In defence of my stance on heritage and bearing cudgels of intent I want to answer my critics who would claim I am ignorant of the reasoning behind the summary demolition of Moore, Stephens Markhams' building. My standpoint is founded in my experiences in Christchurch and Australia. After 35 yearsthe accountants' firm claims earthquake risk and strengthening, heating, comfort and running costs as reasons for demolition. The Gilroy family owned the home and lived in it through many a cold damp winter surely. Accountants are wealthy and with modern materials, innovative imagination, a sense of aesthetics and recognition of history surely they could have arrived at a better solution than dust and rubble. The ideology that brick buildings are dangerous is founded in Bob Parker's mayoral tenure after the September 2010 quake that rocked Christchurch and New Zealand. The fight to save Manchester Courts, going as far as the High Court, was lost. With no public consultation, Bob Parker, his chief engineer, and the building owner agreed to its demolition. It was solidly built, historically significant and could have been saved. Demolition cost $1.5 million. Bob Parker claimed to love heritage. Heritage Tourism is globally valuable and growing. New Zealand seems ignorant and immature in its regard for 150 years of history as we destroy our heritage. CHRISTOPHER CAPE Castlecliff
