Gozo's future rests on its villages, not on concrete giants that would scar the island forever.
Gozo stands at a defining moment. The island has always drawn strength from its villages, its low houses, its skylines, and its sense of human scale. Visitors cross the channel not to see another Sliema skyline, but to experience an island that still speaks the language of community and landscape. A threat looms, potentially disfiguring Gozo: introducing towers and blocks of thirteen stories or more into resorts like Xlendi and Marsalforn. Once that door opens, the character of Gozo will vanish behind concrete shadows.
Marsalforn already shows what happens when construction runs ahead of demand. The Vista Point Tower, allowed to rise from a four-storey limit to eleven floors, has scarred the skyline for years. The Planning Authority considered approving two more floors. The chairperson then removed the item to protect the Prime Minister who had previously promised Gozo would not have any towers. This resort village stands as a warning: when the skyline fills with concrete, the village spirit falls away with the seasons. The notion of more towers defies logic. It only feeds speculation, not community needs.
Xlendi now faces the same test, with an application for a thirteen-storey block at the edge of the bay. One tower would rise like a sore thumb, replacing village roofs with a slab of glass and stone and erasing the horizon forever. Families, fishers, and visitors would lose the rustic charm that gives Xlendi its soul. No strategy for tourism, no vision of sustainability, and no respect for heritage can survive under that shadow.
With its ten-year strategy, known as "Gozo: An Island of Villages," the Gozo Regional Development Authority (GRDA) aimed to find a solution to this problem. It recognises that Gozo's unique selling point lies in its villages, not in towers. It speaks of a quality of life, of a development that respects scale, of growth that serves people rather than developers. But a strategy on paper cannot defend Gozo on its own. Without enforcement, without planning decisions that follow the principle, the words remain hollow. If one tower passes, others will follow, and the island of villages will slip into an island of skylines.
Hondoq - Qala shows that when government, policy, and courts align, Gozo can lock out unacceptable projects for good. After 20 years of litigation, the Court of Appeal upheld the Hondoq project's refusal. Then, the authorities recommended the site for Special Area of Conservation status. The updated policy earmarked the quarry for restoration and afforestation. The various actions taken were without a doubt all linked. Give Xlendi and Marsalforn the same certainty: write the ban into law, hard-code it in policy, and back it with enforcement, so no tower ever tests Gozo's skyline again.
The current political climate has failed to provide help. Prime Minister Robert Abela said clearly that Gozo should remain free from towers. He found it shocking that Gozitans could tolerate towers. In this, he deserves credit for drawing a red line. However, words themselves are simply not enough to fully express this. His own administration controls the Planning Authority, and his ministers control the policies that shape development. If he believes what he says, he must give Gozo the certainty it deserves and seal the prohibition on towers into planning law.
The new PN opposition leader Alex Borg complicated the picture further. In one interview, he seemed to leave the door open to a "skyline policy" for Gozo, suggesting that tall buildings might find a place outside village cores. The remark in question provoked outrage from the people. NGOs called it a betrayal of Gozo's identity. The rival politicians wasted no time in capitalising on the situation and immediately pounced on it. Soon afterwards, Borg issued a video statement, saying, "Read my lips: I do not want high rises in Gozo." The correction came quickly, but the damage lingered. Gozitans now wonder where he truly stands. Was the first statement a glimpse of a policy under pressure from developers, or a slip of the tongue? Either way, the episode shows the danger of political ambiguity. On towers, there can be no hesitation. Either you oppose them without condition, or you risk losing Gozo to them forever.
Beyond the political game lies a deeper question about what Gozo wants for its future. Gozo is struggling with several issues. These include unsatisfactory accessibility to Malta, road project delays, the helicopter - access project relegated again, hospital strain, Victoria's congestion, and tourism's seasonal swings. Towers cannot solve any of these. They would increase pressure on infrastructure, flood the market with more apartments, and shift investment away from sustainable projects. They would undermine the very product Gozo offers to visitors: tranquillity, tradition, and landscape.
Supporters of towers argue that vertical building creates more housing without consuming land. They speak of modern skylines and claim that Gozo needs to develop. However, the provided argument cannot account for the surrounding circumstances. High-rise might fit a capital city with transport nodes, wide boulevards, and commercial centres. Gozo has narrow streets, intimate squares, and fragile coastlines. A tower in Xlendi does not represent smart growth; it represents a mismatch of scale and purpose. There is no practical purpose served by this, as it does not address any actual need. It serves only the balance sheet of developers.
Others argue young Gozitans need affordable housing and that towers could provide it. Again, the figures expose the myth. Thousands of properties already stand empty, owned by investors waiting for higher prices. Rather than spending on new construction, the government could incentivize the use of vacant properties, help restore old houses, and fund long-term rentals instead of speculative sales. That would serve the needs of residents, not speculators. Towers solve nothing in terms of affordability; they only inflate supply for outsiders and push up land prices.
The identity of Gozo lies in its villages. Nadur, Xagħra, Għarb, Xewkija, San Lawrenz, Għajnsielem, Rabat: each tells a story through its church dome, its narrow streets, its festa traditions, and its surrounding fields. People cross to Gozo to walk through these places, not to gaze at glass facades. Once towers enter the picture, that identity erodes. The shadow continues to grow and cover more of the space. Developers often cite previous examples and established practices to support their arguments. The design allows for a structure that has one tower that provides access to another. Soon the skyline no longer belongs to the community but to cranes and construction firms. Therefore, you must make the choice now, not later.
The crossroads could not be clearer. Either Gozo holds fast to the vision of an island of villages, or it watches that vision disappear behind vertical walls. The choice belongs to Gozitans, but the responsibility lies with every leader who claims to defend the island. Say yes to villages, yes to heritage, yes to landscapes, and no to towers. Say it once, say it clearly, and mean it. Anything less opens the way to ruin.
There is no requirement for Gozo to have any towers built. It is imperative that Gozo prohibits the granting of permits for the construction of towers. The message must echo across every bay, every square, every council hall: keep Gozo low, keep Gozo true, keep Gozo free of towers forever.