The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter: Joe BirdNew Southern Entrance
Firstly, thank you for the opportunity to submit feedback on these proposed changes to the AWM. I'll keep my commentary as brief as possible and relatively generic as I have one main overarching point to make which spans all three proposal feedback aspects.
I'd firstly like to complement the Architects on what the presentations show as innovative designs in my opinion. From a purely architectural design perspective I find the proposed changes novel & interesting, however, this is not my area of expertise, nor is it the main focus of my feedback. Rather, I'm concerned more that the purpose & recent direction of the AWM and how this has informed the expansion plans which seem to detract from the character & original intent of this facility. There are aspects of the AWM recent direction that require clarification before any redesign can be considered in any informed way (as only once the AWM purpose & relationship to the Australian people is fully explained & agreed upon can we know if the designs are fit for what is required of these buildings (and if the AWM is able to remain fit for the purpose that the Australians people require).
I'll note that while I've read that 'some architects and heritage advocates have slammed the proposed designs as "wasteful and arrogant"', and that perhaps they understand better than I the issues from a design perspective. I do wonder wether the NCA believes that the designs are in-line with the Griffin plan, as a memorial space and a place 'for the people', designed and designated as such by avowed pacifists, rather than as an exhibition hall for weapons of war. A museum to house a large collection of genuine historical artefacts is one thing, but the scale shown in these plans leads me to wonder at the priority & intent.
Recent controversial AWM policy changes show that there is a dire need for the precise purpose and future direction of the AWM to be clarified up-front so as to preserve this facility, it's overall function & purpose, what it means to Australians and perhaps more importantly to clearly define what the AWM isn't and should never become. Only then can designs for it's expansions be considered as to whether they achieve those updated & clarified goals.
Being a citizen with long and manifold family connections to military service in Australia who has visited the AWM on several occasions (one who hopes to visit again many times, from quite a long distance away) and who finds it a fascinating and solemn contemplative memorial - as I feel it should be. I am compelled to voice that I am exceedingly concerned that the proposed expansions risks accommodating a change in character to the AWM that disturbs & greatly saddens me. It undermines and cheapens my lifelong understanding of the AWM purpose. From a Memorial, museum & archive of significant historical interest, reflection, and contemplation of sadness & horrors of war, to a potential venue to showcase weapons sponsored by & beholden to Arms Manufacturers.
The AWM in my understanding is not a place to glorify war, nor to showcase or promote weapons systems gratuitously. It should not legitimise any specific producers weapons or defence materiel by referenceing them in connection to AWM with corporate sponsorship of our nations collective spiritual debt to the fallen, to all those who've sacrificed for our collective goals.
I note with absolute dismay that former AWM Director Brendan Nelson took up a senior position at Boeing just weeks after leaving the Directorship of AWM, and that he controversially allowed current Weapons & Arms manufacturers (such as Boeing, Thales, Lockheed Martin and BAE systems) to become corporate sponsors of the AWM. Being a former Liberal minister, this type of sponsorship is ingrained in his thinking but it is my view, and those of many others, that this cheapens and sells out our AWM. This action has gravely damaged the reputation of independence of the AWM by the coopting of our ongoing national memory, spirit and identity, linking unrelated personal and collective sacrifice with profiteers from conflict. Until this grotesquery is addressed, it risks damaging the legacy of all those that served, those that supported & loved them, those that would never be able to know them.
This corporate sponsorship & resultant perception of collusion or cross-promotion has unfortunately impacted and diminished the AWM enormously in the eyes of the Australian Public. It risks doing so in an ongoing fashion for future generations. I feel that the damage done by this legacy of Mr Nelson's tenure will take a great many years to heal even once corrected and that the AWM course in this respect must be corrected in order to ensure the original purpose is not subverted by such commercial ties ever again.
While I have no issue with expanding the AWM for the purposes of it's original intent which is genuinely sympathetic with the landscape and original design cues and in accordance with the Griffin plan, to enhance the original AWM functions ..
- to house larger collections of genuine historical significance,
- to expand research,
- to place a larger amount of historical artefacts on public display,
- to provide greater archive access,
- to provide greater supporting infrastructure,
- better public access & meeting and gathering spaces,
- improved presentation spaces,
- to improve or expanded solemn reflection and spiritual space,
..but I utterly reject expansion of AWM facilities with the recent commercial sponsorship agreements in place. Having these corporations associated with the AWM in name or branding, not knowing if the AWM facilities would be used to host their events, product launches or associated with them in any way leaves glaring ethical questions hanging over the AWM and consequently around the purpose of these design plans.
I worry greatly that any approval of expansion in advance of washing clean the last Director's deleterious impact (by clearly defining AWM as a stand-alone fully independent public facility without any connection or allegiance to weapons makers) will be fraught with ongoing controversy, impacting the Australian national pride or spirit and risking further staining the AWM reputation indelibly.
