Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation

Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation
Application No. SSD-67588459
Exhibition of Amended SSD Application/Response to Submissions Report

I STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposal.

My reasons are as follows:

Almost none of the major objections to the original DA have been addressed.

Despite what the Heritage Council has said in its Notice of Intention to consider listing, including that the “PHM Complex is….a state-of-the-art museum by world standards….a lauded highly influential early example of adaptive reuse of industrial heritage, recognised nationally and internationally….an important educational and cultural institution and tourist destination” - the heritage listing is inadequate as it apparently does not cover the contents.

These were a priceless collection of technological and industrial artefacts, carefully curated and housed in a fit-for-purpose building, adjacent to its conservation, repair and storage facility that was the conveniently-located Harwood Building. Many objects were donated in good faith. The large steam artefacts were accompanied by their context of the Steam Revolution display.

The worst part of the whole proposal has been the breaking up of the collection. That is, the destruction of a significant and valuable collection of technological artefacts: “Australia’s best exhibition of planes, trains, working steam engines, science and applied arts - our history” as the Powerhouse Museum Alliance says, so that, “These collections will never be seen together again”. A collection existing in bits and pieces does not have the same value or impact.

The National Trust has stated their concern, re the so-called “revitalisation” plans, that, despite the recent heritage listing amendment, “there is no current publicly accessible CMP for the site to guide these works”.

The function of the new facility has not been addressed: there is little reference to the collection as it was beyond the retention of three key items, no description of internal spaces that form the basis of any major museum, nor of exhibition and display areas and their purpose. It appears that the proposed project has nothing to do with heritage and is not a revitalisation, its purpose is not disclosed and it does not respect the collection. The 3 large items to return/remain will be as decorative artefacts, completely out of context.

The 75% cut to the exhibition space has not been addressed. Vast empty spaces are not appropriate as exhibition areas, and are not necessary for international exhibitions: see the highly successful Ramses Exhibition at the Australian Museum.

The design brief, exhibition project and Conservation Management Plan for the new Museum (if there actually is to be a museum) must be publicly released. The public deserves to know the Government’s real intentions. Surely there has been enough secrecy and misinformation over this disastrous project, from both State Governments.

As all exhibits have now been removed and dispersed, my fear is that none will return. Even if some do return, the collection as it was will have been decimated and virtually destroyed. In its place will be a ridiculous fashion hub. This is shameful treatment of what was a world-class technological museum. Labor’s statement that the Museum will “continue to deliver an applied arts & sciences program” is dishonest in not revealing that this will be a mini-version, a travesty of its former self.

It seems inappropriate to have a CEO in charge of a technological museum who is quoted as saying in 2021 that her intention was “to ignore the weight of history, language and architecture” in Ultimo. This suggests that there will be no real attempt to return a STEM museum to Ultimo.

Stimulating our historical memories is important for our mental health, and important for understanding our past, and to extend our wonder and imagination.

“Revitalisation” apparently means gutting the building, removing 75% of the exhibition spaces, and spending $350M on providing 3 large areas for corporate parties and venue hire.

If there were actually to be a new technological Museum, these issues should be addressed:
# PHM should remain a Museum of STEM.
# The collection should not be broken up, but should be treated with the respect it deserves/not damaged.
# Exhibition floor space should revert to what it was, not reduced by 75%.
# Heritage listing should be amended to include contents.
# PHM should NOT be a fashion hub - it is not wanted and you can do that somewhere else. People want a proper Museum, not fluff.
# Current CEO should be dispensed with.
# Both Liberal and Labor Governments should start telling the truth about the destruction of the PHM.
# Advice should be sought from real museum experts.
# It should be properly and adequately staffed.

I do not want a fashion hub; I want a museum of science, technology, engineering, industrial heritage, power and transport, and space exploration: an Applied Arts & Sciences Museum/Technology Museum.

I urge the Govt to immediately cancel the project; proceed to do necessary repairs and maintenance; restore and re-open the PHM as it was, namely an Applied Arts & Sciences Museum/Technology Museum.

