The Case of the Paco Park & Cemetery: Adaptability and Continued Use

as Key Factors in Effective Conservation

Principal Author:
Ar. Markel Cesar A. Luna, M.Arch
University of the Philippines – Diliman,
College of Architecture

Co-Researcher:
Ar. Michael T. Querido
Escuela Taller de Filipinas Foundation, Inc.

June 28, 2019

Manila, Philippines

Abstract:

The study focuses on the Paco Park and Cemetery, which includes its morphology; that is,
how its function and form have evolved into what it is at present. Declared a National Historical
Shrine and a National Cultural Treasure, it remains to be a relevant feature of the Paco District
of Manila. It stays operational, not as a cemetery, but as a park and a popular venue for various
activities and events. It continues to be of use, as it maintains its cultural significance to
Filipinos, particularly the community where it is situated.

A discussion on Continued Use, Adaptive Reuse, and Adaptability establishes the

effectiveness of the Paco Park & Cemetery as a cultural site and a renewed social space.

I. Introduction

Heritage Structures and Sites in the Philippines

The Philippines has no shortage of Heritage Structures and Sites. Having been
colonized by the West, mainly the Spaniards and Americans, its Architectural
Heritage is diverse, symbolic, and undoubtedly colorful. Various colonial building
types and site developments have been constant reminders of our past and more
importantly, our values.

Unfortunately, many of its Heritage Structures and Sites are drastically losing
significance as they have become unfamiliar to and detached from the Filipino
public, resulting in negligence; thus, most of the Philippines’ Architectural Heritage
have become prone to decay and deterioration. Moreover, they have become
convenient targets for demolition to give way to new developments that Filipinos
have developed a liking for.

However, there is still hope for the Philippines’ Heritage Structures and Sites.
Several remain in our midst, retaining their significance and attachment to the

1
people. One of them is the Paco Park & Cemetery in Manila, which has stood the
test of time and stands as a relevant architectural fixture in the Paco District, as it
has been conserved and regularly maintained.

The Paco Park & Cemetery can then be considered as a good example of a well-
conserved Heritage Site. As history narrates, the site has morphed and evolved
from the time it was developed, to the present. The fact that it remains significant
is a clear indication that factors associated with it have a lot to do with its
conservation. As observed and documented, it functions as an effective social
space: a place for relaxation and recreation, and a popular venue for weddings and
cultural events.

From 2018 to 2019, the Paco Park & Cemetery underwent conservation, initiated
by the National Parks Development Committee (NPDC), which manages and
maintains the site. The Escuela Taller de Filipinas Foundation was the main
consultant for the restoration works, making sure that significant cultural details are
consolidated and preserved, previous interventions are reversed and rectified, and
architectural elements are structurally-sound. Safety and Significance were the
main considerations for the two phases of conservation works.

Figure 1. The Paco Park & Cemetery’s Main Archway

Source: Author’s own

2
The Need to Conserve Heritage Structures and Sites

It is refreshing to know that the Philippine government is determined to save our

Architectural Heritage. Agencies like the National Commission for Culture and the
Arts (NCCA), the National Museum of the Philippines, the National Historical
Commission of the Philippines (NHCP), the Department of Tourism (DOT), and the
National Parks Development Committee (NPDC) ensure that our Heritage
Structures and Sites are mapped, documented, conserved, and promoted. Non-
governmental Organizations (NGOs) like the International Council on Monuments
and Sites – Philippines (ICOMOS Philippines) and the United Architects of the
Philippines (UAP) Specialty Commission on Architectural Heritage Conservation
have been on guard to spare culturally significant structures and sites from
deterioration and demolition. Moreover, there are countless online heritage
advocacy groups that are vigilant in protecting architectural treasures.

Social media has been a very effective tool in spreading this advocacy. More
people are familiarized with not-so-known Heritage Structures and Sites, and more
importantly, made aware of their plight. When a “vintage” building is to be
demolished, a great number of advocates would be “up-in-arms” to try to stop the
demolition. This is a welcome development, but Filipinos must first completely
understand why there is a need to conserve our Architectural Heritage.

There is more to Philippine Heritage Structures and Sites than just being old. They
are our reflections and extensions. They symbolize aspects of Philippine culture,
for each heritage structure has a relevant function responsive to physical, social,
and cultural factors. Built by Filipinos, each is a Filipino expression. We can learn
about the construction techniques of the “maestros de obra”, or master builders,
as well as early architects, and the use of appropriate materials, which is an
important aspect of green architecture. They are good representations of many
architectural styles, whether vernacular or colonial. A celebration of Philippine
Artistry and Achievements, they are the legacies of our ancestors and sources of
pride and inspiration, constantly reminding us that the present and future
generations are capable of achieving greatness and excellence. Deeply associated
with our forefathers, they give us a clearer understanding of what we are as a race,
providing a “Sense of Identity” and the “Sense of Belongingness” (Luna, 2017).

Many relevant events have transpired in the past, and Heritage Structures and
Sites serve as their reminders and sources of priceless lessons: from political
decisions that destroyed us, to effective solutions that benefitted the whole nation;
thus, we are given the opportunity “to enhance and emulate the good” and the
chance “to rectify and avoid the bad” (Luna, 2017). When we see our churches, we
are reminded of our faith. When we visit our ancestral homes, we are reminded of
our strong family ties. In other words, our Heritage Structures and Sites remind us
of who we are.

Most importantly, aside from being “custodians” of memories, they are monuments
to Filipino values, which strengthen our moral standards (Luna, 2017).

3
Conservation Approaches and Interventions

Knowing why we should conserve our Heritage Structures and Sites is vital, but it
is equally important to understand how they are relevant to society.

Structures and sites, which make up our Architectural Heritage have cultural
significance, each having a distinct “Spirit of Place”, special meanings, and unique
characteristics that people can relate to, and are familiar with. “Conservation of
heritage sites depends, at the outset, on a clear understanding of the cultural
significance of a place. In formulating planning strategies to protect and conserve
the heritage character of an area, it is critical to ascertain what characteristics make
the area unique and what are the significant elements.” (Vines, 2005. p. 2, par. 1).
In other words, the cultural significance of a Heritage Structure or Site must never
be lost. Its protection and promotion would be the main purpose of Architectural
Heritage Conservation.

In the Philippines, where Architectural Heritage Conservation is in its infancy, most

people refer to it simply as Restoration, not knowing that Restoration is just one of
several approaches. Aside from Restoration (bringing back to the original
condition), there are other acceptable redevelopment intervention options. These
would be Rehabilitation (repairing damage, upgrading, and retrofitting),
Redevelopment (upgrading, retrofitting, adding interventions that complement the
original), Protection (shielding from elements that cause decay and deterioration),
Preservation (keeping in the current state), Consolidation (physical addition or
application of adhesive or supportive materials), Reconstruction (rebuilding to the
original state), Anastylosis (reinstating the original form using the available original
materials), and Adaptive Reuse (assuming a new function while retaining original
character and general form). (Mata, 2007). Two other options, Replication
(constructing a copy of the original) and Relocation (dismantling from the original
site, to be reassembled on a new site) are quite debatable; thus, should be
considered only if there’s a noble purpose and as a last resort (when the “safety”
of the structure is compromised).

