Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation

I strongly object to the plans for the Powerhouse Museum that would see the iconic steam exhibition demolished and a drastic reduction in exhibition space and objects on permanent display. If implemented, these plans will be greatly detrimental to its function as a museum.

Prior to the last state election there was a promise to the people of NSW that the Powerhouse Museum would be saved by the Labor Government ...Sydney deserves a top notch SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY MUSEUM! ... PLEASE uphold this promise & not reduce amt of exhibition space. I understand that the current plan reduces the Museum’s exhibition area to less than a quarter, from 21,080m2 in 20+ exhibition spaces to just 3 exhibition areas with a total of 5,100m2, unfit for exhibiting the diverse Museum collections. I am in my late 60's & a local resident of Ultimo. I have been coming to the Powerhouse with my children & grandchildren over many decades. As a child I spent a lot of time in the Haymarket area where my father's business was located. To witness the development of the area, featuring the POWERHOUSE MUSEUM was awe inspiring. My family & anyone I speak to LOVED the Powerhouse Museum. It is fundamentally important that the Powerhouse Museum continues as a SCIENCE museum. It was a jewel in the Ultimo/ Haymarket / Darling Harbour crown . Please ensure that the MUSEUM exhibition space is not reduced, & that the Harwood building remains in integral part of the Powerhouse Museum . Anything less is a betrayal to the city & the people of NSW & all Australians. It is the best located museum in NSW being a walk from Central Station & Darling Harbour. It must be made into a top notch SCIENCE MUSEUM for us, our children & children's children, into the future. With many families now residing in the inner city, the benefit of a science & technology museum of the highest order is obvious. It would continue to inspire & educate all that will visit in the future, It is believed that the current plan is to incorporate huge event spaces to replace various exhibition spaces. We have an abundance of event space already with Carriage Works , the ICC & now White Bay Power Station. What we need is a first rate LARGE science & technology museum. Please do not reduce this invaluable asset for the people of Australia.

I write to state my objections to the proposed Revitalisation of the Powerhouse Museum.
I note the name Museum no longer appears in the title as the present proposal completely guts the museum, turning it into a "House of Horrors."
The exhibition space is being reduced by 75% in an amazing example of Doublespeak.
The Wran Extension is being gutted and altered beyond recognition.
The exhibits (baring 3) have all been removed and may never return.
Indeed, after $300 plus million expenditure it appears we are to get an arts space of some kind.
The removal of the steam generation equipment needed to power the Bolton and Watt engine means the exhibit, if ever workable again, will never be historically accurate.

This attack on the heritage of the building and its exhibits is in direct contravention of the Labor Governments promises when in opposition. The mendacity involved with this project over the whole 10 years of its death would be called corruption IF money changing hands could be proven.
The members of the public that actually care will remember this debacle and remember those who were so happily involved in the downfall of the Powerhouse Museum.

John Heathers

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.

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 am writing to express my support for the Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation project. The proposed design promises to enhance one of Australia’s most iconic cultural institutions while respecting its heritage. This revitalisation will not only preserve the unique historical elements of the museum, such as the Wran building and the heritage-listed Boiler House and Turbine Hall, but also significantly improve the visitor experience with new, flexible exhibition spaces.

Key benefits of the project include:

• Creation of world-class exhibition spaces that will accommodate international exhibits and provide greater access to the Powerhouse’s renowned collection of over 500,000 objects.
• Improved public access with a new main entrance facing The Goods Line, connecting the museum to public transport and nearby precincts.
• Development of new public spaces, including a 2000sqm square and accessible courtyards, enhancing community engagement and making the museum a central feature of the area.
• Expansion of learning and programming spaces, allowing the museum to cater to diverse audiences and offer enriched educational experiences.

The Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation is set to transform the museum into a dynamic cultural hub that will continue to serve the community, attract visitors, and support Sydney’s creative industries.

I strongly support this initiative and look forward to seeing it come to life.

Please find my submission attached as a file.

