"This is not a makeover. Truly sustainable regeneration doesn’t happen in offices, boardrooms or, for that matter, conference halls. Regeneration happens when people get together, share ideas and inspire each other…community representatives, regeneration professionals, artists, health workers, planners, police officers and architects… the smallest changes, in the right place at the right time, can create the energy and the will to turn a place around".

“To be honest, I’m glad someone has returned to highlight this area.” Ruben Abela replied with a good natured smile. “The Biccerija area was originally chosen for study because it was the worst maintained area of Valletta, but unfortunately, it still is. Actually, it’s probably in a worse state than it was in 1997, when I carried out my research”. The research in question is the formidably comprehensive thesis written by Ruben for his MSc degree, entitled “Urban Rehabilitation in Valletta”, which formed the basis for an Entrust Biccerija Regeneration Study. It’s an enormous body of information and meticulously researched.

Abela’s study is one of the more recent in a series of reports and plans for the Biccerija area over the years. Back in 1945, a considerable part of the Biccerija area was recommended for demolition and re-planning by the British planners Harrison and Hubbard. Much of the area was identified as a slum area which should be cleared. Their proposals included the demolition of certain street blocks, the complete removal of Eagle Street and the rationalisation of the existing fabric to eliminate dead end streets, as well as the insertion of a play area for children. The area would thus tie in better with the Valletta gridiron street pattern, where almost all the roads lead to the periphery of the city at both ends, and there is little chance of ever feeling lost. Their proposals were not unsound in movement terms; even today, the most active streets in the study area are those which tie in well to the rest of the city.

Harrison and Hubbard’s proposals would certainly have transformed the Biccerija…yet perhaps they would also have taken its soul away. It would have been a clean up; a makeover. For without its narrow streets and the intrigue, trepidation even, of their blind corners what would this part of the city afford residents and visitors that no other part does? Romantic, you say? Perhaps…but in the post-war period alone, that very mysterious quality of the Biccerija area has prompted numerous studies for its regeneration. Not all of them were as ‘radical’ as Harrison and Hubbard’s. Some, like the Housing: Valletta report of 1972 by the Public Works Department had a very strong social orientation, assessing the state of the built fabric of the area in terms of residents’ requirements. More recent proposals for the area have sought to inject new life with proposals for a crafts centre or a Museum of Modern Art.

It is not the aim of this discussion to go into each of the proposals for the area. The stack of reports does however bring out an important aspect of the regeneration issue. Ruben puts it plainly: “We’ve been looking at Valletta cosmetically for the past thirty years. But people should be consulted. People provide insight into things you don’t know and should be the first group you approach”.

Hard as it may be to achieve, the real aim of regeneration should be to regenerate lives – ‘ambitious’, a colleague of mine said – ‘something that could take generations’ – true, but then the real victims of deprived neighbourhoods are not buildings, but persons – especially the young. Gentrification – a change in population following a regeneration programme – is generally looked upon as positive by many but Ruben points out that this phenomenon is not always a positive thing for an area:
“If Valletta became entirely gentrified, I think something would be lost. Carnival, for instance, which is integral to the spirit of the city, might fade away […] Regeneration can happen without gentrification; existing occupants of an area can be prepared for changes rather than being completely forced out”.
Upgrading the urban fabric, or encouraging the well-to-do to move in to enjoy the great views and thus guarantee building maintenance can be a socially positive aspect of regeneration, but without other measures, it can also mean that poverty simply moves a couple of blocks down the road. Offering people new opportunities, giving them a chance in shaping their own lives is no easy task but it is a big part of what we mean by social sustainability. It takes skilled resources – people who can gain the confidence of local communities, empower and inspire.

How much consultation, empowerment and inspiration really goes on? Is the lack of it why the Biccerija area is still in a sad state both socially and architecturally? Entrust recommended a nodal approach as a step towards appropriate regeneration, yet Ruben observed that this is not the approach currently being carried out. “Government has restored the centre and left the fringes – concentrating on buildings in areas most visible to the public, such as paving Republic and Merchant Street, restoring St. Catherine’s, St. James Cavalier and so on”. This has been extremely successful in improving the city’s commercial core, but has probably improved Valletta more for visitors than residents.
Regeneration costs money of course. It must stack up financially. So how does funding get attracted to areas like the Biccerija? Public and private partnerships are a common model, and these can be successful, but only if private investment can be facilitated without development becoming subservient to its requirements. More importantly though it’s about partnerships between people; involving the local community first; breaking down the barriers of social exclusion; and breaking down the barriers between different professions, departments and agencies…the skills involved in regeneration cross many disciplines and levels of governance. Teamwork is key.

“I believe it is possible that public and private partnerships can work”. Mr Abela stated, adding; “I feel any program should pick up the private sector, although private enterprise in an area also often needs Government to help to eliminate a prevailing social stigma […] Quite a bit of the property in the Biccerija is Government owned – I carried out the research myself, and found the figure is around 20%. They own a number of important buildings - the School of Art for example, which is a beautiful large building that is barely used anymore – mostly for storage I think. If art classes were held there again, the movement of people to and from the area would help in its regeneration”. Investments will need to be made – public ones are often needed to set the ball rolling. Perhaps the new European Regional Development Funds might come in handy in the biccerija area? We are talking a lot of human resources here – so it is about economies of scale too and it may be sensible to tackle a number of Valletta nodes in parallel consolidating limited skills within one core team.

Sustainability is crucial; without thinking in sustainable terms, social, environmental and economic, a lot of effort and resources will be wasted. The aim must be for places to take care of themselves in the long term. The current status quo is simply postponing the problem, making it worse, costlier to resolve, and in the meantime valuable assets go to rot.
The physical fabric matters enormously. First and foremost because it forms the environment in which people live. Its condition determines a lot about residents’ sense of self-worth. (‘Has the world forgotten this place or does someone still remember we’re here?’ is a justifiable question in the case of the Biccerija area). It also determines much about outsiders’ interest to invest, take up residence or even walk through. Would you think twice about walking down a dingy narrow neglected street at a shady time of day when there’s nobody around. Imagine that same street but cleaner, well lit, better cared for with flowers even?

In historic areas, like the Biccerija area, regeneration is also about the conservation of built heritage – making sure that this can be enjoyed by this generation, and the next by safeguarding heritage buildings from further damage. Who owns the neglected properties? Why is so much of the area derelict? What can be done to create incentives for change? What physical interventions could start a chain of transformation? How would the Biccerija area change if the fountain at the end of Old Mint Street were full of water, not concrete, if the derelict historic Biccerija block behind it were rehabilitated? What will the new bar on the corner of Old Bakery Street do for the area? There are many questions, but who is being asked for answers?
Regeneration is always different; dereliction, an unstable community and sorry histories of deprivation are common woes. Studies and reports highlight these problems, but they don’t change them. Specific strengths and weaknesses often only become clearer with deeper knowledge of an area and its people. Which is where discussions and consultations – not plans and reports – really come into their own. In the case of the Biccerija, there are strengths to be easily identified and a number of existing uses – the School of Art, the Archbishop’s Palace, the Land Department; an interesting history, fantastic sea views, a link to the sea and above all, a certain fascination and charm. Just think of those narrow fairytale streets leading to a gate in the old city wall which suddenly opens up to the shore and the sea beyond. But this is not a fairytale. For those of us who don’t walk past those dead end streets without much more than a second thought, it’s real life.