The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter: Marianne Albury-CollessNew Southern Entrance
I strongly endorse the Lake Burly Griffin Guardians submission on the landscape issues and what I would term the cavalier interpretation of Heritage significance taken by the proponents of the extension to the New Southern Entrance (NSE) and the New Anzac Hall (NAH) and Glazed Link (GL) of the Australian War Memorial (the Memorial).
Further, has consideration been given for the increased mass of scoria and stone surface on the parade ground and terrace and concomitant heat generated affecting those on parade and also those observing proceedings and events? Has climate change modelling provided information as to the likely temperatures for future Anzac and Remembrance days? Has some way of attenuating both solar radiation and the inevitable heat bank of the scoria and stone been considered?
Will the oculus be able to withstand the impact of climate change and concomitant frequency of super cell storms. Will it be able to cope with the hail loading and high volume of water in the increasing intensity of storms similar to the ones Canberra had 2007 and 2020? Even Giurgola’s magnificent Parliament House has leaky skylights despite original efforts taken to address the issue.
Unfortunately, the flyover and other pictures of NAH appear to give the Memorial what looks like a ducktail bustle. Surely, NAH could be sunk further down within the ground to ameliorate this unfortunate impression.
Further, has consideration been given for the increased mass of scoria and stone surface on the parade ground and terrace and concomitant heat generated affecting those on parade and also those observing proceedings and events? Has climate change modelling provided information as to the likely temperatures for future Anzac and Remembrance days? Has some way of attenuating both solar radiation and the inevitable heat bank of the scoria and stone been considered?
Will the oculus be able to withstand the impact of climate change and concomitant frequency of super cell storms. Will it be able to cope with the hail loading and high volume of water in the increasing intensity of storms similar to the ones Canberra had 2007 and 2020? Even Giurgola’s magnificent Parliament House has leaky skylights despite original efforts taken to address the issue.
Unfortunately, the flyover and other pictures of NAH appear to give the Memorial what looks like a ducktail bustle. Surely, NAH could be sunk further down within the ground to ameliorate this unfortunate impression.
Bean Building Extension and Central Energy Plant
It is really commendable to see the proposed New Research Centre (NRC) and its design sympathetic to its surrounds and for user requirements. However, is it really large enough to accommodate the ever-increasing interest in various forms of research? Is there sufficient protection for the NRC from any possible accidents deriving from CEP and possible fire attack from Mt Ainslie? The Memorial’s vast record collection is irreplaceable. Any firewall and other relevant fire protection need to be absolutely the most reliable available.
Anzac Hall and Glazed Link
What one ascertains from this treatment of the Memorial is that this is not so much about commemoration but more about showcasing vis New Anzac Hall (NAH) and the Glazed Link (GL): providing spaces and places to display the achievements of the military industrial complex. Further, it appears to both the optics and the zeitgeist that this extension to the Memorial is, in fact, a done deal.
It would be admirable if there were evidence of genuine consultation inclusive of the families who suffered the consequences of the loss of their fathers, brothers, sons, mothers, sisters and daughters in the various theatres of war and conflict. There are reams of evidence of the suffering of the families who have lived for decades post conflict coping with their loved ones’ disabilities of many and various kinds. In thinking about this extension how did the architects and planners go about incorporating the horror and pity of war and the struggle families contend with in its aftermath? Did they attempt to pay tribute in recognition of this profound suffering and grief? Is there a space for this apart from some token spaces for 'reflection'.
The exquisitely created Canadian National Vimy Memorial at Vimy Ridge by the architect Walter Seymour Allward epitomises how this can be done. Sadly, there appears no recognition made nor space in the extension for the grief encompassing all members of families, the young and old, that Allward was able to bring to the Vimy Memorial, particularly his sculpture.
The original concept of Commemoration for the Memorial appears to have been replaced by what could be construed as triumphalism in the way these extensions are being portrayed. Were any of the senior women architects within the Cox impressive lineup of architects chosen to work on this project? Where are the spaces in these new galleries that have been set aside to display the impact of war on Australian families? Perhaps this will be done simply via scattered text panels and the odd caption under a work of art.
