Behind the decision to demolish Christchurch cathedral

03 Nov 2011 09:10p.m.

Dan wrote:

Tear the bloody thing down! we have enough dam churches as it is! They are symbols of thousands of years of oppression and ignorance not to mention complete stupidity for anyone thick enough to believe in a "God". Build something USEFUL in its place in memorium to the people who died.

02 Nov 2011 10:27a.m.

Kath wrote:

Sadly this report is very true. There are many other buildings that could have been saved in our city, but alternative options were not sought.
Perhaps it is because CERA staff get a commission on each building that is knocked down (a conflict of interest I believe) - it should be that they get a bonus on each heritage building they save...

01 Nov 2011 08:01p.m.

Brian Came wrote:

Screw the cathedral bulldoze the piece of crap into a heap. Its Broken. I do not hear anyone one. saying lets fix Tokaroa, Moerewa, Wellsford, etc.... Oh wow one of the wankers wanting our vote, thinks lowering the youth rates is the answer. They are the only people in this country with a disposable income to support the retail sector. The other thinks there are plenty of opportunities but we are all to bloody stupid to fill the positions. Both these arseholes represent parties that sold our jobs, companies and assets to overseas interests. We own a video shop and are very likely to be loose everything we have worked for all our life in the next two weeks. I could send you pictures of the cracks in our house that we had to pay to get fixed due to the land moving in the drought 2 years ago, that are as bad as many of your Christchurch pictures. Dont get me wrong some of Christchurch is way worse but they are getting help. Jesus i wish Wellsford was in the red zone our GV has dropped by 18%. We listed our house the day the market crashed the real estate agents at the time said list at 420 sell at 390 we have it advertised now at 250 and no one gives a shit. We paid 160 for a business that we can not even sell at 80. And guess what when I am broke 2 weeks from now i will be made to work cleaning tables at mackas for 13.50 an hour. Farking stoked. And the media is surprised when someone goes postal. Brian Came 09 423-7733 work for the next few days 09 423-8821 home, 0274369443 mobile for now. brian.came@xnet.co.nz

01 Nov 2011 07:51p.m.

Kay wrote:

Cera have lost all faith with us around being 'transparent' and 'upfront' with all Brooklands people here in Christchurch by intentionally with holding information regarding our status of 'orange' being kept from us. We were advised by Roger Sutton personally that all information would be transparent, upfront and that we would be advised prior to the media. Last Friday the announcement was made to the orange residents of Christchurch that would change them to 'green'. Not only were we not informed we had to wait till Monday to receive the written details in the post that we were not included in this and would remain 'orange'. Far too late clearly!! We then attended a meeting the next day in our local hall and was advised by Lianne Dalziel that the main reason we had been left 'orange' was because the council had got the 'datem' measurement wrong, potentially years ago, and so the whole area is sitting 300-400 mm lower than was believed. This was only discovered with the post earthquake checks done on the land. As such we are now a 'flood risk' and will not get insurance post any decision. The insurance companies, the City Council, and Cera are now arguing over how to fix this as it is not considered to be 'earthquake related'. As yet we have not heard directly from anyone official within Cera or the Council to advise what is going on and to advise what these issues are. This is an intentional effort to keep us in the dark and kicks in the face of all the promises made by Roger and his team.

01 Nov 2011 07:41p.m.

Lee wrote:

The heritage buildings were built 100 years ago or more. Are the "experts" saying that we don't have the technology to rebuild them or is it all about money? Save all the heritage buildings I say....each one could be sponsored by those 1% some are protesting about

01 Nov 2011 07:39p.m.

Micheal wrote:

Who exactly is going to fund the reconstruction? Is the church expected to fund the entire reconstruction? I see many people upon this website who have various ways of complaining, but no-one seems to see this from the other perspective, rebuilding something as big as the cathedral is going to require alot of money, and right now, no-one has any. Is the public willing to fund the Cathedral they are so keen to rebuild? If your not willing to make an effort to assist in the reconstruction, then you do not have the right to decide on it's fate. It is in the hands of those who have the ability and funds to rebuild it to decide. The government sure isn't going to pay for it, the Cathedral represents only sentimental value to them, pouring money at it won't magically fix the economy, they have other places the money must go. That means there are only two options: 1. We, the public, donate money to assist in the reconstruction effort. 2. The Anglican Church is forced to pay for the entire construction. To be honest, option 1 is the only option we can choose if we want the Cathedral to be rebuilt. Option 2 is not available, I doubt the Church has enough to fund this alone, without having any effects on the Church elsewhere in NZ. So if your going to talk the talk, you sure has hell be prepared to walk the walk and put your money where your mouth is.

01 Nov 2011 07:28p.m.

steve wrote:

Surely any attempt by a public servant to subvert the Official Information Act is a criminal offense. Will their be a police investigation?

01 Nov 2011 07:28p.m.

Gillian wrote:

I hope all those who feel they have a right to decide how the church uses its limited resources will worship there regularly once it is rebuilt and give financial support to the church. The cathedral has struggled for years to finance repairs and maintenance. I hope those with an opinion will make sure they dig deep to help their loved church.

01 Nov 2011 06:56p.m.

Blair Anderson wrote:

When the war was over the bombing stopped. The reconstruction was completed against a background of certainty. Would you bet your life there will be no further quakes over 5.5. How about betting your right arm?. Your pinkie?, how about lunch? Post war rebuilds are not the same problem, not even close. That is not to say I haven't got grave concerns who's interest is being served by the current 'state' of affairs. Place the rebuild process back into the hands of those who's heritage it is. Restoration of ECAN would be a good start. Closely followed by the dissolution of the executive powers of CERA that seriously disturbs participatory bottom up approaches to post disaster recovery. Heritage decisions have endangered and degraded opportunity to recover materials essential for heritage rebuild and impacted seriously on ability to restore key heritage in private hands. One such example is Englefield Lodge, the oldest house in the original Borough of Christchurch. Slate from Wards Brewery was crushed when it only needed to be taken across the road. Yet it was [ironicaly] William G Brittan who built both. Our city fathers would have seen this as na opportunity lost.... Why cant we?

01 Nov 2011 04:50p.m.

Marian wrote:

When the Bishop of Christchurch used the word "replica" to describe any concept of rebuilding the Cathedral, she virtually sounded the death knell for any meaningful discussion on the building's fate, at least in the eyes of those who are in control of this process. When 22nd February happened, friends kept asking me (a Christchurch girl long resident in Melbourne) what would happen to the Cathedral and I insisted again and again that it would be rebuilt, because I could not conceive that anyone in their right mind would think of doing anything else. Having visited recently and seen what a cavalier approach has been taken to so many precious heritage buildings, I now know how naive I was. Does the Anglican diocese of Christchurch not have any concept of how the Cathedral is regarded by the wider world? Religious or not (and I am not), millions of people worldwide view it as the quintessential Christchurch icon, enshrined in the city's very name, for goodness sakes! As John Mackenzie so perfectly points out, restoration (not "replication", please note, Bishop Matthews) is perfectly feasible, and not only feasible but, in many respects, the only true viable option for such an important part of the city's heart. The people who make up the deciding body in the Anglican Church at this time are merely passing through, and yet their decisions will leave a permanent injury to the fabric of Christchurch life if this so-wrong action goes ahead.