Delft University of Technology
The Challenge of the Dutch Port-City Interface
A. Daamen, Tom; Louw, Erik DOI 10.1111/tesg.12219 Publication date 2016 Document Version Final published version Published in Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie
Citation (APA) A. Daamen, T., & Louw, E. (2016). The Challenge of the Dutch Port-City Interface. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 107(5), 642-651. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12219
Important note To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable). Please check the document version above.
Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons. Takedown policy Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights. We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to a maximum of 10. WINDOW ON THE NETHERLANDS THE CHALLENGE OF THE DUTCH PORT-CITY INTERFACE
TOM A. DAAMEN & ERIK LOUW Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Julianalaan 134, 2628 BL Delft, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Received: November 2014; accepted June 2016
ABSTRACT This paper explores the shifting geography of the port-city interface in The Netherlands since the mid 1970s, and assesses its current scene. With an eye on port-urban governance and planning, we provide a dynamic account of the forces that have played a major role in the implementation of waterfront redevelopment schemes in Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Our account shows that the power balance between the port authority, the municipal planning office, and the users of the port has shifted. This has compelled urban planners in both port cities to adopt a more incremental waterfront development strategy than they had anticipated, and has given port users more influence on the plans for the current port-city interface.
Key words: Port-city interface, waterfront development, governance and planning
INTRODUCTION: THE DUTCH PORT- regard to the complexity involved in reworking CITY INTERFACE REVISITED seaport structures into a high quality urban environment. While the revitalisation of port- industrial waterfronts have been termed a worldwide urban success story (Breen & Rigby As the waterfront revitalization phenom- 1996), only a small amount of the world’s enon has become increasingly widespread waterfront projects have been widely accepted in geographical terms, it has attracted the as both economically beneficial and socially attention of numerous academic disci- just. In fact, the resources and institutions nec- plines [...]. Geography has played, and essary to lead and direct meaningful water- continues to play, a leading part in these front change prove significantly hard to debates – a good measure of interdiscipli- mobilise – particularly in seaport cities. nary cooperation is long apparent. (Hoyle Leading planning scholars have repeatedly 2000, p. 402) pointed to Dutch practice as one of the Since its emergence on the United States’s exceptions, being able to deliver well- East coast in the late 1950s, waterfront regen- balanced urban environments (e.g. Healey eration projects have spread to port cities all 2010; Fainstein 2011). A recent contribution over the globe. The dispersion has changed to the Windows on the Netherlands section the face and frontier of many of the world’s focused on the dynamic geographies of largest seaports, although many inland har- global commodity trade, linking and compar- bours and quays have seen similar transforma- ing the geography of commodity finance to tions. Nowadays, few places more extreme with that of the production and distribution of
Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie – 2016, DOI:10.1111/tesg.12219, Vol. 107, No. 5, pp. 642–651. VC 2016 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG THE CHALLENGE OF THE DUTCH PORT-CITY INTERFACE 643 goods in Rotterdam and Amsterdam (Jacobs govern the policies and plans for city and port, 2014). We take the same cities into consider- without neglecting the ever-changing behaviour ation, but focus on the local redevelopment and capabilities of those affected by the port of the port-city interface and add a spatial and port-related projects (Daamen & Vries planning and governance perspective to our 2013; Notteboom et al. 2013). geographical understanding of these two The once symbiotic relationship between the Dutch port cities. In Rotterdam and city’s economic leaders and its mercantile port Amsterdam, spatial and functional waterfront has evolved into something that may be change has signified and shifted the geogra- described as a business affiliation gone cold. phy of the port-city interface for decades. Hence it is often conflict, especially in port This paper provides an analysis of the shift’s cities with economically still vital port operations current position and state. (as Amsterdam and Rotterdam), that character- ises interaction when port city authorities are UNDERSTANDING THE CHANGING planning the development of waterfront zones PORT-CITY INTERFACE – also in the Netherlands (Wiegmans & Louw 2013). While Hayuth (2007) still recognised Urban designers have termed waterfront that port and city authorities share some com- regeneration an effort to reclaim the city’s mon economic goals, a more recent report by ‘abandoned doorstep’ (Bruttomesso 1993), the OECD (2013) suggests that such common while geographers and social scientists have goals have become increasingly hard to define. put the phenomenon forward as places of Indeed, many European port cities are at the capital accumulation and consumerism stage of considerable