In the eighties and early nineties, I still recall leading environmentalists arguing that Malta’s future lay in high-rise buildings. The argument at the time was that Malta should stop expanding horizontally and instead concentrate on vertical development. This argument was partly a reaction to the Labour Government policy at the time of selling plots of agricultural land to families under,what was called back then, theHome Ownership Scheme.
What strikes me today is that these same environmentalistsand/or their followers are now criticizing the policy of high-rise buildings. A short history will help to explain that high-rise buildings werefrom their inception extremely controversial in Malta.
Ġużé Damato is the Maltese architect who introduced this concept at the turn of the twentieth century, when no one believed this was technically possible. Our colonial administrators dubbed Damato an idiot and even refused him the architect’s warrant on the excuse that his architectural trainingthat took place in French Tunisia and Italy was insufficient. The real reason behind all this was sheer envy and his devoted loyalty to the Nationalist Party. Yet, history today is proving Damato right and justice has been done.
Damato’s foremost challenge was to prove all his critics wrong by succeeding in building the church and dome of the Paola church. According to Professor Robert Galea,this was something impossible to build. Had there not been the interference from pseudo professionals, like Galea and others, the Paola dome would have been built on even sleeker columns instead ofthe existing massive four pillars, which Damato had to introduce thanks to the pressure exerted on him by the Curia following Galea’sand others recommendations who insisted that ferro-concrete was not strong enough to support such an imposing dome and wide ceiling.
Nonetheless, Damato still won the day about the strength of ferro-concrete.Its use on the Paola church showed one and all the great potential of such material, while ending up creating the highest building ever built in Malta till then. Despite, other high-rise buildings constructed during the twentieth century,none of these projects surpassed Damato’s architectural ingenuity and technical beauty.
Galea’sdetractors to day can no longer resort to use ferro-concrete as a reason to object to high-rise buildings. They are now resorting to issues related with the environment, which I find puerile. What Dennis de Lucca has written in his paper The Maltese ‘Perit’in Historyhas relevance to the argument that I am making in this blog.
“…The recent introduction of a new type of design aesthetic using new forms and materials calls for a certain amount of specialisation. Perhaps the ideal solution to these two conflicting demands of everyday role andnew aesthetic calls for a professional who has received the basic training of a Perit but who has been given the option at some time during or after his University Course to specialise either in the art of design or in the science of engineering…”
What Malta needs today aredesigns from international architects that bridge these two elements, as we have had too many failed experiments by local periti, which resulted in architectural rubbish.But for this to happen, projects need to be subjected to proper selection. Therefore, I agree with the statement made by our Minister of Finance that there are too many projects of high-rise buildings with the risk of inflating the local market. But such a fear should not come at the expense of stopping good projects, with the consequence that Malta loses the opportunity of having buildings signed by top world architects.One may state that these projectsareadding to speculation, but at least, for once, speculation is being put to a good cause.
As a demographer, I am not worried about the fact that the building bubble will burst. This is a risk that the developers have to take. Should the market one daycollapse, the empty apartments can always be taken over not through social housing schemes, but because they can end up being bought on the cheap.
For this reason, it was a breath of fresh air to read on The Malta Independent on Sunday, David Lindsay’s article about the proposed towers by Zaha Hadid for Paceville. I have only one word for this project. Let’s go for it.
Hadid had to overcome a number of challenges,including that of preserving the colonial building of Mercury House. The wayshe circumnavigated these challenges is fantastic. She succeeded in producing a design, which is highly expressive and fluidwhile still reflectingthe chaos of the area. But this is a field in which Hadid excelled. She was so mathematically minded that her buildings give the impression that they are breaking all geometric rules. By just looking at the design one can immediately perceiveHadid’shallmark.
The same can be said for another project proposed for the area by Hadid at Villa Rosa. Unfortunately, when Hadid prepared this particular project, she took into consideration the area, as we know it today. Over the recent days, a barrage of high-rise buildings in this concentrated area has been proposed thus changing drastically the landscape and skyline of the area, with the risk of killing Hadid’s projects. The projects seem to be unrelated and not in synergy with one another. On the contrary they appear to be competing and putting unnecessary pressure on the existing infrastructure, which Hadid’s proposals sought to address.
Till now, important projects by international architects were only commissioned by the State. After all the polemics that we had about Piano’s project, this building is today a point of reference in the history of Post-Modern Architecture. In Hadid’s case the innovation lies with the factor the it is private investors who are ready to go forground-breaking architecture.
I honestly hope that the new Planning Authority does not torpedo these two projects. What needs to be done is to ensure that Hadid’sconcepts and designs are faithfully adhered to and the area is preserved according to the wayHadid conceived it. Now that Hadid is no longer with us, such buildings would signify two of her last (if not the last) projects. Through these two projects, Hadid tried to correct the bad urban aesthetics that currently exists in this area.
For these reasons, Hadid‘s project is addressing the dystopian vision that was created over the last thirty year at Paceville due to sporadic,wild and unplanned development. One certainly cannot accuse Hadid of bad planning. She worked in more difficult urban contexts, like the one of Rome, London. Her building today is a centre of attraction and landmark of regeneration incities that do not lack historic landmarks.
I cannot imagine Hadid’s projects as a waste of resources, energy and space. This is why, I am in favour that we should have towers signed Zaha Hadid. Her studies for the area, should be used as starting point for a new master plan for Paceville. PA should onlydecide aboutnew high-rise buildings and other developments in the area after taking into considerations Hadid’s new projects while making sure that any new proposals are not in conflict with the imprint that Hadid is seeking to give to this degenerated area.