Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation

The plan to break up the Powerhouse museum is disgraceful.
No museum anywhere in the world has been treated with such blatant disregard for the important historical collection, and educational significance. Moving the objects so far out of the city and out of public reach is obscene! These objects are collected to educate and inform people about their history. All our children will learn is how greed and a disregard for our culture surpasses good judgment!

I appreciate the reduced impact on the existing, highly awarded, internationally recognised, Adaptive Reuse buildings of the Powerhouse Museum Buildings of 1988 in the current design.
However
I have the following Items of Serious Concern relating to this SSDA and therefore Object to the current proposal:

1. The NSW Heritage Council unanimously agreed in early May 2024 to list the entire complex and curtilage of the existing Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo on the NSW State Heritage Register.

Therefore
The Heritage Impact Statement by Curio, the Design Report, the Architectural Design and all associated consultant reports should be revised to respond to this change in the brief.

As a result:
The current design should be withdrawn and more time given to all the consultants to review and respond to this significant change to the Brief.

This department and the director of the Powerhouse Museum should acknowledge and respond to a fellow NSW Government department’s expertise and direction.

2. The current design proposes to remove mezzanines and therefore access to balconies that allow a range of views of large and significant suspended objects in the Museum’s collection. The mezzanines should be preserved in response to the collection and the NSW Heritage Council’s direction.

3. As you are already aware:
• The Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo is a Sulman Award winning project, receiving the Sir John Sulman Award in 1988, and is of significant importance to the architectural profession in NSW. The Sulman Award is the highest ranked award by the Australian Institute of Architects (known as the AIA) in NSW.

• The Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo has also received the following awards:
The Presidents Award for Recycled Buildings – NSW Public Works Dept with Denton Corker Marshall
The Belle Interiors Award for Interior Design
The Sir Zelman Cowan Award Finalist
At the time, it was the first project ever to have been nominated in 3 categories in the National Architecture Awards.

• The Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo is an exemplar of adaptive reuse, retaining original industrial fabric, and predates the Tate Modern in London (also an adaptive reuse of a Powerstation). It joins other eminent examples of adaptive reuse such as the Musee d’Orsay in Paris (an adaptive reuse of a railway station, opened in 1986).

• The Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo is an example of the work of NSW Government Architect’s Office with Lionel Glendenning as Principal Architect and JW Thomson, Government Architect

• The Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo was the first of many significant buildings on Harris Street to fulfill the Masterplan concept of Harris Street as the technological conduit of Sydney. Its location and scale is also in keeping within the current Master Plan for the Pyrmont Ultimo area.

It not only forms a direct link with the Original Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences building on Harris St, but also generated the scale of buildings that followed:
eg the ABC headquarters, the Ultimo Community Centre and the Ian Thorpe Swimming pool.

• The Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo of 1988 adaptive reuse including the additions of the Wran Building and Galleria was designed in direct response to the unique and varied collection that it housed. The form and scale of the Wran Building and Galleria responded to the large objects such as significant railway engines and a direct rail link from Central Railway station.

4. The submitted Heritage Impact Statement in this SSDA for the Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo is unchanged from the previously submitted Heritage report. This Heritage Impact Statement is incomplete as it only includes 5 buildings on the site from the 2020 SHR curtilage and does not include the 1988 additions or the Harwood Building.

5. I have gleaned from press and community consultation regarding the Museum’s collection, that some? of the engines will be retained at Ultimo and therefore the Wran Building and Galleria must also be retained in their original form. As you know, the rail tracks from Central to the Powerhouse have been preserved under the new Goods Line redevelopment for future posterity and resurrection.

6. The Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo (including the former Ultimo Tramways Powerhouse together with the 1988 adaptive reuse and Additions) is on the AIA (NSW) Register of Significant Buildings – which recognises architectural merit, high architectural qualities, and important works from leading architects and architectural practices. It is also listed as significant by Docomomo Australia and the National Trust of Australia.

7. The context and history of this place is significant to the history and development of Sydney and NSW. The layers of its development should be easily understood in future development. The current SSDA should be reviewed in light of this recognition by the NSW Heritage Council, AIA, National Trust and Docomomo.

