Architect Ron Pynenburg: New Zealand Hut Hero

by Sam Demas

[black and white photos below excerpted are from Pynenburg’s thesis, included here with permission]

Hut design reflects cultural values and recreational preferences, and can become an expression of national identity.  This is certainly true in New Zealand, where Kiwi’s have definite opinions about and resonances with hut architecture.  Most love the older, smaller huts with open hearths. Some hard core trampers are disdainful of the newer “flash” (fancy) huts.  As I explored NZ huts, I couldn’t help wondering:  Who designs these new huts?  What design principles and preferences inform these designs? Where is the hut system headed?   And, as Andrew Buglass suggests, is there a two-tier hut system evolving in which lower-use backcountry huts are losing support in favor of high-use serviced and Great Walks huts?

In addition to talking with Brian Dobbie of DoC, I had a chance to meet Ron Pynenburg, the architect of many recent New Zealand huts.  For me, learning a bit about Ron’s  early influences and about his perspectives on hut design, past, present and future — the topic of this profile — cast light on these questions.

European huts (OK, I know one really shouldn’t generalize across so many distinctive nations!) are mostly very “flash”, i.e. more like mountain hotels than primitive shelters.  For a Swiss architect, I’m told, a commission to design a hut is as prestigious as one to design and museum or a church.  The multidisciplinary high-tech project selected to celebrate the 150^th anniversary of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology , the design and construction of the New Monte Rosa Hut, is a remarkable monument to the place of huts (and Swiss hospitality, design and engineering) in that nation’s identity.

As an American, I was amazed to realize that every one of the 105 huts in the 18 U.S. hut systems has a higher level of amenities than every one of the 962 DoC huts, including those on the Great Walks.  Like the Europeans, but in our own “pioneer” ways, we Americans sure like our comforts!

New Zealand huts, in contrast with US and Europe, have a very basic level of amenities, reflecting a distinctive cultural preference for the hut as simple shelter from the storm: essentially a “wooden tent”.  This seems unlikely to change, even though the Great Walks and international tourism will continue to expand in the near term.

For me, Ron Pynenburg’s thoughts on hut design (and of course DoC’s values and hut guidelines) provide a window on why hut DoC hut design will continue to reflect traditional Kiwi values, particularly in system of backcountry huts that form the backbone of the national hut system.

Rooted in the past: “Huts of the Mount Hector Track”

Joining the Hutt Valley Tramping Club in 1976 at age 17, Pynenburg tramped throughout the Tararua Mountains (and beyond) with the club.  When he started his architecture studies at Victoria University in 1980 he was keen to develop an historical understanding of the evolution, design, roles and importance of huts and tracks.  He submitted his Bachelor of Architecture thesis “Huts of the Mount Hector Track” at age 22.  Talking with Ron, I got a clear sense that his work on hut design today remains rooted in the formative educational epiphany, articulated in these excerpts from the preface of his 1981 thesis:

This report had its genesis in the demolition of a hut – my own club’s Powell Hut on Mt. Holdsworth in March of this year.  Yet another hut that had been used and abused for the long years of its life had gone, but how many truly realized what had been demolished?…. Who will remember the original Powell Hut – why it was built, who built it, when and where they built?…..Replacement in itself is not wrong — all huts have a limited lifespan…. — but the history of the huts reflect the modern history of the Tauraruas.  There is a fascinating story waiting to be told…..The huts are the most obvious link to this history….

Early in his thesis research Pynenburg faced the historian’s burden: much of the published information was unreliable, with articles perpetuating inaccuracies from earlier pieces; he had to sort it out for himself.  He turned to original sources: interviewing eyewitness participants, perusing their photographs, delving into the personal papers and archives of organizations and individuals, and measuring and studying the huts themselves.

In the end his thesis focused on the huts erected on the Mount Hector Track, one of the nation’s early tourist tracks, between 1915 and 1930.  He relates this halting history ably: tracing the evolving and sometimes competing visions for the track, discussing the underlying politics, describing the logistical challenges and some of the tragic events (e.g. Kime and Freeman deaths) that spurred track and hut development, providing sketches of some of the key players, and discussing the growing involvement and key roles of newly developing tramping clubs – Tararua Tramping Club, the nation’s first, Otaki Tramping Club, and Greytown Tramping Club — in building the track and its nine core huts.

This budding architect paid loving attention to detailing the construction materials and techniques, describing and depicting in photographs the hut designs, and discussing site selection.  He carefully measured three of the huts himself (using existing measurements for the other three), and included in the appendices architectural drawings of six huts.  Also included in the thesis are 7 hand drawn maps depicting different iterations of the track and huts as they evolved from 1896 – 1981.

