Sydney Modern Gallery

I write as someone with long experience of planning for public lands and as the former Member of the Sydney Olympic Park Board (2001-2011) and Chair of the Parklands Committee which oversaw all of the post Olympic development of this renowned parkland.

I object to the proposal principally because of its domination of the existing gallery and its green surrounds and its incursion into, and domination of, the entry point to the Royal Botanic Garden. Both the existing gallery and the Domain and Garden are stand-alone icons of Sydney and crucial to its heritage fabric.

I also have considerable objections to the process followed which I believe was inadequate. There was very poor availability of detailed information on the 'amended proposal' until the very late and poorly timed lodging of the DA in November. The five weeks allowed for responses is entirely inadequate for a project of this size and high significance to the fabric of a world city.

Sydney may well need a new modern art gallery or a gallery extension, if sensitively sited. However I have a strong objection to this occurring at the expense of the integrity of two major sites.

My background is forty years as a conservation policy specialist with a particular interest in the use and management of public lands. I have had had a long career in the NGO, academic and government sectors at state, national and international levels.

I am familiar with good governance and proper process having served many years on statutory governing bodies including the boards of Uluru Kata Tjuta National Park, Sydney Olympic Park Authority, the Australian Tourist Commission, the Environment Protection Authority of New South Wales, the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council, the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee, Landcare Australia, and the Jenolan Caves Trust.

I have reviewed the detailed and well researched objections submitted by the distinguished group of Chesterman, Andrews, Appleton and Donald and endorse their analysis and recommendations.

I am objecting to the extension of the Art Gallery because I consider that there should be no further encroachments into the publicly available open space which is comprised by the Domain, Botanic Gardens and Hyde Park. This corridor of public parkland is the most significant such space in Sydney and, given that Sydney is Australia's largest and oldest city, is the most important in the country.
The institutions and service utilities that occupy land in this public open space must learn to live within the area already occupied and should not be permitted to expand further.
I should add that I am a supporter of the Gallery and it's work and would welcome the provision of appropriately sited further facilities away from the existing site. Provision in the western suburbs would seem to be an obvious option and the model of the Tate's regional galleries in the UK is an example which might well be followed.

I wish to object to the plans for Sydney Modern development, as I believe that they will detract massively from the value and amenity of the Wharf Terraces (TWT).
The unadorned and uninterrupted 5 story high concrete wall adjoining Lincoln Crescent will be ugly, giving the effect of a bunker or a dark tunnel as it overpowers TWT, and we will lose our skyline and city views from the street. I cannot believe that an art gallery cannot design a thing of beauty rather than this ugly commercial blot on the street landscape.
I also protest at the height of the development overlooking TWT, which will negatively impact the amount of sun shining on TWT resulting in a dark and dank street.
Our street will lose 6-8 car spaces, with the movement of up to 90 trucks per day in and out of the loading dock. It is imperative that truck movements be restricted to 9:30 am to 3:00 pm so as to avoid peak hour congestion in Lincoln Crescent, and to maintain the ability to make right turns into and out of Lincoln Crescent.
The use of our lift must be restricted and must be compensated, and there must be a clear understanding that any sea water cooling system proposed must not have any negative impact to the beach, the water, the beach wall or the marina; and that any negative impact be remedied by SM at their cost.

with the loss of open and green spaces in our immediate vicinity and more importantly in the city of Sydney.
Given

IT IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING OVER PUBLIC GREEN SPACE TO EXTEND THE AGNSW WITH A BUILDING MADE OF GLASS THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY TO HOUSE ART. HOW CAN YOU HANG PAINTINGS ON GLASS WALLS? IT IS JUST TO BE USED AS A FUNCTION CENTRE. HOW WILL PEOPLE GET THERE? IF THEY DRIVE, WHERE WILL THEY PARK? WHO WILL PAY FOR THE EXTRA STAFF NEEDED TO WORK THE BUILDING? THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT HAS DISMISSED MOST OF THE CURATORS AND VOLUNTEERS. A SHAMBLES.

