A recent Talking Point (March 2) draws comparisons between high-rise buildings, oligarchs and money laundering, claiming that tall buildings are commissioned by “fat cats” and are the fruit of dirty money. A rather domineering opinion which may not necessarily be the case.

Besides a (major) group whose focus and interest is solely in the lucrative earnings off cheap, uninspiring buildings (they must be educated to change direction), it is otherwise very normal for a mature society to be composed of two very divergent factions: those who would rather stop growth and development altogether (and prefer to rely and remain hopeful on government funding for the improvement of the public realm) and the utopian dreamers who wish to contribute to the New Future.

There is truth and validity in both of these theories and the reconciliation of these two opposites could possibly be the key to a brighter future.

A clear and civil debate on the future development of the whole island must take place. Paceville, a contained offshoot in St Julian’s – too small to be called a town but larger and more cosmopolitan than a village – provides an excellent canvas to analyse this disagreement and reach an educated conclusion for the preferred direction.

The recent past has shown that adopting a carte blanche attitude in the implementation of a master plan did not prove to be the most popular and democratic exercise. Perhaps lessons should be learnt from the natural and organic growth of our vernacular villages, which have proven to be more successful than the more recent and controlled town-planning exercises.

“Architecture is a hazardous mixture of omnipotence and impotence. It is by definition a chaotic adventure. In other words, the utopian enterprise,” Rem Koolhaas said in his book S, M, L, XL.

True, the canvas is not clean since what has been built, bar a few, is definitely not inspiring enough to be taken as the reference line for the future of Paceville. Their replacement by a modern ‘tall’ building cannot be considered as a tragic loss of a nation’s cultural or historical identity.

Nor can it be argued that the fast manner in which the general landscape in Paceville has developed (redeveloped and overdeveloped) itself in the past 30 years is a reflection of our uniqueness, which would otherwise be so unfortunately lost if we adopt this ‘alien’ typology of (tall) buildings and for which our tourist industry will forever censure us.

In truth, the (low) building typology is not the sole reason for the dense ‘favelas’ type development in areas but is surely an indicator of what is most likely to persist.

Away from the uninspiring comments (in the same article) with demeaning hints of Dubai and Switzerland, it would be favourable to have more (planning) policies similar to the one governing tall buildings, encouraging the unification of adjoining tracts of land.

Local councils may be entrusted with the responsibility for the planning of a town or city as indeed happens in the larger countries- Christian Spiteri

The objective would be to trigger and encourage creativity rather than specifically control ‘the why/where and what’ should be developed in a piecemeal fashion.

While respecting the established infrastructural framework, spaces would be allowed to merge, develop, mould and reinvent themselves in a natural and organic way, without too much interference and fear. Opportunities may even be sought in redefining some of our poorly designed urban areas.

The exoskeleton of a building probably has the largest effect on a community. Undeniably, little thought has been given to the design of this in most of the typical low-lying, ‘fast’ buildings (not to mention their endoskeletons) let alone other impactful and meaningful habits.

In contrast, in tall buildings and other comprehensive developments, many in-depth studies are undertaken by various consultants and experts in the respective fields to assess and find solutions to the various challenges such as waste deposit and collection points and disposal; the upkeep of buildings and public spaces directly around them; safety standards; and many more.

Naturally, all this can also be implemented even in the lower and smaller building typologies but it is certainly more challenging to happen with the same energy and intensity.

Local councils, if equipped with all the necessary resources, consultants and technical expertise (to the level of a full-on architectural firm and more), may be entrusted with the responsibility for the planning of a town or city as indeed happens in the larger countries.

However, having very limited resources, local councils here cannot expect to have a veto on projects or believe they can act as judge and jury in the most unreasonable manner. In the best interest of the community they represent, it would be more beneficial for them to enter into dialogue with private investors to implement their strategies and ideas for civic improvements rather than misusing their position and adopting a bickering attitude. Moreover, the notion of complete reliance on public funds for the improvement of the basic civic commodities must also change.

Let us embrace a future of coexistence of tall (in selected areas) and low-lying buildings. Let us dream of cities where everyone has vitality and where, at least, an established minimum level of value is injected in architecture, in the environment, in society and the economy.

Going vertical may not necessarily be the only way forward but it certainly is a valid way which may not be resisted further by the faction resisting growth and development.

Christian Spiteri is a practising architect. He has founded C&K Architects and has designed a number of individual residences and commercial workplaces.