Metro Manila As The Happy City - Monteiro

Issues » The Manila Review 11/20/16, 8:18 PM
MENU
© 2015 ISSN 2423-2971
Metro Manila As
The Happy City:
The Present
State And Future
Prospects Of
Philippine
Urban Life
Paolo Monteiro
City living is about movement.

Can the government 4x the pains
of the daily commute? Paolo
Monteiro imagines a Manila for
those without cars
Happy City: Transforming Our Lives

through Urban Design
by Charles Montgomery ABOUT THE AUTHOR
London: Penguin Books, 2013
Paolo Monteiro commutes from
Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save
Antipolo to Makati every weekday. He
America One Step at a Time
monitors the progress of public
http://themanilareview.com/issues/view/metro-manila-as-the-happy-city-the-present-state-and-future-prospects-of-philippine-urban-life Page 1 of 14
monitors the progress of public

By Jeff Speck
infrastructure and transport projects
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
as part of his work in the Makati
2012
Business Club.
5:50 am, Monday. Bag packed, extra
clothes included. Money in various
denominations separated into multiple
wallets for easy access and safety—a
precaution, since there have been
incidents of robbery in transit. Arriving at
the queue, close to a hundred people are
already in front of me, waiting for the
Toyota carriage to ferry them from
Antipolo City and into the central
business district of the 12 million-strong
Metro Manila, about 30 kilometers away.
The scene is more desperate at the light

rail station at the very heart of what was
supposed to be the Philippines’ master
planned capital, Quezon City. The MRT
station at Quezon Avenue has since
become the case study of Metro Manila’s
dire transportation infrastructure—its
daily entrance queue stretches from the
elevated platform to ground level to
across an entire block in South Triangle.
The car drivers are also not spared, as a
cursory glance at EDSA or C5 during rush
hour features the same long line of
inef]ciency, characteristic of a bustling,
yet still developing, metropolis.
These experiences are the norm for a

Manileño. Moving from point A to B
requires trudging across winding paths
with cracked and cramped sidewalks. It
is a mad scramble for the last jeepney
seat, and a game of hopscotch over the
occasional open manhole. Add the rains
to the equation and an extra road block
is added into the day’s Amazing Race.
Whether via public transit or personal

automobile, Metro Manila travel is a
losing proposition—each long journey
entails a sacri]ce, both in the
measurable economic costs and in the

unquanti]able losses owing to reduced
social interaction. It simply creates
unhappiness. Given these problems, it
should be a national imperative to
improve the situation, but with the
]ssures and political tensions in
Philippine society, this task becomes
dif]cult. After all, the anguish felt by
some urbanites stuck in their
chauffeured cars along EDSA may be
incomparable to those felt by the
commuting masses in packed LRT
coaches.
While government of]cials claim they are

“aware” of the situation and are taking
steps to address the problem,1 actual
exposure to the trials of commuters is
the best means to accelerate change.
The familiar concept of People Power
comes to the fore: Pressure from the
grassroots will shape policy directions at
the highest levels. At present, there is
now a very loud and active movement,
advocating for a truly sustainable and
walkable Manila.
Happy City: Transforming Our Lives

Through Urban Design written by Charles
Montgomery, and Walkable City: How
Downtown Can Save America One Step
at a Time by Jeff Speck both discuss
how good urban design improves the
health and general happiness of a city’s
inhabitants. They also offer insights that
may aid the ongoing attempts to retro]t
Metro Manila in favor of the pedestrian.
Speci]cally, in the journey to improve
Philippine transit and the quality of life in
the city, putting the citizen at the center
of any urban design plan is paramount.
More importantly, they state that
the citizen has the responsibility and
capability to effect this meaningful
change.
Time Is Money
The adage of time having immense

economic value ]nds meaning when
taken in the context of road congestion
and crumbling infrastructure. Clogged
streets delay deliveries and increase the
likelihood of absences and tardiness
from employees, not to mention cause
employees to begin their workday
already fatigued and tense.
2013 research from the Japan

