Anzac Hall is not some undistinguished, ordinary building. It was the result of a centenary of Federation grant and winner of the prestigious Sir Zelman Cowen award for the best major public building of its year. Opened by Prime Minister John Howard in the presence of one of the then few World War I survivors, Ted Smout, the building was called Anzac Hall' to recognise the ongoing service and sacrifice of defence force members since Federation. Loading Yet this highly acclaimed building should come down in a quest for a major increase in space. Why? There were other viable options, but only the one requiring demolition was selected. The decision is a prize example of philistine vandalism masquerading as progress. It is an egregious waste of money. If demolished, this will be the first instance of a Cowen award-winner being pulled down, a dubious accolade. And what about the proposed glass atrium attached insensitively to the rear of the heritage main building? The concept is grossly inappropriate.

A heritage assessment of the redevelopment by the Department of the Environment and Energy is now to start, given the announcement on Monday last week, attended by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, that the memorial has made a submission as to its intentions in accordance with Heritage Act requirements. The National Capital Authority is also a key part of the approval process. Contrary to earlier memorial intimations that the NCA was supportive, the authority has stated that no decision has been made pending receipt of a formal submission. The Public Works Committee deliberations also have to be held before any start can be made. These are critical checks and balances. Nelson may well claim "the train has left the station", but apparently before getting the green signal. Whatever, he's announced his intention. He argues that recent conflicts need to be covered. Indeed they do, but in a balanced way. He seems to regard every commitment as being equal. In terms of loss and suffering it's unarguably true, but the intensity of operations, the effect on participants and impact on the nation can vary considerably. Many say, and I agree, that appropriate space could be obtained by moving non-display activities from the main building to an expanded adjacent Bean building. It was built to be capable of such an expansion. Also, during Kevin Rudd's time as prime minister, at his request, plans were developed for a discreetly sited 4000 square metre exhibition building. The design was by highly regarded architect Richard Johnson. The cost was about $15 million. In the event, it never went ahead, but it too remains a valid option.

Another previous director sensibly highlighted the display capacity of the memorial's nearby Treloar complex. Nelson dismissed the idea. Contemporary institutions I have visited overseas successfully practise this model: the Imperial War Museum has sites at Duxford and Manchester; the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum has an offsite facility at Dulles airport. Such institutions have realised you cannot keep on demanding on-site developments in the guise of "safeguarding the future". None have the problems Nelson imagines. Then prime minister John Howard at the opening of Anzac Hall in 2001. Credit:Paul Harris An old chestnut is requesting more space to increase the proportion of the collection on display. The memorial is no different to other comparable institutions here and overseas. Big collections enable periodic thematic exhibitions, refreshing of permanent ones, temporary and travelling exhibitions, and loans. As for a "therapeutic milieu" and "healing" in the new space, unless it has been amended quietly, the Memorial Act does not mention that role; it's unequivocally the Department of Veterans' Affairs. A medico has already said that "the [memorial's] healing claim is an astonishing trivialisation of the complexity and long-term treatment needed for PTSD". Why the haste and enthusiasm to create cavernous, soulless spaces in concrete, glass and steel under and around the main building? There are other viable and suitable options at much less cost that do not threaten irreversible harm to this iconic place.