New City, A New Metro Manila, A New Future — Second Part
Serializing
Serializing
By ATTY. FRANCIS N. TOLENTINO
July 17, 2012
Manila Bulletin
MANILA, Philippines — How does Metro Manila compare to other cities in the world today?
The annual Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Global Livability Survey ranks cities on five factors: health-care, stability, culture and environment, education and infrastructure. It assigns scores for over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors in the categories. The categories are compiled and weighted to provide an overall rating of 1–100, where 1 is considered intolerable and 100 is considered ideal.
According to this survey, Metro Manila appears to be slowly rising in the rankings among 140 cities. It ranked 108th in 2009, 107th in 2010, and 105th in 2011.
In 2010, Metro Manila had an overall livability score of 61.9 percent, with the highest scores in education (67 percent) and culture and environment (64 percent) while ranking low on healthcare (58 percent) and stability (60 percent). In Southeast Asia, Manila has always lagged behind Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bandar Seri Begawan and Bangkok. This means there are not enough resources, not enough roads, not enough living space for a growing urban population in Metro Manila. With overcrowding, it follows that the allocation of resources and the provision of basic services are spread too thinly. At the same time crime rates and pollution levels tend to increase.
Manila’s rankings from 2009 to 2011 are a far cry from the top 10 most livable cities in the world based on the EIU survey. The most consistent of these (from 2009 to 2011) are Vancouver, Vienna, Melbourne, Toronto, Perth, Calgary, Geneva, Helsinki, Sydney and Auckland, often separated by very narrow margins.
Canada and Australia have notably the most number of livable cities in the top 10. For the 2011 survey, Melbourne‘s overall rating score was 97.5, above Vienna‘s 97.4 and Vancouver‘s 97.3.
In the Mercer 2011 Quality of Living Survey, Manila ranked 128 out of 221 cities in the world based on the following criteria: political and social environment, medical and health considerations, public services and transport, consumer goods, economic environment, socio-cultural environment, schools and education, natural environment, recreation and housing. Manila scored 173rd in personal safety, which is based on measures of internal stability, crime levels, law enforcement effectiveness and host country international relations.
According to the Emerging Trends in Real Estate Asia Pacific 2011 survey conducted by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), global real estate investors have ranked Manila as their last choice among various key cities in the Asia-Pacific.
Topping the survey was Singapore with a score of 5.96 points, followed by Shanghai with 5.87, Mumbai with 5.79, and Hong Kong with 5.70. Manila obtained a score of 4.56 points out of a possible 9, which is a few points between “fair” and “abysmal.”
Metro Manila will always have a special place in our hearts and memories. That‘s one of the best reasons why we should continue the drive for urban renewal and restoration. I believe it is time to consider the construction of a new capital city where we can build a new future and a model city for the country and perhaps for Asia and the world. That new city can be a new symbol of hope, even as we face the myriad problems of rapid urbanization and blight in the present Metro Manila.
Countries that moved their capitals
Other countries have long realized that building a new city augurs well for the future of their people. Below are some of the countries that moved their respective capital cities—Japan (in 1869), Brazil (in 1956), Pakistan (in 1960), Nigeria (in 1976), Malaysia (in 1993) and Kazakhstan (in 1997).
Tokyo (formerly known as Edo) became the capital of Japan in 1869 replacing Kyoto when the Emperor took up permanent residence there. The size of Edo‘s population, which was more than double that of Paris and London at the time, was augmented by the Tokugawa‘s system of requiring all underlings to spend a portion of each year in the city. Thus, their presence gave rise to artisans, craftsmen, and other townsfolk, and promoted many of the arts. Edo became the center of commerce even before it became the capital of Japan.
The city was broken up into distinct trade districts - cobbler sections, tailor sections, and even fish sections that were kept completely separate from the fruit and vegetable areas. Today, Tokyo is considered the predominant economic center of East Asia, rivaled only by Hong Kong and Singapore.
Brasilia originated in a campaign promise made by presidential candidate Juscelino Kubitschek in 1956. He appealed to the Brazilians’ dream of developing the resources in the interior of their nation. He proposed to build a new capital there, a new city that would demonstrate how Brazil would develop in the future, integrating the sprawling country into a modern industrial nation.
