Mil-bqija it-teatru ghandu potenzjal kbir u personalment nahseb u nittama li ser ikun success.

Pero ghal klassiku veru mhux tajjeb (hemm wisq spillage ta storbju minn barra ghal gewwa, apaprti l-fatt li ladarba jkollok tamplifika orkestra tkun qieghed titlef mil-pregju taghha) Pero Malta mhux l-opera u l-klassiku biss jezistu. Hemm bosta mdia ohra li huma perfetti ghal Teatru Rjal u jistghu jigu akkomodati hemm. Huwa proporju ghal din ir-ragun li tTearu ghandu jkun tikka flssibbli halli jkun jista jakkomoda il-maggorparti tan-nicec ezistenti biex b’hekk jibqa vitali.

Kien hemm min semma Andre Rieu izejd il-fuq. Andre Rieu huwa kassiku ghan nies li ma jhobbux il-klassiku. Surmast hamallu ta orkestra hamalla. Jigifieri Rie mhux l-analogija mixtieqa. Ifhem wara kollox90%tan-nies li joqghodu jtaqtqu fuq klassiku u Opera nahseb bilkemm jafu min huwa Mahler u jattendtu t-teatri darba f;sen biss sabiex jissodisfaw l-gheruq borgizi taghhom mibnija fuq hafna parenzi u ftit sugu

Amazingly these never seem to bother the Astrids and the Kittens.

I believe she does pretty well financially too.

Comments from FAA cannot and should not be taken at face value, as unfortunately most people do.

There was a reason for FAA’s negativity and viciousness against the City gate project. Private interests wanted the opera house site for themselves. As bait, they offered government to rebuild the site without any expense to government, in accordance to the designs of (a non-entity who came by the name of) Trevisan. Government rightly refused the offer.

This group went ballistic and kept hoping against hope that government would reverse the decision. In part, this is the reason why there was so much opposition against the project in its early days. We should all be thankful to the PN Govenment for having weathered the persistent attacks because, had they not, City Gate today would have been in a disastrous state.

Astrid Vella’s criticism of the project should be seen in this context.

Note Ms. Vella commented five times on timesonline to support the Trevisan proposal.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100420/local/roofed-glass-theatre-proposal-for-opera-house-site.303661

Yes, portrayed as some kind of restoration, the most facile and conceited of facadism cliches. Couple of purple neon tubes round the columns and voila’, 80’s postmodernism.

Adamant on rebuilding yet accomodating that sorry excuse of a shed to ‘compromise’ with modern times. Trying to sell us the idea that a ‘free’ computer render won’t cost us anything was both an admission of serious limits as well as an insult to whoever it was addressed, that’s all the Maltese.

An apologetic disgrace to whatever it was she stood for, haggling her ‘consent’. Blackmail plain and simple.

Such is her manipulative method, sly distraction from civilised, respectful discourse. Piano reduced to foreigner, not an architect mind you, just lay foreigner. The spite.

Sometimes people underestimate Vella’s vicious nature when it comes to this. Kenneth’s her latest lift.

Guess.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120722/local/Cafe-owner-goes-to-war-over-plans-for-gunner-s-quarters.429551

If there’s an NGO dedicated to Malta’s military heritage it’s Wirt Artna. Not so with Astrid who unashamedly hired her services to a misguided ‘restaurant’ owner.

Note the Times caption, ‘Cafe Deux Baronnes faces destruction’. Bunch of umbrellas, plastic tables and a rickety wooden kiosk.

As usual, Vella had her documents all wrong, not to mention the extensive joint operations combat centre, later NATO, the entrance right next to it, going all the way below the upper Barakka onto the main ditch.

People like Astrid and Kenneth have to be challenged all the time, Malta in 2013 cannot afford this lowest degree of amateurism and pique.

It’s unhealthy, tiring and counterproductive. Marsa A and B stations face Astrid’s opinions on industrial archeology, as does Malta Shipbuilding.

Because she’ll want to have a say, there’s interests at stake, interests close to her FAA.

La Redoute: Why are they an integral part of the building?

Because they would be permanently installed, even if moveable. The visual aspect of the building would be determined by them. The way the building looks now is very different from what was presented in the exhibition. They impose loads on other parts of the buildings (including wind loading) and hence they have to be designed for.

La Redoute: “They were planned for a particular type of performance ….”

I disagree. It would be possible to use them for any type of performance including opera, concerts and theatre. The key ingredient is creativity. It would be an additional tool which, if used imaginatively, would greatly enhance any performance.

Agreed they would be expensive to install and to operate and probably that is why it was decided not to include them.

Google Trevisan and you’ll get a list of 11 men including alchemists, bass players, a cardinal,a footballer, a soldier, a hockey player, a soldier but guess what? No world class architect.
Google Piano. Enough said.

They were planned for a particular type of performance which is unfeasibly costly for a country that struggles to fill any venue without offering free beer.

Why are they an integral part of the building?