The Port-City Interface

Jusy Calabrò(&), Alessandro Rugolo, and Angela Viglianisi

Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria, 89100 Reggio Calabria, Italy

jusy.cal@gmail.com

Abstract. Assuming that waterfront have always been special places “where
land and water meet” [1] nowadays they are mostly places for urban renewal,
where conflicts and debates, about what their role should be within the urban
context, emerge. The “port-city interface” aims at explaining the spatial, insti-
tutional and socio-economic relations occurring between cities and ports;
evaluating new approaches to take into consideration urban regeneration ini-
tiatives where different functions compete causing often urban decay. Particu-
larly, factors of success will be highlighted to address urban regeneration
initiatives, toward sustainable approaches, in those sensitive, complex urban
areas, for development. The “interface” [2], where port and city communicate, is
often a ground characterized by competition, but it could also be a possibility for
both city and port to grow. The comparison among selected case studies
highlights the dynamics involved into those places, from the spatial, institutional
and socio-economic points of view, in order to provide a useful framework for
the decision-making process performing between port and city related areas. The
possible interaction could enhance the innovation and sustainability attempts of
regeneration initiatives in those peculiar places, providing added value for the
whole urban system [3].

Keywords: Port-city
Interface
Urban regeneration
Sustainability

Innovation

1 Introduction

The first part of this paper introduces a scientific literature review to understand the
historical reasons behind the city-port areas detachment; then, a contextualization of
waterfront regeneration initiatives is provided. The second part aims to be a synopsis of
the case studies, analyzed along the PhD research activity, which here are considered as
international best practices of urban regeneration linked to port-city dynamics,
belonging to the same urban policy ground and strictly linked to similar strategies for
local development. Then, the main factors involved into the urban regeneration per-
formance for each case study analyzed are highlighted. Moreover, governance pro-
cesses, led by port and city authorities, are investigated to underline dynamics and

This is the result of the joint work of the authors. Although scientific responsibility is equally
attributable, the abstract and the paragraphs nn. 3,4 were written by J.Calabrò; the paragraphs nn.
1, 2.1 were written by A. Viglianisi; the paragraphs nn. 2, 5 were written by A. Rugolo.

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

F. Calabrò et al. (Eds.): ISHT 2018, SIST 101, pp. 192–199, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92102-0_21
 The Port-City Interface 193

accountability matters, determining the ongoing spatial changes in the port-city areas.
Conclusions will provide a general view of the case study comparison, including those
key-factors which have been assessed into the port-city regeneration performances.

2 The Port-City Interaction

Nowadays the urban crisis is mostly perceived as a product of social disease, a

weakness, arising from the change in the relationship between urban spaces and their
functions. That crisis can be traced especially within those transition spaces, without
any specific distinctiveness, such as those between city and port related areas.
Interactions between port and city are expressed in a variety of ways: “some ports
are set within urban areas, others have no city associated with them” [2]. There are
towns with a strong relationship with their ports, because of territorial contiguity or
rather their historical importance for the city; instead, to some extent, “economically
and geographically, port and cities have grown apart” [2]. Besides, different ways of
understanding planning dimensions, could be traced back to historical reasons of
development or influenced by global economic processes spreading out all over, with
increase in traffic volumes and the consequent higher demand for space. All factors
which brought to a progressive detachment from the city, by shaping the interface as a
marginal “place”, often a “non-valuable urban producer” [4]. Although many scholars
agree on the importance of ports for the city economy, few of them have provided
conceptual models to explain the reasons. Hyauth and Hoyle, among the first theorists
of the “port-city relationship”, established its importance in the context of urban and
territorial development, considering the different interactive dynamics between ports
and their cities [5]. Hoyle, in particular, described them in six phases, from the close
association to the progressive separation, until the current phase of regeneration that
aims at sustainable local economic development. “Changes in these systems led to the
growing spatial and functional segregation of city and port and the changing landscape
of the city-waterfront” [6].

