The recent images emerging from Bonifacio Global City – groups of young people gathering, sometimes leading to disturbances – are more than just isolated incidents. They are a symptom of a fundamental disconnect in how Philippine cities are built and who they are built for.
These gatherings, often involving skateboarding, meetups, and simply occupying public spaces, aren’t acts of delinquency. They are a visible expression of a deeper need, a yearning for accessible, vibrant urban life. Videos of marshals attempting to disperse these groups highlight a growing tension: who *belongs* in these increasingly privatized spaces?
Across the Philippines, the responsibility for creating functional urban spaces has largely fallen to private developers. This isn’t necessarily a failing of those developers, but a consequence of government struggles to comprehensively manage and guide urban growth. A truly thriving city should offer equitable access, “spread evenly like butter on a piece of bread,” as one urban planner once observed.
Business districts like BGC, Makati, and Rockwell have inadvertently become substitutes for traditional parks and plazas. While these developments offer quality, they raise a critical question: who has the right to enjoy them? When access is restricted, it’s often young people, and those economically marginalized, who feel the impact most acutely.
Youth congregating in public spaces is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, these areas have served as vital social stages, where young people forge identities, build friendships, and participate in civic life. To dismiss this as mere misconduct is to overlook its fundamental role in social development.
The question isn’t *why* these young people are gathering, but *what* draws them to places like BGC. It’s not simply rebellion; it’s opportunity. BGC offers continuous sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, a sense of safety, and a place to be without the pressure to spend money – qualities often absent in other parts of Metro Manila.
From a planning perspective, these gatherings often signal a lack of suitable public venues. When cities fail to provide enough parks, sports facilities, and cultural centers, people will inevitably appropriate available space, sometimes leading to conflict. Youth presence shouldn’t be seen as a threat, but as evidence of urban energy.
Leading global cities have addressed this challenge not through increased enforcement, but through thoughtful design. Copenhagen invested in skate facilities and accessible waterfronts. Singapore created youth hubs and civic plazas. Barcelona prioritized human-scale neighborhoods. These examples demonstrate that youthful activity can be channeled productively with well-planned public spaces.
Philippine regulations currently count roads as part of the required open space in new developments, allocating only a small percentage to genuine parkland. This prioritizes saleable land over shared environments, a stark contrast to cities like Singapore and Hong Kong, which mandate significantly higher percentages of dedicated open space.
True urban safety isn’t achieved through barriers and guards, but through activity and visibility. As urban thinker Jane Jacobs argued, “eyes on the street” – everyday activity and natural surveillance – are fundamental to security. Lively sidewalks and mixed land uses create accountability and deter wrongdoing. Empty, sealed-off districts often have the opposite effect.
Exclusivity is often mistaken for protection. In reality, cities become safer when they are lively, visible, and socially integrated. The incidents in BGC present a choice: respond with alarm, or embrace constructive reform.
Practical steps include reclaiming and democratizing public space, treating sidewalks, parks, and plazas as essential civic infrastructure. We must design for mixed use and continuous activity, ensuring cities don’t become empty after hours.
Enabling natural surveillance – active ground floors, permeable buildings, and lively pedestrian environments – is crucial. Providing youth-oriented programming, such as sports facilities and cultural events, can reduce friction and offer positive outlets. And finally, safety must be a shared social function, involving communities, not just security personnel.
What’s happening in BGC isn’t simply a policing issue; it’s an urban planning lesson. Order, safety, and a sense of belonging are the results of how we design and govern our cities. These environments reflect our collective priorities. By shaping them around people – including the next generation – we build places that are more secure, more humane, and more socially cohesive.
