Cultural sites across Malta could also include cafés in the future, as Heritage Malta is “studying the possibilities” of extending a model already in place at the national museum of modern art.

The agency, which ended last year with a €1.4 million deficit, controversially entered into an agreement with a private operator to trial run a catering venture inside Mdina’s Vilhena Palace this summer.

It is part of a trend of state agencies venturing into the hospitality business that has raised fears among heritage campaigners about the commercialisation of cultural sites.

The Water Services Corporation plans a café for a British-era pumping station in Gozo’s Mġarr harbour, Wasteserv aborted a plan for one at Romeo Romano Gardens and Transport Malta has applied to build a restaurant at the Ta’ Xbiex seafront.

Asked whether the trend was part of a concerted effort and a government policy to make these spaces profitable, and to explain thinking behind the strategy, Heritage Malta said it has “broadened our sites’ use in such a way as to go way beyond artefacts”.

Insisting the client remains at the “very centre” of all its operations, it said it wanted to safeguard cultural heritage and “provide our visitors with an enhanced experience”.

“One does not visit a museum simply to admire exhibits and learn about them, but also to relax in the cafeteria, use the internet, do some work in peace and quiet,” it said, adding that the model has worked in the national museum of art, MUŻA, and in various sites abroad.

“Therefore, a site or museum is not seen as a static location or a depository of artefacts, but rather a cultural resource that the community at large may use,” it explained, adding it is “studying the possibilities of extending this model to other sites”.

Beyond the artefacts

Environment NGO Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar said it appreciated the need for heritage sites to be self-sustainable, but raised concerns about Malta’s lack of planning, transparency and enforcement.

Citing good examples like the Malta Stock Exchange and MUŻA, where the restaurant was handled sensitively, it said the proposed eatery at Vilhena Palace, Mdina, would have been similar had the questionable tendering process not thrown a bad light over it.

On the other hand, the extent of the Manoel Island mega-project on public heritage land was such that a large new bridge was being built, shifting the petrol station and café into the Gżira garden and taking over much of its promenade, FAA pointed out.

The proposed Capitanerie, which would see an area between Gżira Gardens and the yacht marina quay transformed into office space, a shop and a restaurant, was “yet another assault on public open spaces”, it said.

‘Privatising heritage by stealth’

Singling out TM’s proposed Ta’ Xbiex restaurant and offices as the “most blatant” example, lawyer Claire Bonello, specialised in planning law, maintained the “pattern of turning on historic sites” was “very dangerous”.

She said it was “obvious various government entities are privatising our heritage by stealth, giving out super lucrative sites to the chosen few with no transparency at all”.

Bonello insisted there was “no protocol, no procedure and no competitiveness”.

Super lucrative sites given to the chosen few with no transparency at all

She questioned why local councils, community groups and NGOs were not asked if they wanted to use these sites first, instead of commercialising them and giving them to the “chosen ones in a secret process”.

Bonello envisaged many conflicts of interest, with persons in the public sector giving inside information about available sites to their friends, maintaining the Lands Authority should publish an inventory of all these.

Defending heritage properties for the community

Din L-Art Ħelwa executive president Alex Torpiano also questioned why TM and Wasteserv would venture into the catering and hospitality business in the first place.

“Is this not an area that is well served by private investment? Is it to raise funds from these assets? But then, if these assets are not central to the remit of the entity in question, why do they hold on to them?”

These state entities have been entrusted with public assets to fulfil their remit and when they do not need them, they should return them to the community, Torpiano said, insisting the exploitation of public assets should be illegal.  His main concern was that these initiatives promoted the “prevalent misconception, especially at the Lands Authority, that heritage buildings only have value if they have commercial potential”.

It was a “shame” to see Heritage Malta also promote this concept, Torpiano said, adding there was nothing wrong with making money off historical buildings, but “the priority of the cultural values should not be lost”.

Acknowledging there were situations when heritage buildings could – or needed to – be given a commercial use, he said this should enhance the heritage value of the place and not vice-versa.

Torpiano questioned the sense in having the island’s most important protector of its heritage subscribing to the philosophy of seeking to raise revenue by commercialising government property.

There was no shortage of restaurants, and they did not need to be accommodated in heritage sites, Torpiano highlighted, pointing to the fate of the last remaining battery in Qbajjar, Gozo.

After it was let out to become a nightclub, Torpiano said it was extensively defaced, modified and then abandoned, and despite DLĦ’s efforts, it remained abandoned – “a monument to heritage illiteracy”.

For Moviment Graffitti, which is currently campaigning against commercialisation at Comino, it was the usual case of “gross exaggeration” and “savagery”, with every space “bursting” with cafés and restaurants.

Each case had to be judged on its own merits, but the overarching problem was the commercialisation that has taken over Malta in recent years and was “always eating up more land”.

While having catering establishments in public spaces and heritage sites could make sense, Andre Callus, speaking on the movement’s behalf, said its issue was with the ideology behind it – that space was valuable only if it was profitable.

“This has an impact on quality of life, apart from ruining the beauty of cultural sites,” Callus said.