Jennifer Jungheim
205/150 Bronte Rd Waverley NSW 2024

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 on the following grounds:
1. While I support the State Heritage Register listing of the entire Powerhouse Museum Complex, including the Sulman award-winning building, interiors, ramps and mezzanines, colonnade, exhibition and public spaces, and associated collection installations I oppose and reject the 13 exemptions that facilitate demolition and removal of these as significant fabric.
2. The interiors, ramps and mezzanines, colonnade, exhibition and public spaces and associated collection installations still have not been adequately or independently assessed for their heritage significance, other than in poorly researched and incomplete reports commissioned by the project proponent that ignore easily and publicly accessible historic evidence, including the knowledge of the living architect Lionel Glendenning that has been provided or freely available over the years during various forms of public consultation over 10 years (also refer to Attachment One uploaded). Therefore the conservation management recommendations and 13 exemptions for the Powerhouse Museum Complex are based on incomplete and poor research and are completely dodgy.
3. I object that the heritage listing was finally gazetted in July 2024 after the public exhibition
had closed with 13 exemptions allowing the destruction and demolition of significant fabric - 98% of the architectural reuse of the old Power Station into adaptive museum spaces designed by the architect Lionel Glendenning.
4. The public consultation period has been subjected to vague, incomplete, factually incorrect material and a campaign of misleading information by the project proponents. Construction Development Applications are generally conducted in two stages in NSW - building envelope then detailed design. Infrastructure NSW’s argument oscillates between two mutually exclusive narratives: - That the “Heritage Revitalisation” is a different project from the “Renewal” and hence the documents prepared for the “Renewal” are superseded and cannot be publicised. - That the “Heritage Revitalisation” is a continuation of the previous Government’s “Renewal” and hence the Applicant may dispense with a two-stage Application and a new architectural competition. Consequently the same architectural team may be used and a new design competition and a new brief are not required. This should be rejected.
5. The project reduces the Museum’s exhibition space by 75%. The Powerhouse Museum has 21,080m2 of exhibition space over 5 levels and successfully held 25 different exhibitions concurrently when it opened in 1988. Infrastructure NSW’s 6,850m2 figure is an underestimation but is also directly contradicted by MAAS CEO, Lisa Havilah’s statement of 10 May 2023 that “the current Ultimo exhibition space is 15,318m2”. The “Revitalisation” documents show that the total proposed exhibition area is 5,100m2 (24% of the existing 21,080m2). This is the direct result of the removal of all intermediate floors which reduce the Museum to only 3 oversized caverns more suited for contemporary events and commercial use than for the exhibition of the diverse Museum collections. My objection is that the revitalised museum’s size of exhibition spaces is significantly smaller, inferior and poorer than the current one and with its ‘black box’ treatment of spaces it belongs in the 1970s and proposes a backward step in museology to the Powerhouse Museum Complex’s more innovative scheme (refer Attachment One).
6. The Revitalisation documents state that the Museum will increase its visitation from 800,000 a year to 2,000,000. This is fanciful and inflated. A Museum with only 5,100m2 of exhibition space could not receive 2 million visitors a year. The Not for Profit Hellenic Museum’s proposed and recently announced Intercultural Museum at the City of Melbourne’s Queen Victoria Market is 10,000m2 - twice the size of what is meant to be a publicly funded and show-piece State museum. It will cost under $50 million dollars for a new build on public land not $350 million plus dollars. There is no clear reason why Infrastructure NSW’s project needs to be so expensive and it should be rejected.
7. The project would destroy the Museum’s heritage significance and its Wran legacy and Sulman award-winning spaces, interiors, ramps and mezzanines in what is easily the most elegant, playful and sophisticated post-modern public building in Australia. It will be replaced with a vastly inferior scheme and architectural design that lacks any museum magic whatsoever. The dull design and small exhibition spaces will not draw 2 million visitors.
8. In particular, I object that the project calls for: the demolition of the southern end of the Wran Building and Galleria; the conversion of the Galleria into a staircase encased behind brick walls; the significant alteration of the arched roofs, the signature of the award-winning Wran conversion and adaptive reuse of heritage; the dismantling of the ‘Steam Revolution’ display and of the live steam generation system and the removal of its 19th-century original floor (museum elements and features much loved by the people of NSW including from rural areas); the removal of the Harwood building from the project with an uncertain future; the hiding of the Museum from Harris Street behind a row of shops severing the Museum from Ultimo, its historical base since 1893 and the source of many of its collection’s industrial artefacts.
9. The timeframe for the project is uncertain and budget grows and grows for a museum inferior to the current one. It is a project at massive public cost for unknown and unlikely public benefit.
10. Documents essential to the evaluation of the project are kept secret despite the NSW Government’s repeated pre-electoral promises of transparency. They include the Business Case, the Architect Design Brief, the Future Exhibition Programming and the Conservation Management Plan.
11. Expert advice, including submissions prepared by me pro bono, have systematically been ignored.
12. Expert advice from key people including Lionel Glendening, Architect of the adaptation of the Ultimo Power Station into a world-class museum, project for which he was awarded the Sulman Prize, and Dr Lindsay Sharp, who led the project during its design and development and became the Museum’s Founding Director were never consulted. This practice is contrary to the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter.
13. Alan Croker, the author of the acclaimed Opera House and the White Bay Conservation Management Plans, was originally contracted to design the Powerhouse Museum Complex Conservation Management Plan but his contract was terminated before the document was completed, seemingly because he opposed the extent of the proposed development. Alan is the most respected author of Conservation Management Plans in Australia and deserves an apology for such disrespectful treatment. The Powerhouse Museum Complex requires a new Conservation Management Plan of the highest order by Alan Croker to guide and inform all decisions about this place and collection of State heritage significance, with reference to my information at Attachment One.
14. In order to inform the NSW Heritage Office and Infrastructure NSW of the State Heritage Significance of the Powerhouse Museum Complex including its interiors, mezzanines, ramps, exhibition and public spaces and associated collections, I again provide research to inform the Conservation Management Plan and based on my research, I request that the 13 Exemptions that I oppose be deleted and the entire project called in by the NSW Government in the interests of a State museum of scale and quality and a genuine heritage revitalisation in accordance with the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter. Refer Attachment One (uploaded).

