Wednesday, 20th August 2008 - 15:24CET
UPDATED: Record number of objections to St John's project
(Adds reaction by St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation)
A record 1,050 objections have been sent to MEPA to protest over plans by St John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation to extend its museum, the NGOs Flimkien Ghall Ambjent Ahjar and Friends of the Earth said today.
The foundation is proposing to create an underground museum chambers by excavating St John’s Street. Alternatively, it has suggested building structures within St John’s graveyard along Merchants’ Street.
“We maintain that we cannot accept that a sizeable portion of our EU budget be spent on a project which will lead to exploitation and possibly damage Malta’s most precious national monument, when other feasible and simpler alternatives exit,” the two organisations said.
“A project of more reasonable dimensions would also leave funds available for more pressing projects, like the restoration of crumbling Fort St Elmo.”
The organisations argued that other parts of St John’s complex would be better used as exhibition space and funds earmarked for this project could also be used to purchase and restore a deteriorating palazzo close to St John’s to be used as a museum extension.
Reacting to the statements made this afternoon by Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar and Friends of the Earth, the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation said that both NGOs – and particularly Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar – were mounting a destructive campaign based on wrong information, sensational statements and misconceptions.
The foundation said that it was neither sensible nor logical to propose using St John’s Co-Cathedral or parts of it as an “exhibition space” and at the same time argue to relocate the museum of St John’s Co-Cathedral somewhere else. The buildings within the Co-Cathedral and the extended museum within the premises should be used specifically and only to exhibit the treasures and priceless jewels that were given to St John’s Co-Cathedral throughout its history.
The foundation stressed that the palazzo mentioned by the organisations to house the extended museum was not adequate because it was not linked to the complex of premises of St John’s Co-Cathedral and because it was not large enough to exhibit the priceless historical collection of tapestries which was being professionally restored. It stressed that a critical success factor of the proposed extension of the museum was for it to be located within or adjacent to the premises of the Co-Cathedral.
The Foundation remarked that Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar had been actively campaigning and sending emails to members of the public to ensure that it will managed to collect a large number of objections to the project.
"As a result, very probably, MEPA has received 1,500 copies of the very same protest that FAA has formulated."
The foundation said the FAA had based its campaign on wrong information and speculation.
The foundation stressed that as soon as MEPA prepared the terms of reference, it would be conducting all the necessary environment impact assessments to ensure that it would not expose the Co-Cathedral or any of the treasures to any real or apparent risks.
"Moreover, the foundation will be commissioning scientific studies as well as other specialised studies of a historical nature that will go beyond the environmental impact assessment to ensure that the proposed extension of the museum will not pose any risk to the Co-Cathedral and neither to the artefacts within it."
RSS
Comments
Enlighten me, please?
Yes you're right. FAA is not always saying no; sometimes it says yes as it does to the hideous nine-storey blocks of flats in Ghar il-Lembi Street, Sliema.
You seem to have this delusion as well that it's all right to tear down historic buildings with huge architectural value in Ghar il-Lembi Street as long as you insist St John's or wherever should be kept just like a crib.
If the Knights had had this same delusion, they wouldn't have built anywhere.
Plain English, I suppose.
@ Mr Jo Said:
If the word NO did not exist, FAA would be speechless.
Of course, there are some buildings FAA did not object to,
some of them being the hideous nine-storey blocks of flats in
Ghar il-Lembri Street, Sliema.
But of course, FAA did not exist when some of the most historic houses in Sliema
having loads of architectural value were pulled down to make way for
the atrocious blocks of flats there are now in Ghar il-Lembi Sreet.
I must have been away from the Island, M Camenzuli. Would you knidly list the no-no's of FAA with regard to development or improvement of national monuments and buildings?
If the capping of two hundred words impedes you from completing the list, you may use a second and third post.
This NO...NO...NO from FAA for anything that develops and enhances
anything has now become off-putting.
For people who have been to cutting-edge museums abroad
this is an excellent project that will put our Co-Cathedral Museum
on the map of world-class museums where it belongs.
