“NO” to Burnham Park as a Theme Park
January 11, 2009 by lisa
Filed under attractions & landmarks
Young folk hanging out at the open space in the center of the skating rink. Now there is a bumper car business in this area.
So if Pinky Rondez was hoping to earn 1.5 million a month from a parking building with commercial spaces, one should consider that the cost to build the building will first have to be recovered before making a profit and that takes years! While, if the city provides a good business climate through cleanliness, orderliness, smooth business set up procedures, folks will want to bring in the capital to put up businesses without the city’s having raise any money for any project.
Of course, politicians who are unscrupulous prefer projects that require a capital outlay or a budget that has as its source of funds taxpayers money or loans (the latter of course will be paid with the former) because they know that we Filipinos will never seek to audit the books to make sure that no private pockets were lined in the process.
They probably insist on sometimes usless, sometimes damaging infrastructure projects, at the expense of more important good housekeeping matters such as garbage collection or street lighting, because they NEED an area to be able to advertise themselves in for free for the next elections.
“This ________ project is brought to you by _________.”
I believe we should enact a law that adds a few more words to that statement or sign that says “USING YOUR MONEY, OF COURSE!”
Just because the city can go into business for itself does not mean that it should try to monetize public parks.
The Local Government Should Stop Treating Burnham Park as a “Liability” or as an “Asset”
This is an attitude that folks can see just be reading the news. When Bernardo Vergara was mayor, news accounts quoted him as complaining that the monies received as subsidy from the Department of Tourism for the maintenance of Burnham Park was not enough to pay the salaries of government employees.
During that time, I was calculating the number of employees to be numberingfrom 150-200 (at minimum wage)! It was something like 10-15 million divided by 13 months divided by miniumum wage (about Php5,000/month at that time). Do we have that many park employees? Where are they?
When I say that they treat Burnham Park as a liability, it is ordinary-speak in the sense of their not wanting to spend for the park, and that Burnham Park should be treated separately from the rest of areas in Baguio City. To make my point clearer, here is an analogy: it’s like having a hotel with parking space — there are costs to maintaining the parking space but room guests expect free parking of course and the business owner has to spend on the free parking to get customers in the first place.
It’s the same with Baguio City vis a vis Burnham Park. You want folks to love Baguio (to live here we spend, to do business here we spend, to visit here guests spend — and the city earns through taxes) and Burnham Park plays a huge role in the overall desirability of the place.
In trying to convert the park from a “liability” to an “asset” the city officials, when they see wide open spaces filled with flora and fauna, they see prime property from which they can earn rental income the same way they are wanting to monetize city streets with a night market. Are they incapable of seeing the bigger picture? The City of Pines is desirable because of the pines. We replace them with buildings, it becomes just like any other urbanized place in the Philippines. It loses its unique character. And businesses suffer, and the tax collection amounts are not maximized.
Burnham Park Should Never Be Sold, or Privatized or Leased Out in Part or as a Whole
To suggest that it should become a theme park implies that the park will be awarded to a private developer. This means that there will be entrance charged for its use. Anthony de Leon’s proposal has the effect of Burnham Park ceasing to be a public park.
When ownership of the park was turned over to the city last year, one of the threats I pointed out is the ability of our local government to sell or lease the property, requiring only the signature of the Department of Tourism Secretary. While it belonged to the national government, the city could only enjoy it but not exercise the rights of ownership thereto.
It’s bad enough that the Panagbenga no longer has the barangay gardens competition. Atty. Damaso Bangaoet designed that original contest to provide Baguio City with as many mini parks and pocket gardens as we have barangays. But to remove the free enjoyment of the public of one of the Philippines most beautiful and well-loved parks is a crime.
And the proponent of this suggestion, although with the best intentions in mind, is effectively seeking to deprive us of our right to enjoy a good life through picnics, laying on the grass, and over all wholesome enjoyment of nature.
This is one suggestion, in the name of tourism, that I cannot accept.
Conclusion
You know what? I have more to say, but I know my readers — this post is way too long already. I was going to add what new tourist attractions we can come up with in answer to Mr. De Leon’s assertion that we more and newer attractions. But I guess that can wait a few more days.
And I am sure that you have things to add for or against the idea that Burnham Park should bcome a theme park,so fire away!
We just...
What a great way to cap my lunch, Lisa! I’d like to have what I just read sink in first.
Hi Resty, a blog post as dessert? That’s a first!
A most delicious dessert, Lisa, hehe. I would also like to acknowledge that Mr. de Leon did a good job with Session in Bloom last year. However, I beg to disagree with him when he says Burnham is already an amusement park. Here’s a quote from Mr. Jonathan Best:
“Amusement parks are designed to be exciting, noisy and commercial while formal gardens are decorative showcases for plants. Green parks are designed to provide piece and quiet, open space, fresh air and a direct link to unspoiled nature.”
Amusement centers make use of mechanical equipment that need power to make them move. Thus they use fuel and electricity and are noisy. Whereas the bicycles, boats and skates he refers to are human-powered and do not make use of fuel nor electricty and don’t make noise.
I still believe that everything Burnham Park needs to be is laid out in Mr. Best’s piece. May I add two quotes:
“Buildings, roadways and other artificial man-made structures are deliberately kept to a minimum so as not conflict with the natural environment of a green park.”
“Without a doubt the greatest threat to the park is from the ever-increasing number of cars, buses, and jeepneys which are allowed to park on the perimeters and directly inside the park. Motor vehicles do not belong in a park.”
As you have said, why is this so hard to do? We need a refuge from all the congestion, noise and air pollution going in the city. And Burnham should be that place.
I like Burnham park the way it is,even though several changes were made.I can imagine the horrific traffic once it becomes a theme park.No please.
in my opinion I’d like the city government to make Burnham park a theme park provided ifthe theme is The” original Baguio burnham park.”
Hi Eugene, yup the center of city is too congested already for us to even try to locate a new attraction there.
Hello Ed, you’re right! The original Burnham Park was planned by a premier urban planner. The current one is a hodgepodge of activities based on the whims of politicians with their own pet projects.
“The current one is a hodgepodge of activities based on the whims of politicians with their own pet projects.” -Lisa
That’s because if they screw it up, they don’t lose anything. It’s not like it’s their own personal property or personal money that’s at stake. Remember Jadewell? That company’s got us by our balls. Up to now, the city cannot even touch the Ganza parking area which is owned by the city and not Jadewell.
Oh but the Ganza thing was all about patronage. During Mauricio Domogan’s last term as mayor the deal was quietly was signed awarding 80% of revenues from collections of parking fees to Jadewell PLUS prime real estate space (Burnham Park). And what do we do? Elect the same people over and over again for multiple terms!
Its because politicians have everything to gain by their projects. Honestly, which projects that the public officials have undertaken benefits the city? Flyover, satellite markets cum migrant living spaces, overpasses, toilets/outhouses, bumper cars at the skating rink. The only ones I can think of are footpaths, but even then, those benefit only the homesteaders.
Baguio is getting smaller and we not have enough parking space to accommodate a fraction of vehicles on the street in downtown Baguio likewise we cannot also sacrifice the original beauty of our park landscapes but with enough budget and intelligent planning we can however have a win win solution here.In Korea where the land terrain is almost like Baguio,Parks in the middle of the bustling cities were left undisturbed and they are building even more.Its because under most of these parks is where the parking spaces and shops are,it is an underground multi parking level that even a small park can accommodate large number of vehicles and hardly anyone can notice it.Baguio doesn’t need a multi level underground parking for the fear of earthquake but then a single level can already do wonder.Imagine how many vehicles can the whole football ground in Melvin jones absorb.Its an engineering feat but at least Burham park can still retain its original landscape sans the ugly parking space by jadewell there.
Hi Ed,
I agree with any underground parking, the less cement over Burnham Park the better, with a few shops if they like because anything below a park can be “within the commerce of man.”
The city council should stop thinking of Burnham Park as Burnham Parking.
If I’m not mistaken, San Francisco which is also earthquake country, has an underground multi-parking area right in the heart of downtown in Union Square? Having one will surely cost big but will pay off in the long run.
Hi Resty,
All the times I’ve gone to San Francisco we never parked there, but I am thinking, in all places that are hit by earthquakes, there are buildings with underground parking so why should parking beneath a park be any more dangerous? Like what is more dangerous about digging under Burnham Park compared to say, Center Mall or Abanao Square?
And it might not even be an engineering feat anymore, like Ed Villanueva’s comment (above) mentions. Building a long underwater tunnel to connect Hong Kong and Kowloon islands, for example would be called an engineering feat.
It’s water under the bridge, but if we had enough foresight, the place where Baguio Center Mall is now would have made a perfect place for a multi-level parking area. But all is not lost, have the owner of that area where Star Cafe used to be invest in a parking structure, give him the support, etc. and save Burnham Park from destruction.
I used to hear that the Puyats owned that property; that they were originally planning to erect a 14 or 17 storey structure thereon but since the plan came after the earthquake, they were not permitted to do so.
Maybe UB and UC should be require to provide for parking buildings so their teachers, students, staff and owners do not park their vehicles all day on Session, Governor Pack, Harrison, Gen. Luna and Assumption roads.
There should also be time limits, not just parking fees. CBD should have the first two hours cheap and all succeeding hours expensive.
Jeepneys should always be moving, never stalled or parked to be filled up with passengers. This is how we see that we have an excess of routes and units. They do take up a lot of the parking downtown UNNECESSARILY.
Indeed we need a huge parking space to reduce vehicles parking besides the road that causes huge taffic jam during rush hours and the only way we can do now is for the city to provide a space underground.It will be too costly like Resty said but its worth it in the long run.And from what I know the underground edifice is safer than anybuilding higher than 4 floors above the ground,this is the reason why San Francisco and cities in Japan still built multi level underground buildings.
If Burnham Park becomes a theme park what it will be called? I am just wondering but I hope really, really, truly, (Lord have mercy) HOPE that they do not make Burnham into a theme park.
Oshangnanamet! (Lisa, refer to Nico for translation) Are they blind? That is the only remaining green patch in the central business district.
I am stumped by this news.
Lis, I forwarded this to Mr. De Leon.
I am seething I do not know what to say or write. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Hi Ed,
Multilevel parking below ground is the way to go, even single level if it is below Melvin Jones, as you mentioned or Athletic Bowl.
Hey Marionne,
Peter Rey Bautista has given it the thumbs down — so far. Your ex-boss feels the need for Baguio to have new attractions and I agree, but folks should stop wanting to touch Burnham Park (everybody) or Botanical Garden (Farinas).
Coming up, an article on my Baguio Attractions Wish List.
Hi Lisa!
How’re you doin, Arwin?! Glad you found the site
Burnham park is the only green space in the CBD, and we all know that baguio is very polluted now. Why make it to other things that will only make Baguio’s pollution worse?
You’re right, Neis, and to even suggest a theme park be put up there is unbelievable. Maybe it would be better all of us to ACTIVELY work on cleaning up the city first and making it prettier, before dreaming up of new things.
One thing for sure. I’m not going to vote for all these blokes who would like to destroy Burnham Park such as mayor Bautista and councilor Rondez come 2010.
I’m old school myself. The park is nice na. Theme park would only keep low income people out and line politicians pockets. I miss Bagio before it got so crowded. I live in a place being over ran by non native people.