It's been a recent topic these days the idea of reviving Intramuros and its surroundings in Manila. Be it the pedestrianised streets to that of the reopening of the river esplenade, reviving the "city within the walls" has been a topic in heritage circles and has created mixed reactions to it. However, if one may ask, is the reviving benefited the community itself? Or for aesthetics sake?
Comparing Intramuros and Colonial Williamsburg
As yours truly was reading the paper, Joel Ruiz Butuyan, the author gave Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia as an example. According to him, Colonial Williamsburg's historic district, which perfectly captures the ambiance and way of life of the 1700s, is regarded as the largest living history museum in the world. Scattered across a 122-hectare expanse are several hundred structures that were reproduced or refurbished in accordance with colonial-era architecture, in addition to 89 restored 18th-century buildings. Among the buildings from the colonial era are the Governor's Palace, the Capitol, the courthouse, the prison, the military camp, the hospital, the church, and the inns.
However, Butuyan finds it fascinating that the location allowed visitors to experience life as it was in the 18th century. In addition, he claims that there are pubs that serve historical fare and beverages, a market square where goods from the era are offered for sale, and a theater that hosts or exhibits entertainments from the 18th century. Craftsmen during the colonial era include carpenters, tailors, shoemakers, wigmakers, blacksmiths, and silversmiths. Their creations can be purchased or displayed. Many of the workers in the historic region are trained to speak in archaic English, and they wear clothing from the 18th century as they go about their daily lives, doing chores, and conducting business.
Nice if one may say, but to put the example of Colonial Williamsburg in the still-living and working district of Intramuros seems to be an ideal thought- for behind the beauteous setting of spanish-era buildings is a community that kept the district living and thriving. Of course the district needs regulations to keep the place in order, but to replicate? Again find it ideal if not idyllic for tourism's sake as Colonial Williamsburg is really presented as a living-history museum managed by a private foundation presenting a part of the historic district in the city of Williamsburg, Virginia. Everything is all but "rehearsed" as it tries to reflect the setting of the colonial era as that of the restored buildings. Intramuros, on the other hand, although managed by the government-led "Intramuros Administration" is more than just a city within the walls full of old and rebuilt, or recreated structures- it is a working living community that's in need of recognition and inclusivity in its quest for revival.
Both places did truly committed to promoting history and preserving its heritage, but there are major differences that's to recognise upon. Whereas Colonial Williamsburg is managed by a private institution, a “theme park” that’s populated with historical reenactors to compliment the restored if not rebuilt setting, whereas Intramuros is not, but rather a working district both managed by a government agency whose purpose is to to orderly restore, administer, and develop the historic walled area; while its barangays representing Manila’s Local Government, carries the task of ensuring order and providing services to its local constituents residing within and surrounding its walls. Together, the Intramuros Administration and the Manila City Government, along with the private sector, did sound efforts to revive, preserve, and uphold for present and future generations, benefiting its inhabitants, tourists, and other sectors involved; but, in reading Butuyan's suggestion- that of a "cultural Disneyland" it sidelines, if not forgets the community that keeps the district living in favor of the idyllic setting Intramuros should be.
Why yours truly did say that Butuyan's suggestions forgets that of the community within the walls? That by saying he wants a "Cultural Disneyland" patterned that of Colonial Williamsburg in Intramuros shows how ideal would be especially "in the name of tourism". True that the intent is to showcase the surrounds of the past, but, the demographics of the district has been changed for generations- with seamen, students, middle-class employees and owners of variety stores, eateries, and dormitories replacing that of its supposed residents who once served as the bureaucrats serving both the city and the country. The latter have all moved out to districts like Ermita or Malate during the American era, or that of Forbes and San Lorenzo during the early years of the Republic; So, out of something that's ideal should the ones existing, benefiting, and contributing be removed in favour of what is pleasing to the eyes? It's no different from proclaiming that Intramuros is an enclave of the rich simply because of its lawns as a golf course- while within the walls a "cultural Disneyland" for those who can afford to enter.
Besides, there’s Acuzar’s “Las Casas” that according to its developer tries to replicate the historical setting although controversial as this involves houses that meant to be part of a specific community such as Manila’s- of old houses being moved piece by piece and be “restored” to its past condition. This may sound closer to Colonial Williamsburg mr. Butuyan was pondering upon- especially that there are those who able to replicate the period complete with horse-drawn carriages, replicas of tranvias, even old jeepneys. There’s also drama featuring the life of Jose Rizal, as well as serving the food that tries to replicate that of the olden times.
But since there are those who think this project brought by Mr. Acuzar should also happen in Intramuros, then it means debate as it affects various sectors. For as the never-ending issue deals about the enclave, its community, and its quest for architectural revival- for what kind of revival Intramuros or its surroundings within Old Manila should be? Yours truly may've read various suggestions some of which are considerable and involves inclusivity; but Butuyan's suggestion may sound quite extreme and exclusive for others, knowing that it means recreating everything 19th century for tourism's sake- but again, there's Las Casas to begin with if he wishes that way, he can pay a certain amount just to enjoy the setting he thinks "that should happen in Intramuros".
For despite recognising how tourism brings income to the walled enclave, then how about the schools, the stores, restaurants, the logistics and shipping offices as well as dormitories and even parking spaces that benefits the community? Tourists can go on a weekend walk visiting every church, paying a fee to visit a museum, or buy in a souvenir shop and dine at a restaurant within the walls; but everyday students from Letran, Mapua, and the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila attend their classes in the campuses located within the walls- so is some staying in its dormitories, eating at roadside eateries, lucky enough if there's a fastfood chain or a convenience store for some air-conditioned setting. Just find it question provoking the thought why for the sake of beauty the district has to become a gentrified space, a "cultural Disneyland" that benefits tourists at the expense of the community. Wouldn't be surprised if this happens to be Las Casas, but despite efforts to revive, to revitalise the city within the walls, Intramuros is no Las Casas of Bagac- for despite having old houses and iconic structures, these carries a purpose other than pleasing the eyes and minds of tourists: it is a community where everyone lives, works, studies! Why would these people be sidelined in favour of those who just go to see a rehearsed surrounding?
