High-rise or high-risk?

By Robert Louis Fenech

Several people this week have asked me why this whole hubaloo about high-rise buildings. Isn’t it better to build up than sideways? Won’t these have a positive effect on our economy? Don’t we want to be like Dubai or Singapore?

Well now, wait a minute. It is true that space is at a premium in Malta, but with 44,000 empty dwellings (this figureexcludes summer residences), shouldn’t we be looking at rehabilitating them before we change our urban landscape to the detriment of residents? Only 10% are in disrepair, as a significant portion have been built since the 90s and therefore are not caught in 1939 rents and inheritance disputes. Significantly, these housing units are not being planned to accommodate Maltese residents, very few of whom would be able to afford the purchase or maintenance fees – Dhalia CEO Chris Grechpointed out two weeks ago that it would be the global rich who would have to buy such expensive and upmarket properties.

We are about to start building towers, straining our energy and sewage infrastructure, further gridlocking an already grievous traffic situation, bulldozing residents’ rights and permanently scarring our skyline, for the benefit of a few local speculators.

So far so bad. But it gets worse.

Let us take the Townsquare development. Social impact assessment? Dates from 2007 and does not consider the new MIDI towers and Fort Cambridge. Assessments are being conducted with a piecemeal, haphazard approach. No further comment needed. Traffic impact assessment? Gives a flat sum of cars that will be added (around 3000), without assessing the actual impact these will have on the area. Environmental impact assessment’s recommendations? “Residents, keep your window shut.” Not to mention that the necessary reports were not uploaded to the website with enough time to allow objectors to review them.

The Mriehel development meanwhile is even more sinister. After the public consultation phase ended, Mriehel was inserted, thereby allowing high-rise development in the area. Surprise surprise, it is one of the very first of these projects being recommended for approval. It has been announced that Mriehel will be considered in a second round of public consultation…after the project would have been approved and excavation begun.

There has been talk of Malta becoming like Singapore or Dubai. Even without looking at these countries’ abysmal environmental records and other problems arising when considering dictatorial countries as role models, there are plenty of problems. Dubai has ample space to expand in previously empty space. Singapore meanwhile has a very strong public transportation system, and heavy regulations on car use. Significantly, both places planned their development, and invested heavily in their infrastructure to support such development. Equally significant, neither place had a prior heritage of architectural wealth like ours.

Consider the words of Perit Godwin Cassar, former MEPA Chairman: “Tall buildings are popular now internationally, and Dubai and Shanghai are clear examples. There are different scenarios to justify tall buildings. Malta does not fit well into any of these scenarios.”

There are other problems with such developments – a property bubble which can lead to a national recession and the undermining of our touristic product are two such issues.

None of these problems are insurmountable. What we are adamant about are two things – that good, independent, holistic studies should be carried out and made easily available to the public, and that the local population is consulted, informed and has a say about where our precious country is heading.

As polls last week showed, a clear majority of Maltese might not be too happy about where our leaders are taking us.