WITH A revived historic core, Manila can then begin redeveloping surrounding districts of the Port Area, Rizal Park, and Arroceros. Like Intramuros, the port and Luneta are independent of the city, which used to have them integral to its character and function. Again, it would seem rational to reintegrate these two districts with Manila. The functions of these three, in any case, need to be reframed in the light of their original roles (in the case of the park and City Hall areas), and changing uses of harbor fronts in modern cities worldwide.

	Green spaces like these are a rarity in a cityscape of traffic, malls and slums.

Waterfront districts in central cities around the globe have moved outside metropolitan areas where they are physically closer to manufacturing plants, with ample space for expansion. Manila's harbor was close to the industrial zones only until World War II. Today almost all manufacturing is done in industrial "parks" in provinces around Metro Manila, yet we resist moving the port functions to Batangas and Subic. And because of the disappearance of our rail-based freight system, thousands of container trucks course through Metro Manila's streets daily, wearing out thin asphalt and adding to the already unbearable traffic.

With the ports moved, the waterfront area can be redeveloped as a mixed-use district linked to a revived Intramuros. After all, the leases on most of the warehouses in the South Harbor have run out or are close to expiring. The district would be a prime location for additional hotels (Manila has only one-fifth the number of hotels in Bangkok and Hong Kong). Condominium and office towers can also be built above the commercial podiums with pedestrian-friendly streets below. The original Pier 7 (now Pier 13) can be revived as a world-class cruise ship terminal bringing boatloads of tourists straight to hotels and the heart of Manila. The North Harbor may take longer to convert but w should eventually do so. New York's South Sea Port, Boston's and Baltimore's harbors, and San Francisco's pier district are good models. All successfully bring in investment and add value to citizens' lives with access to housing, water-based leisure, and related amenities.

Next door, the Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission is turning the river into the vibrant waterway it used to be. But its pace is slowed by problems: 30,000 squatters on its banks, the protracted battle to move the fuel depots, and the presence of Malacañan Palace, which imposes restrictive security measures on boat traffic. Like Sydney's Darling Harbor, Manila should coordinate all development along the water's edge with a single authority, making sure the physical infrastructure as well as business, events and marketing strategies are tackled with the same goals in mind — that of turning the waterfront into prime housing, commercial, and leisure districts made unique by its proximity to the bay and river.

	Weary Manila residents take a breather in the redeveloped baywalk.

IN THE meantime, if the political will to find a physical center for the government can be mustered, then several previous proposals can be considered. The Batasan complex district had been planned since the 1950s as the National Government Center or NGC, but it is now ringed with dense housing subdivisions and even denser informal settlements. Another option, Fort Bonifacio, is also ringed with housing and too proximate to military barracks from which coup attempts can be launched. This leaves us with the CCP complex and the adjacent reclaimed area, which is already the site of several government institutions. A proposal in the early 1970s had laid out the area as the NGC, with Malacañan transferred to a feng shui-friendlier location. A loop LRT line could connect the entire complex and the other new districts in the reclamation area with the existing line and the rest of the metropolis.

An NGC here would bring the capital close to its historic site, provide ample open space for parades and celebrations, and reintegrate culture and the arts-physically, if not ideologically-with our government. A consolidated NGC would also save the government billions in rent, increase communication efficiency between its branches, and offer easier accessibility for citizens. The NGC would also provide a symbolic center of democratic power, and create an appropriate central place where that power can be demonstrated by people. (Grimy EDSA as a favorite rally venue reflects this severe lack of civic space.)

With the NGC at the CCP, the Luneta would be the ideal place for Manila's new City Hall-where Burnham's planned imperial capital was to stand. The old city hall could be used as an annex, the Mehan Gardens and the Metropolitan Theater resuscitated, the Post Office turned into a boutique hotel (as was done in Singapore), and the Arroceros Forest Park incorporated into a larger park system tied to the Pasig River linear parks (some sections of which are already built).

With a new NGC, a relocated and revived City Hall complex, a resurrected Intramuros and vibrant waterfront, the rest of the original arrabales of Manila-Tondo, Binondo, Santa Cruz, Quiapo, San Miguel, Sampaloc, Santa Ana, Paco, Ermita, and Malate could follow suit.

Key to the revivification of urban life and the economy of many of these districts is heritage conservation. All these districts have historic buildings, plazas, and monuments showing the many layers of the city's past. In progressive cities abroad, zoning, floor area ratios, and building control allow metropolitan governments to set building types, uses, number of floors, façade treatments, parking, access, safety features, signage and billboards, landscape treatments and sidewalk design. This control gives the metropolitan authority leverage in "guiding" real-estate developers. This can be used with the concept of development transfer rights where such companies earn "development credits" for restoring heritage structures, conserving visual access to points of interest or providing public parks and plazas.