S it successful?

peanness’ and what it means to belong to Europe.

The Bid Book is the application on which Valletta was selected ECoC. It is a commitment of what is to be done and achieved during the ECoC year. This notwithstanding the cultural and artistic objectives as stated in the Bid Book were largely ignored. Toni Attard, former strategy director at Arts Council Malta, noted a significant difference between the Bid Book intentions and the eventual programme. The intention was for a more artist-led approach, with various projects originating from the artistic communities, rather than conceived and controlled by a central government agency. Mr Attard noted that some survived the cull and made their way to the final programme, but they ended up largely as marginal events.

Valletta 2018 acted largely as a funding agency giving out funds in accordance to requests made. Cultural operators were invited to come forward with ideas for cultural initiatives. This provided them the opportunity to experiment and move out of their comfort zone, as the commercial risks were minimised. The end result was a rich programme of events for the ECoC, even if many events were already part of Malta’s cultural programme. The number of new events, especially innovative ones, is not as much as one would have hoped for.

Regenerating Valletta

Some people claim that Valletta 2018 was instrumental in the regeneration of Val- letta. I contend that this assertion is largely incorrect and I will explain why. The regeneration of an urban area is a process that spans many years, even decades. Valletta’s process of regeneration has been ongoing since the nineties and was accelerated with a series of projects that started in 2005. The main ones were the pedestrianisation of Merchants Street and Pjazza San Gorg; the restoration and reuse of Fort St Elmo; the Fortifications Interactive Centre; restoration of Valletta’s more important buildings and the City Gate project. As these various projects gained momentum, it became clear that Valletta will no longer be ignored by the authorities and that the air of dereliction would be greatly reduced. The private sector understood that Valletta offered new opportunities for investment. Many historic houses and palazzos were restored for use as residences or offices. Preparations for ECoC 2018 began soon after 2010. This was a catalyst for further private investment in Valletta particularly in catering establishments and boutique hotels.

Public and private sector investments were instrumental in giving new life to Valletta in the evenings. In recent years, the V18 Foundation gave priority to this and actively encouraged investments in commercial establishments in Strait Street and adjoining streets. There are some who argue that evening leisure in Valletta is now excessive because of inconveniences caused to residents. Another persistent problem is the take up of pedestrian spaces for table and chairs, often with unsightly canopies incompatible with the historic context.

Some commentators confuse a revitalised evening activity with urban regeneration. For a historic area, urban regeneration is mainly about investments in the renewal of the urban fabric and bringing disused properties into use. It is also about generating vitality in urban spaces throughout the day and evening. Evening leisure activity is one small part of a much wider renewal process. The claim made by the Culture Minister that Valletta 2018’s legacy is “the rebirth of the capital city” is blatantly untrue. I say this as someone who has been a close observer of Valletta since 2000 and before.

ECoC Governance

On governance, a number of serious errors were committed along the way. The first mistake was appointing someone as Chairman of V18 with no knowledge and understanding of the cultural sector, nor of issues related to tourism. The appointed chairman also knew nothing about European Capital of Culture, and more crucially about its values. He was unable therefore to understand why his Facebook comments back in March were so controversial and so inappropriate for the V18 Chairman to make. Another mistake was the replacement of two key officials from the V18 management just a few months before the start of Valletta ECoC year. These officials were widely seen to be doing a good job so their removal was inexplicable. Years of know-how and experience were lost. These dismissals raised questions on the ethical implications and on the suspect strategic choice of replacing such key posts at the eleventh hour.

Lost opportunities

In the run up to V18 there were a number of opportunities that were there for the taking. They could have been used to further promote Valletta 2018 and concurrently raise the international profile of Valletta and Malta. The synergies created could have been beneficial to the culture sector but the opportunities were lost.

The City Gate project, for example, has the potential to generate significant international interest. It is iconic architecture designed by world-renowned architect Renzo Piano at the entrance of a historic fortified city designated as a World Heritage Site. Irrespective of past controversies, the new Parliament building, City Gate and Pjazza Teatru Rjal could have been promoted as buildings and urban spaces to be proud of, something that the authorities and the V18 Foundation were reluctant to do.

In 2016, there was the 450th anniversary of Valletta. This was a golden opportunity to organise events to highlight the historical-European significance of Valletta to an international audience. The 450th anniversary of Valletta passed by with barely a whimper. There was also Malta’s EU presidency in the first half of 2017, another significant moment that could have been better used to get potential tourists more interested in Malta’s cultural offer.

Reactions from an interested stakeholder

Valletta Alive Foundation (VAF) is an NGO that took an active interest in Valletta 2018 from its beginnings when Valletta declared its intention to bid for European Capital of Culture back in 2010. VAF closely followed progress of V18, largely through the media but also through meetings it had with key players and other stakeholders. In the beginning, the VAF was enthusiastic about ECoC and fully supported it. This was until 2014/15 when VAF sensed a shift in the V18 Foundation’s approach. Mixed messages were being sent out. V18 officials were encouraging active participation by civil society, including VAF, while V18 Chairman took a negative stance against VAF, and presumably against other interested stakeholders. VAF’s initial enthusiasm turned into concern and apprehension. V18 Foundation was giving far too much priority to generating commercial activity in Valletta and very little importance to cultural and social objectives. Today VAF is greatly disappointed that this unique opportunity for Valletta has turned out very different to what was originally intended. Even if there were some achievements and benefits, so much more could have been achieved.

Conclusion

During 2018, I attended various cultural events. In each case there was no mention of Valletta 2018, other than sometimes being mentioned as a sponsor. For Valletta 2018, one would have expected a sense of celebration of Malta and Maltese culture. This sense of celebration was totally absent.

Coming back to the original question: was Valletta 2108 successful? I would argue that it was not. There may have been benefits in terms of culture and tourism promotion, but these were benefits that could have been easily achieved by an increase in financial allocations. European Capital of Culture is a brand name that provided innumerable opportunities for culture, for cultural tourism and for the enhancement of Malta image as a cultural destination. For various reasons, these opportunities were squandered and for this reason Valletta 2018 should be considered a failure. John Ebejer is an urban planner, tourism consultant and a lecturer at the University of Malta