When heritage issues still continue to rock "Old Manila" despite promises of conservation and revival

When heritage issues still continue to rock "Old Manila"

despite promises of conservation and revival

(or: "all after seeing demolished prewar structures over Binondo")

As more and more heritage structures be it pre or post war, are being demolished by scrupulous developers for supertall buuldings, of maximising floor plates all for the sake of accommodating new clients, all these are at the expense of preserving what makes old Manila who she is. 

These are the thoughts brought about by this writer especially after reading reports on Old Manila's heritage as well as those of traversing the streets after a glass of ice-cold Cafe Latte in "The Den" at Perez-Samanillo. Upon walking on those streets and saw once grand old structures undergone demolition, it seems that despite the local government's assuance to preserve those old sites, developers rather chose either to replace those altogether, if not assuming "they will preserve" by keeping its facade and becoming part of its proposed high-rise structure.

The former "American Chamber of Commerce"
Headquarters at Dasmarinas St. in Binondo, 
Demolished save for its Façade as part of a 
"high-rise building"

What a mockery isn't it? For knowing that as Old Manila's old structures as quite few why on earth to destroy it and be replaced by another very tall building? Does that district really need another high-rise in an already crowded area? For sure since 2013 or even earlier Manila has seen the demolition of various structures, be it the Old Meralco building in San Marcelino, Admiral Apartments, the former Philippine National Bank at Escolta, the former building of the Philippine Free Press at Avenida, and others all gave way to "new developments" which are rather high-rise residential buildings mostly catering to Mainlanders.

And because of this kind of mockery this also quite lamenting. That as this writer saw once-stood structures like the former Capitol theatre and its neighbour the Olsen Building at Escolta, the former main office of the American Chamber of Commerce at Dasmarinas, and the original site of the Hospicio de San Jose in Binondo, these structures, no matter it was prewar or made by a national artist, rather end destroyed by the wrecking ball all thanks to those scrupulous developers and government officials who gave the "go signal" for its outright demolition. 

Also to think that with those edifices were also at least 50 years old or even older, these are meant not to destroy it. For as National Historical Commission of the Philippines chair Rene Escalante once reminded that:

"Preserving the building's aesthetic character can be the owner’s contribution to the cultural heritage not only of their community but also of our country, through the conservation of built examples of significant design styles,”

Above: the former Land Management Bureau 
at Plaza Cervantes, now abandoned while its
neighbour, the former office of the Bank of the 
Philippine Islands, now demolished. 
Below: The former Capitol theatre and
Olsen Building, both demolished Save for its façade
and its "iconic" tower to be part of a high-rise building

But despite this message this doesn't matter for those scrupulous developers in connivance with some interest-seekers in government. And with that recent demolition of those edifices shows that these greedy developers doesn't mind about its priceless value as they demolish it altogether along with some "concerned" authorities who able to salvage some "priceless artifacts" and be treated as objects of curiosity in a museum, if not feigning concern that they would least keep a façade of that old structure and be integrated in a new one such as their envisioned skyscraper, or let someone like Acuzar to remove it piece by piece, chunk by chunk to be "rebuilt" at his pseudo-Manila in Bagac, Bataan.

And to think that as opposed to the former HongKong and Shanghai Banking Corporation that's been rehabilitated and given new life, as well as those of the former Citibank main office that's also given a new lease, and other remaining structures which continues to remain prominent as in the past, that to see some demolished regardless of its timeless beauty would say why on earth had to demolish those especially despite opposition by some agencies concerned? Or is it that there are institutions who supposed to be proactive in preserving heritage as rather "reactive" on those events? For sure there are good planners who tries to invigourate old communities, then why was it rather not taken seriously by authorities such as those who promised revival? Should everyone wait for another to be demolished-El Hogar's even threatened by those wanting to demolish it, no matter how lucky it was saved by some restraining orders and from agencies trying to preserve it. 

