Townsquare is a Gasan family project started by Joseph Gasan Senior in 1956. Andrew Ganado, a Townsquare Sliema Ltd director, is the nephew of Joe A. Gasan, whose family owns the land, and has been involved in the project for decades. His side of the family has a major share in the company. In the first interview given by the family about the project, he tells Vanessa Macdonald that reactions should be guided by facts, not misinformation.

In 2002, Townsquare sounded so idyllic that even AD approved of it. What happened?

We have had many different designs but the concept has always been to have an open space, which Sliema has always needed, not only for the public but also to host exhibitions, for shopping, for recitals.

What has changed slightly, reflecting the policy of the time, was the exact height of the tower. We are now going for the ‘up’ concept, rather than going across, and we are now proposing the lowest number of units yet: just 159.

Applying the floor-to-area ratio, we are building 3,000 square metres less than we are entitled to.

If we build 26 blocks each nine floors high – which is what we could have done without all the extra assessments, monitoring, procedures and guarantees – there would have been considerably more than 159 families, so it would have been much more dense and there would have been much less open space.

Maybe we were not clear enough in conveying this. This is not a choice between going up or nothing; it is a choice between up or across.

We believe that this is the best option for central Sliema, creating 7,300 square metres of pedestrianised open space, approximately the equivalent of Independence Gardens in Sliema, available 24x7 to the public.

The retail design has not changed much over the years; we will locate our retail close to the existing retail: we are not trying to create a new shopping area in Sliema but to create synergies with what there is.

Residential and retail will not mix: traffic for the retail side will have access via Qui-Si-Sana Seafront, nowhere near Hughes Hallet Street or Tigné Street. And the residential access will be through Hughes Hallet Street.

We are very aware of the impact that this pro­ject will have but we feel the fact we are enhancing quality should have a beneficial effect.

What is the economic feasibility of this tower? You changed your minds about this project several times since you submitted the application in 2005, from 32 storeys to 23, back up to 32 and now up to 38. Why is it so hard to decide what you want?

We have not changed our minds and the height was nothing to do with economic feasibility. We always reacted to planning policies of the time. The concept was always to have open space for retail and leisure, some offices, and a tower for residential.

If the market changes so much, then what guarantee do you have that demand will not fall and you will end up with a white elephant?

Unfortunately, people who are commenting are not really competent in this field. Top real estate agents, if asked whether this might be a white elephant, would reply ‘Absolutely not!’

This is not a choice between going up or nothing; it is a choice between up or across

We have had independent analysts to challenge our own studies, to assess other similar properties and the rates per square metre. Our feasibility studies are built on conservative numbers and the returns are clearly very good.

Let us keep in mind that we own the site whereas a normal investor would have to fork out millions to buy a similar site and then pay for construction and finishing. We are starting from a substantial advantage.

We have also done this before and have delivered projects to specification. We are long-term investors and our projects are commercially viable.

You say real estate agents reassure you that there is demand. Martin Scicluna, in his opinion piece last week, argued that “high rises are an answer to a problem that simply does not exist”. Is there really enough demand to justify the development given the other high-rises planned, one of which is adjacent to yours on the same peninsula? Being first won’t guarantee that yours will succeed over others…

I cannot comment on the other developments, as I am not aware of their feasibility studies. Ours is constantly updated to reflect the times we are in.

We already have a list of buyers who approached us a year or two ago, wishing to buy two or three levels at a time. Clearly, we do not have the arrogance to consider a sale before we had a permit.

And we also have people interested to invest in the project, although we prefer to keep this as a family project as we want to ensure the quality and make sure the areas are maintained as we see this as a long-term project.

The two options for the development of the land: the developers chose the one on the left.The two options for the development of the land: the developers chose the one on the left.

