This was not reported in our Paper today - The fight has begun re Cathedral

[Suezy]

Legal action possible to save ChristChurch Cathedral
By Newstalk ZB
7:36 AM Monday Mar 5, 2012 

nzhpoll0–50 votes
Should the engineering report which concluded the Christchurch Cathedral should not be saved be made available to the public?
Yes (74%)
No (26%)

Legal action possible to save ChristChurch Cathedral

A Christchurch councillor believes legal action could be taken against the decision to partially demolish ChristChurch Cathedral.

The Bishop of Christchurch, Victoria Matthews, announced on Friday the 131-year-old building will be deconstructed down to two or three metres.

The iconic building withstood the September 2010 earthquake, but was devastated in last year's February 22 earthquake. Subsequent aftershocks in June and December prompted the decision to demolish the Anglican cathedral.

Bishop Mathews said the building would be brought down to a safe level while the taonga and treasures could be salvaged from the building and its future decided.

Christchurch City Council member Aaron Keown said the public backlash to the decision has begun.

"I've been contacted by people from all round Christchurch, New Zealand and from overseas that want to save that building and so I wouldn't be surprised if there actually was legal action going forward."


Mr Keown said the only way forward is for the community to come up with a plan and present it to the Anglican Church.

Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker echoed those sentiments, calling for Anglican leaders to provide more information about the future of the building.

"A bit more clarity from the church would be appreciated," he told the Press. "There is a vacuum of information."

Mr Parker said the eastern wall could be salvaged, and the fallen western spire could be rebuild taller, with the remains of the old spite retained as a monument.

"The bulldozers aren't moving in tomorrow. I think this is the beginning of a process of making clear the elements that can be retained."

Meanwhile a Christchurch architect is already working on proposals to save the cathedral from demolition.

Don Donnithorne is working on designs which would save and strengthen the landmark.

"I've got proposals forward and we'll just have to wait and see but I'm doing my very best for Christchurch's sake to save this building."

Mr Donnithorne said he is prepared to publicise the plans if need be.

• Tweet

[Suezy]

Trust you enjoy reading the article and to make up your own minds regarding our beautiful Cathedral that the Dean wishes to demolish.


Some early History of the Cathedral  in Christchurch

The Province of Canterbury, was founded in 1850 when the first of the Canterbury Association’s chartered ships arrived at Port Cooper now know as Lyttelton Port.
It was a remarkable feat of organised colonization – not the ordinary transplanting of impoverished people, but the emigration of selected groups, nominally Anglican, headed by men of means and position.  Well educated and blessed with strong religious principles, they bought with them the tradtions of the English Church.

Small wonder that as early as 1858 a meeting of churchman resolved that in order to meet the growing wants of the diocese, it is expedient that a central Church or Cathedral  be erected in Cathedral Square.  Sir Gilbert Scott was commissioned to draw the plans and a determined effort was made to raise more money.  The settlers were small in number but big of heart and their enthusiasm ran high.

Only 14 years after the founding of the Province, the foundation stone was laid by Bishop Harper on Anniversary Day 16th December 1864.
 
Unfortunately a commercial depression swept over Canterbury shortly afterwards and eight years elapsed before the work was recommenced.  Once again with more money available the walls steadily rose higher and higher and the nave was consecrated in 1881 and the transept and chancel nave was consecrated in 1904.  People contributed generously with money and gifts and the Cathedral continued to grow in beauty both outside and within.

Compared with the cathedrals of the Old Country the building is small, but the shortness has merit of preventing any impression of squatness which greater length would tend to give. The traditional cruciform shape is followed, there being a nave with two side aisles, a choir and one intersecting transept.  Vestries are tucked into the angles on both sides of the choir.  The tower abuts the north west corner of the building.  The exterior though plain is dignified.  The windows generally are grouped in twos and threes and have nothing but simple “plate” tracery.

Under the Arms of Christ Church, Oxford.
H.M. Queen Victoria by Letters Patent, sealed with the Great Seal of the United Kingdom 31st July 1856 did constitute and did define the boundaries of the Diocese of Christchurch and did appoint as the first Bishop “Henry John Chitty Harper, D.D. “ to be Bishop of the said See of Christchurch….and that he and his successors be for ever hereafter called by the name of title of the Bishop of Christchurch…. And did ordain that “the town of Christchurch…. In the Diocese of Christchurch shall be a city…”   Thus Christchurch was the first town in New Zealand so to be constituted a city.

Most of the Porch’s and windows including the Rose window, carvings, carved doorways, seats, column’s , mosaic panels, Primatial cross, Vice Regal and Mayoral stalls, White Ensign and Exhibits in the Glass Case, Selwyn Memorial Pulpit, The Chancel, The Reredos, The Eagle lectern,  and just so many many more - too many to list given by the people of Christchurch.
This was copied in part from “A guide to Christchurch Cathedral New Zealand” 1954.


In fact the people of Christchurch have –.paid for and built this beautiful Cathedral and also furnished it to the level it used to be.

Now we have an appointed Bishop Matthews previously from Canada I think it was who says we do not have rights to get the reports on the Cathedral’s state before she organises the demolition of it and that the public is not qualified to make a decision.  Our Mayor Bob Parker has also requested the report and told no - whom I am positive would have all the qualified experts at his disposal to study the reports.   After her talk on Newststalk ZB with our local Mike Yardley here I am sure that most of the Cantabs here are absolutely  shattered at her decision and non workable attitude to the people of Canterbury.

