically reducing its exhibition space and potential to display its collection to the public.

The Department of Planning should reconsider the prior planning decision allowing ‘programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval’. Shouldn’t alarm bells be ringing if Powerhouse management cuts the Museum’s existing exhibition space in half from 15,318m2 to 7,500m2 (SMH May 10 2023, Budget Estimates September 6 2024)? Management’s response to the latest round of public objections is unacceptable, claiming the new museum would have ‘improved flexible international standard exhibition spaces’ that ‘provides new levels of access to the Powerhouse Collection’ (Detailed Response to Submissions, September 10 2024). In the same Budget Hearing, Powerhouse CEO Lisa Havilah admitted from the 3000 objects currently in the Powerhouse’s permanent galleries, only 3 would return. It looks like a serious downgrade in public access to the Powerhouse Collection particularly when ex-Powerhouse Director Terence Measham noted the Powerhouse in 1997 had ‘some ten thousand objects on view in the permanent galleries, as well as about twenty temporary exhibitions each year. And we carry out frequent changes to the permanent displays.’

The confirmed demolition and offsite relocation of the Powerhouse’s Steam Exhibition removes the steam engines from their historical context, stopping the live steam engine demonstrations enjoyed by generations of Australians in the Powerhouse’s original Engine Room. Even though the renovation aims for a ‘5-star Green Star rating’, rebuilding the steam infrastructure at Castle Hill (if it even happens) makes no economic and contextual sense when the infrastructure already exists in Ultimo. The Greenest Star rating would be to reduce unnecessary demolition, instead adapting and re-using existing infrastructure.

Further unnecessary demolition of internal ramps and mezzanines is also supported by heritage consultant Curio to ‘allow for a much greater readability of the fabric’. The previous heritage consultant Alan Croker (the Sydney Opera House’s Heritage Architect) did not support the demolition and had his contract terminated. What made the Powerhouse special were its layers of floors, where visitors could experience the collection and building features at different levels and perspectives. The mezzanines also housed many interesting smaller exhibitions, including a reconstruction of the art deco Kings Cinema that was both cinema and exhibit. It has not been confirmed to return post-renovation, among many other permanent displays such as the Central Station Indicator Board, Strasburg Clock, NSW State Governors Railway Carriage, and the full-sized replica of the Space Station habitation module. It would go a long way for Powerhouse management to be more transparent with the public in confirming which longstanding items from the Powerhouse Collection will return, if not permanently, at least on a long-term exhibition basis.

Plans to renovate and improve the Powerhouse are a good start, but it should not come at the cost of significantly downsizing the Powerhouse’s exhibition space and displayed collection. The argument that ‘management of the museum’s collection is not a planning matter’ should be invalid if museum management uses planning applications to demolish more than half of its existing exhibition space. The proposed plans would be fine for a new museum, but the problem is that this is for the Powerhouse. If plans remain unchanged, the Powerhouse’s external fabric may be ‘revitalised’, but its function as a museum will be greatly diminished.

I strongly object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. While a renovation is welcome, the revitalisation hides the extent of downsizing the Powerhouse’s function as a museum by drastically reducing its exhibition space and potential to display its collection to the public.

The Department of Planning should reconsider the prior planning decision allowing ‘programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval’. Shouldn’t alarm bells be ringing if Powerhouse management cuts the Museum’s existing exhibition space in half from 15,318m2 to 7,500m2 (SMH May 10 2023, Budget Estimates September 6 2024)? Management’s response to the latest round of public objections is unacceptable, claiming the new museum would have ‘improved flexible international standard exhibition spaces’ that ‘provides new levels of access to the Powerhouse Collection’ (Detailed Response to Submissions, September 10 2024). In the same Budget Hearing, Powerhouse CEO Lisa Havilah admitted from the 3000 objects currently in the Powerhouse’s permanent galleries, only 3 would return. It looks like a serious downgrade in public access to the Powerhouse Collection particularly when ex-Powerhouse Director Terence Measham noted the Powerhouse in 1997 had ‘some ten thousand objects on view in the permanent galleries, as well as about twenty temporary exhibitions each year. And we carry out frequent changes to the permanent displays.’

