mrt St

te wntilandatwnhe bentt sherge

1. Introduction

In the past, port areas have regularly expthe increase in cargo volume handled. At tphological heart of many ports has moved d

f portknownusefuls no ate citynging

production to consumption at waterfronts, and conclude that thereis a reversal of the direction of inuence between city and water-front so that the latter now mirrors the cultural trends of the for-mer and its wider society rather than the city reecting theeconomic vitality of the port (p. 132).

In recent years, an increasing number of ports in the Hamburg

environmental issues). In much of the literature published sincethen, these issues were dealt with separately, and were hardly re-lated to the vast amount of literature on cities and their waterfrontdevelopments. This, together with our observation that at least insome ports there is a spatial limitation to their expansion raisesthe questions: Are we entering a new phase in port developmentin a geographical and morphological sense? And, will this inuencethe relationship between city and port?

In this paper, we will investigate if such a new phase in thedevelopment of ports and port cities is emerging, and whether thiscould be an additional phase to portcity interface models. We will

* Corresponding author at: Delft University of Technology, OTB Research Institutefor Housing, Urban and Transport Studies, TU Delft, P.O. Box 5030, 2600 GA Delft,The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 15 2783005; fax: +31 15 2783450.

Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 575583

Contents lists availab

Journal of Transp

elsE-mail address: b.wiegmans@tudelft.nl (B.W. Wiegmans).spatial and functional links between port and city was developedby Hoyle (1989), who stated that: Economically and geographi-cally, port and cities have grown apart (p. 430). An example ofthe changing linkages between port and city is the redevelopmentof older port areas for urban uses, which include many urbanwaterfront developments such as housing, commercial functions,and ofces (see also Hall, 1991; Bruttomesso, 1993; Marshall,2001). Norcliffe et al. (1996) also discuss the changing relationshipbetween port and city, and observe a shift from an emphasis on

areas located at quays with deep water access which will increas-ingly be in short supply.

At the same time, many older and former obsolete port areashave been transformed into new types of land uses which areincreasingly encroaching into the port area (Daamen, 2007; Cityof Le Havre, 2007). It appears therefore that the portcity interfaceis developing into the systems already formulated by Hayuth in1982; namely, the spatial system (mainly comprising the changingland use in the port) and the ecological system (mainly comprisingthe (port) city. This development oand space is described in the well-oped by Bird (1971). The model ismorphological development, but payrelationship between the port and thface. A model emphasizing these cha0966-6923/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.06.007anded to accommodatehe same time, the mor-ownstream, away frominfrastructures in timeAnyport-model devel-for the analysis of thetention to the changingand the portcity inter-and mainly weakening

Le Havre range (HLH-ranges) have encountered difculties, as theyare no longer capable of (fully) accommodating all the demand forbusiness sites. Although this has led to the development of newport areas, it appears that in many ports the extension of the portarea is more difcult than before. A next phase of increase in theport area is becoming more difcult due to a change in environ-mental perspectives in the last few decades (Morris and Gibson,2007) which has resulted in a growing community resistance andless political support for the transformation of shorelines andcoastal areas into port zones. This means that it is mainly thoseChanging portcity relations at Amsterda

Bart W. Wiegmans a,b,*, Erik Louw a

aDelft University of Technology, OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Transpob TRAIL Research School, TU Delft, Delft, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:Portcity interfacePort developmentRegulationSpatial development

a b s t r a c t

In this paper, we investigathis by analysing the scieAmsterdam in the Netherof port rms. It appears ththe port area is slowing doat an increasing speed. In tabout how the redevelopmwhether any redevelopmenportcity interface has em

journal homepage: www.ll rights reserved.: A new phase at the interface?

udies, TU Delft, P.O. Box 5030, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands

hether a new phase in portcity development is emerging. We have donec literature on present and future spatial developments of the port ofs in terms of the spatial and environmental policies and the viewpointsin the Port of Amsterdam, but also in other ports, the expansion pace of, while at the same time the city is expanding in the direction of the porteginning, this conict was rather passive, in the sense that the conict wasshould take place. However, the conict has evolved further to questioningould take place. This implies that a new phase in the development of thed.

2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

le at ScienceDirect

ort Geography

evier .com/ locate / j t rangeo

analyse this question by looking at the present and future spatialdevelopments of the harbour of Amsterdam in the Netherlands interms of the spatial and environmental policies and the behaviourof rms. This implies that we analyse the portcity interface from

economic cycle.

576 B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of TranCharlier (1992) argues that, with the exception of the latter twostages, his sequence may be integrated in the Anyport-model. TheAnyport-model, however, makes no specic provision for the clo-sure of upstream facilities and their return to general city uses. In-stead, Bird (1963) argues that the port will retain much of theexisting layout adapted to new uses, and develop new layoutsand installations suited to new ship types and new methods of car-go handling in new port areas. Nevertheless, Charliers work tswell within the body of literature relating to cities and their water-front redevelopment, but there is one particular element of his

1 Although the Bird model is well-known, there are other models which describethe morphological development of ports. One of them is by Meyer (1999), whodistinguished four phases: (1) Entrept port: a port within an enclosed city; (2)Transit port: port alongside an open city; (3) Industrial port: a port alongside athe perspective of the port. This paper is structured as follows: nextin Section 2, we briey review the literature on spatial port devel-opment and the portcity interface, and present our analyticalframework; in Section 3, we introduce the Port of Amsterdamand give an overview of the recent developments in the port andthe policies governing such developments; in Section 4, we givean overview of the interviews with port companies in Amsterdam;in Section 5 we briey discuss the developments in other port cit-ies in the HLH-range; and, in the nal Section 6, we draw theconclusions.

