I would like to add a few thoughts to those written by Charles Vella (Quality Architecture, September 9).

Being a final year student of architecture and, having attended together with some class friends and our lecturer, a historic conference in Vienna last May organised by Unesco, aptly entitled World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture and which led to the approval of the Vienna Memorandum, I would like to comment on the misunderstandings that arise from a statement such as "quality architecture... does not unduly impose itself on its surroundings". What do people understand by this statement?

From what I learnt from Vienna, this does not imply that a new building should be a faithful imitation of its historic surroundings, no matter how historic they may be. Walking around Vienna I came across many excellent examples of quality architecture living side by side with historic buildings. While the older building is constructed out of stone, the new building may be constructed in newer materials such as glass, steel and concrete. Daring protrusions and exciting angles add to the drama, bringing the city to life. For a city is not a city at all if it is simply regarded as a museum.

A city is a living and continuously changing thing, just like human existence. These contemporary buildings add yet another chapter to Vienna's rich architectural legacy. As yet they may be still "young" buildings, but a hundred years from now they will have gained historical status, just like their neighbours.

The reason for this, I find, is the level of quality of design of the new buildings. More often than not, speaking from my experience in Vienna, whether a building "fits in" or not has little to do with the style in which it is executed, but on the talent of its architect.

Malta has a lot to learn from Vienna, where contemporary architecture is a reminder of our own relationship with the historic city centre, be it Valletta, Vienna or another, rather than it being simply a faded page torn out from an old history book.