Cathedral museum extension: Doing nothing would put cathedral at risk - foundation
St John Square, beneath which an extension of the Co-Cathedral museum is being proposed.
The president of St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation, Mgr Philip Calleja, has again defended plans for an underground extension of the cathedral museum, saying that not doing anything would put the co-cathedral at risk because the present situation is not sustainable and with time, damage will be caused to the co-cathedral.
Reacting to a front page story in The Times yesterday, Mgr Calleja also pointed out that substantial EU funds that could be allocated to other valid projects are still available for take-up.
He said the foundation was granted EU funding for the extension of St John’s Museum after it submitted a detailed and technical submission making its case to obtain the co-financing for its project.
The foundation had applied for EU funding following a public call for which all Maltese entities were encouraged to submit proposals. The foundation’s technical submission was in line with the published regulations under Priority Axis 2 of the Structural Funds Programme for Malta, Mgr Calleja said.
Out of the €900 million allocated to Malta by the European Union, there were €120 million allocated to Priority Axis 2 of Malta’s Structural Funds Programme. €13.798 million of these funds (to which the foundation will be adding €2.06 million from its own funds as its co-financing share) were allocated to St John’s following the extensive adjudication process carried out strictly in line with EU regulations. The total allocated to St John’s is 1.5% of the funds allocated to Malta and 11.5% of those allocated to Priority Axis 2.
The objectives of Priority Axis 2 are the promotion of a sustainable and competitive tourism industry, supporting the upgrading of the tourism product and improving the competitiveness of tourism and culture operators.
Mgr Calleja stressed that St John’s Co-Cathedral, besides being a very active church, had become the main cultural tourist venue for visitors on the island, attracting some 400,000 visitors each year. Therefore, the relevance of the proposed project was highly significant to sustainable tourism in Malta.
“The foundation cannot understand how the co-financing of a project that will serve to preserve and lessen the current stress on the Co-Cathedral and enhance the experience of the 400,000 visitors can be put to question, particularly when taking into consideration the objectives of this Priority Axis under which the foundation obtained the co-financing,” Mgr Calleja said.
Neither could the foundation understand why it should be penalised because it had vision and was planning ahead to avert visitors’ damage to the Co-Cathedral rather than react after the damage was caused.
He also pointed out that substantial EU funds that could be allocated to valid projects were still available for take-up.
Referring to fears that the project could harm the structure of the co-cathedral, Mgr Calleja insisted that the foundation was not prepared to take any risks and that if the Environmental Impact Assessment or other technical and scientific studies indicated any possible danger to the Co-Cathedral, the foundation would not proceed with the project.
“However, the Foundation is not relying on the sometimes very divergent opinions being aired – however well-meaning – but is asking and waiting for a professional Environmental Impact Assessment before taking a final decision. It is very hard to understand how anyone can conclude that the project can jeopardise the very structure of the Co-Cathedral when the studies have not yet even started.”
It was also important for all who had St John’s interests at heart to realise that not doing anything would put the Co-Cathedral at risk because the present situation was not sustainable and by time damage to the Co-Cathedral would be caused,” Mgr Calleha said.
Referring to claims that that the Project Description Statement published by MEPA made no reference to geological studies, Mgr Calleja geological studies were carried on pages 33 to 36. It also includes references to a study on alternative buildings on page 33 (article 5.3.3).
“Moreover, the current consultation process by MEPA on the Project Description Statement is being carried out so that all interested individuals or bodies can ensure that matters they consider important in an Environment Impact Assessment will actually be added if they are missing.”
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Ray Sultana
Feb 1st 2009, 13:07
Mgr Calleja, you got it all wrong.
The alternative to the insane quarry in Valletta isn't doing nothing, but relocating the museum to other disused buildings close to the Cathedral. This option would be much cheaper, would not create chaos, dust and noise in the heart of Valletta for years (to the detriment of everyone who visits Valletta - tourists, residents, shop owners, office workers etc.), would not require such massive amounts of energy for temperature control and would definately not put the Cathedral at risk.