The proposed "revitalisation" of the Powerhouse at Ultimo is the culmination of the worst act of cultural vandalism I have seen in the museum sector. Rather than "revitalising" the building, it represents the destruction of an exceptionally fine museum, the unwarranted dispersal of its collection and the removal of superb custom-designed exhibition spaces. The NSW Government's "community consultation" process is an insult to the many citizens and distinguished professionals who have repeatedly lodged their well-considered and well-documented objections. The plan should be immediately halted and a process should begin to enlist the help of serious professionals, including former staff and original architects, to restore the museum to its former status as an excellent facility for the people of NSW.

The Powerhouse Museum is beloved piece of history for many Sydneysiders, myself included, and should be kept as is, barring any necessary renovations for accessibility and safety.

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 current revitalisation plans. No details on exhibition design, curation strategy and its potential has been submitted as part of the proposal. Furthermore details on the extent of the existing collection to be retained should be detailed. Whilst I support a new building design I do not support downsizing of the existing collection and reduction of floor area to house exhibitions.

This is good planning.

The proposed renovations to the Powerhouse Museum will actively worsen its ability to educate the public and preserve items of historical importance. The live engine display, which will no longer exist if this development goes through, is a fascinating and important demonstration of a hugely historically important technology - not to mention that it was one of the rooms that most interested me whenever I have visited the museum!

The massive loss of floor space in the development will be a massive detriment to the building's ability to function as a museum, and making the Wran building all closed corridors will disrupt the viewing area for the Boulton and Watt steam engine - the oldest of it's type in the world, and one of the oldest steam engines to still work regularly under steam.

Furthermore, while the building facade - which will be removed by this proposal - is not heritage listed, it is an example of a rapidly disappearing, distinctly Australian postmodern style - if it is removed, in ten or thirty years, architects and historians will be lamenting the loss of such a feature.

Frankly, I believe this development proposal, if undertaken, would remove more from the Powerhouse building than it could ever possibly add, and it should NOT go ahead.

I strongly object to the Powerhouse MUSEUM Ultimo revitalisation.

1. The report prepared by Ethos Urban really fails to address the matters raised by my ( and others) previous submission. It conveniently states that it is only addressing planning matters. Unfortunately, the so called 'revitalisation' has an other economic and political agenda which the government has not come clean on. The report says that only " ... a number of minor design changes have occurred since the exhibition of the EIS ..." and "... will not relate to any substantive changes to the project."
On page 42 of this report it states (even though this is outside of its supposed remit, re planning only) " ... the powerhouse will continue to present an exhibition program across the applied arts and sciences, that provides new levels of access to the Powerhouse collection. This program will feature many other very large objects, which have not been on public display before."
Thus my objection to the project remain from my previous submission.