It would be very useful if there were spaces dedicated to in-depth education programs such as withdrawal rooms where particularly senior students can actually engage in activities such as examining replicas of primary and secondary documents, discuss with historians and educators the causes and impact of war, how historians approach chronicling war et cetera?
It is noted that a consultation with not only the Ngunnawal but also the Ngambri people of this area, as well as other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, was held. This consultation appears on the last page of the 'Australian War Memorial Development Project Preliminary Documentation Submission', June 2020. A passing gesture during one of the recent recorded consultation sessions to some of the indigenous/endemic plants to be used in the landscaping was hardly an appropriate response to the query as to how our First People were to be recognised within the new extensions. While it is also noted that a response, at the time of the 2020 consultation, was made to the internecine issue of the frontier wars, these extensions could have been an ideal opportunity to mark appropriately this part of our history which no Australian government appears to have the moral courage to address. Of course, education programs can assist to provide context that illustrates and elucidates these contentious issues. However, it would be shameful if there were to be no gallery space within the actual Memorial’s expanded space dedicated to the issue as it is the most appropriate place for the telling of this story in a cohesive way.
Given the $498 million to be expended on this expansion of the Australian War Memorial, particularly the amount spent on the replacing Anzac Hall, can the Australian taxpayer be assured that at least there is some longevity assured, that NAH is guaranteed to last at least for 17 years?
The actual design of the buildings, GL and NAH, appear to a naïve eye be, to some extent, an elegant solution to what has been perceived to be the problem to provide more space for recent wars and international peace-keeping and humanitarian missions involving Australians. However, from the actual flyovers and the walkthroughs this would appear, from the many silhouettes, to be an exceedingly expensive extension primarily to showcase military materiel. This is in no way relevant to the Memorial’s commemorative purpose. The Memorial's stated purpose of ‘Commemoration’ does not easily fragment into: Context, Experience, Orientation, and Connection which are proffered as the key design principles. Further, apart from the existing areas such as the Hall of Memory and Roll of Honour, it is not clear how the extensions really augment or honour the concept of commemoration which according to the Macquarie Dictionary outlines as an act that includes the following elements ‘eternalise, eternise, immortalise, memorialise, monumentalise, preserve, retain’.
Obviously, if we are to have an effective defence force those men and women deserve to be well-equipped. The past practice of the Memorial was to exhibit equipment that became iconic in previous conflicts such as the Owen machine gun, 25-pounders, Centurion tanks, Avro Lancasters (G for George), Iroquois helicopters, and so on. Such objects are displayed within context and with appropriate provenance. It would indeed be a travesty if visitors to the Memorial were going to have 'showcasing' of Steyr Mannlicher AG/Thales Australia, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing and EY products and the like as just display objects without provenance. One trusts that best museology practice prevails rather than a sales room mentality.
It is important to raise concerns as to how well some of the architectural elements such as the oculus, the roofs of the glazed link and New Anzac Hall, will withstand the impact of climate change and concomitant frequency of super cell storms. Are these roofs and roof joints capable of withstanding the hail loading and high volume of water in the ever increasingly intense storms similar to the ones Canberra had 2007 and 2020? It would seem that Canberra is in a hail path. Even Giurgola’s magnificent Parliament House has leaky skylights despite original efforts taken to address the issue.
Fire is also a serious consideration and only relatively recently has the Memorial put in place a management system to address the external threat of fire. Always better late than never but have appropriate measures been put in place to manage the possibility of fire and ember attack from Mt Ainslie (1957, 2016) again an increasing likelihood with extremes of weather under the effects of climate change?
It would be admirable if there were evidence of genuine consultation inclusive of the families who suffered the consequences of the loss of their fathers, brothers, sons, mothers, sisters and daughters in the various theatres of war and conflict. There are reams of evidence of the suffering of the families who have lived for decades post conflict coping with their loved ones’ disabilities of many and various kinds. In thinking about this extension how did the architects and planners go about incorporating the horror and pity of war and the struggle families contend with in its aftermath? Did they attempt to pay tribute in recognition of this profound suffering and grief? Is there a space for this apart from some token spaces for 'reflection'.