International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
estimates that the Philippines loses P2.4
billion daily due to traf]c in Metro
Manila.2 Furthermore, the World
Economic Forum (WEF) rates the
country’s poor infrastructure as one of
the biggest hindrances to Philippine
competitiveness. According to the WEF,
the country remains in the bottom half of
its infrastructure ranking among the
almost 150 economies it annually
surveys. In the 2013-2014 edition of the
WEF Global Competitiveness Report, out
of 148 economies, the Philippines ranked
poorly in terms of quality of overall
infrastructure (98th), quality of roads
(87th), railroads (89th), seaports (116th),
and airports (113th). Not surprisingly, the
Philippines placed 8th out of 10
countries in Southeast Asia in overall
infrastructure competitiveness. It’s also
striking to ]nd that the inadequate
supply of infrastructure was ranked the
most problematic factor to doing
business in the Philippines, displacing
corruption, which has been the country’s
biggest hindrance since 2003.3
As a response to the recommendation of

business groups and the World Bank, as
well as a means to sustain economic
growth and generate employment, the
government has promised to augment
government has promised to augment

the infrastructure budget, from 2.3% of
GDP in 2013 to the benchmark 5% of
GDP in 2016.
On top of public investments, the

government has been actively promoting
its public-private partnership (PPP)
program to further close the
infrastructure gap. Despite dif]culties in
implementation, the listed projects have
generated great interest from local and
foreign investors. The PPP Center is
targeting to award around 15 projects by
2016, with at least 10 of these related to
transportation.4
Missing the Mark
While these government efforts are

commendable, the people factor must
not be overlooked in any urban design
plan. Evidence suggests that losing sight
of a plan’s primary bene]ciaries results
in expensive proposals that cater to
narrow interests, attempt to solve the
wrong “problems,” and communicate a
policy of non-inclusive development.
For instance, among the many

achievements touted by the Aquino
administration involve infrastructure for
vehicles.5 Such achievements should
still be lauded if only to showcase the
bene]ts that good governance can bring
—and without a doubt, these have been
achieved. However, absent similar
emphasis on a people-centric transport
policy and infrastructure, the message of
a government for inclusive development
is lost.
In Happy City, Montgomery argues that

“master plans” miss the point,
deliberately or accidentally. Recalling a
conversation with former mayor of
Bogota, Colombia, Enrique Peñalosa, he
says that JICA had been providing
says that JICA had been providing

technical assistance to ease the city’s
congestion. However, he further notes
that the plan, costing $5 billion, involved
the construction of elevated freeways,
implying the symbiosis between
development and private cars, while
favoring the Japanese auto industry and
the local elite. Peñalosa did not
implement the plan, stating the
disconnect between the plan’s purpose
and what his city really needs:
‘We think it’s totally normal in

developing-country cities that we spend
billions of dollars building elevated
highways while people don’t have
schools, they don’t have sewers, they
don’t have parks. And we think this is
progress, and we show this with great
pride, these elevated highways!’ (241)
Similarly, Speck, in Walkable City, makes

pointed remarks against traf]c studies.
He gives three reasons why these must
not be taken at face value. First,
computer or economic models depend
on their inputs, and he warns that
outcomes can be fabricated by a mere
alteration of variables. He further notes
that traf]c studies are typically
conducted by companies also involved in
traf]c engineering, hence the great
potential for conmicts of interest. Lastly,
such studies rarely consider induced
demand—the increase in vehicles
resulting from the increase in roads,
which in time, eliminates the bene]ts the
new roads initially achieved.6
The Happy, Walkable City
Both Montgomery and Speck believe that

a happy city is a walkable city.
Montgomery calls it transformative
urbanism—“the city could be a device for
happiness…by changing the shapes and
systems that de]ned urban existence.”7
systems that de]ned urban existence.”7
Montgomery says that if the people are

to truly be at the core of the city’s
existence, the city must be con]gured to
guarantee happiness. He refers to the
Greek concept of eudaimonia. Best
described as a state of human
mourishing, eudaimonia connotes that a
person’s talents and potentials are fully
harnessed and realized.8 Quoting the
World Values Survey and Gallup World
Poll, he adds that interpersonal
relationships are the more important
factors in determining life satisfaction,
rather than income or the mere
acquisition of material possessions.9
The city must, therefore, rethink its (and

its people’s) relationship with cars. In the
Philippines, while only 2% of the
population own an automobile, they
corner the most signi]cant amount of
investments.10 Together, Skyway Stage
3, Metro Paci]c’s NLEX-SLEX Connector,
and the NAIA Expressway already cost
P63.4 billion.11Montgomery notes that in
the US, road user taxes and toll fees fund
only 50% of highway expenses, while the
other half is ]nanced by property and
income taxes paid by everyone. He
argues that commuters and cyclists are
subsidizing car users with their taxes—an
unfair set-up considering that pedestrian
and bike-friendly infrastructure cost only
a fraction to build and maintain.12 To
ensure greater equity in the daily
commute, people-centric infrastructure
should not only involve bike lanes and
mass transit systems, but also
structures that protect pedestrians and
make their commute relaxing and
unique. Trees and urban art are an
example.
In the attempt to shift the attention from

