1 5 t h I N TE R N A T I ON A L P LA N N I N G H I ST O R Y S OC I ETY C ON F ER E N C E
1
‘OUR HARBOUR... THEIR DREAM’: HERITAGE, HISTORY AND HEARTACHE IN
THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PORT ADELAIDE WATERFRONT, SOUTH
AUSTRALIA.
DR GERTRUDE E SZILI*
DR MATTHEW W ROFE
Address: *School of the Environment
Flinders University
GPO Box 2100,
Adelaide 5001 South Australia
Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Following the demise of the industrial economy, many western cities and their industrial precincts have become
synonymous with social, economic and environmental malaise. As a result, recent trends in urban policy have revealed
an explicit emphasis on the redevelopment and revitalisation of these underutilised industrial landscapes. Indicative
of these landscapes are ports and other neglected waterfront sites. The redevelopment of the Port Adelaide
waterfront in South Australia serves as an exemplar of such a post-industrial transformation. Dominated by
entrepreneurial governance arrangements, powerful public and private sectors have coalesced to reinvigorate the
decaying landscape through physical restructuring and discursive tactics aligned with city marketing and place making
campaigns (Szili & Rofe 2007; 2010; 2011;Rofe & Szili 2009). In doing so, images of growth and cosmopolitan vitality
supplant the stigmatised images associated with deindustrialisation, portraying the region as once again economically
vital and socially progressive. Central to this reimaging is an explicit recognition and engagement with the Port’s
maritime history and heritage. Drawing on the successful post-industrial transformation of other waterfronts such as
the Melbourne and London docklands (see for example Butler 2007; Dovey 2005; Marshall 2001), the incorporation of
heritage-sensitive design in Port Adelaide was not dissimilar to other ports globally. Possessing a rich maritime and
industrial history and heritage, the development consortium responsible for the Port’s revitalisation openly espoused
the protection, preservation and celebration of the ‘maritime flavour’ of the Port. Indeed, discussions held with key
stakeholder informants revealed the benefits of heritage-sensitive design as serving both the needs of city marketing
strategies and the needs of existing residents in nurturing their ‘sense of place’. However, whilst the rhetoric of the
public-private partnership ostensibly involved history and heritage, the reality for the local community was quite
different. Foremost of these concerns were issues regarding the discordant scale and form of the new development
within the existing heritage precinct (Szili 2011). Moreover, concessions in planning mechanisms and regulations
appeared to favour commercial profitability over heritage-sensitive design. As such, significant community opposition
arose, with many locals viewing the redevelopment as grossly insensitive to the history and heritage of the landscape
and its people. Thus, through the Port Adelaide waterfront redevelopment experience, the following paper traces the
inadequacies of such entrepreneurially driven revitalisation schemes in meeting local heritage concerns. In doing so,
the authors highlight the tensions inherent in the transformation of redundant industrial waterfronts to post-
industrial landscapes of cosmopolitanism and vitality.
C i t i e s , n a t i o n s a n d r e g i o n s i n p l a n n in g h i s t o r y
INTRODUCTION: THE EBB AND FLOW OF PORT GEOGRAPHIES
After the global recession of the mid 1970s and the precipitant collapse ofindustrial economies, many western
nations and their cities endured rapid deindustrialisation (Paddison 1993; Short et al. 1993). For traditional
industrial areas that once embodied technological and economic progress, this resulted insignificant disinvestment
and physical abandonment. Consequently, former industrial landscapes have come to communicate complex
images of physical and senses of discursive decline. Physical decline manifests itself through “jungle[s] of rott[ing]
[buildings] and abandoned warehouses” (Hula 1990, p.194), while discursively such areas convey more complex
messages such as escalating unemployment, crime and a general social malaise (DeSousa 2005).
In the wake of the post-industrial economy, many of these geographiesare now being reclaimed and revitalised
through the processes of gentrification and urban regeneration policies that involve collaborations between the
public and private sectors (McGuirk 2000; Rofe 2004; Tallon 2010). In an era where cities constantlyvie for
investments at a global scale, it has become critical for urban localities toportray images of growth and
cosmopolitan vitality and progress in order to remaincompetitive.Critical readings of landscapes in transition
reveal that the post-industrial landscape proffers an “impression of improvement” (Dunn et al. 1995, p.149).
Specifically, place making and city marketing campaigns are employed to recastredundant urban landscapes with
more positive images aligned to the post-industrial rhetoric of consumption and leisure. This may involve a
physical restructuring of the built environments, such as the construction of luxury apartments and shopping
complexes. Alternatively, it may also involve the incorporation of highly selective imagery of social, economic and
environmental vitality in marketing and media material. However, whilst a more “cosmopolitan and optimistic”
city narrative may be beneficial in reversing social and economic malaise (Rofe 2004, p.193), it often conflicts
with former identities and conceals many adverse impacts such ascommunity disruption and displacement (Dunn et
al. 1995; Holcomb 2001; Jonas & McCarthy 2009; Howley et al. 2009; Watson 1991). For port geographies, the
selective inclusion and consideration of history and heritage has long been one such area of conflict (Hoyle et al.
1988; Pinder 2003; Waitt & McGuirk 1997).
Seaport development has undoubtedly contributed to the cultural heritage of coastal areas throughout the world
(Hoyle 1996; Pinder 2003). Through the vagaries of economic activity, these landscapes have accumulated
distinctive infrastructuresand are intricately tied to the sense of place of local communities (Hoyle 2000; Hoyle et
al. 1988; Hurley 2006). For Pinder (2003, pp.36-37), a strong sense of place identity amongst local populations
within port localities
“has not simply been based on the… often overwhelming economic importance of… port[s]; [but] also fundamental to cultural
heritagedevelopment has been civic pride…”.
Even through waves of deindustrialisation and disinvestment, port geographies have remained physically and
discursively alive in local vernacular. In support, Rofe & Oakley (2006, p.282) assert that while physical and
external perceptions may render ailing ports as decrepit, ‘rust-bucket’ sites beyond salvation, local “discourse[s]
of kinship and mateship”often prevail to form the foundation of “fiercely parochial communities”. These
competing discourses thus become highly politicised in port revitalisation projects, where post-industrial
prophecies of cosmopolitan vitality clash with locally mediated visions of the future. Specifically, the preservation
and incorporation of built heritage and social memory can “all too easily be obliterated by the effects of a
complex set of interrelated physical, planning,economic and community environments” – even in an era where
1 5 t h I N TE R N A T I ON A L P LA N N I N G H I ST O R Y S OC I ETY C ON F ER E N C E
3
“heritage has gained a high profile” in port redevelopments (Pinder 2003, p.37). Moreover, where heritage and
history are integrated in such projects, criticisms still abound with the often selective inclusion of artefacts and
social memory (Waitt & McGuirk 1997). For port regeneration, this discernment is not surprising given the socially
and morally corrupt messages that port landscapes are said to imbue (Reiser & Crispin 2009; Rofe & Oakley 2006;
Rofe & Szili 2009; Spector 2010; Szili & Rofe 2007). However, privileging sanitised and selective versions of the
past to serve the needs of capital accumulation is problematic. For example Waitt & McGuirk (1997, p.350) argue
that commodifying history results in,
“prioritising ofofficial over vernacular histories, artefacts over mentifacts, first and oldest structures over all others, the
elite over the proletariat, men over women, Anglo-Celtic over indigenous peoples, theglorious over the ignoble, colonisation
over industrialisationand egalitarian ideology over extantsocial relationships”.
As such, dominant social norms remain unchallenged and significant conflict may arise, jeopardising the successful
transformation of these largely redundant landscapes.
Notwithstanding the notion that landscapes embody multiple levels of meaning that are socially constructed and
comprised of anamalgam of material and symbolic elements (Dunn et al. 1995), development consortia must
demonstrate real consideration of the multivocal heritage and history of port waterfronts, if successful
revitalisation is to be achieved. Marshall (2001) and Spector (2010, p.102) further support this notion claiming that
the multivocality of ailing industrial waterfronts “yield important stories –good and bad” – that are integral to
successful post-industrial transformation. The following paper thus traces the inadequacies of such
entrepreneurially driven revitalisation schemes in meeting local heritage concerns. The discussion presented is
derived from data obtained through a multi-methodological approach. Specifically, the paper presents data
derived from landscape deconstruction of Port Adelaide itself, textual and visual analysis of policy documents and
redevelopment marketing materials and semi-structured interviews conducted with twelve respondents from
critical stakeholder groups and organisations. In doing so, the authors highlight the tensions inherent in the
transformation of redundant industrial waterfront to post-industrial landscapes of social and economic prosperity.
SITE DESCRIPTION: PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Historical Context
From the outset and in the tradition of a reconciliatory and more holistic appreciation of history and place in the
Australian context, it is important to note that the place referred to as Port Adelaide by European settlers is the
traditional land of the Kaurna people. While the Port Adelaide areahas a large Indigenous community, their
presence and pre-European occupationof this area is relatively silent within the materials pertaining to the
waterfront redevelopment. The accounts given henceforth remain a European construction ofthe Port Adelaide
landscape that replaced the indigenous Kaurna peoples’ history (see for example Sanderson et al. 2005).
Legally proclaimed a port in 1837, Port Adelaide had been stigmatised as a drear place. As the principal site for
disembarking colonists, Port Adelaide left a lot to be desired. Colonial writings detail the shock new arrivals felt
upon making land-fall after the long and arduous voyage from England. Dictated by tidal flows, numerous ships had
to wait for prolongedperiods for sufficient water to cross the bar at the Outer Harbour. Anchored in what
C i t i e s , n a t i o n s a n d r e g i o n s i n p l a n n in g h i s t o r y
wasdescribed as a “… narrow dirty ditch, fringed on both sides with odious mangrove trees” (James 1838, p. 26),
many settlers spent at least one “… wretched night… owing to the myriads of mosquitoes which attacked… [them]
unsparingly” (Tolmer 1882, p. 130) awaiting the opportunity to disembark. Contrary to the glowing descriptions
presented in England extolling thevirtues of the Colony of South Australia, settlers were confronted with a
“...landing place... crudely constructed of clay, poles and bushes... [alive with] the imprecations of seamen and
the blasphemy of bullock drivers” (Pike 1967, p. 205). The scarcity of building materials prompted people to live in
makeshift shelters referred to as ‘humpies’ lending Port Adelaide’s built environment a transitory and
impoverished air. There wasno sewerage or waste disposal except for the outgoing tide, which “...turned
themangrove swamps into a smelly abomination” (Page, 1981, p. 21). In summer, the sunbaked the soil into dust,
engendering the name ‘Dustholia’. In winter the Port became ‘Mudholia’ as the rain turned roads into a quagmire
(Page, 1981, p. 21). Thus, from colonial settlement, the Port was described as “... a most unwholesome and
unsavoury spot” (Harcus 1876 p. 26). The alternate place name this engendered was simply ‘Port Misery’ (Rofe &
Szili 2009; Szili & Rofe 2007).
By the end of the 19th century, years of laborious toil paid off. With new roads and the erection of a permanent
wharf, Port Adelaide supplanted Port Misery. To transform this primordial environment of “...eerie tangled
mangroves and banks... of mud” (Whitelock 1977, p. 49) into a thriving industrial port was deemed a colonial
triumph. Yet the stigma of Port Misery remained (Rofe & Oakley 2006). Social commentaries emphasisedproblems
of delinquency, prostitution and unemployment. To this triumvirate, unionmilitancy and violent protest action was
added at various stages. So corrupting was the Port said to be, that residency there was cast as initiating “…the
slow drift of decent working classfamilies down to slum condition” (Leigh, 1929, p. 2). The Great Depressions and
theSecond World War brought the stigma of Port Misery once again to the fore. Shortages ofemployment and
capital restricted development in the region (Samuels, 1986, p. 11). Theailing waterfront was dealt a further blow
when the introduction of new containerisedcargoes in the 1950s initiated a shift of primary port activity to the
Outer Harbour. To stemthis decline, public–private sector initiatives to establish the Port as the major retail
centrein Adelaide’s north-western suburbs emerged during the 1960s and 1970s. However, thiswas never realised
as these proposals were initiated during periods of economic downturn (Pascoe 1990, p. 74).
Presently, the area encompassing the waterfront land of the Port Adelaide inner harbour is typical of a largely
redundant industrial landscape. Due to the processes of economic restructuring and changes in maritime
transportation inrecent years, many of the traditional industries located in the area have eitherclosed or relocated
(Pascoe 1990, p.14). This decline is immediately evident in thevacant land and abandoned and decaying buildings
surrounding the Port River environs (see Figures 1 & 2).To arrest these processes of decline, a policy-lead
revitalisation of the Port Adelaide waterfront aims to reposition the landscape as a region ‘ripe’ for investment.
Through entrepreneurial governance practices such as city marketing and re-branding campaigns, the Port is
portrayed as a lively, progressive and economically vital place.
1 5 t h I N TE R N A T I ON A L P LA N N I N G H I ST O R Y S OC I ETY C ON F ER E N C E
5
Figure 1- Vacant Land Adjacent to Boatyards & Inner Harbour, Port Adelaide [Szili 2004]
Figure 2- Derelict Building, Port Adelaide [Szili 2005]
Located approximately 14 kilometres to the north-west of Adelaide (see Figure 3), the revitalisation of 52ha of
waterfront land in Port Adelaide (see Figures 3 & 4) commenced in late 2004. In collaboration with the successful
development tender, Urban Construct Pty Ltd and international property group Multiplex, the redevelopment was
envisaged to create some 6 000 jobs and generate over AUD$900 million in construction work (LMC 2004). For
many, this investment was heralded as a catalyst for an urban “renaissance” for the wider region (Hoyle & Starick
2005, pp. 10–11). Specifically, this renaissance involved an intensive development of the waterfront industrial land
to provide for mixed residential and commercial use.
C i t i e s , n a t i o n s a n d r e g i o n s i n p l a n n in g h i s t o r y
Figure 3- Location of Study Site: Port Adelaide [Szili 2011]
Trading as the now defunct Newport Quays Consortium (NPQ), the Port Adelaide redevelopment was typical of
planning policies promoting urban consolidation through public-private partnership. However, despite the
promulgation of a more prosperous and positive post-industrial identity, the redevelopment struck a series of
political, social, economic and environmental hurdles that has now rendered the development stagnant (England
2012; Szili & Rofe 2007; Szili 2011). Whilst dissension originated from numerous government and private
stakeholders, some of the most vociferous concerns arose from local community groups and residents. Specific
concerns ranged from poorly executed public consultation (Szili 2011) to questionable environmental remediation
practices (Szili & Rofe 2007). However, vehement opposition to a perceived lack of sensitivity to the Port’s
heritage was also prominently featured in community opposition. The following Section provides a discursive
account of these local stakeholder opinions from interviews conducted between 2008 and 2009.
1 5 t h I N TE R N A T I ON A L P LA N N I N G H I ST O R Y S OC I ETY C ON F ER E N C E
7
Figure 4- Location of Study Site: Port Adelaide [NPQ n.d.]
HERITAGE OR HEARTACHE?
One of the central themes to emerge from the contestation of the redevelopment has been the perceived
disregard for the Port’s distinct maritime heritage. Several sites and landmarks within the redevelopment zone are
currently protected by their inclusion within the Port Adelaide State Heritage Area. Sensitive to this legislation,
the LMC openly stated that the Port’sheritage-listed icons within the redevelopment area will be protected and
preserved (LMC 2010). In addition, to demonstrate their commitment topreserving and respecting this history, a
cultural heritage survey and mappingexercise had been initiated to
“research, record and, where possible, celebrate the maritime history and cultural heritage of the Inner Harbour through
various interpretive methods” (LMC 2010).
For a prominent informant from the LMC, the cultural mappingexercise was envisaged to aid the
“LMC and developers in understanding what’s important historically to the local community... [and] give the community a
voice”.
However, despite active consultation with local heritage groups, the local community questioned the motives and
efficacy behind such initiatives. For an informant from a local heritage group, the cultural mapping exercise had
“come too late in the development process”. Similarly, a local business owner remarked,
“they ask for our opinion after Stage One has already been built. Heritageboundaries were already changed so the developers
could come in and do asthey will without heritage constraints getting in the way. I mean, it’s great that the LMC are pushing
the cultural and heritage considerations, but preservingjust a few of the buildings like Hart’s Mill [see Figure 2] and the AMC
[Adelaide MillingCompany building] is really tokenistic because they’ve eradicated everythingelse... I’m not surprised the
taller buildings are being conserved; because itjustifies them [the developers] building multi-storey apartments”.
C i t i e s , n a t i o n s a n d r e g i o n s i n p l a n n in g h i s t o r y
The notion that consultation regarding heritage issues was a fait accompli suggests another problematic facet of
the broader objective of heritage sensitive design in meeting local needs. That is, that the transparency and
stakeholder dialogue that entrepreneurial governance espouses (see Evans et al. 2005; Mayer 1995; McGuirk &
MacLaran 2001) is seen as partial and manipulated to serve the needs of government and the development
consortium. For the LMC and development consortium, NPQ, the extent of heritage-listed sites proved more of a
hindrance than aspects that could be “imaginatively incorporated in the redevelopment” (PAREPG 2009). While
the LMC informant acknowledged the importance of retaining “the Port’s maritimeflavour”, they believed it was
not the State “government’s responsibility to offer financial incentives to owners to restore absolutely everything
that has a historical connection to the Port”. This respondent further remarked that
“we can no longer cocoon the State heritage areas... we love the cultural andbuilt heritage, but it’ll cost you two-and-a-half
times more to reuse some ofthese spaces than it would normally cost to knock it down. A lot of the buildingsaround the Port
are left in a state of disrepair simply because owners can’t afford to bring it up to today’s standards... [and] you also have to
consider thatthere isn’t a market for adaptive reuses [for the Port’s buildings] at the moment” [LMC Informant 2008].
Thus, despite the rhetoric of heritage preservation, actors from the State government and development
consortium place economic considerations as paramount.
Another interesting point raised by a representative of a local business was the manipulation ofheritage boundaries
by state government actors to suit the needs of capital. This concern was also raised in various media releases
which reported that boundariesof the heritage area were changed to exclude a
“few thousand square metres of[water] frontage... [to] vastly broaden... the scope for redevelopment” (Lloyd 2005a, p.44).
As a result, the Port’s 'iconic' wharf sheds were exempt from protection, andsubsequently demolished to allow the
development to proceed. This deliberatemanipulation of State heritage regulations was seen as “another insult to
the local community” (Local Business Informant 2008) and supports the views of another business owner and
resident that the “whole redevelopment” had been “bastardised... by the powers-that-be”. Moreover, according
to a member of a local heritage group, the architectural style of the development was regarded as “conflicting
withthe overall heritage and atmosphere of the area”. This informant added that aside from the “aesthetic mis-
match with the current building stock” (see Figure 5), the redevelopment “did not comply” withthe height limits
set by the Council’s Development Plan. This assertion wassupported by both the local Council and a brochure
produced by a local environmental action group, thePort Adelaide Resident’s Environmental Protection Group
(PAREPG) contesting the redevelopment (see Figure 6). While Informant the LMC informant claimed that the height
of the apartments “were not at odds with the taller structuresaround the Port”, Figure 6 clearly illustrates that
the scale and width of thedevelopment dwarfs the Port's tallest structure, Hart’s Mill, and even overshadowsa
similar residential tower in the already densely populated coastal suburb of Glenelg. While the “triumph of
capitalism” may be “marked by a landscape... [where] skyscrapers reach upward (not to heaven) but in
competition to be the tallest town” (Holcomb 2001, p.52), the quest for Port Adelaide to reach the lofty heights of
post-industrial success was mired by the very shadows its concrete structures create.
1 5 t h I N TE R N A T I ON A L P LA N N I N G H I ST O R Y S OC I ETY C ON F ER E N C E
9
Figure 5- Image of Hart’s Mill in Foreground of Stage One, Edgewater, Port Adelaide [Szili 2011]
Figure 6- PAREPG Brochure Protesting Port Waterfront Redevelopment [PAREPG 2009]
Media articles also reported similar disquiet, claiming the redevelopment will “tear... out the historical heart of
Port Adelaide” (Lloyd 2005b) and the “historic buildings [will] stay out of sight” (Lloyd 2007). Echoing the views of
local interviewrespondents, the press asserted that despite the preservation of historic buildings such as Hart’s Mill
(see Figure 5),
“the problem here is that the developers... are not going to adequately protect their settings. The buildings are valued not
just because of their age andsignificance but also because of their context... There is a concession to thebuildings, but it is
really just an added insult” (Lloyd 2007, p.50).
Thus, for the local community, retaining a few relicts of the Port’s maritime heritage is viewed as tokenistic and
“grossly insensitive to the Port’s history” (Local History Group Informant 2008). For one local business informant
and resident, the development consortium had “made a mockery of the place” and reduced this to a “lack of
transparency and accountability” on the State Government’s behalf. Figure 7 demonstrates this local contempt for
the heritage-insensitive design. This cartoon mocks the State Government actors for their supposed candour in
integrating the region’s maritime heritage. Moreover, the image of the ‘sinking ship’ and disconnected power
C i t i e s , n a t i o n s a n d r e g i o n s i n p l a n n in g h i s t o r y
supply communicates the current beleaguered state of the redevelopment. That is, despite the glossy rhetoric of
revitalisation, the Port is “not happening” and remains a “tired industrial precinct” (Wheatley & Lloyd 2009, p.10)
devoid ofthe inward investment touted by the government.
Figure 7- Media Caricature of the Port Adelaide Waterfront Redevelopment [Valdman (2008) IN:The Advertiser, 24 September, 2008, 16.]
Tall Order for Profit Taking
While post-industrial regeneration is positioned as the panacea for urban decline, questions abound as it how these
new landscapes are integrated or indeed interact with existing landscapes. Addressing the poor integration of the
new development with the historic nature of the wider area, a prominent local business owner and resident
claimed the proposed 7 - 12-storey buildings would contradict the maritime flavour of the Port as
“the land had been used as boatyards since the inception of the State... it’s aworking Port”.
This was supported by another local business informant who had close connectionsto the maritime history of the
area;
“the Port always fascinated me... probably because of my family connectionswho came out on the early ships. The big old
warehouses and stately oldbuildings are memories of a bygone era, of a working-class Port, but shouldreally be preserved and
celebrated. I can understand the developers wanting tomaximise their returns, but 12-storey apartments will ruin the real
image of theplace... it’s a working-class area, and that has charm. Bringing in yuppie-typeswill change this forever, and I’m
not sure if it’s a positive thing”.
The notion that multi-storey buildings were not conducive to the working-classcharacter and history of the Port
was also reflected in the comments made by aprominent member of the local council. The Informant claims the
height of thebuildings depicted in Figure 8:
“ha[ve] the real possibility of creating an enclave. The development does not fitthe socio-economic status of the area. You
will not end up with the social mix...the tall structures stand to overshadow neighbouring suburbs and possibly create a
ghetto outside of the gloss of the new apartments” (Local Government Informant).
The suggestion that a ‘ghetto’ may be created on the margins of theredevelopment is an interesting reflection.
While the Informant does not believethe redevelopment will become a ghetto in the more traditional sense of the
1 5 t h I N TE R N A T I ON A L P LA N N I N G H I ST O R Y S OC I ETY C ON F ER E N C E
1
term, they maintain that it may have adverseeffects on residents in surrounding areas. That is, the shadows
created by the tallstructures also stand to metaphorically overshadow the remnants of the socio-
economicallydisenfranchised in surrounding suburbs. Moreover, both respondents acknowledge that the
redevelopment caters to a much wealthier clientele, which in their views is likely to cause hostility between the
existing community with regards to incoming residents. Sincethe development consortium (NPQ) was unavailable
for comment at the time, this claim cannot be contested; however, it does highlight the nature of local concerns.
Figure 8- Artist’s Impression of the Port Adelaide Waterfront Redevelopment [Hoyle, 2007, 16.]
Similar dissonance was raised by the local community regarding the displacement of traditional Port activities.
Foremost of these concerns arose from boat builder, Mr Kingsley Haskett. As the owner of Port Adelaide’s oldest
surviving boat yard, Mr Haskett had made his battle to fight eviction very public. Canvassing local forums,
newspapers and television stations, the boat builder had struggled with the LMC and developer’s plans to revitalise
the waterfront land on which his boatyard had operated for 170 years. In an article published in The Advertiser, Mr
Haskett claimed that despite attempts by local Council and historical societies to keep the fabric of the history of
the Port alive, “the Government are actively working to get us kicked out” (Lloyd 2008, p.14). The local
businessman continued by stating that he was offered the option of downsizing to half of the space at fifteen-
times the cost; an offer which was clearly unviable in terms of physical operations and economic viability (Lloyd
2008). In April 2009, Mr Haskett’s fight to save his business was lost as he was “evicted by the State Government to
make way for future stages of the Newport Quays waterfront redevelopment” (Kennett 2009, n.p.).
The experiences of both local business owners highlight the tensions inherent to entrepreneurial styles of urban
governance. However,in addition to local business representatives, other members of the local community have
raised analogous frustrations in response to the scale and form of the waterfront redevelopment. Reflecting on the
previous assertions that the development is not incongruous with wider real estate trends (LMC Informant),
members of the PAREPG criticized the LMC and development consortium byclaiming the redevelopment will:
“lead to existing communities feeling they have come to live behind the dresscircle of wealthier folk... the design [runs the
risk] of creating exclusive zoneswhere access is so restricted [it] creates a rich ghetto” (PAREPG 2004).
These concerns were later echoed in a brochure produced bythe PAREPG which proclaimed the project as a
“massive enclave development” (PAREPG 2009). Contrasting the comment made earlier by the local government
Informant, the PAREPG use the term ‘ghetto’ with a subtle difference; however, both talk of contested
C i t i e s , n a t i o n s a n d r e g i o n s i n p l a n n in g h i s t o r y
landscapes. The waterfront redevelopment is thus problematised with the landscape of the rich and powerful,
contrasting the existing landscape of thepoor and disenfranchised. Similar concerns are emphasised by Winchester
et al.(1996) in their analysis of the redevelopment of Newcastle, NSW. They dispute the social equity of such
large-scale local entrepreneurialdevelopments, claiming that the displacement of the impoverished is a
probableresult of re-investment (Winchester et al. 1996). Thus, while the LMC may purporta socially inclusive,
heritage sensitive and progressive redevelopment (Szili & Rofe 2007), in reality, it is seen as an elitist middle-class
vision by local stakeholders.
In a response to the Plan Amendment Report (PAR) for the redevelopment, PAREPG treasurer Tony Bazeley
remarked:
“there is no evidence in the PAR that considers the problems of gentrification onadjacent areas and the consequent
displacement of people on low incomes...the development is a development for the rich”.
An LMC spokesperson similarly acknowledged that local residents who do not have high levels of disposable income
may be excluded from purchasing an apartment and “may run into trouble as council rates increase”. However,
the Informant also argued that the revival of the region would not occur ifthe area “does not receive a critical
influx of residents who can spend money”. Similarly, a prominent local councillor confessed,
“the redevelopment needs to include people in the higher incomebands so they spend in the local area... sadly, it [Port
Adelaide] won’t berevitalised if we can’t attract this demographic type”.
In addition, the LMC Informant claimed the redevelopment will:
“reduce ghettoisation [coll.]... because studies have shown that when you mix people of different socio-economic
backgrounds, it improves the overall way of life”.
Attenuating the displacement of blue-collar residents and working class heritage of the area, the Informant added:
“when you talk about blue-collar, it becomes or refers to a state of mind... in 20years it could mean anyone who works in a
call centre... and people changejobs at least 3 or 4 times in their lives, so who’s to say a truck driver living in thePort might
not do something else later down the track”.
Thus, for the Informant, socio-economic status is not static, but rather fluid. It can be changed in both a temporal
sense, as well as through physical alterations in the landscape. That is, for the respondent, the redevelopment
may be viewed in a positive light as it may act as a catalyst for social reform.
Whilst both informants recognised the predicament between urban regeneration and social justice, the new
identity created for Port Adelaide is obviously partial and exclusive. As Dunn et al. (1995) argue, the identity
transformation of former industrial cities is an exclusionary political process and favours the local elite at the
expense of others less powerful, and involves highly selective inclusions and interpretations of history and
heritage. This has been demonstrated through the advertising and marketing strategies which have clearly
promoted elitist consumption and leisure activities such as waterfront living and sailing (see Szili & Rofe 2007).
Moreover, the very nature of entrepreneurial governance as experienced in Port Adelaide precludes those actors
who cannot actively participate in the underlying premise of capital accumulation.
1 5 t h I N TE R N A T I ON A L P LA N N I N G H I ST O R Y S OC I ETY C ON F ER E N C E
1
CONCLUSION
The paper offers an empirical discussion of the limitations that entrepreneurially governed redevelopments with
regards to preserving or even acknowledging heritage in port landscapes. Despite the stated intention of the LMC
and the development consortium that their actions would be sensitive to local history and vernacular community
views, here depicts a different outcome. A common sentiment within community responses is that notions of
heritage and its preservation constitute little more than a thinly disguised justification for developer actions. In
this sense, developers are said to be positioning themselves as the champions of heritage. The logical extension of
this position is that local communities do not represent the best pathway forward for the appropriate preservation
of heritage landscapes. In effect, local communities then are positioned as the agents of decline. Naturally, this
is met with outrage by those communities. Yet, heritage is a complex and contested domain. As Waitt & McGuirk
(1997) contend, heritage is more than simply objects in the landscape. Artifacts may well be the physical
expressions of heritage designation, but they are only physical reminders of the mentifacts or social relations and
meanings in space that they represent. Thus, the case of Port Adelaide offers a stark reminder that heritage is
more than artifacts within the landscape. Heritage is history enshrined through legislative processes. This is the
heart of contestations over heritage in revitalization projects. The struggle here is between existing communities
who hold or claim to hold the histories that underpin the heritage of a given place and those external groups who
seek to appropriate and mobilize it in the interests of their own, often economically-premised, agenda. These
struggles are often bitter, protracted and often stacked in the favor of developers as a consequence of their
entrepreneurial links with various tiers of government. However, this is not always the case as some local
victories and concessions can, and have, been won. Regardless, the lesson of Port Adelaide and those places
experiencing similar transformations is that heritage is not static, nor is it natural or neutral. Rather, heritage is
dynamic and constitutes a site of contention and contestation.
REFERENCES
Butler, T. “Re-urbanizing London Docklands: Gentrification, suburbanization or new urbanism?”. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol.31, No.4, 2007, 759-781.
De Sousa, C. “Policy performance and the brownfield redevelopment in Milwaukee, Wisconsin”. The Professional
Geographer. Vol.57, No.2, 2005, 312-327.
Dovey, K. Fluid City: Transforming Melbourne’s Urban Waterfront. Sydney: UNSW Press, 2005.
Dunn, K. M., McGuirk, P.M., & Winchester, H.P.M. “Place making: the social construction of Newcastle”. Australian
Geographical Studies. Vol.33, 1995, 149-167.
England, C. “Government denies shelving Newport Quays project to appease voters”. The Adelaide Advertiser. 24
January, 2012, n.p.
Evans, B., Joas, B., Sundback, S. and Theobald, K. Governing Sustainable Cities. London, Earthscan: 2005.
Harcus, W. (Ed.) South Australia: Its History, Resources and Production. London, Sampson Low, Marston, Searle &
Rivington: 1876.
Holcomb, B. “Place marketing: using media to promote cities” IN Vale, L.J. & Warner, J.B. (Eds.) Imaging the City:
Continuing Struggles & New Directions. New Jersey, Centre for Urban Policy and Research: 2001, 33-55.
C i t i e s , n a t i o n s a n d r e g i o n s i n p l a n n in g h i s t o r y
Howley, P., Scott, M. and Redmond, D. “Sustainability versus liveability: an investigation of neighbourhood
satisfaction”. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Vol.52, No.6, 2009, 847-864.
Hoyle, B. (Ed.). Cityports, Coastal Zones and Regional Change. Chichester, Wiley: 1996.
Hoyle, B. “Glocal and local change on the port-city waterfront”. Geographical Review. Vol. 90, 2000, 395–417.
Hoyle, B.S., Pinder, D.A. and Husain, M.S. Revitalising the Waterfront: International Dimensions of Dockland
Redevelopment. London: Belhaven, 1988.
Hoyle, R. and Starick, P. “The renaissance of a port”. The Adelaide Advertiser. 4 June, 2005, 10-11.
Hula, R. “The two Baltimores” IN Judd, D.R. & Parkinson, M.H. (Eds.)Leadership and Urban Regeneration: Cities in
North America and Europe. London, Sage Publications: 1990.
James, T.H. Six Months in South Australia; With Some Account of Port Philip and Portland Bay in Australia Felix;
With Advice to Emigrants. Holborn, J. Cross: 1838.
Jonas, A.E.G. and McCarthy, L. “Urban management and regeneration in the United States: State intervention or
redevelopment at all costs?”. Local Government Studies. Vol.35, No.3, 2009, 299-314.
Kennett, H. “Searles Boatyard battle lost”. Portside Messenger. 22 April, 2009, n.p..
Leigh, E. Register News. 9 February, 1929, 2.
Lloyd, T. “Rust belt no longer”. The Advertiser. 4 June, 2005a, 45.
Lloyd, T. “Tearing out the historical heart of Port Adelaide”. The Advertiser, 9 July, 2005b, 44.
Lloyd, T. “Historic buildings stay – out of sight”. The Adelaide Advertiser. 30 June, 2007, 50.
Lloyd, T. “I’ll fight eviction, vows boat builder”. The Adelaide Advertiser. 26 May, 2008, 14.
LMC (Land Management Corporation) Port Waterfront Redevelopment. Available at:
<http://www.lmc.sa.gov.au/lmc/projects/Port_waterfront/>. 2004: Accessed 7 January 2005.
LMC Port Adelaide Waterfront Redevelopment Fact Sheet. Available at: <http://www.lmc.sa.gov.au/theport>
2010: Accessed 12 December 2010.
Marshall, R. (Ed.) Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities. London: Spon Press, 2001.
Mayer, M. “Urban governance in the post-Fordist city” IN:: Healey, P., Cameron, S., Davoudi, S., Graham, S. and
Mandani-Pour, A. (Eds.) Managing Cities: The New Urban Context. London, Wiley: 1995, 103-128.
McGuirk, P.M. “Power and policy networks in urban governance: Localgovernment and property-led regeneration in
Dublin”.Urban Studies. Vol.37, 2000, 651-672.
McGuirk, P.M. and MacLaran, A. “Changing approaches to urban planning in an 'entrepreneurial city': The case of
Dublin”. European Planning Studies. Vol.9, No.4, 2001, 437-457.
Paddison, R. “City marketing, image reconstruction and urban regeneration”. Urban Studies. Vol.30, No. 2, 1993,
339-350.
Page, M. Port Adelaide and its Institute 1851-1979. Adelaide, Rigby: 1981.
PAREPG (Port Adelaide Residents Environment Protection Group) “Submission on the Port Waterfront
Redevelopment PAR”. Planning SA. Available at: <http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/> 2004: Accessed 17
March 2005.
1 5 t h I N TE R N A T I ON A L P LA N N I N G H I ST O R Y S OC I ETY C ON F ER E N C E
1
PAREPG (Port Adelaide Residents Environment Protection Group) “LMC in a Spin”. 2009: Available at:
<http://www.parepg.org.au>. 2009: Accessed 12 December, 2010.
Pascoe, J. The Redevelopment of the Port Adelaide Centre: Urban Conservation and the Planning of Heritage.
Adelaide: Honours Thesis, Flinders University of South Australia, 1990.
Pike, D. 1967: Paradise of Dissent: South Australia 1829–1857. Melbourne, Melbourne University Press: 1967.
Pinder, D. “Seaport decline and cultural heritage sustainability issues in the UK coastal zone”.Journal of Cultural
Heritage. Vol. 4, 2003, 35-47.
Reiser, D. and Crispin, S. “Local perceptions of the reimaging process: The case of the Sullivans Cove waterfront
precinct”. Journal of Place Management and Development. Vol. 2, No. 2, 2009, 109-124.
Rofe, M.W.“From ‘problem city’ to ‘promise city’: gentrification and therevitalisation of Newcastle”.Australian
Geographical Studies.Vol. 42, No.2, 2004, pp.193-205.
Samuels, B. Mudflats to Metropolis: Port Adelaide 1836-1986. Adelaide, B & T Publishers: 1986.
Sanderson, V., Giles, G. and Brusnaham, M. Aboriginal voices: Telling Stories From the Port. Adelaide, Von
Sanderson and Glenn Giles: 2005.
Short, J. R., Benton, L.M., Luce, W.B. & Walton, J. “Reconstructing the image of an industrial city”. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers. Vol.83, No.2, 1993, 207-224.
Spector, J.O. From Dockyard to Esplanade: Leveraging Industrial Heritage in Waterfront Redevelopment.
Philadelphia: Masters Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2010.
Szili, G. Entrepreneurial governance and the green imperative: A critique of the environmental rescripting of Port
Adelaide and Mawson Lakes, South Australia. Adelaide: PhD Thesis, University of South Australia, 2011.
Szili, G. and Rofe, M.W. “Greening Port Misery: Marketing the green face of waterfront redevelopment in Port
Adelaide, South Australia”. Urban Policy and Research. Vol. 25, No.3, 2007, 363-384.
Szili, G. and Rofe, M.W. “The naming game: The politics of place namesas tools for urban regenerative practice?
Refereed proceedings of the 3rd State of Australian Cities Conference, University of Western Australia,
Perth, November 24th to 27th 2009.
Szili, G. and Rofe, M.W. “The commodification of the waterfront” IN: Daniels, C.B. and McKay, J. (Eds.) Adelaide:
Water of a City. Adelaide, Wakefield Press: 2010, 396-412.
Tallon, A. Urban Regeneration in the UK. Oxon: Routledge, 2010.
Tolmer, A. Reminiscences of an Adventurous and Chequered Career at Home and at the Antipodes.London,
Sampson Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington: 1882.
Waitt, G. and McGuirk, P.M. “Selling waterfront heritage: A critique of Millers Point, Sydney”. Tijdschrift voor
economische en sociale geografie. Vol. 88, No. 4, September 1997, 342-352.
Wheatley, K. and Lloyd, T. “Is it too late to revive our Port?” The Adelaide Advertiser. 24 October, 2009, 10-11.
Whitelock, D. Adelaide, 1836–1976: A History of Difference. St Lucia, University of Queensland Press: 1977.
Winchester, H. P. M., McGuirk, P.M. & Dunn, K.M. “ Constructing places for the market: the case of Newcastle,
NSW”. International Journal of Heritage Studies. Vol.1, No. 1 & 2, 1996.41-58.