Old Cathedral and Church of St Michael

I admit Dresden's is good, but the way they've appraoched their rebuilding has been vastly different to ours. Besides, we have rebuilt the cathedral - right next door. The thing (IMO) that makes it a great piece of architecture is the contrast between the old ruin and the new - it's an immensely powerful statement. The ruin on its own is a humbling sight, but the new one next door gives the sign of hope, of the future - the phoenix rising from the ashes. Was it an important church before it got bombed? it wasn't even a cathedral until the 20th century, just a large parish church. Should we rebuild St Mary's - a 'proper' cathedral to rival the likes of Ely? If you rebuild the old one the new one becomes meaningless and externally becomes quite a stark, unadorned monolith, plus the old one loses all of its importance and fails to be any tourist attraction at all. It'd also cost a fortune, money which could be spent much better elsewhere (for example the entire ring road could be removed/remodelled, as could the precinct). Also, how would it affect the World Heritage Site listing? A lot of money that keeps the structure standing comes from that. Besides that the church is no longer a massive part of modern British life - who would be using it?

Here is a 3min film from 1961 looking at the link between the old and new cathedral. Film from the MACE archive with ATV Today's Reg Harcourt interviewing

From a purely personal point of view, I think it should remain - exactly as it is - as a reminder of what Coventry lost. We should not try and erase that past by rebuilding it as it was as though nothing has happened. Leave it alone, it's fine.

I think the new Cathedral stands on its own as a significant piece of architecture in its own right. The old Cathedral, though only a large parish church, was considered to be one of the finest perpendicular designs in the country. A rebuilt old Cathedral needn't be a religious building, just because there is one next door. This is where wider thinking is required. It could be a performance space, a conference venue, a wedding venue, it could have a licensed bar within it etc, etc. The project to rebuild it, if marketed appropriately, would get national and international interest. It would be a clear sign of a Coventry moving forward, showing innovation and letting go of its increasingly distant past (while not forgetting it entirely). All the arguments for the retention of the old Cathedral as a ruin could be levelled at the remains of the Frauenkirche, which was an even more powerful example of the total destruction brought about by war. I think they have a certain validity, but I challenge the underlying mindset. As a metaphor - when you injure your arm, do you leave the open wound as a reminder of the incident that created the injury? Effectively, leaving the shell of the old Cathedral as a reminder of the destruction of November 14th 1940 could be seen as equally crazy. Here's something really interesting - in 2007 I took a group of Germans around Coventry. When we got to the old Cathedral, I jokingly said to them "look what you did, you b******s!". They replied "Ja, ve got ze roof off it ind everything!" But then they said "Why did you leave it like this? We'd have put it back to what it was like before".

But if you were German would you want that many reminders of a conflict in which terrible atrocities were done in your country's name? As for your metaphor - no you don't leave it open. If it's a massive injury (which this would be classified as) you get a skin graft but accept there may be some scarring. The new is the graft, the old is the scarring, and can be a talking point. We came very very close to a complete amputation. For the old to be rebuilt, I imagine most (possibly everything but the tower) would need to be pulled down and redone from scratch. In your analogy that's like chopping off the arm for a prosthetic. Precious few of our old historic buildings retain any of their context - the ruin is one. I don't see how rebuilding that church, regardless of its future use, is a sign of moving forwards? It's going backwards, rebuilding a relic of a soon to be relic. Changing the use probably wouldn't be easy as it's still consecrated. It'd either be nothing like the original or if it was it'd be energy inefficient and unlikely to be of much interest to others - the new cathedral is cold enough! If were going to appear like a city going forward lets consider spending that money completely redoing stuff that's been proven to be ineffectual and held the city back, like the ring road or precinct.

Reminds me of the story from about 20 years ago when a couple of German tourists went into Little Park Street Police Station and said to the policeman behind the desk, 'Excuse me, can you tell me the way to the cathedral please?' His response was, 'You found it alright in 1940.' They apparently took it in good spirit and were given the directions they needed.

I'm sure we've had this discussion before about the ruins, but I think it's an interesting debate, and one that has to take place as future generations will have to decide whether to maintain a ruin or do something with it to make it sustainable. It's a difficult one, as the cathedral once 'defined' Coventry, but I suspect those days are long gone. I think part of the problem is that it's a ruin, and probably going to have to be constantly repaired in order to stop it falling down. Although I think something like a glass roof that maintains the look of a ruin, but keeps it safe from the elements could be interesting and also allow it to be brought into use for things like concerts (I saw some jazz groups in a tent in the ruins some years ago) and civic events. As far as I'm aware the tower was heavily restored in the 19th century (if you look at pictures from then the tower's decorations were almost worn away) and one end was virtually rebuilt.

Hi Mickw. A very good and sensible point, I totally agree.

Hi Mickw, That's very true and it's also the point I'm making.

Flapdoodle, Exactly, this is a very real problem for future generations. The ruins won't last forever as they stand and will need extensive reconstruction anyway.

The problem with the old cathedral is that like any ruin it will continue to deteriorate and preservation work of some kind of work will continually need to be done to it (as is presently happening). The worsening in condition is accelerated because it is completely exposed to the elements and the effects of city pollution and traffic vibration. It is also a part of the history of Coventry so any preservation or restoration work runs the risk of losing that history as well as its value as a tourist attraction. The problem with the renovation of any old building is how much of the original structure remains when it is completed. If you do the work in the style of the original building the ruins can get lost within the structure, if you deliberately choose to make it obvious which is old and which is new then you can end up with a building that looks a mess, neither new nor old. You would also affect the view of the new cathedral which stands out against the ruins and could easily be hidden by restoration work. Cost is another factor. Would the foundations support a rebuild or would they need reinforcing and if the building was restored there it would require the relevant safety certificates, suitable transport access etc? It is also not a particularly big area so its use as a venue would be limited especially as the new cathedral would still need to continue with its normal services. So although I do not favour rebuilding the structure I realise that eventually a decision will have to be made to preserve, renovate or maybe even demolish the existing structure. Fortunately, it is not a choice I have to make and I don't envy anybody who does.

But won't every building suffer from decay and entropy? Should we therefore just say any attempt at conservation/preservation is ultimately futile and should stop wasting time and money on it? We often see calls for sparing buildings of little significance and spending fortunes on them for no proper, rational, reasoning given as to why. Yes, St Michael's will suffer from such problems much quicker and more often than normal due to it being so exposed, and so will need more money spent on it (in fact I feel like it's spent almost as much time covered in scaffolding as without!) I accept this limitation and is why I accept a pragmatic approach has to be taken, and prefer quality over quantity. And in those stakes I feel this ruin scores very, very highly. It is internationally significant. As a compromise I think the glass roof Flapdoodle suggested could be a good idea. The walls suffer from being free standing, but I doubt would hold the weight of a roof. Maybe it could be done so a new roof structure holds the walls upright and no load is placed on the walls at all? Reinforced concrete pillars (either in place of the originals or new) with a sandstone covering supporting the roof structure, which is then attached to the walls to stop them collapsing, and the roof also protecting them from the weather (rain especially) and creating an indoor space which could be used.

Hi all, The Cov Telegraph has a bucket list of 20 things to do in Coventry before you die and one of them is to climb the Old Cathedral tower. Well purely coincidentally (I'm not planning to be in the departure lounge yet!) I did that only a few days back. Last time I did the climb I was 8 or 9 yrs old and a pupil at Ravensdale school, ie aeons ago. So for the benefit of those expats in far flung places or those who simply don't want to nearly kill themselves by climbing the tower, I took some pics with my phone and here they are. They are the highest resolution that this site will let me upload, but if you want help yourselves anyway I was only in Coventry for the day to get my car serviced, and was clueless as to how to get around (from Tollbar area to begin with), but I was overwhelmed by the helpfulness of everyone I spoke to. I ended up on a bus into town and was briefed about how to get back afterwards by several passengers, one of whom even caught up with me after I alighted in town to confirm that I really did understand the instructions and gave me advice about what to do with my day - how about that! I took the advice and had a very interesting time including the Transport Museum and the old areas of Coventry. Thanks to your website I even tracked down an old friend from nearly 40yrs ago working in the market called Bill Duffin, who I was in 8f ATC with at Wyken Grange Rd; he was doing a roaring trade and looked in great shape. Even the bus driver on the way back was really helpful, as were the passengers again. Many thanks to all those passengers etc and I hope the pics are of some interest.