Critics slate 'bizarre' new cathedral

Last updated 05:00 06/04/2013
Daniel Tobin

The Press hit the streets to see what the public make of the three proposed Cathedral rebuild designs.

Opinion poll

What option do you prefer?




None - I want something else

Vote Result

Proposed cathedral

Relevant offers

The Rebuild

Christchurch residents have their say on the Christ Church Cathedral Lost the plot? These 19 questions will get you up to speed on the Christ Church Cathedral saga Government tops up Southern Response funding to $1.5b Mona Vale Gatehouse restoration revealed Trust to consider new multi-use sports and entertainment stadium for Christchurch Suburban eyesores: the Christchurch homes left to rot Time to take to the Christ Church Cathedral with a blunt edge Johnny Moore: Earthquakes made for a boom in Canterbury architecture Canterbury earthquake recovery services' budget cut by more than half Bishop Victoria Matthews: Three more months to wait for Cathedral decision not excessive

Prominent British and Australian architecture critics have ridiculed plans for a modern Christ Church Cathedral, labelling one of the options "vulgar" and "bizarre".

Kieran Long, senior curator of contemporary architecture at the Victoria & Albert Museum, is among a chorus of critics from around the world rubbishing two of the three proposals, favouring restoration of the cathedral.

Anglican leaders this week revealed three designs, including restoration, a reinterpretation of the original cathedral in modern materials, and a completely new building.

An Anglican diocese spokesman said they welcomed the debate, but were more interested in feedback from people who "work and live around the city".

Long said: "The modern gothic reconstruction [traditional] is architecturally illiterate and looks from the image like something from the wild west - a kind of stage set or screen . . . If built, it would be a travesty," he wrote.

"If I had to choose now, though, I would strongly advocate rebuilding the original cathedral. It is the only piece of architecture of these three that will have enduring meaning. It would speak of continuity, which is surely something valuable in a city like Christchurch today."

The modern designs for the cathedral by New Zealand practice Warren & Mahoney were also dismissed by other British and Australian critics as "painfully voguish", "derivative" and "outright Salt Lake City vulgarity".

Ellis Woodman, architecture critic for British newspaper the Daily Telegraph, said: "My hunch would be that the straight restoration would be the most appropriate route, not least because the other alternatives on offer look painfully voguish."

Australian architecture critic Elizabeth Farrelly, who writes a column for The Sydney Morning Herald, backed restoration. She said the modern designs ranged from "cold architectural cleverness to outright Salt Lake City vulgarity".

"To my mind, a sense of history is fundamental to any sense of place. This is especially true for Christchurch, which has always treasured its past, and most especially after such appalling trauma. The best way is therefore unquestionably the faithful restoration of that ancient gothicness - making only improvements that would intensify that experience," she wrote.

A joint statement written by Professor Paul Walker, of the University of Melbourne, and architecture critic Justine Clark said restoration should "be given serious consideration".

"This is a historically significant building by a great architect. The building has been very important in the cultural and spiritual life of the city," they wrote.

They also criticised the modern scheme.

"It looks derivative and a much lesser project than the original. Rebuild to a fresh design should be seriously considered, but in a much more rigorous manner than seems to be the case here.

Ad Feedback

"These three alternatives are not the only options. There are a whole range of approaches that could be adopted, but none should erase entirely the physical memory of the original building and its fate in the earthquake."

Christchurch architect Jasper van der Lingen, of Sheppard & Rout Architects, said he would "reserve judgment" on the modern schemes.

"The devil is in the detail and from what I have seen it doesn't give much away. A modern scheme is fine, providing it's done absolutely superbly," he said.

"There is a lot of merit in restoration, but it shouldn't be a totally straight restoration. There should be some twist that would show what the cathedral has been through."

He said of the overseas critics' opinions: "New Zealand still hasn't got that sense of the value of history and depth of tradition that European countries have. We are a bit quicker to say just build something new. We are a young country and don't have a sense of the importance of traditions."

Christchurch architect Ian Cumberpatch liked the contemporary scheme.

"I am reasonably ambivalent about whether the cathedral should be kept, but I like the completely new building. It makes a nice statement about it being time to move on."

Warren & Mahoney managing director Peter Marshall said he was keen to debate the options with the architectural community.

He said the context of cathedral designs was important.

"There is a lot of validity to restoration, but you have to look at the situation and context the diocese finds itself in. We understand it's important to restore our buildings, but we also understand how extremely complex and expensive that is."

- The Press


Special offers
Opinion poll

Is it worth spending extra to repair heritage buildings?

Yes, Christchurch needs to invest in its heritage buildings

No, we should embrace modern design if it is cheaper and quicker

Only some heritage buildings are worth the money

Vote Result

Related story: Landmark church nearly $1m short

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content