To be quoted as having said something extraordinary is indeed an accolade I would never have thought I could earn but, as a conservationist working to save cultural and built heritage for the last 40 years, to be so quoted by the Dean of the Faculty of Built Architecture at Malta’s University is surely a great tribute. It is in his hands, after all, that the teaching of quality to future heritage builders lies and his article The Building Of Heritage (July 18) articulates professionally the definition of the making of built heritage and the issues facing it.

… a firm hand to protect our built heritage… needs to be one that is not afraid of losing votes- Simone Mizzi

He was rightly quoting from my address to the February annual general meeting of Din l-Art Ħelwa as reported in the April Vigilo, the organisation’s publication. To say the least, even if quoting out of context is very risky, my words were noticed and by somebody who can perhaps bring about change effectively not only because such person can influence both planners and developers but because he can certainly speak to a finer level than the head of an NGO.

Sadly, Alex Torpiano was not present at our AGM, when I made that impassioned speech asking for quality to return to our built environment. This followed the glimmer of hope that presented itself when the new National Environmental Policy was published where it was firmly underlined that a “step change mentality” was urgently needed to prioritise improvements in urban quality and design. On the wing of this, I was urging planners, architects, designers, architecture historians and conservationists to foster healthy debate about the future of architecture in Malta, ending with a plea to save Manoel Island from development.

Stating that there may not be one structure resulting from the building jamboree of the last 40 years that is worth preserving is a broad sweeping statement and is dangerous taken out of context. I am keen to enlarge on it, although, to my mind, it still stands.

However broad the statement that may disqualify such buildings as the Portomaso Tower from being considered new built heritage, I am thrilled that the Dean of the Faculty of Architecture actually ends up agreeing that the new built heritage is “ugly and getting uglier”. I thank him for conceding that point and repay him the compliment by saying that his words perfectly articulate what good development has always needed: visionary aspirations from patrons, that is, clients, or government schemes for key buildings, the end choice of which is dictated by recognition of artistic and technical skill not by savings in cost or maximisation of profit. I would add that, today, sadly, architecture is dictated by a very restricted vision that does not extend beyond the short-term financial gain offered by speculation.

As such, I stand by my statement about the last 40 years of building and continue to challenge the worth of the utilitarian, ghastly, nameless blocks of “disposable” architecture that these last decades have provided. Today, you cannot escape the visual discord we have created and our quality of life is sorely stressed. Surely, the future must bring us a gentler and more gracious visual environment, buildings that are stepped away from the roads, leaving some quality urban space, with planned water catchments, noise protection, light, good quality materials and, hopefully, yes, some trees.

If Prof. Torpiano had attended that AGM he would have surely taken up the challenge thrown to members there, many of whom are practising architects, to start the healthy discussions that are urgently awaited if those two small words, “step change”, are to pervade our new built heritage to respect the excellent building traditions Malta always enjoyed.

Our island’s privileged location, poised between Europe and North Africa, a geographical act of fate, gave us our unique characteristics that make us different. We should indeed build on these to find our future identity without throwing away what is already ours. I, too, look forward to Valletta 2018 where we do have an extraordinary opportunity of creating beautiful spaces that serve a purpose and will last and Din l-Art Ħelwa has put forward many ideas for this exciting event.

Indeed, my marker of 40 years of unworthy building, as quoted by Prof. Torpiano, is a timeline that intentionally skirts the good architecture that was immortalised in the publication and exhibition Modernist Malta – The Architectural Legacy, the 1970s being probably the end date when much good building was still being created and some of which was sadly demolished before it could ever have been saved through scheduling, such as many fine examples by Richard England. Indeed, his late 1960s iconic Manikata church was only recently saved from inappropriate intervention by timely public outcry and it is a great pity that its adjacent monastery was never allowed to be built. This would have been a memorable building in the new Maltese vernacular then being explored.

Din l-Art Ħelwa was greatly influential in this publication, working with the Chamber of Architects and holding interviews with leading architects to sow the seeds of debate for the future of architecture for the Maltese islands.

Din l-Art Ħelwa has never been against new building. We will remain against new building that is purely speculative, that cannot rehabilitate what already exists through reuse and restoration, that demolishes our unique character, that is disrespectful to our cultural landscape and that leaves us with a new visual environment that is grating on the eye.

Yet, we are not afraid to recognise that, in some spaces, we need to move forward. We were, perhaps, the only organisation to not shoot down the Renzo Piano project for Valletta and we staunchly continue to brave much unpopularity because of this position.

I wish to add a thought to those put forward in Prof. Torpiano’s considerations.

It is not just key buildings, palaces, churches born of past patronage that make heritage. It is surely also the context in which they stand, namely the old urban cores that are graced with the patina of age, the traditional streetscape, the contours of our hills and valleys and that magical place, the coastline. If we lose all that, no matter how many national monuments we save, these will remain like beautiful diamonds in a cheap tin crown, demeaned, devalued and highly compromised.

I beg to the planners to look at what our everyday heritage is becoming today: rabbit warrens of mostly unsold flats separated by the statutory bare 10 feet, built directly over noisy roads, leaving no light, no courtyards, no gardens, indeed no circulation of air, no view even of the sky, a horrific prospect to inherit. It is these habitations now that are not fit for modern dwelling not the perfectly respectable houses such as those at Swieqi that are being demolished. So, if we have to look at what we can save from the last 40 years, well, then, we could start with these.

I do so totally agree about the layers of suddenly improvised visual clutter that now crowds our eyes daily, with the need for it all to fit within well-planned guidelines. While, on the other hand, we have good public funding uselessly spent in the name of urban embellishment where century-old trees are decimated and replaced by scrawny olive trees in square planters, kitsch statues, hundreds of energy-saving lights, uncomfortable stone benches and many a fountain.

Is this the heritage of which we are proud and the great architectural talent Malta always enjoyed? Well, it certainly has got lost somewhere in those famous 40 years.

I will further one more urgent thought. Even if the best solutions are found, unless political leaders are sensitive to the environment, and have the will to enforce regulations, all will fail. The wild cards now being pulled from political hats indicate that the use of land risks becoming a pawn in the oncoming electoral fever.

We call on influential bodies such as the Chamber of Architects and opinion leaders such as Prof. Torpiano to ask for reason to prevail on matters that involve new construction schemes.

Din l-Art Ħelwa will certainly do what it can to ensure that political manifestos give the highest level of protection to Malta’s environment and to heritage. We ask for a firm hand to protect our built heritage, both past and future, and this needs to be one that is not afraid of losing votes.

I thank Prof. Torpiano for giving me the opportunity of reiterating my thoughts, most of which are in agreement with his. The definition of whether new heritage is good or bad will be up to the inheritors of the last 40 years’ building jamboree to define. Its legacy will certainly be up to them to improve.

If anybody is interested in reading the address The Good And The Sad in last April’s Vigilo, visit http://dinlarthelwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/41_Final.pdf .

The author is executive president of Din l-Art Ħelwa.