I object to these plans, both in principal and in practice.
In principle, the underlying premise that the green open spaces of the Domain are 'under-utilised' is arrogant and misguided. We need to maintain our open spaces in and around the city for the enjoyment and health of both residents and visitors, not build on them. I see no justification for the government to allow another building here. Planting a few herbaceous roof-top gardens (as proposed) is no substitute for a proper parkland-type planting with mature trees as at present.
I believe that the Gallery should instead be building a new (extra) gallery in Western Sydney to display more of its stored art treasures. That would make it accessible for more school groups to visit, for example. However, if that is politically impossible (for some reason that I fail to see), then the Gallery should be looking to extend not to the north of the existing building but down the slope on the Woolloomooloo side, which would have much less impact on the Domain and the views down the harbour.

In practice, the plans are misleading in that they strongly downplay the visual impact of the uppermost building of the set of five, which will block the view through the trees down W'loo Bay to the harbour. This is one of Sydney's iconic views for the many people who walk over the land-bridge and along Mrs Macquaries Road and should be preserved. This would be achieved if the proposed building were lowered so that it did not exceed the ridge-line of the land and land-bridge.

Increased traffic is another potential problem, both during construction (2 years or more?) and afterwards. Art Gallery Road and Mrs Macquaries Road are not heavy-duty roads and would have trouble sustaining heavier usage than at present. Another point: they are maintained by the RBG and Domain Trust (not the Art Gallery), which is an imposition on an underfunded government body.

The imposition of the proposed alteration/additions to the National Gallery is not a reasonable solution - the proposal currently under consideration, designed by Andrew Anderson, has a negative impact on the milieu of the precinct and degrades the heritage value of the building.

I object to this plan because it takes valuable Botanic Garden and costs too many trees. If we need another art gallery put it on the wasteland closer to the Domain car park. If this cynical proposal goes through after the tree massacre we saw around the Moore Park precinct, the NSW Lib government are in danger of being remembered as the government who razed our city's green heart. (And the link with a Chinese developer is probably not a very clever thing at this contentious time). Please rethink this decision.

What an ugly eyesore this extension will be; an ultra modern building in amongst our beautiful original old buildings. The before and after photos of these extensions show how drastically these extensions will affect the surrounds to the Art Gallery in a negative way.
Our Royal Botanic Gardens among the best in the world.
The trees surrounding the gardens provide a sanctuary from the hustle and bustle and noise from the city. Thus providing an area of peace and quiet where visitors to the garden can just sit and relax or take a peaceful stroll through the gardens. The loss of 140 trees along one side of the garden will destroy this sanctuary.
If we need a larger art gallery why not build a 2nd one outside of the CBD, where it will be more accessible to Sydneysiders by either public transport or in their own car.
If the Powerhouse Museum can be moved to Parramatta then there is no reason why we can't have a 2nd art gallery.

A few weeks ago, I was walking down Art Gallery Road and Mrs Macquaries Road and I was struck by the idea that the AGNSW and the Botanic Gardens Trust, assisted by massive NSW government funding, intended to destroy the views from Mrs Macquaries Road with a massive new series of buildings. Not just the views, but destroy a huge amount of open green space that has survived, admittedly with major changes, for more than two hundred years of European settlement. When I think of the controversy surrounding the redevelopment of the Conservatorium back in the 1990s and look today at its relatively modest and sympathetic blending in with the gardens, this AGNSW proposal is an outrage and I cannot work out why the BGT has not been more vocal about it. Quite frankly, "Trust" in this case seems a sorry mis-labelling. Sydney needs more green space, not less. How can the government-appointed board in charge of this iconic environment, so close to the towers of the CBD, fail to object in the strongest possible terms about the destruction of the green space and the life-enriching views under its management ("trust"). The arguments about whether the AGNSW actually needs these massive pavilions is another issue (in my opinion it certainly does not). It's the destruction of the environment I am concerned about here. No amount of compensation to the BGT will compensate for the destruction of this - I hesitate to use the word - sacred precinct. There is growing disquiet - anger, even - in Sydney and across NSW that planning is out of control, with massive projects that are simply unnecessary and don't have watertight business cases. The art gallery extension is one of them, though the focus here must be on the destruction of the environment. I would like to suggest that the Minister require the AGNSW and BGT to erect a full-scale simulated building (steel girders and canvas) on the site to let citizens and taxpayers see what a massive intrusion it is on the precinct. I think the outcry would kill the project. I have no idea whether such a proposal is within the Minister's powers; at this stage, I think the Minister should reject the proposal in its current form. As I write this, the words "Powerhouse" and "stadiums" come to mind, though I realise that the policy disasters they embody are essentially not what this particular comment process is about, though the words "destruction of historic trees" is absolutely germane.

