This article was previously published in Money Mag – May/June 2025 – Real Estate & Sustainability
We are not architects, but we are builders – of brands, strategies, and narratives that stand the test of time. We believe in sustainable growth that goes beyond buzzwords and bottom lines. It’s not enough to do less harm. Whether you are constructing buildings or businesses, true sustainability requires beauty, integrity, and long-term thinking.
So while real estate may not be our domain, designing with purpose definitely is. Here’s the perspective we’ve given Money Magazine on the illusion of sustainability in the built environment, and what it can teach us about creating better businesses too.
The illusion of sustainability
We throw the word ‘sustainable’ around and hardly ever stop to consider the full reach of its meaning. It has come to be associated with any activity, resource use, or process that has a lower negative impact on the environment than a comparable equivalent.
That isn’t really sustainable. Neither does it encapsulate the full meaning of sustainability. For something to be sustainable, it must be able to be upheld over time without causing harm or depletion to its environment, society, and the economic ecosystem it forms part of. It implies that our actions today do not impede future generations to meet their own needs.
The starting point
Let’s start from the most essential point of departure – that of our point of view. We depart from a grossly anthropocentric view of everything we do, and this is crucial when speaking about sustainability. While we are the species we are concerned about most, we are but one link in an intricately interconnected ecosystem. What might sustain us at the expense of any other species is not, in fact, sustainable for the entire ecosystem.
From there, we build upwards and consider the multiple ways in which our activities can be sustainable.
If we are to leave an inhabitable planet for our progeny, we cannot leave the old “do a little less harm” definition of sustainability on the table. We must wrap it up in recycled paper and deposit it in the recycling bin. Even a neutral stance is unsustainable. Unless we look at our constructed environment with a view to reverse the staggering amount of harm that we are causing to the natural environment, we are neglecting our duties towards future generations.
If we consider that global cement production is accountable for 8% of our CO2 emissions, we can see that the construction industry is a major contributor to the sustained damage to our environment. And that is simply the view of one side-effect of a single material (before we even consider the impact of its transport costs).
Beyond the environment
But sustainability is not just about the environment. A sustainable practice is one that can continue to exist from an economic standpoint. If I decide to spend 10% more than what I earn every year, it is easy to see that there will come a time when my spending becomes completely unsustainable.
As we continue to construct the world around us in a way that is decoupled from the realities of those who inhabit it, we know that we are heading towards an inevitable inflection point. When the supply side outstrips demand – mainly for reasons of affordability, the market finds a way of self-regulating. An easier way of saying this is that there is product on the market but no one there who wants to purchase or rent at unreasonable rates. The fact that we’re still keeping the two sides balanced does not mean the situation will remain as is indefinitely.
What goes up
A long term view of everything we do is essential. We’ve built, torn down, and rebuilt so much of what’s around us – especially when we were forced to look at what we’d built in a hurry. Sometimes there is very good reason to do so. Look at Rotterdam. The city was flattened during the second world war and rebuilt in a hurry. The haste was an absolute necessity. Since then, a large majority of panic building was torn down to be rebuilt in a way that is more practical and more beautiful.
We are, after all, an ostensibly intelligent species. We want our surroundings to be aesthetically pleasing as well as functional and practical. While a war may justify building a city twice within 5 decades, we don’t have too many other excuses to waste time, materials, money, and energy. Concrete is devilishly hard to repurpose and recycle so it usually ends up relegated to the mountains of construction waste that will endure beyond the expected lifespan of our species.
For good, in both senses
Building with a very long term view in mind is sensible and admirable. We are lost in admiration for the structures that have endured since ancient times – Mayans, Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, etc – all built for posterity and the results of their efforts stand today as proud reminders of what happens when a long-term view is the primary focus of any endeavour worth embarking on. Buildings that look beautiful and last a long time benefit absolutely everyone. As Le Corbusier claimed, those who could not afford to live in buildings he designed ought to be able to benefit from their beauty as they passed by.
Aesthetics and longevity can and should be intertwined notions. We should build to last and we should build for beauty. There is no reason for us to walk through a street and be assaulted by ugly. It’s a challenge to be anywhere around a built-up area of our tiny islands, look around you, and be solely captivated by the beauty of the buildings that surround you.
When the majority of new builds are designed by accountants, it is no surprise that they have the aesthetic appeal of a spreadsheet. We’ve gained density and lost beauty. The Greeks and the Romans and the rest of our global civilisation-building ancestors would be appalled to know how we’ve perverted the example they left us a few millennia ago.
Beyond brick-and-mortar
The principles of sustainable construction extend far beyond cement and steel. Organisations themselves can be built with either short-term expediency or long-term resilience in mind. Just as we wouldn’t want our buildings designed primarily by accountants, we shouldn’t let our business models be dictated solely by quarterly results. Whether constructing physical spaces or building brands and companies, the foundation matters. And that foundation begins with the narratives and values we design into our organisations from day one. Truly sustainable businesses, like truly sustainable buildings, require thoughtful architecture at their core, with systems and structures designed to weather challenges while creating lasting value for all stakeholders.
We are actually in control
When we think of what we’re about to do next we know that the word sustainability is going to be expected of us. It is up to us to define the word in a way that is meaningful to those who come next. Luckily, there is plenty at our disposal to help us construct the world around us in a way that future generations will be proud of.
We have techniques and materials and best practices that have been developed over the years and that are there for us to use wisely as we design and build the spaces we need. There is also plenty we can do to use existing buildings wherever possible. The notions of adaptive reuse, retrofitting, infill development, and even what the Italians call the ‘albergo diffuso’. This involves using existing buildings that are spread around the town as a hotel – not only does it preserve the architectural vernacular but it saves on the material and energy costs of constructing a new hotel building.
Of course, pursuing these ideals comes with practical challenges. Initial costs for quality materials and thoughtful design are often higher, even if they pay dividends over many decades to come. Malta’s dense regulatory landscape, from planning permissions to heritage preservation requirements, can make adaptive reuse projects complex undertakings. Finding architects and construction contractors with experience in sustainable retrofitting or preservation-minded construction presents another hurdle.
These challenges require creative solutions and perhaps revised financial models that account for long-term value rather than just upfront costs. But what will we think about a century from now? Will future generations dismiss exemplary builds by saying, “They could have saved 10% by skimping on thinking”? I don’t think so.