The confirmed demolition and offsite relocation of the Powerhouse’s Steam Exhibition removes the steam engines from their historical context, stopping the live steam engine demonstrations enjoyed by generations of Australians in the Powerhouse’s original Engine Room. Even though the renovation aims for a ‘5-star Green Star rating’, rebuilding the steam infrastructure at Castle Hill (if it even happens) makes no economic and contextual sense when the infrastructure already exists in Ultimo. The Greenest Star rating would be to reduce unnecessary demolition, instead adapting and re-using existing infrastructure.

Further unnecessary demolition of internal ramps and mezzanines is also supported by heritage consultant Curio to ‘allow for a much greater readability of the fabric’. The previous heritage consultant Alan Croker (the Sydney Opera House’s Heritage Architect) did not support the demolition and had his contract terminated. What made the Powerhouse special were its layers of floors, where visitors could experience the collection and building features at different levels and perspectives. The mezzanines also housed many interesting smaller exhibitions, including a reconstruction of the art deco Kings Cinema that was both cinema and exhibit. It has not been confirmed to return post-renovation, among many other permanent displays such as the Central Station Indicator Board, Strasburg Clock, NSW State Governors Railway Carriage, and the full-sized replica of the Space Station habitation module. It would go a long way for Powerhouse management to be more transparent with the public in confirming which longstanding items from the Powerhouse Collection will return, if not permanently, at least on a long-term exhibition basis.

Plans to renovate and improve the Powerhouse are a good start, but it should not come at the cost of significantly downsizing the Powerhouse’s exhibition space and displayed collection. The argument that ‘management of the museum’s collection is not a planning matter’ should be invalid if museum management uses planning applications to demolish more than half of its existing exhibition space. The proposed plans would be fine for a new museum, but the problem is that this is for the Powerhouse. If plans remain unchanged, the Powerhouse’s external fabric may be ‘revitalised’, but its function as a museum will be greatly diminished.

I strongly object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. While a renovation is welcome, the revitalisation hides the extent of downsizing the Powerhouse’s function as a museum by drastically reducing its exhibition space and potential to display its collection to the public.

The Department of Planning should reconsider the prior planning decision allowing ‘programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval’. Shouldn’t alarm bells be ringing if Powerhouse management cuts the Museum’s existing exhibition space in half from 15,318m2 to 7,500m2 (SMH May 10 2023, Budget Estimates September 6 2024)? Management’s response to the latest round of public objections is unacceptable, claiming the new museum would have ‘improved flexible international standard exhibition spaces’ that ‘provides new levels of access to the Powerhouse Collection’ (Detailed Response to Submissions, September 10 2024). In the same Budget Hearing, Powerhouse CEO Lisa Havilah admitted from the 3000 objects currently in the Powerhouse’s permanent galleries, only 3 would return. It looks like a serious downgrade in public access to the Powerhouse Collection particularly when ex-Powerhouse Director Terence Measham noted the Powerhouse in 1997 had ‘some ten thousand objects on view in the permanent galleries, as well as about twenty temporary exhibitions each year. And we carry out frequent changes to the permanent displays.’

The confirmed demolition and offsite relocation of the Powerhouse’s Steam Exhibition removes the steam engines from their historical context, stopping the live steam engine demonstrations enjoyed by generations of Australians in the Powerhouse’s original Engine Room. Even though the renovation aims for a ‘5-star Green Star rating’, rebuilding the steam infrastructure at Castle Hill (if it even happens) makes no economic and contextual sense when the infrastructure already exists in Ultimo. The Greenest Star rating would be to reduce unnecessary demolition, instead adapting and re-using existing infrastructure.

