spinofflive
RIP to the quick, Elvis-officiated Vegas wedding.
RIP to the quick, Elvis-officiated Vegas wedding.

SocietyAugust 15, 2024

Help Me Hera: Is it selfish to RVSP ‘no’ to my good friend’s fancy Spanish wedding?

RIP to the quick, Elvis-officiated Vegas wedding.
RIP to the quick, Elvis-officiated Vegas wedding.

I can afford it, but not by heaps, and I’d love to go, but I’m unsure how much she values my presence. Help!

Want Hera’s help? Email your problem to helpme@thespinoff.co.nz

Dear Hera,

About a year ago, one of my best and oldest friends announced her engagement (very cool!). I still live in Wellington, which is where we’re both from and where her family lives, but she’s currently living in London. Last week a wedding invitation arrived, revealing in a very casual manner that she’d be having her wedding in a random, far-flung small town in Spain at a veeery expensive-looking venue. Horror.

Financially, she lives a different life to me. Both her and her fiance earn high salaries, as do most of her friends and family – so making a complicated trip across the world for a one-day event is probably not a huge burden for most of the people around her. I earn an OK salary, but with rent and other expenses, there’s not a whole lot leftover – and I’m pretty open and honest about that. While I could technically afford the trip, if I went, it would be the one overseas holiday I can afford to take for the next two years. 

I’m also unsure how much she really values me being there as she hasn’t asked me to be in the bridal party, nor did she give me a heads up ahead of the invite being sent or acknowledge that it’s a big ask. 

While I’m excited for my friend to get married and would LOVE to be there to celebrate, I’m just as excited about other events and achievements in my friends’ lives: graduations, writing being published, birthdays, babies, new pets, dream jobs, overcoming fears, leaving a bad relationship. Because I see marriage as equal to a lot of other life events, the culture of expecting your friends and family to drop a huge amount of money and travel across the globe for your wedding is, to me, insane. 

Still, I feel that she’ll take it as a slight if I say that I can’t go. It would also likely weaken our friendship – which is already weakened by the fact that we live so far away from each other. Am I diminishing the importance of getting married? Am I being selfish if I don’t go to the wedding? 

Help!

A line of fluorescent green card suit symbols – hearts, clubs, diamonds and spades

Wow. Some people are really out there having destination weddings in picturesque Spanish towns, in 2024, the year of our Lord? Is this really how the other half lives? 

There’s nothing better than a good wedding. A friend’s wedding. A stranger’s wedding. An enemy’s wedding. Who cares. Cake. Speeches. Dancing. What’s not to love? Having said that, I would never get married, unless it was the 1920s and I was engaged to the heir of a large pharmaceutical fortune. The cost of joining someone in holy matrimony is frankly insane, and that’s before you even add international travel into the equation. It’s staggering to me that people are willing to drop that kind of cash on a single-day event. That’s a house deposit. Or a sleeper ticket on the Orient Express. I don’t think you’re a selfish person or a bad friend for not instantly logging in to Skyscanner. 

Ultimately I think people should get married wherever they want. There’s a great case for eloping and tying the knot in Las Vegas, or getting hitched in a foreign courthouse on a whim. I don’t think that people need to be having financially crippling family obligation weddings, packed with cousins they don’t like and aunts they’ve never met. Having a quick destination wedding is probably a good way of culling the guest list. In the end, it’s up to the people pledging to spend the rest of their lives together to determine the most meaningful experience for them, and if that’s getting hitched at Bedrock City on a moment’s notice, more power to them. Congratulations, best wishes, and yabadabadoo. 

What isn’t fair is expecting everyone in your life to immediately drop 2k on an international plane fare. Especially in this economy. Especially when half your friends and family live in New Zealand. Being a guest at a wedding is already expensive. Expecting all your nearest and dearest to take a week off work and catch a plane to the other side of the world is frankly delusional. There’s nothing inherently wrong with having a destination wedding, but you have to be prepared that the vast majority of people in your life won’t be able to afford it. I think your friend should have acknowledged that in her invitation to you, and made a point of saying, “I know this shit is expensive, so please don’t stress out if you can’t make it.” The last thing anyone should want is for their wedding to cause financial distress to the people they love. 

