the port and the city - on board diary

1

Hafencity Universität

Der Übersee-Club e.V.

José M Pagés Sánchez

On board diary

The Port and the City

3

The Port and the CityOn board diaryJosé M Pagés Sánchez

Der Übersee-Club e.V.

Hafencity Universität

4

Copyright © 2016 by José Manuel Pagés Sánchez

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmit-ted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author, addressed “Attention: Permissions Coordinator,” at the email address below.

All the photographs of this book taken by the author (José M P Sánchez) are copy-righted. For any reproduction and/or commercial use a previous agreement with the author is required. The images retrieved from internet sources have been properly refe-renced and the author of the book does not claim their ownership. If any of the included material has copyright issues or its owner wants it to be removed please get in contact at the email address below. This book is purely an academic noncommercial exercise, no economic profit was obtained on its making. This book is not intended to be sold nor to achieve profit.

[email protected]

Frankfurt am Main, 2016

5

Contents

Foreword and Acknowledgments

1. LisbonAct 1 - First stop: LisbonAct 2 - The Lisbon ExperienceAct 3 - Photo essay

2. OsloAct 1 - Heading North: OsloAct 2 - The Oslo ExperienceAct 3 - Photo essay

3. HelsinkiAct 1 - The daughter of the Baltic Sea: HelsinkiAct 2 - The Helsinki ExperienceAct 3 - Photo essay

4. RotterdamAct 1 - The biggest port in Europe: RotterdamAct 2 - The Rotterdam ExperienceAct 3 - Photo essay

5. MarseilleAct 1 - Oldest city in France: MarseilleAct 2 - The Marseille ExperienceAct 3 - Photo essay

6. GenoaAct 1 - The Italian case: GenoaAct 2 - The Genoa ExperienceAct 3 - Photo essay

7. Lisbon Act 1 - Final stop: Back to Lisbon

8. ConclusionPort-City governance. A comparative analysis in the European context.

7

10

34

58

90

128

164

208

220

6

“The ancients built Valdrada on the shores of a lake, with houses all verandas one above the other, and high streets whose railed parapets look out over the water. Thus the traveler, arriving, sees two cities: one erect above the lake, and the other reflected, upside down. Nothing exists or happens in the one Valdrada that the other Valdrada does not repeat, because the city was so constructed that its every point would be re-flected in its mirror, and the Valdrada down in the water contains not only all the flutings and juttings of the facades that rise above the lake, but also the rooms’ interiors with ceilings and floors, the perspective of the halls, the mirrors of the wardrobes.

Valdrada’s inhabitants know that each of their actions is, at once, that action and its mirror-image, which possesses the special dignity of images, and this awareness prevents them from succumbing for a single moment to chance and forgetfulness. Even when lovers twist their naked bodies, skin against skin, seeking the position that will give one the most pleasure in the other, even when murderers plunge the knife into the black veins of the neck and more clotted blood pours out the more they press the blade that slips between the tendons, it is not so much their copulating or murdering that mat-ters as the copulating or murdering of the images, limpid and cold in the mirror.

At times the mirror increases a thing’s value, at times denies it. Not everything that seems valuable above the mirror maintains its force when mirrored. The twin cities are not equal, because nothing that exists or happens in Valdrada is symmetrical: every face and gesture is answered, from the mirror, by a face and gesture inverted, point by point. The two Valdradas live for each other, their eyes interlocked; but there is no love between them.“

Valdrada city, from “Invisible Cities” by Italo Calvino, is the first of “cities and eyes“.Translation by Daniele Perrone

7

O Tejo é mais belo que o rio que corre pela minha aldeia

O Tejo é mais belo que o rio que corre pela minha aldeia,Mas o Tejo não é mais belo que o rio que corre pela minha aldeia

Porque o Tejo não é o rio que corre pela minha aldeia,

O Tejo tem grandes naviosE navega nele ainda,

Para aqueles que vêem em tudo o que lá não está,A memória das naus.

O Tejo desce de EspanhaE o Tejo entra no mar em Portugal.

Toda a gente sabe isso.Mas poucos sabem qual é o rio da minha aldeia

E para onde ele vaiE donde ele vem.

E por isso, porque pertence a menos gente,É mais livre e maior o rio da minha aldeia.

Pelo Tejo vai-se para o Mundo.Para além do Tejo há a América

E a fortuna daqueles que a encontram.Ninguém nunca pensou no que há para além

Do rio da minha aldeia.

O rio da minha aldeia não faz pensar em nadaQuem está ao pé dele está só ao pé dele.

Alberto Caeiro, in “O Guardador de Rebanhos - Poema XX” Heterónimo de Fernando Pessoa

8

14 650 Km

15008 Photos

6 Cities19 Interviews35000 Words

16 Posts

Lisbon

GENOAmARSEILLE

fRANKfURTROTTERDAM

oSLohELSINKI

9

Foreword and Acknowledgments

This book is the result of a work developed along a research trip during the autumn of 2015. I am most grateful to the Übersee-Club for providing the opportunity to develop this research project framed in my PhD investigation that started in 2014.The texts here pre-sented are the transcription of the blog https://theportandthecity.wordpress.com/ where a regular contribution narrating the travel was made. The writing style is from the blogging world, therefore the language, the form and expressions are more informal than the usu-al scientific language. The last chapter of the book is the only scientific text present in the publication and it is a paper to be presented in the AESOP Young Academics Congress.

I would also like to thank the interviewees that conceded me the time and opportunity to meet them, giving me key insight about the relation between the port and the city in their town. Also an acknowledgement is required to all the researchers that have worked in this complex issue that is the relation between port and cities, I based my investigation in their previous findings, if they are not properly quoted in the different chapters of the book is due to the more agile writing required for online posts. As Bernard of Chartres once said “We are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their gi-ant size”. During the research trip I was able to participate in two congresses and other events related with urban planning and ports. In this venues the interaction with col-leagues brought other direct and indirect inputs that complete my work.

To be able to produce this work I counted with the priceless help, affection and patience of my life companion, Sílvia, who has been listening and supporting me, particularly along the almost 4 months this travel lasted. I would also like to thank my family for their support from the distance. Finally I want to acknowledge the role of my supervisor Prof. Dr. Dirk Shubert for his guidance and orientation.

The current publication is not the final step of the way, but another stepping stone in the long process a PhD investigation is. This book is not a request from the Übersee-Club but an academic exercise I most willingly do. Since I am not a professional writer, publisher or even researcher (yet) I humbly apologize for any mistakes this work might contain.

The complete research can be visited in:https://theportandthecity.wordpress.com/

10

Rui AlexandreMariana TeixeiraCarla MatosPedro Dinis

Vidar FiskumAnne Trine HoelStein Kolstø

Satu Aatra Rikhard Manninen

Isabelle VriesMartin AartsStijnie Lohof

Règine VinsonClaire HalleAlexandre Sorrentino

Stefano RussoPaola GianpietriAntonio PastorinoNicoletta Poleggi

19 Interviews

L i s b o nO S l OH e l s i n k iRotteRdamM a r s e i l l eG e n o a

11

The Journey - posted on 31/08/2015

Thanks to the Übersee-Club I will be able to make a trip around Europe visiting the diffe-rent port-cities that constitute my study cases. These cities are: Hamburg, Oslo, Helsinki, Rotterdam, Marseille, Genoa and Lisbon. The journey itself will start with on week in Portuguese capital, and then two weeks in each other city, except from Hamburg, since it is in Germany it could not be included in the official itinerary for the international trip.

The main goal of this travel is to be able to analyse the local realities and the relation between the city and the port in the different contexts. The selected study cases repre-sent an heterogeneous sample of port cities, they have different size and play different roles as ports and cities in the national and international stages. In some of these cities the industrial port still is a significant part of the urban tissue, as in Genoa or Hamburg, and in others the main cargo activities have been placed outside the city like in Helsinki or Oslo, where mainly sport, leisure and passenger port uses are still located in the city center, and most of the former port areas have been regenerated giving birth to signifi-cant urban waterfront regeneration projects.

During my visits to the different cities I will not only observe the reality of the place, but also get in contact with the different stakeholders involved in the process, mainly the Port Authorities and the Municipalities. As in any relationship it is crucial to communicated and to listen to both sides of the coin in order to get a real picture of what is happening. When the journey comes to an end in December, I hope I was able to identify the main elements that allowed these cities to improve the relation with the port.

The time is limited and the scope challenging. All the progress that I am able to do, all the interviews and personal opinions will be published in this blog. As I said before, this page will be the on board diary of this adventure!

13

Lisbon1st stop

38°42’50’’N 9°8’22’’WSeptember 1 - 8, 2015

The Journey will start with one week stay in Lisbon, my hometown. The Portuguese ca-pital used to be the main port of the country, but in recent years it has suffered several strikes and political conflicts that affected its performance and the trust of the companies operating in it. On the other hand in the last years we have also seen a considerable increase in the number of cruise passenger coming to Lisbon, 9% in the first semester of 2015. Another important information about Lisbon is the future expansion of the port in the south side of the river, in Barreiro. It seems the location of the new container ter-minal has been decided and in September they should say which company will do the environmental impact study and the initial project.

Lisbon, a difficult relation between the port and the city.The relation between city and port in Lisbon has not been so smooth as in other cities like Hamburg. Many inhabitants see the port as something standing between them and the river, impeding them from a more fluid relation with the Tagus. If we see the history of the city we can observe that, as it happened in many other port cities around the world, in the end of the XIXth and the beginning of the XXth centuries many important infrastructu-res were developed along the coastline, creating a barrier between the river and the city.

The discussion about the relationship between city and river has been long taking place. In the 1940 the first try to bring both together took place during the “Exposição do Mun-do Português”. In the western part of the city for the first time public areas by the water were created, and the first connection under the railway lines was made. After that in the

Act 1 - First stop: Lisbon

14

Future Barreiro TerminalSource: http://www.portodelisboa.pt/

Satellite view of LisbonSource: google earth

14

15

late 1980’s the issue was again a matter of great concern and we could see several initiatives that increased the public discus-sion. Particularly relevant was the compe-tition that took place in 1988, titled “Lisboa, a cidade e o Rio – Concurso de ideias para a renovação da zona ribeirinha de Lisboa”, organized by the Portuguese Architectural Association.

After the competition the waterfront issue started to be more present in the munici-pal agenda and in several master plan that came afterwards, some of them specifical-ly focused in the riverfront areas, like the POZOR from 1995, an initiative from the Port Authority. New public spaces by the river in the west part of the city, between Alcântara and Belém, were developed, fol-lowing the new plan.

Three years later the International EXPO 98 took place in the east part of town, re-generating an area that was partly a port brownfield and container handling termi-nal. This area, that comprehends 5 km of Lisbon’s waterfront and around 340 Ha, was supposed to act as a new attraction pole for the development of the city to-wards this direction.

Today we see that the area once occupied by the EXPO 98 is a new part of the city where a healthy relation with the river has been established but it has not worked as the development pole that it was supposed to. In fact very often the perception is that it has remained as an island of contem-porary architecture and new urbanization, but somehow segregated from the adja-cent neighborhoods without providing the expected attraction to the development

of the urban tissue from the city center to the east. One of the very few projects that actually started to be built was the hou-sing development signed by Renzo Piano, “Jardins de Braço de Prata” a project that started in 1999 from which we still can only see the concrete structure from one of the planned buildings.

Since the 1940’s the port of Lisbon has been freeing up several areas of the wa-terfront that were no longer suited for port activities and opening them for the city. At the same time is the leading partner of some of the most important projects that will happen in the river shore, like the new cruise terminal, a project from Portugue-se architect João Luis Carrilho da Graça. Other relevant projects on the waterfront are the “Jardins da Ribeira das Naus”, a garden by the river that links one of the main transport hubs with Lisbon’s main square, or the development of a new mu-seum sponsored by the electrical company EDP.

The plans for the future are also very ambi-

Exposição do Mundo PortuguêsSource: http://doportoenaoso.blogspot.de

16

tious. Besides the aforementioned terminal and museum, in the east part of town ano-ther important public area is planned, the eastern riverfront park. In the area adja-cent to Piano’s project and stretching until the Parque das Nações (former EXPO 98) enclosure.

As we said at the beginning of the post, the port of Lisbon has been losing market to its national and international competitors in cargo handling, mainly in the container sector. At the same time it has also been doing considerable efforts in order to im-prove the use of the available spaces to release the ones that are no longer appro-priate for port use. For this reason is the new container terminal also very relevant, since it could indicate if there will be any changes in the activities in the spaces in Lisbon’s riverfront perhaps to other uses more adequate for the coexistence with the city, or if we might see other areas being released for urban development and public space.

The evolution in the use of the riverfront has been very positive for the citizens, which, as said before, complained that

the port was cutting the relation with the river. What is not so clear is what actions is the port authority developing in order to improve its relation with the city and the way the inhabitants percieve it. It would be interesting to confirm if the Port Authority is pursuing any particular strategy regarding the use of soft-values for the interaction with the city. There are also interrogations regarding the impact of the cruise activity. This industry has experienced an impor-tant growth in recent years and is relevant for the sustainability of the city to have a course of action to deal with this particular form of mass tourism.

Lisbon constitutes the main study case of the research because there are significant changes taking place and because the re-lation between city and port can be signi-ficantly improved. We will try to discover what is the precise stage at the moment and what can be learned and adopted from other study cases.

EXPO 98 Construction site.Source: www.skyscrapercity.com

Next page Lisbon WaterfrontAuthor: José M P Sánchez

17

Act 2 - The Lisbon Experience

During the stay in Lisbon we got to know better the relation between the port and city and what both have been doing in or-der to improve it. We were able to meet with the responsible for this issue in the APL (Lisbon Port Authority), Arch. Rui Ale-xandre, who has been working in the or-ganization since the early 1990´s. In order to get a more impartial vision we tried to meet, without success, with a representa-tive from the Municipality. Since the final stop of the trip is also Lisbon we will try once again then.

Another interesting point was the visit to the accessible parts of the waterfront and the photographical survey of these spaces, mainly the ones that have an unclear futu-re or could be conflict points. A selection of these pictures is available in this gallery.Finally we also visited the museums that could contain information about the port

and its role in the city throughout time. Hence two mandatory visits were the City Museum and the Navy Museum.

In order to have an initial idea of the state of the port-city relation we consulted seve-ral APL documents. The main ones were the sustainability reports from the years 2007 and 2008. These are the most recent elementes that could be found, in them there is also a reference to the port plan for 2025. These reports contain relevant information regarding the main concerns and several important figures, such as the percentage of free accessible area for the citizens and the general public perception of the port.

Lessons learnedThe port and the citiesOne of the most important aspects that we have learned during the visit was that al-though called the “port of Lisbon” the port

18

territory actually limits 11 municipalities (Alcochete, Almada, Barreiro, Benavente, Lisboa, Loures, Moita, Montijo, Oeiras, Seixal e Vila Franca de Xira) distributed on both sides of the river. Such complex distri-bution makes every decision remarkably difficult when compared with cases where the port is placed or belongs to one single city. This complexity hindered the decision making process for the new container ter-minal. The port is a national asset and it is directly under national government control. However in this territory there are several authorities with decision making capacities regarding territorial planning. Besides the APL and the 11 municipalities, we also find the AML (Metropolitan Area of Lisbon) and the CCDR (Regional governments). In ad-dition to these different authorities we find also the environmental protection agency which is concerned about the possible consequences of large infrastructural de-velopments.

In the sustainability report of 2008 it was mentioned that 76% of the Tagus estua-ry waterfront (the area where the APL has jurisdiction) was accessible to the citizens, this value is the average from the 11 men-tioned cities. In Lisbon only 41% of the riverfront was accessible in 2007, but in 2008 there was another important area re-leased for the city in the east part of town, between the “Parque das Nações” and the Sta Apolonia Container Terminal. This area was supposed to be the new Oriental riverfront park, a new green area for the city. Although the APL released the terri-tory in this year, the design competition for the park was only held in 2015. A natio-nal Landscape architecture office won the competition, but in July it was cancelled due to several irregularities in the process.

The port and the waterfront of LisbonWhen we analyze the evolution of the port waterfront area we can see that there has

Lisbon WaterfrontAuthor: José M P Sánchez

19

been a clear change in the way it occupies the territory. From a more extensive territo-rial model that used a considerable part of the riverfront, to a port that works with se-veral cores along the river, freeing up the area between them for the city. As it was mentioned in previous posts, in the early 1990s the POZOR plan brought the first change in the waterfront since the 1940s. After that, in order to host the EXPO, more territory in the east part of town was rele-ased.

Nowadays we see that the heavy port acti-vities in the north side of the river are con-centrated mainly between Sta. Apolonia and Poço do Bispo, and between Santos and Alcântara. We define as heavy ac-tivities the container terminals, the silos, mixed cargo, shipyards and the current cruise terminals, which allow a reduced access to the water. Along the Tagus river we can also find several marinas, but sin-ce they do not required a significant space and do not constitute visual barrier for the city these could be considered soft acti-vities, without relevant consequences for Lisbon.

The APL has the power to decide which are the areas that are going to be given to the city and to establish the border line. It is also relevant to say that once one sector has been freed up it is relatively compli-cated to bring it back under port control. This could only happen if there was a cen-tral government decision and it involves a complex negotiation with the appropriate municipal authorities. For this reason the process of releasing waterfront areas is quite ponderous, since the port must be sure that in this territory there will be no more port activities and that it will not be needed for expansion or other uses. The dialogue with the municipality for the urban planning process is focused in the master-plan level (PDM). For example for access to the port, and for joint applications for EU funds for the development of important in-frastructure for both. For the nearer urban planning scale (Planos de Pormenor, Pla-nos de Urbanização), once the port has re-leased an area, the planning, management and maintenance is full responsibility of the municipality, the APL still remains with the jurisdiction of the water areas.

Regarding the areas the port occupies we found out that there are some zones that

Sta. Apolónia container terminalAuthor: José M P Sánchez

Docapesca in AlgésAuthor: José M P Sánchez

20

have a mixed management between the APL and the municipality. More specifically three of them: the Docapesca in Algés/Pe-droucos ,where the future “Marina do Tejo” should be built; the area in Santos, which the port has not released for the city yet because it must be decided if it would be necessary for future port activities -althou-gh it seems improvable-, and the future cruise terminal in Sta. Apolonia.

These joint managent areas have a com-mon characteristic and it is the fact that for several years we have not assisted to any kind of changes, although some of them might have pending projects. The area in Santos has several abandoned warehou-ses and urban voids that do not add any value to the city. This happens because they are not used for alternative activities as it happens to similar ones near Cais do Sodré, Sta Apolonia or Alcântara. In the Docapesca we have seen different events, like the Volvo Ocean Race, but when we visit it we encounter a fenced partly abandoned space with no porous relation between the river and the land.

We have seen there are available spaces for urban projects in the riverfront but the stand-by status is clearly affecting the way the people see the port, since there is a

more immediate mental connection of the-se areas with the port. Hence it creates a negative image and the perpetuation of the idea that the port is not allowing the access to the water.

The Cruise TerminalIn the previous paragraph we pointed out that the joint management areas are even more complex for the planning process, of-ten suffering delays in the implementation of the planned projects, this also happens in the new cruise terminal project. In this particular case the process is even more complicated since it implies a concession to a conglomerate of 5 companies, that will be responsible for the construction of the building. As pointed by Arch. Rui Alexan-dre, the construction of the terminal should start in short time, and the conclusion of the works is expected for the end of 2016. The main reason for the delay was the ne-gotiation for the concession of the terminal operation that was very complex. The APL had the commitment to guarantee a qua-lity service not just for the customers but also for the citizens. We can observe that in one of the main features of the terminal, the elevated public space that will allow a new view point over Lisbon, the river and the port. He also explained that the APL already made an initial investment, around

New Cruise Terminal Source: www.jlcg.pt

21

30 mill. €, in order to fulfill its obligations as landlord port, to give the concessionaries the base infrastructure for the construction of the terminal.

Image of the portThe port of Lisbon still holds a slightly ne-gative image among the inhabitants of the city. Although, as we have seen, there is a reasonable free area to get in contact with the water, the port is not valued as a friendly element in the waterfront. We have found very few specific actions focused on improving this relation, despite what was explained in the consulted documents.

We expect to meet with the responsible for public relations of the APL during the next stop in Lisbon, but from the authors point of view it would perhaps make sense that the person in charge for the port-city rela-tion could also have the duty of coordina-ting the physical and non-physical interac-tion. For this matter we have seen many initiatives, even in other Portuguese ports, that could be taken into action. As pointed out by several researchers the soft values are crucial for a healthy relation with the city, particularly in the ones with an active industrial port in the urban tissue.

Also it could be said that there is a certain lack of self-criticism, especially regarding

the negative externalities produced port territories that affect the life quality in near-by areas. The relation with the city should not only be managed by releasing wa-terfront areas for the citizens to use, but also by acting in the social image of the port, otherwise there will be a constant pressure over the port authorities to free more waterfront territories.

New Barreiro TerminalOne of the main issues for the future of the port and the cities in the region is the new container terminal. When we asked Arch. Rui Alexandre whether this expan-sion project meant new free areas in the waterfront of Lisbon the answer was very clear, the new terminal is necessary for the expected growth of the port traffic in future decades, therefore the existing terminals in the north side of the river should remain under port control.

The new terminal indicates that the port will continue in the Tagus estuary, althou-gh it will not grow much more in Lisbon. The project has several advantages, as it was pointed out during the interview. It has the full support of all the concerned autho-rities, it will be built in an existing brown-field, therefore reducing the environmental impact of it, and the connections to the

Site for the new container Terminal in BarreiroSource: www.quimiparque.8k.com

22

main railway network are easier than in the other considered alternative, Trafaria.

Good news from the portFrom the port side there are two main news that could imply a significant improvement for the port-city relation. In the first place there is a project for the creation of a do-cumentation center for the port that should be built in the Alcântara Maritime terminal. This building nowadays is undergoing a renovation program. The facility will gain much attention in the near future since it will be also the headquarters of the APL, making it the most representative place of the port.

The other relevant news is the approach for the new container terminal. As it was mentioned before, this new project is cru-cial for the future of the port and it will be used to implement a new way of planning this infrastructure. The APL is in contact with the Portuguese Architectural Asso-ciation in order to prepare a competition for new urban concepts for the port and city areas. The main goal is to have a real multidisciplinary approach to the project, in order to improve not only the efficiency of this sort of facility, but also to plan in order to create a better image from the outside, from the neighbors and from the other side of the river.

The city and the portDuring the visit we were able to realize that Lisbon might have a strong maritime iden-tity, but it has not invested in its port iden-tity. The visited museum did not have so much information about the port, its history or the present. This issue is very relevant since the efforts for the coexistence of both realities in the urban tissue must be done by both. We could understand that the city might be reticent to invest in the cultural diffusion of the image of the port since it is an independent organism pending only from the central government, but its role in the evolution of Lisbon is very clear. This problem might be solved by the new docu-mentation center project, if its prepared to be accessible to the general public, not just for researchers.

In the last two decades we have seen an increasing interest of the city to reach the river. This interest has been translated in different waterfront regeneration projects that were relatively successful, from the EXPO to the most recent ones, the “Ribei-ra das Naus”. Besides these good exam-ples there are others that did not really improved the relation with the river. We could observe that in other parts of the waterfronts there are areas controlled by

Navy Museum: Very complete collection of boats, but very little information about the port

Author: José M P Sánchez

23

Public space between Alcantara and Belém, created with the POZOR plan. It is very used by the citizen,but should the complete waterfront be only public space?


the municipality that have not been tran-sformed to the noble use of giving a quality public space by the river to its citizens. For example in the east part of town, in the limit of the Parque das Nações interventions, what we find nowadays is a car dealer and a mechanical workshop, with the cars parked directly by the riverside. There are other examples of deficient maintenance in waterfront public spaces controlled by the municipality, like the areas around Belém fluvial station, where we can see caravans parked, or nearby in the parque das missas where we can find damaged pavement. It is contradictory to insist in the importance of the waterfront for the city and then not taking proper care of it.

The fact that we find several public spaces like the mentioned before raises other re-levant point for the waterfront masterplan: is it reasonable to leave the waterfront just for public space or is it better to allow the urban tissue to arrive near the river? We will try to discuss this important question and the vision of the city for the waterfront it in the next visit to the city.

ConclusionFor what we were able to see the port-city relation in Lisbon has improved along time. One of the main upgrades is the fact that nowadays there is a multiplicity of locations where one can reach the river. What for many years constituted a major issue for

24

the citizens. In this aspect we have obser-ved progresses from the city and the port. On one side, the port has released several areas, while the municipality has develop them into public spaces of high quality.

The main existing issue could be consi-dered to be the public image of the port and the strategy to communicate with the citizens. The port has to make an effort to be recognized by the inhabitants as the important identity element that is. The city and the port should work together to im-prove the regeneration process, since the opportunities are greater than the threats. If the public sees that the process takes too long the disbelieve will be installed in the general mindset therefore insisting in a negative image of the port.

During the research trip we will visit seve-ral cities that have innovative strategies for the issues here presented. We will find which ones could be implemented in Lisbon, and how the new projects could bring the relation to the balanced coexi-stence model required.

25

LIsbonAuthor: José M P Sánchez

26

Act 3 - Photo essay

37

Oslo2nd stop

59°57’N 10°45’E September 9 - 25, 2015

Act 1 - Heading North: Oslo

The city of Oslo

Oslo is the capital of Norway, also the biggest urban agglomeration and the biggest port. Internationally is well known for its life quality and for being one of the most expensive ci-ties in the world. Although is not one of the main international finance or commerce cen-ters it plays a leading role in the Norwegian economy and in the regional development.

The city has a population of around 600 000 inhabitants and the metropolitan area of near one million. In the last decades is has experienced a constant population grow, becoming one of the most attractive cities for the emigrants, particularly since 2008 when the international finance crisis began.

Oslo was established around 1000 years ago, by the king Harald III. Three hundred ye-ars later was pronounced capital city, but shortly after would lose this status because of the union with Denmark, when the capital was Copenhagen.

In 1624 a great fire took place, destroying a reasonable part of the urban tissue that was mostly built out of wood. The King Christian IV would refound the city near the Akershus fortress to the west of the old medieval core. The new city was built following a rational organization of the streets, and an orthogonal urban structure that we still see today. After the city was rebuilt it changed its name to Christiania, to honor the king; later on it would evolve to Kristiania. Only in 1814 would recover its capital city status, when the

38

union with Denmark ended and was un-der the influence of the Swedish kingdom. In 1925 the city would recover its original name, Oslo, as we know it today.

The port of OsloThe port has been an important element of the city since it started to play a relevant role in international commerce, especially for wood and ship building, in the XVIIIth century. The Norwegian economy is dee-ply connected with the sea, in this country we find several shipping companies that together control 7% of the global fleet. Also in the cruise market is a world player, not just as destination, but also because one of the leading companies, Royal Caribbe-an, was created in Norway.

Nowadays the Oslo port now longer hosts major shipyards and the main activity is the container handling and passengers tran-sportation. Last year the port handled 5,7 mill tons and 6 mill travellers.

Since the 1970´s we have assisted to an evolution in the port territory, from being

organized along the waterfront to been centralized in the Sydhavna new Terminal, a change that was part of the Fjord City plan.

The port is expected to play a key role in the future development of the country and the region since the central government, in the same direction that the UE, has esta-blished the intention of potentiating the sea transport over the road, in order to reduce the environmental impact.

Waterfront EvolutionAker BryggeThe first waterfront regeneration project in Oslo took place in the Aker Brygge, an old shipyard near the city hall. The area used to be known for the Aker Mekaniske Verk-sted AS, a private shipyard founded in mid XIXth Century and for decades was one of the main industrial complexes in Oslo´s waterfront.

The naval industry was very strong in Norway, particularly in Oslo. During the

View of OsloSource: http://www.ohf.no/

39

first half of the XXth Century the industry evolved from cargo ships to oil platforms, at the same time that Norway began to exploit its oil resources. During the 1970´s the crisis caused by international competi-tion hit the sector and the Aker Company decided to shut down the shipyards in Aker Brygge.

In 1982 the industries officially were closed and an international urban planning com-petition was held for the waterfront revita-lization project. This competition, won by Niels Torp, included a vision for the enti-re waterfront but into more detail the area to be developed most immediately. The project was built during the following de-cade, and in the mid 1990´s the city had won a new access to the waterfront. The program of the plan was mixed use, since it included office space, shopping areas, housing units and a recreational marina. This new part of the city has been totally integrated in the urban daily life and last year was visited by 12 million persons.

Oslo’s new cargo port SydhavnaSource: http://www.oslohavn.no

Fjord City projectAfter the Aker Brygge project we can see a time gap in which Oslo´s waterfront re-main unaltered until 2008 when the Fjord City plan was approved by the municipal council. This new waterfront master plan was based in some of the concepts seen in the Aker Brygge competition, particularly the idea of understanding the waterfront as whole, and acknowledging its impor-tance for the city. As it happens in other waterfront regeneration projects, the Fjord City plan had a triggering element for its initial motivation. In this case it was a na-tional survey regarding the living standards in Norway. This research concluded that the people with the worst conditions were right in the center of the capital, where the city was first founded. After this shocking discovery the central government gran-ted funds for restarting the regeneration plans for Bjørvika in the east part of the waterfront. Eventually the City was forced to make a strategic decision regarding its waterfront. In the year 2000 the city council reached the decision that the better option for the future of the city was to choose for “Fjord city alternative”, in opposition to the “Port City option”. This game changing de-cision did not meant that the port would be fully expelled far outside the city, but con-centrated gradually in the Sydhavna penin-sula, in the outskirts of the urban core.

One of the key decision was the creation of a tunnel for the burial of the E18 highway, which would allow a direct contact with the waterfront in the area where one of the landmark buildings has been developed, the Oslo Opera.

The plan should be developed until 2030, and includes several city areas, two mill.

40

Square meters, 9000 housing units and 45 000 workplaces. The project is divided into three main sections and different several subsections. Each area has specific cha-racteristics regarding construction heights, density and materiality, but is clear the fo-cus putted in new cultural landmarks, and mixed use. Besides the new Opera other major facilities have been built, like the Astrup Fearnly Museum of Modern Art, or will be in the near future, like the Munch Museum, the National Gallery and the Deichman Library.

Fjord City is so far moving at good speed, and until the moment we can see signifi-cant evolution in all sections. The port is already functioning in Sydhavna, the Bar Code project in Bjørvika is almost conclu-ded, other subsections in this area are also under development, Tjuvholmen, the con-tinuation of Aker Brygge, is also done and already part of the city activities, and finally the Sørenga Pier is well under way in its transformation into a new living area.

In the future we shall see the development of the Filipstad area, one of the major in-terventions, where we still find different active industries and warehouses. Also

Aker BryggeAuthor: José M P Sánchez

during the next decades the final stages of the Bjørvika area will be built, including the Munch Museum and several housing buil-dings. Between Bjørvika and Aker Bryg-ge, in Vippetangen we will see also several changes. Finally furthermore we will assist to the conclusion of the plan towards the south, in the direction of the new terminal, a very important part, since is where the new urban development will contact the industrial port.

The Fjord City project will be analyzed into greater detail in the next post. We will be able to meet with Mr. Stein Kølsto who was in charge of the Fjord city plan in the mu-nicipal planning authority and Ms. Kathrin Pedersen, from the Oslo Port Authority, who is leading the department of urban de-velopment. In the next post we shall see how is the relation between the port and the city, and the negotiation process de-veloped in order to meet this compromise that turned out to be beneficiary for both, the port and the city.

View of OsloSource: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/

Next page Oslo WaterfrontAuthor: José M P Sánchez

41

Act 2 - The Oslo Experience

During the time spent in the Norwegian ca-pital we were able to get in contact with the reality of this port city and to notice how it has been handling the transition process from a Port-city to a Fjord-City, as they themselves describe it.

For the purpose of this research we got in contact with some of the stakeholders in the port-city relation and in the waterfront regeneration operation. More specifically we were able to meet with Mr. Stein Kol-sto (SK), from the city urban planning de-partment, who was in charge for the de-velopment of the Fjordcity plan. We also met with Landscape architect Ms. Anne trine Hoel and urban planner Mr. Vidar Aa. Fiskum from the Port Authority (PA), both of them work in the urban development department run by Ms. Kathrin Peder-sen. The meetings gave us a balanced perspective over the struggles that have

happened during the long process and complex negotiations that has implied the ongoing transformation in Oslo waterfront.