Please consider that these sponsorship arrangements already have a foothold at our beloved AWM and that this considerably depletes public confidence around the appropriateness of the designs put forward (whether accurate or not, unresolved perception of controversy depletes this crucial national monument, and the considerable cost and plans to accommodate whatever the future holds for the AWM). The Australian public needs this facility as it was originally intended. The ability to appreciate and reflect upon the vast sacrifices Australians have made throughout history, right and wrong, good and bad, joyous and terrible, is wholly diminished by the grubby connection to foreign Arms Dealers. These connections need to be cauterised and a respectful return to the original AWM intent set in stone before any designs for expansion can be considered on the merits of the Memorial that Australians need and deserve.
I conclude by stating that this perspective and commentary is indeed related to the design proposals in that the purpose of these architectural designs is to facilitate the purpose of the AWM. Therefore the overall function and intent of the AWM needs to be clear and uncontroversial to know if the designs are truly fit for that purpose to such large changes that will last a long time. While my point may not be within the scope or remit of the NCA or this feedback request, it is most definitely an important factor relating to the fitness of the designs of such an important public building in our National Capital. As AWM corporate sponsorship impacts the overall purpose of the AWM and these designs facilitate this changed state, it places the current intent for this facility under a cloud, therefore I contend that design approval should not go ahead with overall purpose and requirement considerations as they currently stand. These sponsorship arrangements raise serious questions about the purpose of the facility, and the purpose impacts the design needs. The AWM relationship to the Australian people and to foreign arms manufacturers must be fully understood & clarified before any expansion designs can be examined as fit AWM for requirements. NCA members, please utilise your veto powers reject this proposal in order set the Griffins intent for this space back to it's original purpose.
This feedback is intended to inform all three aspects of the proposed AWM renovation (New Southern Entrance, Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant, Anzac Hall and Glazed Link).
Thank you for reading my submission.
I'd firstly like to complement the Architects on what the presentations show as innovative designs in my opinion. From a purely architectural design perspective I find the proposed changes novel & interesting, however, this is not my area of expertise, nor is it the main focus of my feedback. Rather, I'm concerned more that the purpose & recent direction of the AWM and how this has informed the expansion plans which seem to detract from the character & original intent of this facility. There are aspects of the AWM recent direction that require clarification before any redesign can be considered in any informed way (as only once the AWM purpose & relationship to the Australian people is fully explained & agreed upon can we know if the designs are fit for what is required of these buildings (and if the AWM is able to remain fit for the purpose that the Australians people require).
I'll note that while I've read that 'some architects and heritage advocates have slammed the proposed designs as "wasteful and arrogant"', and that perhaps they understand better than I the issues from a design perspective. I do wonder wether the NCA believes that the designs are in-line with the Griffin plan, as a memorial space and a place 'for the people', designed and designated as such by avowed pacifists, rather than as an exhibition hall for weapons of war. A museum to house a large collection of genuine historical artefacts is one thing, but the scale shown in these plans leads me to wonder at the priority & intent.
Recent controversial AWM policy changes show that there is a dire need for the precise purpose and future direction of the AWM to be clarified up-front so as to preserve this facility, it's overall function & purpose, what it means to Australians and perhaps more importantly to clearly define what the AWM isn't and should never become. Only then can designs for it's expansions be considered as to whether they achieve those updated & clarified goals.
Being a citizen with long and manifold family connections to military service in Australia who has visited the AWM on several occasions (one who hopes to visit again many times, from quite a long distance away) and who finds it a fascinating and solemn contemplative memorial - as I feel it should be. I am compelled to voice that I am exceedingly concerned that the proposed expansions risks accommodating a change in character to the AWM that disturbs & greatly saddens me. It undermines and cheapens my lifelong understanding of the AWM purpose. From a Memorial, museum & archive of significant historical interest, reflection, and contemplation of sadness & horrors of war, to a potential venue to showcase weapons sponsored by & beholden to Arms Manufacturers.
The AWM in my understanding is not a place to glorify war, nor to showcase or promote weapons systems gratuitously. It should not legitimise any specific producers weapons or defence materiel by referenceing them in connection to AWM with corporate sponsorship of our nations collective spiritual debt to the fallen, to all those who've sacrificed for our collective goals.
I note with absolute dismay that former AWM Director Brendan Nelson took up a senior position at Boeing just weeks after leaving the Directorship of AWM, and that he controversially allowed current Weapons & Arms manufacturers (such as Boeing, Thales, Lockheed Martin and BAE systems) to become corporate sponsors of the AWM. Being a former Liberal minister, this type of sponsorship is ingrained in his thinking but it is my view, and those of many others, that this cheapens and sells out our AWM. This action has gravely damaged the reputation of independence of the AWM by the coopting of our ongoing national memory, spirit and identity, linking unrelated personal and collective sacrifice with profiteers from conflict. Until this grotesquery is addressed, it risks damaging the legacy of all those that served, those that supported & loved them, those that would never be able to know them.
