Metro Manila, I think, is a city in evolution… struggling to find a coherent identity in the midst of a ballooning population, patchwork infrastructure, and at its best, dislocated and disjointed utilities. As the metropolis’ core urbanites/new rich/middle-class move out to the suburbs, the replacement population takes up the cudgels of city living in the various depressed urban areas around the city. With a few exceptions of “reurbanization” wherein developers woo back the rich into the downtown/city centers via mixed-use condominium developments.
Many of our Metropolis educated, well-traveled city/suburb dwellers long for the beautiful shaded avenues of Paris, the Asian “Tropical Garden City” Feel of Singapore, and the Skyward grid of Manhattan’s High Density core. But, are these cities really to be the definition of beauty and culture in our beloved Manila’s rapidly mutating, media-centric mix?
MAYBE… If Paris has the Eiffel Tower/Arc du Triomphe/Louvre, or if New York has Times Square/Ground Zero and Central Park… maybe… for our city, in our current stage of city evolution, maybe we have our Signs for landmarks… Maybe Guadalupe could be repackaged as a Riverside Signage Viewing Park…
If these cities are known for their elegant permanence, maybe Metro Manila can be known for its fleeting dynamism.
I understand the point you make, but you have to imagine the conundrum that Metro Manila (not just Manila) has: Metro Manila is a conglomeration of several cities and municipalities. It was built without any central planning, nor any unifying intent. I'd even venture to say that the growth of the metro is very... organic... in that there is an underlying order to the chaos. However, I do agree that Metro Manila can be thought of as dynamic.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast maybe, Paris also grew out organically, but it was planned at varying stages-- each group or person in power had their ideas of what the city should look like (the monarchials like Louis XIV with their squares and such) and reacted to the previous rulers' changes by either replacing statues and/or repurposing various locations (the French Revolution of 1789 tore down the statues of Louis XIV for example). There was(were) unifying intent(s) (albeit the intents sometimes clashed with each other)
NB: Although I'm saying the above, I believe Burnham during the American occupation did plan Manila (only Manila mind you, not the rest of the metro) around a "garden city" pattern with regular grids, it just didn't work. World War II happened, and the place we lived in was devasted. Correct me if I'm wrong here :)
(Technically of course, Manila is the city; Metro Manila is the metropolitan area that includes Manila, Makati, Pasig, Quezon City, etc. And what with the politicking and arguing among the city mayors... heck, you would even have the MMDA involved in the mess if you wanted to try transforming the place.)
Thats the point nga eh.. next time magkita tayo ill lend you Mutations by Rem Koolhaas...
ReplyDeleteOrganic = Pragmatic, Capitalist, Kneejerk, Reactive
Thats exactly my point... how can you tie and organize things if everything else is fragmented... Basically naman a lot of cities in the world evolved that way, from basic settlements and districts evolving into a unified city... but the problem is... the pace of growth is faster than the actual pace of evolution/redevelopment!