“Almost Leaving without any trace”

“Almost Leaving without any trace”

As rapid urbanisation continuously takes its position in Philippine society, each and every space hath to be adjusted to the needs of a growing metropolis, particularly with the emergence of various structures enough to cater in an existing district.

However, in most urbanised enclaves, limited land area occurs, and in response, in-fill developments and in most cases, demolition of various existing structures are being made enough to pave way for “modern settings”.

Cannot deny it especially if the system who assumes to be dynamic tries to invoke a sense of urban continuity and modernity in that district, but on the other hand, it also result to the reduction of open spaces, potential loss of cultural heritage leading to urban disorders, that also contributes to degeneration of a national identity.

Ideally, the significance of ones structure, especially due to its timeless character and physical features done by those times, created a lasting identity; it also reflected the socio-economic state of the place as people served it as a place for events, economic matters, anything significant and contributative to a growing society.

But in this present time, and with people preferring to “move on” from the past, various structures, no matter how historically or culturally significant, are increasingly threatened as it deteriorates through time. It may sound appealing to some about preservation, conservation, and the like; but reality goes otherwise especially in an order wherein invoking the illusion that progress meant this and the other meant degradation or blight; Let's take Escolta and the entire districts of Sta Cruz-Binondo for an example: most of its ages-old buildings are known for its history like the Regina, Perez-Samanillo, Calvo, and Uy Chaco. However, these edifices, no matter how known it is, are still struggling to maintain with higher costs of maintenance, property taxes, and the changing nature of the district, making others chose to abandon altogether and hence be susceptible to demolition. In the case of El Hogar it was almost Demolished, or in the case of Philbanking near Anda rotunda it was threatened. But luckily there are concerned groups who insisted that there should be tax cuts if not exceptions for those heritage-filled properties, and to encourage others to revitalise districts almost lost to degeneration.

Yet in spite of all these efforts and exhortations by the concerned, still not all are interested in that idea of preserving and making it adapted, with alibis ranging from "overspending" to the subjective view that "no one cares about heritage", what more that "the old ones must go in favour of the new" in the case of some of the buildings of the University of the East Manila campus end burned (either by electrical wiring or insurance?). Most of the structures were made decades-old and been retrofitted as what the University administrators saidth, but with the burning occurred, the administrators hath no choice but to demolish it: be it because of the structure’s weakness, or, plain and simple plan to restructure that part of the campus into a “dynamic" one in par with its neighbours.
For a nostalgic, worrying is its first expression knowing that those structures meant memories of their youth, and for that expect that there are those who wanted to see the campus rebuild whether as it was  (and hence be improved to make it adaptable to the present) while those rather agreed to its administrator’s decision to restructure altogether with new buildings and appearance.

And admittingly speaking, in seeing that area bluntly demolished including the chapel really invokes one’s nostalgic expression-and even wished that why not have the once-radically built Chapel be retained at least? While leaving the rest for that kind of development that is, contradicting as the old, demolished ones were concrete and the planned others are to be in brick.

All in all, it's been usual to see everything almost without any trace of identity. Be it Makati, Quezon City, or Manila, development at its full blasts with demolitions left and right including those with splendid significance. But again, thankfully that there are concerned nostalgics who insist that there is some speck of relevance and hence hath to be saved; but then the vast mass of apathetically indifferent beings chose to let go as if history hath nothing to do with them. Developers would even say messages like "to demolish the old and create new", coupled with statements such as "life goes on" if not "not all things are worth keeping for."
And from those statements one would think that matter how it was designed or the person behind who made that place known, today's "development" under Capitalism has nothing to do with reviving, if not treating heritage as any other aesthetic then letting it go afterwards.

Anyway, why is it this person, like others concerned sees the issue on heritage as serious as most people chose to get over and move on? Is it because of nostalgia? Frankly speaking then YES, but it is more than just nostalgia alone- in this present time, every significant edifice are threatened increasingly. And as urbanisation intensifies, the process of heritage decay is increasingly inevitable due to the post-industrial, commercialised urban constructions thrived over while on the other lies time-dependent nature of most heritage sites.

Otherwise, if to follow those who are as if in a "middle way" between nostalgics and those who are not, then why not move all every structure, every remarkable edifice to Bataan and leave the entire district to their idealised "modernity" Developers desperately wanted? Perhaps the so-called "move on" generation insisted that way as if it "decongests" Metro Manila from its dilapidated pasts and favours a consumeristic future wherein every edifice, ever structure, every square, every way, is aligned by interests.