This corporate sponsorship & resultant perception of collusion or cross-promotion has unfortunately impacted and diminished the AWM enormously in the eyes of the Australian Public. It risks doing so in an ongoing fashion for future generations. I feel that the damage done by this legacy of Mr Nelson's tenure will take a great many years to heal even once corrected and that the AWM course in this respect must be corrected in order to ensure the original purpose is not subverted by such commercial ties ever again.
While I have no issue with expanding the AWM for the purposes of it's original intent which is genuinely sympathetic with the landscape and original design cues and in accordance with the Griffin plan, to enhance the original AWM functions ..
- to house larger collections of genuine historical significance,
- to expand research,
- to place a larger amount of historical artefacts on public display,
- to provide greater archive access,
- to provide greater supporting infrastructure,
- better public access & meeting and gathering spaces,
- improved presentation spaces,
- to improve or expanded solemn reflection and spiritual space,
..but I utterly reject expansion of AWM facilities with the recent commercial sponsorship agreements in place. Having these corporations associated with the AWM in name or branding, not knowing if the AWM facilities would be used to host their events, product launches or associated with them in any way leaves glaring ethical questions hanging over the AWM and consequently around the purpose of these design plans.
I worry greatly that any approval of expansion in advance of washing clean the last Director's deleterious impact (by clearly defining AWM as a stand-alone fully independent public facility without any connection or allegiance to weapons makers) will be fraught with ongoing controversy, impacting the Australian national pride or spirit and risking further staining the AWM reputation indelibly.
Please consider that these sponsorship arrangements already have a foothold at our beloved AWM and that this considerably depletes public confidence around the appropriateness of the designs put forward (whether accurate or not, unresolved perception of controversy depletes this crucial national monument, and the considerable cost and plans to accommodate whatever the future holds for the AWM). The Australian public needs this facility as it was originally intended. The ability to appreciate and reflect upon the vast sacrifices Australians have made throughout history, right and wrong, good and bad, joyous and terrible, is wholly diminished by the grubby connection to foreign Arms Dealers. These connections need to be cauterised and a respectful return to the original AWM intent set in stone before any designs for expansion can be considered on the merits of the Memorial that Australians need and deserve.
I conclude by stating that this perspective and commentary is indeed related to the design proposals in that the purpose of these architectural designs is to facilitate the purpose of the AWM. Therefore the overall function and intent of the AWM needs to be clear and uncontroversial to know if the designs are truly fit for that purpose to such large changes that will last a long time. While my point may not be within the scope or remit of the NCA or this feedback request, it is most definitely an important factor relating to the fitness of the designs of such an important public building in our National Capital. As AWM corporate sponsorship impacts the overall purpose of the AWM and these designs facilitate this changed state, it places the current intent for this facility under a cloud, therefore I contend that design approval should not go ahead with overall purpose and requirement considerations as they currently stand. These sponsorship arrangements raise serious questions about the purpose of the facility, and the purpose impacts the design needs. The AWM relationship to the Australian people and to foreign arms manufacturers must be fully understood & clarified before any expansion designs can be examined as fit AWM for requirements. NCA members, please utilise your veto powers reject this proposal in order set the Griffins intent for this space back to it's original purpose.
This feedback is intended to inform all three aspects of the proposed AWM renovation (New Southern Entrance, Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant, Anzac Hall and Glazed Link).
Thank you for reading my submission.
Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant
Firstly, thank you for the opportunity to submit feedback on these proposed changes to the AWM. I'll keep my commentary as brief as possible and relatively generic as I have one main overarching point to make which spans all three proposal feedback aspects.
I'd firstly like to complement the Architects on what the presentations show as innovative designs in my opinion. From a purely architectural design perspective I find the proposed changes novel & interesting, however, this is not my area of expertise, nor is it the main focus of my feedback. Rather, I'm concerned more that the purpose & recent direction of the AWM and how this has informed the expansion plans which seem to detract from the character & original intent of this facility. There are aspects of the AWM recent direction that require clarification before any redesign can be considered in any informed way (as only once the AWM purpose & relationship to the Australian people is fully explained & agreed upon can we know if the designs are fit for what is required of these buildings (and if the AWM is able to remain fit for the purpose that the Australians people require).
I'll note that while I've read that 'some architects and heritage advocates have slammed the proposed designs as "wasteful and arrogant"', and that perhaps they understand better than I the issues from a design perspective. I do wonder wether the NCA believes that the designs are in-line with the Griffin plan, as a memorial space and a place 'for the people', designed and designated as such by avowed pacifists, rather than as an exhibition hall for weapons of war. A museum to house a large collection of genuine historical artefacts is one thing, but the scale shown in these plans leads me to wonder at the priority & intent.
Recent controversial AWM policy changes show that there is a dire need for the precise purpose and future direction of the AWM to be clarified up-front so as to preserve this facility, it's overall function & purpose, what it means to Australians and perhaps more importantly to clearly define what the AWM isn't and should never become. Only then can designs for it's expansions be considered as to whether they achieve those updated & clarified goals.
Being a citizen with long and manifold family connections to military service in Australia who has visited the AWM on several occasions (one who hopes to visit again many times, from quite a long distance away) and who finds it a fascinating and solemn contemplative memorial - as I feel it should be. I am compelled to voice that I am exceedingly concerned that the proposed expansions risks accommodating a change in character to the AWM that disturbs & greatly saddens me. It undermines and cheapens my lifelong understanding of the AWM purpose. From a Memorial, museum & archive of significant historical interest, reflection, and contemplation of sadness & horrors of war, to a potential venue to showcase weapons sponsored by & beholden to Arms Manufacturers.
The AWM in my understanding is not a place to glorify war, nor to showcase or promote weapons systems gratuitously. It should not legitimise any specific producers weapons or defence materiel by referenceing them in connection to AWM with corporate sponsorship of our nations collective spiritual debt to the fallen, to all those who've sacrificed for our collective goals.
I note with absolute dismay that former AWM Director Brendan Nelson took up a senior position at Boeing just weeks after leaving the Directorship of AWM, and that he controversially allowed current Weapons & Arms manufacturers (such as Boeing, Thales, Lockheed Martin and BAE systems) to become corporate sponsors of the AWM. Being a former Liberal minister, this type of sponsorship is ingrained in his thinking but it is my view, and those of many others, that this cheapens and sells out our AWM. This action has gravely damaged the reputation of independence of the AWM by the coopting of our ongoing national memory, spirit and identity, linking unrelated personal and collective sacrifice with profiteers from conflict. Until this grotesquery is addressed, it risks damaging the legacy of all those that served, those that supported & loved them, those that would never be able to know them.
This corporate sponsorship & resultant perception of collusion or cross-promotion has unfortunately impacted and diminished the AWM enormously in the eyes of the Australian Public. It risks doing so in an ongoing fashion for future generations. I feel that the damage done by this legacy of Mr Nelson's tenure will take a great many years to heal even once corrected and that the AWM course in this respect must be corrected in order to ensure the original purpose is not subverted by such commercial ties ever again.
While I have no issue with expanding the AWM for the purposes of it's original intent which is genuinely sympathetic with the landscape and original design cues and in accordance with the Griffin plan, to enhance the original AWM functions ..
- to house larger collections of genuine historical significance,
- to expand research,
- to place a larger amount of historical artefacts on public display,
- to provide greater archive access,
- to provide greater supporting infrastructure,
- better public access & meeting and gathering spaces,
- improved presentation spaces,
- to improve or expanded solemn reflection and spiritual space,
..but I utterly reject expansion of AWM facilities with the recent commercial sponsorship agreements in place. Having these corporations associated with the AWM in name or branding, not knowing if the AWM facilities would be used to host their events, product launches or associated with them in any way leaves glaring ethical questions hanging over the AWM and consequently around the purpose of these design plans.
I worry greatly that any approval of expansion in advance of washing clean the last Director's deleterious impact (by clearly defining AWM as a stand-alone fully independent public facility without any connection or allegiance to weapons makers) will be fraught with ongoing controversy, impacting the Australian national pride or spirit and risking further staining the AWM reputation indelibly.
Please consider that these sponsorship arrangements already have a foothold at our beloved AWM and that this considerably depletes public confidence around the appropriateness of the designs put forward (whether accurate or not, unresolved perception of controversy depletes this crucial national monument, and the considerable cost and plans to accommodate whatever the future holds for the AWM). The Australian public needs this facility as it was originally intended. The ability to appreciate and reflect upon the vast sacrifices Australians have made throughout history, right and wrong, good and bad, joyous and terrible, is wholly diminished by the grubby connection to foreign Arms Dealers. These connections need to be cauterised and a respectful return to the original AWM intent set in stone before any designs for expansion can be considered on the merits of the Memorial that Australians need and deserve.
I conclude by stating that this perspective and commentary is indeed related to the design proposals in that the purpose of these architectural designs is to facilitate the purpose of the AWM. Therefore the overall function and intent of the AWM needs to be clear and uncontroversial to know if the designs are truly fit for that purpose to such large changes that will last a long time. While my point may not be within the scope or remit of the NCA or this feedback request, it is most definitely an important factor relating to the fitness of the designs of such an important public building in our National Capital. As AWM corporate sponsorship impacts the overall purpose of the AWM and these designs facilitate this changed state, it places the current intent for this facility under a cloud, therefore I contend that design approval should not go ahead with overall purpose and requirement considerations as they currently stand. These sponsorship arrangements raise serious questions about the purpose of the facility, and the purpose impacts the design needs. The AWM relationship to the Australian people and to foreign arms manufacturers must be fully understood & clarified before any expansion designs can be examined as fit AWM for requirements. NCA members, please utilise your veto powers reject this proposal in order set the Griffins intent for this space back to it's original purpose.
