Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Official Newspaper of Victoria University of Wellington Students Association. Vol 40 No. 25. September 26 1977

Hunter to Come Down

Hunter to Come Down

Students at Victoria should take the opportunity to have a good, long look at the Hunter Building, because the chances are that on their return next year they will be greeted with a vacant lot. A University Council meeting to be held today, (Monday 26th), will be asked to ratify a recommendation from their Site Committee, "That the Hunter Building be demolished and be replaced by a building of architectural distinction"

All things considered, the Council will most likely pass this last death knell on Hunter. The Site Committees recomendation was passed with only Lindy Cassidy, (the student rep), and Dr. McMillan, (the City Council rep) dissenting.

Hunter has been the subject of debate since since it was reported in 1974 that the building failed to meet the requirements of section 301a of the Municipal Corporations Act with regard to the standards for buildings. Even at that early stage there was much talk of having to demolish the building (someone in the University was even far-sighted enough to get a quote of $75,000 for the demolition job). There was immediate evacuation of the Law library and a progressive lowering of the numbers of classes and staff that would be scheduled there. In a bid to alleviate its accomodation problem the University came up with an idea to put prefabs on the Hunter lawn. That project was stopped after students took out marker pegs, stole plans and the Students' Association took out a writ in the Supreme Court against the University.

The Cost of Saving Hunter

One of the main problems to saving Hunter has been the money that would be required for the restructuring. Additionally, such a task has never been undertaken in New Zealand. In 1974, the University's Engineers (also the architects of such architectural monstrosities as the Rankine Brown, New Kirk and the new Von Zelditz Tower), Kingston, Reynolds, Thom and Allardice prepared a paper in which they examined the possible methods that could be used to strengthen the building and the cost of them.

They gave four options : strengthen the building for an indefinite life-span; demolish the Chemistry wing and replace it with a new structure while retaining the rest of the building; demolition of the Physics and Chemistry wings and replacing the area with a new structure while retaining the rest of the building; and the total demolition and replacement of it by a new structure. The figures for these different options were respectively: $6.4 m, $5.9 m, $5.8 m, and $4.1 m.

The first and last figures are the important ones — they are the cost of total upgrading and the cost of constructing a new building. The other two figures are compromises.

In the meantime, the Wellington City Council came up with its own estimate of the costs of retaining the building at $1.3 m. This was later revised for a Town and Country Planning Appeal Board meeting in late 1975 to $2.9 m.

However, in the last two years the costs of retaining Hunter have increased. The latest figure provided by the University architects is $6.9 m, and by the City Council Engineer $3.6 m. There has never been an adequate explanation as to why there is such a wide difference between the costs from the University's Engineer, and the City Council's Engineer.

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.

The Hunter Replacement

As early as 1974 the University was talking of holding an architectural competition to find a replacement for the Hunter building. There was talk of even holding an international competition. The university's architects showed that they were not keen to be left out. In 1976 they presented plans for a replacement — the plan showed a complex of three buildings joining each other at the corners, (reprinted in Salient earlier this year). The plans were submitted to the Site Committee and (thankfully) were turned down. The Profess-orall Boards Accommodation Advisory Committee has recommended :

That the contest will be limited to New Zealand and that the university will have the option of either allowing the designer to follow the project through to the end or will negotiate with them on the design. Sources close to Kingston, Reynolds, Thom & Allardice (the university architects) told Salient that there were already staff working on designs for a replacement. Different sources told Salient that when the first designs were done there was some dissension between the staff designer and the Company's top people concerning the design. Given Kingston's etc. past record for design on this campus they would not seem to have the vision or willingness to be able to submit anything aesthetically pleasing as a replacement. As for what else might come up is anybody's guess.

Not everyone wants to have a replacement. There have been some who have called for the vacant lot to be left empty so that it could be turned into "a pleasent green spot". While sounding noble it is not realistic since this would mean a decrease in the room space available on campus, something which has affected the university for a long time.

The End in Sight

So the University Council looks certain to vote for the demolition of Hunter. This won't happen for some time, for although the building usage has been decreased it still provides useful space that cound not be readily replaced.

However, there are certain questions that will not tax the minds of the Council members. Among them ; why is there such a discrepancy between the City Council and University costs of retaining Hunter?

Salient knows for sure that an English firm, Fondedile Foundations, have said that they believed that their methods of retaining old buildings could be used on Hunter. Given that such a [unclear: proiect] is a new undertaking in New Zealand, then why was no information concerning overseas methods presented to the University Council or its Site Committee? Why have so many of the officers of the Council been so half-hearted. Has their basic assumption always been that the building should come down?

There is no doubt that on this sterile, rabbit warren campus, that Hunter building lends the only bit of character to the whole place. There will be no reprieve for Hunter at the Council meeting today, the matter has done the rounds of the committees for two years. The only last barrier to its demolition will be the concerted and unified voices of present, and past students saying that they want the building to be retained. If necessary this might mean an occupation of the building or other direct action.

If you are interested in saving Hunter then go up to the Council meeting today on the 6th Floor of the Easterfield building at 2.30

If you are interested in saving Hunter then go up to the Council meeting today on the 6th Floor of the Easterfield building at 2.30 and watch the platitudes roll out of the mouths of Council members each attempting to outdo the others in their regret at Hunters' passing. It is unlikely that after today's council meeting the only bits of Hunter to remain will be the memories, the stained glass window, and a suggestion that perhaps a few of the old bricks might be salvaged.