Sablan, Marianne Sheena Sarah U.

28 June 2013
Is Our Contemporary Architecture More Western or Filipino?

Context Clues
Contemporary architecture in the country typically consists of commercial
establishments, ranging from mixed-use developments to high-rise residences. What is also
generally common among them, particularly for high-rise residences nowadays, is how they
emerge all of a sudden into the cityscape without any warning. What I mean is somehow such
buildings are designed and built as though context is some alienated concept simply floating
in the air. And yet context is a very crucial principle in design if the Philippines were to
design a Filipino architecture.
Consider the many emerging residences usually found across from prominent
universities, particularly in Metro Manila. For instance, consider the new Berkeley
Residences in Katipunan Avenue, a few hundreds of meters away from Miriam and Ateneo.
While it is true that properly speaking, the zoning of the vicinity of Katipunan Avenue is
Commercial, it seems that the idea of putting up towering and self-evident obstructions in the
sky line never crossed the mind of those people who have been living, working or studying in
the area for a long time now. A common line of thought comes to memory, realizing that this
reaction of some Filipino citizens with regard to building skyscrapers in almost all
commercial zones may actually stem from an evident contradiction between the expectations
of the Filipino citizen of the architecture and of what is presented before his eyes. The
example of the Berkeley Residences in Katipunan is characterized by the negative reaction of
some Filipinos to the loss of natural landscaping in the area, which they supposedly attribute
to the rise of such developments. But the case is most probably not merely an ecological issue

or anything to do with sustainability. Rather, it is also likely that subconsciously, Filipinos

look for architecture that is greener and is compatible with the preservation of the
environment, precisely because that is how they think architecture should be. We refer to the
classic story of early settlements in the pre-colonial islands of what is called now Philippines.
It has been observed, that settlements then were built in an environmental context, which
simply means designing with, and not against, the environment. This shows in the proper
adaptation to climate conditions, the choice of materials used and of strategic locations,
where many early settlements were lined along bodies of water for the purpose of efficient
transportation and food gathering. The dilemma now is that it seems this consciousness of the
environment is being lost, notwithstanding even the immediate consequences of overbuilding
skyscrapers (i.e. pollution, traffic congestion, high energy consumption and high green house
gas emission).
The dilemma however, does not stop at the loss of at least the minimum concern for
the environment. Even from this point, it is still possible to scrutinize the motive for building
such establishments, especially in areas where the projected populace intended for the
building may not even be supported adequately by the land. Could this motive then be that
these skyscrapers only aim to start a trend that will eventually lead to the emulation of some
foreign cityscape that is so full of them? Could it also be that this implies that what the
skyscraper is actually expressing is a predominant projection of the self rather than a
community? These lines of reasoning remind one of how the West looked at architecture
from the pre-historic times. The configurations of their monuments, either form a point such
as the Menhir, or a boundary such as the Cromlech, both of which are structures that stand in
the middle of a plain field, articulating precisely, the dominance of the self or the
individual. This is highly in contrast to how Filipinos looked at architecture then, as
demonstrated by the arrangement of their settlements which are evidently articulating a sense

of community. Going back to the example, surely it cannot be overemphasized that indeed
Berkeley is peculiarly tall for its surroundings.
High-rise residences then, as a typical form of contemporary architecture seem to
send the wrong message to Filipinos as they come up lost in context, simply filling up
vacant lots along busy, commercialized roads. They deviate from the environmentallycompatible character of pre-colonial Philippine architecture, which still concerns Filipinos
today especially at the height of sustainability consciousness. But aside from this, the
skyscraper-among-the-dwarfs impression of such buildings makes it suspicious that it is
perhaps a hidden agenda to emulate Western architecture. But is contemporary architecture
about high-rise residences solely? Certainly it is not, but what is certain is that this paper
stated a fact not merely about a particular form of contemporary architecture, but on how, as
a contemporary architecture, such a building type is designed. And it was presented that
primeval Filipino concepts of architecture are apparently lost in their design translation which
means only one thing: if they are not what they ought to be (that is, Filipino), then they can
only absorb what is most influential, and that is none other than the West.