You are clearly going to make money off this project. Martin Scicluna accused the developers of being the “unacceptable face of capitalism” because of their “unyielding pursuit of profits even when they will harm so many”. Tom Lippiett in a Talking Point on the previous Friday asked why you had to have 38 storeys, and suggested that 20 would be much more acceptable. Why don’t you take his advice? Wouldn’t you make enough money out of 20 storeys?

We will not be harming anybody. From a profitability point of view, two 20-storey towers or one 38-storey tower does not really change much. We are convinced that a sleek, narrow building will have huge advantages, apart from being more attractive. It allows more movement of air.

This is an argument about capitalism. We are delivering a quality project here which is not just for us to make money. Our scope is commercial; we are not trying to hide that. But I don’t see why capitalism is all of a sudden being shot down. I would like to understand who we are harming… There will be some disturbance like most projects; we will do our best to minimise it.

There are enough objectors trying to stop the project for you to know who you are harming…

We need to discuss the concerns. Many of them are valid but there is a lot of misinformation or lack of clarity.

Even the Archbishop seems to think that this is a vanity project, calling it one of a number of “temples to Priapus”. At the risk of sounding sexist, is it a male ego thing?

(Laughs). The Archbishop, like everyone else in Malta, has the right to his opinion. We need to address many of the concerns. First of all, the public needs to understand that this site was always destined for development.

My grandfather signed the deed in 1956 knowing that it would have a tenant (the Union Club) until the year 2000 – knowing that he would not be around to see it. Although we were not obliged to do so, we reached an amicable solution with the club, giving them part of the land and building new premises for them. This freed up the rest of the plot and we demolished the Union Club.

The residents are not as concerned by the height of the building, and we have received correspondence about this from them.

We plan to open a line of communication with the residents where they can voice their concerns.

Rather late, don’t you think?

How could we do this before we had the permit? Although we communicated with them in 2005: we even moved the tower further from Hughes Hallet Street to accommodate the residents.

Some are reasonable and make requests that we can try to accommodate, but some others are not. Let me say again that it was always clear that this site was destined for development, which they knew when they bought their flats.

This does not mean we do not care for the resi­dents. Far from it. We will build it with all the standards and conditions imposed by the Planning Authority and we will try to minimise the disturbance, making it as quick as possible.

Building a tower will be much quicker than building 26 blocks of apartments.

The development will take 10 months for the excavation and 54 months for the construction – but your consultant’s solution was for residents to keep their windows closed. Doesn’t that strike you as incredibly patronising and insensitive?

We did not say that. The consultants wrote that in their report but it has been taken out of context. They said that clearly there would be less noise if the windows were closed but they did not say it was a mitigation measure, or that this was all that would be done.

Building a tower will be much quicker than building 26 blocks of apartments

We have all lived next to building sites and we have all had to be patient during the construction phase.

Clearly, it is up to the developer to do the best he can to minimise the inconvenience. During excavation, we will not start at the break of dawn. We will be wetting the surfaces and will be cleaning the trucks as they exit (and they will only exit on Qui-Si-Sana Seafront). We will have no cranes on government roads: they are all within the site.

At the PA hearing, only a handful of residents voiced their opinion. One said that whilst she was not opposed to the project, she expressed concern over the construction phase, while another said she was happy to be able to look over landscaped space rather than a derelict site, but also raised concerns about the works phase.

Residents voice their concerns over the Townsquare project.Residents voice their concerns over the Townsquare project.

Clearly, any contractor would have to make good for any damage at his own expense and there will be insurance in place to cover this.

A lot of the emotional reaction – which is understandable as this is where people live – is defused once the correct facts are available.

Why will it take so long – and who will build it? Do we have any of the necessary equipment and expertise in Malta?

We will go down four floors; it takes time in Malta because we are excavating rock, not clay, – and we are taking a number of mitigation measures. And because we are cleaning each truck as it leaves the site, it will take time. There are studies under way at the moment and if we decide to use steel rather than concrete, construction will be faster.

