Many moons ago, while undertaking a study on the restructuringof the quarrying industry, quarry owners expressed concerns that any increase in the cost of stone blocks, resulting from price liberalisation, would negatively affect their sales.
The low cost of stone was deemed sufficient because, in their pricing model, they only included the costs of extraction and not the cost of the land resource (since, many of the families often held this land for generations).
They feared that if their business model were to include the real value of the land resource, the use of stone blocks would not be viable.
In the debate on the new universityproject, it was suggested that the viability of a €100 million investment project would be compromised if one took into account the real cost of the land, hence it was necessary to find cheap, publicly-owned land, which invariably implied ODZ.
This is not sound economics.
Ignoring the real cost of land, anywhere, but particularly in a country where land is a very limited resource, invariably distorts the economic model and leads to wrong decisions.
Recreational land has an intrinsic economic value, which is different from, and often greater than, that which may result from mere agricultural activity (important as this may be). But such value is not easy to assess. A 2008 UK report on the economic value of green infrastructure highlights how resources such as the countryside, the coast, wetlands, urban parks, etc. ought to be seen as critical for sustainable economic growth and social goals, and “not just a way of supporting wildlife and ‘the environment’”.
Green infrastructure mitigates and alleviates the effects of climate change and pollution, reduces the impacts of flooding, and improves public health, civic pride and educational opportunities, but assessing its value “is still a work in progress”.
Land in Malta has been divided into ‘valuable’, which is zoned for development, and ‘worthless’, which is ODZ, on the basis of rapidly-drawn boundaries in the 1980s, in response to a worrisome explosion of building development at the outskirts of all our towns and villagesand beyond.
These boundaries were based on the Temporary Provisions Schemes, an ‘emergency’ response to the realisation that Malta was moving fast forward into full nationhood, without any spatial planning tools.
Subsequent planning legislation has concentrated on defining the rules of what to do within the development zones. But ‘outside development zones’ have remained precisely that, outside any form of planning, other than, perhaps, a sort of reserve, useful when specific projects became necessary, which could not be accommodated within.
But, the ODZ label ought not be the core of the debate; the real issue is the landscape quality, recreational potential, ecological value and uniqueness of the land.
In Malta, we have never properly planned the areas outside development, prioritising landscapes, understanding the impact of agricultural activities, of resource husbanding, and of recreational activities. In advanced countries, such as Germany, the planning of landscapes is as important a discipline as planning of urban zones.
Why are 90,000 square metres necessary to accommodate 40,000 square metres of educational facilities?
We rate any ODZ land as much asany other ODZ land; it is just there,waiting, until it is time to give it ‘value’ by development.
Why are 90,000 square metres necessary to accommodate 40,000 square metres of educational facilities? If the development were limited to three storeys (and one could also debate this intention), a footprint of about 13,500 square metres would be required, and using a site coverage ratio of 40 per cent (used for villa development), a site area of under 35,000 square metres is required.
In a country with extremely limited land resources, a developer argument, that lower density is ‘crucial’ for an investment, seems rather capricious, particularly when the real cost of the land to be consumed is cancelled – practically a state subsidy for a rather environmentally expensive concept.
A university requires, of course, more than lecture halls; it will eventually require a library, a social hub, sports facilities, catering facilities and residential facilities for students and staff – it can be assumed that this will become a residential campus.
In our climate, ought it not be more ‘environmentally wise’ to keep buildings close together, and provide shaded, ventilated spaces between buildings, rather than open ‘landscaped’ gardens, that really only work in other climates?
Government sees a €100 million development as an incentive to economic growth. However, the north-south divide is an artificial, albeit populist, construct in Malta. The economic benefits from investment rarely accrue to the people in the immediate vicinity of the investment – as so forcefully pointed out by the Birżebbuġa mayor.
Does the university benefit only Msidans? Do the MCAST employees only come from Paola? Do the restaurants in Smart City only belong to people from Xgħajra? An investment in the ‘south’ will not necessarily be of benefit to the people of the ‘south’.
On the contrary, direct investment can be used to revive areas that have socio-economic problems, so as to recover derelict real estate, or even to heal broken communities. But, for this to work, rather than vaguely seeking sites to accommodate arbitrarily defined developments, one ought to seek problem sites that require specific redevelopment. Pristine agricultural land does not normally require redevelopment.
It has been argued that the ‘south’ has seen more than its fair share of industrial development, and has therefore been poorly served as far as concerns theeconomic prosperity of the country.Curious statement, this.
The ‘south’ was, in the past, as agriculturally focused as the ‘north’ but, particularly with the dramatic increase in harbour employment, people moved out of back-breaking, and often fickle, agriculture into what were perceived as more rewarding and regular jobs. When this work declined, governments scrambled to provide employment in alternative manufacturing industry.
That most of these industrial estates were poorly designed and built is another story. These facilities in the ‘south’ were not conceived as a ‘dumping’ operation – but as giving employment to a population which could no longer survive on a meagre agriculture.
On the other hand, today one could identify a number of areas, such as Marsa or Qawra, which would really do with some enlightened investment. (The power station site in Marsa could have been converted into a brilliant university campus with, as an added bonus, some of the industrial heritage on site preserved.)
Redevelopment of derelict brown sites is obviously not, for a developer, as easy as the development of virgin agricultural land but, irrespective of what has been done in the past (let us stop justifying today’s mistakes by quoting the mistakes of the past), it is important that such brown sites be re-developed, before more virgin land is opened up for development.
‘Planning’ ought to be a long-term vision for spatial development, resulting in abetter quality of life for future generations. Economic success in tourism and related activities depends on the attractiveness of Malta, and therefore on the landscape, as much as on the clarity of its seas and the beauty of its historic towns.
This is not achieved simply by passively declaring areas as ODZ but by careful and pro-active landscape planning. As for the techniques of site selection, rather than online forms, may I suggest a re-reading of the old faithful, Design with Nature, by Ian McHarg?
Alex Torpiano is dean of the Faculty for the Built Environment, University of Malta.