Christchurch Cathedral has a long history of “unlikely.”
It was first planned (and land set aside) in 1850, the year in which the first four ships carrying European settlers began to arrive in the area. (1)
It was a hugely ambitious project for a city that existed largely on paper, and it took a decade for plans to be drawn up (by British architect George Gilbert Scott, who never actually visited the site). Scott’s original plan was for a wooden church in his signature Gothic Revival style, but the then Bishop of Christchurch, Henry Harper, wanted a stone building. Revised plans were drawn and the cornerstone was laid in December 1864.
Lack of money — hardly surprising in a settlement of less than 1000 European settlers — held the project up for almost another decade, and it must have seemed unlikely that fledgling Christchurch would ever get a cathedral.
Christchurch Cathedral was consecrated 1881, and finally completed in 1904. (2)
But New Zealand is not called “the shaky isles” for nothing, and earthquakes have repeatedly damaged the building — beginning in 1881, within a month on consecration.
During the terrible period between September 2010 and December 2011 when the Christchurch area suffered repeated, large-scale (and fatal) quakes, damage was so extensive that the cathedral had to be completely abandoned.
The February 2011 quake, which claimed 185 lives, completely destroyed the church spire and initially there were fears that up to 20 people may have been inside at the time (it was a tourist attraction). Thankfully, that was not the case.
Since 2011, there has been an on-going battle over the future of the cathedral — between the church which wanted to demolish it, and heritage groups arguing the building is an important part of the city’s heritage and should be preserved.
For a long time it’s seemed unlikely that Christchurch Cathedral would be re-built. But in September 2017, after intervention from the New Zealand government, the uncertainty ended and it was announced that the cathedral will be re-instated. (2)
Daily Post Photo Challenge | unlikely
As an aside: two separate lines of the Big T’s ancestors arrived in New Zealand on the fourth of those ships, the Cressy, in December 1850.
Much as I like the idea of restoring such an historic building, my cynical head thinks it would be a waste of money as it is most likely to come down again in another earthquake. Rather just leave it as a ruin. We love our ruined churches/abbeys/monasteries here and leaving them as a ruin keeps that sense of the past 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree actually — though I recognise that I’m not a local, and perhaps don’t appreciate the depth of feeling Christchurch people have towards their cathedral. The restoration will likely be very earthquake-tolerant, but the deal was only done when central government offered to part-fund. I have an issue with public money being spent on a church when there is so much poverty and need in NZ. And so many people in Christchurch still suffering the effects of the quake in very immediate ways. 😕
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, public money should not be used. As you say there are more important issues to deal with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hate that public funding is always such a bun fight when there are huge corporations not paying taxes. That revenue would allow us to look after people and heritage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a shame that it got damaged in the earth quake. I’m glad they are rebuilding it.
Leslie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Something about your first picture with the chain link fence is very compelling to me – I think it really evokes rebuilding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems there are so many sites in Christchurch with condemned buildings behind fences. 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with Jude, just shore up the ruins to be safer. Do I remember something about a temporary cardboard cathedral?
LikeLiked by 1 person
😀. Yes, there is a cardboard cathedral that was built for temporary use.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Temporary can some times become forever!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Unlikely – Fairies | What's (in) the Picture?
My first thought was, oh yes, that’s great it’s going to be rebuilt – preserving heritage etc. Then I read Jude’s comment and I see her point. A (safe) ruin can be a memorial in the way the ruins of the original Coventry Cathedral are.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I tend to agree with Jude too. I listened to a podcast recently about changing attitudes to “heritage” and it had a couple of academics arguing very strongly for the “preserved ruins” approach. I wish I could remember what the programme was; it was a compelling argument.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and I agree with your points elsewhere about better uses for the money.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How very sad. As the daughter of an architect, I have a strong sense of attachment to buildings, especially older buildings that were loved by a community. I understand the desire to renovate, but I hope they do more to make it earthquake-proof.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Earthquake strengthening has become a huge priority for buildings all around the country. Ironically, it could actually lead to a huge loss of heritage buildings if owners can’t afford to do the remedial work necessary. This will be particularly true in small towns where commercial rents are lower than in the bigger cities and it simply won’t be viable to keep them. That makes me incredibly sad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is very sad. 😦 I guess safety has to outweigh aesthetic and historic value.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely; but it could totally change the look of small towns, and probably not for the better. 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Happy they are keeping it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I confess I have mixed feelings. The cost of restoration is huge and bing partly met by central and local government. I always wonder what else they could do with that money to help out in a very badly damaged city. But I don’t live in Christchurch so probably don’t understand the emotional attachment to the cathedral.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The restoration should be a private fund, I would think. Whenever the government has some outrageous expense I always think about the people falling through the cracks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Much of it will be private, and from the Church itself. But I agree; we have hospital buildings full of asbestos and mould — they really need to be replaced.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, gosh, that’s awful. Too bad they don’t build hospitals like they build churches!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t help feeling we could build both if we taxed huge corporations more fairly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see you have the same problem we have!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Normally I’m all for rebuilding as it is an important part of the city’s and its people’s history but when I read that public funds are going to spend for it I changed my mind. All over Europe Catholic churches are abounded by the church because they allegedly don’t have the money to maintain or repair the various buildings. I’m not Catholic but as an art historian feel it’s a shame to give up so much history by the institution itself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was the church here too that wanted to demolish the cathedral and build a new one — for much the same reason. I also struggle with the tension between wanting to preserve culture and heritage and worrying about the other things that public money could be spent on.
LikeLiked by 1 person