Govt gets support from architects to relocate Parliament

The Trinidad and Tobago Institute of Architects is backing Government’s controversial plan to relocate the Parliament. Prime Minister Patrick Manning said yesterday that he received a letter from the organisation supporting his plan, which has run into a barrage of criticism from other quarters. Responding to a question at yesterday’s post-Cabinet news briefing at Whitehall on the issue, Manning released a letter dated June 3 and  signed by the President of the Institute, Mark Raymond, which gave a  rationale for a new Parliament building. The letter stated that the Institute  “unanimously and strongly considers that the architectural and historical integrity of the Parliament Chamber, in particular, must not be added or altered in any form.” The Institute added: “We are of the view that even if the renovated Chamber were still to be used by Parliament without any constitutional change in the number of members (of Parliament), the additional services necessary for state of the art multi-media communication, recording and graphic equipment cannot be achieved without considerable modification of the Chamber’s essential architectonic features and ambiance. A point of sufficient importance to reinforce the need for a new Parliament Building.

The Institute stated that given the national and architectural significance of the proposal to relocate Parliament as well as the interest expressed by the general public on the issue, the organisation decided to convene a meeting to solicit the views of its membership. It said that all its members shared the view that the Red House represented a critical component of the urban, political and historical structure of the city of Port of Spain, and the history of Trinidad and Tobago. The Institute said that it felt “strongly” that if the Parliament were to be relocated, the future and welfare of the Red House must be carefully considered. It said that the building must be fully and effectively restored. It added that the completion of the Red House restoration and the construction of a new Parliament building — particularly as the design is to be selected by competition — was a process which was likely to take four or five years to complete. It should not be done in haste, it stressed. The Institute said that once the Red House was restored it  should be put to use as an open and public building that can be assessed by all, and which maintains the urban civic equilibrium represented by the relationship between the Red House, Woodford Square, the Cathedral, the National Library Complex, the Halls of Justice and Frederick Street. The Institute did not comment on the second part of Government’s plan — that is, to remove the Prime Minister’s office from Whitehall to the Red House.