Submission of Objections to Sydney Modern.
This proposed development is a series of blocks dropped seemingly randomly over a large area of public recreational green space and fronted by a large open plaza covered by a `permeable' roof. It is a greedy grab for a large area of public space and is wrong for a number of reasons.
The site itself is on land that is held in trust by the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust and abuts an important historic site being the first Governor;s residence and pleasure park as delineated by Mrs Macquaries' Road as well probably one of the first quarries in the colony (now the site of the oil tanks), and a number of remnants of early industrial activity on the eastern shore and remnants of an early public baths (Robinsons).
While there is discussion of the impact of views from the Opera House, curiously there is none of the impact on the Domain itself. The area now most commonly called the Domain, that is the large grassed park in front of the Gallery, itself has a long history as a place of passive and active recreation, of ceremonies, of political protests, both feisty and peaceful, and heated discussions at Speakers corner (an area enshrined in legislation). More recently open-air concerts and exhibitions have been held there.
But before any of those developments that entire area was where our earliest serious engagement with this country's indigenous population occurred. While there is little of their physical and archaeological remains nevertheless their settlement and way of life has been well documented by the likes of Watkins Tench and others and the site deserves some respect for that.
Since Governor Philip first declared it the site of Sydney's First Farm the Domain has suffered increasing encroachments by the city. (It was Governor Bligh's attempt to reclaim the Domain that was among the many causes of the `Rum Rebellion' of 26 January 1808.) Throughout the 19th century its original extent, as far south as William Street has been gradually taken over by government and public buildings, including the Hyde Park Barracks, the Sydney Mint, Sydney Hospital, Parliament House, the State Library of New South Wales, the Land Registry Office and the St Mary's Cathedral. Only slightly further away but completing this area of Sydney's most important extant sandstone buildings are the Sydney Museum to the South, the Naval buildings to the east and Sydney Living Museum to the east. Lately the Eastern distributor has sliced through the area effectively dividing the Gardens from the Domain.
To date most contemporary development within the Domain precinct has been relatively low key and sympathetic to the surrounds. Clearly the Sydney Modern as proposed does not complement these structures. It purposely removes itself from them and yet offers no particular architectural merit in return being, seemingly, a series of white boxes tumbling down the hill.
Chief objections:
* As described above, this is a significant heritage area but the current design does not compliment that area aesthetically.
* Its construction will impact or obliterate areas deemed to be of state significant industrial and social archaeology being the oil tanks, one of Sydney's first quarries, public baths, boat yards, etc. along the eastern shore as described in the Heritage Consultants' report.
* It will block pleasing and open views across to the water and boats in Wooloomoolloo Bay and to the near Eastern suburbs from both the land bridge and Art Gallery Road.
* The grassed areas on the landbridge will be covered by the buildings of the Sydney Modern with a suggestion that the rooves of at least some of the buildings will be accessible but whether by members of the public is not made clear. This area is currently well used as passive recreation. A drive by at any time of the day attests to its use. It is indeed a pleasant and valuable park for not only local office workers but also the residents of Woolloomooloo who can use it as a thoroughfare.
* The plans do not address in any detail how visitors arrive at or depart the site. By the removal of already scarce car parking places there is a tacit assumption that visitors will arrive by tourist coach, taxi or walk. The report does not address the dearth of public transport nor the difficulty of pedestrian access from the nearest train stations. The brisk 5-6 minute walks indicated by the State Transit Authority are not necessarily possible for all. Currently the buses that run along Art Gallery road have limited hours. Any bus service at Woolloomooloo is not a realistic access point for the elderly or infirm who make up a large part of the Gallery's demographic. The plan does show a public access elevator will be built at the junction of Lincoln Crescent, but a physical inspection of the site would indicate that the architects have not themselves seen what will be required to make that work. Currently the elevator seems to be embedded in solid rock. There is little to no parking in that lower area so access will again be limited to bus transport or taxi.
* The proposed turning circle just beyond the Woolloomooloo Gate of the Gardens is over a significant slope. It will require the removal of a number of large trees and isolates a significant area of public space. There is no indication as to what traffic will be able to traverse it. It seems too narrow for buses so must be mainly for taxis. One has to wonder if this traffic warrants such a construction. There is no indication that consideration has been given to its impact on the Woolloomooloo gate or other entry points of the Gardens in that vicinity.
* While the plan indicates that many of the trees to be removed will be replaced or relocated there is little information in the landscape designers report as to how the site will be landscaped. Planter boxes of greenery on the roof tops do not constitute recreational landscape.
* Most recent additions to the Gallery have been discreet and blended reasonably well with the outer fabric of the existing building. The proposed Sydney Modern will not be so gracious and will have serious impact on the heritage value of this significant site.

