Call for national policy on high rise buildings

I say: before a building application is considered, the developer must show that he has bought 3 adjoining lots, or more, with a total ground area of 1500 square metres . All resident parking must be underground and the permision from all adjoining neighbours.
Got the idea? Impossible? Then STOP the rape of your country and start upgrading your old buildings. They are beautiful.

While i agree that a national policy on high rise buildings is urgently needed to avoid further high rise sprawl , i believe that the first move should be to stop the issue of new permits until a national policy is approved, we cannot wait for years for studies and reports to be commsioned while our developers keep on building new high rise buildings.
A point which needs to be addressed apart from the locations etc is the question of do we need more property?

I wish to suggest to Hon. Mr. Galdes and other Labour and government parliamentarians to take a brief vacation in Hong Kong, and then decide whether we should continue to build high rise buildings and ruin the picturesque characteristics of our islands. Our policy makers may also wish to decide in which electoral districts we should do so.

Tower Road in Sliema was once blessed with two-storey buildings the likes of which could still be found and enjoyed in Brighton in the UK. In the desert in Baja California in Mexico, the authorities have succeeded to develop a tourist corridor between San Jose del Cabo and Cabo San Lucas with several golf courses and beautiful hotels and resorts.

Unfortunately, Malta does not have the luxury of endless space, so we need to plan our development in a serious manner. Once we lose the characteristics and what is left of the natural beauty of our islands, they will be lost for ever.

Again the Maltese government does not learn from other countries because of the developers wallets.
The character of Malta is being destroyed with the placement and ugly architecture of these high rises. Portomaso is a prime example.
Highrise's should be placed more inland so not to block the Maltese public accesses to the waterfronts.

I have nothing against High-Rise, but do we really need more buildings? Don't we already have a huge stockpile of vacant properties? What the government should actually do is suspend all new developments for a period of at least 5 years. Malta has become one HUGE construction site. Just look out of the window, wherever you are, you can see towercranes everywhere you look. Why all this development I ask? To make a few developers rich while Mr and Mrs Joe Citizens are forced to breathe all the dust, bear the noise, and find 1/3 of his/her locality roads blocked by cranes and trucks?

In economics we learn that when there is more supply than there is demand, prices should drop, right? This is not the case here, because developers are looking for foreign buyers because they know that Maltese can't afford some of the prices they are asking for, and this is fuelling the sharp increase in property prices in Malta.

So this is the Labour Policy. To increase heights is some localities. Has this spokesman done his homework about how many unfinished and vacant finished properties we have in our villages? Is he aware of the thousands of applications in the pipeline? For how long do we have to live surrounded by building sites? Even one extra floor will cause havoc once again in our villages. We will suffer from the 2006 amendments in building heights for decades to come. This is a labour earthquake we can do without.

Another spect worth mentioning where high rise buildings are concerned is our ability to tackle any fires that may occur in such structiures. Are we equipped to fight a blaze say above six storeys? forewarned is forearmed they say.

That is a very good move and hopefully will reach consensus. It makes sense for the country to encourage high rise buildings in certain localities. the construction of high rise should also be used to prevent further urban sprawl in certain other villages.

Malta should encourage high rise buildings. Provided appropriate private sector funding is available, there should be no limit. Shouldn't we dream of having our own immensely tall skyscraper.

This photo of portomaso reminds me of the side effects that such high rise buildings could have on the immediate buildings if not planned well. Residents in the area of Paceville Chapel have witnessed a steep increase in wind and windy days! When the EIA was done was the wind factor included in the study?....probably not!

Politics aside, we REALLY do need a policy on highrise. Do we want them or not? You cannot have developers waiting years and jumping hoops to build high rise or even medium rise, because the Government doesn't have a policy and it takes yonks for things to move. With the limited land we have, it makes a lot of sense to promote highrise buildings.

Some three years ago I was putting up a 3-storey building and in the process learnt about the Local Plans for the first time. Apparently these took some ten years to be approved by Parliament. How's that for service?

Now I happened to be building at the end of this decade long process and was lucky enough for the LP to be approved at the right time, so I could continue building the extra floor. My neighbours who had built before me ended up building another floor years after they had finished construction, with all the additional expenses and nuisance this brought about.

So in '95 MEPA had already made a policy to allow 4 floor buildings in this area but it took till '05 for it to become official...crying shame!!

If the MLP could find an equitable solution to put on the market those units which have been closed for a number of years it might reduce the need to go for high rise buildings. Otherwise since land is at a premium the only way is to go up. Conservation was never the MEPA forte; take a look at Tower road and other areas in the centre of Sliema, just to mention a few.

At face value this is a legitimate issue requiring expert input. From a MLP perspective it seems that there is a shift in the way party exponents tackle their respective areas of responsibility. In Sant's days it was always about 'ghandna pjan' and in the age of earthquakes it's about someone else providing the plan and/or policy framework and then MLP lodge opportunistic arguments in order to maximise mileage. This strategy lacks political leadership.

At last one sensible voice: a call for a policy for high rise buildings. It's stupid for people to purchase property in high rise buildings with all the problems and difficulties that will crop up not today but say in 30 years time. Even with regards to security. We are not prepared enough to cater for such eventualities. Uomo avvizato e' mezzo salvato. Let's hope it's not a cry in the wilderness.