Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation

See the attachment

I strongly oppose the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. While renovation is certainly welcome, the proposed changes significantly undermine the museum’s core function by drastically reducing its exhibition space and limiting the potential for displaying its collection to the public.

The Department of Planning should revisit the earlier decision that allowed ‘programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval’. Isn't it concerning that Powerhouse management plans to cut the museum’s exhibition space in half, from 15,318m² to 7,500m² (SMH May 10, 2023; Budget Estimates September 6, 2024)? Management's response to the public’s objections is inadequate, asserting that the new museum will feature ‘improved flexible international standard exhibition spaces’ that will ‘provide new levels of access to the Powerhouse Collection’ (Detailed Response to Submissions, September 10, 2024). During the same Budget Hearing, Powerhouse CEO Lisa Havilah admitted that, out of the 3,000 objects currently on display, only three will be returned post-renovation. This represents a substantial reduction in public access to the collection, especially compared to the Powerhouse in 1997 when former Director Terence Measham noted that the museum displayed some 10,000 objects in its permanent galleries alongside about 20 temporary exhibitions annually.

The confirmed demolition and relocation of the Powerhouse’s Steam Exhibition is a significant loss, as it removes the steam engines from their original context and halts the live demonstrations that have been a beloved feature of the museum. While the renovation aims for a ‘5-star Green Star rating’, moving the steam infrastructure to Castle Hill—if it even happens—seems both economically and contextually unsound when the existing infrastructure is already in place at Ultimo. The most environmentally sustainable approach would be to minimize demolition and adapt the existing structure.

Additional unnecessary demolition, including internal ramps and mezzanines, is supported by heritage consultant Curio to ‘allow for a much greater readability of the fabric’. However, the previous heritage consultant, Alan Croker (Heritage Architect for the Sydney Opera House), did not support these changes and was subsequently dismissed. The Powerhouse’s layered floors allowed visitors to experience the collection from various perspectives, and the mezzanines housed smaller yet valuable exhibitions like the reconstruction of the art deco Kings Cinema, which served as both cinema and exhibit. There has been no confirmation that many of these permanent displays—including the Central Station Indicator Board, Strasburg Clock, NSW State Governors Railway Carriage, and the full-size replica of the Space Station habitation module—will return after the renovation. Greater transparency from Powerhouse management regarding the future of these long-standing exhibits would go a long way.

While plans to renovate and improve the Powerhouse are commendable, they should not come at the expense of drastically downsizing its exhibition space and collection. The claim that ‘management of the museum’s collection is not a planning matter’ should not stand if planning applications are used to justify the demolition of more than half of the existing space. These plans might be appropriate for a new museum, but the Powerhouse is a historic institution. If left unchanged, the building may be physically revitalised, but its role as a museum will be significantly diminished.

I am writing to express my profound concern regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Powerhouse Museum in Ultimo, as outlined in the “Powerhouse Ultimo Heritage Revitalisation” Development Application. To call this project a “revitalisation” is a misnomer, as the current proposal will not guarantee to maintain the character of the museum or guarantee to maintain the existing exhibition space or valuable collections which have mostly been removed. The Powerhouse Museum is an award-winning museum which has celebrated its amazing power and transport collections (acquired partly through the museum’s international reputation) in a truly fitting, architect-designed complex. The current proposal will not guarantee any of this will remain.
The proposed plans, as revealed by Infrastructure NSW, indicate a drastic reduction of the exhibition floor space, dividing the existing areas by four. This fragmentation will undermine the integrity of the museum's collections and diminish the overall visitor experience. The story that is told through the connection of exhibits is a vital part of a museum’s function. To fracture these collections is to dilute their educational and emotional impact.
There is no guarantee that the permanent exhibitions such as the Steam Revolution and the Space and Transport collections will be returned to Ultimo. If only a handful of large objects are retained, as decorative artifacts, it will be a tragic loss for current and future generations. These exhibitions provide context and connection to our technological and cultural heritage. Their removal would reduce educational opportunities for the future.
I am particularly concerned about the proposed “decoupling” of the Harwood Building from the museum. This separation undermines the coherence of the Powerhouse Museum as one entity, and is clearly a step toward the commercialisation of a space that should be preserved for exhibition and education.
The Powerhouse Museum should be maintained as a science and technology museum, with a clear identity, not a fashion-art-science-entertainment-shopping space, with no clear identity. A museum should not have to rely on funding obtained through hiring out its facilities for corporate or public events. The Powerhouse Museum should be valued and receive appropriate, recurrent funding from the government. I request that the NSW Government ensures that:
• the Powerhouse Museum site remains exclusively a museum
• the existing exhibition space be retained in its entirety
• the FULL collection be returned to Ultimo
• the re-branding of the museum as The Powerhouse Ultimo be scrapped
• all business case documents be released for public scrutiny
• the Wran Building and Galleria be retained in their entirety
• the Harwood Building remains as a connected, integral part of the museum complex
• the entrance remains open to the street
The unique character and collections of the Powerhouse Museum cannot be replicated or replaced. I ask you to reconsider the proposed redevelopment plans in light of these concerns and prioritize the preservation of our cultural heritage.
Thank you for considering my submission.

