The Philippines is moving toward a predominantly urban society

Global urbanization is entering a slower but more complex phase, and the Philippines is moving steadily toward a predominantly urban society that will be shaped by how well it manages its fast-growing cities. The World Urbanization Prospects 2025 (WUP 2025) combines new satellite-based data on built-up areas with improved population modeling, giving a sharper picture of where and how people are concentrating in cities, towns, and rural areas worldwide.

What WUP 2025 shows globally

WUP 2025 confirms that the share of people living in urban areas continues to rise, but the speed of urban growth is slowing compared with the explosive expansion of the late 20th century. Growth is increasingly concentrated in low- and middle-income countries, especially in Asia and Africa, where a relatively small group of countries will account for most of the increase in city dwellers to 2050.

A major innovation in WUP 2025 is its harmonized “Degree of Urbanization” approach, which classifies cities, towns and rural areas using consistent thresholds for population density, size, and contiguity instead of relying solely on differing national definitions. This revision expands coverage to more than 12,000 urban centers of at least 50,000 inhabitants, allowing more granular estimates of city growth and the links between population, land use and built-up expansion.

Urbanization trends that matter

Several global patterns stand out. Cities’ built-up footprints have expanded roughly twice as fast as the world’s population since the 1970s, which means many urban areas are growing outwards faster than they are growing upwards, with implications for transport, infrastructure costs and environmental pressure. At the same time, many countries are seeing the emergence of dense small and medium cities that absorb much of new urban growth, rather than only a handful of megacities.

Future global urban growth will be heavily concentrated: just a few countries will account for over half of the nearly 1 billion additional city residents expected between 2025 and 2050, led by India, Nigeria, Pakistan and others in Africa and South Asia. This concentration raises the stakes for planning, since decisions in these rapidly urbanizing countries will strongly influence climate risk, resource use and inequality worldwide.

Where the Philippines is today

According to recent estimates that draw on the WUP series, around half of the Philippine population is now urban: about 49 to 50 per cent, or roughly 57 to 58 million people out of a total population of around 117 million in 2025. Urban growth remains positive but moderate, with annual urban population growth reported at about 1.5 per cent in 2024, which is faster than urban growth in many high-income countries but slower than in some of the fastest-growing African and South Asian nations.

The country’s urban system is dominated by the Manila urban agglomeration, whose wider built-up metropolitan area is estimated in the mid‑2020s at over 15 million residents, making it one of Asia’s largest megacities. But WUP 2025’s lower 50,000‑person threshold also highlights the growing importance of secondary and emerging cities across Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, many of which are expanding in population and land area even if they remain far smaller than Metro Manila.

Snapshot: global vs Philippines (circa 2025)

Indicator (approximate)	World (2025)	Philippines (2025)
Urban share of population	About 56–60% living in urban areas.	About 49–50% living in urban areas.
Urban population growth	Slowing globally but still positive, concentrated in Asia and Africa.	Urban growth around 1.5% per year (2024 data as latest benchmark).
Settlement pattern	Rapid expansion of built-up areas, many small and medium cities growing.	One dominant megacity region (Manila) plus a network of fast-growing regional cities.

Key messages for the Philippines

First, the Philippines is on track to become predominantly urban in the coming decades, so planning for an urban majority is no longer optional; it is a demographic certainty. This means national and local policy must treat housing, transport, water, and social services in cities as core development priorities rather than afterthoughts, especially as climate risks like flooding and heat are amplified in dense urban environments.

Second, the pattern of growth matters as much as the pace. WUP 2025’s evidence that global built-up areas are expanding faster than population suggests the Philippines faces real risks from unmanaged sprawl around Metro Manila and other rapidly urbanizing corridors. Compact, transit‑oriented development, strict protection of high‑risk zones, and better coordination between land-use and infrastructure planning will be essential to avoid locking in congestion, high transport costs and vulnerability to disasters.