Thus, Brasilia was built in just four years starting in 1957 in the central area of the country and has become a showcase of architectural innovation. Before its construction, the area resembled a desert—unpopulated, scarce water, few animals and plants.
Brasilia is Brazil‘s first planned city and also in effect a planned capital. President Juscelino Kubitschek, who became President in 1956, invited the best Brazilian architects to present projects for the new capital. Oscar Niemeyer, who is considered one of the world’s most famous architects today, combined straight and rounded shapes to create innovative architectural masterpieces. Lucio Costa, renowned Brazilian urbanist, devised a lay-out combining beauty, simplicity and functionality.
Urban planner Lucio Costa and architect Oscar Niemeyer “intended that every element – from the layout of the residential and administrative districts (often compared to the shape of a bird in flight) to the symmetry of the buildings themselves – should be in harmony with the city‘s overall design.” Brasilia is at present the only 20th century city granted a World Heritage Site status by the UNESCO.
High modernism was embodied in the architectural design of structures in Brasilia. The function of the capital was to be expressly political and administrative — aspects that were understood to be the hallmark of membership in the modern system of states.
Islamabad became the capital and administrative center of Pakistan in 1960. Pakistan needed a new capital city because the existing buildings in Karachi, a port city, were not enough or were below the standards required by a capital. The layout and structure of the existing port city did not allow it to take on the functions of a modern capital. The influx of refugees also intensified existing problems and created new ones.
In September 1959, the government established the Federal Capital Commission for the preparation of the Master Plan for the new capital. A decision was made on February 24, 1960 by the President and his Cabinet to give the new capital of Pakistan the name of Islamabad or “the City of Islam.” On May 24, 1960, the preliminary Master Plan and the planning principles that would make Islamabad “A City of the Future,” were presented to the Cabinet and approved by the President. The Capital Development Authority took over from the Federal-Capital Commission, and was put in charge of the overall development of the new capital.
The metropolitan area of the capital has been planned for a future population of about 2,500,000 inhabitants within a period of two generations. Its administrative functions include the following: (a) administration on a national level; (b) cultural services physically or symbolically connected with the country’s administration, such as a national museum or a national library; (c) special non-governmental institutions of national importance, such as banks, welfare organizations, among others; and (d) the diplomatic representation of foreign countries.
The annual Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Global Livability Survey ranks cities on five factors: health-care, stability, culture and environment, education and infrastructure. It assigns scores for over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors in the categories. The categories are compiled and weighted to provide an overall rating of 1–100, where 1 is considered intolerable and 100 is considered ideal.
 |
| Metro Manila |
According to this survey, Metro Manila appears to be slowly rising in the rankings among 140 cities. It ranked 108th in 2009, 107th in 2010, and 105th in 2011.
In 2010, Metro Manila had an overall livability score of 61.9 percent, with the highest scores in education (67 percent) and culture and environment (64 percent) while ranking low on healthcare (58 percent) and stability (60 percent). In Southeast Asia, Manila has always lagged behind Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bandar Seri Begawan and Bangkok. This means there are not enough resources, not enough roads, not enough living space for a growing urban population in Metro Manila. With overcrowding, it follows that the allocation of resources and the provision of basic services are spread too thinly. At the same time crime rates and pollution levels tend to increase.
Manila’s rankings from 2009 to 2011 are a far cry from the top 10 most livable cities in the world based on the EIU survey. The most consistent of these (from 2009 to 2011) are Vancouver, Vienna, Melbourne, Toronto, Perth, Calgary, Geneva, Helsinki, Sydney and Auckland, often separated by very narrow margins.
Canada and Australia have notably the most number of livable cities in the top 10. For the 2011 survey, Melbourne‘s overall rating score was 97.5, above Vienna‘s 97.4 and Vancouver‘s 97.3.
In the Mercer 2011 Quality of Living Survey, Manila ranked 128 out of 221 cities in the world based on the following criteria: political and social environment, medical and health considerations, public services and transport, consumer goods, economic environment, socio-cultural environment, schools and education, natural environment, recreation and housing. Manila scored 173rd in personal safety, which is based on measures of internal stability, crime levels, law enforcement effectiveness and host country international relations.
According to the Emerging Trends in Real Estate Asia Pacific 2011 survey conducted by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), global real estate investors have ranked Manila as their last choice among various key cities in the Asia-Pacific.
