Right gate crashing
The debate about the Prime Minister's proposal to build an edifice to take the House of Representatives on the old Royal Opera site, along with restructuring City Gate took time to take off, but it is now in full swing. Contrary to what happened in the...
The debate about the Prime Minister's proposal to build an edifice to take the House of Representatives on the old Royal Opera site, along with restructuring City Gate took time to take off, but it is now in full swing. Contrary to what happened in the mid-1980s it is not the choice of the internationally renowned architect, Renzo Piano, that is causing the controversy, but the PM's on-the-hoof decision regarding re-housing Parliament.
That is not to say that Mr Piano's eventually recast plans will be accepted by one and all. There have already been strong murmurs of dissent about the likely new modern version. The most telling criticism, to my mind, came from a gentleman who noted that the Italian architect had proved to be unfamiliar with the total history of City Gate and the bridge leading to it.
This time there has been no uproar over the fact that Mr Piano was arbitrarily selected, rather than through a competition to give other architects a chance, including local ones. There seems to be general agreement that it would be very good for our capital city and for Malta to be associated with Mr Piano. Whether that remains the broad view when the architect transfers his ideas to the drawing board and from there to the Prime Minister, remains to be seen.
However if Mr Piano has not triggered off old controversies the very arbitrary primeministerial decision to transform the long-neglected Opera site mainly into the seat of the House of Representatives has proved to be very controversial. Various letter writers have stuck to the strong position that Malta deserves a top-notch place where to hold operas that can attract international attention.
The arguments for this are put pithily. It is not only the grandeur of the Barry design that is recalled, but the fact that leading operatic singers used to grace the Royal Opera House. In this regard there is clear disagreement with the Prime Minister's statement that Valletta and thereby Malta, have enough theatres.
No less an authority than Joseph Calleja, Malta's international tenor of fast growing repute, immediately came out in public to lay low that assertion. He pointed out that the Manoel Theatre, beautiful though that gem is, and the attractive Richard England restored St James Cavalier are not quite suited for full scale opera. One should presume that Mr Calleja knows what he's talking about. Nevertheless there was no reaction to his incursion into the debate from prime ministerial quarters, though they are usually very ready to try to recalibrate debates in Lawrence Gonzi's favour.
As a matter of fact there has been no reaction to the comments made about the Prime Minister's decision, declared a mere few weeks after the 2009 budget speech, and presentation of the estimates without having been referred to in the least in them.
That is surprising, not least because if the work starts as early Dr Gonzi may wish it to, it will impact the government's expenditure, and thereby the fiscal balance, unless room is made for it by cutting back on already planned outlays. In this regard it could be that a main reason for the PM's decision was to give a boost to the building industry, whose members have been among those complaining of an incipient slowdown.
If that is the case there was all the more reason for the development of City Gate and of the old Opera House site to be included and clearly outlined in the Budget. Unless, that is, there is a feeling that these projects will once again remain pie in the sky for quite longer than indicated by the Prime Minister.
Meanwhile, the debate will continue. It is not about whether the projects should be taken in hand. Most definitely the existing City Gate needs to be knocked down to be replaced with xsomething befitting Valletta. Whether that is a gate to harmonise with the bastions, or a bold modern gate whereby the architect will still blend together the old and the new, remains to be seen. But seen it must be, and without much further delay. City Gate and the way its environs have been devalued cry out for attention.
It is high time too that the remains of the old Opera House are cleared and, along with Freedom Square turned into something aesthetically beautiful which would also make functional sense. If one wants to be truly bold the buildings around and opposite Freedom Square should also be cleared away to reveal the bastions and allow for a truly new development.
That still leaves the purpose to which the Opera House site will be put. I am one of those who believe that Lawrence Gonzi should rethink this one through. It would be more than a pity if public funds are splashed out to build a new House of Representatives. My money remains on leaving the House where it is, in the Palace. The old Armoury, which it has replaced, is housed well enough on the ground floor; as a matter of fact it offers better access.
What the House lacks are offices for backbench MPs. These can be provided outside the House, within Valletta itself. The few who have sneered at this proposal have not said why it would not work in practice.
If the Prime Minister wants to dig his heels to relocate the House of Representatives, that can be done within a suitably restored Fort St Elmo. That too would involve considerable construction works and expenses, but it would leave the Opera House site free for a more suitable use. Joseph Calleja has suggested a modern auditorium, which could be used both for operas as well as other activities.
The idea might not completely please those who want a Barry type structure.
But it could provide a challenge for Mr Piano to come up with a design that complements City Gate and be functional as well.
Whether public opinion can make Dr Lawrence Gonzi change his mind is another matter. He did that over his golf course proposal. He might well feel that changing one's mind twice could be seen as a weakness. It wouldn't be. The important thing is to get the decision right.
That is not to say that Mr Piano's eventually recast plans will be accepted by one and all. There have already been strong murmurs of dissent about the likely new modern version. The most telling criticism, to my mind, came from a gentleman who noted that the Italian architect had proved to be unfamiliar with the total history of City Gate and the bridge leading to it.
This time there has been no uproar over the fact that Mr Piano was arbitrarily selected, rather than through a competition to give other architects a chance, including local ones. There seems to be general agreement that it would be very good for our capital city and for Malta to be associated with Mr Piano. Whether that remains the broad view when the architect transfers his ideas to the drawing board and from there to the Prime Minister, remains to be seen.
However if Mr Piano has not triggered off old controversies the very arbitrary primeministerial decision to transform the long-neglected Opera site mainly into the seat of the House of Representatives has proved to be very controversial. Various letter writers have stuck to the strong position that Malta deserves a top-notch place where to hold operas that can attract international attention.
The arguments for this are put pithily. It is not only the grandeur of the Barry design that is recalled, but the fact that leading operatic singers used to grace the Royal Opera House. In this regard there is clear disagreement with the Prime Minister's statement that Valletta and thereby Malta, have enough theatres.
No less an authority than Joseph Calleja, Malta's international tenor of fast growing repute, immediately came out in public to lay low that assertion. He pointed out that the Manoel Theatre, beautiful though that gem is, and the attractive Richard England restored St James Cavalier are not quite suited for full scale opera. One should presume that Mr Calleja knows what he's talking about. Nevertheless there was no reaction to his incursion into the debate from prime ministerial quarters, though they are usually very ready to try to recalibrate debates in Lawrence Gonzi's favour.
As a matter of fact there has been no reaction to the comments made about the Prime Minister's decision, declared a mere few weeks after the 2009 budget speech, and presentation of the estimates without having been referred to in the least in them.
That is surprising, not least because if the work starts as early Dr Gonzi may wish it to, it will impact the government's expenditure, and thereby the fiscal balance, unless room is made for it by cutting back on already planned outlays. In this regard it could be that a main reason for the PM's decision was to give a boost to the building industry, whose members have been among those complaining of an incipient slowdown.
If that is the case there was all the more reason for the development of City Gate and of the old Opera House site to be included and clearly outlined in the Budget. Unless, that is, there is a feeling that these projects will once again remain pie in the sky for quite longer than indicated by the Prime Minister.
Meanwhile, the debate will continue. It is not about whether the projects should be taken in hand. Most definitely the existing City Gate needs to be knocked down to be replaced with xsomething befitting Valletta. Whether that is a gate to harmonise with the bastions, or a bold modern gate whereby the architect will still blend together the old and the new, remains to be seen. But seen it must be, and without much further delay. City Gate and the way its environs have been devalued cry out for attention.
It is high time too that the remains of the old Opera House are cleared and, along with Freedom Square turned into something aesthetically beautiful which would also make functional sense. If one wants to be truly bold the buildings around and opposite Freedom Square should also be cleared away to reveal the bastions and allow for a truly new development.
That still leaves the purpose to which the Opera House site will be put. I am one of those who believe that Lawrence Gonzi should rethink this one through. It would be more than a pity if public funds are splashed out to build a new House of Representatives. My money remains on leaving the House where it is, in the Palace. The old Armoury, which it has replaced, is housed well enough on the ground floor; as a matter of fact it offers better access.
What the House lacks are offices for backbench MPs. These can be provided outside the House, within Valletta itself. The few who have sneered at this proposal have not said why it would not work in practice.
If the Prime Minister wants to dig his heels to relocate the House of Representatives, that can be done within a suitably restored Fort St Elmo. That too would involve considerable construction works and expenses, but it would leave the Opera House site free for a more suitable use. Joseph Calleja has suggested a modern auditorium, which could be used both for operas as well as other activities.
The idea might not completely please those who want a Barry type structure.
But it could provide a challenge for Mr Piano to come up with a design that complements City Gate and be functional as well.
Whether public opinion can make Dr Lawrence Gonzi change his mind is another matter. He did that over his golf course proposal. He might well feel that changing one's mind twice could be seen as a weakness. It wouldn't be. The important thing is to get the decision right.