Just recently, however, I received news that this big step forward has been followed quickly by two steps back for Filipino landscape architects as well as those in all the allied fields of architecture. Despite the National Artist honors that the country bestows on Filipino designers, the increasing activity in real estate and construction has spurred the re-entry of foreign architects, planners, landscape architects and interior designers. This will result in a built environment that blurs our sense of place, negates the contributions of Filipino artists and does nothing to foster a Filipino identity. More on this issue later.

IP Santos created the iconic courtyard for Gabriel Formoso's AIM complex.

First, the triumph—IP Santos is regarded by architects and academe as the “father of modern Filipino landscape architecture.” Although there were other nominees in the main field of architecture, Santos’ body of work has shown that modern Filipino architecture, from the sixties onwards, evolved, not in a vacuum, but in increasingly well-designed landscapes and urbanscapes. His contemporaries, like National Artist for Architecture Leandro Locsin, Gabriel Formoso, and Carlos Arguelles, benefited from Santos’ creations, which provided foreground, background and environmental context for countless individual buildings and complexes. Architecture, as well as all other related fields cannot move forward without acknowledging Santos’ continuing contributions as well as his past ouvre.

Vibrant landscapes

“ILDEFONSO PAEZ SANTOS, JR., landscape architect, distinguished himself by pioneering the practice of landscape architecture …in the Philippines and then (designing) hundreds of parks, plazas, gardens and a wide range of outdoor settings that have enhanced contemporary Filipino life.

IP’s landscape sets the stage for the monumental CCP building.

Santos’ designs for the land transcended the previously believed boundaries of “landscape design,” from mere embellishment of architecture and monuments to integral compositions of space, form and color that brought introspective and modern Philippine architecture out, literally, into the open.

His designs took inspiration from the Filipino celebration of free flowing, positive, ‘maaliwalas’ space. He understood and accommodated Filipino physiological, behavioral and social needs in providing shade, creating opportunities for friendly seating and the sharing of food and laughter in his public spaces. …His palette of materials embraced the whole gamut of tropical flora, often using plant material overlooked by fashion or treated with disdain because they were endemic—like the makahiya as ground cover or catmon as shrub planting. His design for ‘hard’ landscape elements like walkways, trellises, gazebos and outdoor furniture were always harmonious with the ‘soft’ planting elements, yet complimented the buildings that sat in his landscapes—a testimony to his original foundation in, and keen understanding of, building architecture.

Santos has shared this understanding and art with a new generation of landscape architects. He helped establish the first university programs in landscape architecture and championed the recognition of the art and profession by the government and allied fields. He also organized the Philippine Association of Landscape Architects.

…Santos’ landscape architecture was sensitive to both built and natural heritage. His revival of Paco Park and his landscape master plans for large-scale resorts are examples of the range of his work and the breath of his appreciation of cultural, as well as environmental, context.

Santos’ lifelong goals, that of creating order out of chaos and beauty out of blight, has managed to give Filipinos a glimpse of what is possible with the art of manipulating space, designing with nature and celebrating our exuberance as a people in the vibrancy of his landscapes.”

Taikoo Shing Complex's landscaped decks are IP's contribution to Hong Kong's cityscape.

Vibrant, culturally sensitive and environmentally sustainable architecture, interiors and landscape architecture is best produced by Filipino designers for Filipino users. Even resorts and leisure amenities built in the Philippines and catering also to overseas visitors, are best designed by artist/professionals who can imbue these tourism destinations with distinctive Filipino flavor. No one will come to visit a poor copy of Phuket or a bastardized Balinese complex. It will not help “brand” the Philippines or make it memorable for any visitor, local or otherwise. This specificity of place is the ultimate goal of architecture and its allied arts, without which all designs just support foreign cultures’ hegemonic agenda (the Disneyfication of the world).

