Melbourne State Musuem - City Council Public Forum May 1996
Anthony van der Craats
MINUTES OF
PUBLIC FORUM
PROPOSED STATE MUSEUM
____________
2 pm, Sunday 26 May 1996
Great Hall, Royal Exhibition Buildings
____________
CHAIR : Ms Lecki Ord
1. Welcome
Councillor Peter McMullin, Deputy Lord Mayor, welcomed members of
the public and speakers to the Forum.
2. Introductions
Cr Rosemary Stott of the City of Melbourne addressed the forum and
introduced the speakers listed under agenda item 4.
3. Objective of Forum
The Chair addressed the objective of the Forum.
4. Presentations
· Graham Morris, Director, State Museum
· Dick Roennfeldt, Director, Office of Major Projects.
· Rob Adams, Director City Projects, City of Melbourne
· Dr Miles Lewis, Faculty of Architecture, University of Melbourne
· Trevor Huggard, former Exhibition Trustee and Lord Mayor
Copies of the presentations made by the speakers are attached.
5. Panel Questions
The Panel received and responded to questions from the public.
6 Motions
The following motions were put and carried by those attending the Forum :
"That this Forum move that the Melbourne City Council oppose the
further alienation of parkland in the Carlton Gardens by the location
of a Museum. Further, that it use every endeavour to relocate the
Museum to another site to the strategic advantage of both the Museum
and the City."
"That the meeting strongly oppose the proposed use of the Museum in
the Carlton Gardens as it is a wrongful use of the Gardens and will
severely compromise both the historic Exhibition Buildings, now and
in the future. The site is also inadequate in terms of access by car
and public transport.
This meeting also strongly believes that the Queen Victoria Hospital
or the Federation Square sites will better serve both the interests
of the Museum and the interests of the central city as a cultural
heart of Melbourne and urges that the Carlton Gardens site be
abandoned and serious consideration be given to the central city
sites for the Museum"
"That the meeting :
· call on the State Government and the Melbourne City Council to
consider the incorporation of the State Museum as part of the
proposed development of Federation Square; and
· request that a commitment to the current site at the Exhibition
Buildings be deferred until the options for the Federation Square
project are finalised."
"That this meeting endorse the need for the Museum of Victoria to
develop a new building (or complex of buildings) of world class
standards in the fulfillment the Museum’s mission to preserve and
present evidence of our histories."
"That no blades be included in any proposed development of a Museum."
"That copies of the six addresses given at this Forum be sent to all
members of :
· the Museum Executive; and
· the State Parliament of Victoria."
On the question of the formation of a group to continue to lobbying
for the relocation of the Museum, the Chair recommended that
interested people approach Mr Anthony van der Craats and the ’Defend
Our Heritage’ group at the conclusion of the meeting, to discuss the
ways in which the collective view of members of the community can be
conveyed to the authorities involved in the determination of the site
of the proposed Museum.
The meeting concluded at 4.24 pm
PRESENTATION BY ROB ADAMS, DIRECTOR CITY PROJECTS
TO MUSEUM FORUM - 26 MAY
This presentation dealt with two main issues.
1. Consultation on siting of Museum
2. Master planning and proposed building in Cartoon Gardens
Consultation and Siting
· The City was not consulted on the choice of the site
· Had the City been consulted, it is highly probable given the master
plan for Carlton Gardens, that the City would have agreed to that
site. The masterplan for the Gardens clearly indicated the potential
for a large building to the northern side of the Exhibition Buildings.
· The siting of the new Museum was made before Federation Square
became a firm commitment and as such this site was not considered at
the time.
Master planning the Gardens
The City completed a masterplan for the Gardens in 1990 and this plan
which is currently the adopted masterplan for the park looked at the
historic development of the Gardens and made recommendations for the
design and modification of these gardens over time. The underlying
principles for this masterplan where.
1. To ensure that the park was read as a single large garden with a
building contained within it
2. To reinforce the existing pathway and building features
3. To introduce a planting regime which gave a consistent landscaping
feel to the entire gardens
The existing museum while meeting many of the conditions of the
masterplan currently falls short in the following areas.