Also not surprising that Manila mayor Isko Moreno who once had vowed to preserve those structures the way he tried to revive the underpass and putting fountains in the Anda Monument (yet didn't even stop from demolishing the former PhilBanking main office designed by Zaragoza); but since he's the same mayor who seemingly becoming aloof on what goes on with those structures, would say that controversies surrounding heritage will continue to hound the capital, what more seeing those truly concerned expressing disappointment from those demolitions two and fro over Manila. What more that in this ever-present pandemic it becomes an opportunity to do a dirty job of destroying for no one dare to protest against their move. 

Sadly, despite all these concerns, not all people got that grasp of thought about preserving or reviving heritage. There are times that "commoners" especially those commenting in social media sites would say it's okay with demolishing those old structures, given that these as "fugly" and "irrelevant" as opposed to what they perceived as modern and "new"; but ironically, they're the ones who did amaze at the familiar structures of Intramuros or Vigan because it is "postcardish" as opposed to the 'fugly' ones they saw in Old Manila downtown.
But at the same time it is also unsurprising that there are those who also wanted to keep the spirit of Old Manila alive prefer to keep it in its intended place, what more to rehabilitate, given a fresh coat of paint or varnish, and make it relevant with the signs of the times, as architects and urban planners concerned have that best practises in redesigning the district or even Manila in general all for a glimpse of a future setting- and these are driven by the thought of making Manila as a healthy and robust neighbourhood. Right was Architect Arts Serrano of One/Zero Design Collective for that thought, especially that from his office located at Luna de San Pedro's Perez-Samanillo, he, his group, and others concerned has that yearning of making that Old Manila feel being invigourated and progressive even it doesn't need to destroy its architectural gems for that sake of goddamn progress. 

 

As President Duterte trying to talk about "Human Rights" (while defending his Anti-Terror Act)

As President Duterte trying to talk about "Human Rights"
(while defending his Anti-Terror Act)

It seems that the recent defence of the controversial Anti-Terror act of 2020 by President Duterte before the United Nations General Assembly is all but as same as those who justify tyranny. That by trying to be somewhat conciliatory to the organisation he detested and criticised, Duterte, known for his brash statements against the U.N. as trying to appeal to other members that his Anti-Terror Act and others as "all accordance with the law", regardless of the criticism that surrounds it. 

That by citing the Marawi Siege, the need for an effective legal framework focusing on both eradicating terrorism and the usual reckless response by authorities, What Duterte insist in front of the international community is to justify a law that allows detaining suspects for up to 24 days without charge, designate groups or individuals as suspected terrorists and be subjected whether under surveillance or arrest. 

And that by allowing such law may also be used against the opposition, especially when some law enforcers have that reckless move of "guilty till proven innocent against those whose concern for the country may also meant against the administration enforcers sworn to protect; what more of attempts to "regulate" news, social media by these elements with the attempt to stem out "subversion".

But for Duterte and his camarilla of ex-military men and allies, "law is law" no matter might be abused by law enforcers. Wouldn't be surprised if would think about a local variant of "Fuhrerprinzip" as several petitions from various groups (lawyers, legislators, human rights groups) have been filed before the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of the law the way he defended his drug crackdown and dismissed criticism from entities concerned. For sure he would feign having respect for human rights the way he said in his past State of the Nation Address about "human lives over human rights", that "he will continue to protect the human rights of its people, especially from the scourge of illegal drugs, criminality and terrorism,” and at the same time complaining that “interest groups have weaponized human rights” to discredit his government.

“A number of interest groups have weaponized human rights; some well-meaning, others ill-intentioned." Duterte said. They attempt to discredit the functioning institutions and mechanisms of a democratic country and a popularly elected government which in its last two years, still enjoy the same widespread approval and support,” 

But he is the same Duterte who once threatened Human Rights Community by calling for police to shoot human rights activists who are “obstructing justice” especially in his Operation Tokhang. He was also the same Duterte who publicly denounced the national Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and threatened to block any CHR investigations of alleged abuses by Philippine security forces as well as stated that the commission would be “better abolished.” 

Hence, why he is still meant to be ridiculed despite his 'defence of human rights' he talked about? Wouldn't be surprised that other delegates in the United Nations general assembly are rather skeptic if not outright ridicule Duterte's message. 

Is it really to "Build" or to "Brag"?

Is it really to "Build" or to "Brag"?

