University of the Philippines - Diliman
College of Architecture
PUERTA DE STA. LUCIA
A CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
GUTIERREZ, MARLIN NOAH P.
PROF. MARKEL CESAR LUNA
PROF. MICHAEL ANGELO LIWANAG
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 4
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................................................................... 4
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................... 5
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 5
METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Workplan and Schedule ................................................................................................................................. 6
PART I – UNDERSTANDING THE PLACE ........................................................... 8
1.1. HISTORY RELEVANT TO THE PLACE ....................................................................................................................... 8
A Brief History of Intramuros and Its Walls .................................................................................................... 8
1.2. CHRONOLOGY AND DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE ..................................................................................................... 16
History of Puerta de Sta Lucia and its Environ ............................................................................................. 16
1.3. SIGNIFICANT PEOPLE AND GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH PLACE .................................................................................. 18
1.4. LANDSCAPE, SETTINGS, AND VIEWS ................................................................................................................... 19
1.5. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: LANDFORM, GEOLOGY, AND VEGETATION ....................................................................... 21
Changing Landforms .................................................................................................................................... 21
Physical Characteristics of Manila ............................................................................................................... 23
1.6. PUERTA DE STA. LUCIA STRUCTURE .................................................................................................................... 23
1781 Floor Plan Technical Description ......................................................................................................... 23
The Grid’s Influence...................................................................................................................................... 24
Architectural Style ........................................................................................................................................ 25
Ownership and Use ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Construction Material .................................................................................................................................. 33
1.7. CULTURAL LANDSCAPE .................................................................................................................................... 34
Colonial Esplanade: From Puerta de Sta. Lucia to Malecón Drive ............................................................... 34
From the Diary of Dr. Jose Rizal ................................................................................................................... 36
PART II – ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................................... 38
2.1. CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................................. 38
2.2. SIGNIFICANCE OF COMPONENTS ........................................................................................................................ 39
Comparative Functional Analysis ................................................................................................................. 39
Comparative Architectural Analysis ............................................................................................................. 40
2.3. ASSESSMENT BY CRITERION .............................................................................................................................. 42
Aesthetic and Architectural Value ................................................................................................................ 42
Historical Value ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Social Value .................................................................................................................................................. 42
2.4. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................................................... 42
PART III – IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES .......................................................... 43
3.1. CONDITIONS AND THREAT (FABRIC SURVEY) ........................................................................................................ 43
Biological Growth ......................................................................................................................................... 43
Cement Mortar Joints and Plaster Renders .................................................................................................. 44
Other Observed Threats to the Fabric .......................................................................................................... 45
PART IV – POLICIES AND ACTION PLANS....................................................... 47
1. On the Primacy of Cultural Significance ................................................................................................... 47
REFERENCES................................................................................................. 53
SOURCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 53
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN GUIDES ............................................................................................................ 53
APPENDIX I: Cartographic References .......................................................... 54
INTRODUCTION
Background
Las Puertas de Intramuros refer to the original gates of the Walled City of Intramuros in
Manila, built during the three centuries of Spanish Colonial rule in the Philippines. The gates are called
by their original Spanish word for gate, Puerta (plural: Puertas), serving as major access in and out of
the different sides of the Walled City by virtue of their strategic location, and serving as an added layer
of security being part of the larger fortification wall complex.
Nine puertas have been identified throughout the duration of the academic semester, eight
being a subject of an individual study, but collectively, forming a comprehensive series on each of the
gate’s historical context, significance, proposed policies and corresponding actions plans. Along the
northern side of Intramuros, facing Pasig River are (1) Puerta de Isabel II, (2) Puerta de Sto. Domingo,
(3) Puerta de Aduana, and (4) Puerta de Alamacenes; along the eastern side, (5) Puerta del Parian;
along the southern side just across Luneta Park, (6) Puerta Real de Bagumbayan; and along the
western side, in what was originally the Manila Bay are (6) Puerta al Quartel de Banderas, (7) Puerta
de Postigo, and lastly which will be the main focus of this particular study, (8) Puerta de Sta. Lucia.
Purpose of the Study
This study of PUERTA DE STA. LUCIA, one of the seven major gates of Intramuros, Manila,
may serve the following purposes:
•
as a tool for the Intramuros Administration (IA), the government agency duly-mandated
to restore and administer the developments in the Walled City, in planning for future
conservation interventions in the structure and in formulating policies to regulate its uses,
both in consonance with acceptable international standards of conserving a National
Shrine (Intramuros and Its Walls) hence, a possible input to the planned Intramuros
Conservation Management Plan;
•
as a tangible testament to the existence and physical attributes of Puerta de Sta. Lucia in
order to re-affirm the living memory of its various stakeholders over time and to enhance
guardianship of the conditions of authenticity and integrity of the said structure; and
•
as a form of State compliance with the World Heritage Convention of 1972 to safeguard
the authenticity and integrity of Puerta de Sta. Lucia, among other components of
Intramuros, as an integral part of the buffer zone of the San Agustin Church World
Heritage Site.
The final output of the study is part of the subject course requirement in AR 222.1 and 222.2
- Architectural Design class of the University of the Philippines’ Master of Architecture Program
(Heritage Track).
Goals and Objectives
Goals
This study shall produce a compilation of documentation containing an updated set of
historical facts and preliminary architectural information on Puerta de Sta. Lucia, further studies
regarding the assessment of conditions of authenticity, integrity, and significance of the said structure,
and proposed policies for conservation.
Objectives
•
To re-visit the pertinent history in and outside the Walled City of Intramuros, in relation to the
construction and further developments of its walls and fortifications and to identify the
portions of the history of Intramuros pertaining to the history and morphology of Puerta de
Sta. Lucia;
•
To survey Puerta de Sta. Lucia and put forward an initial set of analyses (comparative analysis
with other gates, fabric survey) to assess its original vis-a-vis its present condition, to identify
issues that may arise from its current function and usage, and to extract the structure’s
significance; and finally
•
To propose appropriate conservation policies and action plans for policy implementation as
base guidelines for future decision-makers of conservation interventions of Puerta de Sta.
Lucia.
Scope and Limitations
Scope
This study shall focus on:
1. Puerta de Sta. Lucia’s historical development in relation to the history of Intramuros and the
immediate vicinity of Manila Bay from 1571 up to the present, as drawn from library, archival,
and online research, and interviews with appropriate IA personnel;
2. the advancing of analyses of the subject structure, specifically: comparative analysis with
other gates, typology, morphology, and fabric survey; and
3. the proposal of conservation policies and action plans as base guidelines for future decisionmakers of conservation interventions of Puerta de Sta. Lucia.
Limitation
Due to time and budget constraints, this study will not be expected to obtain sufficient
evidence from the perspective of a detailed engineering/structural study nor subsurface probing
study. This will also depend on the extent of the IA permit to access Puerta de Sta. Lucia, some
portions of which may not be open to the public. Limited access or availability of archival plans and
other data regarding the structure may also pose as a constraint.
Methodology
The study follows the process of Australia ICOMOS 2013 Burra Charter, Article 6 which
constitute for a sequence of collecting and analyzing information before making a decision.
Formulation of policies for conservation shall be based on the understanding of the place’s cultural
significance, with due consideration to factors that may affect the future of the subject (i.e. current
user needs and aspirations, physical condition, etc.), after which action plans shall be developed for
the proper implementation of the proposed policies.
UNDERSTAND
Significance
IDENTIFY
Issues & Aspirations
FORMULATE
Policies
DEVELOP
Action Plans
The entire content and structure of the study is based on this process and shall be fleshed out
starting off with (1) understanding of the subject’s cultural significance, (2) identification of issues,
constraints and aspirations, (3) formulation of conservation policies that allows for the retention,
enhancement and protection of the subject’s cultural significance, and lastly (4) development of action
plans which briefly outlines key points for the proper implementation of the proposed policies.
Data Collection
The study will undertake two major strategies for data collection:
1. Site Encounter, a primordial strategy which, after obtaining an appropriate permit from the
IA, will enable primary information gathering through onsite inspection, measurements,
sketches/drawings, photoshoots and interviews of current space users; and
2. Research, through library, archival, and/or online work, or personal interface with appropriate
experts, such as IA conservationists and the librarian-archivist. The purpose of research will
be to re-visit the history of Intramuros since its foundation until the recent times, to identify
and segregate the portions of that which pertains to Puerta de Sta. Lucia, and to discover and
reproduce, once allowed, archival maps, photos, drawings, and plans related to the subject.
Research will also be used to identify key information to support comparative analysis and
typology, morphology, and fabric and conditions survey of the subject structure.
Workplan and Schedule
For the foregoing strategies, six consecutive weeks shall be allotted, inclusive of the necessary
production of a compilation of documentation, as prescribed in the following Workplan and Schedule.
SCHEDULE
Week 1
STRATEGY
Site Encounter
•
•
•
•
•
WORKPLAN
ACTIVITY
Acquisition of IA permit to access Puerta de Sta Lucia
Familiarization visit
Onsite measuring, sketching/drawing, and recording
Ground photo-documentation
Table review of initial outputs
Week 2
Research
• Online research (Spanish Archives, etc.)
• Visit to Intramuros Administration library to access related
books, photographs, drawings, sketches, and/or plans.
• Interview with key IA conservationist and librarian-archivist
Week 3
Production
• Writing of preliminary parts of the compilation: purpose, goals
and objectives, scope and limitations, methodology, history, and
stakeholders
• Production of architectural plans and drawings: master plan,
elevations, and 3D model based on on-site measurements
• Selection and captioning of ground photographs for fabric and
conditions assessment
Week 4
Production
• Continuation of writing of Part I – Understanding the Place and
Part II – Assessment of Significance
• Inspection of inputs
• Sequencing and laying out of inspected inputs
Week 5
Production
• Continuation of writing of Part III – Identification of Issues, Part
IV - Policies and Part V – Action Plans
• Pre-printing review of layout
• Review and edit
Week 6
Printing and
Submission
• Printing of final layout
• Production of soft copies of output for stakeholder
• Submission of output
PART I – UNDERSTANDING THE PLACE
1.1. History Relevant to The Place
Before we zone in on Puerta de Sta. Lucia and its history as a gate, it is helpful to bear in mind
the structure’s linkage to the greater system of walls and fortification of the Walled City of Intramuros.
A quick review of the site’s context and Intramuros’ fortification construction and historical
development is necessary.
A Brief History of Intramuros and Its Walls
Manila, referring principally to the Walled City of Intramuros (the two terms used
interchangeably in historical documents), has always been about, first and foremost, its walls and
fortifications. Situated on the southern bank of the Pasig River where the river emptied unto a
sheltered Manila bay, it rose from the remains of the palisaded kingdom of Rajah Sulayman, and a
thriving Tagalog residential community that lived around it. Intramuros (a Latin mix for intra: “within”
and muros: “walls”) is the popular name given to wall-enclosed Spanish Manila.
The Walled City was indeed an international city of economic and tactical significance to other
nationalities which coveted it. The fact that Spain was able to hold on to the city for more than 300
years, followed by the US for 48 years (1898-1946), and Japan 4 years (1941-45), proves its
incomparable status, capped by the reassuring security of the massive 3.4-kilometer walls
encompassing a 67-hectare district. (Baluarte de San Andres, 2017).
Intramuros was the epicenter of Philippine history. Five countries have raised their flags in
the Walled City: Spain, England, the United States, Japan, and the Philippines (Gatbonton, 1980).
