The very person journalists should have interviewed, but failed to do so

The very person whose expert opinion Astrid Vella should have sought is the Dean of the Faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering. But she couldn’t, or rather wouldn’t, do so because she has spent the last couple of years campaigning against many of the projects on which he has worked.

So there is no way on earth that Mrs Vella would have done the obvious and honest thing and asked Professor Alex Torpiano for his considered view on the St John’s museum extension – or the Renzo Piano project.

But is there any particular reason why the combined newsrooms of this country didn’t do so themselves? It was a failure on their part. They are put to shame by the fact that the only ‘news team’ to seek the opinion of the current dean and the former dean, Denis de Lucca, was that of the university newspaper The Insiter, which is run entirely by students working on a voluntary basis. They didn’t ask about the St John’s museum extension because it isn’t on the student radar, but they certainly asked about the Renzo Piano project. It’s in this month’s edition.

Even after the whole thing blew up, no journalist in the national media asked Professor Torpiano for his comments. So as to communicate his views to the wider public, he ended up writing a letter to The Times, instead of having The Times interview him.

What a sorry state of affairs. And what a missed story.

The Times, Saturday, 21 February

Political intervention in planning process
Alex Torpiano, Lija

The controversial Pyramid at the Louvre Museum, built in 1989 by architect I.M. Pei.

Congratulations all round have been exchanged for the great “victory” of a project that was buried before it was killed. And yet, in some quarters the insistence persists that the members of the foundation should resign, for various reasons, among which ignoring the advice of a number of cultural and heritage experts, expressed, it appears, since 2006.

Although I hold no brief for the members of the foundation, and although I probably would say, if asked to express an opinion, that I did not necessarily like the proposal, let me be one of the few to express my regret at the outcome of the whole sorry saga.

It seems that some NGOs had access to reports which expressed specific opinions relative to the proposal. A number of the opinions quoted appear to come from officials within Mepa. Is it not legitimate to ask whether these opinions were solicited as part of the pre-submission consultation process followed by the Foundation, or whether they were gratuitous opinions offered by Mepa officials outside the application processing routine? If the latter were the case, the expression of these opinions would not have been correct.

If, on the other hand, the former were the case, as, knowing the people concerned I think it was, was it not, in fact, their job to express their opinion – but not to offer a final decision on the proposal, since this role is reserved, according to our laws, to others? And therefore, was not the Foundation correct to take note of this advice, but not necessarily to agree with it?

The advice was also offered that the excavation adjacent to the Cathedral would have exposed this monument to slow deformations, or worse, to catastrophic collapses of any jointed rocks uncovered. Is it possible that this advice was not also tempered by the additional comment that it is, nowadays, possible to use geotechnics to assess such risks scientifically, to establish whether joint failures are kinematically feasible, and to anticipate whether any engineering solutions are necessary to resolve the risks identified?

I therefore suggest that calling for the resignation of the Foundation members, because they did not take heed of the contrary opinion of some experts, is completely incorrect. It is to be kept in mind that the Foundation might also have had other experts advising them that such works could be undertaken. If we have to throw expert opinion about, in defence of our own biases, we would have to accept that some experts are more expert than others.

The truth is that this project was buried before it was killed. The planning process, such as remains of it in Malta, is not only about petitions and publicity campaigns. The planning process should involve a proper presentation of the issues, for and against, including also the opinions, and fears, of “non-experts”, but a final evaluation by those who have been appointed by law to so evaluate.

Let us assume that it could have been proven, to the satisfaction of everybody, that it would be possible to excavate without “having a quarry in the middle of Valletta”, or with an iron-clad guarantee that no damage would have occurred to St John’s Co-Cathedral, would all those people, who expressed themselves so vehemently against, still be so contrary to the concept of an underground museum?

Unfortunately, since the project was curtailed without due process, we will never know the whole truth about this proposal. Not only, but it is very likely that, from now on, the discussions about major national projects will not take place at Mepa, but in the media, and, heaven forbid, in Parliament.

Not only have we not managed to de-politicise the planning process but we have taken political interventions in planning to a new level.

Incidentally, does anybody care to know which barbarians did something similar to this proposal, very close to their own national architectural treasure? The French at the Louvre! But then they know nothing about the protection of heritage, do they? Or maybe they have different experts.