8. A recognisable presence in Sydney is important for Sydney to be acknowledged as an international player in Architecture, Adaptive Re-Use and Museums of Applied Arts and Applied Sciences.

9. It is acknowledged that the visual impact of the Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo has been significantly eroded by recent development at Darling Harbour.

Whilst the reorientation of the entry toward the CBD and Goods Line is welcome,
the addition of multiple entries along Harris Street will be difficult to manage and suggests a future and concerning wholesale closure to Harris Street due to this increased security issue. I suggest further review of this aspect be made during design development and a reduction in entries along Harris Street be investigated.

10. Removing sections of buildings and building fabric that are able to be renewed or further adapted to respond to a brief that is not tuned to the collection is a deleterious action with regards environmental sensitivity, waste of resources & embodied energy, and concerning with regards the serious impacts of climate change. Building large volumes without a definite curatorial program is irresponsible and has led to much conjecture as to the true function of these spaces. This is especially relevant given the new Castle Hill and Parramatta buildings.

11. There has been much discussion about the exhibition areas in the proposed scheme and no evidence that it has indeed been increased. Please prove what you claim as the plans suggest deletion and removal of internal floor plates, not additional areas.

12. There is no evidence to suggest why the Wran building should be shortened to align with the south face of the Turbine Hall. This proposed revitalisation therefore loses any recognition of the articulation of the original or a visible memory of its glassy exterior facade.

13. Another lost opportunity is the entry sequence from the Harris Street court. The original 1988 Powerhouse Museum entry was focused on the Galleria – a top lit space which drew visitors to the arrival zone and highlighted the large scale exhibits within, whilst providing a detailed appreciation of the building fabric of the heritage, brick buildings.

14. The selection of brick as a new building envelope is curious, given that the Burra Charter suggests a contrast of materials is most appropriate in order to highlight the different eras of a complex of buildings. The Switch House, Turbine Hall and Post Office are brick buildings with the 1988 additional buildings in large format smooth surfaced materials in contrast. Additions of the 21st Century should ideally reflect their era in a unique material palette in order to encourage legibility. This has been completed successfully in recent large scale building projects by the same architects at the NSW Art Gallery and Phoenix Central Park.
In conclusion:
This proposal should be further revised to further ameliorate the detrimental impact to the important, existing, heritage listed 1988 buildings on the site and the renowned Powerhouse Museum Collection.

Yours sincerely

I strongly support the work and submission of the Save the Powerhouse group email [email protected].

Thank you. Peter

The outcome of this plan for the Powerhouse Museum is to reduce the exhibition space to <30% of the original gazetted exhibition space. Of that, only 1,400 square meters will be suitable for museum level 4 exhibits. The rest of the space will be level 2 or less (Entertainment, Education and general use).

There is no universe in which this is in the best interest of the Powerhouse Museum.

It is sad and shocking to see what has been happening in an international city like Sydney in a supposedly first world country like Australia. The manifest purpose of this plan is to use taxpayer money to ease the passage towards eventual site sale (first the Harwood Building and then the residue) and to maximize developer profits at the taxpayers’ expense.

This plan adds an expensive, unnecessary loading dock despite the presence of loading docks a few meters away in the Harwood Building. This is so the museum can be consolidated into one building, so the Harwood Building can be sold. This is also the reason why the Harwood Building is not included in the plan. It is also the reason why back-of-house activities have been moved from the Harwood Building into what would otherwise be exhibition space. Without the Harwood Building the museum would have to shrink, and that is exactly what is happening.

The plan removes mezzanine floors, for no apparent reason. There has been no call by historical or archaeological experts to do this, so far as I am aware. It will however make repurposing the building easier and cheaper when the site is eventually sold. Taxpayer money is being used to maximize future developer profits. The open halls created by removing the mezzanines are the reason why these spaces cannot be made compliant with the modern level 4 museum standard for exhibits. It would be better to spend money making these spaces more accessible in accordance with modern standards, and upgrading environmental controls. Or just leave them alone (they are still permitted). Removing the mezzanines just further reduces overall floor space.

The plan reallocates the Harris Street forecourt, which has been defacto public space, to the building envelope. I actually have no personal objection to this. I think it looks good. But the previous development plan, which was all about maximizing the floor space and height of the building, also did this. I believe the underlying drive for the forecourt development is to maximize the building envelope for eventual site repurposing. It’s unnecessary if the budget is tight.

