Visit Valletta and see the plans
I’ve just come back from a visit to the National Museum of Archaeology, where Piano’s plans for Valletta are being shown. We were at the unveiling ceremony yesterday but I thought it best to go back and take a quiet look today.
Quiet? Hardly – people were pouring in and engaging with the project, discussing, talking, pointing things out. The model isn’t covered with glass, which makes it more open and accessible.
I got the feeling that if it were not so hot in there, the museum guards would have to call time to get the crowd out and let others in.
Be sure to go – it’s worth knowing what everyone’s going to be talking about. The exhibition is open every day of the week between 9am and 7pm until the end of July, and entrance is – of course – free of charge.
13 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Yes, go to Valletta and take a look at the exhibition. If you cannot make it, visit:
https://opm.gov.mt/vallettaprojects
An excellently presented and highly informative site. Prosit.
I’ve just been there myself! Excellent exhibition! I was particularly impressed by the level of detail of the plans and sections as well as the beautiful workmanship of the models. I can’t wait to see it finished!
As an architecture student, the first thing I look for is the concept, design philosophy and logic, that an architect uses to arrive to his final result, not only to the final appearance. At school we are always thought that if an architect adopts the right design philosophy and process he is bound to end up with a good design that works in every aspect. Piano is actually renowned for having a good design thought and process, that’s why he’s great and he always has fantastic results. His latest proposals were not an exception!
I agree full heartedly with Piano’s design philosophy, especially with the one he applied for the opera house. What he proposed was nothing new to me as it was the only logical thing to do on such a site. In fact some years ago, some architecture students came up with similar proposals because they adopted the same design philosophy. Removing the ruins or reconstructing them shouldn’t have ever been considered.
I didn’t post comments or replies to comments on your other posts, because I would have ended up with long essays on design and restoration, explaining why Piano’s design philosophy is correct. I also particularly tried to avoid reading the comments on timesofmalta.com for the same reason. Sometimes it’s useless trying to convince some people.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/
Poll
What do you like of Renzo Piano’s plans for Valletta?
nothing 41.5%
all 30.5%
City Gate 13.5%
Parliament House 7.9%
the Opera House site 6.5%
Total votes: 718
With the greatest of respect to tenor Joseph Calleja, I really think he should hit the below link and watch the interview before he pontificates any more about the need to have a conventional opera house in Valletta. My comment is in no way meant to show any disrespect to Mr Calleja and the first class international artist that he is.
As to the timesofmalta.com elves, they are beyond redemption.
https://opm.gov.mt/podcast?catid=21&podid=92&l=1
What an inspiring man Renzo Piano is! But Tony, I have to ask you a serious question: who on earth edits those pieces? The ‘muntagg’ is absurd and the journalist appears ‘anaemic’. Thank God, the interview partner can speak for himself, literally.
The overall concept, as expected, is mostly excellent. The subtle gate is brilliant and the theatre is understated which in turn respects the existing ruins. The parliament is not so successful, I’m afraid.
I suspect that we will not be able to appreciate St.Jame’s Cavalier as we enter Valletta irrespective of the stilts supporting the parliament building, which appears massive. In my view, the term ‘dignity’ cannot be used to describe this part of the proposed project.
The entrance to Valletta deserves a grand space, a piazza where social activity takes place. It appears that the objective of the proposed design is to create this kind of space in the ditch. I have my doubts whether this will achieve the desired effect.
Does the parliament building have to be so huge? What is the brief and who formulated it?
I was hoping that Renzo Piano would have considered an underground structure to accommodate parliament and the ancillary offices/spaces, and perhaps create a majestic square in front of St.James Cavalier.
[Daphne – Parliament house is a symbol of democracy. What would that say about us if we buried it underground?]
They would say: “Look, these people have a beautiful building in the form of St. Jame’s Cavalier, their architect understood this and created a space for them and their visitors to enjoy and experience. What is this place called – ahh yes, Freedom Square. Oh, and where does that magnificent entrance lead to, and what are these beautiful structures protruding from the ground? Oh, it’s their parliament – those are atria allowing light to penetrate deep into the building, underground. Theirs must be one great democracy, they chose to respect their history. Come on, let’s go and visit the political and history museum. It seems to be refreshing down there and it must surely be an interesting experience – a journey through time.”