(Thoughts after the government's debt-driven
infrastructure program "Build Build Build"
and the idea of “development through public works”)

I

As of this present, what the government tries to "show to everyone" is that the country is becoming a construction zone. 

Reminiscent of Greece where former Junta member Stylianos Pattakos put the first cement to an edifice, the present administration's Build Build Build program is driven by the thought that development as all about accessibility- and with making infrastructure this meant chances of providing access to markets, investments, job opportunities, even "the right to brag" as a developing nation the way Pattakos did. 

However, this kind of hell-bent development isn't entirely coming from Duterte himself nor his circle, but rather a continuity of carryovers from past administrations, all but repackaged with the same interest seekers trying to profit from it. For as Build Build Build is presented to be the foundation of Duterte administration's economic development plan "in pursuit of having a comfortable life" focusing primarily on infrastructure, is heavily dependent on debt with its projected economic gains comes at a staggering price. 

It is not surprising for knowing that the regime is really embarking in a construction spree of roads, bridges, to those of sea and air ports, expect this kind of boom be as if again ushering another "golden age" to curry both domestic and foreign investors, establishments to engage in business and of course to usher the Philippines to become a newest economic superpower in South East Asia. 

However, this program, like those from the past, is heavily dependent on debt with its projected economic gains comes at a staggering price. It is not surprising, for knowing that the regime either doesn't know the repercussions or simply shrugging it off for the sake of what they think as part of a greater program for national development- that requires borrowing billions for various projects and borrow again for another-plagued by poor planning, red tape, right-of-way issues, engineering problems and cost overruns.

Perhaps, the country's journey towards a fully developed country will remain debt-trapped even it attained gaining ground. True that the neoliberal economist Bernardo Villegas stated that it would take "light-years ahead" compared to the past administrations in terms of implementation, but at what cost as people will take for generations forcing to pay the loans, debt from various moneylending agencies and countries involved in this kind of ambition. 
And to think that there is truly a need for massive infrastructure to uplift especially farmers through farm-to-market roads, irrigation systems, and post-harvest facilities, but at what cost? And farmer being talked about? The lowly farmer depends on the mercy of the landlord and of the moneylenders? In fact this writer remembers how these farmers wanted more than just roads, bridges, and irrigation canals, but also tractors and equipment, farm technologists, and production, not just post-harvest, production facilities to support the needs of the growing megalopolis and its well-paved, bragged roads. Also suddenly remember how Larry Henares chided Villegas for urging businesspeople to "farm" to justify his variant of development as to preserve the pastoral nature of the country that benefits commercial interests. 

But to think that orderists who suddenly talking about development is using infrastructure building enough to "brag" or to "veer" away people from the tragedies of "Tokhang" and "Double Barrel" perhaps the purpose of building such numerous infrastructures is not making jobs, accessibility, or simply "promote development"; but rather to upheld the pastoral-commercial nature of the national economy. Of course the order will also say that it will provide modernity such as infostructures, machineries, everything that mimics those of developed countries. But again, the intent is not to elevate from being pastoral-commercial simply because there is no strong industrial base other than producing consumer goods to those from the export processing zones making assembly-line products. 

From this no wonder why IBON Foundation and other concerned economists disagreed with the view brought by Duterte, Dominguez, Villar, or even Bernie Villegas. Yes, those infrastructures are indeed beneficial, but at what expense? Will it sustain or save costs? The government would have to increase its spending or resort to more loans, both of which would increase the country’s external and government debt. An external debt, is the total debt a country owes to foreign creditors such as commercial banks, foreign governments or international financial institutions. Meanwhile a government debt is when government spending exceeds government receipts. And since Villegas said it would take light-years ahead this development, then it may also take light-years to pay the national debt to various creditors. 
Yet apologists would insist all these projects under "Build Build Build" as a showcase of national development, no matter the fact that some of these are actually carryovers from past administrations only to be modified or altogether replaced by the present. Yes, find nothing wrong to admit that the program is a continuity of those from the past with blueprints being uncovered, "updated" and given relevance, what worries rather is the risks brought about by debt, corruption, and various forms of self-interest. the country's journey towards a fully developed country will remain debt-trapped even it attained gaining ground. True that the Neoliberal Bernardo Villegas stated that it would take "light-years ahead" compared to the past administrations in terms of implementation, but at what cost as people will take for generations forcing to pay the loans, debt from various moneylending agencies and countries involved in this kind of ambition. 

