High Plains Huts Should they be better built??

[Moondog55]

A follow on from my trip in to the Pretty Valley hut.
The hut is starting to fall apart.
It looks like it was built to some esoteric personal ideal of "Fitting in" to the environment but the execution of the build means that it needs to be demolished and rebuilt soon.

there seems to be some sort of religious reason for using unsuitable materials amongst the parks people, just looking at the mess they made of the Fed Vic hut on Feathertop.
So my question is When the hut is rebuilt should we be making a concerted effort to see if we can persuade the Parks people to build the hut properly? that is with galvanised walls to withstand the weather and sarking and insulation to make the hut weather resistant and usable in all weathers??

[tastrax]

Does the hut currently have any heritage value? - Parks should be able to tell you that pretty quickly. If it does, then they are probably bound by various regulations on what can and cant be changed.

Chances are they will be using the Burra Charter if it has value. Either that or there will be a Conservation Management Plan for the structure which will spell out the guidelines for any works and materials that are deemed suitable.

They would be the first questions I would be asking.

http://australia.icomos.org/publications/charters/

[Moondog55]

Nope PV hut was purpose built. And even heritage values are meaningless if Parks want something to change.
It was just badly built,

[tastrax]

Sorry - its not a hut I know. If its a recent build then they may have less of an issue if a good case is put before them.

[MartyGwynne]

I believe they should be better built and more of them (accessible only by walking-skiing etc).
The new new Pelion hut is a good example of one well built hut. It has replaced the original Pelion hut several versions ago.
It is also built some distance away from the original hut (which is still standing) and serves its purpose very well.
So huts in the high country on the AAWT should be made to provide shelter from fire, rain or snow.
Marty.
PS though I tend to use my tent when I do camp near a hut.

[Moondog55]

Me too, I sleep in my tent. but the huts are a great meeting place and a safe refuge if the weather turns extremely nasty.
I must admit to a prejudice against the people who did the un-needed and un-warranted work on the Federation hut on Feathertop, it has clouded my judgement. But replacing environmentally friendly aluminium cladding with a lifespan measured in decades with a timber cladding whose working life is measured in seasons never made any sense to any-one, especially when the cost was so extremely high.
With PV hut being only 7 kilometres from Falls Creek village and on a road that gets groomed occasionally it gets a lot of use, probably much more use in winter than in summer. 7k on skis only takes an hour after all.


When this hut is rebuilt I'd like to see if it could be helped along with volunteer labour and materials, that way it could get insulated so less firewood is burned

[Snowzone]

Hi Moondog,

I wonder if the Victorian High Country Huts Association would be able to help out? I know they've not long finished rebuilding Westons Hut and although I havn't seen it yet from what I've heard they did a fantastic job on it.

[Moondog55]

Great idea, I had actually forgotten the establishment of this new group.
I'll contact them and see if something can be organised

[north-north-west]

A follow on from my trip in to the Pretty Valley hut.
The hut is starting to fall apart.
It looks like it was built to some esoteric personal ideal of "Fitting in" to the environment but the execution of the build means that it needs to be demolished and rebuilt soon.

there seems to be some sort of religious reason for using unsuitable materials amongst the parks people, just looking at the mess they made of the Fed Vic hut on Feathertop.
So my question is When the hut is rebuilt should we be making a concerted effort to see if we can persuade the Parks people to build the hut properly? that is with galvanised walls to withstand the weather and sarking and insulation to make the hut weather resistant and usable in all weathers??

No.
Fewer huts, fewer numpties.

And that thing has been in 'falling to pieces' mode for the last three years.

*Waits for the 'huts are a life-saving necessity due to the climate' argument which doesn't ring too true to a Tasmanian . . . *

[Moondog55]

I like numpties, especially BBQed with chillies, depends on how the huts are used

[Moondog55]

I like this hut because it IS so close to the resort, I downhill ski as well as tour and BC tele and camp in the region, and I personally consider this a valid use of the space.

[Maelgwn]

I also think this hut is unnescary. It is barely a stones throw from falls creek and the end of the road. Maybe it can remain an all season camping area but I dont think the hut is worth keeping.

[Moondog55]

I also think this hut is unnescary. It is barely a stones throw from falls creek and the end of the road. Maybe it can remain an all season camping area but I dont think the hut is worth keeping.

But IF it was to be kept ( and Parks says it definitely is ) should it be better built?
I am well aware of the conflicting views on mountain huts and it should be known that I hold a view to the other end of the spectrum

[north-north-west]

I also think this hut is unnescary. It is barely a stones throw from falls creek and the end of the road. Maybe it can remain an all season camping area but I dont think the hut is worth keeping.

