IMELDA AND MANILA: LANDSCAPE, POWER, AND URBAN CHANGE IN THE PHILIPPINES
By Karl Garcia
Introduction
Urban landscapes are physical records of political choice. Architecture, infrastructure, cultural investments, and spatial organization are shaped not only by technical planning principles but also by governance structures, ideology, and institutional capacity. In the Philippines, Manila’s transformation during the Marcos era (1965–1986) remains one of the most debated examples of how centralized political authority can rapidly alter a capital city’s form and symbolism.
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, as First Lady and later Governor of Metro Manila and Minister of Human Settlements, exercised formal authority over metropolitan development. Her role extended beyond ceremonial visibility into housing, cultural policy, and urban renewal. This essay examines Manila’s transformation during that period, the institutional consequences following the 1986 political transition, and how contemporary analysts—particularly Felino Palafox Jr. and Xiao Chua—frame the continuing debate over legacy, planning, and historical memory.
The objective is analytical rather than moralistic: to understand how power, vision, and institutional continuity shape cities over time.
Imelda Marcos and Formal Urban Authority
Imelda Marcos’s influence over Manila’s development was structurally grounded. As Governor of Metro Manila (1975–1986) and Minister of Human Settlements, she oversaw agencies responsible for urban renewal, housing programs, and major public works. This concentration of authority allowed for accelerated decision-making and project execution.
Historical documentation shows that she championed large-scale projects in culture, tourism, and civic identity. These initiatives aligned with the Marcos administration’s broader strategy of projecting modernization, order, and international legitimacy during martial law. Statements attributed to Marcos frequently expressed the belief that beauty, discipline, and national pride were interconnected—a philosophy that translated into highly visible urban interventions.
Urban Transformation During the Marcos Period
Several landmark projects reshaped Manila’s physical and symbolic landscape:
- The Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) complex
- The Philippine International Convention Center (PICC)
- The Folk Arts Theater (now Tanghalang Francisco Balagtas)
- The Lung Center of the Philippines
- Expanded reclamation and boulevard development
These developments reflected a governance model favoring centralized, high-visibility, and symbolically potent infrastructure. The speed of implementation was enabled by consolidated executive power and fewer procedural constraints.
However, urban renewal and relocation programs also produced displacement effects. Informal settler communities were moved to peripheral housing sites, often far from employment centers. Later urban studies documented how distance, weak transport integration, and limited livelihood opportunities undermined many relocation outcomes.
Thus, while specific zones experienced modernization, broader structural challenges—transportation systems, housing affordability, and service delivery—remained unresolved.
Landscape, Symbolism, and Authoritarian Urbanism
Urban design during the Marcos period served multiple purposes: infrastructure provision, narrative construction, and international signaling. Public spaces and monumental architecture emphasized permanence, order, and national progress.
Scholarly interpretations of authoritarian urbanism note that such environments often privilege visual coherence and symbolic impact over participatory planning. Manila’s experience fits this pattern. Centralized authority produced consistency and rapid execution but limited civic consultation and institutional pluralism.
The result was a cityscape marked by striking cultural and civic landmarks alongside persistent socio-spatial inequalities.
Post-1986: Institutional Change and Urban Fragmentation
The 1986 political transition dismantled centralized metropolitan governance. Metro Manila became administratively fragmented among multiple local government units (LGUs), each with distinct priorities, fiscal capacities, and political agendas.
While democratic accountability increased, metropolitan-scale coordination weakened. Recurring challenges included:
- Traffic congestion driven by weak transport integration
- Land-use inconsistencies across LGUs
- Housing deficits and informal settlements
- Infrastructure planning discontinuities
Many Marcos-era institutions remained operational, but without the unified command structure that had enabled their creation. Cultural institutions evolved toward broader access and programming, reflecting shifts in governance rather than simple abandonment.
The post-1986 period illustrates a core Philippine urban dilemma: strong local autonomy combined with weak metropolitan planning coherence.
Felino Palafox Jr. and Structural Planning Critiques
Felino Palafox Jr. has consistently argued that Metro Manila’s crisis is fundamentally a planning failure rather than merely a demographic one. Across lectures, proposals, and interviews, he highlights:
- Poor land-use planning and zoning enforcement
- Lack of integrated mass transit systems
- Overconcentration of economic activity
- Environmental vulnerability and flood risks
Palafox has acknowledged that certain Marcos-era projects were conceptually viable but insufficiently embedded within a comprehensive metropolitan framework. His critique centers on continuity, integration, and long-term systems thinking.
Unlike the centralized developmentalism of the Marcos years, Palafox advocates decentralized regional growth, transit-oriented development, resilience planning, and people-centered urban design within democratic governance structures.
Xiao Chua, Historical Memory, and Legacy Interpretation
Xiao Chua’s contributions add a critical historiographical dimension to discussions of Manila’s transformation. Chua emphasizes that infrastructure, architecture, and cultural projects cannot be evaluated solely through aesthetic or functional lenses; they must also be situated within political context, institutional conditions, and human consequences.
His analyses frequently underscore three key points:
- Material achievements and political conditions are inseparable.
Urban projects emerged within a regime characterized by centralized power, suppression of dissent, and documented human rights violations. - Narratives of “golden age” versus “total failure” are both reductive.
Chua encourages nuanced assessment that recognizes physical legacies while interrogating governance structures and societal costs. - Collective memory shapes contemporary policy debates.
How societies remember infrastructure and leadership influences present-day planning priorities, political legitimacy, and intergenerational understanding.
Through this lens, Marcos-era Manila becomes not merely an urban planning case study but a site of contested memory, identity, and democratic reflection.
Continuity, Discontinuity, and Structural Lessons
Viewed longitudinally, Manila’s trajectory reveals a recurring tension:
- Centralized vision with rapid execution (Marcos period)
- Democratic decentralization with fragmented coordination (post-1986)
Neither phase fully resolved Manila’s structural challenges. Centralization enabled decisive action but constrained participation. Decentralization expanded democratic space but weakened metropolitan coherence.
The deeper lesson is institutional: sustainable urban development requires not only vision but durable, technically competent, and politically resilient planning frameworks that survive leadership transitions.
Conclusion
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos played a documented and consequential role in reshaping Manila’s urban and cultural landscape through formal authority and political influence. Her projects left enduring physical and symbolic imprints on the capital.
The post-1986 period demonstrated the difficulty of maintaining metropolitan coherence without strong integrative institutions. Contemporary planners like Felino Palafox Jr. diagnose Manila’s crisis as systemic and structural, while historians like Xiao Chua remind us that urban legacies must be interpreted within broader political and historical realities.
Manila’s experience underscores a fundamental truth: cities outlast regimes, but they carry the imprint of how power, planning, and memory intersected at pivotal moments. Understanding that interplay is essential—not to rehearse old polarizations—but to inform wiser, more resilient urban governance for the future.
The Society of Honor by Joe America 