Peter Apap Bologna, Sliema
Grand Opera, Parliament, and common sense
The recent barrage of letters are mostly in favour of building on the site of the Opera House in Valletta and against having Parliament there.
The conoscenti and glitterati seem to be united in their views on what should be done. Yet, in private, many others of the same ilk think the Prime Minister's idea makes 'eminent sense'.
Those who think otherwise do not seem to take into consideration the financial implications. Perhaps it is my background in accountancy and finance which causes me to be fearful of such a foolish extravaganza as building an opera house.
Several of your correspondents have made the point that most, if not all, European capital cities have an opera house. Would it not make more sense to ask how many communities as small as ours boast an opera house?
It is good to be proud of our charming capital city, but comparison with Rome, Milan, London, Paris, Berlin, or Vienna in terms of what is affordable and viable, is frankly ludicrous.
Madeline Gera's excellent contribution in The Sunday Times (January 4), makes the point that so many historical buildings are occupied by ministries, when they would be put to much better use as historical and cultural sites where their beauty would be opened up for all to enjoy.
The Prime Minister's plan to move Parliament from the Palace to the derelict opera site is surely a step in the right direction, as advocated by Ms Gera. If her views are heard, and they should be then the ministries should be shifted to less historically and culturally-valuable premises.
Her point about the urgent need for a Museum of Modern Art should also be heeded and acted upon by the powers-that-be.
Finally, it is astonishing that so many of your 'pro-opera house' correspondents would like to see the Barry Opera House rebuilt as it was. It was surely a ghastly Victorian monstrosity, totally out-of-keeping with the warm baroque architecture of Valletta. To me, it is reminiscent of those cold mausoleums, the headquarters of the old clearing banks, in the City of London. On the whole, I think the Luftwaffe did us a favour.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
V Farrugia
Jan 12th 2009, 17:30
'Would it not make more sense to ask how many communities as small as ours boast an opera house?'
Just for the record, Gozo has TWO opera houses, and they're always packed solid... so your argument holds as much water as a sieve.
j n ebejer
Jan 12th 2009, 08:46
A building which houses the Parliament should house just that and the offices to support it because such a building will be a statement of the importance we give to such an institution i.e. that nothing else can stand in such a building in such a prominent space of our city.
'Ghastly Victorian monstrosity, totally out-of-keeping with the warm baroque architecture of Valletta. -I believe we should add and admit that the British wanted to give a message by having such a building in such a style at such place replacing -more political than anything else.
There could be parallelism with the attempt and partial execution - thanksfully- of the defacing of the rich baroque decoration of St.John's Co Cathedral interior, which was not appreciated by them. The use of Valletta fortifiations as burial places for their compatriots - more or often relatively less important fugures - such as Upper Barakka gardens and erection of monuments could be another example.
Obviously, our arts, history and archtecue expert professionals can correct and give their more learned opninon.
J Martinelli
Jan 11th 2009, 16:07
There will never be a consensus for the ultimate use of the former Opera House site. Some want another Opera House and others want the Parliament to be located there.
Can the two not be successfully built together?
My thoughts are that the Theatre (Opera House) will be built partially underground so that from the Republic Street entrances (as the original were) the patrons would descend a few steps to the theatre. Of course, the design would be drastically different from the former opera house but acoustics and stage arrangements are paramount and there would be sufficient space if properly designed.
The floor above the theatre would be used for offices of the Opposition MPs which will occupy the front three quarters of the space, with the back space directly connected to the stage below providing enough height for props and scenes to be dropped to, or raised from the stage.
The upper floor(s) would house Parliament and offices of Government MPs.
I am sure that an architect like Renzo Piano can design a building which can accommodate an Opera House as well as Parliament.
When there is a will, there is a way.
Peter Aquilina
Jan 11th 2009, 15:01
Regarding the rebuilding of the Opera House, Mr Apap Bologna states that we should take into consideration " the financial implications".
Mr Apap Bologna's "background in accountancy and finance" may perhaps serve better by enlightening us of the so many other implications caused by greedy "institutionalised " bodies, that drain this island's coffer by continuous extravagant "organized" expenditures in cultural "projects" and other fail-fated adventures, both locally and abroad.
lgalea
Jan 11th 2009, 13:06
Accountants only see pounds shillings and pence, or should we now say euros and cents?
Charles Sammut
Jan 11th 2009, 12:08
@ Peter Apap Bologna
You gave the game away when you admitted that you are an accountant.
There's more to life than Euros and cents. Or as some one put it, "Man does not live by bread alone."
Karl Consiglio
Jan 11th 2009, 10:28
I wish they turn into an art space a la Tate modern.