In the attempt to shift the attention from

the car to the person, Montgomery
states that repairing urban sprawl—the
rapid and usually car-dependent
expansion away from the city’s central
core—involves the development of more
mixed-use neighborhoods. The main
goal would be to ensure that the basic
needs of the people are within reach,
which in turn creates the demand for
mass transit and comfortable places to
wait for public vehicles. Such a design
philosophy, he says, “offers truly public
space—that is, owned and controlled by
the local municipality, not the mall owner
or developer.”13
Speck, meanwhile, maintains that

designing a city around walkability has
led to greater transportation savings for
its residents, giving them the ]scal space
to spend more for recreational and social
activities. The cities themselves bene]t
from walkable neighborhoods due to
higher real estate taxes, an increased
population of young “creatives” migrating
into the city, and a greater number of
high-value companies which these
“creatives” attract.14 Walkability is a
better and more long-term incentive for
millenials and companies to relocate to a
city and, consequently, infuse it with life,
compared to the temporary attraction
generated by tax breaks and other ]scal
perks.
Speck’s General Theory of Walkability,

perhaps, best summarizes the above
themes. He presents four conditions that
must all be satis]ed for a city (and its
walk) to be considered as favorable.
Firstly, a walk must be useful in that
most aspects of life, as mentioned, are
located close at hand. A walk must also
be safe for pedestrians, and this includes
both actual safety and the feeling of
being safe. Next, walking must
being safe. Next, walking must

becomfortable—buildings and landscape
shape urban streets into “outdoor living
rooms.” Lastly, a walk must
be interesting, with sidewalks lined with
unique buildings, art, as well as friendly
faces.15
The Bikes and the People vs. the Cars
A number of institutional and

government research support
Montgomery’s and Speck’s ideas.
According to a 2005 report
commissioned by the New Zealand
government, widespread economic,
social, health, and environmental
bene]ts will be attained from a people-
centric urban design.16 This idea also
underlies Urban Land Institute (ULI)
Philippines’ report on the 10 principles
that should guide sustainable
development in the Makati central
business district and Bonifacio Global
City—the districts that ULI considers as
Metro Manila’s New Urban Core.17
Unfortunately, many Filipino urbanites

still adhere to a car-centric lifestyle,
whether forced or by choice. The ASEAN
Automotive Federation reports
continuing vitality in the Philippine car
market, with a 22.9% (42,034 units) spike
in vehicle sales during the ]rst quarter of
2014, signi]cantly higher than six other
Southeast Asian countries.18
Moreover, perhaps due to a misguided

sense of social justice, at least four bills
in the House of Representatives seek to
standardize the number of parking slots
in an establishment, as well as
signi]cantly reduce or eliminate parking
fees altogether.19 Such proposals,
Speck explains, are counterproductive as
they only encourage more driving and
force developers to recover the costs of
force developers to recover the costs of

“free parking” through hidden charges.20
Aggravating the situation is the lack of

an existing comprehensive national
policy on sustainable transport and
urban design. Piecemeal solutions to the
problem appear to be the status quo
while an overarching strategy is being
formulated.
This seeming lack of direction, however,

has spawned numerous groups strongly
advocating for a walkable and happy
Metro Manila. The local Share the Road
Movement, for example, is on the right
track. Their call to allocate part of
Manila’s tarmac to sustainable transport
has been warmly received by both
citizens and the government, and the
message they sent has inspired
numerous, but signi]cant, urban design
initiatives.
To illustrate, the Metro Manila

Development Authority has constructed
bikeways and bike-sharing facilities—
now totalling six—along major Metro
thoroughfares, although the system still
has room for further improvement.21
Five cities have also committed to close
off major roads for bikers and
pedestrians for at least a day22—an idea
reminiscent of Bogota’s Ciclovia.23
In addition, the PPP Center and the

Department of Transportation outlined
the government’s proposed direction
regarding Manila transport at an
investment conference last March.
Although still in the planning stages, it is
worth noting that there is a vision for
expanding Manila’s railways and in
constructing a bus rapid transit system
in two of Manila’s major roads.24
On the policy side, House Bill 3827, or

