It won't. Gaudí's plan was to build a big staircase in front of it creating a new public square next to the temple, replacing some apartment buildings currently being used. Gaudí's project won't be finished until then.
There's some pushback from the neighbors because finishing it all means bulldozing hundreds of apartments, although those apartments were bought at a discounted price decades ago because everyone knew they had an expiration date. And now that it's here, they want to keep their apartments even though they were told about the Sagrada Família from the start.
PS: Gaudí's name is Antoni, in Catalan. Not Antonio. He was a proud Catalan, he was arrested for talking in Catalan.
It is incredibly rare for a large cathedral to be completed just like the original architect envisioned it, without any compromises made along the way*. It may even be said that a large cathedral is never finished - all the large cathedrals have a standing team of builders, usually with a tradition going back to the middle ages, and require constant maintenance work. "Finished" is thus a difficult term for such a building. But if major construction will stop in 2026, with the building no longer having any obvious large missing parts, I am totally fine with calling it "finished", even if the original plans were different. My understanding is that they already deviated from the original plans decades ago.
* I think Cologne cathedral was completed more or less according to the original plan, but only because historism was en vogue and they found the original medieval plans by chance in the 19th century. Strasbourg cathedral is a good example for a cathedral which doesn't look at all like the original architect envisioned it, with a long history of re-planning and some aesthetically botched construction works.
> My understanding is that they already deviated from the original plans decades ago.
Yes, a lot of models and plans Gaudi created for Sagrada Familia were incomplete when he died. It didn't help either that his studio(s) were ransacked during the civil war, so even if he had a 100% vision, the war would ensure those plans didn't survive.
Quite understandable as well. The thing is big enough as it is. Bought at a discount or not, bulldozing that many homes in an overpopulated city that already struggles for space due to its geography is a little ludicrous.
As someone from Barcelona, I really wanna see it finished completely. Those apartments had an expiration date the moment they were built in the 60s. Everyone who bought them at a discount knew that they were going to be torn down when the temple itself was finished.
I feel it's like those people that buy a house near an airport, they pay pennies for it, and then start lobbying the government for a change in air traffic routes.
Exactly. Nimbyism at its finest: all gains are mine; all losses should be covered.
It's bizarre that at the same time, real estate investors think all value increases are rightfully theirs, but they should be protected from any decrease in value.
You can hardly call it 'investing' if you're protected from the downsides.
I don't oppose destruction of housing because of people losing their investment - expropriate it for all I care. But reducing the housing supply is bad for everyone. That's the important problem with nimbyism: it's not that it demands unfair advantages for homeowners as investors, it's that it prevents development that is needed for a better world.
There's definitely an argument to be made that globally iconic feats of architecture have intrinsic value that's more important than a bit of housing. But you do need to account for the social impact of aggravating housing scarcity to make that argument.
We need to build more housing, but that doesn't mean we need to keep existing housing. Most old buildings should be replaced - they were not built with modern codes in mind and so are expensive to heat, dangerous in fire, have not accessible bathrooms, or other such things wrong that are difficult to correct.
> bulldozing that many homes in an overpopulated city
As far as I understand, only one building (many flats though) would have to be removed in order to fit the staircase.
Problem is that there isn't a lot of space available to put the people whose home you just removed, so seems unlikely to happen unless our local government suddenly solves some really hard problems.
We build and build depressing neighborhoods in cities for us to all flee to historical centres to experience beauty for a minute.
I mean if you are in the US you are lost anyway, but the Europe has some beautiful cities (Amsterdam, Venice, Palma, Rome, Vienna the list continues), but none of them are modern.
The citizens should be helped to find replacement, but please let's put some beauty back in our cities and give prominence to Gaudi's architecture (although maybe it's not the prettiest it's at least fun)
Yeah modern in the historic classification of the term, not in the way of speaking. Most people normally consider modern housing last decades. Lots of building up untill the second world ware are gorgous, but not considered modern by most people.
For instance Berlage in Amsterdam is modern in your classifcation. And his buildings grace Amsterdam, but most people would consider them "older", he was living around the same time of Gaudi.
>Lots of building up untill the second world ware are gorgous
I think you may have severely underestimated the population growth and need for housing after WWII. The world had not seen population growth like that before. The US and Europe cast away their ornate designs and focused on a burgeoning population in the US and rebuilding quickly in Europe.
I'm mostly stating an observation. But even so, that excuse would not hold up for the last decades. Architects still keep going to produce hideous things; and not at all being introspective about it.
Probably has to do with utilitarian and post-modernism; and a general deconstructionism of beauty; which is nice as a philosophy but just not inline with the general experience of a human. On top of that, architectural ego's make it worse.
Let alone Canada & Northern US, they combine it with a terrible city planning strategy, moving most utitilities such as shopping, entertainment & parcs, to a mall only reachable with car. Calgary must the most depressive unlivable city I've ever visited.
It was modern at the time, same as Art Nouveau and Art Deco, but then those were (unfortunately) pushed aside by Bauhaus, Le Corbusier and post-WW2 concrete brutalist architecture.
I mean, it lacks most of the defining characteristics of modern architecture. It is highly ornate, for one. I would not put it in the category of modern, aside from describing the time period which it came to be. Art noveau seems more appropriate a description.
> I mean if you are in the US you are lost anyway, but the Europe has some beautiful cities, but none of them are modern.
stop treating us like some kind of zoo animals. The reason why the old tenaments were demolished is because their living conditions brought fire, disease, and discomfort with them.
I mean, most of them are hosting "locals" as in residents who live in Barcelona. I just took a look now and there are at least 90 apartments available on Idealista for rent in just the ~3 surrounding blocks around Sagrada Familia.
So while in general the whole "touristic flat rentals" stuff is clearly hurting the city, maybe over-dramatizing the impact isn't super useful. Overall the situation sucks though, as prices seems to still go up :/
That's a whole other thread. The new Rent Control law has hurt (a lot) long-term rental for locals and long-term residents. All offers on Idealista and other portals are for contracts of up to 12 months, short term rentals under Spanish Law. Those are not rent-controlled contracts.
In my part of Eixample there aren't any long term units available.
Ignore what it says in the listings, even if they say "maximum 11 months contract", once you speak with them and indicate you know the situation and regulations, they'll be open to sign proper contracts, unless the owner is a huge asshole (which, many are, sadly). And yes, this works even in Eixample.
> There's some pushback from the neighbors because finishing it all means bulldozing hundreds of apartments, although those apartments were bought at a discounted price decades ago because everyone knew they had an expiration date. And now that it's here, they want to keep their apartments even though they were told about the Sagrada Família from the start.
Well, I would say this point becomes moot if they didn't have a permit for it from a start.
Also there are laws that are likely to supersede any expiration date that was set by who knows who in a different era.
I read that and saw a lot of other articles about this controversial stairway, but I haven’t been able to find any actually plans or renderings about what it would look like, particularly in context to the existing neighborhood. Do you know of any?
That's a funny inversion of the usual NIMBY logic, where some space is set aside to build apartments but then kids start to play on it or whatever, and then there's no way apartments can be built there.
I assume in this case they're defining finished as within the realms of the possible; kind of seems improbable that the staircase thing will ever happen?
This looks so good... I've been always using Node, Deno or .NET Core for backend infrastructure, but Avo makes me wanna learn Ruby and RoR and make the jump for client-related work. Congrats!
Ok I had no idea that was possible. Will this work with the cluster module in pm2? How does it work exactly? Does pm2 have its own webserver and just forwards the request to whatever interpreter you specify?
I’m 100% confident that a Multi-Platform Terminal can be built with C#, XAML and .NET 6. The dotNET ecosystem has multi-platform UI toolkits such as MAUI, Uno and Avalonia UI and Standard APIs to interact with all OS.
I have been a Netflix customer for 5+ years, and I've switched services to Disney+ for two reasons:
- Netflix with 4K and 4 streaming devices costs 17.99€ here ($19.50), while Disney+ only costs €8.99 with the same features.
- Netflix made and continues to make good content, but since major producers have been removing their content from Netflix and into their own services, Netflix here almost survives on old local shows and new in-house content. Feels like there's almost nothing new to watch. I have rewatched Gilmore Girls 4 times. Disney+ gets you Marvel, Disney, Pixar, FOX, NatGeo, StarWars, Star (lots of ABC content)
-Netflix decided to crackdown on password-sharing: my brother moved away some months ago and has been using our Netflix account, and we don't want him to pay Netflix for himself.
-There have been some rumors of ads on the platform to boost revenue. Hell to the no.
>There have been some rumors of ads on the platform to boost revenue. Hell to the no.
oh geez, that would be the death knell for netflix. that was one of the big benefits they had over cable ten years ago when streaming was still new. i cant imagine paying $18 a month and still being forced to watch ads.
on a side note, im extremely pissed at paramount because their "ad-free" plan was updated to force viewers to watch a 30 second spot at the beginning of every show. if star trek strange new worlds doesnt turn out to be a million times better than picard and discovery i just might cancel because im so pissed i have to watch ads on the premium plan.
>There have been some rumors of ads on the platform to boost revenue.
It's been stated elsewhere here but worth reiterating: the current description of this idea is to give customers the option to have ads in exchange for a lower overall subscription cost and not just shoehorn them into the existing plans.
At least that's the stated intent. I can definitely see where it can lead to a slippery slope where it's easier to just give ads to everyone when they need another revenue bump.
theres also a high probability of misinformed (or well-informed but adversarial) twitter users getting #CancelNetflix to trend because people will only read the headlines and not understand that they wont be seeing ads unless they want to save money.
I appreciate that you're being positive but with media companies I'm much more cynical.
I think we're going to see a price increase to stay ad free or an option to have the same price with advertising. So it will be a price increase to keep your same service ad free.
> Netflix decided to crackdown on password-sharing: my brother moved away some months ago and has been using our Netflix account, and we don't want him to pay Netflix for himself
So you're upset that you are no longer able to freely breach a conract you agreed to, and have to pay for services you consume?
Yes I’m upset because even Netflix’s exec Reed Hastings said some time ago that account-sharing is “a good thing”. They are well within their rights to change their policy from looking the other way to actually prevent password-sharing, and I as the customer I’m well within my rights to cancel my subscription when the company changes a policy.
except the company haven't changed their policy, which is stated in their terms; contract; conditions of carriage and small print inter alia, which has always been that: account sharing is not allowed.
now, they may have previously ignored breaches of this contract, but that didn't stop them being breaches. you are well within your rights to cancel your contract, all i point out is that it is unreasonable of you to be upset. this is business as usual, and to be expected, therefore a good thing.
The 4k pricing was always a sore spot for me. Netflix’s content was never worth $20, so for a long time I was subscribed for mediocre standard def content. I regret not unsubscribing sooner.
- Laptop runs on a 200W brick with a barrel connector, but on the go I plug it to a USBC 100W charger, works flawlessly.
- Good build quality: back of screen is aluminum, laptop itself is made with plastic with no deck flex or other problems.
- Only deal-breaker, not for me though, is the lack of webcam. I have a small USB one that attaches to the screen when needed.
Battery life is around 9h for me doing Node.js backend development with VSCode, Firefox with +40tabs, PostgreSQL and Docker running the server running locally. It lasts longer with the screen set to 60Hz and tinkering with the power settings to disable the Nvidia card when only doing CPU-intensive jobs.
Best of all: I only paid €999 ($1,081 taxes included) for it on Amazon Spain. Plus the SSD and extra RAM.
It takes a day or 2 and you are used to the lower resolution again. It's not that the visible pixels would hinder readability. It's all psychological: Those who feel that nice looking fonts are important will be hard to convince. Probably also a status symbol for some. I prefer longer battery life and generally hate products and vendors wasting resources. I got HiDPI on my work laptop, but would switch back to a lower resolution any day. Use it regularly in other setups.
Also, the fact that this is a 15.6-inch display enables me to set zoom on VS Code and Firefox to 90%, still able to read everything but with more estate. I had an MBP Retina before and for the life of me I don't miss the extra pixels. I do miss the 16:10 aspect ratio, though.
Both of these comments are ditches alongside the road of truth. 4k on a laptop is not necessary, but it is noticeable and sometimes valuable. I have a 4K laptop screen and I like it a lot. I have a 1080p monitor and I notice the resolution (mostly on text), but I’m plenty productive with it.
I'm had a Retina 2015 MBP before, and with Windows/Gnome set to 100% Scaling I get the same screen real estate as an MBP with default settings. Screen has a high sRGB percentage and colors look vibrant and crisp.
To be honest, I would trade 2K for 144Hz again. It's so good.
