The science of conservation cuts across the bounds of many professional disciplines including planning, architecture, landscape, archaeology, history, engineering and economics, to name a few. It can be defined simply as an action that ensures preservation and prevention from loss, damage, or neglect of any other thing of acknowledged value.
Protecting the historic and cultural heritage is sacrosanct. They are a non-renewable and irreplaceable, record which contributes to our understanding of both the present and the past. Their presence adds to the quality of our lives, enhancing the familiar and much cherished local scene while sustaining the sense of local distinctiveness. Often their value lies far deeper than in just their workmanship, character, beauty or age but also in their effect on our intellectual, visual and emotional experience. Generally, their historic envelope is also of immense importance for education, recreation and tourism providing enormous economic potential.
A few weeks ago I was invited to attend a discussion programme on a local TV station regarding the government’s proposal to re-develop the old opera theatre site into a House of Parliament. Among others, Minister Austin Gatt and Fr Peter Serracino Inglott were also present to discuss the subject.
From what I could gather neither Minister Gatt nor Fr Serracino Inglott were aware that the Malta Environment and Planning Authority had scheduled the ruins of the former royal opera theatre site as a Grade 2 (where reconstruction would be possible) building as part of the Protective Inventory of the Maltese Cultural Heritage list during 2008. The degree of protection was based on the special characteristics of the site namely:
1. The heavily sculpted hard stone podium that is still in a very good condition.
2. This site being the larger of two sites in Valletta that are still in ruins from the Second World War.
3. Nowadays the site is also a historic reminder/monument (commemorative memory) from the Second World War.
To my surprise both argued that there was no need for conservation measures since the only surviving ruins of the former that survive are insignificant so these can be removed.
The main point that I emphasised during the debate was that in redeveloping the opera theatre site the principles of conservation derived from the international charters should be adopted and applied at the design and planning stage in order to safeguard the historical features that still exist in the area. According to the scheduling that took place last year only the terrace/podium overlooking Republic Street and parts of the building’s perimeter survive however, the side elevation along South Street is still relatively sturdy up to the lower arches. The surviving remains are of architectural and historical significance. In its scheduling MEPA stressed that the total demolition or removal of the remains is not considered an option. Any rehabilitation or redevelopment of the site must incorporate existing remains.
It is evident that a considerable number of people consider Edward Middleton Barry’s past architectural feat to be one of the most appropriate for the site and therefore the nostalgic need should be satisfied by incorporating in the new plans what’s left of the original structure. Historically it’s a fact that when the theatre was destroyed by fire in 1873, it was rebuilt again to its former glory. This goes to prove without any doubt that the average Maltese always was and remains attached to Barry’s significant architectural feat which once adorned our city entrance.
As many historians have documented, the site chosen for the opera house was close to the city gate, possibly to create a dramatic structure that would stand out on entering Valletta from the main gate, thus asserting the British power and influence in Malta.
The royal opera house was hit by a parachute mine during the Second World War which destroyed the roof, and the foyer and damaged the interior. Instead of rebuilding the damaged parts most of the surviving parts were dismantled/demolished, and the podium with stairs and the underlying shops and part of the elevation on South Street were retained.
Shall we protect or wipe off what is left as is being suggested?
Roderick Galdes is
Labour spokesman for
planning and housing
