Charles Buhagiar
Planning Piano's project
Together with some other members of Parliament I had the opportunity to meet Renzo Piano and his partner during their visit to Malta. They explained to us their proposals for City Gate, Freedom Square and the site of the former opera house.
During the meeting I asked them what brief had been given to them by the government and they said they were asked to redevelop this area and include a Parliament building within the proposed development. The area in front of City Gate, that is, our chaotic bus terminus, was not included in their brief. The project value was set at €80 million and had to be completed within four years. In their opinion, the project budget was to be roughly divided in €20 million each for the development of City Gate and the site of the opera house and €40 million for the Parliament building.
I do not wish to comment on the design presented by Mr Piano but I would like to point out the implications of what is being proposed.
Mr Piano is suggesting that the existing road above City Gate is removed. This necessarily entails a new traffic circulation system in Valletta because this particular road is the only one that leads to the centre of Valletta.
In this regard, it is being proposed that vehicles bound for the centre of Valletta drive through St Mark Street in the Marsamxetto area.
St Mark Street is one of the narrow streets in Valletta and is located within a residential area. This road is so narrow that large vehicles cannot pass through it. Indeed, it even lacks sidewalks as a consequence of which one immediately walks onto the road when exiting a building. Furthermore, the capacity this road can handle is limited and so its intensive use is bound to cause traffic congestion problems.
The proposal obviously entails the removal of all parking from the opera house site and also the removal of all parking spaces in Freedom Square, Yellow Garage and the underlying ditch. Combined with the removal of the existing parking spaces in St George's Square, this would mean that a very high percentage of the 2,000 parking spaces reserved for visitors within Valletta are to be removed.
These two issues - the proposed new traffic circulation system and the drastically-reduced car parking facilities - will lead to serious accessibility problems in Valletta. These problems will affect not only all those who work in Valletta but also the shops, restaurants, entertainment centres, etc., which depend on people visiting the capital. Furthermore, it will also affect Valletta residents because the traffic circulation routes are being pushed into residential areas.
In my opinion, this situation has occurred because the government is insisting on implementing projects in a piecemeal fashion.
What should have been done is to prepare a master plan for Valletta and its immediate surroundings, which master plan could have included the various initiatives described in the vision for the regeneration of Grand Harbour by the two main political parties.
This master plan could then have been presented for public consultation and amended or, if need be, include new projects accordingly. The final master plan would be the result of general consensus and would have ensured that all future governments carry out projects in Valletta in line with this master plan.
Such an approach would have immediately identified such problems as the traffic circulation problems mentioned above and would have recommended alternative modes of transport. It would also have avoided the situation whereby, if this project is implemented as proposed, one would need to walk through the chaotic bus terminus to reach the new City Gate.
My suggestion is that, before proceeding any further with this project, the government would give due consideration to the implications of what is being proposed including the impact of this project on the tenants of the shops beneath the opera house and around Freedom Square. The government must then ensure that, concurrently with the implementation of the project, a series of initiatives are taken to address the impact and implications of the proposed works.
Mr Buhagiar, an architect by profession and a member of Parliament, is the Labour Party's main spokesman on the infrastructure and capital projects.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
5 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
marisa micallef
Jul 10th 2009, 09:03
this is a very reasoned piece and highlights the fundamental flaw in this project. the brief was woefully inadequate or over fixated on a parliament building where much of the expenditure is going. it really is a project to impose a parliament building and not a project for the people of valletta and malta
J Galea
Jul 9th 2009, 22:53
Anyone who suggests St. Mark street is a suitable entry point for Valletta traffic is raving mad. It is one of the narrowest streets in Valletta and clearly unsuitable for such a task. Besides, the residents that live on that street risk their lives to enter and exit their homes even with the trickle of traffic of today. Slamming them with the bulk of Valletta traffic literally on their doorstep risks injury on a big scale as well as making their lives impossible. If you give the residents a pavement both sides there is no road left!!! The point by P Borg about pollution at low gear is also a valid point.
The government's and Renzo Piano's ideas for Valletta are a breath of fresh air but Charles Buhagiar is right that a comprehensive development of Valletta needs to be contemplated to achieve stable, long-lasting solutions for residents and visitors alike. This process need not take forever nor hold up the completion date for Piano's work, which the government is right to set in stone.
Emmanuel Marmara'
Jul 9th 2009, 16:22
BIT BY BIT EVERYTHING WILL COME TO SURFACE.....THE WHOLE TRUTH....
SO AS I PREVIUOSLY SAID..MR.R.PIANO HAD TO OBEY........
A SMALL OF THE PORTION FOR THE CITY GATE.......ANOTHER SMALL PORTION FOR THE ROYAL OPERA HOUSE........and hear it comes......THE BIG PORTION TO BUILD THE UNWANTED PARLIAMENT. and nothing mentioned ( as in the previous undesired plans ) the BUS TERMINUS AREA....THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO HAVE AN UDESIRABLE FLYING SHOWCASE.
Antoine Vella
Jul 9th 2009, 14:34
I’m assuming that if Mr Buhagiar had seen something drastically wrong in Piano’s proposals per se, he would have commented so I’m glad that this does not appear to be the case.
I do not agree however that government should have drafted a master plan for Valletta and its surroundings before embarking on renovating the entrance area. If such a relatively limited project involving only the entrance has caused some controversy, one can only imagine what Mr Buhagiar’s suggestion would have provoked. Such a plan would never get off the ground and we would spend another 70 years arguing about it.
Valletta is not the only place afflicted by a serious traffic problem: every town and village in Malta is faced with the same difficulties. The only solution is to change our social habits and depend less on private transport and more on an efficient public system. This reform is also being tackled.
The more space you provide for cars, the more they will increase in number – it’s a vicious circle. Many aspects of our lives are already dominated by cars and we should do something about it, independently of the project being discussed now.
P Borg
Jul 9th 2009, 12:46
Yesterday when I went to look at the plans properly I realised that all of Valletta from City Gate to St Domenic Street and from Old Bakery Street to St Paul's Street has become a pedestrian area. In principle this is a good idea but what about the old residents who live there? There is no indication of residents' cars being allowed.
Also, not only is it crazy to have heavy traffic routed in by impossibly narrow St Mark's Street, but also to change the direction of traffic in uppper Old Bakery Street. Traffic which presently drives down, will now turn up towards St John's Cavalier at the road's steepest point, the junction of St Mark's street. This means that because of this sharp corner, cars will have to rev up powerfully, belching loads of exhaust into the air, soiling buildings and adding to the already increasing rate of asthma among city dwellers.
Who is coming up with these bright ideas? I'm afraid this reveals very poor planning, or rather, no planning at all!