From Dr J. Samut-Tagliaferro

Daphne Caruana Galizia (The gate, TMIS, 14 December) informs us that “…the present gate is the third…”, which shows that she has little idea of the history of the gate.

Starting life as Laparelli’s modest Porta San Giorgio in the mid-16th century, the Knights determined, in the early 17th century, on a more imposing gate for their grand new city and commissioned one of Malta’s most illustrious architects, Tumas Dingli, to erect it. A stone arched bridge spanning the ditch to the gate complemented this definitive Knights’ gate built by Dingli.

Sadly, in the 1850s the British demolished Dingli’s gate but fortuitously retained the arched bridge. This bridge took a hit from an enemy bomb in the last war but the small hole was soon repaired and the bridge was none the worse for it.

The least said about the neo-Fascist abomination (the fourth gate) that replaced the British gate the better.

Suffice it to say that the original bridge again miraculously survived that last assault on the gate. Having destroyed more of the bastions on the sides to accommodate the wider third and fourth gates, a wider bridge was required. This was achieved by simply adding to the original bridge on either side and asphalting over the whole thing.

My objection to Piano’s City Gate plan of 20 years ago was based on three intertwined premises:

•That City Gate and the Opera house site are distinct and separate sites, requiring separate solutions.

•That a gate should be built that is in keeping with the fortifications and that respects the memory and place of the old Porta San Giorgio.

•That any existing Knights’ structures should be preserved and incorporated in the new scheme. Piano’s plans failed on all three counts.

City Gate, unlike the Opera House block, is not an individual site within the walls of the city, the function and appearance of which can change with time with no ill effect. It is an integral part of the walls themselves, serving a crucial and specific function – that of providing an imposing yet at the same time defensive entrance to the fortified city within, just as was planned and executed by the Knights and as befits a fortified city anywhere in the world. The gate is but a tiny though crucial part of the magnificent fortifications crying out for restoration.

When the St John’s Caravaggio was slashed, we restored it, returning it to near pristine condition. We did not send it off to an internationally renowned artist like Damien Hirst to plug the gash with some fanciful bestial part addendum. Likewise, we should restore the defect that City Gate currently is in the masterpiece of the fortifications and return them to a near pristine condition.

A fundamental principle of restoration is that every effort must be made to preserve as much as possible of the original. Primum non nocere. In this case what we do have left of the original is the Knights’ bridge, and it is a condicio sine qua non to incorporate it in whatever replaces the present atrocity. The destruction of this bridge was an essential part of Piano’s plans of 20 years ago. I had written about this at the time, ad nauseam perhaps, hoping against hope to save the bridge. I received no support from the pundits – not a whimper. Quite the opposite – I was branded a Philistine. They were perfectly happy for the bridge to be destroyed. Whatever Renzo Piano says, goes.

Now we have the extraordinary revelation from Minister Austin Gatt (Old Putirjal bridge to be incorporated in the Piano design, TMIS, 7 December) “…that Renzo Piano did not know about the existence of the old bridge when he presented his controversial plans for the Valletta entrance 20 years ago. Now that he knows the bridge is still there, he is eager to incorporate it in his new design.” This internationally renowned architect was tampering with one of our most prestigious sites without knowing its basic history. Of course, the news that the bridge is to be saved is most welcome, and for this I can claim credit, as the information about its survival was passed on to Piano from me via the good offices of Minister Gatt.

Finally, and thankfully, the bridge is to be saved and it seems only natural to me that it should be reunited with its gate. This 1630’s definitive Knights’ gate, designed by our illustrious compatriot, will restore pride to our fortifications and to our city. By all means let Piano do his bit on the Opera House site (subject, of course, to perusal of his fresh plans) but by no means should any further desecration of our fortifications be allowed.

John Samut-Tagliaferro

ZEBBUG, GOZO