The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter: Tim HolloNew Southern Entrance
To the National Capital Authority Works Approval team.
I write in regards to the NCA's current consultation on the Australian War Memorial Main Works, most specifically the New Southern Entrance and the New Anzac Hall and Glazed Link, but also the works as a full package.
I call on you once again in the strongest possible terms to make use of your particular remit among the institutions of our capital city to halt this development before more damage is done to the heritage, culture and symbolic role of the city.
The NCA's crucial role is to ensure that all development within significant areas of the national capital is consistent with the National Capital Plan. This includes, among other points, ensuring that such development:
is consistent with Canberra's role "as the symbol of Australian national life and values";
conserves and enhances "the landscape features which give the National Capital its character and setting, and which contribute to the integration of natural and urban environments"; and
creates, conserves and enhances "fitting sites, approaches and backdrops for national institutions and ceremonies".
Although I write as a private citizen, in my role as a political candidate I speak to and hear from very large numbers of Canberran residents and stakeholders. It is not just my opinion, but that of the overwhelming majority of Canberrans I have spoken to and heard from, as well as many relevant stakeholders from architects to veterans, that the AWM redevelopment is inconsistent with the National Capital Plan. The NCA must uphold the Plan and reject the proposal.
I emphasise that my critique is of the plan conceptually, not the design work done by the architects, which in each case is of a very high quality. However, the NCA must look not simply at the designs themselves, but at how the proposed development fits in to the National Capital Plan.
Of most particular concern is how the Australian War Memorial as an institution would change in character due to this development, and the impact that change would have on Canberra "as the symbol of Australian national life and values".
As I noted in my submission to the "Early Works", the Australian War Memorial was established, according to its own publications as "not a general museum portraying war, much less one glorifying it, but a memorial".
This challenges the very core of the entire redevelopment project, which is proposed, designed and presented as a museum, creating vast additional space for the showcasing of large military objects and weaponry.
The shift of what AWM Director Matt Anderson describes as the most sacred place in Australia, situated as it is at the very symbolic heart of the nation's capital, from a place memorialising the tragic loss of life and terrible physical and psychological damage to so many more lives due to wars, into a war museum depicting and indeed glorifying war, simply cannot be overstated.
It should be very clearly noted that the most affecting memorials around the world - such as the 9/11 Memorial in New York and the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin - are those which are the simplest, providing a space for reflection. The Hall of Memory, Pool of Reflection, and Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the current Australian War Memorial provide such spaces - spaces that are rightly loved and respected.
If the NCA approves this proposal, it will forever be responsible for a dramatic and disastrous change in the symbolic character of Australia's capital city, away from one which memorialises the tragedy of war to one which glorifies war, putting a massive weapons showcase on its crucial central axis, in one of its most sacred sites.
In regards to the NCA's responsibility to protect the "site, approach and backdrop" of key national institutions, and to ensure the "integration of natural and urban environments", the proposal to build an array of new walls and buildings, however beautifully designed, cannot help but carve out an new interruption in the existing flow of the natural environment from Mount Ainslie to the Lake. The fly-throughs presented by the architects show that this will be the case.
New Southern Entrance:
In opening the consultation meeting on the New Southern Entrance, NCA Chief Executive Sally Barnes observed that any changes must be in line with the Griffin Plan, which the NCA is guardian of. In that context, it is crucial to note that the Griffins were passionate pacifists. As guardians of the Griffin Plan, the NCA must surely be uncomfortable with the transformation that is clearly taking place at the Australian War Memorial through this development, moving from a memorial towards a museum that glorifies war.
As Barnes observed, the Griffins had envisaged the site that is the War Memorial as a "Place of the people", a democratic space. As a space of commemoration, it serves such a purpose, albeit not the one the Griffin had imagined. However, the shift towards being a place where weapons manufacturers can effectively advertise their wares through sponsorships and displays is a transformation well beyond anything the Griffins would have countenanced.
In regards to the New Southern Entrance itself, the Oculus itself is a lovely idea that attempts to make the best of a deeply problematic transformation - shifting the main entrance from the existing direct entrance into the memorial space and directing people through a grand, museum-like foyer. Again, this is a dramatic change of character that the NCA should not approve.
I write in regards to the NCA's current consultation on the Australian War Memorial Main Works, most specifically the New Southern Entrance and the New Anzac Hall and Glazed Link, but also the works as a full package.
I call on you once again in the strongest possible terms to make use of your particular remit among the institutions of our capital city to halt this development before more damage is done to the heritage, culture and symbolic role of the city.
The NCA's crucial role is to ensure that all development within significant areas of the national capital is consistent with the National Capital Plan. This includes, among other points, ensuring that such development:
is consistent with Canberra's role "as the symbol of Australian national life and values";
conserves and enhances "the landscape features which give the National Capital its character and setting, and which contribute to the integration of natural and urban environments"; and
creates, conserves and enhances "fitting sites, approaches and backdrops for national institutions and ceremonies".
