NGO Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar said in a statement this afternoon that in 2008 a study on tall buildings in Malta was carried out by a Fulbright scholar in conjunction with MEPA. Dr Ali, a Chicago-based expert on tall buildings.

FAA said the study concluded that “MEPA should proceed slowly and take more time. Lack of a master plan results in uncontrolled developments and unpredictable impacts on urban life. Future tall building developments should not be considered without further planning and study of existing projects.”

Following this study the authorities announced that MEPA was reviewing its tall buildings (FAR) policy and no more permits for tall buildings were issued. “MEPA’s approval of the Metropolis project flies in the face of all that,” FAA said.

“In his report Dr Ali explained that tall buildings replace dilapidated buildings and regenerate depressed neighbourhoods as well as creating a modern urban skyline which attracts foreign investment,” the NGO said.

However he remarked that in Malta “both commercial and residential high-rises are not justifiable from a strict economic point of view… Some developers are proposing speculative projects in locations of their choice to make quick money by selling to others despite the high degree of vacancy rates in existing dwelling units at present. Clearly, speculation implies risk.”

FAA pointed out that “while emphasising the importance of independent economic, environmental and social factors for each project, Dr Ali stressed that Malta’s property demand does not justify a construction boom. In addition to an inadequate electricity, water, sewage and road infrastructure, Malta lacks an efficient public transport system essential to successful high-rise projects. Most importantly our fire service is not equipped or trained for fire-fighting at greater heights.”

FAA continued, The Chamber of Planners commented that “given Malta’s high vacancy rates, an increase in housing supply is not a justification for tall buildings which are being promoted for speculative reasons. Tall buildings are expensive to maintain and the more residents in one block, the more disagreement is likely.”

“The Chamber of Architects response was also mixed,” FAA said. The Chamber said that “The current policy on tall buildings simply reacts to the frenzy of demand for tall buildings over the past 5 to 8 year. But does it reflect what the country seeks to achieve … formulas that work abroad may not apply to Malta” the tall building boom was attributed to the “fad” or “craze” syndrome” fuelled by the success of the Portomaso mega project.”

FAA stated that all this came to a head at the recent MEPA Board hearing on the Metropolis project “where it resulted that none of the MEPA directors adjudicating the project were aware of the report on tall buildings or its recommendations.”

“The MEPA Board dismissed Dr Ali’s warning that the average Maltese buyer is not aware of the high maintenance costs and relatively short life of tall buildings, so defaulting on maintenance costs leads to the gradual neglect of such blocks. Demolition is also a major problem since abroad they are usually retained by one owner whereas in Malta apartments are sold off individually. Old homes clustered around high-rise buildings make demolition more worrying.

“Although tall buildings are supposed to provide open landscaped space, the Metropolis follows the Maltese trend in being mostly being paved as a commercial plaza. Insufficient parking slots means that staff and clients of the offices, gym, supermarket etc will increase the congestion of the surrounding streets. MEPA’s protected view regulations were similarly ignored,” FAA said.

“Although Dr Ali recommended that MEPA studies similar projects like the Addolorata Towers, the MEPA Board renewed the permit without guarantees of financial security or fire service adequacy.”

FAA pointed out that “this case was advertised and decided on the 6th June however it was listed on the MEPA website agenda of the 13th June, misleading those who consulted the website.”

“On the day of the hearing, environmental information on this case was blocked on the Mapserver, all violating the Aarhus Convention on the public’s right to access environmental information.”

FAA asked “what is the point of holding studies, only to keep them under wraps in order to avoid implementing them? There is no benefit in having environmentalists on the MEPA Board if it is still dominated by members who do not even try to hide their blatant pro-development bias.”

“MEPA’s consistent practice of finding loopholes and quoting the letter, rather than the spirit of the law, discredits all talk of MEPA reform,” FAA concluded.

Permalink: FAA questions MEPA’s approval of of the Metropolis Project