The stay in Oslo also allowed a photo-graphic survey of the implied areas of the aforementioned process and the new port terminal in Sydhavna. The view behind the camera gave a new perspective and en-hanced some details that we could have missed. Several moments have been cap-tured where we can see the essence of the transition, the risks and the possibilities that lie ahead. This work shows the sen-sibility it has been developed towards the water and the transitional areas between port and city.

Following the same process like in Lisbon, we visited the cultural institutions that could contain information about the harbor, its history and the role that plays in city. The

42

visited institutions were the Oslo Museum where the history of the city is explained, and the Maritime Museum where one can better understand the intense relation that this country holds with the sea.

The relation between the port and the cityInstitutional levelWhen we met with the stakeholders they all agree that the relation between the port and the city in terms of the different planning agencies is relatively tense. They both comply that there is lack of understan-ding between them and that every chan-ge implies a very intense negotiation. The PA mentioned there is the misconception that the port has considerable financial re-sources due to the revenues of sold land in recent years. This common belief does not consider the large expenses that im-plies building the new terminal. On the other hand the urban planning agency regrets the lack of flexibility from the PA and absence of sensibility to some urban issues. This conflict is common in cases where different authorities with territorial management capabilities have to work to-gether. It is always difficult to understand the problems of the other side, but is ne-

cessary to reach an agreement in order to proceed with the urban and port improve-ments.

The relation has evolved and went throu-gh different stages. It was explained by SK that between 1982 and 2008 were the most difficult years, since it was when the main negotiation regarding the Fjordcity plan and reorganization of the waterfront took place.

In the particular context of Oslo we must understand what degree of independence and influence the PA has. As indicated by SK, until 1984 the PA was directly depen-dent from the central government, after this year they moved under the “municipal umbrella”, but with certain particularities. The PA is the owner of the land which oc-cupies and the economic benefits from the port activities remain in the port economy, therefore the economic resources genera-ted should be used for port development. Regarding its government, the port has a board where representatives from the different levels of power are present, in-cluding from the municipality. The issues there discussed would be later taken to the municipal parliament, although, as mentio-ned by SK, once the initiative is approved

Bjørvika before the Fjordcity plan Source: http://www.publicspace.org/

New Sydhavna terminalAuthor: José M P Sánchez

43

in the port board is usually approved by the parliament.

Emotional levelWe could conclude that the inhabitants from Oslo do not feel the port as an impor-tant symbol for the urban identity. When in the year 2000 the parliament choose the Fjord-city strategy over the Port-city it was clear which element played a greater role in the citizens mindset. There are seve-ral explanation to this characteristic. The Norwegian people love the contact with the nature and the landscape, therefore is more or less logic that they would rather be related with natural concept like the Fjord, rather than with the human-made landsca-pe that the port implies. Also, as pointed out by SK, during several decades the port community in Oslo was not so socially acti-ve as in other Norwegian cities, where they would voluntarily cooperate with the town in order to provide necessary facilities for the inhabitants. The PA also indicated that the people do not acknowledge the impor-tance of the port in every-day life. The citi-zens ignore how the goods they consume get to the shops or their houses, so they do not see the meaning of the port or why the city needs one.

Legal frame aspects of the Fjordcity planIn order to fully understand how the Fjordcity plan works we asked the inter-viewees about the contracts, with its con-ditions, and the companies that develop the process.

Daughter companiesThe technicians from the PA explained us that the port had different strategies re-garding the land selling and management process. This strategy depends of several factors: the dimensions of the area, how many landlords are there, the complexity of the zoning and the presence of port ac-tivities. For example in Bjørvika, they crea-ted a daughter company in order to mana-ge the process and reduce the risk for the PA, in this case the company is name HAV Eiendom. They operated in this mode be-cause it was a large complex part of the waterfront, with several landlords and the-re would not be any more port activities.

In Tjuvholmen we could see a different sce-nario. The land to sell was not that large, with relatively simple zoning, the PA was the single landowner, and there would be no port activities in the future. In this case they sold the land directly to the developer, who granted the construction of the new area according to the municipality concept.

In the areas of Filipstad and Vippetangen is not yet clear which strategy will be fol-lowed. The main concern here is the fact there will be port activities in the future. We will know better once the plans are defined and approved by municipal council.Types of contractIn the Fjordcity plan the municipal autho-

Tjuvholmen Author: José M P Sánchez

44

rities have two different roles pending of what type of contract is made. If a “deve-lopment contract” is made with future de-velopers the municipality will appear as urban planning authority and is allowed by law to negotiate certain demands to allow the rezoning. The infrastructures are fully done by the developers and later transfer-red to the municipality. These demands increase the price per square meter and are decided based on the built surface in order to ensure a reasonable investment in the public facilities for the new areas, as are roads, schools, green areas, etc. This type of contract is used in the larger deve-lopments like Bjørvika.

Other possible option is the “sales con-

tract”. This sort of contract is used in the smaller development. In it the municipa-lity appears as land owner. Since it is a stronger position it allows them to make more demands in the negotiations. The infrastructures are built by the landowner and also managed after they are conclu-ded. In this point it is crucial the negotiation for granting public access to open areas. We could see this type of contract in the Tjuvholmen development.

Fjordcity – the HavnepromenadeOne of the most remarkable features of the Fjordcity project is the Havnepromenade. The idea of considering the waterfront as one single entity comes all the way back from the Aker Brygge architectural compe-

Havnepromenade infopointsAuthor: José M P Sánchez

45

tition. This concept has been translated to reality through the creation of a promena-de along the entire waterfront, giving a cer-tain unity to the path that extends almost 10 km, crossing areas with very different identities, from marinas, to silos and cra-nes, to the new Opera. The change in the way how citizens can now enjoy the wa-terfront is significant. The fact that several roads that used to form a barrier between the water and the city are now longer there was an important change. Nowadays we can find new activities in the Oslo fjord, like for example, the new urban beach areas.

The path along the waterfront is identifia-ble thanks to the intervention by the ar-chitects MMW, that developed an urban design strategy, with signs, benches and a set of 14 “infopoints”. In these special points we can find information about the place we are visiting and what part of port used to be there, what activities and how it evolved. The “infopoints” was a project de-veloped jointly by the municipal and road authorities, with a collaboration of the PA for the location and the texts explaining the history of the port. An interesting cha-racteristic is the illustrations from the comic book “Krüger & Krogh” from the authors

Bjarte Agdestein, Ronald Kabicek og En-dre Skandfer, a story that takes place in the port of Oslo in the 1960s. In the illustra-tion we can see the different areas of the port when the shipyards were still working.

Fjordcity yet to comeFilipstadThe area of Filipstad is placed in western part of the waterfront, where we can still find today some industries and warehou-ses. This is the largest area in the Fjordcity plan and one of the latest to be developed. For this part the intention is to continue the development of Tjuvholmen and Aker Brygge, therefore a mixed-use program with commerce, offices and housing for 5000 persons. It will also include important infrastructure like the new ferry terminal, replacing the existing one.

Although the concept seems clear this area still has no approved masterplan. There have been several points discussed for a long period, like the creation of tunnel for the highway, similar to the one in Bjør-vika, that would allow a more fluid relation with the water, but implies an important in-vestment and so far, as pointed out by the PA, is not clear who should be responsible for it. Another conflict point could be the railway areas north of the highway, which are included in the general masterplan as one part to be included in this development. The discussion between all the concerned authorities has been going on since mid-2005, and as indicated by SK, the final version of the Masterplan might have been achieved but it must be approved by the municipal council. Just this weekend were the municipal elections, with a change in the government, therefore we will have to

Filipstad nowadaysAuthor: José M P Sánchez

46

wait until the new government has studied the plan proposal and is able to give the definitive approval.

VippetangenThis part of the city is right in the center of the waterfront, between Bjørvika and Aker Brygge, in a very special location, in front of the Akerhus fortress, around which the city was rebuild. Nowadays we find in this area some of the remaining port atmo-sphere the waterfront once had. There is one functioning silo that could remain as landmark for the future, the cruise termi-nal, the PA headquarters, the fish market and the ferry terminal. As said before this is a central part of the waterfront, therefore also of the Fjordcity plan. For this reason it should suffer several changes in the near future, although the planning strategies are still open.

The intention of the municipality is to de-velop another public attraction, probably a cultural facility like an aquarium. As poin-ted out this is a very particular area, since is one of the few port working places whe-re we can still see some port activity. For this reason the port is particularly concern about what could happen here.

One of the main discussions is the cruise terminal, as it happens in many other ci-ties. The municipal planning and the heri-tage authorities are not satisfied with the current location of this infrastructure and would like to have it placed somewhere else. The visual impact of large ships next to the Akerhus fortress is obvious although their presence is temporary. On the other hand it is a very convenient location for the cruise companies since is placed near the

main tourist attraction and issue we should not forget the economic impact this indu-stry has for the city. The considered al-ternative for the cruise terminal would be placing it in Filipstad. The PA explained that in 2010 a survey was made to help the discussion regarding the best place for this facility. So far the decision has not been made yet, and probably with a new muni-cipal government it could take more time than expected.

The ferry terminals are another “hot to-pic” for this area, as it is for the entire wa-terfront. It has been decided that there will be two different terminals, following the in-tentions of the port of having two terminals for the two main destinations (Germany and Denmark). On the other hand is not so clear the financing of the new facilities. The PA insists on finding a self-financing solution, following the general concept of the Fjordcity plan. This solution would im-ply that the company responsible for the construction and operation of the terminal should have another parallel related busi-ness, for example a hotel. The municipality, as it was told by the PA, believes that the port has enough resources for developing the terminal by themselves, without tying

Oslo Marathon between containersAuthor: José M P Sánchez

47

the project with another private investment that could limit the public use of the area. This is a complex issue since through the-se infrastructures a significant percentage of the port cargo arrives to Oslo, therefore is not just a matter of passengers but also a logistic planning issue.

When we visited Vippetangen we could see that the feeling is very different from other parts of the waterfront. This particu-lar area is crucial for the waterfront since it brings a certain diversity to the plan and allows a different kind of activities, like fi-shing. The PA has insisted in keeping this area with the original identity to show the people the port milieu. In order to reach these goals they have improved the urban design with especial attention to details.

This complex place is one of the most inte-resting areas in the future of Fjordcity and its solution will require further negotiation and a special sensibility towards the exi-sting Genius Loci. Recently, an architectu-ral competition for this area was made. As far as we know there is still no outcome, but it reveals that there is an ongoing de-bate about it. There are key decisions to be made that will determine the future of the area, like the cruise terminal and the fer-ry terminal. For all these reasons is worth paying attention to what could happen sin-ce it could be another good example of wa-terfront intervention.

Image of the portThe port in Oslo, as said before, is not seen as a key identity element for the city. Over the past years the PA has been deve-loping a public relation strategy that could help the people to relate with the port.

Once a year the port hosts an open doors day when the people can go to the port and get to know better how it works. This is one of the main strategies pointed out in the “ESPO code of Practice on societal In-tegration of Ports”. Is an event that we see in many other ports and helps to trigger the curiosity of the local inhabitants on how a port in the XXIst century works.

In the city we have seen other elements that also help to explain the port. The afo-rementioned MMV project explains the history of the port in a friendly way, parti-cularly for youngsters. In other level, in the Maritime Museum we also find a part of the exhibition dedicated to explain the port with several interactive tools.

Another event that we could witness during the time spent in Oslo was the city´s ma-rathon. For this sport venue the port also participated by allowing the race to cross a small container area placed south from Bjørvika, where in the future the Fjordcity plan will conclude and the boarder with the port Area will be placed.

The PA has developed different studies and guidelines worth mentioning. Particu-

Sørenga developmentAuthor: José M P Sánchez

48

larly important are the ones related with the port industrial heritage and the aesthetic guidelines. Regarding the heritage issue the port did an important study of the exi-sting old cranes and their characteristics. Unfortunately this study did not persuaded the PA to keep the cranes and use them as identity elements that could potentiate the image of the port among the citizens.

The new aesthetic guidelines for the port terminals is an important initiative to en-sure a better coexistence between the port and the city. It is very relevant since it could help to improve how the port termi-nals are seen from the outside, but also for the working environment for the staff. The-se guidelines should develop a coopera-tion with professionals from different fields that until now were not the usual collabo-rators from the PA´s. For example there could be cooperation with artists, in order to improve the image by using certain color combinations or lighting schemes. During the meeting with the PA it was mentioned that there was the intention to recover the aesthetic quality of industrial buildings and areas, as we could see in infrastructures from the XIXth and early XXth centuries. In order to reach this goal they had star-ted to collaborate more often with archi-tects instead of leaving the responsibility to industrial engineers who could lack the aesthetic sensibility to make the wanted improvements.

Finally, the PA is collaborating with the daughter companies and municipalities to develop the buffer areas that will constitute a transition between urban and port areas. This is probably one of the last points to be developed from the Fjordcity plan, but

is crucial in order to allow the coexisten-ce. For this issue they have been working with different alternatives, modifying the initial masterplan, building densities and programs to deal with acoustic pollution issues that might come once the project is finished.

Personal opinionThe time spent in Oslo was very useful to get in contact with the Scandinavian reali-ty. In southern countries we have very of-ten an idealized vision from northern cities and, as we have seen, the port-city relation is always complicated, independently from the context. What we could observe is that in the case of Oslo the authorities were able to go beyond the particular interests of each institution and, through an intense negotiation, they were able to find a win-win solution. The Fjordcity plan implies a complex urban transformation with several powerful stakeholders. The process al-lowed them to improve the urban quality, giving a waterfront for the city and at the same time improve the port facilities and make them more efficient. One of the most remarkable features of the whole process was that the port and the city were able to

The three remaining cranes in FilipstadAuthor: José M P Sánchez

49

do it using a self-financing scheme without major public investment, except from the initial expenditure in the Bjørvika highway tunnel paid by the central authorities.

This case is a good example in terms of ef-ficient application of the private investment to get a general benefit for the city. Althou-gh it is a slow process due to its comple-xity, and that for some politicians it should have been done already, we could see that it was possible to get very positive results.

When we see the whole process is obvious that since is fully market led there might be a risk of a real estate bubble. Also is very exposed to the evolution of the private in-vestment flow, which is also connected to the national and international economy. This fact can be determinant if we consi-der that Norway is relatively exposed to the evolution of the oil prices. In case the oil prices diminishes it could lead to a de-crease in the private investment and slow down the waterfront regeneration process. It is important to notice that the plan has a certain flexibility since the port areas to regenerate also have working industries, with contracts that will end in the next ye-ars and/or with new short-term contract that could also be extended if necessary. This flexibility ensures a constant activity in the waterfront and prevents the creation of urban voids without value for the city or the port, that later could degrade, damaging the image of the city and the port.

In the argument regarding the ferry termi-nals, we would think that for the city could be a major advantage to have a single infrastructure since, as mention by SK in the interview, the impact in the traffic and

the environment could be reduced and better managed in one single facility. We understand that in terms of maritime ma-nagement it might be easier if we can di-vide the traffic in two terminals, especially if we already have the majority of the in-frastructure built. Since the discussion was already settled, the city will have to find the better solution for coping with this issue.

The cruise ship industry is one of the main challenges for port cities worldwide. It is very difficult to manage the arrival of thou-sands of passengers to the city in a very short time and also the visual impact of the cruise ships. However, the economic gains that this industry brings to the city is impor-tant and the location of the terminal is cru-cial for the success as cruise destination. Also if Oslo is a maritime city the presence of ships is inevitable. The visual impact they produce is difficult to palliate, in best case scenario, an agreement regarding the ship berth calendar could be achieved as so an specific monument impact tax could be developed to make the industry itself responsible for the maintenance of the monument that they might be affecting.

In general terms, as we have seen, is a very positive intervention. We could find few aspects to criticize, but for example, the fact that from almost 50 cranes we only see 3 nowadays it could be interpreted as a missed opportunity for a better identifica-tion between the citizens and its port. The remaining cranes could have been kept as port industrial heritage elements in order to establish them as a memory of the port in the waterfront. This could later on be deve-loped as a “port heritage enhancing plan” in order to provide the right context for

50

these cultural elements, including specific landscape architecture and urban design interventions.

The social integration of the project could perhaps be also criticized, if we consider that one of the main triggering factors was a study where it was explained that the people with the worst living conditions lived in the center of Oslo. If we analyze this issue in detail one could say that the living conditions for these people, since the study was made in the 1980´s, have im-proved significantly. However the general feeling when walking around Oslo’s new waterfront is that is strongly gentrified. On the other hand, when we see the process as a whole, we understand that this is a “necessary evil”. Building in the waterfront in general terms is expensive when com-pared with solid ground. Besides this is-

sue, we must not forget that the sold land and built neighborhoods carry in the price the investment made in the new port ter-minals and public facilities. When we look at the overall process we could say that the main social gain is the fact that now all the city´s inhabitants can access the wa-terfront and get a better contact and view with the Fjord.

We could learn many things from the Fjordcity plan and the Oslo experience, among them the constant negotiation pro-cess with positive outcomes, the ability to balance the public and private interests, the urban strategies from the port, or the fact that the stakeholders and architectu-re offices were able to give the waterfront a certain unity and coherence allowing at the same time a diversity that enriches the whole waterfront promenade experience.

51

Radhuset area with Aker Brygge and Tjuvholmen in the backAuthor: José M P Sánchez

Oslo is an important case for the investi-gation and a positive example for Lisbon. The participant stakeholders were able to answer to the challenges posed by the process and improve the port and the city. Oslo does not have the same intensity in the port-city relation, since most of the heavy port activities are outside the main urban core, but they have accomplished a positive transition process and are in the way for a balanced coexistence model.

52

Act 3 - Photo essay

61

Helsinki3rd stop

59°57’N 10°45’E September 25 - October 9, 2015

Act 1 - The daughter of the Baltic Sea: Helsinki

Helsinki, Port City, capital CityHelsinki, the capital of Finland, is a city with over 600 000 inhabitants and approx. 1,4 mill in the metropolitan area. These are relevant numbers if we consider that the overall population of Finland is 5.5 million persons. Also the Helsinki metropolitan area is re-sponsible of approx. one third of the country´s GDP.

The city is placed in the shore of the Finland Gulf, a region that also includes other impor-tant cities like St. Petersburg and Tallinn, with which Helsinki has historical bounds. Geo-graphically is a very complex area, as we can see in the images, the city has around 300 islands of different sizes and almost 130 km of waterfront. This context has conditioned the urban settlement and it is an important challenge in terms of city and port planning.

Finland’s capital is a relatively young city when compare to others. It was founded in 1550 slightly northern than its present location, in the shores of the parish of Helsinge, by King Gustavus I Vasa, from Sweden. The goal was to create a merchant port city to rival with Tallinn on the other side of the Gulf of Finland. Later on, in 1640, the city was moved to its current location, from where the sea was more accessible.

Helsinki and Finland have spent most of its history under control of foreign kingdoms or empires. Until 1808 was integrated in the Swedish Kingdom as an important city for commerce and strategic reasons, but not as a Capital. During this period the city suffered

62

several important fires and invasions by fo-reign troops, mainly the Russians. In 1808, after another Russian invasion, it passed to the hands of the emperor Alexander I. From that moment it gained the status of capital city of the Grand Duchy of Finland. During this time the city grew and gained several institutions that would express its capital city role, like the university, the theatre or the senate. The urban plan was drawn by J.A. Ehrenström, and C.L.Engel was appointed architect for the construc-tion of the city.

During the Russian domination Helsinki established itself as capital city and de-veloped an important cultural life. At the same time it gained a multicultural profile and even tourism started to flourish with the neighbor city of St. Petersburg.

In the first World War Helsinki was an im-portant naval base, particularly the fortress of Suomenlinna, an important landmark in Helsinki´s shore that has played a relevant role in its history. During the last phase of World War I, in 1917, and in a tense social atmosphere, Finland´s Parliament appro-

ved the declaration of independence and Helsinki was the capital of the new repu-blic.

Right after Finland became an indepen-dent country the civil war took place, with two sides named the whites (conservati-ves) and the reds (pro-bolchevikes). The first ones won the war with the help of the Germans. Over the last century Finland has kept a complicated relation with the Russian neighbor causing different con-flicts. During World War II Helsinki suffe-red several bombings but less than other Europeans cities during the same conflict. This allowed the city to recover relatively fast and to keep most of its relevant buil-dings intact.

The last half of the XXst century was a growing period for Helsinki, during which its population surpassed the half-million mark and the city grew significantly. This expansion took place mainly in the outskirts encouraged by the massive pre-sence of automobiles. Later on this car dependence would become a problem the city tries overcome.

In recent times one of the major changes that we have seen in Helsinki was the re-location of the main industrial port facilities to the new harbor of Vuosaari. This change allowed several significant urban projects destined to change the future of the city. It is expected a significant increase of the number of inhabitants, some sources indi-cate from 200 000 to 250 000 until 2050.

The port of HelsinkiIn the case of the Finnish capital the port is the raison d’être of the city. Since always it has been one of the main gateways for the

Map of Helsinki, 1837Source: Wikimedia.org

63

import and export of cargo of the country. Nowadays is a crucial infrastructure for tra-de and passenger traffic. In a recent study about the economic impact of the port in the country and region´s economy it was explained that in terms of GDP it has an impact of 1% in the country, 2,7% in the region and 4,8% in the city.

The importance of the port is also clear in terms of employment. In the mentioned study is said that the port employs 24 000 people, we guess that is including direct and indirect jobs but is not explained. This number means 7,6% of Helsinki´s workfor-ce and 1% of the entire country.

Regarding the distribution of the impact in the GDP of the different activities we see that clearly the cargo traffic is responsible for the 77% of this effect in the economy, and passenger traffic for 23%. However, in the same study we can see that this di-stribution is not the same in jobs. In this case the passenger traffic is responsible for 44% of the generated jobs and cargo traffic for 56%.

Besides the obvious economic importan-ce of the port, it is also one of the main identity elements in the urban landscape, particularly in the waterfront. Although the industrial port is no longer present in the city, since it moved to Vuosaari in 2008, the passenger and cargo ferry traffic has an important presence, that somehow creates a dynamic skyline. This sector is responsible for the majority of the almost 11 million passengers that pass through the port every year. Also between 25 and 30% of the Port comes in the ferries. This intense traffic is focused mainly in three

Source: Port of Helsinki

Satellite view of HelsinkiSource: http://www.geo-airbusds.com/

64

destinations: Tallinn, Stockholm and St. Petersburg. In the first case, due to the short distance between both cities (80km), is even a commuters service, serving peo-ple that live in Tallinn and come to Helsinki for professional reasons.

The port before 2008 it used to be in se-veral locations along the urban waterfront. Besides the territory where ferry terminal are, the port used to take also the areas of Jätkäasaari in the west harbor and Som-pasaari in Kalasatama in the east part of the city. Several decades ago the port had even more territories, specifically the Ka-tajanokka island. At the present time, and after the main industrial port areas moved to Vuosaari, the port has reduced its pre-sence in the city to the passenger termi-nals, the cargo handling associated with them and the remaining shipyards in the west harbour.

The waterfrontWe have seen that the presence of the port in the city has been considerably re-duced in last decade. But the changes in the waterfront started long before that. In the article written by Kyösti Oasmaa we can read that already in the 1970´s and 1980´s the first waterfront regeneration project already took place in Merihaka and Katajanokka. Later on from the 1980´s un-til early 2000´s also in Ruoholahti we could see another port territory be reconverted. It is clear though that the major change is taking place now, a process that started in 2008 and will continue during the next decades.

Since the industrial port moved out of the city several simultaneous operation have

been taking place. In West Harbour we can identify different projects happening right now. Jätkäsaari is the main one in terms of size, but there are others, like Hernesaari, Salmisaari and Telakkaranta. All this new areas will be transformed into a mixed use neighborhood and it will join the Einraran-ta project, already finished, to form a new urban area by the waterfront. The figures of the West Harbour development are re-markable, all together the transformation will affect an area of 200 Ha, creating hou-sing for 30 000 new residents and 20 000 workplaces.

On the east part of the city we also see a major waterfront regeneration project, Kalasatama. In this redevelopment project the area to be transformed is not just port territories, but also several major industrial brownfields and the transformation of fun-ctioning power plants. Just like in the West Harbour project the numbers are impressi-ve, in this case the area comprises 175 Ha of land, the construction should last until 2035, it should create housing for 20 000 new residents and 8000 new workplaces.

As we have seen Helsinki is undergoing great transformation. We will see how all these new projects affect the relation with the port, and what role should it play in the city. Also we will see how is the relation between the city and the port, both in an in-stitutional level and on an “emotional” one. In order to get the most precise information we will interview Ms. Satu Aatra, planning manager from the Port Authority of Helsin-ki, and Mr. Rikhard Manninen, director of the strategic Urban Planning Division.

6565

West Harbour ProjectSource: http://www.hel.fi

Helsinki future development projectsSource: Municipality of Helsinki

66

Act 2 - The Helsinki Experience

For the last couple of weeks we stayed in the Finnish capital. This city, as we men-tioned in the last post, is undergoing great transformation. In the year 2008 the indu-strial port left the city center to move to the new Vuosaari Harbour. Since then several important waterfront developments have being taking place and the city skyline will change considerably over the next deca-des. The experience in Helsinki allowed us to know better the transformation process, the relation between the city and the port and the concerns for the future.

The work process followed was similar to the other cases analyzed so far. On the first place we made an intensive visit to the city and the affected areas, including the new port. During this time a photographic survey was carried out. The result can be seen in this gallery. At the same time we vi-sited the relevant urban information institu-

tions that could give us significant informa-tion regarding the urban evolution and the port-city relation. For this reason we visited the city museum, the urban development information center Laituri and another info-center focused in the Jätkäsaari area. Unli-ke other cases we did not visited the mari-time museum since it is placed in another city, Kotka, and it is more focused in the maritime history than in the port.

In order to get the necessary impartial vi-sion of this case we met with representa-tives from the port and the city. In this oc-casion we were able to interview Ms. Satu Aatra (SA), Planning Manager in the Port of Helsinki, and with Mr. Rikhard Manni-nen (RM), head of the Strategic Planning Division at the City Planning department of Helsinki and responsible for the team de-veloping the new Masterplan.

67

The relation between the port and the cityInstitutional levelDuring the research we came to know that the Port of Helsinki has changed it’s status very recently. This institution was until the end of last year a department of the munici-pality, an independent entity but under the city hall management. In the beginning of this year, as told by SA, the port changed to be a limited company, however still un-der the “umbrella” of the municipality. This transformation gave them more indepen-dence and a stronger position when defen-ding the port interests. Besides the direct and indirect economic impact and jobs generated by the port another argument for its presence in the city is its economic independence, the port is self-sustainable. It is an economic asset that does not cost money to the city in terms of investment or maintenance.

Another important aspect in the case of Helsinki is the ownership of the land. In many other port-cities one of the main challenges is the fact that the port is an important owner of valuable land. For this reason it has a certain power over what happens in its territories and what would happen in case they released it for urban uses. This situation very often leads to intense negotiation regarding the price of the land and the economical compensa-tions. In some cases this issue might be the solution for financing the new port in-frastructure, as we saw in Oslo. In Helsinki the situation is rather exceptional since the municipality is one of the main landowner in the city. Even the land the port uses for its activities is owned by municipality. In this case it works with long terms conces-

sions allowing the port to build the neces-sary equipment or terminals that remain as their property. Given the situation is clear that the city has a very powerful status and the port is in a weaker position when com-pared with other cases.

When we spoke with the planning profes-sional they both explained that the relation between both institutions is complex and regarding some subjects rather tense. The most controversial issues affecting the re-lation are mainly the ferry traffic, with all its consequences, and the fact that for some political sectors the port should be comple-tely placed in the new harbour, releasing the territories in the city center. Also rele-vant was the process for the new Guggen-heim museum that could explain how the relation between institutions works. These issues will be addressed later in this arti-cle.

It is important to mention that although there are some tension points, there is an effort being made for the collaboration between the planning departments of both organizations. During our meeting with RM he explained that there is a minimum of four meetings per year between the port

Bird’s eye viewSource: Helsinki ESPO award application

Previous page:aerial view of Helsinki WaterfrontSource: http://www.balticholidays.com/

68

and urban planning authorities in order to synchronize main planning goals and agendas. To these meeting also represen-tatives from the ferry companies attend to exchange ideas that could improve the col-laboration between the different stakehol-ders.

Emotional levelThe history of the city is deeply connected with the port. Helsinki was founded as a commercial port and we see the maritime character of the city in its evolution and in the waterfront. During the time spent here we were able to notice that this connec-tion still is important for the citizens. Both interviewees agreed that for the city the port is a relevant part of its identity. As it was mentioned by SA, for the inhabitants the port holds an important place in the collective memory, although it might be somehow bucolic and detached from the current operation of the port. It is general-ly known that the ISPS (International Ship and Port Facility Security) code does not allow a direct interaction with the port ac-tivity as it used to be. For this reason the more mature citizens pass their memo-ries to the youngster and these ones still identify the port as an important place for

them, although they did not experienced the same interaction as their grandparents.

The City Museum explains vaguely the im-portance of the port, but this issue might be solved in the next years when the new city museum is opened. When we asked other people who have no direct relation with the port or planning department they all agreed that the port is part of the city.

In the current moment the port only takes 11 km of the 130 km waterfront, hence it is no longer an obstacle for reaching the water. The regeneration project could play an important role if they are able to keep the port identity. If the people feel the port as their own probably they will support its position in the city center. This aspect along with the location needs from ferries and economic benefit they bring might be the best argument the port has to keep its presence in the city.

VuosaariThe move of the port facilities from the city center to the Vuosaari Harbour was deci-ded by the city planning department in the masterplan from 1992. At that time, as it was explained by RM, the discussion was mainly focused on improving the port ca-pacity. During the discussion an alternative location was considered, in Kirkkonummi, west from Helsinki. At that time the munici-pality acknowledged the important econo-mic role the port played for the city and the region. Only later the planning authorities saw the potential of the areas released by the port in the city for implementing a waterfront regeneration project focused on housing and mixed use.

South HarbourSource: http://www.istopoli.com/

69

The construction of the new terminal, as ex-plained by SA, was a joint venture between the local and national authorities. Although there was an existing large shipyard, more land was needed for the construction of the new port. At the same time there was a necessary coordination with the national authorities, not just for the financing but also for the connections with the road and railway networks. RM explained that it was a complex and long process. The location is near a Natura 2000 area which needed to be protected from pollution and noise. At the same time there was a difficult ne-gotiation with a private landowner. Finally the project was developed between 2003 and 2006.

After the new harbour was built and the port started to work there in 2008, the insti-tution has felt a certain pressure regarding its current location. We have seen during the second half of the XXth century that the waterfront have become one of the prefer-red location for new urban development projects. This international trend has been seen by the port with certain apprehension and somehow a possible threat towards its position in the city. This behavior is under-standable if, as mentioned by SA, we see

that the general process has been to “ex-pel” the port from the city and also that the-re are political sectors who believe all port activities, including the ferries, should be located in Vuosaari. These critical voices might have forgotten what was acknowled-ged in the masterplan from 1992, that the port is relevant for the city for economic and identity aspects.

In the new masterplan we will see that a future expansion for the Vuosaari harbour is considered. As explained by RM the port accepted this decision with some mistrust since it could be seen as an argument to force moving all the ferry traffic outside the city. In the same interview it was also explained that the main reason for this ex-pansion is the possible future port growth and new logistic needs. These issues were consulted with experts from the city hall.

The ferriesThe ferries activities are the main issue in the port-city relation. In the case of Helsinki this is a particularly complex situation. The elevated number of connections, almost 11 million passengers and a considerable cargo traffic difficult the integration of this infrastructure in the city. These figures are even more impressive if we consider that they have been reached after 10 years of unstoppable growth. One decade ago, before the Vuosaari harbour was develo-ped, nobody could foresee the impact this sector would have in the city and port eco-nomy, and in the urban traffic.

We already saw in Oslo that this is a diffi-cult problem. In order to be profitable the-se companies, just like the cruises, need a fast access to the city center, therefore

Vuosaari harbourSource: http://www.aprt.fi/

70

its location outside the urban core is not possible. We must consider that this spe-cific sort of maritime traffic is particularly complex since it combines passengers, many taking also their own car, with cargo, mainly trailers, that will be directly taken by trucks when arrived to destination.

The ferry companies need the combination of the different activities in order to be pro-fitable. In the case of Helsinki the situation is more intense than others because we find not just tourist that come for a short visit, but also commuters that live in Tallinn and work in Finland. For this reason there is not a seasonality as strong as in the cru-ise industry, therefore the traffic generated is constant all year around.

At the present moment there are three fer-ry terminals near the city center (Kataja-nokka, South Harbour and West Harbour) and one in Vuosaari. As it was mentioned, through these terminals pass every year almost 11 million passenger and between 25% and 30% of the port cargo. This inten-se traffic, as explained by SA, might bring up to 4000 vehicles every day to the city, which is a significant number. Although we have to put this figure in perspective with the general traffic in Helsinki main roads. There is no argue that the ferry traffic cau-ses an impact in the city, but in general terms the city needs to improve the traffic management system. This is one of the main concerns for the new city plan, and it will probably be handled properly.

The traffic problem is a challenge for the next masterplan, particularly to one of the boldest ideas developed on it, the transfor-mation of urban highways into more urban

boulevards. The positive effect this change could bring to the city is unquestioned, but how it can deal with the traffic generated by goods transportation, not just caused by the ferries but also by the business ope-rating in the city center, is yet to be seen. This issue will be studied in further detail in the implementation plan, the following step once the masterplan is effective.

In order to deal with the heavy traffic gene-rated by the ferries there was also consi-dered the option of building tunnels under the city center. This possible solution that could indeed solve the issue still is consi-dered in the masterplan, but will be up to the decision makers in the municipality to see if it is a viable option. As we know, this option implies a significant investment and a complex construction process that could last many years. On the other hand, this solution has already been developed in other cases with positive outcomes, just like we saw in Oslo in previous posts.

The discussion regarding the location of the ferry terminals has been going on for several years. The necessary common ground could have been found. In the West Harbour redevelopment project a new fer-

Ferries in the south harbourAuthor: José M P Sánchez

71

ry terminal is under construction. Once this strategic decision has been taken it seems unlikely that the ferries will be for-ced to move outside the city. Also during the interview with the Urban planning de-partment RM clarified that the ferries and passenger ships traffic has been accepted as one important element of the cityscape, it would not be reasonable to insist in mo-ving them outside the center.

For this issue there is even another possi-bility being contemplated. If the ferry traffic continues to grow it might be necessary to consider a redistribution of the terminals. In this scenario the possible relocation of some ferry lines in Vousaari could be con-sidered. In order to make this solution ef-fective the existing subway line should be extended until the harbour area. This is a considerable investment, that is also diffi-cult to justify if it is only going to be made for the ferry passengers. In the masterplan the subway extension is an open possibili-ty that will have to be decided in the future.

New areas in the WaterfrontWest Harbour – Länsisatam – JätkäsaariThe project to be developed in the West Harbour is probably the most relevant for

the port-city relation. This project, along with the south harbour, is the only new area where port and urban activities will still have to coexist. The new district will host the new ferry terminal built to give answer to the increasing demand in the Tallinn-Helsinki connection. This new terminal will be placed further south extending the area to the end pier. At the same time the new construction will allow new berths for the ferries making this connection.

The construction of the new city district is currently taking place and several housing areas have already been developed, but the greater construction phases are yet to come. In the waterline we see a new landmark gaining shape in form of a 16 flo-ors tower that will host a hotel. This project will give an interesting urban landscape since this new construction in Jätkäsaari will contrast with the existing shipyards. This industrial settlement will continue stay in its current location. The company that owns the shipyards has the intention of staying in Helsinki and the masterplan also counts with its presence in the waterfront.We will be able to see an urban maritime atmosphere in this area like in very few places in the city.

KalasatamaIn the North harbour, or fish harbour as it used to be known, the presence of the port activities will disappear. Nowadays the responsibility of the port is resume to maintaining the navigation channels and the dock for the coal supply for the existing power plant. In the future with the probable deactivation of the plant this function will no longer be required.

New ferry terminal in West HarbourSource: http://satamauudistuu.fi/

72

In this new city district we will see one of the biggest development projects in Hel-sinki, including several skyscrapers. The focus of the plan is mainly housing, but it will also include several office spaces. The main question remains what will hap-pen with the existing industrial areas. As mentioned, before the power plant is a major decision for this new district, its fu-ture is currently under discussion. If Hel-sinki wants to succeed in its quest of being carbon neutral the presence of a coal po-wered will hinder this goal. When the de-cision to deactivate the plant is reached, the issue would be what to do with this im-portant mass placed in the waterfront. The construction characteristic do not allow an easy reconversion, but it could be conside-red as industrial heritage element, perhaps for cultural purposes.

We have seen that many housing project will be developed. Very often in the wa-terfront regeneration projects these new apartments have high prices, hence the new inhabitants are probably from high in-come classes. The gentrification process is very strong and in some cases inevita-ble. In Helsinki this might not happen so clearly as in other port cities. The strong position of the municipality as landowner allows a bigger regulation of the market. Since the land owned by the city is very often not sold to a private but instead long term rented the city can apply certain ru-les. In the areas here presented, as it was told by RM, the distribution will be: 20% of all housing would subsidized, 40 % would have controlled prices, following the Hitas system. Finally the remaining 40% should be traded in a free market.

Helsinki urban development areasSource: http://www.portusonline.org/helsinki-converting-waterfronts-intoresidential-areas/

73

The system used by the municipal autho-rities allows a better social diversity, hen-ce the waterfront has a more public cha-racter that in other port cities.It is important to know that although the majority of the land belongs to the city, there are some plots that have been sold to private. Also the area where the oil harbour used to be belongs to private hands and is currently under development.

The Guggenheim process The Guggenheim museum development process has been an important matter for the city and the port in recent times. Also a complex issue between different insti-tutions. As we know the construction of a new museum of this scale very often gene-rates a lot of discussion at different levels.

In this case the architectural competition for the new cultural venue took this issue to the international stage. The scale of the competition, 1715 entries, generated a si-gnificant debate in the media regarding the work produced, the different approaches and even an analysis to state of the arts in architecture. In a more local context the public argument is whether is reasonable to invest in this new infrastructure if Helsin-

ki already has an important cultural venues network, and other museums are already under construction. Also there is the pro-blem of paying to a foreign cultural institu-tion to place in the city a franchise of their museum. The ongoing debate might have undermine the public support to the initia-tive even before the final design is known.

The main issue regarding the port-city re-lation in this case is the fact that the new museum will be placed in an area the port is currently using. The activities happening there, parking lot and catamaran ferry to Tallinn, could certainly be rearranged and improved, but this issue was not conside-red as one of the priorities of the compe-tition. Is important to remember that the city owns the land where the port is placed therefore has great decision making capa-cities in this area. On the other hand the conciliation between the different activities, cultural, urban and port, was not a priority. The nonexistent role played by the port in the whole process is clear not only in the competition report, but also when we see the composition of the jury. Out of 11 mem-bers not one was representing the port.

We must also point out that the process is

New ferry terminal in West HarbourSource: http://satamauudistuu.fi/

Winning design from moreau kusunoki architectesSource: http://www.moreaukusunoki.com/

74

only in the beginning, the chance for colla-boration is still possible. The winning de-sign by Moreau Kusunoki Architectes has a certain flexibility, besides the inherent architecture quality. This aspect leaves the door open to a future integration of the dif-ferent activities existing in the area.

Port strategy towards the cityDuring the interview with SA we were able to see the what are the main strategies fol-lowed by the port to have a “healthy” rela-tion with the city. At this point is relevant to know that the Port of Helsinki received an award from ESPO in the year 2010 for the societal integration of the port. If we read the application document we see that indeed the port carried numerous initiati-ves at that time, perhaps motivated by the move of the port to Vuosaari.

The port continues to develop a social pro-gram to insist in its integration. For exam-ple, besides the official website with all the port information and the different publica-tions, we can also find specific information webpages. There is one particular impor-tant case, the website dedicated to the port development projects. In this page we can see what the port is doing in the west har-bour or the different initiatives taking place at the moment.

The activities aforementioned have a par-ticular focus in the younger audience. The PA has developed a stronger program with the schools to allow the youngsters to visit the port and get to know how it works from the inside. This measure presented seve-ral security challenges that were solved without affecting the port operations.

In terms of the general public the port has hosted several open days in recent years, but without an specific date. This events often take place associated to other ve-nues, or in some cases they are linked to different target groups.

Regarding the existing information billbo-ards placed along the waterfront we came to know that they do not belong to the port. They belong to the city and were placed long time ago, when the port was still a city department.

At the moment there is no port-center whe-re one could get to know the history of the port and the role it plays in the city. In the city museum the information is relatively scarce. This issue, as mentioned before, might be solved next year when the new city museum open its doors.

Port innovation: Buffer zones, lighting, sound barriers, traffic controlOne of the most relevant aspects in the Helsinki study case is the use of buffer zones. We have seen before that they were necessary for the Vuosaari harbour in order to protect the existing Natura 2000 spaces. These green areas, besides protecting the natural reserve, also work as “cushion” between the housing deve-

Information BillboardsAuthor: José M P Sánchez

75

lopments in Vuosaari and the harbour. They were also used for creating a new golf course, a compatible activity with the industrial port activities.

In the new port we also find several other aspects that are innovative. For example the lighting scheme and sound barriers de-veloped by the architectural office APRT. The illumination is a very important subject in Finland since they have very reduced amount of sunlight during great part of the year. For this reason is normal to develop proper illumination projects with architects and landscape architects. The sound wall is particularly relevant because it is the “façade” of the port to the natural reserve. Besides reducing the acoustic pollution produced by the harbour activities, inte-grates the vegetation in its structure and contains an sightseen point for the port and the natural park.

The other relevant innovation are measu-res being developed to diminish the im-pact of the heavy traffic generated by the ferries. This strategy consist in the com-bination of an already efficient automatic check-in system for the trucks with several waiting areas, placed outside the urban

core, some of them in the buffer zones. This system would allow the traffic gene-rated by the cargo coming in the ferries to flow with less waiting areas required. At the same time the trucks could await in places where they do not cause any pro-blems, releasing the waterfront for other uses. A similar system has been working in Valparaiso, Chile.

HeritageHelsinki was an important industrial city. Part of this past can be seen in several building in the city, like the Kaapeli facto-ry or the gasometers in Kalasatama area. The port only owns one building listed as heritage, the Olympia terminal, next to its headquarters. The port is responsible for its properties and looks after them. Howe-

Vuosaari Terminal at nightSource: http://www.aprt.fi/

Old cranes by the docksAuthor: José M P Sánchez

76

ver there are several old warehouses that probably were port property but are now private and have been transformed to al-ternative uses. We can find them in Kata-janokka, where another waterfront regene-ration project took place in 1980’s.

The old cranes are another important part of port industrial heritage. In Helsinki we can find them in the Munkkisaari area. They are owned by the city and the main concern should be to keep them as a me-mory of what once used to be there. The-re is a new project prepared for the area where they are placed, and hopefully these cranes will be respected and integrated in the design.

Personal OpinionThe case of Helsinki is very particular re-garding the powerful position its municipa-lity holds. This characteristic has on one hand limited the decision making capacity of the port, but on the other hand has allo-wed a plan led waterfront regeneration of significant proportions. In this context, and in an often difficult position, the port has tried to defend its interests and stay in the city. The efforts have resulted in a compro-mise between the responsible authorities to allow the presence of the port recogni-zing its economic and identity value.

The dialogue between the concerned sta-keholders is crucial to find the common ground for a sustainable development. In this case the regular meetings and mu-tual recognition are the backbone of the relation. The problem might surge when the stronger actor abuses of its position to impose its will without the agreement of the other actors. So far this has not happe-

ned, although the port recognizes a certain pressure towards its position.

During the time spent in this city we acknowledged how difficult the ferries si-tuation is. The success of this sector is definitely something from which city and port benefit. Is a crucial part of the twin-city program. However there is the risk of dying of its own success. If the traffic and other externalities caused by these activities be-come too big the port risks losing the fa-vorable public opinion. We have seen that the people living in nearby areas already might not be so pleased with the current si-tuation. In this case the constant dialogue with the neighbors is important, but it might be necessary to go further. For example, in Hamburg a commitment was found with the developers of the housing projects near the port to implement a certain type of construction quality regarding windows and soundproofing, or even designing the house distribution to diminish the negative effects of living near the port. In the case of Helsinki a positive reinforcement program could be developed, for example by giving one free ferry ticket per year or a discount to the most affected citizens.

The Guggenheim process could be a me-taphor of the relation between the different parts, where the stronger stakeholder is somehow imposing an agenda. Besides the discussion if it is reasonable or not to develop yet another cultural venue, we could see the process as a missed oppor-tunity for the collaboration between city and port. It would have been a very inte-resting approach for both the museum and the harbour.

The mixed programs building are a path

77

into the future for several reasons. They al-low occupancy at different schedules; they are economically more viable; in terms of environment are more sustainable; also the risk of a failed investment is reduced. At the same time it would have been very interesting to see in a new development the transition of uses, from the most inten-se port activity, including the cargo coming through the ferries, to the most urban ones, the cultural agenda of the city. If we see it from another point of view, it could be considered as a connection between local challenges and global fluxes, both in terms of transport and it terms of culture if the in-clusion of a ferry terminal and port center in the project would have been considered. The process is not finished so there is the possibility to correct the path and use this development as a chance to strength the port-city identity of Helsinki.

The maritime identity of the city is very cle-ar when we walk on the waterfront, we can see old wooden ships, ice breakers, mari-nas, ferries and fishing ships. Besides the-re are also the shipyards, old warehouses and old cranes. This Genius Loci must be preserved. The new development projects must integrate these elements without af-fecting their meaning. Not all waterfront areas are the same, the variety should be protected and enhanced. A special sensi-bility is required when acting in these are-as, otherwise there will be 130 km of green waterfront without a particular attachment to the place and the history. The construc-tion started recently and the process will last for several decades, for this reason the benefit of the doubt is here needed.

When we see that the city and the citizens have the port as an important part of the

collective memory it would be important to reinforce this aspect. The communication strategy followed by the city and the port regarding the port history could be impro-ved. The city museum contains insufficient information and the existing billboards on the waterfront are in poor condition. In or-der to give to the people the information about what used to be there it would be interesting to find a more effective commu-nication strategy. The project developed in Oslo could be a good example of how to do it.

The transformation of Helsinki is only in the beginning, therefore some aspects of the case are difficult to evaluate. The first steps are promising and looks like the change will improve significantly this growing city.

We could learn from several innovative practices developed by the PA and the city. The Vuosaari change was very suc-cessful and is a good example of how to implement a new port in the XXIst cen-tury. The way it relates with the context, the transparency, the sensibility to certain elements (like the lighting) and the gene-ral organization are positive aspects to be studied. The traffic management strategy to be implemented could be an important innovation to be applied in other cases. Helsinki is a proud port-city, the relation of the port with the citizens is probable the most important element of this case. This is something to admire and to replicate in other contexts, for example Lisbon.

79

Kalasatama districtAuthor: José M P Sánchez

80

Act 3 - Photo essay

93

Rotterdam4th stop

60°10’15’’N 024°56’15’’EOctober 17 -November 2, 2015

The city

Rotterdam is the second city in the Netherlands and an important transport hub in the continent. It has a population of approximately 620 000 inhabitants with a high percen-tage of immigrants. In the city we can find several industries connected to the port that create jobs. In 2015 it was selected city of the year by the academy of urbanism.

In 1340 Rotterdam received municipal rights from Count Willem IV of Holland. Later on, in 1872 the Nieuwe Waterweg was opened allowing a better connection between the port and the North Sea. This new construction would be crucial for the future development of the port and the city. Short after, in 1877, the new railway line connecting Rotterdam with Paris was opened. This new infrastructure would also boost the urban development of the city and its international connections.

Act 1 - The biggest port in Europe: Rotterdam

94

At the beginning of the XXth century it was already one of the main European ports. The ever increasing harbor activities and an incipient industrial sector attracted many workers from the countryside. For this reason the city experienced a signifi-cant demographic growth during this time.

During the WWII Rotterdam suffered the strongest air attack from the German Luf-twaffein the Netherlands. In 1940, after five days of fight, the city and the country sur-rendered to the invaders. The destruction in Rotterdam downtown was considerable, 25000 houses were destroyed and 900 person killed, mainly civilians.

After the war the reconstruction process began inspired mainly by the American urban planning examples. The main goal was to recover the city center, from which almost no building was standing. One of the characteristic of the reconstruction scheme was the idea of leaving the down-town for services and almost no housing. Later on, during the 1980´s, the conse-

quences of this path would be clear and the priority changed to bringing back the people to an empty downtown.

The development of the city continued lin-ked to the port activities. In the 1990´s the port of Rotterdam was the most important in the world, before the Asian growth of the years after. In last decades we have seen several waterfront redevelopments, but mainly we could highlight two, the Kop van Zuid and the more recent one Stadhavens.

The port of RotterdamThe impact the port has in the identity, the urban structure and the economy of the city is obvious. It is deeply connected with the history and will play a major role in the future development of the city, the region and the country. Along history the port was constantly expanded. From its original core near the city center it grew towards the sea.

Nowadays the port of Rotterdam is the only European one that can compete with the Asian rivals. According to recent data is in the 8th or 11th position, pending the source, in the world rankings regarding tonnage. It had a total cargo throughput of 444,7 million metric tons. From this figure the main types of cargo are liquid bulk, in-cluding oil and its products, around 45%, container 30 %, and dry bulk approxima-tely 20%.

In the harbor we can find several other ac-tivities, such as shipyards, companies in the maritime cluster with industries related with the port, and cruises. It is relevant to say that Rotterdam is mainly an industrial port, the passenger traffic is relatively re-duced when compared with other cases,

Map of Rotterdam 1649 by Joan Bleu Source: http://geheugenvannederland.nl

95

particularly with Mediterranean ports.

The port has a significant role in the city and regional economy. It generated in 2013 93 766 jobs directly related with the port, and had an added value of 12 506 million € according to the Port Authority of Rotterdam. The total port area, as ex-plained in the same document, is 12 603

Port of RotterdamSource: https://commons.wikimedia.org

Expansion of the Port of RotterdamSource: OECD Report

Ha (126 sq km). The figure is quite rele-vant when compared with the municipality which has slightly over 200 sq km.

In terms of organization the port is owned by the city (70%) and the country (30%), but functions as a semi-independent cor-poration. The land where operates is ow-ned by the municipality leased with long

95

96

term contracts. At the same time the port manages the area by leasing it to the dif-ferent firms which develop its activities in the harbor. This means it is a landlord port, where the Port Authority is in charge of providing the basic infrastructure for the companies there placed.

One of the main advantages of the port of Rotterdam are the connections with the hinterland. It has several ways to distribute the cargo, including road, rail and canals networks.

The ports faces many challenges in the fu-ture. Since the oil sector has a significant impact in its cargo throughput it must deve-lop alternative strategies for a scenario in which this sector diminishes its activities. At the same time it has one major advan-tage when compared to other Europeans ports, like Hamburg, the expansion land. The port of Rotterdam does not faces the problem of finding land for its future needs, it is currently developing the expansion projects in the Maasvlakte 2. This new area placed in the mouth of the Maas river will increment significantly the available territory for logistic operations, mainly con-tainer shipping.

MaasvlakteAutor: José M P Sánchez

Rotterdam WaterfrontDuring the last decades we have assisted to several waterfront regeneration projects in this city. From more central areas with a relation with the past to port brownfield that changed to urban use, like the Kop van Zuid. More recently we can identify a very ambitious operation that is very par-ticular regarding the organization, the go-als and the existing dialogue. This project is the Stadshaven. We will make a short comment from both and in the next post they will be analyzed into further detail.

Kop Van ZuidThis area placed near the city center on the south side of the river Maas used to be part of the port land. Until the WWII in-tegrated several functions of the port, but during the reconstruction years, the deci-sion was made to expand the port towards the west. The creation of the Europort with more efficient infrastructure led to the de-cay in the Kop van Zuid (head of the north in English). In the 1970´s and 1980´s the area was a mix of port brownfields and nei-ghborhoods with several social problems and high unemployment rates.

In the end of the decade the plan started

High-rise in the Kop van ZuidAuthor: José M P Sánchez

97

Kop van Zuid planSource: http://beyondplanb.eu/

to be prepared with two main goals, the integration of the river Maas in the city structure and to finish the perception of the river as barrier between the two sides. Besides there were other secondary goals like providing the city with more housing alternatives, mainly high class and single family dwellings. The plan was developed by Prof. Riek Bakker and Teun Koolhaas. The new development land was organized in 6 different areas: Entrepot, Wilhelmina Pier, Landtong, Zuidkade, Stadstuinen and Parkstad.

The plan granted official approval in 1994 promising the creation of 5300 new hou-sing units and 400 000 sqm of office spa-ce, besides new connections with the north and cultural venues. The construction be-gan with the transportation infrastructure and in 1996 the Erasmus bridge was ope-ned.

In the project the preservation of several heritage elements was contemplated, as old cranes, bridges or warehouses. Also the old offices of the Holland-American line, now converted into a Hotel.

The new district became a new high-rise area for the city, particularly the Wilhelmi-na Pier. In this land several star-architects have left their mark. Sir Norman Foster, Renzo Piano, Alvaro Siza and more re-cently Rem Koolhaas have all designed a building in the pier.

Nowadays the project is heading towards the final stage. There are several active construction sites for new apartment and office buildings. This was a complex and ambitious project that suffered with the economic crisis from 2008. Therefore we observe delays in the expected conclusion dates.

98

StadhavensThe plan for Stadhavens is one of the most innovative ones in Europe regarding waterfront regeneration. This project could be assumed as new model for this sort of interventions, more efficient and adapted to the pos-crisis scenario we currently are.

In 2004 an agreement was reached betwe-en the city and the port for the redeve-lopment of the port areas that were still placed inside the city´s highway ring. The area considered is relatively large, 1600 Ha. To put it in perspective the Hafencity project in Hamburg has 165 Ha.

The project started with some ambitions to “urbanize” the areas, but short after was seen that this model was not appropriate for the size and location of the intervention. The platform remained as a structure for the dialogue, negotiation and coordination of the several projects.

One of the most remarkable features of this plan is the fact that the main goal now is the transition from port area to port cluster and in a later phase to possible urban programs compatible with the existing industries.

MethodologyFor Rotterdam we will follow the same me-thodology applied in the other cases. The-refore we will visit the relevant institutions and have interviews with representatives from the port and city authorities. However there is an exception regarding this case-study, the available time. During the first week spent in the city we participated in theISOCARP congress. In this event we did a presentation named: “Port-City re-lation: integration – conflict – coexistence Analysis of good practices. Hamburg and Genoa.” In the workshop: “How to develop unprecedented port-city synergies?”.

Next page: Bird’s eye view of RotterdamSource: http://www.bodieko.si/

Stadshavens siteSource: http://sync.nl/

99

Act 2 - The Rotterdam Experience

In the previous post we already mentioned that the case of Rotterdam was in many ways very particular. Although we might not like to give the rankings excessive im-portance, in the end is the biggest port in Europe in many sectors. This issue must not be forgotten regarding its relation with the territory, the city and the region.

The visits, the cityRegarding the development of the inve-stigation this was also one exceptional case. In previous cases we usually have two weeks to do the case analysis, consult the sources and make the Photographical survey. This time we only had half the time since theISOCARP congress took one full week. For this reason, and because of the complexity of the case, we also consider that in the future a second field trip will be necessary. It is relevant to notice that some of the main experts and research projects related with the port-city subject

are taking place in universities in or near Rotterdam, for example the TU Delft, the Erasmus University or the Hogeschool.

In the available time we were able to per-form the necessary field work to have an initial idea of the relation between the city and the port. Following the usual steps for this work we developed a photo survey in some of the city and port areas. Also we vi-sited several cultural institutions that could contain valuable information, such as the Maritime Museum, the Nai (Netherlands Architecture Institute), the city library and the FutureLand port center, one of two exi-sting ones.

The InterviewsDuring this time we were also able to do three interviews to relevant professionals from the port and city authorities. In the case of the Port Authority (PA), we were able to speak with Ms. Isabelle Vries (IV),

100

Senior Advisor and Program Manager in Corporate Strategy. From the municipality we spoke with Mr. Martin Aarts (MA), se-nior urban developer advisor and with Ms. Stijnie Lohof (SL) responsible for urban de-velopment in southern areas of Rotterdam, who could give us the view from more spe-cific local projects. During our interviews a major part of the discussion was on the strategic level. For a second visit we will try to focus the more on the specific deve-lopment areas where the friction might oc-cur. Also for the future remains a meeting with the communication responsible from the PA, since a reasonable part of the re-lation with the city and the explanation of the soft-values is made by this department.

The relation between the city and the portEmotionalRotterdam is the port-city par excellence. The origin, growth and future of the city is greatly connected with the past, present and future of the port. As explained in the previous post, the reason of being of this city is its role as a logistic and trade center for the European hinterland. We can see this characteristic when walking on the streets and when we appreciate the exi-

sting heritage in some of the areas rege-nerated on the waterfront. The presence of canals in different locations of the city structure constantly reminds that we are in a water city.

When we study the history of the city we realize that until not so long ago many of the business and families were somehow connected with the port activities. The industrial character of the city has endu-red along time and indeed we find that, although several waterfront regeneration project have been made, a certain port-city roughness remains. In the authors opinion this is a positive feature of the city iden-tity, since as said by Julian Stubbs in the Oslo Urban Arena congress, a city should be its best version of itself, not an imita-tion of something else. During the stay in Rotterdam we could witness, in several occasions, the existing rivalry between this city and the capital, just like happens in many other countries. In the case of the Netherlands, from the foreigner point of view, we appreciate that the port-city iden-tity of Rotterdam has been relevant in its development as creative center for archi-tecture and urban planning, among other fields. The fact that port-cities still have in

Port skylineAuthor: José M P Sánchez

Aerial view of RotterdamSource: “Port-city development in Rotterdam: a true love story”

101

their identity a more open mindset might have allowed Rotterdam to produce bolder projects that perhaps would not have been possible in other contexts. For this reason we consider the new waterfront strategies appropriate for the context.

The citizens acknowledge the port as an important part of the identity, however as pointed out by SL this connection might not be as strong as it used to be. This gradual disconnection could happen for several reasons. The evolution of the port towards the open sea certainly affects the perception of the citizens. As pointed out by different authors: out of sight, out of the heart. Although this is not the only reason, since we still see many ships in the river Maas, the cranes are visible from a major part of the city and the atmosphere still is that from a harbor-city. Another motivation for this detachment might be that, although the port still creates many jobs, is no longer seen as an attractive place to work. This issue is very concerning for the responsi-ble authorities and several measures are being developed as we will later see. The worry about younger generations should be considerable, especially if we consi-der the increasing number of newcomers

to the city. The new youngsters with roots outside Rotterdam might find it difficult to relate with a place and an infrastructure that is not so open and no longer provides so many jobs for the people less prepared for high skilled positions.

The people still love the image of the ships in the rivers. The manmade landscape the port is, still generates a certain fascination among the inhabitants and there is an in-tense activity regarding the usufruct of the port soft values, as we will see later on. However, as it happens in other port-cities, there is an increasing pressure from citi-zens to get activities and leisure areas by the water. This sort of places already are in the southwest outskirts of the city, far from the port. The question is how this deman-ded uses will be made compatible with the existing port areas and port-related indu-stries active in the port-city interface.

The issue that might rise is if the relation of the citizens with the port will be proportio-nal with the role the port plays in the eco-nomy of the city and region, as we have already seen. Is obvious that Rotterdam is a port-city, but is reasonable that efforts are made so it remains as such in the mind and heart of the inhabitants.

InstitutionalIn order to fully understand how the institu-tional relation between city and port works we must first see the status of the PA and the land ownership. In the case of Rotter-dam the PA is a semi-private corporation. Until 2004 it was still a department of the municipality, but the status changed in or-der give operational freedom to the port and improve the general efficiency of the

Port Authority Headquarters, second tower from the right. Author: José M P Sánchez

102

port. The shareholders are the city (70%) and the state (30%). For this reason the PA is not fully independent. Its economic plans and business models are approved by the municipality and there is a constant dialo-gue between the mayor and the PA CEO, meeting every two weeks. When the port was established as a separate company its scope and responsibilities were clearly described. The PA would have the duty of all the matters related with the ports, inclu-ding administrating its territories. Within these responsibilities might be included educational collaboration with universities or start-ups if they are port related or might improve the port activities. The boundary, as explained by IV, was that the PA will not be responsible for urban development.

It is also important to understand that the port is autonomous for its development. This means that the municipality does not pays port infrastructure. The PA must carry its own investment for the improvement or expansion of the facilities, as it has happe-ned so far. The municipality does get reve-nues from the PA as the main shareholder.

The land the PA administrates is leased by the municipality for port purposes. MA explained that for this reason in case an active industry in the port area comes to an end and there is no clear continuation, or implementation of new port related in-dustries, the land might then move back to municipal control. At the present moment this process is agreed only in the M4H area. Since the land already belongs to the city the port does not get a compensation for it, simply the leasing contract ends. Al-though here the process has been simpli-fied, it probably is more complex if we con-sider that the PA must be sure there will

not be developed any more port activities.

The relation itself has been described as positive by the interviewees. Particular in the strategic level. In this field there has been a considerable improvement over the last decade. The coordination and dialogue between both entities has been intensified, particularly regarding the economic agen-da and development goals. The evolution of the relation has been probably induced by a change in the way both entities look at each other. The city has moved from the previous vision of waterfront regeneration, port out and city in, to a new model where the industrial tissue responsible for jobs is also acknowledged as an important urban function. The port cluster is seen as a re-source for the city, therefore the respect to the existing port activities in the urban interface has grown. At the same time the port has realized it must improve its inte-raction with the city. This is particularly relevant if it wants to change its current economic model, very based in the fossil energies industries, to a future model ba-sed in new energy resources. At the same time the need for high skilled professionals and the necessary citizen’s support pres-sures the port to find a sustainable relation with the city and the inhabitants.

When we asked MA about the relation between the city and the port, he mentio-ned that the biggest critic it could be made was the pace of the implementation agen-da of the new economic model. Although the risks related with keeping major fos-sil fuel industries are clear the rhythm of change towards alternative models is to slow. We might understand the criticism when reading this recent press release from the PA. On the other hand, althou-

103

gh the PA might understand the critic, we have to see that, as pointed out by IV, the Port of Rotterdam cannot act by himself in this issue. The global economic model has not changed yet, national and international organizations must provide a more ambi-tious plan regarding sustainable energy models. Besides these plans there must also be pressure and support to private companies for the change from national and European governments. The evolution must be worldwide and in this scenario the port could and should take a leading role within its context.

In the operational field is where we might find the majority of the frictions, in the closer development scale. In the case of Rotterdam they might occur regarding the use of the land and the rhythm of the go-als implementation. As we will see, in the projects concerned in the Stadshavens platform, there is discussion about when and where to implement some of the goals defined on the strategic level. Particularly regarding new urban uses or existing indu-stries. However, the consulted authorities confirmed that so far all possible conflicts have been solved by negotiation.

The waterfront of RotterdamIn Rotterdam the relation with the wa-terfront has change since the 1980´s. After the postwar reconstruction, the main con-cern for the municipal authorities regarding urban planning were two: the lack of rela-tion between the city and the river and the break between the north and south sides of the river. In order to solve this issues the “Rotterdam Waterfront Program” was developed. This plan, besides dealing with the two issue aforementioned, also inter-preted the port brownfields near the urban

center as an opportunity to discuss the identity of the city and to improve the exi-sting housing areas. One of the problems was the lack of housing for medium and high class groups. In the case of Rotter-dam gentrification was seen as a positive element in order to provide variety to a city where, as pointed out by MA, around 80% of all dwellings was social housing.

We can find several articles and research about the waterfront of Rotterdam. In one titled “Port-city development in Rotterdam: a true love story”, we see how the two waves of waterfront regeneration worked. The first one started with the Oude Ha-ven (Old Port), focused in developing new quality housing, leisure areas and offices. Short after it expanded to other areas near the city center, more specifically Leuerha-ven, Wijnhaven and Zahnhaven. Later on the Scheeprartkwartier and Parkhaven also were regenerated with high class standards. Finally, in the late 1980´s, the Kop Van Zuid was also planned. In the last post we already saw to some detail how this plan as developed, so here we will just point out that the two main goals of the wa-terfront program were also very present. This last area still is under development,

Rotterdam, Kop van ZuidAuthor: José M P Sánchez

104

the connection between both sides of the Maas has been strengthened and high class apartment and single family houses have been developed. As mentioned befo-re there is a strong gentrification in this part of the city, especially if we consider that in this area used to live many dock workers before the port expanded to the west and that the district of Feijenoord was one of the poorest.

The question whether gentrification is po-sitive or negative is a never ending debate in the field of urban planning, however it is important to look at the particular con-text of the case. In Rotterdam there was the need of creating diversity in the hou-sing market and also densifying the city center. The process of bringing more pe-ople to the urban core is neither easy nor cheap, therefore it is almost inevitable that the prices would rise. At the same time the variety within a city could be seen as a positive aspect, particularly if we consider that this would make the city social struc-ture more resilient to crisis or changes in the economic model. It is also important to notice that although the municipality might have been more focused in the high class development during the first waterfront re-generation wave, for the second one the scope changed.

StadshavensThe second wave of the waterfront re-generation in Rotterdam is integrated in theStadshavens plan. This project star-ted in 2002 and included the remaining port areas inside the city´s highway ring. All together it isa territory of approx. 1600 Ha. As mentioned in the previous post, the scale of this intervention is considerable, particular if compared with other waterfront

regenerations in Europe, for example Eu-roméditerranée in Marseille has 480 Ha or the Kop Van Zuid itself with 80 Ha.

When we look at the map we see that the areas included in the Stadshavens project are: Merwehaven and Vierhaven (M4H) in the north side of the river, Waalhaven and Eemhaven, including the RDM campus on the south bank, and Rijnhaven, with Ka-thendrecht, and Maashaven on the east part of the plan.

Initially the idea was to follow the same scheme as in other redevelopment plans. At the same time the port expansion to-wards open sea, the Maasvlakte 2, was also been planned. The concept was that the port activities would move to the new area and the place would be free for urban development. There are some particular characteristics that later would condition the success of this initial approach. First of all the size of the intervention did not allo-wed the same concept as followed in the other areas, the problems and challenges were not the same. Also the location of the-se areas was different. If in the first wave of waterfront regeneration we observe that is mainly land placed near the city center, therefore more attractive to urban deve-lopment, in this case not all the territory was directly connected to the urban core. Some of the areas are far from the cen-ter and the existing links are not so strong. Another key different was that during the plans developed in the 1980´s there were mainly port brownfields, where no specific activities were taking place. In this case most of the area had an industrial port tis-sue, with working companies. Finally the role the municipality played in the Kop van Zuid could not be proportionally extrapola-

105

ted to this case. If in the other project there were several key public investment, like the Erasmus bridge or the expansion of the subway network, in the Stadshavens plan it was not so clear whether the public authorities would be in a positon to act li-kewise or if they would have the resources for it. Finally the Maasvlakte 2 also went through troubled water and the move of the existing industries was not so clear.

In the years previous to the crisis was alre-ady clear that the model would not work. The ambitious goals regarding housing were not realistic and the organization was not functional. The presence of two major stakeholders with different goals and pri-orities together with a third new founded company was not productive. In the year 2007 a new agreement was made in which the Stadshavens would remain as an

“umbrella” corporation, which main duties would be to facilitate the dialogue, commu-nication and coordination of the different agendas. The change also implied new go-als and a better relation between the sta-keholders. The municipality acknowledged the value of the existing industries and an analysis of the companies and contracts was performed in order to have a realistic schedule of the transition in the concerned areas. The idea was to improve the existing maritime and port cluster, potentiating the companies that could help to develop the future model of the port-city economy. At the same time the educational links would be reinforced and the relation with the communities would be improved.

5 main strategiesFor the development of the plan five main strategies were decided: Re-inventing the

Stadshavens Source: “Port-city development in Rotterdam: a true love story”

106

delta technology, volume and value, cros-sing borders, floating communities and su-stainable mobility. We will just do a brief comment about these strategies instead of explaining in detail all the different points since they are well described in several ar-ticles and brochures.

Regarding the delta technology the main goal is to make Rotterdam a reference in a field in which already has an important role. The technologies associated with deltas and flood management are well developed in the region, already leading companies in the world are installed in the city. This path will be exploited and the Stadshaven will become a reference with new companies, bringing the benefit of the associated jobs to it. The industries from this field would be mainly placed in the Waalhaven and RDM campus.

In the volume and value strategy the goal is to develop the area into a mix of ad-ded value companies working in the port-maritime cluster and short sea hub for transshipment to secondary harbours. Re-garding the new industries, one of the go-als, besides creating wealth, is to stablish synergies with the local communities and

therefore improve the public perception of the port activities. Along with this target is also fulfilling the needs of new employees for these companies by creating links with educational institutions.

When the organization mentions the cros-sing borders strategies, they mainly intend to develop a different kind of interaction between city and port, better than the one being carried so far. The main point is de-veloping activities that so far might have not been so present in the port, like the educational institutions or the creative in-dustries. In this strategy the RDM campus has played the leading role so far. Another new type of interaction will be the creation of new housing areas, mainly in the ea-stern part, Rijnhaven and Maashaven.

The floating communities strategy is self-explanatory. In the Stadshavens project we shall see a new sort of urban deve-lopment, directly on the water. This sort of building is not new in the Netherlands, but the new approach should bring intere-sting results. There are already prototypes being tested in the Rijnhaven for housing and near the RDM campus for floating tre-es and offices spaces. Very recently in the-

RDM CampusSource: rdmrotterdam.nl

Floating communitiesSource: architectural-review.com

107

se facilities, the aqua dock, a floating office space, started to be built.

The last strategy is the sustainable mobili-ty. About this point the most relevant inno-vation will be the development of the wa-terborne public transport system. In order to give a new relation to the city with the port, this new transport should play and im-portant role. The waterbuses and waterta-xis accentuate the port identity. In this case if we see the map we notice that the option of blue transport is logical also for practical reasons. The closest connection between both sides in the majority of the Stadsha-vens territory is by water, and some of the main points will need an efficient public transport system, like the connection from the RDM to the city center or M4H.

In the organization´s office and in the web-site we can find information about the plan-ned schedule of the Stadshavens project. The short-term phase is coming to an end this year, the second phase should go until 2025 and the third phase will expand until 2040, coordinated with the regional deve-lopment concepts. The plan has been de-veloped more on a strategic base rather than a blue print with closed designs. This flexibility will allow an adaptation margin in case is necessary or even the renego-tiation of the goals for certain areas, like perhaps the fruit cluster in the M4H.

As we can see the plan has evolved from the initial approach and some of the main goals as well. The intention of develo-ping housing areas was rethought. In the project, as pointed out by MA, this pro-gram would be implemented only in the land where it would be compatible with the existing activities. Therefore we would find

it more easily in eastern part, Rijnhaven and Maashaven. Also in the areas placed in the north side of the river, which even-tually will fully move to municipality control, housing developments are plan, but only in the long term scenario. Nowadays we find here a major fruit cluster for the production of juice and other port related industries. At the same time in this area the transition has already started, some land is already administrated by the municipality and the front-runner creative companies are alrea-dy functioning there.

In the southern areas the PA will still be in charge of its administration. This decision is mainly connected with the fact that the existing and new port related companies will bring added value to the city and the port. In Waalhaven and Eemhaven we can find different sort of industries from contai-ner terminal to fiber optic cable developing companies.

Closer scaleDuring our meeting with SL we came to know that there was already an existing dialogue between the different parts invol-ved in some projects in the Stadshavens, before the platform existed. She also ex-plained some of the operational aspects in the development of the projects in the nearer scale. For example not all projects must be organized by the Stadshavens platform, probably just the strategic level and some key developments or complex plans that might require major negotiation between the stakeholders. In other cases the projects can be directly developed by the local organizations.

Another interesting information was the existence of “beauty committees” that must

108

approve the implementation of the plans for the local projects. These committees are formed by several independent profes-sionals and citizen representatives. They exist in the areas under municipal super-vision, but in some cases they must agree with the port quality committees which would have another point of view. Occa-sionally in this level we might find some frictions that are solved via negotiation.

HeijplaatIncluded in the Stadshavens area we can find a very particular case, the village ofHeijplaat, placed between the harbours of Eelhaven and Waalhaven. This area was developed at the beginning of the XXth century for the shipyard workers. When the activities ceased the village be-gan to be more isolated from the city cen-ter. In the 1980´s faced the risk of being demolished, but the public pressure sor-ted effect and an agreement was found to keep the village intact. At the same time, since Heijplaat is between port areas with safety legislation, it cannot grow more than the 200 houses that currently form it.

This area presents an interesting con-trast with the surroundings since is made mainly of small single family houses and in the background we can find several port

industries with heavy machinery. For the village the Stadshavens plan might bring very positive outcomes. The development of the RDM campus in the old shipyard fa-cilities creates new activities and possible jobs in the start-ups growing there. At the same time it might also be an option for the educational path of the local inhabitants. Also, until the arrival of the new campus, one of the main issues was the lack of di-rect connections with the city center. This problem is already solved since now there is a waterbus connection that in the futu-re will be more frequent as the activities in this area grow further.

World Expo 2025In the relation between city and port in the context of Rotterdam there is another on-going interesting debate, the World Expo 2025. A group of entrepreneurs has been preparing a possible application of the city for the expo. The main topic of the event would be “changing currents”, very much related to the need of developing an alter-native economic model. Within the general theme another relevant subject would be “deltas in transition”, an issue very relevant in the Netherlands, that is obviously con-nected with issue of the water and the port.

When we asked the municipal and port au-

Heijplaat:Source: Heijplaat.com

109

thorities about the issue, both agreed that, if done properly, it could bring very positive results to the city. The problem might be what it means to do it well. MA explained that it could be reasonable to make the expo in a waterfront location if it is related with the water, however always having in mind the consequences of the decisions to be taken, particularly regarding the loca-tion and the effects in the whole economic model and existing industrial tissue. It is necessary to develop a long term goal and, if considered appropriate, use the World Expo as an accelerator for the project. MA was also favorable of developing a model that would engage the whole city instead of having the focus on just one area. IV agreed with the need of having a very cle-ar long term goal, not thinking just in the 6 months the venue lasts, and a vision or need for the transformation of an area in the waterfront. Regarding the discussion of the location it was clear for her that a similar approach like in the Stadshavens plan should be made, that is to develop the expo in areas that are brownfields or in the process of becoming one. For this reason it would only be logic to develop it, for example, in the M4H area and not in the Waalhaven or other land with functioning port related industries. This possibility, as she explained, would only make sense if the goal is very clear and if it is really ne-cessary for the transformation of the area.

Port of the future investigationThe concerns about the public opinion re-garding the port are not something new. Already in 2007 “the port of the future” project was developed. In this project the PA and the NAI asked six renowned archi-tecture and urban planning offices of Rot-terdam to develop an investigation about

the aesthetical qualities of the port and how they could be enjoyed by the public. In this theoretical exercise the firms, MVRDV, West8 or Mecanoo, among others, acknowledged the port as a fascinating manmade landscape, with aesthetic va-lues difficult to find in any other context. In the proposal we could see different appro-aches, from giving a representative role to the roads to and around the port, the plans for implementing a system of viewpoints, alternative uses of the Maasvlakte 2 dune, the enhancement of the new clean techno-logies as a new element of this artificial landscape, even in same case the office proposed to treat the port territory as a na-tional park, a landscape to cherish.

As conclusion to the study Wouter Van Stiphout wrote an interesting essay with the provocative title “Lipstick on a Gorilla”. In it the author notices the change in the relation between the port and the city and points out the new stage of the relation, in which the port is something that requires explanation.

Current coexistence strategiesPort territoryIn the image we can see the port of Rot-terdam extends over the territory, from the city to the open sea. This extension, over 40 km, implies also a relation with borde-ring towns, like Maassluis, Westvoorne or Hook van Holland. In order to have positive synergies with these settlements, as ex-plained by IV, there are meetings twice a year, to discuss the issues that might affect them. The PA follows tailor-made approa-ches to cope with possible negative exter-nalities. At the same time the companies are also implied in this process.

110

There is a structure of buffer areas to di-minish the nuisances caused by the in-dustries placed in the port, mainly noise, dust, odor and gases. For this purpose there is an electronic system to detect if the different pollutants are within the legal parameters, in case they are exceeded the responsible authorities are warned to act. Simultaneously we see a discussion regarding “smart” urban planning, mainly concerned about not developing housing areas in land near port territories that might later cause problems to inhabitants.

EducationThe case of Rotterdam is a good example of how to explain the soft-values of the port. The agenda developed for the social integration of the port is remarkable and proportional to the size of the port itself. As we have already seen a considerable part of the effort is being made in the rela-tion with the educational institutions. At the same time that we see increasing syner-gies in the higher education level, also in the primary and secondary school several actions are being developed.

Besides improving the opinion about the port among youngsters, the main goal is

to show how the port can be an attracti-ve place to develop a professional career. This concern comes also because the port is foreseeing a possible shortage of quali-fied workers in the future, particularly when the change in the economic model takes place.

Port centerIn Rotterdam we can find two port center, the EIC Mainport Rotterdam in a central position in the port land, and the more re-cent FutureLand in the Maasvlakte 2 ex-pansion area. During our visit we were only able to visit the second one since both are not easily reachable with public transport.

Both centers have different scopes. The EIC is focused in explaining in general terms the functioning of the port. It was open in 1994 and is a joint project betwe-en the PA and Deltalinqs. The FutureLand on the other side is far away from the city center and is focused on explaining how the expansion project of the port works, its consequences and benefits. The in-vestment in this second one, the one we visited, is considerable. In it we can find different spaces with hi-tech infotainment

Map of the Port of Rotterdam. Different areas and several towns in the boundarySource: portofrotterdam.com

111

devices prepared for the interaction with adults and children from different ages. Besides there is also a cafeteria, exhibition areas and a sightseen terrace. Both cen-ters offer guided tours to the port facilities. In the case of FutureLand one of the main attractions is the boat tour, since we can navigate near the giant container ships.

Besides these port centers we can also find the newspaper done by the port for explaining the ongoing activities. This light publication is available not just in the port centers or in the PA head office, but also in some public areas, like the access to the tunnel that crosses the Maas river.

Port as a place to visitDuring our visit to Rotterdam we could see for the first time in the research trip that the port is not just the economic motor of the region and a key infrastructure, but also a tourist attraction. There is a specialized company, Spido, focused on providing tours around the port. This activity mani-fest the interest in the port, not just for the locals or the port workers, but also for the visitors. The tourism industry is growing fast and different sort of visitors are sur-ging. It is interesting how something that

is not at all thought or prepared to beco-me a tourist attraction has grown to a point where it became a very demanded visit. Certainly we see this mainly in harbours with a reasonable scale, where the visitors can see the big ships and cranes that form the image we see so often in magazines or websites when looking for Rotterdam or Hamburg.

The rise of different kinds of tourism repre-sents an opportunity to enhance the public view of the port. In Rotterdam, besides the company aforementioned, we find others that are dedicated to industrial tourism. If the PA is able to associate themselves with this sort of activity, going beyond the education and port centers, we could have a better acceptance of the port in the cities and perhaps a better understanding of it. The port is not just an industrial area by the water, the meaning it carries for the society and the place it takes in the collective me-mory should be cherish. Particularly if, as we see, the general interest in it is already growing.

HeritageThe industrial port heritage in Rotterdam has an important role for the identity of the city. If we consider that during the WWII the historical center was tear down during the air bombings, we understand that any element that might retain a memory from the past is of great importance. However, as pointed out by SL, this appreciation of the industrial heritage has grown along time. These building might be protected but are not intended to stay crystallized, as museum or monuments, the general approach is to integrate in them urban fun-ctions.

FutureLand, Maasvlakte 2Author: José M P Sánchez

112

We can find buildings that will go through an interesting transformation in Katen-drecht. In this area of the city there still are functioning industrial facilities which in the future will hold an interesting mix of uses. In some cases we might even see the coe-xistence of industrial activities with hou-sing. If this happens it will probably be only with certain types of activities that might be compatible with other uses.

Maritime Museum, historic harborJust like in many other port-cities in Rot-terdam we can find a Maritime museum. In this case it is placed in the city center, by one of the many water canals. The mu-seum has a remarkable collection, from old maps, paintings and pictures to old clothing from fisherman. Also has recreations of the interiors of cruise ships and several areas dedicated to the children. Another part of the exhibition is dedicated to the harbour. They have a detailed model where we see the evolution of the port, the importance of its presence and how many goods from our daily life come through it. The museum also has a library dedicated to maritime themes, including port bibliography.

Besides the building, the museum also has an important feature that might have greater impact than the collection itself, a harbour for historic boats. In this area in a water canal we can visit several boats, cranes and other port machinery. Next to this space we will also find a workshop de-dicated to boat and engines repairs, that we can also visit and get to know better the inside of some ships.

If we consider that the maritime museum is in the city center and that also contains

a fairly detailed explanation of the port, we could understand why is not so problema-tic that either of the port centers are not placed in the urban core. All three facilities form a powerful tool for explaining the ma-ritime world and the port, each one of them with its own scope, more historical one in the museum, a general view in the case of the EIC and the future of the port in the case of the Future Land.

Personal OpinionThe case of Rotterdam, as we said in the beginning of the post, is a very complex one. The dimension of the port magnifies many of the issues and solutions that could see in other port-cities. For this reason is a very good case to study the relation and detect future models that later might serve as inspiration for other port-cities.

After the initial analysis here performed we can clearly see that one of the most positi-ve aspects of this case is the existing dialo-gue and cooperation between the city and the port. The coordination of agendas and goals in the short, medium and long term development is crucial for the success of the alternative waterfront development model they are following. The fact that the

Historic harborAuthor: José M P Sánchez

113

Radhuset area with Aker Brygge and Tjuvholmen in the backAuthor: José M P Sánchez

city was able to change the vision towards the existing industry and adapt its housing strategy should bring positive outcomes in the near future. On the other side we see how the new role of the PA´s could be in the next decades. Alternative solutions are necessary for the change in the economic model and the engagement of the PA in port related activities, going beyond territo-rial management and containers, could be the path to follow.

In this city, where the port has played such a vital role for its development, the weight it has in the urban identity is very clear. The support and pride of its citizens in the port is clear, however the necessary measures must be taken in order to maintain it. At the same time, as pointed out by MA, the evolution is necessary so the inhabitants identify themselves not just with the ships and cranes, that someday will be a nostal-gic image of the past, but also with new more sustainable model.

The Stadshavens plan is one of the most interesting ongoing waterfront regenera-tion initiatives in Europe. We should pay attention to its evolution to notice if they are able to fully develop all the strategies. The goals are very ambitious but, if the

collaboration continues, the context seems to be the most appropriate to experiment with alternatives to the previous pre-crisis schemes.

The initiatives done for the social inte-gration of the port are in Rotterdam very advanced. As we have seen, there is a coherent set of facilities working for the dif-fusion of the port soft-values. The attention they get from the public is clear, however it would be interesting to see the repercus-sion they really have. For example what has really changed since before they were open, or what is the general public opinion regarding the port expansion. It is impor-tant to notice that due to the limited time this issue should be studied in further de-tail in visits to come.

In conclusion Rotterdam could be seen as pioneer in the port-city relation field. The initiatives and strategies here developed should be looked up by other cases. In Li-sbon we could definitely learn, for exam-ple, regarding the dialogue or the alterna-tive approaches towards the relation with the river. The future seems to be nearer in Rotterdam, we will see how it happens.

114

Act 3 - Photo essay

131

Marseille

Act 1 - Oldest city in France: Marseille

Marseille, Mediterranean port-city

The city of Marseille was created in the 6th century BC when Greek explorers met with the local tribes, in the north bank of today´s Vieux port, and decided to settle taking advantage of the natural conditions to stablish a port. The colonists from Phocaea na-med the new town Massalia. Later on, in the year 49 BC, Caesar conquered the city in the expansion of the roman empire. The name changed to Massilia and the economic activities focused on the port continued to expand.

Few centuries after the conquer of Marseille the Roman empire started to decline. At the same time Christianity spread along the roman territories including this city. This chan-ge left several new buildings in the urban tissue, like the old cathedral or the St. Victor basilica.

5th stop

43°17’47’’N 5°22’12’’ENovember 3 -18, 2015

132

During the first centuries of the first millen-nium, while the roman empire was collap-sing, the city suffered several invasions from tribes like the Visigoths, Burgundians, Ostrogoths and Franks. This instability af-fected the trade and consequently the port. Only under Charlemagne and its succes-sor, in the 8th and 9th century a certain stability was regain. During this period it became part of the Kingdom of Provence. At the same time the Muslim invasion of certain territories, particularly the Iberian peninsula, did not allowed the maritime commerce to fully recover until the 11th century. Marseille regained an important role as port for the crusades and establish itself as the door for the east Mediterrane-an.

The city continued to expand and the mari-time activities had an even greater impact in the urban core. During the 15th century it was the main port of the Mediterranean Sea. Within its infrastructure we could find an important arsenal, but also shipyards. Along the middle ages and the renaissan-

ce, Marseille kept a certain autonomy al-though integrated in the kingdom of Pro-vence. Its port-city condition gave a certain power and rebellious identity. During this time, until the 17th century, the city was involved in several conflicts and suffered aggressions from different enemies. At the same time, and also associated with its port-city condition, it suffered outbreaks of plague that decimated the population.

The resistance of Marseille to obey a cen-tral power in France forced Luis XIV, the

Expansion plan for Marseille in 17th centurySource:

<http://desinroc.free.fr/chrono2/LouisXIV.html

Mediterranean sea in ancient Greece.Source: http://www.usu.edu

133

King Sun, to come from Paris to lead his army and submit the city to his command. In order to stablish a permanent control, new fortress were built in the mouth of the port. More specifically the fort St. Jean and fort St. Nicholas. Simultaneously the new arsenal was built in the south part of the current Vieux-port. Another important urban changes were taking place during the 17th century, for example the city ex-pansion was being planned. This project implied the creation of a new north-south axis, including Cours de Belsunce and Curse Saint-Louis. This plan would start the urban expansion of the city away from the cost. Later on we would see this axis expand from Place Jules Guesde to Place Castellane, and further on to Avenue du Prado in the 19thand 20th centuries.

At the French revolution the battalion from Marseille sang the “Marseillaise” for the first time, this song would later become the national anthem. The city and port started growing again after the 2nd quarter of the 19th century, when two important proces-

Satellite image of MarseilleSource: http://www.geo-airbusds.com/

ses began, the industrial revolution and the rise of the French colonial empire. Along this century, as it happened in many other port-cities, the new technologies accelera-ted the rhythm in the port and increased the size of the ships. Simultaneously the second empire, as the French colonies were also known, meant more traffic for the city. The new activities and technolo-gies demanded the expansion of the port. Between 1855 and 1863 we saw the first port areas in the north side of the city, what is known as La Joliette and Le Lazaret.

The port would grow until becoming the 4th port in the world and one of the main industrial areas in France. At the beginning of the 20th century the famous transporter bridge in the mouth of the vieux port was built. Unfortunately it was destroyed during the WWII. In this period we saw the rapid expansion of the port until L´Estaque, the natural limit of the basin. Before the WWI, tthe first discussions regarding the creation of a port outside the city area took place. The plans would be postponed due to the

134

WWI and WWII that seriously affected the city and the its infrastructure. Particularly damaged was the vieux-port area, where the Nazis destroyed several blocks, up to 1500 buildings, for considering it a criminal neighborhood.

In 1964 we finally saw the expansion in Fos-sur-Mer. This new territory would initially host mainly the petro-chemicals plants. Only later on would we see the con-tainer terminals and other activities.

During the second half of the 20th cen-tury Marseille would go through several difficult situations. Particularly complica-ted was the fall of the empire, that would bring to the city many immigrants. The city is well known for its multicultural socie-ty but in certain moments of its history it has also seen social conflict regarding the coexistence among people with different backgrounds. At the same time Marseille gained a reputation of dangerous and de-graded city. During the last two decades we have assisted to several initiatives fo-cused in changing this situation.

Nowadays the city of Marseille is the se-cond urban agglomeration in France, af-ter Paris. It has a population of 850 000 inhabitants and almost 1,8 million in the

Pont TransbordeurSource:http://visite.marseille.fr/promenade_hi-

storique/le_pont_transbordeur.php

metropolitan area. The port still plays an important role in the economy and the la-bor market. The city has stablish itself as an important tourism destination and is integrated in the PACA region (Provence, Alpes and Cote d´Azur) which is one of the most attractive regions for tourism and lei-sure activities. The physical geography is typical from this part of the Mediterranean, with an accidental topography, including mountains entering directly into the water with very few flat area.

The PortThe GPMM (Grand Port Maritime de Mar-seille) is the 5th port in Europe and main port on France regarding tonnage. If we consider containers is competing with Le Havre in this sort of traffic. More specifi-cally last year it had a throughput of 78,5 million tons and 1.2 million containers. One of the main characteristics of this port is the fact that the liquid bulk, mainly oil and related products, take a large share of the traffic, almost 70% in 2012. The GPMM also has a strong passenger traffic, both in regular lines and in the cruise industry. In 2014 it had a combined traffic of 2,5 million passenger, of which 1,2 million were from the cruise sector.

The port has its territory divided into two

135

Port of FosSource: http://www.marseille-port.fr

View of MarseilleAuthor: José M P Sánchez

main areas, east basin in Marseille and West basin in Fos. In the section placed in the city we will find all the activities related with passengers, also ro-ro, container and short-sea shipping terminals. In this area we can also see the fishing port and the shipyards. In the west basin, 50 km away, is where the port has the majority of its land (95% of over 10 000 Ha). There we can find the petro-chemical refineries and a major container terminal, besides other industries related with this sectors.

Regarding jobs, the port of Marseille-Fos creates over 40 000 direct and indirect jobs. In 2012 the port had a direct and indi-rect impact of 3% of the GDP in the PACA region. From these figures we can see that the GPMM still has a notorious presence not just physically in the city, but also in the economy.

Two of the main projects that we have seen in recent times related with the port are theMarseille-Fos 2XL and the Eu-roméditarrenée. The first one was the ex-pansion of the container terminal in Fos. It started operating in 2012 after 5 years of construction period, and a cost of 400 mill. €. The future 3XL and 4XL are in con-

sideration, but on the long term plan. The Euroméditerranée project took place in Marseille and it affected the port mainly in the south part of the east basin, changing the physical configuration of this area and the activities related with the ferries.

The waterfront The coast of Marseille has evolved consi-derably along its history. As we have seen the city was born near the current vieux-port and later expanded occupying a con-siderable territory. The first improvements in this part of the city were done in the re-construction after the WWII. The vieux-port was the most affected area and the rege-neration was urgent. Nowadays we can find here one of the main recreational ma-rinas and mostly tertiary activities, such as leisure, offices and tourism. We can also find several housing areas, many from the reconstruction period. The typical image of Marseille is from this part of the city, with the different fortress creating a strong cha-racter that has also been used as attrac-tion for the many tourist that visit the city.For the European capital of culture event, in 2013, there were several improvements in order to rearrange the traffic and create more pedestrian areas. Different facilities

136

were created, such as the shading struc-ture from Sir Norman Foster that has be-come a major attraction. The regeneration process should continue until 2020.

The main second urban regeneration project that also affected the waterfront and the port is the Euroméditerranée. This project is very particular for several rea-sons. First of all the leading role is taken by the state, instead of the municipal au-thorities as we have seen in other cases. Second, the project is not limited to the wa-terfront area, but comprises a significant part of the city center. The main goal is its regeneration and the improvement of the image of the city. Included in the plan were for example the train station or industrial brownfields, unrelated with the port. Ano-ther important feature of this intervention is the fact that in some port territories the port activities coexist with the urban ones. The-refore the port still is part of the city and the strategies developed could be an example

for other cases looking for new synergies.

During the next week we will interview se-veral key actors of the process, we will get to know how it developed and what is ex-pected for its expansion, the 2nd act.

Next page: View of MarseilleSource: Presentation from Euroméditerranée

View of the Vieux-PortAuthor: José M P Sánchez

137

Act 2 - The Marseille Experience

During the last two weeks we stayed in Marseille. We were able to get to know the second city of France and analyze the port-city relation. Although in terms of na-tional importance the hegemony of Paris is undisputed, Marseille has developed along the centuries a strong identity. Nowadays aims to become the symbolical European capital of the Mediterranean Sea, a title to discuss with other port-cities, such as Genoa, Valencia and mainly Barcelona. When we talk about this French city we must always have in mind the considerable dimensions of it, is the second city of Fran-ce by extension and it plays an important role for the regional and national economy.

For the analysis of the city we worked fol-lowing the same approach like in previous cases. We were able to visit the historic center, the expansion areas and the port territories, both in Marseille and Fos. As

we mentioned in the last post, the port was the reason why this city was created, it has clearly influenced the evolution of the ur-ban core and it has played a major role in its history. During our stay we were able to visit several cultural institutions in char-ge of divulging the identity of the city. For example we can find the Museum of the roman docks or theMuseum of the history of Marseille, where the evolution of the city is explained, from the Greek roots of Mas-salia to the XXth century. In its collection we can identify the role the port has played and how in some cases it has conditioned the urban development. Another relevant museum is the recently opened MUCEM museum of the European and Mediterra-nean civilizations. This institution is very relevant for our research since is placed in what it used to be J4 area, a former port territory that was freed up during the Euroméditerranée operation. Finally we

138

can also visit the Musée de la Marine et de l’Économie, where we will find a collec-tion of maritime artifacts and ship models. This museum is placed in the Palais de la Bourse, where the chamber of commerce is based.

InterviewsFor the development of the research was important to meet with the local stakehol-ders, in this case we met with Mr. Alexan-dre Sorrentino (AS), Director of Strategic Foresight and International Relations of Euroméditerranée. We also were able to speak with the persons in charge for the port-city relation of the Grand Port Mari-time du Marseille (GPMM), more specifi-cally with Ms. Régine Vinson (RV), Head of the City-Port Department and with Ms. Claire Hallé (CH), responsible for the part-nerships and synergies of the same de-partment.

We also tried to speak with the Agam (Agence d´urbanisme de l´agglomération Marseillese) but unfortunately we received no answer to our contacts.

The relation between the city and the port

EmotionalIn the case of Marseille the port still is a strong identity element, both in the urban structure and the collective memory. When we walk around the city we perceive the presence of the port, mainly in the older areas or near the coast. The influence that the maritime activities had in the forma-tion of the city is clear. Many of the nei-ghborhoods we find along the coast, that now are included in Marseille, used to be fisherman villages. In the city center one of the main leisure area is the Vieux-Port were the people meet and we can find se-veral restaurants and bars. Although this is clearly one of the main tourist attractions still is a popular meeting point. At the same time many important landmarks, like the fortresses, are placed in the coast. What once used to be the city´s defense structu-res are now places to visit and to enjoy the view of the sea and the port.

In general terms the locals acknowledge the port as an important feature for their identity. In many families the previous ge-nerations were somehow connected to the port, when it used to employ hundreds of thousands instead of the 40 000 today (still though a considerable figure for the region). However most inhabitants have a bucolic image from the port, as it happens in other port cities. As RV mentioned, cur-rently the majority of the locals do not know exactly how the ports works and the ro-mantic view remains in the collective mind. At the same time the people demand more and better access to the water. Even if the current situation is better than previously, is not easy to cope with a closed area by the water. For this reason, among others, the public image of the port has been af-

Vieux portAuthor: José M P Sánchez

139

fected. If we consider that the jobs in the port decreased and that the majority of the port activities take place out of sight, we might understand that is difficult for the in-habitants to relate with the port.

Marseille is particular in this aspect since the relation of its inhabitant with the port might vary depending on the area of the city we study. The majority might have the watered image we described, but we can also find people, mainly in the north part of the city, that have a stronger opposition to the port. There are two main reasons for this difficult relation: (i)the fact that the port developed where several popular beaches were and(ii) that is in this area where we can find the majority industrial activities

in port territory. Some of the local elderly people remember the previous state of the coast, before the port expanded its east basin. This clearly has an impact in the way they perceive the port, especially for the ones whose job or pension does not depend on the harbour activities. The se-cond reason is probably the one that might harm the port image in the future the most, since the port location will not change. The recent Port-City charter, that manifests the institutional acceptation of the port in the urban core, says that this area will remain as the industrial core of the east basin. Therefore the focus will have to be putted in other soft strategies to find a way to im-prove the relation.

