The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter: Martha KinsmanNew Southern Entrance
This submission responds to the NCA’s invitation for comment on the design briefings and detailed plans for the redevelopment of the Australian War memorial (AWM). These were published on 10 August (https://www.nca.gov.au/consultations/awm). As far as I am aware, this it the first time the community has been given access to this level of detail. It is regrettable that this information was not available prior to the NCA’s approval of the AWM’s ‘Early Works’ in May/June 2021. Early works approval was entirely inappropriate given the level of community consternation about the redevelopment of what is arguably Australia’s most iconic site. The early works approval does not, however, relieve the NCA from its obligation to now ensure that the design and plans for the major redevelopment works are consistent with the National Capital Plan. This includes ensuring that such development is consistent with Canberra's role ‘as the symbol of Australian national life and values’, that it 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 that it creates, conserves and enhances ‘fitting sites, approaches and backdrops for national institutions and ceremonies’.
The redevelopment plan acknowledges that the Australian War Memorial combines ‘a shrine, a world-class museum, and an extensive archive’. It also implicitly recognises a fourth, ceremonial role with the design of a reconstructed parade ground. The current plan has some serious flaws in its interpretation of these roles and their inter-relationship with each other.
The overall design fails to provide visual and functional coherence and balance between these four roles. This may be due, in part, to the separation into three different ‘main works’ packages, each contracted to different architects. The museum function is over dominant and reflects an outmoded concept of museum. It disregards the AWM’s explicit emphasis on inclusivity by privileging, both visually and functionally, the commemoration and relics of Australian military forces to the detriment, or even the exclusion, of other fields and forms of service. These problems are most pronounced in the design of the glazed link and ANZAC Hall but also create less than optimal plans for the Southern Entrance and for the CW Bean Building.
Specific comments on each of these major works packages follow:
A New Southern Entrance. (Main Works Package 1)
The plans for the large new southern entrance are without any clear rationale. Visually, the entrance resembles that of a typical upmarket shopping mall and detracts from the dignity, solemnity and the gentle curves and gradients of the current approach. The entrance communicates mass public activity and traffic flows in a way never anticipated by the original architects and clashes with the AWM’s ability to visually communicate its performative ceremonial role at the front of the AWM and the parade ground.
Functionally, the New Southern Entrance is located at the furthest accessible point from the West and East carparks. This will entail considerable mass foot traffic, including large school and other tours. Movement between the car parks and the front entrance will be particularly tiring for those aging veterans who are among the AWM’s most important clients. This design seems to be predicated on an assumption of the linear movement from the southern front to the northern back of the AWM, but this is contradicted by existing building and the proposed glazed link and Anzac Hall, all of which are based on a circular flows. Further, there are some ancillary operations within the Southern Entrance hall - (bookshop, theatre, cloaking etc.) but these are completely separated from the restaurant in the glazed link. For obvious reasons, modern museum design usually co-locates these ancillary customer and audience functions. Since the very large, glazed link seems to be a very under-utilised in the current plans, consideration should be given repositioning the main public entrance on the westerly side of this link with the bookshop and theatre co-located with the restaurant as is best international practice in most museum refurbishment.
The early works have already excavated in preparation for the yet to be approved New Southern Entrance and the re-purposing and relocation as proposed here will involve some repair and restoration works. However, it is justifiable to retain a smaller semi-basement entrance whose design is more consistent with the current southern façade and which could house those functions consistent with the AWM’s formal ceremonial role. This might include a reception area and dais for the conferring of national honours and royal, vice-regal functions and formal receptions for State visitors. It should also include first aid facilities and withdrawal spaces to address physical and mental health incidents that may occur during ceremonial activities.
The redevelopment plan acknowledges that the Australian War Memorial combines ‘a shrine, a world-class museum, and an extensive archive’. It also implicitly recognises a fourth, ceremonial role with the design of a reconstructed parade ground. The current plan has some serious flaws in its interpretation of these roles and their inter-relationship with each other.
The overall design fails to provide visual and functional coherence and balance between these four roles. This may be due, in part, to the separation into three different ‘main works’ packages, each contracted to different architects. The museum function is over dominant and reflects an outmoded concept of museum. It disregards the AWM’s explicit emphasis on inclusivity by privileging, both visually and functionally, the commemoration and relics of Australian military forces to the detriment, or even the exclusion, of other fields and forms of service. These problems are most pronounced in the design of the glazed link and ANZAC Hall but also create less than optimal plans for the Southern Entrance and for the CW Bean Building.
Specific comments on each of these major works packages follow:
A New Southern Entrance. (Main Works Package 1)
The plans for the large new southern entrance are without any clear rationale. Visually, the entrance resembles that of a typical upmarket shopping mall and detracts from the dignity, solemnity and the gentle curves and gradients of the current approach. The entrance communicates mass public activity and traffic flows in a way never anticipated by the original architects and clashes with the AWM’s ability to visually communicate its performative ceremonial role at the front of the AWM and the parade ground.
Functionally, the New Southern Entrance is located at the furthest accessible point from the West and East carparks. This will entail considerable mass foot traffic, including large school and other tours. Movement between the car parks and the front entrance will be particularly tiring for those aging veterans who are among the AWM’s most important clients. This design seems to be predicated on an assumption of the linear movement from the southern front to the northern back of the AWM, but this is contradicted by existing building and the proposed glazed link and Anzac Hall, all of which are based on a circular flows. Further, there are some ancillary operations within the Southern Entrance hall - (bookshop, theatre, cloaking etc.) but these are completely separated from the restaurant in the glazed link. For obvious reasons, modern museum design usually co-locates these ancillary customer and audience functions. Since the very large, glazed link seems to be a very under-utilised in the current plans, consideration should be given repositioning the main public entrance on the westerly side of this link with the bookshop and theatre co-located with the restaurant as is best international practice in most museum refurbishment.
The early works have already excavated in preparation for the yet to be approved New Southern Entrance and the re-purposing and relocation as proposed here will involve some repair and restoration works. However, it is justifiable to retain a smaller semi-basement entrance whose design is more consistent with the current southern façade and which could house those functions consistent with the AWM’s formal ceremonial role. This might include a reception area and dais for the conferring of national honours and royal, vice-regal functions and formal receptions for State visitors. It should also include first aid facilities and withdrawal spaces to address physical and mental health incidents that may occur during ceremonial activities.
Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant
The Bean Building Expansion (Main Works Package 2)
The CW Bean building expansion more than doubles the size of the existing building but has been the least controversial of the three main works proposals.
The plans for this building, however, are unclear regarding the extent to which restoration of museum objects will be undertaken in this same building as the archive. Much of the expansion appears to be taken up with a ‘workshop’. Will this involve timber, paint and metal maintenance and refurbishment and if so, on what scale? Especially since it is also the location of the central energy plant for the site, what are the provisions for noise containment and adequate air-exchange and ventilation? How will the archival deposits be protected with separate ventilation, humidity controls and sound proofing? (At the NCA information session on this package, a very inadequate answer was provided to my question on sound reduction and management.)
The restoration functions to be undertaken in the Bean building appear to be linked to a large docking and loading bay to the north and to a tunnel to transport objects between the CW Bean building and east side of ANZAC hall. Yet these arrangements do not appear to be coherent with the ANZAC hall’s provision for a large heavy duty lifting bay on its westerly side. Further explication of how large objects will be moved around the site and the extent to which restoration and maintenance will be carried out on site is necessary.
My final concern with this Major Works package is that the planned expansion takes up virtually all available land to the east of the main building and most of the feasible vertical space above its current footprint. While the overall design has been claimed said to ‘future proof’ the AWM – albeit for only fifty years – there is no allowance made for further additions to the east of the CW Bean Building or to the north of ANZAC hall. Already there seems to be a shortage of space. Certainly, there is no room for an Eastern ‘sculpture garden’, as flagged by the AWM to resolve the apparent inability of the ANZAC hall expansion to incorporate appropriate recognition of peacekeeping missions within the building. This is discussed further in the next section.
The CW Bean building expansion more than doubles the size of the existing building but has been the least controversial of the three main works proposals.
The plans for this building, however, are unclear regarding the extent to which restoration of museum objects will be undertaken in this same building as the archive. Much of the expansion appears to be taken up with a ‘workshop’. Will this involve timber, paint and metal maintenance and refurbishment and if so, on what scale? Especially since it is also the location of the central energy plant for the site, what are the provisions for noise containment and adequate air-exchange and ventilation? How will the archival deposits be protected with separate ventilation, humidity controls and sound proofing? (At the NCA information session on this package, a very inadequate answer was provided to my question on sound reduction and management.)