I should state here that I have no issue with the Gallery's need for more space only their proposed plan to obtain the space by such an intrusion into public recreational and historically significant land. I respectfully submit that it could be done equally well but more in sympathy with its neighbours and to better advantage both for the gallery and its clientele. The oil tanks, for example, offer an opportunity for a large modern building on Lincoln Crescent addressing the Woolloomooloo precinct. There is already a large pedestrian area which could be repurposed as an entry plaza and be well served by buses and taxis. Within such a building the entry court would use the interior of the oil tanks and possible exposure of the old quarry wall as design elements. Such a building need stand no higher than the existing landbridge. Further gallery space could just as easily then be added to the rear of the existing Gallery building spreading south across open land to the rear and again addressing the Woolloomooloo precinct.
Alternatively, since the proposed Sydney Modern has been designed as a standalone building with no apparent aesthetic link it could just as easily be placed in any other location such as Barangaroo or, more properly, western Sydney which is now the geographic heart of Sydney and in need of major institutions such as an important Art Gallery.
I am a Friend of the Gardens
Thank you
Judy

It is my submission that this proposal (Sydney Modern) is (a) the wrong building, (b) the wrong purpose (c) the wrong place and the wrong expenditure of public money.
The building is architecturally indifferent and is more suited to a function centre than a gallery.
The site is an encroachment on public parkland and this is unacceptable in the inner city.
An adjunct to the AGNSW should be at Parramatta or close by, this is socially and culturally vital for the greater city of Sydney.
The expenditure will only pay for the building (if it does) and will not be sufficient for the core business of art and art conservation.

I wish to support the objection of Mr Clive Austin AM on behalf of the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust to the proposed development of the Art Gallery of NSW onto land in the public Domain owned by the Trust.

The contention that this is `unused' land, by implication `waste' land', and therefore available for development is false. All land in the domain is of value as open green space in the midst of a crowded modern city, part of its `lungs'. I note that there are 220 mature trees within the building footprint to be removed; surely these should be protected. Replanting is not a solution. The history of alienating segments of the Domain gradually (eg for the Cahill Expressway and previous Art Gallery extensions) is no longer acceptable and should be halted. I note that there has been little open public consultation.

There are other concerns as to the massive nature of the proposed building and the contention that it would better serve the public if located closer to the centre of the city's population in the western suburbs.

It is also regrettable that the current proposal involves the destruction of the popular footbridge to Woolloomoolloo designed by the distinguished architect David Chesterman.

I urge the Government to revisit this development proposal in view of the lack of public consultation and significant opposition from concerned individuals and groups.

Margaret Chambers

The Proponent's submission has not included all the technical reports to warrant the basic premises of the project and therefore makes it difficult to respond.

My concerns are as follows:
- The project may not be compliant with the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust and Act.
- It is using valuable open space which will never be returned to the public.
- The submission does not include all the technical reports regarding environmental safeguards during construction and once the project is completed.
- There is not enough documentation to understand how traffic and parking will be managed during construction and after completion.
- The design is a stark contrast to the state significant buildings surrounding it particularly the Art Gallery and Finger Wharf which devalues their heritage value.
- The design is not aesthetically appealing even though it has apparently won awards.
- The extension does not need to be above ground, but can be below ground like the Louvre extension in Paris (just a suggestion). But if this is not possible, the onus is on the Art Gallery to provide a better solution.

Given the incomplete documentation submitted by the Proponent to meet the Christmas deadline, it is unfair that the public is forced to respond at a time when it is very difficult to engage consultants to assist with the responses (given the tight deadlines already they need to meet before Christmas on other projects).

My specific interest is that I own an apartment at Finger Wharf and I am concerned about taking away our valuable public open space which is slowly reducing in the area.

I am opposed to this proposal because:

It would physically and visually destroy a large area of public open green space, absorbing it instead into a glass structure.

Views from this glass structure would be great, but views to this structure, from the Harbour, from Wollomoolloo Bay, and from the eastern edge of the Domain and the Botanical Gardens would be to a glassed and glarey building which would cover the steep sloping land presently forming part of the green fringe around the eastern shores of the City.

Virewed along tree shady Mrs Macquarie's Road it would be an intrusive and glarey backdrop to the classical facade of the Art Gallery, presently seen in front of green and trees. It is the juxtaposition of trees and buildings which gives this cultural edge of the City its special character. Why destroy it?

It would compete with and dominate the main entrance to the Botanical Gardens, our oldest scientific institution. The large hard surface of the proposed 'entrance' to the Art Gallery extension only increases this visual domination.

Comment:
Great architecture, in the wrong place. The Art Gallery has given the architects an inappropriate site for its extension. The result could not help but be a bad neighbour to the landscape of the Harbour, to the public open space and green edge of the
City, and to the setting of our enduring institutions.
Try the eastern end of the existing Art Gallery, or the hole in Barrangaroo.

I support the submission for the Sydney Modern expansion of the Art Gallery of NSW. The existing infrastructure is now out-of-date and limits the ability of the Gallery to attract world-class exhibitions. The proposed building, the result of an international architectual competition, meets all modern building standards and will overcome the limitations inherent in the existing building. As an exciting addition to Sydney's cultural heritage it will attract numerous visitors from near and far for many years to come and consequently be a financial windfall for the State.

There will be a negative impact on and inconsistency with the
heritage, natural and public open space values of:-
 the Domain,
 the surrounds of the grand and historic AGNSW gallery
 the entrances to the Royal Botanic Garden and Mrs Macquarie's Point, with their defining stands of trees and public views over the adjacent Domain lands to the Harbour beyond.
This loss of public amenity is unnecessary as the cultural objectives can be equally if not better achieved in other places and in different ways without building on this location

I object to the loss of green space, the loss of so many trees and the lack of foresight re the future.
'Sydney is growing and the population in the city in the coming years will grow significantly. Green space must be retained for future needs.
This is a beautiful and restful part of Sydney. Don't let it become over developed. The Botanic Gardens must be retained as is and not decreased in size.
Green space adds to health and well-being of our citizens.

I support the Sydney Moderns Project Development Application.

The Art Gallery of NSW is in need of expansion. It is significantly smaller than the NGV in Melbourne and QAGOMA in Brisbane. Sydney should have a Gallery that could hold more exhibitions for benefits of Sydneysiders and tourists to Sydney.
I am a member of the Art Gallery of NSW Foundation and a country member of the Society. I am a regular visitor to the Gallery.

I believe it would enhance the Domain, Art Gallery and botanic gardens precinct.

I feel that the expansion of the Art Gallery of New South Wales is much needed and overdue. A new building would allow the Gallery to have a larger space for travelling international exhibitions, as the current space is much smaller in comparison to those I see when I visit the NGA and NGV.

I hope this means that Sydney will attract more international exhibitions rather than having to travel to Canberra, Melbourne, or even overseas to see them. It would be excellent if two international exhibitions could be on display concurrently over the summer rather than just the one.

Since the 2006 Metropolitan Strategy there has been an emphasis on the cultural aspects of the community but little has been done to reach this goal. The Draft Sydney Region Plan emphases on a "City for People" specifically recognises this project as essential to deliver a high cultural standard through planning. It is, in many ways, a counter-force to endless development in the Growth Centres and changes the focus back to a centralised hub of arts. It must be supported.

The project plan is not sufficient to warrant approval at this stage.

As a local resident, it is disappointing to see paltry attention to parking, crowd management and transport systems. In addition, management of the construction mess and mayhem will have a massive impact on local access and amenity.

I urge further work to be urgently undertaken to ensure that this project does not break our local infrastructure and amenity through 'unforeseen consequences'.

It would also be far more preferable to ensure that any structures located in the current historic garden setting blend harmoniously with the green landscape. The current images of glass structures could be improved significantly.

We have not had any interaction to date from the Art Gallery, and hope that they will contact the thousands of local residents in Woolloomooloo, East Sydney, Potts Point and Kings Cross. This is the highest density of housing in Australia and having such a massive additional daily crowd in the direct locale requires major thought and management - which is not evidenced in the current documentation.

This is the chance to build something extraordinary, instead of just something huge. Please take more time to get it right before giving any project approvals.

Regards,

Annabelle Warren

SSD 6471 - Sydney Modern, Art Gallery of NSW, Sydney
I object to the proposal to extend the Art Gallery (the Proposal) onto the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain (RBG&D) Land for the following reasons:

1. It is a travesty that one iconic institution is willing to pursue its expansionist vision at the expense of arguably another even more iconic institution, and this done in 2017 in Sydney, an international city and with the apparent support of the NSW Government.

2. While the RBG&D is recognised as one of Australia's most historic and prestigious scientific and cultural organisations, it has been adversely impacted by land loss and incursions throughout its more than 200 year history. For example, the Cahill Expressway, the Conservatorium of Music expansion, Domain carpark, even the Art Gallery of NSW itself (1871 and add-ons);

3. The Proposal aims to build a contemporary extension to the Art Gallery at the expense of the RBG&D's significant cultural and social heritage. The Proposal will further disconnect and compartmentalise the Domain's traditional broad and sweeping landscape. It will be the biggest incursion onto and alienation of parkland since the building of the Cahill Expressway;

4. The Domain, including the land in question, is NOT under-utilised as purported by the current Environment Minister. It is essential parkland in the centre of a major city providing an invaluable place for culture, recreation and well-being of Sydney-siders and millions of visitors each year. It is hard to imagine the loss of such public greenspace occurring in Hyde Park London or Central Park, New York. Sydney's historic RBG&D is no less important;

5. The existing land bridge predominantly to the east of the Art Gallery Road bridge was originally inadequate to provide a sense of substantive re-connection of the Domain to the Botanic Gardens. While the landscape provided some connectivity in that area, a major beneficiary was the Art Gallery of NSW with improved vista and traffic noise amelioration, especially for its eateries;

6. The lack of a completed masterplan for the RBG&D since 2014 is of concern and telling, and therefore the lack of details from the RBG&D about improvements to this area. For example, adaptation of former fuel tanks and better connectivity to Woolloomooloo Bay and further activating this area for public enjoyment based on the RBG&D Trust's obligations. Lack of funding hinders any such planning vision;

7. Great vision by the Government would see the total re-connection of the Botanic Gardens and Domain by extended land bridge and/or undergrounding of that part of the Expressway, not further loss of the Domain parkland. It would certainly make the Domain far more functional;

8. It appears from the Architect's drawings, that great effort has made to present an outward emphasis from inside the buildings to take advantage of harbour views rather than its contents. Were other sites considered?

9. If necessary, the Proposal should extend upwards or underground, rather than outwards or use another site such as the soon to be empty Powerhouse Museum buildings, near Darling Harbour? This is a blatant land grab.

10. The size of the footprint is highly intrusive; Click here to view Plans DA0010 and DA0011.

11. The RBG&D Trust is a Government agency, which is not a position to fight the Proposal easily, if the Government already supports the Proposal and is going through the planning motions...., and I expect that any proposed compensation, if any, would be manifestly inadequate, given the land in question;

12. The adverse visual impact on the precinct would be profound - particularly the vistas up to and down from Art Gallery Road, Mrs Macquarie's Road and from the historic Woolloomooloo Gate. The Proposal would be dominant within the precinct;

13. The scale and nature of the design appears incongruent to the surrounding buildings and setting. The Domain parkland, once the primary landuse, will become secondary to the influence and domination of these built structures including the Proposal;

14. Tree removals, plantings and relocations - There are 220 trees in the development footprint. 140 will be discarded including 71 trees of high to medium value. 72 will be retained in their current location and 8 will be relocated. While the SSDA states that 265 new trees will be planted we lose all the height of 20+ years of growth of the current trees. Of concern is the a large number of the trees that will be removed opposite Woolloomooloo Gates on Mrs Macquaries Road to make room for the Pavilion. Click here to view Plans DA0054, DA0055 & DA0100.

15. Who will fund and maintain the new tree plantings?

16. Building heights and the proximity of these buildings to the road. Click here to view Plans DA1000 and DA1001 The building on the Land Bridge (Entrance Plaza) and the adjoining building to the north opposite Woolloomooloo Gate (Entrance Pavilion) have a setback of respectively 5.75m and 9.95m from the road. The Entrance Pavilion fronts Mrs Macquaries Road and has a height of between 7m and 8m above the road.

17. Seawater Heat Exchange System - would require easements as the ducting and pump chamber cut through Trust land with impacts on Trust land from the pipe trenches.

18. Round-a-bout outside Woolloomooloo Gate. Both the building of the roundabout and its effect on traffic will negatively impact RBG including heritage values in relation to the landscape setting of the Gate and adjacent Maiden Building, and for pedestrians;

19. The significant disruption to the Botanic Gardens and Domain during construction;

20. Loss of parking spaces outside the Gallery (owned and controlled by the Trust) - not only less parking for visitors to the Garden but a significant revenue loss to Trust when Government funding for the Trust's operations is reducing;




21. Mrs Macquaries Road / Art Gallery Road provide the only vehicular access to Royal Botanic Garden Sydney and a large part of the Domain and as such, are of high importance to the Trust. The Proposal seeks to transfer ownership and / or control of a very significant part of that road to the Art Gallery. These roads must remain under RBG&D ownership and control, especially given the need to manage major events in the Botanic Gardens and Domain, and for business activity and operational security and safety;

22. No public transport study or plan - it is clear that there will be marked increase in traffic and parking demand around the site;

23. Loss of cultural heritage. The heritage impact plan identifies adverse physical and visual impacts from net loss of open space resulting from the construction of the proposed building to the north of the existing gallery but glosses over it as moderate.

14 December 2017

NSW Government
Department of Environment and Planning,
22-23 Bridge Street
Sydney NSW 2000

By email: [email protected]

SSD 6471 SYDNEY MODERN ART GALLERY OF NSW, SYDNEY

Dear Sir/Madam,

In the past, when changes have been proposed for the Royal Botanic Garden (RBG) and Domain (D) there has been a premise that there should be no net loss of open space when any new development in the significant cultural landscape is proposed. I write to express my concern about the Sydney Modern project as this premise has been cast aside. The Government has stated that increasing green space is crucial in building a more sustainable Sydney and yet can countenance this incursion on not just green space but green space that is part of a significant cultural landscape. While I acknowledge the Art Gallery requires more space and commend the re-use of the oil tanks, the final plans submitted are not good enough. The RBG&D deserves better.

In the SMH December 2-3 2017 John Macdonald reviewed the latest block buster exhibition and concluded: `If the AGNSW imagines a proposed extension means it is about "to join [the] world's greatest art museums", it must start to act like a museum not a shop-front for hire.' Unfortunately this plan for Sydney Modern presents as a monstrous building that is more about hireable function spaces with Sydney Harbour views than a museum with exhibition spaces. I also note that the size of the building has ballooned since the Sydney Modern `extension' was first mooted.

The applicant has emphasised the views to the Art Gallery from Woolloomooloo and while these are important, these are not the views the majority of the visitors to the Royal Botanic Garden and Domain or the Art Gallery will see as they approach the site. The proximity of the building to Mrs Macquaries Road and impact on the views from the Royal Botanic Garden and Domain are unacceptable. Likewise the impact of the large shade structure on the views to the sandstone AGNSW from Mrs Macquaries Road and the RBG are unacceptable. While there has been an attempt to ameliorate the impact of the western façade of Sydney Modern on the historic AGNSW, the shade structure remains an intrusive element.

There has been a suggestion that additional exhibition space could be accommodated by extending east from the back of the AGNSW's current footprint and I agree that this concept would result in a more sympathetic outcome for the RBG and Domain.

However the most objectionable claim in support of this proposal is that the Domain land is `underutilised.' This goes to philosophical question as to whether passive green space is important. It becomes more important as the population density of the City of Sydney increases and once built upon, it is irretrievable. The eloquently expressed article in the online publication Garden Drum should be compulsory reading on this issue:
https://gardendrum.com/2017/11/29/sydneys-domain-a-new-terra-nullius/

The loss of revenue and potential revenue for the RBG&D is galling, especially when there is such an impact on views within the Domain and loss of mature trees.

There has been argument that the National Gallery of Victoria can stage larger exhibitions because they have the space and NSW is missing out. It should be noted that NGV is spread over two sites. There is no reason why AGNSW cannot take the same approach and utilise available space at Barangaroo.

I urge the Department of Planning to refuse this proposal and encourage the AGNSW to seek an outcome that would better serve the significant cultural landscape of the Royal Botanic Garden and Domain. This may require acknowledging that the chosen siting is not a suitable place for Sydney Modern.

Yours sincerely,
Colleen Morris M Herit.Cons. M ICOMOS

As a resident of Woolloomooloo's Finger Wharf, I am very concerned about the visual impact Sydney Modern will have upon the area. For myself as a resident, the local businesses, and visitors to the area. The views of the City from the Wharf are some of the finest in Sydney and the plan, as it is, will be extremely detrimental to these views.

I have the following concerns:

- The new structure is prominent when viewed from the Wharf and will dominate the view.

- The new structure will reduce privacy and make the Wharf feel `overlooked'

- The new building is extremely large, above tree height.

- The colour of the new structure is bright white. This is not in keeping with the area and will not blend in.

- Significant areas of the new structure is sheer, stark walls with no windows. These will be very unpleasant to view from the Wharf.

- Substantial sections of the roofing are stark and flat, with no vegetation or areas of visual interest.

- Many large and mature trees are being removed for the building. These trees form an integral part of the current viewpoint towards the City.

- Action appears to have been taken to reduce the impact of the building on views from the Botanic Garden. This appears to have been remedied by moving trees to the Botanic Garden side at the expense of views from the Wharf.

- Visitors to the building will create significant noise for residents of the Wharf, especially as there is a large, interrupted open space between Sydney Modern and the Wharf. This will be especially bad during large events.


I propose the following remedial actions:

Colours - more natural / designed to blend in / complement the existing buildings.

Gardens - extensive planting around the building.

Rooftop gardens - used extensively, in a similar way to the gardens on top of Lincoln Crescent site, including trees to reduce the visual impact of the building.

Green curtains - foliage to grow down the building, again to make it blend in, especially on sections of sheer wall.

Trees - trees to break up the building and to allow the building to blend in on the wharf-side.

Trees - relocation of existing mature trees where possible and planting of new trees to break up the building as much as possible and make it blend into the current woodland view.

Noise barriers - such a fencing and extensive use of foliage and trees

In summary, the building needs to be surrounded by greenery, especially mature trees. This is particularly lacking on the Wharf side of the building. The structure also needs to use more subtle colours to make it blend into the current landscape and existing buildings.

There is an opportunity to make Sydney Modern have a positive impact to the area and the heritage views from the Wharf to the City. However, this requires the building to blend in and complement the local setting.

The current plan will dominate and overwhelm the existing view from the wharf to the City and will irreparably harm one of the finest views in Sydney.

I wish to object to the proposed Art Gallery development.

The building will take open space that belongs to the RBG. It will see the removal of many trees, the loss of open space and the loss of ongoing revenue to the RBG from parking spaces being removed.

The building is out of scale compared with its surroundings and blocks off views to the east.

There appears to be no provision for parking thereby making competition for what will remain of existing parking even worse. Traffic management will be an issue.

The building is an ugly sprawling mess, it is devoid of architectural merit.