There is something smug and repulsive in the way rich people are so dismissive of the effect of their activity on the quality of life of lesser beings. The interview published in The Sunday Times of Malta (August 28) was an example of this.
Andrew Ganado, who is involved in the Townsquare project with the Gasan family, kicked off by telling us that, unlike himself and “top real estate agents”, the masses of law-abiding, hard-working people who are opposing the project are “not really competent” to object.
This includes Sliema residents who have not lived in peace for about 30 years and can only watch helplessly as they see their urban surroundings further threatened. This patronising attitude runs through the entire interview.
At one point Ganado tries to baffle us by waxing philosophical, claiming: “This is an argument about capitalism” and bemoaning “why capitalism is all of a sudden being shot down”. He defends himself by saying “we are delivering a quality project here which is not just for us to make money” and then contradicts himself by adding that “our scope is commercial”. Of course, like other philosophies, capitalism has its dark side – and the sad truth is that this is rearing its head in Malta.
Some of Malta’s prosperity has been achieved at great and irreversible environmental expense by successive governments who seemingly have become incapable of hitting the brakes. Now we have a new administration that is intent on exploiting Malta with redoubled energy with, so far, only one politician who has had the courage to stand up and oppose this insanity.
The word greed has long since entered into the discussion and, yes, capitalism becomes greed when money is made at other peoples’ expense – exactly the case here.
We are eradicating the character of our island. The heritage that made our island attractive is being systematically engulfed or destroyed beyond recognition, with many of the prime areas of Malta now rendered unrecognisable. Like many before it, this capitalistic project will benefit a few at great cost to others.
Of course, as Ganado kindly admits, it is their property and “there is an ultimate commercial gain for us”, but this does not mean they have a divine right to develop it in any way they like at the expense of the quality of life of others. And in spite of his claims, this is not a quality project, it is just another way to make money for a few.
The solution would be to provide a real garden, not a small retail avenue overshadowed by a monstrous out-of-proportion sore thumb of a tower
The choice is not “between up or across”, neither is this “the best option for central Sliema”. There is a reasonable choice of “building ethically, rather than milking a site to its fullest extent and ruining the neighbourhood” as a commentator put it.
Ganado’s claim that “this is one of the few cases in life where both parties can gain” is false. This is a development that the majority don’t want – except, of course, the developers who will benefit. We have a glut of apartments with little or no demand for more. The prices will in any case be way beyond most local house seekers; this market will be for the benefit of rich foreigners.
Ganado indulges in the usual smooth talk, saying that “the concept has always been to have an open space, which Sliema has always needed”. If he really believes this, then the solution would be to provide a real garden, not a small retail avenue overshadowed by a monstrous out-of-proportion sore thumb of a tower that will further compromise the skyline and be visible not only from Valletta but from all over the island.
As to the economic feasibility of this tower, if the tower built by the Montebello brothers is anything to go by, the economic feasibility is questionable. Other than selling some high-rise apartments to passport buyers whose riches are of dubious provenance, these tower projects will create a glut of properties which could harm Malta’s economy. Spain and Ireland went into deep recession from unrestricted development as we are witnessing with this administration. Such frenetic development may adversely affect our tourism product.
The ominous fact that the public was not allowed to see the environment impact assessment feasibility study raises a lot of questions.
Gasan is convinced that a “sleek, narrow building” will have “huge advantages” by allowing “more movement of air”. This might apply to the tycoons living in the upper floors but not to commoners below in the streets.
Our infrastructure, roads, water, electricity and drainage are stretched to their limit. Sliema is already densely populated, terminally traffic-congested and, worse still, heavily polluted and unhealthy. Building such an enormous structure will aggravate the traffic problem. This massive building project in an already congested area will add chaos to an already overloaded urban area, blighting the lives of thousands of people with both noise and dust for years.
Of course, as we have been arrogantly told: there will be less noise if the windows are kept closed. And yes, Mr Ganado, not only was the environment impact assessment a sham, but PA board member Timmy Gambin’s failure to read out environment authority chairman Victor Axiak’s observations on the project during the hearing was a scandal.
Sadly, for the last two to three decades, outsiders have been allowed to milk Sliema for all its worth, to the detriment of its residents. Much of what Ganado said is just proof that Big Business rules in Malta and that the pursuit of wealth takes priority over all else – under a socialist government!