Part Three

Monumental Alterations

by Toby West*

In April 1959, construction work had finally begun on Holy Trinity Cathedral in Parnell. Two decades had elapsed since the original design competition, in which first-prize had been awarded to Charles Towle for his impressive neo-gothic design. While the diocese of Auckland had received a generous bequest of £60,000 from a wealthy donor named Mina Horton, the project had been repeatedly delayed due to funding issues exacerbated by the Second World War. But now, the wait was over; Towle, now in his sixties, was finally ready to oversee the building of his magnificent cathedral. 

Three months later, Towle suffered a heart attack. As it was clear that his health was seriously deteriorating, Malcolm McKenzie (of the firm Owen, McKenzie and Foote) was appointed to succeed him as the lead architect. The following year, Towle passed away, and with him died at the prospect of building the rest of the cathedral according to his prize-winning design. The chancel that was being built was already a stripped-down version of the original. Notably,  the central tower which had been a much-celebrated feature of the original design had been scrapped as a cost-saving measure. In December 1960, McKenzie and his team were instructed to produce a revised design for the rest of the building as well.

The cathedral under construction, early 1960s.

That same month, Canadian-born architect Richard Toy was brought on to serve in an advisory role. Toy was a respected figure in the architecture scene; he was a senior lecturer at the Auckland School of Architecture, and had himself been an unsuccessful entrant in the original 1939 design competition. But rifts soon began to emerge between McKenzie and Toy, as it became obvious that the two architects had drastically different visions for the completion of the cathedral. McKenzie argued that “any design to complete the cathedral should use the same materials as the first part and have some affinity with it.” He already felt that Towle’s design had been “altered and rehashed so many times that it [had] lost all its most impressive and distinctive features,” and that the stripped-down version of his chancel which had been approved for construction was nothing more than “an emasculated and incomplete remnant of a once impressive design.” McKenzie’s goal, therefore, was to design the rest of the cathedral in such a way that it would capture the essence of Towle’s original design (to the extent this was still possible given the restrictions). This goal was certainly reflected in the revised cathedral design which he and his partners submitted; in this design, the form, style, and material composition of Towle’s chancel were maintained throughout the rest of the adjoining structures.

Left: The architect Malcolm McKenzie. Right: The architect Richard Toy.

McKenzie had already publicly announced his philosophy of church design some years earlier. In a magazine article published in 1957, he described the difficulty of designing a church in the modern era:

“In past periods there was usually an accepted style within which an architect naturally worked. […] In the present day however there are no accepted standards of church design and the architect is faced with a bewildering number of possibilities to choose from.”

Some “reactionary” architects, McKenzie explains, choose to meticulously emulate designs from the past, while other “revolutionary” architects choose to break from tradition entirely. Given the unique purpose of religious architecture – namely to facilitate contemplation and reflection – it is important that the design does not disrupt the “atmosphere of worship” and “dignity of character” by being distractingly novel. At the same time, a church ought to be an “expression of the time period in which it was built,” lest its theological messages appear out of date. McKenzie therefore advocated for a moderate design philosophy which attempts to balance the old with the new. This philosophy was closely in keeping with the brief of the original design competition, which had stated that the cathedral should be “related to our own time but definitely not ultramodern.”

Toy’s solution to the problem of completing the cathedral within budget was radically different. Toy had already experienced some success in designing churches, winning a “Building of the Year” award in 1960 for his work on All Saints in Ponsonby. This striking mid-century church had “aroused great interest here and overseas” for features such as the accordion-pleated walls and ceiling. Holy Trinity Cathedral now offered Toy the opportunity to pursue his vision of a modern church on a truly colossal scale. Although initially hired to serve in an advisory capacity, Toy produced his own plan for the future of the cathedral in response to McKenzie’s – an “uncompromising modern” design featuring an unconventional sloping roof made from pre-stressed concrete.

Despite being rejected by the cathedral committee, Toy’s modernist design was the one favoured by the incumbent Dean, George Rae Monteith, who happened to be a personal friend of Toy’s. Monteith overruled the committee, causing two members to resign in protest. Nevertheless, in 1963, it was decided that Toy’s drawings were to be the basis for the design of the cathedral going forward. By the end of the decade, McKenzie had been dismissed from the project, and Richard Toy replaced him as lead architect.

Left: Mckenzie’s plan for completing the cathedral, 1963. Right: Toy’s modernist redesign, 1963.

Comparison of the interior views.

