Monday, 11th August 2008
Editorial
Extension of St John's museum
St John's Co-Cathedral houses Malta's finest art treasures, and its splendour and historical importance test the limits of the lexicon. Words like lavish, opulent, striking and significant fall short of the mark. Not even Napoleon's depredations in 1798 have dimmed its importance.
It, therefore, behoves the foundation which has been entrusted with its care to tread carefully before it tampers in any way with the co-cathedral's interior or its exterior, including any of its adjacent historical buildings or subterranean structures.
St John's Co-Cathedral is Malta's prime cultural tourism attraction. It draws in around 450,000 visitors a year. On peak days as many as 4,000 tourists pass through the co-cathedral's doors. In order to ease the congestion of visitors inside the co-cathedral - and thus to contribute directly to its conservation - the foundation has submitted two alternative outline applications for the extension of its currently wholly inadequate museum.
One option is for the construction of a three-storey building in the courtyard running along Merchants Street to provide additional space, including a canteen at roof level. The second option is to extend the co-cathedral's museum by excavating chambers underneath St John's Street and connecting them to existing subterranean water reservoirs. In the foundation's view, in the light of research already carried out, the underground option would not cause damage to any remains of historical significance, and the cisterns in front of the co-cathedral would not be destroyed but would instead be cleaned and opened to visitors as part of the new museum.
The over-riding objective of the foundation's proposals is to ensure the preservation and conservation of the co-cathedral are safeguarded and that the priceless collection of artefacts currently mostly in storage, including the largest collection of Rubens-designed Flemish tapestries in the world, are displayed properly and safely as befits such artistic and historic treasures. Most importantly, the foundation has itself proposed that the two possible ways forward should be subjected to an independent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to ensure that whichever option is chosen will not pose any potential or real risks to the co-cathedral or any of the historical adjacent buildings.
As so often in Malta, condemnation has been heaped on the proposals without the benefit of a comprehensive, independent technical assessment which an EIA would provide. "My mind is made up. Please don't confuse me with the facts" seems all too often to inform our public discourse. The fact of the matter is that St John's Co-Cathedral is a victim of its own success and the museum, consisting of a number of restricted rooms built in the 1960s is totally inadequate to today's needs both in quality of presentation as well as spatially. The outstanding and unique collections of silver, paintings, sacred vestments, relics and reliquaries, sculptures and tapestries should, it is rightly argued, be housed together in their entirety.
The Foundation's proposals for doing so clearly have merit, not least the imaginative option of building an underground extension to the museum if, with appropriate safeguards and careful attention to any structural or archaeological features, it proves feasible to do so.
It would be wrong to condemn either option until the EIA has been completed and all the facts on which to base a judg-ment are available to us.
RSS
Comments
I have also read in your paper or blogs that MEPA, and I would imagine, the Foundation, have a report which states that the vicinity of St. John’s is the area of Valletta which is richest in underground passages, passages which will be affected by the excavation of the massive chambers that have been mentioned in the proposal debate. Is the Foundation in a position to say that “the underground option would not cause damage to any remains of historical significance” does that not smack of arrogance?
I respectfully submit that it is this editorial that has starved us any details other than the Foundation’s views, and it is the Foundation who is saying: "My mind is made up. Please don't confuse me with the facts"
I was taken aback reading the editorial, as most of it seems taken from the St.John’s Foundation website.While I understand the author’s recommending caution, I also expect both sides of the case to be represented.
I have followed this subject closely, and whilst I agree that an EIA should be undertaken, I have also read that MEPA has called the EIA “a non-starter” due to the risk to the Cathedral’s structural safety. Now MEPA is not exactly anti-development, so I feel this is an important comment even before the EIA. MEPA reports that leading heritage authorities also share this view as voiced by a leading architect speaking for the Valletta Council, so why was this not included in the editorial?
Not to sound flippant but if this were the case would it not be fitting to raise the argument that whilst Jesus Christ threw out the moneychangers and their ilk from the temple, the Foundation is bringing in ticket booths, a souvenir shop and a cafe' to boot!
If, on the other hand, a large underground space were to be created without causing danger to the church building, that might possibly be acceptable.
Every effort must be made not to continue with the proposed development of Merchants' Street!
In my opinion as a citizen, Valletta should NOT be disturbed in any way, for whatever reason.