debate about whether the (Harvey 1990; Norcliffe et al. 1996). Planners widely dispersed economic benefits of port have more recently framed projects in the operations are enough to outweigh their largely port-city interface as tangible expressions of local negative impacts (OECD 2013). neo-liberal tendencies in the sphere of urban The OECD (2013) report and other port governance (Marshall 2001). Indeed, the research publications (e.g. ESPO 2010) suggest projects that signify the geographical retreat that the contemporary port-city interface is of the port from the urban core are magni- beset by efforts to ‘renew the relationships’ fied intersections of urban forces driving up between these two drifted entities (Hoyle 2000; political and economic stakes (Malone 1996). Hall, 2007; Ducruet et al. 2011; Jacobs et al. As Hoyle had already argued in 2000, urban 2011; Hall & Jacobs, 2012; Ng et al. 2014). In governance and planning play a key role in this paper, we analyse the geography of this this process: the motives for waterfront devel- renewed relationship in the port-city interface opment initiatives may be more easily found of Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Both cities have among planners, than in the port migration substantial ports, and operate within the same process that occurred up to the 1980s. national institutional environment. What dif- Today, planning prospects of an autono- fers is their more local institutional geographi- mous retreat of the port from waterfront sites cal environment, which makes them ideal for a – creating ample opportunities for urban comparative case study. The analysis is based regeneration – are often flawed. Port with- on previous work of the authors (Daamen, drawals from the city can no longer simply be 2010; Wiegmans & Louw, 2010) on Rotterdam seen as a logical outcome of technological and Amsterdam respectively, and an additional innovations (i.e. containerisation, larger ves- review of recent planning documents. sels), the rationalisation of port operations, and the availability of alternative locations. SHIFTING PORT-CITY GEOGRAPHIES IN The forces that shape geographical shifts in ROTTERDAM the port-city interface have become much more complex, and are better explained from The Meuse River is widely understood as the an institutionalist point of view: a view that defining element of Rotterdam’s geographi- attends to the rules, norms, and beliefs that cal evolution. In the 1970s, the river divided
VC 2016 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG 644 TOM A. DAAMEN & ERIK LOUW the city’s port-industrial, proletarian south bank psychological barrier between the north and from its socially and economically more varied south bank of the river. A new bridge was to city districts north of the river (McCarthy 1996). become a defining element in the social and The city centre had been largely rebuilt after its economic revitalisation of the river’s south edge Second World War devastation, but was still cut and a significant part of Rotterdam South’s most off from the river because old port terrains beset dilapidated districts. It was also meant to provide the waterfront. During the course of the next an important starting point for the realisation of three decades, this picture changed as Rotter- an area-based masterplan called Kop van Zuid. dam developed and implemented two ambitious The initial plans for this project projected a pro- frameworks of waterfront interventions. gramme of about 4,500 residential units, 400,000 For municipal planners and city marketers, sqm of office space, and 95,000 sqm of other Rotterdam’s Waterstad plan was to bring back functions onto a total area of 125 hectares (Wig- the river into the hearts and minds of its inhab- mans 1998). itants. Planners and urban designers in Combined with a new subway line, the new Rotterdam had become increasingly aware of Erasmus Bridge from the inner city to the the attractiveness of old quays and waterfront Kop van Zuid would greatly improve the accessi- structures, taking internationally renowned bility of the deprived parts of town from the projects such as Baltimore’s inner harbour as Northern part of the city. It increased the attrac- an inspiring benchmark (Teisman 1992). They tiveness of the waterfront for new living (apart- thus proposed to restore the link between the ments), working (offices), and leisure oriented inner city and the river through a number of property development (hotels and theatres). port-urban transformations. The city planners Spatial planners and policy-makers started to defined these transformations as opportunities favour such mixed-use development, as they to slow down the outflow of middle and high- realised the importance of integrating residen- income groups towards the city’s periphery, pro- tial, employment, and welfare functions in the viding ample space for the settlement and same local environment (Van der Knaap & growth of new economic functions in the Pinder 1992). The ‘entrepreneurial’ character upcoming business services sector of the of this approach was spurred by national gov- economy. ernment policies, which prospected financial In Rotterdam, the dominance of socio-cultural contributions to collaborative, specifically public- policies during the 1970s resulted in the develop- private partnership schemes (Tas¸an-Kok 2010). ment of large inner-city social housing estates, The Dutch Ministry of Spatial Planning often at the expense of economic functions that adopted the Kop van Zuid project as one of were more or less removed from the city’s inner its so-called ‘key projects’ in their 1990 city and old waterfront locations (Van der Knaap brief.1 The inner city of Rotterdam, as well as & Pinder 1992). As unemployment rates surged, those of several other Dutch cities, had to the intricate relationships between the socio- become the focal points of a strong eco- cultural well-being and economic vitality of the nomic region. However, although the city became dramatically apparent (Priemus national key projects propelled the pursuit of 2001). Around 1980, it became clear that turning the urban economic restructuring desired, it things around in Rotterdam would demand a also stimulated an intra and inter-urban com- delicate mix of ambition and pragmatism – a mix petition. City authorities competed fiercely that resonated well with the vigilant debates with each other in order to attract interna- among planners and urban designers in Rotter- tional business corporations and other eco- dam at the time (Meyer 1999). nomic activities to their respective territories While the first municipal waterfront pro- (Wigmans 1998). Within Rotterdam, plan- gramme focused mainly on waterfront areas ners focusing on the redevelopment of the north of the Meuse in the economically difficult city’s main railway station area also had simi- early 1980s, Rotterdam’s planning ambitions lar target groups in mind (Teisman 1992). made an important leap during the years of eco- Ultimately, the Kop van Zuid project’s office nomic recovery after 1985. Municipal plans now programme would have to be downsized and proposed to bridge the physical and adapted several times during the 1990s and
VC 2016 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG THE CHALLENGE OF THE DUTCH PORT-CITY INTERFACE 645
Figure 1. Waterfront development areas in Rotterdam since the 1970s.
2000s – particularly into residential functions. (Daamen 2010). In the decade since the for- Although the municipality and involved pri- mal start of the so-called Stadshavens,orCity- vate investors wanted to prevent the image of Ports project in 2004, several locations within a ‘civil servant pier’, the project’s pivotal Wil- this 1,600 hectare area have been redeveloped helmina Pier nevertheless became the home (see Figure 1). However, the port authority of many public bodies and non-profit organi- managed most of the projects in the CityPorts sations, including the now corporatised port area after a joint port-municipal development authority, and, more recently, the larger part company failed because of the still very viable of the municipal organisation. port operations that largely beset the area. The Towards the end of the 1990s, new water- relocation of port functions necessary for rede- front development schemes were implemented velopment to occur has only been piecemeal, on the North banks farther East of the Kop van either due to cost or the lack of alternative Zuid project. Here, attempts to attract new eco- locations. This, and the dramatic effects of the nomic clusters to Rotterdam also largely failed. 2008 financial crisis and subsequent economic The piers around the Sint Jobshaven have downturn, has forced Rotterdam to redefine nevertheless become a relatively mixed residen- the CityPorts project and adopt what is in fact tial area close to what are still largely deprived a very incremental and fragmented develop- social neighbourhoods. ment strategy – a strategy that brings specific Despite the difficulties experienced in the plots and locations into development as exist- redevelopment of the older and more centrally ing lease contracts end and new market inter- located port terrains in Rotterdam, a new ests emerge. framework was drawn up for the remaining port areas within the city’s highway rim. If the PORT-URBAN TRANSFORMATIONS IN municipality was going to support the exten- AMSTERDAM sion of the port into the North Sea, the port authority had to agree to deliver its terrains Amsterdam’s history in large-scale waterfront back to the city as soon as they became derelict transformations started in the 1980s, when or otherwise eligible for urban redevelopment the municipality adopted a ‘compact city’
VC 2016 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG 646 TOM A. DAAMEN & ERIK LOUW
Figure 2. Waterfront development sites in Amsterdam since the 1970s. policy and developed the first plans to trans- Amsterdam’s central business district (CBD). form the port-industrial zones along the river The most prestigious firms in the service sec- IJ. The IJ embankments East of Amsterdam’s tor favoured the so-called Zuidas or South main railway station – itself a symbol of the Axis location between the city centre and city’s alienation from the IJ – were meant to international airport Schiphol. Also, the become the city’s main office location, while political climate changed in favour of a the closest Eastern docklands were planned housing-oriented development in the whole as a mixed use area (see Figure 2). of the Eastern docklands area, which was also One of the main purposes behind making given the status of key project. In the same the Eastern IJ banks an office location was to period, the development of the mainly resi- boost the economic function of the inner dential Java and KNSM islands as well as the city, and to rectify the increasing unbalance docklands farther East was well underway. caused by the southbound shift of economic Around 1987, the first apartment buildings activities in the service sector (Ploeger 2004). were delivered in these areas. Initially, this One of the main guidelines was to ‘improve mainly consisted of affordable housing, but