‘ECONOMIC INFRA’: Think tank proposes PHP 2.65-B Calle Real revitalization plan

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

The Institute of Contemporary Economics has proposed a staged revitalization of Calle Real that it estimates could reach PHP 2.65 billion over the long term, beginning with a smaller demonstration corridor costing PHP 50 million to PHP 60 million.

The proposal, dated June 23 and prepared for City technical review and validation, frames Iloilo City’s historic downtown corridor as “economic infrastructure” rather than a heritage-restoration project.

It would ask the City government to shoulder an estimated 55% to 65% of the first phase, or roughly PHP 28 million to PHP 39 million, with the balance coming from property owners, development partners, and utilities.

The institute described every figure as a planning estimate for validation, not a final cost or a guaranteed commitment.

The proposal identifies façade deterioration, signage clutter, weak pedestrian conditions, underused upper floors, limited visitor interpretation, uneven maintenance, and fragmented district management as the conditions it seeks to correct.

The proposed first phase covers an Iznart–Aldeguer demonstration corridor, subject to City validation, intended as a proof segment before any wider expansion.

Expansion would follow what the institute calls a “zipper sequence” — Iznart–Aldeguer, Aldeguer–Ortiz, Ortiz–Arroyo, and Arroyo–Mapa — with each segment proceeding only after the previous one shows measurable improvement.

The remainder of the first-phase cost would come from private owners at about 25%, development partners or financing institutions at about 13%, and utility in-kind support at about 4%.

The full-core envelope of PHP 2.65 billion is divided indicatively into PHP 1.3 billion in public investment and PHP 1.35 billion in private investment over time.

Much of the plan turns on smaller operators and building owners. The proposal repeatedly cautions against the “displacement or exclusion of smaller businesses” and over-commercialization as the district is revived.

It notes that some heritage owners have “strong properties but limited capital, technical capacity, or confidence to reinvest,” and proposes rehabilitation partnerships and business-case support to draw them in.

The economic case rests heavily on adaptive reuse of upper floors for offices, studios, residences, serviced apartments, boutique hospitality, co-working spaces, and galleries, alongside ground-floor activation through cafés, restaurants, specialty retail, and cultural venues.

The document states that smaller enterprises, local cultural activity, and everyday users should remain part of the district’s future, and that commercial activation should strengthen its character rather than erase it.

The institute attached a fiscal claim to the program: an indicative public payback window of four to seven years.

It presented that window as a working assumption to be validated, not a guaranteed return, and said recovery would depend on execution quality, owner participation, tenant response, visitor activity, and enforcement.

The proposal concedes the City has no baseline for such a measurement. It recommends establishing baselines for business activity, permit activity, property values, occupancy, and local revenue before implementation, then tracking changes during and after the demonstration phase.

Possible recovery channels cited include business tax uplift, increased permits, occupancy recovery, and property-value effects, “where legally and administratively applicable.”

The City’s role, as described, is enabling, coordinating, and standard-setting. The proposal states the City should not be expected to operate the district economy or carry all restoration costs.

As an immediate step, the proposal asks the City only to move the program into technical validation, including organizing a review team, validating the corridor scope, confirming the heritage inventory, reviewing mobility and public-realm constraints, and establishing a fiscal baseline.

It sets an indicative timeline of a 60- to 90-day preparatory review followed by a 12- to 24-month demonstration corridor.

The institute offered non-remunerative technical assistance to support the City-led review, while stating that final decisions on scope, cost, funding, standards, and implementation remain with the City.