From the moment former Australian War Memorial director Brendan Nelson started lobbying the government for a major redevelopment of the capital's most visited and highly regarded institution, its fate was signed.
How could a minister, or a prime minister, say no to the idea that veterans of our most recent conflicts are not properly recognised?
How could a minister say no to creating quiet spaces within the memorial, giving a moment to take a breath and shed a tear for veterans struggling with their mental health and memories in a place dedicated to their experiences?
These arguments were made forcefully and emotively by the former director, and have been continued, (perhaps less emotively) by his successor Matt Anderson.
There is no doubt that there are gaps in what the War Memorial provides regarding coverage of more recent conflicts.
There is no doubt that there are gaps in what the War Memorial provides regarding coverage of more recent conflicts, and whether it provides the best experience, particularly for veterans.
But, even when there is agreement on those issues, there has not been a clear case made that the only answer was a $500 million redevelopment.
Demolishing an architecturally significant building in Anzac Hall, altering the facade of the main building, and displaying large military hardware have always been presented by the War Memorial as the obvious, and single, way forward.
Despite consultation across the country and locally, an inquiry by Parliament's Public Works Committee, an assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and most recently by the National Capital Authority, very little seems to have changed in the plan since it was first unveiled at Parliament House in 2018.
The main source of opposition to the War Memorial's development has come from locals. There have been high-profile voices in academia, defence, political and architectural circles, but these too seem to have made little dent in the public debate.
The lack of compromise suggests the memorial, and the government, knows the sentiment in the wider community is that there is no price-tag too high for a development that promises more hardware, more stories, more to see, at the end of Anzac Parade.
The work that has been going on for months at the site has suggested there is no going back now.
But those who made submissions to the many reviews, particularly that by the National Capital Authority, would be justified in feeling dismayed that their objections seem to have been ignored.
Despite hundreds of people calling for Anzac Hall to be retained, and for dozens of mature trees to be saved, the only requirement placed on the memorial was to plant more trees than will be removed. It doesn't give the sense that the consultation has been genuine, or in good faith.
The War Memorial is Canberra's most-visited national institution. To call it a tourist attraction seems to detract from the truly solemn and important place it is, but it is also true to say that tourists to our city want to visit the memorial more than any other attraction.
It's an institution that invokes pride in Australians, and Canberrans feel a sense of ownership over the institution in a distinct way to those who visit from other places.
Whether that sense of local pride will be diminished by this episode, and the redevelopment to come, is still to be seen. But the crowds will still come, and hopefully they will still come away with one memory - the sacrifice of those who served.
Send a letter to the editor
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: