page 13

The other other Plan

Two Briefs on Hunter

Does the university need a focal point, a well-recognised "main entry" for our many visitors? Or is it better to have four main entries, to allow them a choice of where they can get lost from. This is just one of the many considerations necessary when looking at the future development for the Hunter site.

The recent Hunter feasibility study achieved its main purpose and showed we have the knowledge, skill and finance to save the facade, memorial library, and stairwell of the Hunter building while still allowing renovations to the inside of the Old Hunter building so that it functions like any other well designed interior space. This can be done while still meeting all local body structural and constructural by—laws and regulations.

The study gives two methods of saving the facade of the building. A fine steel wire and concrete mixture (similar to fibreglass) can be sprayed over the existing brickwork; or a complete new reinforced concrete wall can be built in the cavity of the existing wall.

Both methods rely on the bricks being dry and thus soaking up the damp concrete mixture to create one homogeneous sheer wall. Then the building can be completely rebuilt using the existing facade as a basic element. We would have all the best historic parts of the building combined with completely reconstructed and remodelled interior spaces.

The feasibility study did not solve the problems of the future development of the site; it only gave one idea on how the university's requirements could be catered for.

And what could have been the alternative? In 1976 the University Council commissioned the University architects (Kingston, Reynolds, Allardyce and Thorn) to present a scheme for the full replacement of Hunter. This scheme proposed the erection of three four storeyed, near cubic, office and small lecture blocks staggered up from the Hunter lawn to the cafe, with a large courtyard stepped over a basement carpark between Robert Stout and the new complex. The total nett floor area of the scheme, as requested by the council, was 5,860 square metres.

Table One. Nett Floor Area Required in Brief

Section	Hunter Replacement Study 1976 (1)	Hunter Feasibility Study 1978(2)	Percent Increase
Administration	1858 m2	2415 m2	30%
University Extensions	560 m2	556 m2	-ve 1%
Staff Club	650 m2	650 m2	0
Law Faculty	2500 m2	3665 m2	47%
Music Faculty	740 m2	900 m2	22%
Total Scheme	5860 m2	8186 m2	39.7%
University Roll	6874 people (3)	7013 people (4)	2%

One and a half years after the completion of this "Hunter Replacement Study", the "Friends of Hunter" ask for a list of room sizes needed. The university now requires a nett floor area of 8186 square metres, 39.7% more than the last brief, when the roll for the university has only increased by 2% over that period, (refer Table 1)

This increase, coupled with the decrease in possible land coverage, (diagram A) made it very difficult for the Friends of Hunter to present an aesthetically pleasing proposal for the future development of the rear of the site.

Are these blatant increases in space requirements a hint of the capacity of the university planning committee?

Is this extra space the Friends of Hunter were asked to provide really necessary? Surely incomplete planning would tend to discourage the public from taking an active part in the university's development.

How does this increase in the space requirements effect replacement of the Hunter building? There have been two basic arguments for the replacement of the Hunter building.

The first, safety of the occupants under severe earthquake conditions. The technology is now presented, in the Hunter Feasibility Study for the complete structural overhauling of the facade and interior spaces of the building. It could then withstand larger earthquakes, without damage, than other university buildings which were built to comply with older regulations.

The second argument for replacement was that with the present positioning and shape of the Hunter building the only land left for development is that between New Kirk, the Memorial Library and bounded by the Robert Stout and the Hunter facade (diagram A).

This is why the brief for the future development for the rear of the site is of importance. The Friends of Hunter were to show, in some way, that the future space requirements for the university could fit on the land behind the Hunter building. The Hunter Replacement scheme was able to provide three four storeyed blocks of equal size (diagram B) with a large courtyard and carparking basement on the Kelburn Parade side. The Hunter Feasibility study, with an increase in space required and a decrease in site coverage, was compelled to construct three towers, five, six and seven stories high in addition to the completely remodelled Hunter interior.

Can we not now, treating both schemes as they were intended (as a proposed springboard for new ideas) take the best parts of both and combine them into a better scheme: the courtyard main entry with basement car parking and lowrise development; the complete interior remodelling of the old Hunter building, and retention of the existing facade. Library and stair well.

We would then have a development which would incorporate a "main gate" while still retaining the only historic link and aesthetically pleasing building the university has. The extra space needed can be accommodated with a small increase in density of the west Kelburn Parade development.

We would then, at last, have a bit of thorough Long Term planning from this university giving some thought to aesthetics and history rather than the continued development of grey ashphalted courtyards and a maze of rectangular buildings.

Maybe we could even get the Hunter building on the Wellington city council bus sightseeing tour.