Are We Building First and Planning Later?

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” — Edward Abbey, American Environmentalist 

Every time Metro Manila floods, we usually hear the consistent explanations on the news: clogged drainage, overflowing rivers, heavy rains, improper waste disposal, garbage blocking waterways, and the failed flood-control projects.

And yes, all of these are factors. 

But maybe there is another question we should be asking:

Are we also building our cities in a way that makes flooding worse? 

Environmental Planner and Urban Designer Paulo Alcazaren recently pointed out something simple but important: the water flooding one area does not always come from that area alone. Rain that falls in higher places eventually flows somewhere. It passes through rivers, creeks, roads, and communities until it reaches lower areas. 

In other words, what we build in one place can affect people somewhere else. This is where urbanization and its planning comes in. 

There is nothing wrong with cities growing. We need houses, roads, businesses, schools, malls, and other infrastructure as our population and economy grow. It is necessary. 

The problem begins when implementation happens faster than planning. 

We can already see how quickly many areas around Metro Manila and nearby provinces are changing. Open spaces become subdivisions. Empty lots become commercial areas. New roads open up, and developments soon follow. What used to be mostly soil and vegetation gradually become buildings and concrete. 

None of these projects, on their own, automatically causes flooding. But development changes the way an area handles rain. As more land is built on, less space is available to naturally absorb water, while more of that water has to be carried by drainage systems, creeks, and rivers. 

And when this happens across several cities and provinces at the same time, the pressure eventually adds up. 

This is where urban planning and flood control have to meet.

Flood-control infrastructure remains essential. Metro Manila needs better drainage systems, pumping stations, detention facilities, and other projects that could prevent flooding in communities. 

But their effectiveness is also connected to how development happens around them. 

A drainage system can only carry so much water. A river can only accommodate so much flow. If development continues to add more runoff without enough planning for where that water will go, even good flood-control infrastructure can eventually be placed under greater pressure. 

That is why development decisions matter too. 

When a large subdivision is approved, do we ask where all its rainwater will go? When open land is converted into another commercial area, do we consider how much water that land used to absorb? When development continues in areas outside Metro Manila, do we think about how it may affect cities farther down? 

Because a project built in one city today can contribute to flooding in another community years later. 

That is why good urban planning is not simply about deciding where roads, buildings, and subdivisions should be built. It is also about understanding what those developments will do to the people and environment around them. 

Maybe that is the bigger point behind Alcazaren's post. 

We should not wait until the water is already inside people's homes before we start thinking about flood prevention. 

Growth is important. But if our cities continue to grow while becoming more vulnerable to flooding, we also have to ask whether we are planning that growth well enough. 

As our cities grow, is urban planning considering the possible effects of this growth on the issue of flooding?