A prescient feature of his research, he and his future architectural partner Ken Collins undertook a detailed condition survey of Cone Hut and recommended a course of action.  This recommendation was subsequently undertaken by the Tararua Tramping Club:

 

Note that demolition was not even an option.  Thus his early study of NZ hut history presaged the good work of Permolat and others: a clear understanding that thoughtful investment in maintaining older huts with volunteer labor is more cost-effective than demolition and replacement, and is much preferable from a heritage preservation perspective.  By supporting the Backcountry Trust, DoC has now fully and formally embraced this approach.

While Ron hoped over the years to return to this historical study, his architectural practice has kept him too busy.  Fortunately writers like Chris McLean have picked up on and extended Ron’s research, and his work likely informs the upcoming book by McLean and Barnett marking the centennial of the Tararua Tramping Club, 1919-2019.

Huts today: working with DoC and voluntary organizations, building an architectural practice in huts

In 1981 Pynenburg and his partner Ken Collins started their architectural practice Pyneburg and Collins,Ltd. in Christchurch.  Ron continued active involvement in the Hutt Valley Tramping Club, including membership on the hut committee.  As New Zealand began to re-examine and renew its hut system his career in hut architecture seemed to grow naturally from the beginnings portended in his thesis.

Early on he worked with the Tararua Tramping Club to help them sort out how to care for their 40 huts in the Tararuas.  This was far more huts than they could manage, and perhaps more than what was needed.   He encouraged them step back and think about how they would design a hut system if they were starting from the beginning.  This exercise helped the club identify 25 huts they wished to retain and agreed to maintain.  It was an early case study in developing a sustainable regional plan for voluntary hut maintenance.

In 1987 or 1988 Ron was asked by the newly-formed DoC to join the newly-formed Tararua-Aorangi Huts Committee.  Still active today, this coalition of 16 tramping clubs and deerstalkers branches works with DoC to coordinate management of huts in its region.  At the outset the Committee was formed to figure out how to cooperate in managing a group of about 20 huts built by tramping clubs and by NZ Department of Internal Affairs (for animal control efforts).  DoC had a representative on the Committee,  provided a secretariat, and encouraged the member organizations to pool their hut revenues collectively and share them out according to maintenance needs.  There were suspicions at first; it took several years to all get on the same page.  Ron clearly enjoyed remembering that the secret to their success was in getting to know each other during long ride-sharing journeys to their biannual meetings.  As they came to know each other by talking for hours in the car, barriers broke down.  They realized that no one (including DoC) had a secret agenda; then cooperation came more easily.  In this process Ron helped assess the condition of huts, study their use, identify maintenance priorities, and eventually develop a strategic plan.  This was one of a number of early DoC experiments nation-wide in engendering cooperation in hut maintenance among outdoor enthusiasts.

Based on these experiences, Ron was asked to join a DoC hut committee, through which he ended up helping to organize the huts strategic planning process.  After the Cave Creek Tragedy DoC, Pynenburg and Collins were involved with DoC’s methodical inspection of its hut and other infrastructure.  Systematic examination of hundreds of huts gave him extensive first-hand knowledge of the condition of the nation’s hut stock, and developed in him a visceral sense of the strengths and weaknesses of existing hut designs.  At DoC’s behest, Pyneburg and Collins, Ltd. developed a series of standard designs for future 4-12 bunk huts, and wrote the Hut Procurement Manual to organize the process of hut siting, design and construction.

With the baseline condition survey, new hut standards, and the hut procurement process in place, DoC was prepared when a major funding increase was allotted to address long-overdue safety, maintenance and construction needs.  There commenced a period of intensive hut repair and construction.  According to Shelter from the Storm (p. 288-289), in the period 1988 – 1987 DoC replaced nearly 30 huts with new ones, and between 2002-2011 DoC built almost 200 huts, most as replacements for aging huts.  Ron and his colleagues were deeply involved in this work. Today Ron himself has designed 85 DoC huts.

Ron’s design work is clearly grounded in a rational, evidence-based approach to defining and solving architectural problems.  A few quick examples I learned about in talking with him:

1.)  He loves to talk about one of the key challenges in hut design: moisture control.  Creating the right design to prevent harmful condensation buildup in cold, moist environments (esp. with wood stoves in the mix) turns out to be as much of an art as a science, in part due to the need to control for human behavior in fiddling with things (e.g. jamming vents) to create temporary personal comfort levels.

2.) Frustrated by the insistence of the National Building Code that huts be equipped with smoke alarms (based on data from building codes designed for buildings in urban/town settings), he studied the records of backcountry deaths going back 40 years, and found that there were no recorded instances of people dying in backcountry huts (due to fires or other reasons).  Not one.  Winning the battle for this specific exemption led to a remarkable, protracted effort to develop and have formally adopted a “hut building code” amendment to the National Building Code.  This amendment addresses the realities of huts (as distinct from other building types) and allows an alternative “accepted means of compliance”.

3.) While the use of non-native, treated lumber in hut and track design is controversial, Ron is a staunch advocate.  He is firmly convinced and prepared to defend his view with data, that treated lumber lasts much longer and saves the taxpayers money while doing minimal environmental damage.  In effect this is one of the tradeoffs made in the interests of lowering long-term maintenance costs.