2. Port development and the portcity interface

Although spatial and transport scientists have been interestedin ports for many decades, it was the research by Bird (1963) whichled to the rst conceptual model of port development. In his Any-port-model, Bird conceived the port as a direct relationship be-tween port form and port function, and port space is seen as achronological and linear succession of historically-distinct devel-opment phases (Olivier and Slack, 2006). The model consists ofsix phases (Bird calls them eras), each involving an addition to,or change in, the physical layout of the port, and helping to buildup to the complex pattern of a modern major port1. Bird explainsthat each of the eras was marked by the growth of shipping volumeor technical advancements in the carriage of goods by sea or of thehandling in ports. In each era, the new port facilities were built fur-ther downstream than the facilities in the former era, resulting in agrowing geographical separation of port and city. This latter phe-nomenon was also observed in the development of Asian ports byRobinson (1984). Charlier (1992) developed a life-cycle concept ofport areas which refers not to the development of the entire portbut only to a port facility of a particular port area. This conceptenvisages that a given port facility will progress through ve stages,namely:

1. growth, resulting from investment to create and expand thefacility;

2. maturity, in which the full potential of the facility is obtained;3. obsolescence, which sets in as more modern, higher-capacity

facilities at better locations take over business;4. dereliction, after the berths are abandoned by shipping; and5. redevelopment which signals the start of a new and non-portfunctional city; and (4) the Distribution port and network city: the port isrediscovered by the city as a part of the urban landscape. Surprisingly, Meyer, whois an urbanist, does not refer to the work of Bird.work that is distinguishing. He argues that an alternative to city-waterfront development is to regenerate the port functions of thederelict areas. He suggests that, before these sites are transformedto city functions, the residual maritime potential should be as-sessed because this is non-renewable.

Birds model does not address the functional relations betweenport and city. Although Birds model shows that port and city spa-tially drifted apart, the model does not envisage the effects of mar-itime, technological, and logistic developments on the scale ofmodern ports, the networks in which they operate, and the relativeimportance of ports for the citys economy. Nor did Bird foresee theimpact of environmental policies and the sustainable paradigmshift in the development of ports. Therefore, a different approachhas to be adopted in order to deal with new empirical realitiesand/or theoretical developments (Robinson, 2002; Olivier andSlack, 2006; Daamen, 2007). Robinson and in particular Olivierand Slack give good recent reviews of the port research literature,but propose different directions for future research. Robinson pro-poses a new paradigm in which the economics of the port in a va-lue-driven chain system forms the cornerstone. Olivier and Slack,although also emphasizing the economics, take a more holisticview and propose an interdisciplinary dialogue between transportand economic geography, particularly by giving more attention to abehavioural approach, which is well-known in economic geogra-phy, but less in freight transport research. However, they also statethat Fundamental questions remain, such as Why is the physicalenvironment so absent in port studies? Why have concepts of sus-tainability not penetrated port studies? What of social-change fac-tors? (p. 1423). We believe that these questions remain to beanswered as the debate turns towards recent changes at theportcity interface.

In studies on the portcity interface such as Hoyle (1989, 2000),Charlier (1992), Norcliffe et al. (1996), Daamen (2007), and partic-ularly Hayuth (1982, 1988), we see that environmental, social andspatial planning have received more attention than in the moretraditional port studies. Both Hoyle and Norcliffe et al. present anevolution of the portcity interface, in which the spatial separationbetween the port and the city is emphasized in terms of changes inland use, without actually discussing the links between the cityand the port: the port is geographically moving away from the citywhile at the same time the geographical overlap between the portand the city in terms of land use diminishes. According to Norcliffeet al. (1996) in the early stages of this evolution, the port and thecity lived in symbiosis (t1) and developed into a city next to anon-place port (t3) (see Fig. 1). Hoyle (2000) describes a similarbut more extended and detailed sequence in six stages (see Fig. 2)ranging from a close spatial and functional association betweencity and port (in the 1st stage) via a large-scale port which con-sumes large areas of land (expanded over the course of the 2nd,3rd and 4th stages), and then to urban renewal of the original portarea (in the 5th stage), and ultimately to an enhanced portcityproximity reecting patterns of urban change and a renewal ofthe portcity link (in the 6th stage).

