Paglulunan

Western residential architecture are appropriated for the social order of the local population. While bearing many rooms, the Filipino-Hispanic residential archetype (which also defined the institutional and commercial archetypes of the period) would be composed of multiple shared spaces, defined by their relative permeability shrouded with Spanish and European finery. Colonial church design gave way to sprawling and buttressed development over soaring architectural forms. Churches were contrived from vague memories of Hispanic examples, reinterpreted with the variety of Chinese and other Southeast Asian influences that converged in the Philippines. The baroque architectural sensibility boded well with Filipino tastes, creating earthquake baroque architecture. Even the introduction of technological feats such as steel and concrete construction, for example, were meant as a response to the unique conditions of the country.

A short-lived Independence was achieved from Spanish rule, to be eclipsed by the arrival of American forces. The American colonial encounter would be remarkable for the use of techno-science to control Filipinos within spaces, enforcing medical interventions on the unfit, native bodies. Moreover, the technological advancement of the period and the American imperialist agenda were garbed with the veneers of neoclassicism. The exercise created buildings which are imbued with the legitimacy of classical antiquity—expressed in ferroconcrete— to project a democratic lineage which the colonial authority wished to impart on the native population as an act of altruism.

Among the requisites of a sustainable, independent nation was the greater inclusion of capable and competent Filipinos in the colonial bureaucracy.

Specifically in the Bureau of Public Works, the return of the pensionado architects who were trained in the United States and Europe, demonstrated the cultural sophistication that signified the Filipino’s readiness for independence and acceptance into the family of nations. The inclusion of native architects in the state building program coincided as well with the rise of art deco and greater economic prosperity, bringing significant changes to the lifestyles of Filipinos. Art deco became a manner for local architects to better explore the nation’s architectural character, allowing a generation of Filipino architects to express their local identity in anticipation of independence.

The intersections of local vernacular knowledge and experiences produced a unique, creative response to the colonial encounter. Jubilation over impending emancipation was overshadowed by the clouds of war, which brought widespread destruction to the country, destroying the work of many generations. Though many aspects of the nation’s architectural heritage were lost in the war, the promise of independence generated a renewed sense of hope. As the Philippines rose from the ashes, the world now welcomed a new and independent Filipino nation.

Now an independent nation amongst other sovereign states, the Philippines needed to assert itself on the international stage, while reeling from wartime destruction. Modernism provided a welcome way to address the growing need for functional and lyrical spaces devoid of colonial associations. While homogeneity was the ultimate form of modern architecture, the concurrent need to assert one’s individuality and identity in architecture was a primary goal of the post-war years. Through modernism, local architects asserted and explored notions of Filipino identity in the built environment, adapting the international style to the tropical environment of the country.

Stylistic explorations ranged from the literal to the poetic interpretations of local design sense in the built form. For many, the dictum of “form follows function” that characterized modernism yielded spaces that were spartan within but outwardly unique and at times unconventional, through the use of tropical sun-shading devices such as brise soleil, pierced screens, and deep overhanging eaves. The best examples of Filipino modernist spaces are delicately balanced form and function—aesthetics, practicality, and economics. Often however, many other examples across the archipelago ended up with structural functionality becoming the paramount concern, leaving aesthetic merit behind.

Modernism’s potential for expressing Filipino identity found great opportunities in state architecture. The wave of government constructions needed for housing the expanding state services and functions provided a welcome recipient for direct interpretations of Filipino architectural forms. Perhaps, the largest examples of these may be found throughout the post-war and Marcos eras, defining the local architectural milieu. Nativist tendencies in architecture were further intensified with the state-sponsored architectural agenda under the Bagong Lipunan program of the authoritarian regime. Modernism’s limits as a tool for expressing individuality and forward-thinking were tested in this period, resulting in various edifices to serve the caprices of the regime. Cracks began to appear in the machinery of the regime, owing to the various abuses and atrocities it has committed, ultimately causing its downfall. Likewise, the homogenizing tendencies of modernism became more apparent; thus a new stylistic development emerged to better express and appreciate local identity. A return of appreciation for ornament and interest in historical references drove a romantic way forward for Filipino architecture. Thus, the singularity of modernism gave way to the plural expressions of postmodernism.

Postmodern exploration persists in contemporary urban scenography. The wealth of historical references and architectural possibilities offer a wide trove from which notions of Filipino architecture may be better defined, given emphasis, informed, and built upon. An appraisal of the contributions of the past to the current possibilities and realities of Philippine architecture must be staked, so that the process of placemaking may continue to flourish more meaningfully.

Accompanying a contemporary wave of architectural nostalgia, the recognition of our shared heritage becomes a matter of interest. The process of heritage conservation is a negotiation of narratives among various stakeholders. It is a process of navigating tangible layers of history and intangible values of a building to distill which elements matter to the people, and which facets they wish to conserve and pass on to the next generations. Heritage builds on the architectural pedigree of a place, which serves as a springboard from which we can assert, reify, and cherish our shared identity and cultural memory.

Heritage conservation, more than the preservation of the tangible remains of the past, is a preservation of the knowledge and sensibilities that have long informed the creation of the Philippine built environment. As Filipino architects, we are now called to create buildings which preserve, build on, and propel Philippine architectural identity to new grounds.

Buildings and places are historical records that reveal the creative responses of individuals and society towards nature, technological advances, and power structures. Architecture is no silent witness to the push and pull of history. It is an accomplice to the development and demise of peoples through time. Its accounts wait to be heard and understood by those willing to listen to the unraveling tale within. Thus, as a product of human genius and even folly, the built environment is never neutral. Understanding the complexities that informed—and continue to shape—the development of the built environment would allow us to learn from the past; and take Philippine Architecture to new possibilities and potentialities today and in the future.

Philippine architecture is richly multifaceted, just as the Filipino nation as a whole is a wealth of diverse cultural, historical, and geographic influences. Due to its geographic location and archipelagic permeability, the Philippines has been a locus of exchange and cross-cultural encounter, producing a multitude of architectural expressions.

As a tangible intersection of various influences, the Philippine built environment has developed its own unique architectural response to the forces of nature, societal movements, and cultural constructs. Thus, to ask if Filipino architecture does exist is moot; rather, the question should be how it came to be. The same applies to the search for a singular Filipino cultural identity devoid of external stimuli. Development is a product of a long and arduous process of encounter, assimilation, and response with various forces at play: fueling the enrichment of knowledge and sensibilities, which in turn inform the built environment.

Thus, we must take a critical look at these different forces that have driven, and continue to drive, the development of Filipino architecture and the built environment. It is through an appraisal of the circumstances—socio-cultural, political, natural, even personal—vis-a-vis our spaces and places, that we get to better appreciate how our built environment, with its rich plurality, has come to be. After which, we may be able to share it with the next generations.

In 2020, at the ons et of the pandemic, the UAP Area B put forward the call for architects to be creative problem-solvers in society through its Assembly. Although it was often said that Filipinos were resilient, we rather believed that on our side was GRIT or “tapang ng loob”, which is how we have kept going despite disasters. To be resilient however means to have a vision to bounce back and not merely survive.

Words are cheap, and there is a need to take action after the jam-packed assembly program, from the speakers to their topics. This was how the Beyond Grit national conceptual competition was launched. To prepare for it, a collaboration was further created with the UP Resilience Institute by the setting up of a series of workshops wherein we learned more about design thinking and participatory design as well as the problem tree analysis and the allied topics.

As a result, thirty signed up to join the competition, of which 7 have been finalists. The first prize was awarded to Bryll Edison Par, a member of the United Architects of the Philippines Manila Centrum Chapter and currently an architectural private practitioner, a part-time professor at the National University – Baliwag campus, and a student at the Integrated Graduate Program (Master of Architecture – Urban Design Studio Lab) of the University of the Philippines – Diliman. He proposed the “Urban Link”, which is a mobility design intervention for commuters. Residing in the city allowed Ar. Par to experience the limited provision for comfortable and secured walkable facilities and infrastructure which he surmised stunted the economic growth, produced automobile dependency and an offshoot of problems like pollution and discomfort for the majority of city residents