Philippine architecture in Venice

(Part two)

Last week we visited the Philippine pavilion at the Venice Biennale for Architecture. This week we continue with a look at the venue of the Philippine pavilion as well as the other sites of the biennale, along with Venice as a whole.

I flew to Venice with my wife Twink. We had both visited the city when we were younger, so we welcomed the opportunity to walk the city’s picturesque piazzas and streets once again. We were billeted close to the Piazza de San Marco. I had made sure to select a hotel that allowed us to walk to the Philippine pavilion’s venue at the Biennale as well as the two main sites of the event.

The three rooms that make the Philippine pavilion are located in the Palazzo Mora, a picturesque centuries-old palace just off the Strada Nuova, in the Caranegio district, a few hundred meters from Piazza de San Marco. The palace is shared with two other pavilions, the Philippines being on the third level. If you get the chance to visit (the Biennale runs for six months until November of this year), allow an hour or two to really appreciate the Philippine pavilion.

The Philippine participation at the Venice Architecture Biennale is a project of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the NCCA and the office of Senator Loren Legarda. The Philippine exhibit was curated by Andy Locsin, Sudarshan Khadka Jr. and Juan Paolo dela Cruz.

The curators chose nine architects and artist collaborators who each selected one “muhon” or landmark of Metro Manila as their subject. These were: Poklong Anading; Tad Ermitaño; Mark Salvatus; Ed Calma; Jorge Yulo; 8x8 Design Studio Co.; C|S Design Consultancy; Lima Architecture; and Man?osa & Co.

The theme of the Philippine Pavilion was “Muhon: Traces of an Adolescent City.” One of the key issues that the exhibit engages is the loss of heritage architecture. This focus is made more relevant in the context of the host city. Venice is one of the best examples of a city that has kept its heritage intact, without losing economic viability in the 21st century.

Metro Manila can learn a lot from Venice. Manila, in fact, was likened by the American planner Daniel Burnham to Venice. He saw similarities between our esteros and Venice’s canals. Of course, Manila had much cleaner esteros back then and informal settlers were few. Today Manila has lost half of the 40 kilometers of esteros it had, while Venice has retained most of its canals. These continue to serve both transport, as well as tourism needs of the city.

Manila was also a pedestrian paradise a century ago. Today it is pedestrian hell, while Venice’s streets see 75,000 tourists along with 60,000 locals walk everywhere in the central historic districts, which is about the size of Intramuros and its immediate surrounding districts.

Twink and I walked to the two other sites of the Biennale — the Giardini, a park southwest of the city center, and the Arsenale, a site northeast of this. There are 61 pavilions in this year’s biennale.

We loved the Giardini, a heritage of the city’s past under Napoleon Bonaparte. The park is over 200 years old and is a lovely oasis in contrast to the built-up districts of Venice (whose open spaces are their numerous campo and campiello — plazas and courtyards). The Biennale’s 30 permanent pavilions are built in four out of the park’s six hectares.

We bumped into architect Jorge Yulo, one of the collaborators of the Philippine pavilion. We toured the site with him, managing to visit the Russian, Nordic, Australian, Japanese, South Korean, Israeli, Brazilian, Uruguayan and a few other pavilions before we had to head back to the city. We had a fabulous lunch nearby with Jorge, who spoke Italian, useful when ordering food.

The varied offerings of the Giardini pavilions constrasted with the three more dozen in the nearby Arsenale (port area). The old warehouses in this area were adaptively reused as galleries and display halls for countries without permanent pavilions.

I was invited by the Singapore pavilion one afternoon to participate in their panel discussion on Asian architecture and urbanism. It was chaired by Professor Lai Chee Kien, a schoolmate of mine from the National University of Singapore. It was a lively exchange; something that the Manila design scene is in need of, especially on the subject of the direction architecture is taking in the Philippines.

The 2016 Venice Biennale for Architecture has, to use an archaic term, an embarrassment of riches. If you plan to visit, a week is hardly enough. There are guides and reviews by major architectural magazines and websites to refer to, if you’re looking for the best pavilions. Wallpaper, the influential international design publication, included the Philippine exhibit in a feature on new participants in the biennale this year.

I can’t wait for the next Biennale for architecture. The open call for proposals for next year’s Art Biennale is already out, also sponsored by the NCCA, the DFA and the office of Senator Loren Legarda. She and the other participants mused about the possibilities of having a local biennale, to broaden participation in regular events that highlight the importance of culture and the arts.

This is a wonderful idea. I would suggest using the Intramuros, its surrounding greens (removing the golf course), as well as the National Museum and the Rizal Park as venues. Maybe with a Manila Biennale, we can recover what Venice has retained and what we have lost along the way, our cultural soul and joyous celebration of the arts tied to a strong sense of place.

* * *

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