Hayuth (1982) is one of rst authors who analysed the changingintrinsic relationship between the port and the city. In 1982 he sawchanges in the ecological and spatial system, and in 1988 also in-cluded changes in the economic system. Changes in these systemsled to the growing spatial and functional segregation of city andport and the changing landscape of the city-waterfront. Thechanges in the spatial and economic systems more or less repre-sent the same trend that other authors portray, but what is of par-ticular interest is the ecological system which involvesenvironmental issues (mainly water and air quality). This is partic-

sport Geography 19 (2011) 575583ularly apparent in Daamens (2007) study of the portcity interfacein Rotterdam and Hamburg which reports that local authorities areactually planning the redevelopment of current port areas and the

and

B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of TranFig. 1. Evolution and separation over time of citiesdevelopment of new city areas geographically very close to theport. It is no longer only the abandoned port areas which are beingredeveloped for city uses, as planners are also proposing to rede-velop parts of the port near the city which are actually still inuse for port activities. According to Daamen, both the city andthe port are engaged in a similar battle to attract people and busi-ness and it is often the city-waterfronts where the battle materi-alizes, creating competing space-use demands and a zone ofconict for city and port authorities (Daamen, 2007: 19).

For our analysis of the portcity interface we use a frameworkwhich is partly based on Bird (1963) who makes a distinction be-tween port form and port function. We add port regulations to this,

Fig. 2. Stages in the evolution of the portcity re

Fig. 3. Relations between port form, port function and port regulation.their ports according to Norcliffe et al. (1996: 126).sport Geography 19 (2011) 575583 577because these are also important for companies who settle in portareas, but were probably less important at the time Bird developedhis model. The port form represents the geographical and morpho-logical shape and layout of the port. On the rm level, this relatesto the rms location in the port and the amount of land they use.The port function relates to the core business operations (for in-stance logistics) of port companies and the Port Authority and theirinteraction. Port regulation refers all sorts of regulation concerningport activities such as environmental regulations (concerned withnoise, ne dust, CO2, water quality, odour), transport (modal shift,tons handled per quay), spatial planning (land use), labour, safetyand security. Port form, function and regulation are related (seeFig. 3).

3. The Port of Amsterdam: development and policies

The Port of Amsterdam is part of the Seaports Amsterdamwhich also includes the smaller ports of Beverwijk, Velsen/IJmu-iden en Zaanstad. In Europe, many ports are identied as eithergateway ports or hub ports (Ferrari et al., 2006; Notteboom,1997). But this classication is based on containers being animportant sector for the port concerned. The Port of Amsterdamis, however, neither a hub nor a gateway port, but is more a kindof commodity port in which the manufacturing of the handledgoods forms an important part of the activities in the port area.This port has many different sectors and the producing industrythat uses the incoming freight ows is well represented in the port

lationships according to Hoyle (2000: 405).

ation sites. Source: http://www.portofamsterdam.com (adapted by authors).

Table 1Current and future handling in the Amsterdam port area in million tonnes. Source:Haven Amsterdam, 2009.

Market segment 1995 2000 2007 2008 2020 2040

Oil products 8177 11,595 24,866 30,566 45,000 48,000Coal 4760 11,289 14,734 17,383 24,000 36,000Agribulk 7529 10,044 8326 9004 11,000 16,000Other dry bulk 3952 4623 6641 7310 8000 12,000

578 B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of Tranarea. The port is also an important location of inland waterwaytransport. In this article we focus on the Port of Amsterdam ratherthan on the collective of smaller ports in the Seaports Amsterdamarea, because we focus on the portcity interface in Amsterdam. Inthe spatial development of the port form in Amsterdam, the Any-port-model and the evolution in the portcity relations accordingto Hoyle (2000) can be observed for the port of Amsterdam (see:Zoest, 2005; Gilijamse et al., 2009). At rst the port and the city

Fig. 4. Map of the port of Amsterdam with former and current transformwere integrated at the current city centre. In later stages (alreadyin the 17th century) purpose-built harbours were developed tothe East of the city centre. After completion of the Noordzeekanaalin 1876, which connects the port to the North Sea, the develop-ment began to the West of the city centre. Particularly after theSecond World War large new port areas were developed on thiswest side. Then, in the 1980s the transformation of the formerEastern Docklands to new residential uses began. In the 1990s,the transformation of the area called the IJ-banks (the waterfrontof the city centre) also began (see Fig. 4) and is now underdevelopment2.

In the past few decades, the Port of Amsterdam has been grow-ing rapidly also because sufcient new port areas were available.The total Amsterdam port area is about 2600 hectares, of which1600 hectares is for companies and 1000 for the harbours andother infrastructure. As a result of the growth in port activities inAmsterdam, the supply of vacant business sites has decreasedsharply from 426 hectares in 2003 to 270 in 2009 (GemeenteAmsterdam, 2003, 2009). In terms of cargo throughput tonnages,the Port of Amsterdam belongs to the top ve in Europe, although(much) smaller than its neighbouring port of Rotterdam which isthe largest port in Europe. In recent years handling in the porthas grown signicantly. In 2008, the transhipment was 75,755 mil-lion tonnes, of which crude oil and oil products formed more thanone-third. For the future a continued growth is expected, particu-larly in the container sector (see Table 1).

Due to the rapid growth in the past and forecasted growth, thePort of Amsterdam is faced with (in its own words) challenges in

2 For an analysis of the IJ-banks development, see Bongenaar and Malone (1996).sport Geography 19 (2011) 575583the elds of land supply, the environment and the accessibility ofthe port area. The solutions to these challenges are laid down ina new Strategic policy document called Slimme Haven (SmartPort), which was approved by the City Council in 2008 (HavenAmsterdam, 2009).

