In March 1973, Wellington was rocked by an earthquake. Damage to the city was minimal, but in the case of Victoria University's Hunter Building, the damage was sufficient to arouse contention, to say the least — some would say major controversy.

However, the removal of these hazards immediate though it may have been, was obviously nothing more than a preliminary tinkering with a problem much larger than a chimney or a vent.

Ok, you ask. So what exactly is the problem?

The problem is this: As it stood then, Hunter was one of the worst earthquake risks in Wellington and it is still high on the list of "menacing edifices",

Unique architecture

The Building was erected over a 20 yr. period, from 1902 to early in the 1920's —the only unplastered brick building in gothic form in Wellington. It is considered by many to be architecturally unique, [unclear: bein] a mixture of English Perpendicular and Tudor styles, as well as having, according to a prominent Wellington architect, something of a "kiwi" interpretation inside Apart from its architectural value, Hunter is of historical and (dare one say it?) sentimental value. It was the first building erected for the city's University and was the principal University building, as such performing an important function in the life of Wellington. These reasons not only five rise to the feeling that immediate demolition is objectionable, but many feel they are so significant that Hunter must not be pulled down at all.

After the '73 earthquake and the subsequent damage (there was another in 1974 which also caused some damage), the University's consultants were advised by the City Council that Hunter did not meet safety specifications set down in section 301 A of the Municipal Corporations Act, and that unless it could be strengthened, enabling it to meet two-thirds of the seismic requirements of new buildings. Hunter would have to be demolished.

What has been done to the Hunter Building up until now?

By the end of 1975, the building had been temporarily braced, and the average daily usage substantially reduced, halved in fact. According to figures distributed by the acting Vice-Chancellor, Mr J.D. Gould, in April of this year, the average occupancy between the hours of 9.00 am — 5.00 pm was formerly 560 persons, with a maximum of 697 and a minimum of 394, while the building was in fact open fifteen hours a day. However during the summer of '74 — '75, the Law Library and Law Faculty staff were transferred to Rankine Brown, and shortly afterwards, the large lecture theatre H312 was taken out of use. The usage of other general classrooms was reduced, but it was impossible to take any of them out of use entirely. Today, the average occupancy at any hour is approximately 280 persons with a maximum of 416 and a minimum 163. Some reallocation of classrooms can reduce occupancy, but until alternative classrooms and staff accommodation are provided, no further substantial reduction is possible.

There still therefore exists a potentially dangerous situation. Although improved. Hunter is still an earthquake risk. There are still about 280 people at any given time, who face the possibility of expiring ignominiously beneath a heap of brick and masonry (historic though it may be) should the city of Wellington decide to re-allocate her boundaries.

Well, what are the alternatives? Upgrading for example?

Report commissioned

In June 1974, an Auckland firm of Architects, Engineers, Planners and Quantity Surveyors hired by the University, prepared a report stating conclusions emerging from their studies of Hunter.

Apart from advocating a reduction in occupancy, the report stated some estimated costs of upgrading.

"Even with an expenditure... approaching $1,000,000 the building, which has a floor area of some 55,000 sq. feet, would have a useful life limited to about 10 years. The upgraded building would still be below the standards [unclear: equired] for new buildings in respect of structural capacity, egress and fire protection and there would still be high risks of collapse in a severe earthquake... Strengthening of the building to meet new design codes now in course of preparation will be difficult and disruptive and... it appears to us that it is likely to be achieved only at a cost greater than providing a comparable floor area in new buildings..."

The report further states that general maintenance would be required on the fabric and/or services of the building, and the egress provisions and fire protection would have to be brought up to a standard complying more closely with current requirements. Steel and stone windows might be necessary in some areas as might timber replacement, maintenance work on the brick and stone fabric and possibly on the roof structure and sheathing — all for a cost estimated in 1974 to be between $300,000 and $500,000.

"Minimum upgrading work necessary to keep the building in service for a 10 year period would cost about $1,000,000.... after 10 years, unless damaged sooner by an earthquake, a replacement would still have to be found". So state the University's consultants. Revamping Hunter not a very viable alternative to say the least.

Well, what do the students say?

Student attitudes

The Hunter question was raised at an SRC in 1974, resulting in Motion 119/74. Moved: Jobson/Martin

"That this Association oppose the demolition of Hunter Building and proposes the alternative of upgrading and retaining this building in such a way as to maintain it's structural features intact."

Is it possible that this policy requires re-examination in the light of the findings of later studies?

While Association Policy on Hunter is definite, if outdated, policy from the chancellor and his colleagues is officially "undecided". Unofficially it appears, at the least, a little contradictory. The official policy seems to be that no decision has been reached regarding Hunter —. It has not been decided that Hunter will remain (and if so, with what alterations,) and it has not been decided that Hunter will be demolished.

page break

While this policy seems extremely neutral and non-committal, these are fair grounds for saying that it is in fact somewhat inaccurate.

Finding a 'replacement'

On Thursday 21 October 1976, members of the Accommodation Advisory Committee and the Site Committee met (at 2 pm to be precise) in the Conference Room in Easterfield. According to the minutes of that meeting one of the members said "that the meeting had been arranged with intention of holding a general discussion of the report from the University's architects on Hunters replacement (note the word 'replacement') and Kelburn Parade West. This same member for some reason later panted at that it was incorrect to speak of "Hunter Replacement". He then went on to ask members to confine discussion initially to the limits which the building was to be (not 'might be' or 'was possibly to be') designed. (Lesson in basic grammar — only new buildings are 'designed'.

Old ones are re-designed, therefore how can you design a new building when it is not correct to say that the old one is being replaced?)

Nowhere in the meeting was any other alternative to replacement mentioned, except as point (a) of a proposed feasibility study, which would itself be limited by lack of time and money.

Although the actual proposals for Hunter replacement put forward in the Architects report, were not approved by the meeting, almost all, on Hunter was based on replacement. Where would the Law Library go? How big would it be Would departments be fragmented? What would be the costs of furnishing and equipment?

One passage of the minutes speaks more definitely about replacement than any other.

Adverting to the Robert Stout building one member said that "it should have the lowest possible rate of occupancy and should be linked at more than one level with the New Administration Building. The new building would have to accommodate bulk storage... and it was important to have adequate access for delivery vehicles." With regard to the dimensions of the 'new Building,' it was wondered whether the space was in fact for suitable for office purposes.

This sort of talk seems very definite, and decided on the question 'replacement or not?'

Therefore, while it is true that the nature of replacement is still not finalised, it seems assured that Hunter will go. It is just a question of time, despite what Chancellors may or may not be saying.

The question also remains whether students at Victoria will re-affirm existing SRC policy, on Hunter or perhaps revise it. Will they bow before the weight of that inevitable, often deceptively presented and not always a constructive feature of life — Progress?

— Rire Scotney