The conversation she had with Mike Yardley is available  at Newstalk ZB.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/Christchurch/player/ondemand/VicMathews-6March20122012-03-05T15-14-32

Will leave it for you to make up your own minds.
She has also suggested a cardboard Cathedral which she is going ahead with – plus a beach in the Square and also that the Cathedral should go out to the West of the city.

[Suezy]

Bishop risks alienating community
By: Annette Lunn | Latest Christchurch News | Wednesday March 7 2012 5:36


The battle over ChristChurch Cathedral is becoming divisive.

The Anglican Bishop of Christchurch, Victoria Mathews, has announced she won't release the engineering assessments and advice which led to the decision to deconstruct the cathedral.

Iconic Heritage Group spokesperson Ian Lochhead says the reputation of church figures in the community could be at risk.

"They've been seen as really important people in the community at large and I think the Bishop really risks alienating the Christchurch community if she holds to that position."

Mr Lochhead says if residents are going to have confidence in the decisions that have been made, engineering assessments and other documents to be released.

Retired reverend Graham Brady worked for a fundraising group that raised $8 million for the cathedral in 2006.

He says the Bishop's causing a lot of concern within the Anglican Church.

"Some of the senior clergy have left, have resigned. It is a direct result of the way the Bishop acts."

He is campaigning to save the building, and says the dismantle decision is angering officials within the Anglican Church.

"I've also had clergy who have phoned and said, well you know, I can't say it, because I'm still in active ministry and would lose my license, but we're behind you all the way."

Mr Brady says the biggest issue for most is that the Bishop won't give out any of the information on which she based her decision.

He says the Bishop made the decision herself, tells others what to do and has never appeared open to the idea of saving the building.

"I think the Bishop's had it in her head the whole time to get rid of this cathedral. I was there when she was offered the $4 million to kick start the fundraising campaign to rebuild the cathedral and she just rejected it out of hand, she wasn't interested then, I don't think she's been interested since."

Mr Brady is hoping those in the diocese make their discontent known.

Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker says many people are not confident everything possible has been done to save the landmark

"I don't think the process has been handled as well as it could be and I think it's still savable. I think there's a chance for the facts to be brought out. As I say I think it should be in a controlled manner, I think there should be a strong alternative view given a chance to be tested."

Mr Parker says while the cathedral legally belongs to the Anglican Church, the people in Christchurch have invested in it hugely - both emotionally and financially.

"I think that would help and I think it needs to be done, if it was to be done in a balanced way. I don't think the church is approaching this lightly but the community needs to have more confidence that this is the only way forward."

Mr Parker says it would help a great deal if information was put on the table to back the decision to demolish the cathedral.

[ato2]

Sad if it is replaced with some awful thing...

[Suezy]

I sincerely hope not - but the people are staggered by her response to any questions and for the release of the documents requested.

[ato2]

Like many Nzers I have very fond memories of old Christchurch and the savage destruction of the remains of an icon disturbs me.

Suezy, I think I heard mention- in one of the media- that it was supposed to cost $100 million dollars to rebuild the cathedral, therefore unaffordable and demolish it!
Out of interest, does anyone know how much it cost to build it originally? I presume that there would have been stuff added later on, at times but knowing what it cost to start with and the inflation since, would allow me to see if that $100 million was a figure plucked out of thin air.
Cheers
Tom

[Suezy]

There is also a Part 2 on Mike Yardleys discuss with Bishop Matthews.

[Suezy]

In 1864 they had to meet the sum of 2000 pounds by public donations.. Then in 1954 the amount collected for the Archbishop Julius Memorial was 12,122 pounds and a further sum of 11,022 pounds was collected for the Cathedral extension.   These are the only figures I can find in the book that I have. The work was done by the people of Canterbury at the start and think that a lot of the work done since was by voluntary labour.  All the windows and various things mentioned in the main article of mine were donated by the people - usually in memory of - so that would have been at no cost to the Church. Also 8 million dollars were given recently from donations to a fund. Other than that I do not have the complete total of what ha been given to the Cathedral unfortunately.
In another book it mentions that the foundations costings were 5,316 pounds and 19 shillings and that was prior to the depression that came about and after that the pilgrims  made liberal contributions .  In 1873 a contract was let for an erection of a portion of the walls at a cost so far being fifty thousand pounds.  The west porch costing another thousand pounds was built by Mrs Creyke as a memorial to her husband.
Even the Melodious bells, eight  were gifted by R Heaton Rhodes. The font was donated too as with most of the other things I have mentioned -so the actual cost of it would be very hard to find indeed.
Other than that Tom I can't find further figures.

[ato2]

Thanks Suezy...I will ponder

[TokWW]

Thanks Suezy, it was constructed well behind the other Anglican Church of the Holy Trinity, built for a second time in 1876, also made of stone and a high vaulted ceiling which has now been fully demolished.

Photos here... http://holytrinityavonside.co.nz/html/church_1876.html

 The foundation of the present structure was laid in 1874. The architect, Benjamin Woolfield Mountfort, was an active member of the parish and had been responsible for additions and alterations to the original building, as well as designing the brick parsonage built in 1864.

 By 1876 a new chancel, organ chamber and transepts had replaced the original ones. These used basalt from Halswell Quarry, with limestone for the dressings, red and black glazed tiles and slate for the roof.

 Although Mountfort produced designs for a complete church with an aisled nave and west tower these were never executed. The nave was completed to a modified design by the architect's son, Cyril, in 1907, but the tower was never built. The principle architectural interest of the church lies in the chancel, which, it is argued, is the finest High Victorian chancel to be found in the Southern Hemisphere.

more photos here..

http://holytrinityavonside.co.nz/html/februaryquake.html



She was a lovely proud church. Lots of stained glass windows etc.