The conversation has started for Metro Manila’s rejuvenation

Metro Manila is a city of extreme contradictions.

Existing side by side are communities overcome by poverty and squalor and an elite whose members live in posh mansions and elegant high rises. Areas jam-packed with offices, malls, and universities are located a stones throw away from sprawling gated villages that are virtually empty during work days. The poor are deprived of parks and open spaces while the well-heeled have their country clubs and private gardens. We have decaying roads and highways, which, aside from being congested, are beset with ugly billboards, grime, and neglect.

Metro Manila, with its 25 million population, is arguably one of the toughest cities to live in.

Love it or hate it, Metro Manila is the still the capital of the nation and its face to the world. It is the nation’s economic capital comprising 37% of GDP.

As the nation goes through an era of intense transformation with successive years of unprecedented economic growth, the time has come to start the conversation on what our capital city should be. Metro Manila is ripe for an extensive urban rejuvenation not only because we can now afford it, but because not to do so will consign the city to further decay. With inaction, it will rot, like Tondo did.

STARTING THE CONVERSATION
Last week, I attended a conference organized by AECOM and the Harvard Graduate School of Design. AECOM is the world’s foremost city planners and the company responsible for the urban renewal of Shanghai, Houston, Tokyo, and Delhi. Both institutions were here to conduct a design exercise on how to rehabilitate the city’s oldest and most decrepit zones — the Baseco Compound, the Port Area, Intramuros, and the adjacent Pasig Riverfront.

AECOM’s Asia Pacific President, Sean Chiao and Harvard’s Dean of Design, Mohsen Mostafavi, addressed a group that included officials of the city of Manila (Erap was absent, as usual) and representatives from the DBM, DENR, HUDCC and the Intramuros Administration. From private enterprise, Buds Wenceslao of ASEANA City and top officials of Ayala Land, Metro Pacific, and Robinsons Land participated.

The event was held in the majestic Ayuntamiento de Manila, where interestingly, the old city of Manila was planned by the Spaniards according to European standards.

The room was packed with 700 well-meaning citizens who wished to take part in the conversation. Urban renewal advocates like Carlos Celdran, Architect Paulo Alcazaren, and Julia Nebrija were present. The strong showing of civil society goes to show how hungry the citizens are for change.

The audience were both relieved and encouraged when Sean Chiao confirmed that Metro Manila was not a hopeless case. It could still be refashioned into a livable, vibrant city, Chiao said. In fact, Chiao further opined that given the culture, heritage, and business dynamism of Metro Manila, it has the potential to be a global city.

OUT WITH URBAN SPRAWL, IN WITH COMPACT CITIES
Metro Manila was planned according to the American template called “urban sprawl”.

Urban sprawl is a type city plan wherein large portions of the city are zoned according to residential, business, and commercial use. A good example was how Makati was planned several decades ago. The more senior among us will remember how Salcedo and Legazpi Villages were strictly for office use (commercial establishments were not allowed) while Bel Air, Forbes, and Dasmariñas Villages were strictly for family dwellings. All commercial activities were found in what was called “The Center, Makati.”

Urban sprawl is still in effect in Metro Manila today, albeit in a diluted manner. Central business districts are where people work, Parañaque, Alabang, Fairview, and Antipolo are where people live while commercial activities are concentrated in massive malls.

The American template has proven to be ineffective in a city with an ever increasing population. This is because when you isolate living, working, commercial, and school zones, the land use for each purpose becomes bigger. Suburban residences use more land with their single detached homes, complete with private gardens. Larger schools are erected to accommodate the thousands of children that live in the suburbs. Mammoth malls are built to serve the commercial needs of the community.

In a city based on urban sprawl, cars, buses and jeeps are a necessity for daily living simply because nothing is near. Residential, office, and commercial zones are connected by one or two access roads that become increasingly crowded over time.

The situation is exacerbated when there is no efficient mass transit available. Residents will have no choice but to use cars which invariably leads to more congestion. Building more roads is not the answer either. Doing so only encourages the citizens to use their cars more often. It wont take long before these new roads become overrun too. This vicious cycle is where Metro Manila finds itself in today.

One of the ways in which we can solve congestion is through the creation of many “compact cities.” This is one of the proposals brought forward for the greater Manila area.

Compact cities are mixed-use zones where people live, work, shop, study, and recreate in. It is a city that is fully integrated and walkable. Compact cities do away with large highways but instead, provides multiple access roads that lead to the same destination. Bonifacio Global City and Rockwell are fine example of compact cities. Incidentally, BGC was planned by AECOM.

Compact cities need not be as massive or as swanky as Rockwell or BGC. It can be developed in various sizes and for a range of incomes. Aside from being mixed use and walkable, compact cities need to be safe, pedestrian-friendly, and have a decent amount of open space.

Studies show that walkable cities are good for local businesses given the steady flow of community customers. Over time, they evolve to become interesting cities whose shops and restaurants are entrepreneur-driven. It is also good for tourism. Studies show that the cities most visited are all walkable. New York, Madrid, and Paris all have compact cities within them (e.g. Chelsea in NYC, Salamanca in Madrid, Le Marais in Paris). Eventually, these compact cities become desirable and prosperous. Their property prices increase beyond the national average.

Having numerous compact cities within Metro Manila will greatly reduce the need for cars and invariably, result in less congestion. Further, when citizens live, work, study, and recreate in a neighborhood, interaction is encouraged and friendships are made. A sense of community is fostered.

How can compact cities be created in a mega-city like Manila?

An efficient, comfortable and dignified mass transit system is the first requirement. Without it, people will simply revert to using cars. Experts further suggest that compact cities be created around the main stops of a mass transit system. This will facilitate connectivity, sans automobiles, among the many compact cities within Metro Manila.

Inside the compact cities, however, pedestrians and bikes must have priority over cars. Cars can either be restricted or charged a toll for access. This is the trend in most European cities today.

Local government units play the lead role in the creation of compact cities. Zoning restrictions must be relaxed, pedestrian and bike lanes must be created, street parking must be prohibited, open spaces must be developed, safety and security must be ensured, investment must be made in greening the environs and in sanitation. All these necessitates political will.

The conversation has started on what Metro Manila should be.

We the citizens, now know we deserve better. We should make our demands known by writing our mayors and congressmen directly. They are duty bound to act on it.

As a mega city, Metro Manila is a reflection of the nation’s identity, heritage, achievements, and aspirations for the future. We can’t afford to make it rot like Tondo did.

 

Andrew J. Masigan is an economist