Intramuros transformed numerous times through the course of succeeding regimes and changing
world orders. These transformations have been most manifest in the Walled City’s walls and
fortifications. Although Manila received its royal charter on June 24, 1571, the city remained for
decades without the walls nor the buildings of mortar or adobe with which we associate the place.
(Javellana, 2017)
1571
1571-74
16th CENTURY
Kingdom of Maynilad conquered. When the Spaniards arrived in Manila, a battle
ensued between them and the Rajahnate of Sulayman. Damaged by continuous
bombardment the previous year, the palisaded kingdom was finally conquered
and constituted as a city of the Spanish realm on June 24, 1571. The Tagalogs who
had been forced off their land, eventually relocated either with their relatives in
Tondo, or off to an area south called Bagumbayan – the present-day location of
Luneta Park.
Chinese corsair Limahong (aka Lin Feng) overrun the city. The only defense of the
city was a palisade, reinforced with earth around the same site as Sulayman’s
fortification. In September 1574, Legazpi’s successor as governor general, Guido
Lavesares, ordered the construction of makeshift defenses, which consisted of
“board, stakes and boxes of barrels filled with sand,” as news circulated that there
was an approaching attack.
Limahong attacks Manila. Juan de Salcedo and his troops came and saved the city
on August 30 (the Feast of the Apostle Andrew), and pacified the pirates who are
in search of gold. Limahong withdrew north (Pangasinan) where his troops were
defeated. St Andrew was named patron for what was believed to be his heavenly
intervention. (Javellana, 2017). Lavesares began surrounding the city with a
palisade seeing the need to fortify. The project was completed under the third
governor general, Francisco de Sande.
1573
1583
1585
Imposition of the Grid System. King Philip II issued a special decree titled Bulas y
Cedulaspara el Gobierno de las Indias, through which he prescribed the town
planning, zoning, and land use in the crown colonies (Gatbonton, 2002).
The Great Fire of Manila. By this year, the dwellings and structures in Manila
would not have been far different from the Tagalogs who had been forced off their
land constructed of wooden posts, thatch roof and wooden planks. Chroniclers
claimed that fire originated from a catalfaque’s candles in San Agustin. Fire quickly
spread to neighboring structures, and all in one afternoon, nothing was left of the
Spanish-built wooden fort. (Javellana, 2017).
Thatch banned. Seeing Manila burned down and its remaining houses made of
hazardous materials, Governor-General Santiago de Vera banned the use of thatch
within the city and required instead the use of tile and lime for roofing, with Fray
Sedeño employing Chinese laborers and artisans in their production (Gatbonton,
2002).
Stonewall construction commenced. Gov. Gen. Dasamariñas commenced the
massive infrastructure complex that would become the place we know as
Intramuros. He started with corrective measures in the Fort Nuestra Señora de
Guia subsequently joining it with Fort Santiago, guarded by Baluarte de San
Miguel on the bayside and Medio Baluarte de San Francisco on the riverside, by
building a curtain wall running the stretch of the shoreline of the Manila Bay
(Gatbonton, 2002), to which the Baluartillo de San Eugenio and Baluartillo de San
Jose were attached (Torres, 2005) and the Reducto de San Pedro below it.
1590
Construction of four major bulwarks: Baluarte de San Francisco de Dilao facing
the landside district of Dilao where Japanese communities existed (Torres, 2005),
Bateria de Santa Barbara which was initially a wooden platform at the entrance
to the Pasig River beside Fort Santiago (Torres, 2005), Baluarte de San Lorenzo,
which was a bombproof storage of artillery, and the riverside Baluarte de San
Gabriel facing a swampland that would become the Chinese parian (Torres, 2005).
First gate built. Puerta del Parian, named after the Parian de Arroceros, one of the
earliest concentrations of Chinese merchants up the banks of the Pasig River.
17th CENTURY
Auxiliary defense structures built. The following were built during the year:
1603
Puerta de Sta. Lucia was built, which was a gate leading to Malecon Drive, an
esplanade along the Manila Bay Baluarte de San Andres, designed to protect the
old Puerta Real and reinforce the southeastern part of Intramuros (Torres, 2005)
was also built;
First record of Chinese rebellion. This continued up to 1630 where the revolt of
the Chinese living in Manila spread to other neighboring provinces. As a
consequence, the Chinese were driven out of the city and forced to live in a ghetto,
known as Parian, one arquebus shot distant from the walls. An open space was
built between the city and the Chinese ghetto. However, the inhabitants of Manila
needed the goods and services of the Chinese, so they were allowed to bring their
goods to a gate, which faced the Parian.
Revellin del Parian as an additional defense structure against Chinese uprisings
and to protect the curtain wall between the Baluarte de San Andres and Puerta
del Parian (Torres, 2005). The Spaniards found it necessary to protect themselves
after the Chinese killed Governor-General Dasmariñas. After the series of Chinese
uprisings, the Spaniards decreed that Intramuros will be strictly exclusive to the
peninsulares and that pre-Hispanic settlers would relocate outside of the walls.
1609
Seaside defense line created. An artillery platform facing the Manila Bay, Baluarte
Plano de Santa Isabel, was constructed and completed in 1632 (Torres, 2005).
Moat system set in place. Gov. Gen. Alfonso Fajardo de Tenza had a moat dug first
at the city’s eastern flank to protect the Intramuros residents from the Chinese
who had propensity to revolt every so often, and partly because of Dutch threat.
The moat was expanded by Gov. Gen. Hurtado de Corcuera (1635-44).
1618-24
By 1671, a map drawn by Fray Ignacio Muñoz, O.P. showed that the moat ran from
the east flank (outside Baluarte de San Gabriel) down to the south (outside the
Puerta Real). A contrafoso (outer moat) appears in this map, separated from the
principal moat by an island formed between the two. The moats are linked at the
Baluarte de San Nicolas by a narrow canal. A bridge across the inner moat links
Puerta del Parian with the island, where a small outer fortification and curtain wall
(a tenaile) was built to protect the gate. Puerta Real, which, at this time, was at
the end of Calle Real de Palacio, was also protected by an outer fortification, a
demi-lune.
The Great Earthquake of Manila. A magnitude 7.5 earthquake struck Luzon
destroying the original ramparts of Baluartillo de San Francisco Javier which was
later rebuilt as a solid curtain wall (Torres, 2005). Other damaged portions of the
wall were repaired by Gov. Gen. Sabiniano Manrique de Lara (1653-63).
1645
1662
Aside from the earthquakes, the shape of Manila’s fortifications followed
advances in fortification designs in Europe. The medieval tower of Sedeno was
replaced by the bastioned fort with low but thick walls, well equipped with canons
and firearms. The thick walls could withstand constant bombardment, and the
canons could keep away invaders at a safe distance. Influential in fortification
design was the work of Sebastiane de Vauban, whose redundant walls, moats, and
ravelins was the trademark of his design. (Javellana, 2017)
Puerta al Quartel de Banderas and Puerta del Postigo. Located near the Palacio
del Gobernador, the first Puerta del Postigo (Banderas) was walled up and a
second gate was constructed nearby. Puerta de Banderas was originally built as
the Governor-General's gate when the first Governor's palace was still in Fort
Santiago. This was later destroyed by the 1863 earthquake and was never rebuilt
(Torres, 2005).
1690
1705-33
Puerta de Almacenes, Maestranza Walls constructed. Governor-General Fausto
Cruzat y Gongora built the Puerta de Almacenes, to be continually renovated until
1739, for trading with the other side of the river (Torres, 2005) and the Maestranza
Walls to enable barges sailing up and down the Pasig River to collect the city’s
refuse (Gatbonton, 1980).
18th CENTURY
A New Spanish King installed. The 18th century saw dynastic change in Spain; the
Hapsburg ended their rule and the Bourbons succeeded. The Bourbons sought to
streamline the government and modernize it and among the monarch’s concerns
was the fortification of the Philippines, because of its strategic location in the
western Pacific. In 1705, the crown sent Juan Ramirez de Ciscara, a military
engineer, to check on the fortifications in the Philippines and to plan
improvements based on the modern concepts. He worked on the defenses of
Manila, Cavite, and Zamboanga. (Javellana, 2017).
Bateria de Santa Barbara gets second upgrading in 1715. A new powder magazine
and soldiers’ barracks were built and a media naranja (semi-circular platform)
added (Torres, 2005).
Baluarte de San Andres renovated in 1733, with additions of a bomb-proof
powder magazine and garita (Torres, 2005).
1734
1739
Manila’s fortification further improved, under Gov. Gen Fernando Valdes Tamon
(1729 – 1739). Prior to this a map of Manila (designed by Antonio Fernandez Roxas
in 1729) commissioned by Tamon presumably showed the city prior to his
governorship’s improvements – the moat seen in the Munoz map had
deteriorated, as the island near Baluarte de San Nicolas had broken up into smaller
sections, and the outer moat had merged with the inner moat.
Manila prepares for foreign invasion. Sensing the looming conflict between
England and the Hapsburg-ruled France and Spain, Archbishop Juan Arechederra,
while waiting for Gaspar de Torre’s successor took charge of the government and
prepared for the possibility of a foreign invasion. He consolidated the city walls,
reconstructed Postigo de la Nuestra Señora de Soledad by the Pasig River, restored
the foundry behind Baluarte de San Diego, and inventoried the city’s stock of
ammunitions and weapons.
Reducto de San Gregorio, a low artillery battery, was constructed outside Baluarte
de San Diego to prevent an enemy approach from the beach (Torres, 2005).
1762-64
British invade Manila. During the Seven Years War, the British sailed to Manila
and surrounded the city. They breached the southern flank of the walls on October
06, east of Baluarte de San Diego, after bombarding for almost a week, and
managed to destroy Puerta Real, Baluarte de San Andres, and Baluartillo de San
Pedro. For 2 years, they occupied Manila until 1764, when control was returned
to the Spanish under the resistance movement of Gov. Gen. Simon de Anda.
British occupation prompts defense improvement. Dionisio O’ Kelley, a military
engineer, proposed deepening the moat fronting the sea and adding parapets to
the walls. By 1772, a moat had been dug separating Fort Santiago from the rest of
the city.
1769
Revellin de Recoletos built in 1771. Also called Revellin de Dilao, Revellin de
Recoletos was built to defend the curtain wall that separated Baluarte de San
Francisco de Dilao from Baluarte de San Andres, housing gun platforms and arched
chambers used as storage for arms and supplies. (Torres, 2005).
Revellin and Reducto de San Francisco Javier was constructed in 1773.
Second Puerta Real constructed, after the first Royal Gate at the southwestern
side of Baluarte de San Andres was destroyed during the British Invasion (Torres,
2005). In between the destruction of the old Puerta Real and the construction of
a new one, Puerta del Parian served as the Royal Gate, renovated in 1782.
1780
1796
1815
1834
Extramuros arrabales. The Spaniards had relocated the various settlements
outside of the Intramuros walls to their present locations. Long delayed in its plans
to demolish these settlements because of strong opposition from the Church, the
military finally executed the plan after the British occupation. Demolished were
the settlements of Bagumbayan, Santiago, San Juan San Fernando Dilao, San
Miguel, and the Parian. Dilao was reestablished in the district we know today as
Paco, and San Miguel was transferred across the Pasig to the site it presently
occupies. The Chinese transferred to Binondo, where there was a thriving
community of Christianized Chinese mestizos. The rest of the villages disappeared
completely. (Javellana, 2017)
Riverside defenses strengthened. To improve Intramuros’ defenses facing the
Pasig River and to strengthen the wall from Fort Santiago to Baluarte de San
Gabriel, Baluarte de Santo Domingo was erected at the western end of
Magallanes Drive towards the Pasig River, joined to Baluarte de San Gabriel by a
curtain wall (Torres, 2005). Puerta de Santo Domingo was also constructed,
leading to the river wharves (Torres, 2005).
