PLAN THE CITY WITH THE PORT

Transcription

EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
INTERREG IIIC, West Zone
Regional Framework Operation
HANSE PASSAGE
Plan the City with
the Port
PCP Project
Leader Partner
City of Le Havre
(France)
Strategies for Redeveloping City-Port Linking Spaces
Partners
Port of Amsterdam
(Netherlands)
GUIDE OF GOOD PRACTICES
BIS, Bremerhaven
(Germany)
BEAN, Bremerhaven
(Germany)
City of Delfzijl
(Netherlands)
City of Gdansk
(Poland)
Le Havre, South Districts © AIVP/IACP
Riga Free Port
Authority (Latvia)
International
Association Cities
and Ports (France)
EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
INTERREG IIIC, West Zone
Regional Framework Operation HANSE PASSAGE
PCP Project (PLAN THE CITY WITH THE PORT)
LE HAVRE (France)
AMSTERDAM (Netherlands)
BREMERHAVEN (Germany)
DELFZIJL (Netherlands)
GDANSK (Poland)
RIGA (Latvia)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION CITIES AND PORTS (France)
With also the support of:
- Direction Générale de l’Urbanisme, de l’Habitat et de la Construction (DGUHC),
Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement et de l'Aménagement durables- MEDAD
(France)
- The "Région Haute-Normandie" (France)
European project carried out within the Regional Framework Operation HANSE PASSAGE
Overall Management
City of Le Havre
Partners
Port of Amsterdam
BIS - Bremerhavener Gesellschaft für Investitionsforderung & Stadtentwicklung MBH. - Bremerhaven
BEAN - Bremerhavener Entwicklungsgesellschaft Alter-/Neuer Hafen mbH & Co.KG - Bremerhaven
City of Delfzijl
Municipality of Gdansk
Riga Free Port Authority
Scientific Coordination
International Association Cities and Ports
External Expert
Professor Jacques Charlier, Researcher FNRS and Scientific Director (2005-2007) of the CIEM (Centre
Interuniversitaire d'Etude de la Mobilité), Brussels
Ville du Havre
November 2007
Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project
3
SUMMARY
1. Preface ................................................................................................................................ p. 5
City of Le Havre
2. Introduction to the problematic:
the multiform character of urban – port interfaces ................................................ p. 7
Jacques Charlier
3. The stakes of the city / port (re-) developments
Jacques Charlier
3.1 - At opposite ends of the spectrum: Bluefield /Greenfield operations
on the waterfronts/docklands .................................................................................. p. 13
3.2 - (Re-) developments for mixed purposes ............................................................... p. 23
3.3 - Redevelopment operations for purely port ends ................................................... p. 34
4. Presentation of the city-port mixing problematic for each partners
Gdansk ........................................................................................................................... p. 49
Bremerhaven ................................................................................................................. p. 57
Riga ................................................................................................................................ p. 69
Amsterdam ..................................................................................................................... p. 79
Delfzijl ............................................................................................................................ p. 91
Le Havre ........................................................................................................................ p. 101
5. Synthesis of the work: recommendations and good practices .................................... p. 113
Integrating the spaces
Integrating the urban dimension
Integrating functions
Integrating the environment
Integrating societies
6. Appendix ............................................................................................................................ p. 121
List of experts, contacts
Guide of good practices
4
5
Preface
City of Le Havre
Like all the port cities in the world (Barcelona, Bilbao, London, Liverpool, Sydney, Marseille, …), the
City of Le Havre is engaged in the recovery and regeneration of its interface with the port in order to
develop there new residential and value added economic functions and above all to improve the living
environment of the inhabitants and working population and thus to put into value the image of this
territory and moreover, that of the whole of the conurbation.
It is in this context that the City of Le Havre wished to associate with European networks of exchanges
of experience and of capitalization of the benefits to be obtained on a European level such as
SUDEST (Sustainable Development of Sea Towns in the framework of URBACT) or Hanse Passage
for INTERREG III C.
In the context of this last European programme, "HANSE PASSAGE", the City of Le Havre has been
at the head of a network of port cities called "Plan the City with the Port" since 2005.
The partners in the "PCP" project are: the City of Gdansk in Poland, the City of Bremerhaven in
Germany (BIS - Bremerhavener Gesellschaft für Investitionsforderung & Stadtentwicklung MBH; and
BEAN - Bremerhaven Entwicklungsges Alter/Neuer Hafen), the Port of Riga in Latvia, the Port of
Amsterdam and the City of Delfzijl in the Netherlands, as well as IACP, the International Association of
Cities and Ports.
Following meetings in Gdansk, Bremerhaven, Riga, and Amsterdam, the final seminar of the project in
Le Havre, on 24th and 25th May 2007, was opened to the world and was attended by 282 participants
coming from 26 countries.
The Guide of Good Practices that is in your hands was drawn up gradually through the meetings and
discussions of the group; it has been published so that this experience may be shared by an even
wider group of partners.
Good and instructive reading to you all.
Deputy to the Mayor of Le Havre in charge of International Relations.
6
7
Introduction: the multiform character of
urban – port interfaces
A guide to good practices at the interfaces between cities and ports cannot be undertaken without an
as clear as possible definition of the subject under study. One essential point is that it is not a question
of a line, of a clearly defined frontier on a map or plan that will mark, even more than a boundary, the
break between two different worlds with totally different ways of functioning. It is rather more a
question of a surface, naturally stretched out lengthwise but that has a certain depth and which is not
always homogeneous. It would be utopia to pretend that there is one unique answer, in terms of
functional and urban handling of these transitional areas, and it would be an error to think that these
are not in inter-relationship with, on the one hand, the port, and on the other the city. The policies for
the development of the interfaces thus widely stretch beyond these half port / half city areas and
should be carried out in a holistic perspective. Better still, certain factors are related to the foreland,
that is to say the spaces beyond the jetties of the port, and others to the hinterland, well beyond the
limits of the city, of the conglomeration or of the metropolis.
Unique places but perceived differently
Certainly there are physically bigger or smaller city-port interfaces, but the ports are more generally
themselves interface areas between otherwise much larger scaled maritime and continental spaces
than the umland of continental cities that is much smaller. "Think globally but act locally" is therefore
one of the specificities of ports as against other cities. In a figurative sense, there are winds of greater
force and strength that make them places where modernity is also often introduced more rapidly and
more significantly than elsewhere. Hence the very special difficulty in the development of these port
areas in general and in particular of their urban-port interfaces. This requires particular competencies
on the part of the stakeholders of the development who must remain open to a wide range of factors,
some of which come from the maritime and port sphere and others from the regional and urban
spheres, but which, as regards many of them, interact beyond the normal field of intervention of the
port or the urban developer.
A major difficulty stems from the different temporal and spatial scales of the one and the other and to
their relative overall ignorance of the workings of port communities. The difference of the spatial scales
has already been underlined above, but it is also necessary to pin down that of the temporal scales.
For the ports, long periods of time are a constant in their development, whilst the medium or short term
are more the rule in the urban sphere where the results of policies are expected at a closer horizon,
whether it is a question of implementing economic and social policies, the effects of which can be
measured on the scale of a term of office, or of the construction of installations for which a more rapid
achievement and profitability are required.
Another difficulty stems from the recent character of the convergence of the vision that the ports are
nowadays having towards the urban – port interfaces. Up to recently, port developers were generally
looking seawards and were most often looking for deep-waters, and urban developers were turning
their gaze mainly towards the centre or the periphery of cities possessing only 180° of their normal
development area. Certainly convergent views, but loaded with their respective previous practices that
have led them to have two fundamentally different approaches, the recognition of which has to be
accepted prior to going on to the phase of integrated, and if possible harmonious, development:

for port developers, the urban port interfaces are above all buffer zones, not necessarily fixed in
time since ports never cease to evolve, or in space so that the frontier of tomorrow may not be
necessarily where it is today. In general, one sees situations of retreat, thus reducing tensions, but
the latter can become more highly charged where there is not only a status quo but a reappropriation by the port of temporarily abandoned spaces or, even if, still more rarely and to be
considered as a theoretical case, there is an imperious necessity to move onto the urban domain
(as was the case in Antwerp in the 19th Century).
8

