SMART GROWTH & TRANSIT-

ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS
Mark Anthony M. Morales, D. Eng., Ar., EnP.
30 May 2019

SCURP 2019
A Basic Course in Urban and Regional Planning
Training and Extension Services Division
3/F Cariño Hall, School of Urban and Regional Planning
University of the Philippines - Diliman, Quezon City
27-31 May 2019
Outline
• Introduction
o A need to shift from conventional dev’t
patterns?
• What is smart growth?
o Rationale
o Smart growth principles
• Transit-oriented dev’t as tool for smart
growth
o Definition, obstacles, types; regulatory
guides
• TOD in the Philippines
• Current status, issues & concerns; moving
forward (Nikken Sekkei Research Institute, 2015)
• Smart Growth & TOD Case Study:
o ”Buklod”: a walkable & transit-oriented
community (Metrobank Foundation, 2016)
 A need to shift from conventional dev’t patterns?
• Sprawling land dev’t consumes our
cities & provinces
oSprawl: dispersed, auto-dependent,
single-use, and impossible to walk to
your daily needs
• Threatens farmland and open space
• Encourages people and wealth to leave
central cities
• Creates serious traffic congestion
• Degrades environment and quality of life
A need to shift from conventional dev’t
patterns?
Metro Manila
• Population:
o12 million at night, 15 million at day; daily
rush hour migration of 3 million, most of
which use roads
• Traffic congestion:
oAnnually costs the equivalent of Php 128
billion in lost productivity, illness, wasted
fuel and vehicle maintenance

NSRI, 2015
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/254898/news/specialreports/the-agony-of-metro-manila-
commuters
A need to shift from conventional dev’t
patterns?
Metro Manila’s current rail network
• Railway system serving greater capital region (GCR) spans 79kms in 4 lines
o Only 5kms of 73km planned expansion (laid out in 1998) got built in last decade

LRT – 1 (yellow line)

Source: NEDA Plan

NSRI, 2015 http://cnnphilippines.com/incoming/u3c3-LRT.jpg/alternates/FREE_640/LRT.jpg

LRT – 2 (purple line) http://business.inquirer.net/files/2012/06/lrt2.jpg
A need to shift from conventional dev’t
patterns?
Heavy usage of road network by MM population lead to
daily traffic build-up
• Affordability of private vehicle ownership, lax regulatory mechanisms
for road-based transport mediums (e.g. bus, jeepney, cars) https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7300/
16370027709_2e5cffb3ab.jpg

