We read that the Malta Environment and Planning Authority is working on a policy to end “modern slums” and is inviting public consultation on the matter. This is a subject on which I have worked and lectured for close to 30 years and, though I am no longer practising, I think I may make some useful contributions.
In the first place, it seems to me that what they are after is improving design, which is highly laudable. However, this is not something that can be easily done by a set of rules.
It is perhaps easier to list what is bad than to pontificate on what is good. Here, perhaps, we come to Leon Battista Alberti’s dictum that the optimum is reached at the stage at which any addition, detraction or alteration to a design would only reduce its perfection.
I have often been involved in committees to review or establish quantitative standards of buildings. In most cases, these would be dominated by medical and legal representatives whose blinkered and overcautious approach to the matter would ensure that nothing would effectively get done.
The back-to-back houses of the industrial revolution - and the Maltese traditional centre court houses - had been replaced by the statutory backyards of the early British period.
In the reconstruction effort that followed World War II, Pearce Hubbard and Austen Harrison had cleared some cobwebs and the Manderaggio was forcibly demolished but the spiders were still having a field day.
I remember, almost with affection, the concept of the ‘substandard’ dwelling, which took up so much of our time. It is obvious, even to the most obtuse, that ‘substandard’ presumed a ‘standard’.
A ‘standard’ was not something that existed in a vacuum but applied to a variety of shapes and sizes of households. I used to tell them that by their criterion we should prohibit the importation or manufacturing of shoes below, say, size 40, or seven, as it was at the time, because they were too small.
As it happened, one of the members had small feet and wore size six and did not appreciate my suggestion.
What we needed was effective anti-overcrowding legislation but that was outside our terms of reference.
When we talk about housing standards we must keep in mind the limitations of our islands, our traditional context, our congested urban cores, our urban sprawl, our vanishing countryside.
I am not aware houses being built are too small for the households that occupy them, resulting in slums
There can be no doubt that it was a big mistake to decide to give away - practically for free - huge swathes of agricultural land in the suburbs for home ownership schemes and to strangle the cores by perpetuating bottlenecks.
A recent case in the highly-congested Birkirkara Road, St Julian’s, where an old house was demolished and rebuilt on former foundations at the narrowest point – and with a garage, illustrates the point and must have been seen by hundreds.
Our available land is extremely limited and that must be a starting point. Our density of development compares to that of Singapore and Hong Kong.
I am not aware that houses are being built that are too small for the households that occupy them, resulting in slums. For financial reasons, households are moving in houses that are too small for them, which is another matter altogether.
When I was still practising, in one and the same morning I inspected a two-roomed house occupied by a family of nine and a nine-roomed house occupied by a family of two! A by-product of our worthy rent laws.
There are proposals to increase the minimum size of a one-bedroomed property from 45 to 55 square metres, for two-bedroomed properties from 76 to 90 square and from 96 to 115 square metres for units with three bedrooms.
When we talk of property sizes we have to be clear about whether we are talking of gross areas, inclusive of walls, balconies, staircases, corridors, thresholds etc, or of net areas that exclude such facilities. In either case, the areas referred to above appear to be very lavish and wasteful for our context.
Our standards are usually drawn from British sources, where they have much more land per person available.
A landmark British study was ‘Homes for today and tomorrow’, conducted by a high-powered commission that was appointed by the Central Housing Advisory Committee and chaired by Sir Parker Morris, referred to in the profession as the Parker Morris Report.
I thought that a quick comparison would be of interest and in this report net floor area is defined as “the area on one or more floors enclosed by the walls of a dwelling and is measured to the opposing unfinished faces. It includes the area occupied by partitions, the area taken up on each floor by any staircase, the area of any chimney breast...”
The standards are based on a very comprehensive range of factors and are expressed in areas for the number of persons living in a dwelling.
I am taking the flat as the most representative and converting the areas to square metres: six people – net floor area of 88 square metres; five 80 square metres; four – 71 square metres; three – 58 square metres; two –46 square metres; one – 29 square metres.
Although we may not be exactly comparing apples with apples, it is obvious that the figures quoted in press articles on the Mepa plans are about 50 per cent higher than those in the Parker Morris Report and this in a context where we should be husbanding our available land more thriftily.
The press articles also mention solar panels in a deprecatory manner. Though they may not be works of art, they have to be looked upon in the context of energy saving and condoned accordingly. I am not so sure about roof tanks. Perhaps we could do away with them.
Building heights, a sore point with me, were also mentioned. When I was studying in England, I spent some time at the Building Research Station in Garston.
The course was conducted by George Atkinson who later came to Malta to advise the government on housing and we had the opportunity to meet again.
He and his experts had taught me that our floor to ceiling heights (2.75metres +) were unnecessarily wasteful and would also add to the cost of heating and cooling when these came into common use. The British standard was eight feet (2.44 metres) and they contended that we could build five floors within the bulk of our traditional four floors and with the same stairs.
Somehow their advice never got through to the big brass.
I think we can still do it.
When I came back from England brimming with new ideas, over 60 years ago, I used to be told: “You are too late, Malta is already built up”. Recent studies show that over 60 per cent of our present buildings were built after that time.
The future is always there. Traditionally, we roofed over 12 or 13 courses. With our present limitations – 2.75 metres headroom - we can just about build on 10 + one courses.
If we reduced our statutory limit to 2.45 metres we could build on nine + 1 courses with the same amenities and considerable savings in costs. The shafts and yards could also be smaller or would be better lit. The street width to height ratio would be improved too.
Our limited available developable land would also be made use of much better.
André Zammit is an architect.