Is there still hope for overdeveloped Malta? Many have lost hope in what Martin Heidegger would call the “dwelling” space of our minuscule polis. This dwelling space includes both urban and non-urban areas.

I was particularly delighted by an opinion piece written by an architect in the Times of Malta (September 19). At one point, architect Clive Borg-Bonaci justly states that he is attempting “to initiate a discourse on architecture” which he believes is lacking.

I totally agree with him.

Firstly, I am truly in agreement with the author’s reference to Philippe Daverio’s claim that architecture cannot be avoided. I have argued in academic circles outside of Malta that ultimately nearly all man-made forms of aesthetic experience like music, painting and literature can be avoided whilst our cityscapes are somehow an unavoidable presence.

I am no architect so my interest is not in the technical aspect of building or planning, it is in the existential aspect of architecture, what Christian Norberg-Schulz would call the phenomenology of architecture.

In Genius Loci, Norberg-Schulz stressed the connection between the man-made world and the natural world. The existential purpose of building (architecture) is therefore to make a site become a place, that is, to uncover the meanings potentially present in the given environment.

Moreover, according to Heidegger, a building is what allows for this sense of place in which dwelling occurs. Heidegger distinguishes physical space from place. Space, in a sense, is something that is created before it is experienced.

In his lecture turned essay, Bauen, Wohnen Denken, Heidegger mentions an example of a humble bridge. He says that before the bridge stands, there are, of course, many spots along the stream that can be occupied by “something”. One of them proves to be a location and does so because of the bridge. Thus, the bridge does not first come to a location to stand in it; somewhat, a location comes into existence only by virtue of the bridge. What he probably means is that what we build creates a dwelling space… or at least it ought to.

Secondly, in consonance to this line of thought, Roger Scruton mentions the idea of “fittingness”. He means buildings that create a “dialogue” ‒ as Charles Jencks would claim ‒ with what is already in that space. For architecture is indeed a language.

Now when one starts ignoring this dialogue, one starts building concrete boxes next to Baroque churches.

Then the next generation of buildings will be built next to these concrete boxes, and then under the constraint of mediocre financial pragmatism and under the excuse of a misinterpreted sense of fittingness, more concrete boxes are built. The net result is what I call turpefication.

Architecture is different from other forms of art in many ways. Firstly, it has a function that the other forms of art do not have: that of shelter. Due to this function it is essentially public. Owing to this public function, as Karsten Harries explains, there is a complementary ethical function; essentially in line with what Borg-Bonaci rightly hinted to in his article. This ethical function of architecture is underpinned by its insertion in the community’s life.

Consequently, when building, one should always keep in mind that what is being built is not a standalone building, but it is part of a place (not just a space). If Harries is right, any building should indeed reflect the ethos of the community in which that unavoidable presence stands. Whilst the interior decor is a matter of personal taste, buildings inevitably affect the community’s well-being.

When building, one should always keep in mind that what is being built is not a standalone building, but it is part of a place

The leap from this ethical function to the common good is then short. If building should be for dwelling, dwelling should indeed be for well-being – hence needed to achieve what Aristotle would call eudemonia. Well, this is exactly what the common good is: the coordination between individual well-being and the well-being of the collectivities.

After all, it is, as Scruton suggests, self-evident that beautiful buildings have a positive effect on people. Aesthetic experience is, after all, a basic good of human flourishing, one to be participated in, if one wants to live a fulfilling life.

Borg-Bonaci unassumingly says that he does “not have clear-cut solutions to the problems faced” by his profession. No one has all the answers. That is why we have to all come together with ideas. When Gondor calls for aid, Rohan will answer!

We cannot demolish what we have already built so we need to try to fix that. Biophilic design may perhaps help in connecting people inside with nature to promote their well-being and quality of life.

After all, is this not what President George Vella has urged architects to do? To pursue, that is, an architecture for the common good!

Alan Xuereb is the author of Riflessjonijiet dwar il-Ġid Komuni.