Coffee said:
I kinda hate to say it, but that house in its current state is an eyesore. It looks neglected and grimy. It could potentially look good with some renovations and upkeep, but the owners of the place apparently didn't care to maintain it. And the project set to replace it-- though its no architectural masterpiece-- looks like a clean and welcome development. I don't want to seem historically insensitive... I do have a lot of appreciation for history, but not everything from the 1920s is worth saving simply for being old.
Coffee, thanks for your opinion.
For your enlightenment, below are two photos of Orchid Garden Suites located at Vito Cruz Street, Manila:
Justice Antonio Villareal residence, built ca. 1932. Pablo Antonio, architect
As you can see in the new photo, the old house has been spared from demolition and now serves as a lobby and function area.
Old houses that are derelict would definitely look grimy - this is a sad fact. But that doesn't mean that it has to be demolished. 1920s to 1930s was the height of Phil. art deco - one of most celebrated 'high art' and a great achievement in Phil. architecture.
Yes, the project that would replace the old house is clean -
malamang, it's a new structure. Assuming you're pertaining to the architectural design that you think is 'clean,' well, a shoe box design has clean, fine lines but I think it pales in comparison to the one that should be spared from demolition.
The Orchid Garden Suites is a perfect example of how an old structure can be turned into something new and there’s no need to demolish a piece of heritage simply because it looks grimy and neglected.