There is very little in this plan about how this plan will improve the museum. How the changes to the exhibition spaces would make them more suitable for international exhibits? How improved internal climate control will preserve delicate exhibits? How the museum will display cutting edge technology in its renewed architecture? How the museum could improve access via the adjacent Exhibition tram stop? The Exhibition tram stop could provide level public transport access to the museum for the disabled, young and old, and increase patronage. These are the kinds of things that should be included in the museum renovation.

The museum is just being made much, much smaller, for 250 million dollars.

The only change in this plan that benefits the museum operation is the reorientation towards the Goods Line, which could be done at a much lower cost. I do like the internal green spaces though. And after years of neglect and mismanagement, the museum is in need of some kind of renovation. But of the whole museum (including the Harwood Building).

Basically, all the main expenditures in this plan are about repositioning the site for eventual sale, not improving the museum. Arguably the removal of the overhead public walkway to Haymarket (redirecting pedestrian traffic through the site), and the comprehensive mismanagement of the museum in recent years (maintenance, programming, community engagement, budget, professional standards, marketing, care for exhibits etc.) , are part of the same plan to sell the site. Despite vigorous community objections and so-called consultations that are mostly ignored, the plan marches on. This kind of behaviour is how democracies fall.

This is the wrong plan for the museum. It is a waste of money and will cripple the operation of the museum long term.

In my opinion, no renovation plan can be done for the Powerhouse Museum without including the Harwood Building. It is a vital part of the work flow. The Harris Street building was the exhibition space and the Harwood Building was back-of-house. The unique characteristic of the museum was the readaption and reuse of the power station and associated railway sheds into an integrated museum. As can be seen in this “prep for sale” plan, without the Harwood Building the museum would shrink dramatically. And would probably lose its viability as a museum (research etc space is notably missing from the plan).

Any renovation plan for the museum should include a rough plan of how the museum might work in the space. How exhibits would flow through the museum. Where the permanent exhibits might be (eg curriculum support for schools) and where visiting exhibits would be. Flexible spaces are a great idea, but you cannot see if the museum will work without a draft allocation plan. This has not been done for this plan, we are told. Looking at the plan there will be a minuscule true exhibition space (1,400 sq m) and large halls that can be used for public presentations and parties (but not sensitive exhibits). This is a wrecking of the museum and a continuation of the deeply unpopular and unsuccessful recent policy at the museum. The museum won’t work as a museum from what I can see.

A true renovation plan for the museum should focus on making the museum better. Repairing the minor leaks, upgrading environmental controls to modern standards, improving accessibility on the mezzanines, improving access from the Exhibition tram stop and Goods line. The renovation should showcase the cutting edge in building materials, functional design and building operation technology. Integration and demonstration of the latest technology in building materials, functional design and building operation technology. Internal restructuring should be about creatively maximising exhibition space and functionality. Not minimising it. For example the Harwood Building could be accessed from via a visitor catwalk to exhibit back-of-House activities. Mezzanines/floors could be used to display modern accessibility technology ( eg stair lifts) or redesigned/repositioned for better flow and exhibit space. There is so much that could be done with a creative mindset and respect for science, technology and the applied arts.

A museum of science, technology and the applied arts SHOULD change over time. It is expected, as it is the nature of the subject area. But the changes should be improvements, innovations and evolutions. This current plan is about shrinking, repurposing (towards party culture and superficial entertainment) and destruction.

It is a bad use of taxpayer money.



Regards



Rachel

The Powerhouse Ultimo Renewal is not a renewal but the destruction of a valuable NSW asset. The Museum of Applied Arts & Sciences is custodian of the state's social, industrial and artistic history. The current building was specifically designed to hold major items in the NSW state collection, reflecting its past and changes in technology and society.
The 'revitalisation' could have been achieved much more cheaply if the building had been maintained properly, but funds were never directed to this purpose - and there is no reason to assume that will happen in the future. You could see the neglect every time it rained and the gutters and downpipes sprayed water everywhere because they were not maintained to a professional standard.
The NSW Government's current plans to reduce the exhibition spaces substantially and to turn the former museum into a party venue is a frivolous decision which is destined to fail because it is unsustainable financially. Building a museum is hard; building a venue is easy, so it is easy to see why the current government is taking the easy way out. The current plans are sketchy at best.

