Rosario, Gemma, Marga, and Melanie. Tenants in Barcelona affected by real estate businesses. A month ago, the four met to participate in the protest against the first eviction attempt of Txema, the resident of Gràcia whom the investment fund New Amsterdam Developers (NAD) wants to evict from his home. Now, after popular mobilization, the rejection by the City Council and the Generalitat, and the mediation of the Síndic de Greuges, who has secured a three-month truce, they are convinced that the postponement marks a before and after. They believe that tenants have turned Barcelona “into the capital of the fight against colivings and speculation,” and that “the impunity” with which funds have acted until now, buying buildings, emptying them of residents, and replacing residential rentals with room or seasonal rentals, “is over.”
Read more About rich and poor
The four women met in plenary sessions of the Eixample district where they went to present their dramas. They have in common that they are residents of vertical property buildings that have been bought by funds or companies that replace tenants with seasonal clients or room rentals. All of them have some unique characteristic. Rosario Castelló is the last remaining resident in a colivings building on Entença street owned by Vandor. The purchase of the building where Gemma Tramullas lives was led by a company that distributed the flats with three other companies. The same day the company bought Gemma’s flat, it resold it to another investor. Marga Aguilar lives in Casa Papallona, cataloged for its modernist mosaic: the property was bought by NAD, her contract ended, they want to evict her due to contract termination, and she has an eviction date for May. Melanie Andrada lives on Tarragona street, in a rental housing building where the owner, the Gallardo family, processed and obtained 120 tourist apartment licenses.
Together with Txema Escorsa, the resident of Sant Agustí street in Gràcia who has managed to postpone his eviction twice, they forced the Barcelona City Council to create the Rental Defense Table in Eixample, which has already met five times. A few days ago, they celebrated that “things are changing” after the second postponement of Escorsa’s eviction was announced: first, it was popular pressure, and then the intervention of the Síndic David Bondia, who mediated with NAD, and the company has asked the judge to postpone for three months and allow time to negotiate. That NAD, which until now did not engage in dialogue, has taken this intermediate step of interlocution is a significant change. Because, they also highlight, “it is one of the most aggressive companies” with tenants. This newspaper has tried for weeks, in writing and by phone, to get NAD’s version, without success.
“They wanted to turn Barcelona into the capital of international talent at the expense of its residents, but the tenants’ struggle has turned the city into the capital of the fight against ‘coliving’ and speculation,” says Gemma Tramullas. “It is not a clash between the right to property and the right to housing, but an abuse of the right to property. With the Sant Agustí case, impunity has ended,” she declares. Melani Andrada, a resident of a block where neighbors whose contracts ended this 2026 have obtained a three-year extension, is convinced that Txema’s case shows that “it is increasingly difficult to do things wrong and get away with it.” “Things are changing, people are realizing, and behavior that was tolerable years ago is no longer so. These news penalize bad behavior, set a precedent, and will not make it easy for tourist apartments and colivings.”
Txema himself celebrates, both for his personal situation and for the tenant struggle in an unprecedented housing crisis, that “such transversal, popular pressure, with institutional and political support, with administrations rejecting these practices, shows that this aggressive model of evicting residents to pursue other businesses has pushed the company to halt the eviction.” “It gives us some respite,” he understands, but warns that “many residents remain threatened by New Amsterdam.” “We must send a clear message to the funds that acting as they wished and evicting people without consideration is over. We hope this is a turning point,” he says. Also a tenant in a building owned by NAD, Marga is emotional because, she understands, “a small triumph that is a great victory.” “It shows,” she says, “that combining the pressure from entities, unions, residents, and administrations and standing up to funds that are destroying our lives and neighborhoods is worthwhile.”
Read more Ibiza will evict 200 workers from their settlements on the eve of the season
“Families used to live here, I’m not leaving. Something is changing: we have to stand our ground and make the colivings business disappear,” adds Rosario, combative as groups of young people noisily descend the stairs of the building where she lives on a weekday at seven in the evening. All celebrate having convinced the City Council to create the Rental Defense Table in Eixample, which has already met five times. “We must work on two parallel paths: to save tenants and to stifle the investment funds that expel residents,” Marga summarizes.
The City Council’s Housing Commissioner, Joan Ramon Riera, explains that the Table promoted by the residents has begun rounds of dialogue with property owners, “with the message that seasonal and room rentals are ending and that [as it is now, with prices above market] it falls outside the legal framework, but they can continue to earn money, though not as much, with residential rentals.” Riera adds that files have been opened for legislative or construction-related non-compliance, and that the Eixample Esquerra neighborhood association has joined the table.
Of the owners of the five buildings mentioned in this information, only Vandor provides its version of the conflicts. Company sources explain regarding Rosario’s case that she “has been out of contract for five years,” although she has continued to pay. And that they have offered her a seven-year rental contract in another building they own, on Sepúlveda street, “renovated, an eight-minute walk from her home, and with lower rents than she pays.” She insists that she does not want to leave and criticizes Vandor’s intention to “rehouse those affected by their business in flats in a building where there were also residents before. Vandor insists that it is “always open to negotiation with tenants to manage each case personally, adapting to situations and needs to find an agreement that is favorable for both parties.” They offer, they specify, “financial compensation, logistical help with moves, and flexibility in deadlines” and emphasize that “the company has not executed any eviction.” Vandor also denies that they have put their assets up for sale and explains that the investment company Patron Capital is exploring “options that allow Vandor to move towards a new phase of growth together with a new strategic partner” after “reaching an optimal degree of operational maturity.” “The company denies that this process is motivated or precipitated by recent regulatory proposals or legislative changes. This process involves the incorporation of new shareholders or investors so that Vandor can continue to grow and remain part of the solution to the current housing problem,” it clarifies in response to the conviction of some of its tenants that they have put the buildings up for sale.
Read more Response to Trumpist chaos