We have this backward looking idea in Malta of 'Don't Touch Anything' -
just like the lazy guy in the parable of the talents
who hid his talent and the Lord punished him and told him that
even if he had deposited it in a bank he would have got more.
For those saying this is a graveyard,
even the Co-Cathedral proper is a graveyard.
In the Co-Cathedral it's worse as we walk over the gravestones of the Knights.
In a related page, someone mentioned Les Invalides in Paris.
Even there they have a modern museum.
Les Invalides contains 'L'Institution Nationale des Invalides'
which is a retirement home for war veterans,
with a hospital and surgical centre.
In Paris too, you have Pei's Pyramid at the Louvre.
And in the British Museum, Lord Foster
glazed over the Great Court.
But in Britain and France,
they celebrate such architects.
Here we have FAA to keep repeating NO...NO...NO...NO...NO...NO...
It seems odd that someone of your calibre needed to point out to me that you are not naive. Of course you are not naive.
I do not believe you when you say that the credibility of the FAA got diminished in your eyes. What I think is that you are deceptively trying to diminish it.
I too have very serious doubts about whether excavation can be done without causing damage - however, since I am not a structural engineer nor am I competent in such matters, l am giving the benefit of the doubt and leaving it up to those who are more competent than I am to comment about whether what the foundation is proposing can be done...however there is clearly no room for mistakes or experiments
What I am saying is that if it is in some way technically feasible to construct an underground museum chamber without causing damage it will definitely be better than building over the churchyard.
Again I wonder how the people leading the foundation can actually propose building over the churchyard with a straight face.
Well said Astrid. The problem is, however, that Andrew cannot understand freedom of thought. The poor fella that he is, needs help.
If you're referring to me, I'm not trying to bring politics into this very important issue that will not doubt be another litmus test as to whether national interest or self interest (of the few) comes first...
I was merely pointing out that (as most will agree, I'm sure) some here have a penchant to always paint a "MLP=dark ages=vandals= cultural destruction = end of the earth" picture.
These same folk seem to be saying that what is being proposed here is ... well perfectly ok!
And I was just wondering what their stance would be if it was a different (spit on the floor!!) party in power. What would be the stance then...??
Nothing to do with poltics per se but more to do with ... beliefs (whether solid or not), for want of a better word, I guess...?
- Just how can this be achieved if not with mechanical Jack hammers that, for anyone who has experienced such work being carried out in the vicinity (let alone right next door as in this case!), knows how much direct harm is caused to nearby building....
- a few month back someone tried to do a similar piece of work in a nearby bar.
We all remember the furore as some baptismal font was damaged beyond repair (i believe?) inside the cathedral.
However, it seems that this is yet another case of "might is right" and no doubt there will be many a weasel busily finding ways to bend the rules to satisfy the required goal....
whilst would-be knights in shining armour gently withdraw their swords to behind their back and try to make themselves become more inconspicuous and whistle idly away....
How very, very sad.....
If only it were Labour in govt, hey?!!
;)
However, the proposed alternative of building structures in the churchyard is a definite non starter. Here we talking about DELIBERATELY causing harm. The churchyard is an integral part of the complex - it was built as a churchyard by the knights and should remain as such - the churchyard is no 'site' for development.
No amount of playing around with words will alter the fact that there is no way that the churchyard can be built over without altering the very nature of St John's cathedral. Adequately displaying the tapesteries and other treasures may be important, but retaining the structural integrity of the cathedral complex is far more important.
It is amazing how the Foundation has no qualms about coming up with this type of proposal.
TO ALL OF YOU: STOP FOR A MOMENT. LET US TRY LATERAL THINKING (WITH APOLOGIES TO PROF. EDWARD DEBONO IF I AM WRONGLY USING HIS TECHNIQUE).
WE LEAVE THE KNIGHTS BURIED AT ST. JOHN'S TO REST UNDISTURBED, AS WE SHOULD, AND
FOCUS ON THE SITE OF THE ROYAL OPERA HOUSE WHERE MONEY SPENT SHOULD PROVE TO BE MUCH COST-EFFECTIVE. RIGHT? CAN YOU ALL ENVISAGE A WONDERFUL MUSEUM WHICH INCIDENTALLY WOULD STEER AWAY LARGE CROWDS FROM ST. JOHN'S, PROTECTING THE LATTER FROM FURTHER DAMAGE?
