Alex Torpiano, Lija
Political intervention in planning process
The controversial Pyramid at the Louvre Museum, built in 1989 by architect I.M. Pei.
Congratulations all round have been exchanged for the great "victory" of a project that was buried before it was killed. And yet, in some quarters the insistence persists that the members of the foundation should resign, for various reasons, among which ignoring the advice of a number of cultural and heritage experts, expressed, it appears, since 2006.
Although I hold no brief for the members of the foundation, and although I probably would say, if asked to express an opinion, that I did not necessarily like the proposal, let me be one of the few to express my regret at the outcome of the whole sorry saga.
It seems that some NGOs had access to reports which ex-pressed specific opinions relative to the proposal. A number of the opinions quoted appear to come from officials within Mepa. Is it not legitimate to ask whether these opinions were solicited as part of the pre-submission consultation process followed by the Foundation, or whether they were gratuitous opinions offered by Mepa officials outside the application processing routine? If the latter were the case, the expression of these opinions would not have been correct.
If, on the other hand, the former were the case, as, knowing the people concerned I think it was, was it not, in fact, their job to express their opinion - but not to offer a final decision on the proposal, since this role is reserved, according to our laws, to others? And therefore, was not the Foundation correct to take note of this advice, but not necessarily to agree with it?
The advice was also offered that the excavation adjacent to the Cathedral would have exposed this monument to slow deformations, or worse, to catastrophic collapses of any jointed rocks uncovered. Is it possible that this advice was not also tempered by the additional comment that it is, nowadays, possible to use geotechnics to assess such risks scientifically, to establish whether joint failures are kinematically feasible, and to anticipate whether any engineering solutions are necessary to resolve the risks identified?
I therefore suggest that calling for the resignation of the Foundation members, because they did not take heed of the contrary opinion of some experts, is completely incorrect. It is to be kept in mind that the Foundation might also have had other experts advising them that such works could be undertaken. If we have to throw expert opinion about, in defence of our own biases, we would have to accept that some experts are more expert than others.
The truth is that this project was buried before it was killed. The planning process, such as remains of it in Malta, is not only about petitions and publicity campaigns. The planning process should involve a proper presentation of the issues, for and against, including also the opinions, and fears, of "non-experts", but a final evaluation by those who have been appointed by law to so evaluate.
Let us assume that it could have been proven, to the satisfaction of everybody, that it would be possible to excavate without "having a quarry in the middle of Valletta", or with an iron-clad guarantee that no damage would have occurred to St John's Co-Cathedral, would all those people, who expressed themselves so vehemently against, still be so contrary to the concept of an underground museum?
Unfortunately, since the project was curtailed without due process, we will never know the whole truth about this proposal. Not only, but it is very likely that, from now on, the discussions about major national projects will not take place at Mepa, but in the media, and, heaven forbid, in Parliament.
Not only have we not managed to de-politicise the planning process but we have taken political interventions in planning to a new level.
Incidentally, does anybody care to know which barbarians did something similar to this proposal, very close to their own national architectural treasure? The French at the Louvre! But then they know nothing about the protection of heritage, do they? Or maybe they have different experts.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
34 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Alex Torpiano
Feb 22nd 2009, 17:43
My attention has been drawn to the exchange following publication of my letter. I am flattered by some comments, but also surprised at others, as if I have written a different letter to the one I thought I wrote.
I did not understand L.Galea's comment about Bendu Alex; is he ascribing so much influence to my sole, post-mortem, letter on the issue that he protests about my presuming to lead any sheep? Did I extol any experts, or ask that only experts' opinions be sought? On the contrary I was commenting on the waving about of specific experts' reports. And do I have anything against people's power, as expressed in the democracy that we aspire to? On the contrary, I was suggesting that democracy is about more than petitions and indignant blogs - that is more properly called demagogy. Neither did I speak of EIAs- I only asked for the truth, for and against, so as to allow people to make an informed decision. Finally, did I promote any aesthetic and structural changes to the Grade 1 monument of St.John's?
Finally, what does Fort Cambridge, Tigne', and Manuel (sic) Island have to do with this issue?
A bit of mud-slinging?
Joseph Sammut
Feb 22nd 2009, 17:41
@Corinne Vella:
Yes we have to stop doing that!!!!!!
Corinne Vella
Feb 22nd 2009, 16:02
Joseph Sammut: I agree. There is no question about Alex Torpiano's ability. It appears, though, that you and I have read different letters.
Joseph Sammut
Feb 22nd 2009, 11:55
@Corinne Vella:
The issue here, including Dr. Torpiano's comments on the project, are not technical, so it would be best not to turn this issue into one of the ability of Dr. Torpiano: I know and have every respect for Dr. Torpiano.
Corinne Vella
Feb 22nd 2009, 07:02
L. Galea: I take it, then, that when you are ill you shun your doctor's advice in favour of your car mechanic's.
mary rose busietta
Feb 22nd 2009, 00:01
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing ! However I wonder if Astrid had even a little knowledge of such a great project.
I believe what Prof. Alex Torpiano said " that the project was buried before it was killed "
HE is an EXPERT . He knows what he is saying . He is definitely no amateur.
L..Galea
Feb 21st 2009, 22:37
Corinne Vella
As someone has already said some time ago, professionals built the Titanic, amateurs built the Ark.
pat camilleri
Feb 21st 2009, 22:31
Dear Astrid as one of your most ardent sheep, I must say you are our star, and a jolly good shepherd too. , Although I am just a silly house wife with nothing better to do but to join FAA to kill time,I would like to say how grateful many of us are, that you should take time , unpaid , and speak for us all.Although I am not a great intellect, and have only a mere grasp of the English language, I shall keep on supporting you Astrid and wish you well in your endeavours .
carmel pule
Feb 21st 2009, 19:26
I find it quite disturbing that the general public ,first ,democratically elect a democratic parliament, which in turn empowers sections of EXPERTS to act as dictators, even to the extent of dismissing public opinions, whose pulse is felt by the country's leaders.
As construction and excavation has become a main employer/revenue in Malta, and MEPA is full of related professions to this trade, does anybody ever doubt the fact that any construction project would ever be refused!! The construction related EXPERTS would reshape it, remould it, transfer it, make it higher, dig lower into the ground, till eventually most of the present landscape changes into a concrete crust 100m high, 25 m deep.
So let the people's voice be heared, at least to make then believe that they still live in a true democracy. For managment to be most efficient it has to be dictatorial at times, hence the privitisation of parastatal industries, autonomy of MEPA, MCAST, University, etc etc. and allocation for building Tigne, Manuel island, and all those projects which soon be given consideration backed by the virtual philosophy of the national and public interest, including tourists!!
Stanley Cassar Darien
Feb 21st 2009, 19:24
Which route would the lorries, cranes, cement mixers etc have taken to get to St John's?
Merchant's or Republic street?
Corinne Vella
Feb 21st 2009, 19:23
Joe Sammut: No one mentioned the right to express an opinion. I merely observed that, on matters of structural engineering, the opinion of a structural engineer carries more weight. I also said that I imagined yours is not the opinion of a structural engineer and, it seems, I was right. I agree that the ability to reason is not necessarily the product of a university education but I think you will agree with me that specialist knowledge is the domain of specialists. You say you are a specialist in your own professional field: on a matter concerning your field of expertise, wouldn't you rank your opinion above, say, mine?
Your comment about the architecture of the last 30 or so years is beside the point made by Alex Torpiano that structural engineers are better placed to comment on matters of structural engineering.
C.Scerri
Feb 21st 2009, 19:04
Astrid - Stop repeating the same tune on the 16Million Euros! These were coming out of EU structural funds that have been earmarked for tourism infrastructural projects. So whatever the financial situation of the country, they can only be utilisied to build or reconstruct a tourism related building/project.
These funds are open to all, including NGO's, so I would invite you to prepare a project brief to be submitted whilst in the same time, agree (as all the other, non-remunerated project leaders) to be personally financially and legally responsible for the project.
Joe Micallef
Feb 21st 2009, 18:30
Ms. Vella,
Conveniently less informed positions are your forte.
Four comments are inevitable.
- So EIA are not infallible - your selected authors and their selected quotes are!
- Your knowledge of Pei's construction of the 80’’s is as good as mine of nuclear physics. Try reading a bit more and once you are at it, also read about Amsterdam which is something happening now in the worst geological conditions. You see the world and particularly technology has moved well ahead since the 80’s or early 90’s when the Cathedral was scheduled.
- Can you quantify this public you speak of?
- Whichever way you look at this issue you messed it up and squandered an opportunity to reform MEPA and its procedures beyond whatever Gonzi can hope to achieve.
I suggest you concentrate on your next crusade - Renzo Piano - the nemesis of the Maltese Bastions!
Gerard Cassar
Feb 21st 2009, 17:27
Whether relevant or not the Louvre was escavated to find the foundation and part of these escavation are now open to the public to see and appreciate. The building of the Pyramid was as far as I know done simultaneously as the escavations.
Besides the open air pyramid there is the inverted pyramid too.
Further to add more beauty one has to observe the water level of the surrounding pools lways keeping their level with the sustaining walls.
Going down to the entrance through the pyramid visitors surely feel the staircase springing as it is made of one whole piece of steel in spring form. But of course only the pyramid is mentioned and observed from outside. The Paris authorities and Pei knew what he was doing, and that there were no risks, and did not work blindly.
Eric Soames
Feb 21st 2009, 16:59
Thank you Astrid. Now, isn't time for everybody to move on and squabble over another bone of contention, surely there are plenty awaiting pickin'?
Joseph Galea
Feb 21st 2009, 16:31
Can it be possible that the provision of over 60,000 sq. m. of space (under the Napoleon Court) to which IM Pei's Louvre Pyramid is the entrance "did not require any rock excavation?"
Joseph Sammut
Feb 21st 2009, 16:19
@Corinne Vella:
No I am not a structural engineer, neither you for that matter. Am I a lesser man am I because I am not a structural engineer? What lesser right have I got to express my opinion?What makes you think that university education makes better persons? It is you power to reason soundly, a balanced mind and not university that maketh a man. University increases your knowledge but not your ability to reason soundly. And lastly yes I am a professional in my own field, sorry but not in structural engineering.
Joseph Sammut
Feb 21st 2009, 16:13
@Corinne Vella:
You are entitled to your opinion as others are too. My message is simple and I'll repeat it: look around you, go around Malta and Gozo and admire what the Maltese architect has given us over the last 30 years or so.
Joseph Galea
Feb 21st 2009, 16:06
Who was it that said "A little knowledge is dangerous?"
Astrid Vella
Feb 21st 2009, 15:46
PART 3: The public is also being given the impression that an EIA is the automatic right of any developer,this is not the case. A project for an underground car park beneath the Mosta Rotunda which was not allowed to undertake an EIA because of a threat to the church’s foundations. Given that this project for a church which is more recent and less sensitive than St John’s was blocked, one cannot but ask if pressure was put upon MEPA to allow an EIA for the Co-Cathedral.
Finally, as regards the the IM Pei pyramid at the Louvre, which has been repeatedly touted as the example we should be emulating, it has since resulted that the glass pyramid was built over a pre-existing ancient foundations and therefore did not require any rock excavation.Hardly the best parallel for the Cathedral project.
Astrid Vella
Feb 21st 2009, 15:38
PART 2: Additionally the public was protesting about the ripping up of the paving,laid at a cost of 100s of thousands of taxpayer euros,at the very time that the Cathedral project was known to the Authorities.
Other considerations included the danger to the fragile underground passages and Valletta's sewers, the project’s unsustainability, as well as the unavoidable impact of years of noise, dust and heavy vehicle traffic on the residents and shops of Valletta.While architects like Torpiano and Musumeci will argue that these issues would have been studied by an EIA,the public has no faith EIAs run by consultants who are not regulated by a Register but selected and paid by developers.In court cases are studies carried out by the parties or by COURT-APPOINTED experts?
EIAs are not infallible,that's why the MEPA Directorate said:"No matter what precautions are taken nothing can guarantee that the stability of St John’s foundations would not be affected.”Several EIAs have been flawed including the FortCambridge EIA which claimed that the dust and vibrations would not constitute a serious problem.Yet residents spent months choked in dust and suffered cracks in their homes.Are these the risks we were prepared to take at St. John’s?
Astrid Vella
Feb 21st 2009, 15:38
PART 1:This whole debate has been highjacked &made to focus only on a.Politic b.Planning process when the public's objections were far wider.
The first general consensus was that in a time of financial crisis,Malta cannot afford to spend €16 million on a single non-essential project; the funds need to be spread on far more urgent projects as is now to be done.
Another major concern was that the plans to turn the Great Siege cemetery into a souvenir shop was neither suitable nor acceptable,and objected to by both the MEPA heritage authorities and the Cathedral Monsinjuri.This is an overriding issue which rendered this project one which goes beyond the scope of an EIA.
As has been said ad nauseam,the Cathedral is scheduled Grade 1 which by law forbids any structural or aesthetic changes to the monument.Perit Torpiano is quoting one law, but somehow overlooked this one.
Contrary to what has been said by the Foundation,MEPA, the scheduling authority,has confirmed that the scheduling includes post-war reconstruction,otherwise every palace in Valletta could be tampered with,having suffered war damage.This means that by undertaking an EIA, the public would,in fact,be paying about 150,000 euros for an illegal project.
Corinne Vella
Feb 21st 2009, 15:13
P. Scerri, J. Sammut, L. Galea: I'd take Alex Torpiano's word over yours any day. At least he knows what he is talking about (he's a structural engineer - I imagine you are not), is able to construct a coherent argument, present it articulately and use evidence to back it up.
"The people have spoken" is not enough reason to bypass planning procedures. What if "the people" were to decide that a project should go ahead, despite unanimous expert opinion that it should not?
Joseph Galea
Feb 21st 2009, 14:44
Well said Alex!
Despite your wise words the usual commentators continue to make this into a political issue. Irrespective of the merits or demerits of the project, the unfortunate thing about this whole matter is that "non-experts", albeit well-intentioned, allowed their fears to move them to hijack due process and, as Alex Torpiano says, "bury the project before it was killed." If this is any indication of the way that future projects will go then we are in for a sad time indeed.
j attard
Feb 21st 2009, 14:14
@ maria zammit
are you commenting on the letter or did you post in the wrong blog ? we are talking about building a museum to house tapestries under st john's square and are comparing this to what happened in paris just outside the louvre , nobody said anything about dropping old houses to build flats. Incidentally , since you mention it, couples have to take out 40 year motgages whether they choose to buy your much loathed modern apartments or old houses if, that is, they want to live in a relativley good area. In fact a lovely old town house will set you back far more than one of your matchbox flats in almost all areas of malta and gozo, especially if this has a back yard ( advertised as a garden).
P.Scerri
Feb 21st 2009, 14:09
@J.Micallef. Power to the people. The Government and the Opposition were elected by the people, ergo they must represent the will of the people, may they be blue or red, or green or violet. Many argued that the quarry to be dug up would hurt very much the Cathedral's structure. So why risk it. Better safe than sorry.
Maria Zammit
Feb 21st 2009, 13:56
Ermmm... the point is that we are not building a visitor's centre, that is, we are not demolishing a beautiful property for the sake of building something better, a tourist attraction, or an outstanding building that can be admired and be world reknowned.
What we are building instead of our beautiful properties of old , are concrete match-boxes for housing future families, selling them at prohibitives prices which will mean couples have to take out 40 year loans to finance them making them modern-day slaves! This is what greed does! This is not necessite - this is just greed, the worse of vices.
Creating future social problems because families cannot live like rabbits no matter how nicely painted inside and out!
Joseph Sammut
Feb 21st 2009, 13:03
Experts, experts, experts! Il-Periti Maltin, esperti fl-istruttura, konkos, disin, maneggjar ta' xogholijiet, etc. Kulhadd irid jghid tieghu, ghax kullhad expert.
Harsu harsa mghadwarkhom, ma Malta w Ghawdew, u tghidhu, dan xoghol l-experts!?!
Joe Micallef
Feb 21st 2009, 12:03
@ LGalea and maybe P.Scerri
The fact that you are perfectly right about why this project was aborted and how well this faith was concerted, is the underlying problem. You see or better still you fail to see the dangerous precedent set here. This precedent will from now on be there today in the time of GonziPN, and increasingly more possible tomorrow in the time of TrinityMLP. What it means is that….well never mind ………
And one last thing, although I understand it may be beyond your short-sighted aspirations… stop this emotional punch about destroying the Cathedral. You really want to make me believe that for example Mons. Callejja wanted to destroy the Cathedral. You want a better emotional spin…….you should have said that the Foundation wanted to kill all the residents in the area…..now that is serious!!!!
Your short-sightedness spills over to you refusal to look around and see what others are doing in worst geological conditions. If you find time, but I doubt you are interested, have a look at what is being done in Amsterdam.
j attard
Feb 21st 2009, 11:13
This visitor centre added under the courtyard of the louvre is a classic example that these interventions can indeed be done with fantastic results no matter what our own incredibly arrogant , self -styled 'experts' say. This was back in the 80s but lets not forget that in the 1900 s much of the paris metro was constructed and tunnelled under and around some of the world's most prized monuments. The french should thank god that they didn't have our own 'protectors' to stop them. Imagine what FAA and co would have said about la defense !!
P. Scerri
Feb 21st 2009, 11:07
@J. Micallef. Making a scapegoat out of Astrid Vella, won't do you and your party any good. You're feeling the pinch now. As time goes by, the PN is painting itself in a corner, even its allies are turning their back on this opportunistic government.
L..Galea
Feb 21st 2009, 11:02
Joe Micallef
The most extremely important underlying problem is that Gonezipn is a minority government, he was threatened with a revolution by his own government heritage conscious MPs and the unelected RCC did not have it his way to destroy OUR national heritage.
The "professionals" gave their advise for the project to be shelves in 2006 and the Archbishop himself said on TV that he had informed Gonezipn in mid-December 2008 that he was against the project.
This notwithstanding, Gonezipn tried to use the Archbishop to save his face, but the truth came out Joe, for as they say iż-żejt dejjem jitla f'wiċċ l-ilma., oil always rises to the surface of the water.
As usual and typical of the pn throughout its history, Gonezipn tried to use the Church to his advantage, but he failed miserably.
People now have a mind of their own and are not easily fooled as they previously were Joe.
Oh how much the pn apologists long for the days when people were told that with education they will lose their soul!!!
Joe Micallef
Feb 21st 2009, 10:32
@ L.Galea
Verita! hafna saru in-naghag ta' Astrid u s-socji taghha!
True! most are now Astrid's and Co sheep!
You just cannot understand the extremely improtant underlying problem.
L..Galea
Feb 21st 2009, 09:47
Il-Maltin m'għadhomx nagħaġ ta' Bendu Alex.
The Maltese are no longer Bendu's sheep.
For the english readers, this is an expression meaning that the Maltese are no longer like sheep blindly following each other over the precipice.