Foundation intends to preserve and safeguard co-cathedral

Joe Vella

Aug 7th 2008, 13:54

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.

M Camenzuli

Aug 3rd 2008, 11:50

Someone here mentioned the Louvre, its pyramid having been controversial and now accepted as a landmark in its own right. I would add the British Museum as well.

The British Museum’s most recent and significant development was the Great Court, a huge glass canopy designed by Norman Foster who has been celebrated for it since. It was opened in 2000 and is now the largest covered square in Europe.

The Great Court was not the only development undertaken at the British Museum but is the apex of continuous change in the Museum.

This is what we need to be: forward-looking about the great heritage we enjoy rather than short-sightedly keeping anything and everything as it is. If we are myopic, we risk hiding the treausures of St John’s just because we’re afraid of doing precisely what those who bequeathed us St John’s did – develop for the better rather than leaving everything as it is.

Jonathan Farrugia

Aug 3rd 2008, 11:21

Astrid Vella:

Another heritage NGO, Din l-Art Helwa, has said it is "imperative" that "the entire collection" of St John’s "is kept together and not dispersed in other museums or locations" and that the collection is "unique and should be kept together in its entirety". What do you say to Din l-Art Helwa?

You say, "The cisterns will be inevitably damaged by the works required to convert them to viewing galleries". Isn't this a sweeping statement? I would rather disagree with you and say that, like St James Cavalier, the best way to protect an old building is to give it a new and useful function.

You have clarified that there are two alternative projects proposed. Which one is the least objectionable for you? Would you live with it or would you still be against if MEPA approves the least objectionable (from your viewpoint) project?

Astrid Vella

Aug 2nd 2008, 23:41

@Jonathan Farrugia: There is no confusion at all.The cisterns will be inevitably damaged by the works required to convert them to viewing galleries.The sewers and passages run under St. John’s Street and Square, and part of the system will have to be destroyed in order to make way for the huge viewing chambers seen on plan.

It is not up to us to express an opinion on another NGO, however I can say that the MEPA document reminded the architect that a number of heritage protection entities had already recommended that another building in Valletta be used for the Foundation's expansion requirements.So as you see,it’s not just FAA recommending this solution.

Not only the Foundation and DLH refer to two projects; we even quote the two different project application numbers in our Press Releases.Since our quote discusses excavation and foundations, it should be clear to you that the Director of Planning’s comments relate to the excavation project.

Instead of trying to catch us out, would it not be better to study the positive solutions? I see you do not refer to the clause of the law, nor to the possibility of a converting a nearby building.

Mario Zerafa

Aug 2nd 2008, 23:17

Din l-Art Helwa has said that the collection of tapestries, vestments, pictures and other works of art that the Co-Cathedral has should not be put in other buildings but should all be kept within St John's. This really flies in the face of what others have been saying that some building should be bought (if it is for sale, I suppose) to house this collection. Coming from Din l-Art Helwa, it should be given weight. I think it makes sense that if something was given to or done specifically for the Co-Cathedral, it should be exhibited there and not in some other building.

Joanna Montebello

Aug 2nd 2008, 22:37

I have already commented below that, as a tourist guide, I can vouch for the need of this project. But I do want to comment further about some other posts I have seen since.

Are some people here really saying that we should turn tourists away from St John's and its Museum? I've had Americans coming here from half a world away on a cruise ship and all they want to see is St John's and its Museum. Are you really saying that we should turn them away and tell them it's "full up" while they're here for just a few hours?

Then there are people advocating buying up a 'palazzo' - some decaying building that has no relation whatsoever with the Co-Cathedral to house its, or part of its, collection. What would I tell tourists who would invariably ask: "what is the relationship between this building and the Co-Cathedral? How do I enter the Co-Cathedral from here?"
And some people here expect me to reply: "there's no relation with the Co-Cathedral here. To enter the Co-Cathedral, go outside, cross the street, first one left/right, and you're on the Co-Cathedral's step!"

Come on!

Jonathan Farrugia

Aug 2nd 2008, 21:37

Astrid Vella:

In your previous statements, it was the cisterns - 'thought' to have been built at Laparelli's insistence - that were going to be destroyed. Now it's the sewers! Wherefrom does it result that the sewers are going to be destroyed? Where did you get this? Have you been confusing the sewers with the cisterns?

