The story behind the unbuilt church

Edmund Wilson of MacKenzie and Wilson, a well-known architect Invercargill, drew up the first design considered for the new church. He was responsible for several fine buildings in the town, including the Civic Theatre, the old hospital and the second stage of St John’s Church. He submitted the first proposal on 11th May 1906. This was in the form of a pencil sketch illustrating a rather grand brick building, which could accommodate 750 people. He had considered using stone as the major construction material but this was rejected because of the 25% extra cost involved if used instead of brick. The design was described as a "decided departure from the usual type of church plan ..." but it would "give the most perfect form of auditorium, i.e. that of a Greek theatre modified for modern requirements."

The Deacons' Court was impressed with this plan and decided to propose it to the congregation. Their first objective was to seek the members' permission to adopt the plan, either with or without towers, depending on the availability of finance. The second objective was to obtain permission to call for tenders as soon as the amount of money available was within 3,000 pounds of the estimated cost.

At the meeting the first proposal was made that the congregation accept the plan prepared by Mr. Wilson for a building estimated to cost about 12,000 pounds including organ, architect's and inspector's fees and extras. Although it was very nearly unanimously accepted, (one vote against) an amendment was proposed. Mr. Findlay moved that new plans be made for a church totalling only 9,000 pounds. This plan should seat 750 people but should be "preferably in the Gothic style". (A plan of a church in this style is in the Heritage Centre and I believe this to be Mr Findlay’s own design.)

His proposal was not "favourably received" by the Deacons and his amendment effectively prevented the second part of the original proposal from being discussed at this meeting.

The Court took his suggestion seriously and asked the architect to consider this possibility. Mr. Wilson's response was emphatic. It contained a reminder of the deliberate intention of his plan to use the semi-circular principle, which would afford the greatest amount of comfort, and an unobstructed view. It would also give the benefit of the better acoustic properties of the amphi-theatre shape. Furthermore Mr. Findlay's proposal would incur extra expense in preparing new plans and his suggestion of a Latin cross shape of building would necessitate the unwelcome inclusion of intrusive pillars to support the roof. His recommendation was that if finance was the major cause of the problem then either the original design should be built with the temporary omission of the two tall towers. This would save about 1,200 pounds and they could be added at a more convenient time. Alternatively, the building should be postponed until more finance was available.

The Building Committee considered his suggestions and decided to pass on his recommendations to the congregation. They then decided that it would be advantageous to extend the building by 6' in the rear in order to make a more useful room 20' wide by 62' long. The extra estimated 150 pounds required to achieve this could be provided by the savings made possible by the substitution of brickwork in stead of the blue Port Chalmers stone originally planned for the base of the church. The architect also reluctantly agreed to modify the planned inner entrance doors from one central aisle to two entranceways and aisles left and right of centre. The Committee however, on consideration decided against this redrawing of the plan and took it no further. In an effort to ascertain exactly what the preferred options were the Deacons decided to re-approach the congregation. An information bulletin with voting paper was prepared and was sent out to members and adherents. A response was requested on or before 23rd September.

The results were clear and on 31st October 1906, another circular was distributed stating that "a substantial majority" was in favour of the first design with two towers. The circular also included a plea for donations and pledges to enable work to begin as soon as possible.

There was a sense of despair and desperation emerging from the stress involved in the attempts to arrange sufficient funds and on 26th September a letter was sent to John D. Rockerfeller Esq. Warwick, Rhode Island, New York. Rockerfeller's reputation as a ruthless businessman and the unifier of the American oil industry had been replaced by his reputation as a philanthropist. The letter explained the circumstances and appealed to him to "extend a helping hand" as the financial situation appeared "hopeless". The letter appears to have been written by Robert Cummings and William McCaw and admits that it is unofficial. No trace of a reply or a contribution of any sort has been located but perhaps it helped to inspire Rockerfeller to establish his billion dollar Foundation later in 1913.

Savings progressed but by 1910, a major change had taken place.

An architect who, as a boy had grown up in the congregation alongside many of the men who were now Office Bearers in the church, returned to Invercargill. John Mair had been in America and with his excellent reputation as an architect, he was elected as architect for the new church. At the Court's request he produced a completely new set of plans using similar principles to those required by the Deacons' Court but noticeably different to Mr. Wilson's plan. This new plan was the church that would ultimately be chosen and built on the site where we see it today.

Edmund Wilson was understandably upset at the decision to use the new architect and new plan and a prolonged series of intense and blunt letters began between him and the Deacons' Court.

The rumours that he reported hearing were that the reason for his design being abandoned " was due to my having overcharged for my work and having refused you possession of the drawings after payment was made."

The reply from RJ Cummings (Clerk of the Court) attempted to explain that the Court felt free to proceed with Mr. Mair as Mr. Wilson had been paid for his work. He felt that sentiment had played a large part in the appointment of Mr. Mair. A ballot had been taken in which Mr. Mair received a majority of votes and rumours were not the business of the Court. This letter did little to placate Mr. Wilson who felt genuinely wronged and several more letters were exchanged before the matter was finally left to rest.

I don’t think that the illustration produced by Mr. Wilson did his design justice and my own impressions of the building have changed considerably since I first began the drawing project. The limitations of my computer have restricted some of the detailing and you will note that the rear portion isn’t included.

I hope that Mr Wilson would have approved.

Craig Stoneman