Is another monster to hit our skyline?

 

  "The buildings are not only getting higher and higher but wider and wider to fit in as many chickens, sorry I mean people as possible"

Yet another monstrosity that will hide Valletta from Sliema’s backstreets (not residential homes but public streets) and add to the army of tanks on our skyline has been recommended to be granted planning permission by a Malta Environment and Planning Authority (MEPA) case officer and the authority will decide this week on whether to allow the development to go ahead.

The site in question is the old Forestals shop and warehouses along the Sliema Strand. Now there is no doubt that the area in question could do with an upgrade. What it does not need is another high-rise, high-density apartment building.

What is being proposed will stifle all residents in the surrounding backstreets. According to the Sliema Residents Association (SRA), what Mepa might sanction next week is a new 11-storey high development with over 100 apartments. “Yet, no Environment Impact Assessment has been commissioned to study the problems connected with such a massive development.”

I find that unbelievable. Can MEPA please confirm that that is correct? If it were, that would mean that no one has any idea how such a high-rise and high-density building will affect the area’s infrastructure and quality of life of residents in the area.

Giving his view, AD’s Carmel Cacopardo had this to say: “These are the consequences of approving the Local Plans without subjecting them to a Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA). Government used a legal loophole to avoid an SEA of the Local Plans way back in 2006. Had an SEA been carried out, undoubtedly the cumulative impacts of development would have featured as one of the negative elements of the Local Plans.”

The SRA is right in saying that “Sliema is already plagued with excessive pollution, congestion, noise, overpopulation, lack of fresh air, loss of privacy and gardens etc. so why cram more into an already congested city?”

We have people bleating on and on that other developers were allowed to build high-rise (and now we have to add high-density) so it was not fair to stop now. I find it astounding that people can use “not fair” in the context of developers not getting their way.

Here is some of the reasoning given by some such commentators online: “Keeping in mind that all Sliema seafront has been built, it would only be unfair if this area will not be given a permit,” said one. And another: “Why all the fuss? All of the front is built up already, so nothing is going to change.”

What puerile reasoning. That means that, although we have seen the horror of what The Crowne Plaza site in Tigné has been turned into, we should carry on regardless. What is changing is that now the buildings are not only getting higher and higher but wider and wider to fit in as many chickens, sorry I mean people as possible.

Another ‘gem’ told us: “I’d rather have the area developed once it is already at it, painful it will be. There isn’t much to conserve at this stage, look at Tigné, nothing pleasant there”, and another: “Older developments did not respect the existing streetscape in their time. That was not good, but once Mepa permitted them precedents were created. It is now too late to start ‘respecting the existing streetscape’”.

 Great, so we should carry on with the horror. As one commentator rightly put it: “It is exactly because Sliema is over-built that we should complain. Enough is enough. Anyone who has studied urban design (and I am sure Mepa has several qualified urban designers) is aware that it is dangerous and irresponsible to continue to intensify the population density in an already crowded town.”

Here are some more: “The argument that the whole Sliema front has been built over, is not valid. It is exactly because the Sliema front has been destroyed that we should protect what little air and space is left. We need more open spaces.”

“This is now a question of health and the environment. Too many of our towns and villages have been overbuilt. The negative consequences are already evident.”
“It’s not a question of money − this is a question of health, safety and sanity now. The protection of the environment is the protection of your own health and not just the scenery! In the 20 years I’ve been living in Sliema there has hardly been a year when construction wasn’t taking place at one point or another in our street. It gets to be so bad that one cannot even open a window in summer with the amount of dust that gets into the house.”

And as I reach out for another tissue after yet another sneeze, “Sliema residents are sick and tired of being expected to put up with all this dust, chaos and traffic.” As I have been repeating regularly in this column, older buildings in Sliema were built with the higher buildings at the top. That terraced effect is not only environmentally aesthetic but also makes sense with regard to air circulation and sea breezes.

“The Forestals Building and neighbouring houses are all low storey buildings with higher houses behind. Any new developments should respect the existing streetscape − in most scenic, coastal towns in Italy or Greece, buildings are terraced and the seafront is protected,” said an online commentator.

It was good to hear from Peter Gingell that the Mepa Case Officer has not tried to dismiss the hundreds of objections raised by the locals. He also reassured the pubic that all submitted objections to this application have been considered and will be presented to the Mepa Board when this application will be discussed this week.
We can now only hope and pray that the board will give those objections and the ones listed here the importance they deserve.

Article published in the Malta Independent on Sunday on 27 May 2012

Read More

Please go to this site and sign the petition to safeguard Malta's trees

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/629/494/052/save-maltas-trees/

Read More

Prima donnas get centre stage

  "Unfortunately, the people who do have the balls to speak out then slip up and trip up on their egos"

 Surprise, surprise, I read that on a ‘chat show’ that supports the PN on TVM, our national station, Labour MP Adrian Vassallo attacked his leader Joseph Muscat accusing him of behaviour akin to “communism or dictatorship”. Excerpts were also aired on TVM’s news on Friday evening. What is usually picked on by satirical programmes abroad makes news here.

On the one hand, we have Franco Debono, PN, who constantly attacks his own leader egged on by the Opposition, and conveniently Mr Vassallo has now supplied ammunition for the other side.

Debono’s latest dig was calling the Prime Minister “a self-appointed technocrat who runs everything”. I am not sure what he meant by “a self-appointed technocrat”, but aren’t prime ministers meant to do just that? Run things that is.

He further claimed, “That is why politicians are losing respect because this technocrat and his friends from St Edwards do what they want.” The last gibe was obviously directed at Richard Cachia Caruana, since, as far as I know, he is the only one in Gonzi’s entourage that is an old Edwardian.

As I have said before, it had been good to see Debono upsetting the apple cart. He started off well by pointing out real deficiencies in the country’s administration and we do have a cliquish, arrogant and complacent government that certainly needed a kick up the backside.

Unfortunately, his initial mature critique soon developed into childish bragging and pique. It is such a shame that the people who do have the balls to speak out then slip up and trip on their egos.

As to Mr Vassallo, he said that his anti divorce stance (which, frankly in its own way, I found dictatorial) had provoked “communist”, or at least dictatorial” behaviour from his leader. He also attacked the PL parliamentary group as simply a rubber stamp to what Mr Muscat wants.

My column of 8 January had the heading “Hell has no fury not only when women are spurned”. That time it was directed at Franco Debono, who had not been given the Justice portfolio he had worked so hard for. But it can just as well be applied today to Adrian Vassallo.

While admitting that his dissatisfaction started when the previous Labour leader Alfred Sant did not appoint him to a party committee discussing drugs policy, he complains that Joseph Muscat “does not even look at me in Parliament” and has not spoken to him since receiving his (Dr Vassallo’s) letter in March stating he would not seek re-election.

I must admit that, particularly as a woman, Vassallo’s fundamentalist views, as reinforced by his quote that he would rather live in Iran than here, scare me. Considering his way of thinking, it is not surprising that he was not the ideal choice of committee member on drug policy.

As for his politics, in America, for example, he would more likely be a far right Republican rather than a Democrat. Although I doubt that even an American far right Republican would ever state he would rather live in Iran than in his own country.

However, both main parties here, because of our Catholicism, are not that different as to right wing views on family and morality. For example, there were politicians on both sides that were against divorce. But that was where the Opposition appeared to be making changes.

Whereas the Prime Minister and most of the Cabinet were against divorce, most if not all of the Opposition’s hierarchy were for it. Now although other Labour MPs who were against divorce finally toed their party line (ostensibly, since the referendum vote was for divorce), Mr Vassallo would not budge. He claimed he was representing his constituents who did not want divorce introduced.

Now I had raised the question on whether MPs are in Parliament to represent their constituents wishes or their party’s, before now. I feel that they should represent the people who elected them. But here lies the rub. While there are still people who vote for anyone as long as they represent the party of their choice then MPs shall vote with their party regardless.

Back to Vassallo’s gripes, he said he was completely sidelined by the party. He was not invited to its TV programmes and complained of a campaign against him as soon as he declared his opposition to divorce. The only time he was invited to a PL television programme, he said he was booed by a hall full of Labourites who applauded Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, in what he claimed was a stage managed event.

Isn’t it extraordinary that people only see the stage management side of partisan TV stations when they are not part of it? It was interesting to read that programme producers and presenters at the PL TV station, ONE, are being sacked and are being welcomed by PBS’ TVM.

This raises various questions. Does this mean our national station will be giving viewers more balanced programmes? Or yet another partisan view? Will those producer/presenters now have an axe to grind? Is Jason Micallef the head of ONE upsetting his own apple cart? Maybe Franco Debono will now be offered a programme on ONE and Adrian Vassallo one on Net TV.

 

Article published in the Malta Independent on Sunday on 13 May 2012

Read More