'Rediffusion House' decision breaks mistaken trend - architects

Many Maltese consider themselves as 'holier than though': "If I consider something ugly, then so be it'!

Come on guys and gals, we're int the 21st century.... Who am I to judge if this or that type of architecture is ugly. Every era has had its own imprint on our cultural heritage. We should protect each particular architecture... anzi, we are duty bound to protect for future generations.

U x'ghandha x'taqsam il-politika f'din?? Imma kif f'kollox irridu nzelqu l-politika?

We need to grow up .... and fast

Modernism in Malta arrived pretty late, so examples of truly-valid modern architecture are hard to find. Locally, Modernsim reached its culmination in the 60s, with the pioneering works of a number of architects who trained overseas, and were keen enough to introduce the principles in Malta. To date, little or no protection has been afforded to the few surviving examples of such buildings, simply because many of us still attribute beauty to fastidious decoration. In terms of artistic significance, Modern architecture broke away from established and predetermined (Classicist / Revivalist) styles. This building in fact adheres to most canonic ideals of Modernism. It has no decoration whatsoever, uses strip-windows and has a white aesthetic (that reflects the machine age). That it looks shabby, is another issue. The values ascribed to cultural heritage have as much to do with artistic as well as historic qualities, and this building has both. Issues relating to practicality, convenience, purpose and usefulness should not determine if buildings are allowed survival or may be destroyed. The partially demolished school in Qala, the demolished MIRA building in Gzira, the dilapidated White Rocks complex, and Kennedy Memorial all hail from the same period.

The ex-Rediffusion building is certainly an iconic building and one of the few pioneering modernist architectural works in Malta. Our appreciation of local architecture timewise seems to stop with the Art Nouveau period ie. 1930s. We have had other iconic Modernist works which are being badly treated ---- I could mention Richard England's Manikata church,
Huntingford's Qala primary school and the White Rocks complex which is in a shambolic state. The issue of architetcure preservation should not be equated to an issue of personal taste but rather that of safeguarding pioneering works that are representative of diiferent periods in our history.

Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder - but then would we term Dali or Picasso ugly and Caravaggio or Michelangelo beautiful?; most art - especially the pieces that, in time, have come to have collective value, have been controversial and even derided; Van Gogh didnt sell a single piece of work within his lifetime; the French didnt want the Tour Eiffel because it was 'ugly'; the Impressionists were ridiculed. The issue is not whether this building should be saved when others have not been but that overall we need to develop a better appreciation of all our built heritage from all times; something has value not because you or I like it but because it provides a good representation of a particular period in art/architectural history; woe betide otherwise that we should find some building built by the Knights 'ugly'.

Whoever is worried about commenting because he/she is 'no expert', do rest assured:
You too, as an ignorant nobody, have the right to tell between ugly and beautiful.

You don't have to doubt what your own eyes are telling you.

i'm not an architect but looking at the building i'm trying very hard to see the beauty everybody seems to be attributing to it. i wish some learned gentleman would write and explain to us the aesthetics of this edifice but i hope it won't be someone like of the architect who designed the monster next to fort st. angelo. now there's a building that should be torn down before enough time passes and it's classified as something to be preserved for posterity.

Before one can comment on the architectural value of a building, one needs at least some basic knowledge of architecture history.
We have some very beautiful examples from the same era, but these are mostly residential homes, and not public spaces like 'Rediffusion House'.
The facade of this building is well balanced and with a little bit a care and attention can be returned to it's former glory. A bit of landscaping, and removal of the clutter stuck to the building will definitely be a good start

It's always about politics with Daphne. If a Labour minister suggested that Redifussion House had 'strong design elements' it would have triggered another vile attack on her website.

I have no grand knowledge of architecture but looking at this building one should see the beauty of it as a a post war building..reflecting the times and architectural trends during the 50's and 60's. What have boycotts and propaganda to do with aesthetics and architecture?

I do not think that Daphne has the credentials in architecture so she could call me Ignorant for saying that this piece of concrete box is a brutal structure.
I studied and practice by profession Art for years, and the relation of Architecture.
Having got Architects as great friends of mine from various countries. Most of them well respected, and for this woman, me for stating that this is nothing more than a horrible structure i classifies as an ignorant!
Should Daphne look at N.Foster or Zaha Hadid’s designs to understand what architecture is before she calls others ignorant.

The decision not to demolish this building was not taken by architects but by someone that thinks he knows it all. Remember Gonzipn?

Everything revolves around the failed thesis by modern architects of the early-mid 20th Century. Let me explain...The majority of our local architects are followers of the teachings of people like Le Corbusier, Van der Rohe, Gropius, Terragni, Loos etc who are considered the masters of the modern movement. The problem is that their principles have been discredited in last thirty years due to their non-human scale, rigidity and lack of direct communication with the street activity. LET US CONSERVE BUILDINGS LIKE THE G'MANGIA WHITE BOXES JUST TO SHOW OUR CHILDREN HOW NOT TO DESIGN BUILDINGS!!!!

I am 40 years old, and when I was a child, living in Gwardamanga where my parents still live today, I would wait for the school bus from the pavement in front of the building. Sometimes, I would look back and say, "My how horrible and cold this building looks!". What's worse it was associated with political matters, boycotts, propaganda, and worse. If it were for me, I would level it and say goodbye to past mistakes.

Few better arguments can be made for the strengthening of our general education than the ignorant comments posted so far. A building does not have to be conventionally 'beautiful', as the Maltese know the meaning of the word, to manifest strong design elements that are worth conserving. Clearly, maths, physics and chemistry are not enough to make a well-rounded person.

Well I have to agree with Mr.Magri here, I can't see what is the beauty in this building..maybe the architects can explain.
Can't understand how the destruction of the natural environment of the few open spaces available is allowed and the demolition of this squarish run-down structure is not permitted!
Guess the developer doesn't have any MEPA contacts miskin!

If the architects cause has been won not i suppose someone should start pushing the idea of mnemonic layering (recalled from richard england's site) to revive this building and achieving in my optinion both goals.

Actually, it’s not that bad. A lick of paint, modern apertures, modern lighting fixtures, new marble stairs, some landscaping and you’ll have a nice building.

Or else, just leave it as it is and invite Baron von Frankenstein to move in and conduct hideous medical experiments on anyone who walks by.

What an ugly building! It is not worth preserving. Much lovlier buildings have been demolished in the recent past. I think we must rearrange our priorities.

IT LOOKE LIKE THE FACTORIES ON THE OLD INDUSTRIAL ESTATES, TEAR IT DOWN.

What's so excellent about this building, if I may ask? I am no architect and will not dare venture an opinion, but how can anyone allow the demolishing of beautiful houses in Sliema and retain the old Rediffusion house as an 'excellent' architectural example? I for one wouldn't be sorry to see this ugly building go!

aaah. Finally....we've got some direction...so can the periti (or architects, thought they also sport some elements of engineering), tell us why we have to conserve badly engineered so called character houses in village cores?

Could the Chamber of Architects please point out what "architectural merit" this building has, because to the man in the street it looks like it's modelled on a shoebox.

Excellence in local architecture? Looks more like the dilapidated remains of a horrible structure to me. Tear down the eyesore already.