🚀 go-pugleaf

MINUTES OF
 PUBLIC FORUM
PROPOSED STATE MUSEUM
____________

2 pm, Sunday 26 May 1996
Great Hall, Royal Exhibition Buildings
____________

CHAIR : Ms Lecki Ord

1.	Welcome				
	Councillor Peter McMullin, Deputy Lord Mayor, welcomed members of 
the public and speakers to the Forum.


2.	Introductions									
	Cr Rosemary Stott of the City of Melbourne addressed the forum and 
introduced the speakers listed under agenda item 4.

3.	Objective of Forum
The Chair addressed the objective of the Forum.											
4.	Presentations 

� Graham Morris, Director, State Museum	
� Dick Roennfeldt, Director, Office of Major Projects.	
� Rob Adams, Director City Projects, City of Melbourne 	
� Dr Miles Lewis, Faculty of Architecture, University of Melbourne	
� Trevor Huggard, former Exhibition Trustee and Lord Mayor	

	Copies of the presentations made by the speakers are attached.

5.	Panel Questions
	The Panel received and responded to questions from the public.

6	Motions

	The following motions were put and carried by those attending the Forum :

"That this Forum move that the Melbourne City Council oppose the 
further alienation of parkland in the Carlton Gardens by the location 
of a Museum.  Further, that it use every endeavour to relocate the 
Museum to another site to the strategic advantage of both the Museum 
and the City."

"That the meeting strongly oppose the proposed use of the Museum in 
the Carlton Gardens as it is a wrongful use of the Gardens and will 
severely compromise both the historic Exhibition Buildings, now and 
in the future. The site is also inadequate in terms of access by car 
and public transport.



This meeting also strongly believes that the Queen Victoria Hospital 
or the Federation Square sites will better serve both the interests 
of the Museum and the interests of the central city as a cultural 
heart of Melbourne and urges that the Carlton Gardens site be 
abandoned and serious consideration be given to the central city 
sites for the Museum"

"That the meeting :

� call on the State Government and the Melbourne City Council to 
consider the incorporation of the State Museum as part of the 
proposed development of Federation Square; and

� request that a commitment to the current site at the Exhibition 
Buildings be deferred until the options for the Federation Square 
project are finalised."


"That this meeting endorse the need for the Museum of Victoria to 
develop a new building (or complex of buildings) of world class 
standards in the fulfillment the Museum�s mission to preserve and 
present evidence of our histories."

"That no blades be included in any proposed development of a Museum."

"That copies of the six addresses given at this Forum be sent to all 
members of :

� the Museum Executive; and 
� the State Parliament of Victoria."

On the question of the formation of a group to continue to lobbying 
for  the relocation of the Museum,  the Chair recommended that 
interested people approach Mr Anthony van der Craats and the �Defend 
Our Heritage� group at the conclusion of the meeting, to discuss the 
ways in which the collective view of members of the community can be 
conveyed to the authorities involved in the determination of the site 
of the proposed Museum.



The meeting concluded at 4.24 pm

 


PRESENTATION BY ROB ADAMS, DIRECTOR CITY PROJECTS
TO MUSEUM FORUM - 26 MAY



This presentation dealt with two main issues.

1.	Consultation on siting of Museum
2.	Master planning and proposed building in Cartoon Gardens



Consultation and Siting

�	The City was not consulted on the choice of the site

�	Had the City been consulted, it is highly probable given the master 
plan for Carlton Gardens, that the City would have agreed to that 
site.  The masterplan for the Gardens clearly indicated the potential 
for a large building to the northern side of the Exhibition Buildings.

�	The siting of the new Museum was made before Federation Square 
became a firm commitment and as such this site was not considered at 
the time.


Master planning the Gardens

The City completed a masterplan for the Gardens in 1990 and this plan 
which is currently the adopted masterplan for the park looked at the 
historic development of the Gardens and made recommendations for the 
design and modification of these gardens over time.  The underlying 
principles for this masterplan where.

1.	To ensure that the park was read as a single large garden with a 
building contained within it
2.	To reinforce the existing pathway and building features
3.	To introduce a planting regime which gave a consistent landscaping 
feel to the entire gardens

The existing museum while meeting many of the conditions of the 
masterplan currently falls short in the following areas.