II

Source: The Asean post

Speaking of moneylenders,  countries like Japan and China offered funds for Duterte's grandiose infrastructure program.

Similar to the United States and the European Union with its agencies, as well as those from the Asian Development Bank and the IMF-WB, China and Japan offers cheap loans that for Duterte would say "better than the politically-laced offers" especially those brought by the European Union in the eve of extrajudicial killings. At those times, the president, in embarking in his infrastructure program is seeking for countries willing to fund projects including those that has repercussions.

The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) last 2017 announced it would be bank rolling US$1.36 billion worth of road and bridge projects, the majority of the funds going towards reconstructing nine roads and bridges that were damaged during a 2013 earthquake. JICA is also funding three-quarters of the Metro Manila Subway with a US$5.28 billion loan. This first intercity underground railway, through the first three stations of the Metro Manila Subway is expected to be running by 2022 and all 15 stations should be fully operational by 2025.

Source: Nikkei Asian Review

On the other hand, China has provided US$398 million in grants and US$273 million worth of soft loans for the ‘Build Build Build’ program according to the Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines, Zhao Jianhua, in September – with another US$421 million worth of grants to be provided over the next three years.

These moneylending agencies would say that it offered Duterte a juicy deal that to him "better" than the "politically-laced" economic offers from west. But on the other hand, this also brought serious concern especially when China's promised investment bonanza has also come in quiet exchange for Duterte’s strategic acquiescence in the West Philippine Sea, where the two countries’ have competing claims with China militarizing its controlled features like in Scarborough Shoal. But for Duterte and the entire order doesn't matter the consequence of that venture especially those of China's increased interference in domestic affairs to those of seeing generations of Filipinos paying debt to China and other moneylenders.
Besides, the government once promised about funding its infrastructure projects through its "reformed" tax program, so where are the funds coming from nation's taxes leading to? Is it towards these grandiose projects? Paying debts to both China and other moneylenders? Or the same old bloodied venture through the president's Intelligence fund and bigger budgets for both Military and the Police?

III

Perhaps this program and others, regardless of numerous infrastructures built and services made, will remain same as its predecessors: trying to "promote development" that is, without any industrial, economic, or even bureaucratic capacity to embark on a really sound initiative. It doesn't matter if that initiative is short term especially those of employment; what more that the government itself knew from the beginning that their envisioned "comfortable life" needs an easy, fast, and huge funding knowing that its own funds isn't enough what more those from the private sector. 

Of course, people can expect to see positive outputs in the next few years, but how about the debt? Will it again take generations after generations of Filipinos to pay for it? Also to think that since there is a need for massive infrastructure to uplift especially those of farmers and other rural folks through farm-to-market roads, irrigation systems, and post-harvest facilities, then at what cost? Will it truly benefit the farmer or the kickback yearning bureaucrat? Again, there are bureaucrats who wanted to exploit this kind of development for their entrenched interests-and this may cost the program badly at its worst. And it is the same bureaucrat, along with the technocrat who has the same entrenched interests who prefers seeing a country rather remain agricultural, pastoral, and commercial with roads and bridges enough to say "development". In fact, what Duterte did was as same as Salazar of Portugal, trying to retain its pastoral/commercial nature of the economy and at the same time trying to make it attractive to foreign investment.

And since Duterte also did promised to stamp out corruption and promote efficiency of his promised programs and projects, the very same entrenched interests, be it bureaucrat or even the technocrat continue to do wrecking enough to slow down the progress of their works; and despite this assurance to the folk, then how come these same interest seekers such as those behind recent scandal over the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation and other agencies in the government continues to persist? Wouldn't be surprised if  that same corruption also affects other socioeconomic programs under Duterte himself aside from "Build Build Build".

***

To cut this thought short, the desire to become a developed country isn't just having world class infrastructure, education system, nor good governance; but also the capability to go beyond dependency by harnessing brain and brawn for socioeconomic independence; hence, the need for rural empowerment, industrialisation, and a sound policy on the accessibility of social services as necessary.