the relationship between the (historic) inner private residential development would soon city and the IJ embankments by creating pub- gain the upper hand. lic attractions with sufficient appeal and Between 1987 and 2005, housing corpora- increasing the accessibility between both tions, property developers and large contract- areas; to develop, where possible, the typical ing firms built a total of around 9,500 units in inner city uses which because of their scale the Eastern dockland areas (e.g. Hoppen- and accessibility requirements are difficult to brouwer & Louw 2005). After the year 2000, fit into the [historic] inner city morphology; the areas of the older Eastern Trade Quays and to create the linkage of the [historic] closer to the city centre were also set for devel- inner city to the IJ embankments’ (Witbraad opment. Morphologically, this development & Jorna 1993, p. 232). resembles the earlier CBD-plans quite closely, In the beginning of the 1990s, it became but functionally there was a shift towards a clear to city planners that the Eastern IJ larger portion of residential functions. Never- banks would never reach the status of theless, closest to the central station, a cruise
VC 2016 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG THE CHALLENGE OF THE DUTCH PORT-CITY INTERFACE 647 ferry terminal and a music theatre were built oil company Shell, one of the main land onthesequays–attractingtouristsaswellas users, contacted the municipality about their Amsterdam residents who rarely visited the plans to restructure its laboratories situated waterfront of their hometown. in a prime location right across the water Due to high economic growth, Amsterdam from the central station. Shell also alluded faced a great demand for housing from the that it had no objections against residential mid 1990s onwards. This means that planners development in the area. This move by Shell and developers were in search for new loca- is considered a main turning point in the tions for residential development. Increasingly, thinking of the Northern IJ banks (Dembski they looked westwards to harbour areas. In 2013). The first masterplan announced that contrast to the Eastern docklands, which had about 9,000 residential units and commercial almost lost its harbour activities in the 1980s, spaces for 25,000 workplaces would be built the harbours just West of the station were still on the Northern banks of the IJ. In 2007, in use. Additional plans for at least another the construction of the first houses in the 5,000 houses in the parts of the port close to area called Overhoeks had started. In order the city (Houthaven and the former NDSM to attract a wider public to the area, a film wharf) were developed in the 1990s and at the museum has been built, which features as a beginning of the millennium. These plans are waterfront icon. For Shell, a new technology more problematic and controversial than the centre encompassing 81,500 sqm was com- Eastern docklands and IJ banks. De Roo pleted in 2009. The company’s old office (2003, p. 306) analysed the conflict between tower is being retrofitted into a multi- spatial and environmental planning for the functional tower on the waterfront. Houthaven, and concluded that the planning Compared to the development of the process had ended in a ‘stalemate’, particularly Eastern docklands, the development of the because most of the proposed dwellings were Northern IJ banks is planned less rigidly. planned in a zone in which residential develop- 2 This is because the total development area is ment is restricted because of noise pollution. quite expansive, and there are still various Eventually, in 2008, the municipality and firms along the IJ that cause environmental three companies who were based in the port threats to residential development and can- settled that, under certain conditions, residen- not be moved elsewhere cheaply. Induced tial development in the Houthaven and NDSM also by fragmented land ownership, the wharf area would be allowed. However, they municipality therefore favours an incremen- also agreed that in the coming 20 years, the tal transformation process. This step-by-step municipality would not approve any new resi- strategy allows for negotiations with sitting dential developments that could harm the landowners, which enables the port-urban companies’ freedom to operate. This agree- transformation so desired, but also slows ment meant that after 2028, new developments down its pace. can become a possibility. Hence, the municipal spatial planning department and the port authority have already performed scenario CHANGING FORCES IN THE DUTCH analyses on the port-city interface between PORT-CITY INTERFACE 2030 and 2040 (Gemeente Amsterdam 2013). These analyses are part of a so-called transfor- On 1 April 1 2013, the hitherto municipal mation strategy and foresee up to 20,000 resi- port authority of Amsterdam was officially dential units in current port areas. ‘corporatised’ into an independent, though Initially, planners in Amsterdam were publicly owned limited company. The con- mainly interested in the southern side of the tracts signed in Amsterdam did not, however, IJ. The Northern IJ banks, beset by industry include the legal transfer of port terrains and shipyards, were intended to continue from the municipality to the new port their port-industrial use. Up until the late authority. Instead, all port-industrial terrains 1990s, there was no clear vision about the were placed under port control through a future of these areas. This changed when the perpetuate lease agreement free from rent.
VC 2016 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG 648 TOM A. DAAMEN & ERIK LOUW
On top of that, all port areas within Amster- imposing property taxation. Another advant- dam’s main highway rim were designated as age is that it provides the municipality the eligible for ‘transformation into work-living opportunity to keep exerting some sort of environments’ – though no sooner than the control over assets through its status as main year 2025 (Gemeente Amsterdam 2013). A leaseholder. And moreover, it allows for a relatively small part of this area, the Minerva- relatively swift withdrawal of these assets from haven, is in the process of transformation by the port as terrains become ‘fit’ for port- replacing port functions with creative and lei- urban transformation. Or does it? sure industries. In contrast to Overhoeks, the Recent empirical observations in port authority is in the lead of the incremen- Rotterdam show that, although it was agreed tal transformation process in this area, which in 2004 that the new port authority would ‘forms a buffer between the residential area transfer its control over the destiny of certain of the city and the heavier industry in the terrains in the CityPorts area, large-scale 3 rest of the port’. transfers have yet to emerge In spite of new Similar to agreements made in Rotterdam agreements in 2007 and an ambitious municipal for the corporatisation of its port authority structuurplan for the area in 2011, new invest- nine years earlier (Daamen 2010), it was ments and spatial changes in Rotterdam’s cur- recorded that the city council in Amsterdam rent port-city interface have been executed only would retain a firm grip on the port’s land- piecemeal, and under strict port authority super- uses in three ways. First and foremost, the vision. The fact that some of these new projects municipality would retain its ownership and concern non-port uses is more likely explained legal status as main leaseholder of all port by port authority pragmatism, than by the lands. Second, several public law instruments municipal capacity to enforce its planning would guarantee the powers of the city to ambitions. decide over port land-uses. Third, the munici- pality would be able to influence the port authority’s strategic decision-making through CONCLUSION: A NEW CHALLENGE its statutory powers as chief – and as of yet only – stockholder (Haven Amsterdam 2013). These three points answered some of the The relative success of [waterfront redevel- concerns raised in the city’s planning com- opment] will depend essentially on three munity about the development of politically things: integration, integration, and inte- or socially undesirable land-uses in the Port gration. First, integration of past and pres- of Amsterdam, and probably eased some of ent; second, integration of contrasting the worries of those who associated the cor- aims and objectives; and third, integration poratisation more generally as a weakening of of communities and localities involved. municipal control over the port’s evolution. (Hoyle 2000, p. 415) The formal institutional changes in Amsterdam and Rotterdam resonate well In his study on the complex decision- with the process of port authority corporati- making around the waterfront project of Kop sation that has been progressing all over con- van Zuid in Rotterdam, Teisman (1992) tinental Europe, and to a significant extent, retraces a municipal brief to retain the south the entire world (Verhoeven 2006; World edge of the Meuse for port uses in 1969, Bank 2007; Ng & Pallis 2011). A crucial only to be cast aside by the city council two aspect of this process is the treatment of port years later. The council decided to revise its property, as next to port dues, land leases earlier view that the southern edge of the are a port’s main source of income. In these river could retain its port-industrial land Dutch cases, the choice to transfer municipal uses, and that ‘the river should be given control over port assets to a new entity back’ to the city (Teisman 1992, p. 187). through perpetuate lease has its advantages. This ambivalence about of the areas that sig- One is that it does not involve full transfers nify the port-city interface has continued to of ownership, which prevents the state from characterise Rotterdam’s policies and plans
