Royal Opera House site

Articles, letters, opinions have appeared lately in the press on the Royal Opera House site. This gaping hole just at the entrance to our capital has been attracting attention along the years. Much attention in fact but little remedial action.

Some insist that the Opera House should be rebuilt exactly as it was before it was destroyed during the war and further demolished by our governments for no logical reason. The ultra-conservatives argue for the complete restoration both on the outside and in the inside. Others opt for the restoration of the outer shell with a modern state-of-the-art interior.

Progressive thinkers feel it is a shame that all that remains at present are the front podium and steps with a monstrous hole at the rear. This is being used as a car park during the day, a very ignominious end to the glittering nights of its glorious cultural past.

Many solutions were proposed, but nobody suggested it should remain a ruin and a memento of the destruction of our city during World War II.

Varied suggestions were proposed; some insist that the Opera House would rise again, Phoenix-like, exactly as it was in all its glory. Others less conservative would be happy with the same exterior but a state-of-the-art performing theatre. Nobody is satisfied with the present scenario.

Members on the government side do not think of the site as one for the performing arts. Or rather for the performance of another type of human activity, namely the give and dramatic take of legislative debate. It seems that thinking is veering towards a new house of Parliament.

It is true that the space allotted to Parliament in the Palace is cramped and inadequate. It is not really worthy for that august body. At the same time it is not wise nor viable, given our dire financial position, to spend many millions for accommodating MPs that do not operate full-time. Indeed there are times when it is difficult to form a quorum in Parliament.

This proposal has been attacked by the Council for Culture and the Arts as it negatives the idea of enlivening the entrance to the city, a sine qua non for cultural tourism So that rather put paid to the idea of a Parliament building next to the entrance to the city.

Another proposal was to turn the area into a magnificent garden to greet visitors to the city built by gentlemen for gentlemen. This seems to entail loss of precious land since there are already three gardens in Valletta - the Upper and Lower Barraccas and Hastings Garden.

The Council for Culture and the Arts stated that "it is also a known fact that Malta still lacks a centre of the dimensions of the site occupied by the former Opera House both for self-expression of our cultural identity as well as the serious development of cultural tourism."

It is further argued that the Manoel Theatre - a gem of baroque architecture is too small to house large scale productions which would be economically viable.

The Mediterranean Conference Centre Hall, a roofed-over courtyard, was never designed and can never be well adapted for the purpose.

It is inconceivable today, it was insisted, that a town can function as an attraction for cultural tourism without an adequate centre for the performing arts. Plans on which a great deal of work has already been carried out and envisaged as a kind of commercial development related to the artistic and cultural activity that would not threaten but rather reinforce existing business in Valletta.

The cogent important argument was that such provision would ensure that the country would not be over-burdened with costs due to the cultural centre. Rather, it was emphasised that the centre would become, through direct and indirect returns, a profitable investment in the global economic context, where cultural tourism and information exchange are calculated to have a bright future particularly into countries that are our strongest competitors.