Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/534048
14 CAT Stevens once sang that: "Scrapers fill the air… will we keep on building higher, 'till there's no more room up there?" The question seems highly rel- evant to ask in Malta in 2015, as the country braces itself for a new, unprecedented and far-reaching culture change in its approach to architecture and the construction industry. At present, there are some five applications for developments that can only be described as skyscrap- ers. Sliema looks set to receive two tower blocks of 30 and 40 storeys apiece, to add to other blocks al- ready going up in Tigne and Qui Si Sana. Skyscrapers of comparable heights are awaiting a permit to go up in Mriehel; and two tower blocks of 30 storeys are projected for Gzira. In brief, Malta appears set to ex- perience 'multiple erections' along the lines of a little New York or (dare I say it) Dubai. Public reac- tions have so far been critical – if not downright hostile – and given the enormity of the change that Malta is about to experience, sure- ly people have good reason to be concerned. Or do they? Chris Mintoff, an ar- chitect and president of the Kamra Tal-Periti, sounds like the right person to ask. Over a coffee at his Blata l-Bajda office, we discuss the imminence of the high-rise and all its implications. Starting with the negative reac- tions. What does he make of the criticism so far? "In any project, change is by de- fault seen negatively," he begins. "And thank goodness for that. It's a good thing that there are concerns about landscape and views. Like last Saturday's demonstration… I welcome it. That people show they care about the environment – that it's no longer a non-issue, as was previously thought – that's posi- tive. But there are two sides to any argument. There are those who say 'enough' to construction as a whole; there are others who argue that construction is beneficial to the industry and the economy, so we should continue. These views are both wrong up to a certain ex- tent. There is definitely a middle road…" Let's take those arguments one by one. Is it true that we're build- ing beyond our means? There are roughly 40,000 vacant properties in Malta, yet the Malta Environment and Planning Authority continues to dish out permits for large-scale projects involving (mostly) resi- dential apartments. How sustain- able is this approach? "I see there is an unsustainabil- ity issue, but somehow it works. There are 4,000 vacant properties, but if a developer builds 10 new apartments, he still manages to sell them all in a year. How does he do it? To be frank, I don't know. But somehow it still works…" Isn't there a risk of creating a massive oversupply of residential units, with the result that eventual- ly – according to the law of supply and demand – the property market will one day crash? "Yes, but for some reason the law of supply and demand doesn't work in this scenario. Young cou- ples still spend years looking for the right property. There is still a demand, and it is increasing. I don't know why the 40,000 vacant properties argument doesn't re- ally hold on the economic front. Perhaps it will when our standards go down… maybe it's just that the vacant properties are in the most part substandard…" But it's not just the existing glut of vacant properties that is pos- ing a threat. Look at some of the projects currently in the pipeline. A 40-storey tower block in Sliema, for instance… "I was surprised by that, in fact. There are three topics to be dis- cussed here… the infrastructure, the impact of a 40-storey building in Malta, and the supply and de- mand argument. Taking the lat- ter, this is one for economists to tackle…" But what is his own view about it? I would imagine architects in general would be concerned at the possibility of a slump in demand for properties, seeing as they make a living designing them… "My own view is that as long as supply exists, demand is fuelled by the contractors and developers themselves. I know it doesn't make sense on paper, but in reality it works. And there is some sense in it, too. Most of the vacant proper- ties we are talking about are aban- doned and derelict. My issue with them is not so much the impact on demand, but that they make the streetscape ugly. As long as there is demand for property, there is a chance that these abandoned prop- erties will get picked up, renovated and put back on the market. This would improve the urban space…" Meanwhile public concerns are not limited only to the oversupply issue. We are also talking about a culture change with far-reaching implications. I imagine it was much the same in New York at the turn of the 20th century, when the Woolworth Tower fired the start- ing pistol for a mad scramble to the skies… "I would go further back. It's like Bologna in the 1500s. It was called the 'city of a thousand towers'… though only two or three survive to this day…" But there was a difference: those 'towers' were mainly belfries and steeples, not apartment blocks… "Yes, but if they had our tech- nology, they would definitely have made them habitable. But they had limited space, and in that limited footprint, they fought for height because it was a status symbol. Those towers were mainly built for ego… which, in a way…" Mintoff's sentence trails away, but it is easy to see where he was heading. Isn't today's high-rise craze in Malta also about ego? Sig- mund Freud, for instance, might have had a thing to say about a predominantly male construction sector getting its kicks out of erect- ing massive phalluses all over the place… "When you see one application after another, one for 30 storeys, another for 40… it's a little like the [Donald] Trump mentality, yes. We're heading in that direc- tion. So yes, it is a culture change. It is a new architectural direction, but it has its restrictions, too. In our profession we are limited by a number of constraints. In the case of high-rise, it's floor-to-area ratio that matters. You can only build 50% of the footprint, the rest must be given up as public space…" One would expect there to be constraints. But what about the long-term implications: the effect on infrastructure, on the land- scape, on surrounding buildings, etc.? "Let's start with the landscape concerns. I think it would help the environment. Sliema, for instance, is a mess. The skyline looks like a bad grin full of missing teeth. One of the biggest plagues of the Mal- tese urban environment is the sup- port wall [hajt tal-appogg]: blank walls separating buildings of dif- ferent heights, with no windows or features. They're hideous. Xemxi- ja, for instance, is full of them. You won't have that with tower blocks. And high-rise also puts more pres- sure on architects to come up with good designs…" What about the physical effects? Wind-funnelling, for instance, which is known to wreak havoc in the surrounding areas. Or the shade cast by tall buildings, which has already ruined the Sliema promenade (where most buildings are only eight or so storeys)… "We are definitely going to have new phenomena. With regard to shade, we will see fast-moving shade in these areas. The proper- ties furthest away from the tower will experience shade moving unusually fast. This type of archi- tecture will entail new problems that have to be designed for. As for wind: at 40 storeys, I have no idea what the wind-loads are. It is interesting even from a structural perspective. And there may be other problems to contend with. In London they had that tower which acted like a large magnifying glass, concentrated sunlight on cars and setting them on fire. It's an unfore- seen phenomenon. But these are problems that have to be solved by engineers…" So aren't we rushing into some- thing that may have disastrous un- foreseen consequences here, too? "I don't see it as rushing. We have a talented pool of architects here. It all boils down to the quality of design. Le Corbusier once said that 'a doctor buries his mistakes: an architect can only grow vines to cover his'. You can tell a design is good because you won't feel the problems…" But that just assumes the design will be good. Going on experience, isn't that a little optimistic? What if the design turns out to be bad? It would take an awful lot of vines to cover a 40-storey eyesore… "I sincerely hope the design will be good. If you're going to have a 40-storey tower block, the design had better be good from the out- set. But today, the margin of error for bad design is being closed off. We've learnt from our mistakes. In Malta we know that buildings can be ugly. We know that our urban environment is already mostly ru- ined. I think this is a possible solu- tion. If done right, it will improve our urban environment…" OK, but isn't there a slight con- tradiction here? Malta's urban landscape is already ruined, as Mintoff himself admits… and (no offence, or anything) it was all de- signed by architects. So now we're being asked to trust these same architects who were responsible Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 28 JUNE 2015 Poised for an architectural SOLVING PROBLEMS Sliema is already a problem today. Call me optimistic, but I think that if it becomes an even bigger problem, maybe we'll start thinking about how to solve it When you see one application after another, one for 30 storeys, another for 40… it's a little like the [Donald] Trump mentality, yes. We're heading in that direction. So yes, it is a culture change CULTURE CHANGE