1.	The edges on Rathdowne and Nicholson Streets break the continuity 
of the edge treatment in the park.
2.	'Me building is located too far to the north impinging on the 
existing avenue of trees.
3.	The space created between the museum and the new library is of 
such a scale and design as to potentially become windswept cold and 
unfriendly, therefore undesirable in the gardens.

It is to be noted that the original masterplan did not emphasise the 
view to the dome from the north and concentrated more on the diagonal 
path systems in this northern part of the gardens.  This omission by 
the masterplan does not mean this view is not important and should be 
a consideration for the new building.

The presentation concluded by saying that discussions were being held 
between the Minister of Planning and the City to achieve some design 
modifications to meet the overall objectives of the masterplan.  No 
response as yet has been received from the Minister.
 
PUBLIC FORUM ON THE MUSEUM SITE
Exhibition Building

Miles Lewis
26 May 1996

Ladies and Gentlemen

I have lived through a period when the Victoria Market has been 
proposed as the site of new Museum ; then the Queen Victoria Hospital 
site; then the existing Museum and Library site in Swanston Street 
(on the basis that the Library would now move out); then the south 
bank of the Yarra; and now the Carlton Gardens.

These changes have been absolutely dispiriting for those involved in 
the Museum.  The last was probably the worst.  Construction was 
actually under way on a site on the south side of the Yarra which the 
Museum itself had chosen, which had a water connection to 
Scienceworks, and which was close to Southgate and the Arts Centre.  
The Kennett Government simply stepped in, halted the work, and 
converted the part-built structure into the Exhibition Centre.

Nobody can help sympathising with the Museum authorities.  Anybody 
can understand their desperate desire to find a permanent home, and 
their desperate need, in consequence, to justify the present scheme.

But the fact is that nobody in the Museum world honestly believes 
that this is a good site.  Nobody believes that it is central enough. 
 Nobody believes that it is close enough to other arts and tourist 
facilities.  Nobody believes that it is accessible enough to public 
transport; nobody believes that it will have enough carparking.  
Nobody believes that it can work well in relation to the Exhibition 
building.  Nobody believes that it provides the room for expansion 
which is a requirement of the brief itself.

The official brief states (p 64): "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."

Two put it bluntly, two wrongs don't make a right, and five wrongs 
still don't make a
right.

The other four wrongs are as follows.  It is wrong for the Exhibition 
Buildings.  It is wrong for the cultural precinct of Melbourne.  It 
is wrong for the City of Melbourne as a whole.  And it is absolutely 
and terribly wrong to treat parkland as development sites.

It is wrong for the Exhibition Building because this is one of 
Australia's most important and symbolic pieces of architecture, 
epitomising the peak of nineteenth century Victorian success and 
prosperity, representing a high point of intercolonial cooperation; 
and the first meeting place of the Parliament of Australia.  It is, 
along with the Eiffel Tower in Paris, one of the only substantial 
structures remaining from the great nineteenth century exhibitions.



And it is, because of this, the only building in Victoria with any 
prospect of achieving world heritage listing.  That listing 
represents the ultimate in international recognition, and means a 
great deal in terms both of tourism and prestige.  But it also 
requires a commitment by the authorities to the building's proper 
preservation and management, including its
surroundings.

Such a commitment is not demonstrated by building a totally 
incompatible structure next to it, with a featuristic blade whose 
sole purpose is to compete with the great dome.

And don't get the idea that this is will be a new structure nestling 
in the shadow of the Exhibition Building.  The Exhibition Building is 
huge, but the Museum is to be three times the size, and to add to 
that there will be an additional three thousand square metres of 
outdoor exhibition space, plus delivery bays, plus carparking access.

The north part of the Carlton Gardens will be no more than a skirt 
about the foot of this
megastructure.

Cars will enter the site through what was the major public forecourt 
of the Exhibition Building facing Nicholson Street.  A boom gate and 
attendant's booth have already been put there, overshadowing the 
newly restored Westgarth Fountain and turning a major public space 
into a tacky parking lot.  Does this suggest that future decisions 
about the Exhibition Buiilding can safely be left in the hands of Mr 
Morris?