For the rest of his life, McKenzie would remain an outspoken critic of Toy’s cathedral design – although he always emphatically denied that his criticisms were the result of “sour grapes.” Naturally, he opposed the design on aesthetic grounds, but he also maintained that the church’s decision to pursue Toy’s design amounted to a violation of the terms of Mina Horton’s will. According to the original conditions of the bequest, the church was obliged to “ensure that work on the cathedral was ‘properly carried on to a complete state’ in conformity with the accepted design.” According to McKenzie, this meant that “the church was legally committed to complete the cathedral in conformity with Mr. Towle’s design.” He argued that his own design was sufficiently in keeping with the spirit of Towle’s original neo-gothic plan, whereas Toy’s design looked more like a “power station cooling tower” than the nave of a cathedral. On these grounds, McKenzie argued that the small fortune gifted to the church by Mina Horton would be legally forfeit, should the church pursue Toy’s modernist design.

Construction of the cathedral was put on hold in 1963, as the church deliberated both on the building’s design and on matters of fundraising. By this point, only the chancel had been built. The lack of an adjoining nave and chapel resulted in a building of ludicrous proportions, which had ugly temporary walls blocking off the entrances to the sections yet to be built. Under dean John Rymer, a temporary shed-like structure was built in place of a nave, which was nicknamed “Rymer’s chicken coop.” Nevertheless, in 1973, the now partially-completed Holy Trinity took over the duties previously served by St. Mary’s, the timber church which had stood on the other side of Parnell road since 1886. For decades, Auckland would have to make do with half a cathedral.

Left: The newly completed chancel standing alone, c. 1973. Right: The incomplete cathedral on the centenary of Bishop Selwyn’s death, 1978. ‘Rymer’s chicken coop’ visible on the left.

Long before work on the nave got underway, the fate of St. Mary’s itself came into question. In 1980, Toy began to advocate for the physical relocation of the entire structure across the road and onto the cathedral site. The idea of moving the old wooden church from its original location and incorporating it into the cathedral complex had actually been considered as a cost-cutting measure long before work had even begun on the chancel. A controversial proposal from the early days of the project involved cutting up St. Mary’s into sections, then reassembling them on the other side of the road and then grafting them to the chancel to serve as the nave and chapel of the new cathedral. Unsurprisingly, the idea of recycling the old church had been met with protest, and accusations of architectural vandalism were hurled.

Yet, after the completion of the chancel, the relocation scheme was revived by Toy. This time, the idea was not to physically attach St. Mary’s onto the chancel of the new cathedral, but rather to have it placed side-by-side with the main building. Due to its location on the opposite side of a busy road, the cathedral found it inconvenient to use St. Mary’s to supplement the main cathedral’s functions. Moving it across the street would allow the two buildings to operate symbiotically, in what Toy termed a “cluster.”

Illustration of Dr. Richard Toy’s ‘cluster concept,’ c. 1980.  From left to right: Toy’s Nave, Toy’s bell tower (never built), Charle’s Towle’s chancel, and St. Mary’s church, designed by Benjamin Mountfort.

Unsurprisingly, McKenzie fiercely opposed Toy’s “cluster concept,” labelling it a “folly” and dismissing the official reasoning as “palpable nonsense.” Mckenzie was not convinced that these disparate structures would come together to form a harmonious whole. Instead, he warned that the resulting cluster would be nothing more than a “jumble of structures without any form of unity.” In McKenzie’s own words:

“St. Mary’s, one of the finest timber churches to be found anywhere, deserves a better fate than to be crowded against the overpowering brick walls of the new cathedral. There will be a cramped and inevitably nasty space between the two, only about 10 ft wide. […] The apse end, the most impressive and familiar features, will be buried in the trees, never to be seen in its present spacious setting again.”

There were many within the church community who shared McKenzie’s concerns. A group of parishioners even banded together to launch a “Keep St. Mary’s Where It Is” campaign, selling sloganed balloons and collecting petition signatures. A woman named Mrs. Wallace raised $62,000 to go towards the maintenance of the church on the simple condition that it remain in its original location, and three others left $50,000 to the church in their wills with the same stipulation attached. Despite cries of architectural vandalism, as well as the large sums of money being offered, the scheme to move St. Mary’s across the road went ahead as planned. In May of 1982, the entire church building was lifted onto wooden rollers and hauled across the street. It was then rotated clockwise by approximately 90° to sit parallel to the cathedral, where it remains to this day.

Community members protesting the move, 1981.

Left: Richard Toy in his 70s, standing in front of St. Mary’s before the move, 1982.

Right: St. Mary’s being shifted to its new location, 1982.

Toy’s vision of creating a “cluster” of buildings on Selwyn’s site was beginning to take shape, but the cathedral itself remained in its awkward half-finished condition. It would be another decade before work got underway on the nave, which inevitably led to a further round of argumentation over the soundness of Toy’s design.

St. Mary’s Church after the relocation, 1986.