It’s been yet another year of controversial building permits and tasteless designs – and there appears to be no end in sight. Kamra tal-Periti president ANDRE PIZZUTO spoke to James Cummings about aesthetics, policy and ethics.

JC: You’re an architect yourself. Is Malta beautiful?

AP: There are parts that are still beautiful, and others, which, unfortunately, are turning into an urban mess.

JC: It seems that aesthetics play a backseat in the construction industry. What can we do to change this?

AP: Last year, following the election, we approached the new minister responsible for the sector [Planning Minister Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi] and proposed a number of measures. The first was to draw up a national architecture policy as we’re only one of two European countries not to have one, and we offered the government to join us drafting this. 

JC: What would this policy do?

AP: We plan to have a strategic document based on research and come up with a strategy of how to address the problem. But we need to first understand the problem; it’s not just a matter of writing policies.

And when I say policy, I don’t mean that we need to use stone, for example. I mean the way architecture is taught, practised and assessed, and the way public procurement puts architecture as a primary basis for awarding a contract tender. 

So, there are a lot of areas that need to be looked into, including the way the planning authorities are handling the matter.

JC: Before we talk about other stakeholders, let’s talk about the KTP, because I think a lot of people are frustrated with the way architects are designing buildings. Why do they design them in this way?

AP: Let me just address one of the things I read frequently on social media: “Why is the Kamra tal-Periti not doing anything about it?” With the new Periti Act, the KTP has taken on a new dimension, and has effectively become a regulator.

So, part of its new remit is to ensure that architects and civil engineers have due regard for the cultural and natural environmental heritage of our country.

And that, of course, includes the impact that their buildings have on an aesthetic front. One of the first things we’ve done was to issue a directive earlier this year to safeguard heritage buildings – particularly the Ġgantija temples – from speculative developments that were not appropriate within that context.

And as you have reported, we are investigating a number of architects to verify whether they’ve met the standards we are requesting.

JC: You mention Ġgantija where the planned projects were already within the buffer zone of the UNESCO site, and yet architects took on those projects. Do you feel there is enough personal responsibility within your members?

AP: That is exactly the reason why we issued a directive, because by stating the Planning Authority approved the permit so everything’s fine is not an excuse... Architects need to uphold their professional standing and practise the profession in the way they’ve been taught.

We are not taught to disregard Ġgantija and do what we want around those sensitive sites. Our role is to respond to the environment of the site in which we are working to ensure what we do is a positive contribution to the landscape or urban context.

There is an inherent professional responsibility... and a moral responsibility as a citizen to protect our heritage and identity.

So, any attempts by a warrant holder to put aside those professional and ethical obligations solely on the basis of financial revenue is unacceptable. If we lose heritage status, it will have a huge impact on our country both on a cultural level and... from a financial point of view.

There are so many countries fighting to get recognition for World Heritage status and we’re toying around with losing this status. It’s also happening with the rampant commercialisation of Valletta, so we need to be much more sensitive to our cultural identity. It’s not only about money.

JC: What can be done against any architect who breaches the KTP rules?

AP: There is admonition, temporary suspension and revocation, which means the warrant is withdrawn altogether. Eventually, we’re also going to have a system of fines where people can get fined for being in breach.

Today we published the statistics of our performance, and we are handling more professional investigations than we’ve ever done in the past.

JC: But lots of people complain about ugly buildings lacking character springing up across the country. Why do architects design these kinds of buildings in the first place? 

AP: It’s not all architects that are designing buildings like this, let’s be fair…

JC: … But they dominate the landscape.

AP: They do, because the type of business model the construction industry has adopted is one where the costs are contained as much as possible.

There are relatively low fees granted to architects to design buildings, and so they don’t research enough. And perhaps the developers don’t choose the best ones to do these projects.

There is no legal measure or legal system in place to stop ugly buildings from being approved in the first place. They’re being designed because they will be approved anyway.

JC: What do you mean?

AP: The building is going to be approved if it’s compliant with policy. I’m not saying they’re deliberately designing it to be ugly, but it’s possibly an issue of skills as well.

The bottom line is that good architects tend to be more expensive, so if there is no incentive for the developers to choose a good architect... then we’re going to end up having the cheapest architects.

JC: But if we accept that the majority of buildings are like that, it implies the majority of architects are the cheaper kind who are not being as ambitious. Are most architects in Malta not thinking ambitiously enough?

AP: I think there is an overall problem. And this is exactly why we pushed for a national architecture policy to address these questions and to try to come up with solutions.

The problem is that after we invited the government to form this board together, we were nudged out of this idea and got an invitation to participate in a consultation meeting about the architecture policy.

We are not going to play this game; we are going to be the main drafters of the architecture policy because we are the ones who have the most competence and interest in having a good policy.

We invited the government to be an agent of this change and to implement certain measures such as the way public procurement happens, permits are granted, heritage is protected, and the environment safeguarded.

The government has to play a part in this in this process, but I have very little confidence in the government getting it right.

Our position is that we are going to be the drivers of this policy, and if the government wants to be a part of it, they’re more than welcome. But we are not going to be consultants on an architecture policy.

One of the things we want to include in the architecture policy is the concept of design review panels. This is a concept that many Commonwealth countries have — the UK, Canada and Australia, particularly.

The system is basically one where you present your project to a panel of architects purely on architectural merit. The client would be present and they [architects] explain the concepts behind the project on architectural merit, not policy.

The panel would give feedback, and the architects can take that and use it to improve the project. Once the panel is confident and comfortable to recommend the project, they would issue a recommendation letter which will be used by the architect when applying for the planning permission.

And this will fast-track the application because then all the planning authority needs is to assesses compliance with land use policies, environmental and social impacts, and traffic impacts.

This, in our view, would raise the bar of architecture considerably, because it’s only the good architects that are going to get a recommendation from this panel.

Difficult to have a meaningful conversation when the government is not willing to sit down and discuss forming a vision for the industry

JC: How do you stop the design getting changed for cost purposes?

AP: The clients have to decide what they want, because they are part of the project. The architect is not alone in this. If the project is not of sufficient quality... then, by cutting costs, the client is going to end up not having a permit.

JC: But surely the client could still cut costs by choosing cheaper materials and making simpler choices about the façade, for example?

AP: But the presentation the architect will do at the beginning will be a much more detailed presentation than they give today to the Planning Authority.

It will be a proper architecture project, not a planning application drawing with little detail that serves solely to satisfy a checkbox exercise.

That is the way the architecture is assessed by the Planning Authority: through a checkbox.

JC: But that still doesn’t answer the fundamental question of how we stop a design being stripped back.

AP: There are different safeguards in an application process. First of all, you have the permitting process itself. In my view... if a building is ugly, it should not be approved, simple as that. It shouldn’t matter if it’s compliant.

JC: So, we also need to see a change within the Planning Authority?

AP: I’m suggesting that design review panels be external to the Planning Authority because I think the Planning Authority now has a track record of not being able to assure quality and design.

The authority was set up since 1990 and its legacy is all around us. I don’t think the Planning Authority has any credibility anymore in assessing architecture.

What we are proposing is that the design review panels are under our wing – at arm’s length to avoid conflicts – but I think we need to take ownership of the problems in architecture as a profession.

The design review panel needs to be set up by us, and it will be a service we will provide to the public. It will not be mandatory, so clients and architects can choose to go through the system as it is today and use those policies.

But I’m confident that when people compare the projects that went through the design review panels that we are proposing, and the system we have today, the buildings that go through our system will be of a higher quality.

JC: But if this isn’t mandatory, won’t we just be back to square one? Surely this can’t be a choice anymore?

AP: We are not insisting on this being mandatory, because, at this stage at least, we would like to test it and be sure it works, and that we have sufficient resources to do this, because we’re talking about quite an undertaking.

Our idea at the beginning is not to do all types of applications but only to choose sensitive sites. These would probably include urban conservation areas, ODZs [outside development zones] in certain cases and perhaps major projects like towers or big projects that have a much bigger impact and are on a much bigger scale.

JC: How long do you estimate before this is compulsory for all new applications?

AP: The issue is finance, because the ideas are all there. We had an understanding with the finance minister a couple of years ago about getting funding for this. And, unfortunately, it was rejected by cabinet.

We want to go ahead with it anyway, but we need to access funding in some way. Now we are preparing a strategy on how to finance the KTP, given that the government continuously refuses to support us financially, despite us having a public role which the government itself gave us in the law.

JC: On finances, the KTP recently released a press release saying that €150,000 in promised government funding had not materialised. Why is this money important?

AP: It’s important because we have statutory functions in the law which we are struggling to fulfil, like professional conduct, for instance.

We meet for four hours on Monday evening and sometimes even Saturday mornings to go through the cases, and we spend a lot of money on lawyers. We have to defend our decisions in the court of appeal and the costs runs into thousands of euros.

Hodgepodge of building regulations and construction regulations and procedure

JC: Where does the money come from at the moment?

AP: From membership fees and events... it’s all voluntary work.

JC: So, to be clear, a voluntary self-funded organisation is currently expected to provide a regulatory role?

AP: That’s the government’s expectation, yes.

JC: The government recently reacted to a Times of Malta interview with (former construction adviser) Martin Debono, saying that “based on the feedback received, the BCA will be in a position to establish a timeline to implement these [building] codes”. This seems very vague. Are you happy with this statement?

AP: We’ve seen the codes. And we were not happy with what we saw. And this is why they were never published.

JC: What were you not happy with?

AP: The content – they were poorly written because there is an absence of a framework behind them. There’s a hodgepodge of building regulations and construction regulations and procedure. It’s a mess.

In 2020, we published a document outlining, in great detail, a vision for the industry and particularly related to the building and construction sector... To date, the government has refused to engage on the content of our document.

So, it’s difficult to have a meaningful conversation about a strategy when the government is not willing to sit down and discuss forming a vision for the industry.

JC: In the response published, the spokesperson also attributed blame to your members, particularly in relation to quake-vulnerable buildings. To people who are not in the industry, it maybe feels like there’s a bit of ‘passing the buck’ going on?

AP: We’ve always said the role of architects and engineers is to design and specify, and the role of the government is to regulate. When it comes to structure, there are European codes that govern different components of buildings, from concrete to steel to masonry, to timber, etc. And each country normally then has national annexes.

A national annex for Malta on seismic design was never published. It’s been drafted for some years by the University of Malta, but it was never adopted.

So, what Martin Debono said is perhaps a bit unfair because the implication of what he was saying was that all buildings are unsafe. And I think it’s a bit irresponsible to make such a statement without having knowledge of the fact because there’s no research to verify or otherwise such a claim.

JC: But one thing he said was “bricks are sometimes so frail that they crack as they are being hauled off the truck at the construction site”.

AP: There are serious problems. And I think what was being described about the quality of the bricks was particularly an issue in 2018 and 2019; that was the worst period in terms of quality, construction and building materials, because there was such a fast turnaround that bricks were being transported to the site before they had enough time to cure.

This is a generalisation, which does not necessarily apply to all cases, but yes, there was a problem. But the extent of this problem is not known, so I would be cautious of making sweeping statements like that without having undertaken research.

I’m hoping that this problem is limited to very few cases, if at all, because I would shudder to think that we have such a big problem.

JC: One of Malta’s flagship construction projects, Mercury Towers, opened recently. As an architect, what do you think?

AP: Okay. [Laughs] Well, it’s not a project I particularly like. I’m a big fan of Zaha Hadid’s work, but I’m not really sure this was her best.

The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.