The decision-making process is crucial in arriving at the conservation approach

that is appropriate for a Heritage Structure or Site. As stated in the Burra Charter
(1999), “Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use,
associations and meanings.” While it is ideal to restore a relevant structure to its
original form as a means to maintain its “Spirit of Place”, new needs have to be
addressed, and this leads to new architectural responses. “Society is never static
– usually towards progress and improvements in the condition of human
existence.” (Kielion, 2008. p. 29, par. 1). Progress is inevitable, and with progress,
priorities and necessities change; thus, society evolves, together with its
architecture. In many a circumstance, what was designed and built for a certain
purpose may not be useful anymore since its intended function is no longer
needed. But being culturally significant, it has to remain attached to the people of
the community where it stands. A structure or site can be given new life by
responding to what society needs. Without compromising values

4
(aesthetic/architectural, historic, spiritual, social, etc.) that strengthen cultural
significance, a new function is assumed by a heritage structure or site: the concept
behind Adaptive Reuse. Such is the case of the Paco Park & Cemetery, which has
morphed from a burial ground, to a recreational space. (National Parks
Development Committee [NPDC], n.d.).

Successful Adaptive Reuse Projects in the Philippines

Many Heritage Structures and Sites in the Philippines have become popular tourist
destinations, experienced by both local and foreign visitors. They have stood the
test of time, and continue to be functional to this day, since these were adaptively
reused successfully. Two examples would be the Nielson Tower and the Gota de
Leche Building.

The Nielson Tower

Originally an airport, which served as the gateway between Manila and the rest
of the Philippine archipelago, and later to the rest of the globe when it offered
commercial flights, the Nielson Tower has been utilized in various functions in
the following years. It became a headquarters of a police detachment. The
Ayala-owned Integrated Property Management Corporation held office on the
Nielson Tower for several years. A group of Filipino businessmen leased the
Nielson Tower from the late 1970s up to April 1994 and turned it into a semi-
private, first class club/restaurant. After almost two years of renovation works,
in 1996, Filipinas Heritage Library used Nielson Tower until 2014. This initiative
was recognized by the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Heritage Awards for Cultural
Heritage Conservation in 2001. The Nielson Tower was now home of a high-
end restaurant called Blackbird after the library was moved to Ayala Museum.
(Philippine Primer, 2015).

The Gota de Leche Building

Gota de Leche is the country’s oldest continuously operation non-sectarian,
non-government organization. Constructed in 1914, it was designed by
brothers Arcadio and Juan Arellano. The inspiration of the design of the building
was Filippo Brunelleschi’s “Ospedale degli Innocenti” (Hospital of the
Innocents), the first widely acknowledged Renaissance building in Europe.

Gota de Leche has become an epitome of the importance of heritage structures

and the value of heritage buildings, and its adaptive reuse as an alternative to
demolition. The late architect Augusto Villalon headed the building’s
restoration in 2002. Necessary changes were made to answer contemporary
needs, however, the material’s, construction skills, and conservation process
were faithful to the design of the structure’s original architects, Juan and
Arcadio Arellano. Given that it has an impressive legacy and is properly
restored, Gota de Leche has become a favorite site not only for important
functions, social events, and fund-raising concerts but also as location shoots
for local television drama series like ABS-CBN’s “Juan dela Cruz”. (Caruncho,
2018).

5
Research Problem

As studied, documented, and observed, the Paco Park & Cemetery has
assumed a new function, particularly a venue for recreation, which is initially
perceived as a stark contrast to its original purpose as a cemetery. It is
interesting to note that from a sacred space of sadness and mourning. It has
evolved into a casual area of leisure and enjoyment, and continues to be used
and maintained. Despite the transition in terms of usage, the “Spirit of Place” is
maintained; that is, it has retained its Aesthetic/Architectural, Historic, Social,
and Spiritual Values.

The research study shall tackle how the Site’s situation is related to its
significant status. The main question that it shall address would be: “What roles
do the adaptability and continued use of the Paco Park & Cemetery play in its
conservation?”

It shall also determine what the Paco Park & Cemetery was developed for,
how it has transformed/evolved, the site’s significance/attachment to its current
users, how it compares to other conserved Heritage Structures and Sites in
terms of conservation approaches, what makes its conservation approach a
good example of Adaptive Reuse, and what the main reason/s for its
conservation is/are.

Significance of the Study

Many cities and municipalities in the Philippines seem to have a low regard for
their Heritage Structures and Sites mainly because they find no use for or
significance in them. New developments are favored over them; thus, they are
demolished and replaced with “more useful” and/or income-generating
structures/complexes.

Taking the Paco Park & Cemetery as an example, Local Government Units
may be convinced to rediscover their Heritage Structures and Sites, giving
them “new uses”. Hopefully, this would lead to conservation and proper
maintenance, which would then allow community members to be reattached to
their Architectural Heritage, and more significantly, to Filipino culture and
values.

This study aims to establish adaptability and continued use as key factors in
effective conservation, using the Paco Park & Cemetery as a case study.

Research Methodology

Archival Research was the first step taken by the researchers.

Various reference materials were used as sources of information (Related
Literature, Books, Journals, Articles, Websites, Other Printed Materials) to
determine the history, morphology, and current status of the Paco Park and

6
 Cemetery, as well as the principle behind Adaptive Reuse as a
conservation approach. Unobtrusive Observation of Participant
Observation was a relevant part of the research. The Paco Park &
Cemetery was periodically visited by the researchers on the first half of
2018 until June of 2019. Events and activities of visitors were recorded at
different time periods. Moreover, several interviews were conducted, and
focus group discussions were held. Respondents were composed of those
in various age groups backgrounds. Data gathered included the visitors’
perception of the place and their reasons for visiting, as well as their
expectations and aspirations for the place. An online survey was also done,
yielding 193 respondents, of which 95 or 49.20% are male and, 91 or
47.20% are female. The remaining 7 or 3.60% did not specify their gender.
Questions on familiarity with Heritage Structures and Sites, reasons for
visiting, needs & wants, were included. Finally, the data gathered were
synthesized and analyzed. Comparative Analyses were applied, and raw
percentages were computed.

II. The Paco Park & Cemetery

The Paco Park & Cemetery is located about a kilometer away from the Rizal Park
at the intersection of San Marcelino Street and Gen. Luna Street, which connects
it to Intramuros. Open to the general public, it is one of the oldest landmarks in
Manila. (NPDC, n.d.)

