The aesthetic quality of architecture

Judging from comments made in the press, I am pleased that my speech on architectural aesthetical quality in Malta has provoked a lot of discussion. The fact that so many people are highlighting the issue is positive in itself.

The ethical conduct of a professional, or for that matter, that of any individual, should guide that professional or individual to act impartially and in a correct manner in issues that may occur regarding conflicts between client's interests and other matters. I feel this is an issue regarding the whole spectrum of society and not just architects in particular.

With regard to the ethical conduct of us architects, I feel that the University has to mould its students to work as a team and not be too individualistic. The struggle to survive professionally is already difficult enough, even if students are trained to act in a correct manner from day one. Academic achievements are important, but much more important is the moulding of future architects who will not bend to their clients' every whim.

Something which I recall from my student years is that working in groups rather than individually has helped me to think that whatever decision I take will affect those people surrounding me. Obviously it will then be up to the individual who is then responsible for his/her own actions.

A good building, whether designed in a traditional or contemporary manner, needs to have a sense of balance. Both need good proportions, good massing, and good choice of materials, colours and detailing.

Not all these are the responsibility of the architects or MEPA. A lot depends on the developer. In my opinion, a modern building may sit within a historical area and provide good urban character.

There has been an aesthetical improvement over the last years and I do hope that there is a positive trend in architecture. Public tastes have improved; many are not content to make do with what is available. There is a lot which is available, for example there is a large residential stock, all with the same basic amenities available.

So what makes a couple choose one residential unit from another is, apart from financial reasons, either the location or the design.

Bad news travels fast. Mistakes have been made both in the remote past as well as in the recent past, but let us not forget the good news as well. Homogeneity is still possible. When submitting an application in a village core the elevations of adjacent properties are submitted and the deciding bodies can check on the streetscape qualities.

The same is also possible for developments within scheme. The idea that within scheme one can do what one likes is very debatable. Sometimes, some restrictions may be necessary for the sake of homogeneity. This does not mean that one building is to be an exact replica of the other, but at least they should be compatible.

The process of fine tuning the development policies contained in the Development Control & Design Guidance 2000 should be looked at by construction industry as a better direction for development proposals. Policies that allow more imaginative proposals are being placed in the forefront and will be encouraged.

However I must stress that at the same time unabashed flouting of the permit conditions will not go unchallenged. The public expects MEPA to act quickly and to be flexible. On the other hand, MEPA should act within realistic timeframes and aim at quality decisions.

MEPA is making more use of bank guarantees to enforce compliance with its conditions. For example, if a development is allowed whereby the interior of a house may be demolished but the elevation needs to be retained in order to retain the streetscape qualities, a bank guarantee is normally requested. If the developer demolishes the façade this guarantee is lost. The use of bank guarantees may well be expanded to ensure compliance in a wider context.

Moreover, all applications which request sanctioning of an illegality are in fact fined, the value of the fine depends on the gravity of the illegality. Besides the fine, there have been many occasions where the deciding body has felt that to sanction an illegality, a contribution in the form of a planning gain needed to be made.

This government wants the public to expect the highest standards possible. This is much better than accepting mediocrity as used to happen in the past. However, we must insist that a whole hearted effort is needed by all parties concerned to improve the environment.

Architect George Pullicino is Minister of Rural Affairs and the Environment.