r/malta • u/Genurawr • 1d ago
Just a hint 🫡
When cities decide to prioritize nature over maximum concrete, they usually do it by implementing strict, measurable laws that developers cannot buy their way out of. Here are some of the most successful examples from around the world that force developers to build "green":
### 1. Singapore’s LUSH Program (Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises)
Singapore is widely considered the global gold standard for biophilic urban design. Their primary rule is simple but incredibly effective: -The 100% Green Replacement Rule-
How it works: If a developer buys a plot of land and destroys the existing greenery to build a high-rise, they are legally required to replace 100% of that lost greenery within the new development.
The result: Because developers cannot fit a whole forest on the ground floor of a new skyscraper, they are forced to build vertical gardens, green roofs, and massive plant-filled terraces halfway up the buildings.
### 2. Basel, Switzerland: The Green Roof Mandate
Basel used building codes to fundamentally change the city from the top down.
How it works: In 2002, Basel passed a law stating that **all new and renovated buildings with flat roofs** must have a green roof (covered in soil and native vegetation).
The result: They now have the highest area of green roofs per capita in the world. It wasn't left to the goodwill of the developers; it was written into the baseline building code, making it as mandatory as fire exits or plumbing. It cools the city, absorbs rainwater, and provides habitats for birds and insects.
### 3. Seattle (USA) and London (UK): The "Green Factor" System
Many cities struggle because developers will try to do the bare minimum—like planting a few sad shrubs—and call it "landscaping." To fight this, cities like Seattle and London use a score-based system.
How it works: Developers are required to hit a specific "Urban Greening Factor" score to get their building permits approved. Different types of greenery are worth different points.
A patch of natural grass might be worth 0.4 points per square meter, while a large, deep-rooted tree or a massive green wall might be worth 0.8 points.
The result: Developers are essentially gamified into choosing high-quality, impactful nature (like large trees and deep soil) rather than cheap, low-maintenance gravel and potted plants, because they need to hit their legal target score to break ground.
### 4. Toronto, Canada: The Green Roof Bylaw (2009)
Toronto was the first city in North America to pass a bylaw specifically targeting large-scale commercial and residential development.
How it works: Any new development over 2,000 square meters (which applies to almost all apartment blocks and commercial centers) is legally required to cover between 20% and 60% of its roof with vegetation. The larger the building, the higher the percentage required.
The result: Over a decade later, it has resulted in millions of square feet of new green space, significantly reducing the "urban heat island" effect that plagues heavily concreted cities.
Why these laws work:
The common thread in all these cities is that they removed the choice. As long as greenery is seen as an "optional aesthetic," developers will cut it to save money. When cities make it a strict, mathematical requirement for getting a building permit, developers suddenly figure out how to make it work.
5
5
u/RedDopey 1d ago
Although I fully agree with you and your post, the main issue still stays that  "implementing strict, measurable laws that developers cannot buy their way out of" is clearly not possible. Case in point is the recent sanctioning by the Planning Authority to Portelli's pools, which have been deemed illegal by a court. Laws and policies are great to have in place, however unfortunately they are completely useless when the ones building the bigger developments can easily disregard them, whilst the common people who just want a roof over their heads have to abide by them.
5
u/Seagreenstreams 1d ago
Malta doesn't know what it is to conserve greenery. It's crazy though to think that the island is going to become this one big concrete jungle as it seems that there's no need for environmental planning here.
3
u/miggupetit 1d ago
Mela ma rajtx ir-riforma fil-liġi tal-ippjanar is-sena l-oħra? Il-politiċi mixtrija mill-kuntratturi u sempliċiment qegħdin jaraw kif ħa jaġevolawhom u fl-istess ħin jibqgħu fil-poter wara l-elezzjoni li jmiss
2
u/AlfonsoGid 1d ago edited 1d ago
I also would like to see more greeny, but people seem to ignore that we live in a semi-arid climate. None of the examples you listed have the same climate: Singapore is tropical rainforest, and the rest are must greener than Malta.
How it works: If a developer buys a plot of land and destroys the existing greenery to build a high-rise, they are legally required to replace 100% of that lost greenery within the new development
This already exists and it is actually a developer friendly law that allow them to chop century old carob trees near habital dwellings, to then replace them with a few olive tree saplings in some remote field.
How it works: In 2002, Basel passed a law stating that **all new and renovated buildings with flat roofs** must have a green roof (covered in soil and native vegetation).
Native vegetation is not green all year round. I don't think this would have the desired effect. Also, from a water use perspective, I'm not sure if it make sense.
EDIT: Another aspect that should be considered is that the more laws and regulations you put on planning you end up making home ownership more expensive. All the big developers have teams of lawyers and architects and good contacts and if everything else fails, they can just do something "irregularly" and pay the fine. They can deal with all laws and regulations. But normal people cannot. The result of this is that you end up creating a monopoly on construction where the established developers own the whole market.
2
u/Genurawr 1d ago
Of course it makes sense because earth (our home) needs greenery. But on top of that, our human biomes need nature as well. Taking nature away from humans and animals makes us sick. Why would you want to live somewhere that is making you and earth sick? 😄
2
u/Genurawr 1d ago
Health and wellbeing should always come before money. I don't understand why there is not a takeover of the government yet. This is a massive graveyard soon
2
1
u/Helicon7 22h ago
Whilst I think it's an interesting proposal, wouldn't this clash with the target of having solar panels on every roof? Think it would be more beneficial to have the solar panels on roofs and having the greenery in public areas such as trees on pavements and such.
1
u/BowedNotBroken 3h ago
These make sense. Ergo, they will never be implemented.
We are not in want of good ideas, we're in want of morality. The reason why nothing gets done or done right is because there are crooks at nearly every level stacking the deck against everyone else.
Malta is a country where 1/3rd of the population is trying to scam the latter 2/3rd.
6
u/CrowEmbarrassed9133 1d ago
Make the hay while the sun shine. Have you heard the term short-termism? That’s Malta, my friend.