History: The Birth of a Place for Death

Figure 2. The Paco Park & Cemetery’s Niches

Source: Author’s own

The Cementerio General de Dilao or Cementerio General de Paco, now known

as the Paco Park & Cemetery, is the first extramural cemetery built in Manila

7
when a Royal Ordinance was issued for the construction of the first extramural
cemetery in 1807. Designed by “Maestro de Obra” Nicolas Ruiz with Don Jose
Coll as the construction supervisor, it came to be after the time when Manila
suffered from an epidemic that the municipal council decided to build a “fine
cemetery” in the village of San Fernando de Dilao, which was commonly called
Paco. Afraid that animals and birds would prey on their corpses when they were
buried in the ground, the “religious” opposed the construction of a cemetery
that was detached from the parish church. Another group was also unreceptive
to the idea since the cemetery’s design was so lavish that the money intended
for its construction could have been allocated for other buildings and projects
by the Spanish-colonial government. However, government officials were
aggressive in convincing them that it has already been a common practice in
other Christian nations to allow burials in cemeteries that were not attached to
their parish churches. On October 1, 1820, the opposition’s case weakened
due to the urgent need for a cemetery for the fatalities of a strong typhoon in
Manila, and of a cholera epidemic that ensued. These tragic events were
considered by the colonial rulers as a “Divine Act of Providence”; thus, the
construction of the Cementerio General de Paco was finally implemented.

During the Spanish-colonial period in the Philippines, the funerary chapel was
the central component in cemetery design. An example of Palladian
Architecture, the Paco Cemetery’s funerary chapel is oval in shape, topped with
a domical roof. As for Paco Park’s general plan, it is believed to have been
conceived drawing inspiration from the Italian “Campo Santo”. The Paco
Cemetery features two sets of concentric circular walls, which were three
meters apart (originally), four meters in height, and with a two-meter width,
supporting a balustraded terrace. Niches were hollowed out of the walls and
grouped in five tiers, with each niche large enough to contain a casket. Visible
now would be three tiers of niches.

There are approximately 1,782 niches, of which about 500 are situated at the
back of the chapel in a court known as the “Angelorio”, which was the burial
area for the departed children and infants. During its period of use, these niches
were covered with slabs of marble with the usual funerary inscriptions. Adobe
stones or volcanic tuff were used for the construction of the walls. Enclosed by
the circular walls, the central open space where the present fountain can be
found, used to be an open space for internments.

On April 22, 1822, the Cementerio General de Paco was officially inaugurated,
after which Governor General Fernando Norzagaray y Escudero proposed its
expansion, which was completed in 1859. Having been awarded to a Chinese
contractor for a total cost of 19,700 Pesos, the added space measured “4,540
varas quadras” or approximately 4,500 square yards, enclosing the original
plan (inner wall) with an outer circular wall.

Racism and discrimination were prevalent during the Spanish-colonial period,

to the point that even in death, caste distinction existed. Buried within the

8
chapels were the remains of the Spanish Governors and Bishops. The inner
circular wall niches were dedicated burial spaces for both the “Insulares” and
“Peninsulares”, as well as the influential “mestizos” – those who were part
Caucasian and part native or Chinese. The outer wall niches, however, were
for the natives or “Indios” whose relatives could afford the rent for the burial
“compartments” (34.65 Mexican Dollars for an adult’s niche, 16.80 Mexican
Dollars for a child’s niche, good for five years) since they did not have the
privilege of owning niches in perpetuity. Failure to pay rent meant forced
removal of remains. The bones were unceremoniously dumped in a designated
pit at the rear of the cemetery. (Dakudao, 1992), (Ramos, n.d.).

Notable interments in the Paco Cemetery would include those of Ramon Maria
Llanderal Solano, Spanish Governor-General of the Philippines (1857–1860),
the heroic GomBurZa trio (Fr. Mariano C. Gomes, Fr. Jose A. Burgos, and Fr.
Jacinto R. Zamora), and Dr. Jose P. Rizal, whose remains were later on
exhumed and transferred to a house in Binondo before being honorably laid to
rest at the Rizal Park, where Rizal’s monument stands. (NPDC, n.d.). A marker
at the Paco Park & Cemetery identifies the plot where he was first buried.

Morphology: From “Cementerio General de Dilao” to “Paco Park”

Figure 3. Aerial View: The Paco Park & Cemetery

Source: NPDC

The Paco Cemetery has undergone several changes in function and form. As
discussed earlier, an expansion of the site had to be done to respond to the
growing need for more burial niches. The shift from one colonial period to
another.

When the Americans took over after the Spanish-colonial period, they found
the Paco Cemetery in an unsanitary condition. Not in accordance with their
ideas, the Americans condemned and discouraged the practice of removing
corpses from the niches to make room for new ones; thus, in 1913, the Bureau
of Health under the American administration closed it with other Spanish-
colonial cemeteries, which were deemed hazardous to public health, due to
their overcrowded state. The Sta. Cruz Cemetery, Balic-Balic Cemetery in

9
Sampaloc, Tondo Cemtery, Maytubig Cemetery, Malate Cemetery, Pandacan
Cemetery, and the Sta. Ana Cemetery were among those that ceased
operations during the American-colonial period. The only exemption, which
exists to this day, is the La Loma Cemetery, formerly known as the Binondo
Cemetery. (Dakudao, 1992), (Ramos, n.d.).

As the second world war broke, the Japanese occupation introduced changes,
as well. The Japanese forces utilized the Paco Cemetery as their central supply
and ammunition depot. They used the high thick adobe walls around the area
as defensive positions. Then in 1945, prior to the liberation of Manila, they dug
several trenches and pill boxes around and within the cemetery, and armed it
with three 75 millimeters guns as defense against the charging of the 1st
Battalion of the 148th Infantry Regimen of the US Army and the Philippine
Commonwealth Army. (Dakudao, 1992), (Ramos, n.d.).

Finally, President Diosdado Macapagal converted the cemetery into a National

Park in 1966. During the term of President Ferdinand E. Marcos, the Paco Park
& Cemetery was placed under the custodianship of the National Parks
Development Committee (NPDC). Eventually, the Paco Park & Cemetery was
declared a National Historical Shrine, and a National Cultural Treasure by the
National Museum of the Philippines. It was eventually used as a venue for
cultural activities. The first musical event at the historic site was a concert held
on February 29, 1980, in celebration of the Philippine-German Month, initiated
by then Press and Cultural Attaché Dr. Cristoph Jessen and Ka Doroy Valencia,
as instructed by Imelda Romualdez Marcos, the First Lady at that time. This
marked the start of “Paco Park Presents”, a regular event that features musical
performances held every Friday at 6:00 pm. It is complemented by the popular
“Concert at the Park”, which showcases cultural concerts held every Sunday at
6:00 pm. (NPDC, n.d.).

