Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation

I’m concerned that the lack of information/plans/ vision will result in a diminishing museum experiences for families, school students and tourists. What is the purpose of tearing down buildings and building units if there’s no cultural heritage preserved, nothing for tourism to see and learn about our city.

I object to the proposed redevelopment of the Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo. The premises are already good for purpose. Instead of spending millions on building works, taxpayer's money should be spent on rebuilding the curatorial staff, program and collection. Also a new director / CEO should be appointed, someone who appreciates the existing collection and potential of the institution.

My suggestion is to include a theatre/performance space with adjustable seating as required for smaller or large staged productions, which is also capable of connecting to a digital internet interface to project arts programming onto a detachable screen.
There are many and varied ways of using the screen including to project major online arts events, live or pre-recorded, key sporting events capable of attracting large crowds, or any popular online entertainment produced locally or globally.
The venue is well located for public transport and parking and capable to servicing large crowds.
There is no similar theatre/entertainment space west of the city in an area which is among the most densely populated in Sydney.
Focussing on the arts and arts performances, including theatre, opera, dance and concerts, - mainstream and classical, would make it financially more sustainable and create the nucleus for an ‘arts hub’, creating a popular, dynamic and colourful atmosphere attractive to locals and the visiting tourist trade.
Thank you for the opportunity to have a say.
PH

None

Dear Powerhouse Team,
attached is my letter objecting to the Powerhouse Ultimo Renewal in Its current form.
This development will mean the destruction of the Powerhouse Museum as Sydney Knows it.

re-SSD-67588459

guided by National Trust concerns regarding the integrity of the project’s “heritage” focus I note there is no Conservation Management Plan provided and importantly the documents do not consider the site “in the context of the State Heritage Register curtilage expansion”.

The documents provide no detail re quantity or quality of the exhibition spaces despite thousands of pages of documentation.

There is no clarity about the future of the MAAS collection - only 3 key items are mentioned. No description in the ammended documents of internal spaces, entry points, circulation spaces, or permanent or flexible exhibition spaces. (importantly for Ultimo + the inner west - pedestrian access should be maintained from Harris st as well as the Goods Line).

Finally, it’s commendable that the State Government has listened to so many expert voices and the consistent public support for maintaining The Powerhouse Museum on it’s historic site in Ultimo.
However the devil is in the detail and the detail should be clear and publicly available,

Dear Annika
Please find attached a number of papers supporting my submissions,
Kind regards,
Jennifer Sanders

I have taken the opportunity to make a few small edits to my objecting submission. Mostly for clarity of reading.
The full comments should be read in the attached document.

For anyone reading this objection online, I include this summary:

This design goes against almost everything the original stood for. It feels very incomplete compared what a museum plan should be. It fails as a heritage restoration, failing to restore or protect, even destroying parts of the building it should protect. It lacks relevant theming, removes the sense of fun, and most of the wholistic planning that the original powerhouse planning did. It pretty much wipes out most of the museum the public wanted to be saved.

The whole thing is a downgrade to what the museum was. The powerhouse as an institution, is still full of dedicated conservators, volunteers, and staff, but I believe the fault lies with the executives. They’ve moved the museum away from education, and towards “art experience”, when a good museum should teach you something. I was initially so enthusiastic when I heard we might finally be getting a real restoration of the Powerhouse museum. But plan is an insult to all those who worked so hard to create and run it.
I object to this plan.

I object to this project. Please see attached Objection by Matt Kenny

Dear Annika, Please see attached documents which support my corrections and refutations of a number of assertions claims made in the Submissions and Amendment report, especially 6.2.1 and in general, the substandard heritage assessment by Curio. These attachments also refute the nonsensical claim that exhibition spaces will be improved by the demolition of the Powerhouse Museum's mezzanine floors and other exhibition spaces. Of particular note is the false claim that the Wran Building was not an exhibition space - it was a major exhibition gallery from the opening in 1988 until the Museum's recent closure.
And the Powerhouse Museum has over 20,000m2 of exhibition space. If this SSD is approved and proceeds the amount of exhibition space will be reduced by 75%. And 3 theatres will be reduced to 1 - in fact, such is the scope of the planned demolition and stripping out of heritage, including the heritage floor of the 1899 Engine House, the Powerhouse Museum will be disappeared and become the events and performance and concert venue - the purpose not yet revealed as the Design Brief and Business Case have not been publicly released. However, Appendix X Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment has the analysis and research which shows that this is the wasteful, costly plan for the 144year old Powerhouse Museum to be stripped and its museological standards and facilities compromised so that it is a events and rock concerts venue - like Carriageworks, White Bay Power Station, the Cutaway, Cockatoo Island etc.
Regrettably, the public is being asked to comment without the key documents defining the goal of this demolition project being revealed.
Yours sincerely Jennifer Sanders

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed revitalisation of the Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo, which threatens to reduce its floorspace, shift the focus toward commercial events and blockbuster exhibitions, remove artefacts, and close the museum prematurely, before the Parramatta counterpart is even close to opening. This project undermines the museum’s core mission, dismisses public ownership, and jeopardises the integrity of its collection.

The decision to close the Ultimo site before the Parramatta museum is operational creates a significant cultural void, depriving Sydney of a vital institution that has long celebrated Australia’s industrial and technological heritage. Recent successful exhibitions like ‘1001 Remarkable Objects’ have attracted large audiences, showcasing the museum’s ability to engage and inspire through its unique collection. Reducing the exhibition space by 75% and relocating key artefacts diminishes public access to these important pieces of history. This drastic cut in floorspace is masked by vague claims of improved “quality,” but in reality, it is a clear loss for the public.

The government has also overlooked that the Powerhouse Museum belongs to the people, not the administration. The institution is entrusted to the public, and its management serves as a caretaker for future generations. Yet, despite overwhelming public rejection—95% opposition in consultations, petitions, and Upper House inquiries condemning the project—the plan is moving forward. The biased public consultation process has only deepened mistrust, especially after a misleading March 2024 announcement implied full heritage protection, followed by a July 2024 listing that allowed 13 exemptions, including extensive demolition of historic elements.

Additionally, the shift in focus toward commercial events and blockbuster exhibitions risks turning the museum into an entertainment venue rather than a space for learning and cultural reflection. This is compounded by unrealistic projections that claim visitors will increase from 800,000 to 2 million annually—despite the sharp reduction in exhibition space. Such a shift prioritises short-term commercial gains over the museum’s longstanding educational mission, further eroding its identity as a cultural institution.

The project has also been riddled with procedural violations and budget misrepresentations. It sidestepped the proper two-stage process and avoided a new architectural competition by presenting conflicting narratives of continuity with previous plans. The claimed budget of $250 million is grossly inaccurate; internal documents show that the true cost is closer to $500 million, excluding key expenses. Assertions of “six-star” sustainability are similarly false, as carbon impact assessments remain incomplete.

One of the most alarming aspects is the risk to fragile, irreplaceable artefacts. Moving these objects not only threatens their preservation but also undermines the connection between these artefacts and the site’s industrial heritage. Heritage destruction is at the heart of the issue, with plans to demolish key elements like the Wran Building and the Galleria, crucial components of the museum’s historical identity.

Moreover, the promised three-year closure has been revealed to be inaccurate, with the museum’s reopening now delayed until at least 2028. This extended delay further deepens the cultural void left by the premature closure. Transparency has also been lacking, as key documents, including the Business Case and Conservation Management Plan, remain hidden despite promises to the contrary. Expert advice from renowned figures like Lionel Glendenning and Dr. Lindsay Sharp has been ignored, while conservation expert Alan Croker was removed from the project for opposing the demolition of heritage features.

In conclusion, this project represents a failure to respect public ownership, cultural heritage, and transparency. I strongly urge decision-makers to reconsider the plan and maintain the Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo, preserving its collection and educational mission for future generations. Closing the museum prematurely and relocating artefacts risks the cultural fabric of Sydney, and this must be avoided.I’m

These are the documents referred to in my submission. These documents refer primarily to Heritage Significance, Design Quality - in particular Design Excellence and, Environmental Heritage.
Yours sincerely
Lionel Glendenning

Mr Anthony Witherdin

Director, Key Sites and TOD Assessments

Development Assessment and Sustainability

Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure

4 Parramatta Square

12 Darcy Street

Parramatta

NSW 2124



4 October 2024



Attention: Annika Hather via [email protected]



Dear Anthony

Submission on Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation

I am writing to you regarding the Infrastructure NSW’s revitalisation proposals for Powerhouse Ultimo. Amended proposals for revised Powerhouse Ultimo project were publicly re-exhibited as State Significant Development Application (SSD-67588459) during September and October 2024.

A unique city university and driver of urban renewal

The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) is a leading public university of technology and the top-ranked young university in Australia. As a major Australian university in a well-connected Sydney CBD location, UTS attracts over 40,000 enrolled students annually, and is a major city employer, with over 3,500 full-time staff.

UTS is a unique city university characterised by a porous and dynamic campus that forms part of the fabric of Sydney’s southern CBD. Through the successful redevelopment of our city campus since 2010, UTS has led the way in transformative urban renewal and will remain a key driver of change in the ongoing revitalisation of Broadway, Haymarket and Ultimo.

Our planning for the future of the city campus is focusing on a north-easterly shift in the campus functions and activities towards Ultimo and Haymarket, as demonstrated by:

the establishment of the iconic UTS Business School in the Chau Chak Wing Building located to the west of the Goods Line;

the ongoing adaptive re-use and future major redevelopment potential of UTS Building 05 in Haymarket; and

our recently announced National First Nations College located on Harris Street and Mary Ann Street to be connected by Omnibus Lane to the Chau Chak Wing Building; and

our partnership with Powerhouse Ultimo.

UTS + Powerhouse Ultimo – Part of a world-class creative industries precinct

UTS has established a strong partnership with Powerhouse Ultimo as a Foundation University Partner.