19th CENTURY
Centuries-old prosperity wanes. Widespread corruption among the Spanish
officials of the Compania de Filipinas (Lico & Tomacruz, 2015) running the ManilaAcapulco Galleon Trade drove it to bankruptcy which resulted to its abolishment
and a palpable economic crisis in Manila. This was exacerbated in 1821 when
Mexico gained its independence from Spain, causing the loss of subsidies and
market privileges from the former crown colony (PNA, 2017). The Spanish officials
forcibly increased taxation and rent throughout the islands to make up for their
economic losses (PNA, 2017).
New construction materials come to the Philippines. With economic crisis
lingering, the port of Manila was opened to world trade (Lico & Tomacruz, 2015).
The massive exchange enabled the Philippines to export its agricultural products
from the provinces and to gain access to then state-of-the-art construction
materials such as iron and steel from the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, and
Belgium and cement from Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong
(Lico & Tomacruz, 2015). Socio-economic interest began to shift from antiquated
Intramuros to the suburbs of Manila and the port cities of Sual, Pangasinan, Iloilo,
Zamboanga, Cebu, Legazpi, and Tacloban (Lico & Tomacruz, 2015).
1861
1863
1872
1898
Puerta de Isabel II built, Puerta de Sto Domingo closed. The last gate to be built
in Intramuros, Puerta de Isabel II, was a solution to the heavy pedestrian traffic
outside Parian Gate to the Puente de España and Binondo (Torres, 2005). Puerta
de Santo Domingo was closed off as soon as Puerta de Isabel II was opened
(Gatbonton, 1980).
Earthquakes damage Intramuros structures. An earthquake severely damaged
Fort Santiago (Torres, 2005) and destroyed the Manila Cathedral, the
Ayuntamiento, and the Palacio del Gobernador (Gatbonton, 1980). While the
Cathedral and the Ayuntamiento were rebuilt, the governor-general had to seek
residence in Malacañang upriver in the suburb of San Miguel, Quiapo (Gatbonton,
1980). Another earthquake in 1880 caused several deaths primarily due to the
collapse of heavy clay tile roofs, which prompted the issuance of a circular titled
Reglas para la edificacion en Manila, dictadas a consecuencia de los terremotos de
losdias 18 y 20 de Julio, which, most importantly, compelled homeowners to
replace the heavy clay tiles as roofing material with láminas de hierro galvanizado
(galvanized iron sheets) (Lico & Tomacruz, 2015).
Wall-building discontinued. The Spaniards decided not to do additional wallbuilding for the following reasons, among others: economic crisis due to the end
of the Galleon Trade in 1815, the large cost of post-calamity repairs (Gatbonton,
1980), and the growing class of industrialists and capitalists from the provinces
(Lico & Tomacruz, 2015).
Spain’s sovereignty over the Philippine islands culminated in the Battle of the
Manila Bay where the United States of America’s Asiatic Squadron under
Commodore George Dewey destroyed the Spanish Pacific Squadron under Rear
admiral Patricio Montojo (National Maritime Historical Society, 2013). Shortly
thereafter, the Americans remodeled Fort Santiago, filled its moat, changed its
façade, constructed a new driveway leading directly to the gate and rebuilt the
buildings behind (Laya & Gatbonton, 1983). On December 10, the Treaty of Paris
was signed whereby Spain relinquished its remaining colonies including the
Philippines, to USA for a sum of $20M. (Yale University, 2009). After a two-year
war with Filipinos led by General Emilio Aguinaldo, the Americans established civil
government in the Philippines starting in 1901.
20th CENTURY
General Luna Gap opened. The walled-in site of the first Puerta Real was breached
in order to open an access road to the Bagumbayan suburbs (Torres, 2005).
1902-04
Aduana Gap opened, Mastranza Wall removed. The Americans found it
necessary to open the Aduana Gap and to remove the Maestranza Walls in order
to widen the river wharves along Intramuros (Torres, 2005).
Demolition spree continues. The Bureau of Public Buildings carried out some
major demolitions at portions of the Intramuros walls such as at the southern end
of Real del Palacio, at the end of Calle Victoria, and the stretch from Aduana to
Fort Santiago. A daughter of Governor-General William Howard Taft intervened
to put a stop on the demolition of the historic walls (Gatbonton, 1980).
1905
1936
1941
1945
1951
1956
1966
Americans inaugurate City Beautiful movement to bring development outside
Intramuros. Generally viewing the Spanish military defenses as antiquated (Lico,
2008), the Americans retired parts of the Intramuros fortification by filling them
with soil dredged from Pasig River, topped with adobe blocks (Torres, 2005). The
Americans concurrently launched the City Beautiful Movement by contracting
Daniel H. Burnham to make a master plan for Manila. The Burnham Plan generally
called for outward radial infrastructure developments in the districts of Ermita,
Malate, Paco, and Quiapo, culminating at a national capitol on the Bagumbayan
fields (Lico, 2017). Under the Burnham Plan, Intramuros was retained as a historic
site to be preserved (Lico, 2017) and its mosquito-infested moat filled with sand.
Commonwealth moves to protect Intramuros. In response to public clamor for
the complete demolition of the Intramuros walls and the opening of the district to
development, Commonwealth Act No. 171 was passed to conserve it as a
monument to the past and to prescribe the Spanish colonial style for
constructions, repairs, and renovations therein.
World War II broke out. The war broke out when Japan bombed the Pearl Harbor
on December 08, which prompted General Douglas McArthur, the commander of
the United States Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) who had a headquarters
called “One Victoria Street” at Baluartillo de San Jose, to declare Manila an “Open
City” on December 24 to prevent its destruction. By 1942, the Japanese tightened
its grip on the Philippines with the fall of Bataan and Corregidor. General McArthur
and Commonwealth President Manuel L. Quezon and his family and key cabinet
members operated a government in exile in the US. General McArthur and
President Sergio Osmeña, who succeeded after Quezon’s death in the US,
returned to the Philippines in 1944.
Intramuros razed to the ground. As the American forces were advancing in the
campaign to reclaim the capital city, the Japanese retreated to Intramuros which
the Americans wantonly shelled and bombed to wipe out the Japanese and which
resulted to the near-total devastation of the Walled City: its fortifications,
churches, government buildings, houses, schools, hospitals, and open spaces, save
for the lone-standing centuries-old San Agustin Church.
Fort Santiago declared National Shrine. Congress passed RA 597 to declare Fort
Santiago a National Shrine and to provide for the preservation of historical
monuments within the Walled City.
Congress re-zones Intramuros. Congress passed RA 1607 to declare Intramuros
as a commercial, residential, and educational district, except for its historic spots.
Marcos organizes Intramuros restoration body. President Ferdinand E. Marcos’
EO 18 created the Intramuros Restoration Committee (IRC) chaired by then
Secretary of Education Alejandro R. Roces. Among the IRC’s first projects was the
refurbishing of the Intramuros gates (Gatbonton, 1980).
1977
1979
2013
Portions of fortification restored. President Marcos issued Presidential Decree
Nos. 1277 and 1537 a year after to preserve the Intramuros walls and restore its
original moat and esplanade. Subsequently, in 1979, the National Historical
Institute and the Armed Forces Ladies’ Committee unearthed the bridge (Laya &
Gatbonton, 1980) and restored the moat at Fort Santiago, Fortin de San Francisco,
and Baluarte de Santa Lucia and began work at Baluarte de San Diego, and Puerta
del Parian (Torres, 2005).
Intramuros Administration created, spearheads restoration. President Marcos
issued PD 1616 to create the Intramuros Administration under the Ministry of
Human Settlements, to oversee the orderly restoration and development of
Intramuros as a monument to the Hispanic period of Philippine history and to
ensure that the general appearance of Intramuros shall conform to PhilippineSpanish architecture of the 16th-19th centuries. Among the first completed project
of the IA on the Intramuros walls were the restoration of Baluarte de San Diego
and Revellin del Parian and the reconstruction of Puerta de Santa Lucia. It also
started the restoration of Baluarte de San Diego, completing the same in 1982.
The Philippine Constabulary and the IA-National Museum team also took turns to
conduct archaeological excavation at Baluarte de San Andres. In 1982-84, the IA
finished the restoration of the bridge and moat of Revellin Real, Puerta del Parian,
and Revellin del Parian (Laya & Gatbonton, 1980). In 1987, the IA completed the
restoration of Baluarte de San Andres, after its 1979-80 in-situ documentation.
21st CENTURY
The World Heritage Committee (WHC) approved in its 37th session in Phnom Penh,
Cambodia the map of the buffer zone of the San Agustin Church, one of the four
Philippine Baroque Churches inscribed in the World Heritage List. The map,
submitted by the Republic of the Philippines, through a joint collaboration of the
IA, the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, the UNESCO National
Commission for the Philippines, and the National Mapping Resource and
Information Authority, was an extended variant of the PD 1616 map of Intramuros
and coincides with the National Historical Institute’s declaration of Intramuros
and Its Walls as a National Shrine (PRECUP, 2017). The WHC approval binds the
country to conserve, aside from the San Agustin Church, the whole of Intramuros,
inclusive of its walls, fortifications, and open spaces, to enable the World Heritage
Property to demonstrate fully its Outstanding Universal Value as well as conditions
of authenticity and integrity.
1.2. Chronology and Development Sequence
History of Puerta de Sta Lucia and its Environ
In summary, Puerta de Sta. Lucia had been shaped by the history of all of Intramuros itself as
shown in the following timeline:
1590 - 94
1603
1762 - 1766
1778 - 1787
1852
1898
1903 - 1908
1945
Curtain wall of Calle Sta. Lucia constructed. Gov. Gen. Dasamariñas commenced
the massive infrastructure complex of stout tone walls that would become the
place we know as Intramuros. Connecting Fort Nuestra Señora de Guia with Fort
Santiago entailed the construction of a curtain wall running the stretch of the
shoreline of the Manila Bay (Gatbonton, 2002).
Puerta de Sta. Lucia built. Facing south-west toward the, sea, Puerta de Sta. Lucia
was built as one of the original entrances to the Walled City, serving as the
principal egress going to the seashore.
Seaside moat system. Development of the moat system extended along the
bayside of Intramuros.
Puerta de Sta Lucia underwent improvements including the addition of two side
chambers added during renovations done by Gov. Gen. Jose Basco y Vargas. The
plans, sectional view and elevation of the gate and archway of Sta. Lucia were
drawn up by the engineer of the army Tomás Sanz in 1781.
Gates and drawbridges remaining open. Formerly, drawbridges were raised and
the city was closed and under sentinels from 11:00 pm till 4:00 am. It continued
so until 1852, when, in consequence of the earthquake of that year, it was decreed
that the gates should thenceforth remain open night and day.
Seaside reclamation plans were drawn up by the Spanish for a new port harbor
across the western side of Intramuros.
Seaside reclamation accomplished by the Americans as they added 200 acres to
the shoreline. This was later to become the Manila South Harbor.
