bollettino del dipartimento di conservazione dei beni...

1

vol. 12, 1/2012

BDCBollettino del Dipartimento di Conservazione dei BeniArchitettonici ed Ambientali

Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”

Direttore responsabileLuigi Fusco Girard

Comitato scientificoFrancesco BrunoMario ColettaTeresa CollettaFrancesco ForteRosa Anna GenoveseLuigi Fusco GirardLucio Morrica

Segreteria di redazioneMaria CerretaGianluigi De MartinoPasquale De ToroFrancesca Ferretti

Redazionevia Roma, 40280132 Napolitel. 081 2538650fax 081 2538649

aut. trib. n. 5144 del 6.9.2000ISSN 1121-2918

Finito di stampare a Napoliil 7 novembre 2012

presso le Officine Grafiche Francesco Giannini e Figli S.p.A.

Bollettino del Dipartimento di Conservazione dei Beni Architettonici ed Ambientali 3

vol. 12, 1/2012

SECTION AUrban Design and Creative Architecture in Port Areas

EditorialLuigi Fusco Girard

The urban futureLuigi Fusco Girard

Port cities: capitalizing on re-development with examples from Baltimore, Bilbao and LiverpoolNicholas You, Sjoerd Louwaars

Hafencity Hamburg and further waterfront transformations in European seaport cities: from project-based strategies to sustainable redevelopment solutionsDirk Schubert

Teamwork: why metropolitan economic strategy is the key to generating sustainable prosperity and quality of life for the worldMarc A. Weiss

A research and policy development agenda: fostering creative, equitable, and sustainable port citiesJoe Ravetz, Luigi Fusco Girard, Lisa Bornstein

Introduction to Section APasquale Miano

The Port of Naples and the perspectives of a dialogue between conservation and regenerationPasquale Miano, Valentina Russo

Geography and architecture of the infrastructure of the portLilia Pagano

17

19

35

43

55

67

72

75

93

vol. 12, 1/2012

Bollettino del Dipartimento di Conservazione dei Beni Architettonici ed Ambientali4

105

114

121

129

138

144

151

155

163

171

179

192

Future edible cities. Naples fertile cityBuonanno Daniela

Solutions for LisbonPedro Ressano Garcia

Venice urban renaissancePaolo Viola, Andrea Silipo, Davide Viganò

Napoli WaterCity. Metaphors and landscape networks visualize projects of the contemporary cityAnna Terracciano

The city of Naples: resilience and environmental sustainabilityMaria Gabriella Errico

The interface between port and city: integrative characters for the transformation areasFilomena Cicala

Guidelines for the preparation of the Port Development Plan of Corigliano CalabroSalvatore Graziano

Strategies to patch together urban fragments of an industrial pastLibera Amenta

Seaside-Cities: landscape representations as figures of contemporary identity – The conflict between global and local – Giovanni Auriemma

Renovation of Castellammare di Stabia’s urban port areasAlessandro Sgobbo

Planning in time of crises, Naples/Istanbul one-wayMaria Luna Nobile

From the gasholder to the port. A regeneration of eastern area of NaplesMarina Di Iorio


vol. 12, 1/2012

SECTION BUrban Planning and Sustainable Development

Waterfront and city: redevelopment and urban qualityEleonora Giovene di Girasole

Municipio Square - Naples: A Siza and E. Souto de Moura projectBruna Di Palma

Hybrid spacefront. An industrial building as threshold between water and the cityFrancesca Avitabile

Modern ruins on the water’s edge: from the old harbour heritage towards new urban-port landscapesGiorgia Aquilar

From limit to centrality. Regeneration of Genoa’s port area through architectural and urban designPasquale Mei, Elena Fontanella

Beetween city and port. Elements of a border spaceClaudio Finaldi Russo

Urban waterfront regeneration processes. An integrated local approach for the marine protected area “Parco sommerso di Gaiola” in NaplesCarolina Girardi, Maurizio Simeone

Introduction to Section BFrancesco Domenico Moccia

Port operations and displacement vs. urban redevelopment of port areas. There could be an alternative model of waterfront redevelopment for small, medium port city based on port operations?Francesco Domenico Moccia

A smart policy to open the seaport to the cityFrancesco Ceci, Daniela Lepore

Safer public spaces in Naples as a port cityAntonio Acierno

201

208

220

231

241

252

262

273

277

289

297

vol. 12, 1/2012


Environmental assessment in port areas: values, approaches, experiencesMaria Cerreta, Pasquale De Toro

A bottom-up approach to urban waterfront regeneration: a proposal for the city of PorticiPasquale De Toro, Carmine Buonocore, Alfredo Franciosa

Any port in the perfect storm: port cities and 21st century challengesGlen David Kuecker

The drivers for port city sustainable development: what triggers these and what changes does the current economic climate facilitate?Helen Meikle, Murray Herron

Which shadow in the ‘cities of sun’? The social division of space in the cities of the SouthGiovanni Laino

Restoring the sense of place. Local development and cultural production in east Naples waterfrontGilda Berruti

Achieving sustainability in waterfront renewal: creativity, innovation and quality of livingAssunta Martone, Marichela Sepe

The opportunity of the new waterfront and a tourist port for the territories. The case of Bagnoli-CoroglioEmanuela Coppola

Barcelona: from river to riverChiara Ingrosso

Aquatecture and Aquapuncture – Recreating and remediating lively water-cities upstream-downstream, from micro- to macro-watershedsGrit Bürgow

310

318

328

334

343

357

367

379

389

397


vol. 12, 1/2012

SECTION CSustainable Technologies for Harbour Architecture

Building the Lagoon City: from Venice to the lagoon, from the lagoon to VeniceDaniele Cannatella, Sabrina Sposito

Sustainability and democracy in spatial planning: the case of the Italian port city of BrindisiRaffaele Attardi, Carmelo M. Torre

Introduction to Section CMario LosassoRiccardo Florio

Regeneration and sustainable development of the east coast of NaplesValeria Pezza, Camillo Orfeo

Granatello Harbour and coastline redevelopment in Portici, NaplesValeria Pezza, Renato Capozzi

Eenhancement and sustainable rehabilitation processes for Meta waterfrontAntonella Falotico

Naples coastline regeneration – Technical control toolsMariangela Bellomo

Sustainable actions on sensitive contexts of Naples waterfrontsAlessandro Claudi de Saint Mihiel

Port cities as hotspots of creative and sustainable local developmentGiuliana Gritti

From Godown to Downtown: the evolution of Singapore’s port-related building stockIris Belle, Uta Hassler, Wiepke van Aaken

The drawings of the soil. Allographies of a denied report, between permanencies and overlapping of settlements tracesTeresa Della Corte

409

417

432

435

447

467

477

484

493

500

508

vol. 12, 1/2012


SECTION DCultural Heritage Regeneration

Sustainable urban regeneration of Västra Hamnen port area in MalmöValeria D’Ambrosio

Living and working on waterMaria Lisa De Cristofaro, Holger König, Peter Thomas

Renovating harbour in the Mediterranean city: the case of the Saint Vincent’s pier in NaplesDora Francese, Cristian Filagrossi Ambrosino

Introduction to Section DAldo Aveta

Port cities and UNESCO World HeritageRosa Anna Genovese

Naples and its port area from Middle Ages to XX Century: strategies for an integrationGiovanni Menna

Environmental green and historic gardens: nature of the unbuilt in NaplesClaudia Aveta

From the Hafencity Hamburg to the urban park of Bagnoli (Naples): port development through the industrial heritage renovation and preservationMaria Falcone

The construction of the port of Capri: the foundations of the island’s economic developmentLuigi Veronese

The Historic Urban Landscape approach in the Management Plan for the historic center of NaplesBarbara Del Prete

Historic Urban Landscape and conservation. opportunities and boundaries of a notion for the historic townBianca Gioia Marino

513

519

525

536

540

553

570

577

585

593

600


vol. 12, 1/2012

SECTION ERecovery, Maintenance, Management of Coastal/Urban Areas: Innovative Tools for Decision Making

The development of portual city between old and new portual architecture. The old port and the new port of Marina d’Arechi in SalernoMariarosaria Villani

Archaeological sites: specificity of Neapolitan “Historical Urban Landscape”Marida Salvatori

The “color” of the Historic Urban LandscapeRaffaele Amore

The urban regeneration and the relation between monument/habitat: the case of Filangieri Museum in NaplesPaola Brancaccio, Piera Della Morte, Laura Grazia Mariniello

Merging ELC and HUL recommendation: toward a toolbox to foster heritage values in a global sustainable urban contextAlessio D’Auria

Introduction to Section ELuigi Fusco Girard

Port-city areas, looking to the futureFrancesco Forte

Strategies of local development and strategies of sustainability: the economic policies for urban regenerationGiordano Buono Andrea

A multicriteria decision making method for sustainable developmentBice Cavallo, Livia D’Apuzzo

Process and tools for identifying and evaluation of the strategies for the port area of city of Rijeka, CroatiaIva Mrak

The city of Montreal’s public consultation office: the case of an interior port redevelopment projectCatherine Vandermeulen, Lisa Bornstein

608

615

623

628

636

642

644

664

670

678

694

vol. 12, 1/2012


Anchoring the creativity of port cities: inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the redevelopment of urban districtsLisa Bornstein, Krista Leetmaa

Information and creativity of the Port City Plan: a GIS-based assessment model for Catania’s harbor areaSalvatore Giuffrida, Filippo Gagliano

Renewal and conservation of the historic water front: analysis, evaluation and project in the grand harbor area of SyracuseSalvatore Giuffrida, Giovanna Ferluga

Participatory approaches to assess landscape values in Florianópolis - BrazilTalita Weissheimer Abraham de Lemos

Responsible innovation at port citiesJeroen van den Hoven, Eric Wildschut, Eugenie Bakker

Decision making models for a sustainable reuse of port areas: the case of PescaraBarbara Ferri, Antonio Maturo

Critical reassessment in port cities’ Maintenance PlanGabriella Caterina, Serena Viola, Donatella Diano, Teresa Napolitano, Renè Bozzella

The impact of the European maritime transportation in the Mediterranean Sea on the city of TunisHamza Zeghlache

Identity formation and ethnic diversity in port cities: a study of cultural heritage perception in AmsterdamPatrizia Riganti

New strategies for the enhancement and promotion of local identity in coastal areas. The case of the Sorrento PeninsulaMaria Rita Pinto, Stefania Oppido, Katia Fabbricatti, Flavia Leone

707

721

735

755

765

771

784

792

800

811


vol. 12, 1/2012

Facelift for a new port area image: the case of PalermoFilomena Borriello, Paola Carone, Elvira Nicolini, Simona Panaro

Port, more than transport infrastructurePiedad Gómez Sánchez

A dynamic spatial decision making support system for marginal landscapes: a map of complex values in NaplesMaria Cerreta, Giuliano Poli

Sustainable port cities based on Green StrategyAmin Padash

How revitalized trough interpretation: study case Piazza del Gesù Nuovo, NaplesElena Aufiero, Vincenzo Gerardo Salvati

Sewing up the tear: the port of BariAntonietta Canta, Claudia Piscitelli, Francesco Selicato

Reuse of heritage in port areas: “Casa del Portuale” in SyracuseStefania De Medici, Carla Senia

A methodological proposal for the measurement of stakeholders benefits interested to the exploitation of port of NaplesDomenico Tirendi

Smart Med: an initial evaluation of Mediterranean smart cities creativenessPatrizia Lombardi, Silvia Giordano, Mila Sichera

Preliminary design Port Master Plan of Castellammare di StabiaBiagina Di Benedetto, Nunzio Marrone, Carmine Tesauro

Territorial vulnerability and resilience: the case of CastelvolturnoCristina Iterar, Ferdinando Orabona, Claudia Raddi, Barbara Scalera

820

829

836

844

852

858

872

882

891

900

906

vol. 12, 1/2012


The sea of Procida: a different view to relaunch the islandAngela Sarcinelli

The green building as smart innovation of port areasPaolo Franco Biancamano

The impact of coastal defense works. The port of Torre San Giovanni in UgentoMartino Cassano, Claudia Piscitelli, Francesco Selicato

Creative city: a morphological approachArunava Sarkar

A multidimensional model based on the Choquet integral to evaluate performance of waterfront redevelopment projects in promoting local growthGranata Maria Fiorella

The plain of Gioia Tauro and its port: conflicts and convergences between local demands and global developmentRosa Grazia De Paoli

URBAN NETWORK: new strategies for the development of Torre AnnunziataNunzio Cirillo, Flavio Borrelli, Vito del Gaudio, Alessandro Di Prisco, Claudio Izzo, Nello Luca Magliulo, Danilo Nappo

Mediterranean port towns’ historical waterfronts regeneration. conservation strategies as fundamental component of sustainable urban heritageTeresa Colletta

A bottom-up approach to build a vision for urban redevelopment plans: physical and visual reconnections between historic center and waterfront in NaplesRaffaele Attardi, Fortuna De Rosa, Maria Di Palma

The regeneration of the portcity of Torre Annunziata in the Gulf of NaplesMariarosaria Angrisano, Paolo Biancamano, Amalia Cancelliere, Antonia Gravagnuolo

917

927

935

947

960

972

980

988

997

1006


vol. 12, 1/2012

SECTION FThe Wealth of Nations – The Wealth of Cities: Promoting Dynamic Local Economic Development

Sustainable development of the coast of NaplesGaetana Laezza

Introduction to Section FLuigi Fusco Girard

Understanding the wealth of disadvantaged cities’ neighbourhoods: local identity and the perception of safety in the meadows, NottinghamPatrizia Riganti, Somayeh Sabaghian

Urban cultural heritage in Africa: an elite concept or a basic need?Sara Candiracci

Assessment of landscape as a form of protecting local resources in Florianopolis, BrazilTalita Weissheimer Abraham de Lemos

Heritage and local economic developmentGuido Licciardi

Participation and widespread creativity: a new model for defining and evaluating plans for innovative conservation of historic districtsPaolo Stampacchia, Francesco Bifulco, Tiziana Russo Spena, Marco Tregua

Cultural capital, spatial productions: cases of transnational networks from ShanghaiYing Zhou

Port cities looking for a brand new development. Genoa facing threats and opportunitiesRoberto Bobbio

Local resources and sustainable building technologiesMario Losasso

Environmental sustainability of urban design in the historical city. ‘Quartiere Avvocata’ in NaplesRiccardo Florio

1020

1025

1027

1037

1047

1058

1062

1073

1081

1089

1094

vol. 12, 1/2012


1103

1113

1127

1141

1145

1158

1178

1188

1201

1220

1231

Cities as nodes for global governance or battlefields for social conflicts? – Security, development and justice in an urban contextHans Abrahamsson

The poverty-environment nexus: dynamic solutions in Asian citiesCristina Garzillo, Bedoshruti Sadhukhan

Urban regeneration and cultural diversity: a review of European best practicesPatrizia Riganti, Candida Cuturi, Marianna D’Angiolo

The real wealth of the nations and citiesFrancesco Paolo Rosapepe

The role of urban governance in the rapid development of Singapore, 1959-presentMark Chen, Vernie Oliveiro, Toh Boon Kwan

Local resources as drivers for future – Tools and processes for identifying the opportunities and facilitating the growthIva Mrak

Western cities to promote a new economic paradigm by innovative development strategiesFrancesco Fusco Girard

From city to polisBenedetta Bottino

Well being in Maratea. A Strategic Development PlanPaolo Franco Biancamano, Antonella Rita Ferrara, Anna Licia Giacopelli

From micro-strategies to soft policies. Situated processes of regeneration in the historic center of NaplesMaria Federica Palestino

