Concerns Rise Among Villarrica Residents Over iSiete’s Proposed Residential Towers on Avenida Presidente Ríos

Original article: Dos torres, 276 departamentos y una serie de preguntas: Vecinos de Villarrica cuestionan proyecto inmobiliario de iSiete en Avenida Presidente Ríos

Large-scale residential towers proposed behind traditional homes on Avenida Presidente Juan Antonio Ríos and Colo Colo street have sparked concern among Villarrica residents. They question the project’s dimensions, asserting that the information available over the years shows discrepancies that have yet to be clarified by local authorities.

This real estate development, spearheaded by iSiete, traces its administrative history back to 2019.

Since that time, the project has undergone configuration changes, and a central question remains for residents: What project was ultimately approved, and does it align with the current construction activities?

This question is significant. The earliest public documents found refer to an approved preliminary project from 2019 for the property at Avenida Presidente Juan Antonio Ríos No. 1238.

At that stage, the proposal included three eight-story buildings with 254 apartments, a configuration that also appears in a relevance check submitted by Inmobiliaria iSiete Araucanía VIII SpA to the Environmental Assessment Service.

However, in 2020, the description changed. The 2020 Public Report from the Municipality of Villarrica records Building Permit No. 110, dated August 24, 2020, for a “residential building” comprising 276 apartments on Avenida Presidente Juan Antonio Ríos.

Subsequent documents again mention two buildings. A sectorial report published by ONDAC identifies a new project with two thirteen-story buildings, 276 apartments, a commercial space, and 56 parking spots, covering a total area of 16,524 m².

Discrepancies throughout the various stages of the project highlight the importance of reviewing the comprehensive dossier from the Directorate of Municipal Works to determine the legally authorized configuration today.

Municipality’s Response

A new document has now been added to the inquiry. Office No. 691, dated September 7, 2026, signed by Mayor Pablo Astete Mermoud, responds to specific inquiries about the project located at Presidente Ríos 1238.

Included in the questions were how the building’s height was determined, who verified the land’s suitability for such a large construction, whether a soil study existed, how water accumulation would be managed, as well as the distance from neighboring properties and the potential expiration of the permit.

The municipal response indicates that the technical-administrative dossier corresponding to Building Permit No. 110, dated August 24, 2020, is provided, asserting that the technical responsibility for data, calculations, studies, and projects lies with the architects, independent reviewers, engineers, and other legally qualified professionals involved in the project.

Furthermore, the reply clarifies that regarding permit validity, construction was reportedly initiated within the applicable validity period, in light of exceptional provisions and extensions established due to the health emergency and others formalized by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

In other words, the Municipality does not assert that the permit has expired, but quite the opposite.

The Permit and the Pandemic: A Discussion That Requires Reviewing the Dates

Debates surrounding the permit’s validity cannot be resolved simply by counting three years from August 2020.

The general rule from Article 1.4.17 of the General Urbanism and Construction Ordinance states that the permit automatically expires three years later if construction has not commenced, with commencement defined as the completion of surveying and beginning excavation as specified in the plans.

However, during the pandemic, exceptional measures affecting urban timelines were in place. The MINVU later acknowledged a temporary suspension of deadlines from February 2020 to August 2021, a period considered in subsequent administrative decisions.

Additionally, in the specific case of iSiete’s project, the Seremi of Housing in La Araucanía granted extensions in 2020 for the commencement of works on the Condominio Mirador del Presidente, indicating that the project was still in the process of obtaining the building permit.

Thus, the correct journalistic inquiry is not merely whether “three years have passed,” but rather: What date does the DOM consider the work legally commenced, what documentation supports this commencement, and what extensions or suspensions were applied to Permit No. 110?

Such documentation should be available in the dossier.

Residents Question Soil Studies and Water Management

Residents assert that one of the most concerning aspects is the condition of the land. Rather than merely discussing “concentrated water,” locals raise the possibility of water tables or water springs, noting that the area has historically experienced accumulations during the winter and that community testimonies indicate the presence of what was previously described as a “water eye” in the area.

This concern takes on added urgency due to earth-moving activities. Locals claim that after uneven terrain was generated by the company, they began to observe landslides into neighboring properties.

Until now, it is not appropriate to assert that these landslides are necessarily a consequence of a construction violation. However, a concrete technical question arises: What geotechnical studies, soil mechanics, and containment designs have been incorporated into the dossier, and what measures were established to protect neighboring properties?

The original municipal preliminary project from 2019 included considerations regarding land conditions and stipulated that in the case of specific slopes towards adjacent properties, engineering documentation must be included to prevent impacts on nearby constructions.

The Dossier Received by Residents

Here, another difference arises that warrants investigation. Office No. 691 states that the complete technical-administrative dossier for the permit is provided.

However, residents assert that the document provided by the DOM primarily comprised the archiving of 2020 records, lacking a clear identification of the soil mechanics study they are requesting.

This discrepancy should be clarified by the Municipality: Is the study effectively included in the dossier? On what page? Who conducted it? What date is on it? What conclusions does it contain, and what measures does it establish regarding water tables, drainage, excavations, and the stability of borders?

The municipal office does not provide a technical response to these questions but refers to the dossier and notes that technical responsibilities lie with the professionals involved in the construction.

Shadows and a Question of Responsibilities

Another issue alarming the community is the impact of the towers on existing homes’ sunlight access.

Documents from the 2019 preliminary project include references to shadow projections, stipulating responsibilities associated with the project designer and other professionals involved.

The reviewed documentation poses another query: What shadow study corresponds to the actual project under construction, and who verified that its results comply with applicable urban regulations?

Residents assert that it is insufficient for the designer to simply declare or calculate shadows; they wish to know what actual controls were implemented by municipal authorities over the dossier.

How Many Floors Will It Ultimately Have?

This is likely one of the questions demanding the clearest documentation. The 2019 preliminary project mentioned three eight-story buildings and 254 apartments. The 2020 permit recorded by the Municipality notes 276 apartments. A specialized construction source published in 2024 describes two thirteen-story buildings and 276 apartments.

Conversely, residents maintain that the project was initially presented as two towers of approximately 11 floors and that discussions are now leaning towards 12 floors.

This difference cannot be resolved through real estate advertisements or testimonies. The answer must reside in the building permit, its modifications, approved plans, elevations, and reception dossier.

The Railway Land Behind the Project

Community concern also extends to the land situated behind the development, historically associated with the Villarrica railway line.

The area retains urban references connected to that past. In municipal documentation from 2017, Pasaje La Línea appears officially between Colo Colo and Galvarino.

However, there is an even more relevant precedent. During the amendments process to Villarrica’s Regulatory Plan, municipal documentation specifically identifies the ZR-3 Zone as a ‘Zone of Protection for Railway Tracks’, spanning 9.26 hectares.

This does not by itself affirm that the land behind the project entirely corresponds to that zone or that it is currently protected as a historic monument. Such verification necessitates reviewing the regulatory map and specific ownership of the property.

Nevertheless, it raises another question: What regulatory classification does the adjacent railway land have, and what construction restrictions exist in that area?

According to residents, during the presentation of the amendments to the Regulatory Plan, the municipal urban advisor mentioned this location among specific properties linked to the State Railroads, for which there had been no prior determination. This assertion should be corroborated with the official minutes, recordings, or presentations from that meeting.

The City Debates How Much and Where to Increase Density

The controversy also unfolds amid a broader discussion concerning the urban model Villarrica is adopting.

The municipal proposal to amend the Regulatory Plan itself acknowledges issues of traffic overloading and urban service strains, building concentration, real estate pressure, and a deficit of available land.

The document highlights the community’s intent to promote controlled densification within the urban core while concurrently aiming to preserve the area’s landscape, environment, landmarks, views, and Villarrica’s tourism potential.

The City Council approved the amendments process on January 30, 2026. The Municipality explained that the changes sought to update parameters regarding, among other aspects, land occupation, heights, and front gardens.

The amendment documentation is particularly explicit about the need to align urban growth with the landscape and the tourism potential of the community, including the protection of views and landmarks.

For residents, this discussion possesses an identity dimension: the increased height can permanently alter traditional views of the Villarrica volcano, one of the main landscape landmarks in the area.

The comparisons some residents make with Pucón and Lican Ray must be addressed with specific evidence regarding their respective regulations, but the concern for the landscape is not alien to Villarrica’s own planning discourse.

More Buildings, More Pressure on Infrastructure

Residents also position this case within a series of recent experiences with larger buildings in the city.

Among the examples mentioned is a building constructed near the municipal cemetery, where a resident reportedly faced issues related to runoff onto her property.

They also point to a building developed by iSiete near Easy and other projects where, according to resident testimonies, sewer saturation occurred during heavy rains.

Another case cited by the community pertains to the Parque al Volcán project, executed by Nueva Vida on a strongly sloped terrain.

These instances should be treated as reports from residents and require documentation from the sanitation service, municipal reports, complaints, or inspections to determine if any issues can be attributed to each project.

What is independently documented is that the municipal assessment of the Regulatory Plan recognises issues of infrastructure and urban services associated with the city’s growth, as well as traffic saturation.

The Parking Space Dilemma

Another aspect of the controversy concerns parking spaces. The public record from ONDAC describing the project with two thirteen-story buildings and 276 apartments indicates only 56 parking spaces. Mathematically, this amounts to nearly 0.20 parking spaces per apartment.

Residents also argue that there was a commitment to create additional parking in a nearby lot that was later allocated to a local fruit shop known as Carahue. This matter particularly requires documentation: the commitment, its date, who signed it, the designated lot, and whether it was later modified.

According to residents, during the prior administration, there was a proposal to develop additional parking there, which was subsequently ceded for the fruit shop’s operation.

They also contend that to implement such parking, a new Basic Traffic Analysis (AVB) would have been necessary.

The concept of AVB indeed pertains to a tool used by transport authorities to assess impacts and establish mitigation measures for certain projects. The question that should have a documented answer is simple: Is there currently an approved AVB for the parking associated with this project, and if so, what mitigation measures does it outline for Avenida Presidente Ríos?

A Project Covered by DS19

The development also features an aspect that heightens public interest in the investigation. In 2019, the project Condominio Mirador del Presidente in Villarrica was selected under the DS19 Social and Territorial Integration program, with 254 housing units and identified as iSiete Araucanía VIII SpA.

In this type of project, therefore, there is a housing policy dimension in addition to private real estate operation.

This does not, by itself, imply that the company receives an “undue benefit” or that the project is irregular. However, it opens a legitimate discussion about what urban, infrastructure, and livability conditions accompany projects receiving this designation and how they align with the existing city.

We will continue to provide updates.