ADVISORY REPORT 
FOR THE CITY OF MANILA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D R A F T 
 

THE SPARC & SPARCPLUG Concept: 
A Community Engagement Model 
 
For Urban Regeneration in Manila 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prepared by 
 
 
EnP. JOEL ROBOSA OAÑA, PIEP  Consultant 
 
 
and the  
City Planning & Development Office of Manila through  
EnP‐Ar. MARLOU B. CAMPANER, FUAP, PIEP 
Urban Design Division Chief CPDO‐MNL 
 
 
 
 
 
2019 

  DRAFT  Advisory  Report 5 
1
 AR5 
A Community Engagement Model for Urban Regeneration  in Manila: 
THE SPARC & SPARCPLUG Concept 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 
Note on the Advisory Report 5 
 
 
 
 
1.0  Introduction: Parameters of Sustainable Urban Revitalization 
 
 
 
 
2.0  Local Development Corporations (LDCs): 
Institutional Forms and Experiences of Urban Revitalization 
in the State of New York 
 
 
3.0  The New York City Local Development Corporation Experiences 
in  Urban Revitalization: Lessons Learned 
 
 
 
 
4.0  The Potential of LDCs in the Urban Revitalization of Manila: 
The Hidalgo Development Context 
 
 
 
 
5.0  Proposed Steps in the Pilot Establishment of 
SPARC/SPARCPLUG in Hidalgo: 
Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Facilitation 

  DRAFT  Advisory  Report 5 
2
 Note on the Advisory Report 5 
 
 
 
 
It has been observed that behind most successful urban revitalization initiatives in the 
US  is  a  community‐based area  management entity,  either  private  or  in  partnership 
with  a  public  agency.  This  Advisory Report  discusses  the  basic  parameters of  urban 
revitalization  as  facilitated  through  different  forms  and  levels  of  local  development 
corporations (LDCs)in the US and correlated to their potential applicability to Manila 
in its urban renewal or revitalization undertakings. It highlights these experiences from 
New York City, which in most instances, have the same urban characteristics as Manila. 
 
 
The Report also focuses on some LDC exemplar of urban revitalization in   New York 
City being implemented through public and private area management entities. It then 
assessed their potential applicability in the City of Manila through the establishment 
of  a  designated  urban  revitalization  area  identified  as  Strategic  Priority  for  Area 
Regeneration and Collaboration (SPARC) and its area management entity, the SPARC 
Partnership for Lasting Urban Growth (SPARCPLUG). These are going to be piloted in 
a  designated heritage  area  at  Hidalgo  Street,  Quiapo  or  in  another  alternative area 
with high urban revitalization potential. The proposed steps for establishment of these 
entities are also presented anchored on stakeholder engagement to serve as a model. 
 
 
This  is  intended to  be  a  brief  information regarding the  matter at  hand  to  serve  as 
general reference in capability building initiatives of the City for concerned agencies. 
 
 
This Report was prepared jointly by EnP. Joel Robosa Oaña, Senior Urban Planning and 
Development  Consultant  and  the  City  Planning  and  Development  Office  of  Manila 
through EnP‐Ar. Marlou B. Campaner, Chief, Urban Design Division. 

  DRAFT  Advisory  Report 5 
3
1.0 Introduction: Parameters of Sustainable Urban Revitalization

Since the start of the new millennium (2000), the approach to development has been undergoing a
great paradigm shift. Learning from the experiences of the past, the “top down” concept of
development has given way to a largely “bottom-up” approach; from prescriptive to participative;
product-oriented to process-focused; dependency to capability-building; state-led to civil society-
initiated; participation to partnership. This development emphasizes the primordial role of people,
community and the civil society.

Four perceptible trends that reflect the shift have been identified by Hamdi and Goethert (1997)
particularly for urban development. First is the emphasis of development donors and funders on
market enablement and urban management. Plan-making and regulatory controls are minimized in
favor of the new agenda whose emphasis is managerial. It includes fiscal and land market
management, institutional coordination and capacity building, market supply of housing, services and
utilities, and environmental regulations. They further contended that assumptions about public
responsibility has given way to public/private partnerships and the recognition that non-government
and community-based organizations have an increasing role to play in the supply and management
of resources and facilities at the local level.

Second is the redefinition of public responsibility and the role for the development practitioner.
This is inspired by the trend toward “enabling” and away from “providing”.(Table 1.0). This revised
role is illustrated in the chart below. It accepts mutuality between local demands and city-level
strategic needs, between government interventions and community action, between large-scale
producers and small enterprises, between project development and resource management, between
some providing and lot more enabling (Hamdi & Goethert, 1997).

Third is that these development orientations coincided with the revisions on development ideology
as espoused by Schumacher in 1973 and by Dag Hammersjold in 1975. These promote “ minimum
of organization that would serve the benefits of planning while leaving individuals (and
communities) the greatest possible control over their own lives”. These also demand for processes
which are fast, practical, resource-efficient, culture specific and people driven, and whose benefits
reach the poorest.

Fourth is the emergence of new methods and specific approaches which challenge old style
determinism in planning and urban design demanding reskilling of development professionals.
They cited that approximation and serendipity are today more the norm – the quest for scientific
precision is displaced in favor of getting things roughly right, or right enough to proceed confidently;
that rapid and participatory methods of appraisal and reconnaissance have displaced market
research and lengthy analytical study.

With the trends cited above and the focus on sustainability in development, the importance of the
community as the most effective unit of development implementation has come to fore. Likewise
the consolidation of the world network system facilitating globalization has brought up the need for
cities to renew itself integrating the necessary development virtues of equity, efficiency and
democratic participation.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

4
Table 1.0 A Comparison of Urban Development Paradigms

ORTHODOX PARADIGM ALTERNATIVE PARADIGM

“Providing” “Enabling”

Increase productivity-growth in GNP as a goal Encourage resourcefulness/well-being as a goal

People as objects of development People are subjects of development

Professionals as benevolent Pragmatists Professionals as populist idealists

Promotes dependency Promotes self-sufficiency/empowers CBOs/NGOs as prime

actors – Professionals as catalysts
Professionals/governments as prime actors Governments as enablers

Promotes technology transfer (products) Promotes appropriate technologies (processes)

Produces projects/concerned with outputs Management of resources/concerned with outcomes

Information as data (things/surveys) Information as knowledge (systems/oral testimonies)

Centralizes production and decision-making Decentralizes production/devolves decision-making

Prefers standardization Promotes variety/flexibility

Instant projects/prescriptive plans Incremental projects/progressive plans, adaptive

Planning
Consolidated (formal) industry, preferring
large organizations Fragmented (informal) industry based on small enterprises

Source: Action Planning for Cities: A Guide to Community Practice, Hamdi & Goethert, 1997

In November 1991, urban researchers from several prominent U.S. universities convened in New
Orleans at the invitation of the then newly formed National Center for the Revitalization of Central
Cities (NCRCC). They presented and discussed various urban renewal or inner city revitalization
strategies and came up with the following list (Wagner et al, 1995). Some of these are being applied
by different local governments since that time:

1. The use of public investment as a catalyst to spur private investment in a particular urban
renewal or redevelopment project.
2. The creation of downtown tax districts as a tool, not only to raise funds to carry out particular
projects but also as a device to manage and promote the city’s core.
3. The use of private, nonprofit development corporations. It was observed in the study of U.S.
cities that complex and highly entrepreneurial projects could not be managed by traditional
city agencies. In their place, private, nonprofit entities are needed to oversee the project
development.
4. Human investment strategies. Several cities, as part of their revitalization efforts, had
components of those efforts dealing directly with investment in human capital. Job training,
education enhancement, career counseling, and other programs were targeted at the
unemployed or underemployed in order to give those individuals the skills necessary to get

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

5
 and retain jobs in an increasingly service-oriented economy. The City of Baltimore in Maryland
has made this strategy the centerpiece of all its planning and revitalization efforts.
5. A strong commitment to planning. Based on the experiences of the cities under study, it was
shown that successful projects had well thought out plans as their bases.
6. Tax increment financing. It is a technique for financing a capital project from the stream of
revenue generated by the project. Several cities made extensive and productive use of the
relatively unusual financial tool of tax increment financing. This allowed a number of cities to
accumulate funds for public improvements that made large, mixed-use development possible
by capturing the increased property values caused by the development.
7. Regionwide managed growth. Studies on the experiences of cities of Portland and
Minneapolis demonstrated that the respective success and failure of these cities’ downtown
revitalization efforts were tied directly to the effectiveness of managing the growth of their
entire metropolitan areas and in carrying out specific programs on a regionwide basis.
Programs of mass transit and solid waste disposal, regional tax equity programs, and regional
growth boundary administration all contributed directly to strong central city development
efforts.
8. Creation of powerful development agencies. The city studies reveal that one very successful
strategy was the creation of strong economic development agencies that have the
independence, power and financial resources necessary to move difficult projects through
the development process. Although examples of the abuse of such power are evident, the
value of having a competent and powerful development agency is also apparent.
9. Use of federal and state development programs and funds. All the cities studied made
extensive use of these development programs and funds. The withdrawal of federal support
would have caused the cutting back or delay of the projects. The studies attested to the
indispensability of national support.
10. Channeling revenue from successful downtown projects to neighborhoods. This strategy,
though rare, has great potential to rally support of neighborhoods for downtown projects
because the neighborhoods receive direct benefits from downtown development.
11. Public-private partnerships. Virtually all of the successful revitalization projects featured an
emphasis on creating partnerships between the public and private sectors. Perhaps no other
single strategy has been as critical to the success of urban renewal and redevelopment
projects.
12. Utilization of transit improvement as a catalyst for renewal and private investment.
Whether it was building a transit station in a development project in New York or building a
regional transit system in Portland to direct growth, mass transit improvements have been
shown to be a significant part of many revitalization strategies.
13. Urban growth boundaries. Although still relatively rare, urban growth boundaries have been
shown to be a significant factor in the success of several city and region-wide revitalization
efforts. Preliminary evidence from the studies shows that where there is regional consensus
about growth, central-city revitalization efforts may have greater chance for success.
14. Cities that took advantage of potentially negative situations. Although hardly a strategy to
promote, taking a traumatic event and turning it into a catalyst for action has proven
successful in some cities. Whether the threat of a downtown department store leaving or the
potential for the location of an urban college, such an event, if properly acted upon, can lead
to successful revitalization projects.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

6
Among the urban revitalization strategies enumerated above, the use of private non-profit
development corporations were found to be most effective in urban revitalization with the direct
engagement of the stakeholders themselves.

Urban revitalization, according to Mallach, can be framed into five (5) distinct elements: fiscal and
service delivery capacity; economic competitiveness; building a stronger housing market, building
stronger neighborhoods and quality of life; building human capital; and exploring how the different
city policies through these can foster inclusivity or equity, resilience and sustainability. In all of these,
the community stakeholders through local development corporations are effective key players in
urban revitalization.

In 2000, Paul Grogan, in his book Comeback Cities, A Blueprint for Urban Neighborhood Revival,
noted that the advent of community development corporations in the recovery of US inner-cities can
be attributed into four trends, in what he calls as the “convergence of positives”.

The first is the maturing of a huge, rapidly expanding grassroots revitalization movement in
America.

A second related trend is the rebirth of functioning private markets in the former wastelands,
where, until recently, the only vigorous market activity had been the drug trade.

The third propellant of inner-city revival is dropping crime.Fourth, and finally, has been the
unshackling of inner-city lifefrom the giant bureaucracies that once dictated everything that
happened there – in particular the welfare system,public housing authorities, and public schools.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

7
As observed by Grogan, community development initiatives in the US were not generated by national
or federal programs but were responses to the disappointing failures of large-scale nationwide
housing and urban development programs. They draw from many sources of funds to accomplish
multiple ends: Their purpose is not just to produce housing, but to produce housing as a catalytic
and integrated overall community renewal. CDCs integrate their development of affordable housing
with any number of other public services and improvements beyond the physical houses or
residential spaces.

Grogan noted that CDCs successes in blending-and-diversifying strategy can attributed to four (4)
primary reasons. First, they are true public-private hybrids, responsible both for the productive
husbanding of resources and for pursuing a social mission that keeps them going.

The second reason that CDCs can combine multiple programs and sources of revenue is that they
become recognized anchors in the neighborhoods.

The third reason for CDC’s ability to diversify and adapt over time is that they have to live amid the
consequences of their work.

Finally,CDCs succeed in so many diverse places with so many diverse resources of support and
investment because they embrace values that transcend political ideology: self-help,
entrepreneurship, community-building, and public-private partnership.

In summary, CDCs in the US are seen to be leveraging entities that can (a) access and balance
resources from both the public and private sector; (b) serve as focal point or fulcrum in harnessing
energies of and for the community after gaining trust and support from them; (c) experience the
results or consequencesof their actions as they also are largely part of the community and (d) are
motivated by the shared values and aspirations of the community themselves. These inherent
characteristics of the CDCs, as observed by Grogan make them an effective prime entity in urban
revitalization initiatives with the development aims to be inclusive, resilient and sus-tainable.

Encouraged by the effectiveness of CDCs since they were first formally established in the late 1960s,
the current Trump administration signed the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 which included substantial
tax credits anchored on their performances. The first CDC in the US wasBedford-Stuyvesant
Restoration Corporation at Brooklyn, New Yorkand was followed by other community development
corporations which resulted in the revitalization of South Bronx and other key inner-cities in the US.

With the City of Manila generally experiencing obsolescence and heritage neglect amid large-scale
physical restructuring due to major infrasructure projects and their ensuing social impact to its inner-
city communities, urban revitalization anchored on community development corporations,as
inspired by the USA experience, can be explored. Applicable concepts and policies can be studied and
applied with the national and city context of urban development. The LDC/CDC experience of New
York can be looked into.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

8
2.0 Local Development Corporations (LDCs): Institutional Forms and
Experiences of Urban Revitalization in the State of New York

In the US, local development corporations (LDCs) are private, not-for-profit corporations often
created by, or for the benefit of, local governments for economic development or other public
purposes such as urban revitalization. LDCs, as well as certain other types of private entities (e.g.
limited liability companies), are being utilized with increasing frequency by counties, cities, towns,
villages, and fire districts to finance local government operations and projects. In many instances,
these entities are used to avoid constitutional or statutory provisions that would apply to projects
undertaken by a local government (e.g. prohibition on gifts to private entities, referendum
requirements, competitive bidding, and limitations on the issuance of debt).

According to US Law, LDCs may be created pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law, Section 1411
for the following purposes:
1. Relieving and reducing unemployment;
2. Promoting and enhancing employment opportunities;
3. Instructing or training individuals to improve or develop skills;
4. Conducting scientific research to attract or retain industry; and
5. Lessening the burdens of government and acting in the public interest.

The North American local governments often rely on the “lessening the burdens of government and
acting in the public interest” language as their authority to create LDCs whose primary purpose is to
finance local government projects and/or operations which may or may not be related to economic
development.

To achieve the purposes for which they are created, LDCs have the power to:
1. Construct, acquire, rehabilitate, and improve industrial or manufacturing plants;
2. Assist financially in such construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and improvement;
3. Maintain such plants for others;
4. Acquire by purchase, lease, gift, bequest, devise or otherwise real or personal property or
interests therein;
5. Borrow money and issue bonds, notes, and other obligations therefor;
6. Sell, lease, mortgage or otherwise dispose of any such plants or any of their real or personal
property upon terms determined by the LDC;
7. Foster and encourage the location or expansion of industrial or manufacturing plants in the
territory where the LDC’s operations are principally conducted.

With limited exceptions, the governing body of a county, city, town, or village may determine that
any real property owned by the municipality is no longer required for municipal use and authorize
the sale or lease of the property to an LDC. The sale or lease may be made without appraisal, public
notice, or public bidding, although before the sale or lease is authorized, the municipality is required
to hold a public hearing with at least10 days prior published notice. The LDC must use the property
for the purposes set forth in its certificate of incorporation, unless, the LDC obtains written approval
from the municipality to use the property for another purpose.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

9
The income and operations of the LDCs are exempt from taxation. Real property owned by an LDC
may also be exempt from taxation, but only if the property is used for an exempt purpose. Property
owned by an LDC and leased to a for-profit corporation to carry out for-profit manufacturing activities
on the property is not exempt from taxation

Local charities in the US frequently want to help their communities with economic development,
beautification, redevelopment or revitalization projects. Typically, these projects rely on local
businesses leading the way, but with financial support from local non-for-profits.

Charitable 501c3 organizations as registered in the US are generally prohibited from giving grants to
for-profit businesses, so there has been a missing link between a community’s development program
and private charities. One creative solution to this problem has been for the local government to
create a Local Development Corporation (LDC), a private, not-for-profit organization whose mission
is to leverage private grants for projects that are in the public interest but managed by local
entrepreneurs.

Typical projects of this nature are storefront renovations, historic building renovations, and
rehabilitation of commercial space. The entrepreneur is expected to lead the project and supply a
significant part, typically half or more of the capital required, and to agree to a development plan
that is approved by the LDC. In return, the LDC supplies the balance of the funding to accomplish the
public purposes of the project and interfaces with the granting agencies to verify completion of grant
requirements.

The LDC raises funds for these projects through grants awarded by county and state agencies and by
charities dedicated to main-street revitalization, historic preservation, bike and recreational
development and the like. Finding grants that would help the community and the local regional
development councils accomplish their strategic goals is an important role of the LDC plays in the
grant-making process. Most LDC grants require matching funds, which is where local 501c3’s, private
foundation and even private citizens can provide assistance.

Local Development Corporations in New York State

The New York State was chosen by the authors as a model for LDCs for the City of Manila for the
whole Metropolitan Manila on a regional scale for this Report. This is attributed to the State as one
of those listed that have the highest quality in the CDC Industry and its Capacity-Building Systems as
shown in the Table below.

It has been reported that there are currently 279 known LDCs operating in the State of New York, of
which 39 are located in New York City. It is not clear how many of these LDCs were created at the
behest of a local government, but the number of LDCs has proliferated since 2008.

These LDCs and similar private entities are exempt from many of the constitutional and statutory
provisions that guide the operations and transactions conducted by local governments. Among these
are being not subject to public procurement laws that require contracts to be bid competitively, and
the debt that these entities issue, even for the benefit of a local government. They are not subject to
the limits of debt established for most municipalities in the New York Constitution. It has been
observed that the use of LDCs and similar organizations to finance local government operations and
projects increase the risk of waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer dollar or assets. To minimize these
DRAFT Advisory Report 5
10
risks, the City through the Office of Comptroller has already made recommendations regarding the
matter where the City of Manila can be enlightened in the event of the potential establishment of
LDCs.

Twenty-five years ago, it was observed that many neighborhoods in New York City suffered from
disinvestment and abandonment as entire communities were written off by banks, developers and
enven the government. But many residents of these neighborhoods did not give up. They established
their own Community Development Corporations – or CDCs. Through these organizations, they are
striving to revitalize their communities. Throughout the 1970s and 80s, CDCs served as the catalyst
for neighborhood recovery – not only through rebuilding the housing stock and other local
institutions, but also through dellivering the comprehensive services needed by these communities.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

11
It has been noted that since CDCs are rooted in the communities they serve, these locally-focused
organizations were deeply aware that each neighborhood would require its own approach to
redevelopment, each part of an overal revitalization strategy. CDCs became involved with everything
from organizing neigborhood watches, to tending community gardens, to setting up after school
programs. Across the City of New York, CDCs were responsible for developing the critical
infrastructure necessary for a basic economy such as credit unions, small businesses, and job training
programs. In every neighborhoods, CDCs spent countless hours and resources going block-to-block
and building-by-building to rehabilitate dilapidated properties intosolid, safe, affordable housing for
neighborhood residents.

Once these neighborhoods had been brough back to the brink, many once again became attractive
investment opportunities. For-profitdevelopers and private capital became more plentiful. By the
mid-1990s, for-profit developers started speculating that the initial stabilitythe CDCs had brought to
a neighborhood would be the foundation for continuing and rapid economic growth. More and more
expensive new developments began to spring up informerly working class areas, and an increasing
number of tenants faced displacement pressure to make room for new residents who would pay
higher rents. Instead of an epidemic of housing disinvestment, a cycle of housing speculationthen
became the problem.

It was also observed that just as the CDCs were an invaluable counterweight during the cycle of
disinvestment, they have also had success going against the grain and producing responsibly-
financed, “equitable development” during the period of housing speculation – providing countless
housing opportunities for low- and middle-income New Yorkers. This is because CDCs are mission-
driven, not-for-profit organizations – able to work counter-cyclically to build stable, affordable
housing in both cycles of disinvestment and cycles of speculation.

Over the past 20 years, CDCs in New York City have been responsible for developing almost 100,000
units of affordable housingthroughout the five boroughs. CDCs naturally push against the excesses
of the market, countering displacement pressure.

When the development market is too high, and bringing public and private resources to ensure
appropriate development when the market has abandoned the neighborhood. This leads to overall
neighborhood stability, regardless of the current market cycle.And unlike many private-sector
developers who may look to convert the property to luxury rentals or condos when the affordability
restrictions expire, CDCs are committed permanent affordability.

Currently, New York City is entering a new housing cycle with new challenges facing its
neighborhoods. Instead of burn-out buildings, stalled condo developments dot neighborhoods.
Instead of redlined working working class communities, many neighborhoods have been destabilized
by predatory lending. Some observed uncertainty wherethis cycle will lead the City, but already CDCs
are in front of the curve – addressing the foreclosure crisis that swept entire neighborhoods and
identifying new opportunities for keeping New York City neighborhoods dynamic and affordable.

A recent promising approach to urban upgrading by the state government is New York State’s
Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI), a program to revitalize ten (10) designated small city
downtowns announced by Governor Cuomo in April 2016. The State set aside $100 million for the
DRI, with which it awarded $10 million I grants to each of 10 urban downtowns in July 2016 after a
DRAFT Advisory Report 5
12
competitive proocess in which each ciity’s revitalization strategy was evaluated using the following
criteria:

1. The targeted neighborhood should be compact and well-defined.

2. The downtown, or its center, should be of a size sufficient to support an active, year-round
downtown and should have a sizable existing or increasing population within easy reach for
whom this would be the primary downtown.
3. The downtown should capitalize on prior, and caatalyze future, private and public
investment in the neighborhood and surrounding areas.
4. There should be recent or impending job growth within, or in close proximity to the
downtown that can attract workers to the downtown, support redevlopment annd make
growth sustainable.
5. The downtown must contain properties and characteristics that contribute or that could
contribute, if enhanced, to the attractiveness and livability of the downtown, including the
presence of developable mixed-use spaces, housing at different levels of affordability and
type, commercia and retail main street businesses, incluuding healthy and affrdable food
markets, walkability and bikeability, and public parks and gathering spaces.
6. The downtown should contain or articulate how it can create policies that enhance quality
of life, including the use of local land banks, modern zoning codes, complete street plans,
or transit-oriented development.
7. Local and community support must exist for revitalization of the downtow. There must be
a commitment among local leaders and stakeholders to build and implement a strategic
investment plan for the downtown.

Significantly, New York State invited cities to present their strategies flowing from these criteria, not
specifying any particular strategy or model for revitalization; moreover, recognizing that it was
unrealistic to expect detailed pllans to be made until funds were in hand, each $ 10 million grant
includes $ 300,000 for detailed planning. Ten million in flexible funds is enough to be potentially
transformative for a small city downtown. The DRI recipients are small cities, such as Geneva
(population 13,199), Oneonta (13,946) and Plattsburgh (19,898), which are rarely able to access
funds at this level. This New York State program can be seen as a model for state support of urban
economicrevitalization.

With good planning and communication, CDCs and for-profit developers each can benefit from joint
development ventures while building a relationship through an exchange of skills and/or resources.
In such partnerships, the for-profit partner often provides, the for-profit partner often provides
techincal development experience, while the non-profit partner oferrs access to additional, low-
interest funds.

For joint projects between CDCs and for-profit developers to succeed, the following are
recommended:

1. Effective communication, beginning with a clear, mutual understanding of what each party
brings to the deal and what each expects to gains from it.
2. Mutual agreement on social issues, such as whom the project will target and how it will fit in
with the surrounding area.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

13
3. Mutual agreement income and sharing - how much income the project is expected to
generate and how it will shared.
4. Satisfaction on the part of each partner regarding its share in the project’s risks and awards.
5. An exchange of skills and services, as well as capital.
6. Agreement about how to divide the project management duties, including who will oversee
construction and day-to-day operations once the project is up and running.

It was warned that CDC collaborations should not be haphazardly started. The roles of each partner
should be carefully laid out and understood. Expectations from each partner should be fully
comunicated. Otherwise the joint venture willl lead to frustration and disappointment. These are
important lessons for the City of Manila.

Coming from different institutional character, there needs to be adjustments between the
partnership of a non-profit and a for-profit entities. Among these are the use of a decision-making
process that is more more complex and consensus based than for-profit developers are
accustomed to or assignig non-profit staff to highly legal and technical issues of a project. These
type of partnership will need a longer time to develop with the partners jelling together.

A non-profit organization also will need to evaluate carefully its role in any joint venture to determine
whether the project’s potential benefits are worth sacrificing some degree of autonomy. A more
serious risk for non-profits is the possible loss of tax-exempt status. So as not to accused of being a
dummy non-profit – those created solely to help a for-profit obtain tax credits and subsidies –the
non-profit must own an interest in the project and must not be controlled by the for-profit partner.

An experienced CDC usually establish a for-profit affiliate to participate and assume responsibilities
in each of its partnerships. A separate, for-profit entity, whether in a limited liability corporation or a
limited partnership, serves to protect the assets of the CDC from liability and its tax-exempt status.

It is observed that emerging markets in the inner-cities offer a huge potential of development with
the CDCs in partnership with for-profit developers. While CDCs have varying degrees of development
capacity and capital, experienced for-profit developers with persistent patience and socially
benevolent purpose can establish long-term, multiple-project relationships with a CDC and
dramatically facilitate the implementation of urban revitalization plans.

The CDCs came to being about 30 years ago with a three-pronged mission that developed through
the years:

1. To change the economy of the community for the better, increasing the income and wealth
of the residents and stimulating investments locally.
2. To improve the physical nature of the neighborhood, from housing to shopping areas,
transportation, public spaces, and the environment.
3. To strengthen the social bonds among the people in the neighborhood.

Community development corporations typically are neighborhood-based grassroot groups that are
incorporated as non-profit, tax-exempt organizations aand engage in development activities that
include creating affordable housing, stimulating economic development, and generating new money

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

14
that is invested and retained in the neighborhood. Many CDCs also provide community services, such
as child care programs.

Over the years, CDCs around US have developed, at that time, more than 575,000 units of affordable
housing and 75 million square feet of commercial and industrial space. They have generated over $
2 billion in loans to 60,000 businesses and helped to create 250,000 private sector jobs.

Another institutional form that are being utilized in US urban revitalization are the Business
Improvement Districts (BIDs). It can be considered as another form of CDC as it comprises of area
stakeholder partners: property owners, business representatives, the local government, and in
certain instances, the neighborhood residents. BIDs are defined as self-taxing, self-help public-private
partnership organizations. In New York, BIDs are publicly authorized, legally sanctioned, private
administered institutions that provide services designed to enhance the local business environment.

New York State has the second-largest number of BIDs in the US, next to California. Of these, 46 are
based in New York City, half of them are situated in communities with poverty rates that surpass
central-city residential average.

Studies of BIDs in New York City have concluded the success and effectiveness of BIDs are premised
on the following factors:

1. Knowledge of stakeholders
2. Adequate representation of these stakeholders in decision-making
3. Needs identification and prioritization according to local context
4. Appropriate targetting of resources (e.g. In case of low-income communities, advocacy and social
capital enhancement may be essential tools for BID success)

3.0 The New York City Local Development Corporations’ Experiences in

Urban Revitalization: Lessons Learned

This section profiles some LDCs that were established and operating in New York City. It highlights
lessons learned and their possible adaptations in the context of the City of Manila. Most of these
narratives were excerpted from articles and reports sourced from secondary sources such as the
internet.

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation(LMDC) was created in the aftermath of September
11, 2001 by then-Governor Pataki and then-Mayor Giuliani to help plan and coordinate the rebuilding
and revitalization of Lower Manhattan, defined as everything on or south of Houston Street. The
LMDC is a joint State-City corporation governed by an eight-member Board of Directors, half
appointed by the Governor of New York and half by the Mayor of New York. LMDC is charged with
ensuring Lower Manhattan recovers from the attacks and emerges even better than it was before.
The centerpiece of LMDC’s efforts is the creation of a permanent memorial honoring those lost, while
affirming the democratic values that came under attack on September 11.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

15
LMDC works in cooperation with its partners in the
public and private sectors to coordinate long-term
planning for the World Trade Center site and
surrounding communities, while pursuing
initiatives to improve the quality of life in Lower
Manhattan during the revitalization effort. LMDC is
committed to an open, inclusive, and transparent
planning process in which the public has a central
role in shaping the future of Lower Manhattan.
Several Advisory Councils representing a broad
spectrum of groups affected by the World Trade
Center attacks – including victims’ families,business
owners and downtown residents - have consulted
with the LMDC on issues of concern to their
respective constituencies. LMDC also conducts
public hearings, participates in Community Board
meetings, and meets with community groups, civic
organizations and public officials to ensure the
opinions of those who were affected by this
tragedy are taken into account. Currently, LMDC
operates with ten(10) staff members.

General Project Plan

LMDC is charged with assisting New York City in recovering from the terrorist attacks on the World
Trade Center and ensuring the emergence of Lower Manhattan as a strong and vibrant community.
The centerpiece of these efforts is the creation of a permanent Memorial remembering and honoring
the thousands of innocent men, women and children lost in the terrorist attacks. To these ends,
LMDC is proposing to undertake a redevelopment program, in cooperation with the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
This program includes the planning, selection, coordination and construction of a Memorial, and the
planning and possible construction of Memorial-related improvements and museum to complement
the development of commercial office space, retail space, hotel and conference facilities, open space,
and certain infrastructure improvements. On November 9, 2006 LMDC’s Board of Directors adopted
proposed amendments to the General Project Plan that reflect and incorporate recommendations
with respect to the Memorial and museum, as well as other proposed amendments to the plan.

One of the key players in forging consensus among New York City's often fractious and sometimes
maligned civic community, was the Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York, a coalition
convened and staffed by US Regional Planning Association (RPA). At the height of this process nearly
100 civic, business, community, and design groups came together under the Civic Alliance's umbrella.
The Alliance played a key role in both the healing process and the planning process following 9/11. It
achieved this by convening thousands New York City stakeholders in an open and democratic process
to create a planning framework for rebuilding plans. And it did so in an often collaborative but
sometimes rocky partnership with public entities and the developer charged with adopting these
plans.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

16
The Alliance convened an extensive series of public forums and discussions on rebuilding plans in the
immediate aftermath of the attacks. These culminated in "Listening to the City," on July 20, 2002,
where close to 5,000 people from across the region gathered under one roof to hash out a vision for
the site and area. From these discussions a public consensus emerged around a set of principles for
rebuilding the WTC site and the rest of Lower Manhattan.

As narrated by Robert Yaro, RPA President, most participants in the community engagement process
wanted to make the new development at the Trade Center site better than what had been destroyed.
And they wanted to address the challenges that were undercutting Lower Manhattan's livability and
competitiveness before the attacks. To achieve these goals a set of basic planning and design
principles were advocated by the Alliance and its members.

These principles included the notion that instead of rebuilding the superblock that existed before
9/11, the site should be integrated into the life and circulation plan of Lower Manhattan, with vibrant
streets that connected to the rest of the district. The Alliance also advocated for a mix of activities on
the WTC site, including cultural, retail, open space and other uses, and not just new offices, and
spreading some of the density of the WTC redevelopment to adjoining sites. We also proposed that
available public funds be focused on long-term capital investments in transportation and urban
amenities, and not just short-term subsidies to businesses and residents

These community engagement efforts facilitated the partnership between the City’s public and
private sector with the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation directly engaged. Among the
projects were the reconstruction and improvement of the Fulton Street transit Hub, the Calatrava
transportation terminal at the Trade Center site, the South Ferry Station, and others. The destroyed
subway lines on the World Trade Center site were all rebuilt within 18 months of the attacks, a
remarkable achievement. New and improved open space in and around Lower Manhattan were also
designed and constructed. They are now being enjoyed by many people as a spatial legacy of human
resilience.

In addition to infrastructure, the City has also created broader strategies for the whole Downtown
area, including strengthening residential and retail uses and diversifying the economy beyond
financial services. Several billion in Liberty Bonds were invested in these activities, producing more
than 5,000 market rate housing units.

All these achievements have accelerated, the transformation of Lower Manhattan from a ghetto of
office buildings, some with great architecture designs, to a 24/7 community where people live, visit,
dine, shop, worship, and go to school, as well as work. Already the residential population below Canal
Street has doubled since 9/11 and Lower Manhattan is now seen as one of the nation's most dynamic
central business districts.

MBD Community Housing Corporation was founded in 1974 as a coalition

of volunteers determined to save their community from the overwhelming
incidents of arson, disinvestment, abandonment and population loss that
had decimated the Crotona Park East section of Bronx Community District
3. MBD has worked with the local police and fire department to establish
a community self-help program. MBD's involvement with our Community
Board and other government officials assisted the development of a
DRAFT Advisory Report 5
17
revitalization plan to restore necessary public services, renovate abandoned buildings, and develop
new housing to repopulate our neighborhood in the Crotona Park East section of the Bronx.

MBD began to address its community economic spatial needs in 1983 with the administration of the
Commercial Revitalization Program under contract with New York City's Office of Neighborhood
Economic Development. It successfully worked with private merchants in the area and public
agencies to improve the physical appearance of neighborhood's commercial districts and thus making
the program extremely successful. The real estate development has credited valuable investments
for financial institutions and the creation of safe and affordable housing has improved the quality of
life in area.

Owning 39 buildings and 1,200 housing units, MBD has been instrumental and has served as a catalyst
in the development of a revitalization plan to restore necessary public services, renovate abandoned
buildings and develop new housing to repopulate their neighborhood.

MBD has successfully sponsored, constructed, and renovated over 2,300 units of housing. In addition,
MBD sponsored the construction of the New Horizons Retail Center, which has created over 200 full-
time and part-time permanent jobs and includes retail stores such as Pathmark, AJ Wright, IHOP,
Radio Shack, Game Stop, and Subway.

MBD provides an established base of services that include building maintenance, tenant account
management, and financial management.

New York City can be credited to have developed the best form of public-private partnerships in
urban revitalization in the US. The City was able to revitalize itself, after its rapid decline in the 1970s,
by allowing private, non-profit interests to take a larger role in public affairs. For example, the City
hosts 67 business improvement districts (BIDs) and two major park privatizations, and these show
that cities can receive support from the private sector without having to hand over, in exchange,
major profit-seeking opportunities and assets to private interests.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

18
In 2017, the NYC Department of Small Business Services (SBS) reported highlights of the significant
impact of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) on New York City neighborhoods. It noted that in
the past year of 2016, 73 BIDs invested $134.7 million into neighborhoods across the five boroughs,
including $695,000 in grants from SBS. These funds supported BIDs’ efforts to promote their
commercial corridors and to address an array of local quality of life issues. In total, these BIDs
generated and sustained 85,000 businesses across the five boroughs.

BIDs which as defined earlier as voluntarily-created, community-based organizations that partner

with local stakeholders to deliver supplemental services that revitalize neighborhoods and foster
vibrant commercial corridors, was reported, during fiscal year 2016, to have delivered the following
results, among other work:

1. Held 4,324 public events that attracted 10.5 million attendees;

2. Collected 3.9 million bags of trash;
3. Logged 1.4 million hours of supplemental sanitation services;
4. Removed 85,190 instances of graffiti;
5. Maintained 15,551 pieces of street furniture; and
6. Supported holiday lighting on 3,189 city blocks.

The city-wide figures above are illustrated in the local success stories that can be found in BIDs across
the City. Some of that year’s success stories include:

1. Street Art helped build a sense of local identity in the Lower East Side through the Lower East Side
Partnership’s 100 Gates project. Local artists painted roll-down gates at area businesses to beautify and
create a sense of place in the neighborhood.
2. Launching Mobile Apps helped provide small businesses with a platform to promote their products and
engage with their community. The Sunset Park BID’s new app features a directory of businesses in the
district, coupons from local merchants, raffles and giveaways, and a list of upcoming events. 125th Street’s
Harlem Happenings app keeps residents and visitors in-the-know on neighborhood history, cultural
institutions, storefront vacancies, and real estate news.
3. ADA Compliance for the Disabled was a goal for the Graham Avenue BID. In an effort to ensure the corridor
is accessible to all visitors, the BID surveyed storefront entrances and identified those in need of
accessibility improvements. Funded by a SBS Neighborhood Challenge grant, the BID also worked with the
Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities to consult with merchants on enhancing access.
4. Street Furniture Clean-up and Graffiti Removal in the Lincoln Square BID brought 85 volunteers to partner
with the Lincoln Square Clean Team to refurbish the benches in the Broadway Malls and remove graffiti
from street furniture.

New York City was also able to establish true partnerships between the public and private sectors
with no profit motive. Two outstanding examples of this form of LDC are briefly described below:

The Central Park Conservancy was founded in 1980 by a group of dedicated civic and philanthropic
leaders. They were determined to end Central Park’s dramatic decline in the 1970s and restore it to
its former splendor as America’s first and foremost major urban public space. In 1998, the
Conservancy and the City of New York signed a management agreement formalizing their then 18-
year public-private partnership. The relationship was reaffirmed in 2006 when the agreement was
renewed for an additional eight years. As the official manager of Central Park, the Conservancy is
responsible for the day-to-day maintenance and operation of the Park.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

19
Presently, 90 percent of the Park’s maintenance operations staff is employed by the Conservancy,
which provides 85 percent of Central Park’s $42.4 million annual Parkwide expense budget through
its fundraising and investment revenue. The City, in addition to the annual fee to the Conservancy
for the services it provides, funds lighting, maintenance of the Park drives and enforcement. The New
York City Department of Parks & Recreation retains policy control, has discretion over all user permits
and events in the Park, and provides 10 percent of the field staff.

The Central Park Conservancy’s board of directors publishes a clear conflict-of-interest policy that
specifically prohibits the leadership from profiting financially from the relationship with the city. Prior
to its privatization, Central Park had haphazard care, and its buildings and hardscape were
debilitated. The change since 1980 has been remarkable, and it’s been done as a free service to the
people.

The Bryant Park Corporation (BPC) is another outstanding example of

this LDC form. It was developed in New York City through the effort of
a renown urban revitalization management proponent, Dan
Biederman. The BPC oversees the small park of the same name at 42nd
Street and Sixth Avenue. Similar to the Central Park Conservancy, it was
established to refurbish and manage a public park space. The
corporation was also founded in 1980 but operates as a business
improvement district.

BIDs levy assessments on local businesses and landlords and use the revenue to clean streets, provide
security and generally keep up neighborhoods. BIDs are non-profit and also provide a free public
good.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

20
New York City recently made a request for qualifications for bidders to privatize approximately
85,000 parking spaces. Some press accounts suggest that the city would be open to privatizing
operation of the meters but would retain control of rates and share revenue with a private firm. New
York already has a successful template for privatization that recognizes the value of open public
goods. (New Yorks City's Public-Private Partnerships By Cate Long May 24, 2012_@reuters)

These urban revitalization institutions and initiatives can serve as wells of inspiration for the City of
Manila in its own revitalization aspirations.

4.0 The Potential of LDCs in the Urban Revitalization of Manila:

The Hidalgo Development Context
After presenting both general and specific experiences of the LDCs in the US with particular focus on
New York City, an effort to sieve and apply these to the local development context of the City of
Manila is now being conceptualized. These all would be premised on a community-based
development framework that the authors are developing.

4.1 A Community-based Triangulation Development Framework for

Sustainable Urban Revitalization

There are three realities that are currently observed in development. First is the reality of
urbanization. The convergence of people into concentrated and compact settlements is continuing
unabated such that this new century is already dubbed as the First Urban Century where more than
half of the people of the world are huddled in cities.

Second is the reality of globalization. The integration of the world system is coming into place
facilitated by the information and communication technologies (ICT) and international policies such
as those of the WTO and the GATT.

The third is localization, wherein local government authorities and communities are being recognized
as the most effective vehicles of development, particularly in the urban environment. It is noted that
in social, economic, environmental and governmental terms, the world is “globalizing” and
“localizing” at the same time. International bodies are becoming more and more active in setting
broad developmental objectives and defining issues. Continental and regional area groups such as
the EU and ASEAN are binding together to articulate and address their common grounds and
DRAFT Advisory Report 5
21
concerns. Local authorities and communities are increasingly assuming their role as primary
providers of services and programs. As Kenichi Ohmae (1996) argues, the era of nation-state as the
primary locus of decision-making is now being supplanted by a new system.

Based on the experiences of past and recent urban regeneration efforts, the success and
sustainability of urban interventions are anchored to the level of engagement and participation of
the affected community in the project’s inception, planning and implementation. The more engaged
the community, the more sustainable the project will be. The more involved the community is in
setting its vision and planning its future, the more it will share its time and resources to make them
a reality.

In the difficult field of urban revitalization, where planners and communities have to balance
development between preserving its past heritage and realizing its future aspirations, diverse
interests and agencies have to work together and explore community-based planning processes and
methodologies that can sustainably renew, revitalize and regenerate the biophysical (place); the
socio-cultural (people) and the politico-economic assets (partnerships) of an urban area.

The crucial role of the community in sustainable development is emphasized by the following
statement from the 1987 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED):

Sustainability requires the enforcement of wider responsibilities for the impacts of decisions. This
requires changes in the legal and institutional frameworks that will enforce the common interest.
It principally needs community knowledge and support, which entails greater public participation
in decisions that affect the environment. This is best secured by decentralizing the management
of resources upon which local communities depend, and giving these communities an effective
say over the use of these resources. It will also require promoting citizens’ initiatives, empowering
people’s organizations, and strengthening local democracy.

With the purpose of synthesizing and integrating the above realities and concepts, a conceptual
community-based development framework for sustainable urban regeneration is evolving (Figure
1.0). It is anchored on three essential elements of urban regeneration, particularly focused in the
inner city: place, people and partnership. These elements broadly define the dimensions of the
environment which are vital for sustainable urban revitalization or regeneration.

The first element, place, defines the bio-physical aspect of the urban environment. This refers to the
natural character of the area: land, water, air, flora and fauna. Part of this element is made up of
man-made physical interventions such as buildings, utilities and other infrastructure. The second
element is people, which refers to the socio-cultural dimension of the urban environment. It deals
with the social and cultural character of a people in a given area. It also refers to the people and
institutions that comprise the existing social and cultural network that influences community
decision-making and development. The third and the most crucial element for sustainability is
partnership, which is primarily concerned with institutional arrangements, instruments and
processes in which people and entities share and exchange goods and ideas. This constitutes the
politico-economic realm of the urban environment.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

22
 Fig.2 A graphical representation of a community-based people-place-partnership triangulation development
framework for sustainable urban revitalization Source: Authors

The elements of place and people can be considered as the foundation of the development
framework as they are the base factors that give an area its unique identity and character, its urban
heritage. Partnerships, on the other hand, are generally adapting and changing through time as
varying sets of stakeholders are engaged in the regeneration of an urban area in response to internal
and external challenges.

The smallest unit of the place-people-partnership triangulation network can be a street community.
From this, it can expand to cover a block and then a barangay. The barangay is the basic political unit
in the Philippines. They are designed as a mechanism for citizens to respond to public issues affecting
communities. Technically defined, a barangay consists of less than a thousand residents of a city or
a municipality. It is headed by a barangay chairperson, or punong barangay, who is elected by the
community every three years. Under the Local Government Code, the barangay serves as the primary
planning and implementing unit for government programs, projects and activities. It is also a venue
for government decision-making. The City of Manila is divided into 897 barangays. Each barangay has
its own chairperson and councilors. For administrative convenience, all the barangays in Manila are
grouped into 100 zones and which are further grouped into 16 administrative districts.

The development framework serves as a network reference of the triangulation linkages between
the three essential elements of people, place and partnerships in the context of sustainable urban
regeneration. Their triangulation can be related to the various development plans of the country at
different levels identifying the planning units in place. The framework can also be applied in the
context of global development, with countries as base units into which other applicable development
factors can be inserted. The framework is shown in graphical form in Figure 2.0.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

23
4.2 The Current Development Framework of the City of Manila

The still current Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance (MCLUPZO) was passed
as Ordinance No.8119 by the City Council of Manila in March 2006 and approved by the Mayor in
June 2006. It replaced the Manila Land Use Plan of 1981 made by the then Metro Manila Commission.
The development of the new land use plan was prodded by the implementation of the
decentralization policy of the national government under the Local Government Code of 1991. The
MCLUPZO is being implemented by the City Planning and Development Office (CPDO).

The development strategy for Manila in this Comprehensive Land Use Plan essentially applies the
community-based triangulation framework. The strategy aims to transform the existing Manila urban
structure from a single-core concentration to a dispersal of multi-cores that are rich in distinctiveness
and host well-balanced mixes of land uses. It focuses on the community at a neighborhood scale as
a basic unit of development.

For the purposes of the strategy, an urban core in Manila was identified where the major light rail
transit lines converge and which serves as the major activity node of the city. This core will be linked
to sub-centers which were identified by their distinct capability to generate business opportunities
and address urban development challenges. They serve as traffic and activity nodes within a 600-
meter radial distance, with complementary and interdependent linkages with each other.

Fig. 3. 2005-2020 Manila Comprehensive Development Land Use Plan:

The Manila Urban Development Strategy Source: City Planning and Development Office, Manila

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

24
 Fig. 4. The Current Manila Land Use Plan
Source: City Planning and Development Office, Manila

4.3 The Planned Unit Development Concept and Manila Application

Consistent with the development strategy, the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning tool was
introduced in the Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Plan identified fourteen PUD areas
spread out in all the six districts of Manila as overlay zones. An overlay zone is a district which is both
mapped and included in the ordinance text and becomes a set of mandatory requirements over and
above the basic zone requirements. Each district has at least one PUD overlay zone, which can serve
as a catalyst in the urban regeneration of the city as a whole.

PUD is a device which allows a development to be planned and built as a unit and which, as a result,
permits variations in many of the traditional controls related to density, land use, setbacks, open
space, and other design elements, and the timing and sequencing of the development (Meshenberg,
1976). PUD combines all the tools under a single regulatory umbrella that offers greater flexibility
while retaining the necessary controls. It was introduced in American planning practice in the 1960s.

PUDs permit the planning of a site in an integrated fashion rather than parcel by parcel as required
by typical zoning. Usually this zoning classification also allows a variety of compatible uses to come
together in one designated area. The idea is to create a neighborhood or an integrated area
atmosphere where residential, commercial, service, and cultural uses come together to form a new

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

25
community (Kone, 1994). In the Philippines, particularly in Manila, PUDs are defined as areas of
mixed-use development in the old built-up and obsolescent brownfield areas of the City.

The key ingredient in PUDs is not size, but the willingness of communities to grant developers the
flexibility and freedom in design, building and usually staging that make the project most profitable
for the developer while keeping in line with public objectives. Many PUD regulations grant a bonus
of density above that of the underlying district if the developer meets such stated objectives as
preserving certain natural features, covering or buffering parking areas, reserving more open space,
and building certain preferred housing types such as multi-family or lower-income housing. In this
way, communities can obtain from developers desired amenities they could not otherwise require
(Kone, 1994).

The PUD is officially defined in the

MCLUPZO as a land development
scheme wherein the project site is
comprehen-sively planned as an
entity via a unitary site plan.

This permits flexibility in planning

/design, building siting,
complementarity in building types
and land uses, usable open spaces
and the preservation of significant
land features. Fig. 5. The Manila Planned Unit Development (PUD) Areas
Source: City Planning and Development Office, Manila

4.4 The University Cluster 1 Overlay PUD Zone: The Hidalgo Section

The University Cluster 1 Overlay PUD Zone is one of the three designated PUDs in the Manila
University Belt Area where twenty-three major colleges and universities in the Philippines are
located. These higher education institutions were recognized as major contributors to the
development of the city. The PUDUC1 is further delineated into three sections by location (North,
South, Central) by the City Planning and Development Office of Manila, the agency tasked to develop
the Planned Unit Development Guidelines of the different designated areas in the new Land Use Plan.
The Barangay Development Plan will have to consider areas beyond its jurisdictional boundaries, as
they have to be planned in the context of a larger setting.

Barangay 393, Zone 40 and its immediate area are located at the southern part of the University
Cluster Zone 1 and is host to five major higher education institutions, namely Manuel L. Quezon
University, Technological Institute of the Philippines, National Teachers College, San Sebastian
College, St.Rita College and the Guzman Institute of Technology. This area is bounded in the east by
Plaza del Carmen and the Bilibid Viejo Street; in the south by Pasaje del Carmen and Estero de San
Sebastian and in the west and north by Estero de Quiapo. Included also in the Barangay planning
area is a part of the eastern portion of the Quiapo-Sta. Cruz PUD that is bounded by Escaldo, Quiapo
Boulevard and Hidalgo Street. The Barangay covers a total area of 6.96 hectares.
DRAFT Advisory Report 5
26
 Photo 1. A View of Hidalgo Street to San SebastianChurch

This section of Hidalgo Street and its immediate area can be considered as the “Heart of Manila”. It
lies at the center of the city that became a hub of gentility and culture during the turn of the last
century. It is a vital component of the urban heritage of the City. The vista of the street to the neo-
gothic spires of the San Sebastian Church used to be Manila’s “most beautiful street,” according to
an 1875 travel guide. But now after a century and three decades, the street has become a dreary and
greasy illegal jeepney terminal with a row of dilapidated mansions and blighted buildings traversed
by a polluted creek with unsightly informal settlers along its banks. Though mired in this state of
urban degradation, the area remains a place of landmarks as it is bounded by major landmark
structures representing the cultural heritage and diversity of the City and the nation. These are the
Quiapo Basilica, the San Sebastian Church, the Ocampo Pagoda and the Golden Mosque. At the core
of this area lies Barangay 393, Zone 40 of the City of Manila.

Faced with developmental challenges but also possessing some urban heritage assets, it is an
opportune time for the Barangay to develop its Barangay Development Plan and trigger the urban
regeneration of the area. The plan was made possible through the support of a developer who is also
a stakeholder in the area. It is part of their corporate social responsibility to help preserve the
heritage value of the area and regenerate its social and economic vitality.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

27
A Study by CPDO assessed the area development potential of the Barangay and identified proposed
development projects in the area that can serve as “urban catalysts” in the context of heritage
conservation and applicable planning, development and environmental parameters.
The First Community Stakeholders Meeting, dubbed “Panibaguhin ang Hidalgo (Regenerate
Hidalgo)” was conducted on May 19, 2007 attended by stakeholders from different sectors. In that
activity, surveyed data were validated and recommendations were solicited. Likewise, keywords and
statements were formulated for the Barangay’s Vision-Mission-Goals (V-M-G). The Second
Community Stakeholders Meeting was conducted on June 9, 2007 to validate the formulated V-M-G
and to discuss the identified plans, programs and projects.

The Barangay came up with their area vision, mission and goals, as follows:

Barangay Vision:

A Clean, Peaceful, Orderly and Secure Community United to be Good Stewards in the Progressive
Preservation, Renewal and Modernization of Its Distinct Heritage Resources and Potential.

Barangay Mission:

Strengthen the Commitment and Involvement of the Community to Know and Understand the Value
of the Place and to Facilitate their Patient and Persistent Cooperation for its Development Open to
Adapt to Any Change

Barangay Goals:

1. To Blend Into Viable Developmental Pursuits the Urban Heritage Assets of the Area for
Economic and Socio-cultural Development;

2. To Recover the Vitality of the Area Anchored on the Revitalization of Hidalgo Street as the
Hub of Cultural, Social and Economic Activities; and

3. To Create Opportunities for Growth Through the Proper Stewardship of Urban Heritage and
Area Resources Thereby Improving the Quality of Life of the Barangay.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

28
Based on the observation and analysis of the CPDO Planning Team, the area possesses attributes
wherein the following urban renewal features can be harnessed:

1. Presence of Heritage Landmarks that serve as Boundary Markers and Cultural Artifacts. The
Barangay is bounded by four major cultural heritage landmarks that exemplify the rich cultural
diversity of the place. On its east side is the neo-gothic spires of San Sebastian Church. Then the
East Asian inspired Ocampo Pagoda structure is on its north side. The neoclassical Quiapo Church
bounds it on the west side while the Golden Mosque serves as the southern marker. The presence
of these structures gives a distinct multicultural character to the place which can be enhanced by
creating vistas and viewing points in selected focal areas.

2. Revitalization of the Urban Heritage Section. The portion of Hidalgo street which used to be a
“high street” during the turn of the century where stately mansions were laid out still possesses
this characteristic, particularly its west side. The street can be revitalized and the character
preserved and enhanced.

3. Potential for Pedestrian-friendly Environment. The area and the community can potentially be
walkable and venue for interaction to mitigate social polarization between Christian and Muslim
communities. A section of Hidalgo Street and parts of adjoining streets within the area of study
can be turned into more pedestrian dominated “street parks”. These streets can serve as “socio-
cultural heritage convergence areas” surrounded by the heritage mansions adaptively reused and
the general character of the street can be preserved.

4. Compact Mixed-Use Development. The closeness of the different uses of land and spaces are
inherent in the area and can complement existing dominant land use functions. The area can
serve both the educational and business function of the area enhanced by its urban heritage
character. This compact development allows more efficient utilization of infrastructure and can
allow more use of open space.

To further relate the Barangay to the urban development trend within the PUD Zone, a general urban
structure plan was formulated in consultation with the City Planning and Development Office and
the Barangay. It is a reference urban structure frame, as it is not yet an official document, but a
working document that will be further developed by the other stakeholders in the Zone. A structure
plan is a tool that can be made available to the area development council to harness and manage the
urban resources and environmental effects arising from development in the area.

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

29
 Fig. 6. The Proposed Development Density Plan for the Hidalgo Area
Source: City Planning and Development Office, Manila

Fig 7. The Proposed Hidalgo Area General Urban Structure Plan

Source: City Planning and Development Office, Manila

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

30
5.0 Proposed Steps in the Pilot Establishment of SPARC/SPARCPLUG in
Hidalgo: Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Facilitation

With a preliminary basic area development framework for the Hidalgo Area, it is of prime importance,
as laid out in the earlier part of this Report, to gauge the developmental potential of the community
area stakeholders to establish a local development corporation. They are vital in the implementation
of the Area Development Plan that is being envisioned to harness its assets.

The CPDO is proposing priority revitalization areas called Strategic Priority Areas for Revitalization
and Collaboration (SPARC). These are areas with high heritage value or has been affected by major
infrastructure projects with the onset of urban decay or degradation. And adhering to the
community-based engagement potential as presented in the earlier section of its Report, the CPDO
alongside SPARC is also proposing the establishment of an LDC, identified as SPARC Partnership for
Lasting Urban Growth (SPARCPLUG)as the area’s community- or stakeholder-based area
development and management entity. They will be patterned after the applicable and adaptable LDC
institutional forms as discussed earlier.

The proposed steps for the establishment of the SPARC/SPARCPLUG Initiative of the City of Manila
can be divided into two stages: the designation of SPARC Areas based on the criteria or parameters
agreed upon the Council and the facilitating institutional and financial mechanisms that will
accomplishment of the growth objectives of the areas. The second stage and the focus of this section
is the organization of the SPARCPLUG, which would serve as the stakeholder-based implementing
mechanism of the SPARC Areas. The proponents have devised a seven-step stage focusing on the
characterization, responsibility attribution, authority, preferred decision-making and management
structure, plan-engagement capability and institutional sustainability capacities. Since this Report is
just for briefing purposes, they are simply enumerated here. They will elaborated in another
document which would serve as draft manual based on the experiences gained in a pilot application
in the Hidalgo Area or other areas so designated. This will also integrate the concepts and lessons
learned as presented in this advisory report.

1. Stakeholder Characteristic Inventory

2. Stakeholder Aspiration Validation

3. Stakeholder Role in the Area Regeneration and Partnership Engagement (with an outside
funding entity and technical support group)

4. Stakeholder Acceptability Level of Government Incentives and Support including limited

development authority based on New York Local Development Corporation (LDC) Models

5. Stakeholder Organizational Preference leading to an LDC

6. Stakeholder-Led Parameter of Area Regeneration leading to a TOR for Area Master

Planning that can be up for Competition

7. Stakeholder Engagement Level in Area Regeneration Implementation and Sustainability

DRAFT Advisory Report 5

31