2. Unfortunately, the re-exhibition does not support this as,
- The PHM exhibition area will be divided by 4. This is no longer denied by INSW.
- The southern part of the Wran Building and Galleria will be demolished, the interiors gutted and what is left encased in brick walls and hidden from Harris Street by a row of undignified shops.
- All the interiors of the Powerhouse Museum will be demolished including the original Steam revolution floor and its live steam generation system.
- All the permanent exhibitions (steam revolution, transport and space, etc.) will never come back and only 3 large objects (Boulton and Watt engine, Loco No1 and Catalina seaplane) will be left as decorative artefacts out of their context.
- The Harwood building will be “decoupled” from the Museum.

3. I support the position taken by Ms Kylie Winkworth (18.9.24) in regard to the Powerhouse Museum. I quote from her,
"The State Significant Development (SSD) plans show the gutted shell of the PHM reduced to three ‘large volume presentation spaces’. The MAAS CEO’s ambitious ‘decluttering’ project reduces the museum’s exhibition space by 75%; demolishing all the medium and small-scale exhibition galleries that were purpose designed for applied arts, design, history, science, technology and international exhibitions. Powerhouse Ultimo, minus the museum word, looks like a contemporary art, performance and venue hire facility. But Labor’s shroud of secrecy around the project means no one knows exactly what the place will be. Despite repeated promises of transparency, the government has refused to release any of the documents that would normally be public in a genuine museum renewal project. There is no museum plan, no exhibition plan, no design brief, no master plan, and no business case to explain or justify the wasteful demolition of a museum that is only 36 years old."

4. The Heritage listing was finally gazetted on 12 July 2024 (AFTER THE EXHIBITION CLOSED) https://gazette.nsw.gov.au/ (Gazette No 268). It includes 13 EXEMPTIONS, some of them seemingly drafted to permit the NSW Government ‘s current “Revitalisation” SSD project which would cause irreversible alterations to the Museum. This is unacceptable.

5. The 'revitalisation' proposes to waste more than $0.5 billion of taxpayers’ money on a destructive project that nobody wants except possibly a few vested interests. At this stage the government would be better off financially by “Doing Nothing”. This is the only reasonable option , so:
- Immediately cancel the project
- Proceed with the necessary repairs and maintenance neglected by successive Managements and Trusts.
- Bring back the exiled exhibitions and RE-OPEN THE MUSEUM AS A MATTER OF URGENCY, the closure of the Museum for 4 to 5 years as now proposed is UNACCEPTABLE.

6. I also support the submission of 1.10.24 by Save the Powerhouse.

The Powerhouse Museum Ultimo needs to be treasured as an asset owned by the people of NSW and be better cared for by the current government and management. Please respect this in your deliberations.

I am writing to strongly object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. Although I welcome and agree with a sensitive renovation, the planned revitalisation obscures the extent of downsizing the Powerhouse’s function as a museum, as it significantly reduces its exhibition space and severely limits its wonderful display collection to the general public.

The Department of Planning should reconsider the prior planning decision allowing ‘programming of museum spaces…not [being] a matter requiring approval’. It is almost unbelievable that Powerhouse management would want to significantly decrease the museum’s existing exhibition space by half from 15,318m2 to 7,500m2 (SMH May 10 2023, Budget Estimates September 6 2024)! The 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. How in anyone's eyes can this be an acceptable proposition for a world class museum?! It appears that what is planned is a very serious downgrade in public access to the Powerhouse Collection, particularly when the former Powerhouse Director Terence Measham noted that in 1997 the Powerhouse Museum 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.’ What gives Ms Havilah the right to withhold these objects and displays from public view when they are not owned by her?!

It is quite extraordinary that the demolition and offsite relocation of the Powerhouse’s Steam Exhibition will remove the steam engines from their historical context, & which will halt the live steam engine demonstrations enjoyed by generations of Australians in the Powerhouse’s original Engine Room! It is ironic that the renovation aims for a ‘5-star Green Star rating’, as rebuilding the steam infrastructure at Castle Hill makes no economic and contextual sense when the infrastructure already exists in Ultimo. It is a completely unsustainable and very costly proposal! The Greenest Star rating would be to totally dismiss the idea of unnecessary demolition and disposal of significant amounts of unwanted materials; 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 controversially had his contract terminated!

