• Full Story

Cathedral demolition on hold

Email
Print

Cathedral demolition on hold

3News NZ

Demolition has been put on hold while Gerry Brownlee reviews a new report (file)

Demolition has been put on hold while Gerry Brownlee reviews a new report (file)

By 3 News staff

The next phase of the Christchurch cathedral’s demolition is on hold as Gerry Brownlee ponders a new report that says it can be saved.

The report proposes pushing a metal shaft through the centre of the building, keeping workers safe as they strengthen the walls, just like tunnelling into a mine.

It's a bigger and more refined version of the shaft that was used for rescue workers who searched inside the church.

Minister for Earthquake Recovery Mr Brownlee has seen the report and hasn't had the chance to comment on it as he's overseas and he has not yet approved the next stage of the demolition.

Meanwhile Prime Minister John Key maintains pulling down and replacing the cathedral is the right thing to do.

The tower and the steeple have already been demolished and there are plans to bring the rest of the building down to no more than 3m high.

3 News / RadioLIVE

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

14/07/2012 8:09:23 a.m.

mj wrote:

We have to move forward. I have lived in ChCH all my life and have little love for this building, it seems to be taking focus of the real issues with Insurance companies criminal behavior and the government protecting them. People in ChCh are at wits end and need help with the mess unfolding not focusing on this building which will cost times as much to save than start again.

12/07/2012 11:37:00 p.m.

Chargone wrote:

I'd argue the fact that the city takes it's Name from the cathedral (or at least, from the fact that it was founded with the cathedral as part of the plan) would be a good argument for making sure that a proper Anglican cathedral was built in Chch again, probably with the same name and possibly with the same or similar outward appearance... I don't see it as a valid argument for trying to salvage a building that is simply unsafe, particularly if it is poorly located. at the very least it should be torn down and rebuilt in such a way as to be substantially more earthquake resistant. though why make it Shorter? the current regulation on the maximum height of buildings (ignoring the rather dubious exception for current owners who's now-demolished due to earthquake damage buildings were taller) seemed deliberately chosen so that everything else would be Slightly (and i mean slightly) shorter than the cathedral's spire. i'd argue that a (limited, like maybe a metre, tops) exception for a properly rebuilt spire would make more sense than a tens of meters and several story exception for, say, a hotel. It's not like our government actually uses the church to maintain control. the Anglican church actually remains completely Outside their control, except in so far as it's members are citizens. (the church doesn't answer to 'the crown', it answers to the Monarch, and not by way of the Governor General, leaving it the one aspect of royal authority in this country that Parliament, and specifically the office of Prime minister hasn't managed to essentially usurp due to inaction and 'tradition' on the part of our governors. not that the church really does anything with that authority, as it's entirely a moral authority, not a legal one.)

12/07/2012 11:43:57 a.m.

Gary wrote:

It is amazing how much effort, time and care has been put in to saving one building. Pity this same time, care and effort can not be given to the people of Christchurch. However this is more than just a building, like any church these buildings keep the people's faith in the crowns system. Over 2000 years ago as the Roman empire was crumbling Christianity had large followers, the Emperor Constantine saw this and used this to gain power and keep control and it has remained so as you were not allowed to speak against the church or you would be killed, they were the taliban of their era. So you see this is much more than a building the whole western civilisation and "so called" democracy is bound together by these buildings and Christian religion. Mind you I think if Jesus was here today he would care more about the people and think nothing of the building.

12/07/2012 7:51:34 a.m.

atrout wrote:

If it stays, the church pays. It is their responsibility and no-one else's.

11/07/2012 8:31:17 p.m.

Patrick Dingemans wrote:

Jim Anderton is playing politics over the Christchurch Cathedral deconstruction. He is trying to raise his profile to be elected as Mayor of Christchurch next year. It is the Anglican Church's decision what should be done, both finacially and for safety.

11/07/2012 5:07:17 p.m.

Wzrd wrote:

Bung a fence around it and leave the ruins as an earthquake memorial. Rebuilding a structure that has been definitively proven to be unsound in an earthquake is all kinds of silly. Let it go.

11/07/2012 3:09:38 p.m.

ridley wrote:

Its a no brainier, just demolish it.How much more tax and rate payers money do they intend to waste on this.They should build a children's hospital and help the struggling people of Christchurch.

11/07/2012 11:36:56 a.m.

Rev wrote:

why are we wasting money on this church,when we should be concentrating on our people struggling to deal with there living situation; or don't they matter

11/07/2012 9:57:55 a.m.

Pam wrote:

For Goodness Sake. Make a decision Gerry and stick with it. This is too time consuming and utterly boring now. It needs to be gone. We all need a fresh start including getting rid of the old unsuitable dangerous buildings in Christchurch. There are people who hoard and can't let go. Do it for them. I thought you had a backbone and that is why you got the job? Then do the job.