A sea of stone and bricks laps at the fringes of our green areas. In the month of June alone, 140 planning applications were filed for areas outside the development zone. Developers are quick to claim that building upward would put the brakes on building in the countryside. Not everyone is convinced.

The planning vision in Malta is not for one or two – but for entire ‘clusters’ of tall buildings. This has come as a death knell to residents of Sliema and St Julian’s. These localities have been abandoned to frenetic development more than anywhere in the Maltese islands.

The view from Mdina has already been defiled by the more distant 20-storey blocks at Fort Cambridge. The visual bombing of this historic vista by similarly high buildings planned for Mrieħel has been vastly underestimated. Now, high-rise developers relish going even further with a rash of towers, one of them up to 40 storeys high at Tigné Point.

An angry crowd of residents, mostly harking from the traffic-clogged area north of the harbours, came out in protest last month against tall buildings in their town.

The decline began decades ago when 10-storey apartment blocks began to squeeze out grand old family homes on the promenade. By the mid-1990s a proposal for the 97-metre Portomaso Tower was on the table. This 23-storey hypodermic needle still jabs at the eye, despite claims that the building is an architectural landmark.

In 2005, an outline development application was filed for Town Square, a commercial complex with apartment blocks up to 15 storeys and a 38-storey tower in Sliema.

This all happened in the bad old days of the now defunct outline development permit. That misguided policy gave developers the notion that they had a clear run to the finish before even a hint of impact studies had crossed anyone’s mind. It made refusal difficult and embarrassing. (“But you promised – and I’ve spent all this money on studies.”)

The new environment authority (ERA) had some sharp things to say about the environmental planning statement: A scanline survey on the tower for Sliema’s Town Square development showed potential collapse at excavation stage due to soft rock, with the environmental planning statement remarking that this was “uncertain”.

It was noted that the visual impact of a building nearly twice as high as the Portomaso Tower would be major – not only from streets in the immediate vicinity but also from viewpoints at Manoel Island and Valletta.

In a farcical paper chase that ran dry, the planning directorate had requested the architect to obtain clearance from the Department of Social Welfare Standards. Here he was in turn referred back to the ministry’s social policy department, only to be told they did not carry out social impact assessments for anything other than non-infrastructural projects.

And here’s another surprise: How the development will perform in terms of energy saving is also outside the Planning Authority’s remit. The biggest gains for energy efficiency, reduction of fossil fuel and carbon dioxide would be if this project was never built. Yet measures which nowadays should be standard are made a great fuss over and weighed in as mitigation for negative impacts of the tower blocks.

Public doubt and mistrust prevails over whether there is a real need for these projects, despite known and unknown disadvantages. The fact that a tower can be built (according to planning law, as interpreted) has somehow morphed into an edict that the will of developers shall be done, and none shall stand in their way.

Where direct sunlight is blocked, the quality of life in the shaded location is permanently worsened

Delivering the views of objectors on the social impact assessment (SIA) carried out for the proposal, local councillor Michael Briguglio told a court hearing earlier this month that the SIA was not comprehensive and did not attempt to resolve issues contested:

The assessment was not carried out in the summer period, which meant many stakeholders were ignored, and only considered residents in certain streets, leaving out the rest. It lacked analysis of alternatives and there was no genuine attempt to identify and engage with stakeholders.

Disappointingly, the SIA ignored new developments and realities of parking, transport and population increase. The statement that parking impact will be beneficial “cannot be taken seriously,” said Dr Briguglio. (A summary of the SIA shortcomings is featured herewith.)

To take a look at how conversations develop over high-rises in other parts of the world is revealing:

A kilometre-high tower is to be completed in Azerbajan in 2019. In Dubai a government-backed developer plans a 2,400-metre vertical city ‘where the air is crisp and the stars are within your grasp’. These environments all come at a hefty price, of course – the penthouse of Chicago’s 93-storey Vista Tower is going at a cool $18 million (€16m).

The Sky Mile Tower project in Tokyo aims to design a façade that will collect, filter and store water to avoid pumping it to the top floors. Scheduled for completion in 2045, the building is designed to be occupied by around 55,000 people. The tower’s developers are counting on the construction costs to be partly met by the high value of new waterfront properties on Tokyo Bay.

Yet business analysts have pointed to the risk of a megacity choking on heavy traffic, slums and residents barricaded in gated communities: “There’s a lack of outside or communal space, and people can only get together in controlled environments like shopping malls.”

Japan was one of the first cities to see strong public outcry over high-rises. Negative impacts are many but none are so bitterly resented as the blocking of sunlight. Where direct sunlight is blocked, the quality of life in the shaded location is permanently worsened. Under pressure from Japanese citizens, new guidelines were issued on shading. However, these were quickly reversed after a court case was won against the government when a flyover blocked out the sun for some residents.

In Australia, a 560-metre tower planned for Melbourne was cancelled due to disagreements over who would pay for infrastructure improvements.

You would not think of New York as the sort of place where people might protest against skyscrapers. But last November, New Yorkers marched against a rash of skyscrapers and the shadows they would cast over the city’s main green space – Central Park. The campaign, dub­bed “Stand against the Shadows”, saw protestors carrying black umbrellas to symbolise the impact of shading on the park’s popular attractions – carousels, playgrounds, baseball fields and the zoo.

There were calls for a temporary halt on the development of high towers. Protestors urged the city to conduct thorough environmental and infrastructure studies and improve zoning regulations on building heights and setback. City officials were prompted to get more involved in the planning process.

In addition to the long shadows, there are concerns that housing units within the skyscrapers will be left empty. Luxury towers are often purchased as investment properties with no intention of ever being inhabited. Claiming residential space allows developers to go higher, yet there is a chance the finished apartments could remain locked up and unused.

Last January, campaigners in London won the first round of a battle against a 72-storey tower proposed at Paddington Station. The developers are to present new plans which propose a much lower scheme.

Town Square SIA was found lacking on a number of points:

• Assessments on economic, health, social, waste refuse and cumulative impacts;

• Social indicators, community profile, compensation measures, proper mitigation;

• Representative quantitative survey, updated qualitative studies;

• Discourse analysis of policies and alternatives;

• Ongoing assessments;

• Periodic review and reporting back to stakeholders;

• Social investment contribution;

• Transport/traffic/parking plan.

Source: Dr Michael Briguglio, sociologist

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.