Coastline evolution.: beginning of the XIXth Century vs end of the XXth.

Source: Euroméditerranée presentation

140

Finally we have to understand that the port of Marseille, as mentioned in the previous post, has two main locations, in Marseille and Fos. This two areas have very diffe-rent characteristics regarding their acti-vities, their scale and the way they relate with the territory and the local populations. We focused in the city area, the east ba-sin, since the main focus of the research is the port-city relation and is also where we can find the most interesting challen-ges and the new strategies. However, the fact that the port is placed in two different areas and that in Fos, where approx. 95% of the port territory is, the expansion is ap-parently easier than in the urban tissue of Marseille, has given arguments to the port critics. They mention that the port could ex-pand in Fos and disappear from Marseille. This reasoning clearly does not consider the characteristics of the port activities and the consequences it could have in terms of employment and urban development.

InstitutionalIn order to better understand the relation we must first explain that the port of Mar-seille is different from the cases explained previously. In the European context we can find two main types of national organi-zation regarding some major infrastructure like ports, centralized and decentralized. The ports we have analyzed so far were mainly city owned or the city had the le-ading role, mainly as shareholder in case it is an independent corporation. We could see this in ports like Rotterdam, Hamburg or Helsinki. This sort of state model is more common in the north/central Europe-an countries. In the southern countries we find a centralized model, where a state au-thority is responsible for the organization

and control of the Seaports. This organiza-tion is more common in France, Portugal, Italy or Spain. In the current case we see that until very recently all ports remained under state control. This situation changed in 2008 and only the main ports conside-red of national importance remained un-der state control, changing their name to Grand Port Maritime, like Le Havre or Mar-seille. This change also meant that the PA evolved to something more than a mana-ging institution; they changed to be the ef-fective owners of the port territory. The port authorities gained a certain independence although always under the state control.

The different approaches regarding the national organization has, in many cases, conditioned the institutional relation betwe-en city and port authorities. When we spo-ke with the representative from the GPMM they told us that one of the difficulties they found was that the Municipality still sees often the port as something external to the city, a body that does not belong to them. This issue might possibly limit the city-port synergies that could be developed.

Regarding the institutional relation is also important to understand how the GPMM is managed. The port has two boards: the supervisory board and the development board. Both council are important for the port functioning but is the supervisory bo-ard the one that has decision making capa-cities. As we have said before the state is the main player in the GPMM, it has 5 out of 17 representatives in the main board. Besides the central government also the representatives from other territorial divi-sions, regional and municipal scales, have a sit in the board. Finally also the unions

141

and several professionals with know-how relevant for the port are represented. Be-sides the boards there is also a managing team in charge of the operational duties. The complexity of the GPMM is also vi-sible in the territorial level in which it has to relate with up to nine groups of munici-palities, each one demanding presence in the boards and looking out for its own in-terests. This universe of stakeholders and different bodies hinders a possible fluid re-lation with the different municipalities and at the same time adds complexity to the negotiation process and strategic vision. When we speak about major infrastructure a general vision is needed, the coordina-tion between short term and long term stra-tegies is crucial as it is that every player in the different level understands its role in the development process. In January 2016 another institution, the Métropole de d’Aix-Marseille-Provence, will start working to rule the Aix-Marseille metropolis in several topics.This new organization might give the GPMM the opportunity to discuss to on a larger territorial scale. The development of the port will be one of the arguments to study by the new institution, but the port governance will remain with the current management model, led by the state. In

the near future we shall see if this new or-ganization can improve the coordination or if it will add confusion to the current situa-tion.

When we study major ports that affect a large territory, as is the case of the GPMM, we might have to choose to focus the analysis in one of the several concerned cities. In this case the clear choice was Marseille. The port also has to prioritize the municipalities that are more relevant for its operation. Marseille and Fos are obviously the ones the port has to relate more. Re-garding the institutional relation between the city and the port in the case of Marseil-le, we can say that in last 20 years there has been a considerable evolution. All the interviewees agreed that since 1995 the relation has changed but also that there is space for improvement. We can identify two main stepping stones in this process, the Euroméditerranée plan and the City-Port Charter.

Both elements here mentioned will later be described in further detail. It is important to realize that the Euroméditerranée ope-ration is an ongoing process since 1995 that created a framework for the second element, the City-Port Charter. The main characteristic of both is the cooperation between several institutions with different priorities and goals, in some cases almost incompatible from an initial point of view. It is also important to notice that a certain pressure from the state was needed in order to impulse the project that later on would create the context for the charter.

Shipyards in the East BasinAuthor: José M P Sánchez

142

EuroméditerranéeMarseille was at the beginning of the 1990´s a city with many problems. The traditional port related industries had suf-fered with the several crisis of the second half of the XXth century and the shipyards were struggling with the competition of the eastern rivals. The typical industries of the region no longer were providing the jobs they used to and the unemployment rate was particularly high when compared with other French cities. At the same time the investment in the city was decreasing what gave as result a degraded urban en-vironment. The city gained fame for being unsafe and the population was decreasing. One of the main issues was also the fact that the development model of the city was not updated to cope with the change in the industry. The education rates, regarding professionals with higher studies, was poor when compared with other French cities (still is nowadays). There were no real alternatives to the crumbling industry.

This issue can also be observed in other port-cites, in which the port was the main job source. When the crisis hits these cities the adaptation period is critical and very of-ten the port workers, who have work in the port for generations, are the first victims. For centuries the work in the port did not required any sort of high-education. This meant they were particularly exposed to the shifts in the economic situation. No-wadays the reality has changed and more often the ports need qualified staff, which is sometimes hard to find.

We have to consider that for a country the size of France it can be very problematic to have its second urban agglomeration in a precarious state. It’s the first port of the nation and it should work as counterpart to balance the territorial development outside Paris.

The state, along with the municipality, de-cided to stablish a plan to reactivate the

Plan of Euroméditerranée Source: http://www.euromediterranee.fr/

143

Main figures of the Euroméditerranée Source: Euroméditerranée presentation

city. The strategy was focused on the ur-ban redevelopment of specific areas near the city center and the waterfront. The plan was named Euroméditerranée, somehow expressing the subjective goal of rede-veloping the city into a symbolic capital of the Euromed region. The project was considered an operation of national inte-rest and a specific urban planning agency was established. The goals were mainly three: (i) to lead an urban renewal opera-tion with an initial public investment and a clear strategy;(ii) to transform the public lead into a real estate and economic deve-lopment, working with the private investors but under the rules established by the pu-blic organization and, finally, (iii) to impro-ve the international image of the city, that

had been seriously affected in the previous decades.

The organization, established in 1995, was led by the state but also included the city of Marseille, the Urban Community, the County Council and the Regional Council. Besides the main goals quoted before, one of the other purposes of the plan, as poin-ted out by AS, was to improve the relation between the city and the port. As mentio-ned before, the plan includes acting in port territory, therefore the cooperation betwe-en the different entities was necessary. The majority of the land the Euroméditer-ranée considered were industrial or railway brownfields. The exception was the area in the waterfront that belonged to the GPMM and, as it was stated by the RV, it was an active part of the port, therefore the nego-tiation was needed.

The urban renewal operation has a signifi-cant scale, is considered to be one of the main regeneration projects in Europe. Be-sides waterfront land another areas within the urban core were considered, like the Rue de la Republique, the railway station St Charles and industrial buildings in its surroundings. In the image we can see the main figures of the plan. It is also impor-tant to explain that the goal of the project is not the gentrification of the area. Although some of the new buildings can be conside-red of high standards with expensive rents, the operation also includes 25% of housing with controlled pricing.

Finally another important aspect is the fi-nancing of the project. The Support of the state is crucial in order make it viable, being in charge of 50% of the initial investment.

144

The acquisition of the land is also made by a state agency, the établissement pu-blic foncier (EPF). The Euroméditerranée organization is in charge of managing the process between the land acquisition and the private development. The goal of the company, formed by several public part-ners, is not to make profit but to manage the operation and reinvest the gains in the city. The economic has proven successful since it has developed cautiously without creating an excess of plots for new buil-dings, or jeopardizing the operation during the crisis years. At the same time the new projects, whether they are for office or hou-sing, are only allowed to proceed if they can assure the occupancy. This is also important since its avoids the creation of empty constructions and the existence of negative degradation spirals.

NegotiationWhen we asked the interviewees about the first phase of the negotiations both agreed that there were some initial difficulties. AS explained that there was a general misun-derstanding about the scope of the Eu-roméditerranée. Many people and institu-tions thought that the goal was to push the port out of the city in order to get the ac-cess to the water and build several private marinas. This idea was also assumed by the unions that fully rejected the plan even with protests, since it was seen as a thre-at to the port activities and, therefore, their jobs. RV and CH explained that for them was also not easy to explain the project to the port community since they also percei-ved the project as menace to their busi-ness. In an initial stage, as pointed by AS, the port was reticent to collaborate.

The new project demanded a serious re-flection about the role of the port in the city. This necessary change in the gene-ral mindset happened along the negotia-tion process, particularly when the state directly pressured for an understanding. The agreement, in the early 2000´s, was only possible when the port administration and the port community were aware of the possible positive outcome. The deal was that the port territories would remain under their control, the industrial part of the port would remain active and that the other in-volved actors acknowledged the important role of the port in the urban economy. Ano-ther relevant element was that a solution was founded which would allow the coexi-stence of certain port activities and urban ones. The port on his side should do two main things: (i) first it should leave the spa-ce for the creation of the new boulevard du Littoral; second (ii) it should give the J4 quay for the development of the MUCEM and Villa Méditerranée. In exchange for the J4 area the port had to make a landfill and change the coast line nearby, between the J3 and J2.

City-Port CharterThe agreements aforementioned improved the cooperation and led to interesting mi-xed use projects and the City-Port Char-ter. This document, signed in 2013, was mainly the crystallization of the negotiation process described. One of the most posi-tive aspects of this document is the fact is an official agreement, signed by eight sta-keholders: the State (Bouches du Rhône prefecture) GPMM, Euroméditerranée, the PACA region, the county, the metropolitan area, The city of Marseille and the cham-ber of commerce. For this reason the com-

145

South part of the East Basin, where the relation between the port and the city will change the most Source: Euroméditerranée presentation

146

promise is clearer and stronger than other initiatives. In this new statement the impor-tance of the port in the urban and regional economy was acknowledged and a com-mitment was made to respect its presence in the urban core, its East basin.

The City-Port Charter meant also the reor-ganization of the East basin until the year 2025 towards a new more compatible ur-ban port. The port territory in Marseille was divided in three main areas: North, Center and South. In the North part, from the fi-shing dock until L´Estaque, the waterfront would be rearranged into a pole of leisure and tourism. The existing marinas would be maximized and some leisure facilities created. In the central area the industrial activities of the port would be respected and it would remain as closed area with no public access. The shipyards activities would be expanded with the reopening of the dry-dock 10, closed during recent ye-

ars. The south part of the port would be dedicated to develop projects that allow compatible uses with the city. This chan-ge should allow a greater porosity and better access to the sea, although only visually. Example of this strategy are the Terrase du Port or Silo d´Arenc. Simulta-neously the passenger and ferry activities within port territories would be reorgani-zed. The terminals for the ships coming from countries outside the Schengen area would be placed in the central part and the ones coming from the EU would be reloca-ted in the south section, where they could allow an easier access towards the sea.

Representative projects of the new eraIn the south part of the east basin, where the port and the Euroméditerranée meet is where we see some of the most inno-vative buildings of the plan, that represent the new stage of the relation between the actors.

South part of the East Basin, where the relation between the port and the city will change the most Source: Euroméditerranée presentation

147

SILOOne of the first project of this group to be built was the Silo d´Arenc, placed in the north end of the first phase of the Eu-roméditerranée. This industrial building was reconverted into a concert hall with 2000 places and office area (4000 m2). In the ground floor the port activities continue to work, mainly allowing the cross traffic in the area. The ownership remains from the GPMM, although the majority of the in-vestment, 30 mill€ out of 42, was made by the City of Marseille. The inside of the Silo has been rented to a partner for 50 years and since its opening in 2011 it has beco-me one of the main concert venues in the city.

J4/MUCEMThe warehouse area formerly known as the J4 was one of the places where major modifications happened. This waterfront location placed in the south corner of the Euroméditerranée next to the Fort Saint-Jean was given to the city in exchange of a compensation in order to develop a new cultural pole and to give to the fortress a more noble context. In this area we can now find the MUCEM (museum of the Eu-ropean and Mediterranean civilizations)

and the Ville Méditerranée, an Internatio-nal Centre for Dialogue and Discussion in the Mediterranean. Besides the new cul-tural facilities and rehabilitation of the for-tress, the city has also gained an access to the sea. This is a very relevant aspect since from the vieux-port until L´ Estaque in the north the access to the water for the citizens is block by the port infrastructure.

Terrasses du PortNear the square of La Joliette a new mall has been developed. The particular fea-ture of this building is the fact that allows the coexistence of the port activities under the commercial area, without compromi-sing either of them. It opened in May 2014 with 52 000 m2 of commercial areas, 13 000 of terraces and 3000 parking places. The ground floor, excluding the entrance of the mall, is dedicated to the ferry termi-nal and existing port traffic, as well as the area for the passenger boarding near the quay. The project has been developed with a long term contract with the firm Hammer-son. A call for proposal took place and the firm foruminvest won the bid who later would sell the project to current developer.

Silo d´ArencSource: http://www.lacroix.com

MUCEMSource: Euroméditerranée presentation

148

J1The last building in the waterfront to be de-veloped is the J1, a warehouse near the Place de la Joliette. This construction has already hosted temporary exhibition during the year 2013 when the city was the Eu-ropean capital of Culture. Since then the future of it is not clear. According to AS the decision about this building should have been reached some years ago, but so far the port has not agreed with the proposals that arrived from possible partners such as the municipality. In the past it was conside-red an alternative for the PA headquarters. Nowadays the GPMM is working to launch a new call for proposals for the building, following a similar scheme like in the pre-vious cases. Regarding the physical con-figuration it should allow the coexistence of both port and urban uses, although the priority would be given to activities related with the maritime economy.

Second ActThe Euroméditerranée perimeter was expanded in the year 2007 towards the north. There are several differences when compared with the first part of the plan. In this new stage the port territories are not directly affected, therefore the negotiation

between the institutions is less intensive. Another key difference is the fact that for this part they will have to cope with existing industries and there are local inhabitants that actually live within the perimeter. In the first phase the majority of the operation took place in brownfield, as we have alre-ady seen, with no need of affecting local population. This added difficulties will re-quire a new approach. AS explained that they will work more in a small scale and the dialogue with the locals will be more acti-ve in order to allow a better transition and to accommodate the local interests. Also the financing of the project will be different. In the first the state has been responsible for 50% of the funds, in this second stage this share will be reduced to approximately 20%. The program to develop will also be more focus in housing than in the first pha-se, during which the priority has been office area, public space and leisure and cultural facilities. Some housing project have also been built but it was not the main concern.

In the second act one of the most intere-sting aspects will be the development of the Mediterranean eco-city project. This plan will build housing units using what AS defined as “Low cost easy tech project”,

Terrasses du PortSource: http://www.hammerson.com

J1 WarehouseSource: http://www.madeinmarseille.net

149

so that high sustainable standards are reached without forcing big changes in the Mediterranean lifestyle. Another key project will be the Parc des Aygalade, which will take the place of the current Gare du Canet, a railway terminal for car-go. This infrastructure, necessary for the logistic operations related with the port, will be redeveloped combining it with the exi-sting one in Mourepiane in port territory, to be later finally Terminal de Transport Com-biné de Mourepiane . This change will not just replace one terminal but combine the two existing ones and improve the logistic chain, stimulating the rail traffic. For the port though, as mentioned by RV and SC, it might create problems with neighbors since it will intensify the industrial activity of the area. As we have seen the commu-nities placed near the industrial port are probably the most critical towards the port location. New efforts will be necessary for the relation with this part of the city.

Coexistence strategiesIn order to have a healthier relation with the inhabitants, the GPMM has developed a series of workshops where they try to ex-plain the current development projects and listen to the complains of the locals. This has been one of the main coexistence ac-tions the port has developed. The GPMM is aware that they have, as most ports, a relative negative image among the popu-lation. The communication strategies are improving slowly, however, the port com-munity needs to understand that, if before there was no need to explain what they were doing, the situation has changed and now, in order to be accepted by the public, a certain transparency is required.

During the last years there used to be an open doors day, but apparently this initia-tive has ceased because of the economic cost it had. In other terms the cooperation with schools and universities continues, organizing visits and participating in wor-kshops, for example from the architecture faculty.

In the present moment there is a small in-formation center about the port in Fos, but we were not able to find it. In the future we might see a proper Port-center, what could give a significant boost to the public per-ception of the port.

The issue of public relation with the locals is also very relevant for the Euroméditer-ranée organization. AS explained us that initially the operation was better known outside Marseille than in the city itself. As we mentioned, during the first years of the project many thought it was a private operation that would end up gentrifying

Euroméditerranée act 2Source: http://www.euromediterraneeacte2.fr

150

the area. This view changed mainly when the people started to see results, in 2013. Since then the public acceptance has in-creased.

Personal OpinionThe case of Marseille shows several stra-tegies that have brought positive results for both the port and the city. Probably the most relevant issue for the ongoing inve-stigation is the fact that the interaction in institutional terms has given a great leap towards the future. If twenty years ago the relation was harsh or inexistent, now we see that there is a serious commitment for a positive synergy. The existence of a document specifically focus in the relation between city and port and signed by all the stakeholders is a good example and could be followed by other cities. The Euromédi-terranée operation meant a new beginning for this issue and presented the opportu-nity to reflect about it. Is very positive that

the initial reluctance was overcome and an agreement was achieved.

The urban regeneration plan has proved to be very effective and with positive out-comes. Although the first phase still is ongoing at the moment, we see that the city has gained several important new pla-ces where it can relate with the sea. The projects before mentioned are good exam-ples of alternative approaches to the ne-cessary mix of functions in port-cities. The implementation of these new facilities are the result of the aforementioned negotia-tion process.

In this article we have focused in the urban interventions, but there are also several other initiatives by the GPMM regarding the relation with the territory and the envi-ronment worth knowing. For example the project Climeport, the geothermic central or the GIREL program. All these initiatives

151

can be seen in the Guide of good practice from the AIVP.

Regarding the communication and the use of soft values, is where we think greater improvements could be done. If the port is aware of its relative negative image, it should consider developing a more ef-fective strategy towards better explaining itself. Although is clear that the port is an important part of the identity of the city, it could be positive if it invested in a closer public image. The goal is not to have pe-ople walking around the containers but to pursue a larger identification of the inha-bitants with the port and port community. The soft values, as we have mentioned in other posts, are an important asset for the port-city synergies and in the case of Marseille they could be better explored. The possible new port-center in the J1 wa-rehouse could improve the relation. It has an appropriate location, in the city center

but inside the harbour, and the context helps to understand the current and past importance of the port.

We look forward to know how the first sta-ge of the Euroméditerranée will end and how will the second act develop. Marseille was identified by the French geographer C. Ducruet as a Maritime city, along with Lisbon and Izmir, according to the role they have in national structure and the impor-tance of their port in the international logi-stic chains. These cities share several cha-racteristics; we shall see if they can share solutions.

Panorama from Marseille with the Mucem and the fort St. Jean in the foreground Author: José M P Sánchez

152

Act 3 - Photo essay

167

Genoa6th stop

44°24’40’’N 8°55’58’’ENovember 18 - December 3, 2015

Genoa, a maritime power

The city of Genoa is the capital of the Liguria region, in the north-west of Italy. Is part of the most industrial area of the country, historically formed by the triangle between Milan, Turin and itself. It has a population of almost 600 000 inhabitants in the city limits and over 1,5 million in the metropolitan area. The region has the typical north Mediterranean topography, with mountains with peaks from 600 to 1000 meters high near or directly by the coast. This context has been at the same time an advantage and a problem for the urban settlements and ports. The coastline creates natural deep water ports that allow an easy access for the modern ships, but at the same time the fact that the terrain is so complex complicates the creation of large flat surfaces for major infrastructure such as ports and airports.

The origin of the city goes back to the pre-romans time. The existing settlement in the “Castello” hill had the conditions to work as an Emporium for commerce in the route to Marseille. As it happens with many other Mediterranean cities the Greeks arrived and contacted with the locals Ligurians to give birth to the new city. During the roman times the town was not a relevant center and was able to keep a certain independence. After the fall of the Roman Empire we could see how the city continued to grow and benefi-tedfrom the development of the Lombard hinterland. Only in the XIth century would the city become a proper commune.

Act 1 - The Italian case: Genoa

168

During the Middle Ages, Genoa would be-come one of the main maritime republics in the Mediterranean region. In this period it would play an important role in the crusa-des on both ends of the sea, in the Middle East and in the Iberian Pensinsula, its gal-ley fleet would gain fame for its capacities in the sea battles. In the XVIth Century the city would create, after a period of French control, a long standing relation with the Spanish kingdom. This political change was defended by one of the main figures of its history, Andrea Doria. This alliance was not just a political move, but mainly an eco-nomic strategy. The local bankers would be the ones who most benefited from this move by lending money to Spain and re-ceiving later a considerable amount of the gold coming from South America. The new association would mean a change in its de-velopment model, more focus in financing foreign states than in the maritime traffic and commerce.

Later on, during the XVIIth century, the city would suffer a severe epidemic of the plague, second time in its history after the XIVth Century. In terms of politics it would be affected by the Spanish crisis and would end the century again under French domination from the King Louis XIV. In or-der to control Genoa, would attack it from the sea in 1684, what it known to be the first naval bombing of a city in history. Du-

View of Genoa in 1597 by Christoforo de GrossiSource: http://www.museum-humpis-quartier.de

MAP of Genoa in 1766 by Giovanni Lorenzo Guidotti Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org

169

ring this century we could see the creation of the free port and the new dike in order to improve its commercial conditions. In the next century it would definitely lose its overseas territories, like Corsica to France in the treaty of Versailles. It would be later controlled by Austria and again would re-bel against the foreign invader.

Only during the industrial revolution would Genoa recover its glory days as an impor-tant economic, logistic and industrial cen-ter. It would see the creation of several big companies mainly related with steel plants. During the WWII the city suffered severe punishment due to its seaport conditions. The focus of the bombings was the port infrastructure, although also the urban tissue suffered considerable destruction. After the war it was an important core for the “Italian economic miracle” and formed, alongside with Milan and Turin, the indu-strial triangle of the north of Italy. During

View of GenoaSource: http://www.porto.genova.it/

the second half of the XXtth century the city suffered several crisis that reduced its industry and limited the port as a logistic center with less associated industry than before.

Along its history the city has been involved in many conflicts, whether with the nei-ghbors, like Pisa or Savona, or with sea ri-vals like Venice. Also, inside the city itself, we would see little peace. It has suffered constant tension from the first Commune years to the G8 summit in 2001, including civil wars, resistance to foreign domination and class struggle.

The port of GenoaThe port of Genoa is one of the biggest in the Mediterranean Sea. In the Euromed region we find several harbours that com-pete against each other for similar markets and hinterlands. Marseille, which we saw in the previous post, could be considered

170

the main rival of Genoa for the port activity. Both harbours have large container termi-nals, important shipyards and are cruise destination. In this last sector, very impor-tant in the region, we also find Barcelona or other Ligurian ports like Savona.

There are several similarities to the case of Marseille in terms of the physical evo-lution of the port. As we have seen, its origin was near the historical city center. During the industrial revolution, motivated by the growth of the factories in the region, the port needed to be expanded, starting a similar process to the previous analyzed case. From the original location the growth evolved towards the territory with the most favorable conditions, the west, where be-fore the port expansion we could see bea-ches that the locals would usufruct. The first expansion took place near La Lanter-na, the historical light house from the XIIth century. Gradually it took more territory, including the coast of San Pier d´Arena.

The case of Genoa has the particularity of including the airport inside the port perime-ter. The presence of this infrastructure is a considerable limitation for the port acti-vities next to it. The last expansion phase of the port took place in the area of Voltri,

in the 1980´s, with one the main container terminals. The majority of the port territo-ries are landfills since, as said before, the availability of flat land is very limited. To the east side of Porto Antico we also find port areas, but of smaller scale when com-pared to the other direction. In this territori-es we can mainly find a shipyardfor repairs and marinas with the historical Yacht club.

In the year 2014 the port of Genoa registe-red record figures. In total it had a gene-ral throughput of 52 mill tons. From these figure approx. 30 mill was general cargo, including 21,5 mill in container traffic. In Genoa the oil sector is also relevant: in 2014 it was approx. 16 mill tons. In the same year it counted almost 2,2 mill TEU, with an increment of 9,3% to the previous year. Besides cargo, the passenger traffic is also an important sector in this port. Fer-ries and cruise combined moved over 2,7 mill persons, respectively 1,9 mill and 800 000. This numbers, although impressive when compared with other ports, might be a matter of concern for the port, since the cruise traffic went down 21,5% when compared to the previous year. This drop might probably be related with the fact that Costa Crociere, one of the main actors in the sector, decided in 2014 to change Ge-

View of the port from La LanternaSource: https://commons.wikimedia.org

171

View of Porto AntigoSource: http://www.rpbw.com

noa for Savona as base port. This issue is more concerning to the city than the port it-self since, as it is well known, the port does not get so much revenue from the cruise traffic.

In terms of employment the port is still a significant entity in the city. We could only find data from some years ago, 2010 and 2011. Since the traffic has not changed si-gnificantly during these years we can as-sume they probably still are near the real current figures. The direct employment in the port is estimated in 4700 jobs, and in-direct of 26 300, including activities related with the port such as the shipyards. In total we account 31 000 jobs without conside-ring the induced employment, activities not related with the port but that benefit from the port activities and jobs.

An interesting point of the port deve-lopment is the new port plan (PRP) curren-tly in approval phase. The main characteri-stic of this new document, in terms of port territory, the fact that no expansion outside the current boundaries is planned and the expected growth will take place within the existing area, mainly by improving the efficiency of the avaliable land and new landfills in several quays, mainly the ones placed in San Pier d´Arena. This plan and the consequences for the relation with the city will be analyzed in the next post.

The waterfrontThe first important interventions in the Ge-noese waterfront took place for the 1992 World Exhibition, celebrating the 500 years of the discovery of America by Columbus (allegedly Genovese, but its nationality is always a subject of controversy). The plan for the waterfront regeneration was made by Genoa´s most famous contemporary

architect, Renzo Piano.

The project was developed in the “Porto Antico” (old port) area, a territory the port could no longer use, including old wa-rehouses and cranes that later would be-come elements of industrial heritage. The project could be considered a success sin-ce it gave to the city a much needed public space and access to the water. In terms of program the focus of the project was in services and leisure activities. A new con-gress center was created in the magazzini del cottone, with several spaces for cultu-ral activities, including a museum and a library. Another one of the main elements of the project was the new aquarium, the biggest one in Italy and an important touri-st attraction. This new building, developed by the water was also a project from Ren-zo Piano, along with the congress center and other constructions. In the water plane a new marina was developed, where no-wadays we might find some of the most luxurious yachts. For the management of these new spaces a new semi-private so-ciety was created named Porto Antico. In this new body the port, the city and private investors are present.

172

Later on, in 2000´s, we could see more projects focused on improving the area and expanding the public space in the wa-terfront. These new developments were related with the so called, big events po-licy. Two main venues took place in Genoa within a short time: in 2001 the G8 meeting was hosted in the city and in 2004 the city was the European capital of culture. In the waterfront the public area was expanded towards the west, the Galata sea museum was built, also a new hotel and housing by the sea. In the city center we also saw se-veral improvement, particularly the rehabi-litation of several “palazzi”. In 2006 some areas of the city center were considered world heritage by the UNESCO.

During the last 15 years we have also seen some unrealized ambitions that could have improved the existing waterfront. Two main projects stand out, the new Ponte Parodi cruise terminal and the Silo Hen-nebique. The first one should have been a key infrastructure for both, the city and the port. It was a very ambitious project by the Dutch office UNstudio led Ben Van Berkel. It included the creation of a new mall and

elevated public spaces, besides the crui-se terminal program. The second project is the rehabilitation of an industrial building of considerable proportions. One of the challenge of this construction was to find the appropriate functions for it. For a long period it was discussed if it should host se-veral public offices. Since the project has not been developed the building remains abandoned.

Renzo Piano has played an important role in the relation between the port and the city for the last 25 years. His ascendant over the issue is a particularity of this case. In no other port-city has one single architect played such an important role. Besides the Porto Antico development and other rele-vant architectural projects, his office has also produced several plans for the urban waterfront, including the active port, not just the dismissed areas. The plans were “the Affresco”, designed in 2004, and more recently the “Blueprint”. In both we find ide-as that have inspired the future port plan. His figure and impact will be analyzed in the next post as also both plans.

Next page: view of the Porto Antico the portAuthor: José M P Sánchez

Affresco plan from Renzo PianoSource: http://www.rpbw.com/

173

Act 2 - The Genoa Experience

The city, the visitThe time spent in Genoa was enough to identify the existing challenges and to bet-ter understand how a complex geography can condition the development of a city and a port. In the previous post we men-tioned the particular situation of this case regarding its context. The fact that there is almost no flat land has forced the deve-lopment parallel to the coast line of both the city and the port. The urban agglome-ration has also other two orthogonal de-velopment axis, matching two rivers, the Bisagno and the Polcevera. Another parti-cularity of this case, although is something we might appreciate in other cities, is the fact that several city districts used to be independent villages that were later an-nexed to the main urban core. In the Ge-noese case this situation is even more flagrant since its longitudinal configuration increases the differences and the distan-

ces. When we analyze this situation we see that the port and one particular road are the main links for the territory in this direction. The fact that the Port spreads along the coast from Piazzale Kennedy to the Voltri Terminal creates acontinuum of maritime activities of different kind, from industrial harbour to marinas.

For the analysis of the case we followed the same methodology as in the previous cases. We visited the areas where the port-city relation is more intense and the elevated places from where we can see the contrast between the different envi-ronments. Along the visit we also made a photographic survey where the possi-ble conflicts or synergies can be seen. The result of this work will be published in the Flickr where all the other port-cities albums are. Besides the field analysis of the relation we also visited the cultural in-

174

stitutions that could provide insights to the interaction between the different realities. Finally several interviews with the respon-sible stakeholders were performed.

In this city we can find several institutions that relate with the port identity. One of the main cultural venues where we see the hi-storical relation of Genoa with the port and the sea is the Galata Museo del Mare. This museum fulfills the role of city and mari-time museum. As we will later see until very recently there was another important space to understand the linkage between city and port, the Port-center. We can also find a maritime museum in Pegli, a smaller space more focused on the maritime acti-vities.

The interviewsIn order to better understand the Genoese reality we got in contact with the local au-thorities that could add important informa-tion to the case analysis. More specifically we were able to reach the Municipality, Arch. Antonio Pastorino and Arch. Nicolet-ta Poleggi. In the Port Authority we spoke with Ms. Paola Gianpietri (PG), responsi-ble for the new Port Plan (Piano Regola-tore Portuale – PRG in Italian) currently in approval phase as we will later see. Finally we spoke with Arch. Stefano Russo (SR), responsible for the Blueprint concept plan in the Renzo Piano Building Workshop. This last interview was an exception when compared with the previously analyzed ca-ses, where we did not speak with private companies. Genoa is special in this aspect since the work of the architect Renzo Pia-no has a significant influence in the city, the port and waterfront development.

The relation between the city and the portEmotionalIn the emotional relation between the city and the port we can find similarities to what it happens in other port-cities, particularly Marseille. The maritime roots of Genoa are very clear and until not so long ago many families had a strong relation with the port activities. Obviously this has change in the last decades, the mechanization proces-ses and changes in the economic flows led to the situation we currently find ourselves in. The port is no longer the job creator it once used to be, although still is an impor-tant stakeholder in the employment mar-ket. Parallel to the decrease of jobs in the harbour we have also seen the continuous expansion of the port territories. In the case of Genoa, as we saw in the previous post, the increase of port areas took place mainly during the past century, from the east to west leaving the historical location behind. Also we find port areas near the Castello hill, mainly industries related with naval repair, yacht and rowing clubs.

Due to the physical evolution of the port, as explained before, the relation with it is not uniform in the entire city. In the areas whe-

San Pier d’Arena: Harbour next to the city Source: it.wikipedia.org

175

re the harbour first expanded,for example in San Pier d’Arena, the rejection of the port activities is not so strong. Curiously is in this part where the physical relation is more complex since the barrier effect pro-duced by the port is stronger and is harder to intervene. The planned projects for this section of the city, as mentioned by the municipality, are in fact focused in taking profit of the port border, to transform the existing road into a sort of main connection that would reduce the traffic in the district’s urban tissue.

Towards the west is where the relation gets more complicated. This happens mainly because further west we find the most re-cent expansion projects. In the collective memory remains the image of this part of the city as the area where beaches of Ge-noa used to be. In the area of Cornigliano we find naval industries and the oil harbor. Both activities produce strong negative externalities regarding acoustic, air and water pollution. In the future we will see several changes in the area, mainly in the Porto Petroli (Oil Harbor). This infrastruc-ture will be reduced and some of its activi-ties will change their operation into a less space consuming one. Moving some of its elements to the inland and making connec-tions with pipes directly to the ships.

In the Voltri area is where we find the most delicate relation, matching the area where the last port expansion, the container ter-minal, took place. This project was inau-gurated in 1992 and changed significantly the configuration of the coast in this part of the city. At the time the possible impact was not a main concern, although a water channel was created as blue buffer to the

city. Nowadays there are several construc-tion sites in this area to configure a green buffer running parallel to what is known Fascia di rispetto di Pra (Respect strip of Pra). In this space we can find several pu-blic sport and leisure facilities such as a football field or the waterfront promenade.In the west part of the city, the most af-fected area by the Voltri terminal, we can also find an association named Fondazio-ne Primavera,focused on the development of the city district. This autonomous orga-nization tries to handle the relation with the port, considering it an important part of its territory. For example, in their vision for the district they include a point regarding the porto amico (the friendly port). They ac-cept the port presence but demand certain improvements for their life quality, such as electric quays that would cause less acou-stic pollution. This is not an organization created by the PA or other institution, al-though they do keep a dialogue.

It is clear that the majority of the coexisten-ce issues might be found in the west part of Genoa, but also in the east we could see problems. More specifically in the area near the naval repair where an intense industrial activity takes place. The city di-

Voltri Terminal and Fascia di Rispetto di Prà Source: http://www.porticciolionline.it/

176

strict in the hill next to it does not have any barrier that could protect them from the noise, also the height difference accen-tuates this issue.

In general terms, as pointed out by PG, the port community is aware that the city does not know well what happens in the port. To solve this problem, as we will later see, in 2009 the Port center was created, this type of initiative will be further studied in the next stage of the research. Nowadays the PA is conducting a study to better un-derstand the impact of the port in the city and the hinterland. The focus of this sur-vey is the economy, but also includes the employment and possibly new information regarding the public perception of the port.

InstitutionalThe institutional relation in the case of Ge-noa has as well several peculiarities. On the contrary of what we have seen in most of the previous cases the interviewees from both authorities, the Municipality and the PA, agreed that the relation is quite straightforward and the synergies are in general terms positive. This is quite surpri-sing if we consider that usually there are

several points where is difficult to find an agreement, but we must also understand that there are precedents of close collabo-ration among both institutions.

The cooperation between the Municipality and the PA started in the late 1980’s for the 1992 exhibition. During the process there was a strong dialogue for the deve-lopment of the project. Later on, for the different waterfront interventions near the city, the collaboration was also necessary. From the year 2008 to 2012, the Genova Urban Labwas established, where once again both entities worked together for the improvement of the relation and the urban environment.

Simultaneously the PA has changed their way of looking to the city. PG explained that there has been an evolution of the PA initiatives towards the city, mainly re-garding the activities that can happen in the boundary between port and city. The intention of the PA is to go further than the mandatory dialogue forced by the law for the approval of institutional documents and plans. However she also pointed out that each body has different priorities and

Porto Antico Area current stateAuthor: José M P Sánchez

177

Liguria region: Genoa in the center, Savona on the left side and La Spezia on the right.Source: http://www.geodus.com/

goals, what eventually might lead to more intense negotiation.

Where we could find more difficulties was in the relation between the PA and the na-tional government. In Italy a centralized sy-stem is established, just like in France and other south European countries. For this reason the PA does not have full control over its budget and the revenues their ac-tivities generate. Although in recent years the control by the central government has slightly eased, the PA still is not able to ful-ly decide where it will allocate its resources without consulting the national authorities. The interviewees mentioned that probably, if the port was more autonomous regarding its financial management, it could be more generous regarding the projects more rela-ted with the city.

In previous posts we have already seen how the organization of the country regar-ding its infrastructure can affect the rela-tion between ports and cities. Related to this subject we will also see some changes in Italy in the near future. In recent years there has been a discussion regarding the organization of the Port Authorities. The main issue is the possible combination of different PAs into what could be consider a regional institution, for example the Li-gurian Port Authority replacing the ones from Genoa, Savona and La Spezia. The initial idea behind the process could, in our opinion, bring positive outcomes, since it would allow a better organization of the port system and better coordination regar-ding the maritime traffic. The law is curren-tly under discussion and the initial idea has

178

evolved, changing the criteria for the com-bination of the different PAs. As it was ex-plained by PG, the latest information they got was that the new PA would combine Genoa and Savona, leaving La Spezia with the PA responsible for the ports of Tu-scany. Another problem could be the new Port Plan. This document, which we will later see in detail, is currently in the final development stage and the PA expects to have it functional by the end of next year. In case the new port system law is official before its approval, it could mean signifi-cant delays for the port plan, with the need of a new unprecedented document for the new institution.

The Port and the Waterfront – Long standing discussion topicPrevious approaches

The waterfront of Genoa has been a subject of public argument for several de-cades. As we explained in previous posts, in the late 1980´s and early 1990´s the port area near the city center was released and a new public waterfront was created with a project from Renzo Piano. After this operation we can find other contributions from several renowned architects and ur-ban planners for the port and waterfront of Genoa, including Piano himself several times. In 1996, the PA decided to create a specific agency where the new port plan would be discussed and new ideas could be developed. This new approach included the collaboration with the university and four well known architects: Rem Koolhaas, Marcel Smets, Manuel Solá Morales and Bernardo Secchi. The process was coordi-nated by Stefano Boeri and it brought new

Proposal from Solá MoralesSource: http://www.oddweb.it/

179

Later version from the Affresco PlanSource: http://www.rpbw.com

concepts, mainly for the port-city interface, which could have inspired the port plan pu-blished in 2001. We will not stop in detail in each one of them since there are seve-ral publications and articles that explain in detail the projects. The main areas of in-tervention were in the Cornigliano-Airport area, by Smets, the boundary between the city and the port from Ponte Parodi to La Lanterna, by Koolhaas, and the east part of the harbour, from the Porto Antico area to the Fiera del Mare (Exhibition fair). The last mentioned project was focused in a section of the city that is currently been di-scussed in the Blueprint from Renzo Piano that we will later explain.

L´AffrescoIn the first decade of the new millennium we saw another ambitious plan for the Ge-noese waterfront. This time Renzo Piano decided to develop a plan for the entire port, not just the released area. The goal was to redesign the port territory giving it a certain coherence that would eventually rearrange the logistic area of the port and improve its capacity. Consequently, this could lead to new waterfront areas been released for public use.

The main idea of this new plan, presented in 2004, was to transform the airport into an artificial island in front of the city. This would allow the space of the airport to be used for new container terminal. In the San Pier d’Arena area several quays would be landfilled to allow more area for port activi-ties. At the same time the naval reparation could be transformed into an island placed in front of La Lanterna. The plan caused controversy and several changes were re-quested. In the following years, 2005 and 2006, the project was reviewed and adap-ted to different demands. The moving of the airport was considered a key point but the idea of changing the naval repair area was dismissed. Another main goal was the improvement of the public access to the sea, for this reason in the area of Multedo we would see several changes. Here was where we could find the oil harbour, one of the most polluting activities along with the coal energy plant, the idea was to reloca-te them and leave the opportunity for new waterfront uses.

The plan was very discussed by public entities and the port community, but even-tually it was not translated into a reality. The need of massive investment, estima-

180

ted by president of the region at the time in 4,000 mill. €, was considered excessive. When we asked the interviewees about the failure of the plan,they also mentio-ned other points, such as the airport or the landfill needs. Regarding the airport,the main issue was that moving it into an artifi-cial island it would not solve the problems it causes. The height limit established by the responsible authorities or the bounda-ries to the port activities would remain the same since the landing and take over ro-utes would be very similar to the existing ones. Another issue was the execution of the project. Until the new airport was concluded,the existing one would not be dismantled and prepared for port activities. Also the economical and ecological impact related with the key project were an issue.

To execute the necessary landfill, the idea was to use earth coming from the new hi-ghway and railway connections, which in-cluded several tunnels that would generate excessive dirt. Since these new infrastruc-tures were not built the impact caused by the artificial island would be even greater.

The Affresco was not implemented but some of its ideas would later become a reality, such as the reduction of the oil har-bor or the deactivation of the coal power plant. In this plan it was already clear that the port community is formed by very diffe-rent realities and that change is not always seen as something positive.

BlueprintIn September 2015 a new document na-med the Blueprint plan was publicly pre-sented. The author, Renzo Piano, decided to give it to the city rejecting any kind of

compensation. As told by SR, Piano’s of-fice was contacted by members of the re-gion, PA and the municipality to request him a concept plan for a part of the wa-terfront. This time, in contrast with the Af-fresco, the area was significantly smaller, with clear boundaries and specific pro-blems. The concerned part of the port was the waterfront between the Porto Antico and Punta Vagno, where Piazzale Kenne-dy is in the east part of the city.

The main concern in this intervention was the current situation of the naval repairs shipyards that needed new facilities in or-der to continue with their activity and not move away to other city, such as Marseille as it has been rumored. On the other hand the same companies are not so opened to major changes, as we saw in the Affresco plan, so the solution needed to work without major configuration changes. Besides this main issue, which was the main problem for the PA in this area, we have other ele-ments that demanded a new solution. Re-garding the maritime activities in this area, we also find several marinas, sport and leisure associations, like the Yacht Club (the oldest one in Italy), the rowing club, or Societa’ Canottieri Genovesi Elpis, among others. These organizations are also rele-vant since, as we will see, they do not fully agree with the proposed solution.

From the city side,the Fiera district has become an urban problem. The global importance of industrial fairs has been di-minishing over the last decades since the advent of new and more effective commu-nication methods. In Genoa we can still find the Boat Show, which is one of the biggest worldwide, and other minor events

181

Genoa exhibition fairSource:http://www.primocanale.it/

Blueprint planSource: Renzo Piano Building Workshop

that only use the existing facilities for a short period in specific dates. This situa-tion is becoming problematic because the current buildings are oversized and have entered in a possible degradation process. At the same time the lack of revenues has caused serious economic problems to the public company that used to manage the industrial fair, therefore the maintenance is even more complicated. This is an urban problem that was included in the scope of the new plan.

Finally another issues were the fact that the area hosts several important road con-nections that add complexity to the situa-tion. Also this part of the city center until

now did not had any sort of direct contact with the sea.

Renzo Piano, besides considering all the existing problems, also took the opportu-nity to give access to the water to this city district, creating a new longitudinal park, as pointed out by other authors following the idea of Solá Morales. This new public space would be able to connect the Porto Antico to the Piazzale Kennedy, an area that would also be regenerated into a new green area.

The main concept of this plan is the deve-lopment of a new water channel that would create a sort of blue buffer between the ur-ban and port realities, giving a more clear separation between the different industrial, sport and urban areas. The line followed by the new water canal it is not casual, it follows the path of the old port walls, the Mura della mala paga. This new water area does not always has the same width, but always keeps a minimums size in order to allow the navigability. The widest point would be in front of the current Yacht Club building, where it would stretch until rea-ching a maximum width similar to the one of the old dock, the first harbor of Genoa.

182

Besides the new channel, that transform the shipyard section into an island, there would also be a reconfiguration of the in-dustrial part, creating more space due to the planned landfills. These interventions would use the land extracted from the new waterway hence increasing the sustainabi-lity of the project. In order to grant the access to the indu-strial area, a new parallel road would be created in the level of the intervention, following partially the path of the Soprae-levata. The new island would include two connections with firm land. The waterfront longitudinal park would exist mainly on the city side of the waterway, and only partly on the sea side, in front of the Yacht Club. During the design phase there was the at-tention to provide at least the same linear meters of docking space as the existing ones, although in most cases the final fi-gure was bigger than the current situation. What clearly changes is the configuration of the berths, from a compact distribution to one along the new canal and in the fair area.

The Fiera part would also suffer major changes. The area of the fair would be re-duced to less than half and only the bu-ildings that are considered more relevant would be kept, such as the one from ar-chitect Jean Nouvel. In this section of the plan the sport centerPalasport would also be preserved, although its context would change due to the new presence of wa-ter that would allow the creation of roofed docks for small and medium sized embar-kations. Also in this part of the plan is whe-re we can find the new constructions. The program would be mainly focus on hou-sing, tertiary and commerce related with the maritime world.

Regarding the project financing, the PA is expected to be responsible for financing the works related with the port activities, but the private investment would also be part of the equation. Although the general intervention is to be led by public institu-tions, the new construction would be deve-loped by private investors. The agreement would probably require certain negotiation, but these sort of financing schemes is a

Section through the PalasportSource: http://www.comune.genova.it/

183

typical approach to the urban regenera-tions projects, as we have seen in previous cases. It is also a characteristic of the cur-rent model of large urban interventions which contrasts with the first generation of waterfront plans in the Mediterranean sea, such as the Port Antico or the Barcelona case.

There are several key ideas behind the plan, besides the physical interventions, that must be kept in mind as Arch. Russo explained us. First of all the fact that the plan is a conceptual document, therefore is not to be taken literally and certainly it requires a considerable amount of work to fully develop the concepts presented. At the same time, the main features of the plan allow its adaptation to the different possible solutions to existing problems near the concerned areas, such as the creation of a tunnel under thePorto Antico bay. This option has been discussed for several decades and never fully dismis-sed. In the municipality we were told that the current mayor considers this to be an option for the cross traffic. If we eventually see in the near future a tunnel, the Sopra-elevata might change its use for example to an elevated public space. The Blueprint is thought in a way that allows different approaches without compromising the key decisions of the plan.

Another important point is the fact that the plan establishes several areas that should be discussed in further detail in new ur-ban planning competitions. The decided boundaries are simply a suggestion from the project team and could be adapted to changing scenarios. The intention of Ren-zo Piano would be to allow young archi-tects to bring new ideas for the waterfront

and further develop the plan.

The Blueprint has caused a considerable discussion since its presentation to the public. Not all the concerned actors are in favor of the plan concepts. As mentioned before, there are several groups opposing its implementation, mainly the Yacht Club. This organizations disagrees with the idea of changing the distribution of the berths although their main building would remain in the same location. One of the main re-ason for this opposition is the fact that in their eyes is not so clear what happens when the nautical fair takes place, since they would need the berths next to main fair halls, an area they would use. For this reason, in the plan the project team care-fully increased the linear meters of docks when compared with the existing ones. On the other hand the port community is very often reluctant to change, as we have seen in other cases. In this particular context the members of the yacht club are often per-sons with considerable connections and resources. At the same time the conces-sion contract for the docks given to the club would end in December this year, the-refore a negotiation was already necessa-ry. At the present time there is an intense

New context for the Yacht Club buildingSource: http://www.comune.genova.it

184

discussion about the topic, hyped by the press. During the next year we should find out if the pressure groups against some of the plan ideas succeed and are able to for-ce a change.

Finally there is another point we were able to discuss with SR, the name of the plan.Blueprint is the name given in architecture to the construction plan that are taken to the site to have the instructions and detail for the construction. In this case, the plan is exactly the opposite since is a concept for the waterfront, far from the execution phase. The name is related with the domi-nant color of the intervention, blue. Renzo Piano insisted in leaving the water with its color and abstracting the land and con-struction so the most important element would be enhanced. The key was to give a contact with the water to the city, and this was achieved with the new waterway. This main concept is even clearer in the sim-plified plans, without the satellite picture, therefore the simplification was crucial to better explain the concept and leave the essence of the project very clear, just like what happens with the sketches in the ar-chitecture projects.

Port PlanThe new port plan has been under deve-lopment since 2010 and currently is in what we could consider the final stage near the approval, something that it should happen during the year 2016 or beginning of 2017. In the new plan there are several elements that are innovative and could bring signifi-cant improvements to the port-city relation. The concern about the interaction with the city has been one of the key elements on the making process and the main goal, as expressed in the plan, is to be able to cre-ate value for the territory.

We have seen in this post and the previous one that Genoa is placed in a territory with a complex topography, for this reason the expansion of the port has been decided to be inwards. The opposition to new landfills would be significant hence the only option was to improve the operation of the port within the existing territory, changing its morphology to receive the largest ships reaching 18,000 to 22,000 TEU. The plan is organized into two main components: the physical plan and the immaterial plan. Both are important and both have con-sequences for the city. In the case of the

Blueprint plan, contrast between the water and the citySource: http://www.comune.genova.it

185

immaterial plan the main innovation is the improvement in the integration of control and custom system in order to have a more fluid traffic hence reducing its impact in the city. This is something we have also seen in other cases like Helsinki. In order to work it requires an effort not just from the PA, but also from all the other concer-ned authorities. The physical plan would be responsible for the changes in the port territory and for achieving the industrial, environmental and integration goals.In this plan is where we can find the new protec-tion projects, a new system of breakwaters that would allow the bigger ships a safe entry into the port.

Operational areasThe plan is organized in three different operational areas, the PO (Operational Port), the PP (Passengers Port) and the PU (Urban Port). For this article we will focus in the urban and passenger areas since these are the ones that will have a more direct interaction with the city. Re-garding the operational port is important to understand that the interior growth would require more land for the docks. This incre-

ase in the activity would partly be achieved by creating more space for the berths of ships in the San Pier d’Arena port section, land filing several basins like it has already been done in some areas. Another impor-tant change for the industrial port is the re-duction of the oil harbour, as we have seen an idea already explored previously. The motivations are both environmental and economical, since the released area could be used by the shipyards Fincantieri. The system could be replaced by hoses there-fore avoiding the birth of the oil tankers.

The operational fields aforementioned are very often intersecting with each other and with the city boundaries. The Passenger Port is the one that has a clearer physical translation. This last one is considered to form the transition areas in several points, such as the ferry terminals that allow more direct interaction between the citizens and the port. These points are also part of one of the strategies to improve the visual in-teraction, called the “grafts”, areas where there could be a more direct physical and, mainly, visual relation. For the Passenger Port is also very important the parallel cir-culation, following the concepts that we already see in some of the ferry terminals or in Terrasses du Port in Marseille. In Genoa should be even easier to achieve since the topography allows the creation of two different heights, one in the harbor level and another in the street level. This increased interaction, that could be very positive for city’s perception of the port, is now jeopardized by the increase of the se-curity measures which go in the opposite direction by separating the people from the restricted area as much as possible.

View of GenoaSource: http://www.porto.genova.it/

186

Urban PortIn the Urban Port we find several areas that will gather the majority of the interventions. In the west, the Voltri terminal will be tran-sformed into an island by the creation of a new water channel, extending the Fascia di rispetto di Prà. This new waterway will in-clude new public waterfront and it will work as a blue and green buffer between the city and the industrial area. Still in the east we might eventually see projects for the area of the oil harbor that could include a beach and public waterfront, although this is still an element to be discussed. Another im-portant point will be the area around the Lanterna. The old lighthouse should be better connected with the city center since it is considered the city’s landmark and the current access is clearly deficient. In this waterfront section we will also witness ma-jor changes in the power plant that will be deactivated in 2017. There is an ongoing dialogue to decide the future function of it, but it could be a very interesting point in the waterfront regarding the geographical location and for the possibility of turning it into an element of industrial port heritage.In the central section of the waterfront, the Porto Antico area, the existing functions will remain and the previously planned

project should be executed. In this case, the Silo Hennebique and Ponte Parodi would be the main interventions. Since they are object of controversy we will ex-plain them in further detail later on.

Finally, the eastern part of the port, the one concerned in Blueprint plan, is where we might see the bigger changes. The ideas developed by Renzo Piano were incorpo-rated in the plan and the concept of deve-loping a blue buffer is consider to match the strategies that were already thought. In this area, we shall also see in the near future another project from the same archi-tect, replacing the previous one that in May 2013 was destroyed in an accident.

Of all the waterfront interventions, the one that has more clear options of becoming a reality is the one in Voltri, since it could be included in the plan for the terminal. This is an important issue because the port is mainly allowed to invest in projects that have a direct impact in the port activities. The intervention in Voltri could be consi-dered a compensation measure or part of the necessary buffer to industrial activities. The other ones are more complex since they will not probably depend from one single investor.

Changes in the Voltri TerminalSource: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/

187

Silo HennebiqueOne of the most notable projects in the Ge-noese waterfront is the rehabilitation of the old silos. This building is placed in a promi-nent location, particularly when seen from the sea, entering the bay. What it used to be a warehouse for grain, kept functioning until the beginning of the 1990’s and it is a crucial element for the completion of the waterfront, from the Magazzini del cottone until the cruise terminal Ponte dei Mile. The building is in poor condition and any kind of intervention would require impor-tant sums for the investment. Its size, over 8,000 sqm, the demands from the port re-garding the future functions to be hosted and the economic situation caused that the call for proposals from 2012 was de-clared deserted. During our interview PG explained us that in the coming year 2016 there will be a new call for proposals which will demand 30% of public functions. In the near future we shall see if this important element of industrial heritage is regenera-ted and included in the urban life.

Ponte ParodiThe second project, also very relevant for the completion of the waterfront, is the fu-ture cruise terminal Ponte Parodi. In 2001

the Dutch office UNstudio, led by Ben van Berkel,won the international competition for the new terminal project. The building would continue with the concept of sha-ring the space between port and urban functions, besides the terminal it would include a mall and public areas. The pro-blem is that since 2001 the project has been constantly delayed for many diffe-rence reasons. Currently there are several port activities taking place in this quay, for example it still hosts the tugboats. During the process there were also changes in the investment firms and discussion with the affected port industries who also oppo-sed to the project. We understood that also the administrative process has not been so easy. This part of the waterfront was included in transformation district, a part of the port territory that would pass to the municipality. This process is still ongoing, but the municipality considers it finished. The agreement was that the PA would be in charge of the maritime works, for what we could see they are taking place. At the same time the demolishing of the existing warehouse that have no value is happe-ning. We can still see the project in the website of the owner company, the French firm Altarea.

Waterway of PràSource:it.wikipedia.org

View of the Silo Hennebique from the waterAuthor: José M P Sánchez

188

Piano Urbanistico ComunaleIn the past, the port and urban deve-lopment plans were published almost simultaneously, therefore the coordina-tion between both was easier since they referred to the same time period and the discussion would be in the same terms. This time themunicipal development plan, named the PUC (Piano Urbanistico Co-munale), was finished before the one from the port. In this new document the port is mentioned and the coastal development has an important role. The importance of the harbour is acknowledged and there are several key interventions in the waterfront that are coordinated with the PA.

In the interview with the architects from the municipality, they explained us which project will be more important for the wa-terfront. In the west part of the city, the area along the Prà water channel will con-tinue to be developed adding new green areas and sport and leisure facilities. Fur-ther on, an agreement has been found with shipyards. They will be allowed to extend to the oil harbour territory in Sestri once it changes its configuration, in exchange the shipyards will give back to the city the land they own placed next to the railway. Also

in Sestri there is another area that will be subject of discussion in the next years, the Piaggio industrial plot. The historic brand is currently going through a difficult period which could eventually lead to dismissing a part of their industries in Genoa. In this case, the location of this land could be an option for increasing the public access to the water, but during our meeting it was clarified that this decision is not taken. Nearby we can find a marina and public waterfront, but as we understood they are not planned to grow. In San Pier d’Arena we can find another significant project, the Lungomare Canepa. The goal in this case is to improve the existing road in the boundary with the port in order to handle more traffic and retreat cars and trucks from the inside of the neighborhood. The current road is not in the best condition and the barrier effect is inevitable. In this area the PA has also not planned any changes, therefore the idea of retreating traffic from the inner roads could make sense.

Finally, in the west part of the city, the Blueprint plan could show the path to the future. Since the problems handled in the plan, as we have seen, are not just port issues, the city should also be integrated in the solution. Being that the document is very recent we should wait to see how evolves and how do the necessary agree-ments between the concerned authorities work out.

Renzo PianoIn the case of Genoa we can find a figure that has had considerable influence in the planning of the waterfront and the port over the last 25 years, the architect Renzo Pia-no. For this reason when we spoke with the different stakeholders we had to ask how

Ponte Parodi Cruise TerminalSource: http://www.unstudio.com

189

was this relation. In general terms they all agreed that this architect, and senator, has played a central role in the development of the city. Since the Porto Antico project his ideas have influenced the port and urban plans. Although nowadays his main office is in Paris, he keeps an emotional connec-tion with the Ligurian capital that has taken him to donate several works, like the afo-rementioned Blueprint plan or the pilot’s tower project. In the municipality, we were told that his ideas do not always find the ex-pected reaction, particularly regarding the follow up after the first concept. At the same time, his presence has become a political and economic assets, since his participa-tion in projects and initiatives gives them credit and work as a facilitator for their con-clusion. Sometimes though, the dialogue in the high political levels are not so well connected with the everyday reality. For example the port plan was an ongoing pro-cess since 2010 without the collaboration of Renzo Piano, only later the concepts in the Blueprint were brought and incorpora-ted to the plan, with the initiative of the high political spheres as mentioned by PG. This was not so traumatic since the ideas were coherent with the ones in the plan and a dialogue process was rapidly established.

In general terms the work of Renzo Pia-no and his contribution for the city is much appreciated, also by the inhabitants who identify him as one of the most notorious Genoeses of the last century and begin-ning of this one.At the end, if the majority of his ideas were to become a reality, we could observe a port-city with a more cohe-rent vision making it more particular when compared with other cases.

Soft-values, cultural initiativesThe relation between the port and the city in Genoa has evolved significantly in the last years. In recent times we have seen several initiatives that allow the citizens to have a better understanding of the port. Particularly important is the Genoa Port Center, inaugurated in 2009, it functioned until September 2014. The port-center was born from a collaboration between the PA,

Lungomare CanepaSource: http://www.repstatic.it/

Torre Piloti from Renzo PianoSource: http://www.porto.genova.it/

190

the port community, the region and the university. It received initial funding from the EU and it implied a considerable pre-paration work in order to summarize the complexity of the port into a short exhibi-tion reachable to children and youngsters of different age.

This facility was one of the founding mem-bers of the AIVP Port-Center network. During the years it was open it achieved a reasonable success, during the first three years it welcomed almost 20,000 students of different levels. PG recognized it was a very useful tool for the disclosure of the port activity and importance.

The center has been managed by the Muvita foundation, an organization from the region. Unfortunately the port-center had to close its doors due to changes in the management. From what we could understand, the idea was that it would be managed by the PA when the European program ended. When this happened, it closed and since it has remained like that. We tried to contact the person responsible from the organization but unfortunately got no answer. We expect it will reopen in the future since it has not been fully disman-

tled, although it has been already closed for over a year. The port-center issue will be studied in further detail as the research advances. It is relevant to say that the net-work has been expanding and in this year the Livorno port-center opened their doors in the historical context of the Fortezza Vecchia, the old fortress.

The PA has also engaged in several ini-tiatives related with soft-values and com-munication with the citizens, such as the web TV and other cultural activities. These events, like the port-day, were more com-mon when the port-center was fully fun-ctional, since they were also in charge of the cultural agenda, as we can see in the website.

In Genoa we can find other cultural facili-ties where the port’s role in the city is well explained. The Galata Museo del Mare is another example. This museum works both as sea and city museum. The link between the city and the maritime activities is very clear and a very complete exhibition, inclu-ding actual size galley models, explain us how it has evolved. We can also find the naval museum of Pegli. As the name indi-cates is more focus in the maritime history and affairs.

In the case of Genoa we might also find of-ten cultural initiatives related with the port. In the different museums there are exhibi-tions of photography and painting, also in spaces like Loggia dei Mercanti, there are usually activities that have a relation with the port, for example the industrial heritage or the commerce.

Besides the local initiatives there have been other related with the port that are

Genoa Port CenterSource: http://www.genoaportcenter.it/

191

focused on enhancing the cultural impor-tance of this infrastructure. Particularly interesting is the international film festival “Zones Portuaires“, an initiative born in Marseille five years ago, therefore also very relevant for that city, was hosted in Genoa in last September with a program full of events related with the seaport cultu-re, mainly focused in this city.

Personal OpinionThe territorial constraints present in the case of Genoa force a more intense rela-tion between the city and the port. The fact that the boundary between both territories is so complex has brought even more at-tention to the problem. As we have seen, the discussion of the waterfront and the physical and visual access to the water has produced interesting publications and plans from renowned architects and plan-ners. Unfortunately, all this intellectual ef-fort has not been translated into equivalent physical changes. Some of these plans were too ambitious and in other cases the economic and/or political context did not allowed their further development. The fact that since 1992 we have not seen ma-jor changes in the waterfront, except the ones in 2001 and 2004 in a smaller scale, might have affected the credibility of the new plans. As we saw there are important projects waiting to happen, but they carry a delay of almost 15 years in some cases.In this case the dialogue and cooperation is higher than in other studied cases, par-ticularly if we consider that the institutions depend from different bodies in different levels, local and national. The initiatives like the Genova Urban Lab or the Agency for the Port Plan reveal a predisposition towards the dialogue, although the steps

after the plan have not always been fully achieved. For other port-cities is a good example of joint project. We already saw in Rotterdam the positive synergies that can be created with this sort of initiatives, Genoa shows another path that might be better adapted for the southern European countries, where the central government has a strong influence over the PA.

The new port plan has also several con-cepts that might be interesting for other cases where physical boundaries constitu-te constrains for the port activity. It is an intelligent approach for the port growth, in-stead of physically expanding the port ter-ritory to try to reach the maximum capacity by improving the efficiency of the existing infrastructure. In other port-cities with ter-ritorial limitations is a good option instead of demanding more land to the urban area next to the port. Another approach is the expansion in Brownfields that also has less impact than blue or green port expansion. We could see this sort of plan in Lisbon, since the port will expand to the south side of the river in an existing brownfield. This leads us to another important issue, the in-tervention in the active port to improve the relation with the city. In the case of Genoa we see that, due to territorial limitations, we will probably not see large waterfront interventions in dismissed port areas, in-stead the strategy will focus in specific points with smaller projects in the bounda-ry between the active port and the city. The concept of the blue buffer is an example of this sort of project. In the eastern part of the city the ideas presented in the Blue-print plan could also be a significant im-provement for both the city and the port. This sort of “urban acupuncture”, a set of

192

specific small scale actions that lead to an improved relation, might be the model for the future in opposition to the previous lar-ge scale operation.

Regarding the social initiatives of the PA, Genoa was for some years a real referen-ce in the field. Their Port-Center very often worked as a role model for the new ones in other ports. The impact this kind of initiati-ves is not to be seen immediately but more in the long term. In order to get the SLTO (Social License to Operate), the PA must develop an agenda of events and take pro-fit of the existing structure. It is understan-dable that in the central government the soft-values of seaports might be more dif-

ficult to conceive as something important, but in the end is one of the main ways for the port to be accepted by the inhabitants of the city on their back. We can only ex-pect that this situation will change and that the port-center will reopen its doors. The problem of social integration of ports will be studied in further detail in the next stage of the research. Hopefully, we will be able to get to know other cases and the role the AIVP has played in the development of this kind of initiatives.

In conclusion Genoa is one of the cases where the relation between city and port is more intense, however they have been able to keep relatively positive interaction.

193

View of GenoaAuthor: José M P Sánchez

The strategies here presented could be adapted to other cases. The alternative of small actions against the policy of white elephants is an intelligent approach, parti-cularly in crisis or post-crisis scenarios, like the one we find ourselves in. It is time to try alternatives to the business as usual mo-del, and learn how we can act in the active harbor and still improve the relation of the city with the port and the water.

