Variable Analysis
Current Situation
Current EPV Proposal
Continuous Linear Front (CLF)
Straight berthing length
Limited and fragmented
400 m partially extended, not entirely straight
1.250 m straight, extendable to 1.400m
Sheltered from the pier
Partially sheltered
Partially sheltered, with exposed areas Fully sheltered
Estimated downtime
Moderate
Potentially high due to lack of shelter Reduced due to full protection
Impact on the heritage amphitheater Low (without expansion) but with stagnation
High due to central occupancy
Moderate-low due to lateral concentration
Truck Traffic at Prat Pier
Current & already congested
Logistics pressure mounting
Reduced through segregation
Small vessels and tourism
High-stress operation
Risk of cargo overlap
Dedicated channel and functional separation, preventing the construction of Caleta El Membrillo 2 Strategic platform located away from the city center
Use of San Mateo
Limited
Key collection platform
Urban Edge continuity
300 m accessible
No substantial improvement
Possible continuity between Puerto– Barón
Single-operator compatibility
Not applicable
Requires contractual adjustments as it was designed for a dual-operator scenario
Highly compatible
Potential for urban renewal
Low
Limited
Stopped due to the reopening of the border Yes, with options for expanding the berth directly toward San Mateo
Doubles cargo capacity from 1 to 2 million TEUs/year
1 million/TEUs/year
Unknown due to limitations at the center of the bay.
The CLF proposal calls for a 1,250-meter-long berth, fully sheltered by the breakwater, with the possibility of a future extension toward San Mateo by an additional 160 meters, reaching a total of 1,400 meters of straight, sheltered berth. This configuration would allow for the simulta- neous operation of three full-length Post-Panamax vessels, optimizing access and berthing times and reducing interference. A second key component is the clear separation between larger and smaller vessels. The proposal includes a dedicated channel for small boat operators, reducing operational conflicts at Prat Pier and facilitating the development of coastal tourism. This measure would even allow for reconsidering the relocation of Caleta Sudamericana to its original site, boosting jobs associated with traditional and recreational activities. Likewise, the CLF maintains the Sociber floating dock in the bay, thereby avoiding the need for new complex interventions in areas such as El Membrillo. The rationale is to minimize unnecessary relocations and concentrate heavy infrastructure where it has the least urban and visual impact. Another key aspect is the enhancement of access to La Pólvora and the handling of cargo storage. Instead of locating it in the center of the amphitheater, the proposal is to prioritize the Farellón sector in San Mateo, moving the operations with the greatest impact away from the heritage axis. This decision not only mitigates the impact on the World Heritage Site but also enhances the perception of the waterfront as an open and continuous space. Thus, the counterproposal does not propose a reduction in port ca- pacity, but rather a strategic reconfiguration: less scattered occupation, more sheltered continuity; fewer trucks on the urban waterfront, a more active waterfront; fewer functional interferences. In this equation, the expansion ceases to be a threat and becomes an instrument of economic and social revitalization. The debate, then, is no longer whether the port should grow—a point on which there is broad consensus—but how it should do so. The
question is whether this opportunity will be used to establish a more efficient and compatible infrastructure or whether we will persist with a solution inherited from a paradigm that no longer exists. This approach acknowledges international recommendations (AIVP) regarding the port–city interface, which emphasize: reducing port externalities through design, properly recognizing and managing the port–city heritage, developing public spaces and cultural/recreational facilities in interface zones, and promoting the architectural and land- scape integration of port facilities. In Valparaíso, where the shape of the waterfront has historically de- fined the city’s layout, the CLF’s alternative proposal offers a potential synthesis between port competitiveness and urban regeneration. The debate remains open, but the available technical evidence suggests that, in this case, less fragmentation could mean a stronger port and a more vibrant city. III. PLANIMETRIC ANALYSIS AND COMPARATIVE TABLE The technical debate over the port expansion must be addressed from a three-dimensional perspective. The shape of the berthing front, its position relative to the breakwater, its relationship to the urban am- phitheater, and the location of the support platforms determine both operational efficiency and the impact on the built environment. Historically, Valparaíso Bay was structured as a relatively continuous waterfront, where the subsequent construction of perimeter fences and harbor walls, along with containerization and safety regulations, progressively reduced public access, creating discontinuity. As noted above, the proposal currently being promoted by EPV fol- lows a layout with separate frontages, with significant development in the center of the amphitheater. From a site plan perspective, this entails a docking frontage in the center of the bay, which devalues heritage buildings, drives out economic activities, and creates conflicts between logistics and tourist traffic along the Muelle Prat–VTP axis.
162 ←
AOA / n°54
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online