Peter Gatt, Attard
Risks of proposed excavation at St John's
In his contribution titled Political Intervention In The Planning Process (February 21), Alex Torpiano refers to the geotechnical and geological advice I had given to an NGO on the geological risks of excavating next to St John's Co-Cathedral. However, he also added that the "possible use of geotechnics to assess such risks scientifically" may "anticipate whether engineering solutions are necessary to solve the risks identified".
Prof. Torpiano has some experience in geotechnics as the chief architect for the massive Tigné construction project in Sliema. During a public presentation delivered a few years ago about the project, he had described the geotechnics he used to assess ground conditions at Tigné, when he was unable to anticipate the several large underground caverns during the construction of building foundations at Tigné. During his presentation, he described how piles penetrated the ground until they breached the roof of these caverns, which are unstable.
If with his methods Prof. Torpiano failed to anticipate underground caverns several metres wide, what type of "possible use of geotechnics to assess risks scientifically" is he proposing to identify just centimetre-wide joints in the proposed excavation adjacent to St John's cathedral? Who will take responsibility for such a risk?
Prof. Torpiano also somehow compares the proposed excavation to the modern pyramid structure adjacent to the Louvre in Paris. Was this an irrelevant comparison or is he implying that the geology in Valletta is the same as that under the pyramid in Paris?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
14 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Peter Gatt
Feb 26th 2009, 23:02
It is heartening to read comments that express interest in Valletta’s geology. Such discussion should be widened to include areas such as Mdina, where an understanding of underlying geology may save large parts of this historic city from damage by earth movement. Similarly, the large restoration projects, like that planned for the Valletta bastions.
Recent comments to the press by the project architects claim that the bastions’ stone is of ‘inferior quality’. Such comments reflect a poor knowledge of local stone which can lead to mistaken restoration methods and more damage to our historic heritage. Clearly, a scientific analysis of foundations and masonry stone is needed.
During a public presentation I delivered last year, I suggested a limestone database for Malta which would have applications to masonry restoration, foundation/excavation problems and road building.
Regrettably, the dismal approach to these national problems remains that conveyed by Prof Torpiano’s article which mentions geotechnics (e.g. coring etc..) but not geologists, who are the competent professionals to interpret rock data. By completely dispensing with the scientific contributions of geology, Malta continues to pay a high price imposed by a few who exalt themselves as being ‘more expert than others’.
Astrid Vella
Feb 26th 2009, 18:13
The fact is, Daphne, that you seem to be among those on this Island who cannot abide the thought that the public has a right to have a say when that opinion crosses your party, as befits a democratic country and according to our rights of public participation enshrined in the Aarhus Convention and the relevant EU Directive.
That is the reason why the St John's decision taken, incidentally, not by FAA but by the Prime Minister and the Arhbishop, has unleashed this campaign to discredit FAA at all costs. If we had objected to the St George's Square project, you would no doubt have accused us of blocking all development projects, as you have in the past.
As David Friggieri said in his column this Sunday: "It is an indictment of a country which believes that it is free but whose people are still held hostage by fear. Even worse perhaps, it is an indictment of a people who continue to think that it is inevitable for everyone (including the freest of free thinkers) to sacrifice free thought on the altar of political allegiance and expediency."
Astrid Vella
Feb 26th 2009, 17:58
Daphne, the answer to that is so obvious, I'm surprised you even ask.The project at St George's Square was to go down only one storey, and not four.
Out of that single storey,the exploratory excavations revealed a deep top layer of old rubble infill, meaning that the actual rock excavation was limited to 70cm to 1.25m depth,depending on the incline of the flanking streets.A far cry from four storeys!
Furthermore,unlike the St John's Foundation,the MRRA involved civil society from early on, which is the norm in such cases,in spite of your declaring erroneously that consultation is only carried out after the EIA stage.FAA carried out its investigations which proved that, contrary to what the studies showed, there were structures just under the surface.I remind you that the core sampling and ground radar studies which did not trace anything at a depth of three feet are the same studies that the Foundation assured us would show up a crack in bedrock at a depth of 4storeys.
It is to the Ministry's credit that they acted upon our investigations immediately and beyond the first 50ft have already accessed a wealth of passages and structures that had been blocked off.
Daphne Caruana Galizia
Feb 26th 2009, 15:15
Since you dislike pettiness, Astrid, answer these serious questions: why aren't you making the same kind of fuss about the excavations beneath St George's Square? Because there's no danger of the Grandmaster's Palace collapsing into the hole? No reports from Peter Gatt this time? Has he found the geology beneath St George's Square to be entirely different to that beneath St John's Square up the road? Do let me know. I am all agog.
Astrid Vella
Feb 26th 2009, 10:43
Daphne, I am very familiar with Perit Edward Said's thesis; in fact on becoming aware of its existence, FAA immediately took him to view the passage and he was very pleased to familiarise himself with this newly-accessible part of the underground network.
As for the rest of your diatribe, its frankly too petty to even bother to comment on.
Daphne Caruana Galizia
Feb 25th 2009, 22:38
It's not a crime to be a perfectionist, Astrid. You should try it some time. And it makes no difference how many people use the word wrongly. It is still wrong. By using the word 'remains', you are encouraging people to believe that there is a whole undiscovered world down there, something straight out of Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, complete with trolls and goblins and with clues to Valletta's 3,000-year-old past.
There isn't. There are mapped structures, and if you wish to see precisely how well mapped they are, there is to be a talk on this subject by Edward Said at the offices of Din L-Art Helwa in March. Mr Said - a 'perit', as you put it - researched the subject exhaustively for his thesis, and spent rather a lot of time down below.
I don't think you should be claiming the merit for having 'discovered' anything, quite frankly - shades of Girl Guides and amateurism.
Astrid Vella
Feb 25th 2009, 20:35
Before you rush to rubbish me as usual Daphne, may I point out that I was merely quoting Perit Claude Borg and Honourable Minister George Pullicino in my sentence referring to “remains”.
Rather than quibbling over vocabulary and semantics, as is your wont, would it not be better to celebrate the fact that the Ministry acted so fast on FAA’s highlighting the existence of these tunnels through its initial exploration of the tunnels. This has now led to the unearthing of a whole network of structures that gives us a better idea of the engineering wonders that lie beneath Valletta’s streets. A national heritage that might have been lost if it were not for this fruitful cooperation between the authorities and civil society.
Daphne Caruana Galizia
Feb 25th 2009, 17:17
Define 'remains', Astrid. Wells and cisterns which are an integral part of existing buildings are not remains. Nor is the original underground system of service passages and drains - also an integral part of the original city-planning. Just because something happens to be built underground - when it was always meant to be underground - does not mean it falls into the category of 'remains'. The underground service system is no more 'remains' than are the buildings above it.
Remains would be the foundations of earlier buildings on which the present buildings went up - in other words, an earlier settlement layer. In Valletta, there is no such thing. The city was built more or less in toto on a virgin site some 450 years ago. It is no London or Paris, or for that matter, Mdina, with different settlement layers offering vital clues to the development of the city over thousands of years.
astrid vella
Feb 25th 2009, 16:42
Further to Winston Schembri, could you help me understand your interest in the passages since you have only ever posted criticism towards FAA and ignored our invitation to act more positively as an unpaid heritage volunteer. If your interest were purely heritage, surely you would have been keen to involve yourself more constructively?
Astrid Vella
Feb 25th 2009, 16:32
@ Winston Schembri re: Am I understanding correctly that a study (core sampling and ground radar)of a site in Valletta revealed nothing while FAA presented evidence to the contrary (obviously regarding the same site)? Yes that is the case. The authorities have now carried out further excavations which are proving our find to be part of a larger network which stretches under the same site and were not traced through the scientific studies.
I would be very happy to email you the photos of the passage if you post your email address.
No, I am not answering the questions to Peter Gatt, the answers speak for themselves.
Joe Micallef
Feb 25th 2009, 15:18
What is your point Ms. Vella. Is it about geological dangers or preserving remains? If it is geological dangers it is one thing, if it is preserving remains it is another.
If it is the former, I insist that there are places where huge projects are being carried out despite extremely complicated geology. Does this mean that the project should go ahead independently of studies. No! and the interesting exchange between Prof. Torpiano and Peter Gatt is the way to reach an informed opinion, that is, the opinion and related process which you have torpedoed.
If your argument now is about the absolute preservation of remains than your position should be that probably no development should be allowed in Valletta. That would also include the old theatre site, where we have the remains of the old theatre and the historical connotations they carry. This would be a sorry state but one to which you are entitled.
As for Civil Society, for heaven’s sake refrain unless you can quantify. Even a representative of the opportunistic partner in this whole mess up, is not sure that this majority exists.
Wistin Schembri
Feb 25th 2009, 14:50
@Astrid Vella
To be sure. Am I understanding correctly that a study (core sampling and ground radar)of a site in Valletta revealed nothing while FAA presented evidence to the contrary (obviously regarding the same site)?
How can I access this study and the evidence presented by FAA presented?
Are your comments a reply to my questions to Mr Gatt? Yes or no please. If yes, I would rather see Mr Gatt's reply. It will not take long...just a yes or a no.
Astrid Vella
Feb 25th 2009, 13:51
In a similar development involving underground Valletta the same studies as were recommended for St John's have just been carried out, ie.core sampling and ground radar.These studies showed conclusively that there were "absolutely no remains to be found under the site"
FAA subsequently presented evidence of a 50 ft passage running just three feet under the site,leading to a further passage,a vault and cubicles or small rooms.If this whole network was missed by the high-tech, expert studies at a depth of only three feet, is it realistic to expect that the same techniques would pick up rock-cracks at a depth of four storeys?
This shows that expert studies are not infallible and that every site has to be approached with extreme caution.With a monument as precious as St John's one can't take any risks at all.
If it were not for the contribution of civil society, these passages,part of Valletta's unique heritage would have been bulldozed and lost to posterity.
This simply confirms what is standard practice in heritage works overseas, that such works are not the exclusive prerogative of the experts,but yield best results when the contribution of civil society is taken into account.
Wistin Schembri
Feb 25th 2009, 13:50
Has Mr Gatt analysed Valletta's geology? Does Mr Gatt consider his 'report' as a scientific assessment of the risks? No long answers please...just yes or no.