11/09/10
Re: Cov Courts
It's not that I'm absolutely against an all-weather structure to house events. In fact, the recent Halloween fiasco about getting the kids out of the rain proves that.
I'm against the fact that the plans for such a structure are not considering the design quality and other factors that might come to light due to construction. Particularly regarding most structures constructed from sheer want and instance (those oftentimes specialized by government construction), such buildings are an environmental bane, a sore sight, and a possible financial burden.
The following is a more extensive list of the issues I think should be weighed carefully:
*Maintenance — Cleanliness and order must continuously be managed by the village council. Also, like any large structure, it poses threats and hazards to residents and maintenance staff.
*Appearance — It may become an eyesore and damage the community’s overall look especially when ill-kept.
*Financial hassle — The maintenance and construction of the building will surely need a deep pocket from which to gather funds. As is, the village can be quite thrifty. Furthermore, the need for electrical wiring will need to be addressed. Should the covered court be used as a basketball court, lighting fees (during night or dark rainy days) will be required thereby slashing the originally free amenity.
*Carbon Footprint — Unless the covered court to be built puts in mind green architecture and engineering, the area used will be a sad loss to the environment and village surroundings. There are other plans that are more eco-friendly. The court isn’t the only area affected by this, however. The plants and gardens of neighboring structures like the chapel and plaza may not take well to an overgrown shade and greenhouse and destroy any chance of organic growth.
*Noise Pollution — Noise from construction (and, later on, residents) will affect nearby structures including residents living beside the area and the adjacent chapel. Although covered courts are usually semi-enclosed spaces, the way sound moves inside them is one thing that hardly ever changes. Echoes may be cause of irritation for many residents.
*Socially Unaware — The proposed construction may not appeal to ALL residents though there seems to be an assumption that so long as the authorities in charge give it a go, everyone would naturally not protest and would follow suit. Many are not aware of the plans and the benefits, costs, and shortcomings the project comes with.
*Social Security — With all intention of sounding practical and no intention of being selfish, we would like to address that we understand that government-built structures should hold responsibility for its citizens (both public and private sectors) particularly in case of calamities and emergencies. This would necessitate the possibility of opening of village grounds to house non-residents and therefore weakening security paid for by residential dues. Currently, village security is a fragile and fickle topic and an obstacle against it will just fan more problems. (Just because we were not assigned to house refugees from the Ondoy incident, does not mean we will permanently be free of such responsibility.)
*For the sake of practicality — The issue is no longer just about what we need or what we want. The issue now, we believe, is whether the village needs it so much that it is willing to forsake several factors to build it. Surely there are other projects more deserving of funds and sponsorships.
I believe there's a better alternative to fuse both a covered area and an open space. Instead of a solid court, as normally promised by many a local government head, canvass tents or tensile fabrics is an environmentally-friendly investment, for example.
Overall, I believe that issues like this takes more than just whim to make true. Planning and consultation should be done so that ALL sides are properly heard. The authority given to local leaders is not something that should be taken lightly. Just because one has a personal gain to achieve, does not mean power can be pushed around.
Furthermore, if it's progress the council seeks to measure then I think their definition of progress is skewed. Progress is not measured by the number of buildings constructed or the price tag on structures. Progress comes from wise investments that are well thought through and promote the well-being of society.
Just the two cents of a concerned individual. :)
