John Ebejer
Valletta under the spotlight
Valletta (and Malta) is among the countless towns and cities across Europe that compete for global attention to attract investment and tourism. Many cities chose to attract attention by means of urban projects, sometimes involving an iconic building designed by a renowned international architect. The best and most successful example is the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao, designed by Frank Gehry. The Guggenheim completely transformed the image of a city, which, until recently, was virtually unknown outside Spain.
The London Eye, within a few hundred metres from the British Houses of Parliament, attracts two million visitors each year and is often depicted alongside the Houses of Parliament as part of the iconic image of London.
Most iconic buildings generate controversy before being built and, yet, many are subsequently acclaimed for their success.
Apart from attracting attention, the linkage of Valletta, a World Heritage Site, with the name of Renzo Piano will provide for added value to destination Malta. Mr Piano has come up with a solution that is innovative and, yet, respectfully of the context.
The City Gate project will be a catalyst for Valletta's regeneration. One advantage of the project is that it addresses all the area in a holistic manner including the opera house site, Freedom Square, City Gate, the ditch and the bus terminus. This means that, within a reasonable timeframe of, say, three or four years, all the area will be finished. Another plus is that Parliament will be moved out of the Grandmaster's Palace, releasing it for cultural and tourism use. The Palace has the potential to become an exceptional visitor and cultural attraction on par with St John's Co Cathedral.
What many refer to as a roofless theatre is, in fact, an open-air performance space. It will be the ideal venue for countless activities of varying artistic/creative content, even if it may not be the perfect venue for all forms of artistic self-expression. The facility will provide a space where artistes can experiment to create unique experiences. The concept is also to use the surrounding historic buildings as a backdrop. Alternatively, images can be projected onto the translucent wall elements. It is likely that, in the summer months when the Manoel Theatre and the Mediterranean Conference Centre are closed, the open-air performance space will be used intensively.
Even when the site is not in use for performances, the space within the ruins will be an urban piazza fully accessible to the public. The use of audio and the projection of images on the translucent wall elements will make this urban space all the more attractive and unique. This is a pedestrian urban space which, in my opinion, people will like and enjoy.
Some are calling for a national theatre on the site instead of what is being proposed. A decent national theatre is unlikely to fit on a combined opera house/Freedom Square site. For example, the Oslo Opera House, completed in 2007, occupies a site that is four or five times larger than the opera house/Freedom Square area. Even if it were made to fit the site, the national theatre building would be an inappropriate urban intervention because of its massivity in a sensitive historic context. If and when Malta decides to build a national theatre, we will need to identify a site large enough to cater for what is required.
The present state of the entrance to Valletta, with a seven decade-old opera house ruins, is unacceptable. If the City Gate project were to be severely delayed or, worse, halted, Maltese and tourists would have to put up with this state of opera house/Freedom Square for many more years. This would be a tragedy for Valletta. For projects of such importance and complexity, once a decision is taken, the government has the responsibility to implement.
In 2018, a locality in Malta (hopefully Valletta) will be the Cultural Capital of Europe. There is much that needs to be done in Valletta and elsewhere. The year 2018 will be with us sooner than we think because much of the investment required in our urban heritage will take years to plan, finance and implement.
The City Gate project is not about shortcomings in our cultural sector. It is about Valletta. It is about a much-needed urban intervention in this historic, yet, dynamic city.
Mr Ebejer, an urban planner and architect, is the secretary of the Valletta Alive Foundation.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
john ebejer
Mar 25th 2010, 22:13
Part 2: Architects and urban planners should also zip up. Once, someone at FAA actually told me that the opinion of an architect should be discarded because his interest is to increase work. Knowledge and experience count for nothing. Of course, FAA is willing to make exceptions. If you express an opinion which is in line with theirs, then it’s fine. Not only that, FAA will describe you as “learned gentleman” as they did when two architects expressed themselves against the City Gate project.
It is ironic that FAA first complains that there was insufficient public participation on the City Gate project and then attacks another organisation because it had the temerity to express an opinion different from their own.