Din l-Art Helwa has stated that St John's Co-Cathedral treasures should NOT be dispersed in other buildings. This is the direct opposite of what you have been suggesting. Surely Din l-Art Helwa aren't stupid in these matters? Or are they?

The Co-Cathedral Foundation has today said it made TWO alternative proposals and this has been confirmed by Din l-Art Helwa. Are the comments of the Director of Planning (which you quote) directed at BOTH Foundation proposals or only at ONE of them? It they're only about one, which one?

Your answers might help to distinguish between hyperbole and fact.

Astrid Vella

Aug 2nd 2008, 21:18

@JosephVella, JoannaMontebello; your comparing the roofing-over of the courtyard to the Louvre is flawed by two important facts. A glass roof is no IM Pei artistic or architectural achievement. More importantly, the Louvre is not a sacred space, still less the graveyard of our heroes, the Knights of St. John who fought in the Great Seige. Can you imagine a café being set up within the railings of Les Invalides or Westminister Abbey?The mind boggles!

Besides which, its amazes me how you advocate a flagrant breach of the scheduled monuments law:“Buildings of outstanding architectural or historical interest that shall be preserved in their entirety.Demolition or alterations which impair the setting OR CHANGE THE EXTERNAL or internal appearance,including anything contained within the curtilage of the building,WILL NOT BE ALLOWED”

It is ironic that you quote the British Museum which displays its collection in branches all over the UK! St. John’s does not need to compete as its administration have admitted that it has reached saturation; at peak hours it can’t take more tourists which is exactly why the conversion of a nearby Palazzo would make a lot of sense, allowing it to accept more tourists without dispersing its treasures

Franco Farrugia

Aug 2nd 2008, 21:13

@ Ms Montebello - 'Some criticism', you say?
If it is a question of managing the tourist throngs better, then let us find a more suitable building, near the Cathedral. But surely, not destroying the courtyard in order to extend the Museum for the comfort of the tourists! Or, failing that, let us have less tourists visiting the premises, as is the case of the Hypogeum in Paola.
Or is this a question of having the Cathedral earning money to fund itself? What is the need for a rooftop cafeteria???? Aren't there enough cafeterias in Valletta? What priority is there for such a cafeteria?
Do you realise that the project will entail the removal of many tombs of the Knights of St John who took part in the Great Siege of 1565 as well as the destruction of the Courtyard?
Are you sure you know which Courtyard we are speaking about? Have you REALLY stopped at least once by those iron gates and stared into the Courtyard from Merchants' Street? Didn't you feel that special aura of quiet and holiness about it?
Are you sure that the project is for the better and should be welcomed, as you say?

Astrid Vella

Aug 2nd 2008, 20:56

@ Mr. JonathanBorg & Farrugia; with all respect to Din l-Art Helwa and the St.John’s Foundation, none of them mention that the MEPA Director of Planning has written that the project “is a non-starter” saying that even with precautions there still remains a significant risk to the foundations of St. John’s Cathedral. Do you still think it’s such a great idea?

Studies show that the streets around St. John's are the richest subterranean spaces in Valletta. Unlike other old cities, Valletta's sewers are unique as they were designed as a network before most of the buildings were erected. The Knights’ period sewers therefore have a priceless heritage value that cannot on any account be damaged in order to excavate exhibition space that can easily be created in alternative sites. We are all in favour of the museum showing all its treasures, but why is it that you refuse to consider the option which offers the net gain of restoring a nearby palazzo without destroying the passages.This would not only beautify Valletta, but leave the passages intact; you talk about being short-sighted, what can be more short-sighted than the destruction of our heritage and also of another potential tourist attraction;

Joseph Vella

Aug 2nd 2008, 20:54

Some people posting here need clarification as to what this project is - a clarification easily available from the Co-Cathedral Foundation's and Din l-Art Helwa's statements, if one cares to read them.

The project is NOT going to touch the Co-Cathedral BUT an annex which is on Merchants' Street. If at all, a larger museum with a proper visitor centre should reduce the pressure on the Co-Cathedral itself.

The Co-Cathedral's collection of veritable treausures SHOULD NOT be DISPERSED and divided up in other buildings that have nothing to do with it.
It simply does not make any sense for a collection donated to the Co-Cathedral along centuries to be FRITTERED physically and in value around other buildings in Valletta with no connection at all with the Co-Cathedral.

The Co-Cathedral is both a church and a national monument. There is an issue, centuries-old I believe, as to whether it pertains to the government or to the Church. That's why a Foundation was set up with equal Church and State representation to manage St John's without being bogged down by the issue of ownership. This project is simply about enlarging and enhancing the Co-Cathedral museum and not about any wider ownership issue.

Mandy Montebello

Aug 2nd 2008, 20:21

Watching PBS news tonight you realize what a huge treasure the Co-Cathedral has, unfortunately hidden somewhere in its vaults as there is no space for showing it in the museum as at present. Extending the museum would give us the opportunity to see these treasures and manage better the large amount of people that visits St John's museum. Despite some criticism, this project is for the better and should be welcomed.

Luke Gatt

Aug 2nd 2008, 19:59

Why can't they buy a palace adjacent/near to the cathedral?

Franco Farrugia

Aug 2nd 2008, 19:50

@ Joseph Vella - You mention the Louvre? Well, the new pyramit of the L. did not entail destroying any significant part of the Museum, did it? Did it? So, there's no comparison, please.
I don't agree with you that it's short-sighted to defend the Co-Cathedral from such development. It's your opinion, which I believe is dangerous.
So, let's change everything that we hold most dear in order to get more tourists to Malta. As things are, after all, we are only getting a quantity of them - there is no quality, as statistics show! (More tourists but less money being spent!)

Franco Farrugia

Aug 2nd 2008, 19:46

It's a real shame we have people in Malta who want to see development, come what may.

@ Jonathan Borg - Nobody is a sacred cow and Din l-Art Helwa must be stark raving mad to approve such a project. It only means that even this entity has lost its soul! And you are wrong in implying that one would rather believe this entity than FAA! It's not a question of FAA or not FAA. It is a question of SENSE and REASON.

@ Joanna Montebello - The need for more space for the Museum is not in dispute, madame. What IS in dispute is the destruction of an important part of the Cathedral. Perhaps, it is a part which does not interest you as a tourist-guide.

@ Joseph Vella - 'Museums cannot be static.' Agreed. But St John's is not a museum - it is a Cathedral church, with all that it has: north, south, east and west. You cannot harm the fabric of the cathedral in order to extend the museum. Which is the more important? the fabric of the Cathedral itself or the Museum? Of course, for some, it is the Museum.

Jonathan Farrugia

Aug 2nd 2008, 18:53

Through the Foundation’s release as well as Din l-Art Helwa’s statement, we now know that what had been criticised at the outset were actually two ALTERNATIVE projects, only one of which will move forward if MEPA gives its approval.

Furthermore, this is not the Co-Cathedral itself but its Museum. The Co-Cathedral is NOT going to undergo some kind intervention, as was implied in previous criticism of this project.

It now transpires that the Foundation was in fact acting prudently in submitting two separate applications for alternative projects.

The Co-Cathedral Foundation and Din l-Art Helwa have done a lot today to clarify an issue that was uselessly given a sensational and exaggerated twist. As someone has previously posted, Museums cannot be static and this project should be a boon for the Museum of St John’s.

J. Borg

Aug 2nd 2008, 18:31

'....the obligation to retain and promote the sacred character of the co-cathedral as primarily a House of God and a place of worship and the proposal should relieve the church of the periodic congestion of visitors...'
It's about time that St.John's be defined as a museum and no longer a cathedral - there are various other places of worship around the islands - and without going into the merits of what constitutes a place of worship.
By accepting this change (i.e. to full time museum) - there will be no need for the proposed structural changes.

Raymond Sammut

Aug 2nd 2008, 18:12

@ Joseph Vella

No one is against a world-class Museum, Mr Vella. But this is sacred ground. This is the resting place of the Knights. What if I were to go under the Mdina Cathedral, and disturbed even one grave of a Monsignor? How would the Malta Curia react?

For heavens sake, man. All you are seeing is coins. The Malta Curia have a world-class Museum of their own across the road from the Mdina Cathedral. They are not messing around with their Cathedral. Why do they want to mess around with ours?

Aldo G. Portelli

Aug 2nd 2008, 16:53

From such a horrendous mistake protect us O Lord and give us a Foundation with more sense.

Jonathan Borg

Aug 2nd 2008, 16:33

Din l-Art Helwa has come out in favour of this project.
Din l-Art Helwa said this project increases the exhibition spaces of the Museum, out of which visitors stand to benefit.
Din l-Art Helwa is of the opinion that the proposal to extend the Museum has merit and deserves further study.
Many people would rather believe Din l-Art Helwa than FAA.
It is now clear that this project is a necessary positive development for what should become an international-level museum.

Joanna Montebello

Aug 2nd 2008, 15:44

I am a tourist guide and I can vouch for the difficulty we now have to enter St John’s Museum as at present organised particularly when we have, literally, hordes of tourists from cruise liners who want to see our premier national monument. This project would make it much easier for many more visitors to see the Co-Cathedral's unique exhibits that always elicit awe and surprise at the fact that, in tiny Malta, we have so much. Visitors (including us Maltese of course, not just tourists) would also be able to see even more; that is, those exhibits that are at present hidden. This project is certainly needed, and I can vouch for that.

Joseph Vella

Aug 2nd 2008, 15:37

Museums cannot be static. Anyone who has been to the best museums abroad can see the development they had in the last 20 or 30 years.

Despite the controversy about IM Pei's pyramid at the Louvre, it is now an attraction in its own right and, with further development, affords excellent reception to the museum itself.

The same can be said for the British Museum part of which was actually developed in a project that has made museums the world over think about visitors as customers rather than herds.

More space can also afford the opportunity of themed and one-off exhibitions.

We need this in Malta as well. The mentality we have that one cannot or should not touch anything in such buildings as the Co-Cathedral is short-sighted and backward-looking.

Museums in Malta, such as St John's, should be no less than other world-class museums. If we don't realize that other tourist destinations are developing and competing, then we have understood nothing of a very competitive and changing world even in the apparently least likely sector of museums.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 2nd 2008, 15:29

... In retaining the character of the House of God, the Foundation should also consider as part of its remit the retention and protection of the courtyard which they want to destroy forever.

I have a feeling that this is a money-making exercise at the very expense of the architecture of the Co-Cathedral. As I have said already, this is madness and must be stopped from the very top. The Co-Cathedral must not be touched!
I would go one step further: make all the members of the Foundation resign en bloc and have them replaced for the sacrilege that they have already committed, in suggesting and applying for such a horrendous development.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 2nd 2008, 15:25

1. Readers are kindly asked to read my correspondence on the subject, published today, under Letters.

2. The Foundation is duty-bound to protect St John's in its entirety, not just the 'Temple'. Therefore, it is ironic, to say the least, that it says that its intention is the preservation and safeguarding of the cathedral. Do they intend to do this by DESTROYING a significant part of the 'fabrica'?
3. If there are so many tourists visiting St John's, then perhaps there are far too many for comfort, and there should be a maximum number of visitors allowed each day AND by appointment, as is the case of the Hypogeum in Paola.
4. I see no big deal with having an extension of the Museum a few metres away from the Cathedral enclave. I have already given a couple of suggestions regarding this (see Letter).
5. And why is there such a need to have a rooftop cafeteria within the Cathedral?????? Aren't there anough business outlets to cater for the visitors, just opposite and surrounding the Cathedral?
6. Once again, the Foundation itself admits that it has the duty to RETAIN the sacred character of the Cathedral......

Joseph Degabriele

Aug 2nd 2008, 15:11

So now everyone can decide for themselves whether we need a world-class museum with appropriate visitors’ reception linked to our national monument that is St John’s Co-Cathedral in order to have its specific and unique exhibits shown to as many visitors as would want to see them without unduly harming the Co-Cathedral itself. Unfortunately, FAA has jumped the gun on this one and has had its usual knee-jerk reaction against anything and everything that means putting a stone on top of another. Level-headed Maltese who have seen so much development abroad in the way world-class museums are organised, can only applaud this move by St John’s Foundation.