🚀 go-pugleaf

The Dome
By Arnold Zable. Published the The Age Newspaper, 26 September 1996

We called it, simply, 'the dome.' We saw it every day, as we made our 
way from our single-fronted terrace, in Canning street, the three 
blocks south, to Lee Street Primary school. It was a constant in our 
lives, the southern boundary of our childhood world, distant, but 
clearly visible, especially from the open road, where we rode our 
scooters, raced our bikes, got up to no good, and played epic cricket 
matches between the Canning and Amess street boys.

The dome: In summers it seemed to shimmer in the crackling heat. On 
foggy mornings, it emerged, triumphant, from the mists. In late 
spring, when the poplars on Canning Street regained their leaves, it 
rose above an avenue of vibrant foliage. The Exhibition Buildings was 
the first wonder of our  childhood world. It was majestic; free 
standing and unobscured, in a parkland setting. Its Florentine dome 
overlooked flower beds and shaded paths. It was our grand landmark, 
our neighbourhood icon.

Sometimes we made it inside, under the dome, lured there by the 
latest show to come to the Exhibition Building. We were engrossed in 
collecting glossy brochures, and viewing the vast array of cars, 
boats, camping gear, or whatever, that crammed the exhibition halls. 
Just occasionally we glanced up and sensed the grandeur of this 
cavernous wonder, with its maze of galleries and arches, sumptuous 
ornamentation and towers.

As we grew older, the inner city skyline became more hard edged. 
Curves and church spires were dwarfed by rectangles and right angles. 
High rises cluttered the skies. Even then, the dome was still 
visible. Reduced in scale somewhat; but all the more precious, 
because it defied the times. It was a constant reminder that there 
are other possibilities. Other visions. Other ways to design a city.

The Royal Exhibition Building, the dome, and the Carlton Gardens, are 
now facing a far more lethal threat. In  a decision that was made 
with no public consultation, no impact studies and no historical 
advice, the new Museum of Victoria lost its half-completed building 
on Southbank, and  is to be built, instead,  in the Carlton Gardens.
Not only will the proposed design destroy the free standing nature of 
the Exhibition Buildings, and not only will its massive bulk, which 
is over three times the area of the  present buildings, impose itself 
on the gardens, but the dome will be obscured, from the northern 
view, by a projecting roof blade. According to Miles Lewis, professor 
of architecture at Melbourne University, this blade has been 
'conceived solely as a feature to compete with the Exhibition 
buildings dome.'

More disturbing is the brief for the museum design, which states, 'it 
is also inevitable that at some time in the future additions to the 
complex will be required. The building needs to cater for expansion 
in both its internal planning and its external appearance.' So the 
new museum may well pave the way for further intrusion into the 
Carlton Gardens.

This is far more than a local issue. The Exhibition building is a 
major part of our nation's heritage. It was built to house the Great 
International Exhibition of 1880-81. It was the venue of the 
Centennial Exhibition of 1888. The first Federal Parliament of the 
Commonwealth of Australia was opened here, in May 1901, with much 
celebration and ceremony. And it remains, along with the Eiffel Tower 
of Paris, one of the few structures that were built in the nineteenth 
century era of great exhibitions.

The Royal Exhibition building is a Victorian icon, and a national 
treasure. City counsellor, Rosemary Stott is  lobbying the council to 
nominate it for World  Heritage Listing. It is, according to Miles 
Lewis, the only building in Victoria with any prospect of achieving 
such an honour. This would mean a lot in terms of tourism and 
prestige. In fact the building is well placed for such as listing 
because in the 1980s it was restored to its 1901 concept of colour, 
design and art decoration.

A group of Melburnians who are enraged by this decision, are still 
trying, desperately, to get their message across. They first called 
their group, Defend the Dome. As the issues have broadened, they have 
renamed themselves, Defend our Heritage. Spokes-people like Rosemary 
Stott, Anthony van der Craats, Frances Clarke,  Trevor Huggard and 
member of Defend Our Heritage, continually point out, there are a 
number of far more preferable sites for the new museum, such as the 
vacant CUB site, Queen Victoria site, or the former police head 
quarters in Russell street. Building the museum on one of these 
sites, would help the inner city revive. It would place the museum 
where it belongs, as part of the cultural spine of the city.
And it would be a boon city businesses in the CBD, already in decline 
as the focus shifts to the casino complex on Southbank. Inner city 
businesses face a loss of revenue from a projected one million annual 
visitors to the new museum. It is only once in a life time that the 
opportunity comes to create a great new building for this purpose. 
Melbourne deserves a world class museum, where it belongs, in the 
heart of the city.

It is not too late to reverse this decision. The cyclone fences have 
gone up. The bulldozers are at work. But the contracts for the 
building have not been finalised. This is written as a plea to the 
premier, his government, his planning minister,  those who hold the 
reins of power, that for the sake of our city, for the sake of future 
generations, stop, rethink, take a look at what you are doing.
You are destroying a place of grace and grandeur. You are destroying 
the peaceful ambiance of its surrounds. You are destroying the work 
and vision of our collective past. You are destroying aspects of our 
common heritage. Yes, our  heritage. At the same time, you are 
consigning the new Museum of Victoria to the city fringes.

We have a state government that loves to congratulate itself on its 
great works, and on the way it is transforming the city. But the 
reality is, that it is intruding into our parks and gardens, making 
crucial decisions with little consultation, and without regard to 
overall strategic planning. And in the process it has left a lot of 
people feeling powerless, disenfranchised and unwilling to speak out.

Stop it before it is too late. Institute a stay of execution. Set up 
a process of genuine public consultation and review. Allow the 
broader community to be informed.  And, above all, spend some time in 
the gardens to absorb its serenity. Walk the road that leads to the 
dome, and contemplate what you are about to do. It is so obviously 
wrong.