Recently I was discussing with a colleague the possibility of redevelopment of the Evans building in Valletta. Being a heritage expert, he argued that the site should not be redeveloped because of important historic remains that may still be in existence beneath the building. He referred to the possible existence of the foundations of a historic chapel at the centre of the site.
I argued that there is an urgent need for a sizeable underground car park at the Evans site, this being the only viable option at the lower end of Valletta for substantial parking to be provided. Residents in the area have major difficulties to find parking, especially on weekends. When there is a full house at the Mediterranean Conference Centre, there could be up to 1,500 cars trying to find parking in lower Valletta. The impact of those cars on the residents is substantial. People going to the MCC by car are also significantly inconvenienced. Some, for example, park at Barriera Wharf and walk up the hill to MCC. In the daytime, people who work or visit lower Valletta are increasingly having difficulties to find parking.
It is people we are talking about. It is people who are being inconvenienced, some more than others, because there is no proper parking provision at the lower end of Valletta. In this contest, it is absurd for my colleague to argue that the Evans site should not be redeveloped because of some presumed importance of some building remains that may or may not exist.
Here I make a small detour to consider a misconception that has taken root. Society decides to protect buildings if they have meaning to people. That meaning could be related to national identity, to an important event or to the design and construction of the building. Whether or not that building has meaning to society is not, however, decided by heritage experts. The role of experts is to inform and also to recommend as to what the meaning of a building should be to society. Ultimately, however, the decision on meaning should be of society itself.
To illustrate the relevance of meaning, I refer to a controversy some months back about the proposed demolition of a British building adjoining the Kalkara bastions. Some experts argued against the demolition because they considered the building to be an important reminder of British architecture in Malta. Other experts advocated its demolition to reveal the Knights’ bastions enabling their proper appreciation. There was no right or wrong answer. The question was which of the two structures is more meaningful to Maltese society. Eventually, that question was answered by means of a decision of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority board, taken on behalf of society.
Coming back to the Evans site, the need for a proper car park at the lower end of Valletta far outweigh any argument there may be to protect the foundations of a no-longer existing chapel. For historic sites of lesser importance, it is acceptable to document the remains and have them removed. Hopefully, this is the approach that will eventually be adopted for the Evans site.
There are those who argue that we should not provide parking in lower Valletta to encourage people to use public transport. Yes, public transport to lower Valletta has improved but there also needs to be choice – the choice between public and private transport. Pricing mechanisms could be used to encourage people to use public transport but the option for people to use their car and find parking must remain.
One cannot expect people to rehabilitate and invest in residential property in lower Valletta if finding a parking space is a constant nightmare. Moreover, the reduced parking availability and the failure to provide viable alternatives is, I believe, depleting audiences to the MCC and the Manoel Theatre to the detriment of arts and culture.
Regeneration will not happen if accessibility is dependent on public transport alone. We should stop talking about regenerating the lower end of Valletta unless and until proper parking facilities are provided. The Evans site is the only viable location in the area where an underground car park can be provided.
The author, an architect and planning and tourism consultant, lectures at the Institute for Tourism, Culture and Travel of the University of Malta and is reading for a doctorate at the University of Westminster.