On the policy side, House Bill 3827, or

the Bicyclist Act, envisions the
establishment of Local Bikeways Of]ces,
mandating them to provide adequate
support and infrastructure for
bikers.25 Senate Bill 26, or the
Sustainable Transportation Act, on the
other hand, is more holistic, requiring
major government agencies to promote
sustainable transport, and provide and
maintain walkways, footbridges,
sidewalks, and other pedestrian-friendly
structures.26
Signi]cantly, in a blending of public and

private efforts, Liveable Cities has been
identi]ed as a Philippine priority when
the country hosts the Asia-Paci]c
Economic Cooperation (APEC) Meeting
in 2015. The APEC National Organizing
Council (APEC-NOC) has decided to
spread the numerous meetings to 10
cities across the country to disperse
infrastructure investments and start the
Liveable Cities trend.27 Likewise, the
National Competitiveness Council and
the APEC-NOC launched the Liveable
Cities Design Challenge, encouraging
urban planners to design more people-
friendly and climate change resilient
towns and cities. So far, 21 cities and
municipalities have joined the contest.28
The early parts of Happy City depict the

Greek polis as the shared project that the
Greeks “cared for with almost religious
fervor.” It is only through healthy affairs
in the polis that a person will achieve
eudaimonia, simply put,
happiness.29 Indeed, the city is for and
about the people, and its future, whether
prosperous or not, depends on the
citizens that live within it. While the
journey at present still feels like the daily
]ve-hour commute that most Manileños
endure, the road towards a truly
endure, the road towards a truly

sustainable, walkable, and happy Metro
Manila is already being steadily paved.
FOOTNOTES
1. As mentioned by then newly-appointed
Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC) Secretary Joseph
Emilio Aguinaldo Abaya during a General
Membership Meeting of the Makati
Business Club on 25 April 2012. As of 29
March 2014, awarding of mass transport
contracts by the DOTC has been sluggish
and contentious. Whether the factors that
led to these dif]culties could have been
avoided is the subject of ongoing public
discussions and investigations by Congress.
2. Remo, Michelle. 2013. “’Traf]c costs P2.4B

daily.” The Philippine Daily Inquirer, 6 July.
Internet document:
http://business.inquirer.net/130649/traf]c-
costs-p2-4b-daily
3. Lu, Ma. Roxanne et al. 2013. “Rising to the

Challenge of Inclusive Growth.” MBC
Research Report No. 113. Internet
document:
http://www.mbc.com.ph/publications/mbc-
research-report-no-113-december-2013-a-
special-mbc-economic-outlook-report-rising-
to-the-challenge-of-inclusive-growth/
4. Canilao, Cosette. Presentation at Economic

Development Cluster Meeting, Makati City,
2013.
5. These are the Araneta Ave.-Quezon Ave.

underpass (September 2012), the opening of
the ]rst section of the Tarlac-Pangasinan-La
Union Expressway (December 2013), and
the groundbreaking of Skyway Stage 3
(January 2014), among others.
6. “Because I must: Induced Demand”, pages

80-87.
7. See introductory text of “The Mayor of

Happy” page 4
8. See introductory text of “The City Has

Always Been A Happiness Project” on pages
15-18, and “Beyond the Hedonic City” on
pages 32-36.
9. “What Matters Most” pages 36-38
10. Thorpe, David. 2014. “Share the Road
10. Thorpe, David. 2014. “Share the Road

Campaign Wants 50% of Streets Car-Free.”
Sustainable Cities Collective, 17 February.
Internet document:
http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/david-
thorpe/226191/share-roads-campaign-
wants-50-highways-car-free
11. PPP Center of the Philippines. 2014. “Status

of PPP Projects.” 6 June. Internet document:
http://ppp.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/STATUS-OF-PPP-
PROJECTS_06-JUNE-2014.pdf
12. “Equity Wars” pages 246-250
13. “Sprawl Repair” pages 238-284
14. “Walking, the Urban Advantage” pages 17-36
15. “General Theory of Walkability” page 11
16. McIndoe, Graeme et al. 2005. The Value of

Urban Design: The economic, environmental
and social bene]ts of urban design.
Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of the
Environment. Internet document:
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/urban/value-
urban-design-full-report-jun05/value-of-
urban-design-full-report-jun05.pdf.
17. Urban Land Institute. 2013. Ten Principles

for Sustainable Development of Metro
Manila’s New Urban Core. Washington, DC:
Urban Land Institute
18. Feliciano, Claire -Ann. 2014. “Philippine

vehicle sales growth tops neighbors.”
BusinessWorld Online, 11 May. Internet
document:
http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?
section=Economy&title=Philippine-vehicle-
sales-growth-tops-neighbors&id=87259.
19. Philippine House of Representatives. HBs

581, 592, 902, and 1193. 16th Congress.
20. “Step 3: Getting the Parking Right” pages

115-138
21. Cupin, Bea. 2014. “DPWH to open new bike

lanes in Quezon City.” Rappler.com, 12
March. Internet document:
http://www.rappler.com/nation/52833-
quezon-city-bike-lanes
22. Ranada, Pia. 2014. “5 PH Cities to block off

roads for pedestrians, cyclists.” Rappler, 26
March. Internet document:
http://www.rappler.com/science-
nature/society-culture/53910-ph-cities-
support-road-sharing, accessed 27 March
support-road-sharing, accessed 27 March

2014.
23. “When Roads Stop being Roads” in Happy

City pages 177-180
24. Department of Transportation and

Communications. 2014. “Rail Transport
Direction.” Presentation at Invest Transport
PH organized by the PPP Center of the
Philippines, Taguig City, March 2014.
25. Philippine House of Representatives. HB

3827. 16th Congress.
26. Philippine Senate. SB 26. 16th Congress.
27. Zobel de Ayala, Jaime Augusto. “APEC 2015:

The Philippines in the Global Spotlight.”
Keynote address, Special Membership
Meeting of the Makati Business Club, Makati
City, 10 December 2013.
28. Cuevas-Miel, Likha. 2014. “Best urban

planners sought as private sector launches
contest for most liveable cities.”
Interaksyon.com, 12 March. Internet
document:
http://www.interaksyon.com/business/82525/wanted–
best-urban-planners-sought-as-private-
sector-launches-contest-for-most-liveable-
cities
29. See introductory text to “The City has

Always Been a Happiness Project” pages
15-18.

Metro Manila As The Happy City - Monteiro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metro Manila As The Happy City - Monteiro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Issues » The Manila Review 11/20/16, 8:18 PM

City living is about movement.

Happy City: Transforming Our Lives

monitors the progress of public

The scene is more desperate at the light

These experiences are the norm for a

Whether via public transit or personal

measurable economic costs and in the

While government of]cials claim they are

Happy City: Transforming Our Lives

The adage of time having immense

2013 research from the Japan

As a response to the recommendation of

government has promised to augment

On top of public investments, the

Missing the Mark

While these government efforts are

For instance, among the many

In Happy City, Montgomery argues that

says that JICA had been providing

‘We think it’s totally normal in

Similarly, Speck, in Walkable City, makes

The Happy, Walkable City

Both Montgomery and Speck believe that

systems that de]ned urban existence.”7

Montgomery says that if the people are

The city must, therefore, rethink its (and

In the attempt to shift the attention from

In the attempt to shift the attention from

Speck, meanwhile, maintains that

Speck’s General Theory of Walkability,

being safe. Next, walking must

The Bikes and the People vs. the Cars

A number of institutional and

Unfortunately, many Filipino urbanites

Moreover, perhaps due to a misguided

force developers to recover the costs of

Aggravating the situation is the lack of

This seeming lack of direction, however,

To illustrate, the Metro Manila

In addition, the PPP Center and the

On the policy side, House Bill 3827, or

On the policy side, House Bill 3827, or

Signi]cantly, in a blending of public and

The early parts of Happy City depict the

endure, the road towards a truly

2. Remo, Michelle. 2013. “’Traf]c costs P2.4B

3. Lu, Ma. Roxanne et al. 2013. “Rising to the

4. Canilao, Cosette. Presentation at Economic

5. These are the Araneta Ave.-Quezon Ave.

6. “Because I must: Induced Demand”, pages

7. See introductory text of “The Mayor of

8. See introductory text of “The City Has

9. “What Matters Most” pages 36-38

10. Thorpe, David. 2014. “Share the Road

10. Thorpe, David. 2014. “Share the Road

11. PPP Center of the Philippines. 2014. “Status

12. “Equity Wars” pages 246-250

13. “Sprawl Repair” pages 238-284

14. “Walking, the Urban Advantage” pages 17-36

15. “General Theory of Walkability” page 11

16. McIndoe, Graeme et al. 2005. The Value of

17. Urban Land Institute. 2013. Ten Principles