Summary of the Core Issues
The construction of the Sagrada Familia’s final “piece of the puzzle”—the Nave de la Gloria—has reached a standstill due to the need to demolish the residential building opposite it. Behind this issue lies a clash between Gaudí’s radical design and century-old urban planning, the opportunistic behavior of developers during Franco’s regime, the impact of the tourism economy on the Sagrada Familia (which has made it both wealthier and more difficult to dismantle), and the intricate negotiations among the church, the government, and the residents. The question is not merely about “who will move out and who will pay for it,” but also a manifestation of long-standing historical conflicts, testing how a city can balance its cultural heritage with the needs of its inhabitants.
I. Gaudí’s Unconventional Design Confronts Barcelona’s Structured Planning
Gaudí and the city planner Cerdà were natural enemies. When designing the Sagrada Familia, Gaudí envisioned the church as a “star” surrounded by radial plazas, aiming to break the grid-like layout of the city; however, Cerdà preferred a neat and orderly urban planning scheme that left no space for such an enormous structure.
Gaudí complained back then that the government’s plans had ruined the scenic views he desired, but his concerns were ignored. Today, the construction of the 5-meter-tall main entrance staircase for the Nave de la Gloria requires the entire adjacent block, which is no longer vacant land. This represents a century-long conflict between two opposing urban philosophies: one advocating for an artistically “natural” wonder, and the other for a modern, well-organized city. The resulting tensions have all fallen on the residents.
II. Developers Exploiting Loopholes, Closing Off Last Chances
The Franco era was a critical turning point. At that time, the government encouraged private home purchases, and the developer NyN seized the opportunity to obtain construction permits for the land opposite the Sagrada Familia in 1974. The area was originally used as industrial warehouses; if Gaudí’s plans had been followed, there would have been no residential issues.
NyN was a seasoned opportunist. Franco-era urban planning was often lenient towards those with connections, and the Sagrada Familia committee argued that the land was designated for a specific purpose. However, the cultural authorities dismissed their concerns, claiming that Gaudí had not provided clear drawings for the staircase, thus the residential buildings were built anyway. NyN’s owner even went to prison for smuggling and bribery, but by then, the residents had already moved in—creating a situation where it was almost impossible to reverse the decision.
III. Tourism Makes the Sagrada Familia Wealthy, Yet Demolition More Complex
In the past, the Sagrada Familia relied on donations and ticket sales for its construction, leading many to believe it would never be completed. Today, with annual revenues of 135 million euros, it is one of Spain’s wealthiest cultural institutions. However, this has also led to skyrocketing property values in the surrounding area: from 2,380 euros per square meter in 2012 to 5,697 euros, with expected further increases by 2026.
Although the Sagrada Familia is financially well-off, purchasing the residential buildings at market prices is extremely costly. The residents are not naive; they purchased their homes legally and see no reason to move out. Lawyer Baroso pointed out that while the church has influence, the residents also have legal support. Both lawsuits have been stalled due to a lack of a clear solution, leaving only negotiations as the option.
IV. A Tripartite Game of Power: The Church is Resolute, the Government is Reluctant, and the Residents are in a Difficult Position
Each party has its own agenda:
- The Church (Construction Committee): Insists on following Gaudí’s original design and only communicates with the government, avoiding direct confrontation with the residents. In 2019, they purchased land to relocate some residents, but the proposed plan still requires the demolition of certain buildings.
- The City Government: With elections approaching in a year, the government is hesitant to initiate demolitions, fearing public backlash. Although it issued a legal construction permit for the Sagrada Familia in 2019, this has weakened its leverage over the church (which previously could have used the issue of illegal constructions as pressure).
- The Residents: Demand fair compensation and hope for a negotiated solution involving all parties. They argue that their homes were legally built, and they should not bear the consequences of historical mistakes.
The core issue is not about money (the Sagrada Familia can afford to compensate), but about who will make concessions: whether the church will alter its design, whether the government will take responsibility for historical errors, and whether the residents can accept reasonable compensation.
V. Who Will Pay for the Historical Debts?
The standoff around the Sagrada Familia reflects past mistakes that are now affecting the present:
- The government failed to reserve the necessary land and instead allowed developers to proceed.
- The speculative development policies of Franco’s era laid the groundwork for these issues.
- The church became wealthy, but the residents’ property values have also increased significantly.
The question is: Who should bear the cost of these historical mistakes? Should the church pay in full? Should the government provide some compensation? Or should the residents make concessions?
2026 marks the centenary of Gaudí’s death and the 150th anniversary of Cerdà’s death. Whether the Sagrada Familia will resolve its issues by then is uncertain. What is clear, however, is that it represents not only an architectural marvel but also a “political miracle” that tests the wisdom and compromise of all parties involved in managing a city, power, and people’s lives.
This news story is not about building a church; it explores how cities handle historical legacies. It raises the question of what happens when artistic ideals collide with practical interests, and when past mistakes confront current conflicts—ultimately, it tests the wisdom and flexibility of all stakeholders.