u~~lc!~,~r!tyVoL. VI, No.6 June, 1971

Editor and Publisher: F. Sionil José. Assistant Editor: Rita G. Baltazar. Editorial Advisers:Moehtar Lubis, Sulak Sivaraksa. Contributing Editor: Leonard Casper. Correspondents: 'Vii-ibm Hsu, Edwin Thumboo.

ARTICLES

FREEDOM OF THE CITY ............................... Horacio de la Costa 11TWO VIEWS: ROOFING THE URBAN SQUATTERS..... Richard P. Poethig 15

Aprodicio A. Laquian 21

THE SLUM AND FEMALE DEVIANTS F. Landa Jocano 28

REGENERATION OF THE CITY ............................ Lim Chong Keat 42

POETRY

FOUR POEMS BY ROWENA TIEMPO ...................................... 56

DEPARTMENTS

THE PROGRESSIVE VIEW: THE 13TH HOUR IS HERE ........ F. Sionil José 2

FICTION

THE PRAYING MAN (Continuation of the Novell .......... Bienvenido N. Santos 57

OUR CONTRIBUTORS 27

Fz

Published monthly at Solidaridad Publishing Housei 531 Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines. Europe and the Americas $.95; Asia$.75. One year subscription including postage: Europe and the Americas $10.00. Asia $8.50. A stamped self-addressed envelopeor International reply cou!Jons should accompany manuscripts otherwise they cannot be returned.Solidarity is affiliated with the international Association for Cultural Freedom with Office at 104 80ulevard Haussmann Paris 8e.France.Views expressed in Solidarity Magazine are to be attributed to the authors.Copyright 1967, SOLIOARIDAD Publishing House.Entered as Second-Class Matter at the Manila Post Offce on February 7, 1968.

Two Views:Roofing the Urban Squatters

I. The City Is Its People."

Richard P. Poethig

ON THE OCCASION of its 400thanniversary, Manila is a city undersiège. It began its history under attackfrom Spanish guns ; today it faces bat-tle from successive waves of migrantsseeking a place in Manila's history.Manila, the center of the nation'swealth and development, has drawncountless peoples from the hinterlandsinto its orbit. People from all regionscome to Manila in search of a betterlife. For some the dream is fulfilled; forothers the vision outshines the reality.

The reality for many familes is thatliving in the city becomes' a "hand tomouth" existence. Where living is amatter of survival, there is litle choicein housing. Families have to put downstakes on any piece of available land.Usually these are the most undesirablesites and are potentially dangerous forfamily well-being. Esteros and railroad

i

right-of-ways-the sites of many squat-ter houses-are also their graves.

Squattør Communities

The growth of squatter communitiesin the late 1940~s pressured the govern-ment to evolve a squa,tter policy. In1950, the Quirino administration organ-izeda Slum Clearance Committee to re-settle squatters outside the boundariesòf Metropolitan Manila. By 1970, suc-cessive administrations had resettledover 20,000 familes. During the sameperiod, migration to Manila grew fasterthan~ relocations could be carried out.The fist survey in 1948 counted 23,000persons living under squattèr condi-tions. By 1970, the squatter populationhad multiplied 35 times, or more than800,000 people.

Since squatter communities continueto gròw, it is apparent that an effective

15

16 Solidarity

urban squatter policy has yet to be de-vised for Manila. Nor is there any like-lihood that one can be devised. As theproportion of squatters increases in re-lation to urban population, the meas-ures necessary to meet the problem be-come prohibitive, both in t,erms of gov-ernment finance and in the 'consequenceswhich might result from precipitousaction. Present relocations cannot keepabreast with new incursions into thecity. Nor can a method of surveHlancebe' devised to prevent people from en-tering the city, except perhaps i,nder astrict authoritarian regime.Role of Low-IncomePeople in Development

Since rapid urbanization throughmigration is a world-wide phenomenon,it is n€!cessary to. recogniz-e the role

which low-income people play in thedevelopment of urban regions. Urbangrowth has its own inner rationalewhich, if carefully assessed, would pro-vide clues to the squatter problem.. Squatte: areas are entrf1nce points

for low-income people into urban life.These areas provide a milieu familarto the new migrants; coming to thecity for the first time, they want to.livenear those who come from the sameprovince. They often depend upon theirprovince-mates to help them get work.Many groups related to the migrants'social needs spring up in squatter areas.Newcomers usually enter into regionalmutual-aid associations. As they remainin an area longer, their groups becomemore sophisticated. In his study of Bar-rio Magsaysay on the Tondo Foreshore-land of Manila, Aprodicio Laquianfound over 20 neighborhood organiza-tions, six of which were incorporatedunder the Securities and ExchangeCommission.

In her study of Vitas, Tondo, a low

income area adjacent to Barrio Mag-saysay, Mary Hollnsteiner found astrong sense of identity on the part ofthe residents with their area. Despitethe criticism of outsiders, as Mrs.Hollnsteiner says,

to many a resident (Trme: Ton-do), can be a ha,ven of primary,

highly pe:so'Olized relationships, a

folk milieu not unlike the barro.To the 'iWf who lives in such anenvironment, the security it brings1nay far orut rank the clean, quietstreets. .. of economicaUy better-

off, but emotionally impeTsonal,neighborhoods. *

Out of this identification with theirarea, the people form block' organiza-tions for beautifying their street, oryouth organizations to sponsor socialactivities or a ronda for protection of

their area from outside trouble makers.Low-income people recognize their de-pendence upon their community fortheir friendships and security.

The middle class suburb, on the otherhand, tends to he composed of indepen-dent family units with no immediatesocial unity. Middle class familes canafford to be more individualistic. Theirfriendships and their income are gen-erally related to their professional ortechnical skHls. They are not as depen-dent upon their immediate communityfor social fulfillment or for economicassistance. They seek their friendsamong their business associates, theirfellow cursillstas or the couples in their

Christian Family Movement group.Their economic advancement is also re-lated to associations with those outsidetheir community-in their business orprofessional relationships.

Squatter communitiesàre directly re-lated to the migTants' economic liveli-hood. Squatter communities are gen-erally located near job opportunities,particularly those of an ùnskiled orsemi-skiled nature. Port areas, marketplaces, bus depots, and constructionsites attract new migrants who providethe manual labor in these areas. It ishere that the most dense squatter andslum communities exist. It is also fromthese areas that familes are evicted,cutting them off from their income andremoving the services they perform onthe docks, in the markets, and at thebus terminals.

*"Inner Tondo As AWay of Lfe," St. LouisQuarterly, Vol. 5; Nos. 1-2, p.14.

Two Views: Roofing the Urban Squatters

Location As A Factor inLow-Income Housing

From the stand point of urban devel-opment, closeness of residence to jobopportunities is sound planning. Prox-imity to work saves money for low-income people and alleviates pressureon transportation facìlìties and roaduse. The shops and other customer-services which accompany this type ofgrowth provide an integrated commu-nity life. Jane Jacobs, American urba:n-ologist, points to this mix of com~erc1alwith residential use as' essential. tosound urban growth. It would seemsensible to provide housing adjacent toports and markets for those providinglabor in these areas. People concernedwith Manìla as a tourist attraction arehorrified at the prospect of continuedslum conditìons in the port area. Portareas need not be congested and un-sightly. The port. area of Amsterdamin Holland has residences with neatgardens fronting the wharves. ~t ex~i-bits a dimension of commumty hfemiss.ing from most.port areas.

Ideally familes should have the free-dom to dhoose the place of their resi-dence. In our society this choiye is lim-ítedto high~income familìes who canpurchase suburban properties, or paythe high rents required for downtownapartments. If they choose to lìye in the

suburbs they can afford the private ve-hicle necessary to get them back andforth to work. This is not true for low-income groups. Since the major portionof their income must go into food, cloth-ing and to meet other immediate needs,rent must be kept to a minimum. Loca-tion of housing near work becomes anessential factor in the urbanization ofin-migrants. It would, therefore, seempractical in the process. of planning thecity that housing areas for lo,w-incomepeople be integrated into those districtswhere intensive service activity exists.

Goverment Multi-Story HousingGovernments have recognized the

need for better housing for low-incomepeople in urban areas. Out of this re-cognition has developed numerous

17

examples of government-sponsored mul-ti-story housing. The multi-story p~o-jects have been built on the prem~sethat heavily populated cities requirehousing schemes which make maximumuse of valuable urban land. But gov-ernments" have also discovered thatwhìle the high density lìving achievedin the multi-story proj ects may achievemaximum use of urban land, it oftencreates problems more diffcult thanthose it ought to solve.