Through this partnership, UTS and Powerhouse Ultimo are working together to reimagine and revitalise the local area and create a world-class Creative Industries Precinct to boost the creative industries sector.

Revitalisation of the Powerhouse Ultimo Museum will enable our partnership to:

establish a creative industries academy as an immersive education and professional hub to connect students with industry leaders;

embed First Nations as a key collaborative focus area, with programs with the UTS National First Nations College and integrating the UTS Galuwa Experience into broader First Nations programming at the museum;

elevate the museum’s renewed focus on fashion and design by connecting the museum with local researchers and industry professionals at the forefront of design innovation.

create work-integrated learning opportunities including student internships plus work experience with key collaborators and collaborations with Creative Industries Residents;

provide opportunities for students to contribute to the planning and delivery of major exhibitions and events;

create unique opportunities for UTS students and emerging practitioners to utilise the resources of the Powerhouse Archives, gain industry experience and establish potential pathways into the design industry;

expand original research and industry development across the creative industries sector, made accessible via Powerhouse public programs; and

activate and animate the adjoining The Goods Line public domain connecting the two institutions with co-design of opportunities.















UTS support

UTS notes the amendments and improvements made to SSD-67588459 and provides its full support to the Powerhouse Museum and Infrastructure NSW for the revitalisation proposals for Powerhouse Ultimo.

The UTS contact in respect of this submission is Grahame Edwards, Executive Manager, Campus Planning and Design.



Yours sincerely





Nigel Oliver

Director Property Unit

University of Technology Sydney

The Project as it has been communicated is a failure on many different levels, and I completely object to it.
The project should be rewritten to support the general thrust of the statements made before and after elections, and to reflect the overwhelming will of the People, to whit, That the Powerhouse Museum in its Ultimo location is an invaluable resource to the people of NSW ( and tourists) and it should be maintained in its present size, its significant features and spaces and architecture retained, and that it be fully resourced to at least its late 20th century funding, staffing and collecting levels.

The Project claiming to :
- demolition of non-heritage elements of Ultimo Powerhouse building
- partial demolition of the Wran Building
- adaptive reuse of heritage items

does not accurately reflect the amount of planned change. Their failures of design of the project are wasteful and unnecessary and can be summarized as
-there is no need to demolish any non-heritage elements, they are all fit for purpose and can be used as is
-the definition of non-heritage appears to be unclear and leaves the possibility of abuse of process
-any Demolition of the Wran building is unnecessary it is both still fit for purpose and should be Heritage listed in its own right, the Wran building is both an architectual achievement in itself as well as a recognized part of contemporary Sydney design
-"adaptive re use of heritage items" is by problematic, a heritage item is by definition always in use as its purpose, any 'reuse' is simply a rephrasing of destroying in such a way that it becomes ipso facto a "non-heritage " item
A specific example of this is the plan suggests completely undoing all existing exhibits, displays and pieces in the STEAM REVOLUTION, which is not only one of the most popular exhibits of the pre closure Powerhouse, it also contained vital heritage from our industrial past and incorporated that with the Industrial Heritage of the Powerhouse site itself. The fact that it incorporated live steam and demonstrations puts in on par with the greatest museums of the world. It should not be removed, only added too.

The second part of the Proposal
new museum spaces
- new public spaces
whilst being good ideas do not seem to be supported by the available plans, and most information seems to suggest that the actual size of the area on site is smaller, the exhibition spaces are fewer in number and flexibility, and the public spaces diminished.

Although there were many other points to be made about the project submission, including but not limited too, lack of transparency, damage to valuable and historic objects, unbelievable and unrealistic time frames and budgets, and the fact that there has not been an open and clear discussion with the community nor a mandate for change from same, the major criticism with the project can be summarized as:-

A general diminution of musicological service to the people of NSW!
Even if all the changes went ahead as planned the fact is the amount of Musuem spaces, exhibits, public access and trained staff interactions would go down for NSW! This at a time when the population of NSW is increasing rapidly, as is tourism.
The population of NSW in 1988 when Powerhouse opened was 5.1 million now it is 8.5 million. Sydney was 3.5 Million now it is 5.5 million. This project would suggest with a two thirds increase in population we can provide these extra three and a Half million New South Welshpeople with less museums, less space for exhibition, less chance to see and learn about their heritage!
Already the ability to learn is affected by cost of living, time poor parents and under resourced schools, cutting museums and education by decreasing access is both unfair and unjust. And not what any citizen would want.
This project goes deeply against the will of the people.



What the people of NSW want need and deserve is MORE museums and experiences, not less. This is what they voted for and this the Project as stipulated does not deliver that expected outcome.

The Ultimo Powerhouse must stay, and be repaired and staffed and supported, not dissected and sold off to the highest bidder, it is an asset to NSW and Australia and must be treated as such. Treating it as less that that would look a lot like stealing from its owners, the families and schoolkids and interested visitors who used to enjoy it so.

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.