‘He mea tautoko nā ngā mema atawhai. Supported by our generous members.’
Liam Rātana
— Ātea editor

It sucks to miss out on an important event, especially when you no longer live in the same place as your friend and don’t often get a chance to see one another. But if I were you, I would save up for my own holiday. Going to a wedding is great, but if it’s a choice between that and beholding the ancient wonder of Machu Picchu, I know which one I’d pick. 

While your friend’s invitation might be a little tone-deaf, she hasn’t actually done anything wrong. There’s no point stressing out about hypotheticals. If I were you, I would write her a beautiful and genuine letter of congratulations, telling her how happy you are for her, and how much you’d love to be there, but you can’t afford the plane fare, and you hope to find a way to celebrate with her some other time. 

If she’s a normal person, with a working heart and mind, she’ll do her best to respond with grace and understanding. If she kicks up a fuss or gives you the cold shoulder, I would argue that she isn’t such a good friend to begin with, her levels of entitlement are off the charts, and I hope her wedding is ruined by wasps. 

All the best, 

Hera

Keep going!
Christchurch Cathedral, Aro Valley character houses, and 284 Stuart Street, Dunedin (Photos: Getty Images; CC BY-SA 3.0; design by The Spinoff)
Christchurch Cathedral, Aro Valley character houses, and 284 Stuart Street, Dunedin (Photos: Getty Images; CC BY-SA 3.0; design by The Spinoff)

OPINIONSocietyAugust 13, 2024

How a conservation-at-all-costs mindset obscures our neighbourhoods’ stories

Christchurch Cathedral, Aro Valley character houses, and 284 Stuart Street, Dunedin (Photos: Getty Images; CC BY-SA 3.0; design by The Spinoff)
Christchurch Cathedral, Aro Valley character houses, and 284 Stuart Street, Dunedin (Photos: Getty Images; CC BY-SA 3.0; design by The Spinoff)

New development shouldn’t be seen as inherently at odds with heritage, writes Max Reeves, who argues for three recent ‘losses’ to be redefined.

The recent announcement that Christchurch’s Anglican Cathedral may be mothballed should cause heritage advocates and professionals to pause and think. If the mothballing goes ahead, it would represent a third “loss” for heritage advocacy this year.

It follows minister for housing Chris Bishop’s decision to reduce Wellington’s character areas to 86 hectares, and the redevelopment of 284 Stuart Street in Dunedin, the site of a historic home and lime tree. These decisions could be viewed as losses, but they also provide a chance to consider the context in which these buildings were constructed and the values they embody. The Resource Management Act (RMA) does, after all, call historic heritage “those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and culture”.

New development shouldn’t be seen as inherently at odds with heritage. Instead we should consider the ways that new development tells a story about the social history of New Zealand.

Wellington character areas

Wellington’s character areas have been reduced from 306 hectares to 86 hectares, meaning that development is allowed without notification. Heritage advocates claim this risks introducing a “Swiss-cheese effect” for built heritage, but it is not clear this is the case.

Take Aro Valley. It contains art deco apartments at 3 Aro Street built in the 1920s, the modernist Aston Tower built in the 1960s, and the Aro Valley Community Hall, built in 1974. Rather than detract from the area’s character, lower Aro Street’s “intensely developed and defined street edge adds further distinctiveness”.

While heritage advocates focus on a limited selection of buildings, a neighbourhood’s character is also a product of its people. Aro Valley “has been a working-class area over most of its history”. But in 2018, more than 50% of the population were professionals and managers despite the suburb containing the “largest unadulterated collection of working-class homes in Wellington”.

New development enabled by the new district plan will continue to add to the distinctiveness of the suburb and enhance its built character, while preserving its social character by ensuring supply of affordable housing.

Aro Valley’s mix of styles adds to its distinctiveness (Photo: Ballofstring/Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 3.0)

284 Stuart Street

284 Stuart Street, a 104-year-old arts and crafts house in Dunedin designed by architect Edmund Anscombe, became the scene of a heritage debate in June due to a protected lime tree on the site. After a redesign, the plan to build 30 apartments while conserving the tree is now under way

Heritage New Zealand stated that the building is not currently considered for listing. Even if it was, it would not be a priority because buildings of its type are already well accounted for on the list. Within Dunedin’s central area there are a total of 26 listed arts and crafts residential houses, including the 20 homes that make up the Windle Settlement Workers’ Dwellings Historic Area.