Civic economics and cultural-led urban regenerationClaudia Trillo


vol. 12, 1/2012

Selling port-cities. The case of IstanbulCecilia Scoppetta

Historical Urban Landscape in a changing contextMarialuce Stanganelli

1247

1256


vol. 12, 1/2012 Sustainable city and creativity: some key issues

EDITORIALLuigi Fusco Girard

This number of the Journal gives a lot of space to 6th World Urban Forum promoted in Naples by UN Habitat, and to the scientific activities that PHD School of Architecture of University Federico II, together with the Department of Conservation of Architectural and Environmental Heritage (DCAEH) and the Laboratory on Creative and Sustainable City (LCSC), has carried out in researching approaches, knowledge, tools that should be taken now for a better city future.The general topic of WUF was "Toward an Urban Future". This means that the funda-mental goal of 6WUF was to imagine, anticipate the future in order to shape it in to a preferred direction. The goal of the initiatives of PHD School (and of DCAEH/LCSC) has been to try to con-tribute to build a better future of the cities, becoming one agent for change, contributing to elaborate analytical new ideas and tools. PHD School of Architecture, DCAEH and LCAC have been involved in many activities during the 6th WUF:a) 1 and 2th September: Pre-side event with UN Habitat Partners Universities on "Port cities as hotspots of creative and sustainable local development"; b) 4th September: Participation to the "Universities Round Table: Shaping the urban future"; c) 5th September: side event with ICOMOS on the "Role of integrated conservation of cultural heritage for creative, resilient and sustainable city"; d) 5th September: Parallel event with ICLEI on "How cities can move forward in a post Rio + 20 world? e) 5th September: Urban researchers Roundtable: Research for a better urban forum; f) 6 and 7th September: post side event on "The wealth of nations: the wealth of cities".The common element of all these initiatives has been represented by the acknowledgement of the central role of culture (in its multiple dimensions: knowledge, cultural heritage, current way of thinking, etc.) in shaping a more desirable future.Many questions emerged. For example: Can University and Research Institutions contrib-ute to reduce the gap between scientific knowledge and concrete praxis, between ivory tower and city, between academia and everyday life? Can University and Research Institutions activate an exchange of experiences of good/best practices to produces new knowledge useful for new governance? Which evaluations of best/good practices to be considered as the first step for new knowledge production on the base of specific indica-tors? How develop new tools, methods and approaches for planning and managing com-plex urban dynamic system to foster creativity, resilience and sustainability of the city (reducing conflict between interests and values)? In particular, on which conditions new tools can help city governance, that are based on pilot experiments, that are to be assessed for learning and to improve choices? How economic models of social economy can be supported? How can new strategies of circular economy (reusing, recycling, regenerating

user

Evidenziato

user

Evidenziato

user

Evidenziato

user

Evidenziato

user

Evidenziato

vol. 12, 1/2012 Sustainable city and creativity: some key issues


materials, producing and using renewable energies and also regenerating the cultural her-itage/landscape of port cities) be promoted and implemented at local level? Can excel-lence research that is also useful for city governance be implemented? Many themes emerged for an operational, cooperative, strategic research program: the role of intangible capitals in building the wealth of city; the importance of entrepreneurship in general and in particular in social economy; the city cultural heritage as a fundamental resource for local development; eco-industry, green economy and renewable energies in architecture and planning, etc.A new post-disciplinary science for the city emerged as a challenge.Patrick Geddes in 1915 have proposed in his book "Cities in Evolution" the need of a transdiciplinary "Science of Cities". It was interpreted as a "synoptic principle", as a "syn-thetic vision" to overcome "separate specialisms" that isolate specific elements "from the whole environment… and from the totality of our experience".Today this need is more and more actual to face the complex and systemic challenges of cities. Specialized knowledge is absolutely necessary, but is not sufficient to build a better city future.The papers harvested in this issue move in this direction to contribute toward a new "urban science".

user

Evidenziato


Sustainable city and creativity: some key issuesvol. 12, 1/2012

THE URBAN FUTURE

Luigi Fusco Girard

1. IntroductionWhich future for our society?Considering that the future of society will be shaped in cities, the question becomes: which future for our cities?New solutions are absolutely necessary to face the dramatic problems of development and allow development to really become ‘liberation’ from sufferings, uneasiness, dropping-out, all of which are growing in cities with their urbanization processes. New creative initiatives are required to avoid that development might concern only a minority of persons, and find a way to make it capable of satisfying the ancient aspiration of all persons/people toward ‘happiness’ [1]. Really creative actions are able to integrate wealth production (business, profits) with ecological conservation and social promotion, in a win-win strategy. These initiatives should be taken in particular at local level, continuously investing in innovations and in city resilience.Resilience is the notion that ties creativity to sustainability. So a creative city becomes a city that invests in economic, ecological and social resilience and – in particular - in cultural resilience, because cultural resilience allows for creative responses to changes and shocks, sustaining, from the bottom up, technological, economic and organizational innovations.Investing in city resilience is the best reaction against crisis and to build a better future.The focus of this paper is on the centrality of relations: relations among economic, eco-logical and social systems are to be improved or invented in order to maximize benefits toward local sustainable development. Creative initiatives improve in the same time envi-ronment (ecological resilience), employment (social resilience) and economic wealth (eco-nomic resilience) and thus the general city organization.This paper will discuss the relationships between the future(s) of cities, some general tools for implementing images of future and city cultural base. The general thesis here is that it is necessary to invest into technical tools and also into city cultural resilience to promote a better city future: into a strong cultural city base.In order to shape city future toward a preferable direction, new and useful knowledge, researches, approaches, choices, tools, criteria, etc., are required.First of all, a "circular and synergistic" city organization is required, as a common charac-teristic of any future city visions.Circular and synergistic organization makes the city more fair, prosperous and well match-ing with natural environment: more resilient (Figure 1).

user

Evidenziato

user

Evidenziato

Sustainable city and creativity: some key issues


vol. 12, 1/2012

Figure 1. Smart sustainable city development, innovation and culture

Circular and synergistic city stimulates creativity, resilience and sustainability. At the same time, it is based on culture: knowledge is the catalyst of creativity, cultural resilience is fundamental for city resilience, sustainability is based on cultural dimension.Culture is a complex notion. We can recognize many definitions of culture: knowledge, research, creativity, arts, way of thinking/life, social norms, juridical rules, monuments, landscape, etc.There are also many interpretation of culture city. Culture city is often interpreted as a creative city [2] because creativity is able to open a better and wider set of options for its inhabitants; or as the city of arts; or the city of cultural events, etc. Anyway, culture is going to shape all urban policies: from planning to housing to environ-ment, to development, to tourism (Local Agenda 21 for Culture, European Capitals of Culture experiences, etc.).Here culture is interpreted as cultural heritage to be conserved in a productive perspec-tive, as new knowledge to be produced and as a way of thinking that should shape all choices. Which knowledge to promote a better future? Which role for city cultural heri-tage to move toward a better future? Which way of thinking to sustain from bottom up the change?

2. Toward a more efficient City Organization to improve City Resilience2.1. The organizational new model and different city imagesIn literature and in concrete practices we can recognize many future visions of the city: the humanizing city, the synergistic city, the self-organizing city, the multicultural city, the entrepreneurial city, the eco city, the network/digital/smart city, the health city, etc.In all these visions the role of an efficient and less dissipative organization is stressed, even if with different emphasis.Circularization of processes is the general model that can be here proposed to implement more effective organizational structure: city futures are based on circularization of city pro-cesses.More efficient and less dissipative organizations of all city processes are required to face



not only the world economic competition, but also the energy challenge, the social chal-lenge, the ecological one.Circularized processes, that are able to reproduce/regenerate original capitals, are the general characteristic of sustainable city. In general, circular processes improve the resil-ience of the city systems; they are based and stimulate on their turn synergies on different plans.Many good practices of circular industrial economy have been implemented in Japan, China, in the EU.Circular process can be implemented on three main levels:- Economic: loops, symbioses between companies [3] for value creation, allowing syner-gies and stimulating also circuits between company and local community [4]; - Social: to regenerate interpersonal relationships – which are often weakened in cities;- Ecological: all living systems are characterized by circular processes; thus they are able to conserve and reproduce themselves. An economic circular model, based on three parallel value creation systems, and on a synergistic approach [5, 6] can be implemented in particular in port cities (see § 6).

2.2. The role of Cultural HeritageIn this general context, the role of cultural (tangible/intangible) heritage should be stressed in imagining city future(s).In many strategic city visions the role of historic cul-tural heritage appears (often) under considered. On the contrary, it should be recognized as the starting point to increase economic prosperity, environmental quality social con-viviality: the future is built on memory, history, roots, spirit of places, etc. City history, memory, identity should be conserved in a creative way, combining conservation with innovations in a circular perspective. Places are physical spaces of collective memory: are the entrance points to transmit, communicate and celebrate collective identity in the increasing anonymous urbanization processes, characterized by standardization, anonym-ity, homogenization, etc.It is necessary to conserve this specific spaces not only because they offer a richer sense/perspective, but also because they represent a comparative advantage in the globalized world: they are able to attract people, investments, activities, becoming source of creative production.Conserving these places in a productive perspective means valorizing them, creating added values (in term of use values, social values, symbolic values, market values, etc.) and syner-gies."Circular" economic processes should characterize also cultural heritage conservation, reinforcing import capability (tourists, visitors, talents, capitals, skilled workers, new activities, etc.) and also export capability (handcrafts products, art, local identity/knowl-edge and intellectual products, etc.), integrating a wealth creative processes that should be complementary to industrial economy. Conservation of cultural heritage interpreted as a productive activity can stimulate circular processes through reuse, restoration, regeneration of materials/assets. Social economy is the engine for sustaining from bottom up the circular economy develop-ment model, because it produces, in its exchanges, virtuous circular processes: reciprocity,



vol. 12, 1/2012

social responsibility and public spirit. In a word, social economy is characterized by value creation processes that increase cultural resilience, replacing/regenerating the social capi-tal that makes the economy and democracy work. It stimulates circularity processes, syner-gies and employment. Social economy is both an auto-poietic (based on circular processes) as well as an hetero-poietic system, able to sustain other systems.

2.3. Some Good PracticesSome interesting creative experiences in which “circular processes” have been activated through integrated conservation contributing to resilience, sustainability of city are repre-sented by Cities of International Slow City Network [7], by Nuovi Municipi Network, and by Virtuous Cities network.In some of these experiences, implemented in cities of little dimension, places have been considered as spaces of dense (circular) relationships, economic, social and symbolic exchanges, where the “spirit of place” can become engine of creativity and development. Here ecological, cultural, landscape values have been transformed into economic values and also into civic/social values. This new cultural values were, in their turn, the engine toward new green development strategies, activating a circular processes, in which re-use, rehabilitation, regeneration of resources has been sustained from bottom-up, putting in synergies urban system, natural system and economic system.It is possible to asses these good practices in terms of their multi-dimensional quantitative and qualitative impacts in stimulating creativity, resilience and sustainability (Table 1).

Table 1. The role of cultural heritage integrate conservation, toward circularization



In some cases, cultural heritage integrated conservation have played a key role in promot-ing circularization of city processes, and thus in promoting resilience, in stimulating cre-ativity and thus sustainability. For example, a local economy based on short loops between production and consumption, and on the use of local resources becomes more resilient to face globalized economy stresses. The valorization of local diversities has increased comprehensive resilience of city system.The reuse, recycle, restore, regeneration of natural materials contribute to co-evolution of urban and ecological systems, to city mitigation and adaptation plans, to circularization of processes.Through valorization of the quality of physical environment, the places attractiveness is increased and thus competitiveness, with positive outcomes on jobs, wealth production and distribution, reducing poverty and reinforcing social bonds, with circular relation-ships.

3. Port Cities as Hotspots of Smart Sustainable Local DevelopmentPort cities are particular points for trade of imports and exports, space of localizations of many industries and services, attractive areas for tourism, for cultural exchange…Port cities have been the history cosmopolitan places, open to many cultures, different ways of life, of work. They are historical spaces of creativity/innovation in economy, cul-ture, society, etc. that reflect itself into a specific landscape. In fact, port areas are the sites where “differences” among cultures, architectures, ethnic groups, etc. have always been the deepest. These “differences” have fostered a favourable atmosphere to “openings”, to creativity and innovation in different fields: artistic, scien-tific, management, etc. [8].The potential of creativity, which is higher in port cities compared to other cities, is the element that can help to overcome conflicts/contradictions.It is not by chance that all over the world port areas have become the sites where actual creative actions aimed at promoting sustainability are being implemented the most. Investments in the urban regeneration of waterfronts – in Rotterdam, Barcelona, Liverpool, Valencia, Vancouver, Tokyo, Hamburg, Malmo, Amsterdam, Genoa, Glasgow, Antwerp, Copenhagen, etc. – are well known experiences. They can be interpreted as “transition experiments” [9]. They express the creativity and also resilience of cities against the pressures of change, highlighting the capability of cities to transform them-selves and to maintain their identity.Often the ancient city boundaries coincide with the harbour area with its old warehouses, silos, wharf, industrial archaeology building, lighthouses: sometimes this landscape is rec-ognised as a UNESCO world site.Some good practices, related to cultural heritage revitalization/recreation as a key local development resource, already exist (Liverpool, Glasgow, Barcelona, etc.).In port areas, old and new industrial activities have been localized: steelworks, chemical industries, shipyards, oil refineries, assemblage, transformation, construction activities, power plants, degasification plants, waste management equipment, etc. Logistic revolu-



vol. 12, 1/2012

tion, with ICT innovations, with automation and robotization and new technologies, has multiplied the quantity of goods and people in transit.Cities, and in particular port cities, could be key for implementing a really sustainable development model activating creative processes of circular economy through a synergistic approach, combining the economic, logistic, industrial activities with heritage regenera-tion, with creativity of social economic system.Port cities are Laboratories where to test new development culture-led trajectories, because of their high potential to change and to implement a better future: all over the world port cities are leading for economic strength, considering that 14 of 20 top eco-nomically strong cities are port cities and that 36 of 50 top competitive cities are port cities [10]. A model/pattern of circularization in industrial and heritage economic system can be implemented in port cities, through a strong investment in culture: in research, in cultural heritage conservation, in education of human capital.The reconstruction of interdependences between city and port areas suggests to integrate heritage/culture-led economic development strategy with industrial symbiosis model, with social economic system. An integrated perspective is here proposed.After 2008 smart sustainable development of port areas/cities should be shaped on the base of two general principles: synergies principle (between different actors/systems: socio-cultural and economic system etc.), circularization principle [11] (reuse, recycle, regenerate, in analogy with natural system organization).This proposal is linked up on the "old" interpretation by Patrick Geddes of the City as an organism in evolution/transition(1915) [12] in which every part is strictly interdependent with the whole system.City as an organism evolves/changes during the time, adapting itself for satisfying human needs.City, as dynamic complex system, is characterized by: interdependences (between man-made, natural, human, social capitals, etc.); circular processes (that stimulate creativity) and synergies (that increase resilience capacity).Cultural heritage is a key component of the city system: it should be considered as a dynamic adaptive sub-system, that evolves during the time with changes under the pres-sure of many different forces (due to growth, market pressures, decline, regeneration processes) maintaining its identity, integrity, continuity. Assuming Geddes interpretation, cultural heritage integrated conservation and manage-ment should be characterized by a dynamic perspective, characterized by synergies, circu-lar processes, creativity.

4. The Conflicting Landscape in Port AreasCertainly many paradoxes characterize port cities/areas. Some conflicts are generated by negative environmental impacts, due to the high level of energy consumption; to air and water pollution, to natural resource consumption. Other conflicts are generated by the effort to conserve the specific cultural landscape and to satisfy the needs of economic development.Innovative approaches and creative tools are required to plan and manage conflicts in



these areas, transforming differences in complementarities into a win – win perspective: into a synergistic perspective [5]. They are often affected by environmental deterioration and pollution processes. The pro-duction of their economic wealth implies very high ecological, and also social and cultural costs. Often the port becomes a driver of environmental deterioration and reduced well-being for urban life: a place to avoid rather than a place where to go.Ports produce a lot of waste resulting from harbour industries, from maintenance, dredg-ing, ships, etc. The negative externalities resulting from industrial/trade activities in ports do not just cause environmental damages, but interconnect with the economic and social system in a negative way: they are a source of new economic (and social) damages for the whole city system.The development of the port/city system becomes less and less sustainable. The economic benefits of port activities, once the ecological/environmental and social costs are sub-tracted – i.e. the “net benefits” – are much less than they would seem. Moreover, they do not benefit city inhabitants, but only few trade/industry/tourism agents, that is the benefits are not distributed equally among the various subjects.But port areas, as the main spaces where these contradictions/paradoxes come into being, are also the most suitable sites where to reduce conflicts and transform them into syner-gies, provided that innovative approaches of governance, at strategic, planning and man-agement level are introduced. They can become the entrance point for a smart sustainable development of the all urban system if creativity and resilience are really promoted in managing this particular complex system, through specific creative actions.

