In today’s secular world, architecture seems to focus more on monetary gain and profit, hence the endless soulless worldwide dystopias, the result of an age where we know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

These words are not my own but borrowed from Richard England, an internationally acclaimed architect who needs no introduction. England has had so many meaningful contributions to architecture in Malta, not merely through his own unique designs but also, and possibly more painstakingly so, through his tireless efforts to educate and inform the Maltese population and powers that be of the importance of protecting and enhancing our past.

England’s main concern was not the preservation of the palaces and churches in Valletta and Mdina, the value of which is understood by all and safeguarded by both law and public opinion. Rather, his motivation was geared towards educating the public on the many 20th-century buildings whose unique character may be less obvious.

One such building is the Rialto Theatre, in Cospicua, an elegant art moderne cinema that was built between 1954 and 1956 to the design of Edwin England Sant Fournier, the father of Richard England. The Rialto is today one of the most recognisable buildings in Cottonera and deemed to be England Sant Fournier’s most iconic work, with the extensive use of rich blue ultramarine stained glass, vertical arched openings and a modernist central rounded corner ornamentation rising above the peculiarly pitched roof of the building.

At the time the Rialto opened its doors, it was one of the largest cinemas on the island with a seating capacity of 1,100 spectators. It would become the main social hub of Cottonera and residents old enough to recall its glory days will enthusiastically attest to the cultural and social significance of this landmark building which attracted audiences from all walks of life until it was effectively closed in 1988.

It was within this context that I had mixed sentiments on reading that the schedule Grade II-listed Rialto may finally be restored as part of a boutique hotel and the theatre and cinema reopened to the public for the first time in 35 years.

It is laudable that the owners of the building, the Labour Party, included certain conditions in the concession terms, stipulating that investors are to be guided by the principles that the property’s original use as a cultural hub should be retained. There are, after all, very limited buildings dedicated to the arts and fewer still dedicated to theatre and cinema and, for this reason, the parameters included in the concession are commendable.

My reservations, however, stem from the plans submitted to the Planning Authority which, despite the notable renovation and incorporation of the original theatre hall in the project, also feature a recessed built-up roof area in lieu of the existing pitched roof.

It is understood that buildings need to adapt to remain alive and renovations and alterations are sometimes required if a building is to survive at all. To unreservedly insist that the past remains as it always was is not always in the interest of the building itself,as it may render it effectively dead through lack of interaction with a community.

However, giving a building new life should never be to the detriment of its design and any interventions (particularly to landmark buildings) should always be respectful and geared towards enhancing the building and its surroundings. 

Giving a building new life should never be to the detriment of its design

We may have grown accustomed in Malta to equating development with regression because the examples of development since independence have generally resulted in insensitive and nonsensical alterations to spaces and buildings that have little to no reverence.

Whether this is due to the architect, the PA or the client varies but what is certain is that the country is failing in its approach to development and planning and has been for many decades.

We need to move away from pointing blame and accept that this failure is the result of collective efforts as, ultimately, buildings are designed by architects, signed off by investors and approved by the PA. For this reason, there is an objective need for the government and stakeholders to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the design advisory committee (DAC) and PA and restructure these bodies with a view to providing proper and effective guidance on the regeneration and development of at least certain buildings and areas in Malta. This may be more achievable than focusing on the whole country.

The foundational principles of renovation, development and planning need to be guided by aesthetic consideration, functionality, spatial context and the creation of community − and this in a manner that encourages innovation and extraordinary designs. The alternative is to encourage more uninspired developments that allows the parameters of design and city planning to be dictated in piecemeal and the goalposts of what is acceptable potentially shifted by those with vested interests.

An internal view of the Rialto Theatre in its heyday.

The proposed renovation of the Rialto is a poignant reminder of this timeless issue and reflective of an incorrect but increasingly accepted view that building additional floors is the only way to add to a building’s value. The proposed extension is evidently incongruent with the original design of England Sant Fournier and, if accepted, will effectively destroy some of the main characteristic features of the Rialto.

This may not be considered an issue to those who, with all good intentions, long to see the Rialto reopened at all costs. However, it is an issue, at the very least in principle, when a scheduled Grade II-listed building is at risk of damaging interventions that are insensitive to its character and architectural homogeneity. Such applications attempt to strike at the very core of the protection that is meant to be afforded to listed buildings by law and, for this reason, should be rejected.

Investors seeking to renovate the Rialto should be obliged to retain the character of the building, while allowing only minimal intervention that is sensitive, respectful and enhances the original design and purpose of the structure.

The former theatre has the potential to once again serve as a community magnet for Cottonera; however, the uninspired extension is unbefitting of a building of this significance and the design seems disappointingly reminiscent of building extensions that have disfigured most of the coastal towns of Malta.

England frequently refers to the responsibility of architects to act as defenders and guardians of the past but this responsibility also extends to everyone who has an interest in conservation, sustainability and real progress.

This does not necessarily mean that we should seek to renovate buildings without alteration but it does mean that it should be a prerequisite that any proposed development should seek to enhance spaces and buildings to render them not only functional and viable but also more beautiful.

Maybe it’s finally time to restructure the DAC and the PA with a view to ensure that such authorities are capable of providing effective guidance on the proper metrics for building design and city planning.

Maybe this can be achieved for Cottonera and the broader harbour area, which has, to date, been spared the unrelenting destruction of vast areas of Malta and Gozo and potentially serve as a blueprint for other areas to follow. If we cannot achieve this for such a small and culturally significant part of the country, then there is little chance it can ever be achieved for the whole.

The final day to make representations against the proposed development of the Rialto (PA/03203/23) is today, July 6.

Peter Grima is a lawyer and resident of Cospicua.