A clearly visible signification of Paco Park & Cemetery’s metamorphosis would

be the addition of the elevated park grounds at its center, which situates a
fountain serving as a foreground to the site’s chapel. This relevant
redevelopment was designed by Landscape Architect Ildefonso P. Santos, Jr.,
National Artist for Architecture. From a place of mourning, it has transformed
into an area for recreation, allowing the general public to enjoy its serene
environment. As its marker states, “The Paco Park was originally a national
cemetery that became a favored spot for artists desiring a quiet communing
with nature in the heart of Manila – a picturesque enclave with old acacia trees,
pock-marked paths and a run-down unpainted church. It was restored in 1963
and is now a people’s park for musical presentations, wedding receptions and
solitary contemplation.” (NPDC, n.d.). Its quaint and charming St. Pancratius
Chapel has also undergone a transformation from a funerary chapel to a typical
place of worship where masses are held regularly.

Moreover, the Paco Park & Cemetery, or simply known as the Paco Park, now
serves as activity grounds for students of nearby schools, a leisure space for

10
the residents of the community, and a historic destination for local and
international tourists.

Findings: The Current State of the Paco Park & Cemetery

Located at one of the busiest and most congested areas, the Paco Park &
Cemetery is open from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. No entrance fees are charged, as
it is meant to be for the enjoyment of the general public.

The Paco Park & Cemetery serves as the Paco Districts “breathing space”, a
respite from the chaos that surrounds it. It has become an area of interaction
and recreation, not only for the residents of its community, but also for
employees of business and commercial establishments in the area, as well as
the students of neighboring schools. It has turned into a modern-day plaza
where people meet and socialize.

Interestingly, the Park remains to be a destination for tourists. It is mentioned

and acknowledged in blogs promotional materials as one of must-see places
in the Philippines. As observed, many tourists frequent the site for its historic
value, being the first extramural cemetery in the country, and having an
ambience that offers a glimpse of the Philippine Spanish-colonial period.

The frequency of visits to the Paco Park & Cemetery covering the whole year
of 2018 and part of the first half of 2019 (January-May) was recorded by the
Paco Park Administration, and the resulting data are as follows:

*Frequency of Visits for 2018:

January………….5,433
February…………7,031
March…………….8,116
April………………4,912
May………………3,903
June……………...2,532
July……………….4,359
August……………6,475
September……….6,010
October…………..6,699
November………..4,437
December………..3,324

11
*Frequency of Visits for Part of 2018 (January-May):

January………….3,838
February…………3,182
March…………….3,084
April………………4,793
May………………1,914

(NPDC, n.d.)

The gathered sets of data show that the Paco Park & Cemetery is consistently
visited, and maintains an attachment to the people.

The heritage site is also a popular venue for weddings and receptions, due to
its antiquity and solemnity. Almost all weekends and holidays, as well as some
weekdays, have been booked for such events, generating income for the park,
as proven by the data collected on the number of weddings for the first half of
2019:

*Wedding Bookings for the first half of 2019:

January………….14
February………….9 (with 1 also using the Park as a reception venue)
March……………12
April………………10
May………………14 (with 2 also using the Park as a reception venue)
June……………...10 (with 1 also using the Park as a reception venue)

(NPDC, n.d.)

The Conservation of the Paco Park & Cemetery

Initiated by the National Parks Development Committee or NPDC, an agency

attached to the Department of Tourism, Phase 1 of the Paco Park & Cemetery
was begun in 2017. Funded through the General Appropriations Act or GAA
and with the Escuela Taller de Filipinas Foundation as the main consultant, the
conservation works focused mainly on retrofitting and the restoration of
deteriorating wall members, which involved the removal of concrete elements
and repointing of the adobe stones (Villalon-From an Interview, 2019). Having
been allotted a budget of 11,000,000 Pesos, the first phase was completed as
scheduled. Phase 2 involved the consolidation of the outer walls, rehabilitation
of architectural elements, and restoration of aesthetic details. Since more
aspects were addressed, the allotted budget for the second phase was
26,000,000 Pesos. (Berbenzana-From an Interview, 2019). Upon completion
in June 2019, a maintenance plan shall be produced to ensure that Paco Park
will be enjoyed by future generations.

12
Observations and Interviews

For a period of almost two years, the Paco Park & Cemetery was regularly
visited by the researchers, having been involved in its conservation. It was
observed that at different parts of the day, trickles of visitors would come in,
with a high concentration in the afternoon, probably since this would be the time
when the people get off from work or school. Activities ranged from organized
tours, school activities, photo shoots, and games, to picnics, exercise routines,
group interaction, and simple relaxation. Occasionally, there would be those
that would come to attend mass at the St. Pancratius Chapel or to attend a
wedding. On weekends, people would flock to watch cultural events featured
in “Paco Park Presents” and “Concert at the Park”.

As for the exterior of the Paco Park & Cemetery, the left side of the site is lined
with parked buses, trucks, and jeepneys, while the right side is occupied by
parked private vehicles and taxis, probably due to the existence of the Oasis
Hotel, which is situated beside the park. To cater to the drivers of the public
utility vehicles, an eatery has laid claim to a portion of the sidewalk at periphery
of the site. At the opposite side near the entrance of the site is a makeshift
store, which doubles as a rest area for pedicab drivers.

Generally, both the interior and the exterior of the Paco Park & Cemetery are
teeming with life, no matter how diverse the activities may be.

Visitors of the park, of varied backgrounds, were randomly interviewed.

Commonalities in responses were noted, resulting in consistent reactions,
expectations, and aspirations.

Figure 4. Interviewees: Lloyd Gonzales and Leandro Rosalin

Source: Author’s own

For two aspiring seamen from Iloilo City, Lloyd Gonzales and Leandro Rosalin,
the Paco Park & Cemetery was not totally familiar to them. They learned about
the site though school lectures, family accounts, and social media, but they
visited out of curiosity, wanting to know more about its historic value and to see
the grave sites of Rizal and GomBurZa. When asked about what they think of

13
the fact that it was turned into a Park, they said it was okay, as long the place
is still respected as a cemetery. They believe that its “oldness” and authenticity
should be preserved, but if safety is compromised, it has to be rehabilitated.
They emphasized that the sanctity of the place should be preserved, although
it is acceptable to hold other “religious events” such as weddings in the venue,
but boisterous parties would be out of the question.

