Winding up the ghost shopping center in Palma: Who benefits — the city or the owners?

Winding up the ghost shopping center in Palma: Who benefits — the city or the owners?

Key question: Can a decades-old nuisance under Plaça Major become a public gain — without opening new legal, inheritance and social battlegrounds?

On Wednesday the Palma city council took the formal next step: expropriation proceedings for the underground retail spaces under Plaça Major were opened. Specifically, it concerns 25 units and common areas totaling 1,975 square meters; the estimated amount is 4,224,538 euros. The winning design of the competition is by Barceló Balantzó Arquitectes together with Scop Arquitectura i Paisatge, and the project will now be made available for public inspection for one month so objections can be raised, a development that takes place against a backdrop of major property deals such as Investor Group Takes Over Plaza de las Tortugas — What Changes for Palma?.

Critical analysis: Law, price and timing

On paper this reads like clear action: the city takes back an abandoned space. In practice several pitfalls await. First, the formal procedure — expropriations are contested over the long term. Owners can challenge the amount, scrutinize reports and file appeals in time; these ownership tensions echo broader shifts examined in Who Owns Palma? When Luxury Quietly Repaints the Working-Class Neighborhoods. Second: valuation. The sum is a fixed amount; whether it meets the individual interests of the owners remains open. Third: time. Opening the procedure is not the start of construction. Previously, announcements have delayed projects for months; here permits, excavations and heritage protection requirements can keep the clock running.

What has hardly featured in public debate so far

There is much talk about architecture and space, less about two concrete points: social consequences and interim uses. Under Plaça Major a few homeless people are currently sleeping; a hairdresser is also still holding out there. There is no clear agreement on temporary solutions: Where should affected people go during the work? Who secures the entrances that are now damaged and closed? The precarious situation of small traders and service businesses is part of a wider pattern discussed in When Rent Eats More Than Profit: Palma's Small Shops on the Brink. Also rarely mentioned: transparent valuation methods and audit protocols so that compensations do not appear as a black-box decision.

A scene from everyday life in Palma

Go to Plaça Major on a mild morning. The sun is low, tourists photograph the stone columns, an espresso steams from the corner café. In the shadow of the steps down to the lower level a metal door remains closed; behind it only dim light, a dusty shoe shop without a customer. A hairdresser with an emergency lamp struggles through appointments, two blankets show that people have spent a night here. This is what the present looks like — and it must not simply be built over as if nobody were affected.

Concrete solutions

1) Public protocols and reports: The city should publish the valuation bases and reports so owners, lawyers and citizens can see how the sum was calculated. 2) Transition concepts: Immediate alternatives are needed for the homeless, the hairdresser and temporary traders — for example pop-up spaces in neighborhood rooms or grants for short-term replacement rents; past municipal interventions have sometimes been undermined by regulatory issues, as with the episode described in Palma's new kiosks closed again: When city standards override neighborhood life. 3) Protecting cultural heritage as a planning condition: Any construction must include clear rules for dealing with historic structures; an external heritage advisory board could be involved. 4) Citizen participation and controls: Public meetings, regular construction reports and independent monitoring prevent the project from disappearing into opaque acceleration phases. 5) Flexible use: Instead of exclusively commercial shops, permanent spaces should be reserved for culture, neighborhood projects and affordable business units — this strengthens social cohesion and reduces vacancy risks.

Why these points are decisive

Expropriation is a sharp instrument. It solves a problem — but if sown poorly, new ones grow. If the valuation is challenged, the procedure can take years. If the social question is ignored, people will be left without prospects after opening. If heritage protection is not taken seriously, Palma will lose pieces of its memory. The administration now has the opportunity to minimize process risk if it acts openly, quickly and in a citizen-friendly manner.

Conclusion

Opening the procedure is an opportunity, not a pro-forma victory. It would be desirable for the city to use the coming weeks to create transparency, provide transition solutions and not leave future use solely to market mechanisms. Otherwise the ghost center risks becoming just another source of trouble — this time lingering in municipal offices and courtrooms.