Asian Urbanism: Visions & visionaries

This is the century of Asian Urbanism. Way before we even hit the next one, most of the population of this dynamic region will be living in cities. Asia will host the largest and densest cities in the world redefining and reshaping the reality and definition of urbanism into one that we only have an inkling of today.

This new urbanism or urban future may bring with it the promise of increased quality of life for Asians or it may take the opposite turn and exacerbate the problems many Asian cities face today – pollution, traffic, lack of affordable housing, crime and the disappearance of community and urbanity. Will a civilized urbane life be lost in the relentless and mainly uncontrollable urbanization we see today?

This is the question we hope to answer at a conference to be held a fortnight from now. Urbanism vs. Urbanization: Sustainable Development Through Smart Growth (Sept.12-13 at the SGV Hall-AIM Corporate Center) will bring in several speakers from the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, city planning, urban economics and urban development.

Most of the speakers are Asian and it is through an Asian perspective that we must view our urban predicament. This is the approach of one of the most vocal speakers of the group, a Singaporean architect and planner, a visionary who’s articulations on issues of physical planning and criticisms of "modern" and modernist development have made him (initially) a controversial figure in his homeland.

William Lim is an icon in the landscape of Asian architecture and planning. His reputation as a polemicist for people-centered planning, and culturally as well as bio-climactically sensitive architecture is widespread...except for the Philippines; a point which I took up with him when we met recently in Singapore.

Lim had just attended the speech delivered by President Arroyo, one he needed to ground his coming talk in Manila to met him in the afternoon at his office by the Singapore River. He came to greet me at the lobby, clad in fashionable basic black, a contrast to his "visionary’s" white mane. But Lim is neither basic nor are his rants and raves clearly black or white.

William Lim studied architecture at the Architectural Association in London in the Fifties taking further studies in City and Regional Planning at Harvard before settling down to practice in the nascent republic of Singapore. He soon realized that architecture and planning were tools of social change that needed to be grounded in serious discourse, so he and a number of like-minded young architects and planners formed the Singapore Planning and Urban Research (SPUR) group.

SPUR problematized the Singaporean and, by extension, the Asian urban condition, and sought to find paradigms of physical development that was sustainable and addressed cultural issues. Not all of SPUR’s manifestos sat well with the government, which was then faced with the mammoth task of housing an increasing population and shoring up an economy racked by political trauma and social unrest.

SPUR’s ideas, such as high-density, inner core development for cities, mass transit and pedestrian-oriented transport along with conservation of green spaces are today key concepts of an emerging humanist urbanism. It just took a while. (While here in Manila we seem to be stuck in the dark ages of an inhuman urbanism where mass transit is mess transit, pedestrians are treated like dogs and the only thing green is the stagnant muck that tons of uncollected garbage fester on.)

Back to Lim – In the ’70s he formed another group to cover the wider geographic sphere of Asia. The group included Fumihiko Maki, Koichi Nagashima from Japan, Tao Ho from Hong Kong, Sumet Jumsai from Thailand and Charles Correa from India. The group apparently tried to contact Philippine architects but since our orientation was towards America no one came to represent us.

The group, explained Lim, endeavored to give direction to Asian architecture, one that was enriched by the exchange of ideas and sharing of professional experience. These were practitioners after all and not just academics. The group established a network for the production of architectural knowledge that influenced the production of spaces and structure; that in turn helped and is helping in the evolution of an Asian architecture and Urbanism.

The Philippines and Filipino architects have had limited involvement in venues of this sort and have not contributed much to the growing discourse. This makes the coming conference important for local practitioners and academics. This is also the reason William Lim is coming. He says that he, along with other like those in this conference, feel the need to expand and sustain this discourse of post-modernity and post-colonialism in architecture and urbanism to cover all countries in Asia.

The heterogeneuous mix of cultures in the region is reflected in the populations of its cities and it is partly this multi-layered nature which gives Asian urbanism a texture that western-framed planning theory cannot make sense of much less direct towards sustainability. This is generally the message of Lim in his half-dozen books published so far. Equity and the Urban Environment in the Third World (1975), An Alternative Urban Strategy (1980), Cities for People (1990), Contemporary Vernacular: Evoking Traditions in Asian Architecture with Tan Hock Beng (1997), Asian New Urbanism (1998), Alternatives in Transition (2001)

Manila is mentioned often in Lim’s books and he referred to our city often in our short conversation. Lim was concerned with our housing problem and the lack of success we have faced despite the presence of civil society and a free press. (But I shall leave most of his musings for the conference.) There is another side to architect Lim that is of relevance to Manila.

In the 1980s Lim was a founding member and first president of the Singapore Heritage Society. Singapore up to that time was heading full steam into urban redevelopment and demolishing heritage structures and erasing historic sites along the way. The SHS, like our Heritage Conservation Society, was formed to save these sites and structures of memory.

Today Singapore has a successful and sustainable conservation program that not only adds to the distinctiveness of the city-state but also brings in visitors from all over the world to share in its rich culture. Our city of Manila and the surrounding megalopolis, in contrast, are threatened with daily demolitions, erasures and blighted infrastructure that threaten to homogenize the city into a series of megamalls interspersed with clogged traffic arteries and smothered in the rich toxic smog of what passes for air.

Lim, in his books, cites the need to examine the strengths and weaknesses of Asian Urbanism today to be able to improve it. Pollution, traffic and loss of heritage are key issues tackled. Lim advocates growth management for cities as a tool (much like William Whyte – last week’s article) citing the reality of land an important and finite resource. He also advocates strong or deliberate government, which "must have the right to control and regulate all developments... It must be able to benefit from the sale of the land, the change of use and the increase of development intensity. The revenue generated can be substantial, and should not be forfeited because of patronage and cronyism (my italics) ... Squatter areas and slums exist because we have not allocated out land resources appropriately."

Lim outlines three major issues for Asian new urbanism. First it is the reinvention of the past – to "correct the distortions of our colonial past, and to conserve heritage as living tradition" ...not a "frozen" one. Second, Asia must participate in post-modern society and with this Lim clarifies that Modernism should not be a western concept or construct but one defined by the realities of our culture and situation with the core values being freedom, tolerance, pluralism, transparency, participatory democracy, resource sustainability and anti-consumerism. Finally we must, Lim advises, welcome information technology and the coming network society.

Lim’s talk is surely going to be an interesting one for anyone concerned with urban issues. But it also has to be remembered that he is an architect and therefore Filipino architects may find relevance in his ideas. His take on architecture: "Architecture to me is both a personal and a social art. It captivates my whole being, value and lifestyle within the broader societal framework of culture, equity and humanism. This complex perception is at once pragmatic and flexible as well as realistic and idealistic. It generates the continuous need to examine critically the relevance of my own professional work and the meaning of life itself."

Filipino architects, landscape architects, urban designers, planners and all those concerned with the value of our urban lives would do well to take this opportunity for reflection and critical examination. The conference: Urbanism Vs. Urbanization: Sustainable Development Through Smart Growth is organized by the Luis A. Yulo Foundation for Sustainable Development, Inc., with co-partners Palafox Associates, University of Santo Tomas, College of Architecture and Fine Arts, the United Architects of the Philippines, and the Management Association of the Philippines. For reservations please call (632) 848-16-39 to 41 or e-mail E-mail: terelay@info.com.ph .

* * *

Feedback is welcome. Please email the writer at citysensephilstar@hotmail.com.