John Vassallo, former Ambassador of Malta to the EU, president of the Malta Business Bureau, member of the Council of Europa Nostra and strategic adviser to the Microsoft Corporation speaks out about striking a balance between economic growth and environmental protection.

Should a particular development or an area to be developed only be accepted and permitted if it is economically feasible for the owner of the land or the developer thereof, or should other con­sidera­tions be calculated and given a cost or value?

In my opinion, the local natural and built-up environment has a far superior economic, social and cultural value than any haphazard development.

I speak of ‘haphazard development’ as a style opposed to controlled or planned development.

Malta has had different con­struction- or reconstruction-led periods of development, the first being the different periods of construction from the Iron Age down to the end of Malta’s occupation by the Knights.

John Vassallo

These were periods of a miniscule local population, where construction was small-scale, built for a purpose and controlled by the ruling powers. Despite the fact that structures like the Three Cities, Valletta, Mdina and the Citadel, as well as the prehistoric temples all tower on hilltops, thus spoiling the natural environment, they have melded with the natural colours and shapes. Using local stone, low heights and squarish shapes, they served their purpose to offer secure protective areas for the small population of the time, but were also built with beauty that has lasted throughout the ages. They now serve as a basis for one of the major pillars of our modern economy – tourism.

The same applies to the numerous village and city churches that brought artists and artisans to our islands and gave us the town and village way of life – with circular expansions of low housing crowd­ing around the dominant church structure. Humans could relate to each other, living close to family, friends and whatever linked them together – the bar, the banda, the church, the ladies’ circles and the school. This is the Maltese way of life.

The second period, also one of planned construction, was that of the ensuing 100 years after the Knights – the British occupation. During this period, our population exploded with growth generated by the war economies. Construction was geared towards defence, military installations, airfields and barracks, but also towards new urban areas such as Sliema and Paola, and the expansion of towns like Birkirkara and Ħamrun.

Once again there was control by the authorities, and the terraced houses of the new towns had gardens, regular blocks with good roads and sanitation, but always with local materials and limited heights. Spectacular developments along these lines graced Sliema Seafront, with over 200 jewels of period houses. It would have compared with the best that coastal cities in France and Italy can offer. Quel dommage!

The destruction of the Sliema Seafront is a sin of this generation that our descendants will never forgive us for

During this period, Malta’s environment was damaged by overdevelopment, and the sprawl of the growing towns, military installations and barracks in many prominent areas like Mtarfa, St Andrews and Tigné did not improve Malta. However, the height and the building materials remained true to the local colour and texture. Some of these structures could later be reconstructed or restored to be used for other purposes.

What characterised this period, which started to come to an end with the early post-war boom and growth (both in population and wealth), was the control by the ruling authority of the time. It also coincided with the beginning of periods of self-government, and later, Independence.

This is when Malta’s ‘hapha­zard development’ began, and has continued since.

It may be a coincidence, but it may also be the result of this taking over of control of our destiny by us, the Maltese. Governing ourselves seems, to me, to be the cause of the break of harmony between the environment and development. Unlike our many overseas rulers, we do not seem to have any sense of vision and purpose, except that of economic development.

Of course, the economy is and will always remain the main driver, but without a long-term vision and clear definition of what we, the Maltese population, want our island to look like now, in 10, 20, 40 or even 100 years’ time, we will continue to live haphazardly.

Many very good and sustainable constructions have taken shape in these past 80 odd years, and many more will see the light of day. Yet there has never been a long-term plan. Whenever a plan is launch­ed, it only lasts one legislature at most. Very soon, exceptions begin to be made, exemptions given, and permits granted or negotiated.

Once permits are given, the Maltese nature is to cheat a little, add a little, and encroach a little.

We are unable or unwilling to restrain ourselves and follow the rules. Even when we do follow the rules, our politicians are tempted to change these rules. Our developers and every owner of a house, plot, field or whatever, dream of translating this into a bigger structure.

The destruction of the Sliema Seafront – a pearl of the Mediterranean – to replace it with terrible buildings that are too high and lacking style or collective order is a sin of this generation that our descendants will never forgive us for.

The Maltese were once des­cribed to me as being a people endowed with excessive ‘criminal energy’.

Looking critically at ourselves, this description fits very well in the area of conflict or contradiction between the environment and the classical way of life of the Maltese, and the development by the construction industry of Malta in these past 80 years.

The terrible growth of all towns has led to one urban sprawl from Żabbar to Paola, to Marsa, Żebbuġ, Qormi, Bir­kirkara, Mosta, Naxxar, San Ġwann, Sliema, Ġzira, Msida, Pietà and Valletta, with ugly blocks of pigeonhole flats with terrible shafts and long dark corridors. Older houses lie derelict by the thousands, awaiting destruction to turn them from swans to ugly ducklings.

(Part 2 of this article will be published next week).