For example for the past two de-cades slum cle~rance programs in theUnited States bulldozed sections of oldtenement housing and replaced themwith multi-story. .apartment houses.Planners saw in the slum areas thephysical deterioration of. t~e housi~g,but they failed to see the social cohesionwhich existed in many of the neighbor-hoods. Often the tenements could havebeen rehabiltated and the existingneighborhood strengthened throughself-help community organization pro-grams. The blocks of sterile. publichousing built to house those displacednever filled the vacuum left by the oldcommunities.

Reports from other countries tell thesame story. Multi-story housing pro-j ects soon show signs. of socìal as ~.eiiasphysIcal deterioration. Poor ramiliescrammed into multi-story housmg feelno responsibilty for the buìlding. Gov-ernments, p~essed by lìmited. finances,cannot provide adequate mamtenan~eand surveilance. The end product isthat community problems are com-pounded in the impersonal atmosphereof the proj ects.

Multi-Story Tenementsin the Philippines

Philppine experience with multi-storied low-income housing has alsobeen negative. In response to the grow-ing need for low-income housing, theMacapagal .Administration. ere c tedthree seven-story "tenements" in 1965,in Vitas, Tondo, Punta, Sta. Ana, andFt. Bonifacio. The buildings were anexperiment in social housing. The gov-ernment wrote off the cost of the con-struction and property, but expected

18

the rents from the tenants to cover thecost of building maintenance. Fiveyears of experience with the tené-mertts* have dimmed any hope thatmulti-story low-income housing is aviable solution to the problem.

The teneme,nts have been financùûlosses from the beginiiing. Besideswriting off both the building costs andthe land costs, the government had toprovide a subsidy to the tenements intheir initial stages. Since a majority ofthe tenants are perpetually in arears,the rent money which was to be usedfor building and ground maintenance isnot available. The tenements have be-come multi-story slums.

Part of the failure of the tenementscan be laid to the initial planning of thebuildings. They were erected on landavailable to the government, but no con-sideration was given to the physical set-ting and social environment. In the Vi-tas and Punta tenements, the buildingswere hemmed in by industrial plants,older buildings, and squatter areas. Inthe Punta, Sta. Ana area there has beena continuous strûggle between the tene-ment "insiders" and the squatter "out-siders" living around the tenement.Lack of adequate water service andspasmonic garbage collection haveadded to the squalor of the hmements.

The tønements do not serve those forwhom they were bl.,ilt. Low-incomehousing has to face one major realityin Manila. Housing is so scarce that anypublic housing quickly íallsinto thehands of middle-income people. Thishappens by several routes. Some occu-pants buy. their way into the govern-

*Tenement was an unfortunate term for thenew housing. The word stigmatized the build-ings before they were occupied. Drawn fromWestern usage, it signified crowded slum hous-ing. One of the failures of low income housing-

around the world has been the image evokedby project-type housing. They are buil foranonymity and for down-grading the poor,many of whom were living dignified, if notcomfortable 'lives, in their former quarters.

Ultimately the 'stratification of the poor inmass multi-story projects perpetuates theirpoverty-consciousness and reinforces their des-pair.

Solidarity

ment housing through political cortnec-tions. Other occupants; àfter theyha,vebeen in the housing for a while, selltheir rights to others. Lack of supervi-

sion and accurate income informationmake ilegal occupancy diffcult to un-cover and establish.

Behind the transfer of apartmentslies one basic fact-the lack of adequateand reasonably priced housing for fam-ilies with monthly incomes of P400 andbelow. The housing which is availableis priced beyond the abilty of those inthe lower middle class to pay, withoutcutting into essential budget items.

Tenement housing does not effective~ly integrate people into city' living.Multi-story housing has been intro-duced in developing countries withoutadequate concern for its effect upon thelife-style of the people.

Some housing experts- suggest thatmulti-story housing expedites the pro-cess of urbanization by requiring radi-cal changes in living habits of the occu-

pants. This may be true in urban cen-ters such as Hong Kong and Singapore.Little formland surrounds th€se cities;therefore, there is no continuous ruralimmigration. In countries with largerural populations it is possible that theprocess can go in the opposite direction.Without adequate preparation andtraining for the new type of living en-vironment, the rural immigrant canturn the housing into a facsimile of therural area from which he came. Fur-thermore, the government is not pre-pared to carry the costs of maintainingand supervising the multi-story build-ings.This results in a breakdown ofwater service, garbage collection, law,and order. Instead of preparing peoplefor urban life, the multi-story apart-ments become an €xpense to the gov-ernment, a distraction to sound urbangrowth, and a barrier to the integra-

. tion of the occupants into the widerurban community.

Hong Kong and SingaporeIn Southeast Asia, Hong Kong and

Singapore have carried out ambitiouspublic housing programs-the HongKong government out of necessity in

Two Views: Roofing the Urban Squa.ters

meeting its squatter problem and theRepublic of Singapore from the socialdemocratic tenets of its governing par-ty. In both cases, however, questionscan be raised as to the adequacy ofmulti..story housing in meeting thenèeds of low-income people.

After 15 years of extensive Resettle-ment bloc and Low Cost Housing Estateprograms, the squatter problem stilpersists in the Crown colony. In 1969,

the Hong Kong government estimatedthat there weiestil 610,000 squattersout of the four milion residents ofHong Kong and the New Territories.The number of squatters is expected tolevel off at between 400,000 to 500,000.The squatter community is predicted tocontinue at this figure for years tocome. The persistence of the squattercommunity in Hong Kong has its basisin four factors:

Preference for low rental. Low-income familes everyhere prefer topay as little for shelter as possible, so

that they may have more disposable in-come. Some familes occupying resettle-ment blocs sell their rights to othersand return to squatting.

Distance from jobs. Some of the re-settlement blocs were built too faraway from job opportunities, so fam-iles have left them to live closer totheir jobs.

Limited 7Jving spal,e. The resette-ment blocs, which were initially built asemergency measures, provide minimalliving space. As families have grown,they hare left the- resettlement blocs,many to return to squatter quarters.

Too little govenimeit construction.The government has not kept pace withthe neéd for low-income housing. Thegovernment built the first resettlementblocs in 1955. By' 1963, it had shittedto building the Low Cost Housing Es-tates which provided' housing for fam-iles in the $500 (HK) monthly incomebracket. The slackening of the resettle-ment bloc program has left many fam-iles stil living in squatter conditions.

The government has not pressed thesquatter problem, but has allowed fam-iles to remain in areas which it is not

19

considering for development.

IThaldequate way of life. Multi-story

housing has not proven suitable for lowincome people. When familes arecrowded together in small rooms thechildren are forced out onto the streets.In the housing areas parental authorityhas weakened and juvenile dê1inquencyincreased. Young people have organizedtheir own tried societies. These have be-come the basis for intramural fights be-tween gangs from the different housingblocs.

In Singapore, over 700,000 of the Re-

public's two millon citizens live in gov-ernment-built housing estates. Whilethe Singapore government has providedmore attractive and community-cen-tered housing for its people, critics arequick to point out that lîttle'is beingdone for the 20 per cent in Singapore'slowest illcome bracket. In th.e largehousing estates of Bukit Ho Swee andKallang-Tanyang Rhu a large numberof familes live close to tlie subsistenceline-and often below minimum dailynutritional requirements. Having beenresettled from slums and squatter com:"munities, they have not increased theirincomes, but now have to meet the reg.,ular maintenance and utilty payments,in addition to rents.

Some urban planners ha ve takenissue with the government's emphasison tourism and its subsequent plans totear down older housing areas whichwíl be replaced by modern hotels andcommercial buildings. They defend theright of occupants from the older shop-house areaS to maintain their commu-nities as reasonable alternatives to theimpersonal living conditions of themulti-story estates. The government re-gards such views as. "romanticism,"and is pushing ahead to meet the targetset by the United Nations Committee onHousing, Building, and Planning byconstructing annually ten new dwellngunits for each thousand of its popula-tion.

Social H ousing-A Luxur'yFor Developing Countries

In the Philppines, the government

20 Solidarity

has recognized the massive capitaliza-tion neCess3ry for low-income housingand has put social housing at the bot-tom of its list. Past experiencé withtenements has made the governmentwary of the heavy subsidy needed forsocial housing. The housing programprojected for 1971-1974 wil financehousing for only 9,210 familes out ofthe one milion needing it. Out of theP719 milion to be spent on housingfrom 1971-1974, only six per cent orl43.2 milion wil go to social housingof the tenement type. The wisdom ofeven this expenditure can be questionedin the light of the experience with thepresent tenements.

Low-income housing is a luxury fora developing country. In most cases thetype of., public housing buil does notsuit the immediate needs of low-incomepeople. New migrq,nts into the city needmobilty. They need to be able to movewhere the jobs are available. Most low-income squatters have lived in housesthey or their familes have built in therural areas. The type of housing theybuild in the city is temporary, provid-ing them the leverage they need. Veryfew low-income people want to committhemselves to public housing, which re-quires monthly rent payments andwhich very often reinforces their lowerclass status. They desire the indepen-dence of building their own homes atthe level and speed which their incomesallow.Within any squatter or low-income

area it is not surprising to see well~buil homes. As familes become estab-lüihed and increase their incomes, theyare able to improve their living condi-tions. They build their homes at no costto the government and would, with en-couragement, plan their own, communi-ties. The encouragement low-incomepeople need is the wilingness of thegovernment to provide tenure of resi-dence and those facilties of which makean area liveable-water, roads, drain-age, and sanitation.Need For Employmørt Strategies

In place of multi-story low-incomehousing, available monies might better

be spent developing employment strate-gies. Government policy aimed atmaking urban areas moré attractive toprivate capital investment Wil in itselfstimulate job creation. Government al-locations to developing port, transpor-tation, communication and marketingfacilties in urban areas are, in them-selves., job producing and wil, in turn,encourage a wilingness on the part ofprivate business to invest in the area.The exp':msion of urban facilities in-creases job opportunities in industryand in the supporting service secto,rwhere most low-income people are em-ployed.

The wilingness to forego immediateaction o'n urban squatters and to workon the issue of employment is essentialto the question of low-income housing.Once steady income is available, personsin the lower economic groups will im-prove their own housing. Complemen-tary to an employment strategy is thedevelopment of areas close to the cityin which low-income people can acquiretitle to land and build th~ir own homes:-'

These areas wil require basic servicesin order to make them viable communi-ties. Streets wil need to be laid out,water and sewerage facilties provided,and arrangements made for electricservice. Home construction becomes thebusiness of the resident. Baguio Cityhas provided examples of such areas inthe five sites it h'1s set aside within itscity boundaries. The sites cover 105hectares and wil accommodate 2,000families. The sites are already popu-lated, but consideration stil d has to begiven to streets, water-sewerage facil-ities.

Areas chosen for the settlement oflow income people need to be closeenough to the city to make jobs easilyaccessible. Infrequent and expansivetransportation is one of the sources ofdiscouragement of relocated families atthe present resettlement sites at SapangPalay, Bulacan and Carmona, Gavite.Both areas.are over 35 kilometers fromManila. Crucial to' the success of theseresettlement sites is the presence ofjob-producing industries. The encour-agement of industries within resettle-

Two Views: Roo1ing the Urbàm Squatters 21

ment areas or the estahlishment ofhousing areas near present industrialdevelopment, would 00 a step in meet-ing the squatter problem.The New Century

No end is in sight to the pressuresGreater Manila will face as new mi-grants continue to expand its bounda-ries. In the next century, Greater Ma-nila wil face a growing demand forbetter transportation, flood control,water and sewerage services, housingand community facilties, and industrialdevelopment. In the' midst of physicaldevelopment it is easy to forget that thecity is its people. In setting the prior-ities for the next decades human devel-opment should be foremost in the mindsof those who lead the city and the na-tion. History is strewn with the ruinsof great cities, which were magnificentin their physical achievements, hutwhose destruction was in the decay oftheir people. The greatness of Manilawil he determined by her humanity.If Manila is to become a city of humandimensions, those who lead wil needthe partcipation of the people in theplanning and development of their city-this participation at all levels 0.£ the

life of the city wil insure their com-mitment as .citizens and the city'sfuture.