VC 2016 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG THE CHALLENGE OF THE DUTCH PORT-CITY INTERFACE 649 since. This has often spurred uncertainty and To accommodate the forecasted growth of frustration among port users, and has fos- port business, the ports of Amsterdam and Rot- tered speculation and strategic behaviour terdam both aim to intensify the use of their among those who aim to profit from poten- existing territory (Port of Rotterdam 2012; tial land-use revisions (Daamen 2010; Haven Amsterdam 2013). This, combined with Milo sevic´ 2014). While the most recent Port the on-going transformation of the older parts Vision 2030 reconfirmed that parts of the of the port, is making the current interface CityPorts area are still set to undergo a port- between city and port an experimental zone for urban transformation, it stresses economic new land-use combinations, and an interesting development and refrains from statements laboratory for port-urban research. about residential uses – uses that do feature While city planners seem to keep dominating the 2011municipal structuurplan for the area. the development of the interface in Amsterdam, In the period since the 1970s, planning the power balance in Rotterdam has unmistak- ambitions for the port-city interface in ably shifted in favour of the port authority due Amsterdam have been much more consist- to its relatively large resource base. However, ent. Although municipal planners in both now that port users – like commodity traders port cities had to perform similar revisions to and transhipment companies – in both port their plans during implementation –convert- cities have involved themselves more emphati- ing plans for commercial offices into residen- cally in planning processes, it seems that the tial land-use designations – Amsterdam has waterfront development process in both port been able to fall back on a relatively stable cities are facing an important new challenge: demand in its housing market and thus con- the integration of existing port community tinue the implementation of its waterfront interests into interface development schemes. plans. It is only recently that powerful port Taking Hoyle’s statement above to heart, such users have taken a stand against the water- integration will play a crucial role in the contin- front ambitions of Amsterdam’s land devel- ued evolution of the port city interface in the opment office. Although agreements Netherlands. between the municipality and the now inde- pendent port authority have been signed, it Acknowledgements remains to be seen if the last port terrains The authors would like to thank the two anony- inside Amsterdam’s main highway rim will mous referees and the editors for their feedback on indeed be transformed into more ‘work- earlier versions of this article. We would also like to living’ uses. The tradition in Amsterdam of thank Wendy de Hoog and Robert Pennings for long term strategic planning indicates that making the illustrations. Usual disclaimers apply. this transformation eventually will take place. In both Amsterdam and Rotterdam, a shift Notes from a plan-led transformation to an incre- mental transformation process occurred. 1. Vierde Nota voor de Ruimtelijke Ordening Although this inclines to site-by-site partner- Extra (VINEX). ship-based forms of (hybrid) governance – 2. For a description, see also De Roo (2003, Chap- such as those found by Oakley (2011) and ter 7). Galland and Hansen (2012) – this has hardly 3. http://www.portofamsterdam.com/Eng/port/ beenobservedinAmsterdamandRotterdam. physical-space/spatial-development-Minerva.html? One explanation for this is a strong belief in highlight5restructuring%2c%20minerva%2c% strategic planning within the two largest Dutch 20port%2c%20area. municipalities, although our evidence indi- cates that strategic planning only has a force- fulhandinAmsterdam.Fromaninternational REFERENCES perspective, this strategic planning belief also explains why market-driven or property-led BREEN, A. & D. RIGBY (1996), The New Waterfront: A development has hardly occurred on the Worldwide Urban Success Story. London: McGraw- waterfronts of either of these port cities. Hill.
