The rigidity of physical planning

In the last three installments, we delved into the concept of physical framework planning, a specific sector and mandate of government which is not particularly popular, more often just discussed within the halls of NEDA or among the closed circle of development planners of Official Development Assistance  institutions.  The reason people lack interest in this field is simply because it is too far-fetched from daily life - few people get excited on what happens 30 years from now.  And what is discussed probably won't happen anyway, the way it's discussed, planned or written.  That's why it's more called as the "framework" plan.

But framework that it is, it is important because it forms the backbone of all the development efforts, or lack of it, that matters in one's lifetime.  Generally, political leaders don't put much thought on it, owing to the fact that term limits (3 or 6 years) place a pressure on incumbents to exhibit performance at present in order to survive the next elections.  I say generally, because every now and then, visionary leaders emerged.  The look far ahead deep into the future and steer their constituencies to a better future far beyond their term or even their lifetime.  Looking back, these are the people who made our country and localities what they are now, the same leaders whose names are inked in history, countless others are forgotten.

The interdependence of the three domains of development planning - socio-economic planning, physical framework (spatial) planning, and the demographic and social planning, cannot be overemphasized.  One cannot be done and be effective without the other two.  But the concepts are a bit different, which must be understood and intertwined.  Physical planning is the framework, it is for the long-term, and must be fairly established, otherwise our cities and provinces would look like motley of patchwork.  Like many of them look now.

The advantage of physical planning is its rigidity which lends to coherence to most short- and medium-term plans made over its entire planning horizon.  Since it serves as a guide, it prevents development from going into all directions as well as synergizes government efforts.  But this rigidity is also its main drawback - the main components of the physical plan which are the land use and the transport network, corridors, and nodes, are bulky infrastructure, locationally fixed and will stand for a long time, and cost a lot.  Errors can be very expensive.

Rigid means unchanging - transport corridors and nodes last for a long, long time. The main transport corridor in Cebu was established prior to World War II.  It probably will remain for the next 30 years. But it has to evolve, as it had evolved. The closest I can compare this is to a snake shedding its skin. It is part of growth, just as crabs and their kin have to moult their shells (exoskeleton) as they grow. Urban centers and their suburbs have to upgrade their land use and zoning categories to accommodate growth, but this eventually run in conflict with the rigid structure of the transport systems. This again reinforces the need for integration of land use and transport planning.  Look, the old Lahug airport is now Asiatown IT Park.

Lastly, the long planning horizon of physical planning places more weight of it being a future blueprint of opportunities rather than a list of projects to solve current problems. The latter maybe addressed by medium-term plans, but more efficiently by portions of the annual investment programs, part and parcel of present urban management, operations, and maintenance plans.  While it's tempting to develop plans to solve existing problems, it is really is more tenable to separate the two, present and future, and develop strategies peculiar to each. For as long as we make this distinction, there shouldn't be any mixed-up.

"How do you solve a problem like Maria?" the popular Sound of Music song goes. How do you solve a problem like Metro Manila? … or Metro Cebu?  The former seems hopeless, the latter much easier, though becoming to be as tough as well.  Three domains - socio economic, physical (spatial) framework, and demographic/social.  The first two are actually easy to formulate. It is the third which will make or break any plan for the future. At the end of the day, the plans that matter are the plans of the people, by the people, and for the people.  (to be continued)