Very interesting article -- I had never heard of Makati.
One explanation for some of the recent issues you describe is subdivision itself. The big mistake the developers made was relying on freehold (with deep restrictions) rather than leases. Freehold ossifies the urban fabric. Rarely are restrictions or rules *removed* so over time risk-averse NIMBYs worried about their property values put city governments in a stranglehold.
It seems as though NIMBY is the logical end of subdivision, especially if you go the single-family-house suburban route.
There's really nothing "right-wing" about the Ayala person's statement. Having a single company with a concentrated interest in the whole would almost certainly invite a more dynamic urbanism, as long as that company doesn't sell off all the property in perpetuity with restrictive deeds. They're arguing for a residual claimant on the value of the city. That's neither left nor right. It's just good economics.
Very interesting article -- I had never heard of Makati.
One explanation for some of the recent issues you describe is subdivision itself. The big mistake the developers made was relying on freehold (with deep restrictions) rather than leases. Freehold ossifies the urban fabric. Rarely are restrictions or rules *removed* so over time risk-averse NIMBYs worried about their property values put city governments in a stranglehold.
It seems as though NIMBY is the logical end of subdivision, especially if you go the single-family-house suburban route.
There's really nothing "right-wing" about the Ayala person's statement. Having a single company with a concentrated interest in the whole would almost certainly invite a more dynamic urbanism, as long as that company doesn't sell off all the property in perpetuity with restrictive deeds. They're arguing for a residual claimant on the value of the city. That's neither left nor right. It's just good economics.