• Prevalence of multiple car ownership; many of which are parked

along roadways for free

http://www.jeepneygang.com/image
s2/jeepney.jpg

http://imganuncios.mitula.net/toyota_fx_taxi_gt_express
_fully_paid_greenland_ayala_96635402625587226.jpg NSRI, 2015
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/254898/news/specialreports/the-agony-of-
metro-manila-commuters
NSRI (2015)
WHAT IS SMART GROWTH?
Smart Growth for our cities: what does it offer
"Smart growth preserves open
spaces and protects critical habitat;
improves transportation choices,
including walking, bicycling, and
transit, which reduces emissions from
automobiles; promotes brown field
redevelopment; and reducing
impervious cover, which improves
water quality.”
- US Environmental Protection Agency
Smart Growth for our cities: what does it offer
Reduces impact of climate change
• Buildings & transportation: 70% of greenhouse gas emissions
Walkable, bikeable, and transit-connected neighborhoods
• Increases economic competitiveness
• Leads to healthy lifestyles and a higher quality of life
Communities close to jobs, retail space, civic centers
• Reduces amount of time spent on transportation by residents and visitors,
as well as the resulting emissions
Developing green buildings & neighborhoods w/ sustainable
transport strategies
• key to creating smart, more livable communities for everyone
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009; “Smart Growth Guidelines for Sustainable Design and Dev’t”
Smart Growth Principles (SGP)
1. Mix land uses
2. Take advantage of compact building designs “land use and
3. Create housing choices for range of HH types, family size, incomes transportation
4. Create walkable neighborhoods policies directly
5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of influence smart
place
6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical
growth, energy
environmental areas conservation, and
7. Reinvest in and strengthen existing communities & achieve more environmental
balance in regional dev’t protection”
8. Provide a variety of transportation choices - US
9. Predictable, fair and cost-effective development decisions Environmental
Protection
10. Encourage citizen and stakeholder participation in development Agency
decisions
 Smart Growth Principles (SGP) 1: mixed land uses
• Walking, biking become viable
• More diverse, bigger pop’n: comm’l base to
support public transit
• Enhance area vitality, sense of security
• Increased activity of people on-street
• Attracts pedestrians; revitalize
community life
• Make streets, public spaces, & pedestrian-
oriented retail places where people meet.
• Siting comm’l w/ res’l devts raises
property value, tax base
• Businesses recognize locations that attract
more people, increasing economic activity
• Attractive to workers who consider “quality-
of-life” as well as salary to determine where
they settle
 SGP 2: take advantage of compact building design
• Vertical rather than horizontal dev’t
reduces new const’n footprint, and
preserves more greenspace
• Beyond efficient land usage, it protects
more open land to absorb, filter rain water,
reduce flooding and stormwater drainage
needs
• Supports wider transportation choices to
reduce air pollution and congestion
• Also lowers amount of pollution washing
into our streams, rivers and lakes
• On a per-unit basis, it is cheaper to
provide, maintain services in compact
neighborhoods than dispersed
communities
• Water, sewer, electricity, phone service and
other utilities
 SGP 2: take advantage of compact building design
• Well-designed, compact
communities that
include a variety of
house sizes and types
command higher
market value on a per-
square-meter basis
than do those in
adjacent conventional
suburban
developments.
 SGP 3: Create a range of housing opportunities &
choices
• Quality housing for people of all income levels
• Broader access to good transportation, services
and education; ideal commuting patterns (quality
of living)
• Wider range of housing choices mitigates
• Environmental costs of auto-dependent dev’t
• Use infra resources more efficiently
• Ensure better jobs-housing balance
• Economic stimulus for commercial centers
• Vibrant during the work day, but suffer from a
lack of foot traffic and consumers during evenings
or weekends
• Integrating single- and multi-family structures
in new housing devt’s can
• Support a more diverse population
• Allow more equitable distribution of households
(all income levels) Metrobank Foundation, 2016
SGP 4: Create Walkable Neighborhoods
• Desirable places to live, work,
learn, worship and play
• Goods (e.g., housing, offices, retail)
and services (e.g., transportation,
schools, libraries) are located
within an easy, safe walk
• Expand transportation options
• Creates a streetscape for a range of
users – pedestrians, bicyclists,
transit riders, and drivers
• Benefits:
• Lower transportation costs
• Greater social interaction Metrobank Foundation, 2016
• Improved personal and
environmental health
• Expanded consumer choice
SGP 5: Distinctive communities with strong sense of
place
• Craft vision, standards for dev’t that
respect community values of architectural
beauty and distinctiveness
• Interesting, unique communities that
reflect values of people residing there, and
foster physical environments that support a
more cohesive community fabric
• Natural, man-made boundaries &
landmarks to define neighborhoods, towns,
and regions
• Encourage const’n, preservation of bldgs
that are assets to a community over time
• Not only because of the services provided
within, but because of the unique
contribution they make to the look and feel Metrobank Foundation, 2016
of a city.
SGP 5: Distinctive communities with strong sense of
place
• Create communities w/ arch’l
and natural elements
reflecting unique values of
residents (i.e., identity)
• Buildings (and entire
neighborhoods) will retain their
economic vitality and value
over time.
• Infrastructure & natural
resources used to create these
areas will provide residents Metrobank Foundation, 2016
with a distinctive and beautiful
place that they can call “home”
for generations to come
SGP 6: Preserve open space, farmland, critical env’l
areas
• “Open space”: areas that provide
• Important community space
• Habitat for plants and animals
• Recreational opportunities
• Farm/ranch land (working lands)
• Places of natural beauty
• Critical environmental areas (e.g.
wetlands).
• Preserved open combats air pollution,
attenuates noise, controls wind,
erosion control, and moderates
temperatures
• Protects surface & ground-water
resources by filtering trash, debris, Metrobank Foundation, 2016
and chemical pollutants before they
enter a water system.
SGP 7: Reinvest, strengthen existing communities
• Smart growth directs dev’t to
existing communities already
served by infrastructure
• Use existing resources (unique
features) of neighborhoods
• Obstacles to infill dev’t
• Greenfield dev’t: ease of access and
construction, lower land costs
• Zoning requirements in fringe areas
are often less burdensome
• Opportunities of infill
development
• investment appeal of a “24-hour Metrobank
city” for empty nesters, young Foundation,
professionals, and others, and 2016
developers
SGP 8: Provide a variety of transportation
choices
• Communities are seeking a
wider range of transportation
options to improve
beleaguered current systems
• Better coordination of land use
and transportation
• Increase availability of high-
quality transit service
• Resiliency, connectivity within
their road networks
• Ensure connectivity bet.
pedestrian, bike, transit, and road
facilities
 SGP 9: Predictable, fair, cost-effective dev’t
decisions
• Smart growth implementation: must be
embraced by private sector
• Only private capital markets can supply the
large amounts of money needed to meet
demand for smart growth devts.
• If investors, bankers, developers, builders and
others do not earn a profit, few smart growth
projects will be built.
• Gov’t can help make smart growth more
profitable for private investors and
developers
• Value of property, desirability of a place:
affected by gov’t investment in infra and
regulation
SGP 10: Community and Stakeholder
Collaboration
• Communities have different needs
and will emphasize some smart
growth principles over others:
• Those w/ robust economic growth may
need to improve housing choices
• Others that suffered from
disinvestment may emphasize infill
development
• Newer communities w/ separated uses
may be looking for the sense of place
provided by mixed-use town centers
• Others w/ poor air quality may seek
relief by offering transportation choices
SGP 10: Community and Stakeholder
Collaboration
• Smart Growth plans &
policies developed w/o
strong citizen involvement
will lack staying power
• Involving community early
and often in the planning
process
• Improves public
support for smart
growth
• Leads to innovative
strategies that fit
unique needs of a
particular community
 TRANSIT-ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT AS A TOOL
FOR SMART GROWTH
Transit-oriented dev’t (TOD): a tool for smart
growth
• TOD - “Dev’t w/in specified geographic area around a transit station
w/ variety of land uses and a multiplicity of landowners” (David
Salvesen, 1996; Urban Land) ...smart growth’s solution to
• Res’l and comm’l property values rise w/ proximity to controlling the demand side
transit stations of traffic congestion and
• Incentives to encourage transit-oriented urban sprawl (Freilich, 1998)
development:
• Zoning: mix-use dev’ts, open green space prioritization
given add’l floor area for buildings, easing of height ...TODs are one of the tools
restrictions (HLURB; LGU ordinance) that can be used to achieve
• Financial grants: pedestrian improvements, bicycle “Smart Growth”
facilities, transit-oriented affordable housing projects, principles…but they have
parking facilities (Massachusetts, USA;
www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org) become one of the most
• $50,000 to $500,000 for bike and pedestrian improvements popular ones (Winters,
• $2.0 million for housing and parking projects 2008)
Transit-oriented dev’t (TOD): a tool for smart
growth
TOD vs urban sprawl:
• Sprawl drives up dev’t cost; requires expansion
of public infra (e.g., roads, water lines,
electrical services, sewer lines)
• Public service costs rise from increased service
req’ts (e.g., fire & police, road maintenance)
• Dev’t at transit stations: communities realize
economies of scale in new infra investments land readjustment (before & after )
• Reducing automobile dependence; TOD reduces
traffic congestion and associated costs