Figure 5. Interviewees: Anna San Pedro, Marck Jhon Sanchez, Gabriel

Tañafranca, Dwane Castañeda, Christine Gail Pelaro, and Krissia Umaran
Source: Author’s own

A group of Accountancy students from the Lyceum of the Philippines University

were more than willing to participate in an interview session, which turned into
a Focus Group Discussion. The group was composed of Anna San Pedro,
Marck Jhon Sanchez, Gabriel Tañafranca, Dwane Castañeda, Christine Gail
Pelaro, and Krissia Umaran, who all happen to be first-time visitors of the Paco
Park & Cemetery. They were tasked to film a video on Philippine history, and
selected the Park as their subject. Like many first-time visitors, they weren’t
familiar with the site, but have knowledge of it through social media and a
couple of local movies. It was smaller than what they expected, but they
appreciated the sanctity of the place. They appreciate the fact that it was turned
into a park, but they believe that its spiritual nature should be maintained and
that the place should not be used for parties and “loud” events. They all agree
that Paco Park, together with other Heritage Structures and Sites, should
remain open to the public for the reason that Filipinos, from all walks of life,
should be made aware of these places for a better understanding of Philippine
history. They feel that the place should remain as it is, but improvements are
welcome since it is not “attractive enough”, and if it is developed further,
additions should be limited so as not to destroy its historical character. In their
opinion, there should be more information signages and educational materials
for better appreciation of the place. Lastly, they believe that restoration and
rehabilitation works are okay, as long as no major changes that would affect
the sanctity of the place are introduced.

14
Figure 6. Joana Marie Isanan, Jolino Isanan, Anna Marie Isan, and Erica
Santiago
Source: Author’s own

The next group that was interviewed was composed of four people: Joana
Marie Isanan, Jolino Isanan, Anna Marie Isan (all from Manila), and Erica
Santiago (a blogger from Bulacan). The Paco Park is familiar to the Isanans,
as they visit the place frequently due to its openness and serenity. For Jolino
Isanan, it is an extension of his school since it has been a routine for him and
his classmates to drop by the place after classes to interact with other school
mates. For them, the cemetery gives them a cultural experience, as it contains
many historical elements, such as the old walls and walkways, the St.
Pancratius Chapel, as well as other architectural features. For them, it primarily
has spiritual value as a cemetery; therefore, it should be respected and
maintained. They believe that cultural events should be created to attract more
visitors, although they think that lavish celebrations are inappropriate. For
blogger Erica Santiago, she believes that people should be encouraged to visit
so that they’d be more appreciative of the place, making them aware that there
are other beautiful tourist spots aside from Intramuros, heritage houses, and
beaches, although the four are in agreement that without visitors, the
administration may not have a reason to clean and maintain the place but more
information signages should be added. Moreover, they believe that the sanctity
of the place should be protected. As for rehabilitation and restoration, they think
it’s okay, especially if elements badly need repair. They also understand that
new developments are inevitable, so when something new is introduced, safety
and maintenance of the park’s image must be considered. They added that too
much new development inside the park, such as commercial establishments,
may ruin its character, but such areas may be added outside, since they believe
that these can help boost tourism. They are familiar with its “vintage” look; thus,
to restore Paco Park to its original “new” appearance may cause people to be
detached from the place.
They also noticed that the place lacks information signages that contain
historical data. They ended by saying that places like Paco Park should be
conserved so that our history may be promoted; thus the general public may
be able to fully understand our culture.

15
Figure 7. Emma Geresorio, Margarita Samatilla, Karen Reyes, Patricia
Valencia, Joana Garcia, and Genevib Villejo
Source: Author’s own

Another group was chanced upon, made up of Care-giving Course students of

the Emilio Aguinaldo College. The interesting mix was composed of Emma
Geresorio, Margarita Samatilla, Karen Reyes, Patricia Valencia, Joana Garcia,
and Genevib Villejo. The group visited Paco Park for a school project, and to
rehearse for a play. Out of the six, five were first-time visitors, but they were
aware that it was a cemetery with a central church, and that it is a place for
recreation and events. They found the place peaceful and comfortable, and
assessed that it was better than what they expected. They understand that the
place is important, since it has Historical Significance, but they feel that its
facilities need a little more improvement. For them, when repairs and
rehabilitation need to be done, the Paco Park’s solemnity should be
maintained; that is, the site’s character, which is familiar to its users should not
be altered, since this would ensure that the people would remain attached to
the place. As far as additions are concerned, they believe that commercial
buildings or structures that have nothing to do with the site should not be built,
but if it’s inevitable, they should complement the site and the architectural
character of the chapel. As for function, it is used as a park, and it should stay
that way. They went on by saying that attractions should be incorporated within
the site, such as a museum and information boards, for these would bring in
more people who would be informed about and educated on the site, as well
as Philippine history. They believe that the place would be more vibrant if more
people would come.

Survey Results

An online survey was conducted in June 2019. 193 respondents answered the
survey of which 95 or 49.20% are male and, 91 or 47.20% are female. The
remaining 7 or 3.60% of the respondents prefer not to say their gender. The
age of the respondents ranges from 15 yrs. old up to 65 yrs. old. Ages 23 – 24

16
yrs. old is the age with the highest count (14) followed by 22 – 23 yrs. old with
13 counts. The ages 25 – 27 yrs. old and 50 – 51 yrs. old has the third most
number of counts (9). 168 or 87.00% of the respondents are professionals while
the other 25 or 13.00% are students.

The Results of the Survey are as follows:

Have you been to any Heritage Site or Structure?

On the question, whether they have been to any heritage structure or site; 187
or 96.90% out of 193 respondents said that they were able to visit any heritage
site or structure while the 6 or 3.10% of the respondents said that they haven’t
been to any heritage structure or site.

If you answered “No”, What would your reason/s be for not being able to
visit?
Of the 6 respondents who answered that they haven’t been to any heritage
sites; 3 or 50.00% of them said that the reason that they are not able to visit
any heritage site or structure is that they don’t have time. The other 3
respondents each answered that the reason they haven’t been to any heritage
site or structure is because the heritage site is not accessible to them; that they
find the heritage sites or structures not attractive and/or well-maintained; and
that they are not interested and/or aware of the heritage structures or sites.

If you answered “Yes”, What Heritage Structure/s or Site/s have you

visited (You may select more than one.)?
Of the choices given by the researchers to the respondents on the question, of
what heritage structure/s or site/s that they have visited; 19.30% of the
respondents said that they have visited heritage churches or cathedrals,
followed by Intramuros with 18.10% of the respondents said that they visited
the said heritage site. National Museums are visited by 16.70% of the
respondents, followed by Paco Park with 10.20% of the respondents said they
visited the park. The other two heritage site and/or structure visited by the
respondents are the Metropolitan Theater and Banaue Rice Terraces with
9.80% and 6.10% respectively.

19.80% of the respondents listed other heritage sites or structure that they have
visited such as Vigan Heritage Houses, Nagcarlan Underground cemetery,
UST, other heritage houses or religious site both local and abroad, etc.

How many times have you visited the said Heritage Structure/s or Site/s?
On the question on how many times does the respondents have visited the
heritage structure/s or site/s listed on Question C; 53 or 28.30% of the response
is varied. Some of the respondents said that they have visited those heritage
site/s or structure/s more than four times, or in multiple times on different
occasions, or almost every day, etc. 45 or 24.10% of the respondents said that
they’ve been to those heritage structure/s or site/s twice.

