Sad (but inevitable) news

What has seemed increasingly inevitable over the last few months has been confirmed this afternoon; The Press reports:

The severely quake-damaged and "very dangerous" Christ Church Cathedral will not be rebuilt it has been confirmed.

Bishop Victoria Matthews, speaking in the Botanical Gardens this afternoon, said the Cathedral would be "deconstructed with the utmost care and respect while at the same time protecting the treasures within its walls".

She said there would be "no bulldozers or wrecking balls".

A reconstruction was ruled out as costing $50 million more than any insurance payment, while the shortfall to build a replica Cathedral was about $100m.

But already there's opposition; read on:

However, a city councillor has already threatened to chain himself to the Cathedral to prevent any demolition.

Cr Aaron Keown said the Cathedral would be demolished ''over my dead body''.

''I would be in there chaining myself to the building to stop that and I know lots of other volunteers would come in to do that.

"Forget Lucy Lawless' little eight-person campaign, this would be a big one,'' he said.

''We'd form a ring around the building and not let them in. It shouldn't even be a discussion.''

Keown said he had been inside the Cathedral after the December 23 quake and it was in ''good shape''.

The damaged west side was ruined but could be replaced with glass and the steeple rebuilt with wood.

Only four tiles on the roof had loosened, he said. ''If the building was in trouble, the roof would look like New Brighton beach. It would be all warped, the tiles popped and beams gone.''

Keown likened it to a person ''busting their leg'' and the doctor telling the family, ''right, we're going to have to pull the pin now''.

''I don't mind making new history, but not when it's not necessary. We're going to build enough new history,'' he said.

Who's right, and who's wrong? Or in their respective ways, are both the Bishop and the City Councillor right?

It's unlikely that any building in Christchurch will elicit more debate than the cathedral, which is of enormous historical and spiritual significance to the city. The leaders of the Anglican Church will not have made this decision lightly; this is acknowledged by Bishop Matthews:

The Bishop acknowledged a "high level of community interest and sense of ownership" in the Cathedral as an iconic building and a place of worship for many.

"However, this is now a very dangerous building that needs to be made safe" and a risk to those working on the site.

"If anyone had been in the building on December 23 they would have been put at a great risk of serious injury or worse," said the Bishop.

Further deterioration since December 23 and the risk of further earthquakes had changed thinking on its future.

"The Anglican Diocese is facing a hard reality - the Cathedral is the revered Mother Church but is not the only church in the Diocese to have sustained damage, in some cases irreparable or too costly to repair."

The Church Property Trust and standing committee faced a significant shortfall in insurance, estimated at up to $30m across the Anglican diocese, without any future damage being considered.

The sums on the Cathedral alone were "staggering".

The shortfall to build a replica Cathedral was about $100m, while a new build incorporating some of the old would incur a shortfall of up to $50m.

Bishop Victoria said the trust was now "looking to the future" and wanted to create "a beautiful, inspiring, safe new cathedral".

We don't envy those who have been involved in the decision-making process thus far, or those who will be in the near future. But clearly the Cathedral could not be left in the condition in which it now is. A decision has been made by those who are responsible for the building; is it the right one?