Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1511791
11 NEWS maltatoday | SUNDAY • 19 NOVEMBER 2023 raised the standards of photomon- tages of major projects requiring an EIA showing the real impact of various developments includ- ing the proposed Comino bunga- low development by Hili, the DB project, the Sliema Townsquare project, the Mercury House pro- ject, the proposed St Albert school in Ħal-Għaxaq and the high-rise Villa Rosa development amongst many others. Another example of good prac- tice in a smaller project are the detailed photomontages of an old people's home being pro- posed in an ODZ site in Naxxar. But this is not always the case with photomontages presented for other developments where the 2015 guidelines are not man- datory. Cases falling short of guidelines While a number of good pho- tomontages have been submit- ted in urban studies for medium sized developments, this was not the case with a number of visual representations, some of which cannot be remotely described as photomontages. 1. Use of Google Earth image: PA 1342/22 and 1466/22-Boulder scree at Veccja and old people's home in Swieqi A photomontage to show the visual impact of a proposed boul- der scree on a protected coast- al cave, in works proposed by the public works department, is based on a Google Earth image. A graphic image is simply superim- posed on the Google Earth image. This is more of an approximate artistic impression giving a useful indication of what the develop- ment would look like, but it defi- nitely cannot be considered to be a photomontage. Yet the image is described as a photomontage on the PA's public information sys- tem. Google Earth images were also used as a baseline in the visual assessment of a proposed old peo- ple's home in Swieqi which was rejected a few weeks ago. 2. Use of wide angle: PA 3920/22 11 storey development in Smart City No information is provided on the camera and photographic data and reading distance. But it ap- pears that some of the photomon- tages in the visual assessment are taken with a wide-angle lens. This lessens the impact of the develop- ment since most of the photo is taken by the foreground and mid- dle-ground, with the background reduced to a tiny proportion of the image. This is most obvious in the photomontage from Valletta breakwater. From this angle even the existing Smart City develop- ment looks considerably smaller when seen from this image than when it is physically viewed by someone looking in the same di- rection from the same viewpoint. 3. Use of wide angle and cropping: PA5500/22 – 13 floor Xlendi apartments The photomontages suggest that the development will have practically no visual impact on the surroundings. This is mostly because of neighbouring develop- ments which have mushroomed in the same area. But the impact of the proposed development is further lessened by photomon- tages taken with a wide-angle lens and cropped from the width. This further lessens the impact of the development since most of the photo is taken by the foreground and middle ground, with the background reduced to a small proportion of the image. Once again, no information is provided on the camera and photographic data and reading distance. 4. Use of wide angle: PA1222/19 – Xgħajra high rise The visual assessment correctly makes a clear distinction between photomontages and artistic im- pressions, both of which are in- cluded in the report. But no infor- mation is provided on the camera and photographic data and read- ing distance. It also appears that most of the photomontages are presented with a wide-angle view which lessens the impact of the devel- opment since most of the photo is taken up by the foreground and middle ground, with the back- ground reduced to a small propor- tion of the image. This is most ob- vious in the photomontage from Upper Barrakka where the devel- opment is nearly invisible. The construction of the photomontag- es also leaves much to be desired, in particular the viewpoint of the development from Triq Dawret ix-Xatt which appears somewhat distorted. 5. Use of wide angle: PA5136/22 – Wasteserv's engineered landfill No information is provided on the camera and photographic data and reading distance. But most of the photomontages are presented with a wide-angle view and in very small dimensions. The wide-angle view clearly lessens the impact of the development since most of the photo is taken by the foreground and middle ground, with the background reduced to a tiny pro- portion of the image. The small dimensions of the presented im- ages also contribute to lessening the visual impact of the proposed landfill. 6. Close ups and no views for afar: PA 73/21 – 10-floor hotel in Rue D'Argens In the urban design study the visuals submitted consist of close- ups of the new building. Only one of the visuals presented gives some indication of the impact of the development on the rest of the Rue D'Argens. No medium to long-distance views have been submitted as normally required for high buildings. 7. Drawings instead of a photomontage: 4443/19 – Commercial project in Hamrun next to parish church A photomontage of the develop- ment simply consists of a drawing. In its last submission on the pro- ject approved just a few days ago, the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage insisted that the imag- es as presented "cannot be con- sidered as photomontages, since they do not depict the proposal in its context". The SCH correctly noted that "useful photomontag- es should be based on viewpoints within the adjacent streets." 8. Computer generated images instead of photomontage – 2713/23 and 8866/20-Suncrest Lido and Centerparc project in Qormi It has also become customary for developers to submit artistic impressions or computer-gener- ated images which can be useful in assessing the visual impact but fall short of documenting the real visual impact of projects as per- ceived by the general public from particular viewpoints. In some cases like the proposed Suncrest lido and the Centerparc project in Qormi, the images are correctly labelled as "visuals" not as "photo- montages". But this raises the question why computer-generated images are being presented instead of prop- er photomontages. Moreover, in a recent planning hearing even board members incorrectly re- ferred to the computer generated images of the Qormi development as "photomontages." photomontages can fool planners Use of wide angle and cropping: 13 floor Xlendi apartments Use of wide angle: Wasteserv's engineered landfill Computer generated images: Suncrest Lido