Image source: Nagamine, H. (1986) ; The Land Readjustment

Techniques of Japan, HABlTAT INTL. Vol. IO. No. 112 pp. 51-58
Transit-oriented dev’t (TOD): a tool for smart
growth
• Misconception: TOD can be
created through the design &
dev’t of one project
• Usually takes multiple projects
working together
• Create an urban fabric
seamlessly blending ideals of
Smart Growth (a “transit zone”
instead of as a single project)
• TODs usually cover a group of
city blocks, and typically
represents a neighborhood in
size and scale
Transit-oriented dev’t (TOD): a tool for smart growth
• TOD is usually designed &
spearheaded by a public
agency, usually manifesting
itself in zoning regulations
• Projects w/in TOD usually is
partnership bet. public & private
groups trying to achieve a win-
win situation (“transit-joint
dev’t”)
• Reliance on public
transportation creates need for
public-private partnerships bet.
developers and local
jurisdiction Image source: Larsson, G. (1997); Land Readjustment: Tool for Urban
Development, HABITAT INTL. Vol.21, No. 2, pp. 141-152
Transit-oriented dev’t (TOD): a tool for smart
growth
• Depending on where a TOD is located, its level of connectivity,
housing density, and mix of uses may vary
• Urban Downtown setting: mix of uses include office, entertainment,
multifamily housing, and retail
• Suburban Neighborhood: mix of residential, neighborhood retail, and local
offices

