Staub defends heritage limits on Estonia opera expansion

In an opinion article published by ERR, Anita Staub, head of the construction heritage department at the National Heritage Board, says the dispute over an expansion of the Estonia national opera has been distorted by false claims and personal attacks.

Staub was responding to the Tallinn Urban Planning Department’s heritage protection department, which in August 2026 declined to approve the heritage protection requirements for the detailed plan of New Market Square.

She said that instead of addressing the legal arguments and earlier expert assessments cited in Tallinn’s decision, Estonia representatives had filled the public debate with false claims and subjective judgements aimed at undermining the credibility of heritage officials and experts. In doing so, she said, they were also undermining confidence in the entire cultural heritage field.

Staub described the deadlock over Estonia as having entered Orwellian territory, accusing the opera’s representatives of replacing uncomfortable facts with more convenient versions of the truth. She said that, rather than challenging the substance of the arguments, they had sought to question the competence, motives and independence of those presenting the facts.

According to Staub, dismissive rhetoric directed at another field has increasingly replaced constructive discussion. She said this pattern had been evident throughout the past five years and that the dispute was increasingly becoming an unethical game rather than an honest and substantive debate.

Staub said she wanted to correct several claims made in Karin Hallas-Murula’s article titled “Heritage protection should come out of the trench.”

Myth one: Heritage protection has refused to negotiate

Staub said the National Heritage Board had been an active partner on the question of an extension since 2021 and had never disputed the Estonia national opera’s need to develop. Instead, she said, the parties had spent years seeking to reconcile two public interests: the opera’s development needs and the protection of Tallinn’s Old Town as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The board had taken part in working groups, held meetings and explored alternatives, she said. Staub pointed to the special requirements drawn up in 2024 as the clearest evidence that the heritage authority’s position had not simply been “no”. Those requirements allow the Estonia building to be substantially rebuilt and expanded by up to one third.

Staub acknowledged that the heritage authority’s position on a large-scale extension had remained unchanged. She said, however, that this was not due to the stubbornness of officials and the experts who support them.

New Market Square is located in a historic bastion zone, where construction is governed by specific principles, Staub said. The regulation governing Tallinn’s Old Town Heritage Conservation Area allows buildings in the earth fortification zone only in locations where buildings stood as of 1940. It also requires construction to take into account recommendations issued by UNESCO and ICOMOS.

Staub said the large-scale extension sought by Estonia did not comply with those principles.

She added that this was not only the view of Estonian heritage officials. ICOMOS, the international organisation advising UNESCO, had assessed Estonia’s design twice. In 2024, it found that an extension of the size sought by Estonia would damage the historic theatre building and conflict with the preservation of Tallinn Old Town’s outstanding universal value.

ICOMOS concluded that an extension could be considered, but it had to be smaller than the historic building. If the proposed size was retained, the ambition would have to be reduced or a new location considered, Staub said.

After a heritage impact assessment was completed in 2025, ICOMOS reaffirmed that position, she said. The solution proposed by Estonia was found to have a major negative impact on the World Heritage values of Tallinn Old Town.