To date a special and beloved feature of the Powerhouse museum 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 is imperative for Powerhouse management to be more transparent with the Australian public in confirming which precious longstanding items from the Powerhouse Collection will return, if not permanently, at least on a long-term exhibition basis.

The plans to renovate and improve the Powerhouse 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 could potentially be accepted if they were for a new museum; however as these plans are for the world renowned and historically significant Powerhouse they are completely inappropriate and unacceptable. If plans remain unchanged, the Powerhouse’s external fabric may be ‘revitalised’, but its function as a museum will be greatly diminished.

I would also like to add that I have been a long term member of the National Trust, whilst living in England and currently in Australia. I have read the submission by The National Trust of Australia (New South Wales) and completely support and agree with everything that they have written in their submission. This paragraph really resonated with me, so I will quote: "The complex has potential state social significance for people across Sydney, NSW and Australia, for whom it represents an important educational and cultural institution and tourist destination. The Powerhouse Museum Complex and its changing use from power station to cultural institution, offers a unique insight into the stages of technological change, development and urban renewal that occurred in NSW during the 20th Century."

How many times do you have to put in submissions for the same destruction. Labour government as an election promise said they would save the powerhouse museum at Ultimo.
But you are making an event space and calling it the powerhouse museum. This is a default of your promise.
Very few cities around the world has a museum as this one used to be. Displaying science, achievement and old machines that fascinate young minds.
I call on the labour government to restore the buildings as is
To reinstate the museum
To sack the current museum management that is only following the liberal government instructions.

You could win back the seat of Sydney by reinstating the museum and its wonderful collection

I object to the latest round of Powerhouse revitalisation plans. While a renovation is welcome, exhibition space will be reduced, meaning less will be on permanent display. Powerhouse management seems intent on cutting the Museum’s existing exhibition space in half, which means that, no matter how well a refurbishment is done, with improved access, etc, if there is a much smaller display area then the whole experience and sheer value of this important site will be significantly reduced. 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. It makes little sense to relocate it when the infrastructure for it already exists. The Powerhouse remains a valuable asset to the city, providing a rich and detailed experience with space to provide extra depth on many subjects. It has not been confirmed what items in the collection will be returned and which will be removed or relocated. While I support renovation and improvement, the magic of having a collection like this on this specific site has great value to the city and the reduction of exhibition space must be avoided..

Calling this the 'Powerhouse Ultimo Revitalisation' is intentionally misleading: This is the Powerhouse Museum. There are no other Sydney museums with a claim to include 'Powerhouse' in their title. The Parramatta museum and the Castle Hill museum have nothing to do with a powerhouse. And, this proposed project is not a revitalisation -- it is not giving new life to this treasured museum, it is reducing it. In spite of several iterations of constructive comments pointing out these issues (none of which received the courtesy of a considered response, which implies that the community consultation for this project is a sham), this proposed project continues to proceed under these false pretenses. The proposed changes to do not support the continued raison d'être of the Powerhouse Museum, which is to be a museum about the Ultimo coal-fired, electric power station and the related significant issues and items of the era, including the electrification of Sydney, and Sydney's transportation and power histories. And many other things, of course, but primarily related to these core purposes and the issues of the era in which they were occurring. These are my general objections to this proposed project and I believe that they are sufficient reasons to stop the proposed project now and address the core issues to the satisfaction of the residents of greater Sydney rather than continue to ride rough-shod over the stated wishes of the local residents / stakeholders as made evident in previous submissions as part of this process (which have been catalogued and ignored). For some specifics to add to the general issues, the project's cost has not been adequately detailed or budgeted and the business case for the project can't possibly be positive. Heritage conservation has not been observed and key heritage items, including the Wran Building, the Galleria and core items essential to the purpose of the museum, have not been protected and certainly not 'revitalised'.

Please find a detailed submission objecting to the proposal from Docomomo Australia attached.