Third, secondary cities are an opportunity. With WUP 2025 now tracking thousands of smaller urban centers, the data underscore that dispersing economic growth into well‑connected regional hubs can ease pressure on Manila while improving access to jobs and services outside the capital. Strategic investment in mid‑sized Philippine cities—particularly in resilient infrastructure, digital connectivity and human capital—can create alternative growth poles that absorb population growth more sustainably.

Finally, urban policy and climate policy are increasingly the same agenda. The concentration of people and assets in Philippine cities means that progress on emissions reduction, climate adaptation, and disaster risk management will depend on how urban expansion is guided and how existing neighborhoods are upgraded. Using the richer spatial and demographic detail of WUP 2025 alongside national data can help identify hotspots where investments in resilient, inclusive urban development will yield the greatest long‑term dividends.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate

Better mobility with the right parking policies

The conventional wisdom is that parking is a public good and that more vehicle parking benefits everyone. Not true. In this column, we explain why parking policy needs to be part of the toolkit of national and local officials. Free or low-cost car parking in urban areas is a magnet for motor vehicle use in already congested city streets — increasing traffic, worsening air and noise pollution, adding to carbon emissions and raising local temperatures. For the benefit of future generations of Filipinos, we should put in place four key measures related to motor vehicle parking.

Proof of private parking space

Today, tempering the demand for motor vehicle ownership is one of the ways we can address increasing road congestion. One way to reduce the demand for motor vehicle ownership is to require each motor vehicle owner to submit proof of a private parking space. While this will limit vehicle ownership to those with the means to have a private parking space, it is also one way to control illegal parking in urban areas.

In countries like Japan and Korea, the requirement for a private parking space is implemented by local governments that prepare and maintain a detailed inventory of all private parking spaces in a locality, recording each on a map with a specific identification code assigned to each space. Each motor vehicle is associated with a specific private parking space on the map, which may be assigned to only one vehicle.

Removal of parking minimums

Except for mandatory motor vehicle parking spaces for persons with disability, property developers and builders should have the discretion to determine the appropriate number of motor vehicle parking spaces appropriate for their locality and type of building.

However, this is not the case today. The implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the National Building Code (Presidential Decree 1096 enacted in 1977) require, for example, that:

– Shopping centers should provide one parking slot per 100 sqm of shopping area.

– Restaurants, bars and fast-food outlets should provide one parking slot per 20 sqm of customer area.

– Places of worship and funeral parlors should provide one parking slot per 50 sqm of floor area.

These parking space requirements in the IRR of the National Building Code are called “parking minimums.”

Unfortunately, minimum parking requirements lead to many undesirable and harmful impacts that outweigh intended benefits, especially in a country where only six percent of households are car owners. A major negative impact is that parking minimums increase the cost of goods and services for everyone, especially the cost of housing.

Because developers need to reserve space to satisfy parking requirements, building costs naturally increase making housing less affordable. Parking spaces consume valuable floor area and can add 20 percent or more to the cost of a building. This additional cost could be shaved from housing prices; floor area currently devoted to parking could be converted into new residential or commercial space.

In commercial establishments, markets and shopping malls, the extra cost of the required parking spaces are compensated by charging higher rents; higher rents are, in turn, recovered through higher prices of goods and services. While the availability of parking benefits the small minority of Filipinos with motor vehicles, the general public ends up paying the tab for such facilities, whether or not they use cars. This is akin to a subsidy provided to the most affluent six percent of Filipinos financed by a “tax” on the entire population (the 94 percent who are not car owners).

‘Just right’ on-street parking rates

The late Donald Shoup, the author of “The High Cost of Free Parking,” said on-street parking should not be free or priced too cheaply. When parking is perceived to be free or almost free, drivers spend an inordinate amount of time cruising around to find a parking space. Shoup said on-street parking should be priced high enough and on an hourly basis — at a level that results in an enough turnover to leave an average of one or two spaces empty per street block during business hours. This “Goldilocks” approach thereby brings more customers to local businesses. Shoup also suggested that part of the revenues collected should directly benefit the streets and neighborhoods where the parking fees are collected; they can be spent on things like sidewalk improvement, shade trees, street lighting, better signage and CCTV cameras.

