Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA) refers to the statements made by the Ministry for Infrastructure, Transport and Communications (MITC) carried in The Malta Today of the 26 July 2009. Contrary to what was said, FAA has never claimed to represent the people, however FAA can find no record of requests from the public for a new parliament building whilst it can find hundreds of letters and numerous debates amongst various groups of people in favour of the building of a National Theatre.
The Opera House issue has not been seriously debated on a national level since the last Piano plans were dropped 20 years ago and the new Parliament has never been submitted for public consultation before now although it was briefly mentioned five years ago.
It is ironic that while in the past FAA has been accused of issuing “superficial knee-jerk reactions”, the MITC is now criticising FAA for ‘taking its time’ whilst it was studying the plans carefully before making its views public.
Whilst not “uncharacteristically arguing for the sweeping away of a heritage site” FAA maintains that war ruins should not be glorified but rebuilt. Malta already has a war memorial in honour of her sons who lost their lives during the war. FAA is simply asking for a theatre with a roof – a structure that would enhance Malta’s cultural life, attract tourists to Malta, create employment and serve as a learning opportunity for schoolchildren in winter, which will not be possible with an open theatre.
Far from being unused for a good part of the year as claimed, our present theatre facilities are so limited that companies vying for booking dates often enter into spats as reported in the media. At the recent debate organised by the Arts Council it was confirmed that the Manoel Theatre is limited in capacity and its acoustics have suffered as a result of the misguided expansion of the back of the stage. The Mediterranean Conference Centre cannot take large-scale performances due to its shallow stage, lack of back-stage facilities and very poor acoustics. As a result it was concluded that neither theatre is viable for large scale, high quality performances, and we are left with a Philharmonic Orchestra and a Ballet Council which have no-where to perform.
As regards the Piano proposals, the performers agreed with Joseph Calleja’s words: “It’s not the best solution in the sense that a roofless theatre – whatever gizmos and things they install in it, still remains a roofless theatre and very limited in what it can do”. The ‘new’ theatre will be a roofless performance space open to the elements and to noise and although proper theatres do not operate 365 days a year, performances can go head as planned since there will be no fear of inclement weather and noise from other concerts and ongoing festas. The performers also raised the unacceptability of having to rehearse watched by passers-by and the impossibility of dancers performing on a stage made damp by the evening dew.
FAA never claimed that building a parliament is equivalent to passing on the last ever chance of building an exhibition hall. Rather FAA ‘emphasised that this is an opportunity not to be missed and that the country cannot afford to get it wrong again’ and this in respect of the whole project including City gate since the Government had got it so horribly wrong in 1964.
Whilst FAA is in favour of liberating the Palace to be used as a museum, it has to be said that Parliament only causes the Palace to be closed in the evening when it would not be open to visitors in any case. It is the President’s schedule which limits visitors’ entry to the Palace and this is not going to change when Parliament relocates.
FAA agrees that the pedestrianisation of Valletta is a positive measure reducing pollution in the city. However traffic plans must be presented at this point and their impact mitigated so that Valletta will continue to thrive. FAA never claimed that the Parliament building will take up two thousand parking spaces but traffic and parking arrangements for the residents, the business community and its suppliers, the people who work in or visit Valletta and the public in general are still unclear. In spite of all the effort and expense to set up and publicise the exhibition one cannot yet assess the project without specific information on transport plans and parking, aspects which could make or break the project.
Furthermore in respect of the restoration and rehabilitation of St Elmo Minister Gatt was reported in the Times to have recently stated that while Phase 1 would be going ahead phases 2 and 3 would depend on availability of funds.
While the MITC says that “the amount of €40 million quoted by Ms Vella is excessive” and that “Mr Piano received his brief late last year,” the figure of €40 million was quoted by Architect Renzo Piano himself in the presence of witnesses after the official presentation. He also stated that he had been working on the project for the last three years.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
