When "heritage" is mocked by those who promised to preserve it
(Or: thoughts after Facadism, old buildings, heritage revival, and interest)
By Lualhati Madlangawa- Guererro
It is not surprising for these newfound owners, developers, and state authorities alike that they take consolation in the small mercy such as retaining a façade. using "heritage" as one of its reason, that compromise being brought by these greed-driven people is but a passive-aggressive one, a gross hybrid of conflicted intentions disguised as "continuity".
However, that continuity was but a mockery, especially that as heritage conservationists and concerned architects, urban planners, spoke seriously of plans that merges the legacy of the past to present and future day demands, authorities either pretending they're considering their words, just plain and simple deaf, or bluntly speaking if there's "money" in those proposals driven. Not surprising that no matter they're good, still being downplayed by authorities while seriously listening to scrupulous ones willing to sacrifice heritage in favour of a greed-driven illusory kind of progress.
Because of this would say that heritage, history, identity, altogether continues to be mocked to and fro by its newfound owners and developers preaching "progress". That especially using façadism as its basis for destroying structural integrity, most structures, whether known for having stood the test of time ever since it was built, or being built by an architect considering the bridging of localised settings and of international designs, are either stripped its structure and leaving its shell, or altogether demolished till none, just for today’s “perception of development”.
Quite lamenting isn’t it? Especially that from those structures reminds of an attempt for a progressive past, if not by trying to make modernity tailored to fit into heritage. And now that by seeing those assuming they’re “preserving” rather destroying its integrity, then of what is “preserving” they’ve been bragging about? Expect authorities who promised to "revive" or "preserve" every age-old district rather end mum as they themselves also implicated in this travesty of destruction wrought by these developers. For sure people would remember some years ago the former Estrella del Norte was burned and despite its owners promising to retain chose not preserved its structure in favour of “recreating” it (except that the "rebuilt" structure was of one, rather than the original two-storey building), followed by news about Uy Su Bin, Capitol Theatre, Sta. Cruz Building, American Chamber of Commerce, and even the old Magnolia ice cream plant in Echague end as shells of once proud past with its interiors wrought out of the wrecking ball! These structures were as far from what developers being promised about-of preserving heritage. Worse, written off for the demolition by by government officials while playing deaf at those who demand reconsidering the structure's demise. Even the world-renowned Philamlife building wasn't spared by the demolition ball as its "newfound owner", no matter it promised to retain it, rather thinks about building a condominium for their greed!
If those walls and halls could speak, these would tell tales of past legacies, bad compromises, angry developers, and “newfound owners” who, dissatisfied with the meagre notion of repair and reuse, are driven solely by remorseless greed- if not those of exorbitant taxes and utter disregard of heritage by both owners and authorities with the latter that sometimes "promised" to revive only to be treated as empty rhetorics. Again, it is not surprising especially when some state authorities and "newfound owners" alike are driven by greed to disregard history, or in this case, feigning that they acknowledge history when in fact it isn't- just adding salt to a gaping wound rather.
Perhaps, for the developers and some "assuming to be concerned", that sticking a new structure behind the shell of an old one in this manner is a pitiful way to go about things. It is not worthy of the term architecture nor preserving heritage and remembering history. As resources grow ever fewer, the practice of sacrificing good-quality buildings for some cheapjack disposable replacements cannot be justified no matter developers be "trying to" when in fact "trying for goddamn sakes". But the fact that no matter what these "developers" trying to justify about, that the best default choice will always be to revive, restore, repurpose and reconfigure existing buildings. For knowing that these structures stood the test of time, of war, calamity, everything that these witnessed history, these should be given a real lease in life instead of being mocked in a guise of "pseudo-relevance". For sure people did think about London, Paris, Madrid, Singapore, or even New York, so why not about Manila and its surrounding cities?