for urban developers, the "abandoned" port areas on the contrary become new urban frontiers,
above all when it is a case of peri-central spaces where it may be reasonably stipulated that the
land value will rapidly become high, even if, at the moment it is negative. They permit not only
quantitative but also qualitative developments that for the most part stem from the search for a
regional, national or even international brand image enhanced by the positive connotation
generally accorded to stretches of water. This is why, in this search for the water (just on its own),
these are the most often preserved, above all as a landscaping component, even if some minor
activities connected with water can continue, or even prosper there, such as yachting and smallfishing.
The present guide is dedicated to good practices, but, in this introduction, a less good or even bad
practice can be pointed out, which is that of total or partial land filling of certain dock-basins
abandoned by the port authorities. Such basins should be seen as non-renewable resources (of
economic or of urban character) for which filling in becomes an irreversible operation that makes the
place lose all or part of its attractiveness (to our knowledge, only a single case of putting back the
water is to be found – in Swansea – and this example would merit being followed elsewhere before
the memory of such places previously filled with life connected with the water is completely wiped out).
The great variety of urban port frontiers
In this introduction, it is necessary to underline strongly that there are as many types of abandoned
former port installations as types of vessels and that there is therefore no unique recipe for
redevelopment (whether with a port or an urban orientation), but as many cases as there are types of
installations and types of sea-going vessels. In the table hereunder, a simplified functional typology
is proposed with a fundamental distinction between merchant vessels and other types of vessel.
These latter have a wide range of types which are often unrecognised, with the service craft always
present in commercial ports in addition to merchant vessels (tugs, pilot vessels, dredgers, etc.) and
others present in addition either regularly, or occasionally (such as naval vessels on courtesy visits for
which a berth of honour is often reserved). The craft of the second type, which are usually smaller, are
much more compatible with urban activities than the first and stronger imbrications with urban tissue
are acceptable in the context of a working waterfront.
1. Merchant vessels
1.1. Liquid bulk carriers
1.2. Solid bulk carriers
1.3. General cargo vessels
1.4. Passenger/cargo vessels
1.5. Purely passenger vessels
2. Other types of vessels
2.1. Service craft
2.2. Naval vessels (on visit or based in the port)
2.3. Fishing vessels (+factory ships)
2.4. Pleasure craft
The types of merchant vessels and their corresponding port installations themselves depend on the
nature of their cargo - a term taken here in the widest sense and including passengers. Here again, a
dichotomous typology can be established in the table hereafter, with one the one hand bulk carriers
and on the other general cargo and passengers.
Generally on the one side one finds volumes and dirty, or even hazardous, cargo, and there is often
an incompatibility in terms of proximity and interaction with the urban tissue. On the other, above all for
activities connected with passengers, the compatibility is, on paper, higher (except for containerised
activities which are highly mechanised, thus noisy and with which are associated high levels of road
and rail pollution) and relative imbrication is acceptable, or even desirable as in the case of cruise
liners.
1. Bulk cargos
1.1. Petroleum product carriers (oil and gas)
1.2. Other liquid bulk carriers
1.3. Solid bulk carriers
2. General cargo & passengers
2.1. Pure and polyvalent cargo vessels
2.2. Container vessels (LO-LO & CONRO)
2.3. Car carriers (pure & ROPAX)
2.4. Ferries (pure & cruise)
2.5. Cruise vessels / liners
9
Finally there is a physical scale that is not often recognised, both for sea-going vessels as well as for
inland waterway vessels that are also present in numerous seaports, in certain of which the inland
waterway fleet is sometimes an essential component of transport to and from the hinterland, whilst it
may be only marginal in others. In both cases, the size of the vessels is an important factor, with very
different requirements in terms of draught as well as the spread of handling and storage installations.
1. Sea-going vessels
1.1. Deep-sea (ocean) vessels
1.2. Mid-sea vessels
1.3. Short sea vessels
2. Inland waterway craft
2.1. Big gauge barges or craft
2.2. small gauge barges or craft
This introduces the concept of the possible gradual declassification of the aforementioned
installations to adapt to the increase of the average size of deep-sea vessels. Those of the Fifties,
had, generally speaking, the size of today's mid-sea vessels, and those today employed for short sea
traffics have also a tendency towards a larger size that leads them to use deeper dock basins and
larger sized terminals. And when a dock basin, notably when it does not have a very deep draught, is
no longer suitable to receive coastal vessels, its declassification towards a residual inland waterway
use can be envisaged; again with a distinction to be operated according to the size of the barges and
possible pusher convoys.
This declassification should be set in relation to the concept of the life-cycle that can apply to a given
installation as to the whole port. It consists in recognising, in each place and for each installation, the
phases of creation, then growth, of maturity, of obsolescence, and finally of abandonment (figure
2.1a).
Figure 2.1a – The port live cycle concept (conventional version, with petrifaction)
Intensity
of use
Maturity
Growth
Petrifaction
Obsolescence
Development
Petrifaction
Dereliction
Time
Nature having a horror of a vacuum and port wastelands being strongly to the detriment of the urban
landscape, re-qualification (figure 2.1b) can nevertheless intervene either for abandoned
installations, or for those more or less obsolescent. In the first case, the aforementioned requalification can be carried out as much for port or for urban ends, whilst in the second case, it will be
more often to port ends, being accompanied by a possible declassification from sea-going to waterway
usage.
10
Intensty
of use
Figure 2.1b – The port life cycle concept (contemporary version, with redevelopment)
Maturity
Growth
Redevelopment
Obsolescence
Development
Redevelopment
Dereliction
Time
It is necessary to insist on the recent character of the strategies for the redevelopment of former dockbasins for port, rather than urban ends, as it has been observed in the majority of cases between 1980
and today. The reason for this is because it is becoming more difficult to mobilise new port territories in
huge greenfield type operations, and that the alternative brownfield option tends to be better known
and accepted, or even imposed, as can be seen in the industrial domain (re-qualification of industrial
wastelands) and even the residential domain (re-qualification of suburban belts in order to avoid urban
sprawl). Another reason is also because the European authorities are trying to promote both short sea
shipping and inland waterway transport, both in strong competition with road, so that heavy
investments in new installations are not economically justifiable and that the alternative of the
redevelopment of former maritime installations will quite naturally impose itself.
Still staying on the theoretical level, the model of the life cycle of a given installation can be combined
with that proposed as early as 1966 by J. Bird under the name of Anyport. Strongly inspired by British
examples, it is nevertheless applicable to most of the continental ports situated on the banks of rivers,
where the installations generally move downstream (but there are exceptions such as Le Havre for
instance). This model is besides directly transposable in the case of seafront ports, where there is then
a lateral movement of the installations along the coast in one direction or the other. In the one or the
other case, successive installations can be adjoining or not. This is important: if they are not adjacent,
each part of the port can be considered as a small isolated port and sometimes diametrically opposed
redevelopment policies can be observed in different parts of the port, including the total abandonment
of former complexes; on the other hand if the installations are in a single bunch, the creation of buffer
zones will on the contrary be more frequent.
The combination in question comes from the crossing of a spatial model (Anyport or its seafront
variation) with a temporal model (figure 2.2). Schematically, it may be considered that all ports have
been developed both through time, from T1 in a distant past to T5 in the present, and in space, from
L1 in a site close to the present city centre to L5 in a place more or less further away. To set the
stakes in this guide, it is necessary to underline that they are situated in T5/L1, that is to say that they
only concern a very small part of the port in a physical sense (this even more since the average size of
its parts generally grows between L1 and L5) and that the problem is therefore rather marginal for the
port authorities, even if one includes the buffer zones that they have a tendency to hold on to.
L1
11
L2
L3
L4
T1
Growth
T2
Maturity
Growth
T3
Obsolescence
Maturity
Growth
T4
Dereliction
Obsolescence
Maturity
Growth
T5
Redevelopment
Dereliction
Obsolescence
Maturity
L5
Growth
Figure 2.2 – The port life cycle concept (over time and in space)
However, the problem is nevertheless much less marginal in strategic rather than in physical terms
and the sometimes conflictual city – port relations can be better understood when these spaces,
whether enlarged by buffer zones or not, correspond to territories of sufficient spatial dimensions that
are much more important to the urban stakeholders than for the port communities. It is not rare that
the "old port" in T5/L1 corresponds to 50% or even 100% of the hyper-centre, so that the spatial scale
is totally asymmetric according to whether one is looking at it from the port or the urban end of the
telescope. Hence the numerous misunderstandings and quid pro-quos characterising the city – port
debate, to which this guide hopes to bring a positive contribution by showing everyone that once clear
(and sometimes painful) choices have been made, it is possible to live in harmony and symbiosis.
12
13
The stakes of the city / port (re-) developments
3.1 - At opposite ends of the spectrum: Bluefield /Greenfield operations
on the waterfronts/docklands
Introduction
In this first section, the objective is situate the object of the PCP project in the centre of the main
trends observed over the last years regarding port or urban developments in port communities. On the
one hand, for half a century, most port developments were carried out on virgin sites more or less on
the periphery, called bluefield when such developments are reclaimed from the sea (whether they are
connected to the mainland or, more rarely in the form of port islands) and greenfield when they are
carried out totally or mainly on land. On the other hand, the oldest parts of historic ports had been
most often abandoned by sea (and often even inland waterway) vessels, with here again two
variations of redevelopment, called waterfronts where the cities have taken over the fronts giving onto
the sea, the estuary or the river, and docklands where the urban expansion has been carried out in
artificial complexes behind the locks.
3.1.1. Loss of momentum of bluefield/greenfield developments
In the wake of the big developments observed as early as in the Sixties in Japan, and which are
continuing in more recently in emerging Asia, the big European ports experienced, thirty or forty years
ago, spectacular developments on the peripheries of their original sites, contiguous or not to these, in
the quest for deep water and wide spaces to lay out bulk or container terminals often accompanied by
powerful industrial or logistics zones. In certain cases, new ports were even born from this process,
but this is above all an extra-European phenomenon. Under the double pressure of ever stricter
environmental constraints and the higher and higher cost for such operations, the movement is losing
momentum in Europe, which renders more attractive the option of mixed or purely port
redevelopments that will be explored hereafter in sections 3.2 and 3.3. Prior this, it should be pointed
out that such new site developments continue to be observed in Europe, but we would insist here on
the fact that constraints of various natures are becoming ever heavier and that the lead-times have a
tendency to stretch out in the implementation of these projects. Some of the projects under way or for
which the execution is probable in the close future will be pointed out hereafter, to show that the
phenomenon is continuing and to indicate a sort of state of the art at one of the extremities of the
spectrum of observed developments.
a) Bluefield type operations
It is here a question of advancements of the port towards the sea, in a bay or an estuary, the most
recent example of which is the Le Havre Port 2000 operation that aims to obtain, at term, 12 container
berths in a new outer harbour regained over the Estuary of the Seine. This follows growth experienced
in the Seventies, Eighties and Nineties which had previously led to the construction of greenfield sites
within the port area (figures 3.1 and 3.2).
14
Figure 3.1 – The Le Havre port installations in 1967 © Port Autonome du Havre
Figure 3.2 – The Le Havre port installations at the end of Project Port 2000
© Port Autonome du Havre
On a smaller scale, a development of this type is under way in the North Port of Gdansk where a
container terminal in the process of rising out of the water (figure 3.3) and where there is also a
project for a gas terminal (as indeed there is also in Le Havre on the distinct site of the Antifer outer
harbour).
Figure 3.3 – The future container terminal in the North Port of Gdansk
© Port of Gdansk
Whilst in Hamburg, as will be seen further on, all the developments and projects in matters of
containerisation are of the greenfield or brownfield types, those observed in the second German
container complex, the Bremerhaven-Wilhelmshaven tandem, are of the bluefield type in the estuary
15
of the Weser on the one side and in the Jade Bay on the other. The container terminals of
Bremerhaven have been successively developed on the river downstream from the access locks to
the North inner port, from the present CT1, 2, and 3, to the CT4 currently under construction by landfilling into the river (figure 3.4). Since the presence of a nature preservation zone forbids any
continuation of the expansion process further downstream as would be logical, the equivalent of a
Bremen CT5 will be constructed close to Wilhelmshaven in the Jade Bay, contiguous to the present oil
terminal and with a strong logistical component that brings this future terminal closer to the Hamburg
model rather than the Bremen one (figure 3.5).
Figure 3.4 – The North Port of Bremerhaven, with its Ro-Ro
and container terminals to which will be added the CT 4
under construction downstream from this complex
© Bremenports
Figure 3.5 – TheJadeWeserPort project at
Wilhelmshaven © Port of Wilhelmshaven
In North West Europe, it is in
Rotterdam that the most extensive
project of this type of construction
can be seen with the project of
Maasvlakte 2 (figure 3.6). Here the
accent is mainly placed on the
construction of new container
terminals, destined to maintain
Rotterdam's leadership in this field,
but a part of the hundreds of
hectares regained from the sea will
also be given over to the chemical
industry and logistics functions.
Figure 3.6 – The Rotterdam Maasvlakte II project © Port of Rotterdam
On a smaller scale, a port
polder of this style is in the
course of completion in
Zeebrugge, there also in the
form of an outer harbour
sheltered by colossal jetties of
outer seawall (figure 3.7).
Here the accent is placed, in
addition to containers, on Gas
and Ro-Ro facilities.
Figure 3.7 – The Outer harbour of Zeebrugge under completion, 100 years after
this new Belgian port was put into service as an outer working port for Antwerp © Port of Zeebrugge
16
Such bluefield operations can
also been observed in the
Mediterranean with for example
the extensions under way in
Barcelona (figure 3.8) or
projected in Algesiras. In certain
cases they are even carried out
on new sites, as in Tangiers.
Figure 3.8 – The new outer port under construction in Barcelona,
aimed for containers but also logistics © Port of Barcelona
b) Greenfield type operations
Here it is a question of port expansions inland generally in the form of new basins, locked or not.
Some are underway in certain of the ports mentioned previously where the two forms of expansion are
combined, as for example in Zeebrugge with the development of the new inner port, principally
destined for vehicle traffics and logistics.
They also concern other ports, such as
Antwerp with their Saeftingendoek mega
project following that of Eurgangdok, both
on the left bank of the river Scheldt (figure
3.9), or again in Hamburg with the Marburg
project (see below 3.3.2.). In both cases
the accent is being put on additional
container capacities, to meet the
anticipated strong growth of handling
demand (see below in 3.3.1).
Figure 3.9 – The new Antwerp Deurgangdok
and the neighbouring Saeftingendok project © Port of Antwerp
In certain cases the investments planned, envisaged or under way, are not limited to the
superstructure investments in the terminals (often container) but are added to heavy infrastructure
investments, in particular in new
access locks. Such works are
planned or envisaged in Antwerp
(at the end of Deurgangdok, to
provide the left bank complex
with a second access lock, in
Bremerhaven (on the site of the
current access lock to the North
Inner Port), in Le Havre (next to
the François Premier Lock) and
in Amsterdam, in the centre of
the Ijmuiden complex (figure
3.10).
Figure 3.10 – In spite of the attraction for lockless sites,
new big sets of locks remain on the agenda of certain port authorities,
such as here in Amsterdam © Port of Amsterdam
17
Such installations are justified by local circumstances and are sometimes the sine qua non condition
for the expansion, which is the case particularly in Amsterdam where the port's ambitions towards bulk
and containerised traffics cannot be satisfied with the constraint of the present North Locks. The new
Afrikadok (figure 3.11) can only fully be put into value in combination with a quantitative and
qualitative improvement to the nautical accessibility of the port, the potential of which is however
hindered by the environmental and spatial limits placed on its development downstream from
Afrikadok. New handling and logistics installations in the future are no longer conceivable there except
on only two relatively small sites on either side of the North Sea Canal. This means that Amsterdam
have also in their dossiers, a bluefield "Rotterdam type" operation opposite the Corus steelworks.
Figure 3.11 – Africadok © Port of Amsterdam
In all the above mentioned examples (except for Tangiers), the developments envisaged, planned or
under way are based on extensions to existing installations. There is however at least one project in
Europe on an entirely new site (which is much more frequent in Asia), and that of the port of Vuosaari
to the East of Helsinki (figure 3.12). Technically, its inspiration is a brownfield type, since it is a
question of recycling the site of a former shipyard, but it may legitimately be classified as a greenfield
type operation because the project overflows from this site and because the road and rail access
infrastructures are completely new.
Figure 3.12 – Port of
Vuosaari © Port of Helsinki
In
part,
this
new
complex of Vuosaari
aims at increasing the
overall capacity of the
port facilities of Helsinki
for cargo traffics, but it
also stems from a policy
of a partial transfer of
the port activities of the
Finnish capital. All cargo
traffic and all port
activities
will
be
gradually concentrated
there, so as to enable
the expansion of the city
onto the site of two of the present three urban ports. As will be seen later, the South Port, uniquely
dedicated to ferries and cruise vessels will be conserved, but the two other ports will see their cargo
activities totally transferred towards Vuosaari.
This will lead to the complete closedown of the East port and partial closing of the West Port (figure
3.13) which will only also maintain ferry and cruise traffics, enabling the city to develop further on this
site, on the edge of which the first urban expansions have already taken place.
18
Figure 3.13 – Western Port of Helsinki © Port of Helsinki
3.1.2. Waterfronts and docklands: where the port gives way to the city
At the other end of the spectrum of evolutions observed in European (and more generally worldwide)
port communities, may be found the operations of the extension of the urban domain onto territories
formerly part of the port and which are often made up of not very attractive wastelands at the city –
port interface. In numerous cases, this is a question of a logical evolution, given the outdated technical
characteristics of these spaces, their smallness that does not permit the deployment of modern forms
of equipment and methods for handling cargo or dealing with passengers; because of their insufficient
accessibility (both from the sea and from inland); and given also, it must be admitted, the strong real
estate pressure that is so often observed in the contact with urban centres. Two distinct forms of urban
re-qualification can be observed according to the morphology of the sites. In certain cases these are
waterfronts which stretch out in a linear manner along the seafront or the banks of an estuary or river
and thus are spaces that are completely in contact with the salt or freshwater element. In other cases,
the surroundings are more artificial and take the form of docklands, or larger dock basins possibly
finely divided by jetties or moles. According to the local tidal range, these basins are tidal or lock
enclosed (or were previously prior to the access being cut off). This subsection aims to present some
particularly significant operations of these two types of redevelopment to urban ends, recent, under
way or projected, that are sometimes combined when in the same place such as "Havenwelten"
(Alter/Neuer Hafen) in Bremerhaven.
From the point of view of the urban atmosphere of these spaces once they have been redeveloped,
the main difference resides in the widely open character of the first whilst the latter are more enclosed
spaces where the liquid element plays a smaller part, or no part at all when the basin has been landfilled which is the principal bad practice that has been noted during the preparation of this guide of
Good Practices. An example of this particularly significant type is that of the Southern Docks in
Antwerp where the access to the river Scheldt has been cut off making it impossible to bring back the
water such as was successfully achieved in Swansea. Such land-fills are certainly recommended in
sub-section 3.3.2. where it is a question of port redevelopments, but they should be proscribed, at
least for entire water surfaces, there where the finality is urban usage, since it is the liquid element that
makes these places unique and differentiates them from the rest of the urban territory. A good part of
the potential real estate added values disappear however as soon as the landfill somewhat robs the
place of its originality, but compromises however can be observed with partial landfills of dock basins,
usually to install a large urban equipment or to create a park.
19
a) Waterfront type operations
These are proportionately more numerous overseas and in Mediterranean Europe, on waterfronts that
were besides not entirely dedicated to the port at the start, with a multitude of highly mediatised
examples in North America (from Vancouver to San Francisco, Baltimore, Boston, Montreal or
Toronto), in Australia (Sydney) or again in South Africa (Cape Town –although here it is rather more of
a dockland operation!). In Atlantic Europe and in the Baltic, these operations are in fact less numerous
than those of the second type, but some merit to be pointed out here.
In terms of spatial development, the biggest is that of the banks of the Thames in London, but this
passes relatively unnoticed as it is a question of individual operations, often of a reduced scale
compared with the London docklands which will be evoked in the next section. Much bigger is the
Rotterdam Kop van Zuid redevelopment which has kept a small maritime component since the local
terminal for cruises is integrated in it, but which is above all a building type operation aimed at
projecting the CDB of the second biggest Dutch city onto the left bank of the Rhine (figures 3.14 and
3.15).
Figure 3.14 – The Kop van Zuid zone
in the course of urban redevelopment in Rotterdam
© AIVP /IACP
Figure 3.15 – Such architectural contrasts do
not fail de raise controversy
(in the foreground, the Hotel New York and in
the background the Montevideo Tower on the
Western Point of the Kop van Zuid boundary in
Rotterdam) © Jacques Charlier
Within the PCP network, an operation of
this type is under way in Riga in the
Andrejsala zone (figure 3.16), on a more
modest scale and with, from the outset, a
mainly cultural dimension since the
project is articulated around the building
of a museum of contemporary art.
Figure 3.16 – The Andejsala zone in Riga in
its present configuration
© Port of Riga
20
And at a smaller scale, such an waterfront redevelopment scheme as already taken place in Delfzijl’s
older commercial port (figure 3.17).
Figure 3.17 – The old and new commercial ports of Delfzijl © City of Delfzijl
The waterfront dimension is also present in Bremerhaven, but only marginally, since it concerns the
construction of a luxurious hotel on the edge of the Weser, the banks of which are besides developed
as a promenade between the mouth of the Geeste and the South access locks to the North Port. But
this is a secondary part of the "Havenwelten" (Alter/Neuer Hafen) operation which is a dockland type
and will be evoked in the following section. Similarly, the South part of the big operation currently
under way in Hamburg on the right bank of the Elbe is a waterfront type, but this operation is for the
most part a dockland type and it will also be better evoked in the next section.
a) Docklands type operations
These are the most numerous and are mostly inspired by the pioneering experiences carried out in big
British ports such as London, Liverpool or Manchester. The most mediatised is certainly that of the
London Docklands that have seen their landscape radically modified within three decades. In the old
days, instruments of the economic power of Great Britain, the complexes of dock-basins situated
downstream from Tower Bridge were successively abandoned as from 1970, from London and Saint
Catherine Docks to Surrey Docks, then India and Milwall Docks and finally the Royal Docks. The
destiny of the first two was rapidly sealed and unfortunate landfills were carried out before the
developers realised the landscape value of the abandoned stretches of water which were
henceforward mainly conserved, but partial landfills were also carried out.
The most spectacular operation is certainly that of the Canary Wharf Zone, the physiognomy of which
has been totally transformed to house today a new international business centre, at term, to wield a
power equal to that of the City (figures 3.18 and 3.19). Amongst the weaknesses discovered after
these developments, strongly inspired by Thatcherism, should be noted the practical absence of any
parks, the narrow and sometimes unknown characteristics of the footpaths along the former dockbasins and the initial insufficiencies of means of public transport. The zone however enjoys a quite
exceptional exterior accessibility, with London City Airport put into service in 1985 in the Royal Docks,
and soon in 2009, the Eurostar terminus at Stratford.
21
Figure 3.18 – The East India and Milwall Docks
(in the heart of which is Canary Wharf) at the height
of its port activities in the Sixties © Port of London Authority
Figure 3.19 ...and at term in 2015
© London Docklands Development Corporation
Amongst the PCP partners, operations of this type can also be observed in Amsterdam (figures 3.20
and 3.21), Bremerhaven ("Havenwelten" (Alter/Neuer Hafen), figures 3.22 and 3.23) and Le Havre
(figures 3.24 and 3.25) and which have been well documented in the Newsletters dedicated to these
three ports in the context of the project. Even if they stem from a common general tendency of the
conquest of the port domain by the city, they are significantly different in their respective scales and by
their circumstances. Within the ports of North West Europe, the biggest operation however still
remains to be achieved and is that in one of the oldest northern dock-basins of Hamburg where a
"new town in the town" will rise up between the present CDB and the Elbe (figures 3.26 and 3.27).
Figure 3.20 – Amsterdam's Eastern Docks
at the height of its port activities in the Sixties
© Port of Amsterdam
Figure 3.21 …and as today, after its urban-oriented
redevelopment, mainly for housing
Figure 3.22 – Bermerhaven’s "Havenwelten"
(Alter/Neuer Hafen) a few years ago
Figure 3.23 …and as it will look at the end of
its current redevelopment scheme
© City of Bremerhaven
22
Figure 3.24 – Le Havre’s
Southern District height of its port
activities in the interbellum
© Port of Le Havre Authority
Figure 3.25 …and artist’s impression for the year 2010 © City of Le Havre
Figure 3.26 – Map of the Hafencity redevelopment area
© Port of Hamburg
23
Figure 3.27 – The Hafencity redevelopment area between the CBD and the river Elbe
© Port of Hamburg
In Hamburg, as in Amsterdam and in Rotterdam, the projects have an essentially urban dimension, but
they include a marginal maritime dimension through cruise terminals providing in some respects a
connection with the previous functions of the sites. These will be treated in the next section which will
show that the handling of passenger vessels, cruise vessels but also ferries, can be an instrument for
the blending of the urban port interface spaces…
3.2 – (Re-) developments for mixed purposes
Introduction
In this section, the theme of new developments and redevelopments for mixed purposes, both urban
and port (with an obviously highly varied dosage) will be tackled in two stages. Indeed it is necessary
to distinguish between those developed on the edge of passenger activities and those concerning the
development of freight, between which the main constraints vary considerably. Within these two big
categories, internal distinctions will besides be made, on the one hand between cruise and ferry (short
sea or local) traffics, and on the other hand between the transition areas with mixed usages, some
strongly turned towards the port and the others more clearly oriented towards the city.
3.2.1. Developments for passenger traffics
Historically, passenger terminals for short sea and ocean traffics have always been distinct because
the ships berthing at them had – and still have – totally different nautical requirements. These
terminals therefore are often to be found in different parts of the ports which means that they will be
examined separately hereunder. A common factor however is to be found in the fact that they both
produce, generally speaking, less negative external effects (real or imagined) than cargo traffics and
that they are therefore more generally better accepted by any possible neighbours of the terminals
and by the local community in general. This applies at least for purely passenger traffics, since where
it is a question, as in the case of multipurpose ferries and of mixed operations, of road traffic in general
and that of heavy goods vehicles in particular, the imbrication of city and port is rendered less easily
acceptable and is less easily organised.
Nevertheless, this type of traffic is perceived as being more acceptable especially as it generates
major local economic benefits, through the expenditures of the passengers in the receiving cities
(mainly those of cruise vessels but the impact of ferries should not be underestimated in view of the
much higher quantity of passengers of this type). On this level, it all depends however on the city's
ability to intercept the flows since, in the end, only the passengers who visit the city (and even more,
those who spend a day or two in it before or after their voyage) really count; the others providing
scarcely less added value than a door to door container directly pre- or post- carried, the economic
24
impact of which is negligible (this then becomes a case of the "corridor port" singled out in 1979 by A.
Vigarié, speaking more about containers and accompanied Ro-Ro but whose remarks also apply as
much for passengers transiting directly through the port city).
a) The cruise terminals
Sea cruises are experiencing a boom in Europe at the moment, just as has been previously observed
in North America. It is necessary however not to lose sight of the more or less seasonal character of
this activity as compared with the regular liner traffic of the past that was much more constant
throughout the year. This seasonality, which is clearly a limiting factor, is particularly marked in North
and North West Europe, where the cruise season runs generally speaking from mid-April to midSeptember, but it is also considerably limiting in the Mediterranean where winter is a dull season in
spite of the efforts of the companies and ports to promote cruises throughout the year and not only
between spring and the end of autumn. The supply is by then much more limited and emphasis is put
on that time more upon cultural tourism. The technical evolutions of cruise vessels must however be
insisted on; a growing number of these are equipped with upper deck swimming pools featuring sliding
roofs and well sheltered or even glass covered sun decks which enable the passengers to have a
protected environment whatever the season.
In spite of the sometimes spectacular figures for the growth of this activity over the last few years, it is
necessary to insist on the fact that, when they are compared with goods traffics and that of the ferries,
cruises generally have a limited local and regional impact in absolute terms, if one sets aside the
special cases of the big base ports such as Athens, Venice, Barcelona, Southampton, Dover,
Amsterdam, Bremerhaven and Copenhagen. One should cleary distinguish between base ports and
ports of call, with a much higher economic impact for those in the first category, both for the tourism
expenditures (the more so as ships are usually more numerous) and for the supply of catering and
bunker for the vessels. Even here it should be noted that a good part of the economic impact comes
from the pre- and post-transport activities of the cruise passengers and that in this case it is above all
the air component that generates a big economic impact. The winners are definitely the port
communities with a reasonably sized airport, if possible served by direct international airlines. In
Europe we are however still far away from the major tandems of cruise port – airport that can be found
in Southern Florida where Miami and Port Everglades (the port of Fort Lauderdale) owe their eminent
positions to their proximity to big airports. In Europe, where distances are shorter, high-speed trains
provide however an interesting alternative to aircraft and the places served by these high-speed trains
will clearly have in the future a competitive advantage over the others, if only in terms of image.
In certain cases, cruise terminals are the distant inheritors of the transatlantic and/or colonial function
of the ports, at a time when long distance air transport did not have its current popularity and when,
besides, most of the passengers were carried to and from the ports by rail. In several cases this gave
birth to passenger terminal stations whereas today the function of rail connection has however in
most cases disappeared. In other cases, either the passenger terminal stations have been demolished
(in a sometimes regrettable manner), or they never existed, and the present installations for receiving
cruise vessels passengers are former general cargo sheds more or less well transformed for this new
function. In other cases, it can be a question of new terminals, more or less sophisticated, like the
previously mentioned ones, according to whether the ports concerned are base-ports or simply ports
of call. However a number of these still do not offer reception installations worthy of the name and it is
not rare that cruise vessels be handled "in the middle of nowhere", sometimes even in zones still
under bluefield or greenfield development when the size of vessel is too large for the existing facilities
inherited from a past when the size of cruise vessels (and before them, scheduled liner vessels) was
much smaller.
25
An example of a former recycled transatlantic terminal can be found in the "Kreuzfahrt-Terminal
Bremerhaven" (figure 3.28) which unfortunately suffers from a quite unattractive environment (with
among others a series of oil
tanks that rise questions as in
terms of safety hazards) and
from an remote situation in
respect of the old port and which
has not been integrated into the
redevelopment scheme of this
latter.
At term however, it may be
thought that these developments
will shift in its direction and that
this former passenger terminal
will be able to be integrated into
the urban fabric.
Figure 3.28 – The Kreuzfahrt-Terminal Bremerhaven © Bremenports
This integration could be facilitated by
the fact that additional berthing
capacities are necessary for the
reception of cruise vessels and that a
logical place to build a new terminal
would be precisely in this buffer zone.
But it is obviously where the old regular
liner terminal can be found in the
middle of the old part of the port that its
integration is the most harmonious and
that the blending is the most
successful. This is specially the case in
Genoa where the cruise terminal is at
the centre of the urban structure and
has been placed as the central element
in the re-composition of the urban-port
waterfront (figure 3.29).
Figure 3.29 – Genoa’s cruise terminal © Port of Genoa
In some cases, it is perhaps a pity that outstanding historical buildings located nearby previous
maritime stations for scheduled oceanic
passenger traffic were not integrated into new
cruise terminals. One such example of a missed
opportunity and perhaps even a bad practice can
be found in Rotterdam, were the previous
headquarter of the Holland America Line (running
among other the scheduled passenger service to
New York from the nearby previous passenger
terminal, has become the New York Hotel (figure
3.30). Whereas it could have been part of the new
cruise terminal located a few dozen meters away,
in a functional but quite basic new building.
Figure 3.30 – The former headquarter of he Holland America Line is now part,
as the New York Hotel, of the Kop van Zuid redevelopment scheme.
It would have been a nice touch if it could have been integrated within the nearby new cruise terminal.
© Jacques Charlier
26
The conversion (keeping or not the cargo sheds) of former general cargo installations (as is also the
case for many of the cruise terminals in the United States) can be frequently observed elsewhere. This
is another way to "recycle" these abandoned spaces, more or less close to the city centres, but it has
its limits since the nautical requirements of today's cruise vessels are often greater than those of the
olden-day cargo vessels. In this respect, the example of Dunkirk and its terminal on Freycinet III
shows that a good situation on paper is not really so in practice (often because of draft problems, even
for mid-sized ships, and also because of a difficult nautical access). For a port authority, it is often
more practical to re-qualify sites slightly more eccentric, but with better nautical accessibility, as for
example in Le Havre with the terminal on the Pointe de Floride and in Marseilles with the Gouret
peninsula complex. In this case, as for that of the recycling of former passenger terminals, the quality
(and the security) of the spaces that the cruise passengers cross between vessel and city have to be
taken care of. Certainly the majority of passengers take advantage of guided coach tours, but a small
fraction opt more and more frequently for individual discovery and are then dependant on taxis or
walking insofar as urban public transport is frequently absent from these spaces on the edge of urbanport interfaces.
Seawalls and outer jetties (equipped or not with modest handling facilities) can also sometimes be
usefully modified for the berthing of cruise vessels, above all when these are of large dimensions and
thus
engender
heavy
constraints
for
manoeuvring and in terms of drafts. This is the
case in Barcelona (figure 3.31) and a
reconversion of this type can also be imagined
for the outer Joliette seawall in Marseille. One
can even imagine that when this seawall or outer
jetty is not connected to the mainland, as is the
case in Brest with the isolated wall situated
between the East and West channels leading to
the cargo port, that cruise vessels might berth on
the city side of these and that the ship's boats
shuttle the passengers to a quay close to the city
centre, as is frequently practiced in the
Caribbean in little equipped ports where the
cruise vessel simply anchors in the roads.
Figure 3.31 – In the context of the Port Vell redevelopment scheme,
the port of Barcelona has built a new cruise terminal associated with an international office complex;
as berthing facilities could not cope with demand,
more cruise berths have been provided along the outer jetty (shown on the upper right corner)
© Port of Barcelona
However everything cannot be resumed in terms of the berthing of large ocean vessels as there where
the port is situated at the estuary of a navigable river (the Seine, the Scheldt, the Rhine associated
with the canal from Amsterdam to the Rhine, the Weser or the Elbe), the berthing of river cruise
vessels also has to be accommodated. This sector is booming, with there also a certain race for size
(which now goes up to the big Rhine liners of 135 metres length) but with, by definition, limited draft
requirements. Distinctly separate terminals are often set up for these river cruises and the oldest parts
of the ports, which are often the closest to the city, suit them still better than ocean cruise terminals. As
in most cases these terminals are within the European Customs and the Schengen Zones, the
Customs and immigration constraints are non-existent and only security and safety have to be taken
into account. Hence installations that are much lighter and more easily displaced (and at a lower cost),
if for any reason it proves over the years that a terminal situated extremely close to the city centre has
to be relocated further away. It is in Amsterdam that river cruises have the most impact, both because
this port provides one of the easiest accesses to the Rhine area and because it is a world status
tourist destination, coupled with a first class international airport. River cruise vessels are berthed in
what used to be a maritime dock basin very close to the central railway station, in a site that is
extremely convenient both for the arrival/departure of passengers and for tourist discovery of the city.
27
To come back in fine to ocean cruises; in certain cases the cruise terminals (modern or converted) can
be used as magnets to contribute to the success of a redevelopment operation for urban ends. In this
case, it is given a mixed
vocation, associating that of a
cruise terminal (most usually
only employed during the
summer season) and of a
multipurpose public complex;
one or more distinct cultural or
tourist spaces may be added to
them as is the case with the
Passenger Terminal Amsterdam
in the former Eastern Docks of
Amsterdam, mainly reconverted
nowadays into a residential
district (figures 3.32 and 3.33).
Figure 3.32 – The Passenger Terminal Amsterdam
is part of a multifunctional project © AIVP/IACP
Figure 3.33 © Port of Amsterdam
A similar principle can be observed in the Hamburg project of HafenCity, where the future Hamburg