This feedback is intended to inform all three aspects of the proposed AWM renovation (New Southern Entrance, Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant, Anzac Hall and Glazed Link).
Thank you for reading my submission.
I'd firstly like to complement the Architects on what the presentations show as innovative designs in my opinion. From a purely architectural design perspective I find the proposed changes novel & interesting, however, this is not my area of expertise, nor is it the main focus of my feedback. Rather, I'm concerned more that the purpose & recent direction of the AWM and how this has informed the expansion plans which seem to detract from the character & original intent of this facility. There are aspects of the AWM recent direction that require clarification before any redesign can be considered in any informed way (as only once the AWM purpose & relationship to the Australian people is fully explained & agreed upon can we know if the designs are fit for what is required of these buildings (and if the AWM is able to remain fit for the purpose that the Australians people require).
I'll note that while I've read that 'some architects and heritage advocates have slammed the proposed designs as "wasteful and arrogant"', and that perhaps they understand better than I the issues from a design perspective. I do wonder wether the NCA believes that the designs are in-line with the Griffin plan, as a memorial space and a place 'for the people', designed and designated as such by avowed pacifists, rather than as an exhibition hall for weapons of war. A museum to house a large collection of genuine historical artefacts is one thing, but the scale shown in these plans leads me to wonder at the priority & intent.
Recent controversial AWM policy changes show that there is a dire need for the precise purpose and future direction of the AWM to be clarified up-front so as to preserve this facility, it's overall function & purpose, what it means to Australians and perhaps more importantly to clearly define what the AWM isn't and should never become. Only then can designs for it's expansions be considered as to whether they achieve those updated & clarified goals.
Being a citizen with long and manifold family connections to military service in Australia who has visited the AWM on several occasions (one who hopes to visit again many times, from quite a long distance away) and who finds it a fascinating and solemn contemplative memorial - as I feel it should be. I am compelled to voice that I am exceedingly concerned that the proposed expansions risks accommodating a change in character to the AWM that disturbs & greatly saddens me. It undermines and cheapens my lifelong understanding of the AWM purpose. From a Memorial, museum & archive of significant historical interest, reflection, and contemplation of sadness & horrors of war, to a potential venue to showcase weapons sponsored by & beholden to Arms Manufacturers.
The AWM in my understanding is not a place to glorify war, nor to showcase or promote weapons systems gratuitously. It should not legitimise any specific producers weapons or defence materiel by referenceing them in connection to AWM with corporate sponsorship of our nations collective spiritual debt to the fallen, to all those who've sacrificed for our collective goals.
I note with absolute dismay that former AWM Director Brendan Nelson took up a senior position at Boeing just weeks after leaving the Directorship of AWM, and that he controversially allowed current Weapons & Arms manufacturers (such as Boeing, Thales, Lockheed Martin and BAE systems) to become corporate sponsors of the AWM. Being a former Liberal minister, this type of sponsorship is ingrained in his thinking but it is my view, and those of many others, that this cheapens and sells out our AWM. This action has gravely damaged the reputation of independence of the AWM by the coopting of our ongoing national memory, spirit and identity, linking unrelated personal and collective sacrifice with profiteers from conflict. Until this grotesquery is addressed, it risks damaging the legacy of all those that served, those that supported & loved them, those that would never be able to know them.
This corporate sponsorship & resultant perception of collusion or cross-promotion has unfortunately impacted and diminished the AWM enormously in the eyes of the Australian Public. It risks doing so in an ongoing fashion for future generations. I feel that the damage done by this legacy of Mr Nelson's tenure will take a great many years to heal even once corrected and that the AWM course in this respect must be corrected in order to ensure the original purpose is not subverted by such commercial ties ever again.
While I have no issue with expanding the AWM for the purposes of it's original intent which is genuinely sympathetic with the landscape and original design cues and in accordance with the Griffin plan, to enhance the original AWM functions ..
- to house larger collections of genuine historical significance,
- to expand research,
- to place a larger amount of historical artefacts on public display,
- to provide greater archive access,
- to provide greater supporting infrastructure,
- better public access & meeting and gathering spaces,
- improved presentation spaces,
- to improve or expanded solemn reflection and spiritual space,
..but I utterly reject expansion of AWM facilities with the recent commercial sponsorship agreements in place. Having these corporations associated with the AWM in name or branding, not knowing if the AWM facilities would be used to host their events, product launches or associated with them in any way leaves glaring ethical questions hanging over the AWM and consequently around the purpose of these design plans.
I worry greatly that any approval of expansion in advance of washing clean the last Director's deleterious impact (by clearly defining AWM as a stand-alone fully independent public facility without any connection or allegiance to weapons makers) will be fraught with ongoing controversy, impacting the Australian national pride or spirit and risking further staining the AWM reputation indelibly.