How about motor vehicles in the area? Should be “Car-less?” “Car-free?”
On the other hand, this note acknowledges the need for limits in motorised vehicles passing over Intramuros. Especially with the recent developments to improve tourism would say that the pedestrianisation of some streets find it helpful to make the place walkable and to protect the integrity of the structures built, as well as some roads can be narrow only to see cars driving around. although there are some tend to be quite extreme particularly conveying the thoughts of making the walled district “car-free”- and that would say quite idealistic.
However, it's a common misperception that car-free cities and districts forbid car ownership altogether, particularly in areas that were intended to be pedestrian-only. “Car free” or for accuracy’s sake, “car less” generally mean fewer cars rather than no cars so vary from restricting the use of vehicles in certain areas or designated streets to removing parking spaces. Reduced car usage or restrictions in particular areas are common features of car-free programs. Car ownership and driving is still permitted for locals and businesses. However, there are other options that are more accessible and actively encouraged, like ride-sharing, walking, cycling, and public transportation.
People would like to live in towns with less air pollution, fewer accidents, and more areas set aside for pedestrians. Cars take up a lot of urban space, therefore it's important to take that into account. Additionally, fewer personal cars can ease the chronic space shortage felt in districts.
For instance, in Manhattan, parking lots and roadways take up around 25% of the total area of the borough, this of course is a major problem to begin with; on the other hand, Oslo has transformed over 700 parking spaces into bike lanes, parks, and benches. Similarly, Paris plans to remove 70,000 parking spaces in the city to make way for active transport lanes. These are driven by the need to make cities livable and inclusive for all, rather than those who own automobiles of sorts- and of course, this should also happen in the Philippines, especially in the old districts.
To be honest, people may find the idea riddled with misconception especially when private car ownership is at odds with those who have not, what more that there are other motor-driven vehicles such as pedicabs and motorcycles that also share the roads as that of pedal-driven ones. If to take the thought literally simply because of “hating the presence of automobiles” then this may also include that of other motor-driven vehicles as well due to environmental and safety reasons. But since they happened to be part of the community the thought of "low-traffic neighbourhoods" in old communities and districts is likewise than literally banning cars or any motor vehicles in the said area- for having limits on passing motor vehicles within the area in favour of pedestrians would be better than making the entire district prohibiting cars or any motor vehicles all for tourism’s sake.
Or is it because they hate cars or any motor vehicles? Pardon for the thought knowing that the idea of having the entire district prohibit passing motor vehicles sounds extreme. Why? Haven’t they forgot that the district also has offices dedicated to logistics and shipping? As well as having printing offices located there? Even the buses of schools located at Intramuros also passed within the area too. Should these establishments be moved out as well? Again these happened to be part of the community- and they obliged to observe regulations regarding vehicle use within the vicinity. Furthermore there are also paid parking areas for car-owning visitors who ought to visit the walled district particularly churchgoers who wanted to visit the Manila Cathedral on Sundays. True that these folks would say are being advised by authorities to have alternative means of transport especially on days certain roads being dedicated to pedestrians in order to improve mobility in the area.
Perhaps it would agreeable on the idea that of limiting access on motor vehicles the way the Duke of Gloucester Street and other historic area thoroughfares in Colonial Williamsburg are closed to motorized vehicles during the day, in favor of pedestrians, bicyclists, joggers, dog walkers, and animal-drawn vehicles. Mr. Butuyan and others would agree on this, that visitors may park at the Visitor's Center, as automobiles are restricted from the restored area, while wheelchair-accessible shuttle service is provided to stops around the perimeter of the Historic District. In the case of Intramuros would say that a dedicated shuttle service will do, aside from prioritising pedestrians, cyclists, and smaller vehicles whilst limiting that of motorised ones on days or hours in certain roads.
***
It is not surprise that there are people wanted a Potemkin town for tourism reasons, so expect them to talk about whatever appeals to their eyes, even at the expense of the community that supports it. They would suggest that by expelling the existing “squatting” residents for a Potemkin town would flourish tourism alone and therefore means developmenr, having “existing structures inside Intramuros that can be restored to their 19th-century grandeur with colonial-era homes and business establishments can be reconstructed in vacant lots.” If so, let it be. But, for the sake of reality, would one suggest that by imposing their ideas on an already existing community? It appears that they are more concerned with the beauty than with the life that makes the location worthwhile. Being a guest for a while would suggest that there is a real need for order in that place, while also understanding the need for inclusivity in that particular community, especially since without them, the site is very useless, regardless of the history carved in it.
In this remark, yours truly mentioned that, while admitting the need for improvement, it must go beyond aesthetics and focus more on livability and community in light of the recent developments in Intramuros and its environs over Old Manila. Expect it to be selective—some things are agreeable and worthy of discussion, while others are debatable and, therefore, subject to some disagreement. It is quite agreeable that Colonial Williamsburg states its objective with these words: "That the future may learn from the past" and so must be followed by people who value legacy and identity. However, as time passes, expect changes in the said area and the community that keeps it living, particularly those that ensure the place's sustainability regardless of its status; otherwise, it will become a shell of what it once was. They simply need to be included in the development process since they are willing to put things in order as if that benefits themselves.