But IF it was to be kept ( and Parks says it definitely is ) should it be better built?
I am well aware of the conflicting views on mountain huts and it should be known that I hold a view to the other end of the spectrum

If you're going to have a shelter, it makes sense to have a certain minimum standard of construction, as much to minimise maintenance and repairs as anything else.
But it's hardly a necessary shelter. And yes, I'm one of those who doesn't mind the truly historic constructions being maintained but reckons that if they burn down there's no justification for rebuilding. Proper equipment and planning remove the need for huts and fires.

[tastrax]

But IF it was to be kept ( and Parks says it definitely is ) should it be better built?
I am well aware of the conflicting views on mountain huts and it should be known that I hold a view to the other end of the spectrum

Well with my "Parks" hat on...

You have suggested it has no heritage value so for me it would then come back to what is the defined purpose of the hut and does it serve that purpose?
Sounds like you are suggesting that it may still serve a purpose but that it needs work .. so then its a matter of determining what works are required to bring it back to "fit for purpose" for the client group. There is probably a management plan or something similar that guides what types of things get built in what zones (in Tasmania we also spell out types of materials etc depending on the zoning - ours is called a Reserve Standards Framework). The easiest way to explain this is with an example like a toilet. If its a high use day area you cant build an unlined pit toilet because it doesn't match the client group etc.

Now you know what is within standard you can maintain/upgrade or demolish to that standard. Given no heritage consideration you could probably use any technique (within the standard) to bring it back to "fit for purpose"

If it were determined that to the fit the standard it would be best to demolish and rebuild, then you face another issue in that any new building would need to comply with the Building Code of Australia. This adds a few more issues especially in relation to fire management but a whole thread could be devoted to that. Depending on the value and extent of works on the upgrade you may also be subject to the new standards.

I am happy to keep throwing in suggestions but it might be helpful to spell out what techniques your are proposing in this upgrade.

[Moondog55]

thanx for the details Phil, but as a "Non-habitable building" ( parks do not encourage people to sleep over-nite do they?) then the BCA doesn't apply and it only needs to be safe and strong. There are how-ever good reasons for following the BCA as it has specific strength requirements for Alpine areas.
truth is wooden boxes are easy to build and ma king them strong enough is easy to do, it is just a question of money to pay for labour and materials.
As a home renovator and coming from a family of carpenters and builders and having worked above the snow-line for 10 years I can see where things were done wrongly for the area in the first build.
As you are wearing your "Parks" hat at the moment why would an unsuitable building cladding have been chosen in the first place?
Just fixing the hut up could be done in an intensive long W/E improving the hut at the same time.

Here is what I consider a reasonable list of repairs needed.

#1 Replacement of the timber cladding with environmentally friendly
galvanised iron sheeting after wrapping and battening
#2 Insulating the walls and ceiling.
#3 Wrapping the frame with good quality building wrap such as Tyvek and
making the hut as airtight as possible
#4 replacing the existing opening window with a fixed double glazed unit
and steel mesh snow panel
#5 Adding a section of steel mesh around the stove for safety and for
drying wet coats and other clothes.
#6 Adding a sheet steel choofer bench for safety as we tend to use the
hut for cooking. possibly with a closable vent to remove steam
#7 if possible make the hut about 50% bigger
#8 An enclosed wood box
Then the new or repaired stove and flue shielding

[tastrax]

As you are wearing your "Parks" hat at the moment why would an unsuitable building cladding have been chosen in the first place?

The only reason I could see is some desire to blend with previous styles of construction (but for me that points back to some historic significance, conservation plan or "standards")

Is this the hut?
http://khuts.org/index.php?option=com_c ... t&catid=69

[Moondog55]

Yes, that is the hut. While it looks pretty in the picture close up you can see the obvious damage done by weather over time. History or not I would have to argue in favour of gal iron in preference to timber simply because of the longevity of iron cladding. Embodied energy over time steel cladding wins over treated timber, especially as I suggest using the gal as the cosmetic and weather layer and Tyvek as the wind/ water/weatherproofing layer.
The hut is a major meeting place in winter, I hav seen as many as 30 tents in the immediate vicinity of the hut on more than one occasion aand on one particularly knarly wet day i think wet high school students ( Carey Grammar from memory ) were wall to wall and 3 deep about 24 of them trying to warm up and dry out