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

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

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

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

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

This postmodern icon and incredible museum will be destroyed by this proposal.
Appalling that this museum is now closed for 3 years, at the same time as the new Parramatte branch construction is delayed and over budget. The Castle Hill site is not a museum, and mostly just has many boxed objects unavailable to the public and an impossible commute for many members of the public.
The recently opened White Bay Power Station is a large exhibition space, another is definitely not needed.
The English, French or USA museums are not going in this direction of only large exhibition spaces.
The current policies of turning this amazing museum of Science, Technology, Decorative Arts, and Social History into basically a venue, as opposed to its primary purpose, is a form of madness and irrationality.
I might also point out the previous museum was the only Social History museum in NSW, so none of that now at all.
The removal of most of the smaller extant spaces will make it impossible for the proper display of most museum objects, which are predominantly small to medium in size.
The current museum is an award-winning postmodern design, which will be irrevocably destroyed if this proposal is approved.

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 the proposed "Revitalisation" in the strongest possible terms. The failure of the proponents
1. to take into account existing Government documentation on the Museum and its site (e.g. original design principles, statutory requirements for the establishment and operation of the Museum, recently-completed Conservation Management Plan by Alan Croker, etc.)
2. to be transparent and accountable about their recent, current and proposed future management of the site and the globally significant treasures that they are putting at risk, and
3. to adequately include, document, represent and consider the INBUILT collection of technological artifacts that is an intrinsic part of the current Museum
is absolutely reprehensible and completely unjustifiable for a publicly-funded arm of the NSW Government.
The fact that significant destructive works have ALREADY BEEN DONE on the site without planning approval, and without the Department of Environment and Planning intervening to stop these works while the assessment process is underway is a major breakdown in environmental regulation in NSW and raises the issue of corruption through the failure of public servants to adhere to NSW legal requirements, and of other public servants to enforce those legal requirements.
The submitted planning documents clearly contain falsehoods and dissembling to present the proposal as something other than its actual substance. The "revitalisation" is clearly NOT focused on the Museum and its irreplaceable and unique collection but is instead a development proposal that attempts to convert an existing world-significant cultural institution into a redundant "event space" and this in a precinct where several purpose-built and more capable event spaces already exist. The revitalisation document contains actual LIES about the area of current exhibition space, and the relative decrease that will occur as a result of this proposal. There is absolutely no excuse for this as the accurate information has been provided in a number of submissions which the proponents have chosen to completely ignore.
The EIS completely mis-represents the proposal as an attempt to improve the existing Museum, when it will in fact largely destroy a major cultural institution of high to extremely-high State, National and international significance. The complete failure to include documentation of the static in-built collection that is an integral part of this Museum is a massive abnegation of the responsibility of the Museum as custodian and also of the Dept of Planning as the relevant regulator for these proposed actions.
It is clearly impossible to make an informed and safe EIS Determination on the basis of the biased and patently inadequate information which has been provided by the proponent. It is also clear that the informed public with expertise in this area are almost universally opposed and horrified by the proposal and by the conduct of the process to date. The response to submissions provided by the proponents signally failed to address a number of significant issues raised through the public exhibition process, and especially the detailed impact on the globally-significant Boulton-Watt steam engine. There is no-one in the Museum, and possibly in Australia, who is qualified to understand the impacts on this engine of the proposed move, let alone the measures that would need to be taken to actually achieve such a move were it to be approved. Saying that someone in the Museum will figure it out is like getting an art student to do conservation work on the Mona Lisa - the level of expertise and care is in no way commensurate with the scale of possible damage and the risk that this will occur.
The proposal is a completely destructive, inappropriate and wasteful way of improving the Powerhouse Museum. Expenditure of a fraction of the proposed budget on building maintenance and some selective minor upgrading of entrances and fittings would achieve a much better outcome.
The proposal is a poorly-conceived concept, with an even worse standard of inadequate documentation. It is inconceivable that such a hare-brained proposition would even be considered for the Australian Museum, or the Opera House. Demolishing a Sulman-prize winning building is a level of barbarian iconoclasm that would be expected of the entities like the Taliban, not of a supposedly civilised and rational public body.
It is ridiculous that I have to sit here and comment on such an ignorant and knuckle-headed proposal.
I HEREBY STATE THAT THE CURRENT INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR THE EIS IS COMPLETELY AND DEMONSTRABLY INADEQUATE TO ASSESS THE IMPACTS OF THHIS PROPOSAL ON ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL SITES IN AUSTRALIA, AND I OBJECT IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS.
I have attached a more detailed submission annd would be happy to provide any further necessary input.

