Urban Planning in the Philippines: Causes, Effects and Solutions

...

The Philippines Burnham imagined was one of easy access, beautiful aesthetics, and resourcefulness. He wanted a Manila where all persons were within walking distance from schools, work areas, and recreational centers. Unfortunately, these plans were never implemented, and the reason for this was because of the lackluster administration during the American Era.

Burnham was not at fault: he was only ever commissioned to design the urban plan, not to be its architect as well. In 1905, after the plan was completed, he returned to America, appointing the enacting architect, William E. Parsons, to provide drawings, specifications and estimates for the public building. Parsons took on the job with enthusiasm but resigned in 1914, accusing the government of failing to make any progress with the plans (“William E. Parsons – Architect,” 2008).

It would be unfair, however, to blame him as well. After all, Parsons did submit all that was required of him and some plans were already being made, such as borrowing money from the Insalar Treasury. Still, no sign of fruition came (The Architectural Record, 1917)

There was no direct reason for why the government virtually threw away Burnham’s plan. Some believed that it was the lack of proper leadership to head such a huge project, and others that the project was so daunting that political leaders put it in the back of their minds and eventually forgot about it. Regardless, before a new set of leaders could see reason and take on where their predecessors left, World War II began, and a slew of new problems were created (Palafox, 2005).

It was after the war that another urban planning mistake was committed: The government failed to keep up with the effects of an unprecedented population boost. It was quite simple, actually. As the years passed, the Philippines slowly began to rebuild their society, starting first with replacing the lost population with a new one. As a result, the demand for new residential areas arose (Camena, 2011)

By 1950, the National Planning Commission regulated certain tasks to city governments, such as zoning, subdivision and building regulation. These tasks were too big for local politicians, however, since they failed to find properly trained urban designers and to implement urban planning laws (eg. Urban Land Reform Law by Marcos). Eventually, they could not keep up with the demands of Filipinos, particularly the one for affordable and decent housing. Because the government wasn’t providing any projects for the locals, random areas of land were either bought by eager businesses and made private or became and squatter areas instead (Camena, 2011)

The post-war period had a simple problem: people needed more residential centers. Unfortunately, the government made a mistake by tasking the city government to provide the solutions. By not regulating Filipinos setting up house wherever there was an open space, Metro Manila began to look dispersed and messy. The result of the government not stepping in is the Metro Manila people see today — heavy traffic, obvious pollution, and congestion.

It will continue to be so because of the last cause of poor urban planning, a cause that continues to exist today: the government has a wrong vision of how urban planning should be.

Picture Bonifacio Global City, the Philippine’s poster boy for a developed city. While the buildings are modern and the roads are plenty, there is one thing it does not have: skyways, the elevated walkway between two buildings. BGC assumes that all people within their premises use vehicles to get from point A to B, but the reality is that most citizens cannot afford to buy a car or to take the bus every day.

This huge problem in such a highlighted city is an example of what continues to go wrong in the Philippines. For the government, good urban planning is bigger, grander, and more beautiful buildings. In truth, they forget that the essentials of a good land use plan is in functionality.

Filipino architect and urban planner, Felino “Jun” Palafox Jr., commented that the Philippines is trying too hard to become like Los Angeles or Detroit, with Filipino leaders envisioning an area of endless roads and highways piled atop one another; a city where workers live in a suburban residence two miles outside the border, leaving Metro Manila busy during the day but peaceful at night (“What is Wrong with Urban Planning in Metro Manila,” 2014).

This “American Dream,” unfortunately, does not apply to the Philippines because mobility is such a huge problem in Metro Manila. Residents cannot simply walk, bike, or take a train to work — in the Philippines, commuting takes practice and skill. Metro Manila also does not have the money or historical background to become like Western countries. As previously mentioned, Burnham’s plan was never implemented and through years of housing appearing randomly in the cities, it has become increasingly difficult to redo the area. As a result, to have endless roads and highways is impossible when they are blocked by houses and pedestrians at each turn (Palafox, 2005).

Had what the leaders envision stayed as is, a vision, then there would be no problems today. However, as proven by Bonifacio Global City and even the residential areas by Ayala, the government is continuing its quest to the American Dream. While these land spaces are modern and aesthetically pleasing, once you go outside of its borders, the real Metro Manila shows its face. Not everyone can have access to BGC-like areas, and even those that do are already confronted by internal problems (e.g. the lack of skyways). This dream has only proven two things: that it is nearly impossible to better Metro Manila with what the leaders envision and that it has to change (“What is Wrong with Urban Planning in Metro Manila,” 2014).

These causes of poor urban planning — the lack of implementation of Burnham’s plan, the local government’s poor reaction to population growth, and the current government’s favoring of the wrong vision of urban planning — is what has brought the Philippines to where it is today.

- Effects of Poor Urban Planning

This leads to the second main point: the effects of poor urban planning in Metro Manila. These can be divided into two: cities that are traffic and cities that are unbalanced.

The former is obvious. While Burnham had envisioned roads that led to important public buildings and were designed to segue into one another in a neat, grid-like fashion, present-day Metro Manila has only a handful of main roads (i.e. EDSA, NLEX and SLEX), and smaller roads leading to them. In fact, Metro Manila’s roads are only 1032