That is why the proposal is wrong for the Exhibition Building.  Why 
is it wrong for the
cultural precinct?

There is a cultural spine along Swanston Street.  At the north end is 
a so-called knowledge precinct extending from Melbourne University 
through RMIT to the State Library and the present Museum.  At the 
south end is the Arts Centre, the soon to be reopened Regent Theatre, 
and the Town Hall in its role as a prime musical and entertainment 
venue.

These landmark institutions are mutually reinforcing.  People move 
from one to another.  They cooperate for festivals and other special 
events.  They collectively comprise Melbourne'sculturalidentity.  
TotaketheMuseumoutofthegroupisnotjusttodamage the Museum itself, but 
to damage the others as well.  It is to hack off a major limb from a 
body which is not robust enough to spare it.

That is why this proposal is wrong from the point of view of 
Melbourne's cultural precinct.

If the museum is essential to the cultural spine, it is even more 
essential to the Central Business District.  Central Melbourne, make 
no mistake, is very sick and is getting sicker by the minute.  The 
residential market is collapsing, and it's losing office 
accommodation, retailing and entertainment.

Swanston Walk already looks like a wasteland, and this is only the beginning.

City flats in recycled buildings are now re-selling at about 20% less 
than the purchase
price.  That is a situation which simply cannot continue, and the rot 
has set in already.


City office space is in a state of glut, partly concealed by the 
incentives, discounts and rentfree periods used to attract tenants 
into the new buildings.  But the fact is that the demand is not 
there.  City rentals are lower than those in St Kilda Road, and in 
turn the rents in St Kilda Road are below those in some suburban 
centres.

City retailing is sick enough as it is.  Soon a massive new shopping 
complex is going to
open at the Casino, and the whole focus of the city will move to the 
south of the Yarra.

The same is true of entertainment.  The Casino complex is to contain 
no less than twenty new cinemas.  What will that do to the existing 
city venues?

Every viable function is being leached out of the city.  There is not 
much that governments can do to arrest a decline Re this.  However, 
every few decades, perhaps only two or three times in a century, 
there is some major project which can be used to kick start a 
revival, and the construction of a new Museum is potentially one such 
project.

But it is not being used in that way.  It is not merely that the 
Museum is to be built elsewhere.  This also involves taking away the 
existing Museum and its existing flow of visitors.  This could be the 
coup-de-grace for at least the northern part of town.

My fifth, and my last, and my most serious point is what this implies 
for Melbourne's parklands.  There have always been greedy eyes on 
Melbourne's parks, and there have always been battles to preserve one 
park or another.  But there has never been a sustained and 
simultaneous attack upon almost every piece of open space in the city 
as there is today, under the Kennett government .

The destruction of parklands is a one-way process,, which works like 
a ratchet.  For there is no going back.  Every time you put a 
development on parkland you create the expectation that the same can 
be done with the next development.  Every time you put a public 
institution on parkland you create a demand for carparking and access 
roads which can never be finally satisfied.  Every use you put in 
parkland has to expand, in due course, onto the only space available, 
which is more parkland.

The Children's Hospital was moved onto Royal Park in the 1950s.  Now 
this is the excuse
for the Women's Hospital to move there as well.

The Carlton Football ground - or so-called 'Optus Oval' - has long 
been in Princes Park, but is expanding, at the expense of parkland; 
creating carparking, at the expense of parkland; and installing night 
lighting, also at the expense of parkland.

In this age of economic rationalism the Royal Botanic Gardens has to 
earn money on a commercial basis, and therefore to provide spaces 
that can be let out for functions.  Therefore it is to expand into 
the Domain, once again at the expense of Parkland.

In the Carlton Gardens there has been a carpark north of this 
building.  That is the excuse for saying that this area is no longer 
park, and therefore a giant project can be built there.  But that 
carpark is a part of the original Carlton Gardens, and until now no 
permanent building has been allowed upon it.  Make no mistake - the 
Museum proposal is an assault on parklands on a massive scale.



The Melbourne Zoo has had temporary parking on the surrounding 
grassed areas during peak seasons.  Now that is being translated into 
permanent parking with kerbing, and earthworks, and the removal of 
trees.  Once this has been done the next government can say there, as 
has been said here in the Carlton Gardens, that this is only car 
park, so it can now be built over.  What price parklands now?

