Hallas-Murula says heritage authorities block Estonia theatre talks

Heritage authorities are focusing only on the back of the Estonia theatre while overlooking the high-rise city centre that has grown in front of its main façade, Karin Hallas-Murula writes in an opinion article published by ERR. She argues that, in this context, disputes over whether the theatre’s stage tower should be five metres higher or lower are largely meaningless.

Hallas-Murula, who authored the heritage protection special conditions for the detailed plan covering the Uus Turg area, says the recent dispute over an extension to the Estonia theatre has convinced her that heritage authorities do not allow meaningful negotiations.

She recalls that, at a 2017 forum on architectural policy in European countries held in Tallinn, Flanders’ state architect Leo van der Broeck began by asking how a heritage protection official differs from a terrorist. His answer was: “You can negotiate with a terrorist.”

At the time, Hallas-Murula considered the remark insulting to conscientious heritage officials. She writes that she no longer does.

According to Hallas-Murula, meetings of heritage councils are announced the previous evening, positions may be submitted within 10 minutes, attendance at the discussion is prohibited and the council makes its decision behind closed doors. She describes the processing of the heritage protection special conditions for the Uus Turg detailed plan as a long series of written objections, followed by repeated responses based on the same empty arguments.

She says lawyers have pointed out that there are no legal grounds for refusing approval. This was followed, she writes, by a letter from Carolin Pihlap, head of the heritage protection department, whose legal status was unclear and which rejected the proposal in what Hallas-Murula calls an anecdotal style: “We do not approve it because we have not approved it before.”

“There has been no interest in where the boundaries might lie, or what concessions either side might consider,” Hallas-Murula writes. “I am not naive: the decision not to approve the special conditions for the Estonia extension’s detailed plan was made before I had even begun writing them.”

She argues that heritage authorities would approve only special conditions that ruled out an extension to the Estonia theatre in the Uus Turg area, although neither the UNESCO convention nor Estonia’s heritage protection law prohibits such a project.

Hallas-Murula says objections have accused the plan of violating the 1972 UNESCO convention and Estonia’s heritage protection law, of using sources freely rather than relying only on previous heritage authority positions, and even of lacking bureaucratic language. She also calls some objections flawed, saying they reflect a lack of understanding of the detailed planning process.

She rejects comparisons with “Viru Poeg”, a 17-storey extension planned for the Viru Hotel in 2007. UNESCO does oppose high-rise buildings of that kind, she writes, but the Estonia extension would remain within the category of a medium-height building under the special conditions. Only technically necessary projecting elements, such as the stage tower, could reach the category of semi-high buildings, measuring 28 to 45 metres.

The requirements would prohibit an undivided building volume and require the preservation of the existing building and views of its authentic front façade, as well as part of the rear façade, Hallas-Murula writes.

She also points to special conditions for the reconstruction of the Estonia theatre hall, prepared by the heritage authorities themselves in 2024. Those conditions allow extensive changes to the central part of the building, a higher stage tower, the removal of theatre boxes, the demolition of the stage portal, a new side stage and extensive reconstruction of the basement.

In Hallas-Murula’s view, those changes to the protected building would be avoided if the extension were built.