1. The edges on Rathdowne and Nicholson Streets break the continuity
of the edge treatment in the park.
2. 'Me building is located too far to the north impinging on the
existing avenue of trees.
3. The space created between the museum and the new library is of
such a scale and design as to potentially become windswept cold and
unfriendly, therefore undesirable in the gardens.
It is to be noted that the original masterplan did not emphasise the
view to the dome from the north and concentrated more on the diagonal
path systems in this northern part of the gardens. This omission by
the masterplan does not mean this view is not important and should be
a consideration for the new building.
The presentation concluded by saying that discussions were being held
between the Minister of Planning and the City to achieve some design
modifications to meet the overall objectives of the masterplan. No
response as yet has been received from the Minister.
PUBLIC FORUM ON THE MUSEUM SITE
Exhibition Building
Miles Lewis
26 May 1996
Ladies and Gentlemen
I have lived through a period when the Victoria Market has been
proposed as the site of new Museum ; then the Queen Victoria Hospital
site; then the existing Museum and Library site in Swanston Street
(on the basis that the Library would now move out); then the south
bank of the Yarra; and now the Carlton Gardens.
These changes have been absolutely dispiriting for those involved in
the Museum. The last was probably the worst. Construction was
actually under way on a site on the south side of the Yarra which the
Museum itself had chosen, which had a water connection to
Scienceworks, and which was close to Southgate and the Arts Centre.
The Kennett Government simply stepped in, halted the work, and
converted the part-built structure into the Exhibition Centre.
Nobody can help sympathising with the Museum authorities. Anybody
can understand their desperate desire to find a permanent home, and
their desperate need, in consequence, to justify the present scheme.
But the fact is that nobody in the Museum world honestly believes
that this is a good site. Nobody believes that it is central enough.
Nobody believes that it is close enough to other arts and tourist
facilities. Nobody believes that it is accessible enough to public
transport; nobody believes that it will have enough carparking.
Nobody believes that it can work well in relation to the Exhibition
building. Nobody believes that it provides the room for expansion
which is a requirement of the brief itself.
The official brief states (p 64): "It is also inevitable that at some
time in the future additions to the complex will be required. The
building needs to cater for expansion in both its internal planning
and its external appearance."
Two put it bluntly, two wrongs don't make a right, and five wrongs
still don't make a
right.
The other four wrongs are as follows. It is wrong for the Exhibition
Buildings. It is wrong for the cultural precinct of Melbourne. It
is wrong for the City of Melbourne as a whole. And it is absolutely
and terribly wrong to treat parkland as development sites.
It is wrong for the Exhibition Building because this is one of
Australia's most important and symbolic pieces of architecture,
epitomising the peak of nineteenth century Victorian success and
prosperity, representing a high point of intercolonial cooperation;
and the first meeting place of the Parliament of Australia. It is,
along with the Eiffel Tower in Paris, one of the only substantial
structures remaining from the great nineteenth century exhibitions.
And it is, because of this, the only building in Victoria with any
prospect of achieving world heritage listing. That listing
represents the ultimate in international recognition, and means a
great deal in terms both of tourism and prestige. But it also
requires a commitment by the authorities to the building's proper
preservation and management, including its
surroundings.
Such a commitment is not demonstrated by building a totally
incompatible structure next to it, with a featuristic blade whose
sole purpose is to compete with the great dome.
And don't get the idea that this is will be a new structure nestling
in the shadow of the Exhibition Building. The Exhibition Building is
huge, but the Museum is to be three times the size, and to add to
that there will be an additional three thousand square metres of
outdoor exhibition space, plus delivery bays, plus carparking access.
The north part of the Carlton Gardens will be no more than a skirt
about the foot of this
megastructure.
Cars will enter the site through what was the major public forecourt
of the Exhibition Building facing Nicholson Street. A boom gate and
attendant's booth have already been put there, overshadowing the
newly restored Westgarth Fountain and turning a major public space
into a tacky parking lot. Does this suggest that future decisions
about the Exhibition Buiilding can safely be left in the hands of Mr
Morris?
