I do not agree with this proposal. The Powerhouse Museum is a Sydney icon and should be left where it is. There are plenty of other programs we could use the money on. On top of that, the proposed site has a lot going for it and we do not want an out-of-place new building in this area. I do not believe tourists will come to Parramatta to see the Powerhouse. If left where it is in that wonderful historical area, it will attract more local and overseas visitors. There is too much destruction of the past for too little gain. Please leave the Powerhouse Museum where it is.

The project to build a new museum at Parramatta is not adequately defined. The project documents describe it as a new museum and the EIS has adequately described the impact of the new museum on the site. If it truely were a new museum it would be commendable and highly desirable. Similarly if it were a doubling of space of the existing Powerhouse museum.
However the project has been developed as an alternative to the existing museum at Ultimo, and that it is proposed to move the museum contents to this new building, the EIS should have described the whole project. An objective of the EIS process should be to prevent impact creep. By just looking at each part as a small separate piece and ignoring the project as a whole is an invitation for impact creep.

The EIS needs to address the impact on :-

1) The objects collected
2) The existing museum structure

The last time I visited the museum I visited the adjacent store house. It is filled with seemingly endless rows of storage full of objects that may never have the opportunity to go on display. I was advised that this store house was not the only, or indeed the largest such store house. The store rooms are filled with a huge collection of OUR heritage. What is going to happen to it?

The new building at Parramatta will have a similar floor area as the existing Powerhouse Museum. If it were to be used as a doubling of the museum space it would be a valuable addition to Sydney's museums. But that is not the proposal. The proposal is to move all the exhibits to Parramatta. The museum is crying out for a huge increase in exhibition area so that more of the collection can be exhibited. But instead the exhibited collection is to be moved, meaning that the present status of inadequate space is preserved.

I also happened to look at an object of significance to myself (https://collection.maas.museum/object/242625#&gid=1&pid=9). It was sitting in a glass cabinet, with no indication as to what it was or how it works. It looks like a rather weird work of art, and as such not of much value. But is is actually a working model of the largest and most sophisticated purely mechanical computing machines ever built. My grandparents lugged it (or one like it) around the world as a sales prop 90 years ago. It demonstrates how the machines worked in intricate detail. Yet sitting there no one would ever know. The technology is so sophisticated it would need a floor of a museum to explain how it works and yet in it's current form no one can ever see it working.

Is the ultimate purpose to say - "well we can never exhibit all this stuff. No no cares - so lets get rid of it"? If that is a possible outcome it needs to be addressed in the EIS. The collection is currently languishing for lack of display space and willpower to actually explain the objects. Moving it all to Parramatta into a space of similar size will not address this problem and more likely make it worse.

There is no mention in the EIS about storage. What happens to the storage area? It covers half the Ultimo site. Is all that material to be moved somewhere else? If so where? That is all part of the project too and should be addressed in the EIS.

The EIS also needs to address the practicality of moving the existing exhibits. Many were installed when there was a railway into the site. That has gone, so can they be moved? At what cost? Why move them at all?

The EIS needs to address the feasibility and cost of moving the existing collection the risk of damage and th risk of loss.

The EIS also needs to address the impact on the existing building. The building is in itself of great heritage value. The use of it as a museum compliments this heritage. What will happen to the building when the objects are taken away? Is the site to be sold? Will the building be demolished? Or turned into a hotel? Sydney has enough old buildings that have been gutted and just the facade kept. The impact of the move it likely to result in the destruction of the building as it currently exists. This impact needs to be addressed in the EIS.

The project will cost a huge amount of money. There is an opportunity for it to be a doubling of the Powerhouse Museum. That would be of value (i.e. we would end up with twice the museum). But as a replacement for the existing museum, it has no value (i.e. we would still have a museum of the same size). You just spend a huge aount of money and end up with the same as we already have. Why do that? It would be sheer madness.

I wish to make a submission re planned demolition of Willowgrove Villa and ST Georges Terraces. I do voluntary work at Old Government House Parramatta and I am impressed with all the energy and effort that has gone into restoreing this beautiful old building.
Overall cumulative impact of further heritage destruction in Parramatta currently being undertaken,make Willowgrove and St Georges Terraces vital to retain for the communities sense of place.

My strong objection to the proposed development is based primarily on the required destruction of Willow Grove and St Georges Terrace in Phillip Street . These buildings are highly significant to Parramatta and must be retained. They are the last remaining Victorian Italianate free standing villa and Victorian Terraces in the Parramatta CBD. True treasures!
As a child I was always fascinated by Willow Grove - the beauty of the building and the glorious garden setting set against the bustling 20 th century city landscape was always refreshing. This contrast has only increased as the development of Parramatta increased.
Willow Grove also holds a special place in the hearts of many of my friends who's family members were born there when it operated as a maternity hospital up until the 1950's.
I found it quite upsetting that the heritage impact statement stated that removal of Willow Grove and St George's Terrace will only have minor cumulative impact. This is quite incorrect as these are the last remaining buildings of their type in the CBD and vital to retain for communities' sense of place. We as a community have distressingly lost too many heritage sites in the city.
No plaques or "interpretive" inclusions can substitute for the destruction of these important buildings.
There does not appear to have been any attempt to try and integrate the heritage buildings into the design. In fact the design also appears to negate the plan by City of Parramatta to eventually create a Civic Link to the river as the new building effectively blocks open access and funnels pedestrians into a narrow tunnel .
Although I am happy to see investment by the Government into a museum in Parramatta I am disappointed that the current proposal is unsuitable for the site and does not respect the heritage of the city or the significance of the location.

