Or rather its architects. An article on last Sunday’s Times “Property slowdown driving architects out of business” focused on the employment problems faced by architects today “with large architectural firms laying off staff due to lack of work”. It is not clear whether the article was prompted by a press conference or press release or indeed whether it is the result of a sudden decision to educate the employability of budding Renzo Pianos. The clips taken from the Malta Developers Association president (ex-Minister and MEPA pioneer Michael Falzon) combined with a similar article on Maltatoday (Property developers on warpath…) would lead one to believe that the Times’ effort is a failed attempt at transforming a drab lobby release into a news item.
What does jar however is the quality of the complaints by the “architects” who apparently are going out of business because of “exorbitant fees” being charged by the planning authority. The logic underlying the developers’ lobby is mind-bending. They cannot really complain about the construction free-for-all being reined in – not much sympathy there right? Instead the complaint is disguised behind the more human approach of “unemployed persons” – these persons being the architects who have been thrown out of the large architectural firms after they “had been employed when the property and construction sectors were booming.”
Then comes the surprise admission:
One architect said the firm where he worked was moving away from simply designing apartments, maisonettes or villas and was turning to renovating vacant properties in an attempt to make them attractive to prospective buyers.
Really? Is renovating vacant properties rather than injecting more concrete into the earth a last ditch resort? Well I never. I’d have thought that the renovating bit would have automatically superseded the need to flood the market with new properties when even those available are having a hard time to sell.
If you go by the Maltatoday article then the other problem is the Inland Revenue valuation of apartments. A bargain buy means nothing when the IR inspectors value it at a much higher “potential” price. You do not have to be in the architecture business to be shocked by the IR evaluations – just watch it happen whenever somebody inherits a property or there is the division of a property between co-owners. There might be a point where the tax on a sale is actually higher than the profit being made.
The question I have though is whether the business of unemployment of architects is really the heart of the problem. Could it not be that our “development industry” is based on a self-destructing business model that is also harmful to the nation? The warts of the system are bound to be exposed much further during a slump in the sales market but the whole wheels that make the system turn might be aiming in the wrong direction. A development industry that focuses heavily on constructing, constructing, constructing without diversifying into more socially friendly models (dare I mention CSR) will hardly find any supporters for its cause beyond the politician who is in dire need of their money. Ironically it is this kind of money that the constructors no longer seem to be able to provide – which bodes for interesting times.
Meanwhile spare a thought for the unemployed architects.
(check out Kunstler’s TED talk “The Tragedy of Suburbia” in the mediabox – that’s the top right corner)