Best Wishes

Rachel

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 am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed 'Revitalization ' project for the Powerhouse Museum in Ultimo .As a concerned citizen, supporter and long-term volunteer, I believe that the current plans do not adequately respect the heritage, cultural and educational significance and the public interest associated with this iconic institution.
1Heritage Significance.
The Powerhouse Museum hold immense historical and cultural value . The recent State Heritage Register curtilage amendment, which includes the WRAN and HARWOOD buildings, underscores its importance. However lack of publicly accessible Conservation Management Plan causses serious concerns about the preservation of this heritage.
2. Public Opinion
It is alarming that only 5/125 submissions were in support of the revitalisation project, the reduction in exhibition space and the unclear future of the valuable collection. The Powerhouse Museum was the ONLY Museum in NSW to have unique exhibits on Transport, Space and hold invaluable treasures such as the Bolton and Watt Rotative Steam Engine (the only one operating on steam) Loco1 and the Catalina flying boat .
3, Lack of Clarity and Detail.
The project documentation is extensive, yet fails to provide adequate detail about the future of the MAAS as a MUSEUM.
4.Heritage Destruction.
The proposed project threatens to reduce exhibition space by 75%!, thus NOT revitalisation but destruction of a once vital, iconic cultural institution.
5. Call for Transparency.
The design brief, exhibition project and the museum's conservation management plan must be publicly released as promised.
In conclusion, I urge the NSW Government to reconsider the current plans for the Powerhouse Museum.
A true revitaisation should enhance and preserve the museums heritage and function as a MUSEUM, not demolish it as a response to the concerns of the people of NSW and experts alike.
Thank you for considering my submission

The project has not provided sufficient evidence that it will improve the educational and cultural value of the museum to counterbalance the planned removal of many beloved, culturally significant, and educational exhibits. As a result, I believe that this project is a waste of money and will have a largely negative impact on the legacy of the museum.

Dear Sir/Madam

Further submission on the assessment of the SSD application regarding the Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation Project.

I am objecting on the following grounds;

Sadly this project will see the destruction and demolition of a once great internationally recognised museum if the project goes ahead in its current form.

1) Key people with extensive experience and significant museum qualifications have been left out of the decision making process. People such as Jennifer Sanders, Kylie Winkworth and Lindsay Sharp. These people have held very high Senior positions in the past. I find this very strange and even unsettling. This is now even more concerning after comments expressed by a NSW MLC Mr Robert Borsak on 2gb radio who Chaired two inquiries into the powerhouse museum, regarding the current Powerhouse Museum management team expressing their lack of skills , knowledge and professionalism and that they all should be dismissed.

2) Excessive secrecy and non-democratic measures that have seen the gutting and demolition of parts of the museum before the consultation period is completed and as such goes against due process. Who is responsible for this action?

3) Reduced floor space, the exhibition space will shrink by some 75 percent.

4) The huge unnecessary expense involved that could have gone into other areas of government.

5) This dismantling and removal of the much loved once permanent exhibitions that did bring great enjoyment to hundreds of thousands of children and families across Australia. Being the live steam revolution, transport and space galleries.

6) Two major Legislative Council inquiry reports were basically ignored.

7) The opposition to this project expressed by the public and the museum and arts community is unprecedented and yet these concerns seem to have been treated with contempt.

8) The Wran building and Galleria will be truncated and the Galleria enclosed in brick walls.

9) Most concerning and disturbing of all is the planned demolition and removal of the original floor of the heritage listed 1899 first power plant engine room and the removal of the live steam system, this being One of the best examples of working steam steam engine collections in the world. This is not something you can put back together again like some Lego set. This is just pure shameless heritage vandalism. Sadly I get the impression this destruction is deliberate. Whoever is behind this listed heritage destruction should be called out and shamed and even appropriate class action lawsuits considered.

10) Time for the Premier himself to intervene!

I object to these Powerhouse revitalisation plans. I like the idea of renovations but find the plans for downsizing and relocation of the Powerhouse Museum unacceptable. I believe that the Powerhouse Museum should instead be renovated, and a new museum built in Paramatta showcasing its own local heritage.

Powerhouse CEO Lisa Havilah states that of the 3000 objects currently in the Powerhouse’s permanent galleries, only 3 would return. That is a ridiculous downsize and downgrade that I cannot support.

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.

Infrastructure NSW

As per my previous submission of 23 February 2024, I am opposed to the PowerhouseMuseum at Ultimo “Revitalisation” Project as is currently proposed and to its closure for an indicated period of at least three years whilst the “Revitalisation Project” is undertaken. With the performance of InfrastructureNSW in recent projects for which they have been responsible in recent years and the cost blow-outs one can have little confidence that the “Revitalisation Project” will be completed in three years and it is highly likely that now it is closed it will be quite a few years before it is reopened and the public and tourists will be deprived of the invaluable collections for many years to come. The closure of the Museum has left a void in the non commercial educational entertainment in Sydney to provide for school-age children during school vacations and weekends and this is likely to remain for some time.

It is difficult to comment fully on the proposal when there is so little information on what will be exhibited and where in the “Revitalised” Museum in any of the plans currently made available to the public. Where are the detailed Cost Benefit studies for closing down the Museum and removal of the heritage collections and “clean skin” refurbishment versus the Repair of roofing and structures in a staged manner with the Collection in situ and appropriately safeguarded. The Australian Museum in College Street was able to undergo renovations without the need for closure and removal of its Collection.

Concerns over the “Revitalisation” plans currently on display include the loss of a major portion of the Exhibition space which has been reduced to a third of the exhibition space when it was fully functioning, with little or Nil exhibition space being shown on the current plans for the new Levels1, 2and 3and previous exhibition spaces now marked as “void”.

The ability to be able to view exhibits from different angles and perspectives and heights enhanced the museum experience and gave a sense of discovery as one travelled from one area to another. The statement that the overhead Mezzanine levels will be removed is disheartening as this gave the Museum a feeling of openness and uniqueness and that one was not purely viewing encased displays all at one level as is likely with the proposed cavernous halls once the Mezzanine is removed. The Mezzanine also added to the sense of discovery and intrigue as one rounded a corner and came upon anew exhibit or perspective or was able to view an exhibit through a window, staring down from a high. To have a bird’s-eye view of a helicopter or plane or hang-glider gives one a good impression of what it is like to be in the air. Many of the young visitors may not have been fortunate enough to experience the joys of flight due to their socio-economic background and being able to see the exhibits from different perspectives and heights gives them an idea of what it would be like. It stimulated the senses and in many stimulated an interest in science and engineering.

The Boiler House needs to be retained in its current form as the Transport, Flight and Space Gallery and enhanced with later day developments as it gave a wonderful view of the development of the State’s transport modes over the years. Working models of more recent rail and light rail and updating the displays would add to the interest of the displays, something which has been lacking in the current management in recent years.

The live steaming of the machinery in the Steam Revolution Gallery in the Engine House is also an intricate part of the Museum’s allure and fascination which must be retained. To hear the machines hissing and clanging and watch them in movement brings life to the normally physical static item and provides life to the museum. The annual Transport Heritage Weekend at Central Railway Station shows that there is great interest especially for families in the Transport and Steam Heritage of our nation. Children are more interested in and inspired by exhibits that are moving or that they can interact with. These exhibitions need to be retained in their completeness and generous space so that future generations can appreciate their physicality and their development and experience the “living, breathing” essence of these wonderful machines. Justice will not be given to them if they are decimated in any way and reduced to only a few static items in the greatly reduced exhibition space proposed.

The current displays and their layouts in the industrial buildings with gantry cranes and old brick buildings give the Museum a unique industrial atmosphere that needs to be retained. Three cavernous sterile halls cannot provide the same atmosphere and sense of the industrial age that the existing buildings provide. Why gut the buildings of the internal structures when these were purpose built to display the Collections at their best.

The HarwoodBuilding also needs heritage listing and inclusion in the “Revitalisation” plans and guaranteed retention as a monument to our industrial architecture and to stop the creep and enclosure of the Goods Line with soul-less, non-descriptive high-rise apartment blocks,as well as providing some open space to blue skies. The Powerhouse complex is the last remaining industrial heritage precinct in the Zcity, untouched by the gutting, privatisation and adaptation for other purposes. Why has the heritage listing of the Powerhouse Museum complex and its collections been opposed by the MAAS CEO and InfrastructureNSW? The whole of the Harwood Building should be State Heritage listed as a guide to the “Revitalisation” Project.

The final weeks of the Museum being opened to the public showed the high level of interest in the Powerhouse Museum as a wonderful institution for families and tourists despite the lack of neglect and lack of promotion by the current management in recent years. The museum appeared to still function well as an operating museum, structurally sound without safety concerns for the visiting public. Why it has to close completely for such a long period of time and then have its exhibition space greatly reduced with a reduced collection on display is beyond me.

Surely, staged refurbishment and maintaining public involvement under the guidance of museum experts would be a cheaper, preferable option and would have avoided the risks of damaging the priceless exhibits in the dismantling, transport and storage processes. It would have been preferable to have the museum open with ongoing maintenance and cleaning and public attendance,thanbto remain locked up and neglected for long periods while plans are finalised, approvals received, contracts negotiated and let before construction can begin.

I agree that there should be some modernisation of exhibits with more interactive and hands-on displays, using modern technologies and providing an engaging experience and inspiration for young attendees. The current management has been very neglectful in failing to modernise and provide a great deal of new stimulating interactive exhibits and promoting the Museum’s Collection in the past ten years, seeming more inclined to allow a general rundown of the facilities and move to a non science and technology focussed entertainment complex catering to a reduced audience and not the wider general public and tourists.