That is why the proposal is wrong for the Exhibition Building. Why
is it wrong for the
cultural precinct?
There is a cultural spine along Swanston Street. At the north end is
a so-called knowledge precinct extending from Melbourne University
through RMIT to the State Library and the present Museum. At the
south end is the Arts Centre, the soon to be reopened Regent Theatre,
and the Town Hall in its role as a prime musical and entertainment
venue.
These landmark institutions are mutually reinforcing. People move
from one to another. They cooperate for festivals and other special
events. They collectively comprise Melbourne'sculturalidentity.
TotaketheMuseumoutofthegroupisnotjusttodamage the Museum itself, but
to damage the others as well. It is to hack off a major limb from a
body which is not robust enough to spare it.
That is why this proposal is wrong from the point of view of
Melbourne's cultural precinct.
If the museum is essential to the cultural spine, it is even more
essential to the Central Business District. Central Melbourne, make
no mistake, is very sick and is getting sicker by the minute. The
residential market is collapsing, and it's losing office
accommodation, retailing and entertainment.
Swanston Walk already looks like a wasteland, and this is only the beginning.
City flats in recycled buildings are now re-selling at about 20% less
than the purchase
price. That is a situation which simply cannot continue, and the rot
has set in already.
City office space is in a state of glut, partly concealed by the
incentives, discounts and rentfree periods used to attract tenants
into the new buildings. But the fact is that the demand is not
there. City rentals are lower than those in St Kilda Road, and in
turn the rents in St Kilda Road are below those in some suburban
centres.
City retailing is sick enough as it is. Soon a massive new shopping
complex is going to
open at the Casino, and the whole focus of the city will move to the
south of the Yarra.
The same is true of entertainment. The Casino complex is to contain
no less than twenty new cinemas. What will that do to the existing
city venues?
Every viable function is being leached out of the city. There is not
much that governments can do to arrest a decline Re this. However,
every few decades, perhaps only two or three times in a century,
there is some major project which can be used to kick start a
revival, and the construction of a new Museum is potentially one such
project.
But it is not being used in that way. It is not merely that the
Museum is to be built elsewhere. This also involves taking away the
existing Museum and its existing flow of visitors. This could be the
coup-de-grace for at least the northern part of town.
My fifth, and my last, and my most serious point is what this implies
for Melbourne's parklands. There have always been greedy eyes on
Melbourne's parks, and there have always been battles to preserve one
park or another. But there has never been a sustained and
simultaneous attack upon almost every piece of open space in the city
as there is today, under the Kennett government .
The destruction of parklands is a one-way process,, which works like
a ratchet. For there is no going back. Every time you put a
development on parkland you create the expectation that the same can
be done with the next development. Every time you put a public
institution on parkland you create a demand for carparking and access
roads which can never be finally satisfied. Every use you put in
parkland has to expand, in due course, onto the only space available,
which is more parkland.
The Children's Hospital was moved onto Royal Park in the 1950s. Now
this is the excuse
for the Women's Hospital to move there as well.
The Carlton Football ground - or so-called 'Optus Oval' - has long
been in Princes Park, but is expanding, at the expense of parkland;
creating carparking, at the expense of parkland; and installing night
lighting, also at the expense of parkland.
In this age of economic rationalism the Royal Botanic Gardens has to
earn money on a commercial basis, and therefore to provide spaces
that can be let out for functions. Therefore it is to expand into
the Domain, once again at the expense of Parkland.
In the Carlton Gardens there has been a carpark north of this
building. That is the excuse for saying that this area is no longer
park, and therefore a giant project can be built there. But that
carpark is a part of the original Carlton Gardens, and until now no
permanent building has been allowed upon it. Make no mistake - the
Museum proposal is an assault on parklands on a massive scale.
The Melbourne Zoo has had temporary parking on the surrounding
grassed areas during peak seasons. Now that is being translated into
permanent parking with kerbing, and earthworks, and the removal of
trees. Once this has been done the next government can say there, as
has been said here in the Carlton Gardens, that this is only car
park, so it can now be built over. What price parklands now?
