High-rise buildings can have a damaging impact on the environment and are too costly to maintain, says Astrid Vella, Coordinator of Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar.
There is no doubt that the Malta Environment and Planning Authority’s revised high-rise regulations are a significant improvement on those of 2005, when an open-ended policy that changes the whole urban landscape was slipped in and foisted on an unsuspecting public, under the guise of routine guidelines.
The new regulations include far more stringent conditions. High-rise projects can no longer be located all over Malta but must be clustered in specific areas: St Julian’s, Sliema, Msida, Gzira, Pieta, the urban areas of St Paul’s Bay, Bugibba and Qawra and parts of Marsa and Marsascala, excluding their urban conservation areas. Xemxija is specifically excluded. Similarly, new tall buildings should be located in areas where commitments for tall buildings already exist, therefore excluding village cores.
Applications for high-rise buildings are to be limited to sites which occupy a completely detached urban block surrounded by existing streets and all new tall buildings must be of high quality design, to make a positive contribution to the urban form and skyline. However this clause is extremely subjective. If MEPA was not capable of upholding the empirical ban on tall buildings on Xemxija ridge, will it be able to regulate a subject as open to interpretation as taste as good design?
The new regulations stipulate that tall buildings must be integrated into the public realm, be responsive to environmental conditions and embrace principles of sustainability. However, how genuinely green are high-rise buildings and does their dense stacking of humans really outweigh their damaging impacts?
“Many tower blocks abroad have fallen into a very poor state of repair because their owners cannot afford their upkeep”
The higher a building rises, the greater the shadow it casts on the buildings around it. A high-rise building will cast a shadow over a huge area of a city, depriving surrounding homes of sunlight, air and sea breezes and obliging residents to use artificial lighting all day, while depriving them of their rights to renewable solar energy.
Non-traditional building materials like glass and steel structures absorb and retain heat and depend on energy-consuming air conditioning. The hot air expelled by the high-rise air conditioners, along with the sun’s rays deflected off the building to the streets below, create a heat island effect, raising the temperature in the surrounding streets by as much as three degrees Celsius and in turn causing neighbouring buildings to resort to air conditioning, further raising energy consumption.
The higher the building, the higher the wind speeds around it, the more difficult to keep the wind out, and the more the wind pressure on the envelope sucks heat from the structure.
This results in higher energy consumption and heating costs and gives high-rise buildings a disproportionately high carbon emitter status.
One of the worst climatic impacts associated with high-rise buildings results from wind. The increasing height of a building causes wind speed to increase the higher it is off the ground, increasing the speed of the wind between the top and the base of the building. In Malta’s windswept coastal areas, these strong down-winds are already being experienced in streets flanking high-rise buildings, creating difficulties for those with mobility problems. Due to the lack of mass transit systems, as found in cities abroad, tall buildings in Malta will generate increased traffic and air pollution. World Health Organisation studies have proven that air pollution is not only known to increase risks for a wide range of diseases, such as respiratory and heart diseases, but is also a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths. Tall buildings flanking Malta’s narrow streets will inevitably obstruct the dispersal of vehicle emissions and have a negative impact on public health.
A few years ago, MEPA commissioned Chicago-based expert Dr Mir Ali to carry out a study on the viability of high-rise buildings in Malta. Following extensive research, the study 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.”
The study emphasises that sites have to be selected in terms of availability of services; as in addition to an inadequate electricity, water, sewage and road infrastructure, Malta lacks an efficient public transport system essential to successful high-rise projects.
Dr Ali emphasised the point that the average Maltese buyer is not prepared for the high maintenance costs and relatively short life of tall buildings, so defaulting on maintenance costs leads to the gradual neglect of such blocks. The higher the building, the more it costs to build and operate, and the more costly and difficult it is to maintain. Traditional Maltese stone buildings are expected to last from 100 to 200 years – however, according to Sue Roaf, Professor of Architectural Engineering at Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, the lifespan of brick and glass tall buildings is from 50 to 80 years, while glass-clad buildings in exposed climatic conditions are known to develop maintenance problems after just 20 years.
The primary increase in build costs results from the increased structure and construction required to support the building, to earthquake-, fire- and weather-proof it, and the increased systems needed to operate it, including lifts, water pumping and electrical systems which all push up the prices for such properties.
In addition, the higher the building, the more it costs to run and the greater the annual maintenance costs to keep it clean, repaired and safe. The failure of a single building element can be catastrophic. Many tower blocks abroad have fallen into a very poor state of repair because their owners cannot afford their upkeep. The historical reality has proved that it is often cheaper to demolish tower blocks than repair them – however, as Dr Ali pointed out, this is also a problem in Malta, as the sale of flats to individual owners makes demolition a more contentious issue than abroad where such blocks are usually retained for rental by one owner.
As regards use, tall buildings have a valid role in replacing dilapidated buildings and regenerating depressed neighbourhoods as well as in creating modern office space to attract foreign businesses, a fact that MEPA officials frequently quote to justify this new policy.
However it is irresponsible to encourage the construction of more office high-rise space when no studies have been carried out to assess whether the demand will absorb projects already in hand including MIDI, Townsquare, Metropolis, A4 Towers and Mistra Heights, let alone new ones. Increasing the glut could undermine Smart City which has been specifically designed to provide modern office space, but is still largely unoccupied. When pressed, MEPA officials have admitted that demand from foreign commercial investors has yet to materialise.
Dr Ali stressed that Malta’s property demand does not justify a construction boom: “Both commercial and residential high-rises are not justifiable from a strict economic point of view. Some developers are proposing speculative projects in locations of their choice to make quick money by selling to others despite the high degree of vacancy rates in existing dwelling units at present.”
The Chamber of Planners commented that: “Given Malta’s high vacancy rates, an increase in housing supply is not a justification for tall buildings which are being promoted for speculative reasons. Tall buildings are expensive to maintain and the more residents in one block, the more disagreement is likely.”
The Chamber of Architects’ response was also mixed: “The current policy on tall buildings simply reacts to the frenzy of demand for tall buildings over the past five to eight years. But does it reflect what the country seeks to achieve? …Formulas that work abroad may not apply to Malta.”
It is felt that rather than heralding progress, this high-rise policy is simply the latest manifestation of outdated policies. Maltese governments have always promoted development in order to bolster the economy, but what worked in the 1960s and 1970s is no longer valid today. Policies that are patently unsustainable and have a negative impact on public health, the economy and environment have no place in a country that aspires to take its place alongside the forward-thinking countries of the EU.
