Torre de Manila, Rizal monument can co-exist DMCI

By Robertzon Ramirez and Richmond Mercurio (The Philippine Star) | Updated July 1, 2015 - 12:00am

PHOTO BOMBER COMMUNITY: DMCI presented this artists rendition of a future Manila skyline to argue its
case against the demolition of Torre de Manila.
MANILA, Philippines - Demolish the national photo bomber? Far from it.
The developers of Torre de Manila stood firm yesterday in arguing that there is no reason to demolish the
controversial condominium building, as it can co-exist with the monument of national hero Jose Rizal in the
park named after him.
DMCI Homes, the property unit of listed conglomerate DMCI Holdings Inc., also said it followed all the rules
and complied with all relevant laws needed for the development of the project.
Cultural heritage and progress can co-exist, DMCI Homes project development manager Florence Loreto said
in a press briefing yesterday.
Loreto noted that construction of high-rise structures around national monuments normally happens in major
cities all over the world such as in Jakarta, Amsterdam, Mexico City and Shanghai, among others.
She added that some industrial establishments in the country were also built in the midst of national
monuments such as the Bantayog ni Bonifacio in Caloocan City, the EDSA Shrine in Quezon City, the First
Rizal Monument in the World in Camarines Norte, the Liwasang Bonifacio in Manila and the Rizal monument in
Zamboanga City, among others.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

They prove that the past and present can go together, that heritage does not hamper progress, she said.
Loreto also stressed there is no basis to demolish the 46-story building since they have not violated any
laws and the project was cleared by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP).
The clearance from the NHCP allows us to erect Torre de Manila in that lot. It says that we are not in
obstruction (of the view of the Rizal monument). We are outside the boundaries of the national shrine and the
lot is a commercial property, with no cultural or historical significance, she said.
She added that under the law, only those who destroy, demolish, mutilate or damage any cultural property and
modify, alter or destroy the original features or undertake construction in any national shrine are punishable.
With Jose Rodel Clapano

Manila councilor wants NHCP execs to resign over Torre de Manila controversy
By XIANNE ARCANGEL,GMA News July 13, 2015 6:01pm
A Manila City councilor on Monday called for the resignation of the two top officials of the
National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) for allowing the construction of the
controversial Torre de Manila condominium building in 2012.
City Councilor Don Juan DJ Bagatsing said NHCP chair Maria Sereno Diokno and Executive
Director III Ludovico Badoy should step down for failing to uphold the agency's mandate to
protect the country's cultural heritage through the conservation of historical sites.
Everyone now is blaming the city council for green-lighting the Torre de Manila project, but
what many dont realize is that its the NHCP which approved its construction. I think chair
Diokno and Executive Director Badoy should resign because of this, he told reporters at a news
forum.
In July 2012, Bagatsing sponsored a resolution seeking the suspension of the building permit
issued by Manila City Planning and Development Office (MCPDO) head Resty Rebong a month
earlier based on the guidelines and standards of the National Historical Commission of the
Philippines (NHCP), as well as existing national heritage and cultural laws.
The measure was eventually approved by the Manila City Council.
But four months later, amid developer D.M. Consunji Inc.s (DMCI) continued disregard of the
resolution, the NHCP sent a letter to Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim virtually clearing DMCI of any
liability from constructing the 46-storey residential building.
The Torre de Manila project site is outside the boundaries of the Rizal Park and well to the rear
(789 meters) of the Rizal National Monument, hence it cannot possibly obstruct the front view of
the said National Monument, the NHCP wrote in a letter dated November 9, 2012 and signed by
Badoy.
A similar letter, signed by Diokno, was also sent to DMCI consultant Alfredo Andrade that
month.
Estrada's term
Bagatsing believes the NHCPs letter emboldened DMCI to proceed with Torre de Manilas
construction despite the opposition lodged by conservationists and civic groups.
Had the NHCP expressed its opposition even before the construction of the building started,
perhaps we wouldnt have a problem at this time. Maybe DMCI wouldnt have proceeded with
the construction in the first place, he said.