We have always understood that parks were permanent, and were for all
people, and that they could be used for sporting purposes. We have
complacently accepted the idea that this might mean a few extra
structures by way of toilets and changing rooms. But it has now gone
way beyond that. They are now used to build giant complexes with the
permanent offices of sporting bodies, with private clubrooms,
commercial restaurants and with
corporate boxes.
Albert Park has been completely raped for the Grand Prix, and now
looks as synthetic as
Noddy's Toy Town, with a giant building in the middle. But you've
seen nothing yet.
There is now to be an even bigger structure put up at the north-west
comer as an indoor sports and aquatic centre. It will be seven times
the size of the Pit Building, or approximately the same size as the
giant Melbourne Exhibition Centre on the south side of the Yarra.
If so much parkland can be destroyed by a single government, why
should the next government not do the same again? And the one after?
And how long before there is nothing left?
This is symptomatic of the planning process in modem Victoria. There
are no overall policies. Decisions are arbitrary and inconsistent.
There is no public input, no professional review, and no avenue for
public protest or appeal. Assumptions that we all took for granted -
like the idea that parkland is permanent open space - are repudiated
and ridiculed.
And it is dog eat dog. The sort of people who support the planning
process, who love the parkland, and who have a vision of an urbane
and civilised city, are the very people who would naturally support
institutions like the Museum of Victoria. Yet now a wedge is driven
between us, and we are forced into opposite camps.
Let us recognise that the supporters of the parks and the supporters
of the Museum are not enemies but allies. We have a common enemy,
and that is the Philistines - those people in politics,
administration and public life, who would foist upon us an irrational
and destructive proposal.
It is a proposal which will oust the Museum from its rightful place
at the heart of Melbourne and sever it from its public, which will
devalue one of our greatest public monuments, which will sap the
cultural life of Melbourne, which will help in bringing the CBD to
its knees, and which will unleash the hounds of hell upon the
tattered remains of Melbourne's parks and gardens.
SITING THE MUSEUM OF VICTORIA
By Tervor Huggard
Is it to be Position, Position and Position or is it to be Isolated
from Transport, Isolated from the other arts and Isolated from its
most important resource - People?
A paper on the Strategic Planning of our City and the appropriate
position of the
Museum of Victoria to benefit the City, the State and the Museum by Trevor
Huggard, Former Exhibition Trustee, Lord Mayor of Melbourne and Chairman of
Melbourne Strategy Plan Committee.
While there is much that could be said about the design and its
disrespect for the Great Hall replacing its recently restored
Centennial Gardens on Nicholson Street with a car park entrance and
ramp, a bus parking station at its main entrance central axis to
Rathdowne Street and the obliteration of many fine views of the dome
from northern aspects I will not dwell on any of these issues in the
limited time available today.
Of much greater importance is the key strategic planning issues
relating to the city and its host role for the whole of the state and
where we place one of the states most important assets, a unique
asset, the Museum of Victoria by its nature is a one off, naturally
positioned, hopefully, at an accessible, well located venue where
regular visitation by all Victorians, especially those without access
to cars, school children, overseas, interstate and intrastate
visitors can occur.
Most importantly it should be in a location where people who never
intended to visit the Museum when they set out on their days
activities will become conscious of its existence and have their
lives enhanced by being drawn into the Museum and discovering its
intellectually stimulating and therapeutic benefits to their lives.
Let there be no mistake in understanding that the Casino management
understand this
point with vivid clarity!
They have positioned themselves so that they are geographically and
psychologically central to our lives and our culture, not peripheral
to it. Many people perhaps wish they were not, but that is the
subject of a separate debate.
We must make sure that the intellectual pursuits are well positioned to make a
contribution to all of our lives and we do not have to seek them out.
Access for all is crucial, obvious positioning is vital, public
debate essenu and a process that ensures that the ultimate decision
makers are well informed and fully aware of the issues and concerns
before they make their irreversible decision.
Q1= of those four criteria is being addressed today, hopefully the
other three will follow.