17
36 or 19.30% of the respondents have visited the selected heritage structure/s
or site/s three times. The same result as for those respondents who said that
they’ve been to the selected heritage sites four times. On the other hand, 17 or
9.10% of the respondents said that they visited the selected heritage structure/s
or site/s only once.

What made you visit the said Heritage Structure/s or Site/s (You may
select more than one.)?
On the question on what made the respondents visit the selected heritage
structure/s or site/s; 46.10% of the respondents said that they found these
heritage structure/s or site/s very interesting (historically, architecturally,
aesthetically). 21.80% of the respondents visit these heritage structure/s or
site/s because for them it supports recreation while the 16.20% of the
respondents said that these heritage structure/s or site/s is accessible to them
that is why they visited them. 8.90% of the respondents said that they visit
theses heritage structure/s or site/s because it was well-maintained while
7.00% of the respondents pointed out other reasons why they visit the heritage
structure/s or site/s such as it was part of their work, for research purposes,
school trips, or they wanted to know the history of the structure/s or site/s, etc.

Is there anything you don’t like about the place?

105 or 56.10% of the respondents said that there is something they don’t like
about the heritage structure/s or site/s they visited. while there are 82 or
43.90% of the respondents said that there is nothing, they didn’t like about the
heritage structure/s or site/s they visited.

If you answered “Yes”, what would that/those be (You may select more
than one.)?
On the follow-up question, the respondents are asked to choose what they
don’t like about the heritage structure/s or site/s they visited. 26.80% of the
respondents said that it was the poor facilities that they don’t like on the
heritage structure/s or site/s they visited. 18.60% of the respondents said it was
the diminishing authenticity is what they don’t like about the heritage structure/s
or site/s they visited, followed by too much-added development with 17.60%
respondents pointing this as what they don’t like about the heritage structure/s
or site/s.

The feeling of being unsafe is pointed out by the 10.80% of the respondents as
the thing they don’t want about the heritage structure/s or site/s they visited.
While 10.50% of the respondents said it is the current use of the heritage
structure/s or site/s that they don’t like every time they visit these sites. 15.60%
of the respondents pointed out things that they don’t like about the heritage
site/s or structure/s other than the given choices by the researchers such as
unauthorized tourist guides, lack of supplemental and interactive facilities, no
written information about the site, rude visitors and officials, etc.

18
 What other elements should be added to the Heritage Structure/s or Site/s
that you visited?
Of 105 respondents, 84 or 80.00% said that educational facilities like a
museum, library, signages, information boards, etc. should be added to the
heritage structure/s or site/s they visited. On the other hand, 19 or 18.10%
respondents said that recreational areas should be added to these heritage
structure/s or site/s they visited while 2 or 1.90% of the respondents said that
commercial spaces should be added instead.

III. Continued Use: Prolonging the Life of Heritage Structures and Sites Through
Adaptive Reuse

Figure 8. Visitors at the steps of the elevated area

Source: Author’s own

The Paco Cemetery was designed and constructed for a particular purpose.
Eventually, it ceased to be responsive to what it was intended for, as new needs
and ideas have emerged. It was closed down, and rendered useless: a situation
that would lead to neglect and deterioration. As Linda Bennett expressed in an
article for her blog site, “It’s often hard to imagine that a building can be used for
anything other than what it was intended, yet when they are left abandoned, having
outlived their original purpose, many dilapidated structures cry out to be
transformed rather than fall fowl to the demolition ball.” (Bennett, 2009. p. 1, par.
1). Just like Structures, Heritage Sites can be given new life through adaptive
reuse. Moreover, when these are left unattended and unused, deterioration is most

19
likely to ensue, posing a threat to the physical safety of other buildings and sites
around them. (Kelly, 2016).

Possessing aesthetic, historic, spiritual, and social values, the Paco Cemetery
undoubtedly has cultural significance, not only in relation to its community, but to
the entire nation, as well. Cultural Significance is the main reason for the site to be
conserved.

For the Paco Cemetery, it was logical to choose Restoration as a conservation

approach, as its physical architectural elements are directly associated with its
aesthetic value, its carefully planned “ceremonial” layout and once useful
components of the past greatly contribute to its historic value, its contemplative
environment and religious symbols and structures are deeply connected to its
spiritual value, and its openness and central location are highly responsible for its
social value.

But a fully restored structure or site would just end up being a “white elephant” if
not made functional. As can be applied to a heritage site, “Old buildings are best
maintained by using them. The active use of an old building with sensitive
alterations is more desireable than having a perfectly intact building that is not
used.” (Vines, 2005. p. 12, par. 2). Basically an open space, the Paco Cemetery
was transformed into a national park. It was given a new function without
compromising its Cultural Significance. As a result, more facilities were necessary
to respond to the new users’ needs. Since it has been turned into a place is fully
public, conveniences such as restrooms, garbage disposal units, ample lighting,
seating areas, and the like had to be added. Although the comfort of the general
public should be given importance, significant components should be safeguarded,
as well. With those considerations in mind, the concept of “Sensitive Adaptive
Reuse” was applied wherein the original configuration should be kept, unnecessary
destruction and demolition of structural and architectural elements must be
prevented, and additions should not affect the original features. (Mata, 2007). But,
while it is important to have a high regard for historic structures and sites through
Continued Use, it should be kept in mind that Continuity is not just about the past.
It also has a lot to do with the present and the future. (Mayes, 2013). We are
reminded of what is important to us and what gives us identity, but we are able to
move forward and cope with change and progress.

Another logical reason for giving Heritage Structures and Sites new life is
sustainability. If an old building or property, with a previous function that is no longer
needed, suits the physical requirements of a new space that is necessary in the
community, then it can be adaptively reused. “Recycling has become second
nature to modern communities as we strive for environmental sustainability. Aiming
to reduce, reuse and recycle waste, we find new life in everything from bottles and
boxes to clothes, vehicles and buildings. Adaptive reuse is a process that changes
a disused or ineffective item into a new item that can be used for a different
purpose. Sometimes, nothing changes but the item’s use.” (Department of the
Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, 2004. p. 3, par. 1-5).

20
Furthermore, demolition and new construction would entail additional cost; hence,
would require a higher budget. Another setback for new developments would be
the limited availability of space. (Bennett, 2009). Even if funding is not a problem,
there may not be new properties in the market. Due to this lack, properties - with
existing developments and users - are purchased, and structures are demolished
to give way to new ones. In effect, people are displaced and forced to relocate.
This can be avoided if Adaptive Reuse is considered.

