Christchurch Cathedral rebuild is over

[@kevynharris1217]

As a citizen of NZ and a Christian I am quite happy to see no more money going into this project from the taxpayer.

[@thnz5067]

What a waste and a drain of tax payer money, in a time where things are tough. East Christchurch is still suffering the effects of zero remediation post quake, and the council still flog the dead horse of the "heart of the city". The heart of a city is people.

[@PharCanal_007]

The Vultures have been feeding off the carcass of Christchurch for far too long. 13 years on and billions of dollars yet there is still people using portaloos , City Councilors have done very well for themselves though

[@RexWainwwright]

As a non Christian sad we wasted 25 million of taxpayers money. The church is rich, put your own money in.

[@Lazydaisy646]

The church is not rich at all but the church should not have been attempted to be rebuilt.. The church was a landmark and an attraction for the city , but its dome for . Time to move on..

[@paulcooper5334]

I live in Christchurch, so I am well aware of the story that goes with Cathedral, damage 3 times in earthquakes in the last 100+ years. (Yes, around every 70 years Christchurch gets struck with an earthquake), 2nd time it was damaged, the family that help pay the first time for its repair said they wouldn't do it again. Those who talk about being it being 'Heart' of Christchurch - absolute rubbish. Had a VERY small congregation and was mostly seen as a tourist destination. It had cafe to help bring in funds for its upkeep. And on top all this the church didn't want it repaired. This 'repair' was going to be at a minimum $250 million, now with a shortfall of $114 million. Church would rather keep their money) And I suspect wouldn't end there, going past even this. As skillfully and brilliantly as it was built (excellent tradesmen), it was nothing more than a Victorian Mock-Gothic heavy lump (Constructed out of dark local basalt stone and limestone cement). Not the best for earthquake zones. I have been a builder for over 40 years, worked on buildings/churches in the UK that were over 1,000 years old and as much as I want this building 'saved' (losing the work of skilled craftsman is never good). THIS IS NOT ONE THAT'S WORTH IT.

[@henningschmidt8569]

And we are already paying a cathedral fee on our rates....... Are we getting this back if it's not going ahead?

[@pedrocerveca2579]

I pay a lot of tax in NZ. I pay rates in Chch. It could be called corruption. Surely the church has enough money anyway. Sheesh.

[@christophermarshall527]

If they consolidated it as a ruin it could serve as memorial for the loss and tragedy of the earthquake. A place for reflection.

[@lytteltonhillbilly]

Fine by me. Ratepayers/taxpayers shouldn't be sorting out the Anglicans' problem.

[@maccasjanda]

The Anglicans wanted to demolish it and use the money for ministry. The heritage lobby insisted it be rebuilt.

The whole place has been completely ballsed up anyway....

@@kungfutzu3779 The whole place.... figure it out....

[@kungfutzu3779]

sorry it's not really clear to me. the whole premises of the cathedral? the whole neighbourhood? the whole city? the whole country? sorry if i wasn't clear enough in my question

[@andrewmoon6062]

Anyone who knows the history will point their fingers at the Anglican Church and ask “WHY”.

[@ianclark2840]

I too am a Christian and do not think much of turning places of worship into tourist attractions. One should be visiting such a place to worship God not to admire architecture and man's achievements. Those who do not worship there should not be required to finance its restoration if that is what is decided. Man worships God from the heart and perhaps it is time we realised that. God does not require a magnificent building so that he can receive our worship. The money in my opinion would be better spent doing God's work rather than rebuilding a structure that needs millions spent on it to make it earthquake proof.

[@Phil-oj5nr]

If you want your cathedral rebuilt, then the Anglicans should put their hands in their own pockets. As it is as a taxpayer who doesn’t live near Christchurch, money from my taxes has gone towards this shambles. Right from the beginning the experts said don’t rebuild, but no a group of deluded people went ahead against very good advice. A new smaller building could have been built new from the insurance and a little more. Also the long suffering Christchurch ratepayers has had their pockets raided into the bargain. What is wrong with the cardboard cathedral? It could have been kept going until a new build was ready. This must go down in the history of Christchurch as the worst project ever attempted.

[@debthompson8706]

Very sad 😢 More lost history.

[@Sujowi]

Ok everyone, stop blaming the church! They didn’t want this approach, but a bunch of worthy citizens thought they knew better and are responsible for the mess. It should have had modern additions on top of any solid remains…as cathedrals in Europe have done for centuries. As for asking all anglicans to put up the money, councillor…..count up how many churches and cathedrals now need to reach ridiculously high earthquake standards for buildings that get less use than a school or office building. Christchurch isn’t the only pretty church in need of repair.

[@HowievYT]

The Anglican church functions as a huge tax-exempt property company. They have massive wealth and can pay for their building themselves. No public money to religious purpose.

[@Sujowi]

If they had massive wealth they’d be able to complete this project. The trouble is this is not the project they wanted. A bunch of moneyed citizens stepped in, gave blown it out of proportion and budget, and this failure is on them, not the church.

[@kungfutzu3779]

@@Sujowi what did the church want?

[@HowievYT]

@@Sujowi If the city wants it, then they should buy it and make it not a church. But yeah, I didn't look to what the owners wanted.

[@wheelbarrow01]

@@Sujowi I agree with your last sentence but they do have massive wealth. The Anglican diocese owns vast swathes of residential land in Christchurch worth hundreds of millions of dollars ($300M more or less). Many people in the Papanui/Bryndwr/Bishopdale area own the house they live in, but lease their land from the diocese. The ground rent on these properties has risen considerably since the quakes. All the diocese needs to do is offer to sell some of that land to the lease holders at market value, and they'd have plenty of money to carry on with the project. At a national level, the Anglicans have over $3 billion in assets. I understand that a lot of it is used to derive a (tax free) income to further their ministry, but I think the time has come for them to put their hand in their own pocket to help themselves. I sung in the choir at this cathedral 5 times a week for 5 years so I am as invested as anyone else, however us Christchurch ratepayers have been paying a levy on our property rates for the past 7 years and it seems there is little but broken promises and huge budget blowouts to show for it. How long do we have to go on paying? The church must accept that they need to put in more than just the $33M insurance payout they received (which if you think about it, wasn't really even their money to start with).

[@kungfutzu3779]

@@wheelbarrow01 most of that $3 B will be in churches, which don't yeild any income (other than tithes) & in fact usually need expensive work done on them

[@kungfutzu3779]

got a link for this $ a day thing?

[@mattheweden-pc5pk]

This is the church’s problem,how much money has the church taken from the people Ratepayers should not be paying for this nonsense

[@Sujowi]

It was ratepayers who stepped in and over scoped this project. It’s not what the church wanted. So don’t blame the church…blame the wealthy idiots who thought they knew better.

[@glaws365]

Sunk cost ..?! Wasteful

[@patriot77185]

Atheist !!!!

[@alldaydevo]

Lemon

[@kiwiyogi2846]

What would Jesus say about their massive temple? They could have replaced the church with a statue. A quarter of a billion dollars could have helped the poor and sick for generations.

[@monkeysezbegood]

Why did this rebuild even start... So silly.

[@commonsense6702]

As much as the Cathedral is a city icon, (It does still remain so) the repair cost is prohibitive. There is not an endless pit of money to draw from at the ratepayers or taxpayers' expense. Other cities throughout the world lost their cathedrals during the wars, many gutted them to a standard where they remained safe, opening them up to the public and installed a detailed plague covering its history etc. Jesus gave to the people, his place of worship did not entail a manmade structure, we chose that. Far too much money has been squandered, pilfered already and grossly exorbitant repair costs charged in the name of the earthquakes.

[@petervaneeden3651]

No wonder when God doesn't live in a manmade building that is more like a idol of man's religion. The dwelling of God on earth is in true believers hearts as scripture describes the pure in heart shall see God.

[@patriot77185]

It's a place were Christians come together !!!!! Obviously you are an atheist !!!

[@patriot77185]

As far as I know Cathedrals is a Catholic church, not Anglican.

[@kungfutzu3779]

no the anglican church has cathedrals too. bishops hang out there

[@wxyzzeed]

mr woke arron lemon time