The exquisitely created Canadian National Vimy Memorial at Vimy Ridge by the architect Walter Seymour Allward epitomises how this can be done. Sadly, there appears no recognition made nor space in the extension for the grief encompassing all members of families, the young and old, that Allward was able to bring to the Vimy Memorial, particularly his sculpture.
The original concept of Commemoration for the Memorial appears to have been replaced by what could be construed as triumphalism in the way these extensions are being portrayed. Were any of the senior women architects within the Cox impressive lineup of architects chosen to work on this project? Where are the spaces in these new galleries that have been set aside to display the impact of war on Australian families? Perhaps this will be done simply via scattered text panels and the odd caption under a work of art.
It would be very useful if there were spaces dedicated to in-depth education programs such as withdrawal rooms where particularly senior students can actually engage in activities such as examining replicas of primary and secondary documents, discuss with historians and educators the causes and impact of war, how historians approach chronicling war et cetera?
It is noted that a consultation with not only the Ngunnawal but also the Ngambri people of this area, as well as other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, was held. This consultation appears on the last page of the 'Australian War Memorial Development Project Preliminary Documentation Submission', June 2020. A passing gesture during one of the recent recorded consultation sessions to some of the indigenous/endemic plants to be used in the landscaping was hardly an appropriate response to the query as to how our First People were to be recognised within the new extensions. While it is also noted that a response, at the time of the 2020 consultation, was made to the internecine issue of the frontier wars, these extensions could have been an ideal opportunity to mark appropriately this part of our history which no Australian government appears to have the moral courage to address. Of course, education programs can assist to provide context that illustrates and elucidates these contentious issues. However, it would be shameful if there were to be no gallery space within the actual Memorial’s expanded space dedicated to the issue as it is the most appropriate place for the telling of this story in a cohesive way.
Given the $498 million to be expended on this expansion of the Australian War Memorial, particularly the amount spent on the replacing Anzac Hall, can the Australian taxpayer be assured that at least there is some longevity assured, that NAH is guaranteed to last at least for 17 years?
The actual design of the buildings, GL and NAH, appear to a naïve eye be, to some extent, an elegant solution to what has been perceived to be the problem to provide more space for recent wars and international peace-keeping and humanitarian missions involving Australians. However, from the actual flyovers and the walkthroughs this would appear, from the many silhouettes, to be an exceedingly expensive extension primarily to showcase military materiel. This is in no way relevant to the Memorial’s commemorative purpose. The Memorial's stated purpose of ‘Commemoration’ does not easily fragment into: Context, Experience, Orientation, and Connection which are proffered as the key design principles. Further, apart from the existing areas such as the Hall of Memory and Roll of Honour, it is not clear how the extensions really augment or honour the concept of commemoration which according to the Macquarie Dictionary outlines as an act that includes the following elements ‘eternalise, eternise, immortalise, memorialise, monumentalise, preserve, retain’.
Obviously, if we are to have an effective defence force those men and women deserve to be well-equipped. The past practice of the Memorial was to exhibit equipment that became iconic in previous conflicts such as the Owen machine gun, 25-pounders, Centurion tanks, Avro Lancasters (G for George), Iroquois helicopters, and so on. Such objects are displayed within context and with appropriate provenance. It would indeed be a travesty if visitors to the Memorial were going to have 'showcasing' of Steyr Mannlicher AG/Thales Australia, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin Corp, Boeing and EY products and the like as just display objects without provenance. One trusts that best museology practice prevails rather than a sales room mentality.
It is important to raise concerns as to how well some of the architectural elements such as the oculus, the roofs of the glazed link and New Anzac Hall, will withstand the impact of climate change and concomitant frequency of super cell storms. Are these roofs and roof joints capable of withstanding the hail loading and high volume of water in the ever increasingly intense storms similar to the ones Canberra had 2007 and 2020? It would seem that Canberra is in a hail path. Even Giurgola’s magnificent Parliament House has leaky skylights despite original efforts taken to address the issue.
Fire is also a serious consideration and only relatively recently has the Memorial put in place a management system to address the external threat of fire. Always better late than never but have appropriate measures been put in place to manage the possibility of fire and ember attack from Mt Ainslie (1957, 2016) again an increasing likelihood with extremes of weather under the effects of climate change?