Capitol Theater in Peril: The Facadism Debate
and the Threat to Escolta’s (and Old Manila's) Cultural Heritage
By Lualhati Madlangawa-Guererro
Nestled in the historic heart of Escolta, Manila’s Capitol Theater—a striking Art Deco structure designed by National Artist Juan Nakpil—faces an uncertain future. With plans for partial demolition and high-rise condominium construction, developers propose preserving only the building’s façade in a process known as facadism. This approach has sparked a heated debate, representing two competing visions for the city: a modern, high-density Manila versus one that preserves its historical and cultural identity.
Facadism as a “Compromise”: A Practical Solution or a Hollow Shell?
Advocates of facadism argue it offers a practical compromise between preserving history and embracing growth. With urbanization pressures driving demand for housing and office space, particularly in city centers like Escolta, developers and some city planners argue that facadism allows for the visual retention of heritage sites while enabling cities to address the need for modern infrastructure. By preserving the outward appearance of buildings like the Capitol Theater, facadism attempts to keep a semblance of historical character within a fast-evolving urban landscape.
As journalist and architecture critic Jonathan Glancey notes, “facadism can offer a bridge between the old and the new, maintaining an architectural memory within a revitalized urban space" (Glancey, 2011). Cities like London, Paris, and even Singapore have adopted facadism as a strategy to integrate modern functionality while respecting the aesthetics of older neighborhoods. For instance, parts of London’s King’s Cross neighborhood combine historic exteriors with modern interiors, allowing the area to meet contemporary needs without fully erasing its past (Lichtenstein, 2018).
From an environmental perspective, proponents argue facadism can be a sustainable approach, reducing the waste and carbon footprint associated with complete demolition. Carl Elefante, an influential architect and advocate for sustainable design, emphasizes that “the greenest building is the one that is already built (Elefante, 2007).” Retaining original structures reduces the environmental costs of manufacturing and transporting materials, potentially positioning facadism as a “greener” alternative to new builds.
However, facadism also raises concerns about the authenticity of urban spaces, with critics arguing that preserving only the façade of historical structures renders them “hollow shells” with no real connection to their past. According to architect Philip Johnson, facadism can lead to “architectural skinning,” where buildings are stripped of their history and reduced to mere ornaments (Johnson, 1993). Critics of the Capitol Theater project argue that by retaining only its external façade, the building’s soul—its historical essence—is lost, compromising the heritage value that makes Escolta a living reminder of Manila’s cosmopolitan past.
The Drawbacks of Facadism: Hollow Preservation and Loss of Authenticity
Those opposed to facadism argue that the approach merely maintains an aesthetic veneer while fundamentally altering the historical fabric of an area. Facadism, in their view, often leads to superficial preservation that prioritizes visual appeal over genuine cultural and architectural heritage. Historian Miles Glendinning describes facadism as a form of “urban sterilization,” warning that it can lead to “the dilution and disintegration of authentic cultural heritage,” eroding the sense of place that characterizes historic districts like Escolta (Glendinning, 2016).
The Capitol Theater is emblematic of the Art Deco movement in pre-war Manila, a time when Escolta was known as the “Queen of Manila Streets,” bustling with theaters, cafes, and commercial establishments. Designed by Nakpil, the building’s bas-relief murals and intricate interior details are an essential part of its historical narrative. To dismantle its interior while keeping only the façade would mean stripping away a century’s worth of stories and artistry—leaving nothing more than an empty shell. For many heritage advocates, this approach disregards the historical and cultural significance of the site, failing to honor the intent of Nakpil’s work.
Critics further argue that facadism undermines the continuity and integrity of heritage districts. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), a UNESCO-affiliated body, emphasizes that heritage conservation should preserve “the collective memory” of a place, maintaining both architectural and social dimensions of heritage (ICOMOS, 2017). The Capitol Theater, within the broader context of Escolta, represents a legacy of Filipino artistry and Manila’s role as a global cultural hub during the prewar years. Dismantling the building’s interior breaks the historical continuity, leaving a fragmented, incomplete version of Manila’s past.
The Unfortunate Fate of Other Heritage Structures
However, this threat to the Capitol Theater is not an isolated incident; it reflects a troubling trend seen across Manila and beyond, where many heritage structures have met unfortunate fates at the hands of developers. In recent years, significant buildings such as the old San Lazaro Hippodrome, Sta. Ana Park, and various pre-war houses in Quiapo have faced demolition or drastic alteration (Santos, 2020). These losses raise alarm bells for preservationists who argue that each demolition strips the city of its historical narrative.