Please consider that these sponsorship arrangements already have a foothold at our beloved AWM and that this considerably depletes public confidence around the appropriateness of the designs put forward (whether accurate or not, unresolved perception of controversy depletes this crucial national monument, and the considerable cost and plans to accommodate whatever the future holds for the AWM). The Australian public needs this facility as it was originally intended. The ability to appreciate and reflect upon the vast sacrifices Australians have made throughout history, right and wrong, good and bad, joyous and terrible, is wholly diminished by the grubby connection to foreign Arms Dealers. These connections need to be cauterised and a respectful return to the original AWM intent set in stone before any designs for expansion can be considered on the merits of the Memorial that Australians need and deserve.
I conclude by stating that this perspective and commentary is indeed related to the design proposals in that the purpose of these architectural designs is to facilitate the purpose of the AWM. Therefore the overall function and intent of the AWM needs to be clear and uncontroversial to know if the designs are truly fit for that purpose to such large changes that will last a long time. While my point may not be within the scope or remit of the NCA or this feedback request, it is most definitely an important factor relating to the fitness of the designs of such an important public building in our National Capital. As AWM corporate sponsorship impacts the overall purpose of the AWM and these designs facilitate this changed state, it places the current intent for this facility under a cloud, therefore I contend that design approval should not go ahead with overall purpose and requirement considerations as they currently stand. These sponsorship arrangements raise serious questions about the purpose of the facility, and the purpose impacts the design needs. The AWM relationship to the Australian people and to foreign arms manufacturers must be fully understood & clarified before any expansion designs can be examined as fit AWM for requirements. NCA members, please utilise your veto powers reject this proposal in order set the Griffins intent for this space back to it's original purpose.
This feedback is intended to inform all three aspects of the proposed AWM renovation (New Southern Entrance, Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant, Anzac Hall and Glazed Link).
Thank you for reading my submission.
Anzac Hall and Glazed Link
Firstly, thank you for the opportunity to submit feedback on these proposed changes to the AWM. I'll keep my commentary as brief as possible and relatively generic as I have one main overarching point to make which spans all three proposal feedback aspects.
I'd firstly like to complement the Architects on what the presentations show as innovative designs in my opinion. From a purely architectural design perspective I find the proposed changes novel & interesting, however, this is not my area of expertise, nor is it the main focus of my feedback. Rather, I'm concerned more that the purpose & recent direction of the AWM and how this has informed the expansion plans which seem to detract from the character & original intent of this facility. There are aspects of the AWM recent direction that require clarification before any redesign can be considered in any informed way (as only once the AWM purpose & relationship to the Australian people is fully explained & agreed upon can we know if the designs are fit for what is required of these buildings (and if the AWM is able to remain fit for the purpose that the Australians people require).
I'll note that while I've read that 'some architects and heritage advocates have slammed the proposed designs as "wasteful and arrogant"', and that perhaps they understand better than I the issues from a design perspective. I do wonder wether the NCA believes that the designs are in-line with the Griffin plan, as a memorial space and a place 'for the people', designed and designated as such by avowed pacifists, rather than as an exhibition hall for weapons of war. A museum to house a large collection of genuine historical artefacts is one thing, but the scale shown in these plans leads me to wonder at the priority & intent.
Recent controversial AWM policy changes show that there is a dire need for the precise purpose and future direction of the AWM to be clarified up-front so as to preserve this facility, it's overall function & purpose, what it means to Australians and perhaps more importantly to clearly define what the AWM isn't and should never become. Only then can designs for it's expansions be considered as to whether they achieve those updated & clarified goals.
Being a citizen with long and manifold family connections to military service in Australia who has visited the AWM on several occasions (one who hopes to visit again many times, from quite a long distance away) and who finds it a fascinating and solemn contemplative memorial - as I feel it should be. I am compelled to voice that I am exceedingly concerned that the proposed expansions risks accommodating a change in character to the AWM that disturbs & greatly saddens me. It undermines and cheapens my lifelong understanding of the AWM purpose. From a Memorial, museum & archive of significant historical interest, reflection, and contemplation of sadness & horrors of war, to a potential venue to showcase weapons sponsored by & beholden to Arms Manufacturers.
The AWM in my understanding is not a place to glorify war, nor to showcase or promote weapons systems gratuitously. It should not legitimise any specific producers weapons or defence materiel by referenceing them in connection to AWM with corporate sponsorship of our nations collective spiritual debt to the fallen, to all those who've sacrificed for our collective goals.
I note with absolute dismay that former AWM Director Brendan Nelson took up a senior position at Boeing just weeks after leaving the Directorship of AWM, and that he controversially allowed current Weapons & Arms manufacturers (such as Boeing, Thales, Lockheed Martin and BAE systems) to become corporate sponsors of the AWM. Being a former Liberal minister, this type of sponsorship is ingrained in his thinking but it is my view, and those of many others, that this cheapens and sells out our AWM. This action has gravely damaged the reputation of independence of the AWM by the coopting of our ongoing national memory, spirit and identity, linking unrelated personal and collective sacrifice with profiteers from conflict. Until this grotesquery is addressed, it risks damaging the legacy of all those that served, those that supported & loved them, those that would never be able to know them.