"Is it really for them?"

Why the need for rural empowerment? Why industrialisation? One cannot return to the province without an empowered countryside. The order may brag much about new roads, bridges, and facilities enough to say "empowered" but for the peasant, they demand land to till and support for their agricultural and social needs and their families, education for their children, electrification and better communications network for their communities, to those removing the wage boards that caused unfair wages in factories and to address concerns of the workers especially those of wages and working conditions; these other than the roads, bridges, and facilities that the order tend to brag than a means to support these downtrodden folks; and since the order spoke about "urging" citydwellers to return to countryside, at first, why not empower the countryside first before talking about returning especially those of removing the wage boards that brought unfair wages? Why not heed first the basic needs of these rural folks and those from the city in making a countryside that's empowered and developed other than roads and bridges to the markets? Why not as well industrialise the countryside to support efforts in self-reliance  and maximise its productive capabilities?
Or does these bureaucrats, being "landed" by nature and are feigning concern have that kind of disdain for developing the countryside for it "disrupts" order especially those coming from entrenched entities? Yes, there may be well-paved roads, bridges, or granaries, yet so long as the countryside remains at the hands of these entrenched entities cannot make a rural community, the countryside truly developed. And with this would say it is not surprising that the "development" bragged about by the order is more of preserving the same pastoral/agricultural setting that benefits the city than those of truly expanding what perceived as progress, if not using these roads and bridges to expand further age-old exploitation such as those of resource extraction and cheap labor for a pittance. 

"A 'new normal' based on fear? Never!"

"A 'new normal' based on fear? Never!"

Today is the 48th anniversary of the declaration of Martial Law in the Philippines. Known as the start of the 14-year dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, this commemoration marks the day with a vow from the Filipino people to "never again" from the atrocities brought about by that "new society" and to do an outmost prevent a return to that dark days of martial rule. 

And this also echoes stronger as the Filipino people also faced another tyrant so cruel, this time under Rodrigo Duterte. 

For with this regime trying to create a new normal that's based on repression, it is unsurprising that the order is again trying to draw example from the Marcos dictatorship especially in wanting to silence those who oppose their moves and by doing anything to cling to power. With the same ploy of appointing former military officials to civilian positions, as well as by increasing budgets to both police and in the armed forces, it seems that as in the past, this order as wanting to perpetuate power, aggrandise greater wealth all at the expense of the working folk. Of seeing gross abuses of human rights, unbridled corruption, cronyism, subservience to foreign interests, burdensome debt, and an ever prevailing economic crisis, this tramples the supposed "change" that's parroted by the administration.

Also from this note pays tribute to those who fought and died for freedom, democracy, and justice. Tens and thousands suffered detention and torture, if not abducted, summarily executed, or disappeared all because of a belief in national liberation, people's democracy, and in social justice. Their sacrifices did nurture the nation's resistance because of this, and hope with their contributions, both fallen and survived, to draw inspiration for the coming generations that no tyrant can ever tread on those who truly love independence, freedom, and justice. Especially in this time of growing repression and tyranny Duterte has trying to manifest. 

At present, this regime is becoming worse especially in this time of pandemic. With thoughts of having a new normal based on their idealised order of "iron fist", the regime extended for another year this state of emergency, if not still toying with martial rule as the administration threatens those who oppose its soiled moves with further repression. It is the same "new normal" with more loans for its grandiose programs, while shunning those who demand for subsidies and support for their return to workplaces. It is also the same "new normal" with thoughts of silencing the opposition, like in the case of the closure of ABS CBN by removing its right to broadcast in radio and in television. This regime still respects unequal agreements be it from the United States and China, and that by freeing the convicted Pemberton and the still-control of China over the disputed isles in the West Philippine Sea this "new normal" has mocked the people over.
It is not surprising this kind of antic the system has done to its people. That while feigning they are for democracy, freedom, and development they want to restrain each and every Filipino with their view of order that tramples people's rights and freedoms. With or without this pandemic would say that Duterte is having an itchy hand to pursue that kind of direction while his supporters fanatically yearning for their idol's bloodied venture. Like Marcos would say that Duterte is trying to embark on development, but that development comes with a price-either of blood or passing debt from one generation after another, while hearing the government claiming there's "progress" in its kind of order. 

