vertical-endeavour.com

This thread discusses the Content article: Giants Hut

A decision not to restore the hut would be a sad day for the Berg.

A functional hut somehow does not interfere much with the wild feel to the Berg. But a ruin is an eyesore and a scar, and there are several in the Berg already. Not that I believe more huts should be built, but rather that the current ones be maintained, especially ones such as Giants Hut which such a classic. It also does not lie in a wilderness area (which theoretically should be pristine and free from man-made structures) since the area is a game reserve.

The huts can be made a lot more rugged and robust which would shield them against damage. The roof should be metal sheeting, frames and doors should also be metal, and even glass windows are a luxury - shutters could be used instead. I've never understood why they bothered with toilets and basins in these remote mountain huts - they require too much maintenance. These days the Basotho dismantle the water pipes leading to the huts anyway. Tables can be bolted to the floor or even made of cast concrete. And bunks beds, well, a luxury too, but ones that have boards - as opposed to springs which require mattresses (which get stolen) - and which are too big and heavy to be stolen seem to work OK.

Some time ago Bannerman Hut was in a bad state of disrepair too. Though some maintenance is needed now again, it is still quite functional today, with bunk beds and wooden table intact.

So, here's to restoring Giants Hut!

As for the other huts and ruins out there, that's another topic for another day.

Intrepid. While you mention that the hut is not in a wilderness area, the world heritage values for which the Berg was granted its status, are wilderness, and the heritage value (for the bushman relics and paintings). In other words, in terms of management, the entire Ukahlamba Drakensberg area is considered a wilderness area. True, there are some areas which are so called "wilderness" areas in which no new man made infrastructure is allowed. The same can be said for the non-wilderness areas though, where any new infrastructure needs approval from not only the management authority, but also the competent authority for Impact assessments, in this case the Dept of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT).

The hut, though, is an existing structure. It existed long before the area was declared, and as such needs no authorisation from DEAT to repair the hut to its former condition.

Steel roofs would be preferable from a fire perspective, since the previous thatch (I think) obviously has too much risk attached from a fire perspective. Furthermore, any water pipes would also be pvc and stand to be burnt in the next fire that moves through. It would be preferable to go for a more sustainable approach to repair the hut. Most who would use the hut, have also camped in a tent, and would be used to walking a little way to fetch water. Furthermore, they would also have used holes in the ground for ablutions. Other options are available for toilets though, although the location of this hut adjacent to the tarn for ablutions and septic tanks are not really considered enviro-friendly.

I agree that the hut is there, and that it should either be removed if it is not to be repaired, since the current status is an eye-sore. The concern is more about how to get a contractor to the site to do the work without impacting on the surrounds, or getting the materials there without an impact on the area. Vehicular access is not an option.

Personally, I hope the hut is repaired. It is perfectly sited for forays around the Giants area.