I strongly object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans.

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. It would be possible to renovate without doing this in another proposal.

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.

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

I object in the strongest possible terms to the current round of proposals impacting on the
redevelopment of the Powerhouse Museum, Wran and Harwood Buildings and the dismantling
of the world significant permanent collection at the Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo Sydney.

I also object to the word Museum being removed from the name of the institution, if it is not a
museum, what is this place, moving forward to be? Is the Upper House enquiry correct in saying
that the new Parramatta site is to be more convention / events centre and therefore is this
also the fate of the Ultimo site. Are there only to be a handful of items on permanent display and
just used as props as light back ground interest without any intelligent explanation of how the object
was designed, constructed, its purpose, provenance and why is it an important part of the overall
Powerhouse Museum Collection. When items are placed out of context they become mere objects
or stuff and lose all meaning which is a complete dumbing down of this world class collection which
is unique to Australia.

Furthermore in the future when people do an online search of Powerhouse they will come up with
some very interesting and varied results of powerhouse stations from all over the world.

To remove the word Museum from Powerhouse is destroying the valuable brand name.

Why has there been for the past 10yrs been so much confusion and misinformation surrounding the
redevelopment of MAAS at Ultimo, Castlehill and Parramatta sites unless there is something to hide.
Why is it that when I have attended online forums, face to face meetings with Lisa Havilah we have
been told many times that, we will get back to you but they don’t. We had a meeting with Evan Hughs,
once advisor to the Minister for the Arts and raised our concerns and provided evidence on various
issues and we were informed that he would get back to us, we never heard from his office again.

The room of industry and transport, steam revolution and space will it be returned to Ultimo?
Despite this question being asked at several meetings that I have attended I have not received
a clear answer - why not?

Will the exhibition space be reduced by 51% The current space of 15,318sq/m will be cut to 7500sq/m

Lisa Havilah was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald in May 2023 as saying that there would be
a dramatic increase in exhibit space which is 15318sq/m but then said in September 2024 that the
exhibition space would increase to 7500sq/m ! So which one is it and once again why so much confusion
and misinformation?

If the exhibition space is to be so drastically reduced in size how does the MAAS expect to then increase visitor numbers
from 800,000 / year to 2,000,000 / year and what are these figures based on?

The recent announcement by the MAAS regarding one of the opening exhibition at the new Parramatta site when it
eventually opens is anything to go by - I fail to understand how any visitor numbers are to be achieved at any of the sites.


“One of Powerhouse Parramatta’s opening exhibitions which will explore the evolution of the mall.
The exhibition will delve into the profound impact of shopping centres on contemporary life, examining
how people, products and currency flow through these spaces” - How Riveting - How Groundbreaking !

At an online forum I asked that considering the confusion over the Ultimo development and the level of
hostility and distrust from the community why hasn’t a more detailed plan or computer generated
plan of the site been provided to explain how much better the new building will be, I have not received
any further information.

Why won’t the Powerhouse Museum release the number of visitors who attended the 1001 Remarkable
Objects Exhibition and how does that compare to other exhibitions in the past 4 years?