World War II broke out. As the American forces were advancing in the campaign
to reclaim the capital city, the Japanese retreated to Intramuros which the
Americans wantonly shelled and bombed to wipe out the Japanese and which
resulted to the near-total devastation of the Walled City: its fortifications,
churches, government buildings, houses, schools, hospitals, and open spaces, save
for the lone-standing centuries-old San Agustin Church. Puerta de Sta Lucia was
spared but was demolished in 1945 to allow for the entry of American tanks and
vehicles into the city.
A 1954 photo of the ruined gate and main passageway of Puerta de Sta. Lucia which was purposely destroyed
by the Americans during the war of 1945. (Photo © Intramuros Administration Library)
1957
1968
1982
1990s Present
Anda Rotonda, a roundabout / interchange system along Bonifacio Drive to
Andres Soriano Avenue (formerly Calle Aduana) was constructed, shifting the main
traffic of ingress / egress away from Puerta de Sta. Lucia in the western side of
Intramuros.
Chambers restored. The chambers were restored by the Intramuros Restoration
Committee (IRC) in accordance to the original plans archived from Spain.
Gate façade and bridge reconstructed. The gate proper was reconstructed by the
Intramuros Administration, simultaneously with the bridge using its original
stones.
Puerta de Sta Lucia was adaptively-reused as the main headquarters for the
security agency serving Intramuros Administration.
1.3. Significant People and Groups Associated with Place
Puerta de Sta. Lucia has been for most of its history associated with the inhabitants of Intramuros. In
the present sense, however, the gate has various stakeholders:
•
as an integral part of a National Shrine - which is the walls and fortification of Intramuros - it
is a cultural property of the Philippines which every Filipino has a responsibility to conserve;
•
as inclusive in the buffer zone of a World Heritage Site (San Agustin Church being in the
immediate adjacent property), Puerta de Sta. Lucia plays a role in the sustenance of the
historico-cultural context within which San Agustin Church’s Outstanding Universal Value is
best demonstrated and preserved “for the benefit of all humanity”;
•
as a component of the Intramuros special urban zone (heritage and tourism), it is part of the
collective living memory of past and present residents of Intramuros, particularly the modernday guardia civils or the members of the current security agency that the Intramuros
Administration employs to cater to its security requirements. Puerta de Sta Lucia may also be
invariably significant to its incidental users such as, but not limited to: the IA officials and staff
because of their sworn duty to protect the structure; foreign and domestic tourists who may
frequent the place as an elevated walkway and its adjacent parks – the Philippine Presidents
Gallery - as a place of “pasyalan;” pedicab drivers and small-time vendors who make their
living catering to the tourist’s needs; students nearby schools who frequent the adjacent areas
of Baluarte Plano de Sta. Isabel and the open parking lot of Cuartel de Sta. Lucia as an
accessible and safe open space for academic purposes and youthful pursuits; players at the
Club Intramuros Golf Course, who have been conditioned to the structure as a permanent
fixture in that particular playing field; residents of the San Agustin Monastery and other
residents from adjacent areas who are familiar with the structure as a landmark in that very
area; and workers from nearby offices, whose psychological map of their daily working
environments has been conditioned to the existence of Puerta de Sta Lucia.
1.4. Landscape, Settings, and Views
The Santa Lucia Gate, or Puerta de Sta. Lucia, is one of the primary gates / portals to the Walled
City of Intramuros. It was built at the end of Calle Real del Parian, along the curtain wall stretch of
Calle Sta. Lucia that connects Baluarte Plano de Sta. Isabel, an arrow-shaped bastion at the end of
Calle Anda, and Baluartillo de San Eugenio, a small triangular bastion between Calle Real and Santa
Potenciana, which formed a defense complex with the neighboring Baluarte de San Jose and the
Reducto de San Pedro.
1
San Agustin Church
and Monastery
A
Cuartel de Sta.
Lucia
2
3
A modern map showing the blow-up stretch of Calle Sta. Lucia’s curtain wall, parallel to Bonifacio Avenue
outside the walls. Here we can see the location of (A) PUERTA DE STA. LUCIA, in the middle of (1) Baluarte
Plano de Sta. Isabel and the (2) Baluartillo de San Eugenio. A little further down south is (3) the Baluarte de
San Jose and Reducto de San Pedro. Also highlighted in the map is the triangular lot of the Philippine
Presidents Gallery adjoining the parking lot where Cuartel de Sta. Lucia (Artillería de Montaña) used to stand
and rectangular lot of the San Agustin Church and monastery. (Google Maps, 2018)
Notable landmarks adjacent the structure of Puerta de Sta. Lucia where local and foreign tourists frequently
visit. Left Photo: San Agustin Church, one of the four Philippine Baroque Churches inscribed in the World
Heritage List. Right Photo: Philippine President Gallery, a pocket park adjoining the parking lot of Cuartel de
Sta. Lucia and Puerta de Sta. Lucia, where large busts of the country’s presidents are publicly displayed.
Street views of Calle Sta. Lucia from the Puerta. Left Photo: View looking left is the present ECJ Building.
The site has a rich history as from there once stood the provincial house of the Augustinian Order called the
Casa Nueva. It was destroyed by fire in 1932 and was rebuilt to give way for a two- storey Adamson University.
It was destroyed again by the 1945 war including the bridge that connects to the San Agustin Convent.
The present ECJ building was rebuilt in 1990's Right Photo: View looking right is the ruined walls surrounding
the Hidden Garden of Father Blanco. There is a passageway along this street going to the San Agustin
Monastery.
Top Photo: An approach street
view of Puerta de Sta. Lucia from
the Philippine President Gallery
along Calle Sta. Lucia. This is
actually the rear façade of the
structure.
Left Photo: The main façade of
structure viewed from outside the
walls of Intramuros is a rather
rare perspective seen only by
players of the adjacent golf
course. The portal has been
closed off to the public due to
risks of flying golf balls.
1.5. Natural Environment: Landform, Geology, and Vegetation
Puerta de Sta. Lucia is inside the Administrative District of Intramuros, situated on the
southern bank of the Pasig River where it empties unto the sheltered Bay of Manila. It was built on
alluvial soil created by the deposition of sediment over a long period of time by the Pasig River.
Changing Landforms
The landform where the gate now stand is relatively flat but has witnessed a lot of change
over the course of the centuries. A system of moat surrounding the eastern walls of Intramuros was
set by the Spanish engineers in the early 1600’s as an additional defense prompted by the Chinese
insurrection. Indication, however, of the moat extending to the western / seaside of Intramuros (along
the curtain walls of Calle Sta Lucia) were only evident in the 1766 Zermeño Map, after the British
occupation a few years back. By 1769, and in response to the British attack, we further read that there
were proposals by military engineer Dionisio O’ Kelley for the deepening of the seaside moat to add
defense.
1766 Zermeno Map showing the moat extended to the rest of the city walls including the westernside /
seaside. (Juan Martin Zermeno, 1766)
The creation of the moat also provided for the creation of a dike or an embankment levee
separating the moat from the sea. This dike, simply known in Spanish as malecón, further developed
into a road leading south to Bagumbayan Park, going by different names but remaining virtually
unchanged until the turn of the century.
As seen from the 1898 de Gamoneda map, the Spanish had already made plans for the
construction of the new Manila South Harbor. However, we read that it was only until the Americans
took over, from 1903 – 1908 that the reclamation of the Manila Bay’s shoreline was finally
implemented.
Map showing the proposed Spanish plans for the reclamation of Manila Bay’s shoreline to make way for the
construction of the new port / harbor. (de Gamoneda, 1898)
Another major change in landform occurred during the American Period. In 1905, finding out
that the moat surrounding the walls were breeding grounds for mosquitoes, thus, making it an issue
of public health and sanitation, the Americans decided to fill the moat with sand. This was further
developed in the 1930s to become the Manila Municipal Golf Course - a recreational use for a plot of
land that continue up to the present day.
View of the adjacent golf course and vegetation as seen from the gates of Puerta de Sta. Lucia.
Vegetation is present in the gates’ vicinity, which include the grass covered landscape of the
golf course, several trees present in the environs between Puerta de Sta. Lucia and the Baluarte Plano
de Sta. Isabel, and the manicured shrubs and trees in the adjacent Philippine Presidents Gallery.
Physical Characteristics of Manila
To further understand the natural environment of the Puerta de Sta. Lucia, below is the
Physical Characteristics of Manila based on its Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance
2005-2020:
Topography
Geology
Soil
Climate
Seismicity
Relatively flat with some portions below sea level. During high tide, the sea
water goes about two kilometers inland along the Pasig River towards its
source, the Laguna de Bay, a fresh water lake.
Manila lies on a shelf which has been essentially formed by a ridge of volcanic
tuff to the west. The ridge is bounded by fluvial deposits of sand, gravel and
clay.
Major part of Manila’s soil consists of Eutropepts and Dystropepts – both
belong to the order Inceptisols. This type of soils has narrower adaptability
for agricultural crops.
According to Coronas Classification (1920), Manila’s climate belongs to the
1st Type of which has two pronounced seasons – dry from November to April
and wet during the rest of the year. It has an annual mean temperature of
28.2°C and range from 25.2°C – 31.2°C. Heavy rains usually occur during the
months of July and August, with monthly rainfall reaching 486mm.
The City of Manila is physically vulnerable to earthquake related hazards such
as liquefaction and ground shaking. Areas under very high risks include
downtown Manila (covering Quiapo, Intramuros, Sta. Cruz, and Binondo) and
the Manila South Harbor / Reclamation Area (along Roxas Boulevard).
(Source: Manila Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance 2005-2020.)
1.6. Puerta de Sta. Lucia Structure
The structure of Puerta de Sta. Lucia and its adjoining chambers is mainly of unreinforced
adobe masonry structure like the rest of Intramuros’ walls and fortification, typical during its time.
Much of what we know from the current structure came from the reconstructed 1781 plans of military
engineer Tomas Sanz executed in 1968 during the restoration of its chambers by the Intramuros
Restoration Committee, with Carlos da Silva and Felix Imperial as architects-in-charge, and in 1982
during the reconstruction of the gate proper and bridge by the Intramuros Administration.
1781 Floor Plan Technical Description
The way the spaces were laid out consisted of a central axis running in the middle of the main
gate’s passageway, flanked on both sides by two sets of posts and cross-vaulted spaces which open
directly along Calle Sta. Lucia. This was followed on either side by barrel-vaulted chambers, accessed
through round arched openings from the cross-vaulted gallery. The left chamber is separated by a wall
of masonry, virtually dividing it into separate rooms, while the right chamber is open but adjoined by
a smaller room accessed from the rear of the structure (along Calle Sta. Lucia). Both chambers have
round arched openings serving as windows along Calle Sta. Lucia.
Puerta de Sta. Lucia Floor Plan drawn by military engineer, Tomas Sanz, in 1781 and underwent major
improvements under the governorship of Jose Basco y Vargas (1777 – 1787), during the reign of King Carlos III.
The red line running in the middle of the gate’s passageway represents the central axis that provided for the
symmetrical allocation of spaces in the structure. The blue line, on the other hand, represents the obtuse line
parallel Calle Sta. Lucia that shaped the structure’s trapezoidal configuration.
(Floor plan from the National Archive of Spain © Tomas Sanz, 1781)
The Grid’s Influence
While we can surmise a central axis used to symmetrically allocate the chambers on both sides
of the gate’s main passageway, another influence which cannot be overlooked is that of Calle Sta.
Lucia’s configuration – a kind of developmental control - which obviously provided for the structure’s
trapezoidal shape. This is evident from the obtuse line that shaped the rear mass of the structure
making the left chamber shorter and the right chamber longer when compared to each other.
