Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1078260
16 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 3 FEBRUARY 2019 INTERVIEW Time and again, we have seen governments resorting to a relaxation of building restrictions to 'kick-start' the economy… building zones are extended, and re-extended… and Malta, as an island, is not getting any bigger. Is the Chamber concerned that we may be building more than our geographical restrictions can accommodate? I think it would be naïve to try and sell the story that we, as ar- chitects and civil engineers, are 'against development'. Our live- lihood does, after all, depend on the construction industry. What concerns me, however, is not so much the amount of develop- ment going on… but the hap- hazardness of how it happens in practice. If we had a situation where the Planning Authority – or some other entity, but let's stick to the PA as an example – identified certain areas, and en- couraged development to take place in those areas first… I think things would be different. But what's been happening over the past few years is that one devel- opment goes up, say, four storeys in a particular street; then, three years later, someone else decides to go up five floors in the same street; and there's no consist- ency, even in the design of the two facades. So, all of a sudden, instead of the largely homog- enous streetscapes we had prior to around 2006, you have very individualist styles, not neces- sarily complementing their sur- roundings. The results can only be termed as chaotic… But wasn't the whole point of the Local Plans to 'identify certain areas' for development? And aren't there already supposed to be 'height restrictions' within the established zones? The local plans were published in 2006, and originally they es- tablished allowable heights on the basis of the number of floors. You could have, for instance, three floors in an urban area, and maybe a receded penthouse. But in 2015, a new policy guide- line was issued, which estab- lished that 'three floors' was the equivalent of 13.5 metres. So, what was previously measured by the number of floors, sud- denly became measured in me- tres instead. The problem is that, as any architect will tell you, you can actually fit four floors in 13.5 metres. So with the new policy in place, it is now possible to cram four-storey buildings into three- storey areas… I imagine the new flats must have much lower ceilings… Yes: in fact it was in 2016 – the following year – that a decision was taken to lower the earlier in- ternal minimum height restric- tions. Good thing, I suppose, that we're such a short nation. All the same, however: if the objection is specifically to the height of buildings, it shouldn't really matter how many floors you divide that height into. 13.5 metres remains 13.5 metres, whether there are three or four floors… True, but in terms of streetscape, you end up with four storey buildings, adjacent to three-storey buildings of the same height which had been built according to the previous policies. It's a bit of a mess, re- ally… Meanwhile there are other concerns apart from building heights. Such as building width, for instance. One widely circulated photo shows an unfinished block of flats, sandwiched between townhouses, with a façade spanning literally just a couple of metres. How do these projects even get approved in the first place? My concern, about that kind of thing, is that the building in question would have ticked off all the right boxes, as far as the PA is concerned. I am quite sure of that, as otherwise it would never have been approved. But in terms of the quality of life of the people eventually living in those apartments; the amount of space they actually live in, for instance… I shudder to even im- agine. At the same time, how- ever, there is pressure for the PA to reduce the minimum size of dwellings. If the current size of a one-bedroom apartment is supposed to be 55sq.m, the de- velopers are lobbying for that to be further reduced… naturally, so that they can fit more units into the same space; and they also claim that it would reduce the cost of property, as the units would be cheaper to build. But what effect would that have on the quality of life of the people living on those spaces? It's not necessarily clear-cut, by the way: you could have a couple living in a tiny one-bedroomed apart- ment as their primary residence; and from their perspective, it could be problematic. But you also have a single foreign tenant, living and working in Malta only for a short time… and the same apartment would meet his or her requirements quite comfortably. So, there is room to discuss these things; but I do think we need to broaden the discussion. If there is a demand for smaller units, we could identify areas and zone them specifically for that pur- pose. Because all these different developments are going up in the same areas; and it's not just new buildings. We constantly hear of garages, and even boathouses, being converted into apartments these days… It also explains the phenomenon often described as 'uglification'. If you look at Malta's architectural evolution, you will discern recognisable design patterns, unique to their age, and with considerable emphasis on aesthetics – going all the way back to the Neolithic temples, built 7,000 years ago. Today, on the other hand, we seem capable of building only Construction is booming, development permits are flowing out of the Planning Authority, with no end in sight… yet it is debatable how much thought is being given to the quality of what we're building: either in terms of aesthetics, or infrastructural impact. SIMONE VELLA LENICKER, chair of the Chamber of Architects and Civil Engineers, calls for a more holistic approach to urban design in Malta Planning is one thing, design is another A lot of what is architecturally already out there, is the result of a reluctance to experiment; to look into different ways of doing things Raphael Vassallo Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt