I used to cringe when I heard the word “hub”. I remember when practically every new measure or proposal being made seemed to have an obligatory reference to a “hub”. We had creativity hubs and transport hubs and entertainment hubs as well – pretty much everything hubs.
By bandying the word “hub” about, the project-pushers wanted to convey that we were the focus of activity around which everything revolved – an important, pulsating, beating heart of existence. Of course, all those “hubs” were nothing of the sort – it was all marketing-speak to sell whichever mad project struck developers’ fancy.
We’ve now moved on to the more glorious-sounding “vision” – as in visions of sleek and slender high-rise buildings reaching elegantly into the sky, offering the prospect of a luxury lifestyle in the rarefied atmosphere of the clouds. Not for today’s visionaries are the manageable medium-rise, eight-storey buildings we know. Unless we agree with the high-rise “vision” we are fat-shamed as philistine squat-house dwellers with no foresight and a stymied imagination.
That is the impression I get after two marathon sessions at the Planning Authority where two sets of high-rise buildings, in Mrieħel and Tigné respectively, were given planning permission.
From where I’m standing, what it looks like is the appropriation of our skyline, our sunlight and a highjacking of our crumbling infrastructure for private gain
Well, developers may claim to have “vision” but I prefer to be grounded, and from where I’m standing what it looks like is the appropriation of our skyline, our sunlight and a highjacking of our crumbling infrastructure for private gain.
None of these are trifling matters. Why should a beloved and well-known skyline be rudely punctured by an enormous cloud-scratcher when a building on a more human scale is conceivable? Why should all views be permanently scarred by this visual intrusion?
Incidentally, this is not only the view of Maltese cave dwellers. When the 72-storey Paddington Pole was downsized, the chief executive of Historic England said: “This is good news. London’s skyline is unique, iconic and loved. It has to be managed sensitively and with proper planning. Tall buildings can be exciting and useful but if they are poorly designed, or in the wrong place, they can really harm our cities.”
That applies to us too, as does the fact that the developers do not have a monopoly on “vision”. Residents have a vision too – maybe a more modest one and one which does not involve half a decade or more of constant upheaval and inconvenience for a permanent scarring of their town and skyscape. It would seem that doesn’t count.
• So the local O-level results are out and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Nearly half of those who sat for their Maltese O-level did not muster a pass mark. In mathematics, students fared marginally better with 2,485 out of 4,597 students scraping through. Only a third of those students sitting for their Italian language exam passed, while a merciful veil will be drawn over the results in French and German. The pass rates in the English language exam were not abysmal – but were still not satisfactory.
Considering what a fuss we make of our bilingual workforce and our fluency in English, the results are hardly anything to write home about.
People set about finding something or somebody to blame for this apparent transformation into a nation of illiterate, mathematically-challenged students. And inevitably the “educational system” (“evil” optional) was singled out as being the prime culprit for this sorry state of affairs.
Depending upon which comments you read, the system was to blame for being too dull or too vast, too dumbed down or too difficult, including lessons in too many topics, not covering the basics, helping only the brighter students, helping only the weaker students, incorporating too long/ too short a school day. Whatever the ill, the educational system was to blame.
I’m not sure about that. Education Minister Evarist Bartolo recently gave an interview where he warned against assuming that the educational system was a universal cure-all. He mentioned the fact that even if the educational system had to be working at its maximum potential, it would still only cover about 30 per cent of the formation and performance of students. The rest is dependent on other factors.
I couldn’t agree more. Schooling is important but we can’t expect schools to be substitutes for all other roles that were previously carried out by parents. Healthy eating, exercising, the facts of life and social skills were all things that were previously picked up within the family unit. We would be unreasonable to expect schools to step in and do all the above too.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt