For years, we have been told it is better for the community if we construct tall buildings rather than in the traditional style. However it is becoming increasingly evident that this is far from the truth.

Myth 1: the mantra that our politicians love to repeat is “Better up than out” into the countryside. But such reasoning is totally flawed, as one building type cannot simply be swapped for another. Those seeking to build a tool room/bungalow/farmhouse/weekend getaway in the countryside will not opt for a high-rise apartment. The proof of this is that, in spite of the many applications for tall buildings being processed by the Planning Authority, the number of out of development zone applications is at an all-time high.

Myth 2: according to the FAR (tall buildings) regulations, developers are obliged to leave public open space around their buildings for the public to enjoy.

However, open space that developers indicate in the approved plans gradually gets encroached upon by satellite buildings.

The Portomaso development has closed off the public walkway by the yacht marina and even extended its private beach resort onto the public beach, a sacrosanct public open space. Other open spaces are designed to boost the patronage of commercial centres and not to attract the public.

The Point piazza is increasingly encroached upon by cafes and restaurants, while the six broomstick trees do nothing to relieve the unrelenting ‘concreteness’ of the area.

Neighbouring Fort Cambridge offers the public an off-putting canyon thrown into deep shade by its flanking tall buildings.

No wonder no members of the public are ever seen enjoying this space, as it offers nothing to enjoy. Furthermore, Planning Authority regulations stipulate that the public open space is to be located at street level or not more than 1.5 metres above.

And yet, the same Planning Authority granted a permit to the Metropolis public open space three floors above street level.

Tall buildings will simply add to the congestion, not relieve it

The FAR regulations also stipulate that each site has to open onto streets on every side, yet Townsquare is a wholly internal development, hemmed in by residences on every side.

Myth 3: tall buildings reduce urban congestion.

Again, tall buildings do not replace traditional buildings, as they do not provide accommodation that average Maltese residents can afford. The €200,000 purchase price for an average 2/3 bedroom apartment rises to €350-450,000 in a tall building due to the costs of extra foundations, project management, surveyors, supervisors, specialist engineering designs, higher quality materials, higher and speedier lifts, centralised services like air conditioning and sprinkler systems, garbage collection areas, extra stairwells for fire-fighting/security and added costs for bigger/higher cranes, concrete pumps and service lifts during construction works.

Similarly, the costs of maintaining a skyscraper rise exponentially the higher the building, given the dependence on lifts, difficulty and risks of working at that height and also the fact that materials wear out or corrode at a faster rate at higher levels due to exposure to sun and wind.

Since few Maltese residents can afford luxury properties, we still need to build traditional blocks of flats within development areas. Therefore, tall buildings will simply add to the congestion, not relieve it.

Myth 4: it has been said for years that the Maltese economy needs modern office facilities, however Mepa stated that the demand will be satisfied by the projects that have already been granted permits.

There has been virtually no take-up of SmartCity and no proof these new towers will be occupied and not end as vertical corpses like the Addolorata A3 Towers.

Few companies would consider setting up in Paceville-St George’s. The limited demand is confirmed by the banks’ reluctance to finance these projects, especially retail and office space.

With 22 projects in the pipeline, will speculators be funding them through bonds, (junk bonds) or more dubious sources of funding?

Myth 5: contrary to their early image of being better environmentally, tall buildings have been found to consume energy disproportionately. Because they are far more exposed to sun and wind, they depend far more on cooling and heating, while water must be pumped high up and lifts are in constant use.

The 50- to 80-year lifespanof tall buildings, after which maintenance becomes too expensive to be viable, also reflects poor sustainability.

Tall buildings in Malta do not provide the required parking spaces. The Mrieħel towers are predicted to draw 2,900 users, but the Planning Authority is only imposing the minimum parking standard of 1,000 spaces.

Traditional buildings provide the same number of car spaces but offer far more on-street slots that do not exist with tall buildings. Therefore, the 2,000 extra cars looking for parking will increase the rate of air pollution in residential areas in Attard, Balzan Birkirkara and Santa Venera, where parking is alreadya problem.

Finally, tall buildings deprive surrounding residents of light, air and solar rights, as well as undermining tourism by ruining heritage vistas like the view of Mdina.

Do tall buildings offer any benefits at all to the community, or is the only benefit the one going to speculators’ bank accounts?

On Thursday, the first two skyscraper applications will be processed at the Planning Authority without the legally required and updated studies on social impact, transport and financial viability.

Will the PA do the right thing and demand the studies, as it claimed in court? It remains to be seen.

Astrid Vella is coordinator of Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar.

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.