We have always understood that parks were permanent, and were for all 
people, and that they could be used for sporting purposes.  We have 
complacently accepted the idea that this might mean a few extra 
structures by way of toilets and changing rooms.  But it has now gone 
way beyond that.  They are now used to build giant complexes with the 
permanent offices of sporting bodies, with private clubrooms, 
commercial restaurants and with
corporate boxes.

Albert Park has been completely raped for the Grand Prix, and now 
looks as synthetic as
Noddy's Toy Town, with a giant building in the middle.  But you've 
seen nothing yet.

There is now to be an even bigger structure put up at the north-west 
comer as an indoor sports and aquatic centre.  It will be seven times 
the size of the Pit Building, or approximately the same size as the 
giant Melbourne Exhibition Centre on the south side of the Yarra.

If so much parkland can be destroyed by a single government, why 
should the next government not do the same again?  And the one after? 
 And how long before there is nothing left?

This is symptomatic of the planning process in modem Victoria.  There 
are no overall policies.  Decisions are arbitrary and inconsistent.  
There is no public input, no professional review, and no avenue for 
public protest or appeal.  Assumptions that we all took for granted - 
like the idea that parkland is permanent open space - are repudiated 
and ridiculed.

And it is dog eat dog.  The sort of people who support the planning 
process, who love the parkland, and who have a vision of an urbane 
and civilised city, are the very people who would naturally support 
institutions like the Museum of Victoria.  Yet now a wedge is driven 
between us, and we are forced into opposite camps.

Let us recognise that the supporters of the parks and the supporters 
of the Museum are not enemies but allies.  We have a common enemy, 
and that is the Philistines - those people in politics, 
administration and public life, who would foist upon us an irrational 
and destructive proposal.

It is a proposal which will oust the Museum from its rightful place 
at the heart of Melbourne and sever it from its public, which will 
devalue one of our greatest public monuments, which will sap the 
cultural life of Melbourne, which will help in bringing the CBD to 
its knees, and which will unleash the hounds of hell upon the 
tattered remains of Melbourne's parks and gardens.

 


SITING THE MUSEUM OF VICTORIA

By Tervor Huggard

Is it to be Position, Position and Position or is it to be Isolated 
from Transport, Isolated from the other arts and Isolated from its 
most important resource - People?

A paper on the Strategic Planning of our City and the appropriate 
position of the

Museum of Victoria to benefit the City, the State and the Museum by Trevor

Huggard, Former Exhibition Trustee, Lord Mayor of Melbourne and Chairman of

Melbourne Strategy Plan Committee.

While there is much that could be said about the design and its 
disrespect for the Great Hall replacing its recently restored 
Centennial Gardens on Nicholson Street with a car park entrance and 
ramp, a bus parking station at its main entrance central axis to 
Rathdowne Street and the obliteration of many fine views of the dome 
from northern aspects I will not dwell on any of these issues in the 
limited time available today.

Of much greater importance is the key strategic planning issues 
relating to the city and its host role for the whole of the state and 
where we place one of the states most important assets, a unique 
asset, the Museum of Victoria by its nature is a one off, naturally 
positioned, hopefully, at an accessible, well located venue where 
regular visitation by all Victorians, especially those without access 
to cars, school children, overseas, interstate and intrastate 
visitors can occur.

Most importantly it should be in a location where people who never 
intended to visit the Museum when they set out on their days 
activities will become conscious of its existence and have their 
lives enhanced by being drawn into the Museum and discovering its 
intellectually stimulating and therapeutic benefits to their lives.

Let there be no mistake in understanding that the Casino management 
understand this
point with vivid clarity!

They have positioned themselves so that they are geographically and 
psychologically central to our lives and our culture, not peripheral 
to it.  Many people perhaps wish they were not, but that is the 
subject of a separate debate.

We must make sure that the intellectual pursuits are well positioned to make a
contribution to all of our lives and we do not have to seek them out.

Access for all is crucial, obvious positioning is vital, public 
debate essenu and a process that ensures that the ultimate decision 
makers are well informed and fully aware of the issues and concerns 
before they make their irreversible decision.





Q1= of those four criteria is being addressed today, hopefully the 
other three will follow.

