The Notre-Dame fire unleashed strong emotions of distress which reflect much more than sorrow at the loss of a medieval building.

Besides its architectural importance and the priceless artistic treasures which it holds, this iconic cathedral in Paris is a site of history, and of memories. It is a visual landmark. It has come to symbolise French and European identity. It represents religious as well as secular heritage. As they watched it burn, people shed tears for much more than a building.

The fire was put out and money is now raining down on the ashes. Great private generosity has poured forth, pledging funds to restore and rebuild the church.

This response has also engendered controversial reactions. To some, the pledged amounts are so big that they highlight the gulf between rich and poor. Questions were raised about the willingness of the billionaire class to swiftly pledge millions to mop up this disaster, but not to help the many unfortunate people on the fringes of society.

Here in Malta, big business is not readily associated with the protection of heritage in people’s minds. Companies do grant funds to restore some historic site or other, or to plant trees, and this is fully appreciated. But many of the big planning controversies, affecting the urban and rural landscapes and coastline, are also linked negatively to business interests.

It is widely assumed that political parties and planners are in league with developers, putting private interests before the public good. Large groups of objecting residents, such as those at Pembroke opposing the db Group development in St George’s Bay, are still not enough to tip the balance.

Until politicians and their planners feel that they stand to lose by ignoring environmental and heritage concerns, they will simply continue along this path. They go ahead with the destruction of Malta’s built and rural heritage because they do not face significant negative consequences. They still get elected and funded, and they carry on.

In this sense society bears collective responsibility for this sad reality. Politicians will react when they feel enough pressure from voters. The groundswell has to be loud and clear. People must stand up to be counted, raise their voices, support environmental and heritage groups and NGOs, and more, if they truly want to press the brakes. There is a wave of dissent, and social media is swamped with angry comments and complaints, but it is clearly not enough to cause real change.

The fire at Notre-Dame seems to have been linked to an electrical short circuit. The causes of the incident will surely be studied and assessed, and steps taken to prevent any similar accident from occurring in future.

Heritage damaged by accidental fire is one thing, but planned and approved damage is another. The demolition of historic buildings and gardens, and the destruction of traditional streetscapes, goes on apace in Malta. Other changes are equally questionable, such as the encroachment of tall buildings around traditional villages, or the spoiling of views and landmarks treasured by the community. These are all, equally, sites of memories, of former ways of life, and of complex and sensitive interpretations of Maltese identity. Swathes of Malta’s tangible history are being erased.

Malta’s traditional urban and rural landscapes are also crucial to the economy, particularly to the tourism industry. Promotional material is replete with vistas of the countryside and of traditional architecture which is fast disappearing. Visitors seeking these attractions must be sorely disappointed as they sit in slow traffic snarls surrounded by dusty building sites, cranes, broken pavements, blank walls and road-widening projects, which is closer to the reality on this island today.

Preventing damage to large historic buildings and monuments, perhaps to Malta’s own versions of Notre-Dame, is crucial. Important monuments will always need more funds and resources, and Heritage Malta and others have made great strides on this front. But at the same time, Malta’s rural houses and landscapes, old streets and houses of character, are being swept away by bulldozers. It is not only the top historic sites which count.

Malta is enduring a tsunami of construction. This cannot go on without an end in sight.

It is not enough to be complacent, to sit back and whisper to the neighbours, or to grumble behind closed doors. Hard questions must be asked. Serious discussion is long overdue.

President Macron has promised that the Notre-Dame cathedral will be rebuilt within five years. Experts have said the rebuilding may take longer to complete, perhaps decades, but it will be done.

When this cathedral is finally rebuilt and inaugurated in Paris, what will Malta look like? The changes in our streets are so fast and furious that it is hard to predict. Where will the current direction of travel lead in 10, 20 or 50 years’ time? What is the vision, and can it still be amended?

Maltese society deserves clear answers, before it is too late.

This is a Times of Malta print editorial