The recent debacle of the monti stalls, and their location in Valletta, has raised the hackles of many. However, the real problem is deeper than simply the ill-conceived design of the stalls and equally ill-conceived decision on where to place them so as to give “life to Valletta”.

The sad series of events betrays the poor state of our cultural and aesthetic sensibilities. In spite of the inexorable passage of time towards 2018, when our cultural maturity will be on display for the whole of Europe, there seems to be very little real change in our core cultural and artistic values.

A recent “uncharacteristically blunt” commentary by Joseph F X Zahra highlighted his view (which I make mine), that in spite of an apparent recent boom in art exhibitions and music events, the quality of such art and other cultural manifestations has remained, with few exceptions, mediocre and amateurish, and with barely any art or music criticism beyond “accommodating reviews”.

“We are back on the road of populism and traditionalism with fear of breaking boundaries,” is one typically powerful sentence in this commentary. The design selected for the monti stall, as well as the process chosen to procure this design (whatever process there was) is symptomatic.

Perit Edward Said was correct when he suggested that a competition could have been organised for the design of the stalls. What is the point of all of Malta’s investment in tertiary educational institutions and of the many lofty speeches about creativity hubs, innovation and the creative industry, when this is all we can produce for Valletta?

There are many, many talented youngsters, probably tearing their hair out in desperation at the moment, who could break the mould (pun intended) of traditionalism and populism. But they need to be given a chance to show their talents – as well as to be challenged by proper criticism if they do not make the grade.

The design of the stalls first hit the media with a slot on prime-time TV, with shots of workers busily putting together their eight-pointed crosses and the journalist glibly talking about how the design reflected traditional values appropriate for the city of Valletta! Who writes these things?

Subsequently, other amazing details began to emerge. The stalls were meant to be dismantled, we were told, but leaving them in place permanently is under consideration, so that, after the monti mornings, we could have the sale of “artisanal” things.

I really do not wish to bring China into all of this, but it is a known fact that about 90 per cent of goods sold in flea markets, all over Europe, as well as most of the traditional artisanal items, are actually made there.

So why do politicians promote the charade that this commercial activity is necessary to bring life into what once was one of the noblest and fairest cities of Europe? It is almost as if people believe that the peddling of souvenirs and artisanal objects is what gives life to Piazza di Spagna in Rome, or the Place de la Concorde in Paris or Trafalgar Square in London.

Please, Mr Belvedere, do not give up!

The third pearl was the news that the monti would be relocated to Ordnance Street, but not, as was originally mooted, to the part of Ordnance Street located between Republic and Old Bakery Streets (which would be bad enough) but also to the section of Ordnance Street between the new Parliament and the Opera House ruins. Surely, this must be a joke? Can one even imagine it without “crying”?

If this is a government that listens, it should surely listen to those who are advising, including the Valletta local council and, it appears, the V18 Foundation, that the proposed location of the monti is plainly wrong.

Frankly, the political response to the outcry has been even more shocking. When it was obvious, even to the blind, that the design of the stalls was simply unacceptable, a minister seems to have gone on record to say that he agreed that the “aesthetics” were wrong but that, do not worry, the structure was fine and the aesthetics would be changed.

This is exactly what is wrong with our cultural maturity: “aesthetics” is a veil we use to cover things which are conceptually wrong (or which are “practical”). It is also rather patronising for ministers and prime ministers to sanction the proposed location of the monti, simply because they “do not subscribe to the concerns about the relocation of the site”.

Do politicians become experts in everything as soon as they are elected? When the country faces difficult legal issues, does not a wise government defer to the opinion of the legal experts? And if there is a particular malady affecting the population, do not wise politicians defer to the medical experts for the appropriate remedies?

So why is it that, in the area of urban planning and design, they do not have the humility to defer to the real experts in the field, particularly when Malta has actually engaged one of the most knowledgeable experts in the world, Renzo Piano, and his office, to give us advice about this area of Valletta?

I have read with dismay (but not surprise) the comments made by Antonio Belvedere, from Renzo Piano’s office, about how the “latest twist” was sapping “his energy” for the project, because, he felt, the project was not appreciated in Malta.

Please, Mr Belvedere, do not give up!

This project, if properly brought to its conclusion and not ruined by politicians, is our last chance to put the regeneration of Valletta, as a noble city, on the right track. There are many in Malta who appreciate the project; indeed I am convinced that they represent the majority.

It is true that we have failed to make our views more widely known, and we have left it to the vociferous minority to blacken the picture. Perhaps it is time to become more vociferous and to insist that things are done properly. Valletta belongs to us all.

Alex Torpiano is dean of the Faculty for the Built Environment, University of Malta.