I cannot understand why the Foundation is insisting in not considering this option. In Mdina, the Cathedral Museum is situated in the Old Seminary building across the road. This is also the case in many other cities. In Milan, the Museo del Duomo is situated across the street from the famous cathedral... they didn't dig up Piazza del Duomo to display the artefacts below ground!
This project is pure arrogance on the part of people who cannot admit to making a mistake in dreaming up such a project. I hope Mgr Calleja & co. quickly realise their mistake and withdraw the project right away and not waste any more of everybody's time and money.
albert pace
Jan 31st 2009, 21:37
The idea is absurd and I am sure that this project will not be effected. The cathedral would be damged with the relative digging. Is it possible that no one took into consideration the damage done to the church when the hotel in the centre of Sliema was being constructed.
Is it he intention of the mons to turn god's temple into a business enterprise? Is this the latest teaching of the church?
John carmel Navarro
Jan 31st 2009, 20:27
This project is just madness, just how you cannot or want to see that the project could bring the destruction of the very same Cathedral that you have been entrusted to protect. Find another home for the Tapestries there are so many other building within earshot to the Cathedral. I do not think that the financing of this project should be an issue, as the only concern should be the Cathedral to be left standing and not destroyed. So please Mgr Calleja this is not a personal battle that you just have to win, it’s our Heritage your are playing your game with. The Church is an integral part of the Maltese People, who are expressing their objection and concerns!
c. bartolo
Jan 31st 2009, 20:24
can someone plese explain why the perellos tapestries cannot be permanently hung in the church itself ad they had been meant to be? it is logically the best place for than and no alternative site need be found!
Robert Caruana
Jan 31st 2009, 20:17
Is it so difficult for Mgr Calleja to understand that there are other ways of preserving the co-cathedral that do not involve digging quarries under Valletta or roofing over churchyards?
Antonio Anastasi
Jan 31st 2009, 19:47
I cannot understand the objection or the problems with having these tapestries displayed in other palaces inside Valletta?
Would this not further increase the revenue for the Cathedral by having to sell admission to another venue?
As stated below by a contributor, sustainable development also means reducing the number of daily visitors, which is already being done at the Hypogeum, which I understand has advanced bookings and a month long waiting list.
This only enhances its value, as it would a future Tapestries museum.
Another point against would be the shortsightedness involved in allowing TWO major construction projects in our capital, which would, not only turn this unique gem of a city into a large construction site, for a considerable period of time, but also the polution, in the form of dust from the actual construction, and exhaust from the trucks, would not only make Valletta unbearable for those who visit, work and live there, but will accelerate the environmental damage being done to the actual buildings. After all this was the reason traffic is now limited.
Final point: by whom and how is Merchant Str. going to be repaved once the trucks have finished destroying it?
Astrid Vella
Jan 31st 2009, 17:37
PART 2 :
No one said that the PDS made no reference to geological studies,but that these should be carried out immediately,before theEIA is undertaken so that if they prove that the geology dictates a change in plan,or shows the ground to be unstable,the EIA cost of 150,000 Euros will not be wasted.
MgrCalleja claims that geological studies were carried in the PDS.I copy the said ‘study’:
5.4.8 It is well-known that vibrations caused by the excavation equipment and the presence of geological features in the rock such as fissures may cause damage to properties located in the near vicinity of excavation works.As the exposed geological formation of the area is LowerGlobigerinaLimestone the impact of vibration may be somewhat dampened.However,it would still be essential for detailed geological,hydrological, and geotechnical investigations to be carried out during the EIA process.
If this is what Mgr Calleja considers to be a geological study, then the situation is even worse than I thought.
Mgr Calleja talks of wanting to avert damage to the Cathedral being caused by the congestion of visitors.If this is the case why are they not implementing the new visitor routes visitors from now?
Astrid Vella
Jan 31st 2009, 17:25
PART 1: As regards alternative locations for the museum, the PDS states:
5.3.2 The Foundation does not agree with the option that a number of historic buildings in Valletta should be considered as locations for the proposed museum, as the artefacts in question are directly connected with St. John’s Co-Cathedral. For example, the Flemish tapestries, which require the largest/highest space in the extension, were given to the Co-Cathedral as a gift by Grandmaster Perellos. Exhibiting these tapestries elsewhere, even in Valletta, would be a departure from established trends in museum management.
5.3.3 This being said, this option should be studied in detail in the EIA. It this therefore suggested that the EIA Terms of Reference include indications of which buildings should be considered for this particular study.
An essential part of the Environment Impact Assesment’s role is that of studying alternatives. How can one believe that a Consultant paid by the Foundation will really give their full attention to a study that the Foundation does not welcome?
Charles Sammut
Jan 31st 2009, 16:50
A lot of old, historical cities ban all heavy traffic from their core. This because the vibrations which are caused damage the buildings.
And here we have someone wanting to excavate a hole the size of a quarry right beside the most important building on the island. I do not think that they will be using manual labour with picks but mechanical diggers. This is absolute madness.
James Saliba
Jan 31st 2009, 16:41
No one in his right sense of mind should allow this plan to go on. This is an irresponsible one since there seems to be very little knowledge of the actual effects that it would create if continued as planned. Is there maybe a hidden agenda which Mgr is not telling us? Maybe we should ask Mr RCC.
lgalea
Jan 31st 2009, 16:03
Having an EIA when everybody except Mons Calleja in favour of the project is simply SQUANDERING of OUR money Mons.
Thereza Baker
Jan 31st 2009, 16:01
I agree with joseph mercieqa and s calleja. If this proposed underground extension is given the go-ahead, and the resultant 'quarry' is excavated, I dread the day that I open this newspaper and read of the collapse of our Co-cathedral.
Jimmy Magro
Jan 31st 2009, 15:43
Most of the objections are not about EU funding but about the geological and environment impact of the project. With all due respects to the Chairman, people are not impressed with the fact that the project has been approved by the PPCD and on EU rules. These rules do not speak about geology and environment but whether in the application you have included material to meet the objectives of the call and hence meeting bureaucratic criterias.
In fact the biggest test is public perception and the MEPA permit which up to now it has failed the first one and still not got the second one.
The process of EU funding is obscure with bureaucracy and should not never be deemed as a breakthrough in our history of national development.
It would have been better if Mgr Calleja would have explained the current and future threats to the Cathedral and whether making a big whole underneath would in itself be a greater threat to the whole building.
Albert Gauci Cunningham,
Jan 31st 2009, 15:38
Mgr Calleja eeps repeating something ad nauseam so that maybe someone will start believing him.
Mgr. Calleja should know that NOBODY in this entire country is saying that we should do nothing, so the whole premise of this reaction is already false. On the contrary FAA, the PL and AD together with thousands of individuals are saying that the Foundation should use palaces, property in the area and its own huge office space to put the tapestries in. No one is saying that we shouldn't use the EU funds but everyone is saying that we should use them wisely.
What sense is there to draw an EIA (which arrogantly enough is paid by the foundation and is only studying one option!!!) before actually going for GEOLOGICAL studies so as to make sure that this project is actually possible?? If the project turns out to be impossible than we would have wasted 150,000 euros from our taxes in times of financial turmoil to draw an EIA for an unsustainable project that can't even take off let alone be completed!!!
s.calleja
Jan 31st 2009, 14:15
The entities who are objecting to the project are offering solutions and suggestions. It is agreed by all that the tapesteries need a new home but it needn't be underground beneath the cathedral. If the objectors are jumping the gun before the EIA is onducted so is the foundation when it's hell bent on the project and makes it sound like a fait accompli.
joseph attard
Jan 31st 2009, 12:40
instead of wasting money on these things right now, why wouldn't you try to help these people who are losing their job??
joseph mercieqa
Jan 31st 2009, 12:22
Now well! how long are we going to take the public for a ride?
Sustainable tourism does not imply extending museums with underground extensions within a UNESCO world heritage site on which MEPA has always said NO QUARRYING.. even in the case of shops behind the cathedral itself... It means controlling or capping the number of visitors into the cathedral...or are we after the bucks more than preservation? It seems we want to milk dry our heritage resources with short sighted visions when extensions will still not control the impact of visitors on the cathedral... This is like saying extending the hypogeum to make it sustainable!
Mgr Calleja - what would be the carbon footprint of this extension?