Case Studies  A Regeneration Strategy for Valletta. Il-Biccerija Case Study

6. Prioritising Nodes

As have been discussed above, it makes more sense to focus all available resources onto one node, and then when the plan is completed move onto another node. It is therefore important, that after selecting the nodes, through the process explained above, one should prioritise the nodes. Prioritising of nodes depends on a range of criteria, as shall be discussed infra.

The present physical state of a node, is one of the most important criteria which should be considered in choosing the first node to act on. A node which is made up of a relatively high number of degraded buildings, should have preference on another in which buildings are better maintained. Although such difference in Valletta is not that evident, there are areas which are in a much worse physical state than others.

Another aspect which should be contemplated when prioritising nodes, is the historical value of the node. A node, which has lost most of its original buildings, especially those lost in the Second World War, and the majority of its buildings are postwar reconstructions, should have less priority than a node which contains a considerable number of sixteenth and seventeenth century buildings. When deciding on two nodes, both having retained their original character, the node which has key historical buildings in it, such as auberges and seventeenth century churches, should have priority on that which has a lesser amount of such buildings.

Nodes having higher vacancy rates than others should have priority. The rate of vacancy could relate with the unpopularity of an area, and therefore intervention through such areas is most essential. As mentioned earlier in the previous section, a node having higher vacancy rates, is much easier to act upon, since one would avoid the displacement of existing residents, and the possibility of gentrification.

The population mix of a node, if the area is residential, is another criteria which should be considered when establishing priorities between nodes. A node having a comparatively aging population; or having a considerable number of families with social problems; or dominated by a low income population, should have a higher priority than one which has a better mix.

A node which in a way is already attracting visitors to it, should have less priority than a node which is relatively isolated. The possible effect which the rehabilitation of a node could have on the areas outside it, should be also considered when setting priorities.

An area which already has pressure for unacceptable redevelopment, or undesirable commercial pressure, should be acted upon before a node on which such pressure do not exist. Similarly, areas which have been identified for "slum" clearance in previous plans, and such clearance had not occurred, should have a high priority, for two main reasons. When such areas are identified, these areas tend to degenerate much quicker, both physically and socially; and if people are still living in unacceptable conditions, something should be done to improve their living conditions.

Property ownership, is another criteria which could be used in prioritising nodes. An area having a balance between government and private owned properties should have a higher priority than a node which is mostly owned by the private sector, or by the government. Such balance could facilitate both public sector involvement and encourage private investment.

Public Opinion    7 Case Study – Il-Biccerija Node