The announcement yesterday that €44 million have been spent already on the City Gate project have drawn the ‘they just don’t get it do they’ crowd out of their bars, cafes and holes in the ground, to kvetch and bicker on the internet. They don’t exactly floor one with their wit and wisdom, but this is a democracy, so hey, that’s part of the price we have to pay for freedom: listening to fools who really believe they’re anything but.

Let’s start from this point: the Renzo Piano buildings are there. They’re going up. A Labour government might stop them, leaving heaven knows what in their stead for five years, but pending that possibility, we’re on course for a Renzo Piano parliament and a Renzo Piano theatre-cum-war-monument (I think people have tended to forget that latter bit of it). So, what now, do these people imagine they are achieving by repeating exactly the same arguments they bored us with two or three years ago as they ranted and raved about roofless theatres and pointless parliament buildings by an expensive architect when a Maltese architect could have done the job just as well and more cheaply?

Maybe they’re just letting off steam, still, or perhaps it’s the I-told-you-so-and-I’m-not-letting-the-subject-drop mentality. Either way, the backwoods-bunny thinking is too, too depressing.

“Eyesore; should not have been approved at Valletta gate at least”; “44 million euros were not spent on City Gate but on a drain and down they went”; “what the minister didn't say is that the Theater without roof is sponsored by Meccano”; “Noboby is begining to appreciate this series of eyesores Austin, or the deplorable waste of money”; “he could have spent the money on finding work for those thousands of pitiable people who are unemployed and also help families of workers who can’t keep up with the cost of living” (translated from Maltese); “the building clashes with those around it” (translated from Maltese); “bieb bla xatba, teatru bla saqaf u barumbara tal- ħamiem” (I just had to leave this in the original language, but it means ‘an entrance without a gate, a theatre without a roof and a dove-cote’; “What a waste of Financial and Human resources!” (this one would probably ban public buildings and all but the most utilitarian architecture); “Xi kruwha nistħajlu xi robot ta’ transformers” (no real need to translate this one); “City Gate? Surely you mean City Gash?” (this is the amusingly witty Victor Laiviera); “I’m no Labourite, but this project is just ugly. A proud Baroque walled city has been defaced”; “I don’t care about the tourists – but I care about our City which has now been raped and transformed beyond recognition. What was once a beautiful ancient city has now become like any other modern city” (right, we should be so lucky); “Can’t wait to enjoy the winter season at the Roofless Theatre!” (written, no doubt, by a dedicated patron of the arts who never misses a performance at the Manoel Theatre throughout the winter months); “It does not match the environment, it is not a continuous projection and hurt my eyes, it is like an optician telling you about giving you the wrong pair of spectacles and keeps telling you, Ah but you will get used to it!”; “aħjar people start worrying about extra artistic taxes they gonna pay for this unwanted development. The opera house should have been built as originally was and made as parlament”.

Well, you can’t argue with such sound logic, can you? You just have to remember that if the naysayers of this world had not been repeatedly over-ruled, there would be very little in tourist guide books and also, it’s hardly surprising that some of the most truly astonishing landmark buildings predate democracy and are the fruit of autocratic rule. When you let democracy decide on architecture, what you get is Maltese ribbon development maisonette with gold aluminium apertures and a straight-out-of-the-ugly-catalogue look inside.

Kicking up a fuss

The Labour Party has kicked up a great fuss because it wishes to choose which of its people should represent it on TVM’s discussion shows. In general, this principle is correct, and it is the organisation which chooses who gets to represent it in public. But in the context of a television show, no – that reasoning is topsy-turvy. It is the show-hosts who make the selection, because they are the ones issuing the invitation. They have to stick within the rules, in that they must have somebody there to speak for Labour, but within those rules, common sense dictates that they do the choosing because it’s their show.

Now the Broadcasting Authority has backed up the Labour Party against the wishes of TVM. The parties can send whoever they so wish to TVM discussion shows, even if the person is not suitable and has nothing to contribute to that particular topic. Also, by leaving the field wide open to Labour to make its choices in this way, there is nothing to stop them sending Joseph Muscat along for nine out of 10 invitations, while hiding the cruddy stuff like Silvio Parnis.

Not that I trust the Labour Party to make good judgement calls even in its own interests. Charles Mangion was invited along to Bondi+ the day before yesterday to open the season with a bickering session about the living wage and minimum wage freeze. Labour sent the completely unconvincing Karmenu Vella along instead, to flounder like a panicked carp with flapping fins next to the finance minister. Mangion would have been much better, but Vella probably made a scene. So there you go.The announcement yesterday that €44 million have been spent already on the City Gate project have drawn the ‘they just don’t get it do they’ crowd out of their bars, cafes and holes in the ground, to kvetch and bicker on the internet. They don’t exactly floor one with their wit and wisdom, but this is a democracy, so hey, that’s part of the price we have to pay for freedom: listening to fools who really believe they’re anything but.