By the way, Ms. Vella evidently knows more about me than I do. Yes, I am Chairman of BICC and yes, I also have an advisory role within MRRA as part of my job. But can Ms. Vella please tell me which are my various other government posts because I am not aware of any.
john ebejer
Mar 25th 2010, 22:09
Part 1: According to FAA anyone who has an interest should not express an opinion. So the shop owners who are members of GRTU are not allowed to express an opinion. Using the same logic, residents also have an interest. Valletta residents and shop owners who are members of VAF are not allowed to express an opinion on the City Gate project. The fact that they know Valletta inside out is irrelevant. They have an interest so they should shut up, at least according to FAA.
The same applies to MCEII and any other organisation which represents the interests of their members. They have an interest so it is inconceivable that these organisations could remotely express an opinion which is in the national interest.
So if the members of these organisations want to express their opinion they should resign their membership. Probably they will have to resign their full time jobs as well because somehow somewhere there will be an interest. They must stay at home twiddling their fingers. Only then will FAA allow them to express an opinion.
john ebejer
Mar 25th 2010, 16:53
Ms. Vella asks “the massive parliament is not inappropriate in a sensitive historic context?”
The parliament building has been separated into two blocks (one for the chamber and the other for the offices) connected by a walkway. The open space in between the two blocks reduces the massivity of the proposal and also allows for St. James cavalier to be visible even from Republic street.
A national theatre would be different because it would be a single building spanning across both Freedom Square and the opera house site. The nature and size of the auditorium (+ stage) would not allow for the building to be separated into two separate blocks.
Astrid Vella
Mar 25th 2010, 17:32
As you know very well, no one is asking for a theatre that occupies the old theatre site as well as all of Freedom Square. What is being requested is that the auditorium would take up all of the Royal Opera House footprint, and therefore be the same size as the La Fenice, and then the footprint of the lobby could overstep Ordinance Street onto part of Freedom Square. Most of Freedom Square could then be developed as a lovely garden with performance spaces and cafes. That is what would attract people to Valletta, and not a parliament closed off to people due to security requirements. Placing Parliament in another venue and using EU funding for part of the theatre expense could kick off the TRUE regeneration of ALL of Valletta, not the sham that we are being presented with.
Astrid Vella
Mar 25th 2010, 16:43
Mr. Ebejer may not be a nincompoop, but he is on a Government retainer, as consultant to George Pullicino, and holds various other government posts so what do you expect. The Valletta Alive Foundation (?) represents vested interests and not the residents of Valletta. It represents the owners of shops in upper Republic Street and is about as impartial as GRTU.
J Martinelli
Mar 25th 2010, 14:20
No one can claim that this is some incompetent nincompoop's opinion!
Mr.Ebejer is a respected architect who understands the requirements for a modern fully equipped multi-purpose theatre which could not be possibly accommodated on the old ROH footprint. Renzo Piano went beyond the idea of rebuilding the ROH with its confined space and created something which will not be unsustainable and a burden on the taxpayer in a few short years, if not months. Piano never intended to replace the ROH with an open air theatre of sorts notwithstanding claims by some individuals and some NGOs..
Give Piano the go-ahead for designing a proper theatre, in the right place, on a site large enough to build a sustainable patron supported year round theatre and he will be able to design another gem in whatever style he is asked to build or, better still, in a style which he deems will complement the surrounding architecture of the chosen site..
But then, comes another seventy year debate, false starts, accusations and demonstrations because no matter what - it is in each and every half-witted, politically motivated individual to complain and disagree with everything and anything not proposed by their favourite politician.
Astrid Vella
Mar 25th 2010, 11:17
It is telling that John Ebejer should quote the the Oslo Opera House, which is four or five times larger than the opera house/Freedom Square area instead of a theatre like the far more celebrated Teatro La Fenice in Venice which at 1,100 actually seats one hundred fewer than the Royal Opera House footprint can accommodate.
Joseph Calleja has stated that he has often sung at theatres smaller than the ROH. John Ebejer goes on to say ''Even if it were made to fit the site, the national theatre building would be an inappropriate urban intervention because of its massivity in a sensitive historic context' and the massive parliament is not inappropriate in a sensitive historic context? And to boot it does not employ anyone or serve as a cultural magnet like the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao.
Joseph Calleja has also asked what the Maltese authorities have against culture. Considering that some of the poorest countries in the world, like Ghana, Sierra Leone, Papua New Guinea and Haiti have considered it a priority to build a national theatre I think that question says it all.