Jeff Clark tries to stay away from politics or sport as much as possible and apologises for tackling both in his latest blog (some puns intended).

"In a 2006 survey in Canterbury, one respondent defined Christchurch as 'The Cathedral, the Crusaders and The Court'. Two are back: one may well be lost for good. I guess that’s as close as we’re going to get to something like the old 'normal'."

* * *

The Cathedral is going to be demolished.

The ChristChurch Cathedral has been central to Christchurch since its construction. The Christchurch City Council logo features the silhouette of the Cathedral at its heart. It is literally a symbol of the city. To describe the scale of the destruction after the quake, all which needed to be said was "the Cathedral is down". To be honest I didn't notice that the spire had come down on February 22nd (my attention was firmly fixed on the Arts Centre) and only found out about it after I'd arrived in Nelson.

Since then, the ruined cathedral has been symbolic of the shattered city. Through it all, I – along with numerous other Cantabrians – believed that the restoration of the Cathedral would be the final watershed in the reconstruction of the city: an act of closure. However, this hope has turned out to be wishful thinking: the Anglican Church has announced the cathedral will be deconstructed.

The decision to tear down one of the most iconic buildings in Christchurch has been a hugely controversial announcement. On the one side, the Church (who owns the land and cathedral itself) argue that repairing and strengthening the damaged structure would cost too much (although they refuse to release the engineering reports that have brought about the decision). A valid argument, but an announcement that many felt was made worse by the Bishop's handling of the media after this announcement.

On the other, a growing number of voices argue that too many heritage buildings have been lost already (the cathedral is "Category 1", the highest rating), that the cathedral can be repaired for less than the amount being quoted to the media and that the building is the possession of the people of the city – all arguments difficult to refute given they are largely based on emotion. At the forefront of the naysayers is another Christchurch icon – the Wizard (who has decades of public speaking experience and has certainly gained a dramatic amount of support in a short space of time).

Regardless of whether you are Team Bishop or Team Wizard, the deconstruction is going ahead. A crane has parked next to the Cathedral and it appears that no amount of petitions, pleas or threats (or a constant stream of letters to the editor) will have any effect.

I can't say for sure where I stand on this issue. Rationally I acknowledge that the building and land belong to the church – it is theirs to do with as they please and if the building is a danger to people, it is the right thing to take that danger away. On the other, the loss of hope this represents – hope that things could be back to "something like the old normal" – is difficult to accept.

I would like to think that the decision to demolish the cathedral was a very difficult process for the Anglican Church, given they have no small amount of experience with how symbols resonate powerfully with the people. I also can't help but wonder if Christchurch qualifies a city any more by the classic definition as "an urban settlement with a cathedral".

Of course, if rugby is the new religion, then our city has a new cathedral of sorts in the ironically named "AMI Stadium". Recently (March 24) the fifteen apostles (or in this case, Crusaders) preached to a congregation of more than 17,000 to much pomp, circumstance and celebration. From the parking lot of The Court I could hear the roar of the crowd and see the incredible fireworks display.

The new (temporary) facility was built in Addington in under 100 days for $30 million, and I can't help but feel a little déjà vu all over again – well, for the first two parts at least. But perhaps I'm being unkind. Certainly, I have yet to hear anyone suggest that a new stadium is an "extravagance for the rich" or "a luxury". Or maybe I'm just envious that they had fireworks.

I don't understand sport. I love stories with well constructed characters and clever plots. Watching two teams run after (or into) each other doesn't really do much for me unless I know their back story. Cool Runnings, definitely; luge, no. The Mighty Ducks, yes; ice hockey, not really. If there was an Olympic event for beat poetry or Theatresports I'd be glued to my set. In general rugby isn't my cup of tea. But, knowing the story of the city and what the Crusaders means to them, I felt a certain measure of pride that they are back on home turf. Certainly, if they ever make a movie about the Crusaders' year away from home, I'll probably watch it when it's on TV.

In a 2006 survey in Canterbury, one respondent defined Christchurch as 'The Cathedral, the Crusaders and The Court'. Two are back: one may well be lost for good. I guess that's as close as we're going to get to something like the old 'normal'.