Although I write as a private citizen, in my role as a political candidate I speak to and hear from very large numbers of Canberran residents and stakeholders. It is not just my opinion, but that of the overwhelming majority of Canberrans I have spoken to and heard from, as well as many relevant stakeholders from architects to veterans, that the AWM redevelopment is inconsistent with the National Capital Plan. The NCA must uphold the Plan and reject the proposal.
I emphasise that my critique is of the plan conceptually, not the design work done by the architects, which in each case is of a very high quality. However, the NCA must look not simply at the designs themselves, but at how the proposed development fits in to the National Capital Plan.
Of most particular concern is how the Australian War Memorial as an institution would change in character due to this development, and the impact that change would have on Canberra "as the symbol of Australian national life and values".
As I noted in my submission to the "Early Works", the Australian War Memorial was established, according to its own publications as "not a general museum portraying war, much less one glorifying it, but a memorial".
This challenges the very core of the entire redevelopment project, which is proposed, designed and presented as a museum, creating vast additional space for the showcasing of large military objects and weaponry.
The shift of what AWM Director Matt Anderson describes as the most sacred place in Australia, situated as it is at the very symbolic heart of the nation's capital, from a place memorialising the tragic loss of life and terrible physical and psychological damage to so many more lives due to wars, into a war museum depicting and indeed glorifying war, simply cannot be overstated.
It should be very clearly noted that the most affecting memorials around the world - such as the 9/11 Memorial in New York and the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin - are those which are the simplest, providing a space for reflection. The Hall of Memory, Pool of Reflection, and Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the current Australian War Memorial provide such spaces - spaces that are rightly loved and respected.
If the NCA approves this proposal, it will forever be responsible for a dramatic and disastrous change in the symbolic character of Australia's capital city, away from one which memorialises the tragedy of war to one which glorifies war, putting a massive weapons showcase on its crucial central axis, in one of its most sacred sites.
In regards to the NCA's responsibility to protect the "site, approach and backdrop" of key national institutions, and to ensure the "integration of natural and urban environments", the proposal to build an array of new walls and buildings, however beautifully designed, cannot help but carve out an new interruption in the existing flow of the natural environment from Mount Ainslie to the Lake. The fly-throughs presented by the architects show that this will be the case.
New Southern Entrance:
In opening the consultation meeting on the New Southern Entrance, NCA Chief Executive Sally Barnes observed that any changes must be in line with the Griffin Plan, which the NCA is guardian of. In that context, it is crucial to note that the Griffins were passionate pacifists. As guardians of the Griffin Plan, the NCA must surely be uncomfortable with the transformation that is clearly taking place at the Australian War Memorial through this development, moving from a memorial towards a museum that glorifies war.
As Barnes observed, the Griffins had envisaged the site that is the War Memorial as a "Place of the people", a democratic space. As a space of commemoration, it serves such a purpose, albeit not the one the Griffin had imagined. However, the shift towards being a place where weapons manufacturers can effectively advertise their wares through sponsorships and displays is a transformation well beyond anything the Griffins would have countenanced.
In regards to the New Southern Entrance itself, the Oculus itself is a lovely idea that attempts to make the best of a deeply problematic transformation - shifting the main entrance from the existing direct entrance into the memorial space and directing people through a grand, museum-like foyer. Again, this is a dramatic change of character that the NCA should not approve.
Anzac Hall and Glazed Link
New Anzac Hall and Glazed Link
The New Anzac Hall and Glazed Link provide a truly massive space. The sheer size makes it clear that its only purpose is for the exhibition of defence materiel of grand scale. If this were to remain truly a memorial, there would be no reason whatsoever for this enormous expansion. It is purely to enable the transformation of the Australian War Memorial into a war museum showcasing weaponry.
Once again, I emphasise that this is not the fault of the architects. In my opinion, the design for this new space is actually extraordinary. But that is not the point. An extraordinary design to enable the showcasing of machinery of mass death at the physical and symbolic heart of the national capital is completely the wrong thing to do.
The question for the NCA is whether it is appropriate under the National Capital Plan, and consistent with the Griffin Plan, for the Australian War Memorial to be transformed in this way.
I suggest in the strongest possible terms that it is not.
The New Anzac Hall and Glazed Link provide a truly massive space. The sheer size makes it clear that its only purpose is for the exhibition of defence materiel of grand scale. If this were to remain truly a memorial, there would be no reason whatsoever for this enormous expansion. It is purely to enable the transformation of the Australian War Memorial into a war museum showcasing weaponry.
Once again, I emphasise that this is not the fault of the architects. In my opinion, the design for this new space is actually extraordinary. But that is not the point. An extraordinary design to enable the showcasing of machinery of mass death at the physical and symbolic heart of the national capital is completely the wrong thing to do.
The question for the NCA is whether it is appropriate under the National Capital Plan, and consistent with the Griffin Plan, for the Australian War Memorial to be transformed in this way.
I suggest in the strongest possible terms that it is not.