The Manila City Council in November 2014 unanimously voted to suspend the DMCI's building
permit for Torre de Manila after it was found to have violated local zoning rules and following an
uproar from the public and from heritage conservationists.
But on January 24, 2015, the Manila Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals reconsidered the
suspension after DMCI appealed for an exemption to local zoning laws.
Under Ordinance 8119, otherwise known as the Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
buildings can go beyond the allowable height limit if the developer seeks an exemption from the
zoning board.
The necessary permits were eventually granted to DMCI for the Torre de Manila project and it
was cleared of any violation of the National Building Code.
Last month, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order barring DMCI from
proceeding with Torre de Manila's construction "until further notice from the court. JDS,
GMA News

Solon offers solution to Torre de Manila

issue: Turn the Rizal Monument around
By TINA PANGANIBAN-PEREZ, GMA News

July 1, 2015 7:55pm

The controversial 46-storey Torre de Manila condominium looms in the background from the Rizal Monument at
Luneta Park in Manila in this photo taken June 16, 2015. On July 1, Makati Rep. Amado Bagatsing suggested turning
the Rizal Monument around to face the city instead of the sea as a solution to the Torre de Manila's "photobombing"
of the monument. AFP/Jay Directo
Turn the Rizal Monument around.
This is Manila Rep Amado Bagatsing's proposed solution, not just to the Torre de Manila condominium currently
"photobombing" the monument, but also to rectify historical records that brand Jose Rizal a traitor.
At a hearing of the House committee on Metro Manila development, Bagatsing said that even some historians have
questioned why Rizal's statue was made to face the sea, with his back turned to the City of Manila.
Bagatsing said the placement may reinforce the Spaniards' intentions when they planned on shooting Rizal in the
back for being a traitor. Rizal insisted on facing his executioners.
"Buti pa yung kalabaw, nakaharap sa siyudad. Bakit si Rzal, nakatalikod?" asked Bagatsing, referring to a carabao
statue in Rizal Park.
"To me, Rizal is a national hero. He should not be classified as a traitor," he stressed.
But the National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA) is against the proposal.
"Masama na nga ang tingin natin sa Torre de Manila, ihaharap nyo pa si Rizal sa kanya?" said NCCA legal counsel
Trixie Angeles.
Angles also explained that Rizal's statue was made to face the sea as a sign of the highest respect. "Tingnan mo ang
real estate values ng properties pag nakaharap sila sa tubig[riverside], oceanside, seaside properties. Mahal 'yan.
Kung kaya't binibigay natin kay Rizal ang pinakamahalagang real estate dito sa buong bansa," she said.
Angeles also pointed out that turning the Rizal Monument around would not solve the problem. "'Yung intensyon ng
Rizal Monument ay siya lang ang nagmamay-ari ng landscape. So kung itatalikod ninyo, it does not address the
incursion into the space," she said.
Bagatsing said he plans to talk to the National Historical Commission of the Philippines before filing a bill. BM,
GMA News
More from: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/514070/lifestyle/artandculture/solon-offers-solution-to-torre-demanila-issue-turn-the-rizal-monument-around

How To Solve The Torre De Manila

Problem: An Architects Solution
By Isabel Rodriguez on July 7, 2015

The controversy surrounding the Pambansang Photobomber Torre De Manila remains unresolved
and Filipinos are quick to offer serious, funny, and even ridiculous suggestions on how to solve the
issue.
Facebook user Samuel Briones offers another alternative. In these carefully crafted sketches that
was posted on his page, he proposes a compromise where the terror de Manila building need not
be demolished to preserve the historical integrity of the Rizal Shrine. Just how would that be done?
Have a look:

He writes: This artist sketch is my humble contribution to the solution of the controversial photo
bomber Torre De Manila building. The design will serve as an approriate background of the Rizal
monument at Luneta Park Manila.

All photos from Samuel Briones page.

According to his profile, Samuel Briones is an architect who graduated from the University of Sto.
Tomas.
What do you think about this solution?

COMMENTARY

Torre de Manila in context

SHARES:
VIEW COMMENTS

By: Juan V. Sarmiento Jr.

@inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:05 AM June 20th, 2015
RECOMMENDED
Biting the bullet
Truncated memory
Benham Rise and our landlocked vision
Benighted
Corporate responsibility
Not only the tragedy of the commons but also the Coase Theorem appear to be
applicable to the controversy involving the Rizal Monument at Luneta Park in Manila and
DMCI Homes Torre de Manila condominium project.
Classic examples of the tragedy of the commons are overgrazing that results in the
deterioration of the land and overfishing that leads to crashes in fish populations. These
examples involve taking something from common resources, like a pastureland or the
ocean.
In an article published in Science magazine in 1968, American ecologist Garret Hardin
wrote: In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of
pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of
putting something insewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water;
noxious and dangerous fumes into the air; and distracting and unpleasant advertising
signs into the line of sight.

Hardin added that the calculations of utility were much the same as before. The
rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the
commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this
is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of fouling our own nest, so long as we
behave only as independent, rational, free enterprises.
Cultural heritage is part of the commons, which refers not only to natural resources like
air and water that are accessible to all but also to the cultural sphere, like heritage sites,
literature, language and music. These are considered gifts and shared by all.
Thus, the destruction of the vista of a national heritage, like the monument to our
national hero, is a tragedy. A picture-perfect view of an unmarred Rizal Monument in
Manila is a cultural heritage, a national patrimony.
The Torre de Manila, which rises behind the monument, is a clear case of visual
pollution, a negative externality.
***
The controversy may also be viewed in the context of the Coase Theorem. The theorem
attributed to the 1991 winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, Ronald Coase, comes in
when finding a solution acceptable to the parties involvedthe one who causes the
negative externality and the one who is adversely affected by the externality.
It works when the transaction costs of bringing together all the people involved are low
and property rights are defined.
Heres an example: Pete, who likes dogs, gets value equivalent to P500 in taking his dog
to the office. But Petes dog imposes a cost equivalent to P400 on Ed, who suffers an
allergic reaction in the presence of dogs.
If Ed has the right to prevent Pete from taking his dog to the office, a possible solution
to the externality is for Pete to pay Ed P450. The amount more than covers the cost
borne by Ed, but is less than the value Pete gets from taking his dog to the office.
(This example is adopted from the one given by Prof. Jose J. Vasquez-Cognet of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in his online course microeconomics
principles.)
The externality problem was fixed and the total welfare of the two men was maximized
by assigning the property rights.

When property rights are established, the persons involved can negotiate and solve the
externality on their own.
In the case of the controversy involving the Rizal Monument and the Torre de Manila,
bringing the parties to the negotiating table would pose a problem. Why? Because there
are more than 100 million Filipinos who have the right to enjoy the unmarred vista of
the national heros monument. The transaction costs of bringing all the people involved
to the negotiating table are simply too high.
There are also the future generations to consider.
For Manila City Hall, allowing the developer to build beyond the seven-floor height
restriction in the area was negotiable. It took a number of months for DMCI Homes to
secure an exemption from the restriction. It is not farfetched to think that it paid more
than the amount required for the usual building permits and other fees to be able to be
given the go-signal to build the high-rise.
Somehow, the Coasian bargaining worked between Manila City Hall and DMCI. It
wouldnt work when the entire Filipino nation is involved. The transaction costs would be
too high.
Moreover, various groups like the Knights of Rizal want the construction stopped and
the structure demolished.
Juan V. Sarmiento Jr., senior desk editor of the Inquirer, is a resident of Barangay
Putatan in Muntinlupa City.

The Torre de Manila

controversy
INFOGRAPHIC

By JAMAICA JANE PASCUAL and TRISHA MACAS, Graphic by ANALYN PEREZ June 18, 2015 9:20pm

SC stops construction of Torre de Manila. The controversial 46-storey Torre de Manila condominium looms in the
background from the Rizal Monument at Luneta Park in Manila on Tuesday, June 16. The Supreme Court ordered the stop
in the construction of the high-rise building which has outraged Philippine conservationists for allegedly ruining views of a
national monument. AFP/Jay Directo

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the petitioners' plea that a temporary restraining order be imposed on the
construction of DMCI's Torre de Manila condominium project in Manila.
The planned 46-storey building supposedly destroyed one's view of the Rizal Monument as it towered from afar.
Past and incumbent city officials on Thursday traded barbs over who should be blamed for the construction fiasco.
Here, in a nutshell, are the events that transpired before this weeks developments regarding the Torre de Manila
controversy.