2.1 The Waterfront Transformation

The last decades have displayed the “dramatic ongoing transformation of downtown
waterfronts in both North America and Europe as a result of myriad issues, including
environmental, economic, social and political factors” [7].
It should be remembered that port sector is extremely unstable, due to political and
global economic factors, and the international trade situation as well.
In such context the planning process is extremely complex because of local rules
and institutional competences regarding the port area boundaries, thus, the communi-
cation among planning tools is often unsolved. Moreover, we can see as in Europe Port
Authorities and City-planning authorities are more likely to compete for space and
power, rather than working together. Port Authorities’ role, within the planning pro-
cess, does not only address development and assets within the port areas, but it strongly
influences those spaces of interaction between city and port, by determining conditions
and degrees of relation with respect to their status, public or private, or both.
194 J. Calabrò et al.

Accordingly, several differences occurred in the government responses, mainly

between United States and Europe, in considering the port-city areas as key factors in
their challenges of regeneration: from land uses and planning codes implementation, to
environmental matters and sustainability issues. Most European river-port cities, as
well as seaport cities, reviewed their policies towards service- centered metropolis,
offering a renewed quality of the urban environment in the interface. A new way of
intending a place not so “urban” neither port-related, rather characterized by a
non-homogeneous urban frame, lacking specific functions: here we can often find big
transportation infrastructures, old rails, physical barriers that contribute to the con-
temporary status of blighted area. The research activity, described here, aims to
demonstrate how a proactive city-port relationship is a key factor in the pursuit of a
balanced urban development of the “liquid city” [8]. Here “urban regeneration” is
considered as a holistic process of development which, following a place-based
approach, includes local needs, socio-economic attitudes, environmental issues,
blighted areas redevelopment, under an overall strategy for local economic
development.

3 Case Studies Analysis

Case studies were used to categorize the main issues interacting within those transition
places from the port to the city, highlighting approaches, methods and practices used
throughout the investigated urban regeneration processes.
The Case studies analyzed have been grouped into two clusters in order to show
differences and opportunities to be explored within diverse international contexts. The
categorization allows to analyze the case studies by following the common spatial and
institutional background they belong to: a first comparison is conducted among the EU
case studies, a second one among the US case studies. A final comparison of methods,
practices and tools is provided, according to the different policy areas investigated,
referring to spatial, socio- economic and institutional dimensions. The most performing
outcomes were stressed to understand the ways through which a urban system can be
affected positively by the interface transformation and if it can bring new, flexible
meanings and functions strictly connected to real community needs.
Fort Point, Boston (USA) [9]: The 100 Acres Master Plan within Fort Point South
is the result of a common effort among public authorities, agencies, neighborhood
representatives, owners and associations of the area, that contributed to give rise a
participatory urban process. The BRA, Boston’s Planning and Economic Development
Agency, involved community and stakeholders to draw up a plan for growth and
development within the 100 Acres, a Planned Development Area, taking into account
the pre-existent facilities and infrastructures capacity, in order to encourage a lively
urban district [10]. A shared process of urban regeneration that gave back to the city a
district in which innovation and maintenance work together, being example of
development and sustainability throughout the Boston Area: not only by attracting
capitals and businesses, thanks to its location, but thanks to its renewed potential, it is
also appealing to professional studies, artistic galleries and an active social community.
 The Port-City Interface 195

