Sliema Art Nouveau houses are unique

Albert Bezzina

Oct 23rd 2008, 12:54

In this particular case: If the owner was the natural owner for a substantial number of years and has suddenly found the need to provide dwellings for his six children (on six floors?), also assuming he has also evaluated the repercussions or consequences of having six siblings living as neighbours to each other, the State should be sympathetic and grant alternative land to build the six story apartment block to house his six children.
If the owner of these Art Nouveau properties has recently acquired them (therefore with the intent of demolition), it can only show great insensitivity towards our heritage, insensitivity surely conveyed to his six children during their upbringing, and the State can only award such insensitivity with a nice word – TOUGH!

M Abela

Oct 23rd 2008, 07:55

I endorse Mr Ripard’s views and would like to ask the Heritage Committee as to why they failed to make representation when the Local Plans were revised in 2006 and such revision allowed for urban developments to include five storeys within this part of Sliema – as in previous plans. Maybe it is also pertinent to point out that such pro-heritage NGO’s should have voiced their objections then when far superior properties than those along Dingli street had already been demolished. If these groups are so adamant that such properties should be preserved, they should lobby the powers-that-be for appropriate support and compensation to owners and stop this crusade of so-called ‘preserving our heritage’ at the expense of others. I also wish to question the timing of Mr Cutajar’s piece in the T.O.M. of October 21st ;the application for development in this part of Sliema has been going on for some eighteen months, yet Mr Cutajar felt that he should sound out his views now, on the eve of the MEPA hearing. Talk is cheap and maybe Mr Cutajar should also get his facts right first before proposing re-scheduling such property on the basis of their architectural value.

Helen Caruana Galizia

Oct 22nd 2008, 23:33

These houses are far from being dilapidated (and this raises the question of other achitectural gems whose developer owners are deliberately leaving them to become dilapidated - MEPA please note). The Dingli Street houses are architectural gems which must be preserved. This must be the only country in Europe which shows such contempt for its architectural heritage. The applications must be turned down. There are thousands of empty dwellings in Malta and Gozo. The demolition of old houses in order to build flats is pure greed and speculation. Helen Caruana Galizia Founder member Flimkein ghal Ambjent

Astrid Vella

Oct 22nd 2008, 21:57

PART 2: “If the owner is still in default it may itself carry out, or cause to be carried out, the necessary works and recover the cost thereof from the owner of the scheduled property.” unfortunately this law is not being implemented rigorously enough, resulting in the deterioration of some of Malta’s architectural gems like Villa Alhambra in Rudolph Street Sliema and Villa Roseville. Mr. Busuttil mentions houses falling to bits and being a danger; in this case and many others, the houses were so well built that they are in a very good condition, so no danger there. As for Sliema being already ruined, parts of it, such as this block, are almost pristine, so that sounds suspiciously like a developer’s interest talking.

However I wholeheartedly agree with you that financial assistance should be given to owners of heritage property and in fact our environment group, Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar has for two years been calling for the activation of the Heritage Fund which was set up 20 years ago for precisely this purpose.

Astrid Vella

Oct 22nd 2008, 21:56

PART 1: In spite of the impression being given by Mssrs Ripard and Busuttil, no one is preventing the owners from disposing of their property; as things stand with Malta having over 70,000 empty properties, the great majority being flats, the sale of old townhouses is a far stronger market sector than apartments. In fact there are over 4,500 empty apartments in Sliema and St. Julian’s while leading estate agents have stated that townhouses often sell so fast that they don’t even get advertised. Therefore there is nothing to stop the owners of these houses from making a good sale, selling them as very handsome houses, rather than merely building sites.

Mr. Busuttil, yes, MEPA can force owners of SCHEDULED properties to maintain them:
“DPA 46 (6) In respect of any scheduled property, the Authority shall also have power to require the owner, by notice in writing, to undertake such works generally, or as may be specified in the notice, as may be necessary to ensure that no further deterioration occurs. In default, the Authority may give a further notice to the owner to carry out and complete the works within a specified time. - Continues:

Albert Bezzina

Oct 22nd 2008, 21:30

Mr Busuttil.
In this particular case: If the owner was the natural owner for a substantial number of years and has suddenly found the need to provide dwellings for his six children (on six floors?), also assuming he has also evaluated the repercussions or consequences of having six siblings living as neighbours to each other, the State should be sympathetic and grant alternative land to build the six story apartment block to house his six children in exchange for the properties in question.
If the owner of these Art Nouveau properties has recently acquired them (therefore with the intent of demolition), it can only show great insensitivity towards archtectural heritage, insensitivity surely conveyed to his six children during their upbringing, and the State can only award such insensitivity with a nice word – TOUGH!

