The conflation of blame around Malta’s built environmental bedlam is self-consequential – there is no single force that can independently evade the prison of its collective design. We build badly because design bends itself to misguided policies. They’re misguided because forces that manipulate them are corrupted. The corrupt are emboldened by kinship they find with those who design for their schema, and the cycle goes on.

When separated out, players embroiled in this caterwauling of culpability are plagued with inertia, defensiveness, or plain despair. Like schoolchildren caught in a wayward act, the contesting eyes of developers, planners and, yes, architects dart around at one another, clambering to rest on one sole offender. 

Very soon, a new dean of Architecture and Urban Design will start his term at the University of Malta’s Faculty for the Built Environment. Prof. Marc Bonello – who graduates from his role of deputy dean – will become responsible for priming of one of the most important actors in Malta’s development cycle. This interview (which will be covered in two parts), looks at the role of education within national architectural fate.

AD: There’s no discernible contemporary architectural vernacular on the islands. True or false?

MB: Certainly, in the recent period, by and large – very true. I suppose the last architect of repute who tried to bring up the vernacular in architecture was Richard England. But, in the past 30-odd years, very little of that has been achieved in Maltese architecture.

AD: Is there an architecture today that reads ‘Malta’?

MB: No. But we also have to be fair to say that this is a problem that’s not confined to our islands, even though we tend to be insular in our approach, this is the truth for many other countries around us. Architecture today has become very internationalised – renowned firms now have commissions all over the world.

So they export their architecture. Think of Dubai; if you look at the old vernacular construction and then look at the city centre and ask yourself, where is the building coming from. These are designs from American, European architects. There is no sense of place or attachment.

For fresh graduates, it’s not easy to tell the developer – look, this is what I’m suggesting and if you don’t like it go elsewhere

AD: Let’s talk about education. Heritage is a strong focus but how will your tenure tackle the architect’s mandate to shape today’s identity? How do you teach that responsibility?

MB: I don’t think I should be reinventing the wheel. This ethos already exists. Prof. Alex Torpiano has been fostering this for the past 16 years. As a faculty, we try and instil in our students a sense of good design principles. By this, I mean not just stylistic architecture but also architecture that is grounded in sustainability as its underlying basis. More than anything else, it’s about quality over quantity.

When our students graduate, a few of them will work in the public sector, some might be tempted to go freelance but a number will work for offices. Private sector gets its work primarily from developers, and the problem is developers locally – at least most of them – tend to be very aggressive in their approach. For them, maximisation of profits means maxi­misation of area. At the end of the day, they’re watching their bottom line. What is the outcome of such an approach? Poor quality architecture and an oversupply of the same building typology.

For fresh graduates, it’s not easy to tell the developer: Look, this is what I’m suggesting and if you don’t like it go elsewhere. They need to make a living.

This is the ethical decision they need to make. Do you want to be led by your convictions? Or are you going to become a slave to your clients?

Coming back to the faculty, our task is not only about providing our students with tertiary education – so the tools to design and put a project together – but about the philosophy of design, the work ethic, the principles needed to use in future.

AD: If I told you I believed there was a national conspiracy to train architects into complacency/obedience, what would you say?

MB: Our academic members of staff are all committed to giving students the best form of training as to what it means to be a good perit. I don’t believe there is anyone pushing any other agenda. We have some architects who are employed by developers, some by contractors, some are developers themselves. Some are employed by private sector firms, some are freelancers.

Freelancers I would imagine have freedom to decide on what to do. If they lose work because they refuse to do what the deve­loper asks, that impacts their pockets but they should know what is right and wrong. I think selling yourself to somebody who’s asking you to do something that’s not right is not the way forward; even if it means sacrifice and takes longer to get where you want to.

AD: How do you advise students on how to say no to bad projects?

MB: I think the only way to convince students is by drilling into them that there are principles that are non-negotiable. Now, like everything in life, you have people who buckle under pressure, people who are ready to sell their soul. But that has nothing to do with the way we teach. So, to answer your earlier question: conspiracy, there isn’t but pressures, there are.

Part two of this interview will continue in the next Space Matters column.

Ann Dingli is an independent art and design writer, editor and curator based in London.

Write to culture@timesofmalta.com with the subject line: ‘Space Matters’ with suggestions and/or comments.