The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter:New Southern Entrance
I support the new Southern Entrance. I believe that it will allow an expansion and rationalisation of gallery space that is desperately needed as well as greatly improving the progress of foot traffic though the museum section. Currently traffic is mainly directed through to the WWI gallery especially and the WWI galleries, with the galleries on the lower floor neglected by most visitors.
With two points of entry, the NSE and the existing upper floor entrance, foot traffic will be much more evenly distributed and will circulate more easily. The improved circulation pattern should reduce overcrowding in the upper galleries and make navigating the building easier, while encouraging the visitors to examine the lower galleries.
The rationalisation will particularly increase the visitation to the Boer War era collection which in my opinion is one of the best collections in the memorial but which is very seldom visited due to being on the lower floor and accessed by a poorly marked, circuitous route. Instead with the new entrance it will be the first permanent exhibit that visitors, or those who choose not to got through the original upper floor entrance and into the Pool of Memory, will see as they enter the main building. While it could be questioned if having the oldest collection and the post WWII collections next to each other is appropriate the chances of a successful rearrangement to put the collection in chronological order is negligible, especially with the space requirements and configurations of the World War collections.
Some people may wish for a collection that focusses on the frontier conflicts between the Aboriginal Australians and the new European Australian settlers. I believe that this may be doable and could be incorporated in the space marked for temporary exhibitions opposite the colonial era conflicts, although the need for temporary exhibitions should not be overlooked, or by compressing the size of the Boer War collection, as the display space is currently fairly spread out. I do not believe reducing the number of objects on display is ideal and runs counter to the idea of the expansion. Such a border conflict collection may be better hosted at the Museum of Australian Democracy, which already has sections that deal with that conflict.
One of the greatest changes will be to the relative position of the Captain Reg Saunders collection. Although located to a smaller space, its relocation to the display right in the main entrance will greatly increase visitation to a collection that is one of the most isolated and little visited by regular visitors who are non theatre attendees, which will more than make up for the relative loss of 'peace and quiet' in the collection.
The relocation of the BAE Systems theatre also greatly improve access to it. It will be in a much more logical position slightly separated from the main collections by the entrance way and ideally located next to the function room on the opposite side.
With two points of entry, the NSE and the existing upper floor entrance, foot traffic will be much more evenly distributed and will circulate more easily. The improved circulation pattern should reduce overcrowding in the upper galleries and make navigating the building easier, while encouraging the visitors to examine the lower galleries.
The rationalisation will particularly increase the visitation to the Boer War era collection which in my opinion is one of the best collections in the memorial but which is very seldom visited due to being on the lower floor and accessed by a poorly marked, circuitous route. Instead with the new entrance it will be the first permanent exhibit that visitors, or those who choose not to got through the original upper floor entrance and into the Pool of Memory, will see as they enter the main building. While it could be questioned if having the oldest collection and the post WWII collections next to each other is appropriate the chances of a successful rearrangement to put the collection in chronological order is negligible, especially with the space requirements and configurations of the World War collections.
Some people may wish for a collection that focusses on the frontier conflicts between the Aboriginal Australians and the new European Australian settlers. I believe that this may be doable and could be incorporated in the space marked for temporary exhibitions opposite the colonial era conflicts, although the need for temporary exhibitions should not be overlooked, or by compressing the size of the Boer War collection, as the display space is currently fairly spread out. I do not believe reducing the number of objects on display is ideal and runs counter to the idea of the expansion. Such a border conflict collection may be better hosted at the Museum of Australian Democracy, which already has sections that deal with that conflict.
One of the greatest changes will be to the relative position of the Captain Reg Saunders collection. Although located to a smaller space, its relocation to the display right in the main entrance will greatly increase visitation to a collection that is one of the most isolated and little visited by regular visitors who are non theatre attendees, which will more than make up for the relative loss of 'peace and quiet' in the collection.
The relocation of the BAE Systems theatre also greatly improve access to it. It will be in a much more logical position slightly separated from the main collections by the entrance way and ideally located next to the function room on the opposite side.
Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant
I support the Bean Building Expansion and Central Energy Plant changes. The removal of the research, service and administrative functions and most of the plant from the main building will rationalise and increase the gallery space on the lower floor, although some of this will be taken up with circulation space. The relocation of these functions will also greatly improve the functionality of the Bean Building by relocating them all under one roof. The reading room will be located closer to the research functional parts of the facility in a much better, purpose built space. In fact all the somewhat 'improvised' facilities like offices will benefit from relocation to the new, purpose built extension.
I know some concern has been expressed at the lack of attention paid to the National Archives compared to the AWM, I believe a report into the NA is due later this year. While it is decided what it to be done there it may be possible, if transport is not a problem, to use the new facilities at the AWM for the conservation of NA objects until funding is available for upgrades there as well.
Although the new buildings will have some visual impact the new tree planting should reduce this. In any case this relatively minor loss is vastly outweighed by the improvements to the facilities.
I know some concern has been expressed at the lack of attention paid to the National Archives compared to the AWM, I believe a report into the NA is due later this year. While it is decided what it to be done there it may be possible, if transport is not a problem, to use the new facilities at the AWM for the conservation of NA objects until funding is available for upgrades there as well.
Although the new buildings will have some visual impact the new tree planting should reduce this. In any case this relatively minor loss is vastly outweighed by the improvements to the facilities.
Anzac Hall and Glazed Link
I support the new ANZAC Hall and the 'glazed link' connecting to the main building. Although this is the most contentious part of the works I believe that it will pay off in the long term. There memorial should be planning for what it will need in fifty or more years. Australia's conflicts after WWII are severely under represented in the current AWM due to the lack of available gallery space. Although these conflicts were not as deadly for Australia and did not see the great cultural change that WWI did, they are nonetheless important to Australian history and have had significant political influence. While it would be nice to assume that Australia will avoid future conflicts rising instabilities provide a stark warning that this may not be the case. It is unfortunate for Denton Corker Marshall, who ably fulfilled the design requirements for the original ANZAC Hall, but unfortunately those who set those requirements were not forward thinking enough to realise both the museum's future needs and the issues surrounding the displays as they stood at the time.
The first impacts of the the new ANZAC Hall will be felt outside the new building, in the main one. The removal of most of the more recent conflicts will allow the Cold War era collection to be decompressed and expanded from the current 905 sqm to 1440 sqm This will allow a significant improvement to the current collection as well as those that have been moved. Korea is an oft forgotten conflict that was one of the most violent in history, causing a greater density of casualties than WWII, and although Australia's forces in it were modest it should be remembered. The Korean War also saw the beginning of changes in both technology and tactics that have come to define modern warfare, with the employment of jet aircraft and the beginning of the move from road and rail based movements to more concealable, a trend that has continued through the 20th century.
Vietnam, although like Korea, was not not particularly deadly for Australia, but the sustained involvement was accompanied by a large political attitude shift that permanently changed the Australian public's attitude to participating in overseas conflicts and to the treatment of those who participated in them. I believe that the collection at the AWM should remain the preserve of directly war related objects and that exploration of the political side can be found by creating room at the MOAD at Old Parliament House, which has a considerable amount of building space that may be useable. The space at the AWM can be used to expand the telling of the stories directly of those directly involved, something that is currently under served especially as the Vietnam generation are beginning to die out. We should be able to ask them about their stories while they are still here.
The establishment of the ground level doors into the glazed link will also greatly improve access into the new ANZAC hall and encourage foot traffic there. The proposed relocation of the Hall of Valour to the location of the current reading room is an attractive part of this change. Being located in a much larger area with less through traffic, foot traffic going on either side instead, will greatly enhance the contemplative nature of the space, and it will allow the lower floor windows in the rotunda to be used to admit natural light to the new Hall of Valour.
