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".