BUT WHO SAID THAT COMMON SENSE IS COMMON?
AND JUST IN CASE IT PASSED YOUR MINDS (ABC, XYZ AND THE REST) I HAVE NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER WITH THE GOVERNMENT, THE CURIA AND/OR SOME BUILDING CONTRACTOR, NOR ANY MENTIONED-ORGANISATION FOR THAT MATTER.
Oh no....
That's REALLY ruined my day.....
Dear oh dear! Whatever next? slapped wrists and being sent to sleep without food...?
I would have preferred answers to what is being put foward to you.
However, I suppose we've now reached the "No comment" stage...
So we have:
- U turns,
- "No regrets"
- "No comment"
Arrogance is such a dangerous and self destructing trait.
One can only be amazed at how history repeats itself over and over.... and yet we choose to bury our heads in the sand.
For all anyone knows, the proposals are actually good - or on the other hand, not - but the tone of many contra arguments was so (pre-) judgemental that in my eyes it diminished the credibility of the lobby making them.
"2) All I'm saying is that the relevant experts (and I am not one of them) have to examine the proposals and give an opinion BEFORE the idea can be condemned with concerted howls of protest. ... "
1050 written objections are not "howls of protest". Each is a perfectly legitimate written expression. And arguments for and against that took place on this site also constitute a perfectly legitimate public debate.
" ... Is the concept of "proposal" as differentiated from "established project" completely alien to everyone?"
No, it is not. This is merely something that you are wickedly suggesting. Proposals are there to be challenged, not only by the relevant experts, but also by members of the public. That is why MEPA makes proposals available to the public.
In reference to your remark:
"... (your comments why this project shouldn't be given the go ahead could have been sent to Mepa and not to the times!!!!)"
In case you haven't noticed, the first sentence of this article by The Times reads:
Quote:
"A record 1,050 objections have been sent to MEPA to protest over plans by St John’s Co-Cathedral Foundation to extend its museum, ... " :Unquote
I can only speak for myself, Mr Gatt. I happen to be one of the 1,050.
Now may I ask you, please, as to where have you been all this time while us concerned citizens had been discussing this issue for nearly one month through this facility kindly provided by The Times?
I think you're missing the WHOLE point that people are trying to shove down your throat....
- it is not that you responded that people are taking offense to: that is absolutely your perogative in this (sic!) democratic country.
- it is: a) what you said,
b) what you did not say especially when asked directly
c) your condescending tone to those who disagree with your comments
d) and more importantly you precieved U-turn from previously stated stances regarding other similar matters....
Needless to say you will now tell us (as you usually do) that you have no regrets ...
U-Turns? No regrets?
That sound familiar ...? hmmmmm
Franco and the rest you gave the impression that Andrew Borg Cardona owned the place. I do not know what is his professional status but if he is acting as their legal consultant than i do not know why you are accusing the person!!!!!! (your comments why this project shouldn't be given the go ahead could have been sent to Mepa and not to the times!!!!)
Simply for the record:
1) I commented on this story in response to a direct challenge by Franco Farrugia.
2) All I'm saying is that the relevant experts (and I am not one of them) have to examine the proposals and give an opinion BEFORE the idea can be condemned with concerted howls of protest. Is the concept of "proposal" as differentiated from "established project" completely alien to everyone?
3) I have PURPOSELY not commented on the merits of this matter, because of my professional relationship with the Foundation. All I did was point out 2) above.
4) I tried to inject a less serious tone because everyone was getting way too personal about this. It didn't work, so keep on getting personal, see where it gets you all.
5) I am comfortable with my opinion and attitude and don't need validation by anyone, Astrid, not even you.
This statement is very truly an insult to the intelligence and to the free will of the Maltese public by St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation.
"Moreover, the foundation will be commissioning scientific studies ... "
This statement by St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation is clearly in contempt of MEPA as an adjudicative body. MEPA, in my view, is capable of commissioning such scientific studies of its own as part of its independent and impartial considerations, and therefore does not need the foundation to do the commissioning instead.
You are talking about St. John's Co-Cathedral here and not the glass house at mile end or else l'stamperija ta! That is why all the fuss.
You talk of fun and innocent pleasure when what is being discussed here is the possibility of major changes to probably the most important building in the whole of Malta. You dismiss people such as 'C. Mizzi ’ as if compared to you they are nothing and their opinion doesn't matter.
What you have to remember Andrew is that neither you nor your friends in the Foundation own the Co- Cathedral, it is the property of the people of Malta and hopefully it is those people who will have the final say in what happens to it.
It is a very sad reflection that such people can only think in terms of partisan politics, and cannot accept that the public has moved on, even though they haven’t. No, Bocca, the 1,050 were not Labour delegates but a healthy mix across all society, including, you will be dismayed to learn, a large number of University lecturers and even Ambassadors, hardly the types to rant or echo inanities.
Your attitude towards the people’s opinion is the typical patronising attitude of the establishment which has enjoyed ruling over a cowed and silent electorate since Independence.It is not us who are scared of change, we are forging ahead, freeing ourselves from political ties and refusing to accept the half-truths and outright lies (like claims that St. John’s is not all scheduled).It is your like who hate change, and the idea that the people will no longer just accept anything that the politicians throw at them, and have the temerity to challenge ‘their betters’.
I tell you what:
The Church and HG the Archbishop, together with the Metropolitan Chapter, are sitting quietly, observing all that is being said. They are sitting quietly on their thrones while we, a few individuals, are sticking our necks out and doing what is their dirty work!
After all, this is the Co-Cathedral we are talking about. Together with that of Mdina, St John's is a Cathedral - the Archbishop's Episcopal Seat and therefore, he cannot shy away from his responsibility to make his voice heard and if he is unhappy about it as I heard from the grapevine that he is, he should speak up now before it's too late!!!!!! And stop having second thoughts about it!
True, many and many people are getting fatter and riches with this development going on! B ut does this mean that such a voice as FAA should be suppressed or worse, laughed out of court?
Is this the democracy that we yearned for in the 70s and 80s???? is it? Is this the freedom of expression that we so much believed that one day would take over this country?
I appeal to the authorities-that-be NOT TO STIFLE any voices within society!
Why should it be the Foundation to commission scientific assessments? We all know how such assessments are carried out, don't we? I mean, come on ... we are a small country... and news travels fast and wide ... sacred cows are not only lawyers, you know ... there are achitects as well!
Wrong information, sensationalism and misconceptions? Hardly. We know the facts: what personally interests me is that one of the suggested developments is to destroy the graveyard of the Co-Cathedral, and to me, that is disgusting and unacceptable. Dear members of the Foundation, please try and convince me otherwise!!
Once again, I realise the need of creating further space for the museum, but the two suggested developments are simply awful! Again, dear Foundation, please convince me otherwise!
If I was facetious- nay even sardonic - I'd say that the above can easily be labelled:
Another " Sound of silence" piece from the master himself.....if ever there was one!
Fun? pleasure?
A typical state of affairs in today's Malta actually.
Shhhh!!! lest we wake somebody up.....
How very, very sad, actually.
Nor do I need anybody's.
I have no axe to grind.
I never had, and am in nobody's political party.
I never had, and do not have any membership in any association or 'tree-hugging' groups.
My voice was always, and is, my own - never anybody else's! Very strange to find, in this country, but there you are.
I never had, nor do I now have any agenda of my own.
I am my own person: a private, tax-paying citizen, in love with my country, voicing whatever I do not see as correct, and never reluctant to admit I am wrong.
So, you are the lawyer, and leading consultant of the Foundation!!! That's interesting news, that is! No wonder you joined the 'fuss'! No wonder you call our protests 'bleatings'! as if we were a bunch of sheep. Is that how you treat your fellow-Maltese? Is this the epitome of your superiority complex that knows no bounds? Is this why you tend to criticise one's English simjply because, and when, you have nothing better to come up with to denigrate and attack a person with?
We must be short of lawyers in this country : ABC is ubiquitous!
Yes, we DO object to ANY development around such a sensitive building as St John's!
It seems you are so well-positioned everywhere, ABC, and your interests are so varied. Very well-connected, I would say. No wonder you have your blogs, you have your articles - you are one of the sacred cows of this valuable newspaper and of ... shall I say, this regime?????????????
You, who cry FOUL because there were sacrred cows in the dark days, now, say nothing because you yourself are one!
Why do we bother with experts and MEPAs, he asks? Obviously, because we are living in a country where there is a cobweb of interests, intermingled so much that one can barely make head or tail of it all. We don't even know where truth lies!!!!! Conflicts of interest galore! And we have known the results of some 'experts' and 'MEPAs'.
I always said - It's the singer, not the song.
Ah...! That explains many things. For once, il-Bocca has explained many things in one sentence rather than used many, many sentences to explain one thing...
I think I'll put that down to subject matter stress.....
The impression one gets of this project is that there is a certain element of finality in the way the Foundation is going about matters: The Foundation only went public only after people got to know of the proposed development only well after the permit applications were lodged and after NGOs like FAA raised the matter for public attention.
What other options were examined? Where are the finances coming from?
We were also informed through the media that an EIA was to be commissioned: I stand to be corrected but it is the developer which pays for the EIA and I have yet to see one EIA commissioned by a developer which goes against the proposed development. EIAs, today, are not really independent but if there was a case where an independent EIA is mandatory, it is in this case.
The efforts of the Foundation are laudable but not the type of project proposed.
Jeez Andrew ! Your memory has deserted you ! Remember your writings about conflict of interests and resignations ? Why what was good for the goose is now not good for the gander ? Tell your clients at the Foundation to call it a day . Get the humour dear Andrew ?
When the paper reached the boss, the boss wrote across the bottom of the paper - "Who is Round and what does he object too?".
Irrelevant to everything else said here but it might at least raise a smile for someone.
What does MLP Delegates have to do with this proposal and objections? You seems to be so obsessed against MLP that you bring them in the cocktail on every topic. You are wrong again, I am an MLP delegate and I did not object, neither agreed, with the proposal. Therefore you cannot claim that from the 1500 objections, 900 are MLP delegates. You are also wrong as the MLP delegates are less than 900.
It seems that hate has no limit for you when it comes to MLP
Is Dr. Andrew Borg Cardona by any change the lawyer and legal consultant of the St. John's Co-Cathedral Foundation ?
Your comments regarding objectors and MLP delegates is unfair: You may wish to peruse the provision of the Aarhus Convention on the matter and whilst you are at, you may also refresh your memory on the provisions of the DPA and the Heritage Act.
You also imply that those who have objected - like me - may have done so on any notion that 'change is bad', please rest assured that this is certainly not the case and I refer you to the various statements issued by FAA on the matter where alternatives to the proposed project have been made.
As to the childish comments of people like Joseph Caruana, the less said, the better.
A primitive way of running things, I have to say.
Just for the record, before anyone bleats about conflicts of interest or some such silly notion, I have professional connections with the Foundation, which is why I'm not commenting about the merits or otherwise of the various issues.
"For all I know, amongst the 1,500 are 900 MLP delegates!"
An MLP delegate is entitled to make an objection as much as anybody else. Being a party delegate does not preclude one from being a free thinking person. Clearly, your remark is deeply prejudiced, and yet you preach to us on the merits of "reason".
I, for one, prefer to measure the evidence before expressing an opinion, something these 1,500 haven't necessarily done, since the full details haven't been made public. I'm allergic to knee-jerk reactions on the lines of "change is bad, I will object to change".
This does not mean that the Foundation's proposals are necessarily perfect, just as the fact that 1,500 people decided to object means that the proposals are necessarily bad.
But hey, why should reasonableness and calm assessment obstruct the chance for a good rant?
A Press release from NGO's quoting the number of objections can only mean that those same NGOs commissioned 1,500 persons to lodge as many complaints to MEPA.
But admittedly, Astrid and her merry friends are getting smarter...
I sincerely hope that MEPA will be objective in this regard, and treat this development application with care.