In the 1985 Strategy Plan, a plan that is to be regularly reviewed
and updated as a blueprint for this city, which I had the good
fortune to be chairman of, it became obvious in the detailed research
and just over 1000 meetings in 10 months with every diverse interest
group in this complex city, that certain aspects of our city are
crucial to uphold or your city will suffer and wither irretrievably.
The important principle of having a 'strong centred city' not a city
with a dead heart was a
central platform of the plan.
The very reason why the Melbourne City Council has had an adopted
policy of fighting hard to retain the large array of government
departments in the city rather than allowing them to drift and
decentralise to remote locations, even although none of them pay
rates, placing a huge financial burden on the council's budget, is
that the enormous investment in the underground rail loop and our
public transport system can only be justified if the very hub of the
system provides access to all those facilities.
It is also an economic fact that where government investment locates
itself, private
investment follows.
Conversely where government investment deserts the city, private
investment quickly
follows.
This principle is starkly obvious in our city at this very moment.
A recent press article expressing concern about the decline of
Russell Street by the Chamber of Commerce and BOMA highlights that
when corresponding decisions to vacate the Magistrates Court, Russell
Street police headquarters and the Queen Victoria hospital site all
occur more or less simultaneously an instant stop to precinct
activity occurs leaving the area and its surrounds in serious decline.
The Greek precinct, Chinatown and the general retail area suddenly
hit the wall and
disastrous commercial decay ensues.
The Queen Victoria hospital generated enormous activity for the
immediate area through extensive rural Victoria numbers demanding
accommodation, food and back up services around the clock.
The present thinking of possibly turning it into a city park is
bizarre to say the least.
The ultimate irony is that we are turning our public gardens into
building sites and our
building site into gardem!
Unfortunately this extraordinary 'switch of sites' behaviour costs
the tax payer heavily but
fills the pockets of a few select individuals handsomely.
I do hope the decision makers see the irony and correct the ships
course as a matter of considerable urgency.
The continuing process of asset stripping of our city has been
identified by the 1985
Strategy Plan and its 1990 review and alarm bells sounded about the
decline of the city.
It is by neglect, or design, not necessity and must be halted-
Walter Burley Griffin's design for Canberra with its central spine
extending from the war memorial to parliament house seems to be well
understood by planners and the public alike.
The civic spine from our war memorial past the deliberate placement
of our civic assets, the town hall, the city square, St Pauls
Cathedral, the National Gallery, Flinders Street Station, the State
Library and the Museum of Victoria and leading up to, as Barry
Humphries wryly noted in the 1970's "that other book end of our
culture, Carlton United Breweries" is not nearly as well understood.
Its importance to Melbourne is enormous and major civic decisions
over the years have been consistently based on this understanding and
recent decisions to close Swanston Street to through traffic as our
main processional spine where every event and procession from the
Anzac Day march to the Moomba procession occurs acknowledges this. A
current decision on the books to build the $100 M plus Federation
Square at Princes Bridge consolidates this position.
it is extraordinary to me that on 3 sites all worthy of serious
consideration Federation Square, Queen Victoria Hospital site and the
Carlton United Breweries site all desperately looking for a primary
use to arrest the decline of our cities activity and vibrance and all
strategically located on our main civic spine and processional way
are ignored.
It is even more extraordinary to me that the Museum would happily
vacate its location of dominance in the city, and in the minds of all
Victorians, from its present location where expansion without the
disruption of moving could occur.
As pointed out it is not only the obvious vacant Queen Victoria
Hospital site that
surrounds the Museum at present but it abounds with vacated sites in
the former legal
precinct as well. The opportunities for endless, uncontroversial,
publicly welcomed
expansion are endless.
One of the great museums of the world, the British Museum thrives on
retaining its location in London by acquiring neighbouring buildings
and sites and adapting them for their use.
it is not disadvantaged by this at all, on the contrary, and it
reinforces the precinct activity and makes a major contribution to
that city. It will be a tragedy for Melbourne and the Museum if it
is not put where it will be loved and needed.
The British Museum also benefits by having a Museum Station on the
underground which firstly constantly reminds visitors of its
existence and secondly simplifies the process of finding it by simply
travelling to Museum Station.
In Melbourne there are 197 stations on our Metropolitan network, only
one of them was
named after a dedicated use and activity - Museum Station - what a
marketing coup!
Not even the AFL has an MCG Station - but I bet they would love to
see that! Some
will hasten to point out that the Showgrounds Station and Flemington
Racecourse are
dedicated stations but they are once a year stations on a dead end line.
The State government wanted $250,000 to extinguish the Museum Station
name and sell it
to Melbourne Central as Melbourne Central! They understood the
marketing advantage!
Why anyone would want to abandon such a clear marketing advantage and
high profile
address is beyond comprehension.
This proposed address is remote, difficult , car based and not well
served by public
transport.
The use of either the Queen Victoria Hospital site and other related
precinct sites or the
CUB site could all retain Museum Station as our only dedicated station.
An opportunity to invest in our city with a $250 M public building is
a once in a life time opportunity and should be strategically located
to make a contribution to the city not located to the detriment of
our public gardens.
In September, 1986 the M.C.C. commissioned a detailed report by Rex
Swanston on the
use of its public parks and gardens.
The first point, made is that gardens are infinitely more fragile and
sensitive to use than
parks and fall into a quite different category of public amenity than
parkland.
The Carlton Gardens are exactly that - a garden, not a parkland and
need to be very
carefully managed.
Secondly it was recommended that major events and activities should
be avoided in them.
This policy was adopted by M.C.C. at that time.
The replacement of our democratically elected council by state
government appointed commissioners meant that not only has this
policy on management of the gardens been ignored but also the
presence of councillors on the Exhibition Trustees to ensure that
knowledge and daily dialogue occurred but also the process of
planning permit applications and rights to objection lapsed as well.
Simply put, the delicate balance of checks and balances that have
existed and have been successful in retaining this building and these
gardens for posterity for the past 116 years were rudely interrupted
and removed.
The public alarm and concern about this proposal is well founded not
simply for what is proposed but what it commits these gardens to.
It is a current fact that in the Melbourne City Council area where a
public institution is located in a park land or a garden they
currently have objectionable and unwanted expansion proposed or under
way alienating parkland at an unprecedented rate! i.e.
Princes Park - Carlton Football Club
Royal Park
RQyal Park
Tennis Centre
Hard paved car parking and major alienation of park land for
the zoo
Proposed relocation of the Royal Womens Hospital to the
Royal Children's Hospital site
Multi-deck car park in Goshs Paddock
Carlton Garnd.=- Museum proposed
Albert Park, Kings Domain, FairticM, the list goes on and on.
The main point is that wherever an institution is placed in the
middle of our parkland it remains in conflict forever with that
garden as the insatiable demand for expansion, particularly for car
parking puts future politicians, governments and communities under
constant pressure to accept the current 'quite reasonable'
incremental increases of use.
Anyone opposing such reasonable requests is constantly painted as
being unreasonable or
difficult.
THE PLACEMENT OF MAJOR INSTITUTIONS IN A PARKLAND CONDEMNS THAT
PARKLAND TO CONTINUOUS AND INEXORABLE ALIENATION OF THAT PARKLAND AND
REMAINS, IN PLANNING TERMS, FATALLY FLAWED AS A PHILOSOPHY.
IT MUST BE COMPREHENSIVELY REJECTED WHEREVER IT IS PROPOSED!
This museum proposal clearly is being built with an acknowledged
shortfall of car parking. It will immediately be under pressure to
cope with that and the proposals for expansion will commence
immediately, not in 10 years time.
No matter how sincere promises are by the museum or any planner or
politician the reality is that history has proven that none of them
can provide any guarantees that expansion will not occur, on the
contrary we know from logic and experience that it will and must
occur just as each and every facility in our parklands is expanding
at the current time.
The Exhibition Buildings were built before the motor car. The
alienation by the motor car since has been appalling and has already
commenced again with the parking of vehicles around the Great Hall
and installation of a totally offensive ticket box and boom gate at
the eastern entrance where the Centennial Gardens were reconstructed
for pedestrian access only in the 1980's.
I was very proud to be a Trustee in the 1980's and be part of the
renaissance of the restoration of this building, the largest
Victorian restoration in the world, and the 4 stage restoration of
the gardens to ensure we once again saw this building standing in a
garden setting.
Stage 1. The restoration of the Centennial Gardens to the eastern
face on Nicholson Street removing the sea of cars took place. The
removal of the high cyclone fence to the north car park was removed
to allow public access, the process for reinstatement was well under
way.
It really incences me to hear the government say they are only taking
over an old car park
and no trees will be lost. Let there be no mistake they are taking
over our gardens!
Our gardens are not cheap development sites.
This car park long identified by the community and the Trustees was
unacceptable and
was progressively being reinstated to gardens once again.
In concern at the then Hamer governments intention to build a 3000
seat convention centre
on this site in 1979 I wrote a detailed report called 'When is a
garden, not a gardenT
The points made today were articulated clearly and presented to the
government.
To his credit Premier Hamer listened and abandoned the proposal.
Premier Kennett
should do the same now.
It is important to note that the government had said then that its
decision to proceed with the proposal was far too advanced,
irreversible and could not be stopped, but it was stopped.
These same points contained in that report are more relevant than
ever today. I have also heard the arguernent put by this government
that it is too late to change course and it would cost too much to
proceed - not bad for a government that stopped Daryl Jacksons prize
winning design when it was nearly completed at south bank!
It is indeed ironical that right at this moment at huge expense to
the tax payer the gas and
fuel twin towers are being demolished generally acknowledged as a
planning disaster.
It was allowed to occur because it is on crown land and no planning
permits were needed.
Similarly the Metrol building built in Batman Avenue obliterated the
all important view from Russell Street to the Botanic Gardens and
Government House and contravened the 1974 Strategy Plan and had
occured again because no planning permit was applied for.
The Premier responded to public outrage and instructed the half built
building be
demolished - a very gutsy, but correct decision.
He instructed all his government departments that they must apply for
planning permits
whether they were legally needed or not.
A similar requirement was placed on the Exhibition Buildings in 1979
and worked
extremely well until it was conveniently forgotten for this project!
Public scrutiny and planning permits protect politicians from
themselves and we the public
from planning disasters that should have been foreseen.
Remember good proposals have nothing to fear from planning permits,
only bad proposals
have anything to fear!
What an outrage that even the design of a small heritage ticket box
to replace a totally disastrous series of unfortunate out buildings
in 1987 saw fit to engage public scrutiny and quite rightly apply for
a planning permit yet a 12,000 M , $250 M structure does not.
What an outrage that the debate has been consciously diverted to
architectural design rather than one of strategic planning and
siting. It presumes that it is alright to build a Nuclear Reactor in
Bourke Street provided it looks alright!
I do not want to debate the colour of the doorknobs, I want to see a
proper decision made
on the correct siting and location of our museum.
In Summary:-
We do not want another Gas and Fuel twin towers or a Metrol building
by ignoring
process.
We do not want one more institution dropped in the middle of a public
gardens where its
inevitable expansion will destroy the gardens.
We do not want another legacy of a facility that doesn't work because
a planning permit considering all the key issues of transport,
parking, access, amenity, scale, size, current infrastructure and
environmental impact is ignored.
We do want - a world class museum in an 'A' grade location.
We do want - the appalling neglect by successive governments to the
museum at the expense of the other arts, tennis centres and great
southern stands, etc to finally be properly balanced with a genuine
commitment to the intellectual pursuits and provide a museum which is
welcomed by the community.
Swanston Walk has . had a 63% increase of pedestrian traffic since
its implementation but those that criticise it as a failure don't
recognise that it needs the major government investments and
community assets to remain or locate along it to guarantee the
teeming life we all crave for it.
Unless this once in a lifetime opportunity of a $250 M project is
invested in the positive development of our city rather than another
sad chapter in its decline then our city and the HI be the poorer for
it,