However, regardless of their statements a concerned would say that tyrants will always be tyrants. And with this kind of setting would say that calls for removing the tyrant has gone aloud despite the imposed restrictions. That rallies such as in UP Diliman did kept the flame alive no matter authorities trying to threaten them with arrests and truncheons. And since people suffer more amidst this pandemic and socio-economic crisis, it is unsurprising that various forms of protests occur, with the will to make the necessary sacrifices to resist against tyranny and to assert the necessary changes in the society. Let no pandemic nor tyranny can block the way in attaining peace, justice, and freedom in the country.

"Thoughts after a growing Capitalist Dictablanda"

"Thoughts after a growing Capitalist Dictablanda"

As time goes by, today's capitalism has turned "democratic" societies into a dictablanda. 

For if to analyse the nature of capitalism one would say that it becomes totalitarian contrary to its "liberal" nature, that, despite pretending there is freedom and choice, capitalism reveals itself to be illiberal and totalitarian in its nature. 

As in the past, Capitalism prescribes its ideology: Individualism, "liberal" democracy/apolitical centrism, market-based orderism, consumerism, and the likes as something mandatory to every country, and supporting organisations especially the International Monetary Fund/World Bank and the World Trade Organisation imposes policies and agreements that consolidates further the primacy of finance capital especially in underdeveloped and developed countries. In most cases, Economic and Political violence, even Moral and Institutional Violence has increased under capitalism, be it in the global city to those of the global countryside. 

It is not surprising, for to think that capitalism has used both "freedom" through consumerism and "order" through imperialism and the "police state" to sustain its survival, today's society has becoming similar to those of 1984, Brace new World, Hunger Games, and V for Vendetta. 

But despite this, will people remain contented in that kind of dictablanda? That dictablanda of course provided some semblance of civil rights so long as it is accepted by the order, even a semblance of "social welfare and development" as shown by mass housing projects, conditional cash transfer, some subsidies for the effected employees, everything "meant to ensure" as one may say; but expect the right to speech, press, assembly as to be "intervened" and on some cases, "replied" no matter it exposes and asserts the truth as gathered from facts. That kind of dictablanda has been shown during the past especially during the height of Marcos administration where unpotemkin dissidence was ruthlessly punished which includes the "Arrest, Search, and Seizure Order" and the "Presidential Committment Order" that acts as a "Lettres de Cachet" from the chief executive giving license to arrest those who dissent against the regime. Even the "Calibrated Preemptive Response" of the Arroyo administration also expressed the same actions as such as protest actions were punished badly by the attack dogs of the order.

And this time, under Duterte would say that the regime that's still toying with dictatorship is trying to curry support from both local oligarchs and multinationals alike, promising development in exchange for his version of order. Recently the European Union pushed for trade sanctions due to human rights violations brought about by the regime; but Duterte's hardheadedness would say that he and his administration is unfazed by EU's response to his policy while his allies cried about "sovereignty" if not the sudden concern about "globalism". If one may ask, since these Filipinos talked about sovereignty, then how come they can't think about standing up for themselves and instead contented in their Dutertopia and apathy? Perhaps, right to hear that political, moral, and institutional violence has increased under this semifeudal/semicolonial setting.
And to think that they had that sudden concern about "globalism" then why are they optimistic about globalisation and neoliberalism? "Free markets leads to free people" as one may say regardless of its unfairness to the underdeveloped and developing countries especially those of negating the will to be economically independent from multinational moneylenders and exploiters alike. If Duterte's fanatics afforded to unfazed on EU's statements, or even those from the United States, then why mum about China? Because China is a growing economic giant? That Duterte is a "socialist" opposing globalist interests? Don't think so- for as far as a concerned person knows that the regime is as same as its predecessors: sworn to upheld the same old order while throwing crumbs to the people especially those yearning for some petty hopes. This semifeudal/semicolonial setting would say that it has also coopted the characteristics of an authoritarian capitalist "dictablandic" nature, all for feudal ends. 

And all because of these sorts of repressions, then wouldn't be surprised that popular resistance has becoming beyond the limits. If anticommunists tend to see communism as "dystopia" and theirs as "utopia", then that capitalism being praised for its "future" filled with future technologies is all about transforming into a surveillance state as envisioned by modern-day dictatorships in connivance with multinationals seeking for exploitation in the name of capitalist efficiency. The fact that capitalism is totalitarian reveals itself when there is no more competing illiberal form of "democracy" brought about by capitalism. Whereas apologists of capitalism talks about freedom as if those from the French revolution? Nope, most likely the freedom they enjoyed during the era of trusts and the desires of nightwatchman statism. And it is not surprised that the totalitarian essence of capitalism be fully grasped - when there is no more comparison with illiberal forms.

Outright destruction, Façadism, and an ever yearning for preserving old Manila

Outright destruction, Façadism, 
and an ever yearning for preserving old Manila

The recent pseudo-developments in Manila is seemingly ranging from mocking heritage through façadism to those of compromised promises to revive the city's cherished identity.

For in the past few weeks, people saw this kind of trend such as destruction of various historic buildings-of those sanctioned by the very institutions meant to uphold RA 10066. And from these same authorities would even add salt to the wound by insisting "consolation to the loss" by letting a facade retain while the rest as demolished "to be with a totally new structure." To some would say it is a necessary compromise, despite the fact that it mocked heritage as these skins in fact trying to drap actually monstrous structures and claiming there is some continuity in it, enough as a "token to the past".

Be it Juan Nakpil's Capitol Theatre of calle Escolta or the Gibbs building  in Dasmarinas of William James Odom, these prewar buildings are in itself witnesses to the development that was happening in Manila. 

And in speaking of Gibbs building, these was distinguished by concrete window awnings and facade pilasters with Ionic capitals all made of reinforced concrete as it replaced old masonry techniques in the early 20th century. And this was along with Kneedler Building in Santa Cruz; the Masonic Temple, Gaches (Natividad) Building, and the old Heacock Building in Escolta; as well as the Insular Life Building in Plaza Cervantes. These reinforced concrete structures were all designed by Odom and highlighted as edifices of modern Philippines. 

But despite this kind of prewar beauty these doesn't escape the threat of being gutted by interests. Developers, especially who wanted to accommodate clients especially those from mainland China, would say that "Manila is the premier place for real estate" and thus wanting to remove old structures to and fro and claiming that "development is in full swing." And to think that regardless of a growing trend of reviving old buildings and making it relevant in this changing setting, these developers rather feigning concern if not obviously doesn't matter about heritage; and to make compromise with the community such as those of façadism is but feigning that they care about heritage when in fact wanted to give way for a high-rise condominium for their moneyed clients.

Its demolition was once halted in 2017 pending consultation with the cultural agencies, but these scrupulous developers rather eager to destroy as the wrecking ball had since permanently made its mark in gutting the building inside leaving an empty shell and an aspect of the city’s history into dust.

Quite worrisome isn't it? For sure one would remember what happened to the Admiral and Angela apartments, to those of old houses near San Sebastian end demolished for some accommodation And to think that those who preach about that goddamn development will treat it as any other optimistic delusion of seeing high-rise structures over the world's densely-populated city instead of promoting real and sound development in the countryside. 

And to think that these demolished structures also coincide with the "promise" of reviving Manila such as those from the underpass would say what is Mayor Francisco Domagoso doing? For sure he promised about reviving and preserving Manila's heritage; but silent in regards to the these threats and demolitions of prewar structures? Perhaps, since there are "trying to be concerned" developers are tinkering with façadism over these heritage buildings as a compromise between demolition and heritage conservation, it may take a matter of time as these remaining walls as still be retained amidst the modern high-rise construction, otherwise, to see these same property developers decide on their eventual demolition and irreversible removal from the city’s physical landscape and urban memory, with people thinking it as "come and go".

But for the concerned would say that neither façadism nor outright demolition for the sake of high-rise delusion will improve Manila's image. This is not an appeal to nostalgia tho, but more like the need for a sound planning the way those who wished to revive Escolta as a vibrant yet rooted district wanted as such.