For years, if not decades, rapid urbanisation takes place with all in its entirety especially in today's society.
 |
HERITAGE NOW GONE:
Prewar Sta. Cruz Building demolished months ago |
Driven mainly by modernity and its promise of development and progress, today’s urban, suburban, even rural setting in the country is being studded with the emergence of various structures all catered to the different needs of the growing megalopolis. But due to limited land area for the site of these structures, either reclamation of coastal areas, in-fill developments and demolition of existing old structures are being resorted to- resulting to destroying natural settings, reduction of civic spaces, and potential loss of civic/cultural heritage, even agricultural self-sufficiency in the case of farms transformed for commercial/residential development.
And this became the norm when it comes to development. Developers, in connivance with scrupulous government officials, disregard the civic/cultural value of the place in favour of just simply real estate, a prime lot that’s valuable. However, every building, through its architecture, is an art that’s visible, tangible, and enduring. And from those structures, through its character and physical features that stood the test of time also reflect the time period it was built and the socioeconomic state that’s prevailing over the district where the building located. This also becomes a cultural venue especially when events, whether significant or ordinary, happen in those places- which eventually becomes an essential part of the community’s culture and history. Thus, it also gives the city an identity as it tells about the district’s origins, culture, and of course heritage.
But regardless of its significance, any historically and culturally significant edifices or spaces are threatened increasingly. As said earlier, these structures or spaces are being downplayed as just real estate making the process of heritage decay gone inevitable. Post industrial urban constructions in one hand and time-dependent nature of heritage on the other has made those who value worry, making its preservation and conservation a serious matter and thus be considered with outmost urgency, especially in those lie inside rapid urban developments. Metro Manila, particularly the city of Manila itself, is on a tug of war between heritage and “development”, especially in districts whose historical significance is at times threatened by developers who promised a shallow kind of "modernity" in those places.
The Philamlife building, known for its auditorium, was designed by architect Carlos D. Arguelles and it used to host grand performance of world-renowned artists, school graduations, and other Filipino shows. This didn't escape the demolition ball after it was sold to SM Development Corporation with the latter promising that "the theatre, with all its elements and most especially its acoustics will be preserved. This will be done in close consultation with the country’s music, acoustics and design experts". But still, end demolished for its dream condo whose design as contrary to what Arguelles did. Even the Taoist temple in Sta. Ana, Manila, known for being built decades past is also in danger of losing its "Important Cultural Property" status after it was reportedly sold to an anonymous buyer in November 2019.
 |
Using Facadism for a ruse:
Former Magnolia Plant in Echague |
Some did even mock heritage such as by claiming Façadism will save old structures like those of the former Magnolia Ice Cream plant in Echague, or the American Chamber of Commerce building in Dasmariñas, both demolished save their shells for “modern”, high-rise structures meeting “today’s demands”. However, according to a
writeup made by the Center for Filipino Architecture, that in this recurring solution of façadism to the city’s heritage buildings as a compromise between demolition and heritage conservation, it is again a matter of time if the remaining walls will be retained amidst the modern high-rise construction, or if the property developers eventually decide on their eventual demolition and irreversible removal from the city’s physical landscape and urban memory.
But regardless of concerns, apologists of “development” at will still downplay heritage claiming “the need for sacrifice” as in the case of Binondo-Intramuros bridge, to that of “promoting progress” on the issue of the proposed Pasig River Expressway. They don't mind the cultural significance of the buildings within the district- that by simply telling it is "private property", that authorities agreed to it, to that of "it is real estate" and it doesn't mind its significance, let alone a prime lot that a condominium or a high-rise warehouse on its place, all in the name of "modernity", "development", or anything whatsoever the government would clap as such.
Truly, the rapid growth of cities, of metropolises into megalopolises also possesses a problem-that of cultural decay, worse, having inappropriate conservational activities that rather pose threat urban heritage (najd et al. 2015). In seeing pages in social media surrounding heritage (like “Renacimiento Manila” or “Brutalist Pilipinas”), this writer would say that a tug of war between heritage conservation and uneven development happens- especially on the issue that deals with districts that’s affected by “construction bubble”. That Escolta, the nation’s once Commercio-financial district, also face threats brought by uneven developments, with the demolition of the former Philippine National Bank headquarters, Capitol Theatre, and now Sta. Cruz Building. Apologists would claim that things old should make way for the new, not knowing that these old structures became part of the district’s image, that they stood the test of time, hence should be preserved for posterity.
But this matter doesn’t just limit to old urban districts threatened by uneven development- even rural communities whose heritage for decades been threatened, worse, by using the “arm of the law” to satisfy entrenched interests. The reclamation of Manila Bay coastal areas in Noveleta, Kawit, Bacoor, and Cavite City in Cavite province which, according to fisherfolk group PAMALAKAYA, will demolish mussel farms and displace more than 15,000 fisherfolk and coastal residents; the 2500-hectare reclamation project in Brgy. Taliptip, Bulacan which evicted over 700 fishing families to give way for the construction of the Bulacan Aerotropolis; the long-time disputed Kaliwa dam which will submerge large portions of indigenous peoples ancestral lands in Sierra Madre evicting at least 5,000 Dumagat, displacing 126 endemic fauna species, and endangering at least 100,000 residents due to the increased risk of climate-related disasters; and the Gened dam that will affect 22 barangays of indigenous Isnag people. This matter shows that heritage isn’t just about old buildings too, but also communities that stood time, whose roots created an image of sustainability, but now threatened by those who claiming to be benefiting theirs.
From these events, be it urban, suburban, or rural would say that it is unsurprising especially when those who claim about progress and development has to destroy a district's significance and removes the opportunity for future generations to understand the place and its values. It downplays sound alternatives, including those from architects, urban planners, and the community itself, who values the image of their "home" as part of their youth, if not where their livelihood and identity as a community lies in it. Ironically, there are those active in nostalgia pages who also doesn't mind heritage at all, yet admires about the pictures of old as it talks about nostalgia!
***
This writer’s fervent belief in the bridging heritage and holistic development especially in those kind of places has seen as strong as ever especially when those who offer a sound alternative aren’t just concerned about the aesthetics, but that of community. Contrary to those who preach uneven progress with its unsound modernity, would say that words like “sacrifice” or even "progress" is becoming bullshit as they’re blind and deaf on those who offer sound alternatives to their unjust view. People demand cultural and socio-civic spaces, even preserving agricultural and ecological spaces now under threat by uneven, one-sided “development”.
Of course, expect its apologists whine about those calling for heritage and community. With words like “sacrifice” and “progress” to justify such construction frenzy they failed to appease those who truly concerned about community. After all they matter about the growing megalopolis than talking about sustainable communities, as it peddles a false notion of progress, modernity, where grandiose infrastructure projects are given focus at the expense of the environment, heritage, community, and the people itself. Perhaps, in today’s time, these matters create a ‘based’ challenge which involve these words stated above all for the future generstions. Takinh to mind that “lost heritage equates to lost identity”, if not the bluntiest fact that “development is a two-way road”.
But before resolving this challenge, people concerned, all in seeking truth from facts and asserting what is right and necessary in their communities, should realise it is indispensable to know and understand the perception of the folk about their own heritage, belief, and insights about its value and purpose not just in their communities but also their lives. For sure they all wish development to flourish and progress to realise, but hopefully not the expense of their heritage, identity, and of course- community.
