atively short and partially exposed frontage facing the historic district, cutting the former T2 in half and maintaining its negative impacts; the San Mateo sector was used for storage with a replacement parking lot; Terminal 1 was extended toward the Prat Pier basin; and a “preferential” cruise ship pier was proposed in front of the terminal building, with risks of functional overlap. Added to this is an environmental resolution that has not yet been finalized, which will necessarily require flexibility in the face of unresolved impacts—all of which are correctable—and potential legal action due to the fragmentation of the overall project. One of the most significant impacts is the flow of trucks through Muelle Prat. Far from alleviating this congestion, the proposed expansion could intensify the logistical pressure on the only direct point of contact between the city and the bay, affecting port operations, coastal tourism, and pedestrian use. Historical data support this view. Between 1854 and 1931, approxi- mately 76 hectares were reclaimed from the sea, a process that coincided with the area’s population boom. Since then, the Puerto and Almendral neighborhoods have experienced a steady population decline, with today’s figures standing at around 10% of the population they housed in 1930. The reduction in access to the waterfront—which has also shrunk from the bay’s 3 kilometers to the 300 linear meters of the Prat Pier—has coincided with a decline in property values, the loss of jobs associated with mixed-use activities, and the deterioration of heritage buildings. The correlation that emerges is that when the inaccessible waterfront is functionally monopolized, the city loses economic diversity, vitality, and its ability to attract residents. In this context, the potential transition to a single-operator model— currently being sought by EPV before the Competition Tribunal—renders the dual-operator design that justified separate berthing areas obsolete. On the contrary, it opens up the possibility of comprehensively rethinking the location and geometry of the docking front, seeking greater efficien- cy, competitiveness, and operational flexibility, but also reduced urban impact, reversing neglect, and greater heritage compatibility. Thus, the evidence gathered over more than a decade leads to the conclusion that the infrastructure design adopted will shape the urban future of Valparaíso. The impacts—whether positive or negative—will depend on whether the proposed expansion creates yet another bar- rier within the amphitheater or, conversely, becomes an opportunity to gradually reopen the waterfront from the Puerto neighborhood to Barón, integrating port efficiency with urban regeneration. II. DEBATE AND COUNTERPROPOSAL Before delving into an urban analysis, the main technical and port-re- lated concerns regarding the expansion can be summarized as three drawbacks: First, the limited length of the proposed berthing front, in a context where post-Panamax vessels exceed 400 meters in length; a short front that reduces operational flexibility and regional competitiveness. Second, the issue of exposure to the elements, as part of the proposed frontage, lies outside the effective protection of the breakwater, which could result in significant downtime—such as annual partial closures due to sea conditions. Third, the overlap of traffic flows: trucks and pe- destrians who live in or visit the city traveling to and from smaller tourist vessels and cruise ships, alongside large container ships competing for space in a confined area, with implications for both operations and safety under international SPS safety standards. It was in this context that alternative proposals emerged which, far from opposing the expansion, seek to improve it. Among them is the idea known as the Continuous Linear Front (CLF), originally presented in 2012 and subsequently refined with engineering and urban planning support. Its principle was simple: to prioritize a single straight, continu- ous, and fully sheltered front, compatible with a single-operator model and consistent with the scale of the Valparaíso–San Antonio regional port system.
for reversing the urban decline of the Puerto and Almendral neighbor- hoods, revitalizing employment linked to Valparaíso’s diverse economic sectors by restoring public access to the sea. To this end, we will review the historical context that shaped the current situation, technically compare the alternatives under discussion, and argue why, in the case of Valparaíso, reduced use of the amphitheater and greater sheltered continuity can lead to greater port efficiency and a better city. I. BACKGROUND AND IMPACTS The current debate over the port expansion in Valparaíso has reached a turning point: the Master Plan promoted by the Valparaíso Port Authority (EPV) in 2012, which rigidly proposed an expansion structured under a dual-operator model, with short, separate berthing fronts within the bay, prioritizing competition among concessionaires over a systemic regional perspective. The initiative was ultimately scrapped following the with- drawal of the OHL concessionaire and, more decisively, after technical and heritage-related concerns arose regarding the so-called Terminal 2. That T2 project was the subject of severe criticism due to its location in the heart of Valparaíso’s amphitheater-like city center. Professional associations, academia, and the Isaza report—prepared as part of the evaluation for UNESCO—warned of “significant, unmitigable impacts and irreversible damage” resulting from the project’s disruption of the historical character of the waterfront, the visual relationship between the hills and the sea, and the creation of an additional single-purpose physical barrier along the urban waterfront. This original proposal by EPV and the Public Enterprise System (PES) was based on the logic of two distinct fronts, disregarding the complementarity of the Valparaíso–San Antonio regional port system, which was advancing with larger scales and more extensive docks, while Valparaíso insisted on expanding within a limited bay, straining its heritage and urban character. Years later, and after several attempts at adjustment, the proposal has retained structural weaknesses. It continued to expand with a rel-
→ 161
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online