The new ANZAC Hall itself offers a wealth of opportunity, with the gallery masterplan showing that there will be considerable spare room with the planned footprint in the form of a 500 sqm gallery space. Furthermore, the plans moot the possibility of further underground excavations that would provide an extra 1920 to 2790 sqm, from a little larger than the WWI gallery to about as large as the current lower floor gallery space. This provides flexibility for future expansion with minimal surface impact.
The planned new exhibition spaces in the new AH will finally allow the more recent conflicts to be properly represented, compared to the currently allocated places that are of a totally inadequate size. The representation of Iraq and Afghanistan, two long running and highly controversial conflicts, the latter only concluding this year, will finally get the space deserved of it, with the ability to host large, storytelling exhibits. I do feel like some more area could also be used for Korea and Vietnam, though splitting a collection would be awkward.
The greater amount of space should also allow more historically significant objects to be displayed with proper interpretation. The AWM holds a world class collection of technology objects, especially from the WWII era, but the current space does not allow a fair display of them. I have seen some opponents of the expansion suggest that the Treloar Annex should be somehow upgraded to accomodate visitors to view these objects. This is not a good idea. The facilities that exist for visitors there are not suitable for regular visitors and it would be very difficult to make them so. Furthermore, it would not be possible to display a variety of objects as the sections of annex accessible on open days are only suitable for the storage of larger objects. Lastly, transport would be a very big problem with there being very little in the way of accessible parking around Mitchell and certainly not enough for a large regular visitation. The light rail does not provide adequate, let alone free, access to anyone outside of its immediate service area. There would also be a negative affect on the local businesses with their parking being taken up by visitors.
The glazed link will effectively add to the enclosed area and should serve admirably at its proposed purpose as an area of rest and reflection and potentially for the display of a couple of large objects, although I feel like consideration should be mainly given to wither smaller objects, like the Sydney and Emden guns, or to pole mounting, for example, an aircraft, in order to keep a log tea of clear floor space. There should be provision for benches around the periphery, particularly near, but slightly removed from, the entrances.
My main concern is over rationale for not having a rear entrance into the new AH or into the glazed link. A rear entrance would be a considerably shorter walk from the western carpark and furthermore would allow visitors to use a logical front to back or back to front itinerary, though I am aware it would detract from business to the museum store. I feel like it is something that should be more seriously considered.
I do not agree with objections based on visual impact. The glazed link will look odd from some angles but as the CG images adequately show there will be no impact to the vista up ANZAC parade, with the addition only being visible at large distances from which they will not easily be perceived anyway. It will be more obvious from Mount Ainslie but the distance and the fact this is a view looking down onto the ground will mean is will be unobtrusive. I fell like such objections are misguided if not dishonest.
My concerns are mainly over the character of the future exhibits, something that is perhaps beyond the scope of this approval. The 'Striking by Night' exhibition in the old AH was one of the best exhibits in the AWM and although it is intended to keep the same objects on exhibit the loss of the old exhibition will be significant, especially as the new AH will not include the same over reaching mezzanine. Another concern is over the character of the exhibitions in the new space. The temptation for a minimalist displays like those shown in the computer renditions must be avoided and the AWM should seek a reasonably high density of displayed objects when possible. This will be much more engaging than the minimalist displays that have been seen in the past and seem to be beloved by those who don't visit them. My biggest concern is over Aircraft Hall, although I am aware there may be a seperate process for the internal refurbishments. The Air Warfare in the Pacific display is extremely good if in need of refreshing, and is very relevant to Australia's WWII experience. Losing it will be a significant shame, and it would be a shame if the sole jet age display, the MiG 15, is removed. An alternative place for it may be in the Cold War gallery. Overall I feel like not too much should be sacrificed for the relatively small number of WWI aircraft. Consideration should also be given to unblocking the clerestory windows, as the current lighting is totally inadequate.
I must repudiate the objections that the expansion is not in keeping with AWM's purpose and is disrespectful. When Charles Bean first proposed what became the AWM he envisaged a museum first, for Australia's war relics that were mainly dispersed or in the UK at the time. Only later did he also realise that it could serve as a memorial as well. The AWM's function as a museum is integral to its being and I feel like the detractors have missed or deliberately ignored this fact. I would like to think that Charles Bean would approve of it. Furthermore, there will be no impact on the main commemoration areas.
