CASE STUDY: INTRAMUROS

INTRAMUROS, MANILA CITY

Intramuros, the historic center of Manila, is one of the city's oldest districts. It was once a
trading center that the Spanish conquerors claimed in 1571, enclosing the city with a wall that
earned it the name: the city within the walls. And the city sustained a great deal of damage
throughout these conflicts. There were attempts at development, but contradictions like
inconsistencies resulted in a confusing situation.
Intramuros is made up of five barangays, each of which reports to the City of Manila and
thus has no contact with the Intramuros Administration (IA), which is a major issue because
Intramuros is a legally independent administration. According to the IA, as of today, the
barangays estimate is closer to 1710 families which makes it almost 35% of the area. And
because of the lack of organization and miscommunications informal settlers have been taking
advantage of the emptied lots and buildings, repopulating the area wherein they’ve been
experiencing precarious living conditions, with limited or no access to water, and unsafe housing
structures made of a mix of light materials and concrete, sometimes stacked on multiple floors,
lack of lighting, and a scarcity of sanitation facilities. And because of these current living
situations the families have been receiving constant eviction threats and are considered an
eyesore especially by the local authorities.
In 2014, IA launched a redevelopment strategy aimed at revitalizing Intramuros to make
the city a "vibrant, sustainable, inclusive, creative, and learning heritage community founded on
the pillars of place, heritage, and people." They chose to adopt the community-led mapping and
planning process to help communities achieve security of tenure, decent housing solutions, and
stable livelihoods. Due to a complex network of stakeholders, this has been difficult and with
competing interests, as well as the area's heritage status and a strong fear of eviction by
communities.

Process and Application

Intramuros mapping was done on a smaller scale, with the communities of Banana Island,
Compound 461, and Solana. Solana is a small settlement with 32 households, whereas Banana
Island has 210 households. The dwelling buildings in this area have a complicated layout
because most of them are densely packed and are up to four stories high. And because of a
complex web of interests among public and private actors, Intramuros proved to be a difficult
context in which to conduct mapping. There is a lack of organizational capacity at the
community level, as well as several vulnerabilities linked to difficult living conditions and the
constant threat of eviction.
For that gathering of data the IA visited informal settlements to communicate their desire to find
a solution for in-city relocation or on-site upgrading, as residents here were initially concerned
with the outcome of mapping, given ongoing eviction threats. This visit is also important to show
residents that the community is in control and that they can benefit from the data. This
interaction emphasized the significance of registering and beginning to save, as this was finally
started during the planning stage, showcasing the possibilities for mobilization through mapping.
And, because the community-led process was used, each community has their own
opportunity to present their development ideas. One of the communities, Solana, carried out a
different type of mapping: mapping the lived heritage, or the stories and history experienced by
community members as Intramuros citizens. This aided local authorities in developing a regional
perspective that emphasized local knowledge as well as difficulties. This also proves how
personal stories are intertwined with Intramuros' changes. This enables the team to perceive and
comprehend the underlying trends, as well as strategize around inclusive heritage planning.
Mapping can be very useful in identifying various dynamics and defining corresponding issues.
The threat of eviction was the most pressing concern on Banana Island and Compound
461, and finding permanent housing was the top priority. The data revealed that infrastructure
was also a problem and a priority, with limited water, sanitation, and electrical connections.
Another issue that emerged was a lack of organization and registration of volunteers. As a result,
organizing elections for community leaders and registration were prioritized. Furthermore, there
was a lack of information regarding land ownership, so research in this area was prioritized as
well. Another factor that has been mentioned is a lack of savings and financial capacity.
Residents were asked what specific spaces they required and were asked to present their
ideas. The final design considered the total population of Banana Island and Compound 461
along with design restrictions in Intramuros, and the cost of land. The eventual result was a
building with a maximum of 5 stories and 18 square meter flats.
The CAN workshop's heritage planning component was presented in the in the form of a
printed map and a community-led mini-tour representatives, with the goal of demonstrating
Intramuros' history through the community's eyes. This was done to demonstrate public
value and communicate the communities' perspectives with many stakeholders, to finally prepare
for a more inclusive and livable Intramuros.
Community mapping and planning aid in shaping future interventions by utilizing
accurate information gathered by those who know most about the area, as well as developing
approaches that meet the needs and aspirations of residents. The process fosters not only useful
partnerships between communities, but also the Philippine Alliance, and local
governments' solidarity among communities dealing with similar issues. Also, to gain a thorough
understanding of the issues and concerns raised. Overall, an area-wide approach contributes to a
citywide upgrade perspective and has the potential to solve local problems through an integrated,
well-informed, and demand-driven process.
 Insights
Planning can bring several obstacles, but these can also be viewed as a part of the
learning process, a gradual transformation that eventually leads to empowered communities.
Cohesive data collection and holistic planning for a major area allows comprehensive
transformation. Using community-led methods, however, can make this a time-consuming
process. Effective communication, team members' collective support, and flexibility can all
help. This should be addressed through discussion and reflection; it is critical to generate a strong
commitment to the overall objectives and methodology.
These processes generate a large amount of data, which can be time-consuming to
process and analyze. Close consultation with the community with clear and well-prepared
methodologies and a whole lot of patience are the keys to ensuring clarity.
Due to distrust, fear of eviction, resistance to change, or a lack of willingness to fully
commit to the process, some communities may be hesitant to participate. This could be due to a
misunderstanding of the team's approach and intentions, which could be resolved by providing
more information about the model and hearing about previous community successes.

And, because methods such as community-led processes are unfamiliar and uncommon in
our country, it is critical that the community and local authorities prepare before engaging in
dialogue. It would be beneficial if both parties were well aware of and prepared for any potential
situations and how they might play out.
It is a lengthy and difficult process with numerous potential pitfalls: organizational,
financial, political, and technical. Long-term dedication and hard work yield results.
Communication with communities to build trust, confidence, and capacity is critical during the
planning stage, however, this should be done without raising expectations beyond what is
realistically achievable in the short term.

Resources

Development Planning UnitPublished on Jul 11. (2016, July 11). Grounded Planning: People
centred urban development practices in the Philippines. Issuu. Retrieved November 4,
2021, from https://issuu.com/dpu-ucl/docs/grounded_planning_full_text_finale