Din L-Art Helwa gives guarded support to St John's museum proposals

Joe Vella

Aug 7th 2008, 13:53

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.

Raymond Sammut

Aug 5th 2008, 06:58

@ M Camenzuli

You "... still cannot understand why we can walk over the tombstones of the Knights in the Co-Cathedral proper and not have a Museum next to their graveyard in the annex on Merchants' Street."

I walked on tombstones belonging to Monsignori at the Mdina Cathedral and belonging to Knights at the Saint John Co-Cathedral since I was a small boy. I also worked for several years on building sites in Malta where I saw first hand excavation works, new foundations being put in, and three story buildings being erected. I know, therefore, from experience the exact difference between the two. If you haven't had the same experience, and you need the same experience before you can understand the difference, then there is nothing one can do to help.

The mission of the Foundation is clear, namely, Restoration. These are major structural alterations at the Saint John's being proposed by the Foundation. These alterations would scar for ever the pristine quality of this unique cathedral, and would transgress upon the resting place of the Knights. This is totally out of character, if not appalling, on the part of the Foundation.

M Camenzuli

Aug 4th 2008, 23:27

@Franco Farrugia:

What we're talking about is NOT the Co-Cathedral proper
but the annex on Merchants' Street, 200 metres away.

St John's is NOT a museum,
and WILL NOT be a museum
but it has a museum that is proposed to be enlarged and enhanced.

There are no proposals whatsoever for St John's proper.
It's NOT going to be touched.
Actually, the pressure it now suffers will be
eased with the project proposed.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 4th 2008, 17:32

@ M Camenzuli - And my point, which you are ignoring, is that St John's is NOT a museum and should not be treated as a museum and should not be compared to ANY MUSEUM!

M Camenzuli

Aug 4th 2008, 14:40

@Astrid Vella:

My take on your suggestion to house part of the collection in some 'palazzo' in Valletta is the same as Din l-Art Helwa's, which I quote:
"It is imperative that the collection of original artefacts of St John’s is
kept together and not dispersed in other museums or locations."

Most of the artefacts in the Co-Cathedral collection were either commissioned specifically for the Co-Cathedral or donated specifically to the Co-Cathedral.
It would make no sense at all to show them in some other 'palazzo' with no relation to the Co-Cathedral, especially one now used as a pizzeria.

@Franco Farrugia:

We're talking about an extension of the Co-Cathedral Museum here, nothing else. My point is against the little-island mentality that cannot see how museums abroad develop all the time and how that development is celebrated rather than shot down immediately.

@James A Tyrrell:
Didn't quite understand your comment about me. Anyway, good arguments never get personal.

@Raymond Sammut
I still cannot understand why we can walk over the tombstones of the Knights in the Co-Cathedral proper and not have a Museum next to their graveyard in the annex on Merchants' Street.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 4th 2008, 05:38

@ M Camenzuli - 'a never-changing crib'? I wish it was. Are you out of your mind? Unable to see the disastrous development that has taken place around us and which has destroyed the kind of Malta that many tourists would have wanted to see? Malta was never meant to be an Ibiza.

James A. Tyrrell

Aug 4th 2008, 03:17

Raymond Sammut, Astrid Vella, Simon Mercieca, Franco Farrugia etc, have made very good points here and it is good to see that the so called "little-island mentality" has not effected them in any way.

I do fear however that it has effected M. Camenzuli in a big way. He strikes me as being a self made man, probably due to the fact that God wouldn't accept the responsibility!

Astrid Vella

Aug 3rd 2008, 21:54

@Camenzuli: the little island mentality is clearest in your obsession with apeing others. Most Italian citadels are untouched and overflowing with both tourism and cultural accomplishment.

You talked about “hiding treasures from the visiting public and not utilising our historic buildings to their full potential.” Who’s advocating hiding the exhibits?FAA were the first to urge the Government and the Church to pass a palazzo over to St. John’s Foundation to convert to an extension.It’s funny that you never, ever refer to that option.We would appreciate your take on this matter, especially in the light of the fact that the palazzos are close enough to even be annexed directly,and far closer than the underground chambers,so there is no question of ‘dispersal’ of the collection.

It will also release the pressure on St. John’s more effectively than unsustainable underground chambers.

I hardly think that destroying Valletta’s underground passages,depriving future generations and tourists of the chance of seeing them, constitutes utilising them “to their best potential”

So, some straight answers on the above please. No waffling, no changes of subject. Simply, why do you refuse to consider the alternatives recommended by the highest heritage authorities as mentioned by MEPA?

Raymond Sammut

Aug 3rd 2008, 21:39

@ M Camenzuli

The "little-island mentality" is your mentality, Camenzuli. Anyone can sense the palpability of Malta being anything but a "never-changing crib".

The grounds is sacred not because it is a graveyard, but because it is the resting place of the most outstanding men Malta ever had. To them we owe everything we have as a people.

M Camenzuli

Aug 3rd 2008, 21:00

The Louvre and the British Museum have been given not as exact models of what should be done but as examples of forward-looking development. This as opposed to the obsession with short-sightedly keeping anything and everything exactly as it is. If in France or Britain they had had our mentality, they would have never done anything - no pyramid at the Louvre, no Great Court at the British Museum. That was the point: the difference in mentality.

Others here are commenting as if St John's Co-Cathedral is going to be touched or something. It's NOT. What we're talking about is an annex on Merchants' Street and the extension of the MUSEUM, not the Co-Cathedral. St John's will remain a place of worship and will, furthermore, have the pressure it suffers now eased.

The argument about the annex being sacred, as it is a graveyard, is pointless. Even the Co-Cathedral proper is a graveyard. The difference is that in the Co-Cathedral proper you actually walk over the graves.

Please, let's be rational and balanced, rather than having this little-island mentality that Malta should be a never-changing crib.

Simon Mercieca

Aug 3rd 2008, 18:52

The comparison between the proposed development at St. John and the Louvre does not tally. In the case of the Louvre, only a small part of the courtyard was built and the structures were made in such a way (three glass pyramids), to act as free standing units, so that the view of the palace’s façade is not impaired from any point of the courtyard.

The geometrical propositions of the two developments are totally different and if one wants to remain within the Louvre’s parameters, one should be proposing a building of the size of a small gazebo and not a huge structure which is going to totally transform this area and impair the view of the side of Saint John to passers by.

It is dangerous to state that ‘the best way to preserve what we have inherited from them (the Knights) is to give it a new use’. The main purpose of this place has to remain that of worship. The fact that it is being used as a museum should be a second fiddle. It would be a great pity, if this building is reduced to a mere piece of grandiose historical furniture.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 3rd 2008, 18:21

@ M Camenzuli - The intention for the Courtyard is to REMOVE the remains of the Knights, as otherwise, you cannot prepare the foundations for the necessary three-storey building.
Crowded Valletta will also see the disappearance of an open-air space (however small it is). In Valletta, every tiny area which is open-air is very important.
The original plan for St John's INCLUDED this 'secluded' Courtyard. To build over this Courtyard means that the original plan of the Co-Cathedral will be changed forever.
The architecture within the Courtyard - so I am informed - does not only lie within the central monument and the tombs. It is also prevalent in the whole area of the Courtyard - wherever you eyes gaze. Are you sure you have gone there and spent some time looking at it?

Please, please stop comparing our Co-Cathedral with Museums in Europe. There is no comparison.

Raymond Sammut

Aug 3rd 2008, 18:08

@ M Camenzuli

There is nothing wrong with "walking", Camenzuli. Personally I like to walk over graves and read the inscriptions. I never get any complaints. What gets me infuriated is when I see people with steel nails in their shoes scratching or chipping the tombstone.

The grounds is sacred. It is the resting place of the most magnificent men to have ever walked on our islands. These were men who had left riches behind them in order to lead a selfless life and dedicate themselves to what they believed in. They were initially indifferent toward our islands and our ancestors, but then went on to embrace both the land and the people. They endowed the islands with the most beautiful treasures, and ultimately fought and died for what is today our nationhood. The most remarkable thing about them is that they chose to be buried where they are now, and not at their respective estates in Europe. It is this very quality that the six moles calling themselves Foundation now want to undermine.

Now try to compare these magnificent men with the trash we have leading our country presently. Enough to turn my stomach upside down.

M Camenzuli

Aug 3rd 2008, 17:12

Astrid Vella:

If this is sacred ground, as it’s a graveyard, how do we allow people into
St John’s Co-Cathedral proper which is not only a graveyard but where you’re actually walking over the graves?!

Why cannot we have an extension of the Co-Cathedral museum
even if part of this courtyard is a gravesite?
Have you ever visited the Paris catacombs?

Anyone who did, and who visited the
Louvre with its modern pyramid, and who visited the
British Museum with its celebrated Great Court,
would realize what an obsession we have in Malta with leaving everything
exactly as it is even if we’re then hiding treasures from the visiting public
and not utilising our historic buildings to their full potential.

If the Knights had this same mentality, they would never have built Valletta
and all the wonderful treasures they bequeathed us.

The best way to preserve what we have inherited from them is to
give it a new use. That's why this proposed extension is a positive step.

Antoinette Schembri

Aug 3rd 2008, 17:12

There exists another side issue to this story which is being missed in this public debate.

Many common human mortals had their applications for development and renovation of their homes in Valletta and the Three Cities refused by MEPA, including buildings which have no historical value, and built after the Second World War, on the premise that the alternation proposed to the property is going to change the streetscape or that the property happens to be metres away from a historic building. Now, we have an application, which is destined, if approved, to change the streetscape of one the main streets in Valletta as well as, affecting directly one of Malta' most important buildings. I am very interested to know whether such MEPA considerations are going to be applied to this application, as in case of approval, it will be another proof that MEPA has two scales and measures. I am afraid that this is going to be another case where the MEPA dictum will prevail; 'all men are equal but some men are more equal than others'.

Astrid Vella

Aug 3rd 2008, 14:11

@M.Camenzuli: the Louvre case does not relate to the St.John’s situation.Roofing-over the courtyard hardly makes an artistic or architectural work of IM Pei calibre.As regards the British museum,in spite of all the space you mention,the British Museum collection is dispersed all over the UK and yet our Foundation is refusing to consider an extension to a building just feet away.

However many are missing the most important aspect. Unlike the British Museum or Louvre, the courtyard is a sacred graveyard, the last resting place of national heroes, the Knights who fell to defend Malta during the Great Siege.Can you imagine a shop being built against London’s Cenotaph or the Abraham Lincoln monument?Or a café within the railings of Westminster Abbey or Paris’ Les Invalides? Where is our dignity? Why are we so ready to sell off our national pride? We would be the laughing-stock of Europe.

You accuse of short-sightedness. What could be more short-sighted than the destruction of underground heritage WHEN ALTERNATIVES, recommended not by FAA but by the HIGHEST HERITAGE AUTHORITIES exist? These passages are not only our heritage,they are also another potential tourist attraction.Their destruction is surely the most short-sighted and vandalistic act of all.

Joseph Grech-Attard

Aug 3rd 2008, 13:27

Accepting that the pyramid at the Louvre has become a landmark does not mean that its place there is acceptable. Even our phallic monument in Luqa is a landmark but do the majority, agree to its location?
Have all alternatives been seriously considered? If so, what alternatives are there and why do excavations take priority? Can we know who the designers and architects who have proposed the excavations are? I think it would be interesting.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 3rd 2008, 13:21

@ Dr ABC - Remember that nothing is 'impeccable', and that the 'deep-rooted' means nothing anymore!
What if I had to tell you that someone who is very, very high in office here in Malta agrees with me that this is sheer folly? What would you say, then?
Yes, I reiterate that what the Foundation is trying to do is akin to the worst possible developer in our country.
Dr ABC, we have had enough development in our country - wherever you go, in every direction, you see nothing but development going on. The tourists themselves grumble about this.
So, you call yourself a cultured person, yet will say nothing to the distruction of that Courtyard? How is it possible? At least, excavate the Square, but do not build over that Courtyard.
And still, nobody has answered the question: what do we need a roof-top cafeteria for, when Valletta is so full of them, if not to earn more and more money?
Mr M Debono, well done for your suggestions.
Once again, DLH has not pronounced itself for or against building over the Courtyard. It only pronounced itself in favour of excavating beneath the Square.

M. Debono

Aug 3rd 2008, 12:17

I think, one needs to further look into alternative solutions rather than build or excavate. For example, if we take the piazza infront of the Law Courts, where the entrance to the museum is .... i think, one can easily build a modern-looking entrance that incorporates cafeteria, entrance to museum incl. ticketing booth + a proper cathedral souvenir shop (not like the present one). With the empty space recovered from moving out the above mentioned, maybe one could further expand the museum and create the necessary space for the other artecrafts to be on show. I still think that an extension like the one being proposed to the museum on the side, is not the same like the Louvre pyramid. A similar pyramid could be interesting if the square infront of the Law Courts could be utilised, and becomes an attraction in itself.

Astrid Vella

Aug 3rd 2008, 12:12

@ Andrew BorgCardona: what everyone is strangely failing to mentions is that the MEPA Planning Directorate itself has dubbed the project to excavate St. John’s Street and Square a “non starter” due to the risk of potential damage to the foundations of St John’s Cathedral and reminded that a number of heritage protection entities had already recommended that another building in Valletta be used for the Foundation’s as expansion requirements.

FAA’s stand has not been a “knee-jerk reaction” but a researched one in consultation with researchers who have confirmed that the area around St. John’s is the richest in passages and underground remains. Had the Foundation submitted the project for public scrutiny as one would expect for a project of this magnitude affecting Malta’s greatest national monument, we would not have had to come out in this way. By chosing to submit the proposals in the two weeks leading up to the elections,when the public was distracted on other things, the Foundation’s actions raise many questions.

We are very happy to see the Foundation expand its museum but wonder why it refuses to consider restoring a building which is as close as the underground chambers would be.

M Camenzuli

Aug 3rd 2008, 11:49

Someone mentioned the Louvre in related posts: 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.

Andrew Borg-Cardona

Aug 3rd 2008, 11:18

Finally, the voice of reason, coming from an organisation whose heritage conservation credentials are impeccable and deep-rooted.

Of course, just because it was the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation that made the proposals doesn't mean that the proposals should not be discussed and/or improved on, but the knee jerk reaction of most people, appearing to liken the Foundation with commercial developers, was unfair.

Alfred Briffa

Aug 3rd 2008, 10:51

Alas!!! All of a sudden everyone has become 'an expert' in building and architecture! It seems we have moved from one extreme to the other....opposing every inch of development on this island is the talk of the day!

Franco Farrugia

Aug 3rd 2008, 10:43

In my opinion, it is shameful for Din l-Art Helwa to suggest that it is all right to do ANY development within the walls of Valletta.
It is ridiculous of DLH to suggest that no harm will come from excavations beneath St John's Square and particularly next to the Co-Cathedral.
At least, DLH stopped short of approving the possible development of the Courtyard of St John's.
I see nothing 'imperative' in that the collection of artefacts are kept together. They can easily be kept together in some palazzo or other magnificent building near St John's. The Cathedral Museum in Mdina is but one example.
DLH claims that the Maltese public stands to benefit. How many Maltese citizens enjoyed the privilege of going to the Co-Cathedral Museum to see these artefacts, in the first place? So, please, don't bring in the Maltese citizen!

effie carbonaro

Aug 3rd 2008, 09:55

wouldnt it have been better if DLH proposed an alternative site in valletta.there are a lot of historical buildings in valletta that can house this artefacts togather and if not a new building can be erected.i think these is sheer madness excavating St.John"s square.even if part of it why take away its imponent splendour that it has on the cathderal.you dont have to be an expert to know that touching such delicate buildings the damage can be to such devastating state thatt repair wil be beyond anyones reach.