Dear Sir /Madam,
I strongly object to the ridiculous proposal for the revitalisation of the PHM Ultimo. It is a complete waste of public money - where is the transparent Business Case and associated documents outlying the normal expected "due diligence" highlighting and justifying the "Pros & Cons" for making such a significant decision???
Further in-depth arguments against the PHM Ultimo Revitalisation with sound basis and evidence are attached for your reference, published by "Save the Powerhouse Campaign".
Regards
Andrew Gee

Analysis of Environmental Impact Statement: Powerhouse Museum (museum demolition)
'Ecologically Sustainable Development' (ESD), Report for SSD. 28 May, 2024.

OBJECTION

Summary:

1) This 32 page (03/04/2024) report appears misleading, incomplete and suboptimal.
What it proposes is, in reality, part of a much larger and more negative 'lack of sustainability' picture.


2) Cost: On 3 May, 2024 Ministers Graham and Kamper said: 'The NSW’s Government’s $250 million investment in [this] heritage renewal...'. However, page 27 of this report states that the total building works costs will be' $350,418,000'. This does not include the new exhibition costs Government/MAAS has stated at $70 million; nor all other costs like removal of the collections, especially the remaining large objects. At $420 million this represents a cost blow out, even before contracts are let, of 60% +. Government misleads taxpayers.

3) Real heritage demolition: the Wran Museum complex of 1988 is destroyed: the ESD actively supports the removal of all internal museum interventions designed by the architect of record Lionel Glendenning, reduces the length of the Galleria and Wran Building and overlooks the entirely unnecessary duplication of operational facilities in the Harwood Building. The bad results of this are many fold while unnecessary negative carbon load and cost impacts are massive, yet unquantified and hidden. This breaks Government's stated sustainability intent and misleads taxpayers.

4) A real reduction in display spaces from 25 to 3; and in M2 of exhibition areas of 21,080 M2 to 5,100 M2. This is approximately a 75 +% decrease in exhibition space from the Powerhouse Museum’s current exhibition zones. So the unnecessary increase in volume is at the cost of approximately 75.+% of the usable museum exhibition area. Government is misleading taxpayers.

5) Faux, grotesque and unsustainable: the amateur scheme greenwashed in this ESD creates a pastiche of the original brick Power Station buildings, including a kind of suburban-style, brick-veneer covering of major Wran-era architecture, worsened by the construction of a brick clad, steel and glass building in the South- West quadrant and along Harris Street, made of the most unsustainable materials currently in use. The intent is to hide the Wran adaptive reuse structures, while undertaking a completely unnecessary and costly (carbon load/$) museum demolition, but pretending otherwise. Government misleads taxpayers.

6) Value for money: Obviously a charade since at least $250 million is wasted; where is the Business Case? Government breaks its own Benefit/Cost VFM rules.

7) Even more wasteful: with a build cost of $350 million- vastly overblown because the new structures are unnecessary. This is irresponsible since an alternative scheme, developed by the Powerhouse Museum Alliance led by Mr Glendenning, has proposed an inspired and responsible option- Power House Redux- with a far more sustainable and cost-effective programme (approximately $200 million) and outcomes. Massive Government waste.

8) The Harwood Building: is not included in this ESD: inexcusable since this structure, the original reason for the power station, is an integral part of the industrial heritage, of the 1988 Wran project and was purpose-designed as the museum's operational centre. Government ignorance and ineptitude.

Introduction: long text.

This 32 page (03/04/2024) report appears misleading, incomplete and suboptimal.
What it proposes is only a small part of a much larger and more negative picture.

Metaphorically it points to a grinning Bonobo in a well-lit corner of the room while a huge Gorilla is hidden in the darkness of the unlit, opposite corner.

This is not the responsibility of LCI, the consultants, but of the group entity which set the Brief- INSW/ the Government and the
real client- the destructive MAAS regime.
This Brief should have been released as well as the defining Architectural Brief, the Business Case,
the maintenance backlog/engineering assessment of the PHM complex, and the Museum and Exhibition plans..
Among others.

Also responsible are the Ministries of Environment, and Lands and Property; and the Heritage Council.
State Treasury should be taking this vanity project to task for magical thinking, waste and fiscal irresponsibility.
The Environment Ministry should be demanding correct, full-project calculations of (unnecessary) carbon-load.
Given the complexity of the ESD only a few of the Tier 1 issues are noted; many more could be raised.

Context: Any redevelopment of a sophisticated, cultural, adaptive-reuse complex must follow the protocols of the BURRA Charter
(https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf), a true and
historically informed Conservation Management Plan (CMP) and must embody international museum quality environmental conditions if it is to display collections, objects and international exhibitions.
(https://www.iiconservation.org/sites/default/files/awp/download/2023-11/6972-2014-iic-icom-cc-environmental-guidelines.pdf)

This misguided project fails in each category as exemplified in the outstanding CMP by Mr Alan Croker in comparison to the suboptimal and ahistorical
effort currently underpinning 'plans'. No mention is made of the BURRA charter or of standard, international museum environmental conditions both of which predicate almost entirely expanded and different criteria and practice to those which fail in this document, and others in the EIS.

Tier 1 Issues: a selection:

1) Cost: On 3 May, 2024 Ministers Graham and Kamper said: 'The NSW’s Government’s $250 million investment in [this] heritage renewal...'. Page 27 of this report states that the total building works costs will be' $350,418,000' although this does not include the new exhibition costs Government/MAAS has stated at $70 million. Nor does this include all other costs like removal of the collections, especially the remaining large objects, or of the previous collections removal to Castle Hill. At $420 million this represents a cost blow out, even before contracts are let, of 60% +. Government is deliberately misleading taxpayers.

2) Real heritage demolition: Although this ESD makes large claims to address the heritage of this leading 1988 museum/ adaptive reuse complex- which had an international reputation, collections and exhibition/educational facilities and track record- it fails entirely to respect and honour that 36 year achievement which has included over 25 million museum visitors. In so doing it actively supports the removal of almost all the internal museum interventions designed by the architect of record Lionel Glendenning, reduces the length of the Galleria and Wran Building and overlooks the entirely unnecessary duplication of operational facilities in the Harwood Building. The bad results of this are many fold while negative carbon load and cost impacts are massive- but entirely unquantified. This destructive and wasteful oversight would normally suggest the consultants were irresponsible and unprofessional, but they were merely responding to the Brief. Some key impacts of this entirely unnecessary and wasteful approach are:

a) A real reduction in display spaces from 25 to 3; and in M2 of exhibition areas of 21,080 M2 to 5,100 M2.(Please see attached fact sheet- text shown below- by Kylie Winkworth). This is a 75.8% decrease in exhibition space from the Powerhouse Museum’s current exhibition space. So the unnecessary increase in volume is at the cost of 75.8% of the net usable museum exhibition area.
b) A massive waste of embodied carbon as represented in the steel, concrete, glass and other built elements equating to tens of thousands of tonnes of carbon and materials deconstructed and carried from site, while wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of invested capital
c) The destruction, essentially, of the Wran Project by such removal and building truncations despite Minister Graham's repeated claims that Government was 'saving' the Wran museum complex
d) A build cost of $350 million- vastly overblown because the new structures are unnecessary. This is irresponsible since an alternative scheme, developed by the Powerhouse Museum Alliance led by Mr Glendenning, has proposed an inspired and responsible option- Power House Redux- with a far more sustainable and cost-effective programme (approximately $200 million in total) and outcomes. As the 'Founding Museum Director' of record I support Mr Glendenning's plans. Government has failed to even consider this despite repeatedly pretending to 'consult' seriously with the PMA.
3) Faux, grotesque and unsustainable: The amateur scheme greenwashed in this ESD represents a tawdry attempt to create a pastiche of the original brick Power Station buildings, including a kind of suburban-style, brick-veneer covering of major Wran era architecture, worsened by the construction of a brick clad, steel and glass building in the South- West quadrant and along Harris Street which is made of the most unsustainable materials currently in use, plus sandstone elements which have a poor sustainability rating. Overlying this greenwashing is a paen to an Australian Eucalyptus species (Angophora Costata) and a romanticised description of faux indigenous landforms. The intent is to hide the Wran adaptive reuse structures, while undertaking a completely unnecessary and costly museum demolition, but pretending otherwise. It goes entirely against BURRA charter principles and criteria.
4) Value for money? Obviously a charade. Where is the Business Case for example?
5) The Harwood Building: referred to in passing in the EIS and certainly not included in this ESD: an inexcusable omission since this structure, the original reason for the power station, is an integral part of the heritage of the MAAS in Ultimo,
the 1988 Wran project and the museum's operation and character since 1982. Cont: attached

