You would be hard pressed to find a European country without a controversial development project. Whether it is a neighbourhood being gentrified, a landmark repurposed or a public space privatised, these features of the modern urban landscape are guaranteed to divide opinion.
Ultimately, development and debate tend to go hand in hand, with economic interests frequently coming into tension with questions of cultural identity and heritage. But wherever you stand on that debate, it’s hard not to acknowledge that the projects generating the most controversy make for a compelling read.
Corinthia’s Ħal Ferħ Project, Malta: Who really Foots the Bill?
Whenever Malta, controversy, and development appear in the same sentence, The Corinthia Group is rarely far behind. This hospitality giant has been embroiled in multiple disputes over the years. None, however, are more infamous than the Ħal Ferħ project.
To set the scene, Corinthia acquired the Ħal Ferħ site in 2015. They proposed a development with 162 rooms alongside 25 detached villas and a top tier wellness centre. The luxury resort was intended to create over 200 full time jobs and have a 320-space car park, entirely funded by Corinthia. On the surface, the project appears to be largely positive. Why would locals oppose a development seeking to renovate a somewhat derelict site at no cost to the taxpayer?
The problem lies in how the land was acquired. In October 2021, The Shift revealed that Corinthia had paid just €1.3 million to build and sell 25 residential luxury villas in Ħal Ferħ, rather than the €10.3 million figure claimed by the government. The €10.3 million valuation set by the Land Authority was already considered cheap, leading taxpayers to question why they were being short-changed.
The project became increasingly controversial when it was also revealed that the planned development would directly violate a previous deed which restricted the land to tourism development purposes only. How the company was able to bypass this restriction sparked significant debate, as did the fact that the lack of transparency over the deed eliminated any possibility of competing bids. For critics, the confusing deal raised a salient question: are the rules applied equally to everyone?
Jared Kushner’s Sazan Island Resort, Albania: Paradise for Sale?
No article on this subject would be complete without mentioning a development in the midst of a prolific controversy. Namely, Jared Kushner’s $1.4 billion luxury resort on Albania’s Sazan Island, which is facing intense backlash from over 40 environmental groups.
But stepping back from the criticism, the project does have its defenders. Most notably, Albania’s Prime Minister, Edi Rama, who has championed the development, framing it as a “fantastic opportunity” to turn a dormant island into a “crown jewel of Mediterranean tourism”. Economically, the case is not without merit either. The development is projected to generate roughly 1,000 jobs, a meaningful figure for a country that, as Prime Minister Rama puts it, needs luxury tourism “like a desert needs water.”
However, it would be a mistake to dismiss the weight of opposition levied at this project. When 41 environmental organisations spanning 28 countries unite to demand its suspension, it is difficult to dismiss their concerns. And looking at the evidence, nor should we.
The Guardian describes Sazan’s landscape as “Jurassic” and “dizzyingly beautiful” but the stakes extend far beyond the island’s aesthetics. Sazan sits at the heart of the Karaburun-Sazan Marine National Park, one of the Mediterranean’s most ecologically vital zones. Its waters provide critical habitat for the endangered Mediterranean monk seal, while the surrounding Posidonia meadows play a critical role in regional biodiversity and climate regulation. Kushner’s development undoubtedly puts this habitat at risk.
Indeed, the resort may become the crown jewel of Mediterranean tourism. But at what cost to the marine and biodiverse crown jewel which already exists?
Disneyland Paris: A Forgotten Controversy
Taking on a slightly different angle, readers may be surprised to find that despite its now famed stature, Disneyland Paris was once one of the most hotly contested developments of its time.
In hindsight however, the case for the park is not a hard one to make.
Since opening in 1992, the park has generated over €84.5 billion for the French economy, accounting for roughly 6.1% of France’s national tourism revenue, and supporting upwards of 70,000 jobs. As Europe’s single most visited tourist destination, the resort has long since outgrown the controversy that greeted it upon its inception.
But the success of the park does not take away from the visceral outrage the development once provoked. At the time, a group of French intellectuals decried the park to be “an assault on European identity,” with one critic going so far as to infamously label the development a “cultural Chernobyl.” The former French Minister for Culture, Jack Lang, in fact boycotted the park’s opening, declaring the enterprise to be a symbol of American cliches and consumerism that had no place in France.
Whichever side of the debate you end up on, French culture or American consumerism, the Disneyland Paris case proves one thing above all else: controversy around major developments is as enduring as the developments themselves.
