Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but when a white room went up on a row of townhouses in Sliema it caused a furore.

There was something about the construction in Rudolph Street that had bad design written all over it even though a similar development built years ago in the adjacent Tonna Street seemed to have gone unnoticed.

The controversy sparked calls for the planning authority to start asking for photomontages of proposed development before approving permits.

But for some in the architectural community the controversy served as a backdrop for a debate on whether a defunct Aesthetics Board should be revived.

In the days before the planning authority, building permits had to go through a three-stage process of approval that included the Planning Area Permits Board, the Public Health Department and the Aesthetics Board.

Veteran architect Andrè Zammit says the three functions were absorbed within the planning authority when this was born in 1992.

Non-committal on whether the Aesthetics Board should be revived, Mr Zammit notes that among “the hundreds of policies” of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority there should be those that give due consideration to aesthetics.

“But it also depends on the applicants as well, who should be more sensitive to these issues,” Mr Zammit adds.

His is a very diplomatic way of putting the onus on architects to deliver beauty along with function but for another veteran, Richard England, the choice is clear and the Aesthetics Board should be revived.

Prof. England believes that with the myriad of rules and regulations that architects have to deal with when submitting applications to Mepa the focus is not on good design.

Architects have become lawyers, he insists, but the biggest problem is Mepa’s lack of regard to the relationship between a project and its surroundings.

“Any good architect will take note of the context within which a development occurs and then he can be bold or gentile,” Prof. England says, adding architects have to be the designers of the future and defenders of the past.

The frustration with the legalistic Mepa approach is also felt by top architect Ray Demicoli.

“Today, board decisions are very much based on policy considerations... If it conforms to policy then it is OK but we have to give aesthetics more value when considering applications,” Mr Demicoli says.

He says cases like the Sliema one raises awareness on the importance of having good aesthetics in the urban environment but is cautious on the creation of an Aesthetics Board.

Mr Demicoli believes it is better for architects to have more design freedom. “What we need is to improve the quality of the buildings and aesthetics are an important aspect.”

Many towns and villages have been ruined because successive governments have allowed basic rules... to be broken with impunity

His is a call for self-regulation but the Chamber of Architects is proposing a half-way solution with the setting up of a Design Review Commission based on the UK experience.

Chamber president Stephen Farrugia says submitting plans to the commission will be entirely on a voluntary basis and will be independent of the formal planning process.

“The commission’s discussion on design will in no way undermine or substitute the Mepa process but it can guide planning decisions,” Mr Farrugia says.

The process will help focus the discussion on design issues outside the “technical and emotional” planning process, he adds.

Mr Farrugia believes the commission can help architects improve their design but acknowledges that professional snobbery or reluctance to reveal designs could be problematic.

“It is an experiment but the UK experience shows that the opposite is true and architects will be willing to submit their designs for review,” he says.

The Government has warmed up to the idea and talks are under way with the chamber to set up the commission. Mr Farrugia feels that one way in which architects can be encouraged to participate is if the Government leads by example.

“The Administration has shown it is keen to submit designs for public projects to the commission’s scrutiny,” he says.

Whether the commission will eventually help improve aesthetics still has to be seen but the crux of the argument remains: what is beautiful?

Philosopher Joe Friggieri, who teaches aesthetics at the University of Malta, insists there are basic principles of form and function that go beyond the subjective.

“There are basic mathematical ratios that have to be respected for any structure to blend with its surroundings. Otherwise, it becomes an eyesore,” Prof. Friggieri says.

The width of the street and the height of the adjacent buildings should also form part of the overall aesthetic judgement where architecture is concerned, he adds.

“Many towns and villages have been ruined because successive governments have allowed basic rules concerning size, proportion and the relation between built and unbuilt spaces to be broken with impunity,” he says.

The onus is on Mepa, he adds, to consider issues such as materials used, colour and the rhythm of apertures before granting building permits.

“All these elements contribute to the creation of a peaceful, harmonious environment conducive to a healthy lifestyle and friendly human relations.”

Whether everyone will agree with Prof. Friggieri’s assessment is another matter altogether but it seems that, by his aesthetic benchmark and that of many others, the Sliema room has failed to convince.

ksansone@timesofmalta.com