Preserving the Trinity Pacific Church

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33568, 24 June 1974, Page 12

Preserving the Trinity Pacific Church

In age, style, size, and materials, four buildings in Worcester Street east of Cathedral Square are so different from each other that their conjunction, except by accident, could never have been foreseen. Yet they serve each other as neighbours, and the street as a whole, remarkably well. They are the Ministry of Works building, the State Insurance office, the Trinity Pacific Congregational Church, and the Manchester Unity building. Only three or four other small areas in the centre of Christchurch can show — but largely by design —a combination of buildings that complement each other to such good effect Apart from any individual merits of its neighbours, the church is the key to the group’s appeal — an appeal that may not reach all the people who pass by in Worcester Street, but one that deserves notice. The rugged little stone church may not be an architectural gem in all eyes; its presence is nonetheless vital. Its robust architecture and its scale, reduced by its neighbours’ mass, are among the features that give it special value on this site. Elsewhere, and at another time, its value as part of the city scene would be less. The Christchurch City Council has decreed that the church should be preserved for its historic and architectural values.

Such considerations should not be expected to outweigh the economic value of the site to its owner, the Presbyterian Church, which needs funds for a new Pacific Islands community centre. The congregation has voted overwhelmingly in favour of selling the building. If Christchurch citizens want to preserve the church and its “ singing ” cypress tree that shrills with roosting sparrows, they are bound to ensure that the trustees receive a fair price. Anyone who has had dealings with the city’s growing population of young Polynesians will appreciate that the proposed community centre is an urgently needed civic asset In effect, the city would be buying two assets if it acquired the church building. The Christchurch City Council, however, has already concluded that it cannot afford to buy the building; and the Historic Places Trust does not have the resources to do so. But both have expressed their concern and might lead a public appeal. The Presbyterian Church, might assist by not setting too high a price on a property which, while it remains under a City Council preservation order, has an uncertain market value. A public appeal, would certainly test public opinion, and it would have a better chance of succeeding if a decision were made first about the manner of preservation. Converting the building to a licensed restaurant has been suggested. Even if the church trustees agreed, the council might not want to become responsible for controlling yet another uneconomic eating-house. Perhaps the building should be closed for the time being and maintained purely for its aesthetic value. A Government grant to the trust would help: but this would require a significant change in Government policy. The trust’s grant for all purposes last year was less than $lOO,OOO. Other buildings in Christchurch have already been deemed equally worthy of preservation, though none are under immediate threat and similar claims for assistance would come from other parts of New Zealand. Perhaps it is time for the Government to review its grant to the tnist If $1 million a year were available, the trust cou d protect many buildings such as the Trinity church or the railway roundhouse in Grevmouth, which was recently pulled down in spite of the trust’s objections. A grant equivalent to 30 cents a year from each New Zealander should not be seen as unreasonable.