2000 rally to save cathedral

28/05/2012 2:55:05 p.m.

Paul wrote:

Ted, Allan et al, sorry have you read the expert reports that were leaked to the public - which state in no uncertain terms that the building is not only restorable, but must be, didn't think so. To say I'm sick to death of the man-in-the-pub experts expressing their non-professional opinions on the fate of the Cathedral. Why would you ruin a building that isn't a ruin, I just don't understand this line of argument? As the Professor said, this just wouldn't even be in the media elsewhere in the world, as restoration would have started already. Ted, could you please open your ears & listen. We are not asking you to pay (although the rate payers have been giving to the Church for years for the upkeep of the cathedral), the money will come from international donations. $4m cheque is sitting offshore waiting to say go. This money will also NOT be at the expense of social housing or infrastructure. That is a question you should have asked of the Government and CCC when they built a $20 (which blew out to $30) temporary sports stadium. That money was at the expense of infrastructure and social housing. I wish you people would spend as much time actually reading the facts and listening to those who do this in their professional capacities. This building is one of 5 most historical buildings in New Zealand, UNESCO wants to turn it into a World Heritage Building, it's a Cat 1 Heritage Building, which makes the church just custodians of a national Taonga. March last year we thought a $45m restoration of Government house good money spent. Once again the majority of the money for the Cathedral will come from insurance and if need be international sources. If you don't see the value in this project, please do not knock those of us who do - particularly if you are not an expert in post earthquake engineering restoration. Thank you

27/05/2012 11:21:40 p.m.

ted wrote:

get each of the protesters to pledge $1000.00 dollars to help save the building and if they are serious bout it they will not hesitate to cough up....or is it they just ant the rest of us to pay again... let it go FFS .

27/05/2012 5:35:15 p.m.

Allan Porter wrote:

The Cathedral must come down to the 1-2 metre wall as suggested. A memorial garden can then be planted in the area. The world is full of ruined cities which then rebuilt elsewhere - Christchurch is no exception.

27/05/2012 4:12:29 p.m.

James wrote:

What people fail to realise is that the Cathedral is not just a symbol for Christianity, it is a symbol for Christchurch and our major landmark. To so blithely throw it away when other churches which are just as damaged are being repaired just beggars belief. Of course I do not expect people from outside Christchurch to understand since all they see is a building, but to me it is more than that. It is the symbol that we so desperately need in this city during these troubling times.

The Cathedral is not just "one ruined building", it is the symbol of my city and a symbol which over 100 engineers believe can be restored and bought back to its original quality. There are no danger issues, no one from the public will be able to enter the established red zone for sometime, which makes me wonder why the Anglican church feels the need to knock it down.

Now I am a Christian and I did not see Jim Anderton's speech as being anti-Christian, I supported and clapped when he put forward his views in a succinct and fair fashion. If the Anglican Church has engineering reports backing up their claim that the building is "unsafe and dangerous", why are they so reluctant to release them?

What I find to be truly bizarre is the apathy and readiness of some people to throw away historic symbols of our past.

27/05/2012 3:00:45 p.m.

Andre wrote:

The Cathedral would make the perfect monument to those who died and suffered in the earthquakes. It needs to be saved. It can be left as is for now and just made safe for passers by, then repaired slowly over many years as funds allow. Why does everything have to be instant these days? Europe rebuilt many of its heritage buildings after WWII while they were in a far worse finacial position than NZ is now. They took years to do it but succeeded and Europe is better for their efforts, no question of money. Imagine Europe without those buildings, it would be a sterile modern place with little character. They knew the value of historic buildings. Fix everything else in Christchurch first and then make a decision on the future of this, what is the hurry to destroy it all about?. This is nothing to do with religion. Heritage buildings are visible symbols of a society's stabilty, endurance and longevity.

27/05/2012 2:37:59 p.m.

mike thomson wrote:

Its seems that the people who want to save the cathedral are not the same people who use the cathedral and Jim Anderton when speaking on the cathedral was very negative towards the Church and christianity why then are people like Jim Anderton so bent on retaining a symbol like the cathedral if he and his cohorts is so against what it represents?

27/05/2012 10:12:55 a.m.

Blair wrote:

The Anglican Church has decided that it no longer has a place in the history or culture of Christchurch - perhaps recognising that many people, in any case, have been voting with their feet in fleeing the pews for decades now. That said, it's a shame that the Cathedral which was once a major religious and social icon is considered even by those who are custodians of it, now consider it only worthy as rumble. On the brighter side, the Anglican of Auckland are raising 10 million dollars to tart up their Cathedral in Auckland. Is it a case of every Anglican for herself and the devil takes the hindmost?

27/05/2012 9:16:59 a.m.

Fair NZer wrote:

Unfornately even all not reinforced historic religious buildings such as the Christchurch Cathedral have to come down...otherwise, in any possible disaster, human lives will really be at the mercy of God (perhaps Jusus) next time.

27/05/2012 3:48:49 a.m.

Glenc wrote:

They are all christian fanatics.

26/05/2012 10:10:01 p.m.

Mary wrote:

The Church needs to spend their money wisely and build what is most cost effective - if they have excessive money to spend then help build homes for the homeless which is the right Christian thing to do....