Please see attached letter.

Please find attached our submission
SAVE THE POWERHOUSE

Please read my attached submission....

This proposal largely destroys the Powerhouse Museum as a family and schools friendly technological museum and turns it into an event site for an older high fashion clientele.
Destroying such unique exhibitions as the Steam Discovery floor follows the dictates of the former LNP governments and further alienates the everyday visitors who regularly visited before the current non museum trained managers continued to destroy and remove exhibitions of continuing interest. The space and transport areas should instead be restored as also the interactive areas for children.
The demographics should remain Families and school groups and not those interested only in high fashion . Even allowing for the high-cost fashion shows , beloved by the current management, these exhibitions attracted fewer visitors than did the Steam Floor and the Children's hands on areas.
I suggest that listening to the accredited museum experts would yield an better outcome than this plan which wastes money on removal and storage when all sensible changes could have been accomplished with expert on-site protection of existing exhibits.

I am concerned about the proposed plans for the POWER HOUSE in Ultimo, Sydney. Given my concerns I essentially OBJECT to the proposal that would remove the MAGNIFICENT representation of POWER sources already within the POWER HOUSE. So I am providing some comments and suggestions.
We are LUCKY to have a genuine POWER HOUSE which reflects the history and progression of power sources in NSW. PLEASE (and I am genuinely shouting when I use capital letters) do NOT destroy the evidence of this history in this VERY significant museum. PLEASE KEEP the machinery that is already in place to show how that machinery works.
If you wish to display a history of fashion (presumably including design etc) in the POWER HOUSE - it MUST include the power sources critically linked to that very history. Display fashion's history USING the already present SOURCES OF POWER THAT HAVE ENABLED 'fashion' to exist in its many forms.
OUR POWER HOUSE has VERY important pieces of equipment - many internationally valued (including the steam engine) - showing ways of enabling the transportation of raw materials, and the power involved in the manufacturing of articles in our lifestyle fashions and choices.
THE POWER machines in our POWER HOUSE are critical to the history and development of all our lifestyle 'fashions' - housing fashions, clothing fashions, transport fashions etc, etc
PLEASE do NOT remove the machinery that the POWER HOUSE has been able to display.
Removing any of the original POWER based items essentially abuses a very important part of the history of this state. In NSW we have already done so much of that. Too much money has been expended damaging and destroying magnificent representations of our history.
Please engage the ways of linking both aspects - POWER HOUSE and lifestyle fashions - fairly obvious links really - and KEEP the POWER SOURCES.
It is important to remember that the POWER HOUSE in Ultimo was a genuine POWER HOUSE! That in itself is enough to keep it representing that aspect of our history. PLEASE, PLEASE do not destroy this very important history.!
The new museum in Parramatta will have its own identity and focus. It is NOT a POWER HOUSE!!!