Our architect Martin Xuereb was involved in the construction of the Bab Africa in Tripoli 15 years ago. He actually took Maltese workmen there to build it. If he can build a 100m tower in Libya – just a little shorter than Townsquare will be – and on sand, I am sure that he is more than capable of building this tower!

The 2007 resubmission said 50 per cent of the site would be large open spaces. How much of the plot is now going to be ‘public area’ and what exactly constitutes public area?

It is now 62 per cent. It will be open – not gated, not closed off – to the public 24/7 and we will maintain it and ensure that it is pretty and safe, that there is shade. Yes, there is an ultimate commercial gain for us but this is one of the few cases in life where both parties can gain.

It also means the neighbours will look out over landscaped areas behind them, instead of the blank side of a nine-storey wall – something which many of them have not fully appreciated.

The tower is set 26 metres away – three times the width of Hughes Hallet Street. This is a major gain for the neighbours… and far better than the other option.

Townsquare will cost €110 million. How will it be financed? Banks normally protect developers from their own enthusiasm but with a bond or – even more dangerously – with pre-sales, where is the voice of common sense?

We have already put in millions in equity for the land, which means the strain will be much lower than for many other projects. We have various options for funding, including banks, bonds and pre-sales.

A study projects that Townsquare would add 4,430 vehicles in daily traffic in Qui-Si-Sana. Sliema councillor Paul Radmilli argues that the traffic estimates for 2015 were done in 2005. There wasn’t even the Tigné tunnel in those days…

The 2005 studies were all updated. There will be an increase of three cars per minute. People argue that this is not possible, but I can assure you that we have very detailed professional studies.

Traffic is an important concern. But we are putting in a junction at our cost, at the top of Qui-Si-Sana and the end of Għar id-Dud, which has been approved by Transport Malta, which means that there will be zero additional delays as a result of this project.

You are providing 748 parking spaces for nearly 160 apartments, dozens of offices and dozens of retail outlets.

Studies used a dynamic parking model. We will have 128 extra parking spaces, once the allocation for residents and users are taken up. These will be left available for the public. Hence, more parking, not less.

Is it any wonder that people are suspicious though? According to Mr Radmilli, the case officer changed her calculations at the last moment – conveniently in your favour – to show you had more than you needed. Is this at all credible?

These are the things that need to be clarified as they are not based on facts. They have caused a lot of unnecessary concern. They mislead people. For example, there were claims that the green transport plan was not done ­– but that is not true. Of course it was done. It was available at the PA and was discussed at length.

The Water Services Corporation did not give feedback to the EIA and no one can say whether the drainage system – last upgraded in the 1990s – will be able to cope.

There is a waste management plan and it will cope. We have had confirmation from the sanitary authorities of this. We will have 46 per cent less effluent than if we were to have a traditional development, due to recycling and other measures.

The list of misinformation is endless. We have also been accused of building something that will cast shadows across the peninsula. We will not cast any new shadow across any street, promenade or beach. This is fact. There are already 10 storey buildings all around our property.

If we could go back and rebuild parts of Sliema, replacing narrow, dark roads with high blocks of flats and change to some towers with wide open spaces around, it would be a better environment.

The impact assessment carried out in 2007 was described by sociologist Michael Briguglio – also a Sliema council member – as “an undergraduate thesis”, while ERA chairman Victor Axiak called the environment impact assessment “a sham”.

They should also base things on facts. Are you sure Mr Axiak called it a sham? It would be very odd. After all, our environmental impact assessments were certified by the Environmental Protection Department, which is now the Environmental and Resources Authority (ERA); very detailed and comprehensive, covering all aspects, from air pollution, to traffic, parking…

Our project is 100 per cent according to policy, which was drawn up in 2006 under the previous administration and unanimously approved even during this administration. This is not a political issue. Let us try to be objective. With time, people will look back and say that this is a good project that added quality and value to the neighbouring shops and residences.

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.