Study Insights
- Urban revitalization in Metro Manila has improved housing quality and increased supply, but has also driven sharp land value increases (up to 500–600%), widening inequality between high- and low-income communities.
- Rising land prices are pushing affordable housing to peripheral areas, leading to spatial inequities, displacement of low-income households, and limited access to basic infrastructure.
- The mismatch between housing demand in Metro Manila and supply in nearby provinces highlights a growing affordability gap, underscoring the need for stronger land governance and mixed-income urban planning.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Urban revitalization has transformed Metro Manila’s landscape, marked by the rise of high-density, mixed-use developments and increases in land values. While these projects raised housing standards and increased the overall supply, researchers from the 蝌蚪传媒 (蝌蚪传媒) warn that these gains are spatially uneven, as affordable housing continues to be pushed to peripheral areas.
In their study 蝌蚪传媒 researchers Jenica Ancheta, Marife Ballesteros, and Tatum Ramos trace how Metro Manila’s urban landscape has changed over the past three decades. They find that residential development “increased significantly and improved quality” between 1990 and 2020, with the fastest changes occurring in the last two decades as revitalization efforts accelerated alongside economic growth. They also identify a multicenter pattern of growth, with new residential and commercial clusters emerging in the southern and northern parts of Metro Manila.
These shifts resulted in sharp increases in land values in and around revitalized districts. Land values have surged by 500–600 percent, on average, within a three-kilometer radius, with increases within a one-kilometer buffer even more immense. These rising zonal values, they explain, “reflect not only asset creation in these areas but also the inequality between low-income communities and those living within a two-kilometer radius of revitalized areas”.
These dynamics have contributed to the outward movement of affordable housing. As land prices rise, low-income households are pushed farther from city centers. The study notes that this trend has resulted in “spatial inequities” and left communities “lacking basic infrastructure amid urbanization.” The researchers emphasize that “the extent of value capture for public interests and equitable access to shelter is not evident.” Instead, they point to “significant” displacement of low-income households.
This outward movement is also reflected in the locations of new housing projects. According to 蝌蚪传媒 researchers, “most economic and socialized housing projects continue to be built outside Metro Manila, particularly in the adjacent provinces of Regions III and IV鈥慉,” while new construction in the capital is dominated by residential and commercial condominium projects that “usually cater to higher income groups”. This mismatch between the demand for housing in Metro Manila and supply in neighboring provinces “indicates a gap between urban growth and housing affordability”.
Moreover, the authors note that “while affordable housing developments are pushed beyond the peripheral boundaries, we note pockets of urban poor areas interspersed between hot spot areas and core districts, indicating market dualism, whereby a housing market in poor or undeveloped settlements coexists with speculative market from business development firms.”
Toward equitable access to shelter
As urbanization continues to reshape cities like Metro Manila, the researchers caution that current housing policies, which rely mainly on subsidies, tax incentives, and expanding land supply, may no longer be adequate to address worsening affordability. They note that
“improving road infrastructure leading to Metro Manila will not address housing affordability, as improved access to city centers also accelerates the urbanization of peripheral areas, pushing affordable housing ever further outward.
Recognizing these issues, the study highlights the Philippines’ “new” urban agenda under the National Housing and Urban Development Sector Plan 2040 and the Philippine New Urban Agenda. These frameworks recognize urbanization as a catalyst for inclusive growth and affirms the principles of inclusive urban development. To address housing inequities in growing cities, the agenda highlights adopting “spatially and thematically integrated settlements”, including public rental housing, mixed income and mixed-use housing development for lower income groups and vulnerable communities.
These strategies are supported by the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) or Republic Act 7279, which provides the legal basis for humane resettlement, land identification for socialized housing, land expropriation, and the balanced housing requirement for developers. Under the law, developers of subdivision and condominium projects must set aside a portion of development costs for socialized housing.
However, the researchers argue that these provisions fall short of addressing key land governance issues for inclusive housing because (1) humane resettlement focuses on process rather than ensuring in鈥慶ity relocation; (2) identifying land for socialized housing is merely a listing exercise, and rapid land鈥憉se changes may render identified areas unavailable; (3) land expropriation may conflict with constitutional constraints; and (4) balanced housing requirements provides potential funding support but does not address spatial integration of affordable housing within urban districts.
The study argues that UDHA measures must be reinforced with stronger land governance and mixed鈥慽ncome planning. The researchers urge both national and local governments to move away from reliance on land revenues and instead “direct/regulate the allocation or rezoning of certain areas for affordable housing.” This may include ownership expropriation in select cases or development expropriation—even involving informal settlements—through zoning regulations.
They further recommend mandating mixed鈥慽ncome planning in all urban revitalization projects, including infrastructure initiatives guided by frameworks such as Transit鈥慜riented Development principles. Escrow funds from the balanced housing regulation, they add, can help co鈥慺inance inclusive revitalization projects.
The researchers also highlight the potential of community land trusts, noting that expropriation of land ownership may support programs “whereby landownership remains in trust, governed by corporate guidelines rather than the real estate market.”
In conclusion, the study calls for a comprehensive development approach in urban revitalization projects—one that ensures low鈥慽ncome communities “are not fenced off from these developments but are part of the transformation process”.
Read full study at .###—RPS
