As the small Maltese islands swiftly disappear out of view from my aeroplane window, I cannot help but feel that this was the last (over)dose of sunshine I will get for some time. But the impending seasonal blues are laced with a more troubling insight from my two-week stay on the sun-kissed islands: the shabby and unsustainable state of the built environment in Malta.
It seems others share my latter concern. In a recent Times of Malta survey, the built environment claims the dubious honour of being Malta’s “biggest problem” in the minds of nine out of 10 Maltese residents; with 78% voting for “excessive construction” and 12% identifying “traffic”, both a direct indictment of the built environment.
Allow me to add some further interpretation to this useful, yet somewhat terse, survey.
A glance at a few Eurostat indicators reveals a mixed picture on the quantity of construction in Malta. For example, the gross value added by construction activity in Malta ranged between 3.6% and 4.8% of GDP in the 20210-2020 period and never exceeded the EU average, similarly investment in housing in Malta was 3.9% of GDP in 2020, which corresponds to a median EU country.
On the other hand, the employment growth rate of Malta’s construction sector was 8.7% in 2018, which is above the EU average, but well below some other EU regions where construction employment soared to double digits. Rather tellingly, in 2020, twice as many building permits were issued for dwellings in Malta than in 2015, which is significantly above the EU average.
Rather unsurprisingly, at 17.8%, Malta has a percentage of land occupied by residential buildings comparable to some of the most densely populated regions of Europe, such as the Dusseldorf and Antwerp areas. Malta seemingly has a high density of built-up areas with significant construction activity but not more than some of the denser and busier regions of the EU.
What is harder to quantify, but is arguably more perceptible, is the poor quality of construction in Malta. This extends from shabby construction sites that generate more noise, dust and other hazards than strictly necessary, through to dissatisfaction with the end product itself. The combination of the two is a perfect storm of high-volume, low-quality construction. Consequently, the writing is on the poorly built wall for the legacy that the current generation will leave to the next.
But what are the root causes of the general dissatisfaction with the built environment? The physical evidence points to a fundamentally unbalanced approach. Specifically, short-term economic gain (profit) seems to eclipse the two other important factors, namely societal benefit (people) and environmental impact (planet). Yet, it is well known that disregarding any of the three Ps is foolhardy.
For instance, each building project in Malta seems to be treated as an isolated cash cow. This keeps investors happy and oils the wheels of the economy but overlooks the societal benefit of good architecture and fails to address the need for environmentally sustainable construction.
Sadly, there is no single magic recipe for striking an equitable balance between economic gain, user-centredness and natural resource-efficiency but conceiving each building as a money-making scheme, using environmentally unsustainable practices to construct it and disregarding the impact on society, makes for an unpalatable dish.
A truly holistic sustainable built environment goes beyond meeting the demands of the current generation without compromising future generations; rather, it requires a more progressive approach of a regenerative and future-resilient built environment where symbiotic and circular relationships are established in the value chain.
Short-term economic gain seems to eclipse societal benefit and environmental impact- Mauro Overend
To put it more simply: ‘resilience’ is what ensures that a building designed for today’s needs is also fit for the future, in particular when the self-inflicted changes in our climate take hold, whereas ‘symbiotic’ and ‘circular’ approaches provide a means of dealing with the vast amounts of construction (and other) waste by using it as a source for high-value products through reusing and upcycling.
It follows that reversing the downward spiral in Malta’s built environment is essential, possible and non-trivial. Malta has a proud history of rising to daunting challenges and bequeathing humanity with architectural gems in the process. The Neolithic temples and the Grand Harbour cities, to name a few. But the time for tinkering and sticking plasters is over. Rather, this requires a radical and visionary approach with unambiguous objectives and tangible, measurable outcomes, such as:
1. A future-proof, joined-up and low-carbon public transport system that creates a physical separation between the mass transportation vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists and does not blight the environment with another layer of clutter.
2. A transition to safe and environmentally friendly construction practices and new eco-friendly buildings. This will require a coordinated approach of clear and fair regulations, an associated education/training campaign, incentives for rewarding good practice and fines for the offenders.
3. An end to the dissonance of materials, heights and styles of adjacent buildings, a meaningful greening of urban areas and the proper management of publicly accessible rural paths and countryside areas. This will require an explicit societal pact where some individual freedoms to build whatever one pleases is traded off in return for a more harmonious built environment and better access to nature.
4. An effective means of dealing with the existing stock of buildings and infrastructure. This ranges from careful custodianship of the notable heritage on the islands, to upgrading the performance of existing underperforming buildings and civil infrastructure, through to schemes for using demolition waste as a resource for new construction.
If residents of Malta really care about their future and that of their future generations, it is time to raise aspirations, develop a partisan-free and community-inclusive plan and follow up with equally resolute action.
On a more personal note, I will be actively cutting down on my air travel, including flying to Malta, which is another cause of climate change, but I am also conscious that my professional activities in the built environment have a far greater impact on my carbon footprint. So, I shall focus my efforts on the latter.
Mauro Overend holds the Chair of Structural Design and Mechanics at TU Delft, Netherlands. He is an architect and civil engineer, educated in Malta and the UK.