-NB, GMA News

More from: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/506502/news/metromanila/infographic-the-torre-de-manilacontroversy

TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH MYSELF. ONE STEP AT A TIME.

Posted 3
years ago

Ive been walking around the Luneta Park and thinking - a dangerous pastime I know. And Im
referring to the thinking part - not the walking around Luneta part.
And if it isnt obvious, my latest obsession is the DMCI Torre de Manila - an oversized condominium
off Taft Avenue that - according to their architectural rendering - threatens to overwhelm the Rizal
Monument. It was an image that went viral and caused national outrage online - by myself as well as
many others.
This DMCI plan has resulted in the flamebombing of their facebook and twitter pages, creation of
mocking memes, as well as media features and a protest onwww.change.org PILIPINAS. Its
amazing to see that Filipinos online are speaking up about their desire to protect Manilas history,
promote proper urban planning, and moderate the greed of big business in the country (SM and
SMDC being another issue).
Its apparent that Filipinos are asking MORE from the developers and oligarchs who steer our
economy. It seems not only do Filipinos want quality in the type of investments and projects are done
in the country, but also accountability and sensitivity as well.
And although I am happy about our fellow Filipinos raising a howl, I also dont want this to be another
deadlock. This should not be another situation where the protection of our heritage, proper urban
zoning, and economic development collide, create an impassse and nothing gets done. I dont
believe in whining for its own sake. So I took a walk and tried to look for solutions to this dilemma
and this is what I kinda came up with

Problem: The height of the DMCI Torre de Manilas location behind Jose Rizal threatens to
Photobomb the monument. Making the Rizal monument secondary when one looks at it while
promenading in FRONT of the Rizal Monument. (The Rizal Monument is oriented to face west and
this is the angle where we are SUPPOSED to see it).
Objective: Create a solution where the building itself DOES NOT impeding into the vista of the Rizal
Monument itself.
Possible Solution #1 - Cut the number of floors. Since this building is to the right of the Rizal
Monument, its lower part is covered by trees. By removing around 19 floors, the building itself does
not impede into the sightline nor take away the attention from Rizal.
Possible Solution #2 - Use glass to reflect the sky and make the building seem to disappear. Use
the cool kind that Zuellig building in Makati uses
Possible Solution #3 - Alter the promenade around the Rizal Monument so that people can walk
AROUND the monument and the viewing area is no longer is limited to the area in front of Rizal.
Now people can approach the monument and see it from ALL angles.
Possible Solution #4 - Add a few more TALL trees behind the Rizal Monument to the left and the
right. This will block the view of the building from the promenade and create a green curtain behind
the monument. Leave the area directly behind monument clear so one can see the Sierra Madre
mountains.
I would LOVE it if DMCI did the right thing and did Solution #1. But Id be happy to have Solution #3
or Solution #4. Either way, it would be great if DMCI would just address this issue instead of just
ignoring it. I mean, if their building is that great as they say, they should at least try to defend it.
Communicating with the public who have to look at their building FOREVER is just as important as
communicating with their own buyers. I mean, DMCI - you DO communicate with your buyers, dont
you?
But either way, I dont think I should be the one to contact about this issue anymore. I will just
promote the petition, file a complaint with City Council of Manila and emphasize the importance of
proper zoning, planning, and protecting the vistas of Rizal park. The real people that the press
should contact from here on are the Heritage Commission of Manila, The Heritage Conservation
Society, The National Historical Institute, and DMCI themselves.
And
Although Ive never seen a buildings construction stopped because of public outrage, Ive seen it
stopped because investors refused to touch it. Next: My thoughts about DMCI Torre de Manila: its
design and planning