More homework needed on city project (2)

Many people have expressed their opinion on the development of the Piano project regarding the royal theatre and Freedom Square, Valletta. Many were critical on some aspects of the project. Even some prominent Nationalists suggested that certain plans should be altered.

To begin with, I ask: how come the government decided to build a Parliament without adequate consultation with all those NGOs, architects, constructive critics and others who could make valid suggestions? I doubt whether the people in general are happy with this decision.

Many preferred to see Parliament shifted to some other prominent vacant building like the Main Guard. Labour MP Helena Dalli prefers Parliament to be located in Fort St Elmo or the Auberge de Baviere. Fort St Elmo was suggested by other people. I cannot comprehend the government deciding on something of such importance and expense without seeming to care whether the people are going to be happy about it or not.

And who was prepared for a roofless theatre? I'm sure everyone was surprised (if not shocked) when the news came out . If I'm correct, even ex-minister of tourism Francis Zammit Dimech suggested that some kind of roof should be installed so that the theatre could be used all the year round; and among other prominent people who do not agree with an open-air theatre is our compatriot tenor Joseph Calleja. "Malta is replete with already existing and excellent open-air locations suitable for concerts," he said. Soprano Miriam Gauci too was worried about the roofless aspect.

The same could be said about the entrance to Valletta. It looks a bit weird to come up with an opening and a lift underneath. Like many others, I was expecting to see a normal entrance, not just an opening!

When I visited the exhibition at the Archeology Museum, many expressed surprise at these controversial aspects of the project. But perhaps this is part of the Piano mystery, to create something that surely would surprise and shock and ultimately be revered as a masterpiece!

So then, who am I to disagree with all these details? I'm just a common citizen and although I'm not very much acquainted with Piano's projects, I would dare ask: What would everyone have said if all this had been planned by a Maltese architect?

I have every respect and admiration for Renzo Piano and recognise his world repute, but this is not the point. Also, I'm aware that we've been waiting for over 60 years for the Opera House to be rebuilt and one must not lose this opportunity.

But still the government must be sensitive and aware of the people's wishes as otherwise what's the use of developing such an overdue entrance into something which does not make the people happy.

Many a time, the government (and this applies for previous governments as many projects could testify) runs roughshod over the people's concerns, leaving behind a monument applauded only by the politicians. The site for Parliament could become such a monument.

If one had to ask the man in the street what he prefers between a library, a cultural centre or a Parliament building, most probably he would choose either a library or a cultural centre, or else a modern and contemporary art museum as Kenneth Zammit Tabone has been suggesting for quite some time. But as always, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet's decision is final, over-ruling the people's wishes. One can imagine if the Prime Minister had his way altogether and rebuilt the theatre site into a Parliament, what a monument for the politicians that would have been!