Further unnecessary demolition of internal ramps and mezzanines is also supported by heritage consultant Curio to ‘allow for a much greater readability of the fabric’. The previous heritage consultant Alan Croker (the Sydney Opera House’s Heritage Architect) did not support the demolition and had his contract terminated. What made the Powerhouse special were its layers of floors, where visitors could experience the collection and building features at different levels and perspectives. The mezzanines also housed many interesting smaller exhibitions, including a reconstruction of the art deco Kings Cinema that was both cinema and exhibit. It has not been confirmed to return post-renovation, among many other permanent displays such as the Central Station Indicator Board, Strasburg Clock, NSW State Governors Railway Carriage, and the full-sized replica of the Space Station habitation module. It would go a long way for Powerhouse management to be more transparent with the public in confirming which longstanding items from the Powerhouse Collection will return, if not permanently, at least on a long-term exhibition basis.

Plans to renovate and improve the Powerhouse are a good start, but it should not come at the cost of significantly downsizing the Powerhouse’s exhibition space and displayed collection. The argument that ‘management of the museum’s collection is not a planning matter’ should be invalid if museum management uses planning applications to demolish more than half of its existing exhibition space. The proposed plans would be fine for a new museum, but the problem is that this is for the Powerhouse. If plans remain unchanged, the Powerhouse’s external fabric may be ‘revitalised’, but its function as a museum will be greatly diminished.

I strongly object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. While a renovation is welcome, the revitalisation hides the extent of downsizing the Powerhouse’s function as a museum by drastically reducing its exhibition space and potential to display its collection to the public.

The Department of Planning should reconsider the prior planning decision allowing ‘programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval’. Shouldn’t alarm bells be ringing if Powerhouse management cuts the Museum’s existing exhibition space in half from 15,318m2 to 7,500m2 (SMH May 10 2023, Budget Estimates September 6 2024)? Management’s response to the latest round of public objections is unacceptable, claiming the new museum would have ‘improved flexible international standard exhibition spaces’ that ‘provides new levels of access to the Powerhouse Collection’ (Detailed Response to Submissions, September 10 2024). In the same Budget Hearing, Powerhouse CEO Lisa Havilah admitted from the 3000 objects currently in the Powerhouse’s permanent galleries, only 3 would return. It looks like a serious downgrade in public access to the Powerhouse Collection particularly when ex-Powerhouse Director Terence Measham noted the Powerhouse in 1997 had ‘some ten thousand objects on view in the permanent galleries, as well as about twenty temporary exhibitions each year. And we carry out frequent changes to the permanent displays.’

The confirmed demolition and offsite relocation of the Powerhouse’s Steam Exhibition removes the steam engines from their historical context, stopping the live steam engine demonstrations enjoyed by generations of Australians in the Powerhouse’s original Engine Room. Even though the renovation aims for a ‘5-star Green Star rating’, rebuilding the steam infrastructure at Castle Hill (if it even happens) makes no economic and contextual sense when the infrastructure already exists in Ultimo. The Greenest Star rating would be to reduce unnecessary demolition, instead adapting and re-using existing infrastructure.

Further unnecessary demolition of internal ramps and mezzanines is also supported by heritage consultant Curio to ‘allow for a much greater readability of the fabric’. The previous heritage consultant Alan Croker (the Sydney Opera House’s Heritage Architect) did not support the demolition and had his contract terminated. What made the Powerhouse special were its layers of floors, where visitors could experience the collection and building features at different levels and perspectives. The mezzanines also housed many interesting smaller exhibitions, including a reconstruction of the art deco Kings Cinema that was both cinema and exhibit. It has not been confirmed to return post-renovation, among many other permanent displays such as the Central Station Indicator Board, Strasburg Clock, NSW State Governors Railway Carriage, and the full-sized replica of the Space Station habitation module. It would go a long way for Powerhouse management to be more transparent with the public in confirming which longstanding items from the Powerhouse Collection will return, if not permanently, at least on a long-term exhibition basis.

Plans to renovate and improve the Powerhouse are a good start, but it should not come at the cost of significantly downsizing the Powerhouse’s exhibition space and displayed collection. The argument that ‘management of the museum’s collection is not a planning matter’ should be invalid if museum management uses planning applications to demolish more than half of its existing exhibition space. The proposed plans would be fine for a new museum, but the problem is that this is for the Powerhouse. If plans remain unchanged, the Powerhouse’s external fabric may be ‘revitalised’, but its function as a museum will be greatly diminished.