Moreover, Dunedin’s heritage “also includes less tangible elements such as stories about people and places, which impact on our evolving understanding of the significance of where we live“.

284 Stuart St, photographed in 2019 (Photo: Google Street View)

Anscombe’s story is one of a progressive architect who travelled extensively and brought new styles to the country. His vision of New Zealand’s values was summed up in a letter to the Evening Star, when petitioning for Dunedin to host an international exhibition:

“Let it be the symbol of New Zealand’s spirit—typifying the resources, enterprise, and progress of the dominion.”

This progressive vision was an important part of Anscombe’s architecture. The Centennial Exhibition he designed in Wellington also sought to show New Zealand’s progress, with a large, purpose-built art deco complex.

Had the focus on building conservation existed in Anscombe’s time, would 284 Stuart Street have been built? Or would the two cottages previously occupying the site have represented an important part of our history?

While heritage advocates worry about changes to neighbourhood character caused by contemporary styles, Anscombe’s former home is protected by Wellington City Council because of its “distinctive architecture which sets it apart from the surrounding modern apartments”.

When Anscombe contributes to character he should be protected. When Anscombe detracts from character he should be protected. Anscombe’s contribution to New Zealand is more than buildings. It is a vision of enterprise and progress. Preserving those values means allowing new architects to build as he did. In contemporary styles, sometimes out of step with surrounding character, as part of a vision of progress.

The large, purpose-built pavilion Anscombe designed for the Centennial Exhibition sought to showcase New Zealand’s progress (Image: Sepia Times/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Christchurch Anglican Cathedral

A plan to rebuild the cathedral as it was before the 2011 earthquakes was supposed to “breathe new life and vibrancy into the heart” of Christchurch. Instead, the cathedral remains fixed in time. Not in 1874, but in 2011.

The history of Cathedral Square has been one of adaptation: the square has continually changed to suit the needs of residents. 

This is what Bishop Victoria Matthews wanted to do with the rebuild, believing that a $100m reconstruction wasn’t what a city full of people suffering needed. Eventually, legal challenges from heritage advocates caused the Anglican Synod to attempt a rebuild.

The first changes to Cathedral Square occurred before it was even built. The square was originally supposed to host a school and a cathedral, but not enough land was set aside for the school, so it was moved to the Botanic Gardens. The statue of Robert Godley has been moved twice. The ever-changing road layout continues to be a subject of debate.

Prince Charles, as he then was, visiting the Christchurch Cathedral site on November 22, 2019 (Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images)

Even the cathedral itself has changed. The original design by George Gilbert Scott was for an all wood cathedral, then a wooden frame and stone exterior, then for an all stone cathedral. The eventually completed cathedral was a modified version of Scott’s design, with additions made by Benjamin Mountfort. From 1960-1962 vestries were added to the building. 

Where the square’s history of change has been embraced, it provides beloved destinations. Christchurch City Libraries saw the loss of their building as an opportunity, and built one of the most impressive contemporary public facilities in the world

By denying the history of change, and committing to conservation at any cost, heritage advocacy has failed in its goal. The social history of the cathedral as the heart of Christchurch risks being lost entirely – instead a mothballed ruin will stand as a testament to the earthquakes.

Stories or stuff?

When we conserve our historic buildings, we do so for two reasons. Buildings can have architectural and historic significance in their own right, but they also tell stories about our history. In some cases, this conservation can obscure these stories.

In Wellington, character areas have persevered through the addition of contemporary buildings, but the social character of these neighbourhoods has not survived the character designations. In Dunedin, new development has been opposed to preserve the legacy of one of our most forward-thinking architects. In Christchurch, heritage advocacy risks creating the biggest failure of the rebuild.

It is time for heritage advocates and professionals to rethink their approach. Development does not have to be at odds with heritage. In some instances, development enhances the social heritage of an area. Every heritage building was once a new development, and if we had always opposed change, none of them would exist today.

‘Help keep The Spinoff funny, smart, tall and handsome – become a member today.’
Gabi Lardies
— Staff writer
But wait there's more!