The Dock One plan to convert the Knights’ and British-period buildings to accommodate apartments, shops and restaurants, was a unique opportunity to rehabilitate the depressed inner harbour area through a development project that included both social benefits for the residents as well as the restoration of historical buildings that were in an advanced state of deterioration, the NGO Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar said.

But this was also a one-off opportunity which in many ways would be irreversible, so mistakes could not be made, it added.

However, the Dock One project was a sad reminder, if one were needed, of the cavalier way Malta’s heritage was being sold off at prices which then required substantial speculative development in order to render a project commercially feasible. This was being actively encouraged by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, which in its proposals outlined buildings of an unacceptable height and density.

FAA said it was to the developers’ credit that these densities and heights had in many places been reduced to proportions that were more sensitive to this historic dock area. Certain areas had been opened to give the churches more surrounding open space, and structures such as the yacht club lowered so as not to obstruct vistas.

“Still, the urge to fill in open spaces is felt to be highly detrimental, especially in the case of Dock One. Here, Mepa’s proposals indicate that the open space below Senglea’s bastions, which contributes so much to Senglea’s citadel appearance, is to be built right up to the bastions. The height of this building, obliterating the bastion line from certain angles, is also excessive.”

Similarly, FAA added, the seven-storey height of the Landmark building should never be contemplated in the context of a historic centre. With a landmark building like Senglea gate already in existence, why create a competing structure? At the entrance to the project, the five-storey Gateway Building was bound to give a sense of congestion to Gavino Gulia square, in spite of its “see-through” ground floor. This building would block the most breathtaking long sea view and it was felt that it would detract from, rather than enhance the project.

“While certain isolated structures like the highly-successful concepts for the yacht club and the marketplace can afford modern designs, it is hoped that the additions to the old buildings will be sensitive to their context, in line with the Vienna Memorandum, using lightweight materials and reversible techniques.”

FAA maintained that the project had many positive aspects which included the restoration of the historic buildings, programmes to improve the quality of life of the inner harbour residents, investment and employment opportunities as well as improved access to the waterfront to the local residents.

“However imaginative solutions need to be found in order to avoid further building-up of the inner harbour area, already one of the most densely-populated and most built-up areas of Europe.”

FAA expressed the belief that one such solution lay in the state shouldering the expense of developing some of the ancillary structures, such as car parks, which would serve the resident population. “This would allow the developers to limit themselves to building only that which is strictly necessary to make the restoration/rehabilitation project feasible. Such an undertaking by the state would be especially justified in the light of the fact that a significant percentage of the Dock One investment is going towards community programmes, an essential part of a project aimed at improving a depressed area,” FAA said.