Hunter Goes to Council

When the Friends of Hunter presented their proposal for the redevelopment of the Hunter site to the University Council last week, there was no rush of enthusiasm to thank them for their pains. In fact, no sooner had the consultants finished outlining the scheme than one Council member rose to denounce it as "insensitive" and "second rate". Following his lead, a number of other members called into question the credibility of a wide range of matters involved in the proposal. The Friends went away a little shaken and scarcely even thanked, and the Council's Joint Committee on Site, Building and Accommodation will now sit down to decide what to do with the scheme.

The gist of this article will not be to explain why the proposal should be accepted (that is a matter for much discussion, and I for one have not made up my own mind) but to examine the method employed by Council in dealing with something which many of its members seemed to display an extraordinary amount of antagonism towards. In doing this, I will also outline the speeches made by the Friends of Hunter consultants and its patron, for these shed much light on what all the fuss is about.

Introduction to a Grand Design

Sir John Marshall, patron of the Friends of Hunter, introduced the proposal. He stated that it proved reconstruction could cost less than demolition and the construction of a totally new building, and emphasised that the Friends' aim of "preserving the historic and indeed beautiful features of the building" had been realised. However, he continued, it was not the job of the Friends of Hunter to tell the Council what to do, or to act as a consultant body. All the group had done was show that in the space available all the desired functions of the area could be provided for without destroying the extant value of building.

Marshall also revealed that the Friends had collected more money than they needed, and might be considering returning some to ... (no, not the needy Students' Association) the Historic Places Trust. The suggestion for the statue was not to be seen as "essential", he remarked, but was more in the way of a "diversion".

The Architect has his say

Architect Grahame Anderson was next up to speak. His experience is in private practice, as a member of the Regional Committee of the Historic Places Trust, and in research of the historic value of a number of Wellington buildings.

The proposal, he said, described a means whereby the existing accomodation on the site could be doubled, while scale was kept proportional to the other buildings in the area. Reversing the focus and vehicular circulation resulted from both the planning requirements of the university and the consultants' own inclinations. He pointed out that while overall reaction to the project would be largely guided by personal preferences, the central question of accommodation, standards and cost had been answered.

In the overall design, Anderson claimed, "the distant views of the University which for many citizens are its most noticable impact" had been adequately catered for.

The Engineer Stakes his Reputation

Anderson was followed by Ian Smith, structural engineer. Smith is one of New Zealand's recognised leading earthquake engineers and has had possibly more experience than anyone else in the country in this kind of work. He began by stating that since investigating the detail of the proposal he could confirm that the scheme is "feasible, sound and practical". In fact, he declared that he was prepared to stake his reputation on the safety of the complex.

As he explained it, "The base structure is new and is designed to the latest modern standards and in full recognition of the higher standards required for a public building. The brickwork that is kept is not required to sustain any overall earthquake load. It acts merely like cladding that is 'hung on' — exactly the same as say precast concrete cladding on any other new building. On Hunter the difference is that the cladding is already standing it does not have to be added later." Smith assured Council that the complex would have a life of 100-200 years, and noted that the Chief Structural Engineer of the [unclear: MOWD] had agreed with the design philosophy. The Chief Structural Engineer of the WCC had gone even further, stating that, "the design of the new work is in fact to a higher standard than that required by the WCC's Building Bylaws in respect of new building construction."

Equipment and expertise to do the job was available in New Zealand, continued Smith. He then outlined the stipulations of the brief presented by Council to the Friends of Hunter. Judging from his comprehensiveness and assurance, it seemed he was about to claim that all the requirements had been met. Instead he said "most", and on that point a few thorny questions were to follow. Smith ended by suggesting that while the acceptability of the proposal might well depend on "simple like or dislike of the concept" the consultants believed there was great popular support for the old Hunter building and that their scheme would "also be accepted".

Money on the Money

Last of the planning consultants was David Money, a quantity surveyor experienced in estimating work. In 1965 he set up the first elemental estimating system to operate in New Zealand (as distinct from the cost per square foot procedure), which has since been adopted by the Quantity Surveyors' Institute of New Zealand and is standard practice in large firms and government departments.

Money began by making the point that it was impossible to estimate the cost of the building by square footage, as this method relied heavily on large amounts of historical data, which did not exist for university buildings. The estimates they had come up with were in fact condensed versions of the minutely detailed Schedules of Quantities provided to contractors for tendering purposes.

The saving of about $160,000 resulting from retaining the Old Hunter facade was not a great amount, he noted, but added that it was important to realise that this retention would not, as was widely thought, add costs to the building programme. To build the facade anew would, in todays terms, cost at least $1,000,000. He then coined the ever popular phrase, that its destruction would be "economic as well as cultural vandalism".

Stating that the planning was, of course, far from finished, he said that discussions between University and consultants would form a normal part of the design process, and that "cost planning will ensure that entirely suitable accommodation is provided for the least expenditure. We cannot predict whether the estimates will be increased or decreased by this process but the University can be assured of good value".

Money explained that staging the process of rebuilding was considered by the consultants as the best way of approaching the scheme. Much valuable material would be saved for reuse, much valuable information learned about the structure of the present building for later use. Pointing again to Old Hunter, he finished by saying that consultants felt the estimated $4,000,000 for the work was "a modest cost for new space with such a magnificant facade."

The Shit Hits the Fan

Then up jumped the Council's resident architect and engineer, Alan Nightingale. Nightingale is chairman of the Committee on Site and Building Development and Utilisation, and is thus in a powerful position regarding the introduction of any new building developments. It is under the eye of his committee that many of the new buildings on campus have been designed, approved and constructed.

Nightingale said he had to make his position plain. Firstly, he considered the proposal was "insensitive to major needs of the University". Secondly, he was of the opinion that "planning was of a very poor second class". He had considered the proposal in some depth and could identify 12 items in the brief given to the consultants which were not complied with. This led him to ask, "did the consultants understand the brief?"

Council was stunned. To begin with, this sort of public attack by one member of a profession on another is not at all becoming, either to the individual concerned or the organisation he represents. Even more incredibly, Nightingale's remarks were not substantiated. He gave no explanation of why the proposal was "insensitive", and even had the audacity to state that the meeting was not the proper place to reveal which 12 items in the brief had been ignored. Without any facts, the consultants could not reply other than to say that the brief was an outline only and that they had understood it. (It is worth noting that the brief given some time ago to the University's usual architects, Kingston, Reynolds, Allardice and Thom, for a replacement building for the Hunter site, is considerably more detailed. (Salient will be examining the discrepancies between the two next week).

What about the Outline?

Professor McCreary was next into the breach, announcing that he considered better use could be made of the site if the present building was raised and develop- page 5 ment started anew. As for rescuing the facade, he thought that the new tower buildings at the rear destroyed the outline and therefore destroyed the original intention to the rescue. For example, he suggested, the new ventilator towers would not be seen at all. Me also wanted to know how the Friends of Hunter knew they had popular support.

Architect Anderson answered saying that, "our task was to make a virtue of retaining the valuable elements of Hunter", which indeed it was. The opening attack on the proposal was largely based on personal preferences for the design, and it quickly became obvious that Council members who didn't like the look of it were going to do their best to find any kind of way to stop its acceptance.

A Question of Engineering Standards

Professor Evison was first to change the tack, noting that it was crucial to strengthen the retained facade and voicing doubts about whether this was guaranteed. Nightingale wanted to know why there was only a one way reinforcement of the Arts wing. Engineer Smith explained (and was to re-explain many times) that the tests already done did not indicate this was necessary, adding that of course tests would be done as building progressed to ensure things were going to plan, and that there was as always, a contingency plan.

Vice Chancellor Danny Taylor made the point that while there had been a lot of attention given to the architectural aspects, not enough had been done on the major aspect of the exercise, the engineering proposals. Smith answered as before, adding that they had done as much as the brief allowed and that it was standard practice to keep testing as you go.

Taylor's concern was centered on the proposed method of reinforcement, which involved filling the cavity between the two layers of the brick wall with reinforced concrete. Anderson reminded him that there was a choice of techniques available should the first one prove inadequate. Smith later spelt this out. Spray on concrete could be used, and had been shown to be a "sure fire back up" if things appeared to go wrong.

Nightingale wanted to know why there was a 15% discrepancy between normal net/gross floor ratios and those proposed. Anderson replied that the normal ratio was not so easy to calculate as Nightingale imagined, and the particular nature of the building had to be taken into account. At this point University Works Registrar rose to announce a suggested change of name for the group sponsoring the proposals: Friends of the Front Hunter. A bit like rubbing salt on a wound.

1% into 5%

By now it had been identified that only about 5% of the job was in any way tricky, that involving strengthening of the facade and base. Both Smith and Money assured Council that the contractors capable of doing the job were available in New Zealand. They agreed that there was only a 1% contigency cost factor over the whole proposal, and Anderson added that this figure was usual with all buildings, even new ones. Taylor suggested that the 1% could easily be spent on the tricky 5%.