A selection of ideas and quotes I noted from Ron (along with a number of quotes gleaned from a useful interview: “Huts of the future” by Matthew Pike, Wilderness Magazine NZ, 20 June 2015) illustrate his thinking about hut design:

• In siting and designing huts it is critical to give a strong sense of place, e.g. with views from inside, with the design of decks on the outside (of which he is a strong proponent).  “Where you are is important — you’re not just ‘in the backcountry’.  Its important to have a link to location and a sense of place from within the hut.”
• Decks are also a way of “helping hut users overcome cabin fever”.
• He thinks the 6 bunk NZFS hut is “a brilliant design” and uses it as a basis for design of smaller huts.  These huts, particularly those with open hearths, have natural ventilation, including in the gaps and cracks.
• On hut design: “Keep it simple, you are there on nature’s terms.”, On the importance of simplicity in design: “Remote huts need to look after themselves.”
• “A hut is a permanent tent; a warm and dry place for the night.” “In NZ the huts reflect the needs of the user more than the wants. For backcountry huts, thats shelter from the storm.”
• On the Great Walks huts that people characterize as “flash”, Pynenburg says they serve the needs of a different kind of user: “The big huts are, for a lot of people, their first experience of the backcountry.  We want them to have a good time to instigate a feeling that this place is worth hanging on to and keeping.”  At the same time he warns against not letting the hut design detract from the experience of being somewhere remote and wild.
• At the core of the hut experience is

Pictures of a few of the huts Ron has designed seem a fitting way to exemplify his contributions (Photos courtesy DoC):

Interestingly, I stayed in all three of these huts while in New Zealand, and they stood out at the time as comfortable, well-designed modern huts (even though the second two are rather large).  I didn’t know who the architect was until I started writing this profile many months later, but learning this gives me an even more visceral sense of Pynenburg’s aesthetic in relation to larger huts.

A few more examples (these, I haven’t visited):

*******

Pyneburg and Collins, which started with the two principals,  now employs 24.  In addition to work on backcountry accommodations, the firm works on scientific and research facilities, access and facilities for people with disabilities, building legislation and compliance, residential and commercial buildings, and off-the-grid buildings.  The firm continues to work on hut design; helping hut design evolve with the nation they shelter, while maintaining continuity with the past they embody.

Pynenburg on the future of huts

When asked about the future of NZ huts Pynenburg has opined that many futures are possible and that it all comes down to the philosophy chosen to guide siting, construction, design, level of amenities, technologies used, and uses favored:

• On technology (based on the 2015 Wilderness Magazine NZ interview cited above):
  • Changes will have more to do with sustainability than WiFi and coffee machines.
  • He envisages LED displays of information on resource usage in huts.
  • Can’t see why huts can’t be completely self-sufficient.
  • You could put aside a plot of woodland at each hut and cut one tree each year, sizing it to be a self-sustaining over time.
  • Perhaps we can make a hut self-reliant without having to fly anything in….why not do the same thing in urban areas?

When I asked Ron about his hopes for the future of NZ huts he said, “Keep ’em simple, basic and accessible to everyone…..DoC needs to stay firm in supporting NZ backcountry huts.”

Closing thoughts……

In our discussion I was struck by the nuance Pynenburg brings to his thinking about hut design.  While he is keen to employ technology to extend the life of a hut and to comply with stringent building codes, he also seems deeply committed to the importance of maintaining a strong network of very simple backcountry huts.  

Is New Zealand developing an inequitable two-tier hut system in which Great Walks and serviced huts are made ever more flash at the expense of the backcountry hut system?  I believe this will not happen as long as: the healthy tension, vigorous conversation and wide range of demonstration projects continue to illuminate, inform and contextualize the very real differences in perspectives and methods, and the overlap in long range goals between:

• the many common sense, practical, voluntary maintenance efforts to maintain a large stock of basic and standard huts in the backcountry, and
• the efforts of those charged with meeting the needs of both experienced trampers  who favor smaller, simpler huts and growing numbers if trampers who require more amenities in serviced and Great Walks huts, including international tourists.  

My sense is that the idea of two tiers of huts in New Zealand is actually an oversimplification: the hut system appears to be evolving into a many-tiered system, serving increasingly diverse modes of travels, interests, audiences, abilities and purposes.  But thats a topic for another post.

Meanwhile, Kiwis are fortunate to have an architect like Pynenburg – someone who can comfortably hold differing visions of the pasts, presents and futures of huts in his mind simultaneously — helping to design the future of their hut system, which is serving growing audiences and purposes.  I’ll close with the rest of Pynenburg’s answer to my question about the future of NZ huts:

I hope DoC stays focused on New Zealanders experience of the New Zealand backcountry, not on the tourist experience, which should be allowed to the extent it doesn’t compromise conservation and the Kiwi experience of our country.”