The restoration functions to be undertaken in the Bean building appear to be linked to a large docking and loading bay to the north and to a tunnel to transport objects between the CW Bean building and east side of ANZAC hall. Yet these arrangements do not appear to be coherent with the ANZAC hall’s provision for a large heavy duty lifting bay on its westerly side. Further explication of how large objects will be moved around the site and the extent to which restoration and maintenance will be carried out on site is necessary.
My final concern with this Major Works package is that the planned expansion takes up virtually all available land to the east of the main building and most of the feasible vertical space above its current footprint. While the overall design has been claimed said to ‘future proof’ the AWM – albeit for only fifty years – there is no allowance made for further additions to the east of the CW Bean Building or to the north of ANZAC hall. Already there seems to be a shortage of space. Certainly, there is no room for an Eastern ‘sculpture garden’, as flagged by the AWM to resolve the apparent inability of the ANZAC hall expansion to incorporate appropriate recognition of peacekeeping missions within the building. This is discussed further in the next section.
Anzac Hall and Glazed Link
‘New Anzac (sic) Hall and Glazed Link' (Main Works Package 3)
Visually, the current glazed link is an attempt to continue the curves of original dome. However, it is disproportionately larger in circumference than the dome and from some angles looks as if it is intending to occlude the original. The glaze link covers and interior space that, at present, seems very under-utilised. The odd sketches of planes, bombs etc. that are part of the design documentation show just how large this space is.
The glazed link needs to justify its size by incorporating the various ancillary educational and entertainment operations including the bookshop and theatre/auditorium as well as a general events space. The ‘events entrance’ would be reconfigured to function as the main entrance for school and other group tours and for normal patterns of public visitation.
If these ancillary functions cannot be co-located in the glazed link, then the restaurant should be relocated to the Southern entrance and the glazed link significantly reduced in size, leaving room for future expansion after fifty years.
The external visual impact of the ANZAC Hall is gravely at odds with the curves and gradients of the original building. Suddenly the roofline rises at multiple sharp angles resembling spokes of a wheel or knife blades. The resemblance to the ‘rising sun’ cap badge of the Commonwealth military forces is said to be a co-incidence and this is very unfortunate since the roof dominates both the exterior and interior of the hall. The visual and spatial message is of the dominant interest and pride of place occupied by these military forces while the exhibition spaces privilege large military weapons and equipment. This is a very anachronistic idea of a museum and seems to be based on a simplistic logic that modern warfare and larger objects require ipso facto very many more large exhibition spaces. The presumption of a relatively static exhibition of large objects is reflected by the architects’ comment that objects requiring the use of heavy-duty lifting pit might only be moved once every fifteen years! More regular movement and exchange of large objects would increase visitation and, by reducing the total space they occupy at any one time, would provide scope for a great range of exhibition themes.
At currently designed, the dominance of these large spaces is to the detriment, or even the exclusion, of other elements of service to the nation which the AWM purports to recognise and value and which the NCA is obliged to incorporate as part of our national values. These missions included Australian Federal Police members, and in both war and humanitarian missions, involved locally employed personnel such as interpreters, drivers, guards, cleaners, and caterers. They are not inclusively represented by the exhibition of very large military relics or by a roof fashioned in the form of a military cap badge.
The most egregious omission in this regard is the failure to provide specific recognition of Australia’s peacekeeping and humanitarian missions to which the ANZAC portal due recognition. In answer to a question on this, the architects blandly state that they couldn’t fit these missions in 'with the respect they deserve' and that the AWM has therefore suggested that perhaps these activities be relegated to a yet to be planned ‘eastern sculpture garden’ (All-questions-asked-across-3-AWM-Information-Sessions%20(1). The message is that these missions are relatively unimportant but might be nice to view if the weather is good. This is totally unacceptable and likely to have very poor and misleading educational consequences. In such an enormously expanded and very expensive redevelopment project, these peaceful missions must be given appropriate status and visibility under the roofline. This may mean that some of the larger military relics should be weatherproofed and located in the proposed sculpture garden to make more internal space available.
Lastly, there is an obligation on the NCA to ensure that the ANZAC hall is technically capable of temporary and semi-permanent reconfiguration of gallery spaces as may be required in the future (For example, a future AWM Board may agree to commemorate colonial engagement with Australia’s First Nations). The architects claim that the exhibition fit out will be undertaken by a separate design contractor. Given the lack of coherence between the three main works packages, however, it would be as well to ensure that the structure of the ANZAC Hall and other spaces are structurally and technically fit for the configuration of various galleries and exhibitions that can serve a range of emerging purposes and priorities.
Dr Martha Kinsman
Visiting Fellow, Australian Studies Institute,
Australian National University
10 September 2021
Visually, the current glazed link is an attempt to continue the curves of original dome. However, it is disproportionately larger in circumference than the dome and from some angles looks as if it is intending to occlude the original. The glaze link covers and interior space that, at present, seems very under-utilised. The odd sketches of planes, bombs etc. that are part of the design documentation show just how large this space is.
The glazed link needs to justify its size by incorporating the various ancillary educational and entertainment operations including the bookshop and theatre/auditorium as well as a general events space. The ‘events entrance’ would be reconfigured to function as the main entrance for school and other group tours and for normal patterns of public visitation.
If these ancillary functions cannot be co-located in the glazed link, then the restaurant should be relocated to the Southern entrance and the glazed link significantly reduced in size, leaving room for future expansion after fifty years.
The external visual impact of the ANZAC Hall is gravely at odds with the curves and gradients of the original building. Suddenly the roofline rises at multiple sharp angles resembling spokes of a wheel or knife blades. The resemblance to the ‘rising sun’ cap badge of the Commonwealth military forces is said to be a co-incidence and this is very unfortunate since the roof dominates both the exterior and interior of the hall. The visual and spatial message is of the dominant interest and pride of place occupied by these military forces while the exhibition spaces privilege large military weapons and equipment. This is a very anachronistic idea of a museum and seems to be based on a simplistic logic that modern warfare and larger objects require ipso facto very many more large exhibition spaces. The presumption of a relatively static exhibition of large objects is reflected by the architects’ comment that objects requiring the use of heavy-duty lifting pit might only be moved once every fifteen years! More regular movement and exchange of large objects would increase visitation and, by reducing the total space they occupy at any one time, would provide scope for a great range of exhibition themes.
At currently designed, the dominance of these large spaces is to the detriment, or even the exclusion, of other elements of service to the nation which the AWM purports to recognise and value and which the NCA is obliged to incorporate as part of our national values. These missions included Australian Federal Police members, and in both war and humanitarian missions, involved locally employed personnel such as interpreters, drivers, guards, cleaners, and caterers. They are not inclusively represented by the exhibition of very large military relics or by a roof fashioned in the form of a military cap badge.
The most egregious omission in this regard is the failure to provide specific recognition of Australia’s peacekeeping and humanitarian missions to which the ANZAC portal due recognition. In answer to a question on this, the architects blandly state that they couldn’t fit these missions in 'with the respect they deserve' and that the AWM has therefore suggested that perhaps these activities be relegated to a yet to be planned ‘eastern sculpture garden’ (All-questions-asked-across-3-AWM-Information-Sessions%20(1). The message is that these missions are relatively unimportant but might be nice to view if the weather is good. This is totally unacceptable and likely to have very poor and misleading educational consequences. In such an enormously expanded and very expensive redevelopment project, these peaceful missions must be given appropriate status and visibility under the roofline. This may mean that some of the larger military relics should be weatherproofed and located in the proposed sculpture garden to make more internal space available.
Lastly, there is an obligation on the NCA to ensure that the ANZAC hall is technically capable of temporary and semi-permanent reconfiguration of gallery spaces as may be required in the future (For example, a future AWM Board may agree to commemorate colonial engagement with Australia’s First Nations). The architects claim that the exhibition fit out will be undertaken by a separate design contractor. Given the lack of coherence between the three main works packages, however, it would be as well to ensure that the structure of the ANZAC Hall and other spaces are structurally and technically fit for the configuration of various galleries and exhibitions that can serve a range of emerging purposes and priorities.
Dr Martha Kinsman
Visiting Fellow, Australian Studies Institute,
Australian National University
10 September 2021