3.1. Spatial policy: a limited supply of land

In the port area, the public Port Authority is the main supplier ofland, and the municipality is the planning authority. According tothe new policy up to 2020, the transhipment growth of the Portof Amsterdam has to be realised within the existing area. Thismeans that the port form will not change until 2020. To accommo-date the forecasted growth in handling, several measures havebeen proposed:

Redevelopment of existing business sites which are currentlyunderutilised: This is, however, not a new policy. Between1990 and 2007, the municipality acquired 307 hectares of previ-ously developed land from companies in the port area. In thesame period it released 560 hectares.

Intensifying land use: This could mean developing multi-storagebuildings, but also connecting currently dry business sites withquays that have deep water access, or reducing harbours inorder to develop new business sites and/or quays. In general,this requires larger investments.

Containers 1111 782 3442 3905 26,000 69,000Other 5695 6282 7344 7587 10,000 13,000Total 31,225 44,614 65,353 75,755 124,000 194,000

rtc

B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 575583 579 Higher rents and additional land lease conditions: Because thePort Authority and the municipality only lease out land anddo not sell it they can attach conditions to land leases. Theseconditions and the rents will be linked to the intensity of theland use. Also shorter lease periods have been announced.

Fig. 5. Transformation zone and housing plans at the poIn addition, the development of a transition zone between theport and the city is proposed. In this zone, called the Minervahaven(see Fig. 5), the economic activities are planned to change fromport activities to city activities (in particular the creative indus-tries). Although the area is relatively small (7 hectares) and will re-main a business area, it will no longer be available to portcompanies, which in effect reduces the port area.

The Port is also confronted with the spatial policies of theMunicipality itself. For a few decades, the Municipality has fol-lowed a compact city policy which implies that (new) residentialdevelopment should preferably take place within, or adjacent to,the existing built-up area. Within this context, since the 1980s,around 10,000 houses have been built in former port areas suchas the Eastern Docklands and the IJ-Banks. Additional plans for atleast another 5000 houses in the parts of the port close to the city(Houthaven and the former NDSM-wharf) were developed in the1990s and at the beginning of the 21st century (Fig. 5). These plansare more problematic and controversial than the Eastern Dock-lands and IJ-Banks. Roo (2003) analysed the conict between spa-tial and environmental planning for the Houthaven, and concludedthat the planning process had ended in a stalemate (p. 306), par-ticularly because most of the proposed dwellings were planned in azone in which residential development is restricted because ofnoise levels (see the Port Zone in Fig. 5)3. Eventually, in 2008, themunicipality and three companies agreed that, under certain condi-tions, residential development in the Houthaven and NDSM-wharfarea is possible, but that in the coming 20 years, the Municipality

3 For a description, see also De Roo (2003), Chapter 7: Liveablility on the Banks ofthe IJ. Environmental Policy of the City of Amsterdam.will not start new residential developments which might harm thecompanies. After 2028 new developments are possible and the mu-nicipal spatial planning department and the Port Authority are al-ready performing scenario analyses on the portcity interfacebetween 2030 and 2040 (Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening and Haven

ity interface of Amsterdam. Source: drawn by authors.Amsterdam, 2009).

3.2. Environmental policy: more strict environmental regulations

Because of increasing regulations at the European level, theDutch state and regional and local authorities are obliged to imple-ment these regulations and to enforce them. In particular environ-mental regulations and the protection of rare species are puttingpressure on port activities. These regulations will limit the growthopportunities for the Port of Amsterdam, and there are additionalcomplications because of the proposed intensive use of the portarea and advancing residential development. The Port Authority,in cooperation with the port companies, is looking for sustainableinnovations in order to become more environmentally-friendlyand to create extra environmental space for the growth of portactivities. Examples are cleaner ships, cleaner energy productionand use, the improvement of air and water quality, noise control,the creation of ecozones4, and the careful handling of dangerousgoods (TU Delft, OTB, 2007 and Haven Amsterdam, 2009).

3.3. Transport Policy: improving accessibility

The accessibility of the Port of Amsterdam, and in a broadersense also that of the Amsterdam area, is becoming increasinglyproblematic. Road freight transport in particular is experiencingconsiderable congestion, but current investments in new roads willease this. Both rail capacity and inland waterway capacity are en-ough for the near future. Sea transport is experiencing accessibility

4 Ecozones are sites which are not in use by companies and are temporarily in useas nature reserves.

users site might create extra land in the Amsterdam port area

create space. Businesses suited for the Port of Amsterdam can be

ranaccommodated, and businesses better suited for other ports suchas the Port of Rotterdam can be advised to locate there. Coopera-tion could be with Rotterdam, Vlissingen or Groningen, but alsoin Europe there might be opportunities to cooperate (or evenmerge) with comparable ports (e.g. Zeebrugge).

