In the item titled City Gate 10 Points: St George's Square 0 (July 18), Richard England seems to discard a previous article I penned under the heading A Hub Of Life In The Capital (June 18).

I explained that the design is based on historic research and the analysis of the various factors were deemed as fundamentally important to integrate in the project. The project is totally owned by the Valletta Rehabilitation Project and the Works Division. There are various professionals involved in the project as this is proficiently done by a multi-disciplinary team. And, yes, there is also the involvement of an "art director/interior designer". The process of the project included discussions and brain storming sessions in order to address the various factors and I will contend that the project was a development of a team. The persons involved include, among others, a project leader and project manager, an electrical and mechanical engineer, an archaeologist and a designer/art director.

Prof. England is mistaken to attribute the project in the manner he did. The project is being handled by an experienced multi-disciplinary team and this methodology is the professional way to handle such projects. The concept that a designer may be part of a team is a completely acceptable one while the concept that one architect can know it all should not even be considered.

Carlo Schembri was correct to comment that the project was entrusted to a team consisting of various professionals.

The reasons why Prof. England maintains that the St George's Square project called for the organisation of a competition for architects have no logical criteria. I have full faith in the professionals at the Works Department and his comments may be interpreted in the opposite way.

Renzo Piano has respected the historic chronologies of the bridge, gate and structures in the square and the responsible team have developed this project in the same manner. So I am completely in disagreement with Prof. England when he comments that the language is a different one. The language as applied by Mr Piano this time round respects the authentic developments of the city and improves the legibility of the entrance. In a similar way, the square is designed to improve the legibility of the square while taking note of the historic chronologies and uses of the square.