Continued use would then contribute in prolonging the life of a Heritage Structure
and Site. Heritage Tourism plays a relevant role in this aspect. To encourage more
people, especially Filipinos, to visit Heritage Structures and Sites, such as the Paco
Park & Cemetery, they must be assured of safety, comfort, and an enriching
experience. More cultural attractions and educational facilities may be incorporated
in the said places, as long as the Cultural Significance, structural integrity, and
meanings are maintained, and not diminished. Based on interviews that were
conducted at the Paco Park, all respondents feel that the sanctity and historical
character of the site should be maintained. Most of them believe that information
signages and facilities such as museums should be added so that visitors will be
educated about the park and Philippine history, in general. Some would want more
cultural shows to be regularly featured, aside from the “Paco Park Presents” and
“Concert at the Park”. Collectively, these would be the reasons for people to visit,
and to entice them to keep coming back. Whatever the reason for visiting may be,
Philippine Architectural Heritage will be promoted. It would be an opportunity for
visitors to be exposed to the place, to understand what it is all about, to learn from
the past, to be reminded of Filipino values, to rediscover their Filipino identity, and
hopefully, to be reattached to their heritage.

Continued Use in Relation to Conservation

The Paco Park & Cemetery has morphed into something that it was not originally
intended to be, but it continues to be used as a recreational park, an area for
cultural events, a place of worship, and a popular venue for weddings as data on
the frequency of visits and wedding bookings would prove. For decades, it has
attracted thousands of visitors each month, mainly because of its ambience and
historic character. As the keeper of the Heritage Site, the National Parks
Development Committee (NPDC) makes sure that it remains operational for the
enjoyment of the general public. Due to the continued use of the Paco Park &
Cemetery by thousands of visitors, comfort, safety, and significance are the main
considerations for its upkeep. (NPDC, n.d.). In addition, venue rentals for special
events like weddings, conferences, and movie/photo shoots generate income for
the Paco Park.

21
 Figure 9. Main entrance of the Paco Park & Cemetery
Source: Author’s own

In 2017, the NPDC started on the conservation of the Paco Park & Cemetery. The
urgency was sparked by an International Symposium organized by Escuela Taller
de Filipinas Foundation, Inc. (ETFFI), “Disaster Risk Reduction Through
Preventive Maintenance – The West Valley Fault and Philippine-Spanish Built
Heritage”, held on February 27, 2017 to March 1, 2017, at the Ayuntamiento de
Manila, Intramuros. (Berbenzana-From an Interview, 2019). One of the major tasks
of the NPDC, is to protect and promote the Paco Park and Cemetery as it is rich in
cultural Significance, but the safety and comfort of the site’s users remain to be
part of the top priorities of the agency.

Because of the vibrancy of the Paco Park, employment opportunities abound. More
jobs are created for Administrative Officers, Engineers, Architects, Landscape
Architects, Conservationists, Contractors, Maintenance Staff, Security Guards,
and many others.

22
 Undisrupted operations and continued use may require added attention to
maintenance (which is good for any Heritage Site), but more people will get to
appreciate and understand the cultural significance of the Paco Park & Cemetery,
fulfilling the mandate of the NPDC.

IV. Adaptability: “Compatible Adaptive Reuse”

Figure 10. The Central Fountain

Source: Author’s own

It has been established that Continued Use contributes to the prolonging of the life
of a Heritage Structure or Site. It is the principle behind Adaptive Reuse. But not
all Heritage structures and Sites that have been continuously used through
Adaptive Reuse are successful. Their lives may have been prolonged, and they
may have contributed to sustainability, but their Cultural Significance would be
diminished, and their “Spirit of Place” would be lost. As a result, the essence of
their existence would fade, as memories are erased. An extreme example would
be “A 100-Year-Old Church Transformed Into A Skate Park Painted With Colorful
Graffiti” located at the Spanish town of Ilanera. (Tikunova, n.d. p. 1, par. 1). The
Church, which is supposedly a sacred place of worship, was turned into something
that is not compatible with its former function. Moreover, the place was desecrated
in many ways. Some may hail it as an innovative and artistic way of reusing a
structure, but clearly, its architectural and spiritual values have been taken away.
As stated in the Burra Charter, “Conservation is based on a respect for the existing
fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of
changing as much as necessary but as little as possible.” (1999). It would be
unacceptable when culturally significant elements are altered or removed.

23
 Figure 11. Church Turned Into A Skate Park
Source: https://www.boredpanda.com/church-skate-park-kaos-
temple-okuda-san-
miguel/?utm_source=ph.yhs4.search.yahoo&utm_medium=refe
rral&utm_campaign=organic

On the other hand, Heritage Structures and Sites that have been deemed
acceptable and successful would be those that are continuously used and those
that have assumed new functions that are “compatible” with their original uses.
Adaptability is defined as the quality of being able to adjust to new conditions.
When used in terms of Architectural Heritage Conservation, its definition should be
more specific for accepted approaches. In Conservation jargon, it may be defined
by the coined phrase “Compatible Adaptive Reuse”. Compatible functions must be
promoted in order to preserve and restore the life and meaning of a Heritage
Structure or Site. (Vines, 2005). Vines goes on by stating that “new development
should be undertaken in an architectural style which is compatible with the
surrounding character. New development in historic districts should only occur
where this does not require the demolition of a heritage building which contributes
to the character of the area.” (Vines, 2005. p. 24, par. 1).

In the case of the Paco Park & Cemetery, it was transformed into something that
is compatible to what it was intended for. Firstly, a cemetery can be considered as
a social space where people would congregate to pay respects to the departed,
much like a park, which is a place for congregation and interaction. It is interesting
to note that there not much deviation from its original function, as modern-day
cemeteries are referred to as “Memorial Parks”. Furthermore, the Heritage Site’s
status as a park does not require the alteration or removal of historical physical
elements. As written in NCCA’s Balangkas – A Resource Book on the Care of Built
Heritage in the Philippines, “However, its present use should be compatible with
its history and its architectural integrity. Adaptive reuse is therefore neither

24
 renovation nor modelling. These two terms imply total change and disruption of the
integrity of the original structure and its spaces.” (Mata, 2007. p. 32, par. 4).

From the interviews conducted at the Paco Park, it was learned that the
respondents like the idea of the site being transformed into a park. Although it is
now a place for recreation, they appreciate the sanctity and solemnity of the place,
which the visible niches and former funeral chapel are responsible for. The serene
environment puts them in a peaceful state.
Perhaps, the redevelopment done by National Artist for Architecture, Larch. I. P.
Santos was planned to create a zone for recreation, away from the niches, which
some consider as sacred. In his design, the central portion was elevated; thus,
separating the burial chambers from the activity area.

Adaptability may also be defined as conforming to the needs of the community.

The Paco District has become congested, and the Paco Park is a response to the
need for a public open space. Instead of creating a new one, the Paco Park has
been transformed to suit that particular need.

Considering the definitions that were mentioned, it can be said that the Paco Park
& Cemetery is highly adaptable as its new use is compatible with its old function,
and it is responsive to the needs of the community where it is situated.

