The sky’s the limit

Libyan entrepreneur Jalal Husni Bey has suggested that scepticism towards high-rise buildings stems mainly from fear of the unknown.

“High rise projects usually scare a lot of people because they would not be used to it,” he said. “However, we have to recognise that they are a must and every country should have a designated area for high rise buildings.”

From the outset, one must acknowledge that there are certain economic arguments in favour of high-rise. Malta is currently marketing itself as a financial centre: it attracts a large number of gaming companies. Moreover, high rise developments tend to provide a concentration of services for those who live and work in them. For example, tower blocks may create clusters which include child care centres, food stalls, gyms, malls and open air plazas. 

High rise buildings may even be architectural statements in their own right. Through LEED certification, tall buildings can also be designed in a way which maximizes energy efficiency. 

Yet this comes at an opportunity cost. Is it wise, for example, to risk ruining our tourist brand… so much of which is tied to our historical landscape? Do tourists come to Malta to visit a small-size version of a European metropolis, or a unique Mediterranean historical hub? Can a country achieve aspects of both characteristics, or does one automatically exclude the other?

Elsewhere there are other objections to high-rise in Malta which are not based (as Bey suggests) on irrational fears alone. Malta is a small country with its own characteristic landscape; its sense of identity is rooted in history. While high rise development may make sense in a big metropolis such as Paris or London, or in artificial urban cityscapes such as Dubai, the Maltese landscape has grown organically over decades. It makes more sense to compare Malta to Venice or Dubrovnik, than to Dubai or Singapore. 

Even if limited only to particular designated areas, it is impossible to shield the impact of high-rise development on long distance views. A skyscraper in Sliema would dwarf and possibly even humiliate the fortifications of Valletta. This would have a detrimental impact on the island’s sense of identity. 

Moreover, the drive for construction must also be viewed in a context where 2. 32% of existing properties are currently vacant. A large number of these properties may admittedly not be readily available for sale on the market: some are used as holiday homes, or regarded as future investments. But vacant properties are also on the increase. In localities like Attard, the number of vacant properties has nearly doubled, from 412 to 799 between 2005 and 2011. In St Paul’s Bay, vacant properties increased by 1,691 over the same period.

Even from an economic point of view, it is debatable whether high-rise is a ‘must’. The viability of such developments is questionable, because they will be competing with already established projects. MEPA is currently assessing a proposal to build four commercial towers at Mriehel; it has already approved the Paola A4 Towers. 

Other projects catering for the same glut for office space include Skyparks in Luqa; the new bio park in San Gwann; Smart City; Pendergardens Towers; Townsquare in Sliema, and Xemxija Towers. Is it realistic to expect that all these projects will be occupied to 100% capacity? Or will we waste more precious land on projects destined to remain semi-vacant, like many of the showrooms built in the past?

One must also consider the impact of high-rise on surrounding neighbourhoods. Tall buildings cast long shadows over residences, depriving them of light and solar rights: a cause which was very dear to environment minister Leo Brincat when in opposition. High-rise also creates micro climates by altering wind conditions in the vicinity.

There are also contradictions in Malta’s present approach. The present government claims to have approved a policy to limit development of over 10 storeys to designated areas: namely Mriehel, Tigne, Gzira, Marsa, Qawra and Paceville. In fact, this policy already existed in draft form; the only contribution of the new government was to add Mriehel (where four towers are being proposed by the Gasan and Tumas Groups) to the list.

Yet in October 2013, before the policy was approved, MEPA had also approved the 12-storey development on the Mistra ridge. The Metropolis development itself was first approved in the absence of an approved policy in 2009. The permit was renewed in 2013; and a year later, MEPA approved a number of changes to the Metropolis project, including a larger car park and the addition of a helipad on the roof of the highest tower.

Yet another argument is that high rise development may reduce pressure for more building in the countryside. The argument was recently made by the Prime Minister himself in the Timestalk debate. But Prime Minister Muscat ignored the fact that, while designating areas for high-rise development, his government also intends to extend ODZ boundaries with the excuse of correcting past injustices. This has already allowed a number of new developments like agri-tourism facilities in the countryside. There are also plans to embark on land reclamation. 

It seems that when it comes to development, the sky is literally the limit.