I fully support the arguments made by the Powerhouse Museum Alliance against the PHM “Revitalisation” Project as it has currently been provided. The Minister and Labor Government need to take control of this process and fulfil its election promises of retaining the Ultimo Powerhouse Museum as a fully functioning Applied Science and Technology Museum with open consultation and planning with public and scientific museum experts on its Refurbishment and Revitalisation. It should not continue with the former Liberal Coalition Government’s plans continuing to be pushed by the Liberal appointed CEO, Board of Trustees and Infrastructure NSW.

We need to retain and enhance the Museum, its collection and its heritage as a Science and Technology Museum for the benefit and stimulation of future generations and international tourists who want to get a glimpse of our heritage and past. The demolition of buildings and internal structures, destroying the heritage fabric is totally unnecessary when a refurbishment of existing structures at a far lesser cost has been proposed by museum and building restoration experts.

Yours sincerely,

Neville Pleffer
38 Derby Street,
Rooty Hill, NSW. 2766
Mobile 0409 369 771
Email. [email protected]

This entire process is getting tedious. It's almost as if you're just going to keep asking the same questions until you get the response you want. Over 95% of respondents have already rejected your proposal. In almost any world apart from the NSW Government, 95% rejection would put and end to a project. But clearly in NSW the needs of developers and the like trump the desires of the people.

To reiterate what I've said previously, the proposal clearly reduces exhibition space. This is unacceptable. Large, empty, open spaces are not what makes a museum. You might want a late-night rave venue, but the people of NSW want a museum.

The people of NSW want the steam revolution (including the Boulton and Watt engine) and want all the exhibits 'on steam', the transport section, experimentations, the Strasbourg Clock, Locomotive No. 1, the Catalina, and so on. 95% of respondents, including myself, have already told you this.

The people of NSW also want the buildings preserved, the way they are. We don't want everything lined with expanded aluminium and the ridiculous brick façade pattern you've no doubt already spent millions to have somebody "design".

All that is required is a relatively modest amount of money spent on maintenance of the existing buildings, and a CEO who actually has a passion for, and the expertise to run a science and technology museum. The milk crate at Parramatta is already ear-marked to be almost anything but a museum, so let the current CEO hold her raves there, and instal somebody competent to run the museum at Ultimo.

As I've said before, I will say again, leave our musuem alone!

Please refer to attached submission - thank you

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 object to this EIS in the strongest terms.
1) This is my second submission on an EIS that was prepared prior to the Arts Minister's press release on the 16th September stating that the Powerhouse Heritage listing guarantees Museum's future in Ultimo. Surely this indicates that current EIS needs to be re-visited.
e) This EIS permits the degutting of the interior and major alterations to the exterior of the Museum including the Wran Building.
3) The Harwood Building although now heritage listed remains outside the Museum's precinct, hence after the alterations to the Museum are completed, the Harwood will become a floater and ripe for development with only rubbery heritage protection.
4) The EIS concentrates exclusively on providing exhibition spaces and makes zero reference to how these spaces will be utilized. The government has only guaranteed that the 3 so called icons, B&W steam engine, LOCO 1 and the Catalina Flying have to remain in the Museum. It is clear to me that the EIS brief does not cover the objects that make up a world class Applied Arts & Sciences Museum. The Catalina is not a toy object, The building that houses it has to suit the object, not the other way around.
5) The Museum closed its doors in February 2024, under the pretext that it needed urgent renovations and this involves the removal of the entire collection. This was a total misdirection. After the Museum was "saved" on the 4th July 2020 by the then Berejiklian Government, it became crystal by the Museum's management that the Powerhouse Museum will be morphed into an
educational/commercial/entertainment hub that contains a design & fashion museum
The Minns Government went to the poles in March 2023 with the promise that the Museum will be saved. Unfortunately by retaining the entire existing Museum management team, Arts Minister John Graham has ensured that it will be business as usual and this EIS is proof that. The Minns Government has bowed to outside pressures to destroy what was a world recognized museum and is prepared to spend millions on keeping a museum closed for years and the end result is only known to a select group people with hidden agendas.
6) This is a 10 year saga that keeps on keeping and should only require a group of fair minded and knowledgeable people to turn this colossal waste of taxpayer funds and restore the Powerhouse Museum, it still may not be too late. As they say if it ain't broke don't try to fix it.

Regards
Garry Horvai