This column is a continued conversation with the president of the Chamber of Architects, Andre Pizzuto. Part one (June 30) discussed regulatory rigour and enforcement. Part two looks at public interface and the chamber’s role within an ecosystem of built environment players.
Ann Dingli: Let’s talk about the council itself. You were elected in 2020 and re-elected in 2022. Was there ever a mandate around how long presidents could serve?
Andre Pizzuto: I was elected in December 2020 and was vice president for two years before that. At the time, there was a leapfrog system that had been agreed in a general meeting whereby there would be alternating presidents. Every two years the vice president would take over. But that system is not in the chamber’s regulations.
When we started undertaking professional conduct with increased focus and issuing suspensions more frequently, my concern became that the composition of the chamber would be challenged because it wasn’t [composed] according to law. I shared my concern with the council and they agreed that it was risky. That’s why we reverted to holding elections according to the chamber regulations, which require that an election is set every year and that the council appoints different roles. There were also 12 council members, where the regulations required 10.
So, we reverted to the system in the regulations. Then, if needs arose, we could amend them – but we don’t just take the law into our own hands and freewheel elections without compliance. Because it would be ironic if we were trying to uphold regulations on others and not follow them ourselves. There is no limitation in the regulations on how long the council can appoint the president for, or anyone.
AD: Do you think there should be?
AP: I’m conflicted about it. I think one of the weaknesses that the chamber had for a long time was that it didn’t have stable leadership – it kept changing leaders. Other organisations like the MDA have had their leader for a good nine or 10 years.
AD: Is that a good thing?
AP: Ultimately, if there’s a democratic system in place where, if I bother everybody, they can chuck me out – and I think that safeguard exists.
AD: The council looked quite different when you first took over. Most notably, the already sparse number of women forming part of it decreased. Recently, there was an education exchange spearheaded by the chamber made up of mentors from the profession – all were male. From the outside, it’s easy to conclude that the council’s composition influences its endeavours. Do you think the chamber’s council and activities represent the genuine make-up of the profession?
AP: No. And we’ve tried to head towards more women joining the council. It’s been difficult. We’re very mindful of gender balance. With our awards, for example, which we’re relaunching, we’re making sure to have a three-two number in favour of women on the jury. I understand the issue and I don’t feel comfortable with having such a male dominated council this year. But they’re all valid people and I don’t really have any control over the nominees.
AD: Your focus has been to bring the profession up to regulatory speed. But what about the more ceremonial side to the chamber? The Premju Emmanuel Galizia hasn’t been around for a while.*
AP: We used to have our own awards, since 2017 – I was the organiser of the first two editions. Then COVID struck and they couldn’t happen. We didn’t want to do something online because the point was to reflect the spirit of the profession. What happened also was that the Planning Authority started organising their own awards, which began basically killing off one of our major sources of income.
AD: Having the Planning Authority distribute awards in the way it currently does is anyway a conflict.
AP: How do you mean exactly?
AD: Planning awards should reward strategies of integration within urban systems – the acumen required, often from composite groups of experts, to best incorporate spatial benefit and address programmatic and urban needs within ratified parameters. The problem with the local version is not that the Planning Authority runs them, it’s that it runs them as architecture awards – which is a conflict. You can’t award the same projects you are adjudicating. Planning awards can exist, they just have to do the right thing. Which would also mean not competing with the chamber’s.
AP: Rather than competing, we should be doing things together.
AD: The chamber’s international outreach has recently focused on education. What about architecture education locally – teaching students in Malta about social and civic responsibility?
AP: One of the things we’re working on is setting a syllabus for graduates. Our plan is to give a broader formation on aspects of the profession that are not taught at university – management, leadership, ethics, human resources. I think ethics is the most important because, if members of the profession don’t understand that our work is based on empathy, then there’s a big problem. And when I say empathy, it’s about trying to understand not just the needs of clients around maximising profit but the lifestyle of the people inhabiting buildings.
So much of our activity is based on understanding the needs of others that if there isn’t a mindset of empathy cultivated as early as possible it will cause problems. Young architects need a bit more support from our side. But it applies to more than architects, it’s the whole of society.
*Between the time of interview and publication, the Premju Emmanuel Galizia awards have been relaunched and submissions can be accessed at https://premjugalizia.org .
Ann Dingli is an independent art and design writer, editor and curator based in London.