A landscape of controversy

The laws regulating the practice of various design professions—architecture, interior design, landscape architecture and environment planning are very clear; these fields are open only to Filipinos licensed and registered with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). Until recently, these foreign consultants have been low-key and their employers sensitive to the parameters of professional practice.

Just a few weeks ago, however, the Philippine Association of Landscape Architects, through its national president, Frederic Altavas, conveyed a note of serious concern over a full-page advertisement (actually an ad that took several pages) that came out in various broadsheets. In this ad the developer cited the great value to the project that the landscape design imbued. The project’s main selling point was the fact that it had this great landscape design and not only was it great, but it was the work of a California-based landscape architect! The ad made a great to-do about the foreign-ness of the consultant, and clearly used the term “landscape architect” to describe the consultant’s role in the project.

Foreigners and foreign firms are not allowed to practice in the Philippines except under very limited conditions. First, the project, say a housing complex’s buildings design or landscape architecture, is a highly special type, which no Filipino professional has clear experience in designing. Second, that the country of origin of this foreign consultant allows Filipinos to do the same—a reciprocity agreement has to be in place. Third, that there is a Filipino counterpart who shares the professional fees equitably. Finally, if the three conditions are met, the foreign consultant is granted a permit from DOLE to work here subject to a PRC clearance.

Altavas reported that a check with the Chairman of the Board of Landscape Architecture at the Professional Regulation Commission confirmed that no foreign landscape architect had applied for a permit. The Association, Altavas clarified, had also sent all the major developers a letter informing them of the conditions for commissioning landscape architects when the law (the Philippine Landscape Architecture Act) was passed in 2001.

Clearly too, the project type is one that Filipino landscape architects and firms have expertise in (National Artist for Architecture, IP Santos has designed dozens). Neither California, or the United States federal government, nor the American Society of Landscape Architects has a reciprocity agreement with the Philippines or the association here. Filipino landscape architects cannot practice there. Finally, no Filipino counterpart was named or acknowledged in the ad.

Readers may think this concern is economic. They are right, but that is not the main issue. Foreign consultants do get anywhere from four, to as much as ten times the fees of local counterparts. These fees are also usually paid in dollars. The projection for the real estate industry overall is that tens of millions of dollars in consultants’ fees are going to be spent in the short to medium term because of the revived real estate boom. (Most foreign firms charge upwards of $ 50,000.00 or four million pesos for just a quick conceptual study, not including the cost of flying them into the country—while a local consultant is usually asked to do the “scheme” effectively for free or the promise of the larger job.) It is a big issue, but not the overriding reason for our attention.

There are also legal and safety concerns with any design that is used by the public or by private owners. The PRC regulates as a duty of government, to make sure that citizens are safe in the buildings and landscapes they live, work and play in. Building and site collapses in the past few years, because of deficient design, are evidence that public safety is a real risk in these projects.

Designing a Filipino future

Landscape vignettes of the Philippines were recreated by IPSantos at the Nayong Pilipino.

The price we pay as a people and a culture is high if we let foreign designers dictate the shape, structure and symbolism of our physical environment. What does it say of us as a nation if on the one hand we valorize a few creative designers for their decades of contribution while on the other hand aspire to live in simulated settings as Americans or Europeans? Is our dissatisfaction with who we are and what we are surrounded with so great that we seek all avenues of escape?

The Filipino landscape is threatened with a future that may transform it into something so foreign that we will lose our collective identity altogether. The fault is not in the overarching hegemony of foreign cultures and their agent/arbitrageurs led by these foreign consultants. That, and they, can be resisted. It is in not valuing our own culture and the contributions of fellow Filipinos like IP Santos, whose creations—as has been the goal of National Artists honored—ennobles the Filipino, engenders a national spirit and celebrates who we really are and can be.

Mabuhay ka IP at maraming salamat!

-----

Feedback is welcome. Please email the writer at paulo.alcazaren@gmail.com.

Reprinted from Paulo Alcazaren's "City Sense" column in The Philippine Star.