V. Conclusion

The Paco Park & Cemetery can be considered as a good example of a successfully
conserved Heritage Site. Just like the successful Adaptive Reuse Projects that
were mentioned, the Nielson Tower and the Gota de Leche Building, Its Cultural
Significance has been protected and preserved, and actively being promoted.

The Paco Park & Cemetery has successfully retained its aesthetic, historic,
spiritual, and social values as it assumed a new function. It continues to be of use,
consistently visited by thousands monthly.

The product of a combination of conservation approaches, this Cultural Property

has retained its historic physical details resulting in the preservation of its status as
a National Cultural Treasure while adapting to the community that owns it.

It can therefore be established that Adaptability and Continued Use, as applied to

the Paco Park & Cemetery, are key factors in effective Conservation.

25
VI. Recommendations

The Case of the Paco Park and Cemetery may be taken as a guide for future
Conservation Projects.

A Survey was conducted, and results included the aspirations of respondents

for Heritage Structures and Sites in general. These may be useful as regards
what can contribute to the success of a Heritage Conservation Project.
Synthesizing the data gathered, the following were established: Good facilities
should be incorporated in a Heritage Structure or Site (museums, commercial
spaces outside and not within); safety of visitors should be taken into
consideration; authenticity of structures and details should be protected;
Information Signages should be featured; and convenient access to the
structure or site should be studied.

A Conservation Management Plan (CMP) should be produced prior to

Redevelopment Interventions, and stakeholders must be included in the
Decision-making Process.

26
VII. Bibliography

About Gota de Leche. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://gotadeleche.com/about/

Bennett, L. (2009). 7 Excellent Examples of Adaptive Reuse. (Article for Archi-

ninja.com, an Online Blog). Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.archi-ninja.com/excellent-examples-of-adaptive-reuse/

Caruncho, E. S. (2018). Gota de Leche, UE show how heritage, modernity can

coexist. Retrieved from Lifestyle.INQ.: https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/319005/gota-
de-leche-ue-show-how-heritage-modernity-can-coexist/

Dakudao, M. (1992). The Development of Cemeteries in Manila Before 1941.

(Paper for the Philippine Quarterly of Culture & Society, Vol. 26, No. ½, Selected
Papers [March/June 1998], pp. 254-271). Manila, Philippines. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/29792419?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia.

(2004). Adaptive Reuse: Preserving our past, building our future. (Department of
the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia online document).
Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/adaptive-reuse

Five Interesting Facts About the Gota de Leche Building. (n.d.). Retrieved from
Gota de Leche: http://gotadeleche.com/five-interesting-facts-about-the-gota-de-
leche-building/

Heritage building the focus of charity’s 2017 desk calendar. (2016). Retrieved
from BusinessWorld: https://www.bworldonline.com/heritage-building-the-focus-
of-charitys-2017-desk-calendar/

Kasingsing, P. (2018). For Whom the Bell Tolls: PH heritage landmarks left in
ruins. Retrieved from https://bluprint.onemega.com/nta-philippine-heritage-
landmarks/

Kelly, L. (2016). Profound & Profane Places: The Adaptive Reuse of Sacred
Spaces in Philadelphia. (Senior Seminar Paper submitted to the University of
Pennsylvania, Urban Studies Program). Pennsylvania, USA. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304089253_Profound_Profane_Places
_The_Adaptive_Reuse_of_Sacred_Spaces_in_Philadelphia

Kielion, L. (2008). Adaptability in Architecture. (Design Thesis 2007-2008,

University of Nebraska College of Architecture). Nebraska, USA. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/archthesis/72/

Luna, M. (2017). Architectural Heritage Conservation: Learning From The Past.

(Conference Paper, presented at “Heritage 101: Seminar-Workshop on
Architectural Heritage Conservation for Young Architects”, October 14, 2017).
Iloilo, Philippines

27
Mata, R. (2007). Defending the Structure’s Integrity, Balangkas – A Resource
Book on the Care of Built Heritage in the Philippines. Manila, Philippines:
National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) – Committee on
Monuments and Sites

Mayes, T. (2013). Why Do Old Places Matter? Continuity. (Blog for the National
Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Leadership Forum). Washington
D.C., USA. Retrieved from https://forum.savingplaces.org/blogs/forum-
online/2013/11/21/why-do-old-places-matter-continuity

National Parks Development Committee. (n.d.).

Nielson Tower. (2015). Retrieved from Philippine Primer:

http://primer.com.ph/travel/2015/12/05/nielson-tower/

NIelson Tower. (n.d.). Retrieved from Blackbird: https://www.blackbird.com.ph/

Ramos, C. V. (n.d.). Cementerio General: Solution for Health and Sanitary

Problem during the Spanish Period (1863-1884). Retrieved June 12, 2019, from
https://www.academia.edu/18886002/Cementerio_General_Solution_for_Health
_and_Sanitary_Problem_during_the_Spanish_Period_1863-1884_

Sembrano, E. A. (2014). Adamson rescues ‘Furies’ (or what’s left of it). Retrieved
from Lifestyle.INQ: https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/172534/adamson-rescues-furies-
or-whats-left-of-it/

The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. (1999). The
Burra Charter. Australia: Australia ICOMOS Incorporated

The Gota de Leche of Sampaloc. (2012). Retrieved from The Urban Roamer:
https://www.theurbanroamer.com/the-gota-de-leche-of-sampaloc/

Tikunova, P.(n.d.). A 100-Year-Old Church Transformed Into A Skate Park

Painted With Colorful Graffiti. (An Article for boredpanda.com). Retrieved from
https://www.boredpanda.com/church-skate-park-kaos-temple-okuda-san-
miguel/?utm_source=ph.yhs4.search.yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campai
gn=organic

Vines, E. (2005). Streetwise Asia, A Practical Guide for the Conservation and
Revitalisation of Heritage Cities and Towns in Asia. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO
Bangkok

Yamsuan, C. C. (2017). More-than-a-century-old structure has rich history.

Retrieved from Lifestyle.INQ: https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/259044/century-old-
structure-rich-history/

28
VIII. Acknowledgements

L.Arch. Beth Espino

Engr. Eduardo C. Villalon, Jr. – NPDC
Ricardo Berbenzana – NPDC
Engr. Lovelie Dy Abarquez – NPDC
Maria Angela Karamihan – Paco Park Administration

Interview/Focus Group Discussion Participants:

Lloyd Gonzales
Leandro Rosalin
Anna San Pedro
Marck Jhon Sanchez
Gabriel Tañafranca
Dwane Castañeda
Christine Gail Pelaro
Krissia Umaran
Joana Marie Isanan
Jolino Isanan
Anna Marie Isan
Erica Santiago
Emma Geresorio
Margarita Samatilla
Karen Reyes
Patricia Valencia
Joana Garcia
Genevib Villejo

29