Philippine Skyline - How I View Them

          What is a skyline? A skyline is the view of a city’s tall buildings and structures consisting of many skyscrapers in front of the sky in the background. It can also be described as the artificial horizon that a city's overall structure creates.[1] It gives the identity of a city and the most unique thing about it is that no two buildings in a skyline are alike. Most skyscrapers in a skyline are used as office buildings and because of this skylines are seen as the symbolism of the power of the city’s economy. The more tall skyscrapers you have, the more power you have in the economy. Our skyline is a representation of our modernity through the modern designs of our buildings.



           What is our Philippine skyline? How do we define our skyline? What impact does it give the Filipino people whenever they see the skyline of Makati or Ortigas, or the many buildings grouped together in Malate? Do we like the way our skyline shows our country’s modernity? Do we have iconic buildings in our skyline that we could say it would represent the Philippines? These are the questions I ask myself every time I pass by the streets of Makati and Ortigas. I live in Pasig and also in a condominium in EGI Taft Tower, Taft Avenue because of the distance of the site from my school. Every time I travel going back to Taft from Pasig during the weekends, I would alternately take the route to EDSA or the route to Makati. I would pass by the busy streets of Makati and or Ortigas and I would notice how busy the people walking in the sidewalk are. They wore these business attires with ties and carrying their brief cases while talking on their phones altogether while walking very fast. Some were even running. I would notice and observe them weave through some of the not so busy people and race to the entrance of their buildings. They were business men. They were racing against time because maybe their offices were located in the upper half of the building and maybe they were already late and the elevators had a full queue of other business men who were also in a hurry. This is what a business man would see his building, a tall, “makes me late for my work and now I’m all sweaty” building. But what would a bystander, normal citizens who are not into business and architecture, think of a skyscraper? How do they see a skyscraper? Before I took up architecture in college, and not knowing a lot of how structures in our society work, I would see a skyscraper as just an ordinary building. Growing up in Davao, we don’t have any skyscrapers in the city because of the soft soil Davao has. So whenever I would come home to my birthplace, and whenever I see the skyline of Makati and Ortigas, I would be amazed to see the magnificent towers cover the streets we were passing through on a sunny day. But I just saw them as tall buildings occupied by a lot of people. I knew back then that they were for offices for famous business companies because I knew relatives who used to work in them. I didn’t have the time and knowledge to appreciate the aesthetics of the buildings and wonder how they were made to stand tall in an earthquake prone country. I was unmindful of what they meant to our society, being a colony of America, the most powerful economy in our world. I wasn’t that interested in the buildings, I was just amazed to see such marvellous structures. Now that I am in my second year of Architecture in the De La Salle – College of Saint Benilde, I have found interest in observing our skyline with knowledge of how their designs came from the influence of other styles. As an architecture student, I now question myself how the builders of each of the skyscrapers in Makati and Ortigas design the aesthetics of the buildings and how they would look when grouped together with other buildings. I would ask myself how they were able to make these tall buildings stand for over 40 years now, how they were structurally made and what makes them stable when earthquakes happen. I would imagine what the functions of the many spaces inside this tall building would have and how they would affect the people using the building. I would ask myself if the buildings were successful in their designs and their functions as well. These questions come to mind whenever I pass by Makati and or Ortigas when going back and forth from Pasig and Taft.



           What does our skyline tell us? Whenever I see the skyline of Makati from my school building, I would see the skyline of Makati telling me a story. A story of how our country was ravaged by the powerful countries that tried to control our country. Being colonized by Spain and America, and also being controlled by Japan for a few years, we have so many buildings that were influenced by their styles and culture. We had so many colonial houses in the Philippines like Bahay na Bato because of the Spanish influence, then when we were colonized by America, after 333 years with Spain, we were faced with another style, and these style were different with the ones we were used to before. But when America left and Japan saw their chances, and later they had a war with America set in the Philippines, most of our structures were destroyed and burnt into ashes. We lost most of the buildings we got from the influence of Spain. We also lost some of the modern buildings America gave us. The American-Japanese War destroyed our society. But in the end, the Americans still stayed with us and even became allies with them. They helped us and influenced us in making modern designs and structures and skyscrapers that would later define the power of our economy. The skyline of Makati tells the story of the things our society lost in the war, and through the many years of rebuilding, we were able to stand tall and became and independent country. The skyline of Makati symbolizes the Filipino people, standing tall against the many small buildings (Filipinos before the war) and showing the change the colonizers brought here. This is a way of how our skyline symbolizes Filipinos because you can see that many other countries still don’t have what we have right now. We still see many countries who are dependent to other countries.



           I have been to many Asian countries outside the Philippines like Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Thailand and when I would compare the skyline of the Philippines to the skyline of the other countries, I would say that we have no iconic skyscraper in the Philippines. Countries like Malaysia that has the Petronas Twin Towers and Hong Kong that has the HSBC Tower have iconic skyscrapers because these buildings were designed by either famous architects or they were design to break a world record. The skyscrapers in the Philippines were built for business purposes and are not used as tourist attractions and thus, we do not have iconic skyscrapers we can call a true Filipino design. Our iconic structures are the small but aesthetically designed buildings that were built from the influence of the Spaniards and Americans in our society. In order for us to have an iconic skyscraper, we must first find out the true identity of a Filipino. What is Filipino Architecture? Have architects shown true Filipino Architecture. Do we really have a unique Filipino style that we can call our own? If we have found this unique Filipino Architecture identity, then we can easily build a skyscraper that shows Filipino architecture and would then be an icon Filipinos and foreigners would look at as part of Philippine culture. One city that I know that has their own identity when we see their skyscrapers is the city of New York in the United States of America. It is truly a concrete jungle. The skyline of New York can be easily identified before because of the World Trade Center, also known as the Twin Towers, but because of the terrorist bombing that crumbled the economic power and structure of America, the skyline of New York has changed. Sure they still have the same buildings, and maybe even more buildings to be built, but the twin towers gave them their image. In my opinion, the skyline of New York looks a little bit like the skyline of Chicago, unless you would see the Statue of Liberty in the picture. This is what I mean when I say that iconic structures define the cityscape. Since then New York has never been the same without the Twin Towers. The bombing was a symbolism of the momentary damage to the economy of the United States of America, the most powerful economy today. Because of these happenings, in time, another country will have the power of the economy.



           A country that I think that has an unsuccessful skyline is the country of Dubai. I mean come on, think about it. You have many small structures grouped with a few skyscrapers. And the skyscrapers have even been grouped far from each other. Then suddenly a gigantic tower appears out of nowhere. It was like a tall three that grew in the middle of shrubs. It was different from the other buildings. In my opinion, it doesn’t blend well with the surroundings because the country of Dubai is a country of desert. It seems weird that a tall building like this would rise up from a country like Dubai but don’t get me wrong, Dubai had a good economy before, but now that they had gone bankrupt because of this structure seems pretty likely that it would happen, and for what reason did they build this structure? To increase tourist visits? Make Dubai a famous country? Or just to break a world record? Whatever their reasons are, I still find that the building of Burj Khalifa a failure and a waste of time in building, a waste of man power, a waste of money. I also read in an article that not many people would want to live in that building because of the air pollution Dubai has. But now that the ownership of the building has changed hands, I hope that they will try to show us that the Burj Khalifa can be a successful structure in many ways. And they have already started this advertising, particularly in the upcoming film of Tom Cruise, Mission Impossible 5, which shows him dangling from a rope on the Burj Khalifa tower.



           Our skyline does not really show our image us a Filipino country, but it shows the influence of other countries to us and how we take into our designs these influences. I know that in the future, our skyline will change and show the true modern side of the Filipinos, but also keeping our historical buildings in place. In time, future Filipino architects will change the face of Filipino architecture, and I hope that I will be one of those architects to do so. The skyline of Makati and Ortigas shows that we can become a modern country and still keep our ancestral structures intact. I would say that our country is still a young country. We are still a country in our teenage years while the countries of Malaysia and Singpore are young adults, and the country of America are full grown adults while the European countries that started all of this are elders. This means that we can still improve our society and how our country would look like. We can still catch up to our older brother and sister countries and join their ranks one day. But for now, we can only look at our skyline and imagine those things.

IS THERE REALLY A FILIPINO ARCHITECTURE?

What is Filipino Architecture? Is there really a true Filipino Architecture style? If there is, what are the qualities of a Filipino Architecture? How do we know that it is our own architectural style and not the style of other countries that have influenced much of our architects here in the Philippines? These are the questions a Filipino architecture student must ask himself/herself when learning about other styles that have already paved the way to more up and coming styles in the future. These questions, if answered, would give light to what our own unique style of designing is. Other Asian countries like China, Japan, India, and Thailand, have unique styles of designing that they could truly call their own. It is as if we just copied what other Asian countries have already accomplished to build. It gives our country the image that it is just a country that has been mixed with other cultures. From the influences of Asian countries, to the influences of Spain and America, we just look like a country that is mixed and blended like a ‘halo-halo’. But the ‘halo-halo´is special, so what makes our country special? Again, do we really have our own Filipino Architecture style?

Before I even became an architecture student, I was already fond of architecture and how architects work. I have studied about the history of the Philippines and other countries in our history classes in high school and I saw different pictures of the unique houses and buildings of the various places we studied about. We also went to museums and field trips that displayed the many designs of a ‘bahay kubo’, but I never really concentrated on studying the architectural side the buildings I learned about. Anyway, before I became an architecture student in Benilde, I have always thought that are ‘bahay kubo’ was truly Filipino. I always thought that we had this one of a kind design of a house that had a square plan, four square walls on each side, a triangular roof made with dried leaves, and bamboos that make up the entire materials of the rest of the house. I have always thought that we were the first ones to create this and I was proud for our country. I also went on a vacation to Iloilo and Vigan City before and after I became an architecture student and I was proud to see the structures our ancestors built. I had an intense sublime moment when I walked the streets of Iloilo and the famous street of Vigan City. I was amazed and thankful to see that some of the ancestral houses were preserved as a heritage site not only for the public to see but also for the architecture students to learn from. But then I entered college and my perception on buildings and their designs have changed. Taking up architecture and going through four Architectural History subjects and after studying the various designs of the buildings of the many countries that were historical famous in the world, I find it hard to pinpoint the true definition of the Filipino Architecture. In my first three Architectural History subjects, I learned how structures, that started from caves and boulders that were placed on top of each other, evolved from time to time because of the way humans adapt to their environment. After the third Architectural History subject, which was Asian architecture, I was surprised to learn that other countries like Thailand, Malaysia, and even Indonesia had indigenous houses like our houses in the Philippines. Their houses were even more different than the design of our houses. For example, the indigenous houses of Thailand had tall roofs, even as tall as a three story building, and that’s just their roofs. Other houses were already built with thought out plans that made the design of the house efficient. Then I thought about our indigenous houses here in the Philippines. They were just cube houses built for the use as a sleeping room. Yes, the aesthetics of the house were designed well, especially since we had only used materials we got from nature. Materials like bamboo, rattan, and dried leaves were used perfectly to not only make the house stand, but also to compliment the aesthetics of the house. I used to think we were a special country that had a special Filipino architecture, but having learned about how China and India started to explore the world and therefore influence other Asian countries around them, I learned that our houses were the results of the many influences of other countries because of the trades that happened. We were just another country that copied the style of other countries, and then changed it a little bit. In our final exam for the third History subject, we were asked a question. The question was “Is there truly a Filipino Architecture?” I wasn’t able to really answer the question correctly as I was pondering on whether we truly have a Filipino Architecture. Justifying my answer was even hard because I wasn’t sure of what I was writing as I was just writing all the thoughts that came to mind. But thankfully I passed with flying colors.

Then the fourth and last Architectural History subject came and it was about ‘Philippine Architecture’. The first thing my professor asked on the first day of class is “Is there truly a Filipino Architecture?” The students in my class were busy thinking of justifiable answers they could give the professor. Students started to raise their answers to the professor, but our professor, a graduate of the University of Santo Tomas, one of the Centres of Excellence in Architecture in the Philippines, countered my classmates’ answers. So the only thing the students were left to do was to raise questions. The class ended with us learning how the ‘bahay kubo’, a structure I once thought of as a unique Filipino Architecture, came to be. The ‘bahay kubo’ came from the influence of other Asian countries. The idea of building a house made up of indigenous materials was brought to us because of the trades we had with the countries close to us. The term ‘bahay kubo’ came from the Spanish term “Cubo” (I don’t know if this is the right spelling) which means “cube”. Our ‘bahay kubo’, if you look at it closely, is just a cube house with a triangular roof. After all of the discussions, our professor left us again with the same question he started with the class. “Is there truly a Filipino Architecture?” I was left to wonder that maybe it is truly a Filipino Architecture because Filipinos built it. The materials came from our country and the design of the house was designed to adapt to our environment. But again, who came up with the idea of this?

After not having any other answers to justify my answer, I explored the ‘bahay na bato’ to see if it is truly Filipino Architecture. The ‘bahay na bato’, one of the first architectures in the Philippines, were made out of stone. The ground floor was built entirely out of stone. The upper floor/s was built with our indigenous materials. Is it truly Filipino Architecture? In my opinion, it is a big NO. The ‘bahay na bato’ was built by Filipinos and the materials used came from our country as well, but who had this idea planned out? It was the Philippines’ colonizers, the Spaniards, who thought of this idea. The Filipinos weren’t the ones who planned and the designed the ‘bahay na bato’, they were just the builders of it. So another “Filipino Heritage Structure” comes off the list as a possible structure with a true Filipino Architecture.

In my opinion, I think that we do have our own Filipino Architectural style. We just haven’t found the right definition for it though. We haven’t yet pinpointed the unique style that can only be found in the Philippines, and if we do find it, it would help define what Filipino Architecture is. The current mission of the Filipino architects and architecture students is to find the right definition of Filipino Architecture. As Filipino architects, we must show the architectural world that we have a true style that we can call our own. And if we find these structures that fit the definition, we can have it as a true heritage Filipino structure. Before I retire from architecture when I do become an architect, I hope to see that the future generation would come up with a definition of what a true Filipino Architecture is. As for now, I will stick with my own answer to the question and that is “We do have a Filipino Architecture, but we really don’t have the exact definition for it just yet.” I asked some of my classmates what their answers are. Some said that “If it is built by Filipinos, then it must be a Filipino Architecture.” Others answered “Yes we do have Filipino Architecture, but it has been mixed with the other styles we learned from other countries.” So I leave you with a thought I have yet to find the correct answer to. Do we really have a Filipino Architecture? Justify it.