Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1078260
17 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 3 FEBRUARY 2019 INTERVIEW identical blocks of entirely faceless, featureless, pokey little apartments. Have we lost contact with our architectural legacy? We, as the Chamber, believe and insist that anything that is built today, should speak the language of today. But what is actually happening is that, when older buildings in urban conser- vation areas – and not just in those areas – are extended, per- haps by adding an extra floor or two… the PA's directions have always been: 'copy what there is below'. And this might not al- ways be the right thing to do. It may be a valid approach in some cases; but it shouldn't be a blan- ket policy. I imagine it would limit the creative input of the architect slightly… That's one consideration, yes; but very often, it also just looks fake. That building would not have been meant to look like that; and it shows. And in recent years, we have been approached by more and more architects who are trying to propose innovative solutions, in particular where extensions are concerned… only to see them shot down during the planning process. This hap- pens for a number of reasons: one, because there is no specific policy regarding 'how to design'; and two, because possibly, the people at the PA are not trained in architectural design. They are planners; and those are two dis- tinct professions… And yet, while it might sound obvious that something called the 'Planning Authority' would be composed chiefly of plan- ners… shouldn't architects also be prominent in the decision- making process? After all, it is an architect who can tell you whether a building is structur- ally sound, or if there is a risk of collapse, etc… Not necessarily, no. I think we need to make a distinction be- tween the role of the PA, and the role of architect. There is the planning stage, and then the construction stage. Issues related to energy efficiency, con- struction methods, safety for third parties, whether you can or can't block a street – in a nut- shell, all the issues that bother people more than the planning stage – should, in our opinion, be handled entirely by the cur- rent Building Regulation Office. Government has meanwhile proposed the establishment of a new regulatory entity, the Build- ing and Construction Authority; and we agree with that 100%. Our opinion is that the planners should take care of the planning stage, and the Building Author- ity takes over the moment the developer hits the ground. It doesn't sound like there'd be very much left for the PA to actually do, though…. The Planning Authority de- cides on the parameters: they will tell you, in the first instance, whether you can or can't have a building in that particular area; then they will you, it can't be more than so high; it can be used for this purpose, but not for that… and to my mind, that is all the PA has to do. It doesn't have to go into anything else. But doesn't it also regulate the appearance of the resulting buildings? Surely, the aesthetic impact is also part of the planning process… All I can answer to that is… have you seen what sort of build- ings the PA has been approving recently? Do they all look like they were approved on the basis of their aesthetic impact? No, granted: but that is precisely why I asked whether aesthetics should be the PA's responsibility… In my opinion – and it's also the Chamber's position – no, the as- sessment of the aesthetic quality of buildings should not be part of the PA's remit. Nowhere is it written in the regulations that the PA should judge on the basis of aesthetics: which, is any case, is ultimately a subjective mat- ter. We're not saying that there should be no rules, or checks and balances, naturally. But as the Chamber, we feel that the onus for design quality should always rest with the architect. Sticking to aesthetics for now… could there be other reasons why contemporary architecture seems to be (no offence) so unimaginative? To cite one example: a recent proposal to recreate the Azure Window in stainless steel provoked an instant outcry. Without entering the merits of that particular proposal: I get the impression that there is considerable public resistance to anything that is 'modern', or 'daring'… or just generally different… There is, undeniably, a resist- ance to change. I think that a lot of what is architecturally already out there, Is the result of a reluc- tance to experiment; to look into different ways of doing things. It's very easy to say that an archi- tectural design is 'good', because it's exactly like what we built 50 years ago… To be fair, however, you can't blame people for being so sceptical. Some past 'experiments' have been known to go horribly wrong… There have been examples of things going wrong, yes; but all the same, I think we haven't allowed ourselves to explore enough… to try and come up with an architectural approach that makes sense in today's world. We have to bear in mind, for instance, that building ma- terials have changed. We don't build in 'franka' [hardstone] any- more. In the case of commer- cial buildings, in particular, we often see steel structures, glass facades… This raises other considerations. A structure featuring a lot of glass, in Malta, would surely also require a lot more energy to cool in summer, and heat in winter. Is enough thought being given to these considerations at planning level? Are we building structures that are actually poorly suited to our climate? My concern there is that we have already transposed the EU Energy Directive, which requires buildings to achieve a certain set of standards; but unfortunately, there is no system in place to en- sure that all those standards are being met. The onus has so far always been placed on the archi- tect… but the stumbling block is that there are no accepted guidelines on how to measure the impact of certain specific materials. For example: you can have a policy in place to limit the use of glazing, in a building fa- cade, to 'X' amount. An architect can either abide by that restric- tion… or else use more glazing, and then justify the extra glaz- ing by ensuring that the internal conditions remain the same as if it were 'X': by providing addi- tional shading, or more insula- tion, depending on the particu- lar circumstances. The problem is that there is no research into how to achieve those standards in the first place; no studies have been conducted into the thermal properties of building materials, within Malta's specific context. But given that we are, in fact, already using these materials… shouldn't this research be carried out before granting development permits? Ideally, yes. Research should be carried out, at government level, and the data passed on to the in- dustry. But it isn't happening; so, unless the manufacturer informs you what the insulating proper- ties of this type of glass are… there is no way of knowing, until you actually use it. Earlier, you mentioned that 'the onus for design should rest with the architect'. Yet it remains a fact that an architect's hands will often be tied by his or her client's demands or wishes. So, if otherwise talented architects end up designing hideous buildings… they can always claim that the building reflects their client's tastes, and not their own. Doesn't that let architects off the hook slightly? Do you think that Maltese architects are too subservient to the owners of the buildings they design? I think there's a mix of fac- tors at work there. Very often, it boils down to the very sim- ple and crass fact that many people are just not prepared to pay for design. There isn't nec- essarily the understanding that design is an entire process: it's not something you sit down, and just 'do'. There are a lot of iterations involved: you have to go back and forth, to and from the client… it is much easier to just put together a basic, stand- ard, formulaic plan, and go with that. It's less time- and labour- intensive, and therefore the cost to the client is less. Ultimately, if the client is not willing to invest in architectural design… it's not going to happen. But that tends to be more true of developers who build properties to sell. And to be fair, today's develop- ers are more concerned with the quality of finish than ever before: the materials they use, the internal furnishings, and so on. But not so much when it comes to external design. The approach among clients who want to build their own homes, for their own residential use, is however very often different. Today, I think there is much more consciousness from the clients' side. But to answer you about whether an archi- tect should 'put his foot down' with certain client requests… it depends on the architect. The analogy might not be perfect… but some lawyers will defend criminals, even if they know they are guilty, on the basis that everyone has the right to a de- fence. Other lawyers might not take up the case. In our profes- sion, things are sometimes simi- lar. PHOTOGRAPHY BY JAMES BIANCHI