The Piano plan for Valletta has gone down well for various reasons. Many Maltese did not dare to criticise a renowned foreign architect. Such criticism would have only earned them negative points from different quarters. Others dared not challenge the well oiled machinery that ‘spinned’ this project as the new kiss of life for Valletta. Another group was paralysed by its doubts about the project’s potential. PL parliamentarians did not dare be against this ‘progress.’ After all, they too will enjoy the amenities of the new parliament building.

The way the electorate is evolving in its voting preferences, the building could be the best dowry left for the PL bride by our debt-ridden government.

I am not easily shocked any longer but I did sit up when I saw what’s at stake. The plan revolves around a new Parliament building dropped at the entrance of Valletta. Somebody was not satisfied to be elected to represent but wished to select a place for this representation, more prominent than anything else that happened in centuries of the city’s heroic history. More than half of the allocated budget is to be dedicated to the Parliament building. What had started as ministerial marble plaques plastered all over the islands, commemorating streets, diversions and new hole-in-the-wall party clubs, had suddenly evolved into a gargantuan “We are Valletta” building. “We,” of course, refers to the politicians.

Everything seems to be of inferior significance in this plan when compared with the magnificence of

having a Parliament building at such a prominent place. Important elements connected to the main entrance of Valletta such as the future location for the main transport station, traffic access and parking, and the possible exploitation of the ditch for a public transport link between the two harbours have been completely left out. The ruins of the opera are to be frozen in permafrost like a cake. The only addition to this ruined cake is composed of new ‘candles’ and poles. Piano’s genius is not as such manifest in the stunning features of the project, not even in those of parliament itself. By and large these have been described as modest and restrained.

The famous architect did however extremely well in neutralising the hot spots. Those who wished the royal theatre to be rebuilt on the original plans have its ruins preserved and with them the immortal dream that it would be rebuilt some day. Those who wished the gate to resurrect in its original glory have the narrow bridge and outlined entrance that offer a link to the dimensions of old. And parliamentarians of all colours are now to have a big box building with eco energy supply. This ‘energy’ is not coming from the people. It is coming from the piece of prominent earth and rare open space that this building would occupy. The new Parliament had to trample with its ‘feet’ on the square that has now lost its spacious freedom.

Agnes Debono

Kercem