St John's Co-Cathedral project (1)

Permit me to offer a suggestion which should once and for all painlessly and effectively solve the tapestry/commercial issues that occupy the waking hours of the powers that be at St John's.

Why go to all the hassle of digging a large and deep hole in the middle of Valletta similar in length, breadth and height to the nave of St John's just to show off the tapestries as if in their 'natural habitat', so to speak? Why not simply deconsecrate the co-cathedral - all it takes is a few words - and turn it, complete with tapestries, vestments, paintings, silver, Preti's superb ceiling and all, into a museum?

After all, the vast majority of politicians, members of constituted bodies and the judiciary do not give a fig for the place and what it stands for, seeing that most of them had better things to do than celebrate Malta's national day in St John's on September 8.

The political, judicial and other bodies concerned are bound to object (of course); claiming that they still want to celebrate the national day in the traditional way in a nationally recognised venue.

An equally simple and effective solution presents itself. Why not consecrate the Hypogeum and commemorate the Vitorja there? All it takes is a few words and the place can easily seat the few VIPs (bless them) who bother to turn up on the day.

There is one drawback to this suggestion. What about all the tourists who want to see the Hypogeum? Again a really cheap solution occurs to me. Let the powers-that-be set up a body (call it a foundation, if you will) to develop (if that is the right phrase) this unique and highly marketable national asset in the public interest. I am sure that after internal consultation, this high powered, and highly favoured, body will come up with a concept of mind-shattering ingenuity and originality: a full-size replica of the Hypogeum superbly designed and executed in moulded polystyrene, perfect in every detail and... wait for it... above ground!

I jest of course but the point I am trying to make is that, once the original uses and purposes of monuments are subverted in part or in toto, they become vulnerable to inappropriate change.

No one, myself included, entertains the slightest doubt as to the integrity dedication and intentions of the foundation: it is working very hard to return Girolamo Cassar's masterpiece to its former glory and, except in this matter, the directors are doing a really magnificent job. This is very much a disagreement between friends and for me it is very sad indeed.

This project demanded a different methodology given the importance of St John's and its location. There should have been a call for proposals, nationally and internationally for evaluation by an international body of experts. Public comment and informed debate would have been encouraged through an exhibition and presentations, etc.

Finally a solution, broadly seen as sensible and practical, would have been submitted to the planning authorities for their mature and independent consideration. That is how high profile projects like this one should be handled and, had it gone down that route, the foundation would have earned nothing but praise even if the submission failed. Instead, if I am not mistaken, it appears to have developed its proposal largely through an internal (i.e., confidential) process and then presented it to the Malta Environment and Planning Authority without first 'testing' public opinion or holding discussions with independent consultants. I cannot find any reference at all to the project on the foundation's website.

The foundation now has to try to ride out a storm of criticism while attempting to nurse its vision through the planning process.

I understand that the foundation is to submit an environmental impact assessment and that it will also (one presumes) come up with more detailed facts and figures. It is essential that the foundation gives its EIA consultants adequate time and the resources to do the job. It is equally important that the process is fully transparent and independent and that the consultants' mandate is broad enough to enable them to put every aspect of the proposal under the microscope lest awkward questions be deflected on the grounds that they are "not in the terms of reference".

It is goes without saying too that the foundation, in its own interests, must be seen to appoint consultants who enjoy public confidence as regards their qualifications and experience and, above all, their competence and independence. Then all will rest with Mepa.

Is it too much to pray that integrity and common sense will prevail?