The Powerhouse Museum is a vital repository of historical objects and documents that represent the culture and development of Pyrmont and Ultimo. Since its inception it has welcomed all those interested in the cultural and industrial evolution of this area, and countless families have enjoyed visiting the museum. Very many school children from regional New South Wales have visited the Powerhouse and learned much about the development of Sydney, and especially this area, in specially designed educational programs. Removing this educational institution from inner Sydney to the western suburbs will deprive future generations of country school children and families of the opportunity to enjoy and learn from the Powerhouse in Ultimo, since most country visitors combine a visit to the the Ultimo Powerhouse with other museums in Sydney. A trip to the western suburbs will be unlikely to be on the itinerary of most regional school children or families.
Jacksons Landing is a significant part of the urban renewal of Pyrmont. We have donated the scale model of the development to the Powerhouse, and many local residents have donated records and artefacts that pertain to the history of this area. Removing them to a warehouse in the Western Suburbs indefinitely, possibly forever, disrespects the heritage of this precinct and its community. This connection will be lost, and the items will be meaningless to future generations, for whom the museum was intended and is vitally important.
The existing building has been closed and is being dismantled for no apparent reason. Much less money spent on repairs and some remodelling would accommodate the needs of the buildings, while the museum could remain open for local, regional and international visitors to enjoy and benefit from.

As my submission for the previous round of submissions arrived too late to be counted among the overwhelming number of objections, I hope this time my objection to this project will be received in time and counted. I object in the strongest possible terms to the current proposal. At the very least, the description of this proposal as a 'revitalisation' of the Ultimo Powerhouse, as it was developed in the 80s, is a grotesque, Orwellian, use of language. The current project is nothing of the sort. In recent years, and very much in recent months, we have witnessed the stripping of all the collection, except one item that cannot be moved, and work begun ripping out the internal additions made in the 80s that enabled a myriad of small exhibition spaces within the vast old complex, to make possible the award-winning adaptive reused powerhouse be a major museum of industrial arts and sciences, cultural history, fashion and Asian (and other) arts. The stated, belated, reason for the removal of the contents eg of the aviation hall, so that proper maintenance can be carried out, is a nonsense. I was in one of Copenhagen's most prestigious museums last year and priceless artefacts had been safely secured from dust so that they could remain onsite during major renovations. At this stage, I wish to quote sections of a recent report of members of the National Trust NSW, which summarise my concerns and objections neatly and cogently. In using material from the National Trust, I have made changes to express my objections in my own voice.

For a start, the government needs to be very much clearer how this heritage listing will affect the Powerhouse Museum complex revitalisation plans; I am particularly concerned that there is no current publicly accessible Conservation Management Plan for the site to guide these works. The heritage and cultural significance of the Powerhouse at Ultimo was the fundament link between the adaptive transformation of the heritage spaces and the collections. The current process clearly has blown this link to smithereens.

As noted by The National Trust, only five of the 125 submissions in response to the Powerhouse Revitalisation project were in support of the project, with the majority opposed to the proposed development. This is clearly a reflection of the ongoing concern over the integrity of the “heritage” focus of the project, apprehension regarding the quantity and quality of exhibition space, and a lack of clarity about the future of the MAAS collection.

I cannot do better than to quote from the recent email from The National Trust’s, summarising its submission outlining its key concerns that:

The heritage significance of the Powerhouse Museum is not properly understood. There is no Conservation Management Plan provided with the exhibited documents. The documents do not appropriately consider the place in the context of the proposed State Heritage Register curtilage expansion.
The detail of what is actually happening is not clear. There are thousands of pages of documentation, but not a single page outlining the exhibition and display areas and what they might be.

The function of the museum has not been addressed. There is little reference to the current collection beyond the retention of three key items. There is not a single illustration or description of any of the actual internal spaces (entry points, circulation spaces, permanent or flexible exhibition spaces) that form the basis of any major museum.

We maintain that a high quality and sensitive heritage outcome for the site cannot be achieved without meeting the above criteria. The National Trust is reviewing the Response to Submissions, and remain concerned that the amended development documents do not address many of the concerns raised in the exhibition process.

This is where my use of material from The National Trust ends. It is a politely-worded indictment of the current project.

No-one has ever explained how the previous Coalition government thought and now the Labor government thinks they had / have the support of the people of NSW to destroy the state's flagship museum of scientific and cultural heritage, in a well-located position (not all that far from Central Station) in an award-winning example of adaptive reuse.

Everyone involved in this sham 'revitalisation' should be ashamed.

Brett Johnson

I have a very long association with the Powerhouse. The current proposals go against every enquire into the removal of the major exhibitions of mechanical and transport history which are linked to the central part of Sydney. They are the major reason for family visiting of the Museum.
These proposals destroy the history of the Museum from Joseph Maiden to Neville Wran,and its connections to the parts of Sydney where the history was made.
The Museum is already sited with easy access to all Sydney citizens and tourists.

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.