Henry J Bonett

Oct 22nd 2008, 17:53

I agree with this article. These houses are two of the finest houses still standing in Sliema and are part of our heritage.

The right of property is defended by society. This has been developed by philosphers throughout the centuries from the Greeks to this day. However, those who are saying that the owner can dispose of it as he wishes, are being summarily simplistic. In one sweep they seem to be going back to laissez-faire individualism without considering the reality of community.

There are two statements that are entirely false. These houses are 'falling to bits'. They are NOT. 'They are not even on a main road'. A road is one that takes you from one city or village to another. Dingli Street is THE main street of Sliema. Statements like these tend to show that some arguments are not entirely genuine attempts at being realistic .

Alfred Zahra de Domenico

Oct 22nd 2008, 16:56

Ownership of property has never been absolute. The state has always retained the perogative to lay down conditions on its use and disposal. The houses in question. which are not dilapidated, have been deemed to be of outstanding architectural interest deserving preservation.
I simpathise with owners of such properties. I am of the opinion that the state should come to an arrangement with owners of such properties to compensate them for any loss of income they may suffer. However that said, properties of outstanding architectural or historic value are part of our cultural / historic heritage and should be preserved.

steve busuttil

Oct 22nd 2008, 16:32

Mr Bezzina,

What if one has 6 kids and wants to give them a flat each? Isn't this within the owner's right too?

Albert Bezzina

Oct 22nd 2008, 15:10

There are rights and obligations. It is the right of a property owner to develop his property for gain - if there is gain to make! Exercising this right has been made easy because of advantageous taxation policies which have lead to the creation of over 38000 empty dwellings, of dubious design and structural qualities and, as things stand, little prospect of bringing home the presumed gain. So even if the owner of these ‘special’ architectural units has the right to develop them for gain, there is the obligation of the state to prevent demolition of such units in view of the mistaken perception of the owner at making a profit when reason indicates that these houses will be demolished to build apartments which will remain vacant for a long while to come. Though it is fair for the state to buy it from the owner, it is also fair to pay the costs incurred by the owner without added profits. In the case of refusal to sell for a fair price, the state can exercise its prerogative at refusing to grant a development permit. Readers can see Art Deco and Art Nouveau buildings on the internet. Beautiful.

A. Saliba

Oct 22nd 2008, 14:32

Thank you Mr. Ripard - finally someone who speaks some sense. What people do with their property is their business.

steve busuttil

Oct 22nd 2008, 14:25

Mr Pace & Mr Reynolds,

While it is all ok to encourage the non demolition of houses such as these, i would like you to answer the following questions:

1. Can the authorities force a home owner to keep his house and pay for the maintenance so that individuals like yourself can stop and look at them?

2. Is it better to allow the keeping of the facades and the development to go ahead or is it better to have a house that is falling to bits and being of danger?

3. Are you suggesting that people be forced into maintaining their houses, because i can give thousands of addresses that need to be maintained well.

4. With Sliema ruined isnt it better to concentrate on village cores rather than a couple of houses that arent even on a main road?

Lets see if you have these answers!

Tim Ripard

Oct 22nd 2008, 14:06

What about the right of the owner of the property to dispose of it as he wishes? It's HIS property. If it means so much to everybody to have a nice facade to took at, why don't you all raise the money to buy it for the community, instead of telling a private person what to do with HIS property? Talk is cheap. How about some action - set up a fund for the preservation of Art Deco houses, for example. But remember that to be fair your fund must be prepared to pay the full market value, otherwise you'll be robbing the owner.

George Reynolds

Oct 22nd 2008, 13:53

Houses such as these should be preserved and cherished by the whole community, once they are gone that's it. They will probably be replaced by some six storey monstrosity, totally out of keeping with it's surroundings. Here in the U.K. we have learnt our lessons the hard way, there is always somebody ready to demolish our heritage just for money. The applicants should be strongly resisted by all concerned, the planning authority must not cave in as they seem to do here. The fact that they are re-submissables shows how determined the developer is.
Eventually properties become ' vandalised or ' catch fire ' making the repair untenable. People of Malta should be vigilant.