The Government of the City of Buenos Aires signed an agreement with a construction company to build a 20-story tower on a site that is in the middle of Historical Protection Area (APH) where a judicial measure governs that prevents this type of works from happening due to the risk that is implied to the archaeological heritage since they are two institutions founded in 1745 and are located in the downtown area of ​​Buenos Aires.

The agreement arranged by the company Nehuente SRL and the Buenos Aires administration was presented in the Buenos Aires Legislature and contemplates the block that makes up the Historic Protection Area named: “Cathedral to the North”, bounded by Córdoba Avenue and Viamonte and Reconquista streets. There are the church and the monastery dating from the colonial era. They were declared Historical Monuments in 1942.

The initiative proposes that, in the other half of the block, on a land occupied by a private parking lot, a construction that could reach 20 floors be allowed. For the remaining portion, which faces Viamonte street, it would be transformed into a green public space that would be the consideration offered by the company to the government for enabling said building. All this is explained in a file.

The organization in defense of patrimonies: “Basta de Demoller” indicated that the agreement “is illegal” because it violates the judgments of the Contentious, Administrative and Tax Courts of the city and the Superior Court of Justice. In addition, they anticipated that they will file a criminal complaint with the deputies who signed this urban agreement.

However, in 2011 there was already an agreement with the government to build something there. Therefore, several organizations in defense of heritage such as: “Enough of Demolition”, demonstrated against and resorted to the Buenos Aires justice to denounce that the land is considered a “fabulous archaeological site.” With this, an amparo appeal was presented with a favorable response that was appealed by the government.

This judicial process lasted until 2016 and reached the Superior Court of Justice of the City, where the protection was confirmed and referred to an “excessive zeal for private interests and postponement of interest in the preservation of historical heritage.”

Disclaimer: If you need to update/edit/remove this news or article then please contact our support team Learn more

Leave a Reply