In the 1985 Strategy Plan, a plan that is to be regularly reviewed 
and updated as a blueprint for this city, which I had the good 
fortune to be chairman of, it became obvious in the detailed research 
and just over 1000 meetings in 10 months with every diverse interest 
group in this complex city, that certain aspects of our city are 
crucial to uphold or your city will suffer and wither irretrievably.

The important principle of having a 'strong centred city' not a city 
with a dead heart was a
central platform of the plan.

The very reason why the Melbourne City Council has had an adopted 
policy of fighting hard to retain the large array of government 
departments in the city rather than allowing them to drift and 
decentralise to remote locations, even although none of them pay 
rates, placing a huge financial burden on the council's budget, is 
that the enormous investment in the underground rail loop and our 
public transport system can only be justified if the very hub of the 
system provides access to all those facilities.

It is also an economic fact that where government investment locates 
itself, private
investment follows.

Conversely where government investment deserts the city, private 
investment quickly
follows.

This principle is starkly obvious in our city at this very moment.

A recent press article expressing concern about the decline of 
Russell Street by the Chamber of Commerce and BOMA highlights that 
when corresponding decisions to vacate the Magistrates Court, Russell 
Street police headquarters and the Queen Victoria hospital site all 
occur more or less simultaneously an instant stop to precinct 
activity occurs leaving the area and its surrounds in serious decline.

The Greek precinct, Chinatown and the general retail area suddenly 
hit the wall and
disastrous commercial decay ensues.

The Queen Victoria hospital generated enormous activity for the 
immediate area through extensive rural Victoria numbers demanding 
accommodation, food and back up services around the clock.

The present thinking of possibly turning it into a city park is 
bizarre to say the least.
The ultimate irony is that we are turning our public gardens into 
building sites and our
building site into gardem!

Unfortunately this extraordinary 'switch of sites' behaviour costs 
the tax payer heavily but
fills the pockets of a few select individuals handsomely.

I do hope the decision makers see the irony and correct the ships 
course as a matter of considerable urgency.
The continuing process of asset stripping of our city has been 
identified by the 1985



Strategy Plan and its 1990 review and alarm bells sounded about the 
decline of the city.

It is by neglect, or design, not necessity and must be halted-

Walter Burley Griffin's design for Canberra with its central spine 
extending from the war memorial to parliament house seems to be well 
understood by planners and the public alike.

The civic spine from our war memorial past the deliberate placement 
of our civic assets, the town hall, the city square, St Pauls 
Cathedral, the National Gallery, Flinders Street Station, the State 
Library and the Museum of Victoria and leading up to, as Barry 
Humphries wryly noted in the 1970's "that other book end of our 
culture, Carlton United Breweries" is not nearly as well understood.

Its importance to Melbourne is enormous and major civic decisions 
over the years have been consistently based on this understanding and 
recent decisions to close Swanston Street to through traffic as our 
main processional spine where every event and procession from the 
Anzac Day march to the Moomba procession occurs acknowledges this.  A 
current decision on the books to build the $100 M plus Federation 
Square at Princes Bridge consolidates this position.

it is extraordinary to me that on 3 sites all worthy of serious 
consideration Federation Square, Queen Victoria Hospital site and the 
Carlton United Breweries site all desperately looking for a primary 
use to arrest the decline of our cities activity and vibrance and all 
strategically located on our main civic spine and processional way 
are ignored.

It is even more extraordinary to me that the Museum would happily 
vacate its location of dominance in the city, and in the minds of all 
Victorians, from its present location where expansion without the 
disruption of moving could occur.

As pointed out it is not only the obvious vacant Queen Victoria 
Hospital site that

surrounds the Museum at present but it abounds with vacated sites in 
the former legal


precinct as well.  The opportunities for endless, uncontroversial, 
publicly welcomed
expansion are endless.

One of the great museums of the world, the British Museum thrives on 
retaining its location in London by acquiring neighbouring buildings 
and sites and adapting them for their use.

it is not disadvantaged by this at all, on the contrary, and it 
reinforces the precinct activity and makes a major contribution to 
that city.  It will be a tragedy for Melbourne and the Museum if it 
is not put where it will be loved and needed.

The British Museum also benefits by having a Museum Station on the 
underground which firstly constantly reminds visitors of its 
existence and secondly simplifies the process of finding it by simply 
travelling to Museum Station.




In Melbourne there are 197 stations on our Metropolitan network, only 
one of them was

named after a dedicated use and activity - Museum Station - what a 
marketing coup!

Not even the AFL has an MCG Station - but I bet they would love to 
see that!  Some

will hasten to point out that the Showgrounds Station and Flemington 
Racecourse are
dedicated stations but they are once a year stations on a dead end line.
The State government wanted $250,000 to extinguish the Museum Station 
name and sell it
to Melbourne Central as Melbourne Central!  They understood the 
marketing advantage!

Why anyone would want to abandon such a clear marketing advantage and 
high profile
address is beyond comprehension.

This proposed address is remote, difficult , car based and not well 
served by public
transport.

The use of either the Queen Victoria Hospital site and other related 
precinct sites or the
CUB site could all retain Museum Station as our only dedicated station.

An opportunity to invest in our city with a $250 M public building is 
a once in a life time opportunity and should be strategically located 
to make a contribution to the city not located to the detriment of 
our public gardens.

In September, 1986 the M.C.C. commissioned a detailed report by Rex 
Swanston on the
use of its public parks and gardens.

The first point, made is that gardens are infinitely more fragile and 
sensitive to use than
parks and fall into a quite different category of public amenity than 
parkland.

The Carlton Gardens are exactly that - a garden, not a parkland and 
need to be very
carefully managed.

Secondly it was recommended that major events and activities should 
be avoided in them.

This policy was adopted by M.C.C. at that time.

The replacement of our democratically elected council by state 
government appointed commissioners meant that not only has this 
policy on management of the gardens been ignored but also the 
presence of councillors on the Exhibition Trustees to ensure that 
knowledge and daily dialogue occurred but also the process of 
planning permit applications and rights to objection lapsed as well.

Simply put, the delicate balance of checks and balances that have 
existed and have been successful in retaining this building and these 
gardens for posterity for the past 116 years were rudely interrupted 
and removed.

The public alarm and concern about this proposal is well founded not 
simply for what is proposed but what it commits these gardens to.



It is a current fact that in the Melbourne City Council area where a 
public institution is located in a park land or a garden they 
currently have objectionable and unwanted expansion proposed or under 
way alienating parkland at an unprecedented rate! i.e.

Princes Park -       Carlton Football Club

Royal Park

RQyal Park

Tennis Centre

Hard paved car parking and major alienation of park land for
the zoo

Proposed relocation of the Royal Womens Hospital to the
Royal Children's Hospital site

Multi-deck car park in Goshs Paddock

Carlton Garnd.=-    Museum proposed

Albert Park, Kings Domain, FairticM, the list goes on and on.

The main point is that wherever an institution is placed in the 
middle of our parkland it remains in conflict forever with that 
garden as the insatiable demand for expansion, particularly for car 
parking puts future politicians, governments and communities under 
constant pressure to accept the current 'quite reasonable' 
incremental increases of use.

Anyone opposing such reasonable requests is constantly painted as 
being unreasonable or
difficult.

THE PLACEMENT OF MAJOR INSTITUTIONS IN A PARKLAND CONDEMNS THAT 
PARKLAND TO CONTINUOUS AND INEXORABLE ALIENATION OF THAT PARKLAND AND 
REMAINS, IN PLANNING TERMS, FATALLY FLAWED AS A PHILOSOPHY.

IT MUST BE COMPREHENSIVELY REJECTED WHEREVER IT IS PROPOSED!

This museum proposal clearly is being built with an acknowledged 
shortfall of car parking.  It will immediately be under pressure to 
cope with that and the proposals for expansion will commence 
immediately, not in 10 years time.

No matter how sincere promises are by the museum or any planner or 
politician the reality is that history has proven that none of them 
can provide any guarantees that expansion will not occur, on the 
contrary we know from logic and experience that it will and must 
occur just as each and every facility in our parklands is expanding 
at the current time.





The Exhibition Buildings were built before the motor car.  The 
alienation by the motor car since has been appalling and has already 
commenced again with the parking of vehicles around the Great Hall 
and installation of a totally offensive ticket box and boom gate at 
the eastern entrance where the Centennial Gardens were reconstructed 
for pedestrian access only in the 1980's.

