Bahay Kubo, Kahit Munti:

An Analysis on the Status of the Bahay Kubo as a Cultural Icon of the Philippines

A case study by: Rengel De Vera Arconado

There is a general perception in the Philippines that the “pambansang bahay” of

the country is the bahay kubo. The understanding was that this lowland vernacular is the
perfect structure that can accommodate the tropical climate of the Philippines and is
representative of Philippine culture. However, the truth is, the status of the bahay kubo
as the national house is merely a result of a long history of colonialism and politics.

In 1946, when the Philippines declared its independence from the United States,
the country began its search for a “national identity” as a testament of its freedom from
its colonizers. In the field of architecture, this reflected with the country’s efforts to
establish an architecture that is for and by Filipinos. The immediate response was to deny
the Philippines’ colonial history and return to its primeval roots – vernacular architecture.
The early attempts of smearing structures with a sense of national identity was to “dress
up” modern international style buildings with motifs and ornamentations that suggest
“Filipino-ness”.

In 1965, when Ferdinand Marcos became the President of the Republic of the
Philippines, he used the country’s hunger for a concrete national identity by utilizing it as
an important step in his palingenesis or national rebirth. He promised the Filipinos a “new
nation” that is bred from Malayan ancestry. He gave his wife, Imelda Marcos, the reigns
for the country’s culture and the arts. The former First Lady’s first step was to advocate
the return of the “folk cultures”. She then saw the potential of architecture as an avenue
in promoting the nation’s “Filipino-ness”. From here, she initiated the search for a national
architectural style. Architects then experimented with forms, styles, and materials that are
indigenous in nature.

However, the oil crisis in the 1970s pushed architects to reassess current building
traditions since the modern style building rely heavily on energy and oil for function and
ventilation. Thus, tropical regionalism was born – an architectural movement that focuses
on a region’s indigenous architectural style which is believed to be the utmost design that
is suitable for that region’s microclimate. Regionalism became a factor in architectural
practice and education. With architects hopping on the tropical romantic regionalism train,
Manila was then bombarded by architecture that honor the low-land dwelling that is
eminent in the Tagalog region – the bahay kubo

During this period where the search for a national architectural style was rampant,
the most recognized schools of architecture are the University of Santo Tomas, University
of the Philippines, and the MAPUA University. Not surprisingly, all three universities are
located within the National Capital Region. With the regionalism on trend, it would not be
impossible that these schools also instilled in their students the importance of the bahay
kubo’s design in the tropical climate of Manila, and the Philippines in general. They would
later produce architecture graduates who would utilize the idea of the bahay kubo as a
starting point in their designs. Two of these students would be UST graduates who would
later on be recognized as National Artists for Architecture – Leandro Locsin and Francisco
Manosa.

Locsin and Manosa believed in the potential of neo-vernacularism or regionalism

as an approach to the Philippine climate. They have designed different structures that
took inspiration from native architectural forms such as Isneg houses and the Ifugao’s
Fale. However, majority of their works, and the most notable ones, were influenced by
none other than the bahay kubo.

The influence of these two National artists, and the knowledge being taught in
these schools of architecture that are within the National Capital Region in the field of
architecture and the people’s perception as to what Filipino architecture should be could
not be more highlighted.

This is also where the issue of Imperial Manila comes into play. Manila, being seen
as the center of the Philippines, holds power and influence that is unequal to other regions
of the country. It is favored when it comes to dispersal of government funds, which fuels
the unequal distribution of infrastructure projects. Meaning there’s more opportunity for
Manila to showcase its structures that is representative of their take on what Filipino
architecture should be.

There is also the perception that Manila is at the center of the Philippine society,
making it the home of mass media corporations which means that it gets more attention
in news and tv shows, again taking advantage in publicizing to the country the works of
“Filipino architecture” In the national capital region, which in turn, further popularizes the
bahay kubo and unconsciously instilling to the minds of the Filipino people that this
lowland vernacular dwelling is the utmost representation of what Filipino architecture is
all about.

The process of establishing representation is a highly political act. Symbols that

are selected may come as problematic since there’s a huge possibility that they may not
truly be representative of the cultural heterogeneity of the Philippines. The imaginings of
a national culture was biased and prejudiced according to the ideas of architects,
designers, and leaders. Evidently, whoever is in a position of power has the ability to
influence and dictate the construction of national identity.

Another issue that would arise is the notion of authenticity. In Philippine history,
establishing Filipino identity has veered away from the country’s colonial past in order to
create something that is “purely Filipino and differs from other cultures”. The term
“authenticity” can be put into question. How authentic is an authentic Filipino architecture?

Our cultural heritage is there as a testament and as a legacy of our nation’s past.
It is part of our identity, but it is not our only identity. The discourse for national identity in
architecture must not dwell on the question of origin but should rather shift on the question
of practice.

To define a national identity in architecture, the Philippines must deal with the ever-
changing identities of contemporary Philippines.
REFERENCES

Alcazaren, Paulo. “Manosa: A Man for All-Seasons.” The Philippine Star, 18 Mar. 2017.

Cabalfin, Edson. “‘Modernizing the Native: The Vernacular and the Nation in Philippine
Modern Architectures.’” DOCOMOMO Journal 34 (2006): n. pag. Print.

Cabalfin, Edson. “‘Postcolonial Identity Politics and Philippine Pavilions in International

Expositions, 1958-1992.’” International Research Symposium Proceedings: “Expo and
Human History” (2017)

Henares, Ivan. “Balara Filtration Plant.” Industrial Heritage in the Philippines | TICCIH
Philippines, Blogger, 25 Nov. 2020, https://www.ticcihphilippines.org/2020/11/balara-
filtration-plant.html.

Lamudi - December 7, et al. “Architect Francisco Mañosa: Defining Philippine Architecture

through the Lens of a National Artist.” Lamudi, 4 July 2021,
https://www.lamudi.com.ph/journal/architect-francisco-manosa-defining-philippine-
architecture-through-the-lens-of-a-national-artist/.

Lasco, Gideon. “'Imperial Manila'.” INQUIRER.net, 28 Dec. 2015,

https://opinion.inquirer.net/91545/imperial-manila.

Lico, Gerard. “‘Arkitekturang Filipino : A History of Architecture and Urbanism in the

Philippines. “‘Diliman, Quezon City:University of the Philippines Press (2008)

“History of Philippine Architecture.” United Architects of the Philippines,

https://www.unitedarchitects.org/.

Lifestyle Inquirer. “Mañosa at National Museum: The Filipino Artist Who Should Have
Been National Artist.” Lifestyle.INQ, 14 Feb. 2017,
https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/254488/manosa-national-museum-filipino-artist-national-
artist/#ixzz7m9TOPlyC.