Gesa building in Palma: Who will solve the major vacancy problem?

Gesa building in Palma: Who will solve the major vacancy problem?

Key question: Can an architectural competition alone transform the decades-long neglect of the Gesa high-rise into a lively cultural and innovation hub — and who would actually benefit from it?

On the edge of the Paseo Marítimo stands a structure locals have watched for years with a mix of nostalgia and eye-rolling. On a mild Wednesday afternoon I saw tourists with cameras, a retiree feeding pigeons, and tradespeople wiping down chairs in a neighboring café. Between them rose the tall building: empty, partly without windows, but with a rooftop terrace offering a rarely central view. Now the city has invited architecture firms — more than twenty teams were recently allowed inside to inspect and develop ideas, according to Palma launches ideas competition for the Gesa site — museum concepts versus parking plans. Deadlines for designs: until April 1; area: around 30,000 square meters; estimated budget: €91 million, as reported in Palma plans redesign around the Gesa building - redevelopment with question marks. Plans include public uses, parking and open spaces. Some original elements are protected: volume, staircases, and lighting by Luis Castaldo; the original building form was created by Josep Ferragut.

Sounds promising, but the competition is only the beginning. A critical look reveals several open questions: Who will pay the long-term upkeep of such a large complex? What concrete mix of cultural, social and administrative uses is meant when part of the project is described as '20 percent open for proposals'? How will additional traffic around the promenade be affected if new parking spaces are created? And: How will selection criteria and decision-making processes be made transparent so that the opportunity is not suffocated by bureaucracy or backroom deals?

The technical challenge is real. Monument protection requirements force the preservation of the volume and certain interior fittings: wooden paneling, mosaic tiles, concrete surfaces from the 1960s. That is good for the city's identity, but it also increases renovation costs, since historic materials are often more complex to restore. Without a solid condition survey of the building — including asbestos, moisture and structural inspections — the estimated sum of €91 million remains a rough figure. Who will cover additional claims if hidden damage is discovered?

What has so far been underrepresented in the public debate is the question of secure uses and social accessibility. An 'innovation complex' can easily turn into an elite project for start-ups based abroad if there are no binding requirements for local anchoring. Nor has the city, according to available information, explained how it will guarantee that parts of the building remain permanently reserved for low-threshold cultural offerings, studios, rehearsal rooms or municipal social services. Especially on the promenade, where simple neighborhood services are scarce, that would be a real gain for many.

An everyday scenario: early in the morning a neighbor jogs along the promenade, waves to the bartender at Café Passeig Mallorca, and looks toward the Gesa building that might be open in the afternoon — with an artist collective on the ground floor, a small municipal archive, and public service offices above. But achieving this requires planning: accessible entrances, clear opening hours, and management that doesn’t close the doors after two years because operating costs are not covered.

Concrete solutions can be sketched relatively quickly and should be part of a realistic competition brief:

1) Transparency and participation: Disclosure of financing (including ongoing operating costs), clear evaluation criteria for the competition and participation rounds with residents and user groups, for example in the form of three public workshops before the decision.

2) Phased plan and interim uses: A staged plan that first opens technically safe areas and includes an allowance for temporary uses (pop-up culture, market spaces, studios). This prevents further decay and builds trust.

3) Sustainable budget planning: Mandatory feasibility statements from applicants including reserves for maintenance, energy efficiency measures and local employment quotas.

4) Clear usage concepts: At least 30–40 percent of the usable area should remain permanently public or socially oriented (rehearsal rooms, community services, low-cost offices), regulated through long-term leases or municipal ownership.

5) Traffic and accessibility: Instead of adding parking spaces, the focus should be on improving access by bike, on foot and by public transport; accompanying measures could include access regulations or residents' parking permits.

One last point: monument protection is not an invitation to turn a building into a museum-like frozen object, but a commitment to responsible conversion. Preserving Ferragut's and Castaldo's original elements while integrating modern technology and accessibility is challenging — but feasible if architects, restorers and users work together from the start.

Conclusion: The architectural competition is an opportunity, not an automatic guarantee of good outcomes. For the Gesa building to become more than a pretty postcard from the rooftop, it needs public oversight, real commitments on uses, and a financial concept that secures operation and maintenance for decades. Otherwise the high-rise will once again be only a beautiful promise above the Paseo Marítimo — and the people, the cafés and the pigeons there do not deserve that.