Manila: A city less beautiful

Over 50 years ago this month, Manila was liberated from the Japanese. The city was devastated and over a hundred thousand lives were lost in the crossfire. Soon after, it started to rebuild. It became increasingly apparent though that the reconstruction effort was driven mainly by narrow-minded concerns of business – those of post-war market forces, and not according to a rational layout. This had already been prepared based on a 1941 metropolitan-wide master plan.

Adecade after liberation and the subsequent granting of independence, Manila was choking and suffering from this lack of urban direction. This was exacerbated by real estate development and architectural production that produced buildings which, to outspoken observers of the day, were wanting both in individual aesthetics and contribution to the larger urban context.

One of the most vocal of these flaneurs was I.V. Mallari. He was a prolific writer and commentator on city life and architecture in the mold of L Mumford of New York. Mallari wrote for the Manila Times and leading magazines of the time. One of most scathing critiques on the city was a piece he wrote for the Sunday Times Magazine entitled "The Ugly City," exactly 45 years ago (February 24,1957). His insights on architecture, planning, landscape architecture and urban design hold true to this day.

In his article, Mallari recounts that President Manuel L. Quezon, in an outburst of frustration at the deterioration of parts of old Manila, said that the "best thing that could happen to it was for it to be razed to the ground." Well, the war took care of that, but instead of taking advantage of what Mallari described as "an unparalleled opportunity for the city to be re-designed and rebuilt to meet the exigencies of modern living," its leaders took the path of expediency without addressing urban problems that were already rearing their Hydra heads before the war.

Mallari blamed the city’s business leaders for failing to realize that the beautification of any urban section is bound to increase the fiscal value of every piece of property on it – and that the meticulous application of (architectural and planning) principles to the rehabilitation of the city is bound to work to their own best advantage. In their greed for immediate returns on their investments, they have caused every available inch of ground space to be covered with structures that are, for this reason, modern only in name and in outward appearance.

Mallari alludes to the city’s lost heritage and soul when he said, "(Manila does not now) possess any quality that can compensate for the characteristic picturesqueness of age, which used to invest it with distinction and charm." He goes on to point to "the failure of most property owners, and even of architects and city planners who cater to their whims, to realize that a city – or anything else for that matter – is beautiful only if it can stand scrutiny; that it’s a perfectly integrated unit if the various elements composing it are in such perfect harmony and balance with one another as to produce the desired emotional quality (italics mine)."

Mallari comments on this emotion-challenged cityscape saying, "(Architects) do not realize that no structure can ever stand alone – that it cannot help being viewed, instead, in relation to other structures in its immediate vicinity, and to the street or plaza on which it stands."

He expounds on these observations on Manila’s urban design citing the deterioration and, even worse, the disappearance of city sidewalks. He chastises architects saying, "Putting up a fine building and neglecting to provide it with a suitable sidewalk is like preparing a delicious dish and serving it on a breaking plate, or buying an expensive painting and displaying it in a frame what robs it of emotional appeal."

Mallari’s article is in part like a classic text on urban design. He advocates, "Those responsible for Manila seem to have forgotten that streets and plazas are, essentially, compositions of voids and solids – that is to say, of horizontal planes consisting of open spaces, and such vertical elements as buildings, trees, lighting standards enclosing and defining these open spaces."

I.V. also highlights the role of landscape architecture: "(Local government, architects and planners) do not seem to (realize) that trees, plants and other plant material can play vital roles in any urban composition. (These) can define and give character to open spaces (which) cool the air, serve as fire breaks, prevent floods, and hold soil in place; (landscape) can tie a building to its site, frame the perfection of its design, soften the uncompromising stiffness of its lines, cast patterns of light and shadows on its walls, and even hide its architectural defects."

Mallari laments the disappearing "havens of beauty and tranquility" in the city – places like the Mehan Gardens, the Santa Cruz churchyard, Plaza Calderon de Barca, Plaza Miranda, and the Victoria gardens – all of which were filled with greenery. He cites, too, the loss of trees from Rizal Avenue, and other thoroughfares of the city.

Finally, he laments the overall trend (in the 1950s), or what he criticizes as the lack of originality in Philippine architecture, its lack of sensitivity to tropical climactic conditions and the overall lack of proper landscaped settings for the city and its architecture. He yearned, as most of us do till today, to recover the old Manila of distinctiveness and charm, a city with emotional quality. One that will deserve, Mallari reminds us, the title "Pearl of the Orient."

Close to half a century hence, we have not learned the lessons Mallari exposed in his article. Our metropolis today is bereft of emotional quality, charm and the "it" factor. Its streets are mostly devoid of trees, open space is as rare as honesty in the government, character is as lacking in the metropolis’ architecture as it is in many of the leaders elected to the various City Halls.

When can we bring back the beautiful Manila we once knew? Shall we just be content with the less-than-charming cityscape we live in today? Are we destined to repeat the mistakes of our urban history? How many more articles do we have to read on our sad plight before we take action? We may capture the Abus tomorrow and turn around our economy next week, but unless we improve the way we build our cities, our structures and our public spaces, our lives will remain as ugly as our present surroundings.

* * *

Feedback is welcome. Please e-mail the writer at citysensephilstar@hotmail.com.