I object to this project for the following reasons:
1. It is inconsistent with the government's original intent to save the Powerhouse as it was.
2. There is no revitalisation. This is destructive of the original intent of the museum and its major contribution to the preservation of many items belonging to the people of NSW.
3. The Powerhouse Museum as we know it will be demolished and its exhibitions and infrastructure destroyed for no cultural or public purpose. Instead of the Powerhouse Museum, Labor’s plan is for a $350m museum demolition and collection eviction scheme.
4. Consequently, it is no longer a museum anymore, the PHM shrinks to Powerhouse Ultimo as 25 exhibition spaces will shrink to three large empty spaces designed for events, parties and venue hire, not collections.
5. Exhibition space shrinks by 75%, Education space shrinks by more than 50%, Three flexible theatres are reduced to one.
6. All the collections will be evicted from the PHM; this has largely already happened and just three large objects left in the former PHM’s once inspiring exhibition galleries.
7. Instead of the collections and exhibitions designed for families, kids and education, the former PHM is reduced to shops and empty spaces for events and venue hire.
8. The plans are for heritage destruction not heritage conservation. No heritage value is attached to the actual Powerhouse Museum or the significant collections it was purpose designed to display. Instead of saving the Wran building as Labor promised, the landmark Wran building is substantially demolished over five levels and hidden behind a row of shops.
9. Since 1988 the PHM has held an amazing range of international blockbusters. There is no blockbuster or international exhibition that couldn’t be held in the PHM as it was before Labor shut the doors of the PHM, breaking another promise.
10. No country anywhere in the world would destroy a treasured public museum, housed in a
purpose designed, and award winning accessible building that is only 35 years old.

What is required is a plan for the repair and maintenance of the PHM and renewal of its exhibitions as it was when it capably served the interests and needs of the people of NSW. This could be far less expensive for the government than the very poor revitalisation proposed.

I whole heartedly object to this devastation not revitalisation of the Powerhouse I truly value in its past state and condition.

I'm concerned about the apparent lack of clarification on what will happen to a number of exhibited items from the Powerhouse Museum, and what will be still available for viewing following renovations. I do not wish to see large engines or important milestones in science and engineering to be damaged or lost. These are important and should remain open to the public to view in an accessible way

The project will cause major risks to the Boulton and Watt engine and to Frigate Bird II during construction.
Should these key collection items be damaged I will demand the Museum Director and Head of Infrastructure NSW be fired.

I welcome the retention of the boiler house stacks, which value is increasing during the current energy transition to renewables, as well as disturbance likely to release toxic boiler chemicals.

I have been a frequent visitor to the Powerhouse Museum over the years, enjoying its permanent and temporary exhibitions and collections. I am dismayed by this proposal to 'revitalise' the museum. As I see it, the very costly proposal will significantly reduce the exhibition space and result in a smaller area to be used for events and venue hire. This will turn what was always intended to be an important Sydney museum into yet another commercialised venue. Even if the museum requires repairs, this should not be at the expense of the integrity of the museum. The museum should be reopened while limited works are undertaken that do not change the museum's mission and focus. I object to the project.

I worked at the MAAS (Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences) in 1987 thru 1989 in the "interactives" department.
The Ultimo Powerhouse creation was a Bicentennial project, which made good use of a heritage industrial site. I have visited a few times over the years, and have been impressed by the clever way the site has been used and refreshed.
The CENTRAL LOCATION of the site is its main advantage.
Like Vivid, being in the CBD is a draw-card.
Wasting this much money on a new Western site, that very few people will visit, is criminal.

See attached Final Submission Re PHM.pdf file below.

This project is Not Fit for Purpose and is terrible waste of resources for no community benefit. It will result in empty shell with 3 isolated large objects and no other collections to view thus ceases to be Museum in any sense by the Public as fails to meet this definition from Oxford Dictionary 'Bulding used for storing and exhibiting objects of historical, scientific or cultural interests'. The proposed outcome of Project being events, parties and venue hire is already available in nearby Darling Harbour in building that is designed and built for that purpose. Instead of this disastrous prroject the Government should create Maintenance and Repair Plan for the site leaving the current building as it is with existing and new exhibits. Powerhouse is major tourist attration for visitors to learn about Australian culture and history as it is in convenient location to CBD if short on time like cruise ships. Also I object to the place under construction at Parramatta being called Powerhouse since its main role is to be Functions Centre. With the money saved from this Project can be allocated to building Social Housing for Victims of domestic violence and/or homeless.
Plus can save even more by abandoning the Sports Standium in Penrith and upgrading both Leichhardt and Brookvale Ovals.
I have visited Utimo site many times over the years and have been very interested in various items on display knowing it is only small smaple of what Museum actually holds thus got huge educational opportunities that Project will eliminate.

Emailed submission received via the DA Submissions mailbox 28/05/2024