North Embarcadero, San Diego (USA): it is an area breaking with the urban mesh,
not properly harmonized with the context of the close Down-Town, rather heavily
characterized by large “parking lots” - big parking areas that contribute to the dis-
continuity and the lack of urban identity of this huge interface strip with the city. The
Plan for the northern part, the Embarcadero, is the outcome of the institutional coop-
eration effort among the San Diego Unified Coast District, the Municipality and the
local community, including that of Little Italy. The goal was pursued with good
standards of sustainability and “liveability” for this area, by providing the community
with a large linear pedestrian park, completely opened to the sea and its activities, but
also with a desirable urban area, with great development opportunities for the entire
waterfront.
Titanic Quarter, Belfast (UK): represents one of the more extensive urban regen-
eration projects on water in Europe [11], with its 18 acres on the Lagan River in
Belfast. The regeneration process has preserved its historic value, enhancing it through
the symbols of a famous past. The district indeed is considered as example of the new
English revival, transformed from a blighted area into a multi-functional space,
appealing for its innovation attempts. It is a mixed-use neighborhood with a strong
historical maritime character, having been the basin within which the Titanic was built
up. Its redevelopment is carried out within the framework of a strategic vision shared
among the major partners of the project: the City Council, NITB, Titanic Quarter
Limited and the Titanic Forum. The project preserved the original identity of the
neighborhood while evolving into a strategic pole in the urban context, being a resi-
dential and commercial area, but even on a larger scale, thanks to the numbers of art
galleries and the valuable leisure activities attracting tourists and artists from all over
the region.
Kop Van Zuid area, Rotterdam (NL): it is a urban regeneration project under the
guide of national policies, with high flexibility standards, both of planning tools and of
negotiation, among the different administrative levels, towards the compact-city main
goal [12]. A flexibility which moves under a public participation that guides, but does
not constrain, providing services and infrastructures, opportunities for locating, through
incentives, encouraging the implementation of projects and pushing towards concrete
chances for development, with the involvement of local stakeholders and the com-
munity. The motto of the development strategy was “cooperation-coordination-
consultation-consent-compromise” which represented the common thread of the project
interventions. The project, supported by a strong marketing strategy, aimed to relocate
the Kop Van Zuid area as the glorious site of the docklands in Rotterdam. This
transformation process can be considered as example which matches the public role,
driving toward collective benefits, and the private one, as promoter, in synergy under
the common objective; even if it sometimes came out as an experiment of “privati-
zation urban policies” [12].
Hafen City, Hamburg (DEU): Here the port area has progressively detached from
the city, because of the increasing request for specialization to transhipment, becoming
a separate entity. The former industrial area is now part of the historic center, repre-
senting its extension towards the sea, promoter of new life styles. The urban regen-
eration of the interface keeps its historical character, though strengthening and
implementing new urban functions, with a mix of public and residential spaces that
196 J. Calabrò et al.

enhances the relationship with water. The importance of the integration between the
city and its port provides new urban connotations to an area that seemed deprived by its
original sense, and that now it represents a positive example far beyond that town. The
partnership consisted of the City of Hamburg and the authority for the implementation
process management and the development of the Masterplan, (the Hafen City Hamburg
GmbH), also responsible for public funding, under national laws, which was created for
the purpose to maintain the peculiar structures of both city and the port [13].
The different practices investigated on the port-city relation brought to highlight
port and city policies in Europe, mostly centered around the institutional dialog
between Port Authorities and City planning ones. Here can be seen how the institu-
tional issues are the proper ground of the interface, and how such level seems to be
stronger in the final spatial outcome then in other countries. In US instead the com-
parison among the case studies is concentrated more on the spatial level, since the
institutional context is not homogenous in all States, and the role played by Port
Authorities in the planning process as well. It may change according to laws, proce-
dures and importance of the port considered, and their role may be perceived weaker
than European contexts, where the interface dynamics depend mainly on competences
and jurisdictional matters.

4 Urban Regeneration Initiatives Between Port and the City

Since “a successful implementation of a regeneration project requires public and pri-

vate funding, provision of high quality services, administrative effectiveness, promo-
tion of tourism and public participation” [13], in the port-city areas such goals could be
pursued through the development of balanced “mixture of land and sea uses whilst
preserving the distinctive identity of the waterfront [13]. It can be seen as urban
regeneration tools, which employ public-private partnerships to be implemented, have
been used in many city-port areas, often solving the gap in communication among
institutions: thanks to their attitude, all the actors involved can establish roles, skills,
advantages, and spatial-functional determination as well, in order to overcome the static
nature of planning tools, still inconsistent with the real needs of dynamism which those
places need.
Significantly, in most of US cities, approaches to revitalize such urban areas
through economic initiatives are mostly focused on the mixed-use of the functions,
considering local features and preexistent facilities, consistently with the pillars of
sustainability principles.
In Europe institutional and spatial contexts are different from the USA ports-city
zones: if we report the important role played by port authorities (public bodies) in
Europe for almost all ports, on the contrary, in the USA port areas are ruled under the
same planning code of the city, with particular measures in coherence with the Coastal
Zone Management (CZM).
A different way of intending planning dimensions which could be explained by
historical reasons of development: if in Europe the waterfront development was orig-
inally seen as “maritime in character”, because of the maritime technological trans-
formation that forced ports to expand towards more specialized areas (Rotterdam,
 The Port-City Interface 197

