Yet again, a Maltese Government has reached into the dirty tricks bag to launch an unsustainable policy at a time when the public is distracted by an election, with no second public consultation to assess changes to the original draft.
In approving the high-rise buildings in Malta, Government has ignored the advice of its own consultant. Brought over from Chicago to study the local context Dr. Ali concluded that “both commercial and residential high-rises are not justifiable from a strict economic point of view… developers are proposing speculative projects to make quick money despite the high degree of vacancy rates in existing dwelling units at present.“
MEPA itself admits “ill-designed tall buildings can erode local character … historic areas, and can create problems at street level affecting vitality and amenity and the microclimate. They can create transportation bottlenecks, especially in intensive commercial development, and social problems in high density, low-cost residential schemes. They also present challenges in evacuation and fire-fighting situations. Tall buildings are very expensive to construct and maintain…inability to adapt to different uses can turn them into costly, disappointing experiments.”
Thus the FAR policy had been suspended and the SPED (Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development 2012) Objectives stated “While tall buildings may increase the efficiency of land use if they are actually occupied and may contribute marginally to the provision of open space, their impact on the Maltese landscape is becoming a matter of concern”. Yet now this policy has been legislated without any studies that prove its necessity or suitability to Malta.
Although the tall buildings policy stipulates that studies should be carried out to “consider the effects on the microclimate, to reduce overshadowing, diversion of high-speed winds to ground level, heat islands and glare” how will the studies be assessed since MEPA does not yet have a unit qualified to assess tall building design?
The policy stipulates that tall buildings must be of high quality, this is subjective, and often based on artists’ impressions or photomontages which can be manipulated. The policy does not mention controls to ensure that guidelines are fulfilled, nor scientific methods to assess the applications. MEPA simply passes the buck, saying that standards are “the responsibility of the professionals entrusted with their preparation.”
Similarly, stating that tall buildings are to be positioned ‘away’ from Urban Conservation Areas means nothing in Malta’s small towns and villages. Tigne, designated for tall buildings, is within the buffer zone of Valletta and a significant change in character will severely affect Valletta – threatening the city’s World Heritage status.
Additionally it is felt that no real assessment of impact to vistas and availability of water, electricity and drains infrastructure have been carried out in identifying proposed tall building locations.
High-rise buildings cast shadows over a huge area of a city, affecting the light, warmth and solar rights of the shadowed buildings. Buildings close to the high-rise are shadowed for most of the year
The international Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat in conjunction with UNESCO’s Sustainability Chair has just issued a document pointing to the worrying lack of expertise in certain aspects of tall building technology. This includes wind engineering and design to ensure both safety and serviceability, evacuation strategies, fire-fighting shafts, fire mains and “research on the life-cycle cost analysis of tall buildings” If this is missing abroad, there is a far greater lack of expertise locally, where the Authorities have failed to study an issue as basic as the impact that living in tall buildings has on families with children, elderly and disabled people.
Increased structural requirements to support tall buildings, to make them earthquake-, fire-and weather-proof and operate lifts, escalators, water pumping and electrical systems means that such residences or offices are costlier. The higher the building, the more it costs to run because of the increased use of lifts plus heating and cooling costs, being more exposed to sun and wind. Maltese residents are not accustomed to the higher maintenance costs of tall buildings, which often leads to defaulting on payments and neglect of buildings.
While it is a common Maltese misconception that the choice of building type is the prerogative and risk of the developer, the location, type and quality of development needs to reflect public needs, as an unsuitable speculative project often leads to unfinished properties which ruin our townscapes and weigh heavily on our economy.
Other than the obvious financial benefits for developers, will tall buildings provide any benefits to the built environment? Given that their potential negative impacts are universally known, is MEPA capable of ensuring that these are mitigated, and that our tall buildings are of the highest quality design and construction possible? Given the high rate of vacant property, should government not be providing incentives for developers and investors to focus on work that is genuinely required, like redevelopment, retrofitting, restoration and manufacturing?
Dr Ali concluded that ”MEPA should proceed slowly and take more time. Lack of a master plan results in uncontrolled development and unpredictable impacts on urban life. Future tall building developments should not be considered without further planning and study of existing projects”. Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar maintains that in its haste to please the development sector, Government has rushed irresponsibly into a policy that will permanently affect not only Malta’s landscapes but also our health and way of life.
