TAKE IT DOWN #torredemanila

DMCI’s torre de manila is a hideous sight, an ugly and offensive intrusion on our view of the rizal monument.

So there stands Rizal, a bronze sculpture with an obelisk as his backdrop set on a stone base, the Noli-Fili in his hand and the tableaux at his feet — Inang Bayan nursing her child and the two boys reading. It might as well be the nation’s mission-vision statement concretized in immortal consciousness: Rizal’s dream to build a strong society enlightened in its endeavor to create equal opportunities to a better life through education while always guided by the basic principles of unity and integrity. ~ Amelia H.C. Ylagan

as such — as the nation’s mission-vision statement concretized — the rizal monument deserves to dominate that landscape and skyline.  no one and nothing deserves to be seen in the same frame, least of all a 46-floor tower of distraction that stands more for the joys of capitalism than anything else.

come on, guys, take it down.

it’s the right thing to do, and it will be cathartic for the people, release some of the frustration, if not anger, over accumulated grievances as another administration that promised CHANGE bites the dust.

nothing ever changes around here, really.  except for the faces.  palakasan pa rin.  same old, same old.  read Tense Torre TRO hearing about why, allegedly, chief justice sereno and associate justice carpio voted against the TRO.  read the Erap-Lim word war erupting over Torre  and how the NHCP backed off, flip-flopped on the issue.   shame on them all.

rizal would be livid.


  1. GabbyD

    Thanks for the links… which brings me to this question:

    what in the guidelines say you cannot build a building at the rear of the park? all the quotes from the rappler article speak to “obstructing” it:
    “keep vista points and visual corridors to monuments clear for unobstructed viewing appreciation and photographic opportunities.”

    like that person quoted says, putting a building behind it WON”T obstruct viewing.

    is this it? wala na bang relevant paragraph? text in the rules? anything else?

  2. Fair is fair. Take down the Manila Hotel too. And the tall buildings in the Ermita and Malate area, and the Luneta Grandstand, and the stone carabaos, and everything that distract the view of the monument. Cut down the trees, too. Let the monument stand alone for everybody and the fanatics see all the glory of Jose Rizal.

    • GabbyD

      i cannot understand their arguments. sabi nito, their basis is: ““use [of] strong contrast between the monument and its background [in order to] enhance the monument as a focal point of the site.” The “setting” of the monument “is not only limited to the exact area that is directly occupied by the monument, but it extends to the surrounding areas ….”

      the NCCP’s document explaining it has no examples of what “strong contrast” is.

      on the next page, however, there is a pic of “Vigan, Ilocos SurPlaza and Lagoon: Themonument is the centerpiece of the urban setting”. if u look at it, there is a church behind the obelisk. as part of old research, i learned churches to be part of many plazas.

      now, if you look at that pic, do you think there is “strong contrast”?

      they have the same color.

      its made of the same material.

      the church dwarfs the obelisk.

      are all plazas with large churches afoul of the law?


  3. manuelbuencamino

    Sometimes some people get carried away…this whole issue is big for those people who don’t even bother to visit the monument…because if they do they will realize that the building is just an instagram issue

  4. GabbyD

    sabi ni batang genyo “aesthetic relevance to historical site” ang criteria.

    thats not in the guidelines.

    but i think, now, that this is the real issue. they dont like how it looks, which is a separate issue from the guidelines.

    thats fine. i would kindly point out that many iconic buildings were once considered eyesores.

    for the critics, i challenge them to come up with aesthetic arguments — what is aesthetically wrong with the finished building design? contrast that with many monuments which have buildings on the opposite side of them. (istanbul for example, has many historic mosques mixed with decidely modern buildings. whats wrong/right about those?)

    • serious question, solgen hilbay, if ur reading this, pls respond.

      i like this document coz it makes the issue crystal clear. this is what solgen wrote about the sightline to the monument.

      — im paraphrasing… we must preserve the “physical integrity” of the monument by preserving its “sightline”, that the sightline and the physical integrity of the monument are linked,

      ok. lets suppose for argument you agree with the intrinsic link. we must preservie the “sightline”.

      Q: What is the sightline? Definition? Solgen never defines it. Lets define it.

      from wiki:
      “A sightline, sight line or visual axis, is a normally unobstructed line-of-sight between an intended observer (or spectator) and a stage, arena, or monument, for example. ”

      if u continue to read it, you’ll notice its about blocking views of the field.theater, or whatever.

      if u notice, there is nothing there about backgrounds being an obstruction to the sightline.

      In addition: when asked about all the other monuments with buildings behind them, and the solgen admits that there are OTHERS that may be described as such, the solgen, doesnt care. Let each person, launch its own case and that this luneta case, if decided in favor the solgen’s arugments, has nothing to do with those others.

      I dont get that either. why WON’T this change legal precedent, i’m not certain. I await to hear a lawyer explain that.