5. Towards a Circularized City Model starting from City Cultural Heritage/Landscape ConservationMore efficient and less dissipative organization of city processes are required to face not only the globalized economic competition, but also the energy challenge, the social chal-lenge, the ecological one. They are based on circular and synergistic processes. This development strategy should integrate hard and soft values/objectives – both eco-nomic and social/environmental, as well as landscape preservation – in a win-win game. It can contribute to city resilience, that is the capacity of the city to react and manage the change, maintaining its comprehensive organization and structure.Clearly, it is not based on traditional industry and real estate economics (as it often hap-pens for ports areas) but on ecological economics: on use and not-use/"intrinsic" values, on a long-term perspective, with the aim of realizing a new metabolism in the port areas and spread it to the whole urban system.It is a “creative” strategy because it integrates the economic wealth production (business) with ecological preservation and social promotion, starting from the ancient historic roots, in a win-win perspective. It “integrates” industrial, commercial, tertiary activities with the ones relating culture and knowledge and thus it improves the landscape, the “atmo-sphere”, the identity: in a word, the image of ports areas (Figure 2).The Historic Urban landscape (HUL) approach is useful because of its systemic nature. It becomes the guarantee for a new circularized city strategy that is culture-led.The HUL approach stimulates circularization/synergies in managing change [6].



vol. 12, 1/2012

Figure 2. Circular processes in heritage economic system

6. The Proposal of a Circularized/Synergistic and Culture-led Smart Strategy Model Each port area has a particular identity/landscape: has its specific architecture, image, assets. Port areas are transforming themselves through waterfront revitalization projects/plans that are often culture led: arts centres, cultural infrastructures, museums, educa-tional buildings, research centres. Tourism activities are substituting oil refineries, petro-leum related activities and uses, etc.A new dynamic landscape is thus emerging.The proposal here is to integrate in port cities/areas the circularized processes of heritage /culture economy (Figure 2) with the support of social economic system and the indus-trial circularized system offered by some good practices (Figure 3).Some other interesting experiences in processes circularization have been implemented in European port cities [3]. For example, in Swansea, about 700 hectares were declared as the most polluted of UK because of industrial cupper activity. During the '70 a comprehensive reconstruction of ecosystem was implemented, regenerating the environment and the landscape and thus attracting new economic activities [13].In North America, one of the polluted port areas was in Hamilton (Canada), because of existing steel and other induced industrial activities. Through a strategic plan, the land was de-contamined and a new attracting environment was constructed with the strong partici-pation of all city agents.In any case, the circular and synergistic principle have been implemented in city planning, reshaping it and implementing participation of all actors.Good practices have been implemented through industrial symbiosis in Japan, China, in the EU.



For example, in Japan 26 eco-towns areas were identified to implement a circular model in port cities, starting from 1996.Port areas can be considered the entrance point to a new economic city organization, that reduces material inputs, waste, energy consumption, carbon emissions, connecting port areas with the whole city system and stimulating pilot experiments in businesses and also in architecture/planning, based on "circular" design [2, 3 ,14, 15]. Port cities import, through harbour infrastructures, all kind of waste from outside; they process them through innovative green technologies and thus export treated materials(iron, cupper, paper, aluminum, plastics, etc.) outside.The role of social economic system could become the engine for sustaining from bottom up the new circular and synergistic smart development model.Social economic system is characterized by value creation processes that are different from conventional economic ones. It is able to increase cultural resilience because it produces, in its exchanges, virtuous circular processes: reciprocity, social responsibility and public spirit. In a word, social economy replaces/regenerates the social capital that makes the economy and democracy work. It stimulates circularity processes and also employment and care of eco-systems.Social economic system is both auto-poietic (based on circular processes) as well as hetero poietic, able to sustain other systems. It is structurally characterized by circular and syner-gistic organization.In fact, it includes community associations, voluntary groups, civic societies networks, formal and informal organizations; independent of government and self-governing (e.g. housing associations, charities, social enterprises, etc.) whose surpluses are principally reinvested in production of goods and services, to better satisfy needs. It sustains from bottom up heritage and industrial circular economy.

Figure 3. Towards a new circular synergistic economic model for port cities



vol. 12, 1/2012

7. Which Specific Tools for Managing Chang toward a Circularized City Model?Some questions rise. How operationally manage changes in this dynamic perspective, attentive to conserving integrity, identity, continuity? In which way it is possible to reduce the negative impacts of change toward an acceptable level? Which tools to monitor changes and to identify priority, between preservation of values and satisfaction of social needs, improving wellbeing? Between static perspective of conserving existing values and introducing modernization in the life of city? Between maintaining values that are already given and producing new values?New tools should be identified, and in particular new tools for decision making support-ing: new evaluation tools to assess impacts of circularization of economic processes, also in the cultural, visual, landscape dimensions, etc.The economic approach can be the main leverage in defending landscape, if soft values (as visual landscape, cultural values, etc.) are converted into monetary values.The economic approach in evaluation through willingness to pay is able to better com-municate values, and in particular the values change coming from different actions on cultural landscape. But economic approach, if necessary, it is not sufficient to identify limits to change.Multi-criteria-multi-group evaluation techniques are a key tool in management of positive and negative impacts to compare, to balance, to compensate different impacts for all stake-holders (Public, Private, Financial, Social, Civil.) involved. Economic, social, environmen-tal, landscape, cultural, symbolic both quantitative and qualitative, short and medium-long term perspective, impacts are to be assessed and compared to deduce priorities for actions [16, 17, 18]. New approaches and tools to improve the assessment of the independent of use value of rare and unique landscape resources are required, according to the complex social value perspective [19, 20, 21]; to assess the change in its attractiveness capacity [2, 22, 23].An example of indicators research in terms of new established business, produced incuba-tions activities, etc. is proposed by KEA [24] for assessing investments in cultural and creative assets. The list of Kea indicators is grouped in three main sets.

A) Key performance indicators1. Increase in the number of jobs created in CCIs in the city/region;2. Growth in the turnover and/or profitability of CCIs in the city/region;3. Growth in the number of creative businesses in the city/region;4. Growth in the number of tourists in the city/region;5. Improved image of the city/region (e.g. creation of a recognized brand tested through

community surveys, prize/titles on creativity awarded – e.g. City of Design).

B) Indicators for support measures (excluding governance) Common indicators 1. Ratio between accomplished vs. planned deliverables or actions;2. Ratio between outputs and financial commitment;3. Actions have been carried out within the specified timeframe and using most of the

financial resources allocated Life expectancy of beneficiaries;



4. Number of beneficiaries;5. Growth in the number of beneficiaries;6. Business and management plan based on a clear timeframe with specified objectives,

long term and quantified targets, financial commitment/planning;7. Completion of initial mapping of CCIs’ local needs and preliminary feasibility study;8. Stakeholders’ involvement in the management and planning process;9. Regular evaluations (e.g. monthly, yearly) of the actions carried out. Specific indicators Infrastructure & networking: Infrastructure and Networking/Clustering support1. For infrastructure support: Availability of space for creative businesses (square meters

made available);2. For infrastructure support: Ratio between ‘Surface available’ (e.g. square meters) and

‘Occupation of the surface by beneficiaries’;3. For infrastructure support: Access to broadband lines/ICT infrastructures and ser-

vices;4. For infrastructure support: Number of businesses established thanks to the initiative;5. For networking/clustering support: Number and types of collaborative networks/

clusters developed;6. For networking and clustering support: Number and quality of new B2B partnerships

or contracts developed by beneficiaries; ‘People, Competences & Entrepreneurship’: Competences & Skills/Access to finance 1. For both support for access to finance and skills: Number of new products, services

or processes developed/marketed by the beneficiaries of the initiative;2. For training: Types of advice services provided according to the needs of beneficiaries

(business advice, legal advice; support specific skills, etc.);3. For training (law, marketing, ICT, craft or creative skills): number of hours of lectures

provided per beneficiary;4. For training: enhanced knowledge and skills of beneficiaries for business competence

and skill development measures;5. For access to finance: Percentage of creative businesses benefitting from access to

finance measures (from subsidies to innovation vouchers);6. For access to finance: Increase of investments into CCIs since the launch of the sup-

port measure;7. For access to finance: Return On Investment (ROI) for investors. Incubation 1. Number and types of incubators established;2. Number of creative businesses able to move from “incubation” to “dis-incubation”

since the start of the initiative.

C) Governance indicators 1. The initiative is part of a policy strategy targeting CCIs or answer to local policy pri-

orities;2. CCIs are integrated as a priority economic sector in local economic development

policy;



vol. 12, 1/2012

3. Expertise in culture within authorities (number of executives);4. Number of new non-CCIs’ policy documents integrating CCIs as a new priority (e.g.

culture, innovation, tourism, entrepreneurship policies);5. Budget for CCIs in local economic development and innovation programmes (as a

consequence of successful support measures);6. Budget for CCIs’ support measures;7. Budget for monitoring and evaluation procedures 8. Development of specific task forces within public bodies covering the different

dimensions of CCIs support at policy, strategic and organizational level;9. Development of cooperation platform between policy departments for strategic level

discussions and agenda development for CCIs’ policy;10. Number of meetings of the task forces per year (compared to the number foreseen) 11. Number of meetings of the cooperation platform/s per year (compared to the number

foreseen);12. Development of the support measures for CCI businesses (as foreseen by the policy);13. Direct actions developed/implemented as a result of the governance measure (as

foreseen by the policy);14. Positive effect and impact of the specific support measures (as foreseen by the policy);15. Share of public procurement used by CCIs.

These indicators should be integrated in a wider list of indicators for assessing ecological, social and economic city resilience. A possible list of criteria/indicators can be proposed [14].

Economic criteria - Improvement of economic attractiveness and competitiveness;- Regeneration capacity of economic activities;- Attractiveness capacity for green industrial activities; - Attractiveness capacity for creative people;- Multifunctional and efficient use of harbour areas; - Diversification of the existing economic activity and rise in new productions;- Localization of new creative activities (micro-businesses, small companies, medium- sized enterprises); - Reduction of informal sector economy;- Localization of essential specialized services to enterprises;- Localization of "clean" industrial production activities; - Development of a flourishing tourist industry; - Non-profit services/activities;- Localization of services for tourism, culture and leisure;- Increase of the attractiveness of harbour areas for financial reinvestment;- Increase of market values of areas/spaces;- Localization of innovative research activities; - Cooperation networks among enterprises, public institutions and research centres; - Improved interconnections of underground, railway and airport networks.



Social criteria - Direct, indirect, induced employment; - Percentage of employed people that live in the city area;- Increase of social cohesion sense;- Availability of residential areas (at affordable prices);- Availability of commercial areas (at affordable prices);- Availability of tertiary areas (at affordable prices);- Perception of belonging to a specific community;- Perception of specific motivation of people;- Promotion of social safety;- Implementation and upgrading of existing public spaces; - Conservation of elements expressing the area’s cultural identity; - Integration between workplaces and leisure places;- Community infrastructure (schools, culture and sport, etc.) localisation;- Percentage of people involved in forums, participative processes etc.;- Involvement of the III sector in specific programs/projects/activities;- Density of cooperative and partnership networks; - Protection of the "spirit of the place"; - Involvement of local people in planning.

Environmental Criteria - Conservation, management and increase of green areas (planting and maintenance) - Promotion of green roofing and green façade technology - Percentage of local materials used in productive processes- Preservation of biodiversity - Implementation of cycling paths and pedestrian networks - Conservation and improvement of landscape quality - Conservation and enhancement of existing cultural landscape (cultural assets, places) - New high quality architecture - Reduced car travel demand and reduction of motor traffic - Soil decontamination - Air pollution reduction (reduction of CO2 emissions, etc.)- Water pollution reduction - Noise pollution reduction - Recovery/recycling/regeneration of waste material (plastic, tyres, slag, cans, glass,

paper, etc.) - Water recycling (rain water recovery, etc.)- Waste reduction (self-organized waste management)- Treatment of toxic waste into non-injurious products - Percentage of local renewable sources (new electric power plants localization, based

on energy innovation)- Localization of new industries with a low environmental load.



vol. 12, 1/2012

In any case, an "evaluation culture", interpreted as a shared critical knowledge, able to distinguish, foresee, put in relation, compare for deducing priorities should regard not only experts but also all inhabitants.In general a circular way of thinking by all city agents, is required to open the perspective to a multidimensional space, attentive to interdependences and connections.

8. Investing in Knowledge ProductionInvesting in cultural city base means first of all investing in knowledge production: in research institutions, in universities, to reinforce the institutional capacity of local govern-ment through empirical evidence and analytical work research production.New knowledge production is required to implement circularization of processes through new technologies. Some of them already exist; some others are not still available and require new research.More in general we need to invest in a strong city science [12] to promote a better future. A new transdisciplinary city science should be produced as a bridge between research excellence and social relevance to reduce the gap between city knowledge and city gover-nance, toward the implementation of the circular and synergistic model. Investing in cultural city base means also investing in educational institutions, in cultural networks, in schools.Educating the young generation toward skill and efficiency is necessary for improving the wealth of the city.A circular way of thinking is also required for all city agents(in businesses, polices, etc.), integrating the future in every choices, opening the perspective to a multidimensional perspective, attentive to interdependences and connections, to cooperation and coordina-tion of actions.A change in culture is necessary, to face new challenges: a new way of thinking based on relational rationality, that puts in relation all aspects in a critical perspective. Cooperative approaches that overcome the competitive economic conventional culture are required to build together a better city future. Strong investments in human capital are necessary to build a better future. A city smart development is based on creativity, resiliency and sus-tainability of each inhabitant. Creativity, resilience and sustainability are based on culture.A strategic culture plan should be necessary to organize all initiatives for promoting the real wealth of the city, that depends more and more on cultural capital: culture is the intangible capital able to transform the city trajectory/dynamic into a preferable one, because it is the real "formative strength" of the city.

9. ConclusionsSmart sustainable city is the city where economic, social and environmental values are achieved in an efficient and balanced way, able to last in the time. A general characteristic of smart sustainable city is the capacity to close the flows of resources through circularized processes and to activate synergies between actors, institutions etc. in a win-win perspec-tive.Port areas are becoming more and more new spaces where creativity is and can be prac-ticed.



The future of city finds its roots in the city heritage/memory and is shaped by culture. Many port cities are characterized by an ancient center that licks harbour areas. This cul-tural heritage should be conserved in a dynamic and productive perspective, attracting and incubating new creative activities, in a circular import/export process.Social economic system should be recognized as a key component in building the city future, because it is bearer of long term interests, needs, values.A smart sustainable development can start from their new circular metabolism that should be extended to the whole city/region, thus modifying the land and space use. This inte-grated smart development model contributes to city ecological resilience. Also conserva-tion-recreation of city cultural heritage contributes to resilience, insofar as it stimulates cultural identity. In its turn, enhancing cultural landscape promotes the general milieu that stimulates urban creativity.Creativity, resilience and sustainability principles are incorporated in HUL notion and are strictly linked together. New tools should be identified, and in particular new tools for decision making support-ing: new evaluation tools to assess impacts of circularization of economic processes, also in the cultural, visual, landscape dimensions.Evaluation of best/good practices is considered as the first step for new knowledge pro-duction on the base of specific indicators.Evaluation allows assessing economic, social and environmental feasibility by interpreting, forecasting and comparing different multidimensional impacts.Evaluations promote new partnerships, new management and competitive capacity.Through an integrated evaluation it is possible to identify a ranking of various alternatives with different levels of change on port areas landscape, that determine different level of attractiveness, considering multiple, multidimensional and conflicting criteria. A funda-mental element is the availability of adequate knowledge: not only data, information, GIS, etc., but a generalized knowledge [25] deduced from concrete practices. The evaluation of the best (and the worst) practices is fundamental for deducing a general-ized knowledge, useful to elaborate a vital and innovative project, which aims at transform-ing port cities/areas into new attractive and prosperous "places".Slow City Network, Nuovi Municipia Network, Virtuous City Network offer interesting examples of "smart" development trajectories, because they have identified smart special-ization strategies based on local potentials.Through adapted evaluative processes it is possible to interpret the complex landscape of harbour areas and to propose new plans, projects and management programs, trying to transform the “spirit of the place” into a local sustainable development engine.

References and Notes[1] Layard, R. (2005), Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. Penguin Press: New York and

London.[2] Fusco Girard, L.; Baycan T.; Nijkamp P. (2011), Sustainable City and Creativity. Promoting

Creative Urban Initiatives; Ashgate: Aldershot; pp. 55-96.[3] Fusco Girard, L. (2010), Sustainability, creativity, resilience: towards new development

strategies of port areas through evaluation processes. International Journal of Sustainable



vol. 12, 1/2012

Development, 13, 161-184.[4] Porter, M.; Kramer, M. Creating Shared Value, Harvard Business Review, January-

February/2011.[5] Ravetz, J. (2012), New future for old ports: synergistic innovation in a global urban system.

Sustainability special issue.[6] Fusco Girard, L. (2012), Toward a Smart Sustainable Development of Port Areas: the role of

"Historic Urban Landscape". Sustainability special issue.[7] Baykan, T.; Fusco Girard, L. (2012), Case study window – culture in international sustainability

practices and perspectives: the experience of the ‘slow city movement, Cittaslow’. In: The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning and Culture, Young, G.; Stevenson, D. Eds.; Ashgate: Aldershot; Part 4.

[8] Van Hooydonk E. (2007), Soft Values of Seaports, Garand: Antwerp.[9] Rotmans, J.; Loorbach, D. (2008), Transition management: reflexive governance of societal

‘Transition management: reflexive governance of societal complexity through searching, learning and experimenting. In: Managing the Transition to Renewable Energy, vdBergh, J.C..J.M.; Bruinsma, F.R. Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham; Chapter 2, pp. 15-46.

[10] The Economist. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/03/daily-chart-8 (accessed on 28 August 2012).

[11] Ravetz, J. (2011),Urban Synergy Foresight. In: Urban governance in the EU, EU Committee of the Regions: Brussels, pp. 31-44.

[12] Geddes, P. (1915), Cities in evolution; Williams & Norgate: London.[13] Fusco Girard L.; You, N. (2006), Città attrattori di speranza, Franco Angeli: Milano.[14] Fusco Girard, L. (2011), Multidimensional evaluation processes to manage creative, resilient

and sustainable city. Aestimum, 13, 123-139.[15] Fusco Girard, L. (2010), Per uno sviluppo umano sostenibile nel Mezzogiorno: come gestire la

transizione verso una nuova base economica urbana?. In: Il nord e il sud dell’Italia a 150 anni dall'Unità d'Italia, Svimez Eds. pp. 759-779;

[16] Cerreta, M.; De Toro, P. (2012), Assessing urban transformations: A SDSS for the master plan of Castel Capuano, Naples, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7334, 168-180.

[17] Cerreta M.; Mele R. (2012), A landscape complex value map: integration among soft values and hard values in a spatial decision support. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7334, 653-659.

[18] Cerreta, M.; Panaro, S.; Cannatella, D. (2012), Multidimensional spatial decision-making process: Local shared values in action. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7334, 54-70.

[19] Cerreta, M.; De Toro, P. (2010), Integrated Spatial Assessment for a creative decision-making process: a combined methodological approach to Strategic Environmental Assessment. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 13, 17-30.

[20] Fusco Girard, L.; De Toro, P. (2007), Integrated spatial assessment: A multicriteria approach to sustainable development of cultural and environmental heritage in San Marco dei Cavoti, Italy, Central European Journal of Operations Research, 15, 281-299.

[21] Fusco Girard, L.; Torre C.M. (2012), The use of Ahp in a multiactor evaluation for urban development programs: A case study. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7334, 157-167.

[22] Fusco Girard, L. (1987), Risorse architettoniche e ambientali, Franco Angeli, Milano.[23] Fusco Girard, L.; Nijkamp, P. (1997), Le valutazioni per lo sviluppo sostenibile della città e del

territorio, Franco Angeli, Milano.[24] KEA European Affairs. (2005), Measuring economic impact of CCIs policies – How to justify

investment in cultural and creative assets; European Union: Brussels, 2012.[25] Zeleny M. Human System Management; SOS: Amsterdam.



PORT CITIES: CAPITALIZING ON RE-DEVELOPMENT WITH EXAMPLES FROM BALTIMORE, BILBAO AND LIVERPOOL

Nicholas You and Sjoerd Louwaars

THE CITY AND THE SEAThe panting City cried to the Sea,

"I am faint with heat, – O breathe on me!" And the Sea said, "Lo, I breathe! but my breath

To some will be life, to others death!" As to Prometheus, bringing ease

In pain, come the Oceanides, So to the City, hot with the flame

Of the pitiless sun, the east wind came. It came from the heaving breast of the deep,

Silent as dreams are, and sudden as sleep. Life-giving, death-giving, which will it be;O breath of the merciful, merciless Sea?

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, In the Harbour 1882 [1]

AbstractHistorically, most cities emerged in locations that were equipped to sustain life. As the scale and import of cities increased, locations along rivers, sea coasts and lakes provided unparalleled economic opportunity and potential. Coastal or “port cities” thus played an important role throughout history in terms of maritime and riparian trade and access to the hinterland. Hence, the development of the city, the port and the hinterland are highly interconnected. In this paper we first provide a historical overview of the different phases in port city development, and how these affect the city socially, economically and spatially. We further explore how rapidly evolving challenges have forced port cities to re-invent themselves. Lastly, we present three examples – Baltimore, Bilbao and Liverpool – of how cities which are not of the rank of global cities have coped with adapting to a rapidly evolving environment.

1. Historic View On Port City DevelopmentThe three main approaches that describe how port cities have evolved [2][3][4][5], are the so-called “Anyport”, “Rotterdam” and “Interface” models. The Anyport model developed by Bird [6] is based on the analyses of major seaports in the United Kingdom, focussing on the relationship between form and function. The develop-ment of the port is considered a chronological and linear evolution of six successive phases. Each Anyport phase involves an addition to or change in the physical layout of the port, helping to build up to the complex pattern of a modern major port. Van Klink [7] made the port of Rotterdam the subject of his study and as a result the



vol. 12, 1/2012

model he developed has been named after it. The Rotterdam model takes into account both functional and spatial transformations. The successive phases distinguished in his approach stem from modifications in the behaviour of actors in the port. Van Klink distin-guishes four consecutive phases: the port as trading centre; the port area as an industrial location; the port region with a main port for container transport; and the port network with a main port as logistic control centre. The model introduces the concept of the “port as a network”, a reality that is rapidly gaining ground both for global port cities as well as for many smaller and less competitive ports that are exploring synergies in order to sur-vive.In his Interface model, Hoyle [8] distinguishes five stages which reflect the way the port-city interface was widely perceived until well into the 1990’s. He starts with the primitive port/city in medieval times. After which he distinguishes the expansion of the city-port as a result of industrialization, followed by the modernization of the port as a result of the demand for oil and containerised trans-shipment of goods.

Figure 1 – Different stages in the traditional port-city interface [8]

2. Retreat from the waterfront – the early case of BaltimoreAs a result of innovations in shipping technology and ship design starting the late 1960s, ports began to retreat from the city waterfronts in search of green field sites and deeper water. This subsequently led to the abandonment and deterioration of inner city harbours across the western hemisphere. It would take almost 20 years before many of these blight-ed areas were viewed as a redevelopment opportunity and for cities to re-discover the water’s edge both for commercial and recreational purposes. Baltimore was a pioneer in inner harbour redevelopment. While it had been a major sea-port since the 18th century, its shallow waters became a major handicap as early as the mid-1950s that led to declining freight and passenger traffic. This in turn led to the grad-ual decline of the City of Baltimore. While early efforts in the late 1950s attempted to transform abandoned warehouses into parks and gardens, by the 1960s the harbour area was a prime example of inner-city decay.



The renewal of Baltimore’s waterfront was a sustained effort that lasted more than 30 years. The Charles Centre project initiated by the City Council in 1958 is often cited as the first concerted attempt for the renewal of Baltimore’s central business district through the creation of office buildings, hotels and retail commerce.By the 1960s the redevelopment effort expanded to include 240 acres (97 ha) surrounding the Inner Harbour. The treatment of public spaces proved to be an attraction for compa-ny headquarters and hotels giving credence to the concept of creating value through well thought out urban planning and design. A combination of parks, gardens and communal facilities brought people back to the inner harbour which, in turn, boosted further invest-ments in the retail and tourism sectors. These included a National Aquarium, the Maryland Science Centre, the Baltimore Convention Centre, and the Harbour festival marketplace. An inclusive public-private approach enabled both sides to come to an agreement on development goals [9]. De Jong further stressed the importance of a powerful public leader in implementing the whole process. Both de Jong [9] and Millspaugh [10] pointed out that the use of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) contributed to the success of the Baltimore waterfront renewal. The SPV evolved from the Charles Management Office to the Charles Centre/Inner-Harbour Management Inc. and again to the Market Centre Development Corporation and finally to the Baltimore Economic Development Corporation.An interesting initiative that accompanied Baltimore’s inner harbour revival was a housing programme that sold dilapidated and abandoned inner city housing units for US$ 1 with the proviso that the new owners would invest a given amount in rehabilitation within a specified period of time. At the same time the Rouse Development Corporation engaged in what would be known as “planned communities”. Cross Keys on Baltimore was a mixed use and mixed income community that included townhouses, garden apartments, a high-rise apartment building designed by Frank Gehry, stores grouped around a village square, and an office complex. By 1970, the Village of Cross Keys had become one of the most desirable places to live in the Baltimore area.The inner harbour of Baltimore definitely took its place on the world tourism map on July 4, 1976. Following the rendezvous of Tall Ships in New York for the U.S. Bicentennial, eight ships from other nations visited Baltimore. The success of the event led to the devel-opment and opening of a series of major tourist attractions including the Maryland Science Centre, the National Aquarium, the Baltimore Convention Centre and the Harbourplace festival marketplace.By the 1980s the results achieved in the restoration of Baltimore’s Inner Harbour and its status as a major tourist attraction became a case study and model of urban planning and re-development, influencing more than 100 other cities worldwide and winning more than 40 national and international awards.

3. Port City Redevelopment OpportunitiesA key lesson learned from Baltimore is that port city redevelopment cannot and should not be limited to the physical domain; it needs to serve as a catalyst for social and environmen-tal change. Cities such as Bilbao, Liverpool, Hamburg and Rotterdam have made extensive



vol. 12, 1/2012

efforts to capitalize on these opportunities. But the process remains very often a painful one with loss of port related jobs exacerbating urban decay.Metro-wide development initiatives have the potential to connect the ‘low carbon, green economy’ agenda to the sustainable urban development agenda. In an urbanising world global production and consumption systems are increasingly dependent on urban infra-structure to ensure resource flows [11]. How urban infrastructure is configured deter-mines to a large degree on how effectively resources can be deployed, used and re-used. Urban redevelopment and regeneration initiatives have in some cases provided an oppor-tunity for cities to face the challenges of globalisation and to adapt to an ever changing environment.Schubert [12] describes this process from an academic perspective. He argues that the opportunities start with the dereliction of old port areas near the city, relocation of mod-ern, containerized trading facilities to areas suitable for expansion, outside the city centre. After the area is abandoned by industries; it results in disuse, temporary and suboptimal usage of areas and buildings in the old ports. The crucial turning point is when the rede-velopment potential becomes recognized by public authorities and the political will is mustered to bring about transformative change. Visions and plans can then be developed followed by design competitions to show what the new end state can look like. But port functions are not easily nor rapidly replaced by new urban functions. In many cases these brown field sites need to be environmentally remediated before they can be allocated to other uses. Indeed, the rehabilitation of old port areas has required a new role of the pub-lic sector: that of mobilising multiple partners and stakeholders, including multiple and often overlapping jurisdictions, in the leveraging a wide range of resources to be invested in a concentrated manner within a coherent and integrated act of planning.

4. Reinventing the water front – the Bilbao Abandoibarra caseOne of the most compelling examples is the case of Bilbao. As a result of its strategic location Bilbao became an important commercial hub for Spain, mainly thanks to its port activity based on the export of iron extracted from the Biscayan quarries. Throughout the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, Bilbao experienced heavy industrialization that made it the second industrial powerhouse of Spain after Barcelona. By the early 1980s, Bilbao and its neighbouring municipalities suffered the same fate as Baltimore some twenty years earlier. Its port and traditional industries had become obso-lete [13], its air, water and land pollution had become notorious, and unemployment exceeded 25 per cent. The urban decline and decay was exacerbated by extreme traffic congestion [14] and political troubles linked with the Basque separatist movement [15]. These problems were tackled though a coherent public policy framework targeting eco-nomic productivity, social inclusion and cultural vitality. Federal, regional and local authorities, public utilities and the national railway worked under the aegis of a Special Purpose Vehicle (Ria2000) to leverage their resources and create a compelling and com-petitive environment combining innovation, technology and entrepreneurship with terri-torial and environmental regeneration. At the same time Bilbao Metropoli 30 brought together a wide range of agencies and competencies to engage in project planning, and marketing studies and research.



The flagship Abandoibarra redevelopment project is the most emblematic of all the proj-ects carried out by Bilbao Ría2000 in its regeneration of the city of Bilbao. This area at the heart of the city covers 34.85 Ha to which the general public was denied access for many years. When the La Ribera promenade was opened over the Evaristo Churruca quays, the people of Bilbao and visitors to the city were able to walk around this area to discover it for the first time. Abandoibarra has since become the impetus of a new Bilbao mobilising substantial amounts of private sector investment by creating value through deliberate and careful planning. The ensuring decade would see the realisation of a series of projects that underscore the three-pronged approach to Bilbao’s redevelopment: human resources and technology; culture; and the environment. These include the Guggenheim Bilbao Museum, the Euskalduna Conference Hall, the Airport, the Metro, the tramway and the Uribitarte promenade along the Estuary. Nor did Ria 2000 lose sight of the need make the regenera-tion as inclusive as possible by removing urban barriers, creating easily accessible parks and gardens, improving public transport and communal facilities.

5. Redeveloping an economic engine – the Liverpool one caseIn the 18th century the 42 acres of Liverpool’s city centre, which is now known as Liverpool One, was the home of the UK’s first dry dock and the linchpin of Liverpool’s booming maritime trade with the rest of the world. The decline of Liverpool as a leader in maritime trading is well documented and it started as early as the post Second World War period. The area had suffered heavy bombing during the war and through lack of invest-ment it became an icon of a deprived metropolitan area in desperate need of regeneration [16]. For decades, Liverpool as a city was unable to attract substantial investment and had dropped from 5th to 17th place as a UK retail destination. This led the municipality to engage in serious strategic planning. One of the first steps it took in the 1990s was to adopt a public brief containing general development objectives and requirements. This brief framed the future development of Liverpool in such a way that investors had both enough certainty and flexibility to come up with an investment programme. Grosvenor was chosen as a preferred development partner to regenerate a 42 acre ₤600 million retail-led mixed-use urban regeneration project. The project was guided by a master plan that involved major stakeholders and 25 architects in a comprehensive visioning exercise. One of the outcomes is Liverpool One – an innovative urban regeneration project that has transformed the city centre. The 42 acre site includes 30 new buildings, 165 shops, 500 residential units, two hotels, 25 restaurants; a 14 screen Odeon cinema, 30,000 sq ft of offices, a revitalised five acre park, 3,000 car parking spaces and a public transport inter-change [16]. Grosvenor holds a 250 year land-lease from the local authority and operates as shared real estate investor. Furthermore, as they operate the public space, they are able to secure the development’s spatial quality level and thereby rental cash flows [17]. As a result of Liverpool One, the city has moved back up to 5th place in UK’s retail rankings and put the city back on the map for investment.Since 2000 more than ₤4 billion have been invested in the city’s infrastructure guided by a Green Infrastructure strategy. The Liverpool Arena and Convention Centre on the waterfront is regarded as the greenest in Europe, while the new extension of the Leeds



vol. 12, 1/2012

Liverpool canal at the Pier Head has re-energised the once thriving canal as an urban waterway. Several former docks have been renovated for modern purposes, including Princes Dock which is home to prestigious offices, premium residential blocks and a hotel all within its maritime context. It also hosts a £19m cruise liner terminal which welcomes visitors from around the world. Aware that infrastructure alone is not enough to sustain a city, Liverpool has been working with a wide variety of public and private partners to build up its long term social capital including initiatives in health, food production and wellbeing; on use of new energy tech-nologies; strengthening its School of Tropical Medicine; and engaging and hosting for a on sustainable development issues. A culminating moment was when Liverpool became European Capital of Culture in 2008 and subsequently hailed by Jose Manuel Barrosa, President of the European Commission as the most successful ever for its diverse mix of high-profile and community-inspired activities over 12 months.

6. Concluding ObservationsThe three cases of Baltimore, Bilbao and Liverpool share several aspects in common. These include a comprehensive approach to inner city harbour regeneration; a strong focus on culture and the public realm to engage the public interest; and strong public-pri-vate partnership arrangements guided by equally strong policy and strategy guidelines as a means of attracting investors and investment. The comprehensive approach in all three cases involved bold and innovative renewal care-fully planned to ensure mixed use, ease of access and mobility and world class design. The mixed use has ensured that the inner harbour areas in these three cities are constantly being used and populated by a wide range of people and activities. These approaches are still valid today, namely how to engage multiple stakeholders and interest groups in a deliberate planning act to create value for property developers while improving access to affordable housing and basic services. In all three cases the focus on culture is well worth noting as many cities engage in waterfront or inner harbour renewal on an almost exclu-sively commercial basis. All three cities took the opportunity of urban renewal to strength-en or create museums and institutions of research and higher learning as a means of valo-rising their human capital and as a further incentive for companies to locate their offices in their respective cities. While some may say that in all three cases the inner city was “privatised”, the issue is that the public sector, as in the case of many cities in crisis, simply does not have the resources to invest in major redevelopment. Judicious planning in all three cases has, so far, helped these cities climb out of a vicious circle of urban decay, to create jobs and to avoid the pitfalls of many urban renewal projects that exacerbate social divides and exclusion. References[1] Longfellow H. W. (1882), http://www.hwlongfellow.org/poems_front.php, Date assessed:

14/08/2012.[2] Notteboom T. (1997), Concentration and load centre development in the European container

port system. Journal of Transport Geography, 5(2), 99-115.



[3] Notteboom T. (2010), From multi-porting to a hub port configuration: The South African container port system in transition. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 2, pp. 224-245.

[4] Daamen T.A. (2007), Sustainable development of the European Port-city interface. Conference on sustainable urban areas, Rotterdam.

[5] Nas J.M., Reijnders T., Steenhuisen E. (2012), An exploration of the ports IJmuiden, Banjul and Jakarta. London: Routledge.

[6] Bird J. (1963), The Major Seaports of the United Kingdom .London: Hutchinson University Library

[7] Klink, H.A. van (1995), Towards the Borderless Mainport Rotterdam: An analyses of functional, spatial and administrative dynamics in port systems. Amsterdam Thesis publishers.

[8] Hoyle B.S. (1988), Development dynamics at the port-city interface. London: Belhaven Press.[9] Jong, W. M. de (1991), “Revitalizing the urban core waterfront development in Baltimore,

Maryland”, in Fox-Przeworski, J. ed al. Urban regeneration in a changing economy: an international prospective. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 185 – 198.

[10] Millspaugh L.M. (1993) “Baltimore: the success of a 25-year public-private partnership”, in Waterfronts: a new frontier for cities on water, Venice: International Centre Cities on Water. pp. 297 – 304.

[11] UN Habitat (2011), Expert Group Meeting; What Does the Green Economy Mean for Sustainable Urban Development? 17-18 February 2011, Tribe Hotel, Nairobi.

[12] Schubert D. (2012), Urban Development and transformation processes in port and waterfront zones in Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai. London: Routledge

[13] Gómez M.V. (1998), Reflective images: the case of urban regeneration in Glasgow and Bilbao, International. Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22, pp.

[14] Siemiatycki M. (2005), Beyond Moving People: Motivations for Building Mass Rapid Transit in Bilbao Spain. European Planning Studies 13(11): 23-44.

[15] Plaza B. (2008), On some challenges and conditions for the Guggenheim to be an effective economic re-activator. International journal of urban and regional research.

[16] Grosvenor (2012) http://www.grosvenor.com/Portfolio/Liverpool+ONE.+Liverpool.htm Date assessed: 14/08/2012.

[17] Heurkens, E.W.T.M., and Louwaars, S.P. (2011). Public & private leadership in urban development. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 10.



HAFENCITY HAMBURG AND FURTHER WATERFRONT TRANSFORMATIONS IN EUROPEAN SEAPORT CITIES: FROM PROJECT-BASED STRATEGIES TO SUSTAINABLE REDEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS

Dirk Schubert

All seaports around the world are different, no two are alike. All have unique phenomena, based on history, culture, location and transport connections to the hinterland. Statistics on global cities, on mega cities and world cities demonstrate that the most important cities are or have been important seaport cities. Only this type of a city – compared to other cities – offers opportunities for redevelopment of attractive locations next to the down-town area combined with a location at the water.

Central Location Peripheral

Railway lands xMilitary conversion xIndustries x xMining xMarkets/Slaughterhouses

x

(Older) Central Airports

x

Port facilities x

Table 1 Typology of Brownfield Sites

Waterfront redevelopment and waterfront revitalisation projects have a long history and some of them like San Francisco, Baltimore, Boston and Toronto in North-America were started already in the 1960s. Here we’ll focus only on European examples, because proj-ects in North-America and Asia [1] must be seen in the context of different targets, approaches for regeneration, planning cultures, governance structures and the importance of the real estate business.This transformation process of ports and waterfronts has been closely connected with world-wide economic restructuring, technological change in shipping and cargo handling facilities, and competition between seaport cities in the global hierarchy. In the last few decades older port areas that lie next to city centres have seen rapid change. These water-fronts – formerly used for cargo handling and its noisy, dirty and dangerous work, have become places for offices, condominiums, cultural uses and flagship projects which have all helped to emphasise the transformation. After a period of derelict and underused dock-lands, waterfront (re)developments have been hailed as projects full of promise and expec-tation for the seaports’ future and related strategies for growth. The cycle of dereliction,



vol. 12, 1/2012

neglect, planning, implementation and revitalisation of old harbour areas as well as the necessary construction of port infrastructures are all part of a complex network of differ-ent stakeholders and interests. Derelict waterfront sites offer opportunities for new sus-tainable uses that no longer require a position close to the water. Efforts are being made everywhere to compensate for the structural changes in cargo han-dling, ship building and seaport industries along with the resulting loss of employment through revitalisation projects that aim to exploit structural changes in an attempt to modernise the urban economies [2]. Although a great variety of factors influence these projects – such as size, local and regional office and housing markets, the planning and implementation timeframe, approaches and targets chosen for regeneration and the con-text of governance and planning cultures – the development sequence is always about the same: - dereliction, relocation of terminals and port uses- neglect of derelict areas- planning concepts and design proposals for sub-optimal use of former port areas- implementation, construction- revitalisation and enhancement of port areas and waterfronts.These changes are occurring in port cities at a rapid pace, almost faster than we can appraise or analyse [3]. They are less a result of planning and design than an expression of social and economic processes on a global scale. In many seaports the demand for these areas by the “creative class” as well as singles and yuppies is increasing. New waterfronts in particular mirror globalisation processes and have become the new locations for work, housing and recreation favoured by the “creative class” in knowledge-based societies. In the following I will focus on different types of transformation, based on dominant new uses:- “Office-led” (London Docklands)- “Housing-led” (Amsterdam Eastern Docklands)- “Culture-led” (Bilbao Abandoibarra)- “Mixed-use-led” (HafenCity Hamburg)- “Event-led” (Barcelona).Revitalisation, however, has no precise definition, but embraces a complex field of chang-ing uses, rejuvenation and regeneration, redesign and remodelling at the intersection of diverse interests that are connected at the interface of city/country – port/water. While most of these zones had been derelict areas, unsafe, brownfields, no man’s land, no go areas, dangerous zones they were also diasporas and stepping stones for newcomers. From “terra incognita” they became hot spots for real estate business.

1. “Office-led” Regeneration: London DocklandsAlthough the importance of London’s port is now relatively insignificant in terms of the urban economy, its redevelopment into an office and residential district is the first large-scale project of its kind in the United Kingdom and Europe. North American examples such as Baltimore and Boston provided general inspiration for the London Docklands, but regeneration was on a far larger scale (22 square kilometres). In London, the oldest docks had closed in the mid-1960s, bringing a dramatic shift from good times to hard times for



local people. The relocation of the port resulted in more than 80,000 jobs being lost in the East End of London between 1971 and 1991. But Margaret Thatcher had a vision: “Docklands – an exceptional place”. She, along with her advisers, pursued a policy of free enterprise zones, and the first one to be established was in London Docklands. No taxes needed be paid for ten years; there were neither union regulations nor planning restric-tions, but free business for free entrepreneurs [4]. Taking the sledgehammer approach, Margaret Thatcher’s “flagship project” at Docklands and Canary Wharf was enforced in the “big bang”. Development at Docklands was mostly office-led redevelopments, although some luxury housing was also built [5]. The centre at Canary Wharf was built to challenge the financial hub in the City of London, only several miles upstream. The project was implemented in the context of a new enterprise culture, which was based on privatisation, deregulation and neo-liberalism.The deregulation policies of the Dockland Development Corporation (LDDC) triggered a building boom, mainly in the Docklands core zone, the enterprise zone around Canary Wharf. The (Urban) Development Corporations had been established by central govern-ment as Quangos (quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations) to forestall pro-tracted democratic decision-making and participation processes, and to accelerate the process of decision-making, such as building permissions. Leverage planning was meant to speed projects up with subsidies and/or tax relief being introduced to include private capital in order to exert financial leverage. The free enterprise zone and the policy of the London Docklands Development Corporation left London with a fragmented city. New office developments and luxury housing went up next to old public housing blocks. New jobs were brought into the area, but they were not for local people, which led to segregation and contradictions between old and new. The number of inhabitants has more than doubled between 1980 and 2008, and the social structure has become more diver-gent. Since then, the Docklands project has been incorporated in the Thames Gateway strategy, which covers a much larger area, extending from the capital to the Channel. London probably represents the most spectacular transformation of a former port in Europe. A number of recent regeneration projects along the Thames are modelled on the concept of an “urban renaissance”. The redevelopment of Docklands has now been incor-porated into the plans for the Olympics and the regional plans for the Thames Gateway, which envision the corridor up to the Thames estuary becoming a dynamic development zone in the future.What had started 30 years ago as an incremental approach and was initially considered more of an experiment (“trial and error”) has since been integrated into the urban devel-opment strategies by political changes and general planning policies, such as the London Plan. Today, Canary Wharf has turned into a regional centre for London, with more new office buildings proposed or under construction. A decade ago, in 1998, the LDDC closed its doors. Meanwhile, a paradigm shift has taken place in the United Kingdom and in London, with a “return to planning”. What had begun as top-down planning was replaced by a partnership approach and is now included in a regional sustainable strategy for social inclusion and proactive planning. Within this urban regional development concept of the Thames Gateway, Canary Wharf



vol. 12, 1/2012

is only one important sub-centre among many in a polycentric structure comprising a patchwork of complexity and uniqueness [6]. A lack of strategic urban regional planning policies under conservative reign and the consequential fragmentation in the absence of a single responsible authority for the whole of London has left a hotchpotch of projects. The objective is to incorporate the entire region of the Thames estuary within one coherent plan and to integrate sectoral plans into sustainable perspectives.

2. “Housing-led Redevelopment”: Amsterdam – Eastern DocklandsThe Eastern Docklands development area in Amsterdam is made up of several man-made islands. The construction of docks in the west (Western Docklands) after the Second World War contributed to the decline of the harbour in the eastern docks. The port was equipped for transhipment of piece goods and its finger piers were unsuitable for contain-er handling. Passenger shipping was replaced by cheap air travel, and in 1979 the last shipping company closed operations. For many years parts of the Eastern Docklands were in “temporary use” by artists, urban nomads and squatters who lived in caravans, huts, tents and other provisional accommodation. Suburbanisation resulted in a reduction of Amsterdam’s population by 150,000 inhabi-tants between 1965 and 1980, which led to an increase in commuter traffic and an underutilisation of the city’s infrastructure [7]. This trend was counteracted by the struc-ture plan “De stad central”, which was based on the model of the “compact city” and adopted in 1980. Measures introduced to stem migration out of the city included attractive inner city housing areas and concentrated on development and urban regeneration in the centre. The plan also proposed to balance the historic city’s “southern axis” by installing the “IJ axis”. The axis starts at the railway station and extends across the former harbour up to the northern embankment of the IJ. This was to turn the city’s “back yard” into an attractive city frontage. Against the backdrop of housing shortage and population migration the municipality of Amsterdam decided as early as 1975 to redevelop the area for residential use. The project commenced in 1978 with the municipality developing an urban planning programme [8]. For years large housing estates had been built on the periphery and on the polders, but then a more compact urban structure was aimed for. Not least to keep the tax payers within the city boundaries, high densities of 100 units per hectare and a floor space index of 1.4 were stipulated. A total of 18,000 new homes were to be built in the Eastern Docklands [9]. Almost the entire site is surrounded by water and new residents were to enjoy the advantages of the location. “Blue is green” was the slogan which was to make up for high housing density. It was Amsterdam’s most significant urban design project that was located inside the motorway ring on approximately 313 hectares, of which two-thirds were water. The public realm contains more than just roads and green space, but is main-ly docks, canals and the open waters of the IJ bay. The station and city centre are within walking distance. The eastern port area is a laboratory of different urban design concepts and housing types. Sub-areas of very different standards were built [10]. The KNSM area was constructed between 1995 and 2000, laid out after the masterplan by Jo Coenen. Two super blocks by the architects Bruno Albert (“Barcelona”) and Hans Kolhoff (“Piräus”), with 300 apart-



ments each, were built on a prominent site. On Javaeiland, which is connected to the city via a dam and a bridge, a mix of blocks of flats and canal houses including the social infrastructure was realised. On the Borneo and Sporenborg peninsulas terraced houses were built in the east in addi-tion to high-rises (Veemarkt Entrepot West and Middengbied). The linear structure of the finger piers is broken up with “meteorites”, which serve as eye catchers and interrupt the rows. Approximately 30% of the flats are social housing. Now that there is no more building land in the eastern port new sites are being reclaimed from the IJ in the east of the port. In 1996 it was decided to create a man-made archipel-ago of seven islands using hydraulic pumping. Up until 2012 18,000 new homes will be built here, housing around 45,000 people. In September 2001 the spectacular bridge to IJburg was opened and the first flats were ready for occupation in 2002. Work has also started on the western port areas near the city centre, where a large number of prefabri-cated flats for students were built. Future developments envisage a large number of flats with water access by means of constructed pontoons and quays. In addition, areas north of the IJ have now been incorporated in the transformation strategy. With the redevelopment of former port areas Amsterdam has realised new housing proj-ects in inner city locations. Even if the concept of “building for the neighbourhood” has in the meantime changed to “building for the market”, no other port city has pursued housing development in a similar, uncompromising, deliberate and successful way with the main purpose of furnishing the former port areas with a new use.

3. “Cultural-led Transformation”: Bilbao AbandoibarraOnly twenty years ago the rusty relics of a past industrial era were still a conspicuous ele-ment in the city of Bilbao, the capital of the Biscay province in the Basque region in Spain [11]. The River Nervión was an odorous cesspool with derelict and abandoned industrial buildings lining its banks. This crisis-torn city became the image of downfall, population decline and de-industrialisation. In the early 1990s, after the shipbuilding crisis and the decline of the steel industry, unemployment exceeded 25%. Bilbao has only one time-frame: before and after the construction of the Guggenheim Museum. Bilbao is a key example of the comprehensive urban transformation process that was sig-nificantly inspired by the Guggenheim Museum (“Guggi” – architect Frank O. Gehry), the lighthouse project that brought about the total reversal of the city’s image (culture-led). The relocation of the industry and harbour to the city’s periphery and to the mouth of the river on the Biscay after the industrial crisis in the 1980s provided the opportunity to completely restructure the city centre. Abandoibarra is a significant conversion project that plans to reorganise the city centre on the River Nervión and redevelop the river banks as promenades with an “arts centre” [12]. Abandoibarra is an extension of Bilbao’s inner city and complements the area around the Guggenheim Museum, mostly with more cultural uses, offices, high-quality housing, a shopping centre, hotel and with parks linking into a new network of footpaths along the river and with bridges that connect to the northern riverbank. The different project phases are structurally linked with one another; proposals are spatially connected and as a result the river moves to the city centre.



vol. 12, 1/2012

The relevant civil society stakeholders have formed the Bilbao Metropoli-30 (Association for the Revitalisation of Metropolitan Bilbao) to further sustained modernisation and transformation processes. Over 140 institutions and organisations strive to promote Bilbao’s sustainable transformation in a “think tank” of sorts. “Bilbao as a global city” and “making dreams come true” are the key themes coined by Bilbao Metropoli-30 for the continuous transformation of Bilbao in the future.The Guggenheim Museum (which receives approximately one million visitors a year) immediately to the east of Abandoibarra and the Palacio Euskalduna (concert hall and conference centre) to the west, frame the area that hosts many parks. The 165-metre high Iberdrola Tower is another new landmark [13]. The numerous parks and open spaces are a dominant feature in the area. As well as these public open spaces, which are linked with networks of paths and a river promenade, Euskadi Square is to form a central space with road axes branching off in different directions. The waterfront area is an oasis of calm that invites people to rest, walk or shop. Apart from the residential buildings mainly education-al facilities and museums define the character of the area and its immediate surroundings [14]. This rapid boom is due for the most part to the much described “Guggenheim effect”. However, the city has managed to emerge from the slipstream of the Guggenheim Museum by cleverly using its charisma to reorganise its city centre and widen its range of facilities. Many projects had in fact begun before the museum was built, but it was down to its construction that Bilbao appeared on the world map. In a joint effort on the part of all stakeholders a window of opportunity for a change of image was opened up and exploited. The success of converting a negative image into a very positive image by means of a build-ing came as a surprise not just to Bilbao’s stakeholders and operators, but it cannot neces-sarily be applied in other large cities. Bilbao and Abandoibarra are an impressive example of urban transformation triggered by a culture-led development, which can be exploited for marketing the city.

4. “Mix-Use-led Redevelopment”: HafenCity HamburgThe city of Hamburg is characterised by Lake Alster in its middle and the port with ocean liners on the Elbe. Germany has a rather short coastline, and its few ports, particularly that of Hamburg, serve a gateway function to the country’s large hinterland. Most of the port area is owned by the city of Hamburg and is governed by the Hamburg Port Authority (HPA). The port is perceived as part of the urban infrastructure, and capital investments in quays and harbour basins, and the maintenance and dredging of the shipping channel as important transactions accounted for in the city’s budget. HafenCity started at the end of the 1990sis is the most important urban redevelopment project in Hamburg – the most significant reclamation of the (outer) city centre for hous-ing in Germany – and one of the largest projects of its kind in Europe. The HafenCity re-establishes the connection between the River Elbe and the city centre, giving Hamburg a new direction for growth: down to and along the river. HafenCity extends from the Speicherstadt, the Warehouse District, to the Elbbrücken, the bridges across the river. For the first time, a large area (155 ha) is being taken from the port area and put to other uses. The HafenCity area is surrounded by several neglected housing estates in the east and



south, the wholesale market in the north, port facilities and railway lines in the north. Hamburg has adopted a plan-led, mixed-use approach for HafenCity [15]. Following a competition for a Masterplan, specific districts were designed with a focus on offices, housing, shopping, and recreation. In a way, HafenCity is a latecomer project, where plan-ners tried to avoid the mistakes of other waterfront revitalisation projects. Approximately 5,500 apartments for 10,000 to 12,000 inhabitants were planned, with projections for required social infrastructure, such as schools and community centres, based on these figures [16]. The area is within the Elbe flood plain, making built and organisational solu-tions for the protection of people and buildings indispensable. The Masterplan specifies the phased implementation of developments in sub-districts. It lays down the principal development sequence from west to east, avoiding uncontrolled construction activities throughout the development area. A zoning plan for HafenCity’s first phase was drawn up in 2000, and land sales started in 2001. A development agency was devised in 2002 and the first buildings completed by 2004. The newly founded GHS (Gesellschaft für Hafen- und Stadtentwicklung GmbH, later HafenCity GmbH) is respon-sible for the area and the implementation of its projects. A typical quango was set up in order to hasten development, which soon owned most of the land. The federal state government fosters opportunities for growth in Hamburg and its metro-politan region (“Metropolis Hamburg – a Growing City”), HafenCity being its flagship project. In 2006, plans for the future centre (Überseequartier) of HafenCity were finalised. Construction of the characteristic mixed use development began in 2007, starting with a new metro line. In 2004, a temporary cruise terminal received its first passengers at Hamburg. In 2008, the Maritime Museum was opened in Speicher B (Warehouse B). Most spectacular is the project of a concert hall (Elbphilharmonie) on top of Speicher A (Warehouse A). The landmark project has attracted a good deal of international attention not only because of the spectacular architecture but also because of rapidly increasing costs and delays in construction works.In 2010 an updated Masterplan was decided for the eastern part of HafenCity. The plan includes a higher percentage of housing than in the western part but also a fine grain of mixed uses from block to block. The plan makes detailed proposals for every site with a predefined great variety of mixed uses. Three different districts will be developed: One with a focus on culture and creative uses, one as a housing and leisure zone and the one next the bridges with residential and business units.Plans for the transformation of derelict waterfront sites in Hamburg started with a project and architecture-led incremental approach along the northern river bank. HafenCity implied a jump in scale and a more complex implementation strategy formulated with one developer and a project embedded in urban perspectives of inner-city extension and mix-use development especially to increase housing units in the centre [17]. The implementa-tion phase was predicted to last about twenty five years.

5. “Event-led Redevelopment”: Barcelona WaterfrontIn 1986, Barcelona won the bid for the 1992 Olympic Games, which acted as a catalyst for urban transformation and simultaneously provided a stage for self-representation [18]. This gave the city a contemporary image that helped to re-define its position on the map



vol. 12, 1/2012

of increasing competition between cities. A new metropolitan self-conception emerged with the urban planning of Barcelona. The concept of a compact and mixed city (predom-inantly infill) was combined with large-scale urban development components. As in many other seaport cities, restructuring measures in Barcelona started in the oldest district close to the urban centre. Between the old town and the oldest part of the harbour, the fourteen-lane Passeig de Colom formed a large barrier. After port operations and trans-shipment had been relocated away from the piers and jetties adjacent to the city centre, the opportunity arose in the context of plans for the Olympics to convert a heavily trafficked route (Moll de la Fusta), into a promenade. The proposals envisaged the segre-gation of traffic into a lower level for through-traffic for long-distance transport with multi-storey parking decks and bus and taxi lanes, and an upper level reserved for local traffic. An elevated viewing terrace with kiosks and a promenade formed the heart of the new scheme. The new Moll de la Fusta became a pedestrian area covering the traffic lanes and car park. A system of bridges and steps provided pedestrian links from the old town to the port. The development was the first and most spectacular project of Barcelona’s opening towards the sea, which since has been followed by other projects in addition to the com-plete redevelopment of the old harbour Port Vell, which has included an aquarium, Rambla de Mar, IMAX-cinema, Palau del Mar. and the leisure centre Maremagnum with its myriad restaurants. This ‘island’ is reached via a footbridge in the south and has vehic-ular access through an underground car park in the north. The redevelopment of Port Vell sacrificed the area’s former harbour character in favour of consumerism, attracting pre-dominantly international visitors. This ‘fun city’ was modelled on similar festival market places in the USA. A busy promenade now leads from Placa Catalunya along the Ramblas to Port Vell. The construction of the World Trade Center, an office complex in the south-ern section of Port Vell, and a modern cruise and ferry terminal completed the reconstruc-tion of the inner city section of the harbour. The sometimes controversial, urban design-dominated debate surrounding Port Vell and single buildings near the city centre pushed other important regional redevelopments into the background. Commercial zones and cargo handling were relocated south, away from the centre, and together with the trade fair, wholesale markets and the airport are now part of a logistics centre in the estuary of the River Llobrregat. Redevelopment since the Olympics continued at the northern beachfront. Barceloneta, to the north of Port Vell, was included in the improvements. This is a densely built-up area of former fishermen’s and dockers’ housing that was for a long time associated with crime and prostitution. The (partly) illegal shacks (chirinquitos) and fish stalls were replaced during the reorganisation of the beach zone [19]. The reasonably priced fish shops were driven out by a new ‘gentrified’ gastronomy. The marina at the Olympic Port further to the north is used to capacity, but the shops and restaurants around the harbour are not very busy. Access to Poblenou, located further inland, is not easy and links between the beach and residential and commercial areas are difficult due to heavy traffic on the coast-al road. The redevelopment of the waterfront is paradigmatic of urban development policy in Barcelona. The perspective of ’cleansing’ and ‘sanitising’ combined with new attractive



public spaces (‘positive metastases’) and so-called ‘acupunctures’ soon became a model for other European cities. The transformation is based on small-scale interventions and infill integrated into a long-term urban and regional development strategy. The focus two decades after the Olympics has now shifted to brownfield sites in the ‘sec-ond row’. The Poblenou district (once called the Catalan Manchester) has become the location of high-tech enterprises. Its neglected and/or sub-optimally used areas and build-ings have now been transformed into an innovation centre. The large site is subdivided into several blocks that extend from the inner city up to the north-eastern districts. It is earmarked for redevelopment and improvements comprising single blocks and block clus-ters between the Rambla Prim in the north and Gran Via de les Corts Catalan in the west, the street Marita in the south and the sea in the east; the area is bisected by the Avinguda Diagonal. The alignment of the ring road is intended to reduce through-traffic in Poblenou and reveal new development potentials. The privileged location opens special opportuni-ties for redevelopment; from all parts of Poblenou the beach and the sea are within walk-ing distance. The River Besos on the northern periphery of the city was renaturalised. The transforma-tion of Barcelona’s waterfront ends exactly at the city boundary, where another large-scale project, the Forum 2004, has been completed. The large diagonal alignment (Diagonal Mar) through the chequerboard pattern of the Cerda Plan from 1859 has now been ‘final-ised’ at the seafront and the Besos estuary. The new Forum Universel de les Cultures sub-centre, comprised of another marina, an amusement park, residential and office build-ings, and hotels, forms the end point. In contrast to Port Vell, and perhaps because of its peripheral location, the development is less commercial and more culture-oriented. A five-kilometre long promenade extends from Port Vell via the Olympic Port to the Forum Universel, drawing the city towards the sea. Water quality has significantly improved and Barcelona now advertises assets not commonly found in large cities – sun, sandy beaches and the sea. The strategic decision to relocate port facilities and logistics infrastructure together, along the River Llobregat next to the airport south of the city centre, established new opportunities for the northern coastline with five kilometres of attractive urban beaches and several marinas.The structural economic change towards service industries and knowledge-based econo-mies forms the economic background of the urban redevelopment. Barcelona has strong historical design roots to build upon, from Ildefons Cerda to Antonio Gaudi. Being unique and distinctive was always a part of the Catalan identity in Spain. With a string of new projects Barcelona has repositioned itself as an international location for post-indus-trial urban renewal (‘city not suburb’) in the competition between cities. The fostering of structural economic change through urban development policies sets an example for other regions and metropolitan areas. It attracts large scale investment and is integrated in long-term innovative urban development policies. The regional and spatial redevelopment of Barcelona is part of a specific design culture that has architectural and design ambitions. The combination of urban design together with large events became a successful strategy for city-marketing. Based on new manage-ment structures and a new urban regime which embraces a broad elite of social groupings, a private sector-led style has emerged in urban governance. Commercial demeanour, eco-



vol. 12, 1/2012

nomic approaches and professional urban marketing of the “entrepreneurial city” [20] have produced a “Barcelona model” in which Barcelona has gained location advantages in the exacerbated competition between cities. As the capital of Catalonia, Barcelona brings together diverging interests und unites them in larger regional goals. The ‘city between two rivers’ includes the whole urban waterfront. Smaller cities and villages north and south of Barcelona, altogether 36 municipalities with attractive beaches, marinas and tourism facil-ities, are included in the Strategic Metropolitan Plan of Barcelona (PEMB) 2004 to antic-ipate future changes and develop a strategic and sustainable perspective for the region with its coastline and amenities.

6. SummaryWith globalization and as a result of port logistics ports have become geographically and visually disconnected from cities. Of course, the diverse approaches described above must be seen in the context of different regional relationships, but equally important are the topographical factors, the local urban and port history, the network of stakeholders, gov-ernance structures and the planning cultures. As there has not been a great deal of com-parative research carried out in this field to date, such studies offer a framework for identifying different structures of decision making processes, different types of urban development and diverse socio-cultural conditions. In the end there are no “best-practice” solutions. There is both a divergence as well as a convergence of strategies and approach-es; however, success is most often linked to satisfying local housing and office markets. In the past there were fewer differences between port cities across civilisation boundaries than there were similarities. Today, cities are growing more alike while ports and shipping have become more specialised. Ports are turning into secluded worlds, separated from the urban context, spatially and mentally severed from the city, with their own employment, operators and administration structures. While older port areas near the city centre have been (re)integrated into the urban fabric, the new port infrastructures are separate from the urban structure and situated in areas where deepwater ports and large areas of land are available. Seaport cities and local port authorities will gradually lose the ability to determine the course of “their” ports, whilst logistics firms operating globally will be set-ting the agenda.In all European seaport cities former project based re-developments are integrated into more sustainable urban-regional development strategies. The waterfront transformation processes are moving from central areas (these are redeveloped) to peripheral sites. More actors and other stakeholders with diverse interests (local-global) became involved and more complex governance structures on different levels must be included. Obviously there is a spatial and a cultural (re-)turn back to the waterfront, a renaissance of these zones for the creative milieus.Parts of the port from the mediaeval ages and the 19th century port located next to the city centre can be transformed and integrated into the urban fabric. But the modern con-tainer port cannot and should not be integrated, but must be separated from the city for different reasons like noise, security, demands for huge spaces and deep water access. The decision making process follows global logistic top-down strategies and different para-digms than more (or less) democratic bottom-up local urban planning. So the scenario is



sceptical: The city needs the port, but the port (more precisely the container port) does not need the city anymore.

References[1] Schubert, D. (2007). ‘Ever-changing waterfronts’: Urban development and transformation

processes in ports and waterfront zones in Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai. In Port Cities: Asian and European Transformations, eds. Arndt Graf and Chua Beng Huat. Oxford: Routledge.

[2] Schubert, D. (2008). Transformation processes on waterfronts in seaport cities: Causes and trends between divergence and convergence, in Port Cities as Areas of Transition. Ethnographic Perspectives, eds, Waltraud Kokot, Mijal Gandelsman-Trier, Kathrin Wildner, and Astrid Wonneberger. Bielefeld: transcript.

[3] Desfor, G., Laidley, J., Stevens, Q., Schubert, D. (eds.) (2011), Transforming Urban Waterfronts. Fixity and Flow, Routledge New York and London.

[4] Brownill, S. 1993. Developing London’s Docklands. Another Great Planning Disaster? London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

[5] Foster, J. (1999). Docklands: Cultures in Conflict, Worlds in Collision. London: UCL Press.[6] Davidson, M. (2009). London’s Blue Ribbon Network: Riverside renaissance along the

Thames, in Regenerating London. Governance, Sustainability and Community in a Global City, eds. Rob Imrie, Loretta Lees, and Mike Raco, London: Routledge.

[7] Evert Abrahamse, J., Buurman, M. (Eds.) (2006). Eastern Harbour District Amsterdam: urbanism and architecture, Rotterdam.

[8] Koster, Egbert (1995). Oostelijk Havengebied Amsterdam = Eastern Docklands, Amsterdam.[9] Made, H. v. d. (2012). Amsterdam, terug aan het IJ. Transformatie van de Zuidelijke IJ-over,

SUN, Amsterdam.[10] Lebesque, S. (ed.) (2007). Along Amsterdam´s Waterfront. Exploring the architecture of

Amsterdam´s Southern IJ Bank, Valiz, Amsterdam.[11] Azua, J. (2006). Bilbao: From the Guggenheim tot he Knowledge City, in Carrillo, Francisco

Javier (Ed.) Knowledge Cities: approaches, experiences and perspectives. Amsterdam, Boston, Heidelberg, London.

[12] McNeill, D. (2000). McGuggenisation? National identity and globalisation in the Basque country. Political Geography, Vol. 19, Nr. 4, 473-494.

[13] Gómez, M. V. (1998). Reflective Images: The case of Urban Regeneration in Glasgow and Bilbao. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 22, No. 1, S. 106-121.

[14] Meyer, K. (2001). „El Guggi“ und „Los Fosteritos“: Die Revitalisierung von Hafen- und Industriebrachen im Großraum Bilbao. In: Schubert, Dirk (Hrsg.) (2001): Hafen- und Uferzonen im Wandel: Analysen und Planungen zur Revitalisierung der Waterfront in Hafenstädten, Berlin, S. 295-318. (Edition Stadt und Region ; 3)

[15] Eisinger, A. Bruns-Berentelg, J.; Kohler, M.; Menzl, M. (Eds.) (2010): HafenCity Hamburg: neue urbane Begegnungsorte zwischen Metropole und Nachbarschaft: Places of urban Encounter between Metropolis and Neighbourhood. Wien, New York.

[16] Schubert, D. (2006). HafenCity Hamburg: Lessons for waterfront transformation learned from the past for the future. In: Brownfield European Regeneration Initiative (Ed.) Brownfields. Hidden opportunities. Emerging solutions and best practice from across Europe, BERI – Conference Report, Belfast, S. 24-33.

[17] Schubert, D. (2007): Hamburg, die HafenCity / Wohnen und Arbeiten zwischen Speicherstadt und Elbe, in: Harlander, T. (Hrsg.), Stadtwohnen. Geschichte – Städtebau – Perspektiven (Wüstenrot Stiftung) Ludwigsburg und München.

[18] Busquets, J. (2005). Barcelona. The Urban Evolution of a Compact City. Revereto, Nicolodi.[19] Marshall, T. (ed.). (2004). Transforming Barcelona. London. Routledge. [20] Landry, Ch. (2006). The Art of City Making. London: Earthscan.