I must also repudiate objections to the proposed display of certain Large Technology Objects, such as the FA 18C Hornet that was donated to the AWM after its retirement from the RAAF. These are important objects with their own stories to tell. Furthermore, LTOs are vital items for attracting younger visitors to the museum and when contextualised properly will encourage people to seek the stories behind war. Furthermore, some items are historically important even if they are not part of Australia's story specifically, such as the V2 missile which is one of the best preserved in the world and led to the beginning of man's utilisation of space, an enormously important technological revolution that we take for granted. To not have them on easily accessible public display does an enormous disservice to the efforts of those who put together the collection. Furthermore, Canberra does not have and is unlikely to ever acquire an alternative venue to display such objects.
Overall despite some small concerns I think the expansion is a good project that will help ensure that the AWM can display more of its world class war relics collection and will ensure its continuing relevance. It will enable the telling of a story that needs to be told. I feel like the objections are misplaced and misguided.
The first impacts of the the new ANZAC Hall will be felt outside the new building, in the main one. The removal of most of the more recent conflicts will allow the Cold War era collection to be decompressed and expanded from the current 905 sqm to 1440 sqm This will allow a significant improvement to the current collection as well as those that have been moved. Korea is an oft forgotten conflict that was one of the most violent in history, causing a greater density of casualties than WWII, and although Australia's forces in it were modest it should be remembered. The Korean War also saw the beginning of changes in both technology and tactics that have come to define modern warfare, with the employment of jet aircraft and the beginning of the move from road and rail based movements to more concealable, a trend that has continued through the 20th century.
Vietnam, although like Korea, was not not particularly deadly for Australia, but the sustained involvement was accompanied by a large political attitude shift that permanently changed the Australian public's attitude to participating in overseas conflicts and to the treatment of those who participated in them. I believe that the collection at the AWM should remain the preserve of directly war related objects and that exploration of the political side can be found by creating room at the MOAD at Old Parliament House, which has a considerable amount of building space that may be useable. The space at the AWM can be used to expand the telling of the stories directly of those directly involved, something that is currently under served especially as the Vietnam generation are beginning to die out. We should be able to ask them about their stories while they are still here.
The establishment of the ground level doors into the glazed link will also greatly improve access into the new ANZAC hall and encourage foot traffic there. The proposed relocation of the Hall of Valour to the location of the current reading room is an attractive part of this change. Being located in a much larger area with less through traffic, foot traffic going on either side instead, will greatly enhance the contemplative nature of the space, and it will allow the lower floor windows in the rotunda to be used to admit natural light to the new Hall of Valour.
The new ANZAC Hall itself offers a wealth of opportunity, with the gallery masterplan showing that there will be considerable spare room with the planned footprint in the form of a 500 sqm gallery space. Furthermore, the plans moot the possibility of further underground excavations that would provide an extra 1920 to 2790 sqm, from a little larger than the WWI gallery to about as large as the current lower floor gallery space. This provides flexibility for future expansion with minimal surface impact.
The planned new exhibition spaces in the new AH will finally allow the more recent conflicts to be properly represented, compared to the currently allocated places that are of a totally inadequate size. The representation of Iraq and Afghanistan, two long running and highly controversial conflicts, the latter only concluding this year, will finally get the space deserved of it, with the ability to host large, storytelling exhibits. I do feel like some more area could also be used for Korea and Vietnam, though splitting a collection would be awkward.
The greater amount of space should also allow more historically significant objects to be displayed with proper interpretation. The AWM holds a world class collection of technology objects, especially from the WWII era, but the current space does not allow a fair display of them. I have seen some opponents of the expansion suggest that the Treloar Annex should be somehow upgraded to accomodate visitors to view these objects. This is not a good idea. The facilities that exist for visitors there are not suitable for regular visitors and it would be very difficult to make them so. Furthermore, it would not be possible to display a variety of objects as the sections of annex accessible on open days are only suitable for the storage of larger objects. Lastly, transport would be a very big problem with there being very little in the way of accessible parking around Mitchell and certainly not enough for a large regular visitation. The light rail does not provide adequate, let alone free, access to anyone outside of its immediate service area. There would also be a negative affect on the local businesses with their parking being taken up by visitors.
