Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1502328
Architecture & Design | 5 I am writing this article in Mdina looking out at a UNESCO protected skyline. The buildings and residences in front of me are some of the oldest on the island. No concrete accretions are visible, and beautifully carved features pop out over the roof parapet walls; some are chimneys, others are family crests and in some cases steeples. Wrought iron railings and stone balustrades run along exterior staircases to the top of roofs. All features that we have appropriated to our own particular use and climate. Nearby, coincidentally, a group of businessmen is discussing a project. They are baffled by a design choice their architect has made and they then go on to discuss the minimum amount of space each room can have – and its minimum internal height. It seems as though they wish to determine the space themselves, turning their architect into a simple paper pusher. That has become our Maltese Architectural Identity. Previously, it was the limestone facades that grace Mdina, Valletta, our Urban Conservation Areas, with their wooden doors, closed balconies, and louvered windows. Now we identify with the maximum height limitation that is cited in Annex 2 of DC 2015 – 'How many floors can we fit in Perit?' and with it, the maximum number of units on the built footprint. The resultant ugliness has become pervasive. Yet there was no predetermined reason for parts of Malta to turn out as ugly as they have. Development in the past seems to have been guided by enlightened individuals. Obviously, not all areas received equal treatment and there were always pockets of ugliness. However, on the whole it would seem that developers and architects did not only have profitability in mind. Legacy seems to have been important too. From the end result we can assume that they would have like to be remembered in a positive light. When investing in buildings they drew inspiration from the arts and their travels abroad. They aspired to a good sense of aesthetic. Complementing vernacular constructions in village cores and the countryside, such buildings contributed to our traditional identity giving the built environment a distinctive Maltese look. After the Second World War, Malta was left in ruins after fierce bombardment. A plan needed to be drafted for reconstruction. The post- war population boom also required additional housing. To this aim, more land was subdivided into plots. Originally these plots were intended for 2-3 story dwellings and policy was driven by the Superintendent of Public Health and, up until 1963, the Malta Aesthetics board. Architects, of whom there were few in relation to today's 1000 +, were obliged to design buildings receiving the required levels of light and ventilation. They seemed to have a sense of prestige and morality – they too wanted to leave a legacy. Again, not all new buildings were beautiful or prestigious and some horrors were created, but Malta's general look was still fairly coherent. Our ArchItecturAl IdentIty Words by Perit Alexandra Manché at Amanche Architecture