Topping the survey was Singapore with a score of 5.96 points, followed by Shanghai with 5.87, Mumbai with 5.79, and Hong Kong with 5.70. Manila obtained a score of 4.56 points out of a possible 9, which is a few points between “fair” and “abysmal.”
Metro Manila will always have a special place in our hearts and memories. That‘s one of the best reasons why we should continue the drive for urban renewal and restoration. I believe it is time to consider the construction of a new capital city where we can build a new future and a model city for the country and perhaps for Asia and the world. That new city can be a new symbol of hope, even as we face the myriad problems of rapid urbanization and blight in the present Metro Manila.
Countries that moved their capitals
Other countries have long realized that building a new city augurs well for the future of their people. Below are some of the countries that moved their respective capital cities—Japan (in 1869), Brazil (in 1956), Pakistan (in 1960), Nigeria (in 1976), Malaysia (in 1993) and Kazakhstan (in 1997).
Tokyo (formerly known as Edo) became the capital of Japan in 1869 replacing Kyoto when the Emperor took up permanent residence there. The size of Edo‘s population, which was more than double that of Paris and London at the time, was augmented by the Tokugawa‘s system of requiring all underlings to spend a portion of each year in the city. Thus, their presence gave rise to artisans, craftsmen, and other townsfolk, and promoted many of the arts. Edo became the center of commerce even before it became the capital of Japan.
The city was broken up into distinct trade districts - cobbler sections, tailor sections, and even fish sections that were kept completely separate from the fruit and vegetable areas. Today, Tokyo is considered the predominant economic center of East Asia, rivaled only by Hong Kong and Singapore.
Brasilia originated in a campaign promise made by presidential candidate Juscelino Kubitschek in 1956. He appealed to the Brazilians’ dream of developing the resources in the interior of their nation. He proposed to build a new capital there, a new city that would demonstrate how Brazil would develop in the future, integrating the sprawling country into a modern industrial nation.
Thus, Brasilia was built in just four years starting in 1957 in the central area of the country and has become a showcase of architectural innovation. Before its construction, the area resembled a desert—unpopulated, scarce water, few animals and plants.
Brasilia is Brazil‘s first planned city and also in effect a planned capital. President Juscelino Kubitschek, who became President in 1956, invited the best Brazilian architects to present projects for the new capital. Oscar Niemeyer, who is considered one of the world’s most famous architects today, combined straight and rounded shapes to create innovative architectural masterpieces. Lucio Costa, renowned Brazilian urbanist, devised a lay-out combining beauty, simplicity and functionality.
Urban planner Lucio Costa and architect Oscar Niemeyer “intended that every element – from the layout of the residential and administrative districts (often compared to the shape of a bird in flight) to the symmetry of the buildings themselves – should be in harmony with the city‘s overall design.” Brasilia is at present the only 20th century city granted a World Heritage Site status by the UNESCO.
High modernism was embodied in the architectural design of structures in Brasilia. The function of the capital was to be expressly political and administrative — aspects that were understood to be the hallmark of membership in the modern system of states.
Islamabad became the capital and administrative center of Pakistan in 1960. Pakistan needed a new capital city because the existing buildings in Karachi, a port city, were not enough or were below the standards required by a capital. The layout and structure of the existing port city did not allow it to take on the functions of a modern capital. The influx of refugees also intensified existing problems and created new ones.
In September 1959, the government established the Federal Capital Commission for the preparation of the Master Plan for the new capital. A decision was made on February 24, 1960 by the President and his Cabinet to give the new capital of Pakistan the name of Islamabad or “the City of Islam.” On May 24, 1960, the preliminary Master Plan and the planning principles that would make Islamabad “A City of the Future,” were presented to the Cabinet and approved by the President. The Capital Development Authority took over from the Federal-Capital Commission, and was put in charge of the overall development of the new capital.
The metropolitan area of the capital has been planned for a future population of about 2,500,000 inhabitants within a period of two generations. Its administrative functions include the following: (a) administration on a national level; (b) cultural services physically or symbolically connected with the country’s administration, such as a national museum or a national library; (c) special non-governmental institutions of national importance, such as banks, welfare organizations, among others; and (d) the diplomatic representation of foreign countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment