The Malta Independent has given space to the debate about our capital city that took place in parliament between Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon and Opposition MP Claudio Grech.The argument, as reported in the media, was whether Valletta should remain a 'museum' to minimize inconvenience to residents. I think that the real problem, in fact, is considering Vallettaone big museum. This is creating the biggest problem to its residents. If someone considers taking up residence in Valletta or any of the Three Cities, one will have to face taxing procedures, which do not exist if one decides to live somewhere else.
On my part, I find Grech's arguments about the concepts of residential areas as sterile. Real port cities do not have residential areas or commercial areas. The success of Valletta lay in the fact that it was a mix. Instead, of learning from past mistakes, Claudio Grech is only compounding the problems for Valletta.
The biggest problem that some of our historic port cities are facing today is the lack of a conceptual framework. It is not in place and projects as that of Strait Street, will nothelp to link this harbour city to its past identity, even if on paper it appears to have all the ingredients normally associated with identity 'producers'. The power of Valletta lies elsewhere. Like all the major harbours of Europe, it is part and parcel of Europe's cultural heritage.
Therefore, what we need to do, to be credible,is first to deconstruct the harbours' identity. Otherwise we would be only regurgitating failed Nationalist policies, which the same Nationalist bureaucrats ended up arbitrary usingto predetermine before hand who gets permits in U[rban] C[onservation] A[rea]s and who gets them not, when applying for renovating a property.
We need to remember that Europe is not a continent with static ports.Ports have their own character and identity, which vary from one another. The quay of Cospicua is not similar to that of the Grand Harbour and our Grand Harbour is different from that of Marsamxett.
But ports were also historical fortresses. Today, by the word fortress, one understands exclusion of the other. In the past, fortress meant security and security was achieved within diversity and inclusivity in its fuller sense. Unlike today, when by the word fort, we mean the exclusion of the other,these fortresses were historical examples of unity in diversity. We do not need to invent the wheel (as we tried to do in the past twenty-five years and we failed good time) but definitely, where the harbour cities are concerned, we need to spin it. On a longitudinal basis, we must first address the issue of identity.
For this reason, our harbours are the areas where identitiesare formulated. It was in the harbour cities, where capitalist institutions were formed and the Rule of Law became the norm. They were the cradles of progress and democratization.
New studies are revealing the richness of our cities and how they generate a specific material culture. This is still not being exploited, as what we are doing, including the Strait Street project, is simply regurgitating old ideas. Port cities, for example,were built to be viewed from the sea but as we have lost contact with the sea, today our cities are being built to view the sea. The result is that slowly our harbour cities are losing their panoramic identity. In terms of urban space, they are becoming the panorama. But this is a defeatist concept. It is a concept that lacks any foresight.
The architects who work in the cities do not come any longer from the maritime sector. Studies are now revealing that the architects or masters engaged in the buildings of churches, for example, were the same ones being used for the building of the hulls of ships. This is why churches tended to have their ceiling similar to the hull of a ship upside down. This is a feature to be found in Catholic countries from Malta to the Latin Americas.
Our cities are craving a new dimension. The economic crisis, which some of our harbour cities are sufferingfrom, isrooted in their history. But as was the case of Barcelona, where the economic crisis is now over, success was achieved because it linked presentation with networking and imagination.
The Barcelona story teaches us that harbour cities are fluid because they are in continuous evolution. This makes it more taxing toidentify the real challenges, which need to be established. The challenges are heightened in particular if one starts to think of ports as living spaces and for this reason, they require an inductive method. This means that the development of our port cities needs a broader approach. We need to stop being generic when it comes to the study of our harbours. Concepts must remain fluid.At the same time, benchmarks need to be set. At the moment there are none. Those set in the past failed. Yet, success depends on credibility and feasibility. These two points are extremely important for any project to be successful.
The mistake that we might make (and this was done by the previous administration) is to think that our harbours are not essential for the development of contemporary lifestyles and cultural activities. I am one who believes that they are still the gateway towards European Civilization. First, they are repositories of collective memory. Ports' identity extends from music to literature, from food to the imagery. What is now being called the politics of memory is extremely important for the promotion of a new culture. I am not sure how much of this is going on in the Strait Street Project, which is dragging its feet.
Moreover harboursare economic hubs, centres of trade and embarkation points for individuals. In the past, they were the point of departure for a number of European migrants. It was part and parcel of the policy of European Governments to show port culture through the setting up of museums. Today, these structures can appear as white elephants, as museums are not the best profit making institutions one can imagine but museums have had positive impact on those cities wherever they have been opened. Valletta and Birgu are a case in point. This is why, a project was created which aimed at opening a museum in Bormla but some idiot (or more than one) had an interest to torpedo it down and for their work, they receive a hefty salary, paid from our taxes.
Today, our ports are also at the receiving end. They are becoming points of departure and arrival for tourists. Their impact on society is normally ignored. Moreover, they are also the point of arrival for other migrants, who, one reason or another,are escapingfrom their respective countries.
While there is a general agreement that our harbours have a critical mass, this critical mass has not yet been used for the real benefit of the population, whichstill lives in our harbour cities.The infrastructure is simply not in place, year after year. It is pointless dolling up certain streetswith paving, while leaving the side ones to decay further. Tourists love to explore and that means even walking through the backstreetsand side streets and what do they see? Total degradation and a clear sign that we are going to the dogs while deluding ourselves that we are moving forward.
Past projects might have been financially and economically successfulbut the accrued income was not reinvested in the city. It was invested and spent somewhere else.Furthermore, demographically, they have been a total failure. But no one wants to admit it. I am sure that the Strait Street Project will not attract visitors to Valletta. It certainly does not attract me. The Strait Street project will definitely help in its continuous decline - not because of sound or music - but because the right resources and money are not being channelled correctly; in projects that will attract residents back to our dying harbour cities.