VC 2016 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG 650 TOM A. DAAMEN & ERIK LOUW
BRUTTOMESSO, R. (1993), Waterfronts: A New Fron- In:J.WANG,D.OLIVIER,T.NOTTEBOOM &B. tier for Cities on Water. Venice: International SLACK, eds, Ports, Cities, and Global Supply Chains, Centre for Cities on Water. pp. 141–156. Aldershot: Ashgate. DAAMEN, T.A. (2010), Strategy as Force: Towards Effec- HEALEY, P. (2010), Making Better Places. London: tive Strategies for Urban Development Projects. The Palgrave. Case of Rotterdam CityPorts. Amsterdam: IOS Press HOPPENBROUWER, E. & E. LOUW (2005) Mixed-use DAAMEN, T.A. & I. VRIES (2013), Governing the Development: Theory and Practice in Amster- European Port-city Interface: Institutional Bar- dam’s Eastern Docklands. European Planning riers on Spatial Projects between City and Port. Studies 13, pp. 967–983. Journal of Transport Geography 27, pp. 4–13. HOYLE, B.S. (2000), Global and Local Change on DE ROO, G. (2003), Environmental Planning in the the Port-City Waterfront. Geographical Review 90, Netherlands: Too good to be true. From command and pp. 395–417. control planning to shared governance. Aldershot: JACOBS, W. (2014), Rotterdam and Amsterdam as Ashgate. Trading Places? In Search of the Economic- DEMBSKI, S. (2013), Case Study Amsterdam Buiksloter- Geographical nexus Between Global Commodity ham, the Netherlands: The Challenge of Planning Chains and World Cities. Tijdschrift voor Econo- Organic Transformation. Amsterdam: University of mische en Sociale Geografie 105, pp. 483–491. Amsterdam, AISSR programme group Urban JACOBS, W., H.R.A. KOSTER & P.V. HALL (2011), Planning. The Location and Global Network Structure of Mari- DUCRUET, C., D. IETRI &C.ROZENBLAT (2011), time Advanced Producer Services. Urban Studies 48, Cities in Worldwide Air and Sea Flows: A Multi- pp. 2749–2769. ple Networks Analysis. Cybergeo. Available at MALONE, P., ed. (1996), City, Water, Capital. Lon-
VC 2016 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG THE CHALLENGE OF THE DUTCH PORT-CITY INTERFACE 651
Routines. Journal of Transport Geography 27, pp. TEISMAN, G.R. (1992), Complexe Besluitvorming: Een 26–35. Pluricentrisch Perspectief op Besluitvorming over OAKLEY, S. (2011) Re-imagining City Waterfronts: Ruimtelijke Investeringen. Den Haag: Elsevier. A Comparative Analysis of Governing Renewal VAN DER KNAAP, B. & D. PINDER (1992), Revitaliz- in Adelaide, Darwin and Melbourne. Urban Pol- ing the European Waterfront: Policy Evolution icy and Research 29, pp. 221–238. and Planning Issues. In: B.S. HOYLE & D.A. OECD (2013), The Competitiveness of Global Port- PINDER, eds., European Port Cities in Transition, Cities: Synthesis Report. Paris: Organisation of Eco- pp. 153–175. London: Belhaven. nomic Co-Operation and Development. VERHOEVEN, P. (2006), Port Management Reform in PLOEGER, R. (2004), Regulating Urban Office Pro- Europe: Is There a Role for the EU? In:T.NOTTE- vision. A study of the ebb and flow of regimes BOOM,ed.,Ports are More than Piers, pp. 35–56. Ant- of urbanisation in Amsterdam and Frankfurt am werp: De Lloyd. Main, 1945–2000 (Ph.D. thesis, University of WIEGMANS, B.W. & E. LOUW (2010), Changing Amsterdam) Port-city Relations at Amsterdam: A New Phase PORT OF ROTTERDAM (2012), Havenvisie 2030. Port at the Interface? Journal of Transport Geography Compass: Direct the Future, Start Today. Rotterdam: 19, pp. 575–583. Port of Rotterdam. WIGMANS, G. (1998), De Facilitaire Stad: Rotterdams PRIEMUS, H. (2001), Recent Transformations in Grondbeleid en Postmodernisering. Delft: Delft Uni- Urban Policies in the Netherlands. In:D. versity Press. HAUPTMANN &A.GRAAFLAND, eds. (2001), WITBRAAD, F. & P. JORNA (1993), Waterfront Cities in Transition, pp. 388–403. Rotterdam: Regeneration: The IJ Embankments Project in NAi/010 Publishers. Amsterdam. In:J.BERRY,S.MCGREAL &B.DEDDIS, TAS¸AN-KOK, T. (2010), Entrepreneurial Gover- eds., Urban Regeneration: Property Investment and Devel- nance: Challenges of Large-Scale Property-led opment, pp. 230–239. London: Spon. Urban Regeneration Projects. Tijdschrift voor WORLD BANK (2007), Port Reform Toolkit (2nd edn). Sociale en Economische Geografie 101, pp. 126–149. Washington DC: The World Bank Group.
VC 2016 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG