Application for three-storey building near St John's Co-Cathedral

Joe Vella

Aug 7th 2008, 13:57

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.

Christina Borg

Jul 28th 2008, 18:04

Dear Ms. Astrid Vella …

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.

Raymond Sammut

Jul 28th 2008, 02:29

@ Christina Borg

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.

Astrid Vella

Jul 28th 2008, 00:10

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.

M Camenzuli

Jul 27th 2008, 21:50

@ James A. Tyrrell

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.

Christina Borg

Jul 27th 2008, 19:55

I still find it difficult to understand how Ms. Astrid Vella and FAA created all this upheaval without first discussing the issue with the people FAA has ‘every respect for’. There is a basic decency in public discourse that would allow for a thorough informed debate prior to public prosecution. But Ms. Astrid Vella and FAA are more comfortable with going for the public prosecution first. And while I am not privy to Ms. Vella’s private conversations with the Office of the Prime Minister, I find it strange that Ms. Vella feels comfortable mentioning her private conversations in this blog without any respect for the other party concerned. My only really concern in this debate is that if we really want the best for St. John’s Co-Cathedral and for our Capital City (which I am assuming FAA and Co want), then the type of debate created by FAA is not healthy, as it attacks prior to seeking understanding with the people who lodged the application, namely the Council of the Foundation of St. John’s Co-Cathedral. I am not promoting the project concerned but am promoting a healthy debate.

James A. Tyrrell

Jul 27th 2008, 18:59

You talk about 'arguing objectively rather than jumping on everything' yet you seem to jump on everything brought to light by FAA!

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.

elsie coucom

Jul 27th 2008, 18:08

I find it incredible that plans have even been drawn up for a 3-storey building on what is a perfectly lovely courtyard. Forget about the poor bods who are burined underneath it! As has been suggested by FAA one of the derelict buildings in the area could be renovated and used as a canteen and storerooms (the short walk to and from the cathedral would not do anyone any harm). As far as I remember, on my last visit to Valletta in Spring, there are still dozens, if not hundreds of derelict buildings in the area. It is such a shame that this once beautiful city is falling to pieces. I do not understand why some people are bent of destroying was is left of Valletta. The next application may just be for a high rise bulding in the main square (or perhaps on the foundations of the opera house) which would certainly offer a magnificent view of the highrises in Sliema and the slums of Valletta. Think, think, think, before you destroy, destroy, destroy.

M Camenzuli

Jul 27th 2008, 17:57

@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.

James A. Tyrrell

Jul 27th 2008, 15:56

M Camenzuli, as a tourist I have to say that I side 100% here with Ms Vella and the FAA. I think people like yourself who complain when others try to bring issues like this into the public domain should be ashamed. How can you call yourself Maltese and yet attack people who are trying to protect your environment and heritage.

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?

M Camenzuli

Jul 27th 2008, 13:53

@ 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.

Astrid Vella

Jul 27th 2008, 13:17

@ Amanda Mallia

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!

Astrid Vella

Jul 27th 2008, 13:10

@ Camenzuli:

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.

M Camenzuli

Jul 27th 2008, 11:33

@ 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.

Amanda Mallia

Jul 27th 2008, 11:25

Christina Borg - Qualiifications and titles do not necessarily endow one with an eye for aesthetics, nor with a respect for the environment; neither do they necessarily bestow one with logic, which is unfortunately lacking in many places. Historical artifacts are not the only things worth preserving for future generations.



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.

Frank Galea

Jul 27th 2008, 11:09

I fully agree with the concern expressed by FAA regarding the proposed project. Although the Foundation expressed its position in that it would implement any safeguard measures as proposed by the impact assessment, the risk to damage our most precious treasure is far too great to be accepted. As the Minister directly responsible for MEPA, the Prime Minister should immediately intervene so that we will not have a repeat of the Fort Cambridge application - a real shame for all those involved!

D Delia

Jul 27th 2008, 08:34

Mr Franco Farrugia is right.

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!

Raymond Sammut

Jul 27th 2008, 06:48

@ Christina Borg

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.

James A. Tyrrell

Jul 26th 2008, 23:12

Christina Borg I hope you sickness gets better soon. I don't think Ms. Vella or the FAA in general accused the Foundation of being some barbarians as you state so I can only assume that is a label you thought up yourself. What can I say, if the cap fits......

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!

Astrid Vella

Jul 26th 2008, 22:50

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.

Astrid Vella

Jul 26th 2008, 22:40

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

v.pulis

Jul 26th 2008, 20:45

@ M camenzuli
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.

M Camenzuli

Jul 26th 2008, 19:07

@ 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.

A. Charles

Jul 26th 2008, 15:44

How about a large scale model of the proposed building is exhibited before this three storey building is allowed to be build? Thus, this gives the general public a view of the future development. Valletta should not be ruined by any badly designed buildings, but it cannot continue to remain a static exhibit without any future for this great city to be allowed to develop into a functional capital to be enjoyed by every body.

Denis Catania

Jul 26th 2008, 14:54

Leave this historical building alone. Build an annex somewhere else in Valletta.
Why don't we build a McDonalds inside one of the Temples too.

Joanne Micallef

Jul 26th 2008, 14:02

This application is an insult to us all, whoever applied for such a permit should be given a crash course in Maltese history so they will appreciate what the whole site is all about. Some things are priceless, and this is one of them, hands off our National Heritage.

D fenech

Jul 26th 2008, 13:52

This island is STARK RAVING MAD!!!!!
This is the last straw!

J.M. Chapelle

Jul 26th 2008, 13:48

Leave the ancient fortress city alone. FULLSTOP.

Christina Borg

Jul 26th 2008, 12:47

I am disgusted, appalled and sickened by Ms. Astrid Vella and her FAA clan. The least I would have expected from this group is to ask for a meeting with the respectable members of the council of the St John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation: Paul A. Attard (President), Mgr. Lawrence Cachia, H.E. Richard Cachia Caruana, Mgr Philip Calleja, Dr Philip Farrugia Randon and Mgr Lawrence Mifsud.

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.

L Galea

Jul 26th 2008, 12:20

Mammona Rules

Franco Farrugia

Jul 26th 2008, 10:26

This is crazy. The people who are even considering this application must be stark raving mad!!!!!

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.