I was very proud to be a Trustee in the 1980's and be part of the 
renaissance of the restoration of this building, the largest 
Victorian restoration in the world, and the 4 stage restoration of 
the gardens to ensure we once again saw this building standing in a 
garden setting.

Stage 1. The restoration of the Centennial Gardens to the eastern 
face on Nicholson Street removing the sea of cars took place.  The 
removal of the high cyclone fence to the north car park was removed 
to allow public access, the process for reinstatement was well under 
way.

It really incences me to hear the government say they are only taking 
over an old car park
and no trees will be lost.  Let there be no mistake they are taking 
over our gardens!

Our gardens are not cheap development sites.

This car park long identified by the community and the Trustees was 
unacceptable and
was progressively being reinstated to gardens once again.

In concern at the then Hamer governments intention to build a 3000 
seat convention centre
on this site in 1979 I wrote a detailed report called 'When is a 
garden, not a gardenT

The points made today were articulated clearly and presented to the 
government.

To his credit Premier Hamer listened and abandoned the proposal.  
Premier Kennett
should do the same now.

It is important to note that the government had said then that its 
decision to proceed with the proposal was far too advanced, 
irreversible and could not be stopped, but it was stopped.

These same points contained in that report are more relevant than 
ever today.  I have also heard the arguernent put by this government 
that it is too late to change course and it would cost too much to 
proceed - not bad for a government that stopped Daryl Jacksons prize 
winning design when it was nearly completed at south bank!

It is indeed ironical that right at this moment at huge expense to 
the tax payer the gas and
fuel twin towers are being demolished generally acknowledged as a 
planning disaster.

It was allowed to occur because it is on crown land and no planning 
permits were needed.

Similarly the Metrol building built in Batman Avenue obliterated the 
all important view from Russell Street to the Botanic Gardens and 
Government House and contravened the 1974 Strategy Plan and had 
occured again because no planning permit was applied for.

The Premier responded to public outrage and instructed the half built 
building be
demolished - a very gutsy, but correct decision.



He instructed all his government departments that they must apply for 
planning permits
whether they were legally needed or not.

A similar requirement was placed on the Exhibition Buildings in 1979 
and worked
extremely well until it was conveniently forgotten for this project!

Public scrutiny and planning permits protect politicians from 
themselves and we the public
from planning disasters that should have been foreseen.

Remember good proposals have nothing to fear from planning permits, 
only bad proposals
have anything to fear!
What an outrage that even the design of a small heritage ticket box 
to replace a totally disastrous series of unfortunate out buildings 
in 1987 saw fit to engage public scrutiny and quite rightly apply for 
a planning permit yet a 12,000 M , $250 M structure does not.

What an outrage that the debate has been consciously diverted to 
architectural design rather than one of strategic planning and 
siting.  It presumes that it is alright to build a Nuclear Reactor in 
Bourke Street provided it looks alright!

I do not want to debate the colour of the doorknobs, I want to see a 
proper decision made
on the correct siting and location of our museum.

In Summary:-

We do not want another Gas and Fuel twin towers or a Metrol building 
by ignoring
process.

We do not want one more institution dropped in the middle of a public 
gardens where its
inevitable expansion will destroy the gardens.

We do not want another legacy of a facility that doesn't work because 
a planning permit considering all the key issues of transport, 
parking, access, amenity, scale, size, current infrastructure and 
environmental impact is ignored.

We do want - a world class museum in an 'A' grade location.

We do want - the appalling neglect by successive governments to the 
museum at the expense of the other arts, tennis centres and great 
southern stands, etc to finally be properly balanced with a genuine 
commitment to the intellectual pursuits and provide a museum which is 
welcomed by the community.

Swanston Walk has . had a 63% increase of pedestrian traffic since 
its implementation but those that criticise it as a failure don't 
recognise that it needs the major government investments and 
community assets to remain or locate along it to guarantee the 
teeming life we all crave for it.

Unless this once in a lifetime opportunity of a $250 M project is 
invested in the positive development of our city rather than another 
sad chapter in its decline then our city and the HI be the poorer for 
it,