Professor of Architecture Gerd Block expressed surprise at the precision in the consultants' figures, and Smith stated, "the structure of that facade has been so well done .. I really don't see the fears of a hidden bogey. That's my experience." This lead Chancellor O'Brien and Professor Robb (who convenes the Accomodation Advisory Committee, the other half of the Joint Committee which will deal with the proposal) into reminiscences on what the original Mr Hunter and his brother had told them about the Oamaru stone which holds the building together. In fact, the brother had been adamant that it was a grave mistake to use the stone (even though the family owned the quarry). Smith rather tactlessly remarked that there was Oamaru stone and Oamaru stone, which forced a few eyebrows up.

Taylor had one of the lasts words from Council. His experience as an engineer had taught him one thing: "as the years pile on one becomes more cautious". This euphemism was followed by his belief that the only valuable part of Hunter was the library.

Marshall Once Again

Then it was Marshall's turn to sum up. He pointed out that the architectural proposals were "irrelevant" in the sense that it had now been established, in the Friends' view, that University requirements for the space could be met without destroying its assets. He doubted whether government would be forthcoming with extra money, and therefore the money saving aspects of the scheme also commended it. His experience, both in the higher echelons of decision making and with Victoria's architectural record, led him to believe that nothing as good as Old Hunter would be forthcoming if things were to start from scratch.

The Procedural Wrangle Supreme

Jim McMillan, WCC rep on Council and a Friends of Hunter ally, then moved a long motion dealing with the method Council should adopt to consider what to do with the proposal. Student rep Peter Winter seconded, announcing that as a law student he missed the old library. Nightingale had his own motion, put as an ammendment.

It seems the purpose of McMillan's motion was to minimise the control the Joint Site/Accommodation Committee would have over subsequent action. Many members of that committee had made it quite plain during the meeting that they were opposed in one way or another to the scheme, and it appeared McMillan's fear was that the whole thing would just get shelved. He thus outlined eight terms in which it should be evaluated, and specified four bodies from which the Council should seek advice. "Appropriate sub-committees" were to report accordingly.

Nightingale had made some clever adjustments. First, he proposed that the Joint Committee undertake direct responsibility, arguing that this was the proper and most efficient way for the thing to be handled. He was correct in this, and McMillans assertion that his own was the quicker method fell on deaf ears.

Nightingale changed only one of the terms of evaluation, thus adding to the amendment's semblance of streamlining. Even this change was interesting. McMillan's wording: "general impact on the total University campus" was altered to read' "general impact on the total University campus planning". The reason? Nightingale did not want 7,000 students (sic) all clamouring their opinion at meetings.

More serious changes followed. Instead of seeking and receiving advice and opinions, the Committee was to be "if necessary ... authorised to seek ..." As Nightingale put it, if the Committee decided to approve the scheme it would be silly to require them to get further advice. There is fat chance of that happening so easily; more likely would be the Committee's rejection of the proposal without extra advice. After a bit of wrangling it was agreed to delete the words "if necessary", which didn't change anything: the Committee would still only "be authorised" and not required to seek advice.

Two of the advisory bodies were also changed. Nightingale threw out the Institutes of Architects and Engineers and replaced them with the University's planning consultants and the Friends' consultants His additions are sensible, and it is surprising that McMillan did not see fit to include them. However, his rationale for excluding the two institutes is suspect. The Engineers have just set up a committee to advise on earthquake risk buildings, as was pointed out, and both bodies offer professional advice. Yet Nightingale claimed they did not do so!

Nightingale won the day, but Professor Don McKenzie leapt in with a further amendment, specifying that the Council itself should receive another range of opinion relating to aesthetic and historical matters from staff and students. McKenzie based his proposal on the need to hear the views of historians and others whose contribution was as valuable as the engineers'. This amendment was passed overwhelmingly in the face of opposition from the Chancellor, and whatever way you look at it, students now have a direct line of communication on the issue. And that was about it. If McMillan had realised earlier that the Site Committee headed by Nightingale was bound to get in at the top, if he had made the pragmatic inclusion of the University and Friends' consultants, and most important of all, if he had mobilised support before the meeting things might have gone differently. As it was, almost no-one spoke for the proposal or tried to head off the often bitter reaction to it.

VUWSA has one rep on the Joint Committee, two reps on Council and access to Council through McKenzie's amendment. The whole matter will come up at the SRC in the last week of term, on the 9th August. It is important that we have a full discussion among students and get our opinions heard. It doesn't matter so much what we decide, but it is imperative that the proposal is not allowed to become buried up in a cul-de-sac in the University structure.

In the meantime, Nightingale has agreed to go public on his 12 points of non-compliance with the brief. He has not done so as yet.

Simon Wilson