Amsterdam), in US it is considered as part of the same city’s renewal planning process,

which applied new development strategies, often very far from port activities. The case
studies analysis shows the main dynamics elapsing in city-port relations and some
important issues to be faced: institutional dialog, jurisdictional competences, spatial
integration, competition for space and functions, are the emerging ones.
Particularly, as for historic ports, or neighborhoods strictly connected to port and
water activities, surveys and interviews1 conducted showed as the involvement and the
strong participation of the local community [14] ensured the high sustainability levels
of the whole urban transformation process (Fort Point), matching many interests rooted
in the area. On the contrary, in those cases where the port area embraces and dominates
the city, the so-called work-class port, with the industrial activity strongly shaping the
environment, (Titanic Quarter - Kop Van Zuid and North Embarcadero) the role of
public-private partnerships was crucial for the development strategy implementation.
The integration among different functions was achieved by linking spatial meanings
and economic dynamics involved in the interface areas. Urban policies within the port,
therefore, cannot fail to consider and use those factors that should become the “in-
variants” of a urban regeneration strategy that aims to be sustainable for the
economic-social-environmental and cultural components.

5 Conclusions

It can be seen as sometimes “laws and regulations dominate the spatial outcomes of
governance processes between city and port, and that these tend to frustrate experi-
mental efforts towards truly sustainable results” [15].
Indeed, “development orientations that foresee an on-going port migration process
away from the urban core are still common among urban planning and policy makers,
which impedes on the joint governance processes needed for building renewed, sus-
tainable port-city relations and spatial projects” [15].
Evidences coming from the port-city relations studied show how different in
meanings the interface can be: according with the historical character of cities on water,
the interface may reinforce their maritime attitude, or rather becoming an opportunity
for that urban area to grow, by catching new meanings within the urban context.
Furthermore, where the city and port are perceived as institutions, as in the European
contexts explored, and roles and skills go beyond any spatial results, the image of the
interface may reflect the struggle for power among all forces involved. Again, where
the interface area is considered as the same as urban area for re-development, as in the
US cases, the spatial outcome is often the result of negotiation processes, guided by
tools as flexible as reliable, sharing both responsibilities and profits among the actors
involved, with a strongly market-oriented approach [16].
From the case studies comparison, it is found how the most effective interventions
turned out to be those ones linked by some common factors which acted in the same
way along the urban transformation process, sorts of potential paradigmatic principles.

1
Interviews and surveys have been conducted by the authors.
198 J. Calabrò et al.

Among them, the possible role that the public-private partnerships [17] could take
emerges: it may allow to overcome that formal firmness which, thanks to their
moldable nature might catalyze private interests and public objectives through an
“agreement” with duties and tasks, shared responsibilities and benefits [18].
The participation of the public sector then, as a guide of the urban transformation
process [19], in cooperation with management Authorities created ad hoc, proved to be
pivotal for the success of the initiatives: a widespread community consensus, reached
by working on their awareness, restored huge parts of the city to its users. Nevertheless
it must be said that the risk for those transition areas, working among powers, functions
and forms, is likely to become ground for political struggle, which can halt the com-
pletion of the initiatives and influence the urban environment [20]. The international
examples discussed here represent an attempt to put into practice some urban planning
theories and policies based on the need for flexibility. We can see as “successful
waterfront redevelopment requires an understanding of global processes and an
appreciation of the distinctiveness of port-city locations. Waterfront revitalization
occurs at the problematic and controversial interface between port functions and the
broader urban environment” [21]. On the other hand, short-term actions are often
preferred, supported by political affirmation needs. It can be argued that a possible
answer to recognize those place of interface as crucial for both city and the port, could
be found in some European contexts where “responsible authorities in seaport cities
have started to reconsider the transformation-oriented planning and development
approach to their respective waterfront zones” [22]. That seemed to be an important
step forward to consider the port-city interface in a more tangible way. As the “cycle of
dereliction, neglect, planning, implementation and revitalization of old harbor areas as
well as the necessary construction of port infrastructures are part of a complex network
of stakeholders and interests” [22], the most important issue to deal with is certainly the
right use of urban planning practice and tools. The analyzed cases suggest how urban
regeneration initiatives, thanks to their holistic nature, may allow to enhance the
interface multifunctional attitude, by using an integrated approach, able to face:
trans-scalar dynamics, being port both important for the local and the national econ-
omy; inter-institutional matters, by supporting the institutional cooperation toward
complementary objectives of growth; social issues, preserving local needs and the
liquid and moldable attitude of cities on water [23].
Those adaptive urban tools might provide the path to be followed in order to reach
the development objectives, both for urban and port related areas [24].

References
1. Bunce, S., Desfor, G.: Introduction to political ecologies of urban waterfront transforma-
tions. Cities 24(4), 251–258 (2007)
2. Hoyle, B.S.: The port-city interface: trends, problems and examples. Geoforum 20(4), 429–
435 (1989)
3. Carta, M.: Creative City. Dynamics, Innovations, Actions, Barcelona (2007)
4. Daamen, T.: Sustainable development of the European port-city interface. In: ENHR-
conference, pp. 25–28, June 2007
 The Port-City Interface 199

5. Wiegmans, B.W., Louw, E.: Changing port–city relations at Amsterdam: a new phase at the
interface? J. Trans. Geogr. 19(4), 575–583 (2010)
6. Hayuth, Y.: The port-urban interface: an area in transition. Area 14(3), 219–224 (1982)
7. Kotval, Z., Mullin, J.R.: The changing port city: Sustainable waterfront revitalization.
J. Town City Manag. 1(1), 23–38 (2010)
8. Carta M.: Dal waterfront alla città liquida. Waterfront d’Italia. Piani, politiche, progetti.
FrancoAngeli, Milano (2010)
9. Cavelli, C.: The Fort Point District Plan. In: Schacter, Busca, Hellman, Ziparo, Boston in the
1990’s, pp. 166, Gangemi (1994)
10. Boston Redevelopment Authority, Fort Point Channel Working Group, The Fort Point
District: 100 Acres Master Plan (2006)
11. Smith, M.: Titanic Quarter: Building the future from the past, Urbanistica, 148 (2011)
12. McCarthy, J.: Reconstruction, regeneration and re-imaging: the case of Rotterdam. Cities 15
(5), 337–344 (1998)
13. Papatheochari, D.: Examination of best practices for waterfront regeneration. In: Littoral
2010-Adapting to Global Change at the Coast: Leadership, Innovation, and Investment,
p. 02003, EDP Sciences (2011)
14. Calabrò, F.: Local communities and management of cultural heritage of the inner areas. an
application of break-even analysis. In: Gervasi, O., et al. (eds.): Computational Science and
Its Applications, ICCSA 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10406. Springer,
Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09147
15. Daamen, T., Vries, I.: Governing the European port-city interface: institutional impacts on
spatial projects between city and port. J. Trans. Geogr. 27, 4–13 (2012)
16. Hodge, G.A., Greve, C.: PPPs: the passage of time permits a sober reflection. J. Compil. Inst.
Econ. Aff. 29(1), 33–39 (2009)
17. Calabrò, F., Della Spina, L.: The public-private partnerships in buildings regeneration: a
model appraisal of the benefits and for land value capture. Adv. Mater. Res. 931–932, 555–
559 (2014). https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.931-932.555
18. Reuschke, D.: Public- Private Partnerships in Urban Development in the United States,
NEURUS-Network of European and US Regional and Urban Studies (2001)
19. Calabrò, F., Cassalia, G.: Territorial cohesion: evaluating the urban-rural linkage through the
lens of public investments. In: Bisello, A., Vettorato, D., Laconte, P., Costa, S., (eds.): Smart
and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions. Results of SSPCR 2017. Green Energy and
Technology. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75774-2
20. Ciulla, V., De Capua, A.: La Nuova Forma Urbana. LaborEst 12, 85–88 (2016). https://doi.
org/10.19254/LaborEst.12.14
21. Daamen, T., Louw, E.: Sustainable development of the European port-city interface:
evolving insights in research and practice. In: 24th Annual European Real Estate Society
Conference. ERES: Conference. Delft, Netherlands (2017)
22. Schubert, D.: Waterfront transformations and city/port interface areas in Hamburg.
Dimensión Empresarial 13(1), 9–20 (2015)
23. Della Spina, L., Lorè, I., Scrivo, R., Viglianisi, A.: An integrated assessment approach as a
decision support system for urban planning and urban regeneration policies. Buildings 7, 85
(2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings7040085
24. Della Spina, L.: The Integrated Evaluation as a Driving Tool for Cultural-Heritage
Enhancement Strategies. In: Bisello, A., Vettorato, D., Laconte, P., Costa, S., (eds.): Smart
and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions. Results of SSPCR 2017. Green Energy and
Technology, Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75774-2_40