Cruise Terminal (which will replace the present provisional building with the same name that is
situated slightly further to the West) will constitute one of the key elements of the urban redevelopment
scheme of the whole of this zone situated to the South of the present city centre (in this case mixing
offices and housing accommodation) (figure 3.34).
Figure 3.34 – The Hambourg
Cruise Center is one of the main
element of the Hafen City Project
© Hafen City Gmbh
28
b) The Ferry Terminals
Figure 3.35 – Dover Eastern Docks‘ huge RoRo facilities
extent into the sea
© Dover harbour Board
In numbers of passengers, ferries produce volumes of
traffic with no common measure with cruise vessels,
not on each call (as the biggest cruise vessels have
nowadays larger passenger capacities than those of
the biggest ferries) but on an annual basis (the more
so that the seasonal nature of the traffic is less for the
latter than for the former). In 2006, the biggest ferry
port in Northwest Europe, Dover, handled 13.8 million
passengers against a little over 750 000 passengers in
Southampton, the most active cruise port in the region
that year. And, in the same year, in a port like
Marseilles, the ratio was of 1.65 million ferry
passengers against 375 000 cruise passengers.
Globally, the difference tends however to reduce as the
vitality of the first sector is less than that of the second.
Nevertheless the difference between these two components remains, with few exceptions,
considerable when one also considers the tourist and commercial vehicle traffic generally associated
with ferries. Thus, in the aforementioned year in Dover, to the 13.8 million passengers must be added
2.35 million tourist cars, nearly 100 000 motor coaches, and not less than 2.38 million lorries (figure
3.35).
Historically, like the ocean passenger terminals, ferry terminals have also been installed as close as
possible to the city centres, given that the majority of the users were at that time using rail
connections. According to circumstances, either the central station of the city was also used as a
maritime terminal when it was close to the port installations, or a separate specialised station was
established alongside the berth. Things changed as from the Sixties under the combined effect of the
constant increase in size of the ferries and the fact that these became multipurpose vessels taking on
board less and less foot passengers (using the rail connection or not) and moiré and more motorised
passengers and goods vehicles. The first technical evolution meant that numerous old installations
could no longer be served by the latest generation of ferries and the second imposed the creation of
ever larger parking areas, for which space was difficult to find in the old parts of the port without
complicated and not always functional restructuring. In this respect, there is a stricking parallelism
between the evolutions recorded for containers and ferry traffic.
A paradoxical evolution resulted which is that new ferry terminals are situated further away from the
city centres than are the cruise facilities for which the urban attraction remains more marked. In this
case when the ferry company does not go quite as far as refusing non-motorised passengers (like
Norfolk Line in West Dunkirk), it is necessary, on the one hand to maintain a public transport
connection (free or not) between the city and the ferry terminal and, on the other hand, that the
terminal should be a show-window for the city with notably particularly attractive tourist information
available for passengers disembarking (or even further upstream along the chain). From the urban
point of view, the relocation of the ferries away from the city centre is globally a bad news even if the
result is less road congestion. In the case of the relocation (or the suppression of) ferry activities, good
practice is to transform the former ferry into a cruise terminal as this has been done, with great
architectural care, in Dover West.
The best practices noted are those that have succeeded, like in Kiel (figure 3.36), in keeping the ferry
and cruise terminals alongside the main rail station of the city whilst laying out sufficient parking space
and segregating heavy goods traffic from the general urban traffic.
29
Figure 3.36 – In Kiel, cruise ships berth a the very
heart of the city, near the main railway station
© Port of Kiel
Figure 3.37 – In Kiel, cruise ships and ferries are
handled in a single, impressive terminal complex
© Port of Kiel
Better still in this case, the ferry terminals (for the Gothenburg and Oslo services) and the cruise
terminals have been combined into a single complex, which gives greater flexibility to the facilities
(figure 3.37).
In Northern Europe, this imbrication is fairly natural since certain ferries are in fact cruise ferries with a
high component of mini-cruise passengers amongst their passengers, for whom the requirements are
in the end the same as those of pure cruise vessels in terms of quality of access to the city. Amongst
the best practices noted at this level, we should point out the example of the South Port of Helsinki
(figure 3.38) where the services to and from Stockholm are concentrated and which will not be
relocated to the new port complex of Vuuosaari mentioned above. Marseilles provides another
example of keeping the ferry traffic (in this case with Corsica and North Africa) in the oldest part of the
port and in contact with the city and in synergy with the Euroméditerranée project for which the La
Joliette Passenger Terminal been re-qualified by the Port Authority (figure 3.39).
Figure 3.38 – At Helsinki’s South port (which will not be
relocated to Vuosaari), ferries are accommodated right in
the downtown area, were the commercial port was first
located
© Port of Helsinki
Figure 3.39 – In Marseilles, the ferry terminals
of the La Joliette complex are located within the
perimeter of the Euroméditerranée
redevelopment scheme
© Port Autonome de Marseille
c) Terminals for Local sea-crossings
The facilities to receive local ferries (for passengers only or for passengers and cars or even for a few
heavy goods vehicles) are much more lightweight than the former and have been more frequently left
on their original sites close to city centres. They contribute to ensure an intense vitality on the urban
30
waterfronts wherever they have survived the construction of fixed links over or under the rivers or
stretches of water that they serve. The best known example in Europe is that of Hamburg and its
famous Landungsbrücken, but the best practices in this respect are overseas, in particular in the big
cities such as New York, Vancouver or Hong Kong.
Just as lightweight and generally easy to integrate in the activities of central urban waterfronts are
tourist promenade activities on rivers or in dock-basin complexes (like in Rotterdam where the Spido
company is often taken as a world reference), with here again a strong potential interaction with the
neighbouring commercial, cultural or recreational activities. Even where the climate is a fairly limiting
factor, there is here an opportunity to be exploited in order to encourage a better awareness of port
realities, as much for out of town visitors as for the citizens of the port city, at a point in time when on
the land side, port zones are tending to become more enclosed due to ISPS measures.
A good practice still infrequent: raised accesses to quay-fronts
In a wide majority of cases, the inhabitants of the cities and tourists have no access to the quay-fronts
in the active parts of cargo ports and the possibility of wandering alongside the stretches of water is
denied to them by enclosure fences that are only passable by duly accredited professionals through
better and better guarded gates that are themselves becoming less numerous. To the traditional
preoccupations of the protection of cargo against theft and of the physical safety of persons, as well as
of Customs and Immigration Police considerations, have now been added the aspect of public
security that has seen the measures originally deployed only in airports being extended to the port
domain. People not part of the cargo port activities have thus been pushed further and further away,
which is a bit of a paradox at a time when port city communities are asserting a desire to open up and
to get closer to matters concerning the sea. The perception that inhabitants and tourists can have is
therefore more and more distorted since the only access that is often conceded, other than the areas
surrounding locks which remain generally visible, is that to the abandoned stretches of water, in
frequently derelict areas and which give either a negative or erroneous vision of the life of the port.
There are however two exceptions to the more or less general rule which are port visit itineraries, the
most often by water (as already mentioned above) and much more rarely by land, either from
belvedere observation points or raised walkways over the warehouses whether these are still
active or not. In this last case there is a paradoxical situation where the general rule suffers a technical
exception, based on the public nature of the raised access to a space overlooking the active quay-side
whilst this remains, on ground level, inaccessible to the public; and this whether it be dedicated to
passenger traffic (section 3.2.1.) or to cargo traffic (section 3.2.2).
Historically, the best known example is that of the North and South Terraces (Noorderterras and
Zuidterras) along the banks of the Scheldt River in Antwerp. Since their origin (towards the end of the
19th Century), from these two raised urban promenades, each with a café restaurant and still popular
to this day, the population of Antwerp and tourists have been able to have an exceptional view of the
port activities being carried out just beneath them; the quay-front area being very narrow, they could
even nearly touch the ships (including the passenger liners that, over a long period, berthed there).
The result was a unique, almost intimate, contact between the visitors and the traditional port
activities. However containerisation has led to the virtual abandoning of the quays along the Scheldt
River and the only significant residual commercial activity is that of the seasonal calls of cruise liners;
to this must be added (but further away from the two promenade walkways) the quay of honour for
Naval vessels on official visits and occasionally for the christening of new vessels delivered to Antwerp
shipping companies (several headquarters of which are close by). The impression of the port for the
citizens of Antwerp and tourists is thus strongly tempered, as it also is when they pass through the
docklands zone close by in the part where the dock-basins built in the 19th century are now completely
open to wander along on ground level but which are now only used by barges.
31
A similar situation to that initially seen in Antwerp could soon be available in the Marseille complex of
La Joliette (the oldest part of the dock-basin of Marseilles West), still extremely active for the ferry
traffics as pointed out in the previous section. Here, next to the administrative building of the Port
Authority, huge open air car parks for motorist waiting their turn to berth the ferries fit in between the
city and the old, very narrow quayside warehouses alongside which the ferries berth every day. These
latter generate intense activity which the people of Marseille and tourists would be able to overlook if
the Terrasses du Port project, currently still under study, should come to fruition. Put forward by a big
property company, and supported by the Municipality and by the Port of Marseille, this project, in
broad outline, consists in building, on the level of the warehouse roofs, a promenade with restaurants
and to connect this promenade to the city via a commercial and cultural complex (figure 3.40). Built up
above the car parks which will remain operational, this complex will provide a wide bridge between the
city and the future promenade, a real observation belvedere for the city overlooking this very busy part
of the port. This complex should prove to be attractive and popular in that it will be easily accessible by
motorway (coupled with a new huge capacity car park) and by public transport (underground and new
tramway) and in that it is sited right in the centre of the urban–port part of the huge Euromediterranée
urban development project.
Figure 3.40 – The "Terrasses du Port"project in Marseilles © Etablissement Public Euroméditerrannée
Another urban-port element of this project situated just beside it, is the very successful and nearly
completed transformation of the former Docks Warehouse into an office complex which should
generate big additional customer catchment for the future Terrasses du Port. The two operations are
thus coherent and they will be more so when the present road overpass that physically separates
them will soon give way to a pleasant urban boulevard under which the flows of vehicle traffic will
pass.
A reservation must however be made, connected with security and the consequences of a possible
new drastic reinforcement of this. The property investment being large, rather than one day having to
shut off the Terraces to the public (as this is happening more and more at airports), will it not rather be
the ferries that will be forbidden in this part of the port since their traffic can be relocated whereas a
complex of shops, cultural places, restaurants and promenade such as the Terrasses du Port (or any
other operation of this type that could be carried out elsewhere) by definition will not be able to move?
For the port, improvement could spoil something already good and a recommendation is that
operations that are inspired by the Marseille example should not involve very heavy investments that
could lead to port activities prematurely being moved away in cases where the mixture of purposes
could prove impracticable from the security point of view.
32
3.2.2. - Developments for cargo traffics
In this case, the constraints that are generated on land connected with the cargo and heavy traffic
(road, rail and/or waterway) only have to be taken into account where they are superposed on the
traffic connected with the urban activities, more or less imbricated in the more or less residual port
activities in these zones. A case of transition with the previous section is that of the pure Ro-Ro traffic,
one of the characteristics of which is that the average stays of cargo on the terminal are longer; this
implies the necessity for bigger areas for similar volumes of traffic than is the case for mixed
passenger and freight services. A whole graduation may thus be observed between purely passenger
and purely freight traffics, with also, for the latter, differences according to whether they are deep-sea
or intra-European trades. This conditions the load factors of the vessels and their possibilities of
manoeuvring in more or less old dock basins which urban activities have a tendency to invade first. As
for cruise liners, here must be added the additional factor of waterway traffic that can often make use
of downgraded maritime installations according to a decrescendo that goes from the deep-sea to short
sea and coastal shipping, plus possibly down to barges where the inland waterways complete the
range of connections with the hinterland.
The most complete example of a port where this decrescendo has explicitly been taken into account,
with an almost symmetrical crescendo of urban activities on the edges or in the middle of the port
areas, is that of the port of Amsterdam, where the terms "hard port areas" and "soft port areas" are
utilised to designate the transition areas where the working priority is or is not given to port activities.
In the "hard port areas", the presence of urban activities is only tolerated and is firmly constricted, as
for example in the old village of Ruigoord neighbouring the Africa Dock which has been transformed
into an artist community, which mean that artists can work and perform there, but not live there.
Elsewhere, old village centres continue to "resist" recent and contemporary port developments. This is
the case in Pernis in Rotterdam, in Fort-Lillo in Antwerp and in Mardyck in Dunkirk, and this in spite of
heavy industrial activities often even combined with Seveso constraints. However the general rule is
the complete disappearance of these residential enclaves and their being razed to the ground, such as
is under way in Doel, in the case of Antwerp, on the basis of a very official decision of the Flemish
Government which has not failed to arouse resistance from some of the inhabitants.
A special case of "hard port areas" is
that of spaces reorganised or shortly to
be reorganised around non commercial
shipping activities such as is the case in
the South port of Bremerhaven that has
become the base for the German Polar
Fleet which generates activity on the
water areas but scarcely any land
constraints, so that office activities (here
turning on polar cluster research and
more generally technology), and also
even housing accommodation, can
easily be situated on the quayside
(figure 3.41).
Figure 3.41 – Bremerhaven South port with
a “R&D zone” in the foreground
© Bremenports
Between the port industrial "hard port areas" and the "soft port areas" where urban usage dominates,
there is thus also the case of non commercial (and even less industrial) "hard port areas" which are
those where urban and maritime can be imbricated most easily, without the ISPS issue being very
constrictive. In this respect the example, overseas, of the Victoria and Albert Waterfront of Cape Town
is the most mediatised, with the unceasing ballet of port tugs. These have remained based there at the
express request of the private company running this commercial and recreational complex, even
though the port authority had advanced the project of moving their base into the cargo port.
Facilities now only handling waterway traffics also fall into this category, there where they are not, or
are no longer connected with the seaport by transhipment activities but simply connected with the
urban economy. They can then be considered as light stevedoring activities, here again with scarcely
33
any ISPS constraints, with more limited warehousing requirements and with less heavy pre- or post
carriage road traffics that render less dangerous visits of these quays by the inhabitants and by
tourists. The most typical examples of this type of relatively open areas is to be found in the Belgian
and Dutch ports, given the large part played by inland waterway navigation, not only for traffics with
the hinterland but also for purely continental links. Thus in Antwerp, the Kattendijk dock basin area
which was the centre of the port at the end of the 19th Century, has gradually been declassed to the
point where operations on the water surfaces are purely inland waterway ones and where residual
waterway traffics and the function of lay-by berthing of barges, either between two voyages or more or
less permanently for retired bargees, are mixed together. This lay-by berth function is important, as is
confirmed by the very old conversion of the Maashaven and Rijnhaven zones in Rotterdam (where the
bargees even have a subway station at their disposal) and by the contemporary conversion of the
Houthaven in Amsterdam which integrates well with the "soft" redevelopment of the Minerva district
mentioned above (figure 3.42).
Figure 3.42 – Barges berthed between two trips
at Amsterdam’s Houthaven
© AIVP/IACP
It is however necessary to take into account
the constraints of motor noises that the
barges can generate both when stationary
and when they are manoeuvring, when they
are close to habitations. This is the case for
for the whole reconverted Amsterdam and,
for example, on the North side of the old
Eastern Docks complex of Amsterdam where
these barges must compulsorily be
connected to quayside electricity whilst they
are moored between two voyages. The
inhabitants of the new housing units bordering this former ocean shipping quay wish, as it were, to
profit fully from the advantages of living on the waterside without suffering any of the disadvantages;
the phenomenon can be observed in as much as their average income is high and is a measure to the
pressure that they can exercise on public bodies, contrary to that of the working classes of the past
who besides (as for example in the London Docklands) were far more willing to accommodate
themselves with their close proximity to a working port that represented their daily bread.
Finally, the real "soft port areas" are
those from which the sea-going or
waterway traffic has totally disappeared,
but where the henceforth deserted
stretches of water and adjacent land
areas are in contact with the active part of
the port and to some extent play a
physical buffer role for it. Here permanent
residences should in principle be banned,
but temporary habitations of the university
residence type, as in the NDSM exshipyard area in Amsterdam (figure
3.43), is one of the options open for
developers.
Figure 3.43 – University residence in the former NDSM shipyard in Amsterdam
© AIVP/IACP
More classically, former warehousing zones can be converted into zones for small businesses not
connected with the port, or for offices, which means distinguishing between the day population and the
night population in these transitional spaces; deserted in the evenings, these can always experience
(or re-experience) an intense daytime activity, for the day's work or possibly for citizens as a window of
the city onto the port, in a less artificial way than in the classic docklands and waterfront zones. Trendy
cafés and restaurants can then harmoniously complete the installations of these transitional spaces
34
and serve the business people of the surrounding areas as much as port workers and the inhabitants
or even tourists.
In such "soft port areas" flexible buildings can be envisaged, again like in the Minerva Dock area in
Amsterdam where some 100 000m² will gradually be made available to small businesses, notably
those involved in fields of creation. These will be installed in new or transformed buildings the first of
which are appearing on the edge of the Danzig Quay. (figures 3.44 and 3.45). In this precise case,
this is a question of the transformation of a zone still partially active in the timber trade. The strategy of
the Port of Amsterdam is to develop this site as a buffer zone to the stretching city, and the port
function will remain : not anymore for terminal activities, but for waiting places for short-sea-shipping,
barges, small maritime services, etc. Nevertheless the flexibility of these buildings also means their
possible evolution to become housing units. In regards to the huge needs for new housing units in
Amsterdam, one cannot completely rule out an evolution which could be done from the residual port
activity towards urban usage, initially non-residential and then residential when the constraints (of
security, noise and smells amongst others) connected with the proximity to more active port
installations can be reduced. A lowering of standards being unlikely, this movement should be seen as
a first step which, without any immediate incidence to these neighbouring port installations, mortgages
the future of it, as also the case for the non-permanent habitations evoked above.
Figures 3.44 and 3.45 – A “soft port area” is currently redeveloped in the area of the Dantzig Quay in Amsterdam
3.3 - Redevelopment operations for purely port ends
Introduction
Contrary to the operations mentioned in section 3.2 that are all concerned with a gradual withdrawal of
the port to the benefit of the city passing though a greater or smaller degree of physical blending,
those described in this final section stem not from a defensive but from an offensive movement of the
port in spatial terms. The adjectives "defensive" and "offensive" used here do not translate any
judgement of value but are aimed solely to translate a complex reality into a simple, thus reductive,
formulation. For various reasons that will be explained hereafter, it is a question of enlarging the
territory of the port, which cannot be done everywhere, either completely or only partially by the
"greenfield" or "bluefield" operations mentioned in 3.1. There then remains the "brownfield" option
which can be of two types: internal or peripheral. In the first case there is no potential conflict of
utilisation with the city since it is situated more or less in the heart of the present and without doubt
future port domain, on the scale of the contemporary development. In the second, one is more or less
in contact, or even in conflict with the city, when it is a question of re-qualifying areas currently little
used, or even abandoned for some time, towards port uses. The spatial buffers separating the "Hard
port areas", mentioned in the previous section, from the city find themselves being reduced and the
situation could be described as two tectonic plates which are more likely to collide than to move
together in the same direction.
In the same manner as "soft port areas" existed in the previous section to provide a transition between
a city and a port developing spatially in a classical way, "soft urban areas" should be somehow
planned for in the future drive of urban port development and here it is not done (or will not be done) in
the usual sense of History. Here, it is a question of land still fallow which this section will not deal with
35
in detail, in view of the novelty of the concept, but which should be envisaged in future research, as
being symmetrical to the "soft port areas"; it is therefore a question of simply inversing the direction of
movement, notably by planning a gradual disappearance of habitations, or of other urban functions, in
the sensitive areas. In the meantime, the object of this section 3.3 is to put into evidence the economic
necessity of "brownfield" type port developments in numerous European port communities (subsection 3.3.1.) and, through some examples, certain modalities of their implementation through recent
development practices (sub-section 3.3.2.).
3.3.1. A context of strong growth of port traffics
At a time when ex-nihilo developments of the greenfield type are becoming more and more
problematic, European port authorities are confronting a growing dilemma with urban pressures that
are being amplified whilst port traffics are themselves also on the increase. Even if it is less than in
emerging Asia, the scope of this growth is more often unrecognised, in particular by the urban
stakeholders who, for many of them, still have in mind the image that they inherited of the European
ports following the severe quantitative crisis experienced in the wake of the second oil shock. A
statistical analysis will bring this new impetus of growth to light. It covers the period 1986 -2006, in
other words from the trough of the wave following the second oil shock up to the present day, and
takes into account the main ports of the Northern range, the port range running from the Elbe to the
Seine. We shall limit ourselves subsequently to the main ports and on a five-yearly basis so as simply
to bring out the main trends.
Firstly, Table 3.1. shows the evolution of the overall traffic of the thirteen main ports of this range
(some of which are, in fact, poly-nuclear ports). This range besides contains many secondary ports,
the cumulated weight of which is far from being negligible and certain of which have experienced
sometimes even more spectacular evolutions than those put into evidence hereafter. Overall, the total
traffic of the thirteen ports in question has increased by 77% between 1986 and 2006, exceeding for
the very first time the billion tonne mark. Certainly, it is not a question of a "Chinese style explosion,
but it is nevertheless very big and testifies to a growing overseas market for the foreign trade of
Europe in general, and more particularly, of the regions forming the partially common hinterland of the
ports of the Northern Range, from the heart of the "blue banana" of the Rhine region to the former
eastern block and central Europe.
Table 3.1. – Overall traffic evolution of the Northern Range ports,1986-2006
(in million tons)
1986
1991
1996
2001
German Ports
102.1
114.1
139.8
179.3
Hamburg
55.2
65.5
71.1
92.4
Bremen/Bremerhaven
29.5
30.7
31.5
46.0
Wilhelmshaven
17.4
17.9
37.2
40.9
Dutch Ports
316.4
358.7
370.4
407.6
Amsterdam/IJmuiden
44.1
47.4
53.8
67.8
Rotterdam
257.6
291.7
292.2
314.6
Flushing/Terneuzen
14.7
19.6
24.4
25.2
Belgian Ports
129.5
157.7
165.3
185.7
Antwerp
90.2
101.3
111.9
130.1
Ghent
24.2
25.5
21.0
23.5
Zeebrugge
15.1
30.9
32.4
32.1
French Ports
112.0
138.7
133.9
166.9
Dunkirk
32.4
40.7
34.9
44.5
Calais
10.5
17.0
24.7
32.7
Le Havre
47.2
57.2
56.2
69.0
Rouen
21.9
23.7
18.1
20.7
Total Range
660.0
769.1
809.4
939.5
2006
246.0
134.9
65.1
44.2
490.6
83.7
376.7
30.2
231.0
167.4
24.1
39.5
200.6
56.6
42.5
73.8
23.2
1,168.2
Source : Port authorities (annual reports 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 et 2006)
Obviously, the dynamics were variable from one country to another and from one port to another.
Amongst the thirteen ports under consideration, two present a rather static traffic (Ghent and Rouen),
36
whilst that of ports such as Hamburg, Bremen/Bremerhaven, Wilhelmshaven, Flushing/Terneuzen,
Zeebrugge and Calais have more than doubled over twenty years; it has even quadrupled in the last
case, which is even more specific since this comes from Anglo-continental traffic rather than the wider
overseas trade mainly the case elsewhere. The total traffic is not however the best measurement for
the real activity of a port since it is sometimes strongly swollen by bulk handling (mainly oil and drybulk such as iron ore and coal), that attain in certain cases a considerable proportion (264 million tons
out of 377 in Rotterdam in 2006) and constitutes sometimes practically the whole of the activity of the
port (as at Wilhelmshaven). These bulk cargos are scarcely taken into account in the issues of
arbitrating the use to be given of the urban- port interface since they are the most often handled at
deepwater terminals, further away from the historic ports and thus from the cities, on sometimes
completely distinct sites (such as is the case of Antifer in Le Havre).
An analysis based only on general cargo is much more significant, that is to say only on finished (or
semi-finished) manufactured products of high unitary values that contribute most to the added value of
the port. By limiting ourselves to these Table 3.2. shows an overall dynamic that will not be surprising
since the global traffic of the ports considered (amongst which Wilhelmshaven that is for the moment
not at all concerned) has practically tripled (+187 %) over the last twenty years. Variations from one
port to another can also be found there, from a relative stagnation as in Amsterdam/IJmuiden or
Rouen, to a multiplication by four in Hamburg. If one excludes the special case of Calais, where the
general cargo is cross- Channel lorry/trailer traffic to and from the United Kingdom, one can see that
the centre of gravity of high value added handlings in the Northern Range has significantly shifted
towards the North (under the double effect of transhipment traffics to North Europe and the opening up
of the former Eastern and Central European block countries to overseas trade). Thus the overall traffic
of the two main German ports has increased by 262 % between 1986 and 2006 whilst that of the
Dutch ports has only grown by 134 %, that of the Belgian ports by 174 % and that of the French ports
(excluding Calais) by only 138 %.
Table 3.2. – General cargo traffic evolution of the Northern Range ports,1986-2006
(in million tons)
1986
1991
1996
2001
German Ports
40.2
50.1
58.5
89.2
Hamburg
22.1
30.0
37.0
53.2
Bremen/Bremerhaven
18.1
20.1
21.5
36.0
Wilhelmshaven
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Dutch Ports
56.7
70.1
91.6
95.8
Amsterdam/IJmuiden
6.7
6.1
7.6
6.2
Rotterdam
46.3
59.8
78.6
83.8
Flushing/Terneuzen
3.3
4.2
5.4
5.8
Belgian Ports
50.7
65.0
75.6
98.7
Antwerp
36.1
45.4
52.2
68.3
Ghent
3.1
3.3
3.2
4.4
Zeebrugge
11.5
16.3
20.2
26.0
French Ports
26.3
36.8
43.6
60.5
Dunkirk
6.0
8.1
3.2
8.1
Calais
9.4
15.9
23.6
31.1
Le Havre
8.1
10.2
13.6
18.0
Rouen
2.8
2.6
3.2
3.3
Total Range
174.0
222.1
269.4
344.3
2006
145.5
92.1
53.4
0.1
132.5
10.2
112.9
9.4
138.8
103.0
4.5
31.3
81.7
14.6
41.5
22.6
3.0
491.7
Still more demonstrative is the analysis bearing only on the containerised traffics for which the
evolution of tonnages is presented in Table 3.3. In this case, as well as Wilhelmshaven, ports such as
Flushing/Terneuzen, Ghent and Calais have not been taken into consideration since they are, for
various reasons, totally apart in this field; and other cases, recorded traffics are marginal (Rouen,
Dunkirk and Amsterdam), even if the two latter are beginning in their turn to significantly enter the
race. Overall, over the last twenty years, containerised tonnages handled have been quintupled at a
rhythm that gives nothing away to that observed in the Asia-Pacific region. This is normal since
maritime trade with this area nowadays represents the majority of the deep-sea containerised traffic of
Europe and in this respect is the reflection of the spectacular economic boom of China and its
37
neighbours. And yet here it is only a question of the tonnages of the containerised goods and the tares
of the containers. However a number of these are loaded outwards from Europe for their re-positioning
beyond Suez, and the rhythm of growth of the physical handling of the boxes, which corresponds to
the terminal capacities necessary, is in fact even higher. The record is certainly held by the German
ports taken as a whole, with a multiplication practically by six in twenty years (nearly eight times in
Hamburg and "only" five times in Bremen/Bremerhaven). A similar multiplication by seven also
occurred in Antwerp. Having started early in the race, Rotterdam has only tripled and besides has
now been passed as top-ranking European port by the twinned Antwerp/Zeebrugge, when one
considers that the second named is in fact an outer port for the first and that the distance separating
them is about the same as Marseille/Fos or Bremen/Bremerhaven ! Moreover the phenomenon has
taken off during the last five years, with a 64 % growth of the overall containerised traffic of the
Northern Range matched with an even stronger growth than this average for ports like Hamburg
(+80 % between 2001 and 2006), Antwerp (+ 74 %) and Zeebrugge (+ 70 %) and a spectacular take
off by Amsterdam thanks to their new revolutionary indented container dock.
Table 3.3. – Container traffic evolution of the Northern Range ports,1986-2006
(in million tons)
1986
1991
1996
2001
German Ports
19.3
33.5
46.7
79.3
Hamburg
10.2
21.4
31.0
49.8
Bremen/Bremerhaven
9.1
12.1
15.7
29.5
Wilhelmshaven
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Dutch Ports
32.2
41.1
54.6
62.9
Amsterdam/IJmuiden
0.7
0.8
1.7
0.7
Rotterdam
31.5
40.3
52.9
62.2
Flushing/Terneuzen
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
Belgian Ports
12.3
22.7
35.8
57.0
Antwerp
11.1
18.9
29.5
46.4
Ghent
2.2
3.8
6.3
10.6
Zeebrugge
7.8
10.5
11.3
17.2
French Ports
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.4
Dunkirk
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Calais
5.7
8.8
9.5
14.6
Le Havre
1.2
0.9
1.1
1.2
Rouen
72.0
108.1
148.7
216.6
Total Range
2006
134.4
89.5
44.9
0.1
97.5
3.3
93.8
0.4
98.9
80.8
18.0
24.2
1.7
0.0
21.1
1.4
355.0
This exceptional impetus does not only characterise North West Europe as is shown in Table 3.4. with
the evolution observed over the same period for containerised traffics in several big Mediterranean
ports with a hinterland (thus excluding the Southern transhipment ports which refer to a different logic
and where the terminals are generally of the Greenfield type). A similar overall multiplication by five
(and even a bit over) can be seen for the Southern range as for the Northern Range, but for a much
inferior overall tonnage since the whole of the present container traffic of the six ports in question is
roughly equal to that of Rotterdam; there is therefore a major asymmetry between the two main
façades of Europe and, in reality, this asymmetry is scarcely influenced by the theoretical advantage
that the Mediterranean ports have for traffic to and from Asian/Pacific ports. Of the six ports
considered, Valencia is the one that has experienced the most spectacular rise since their
containerised traffic has been multiplied by ten in twenty years. This however can be explained in part
by the transhipment function that this port has in addition to being the natural port for Madrid.
Elsewhere, the coefficients of multiplication are lower and in the case of Marseille, there is not even a
doubling of the tonnage.
38
Valencia
Barcelona
Marseille-Fos
Genova
La Spezia
Livourno
Total Range
Table 3.4. – Container traffic evolution at the Southern Range ports, 1986-2006
(million tons)
1986
1991
1996
2001
2.6
3.9
7.8
15.2
3.6
5.0
7.6
13.4
4.8
4.9
5.8
7.2
3.2
3.3
7.3
14.1
1.6
4.4
7.6
9.6
2.0
2.8
3.2
5.0
17.8
24.3
39.3
64.5
2006
28.1
22.6
8.8
16.1
12.5
6.5
94.6
Source: Port authorities (annual reports 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 et 2006)
The strong growth of containerised tonnages should not however blind the analysts, because
containerisation is accompanied by an economic downturn of the ports because of a significantly lower
average added value of handling containers as against conventional cargo or roll-on roll-off traffic.
Various authors have shown (see E. Haezendonk & W. Winkelmans, 2002, whose methodology has
been used hereafter) that one could consider that the average relative added value of the various
types of traffic varied in a range going from 1 to 12 according to whether conventional or roro cargo
was taken as a reference, or containerised (to be divided by a coefficient of 3), of dry bulk (with a
dividing coefficient of 4) or liquid bulk with a dividing coefficient of 12). The only exception to this
general rule of measurement, the roro traffics of Calais and Dunkirk, has been divided by three as if
they were containerised traffics because they are accompanied traffics whereas everywhere else roro
traffics are non-accompanied or new vehicle traffics, and that a dividing coefficient of 3 is thus more
appropriate for the roro traffics of the Northern ports.
Looking only here at the year 2006, it can be seen by comparing the rankings at Tables 3.5 and 3.6
that there is a great difference between the rankings of the ports of the Northern Range according to
whether they are gross or weighted.. Certainly, the three top ports are identical in both rankings, with
Rotterdam in front of Antwerp and Hamburg, but the gap between the first one and their two main
competitors is considerably reduced on the weighted tonnage rankings that reflect the orders of
economic importance much better. Even better, by considering that Zeebrugge is the functional
advanced port of Antwerp, one can arrive at the conclusion that the Belgian tandem is on a level equal
to Rotterdam!
Table 3.5 – Structure by gross category of the 2006 traffic of the ports in the Northern Range
(In thousands of gross tonnes)
Dry
ConvenLiquid bulk
Containers
Roro
Total
bulk
tional
Rotterdam
176.060
87.791
93.800
9.894
9.188
376.733
Antwerp
32.218
26.122
80.810
7.159
15.064
167.373
Hamburg
14.210
28.515
89.521
Nd
2.615
134.861
Amsterdam/IJmuiden
25.435
48.066
3.256
927
6.014
83.698
Le Havre
47.535
3.651
21.090
1.528
0
73.804
Bremen/Bremerhaven
2.283
9.368
44.902
Nd
8.546
65.099
Dunkirk
14.146
27.876
1.725
11.091
1.804
56.642
Wilhelmshaven
43.553
2.333
26
0
70
45.886
Calais
100
900
0
40.545
960
42.505
Zeebrugge
6.247
1.956
17.986
12.245
1.040
39.474
Flushing/Terneuzen
10.582
10.274
399
2.822
6.171
30.248
Ghent
2.732
16.914
267
1.851
2.380
24.144
Rouen
12.167
8.116
1.393
189
1.424
23.289
Total Range
387.268
271.882
355.175
88.251
55.276
1.157.852
Source: Port authorities (annual reports 2006)
39
Table 3.6. – Structure by weighted category of 2006 traffics of the ports in the Northern Range
(in thousands of weighted tonnes)
Dry
ConvenLiquid bulk
Containers
Roro
Total
bulk
tional
Rotterdam
14.672
21.948
31.267
9.894
9.188
86.969
Antwerp
2.685
6.351
26.937
7.159
15.064
58.406
Hamburg
1.184
7.130
29.840
Nd
2.615
40.769
Bremen/Bremerhaven.
190
2.342
14.967
Nd
8.546
26.045
Amsterdam/IJmuiden
2.212
12.017
1.085
927
6.014
22.255
Zeebrugge
521
489
5.995
12.245
1.040
20.290
Calais
8
225
0
13.515
960
14.708
Dunkirk
1.179
6.969
575
3.697
1.804
14.224
Le Havre
3.961
913
7.030
1.528
0
13.441
Flushing/Terneuzen
882
2.568
133
2.822
6.171
12.576
Gent
228
4.229
89
1.851
2.380
8.777
Rouen
1.084
2.030
464
189
1.424
5.191
Wilhelmshaven
3.629
584
9
0
70
4.298
Total Range
32.435
67.795
118.391
53.827
55.276
327.724
Computed from the date of Figure 3.5. with the weightings quoted in the text above
Besides, these two rankings are significantly different as from the fourth place. On the one hand,
certain ports have climbed meaningfully in the second ranking, such as Zeebrugge and
Bremen/Bremerhaven which respectively gain four and two places. On the other hand, some others
drop down and this the more so where oil traffic and more generally bulk cargos strongly influence
tonnages ; this is in particular the case of Wilhelmshaven which loses five places, but the observation
is also true in a lesser degree for Le Havre and Amsterdam/IJmuiden which thus lose three and one
places respectively.
This method of transversal comparison is relatively reliable and can also be used for longitudinal
comparisons, that is to say for a same port at different periods, with, in this case even more significant
results because they are this time independent of the internal structure of bulk handling that
sometimes biases transversal comparisons. It can thus be seen in Table 3.7. which shows a 19862006 comparison for the main ports of the Northern Range, that the spectacular boom of
containerisation mentioned above must be kept in its context because it is accompanied by a
generalised qualitative drop in conventional general cargo traffics that massively moved over. It
appears that the growth of all the gross and weighted traffics is similar with + 77.0 % for the one and +
74.1 % for the other, but with significant differences from one port to another. Only Rotterdam and
Flushing/Terneuzen have seen their qualitative structure significantly improve with their growth in
measured tonnage being considerably higher than that of their gross tonnage, as is shown in
Table 3.8. Against this qualitative trend, containerisation has somewhat weakened, relatively
speaking, ports such as Antwerp, Hamburg, Amsterdam/IJmuiden or Zeebrugge, and this can be
explained by the diminishing share of conventional cargo through the years. For the other ports, a
more or less relative status quo exists , their growth in terms of gross tonnage being not – or little –
different from their weighted tonnage.
40
Table 3.7 – Overall evolution of the weighted traffic of Northern Range ports, 1986-2006
(in million of weighted tons)
1986
1991
1996
2001
2006
Rotterdam
54.2
59.9
69.8
71.5
87.0
Antwerp
37.9
40.0
41.9
47.1
58.4
Hamburg
19.2
20.3
24.2
27.5
40.8
Bremen/Bremerhaven
12.7
13.7
13.2
18.6
26.0
Amsterdam/IJmuiden
13.5
11.4
16.2
18.4
22.3
Zeebrugge
10.7
15.8
17.3
19.7
20.3
Calais
3.4
5.5
8.1
12.9
14.7
Dunkirk
8.1
8.0
8.5
10.9
14.2
Le Havre
8.4
10.6
11.6
13.3
13.4
Flushing/Terneuzen
4.9
6.2
7.6
9.2
12.6
Ghent
7.9
6.7
6.0
8.6
8.8
Rouen
5.4
4.7
4.4
5.3
5.2
Wilhelmshaven
1.9
1.8
3.6
4.0
4.3
Total Range
188.2
204.6
215.1
267.0
327.7
Source : For 2006, see the table 3.6.; for the previous years, the same methodology was used
Table 3.8. – Comparative evolutions of gross and weighted tonnages
at the Northern Range ports, 1986-2006
Hamburg
Bremen/Bremerhaven
Wilhelmshaven
Amsterdam/IJmuiden
Rotterdam
Flushing/Terneuzen
Antwerp
Ghent
Zeebrugge
Dunkirk
Calais
Le Havre
Rouen
Total Range
Gross tonnages
+ 144.5 %
+ 120.7 %
+ 166.6 %
+ 89. 7 %
+ 46.2 %
+ 105.3 %
+ 83.7 %
- 0.1 %
+ 130.1 %
+ 74.9 %
+ 304.8 %
+ 56.3 %
+ 5.9 %.
+ 77.03 %
Weighted tonnages
+ 120.0 %
+ 105.1 %
+ 130.6 %
+ 65.2 %
+ 60.4 %
+ 154.5 %
+ 54.0 %
+ 10.6 %
+ 88.9 %
+ 74.3 %
+ 332.3 %
+ 59.9 %
- 3.8 %
+ 74.1 %
Evolutions computed from the gross and weighted figures shown at Tables 3.1 and 3.7.
3.3.2. A few examples of port-oriented redevelopment
Planners have almost always emphasised the view that, once port decline has become established, it
is an irreversible process which ultimately demands that the released land be effectively reintegrated
within the urban fabric of the city as a whole, often in the context of gentrification. They see this land
as a new urban frontier whereas we will adopt the opposite position here: that this land is a new port
frontier, at a time when, as shown quantitatively in the previous section, traffic is due to increase
dramatically in a series of ports whereas the opportunities of new greenfield developments are more
and more limited (and expensive). In other words, instead of retreating from some areas where
maritime traffic has diminished or disappeared, there might be a reconquista of these areas. We will
argue that an alternative approach to these ‘redundant spaces’ is possible, the more so as older
dockland areas, like fossil energy, are like non-renewable resources inherited from the past. Because
they are not renewable, one should closely examine whether the declining port function(s) can be
revived if appropriate investments are made. In other words, attention should be first paid to the
possibility that redundant spaces at the city-port interface may have residual maritime potential, and
only if this is shown not to be the case, should these coveted spaces be left to the city for its own
41
needs (these are often legitimate needs, but it is argued here that these spaces should be found
elsewhere, as city planners have more spatial options than port planners).
In the same way as port planners are not the most qualified experts to make proposals for urbanoriented redevelopment, city planners are not the most qualified experts to decide that such spaces
have no future as a port. This is more true as the needs of modern ports do not concentrate
exclusively on deep-water berths and huge remote terminals for large ships, even if the ‘shipping
revolution’ had a dramatic impact on modern port development. However, a further point should be
made clear at this stage: although the arguments in favour of continued (or renewed) port use may be
considered to be strong, it is not suggested here that relatively old port areas can be maintained in use
indefinitely (at least for sea-going vessels, because there is also the possibility to downgrade these for
inland navigation); nonetheless, well-chosen investments can achieve effective modernisation which,
for a period of twenty or thirty years, can do much for the operation of the ports, especially for mediumand small sized operators and users that simply cannot pay for the “ticket” required to gain access to
the most modern large scale facilities located further away from the port-city interface.
Actually, two types of such port-oriented redevelopment schemes can be recognized. On the one
hand, some are quite small and oriented towards non-containerised dry goods, whether they be
secondary dry bulk, conventional cargo (including neobulk) or roll on - roll off traffic (including cars,
either new or used). And on the other hand, larger scale schemes are designed for container traffic,
the more so as they are sometimes associated to logistics and intermodal transport, which spatial
needs are greater. Hence, this sub-section is divided into two parts, starting with the non-container
terminals, and continuing with the container terminals. Cruise and/or ferry terminals are excluded here,
as they have already been dealt with in detail in section 3.2.1.
a) Non container terminals
For a series of reasons, the Benelux seaports evolved into a pioneering experience around the year
1990. One of the reasons was the lack of public funding for further port expansion at that time, and the
port authorities found that it was a convenient, cheap, and fast solution to some of the problems they
were facing in those hard times. This may look like a stop-gap situation, but it was found thereafter
that it was an efficient way to fix the capacity problems that these ports were facing in those days,
especially because major consolidations of terminal operators had not yet occurred.
The very first place where this phenomenon started is the port of Ghent, a medium-sized Belgian
seaport at the Southern end of a maritime canal with its Northern end in Dutch territory, in Terneuzen
(now part of Zeeland Seaports, with Flushing on the other side of the Scheldt River). The long term
objective of the Ghent port authority was (and still is) to widen and deepen this canal to form panamax
to capesize dimensions, with a new large lock in Terneuzen, and an equally sized dock in Ghent, the
Kluizen Dock. Amazingly enough, this has been partially in use for a couple of years, whereas the
canal itself and its access lock have not yet been brought up to the planned new dimensions. But as
more capacity was needed, even if the traffic was not as dynamic as in other ports, Ghent’s port
authority launched a policy of port-oriented redevelopment in a section of the port that would have
perhaps been abandoned elsewhere, namely the Great Dock complex. In short, the dock morphology
was left as such (which, retrospectively, was a mistake, as the Central inlet dock should have been
filled in to offer more space for storage and logistics activities), and the complex was deepened, with
new deeper quay walls built a few meters in front of the older quay walls. This dramatically changed
the nautical accessibility of the dock complex, from 10,000 dwt ships to panamax-sized vessels. This
was also improved thanks to the widening of the access goulet in the maritime canal entrance (made
accessible for such ships to the Siffer Dock in the late sixties, at the same time as the Rodenhuizen
Dock and the Mercator Dock, formerly known as the Petroleum Dock, were built).
The zone selected for renovation was built in stages between 1900 and 1930, and includes an area
around the Great Dock and its three adjacent small inlet docks. Interestingly, it features a striking
similarity with the Salford Docks complex at the upper end of the Manchester Ship Canal, now totally
abandoned and released for urban expansion. Not only were the docks deepened and new deeper
quay walls built, but the superstructures were adapted in order to be operated more efficiently by a
lesser number of port operators, whose leases were restructured in order to improve the efficiency of
the handling and storage of goods (mainly secondary dry bulk and conventional cargo).
42
Elsewhere in Belgium, the renovation of older parts of the port was not on Antwerp’s agenda before
the end of the eighties, but the evident success of Ghent’s port-oriented redevelopment strategy then
prompted Antwerp’s port authority to develop similar plans for the Albert Dock complex and its three
adjacent basins. The facilities pre-dated World War I and, as in Ghent, the works have entailed
substantial deepening of the Albert Dock and the Third Dock as well as building several new quay
walls, allowing for panamax-sized ships, twice the previous size limit, to be accommodated at some
dry bulk terminals (mainly for fertilizers). At the same time, the previous access via the Leopold Dock
was replaced by a more convenient itinerary via the Fifth Dock and the America Dock, after these
were connected and a gentler wider curve was arranged between the America and the Albert Docks.
Whereas the Second Dock was left intact (before being filled-in perhaps at a later stage), the First
Dock as well as an inland navigation dock were filled-in with dredge material in order to gain additional
space for conventional cargo and logistics. This infilling process shows that the redevelopment has
gone one step further than in Ghent or in Ostend, and something similar will be seen below for
Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Hamburg.
At the same time, several leases were rearranged and some stevedoring companies later merged,
making the port landscape more efficient to operate from a terminalization perspective. Even if the size
of these companies increased in the process, they remained quite small as compared to Antwerp’s
giant terminal operators (the more so as the historical Belgian companies were taken over by even
larger foreign giants); and the opportunity offered to them to stay in the Albert Dock complex relieved
them from the necessity of sliding further downstream to more spacious, accessible, but extremely
costly sites elsewhere on the right bank or, even worse, on the left bank, often considered as the
“wrong” side of the Scheldt River for small- and mid-sized businesses. This is a major consideration,
often ignored elsewhere, as these small- and mid-sized companies are one of the factors of Antwerp’s
success in the secondary bulk and conventional cargo sector, at a time when other ports tend to
abandon niches and put all their eggs in the basket of containerisation.
This type of port-oriented redevelopment has also been successfully carried out in the late 20th century
and in recent years in Ostend, the smallest Belgian seaport, this time in order to allow the
development of pure roll on-roll off facilities on the Northern part of the port. These are located on the
opposite side of the cruise terminal replacing a previous passenger ferry terminal. There was a small
enclosed dock there where the ferries of the former Ostend-Dover Line where overhauled until this
company disappeared in the mid nineties (as one of the casualties of the Channel tunnel). This
Zeewezen Dock was not only enlarged and deepened, but also made into a tidal dock as the entrance
lock was demolished, and this allowed a ro-ro line to operate with quite large vessels. As this dock is
located close to the fishing port, also arranged around and enclosed dock, and as this fishing port is
not very dynamic, one might have imagined/feared that the whole Northern part of Ostend’s seaport
would have been abandoned by commercial traffic and the fishing industry in order to make room for a
marina and for housing, as there is a great deal of pressure for this type of development all along the
Belgian seaboard. But Ostend’s city authorities (that indirectly run the commercial activities) decided
against that alternative and decided to redevelop the Zeewezen Dock and the surrounding area
instead (including an abandoned naval base) for new commercial uses.
Making enclosed docks tidal is often a sine qua non condition to redevelop them for short sea ro-ro
traffic. After this proved successful on a small scale in Ostend, a much bigger project is currently being
considered to redevelop the entire former commercial inner port of Zeebrugge, currently abandoned
for the most part. In this case, the project implies the suppression of the current Vissart lock, building a
dike across the small seacanal to Bruges, and rebuilding the entire section in between as a modern,
tidal ro-ro port, in order to avoid waisting space located in very deep water in the new outer port to
locate European roro traffic there, which doesn’t need deep water, and for which a depth of 10 meters
would be sufficient in that redeveloped section. Again, marina-style redevelopment has been ruled out
there, even if there is a lot of local pressure as in Ostend after the touristic redevelopment of the
nearby former fishing port has proven to be a big success. And as the new fishing port has been
moved to that virtually abandoned section of the old inner port, making it tidal would be highly
appreciated by the local fishermen, who currently lose a lot of time when going through one of the two
local locks in order to reach the sea or v.v.
At the same time as this was happening in Antwerp, similar port-oriented redevelopment schemes
took places in Rotterdam, with a more directive approach taken by the port authority in order to
restructure the leases by encouraging mergers between stevedoring companies. As is well known, the
43
Dutch port has achieved its premier position in Europe (and previously in the world as well, before the
rise of Asian giants like Singapore and now Shanghai) by the relentless pursuit of scale economies,
with the emphasis on deep-water berths for supertankers, large bulk carriers and overpanamax-sized
containerships. This preoccupation has produced spectacular developments of the Western port (post1945 part of the port) with the Botlek to the Europoort, then the Maasvlakte I, and Maasvlakte II now
on the horizon. Such massive expansion of the port’s facilities has inevitably led to an extensive sliding
of activity downstream, towards deep water for ships and space for terminals, with the result that a
series of early dock areas located upstream on both banks of the Rhine River (known locally as the
Waal River) have fallen out of use. In most instances, these redundant, small, shallow water docks
have been taken over by the city authorities (and some have been filled in) in order to accommodate
social housing or, more recently, as shown above, as an extension of Rotterdam’s Central Business
District on the left bank (known as “Kop van Zuid”, which means Head of the South).
However, the abandonment of the older port areas has been restricted by two factors, as pointed out
by Pinder and Rosing, 1988: on the one hand, there is the success of inland navigation (for which
Rotterdam is by far Europe’s largest port), meaning that otherwise outmoded docks could still be used
to satisfy demand for barge berths (either for port handling or for parking) and, on the other hand,
especially in early 20th century harbours, the port authority has encouraged port users to modernise in
situ, rather than closing or migrating downstream. Behind this second factor lies the fact that, the port
increasingly anticipates land shortage in the near future.
The first area where a large scale port-oriented redevelopment scheme took place is the VierhavensMeerwehaven complex, built between 1910 and 1930. This is the only group of docks earmarked for
retention on the right bank within Rotterdam’s limits (excluding the independent port of Vlaardingen,
further to the West, where another older port area has just been redeveloped for roll on-roll off traffic).
The most outstanding feature of the port policy is that it has been designated to become a highly
specialised complex which necessitated displacing a number of existing activities. This underlines the
fact that port-oriented redevelopment strategies need not simply support the preservation of the status
quo, with some kind of passeism and nostalgic preservation of the past for the sake of celebrating the
good old days, in the hope that they will come again (which will not be the case, as technologies have
changed!). As far as this particular example is concerned, the movement towards terminalization as a
world class food port meant, firstly, that multipurpose general cargo-handling companies in the area
were relocated elsewhere (and often restructured at the same time). Secondly, the area was
redeveloped into a port and logistics complex in which many representatives of the foodstuffs sector
(fresh fruit, fruit juice, fresh and frozen vegetables, meat, fish and dairy product) were concentrated.
The advantages gained by the users were to some extent those arising from relocation away from
inconvenient or otherwise undesirable sites, but beyond this, the concept owed much to the belief that
activities in the new food port would gain from scale economies and from the provision of specialised
services for the sector, that were otherwise uneconomic or very expensive to supply widely dispersed
locations. Clearly, the basic model of linking port-oriented redevelopment with a shift to sectorial
specialisation could be applied to many sectors other than food, and has the potential to be applied in
many ports. The word was not used at the time, but it should be considered nowadays as a
clusterisation process (including the terminalization of port handling, but this is only the tip of the
iceberg).
A similar scheme was planned on the Southern bank in the Waalhaven area, again with a lot of
infilling, in order to make room for additional storage space, the more so as that section of the port was
built in the early 20th century as an area for direct transfers between ships and Rhine barges, with a lot
water space and dolphins in the middle of it (a layout still very useful for the fleeting area of a barge
carrier service between Rotterdam and New Orleans). But in the end nothing has happened, as it
seems that Rotterdam’s port authority is less interested nowadays in general non containerized cargo
traffic, and as the pressure of the city for additional space has also increased in the light of the
success of the Kop van Zuid urban-oriented redevelopment scheme a few kilometres upstream on the
same bank of the Rhine. One should also see the abandonment of the previous plans has a non
written compensation to the massive bluefield Maasvlakte II project, even if one should ask if the
expansion of the city in the Waalhaven area is not one dock too far, and if some think that it should
rather be down rated from deep sea to intra-European short sea or river traffic. Moreover, at the time
of “green transport” to and from the hinterland, the layout of this dock complex, with a lot of water
areas, is excellent in case of a revival of barge carrier traffic to and from the Rhine system. These
imply no rail or road traffic in the port area and they would be highly compatible, as there is virtually no
44
noise when LASH or BACO barges are handled to/from the mother ships, with offices and even
housing along the finger piers of the Western part of the Waalhaven area, in case the city expands
that far to the West. This would be one of the few feasible examples of a working waterfront combining
deep sea traffic and an expanded urban fabric.
In the meantime, the port of Amsterdam has been offering another example of this port-oriented
redevelopment strategy for older docks where deep sea traffic has declined. This has been taking
place in an area located between the Mercuriushaven and the Hempont ferry service across the North
Sea Canal (figure 3.46). On the one hand, classically, some small docks were filled in, in order to gain
additional storage space (namely the Houtveemkanaal, the Havenkoms B, D and E in the Coenhaven
and the Eastern extremity of the Jan van Riebeeckhaven), and local companies gained additional
storage space and could expand their facilities instead of being relocated to the Western part of the
port. And on the other hand, in a land-use conscious approach also observed in Rotterdam, additional
land has been gained in the so called “take back areas”, where previous users did not make good use
of the land leased to them. Large scale examples of such “recycled” areas can be seen on the
Southern side of the Vlothaven, on the Northern side of Reinierszhaven and on the Northern side of
the Sonthaven (the latter, presently being part of the more modern Westhaven dock system).
Figure 3.46 – Current port-oriented redevelopment schemes at the port of Amsterdam
As in all previous examples, these new spaces have or will be used for non containerized traffic, but
there are also some cases of recycling similar areas for container traffic, and these examples are
currently attracting more attention for port professionals.
45
b) Container terminals
For modern container terminals, a series of ingredients are needed: good access from the sea for the
latest generation mother vessels, deep water quays for the latter, lots of back-up space for container
storage, and high quality hinterland connections (by road and rail, and for inland barges wherever
possible). Another attractive factor is the availability of additional land on site or nearby for logistics
facilities which, when combined with container terminals, is currently seen as a bonus in the site
selection process.
The port of Hamburg features the most relevant examples of container terminal development in
brownfield areas, because the political geography does not allow it to expand outside the limits of the
city-state of Hamburg. Of course, some greenfield developments have been taking place recently
within the city-state where some land was still available, including the Container Terminal Altenwerder
(CTA) on the Western bank of the Southern Elbe. Its expansion is on the agenda and there is room,
further to the South, for another greenfield terminal in the Moorburg area (CTM, whether along the
river like the CTA, or on the two sides of a dock that would be dredged in order to increase the length
of the mooring space). This possible expansion is quite controversial however, as some 1,000
inhabitants are living in this area. One thing for sure is that if this 3.0/3.5 Mio TEUs’ terminal is ever
built, it will not be available before 12 to 15 years, as such radical changes in the land use need a lot
of time in the local and national planning context, as the previous example of Altenwerder has shown.
Figure 3.47 – Land areas gained in Hamburg through infilling port basins between 1962 and 2005
© Hamburg Port Authority
This is why the container capacity expansion at the port of Hamburg will mainly take place in
brownfield areas, as a logical next step of a long tradition. As can be seen in figure 3.47 there is a
long lasting tradition of dock infilling in the Hanseatic port, first in the Western part of the port, then in
the Central and Eastern parts. In the Western part (more precisely in the Kleiner Grasbrook sector),
the two series of docks were first filled in on each side of the Hanseatic Dock (Hansahafen) in order to
modernize it for conventional and ro-ro traffic, with a lot of space for logistics facilities. Then came the
46
time of dock infilling for container traffic more specifically dealt with in this section, making Hamburg
quite unique until now.
The reason for doing this is the dramatic past and planned increase of container traffic in the port of
Hamburg. As shown above in section 3.3.1, it has increased from 10.2 Mio tons in 1986 to
31.0 Mio tons in 1996, then to 89.5 Mio tons in 2006, translating into 8.9 Mio TEUs, whereas the
capacity of the existing container terminals amounts to about 9.1 Mio TEUs. In order to cope with the
planned growth of demand to at least 18 Mio TEUs in ten years or so, the Hamburg Port Authority is
carrying out a radical policy of expansion of existing container facilities and of transformation of non
container terminals into container terminals (with their associated logistics, facilities, and with
appropriate hinterland connections, especially by rail). Whereas the new Altenweder and the planned
Moorburg container terminals are far away in the Southern, lightly populated part of the city state, all
the brownfield redevelopments dealt with below are on the left bank of the Elbe and of the Northern
Elbe right in front of the city, from Altona to Othmarschen with thousands of inhabitants living within a
few hundred meters of the existing and planned terminals (figure 3.48).
Even if some of these neighbours have already started complaining and are asking (unrealistically) for
at least some limitations of traffic during the night and the week end, Hamburg Port Authority has no
other choice than implementing the expansion schemes detailed below if the port wants to hold its
leadership for containers (as the Moorburg terminal is only a partial answer and as Hamburg is not
taking part in the above-mentioned JadeWeserPort project in Wilhelmshaven).
Figure 3.48 – Expansion of container terminal capacities in Hamburg © Hamburg Port Authority
Two groups of brownfield terminals, each with two independent facilities, will soon be developed. On
the one hand, one group is located in the most Western part of the port in the Walterhof area, around
the Walterhof Dock, where it is highly logical to further develop the existing facilities, which were
already transformed from previous conventional cargo terminals. And on the other hand, the second
group is located in the central part of the port, around the outer port (Vorhafen), in an earlier complex
of conventional docks. At this stage, one should mention that all the maritime docks in Hamburg are
tidal (except for a small, old complex in Harburg), and that improving the nautical accessibility from
13.5 to 14.5 m for ocean going vessels is another part of the challenge facing the port authority.
47
The most logical choice for capacity expansion is in the Walterhof area, where the two existing
container terminals were previously transformed from modern conventional facilities. One is the
Container Terminal Burchardkai (CTB), which capacity should double, from 2.6 to 5.2 Mio TEUs,
without further infilling (as this has already taken place when the Meekenwerder Dock was previously
filled in). On the other side of the Walterhofer Dock, the capacity of the Container Terminal Eurogate
(CTE, where the Griekenwerder Dock has already been filled in) will be increased from 2.8 to 4.0, then
to 6 Mio TEUs, in the latter case by filling in the current Petroleum Dock and by building a new 410
meter-long berth along the Elbe (right in front of the Othmarschen neighbourhood on the right bank of
the river, where the nearest houses will be 700 meters or so away with no buffer in between).
But as Table 3.9 shows, this will not be enough to reach the 18 Mio TEU target, and another two
container terminals will provide the needed extra capacity. Both are in the central part of the port, one
on each side of the Outer Dock complex. One, the Container Terminal Tollerot (CTT), is already in
use, on a quite limited scale (1.0 Mio TEUs, to be increased to 2.0, then to 3.5 Mio TEUs); two former
docks (the Coalships Docks and the Vulcain Dock) have already been filled in, in this area, and a
smaller infilling is planned in order to obtain a continuous quay wall (figure 3.49).
Current
Planned (min)
Planned (max)
Table 3.9. – Current (2007) and planned (2017) capacity
of Hamburg’s container terminals (in Mio TEUs)
CTA
CTB
CTE
CTT
2.7
2.6.
2.8
1.0
3.0
5.2
4.0
2.0
3.0
5.2
6.0
3.5
CTS
0.0
3.5
3.5
Total
9.1
17.7
21.2
Figure 3.49 – Restructuring of Container Terminal Tollerort in Hamburg © Hamburg Port Authority
48
But the most complicated redevelopment will take
place on the other side, in the Southern part of the
outer port, where the 3.5 Mio TEUs Container Terminal
Steinwerder (CTS) is targeted for completion in
2015/2016 (figure 3.50).
Its layout will be much better, thanks to the demolition
of three peninsulas and the infilling of two docks
(Ellerholz/Odder Dock and Trave Dock) and of part of
a third (Kaiser-Wilhelm Dock). No extra dredging will
be necessary, but a new turning circle (common for
CTT and CTS) is needed in the middle of the
Outer¨Port in order to accommodate the same very
large container ships (VLCS) like those at CTA and
CTB/CTE. Especially in this area, alternative locations
must be found in the port for the multipurpose users of
the current facilities and a good railway connection has
to be provided.
Figure 3.50 –The planned Container Terminal Steinwerde in
the Central free port area, Hamburg’s latest brownfield
redevelopment © Hamburg Port Authority
Another example of such port-oriented redevelopment for container handling could be found in Le
Havre if the Port 2020 project finally gets a green light. In the French port, ample space is available in
the new inner port along the Maritime Canal for greenfield terminals, but such a location does not
seem acceptable for the major shipping lines, at least if a second large lock is not built. As the outer
port does not offer additional greenfield possibilities besides Port 2000 (with up to 12 berths built in
phases in the last possible expansion area in the Seine estuary), the sole remaining location for further
container expansion in the outer port is a brownfield site (figure 3.51) between the Ducrocq Dock (in
the said outer port) and the Bellot Dock (in the old inner port). The latter should not be filled in, as it is
part of the connection with the Tancarville canal for barges to/from Rouen and Paris, and its Southern
side would be used for barges as well as for European feeders (in this case via the Quinette de
Rochemont lock, connecting the Bellot
Dock with the old outer port). A remaining
question is the proximity with the Southern
neighbourhood of the city of Le Havre,
where the Northern side of the Bellot Dock
(currently used for reefer facilities) is a
fragile buffer, the more so as there are
already some urban expansion plans in
this section of the port. If these are
implemented, no housing should be
allowed and, even if this is a second
choice solution, blind walls should be
mandatory on the Bellot Dock side of the
public buildings being built (or rebuilt) on
this peninsula.
Figure 3.51 – From Port 2000 (a bluefield port development)
to Port 2020 (a brownfield port redevelopment),
as one of Le Havre’s alternative for further development
of its container terminal capacity in the tidal part of the port
© Port Autonome du Havre
49
Presentation of the city-port mixing problematic for each partners
GDANSK: WHICH CITY-PORT MIXITY FOR A COMMON WINNING DEVELOPMENT?
Lying on the Bay of Gdansk and the Southern coast of the Baltic Sea, the thousand years old City of
Gdansk is the Polish maritime capital with a population nearing half a million. Gdansk is the capital of
the Pomeranian province and an important administration centre. It is also a large centre of economic
life, science, culture and one of the prime tourist destinations in Poland.
During the last two decades or so, the structure of its economy changed with the private sector rising
to the dominant position. Shipbuilding, petrochemical, chemical and food industries are still the pillars
of Gdansk industry, but the share of know-how-based economy (electronics, telecommunications, IT
technology, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals) is gradually rising.
With its Hanseatic tradition, Gdansk has played a major role in commercial relationships between
Northern and Western Europe, and between the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Today, with
its geographical location and as the deepest ice-free port on the Baltic Sea, the port of Gdansk aspires
to become the distribution hub for Poland, the Baltic Sea region and the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe. It will be also a key link in the Trans-European Transport Corridor n°6, a corridor that
will be connecting Gdansk with Southern Europe (chiefly the Adriatic and the Black Sea regions).
The port of Gdansk, a future distribution hub
The Port of Gdansk Authority SA is a Joint Stock Company. With 80 per cent of the shares, the State
Treasury is its main stakeholder (against only 2 per cent for the Municipality of Gdansk, whose weight
might however be increased up to 34 per cent). Its overall traffic amounted to 23.3 million tons in 2004,
making it Poland’s largest port. This includes 11.8 million tons for liquid fuels (crude oil, much of it
coming from Russia by pipeline, as well as oil products), 5.9 million tons for coal (coming from Silesia
by railway), 3.1 million tons for other dry bulk and 2.5 million tons for general cargo (including only
44,000 TEU's as the nearby port of Gdynia is Poland’s gateway for this type of traffic). In the recent
years, traffic growth has been quite dramatic, reflecting the successful transition of the Polish economy
(+ 9.5 per cent between 2003 and 2004 for the overall traffic, + 11.5 per cent for general cargo and
even + 94 per cent for containers).
The general border of the port area includes 3000 hectares, but the real working area is of
653 hectares. It is divided into two parts, whose technical characteristics and history are quite different
indeed:
- the inner port, located on the Dead Vistula and the Port Canal, where traffic was already recorded
one thousand years ago ; the maximum draft is only 10.2 m (at the entrance and at some places,
including the Gorniczy Dock) and there are 281 hectares occupied by port activities ;
50
1. Port Free Zone
1
11
2. Ferry Terminal
10
2
3. General cargo
3
3
4. General cargo, grain, bentonite
5. Containers
4
6. Malt, medical and technical gases
5
7. Phosphates, salt, soda, syenite
9
8
8. Fertilizers, phosphates, molasses,
sulphuric acid
9. Coal, ore, timber
7
10. Liquid and dry bulk sulphur
6
11. General cargo, timber, ro-ro
Map N°1 - The Inner Port © Port of Gdansk Authority
-
the Northern port, located to the East and built after WW2 in much deeper water (15 m) and with
more land around (372 hectares); there are three jetties within the current breakwaters (one for oil,
connected to the above mentioned pipeline and to the nearby refinery, one for coal and one for
LPG), and a container terminal is currently being built further to the East by a foreign private
operator (for 500,000, then 1 million TEU’s), whereas a LNG jetty is also planned (to have an
alternative to Russian natural gas).
Their theoretical handling capacities are quite different as well: 12 million for the Inner Port and
43.5 million tons per year for the Northern Port.
1
1. CRUDE OIL AND OIL
PRODUCTS
2. COAL
2
3. LPG
3
Map N°2 - The Northern Port © Port of Gdansk Authority
51
There are a series of other projects under way, including:
- the Pomeranian Logistic Centre, a very large logistics and distribution centre in the immediate
vicinity of the forthcoming container terminal;
- the modernisation of the entrance to the inner port, showing that this part of the port has a future;
- a tunnel under the Dead Vistula, to connect both banks on the Northern side of the city, and better
road connections on the Eastern and Southern sides of the city;
- doubling the railway bridge across the Dead Vistula, and several improvements to the current
railway network.
Moreover, two more minor projects show that the port authority is aware of some of the issues arising
at the port/city interface, and tries to offer solutions to the burden of road congestion and heavy traffic
nuisances:
- a direct approach road to the quay area at Przemyslowe Quay (on the Eastern side of the Dead
Vistula, in front of the Ostrow island and its shipyards), allowing the effective use of 120 more
hectares of port development land;
- the restructuration of the junction between the national road N° 1 and the Port Free Zone (on the
Western side of the Dead Vistula, near the port entrance).
Seen from City Hall, the perspective is quite different, the more so as, unfortunately, there is no
integrated spatial planning for port and cities areas. On the one hand, the (national) Maritime Office
creates spatial development plans for inner sea water areas (including port areas, but the last one was
done in 1990) and Gdansk’s port authority has no law delegation to create plans for the whole port
area, whereas on the other hand, Gdansk’s municipality can only create spatial development for its
land areas. It has been argued that establishing port plans compatible with studies on preconditions
and directions of the city, made by the Maritime Office in cooperation with Gdansk’s Port Authority
would minimize the influence of inconvenient competence division introduced by the polish Act on
planning and spatial development.
In the meantime, the "Gdansk Development Strategy by 2015" identifies basic objectives and
perspectives of development. The maritime and logistic activities will have a strong role to play, and
the scope of measures covers the expansion of seaport capacity, supporting the growth of logistics
operations, and upgrading and development of the transportation system (road and railway access).
This development strategy integrates the perspective of the Trans-European Transport corridor n° 6
as well as another international project, namely the motorways of the Baltic Sea. The on-going or
planned projects will have a positive impact on the efficiency of the port and the economic
development of the city. A reduction of environmental nuisances linked to road congestion and heavy
traffic is also hoped. They will also generate a new city-port mix for the three sites that will be studied
in the framework of the PCP project.
Port and urban redevelopment, towards a new city-port mix
The New Port district: sharing an historical district with new port activities
The New Port district is the most
exact example in Gdansk of port
and city structures neighbouring
each other. It is located at the
west bank of a meander of
Dead Vistula River, close to its
mouth (which is also the
entrance to the inner port),
about 6 kilometres north to the
historical part of the city. The
area of a built up part of the
district is about 50 hectares, and
its population amounts to
12,000 inhabitants.
Existing port structure next
to the city
New Port district
The New Port District
© City of Gdansk
52
The New Port area has been a district of Gdansk since the beginning of 19th century, however its
history dates from the beginning of 17th century. The existing city structure of the place is a mixture of
different styles of 19th and 20th centuries architecture. The buildings are often of great historical value
(an historical heritage protection has been established for comprehensive parts of the district zones)
and are mainly used for residential, small retail functions and port-administration services.
The housing part of the district is cut off from the bank of Dead Vistula River by port infrastructure
areas.
The Port areas consist of the free zones WOC I and WOC II located to the North-East of a housing
part of the district, and Oliwskie Quay located north and to the West of a housing part of the district.
WOC I and WOC II free zones are situated at the entrance to the port and have quays in
Wladyslaw IV. BasinOliwskie Quay is used for general cargo such as grain, powered milk, fruits (in its
Eastern part), and for steel, timber etc.(in its Northern part). Between Oliwskie Quay and WOC free
zones, a ferry terminal (one of the two existing in the inner port) is located (see map N°1).
Currently, the port and the city have undertaken a series of actions to improve the accessibility of the
inner port. The main projects in this respect are located in port part of the New Port district, e.g:
- rebuilding and widening the water entrance to the inner port;
- increasing the capacity of the Port Free Zone (new ro-ro berths in WOC quays);
- rebuilding the road entrance and redeveloping the junction with the National Road n°1;
- managing for a safer access and the extension of the ro-ro capacities at the Westerplatte Ferry
Terminal.
Only existing housing alowed
No housing alowed
The New Port District © City of Gdansk
Quite an important part of urban context of the district was built in the 17th century (Stronghold
Vistulamouth - Twierdza Wisłoujście). It is located at the opposite (East) bank of the river, however it
had former also a West-bank part, next to the existing residential part of the district. At the moment a
few remaining oil tanks are located in this area, but they are not used any more. The city decided to
organize a green public space there (with consideration of the place’s history) what could bring
inhabitants closer to a waterfront and strengthen the image of the district as a port-connected one. The
masterplan for the area is already done and the project is in its initial phase.
However the coexistence of the port quays and the city structure causes only minor problems and the
whole area seems to be quite peaceful, masterplans for the district take measures to reduce the
potential inconveniences. The main way of doing this is by minimizing the share of housing in the
city/port border area, and only existing residential structures are allowed there, without permission to
extend.
53
The New City district: from historical shipyards to a new modern city district
The city comes at former
shipyard area – new possibility
of arranging the neighbourhood
The New City district
The New City area is the
place in Gdansk where the
City decided to build its
structures, a new district,
on former shipyard area.
The planned district covers
approximately 70 hectares
and is located between the
main
North-South
transportation
corridor
Gdansk-Sopot-Gdynia and
the waterfront of the Dead
Vistula River. The whole
area is in a walking
distance from the historical
part of the city and of the
main railway station.
The New City District
© City of Gdansk
The first settlement there dates from medieval ages as a location for fishermen and craftsmen. In the
middle of the 19th century, only a few warehouses for the Prussian Navy were built (Gdansk was
governed by Prussia in this period). The further development was linked with constructions for the
Royal Navy at the beginning of 20th century. Later on, the shipyard became the privately owned
Schichau’s shipyard with newly constructed efficient industrial structures and current up-to-date
shipyard equipment. In close neighbourhood the city, gas-works and other small industrial enterprises
were built. After WW2, the industrial use of this part of the city was continued and the shipyard was
renamed to “Lenin-shipyard”.
Global and national economic changes and the political transition in the late 1980s caused the
bankruptcy of this shipyard and the transformation of other enterprises to more service-oriented
activities. The gas works also stopped their production. Currently deteriorated former shipyard and
other industrial buildings or structures mainly shape the landscape, some of which have a high
historical value. Numerous existing buildings were converted into office space. Nowadays, only the
headquarters, the customer services and the development office are located there. Other shipyard
buildings are temporarily rented for light industry, services and wholesales. Shipbuilding declined
almost entirely in this location, moving further to the North and to the industrial Ostrow Island.
Nevertheless, on the edge of area designated for revitalization, there are huge slips still being used for
ship construction, which may cause some future environmental and functional collisions. But there is a
strong political demand to maintain those slips in operation.
The most significant point of this place is the “Solidarity Memorial” dedicated to the commemoration of
the shipyard workers who were killed in 1970’s rebellion. The monument itself (three huge steel
crosses) with a place for gathering has a great recognizable urban and symbolic value. This place
together with planned next to it, Solidarity Centre, is designed to be the entrance part of the pedestrian
boulevard Road to Freedom.
The main objectives of masterplan are:
- to change the industrial use to a mixed use with a broad range of services and apartment housing;
- to extend the pedestrian promenade along the waterfront from the Old Town and marina;
- to exclude industrial use (heavy and light) and land use causing environmental threats;
- to restrict suburbian-style retail outlets (shopping centres).
The plan provides an area for desirable passenger ferry / terminal location, office space and cultural
activities. In order to minimize the negative influence of the slip areas, industrial activities other than
shipyard are excluded and in the neighbouring services areas hospitals and other vulnerable functions
are excluded and no housing will be allowed.
54
The planned ring road – Nowa Walowa Street – connects the area with other parts of Gdansk. The
long-term ambitious goal is to locate the Downtown Baltic Business Centre with metropolitan and even
national importance in this part of the city.
Due to current law obligations and private ownership structure, the city has to compensate financially
the land acquisition for public space. Furthermore, the city is obliged to build infrastructure and
transportation connections which puts enormous burden on the city.
The Stogi district: container and logistics activities moving closer to the city
The Stogi district takes its name from the Stogi Island where it is located (this part of Gdansk is
actually surrounded by water: Gdansk Bay to the North, the mouth of Vistula river to the East, and the
Dead Vistula river to the South and the West). The North-western part of the island where the
Northern Port is located is the main development area for the Port of Gdansk, and therefore, the Stogi
district is the place in Gdansk where the port is coming nowadays closer to the city.
The residential and nonport part of the district,
with the area of about
100 hectares and a
population of about
20,000 inhabitants, is
located in the middle of
Southern part of the
island,
about
4
kilometres in a straight
line from the old city
centre. To the North it
neighbours with woods
and green areas which
occupy most of Northeastern part of the
island. The structure of
residential part of the
district is rather new, as
the oldest buildings
were erected in 19th century.
The port comes closer to the city;
new possibility of arranging the
neighbourhood
The Stogi district
The Stogi District © City of Gdansk
The main current development ideas for this part of Gdansk's port are:
- the construction of a container terminal at the Northern Port;
