After so many years of indecisiveness one would have thought that the idea of rebuilding the most important part of our capital city would go down extremely well with many people.
On top of that, I believed that Renzo Piano’s involvement would have been greeted with enthusiasm, especially by those who are well aware of this man’s capabilities and status in the field of architecture. I was wrong. I now believe that as a nation we are not prepared to have someone like Renzo Piano working on such an important project, which is set to last through a number of generations.
The most contentious aspect of this whole story appears to be the re-building of the opera house. For 60 years we did absolutely nothing to ensure that what the enemy stole from us such a long time ago could be reborn. Now, a government, a Prime Minister, has taken the initiative to give to the nation a treasure it had lost.
This world-famous architect was asked to design the entrance to our capital city, a functional and modern theatre and a modern parliament building. He embarked on this project with zeal and passion thinking that the Maltese are now ready for a Piano project after having resisted his first attempt. But he was wrong. We are not.
To be totally honest I too was taken aback on seeing what he is proposing for Opera House site. I had expected something similar to the original. I would also have preferred it to be a roofed theatre which could be used all year round. But Piano is Piano.
Behind his designs there is a philosophy which you either accept or just refute. For this architect, the ruins of our old Opera House have been lying there for so many years that they have acquired the status of historical ruins. Would we consider re-building our Neolithic temples? Surely not, so why should we demolish the exiting ruins to erect a new building?
Piano is very clear about this concept. I had the honour to discuss this point with him, and I can honestly say that he is convincing. He does not want to re-build the Barry Opera House and we cannot make him do that. If we are not comfortable with this man’s ideas we might as well give him the pay-off.
Granted, this theatre might not be utilised for most of the year, but on the other hand it may give us an opportunity to explore new possibilities extending from late spring to late autumn. We might be able to combine our moderate climate with our rich history to come up with a product no one else can boast of. I acknowledge that there are limitations that need to be seen to. We cannot have a theatre with acoustic problems or with no facilities for the artistes. However, I trust that an architect of Piano’s calibre is already looking into such problems in order to find a practical solution. But do we want him to?
I have also come across negative comments on Piano’s design for City Gate. His use of the Maltese stone seems to have come under fire from a number of quarters. The same treatment was reserved for his idea of going for a ‘gateless’ city. His ideas for a modern Parliament building in lieu of a soul-less Pjazza Helsien, have also been shot down by a number of people who seem to abhor the idea of having the highest national institution housed in a building located in such an important part of Valletta. Some are happy to send their own representatives to the periphery of the capital city probably because they have a thwarted idea of what democracy is all about.
In a nutshell, we want a Piano project but we are refuting Piano’s ideas. This can only mean that we are not yet ready to embrace this renowned architect’s philosophy and ideas. If I were the Prime Minister I would simply ask the nation to decide on this project through a referendum. If we shoot down the project, we would then have to answer for yet another missed opportunity to give back to future generations something to be proud of.