Indeed, it is notable and quite interesting how King Philip II’s 1573 royal decree on urban
planning that guided for the development of the Spanish crown’s colonial towns and cities,
reverberated through a little more than two hundred years, and affected the configuration of Puerta
de Sta. Lucia during its planned improvements in 1781.
Javellana quoting Kelemen (1956) accurately observed that the imposition of the urban grid
by the Spanish and the adoption of “Renaissance-inspired utopic town” ideals bore fruit not in Spain’s
overbuilt mainland cities, but in the Spanish crown’s colonies like the Mexico, California, Texas, the
Carribean, Central and South America, and the Philippines “where ideal grid plans could be imposed
on what was perceived as untamed and natural landscape.”
Architectural Style
Regarding the imposition of Renaissance architectural ideals, civic architecture in Spanish
colonies like Mexico and the Philippines opted for the Herreran-style – a thread of Spanish
Renaissance named after the Juan de Herrera, the architect of the severe style of architecture
epitomized by the Escorial palace and monastery in Spain. Influenced by the Renaissance movement
in Italy, the severe style was a reaction to the flamboyant forms of ornamentation characteristic of
the Isabelline Gothic that preceded over it.
The Herreran-style appealed because of its rationality, clarity and mathematical precision
characterized by a rhythm of arches and pillars, free or engaged, and bare walls. Such style preference
for civic architecture may have been dictated by the desire of the civil government to project a serious
face which left little room for the participation by the general public and which depended on the
government’s patronage and decision, in contrast to churches – another popular public building at the
time – where patrons played a role in the influence of style. (Javellana, 2017)
Renaissance principles of symmetry and simplicity were evident from the 1781 gate façade
plans of Tomas Sanz. The gate had a drawbridge that led across the moat to the shore. The façade was
characterized by a triangular pediment and a simple entablature on top of round, unfluted Tuscan
pilasters flanking both sides of the arched opening - a stately and muted contrast to the playful
Baroque-style churches during the Spanish Colonial Period.
Left Photo: The gate’s main façade as seen from the 1781 plans of Tomas Sanz (from the National Archive of
Spain © Tomas Sanz, 1781). Right Photo: A view of Puerta de Sta. Lucia with both a horse-drawn carriage and
an automobile plying Calle Anda from the 1900s. (Photo © John Tewell)
Puerta de Sta. Lucia’s elevation along Calle Sta. Lucia
(Plans from the National Archive of Spain © Tomas Sanz, 1781).
Section of Puerta de Sta. Lucia structure from the 1781 plan of Tomas Sanz showing the drawbridge at the
leftmost portion, the vaulted gallery and chambers in the middle, and the common room at the rightmost
portion (Plans from the National Archive of Spain © Tomas Sanz, 1781).
Wooden Marker
Another element of Puerta de Sta. Lucia’s façade is the wood carved commemorative marker
that was faithfully recreated during its reconstruction in 1982.
The commemorative marker, as seen from the 1781 plans of Tomas Sanz, installed across the entablature right
above the gate’s main arched opening. (Plans from the National Archive of Spain © Tomas Sanz, 1781).
The inscription over the Santa Lucia gate in Latin reads1:
D. O. M.
(DEO, OMNIPOTENTI, MISERICORDI)
CAROLO III HISPANIARUM ET INDIARUM REGE SAPIENTE
CIVITATIS BONO ET ORNAMENTO PORTAM FIERI CURAVIT
JOSEPHUS BASCO ET VARGAS PHILIPPINIS PREFECTUS
ANNO MDCCLXXXI
The English translation is:
TO GOD, ALMIGHTY, MERCIFUL.
DURING THE REIGN OF CHARLES III, THE WISE KING OF THE SPAINS AND INDIES,
JOSEPH BASCO Y VARGAS, GOVERNOR OF THE PHILIPPINES,
CAUSED THIS GATE TO BE BUILT FOR THE ADVANTAGE AND DECORATION OF THE CITY.
Garcia, Mauro and C.O. Resurreccion. 1971. Focus on Old Manila – A Volume Issued to Commemorate the
Fourth Centenary of the City of Manila. Manila: Philippine Historical Association. From the Chapter
Monuments and Inscriptions of Manila by A.E.W. Salt and H.O.S. Heistand. p. 447
1
Progress shots of restoration the main façade and the bridge in the 80’s.
(Photos from the Intramuros Administration Library © Efren Socoro, 1982).
Progress shots of the main façade’s restoration in the 80’s.
(Photos from the Intramuros Administration Library © Efren Socoro, 1982).
Ownership and Use
At least from the 1781 plans showing the floor plan, sectional view
and elevation of the gate and archway of Sta. Lucia, it was evident that the
“original” use for the Puerta de Sta. Lucia, aside from its intrinsic function
as access to and fro the Walled City, is to provide an added layer of security.
The chambers were from the 1781 plans were used as security outposts
and an armory complete with storage for gunpowder. Right after the
restoration of its chambers in the late 60’s 80’s, an interview from Mr. Rey
Cadiz of Intramuros Administration (IA) revealed that it was for some time
used as a warehouse / storage space for a miscellany of properties under
the care of IA, such as carozas and other wooden antique santos.
Beginning in the 1990s from thenceforth, Puerta de Sta Lucia was
compatibly and adaptively-reused to house the main headquarters for the
From the 1781 Plans
A
Bobedas de arista, de
paso
B
Cuerpo de guardia para la
tropa
C
Cuerpo de guardia para el
Oficial
D
Repuesto para polvora
security agency serving Intramuros Administration. Puerta de Sta Lucia was
chosen among the other gates to house the security agency because of its
central position along the western side of the walls relative to Fort Santiago
in the north, Baluarte de San Diego in the south and the rest of the walls’
enclosure. Security officials from the RJC Security Agency say that the
structure’s strategic central location makes it easy for them to attend to
security concerns and issues as swift as one radio call away. At the
present, Puerta de Sta. Lucia along with the rest of the walls of Intramuros,
falls under the care of IA’s Cultural Properties Conservation Division
(CPCD). A comparative analysis of the 1781 function from the present use
are as summarized in the table below:
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF INTERIOR SPACE USAGE
Current Function and User
Translated
Function
User
Main driveway converted into an open carport for IA’s boom
truck, and the security agency’s two automobile and several
Crossvaults
roving motorcycles. The open space is sometimes used as IA’s
storage.
Both used as sleeping quarters / locker
Guard corps for the
rooms, the large chamber is divided into
Security personnel
troop
two (similar to chamber C and D).
Main Office – with at least four (4) working
Head of security
Guard corps for the
tables, chairs and a CCTV monitor
and other security
officer
personnel
Sleeping quarters – Security officials that
are awaiting their next shift sleeps on
Powder storage
Security personnel
folding beds. Room is also lined with
Square Area
(Approx.)**
155.97 sqm
46.54 sqm
23.50 sqm
18.87 sqm
E
Lugares communes
F
Armeros
Dos ahugeros para
colocar un molinete de
quita y pon, para levanter
el puente levadizo
G
H
Puente levadizo
Common Room /
Toilet
wooden cabinets used as lockers and
clothes hanger.
Inaccessible at the time of survey; a modern
toilet functions adjacent the original
common room.
-- No evidence --
--
Gunsmith / armorer
-Two holes to place a
There was no evidence of these holes found in the current
removable
structure. Chains connecting the main façade to the dummy
pinwheel, for raising
bridge are for mere aesthetic purposes.
the drawbridge
Dummy bridge - The main gate leading to the golf course
(administered by the Club Intramuros Golf Course Club) is
permanently closed to the public due to risks of flying projectile
Drawbridge
golf balls. Nets are placed along the gate’s bridgeway for added
protection. The area is also sometimes used as an extended
parking space for roving motorcycles of security personnel.
Original: 7.67 sqm;
Modern: 25.44 sqm
---
--
** For the purposes of this study, areas were approximated from a plan generated in a 3D SketchUp model. The model was generated using compared measurements from
the 1781 Plan of Tomas Sanz, 1968 Restoration Plan of the Intramuros Restoration Committee, and the researcher’s own on-site measurements. A thorough as-built
measurement in future studies should verify the exact square area allocations for each space.
Photos of the open cross vaulted gallery. Left: Door to sleeping quarters (right chamber). Middle: Main passageway to golf course.
Right: Door to the security main office (left chamber). Note how this open space is most often used as a carport / garage for motorcycles.
Photos leading to the toilet. Left: The twin windows shown at the far left of the photo were originally doors leading to the common room / toilet. The
researcher was not able to access the said space. Middle: Right at the back of the original toilet just behind the stairs (which are also modern additions) is
the current designated toilet for the security personnel. Right: Door leading to the toilet. The interior as can be seen from the photo is tiled, and the
overhang brow of doors are often used to hang dry wet towels and clothes.
Observed modern additions include: Left: The barrel vaulted ceiling and roof housing the current toilet. The material utilized as have been observed looked
like brick clays. Middle: Brick finish is also used on the structure’s slab which is part of the elevated walkway system of Intramuros.
Right: The adobe stairs on both sides of the structure leading to the elevated walkway is also not found in the original 1781 Tomas Sanz plans.
Left and Middle: Photo detail of the restored gate. The main façade of the gate is connected to what was supposed to be the drawbridge. The chains
however are not functional and merely there for aesthetic purposes. Right: Another observation was provision for lamp posts that are ubiquitous in the
structure’s slab / elevated walkway. Some of the lamp posts, however, are not functioning. We can also see that they are bolted directly to the masonry.
Construction Material
The prime material used for the construction of Puerta de Sta. Lucia as have been mentioned
earlier is from a type of stone locally called as adobe – which is very different from the sundried bricks
of Mexico bearing the same name. The term was probably an adaptation of the Arabic term for sundried clay – as the stone is soft when freshly quarried and then soon toughens as it weathers. A more
accurate name for adobe would be volcanic tuff, which geologists surmise came from lahar (volcanic
ejecta or pyroclastic flow), which became compacted over time. Although there is no consensus to
these claims, some geologists trace the stone origins of adobe in Guadalupe (Makati) as far away as
the Taal Volcano, which in prehistoric times was a tall volcano whose collapsed caldera is the present
Taal Lake.
A swath of adobe runs from Laguna, hypothesized to be the base of the prehistoric Taal
Volcano, to Meycauayan, the source of the most compact and durable stone, called bulik. Tuff was
most popular in Manila and its surrounding provinces of Rizal, Batangas and Tarlac during its
introduction by the Spaniards to Philippine culture. As a building material, its use is credited to Fray
Domingo Salazar, the first bishop of Manila, who searched Manila’s river banks for a reliable building
material and found plenty at Guadalupe (Makati). During the Spanish Colonial Period, almost all the
stone needed for the construction of various infrastructure were sourced in the quarries of Guadalupe
and Meycauayan. (Javellana, 2017).
Left Photo: The rear façade and ceiling vaults of Puerta de Sta. Lucia showing the adobe as its prime
construction material. Right Photo: Blocks of adobe found elsewhere in Intramuros.
1.7. Cultural Landscape
Colonial Esplanade: From Puerta de Sta. Lucia to Malecón Drive
Puerta de Sta. Lucia became favored as an egress point to Malecón Drive (simply known as
Malecón which was Spanish for “dike” or “embankment levee”) consequently used along the walls of
Intramuros to designate the embankment between the moat and the sea.
Prior to the reclamation of Manila South Harbor (Port Area), Malecón Drive was a famous
waterfront promenade / esplanade built outside the walls following the shore of Manila Bay. Malecón
Drive came by many names depending on the map we are looking for reference. It was known
alternatively from an 1851 map as Playa del Mar, from an 1870 map as La Playa de Santa Lucia, and
from an 1898 map as Paseo de Sta. Lucia or Paseo de María Cristina, after the then Queen of Spain
Maria Cristina. At the turn of the century, it bore the name Malecón Drive, and finally in 1913 as Calle
Bonifacio or alternatively as Andres Bonifacio Avenue.
Left Map: A recreated map of Intramuros in 1902 showing the location of Malecón Drive prior to the
reclamation of the Port Area by the Americans from 1903 – 1908. Malecón starts at the mouth of Pasig River
then plying the Bay of Manila, it terminates south in the Luneta Park. (Map illustration © Jennifer Hallock,
2015) Right Photo: An undated photo of Malecón Drive at the turn of the century. Horse-drawn carriages can
be observed at the far left of the photo along with local women walking. At the far right just behind the tree, is
the silhouette of San Ignacio’s belfries. (Photo © John Tewell, 1900s)
Now, the definition of a promenade / esplanade right outside Puerta de Sta. Lucia bears a lot
of weight as the terms’ historical definition is a “large, level, open stretch outside of fortresses that
provided soldiers with wide visibility for shooting.” (vocabulary.com) The terms then evolved to
mean areas that are meant to be walked on especially beside the ocean or a body of water, usually
for recreational purposes, without having to walk on the beach.
Walking on esplanades for recreational purposes goes back to the Victorian times in Europe,
when it became fashionable to visit seaside resorts, thus making esplanades popular. A promenade,
on the other hand, often abbreviated to '(the) prom', evolved to mean an area where people – couples
and families especially – would go to walk for a while in order to 'be seen' and be considered part of
'society'.
Malecón starts at the mouth of the Pasig River and terminates south in a half-moon turn,
called Luneta, where there was a media-luna, a wall that was similar to and was the ancestor of the
ravelin. In the 19th century, it became a custom among Manileños living in the Walled City to go for a
stroll or carriage ride (paseo) at the Malecon in the afternoon. (Javellana, 2017)
Javellana quoting John Bowring (1859) describes this great social event “from five P.M., to
nightfall [this road] is crowded with carriages, equestrians and pedestrians, whose principal
salutations seem to occupy their attention… Twice a week a band of music plays on a raised way
near the extremity of the patio. Soon after sunset there is a sudden and general stoppage. Everyone
uncovers his head; it is the time of the oracion announced by the church bells: universal silence
prevails for a few minutes, after which the promenades are resumed.” After enjoying the evening
air, people returned home for a tertulia (socials) and a late dinner as was the custom in Spain.2
An 1847 watercolor rendition of Manila Bay. Enclosed in blue is Puerta de Sta. Lucia, and at its background, the
San Agustin Church. People may be seen dotting the foreground of the gate taking their afternoon walk along
Malecón. (Watercolor painting © Jose Honorato Lozano, 1847).
2
Javellana, Rene B. 2003. In & Around Intramuros: An Interactive Guide. Quezon City: Jesuit Communications
Foundation, Inc.
Reed further described the colonial life inside the Walled City that is marked by an air of
wealth and contentedness especially in the demeanor of the Spaniards in the 19th century:
“As the heat of the day passed, the Manileños generally clad themselves in clothes made of
silk and other fine fabrics, left the precincts of Intramuros, and sought relaxation by engaging in a
leisurely promenade along two drives extending outwards from the walled city. One of these
followed the gentle curve of Manila Bay for about three miles southwards, passing through the small
native settlements of Bagumbayan and Malate. A second led to Dilao and beyond, southeast of
Intramuros. Each evening towards sunset the Manilenos strolled or drove along these tree-lined
public ways, using the occasion to display their finest clothes, horses, and carriages. “
A photo of the tree-lined esplanade just outside the walls of Intramuros, dated late-19th century to early 20th
century. (Photo © University of Michigan Special Collections).
From the Diary of Dr. Jose Rizal
Aside from Puerta de Sta. Lucia’s ties to the general inhabitants of the Walled City in terms of
providing access to leisurely and recreational seaside walks, another important aspect is its linkage to
the walls in providing an added layer of security. What better way to describe this aspect of
Intramuros’ cultural landscape in the 19th century other than the words of Rizal himself. The following
excerpt is from the diary of Rizal as he recorded events leading to his exile in Dapitan. The account
was secretly sent by Rizal to his friends very shortly after his arrival at his place of exile.3
MY DEPORTATION TO DAPITAN
I arrived in Manila the 26th of June, 1892. It was on a Sunday, at 12 o’clock, noon. A
number of carbineers, including a major, met me. A captain and a sergeant of the Guardia
Veterana were there in civilian clothes. I disembarked with my luggage, and they inspected it at
the custom house.
From there, I went to the Oriente Hotel. I occupied Room No. 22, which overlooks the
Binondo Church.
Rizal, Jose. Rizal’s Own Story of His Life. Project Gutenberg Ebook edited by Austi Craig.
Accessed October 24, 2018. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48438/48438-h/48438-h.htm#xd21e1354
3
[74] That afternoon, at four, I presented myself to His Excellency, Governor-General
Despujol. He told me to return at seven in the evening and I did so. He granted my petition for
the liberty of my father, but not for the liberty of my brother and sisters. He told me to return on
Wednesday evening at half past seven.
From there, I went to see my sisters. First, I saw my sister Narcisa, afterwards Neneng
(Saturnina). On the following day, Monday, at six o’clock in the morning, I was at the railway
station, bound for Bulacan and Pampanga. I visited Malolos, San Fernando, and Tarlac. On the
return I stopped at Bacolor, reaching Manila on Tuesday at five o’clock in the afternoon.
Seven-thirty on Wednesday saw me with His Excellency. But not even then did I get him to
revoke the deportation decrees. Still he gave me hope for my sisters. As it was the festival of
Saints Peter and Paul, our interview ended at 9:15. I was to present myself on the following day,
at the same hour.
[75] That day, Thursday, we spoke on unimportant matters. I thanked him for having
revoked the order to banish my sisters and told him that my father and brother would come by
the first mail-steamer. He asked me if I wished to return to Hongkong and I answered, “Yes”. He
told me to come again on Wednesday.
Wednesday he asked me if I persisted in my intention of returning to Hongkong. I told him
that I did. After some conversation he said that I had brought political circulars in my baggage. I
replied that I had not. He asked me who was the owner of the roll of pillows and petates with my
baggage. I said that they belonged to my sister. He told me that because of them he was going
to send me to Fort Santiago.
[76] Don Ramón Despujol, his nephew and aide, took me in one of the palace carriages. At
Fort Santiago Don Enrique Villamor, the commander, received me. He assigned me to an ordinary
room containing a bed, a dozen chairs, a table, a washstand, and a mirror. The room had three
windows. One, without bars, looked out on a court; another had bars, and overlooked the wall
and the beach; the third served also as a door and had a padlock. Two artillerymen were on
guard as sentinels. They had orders to fire on anyone who tried to make signs from the beach. I
could not talk with anyone except the officer of the guard, and I was not allowed to write.
Don Enrique Villamor, the commander of the fort, gave me books from the library.
[77] Each day the corporal of the guard proved to be a sergeant. They cleaned the room
every morning. For breakfast, I had coffee with milk, a roll, and coffee-cake. Lunch was at 12:30,
and consisted of four courses. Dinner was at 8:30, and was similar to the lunch. Commander
Villamor’s orderly waited on me.
On Thursday, the 14th, about 5:30 or 6 p. m., the nephew notified me that at ten o’clock
that night I should sail for Dapitan. I prepared my baggage, and at 10 was ready, but as no one
came to get me, I went to sleep. At 12:15, the aide arrived with the same carriage which had
brought me there. By way of the Santa Lucia gate, they took me to the Malecon, where were
General Ahumada and some other people. Another aide and two of the Guardia Veterana were
waiting for me in a boat.
PART II – ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
This chapter follows the format and criteria set by the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter of 2013 and
the guide, “Conservation Management Plans: Managing Heritage Places,” produced by the Heritage
Council of Victoria. The following steps were followed accordingly:
•
•
•
First, a desk research was made to gather the historical context and the physical description
of Puerta de Sta. Lucia (the site), in comparison with the other identified gates of Intramuros.
From there, the Criteria for Assessment were formulated and initial Statements of Significance
were drawn.
Second, a site ocular and an investigation were conducted for the documentation of its
physical fabric, oral histories, and values from the community and authorized representatives
of the Intramuros Administration (IA) through interviews.
The data collected were then verified, tabulated, and assessed leading to the formulation of
the Statement of Significance.
2.1. Criteria for Assessment
SIGNIFICANCE
Aesthetic and
Architectural
Historical
Social
CRITERIA
• The place is important because of its aesthetic significance.
• The place is important in demonstrating the principle characteristics
of a particular class of cultural places in the Philippines, namely
Spanish Colonial fortifications.
• As part of the greater context of Intramuros’ walls, the place is
important in demonstrating the evolution of urban planning, renewal
and development in Philippine history.
• The place has potential to yield information that will contribute to the
understanding of urban society at particular points in time in
Philippine history.
• The space has a special association with the life of a particular person,
group or organization of importance in the history of the Philippines.
• The place has a strong or special association with a particular
community or group for social and cultural reasons.
2.2. Significance of Components
Comparative Functional Analysis
After exchanging data, the author together with the other researchers of the Intramuros’ gates came up with the following comparative analysis. The
gates were arranged according to the documented date of establishment (earliest to latest). They were then categorized depending on their relative users
(either Royal for gates that are exclusively established for the use of Spanish VIPs or Civil – for the rest of the citizens) and relative location in the wider
context of Walled City (either facing the Land, River or the Sea).
PUERTA
DATE EST.
RELATIVE
User
Location
AL QUARTEL DE
BANDERAS
1500s
ROYAL
SEA
DEL PARIAN
1593
CIVIL
LAND
REAL DE
BAGUMBAYAN
1663 / 1781
ROYAL
LAND
DE STA. LUCIA
1603
CIVIL
SEA
SIGNIFICANCE
General Significance
SECURITY –
or Military Defense
by virtue of its linkage to the city’s
walls & fortification;
and
POSTIGO
1662
ROYAL
SEA
DE ALMACENES
1690
ROYAL
RIVER
1500s / 1863
CIVIL
RIVER
1861
CIVIL
RIVER
DE STO. DOMINGO
DE ISABEL II
CLASS SEGREGATION –
or Access
as seen from the type of pedestrian
allowed to access thru the gates
Specific Significance
Early postern for covert and emergency
entry/exit, exclusively for the Governor General
and Archbishop of Manila
Gate for Chinese merchants living in
concentration across the Parian
Ceremonial gate exclusively for the GovernorGeneral and archbishop during state occasions
Gate for citizens to the seaside promenade /
esplanade and to Luneta Park
Postern for covert and emergency entry/exit,
exclusively for the Governor General and
Archbishop of Manila, etc.
Gate to the royal warehouse & storage
Gate for entry of goods from commercial port
area / ships docking at Pasig River wharves
(Immigration & taxation)
Gate to ease the heavy pedestrian traffic at
Puerta del Parian to Puente de Espana and
Binondo
Comparative Architectural Analysis
For the architectural analysis of the gates’ main facades, the researchers tried to plot the general characteristics of each gate and found out that
there are unique elements present for each (herein marked in bold letters).
PUERTA
DESIGNERS
AL QUARTEL DE
BANDERAS
Dasmariñas &
Tamon
DEL PARIAN
REAL DE
BAGUMBAYAN
DE STA. LUCIA
POSTIGO
RELATIVE
OPENING SIZE
Tomas Sanz
Jose Belesta,
Tomas Sanz
and Engr.
Miguel
Antonio
Gomez
Tomas Sanz
Tomas Sanz
As a general
observation, gates
with ROYAL
relative users tend
to be smaller and
gates with CIVIL
relative user tend
to be bigger &
wider to
accommodate
bigger pedestrian
traffic
COMPONENTS
VISIBLE ORNAMENTATIONS & DETAILS (AS-FOUND)
EXTERIOR MAIN FAÇADE
INTERIOR
Drawbridge
Unknown/ no documentary evidence
Unknown
Unknown
Broken triangular pediment, triglyphs, round
arch opening, smooth rectangular shaft for
pilasters, symmetrical accouplement,
horizontal grooves on wall façade, wood
carved coat-of-arms, pedestal
Brick cross
vaults,
2 chambers
each side
With
drawbridge
Cross-vaults
With
drawbridge
Adobe cross
vaults,
1 chamber
each side
With
drawbridge
4 chambers
barrel vault
With
drawbridge
Broken round pediment, segmental arch
opening, grooved rectangular shaft for
pilaster (one on each side), horizontal
grooves on wall façade, stone-carved coatof-arms, pedestal, w/ garita on each side.
Triangular pediment, round arch opening,
round smooth Tuscan pilaster (one on each
side), horizontal grooves on wall façade,
wood carved coat-of-arms, three sets of
modillions in the central façade above
opening, with dedication
Baroque style pediment, no pediment at all,
with acroterium (3pcs), grooved rectangular
shaft for pilaster (one on each side),
segmental arch opening
ARCHITECTURAL
STYLE
SPANISH
RENAISSANCE
HERRERAN
STYLE,
in reaction to the
previous
Isabelline Gothic
Style
MANNERIST
BAROQUE STYLE
DE ALMACENES
DE STO.
DOMINGO
DE ISABEL II
Tomas Sanz
Tomas Sanz
Unknown
Unknown, no documentary evidence
Round pediment, triglyphs, segmental arch
opening, smooth rectangular shaft for
pilaster (oneon each side), horizontal
grooves on wall façade
No pediment at all, entablature only, round
arch w/ offset segmental arch opening,
wide/ fat grooved rectangular shaft for
pilasters (one on each side), horizontal
grooves on wall façade, stone-carved
Spanish coat-of-arms above segmental arch
opening, single modillion in place of the
keystone
Unknown
Unknown
Barrel vaults,
1 chamber on
each side
With
drawbridge
Adobe crossvaults, 1
chamber on
each side
With
drawbridge
2.3. Assessment by Criterion
Aesthetic and Architectural Value
Puerta de Sta. Lucia displays the elements of a Herreran-style of architecture, a thread of
Spanish Renaissance, characterized by geometric rigor, mathematical precision, clean cubic volumes,
and the dominance of the wall over the span with an almost total absence of decoration. Severe
horizontality, achieved through the balance of forms, are arranged symmetrically in the structure,
although shaped as well by the imposition of the Renaissance grid system in urban planning. While
being predominantly horizontal and bulky, the design of the main façade also introduces elements of
verticality – with its triangular pediment and simple unfluted Tuscan pilasters flanking both sides of
the gateway – helping to reinforce the portal’s sense of stately grandeur and monumental elevation.
Historical Value
Puerta de Sta. Lucia contributes to the knowledge and understanding of Walled City of
Intramuros being part of its complex systems of walls and fortifications. The structure provides an
important physical testament of the country’s urban evolution, renewal, and development which
represents the overall pattern of how we as a country historically shape our towns and cities.
Moreover, through its materiality, the structure also provides us an improved understanding of the
country’s historical usage of building construction materials and technology.
Social Value
For the current inhabitants, transient workers, and occasional local and foreign visitors, Puerta
de Sta. Lucia continues to have a strong and special association with the distinct Spanish Colonial
character of Intramuros, in housing the security personnel clothed in the traditional garb of the
guardia civils. These men facilitating the regulation of security inside the Walled City parallels the
historical function of Puerta de Sta. Lucia as a silent infrastructural facilitator of the regulation of
security, especially in terms of access to and from the Walled City.
Moreover, as a historical witness to the Walled City’s end-of-day diurnal stroll in being the
favored route to the seaside esplanade, Puerta de Sta. Lucia now epitomizes that same culture of
pasyal, or taking a recreational walk, as part of the Intramuros wall’s current-day function as an
elevated park / walkway.
2.4. Statement of Significance
“Puerta de Sta. Lucia, one of the original historical portals to Intramuros, is a Spanish
Renaissance Herreran-style unreinforced adobe masonry structure. The portal was designed by a
military engineer Tomas Sanz in 1781 during the reign of King Carlos III, and was constructed to
facilitate the regulation of security, and serve as principal access for the citizens to and from the
western side of the Walled City facing Manila Bay, during end-of-day diurnal strolls to a seaside
esplanade. The culture of pasyal or recreational walk which continued throughout the colonial period
still remains an important feature of urban life in the Walled City where Filipinos find daily pleasure
and needed respite from the cares of daily life by walking along the connected system of elevated
walkways and park of Intramuros’ walls and fortifications, which Puerta de Sta. Lucia is an important
part of.”
PART III – IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES
3.1. Conditions and Threat (Fabric Survey)
All building materials decay eventually due to continued exposure to the elements and
therefore require continued special attention in order to function satisfactorily. In the case of the the
structure of Puerta de Sta Lucia, the apparent lack planned maintenance programs served only to
aggravate early signs of deterioration. The following are deterioration anomalies that were observed:
Biological Growth
Puerta de Sta. Lucia, like the rest of the walls of Intramuros is made up of adobe or volcanic
tuff. In a tropical climate where seasonal and diurnal temperatures are more constant and humidity
is consistently high, volcanic tuff as a building material has a lower susceptibility to thermal stress, but
a greater susceptibility to water and moisture. Having a porous property, it will absorb water from
every possible contact and risks deterioration mechanisms that rely on a constant supply of moisture,
such as biological growth and salt attacks (Paterno, 1999). Constructed of this same material, the
structure in all its exposed adobe masonry is seasonally bombarded with problems of biological
growth.
Top: Photos of seasonal moss growth along the exposed masonry walls of Puerta de Sta. Lucia.
Bottom: Close-up of surface biological growth.
Cement Mortar Joints and Plaster Renders
Mortar is used as an integral part of masonry structures for thousands of years, and as with
traditional masonry wall construction, the walls of Puerta de Sta. Lucia traditionally used lime mortar
for its pointing. Historical studies from the Intramuros Administration revealed the use of an additive
– the egg white – as a binding agent and crushed marine seashells as an aggregate in the lime mortar
composition used for the walls of Intramuros. Lime mortar and render works on the basis that
moisture absorbed by the masonry is able to escape as water vapor as easily as possible. Lime mortars
can readily handle the transmission of moisture between the inside and outside of a masonry wall,
thanks to the complex interconnected porous structure of the adobe stone.
Most Spanish Colonial monuments were plastered. The 1781 Plans of Tomas Sanz also suggest
plastering as no exposed stonework are observed from the drawings. An architectural fad in the mid1970's advocated the California mission’s aesthetics and promoted the removal of plaster in many
buildings. In the 1980s during the restoration and rehabilitation of Puerta de Sta. Lucia, cement-based
mortar and plaster may have also been used as was the norm back then, replacing the traditional limebased plaster and mortar that protected the porous adobe masonry. The walls of Puerta de Sta. Lucia
today, as with the rest of the walls of Intramuros, is seen with its exposed adobe stonework and mortar
pointing.
Top Left: Degraded plaster renders. Top Right: Chipped stone step render from one of the stair flights leading
to the elevated walkway. The uneven surface is a trip hazard that may be a cause for concern.
Bottom Left: Degraded cement plasters exposing the tuff masonry to biological colonization.
Bottom Right: Cement mortar joints.
Other Observed Threats to the Fabric
Left and Right: Unsightly watermarks and efflorescence stains as tell-tale signs of moisture penetration / rain
water seepage present in interior’s ceiling vaults.
Left and Right: Gaps between ceiling vaults that may be tell-tale signs of compromised structural integrity.
Left and Right: Spray paint vandalisms.
Unsightly utility box installations. Left: Protruding communication utility box.
Right: Embedded but completely exposed power utility box.
Both unsightly and haphazard installation of utility steel pipes.
Foreign materials that are directly embedded on the stone masonry. Left: Screws that are meant to hold a
steel lamp post. Right: Rusted driven nails that can eventually cause masonry splits and cracks.
PART IV – POLICIES AND ACTION PLANS
The policies drafted in this section considered local and international charters that translates
to overall protection and conservation of Puerta de Sta. Lucia.
1. On the Primacy of Cultural Significance
1.1. The cultural significance shall be the driving force for the decision-making, conservation and
further management of the place. Formulation then of policies for conservation shall be based on
the understanding of the place’s cultural significance, with due consideration to meanings,
associations and other factors that may affect the structure’s future function and activities.
Action Plan
•
The Intramuros Administration should consult with heritage conservation
professionals to properly identify and understand the place’s cultural significance.
•
Formulation of conservation policies should allow for the retention, enhancement
and protection of the place’s cultural significance.
2. On Conformity to Internationally-Accepted Conservation Principles
2.1. Formulation of conservation policies shall be drafted using internationally-accepted principles
from charters, such as the 2013 Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, the Ename Charter on Heritage
Interpretation and Presentation, and the Nara Document on Authenticity.
Action Plan
•
The local and international heritage conservation policies should serve as the main
reference in the formulation of conservation guidelines.
•
The Intramuros Administration should consult with stakeholders, heritage
conservation professionals and concerned national cultural agencies.
3. On Compliance with Existing Local Legislation and Mandates
3.1. Formulated policies and implementation of the conservation approach should comply and
compliment with existing local legislation, mandates and other local cultural declarations to
encourage unity, if not uniformity, and collaboration among the concerned stakeholders.
Action Plan
•
The national and local legislations and declarations should serve as a reference to
any proposed action.
4. On Collaboration and Consultation with Professionals and Stakeholders
4.1. Formulated policies should address issues and represent the aspirations brought forth by
concerned stakeholders and interested collaborators. The policies should aim to foster
collaboration and complementarity among the varying concerns of stakeholders and the diverse
expertise and field of study of professionals from both the local and international level.
4.2. Consultative meeting and initiating events that fosters community dialogue should be initiated
by the Intramuros Administration. Insights from stakeholders and/or proposals professionals must
be carefully studied and prudently considered.
4.3. A coherent feedback system must be established that should allow for the review of the policy
and intervention’s effectivity.
Action Plan
•
Discovery of facts and proposed approach of intervention must be properly
communicated to the immediate stakeholders. Intramuros Administration should
engage with heritage conservation professionals on a regular basis.
5. On Physical Interventions
5.1. The principle of minimum intervention and maximum retention of materials should be
vigorously complied to. The major object of current preservation theory and practice is to retain as
much as possible of the existing materials of the historic building, both the original materials and
those which have been added throughout history. The historic building should, if structurally and
functionally possible, be preserved as it has been handed down to us through history. The identity
and the genuineness or authenticity of the building is related to the substance acquired through its
history;
5.2. Interventions may take the form of a simple repairs using either traditional masonry techniques
or compatible lime-based mortars;
5.3. Interventions, such as cleaning of biological growth, should take environmental conditions into
account;
5.4. The appropriateness of any dismantling should be considered within the Philippine context and
should be aimed at best protecting the authenticity of the building, for there is always the potential
for irreversible damage to the material, as well as to masonry joints and connections during
intervention;
5.5. Any replacement material should (a) be of the same material property – whether compressive
strength and moisture absorption; (b) have similar characteristics where it will be visible; and (c) be
worked using similar craft methods and tools as the original;
5.6. No attempt should be made to artificially age replacement masonry. The new components,
however, should not aesthetically undermine the whole. New members or parts of members may
be discreetly marked, so that they can be identified at a later date;
5.7. All materials, including structural members, vaults, roofs, floors, doors and windows,
drawbridge, etc., should be given equal attention and should be considered as a whole.
In principle, as much as possible of the existing material, as well as earlier repair works, should be
retained if they do not prejudice the stability of the structure. Conservation should also include
surface finishes such as plaster, paint, etc. The original materials, techniques and textures should
be respected. If it is considered strictly necessary to renew or replace deteriorated surface finishes,
the use of compatible materials and techniques is imperative;
5.8. When considering structural members it should be noted that: (a) if a structure has a
satisfactory performance, and if the use, the actual conditions and loading regime are unchanged,
the structure can be made adequately strong by simply repairing/stabilizing recent strengthreducing damage and failure; and (b) if recent alterations have been made, or any proposed change
of use would impose a more onerous loading, the potential load-bearing strength should be
estimated by structural analysis before considering the introduction of any further reinforcement;
5.9. Future subsoil excavation leading to the discovery of any artifact that is of archaeological
importance must be properly coordinated with the National Museum of the Philippines and other
concerned cultural agencies.
Action Plan
•
Intramuros Administration should consult a technically and ethically qualified
heritage conservation professional for the proper implementation of the
conservation approach.
•
Structural investigation studies, as part of the multi-disciplinary studies performed to
the structure prior to intervention, must be consulted from a technically and ethically
qualified structural engineer.
6. On the Use of Present-day Materials and Technologies
6.1. Present-day materials and technologies should be chosen and used with the greatest caution
and only in cases where the durability and structural behaviour of the materials and construction
techniques have been satisfactorily proven over a sufficiently long period of time;
6.2. The use of chemical preservatives should be carefully controlled and monitored and should be
used only where there is an assured benefit, where public and environmental safety will not be
affected and where there is the expectation of significant long-term improvement;
6.3. Utilities should be installed with respect for the tangible and intangible significance of the
structure or site;
a. Plumbing/ Drainage - Installation of new / rehabilitation of existing utility lines must be
external but enclosed or concealed in an aesthetically appropriate or compatible manner as
the existing masonry. Utility lines shall in no way be embedded which could harm the physical
integrity of the structure and shall not involve the removal of the structure’s physical fabric.
Intramuros Administration shall provide for the main lines and tapping points shall be
likewise as approved by Intramuros Administration. Provisions for new utility lines should
conform to the standards of the Philippine Plumbing and Sanitary Code. Provisions for the
construction of new toilet / comfort rooms must be implemented / aligned with the
established Herreran architectural style of Intramuros.
b. Lighting and Electrical - All existing droplights must be avoided and must be rewired in the
most minimally-invasive manner. Continuous wall sconce and uplights along the wall is
preferred. All lights shall be at a considerable distance from the walls, and angled acting more
as wall washers to emphasize grandeur. Uplighting provision for the gates shall be closer to
the physical fabric, located and or embedded in the ground to emphasize monumental
verticality. Color temperature inside the structure should be more intense than the exterior.
Provisions for new utility lines should conform to the standards of the Philippine Electrical
Code.
c. Air conditioning – Condensers must be incorporated seamless in the surrounding
landscape of the structure and should be positioned as far away from the wall as possible.
d. Security and Communication Utilities – CCTV, telephone and communication utility lines
must be external but enclosed or concealed in an aesthetically appropriate or compatible
manner as the existing masonry.
Action Plan
•
Cleaning of biological growth, chipping of cement-based plaster, re-plastering using
lime-based plaster, repointing using lime-based mortar, and the repair of minor
fabric damage must be delegated to skilled workers who are learned in the specific
tasks using proper methods and workmanship.
•
Intramuros Administration should consult a technically and ethically qualified
heritage conservation professional for the proper implementation of the
conservation approach.
7. On Monitoring and Planning of Maintenance Activities
7.1. Every building requires care in order to limit and delay its deterioration. To aid in preserving
and protecting Puerta de Sta. Lucia from the usual wear-and-tear, a Preventive Conservation
Program should be implemented by the custodians in performing routine maintenance.
7.2. A coherent strategy of regular monitoring and day-to-day maintenance must be established in
order to delay the need for larger interventions and ensure the continuing protection of the asset’s
physical fabric and cultural significance.
7.3. Monitoring should be carried out both during and after any intervention to ascertain the
effectiveness of the methods used and to ensure the long-term performance of the materials used;
7.4. Records of any maintenance and monitoring should be kept as part of the documented history
of the structure;
Action Plan
•
The building custodian and their maintenance personnel should be trained to
detect problems and identify solutions, such as tapping expert advice and hiring
workers to assist in specific tasks using proper methods and workmanship.
•
Intramuros Administration should consult a technically qualified heritage
conservation professional
8. On the Proper Use of Site and Structure
8.1. With regard to security, Intramuros Administration and its associated security agency must
always ensure the constant presence of security personnel in the immediate vicinity and the
elevated walkway of the structure. Security personnel should ensure that the structure is secure
and that all outside doors/ access are properly locked at the end of each day. Provision for a working
street lighting system in the area is imperative to deterring people with any malicious intent.
8.2. With regard to accessibility, the circulation area, pathways, and elevated walkways leading to
the structure should be free from obstruction and accessible for Persons with Disability (PWD). IA
should plan an effective way-finding system, and should provide for credible information materials
in and around the structure.
8.3. With regard to orderliness and cleanliness, proper designated place should be provided for
transient hawkers and street vendors in the immediate vicinity to avoid unsightly crowding. The
immediate surrounding that is most frequented by local and foreign visitors should also provide for
proper signages and waste disposal bins that promotes proper maintenance and cleanliness. The
site shall be at all times free from illegal living settlement. Moreover, management of the security
agency should ensure that interior facilities of the structure – the chambers that are used as main
office and sleeping quarters, the comfort room and washing facilities, and the open car port – are
in good and orderly condition.
8.4. With regard to fire and emergency readiness, management of the security agency should
ensure that fire extinguishers and first aid kits are visible, updated and readily accessible.
8.5. With regard to electrical safety, management of the security agency should ensure that all
breaker boxes are labeled correctly and properly covered, extension cords are properly grounded
and placed in a manner to prevent tripping, and outlets and switches are properly covered.
Action Plan
•
Users of the space, the building custodian and their maintenance personnel should
be trained to detect problems and identify solutions.
9. On Heritage Interpretation and Presentation
9.1. The ultimate goal of programs on Heritage Interpretation and Presentation is to convey the
significance of the structure to the public to encourage inclusivity and participation among its
stakeholders, with a long-term aim of sustainability. Formulate policies shall conform to the Ename
Charter on Heritage Interpretation and Presentation.
Action Plan
•
By initiating several activities which could promote a greater understanding,
awareness and appreciation, Intramuros Administration should involve the portal’s
stakeholders in the formulation of interpretation and presentation strategies to
properly communicate the significance of the structure and the history of its site to
the public and younger generation.
10. On Knowledge Management
10.1. The goal of knowledge management is to protect known surviving and existing records of the
structure to create a strong foundation of knowledge that is substantial to the structure’s
conservation and protection efforts.
Action Plan
•
Records and other related documents must be stored in a cool, dry place to preserve
good condition, and must be made readily accessible for research purposes.
Intramuros Administration should provide for the creation of a visitor center for the
general appreciation of the public, with applicable signages and historical
information displays.
REFERENCES
Sources
•
Garcia, Mauro and C.O. Ressurreccion, editors. 1971. Focus on Old Manila. Philippine
Historical Association. Manila, Philippines.
•
Gatbonton, Esperanza B. 1980. Intramuros A Historical Guide. Intramuros Administration.
Manila, Philippines.
•
Gatbonton, Esperanza B. 1985. Bastion de San Diego.Intramuros Administration. Manila,
Philippines.
•
Javellana, Rene B. 2003. In & Around Intramuros: An Interactive Guide. Jesuit
Communications Foundation, Inc. Quezon City, Philippines.
•
"Historic Ships on a Lee Shore". Sea History. National Maritime Historical Society (144): 12–13
(2013). USA.
•
Lico, Gerard Rey A. and Maria Delia Tomacruz. 2015. “Infrastructures of Colonial Modernity:
Public Works in Manila from the late 19th to the early 20th Centuries”. Espasyo. Journal of
Philippine Architecture and Allied Arts. National Commission for Culture and the Arts. Manila,
Philippines.
•
Paterno, Maria Christina. 1999. A Study of the Weathering of Volcanic Tuffs in a Tropical
Environment, Including the Evaluation of a Consolidant. University of Pennsylvania.
•
Philippine News Agency [PNA]. 2011. Today in Philippine History, September 14, 1815, the
galleon trade between the Philippines and Mexico ended. Manila, Philippines.
•
Philippine Registry of Cultural Property [PRECUP] (2017). National Commission for Culture and
the Arts. Intramuros, Manila.
•
Reed, Robert R. 1978. Colonial Manila: The Context of Hispanic Urbanism and Process of
Morphogenesis. Geography Vol. 22. University of California Press. California, USA.
•
"Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain; December 10, 1898" (2009). Yale
University. Retrieved 2009-05-01. USA.
•
US Library of Congress (Retrieved 10/09/2017). Trade with Europe and America.
http://countrystudies.us/
philippines/6.htmhttp://countrystudies.us/philippines/6.htm.
USA.
Conservation Management Plan Guides
•
Australia International Council on Monuments and Sites. 2013. “The Burra Charter: The
Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance.”
•
Heritage Council of Victoria (2010). “Conservation Management Plans: Managing Heritage
Places – A Guide.” Melbourne, Australia.
APPENDIX I: Cartographic References
1671 Map. Francisco Ortiz, OP.
1720 Map. Planta de la Muy Noble Ciudad de Manila con su Circunvalación. Europeana Collections.
1762 Map. Plano de la ciudad de Manila Capital de Philipinas. Europeana Collections.
1762 Map. English Army. Plan of Manila Capital of the Philippines. Biblioteca Nacional de España
1765 Map. Gomez, Miguel Antonio. Europeana Collections
1765 Map. Gomez, Miguel Antonio. Europeana Collections
1766? Map. Zermeño, Juan Martin. Biblioteca Nacional de España.
1800s Map. Unknown author. Plano de la Ciudad de Manila. Biblioteca Nacional de España.
1819 Map. Herrera, Francisco Javier / Topographic Deposit of Manila. Biblioteca Nacional de España.
1851 Map. Diccionario Geografico-Estadistico-Historico De Las Islas Filipinas, Madrid. From the collection of University of Texas at Austin library.
1898 Map. De Gamodeda, Francisco J. Plano de Manila y Sus Arrabales. From the collection of University of Texas at Austin library.
1918 Map. Bach John. City of Manila philippine islands issued by authority of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry.
1934 Map. Unknown author.