TEAMWORK: WHY METROPOLITAN ECONOMIC STRATEGY IS THE KEY TO GENERATING SUSTAINABLE PROSPERITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE WORLD*

Marc A. Weiss

1. Metropolitan economic strategy is now essential for every nation and urban regionThe most important geographic units of economic activity in the world today, other than the nation-state itself, are urban regions. All across the world, in every country, more than half of the national income is generated by urban areas. Indeed, these percentages range from an average of 55% in low-income developing countries, all the way up to an average of 85% in high-income developed countries. What is all the more striking about these statistics is that in every case the percentage of national income generated by urban areas exceeds the percentage share of the national population that is urbanized. In the case of the low-income developing countries where urban areas account for an average of 55% of the national income, the urban share of the population averages 32%. In middle-income countries, the urban share of national income averages 73%, whereas the urban share of the population averages 50%. For high-income countries, the average urban contribution to national income is 85%, yet the urban proportion of the national population is 79%. This shows that the greater the level of urbanization in a nation the higher is its level of prosperity, and conversely, the more prosperous a country is, the more urbanized it is at the same time.Take almost any city in the world, and its contribution to national prosperity substantially exceeds its percentage of the nation’s population. Prague, the capital city of the Czech Republic, is a good example. It has 10% of the national population, 15% of the nation’s workforce, over 20% of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and more than 50% of the national tourist revenue. Cities all over the world, rich and poor, in developed and developing countries, on every continent, follow a similar pattern, whether it be Belgrade with 41% of the national GDP and 14% of the national population, or Bangkok, with 41% of the national GDP and 9% of the national population.The reason for this disparity is because urban regions are the only places that can combine the two most important elements for generating productivity and innovation, which is the main way that economies create value and compete in the global marketplace. These two elements are specialization and diversity. Only an urban region can gather together a crit-ical mass of people with highly specialized and advanced skills in knowing how to engage in particular productive activities. Further, only an urban region can combine within one broad location a large number of different people with a wide range of highly diverse specialized skills, mixing together this wide range of skills to become both very productive and particularly innovative in developing and marketing new products and new produc-tion processes. Such a combination of specialization and diversity becomes even more vital than ever in today’s new economy, which is characterized by three key features: 1) it is knowledge- and information-based; 2) it is technology- and communications-intensive; and 3) it is globally oriented.



vol. 12, 1/2012

Urban regions are vital competitive geographic units of the global economy, major contrib-utors to generating and sustaining prosperity and quality of life for every community and nation. These expansive city-suburban-exurban areas are now the main battleground where competition is won or lost in developing new inventions, generating investment, jobs, trade, high value-added production, and enhanced incomes. Indeed, urban regions represent the most vital sources of prosperity for every nation. Promoting productivity and innovation is essential for competitive success in the world economy, and urban regions have become the leading generators of technological and organizational advances in the production and distribution of goods and services for the global marketplace. The main prescription for victory in global economic competition is to establish metropolitan cen-ters of innovative activity, combining creative human talent with state-of-the-art equip-ment to incubate and foster technical advances in a wide range of interrelated products and production processes.

The principal reason for the growing importance of metropolitan economies in generating national prosperity is their essential character as the only geographic entities that contain, in relatively compact form:- the critical mass of skills and resources;- the necessary population density and concentration of market incomes;- the range of specialized knowledge and institutions;- the wide diversity of vitally needed facilities and services;- and the fully developed physical and human infrastructure that are prerequisites for new ideas, products and production methods, technological and organizational innova-tions, and dynamic economic growth and investment.While rural areas can and do contribute substantially to overall economic well-being through agriculture, mining, natural resources utilization, and recreation, they cannot generate the extensive and competitive prosperity and quality of life for millions of people that emanate primarily from urban regions. Only the metropolis has the fundamental assets that together can offer the unique combination of specialization and diversity to stimulate self-sustaining economic development and job creation, with the clustering and networking dynamic among many different firms, entrepreneurs, and institutions interact-ing in ways that spawn and accelerate growth of production and exports, and expansion and spreading of incomes and wealth.The evidence is mounting on the essential national and international economic role of urban regions, and it comes from a wide array of expert analysts. One such source is research performed by a highly respected economic analysis and management consulting firm, the Standard & Poor’s DRI division of the McGraw-Hill Companies. Two studies, entitled US Metro Economies: The Engines of America’s Growth, and US Metro Economies: Leading America’s New Economy, document in statistical detail the overwhelming pres-ence of economic activity in urban regions and its impact on overall growth in high-tech-nology fields and throughout the national economy:The geographic concentration of business and people in metro areas creates unique eco-nomic conditions that generate new industries, speed the diffusion of knowledge, spur technological innovation, and increase productivity. Metro areas have larger markets for



goods and services, more specialized labor pools, and more extensive and sophisticated transportation and telecommunications networks than non-metro areas. These competi-tive advantages make metro areas the engines of US economic growth and the source of new high-technology industries. Today, metro areas generate more than 80% of the nation’s employment, income, production of goods and services, and 94% of high-tech jobs and output…and are the gateway for 83% of US merchandise exports.In addition, a steadily expanding group of scholars and experts in related fields such as economics, business, management, geography, planning, and public policy argue that as globalization advances and the speed and convenience of international transportation and telecommunications bring people and goods closer together, the strategic value of specific places becomes more, rather than less, important. This is because of the ability of highly skilled and educated entrepreneurs and professionals to locate where they want to be instead of where they must be, with a much wider range of choices available to them. For example, Professor Michael Porter of Harvard Business School, in his book, On Competition, emphasizes the growing tendency of corporations to concentrate their major activities in a specific “home base” located in urban regions throughout the world:When considering the globalization of competition, however, one must confront an appar-ent paradox: Although companies do indeed compete globally and inputs such as raw materials, capital, and scientific knowledge now move freely around the world, strong evidence shows that location continues to play a crucial role in competitive advantage… This geographic concentration of competitive advantage appears not only in established industries such as automobiles and machine tools but also in new industries such as soft-ware, biotechnology, and advanced materials… [G]lobal companies have indeed dis-persed activities to many countries, but they continue to concentrate in one location a critical mass of their most important activities for each of their major productlines or businesses.Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Kotkin, in his book The New Geography, makes a close-ly related point:Decisions about where to locate businesses, for example – once dependent on questions of access to ports, roads, rails, or raw materials – are increasingly dependent instead on the ability to link often scarce human resources… These changes profoundly alter the very nature of place and its importance by de-emphasizing physical factors… and placing great-er emphasis on the concentration of human skills in dense concentrations of population… The more technology frees us from the tyranny of place and past affiliation, the greater the need for individual places to make themselves more attractive. Surveys of high-technology firms find that among factors that drove their decision of where to locate, a ‘quality of life’ that would make the area attractive to skilled workers was far more important than any traditional factor such as taxes, regulation, or land costs.Views emphasizing the increasing role of economic geography and the competitive advan-tages of urban regions are strongly reinforced not only by numerous other academics, writers, and consultants such as Kenichi Ohmae, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Paul Krugman, Peter Hall, Manuel Castells, Neal Peirce, and Saskia Sassen, but much more importantly, by many business executives, corporate real estate professionals, site selection advisers, and economic development location experts, all of whom primarily target urban regions



vol. 12, 1/2012

when they conduct and publish surveys of the “best places for business.” Indeed, a detailed analysis of the business media and related publications clearly demonstrates that urban regions are the most often analyzed geographic unit represented in national and international location ratings. Even when the title of the article or report is “the best cities for business,” what the magazine or rating agency really is evaluating are entire urban regions, not just central cities.The vital economic contribution of urban regions is anchored by the major cities they encompass, which provide the constant stream of creative activity, interaction, specializa-tion, and diversity that is essential for innovative ideas, methods, and products to develop and thrive. In the global economy of the 21st century, cities function primarily in seven distinct and essential ways to generate national prosperity. They are:- centers of innovation and services, including advanced and highly specialized services;- centers of culture, sports, entertainment, conventions, and tourism;- centers of education, research, and health care;- centers of transportation and trade;- centers of manufacturing and technology development;- market centers;- work force centers.

2. Metropolitan economic strategy: a new global policy initiativeEvery urban region experiences economic growth or decline, regardless of whether there are comprehensive plans or coordinated initiatives. Urban regions function as fully inte-grated economies in terms of the production and distribution of goods and services, and they will function as such with or without a coherent economic strategy. A critical deter-minant of their success is the decision-making process of private sector executives, inves-tors, entrepreneurs, and consultants making facility location commitments in the global marketplace, especially their evaluation of the synergy and attractiveness of urban regions as centers of innovation that can provide businesses with a competitive advantage.Unfortunately, metropolitan regional economic growth often occurs in an uncoordinated and haphazard fashion, and consequently may be missing opportunities to produce great-er investment, higher incomes, and more equitable distribution of the benefits of prosper-ity among people and places. Most urban regions do not have viable mechanisms for promoting metropolitan-wide economic development by creating a common vision, for-mulating a collective strategy, or jointly cooperating to implement major initiatives. Much of the contemporary debate centers on the impacts of metropolitan economic growth, including whether growth is too fast or too slow, problems of fiscal disparities and geo-graphic or social inequities, and harmful effects on environmental quality. This discourse is primarily about analyzing trends and reforming policies.Metropolitan Economic Strategy, on the other hand, is a proactive organizing principle that directly depends on regional teamwork and citizenship. Such strategies are explicitly designed to bring together the public, private, and civic sectors across the entire urban region to formulate and carry out a coordinated set of targeted investments in people and places, consciously designed to enable businesses to grow, jobs to expand, and quality of life to improve. Each of the major constituencies – business, government, and community



leadership – must closely collaborate for the metropolis to thrive economically, socially, and physically. In just the same way that local, provincial or state, and national or federal governments use economic development plans to guide their actions, so also must the many different communities and constituencies that comprise an urban region farsighted-ly engage in such comprehensive planning and united action if they are to compete effec-tively and succeed in the global economy.

3. Teamwork: creating metropolitan identity to compete and win in the global marketplaceThe real “city” of today is the “metropolis.” Urban regions are the most economically organic components of urban geography and demography affecting people’s daily lives at the local level, and the main access points for individuals trying to thrive in the global economy. Yet the greatest barrier to regional coordination, cooperation, and collaboration is the lack of a common metropolitan consciousness and citizenship. Therefore, promoting teamwork by encouraging households and families to begin reaching beyond local political boundaries in pursuit of their common interests and goals of increasing prosperity and enhancing quality of life is essential both for individual and for collective success.By emphasizing the interwoven economic destinies that bridge across families and commu-nities within urban regions, people can begin to see themselves as members of a cohesive economic team that is actively competing against other economic teams all over the world. Metropolitan Economic Strategy is thus vital for encouraging a unified vision of regional purpose. It promotes “identity regionalism” – a common interest and a sense of mutual benefit that is much more powerful and effective than the typical “functional regionalism” organized around managing regional public facilities such as airports, transit systems, parks, water and sewer systems, and other types of single-purpose governmental responsi-bilities.The lack of political and cultural traditions that tie people together within a common metropolitan framework poses a major challenge for urban regions competing economi-cally in the global marketplace. Governmental jurisdictions are organized along local, state or provincial, and national or federal lines. Urban regions transcend the boundaries of cities, towns, townships, villages, boroughs, counties, special districts, and other public entities. Many of the world’s urban regions cut across provincial or state lines, and some even cross national borders. Therefore, the average person does not see himself or herself as an integral part of a metropolitan economy.Most senior corporate executives do clearly understand regional economic connections, because product markets finds that everyone living and working within that circle is expected to “cheer for the home team.” Competitive team sports is one of relatively few spheres of interest uniting cities, suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas, even transcending national boundaries. The challenge for 21st century global competitiveness in every coun-try is for diverse urban populations to relate economically in the same way they identify as sports fans, and to collectively support their “home team” by working together as citizens of a metropolitan economy to promote local and regional prosperity and quality of life. Given that the dynamic of metropolitan interrelationships represents how the global econ-omy actually functions and regional vitality is truly maintained, it is only a matter of time before everyone recognizes this modern reality. A vital challenge is for residents of urban



vol. 12, 1/2012

regions to begin engaging in this new form of economic teamwork, clearly understanding that doing so will best enhance their opportunities to prosper in the global marketplace.

4. Good leadership and governance are vital for metropolitan economic strategy to succeedGood leadership from the public, private, and civic sectors is essential to bring together disparate groups, interests, and places into a coherent body with a shared vision and com-mitment to coordinated action. Such leadership can emerge from an economic crisis, as in Barcelona where job losses in the late 1970s served as the impetus for the successful bid to host the 1992 Summer Olympic Games and use it as the catalyst for developing a new, forward-looking economic strategy, or in Washington, DC, when a municipal budget defi-cit and reduction in federal government employment served as the impetus for an aggres-sive new strategy for diversification, growth, and community improvement. Leadership can also come from a vision of expanded opportunity in the absence of a perceived crisis, such as in Shanghai, with the Chinese government promoting investment in the city and surrounding region as the leading edge of national economic competitiveness in global markets, or in Austin, Texas, where dynamic business and government leaders turned a state capital and university town into a worldwide center of technological production. In either case, people must have a genuine desire and willingness to work together for improvement, and a belief and faith that working together in creating and carrying out a strategic vision will generate meaningful results and widespread benefits.When most of the major stakeholders finally have agreed to work together across an urban region, then the issue becomes how to do so most effectively to generate broad-based economic growth and increased quality of life. In order to formulate a good strategy, clear agreement on goals is needed, though the most important goal should always be enhancing prosperity and quality of life for everyone and everyplace. Also needed is a very clear understanding of the market forces and institutions, because a strategy is a theory of cause-and-effect relationships that must be based on a realistic comprehension and thorough knowledge of what is actually occurring and how things truly operate. A strategy is not just stringing together a collection of specific projects or programs. There must first be a broader clarity about how to accomplish the planned results, and only then will doing major projects and programs become a necessary and vital aspect of the implementation process.Another important challenge for Metropolitan Economic Strategy to succeed is that of governance. Even though urban regions are the main engines of growth, productivity, and innovation in the global economy, governments are not organized along such geographic lines.In most cases, with China as a notable exception, there are no general purpose govern-ments with substantial authority and resources whose jurisdiction corresponds directly to the boundaries of urban regions. South Africa recently created metropolitan governments to end the legacy of apartheid and bring together under one jurisdiction the formerly “white” cites and “non-white” suburban townships, but even in those situations it is nec-essary to bring together a wide variety of local government jurisdictions, along with pro-vincial and national governments, in order to prepare and implement a Metropolitan



Economic Strategy. In many places around the world, the population and workforce of urban regions cut across provincial or state boundaries, and in some cases, even national borders, thus compounding the governance challenge. Developing leadership that can build consensus and collaboration is a vital task. No strategy can succeed without good leadership. Also, coordination among numerous governmental units is only part of the challenge of governance. Public-private partnerships that include business and civil society along with government are equally essential.During 1997-98, in Washington, DC, we engaged in a massive effort to create a strategic economic development plan that has been very successful over the past eight years in expanding jobs and capital investment, raising incomes, promoting development and ren-ovation, increasing homeownership, and improving neighborhoods. This was a city-level plan, but one that took an explicitly pro-metropolitan approach. We studied the city’s prospects in the context of its role in and contribution to the metropolitan economy, focus-ing on how to grow the overall regional pie and capture a larger slice of that expanding pie for the city and its residents. Many of the projects, such as the NoMa (North of Massachusetts Avenue) initiative that financed and built a new Metrorail transit station and bicycle/pedestrian path at New York Avenue and redeveloped a deteriorated and abandoned area of the city as a thriving technology, media, arts, and housing district, won support from regional business and government leaders outside the city because it improved metropolitan economic competitiveness. The NoMa story was a good example of “win-win” inclusiveness, as it brought together and benefited various levels of govern-ment, private businesses and property developers, low- and moderate-income community residents, and environmental activists, which is why it was designated in 2002 by the United Nations as one of the 40 worldwide Best Practices to Improve the Living Environment. Other city initiatives also had a metropolitan dimension, such as extending Metrorail service in the suburbs to make it easier for low-income city residents to obtain and travel to suburban jobs, and also including the offer of new financial incentives for suburban residents to purchase homes and move back into the city in order to enjoy the attractions of a more urban-oriented lifestyle.