 Provide access
to Suburban
Centers and
downtown w/
trains running
every 20-30
minutes
Transit-oriented dev’t (TOD): obstacles
• Location liability
• Exclusionary zoning polices that limit densities,
stifle mix land usage
• Non-supportive gov’t policies
• Lack of incentives, outdated ordinances
• Institutional barriers
• Cross-jurisdictional struggles because of the
inter-jurisdictional nature of transit lines
• Lack of staff/personnel to monitor, facilitate TODs
• Dependence on automobile-oriented design
• Shift to mass-transit systems, non-motorized
transport platforms, pedestrianization
Regulatory Guides for Smart Growth & TOD
• PD 957, “Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Law” and
its revised implementing rules and regulations.
• Batas Pambansa 220, “Promulgation of Different Levels of Standards
and Technical Requirements for Economic and Socialized Housing
Projects” and its revised implementing rules and regulations.
• Batas Pambansa 344 – Accessibility Law
• RA 7279 – Urban Development and Housing Act;
• PD 1096 – National Building Code
• PD 1185 – Fire Code
• RA 6541 – Structural Code
• PD 856 – Sanitation Code

HLURB CLUP Guidebook Vol.3, Model Zoning Ordinance 2014

Regulatory Guides for Smart Growth & TOD
• HLURB Locational Guidelines and CLUP Guidebook
• RA 8749 – Clean Air Act
• RA 9003 – Ecological Solid Waste Management Act
• RA 7586 or National Integrated Protected Areas Act –
protected areas in both land and seas
• RA 9593 or Philippine Tourism Act – tourism zones and estates
• RA 9729 or Philippine Climate Change Act
• RA 10066 or Philippine Cultural Heritage Act – cultural and
heritage zones/areas
• RA 10121 or Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act –
disaster-prone and geo-hazard areas
Additional Source Guides
• https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/about-smart-
growth
• http://www.newurbanism.org/newurbanism.html
• https://www.cnu.org/ (Congress of New Urbanism)
• http://smartgrowth.org/smart-growth-principles/
• http://www.tod.org/
• http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/topics/lan
d-use-and-planning/transit-oriented-development-
(tod)
TOD in the Philippines: Policy Direction
• Roadmap for Transport Infra Dev’t for Metro Manila
and Surrounding Areas (NEDA)
• Greater Capital Region (GCR): comprised of Metro
Manila (national capital region), Region III, Region
IV-A
• Metro Manila Greenprint 2030 (MMDA)
• Mega Manila (Meg. Mla.): comprised of Metro
Manila, surrounding provinces of Pampanga,
Bulacan, Laguna Cavite & Batangas
• Metro Manila (MM): 16 cities, 1 municipality
TOD in the Philippines: Policy Direction
TOD in relation to NEDA transport infra plan
• Transport dev’t infra projects covering Metro Manila (MM)
and adjoining regions of Central Luzon and
CALABARZON, i.e. roads, airports, railway, ports
• TOD promotion once aspired transport infra dev’t is achieved
• MM as central function area, while north (R-3) and south
(R-4A) regional centers developed independently to
decongest and better support MM
• Transport infra linking all 3 regions comprising GCR
 TOD in the Philippines: Policy Direction

TOD in relation to MMDA Metro Manila

Greenprint 2030
• MMDA plan carries-on from where NEDA plan
left-off
• Detailing dev’t potentials for Metro Manila
amidst population growth & urban expansion, to
realize a Metro Manila spatial & dev’t plan that
is “green, connected, resilient” (vision statement, MMDA
Greenprint 2030)

Planning for a growing population in Metro Manila and

surrounding provinces (source: MMDA Greenprint
2030)
TOD in the Philippines: Policy Direction
Metro Manila Land Use
TOD in relation to MMDA Metro Manila (2011)

Greenprint 2030
• Integrate TOD principles to land use planning via
regulations, incentives (p.35, MMDA Greenprint 2030)
• Land use vary little around rail transit stations (i.e.
TODs); compared to urban fabric farther out the station
(e.g. mix-use devt’s).
• Many stations are surrounded by low-rise comm’l retail (source: MMDA Greenprint 2030)

structures rather than mix-use devts

• Create high-density, mix-use devts at center of
nodes
• Promote public transport ridership by minimizing long
commutes for shopping, entertainment, school, etc
NSRI (2015)
TOD in the Philippines: Policy Direction
TOD in relation to MMDA Metro
Manila Greenprint 2030
• Re-organize jeepney and Asian Utility
Vehicles (AUV) services
• Feed (rather than compete) w/ major
trunk routes and key nodes
• Providing short-distance intra-nodal
travel using clearer fuels & vehicle
technologies

NSRI (2015)
TOD in the Philippines: Policy Direction
TOD in relation to MMDA Metro Manila
Greenprint 2030
• Unlock land value through in-situ devt, upgrade
informal settlements
• Proximity to job & economic opportunities, rather
than relocation to peri-urban areas
• Higher densities generating urbane, green, creative,
human-centered street environments
• Allow private sector to develop high-rise apartments
& condominiums; attract middle class residents to
new areas
• Implement land readjustment to realize in-situ
devt NSRI (2015)
TOD in the Philippines: Current Status
National Govt (Conceptualization & Operationalization):
a. TOD is a popular tool & mentioned in govt plans. Currently associated
with private-partner partnerships (PPPs), hurdles to strengthen means
to promote, regulate TOD:
• Lack of outline steps detailing how to conduct, monitor, push TODs

b. Gov’t land acquisition for TOD is hampered due to weak

implementation of land acquisition law; land readjustment or land value
capture mechanism (P.D. 1517 Urban Land Reform)
• Land acquisition is project-based; not pre-emptive

http://hlurb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/laws-issuances/mandates/PD_1517.pdf
TOD in the Philippines: Current Status
Regional Govt (Coordination):
a. MMDA coordinates w/ national agencies & local govts where TOD
projects are to be placed; building consensus among MM mayors – in
line w/ national policy - to promote regional vision for a Metro Manila
devt that’s “green, connected, resilient” (vision statement, MMDA Greenprint 2030)

b. However there is need to improve capacity of MMDA to implement

regional policy, as well as to compile data needed to measure impact
to surroundings in event of TOD project implementation
TOD in the Philippines: Current Status
Local Govt (Application):
a. Local autonomy is highlighted in its influence to approve policies (impacting region)
via consensus building (as member of MMDA council); and dev’t of zoning
ordinances and FAR incentives in consultation w/ private sector
• Policies related to national, regional plans; private sector recommendations

Private Sector (Land-banking, Govt Consultation):

b. Aside from PPP engagement, private sector groups acquire land to take advantage
of existing/proposed rail lines & stations, where a shift from road-based to rail-based
devt is forming
• Consultation w/ govt is pursued to further sync & promote private sector agenda w/ govt policy
(e.g. Plan creation, modification of zoning ordinances, FAR considerations)

https://ppp.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-Local-Government-Code-of-the-Philippines.pdf
TOD in the Philippines: Issues & Concerns
Inhibitors
a. Metro Manila being a road-based metropolis, its rail-based devt model started late
• As result, land usage opportunities for rail-based TOD is no longer as open compared to
primarily rail-based & planned metropolitan regions
• Current volume of operational train couches, overall reliability of rail system is suspect

b. Current administrative set-up where regional govt agency is limited to coordination,

local govt consensus building
• Weakens ability to efficiently / proactively orchestrate aspired TOD regional policy agenda for
Metro Manila

c. Limitations in govt resources to fast-track financing of projects, land acquisition,

implementation of railway system dev’t
TOD in the Philippines: Issues & Concerns
• Incentives
a. Private groups located along built rail lines discover profit
opportunities in connecting w/ rail stations, leading to:
• Integration of their road-based comm’l & res’l devts to rail system;
consultations w/ local government re: zoning, FAR considerations
• More active private sector participation w/ govt regarding
current/future TOD opportunities
b.MMDA (regional agency) being under Office of President, MM
mayors tend to accommodate MMDA policies as prioritized by
the President
• Political considerations become incentives in administration, policy
implementation
c. Public-Private partnerships (PPP) used by govt to fast-track
TOD initiatives
TOD in the Philippines: Issues & Concerns
• Challenges of TOD implementation
a. Improve state of rail-based infra, alongside relationship w/ existing
road-based public transport systems
• Persuade public to let go of their cars, lessen reliance to traditional public
transport mediums (e.g. jeepneys, buses)
• Lack of implemented incentive & regulatory mechanisms in-line with
promoting rail based, mass-transit system
b. Without duly elected mandate (i.e. appointee w/o fixed term),
regional agency (MMDA) head is more vulnerable to political
pressures
• Political will to push unpopular but effective regional policy (e.g. regional
TOD concerns) may be weakened
c. Rate of expansion of current rail lines is overtaken by rate of
population growth, urban sprawl; opportunities for TOD is lessened if
there is not much acquired land to use around rail stations
TOD in the Philippines: Moving Forward
• Lessons learnt
a. Applicability of TOD experiences from a rail-based/planned
metropolis (e.g. Tokyo) is limited in a road-based/planned region
like Metro Manila
• Reactive rail system devt strategies (e.g. building train stations in highly
built-up areas instead of other way around) tends to be the norm in
Metro Manila
• Road-based transport systems strongly embedded; efforts must be
made to complement these along with rail-based systems
b. Political considerations in regional admin set-up, alongside local
autonomy should be considered in pushing for TOD endeavors
c. Govt may take cue on private sector initiatives in land banking
along identified rail system routes
• Explore mechanisms that will promote efficient usage of land
surrounding these stations (to promote more TODs)
TOD in the Philippines: Moving Forward
• Recommendations
a. Rationalization of road-based public transport systems to
improve its relationship w/ rail-based transit medium
• Connection w/ road-based transport mediums (e.g. jeepney, bus)
should provide convenient integration in proposed TODs
• Amidst rationalization, support for road-based public transport
drivers & franchisees to be affected should be inclusive, pro-poor
b. TODs in surrounding provinces may be considered more, given
state of urban saturation in Metro Manila (e.g. land banking)
• Expansion of rail system to north, south, and eastern flanks of
Metro Manila will provide TOD opportunities that will take
advantage of rail-based mobility, decongest Metro Manila
• Ensure rail operation, maintenance secures consistent system
integrity; persuade public to let go of their cars & less reliance with
traditional road-based public transport (e.g. jeepneys, buses, etc)
mediums, improve patronage of rail-based TODs
TOD in the Philippines: Moving Forward
c. Strengthen regional govt by installing a duly elected Metro
Manila governor, council to push for regional policies conducive
to TOD
• Learn from institutional practices from other countries on how to
reconcile political realities w/ administrative concerns that will be
conducive to TOD especially at regional scale & engagements
d. Land readjustment policies may be pursued both in Metro
Manila & surrounding provinces where rail systems are to be
expanded, developed
• Create support mechanisms that reconcile socio-economic & cultural
considerations unique to Philippine land ownership, usage
e. Introduction of financial mechanism

*http://www.philstar.com/business/2015/06/03/1461499/foreign-ownership-limits-hinder-phl-growth-potential`
TOD in the Philippines: Moving Forward
f. Strengthen institutional framework involving
transportation authorities, local & national govts
• Beyond regulation, promote zoning regulations that
influence private sector land devt
g. Integration of road & rail-based transit platforms
may be pursued; hybrid TOD strategy that consider
socio-economic consumer preferences, cultural
characteristics unique in Philippine cities
 SMART GROWTH & TOD
CASE STUDY:
“BUKLOD”
(A WALKABLE & TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITY)

Metrobank Foundation, 2016

Site & User Relation w/ Design Solution
Connecting site to existing rail
lines & systems
• Complement w/ mix-use
walkability (TOD)
Diverse Building Typologies on-
site
• Mix use: satisfy changing user
needs over time
Biomimicry as growth
inspiration
• Template for project replication;
using design as sustainable
urban dev’t catalyst Metrobank Foundation, 2016
Filipino-ness & Universal Values
• Tradition, Heritage, Order:
Preserving Filipino design cues
& Identity
• Mix-use zones: Integrate Filipino
cult’l nodes (tindahang sari-sari,
barberya, etc)
• Reinforce local values & beliefs
• Art: Sculptural elements integrated
into façade
• Public space: community relations,
social access: “Fiesta”
• Strengthen Filipino family bonds,
relationships
Metrobank Foundation, 2016
Site Development Plan

Metrobank Foundation, 2016

Smart Street Intersection

Metrobank Foundation, 2016

Aerial Perspective

Metrobank Foundation, 2016

Aerial Perspective

Metrobank Foundation, 2016

Thank you for
your attention