A parking levy for public transport

A parking levy on non-residential parking spaces in urban areas collected in the same way as the real property tax can provide a sustainable stream of revenue that is progressive and provides the right incentives. Moreover, a parking levy is one way for society to be compensated for the negative impacts associated with the availability of private non-residential parking spaces. Revenues generated from the parking levy can be earmarked to finance improved public transportation and better infrastructure for walking and cycling, making our cities more livable and sustainable.

The proposed revenue collection method is also straightforward. In every LGU, property owners would be required to declare the number of non-residential parking spaces that each person or entity maintains. The parking levy could then be collected by the LGU in the same way it collects real property taxes. There is also the option for revenues to be shared between the national government and the concerned local government unit. The additional revenues, if earmarked for public transport and active transport, will give local governments the confidence to assume greater responsibility for transportation and mobility outcomes in their localities.

The potential revenue from a parking levy can be substantial. Think of the number of non-residential car parking spaces you find in office buildings, shopping malls, commercial parking lots plus those in front of shops, restaurants and banks. My rough estimate is that there are at least two million private non-residential parking spaces in just the Greater Manila Area (Metro Manila plus surrounding provinces); if a parking levy of P100 were charged for each per day (whether the space is used or not), the revenue collected just for Greater Manila would amount to about P73 billion per year. This could help finance a continuing subsidy for urban public transport and mass transit.

The above parking policy reforms will deliver substantial improvements in our mobility environment without significant cost. They could be important legacies of the Marcos administration. The most important ingredient though is political will.

Source: Manila Times

Why many Asian megacities are miserable places

And why Shanghai and Tokyo are not

For seven decades Tokyo was considered the world’s most populous city. That was 15 years too long, according to data released last month by the UN. Until recently the organization's statisticians accepted national governments’ definitions of where their cities began and ended; their latest report accepts the reality of urban sprawl.

Cities are home to 45 per cent of the global population, with megacities continuing to grow, UN report finds

By their new measures, Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital, jumps to the top of the board with 42m people, about as many as Canada. Dhaka, capital of Bangladesh, with 37m, has also

pulled ahead of Tokyo, with 33m. Delhi and Shanghai, with around 30m people each, fill out the top five.

The UN’s latest figures highlight tremendous urbanisation. These days 45% of humanity lives in cities (with at least 50,000 people); another 36% inhabit towns (with at least 5,000). The data also show that much of the growth is happening in middle-income Asia. Only one of the world’s ten biggest cities lies outside that continent. And only seven of the world’s 33 “megacities” (boasting over 10m people) are in rich countries.

By 2050 Jakarta and Dhaka will between them add another 25m people, nearly as many as live in Australia. These migrations should help make people better off. “Dhaka changed my life and secured my kids’ education,” says Clinton Chakma, who found a job as a waiter after migrating from a farm in 2022.

Yet there is also a huge risk: that as Asia’s cities expand, squalor, pollution and gridlock increasingly undercut the economic boost they provide. “People move to cities to be part of the labour market,” says Alain Bertaud of New York University. But if the labour market does not work “you build a poverty trap”.

The number of “megacities” (10 million inhabitants or more) continues to grow; over half are in Asia

Jakarta, Dhaka and Delhi already rank among the world’s worst cities to live in, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, our sister company. Jakarta ranks 132nd out of 173 cities; Delhi is 145th. Dhaka comes third from last, with only Damascus and Libya’s Tripoli behind. If Asian countries are to break out of the middle-income trap, they must solve the problems that plague their cities. The best way of doing that is not through piecemeal projects, but by taking a hard look at the dysfunctional ways urban areas are governed. 

These migrations should help make people better off. “Dhaka changed my life and secured my kids’ education,” says Clinton Chakma, who found a job as a waiter after migrating from a farm in 2022.

Yet there is also a huge risk: that as Asia’s cities expand, squalor, pollution and gridlock increasingly undercut the economic boost they provide. “People move to cities to be part of the labour market,” says Alain Bertaud of New York University. But if the labour market does not work “you build a poverty trap”. Jakarta, Dhaka and Delhi already rank among the world’s worst cities to live in, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, our sister company. Jakarta ranks 132nd out of 173 cities; Delhi is 145th. Dhaka comes third from last, with only Damascus and Libya’s Tripoli behind.

If Asian countries are to break out of the middle-income trap, they must solve the problems that plague their cities. The best way of doing that is not through piecemeal projects, but by taking a hard look at the dysfunctional ways urban areas are governed. Jakarta—nobody’s idea of a lovely city—is as good a place as any to see all this on the ground.

After years of expansion it now encompasses the neighbouring cities of Bogor, Depok, Tangerang and Bekasi (see map). Yet there is far too little co-ordination among these neighbouring authorities. A settlement as populous as some countries is governed as coherently as a clowder of cats. The cost of this fragmented governance is perhaps best seen in Jakarta’s notorious traffic. It is the world’s 12th-most congested place (Dhaka ranks third and Delhi seventh). Unable to afford housing near their workplaces, many Jakartans live in far-flung suburbs. A vastly inadequate public transport system encourages them to travel by two-wheelers or in cars, which jams up the roads and causes air pollution. All this cuts productivity.

The government of Jakarta reckons traffic jams cost its economy $6bn each year. In 2019 Jakarta got its first metro line. But it stops abruptly at the city’s official administrative boundary, short of commuter neighbourhoods. There is an urgent need for co-ordination within the agglomeration, says Adhika Ajie, the head of research and innovation at Jakarta’s city government. “Otherwise it’s useless.” Good luck with that.

“Throughout my time there was very little conversation with other mayors of surrounding cities,” says a former official in the city administration. Similar problems affect megacities elsewhere in Asia. Dhaka has enveloped satellite cites with which it has little co-ordination. But it also suffers from being run by two municipal corporations, a national development authority, several ministries and dozens of different agencies which are individually responsible for things such as water, sewage and transport.

A mayor of Dhaka North City Corporation once complained that he lacked the authority to deal with 80% of the problems that affect his city, including traffic and flooding. Parts of India, now home to five “megacities”, are in the same boat. Governance in Delhi is split between municipal bodies, a state government, the national government and several bodies created to oversee matters such as housing, planning and the metro rail. The Kolkata metropolitan area (the world’s ninth-largest) contains no fewer than 423 different governing entities, according to the World Bank.

How do successful cities do it?

One model is Shanghai, which is run by the central government as a province rather than a city. It exercises strong, centralised authority over all major urban functions, from planning to transport. But China’s governance model is unique: pressure on leaders comes not from voters but from bosses in Beijing. Party leaders cannot afford to let areas of the city grow unruly. A better model is Tokyo.

The Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) is responsible for big-ticket public services such as water, sewage and public hospitals. Beneath it sit 23 wards and a host of peripheral cities and towns. Each municipality has its own elected mayor and assembly, responsible for services such as schools, waste management and community planning.

The TMG co-ordinates between them. It is a sensible split that clearly delineates authority while also making sure that decision-making is joined up. Like the megacities of middle-income Asia, Tokyo has no single government body for the greater metropolitan area, which includes parts of the neighbouring prefectures of Kanagawa, Chiba and Saitama. But the national government plays an important role in coordinating between them. And a dense metro and commuter-rail network ties the region together. Over 90% of people in the greater Tokyo area live within a 20-minute walk of a station. It helps, of course, that Tokyo is richer than other Asian megacities.

When it became a city of 20m in 1965, Japan’s GDP per person was $9,500 (at 2011 prices). When Dhaka hit that number in 2005, per person income in Bangladesh was $1,900. Yet making Jakarta, Dhaka, Delhi and other Asian megacities more liveable can start with changes to governance, not with huge investments.

Overhauling power structures is harder than splurging on big projects. But the potential pay-offs are mega.

Source: The Economist