Willow Grove can be a building that could be contrasted with what is built today. People will say 'wow' look how far our building prowess has progressed in just 100yrs... If Willow Grove or any remaining heritage buildings in Parramatta or anywhere in Australia really are knocked down people will not realise the enormity of our modern progress!! Just looking at pictures in books is not any experience. The old sandstone law courts in the St James precinct is a good example. Walking in the passages of these old buildings you get a sense of how small our ancestors were. The passage ways are narrow and the ceilings low, quite closed in and claustrophobic. You get a real sense of history, our history, and then look at the modern law courts on the next block all glass and steel and huge. You can actually feel the history and wonder at our past and future. Compare and contrast reality... Please leave our wonderful old buildings be or at the very least incorporate them into the wonders of future builds.

I am very supportive of Parramatta having a branch of the MAAS. I also support the chosen site and the scheme selected from the competition entries. I do not support the closure and downsizing of the Ultimo MAAS. That museum should be retained, and upgraded also so that MAAS has a presence in Eastern and Western Sydney.
In terms of the proposal at Parramatta - I admire the proposed museum's civic presence and ambition. If the Ultimo MAAS is really to be closed - the designers of the Parramatta MAAS should demonstrate how they are going to showcase the permanent collection. Although elegant, the current scheme does appear to be configured to prioritise transitory events and exhibitions, and does not give confidence that the MAAS collection will be the central focus of the building. It risks being a minor element in a bigger cultural facility. Although I have no objection to companion spaces and uses - the presence, exhibition and space for the MAAS collection, should be primary.
There is also an opportunity for the landscaped areas under the building, along the riverfront, to more openly celebrate and respond to the prospect of periodic infiltration of the site by flood. Many sites along the riverbank are flood affected - I have no concerns about this being able to be addressed technically, but think there is greater opportunity to develop a more substantial lyrical, and physical acknowledgement of that dynamic condition.
The building has a very strong presence in Parramatta. I am of the view that this is highly positive. As someone who grew up in Western Sydney, and whose family still lives in the region, it is long overdue that it has access to a leading cultural institution of national importance. However - this scale and sense of ambition come with risks, if not realised well. The design resolution, detailed documentation and construction of the building are critical to ensuring that its ambition is reflected in the reality of its outcome. I urge you to give the Design Jury (particularly architect Wendy Lewin) an active review and sign-off role during all future stages of the building's documentation and construction on site. Corners must not be cut. The jury's continuing oversight would give much-needed support to the architects and designers of the building to develop and deliver their proposal to the highest level possible. Nothing less will do.

I object to the proposal to move the ultimo powerhouse museum to make space available for more units. The last thing that ultimo needs is more units. The CBD is losing the cinemas for more units. If the powerhouse is gone there is even less reason to live in Ultimo or nearby.
I completely agree with having an additional powerhouse museum. Sydney just needs to utilise the housing that is available already but being hoarded to artificially inflate prices and rent.
Units and property development should not be the priority. Culture and social venues for people to utilise should be the priority

RE: SSD-10416
OBJECTION TO POWERHOUSE PARRAMATTA PLANS INCLUDING THE DESTRUCTION OF WILLOW GROVE AND ST GEORGES TERRACES.

I object to the Parramatta Powerhouse plans.

I have not made any reportable political donations.

The site of the proposal contains the significant 1870s two storey Victorian Italianate villa, Willow Grove and potential archaeological site, and the 1880s row of two storey terraces, St George’s Terrace and potential archaeological site (both items of local environmental heritage).

These important heritage buildings are precious and unique in that location.

It is a tragic irony to be proposing the demolition of such architecturally and historically significant buildings for the sake of a museum of applied arts and sciences.

These buildings must be saved.

The proposed new Powerhouse Museum should not be approved for this location at all. It should stay where it was always intended to be, in Ultimo.

This project does not have a social licence to proceed. It lacks public support and confidence. The heritage losses associated with the project are unacceptable, and will not be mitigated by heritage interpretation. It is ironic that such significant heritage destruction is planned for a project that is supposed to celebrate history. The obvious and favoured alternatives, such as creating a unique and new historical precinct around the old women's factory, and keeping the Powerhouse at Ultimo, has not be given due consideration. The plans for the new "museum" on the flood -prone banks of the Parramatta River offers a crass, corporate-orientated concept where"events" take precedence over the display of artifacts. As usual, this is a major project that wears the NSW Government stench of lack of consultation, disregard for history and heritage, and contempt for communities and independent experts.

I object to the moving of the Powerhouse Museum from Ultimo to Parramatta due to the following reasons;
1. We are in a recession due to the corona virus, the billions of dollars to be selfishly wasted would be better spent on bush fire and drought relief , casualties from corona virus, hospitals, relief for small businesses, education etc.
2. Leave the Powerhouse and the collection where it is, create a smaller multicultural museum at Parramatta, keep the collection and protect it at Castle Hill.
3.Demolition of the row of terraces and the old hospital in Phillip St is a disgrace as they are heritage listed.