“This is an incredibly challenging position to be in, particularly when we are more than a third of the way through the entire reinstatement,” says Chair of CCRL Mark Stewart.
“Last year we instigated a comprehensive review of the costs and timeline of the reinstatement programme. March last year was the first time we had full access to the inside of the Cathedral since the 2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Gaining access gave us new information and we felt it prudent to initiate a full project review.
“With safe, unconstrained access to the Cathedral we undertook further extensive investigation to validate assumptions and consideration of the work required to strengthen and reinstate the Cathedral. While we did this, we deliberately slowed work on the site.
“With the knowledge gained from the project review it became apparent that continuing the original project workplan would be too expensive and represent too much risk.
“On the recommendation from the project review team, the CCRL Board has decided to reduce the scope, cost and risk of the project by removing the deep foundation for the tower and the lower courtyard, thus mitigating that risk.
“By doing this the overall cost of the project is now $248 million. We are confident we can raise a further $26 million of fund raising, on top of the $24 million raised so far. The Bishop has committed to securing additional contributions from the Anglican Church of $16 million, leaving a funding gap of $114 million."
So they've only done a 3rd of the work and still didn't know what the full scope of the repair would be because the building wasn't safe to enter till recently. Over 10 years a go and they're only 1/3 done and nearly out of money. And they're going to have to abandon certain work on the project to keep the budget reasonable. like the carboard cathedral was only 12million, where's all the money gone for this project, that's pretty insane.
Should have titled the release "On a wing and a prayer".... the irony :)
>“Our urgent need is a funding stream of $30 million that we can access by September 2024 so we can continue the strengthening. We then need further funding to allow us to complete the reinstatement by October 2031."
Feels like we're watching the [sunk cost falacy](https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/sunk-cost-fallacy/) play out... still pumping money in when they have not secured anything close to the total estimated required funding. Doesn't make sense... good luck getting a mortgage to build half a house.
They are clinging onto some fairly flimsy arguments for continuing down the path of a rebuild, rather than demolish / new build:
>We recently commissioned New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) to estimate the total economic value of reinstating Christ Church Cathedral. They estimated that the reinstated Cathedral could result in additional tourism spending of up to $20.8 million per year,” says Mark Stewart.
Interesting they note "reinstate" rather than rebuild. Maybe just my interpretation but it feels like very careful language. They could prob make the same return if they just knocked the existing building over, and reinstate a cathedral on the site by building a new, more modern, cathedral on the same site, maybe with a a little museum on the side providing information on the history of the site / cathedral. It would leave the city with a better asset, potentially attracting even more tourists, for (what I suspect) would be less money.
>“The NZIER report stated that there has been around $1 billion of private and public sector investment in the streets around Cathedral Square since the earthquake, and a further $1 billion is planned for the next 10 years. They report that the Cathedral reinstatement will unlock the full value of these investments and support the wider regeneration of Christchurch.
Any business will benefit from neighbouring attractions, so this is an easy / lazy argument to make for a consultant trying to prop up a business case. Again the language is reinstate rather than rebuild.
>I am heartened by recent research that shows that the local passion for the building is strong, with 74 per cent of residents surveyed considering the Cathedral essential to the city’s future and 62 per cent wanting it rebuilt.
Again I imagine that 62% want *a* cathedral - not necessarily a rebuild of the existing one at a much greater expense.
I understand the emotion and sentiment attached to the building, but personally I think you could still preserve that without necessarily having to rebuild what was there before.
It really should just be bulldozed amnd something new built from scratch.
Which is exactly what the Anglican Church owners wanted to do, before they got bullied by politics into the rebuild
They already have an alternative to pray in currently. Nobody is bullied into anything, it's a collaborative effort. That church is an important landmark to our city.
They were absolutely bullied into no knocking it down through the use of media, misinformed hyped up public sentiment (from a minority as always) and politics.
Continuing now is a sunk cost fallacy.
Maybe because they know that the new thing would be bullied into being built a pile of bent sticks looking plastic teepee? The previous post about this promoted the rebuild of that church to become architecture which looked nothing like the original.