The companies perceive that the accessibility of the port is gen-erally good. The majority of the interviewed companies receiveabout 100% of their incoming freight ows by sea. However, thefor new port activities, but will also lead to less-desired extra logis-tics activities. Some companies are worried by the planned housingnear the port area which is delaying or halting planned invest-ments. To accommodate their growth many rms are increasinglylooking for alternatives outside the Port of Amsterdam (e.g. An-twerp, Vlissingen, Zeebrugge, Rotterdam, and Hamburg). However,also in most competing ports new sites are not abundantly avail-able. Other companies are willing to expand in Amsterdam, butthey are not allowed to do so because other business operations(in place of existing operations) are preferred by the Port Author-ity. Concerning the port form, cooperation with other ports mightproblems as a result of the insufcient capacity of the IJmuidenlocks and because they can only accommodate vessels with a max-imum depth of 45 ft due to tunnels under the Noordzeekanaal. Theplan is to have a second lock ready in 2016. Overall, the modal splitfor the port of Amsterdam is quite good: road 53%, inland water-way transport 43% and rail 4%. The goal is to further increase themarket share of relatively sustainable transport such as inlandwaterways and rail.

4. Business viewpoint on port form, function, and regulation

In mid 2008, together with the Port Authority, an initial sampleof approximately 25 companies was selected and nally, eightcompanies were willing to participate in an interview. The compa-nies are evenly distributed over the port area and active in thetransport (2), handling (1) and manufacturing (5) sectors. Theinterviews were conducted in a semi-structured way to obtainthe companies viewpoints on the current and future port form,port function, and port regulation.

4.1. Port form

In 2008, most interviewed companies thought that their opera-tions at their current sites could continue to grow for about 35 years. This is also observed in other ports in the HLH-range suchas Rotterdam, Hamburg, Bremen, and Vlissingen. In Amsterdam,the average expected growth that can be accommodated on thecurrent sites is about 1020% as compared with normal 2008 lev-els of operation. Several companies have land in reserve in order tobe able to extend their operations on the current location. Somecompanies have different sites in the port of Amsterdam and/orin the Noordzeekanaal zone. The companies might create addi-tional space by restructuring their sites into one efcient site forthese companies concerned. Some companies see possibilities tointensify land use on their current site, but this would require largeinvestments (amounts of 17 million per hectare are quoted) ineither higher buildings or underground structures. This might sug-gest a role for the Port Authority in order to reduce the high cost ofthese expensive structures to the company. On the other hand, also(intensied) quay usage and price increases for sites can contributeto more efciency in land use. Storage in the hinterland at the

580 B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of Texpansion of deep water access is difcult especially given all thelegal planning proceedings. Without an improvement of the IJmu-iden lock, a further expansion of the Amsterdam port (in volume) isimpossible. Outgoing ows from the Port of Amsterdam are byroad, rail and inland waterways. The companies expect that railfreight transport will increase due to an increase in coal transportto sites in Germany not accessible by inland waterways and moretransport to Eastern Europe.

4.2. Port function

For the port function, the business operations of companies(including the Port Authority) in the Port of Amsterdam were ana-lysed. According to the interviews, positive points are a exible,fast and focussed service of the Port Authority and its good locationclose to European customers. However, some opportunities forimprovements were identied by the companies: Amsterdamshould focus on its own peer ports in Europe rather than on main-ports, be more stable in its priorities, and rely less on bulk ows;the problems with sea lock IJmuiden; the political lobbying ofthe regional and national authorities could be improved; and themaintenance of the inland waterway infrastructure could be bet-ter. Some companies complain about the implemented rental pol-icy of higher rents and shorter rental periods (25 or 30 yearsinstead of 50 years), which shorten their pay back time on invest-ments. This is particularly the case for companies which mightwant to invest in an intensication of their land use. Also it is saidby some companies that the local authority (the mayor and theBoard of Aldermen of the City of Amsterdam) shows only a modestinterest in the port. However, the Port Authority differs on this lastissue by stating that the Municipality does take the Port of Amster-dam seriously, as it supports the recently prepared new vision forthe port. Concerning the rental policy, it was put forward that theEuropean Union requests shorter rental periods, and that compet-ing ports are also reducing the length of lease periods, with the aimof intensifying competition between ports. However, several unde-sired side effects (e.g. the slowing down of business investments inthe Port of Amsterdam by existing companies) might occur. Ulti-mately, policy is designed to intensify land use (whereby compa-nies need long lease periods), but at the same time portcompetition is aimed for (whereby shorter lease periods arerequired).

4.3. Port regulation

Port regulations imposed by the different government layers(European, national, regional, and local) cause some difcultiesfor companies. Aspects that increasingly put pressure on compa-nies are environmental regulations concerning ne dust, noise,CO2, safety, water quality, security, etc. Several companies have ex-pressed their concern about the strict execution of European regu-lations in the Netherlands as compared with neighbouringcountries. In this respect it is important to note that it is not theAmsterdam Port Authority that imposes environmental regula-tions on the companies, but the municipal and regional authorities.In this respect, several ports outside the Netherlands have beenquoted as being more exible as compared with the Port ofAmsterdam. According to the interviewed companies, examplesof more exibility in other ports can be found in: (1) gassing of in-sects in cacao; (2) lifting sacks; and (3) re protection measures. Asa result of regulations imposed by the United States, the port secu-rity measures have become stricter. A nal problem that was indi-cated in the interviews concerns housing encroaching former portareas. If housing legally enters port areas (enabled by a land-useplan), and if the inhabitants of these houses start to complainabout port activities and take a legal action, the judge will probably

sport Geography 19 (2011) 575583rule in favour of the inhabitants. This is perceived as unfair by com-panies and at least would call for equal legal treatment of housingand port activities. In general, the building of extra houses in the

Tran6. Conclusions

In the past, ports and their cities have seen substantial spatialchange. Over time, both spatially and functionally they becameincreasingly separated from each other. The port itself has evolvedfrom a distinct space, as a single, xed, spatial entity to a placewhere synchronic forces are played out among a pluralistic port5. The development in other port cities in the HamburgLeHavre range

Is the development of the portcity interface in Amsterdam un-ique, or are there other ports in which the same developments oc-cur? Several sources in the literature (together with interviewswith policy makers and port authorities in Rotterdam, Hamburgand Vlissingen) indicate that changes in the portcity interfaceare emerging in other ports as well. Daamen (2007) analysed theportcity interface in Rotterdam, where local authorities are plan-ning redevelopment of port areas near the city. According to Daa-men the Rotterdam municipal government adopted a pro-activeattitude in the attempt to prevent more brownelds to emergealong waterfronts within [..] Rotterdam. . . (Daamen, 2007: 11).These initial plans foresaw in several rm relocations to new portareas. In later planning stages these relocation plans were aban-doned and the transformation of port areas into housing areaswas reduced. However, according to a survey by the Chamber ofCommerce of Rotterdam still several port areas are planned to be-come housing areas (Ecorys, 2006). Currently the municipality isplanning to build around 5000 houses in the port area. In contrastto Amsterdam, the total area of the port in Rotterdam will increasedue to the current development of the second Maasvlakte which isinitially being developed to accommodate mainly new containerterminals. This was only agreed upon after lengthy discussionson environmental and economic impacts and a period of shortageof space in the port in the 1990s (Gils and van Klijn, 2007; Stevens,1999; Vreeker et al., 2008).

In general terms, the same challenges apply to the other ports inthe HLH-range and can be seen as a shift to more sustainable pol-icy, although the timing and intensity of development can be dif-ferent (City of Le Havre, 2007). In the port of Hamburg,comparable developments are taking place. Old harbour areas aretransformed into new vibrant parts of the city centre closely lo-cated to port activities (Daamen, 2007). The port of Vlissingenhas difculties in growing further due to a lack of available landand also due to limited extra noise usage space (Provincie Zeeland,Gemeente Vlissingen, Gemeente Borsele, 2006; Scherbeijn, 2007).In Bremen the opportunities to expand the port area do not exist.In Antwerp, the expansion opportunities in the existing port areawere limited and also forced a move of the port towards the sea.This led to the construction of the Deurganck Dok, dedicated tocontainer handling. This development is comparable to the Maasv-lakte 2 in Rotterdam, and also this might be the latest expansionfor the port of Antwerp. The developments in the port of Amster-dam can also be observed in several other ports in the HLH-range.neighbourhood of existing port companies is perceived as a blue-print for problems. This means increased tensions between livingand port functions. The current housing plans of the City ofAmsterdam will lead to shorter rental periods for land, which iscausing companies to rethink their investment plans and may alsolead (if executed) to an actual reduction of land available to portactivities.

B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal ofcommunity striving for common internal and external goals (Oliv-ier and Slack, 2006: 1418). The once substantial and longstandingsymbiosis between ports and cities has been eroded (Norcliffeet al., 1996: 125). In the literature, these developments have,among other things, given rise to a re-conceptualization of spatialport development and the porturban interface in particular. Weargue that, because of recent sustainable spatial policies in West-European city ports, the focus on the spatial aspects of port devel-opment is imminent again. Our Amsterdam case shows that thePort Authority in Amsterdam is stabilizing the amount of land inthe port area available for expansion of rms, while at the sametime the Municipality has a substantial target to build houses inthe existing built-up area. In spatial terms, this means that theexpansion of the port area has stopped, while the urban housingfrontier is gradually encroaching on the existing, and now xed,harbour area.

Is Amsterdam a special case in this respect? We do not think so.First, the development of the Port of Amsterdam shows greatresemblance with the stages in the Anyport-model and theoreticalnotions on waterfront developments. Second, our (limited) surveyamong other ports in the HLH-range suggests that Amsterdam isnot a unique case. In several port cities there is an emerging con-ict between the city and the post in the interface, although thesehave different backgrounds. Also, various ports are facing difcul-ties in expanding the port area. Therefore it seems that the era ofunproblematic port expansion has ended. However, some portsstill expand (such as Rotterdam), but they encounter similarchanges in the portcity interface suggesting that we are dealingwith a more general development. The question that emerges is:Are we now entering a new phase in port developments which isnot included in existing models? And if so, which model is best sui-ted to be expanded? Or, should we develop a whole new model?

We argue that a model is needed in which both the spatialdevelopments of the port and concepts about the porturban inter-face are present. The Anyport-model of Bird, as a chronological andlinear succession of development phases, is an adequate startingpoint, but lacks the possibility to integrate the problematic aspectsof the porturban interface because this disturbs the linear succes-sion of the historically-distinct development phases. On the otherhand, the concept about the porturban interface which mainly fo-cuses on waterfront developments lacks the spatial component (animportant exception is Hayuth, 1982). Therefore, we propose amodel in which the morphological development and the changingporturban interface are combined, and which is an extension ofthe evolutionary model by Norcliffe et al. (1996) as shown inFig. 1. For this we assume that there is a normal and natural pro-gression from Birds Anyport-model to the later portcity interfacemodels. Although these models have different theoretical andempirical backgrounds, the portcity interface analysis is logicallyan outcome of the sequences of port changes that Bird describedespecially in a morphological and spatial sense.