Heritage advocates, like conservation architect and educator Augusto Villalon, lament that the demolition of historical structures represents a lost opportunity for cultural storytelling and education. Villalon has been vocal in his belief that “the past should inform the present; it shapes our identities and communities (Villalon, 2018).” His sentiments echo the frustrations of many heritage organizations that view such demolitions as an erasure of identity. On the other side of the debate, proponents of modernization often cite economic development as a justification for demolishing heritage buildings. Real estate developers argue that revitalizing land for new construction projects can lead to job creation and economic growth. As urban planner Dr. Maria E. L. de Guzman points out, “in a rapidly urbanizing city, we must prioritize economic viability (de Guzman, 2019).” She emphasizes the necessity of balancing heritage with the pressing needs of a growing population.
However, the argument that demolishing heritage structures is economically beneficial is increasingly challenged. Studies show that areas that preserve and adaptively reuse heritage buildings often see greater long-term economic benefits. Research by the National Trust for Historic Preservation has demonstrated that heritage tourism can drive local economies, creating jobs and fostering community pride while preserving a city’s unique character.
Community-Centered Conservation: Preservation as Revitalization
As an alternative to facadism, many heritage advocates emphasize a community-centered approach to conservation, one that revitalizes heritage buildings by making them relevant to local needs without diminishing their historical character. Urbanist and activist Jane Jacobs championed this perspective, arguing that vibrant neighborhoods are those that evolve with their communities, remaining relevant through adaptive reuse rather than erasure. Jacobs’ philosophy—urban spaces thrive when they reflect the daily lives and needs of residents—has influenced cities worldwide to adopt preservation policies that integrate heritage sites into the local economy.
In cities like New York and Singapore, adaptive reuse has transformed historic buildings into spaces that honor their past while meeting contemporary needs. New York’s Meatpacking District, for instance, has retained its industrial architecture while evolving into a hub of cultural and commercial activity. Singapore’s Chinatown offers another model, where restored shophouses accommodate businesses, museums, and local artists, allowing the area to retain its historical charm while staying relevant in a modern context (Tan, 2019).
For Escolta, adaptive reuse could have mean preserving Capitol Theater as a multi-use space, combining cultural, commercial, and community functions. The theater could have housed an arts center, exhibition space, or boutique shops that would draw locals and tourists alike while preserving Nakpil’s architectural legacy. This approach not only maintains the building’s historical authenticity but also reinvigorates Escolta as a cultural district with purpose, enhancing its relevance to both residents and visitors.
Escolta at a Crossroads: Heritage or Development?
The Capitol Theater project represents a larger question facing Manila’s historic districts: How should heritage sites be integrated into a rapidly growing city? Cities are constantly evolving, and balancing development with preservation is a universal challenge. Yet, in Manila, where urban heritage is increasingly vulnerable, facadism risks transforming neighborhoods like Escolta into faceless business hubs where history is only skin-deep.
Critics argue that the weak enforcement of heritage laws and leniency toward developers is enabling facadism to become the standard rather than the exception. Although the National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 is intended to protect structures like the Capitol Theater, weak enforcement and limited penalties allow developers to proceed with facadism projects, often under the guise of “preservation.” Without stronger regulatory measures, there is little to prevent more heritage buildings from facing the same fate.
Conclusion: Embracing Sustainable Conservation for Manila’s Future
The Capitol Theater’s uncertain future underscores the urgent need for Manila to develop a robust, community-centered conservation strategy that embraces heritage as a pillar of sustainable urban development. While facadism offers a semblance of compromise, it falls short of truly preserving the cultural and architectural integrity of sites like Escolta. By prioritizing adaptive reuse and strengthening heritage protection laws, Manila can balance modernization with cultural preservation, creating a city that honors its past while meeting the needs of its future.
Escolta, with its unique architectural character and historical significance, holds the potential to become a model for heritage-led urban revitalization. As global cities increasingly recognize the value of preserving their historical identity, Manila has an opportunity to follow suit, safeguarding its cultural landmarks not as empty façades but as living, vibrant parts of its urban landscape. For the Capitol Theater and beyond, this choice will define not only the physical skyline of Manila but also its identity and legacy for generations to come.
References
• de Guzman, M. E. L. (2019). Urban Planning in Manila: Balancing Development and Heritage.
• Elefante, C. (2007). “The Greenest Building Is… One That Is Already Built.” Journal of Preservation Technology.
• Glancey, J. (2011). “Bridging Old and New: The Architecture of Compromise.” The Guardian.
• Glendinning, M. (2016). The Conservation of Heritage: A Global View.
• ICOMOS. (2017). International Principles of Heritage Conservation.
• Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
• Lichtenstein, A. (2018). Urban Conservation in London: New Approaches.
• National Trust for Historic Preservation. (2018). The Economic Impact of Heritage Tourism.
• Santos, M. (2020). Heritage and the City: The Changing Landscape of Manila.
• Tan, L. K. (2019). Preservation and Progress: Case Studies in Singapore.