I think the project is long overdue and will have a hugely positive impact for Sydney and the state of NSW.

I object to the application its a disgrace.

I am writing to object to the proposed extension of the Art Gallery of NSW onto the public open space to the north of the Gallery. This development is unacceptable because our open space is a precious and valuable resource which should be increased not reduced especially with our growing population; because the design impinges on the historic surroundings in a particularly unsympathetic way especially on the heritage vistas of the Art Gallery, Botanic Gardens' entrance and Mrs Macquarie's Road. The views across this open space past avenues of trees are an important resource. I also object because of the removal of so many trees which even if replanted will not achieve any decent height for at least 20 years; because of the proximity of the building to Mrs Macquarie's Road and the height of this building; and because of the hugely negative impact of the building works on the RBG. This a heartbreaking attack on Sydney's heritage and precious open space.

The current proposal would be a VERY BAD USE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS.

* This would mean an unacceptable loss of "green space" [which is the lungs of the CBD] . Green space in the Domain is NOT underutilised, as has been claimed; it is a vital amenity for city workers.

* This would add eating & entertainment spaces which are not needed by - or core business of - the AGNSW.

* This would add considerable numbers of visitors to an area which already has insufficient parking spaces & is very poorly serviced by public transport [important factors for any evening use].

* If the art focus of the proposed extension is Modern, this would compete with the existing MCA at Circular Quay.

* There is a MUCH BETTER ALTERNATIVE to this "Sydney Modern" proposal:

(1) spend Government money to CREATE A SECOND "CAMPUS" OR "BRANCH" OF THE AGNSW IN THE WESTERN SUBURBS, with a modern-art focus if desired [i.e. emulate the successful approach of major international galleries/museums such as Tate in UK, Louvre in France, Guggenheim in USA, etc which have set up major "branch" locations away from the main CBD]; AND

(2) SET UP A MAJOR "CULTURAL PRECINCT" IN THE WESTERN SUBURBS OF SYDNEY [in Parramatta?], comprising a "branch" of the AGNSW [instead of "Sydney Modern" in the CBD] together with a "branch" of the Powerhouse Museum [i.e. do NOT close down the current Powerhouse facility at Darling Harbour as proposed] & possibly with other arts facilities. [This would be a huge boost to the west, without damaging or reducing the existing facilities & amenities in the CBD.]

Sydney Modern, if implemented as proposed, will be a sorry waste of public money on an ill-thought-out project.

The Hunters Hill Trust objects to the proposed extension to the Art Gallery of NSW for the following reasons.

Its construction requires the removal of invaluable parkland adjacent to the Royal Botanic Gardens, which also is an integral part of green curtilage around the existing Art Gallery building

Wiith its alien forms, the proposed building is an inappropriate architectural response to the fine Art Gallery building.

As well as destroying green space it blocks out the views of existing building from the east.

It has a detrimental impact on the approaches to Lady Macquarie's chair and the east entrance to the Botanical Gardens.

Its location next to the existing gallery in the CBD represents a lost opportunity to decentralise the important cultural role that the gallery plays in the artistic life of Sydney.