LIMA, June 15, 2025
A park’s True Size: Much Smaller Than Advertised
Lima’s “Central Park” project, spearheaded by Mayor Rafael López Aliaga, is drawing scrutiny as details emerge. The plan, initially presented with grand aspirations, is substantially smaller than what was initially implied.
- The “Central Park” in Jirón Zepita is slated to be a small urban park, not the expansive green space initially suggested.
- The project involves the expropriation of 26 properties, some with past value, with a budget exceeding 80 million soles.
- Opposition councilors and urbanists question the project’s viability and potential impact on the area’s existing problems.
What’s the real story behind Lima’s planned “Central Park?” The project, championed by Mayor Rafael López Aliaga, promises to transform the Jirón Zepita area, but the reality appears to be a much smaller-scale endeavor than initially presented. Critics are now raising concerns about the scope and impact of this urban development plan.
the mayor’s vision, announced in late May, presented the project in a “grandiloquent style.” He aimed to expropriate about “20 apples” to establish the park, referencing New York City’s Central Park.
However, contrary to initial impressions, the planned “Central Park” will be a relatively small urban park.The city’s technicians have revealed that the park will span just 7,828 square meters, which is 0.7 hectares, or slightly more than an acre. For context, the new park will be less than half the size of Miraflores’ Kennedy Park, which has an area of 22,000 square meters.
The “Central Park” will be composed of two separate sections, divided by a city block. The first will be on the site of existing sports courts, houses, and shops, bordered by the Jirones Zepita, Washington, Delgado, and Chancay. The second section will be where a garage currently operates, surrounded by the Jirones Zepita, Cañete, and the Peñaloza passage, across from the Loayza hospital.
In addition to the park itself, Prolima, the entity overseeing projects in Lima’s historic center, has proposed incorporating municipal offices and other premises, totaling 8,000 square meters, to ensure a permanent presence of the mayor’s management.
According to the Deputy Operations Deputy, the project requires expropriation of 26 properties in the area. Of these, 17 lack monumental value, six have historical meaning, two are uninhabitable, and one possesses modern monumental value.
the project will invest over 65 million soles for property expropriations and an additional 15 million soles for construction. According to official Carlos vega, this is a strategic approach to address the issues in the Zepita sector. The expropriations are intended to preserve existing buildings and provide more green areas and a greater municipal presence.
Opposition Voices Concerns
Councilor Ivone Tapia, an opposition voice, stated that the presentation to the Lima Council did not include details of a park similar to New York’s Central Park. Tapia expressed concerns about the mayor’s approach, stating that expropriating private property rights is a recurring theme in Mayor López Aliaga’s management. She believes that the right of private property is being affected.
Former councilor Carlo Ángeles agreed, adding that the construction of the park wouldn’t solve the problem of prostitution, as it would likely migrate to other streets. He sees the project as a populist move for electoral gain.
official Response
Fabiola Morales, an official governor, believes the project aims to improve the habitat and eliminate areas where prostitution and crime are prevalent. She pointed out the presence of academic and health centers, such as the Villarreal university, the San Bartolomé Hospital, and the Taurus cinema, which could become a cultural center.
Lieutenant Mayor Renzo Reggiardo emphasized the need to impose authority in the area, as crime and illegality persist. He plans to use a similar strategy to the one employed for the South Express Way.
Urbanists’ Perspectives
Architect patricia Díaz, president of the National Commission, stated that the mayor’s approach of demolishing the Zepita area is an easy vision. Augusto Ortiz de Zevallos, an urbanist, believes this initiative, which he terms “monumentalist,” won’t address broader issues like traffic congestion, prostitution, or crime.
The raw truth of the ‘Central Park’ of López Aliaga.
Unpacking the Expropriation: A Deep Dive into the Numbers
Beyond the park’s size, the financial implications of the “Central Park” project raise critical questions. The plan to expropriate 26 properties at a cost exceeding 65 million soles is the project’s single largest expense. This strategy aims to reshape the Jirón Zepita area, but the true value of the properties, adn the fairness of the compensation offered, are now under scrutiny.
How does property valuation work in Lima? Property valuation is a complex process often involving independent assessors, government agencies, and legal considerations. According to the Peruvian ministry of Housing, Construction, and Sanitation, factors like location, size, building condition, and ancient importance influence a property’s assessed value.
Key Valuation components: Property valuations depend on a range of elements,including the condition of the land,building features,location or zoning,and,critically,comparable sales history in that particular area.
The announced budget allocates over 65 million soles for property acquisitions. Given the project’s footprint, this suggests an average cost of more than 2.5 million soles per property. However, property values can vary widely, meaning this is just an estimation. The presence of historic buildings and businesses could considerably inflate the cost of expropriation. The amount of compensation a property owner receives is crucial.
The city’s decision to expropriate targets a mix of properties with varying characteristics. Of the 26 properties, 17 are deemed to lack monumental value, six possess historical significance, two are uninhabitable, and one has modern value. This diversity of property types complicates the valuation process. It also raises questions about the city’s priorities-are they protecting historical sites or simply clearing space?
The city’s planning appears to also include the construction of municipal offices and other premises in the new park’s area. Prolima intends to construct 8,000 square meters of new buildings. The integration of municipal facilities into the project highlights a shift towards incorporating a greater government presence-rather than just creating a green space.
Fair compensation is key: Property owners have a right to fair compensation, typically resolute by independent appraisals. Offers are often subject to negotiation and can lead to legal challenges.
what happens if property owners dispute the amount? Disagreements over property valuation often lead to legal battles. According to legal experts,the city must follow a specific legal framework,ensuring fair market value is offered to property owners. If negotiations fail, cases may end up in the court system.
The use of expropriation powers by the city has sparked debate surrounding private property rights. Councilor Tapia highlights this issue, voicing concerns about the impact on citizens’ ownership rights. This legal complexity, coupled with the project’s cost, suggests the “Central Park” could face meaningful legal hurdles and prolonged delays.
In the South Express Way area previously mentioned, how efficient and legal was the government’s expropriation process? Details of prior settlements might provide insights into potential liabilities. The ultimate success of the project hinges on a obvious and legally sound approach to property acquisition.
Myths vs. Facts: Addressing Common Misconceptions
The “central Park” project has fostered discussions. Let’s debunk prevalent misconceptions with verified facts:
- Myth: The park will be as large as New York’s Central Park.
- Fact: The park will be a fraction of the size of the original, being only 0.7 hectares.
- Myth: The project will instantly eliminate crime and prostitution in the area.
- Fact: Critics argue that such issues might simply relocate and not find a solution.
- Myth: All expropriated properties lack any significant value.
- Fact: A significant number of the 26 properties have historical or monumental importance.
Is the project’s budget justified? The hefty investment in property acquisition and construction necessitates close scrutiny of costs and potential long-term benefits. Will the park’s impact on the surrounding area justify the tens of millions in public funds? Time,and the actions of the local government,will tell.
Table of Contents