A very misleading announcement in March 2024 by the NSW Government, indicated that the Ultimo site was granted
full heritage protection and this information was released again by the office of the Minister for the Arts in September 2024.
This latest announcement failed to mention the many exemptions to the heritage listing which means the integrity of the
Powerhouse Museum, the Wran Building and the future of the Harwood Building at Ultimo is still under a cloud.
This very misleading information was widely broadcast through the media including the ABC without carrying out
any fact checking first.

"The National Trust of NSW released an instagram posting on the 18 September 2024 and an email to its
member, stating,

“It’s wonderful to see the expanded state heritage listing for the Powerhouse Museum Ultimo, which now includes
the Wran Building, the Galleria and the Harwood Building.

The listing acknowledges the importance of the site, not only for its original uses as a power station and tram depot
but also as a museum.

The National Trust (NSW) supports the listing and has long advocated for the Powerhouse to be maintained as
a museum dedicated to the applied arts and sciences. We will continue to advocate for the revitalisation of the
museum to be guided by the heritage significance of the site".

All the above is very true and a statement on their web site goes even further in regards to the importance of an extensive
permanent collection be maintained permanently beyond fashion.

Due to the misinformation above, the wider community has been cemented into a false sense of security that all has been
saved and that there is no need to comment on the current development application and this is another example of
the deliberate corruption of the process.
Stop the rot and stop wasting public money and give our country the museum that we deserve.

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 wish to remind the Government that the Powerhouse belongs to the people and should remain as a public facility.

I object to the proposed plan in particular the following:

- it would significantly reduce the museum exhibition space
- it would destroy the museum’s heritage and and its Wran legacy
- lack of meaningful public consultation
- expert advice has been deliberately ignored

As a resident who lives in the neighborhood of the Powerhouse and proud of its prior existence, I request that the Powerhouse be returned to its former glory.

I strongly object to the so-called Heritage Revitalisation plan. The process by which successive governments have tried to destroy this unique asset will go down in history as t botched, dishonest and cloaked in secrecy and obfuscation.

There is no Conservation Management Plan. The plan is lacking in detail. THe project is already over budget, with money spent on things that did not need to be done. One couldn't be blamed if, a little further along the track, the government will say they can't afford it, and turn it into a commercial operation. We have been told so many, many lies.
Where is the detail about the exhibition space? Or the future of the collection.
Please listen to the experts, to the community, and save money. Fix the leaks, don't move the entrance, put the things back that people want to see, and leave it along to be a wonderful asset for Sydney.

attached

OBJECTION.


I OBJECT to the most recent round of Powerhouse ‘revitalisation’ plans.

This is downsizing wrongly presented as renovation and upgrading. In reality it is instead the outlay of millions of public dollars on downsizing and depleting a public asset.

Under this ‘plan’ Ultimo’s exhibition space, and hence capacity for proper public display of the collection, will be drastically cut. I object to the misuse of public funds which would slash public access to the collections. I note the shocking figures, presented to NSW Government Budget Hearings by CEO Lisa Havilah that, after planned ‘revitalisation, only 3 of 3000 current items would return to the permanent display. That reduction would undercut the integrity of the collection and break faith with its public ownership.

I demand that the Department of Planning revisit its earlier planning decision decreeing that the programming of museum spaces does not require approval.

NSW Government’s proposed ‘Heritage Revitalisation’ report does not meaningfully move on from the ‘Submissions and Amendment Report’ rejected by the public in the last round of submissions. Only the self-deluding would hold otherwise. Why then is NSW Government tolerating CEO Havilah’s decision to ignore public submissions?

I am aghast that government intends to close the Ultimo spaces for five years, rather than implement neglected essential repairs and maintenance. The Museum must reopen at Ultimo as a matter of urgency, including with the reinstating of withdrawn exhibitions and items, in accordance with its obligations to the Powerhouse community and to the NSW public.

The building of the new Powerhouse building at Parramatta must not be an argument to deplete and reduce the Ultimo Museum. The failure to envisage Parramatta as an enhancement to Sydney’s existing arts, science and technology museum spaces rather than its replacement has destroyed my faith in this government’s creative planners and planning.

Please CANCEL this ‘Heritage Revitalisation’ project.

I OPPOSE proposed renewal works at the Powerhouse Museum (PHM) in Ultimo, as per: EXHIBITION OF AMENDED STATE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION / RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS REPORT Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation SSD-67588459. My reasons are explained in the attached submission.