Malta deserves better architecture

It was encouraging to read that Mr George Pullicino ("A Tale of Two Weekends", The Sunday Times, May 7) regarded the setting up of a new pressure group as a positive development. But then he urges this new lobby Flimkien ghal-ambjent ahjar (FAA) "to be more factual in its assertions".

FAA (www.ambjentahjar.org) has every intention of doing this. But the FAA still insists that there is an ongoing systematic destruction of our urban and rural heritage due to irresponsible development and this is a major preoccupation of FAA.

We have become surrounded by irresponsible development to such an extent that this has come to be regarded as normal. People are either resigned to the situation or unaware. Each new act of destruction is shrugged off with a sigh of "What can we do?" All one needs to do is to look around and see the poor standard and style of architecture of many of the buildings which now replace beautiful old houses that were demolished.

It is all very well for Mr Pullicino to remind us that only those buildings deemed to be "of no architectural or historic merit" by our Heritage Advisory Committee can be demolished. This raises the spectre of the continuing, systematic demolition of cherished old houses and familiar landmarks even if they are in the supposedly protected Urban Conservation Area.

However we would remind Mr Pullicino that MEPA regulations stipulate that there is "a presumption against demolition in Urban Conservation Areas" which not only covers buildings of no particular architectural or historic merit but even extends to dilapidated buildings.

The stark fact is that the vast majority of buildings that are being torn down in the name of 'development' happen to be the very buildings that give our islands their charm and character, even if they are of no so-called "architectural or historic merit". It must be emphasised that these houses were built (often lovingly) in the Maltese vernacular. When these are destroyed, they are almost invariably replaced by structures (mostly apartment blocks) that are second-rate architectural eyesores.

Malta's stock of empty housing, presently running at well over 22,000 units, demonstrates that, far from fulfilling a housing need, this development is all happening as a result of the insatiable pursuit of profit. This is attested to by the huge number of unfinished blocks and our high non-occupancy rate of new apartments which are often bought solely as an investment.

The development frenzy is such that even recently built structures are now being torn down and replaced by equally hideous apartment blocks to squeeze in yet more apartments into the same space and this adds to the pollution and chaos.

In addition to the foregoing, there is the threat to what is left of our countryside. Take, for example, the plans for development of golf courses at Ix-Xaghra l-Hamra and elsewhere. These will irrevocably destroy huge tracts of garigue, virgin territory and farms. Other worries are the threatened commercial development at Ta' Cenc. Ramla l-Hamra is now also threatened by so-called redevelopment of an existing complex.

Hiding behind this play on words is the demolition and rebuilding of a larger new complex. Jumbo car parks as fronts for entertainment complexes are planned without any impact assessments. Bits of public seashore are being progressively nibbled away here and there by private developments so that more and more of our beautiful rocky foreshore gets covered in concrete. And so it goes on.

MEPA's failure to enforce regulations is also contributing to the degradation of our surroundings. A typical instance is the sanctioning of structures that have been built illegally without a permit, encouraging other developers to carry out similar illegal abuse knowing they can use the sanctioning as a precedent to obtain permits.

Furthermore the MEPA Auditor recently issued a report on permits that are refused for no apparent reason in one case and a permit awarded, often in the same street, for another identical or less deserving case, suggesting a "two weights, two measures" approach.

Mr Pullicino quotes the cases of a house in Ghar il-Lembi Street and that of the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel. In the case of the baroque-period house in Ghar il-Lembi Street, the report by technical experts that Mr Pullicino mentions was commissioned by the developers - hardly the most impartial source. What he fails to mention is that MEPA's own Integrated Heritage Management Board and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage both agreed that the house should have been preserved. Worse still, the house was demolished while the decision was under appeal. One of FAA's aims is to oppose this kind of heavy-handedness in dealing with people's objections.

As a result of all the foregoing, Malta is progressively losing her beautiful character and it is the opinion of FAA that this state of affairs has been accepted with complacency for too long. Property has become Malta's new currency and Malta and the Maltese are paying dearly for it. Malta's uniqueness and our quality of life should also enter the equation.

Mr Pullicino seems to be under the impression that FAA wants to oppose everything as though it considers all development as irresponsible. This is not the case at all. The FAA is not against all development or acceptable modern architecture; FAA opposes just what is inappropriate or of poor quality. It is also the intention of FAA to give praise where it is due. There are, after all, instances (sadly very few) where an old building was replaced by a structure built to a high standard and sensitively designed so that it is in harmony with its surroundings.

It is still early days, but one of FAA's aims will surely be to encourage a higher standard of building and a better (and appropriate) style of architecture. This is what our beautiful country deserves.