Architecture is is not simply about symbolism, although symbolism does have an important role. In this case, it is about creating space, an experience for those visiting Valletta.
The main issue with the design is the square or lack of it. A pseudo-square with columns and a four-storey building overhead is not a square at all. There is no such thing as a floating building, unless it is placed in the middle of nowhere where the floating effect can be ‘appreciated’ from a distance.
Pierre, why does Valletta need a grand – meaning vast – unstructured open space? It is a small city surrounded by the sea on three sides so it is not claustrophobic. I know people who had never noticed that the sea is visible from most streets, until they heard Piano pointing it out. Squares do exist here and there in Valletta and they are well-proportioned to the size of the buildings and the streets.
If you go to the exhibition you will see that the parliament building is almost dwarfed by the bulk of the cavalier behind it. You have to remember that the ground floor is “empty” and, although not a traditional piazza, it does give a sense of openness as soon as you enter Valletta. From the space between the two block of the building, one will be able to see up to St Catherine’s church.
Yes Antoine, the axes are well defined by the spaces created between the proposed buildings, In addition, upon entering the gate, Renzo Piano has created a symmetric volume reinforcing the axis along Republic Street. However, there is no way that me, you or anyone else will appreciate the grandness and bulk of the Cavalier, irrespective of the so called open space.
In addition this so called open space will have to be interrupted by entrances and exits to and from the overlying floors – lifts, circulation spaces, reception areas and other facilities that will be used to provide services for activities at ‘piazza’ level. I suspect that when a more detailed design is complete, the ‘open space’ will not be so open and empty.
From the model and drawings presented, it can be noted that as soon as one enters into Valletta, there is a solid vertical element on the right which defines one of the corners of the proposed parliament buildings. This solid part of the building (probably a circulation/service core) will obstruct all possible views even if the finished building will include a substantial amount of glazing in this area.
Viewing a scaled model from above is one thing. In fact, one can easily note the massing of the buildings and the size of the Cavlier with respect to the Parliament building in such a model. However, at eye level, it is a totally different matter.
I would have liked to see a perspective view immediately as one enters into Valletta, taken at eye level, not a bird’s eye view.
It is not Valletta per se that needs a grand space but St.James’ Cavalier, being our prime cultural and arts’ centre. However, this space does not need to be grand or completely unobstructed.
You rightly point out that the present space is perhaps too huge. Indeed, there are many ways in which one can give a human scale to such large spaces.
On a different matter, I have noted that the parliament chamber appears to be rather limited in size, with a two tier level for seating. This is probably a result of trying to fit all the functions within the limited space defined by the surrounding buildings, the axes, and the need to achieve certain proportions in the volumes created between the proposed buildings and the existing ones (the uncovered pedestrian routes/streets)
If the architect had considered all the space and area available below ground, the functions within the building, that is, parliament, ancillary spaces / offices, the museum, and so on could probablty have been fitted in a two storey building which could be partly undergrond as well as above ground and spread across all Freedom Square.
Architects, no matter how great they are, tend to build from the ground upwards, but building downwards is equally and sometimes more ingenious.
Remember what happened the last time someone proposed building downwards?
I like classic buildings and stonework, so I am bound not to fancy the cubist design or glass theatre/opera.
Having seen the models, I agree that for people walking down Replublic Street, the view of St. Jame’s Cavalier would be more restricted than what is being suggested.
An underground parliament building can be interpreted as an ingrained sense of democracy? lol
May be worth querying the effect on traffic (removal of road over City Gate) and general accessibility for all potential users of these structures. Though I hope the experts have addressed these issues as well.
How long will the plans be shown to the public? I am abroad at the moment and do not want to miss seeing them.
[Daphne – The exhibition is open until 31 July.]
Anyone found the car park/s in the plans?
[Daphne – Yellow Garage.]