The glazed link will effectively add to the enclosed area and should serve admirably at its proposed purpose as an area of rest and reflection and potentially for the display of a couple of large objects, although I feel like consideration should be mainly given to wither smaller objects, like the Sydney and Emden guns, or to pole mounting, for example, an aircraft, in order to keep a log tea of clear floor space. There should be provision for benches around the periphery, particularly near, but slightly removed from, the entrances.
My main concern is over rationale for not having a rear entrance into the new AH or into the glazed link. A rear entrance would be a considerably shorter walk from the western carpark and furthermore would allow visitors to use a logical front to back or back to front itinerary, though I am aware it would detract from business to the museum store. I feel like it is something that should be more seriously considered.
I do not agree with objections based on visual impact. The glazed link will look odd from some angles but as the CG images adequately show there will be no impact to the vista up ANZAC parade, with the addition only being visible at large distances from which they will not easily be perceived anyway. It will be more obvious from Mount Ainslie but the distance and the fact this is a view looking down onto the ground will mean is will be unobtrusive. I fell like such objections are misguided if not dishonest.
My concerns are mainly over the character of the future exhibits, something that is perhaps beyond the scope of this approval. The 'Striking by Night' exhibition in the old AH was one of the best exhibits in the AWM and although it is intended to keep the same objects on exhibit the loss of the old exhibition will be significant, especially as the new AH will not include the same over reaching mezzanine. Another concern is over the character of the exhibitions in the new space. The temptation for a minimalist displays like those shown in the computer renditions must be avoided and the AWM should seek a reasonably high density of displayed objects when possible. This will be much more engaging than the minimalist displays that have been seen in the past and seem to be beloved by those who don't visit them. My biggest concern is over Aircraft Hall, although I am aware there may be a seperate process for the internal refurbishments. The Air Warfare in the Pacific display is extremely good if in need of refreshing, and is very relevant to Australia's WWII experience. Losing it will be a significant shame, and it would be a shame if the sole jet age display, the MiG 15, is removed. An alternative place for it may be in the Cold War gallery. Overall I feel like not too much should be sacrificed for the relatively small number of WWI aircraft. Consideration should also be given to unblocking the clerestory windows, as the current lighting is totally inadequate.
I must repudiate the objections that the expansion is not in keeping with AWM's purpose and is disrespectful. When Charles Bean first proposed what became the AWM he envisaged a museum first, for Australia's war relics that were mainly dispersed or in the UK at the time. Only later did he also realise that it could serve as a memorial as well. The AWM's function as a museum is integral to its being and I feel like the detractors have missed or deliberately ignored this fact. I would like to think that Charles Bean would approve of it. Furthermore, there will be no impact on the main commemoration areas.
I must also repudiate objections to the proposed display of certain Large Technology Objects, such as the FA 18C Hornet that was donated to the AWM after its retirement from the RAAF. These are important objects with their own stories to tell. Furthermore, LTOs are vital items for attracting younger visitors to the museum and when contextualised properly will encourage people to seek the stories behind war. Furthermore, some items are historically important even if they are not part of Australia's story specifically, such as the V2 missile which is one of the best preserved in the world and led to the beginning of man's utilisation of space, an enormously important technological revolution that we take for granted. To not have them on easily accessible public display does an enormous disservice to the efforts of those who put together the collection. Furthermore, Canberra does not have and is unlikely to ever acquire an alternative venue to display such objects.
Overall despite some small concerns I think the expansion is a good project that will help ensure that the AWM can display more of its world class war relics collection and will ensure its continuing relevance. It will enable the telling of a story that needs to be told. I feel like the objections are misplaced and misguided.