Luis Bermaner, Barcelona’s most influential contemporary historian, said that one knew one was in this city when a discussion of the latest architectural controversy arose, when entering an elevator with strangers, rather than talking about the weather. The issue that will ignite the debate today is the expansion of the old Comedy Cinema to house the Carmen Thyssen Museum, a project that mobilized architects, city planners, historians, neighborhood entities and much of the cultural sector, and whose transformation the historian described as “catastrophic” weeks before his death.
The conflict has gained intensity. The College of Engineering of Catalonia (COAC) asked the city’s mayor, Jaume Colboni, to suspend the urban planning process currently presented to the public and rethink the project through a participatory process accompanied by an ideas competition.
COAC acknowledges the cultural appeal of locating a prominent part of the Thyssen Collection in Barcelona, but warns that the current proposal represents too large an increase in scale, changes the appearance of one of the city’s most emblematic intersections (Passeig de Gràcia and Gran Via) and consolidates commercial activities into a site historically reserved for equipment, without clearly explaining what compensation or benefits to citizens would justify a planning change of this magnitude.
The debate about the future of old-fashioned comedy cinema requires consideration not only of urban, architectural and heritage aspects, but also of the model of the city that Barcelona wants for itself. Under the attractive name of the Thyssen Museum, inevitably linked to the status of the Museum of Madrid, whose collection is financed by the state at $6.5 million annually through a lease with Carmen Thyssen, the city cannot allow the concealment of a process that, more than being cultural, could respond to a speculative logic aimed at boosting the tourist economy and accelerating the displacement of the fabric of the neighborhood.
Everything indicates that Barcelona’s eventual headquarters will host a handful of small businesses, insufficient to justify a project of this size alone, raising concerns that the real driving force of the operation will be the planned commercial and restaurant square meters. If, in addition, a building of heritage value that has been repeatedly interfered with and repaired over the past century has been pushed to its limits, it may be worth considering whether both the project and the site are suitable.
Urgent institutional debate
At an event held on November 20, the Dean of COAC, Jim Costa, announced that the critical document, signed by a large majority of the college bodies and addressed to the City Council and the General Government, requires, above all, a broader push for discussion, greater transparency of treatment and an opening of an ideas process that allows the consideration of architectural and urban alternatives.
The COAC celebrates that Barcelona is regaining its ambition to host the Thyssen Group, but at the same time demands appreciation for architecture as a tool of the city, regrets the absence of the City Council in the discussion and proposes to cancel the planned amendment to open a truly participatory process, with musicographic, heritage and economic studies yet to be published.
Costa was direct in pointing out the conflict observed by the architects: “The city council acts as a regulator of the urban process, but also as a promoter to the extent that it approves the General Metropolitan Plan Amendment (PGM). This double requirement requires greater justification, which has not happened so far.” He also regretted that no council representative attended the session, nor any architect from OUA Group, the studio that drafted the project with the Stoneweg Fund.
The dean pointed out that adapting the building for the future museum is not just a repair, but a large-scale transformation that requires a significant change in the size, buildable roof and function allowed on the plot of land. Hence the committee’s insistence on opening a competition for ideas and demanding musical, heritage and economic reports before moving forward.
Palau Marcet, where the museum will be located, is classified as Equipment 7A; The project proposes to reclassify it as 7C, i.e. as urban equipment. The change, according to Sebastia Jornet, president of the urban planning group COAC (AAUC), is “neither technical nor neutral”, because it allows a very significant expansion of the built volume and the buildable roof. And in the Dreta de l’Eixample neighbourhood, which is already under very high tourist pressure due to a historical lack of facilities.
The numbers are enormous: the current PGM specifies a maximum of approximately 6,000 square metres, and the project plans to reach 11,000 square metres. In addition, the project includes more than 2,500 square meters for commercial use, and is expected to be used for shops and restaurants. Jornet pointed out that this 2,500 square meter trade, which is difficult to justify as part of a cultural facility, raises fundamental doubts. “I don’t know of any museum that devotes such a large space to commercial uses. What is the real response to this operation? What does the city gain in urban revenue with this kind of special equipment? What are the proposed compensations?” Jornet asks. Currently, no plan has been presented to improve public spaces, green areas or mobility solutions.
What actually remains of Palau Marse?
Palau Marcet, where the museum is to be located, was laid out already in 1854, during the demolition of Barcelona’s walls, anticipating the future bourgeois axis par excellence of the city. Architect Anthony Vilanova identified a series of historical layers superimposed on the building: conversion into a theater in 1934 changed the interior of the building, but kept the original facade almost unchanged; Later, commercial spaces were opened and elements such as a marquee were added. Starting in 1941, it hosted huge events associated with the dictatorship. In 1989, part of the facade was renovated, marble pieces were incorporated into it, and it was transformed into a cinema hall.
Virtually nothing original remains of the interior of Palau Marcet. What remains important to the collective memory is the envelope: the façade, the visible roof and the overall volume that still preserves the distinctive features of the 1887 building. Vilanova warned that the future Thyssen Museum project entails excessive alteration of that identity that has built up over nearly a century and a half. In his opinion, the planned reform “changes the roots of the relationship between the building and the city and makes it lose its identity.”
Neighborhood Criticisms: Speculation, Ambiguity, and Lack of Participation
Neighborhood entities also strongly criticized the operation. The Federation of Neighborhood Associations of Barcelona (FAVB) has made claims describing the project as a “speculative operation” made clear by a PGM modification designed specifically for private developer Stoneweg, which would obtain an unjustified increase in buildability. According to the Federation, this 25% expansion breaks the rules governing the Eixample region and removes the protection of Palau Marseille, whose volumetric historical heritage requires its preservation.
Another major concern is the economic sustainability of the facility: while Thyssen in Madrid relies on public state funding, in Barcelona the balance will be achieved by increasing the buildable ceiling and exploiting more than 2,500 square meters of commercial and catering space, which the FAVB confirms is an operation geared towards promoter profitability rather than cultural interest.
““Disastrous project”
Regarding the current building, Bermaner pointed out that much of what is seen as historic today is not: the side adjacent to the current Avenida Palace hotel is an extension from 1995 to house the new cinemas, the entrance was then rebuilt in white marble and large vertical intrusions of signage changed its original appearance.
He noted that “there is practically nothing left of the interior”: the only thing that remained, hidden behind a painting, was Franco’s shield that had been placed in 1941. For this reason he warned that the discussion could not be based on a supposed heritage integrity, which was in fact partial and irregular. He was particularly concerned that the operation was not limited to the museum, but included a later large volume also intended for commercial uses and restoration. His conclusion was straightforward: if you want to preserve it, it must be done strictly; If not, perhaps it would be more honest to demolish it and build a contemporary building that is truly in dialogue with its surroundings, rather than justifying an expansion that, in his opinion, detracts from one of the most important corners of the Eixample.
Before moving forward, Barcelona must know if it really aspires to a relevant group similar to the one in Madrid or if it runs the risk of having an expanded version of the Moco Museum model in a corner where it is already difficult to make its way through the crowd.