Sliema has been at the forefront of the environmentalist agenda for quite some time now, with many singling it out as the epitome of bad planning, overdevelopment, poor architecture and outright ugliness. The heated debate has now culminated with public outcry over the Planning Authority’s approval of a 38-storey skyscraper.
But people do not usually seem too preoccupied with the general state of towns and cities (with the exception of road quality). To an outsider, the impression is that tall apartment blocks and skyscrapers are the biggest threat to an otherwise exceptional urban environment. Perhaps we have become accustomed to Malta’s dissonant, disorganised and messy urban landscape. Or perhaps we attribute the clutter and chaos to overpopulation and density that is beyond our control.
But many European cities are just as dense and developed as ours. And despite featuring a mix of old and new buildings, including skyscrapers, they are generally easier on the eyes and they are more pleasant, inviting and liveable.
In many ways, Malta is more like Athens. Most of it was built quickly and cheaply, with function and utility taking precedence over aesthetics and planning. The result is a concrete sprawl of cramped and stocky buildings, few public spaces and constant traffic congestion.
But the biggest sin of all is the way we have designed our streets to completely reject the pedestrian and other forms of human life thanks to exceptionally narrow pavements and an absence of trees. Rather bizarrely, our arterial roads and roundabouts are better landscaped than our neighbourhoods.
Sometimes you get the feeling that everything happened by chance and that nobody was in charge. And, perhaps as a direct consequence of this, we take little pride in our neighbourhoods.
Everywhere you look there are signs of neglect: buildings appear unfinished and uncared for, some in an alarming state of disrepair, others on the verge of collapse. Urban clutter in the form of wires, air conditioning units, satellite dishes and gas cylinders spoil the facades.
Streets and squares should be reclaimed from the car and given back to the people
Still, Malta is a marvellous place. But there are many things we can do to make it more attractive and liveable. Being nostalgic about the past solves nothing. New buildings do not have to be ugly, and dense neighbourhoods need not be unpleasant and unliveable.
The first step is doing away with all the clutter. We must bury the chaotic mess of cables and wires, as we have already done in Valletta and Mdina. Air conditioning units, gas cylinders and other services should, where possible, be tucked away out of sight. Gaudy billboards and other fixed promotional signage should be eliminated.
Public ‘concessions’, like kiosks and other structures as well as tables and chairs on beaches, promenades, and other public spaces, should be reduced to prioritise free public access.
Instead of pushing the pedestrian towards promenades, gardens and parks on the periphery of towns, efforts should be made to repurpose streets and squares, reclaiming them from the car and giving them back to the people. To this aim, widening pavements, planting trees and pedestrianising squares should be high on the agenda.
The construction industry must keep its greedy hands off untouched countryside and shift its focus to restoring historical buildings, updating dingy ones and filling up the urban gaps within already built-up areas.
Transportation needs cannot be ignored, either. Dense towns and cities must be served by efficient mass transportation, like a metro or monorail system. Improving road infrastructure and modernising the bus service is important and essential but these measures on their own will not be able to handle the increased stress caused by population growth and mass tourism.
As for the 38-storey skyscraper, developers tell us the choice is between two buildings of equal density that would generate similar adverse effects. One is a slender building that creates a large, usable and inviting public space at street level; the other is a bulky and cramped block inaccessible to the public. Whatever they say, the height is excessive and sticks out like a sore thumb among the cluster of mid-rise buildings. My preference is for reducing the skyscraper’s height, retaining the planned public space that Sliema badly needs and obliging the developers to contribute to the upgrading of surrounding infrastructure.
The option of not building anything at all is wishful thinking. Malta’s population continues to grow and tourism numbers are soaring. This year, we will surpass the two million mark in tourism arrivals for the first time in history. The construction industry is merely responding to these trends as is everyone else.
Things are changing fast, and Malta is bursting at its seams. These new urban pressures are challenges that need to be tackled rather than threats to be eliminated.
A national master plan for skyscrapers is a step in the right direction. But what this country really needs is a comprehensive, holistic and long-term urban planning policy – tackling everything from building aesthetics to mass transportation – to respond to the phenomenal trends in immigration and tourism.
We simply cannot leave everything to chance anymore.
Andrew Saliba is a lawyer by profession with an interest in communities, transportation and urban planning.