This corporate sponsorship & resultant perception of collusion or cross-promotion has unfortunately impacted and diminished the AWM enormously in the eyes of the Australian Public. It risks doing so in an ongoing fashion for future generations. I feel that the damage done by this legacy of Mr Nelson's tenure will take a great many years to heal even once corrected and that the AWM course in this respect must be corrected in order to ensure the original purpose is not subverted by such commercial ties ever again.
While I have no issue with expanding the AWM for the purposes of it's original intent which is genuinely sympathetic with the landscape and original design cues and in accordance with the Griffin plan, to enhance the original AWM functions ..
- to house larger collections of genuine historical significance,
- to expand research,
- to place a larger amount of historical artefacts on public display,
- to provide greater archive access,
- to provide greater supporting infrastructure,
- better public access & meeting and gathering spaces,
- improved presentation spaces,
- to improve or expanded solemn reflection and spiritual space,
..but I utterly reject expansion of AWM facilities with the recent commercial sponsorship agreements in place. Having these corporations associated with the AWM in name or branding, not knowing if the AWM facilities would be used to host their events, product launches or associated with them in any way leaves glaring ethical questions hanging over the AWM and consequently around the purpose of these design plans.
I worry greatly that any approval of expansion in advance of washing clean the last Director's deleterious impact (by clearly defining AWM as a stand-alone fully independent public facility without any connection or allegiance to weapons makers) will be fraught with ongoing controversy, impacting the Australian national pride or spirit and risking further staining the AWM reputation indelibly.
Please consider that these sponsorship arrangements already have a foothold at our beloved AWM and that this considerably depletes public confidence around the appropriateness of the designs put forward (whether accurate or not, unresolved perception of controversy depletes this crucial national monument, and the considerable cost and plans to accommodate whatever the future holds for the AWM). The Australian public needs this facility as it was originally intended. The ability to appreciate and reflect upon the vast sacrifices Australians have made throughout history, right and wrong, good and bad, joyous and terrible, is wholly diminished by the grubby connection to foreign Arms Dealers. These connections need to be cauterised and a respectful return to the original AWM intent set in stone before any designs for expansion can be considered on the merits of the Memorial that Australians need and deserve.
I conclude by stating that this perspective and commentary is indeed related to the design proposals in that the purpose of these architectural designs is to facilitate the purpose of the AWM. Therefore the overall function and intent of the AWM needs to be clear and uncontroversial to know if the designs are truly fit for that purpose to such large changes that will last a long time. While my point may not be within the scope or remit of the NCA or this feedback request, it is most definitely an important factor relating to the fitness of the designs of such an important public building in our National Capital. As AWM corporate sponsorship impacts the overall purpose of the AWM and these designs facilitate this changed state, it places the current intent for this facility under a cloud, therefore I contend that design approval should not go ahead with overall purpose and requirement considerations as they currently stand. These sponsorship arrangements raise serious questions about the purpose of the facility, and the purpose impacts the design needs. The AWM relationship to the Australian people and to foreign arms manufacturers must be fully understood & clarified before any expansion designs can be examined as fit AWM for requirements. NCA members, please utilise your veto powers reject this proposal in order set the Griffins intent for this space back to it's original purpose.
This feedback is intended to inform all three aspects of the proposed AWM renovation (New Southern Entrance, Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant, Anzac Hall and Glazed Link).
Thank you for reading my submission.
I'd firstly like to complement the Architects on what the presentations show as innovative designs in my opinion. From a purely architectural design perspective I find the proposed changes novel & interesting, however, this is not my area of expertise, nor is it the main focus of my feedback. Rather, I'm concerned more that the purpose & recent direction of the AWM and how this has informed the expansion plans which seem to detract from the character & original intent of this facility. There are aspects of the AWM recent direction that require clarification before any redesign can be considered in any informed way (as only once the AWM purpose & relationship to the Australian people is fully explained & agreed upon can we know if the designs are fit for what is required of these buildings (and if the AWM is able to remain fit for the purpose that the Australians people require).
I'll note that while I've read that 'some architects and heritage advocates have slammed the proposed designs as "wasteful and arrogant"', and that perhaps they understand better than I the issues from a design perspective. I do wonder wether the NCA believes that the designs are in-line with the Griffin plan, as a memorial space and a place 'for the people', designed and designated as such by avowed pacifists, rather than as an exhibition hall for weapons of war. A museum to house a large collection of genuine historical artefacts is one thing, but the scale shown in these plans leads me to wonder at the priority & intent.
Recent controversial AWM policy changes show that there is a dire need for the precise purpose and future direction of the AWM to be clarified up-front so as to preserve this facility, it's overall function & purpose, what it means to Australians and perhaps more importantly to clearly define what the AWM isn't and should never become. Only then can designs for it's expansions be considered as to whether they achieve those updated & clarified goals.
