 |
|
|
|
Communications |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Speech by the Minister Pullicino during The Malta Financial and Business Times Radisson Seminar with the theme ‘A National Policy for Architecture in Malta’. |
Date:
21/07/2004
On reading what Quentin Hughes and Richardson, I think that this island would have been a much better place, if only way back in 1969 the political class restricted the development zone as eventually it did in 1990, even though that decision was unpopular.
Allow me to start my contribution with a quote from Sir Nikolaus Persner:
“A bicycle shed is a building; Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture. Nearly everything that encloses space on a scale sufficient for a human being to move in is a building; the term architecture applies only to buildings designed with a view to aesthetic appeal.”
Sir Nikolaus Persner.
Let us take the example of the numerous garage type structures which abound our countryside and on the other hand let us take the example of the “girna”. Both have the same use and are built out of stone but whilst the former is just a building, the “girna” in all its simplicity can be termed as architecture.
So what makes a building of architectural quality? In my opinion unless the construction is built in relation to its site and to its surroundings, it can never be successful. No building can live alone just like no human being can exist on his own. Unless a building relates to the site where it is located, it is a construction without a soul.
Similarly a building which does not draw its conception from our roots and our local ethos it can never succeed. I am not saying that we always have to build like our ancestors. The site should dictate what kind of architectural treatment a building is to have. I believe that a building should show its location in time, it cannot be oblivious of its present, yet it cannot forget its past. I am afraid that this mistake is being repeated often on our island and few constructions are being erected with this concept in mind.
Another very important concept in order to produce good architecture is the question of scale, mass and proportions. Good Architecture is like a piece of beautifully composed music that elevates our spirit. Music is composed of one note after another and when one note is off key, the whole composition is jarring. Similarly for architecture; if the mass or scale is not right; if the building is too high; if the proportions of the apertures are not correct; then the building remains a building and is not elevated to the status of architecture.
Let us look at our village cores. The simplicity of our old houses is an example for us to follow. The proportions of the apertures, the solid to void ratio and the harmony of repetitive elements like the timber balcony are all examples which we have not copied in our construction of more recent years. We may still build with stone and we may still place timber apertures (although the general public wants to replace timber with aluminium in order to be more comfortable but not with the same aesthetical appeal) but the attention to detail is hardly there. If an old building is allowed to be demolished and re-built it must not only retain the same architectural style and materials of its surroundings but it must also retain the rhythm; if there is a cornice line this must be respected; if there is a rhythm of a timber balcony arched door and window this should also be respected.
Another issue which I feel needs to be addressed is that of the so-called pencil development. Due to the subdivision of properties, normally by inheritance, a single block or field with a sizeable frontage is being split into a number of different owners with the result that each owner will then construct his site in accordance with his needs and taste. Here I must ask MEPA to give more attention to the homogeneity of the streetscape both within urban conservation area as well as within scheme. The policy just states that developments with a frontage of less than 4.4 m should not be allowed. MEPA should encourage developers of adjacent sites to come together and provide a similar façade treatment; I am not saying that a street is to have one design, but the rhythm and scale are to be retained. On the other hand I would expect the Architect to understand the need that his building is going to effect the streetscape and he should explain to his client accordingly.
Many times we try to place an imprint with our building as if I want to say to the rest “George Pullicino lives here”. We have too many individuals when it is really the whole that matters. To arrive at this concept a collective effort is needed from all the players in the construction industry. The MEPA policies help to guide the Architect and the Developer but they are only guides. Architecture is not produced by having a check list of policies which one ticks against. We have too many constructions which are in accordance with the policies of MEPA but which are not architecture. Again I would like to stress that we can only achieve an improved built environment through the co-operation of all those involved.
MEPA cannot issue policies to take care of every eventuality. Policies are generic in nature; in order to reach as many eventualities as possible. It is up to the Directorate and the deciding bodies to use these policies wisely. Again I stress that by complying with the policies one does not achieve good architecture.
On the other hand the Architect should be his own first critic. Both at design stage and during the construction stage not enough attention is being given by the Architect to his building. It is true that the introduction of a proper planning system has placed a huge burden on the workload of the Architect but once a building has been constructed, it is there for a long time. It is pertinent to state that when all is said and done there remains the building.
The Developer also has a very important role in the quest to provide good architecture on our Islands. What is certain is that the economic factor of the construction industry is in many occasions, completely contradictory to the needs of architecture. The Developer needs to understand that also he has a duty toward society in general. Every construction will influence the surroundings either positively or negatively. Our built environment eventually effects the psychological being of humans. If one lives or works in a drab environment, one immediately feels unhappy whereas working or living in a clean and beautiful setting makes the human being happier and more productive.
Developers, and I mean the general public at large because the majority of Maltese own a small piece of land or house, are excepting too much return out of their property. In the past there was a sense of fulfillment; today money speaks out too loud and this shows negatively in Architecture. One sees too many developments where every square inch of developable land is taken up by building. No compromises are acceptable for the sake of good architecture. If we need two garages, one shop and two maisonette entrances out of a façade of say ten metres we end up with having more holes than cheese. Sometimes I wonder how the building remains erect after we puncture it so much with no respect towards the solid to void ratio simply in order to achieve our economic aim. We must shed this image and re-discover the true sense of Architecture.
Another issue which I would like to discuss with you is the concept of green buildings. Emilio Ambasz once said that “… every act of construction is an act of defiance to nature.” In a society which is ever increasingly becoming fast moving we must find spaces where our soul can stop and rest. We must not make the mistake of thinking that because we are becoming a more modern country we can do away with our traditions. Customs, traditions and our way of life is typical of our country and we should strive to retain this cultural identity. When it comes to architecture, in old buildings this space for calm and quiet used to come from the internal courtyard which was always full of lush plants. This space is not “lost” space; I sincerely feel that these are essential elements in our way of life. More modern buildings had the front gardens and the backyards which again traditionally used to be planted with trees and flowers.
However again the concept of maximization of the site has had its toll even here. Today a basement under the front garden is also being allowed provided that thirty percent of the front garden is landscaped. So says the policy. Really thirty percent of the front garden is much too little to have an effect on the streetscape and in many occasions where you have multiple ownership and no one is bound to take care of the front garden, this ends up as a paved area with stairs leading up to maisonettes and ramps leading to underground garages. Again this is not only an issue of MEPA dictating a percentage of landscaping but it should be something which we all feel is necessary. We all go abroad and envy the landscaping which we see but then when we come back we are not ready to make a sacrifice by taking care of our courtyard or front garden.
By green buildings I also mean energy-efficient buildings. With the introduction of larger glazed openings in order to maximize on the views; the narrowing of party walls to the absolute minimum in order to gain internal space, our buildings are becoming hotter in summer and colder in winter. The fact that we expect our buildings to be air-conditioned should not be an end in itself. We must devise methods of reducing heat gain and heat loss into our buildings. There are various methods which are very effective and which are also cost effective. There must be a drive however that we do not take the easy way out and leave the issue for the air-conditioning unit at a later stage. We must design for more energy conscious building and the Government needs to find ways how to encourage such a concept.
The same can be said about the skyline of our buildings. There are policies which request that all services on the roof are hidden from view however extremely few are those who follow such policies. I do not feel that it is up to MEPA to issue on enforcement order because the water tank is not suitably screened. It is up to us all that when we design and construct our buildings we cater for mechanical and electrical services. The services on the roof effect the visual aspect of our architecture and the seting of such services must not be considered as an after though but should be an integral part of the design.
Conclusion:
With regards to policies on Architecture, I believe that many of them are already present in the Structure Plan and the subsidiary documents which MEPA has produced. We are in the process of fine tuning the DC 2000 document which was reviewed after 12 long years, which was a very important document and which tried to put in words what the Directorate and the Development Control Commission was putting into practice. After four years of working with it, we felt the need to amend this document and the process has reached its final stages.
I cannot but not mention the fact that the list for Direct Action due to existing illegalities on sites which have not been built in accordance with the permit conditions runs into thousands. We must all feel duty bound to build in accordance with the permit conditions and in many occasions go beyond even that. What I mean is that the attention to detail will not be on the drawings and on the permit, but have to come from the close contact which the Architect and Developer have with their building.
Architecture can never be produced by men who have lost the power to wonder. It is our duty as a society in general that we produce buildings which as the Mexico born architect Luis Barragan once said:
“If there are many equally valid technical solutions to a problem, the one which offers the user a message of beauty and emotion, that one is architecture.”
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
