Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I 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. This is greatly disheartening to see such a prestigious and enjoyed museum be downgraded in such a manner.

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. This museum is of great educational significance, as well as providing the joys of science and learning to many children, teens and adults across the country. It is imperative that the Powerhouse museum be protected, and not downsized at all.

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.

This submission will be rushed and incomplete owing to my having spent most of the afternoon on the phone to NSW Planning trying to log in, a process which is extremely difficult, requiring multiple attempts even with the expert assistance of the "help" team. This in itself renders the survey invalid as responses are limited to a select population, namely the dedicated.
Now time is short. It is good that 2 adjacent buildings have been granted heritage classification.
However, the main building has been gutted and contents removed, some at the risk of damage and possibly without a suitable area in which to be displayed in future.
According to the plan the 25 exhibition spaces will be reduced to 3, and only 75% of the previous area, which is insufficient for the vast, unique and inspiring collection which it displayed so effectively.
The purpose for which changes are being made, at huge expense, ($350m?)appears to be event venue and exhibition hire, e.g., commercial and entertainment-related functions rather than the museum of industry, engineering, design and science which was the original, educational purpose.
To visit the museum was to be inspired by knowledge and a great encouagement to learning for children especially, while remaining a source of fascination to everyone..It was unique among the many art galleries, cultural displays and fashion shows existing..
It was greatly loved by families and had attraction for all ages.
Now it has been gutted, when all it required was repair, and will be closed for years unnecessarily. This is unacceptable and has been well described as cultural vandalism

The misnamed “revitalisation” of the Powerhouse Museum in Ultimo is in fact the final destruction of this internationally renowned institution which began nearly ten years ago. Both current and former State governments are responsible for this vandalism - the currrent one even more so as it has broken an election promise to restore the Powerhouse Museum in Ultimo to its former glory.

The EIS is a farrago of lies couched in gobbledygook to make readers think it is a desirable outcome. In fact, it is a disgraceful waste of public funds (in addition to those being wasted on the Parramatta Milk Crate and the hard to discover Discovery Centre at Castle Hill). The public basically been conned and the government has allowed itself to be led by the nose by people with their own agenda, not in the public interest.

The much vaunted “heritage listing” is also a con allowing for the demolition of much of the Sulman Award winning building. There is no proper provision for the historic Harwood Building which is to be “decoupled” and the priceless and irreplaceable collection of 500.000 items, now housed at Castle Hill in storage is not covered.

The current building will effectively be gutted, there will be 75% less exhibition space, walls of the Wran building and Galleria will be demolished etc., etc. Only three large objects - the Boulton and Watts engine ( the only operating one in the world), Locomotive No.1 and the Catalina flying boat (both already damaged by moving them) are to be retained without context. The fate of the irreplaceable Strasburg Clock does not rate a mention.

The whole thing is an absolute disgrace and future generations will curse the perpetrators of this outrage .

I am writing to object to the proposed misnamed Heritage Revitalisation which is in fact, the demolition of State Significant Heritage, the world renowned Powerhouse Museum founded in 1880, the legacy of Sir Henry Parkes. This SSD is not the revitalisation of the Museum, owned by the people of NSW and funded by the taxpayers of NSW and endowed by donors from NSW, Australia and across the world. The SSD is needlessly wasteful in its expensive demolition of effectively all the Sulman award winning Powerhouse Museum only 36 years old. The Option 3 to refurbish the Museum was not examined and yet, it is the legacy of over a decade of delayed repairs, maintenance and conservation plus ill-advised non heritage changes and additions which have led to the Museum becoming a focus for those parties and individuals who would see the Museum destroyed for a soulless and empty series of vast spaces suitable for events, entertainment, performances - BUT not for the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences and its outstanding collection nor for its loyal audiences, especially schools, historians, those interested in science, technology and engineering, subject specialists and families. I will be lodging attachments to support my objection in more detail in response to the SEARS for SSD - 67588459. Yours sincerely, Jennifer Sanders

I object to the project, with reasons as detailed in the attachment.

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.

My comments can be found in the attached document

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 project

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

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'm writing to express my concern regarding the current direction of the Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation project. As a lifelong Sydneysider who has been, until its closure, routinely visiting the centre for almost 30 years now, I am concerned by reports regarding the intent and fundamental concept of the upgrades. Whilst I agree that elements of the physical form of the Powerhouse were either dated or in need of remediation, I disagree with the wholesale elimination of permanent exhibits and the scaling-down of the exhibition spaces and the collections. I am concerned that the technically oriented Powerhouse, which played a role in inspiring me to become a civil engineer, will be reduced to just another multi-purpose space, without a well-defined purpose or character. The spirit of the old Powerhouse must be retained and, as it stands, I believe that this will require a revisiting of the plans.

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.