Being a citizen with long and manifold family connections to military service in Australia who has visited the AWM on several occasions (one who hopes to visit again many times, from quite a long distance away) and who finds it a fascinating and solemn contemplative memorial - as I feel it should be. I am compelled to voice that I am exceedingly concerned that the proposed expansions risks accommodating a change in character to the AWM that disturbs & greatly saddens me. It undermines and cheapens my lifelong understanding of the AWM purpose. From a Memorial, museum & archive of significant historical interest, reflection, and contemplation of sadness & horrors of war, to a potential venue to showcase weapons sponsored by & beholden to Arms Manufacturers.
The AWM in my understanding is not a place to glorify war, nor to showcase or promote weapons systems gratuitously. It should not legitimise any specific producers weapons or defence materiel by referenceing them in connection to AWM with corporate sponsorship of our nations collective spiritual debt to the fallen, to all those who've sacrificed for our collective goals.
I note with absolute dismay that former AWM Director Brendan Nelson took up a senior position at Boeing just weeks after leaving the Directorship of AWM, and that he controversially allowed current Weapons & Arms manufacturers (such as Boeing, Thales, Lockheed Martin and BAE systems) to become corporate sponsors of the AWM. Being a former Liberal minister, this type of sponsorship is ingrained in his thinking but it is my view, and those of many others, that this cheapens and sells out our AWM. This action has gravely damaged the reputation of independence of the AWM by the coopting of our ongoing national memory, spirit and identity, linking unrelated personal and collective sacrifice with profiteers from conflict. Until this grotesquery is addressed, it risks damaging the legacy of all those that served, those that supported & loved them, those that would never be able to know them.
This corporate sponsorship & resultant perception of collusion or cross-promotion has unfortunately impacted and diminished the AWM enormously in the eyes of the Australian Public. It risks doing so in an ongoing fashion for future generations. I feel that the damage done by this legacy of Mr Nelson's tenure will take a great many years to heal even once corrected and that the AWM course in this respect must be corrected in order to ensure the original purpose is not subverted by such commercial ties ever again.
While I have no issue with expanding the AWM for the purposes of it's original intent which is genuinely sympathetic with the landscape and original design cues and in accordance with the Griffin plan, to enhance the original AWM functions ..
- to house larger collections of genuine historical significance,
- to expand research,
- to place a larger amount of historical artefacts on public display,
- to provide greater archive access,
- to provide greater supporting infrastructure,
- better public access & meeting and gathering spaces,
- improved presentation spaces,
- to improve or expanded solemn reflection and spiritual space,
..but I utterly reject expansion of AWM facilities with the recent commercial sponsorship agreements in place. Having these corporations associated with the AWM in name or branding, not knowing if the AWM facilities would be used to host their events, product launches or associated with them in any way leaves glaring ethical questions hanging over the AWM and consequently around the purpose of these design plans.
I worry greatly that any approval of expansion in advance of washing clean the last Director's deleterious impact (by clearly defining AWM as a stand-alone fully independent public facility without any connection or allegiance to weapons makers) will be fraught with ongoing controversy, impacting the Australian national pride or spirit and risking further staining the AWM reputation indelibly.
Please consider that these sponsorship arrangements already have a foothold at our beloved AWM and that this considerably depletes public confidence around the appropriateness of the designs put forward (whether accurate or not, unresolved perception of controversy depletes this crucial national monument, and the considerable cost and plans to accommodate whatever the future holds for the AWM). The Australian public needs this facility as it was originally intended. The ability to appreciate and reflect upon the vast sacrifices Australians have made throughout history, right and wrong, good and bad, joyous and terrible, is wholly diminished by the grubby connection to foreign Arms Dealers. These connections need to be cauterised and a respectful return to the original AWM intent set in stone before any designs for expansion can be considered on the merits of the Memorial that Australians need and deserve.
I conclude by stating that this perspective and commentary is indeed related to the design proposals in that the purpose of these architectural designs is to facilitate the purpose of the AWM. Therefore the overall function and intent of the AWM needs to be clear and uncontroversial to know if the designs are truly fit for that purpose to such large changes that will last a long time. While my point may not be within the scope or remit of the NCA or this feedback request, it is most definitely an important factor relating to the fitness of the designs of such an important public building in our National Capital. As AWM corporate sponsorship impacts the overall purpose of the AWM and these designs facilitate this changed state, it places the current intent for this facility under a cloud, therefore I contend that design approval should not go ahead with overall purpose and requirement considerations as they currently stand. These sponsorship arrangements raise serious questions about the purpose of the facility, and the purpose impacts the design needs. The AWM relationship to the Australian people and to foreign arms manufacturers must be fully understood & clarified before any expansion designs can be examined as fit AWM for requirements. NCA members, please utilise your veto powers reject this proposal in order set the Griffins intent for this space back to it's original purpose.
This feedback is intended to inform all three aspects of the proposed AWM renovation (New Southern Entrance, Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant, Anzac Hall and Glazed Link).
Thank you for reading my submission.