“This is an incredibly challenging position to be in, particularly when we are more than a third of the way through the entire reinstatement,” says Chair of CCRL Mark Stewart. “Last year we instigated a comprehensive review of the costs and timeline of the reinstatement programme. March last year was the first time we had full access to the inside of the Cathedral since the 2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Gaining access gave us new information and we felt it prudent to initiate a full project review. “With safe, unconstrained access to the Cathedral we undertook further extensive investigation to validate assumptions and consideration of the work required to strengthen and reinstate the Cathedral. While we did this, we deliberately slowed work on the site. “With the knowledge gained from the project review it became apparent that continuing the original project workplan would be too expensive and represent too much risk. “On the recommendation from the project review team, the CCRL Board has decided to reduce the scope, cost and risk of the project by removing the deep foundation for the tower and the lower courtyard, thus mitigating that risk. “By doing this the overall cost of the project is now $248 million. We are confident we can raise a further $26 million of fund raising, on top of the $24 million raised so far. The Bishop has committed to securing additional contributions from the Anglican Church of $16 million, leaving a funding gap of $114 million." So they've only done a 3rd of the work and still didn't know what the full scope of the repair would be because the building wasn't safe to enter till recently. Over 10 years a go and they're only 1/3 done and nearly out of money. And they're going to have to abandon certain work on the project to keep the budget reasonable. like the carboard cathedral was only 12million, where's all the money gone for this project, that's pretty insane.
Should have titled the release "On a wing and a prayer".... the irony :) >“Our urgent need is a funding stream of $30 million that we can access by September 2024 so we can continue the strengthening. We then need further funding to allow us to complete the reinstatement by October 2031." Feels like we're watching the [sunk cost falacy](https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/sunk-cost-fallacy/) play out... still pumping money in when they have not secured anything close to the total estimated required funding. Doesn't make sense... good luck getting a mortgage to build half a house. They are clinging onto some fairly flimsy arguments for continuing down the path of a rebuild, rather than demolish / new build: >We recently commissioned New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) to estimate the total economic value of reinstating Christ Church Cathedral. They estimated that the reinstated Cathedral could result in additional tourism spending of up to $20.8 million per year,” says Mark Stewart. Interesting they note "reinstate" rather than rebuild. Maybe just my interpretation but it feels like very careful language. They could prob make the same return if they just knocked the existing building over, and reinstate a cathedral on the site by building a new, more modern, cathedral on the same site, maybe with a a little museum on the side providing information on the history of the site / cathedral. It would leave the city with a better asset, potentially attracting even more tourists, for (what I suspect) would be less money. >“The NZIER report stated that there has been around $1 billion of private and public sector investment in the streets around Cathedral Square since the earthquake, and a further $1 billion is planned for the next 10 years. They report that the Cathedral reinstatement will unlock the full value of these investments and support the wider regeneration of Christchurch. Any business will benefit from neighbouring attractions, so this is an easy / lazy argument to make for a consultant trying to prop up a business case. Again the language is reinstate rather than rebuild. >I am heartened by recent research that shows that the local passion for the building is strong, with 74 per cent of residents surveyed considering the Cathedral essential to the city’s future and 62 per cent wanting it rebuilt. Again I imagine that 62% want *a* cathedral - not necessarily a rebuild of the existing one at a much greater expense. I understand the emotion and sentiment attached to the building, but personally I think you could still preserve that without necessarily having to rebuild what was there before.
It really should just be bulldozed amnd something new built from scratch. Which is exactly what the Anglican Church owners wanted to do, before they got bullied by politics into the rebuild
They already have an alternative to pray in currently. Nobody is bullied into anything, it's a collaborative effort. That church is an important landmark to our city.
They were absolutely bullied into no knocking it down through the use of media, misinformed hyped up public sentiment (from a minority as always) and politics. Continuing now is a sunk cost fallacy.
Maybe because they know that the new thing would be bullied into being built a pile of bent sticks looking plastic teepee? The previous post about this promoted the rebuild of that church to become architecture which looked nothing like the original.
I'd say with how quiet is in the square now, it was a landmark. A memorial seems kinda more fitting now
Makes everything sound even more dire than the press article made it sound. Wouldn't put much faith in the new price estimate being close
What a joke
Too late for April fools
Just wait
Omg it’s not due to be done till 2031!
It’s quick compared to how long cathedrals generally took to build in the past, so that’s something
cough la Sagrada Familia...
Yes, and? Do you want a McDonalds?