The design issue in design guidelines

Following a seminar held on February 9 to discuss design policies, I would like to congratulate the efforts of MEPA and BICC to improve current existing guidelines regulating design interventions. Yet, I feel it is my duty to highlight a number of observations.

As a design architect practising locally within the parameters laid out by MEPA, I love my work and seek to carry it out with dedication and passion. I am well aware that 'design' is a big word and one that is often misinterpreted.

It is logical that all architects strive to create good design and in our quest to succeed, we have no choice but to keep abreast of upcoming developments and emerging philosophies at the international level. But what is good design and are we really heading forward?

One way of keeping up to date is to subscribe to a number of architectural periodicals from all over the world. This is the second best option to travelling - it is what I and a number of my colleagues do, reading with interest the regular features and trying to extract from them internationally accepted parameters of what constitutes good design. Naturally, it is understood that judges of local design and policy makers should feel inclined to gain this type of exposure too, which brings me to my point.

I tend to disagree with what was affirmed during the seminar that design or in this case, aesthetics, is entirely subjective, as in "either you like it or not". If this were the case, then what would be the point of having design competitions judged by highly competent design professionals, often called in from overseas?

In many cases, it is indeed possible to agree on certain accepted rules of good practice likely to result in a good design. Unfor-tunately, no amount of guidelines will guarantee a good design. On the other hand, it is a trained eye coupled with skill (and from the judging side, the ability to recognise this ideal combination, according to internationally recognised criteria) that is bound to give (and approve) good results. In one case, disposition of massing, in another skyline, in yet another texture, material, rhythm or scale may be all that is required.

Here in Malta we have not yet understood this point. Some archi-tects, case officers and clients still think that imitating the past is the answer to our problems, particularly in urban conservation areas. I believe that when building within a historic setting or next door to an old building, one must invest much time in studying the overall situation.

One must derive inspiration from the old (as stated above, via the massing, scale, rhythm, fenestration, proportions, details, scale, material, texture, flow, space, skyline or any other characteristic deemed unique or exclusive to the older building) but not bluntly imitate the whole ensemble or, worse still, borrow details directly from it (such as mouldings or corbels), regardless of their original purpose.

Trying to pass off a contemporary intervention as an old one is dishonest and at the very least, disrespectful of the old. On the other hand, tying in with the old, through some sensitively perceived aspect inspired from or dictated by the old but clearly distinct from it, actually renders homage to the old and does not pretend to take its place. These are not my words alone, but a widely accepted philosophy in the world of architecture.

In the February 1997 issue of The Architectural Review, themed 'Past and Present', one may view a number of such interventions. From an article in this issue, entitled What's the point of the past?, I quote: "Another level of misinterpretation of the past is the gross stupidity of trying to spread the forms of vernacular

architecture over large modern buildings. An out-of-town superstore is made to look like a traditional barn magnified 50-fold." Is this not the equivalent of being told to throw in a couple of arches and a handful of balustrades to make a building more visually acceptable?

Let us not transform our most challenging projects and their potentially innovative and creative solutions into our greatest causes of embarassment, particularly when weighed on international scales.

It is indeed frustrating to make a genuine effort to comprehend and put into practice the basics of good design, only to be told the opposite by some well-meaning case officer, who is, after all, only doing his job. I simultaneously question what kind of formal training he has been given in visual design issues, clearly the most neglected issues in our present system.

I believe that now is the time to move forward progressively. As guidelines are being revised we must look carefully at the design in design guidelines and give it the attention it duly deserves. The architect, the case officer, and the policy maker should all be made to recognise and shoulder their responsibility in contributing to a better urban environment. There is no other short-cut towards being equipped to face the competitive challenges of the future.