Who wants to save Hunter?

The Student's Association has consistently supported saving Hunter. The essence of SRC policy is to retain the building with its significant architectural features. The Wellington City Council has similarly supported the retention of Hunter. In 1975 the City Council attempted to change the District Scheme by designating certain parts of Hunter as a place of historic interest. The University appealed to the Town and Country Appeal Board and was successful. While university personnel have spoken of wanting to preserve Hunter, their protestations have often had more than a hollow ring to them. The University has adopted the view that the cost of pres- [unclear: peving] the building is excessive given the cost of [unclear: replacement].

The only method of saving the building has been a public appeal for funds to save the building. The Government would provide the cost of a new building and the City Council in conjunction with University and other interested groups, presumably the Students Association, would take the lead in a public appeal to make up the difference.

Quite naturally the University has not been overwhelmed by this idea — the stumbling block (which some university people delight in raising) is whether the City Council would be willing to put money into it. The City Council pleads poverty (with a new Town Hall and 4,000 pot holes to feed what else can they do?). There has never been much love lost between the University and the City Council (one only has to read Michael Fowler's comments about George Culliford in last week's Salient to see the proof). So with no-one being able to put up the remaining $2 million difference, the fate of Hunter is sealed.