Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Vol. 37, No 24. September 18, 1974

The Fate of Hunter

page 2

The Fate of Hunter

Artwork by McIntosh of man kicking down the Hunter building while thinking of a new modern building

The fate of Hunter lies at present with the University Council's Committee on Site and Building Utilization and Development. This is chaired by the deputy principal, Dr Culliford, and includes one student representative — Gyles Beckford — in his post as Chairman of the Union Management Committee.

The site and building committee has been vested with all the powers of the university council, so it has the final decision on the Hunter Building. It is only bound by section 310A of the Municipal Corporations Act which sets the requirements for a building's earthquake resistance. However, this link between the university and the Wellington City Council could serve to make Hunter a local-body election issue, and the support of councillors may be extremely influential.

As is well known, the site and building committee commissioned a report on the condition of Hunter from a team of Auckland architects. They revealed that the building is clearly in a dangerous condition. Previous earthquakes have weakened the exterior, and another major earthquake would seriously damage it, perhaps injuring people in side. The move to demolish the building was started in 1968 with the more stringent regulations. The building comes nowhere near satisfying these regulations.

The architects list four possible solutions for Hunter:
1)Progressively vacate the building and demolish it within three years.
2)Remove the particular hazards, and provide temporary strengthening suitable for 8 — 12 years.
3)Strengthen the building for an indefinite period, to retain its appearance and character.
4)Demolish and reconstruct the interior, giving the building an indefinite life.

No accurate quotes are available for any of these solutions and Dr Culliford has recently said that the University Council has never made a detailed estimate of the cost of the third possibility. The committee has called for a report on this, and the result will be made known as soon as possible.

The council have indicated that if it is economically viable, they would very much like to see Hunter strengthened permanently, and its character preserved.

Most students also want this historic and impressive building to remain, if at all possible. One of the most encouraging steps toward preservation was the meeting by the Law Faculty Club on September 5. The motion opposing demolition and advocating action for the preservation of Hunter was overwhelmingly carried.

It was suggested that groups and individuals of influence, interested in the fate of Hunter, should be formally approached for their support. Since then contact has been made with the daily papers, the NZBC the Historic Places Trust, Values Party, the Mayor and leaders of parties contesting the local body elections, and the ombudsman. Their replies will be made known.

Unanimous support was also given to the proposal that all information influencing the council's decisions on Hunter should be released to the public. This has received no response from administrative authorities.

A synopsis of the full report on the structural condition of Hunter Building is available from the studass office.

The last Student Representative Council meeting on September 10, also saw strong support for a motion to preserve Hunter. Peter Wilson pointed out that if it appears Hunter must be pulled down, students should at least press for the preservation of some of the old wooden houses along Kelburn Parade, which are due to be pulled down to make way for the Von Zedlitz Building. In fact, the fate of Hunter is very closely bound up with university council's decision on the proposed Von Zedlitz Building.

To the university council, both buildings represent mainly a problem of money, and it appears that they have tried to sacrifice Hunter to finance the huge and hideous Von Zedlitz.

The council first called for tenders for this in 1972, and only one was received. It was too high, and after consultation with the government it was refused. Recently tenders were called again, and again only one was received for about the same figure. Just at that time, the council released the news on Hunter, hoping to push the Cabinet into accepting the tender.

The figure has now been officially approved, probably as a result of the Hunter report. The government is unlikely to be pressured again into providing finance to retain Hunter.

Yet students must not allow these decisions to be made without at least being aware of them.

Public opinion can be a very powerful weapon in an issue like this, and there is no reason at present to look on Hunter as a lost cause.

The next issue of Salient will report on the outcome of the latest meetings by the site and building committee, the Historic Places Trust, and other interested bodies.