Don’t fail to preserve even the tower!
This is what happens when one completely "trust" a developer without imposing consequences for breaching agreements.
For contrary to their promises of preserving, scrupulous developers rather chose to "sacrifice" heritage so madly that Buildings like the Philippine National Bank in Escolta, Philbanking headquarters in Aduana, and the Spanish-era Hospicio de San Jose building on Calle Rosario experienced the same fate. The government also demolished the Manila Port Terminal structure, as well as threatening other prewar structures stood in Port Area. And even the former Magnolia Dairy Products Plant in Echague as well as the former American Chamber of Commerce building in Dasmariñas st. both end reduced to a concrete shell as its developers trying to make compromise with the authorities.
So is the Capitol theatre, now reduced into a rubble except that of its iconic art deco tower- -and almost demolished if not for a restraining order.
A brief background
The Capitol Theatre is an Art Deco building situated on Escolta St. in Manila, Philippines, next to the earlier Lyric Theatre. It was built in the 1930s using concrete, which was a cutting-edge building material at the time. National Artist Juan Nakpil planned it, while renowned Francesco Monti created the sculptures. Because apparently the only value of a National Artist's or any other famous person's works is in the empty acclaim of cultural organizations.
When it was still in operation, the structure was known as "Manila's Most Modern Theater" and "The Showplace of the Nation," as it could seat around 1,100 people in its double balcony setup. It is also one of the structures said to have survived the Battle of Manila in 1945.
However, due to the declining standalone theater business in Manila, the theater eventually closed. With the start of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) construction and the rise of the shopping center, moviegoers began to prefer moviehouses inside newly opened air-conditioned malls. there were attempts to rehabilitate the structure, one of which was transforming into a Chinese restaurant which eventually scrapped, leaving the edifice in an uncertain fate, what more of its recent demolition.
Still pretending to be "concerned"
As any other prewar/or heritage structure left at the mercy of the scrupulous developer, the latter would pretend they're concerned about heritage, to the extent of citing examples trying to entice government and heritage conservationists alike- as some years ago developers from Anchor Land promised to rehabilitate the redevelop the eight-story Admiral Hotel into a boutique hotel, only to be demolished without consideration of heritage regulations, claiming that the "original building was no longer structurally sound following years of slow deterioration."
However, Republic Act No. 10066 states that all buildings 50 years old or older are presumed to be Important Cultural Properties. As a result, before a local government unit can issue a demolition permit, a building owner must first seek permission from the relevant government cultural agencies to lift the presumption of declaration. But no one cares; even the government, which should enforce the law, frequently disregards it in the name of "development," not to mention not consulting concerned sectors who have rallied on the side of heritage.
So, what is the next step? To simply allow the developer to recreate the tower and façade in a haphazard manner, disregarding the age and value of what is currently standing in the location? Have the agencies given up completely? Is the city government also giving up on saving its own heritage and content to be a pretentious "developed" city when in fact wallowing in its urban decay? It is not surprising tho, that having a government full of interest seekers love to claim that they're trying to be a government of laws, yet still remains to be a government of corrupted men who can disregard the law for its own interest.
And the driving force behind all the demolitions and threats towards heritage districts is that of prime lots that stood in those places, real estate that looks at high-rise, high-density developments, all for maximizing profit over any other agenda especially that of the folk. Apologists would even claim about the need for "sacrifice", that there are pictures to remember those once stood while urging to move on with their lives to an uncertain future; but the question is, is that so? All sudden claiming to be concerned yet mum in this cultural vandalism by those claiming to be "for development"?
The need for "rage" against the wrecker
It is a pity that the state of heritage, especially in Manila, is treated as empty rhetoric. That seeing it in its neglected state, let alone being demolished in the name of "progress" and "development," elicits not only sadness, but also rage.
As a concerned folk who refuses to allow this to continue, would argue that the system, while claiming to preserve heritage, is actually selling every bit and piece of it to the dogs. And this kind of "progress" contradicts popular belief that fighting for a better community includes preserving cultural treasures and heritage for future generations.