THE Philippines is on course to be a First World country, First World economy by 2050. As economic growth decentralizes and spreads beyond the capital, we will need at least 100 new cities for over a hundred million Filipinos, who will all be living in urban areas.
The opportunity for urbanization is great, but so is the responsibility. As George Santayana said, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” As new metropolises rise, they must not make the same mistakes as Metro Manila. We must build smart, resilient, sustainable and future-ready cities.
The tyranny of car-centrism
Traffic congestion is one of the most urgent problems in Metro Manila. According to JICA, the daily gridlock costs our economy P3.5 billion a day, while TomTom reports that commuters lose 143 hours a year stuck in traffic—time that could be spent working, resting, or being with family and friends.
An SWS survey showed that less than 10 percent of Filipino households in Metro Manila own a car. Yet according to Seermo, an AI-powered digital platform for mobility, these vehicles monopolize as much as 77 percent of road space, leaving pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users with nothing but scraps. This should never have been the case.
Gustavo Petro said, “A developed country is not one where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation.” We must shift away from the car-centric culture of America and instead place value on multimodal mobility and transit-oriented development. If emerging cities are merely trying to imitate Metro Manila, then they will also get the horrible congestion of Metro Manila. Cities must be designed for people, not cars.
The concept of induced demand states that we get what we build for. And if we keep paving roads for cars, as if our cities were Los Angeles, then we will get nothing but more traffic. That is why we at Palafox design roads with one-third of the space for pedestrians and cyclists, one-third for landscaping and greenery, and one-third for vehicles. Public transportation must be within walking distance from where people live, work and play.
Walls of exclusion
In 1973, I wrote in my term paper at UP, “Development is not worthy of the name unless it is spread evenly like butter on a piece of bread.” When I went to Harvard, they called this inclusionary zoning or inclusive development.
Back in the 1950s, America began its suburban sprawl as more families moved to far-flung communities, interconnected by a network of highways. The consequence of such planning was that people ended up isolated and car-dependent, unable to go anywhere without an automobile. The American Dream had become a nightmare.
Today, Metro Manila is one of the densest metropolises in the world, housing a population of around 14 million people within a land area of 636 square kilometers. Yet, we tried to follow the pattern of American suburbia with the prevalent exclusive subdivisions within our cities.
Many of them are even located along major thoroughfares such as EDSA and C5, fragmenting the city and worsening the already terrible congestion. EDSA is functioning as eight parallel roads because these alternative routes are blocked by gated communities and military camps.
The world has since recognized that the value of real estate lies not in location, location, location. But in mobility, accessibility and connectivity. That is why 15-Minute Cities has become the goal. The idea of a place where all essential goods and services are accessible within a short walk or bike ride is revolutionary in an age where we spend too much of our time, money and energy on commuting.
Another trend that is on the rise is vertical urbanism. Building upwards, instead of outwards, allows us to maximize our limited space. Not only does this facilitate high-density housing, but it also frees up areas for open spaces such as public parks, community gardens and urban forests, which Metro Manila sorely lacks.
Long before 15-Minute Cities and vertical urbanism became global buzzwords, we at Palafox already introduced the concept of a 5-Minute Neighborhood with Rockwell Center in Makati, a mixed-use development incorporating vertical urbanism. We had the privilege to participate in the planning, designing and architecture, and create a community where you could live, work and play, and everything was a 5-minute walk from your doorstep.
Work with nature, not against it
The Philippines ranks among the most vulnerable countries to climate change. We sit on the Pacific Ring of Fire, and endure an average of 20 typhoons per year. Our country is abundant in natural resources, but our geography comes with a myriad of natural hazards. The challenge in building resilient and sustainable cities is learning how to work with nature, not against it.
Metro Manila is blessed with many bodies of water, such as the Pasig River, the Marikina River, Manila Bay and Laguna de Bay. These not only provide food, water, transportation and livelihood, but they can also act as flood control.
In the 1970s, I was the team leader and senior planner of the World Bank-funded MMetroplan (Metro Manila Transport Land Use Development Planning Project). My team proposed the construction of the Manggahan Floodway and the Parañaque Spillway. The former was supposed to divert excess water from the highlands to Laguna de Bay, while the latter was designed to drain excess water from the lake toward Manila Bay.
While the Manggahan Floodway was eventually constructed, the government failed to act on the Paranaque Spillway. As a result, Metro Manila continues to suffer from flooding year after year. It’s tragic how countless people suffer greatly from the consequences of poor governance.
It is 90 percent less expensive to address hazards before they become disasters. Metro Manila had a golden opportunity in the 1970s with the MMetroplan. I explicitly warned that if the government followed a do-nothing approach, then the metropolis would suffer from severe congestion, pollution, flooding and vulnerability to climate hazards.
Sadly, that is exactly our reality today. Our cities are not prepared for disasters.
We would like to live in environment-friendly buildings and master-planned cities that are smart, sustainable, resilient, walkable, bikeable, safe, mixed-income, mixed-use developments, integrating places to live, work, shop, dine, learn, and worship, with healthcare and wellness centers with some 24-hour cycle activity centers.
With visionary leadership, strong political will, good governance, good design and good planning, our upcoming metropolises won’t have to suffer the same fate as Metro Manila.
