Saturday, 26th July 2008
Application for three-storey building near St John's Co-Cathedral
An application has been filed with Mepa to build a three-storey high building on the courtyard of St John's Co-Cathedral along Merchants Street, Valletta. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier.
Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar yesterday expressed concern about development application PA 00167/08 dealing with an extension at St John's Co-Cathedral Museum in Valletta.
The proposed project will include the construction of a three-storey high building on the courtyard along Merchants Street to provide additional space and a canteen at roof level.
According to the development application, the façade of the co-cathedral along Merchants Street will be altered by the proposed structure that will stand above the graves of the Knights of the Order.
A second application, PA 00168/08, proposes to extend St John's Co-Cathedral Museum by excavating chambers below St John's Street, connecting them to existing underground water reservoirs, and constructing a vertical lift through all the floors, apart from alterations.
The two water cisterns there are among the earliest in Valletta, thought to have been built on the insistence of Francesco Laparelli and should therefore be preserved intact as evidence of the advanced engineering techniques and the foresight of the Order in assuring Valletta's water supply, the FAA said.
"This underground exhibition space is intended to house the Gobelins tapestries. However, in addition to the problems of creating access, this would require a considerable air and humidity control installation, which will cause further damage to the vaulted cisterns.
"It is felt that the potential risks posed by exhibiting priceless tapestries in underground chambers, as well as the inevitable damage to part of the most important monument that Malta possesses, are totally unacceptable," the NGO said.
Furthermore, excavations at St John's Square to provide more chambers might not only affect the cathedral's foundations but also destroy the remains of previous knights' period structures, it added.
The FAA insisted that such a historical and long-established urban environment that has long been enjoyed by Valletta residents and visitors should not be destroyed, disrupting the community by depriving it of trees that are essential for shade and help to remove pollutants from the air.
In its reaction, the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation said it would never risk any damage to the Co-Cathedral which is a world treasure.
RSS
Comments
Facts in the public domain that some people prefer to disregard:
The Co-Cathedral Museum is far too small for its collection.
This collection should be properly exhibited
(most of it is exhibited in too small a space or not at all),
kept together in St.John's Museum,
and not scattered in other buildings that have no connection with St.John's
as this collection was mostly commissioned specifically for St.John’s or
donated specifically to the Co-Cathedral by the Grand Masters.
St.John’s Foundation has therefore proposed
two alternative options, one underground, one overground,
for the Museum’s extension.
If the extension is made underground, the Foundation’s preferred option,
there will be no building whatsoever.
Neither option involves any building in the Co-Cathedral itself -
only in the annex on Merchants’ Street
and only if MEPA rejects
the Foundation’s preferred option.
In the Co-Cathedral proper, we walk over graves.
Even with an extension of its Museum in the annex,
we would not be walking over graves there.
Museums abroad develop;
eg Louvre’s pyramid, British Museum’s glazed-over Great Court.
A 'palazzo' FAA suggests is no alternative.
As ‘Din l-Art Helwa’ said, “the entire Co-Cathedral collection
should be kept together”.
There is already a shop in St.John's Museum.
First of all I apologise if I offended you for expressing my true feelings in the outburst of my first posting. It was nothing personal. I have, till now, admired and supported the work of FAA, but was truly taken aback by FAA’s way of going about this issue. I have my own reservations on the project and believe that a healthy public discussion will help ensure the best for St. John’s Co-Cathedral.
At this point, as I don’t want to continue with this controversy, I only want to state that my definition of consultation is different to what you state in your last posting. Planning, by definition, is a process involving extensive consultation. Rarely is a major project approved as originally proposed to MEPA at initial stages. So a healthy consultation between FAA and the St. John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation can only lead to a better outcome than what has been proposed.
There is no "public prosecution" here as you are claiming, Ms Borg. That's an unwarranted accusation which you make twice. The public is the main stakeholder of Saint John's, and therefore cannot be labelled as some kind of a prosecutor. In fact, the public has much for which to thank the FAA. I hope that the FAA can keep reminding the Office of the Prime Minister that Saint John's is public property, and is not to have anything done to it without the public, and not just MEPA, be first fully informed.
Ms Borg, we are often called in for consultation, but apparently the Foundation was not interested, or they would have made the project public, rather than rushing the applications through unnoticed in late February when everyone was distracted by the national elections. Once the applications are submitted to MEPA and published, it is too late for consultation, as its the project as proposed on the application that is going to be decided by MEPA.
As presented, it is not a question of negotiating a different height or details, as the law says that Grade 1 national monument NOTHING can be changed let alone a 3-storey structure added.Furthermore we believe that while there are decaying old palaces in Valletta that can be restored and used as a museum extension, there is no way that damaging and risky excavations can be justified.
I have nothing to hide in mentioning the ‘other party concerned’ as he is the very helpful OPM contact point for NGOs, constituted bodies and, indeed the public. What is more relevant and what you have not clarified is how you should have repeated our conversation word for word or who put you up to it.
I was replying to your original “How can you call yourself Maltese and yet attack people who are trying to protect your environment and heritage?” Of course I can! Trying to protect our environment and heritage does not put FAA, or anyone else, beyond criticism. Nor is it only FAA that tries to protect our heritage or environment; I’m sure the Co-Cathedral Foundation would make precisely the same claim.
Contrary to your point, FAA did not just attract the public’s attention to this project; it came out as usual with guns blazing acting as judge-and-jury-and-prosecutor against anything that proposes any kind of building.
I have no vested interest in this case or any other I comment about publicly. If I had, I would just shut up. What I have is the firm belief that fruitful debates leading to the right decisions about building permits are better conducted objectively in our appropriate public institutions with all facts and arguments lying before the objectors and decision-makers.
What’s harmful in cases like this are media campaigns based on exaggerations and one-sided arguments superficially depicting the issue in terms of black and white.
You say that St John's Foundation would never propose anything that might harm the Co-Cathedral yet surely it is the very fact that something which may indeed harm the co-Cathedral has been proposed that has brought this matter to light.
I don't remember FAA stating at any time that they have a monopoly of heritage protection nor are they the only ones with the countries heritage at heart. Of course you can't be included in that group.
FAA's methods as you put it are to inform the public as they have done in this case that such an application is being proposed. Judging by the comments I have seen in the past the number of people who find you and others like you irritating far outweigh the few, usually with a vested interest who speak out against FAA.
@James A Tyrrell:
I believe my country's interest would be much better served if we argue objectively and with due regard for serious procedures in our public institutions rather than immediately jump on anything and everything that is proposed as FAA does all the time.
St John's Foundation would never propose anything that might harm the Co-Cathedral. One of course can form a different opinion on the proposals in question, but only after one evaluates the them seriously and not through the usual hysterics we have now grown used to from FAA.
Furthermore, FAA has absolutely no monopoly of heritage protection. The Foundation's aim has already been explained and is precisely to effectively conserve and manage St John's.
One can argue ad infinitum on the Foundation's proposals, but no one can say that only FAA has our heritage at heart.
If at all, one can argue that FAA's methods are irritating to many people at best and counterproductive at worst.
You say that the application has only just been lodged which is true but how many members of the public would have known about it had the matter not been brought to their attention by FAA? Perhaps you think that things should be done as they were before. Pin a notice to a door take a photo and then remove the notice again in case someone objects to the proposed development.
All I have ever seen you do in the pages of this paper is attack FAA. Of course you have the right to an opinion but why not use it to somehow benefit your country for a change?
@ Mrs Astrid Vella:
You say MEPA "breaks its own regulations" and Police laws.
Whether MEPA breaks or has broken these is decided upon by the Courts and not by FAA. Simple, I presume.
Whether St John's application breaks the Heritage Act is, again, decided by MEPA and by a Court not, again, by you.
This application has only just been lodged!
If the Foundation has been entrusted with St John's, it has every right to lodge applications with MEPA. There are then procedures to be followed, including (I presume) objections by you and decisions by MEPA.
You say that mine is "a hate campaign" against FAA, "hysterical", and that there is "no reason" to criticise FAA.
I have joined an argument, respectfully towards you and to any other who agrees/disagrees. I have every right to disagree with you and to criticise both what you say in substance and your methods. That's basic liberty.
It is people who use sweeping statements ("everybody's breaking laws!"), exaggerations, half-truths, media frenzies, bandy other people's propertty's photos around, hold press conferences on people's doorsteps and feel they are above reproach and cannot be argued with that may be accused with your own expletives.
I'm not saying that Leonard Callus is involved in Cristina Borg's comment, that would be very unlike him.
Still, there is obviously a common denominator behind the identical conversations, a common source that orchestrated and dictated the letter, using a seemingly innocent name to pass off a hysterical anti-FAA diatribe as public opinion.
A disgusting ploy. Shame, shame indeed!
You are contradicting yourself. If you are as keen on seeing that the law is respected as you claim to be, how come you NEVER comment when MEPA breaks its own regulations and the Police Code of Laws. How come you have not commented that the St John's applications violate the Heritage Act, another law?
Your pieces always talk about private property rights and yet this is public property, entrusted to a Foundation but still answerable to the public, who expects the Foundation to be an example of heritage preservation and not heritage destruction (such as the excavation of St. John’s Square).
You talk of rights but never of responsibilities to the community.
The fact that you have never raised the above issues shows that yours is just an anti-FAA hate campaign, conducted in hysterical hyperbole (Media frenzy? Mob courts?) and totally lacking in any credibility other than that of roperty owners or developers who fear that we might get MEPA to clean up its act and thereby rob developers of a chance to violate regulations. If you want to respect regulations you would have no reason to attack us in this way.
@ Mrs Astrid Vella:
I have no personal interest whatsoever in the Attard controversy, except my opinion, of course.
I'm neither a developer nor an architect. I have never asked for a development permit for anything and have no intention of doing so.
What I'm interested in is to put in my penny's worth in a civilized and rational debate about property RIGHTS and procedures respecting the rule of LAW when decisions are made on development permits.
I happen to hold the opinion that when such decisions are made, they should:
respect fundamental property RIGHTS of owners,
treat everyone equally,
be arrived at OBJECTIVEly and not emotionally or according to subjective likes and dislikes,
be made by PUBLIC institutions vested AT LAW to decide FAIRLY taking into account ALL submissions - including the owners',
put the burden of proof as to historic or architectural value on those making such arguments,
NOT be made in a MEDIA FRENZY akin to mob courts on people's doorsteps,
nor by PRIVATE individuals or organisations, however genuine they might be.
Rights are to be taken seriously by all and not just by those who have a direct interest.
That is my only interest.
Astrid Vella - As for your comment to Christina Borg: It doesn't say much about the decision-making people, does it?
Astrid, again: Not knowing the slightest bit about M. Camenzuli's, I came to the same conclusion (thanks to a quick Google search), and in fact posted this comment last night:
"M Camenzuli - Rights rights rights ... Yawn!
http://www.timesofmalta.com.mt/articles/view/20080517/local/mepa-ngo-argue-over-attard-open-space
Have you got an axe to grind with the FAA? Just asking ..."
(Posted here:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080724/local/asds )
Cristina Borg - Have you got an axe to grind with the FAA too, or are you simply blinded by men in power, titles and qualifications? Astrid's comment to you leads one to believe that you have not got a brain of your own, and blindly accept anything fed to you. It seems that artefacts are not the only thing you wish to preserve here, but possibly also some dead-end job.
Digging below street level in Valetta is stark raving mad! Valletta has another city below street level. It a complicated maze of escape routes and a water collection system. That is part of Valletta's heritage too and forms of the fortress city. Its not unique but one of the few.
Astrid Vella's suggestion (in a TV interview) to use a nearby unutilized palazzo or building is a very sensible suggestion. For one thing we would have a one less depilated building and second we would have another building enjoyed by the public.
Digging a car park is madder still after all the investment in the Park & Ride and CVA schemes. Besides everywhere is within walking distance!
The six men you have listed are surely highly respected and very dedicated to Saint John's. Not everyone may use the right words in the heat of battle, so to speak, but my view here is that the reaction from readers stems mostly on the basis of what is being reported: "... the construction of a three-storey high building on the courtyard along Merchants Street ".
Put simply, this is sacred ground. It has always been my understanding that this is the very reason why Saint John's is a co-Cathedral and not just a Cathedral. It is co-located with the graves of the same men who had fought and died for its foundation. Becoming aware of these applications, thanks to FAA and The Times, it is only natural that readers start to suspect that the men you mention may have ideas that are not in concordance with those of the men in these graves. These Knights bequeathed this monument to the Maltese public, and their wish would have surely been that it be kept in its pristine form. So only restoration work, please; no alterations unless these are minor and absolutely necessary.
I assume the reason for the sickness that has overcome you is that you have some vested interest in the matter and don't like the fact that FAA have brought it to the attention of the public rather than it being kept buried until it's too late to do anything about it. Past history would suggest that is how things are usually done in Malta!
With regard to M Camenzuli's suggestion that we just 'let MEPA procedures run their course', surely that would be a recipe for disaster. Left to their own devices Mepa would probably sell the whole island off to developers!
Mr. Camenzuli, you are so enraged at our dampening your Attard development projects that you are tripping up in your anti-FAA hate campaign.
You say "I'm sure, as you say, the members of the Co-Cathedral Foundation would be the last to even dream of doing what Astrid Vella says." My dear Mr. Camenzuli, our Press Release simply repeated the project details outlined in the Foundation's own applications, so they are not only dreaming of doing it, but submitting 'concrete' plans to do so.
Dear Ms. Christina Borg, I am very surprised to read your message below, which echoes, word-for-word, a private conversation I had with Mr. Leonard Callus of the Office of the Prime Minister just yesterday.
I hope that you were equally informed that our NGO, which has every respect for the Foundation’s internal restoration works, is simply pointing out that it makes no sense at all to destroy newly-laid St. John’s Square and the remains that lie beneath for a damaging and risky project. The millions of euros to be spent on such an extravagant project would be much better spent to restore and convert to a museum one of the old palaces which are falling to pieces just metres from St. John’s. Don’t rip up, restore!
We would be obliged if you could pass this message back to your Cathedral sources, and do give them our very best regards while you’re at it.
Astrid Vella
What we need to know is whether the foundation is thinking of building a three storey building where the knights' cemetery now stands. a cathegorical yes or no will suffice. until and unless an answer is forthcoming who can blame anyone of jumping to conclusions?
thank God there are still people who get a knee jerk when they hear these things. when the plans are exposed more often than not it is a fait accompli.
@ Christina Borg:
How very well said.
Astrid Vella keeps jumping the gun at every application lodged with MEPA and keeps repeating her sweeping statements and exaggerations at every project thought of.
In Paris they have I M Pei's Pyramid at the Louvre, and despite the controversy it created, it's now an attraction in its own right.
Why don't we just let MEPA procedures run their course and evaluate after we have seen the purpose and plans of the project?
I'm sure, as you say, the members of the Co-Cathedral Foundation would be the last to even dream of doing what Astrid Vella says.
Why don't we build a McDonalds inside one of the Temples too.
This is the last straw!
The Foundation administers the Church and Museum in order to ensure its effective conservation and management as a historic and architectural monument as well as a sacred place of worship. It is also responsible for enhancing the presentation of the artifacts and increasing the accessibility for the benefit of the general public, scholars and researchers.
Less we forget, this Foundation is responsible for the state-of-the-art restoration works that are returning this Cathedral to its glory, exemplified in the Italian Chapel.
Ms. Astrid Vella and the FAA have insulted my intelligence by depicting this Foundation as some barbarians. At this time, beyond the actual project, my real concern is the low level reached by Ms. Astrid Vella, FAA and Co., in the public discourse related to all that is worth safeguarding in our dear country.
I simply do not agree to any changes made in Valletta, not even the digging of underground car parks! Even if MPs continue insisting on using the Palace as Parliament, they should walk in, not drive in!
With regard to the proposed madness of St John's, the last idea was to DIG beneath the Square outside the Co-Cathedral, not build on the land, and especially over the burial ground of the Knights of St John who fought during the Great Siege 1565. The 'yard' should not even be touched.