- the Pomeranian Logistics Centre;
- road and railway connections to the Northern Port (mainly by building a road tunnel between the
West and East banks of the Dead Vistula river, by rebuilding the single-track railway bridge across
Dead Vistula river, and by adding new railway and road links, especially to connect the port with
the A1 motorway).
55
Currently, the container
terminal is the largest
infrastructure
and
investment port project. It
will be partly built on
reclaimed land into the sea
and it will be wholly fund by
private investors (a long
term tenancy contract was
signed in 2004). Phase 1 of
the project will provide
facilities for a 500,000 TEU
annual throughput, whereas
The container terminal project © Port of Gdansk Authority
phase 2 is targeting an
annual
capacity
of
1 million TEU. In the immediate vicinity of the new container terminal is planned the Pomeranian
Logistics Centre, a large logistics and distribution centre providing a wide range a value added
services. On the one hand, construction works for the container terminal have already started and its
opening is planned in May 2007. On the other hand, the Pomeranian Logistics Centre is still in a
phase of finalizing the project, but its location is firmly fixed.
The container terminal and the Pomeranian Logistics Centre
© City of Gdansk, Economic Policy Department
These two projects are located to the South-East of the existing port structures, meaning that the port
will be expanding towards the residential part of the district. To avoid the potential spatial conflict
between the new port and logistics structures and the existing residential areas, it was decided that a
wide green buffer zone (with a use of existing woods) must be left in between. Additionally an
obligation for using technical means to reduce noise, air and water pollution in new port investment
was introduced. The only potential problem area is therefore in the shore line of Gdansk Bay. The
container terminal under construction is partly located on a beach that is quite popular among citizens
and just 1,500 meters away along the coastline from Stogi Spa, a developing summer attraction
centre.
Sources:
Mr Krzysztof Anzelewicz, Development Department Manager, Port of Gdansk Authority, Presentation during the
Launch Seminar of the PCP project, Gdansk, 21-22 November, 2005
Mr Jarosław Wincek, Gdańsk Development Agency, Presentation during the Launch Seminar of the PCP project,
Gdansk, 21-22 November, 2005
Mrs Malgorzata Ratkowska, Development Programmes Department, City of Gdansk
Mr Krzysztof Szczepaniak, - Director of Economic Development Department, City of Gdańsk, Presentation during
the Launch Seminar of the PCP project, Gdansk, 21-22 November, 2005
http://www.portgdansk.pl
http://www.gdansk.gda.pl
Jacques Charlier, external expert on the PCP project, Professor, CIEM, Brussels
56
57
BREMERHAVEN - GROWTH AT THE SEASIDE
Germany is a Federal Republic made up of 16 States, known in German as Länder (transliterated as
Laender in English, singular Land). Since Land is also the German word for "country", the term
Bundesländer ("states of the federation"; singular Bundesland) is commonly used as it is more
specific. Three of the states are city-states (Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg), while the other 13 are termed
Flächenländer ("area states").
The Länder of Berlin, Bremen, and Hamburg, are governed slightly differently from the other states. In
each of these cities, the executive branch consists of a Senate of approximately eight selected by the
Land's parliament; the senators carry out duties equivalent to those of the ministers in the larger
Länder. The equivalent of the Minister-President is e.g. the Senatspräsident ("President of the
Senate") in Bremen. The parliament for the Bundesland Bremen is called a Bürgerschaft. In addition –
to make it a bit more complicated – in the City of Bremerhaven (part of the Bundesland Bremen) an
own city parliament (so called Stadtverordnetenversammlung) has been established and is
responsible for city council related decisions.
The state of Bremen consists of two separated enclaves: the cities of Bremen (correct called ‘Free
Hanseatic City of Bremen’), which is the state capital, and Bremerhaven. Both are located on the River
Weser; Bremerhaven is further downstream and serves as a North Sea harbour (the name means
"Bremen's harbour"). Both cities are completely surrounded by the neighbouring State of Lower
Saxony (Niedersachsen).
Map 1: Location Bremerhaven in Germany
Map 2: Location Bremerhaven in North-West Germany
Port history Bremerhaven
The town was founded in 1827, but there were settlements there as early as the 12th century. These
tiny villages were built on small islands in the swampy estuary. There were early plans to found a
fortified town at the place in order to protect the ships leaving or entering the Weser, and in 1672
Swedish colonists tried unsuccessfully to erect a castle (Karlsburg) there.
Finally, in 1827 the City of Bremen bought the territories at the Weser mouth from the kingdom of
Hanover. Bremerhaven was born and became a second harbour to Bremen, despite the distance of
50 km between the places. Due to the trade with and the emigration to North America the port and the
town grew fast.
58
The kingdom of Hanover
founded a rival town
directly
beside
Bremerhaven and called
it Geestemünde (1845).
Both towns grew and
established the three
pillars
of
trade,
shipbuilding and fishing.
In 1927 Geestemünde
and some neighbouring
municipalities
were
united to become the
new
City
of
Wesermünde, and in
1939 Wesermünde and
Bremerhaven
were
merged. Most of the
town was destroyed in
World War II; however
the most vital parts of the port escaped the war undamaged. In 1947 the city became part of the
Bundesland Bremen. Today Bremerhaven is therefore, confusingly, part of the state of Bremen but is
a city in its own right, distinct from the City of Bremen. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the
overseas port is not part of the City Bremerhaven but under the direct jurisdiction of the City of
Bremen.
Population = 116,865 persons
Area = 78,86 sqkm
The Ports of Bremen/Bremerhaven - general information
Organisation in the Ports
The ports of Bremen / Bremerhaven are one of the TOP 20 container ports of the world, with more
than 4,45 mio. TEU shipped in the year 2006; the port is still growing fast. The dynamic development
of the Bremen maritime car turnover is shown in the impressive handling activities within the port. Last
year’s result with almost 1,89 mio. units in the year 2006 was beaten by more than 14,8 %. Compared
with the shares on other continents the ports of Bremen are the main car turnover harbours in Europe.
This and the container business are both very important for the harbour and both are growing.
Ports and foreign trade make up one of the main
economic parts of the State of Bremen. 174.000 jobs in
2005, according to a study in 2006 (Kieserling
Foundation) were dependent on the Bremen ports;
86.000 thereof in the State of Bremen.
The port principles and guide lines are stipulated by the
Senator for Economy and Ports. The duties of the
harbour master like, e. g. the management of the
maritime traffic and other government tasks are in the
hands of the Hansestadt Bremischen Hafenamt (Bremen
Port Authority). The planning, the construction, the
structural maintenance, the facility operations, the land
management and the marketing of the overall port
complex were transferred by the Senate in 2002 to the
under private law company bremenports GmbH &
Co. KG.
Map 3: City map of Bremerhaven
59
Map 4: Harbours in Bremerhaven © Bremenports
Sea and Inland Reachability
Bremerhaven is situated 32 sea miles from the open sea. Ships with a draft of up to 12,80 metres can
reach Bremerhaven irrespective of the tide. Ships with a larger draft have temporary restrictions and
are dependent on the tide. Bremen, the German port furthest inland, is situated about 60 kilometres
further upstream on the Weser and is for sea-going vessels up to about 10,7 metres draft reachable,
dependent on the tide. The reachability to the container terminal Bremerhaven – independent of the
tide – will be further improved by the Free State of Bremen`s requested adjustment of the Outer
Weser. Probably the furthest tide independent reachability to Bremerhaven with ships up to
13,8 metres will be guaranteed by 2007/8. The Lower Weser will also probably be extended in
2007/08. The reachability of the twin ports to the sea will be very much improved by these necessary
adjustment measurements of the Weser.
In the Port of Bremerhaven due to the building of the turning basin in the Weser in front of the
container terminal a start has been made for the continuing strong and above average high turnover
growth in container traffic. In the new turning point two big container ships of the latest type can be
moved simultaneously in front of the Bremerhaven Stromkaje.
Apart from the achievement of the port facilities and the maritime approach for the competitiveness of
a port, the hinterland is also of paramount importance. Bremen and Bremerhaven do not only have an
effective port railway with a network of over 240 kilometres but also an excellent rail connection to the
large economic centres of Germany and to the rest of Europe. Almost 50 % of the hinterland traffic of
Bremen is transported by rail when local traffic in the Bremen suburban regions remains
unconsidered. The share of the rail was 2/3 in the container long distance traffic. The truck cannot be
beaten as a flexible transport art in the instrument of definite sharing with regard to short and medium
distances. Road transports are therefore the second largest component in the hinterland traffic of the
Bremen ports.
Two connections to the national and European inland waterway network are available from Bremen for
the inland shipping routes. Firstly westwards is the connection via the Under Weser, the Hunte River,
the Coastal Canal and the Dortmund-Ems Canal to the Rhine and via these to the whole central
Europe canal network. The other oneconsists of a connection via the Central Weser southwards to the
Middleland Canal. The location of the port of Bremerhaven needs an effective Central Weser,
particularly for the environment-friendly combined container hinterland transports by inland waterway
ship. The measures, necessary for the extension of the Middle Weser and the lock gates Dörverden
as well as Minden, have been registered in the current state traffic route plan. The building measures
will commence in 2007 and the completion of same is planned for 2012.
60
The longest riverside quay in the world
Investments for the Container Turnover
With an turnover of slightly less than 45 million tons resp. just under 4,5 million TEU (Twenty feet
equivalent unit = standard container) in 2006 the Stromkaje at the Weser in Bremerhaven, the centre
of Container Terminal Wilhelm Kaisen, is the most important port part. The largest container ships in
the world can berth here.
With the building of Container Terminal IV, which was commenced in the summer of 2004, four further
berths for large container ships will be available. Thereby Bremen/Bremerhaven will profit from the
forecast expansion in the growth market of the container business. The first two berths in Container
Terminal IV have already been assigned. The final berth in Container Terminal IV will be complete in
the spring of 2008. After completion of these terminal expansion 14 adequate berths for large
container ships are available in Bremerhaven.
CT 4 at a glance
Length of the former container quay
Length of the new quay wall
New terminal operating area approx.
Number of new berths
Capacity of full potential
Soil replacement (2004)
Sand required
Environmental compensation
Completion of first berth
Completion of all work
Construction and planning costs approx.
3237 metres
1681 metres
90 hectares
4
more than 7 million TEU
approx. 400,000 cubic metres
approx. 10 million cubic metres
Luneplate and foreland of Wursten coast
end of 2006
early 2008
500 million euros
Container Terminal area (incl. CT 4 under construction,
view from South-East) © Bremenports
CT 4 under construction (view from South)
© Bremenports
Investments for the Car Turnover
The East Port situated in the oversea port area Bremerhaven in the City of Bremen area will be partly
filled in to provide the urgently needed areas for the automobile turnover. An new area of 6,1 hectares
exists for the car turnover in the north eastern section. Along the quayside exists 3, up to 270 metres
long berths for intercontinental car transport vessels (so-called deep sea carrier). The port basin in
front of the new berths was deepened for these ships. In this connection the excavated dredge
material from the port basin deepening was used as fill up material for the new car turnover areas. The
successful positioning of Bremerhaven in the automobile turnover and organisation can only be
reached resp. maintained in the European maritime competition in that the historically grown
infrastructure and suprastructure of the port facilities is continually adjusted to meet with the changing
stipulations and requirements of the port customers. For this reason the new building of the Kaiser
Lock Gates was sanctioned by the Senate in the middle of 2005. Thereby the latest verdict regarding
61
the future development of the size of the ships was considered in order to guarantee the long term
investment measure. The new Kaiser Lock Gate is intended to go into service in 2010.
CT4 project and Environmental Compatibility
The construction and operation of CT 4 influence the environment, affecting many different areas. As
the authority responsible for design and location approval, the North-West Directorate of Waterways
and Shipping (WSD) in Aurich held a scoping meeting with a panel of experts to ensure the
investigation of all possible consequences of the project for humans, flora and fauna. If negative
environmental impact cannot be avoided, it has to be reduced or compensated for - as prescribed in
the German law on Environmental Impact Assessments.
As soon as construction work begins, the machinery generates noise and the pollutants emitted by the
vehicles on the building site already impinge on the surrounding area. The Lower Saxony Mudflats
national park located to the north of the new terminal area is also affected by the work.
Once operation has begun, the neighbouring residential areas (Weddewarden and Langen-Imsum)
will also be affected by the noise and light emanating from the terminal. In addition, there will be airborne pollutants, for instance as a result of container handling. And finally, the face of the environment
will also change with containers and cranes where there used to be mudflats.
These and other effects on the environment play a central role for the work of the port planning
engineers. From a very early stage, they have to consider whether negative impact can be avoided or,
if not, how it can be compensated for. Failure to come up with acceptable compensation solutions
could jeopardise planning permission for a construction project such as CT 4.
Diverse technical rules, statutory regulations and legislation set the framework. Take, for example,
passive noise protection: before the planners consider whether the houses in the adjacent districts
should be given new soundproof windows, they first have to examine whether it is possible to reduce
the noise level of the technical equipment at the terminal. Or take the question of light at the terminal:
the lamps which illuminate the terminal site have to be non-glare and must not attract insects. Or
again, take the groundwater: in the event of an accident involving hazardous substances, the
groundwater - just like the Weser - must be at no risk of contamination.
Passive noise protection plays a key role in the CT 4 project: Bremenports, the port management
company, has contacted the owners and tenants of around 85 houses in the centre of Weddewarden
and some parts of Imsum and offered to fit the properties with top-quality soundproof windows and
insulated front doors at Bremen’s expense. Each of these houses in the terminal vicinity will also
receive a modern ventilation system to ensure a healthy atmosphere behind the new Class III
windows. Other residents of Weddewarden and Imsum who live farther away from the terminal are
also entitled to passive noise protection for their houses. The experts judge each case individually by
evaluating noise exposure forecasts.
Bremerhaven’s municipal council has issued a status preservation order for the district of
Weddewarden. Bremen’s Senate, too, has proved its commitment to the sustainable peaceful
coexistence of port and residential area. With its offer to provide noise protection for the house owners
and tenants, the planners ensure that there will still be a healthy residential environment in the area
around CT 4.
As the port expands, valuable natural areas are lost. Accordingly, ecological compensation has to be
made elsewhere. The statutory regulations demand comprehensive compensation. Former farmland is
to be turned into ecologically valuable zones. Two locations have been selected for this task: Grosse
Luneplate to the south of Bremerhaven (itwill be the central substitute site for CT 4), and an area on
the Wursten coastline north of the city, close to the villages of Cappel and Spieka.
One thing is sure: every conceivable effect of CT 4 will be carefully scrutinised. These aspects are all
taken into account in evaluation of the application documents for design and location approval.
62
The JadeWeserPort
With the final completion of CT4 – scheduled on the beginning of the year 2008 – there will be no
opportunities left for additional expansions of the terminal. The main reason for that are that the
northern outline of the terminal extension CT4 represents the country’s frontier of Bremen and Lower
Saxony and – in addition – direct to the border line of the terminal there is a natural park located which
prevents any further terminal expansion activities. In view of this situation, the Federal Laender of
Lower Saxony and Bremen have established a joint framework for long-term cooperation to implement
the deep-water harbour project in the German Bight – JadeWeserPort, Wilhelmshaven.
A deep-water port is therefore the ideal solution to the future transport and logistics requirements.
"Wilhelm Kaisen" Container Terminal in Bremerhaven is already expected to reach the limits of its
capacity in the foreseeable future. It will then be up to JadeWeserPort in Wilhelmshaven to offer
additional premium service for mega-container vessels.
With its ideal location and excellent connections to the business metropolises of Europe,
Wilhelmshaven can offer first-class service for the next generation of container vessels. Seaward
advantages of this location include a navigable depth of 18 metres, the short upriver trip of just 23 sea
miles, and a large turning basin. As an ideal transhipment hub, the deep-water port - "JadeWeserPort"
- will also attract more feeder and short-sea traffic to and from Scandinavia, Finland, the Baltic, Russia
and the United Kingdom. Convenient road and rail hinterland connections also ensure that the major
European economic centres can be reached quickly by land. Large development areas for logistics
and industrial companies are available in the immediate vicinity of the container terminal.
JadeWeserPort Realisierungs GmbH & Co. KG has been founded in order to implement this project:
the Federal Land of Lower Saxony holds a 50.1% stake in the company, while the Federal Land of
Bremen - via Bremenports GmbH & Co. KG - holds the remaining 49.9%. The execution of
JadeWeserPort, from preparatory planning work, to the planning itself, right through to construction
and commissioning, is one of the most important investment projects in the north of Germany. The
total investment volume for infra- and suprastructure amounts to 900 million euros.
The large project Jade Weser Port means a unique, over-regional cooperation between the partners
Lower Saxony and Bremen. Fortunately the planned quantity development, which is expected to lead
to the full capacity for the Jade Weser Port in the middle of the next decade by the operator means a
total of several thousand jobs for North West Germany. Through the close-knit union of the container
terminal and cargo transportation centre (Güterverkehrszentrum) with effective connections to the
transports modes rail and truck a unique organisation cluster exists in the Bremen economic field.
Port Traffic
The cargo traffic via sea reached a new record of 64,6 mio. Tons in 2006 (+ 19,1% as opposed to
2005). The Bremen ports remain the second largest in Germany. The Bremen seacargo turnover has
more than doubled in the last ten years.
As in the past years the USA, with a total of 11,9 mio. tons, again attained the highest turnover share
in the cargo traffic compared with 9,8 mio. tons in 2005. The container traffic with the People’s
Republic of China amounted to a total of 3,6 mio. tons. This means it is the second strongest after the
USA with a total of 9,8 mio. tons container turnover. The Russian Federation follows in the third place
with 3,1 mio. tons in the much increased container trade. The European traffic – with 33,2 mio. tons –
amounted to more than half of the total Bremen turnover. The most important non-European continent
is still America (16,6 mio.tons). The Asian ports reached a quantity of 12,1 mio. tons.
The container turnover in the ports of Bremen increased in 2006 by 20,0% (based on container
weights) compared with 2005. A growth of 18,7% opposed to the previous year amounted to nearly
4,4 mio. TEU for the standard container business.
Notably an average annual growth rate of nearly 12% in the period between 1998 and 2006 was
reached. The share of the containers in the total general cargo turnover amounts to 83%
(containerised degree). Almost 99% of the container turnover was carried out in the modern facilities in
Bremerhaven.
In 2006 the bulk and conventionally turned over general cargo, apx. 19,7 mio. tons, represented a
share of apx. 30 % of the total volume (64,6 mio. tons) in the ports of Bremen. The pure bulk cargo
63
turnover attained apx. 10,8 mio. tons. 8,9 mio. tons were represented by the conventional general
cargo turnover. The most general cargo turnovers are vehicles and bananas in Bremerhaven as well
as steel and forest products in the City of Bremen. There was a clear high turnover level expansion of
steel and pipes at a volume of 3 mio. tons. The ports of Bremen are absolutely the biggest for
conventional general cargo without the containers in the German North seaports.
The dynamic development of the Bremen maritime car turnover was quite impressive in 2006. Last
year’s result with almost 1,89 mio. units in the year 2006 was beaten by more than 14,8 %. Compared
with the shares on other continents the ports of Bremen are the main car turnover harbours in Europe.
The number of passengers on cruise ships decreased in 2006. There were a total of nearly 70,000
passengers.
The number of ships and the quantity of cargo in the inland shipping trade. With a turnover of 5,6 mio.
tons Bremen and Bremerhaven belong to the ten most important German inland shipping ports, based
on the turnover figures.
In the air sector the results regarding the number of passengers decreased to 42.000. Above all the
settlement of a new airline in Bremen in 2007 means a rise in the anticipated number of air
passengers.
The "Kreuzfahrt-Terminal Bremerhaven"(Cruise Ship Terminal Bremerhaven) Attractive centre for German maritime tourism
Once, the famous express steamships of the Norddeutscher Lloyd that were berthed here. One after
another, “Bremen”, “Europa” and “Columbus” won the “Blue Ribbon” for the fastest Atlantic crossing.
Millions of emigrants began their journeys to the new world from here, Elvis Presley arrived here as a
GI in the US Army. Columbus Quay – the quay of tears, of hope and of happiness. Today it is the
heart of the Kreuzfahrt-Terminal Bremerhaven (Cruise Ship Terminal Bremerhaven) – a quay for
holiday enjoyment on elegant cruise liners, departing from Bremerhaven principally for the fjords and
northern oceans.
Today, Europes’ most up to date cruise terminal processes a good 70 ships and over
70,000 passengers every year. Holidays at sea are becoming ever more popular, but the requirements
of shipowners, tour operators and passengers in terms of comfort and safety are also increasing. The
Kreuzfahrt-Terminal Bremerhaven (Cruise Ship Terminal Bremerhaven) has left behind the days of the
old scheduled passenger journeys across the Atlantic. As in a modern airport, passengers are
processed and move across modern passenger gangways on board the ships of their dreams.
Since the early 1980s, the cruise market has achieved average annual growth rates of eight to nine
per cent worldwide. In Europe, there are currently around two million cruise passengers. The greatest
potential for the future lies in attracting passengers from other countries, who are still largely absent at
German cruise terminals. Expert studies assume that within a period of 10 years, The KreuzfahrtTerminal Bremerhaven will handle around 120,000 passengers. In 2002, the terminal dealt with
53 cruise liners and around 50,000 passengers. An increasing number of liners - and consequently
more passengers - also mean more jobs. In 2000, the five-month long cruise season accounted for
some 50 jobs in Bremerhaven; by the year 2012, that figure is expected to rise to 120.
Bremenports has spent
almost 25 million euros on
the thorough rejuvenation
of the legendary former
'Columbus Station'. It can
now take first place among
European cruise terminals
with regards comfort and
safety.
Kreuzfahrt-Terminal
Bremerhaven (view from
North-West) © Bremenports
64
The same applies to the neighbours of the elegant, white cruise liners and passengers looking forward
to their holidays: bananas, oranges, grapes, apples, pears, melons. Although they also arrive in white
ships, these are refrigerated cargo vessels from Central America, North Africa, South Africa and India
that moor up at the fruit terminal of the Heuer Group in the overseas harbour and at Columbus Quay.
In former times and for many years, Bremerhaven was the banana port for Germany and Switzerland;
today the range is far broader. The bananas (400,000 tonnes per year) no longer come directly in vast
bunches direct from the plantations, but are already ready for market in refrigerator ships, stored at the
correct temperature for onward transport in long refrigerated trains or trucks.
Over 100,000 tonnes of grapes, melons, pears, apples and oranges are also already ripening in
containers even while at sea and are closely checked for quality in Bremerhaven and prepared ready
for sale and consumption all over Europe, even as far away as Russia. But the fruit terminal and the
cruise terminal have something else in common apart from their vicinity to one another: only top
quality has any chance in a demanding market.
Bremerhaven is growing at the Sea side- Development Area "Havenwelten"
For several years now, it has been planning
the transformation of its old port at the
interface
with
the
active
port:
"Havenwelten" (Alter/Neuer Hafen). The
spaces around the port dock will, at term,
house landmarks such as the Climate
House
(http://www.klimahausbremerhaven.de/), a four-star luxury hotel
100 metres high (Atlantic Sail City), a large
shopping complex called Mediterraneo but
also more classical developments such as
offices and residential accommodation at
the edge of a future yacht harbour. This
Marina is planning the construction of over
40 000 m² of habitable surfaces and about
200 moorings.
The area "Havenwelten" (Alter/Neuer Hafen)
– left Mediterranea, right Climate House (view from East)
© City of Bermerhaven
Bremerhaven,
known
for
having
welcomed
over
7 million
persons
emigrating to the Americas during the
period 1830 – 1974, has also recently
opened a house to retrace the history of
these emigrants. The achievement of the
"Deutsche Auswandererhaus " project
(http://www.dah-bremerhaven.de)
cost
about 20 million euros and will in due
course represent a leading cultural
attraction for the North of Germany with
an estimated 200 000 visitors a year.
The area "Havenwelten" (Alter/Neuer Hafen) –
in front German Emigration Center (view from North)
65
The creation of the technology centre "Technologiezentrum t.i.m.e.Port" (created in 2002 with financial
aids from the European Union) should attract businesses specialised in the fields of
telecommunications, information technology, Multimedia, and Entertainment. These latter could thus
take advantage of the existing economic climate – thanks in particular to activities connected directly
or indirectly with the port of Bremerhaven – to further their future development. Here it is a question of
creating bridges enabling the economic worlds to be linked, to advantage trade and to create more
wealth and employment (http://www.time-port.de/web/).
All these projects are supported by several partners: the City of Bremerhaven, BIS Bremerhavener
Gesellschaft für Investitionsförderung und Stadtentwicklung mbH (http://www.bis-bremerhaven.de/)
and an organisation of a mixed-economy type, BEAN Bremerhavener Entwicklungsgesellschaft
Alter/Neuer Hafen mbH & Co. KG (http://www.bean-bremerhaven.de), with a mandate from the City to
carry out the planning and marketing of the project.
BEAN mbH & Co. KG is the property owner and building owner of the public buildings like climate
house, German Emigration Centre, the lock at the new harbour and other infrastructure facilities.
Furthermore BEAN is financing most of the construction measures by order of the city (overall about
300 Mio. €).
The climate house (“Klimahaus”) and the German Emigration Centre (“Deutsches Auswandererhaus”)
are types of public private partnership models which will be operated by private investors. This is
mainly the BIS and its network that acquired the current private operators and investors (hotel, marina,
apartment houses’, Mediterraneo’ shopping centre). BIS is also responsible for the marketing of
unimproved areas at Neuer Hafen (e.g. at EXPO Real exhibition, Munich). Strategic coordination takes
place between the city council, BIS, BEAN and the private investors within the scope of a so called
“Strategierunde” (a rather informal meeting round).
Whole area size
Land area
Water area (basins)
Expanse east-west
Expanse north-south
Investment volume for infrastructure
measures (Land Bremen, city of
Bremerhaven)
38,5 ha
25,8 ha
12,7 ha
300 m
1800 m
263 Mio. €
The Old/New harbour area at a glance
Integration into the existing city
The overall aim of the development strategy for "Havenwelten" (Alter/Neuer Hafen) is to integrate the
area into the existing city shape. Of particular interest in this context is the pathway over the harbor
basin, i.e. the glass bridge. It has to be seen that it connects two important parts of the city with each
other: on the one side the central square located in between the Mediteraneo and the Klimahaus and
on the other the city centre and the Columbus Centre. Likewise the so-called “Holländer-Bridge” is of
importance, which builds the southern connection the Columbus Centre.
66
In the course of the sustainable restructuring of the shopping mall, the east/west axes have been
focused on particularly (e.g. see Keilstraße/Linzer Straße). The existing infrastructure has been
extended and modified to incorporate the new attractions at the "Havenwelten" (Alter/Neuer Hafen)
(there is an underground car park at the "Havenwelten" (Alter/Neuer Hafen) now and new bus stops
have been implemented).
Quite naturally, Bremerhaven is interested in attracting people, i.e. consumers and customers, to the
city centre. In order to achieve this goal, central and attractive offers are required at the ‘Mediteraneo’
as well as other touristic offers (e.g. in Deutsches Auswandererhaus, Klimahaus, Hotel, Marina).
Likewise of importance is the creation of new freehold flats, which will attract well-off persons to the
city centre. This similarly applies to sailors, which are usually well-off as well.
Due to a long existing citizen initiative, different informative meetings have been held in addition to the
formal proceeding. Within the scope of “construction marketing” an exhibition has been prepared in
order to give citizens and tourist as well an overview on the project activities. Further information can
be drawn from the BEAN website www.bean-bremerhaven.de
Project
Investor
German
Emigration
Centre
BEAN /City of
Bremerhaven
Climate
House
Mediterraneo
Hotel Atlantic
Sail City
Time Port II
Time
Port III
Marina
BEAN /City of
Bremerhaven
Zechbau/Justus
Grosse Gruppe
BIS
BIS
Im-Jaich
Petri
&Tiemann
GmbH
Thomas
Klumpp
(Bremen)
AVW Albrecht
Vermögensverwaltungs
AG
AVW Albrecht
Vermögensverwaltungs
AG
WGK
Planungsgesellschaft
(Hamburg)
Atlantic Hotels
Bremen
BIS
BIS
Im-Jaich
Thomas Klumpp
(Bremen)
Husemann &
Dr. Wichmann
(Braunschweig)
Running
tender
Peter Weber
(Bremerhaven)
Spring
2006
End of
2007
7,3 Mio.
€
public
100
No data
April 2006
Operator
Paysage
House 1
Architect
Start of
building
Completion
Studio
Andreas
Heller
(Hamburg)
November
2004
August 2005
April 2006
April 2006
April 2006
Spring 2009
Spring 2008
February 2008
Beginning of
2005
February 2007
Total costs
20 Mio. €
70 Mio. €
31 Mio. €
19 Mio. €
5,6 Mio. €
Funding
Employees
Visitors
expected/p.a.
Public
70
170.000
Public
90
600.000
Private
260
No data
Private
55
No data
Public
90
No data
April 2007
3 Mio. €
private
10
No data
Including existing facilities (zoo and shipping museum) the number of the visitors expected lies about
1-1,2 Mio. /p. a.
Fishing Port Area
Bremerhaven's fishing port was established in 1886. Today it comprises about 450 ha land used and
150 ha water used area and by this in total 6 mill. sqmetres. Despite its turbulent history, the fishing
port is still Europe's main centre for fish processing and production, particularly for frozen foods, with
about total 390 enterprises and 4,000 working places. Further 4,000 working places indirectly related
to the fish processing and production sector. In this respect the best known companies are „Frozen
Fish International“ (frozen food), „Frosta AG“ (frozen food), „Deutschen See“ (fish-manufactur) and
„Nordsee (chain of gastronomy retail shops).
At the same time the fishing port is a manifoldly maritime industrial estate. Small business trades,
steel-constructing companies, several im- and exportfirms, yacht-shipyards, ceramical indsutries and
large dockyards as well are located in this area.
67
The development of the law of the sea and the severe crises in the fisheries sector in the 1970s and
1980s, which resulted in a drastic reduction of the fishing fleet, did not leave Bremerhaven unaffected.
The State of Bremen rose to this
challenge and, with assistance from the
EU,
launched
a
comprehensive
programme
of
modernisation
and
restructuring in the fishing port. The oldest
part of the port houses the Schaufenster
Fischereihafen, a business and tourist
centre containing attractions, restaurants
and shops devoted to the subject of fish –
a maritime experience for visitors. Firstly,
the former fish packing hall IV was
restored and now provides premises for
15 trade and catering companies.
The fishery harbour (view from North East)
Secondly, the despatch hall of the former railway station for fish transport (Fischbahnhof) with its
important steel structure was dismantled and then rebuilt at the heart of the Schaufenster
Fischereihafen opposite the renovated former fish packing hall IV. It has been turned into the Forum
Fischereihafen, a modern media-based centre providing information about fish and the sea. In the
Atlanticum, for instance, visitors can learn in some detail about the development and use of the seas,
about fishing, the fish trade and fish processing. They can tour a seawater aquarium containing fish
from the North Sea and the Atlantic and, in cookery demonstrations or special cookery courses in the
seafish cookery studio, they can get ideas for delicious fish dishes.
The maritime displays are complemented by multifunctional lecture rooms and halls which also
provide the venue for the Theater im Fischereihafen. In view of the specific objective of promoting
the fisheries industry, the project also received funding from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries
Guidance (FIFG) and the PESCA Community Initiative totalling almost € 1.2 million. This public
investment has triggered substantial private investment and created some 150 new jobs.
A centre for business start-ups and development in the field of biotechnology applications in the food
industry, the "bio nord" biotechnology centre, has been completed close to the Schaufenster
Fischereihafen. The biotech centre was supported with approx. € 12 million from the new 2000 – 2006
Objective 2 programme. There are also plans to continue repair work on the roads and supply and
waste disposal pipes, most of which date from the late 19th century, and to develop disused industrial
areas into attractive business locations.
A centre for the future market of the renewable energy is built up at the south-end in the so called
development area “Luneort”. In the near future wind power stations for offshore wind farms will be
assembled here.
Next to this are the regional airport of Bremerhaven is located. With its 20.000 takeoffs and landings
p.a. the airport is mainly business oriented. Furthermore it is the homebase for the research-planes of
the “Alfred-Wegener-Istitute for polar- and maritime research (AWI)”.
At the north-end of the fishing port - in the transition zone to the city of Bremerhaven - a new area (57
ha) for research and development in direct neighbourhood to the AWI and the University of
Bremerhaven is planned. Among other things a new Institute for maritime research (IMARE) and
private companies shall be settled. Main focus of the IMARE will be technology transfer.
68
Source:
PCP Newsletter N°2, prepared by Helmut Berends (Berends-Consult on behalf of the BEAN) with support of Mrs.
Pamela Hell née von Düring (BEAN Bremerhavener Entwicklungsgesellschaft Alter-/ Neuer Hafen mbH & Co.
KG.), Mr. Stefan Henke (Bremenports), Mr. Christoph Herrfurth (Magistrat Bremerhaven - Dept. Economic Affairs)
and Mr. Michael Gerber (BIS - Bremerhavener Gesellschaft für Investitionsförderung & Stadtentwicklung mbH).
Further information:
http://www.bremenports.de/engl/index.aspx
http://www.wirtschaft.bremen.de
http://www2.bremen.de/wirtschaftssenator/start/haefenframes.html
http://www.jadeweserport.de
http://www.bremerhaven-touristik.de/bremerhaven-tourism/deutsch/nochmeer/service/a_kreuzfahrt_terminal.html
http://www.bean-bremerhaven.de
http://www.klimahaus-bremerhaven.de
http://www.dah-bremerhaven.de
http://www.bis-bremerhaven.de/sixcms/list.php?page=start
69
RIGA: A FAST DEVELOPING CITY
RIGA port history
Foundation of Riga
The beginning of the 13th century is connected with the arrival of German Bishop Albert, that is
described in the chronicles, and the Order of Knights of the Christ established by Bishop Albert with a
view to control trade with Slavonic
nations and introduce the Christian
faith to local inhabitants. The year
1201 is considered to be the
official year of foundation of Riga
with Bishop Albert as its founder.
In the 13th century, the Town
Council of Riga entered into
agreements on international trade
and exchange of goods with
Eastern
principalities
and
Hanseatic towns, thus Riga
became an important interstate
trade port and a member of the
Hansaetic League.
© Freeport of Riga Authority
In the 14th century Riga was under the rule of the Livonian Order. The power of the Hansaetic League
consolidated. The principal port of Riga was located at the mouth of the River Ridzene. Discovery of
the New World in 1492 resulted in a sudden boom in the trade at the Port of Riga. The era of large
shipments started. The Port of Riga moved to the Daugava, leaving the source of the River Ridzene
for landings of small sailboats and wintering of ships. XVI to XVIII centuries were hectic times for
the city: Lithuanian-Polish Union, the winner of the Livonina War (1558-1581), became possesor of
the key of Riga till the Swedish time after the Polish-Sweden war (1600-1621), a war due to tempts to
gain influence over the Baltic Sea. In 1700, Russian Tsar Peter I declared war on Sweden. In 1710,
the key to the City of Riga was received by Count Sheremetyev. Riga became the first Russian port in
the Baltic Sea.
The 18th century witnessed intensive engineering and construction work, which was carried out to
adjust the Daugava River bed. The deepening of the river and protection of the city against spring
floods were the main reason to start the construction of dams.
The beginning of the
XIXth century saw new
problems: navigation in
the Port of Riga became
critical due to the silting
of fairways. The external
trade of the city became
completely dependent
on dredging. As a result
of
the
grandiose
railways,
dam
and
bridge construction, the
significance of Riga
increased.
© Freeport of Riga
Authority
70
XXth century, time of growth and changes
The new century started with
the world’s industrial crisis. At
the beginning of the 20th
century Riga was the largest
Russia’s timber export port and
ranked the 3rd in the Tsarist
Russia Empire according to the
external trade volume. At the
earlier beginning of the century,
in order to increase the
throughput
capacity,
the
Russian government took a
decision of new developments
(Eksportosta- 1901; first freezer
in 1902; Riga Freight Station in
1903; the first electric power
station in 1905). In 1914, shortly before World War I, the second Railway Bridge across the River
Daugava was opened. In 1915, the evacuation of Riga’s factories, ships and port equipment to Russia
started. In 1917, when leaving the city, the Russian Army blew up the bridges of Riga as well as some
buildings located at the port. The German army occupied Riga. In 1918 the Republic of Latvia was
proclaimed. In 1920, a Peace Treaty between Latvia and Russia was signed and the renewal of
economic life started. The main trade partners of Latvia were then the Great Britain and Germany. In
1940 the Soviet regime was proclaimed in Latvia for the first time. In the summer of 1941, World War II
broke out, which excluded the possibility of logical development for the Port of Riga for a long period of
time. During Soviet years, at the beginning of the 1980’s, one of the largest container terminals in the
USSR was built in Kundzinsala, as well as a berth and an infrastructure for liquid gas export was
created, the Riga Passenger Terminal and Zvejas Osta in Rinuzi were put into operation. On 4 May
1990, the Latvian Supreme Council adopted a Declaration on the Renewal of Independence of the
Republic of Latvia and a new stage in the history of development of the Port of Riga started.
Introducing the port today
The port has an important role in ensuring the functioning of multimodal West-East and North-South
transport corridors. Owing to the well-developed motor-road and railway network, the Freeport of Riga
is directly linked to the main consumption centres and extraction-processing regions of the CIS and
Russia. The advantages of Riga over the neighbouring ports in terms of distance ensure the best
conditions for the development of economic relations. The direct border of Latvia with Russia and
Byelorussia is the most significant factor for the maintenance of stable and mutually beneficial
71
business relations. In 2005, the cargo turnover at the Freeport of Riga increased by 1,8%, amounting
to 24,4 mln tons. Traditionally, up to 80% of the cargoes handled at the Freeport of Riga are transit
cargoes to Russia and the CIS states. Recently a dynamic position in the structure of the Freeport of
Riga cargo turnover was
occupied by timber, reaching
28% of the total volume of the
transshipped
cargo.
The
economic activity of the Baltic
Container Terminal in the
structure of the Freeport of
Riga cargo turnover has
significantly
improved.
Containerized cargo of Riga
makes up 6.4% of the total
amount. The special mineral
fertilizer-reloading complex has
been developing intensively
and the handling capacity has
been increased as a result.
Since 2000, the Freeport of
Riga has been successfully cooperating and co-coordinating
the operation of all transport
enterprises related to the port, thus infrastructure efficiency has been increased. Riga International
Airport, a developed motor-road and railway network where important investment projects during the
last years have been implemented, ensures good cargo traffic possibilities in the region.
Port legislation
3 main components:

The law “On ports” (1994)

The law “On the Freeport of Riga” (2000)

The law “On the Application of Taxes in Free ports and Special Economic Zones” (2002)
Infrastructure summary
Facts & Figures
The Port of Riga is the most significant Latvian import and export port and the biggest Latvian port in
terms of land available for development. By volume of cargoes it is the second biggest in Latvia and
fourth biggest port on the Eastern coast of the Baltic.
In 2006 Freeport of Riga breaks historical record by handling 25.36 min tons.
72
Turnover at the Freeport of Riga in 1997-2006
(thous.t.)
30000
23991,3 24429,1
25000
18108,6
20000
15000
25357,6
21728,6
11213,1
13315,3
12012,6
13351,7
14883,9
10000
5000
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Commodities handled at the Freeport of Riga in 2006
Building materials
Other general
3%
cargo
Containerized Chemicals
2%
5%
cargo
6%
Other bulk cargo
10%
Coal
43%
Timber
12%
Oil products
19%
Ro-Ro and Passenger Traffic:

Regular Ro-Pax lines:
Riga – Stockholm (every day)
Riga – Nyneshamn (twice/week)
Riga Lübeck (3 times/week)

Cruise ship calls:
Total of ship calls (in 2006)
3 648
Total of passengers (in 2006) 246 885
The port of Riga is also a User Friendly Port with 32 stevedoring companies; 34 shipping agencies, 13
port production companies and more than 60 port related companies
Port authority functions
The main port authority functions are:
Provision of infrastructure (Landlord function)

Ensuring of ships’ navigation safety

Maintenance of sea and river channels

73
Maintenance of hydro-technical structures
Enforcement of the Freeport of Riga Regulations
Levying of port dues and charges
Issuing free zone licenses to companies
I.S.P.S. Code implementation
On 3 July 2003, the Freeport of Riga received a quality certificate compliant with the ISO 9001:2000
standard requirements issued by the Bureau Veritas Quality International. On 10 July 2005, the
Freeport of Riga received a quality certificate compliant with the ISO 14001:2004 standard
requirements issued by the Bureau Veritas Quality International.
The objective of the Port of Quality Assurance: the Freeport Port of Riga Authority challenges to
become an open and engaging social ambience for citizens as well as friendly and perspective base
for entrepreneuship by carrying out the criteria of the city environmental and economic avtivities to the
EU legislation.
Freeport Port of Riga Authority actively participates in the socially- political and cultural processes
important for Latvia. More than 20 000 residents of Latvia annually are related with the Freeport of
Riga Business activities.
RIGA Port City
Riga – the backbone of the national economy:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
32% (735,000) of the national population
40% of the national economically active population
52% (4690 mil. EUR) of the national GDP
56% of all the registered enterprises in Latvia
53% of the national industrial output
80% of the wholesale turnover
60% of the retail trade turnover
65% of the personal income tax in Latvia comes from the employers registered in Riga
55% of the foreign investment
57% of the foreign tourists overnight in Riga
The Urban Structure of Riga
Population – 734 000 (2004)
Total area – 307,2 km²
Including
Water – 54 km² (17,6 %)
Nature and greenery
(incl. – open space) – 112,5
km² (36,6%)
© Riga City Council
74
THE PERSPECTIVE SPATIAL
STRUCTURE OF THE CITY
Riga Port City project
According to Riga Freeport Development Programme 1996–2010 and Riga
City Development Plan 2006–2018 port operations will be moved closer to the
mouth of Daugava, clearing a territory of 123 ha for the development of the city
on the right bank of Daugava from
Andrejsala to Krievusala.
The Project development company
Jaunrīgas attīstības uzēmums” Ltd. (JAU) was founded by
Riga Freeport Authority and the Norwegian enterprise
Port Pro AS.
The mission of JAU: with the development of Riga centre
towards the river Daugava to establish a multifunctional
and high-quality urban territory in the area cleared from
port operations.
Riga Port City project embraces the development of this
territory. Project implementation is intended in two parts:
development of Andrejsala (39 ha) and development of
Export area with its adjacent territories (84 ha).
Andrejsala is located in the protection area of Riga
Historical Centre – a territory which is on the UNESCO
World Heritage List. It is a significant aspect, which will be
taken into consideration when developing the territory of
Andrejsala, transformation of which presumably will take
10 to 15 years.
Andrejsala-the former main export region
of Riga Port© Riga City Council
75
Development of the second part of Riga Port City project – Export area – and its transformation into an
urban area is planned to be completed in about 25 years. Meanwhile, port operations will be carried
out in Export area, and transformation of the territory will be performed gradually:

Operating terminals in the Export area will be retained for another 5-7 years

On-going operations will not be ceased without need during the development process of the
territory
Southern Part of Andrejsala Open to Public
On May 4 2006, following diligent preliminary works
„Jaunrīgas attīstības uzņēmums” Ltd. opened the
Southern part of Andrejsala to the public.
Besides, this spring Andrejsala experienced
activities much different from everyday cargo
handling operations and heavy booms of railway
wagons. As of April 20, Andrejsala welcomed
artists from various countries who had come to
create their pieces of art to be shown at the
exhibition „Borders as Windows” – part of the
international arts project „Sense in Place”.
Exhibition „Borders as Windows” will be open from May
4 to 21. Arts installations will be located and
performances shown at Andrejsala’s former Carpenter
Workshop, and Power Plant – a building which has
been chosen for the Museum of Contemporary Arts.
The Contemporary Art Museum (CAM) as an accelerator
In 2005 - 100 years have passed since the last and single unique building of museum for exhibition of
works of art was constructed in Riga - Latvian National Museum of Art. Latvia is one of the rare
European countries, which does not have its Museum of Contemporary Art and exhibition of national
level contemporary art. Within 20 years period during which discussions concerning urgent need for a
museum of contemporary art and its creation possibilities, the concept of the role of museums in
Latvia has changed.
State Agency “j3b”- “New Three Brothers” - is a state
administration institution, under supervision of the Minister of
Culture, which is aimed at securing construction of premises
for the three cultural objects of national significance - National
Library of Latvia, Concert Hall and Contemporary Art
Museum. On April 15, 2005 the Cabinet of Ministers issued
an order No.238 “On Establishment of the State Agency “New Three Brothers”.
76
Agency tasks are:

To secure construction of the state cultural objects (as well as designing of the buildings and
construction supervision) and starting their operation;

To arrange procurement procedures for state needs – for construction of the state cultural objects,
material and technical supply;

When the state cultural objects are put into operation, to secure entering the real estate into the
Land Book in the name of the state and in the person of the Ministry of Culture;

To attract finances for construction of the state cultural objects, cooperating with private investors
within the framework of public and private partnership model.
The objectives of the Agency are:
In cooperation with educational establishments and their curriculum to be an educational centre for
young people and a place for life-long-learning for different society groups;

By organising special programmes to serve as an agent of social inclusion;

Using the universal means of visual arts to be a centre for cultural integration involving multicultural groups of Latvia and Europe;

To operate as a tourism attraction and a culture information centre for visitors of Latvia giving new
opportunities for mutual understanding;

To join the network of the Baltic Sea contemporary art museums gaining their experience in
promoting contemporary arts and giving new ideas for mutual cooperation.

Contemporary Art Museum
The new commercial center
Concert Hall
National Library
The basic concept for CAM project development is the construction and setting up of the Museum of
Contemporary Art of Latvia. The Government Declaration of 2004 states it as one of the culture
priorities. In 2004 the Ministry of Culture established a project working group, which has developed
formulation of CAM concept and mission. On 28-31 October 2004 international sessions of architects
took place, in which 9 foreign architects companies and 2 architects’ bureaus of Latvia took part. On
the basis of the session results TES 1 building and territory in Andrejsala was determined as the future
construction site.
77
CAM - The site
Power Plant premises in Andrejsala have been chosen as an appropriate place for CAM
The Agency has
already started to
develop
the
Museum’s
Collection.
The
first
purchases
were accepted by
the International
Experts
Committee on the
15th of December
2005
and
Mr.Ernests
Bernis,
representative of
Aizkraukles Bank
became
the
chairman of the Committee.
Aizkraukles Bank sponsors the Intranet – a closed data base for experts that provides a unique
collection of regional and international art works to be judged for the future collections “total
accessibility”. It means destroying all the barriers that could prevent visitors to enjoy the museum visit.
The future museum should be able to overcome various problems created by physical, sense, and
intellectual, financial, emotional, information and culture access problems. Much attention will be paid
to methods of providing feedback that could help in decision making and meeting the growing
demands of society.
With no doubt, CAM, and the cultural developments, will be an accelerator of the multifonctional
development of the central part of the city and of a transformation of former port areas to attractive,
mixed-use public areas which will provide the port city of Riga and its inhabitants with a high quality
business and living environment.
Source:
- PCP Project - Newsletter N°3, Prepared by Haralds Apogs, Visual Art Specialist, with support of Inese
Vilane, Project manager, Freeport of Riga Authority, June 2006
- Edgars Suna, Head of Strategic Planning Unit, Freeport of Riga Authority - Presentation during the Riga
Working Seminar of the PCP project, Riga, 15-16 June, 2006
- Pēteris Strancis, Head of Building Board of City Development Department, Riga City Council - Presentation
during the Riga Working Seminar of the PCP project, Riga, 15-16 June, 2006
- Valters Mazins, Chairman of the Board, Jaunrīgas attīstības uzņēmums” Ltd - Presentation during the Riga
Working Seminar of the PCP project, Riga, 15-16 June, 2006
- Freeport of Riga: www.freeportofriga.lv
- Riga City council: http://www.riga.lv/EN/Channels/About_Riga/default.htm
- JAU: www.jau.lv
78
79
AMSTERDAM: FLEXIBILITY AS A TOOL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Port History
Early settlements
The port of Amsterdam dates back from the 13th century. During the beginning of that century, a
handful of adventurers came floating down the river Amstel in hollowed-out logs. Out of the
marshlands and swamps surrounding the Amstel River, a structure of dams and dikes were forged the first of which is marked by the Dam square at the heart of the city today. These early merchants
began exacting toll money from the passing beer and herring traders of the roaring Eastern Sea Trade
of the Baltics, quickly becoming expert boat builders and brewers. The city quickly grew and foreign
trade became more and more important. In 1275, Count Floris of Holland formalised these activities by
granting special toll privileges to the merchant town.
Golden age
Between 1570 and 1640, Amsterdam's population increased from 30,000 to 140,000 and over the
centuries, the thriving trade industry brought with it waves of various cultures, making the city a haven
to diverse groups of refugees. But the city's growth was not without struggle (reformation period,
Calvinists' revolt and 80 Years' war). In 1581 the celebrated William of Orange-Nassau declared the
eight Northern provinces - including Amsterdam - as the independent Republic of Holland. Flexibility
and tolerance of these cultures soon proved a key to Amsterdam's success. Protestant settlers, such
as the French Huguenots, and Portuguese Jews fled to Amsterdam. Pathways to business, trade and
prosperity were forged into what ultimately became the country's 'Golden Age'.
In the 17th century, the voyages of the famous Dutch East India Company (VOC) to the Spice Routes
helped make Amsterdam one of the wealthiest and most influential cities in the world. Port
development took place on both sides of the Amstel river and was expanding to the east side and
west site of the river IJ. The east side remained more important. There were large water areas and so
Amsterdam could carry out larger works without having to resort to expensive forced purchase
procedures. On that side expansions followed each other rapidly with shipyards and warehouses. This
is where the VOC was established. It was during this Golden Age that the city's famous concentric
crescent of canals took form, becoming what to this day remains an intricate web of circa 90 islands,
100 kilometers of canals and 400 stone bridges.
Capital of the Netherlands
After the Golden Age, the Dutch economy suffered a period of stagnation and the Amsterdam port
area ceased to grow. While wars with France and the United Kingdom meant the city's prosperity
suffered, by the time the Kingdom of the Netherlands was finally established in 1815, Amsterdam
began to witness a surge of developments in architecture, infrastructure and industry. By 1806,
Amsterdam had finally earned its title as the Dutch capital.
Silting up of the port became a problem, along with the river IJ. The port links to the North Sea via the
then Zuiderzee (today IJsselmeer) was becoming more and more shallow. Without significant work,
Amsterdam would not remain a seaport. King Willem I initiated the excavation of the Noordhollands
canal between 1819 and 1824 from Amsterdam to Den Helder. Due to the increasing size of the ships,
the locks and the depth in the Noordhollands canal quickly became too small to meet demands.
Constructing the North Sea Canal (1865 - 1876) made Amsterdam accessible from the sea again. The
distance to the North Sea was now only 20 kilometers. In 1892 the Merwede Canal (now Amsterdam–
Rhine canal) was opened. This canal created a direct connection between Amsterdam and the
German hinterland.
Eastern Docklands
In the 19th century, the old docks built on the neighboring Eastern Islands had become too small for
the demands of the time and they were gradually expanded to new build islands in the river IJ. The
main part of the Eastern Docklands was built in the early twentieth century. The traditional sailing
ships were gradually replaced by twentieth century steam ships and the dockyards and warehouses
changed according to the new demands. These new docklands also marks the first separation of port
area and residential areas. Trade mainly took place with the former East-Indies (mainly Indonesia) and
West-Indies (mainly Central America) and the Levant (Near East). Overseas passenger traffic also
took place from this area. People traveled between Amsterdam and the former colonies; and
80
emigrants arriving by train from Central and Eastern Europe left for North and South America. In the
1980s, the docklands were abandoned by the shipping companies.
Shipping Industry and Repair
Amsterdam has a long tradition of ship building and ship repair. While the docks and warehouses were
relocated to the Eastern Docklands, dockyards and ship repair were moved to the northern side of the
IJ river. In 1878 the Amsterdam Dry dock Company established a new wharf opposite to the Eastern
Docklands. On the western part of the northern IJ banks also ship building and ship repair companies
appear. During the 20th century many ships were build, and the industry had a large contribution to the
port economy. But in the 1970s business was falling off. The ship building and repair companies went
to a process of merging and taking over. By the late 1980s almost all companies have disappeared.
Shipdock Amsterdam is nowadays the only representative of a once large scale industry. The old
wharf of the NDSM (Netherlands Shipbuilding and Dock Company) will be transformed into an urban
area, with preserving the characteristic buildings slips and sheds of the former dockyard.
Western Port Area
At the end of the 19th century the port also made a start to develop into western direction, along the
North Sea Canal. Through the construction of the Timber ports, the Minervahaven and the
Petroleumhaven, developing a new modern port. In the 20th century, the Coenhaven (a general cargo
port) followed. In the early thirties, the first part of the Westhaven was constructed for a Ford car
factory. By 1950 the second world war huge damage was largely repaired. The poor link with the
German hinterland was solved, with the widening of the Amsterdam-Rhine canal. In the sixties, the
port had to face an increase in scale in shipping. There was also an increasing importance in
transshipment of bulk goods (oil, grains and coal). But Amsterdam was also a final destination for
general cargo (wood, paper, steel). In those times the Amerikahaven and Australiëhaven were being
excavated. General cargo was being transported more and more in containers at the end of the
sixties. At the end of the seventies the first part of the Aziëhaven was constructed. In the eighties there
was new growth - a particular increase in the transshipment of dry bulk (coals, grains, ore), and in the
transport of containers. The youngest addition to the port infrastructure, the Afrikahaven, was officially
opened in 2000.
Port expansion 1950-2000 © Port of Amsterdam
Port Today
Port profile and organisation
The Amsterdam port area is made up of four ports and is also known as Amsterdam Seaports. It is
made up of the ports of Amsterdam, Beverwijk, Velsen/IJmuiden and Zaanstad. Together they are the
economic engine of the North Sea Canal area. The four ports lie along the North Sea Canal, and while
operating independently they work closely together. Except for the port of IJmuiden all ports are public
owned ports. Port of Amsterdam belongs to the Municipality of Amsterdam under whose instructions it
manages, operates and develops the port. The main aim is stimulating economic activity and
employment in the entire Amsterdam port region.
81
Port of Amsterdam manages over 1900 hectares (4500+ acres) of port area and 600 hectares
(1500 acres) of water. The exploitation is aimed at port sites (rental and leasing), quays and water.
Port of Amsterdam also takes care of the construction, maintenance and renewal of real estate and
infrastructure.
Port of Amsterdam's activities include:
Traffic control by VHF from the various traffic posts

Traffic supervision by patrol vehicles

Controlling the locks in IJmuiden

Enforcing the law and regulations

Executing environmental inspection tasks

Advising other services and companies in the maritime area

The port area is one of the most important hubs in Europe. This is mainly due to the favorable location
by the sea, and the good connections with the hinterland via water, road, rail and air. The port is also a
popular (international) business location. All these assets leads to some 80 million tons of goods
annually, which means that Amsterdam ranks fourth on the list of most important North West seaports.
The area is of great economic importance: the direct maritime added value amounts to over 3.5 billion
euro and the port provides employment for 34.000 workers and some 22.000 workers have jobs
related to port activities.
The total assets amount to € 546 mln and the turnover comes to € 80.5 mln. In 2005 the Port of
Amsterdam added more than € 22 mln to the municipal treasury. In the period 1990-2005 Port of
Amsterdam granted 393 hectares of land and took back 298 hectares, so that the net granting came to
95 hectares.
Port map © Port of Amsterdam
Key figures
Port Area
Port Area Amsterdam
Throughput
Throughput Amsterdam
Income
Added value
Yearly investment
Employment
New land leased
4,500 ha
2,500 ha
80 mln tons
55 mln tons
€ 70 mln
€ 3,500 mln
€ 40 - 50 mln
34.000
25 ha per year
82
Types of cargo
Amsterdam Seaports can be characterized as a bulk port. The annual throughput of 80 million tons is
divided between 25 million tons at IJmuiden and 55 million tons at the Port of Amsterdam. The
throughput of IJmuiden is related to the Corus steel industry and consists of coal, oreas and metal
products. Port of Amsterdam is strong in coal, liquid bulk and agribulk. Amsterdam is the largest
gasoline port in Europe and to be expected the largest in the world within a few years. Amsterdam is
behind Rotterdam the second largest coal port of Europe with a market share of 25%. Sustainable
new fuels like biomass and biofuels are appearing in the port currently. Amsterdam is the largest
cacao port worldwide and the largest agribulk import port of Europe.
Since August 2005 the
port of Amsterdam is
also a fast growing
container port, with eight
weekly services of deep
sea and short sea lines
to Asia, South America
and all parts of Europe.
The expected growth is
from 50.000 containers
in 2005 towards 200.000
containers in 2006 and
350.000 containers in
2007. The capacity of
the container terminal is
1.000.000 TEU, with
optional space to grow
to
a
capacity
of
3.000.000 TEU.
Terminal Ceres © Port of Amsterdam
Cruise
83
Passenger Terminal Amsterdam © AIVP / IACP
Amsterdam
is
an
important destination
for cruise, with 106
sea cruise calls and
772 river cruise calls
in 2005. More than
250.000 passengers
visit the city. This
means
a
yearly
spending of about 100
mln
euro.
The
Passenger Terminal
Amsterdam (PTA) is
located in the center
of
the
city
and
combines a multitude
of
functions.
The
striking building has a
600-metre-long quay,
large reception halls, a
touring car terminal,
offices, a convention centre and a subterranean parking with 500 parking places. PTA also serves as
an event location. Under the undulating roof lies a large transparent space which, spread over three
levels, accommodates some 3,000 guests.
Locks IJmuiden
The 20 kilometer North Sea Canal with a width of 350 meters connects the Port of Amsterdam with the
sea. At IJmuiden a watershed was needed and this has resulted in a complex of four locks,
operational 24 hours a day. The maximum draught allowed to use the lock is 13.72 meters in salt
water.
The increase in the number of seagoing vessels urges the necessity of a new second large lock at
IJmuiden. The maximum capacity of the large Northern lock will be reached within a few years. Also
the operational width of the Northern lock of 45 meters, is (too) tight for new generations of bulk
carriers. It is for this reason that the Dutch government and provincial government in 2005 concluded
that the realization of a new lock is the only solution to secure a reliable and sufficient access to the
sea. As the planning time and building time will be about 10 years, in between measures have to be
taken. These measures include optimizing lock planning, more lighter capacity in the outport and
improvement in the port entry area.
Accessibility
Amsterdam has good connection to the hinterland by road, by rail and by waterways. By road
Amsterdam is connected to the European hinterland by the A1, A2 and A4 motorways. In 2008 a new
motorway will be build that connects the port directly to the second beltway around Amsterdam. This
motorway will also provide a direct link between the port and Schiphol airport. With the doubling of the
rail tracks between Amsterdam en Utrecht and with the junction with the special cargo route
“Betuweroute”, the rail accessibility of Amsterdam will be improved the next years. Port of Amsterdam
has together with Port of Rotterdam acceded to the consortium that will exploit the Betuweroute rail
cargo connection. The waterway connection is served by the Amsterdam-Rhine canal, for which a
large dredging program has just started.
84
Public transport for commuters
is also an import issue in the
port. There are various bus
lines in the port area
connected to the railway
station
Sloterdijk.
The
Westpoort
bus
handles
personnel transport to and
from work for a number of
participating companies in the
Amsterdam port area. A
hydrofoil
forms
a
rapid
connection between the center
of Amsterdam and IJmuiden.
Within a half hour these boats
bring you from Amsterdam
Central Station to the locks.
Hydrofoil and the "Silo Dam" building © AIVP / IACP
Beside the use of physical connections, Port of Amsterdam also invest in the use of electronic
connections for handling data flows. Together with some regional partners Amsterdam started to
realize a fiberglass network along the North Sea canal. The network primarily serves the new radar
ship piloting system, but can be used for general electronic exchange as well.
Environment
The port area of Westpoort is the only industrial area in the region where industries committing
nuisance (noise, odor, dust) can find a place. Not only port activities but annoying urban activities are
established in the port area. Power plants, sewage works and waste processing firms are being
replaced from the city to the port area. The port also accommodates wind turbines. Almost 25 wind
turbines have been placed, and 15 to go, giving power to some 50.000 households.
Sustainability is an important issue for Port of Amsterdam. The port can only grow if it considerate of
the urban and natural environment. The port is surrounded by the cities of Amsterdam and Zaanstad
and by recreation areas. The pressure for new residential areas is high and new solutions of
merging port development and urban development are necessary. Port of Amsterdam aims for
economic growth in a sustainable environment.
85
Urban and Port Redevelopment
Urban Development in Port area © Port of Amsterdam
Transformation areas
Eastern Harbour © AIVP / IACP
The eastern parts of the port area have been
transformed completely into residential areas.
Best known are the Eastern Docklands, which
nowadays houses almost 17.000 inhabitants.
The former warehouses are replaces by large
apartment blocks, a very popular neighborhood
for young Amsterdam couples and families.
There is little that reminds of the old port
atmosphere. Almost all port activities have
disappeared. The Passenger Terminal is the
only remaining port activity. Also at the northern
side of the IJ river transformation has take place.
In the 1980s the former location of the
Amsterdam Dry dock Company is converted to a
large social housing area. And within the next years the area of the former Shell laboratories will be
developed into a new urban district, obtaining
the highest density of dwellings in the
Netherlands.
Eastern Harbour © AIVP / IACP
86
Areas of transition
The pressure for new urban development in Amsterdam is high. Within two decades 50.000 new
houses are needed within the city limits. It is for that reason that the focus of port redevelopment has
shifted from east to west. At the western part of the city, where the city and the port are touching, the
new transformation areas are emerging. Most areas are abandoned port areas, but not all port
activities have moved away. Furthermore the present port is close to these transition areas, which
means that they are affected by noise, odour and dust. A complete transformation to residential areas,
as was done at the Eastern Dockland, is not that easy. But the urban pressure ask for new solutions
for developing new housing close to the port.
Student Housing, NDSM Wharf © AIVP / IACP
The most important transition areas are Houthaven (Timber Docks) and the NDSM wharf. On the
basis of the old timber dock structure, at the Houthavens a new residential area will be developed for
about 2,000 houses. Because of the noise (and odour) some of these houses will be realised with
noise isolated outside walls, which means that these houses have walls with doors and windows that
can not be opened. In the northern part at the NDSM wharf a different strategy has been chosen. This
is a strategy of flexible land use and flexible buildings. Business establishment and student housing fit
the present environmental restrictions. When regulation changes or parts of the port move away, the
buildings can be transformed for permanent residential use.
The Port of Amsterdam also have a
transition area. The Minervahaven
goes through a transformation from
a timber dock to a small business
district, specifically for small
companies in the handicraft and
creative industry. Because of the
port, residential use is not allowed.
The intensifying of the area creates
high values and a vital vicinity. The
area changes from a frayed end
into lively part of the city, forming a
buffer between port and city.
Minervahaven, project © Port of
Amsterdam
87
Minervahaven, today © Port of Amsterdam
Minervahaven, Urban Plan © Port of Amsterdam
Redevelopment within the port
Port redevelopment not only extends to the abandoned port areas. Also the present port showed
redevelopment areas. There are two forms of redevelopment, the filling of old docks and the take back
of unused or insufficient use of port land.
The filling of docks have taken place at the older part of the port area, which served as terminal for
general cargo. For example at the Coenhaven three out of five docks in a row have been filled to
create larger quays. Almost all mooring docks which are becoming to small to receive modern vessels
have been filled. With this strategy of filling the spatial development of the port keep up with the
scaling up of shipping and maritime industries.
HemHavens © Port of Amsterdam
Port of Amsterdam has also a strategy of taking back unused or insufficient used port land. In the
period 1990-2005 Port of Amsterdam took back 298 hectares. Almost all plots are granted again. In
most cases a take back is followed by a reallocation of plots and of a change in business activities.
Port Future
Regional economy and Port strategy
The port is one of the five pillars of the regional economy. The others are financial, the airport,
tourism/leisure and ict new media. The regional economy is characterized by its versatility and
allogamy. It’s the diversity of the economy that’s make the region strong. Diversity brings dynamics
88
and provides for a flourish city life and fast growing new business. Diversity is one of the determinants
of the creative city. The port of Amsterdam and Schiphol airport act as a common ‘Gateway to
Europe’.
The Port of Amsterdam is indispensable as the second main port of the Netherlands. The ambition of
Port of Amsterdam is to develop the port as a valuable logistic hub in order to strengthen the economy
of the Amsterdam region. Amsterdam wants to be a port that serves the hinterland and acts as a hub
for international cargo traffic as well. This means a change in the characteristics of the port. The bias
of the port will switch from a destination port with processing industries towards a transhipment port for
international flows of goods. The development as an international logistic hub follow the increase of
cargo flows at sea, inland waterways and rail tracks. To succeed as a logistic hub, and to be able to
offer competitive services, more volumes (of traffic and freight) are needed than volumes for the
Amsterdam region on its own. It is crucial to have those high volumes to offer competitive prices for
maritime services (pilots, towboats) and logistic services (agents, providers) and attracting new flows
and industries.
New port areas
Because of the prosperous granting of land to new terminals at the Afrikahaven, the shortage of
vacant land for port development is becoming imminent. The spatial plans of the region addresses a
new port area at the northern side of the North sea canal close to IJmuiden. However, this extension
of the port, called Wijkermeer, is limilted in size (approx. 180 ha) and there is opposition to the
developments. Furtermore, the location at the northern side of the canal is unfavourable regarding
hinterland connections. It is for that reasons that there are voices who argue that port extension best
can do in addition to the present port. But that area, called Houtrak, is currently be developed as a
nature / recreational area to serve as a buffer between the urban industrial developments of
Amsterdam and Haarlem. A third option is to develop new port areas ashore next to the Corus steel
mills. But building at sea at that location also have serious impacts on environment and land use. So it
will be very hard and very long time lasting procedure to develop new port areas in the Amsterdam
region. It is for that reason that Port of Amsterdam will make extra efforts to the redevelopment of the
existing port areas.
AfrikaHaven © Port of Amsterdam
89
Expansion study areas 2010-2030 © Port of Amsterdam
Sustainable development
With the increasing spatial and environmental constraints the necessity of a strategy of sustainable
development is clear. Sustainable development therefore takes an important position in Port of
Amsterdam. Port of Amsterdam aims for economic growth in a sustainable environment. Sustainable
with regard to construction and maintenance of the infrastructure, but also in its ecological
management. Port of Amsterdam has developed a specific policy for this translating into projects
concerning shortages of space, park management, traffic and transportation, materials and power and
water. A top priority of environmental policy is dealing with the available space in the port with care
and consideration. Also the port authority encourages port users to follow all relevant regulations and
ensures that the quality of the soil, water and water bottoms are not put in danger. Sustainability also
becomes apparent in the participation of various environmental projects, for example Ecoports. In a
major new initiative aimed specifically at environmental protection and sustainable development,
EcoPorts has developed a standard to encourage best practice in environmental management of ports
and has implemented the Port Environmental Review System (PERS).
_______________________
Source:
PCP Project - Newsletter N°5, October 2006 - Prepared with Pito Dingemanse, Manager of Spatial Planning,
Port of Amsterdam.
Further Information:
Port of Amsterdam:
http://www.portofamsterdam.nl
Eastern Docklands
http://www.easterndocklands.com/index.html
90
91
DELFZIJL: CHALLENGES TOWARDS A METAMORPHOSIS
History
The municipality of Delfzijl is located in the north of the country and is one of 450 municipalities in The
Netherlands. The municipality originates from the beginning of 1990, when three municipalities Bierum, Termunten and Delfzijl were fused.
© City of Delfzijl
The new municipality consist of the harbour town Delfzijl and 13 villages to the north and south of it.
Delfzijl occupies an area of 227 square kilometres, it has almost 28.000 inhabitants and
12.437 households. About 19.000 people live in the town and 9.000 in the surrounding villages. The
town Delfzijl lies more or less central in the area. To the north one finds an old seashore landscape
with dikes and mounds and with beautiful churches from the 12th century and onwards. To the south
the landscape slowly changes in a more moorish landscape.
The harbour town of Delfzijl has a long history.
Around 1200 three locks were built on the spot
where Delfzijl is located today. From the start the
locks formed a strategic location (control of the
inland water level and control of the sea traffic on
the Eems). Not surprisingly Delfzijl became a
fortress. During the centuries military, from Alva,
Napoleon and German princes valued the Delfzijl
as a hotspot. Right from the start Delfzijl’s value as
a harbour was also recognized and harbour and
shipping activities developed soon after the locks
were built.
The old fortress with on the right side the Eems and on
the upper leftside the Damsterdiep
© City of Delfzijl
92
The military value of the fortress lessened at the end of the 19th century and the fortress was
dismantled. In the beginning of the 20th century Delfzijl became more important as a transhipment
harbour of goods, which were brought by (sailing) tallships and taken by smaller ships towards
Groningen-city
and
other places. Along with
the trade a shipbuilding
industry
developed
which is still alive today.
Delfzijl was at the
beginning of the 20th
century a small but busy
harbour town and it
stayed that way untill
the Second World War
(1939-1945).
The harbour of Delfzijl
in 1930
In the 50ties and 60ties
of the last century new opportunities for Delfzijl came along. In those days salt and gas where found in
the province of Groningen and a new future for Delfzijl came into sight. Salt could be used as basechemical for various industries and gas meant the guarantee of cheap and abundant energy. The
chemical industry in Delfzijl is nowadays concentrated around chlorine production and represents 30
% of the chemical industry in the Netherlands. The cheap energy gave metal industries like Aluminium
Delfzijl great opportunities.
In those days executives and politicians believed that Delfzijl could grow from about 13.000
inhabitants towards more than hundred thousand. In the beginning of the 70ties a new harbour was
constructed for petrochemical industry (the Eemshaven) 20 kilometres to the north of Delfzijl.
Groningen Seaports
Groningen Seaports is the port authority of the port of Delfzijl and the port Eemshaven. Beside these
Groningen Seaports manages two inner harbours, Farmsumerhaven and Oosterhornhaven.
Groningen Seaports is owned 60 percent by the province of Groningen and 20 percent each by the
municipalities of Delfzijl and Eemsmond.
Groningen Seaports provides full port services ranging from logistic services to the provision of high
quality industrial and business sites in both port areas. Due to the location, the supply of different kinds
of businesses and industrial sites, the present (congestion free) infrastructure, space and the
advantageous prices, the industrial sites of Groningen Seaports are excellent suited for business
establishments.
93
Groningen Seaports offers easily accessible waterways, speed of
service, space in every sense of the word, an abundance of clean
energy, high-quality port facilities and personnel, and fast access
by rail, road and inland waterways. Groningen Seaports operates
close to the market and is competitive in every way - financially
and logistically, but also is Seaports a full-service provider as well as an initiator, entrepreneur and
facilitator. Groningen Seaports will support its business partners in every possible way.
Particularly Eemshaven is ideally situated trade with Scandinavia, the UK and the Baltic region and
has a giant potential as port for storage and transshipment activities.
The ports of Delfzijl and Eemshaven are strategic located between mainports Rotterdam and
Hamburg. They are accessible via uncongested roads (A7 and A31 motorways. Both ports are
connected to the Dutch railway systems via the shunting-yard Onnen nearby the city of Groningen.
Since September 2005 also a rail connection to the German railway system had been realized. Next to
that Railion has an onsite shunting-service in the industrial area of Delfzijl. Because of the
Eemskanaal, Groningen Seaports has an excellent and direct connection to the inland waterways. The
Eemskanaal connects the Delfzijl port with the route Groningen-Lemmer and the further inland
waterway system to Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Several industrial sites are situated at the
Oosterhornhaven, which is directly connected with the Eemskanaal. Groningen Seaports has also a
second inland port, Farmsumerhaven, which is directly connected too with the Eemskanaal and the
inland waterways system. Via the port of Delfzijl and the Eems estuary, Eemshaven is accessible for
inland vessels too.
The port of Eemshaven consists of the Handelskade Eemshaven (storage and transshipment of
sugar, forest products, paper, cooled meat, fish and general goods), a bulk area dedicated for the
transshipment and storage of dry bulk, a roll on roll off area, a shortsea area; industrial site for logistic
related companies in the shortsea sector, Energy Park, an industrial site for environment, energy,
recycling, and waste related industries, with the focus on energy, Recycling Park for Environment,
Energy, Recycling, and Waste related industries, with the focus on recycling, a business park for small
and medium sized enterprises (suppliers) and a Logistic Park for the development of new logistic
activities.
For tourists there
is a passenger
liner
service
between
Eemshaven and
Germany (islands
of Borkum and
Helgoland).
Aerial view of the
port of Eemshaven
© Groningen
Seaports
94
Energy
Energy is a hot topic these days and it offers lots of opportunities for Groningen Seaports. Energy Park
Eemshaven is an industrial site for environment, energy, recycling and waste related industries, with
the focus on energy. It is much in demand for energy related industrial sites. NorNed is a joint project
of Statnett and TenneT to install a submarine high-voltage cable between Norway and the
Netherlands. Via this cable, the longest high-voltage cable in the world, we will be able to transmit
power from Norway to the Netherlands and vice versa. The construction of the booster station is
progressing. TCN SIG Real Estate has also started constructing a huge datacentre. Next to that both
Essent/ConocoPhillips and Nuon choose Eemshaven as place of business. Essent/ConocoPhillips
wants to establish a LNG Terminal (Liquefied Natural Gas) and Nuon is willing to construct a multifuel
power plant. The decision to invest will follow in the middle of the year 2007, for both projects. To
facilitate these industries Groningen Seaports starts raising the industrial sites and starts also
preparing deepening the fairway to Eemshaven as well as Eemshaven itself, extending the
Wilhelminahaven by 600 metres, and digging a new harbour to accommodate the LNG vessels. RWE,
a German energy supplier, is also interested to start an establishment in Eemshaven and has far
advanced plans to construct there a power plant too.
Also in the port of Delfzijl energy is booming. BKB, Evelop, and Biox have far advanced plans to start
power plants to supply the chemical industries on Chemical Park Delfzijl and the metal orientated
industries on Metal Park Delfzijl with electricity and steam.
The port of Delfzijl consists of the Handelskade Delfzijl (storage and transshipment of wood, paper,
china clay, containers and general goods), Chemical Park Delfzijl (a chain of 12 chemical industries,
chloride related), Metal Park (sustainable developed and clustered industrial sites for metal oriented
companies), De Valgen (an industrial site for chemical industries), MERA Park (industrial site for
Environment, Energy, Recycling, and Waste related industries), Oosterwierum (industrial site for
chemical industries, agrobusiness, logistics and SME) and some business parks for small and medium
sized enterprises (Delta, Farmsumerpoort, De Zeesluizen and Fivelpoort).
95
The port of Delfzijl.
In the front the city center and in the background the chemical plants© City of Delfzijl
Groningen Seaports is a member of the EcoPorts Foundation. The environment is an integral part of
its business processes.
Environment was also a main concern for the city/port planning since the 70ties.
Delfzijl: growing plans and environmental challenges
The cityplan of Delfzijl had to be reconstructed to facilitate the new future that executives and
politicians planned in the 60ties-70ties and the 100,000 inhabitants which were expected. Old
buildings were knocked down and
buildings of six stores arose, a complete
new quarter on the north of Delfzijl was
constructed with simple houses for
labourers. Some beautiful village mounds
were dismantled to become grounds for
industrial plants.
However, two economic crises (1973 and
1980) put an end to these plans. Delfzijl
would never outgrow the 35.000
inhabitants. The results were vacant
houses and apartments and industrial
grounds with no use. And as the situation
in the north lasted the new built quarter
pauperized and attracted many people
from social underclasses from all over
the country.
The reconstruction plans in the sixties included an airport © City of Delfzijl
By the end of the 80ties everybody (councillors, mayor and eldermen) agreed that something had to
be done. In the years that followed many debates were held and some restructuring was done. But in
general the local authorities were unable to decide what, and especially, how. By the end of the 90ties
a special commission was formed, which studied the situation in Delfzijl. This commission, named
after their chairman mister Tielrooy, presented in 1999 a so called Masterplan. Tielrooy concluded that
the restructuring, or as we say these days the revitalisation demanded a large investment of tens of
million euro’s. This was a prize too high for Delfzijl alone. To attract external money from the province
96
and the state negotiations started. In the end all parties agreed. One of the main conditions to invest
money was the formation of a Development Society (OMD). The Development Society is owned by the
municipality (49 %), building Society Acantus (49 %) and the province (2%). The OMD started in 2001.
Delfzijl-North before the reconstruction
© City of Delfzijl
The reconstruction of Delfzijl North
© City of Delfzijl
Masterplan
The Masterplan is still the foundation for the revitalisation of Delfzijl. Its starting points are the corequalities of the aera, which are:

the knot of waterways (The Eems connects Delfzijl with the sea and German harbours like Emden,
Leer and Papenburg. Termunterzijl in the south is connected with the Blue City. From Farmsum a
canal ends in the Schildmeer and Eemscanal and Damsterdiep lead towards Groningen-city);

the old fortress;

the village mounds and the richness of the cultural landscape.
The Masterplan foresees the deconstruction of 1500 houses/apartments and the construction of 700
new houses for the middle and higher classes and 450 for social rent. The aim is to bring the demand
and supply on the housing market more in balance and in tune with the provincial housing market. The
biggest part of the deconstruction in Kwelderland is finished and the building activities will increase in
the coming months. It marks a new phase in the revitalisation.
The revitalisation of Delfzijl means in the end a complete metamorphosis of the harbour town. Now
Kwelderland is on its way, the OMD is focussing on the centre and the relation and connections with
the sea and harbour.
97
The Centre Vision
The area of the Centre Vision: the outline of the old fortress and its direct surroundings.
Problems to solve:

Building blocks with unfinished sides (red lines);

Unclear entrees into the centre by car, train, seaside
(purple circles);

Unclear routes in the centre for parking traffic,
bicycles, pedestrians (blue arrows);

Reorganising functions (pubs, shops, offices, housing,
parking);

Safety of the town by rising sea level;

Quality of live versa industrial activities.
Ways towards a solution:
Restoring the patterns that intensify the outline of the old
fortress and using the logic in the old spatial and
functional patterns to build on.

Integral design of the public space;

Routing of traffic (two rings for traffic, parking in corners of former bastion, bicycling, walking) and
guidance inwards the city centre;

Connecting the two squares (yellow);

Buildings blocks restoring the outline of the former fortress;

Connecting with the sea/harbour.
Spatial Planning: environmental issues
When one considers the harbour city of Delfzijl one must keep in mind the strong interdependency
between the city and the port during their history. The urban area’s originated close to the industrial
plants in a time when there was little consideration for living conditions and environmental themes.
This has dramatically changed and nowadays spatial planning in Delfzijl cannot be done without
considering aspects such as:
y
Industrial Noise Control;
y
Residential Safety;
y
Sea Defence and Levy’s;
y
Air Pollution;
y
Nature Reserve.
Noise Control
Within the depicted noise zone the local community board is restricted in the admittance of:
1st: new industrial activities: – the
cumulative noise emission must
stay within the boundaries of the
zone. Industrial growth is strictly
limited to the 50 dB-contour.
Expansion
of
existing
or
establishing of new companies
must be fitted in carefully
2nd:
new
residential
developments in the vicinity of
industrial plants: -new houses,
schools and hospitals within the
zone can only be erected in
compliance with extra regulations
and only in the area between the
cumulative and calculated noise
level of 50 and 60 dB on the outer
walls.
City planning and industrial activities in Delfzijl clearly means taking into account these noise contours.
98
Residential Safety
Residential safety legislation became mandatory after the explosion of a fireworks storage facility in
the inner-city of Enschede in 2000. Incorporating new safety legislation into the spatial planning
process is rather new and local governments struggle to implement this in a proper and considerate
way.
In the Safety Policy the community board has defined 3 zones:
3. In the residential areas (green) high risk companies are not allowed and the present situation is
being taken care of: companies downsize their storage capacities or move to another site;
2. Intermediate zones (blue) between the industrial and port plants and the residential areas. Here
risky companies are only allowed when the situation proves to be manageable;
1. The inner area of the industrial plants (pink) where there are no actual and immediate limitations.
© City of Delfzijl
Air Pollution and Industrial Stench
The Dutch legislation on air quality is based on the compulsory adoption of the EU Council Directive
96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management and several
daughter directives on air pollution. The directives order all member states to take measures to ensure
that the given maximum concentrations of PM10 (small dust particals), SO2 (sulphur dioxide), NOx
(nitrogen dioxide and other oxides of nitrogen, Pb (lead), Carbon monoxide and Benzene, are
managed. In the near future member states must adopt directives on air quality assessment and the
management of airborne arsenic, cadmium and nickel, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
and Benzo(a)pyrene in ambient air.
An other problem in the surroundings of Delfzijl is the ambient air quality due to industrial stench. In
Dutch spatial planning policy stench is a rather strict aspect to be considered.
As a result of the chemical industry close by, the level for H2S (Hydrogen sulphide) in the air exceeds
the the maximum allowable concentration.
Sea Defence
In Delfzijl the sea defence looks like an insignificant stretch
along the coast (see picture to the right), but in fact it is a
substantial area to be held free of redeveloping. National
legislation forbids building activities on and within 50 meters
along the dikes. From the perspective of urban
redevelopment this is a serious problem. Technical measures
in compliance with sea defence regulations must provide an
acceptable solution to control a suboptimum situation.
© City of Delfzijl
99
National Park
Delfzijl is located near a unique national park, the Wadden Sea, with a vulnerable ecosystem.
Recently the national governments of the
Netherlands and Germany started a procedure
to add the Wadden Sea to the Unesco’s World
Heritage List. This means further limitations for
industrial and urban activities along the North
Sea coast.
Delfzijl, the metamorphosis is on the way but environmental challenges
has still to be faced up
It is clear that hurdles are to be taken in planning the city with the port.
1. the noise contours have to be taken into account;
2. further expansion of high risk industries towards the residential areas and housing developments
are out of the question;
3. to expand the recreational possibilities near the port (e.g. beach and marina) ask for serious
considerations;
4. planning the city with the port could mean relocating companies or city functions.
All stakeholders will have to work close together to overcome the different problems and to create a
mutual sense of coexistence.
Source:
PCP Newsletter N°6, April 2007. Prepared by Herman Nunnink, Groningen Seaports, in cooperation with Harm
Wessels, Senior Advisor Spatial Planning, City of Delfzijl
City of Delfzijl
http://www.delfzijl.nl
Groningen Seaports
http://www.groningen-seaports.com
100
101
THE URBAN PROJECT FOR THE SOUTH DISTRICTS OF LE HAVRE
AND THE CITY - PORT INTERFACE
The South districts of Le Havre are spread over the lower part of the city, at the entrance to the city
and its centre. This urban district, close to the Seine Estuary, covers 800 hectares. Situated at the
Southern limits of the urban agglomeration and in direct contact with the quarters of the city centre,
this sector touch the Port and industrial zones. The South districts constitute the heart of the economic
life of the Urban agglomeration (9% of the jobs of the employment pool). The South districts constitute
a territory of major challenges for the urban development, the port development and the economic
development.
This is why the City has given itself a strong urban project to revitalise this territory and to give an
impetus to the whole region. The urban project is supported on history, the urban layouts and the
identity of the quarters. This ambitious long term project (2020) is already operational through a first
phase carried out with success by the City and its public and private partners.
The challenge today consists in continuing this ambitious project of an urban conquest of the
800 hectares of the City – Port interface whilst bringing together the conditions for a sustainable and
harmonious development of economic, and notably port functions.
Le Havre a port metropolis open to the world
With 255 000 inhabitants in 1999, the Le Havre conurbation (25th national conurbation) is an average
sized Urban District that includes 17 communes and which is organised around the City of Le Havre
(190 000 inhabitants), the 11th city of France.
Situated at the southern limit of the Caux
plateau and on the right bank of the Seine
Estuary, Le Havre is the main port of the
French West coast. At the entrance to the
"North European range" of ports, on the
most frequented stretch of sea in the world,
Le Havre is, by river, rail and motorway,
about 90 km from Rouen, the prefecture of
the department of Seine Maritime, and 200
km from Paris. Because of the huge
importance of its port function and the
historical and geographical conditions of its
development, the Le Havre urban
agglomeration presents a certain originality
in national urban structures. Since its
creation, Le Havre is indeed traditionally
turned towards the sea. Its original military functions have been superceded by trading functions
(gateway to the colonies, coffee trading, and financial market) and the city has spread out over the
surrounding marshes and hills. In the 1930's, a strong industrial port development enabled the pursuit
of this growth and today still marks the economic positioning of the conurbation.
The Normandy bridge and the completion of the A29 motorway, today set Le Havre on the "Road of
the Estuaries", an element of the European Atlantic trunk road that will connect North West Europe
(Belgium, the Netherlands) to Southern Europe (the Iberian peninsular).
102
The City of Le Havre
The City of Le Havre is only five centuries old. 80% of it was flattened by bombing in 1944 and was
rebuilt by the architect Auguste PERRET. The Perret city centre is listed as a World Heritage site since
July 2005.
At the same time as the post-war reconstruction, the City of Le Havre continued its spatial expansion
by absorbing surrounding communes. The locomotive for its development during the Sixties and
Seventies stemmed from the will to develop industry in France and, for the Lower Seine, to build a
major centre based on the automobile and petrochemicals industries.
It is today the 11th city of France, but with a falling demography over the last 20 years. Its image as an
austere industrial city is in the course of being changed through its numerous urban projects.
A metropolis open to the world :
Top ranking city in Normandy, Le Havre benefits from an attractive geographical situation on the most
frequented stretch of water in the world and less than 2 hours away from Paris.

An international trading centre :
The presence of regional headquarters operating over the 5 continents and of big international groups
reinforces the Le Havre region in its historic role as a trading centre.

An European industrial centre :
Aeronautics, petrochemicals, automobile, eco-industries, packaging …
In high technology, innovation and performances, the industrial centre of the Le Havre region is
proving its vitality. From the nacelles for the A 380 Airbus to the production of a third of France's fuel,
this centre plays a big role in the economic drive of the country.

World Heritage site :
By listing the Le Havre city centre rebuilt by Auguste Perret as a world heritage site in 2005, UNESCO
has recognised the exceptional work of the famous architect and has placed Le Havre alongside the
world's greatest historical references.

Nautical and seaside resort :
With the labels of seaside resort and nautical resort, port of call for the biggest liners, Le Havre
provides all the tourist advantages of an ocean metropolis: a 2km long beach in the city centre, a yacht
harbour with 1500 moorings, the practice of all nautical sports, a casino… as an illustration of this
natural maritime vocation, since 1991 Le Havre is the start port for the famous Jacques Vabre
transatlantic sailing race between France and Brazil.

The Port of Le Havre, ocean gateway between Europe and the world :
Top ranking French port for containers, Le Havre is the spearhead for national foreign trade where it is
the major player in overseas exchanges. With more than 70 regular shipping lines, calling at 600 ports
and with the recent putting into service of 'Port 2000', the Port of Le Havre represents a real
locomotive for economic growth.

The Port of Le Havre
Deepwater seaport with no draught limits and completely free of tidal constraints, the Port of Le Havre
is situated at the centre of the North West maritime façade of Europe at the entrance to the Seine
estuary. It is the leading port in France on this façade. It is french leading port for containers and
general cargo.
With the first two berths being put into service in 2006, followed by the second two in 2007, 'Port 2000'
that will, at term, comprise 12 berths, is giving the Port of Le Havre the means to improve its position
in the leading group of North European ports.
103
National and international rankings: 1st French port for foreign trade and for containers – 6th Port in
Europe.
Surface area of the Le Havre port domain: 9 500 hectares, of which 1 500 hectares of water surfaces
(within the breakwaters and not including the maritime area under its administrative control).
Administrative and Legal status: Autonomous port, an organisation with a legal personality and with
financial autonomy, placed under the supervision of the Minister charged with the seaports and
subjected to economic and financial control of the State.
Traffic 2006 (millions of tonnes):
- Overall traffic: 73,8
• general cargo: 22,7
• Liquid bulk: 47,5
• Dry bulk: 3,6
- Container traffic (TEUs): 2,1 millions
- Passenger traffic: 800 000
Number of direct jobs: 16 000 jobs in maritime and port activities
The container capacity will be multiplied by 3 with 'Port 2000': from 2 million TEUs to 6 million TEUs. In
the long term, taking into account the capacity of Port 2000, and the vitality of both globalisation and
container traffic, the Port of Le Havre should undertake new major developments to reinforce its
presence and enhance the advantages it already has by its geographical position at the entrance to
North European waters.
The present fore port has strong potential that would enable a container terminal with excellent
nautical qualities to be developed there, without any tidal or lock constraints.
The re-composition of this space close to the city – port interface should be carried out by articulating
in the best way the problematic of inland connections – road rail and waterway – that border part of the
South districts, whilst guaranteeing margins of manoeuvre and the space necessary for the
development of existing port activities – such as the sectors of agro-foodstuffs, energy and cruises.
In this context, the handling of the city - port interface will be a major factor for the development of the
port which, after having regularly moved further away from the city, would return to the Urban District,
close to a particularly strategic zone for urban renewal: the South districts of Le Havre.
This is why, parallel to the economic investment programme of national interest that Port 2000
constitutes, the City of Le Havre is engaged in a huge sustainable social, environmental, and
economic regeneration programme for the South Districts. It has received support from the European
Union through the URBAN Community Initiative Programme.
The South districts, a territory of major challenges
The physical characteristics of the South districts
The South districts of Le Havre are spread over the
lower part of the city, at the entrance to the city and
its centre. This urban district, close to the Seine
Estuary, covers 800 hectares.
Situated at the Southern limits of the urban
agglomeration and in direct contact with the quarters
of the city centre, this sector, whose South and East
boundaries touch the Port and industrial zones, is
comprised of five main wards: Saint-Nicolas de
l'Eure, Brindeau, Vallée/Béreult, Champs Barets, Les
Neiges.
© AURH
The South districts within the
conurbation
104
Habitat dominated Districts
Sectors of economic activities
Port zone
The South districts © AURH
In these quarters there are a little over 17,000 inhabitants (1999 census) mixed with some 1,500
business firms employing about 11,500 private individuals. The dominant activities (transport,
mechanical engineering, construction and public works) are in close proximity to 7,000 housing units
of which 3,400 are social accommodation.
The South districts have a history closely linked with that of the Port of Le Havre, the extension of
which was driven by the growth of shipping activities. They remained separated from the urbanisation
movement and economic development up to half way through the 19th century when the creation of
dock basins and the first industrial installations led to development of housing until a certain balance
was attained by the start of the 20th century.
The "Plaine de l'Eure" – ("Eure plain") became urbanised as from 1875 with, as a main characteristic,
the accompaniment of each industrial unit with its lot of housing units. This mode of bit by bit
urbanisation (with the exception of the Saint-Nicolas ward), with no goal other than to provide lodgings
close to the factories for the population working in them, is at the origin of the main characteristics of
the South districts:

the intermingling housing/workplaces;

the heterogeneous and dispersed character of the urban tissue;

the very large weight of privately owned real estate;

the predominance of a workman population.
However, after 1918, their residential function started a long decline, following the movement of port
and industrial activities towards the South-East between the wars, and then, in the years 1960/1970,
the development of social housing in the higher part of the city, the characteristics of which responded
better to the aspirations of the population.
105
"Docks Vauban", towards 1930
© Collection des musées historiques
"Bassin fluvial", towards 1920
© Collection des musées historiques
The appearance of containers in the Seventies constituted a real revolution for international trade, and
ocean shipping in particular, and provoked the abandon of historic ports with their small dock-basins to
the benefit of immense storage areas and deep-water ports capable of receiving ever bigger container
vessels.
Bellot Street, 2002 © Ville du Havre
To this must be added the gradual fall-off in traditional crafts and activities (dockers and seamen/port
functions) on which were based the foundations of the identity and coherence – social and urban – of
these districts, and which have found themselves somewhat in regress over the last thirty years. The
City of Le Havre, like all port cities in the world (New York, Liverpool, Rotterdam, Barcelona, etc.)
found itself, at the beginning of the Eighties, with huge industrial and port wastelands close to the city
centre and at the main entrance to the city. This territory, formerly full of life and economic and social
drive, had become a deserted and degraded space thus contributing to the stigmatisation of these
districts and the City as a whole. All this therefore provoked a real imbalance in urban functions and
human activities.
Nevertheless, the South districts possess several structural advantages:
¾
an excellent situation, close to the decisional centre of the City and to the inter-modal station,
in contact with the port zone, and directly connected to the main trunk-roads (motorways A
131, A25, and the RN15 main road, etc.);
¾
the presence of dock-basins;
¾
the presence of a 19th century architectural heritage;
¾
big real-estate potential constituted by the industrial-port wastelands.
106
© Ville du Havre
The main challenges
The South districts constitute a territory of major challenges for:

Port development:
- proximity of a working port;
- presence of quaysides and storage areas (West port) providing
development opportunities;
- excellent inter-modal connections.

Urban development:
- proximity to the city centre, to the inter-modal station and the main
centres of the economic activities of the Urban agglomeration;
- presence of the water, a factor of attractiveness;
- presence of real-estate and jointly owned land providing opportunities for
development;
- presence of structuring installations and equipment: university,
- performing arts/indoor sports hall, exhibition park…

Economic development:
- situation at the city – port interface;
- a central weight in the economy of the conurbation;
- a confirmed potential for growth;
- excellent multimodal connections.
Thus, the port domain surrounding the South districts houses several sites (dock-basins, storage
areas, quaysides, buildings…) more or less permanently abandoned by port and industrial activities.
This heritage, that has the advantage of being on the waterside, constitutes an exceptional
opportunity for the implantation of urban functions with a high added value (municipal installations
and equipment, business premises, housing accommodation, etc.).
Situated close to the centre and entrance to Le Havre, these City – Port interface spaces thus
represent a potential of the first order for the structuring and installations of the city and the
attractiveness of the conurbation. In this logic, several development operations have been carried out
or are currently envisaged: Performing arts/sports hall ("Docks Océane"), Exhibition centre ("Docks
Café"), Commercial and leisure centre ("Docks Vauban"), Centre for the Sea and Sustainable
107
Development, Aquatic Complex, Private clinic, Head office of the Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, … and the Urban Park of Saint Nicolas.
The power of attraction of these installations, the lever effect of the "Urban" programme and the
competence of great names in architecture and urban planning (J. Nouvel, B. Reichen, B. Fortier, JP.
Viguier) bodes well for the success of the urban project thus converging with the positioning of Le
Havre as "the international maritime metropolis of the Seine Estuary".
© Ville du Havre
The main objectives
The development strategy for the South districts is organised around the three following objectives:
c

d

to reinforce their situation on a scale of the conurbation:
by giving them a locomotive role in the development of the Le Havre region, by the constitution of a
supply of innovatory and exemplary products, by means of public and private investments in
installations interesting the conurbation (Centre for the Sea and Sustainable Development, Aquatic
Complex, Commercial and leisure Centre, private clinic, fire-station, …), on a line with those
recently completed (Docks Café, Docks Océane, University buildings);
by improving the living environment by an attractive urban offer (notably by making use of the
remarkable urban and port heritage elements) so that the urban quality constitutes a real "social
cement" reconciling the inhabitant with his environment and enables a new growth to be engaged
by attracting new investors;
by developing an innovatory policy in the fight against the degrading of the economic and urban
environment.
to ensure the cohabitation of the residential function and the economic vocation:
by organising the structuring and development of the South districts in the framework of an
integrated approach, destined to regain the compatibilities between human and economic
vocations and activities, and to advantage synergies and blending;
by developing a strong real estate strategy to accompany or anticipate mutations of land;
by encouraging the installation of new businesses bringing added value;
by implementing an ambitious policy of improvement of existing housing units;
by reorganising the transport plan and improving traffic conditions.
108
e

to improve the social climate:
by encouraging an associative atmosphere;
by developing the provision of municipal equipment and cultural and leisure practices and by
restoring the basic conditions for social life in these quarters;
by putting the inhabitants on the verge of becoming drop-outs and in very great difficulty back into
a process of social and economic reinsertion by encouraging, with targeted actions, their return or
access to employment and training;
by optimising social policies in favour of the most destitute.
The strategic orientations in development matters
The Master-plan
The City of Le Havre has given the AURH – Agence d'Urbanisme de la Région Havraise (Urban
Planning Agency for the Le Havre Region) the task of drawing up a master-plan defining the big
strategic orientations for the development of this territory for a horizon of 2020. This mission, carried
out between 2002 and 2006, under the aegis of a piloting committee comprised of the 4 major
stakeholders (the Municipality, the Port Authority, the Urban District Community, and the Chamber of
Commerce and Industry) has concluded in a shared project for the sustainable development of the
South districts.
The Master-plan is not uniform in its contents, the degrees of appreciation of the future of the
subdivisions of the South districts having to be related with their roles and realities in this huge
composite territory.
It is therefore an up-gradable tool, the finality of which is to enable the stakeholders to make choices
and modify priorities of implementation.
The Master-plan is thus a project of projects that determines the sectors of intervention, of variable
scope and time-scale. It aims to define an overall coherence between the various projects. It is the
maintained impetus between these projects that will give, through the years, credibility to the
reinvestment of the South districts.
The principle of action thus lies in the setting up of an operational strategy that consists in revealing
and putting the emphasis on the sites of challenge from which the effects of diffusion and synergy are
expected to accompany the processes of urban re-interpretation.
The construction of the project integrates:
- the unavoidable constants that are the presence of the water in the dock-basins, the quaysides
and the canals;
- the projects of local interest or of supra-community interest.
The South districts comprise, for the whole partnership, a territory of challenges for the Urban District
where two unavoidable issues must be taken into account:
- urban development based on a functional blend;
- the installation of economic activities, to perpetuate and to revitalise.
Three perimeters have been defined, the first two of which are judged as priorities:
c
a perimeter in which the objective is to develop mixed urban functions : housing, tertiary and
higher tertiary activity;
d
a perimeter oriented towards the installation and development of economic functions with high
added value;
e
a perimeter where the orientations for the future to be promoted are still undecided.
Such an approach enables, with an overall vision shared in the long term, a perimeter for action and a
perimeter for further thought to be associated without the decisions taken for one of these perimeters
weighing down on the future of another.
109
Development of mixed
urban functions
Long-term developments to be
defined
Development of value-added
economic functions
Sites and major projects © Ville du Havre
110
The operational project
The South districts constitute the heart of the economic life of the Urban agglomeration (9% of the jobs
of the employment pool). This is why the City has given itself a strong urban project to revitalise this
territory and to give an impetus to the whole region.
The urban project is supported on history, the urban layouts and the identity of the quarters.
This ambitious long term project (LE HAVRE 2020) is already operational through a first phase carried
out with success by the City and its public and private partners.
This first phase has put into application the strategic orientations in matters of development, laid down
by the piloting committee of the master-plan:
Ö
to constitute the hyper-centre by improving the attractiveness;
Ö
to constitute the secondary centres by reinforcing the identities;
Ö
to Improve the living environment by smoothing out transport and the conflicts of usage.
Creation of an enlarged city centre ("the hyper-centre"):
The Saint Nicolas ward, situated at the extreme West of the South District, should permit the
expansion of the city centre by receiving structuring equipments of Urban agglomeration interest:
Commercial and leisure Centre, Aquatic Complex, Centre for the Sea and Sustainable Development,
urban park, clinic….
Its opening up by the bridging of the Paul Vatine dock-basin extends the city centre, listed as a World
Heritage site, whilst answering the needs of the Urban agglomeration in terms of structuring
installations and equipment.
Creation of secondary centres ("heart of the ward"):
Taking into account the extent of this territory (800 hectares) and the morphological and historical
specificities of each of the sub-districts, the creation of hearts for the wards permits the social
functioning and urban legibility of each of them to be improved.
Each centre is supported by:

the creation of a public installation locally: media library in Brindeau, Social Centre in Vallée Béreult

the re-qualification of the living environment: renovation of public spaces, refurbishing of facades
and residential densification.
By the quality of this first phase, the City has demonstrated its will to enhance these territories through
new functions capable of generating territorial vitality and providing impetus to the commune and the
conurbation.
The challenge today consists in continuing this ambitious project of an urban conquest of the 800
hectares of the City – Port interface whilst bringing together the conditions for a sustainable and
harmonious development of economic, and notably port, functions.
111
BEFORE / AFTER
Bellot Street© Ville du Havre
"Quai de la Saône"© Ville du Havre
"Quai de la Saône"© Ville du Havre
112
BEFORE / AFTER
Overview of the South districts © Ville du Havre
Source:
PCP Project - Newsletter N°7, May 2007 - Prepared by Ouahid Dorbane, Délégué Général au Développement
des Quartiers Sud, Ville du Havre
With the support of:
Cyril Chedot, Chargé de Mission Développement local, Port Autonome du Havre
Denis Davoult, International Association Cities and Ports
Further Information:
City of Le Havre
http://www.ville-lehavre.fr/delia-CMS/grands_projets/index/article_id-/topic_id-439/accueil.html
Port of Le Havre
http://www.havre-port.net/pahweb.html
113
Synthesis of the work: recommendations and good practices
The strategies for the redevelopment of the City-Port Linking Spaces have been in the centre of the
working meetings organised over an 18 month period with all the partners of this European project.
The discussions that ensued and the technical on-site visits which were organised each time have
enabled the partners once again to take measure of all the stakes, constraints and challenges
required to reach sustainable blending of uses on these city – port spaces. The international seminar
organised at the end of May 2007 also provided the opportunity to enhance these exchanges of
experience with contributions from other European port cities. From this work of joint exchanges and
enhancement, various constants can be extracted which provide the basis for the recommendations.
Integrating the spaces
OBJECTIVE 1: TO RESPECT THE ACCESSES TO PORT AREAS
Recommendation 1: To re-determine the plans of urban and
port movements
The needs for access to the port necessitate a prior reflection on the
plans for urban and port movements. This reflection should
simultaneously cover the flows of persons and of cargo and will
concern all modes of transport.
Recommendation 2: To evaluate incompatibilities and foresee
the irreversible developments
Housing construction or filling in of dock basins can constitute
irreversible strategies, wiping out for the future all or part of the
existing port activities. To avoid this type of stumbling block, an
inventory of the port territories, the existing connections and their
potential development with regard to the scenarios of the
development of the port will set the various options for urban and
port (re)development. It should specifically measure the
compatibilities – and of course also the incompatibilities – between
port territories and connections on the one hand and the project of
urban development on the other hand.
Recommendation 3: To make new connections into an
opportunity to obtain new spaces
The establishment of a new plan of connections will constitute both
an instrument to improve the competitiveness of the port and to
reduce the impact generated by its activities. Concomitantly, the
creation of new accesses should also be a means to free spaces for
urban or port developments.
In Gdansk, in the Przemyslowe Quay sector
("Inner Port"), the creation of a new
connection will provide access to
120 hectares of additional land for port
activities (See p. 51).
On the other hand, in Valparaiso the
creation of a logistics activities zone outside
the city and of a direct connection devoted
to port traffic has enabled land for urban and
commercial redevelopment to be freed on
the seafront.
Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project
114
OBJECTIVE 2: TO TAKE CARE OF THE ACCESSIBILITY OF CITY-PORT INTERFACE SITES
Recommendation 4: To base oneself on the existing network
and to complete it
The extension of the network of existing connections (road rail)
with the city-port territory being developed is a means to integrate
these sites with the urban structure. Most frequently, it should be
completed by providing new connections to contribute to
physically opening up the site: pedestrian accesses, bicycles,
tramway, buses, etc. In the case the presence of "barrier"
infrastructures (railway tracks, main roads, etc.) these new
connections will be even more important. They will take the form
of bridges, footbridges, tunnels, by-passes…
In Bremerhaven, a four lane roadway
separates the city centre from the
"Havenwelten" (Alter/Neuer Hafen) site
being redeveloped. In addition and
complementary to the redevelopment of
the existing pedestrian crossings, the
creation of a glass footbridge has been
decided.
Recommendation 5: To pay attention to the connections with
passenger terminals
Passenger terminals can be totally new buildings or be set up in
reallocated port buildings. However between two feasible sites for
their installation from the nautical point of view, priority should be
given to that providing the best accesses to the city centre:
distance, safe pedestrian routes, landscaped layouts, etc. The
quality of the connections between the passenger terminal and
the city is essential for tourist attractiveness and the creation of
added value.
Integrating the urban dimension
OBJECTIVE 1: TO TREAT THE PORT LIKE AN URBAN SPACE
Recommendation 6: To play the card of architectural quality
The search for quality architecture for the new or reutilised port
buildings should be preferred to a simple utilitarian uniquely
functional architecture. This search should take into account the
existing urban constructions opposite or surrounding the site. This
overall approach should contribute to an optimised integration.
Recommendation 7: To take care in the treatment of
separating elements
On the same level as for urban furniture, architectural treatment
should be extended to "port furniture" such as the barriers that
limit the accesses to certain port areas for reasons of security.
Solutions combining functionality, quality of design, integration
with the landscape, transparency, etc., should be substituted for
protecting walls or fences providing a strictly functional separation
and assurance of security.
In Paris, the port is imposing architecture
of quality for all logistics warehouses.
In Le Havre, on one of the edges of the
South District, housing accommodation is
programmed opposite ship-repair activities.
Particular care has been taken for the zone
limiting these two spaces: a landscaped
area and the installation of carefully
designed fencing have been preferred to
classical walls or railings, thus visually
softening this barrier function and, by its
transparency, providing a view of the shiprepair activities.
OBJECTIVE 2: TO RENDER THE PORT VISIBLE
Recommendation 8. To combine the reduction of the
potential nuisance from the port with visual openings to the
water and the port
The height, the size, and the orientation of buildings, urban parks
and open public spaces… are many elements where intervention
to optimise the integrations of city-port interface sites with the
immediate surrounding urban context and the existing natural and
port spaces could be implemented. The optimum solution should
combine the reduction of potential nuisances connected with port
activities with an opening to the dock basins, to the re-utilised port
heritage, but also to the activities of the port.
In Paris, the installation of a ready made
concrete plant on the quayside has been
organised in function of the urban
background so as not to obscure visual
outlooks onto the Seine.
115
OBJECTIVE 3: TO EXPLOIT ALL THE POTENTIALITIES OF THE WATER
Recommendation 9: To use the waterways as a tool for soft
transitions
The water areas and the land areas nearby are not only designed
to handle seaborne or short sea trades. Where good inland
waterways connect the port and its hinterland, inland navigation is
a transport mode to be encouraged in sustainable development
perspective. The facilities handling these traffics, be they current
or prospective, could among other be downgraded former
maritime terminal. These inland navigation facilities (either
commercial or for craft idle between two trips) may be used to
arranged a decrescendo between the active martime port and the
city.
Recommendation 10: To share the use of the water
The presence of water and dock basins by themselves
characterise the city port interface. It is essential that they should
be put into value. Several options are possible:
- where the topography is suitable, the setting up of "waterway
corridors" should enable specific corridors to be set aside for
port uses, whilst offering the rest of the water areas for more
urban utilisations.
- planning instruments also exist for envisaging strategies for
time sharing of the dock basins and water areas. They are
based on a prior inventory of the port infrastructures, of their
functions, and the existing urban installations and their
functions, and of the use made of the water surfaces
throughout the day. The development of these infrastructures
and of their activities (maintenance, reinforcement,
transformation) may then be integrated into an overall strategy
for the site.
Recommendation 11: To favour movements of the inhabitants
by water
In certain port cities, the geography can render the carriage of
people by water, generally called "Blue Transport": water taxi, river
ferries etc. particularly pertinent. This should provide a double
contribution to the improvement of the accessibility of city port
sites:
- environmental by the reduction of land transport ;
- identity-wise by the reinforcement of the maritime atmosphere
of the place.
Recommendation 12: To move the city towards the port …on
the water
Urban installations on the water (floating restaurants, floating
cinemas, house boats, etc.) have more often than not become
fixed. In numerous cases, they are installed on sites mostly
reconverted to more urban functions. They have then become
more of a simple reference to the maritime atmosphere of the
place. By multiplying the possible mooring places in the port and
by giving them back their mobile character, they should become a
real window of the city to the port.
In Antwerp, a "waterplan" has been drawn
up for the Elandje district and has been
integrated with the masterplan designed for
the whole site.
In Melbourne, an inventory has been made
of the various utilisations of the water (port
activities, recreational, sporting, etc…) and
the installations that are connected with
them. This inventory enabled the various
utilisations to be modelled in time (who, for
what activities and during what period?)
and in space (where, and taking up what
area ?). The modelling enabled a new
strategy of utilisation to be initiated for the
utilisation of the docks based on time
shares between the various activities and
on a share-out of the spaces allocated for
this or that activity. This also led to the
relocation of certain of these activities.
In Amsterdam, leaving from the NDSM
wharf site where a University residence is
situated, river shuttles connect directly with
the city centre.
In Copenhagen, a floating open stage
(theatre and music) has been built. Six
different places in the port have been
structured to receive it including in the
proximity of the more constricted port
spaces.
116
3. Integrating functions
OBJECTIVE 1: TO ORGANISE AND BENEFIT FROM BLENDING
Recommendation 13: To use all technical solutions and to
search for innovations
Numerous technical solutions (treatment of existing buildings,
lighting, port equipment, surfacing, etc…) exist today to reduce
nuisances and to make the contact between hard port and urban
activities possible. Research and innovation in this field should be
supported in order to put into place ever more efficient measures.
In Amsterdam closed façades have been
constructed at the rear of urban buildings
installed in the port zone.
In Bremerhaven, compensatory measures
and interventions on existing buildings have
enabled the village of Weddewarden,
neighbouring the new container terminal, to
be saved (see p. 61)
In Antwerp, the protective cocooning of
vessels under repair has enabled the
maintenance of this activity in the heart of an
urban area to be authorised.
Recommendation 14: To structure maritime clusters, key
elements in the complementarities between city and port
The putting into place of maritime clusters will be based on a prior
census of the various fields of activities and of the public and private
stakeholders present on the site concerned by the development.
This census should result in identifying the economic and social
interests common to all the affected parties. Basing themselves or
not on a specific structure (informal working groups, users'
association, communities of stakeholders, etc.) these parties should
take care to join their efforts in the fields of research and
development of communications, of international prospecting, etc…
Institutions, local governments, ports and business firms should then
engage themselves in a truly win-win mixing suitable to attract new
partners to the site.
Recommendation 15: To privilege mixed passenger terminals,
associating urban and port functions
As a complement to the port function of receiving passengers, the
development of a passenger terminal can provide the opportunity for
the port city to develop complementary functions of a more urban
type. This could take two forms:
- a horizontal blending based on a juxtaposition of
equipments
- a vertical blending that should associate in the same
building a port activity on the ground floor and urban
functions on other levels. This solution, still infrequently
found, should also provide the advantage or being less
greedy of space.
In both cases, the mixing of urban and port functions should
constitute an additional advantage for the site. It will both reinforce
its identity and its attractiveness.
This juxtaposition or this imbrication of urban and port utilisations
should enable occupation of the territory to be smoothed out in time
and to answer to the seasonal character of cruises by maintaining a
permanent activity on the site. The constraints linked with security
should be carefully evaluated in order, if necessary, to develop the
port component or the urban component of these installations.
In Bremerhaven, the "Fishing Port" project
proposes a mixture of port activities (more
specifically the fishing industry), small
business firms connected with port activities,
and training and research establishments.
The programme for the "Fishing Port" also led
to the installation of cultural equipment and
tourist functions: hotels, restaurant, shops,
and the departure point for visits of the port.
(See p. 66-67)
Horizontal Blending: In Amsterdam, the
passenger terminal is associated in the same
area with shops, a congress hall, a hotel, and
a cultural space devoted to music (see
p. 27; 83)
Vertical Blending: In Marseilles, the
"Terrasses du Port" project (see p. 31) plans
for:
on ground level: a sea passenger
terminal ;
on the upper level: a shopping centre
complementary with the retail shops in
the near-by city centre ;
on the roof terrace: a promenade with a
view over the port.
117
OBJECTIVE 2: TO PLAY ON FLEXIBILITY AND NOT TO FREEZE SPACES
Recommendation 16: to make temporary uses a means to
manage the real estate
The city – port interface sites are territories with a rich potential.
They are most often highly coveted and have to face up to strong
economic pressures. Rather than selling or granting concessions
for certain spaces or buildings pending their allocation, their
temporary occupation will enable certain functional and temporary
needs of the city and the port to be satisfied. The partners should
therefore give themselves flexibility to anticipate cycles of urban
and port development and not compromise future developments
by irreversible modifications that freeze the site forever.
Recommendation 17: to adapt urban uses to the constraints
connected with the port activities
Falling back on temporary uses of a city port interface site will
often be a waiting and transition solution to satisfy legal
constraints connected with the port activities: risks, noise, dust,
traffic…. Such temporary uses that will mark an intermediary step
of the project should be translated by:
- the installation of "light" temporary urban equipment in
modular units, prefabricated buildings capable of being
dismounted, etc.
- the construction of flexible buildings allocated in a first
stage for a given use –office for example- but designed to
be able easily to shift into another use –residential for
example. This shift will be induced because of new
functional requirements of the partners, of the advances
in legislation, of changes in the neighbouring port activity
or even its relocations, etc.
In Gdansk, in the district that will become the
"new city district", offices, small businesses and
the maintenance of ship building activities are
planned. Housing accommodation and vulnerable
installations such as hospitals are in a first stage
excluded, as well as industrial activities
(See p. 53)
In Amsterdam, in the Houfhaven and NDSM
Wharf areas, the construction of student
residences in modular units of the container type
provides a strong port identity to these
developments whilst underlining their mobile or
temporary character (See p. 86).
In Amsterdam also, the student residence
constructed in a former cruise vessel stems from
the same approach. The same elements can be
found there: the temporary character of the
occupation of the site by a population itself
temporary since it is regularly renewed, and the
explicit reference to the symbolism of the port
with a ship this time.
Still in Amsterdam, flexible buildings are today
being installed close to port activities and house
offices. The site could have an urban
predominance at term, and they could evolve
into housing accommodation, but could just as
easily conserve their vocation as offices if the
necessity to reinforce port activities became a
shared priority.
Recommendation 18: To initiate developments of interface
sites by temporary utilisation.
Temporary uses could play a role of catalyser for initiating a
development operation. Even before the final developments are
carried out, they should induce frequentation of the city port
interface sites concerned and their re-appropriation by their future
occupants or by the population.
In Riga, to bring the population to the site of
Andrejsala, the stakeholders have wagered on
the installation of temporary cultural equipment,
and the provisional or definitive reallocation of
port buildings for cultural purposes.
(See p. 74-75)
In Amsterdam, small businesses in the creative
industries are occupying various former port
workshops which have not yet been reconverted
and which are situated within a perimeter that
does not permit the installation of sensitive
urban installations.
118
Integrating the environment
OBJECTIVE 1: TO REDUCE RECIPROCAL IMPACTS
Recommendation 19: To engage in a pro-active
environmental approach
The constraints imposed for the environment by national and
supra-national legislations also provide the occasion to act rather
than to suffer by engaging in dynamic and anticipatory
environmental strategies. This should lead towards two types of
complementary approaches:
- to work upstream with all the business firms present in the
port industrial sector. This work should start right at the
preliminary stages of projects aimed at maintaining, extending
or installing port and industrial activities. It should be aimed at
studying all the legal opportunities and all the solutions that
enable firms to satisfy this environmental legislation. The
financial impacts should be evaluated.
-
to carry out an inventory and diagnostic of the environmental
impacts of the ports, in particular on the city port interface
areas. This work should constitute a preliminary step to
implementing measures and instruments for measurement
and the environmental management of the city-port interface.
In Delfzijl, the close proximity between port
and industrial activities and the city centre
renders the situation especially complex
and constrictive. Work carried out with all
the firms concerned, on the one hand,
comes from a strategy of information on the
environmental impacts and the various
legal constraints (such as those of noise
zoning). But one the other hand, and above
all, it is a question of studying and
determining with these firms all possible
solutions including the abandoning of the
projects and/or the relocation of activities
(See final Seminar of the PCP project, Le
Havre, May 2007).
It is notably with these objectives that the
European project "Sympic" was developed
under project leaders Valencia (A project
that was presented during the final seminar
of this PCP Project (See also:
http://www.simpyc.info/en/).
Recommendation 20: To work on the "buffer" and
transitional zones
Taking into account the environmental constraints, the installation,
of "buffer" zones between the existing or future urban front and
port activity should facilitate city port cohabitation. Various
solutions are open to the partners:
-
Urban "buffer" zones housing installations that are compatible
with port activities: offices, small businesses, cultural
installations …
Amongst the urban projects in the South
District of Le Havre, one sector is situated
directly opposite a container depot. On this
"Quai de Gironde", a compatible solution
could be the installation of offices and small
businesses.
-
Port "buffer" zones housing port equipment or installations
with a lesser impact: small logistics, waterway traffics
connected with the urban economy, a base for ship servicing
activities, barge "mooring place"...
In Amsterdam, the Vlothavenpier zone
could house a timber products terminal and
offices connected with this activity. Leisure
activities could also be present there. This
possibility is for the moment deferred
because of zoning rules restricting
commercial activities in this sector.
-
Green buffer zones stemming from either the preservation of
predominantly rural zones, or the creation of green spaces.
In Gdansk, an existing green zone between
the container terminal, the Pomeranian
Logistics Centre, and the residential zone of
Stogi District will be thus reutilised to ensure
this role.
In Le Havre, the "waterway garden" laid out
in the South District ensures a transition
between the ship repair activities on the
West side, and, to the South, the cold
stores situated opposite. It provides views
of the active port whilst serving as a
"buffer" zone establishing a physical
distance necessary for the cohabitation
between port and urban activities.
Moreover, the landscaping treatment which
has been applied to it refers to an industrial
and port memory of the spot (part of the rail
network has been kept, use of
cobblestones etc.) and contributes thus to
its identity and its attractiveness.
119
OBJECTIVE 2: TO COMMUNICATE AND TO GET CERTAIN NUISANCES ACCEPTED
Recommendation 21: To make all the concerned parties
aware of the environmental strategy of the port
The acceptability of port nuisances goes through an ambitious
communications strategy. To be complete, this should bear on:
- the technical solutions for the reduction of nuisances;
- the measures of compensation that the port sets up;
- the environmental advantages of sea and waterway transport;
- the economic impact of the port in terms of the creation of
wealth and employment.
The port could then boast about their positive contribution to the
sustainable development of the whole port city and to the quality
of life of its inhabitants.
Recommendation 22: To solve the acceptation of certain
nuisances by contract
Elsewhere, on the city port interface spaces, cities undertaking a
voluntarist marketing strategy selling offices or residential
accommodation "with a view over the water" should take care to
include the presence of an active port in the sale or rental
documents. The objective should be to reduce the number of
subsequent claims and to guarantee lasting activities for the port.
For example, Newcastle (Australia) and
Hamburg (Germany) are engaged in this
type of approach.
Integrating societies
OBJECTIVE 1: TO PREPARE FOR TOMORROW'S JOBS
Recommendation 23: To adapt the professional training
sectors
In active collaboration with the academics in research and
training, ports and the port industries should contribute to put in
place specific training curricula. The contents of the course
programmes should be regularly adjusted in order to correspond
better to the requirements of a port economy in constant
development. These programmes should contain both short and
long courses order to satisfy both technical and service
tradecrafts.
In Le Havre, the most recent challenges
connected with the security of ports and the
logistics chain have resulted in the creation
in 2007 of a Master's Degree in addition to
the already existing port and logistics
training courses and certificates.
OBJECTIVE 2: TO INTEGRATE THE PORT WITH THE LIFE OF THE CITY
Recommendation 24: To make the symbolism of the port and
landscaping elements instruments in the appropriation of the
sites by the population
The city port interface sites are frequently rich in respect to the
social history of the port city. Their presence is stamped in the
imagination of the inhabitants. In this respect, development
projects should try, as far as possible upstream, to attract the
support of the inhabitants by:
- an architectural reutilisation of symbols of the port (rails,
cranes, containers, etc.) and by putting the reconverted port
heritage into value.
- a landscaping treatment of the city port frontier and the
creation of urban park(s) along this frontier to increase
frequentation of the site right from the start of the project and
to give back a positive image of these spaces that may have
been wastelands for a long period of time.
In Buenos Aires, port heritage has been put
into value right at the outset of the Puerto
Madero operation.
In Rosario, all the city port interface sites are
connected by a series of gardens. A similar
approach is under way in Genoa.
120
Recommendation 25: To open the port to the population
Several practices could contribute to this:
-
the use of events and the regular organisation of one-off
events (music, cinema, sports, sailing, "Port Days", etc.) on
the city port interface areas. For these events, a site should
be chosen where port activities are still maintained and/or
which provide a direct view of the active port, in order to have
a larger impact.
-
a regular implication of the port authority in the cultural
activities of the city (exhibitions, sponsorships, etc.)
-
the organisation of guided tours by boat to provide another
access and vision, closer to the vessels and the installations,
and/or by coach privileging the departure point of visit tours
as close as possible to the other tourist sites of the city.
the creation of bus, pedestrian or bicycle promenade circuits
with accesses to natural or artificial observation points:
construction of belvederes, access to roof terraces of certain
warehouses, etc.
-
Recommendation 26: To determine an overall tourist offer
The tourist potential of port cities goes well above just cruise
activities. The implementation of an overall tourist offer should
contribute to this. To the urban and cultural advantages proper to
each city, this should associate not only the industrial port
heritage (maritime and port museums) or oceanic (aquarium), but
also a direct vision of the port and its modern activities.
Antwerp, Brussels, Valparaiso, … the
examples of these types of events and
"port days" are numerous.
Amsterdam notably counts on events
connected with sailing to promote the port.
They also organise port days with circuits by
bus or by boat and access to the terminals.
These circuits for visits could in the future be
proposed much more regularly.
The formula retained by Bremerhaven
enables the constraints connected with
standards of security (in particular the ISPS
Code) to be reconciled by a visit by bus as
close as possible to the terminals. This is
besides completed by a belvedere (view
point) constructed using the symbolism of
the port (containers) and providing a direct
view of the container terminals in full swing.
Access to the roof level and to the view of
the port is at the very heart of the
"Terrasses du Port" project in Marseille, but
the access to the roof of the former
submarine base in Saint-Nazaire can also
be mentioned.
In the Le Havre project for a Centre of the
Sea and Sustainable Development, over
and above the direct and immediate highrise view over the whole port city, a real
tourist offer is proposed and educative
functions are combined: an interactive
museographic circuit will in fact enable the
challenges of sustainable development for
the port city to be understood, and notably
the activities of a modern port.
121
6. APPENDIX
LIST of THE EXPERTS
(selected by each partner of the PCP project)
City of LE HAVRE
(Ville leader du projet)
Expert:
Mr Ouahid DORBANE
Adjoint au DGA
Délégué Général au Développement des Quartiers Sud
VILLE DU HAVRE
Hôtel de Ville
BP 51
76084 LE HAVRE CEDEX
Tel. +33 2 35 19 47 11
[email protected]
http://www.ville-lehavre.fr
Overall management of the Project :
Mme Florence JEANNE
Relations internationales
VILLE DU HAVRE
Hôtel de Ville
+33 2 35 19 48 02
[email protected]
AMSTERDAM
Mr Pito DINGEMANSE
Manager of Spatial Planning
PORT OF AMSTERDAM
Havengebouw
De Ruijterkade 7
Postbus 19406
1000 GK AMSTERDAM
NETHERLANDS
tel: +31 20 523 4524
[email protected]
http://www.portofamsterdam.nl
BREMERHAVEN
Michael GERBER
Prokurist/Geschäftsbereichsleiter
Stadtentwicklung
BIS - BREMERHAVENER GESELLSCHAFT FUR INVESTITIONSFORDERUNG &
STADTENTWICKLUNG MBH
AM ALTEN HAFEN 118
27568 BREMERHAVEN - GERMANY
+49 471 946 46 30
[email protected]
http://www.bis-bremerhaven.de
122
Helmut BERENDS
General Manager
BERENDS-CONSULT
Bürgermeister-Schoene-Str. 46
D-28213 BREMEN - GERMANY
+49 421 794 82 55
[email protected]
http://www.berends-consult.de
DELFZIJL
Harm WESSELS
Senior Advisor Spatial Planning
CITY OF DELFJIZL
Johan van den Kornputplein 10
Postbus 20000
9930 PA DELFZIJL - NETHERLANDS
+31 596 63 99 21
[email protected]
http://www.delfzijl.nl
GDANSK
Malgorzata RATKOWSKA
EU co-ordinator - European Projects Division
Development Programmes Department
MUNICIPALITY OF GDANSK
8/12 Nowe Ogrody Str.
80-803 GDANSK - POLAND
+4858 323 64 34
[email protected]
RIGA
Inese VILĀNE
Head of Project Management Unit
Strategic Planing and Project Management Department
RIGA FREE PORT AUTHORITY - RĪGAS BRĪVOSTAS PĀRVALDE
O.Kalpaka Blvd 12,
LV- 1050 RIGA - LATVIA
+371-7030855
[email protected]
http://www.rop.lv
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION CITIES AND PORTS
(Scientific Coordination of the Project)
Mr Olivier LEMAIRE
General Manager
ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE VILLES ET PORTS
45, rue Lord Kitchener
76600 LE HAVRE - FRANCE
+33 (0)2 35 42 78 84
[email protected]
http://www.aivp.org
123
EXTERNAL EXPERT OF THE PROJECT
Mr Jacques CHARLIER
Professeur aux Universités de Paris-Sorbonne et de Louvain-la-Neuve
Chercheur qualifié FNRS et Directeur Scientifique (2005-2007) du CIEM (Centre Interuniversitaire
d'Etude de la Mobilité) à Bruxelles
CIEM - Avenue Roosevelt
50 CP 194/7 - 1050 BRUXELLES - BELGIQUE
+32 2650 3933 - [email protected]
Other participants (during the working seminars and/or the final seminar):
Le Havre
Annick FAURY
Adjoint au Maire chargée des Ressources Humaines
et des relations internationales
City of Le Havre
Dominique DHERVILLEZ
Directeur Général Adjoint en charge des grands projets,
de l'aménagement urbain et de la prospective
City of Le Havre
Didier DASTARAC
Directeur Général Adjoint en charge des relations internationales
City of Le Havre
Bernard GÉRARD
Responsable scientifique des Partenariats d'Odyssée 21
Centre de la Mer et du Développement durable
City of Le Havre
Jean Pierre LECOMTE
President
Port of Le Havre
Cyril CHEDOT
Chargé de Mission Développement local
Port of Le Havre
Amsterdam
Cor OUDENDIJK
Executive Director Shipping
Port of Amsterdam
Wim VLEMMIX
Director of Engineering, Development & Environment
Port of Amsterdam
Allard JOLLES
Physical Planning Department of Amsterdam
City of Amsterdam
Gert URHAHN
Director
Urhahn Urban Design B.V.
124
Bremerhaven
Pamela HELL née von DÜRING
BEAN, Bremerhavener Entwicklungsgesellschaft Alter-/Neuer Hafen mbH & Co.KG
Christoph HERRFURTH
Dept Economic Affairs
City of Bermerhaven
Stefan HENKE
Dept Port Development & Strategy
Bremenports
Franziska STENZEL
Unit: BIS Bremerhaven Touristik
BIS mbH
Delfzijl
Andre BAKEMA
Head of Department of Infrastructure
City of Delfzijl
Ingrid WIJNGAARDE
Advisor environmental policy
Department of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment
City of Delfzijl
Gerlof HOTSMA
Groningen Seaports
Gdansk
Krzysztof SZCZEPANIAK
Director of Economic Development Department
City of Gdańsk
Krzysztof RUDZIŃSKI
Director of Development Programmes Department
City of Gdansk
Joanna ZBIERSKA
Development Programmes Department
City of Gdansk
Jarosław WINCEK
City Planning Authority of Gdańsk
Krzysztof ANZELEWICZ
Development Department Manager
Port of Gdansk Authority
Piotr LORENS
Head, Dept. of Urban Development, Faculty of Architecture
Technical University of Gdansk
125
Riga
Edgars SUNA
Head of Strategic Planning Unit
Freeport of Riga Authority
Haralds APOGS
Project Manager
Administrative and International Affairs Department
Freeport of Riga Authority
Gvido PRINCIS
Head of Riga City Urban Planning Authority
City of Riga
Valters MAZINS
Jaunrigas Attistibas Uznemums
Astrida ROGULE
Museum of Contemporary Art
Greta MARINI
Chargée de mission
Denis DAVOULT
Documentalist - European Affairs
Other case studies have been presented during the final seminar by:
Juan Manuel DIEZ OREJAS
Jefe Departamento políticas ambientales
Autoridad Portuaria de Valencia, España
Kjell KARLSSON
Director, Infrastructure
Ports of Stockholm, Sweden
Nicoletta ARTUSO
Architect, Département Urbanisme
Autorita Portuale di Genova, Italia
Enrique CALDENTEY
Departamento Técnico - Port 2000
Gerencia Urbanística Port 2000
Barcelona, España
Isabelle VRIES
Programme Manager
Port of Rotterdam, Netherlands
126
127
Ville du Havre
November 2007
128