5. Two essential elements of metropolitan economic strategy: investing in fundamental assets, and building dynamic industry networksA good economic strategy consists of two key elements: 1) building from strength – investing in the fundamental assets and activities that make people more productive and places more valuable; 2) generating dynamism – promoting modern, globally competitive industry net-works that accelerate the pace of innovation and growth. Investing in the fundamental assets shifts the focus away from narrowly defined economic development initiatives that rely on tax subsidies and other incentives. The biggest asset is people, and what makes them pro-ductive are investments in transportation and infrastructure that move people, goods, and information most efficiently and cost-effectively, investments in education and workforce development that make people more skilled and innovative, investments in research and technology to generate new ideas and products and processes that are highly valued in the world, investments in health and safety that make places worthwhile for living, working, and visiting, and investments in the physical environment and cultural milieu that make



vol. 12, 1/2012

places more attractive, life more rewarding, and people more motivated to work and study hard. Thus economic strategy, as opposed to the conventional view of local economic development, involves all of the important aspects of public and private resources and institutions, and is necessarily comprehensive and broad-based.In Akron, Ohio, the leaders of the urban region came together in an economic crisis and created a Metropolitan Economic Strategy that maximized their fundamental assets of people and place.Faced with the loss of thousands of jobs in rubber tire manufacturing by the four major companies – Goodyear, Goodrich, Firestone, and General Tire – metropolitan leaders did not try to become another Silicon Valley and create an information technology and tele-communications industry. Instead, they recognized that “high technology” in today’s world involves every type of product and production process, and that they could compete more effectively by focusing on their own areas of expertise rather than simply trying to imitate what other places were already doing successfully.Since synthetic rubber was developed in Akron during the 1940s and 1950s, Akron’s met-ropolitan leaders recognized that the people and institutions within their region had a depth of knowledge in the field of polymers – the science and engineering of plastics and of related synthetic materials. Therefore they decided to invest more heavily in this unique specialization, and reinvented their urban region as the world center of polymer science and engineering, creating a whole new college and research laboratories at the University of Akron. They put together all the elements of such a Metropolitan Economic Strategy – education, job training, research, financing, business assistance, facility construction, physical infrastructure, trade promotion, marketing, product development, industry net-work linkages, personnel recruitment, and much more – and they successfully implement-ed this strategy by generating hundreds of new private firms and thousands of new jobs in polymer-related activities. Akron’s public and private leadership also diversified their economy through conventions, entertainment, recreation, and tourism, and thus improved the quality of life vitally necessary for retaining and attracting skilled workers and creative entrepreneurs. Akron’s success is a good example of a major theme of Metropolitan Economic Strategy: “Be Yourself.” The assets of an urban region or any other geographic entity will differ from most others, and each economic strategy must be specifically tai-lored to maximize the value of the existing assets of people and place that are special to a particular culture and location.The second major element of Metropolitan Economic Strategy is to promote the growth of dynamic and innovative industry networks, also called clusters. Industry networks, as the name implies, draw upon a wide range of closely interacting private and public sector organizations and institutions that supply each other with goods and services to produce specialized and competitive products and skills. These business and agency linkages are key to the success of an industry network, and they cut across the traditional industrial or sectoral classifications, because in this case an economic activity such as machinery pro-duction will include a much wider range of scientists, engineers, lawyers, accountants, bankers, insurers, architects, designers, and a whole host of related fields that enable machines to be manufactured and distributed with cost-effectiveness, technological effi-ciency, and market appeal, and to be sold or leased at a sufficient profit that will provide



safe jobs and decent livelihoods for a large and growing population of workers and con-sumers. Industry networks that are the engines of prosperity in the new global economy can be in manufacturing or services, involving old or new technologies and products, from food and medicine to computers and mobile phones. Each place will have to determine which industry networks will be most productive, innovative, competitive, and dynamic, based on the fundamental assets of their particular population and location, such that polymer development will work for Akron and commercial shipping for Barcelona, but not the other way around. To effectively grow industry networks or clusters, they must be tailor-made for the asset base and business mix of each urban region, meaning that one size definitely does not fit all. In this sense, the first key element – investing in the fundamental assets – and the sec-ond element – growing the dynamic industry networks – are deeply interconnected, and developing a comprehensive Metropolitan Economic Strategy involves the specific inter-action between both of these key elements. Major assets such as international airports, universities, scenic waterways, or historic neighborhoods can promote the growth of a variety of industry networks if planned and developed as part of an effective strategic framework. In turn, each industry network will draw on a wide range of different assets, with no two networks necessarily having the same needs and priorities even in the same location. Every urban region must build on its existing strengths, and create precisely targeted policies and incentives to generate investment and growth that makes the best possible use of its fundamental assets. It is important to emphasize that industry networks or clusters only give urban regions a competitive advantage if they are dynamic and grow-ing. Competitive success in the new global economy comes through fostering innovation and productivity. Industry networks are key elements of Metropolitan Economic Strategy only to the extent that they can help generate rising incomes and employment through combining innovative specialization with creative diversity. Simply identifying an urban region’s “clusters” will do no good for strategic economic development if these clusters are unproductive, outmoded, or stagnating, and labor markets operate across the whole metropolis, as do most major institutions such as hospitals and newspapers. Companies make decisions regarding investment, production, distribution, and site selection based on the assets and qualities of the entire urban region, even though their facilities are located within the administrative jurisdiction of smaller units of local government.One important exception to the general lack of common metropolitan identity is college and professional sports, and, to a lesser extent, certain forms of arts and entertainment such as museums, orchestras, theaters, and parks. If one draws an invisible circle around an urban region, one typically.

6. Why quality of life – sustainability and inclusiveness – is now necessary for global and urban prosperityIn formulating and implementing Metropolitan Economic Strategy, improving the physical environment and addressing economic and social inclusiveness are integral to the overall prospects for success. This represents a change in paradigm from the traditional concept that economic growth does not involve environmental protection or poverty reduction, with some people and policymakers still viewing these concerns as at least separate and



vol. 12, 1/2012

perhaps even incompatible. The progressive idea of the sustainable development move-ment is that these three concerns must be balanced against each other such that each one is taken seriously as an important societal and public policy goal. In today’s global economy, where quality of life is the key to attracting and retaining skilled workers, and skilled work-ers are the basic building blocks of economic prosperity and competitiveness, improving the environment and addressing social inclusiveness are no longer luxuries to be traded off against economic growth. Indeed, they are now absolute prerequisites for achieving and sus-taining growth of jobs and incomes, trade and technology. If a place has polluted air and water and terrible automobile traffic congestion and unmanageable sprawl, it may become an undesirable place for people to live, work, and visit, and for companies to invest in and locate production facilities and personnel.Quality of life is an increasingly important fundamental economic asset because global competitiveness now requires placing a premium on making it possible for talented entre-preneurs, professionals, and skilled workers to choose where they want to live and work.These potentially highly mobile individuals and families are attracted to and retained by urban regions with good housing and transportation, significant cultural and recreational amenities, vibrant community life, and an appealing natural environment. For example, in the US, the State of Maryland’s Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation initiative, winner of a prestigious Innovations in American Government award from the Ford Foundation and Harvard University during the year 2000, combined environmental and open space protection with urban regeneration and promotion of livable suburban com-munities by reducing traffic congestion, air and water pollution, and other harmful effects of excessive sprawl. Former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening, who championed this initiative, clearly viewed Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation as a strategy for promoting high-value economic development through improved quality of life, noting that Maryland’s economy made substantial gains in employment and income growth after the initiative was launched in 1997. Governor Glendening cited the example of a young tech-nology entrepreneur who located his fast-growing company in Annapolis – Maryland’s state capital and home of the U.S. Naval Academy – because he enjoyed the combination of an urban environment with culture, night life, and historic architecture, together with abundant opportunities for boating and recreation on the Chesapeake Bay. This chief executive decided to provide two company-owned sailboats for his workers to use on their free time, as an innovative incentive that his firm successfully used to attract and retain skilled employees. Many other places around the world are increasingly taking comparable approaches to combining environmental and open space preservation with metropolitan land-use planning, growth management, and urban reinvestment as strategies for enhanc-ing sustainable quality of life that will also generate economic prosperity.Indeed, preserving and enhancing a good physical environment is now essential to the long-run economic success for any nation, region, or community. Public and private sector leaders are increasingly recognizing that urban regions in the 21st century can only com-pete globally and become sustainable centers of innovation if they succeed in attracting and retaining an excellent and highly motivated workforce. Places that offer a good envi-ronment and lifestyle – not only for working, playing, and raising a family, but for visits by tourists, business executives, and conventioneers – will benefit substantially from their



competitive economic advantage. This is why investing in and enhancing physical and cultural heritage – what Global Urban Development calls “Celebrating Our Urban Heritage” – is vital for improving the overall economic climate by substantially improving quality of life not just for tourists, but more importantly, for the people who live and work in the urban region. Today’s environmentalism and related movements for sustainable development, smart growth, and new urbanism are more than just compatible with eco-nomic growth. Environmental protection and restoration have become fundamentally necessary for generating and sustaining prosperity. There is a strong case to be made for why a good environment and improved quality of life is critically important for economic productivity, and a growing number of mainstream economists, including Lester Thurow, Joseph Stiglitz, and Jeffrey Sachs, support this point of view.Protecting and sustaining the physical and natural environment of urban regions involves many different yet equally important actions. They include: - encouraging energy efficiency and resource conservation;- improving clean air and conserving clean water;- cleaning up and redeveloping toxic and polluted “brownfield” land;- renovating historic structures and investing in urban cultural heritage;- maintaining the beauty of natural landscapes and preserving agricultural land;- increasing the accessibility of biking and hiking pathways and open spaces;- curbing metropolitan sprawl and traffic congestion;- reinvesting in older towns, cities, and inner-ring suburbs;- expanding transit and other pedestrian and public transportation alternatives;- promoting ecological and heritage tourism;- developing parks and recreational amenities;- developing “green” buildings, infrastructure, and communities;- increasing recycling and the use of renewable energy sources;- reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT);- strengthening community planning and design.As the movement for environmental justice rightly argues, these needs are especially press-ing for low-income communities, which are generally harmed the most by air and water pollution and exposure to a wide variety of harmful substances and unhealthy conditions. Urban regions such as Curitiba in Brazil and Portland (Oregon/Washington) in the US have made environmental improvement and protection a centerpiece of their Metropolitan Economic Strategy to compete more effectively in the global marketplace by attracting and growing cleaner industry networks in both manufacturing and services.Similarly, if a place has high crime, social unrest, disease, and deterioration, it may become equally unattractive and undesirable for a quality workforce and thriving employers. The recent economic development plan for Johannesburg, Joburg 2030, acknowledged the vital economic importance of social inclusiveness and investing in disadvantaged people and communities when it listed as its four major barriers to achieving economic success: high crime, physical deterioration of the inner city and outer townships, the HIV-AIDS pan-demic, and lack of sufficient education and skills by a large proportion of the workforce. Both Cape Town and Durban, South Africa, recently adopted economic development strategies that include a significant focus on policies to raise incomes, increase jobs and



vol. 12, 1/2012

business opportunities, and improve the quality of life for low-income families and neigh-borhoods. Cape Town calls it “Our Golden Thread”:It is not a question of choosing global competitiveness or the reduction of poverty – Cape Town will achieve both or neither. Reducing poverty will strengthen global competitive-ness, and global competitiveness will permit reduction of poverty through economic growth and job creation.Singapore, for example, has done an exemplary job of recognizing that its greatest asset is its people, and that in order to have a well-motivated and highly productive workforce, everyone must share in the fruits of prosperity. With the goal of economic and social inclu-siveness in mind, Singapore moved from being a relatively poor British colony and inter-national seaport during the 1950s to virtually eliminating poverty in the four decades since becoming an independent nation (truly a “city-state”). The national homeownership rate in Singapore is currently more than 90%, and housing, education, health care, and per capita incomes have all improved dramatically within two generations.

7. ConclusionIt should now be clear that Metropolitan Economic Strategy is a new global paradigm and policy initiative that is increasingly essential for generating and maintaining a vibrant and prosperous economy for everyone and every place in the world. Issues that generally were considered to be separate and distinct from economic growth and development, including a sustainable living environment, social inclusiveness, cultural diversity, spiritual values, honoring historical traditions, governance, citizenship, identity, security, cohesion, and other similar “non-economic” concerns are now completely tied to the future performance and competitiveness of the economy in the global marketplace. “Urban policy” must now become the centerpiece of international and national macroeconomic policy, because urban regions are the dynamic engines of innovation and productivity for the world, and they can produce and distribute the resources that provide better livelihoods for urban and rural residents alike.In order to have a good economy today and in the future, urban regions must have a good quality of life. Good quality of life requires a good physical, social, political, and cultural environment. The rising importance of quality of life for economic prosperity – specifically the vital need for sustainability and inclusiveness – is an entirely new paradigm for the 21st century. The best way to address these new realities is for every nation, region, and community to adopt the framework of Metropolitan Economic Strategy. Then they can all work together coop-eratively to design and implement successful economic strategies that invest in their fun-damental assets and grow dynamic industry networks simply by being themselves. This can only be achieved, however, with good leadership, cooperative governance, and a common sense of purpose and mutual identity called “Teamwork.”

*This article is essentially an edited version of the journal GUD.



A RESEARCH AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT AGENDA: FOSTERING CREATIVE, EQUITABLE, AND SUSTAINABLE PORT CITIES*

Joe Ravetz, Luigi Fusco Girard, Lisa Bornstein

*Draft synthesis of the final document of the Meeting “Port Cities as Hotspots of Creative and Sustainable Local Development – Naples 2012” still under discussion.

1. ContextPort cities can be ‘hotspots’ for creative and sustainable urban development: but often there is economic, social and ecological decline and vulnerability. These issues were debat-ed in an international conference side-event to the World Urban Forum in Naples 2012. This paper provides a summary of principles derived from the conference, as a basis for further research and policy development, to promote creative and sustainable port cities. This paper is also a call for participation in research networks, observatories, thematic hubs, policy foresight and similar activities for research on creative and sustainable port citiesWhy focus on port cities? - Port cities are hubs of economic activity, innovation, social exchange, built and cultural heritage, and environmental sensitivity; - They are among the most vulnerable locations for storms, sea level rise, marine impacts of climate instability, and other natural disasters; they will experience increasing pressure on energy, water, food, minerals and other resources; - Global economic and social restructuring makes port cities especially vulnerable to rapid change, with impacts on port activities, employment and social structures; - Port cities account for more than half of all large cities, in a world which will soon house 5-6 billion people in urban settlements.

2. PrinciplesThe conference put forward the twin concepts of circularization and synergistic policy as principles to guide development. Circularization is a principle which can be applied to zero-waste approaches to material and natural flows – reduce, reuse, recycle – and also to wider issues, such as economic patterns of investment / re-investment, or political systems of participative multi-level partnership governance. Synergistic policy is a principle for development of creative learning, self-organization, strategic thinking and shared intelli-gence, which can be applied to urban, economic, social, cultural, ecological and political systems. These general principles can be applied as follows: - Circularize economic and financial flows: - Re-localize investment, employment, services and economic support systems to counter the extractive forces of the global economy,- Circularize flows of materials and resources:- Promote closed loop recycling re-use, recovery and recycling in material production and



vol. 12, 1/2012

consumption chains, including energy and water, materials and products, wastes, and the ecological resources on which they depend. - Circularize social and political processes: - Foster socio-economic systems that promote equity, social inclusion, reciprocity and mutu-al responsibility: and political systems that are more participative, responsive, anticipatory, non-elitist and egalitarian.

These dual principles of circularization and synergistic policy will also depend on horizon-tal factors:Culture and creativity, and the recognition – through local policies and practices – of the potential synergy emerging from shared worldviews and values, cultural norms, social and cultural capital, reciprocity and mutual responsibility, living heritage, and spaces for cre-ative expression.Policy and governance, and the fostering of synergies across different systems (economic, social, cultural, ecological, technological and spatial) and of ‘win-win’ collaboration among private, public and community sectors.Knowledge systems and scientific research that orient the transformations of urban policy and governance towards a more ‘relational’ model of creative collaboration, shared intel-ligence and co-evolution to meet 21st century challenges.

3. Thematic areas for policy development3.1. Policy guidelines to be developed for port cities in generalPolicy guidelines for port cities were explored in the conference, based on the application of the above principles to typical port cities, and the challenges facing them: - Governance structures that are participative and anticipatory, and that realize social & cultural values, human resources and social capital, and synergistic collaboration between stakeholders.- Economic development that contributes, through ownership, investment and return practices, as far as possible to local resilience and added value.- Local & community development that generates synergistic social / cultural / ecological forms of value added, social and cultural capital & human resource development.- Socio-cultural development that draws on and contributes to local assets, financial, tech-nological & human.- Ecological management that uses design of circular flows, resource protection, plans and structures to enhance diversity & resilience.- Climate & disaster management, with policies for long term resilience and adaptation, to respond to risks from sea-level rise, storms, droughts, floods and other natural disasters. - Spatial planning that integrates waterfronts and port areas with surrounding urban patterns, needs and resources, providing space for diverse & inclusive urban activities.- Urban redevelopment that reflects the deep embeddedness of port cities in history, her-itage and urban identity.- Integrated conservation that promotes enjoyment of historic urban landscape, and the enhancement of large archaeological sites.



- Urban and building design, based on best practice and research in knowledge transfer, new design tools, building technologies and assessment methods.

3.2. Policy guidelines to be developed for port area typesPolicy guidelines for common types of port areas are already emerging from this research platform. For example, the following were explored in the conference: - Port areas, harbours etc.: management should be in democratic control, as far as possible in public ownership, open to capital investment, integrated to wider urban and regional strategy, responsive to social and ecological objectives, and generative of benefits to the surrounding areas and residents;- Historic ports and related areas: promote culturally-focused, local value-added, diversi-fied and socially inclusive activities, through integrated economic, social, ecological and urban planning;- Renewal of former port areas: larger urban interventions should generally be of mixed uses, responsive to cultural values old and new, inclusive of local residents and businesses: - New industrial port facilities: promote industrial ecology in materials, energy and prod-ucts, to maximize value added to the region, and reduce dependency on a volatile global economy;- Port-related facilities: including container depots, logistics centres, offshore platforms: maximize regional value added, and minimize externalities and impacts.

In summary, this paper is a state-of-the-art summary of principles and directions for research and policy development, to promote creative and sustainable port cities. Discussions are in progress with urban, regional, national and international organizations concerned with these issues.

bollettino del dipartimento di conservazione dei beni...

Documents