194

Act 3 - Photo essay

211

LisbonFinal stop

38°42’50’’N 9°8’22’’WDecember 14 - 21, 2015

The final stop of the Port-City tour was again Lisbon, where the trip first started in Sep-tember. After visiting several port-cities in different countries we came back to the main study case in order to make the final analysis, complete the information about the Por-tuguese capital and reach some conclusions. In this post we will focus in the gathe-red information in two new interviews with the Municipality and the Port Authority. The conclusions of the trip will be published in a final stop after Lisbon. Also a paper about the developed research will be written and presented in the AESOP Young Academics congress during in spring in Ghent.

Lisbon’s study case has already been described in the blog in the beginning of the trip, hence for this post only the new information is relevant. In all the previous study cases we interviewed representatives from the main organizations. In this case in our first stop we were only able to speak with Mr. Rui Alexandre from the APL (Lisbon Port Authority). This time we were able to contact with Mr. Pedro Dinis (PD), Architect head of the public space department in Lisbon’s Municipality (CML). We also spoke once again with the APL, this time with Ms. Mariana Teixeira from the development and institutional relations department and Ms. Carla Matos, architect from the same institution.

Act 1 - Final stop: Back to Lisbon

212

The relation between the city and the portWhen we asked the interviewees about the issue both mentioned that in the last decade the relation has evolved positively, more significantly in the institutional field.

InstitutionalPD pointed during our interview that the key moment for the current stage of the relationship was the passing of the law DL 100/2008 of June 16 2008. In this new le-gal document it was stated that the territory under the Port Authorities control would be moved to municipal control in case there was no port activity or port expansions planned in it. The importance of this docu-ment is obvious; previously we had alre-ady seen waterfront interventions, like the EXPO 98, or important plans, like the PO-ZOR, criticized for its excessive construc-tion near the river. The main step forward of this law was the normalization of the port land release process. An official procedure for this sort of change was created, pre-pared for improving the urban integration of these territories and avoiding industrial brownfields.

The next step for the release of the unu-sed port areas was the creation of a stra-tegic plan in order to grant the correct and promptly transformation of the concerned territories. In the case of Lisbon this man-datory document, as pointed out by PD, was the General Plan of Interventions in the waterfront of Lisbon. In this document, we can find the different partial plans for the released sectors of Lisbon’s wa-terfront, back then with 19 km length. At the same time the plan established which areas would remain as active port and also which ones would have a mixed manage-ment.

In the first posts about Lisbon we saw that the active port is mainly concentrated in two sectors, the one from Poço do Bispo to Sta. Apolonia and the one in Alcântara. Here the APL has total autonomy regar-ding the planning, although generally the APL contacts the municipal authorities re-garding new interventions, as confirmed by both sides. We have not seen major chan-ges in the port infrastructure and as we know the main interventions will happen in

213

General Plan of Interventions in the waterfront of Lisbon. Source: http://www.cm-lisboa.pt/

214

the south side of the river.

The three mixed use areas at Lisbon’s wa-terfront are: Pedrouços dock, Santos and the waterfront sector where the new crui-se terminal is being built. These territories will later be explained as well as other wa-terfront interventions.

In our interview we also asked about a possible collaboration or a public com-pany for the management of the waterfront territories, just like we have seen in Oslo (Fjordcity) or Rotterdam (Stadshavens). In Lisbon we already had public agencies of joint ventures for the development of wa-terfront projects with two cases being par-ticularly relevant: the Parque Expo and the FrenteTejo. Both platforms produced visi-ble results in the city. The first one was in charge for the management of the EXPO 98 area, and later on it developed several urban plans and waterfront regeneration projects in the scope of the Polis program. The second one was responsible for the three key projects Lisbon’s waterfront, the Museu dos coches (Carriage Museum),

the Praça do Comércio and the Ribeira das Naus. Unfortunately both platforms were closed due to political or financial re-asons. PD agreed that it could be an inte-resting option for the future perhaps not a public company but rather an organization focused in the management process of the waterfront, with fixed meetings for discus-sing the matters related with this particular territory.

EmotionalIn our first posts we already saw that for the local inhabitants Lisbon is a maritime city but not necessarily a port-city. In this issue we find similarities with the situation we encountered in Oslo, where the Fjord is the main identity element and not the port. In the case of Lisbon the Tejo (Tagus Ri-ver) is indeed a constant presence in the arts and the history of the city. It was the connection with the sea and the source of inspiration for poets and painters. On the other hand, as all interviewees confirmed, historically the city was not so much open to the river. There was a clear connection and the river was an important economic

Museo dos Coches. Project from Arch. Paulo Mendes da Rocha in Belém. The new museum was responsibility from the extinguished Frente Tejo organization. Source: http://www.mmbb.com.br/

215

resource, but at the same time was so-mething to protect themselves. From the river several threats could arrive to the city, so only in certain areas the contact with the water was open, although until a certain point there were constructions di-rectly in the coastline. We could say the current public quest for the access to the river is not a re-conquest of the waterfront, as we find often in the media, but rather a first conquest. Also is important to notice, as pointed by the APL professionals, that the industrial Port of Lisbon did not deve-loped using urban territory, but by creating landfills in front of the city. It is clear that we have seen this situation in other cases, like Oslo, but also Marseille and Genoa.

One of the main challenge for the APL regarding its relation with the city and the citizens is clearly the communication and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility). If the people from Lisbon are able to under-stand how important the port is, perhaps they might embrace it as an element for the urban identity.

The WaterfrontOne of the most intriguing features of Li-sbon’s waterfront is the relatively scarce construction near the water. When we compared with other cases we see that in the north-central European cities, like Oslo, Helsinki, Rotterdam or Hamburg, the urban tissue reaches the water line. In the Portuguese case, except some port related buildings such as old warehouses, silos or terminals, we find very few new bu-ildings. The new constructions on the wa-terfront are almost exclusively in the Expo area or in Cais do Sodré. When we asked PD his opinion about this characteristic, he

explained there might be several explana-tions for this issue. The POZOR plan, as he mentioned, included a considerable amount of construction in the waterfront and it was not well received, therefore it might have been a reaction to it. On the other hand, the concept of leaving the wa-terfront free from dense construction had the support of all political groups, which was considered to be a necessary com-mon ground for the future development. At the same time the construction constraints are stricter regarding housing projects. We can find new buildings in the waterfront related with other uses, such as offices in Cais do Sodré, or research, the Cham-palimaud Foundation. The limitation for housing projects is due to the fact that this sort of development changes the percep-tion of the river, creating spaces that might be perceived as semi-private, harming the public identity pretended for this sensitive section of the city. The exception to this rule can be found in the Expo area, far from the historic city center, where small amount of housing were allowed near the water. In the neighbor municipalities we can find more projects of this kind, mainly in Oeiras and Cascais. Finally another im-portant issue is the fact that Lisbon is the center of the metropolitan area with almost 3 million inhabitants that come to the city, therefore it is necessary to have large pu-blic spaces able to answer the demands of this population.

East part of the cityWe have previously seen that there are several important projects planned for Li-sbon’s waterfront. In the initial posts we explained that some of these projects had a doubtful future. For these reason we

216

asked Arch. PD about them. Apparently, the economic crisis that stroke Portugal in 2008, and that we still suffer nowadays, was the main reason for the delay of the-se projects. The plan for Matinha, the area contiguous toward the south to Parque das Nações, is being developed into further detail. Next to it, the Jardins de Braço de Prata from Renzo Piano, is currently being revised, we can imagine it is necessary to update the project since it was originally designed in 1999. In the same area the eastern riverfront park should also be de-veloped as compensation for the housing development. Since the project did not advance when it was expected, we can imagine that for this reason the investor did not built the park. As we mentioned in the previous posts about Lisbon, the competi-tion for this new green area took place but it was cancelled due to irregularities in the process. Its development should be resu-med in short time.

Central sectionNear the historical city center is where we find one of the first mixed management are-as, the Doca da Marinha (Navy dock), Also here we can find the Cais do Jardim do Ta-baco and the old Doca do Terreiro do Tri-go. In this location is the passenger termi-nal of Sta. Apolonia which will be replaced by the new Lisbon Cruise Terminal (LCT). In October 2015 the building contract was signed and the construction is already ta-king place. The new infrastructure should be finish for the first months of 2017. The location of this new terminal caused much discussion back in 2010 when the archi-tectural competition took place. Its location in a sensitive context was seen with some reluctance by some planners. PD explai-ned us why this place and this project were chosen. There were three main reasons: (i) one of the main goals was to create a direct pedestrian connection with the main tourist attraction areas and avoid the traffic generated by the large amount of tourists

Plan from the Braço de Prata housing development, original project from 1999. In the image we also see the plan for Matinha. Source: http://www.rpbw.com

217

that arrive in the cruises. If the terminal would have been placed in the other possi-ble location, Alcântara, the traffic problem would continue and new public transport lines would be needed; (ii) the contextwhere the new construction will be built is indeed very sensitive, but at the same time is considerably degraded, it is expected that the new terminal will help to regene-rate the area and the local commerce; (iii) another key goal was the creation of public space on the waterfront, the project from Carrilho da Graça generates new public areas on the ground but also on an eleva-ted level.

In the central section of the riverfront we can find two new projects that will impro-ve the relation with the river. Near the Sta. Apolonia cruise terminal the same archi-tect won the competition for the Campo das Cebolas, next to Praça do Comércio. This new space will have a green area near the river and improve the living conditions of this neighborhood, which due to its den-se medieval urban structure has almost no green spaces. The other project, in Cais do Sodré, will improve the existing square opening it to the river with a new space by the water. Between both interventions the Ribeira das Naus project is already in use, since mid 2014, with very acceptance from the citizens.

In the area of Santos, one of the mixed ma-nagement sections, there is still no speci-fic project for it. In the strategic plan there are guidelines to what could happen in this area, mainly destined for leisure facilities. In the same document the main goal was to improve the visual and pedestrian con-nections between the consolidated urban structure and the river.

The new Lisbon Cruise Terminal (LCT), a project from Arch. João Luis Carrilho da Graça.

Source: http://jlcg.pt/

Campo das Cebolas, a new public space in Lisbon’s Waterfront. Arch. João Luis Carrilho da Graça.

Source: http://www.publico.pt

New project for Cais do Sodré. Arch. Bruno Soares. Source: http://www.publico.pt

218

West waterfrontAlcântara is the second part of the wa-terfront where we can find the active port. Besides the cargo and cruise terminal we can also find the general offices of the APL and the historic cruise terminal that hosts paintings from Almada Negreiros. This bu-ilding, as we mentioned in the initial posts, will be refurbished to host the APL he-adquarters and the documentation center that we will describe later.

Along the river, the next area where most important changes will take place, besides de new museum in Belém, is the Docape-sca- Doca de Pedrouços, the third mixed management section of the waterfront. In this territory we used to find the fishing activities that unfortunately were moved outside Lisbon, to the MARL (Mercado Abastecedor da Região de Lisboa) and Nazaré. MT mentioned that the existing facilities were already in poor condition, therefore change was necessary. In this case a new agreement regarding this area was signed between the municipality and the APL during the port’s day, on the first of November of 2015. The main goal for this collaboration is the development of a sai-ling center including training facilities and a marina for teams from the Volvo Ocean Race, in order to allow them to stay the whole year and not just during the event. The municipality agreed to this new activi-ty since they are also potentiating the wa-ter sports among the schools of the city. Also as compensation they demanded a new pedestrian connection with the wa-terfront to be built in Belém, what would allow the replacement of the existing ones, which were supposed to be temporary but ended up remaining for several years. In

the same sections we should also see in the following years the second stage of the Champalimaud Center. For the deve-lopment of this area the APL also collabo-rated with Oeiras, the bordering municipa-lity. Ideally this project could be extended until the national stadium sport complex, regenerating a major section of the wa-terfront with 2 km, joining municipalities and port.

Communication - Soft ValuesTalking with the neighborsWe have seen previously in this research how important is the communication and interaction with the local communities for the relation between city and port. In the case of Lisbon we asked the representati-ves of the APL what initiatives were being taken in this matter. Regarding the com-munication we were told that the contact with the local communities is done mainly through the official channels, collaborating with the municipality and the freguesias, the neighbor or parish representatives. Apparently in recent years there was no need to establish a direct communication with the inhabitants of the areas near the active port in the north side of the river.

Champalimaud Foundation. Project from Arch. Char-les Correa.

Source: http://www.fchampalimaud.org/

219

Nowadays the main effort is been made in the south side, in the areas affected by the new terminal. In this context there were at least three debates with the locals since the project location was decided.

Port-CenterFor the disclosure of seaport soft values, the port-center are a very useful tool. We have seen in Genoa and Rotterdam how they can explain the port reality and incre-ase the acceptance of the port. In the case of Lisbon, MT confirmed us that there is a project for a new documentation and infor-mation center (CDI). The project is asso-ciated with the refurbishment of the cruise terminal of Alcântara, as it was early told by Arch. Rui Alexandre, and it would include an exhibition area prepared for groups of different ages, researches space, an area for meeting with the municipalities and ci-tizens and a café. This new facility could complete the existent exhibitions about the history of the city since, as we said in pre-vious posts, the current information availa-ble in the city and navy museum does not explain the important role of the port in the development of Lisbon over the last 150 years. Ideally the port-center could be inte-

grated in the network of Lisbon’s museum and libraries. For the moment the CDI is still a project without a specific opening date and is certainly pending from other real estate operations that would make possible the moving of the APL headquar-ters to the aforementioned terminal.

Image of the PortEarly before we mentioned the open day at the port of Lisbon that took place in Au-tumn 2015. This was the first time this sort of event took place in Lisbon. During this day the citizens could visit historic ships, like the navio escola Sagres, tub boats or the cruise terminal. We were told that the initiative was prepared in very short time therefore it did not got all the attention it could have gotten. The intention is to tran-sform it into a fix event twice a year in fixed dates, which would allow more detailed planning and disclosure in the media.

In other port-cities, like Hamburg and Rot-terdam, these sort of actions are celebra-ted and bring the people to the port. The scale is clearly different but the effect can still be very positive.

Alcântara Passenger terminal. This building will be refur-bished and host the CDI. Inside we can visit the paintings

from Almada Negreiros. Author: José M P Sánchez

Visitors during the Open day at the Port of Lisbon. Source: Porto de Lisboa

220

During the time spent in Lisbon we got to know other cultural initiatives also related with the port, for example an exhibition with historic pictures of the port that has been on tour in different locations. Regarding other cultural events, like concerts or festi-val, the APL rents some spaces for them, like the Nós festival in Algés waterfront. In compensation, besides getting a rent, they also request that the image of the port is present, mainly by playing a video before the shows. In other cases we have seen stronger port characterization of the space where the concerts take place, for example the Elbjazz festival in Hamburg or the clas-sical music concert in Las Palmas.

Like many other ports the APL has deve-loped a collaboration program with many schools of the region, organizing visits for children and teens. In the early mentioned agreement between the municipality and the APL, besides the professional sport facilities, the goal is to increase the water sports presence in the schools of the city.

ConclusionThe relation between the port and the city in the context of Lisbon has evolved signi-ficantly as we have just seen. Although the agreements took a while to happen, they did gave an important thrust to the syner-gies between both parties. Unfortunately the crisis that stroke the country in the year 2008 affected negatively the urban deve-lopment towards the river and the port. In this post we have seen that there are im-portant projects planned for the waterfront, but most of them have suffered a delay of several years, in some case even more than a decade. The result is that for seve-ral years we had areas of the waterfront

that no longer had port use, but were not fully integrated in the urban structure.

During this time gap where the projects were place on hold, it could have been in-teresting to create temporary uses in order to allow them to be assimilated by the local inhabitants. Nowadays, as we were told by the municipality, the projects will final-ly become a reality and the general image of the waterfront should be improved. For the next step of the research it remains to analyze the most delicate part of the wa-terfront, the actual border between city and port in both sections of the active port in the north side. In these areas the challen-ge is even more difficult and a more tho-rough investigation will be required.

The expansion of the port in the south part of the river will also be an interesting subject to study. We have already descri-bed the main goals and the process so far. The development of the ongoing competi-tion and the approach for the relation with the municipalities should be also very inte-resting. The main question might be: How to create a container terminal in a brown-field which relates with the local communi-ty and the urban structure?

In all the interviews performed in this visit and the previous one. it was clear that the port is an important part of Lisbon, therefo-re its presence should not be questioned. However, we find that many inhabitant do not share this point of view. The fact that the port did not actually took space from the city, but built its own in landfills, does not eases the image of the harbour among the locals. Lisbon is a river-city, but could it be a port-city? In this context the com-

221

Port of Lisbon. The main challenger remains the border between the active port and the city. Source: Port of Lisbon

munications strategy has a key role. In or-der to have a good port-city relation in the future, the APL must act now. To achieve the acknowledgement from the citizens as a key element of their identity, the port must open itself even more and intensify the dialogue. Several important initiatives have been started, we hope they are con-solidated and are able to give a correct use to the seaport soft-values.

For the next stages of the research we will address some of the problems here men-tioned, particularly the role of port centers and the good practices on social integra-tion of ports. This following step should be done collaborating with the AIVP, which will allow a new approach and hopefully bring new inputs from renowned professio-nals in the port-city relation field.

223

ConclusionPaper presented in the AESOP YA Congress - Ghent

51°02′59″ N 3°43′00″ EMarch 21 - 24, 2015

1. IntroductionThe relation between cities and ports has been thoroughly analyzed from different per-spective in the last 50 years. We can find several investigations that try to explain the concept of port-city and the evolution of their interaction. Many authors, e.g. Bird (1963) and Hoyle (1989; 2000) among others, have developed spatial models that explain the different stages the relation between ports and cities goes through. Although the mentio-ned models present limitations they are widely accepted as the better abstraction of the evolution of the port-city interface. One of the critic that could be made to these schemes is the fact that not all port-cities fit the description (Kokot, 2008). However, in order to perform a comparative analysis, it provides a solid starting point. According to Hoyle’s model we currently find ourselves in the 6th Phase, when new links between the city and the port can be established. In this article we will not focus in the theoretical research or abstract analysis of port-city development, but rather in the actual governance praxis that we can find in Europe.

Port-City governance. A comparative analysis in the European context.

224

In order to better understand the role of the context, the different problems and so-lutions that we find in the European conti-nent a research project was proposed. For this investigation a sample of six port-cities was chosen representing different reali-ties: Oslo, Helsinki, Rotterdam, Marseille, Genoa and Lisbon. In this selection we can find some of the main ports of the conti-nent, such as Rotterdam, but at the same time the Nordic capitals, like Oslo and Hel-sinki, in which the port is mainly relevant in the regional and national level. Also present are port cities that host the major national port for industrial activities but si-multaneously tourism or passenger related activities, like Genoa and Marseille. Finally the port of Lisbon, the capital of Portugal, that is suffering strong national competition and seen an important increase in the cru-ise sector.

Newman and Thornley (1996) have explai-ned before the differences between the planning systems in the context aforemen-tioned. These distinctions in the national legal framework and the particular physi-

cal and social conditions generate different approaches and solutions for nuisances generated by port activities. These exter-nalities are frequently very similar since the main harbor activities are very often alike. The PAs (Port Authorities)must have a policy to cope with the issues created by its activities in the cities since the positive effects of the port spread throughout the region but the negative externalities very often remain in the urban core (Ircha, 2013; Merk, 2013,2014). The combination between global problems and local solu-tions generates a diversity of management and planning practices worth observing and comparing.

The methodology for the analysis of the study cases was based on visits to the port-cities for periods of two weeks du-ring which one of the main tasks was to perform semi-structured interviews to the responsible authorities in order to get first hand information. We were able to esta-blish contact with the port authorities, mu-nicipalities, planning agencies and profes-sionals. In total 15 interviews were done.

Stages in the evolution of port-city interrelationships according to Hoyle’s model (2000)

225

Dimensions of waterfront (re-)development for comparative perspectives (Schubert, 2011)

At the same time we contacted the local inhabitants informally to better understand their perception of the port and the role this infrastructure plays in the social identity of the city. The methodology was com-pleted with consultation of bibliography and official documents. For the analysis of the waterfront regeneration projects present in all the study cases we followed the method proposed by Schubert (2011), which includes quantitative and qualitative dimensions e.g. size of the project, start and completion dates, planning culture or location. Finally the time spent in each of the study cases allowed us to perform a photographical survey of the port-city envi-ronment and the interaction of the city with the water.

In the work developed by other researchers we can see that there are several key to-pics related with port-cities. For example in the series dedicated to port-cities from the OECD (Merk et.al. 2010-2013) the eco-nomic subject was predominant, although it also included information about the ur-ban planning, environmental impact and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The waterfront regeneration projects are another issue that has been extensively studied by other authors, mainly with stu-dy case analysis, e.g. Schubert (2008, 2011) and Meyer (2003). Another impor-tant source are the guides of good practice developed over the last decade. Several of these publications have been supported by the existing internationals organizations

226

focused on ports and port-cities, such as ESPO (European Sea Port Organization) the European ports lobby, the AIVP (Asso-ciation Internationale Ville et Port) or RETE more focused in Mediterranean and south American countries.

We were able to identify 3 main common topics in the port-city relation among the selected study-cases: (i) Institutional re-lations and role of the port authorities, (ii) physical interaction, including the port-city interface and waterfront regeneration projects, and (iii) the social relation betwe-en ports and cities.

2. Institutional relation - New synergiesIn the European context most PAs follow the landlord port model1. Although the functioning scheme is very similar the political context of each port changes the governance capacities of each PA, being particularly relevant the national political

1 According to the AAPA (American Association of Port Authorities) at a Landlord port the PA is responsible for the basic infrastructure which la-ter leases to private operators for the different port activities.

system of each country. In the selected study cases we could also find one PA, Rotterdam, that has evolved from this mo-del into a developer port (Vries, 2014) as we will later see.

We could find two main schemes for the national systems in the studied context, centralized and decentralized (Newman & Thornley, 1996). These two models for the national organization of the state cre-ate crucial differences between the Euro-pean countries. In the particular subject we are concerned the major difference is related with the control of the PA. In the case of the centralized model the central government plays the leading role, in some cases being even the sole responsible for the PA board. This model is mostly seen in the South European countries, in our case sample we could find it in the cities of Genoa, Marseille and Lisbon. The main issue of this scheme is the fact that many decisions regarding the strategic planning and the allocation of economical resources are not taken in the PA itself, but in the central authority, usually the ministry or

RDM Campus in Rotterdam. In this project the PA changed its status from Landlord port to developer since it decided to directly invest in the project. Author: Unknown

227

national department. In this decision ma-king process the priority is given to the economical aspects of the port activity and the resources are mainly dedicated to the major infrastructural works. Regarding the relation with the city, the issue that might surge is the fact that frequently it is not considered a priority and the investment in projects or activities that could improve the synergies is very often declined. During our interviews we could see that for exam-ple in Genoa the PA does not fully con-trols the revenues its activity generates, therefore does not have capacity to deci-ded where the majority of the investment should be made. Regarding the studied cases that have this model, we also found that when the PA is mainly controlled by the central state, there is a certain institu-tional and emotional detachment between the city and this infrastructure. This was vi-sible in the Marseille case, where, besides the strong presence of the central state, the complex configuration of the boards hinders the negotiation process.

The alternative on the other hand is more common in central and north European countries. In the study cases this option could be found in Rotterdam, Oslo and Hel-sinki. In the decentralized model the city has a prominent role in the control of the PA, very often being the majority sharehol-der in case is a semi-private company, like in the Dutch case (Vries, 2014), or even the PA is under the “umbrella” of the mu-nicipality. Previously, in some cases, this institution used to be a department of the municipality, like in Helsinki, but recent reforms to improve the management tran-sformed them into semi-public companies controlled by the local authority. In these

cases the state also plays an important role although not so determinant as in the alternative model. In some cases is also present in the shareholding and, in most countries with this system, is in charge of the national coordination of these key in-frastructures. For the port-city relation the decentralized model is more beneficial sin-ce the city has a stronger voice in the ma-nagement decisions, they receive benefits from their shares and the urban issues in the interface are considered important as well.

The two models aforementioned condi-tion the port-city relation in the institutional field, but are not the only elements that affect this interaction. Another issue is the land ownership. In the analyzed cases we found three types of situation. In the first scenario the port land is owned by the PA and it can be used as a resource for financing port projects in case a waterfront regeneration plan takes place. We could see this in Oslo, where the PA was able to finance the Sydhavna terminal through the revenues of the real estate operation invol-ving the port territories near the city center. Another similar case would be Marseille. The GPMM (Grand Port Maritime du Mar-seille) controls the port land since the last legislation reform in 20082. For this reason when the port released the area for the waterfront regeneration, it received a com-pensation from the planning agency. Ano-ther situation regarding the land ownership is when the port territory is owned by the city. In this case there is a leasing contract which ends when the port activities are ceased in a certain waterfront section and the land is released without the need of a compensation. This scheme can be found 2 Law n2008-660 4th of July 2008

228

in Rotterdam or in Helsinki. The Finnish capital can be considered an extreme case since the municipality is one of the main land owners in the city. In this case the PA only owns the constructions and machine-ry built in its territory. During the interviews the port representatives claimed that the land issue puts them in a disadvantage po-sition in the case of a negotiation regarding urban issues. Finally we can find cases in which the land is owned by the central sta-te and there is a standardized procedure for the ownership transition. We can find this situation in Lisbon, where the law3 sta-tes that in case the port territory does not have a current or foreseen use it should be handled to the local authorities if there is a clear plan regarding its transformation for urban uses.

In the institutional relation we could also observe another issue that affects only certain ports. These are major infrastruc-

3 Law DL 100/2008 of June 16 2008

ture that even in the smaller cases include a vast extension of territory. In the sample we studied the size of the port varies from 125 Ha4 of land in the port of Oslo to 12500 Ha5 along 40 km of the river Maas in the case of Rotterdam. This dimension affects the territorial management that in some cases it includes several municipalities. The two most extreme cases among the selected port-cities were Marseille and Li-sbon. In the French case the port territory is divided into two main location, Marseille (east basin) and Fos (west basin). Besides the two very different realities, the port acti-vity also affects a broader number of smal-ler municipalities, at least 3 communauté6

4 Source: http://www.ohv.oslo.no/en/about_us/port_of_oslo/5 Source: https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/the-port/facts-figures-about-the-port6 The term communauté de communes refers in French to a federation of municipalities. In this case the three communauté in question gather 27 communes. On January 1st of 2016 a new administrative body, the Métropole d’Aix-Mar-seille - Provence, was created which gathers

View of the East Basin of the GPMM. Source: http://www.meretmarine.com/ © PORT DE MARSEILLE-FOS

229

View of the Tagus estuary and Lisbon metropolita area. The PA controls coast sectps on both sides of the river, intearcting with 11 municipalities Credit: NASA

from Marseille to Fos sur Mer (Bertoncello & Dubois, 2010) that demand a sit in the management board. The negotiation with so many stakeholders, each one with very different priorities and development goals, is considerably complicated. In the Portu-guese capital we found that the port limits with 11 municipalities. In this case each one has a different relation with the port authority and different openness towards port activities. These issues that might seem subjective might affect the port de-velopment. In the Lisbon case one of the factors that influenced the decision of the new container terminal location was the political relation with the local authorities7. Another issue that affects this relation is

the aforementioned municipalities and Aix-en-Provence. This new institution should easy the territorial management and the relation of the municipalities with the port.7 Source https://www.publico.pt/economia/noti-cia/governo-pede-avaliacoes-ambientais-para-avancar-com-novo-porto-no-barreiro-1670498

the fact that the PA is not the same as the port community. Therefore, the concept or agenda of the official institution is not always welcomed by the companies, wor-kers, unions and other individuals or or-ganizations from the port. In some cases, mainly Genoa and Marseille, we noticed how this diversity of actors might difficult the dialogue and in some cases delay im-portant reforms. In general terms we could see that the port communities are not so open to change, particularly if it is brought from outside the port. The PA plays a cru-cial role since it has to properly explain the necessary change and convince this very resilient community to accept it.

In the investigation we were also able to understand the importance of the nego-tiation process necessary between all the involved stakeholders. In port territories very often we find other institutions besi-des the port authorities, such as railway companies, road authorities, customs, pu-

230

blic transport companies, cargo and ferry terminals, etc. In all the study cases the negotiation and willing to dialogue was crucial for the urban and port development. For these negotiations the existence of dialogue platforms, sometimes linked to a project, was considered to be a useful approach.

3. Physical relation - Interface and Wa-terfront regeneration projects - Dialo-gue and negotiation In the selected study cases we could obser-ve how different sorts of urban projects in the waterfront are taking place or have been developed in the past. Since these port-cities have been studied previously by other scholars into more detail, we will only mention the main aspects of them, specifi-cally the most recent developments.

3.1 The interventions3.1.1. HelsinkiIn Helsinki, after the relocation of the indu-strial port in Vuosaari, several urban deve-lopment are taking place that will change the relation of the city with the water. Parti-cularly relevant are the ones in Jatkasaari and Kalatasama. In the first one we shall also see the interaction with port activities (Laitinen,2013), more specifically the ferri-es, that brought in 2015 10,7 mill passen-ger8 and also a considerable figure of ro-ro 9cargo, approx. 25% of the general throu-ghput (Merk et al. 2012).

8 Source: Port of Helsinki, http://www.portofhel-sinki.fi/port_of_helsinki/port_statistics9 Ro-Ro is, as defined by the AAPA, Short for roll on/roll/off type of cargo. This sort of cargo is not lifted inside the ship with cranes, but rolls on and off it, since it goes in cars, trailers or other type of vehicles.

3.1.2 OsloIn Oslo the Fjord City plan is being deve-loped since 2000, when the municipality chose to implement the urban strategy be focused in improving the contact of the city with the fjord rather than the one more har-bour oriented (Kolstø, 2013; Gisle Rekdal, 2013). This decision was also very repre-sentative of the different types of relation that cities have with their ports, not always considered an identity element. In this case the dialogue and negotiation has played a crucial role, since the land, as mentioned before, is owned by the port. One of the most important features of the plan is the new coherent vision for the waterfront. The presence of a global vision for the relation of the city with the water is important for the development of a regeneration project. In the case of Oslo the waterfront prome-nade plays an important role, since it is the link between the different areas, that go from new port terminals in Sydhavna in the south to the new centralities in Bjor-vika. The plan will proceed with the de-velopment of Filipstad and Vippetangen. These sections of the waterfront will requi-re more negotiation than in previous parts since there are port related industries ope-rating there and the solution for connection

One of the future development areas in the waterfront of Oslo, Vippetangen, near the Akershus fortress.


231

with the urban tissue implies not just the port but also the railway company.

3.1.3 RotterdamThe case of Rotterdam presents two main examples for waterfront interventions, Kop van Zuid and Stadshavens. The first is en-tering its final stage and is an example of “port out-city in” type of project. In this case a port brownfield was transformed into a high standard mixed-use district. The cle-ar gentrification we can see it was consi-dered positive, being one of the goals of the project, since the city needed greater variety in a dwelling market dominated by social housing (Daamen et al., 2015). The second interventions could be considered a model for the future. Its scale and com-plexity is greater than other cases since it implies an area of 1600 Ha, of which 600 Ha of land (Vries, 2014) with many active industries. This last section of the port insi-de the highway ring began to be discussed in the year 2004, with an initial approach similar to the Kop van Zuid. In 2007, be-fore the world financial crisis, it was clear that the scheme could not be replied and that a different strategy was necessary (Daamen,2010; Vries, 2014). The model changed from a “port out-city in” approach

to a real coexistence among port and ur-ban uses. The industries are considered to be important, particularly innovative ones related with the port, and the transition will be developed in a slower rhythm, with a more flexible implementation agenda. The housing program will be built in the areas that allow a compatible use. This case is considered to be very innovative since, as mentioned before, the project no longer ta-kes place in a port brownfield, but in a ac-tive port sector. The integration can hardly be achieved, but the coexistence between port and city can be a reasonable goal.

3.1.4 MarseilleMarseille is also undergoing an important urban transformation. After the industrial crisis of the 1970-1980 the city went into a process of social and physical degrada-tion, unemployment rates grew considera-bly, the lack of private investment caused a degradation of the urban tissue with se-veral brownfields and the productive model did not evolved from the previous scenario. The port, as in many other cases, was no longer the job provider it used to be. At the same time the city gained a negative repu-tation. To invert the negative development tendency the central government decided to act by implementing an urban regene-ration plan in 1995, the Euroméditerranée (Bertoncello & Dubois, 2010; Martin, 2015). The operation was destined to change the image of the city and its productive model, with a new CBD where several industrial brownfield used to be, near the urban port. The operation required the cooperation of all the involved actors, including the GPMM. After intense negotiation all the stakeholders agreed and the regeneration process began. One of most interest facts about this case for the port-city relation is

Kop van Zuid development. This project is entering its final stages. It was a classical approach of port out- city in in

and port brownfield. Author: José M P Sánchez

232

the vertical integration of port and urban activities in several key projects. Terras-ses du Port, Silo d’Arenc and in the future the J1 Warehouse show the compatibility of port activities with cultural, service or shopping programs. Besides these speci-fic projects the process also allowed the city to regain an access to the sea in the J4/MUCEM section. Another important element was the flexibility of the plan, sin-ce the construction was only developed when a high rate of occupancy (70%) was assure, avoiding the risk of empty buil-dings and the possible degradation. Most importantly, the commitment achieved was translated into the city-port charter, a do-cument that summarized the negotiation process and granted the presence of the port in the urban core, easing the accep-tance of the project by the port community, not always opened to change. The plan is still ongoing and in the next years it should start its second phase, this time without af-fecting directly port territories.

3.1.5 GenoaThe case of Genoa presents a different re-ality from the ones discussed previously. In the Italian city currently there is no wa-terfront regeneration project in the classic

meaning of the concept, acting in a port brownfield to generate an urban tissue near the water. This sort of intervention already took place in the late 1980’s, early 1990’s, and later, in the early 2000’s, in every case associated with a big events policy (Gastaldi, 2010, 2013). The particu-larity of the Genoese context is the need to intervene in the active port, to give answer to specific technical issues and, in the pro-cess, use this opportunity to improve the relation of the city with the port and the sea. The Blue print project developed by Renzo Piano is a conceptual plan for the east section of the port territory focused in reorganizing the shipyards industry, im-proving its infrastructure and implementing a better distribution of the existing activi-ties, which include a yacht club and wa-ter sports. Simultaneously the exhibition fair district, outside the port boundaries, should also be affected by this plan, since it also requires an intervention to invert its current degradation process. The project plans the development of 11300 m2 of housing, 25 000 m2 of tertiary activities and 12 000 m2 of commerce in the sector focused in the urban regeneration10. This figure is relatively small when compared to the previous cases, which also shows the different scope of the project. One of the main features of the plan, as we can see in the image, is the creation of a new blue buffer, i.e. a water channel separating the city from the port.

3.1.6 LisbonIn Lisbon the most important waterfront regeneration project took place in the late 1990’s, the regeneration of a port

10 Source: Official project document and web-site: http://www.comune.genova.it/content/il-blueprint-10-punti

The Docks project in Marseille. An intervention in the old port warehouses, now refurbished into commercial and

office space. Author: José M P Sánchez

233

View of Lisbon. The central sector of the active port between historic center and the eastern part of the city remains a challenege for the coexistence Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/

brownfield in the east part of the city for the EXPO 1998. After the event the area suffered several changes to adapt to its post-expo use, hosting a new business district, several housing projects and key cultural infrastructures. The main critic to this project was that it created an island of new urbanity disconnected from the exi-sting urban tissue (Ressano Garcia, 2011). In 2007 the general plan for waterfront in-terventions was published, in which the future use of riverfront areas and port ter-ritory to be dismissed was described. This plan was developed in the strategic level and the partial projects were developed in a closer scale. The economic crisis that af-fected the world economy, and particularly the Southern European countries, burst short after the release of the document and several project there hosted suffered signi-

ficant delays, being developed only today. In this period the absence of activities in the released areas increased the negative image of the port, although the port itself was not responsible of the situation. The importance of temporary uses was clear in this case, since they could have allowed an appropriation of the space by the inha-bitants that later on might ease the integra-tion.

3.2 Conclusions of the physical relation analysis3.2.1 ContractsOne of the elements that are most relevant for the waterfront regeneration projects is the situation regarding the contracts with the existing companies. The majority of the PA, as we have already mentioned, follow the landlord model, therefore there

234

are companies developing their activities in the port territory which have made an investment based in a long term commit-ment. These contracts are usually signed for several decades and imply conside-rable compensation sums in case they are broken. In the waterfront project they might form an impediment for the imple-mentation of the plan. We could find this issue in several cases. In Oslo there are operating firms in Filipstad and in the silo in Vippetangen. In Rotterdam there are seve-ral companies with long-term contracts in Merwerhaven, Eemhaven and Waalhaven, that in case they had to be relocated the necessary compensation could affect the outcome of the project11. One of difficulties of acting in the active port is the issue of respecting the contracts, in this context the flexible planning and negotiation skills might prove to be determinant for the suc-cess or failure of the project.

3.2.2 AgenciesThe waterfront and the port-city interface are a very specific situation, the issues affecting this part of the city are very par-ticular and the solutions applied in other lo-cations of the urban tissue might not work here (Hoyle, 1998). At the same time in this context the municipal authorities deals with another institution managing a vast territory, the port authorities, with different priorities and goals, that counterbalances the negotiation process. In order to find solutions very often an specific planning

11 Another case where the importance of the contracts situation can be seen is Hamburg. For the 2024 Olympic proposal, that finally was rejected by the citizens in a referendum, one of the bigger challenges was the figure of the compensation for the companies operating in the Kleinen Grasbrook, port territory, where the Olympic village was supposed to be built.

agency is created. In the analyzed study cases we found several agencies, fre-quently linked with a project, instead of a steady organizations meant to follow diffe-rent plans. In Rotterdam the Stadshavens evolved to be a dialogue and coordination platform after the approach to the project changed (Daamen,2010; Vries, 2014).

In the case of Genoa we found precedents of these sort of initiatives, created by both sides of the relation. For the port plan the PA established an agency for the deve-lopment of the port Masterplan. This new office counted with the collaboration of world renowned architects and planners, e.g. Rem Koolhaas, Solá Morales and Bernardo Secchi, to provide new ideas for the port-city interface (Boeri,1999). Later on another agency, the Genova Urban Lab, was created to solve the existing ur-ban issues, among them the relation with the port. The synergies created in the pro-cess have helped to improve the dialogue between the municipal and port authorities.

In Marseille the Euroméditerranée was created by the national state with the sco-pe of the urban regeneration of the city. The participants in the new public agency were also the GPMM, the urban communi-ty, the county council, the regional council and the municipality. The agency forced a dialogue almost inexistent until that mo-ment. One of the greatest achievements of this initiative has been the connection between the national and the local deci-sion makers. This agency is linked to the project development and its destiny is to disappear when the plan is finished. Ho-wever it has already left a document that should work as guide for the future of the port-city relation, the “city-port charter”.

235

The other cases have not developed an specific waterfront agency, but in certain moment have established joint venture dedicated to specific projects, such as the Frente Tejo in Lisbon, focused in three ma-jor public projects and later extinguished.

3.2.3 Two tendenciesWaterfront projects have been studied by several authors since the pioneer inter-ventions in Boston and Baltimore in the 1960’s. Ever since we have seen an evolu-tion in the development models. In Europe we could until now find several genera-tions of waterfront revitalization (Schubert, 2008 and 2011). The first one exemplified in London, the Canary wharf, contrasting later with what took place in Barcelona or Genoa where the public space and lei-sure had the dominant role. Later the fo-cus changed to mixed- use and housing very often linked with a landmark cultural project, following the example of Bilbao. In the studied port-cities we found two main sorts of waterfront revitalization plans. In the Nordic countries the concept has fol-lowed what we have already seen in other locations e.g. the Netherlands. The reloca-

tion of the port industrial harbor created the opportunity of a waterfront project. In Oslo the new port terminal in Sydhavna has been developed with the revenues from the Oslo Havn KF, which also benefited from the real estate operations . In Helsinki on the other hand the decision of moving the industrial port to Vuosaari released a considerable space for new districts in the city.

While in Oslo the free market law prevails, therefore high standard housing for high income class, in Helsinki the role of the municipality as landowner allows a grea-ter social mix in the new city districts in the waterfront. The composition of both social structures might provide in the future dif-ferent perceptions of the public space and the urban environment by the water.

The second type of waterfront intervention is the one that acts in the active port terri-tory, as we see in Rotterdam and Genoa. In these cities the plans are not limited to port brownfields, but propose the reconfi-guration of the active port, considering at the same time the urban needs and the

Tjuvholment waterfront deve-lopment. This urban project continued the model establi-shed in Akker Brygge. The profit from the real estate operations financed the new terminal in

Sydhavna Author: José M P Sánchez

236

harbor related activities. In this cases the interface between both realities changes and technical needs from the port are used to improve the synergies with the city. When comparing both we could say that Rotterdam takes the concept further since the transformation is not physical but also social and economical. The RDM cam-pus is one positive example of interaction between city and port in the educational sector, in the boundary between both terri-tories (Aarts et al, 2012). This sort of plans could be considered a new generation of waterfront regeneration projects since they offer a new approach to the port-city reali-ty. The Euroméditerranée plan in Marseille has elements from both, since this opera-tion has not altered significantly the con-figuration of the port territory and only in a small section the PA has released area by the water. The main innovation was the coexistence of port and urban activities, as we have seen in several projects.

The waterfront interventions have clear development stages (Schubert, 2008). Starting with the abandonment of the area and relocation of port infrastructure, to the emergence of a port brownfield, later pro-ceeding to the implementation of plans and its revitalization. In the last decade we have already seen that the process was starting to change, since the real estate deve-lopment were proving to be economically very convenient. The pressure to the port to move it mains infrastructure to another location was not only due to the technical and logistic needs for more space, but also from the different urban stakeholders. We might have achieved a new stage, the wa-terfront intervention no longer happen after the port released the area, but rather take place in the active port. At the same time

also the model of intervention has chan-ged in these cases. If previously the main goal was to develop green public spaces, cultural venues or mixed-use and housing developments, what could be named the “beauty waterfront”, now it seems we have an alternative “productive waterfront” mo-del, where the industries are considered important for the city and the effort has to be made for the compatibility and coexi-stence between the port and the city. This evolution in the waterfront projects and the dangers of the previous model, more focused in housing and leisure programs, were already detected by other authors, e.g. Chrarlier (1992), who named it “the dockland syndrome”, Bruttomesso (2009) and Ducruet (2013), who considered a mi-stake to remove all the port activities from the regenerated waterfront, denaturalizing it from its original function.

4. Emotional relation During the study case visits and analysis we were able to observe a third dimen-sion of the port-city relation, the interaction between the citizens and the port. Until very recently the PA’s in general terms had not considered the importance of the public image and the communication with the inhabitants of the city where they were placed. Several scholars have already stu-died the negative image of the port, e.g. Hooydonk (2007), but the responsible au-thorities did not considered it an issue for their governance until recently. Regarding this topic one of the key con-cepts is the SLO (Social License to Ope-rate). As explained by Dooms (2014), is in its broader concept, fulfilling the expecta-tions of stakeholder and local communities in dimensions that go beyond the creation of wealth, i.e. the social acceptance of

237

port activities by local communities. This subjective dimensions are often difficult to measure. In port-cities the SLO is not achieved easily since often the positive effects of port activities spread through the entire region but the negative exter-nalities remain in the urban core (Ircha, 2013; Merk, 2013,2014). In order to achie-ve this license the ports have to look for values that go beyond the usual port ar-guments regarding their economic impact, jobs, tons of cargo, etc. The soft values of seaports have in this context a key role. They are defined by Hooydonk (2007) as “the non-socioeconomic values which in-clude among others historical, sociologi-cal, artistic and cultural sub-functions that form the soft-function of seaports”. In the selected port-cities these soft-values were presented in several ways, from education to heritage to cultural or communication initiatives.

During our research we observed that the different actions taken in this field could be organized in four main categories: educa-tion, communication, heritage and social agenda. Besides these key issues, the

matter of the port as an identity element was considered to be transversal to all subjects. The problem of the urban identity in port-cities has been studied by several scholars, e.g. Hooydonk (2009) Warsewa (2011). In the concerned port-cities we were able to see that not all of them that host a port consider themselves a port-city, or the port as a key element of their identity. We can mention Oslo or Lisbon for example, in which the citizens and the authorities acknowledge other features as more important for their identity. In the Norwegian case, as stated before, the fjord has a dominant role, the people are more related with the natural element than with the artificial port landscape. In the Portu-guese capital the same happens with the Tagus river. Although is very clear how the port activity and development has affected the character and morphology of the city, the inhabitants are not able to relate with the port, sometimes even considering it an impediment to a more fluid relation with the river.

In the other cases the port is considered an important characteristic for the collec-

Contrast between the city and the port in Genoa. The port ma-chinery is part of the city identity.


238

tive image of the city. When we observe the different cases is clear that this key in-frastructure does not has the same weight in the identity of each city. The role the port plays in Rotterdam cannot be equal to the one in Helsinki. However we have detected that there might be a growing de-tachment towards the port. For this reason the need to improve the social relation is clear. In some cases the goal is to strength the role of the port, in others, to create a social relation with it. For this reason the four categories above mentioned have to work jointly to achieve the desired result.

4.1 Education The relation with the educational institu-tions has been one of the fields where the PA have made the greater efforts for the social integration. In all the visited port-cities the PA had organized school visits to the port facilities for groups of children of different age. In another level the colla-boration with the universities is also very frequent. In Marseille the PA participates in workshops with the architecture faculty. In Rotterdam the cooperation with edu-cational institutions goes beyond visits or workshops. In the RDM campus the start-up companies focused in port activities give the students the opportunity to apply the theoretical knowledge. The education programs are also being use to deal with another issue, the fact that to younger ge-nerations the port is no longer seen as an attractive place to pursue a professional career.

Regarding the issue of understanding the port, an specific infrastructure can be found in some port cities, the port center. This space is focused in explaining the port

to a broader audience, particularly children and teenagers, to allow the inhabitants to regain a sense of ownership of the port (Marini et al., 2014). Very often their exhi-bition and educational activities are com-plemented by boat tours where the stu-dents can see what they have learn before. In two study-cases, Rotterdam and Genoa, we could visit the port-center. Both cities have this kind of centers12, although the one in Genoa has been closed since 2014. There is a Port-Center Network organized by the AIVP which coordinates the relation between the different institutions. In the fu-ture is expected to find more centers in the different ports. In some port-cities we could also find maritime museum that often have a section dedicated to explaining the port.

4.2 CommunicationIn the paper “Lipstick on a Gorilla” (Van Stiphout, 2007), we could read that the port is now a reality that must be explai-ned. The communication has been another field in which we have assisted to impor-tant changes in recent years. The use of social media to explain the port and in-teract with the inhabitants has become a regular activity. Most PAs have a commu-nication strategy but often does not reach the targeted audience.The port of Rotter-dam has been active in many channels to spread the news about the port activities. They produce a free newspaper and have an online TV channel, an initiative we can also see in Hamburg13. Another useful stra-

12 The port of Rotterdam has two Port-Cen-ters: the EIC, placed in a central location in the port territory with the scope of general explai-ning the harbour and the port activities, and the Futureland center, in the Maasvlakte 2, focused in explaining the port expansion project.13 Both PAs have channels in the online plat-form YouTube

239

tegy are the local information signs, where the port and its history can be explained to the inhabitants. In Oslo the information strategy in the Fjord City project was par-ticularly effective since it was linked to the waterfront promenade project. The possi-bility of joining a coherent urban vision with an user friendly information boards prove to be useful. The port history is explained where the current waterfront regeneration projects are being built. The explanation of the transition could help to have an emoio-nal connection with the port heritage and improve the port identity role.

4.3 HeritageThe next category where we can find soft-values strategies is the heritage. In old port areas we can often find harbor machinery, cranes and warehouses. During the field trips we could see the different role this he-ritage has played in the port regeneration projects. In Oslo, Helsinki, Rotterdam and Genoa we could see the cranes working as sculptural elements in the public space. The use of warehouses and other buildings like silos is also frequent. In Marseille the Silo d’Arenc was refurbished into a cultu-

ral venue, keeping the port circulation un-derneath. In Genoa the congress center is the old cotton warehouses. In Rotterdam, in the Katendrecht district, we should see in the near future several projects in indu-strial buildings take place, which could al-low a mixed use of the space. In the same city we can also find the historic harbor associated with the maritime museum. In this space, besides the cranes and boats we can also see the workshops where they are repaired, allowing a relative coherent atmosphere. In Hamburg the Speicher-stadt, considered UNESCO world heritage in 2015, hosts nowadays office space, in-cluding the PA headquarters. The use of heritage to connect with the history of the port is one of the most effective and ac-cepted strategies. In case the buildings or cranes are kept, is important that they are integrated in the new urban plans but with the right context, otherwise, they might be isolated elements losing their strength as a whole.

4.4 Social agendaFinally, the last type of strategy is the social events for the port integration. The open

Real Estate development in Ka-tendrech. In the future the rela-tion with the industrial heritage might be tighter than what it is today, passing the musealiza-tion and integrating it in every

day uses Source: http://www.fenixlofts.nl/

240

door days and port festival, like the ones in Rotterdam, Helsinki or Lisbon constitute the typical example of this sort of action. In most guides of good practice they are men-tioned as an effective method of bringing people to the harbor and rising the interest of the general audience for the port issues. These sort of event might be characterized by a certain folklore and detachment from what really a port is nowadays. Neverthe-less they do attract attention and must be complemented with the educational programs and infotainment from the port-centers and maritime museums. Besides these venues, the port also can be active in the other events, such as the city mara-thon, concerts or exhibitions, that put the focus in the port, or the port can work as background. This way, the harbor image is introduced in the life of the inhabitants, what could lead to a broader acceptance of its presence.

All the strategies aforementioned are cor-related, the cultural venues are often asso-ciated with the port-centers which can be placed in port heritage buildings. The soft-values can be explained in different ways but their effects in the general mindset cannot be measured from one year to the other. The successful cases that use these strategies have been applying them for the long term results. However, it is important to have a realistic idea of the perception of the port by the citizens by performing studies, like the one from Lisbon in 200714, where the actual image of the port is eva-luated. The effects of these policies could lead to higher acceptance of the port. 14 Sustainability report from the year 2007, available in: http://www.portodelisboa.pt/portal/page/portal/PORTAL_PORTO_LISBOA/AUTO-RIDADE_PORTUARIA/RELATORIOS_PUBLI-CACOES

In this article we have not focused in the environmental policies followed by the dif-ferent PAs, although is clear they are the first priority regarding the coexistence with the city and CSR. This is a broader subject to be dealt in another article, but we can notice how important they have become in the different ports we visited. The control of the different pollutants using sophisticated sensor system is an usual practice in the European ports. At the same time there is a constant dialogue with the responsible authorities for an effective control of the nuisances and the companies operating in the port. In another dimension we can also see how the new terminal or port ex-pansion projects have environmental con-cerns regarding the fauna and flora. In the Maasvlakte 2, in Rotterdam, the creation of the breakwater reused material from the original Maasvlakte. The new port territo-ry in Vuosaari is placed in a Natura 2000 reserve, therefore the nuisance had to be reduced to the minimum. For this reason the sound barrier in the east border is a wall made with concrete blocks that allows the integration of vegetation to reduce the impact of the port.

5. General ConclusionAfter analyzing the different study cases one of the original assumptions proved to be correct, it is not possible to achieve a real physical port city integration, only a sustainable coexistence (Bruttomesso, 2011). The current technical requirements and security limitations will constantly hin-der the full integration that belongs to the early phases of Hoyle’s model. In this case the description of Hoyle’s 6th phase might be correct, since we did found new links between the port and the city, and in the

241

future they might even be reinforced due to the economic development associated with port industries and port-clusters.

In the selected port-cities we found com-mon problems to all of them, e.g. envi-ronmental issues, traffic associated to port activity or the barrier effect. However, the physical, political, emotional and institutio-nal context plays a key role in all the cases, requiring specific solutions for the mentio-ned general problems. We also found that the abstract models proposed by several authors and the rankings do not fully ex-press the reality of the port or the comple-xity of the port-cities.

The two existing schemes regarding the national governance, centralized and de-centralized, can affect the relation betwe-en the port and the city, particularly in the institutional level. These differences can later be seen in the effort the PA is able to do in order to improve the interaction with the city. The allocation of resources con-trolled by a central authority might difficult the investment in the disclosure of the soft-values of seaport, what could in the long term increase the positive synergies with the inhabitants.

In the waterfront we have seen how the intervention model has evolved, althou-gh in the selected study cases the plans developed in the 1990’s and 2000’s are currently under development. The new strategies are focused in intervening in the active port, in some cases generating new types of interaction between both realities. The need of a port-city combined strategy affects both the physical and economical development. One technical improvement might cause an spatial redistribution, which

could imply a new access to the water or new associated industries. This change, that in this article we took the freedom to name “from beauty waterfront to producti-ve waterfront”, might introduce a more ba-lance relation and better acceptance of the port presence. At the same time this sort of plans could help to maintain the port iden-tity, providing a certain variability to the ne-cessary coherent vision for the waterfront.

Finally, during the analysis of the study ca-ses, it was clear that the role of the PA has to go beyond the management of the port territory and activities. The port has to as-sume its role as constituent element of the urban structure and collective image. The disclosure of the soft-values of seaports by the PAs should help the port to achieve greater acceptance by the citizens. If we consider that very often the PAs are politi-cized institutions it seems reasonable that an investment is made for the improve-ment of its public image and obtaining the SLTO. We have seen that the full physi-cal integration between port and cities will not be possible, but the social integration of the seaports should be considered an important goal to be achieved by the PAs.

242

of RETE N. 5, Year VGARCIA, P R. (2011). Public Spaces at the urban con-version of Lisbon Expo’98, PORTUS plus: the online Journal of RETE N. 2, Year IIGASTALDI, F. (2010). Genova. La riconversione del waterfront portuale. Un percorso con esiti rilevanti. Storia, accadimenti, dibattito. In M. Savino (Ed.), Wa-terfront d’Italia. Piani politiche progetti (pp. 88–104). Milan: FrancoAngeli Editore.GASTALDI, F. (2013). Great events, urban regenera-tion and gentrification in the historic centre of Genoa. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal 31, 7, 31–41.GHIARA, H., DEMOULIN, P., MARINI,G., (2014) Port Center: to develop a renewed port city relationship by improving a shared port culture. In ALIX,Y. DELSALLE & B. COMTOIS, C. (eds) Port-City governance. Edi-tions EMS, 233-245.GISLE REKDAL, P. (2013) About the Fjord City from the Port’s point of view, Portus: the online magazine of RETE, n.25,(online) RETE publisher. HOYLE, B.S. (1989) The port City Interface: Trends, Problems and Examples, Geoforum Vol. 20, 429-435.HOYLE, B.S. (1998) The redevelopment of derelict port areas. The Dock & Harbour Authority, Vol. 79, No. 887, page 46-49HOYLE, B.S. (2000) Global and Local Change on the Port-City Waterfront. Geographical Review, Vol. 90, No. 3, page 395-417HOYLE, B.S (2011) Tomorrow’s World? Divergen-ce and Reconvergence at the Port-City Interface. In ALEMANY,J and BRUTTOMESSO,R. (eds) The Port City of the XXIst Century, New Challenges in the Rela-tionship between Port and City. RETE, 32-47.IRCHA M C. (2013) Social License for Canadian Port”, PORTUS: the online magazine of RETE, n. 25, Year XIII, Venice, RETE Publisher.KOKOT ,W. (2008). Port Cities as Areas of Transi-tion - Comparative Ethnographic Research. In (Eds.) KOKOT,W, GANDELSMAN-TRIER, M., WILDNER, K., & WONNEBERGER, A. Port Cities as Areas of Tran-sition: Ethnographic Perspectives. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.KOLSTØ, S, (2013) Oslo Fjord City Course is Set, Ma-king Good Speed!, PORTUS: the online magazine of RETE, n. 25, Year XIII, Venice, RETE Publisher.LAITINEN, T. (2013) Helsinki experiencing a period of growth: the Daughter of the Baltic Sea gazes out over the sea, PORTUS: the online magazine of RETE, n.25, Year XIII, Venice, RETE Publisher.MARTIN, T. (2015). 1995-2015 Les 20 ans d’Eu-roméditerránée. Marseille: Euroméditerranée.MERK, O. (2013), The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: Synthesis Report, OECD Regional Deve-lopment Working Papers, 2013/13, OECD Publishing.MERK, O., HESSE. M. (2012), The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: the Case of Hamburg, OECD Re-

ReferencesAARTS M,DAAMEN T, HUIJS M, DE VRIES W. Port-city development in Rotterdam: a true love story. UPM Departamento de urbanística y ordenación del territo-rio revista digital - territorio, urbanismo, sostenibilidad, paisaje, diseño urbano http://urban-e.aq.upm.es/con-sulted in 2/07/2015 15:41BOERI, S. (1999). Designed Concepts. In MOLINARI L. (Ed.), Piano, Porto, Città. L’esperienza di Genova (pp. 19–22). Milan: Skira editore - Autorità Portuale di Genova.BERTONCELLO, B., & DUBOIS, J. (2010). Marseille Euroméditerranée - Accélérateur de Métropole. Mar-seille: Parenthèses.BIRD, J.H. (1963). The major Seaports of the United Kingdom, London: Hutchinson.BRUTOMESSO, R. (2009). Transformaciones del pai-saje portuario contemporáneo: del negocio al ocio... y al negocio, otra vez. Portus 18, Pag 10–15.BRUTTOMESSO,R. (2011) Port and City: from integration to coexistence. In ALEMANY,J and BRUTTOMESSO,R. (eds) The Port City of the XXIst Century, New Challenges in the Relationship between Port and City. RETE, 102-117CHARLIER, J. (1992) The regeneration of old port are-as for new port uses. European port cities in transition: 137-154. In: Hoyle B.S. (ed.), European port cities in transition, Belhaven Press, London British Association for the advancement of science , Annual Meeting, Uni-versity of SouthamptonDOOMS, M.(2014) Integrating “triple P” bottom line performance and the license to operate for ports: to-wards new partnership between port cluster stakehol-ders. In ALIX,Y. DELSALLE & B. COMTOIS, C. (eds) Port-City governance. Editions EMS,55-75DAAMEN, T. (2010). Strategy as Force. Towards Ef-fective Strategies for Urban Development Projects: The Case of Rotterdam CityPorts. Delft: IOS Press.DAAMEN, T., AARTS, M., HUIJS, M., DE VRIES, W. (2015) Rediscovering the waterfront in Rotterdam. Tra-sporti e Cultura, n. 41, Year XV, Venice.DUCRUET,C.,LEE,S.W. (2006) Frontline soldiers of globalization: Port-city evolution and regional compe-tition, GeoJournal, 67(2), 107-122.DUCRUET,C. (2011) The Port City in a multidiscipli-nary analysis. In ALEMANY,J and BRUTTOMESSO,R. (eds) The Port City of the XXIst Century, New Challen-ges in the Relationship between Port and City. RETE, 32-47.DUCRUET, C. (2013) Waterfront redevelopment: the fragility of local benefits, PORTUS: the online magazi-ne of RETE, n. 25, June 2013, Year XIII, Venice, RETE Publisher.FERNANDES, A. (2015) Essay on the valorization of heritage and cultural identity in waterfront redeve-lopment processes. PORTUS plus: the online Journal

243

gional Development Working Papers, 2012/06, OECD Publishing.MERK, O., NOTTEBOOM, T. (2013), The Competiti-veness of Global Port-Cities: the Case of Rotterdam, Amsterdam – the Netherlands, OECD Regional Deve-lopment Working Papers, 2013/08, OECD Publishing.MERK, O., HILMOLA, O-P, DUBARLE, P. (2012), The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: the Case of Hel-sinki, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2012/08, OECD Publishing.MERK, O., COMTOIS, C. (2012), Competitiveness of port cities: the case of Marseille-Fos, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2012/11, OECD Publi-shing.MERK, O. (2014), The effectiveness of port-city gover-nance, In ALIX,Y. DELSALLE & B. COMTOIS, C. (eds) Port-City governance. Editions EMS, 233-245.MEYER, H. (1999). City and Port. Transformation of Port Cities London, Barcelona, New York, Rotterdam. Rotterdam: International Books.NEWMAN,P.,THORNLEY,A. (1996) Urban planning in Europe, International Competition, National System & Planning Projects. Routledge.OSMAA,K. (2013) Helsinki converting waterfronts into residential areas. Portus: the online magazine of RETE, n.25,(online) RETE publisher.SCHUBERT D. (2008) Transformation Processes on Waterfronts in Seaport Cities - Causes and Tren-ds between Divergence and Convergence. In (eds.) KOKOT,W, GANDELSMAN-TRIER, M., WILDNER, K., & WONNEBERGER, A. Port Cities as Areas of Tran-sition: Ethnographic Perspectives. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.SCHUBERT, D. (2011). Seaport Cities: Phases of spatial restructuring. In HEIN, C. (Ed.), Port Cities: Dynamic Landscapes and Global Networks .New York: Routledge. SCHUBERT D. (2013) The last frontier of urban wa-terfront regeneration: Northern Europe, PORTUS: the online magazine of RETE, n. 25, June 2013, Year XIII, Venice, RETE Publisher.VAN HOOYDONK, E. (2007) Soft values of seaports, a strategy for the restoration of public support for sea-ports. Garant.VAN HOOYDONK, E. (2009). Port city Identity and Ur-ban Planning. Portus, 18, pag 16–23.VAN STIPHOUT, W. (2007). Lipstick on a Gorilla. Ha-ven van de toekomst investigation http://www.haven-vandetoekomst.nl consulted in 2/02/2016 15:41VRIES, I. M. J. (2014), From Shipyard to Brainyard - The redevelopment of RDM as an example of a con-temporary port-city relationship, In ALIX,Y. DELSALLE & B. COMTOIS, C. (eds) Port-City governance. Edi-tions EMS, 233-245.WARSEWA, G. (2012) The Role of Local Culture in the Transformation of the Port--‐City, Portus Plus -2, the online journal of RETE.

Guides of Good Practice:SUDEST-Sustainable development of Sea Towns (2007)PCP: Plan the city with the port, strategies for Redeve-loping City-Port linking spaces (2007)Waterfront Communities Project -The Cool Sea Toolkit (2010)ESPO “ode of Practice on Societal Integration of Ports (2010)CTUR-Cruise Traffic and Urban Regeneration (2011)FNAU Innovations Ville-Port, pour des projets intégrés Ville-Port (2011)AIVP: Plan the city with the port (2015)Online references:http://www.porto.genova.it/ (accessed: 25/01/2016 9:28)https://www.portofrotterdam.com (accessed: 05/02/2016 10:35)http://www.oslohavn.no (accessed: 10/01/2016 9:55)http://www.portofhelsinki.fi/ (accessed: 13/01/2016 11:27)http://www.marseille-port.fr (accessed: 14/01/2016 11:15)http://www.portodelisboa.pt/ (accessed: 02/02/2016 10:27)http://www.aapa-ports.org/ (accessed: 02/02/2016 16:11)

245

Port-cities represent one of the most fascinating urban situation of our time. The two parallel realities have given birth to endless conflicts and difficult relations. Ports are the raison d’être of many cities, but nowadays they have become inhospitable places for the human being. In the 21st century ports are the backbone of the glo-balized world. Through them 90% of the goods we consume in the European Union pass through. They are key players for the commerce and economic engines for the regions that host them. But how does the relation between cities and ports in the 21st Century really works? How is the coexistence between the urban issues and the port logics? What image do the inhabitants of the port-cities have from their own ports? What can be done to improve the relation?

All these questions are the inspiration for the current PhD Investigation: “City and Port? City or Port? The coexistence between City and Port, the Lisbon Case.” In the Portuguese capital the relation between both entities has evolved but still is far from what we see in other port-cities in the European continent. In order to analyze what is being done in other cases, a research project was developed including five study cases representing different realities: Oslo, Helsinki, Rotterdam, Marseille and Ge-noa. The present book is the final result of the research trip done in 2015 sponsored by the Übersee-Club. During this trip an online on-board diary was written, hosted in the blog: theportandthecity.wordpress.com/. The posts written during the almost 4 months of travel are here transcribed along with the result of the photographic survey done when visiting the different cities.

The conclusions of the trip are summarized in an article presented in the AESOP YA congress. This paper is the last chapter of the book and explains the main is-sues and strategies found in the analyzed study cases.

This investigation will not stop here and will continue to develop a final strategy that could be implemented in the case of Lisbon, including both hard (physical) and soft (non-physical) interventions.

The port and the city blog continues online and can be visited for the next stages of the research.

the port and the city - on board diary

Documents