Let’s start from this point: the Renzo Piano buildings are there. They’re going up. A Labour government might stop them, leaving heaven knows what in their stead for five years, but pending that possibility, we’re on course for a Renzo Piano parliament and a Renzo Piano theatre-cum-war-monument (I think people have tended to forget that latter bit of it). So, what now, do these people imagine they are achieving by repeating exactly the same arguments they bored us with two or three years ago as they ranted and raved about roofless theatres and pointless parliament buildings by an expensive architect when a Maltese architect could have done the job just as well and more cheaply?

Maybe they’re just letting off steam, still, or perhaps it’s the I-told-you-so-and-I’m-not-letting-the-subject-drop mentality. Either way, the backwoods-bunny thinking is too, too depressing.

“Eyesore; should not have been approved at Valletta gate at least”; “44 million euros were not spent on City Gate but on a drain and down they went”; “what the minister didn't say is that the Theater without roof is sponsored by Meccano”; “Noboby is begining to appreciate this series of eyesores Austin, or the deplorable waste of money”; “he could have spent the money on finding work for those thousands of pitiable people who are unemployed and also help families of workers who can’t keep up with the cost of living” (translated from Maltese); “the building clashes with those around it” (translated from Maltese); “bieb bla xatba, teatru bla saqaf u barumbara tal- ħamiem” (I just had to leave this in the original language, but it means ‘an entrance without a gate, a theatre without a roof and a dove-cote’; “What a waste of Financial and Human resources!” (this one would probably ban public buildings and all but the most utilitarian architecture); “Xi kruwha nistħajlu xi robot ta’ transformers” (no real need to translate this one); “City Gate? Surely you mean City Gash?” (this is the amusingly witty Victor Laiviera); “I’m no Labourite, but this project is just ugly. A proud Baroque walled city has been defaced”; “I don’t care about the tourists – but I care about our City which has now been raped and transformed beyond recognition. What was once a beautiful ancient city has now become like any other modern city” (right, we should be so lucky); “Can’t wait to enjoy the winter season at the Roofless Theatre!” (written, no doubt, by a dedicated patron of the arts who never misses a performance at the Manoel Theatre throughout the winter months); “It does not match the environment, it is not a continuous projection and hurt my eyes, it is like an optician telling you about giving you the wrong pair of spectacles and keeps telling you, Ah but you will get used to it!”; “aħjar people start worrying about extra artistic taxes they gonna pay for this unwanted development. The opera house should have been built as originally was and made as parlament”.

Well, you can’t argue with such sound logic, can you? You just have to remember that if the naysayers of this world had not been repeatedly over-ruled, there would be very little in tourist guide books and also, it’s hardly surprising that some of the most truly astonishing landmark buildings predate democracy and are the fruit of autocratic rule. When you let democracy decide on architecture, what you get is Maltese ribbon development maisonette with gold aluminium apertures and a straight-out-of-the-ugly-catalogue look inside.

Kicking up a fuss

The Labour Party has kicked up a great fuss because it wishes to choose which of its people should represent it on TVM’s discussion shows. In general, this principle is correct, and it is the organisation which chooses who gets to represent it in public. But in the context of a television show, no – that reasoning is topsy-turvy. It is the show-hosts who make the selection, because they are the ones issuing the invitation. They have to stick within the rules, in that they must have somebody there to speak for Labour, but within those rules, common sense dictates that they do the choosing because it’s their show.

Now the Broadcasting Authority has backed up the Labour Party against the wishes of TVM. The parties can send whoever they so wish to TVM discussion shows, even if the person is not suitable and has nothing to contribute to that particular topic. Also, by leaving the field wide open to Labour to make its choices in this way, there is nothing to stop them sending Joseph Muscat along for nine out of 10 invitations, while hiding the cruddy stuff like Silvio Parnis.

Not that I trust the Labour Party to make good judgement calls even in its own interests. Charles Mangion was invited along to Bondi+ the day before yesterday to open the season with a bickering session about the living wage and minimum wage freeze. Labour sent the completely unconvincing Karmenu Vella along instead, to flounder like a panicked carp with flapping fins next to the finance minister. Mangion would have been much better, but Vella probably made a scene. So there you go.