Essential in this proposed extended Norcliffe et al. model (seeFig. 6) is that the symbiosis that existed during the rst phasesof the Anyport-model (t1 and t2 in Fig. 6) and the successive periodin which older port areas were abandoned by port companies andwaterfront redevelopments took place (t3 in Fig. 6) have nowpassed, and have been replaced by a zone in which there is a con-ict between different kinds of land use. In t2 the port and the citybecame increasingly functionally separated and in t3 they also be-came geographically separated. In these phases, the port form stillfollowed the port function. Port regulation was increasing in thisphase, especially non-core port regulation (such as environmentalregulation). In t4 (the present situation) the geographical separa-tion disappears, while the functional separation remains, whichbasically causes the current conicts. We do not claim that t3was a period without conict (see for instance: Kilian and Dodson,

sport Geography 19 (2011) 575583 5811996: Foster, 1999; Hoyle, 2000), but that the conict was ratherpassive, in the sense that the conict was about how the redevelop-ment should take place. In t4 however, the conict is aboutwhether

Bird, J., 1963. The Major Seaports of the United Kingdom. Hutchinson of London,London.

terf

ranany active redevelopment should take place. It is not a conict be-tween proposed new types of land uses on vacant harbour sites,but a conict between the existing land use as a port and proposedcity land uses (mainly housing). In this phase, it is increasingly dif-cult for port form to follow the development of the port functionespecially when there is no downstream expansion as in the Any-port-model. Instead, there appears to be a problematic urban fron-tier, which is steadily moving into the older parts of still active andvibrant harbour areas. This also implies that port regulation isincreasingly harming the port development, because the port reg-ulation is inuenced by the sharpened societal regulation (envi-ronmental-but also labour regulations). It appears that portregulation is slowly starting to inuence port form and port func-

Fig. 6. Proposed new spatial model for the portcity in

582 B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of Ttion in a limiting way.It remains to be seen if the linear succession of phases with an

increasing port area with downstream locations has come to anend. Our survey of port companies, policy makers and port author-ities show that in some ports the expansion of the port area contin-ues (for example Rotterdam), while in others it is slowing down orhas stopped (for example Amsterdam). Irrespective of the growthof the port area, the t4 phase can be recognized in most ports. Thisimplies that the city is expanding more rapidly into the direction ofthe port, than the port moves away from the city. In other wordsthe main spatial driving force in the city-port interface in t4 isthe city, whereas in t1t3 this was the port. In this respect, it seemsthat the global forces (mainly changing transport and logistics con-cepts) that were predominantly responsible for the growth of theports in t2 and t3 are now losing to local forces within the citywhich are steered by planning and sustainability paradigms. Theseparadigms also are responsible for policies which are bringing theareal growth of the port to a halt. These local forces were not ab-sent in the t3 period (for instance, see Pinder, 1981; Hoyle, 1995)but were not powerful enough to be successful. This situationhas now changed in the t4 period.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the BSIK programme for partlynancing this project, the Port of Amsterdam for its cooperation inthe project that led to this article, and the port businesses whichagreed to be interviewed. Thanks also go to Pito Dingemanse, JanBird, J., 1971. Seaports and Seaport Terminals. Hutchinson & Co., London.Bongenaar, A., Malone, P., 1996. Amsterdam: the waterfront in the 1990s. In:

Malone, P. (Ed.), City, Capital and Water. Routledge, London, pp. 240260.Bruttomesso, R. (Ed.), 1993. Waterfronts: a new frontier for cities on Water.

International Centre Cities on Water, Venice.Charlier, J., 1992. The regeneration of old port areas for new port uses. In: Hoyle,Egbertsen (both of the Port of Amsterdam) and two anonymousreferees for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlierversion of the article and to Itziar Lasa for her assistance in makingthe maps and graphics.

References

ace Source: authors, inspired by Norcliffe et al. (1996).

sport Geography 19 (2011) 575583B.S., Pinder, D.A. (Eds.), European Port Cities in Transition. Bellhaven Press,London, pp. 137154.

City of Le Havre (Lead partner), 2007. Plan the City with the Port. Strategies forRedeveloping CityPort Linking Spaces. Guide of Good Practice. City of Le Havre,Le Havre.

Daamen, T., 2007. Sustainable Development of the European portCity Interface. In:Paper Presented at the ENHR-Conference. June 2528 in Rotterdam.

Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening, Haven Amsterdam, 2009. Haven-Stad, drievergezichten voor de westelijke IJ-oevers. Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening andHaven Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

Ecorys, 2006. Inventarisatie van herbestemde en bedreigde bedrijventerreinen.Kamer van Koophandel Rotterdam, Rotterdam.

Ferrari, C., Parola, F., Morchio, E., 2006. Southern European ports and the spatialdistribution of EDCs. Maritime Economics & Logistics 8 (1), 6081.

Foster, J., 1999. Docklands. Cultures in Conict, Words in Collision. UCL Press,London.

Gemeente Amsterdam, 2003. Bedrijfslocaties in Amsterdam 2003.Ontwikkelingsbedrijf Amsterdam, Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf, DienstEconomische Zaken and Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening, Amsterdam.

GemeenteAmsterdam,2009.Bedrijfslocaties inAmsterdam2003.OntwikkelingsbedrijfAmsterdam, Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf, Dienst Economische Zaken & DienstRuimtelijke Ordening, Amsterdam.

Gilijamse, R., Bonke, H., Moes, J. Kurpershoek, E., 2009. De haven van Amsterdam.Zeven eeuwen ontwikkeling. Amsterdam, Uitgeverij Thoth Bussum and HavenAmsterdam.

Gils, M., van Klijn, E.H., 2007. Complexity in decision making: the case of theRotterdam harbour expansion. Connecting decisions, arenas and actors inspatial decision making. Planning Theory & Practice 8 (2), 139159.

Hall, P., 1991. Waterfronts: A new urban frontier. Institute of Urban and RegionalDevelopment, University of California, Berkeley (working paper 538).

Amsterdam, Haven., 2009. Slimme Haven, Havenvisie Gemeente Amsterdam 20082020. Haven Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

Hayuth, Y., 1982. The porturban interface: an area in transition. Area 14 (3), 219224.

Hayuth, Y., 1988. Changes on the waterfront: a model based approach. In: Hoyle,B.S., Pinder, D.A., Husain, M.S. (Eds.), Revitalising the Waterfront: The

International Dimensions of Docklands Redevelopment. Belhaven Press,London.

Hoyle, B.S., 1989. The portcity interface. Trends, problems and examples.Geoforum 20 (4), 429435.

Hoyle, B., 1995. A shared space. Contrasted perspectives on urban waterfrontredevelopment in Canada. Town Planning Review 66 (4), 345369.

Hoyle, B., 2000. Global and local change on the portcity waterfront. TheGeographical Review 90 (3), 395417.

Kilian, D., Dodson, B., 1996. Between the devil and the Dead Blue Sea: functionalconicts inCapeTownsVictoriaandAlfredWaterfront.Geoforum27(4), 495507.

Marshall, R. (Ed.), 2001. Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities. Spon Press, London.Meyer, H., 1999. City and Port. Transformation of Port Cities London, Barcelona,

New York, Rotterdam. International Books, Utrecht.Morris, R.K.A., Gibson, G., 2007. Port development and nature conservation

experiences in England between 1994 and 2005. Ocean & Coast Management 50(56), 443462.

Norcliffe, G., Basset, K., Hoare, T., 1996. The emergence of postmodernism on theurban waterfront. Geographical perspectives on changing relationships. Journalof Transport Geography 4 (2), 123134.

Notteboom, T.E., 1997. Concentration and load centre development in the Europeancontainer port system. Journal of Transport Geography 5 (2), 99115.

Olivier, D., Slack, B., 2006. Rethinking the port. Environment and Planning A 38 (8),14091427.

Pinder, D.A., 1981. Community attitude as a limiting factor in port growth: the caseof Rotterdam. In: Hoyle, B.S., Pinder, D.A. (Eds.), Cityport Industrialization and

Regional Development: Spatial Analysis and Planning Strategies. PergamonPress, Oxford and New York.

Provincie Zeeland, Gemeente Vlissingen, Gemeente Borsele, 2006. Beleidsregelzonebeheersysteem Industrieterrein Vlissingen-Oost, Middelburg, ProvincieZeeland.

Scherbeijn, A., 2007. Concept Redelijke Sommatie, 27 maart 2007, Middelburg.Provincie Zeeland.

Robinson, R., 1984. Industrial strategies and port development in developingcounties: the Asian case. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geograe 76(2), 133143.

Robinson, R., 2002. Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the newparadigm. Maritime Policy and Management 29 (3), 241255.

Roo, G. de, 2003. Environmental planning in the Netherlands: too good to be true.From command and control planning to shared governance. Aldershot, UK,Ashgate.

Stevens, H., 1999. The International Position of Seaports. An InternationalComparison. Kluwer Acadamic Publishers, Dodrecht/Boston/London.

TU Delft, OTB 2007. Quick-scan; de terminalkeuze van reders. Delft: TU Delft, OTB.Vreeker, R., Nijkamp, P., van Ansem, I., van Ierland, I., 2008. Ports in international

networks. A multicriteria evaluation of policy options for accommodatinggrowth. In: Giaoutzy, M., Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), Network Strategies in Europe.Developing the Future for Transport and ICT. Ashgate, Aldershot (UK), pp. 239258.

Zoest, R. van (Ed.), 2005. De Amsterdamse Haven 12752005. Uitgeverij DeVerbeelding, Amsterdam.

B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 575583 583

Changing portcity relations at Amsterdam: A new phase at the interface?IntroductionPort development and the portcity interfaceThe Port of Amsterdam: development and policiesSpatial policy: a limited supply of landEnvironmental policy: more strict environmental regulationsTransport Policy: improving accessibility

Business viewpoint on port form, function, and regulationPort formPort functionPort regulation

The development in other port cities in the HamburgLe Havre rangeConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences