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 PLAN THE CITY WITH THE PORT (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)

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 International Association Cities and Ports

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 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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.

Guide of good practices 6 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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:

ƒ 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 re- appropriation 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).

Guide of good practices 8 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

ƒ 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 small- fishing.

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 2. Other types of vessels 1.1. Liquid bulk carriers 2.1. Service craft 1.2. Solid bulk carriers 2.2. Naval vessels (on visit or based in the port) 1.3. General cargo vessels 2.3. Fishing vessels (+factory ships) 1.4. Passenger/cargo vessels 2.4. Pleasure craft 1.5. Purely passenger vessels

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 2. General cargo & passengers 1.1. Petroleum product carriers (oil and gas) 2.1. Pure and polyvalent cargo vessels 1.2. Other liquid bulk carriers 2.2. Container vessels (LO-LO & CONRO) 1.3. Solid bulk carriers 2.3. Car carriers (pure & ROPAX) 2.4. Ferries (pure & cruise) 2.5. Cruise vessels / liners

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 2. Inland waterway craft 1.1. Deep-sea (ocean) vessels 2.1. Big gauge barges or craft 1.2. Mid-sea vessels 2.2. small gauge barges or craft 1.3. Short sea vessels

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 Petrifaction

Growth Obsolescence Petrifaction

Development 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 re- qualification 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.

Guide of good practices 10 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

Figure 2.1b – The port life cycle concept (contemporary version, with redevelopment) Intensty of use

Maturity Redevelopment

Growth Obsolescence Redevelopment

Development Dereliction

Time

It is necessary to insist on the recent character of the strategies for the redevelopment of former dock- basins 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 11

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5

T1 Growth

T2 Maturity Growth

T3 Obsolescence Maturity Growth

T4 Dereliction Obsolescence Maturity Growth

T5 Redevelopment Dereliction Obsolescence Maturity 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.

Guide of good practices 12 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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).

Guide of good practices 14 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 land- filling 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 Figure 3.5 – TheJadeWeserPort project at and container terminals to which will be added the CT 4 Wilhelmshaven © Port of Wilhelmshaven under construction downstream from this complex © Bremenports

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

Guide of good practices 16 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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.

Guide of good practices 18 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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 land- filled 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 Figure 3.15 – Such architectural contrasts do in the course of urban redevelopment in Rotterdam not fail de raise controversy © AIVP /IACP (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

Guide of good practices 20 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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 dock- basins 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 21

Figure 3.18 – The East India and Milwall Docks Figure 3.19 ...and at term in 2015 (in the heart of which is Canary Wharf) at the height © London Docklands Development Corporation of its port activities in the Sixties © Port of London Authority

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 Figure 3.21 …and as today, after its urban-oriented at the height of its port activities in the Sixties redevelopment, mainly for housing © Port of Amsterdam © Port of Amsterdam

Figure 3.22 – Bermerhaven’s "Havenwelten" Figure 3.23 …and as it will look at the end of (Alter/Neuer Hafen) a few years ago its current redevelopment scheme © City of Bremerhaven

Guide of good practices 22 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 24 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 mid- September, 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 26 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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 urban- port 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 28 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 29

Figure 3.36 – In Kiel, cruise ships berth a the very Figure 3.37 – In Kiel, cruise ships and ferries are heart of the city, near the main railway station handled in a single, impressive terminal complex © Port of Kiel © 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 Figure 3.39 – In Marseilles, the ferry terminals relocated to Vuosaari), ferries are accommodated right in of the La Joliette complex are located within the the downtown area, were the commercial port was first perimeter of the Euroméditerranée located redevelopment scheme © Port of Helsinki © 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

Guide of good practices 30 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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.

Guide of good practices 32 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 ex- shipyard 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

Guide of good practices 34 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 © Port of 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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 (sub- section 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 2006 German Ports 102.1 114.1 139.8 179.3 246.0 Hamburg 55.2 65.5 71.1 92.4 134.9 Bremen/Bremerhaven 29.5 30.7 31.5 46.0 65.1 Wilhelmshaven 17.4 17.9 37.2 40.9 44.2 Dutch Ports 316.4 358.7 370.4 407.6 490.6 Amsterdam/IJmuiden 44.1 47.4 53.8 67.8 83.7 Rotterdam 257.6 291.7 292.2 314.6 376.7 Flushing/Terneuzen 14.7 19.6 24.4 25.2 30.2 Belgian Ports 129.5 157.7 165.3 185.7 231.0 Antwerp 90.2 101.3 111.9 130.1 167.4 Ghent 24.2 25.5 21.0 23.5 24.1 Zeebrugge 15.1 30.9 32.4 32.1 39.5 French Ports 112.0 138.7 133.9 166.9 200.6 Dunkirk 32.4 40.7 34.9 44.5 56.6 Calais 10.5 17.0 24.7 32.7 42.5 Le Havre 47.2 57.2 56.2 69.0 73.8 Rouen 21.9 23.7 18.1 20.7 23.2 Total Range 660.0 769.1 809.4 939.5 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),

Guide of good practices 36 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 dry- bulk 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 2006 German Ports 40.2 50.1 58.5 89.2 145.5 Hamburg 22.1 30.0 37.0 53.2 92.1 Bremen/Bremerhaven 18.1 20.1 21.5 36.0 53.4 Wilhelmshaven 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Dutch Ports 56.7 70.1 91.6 95.8 132.5 Amsterdam/IJmuiden 6.7 6.1 7.6 6.2 10.2 Rotterdam 46.3 59.8 78.6 83.8 112.9 Flushing/Terneuzen 3.3 4.2 5.4 5.8 9.4 Belgian Ports 50.7 65.0 75.6 98.7 138.8 Antwerp 36.1 45.4 52.2 68.3 103.0 Ghent 3.1 3.3 3.2 4.4 4.5 Zeebrugge 11.5 16.3 20.2 26.0 31.3 French Ports 26.3 36.8 43.6 60.5 81.7 Dunkirk 6.0 8.1 3.2 8.1 14.6 Calais 9.4 15.9 23.6 31.1 41.5 Le Havre 8.1 10.2 13.6 18.0 22.6 Rouen 2.8 2.6 3.2 3.3 3.0 Total Range 174.0 222.1 269.4 344.3 491.7 Source : Port authorities (annual reports 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 et 2006)

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 2006 German Ports 19.3 33.5 46.7 79.3 134.4 Hamburg 10.2 21.4 31.0 49.8 89.5 Bremen/Bremerhaven 9.1 12.1 15.7 29.5 44.9 Wilhelmshaven 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Dutch Ports 32.2 41.1 54.6 62.9 97.5 Amsterdam/IJmuiden 0.7 0.8 1.7 0.7 3.3 Rotterdam 31.5 40.3 52.9 62.2 93.8 Flushing/Terneuzen 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 Belgian Ports 12.3 22.7 35.8 57.0 98.9 Antwerp 11.1 18.9 29.5 46.4 80.8 Ghent 2.2 3.8 6.3 10.6 18.0 Zeebrugge 7.8 10.5 11.3 17.2 24.2 French Ports 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.4 1.7 Dunkirk 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Calais 5.7 8.8 9.5 14.6 21.1 Le Havre 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 Rouen 72.0 108.1 148.7 216.6 355.0 Total Range Source : Port authorities (annual reports 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001 et 2006)

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.

Guide of good practices 38 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

Table 3.4. – Container traffic evolution at the Southern Range ports, 1986-2006 (million tons) 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 Valencia 2.6 3.9 7.8 15.2 28.1 Barcelona 3.6 5.0 7.6 13.4 22.6 Marseille-Fos 4.8 4.9 5.8 7.2 8.8 Genova 3.2 3.3 7.3 14.1 16.1 La Spezia 1.6 4.4 7.6 9.6 12.5 Livourno 2.0 2.8 3.2 5.0 6.5 Total Range 17.8 24.3 39.3 64.5 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 Conven- Liquid 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)

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 39

Table 3.6. – Structure by weighted category of 2006 traffics of the ports in the Northern Range (in thousands of weighted tonnes) Dry Conven- Liquid 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 1986- 2006 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.

Guide of good practices 40 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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 Gross tonnages Weighted tonnages Hamburg + 144.5 % + 120.0 % Bremen/Bremerhaven + 120.7 % + 105.1 % Wilhelmshaven + 166.6 % + 130.6 % Amsterdam/IJmuiden + 89. 7 % + 65.2 % Rotterdam + 46.2 % + 60.4 % Flushing/Terneuzen + 105.3 % + 154.5 % Antwerp + 83.7 % + 54.0 % Ghent - 0.1 % + 10.6 % Zeebrugge + 130.1 % + 88.9 % Dunkirk + 74.9 % + 74.3 % Calais + 304.8 % + 332.3 % Le Havre + 56.3 % + 59.9 % Rouen + 5.9 %. - 3.8 % Total Range + 77.03 % + 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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 urban- oriented 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 medium- and 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).

Guide of good practices 42 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 (post- 1945 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 Vierhavens- Meerwehaven 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

Guide of good practices 44 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 © 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 46 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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).

Table 3.9. – Current (2007) and planned (2017) capacity of Hamburg’s container terminals (in Mio TEUs) CTA CTB CTE CTT CTS Total Current 2.7 2.6. 2.8 1.0 0.0 9.1 Planned (min) 3.0 5.2 4.0 2.0 3.5 17.7 Planned (max) 3.0 5.2 6.0 3.5 3.5 21.2

Figure 3.49 – Restructuring of Container Terminal Tollerort in Hamburg © Hamburg Port Authority

Guide of good practices 48 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 ;

Guide of good practices 50 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

1. Port Free Zone

1 11 2. Ferry Terminal

10 2 3. General cargo 3 3 4. General cargo, grain, bentonite

4 5. Containers

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. CRUDE OIL AND OIL PRODUCTS 1

2. COAL

2 3. LPG

3

Map N°2 - The Northern Port © Port of Gdansk Authority

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 Existing port structure next west bank of a meander of to the city Dead Vistula River, close to its New Port district 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.

The New Port District © City of Gdansk

Guide of good practices 52 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 53

The New City district: from historical shipyards to a new modern city district

The New City area is the place in Gdansk where the City decided to build its structures, a new district, The city comes at former on former shipyard area. shipyard area – new possibility The planned district covers of arranging the neighbourhood approximately 70 hectares The New City district 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.

Guide of good practices 54 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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 non- port part of the district, with the area of about 100 hectares and a population of about 20,000 inhabitants, is The port comes closer to the city; located in the middle of new possibility of arranging the Southern part of the neighbourhood island, about 4 The Stogi district kilometres in a straight line from the old city centre. To the North it neighbours with woods and green areas which occupy most of North- eastern 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 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).

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 56 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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.

Guide of good practices 58 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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.

Guide of good practices 60 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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 3237 metres Length of the new quay wall 1681 metres New terminal operating area approx. 90 hectares Number of new berths 4 Capacity of full potential more than 7 million TEU Soil replacement (2004) approx. 400,000 cubic metres Sand required approx. 10 million cubic metres Environmental compensation Luneplate and foreland of Wursten coast Completion of first berth end of 2006 Completion of all work early 2008 Construction and planning costs approx. 500 million euros

Container Terminal area (incl. CT 4 under construction, CT 4 under construction (view from South) view from South-East) © Bremenports © 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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 air- borne 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.

Guide of good practices 62 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 Kreuzfahrt- Terminal 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

Guide of good practices 64 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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.klimahaus- bremerhaven.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) © City of Bermerhaven

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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).

© City of Bermerhaven

Whole area size 38,5 ha Land area 25,8 ha Water area (basins) 12,7 ha Expanse east-west 300 m Expanse north-south 1800 m Investment volume for infrastructure 263 Mio. € measures (Land Bremen, city of Bremerhaven) 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.

Guide of good practices 66 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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 German Climate Mediterraneo Hotel Atlantic Time Port II Time Marina Emigration House Sail City Port III Centre Investor BEAN /City of BEAN /City of AVW Albrecht Zechbau/Justus BIS BIS Im-Jaich Bremerhaven Bremerhaven Vermögensverwaltungs Grosse Gruppe AG Operator Paysage Petri AVW Albrecht Atlantic Hotels BIS BIS Im-Jaich House 1 &Tiemann Vermögensverwaltungs Bremen GmbH AG Architect Studio Thomas WGK Thomas Klumpp Husemann & Running Peter Weber Andreas Klumpp Planungsgesellschaft (Bremen) Dr. Wichmann tender (Bremerhaven) Heller (Bremen) (Hamburg) (Braunschweig) (Hamburg) Start of November April 2006 April 2006 April 2006 Beginning of Spring April 2006 building 2004 2005 2006 Completion August 2005 Spring 2009 Spring 2008 February 2008 February 2007 End of April 2007 2007 Total costs 20 Mio. € 70 Mio. € 31 Mio. € 19 Mio. € 5,6 Mio. € 7,3 Mio. 3 Mio. € € Funding Public Public Private Private Public public private Employees 70 90 260 55 90 100 10 Visitors 170.000 600.000 No data No data No data No data No data expected/p.a. 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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.

Guide of good practices 68 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 70 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

XXth century, time of growth and changes © Freeport of Riga Authority

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

© Freeport of Riga Authority

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 co- operating 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: ƒ The law “On ports” (1994) ƒ The law “On the Freeport of Riga” (2000) ƒ 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.

Guide of good practices 72 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

Turnover at the Freeport of Riga in 1997-2006 (thous.t.)

30000 25357,6 23991,3 24429,1 25000 21728,6 20000 18108,6 14883,9 13315,3 13351,7 15000 11213,1 12012,6 10000 5000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Commodities handled at the Freeport of Riga in 2006

Building materials 3% Other general Containerized Chemicals cargo 5% 2% cargo 6% Coal Other bulk cargo 43% 10%

Timber 12% Oil products 19%

Ro-Ro and Passenger Traffic: ƒ Regular Ro-Pax lines: Riga – Stockholm (every day) Riga – Nyneshamn (twice/week) Riga Lübeck (3 times/week) ƒ 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: ƒ Provision of infrastructure (Landlord function) ƒ Ensuring of ships’ navigation safety ƒ Maintenance of sea and river channels

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 73

ƒ Maintenance of hydro-technical structures ƒ Enforcement of the Freeport of Riga Regulations ƒ Levying of port dues and charges ƒ Issuing free zone licenses to companies ƒ 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

Guide of good practices 74 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

THE PERSPECTIVE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF THE CITY

© Riga City Council

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-the former main export region Andrejsala, transformation of which presumably will take of Riga Port© Riga City Council 10 to 15 years.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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: ƒ Operating terminals in the Export area will be retained for another 5-7 years ƒ 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”.

© Riga City Council

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.

© Riga City Council

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”.

Guide of good practices 76 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

© Riga City Council

Agency tasks are: ƒ To secure construction of the state cultural objects (as well as designing of the buildings and construction supervision) and starting their operation; ƒ To arrange procurement procedures for state needs – for construction of the state cultural objects, material and technical supply; ƒ 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; ƒ 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: ƒ 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; ƒ By organising special programmes to serve as an agent of social inclusion; ƒ Using the universal means of visual arts to be a centre for cultural integration involving multi- cultural groups of Latvia and Europe; ƒ To operate as a tourism attraction and a culture information centre for visitors of Latvia giving new opportunities for mutual understanding; ƒ 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

© Riga City Council

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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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. © Riga City Council

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

Further information:

- Freeport of Riga: www.freeportofriga.lv - Riga City council: http://www.riga.lv/EN/Channels/About_Riga/default.htm - JAU: www.jau.lv

Guide of good practices 78 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 80 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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: ƒ Traffic control by VHF from the various traffic posts ƒ Traffic supervision by patrol vehicles ƒ Controlling the locks in IJmuiden ƒ Enforcing the law and regulations ƒ Executing environmental inspection tasks ƒ 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 4,500 ha Port Area Amsterdam 2,500 ha Throughput 80 mln tons Throughput Amsterdam 55 mln tons Income € 70 mln Added value € 3,500 mln Yearly investment € 40 - 50 mln Employment 34.000 New land leased 25 ha per year

Guide of good practices 82 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 83

Cruise 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.

Guide of good practices 84 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

© Port of Amsterdam

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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 86 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 88 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 90 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 92 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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 base- chemical 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 94 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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).

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 96 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 The reconstruction of Delfzijl North © City of Delfzijl © City of Delfzijl

Masterplan The Masterplan is still the foundation for the revitalisation of Delfzijl. Its starting points are the core- qualities of the aera, which are: ƒ 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); ƒ the old fortress; ƒ 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 97

The Centre Vision The area of the Centre Vision: the outline of the old fortress and its direct surroundings.

Problems to solve: ƒ Building blocks with unfinished sides (red lines); ƒ Unclear entrees into the centre by car, train, seaside (purple circles); ƒ Unclear routes in the centre for parking traffic, bicycles, pedestrians (blue arrows); ƒ Reorganising functions (pubs, shops, offices, housing, parking); ƒ Safety of the town by rising sea level; ƒ 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. ƒ Integral design of the public space; ƒ Routing of traffic (two rings for traffic, parking in corners of former bastion, bicycling, walking) and guidance inwards the city centre; ƒ Connecting the two squares (yellow); ƒ Buildings blocks restoring the outline of the former fortress; ƒ 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.

Guide of good practices 98 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Further information:

City of Delfzijl http://www.delfzijl.nl

Groningen Seaports http://www.groningen-seaports.com

Guide of good practices 100 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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).

Guide of good practices 102 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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.

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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.

ƒ 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 within the The South districts of Le Havre are spread over the conurbation 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

Guide of good practices 104 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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: ƒ the intermingling housing/workplaces; ƒ the heterogeneous and dispersed character of the urban tissue; ƒ the very large weight of privately owned real estate; ƒ 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 105

"Docks Vauban", towards 1930 "Bassin fluvial", towards 1920 © Collection des musées historiques © 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.

Guide of good practices 106 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

© Ville du Havre

The main challenges

The South districts constitute a territory of major challenges for: ƒ Port development: - proximity of a working port; - presence of quaysides and storage areas (West port) providing development opportunities; - excellent inter-modal connections. ƒ 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… ƒ 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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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 to reinforce their situation on a scale of the conurbation: ƒ 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); ƒ 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; ƒ by developing an innovatory policy in the fight against the degrading of the economic and urban environment. d to ensure the cohabitation of the residential function and the economic vocation: ƒ 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; ƒ by developing a strong real estate strategy to accompany or anticipate mutations of land; ƒ by encouraging the installation of new businesses bringing added value; ƒ by implementing an ambitious policy of improvement of existing housing units; ƒ by reorganising the transport plan and improving traffic conditions.

Guide of good practices 108 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project e to improve the social climate: ƒ by encouraging an associative atmosphere; ƒ by developing the provision of municipal equipment and cultural and leisure practices and by restoring the basic conditions for social life in these quarters; ƒ 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; ƒ 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 110 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 111

BEFORE / AFTER

Bellot Street© Ville du Havre

"Quai de la Saône"© Ville du Havre

"Quai de la Saône"© Ville du Havre

Guide of good practices 112 Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port, PCP Project 113

Synthesis of the work: recommendations and good practices

International Association Cities and Ports

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 In Gdansk, in the Przemyslowe Quay sector opportunity to obtain new spaces ("Inner Port"), the creation of a new connection will provide access to The establishment of a new plan of connections will constitute both 120 hectares of additional land for port an instrument to improve the competitiveness of the port and to activities (See p. 51). reduce the impact generated by its activities. Concomitantly, the creation of new accesses should also be a means to free spaces for On the other hand, in Valparaiso the creation of a logistics activities zone outside urban or port developments. 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.

Guide of good practices 114 Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project

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) In Bremerhaven, a four lane roadway with the city-port territory being developed is a means to integrate separates the city centre from the these sites with the urban structure. Most frequently, it should be "Havenwelten" (Alter/Neuer Hafen) site completed by providing new connections to contribute to being redeveloped. In addition and complementary to the redevelopment of physically opening up the site: pedestrian accesses, bicycles, the existing pedestrian crossings, the tramway, buses, etc. In the case the presence of "barrier" creation of a glass footbridge has been infrastructures (railway tracks, main roads, etc.) these new decided. connections will be even more important. They will take the form of bridges, footbridges, tunnels, by-passes…

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 In Paris, the port is imposing architecture of quality for all logistics warehouses. 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 In Le Havre, on one of the edges of the South District, housing accommodation is On the same level as for urban furniture, architectural treatment programmed opposite ship-repair activities. should be extended to "port furniture" such as the barriers that Particular care has been taken for the zone limit the accesses to certain port areas for reasons of security. limiting these two spaces: a landscaped Solutions combining functionality, quality of design, integration area and the installation of carefully designed fencing have been preferred to with the landscape, transparency, etc., should be substituted for classical walls or railings, thus visually protecting walls or fences providing a strictly functional separation softening this barrier function and, by its and assurance of security. transparency, providing a view of the ship- repair 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 In Paris, the installation of a ready made water and the port concrete plant on the quayside has been The height, the size, and the orientation of buildings, urban parks organised in function of the urban and open public spaces… are many elements where intervention background so as not to obscure visual to optimise the integrations of city-port interface sites with the outlooks onto the Seine. 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project 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 In Antwerp, a "waterplan" has been drawn up for the Elandje district and has been characterise the city port interface. It is essential that they should integrated with the masterplan designed for be put into value. Several options are possible: the whole site. - where the topography is suitable, the setting up of "waterway corridors" should enable specific corridors to be set aside for In Melbourne, an inventory has been made of the various utilisations of the water (port port uses, whilst offering the rest of the water areas for more activities, recreational, sporting, etc…) and urban utilisations. the installations that are connected with - planning instruments also exist for envisaging strategies for them. This inventory enabled the various time sharing of the dock basins and water areas. They are utilisations to be modelled in time (who, for what activities and during what period?) based on a prior inventory of the port infrastructures, of their and in space (where, and taking up what functions, and the existing urban installations and their area ?). The modelling enabled a new functions, and of the use made of the water surfaces strategy of utilisation to be initiated for the throughout the day. The development of these infrastructures utilisation of the docks based on time shares between the various activities and and of their activities (maintenance, reinforcement, on a share-out of the spaces allocated for transformation) may then be integrated into an overall strategy this or that activity. This also led to the for the site. relocation of certain of these activities.

Recommendation 11: To favour movements of the inhabitants by water

In certain port cities, the geography can render the carriage of In Amsterdam, leaving from the NDSM people by water, generally called "Blue Transport": water taxi, river wharf site where a University residence is ferries etc. particularly pertinent. This should provide a double situated, river shuttles connect directly with contribution to the improvement of the accessibility of city port the city centre. 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 In Copenhagen, a floating open stage (theatre and music) has been built. Six cinemas, house boats, etc.) have more often than not become different places in the port have been fixed. In numerous cases, they are installed on sites mostly structured to receive it including in the reconverted to more urban functions. They have then become proximity of the more constricted port more of a simple reference to the maritime atmosphere of the spaces. 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.

Guide of good practices 116 Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project

3. Integrating functions

OBJECTIVE 1: TO ORGANISE AND BENEFIT FROM BLENDING

Recommendation 13: To use all technical solutions and to In Amsterdam closed façades have been search for innovations constructed at the rear of urban buildings installed in the port zone. Numerous technical solutions (treatment of existing buildings, lighting, port equipment, surfacing, etc…) exist today to reduce In Bremerhaven, compensatory measures nuisances and to make the contact between hard port and urban and interventions on existing buildings have activities possible. Research and innovation in this field should be enabled the village of Weddewarden, neighbouring the new container terminal, to supported in order to put into place ever more efficient measures. 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 In Bremerhaven, the "Fishing Port" project census of the various fields of activities and of the public and private proposes a mixture of port activities (more specifically the fishing industry), small stakeholders present on the site concerned by the development. business firms connected with port activities, This census should result in identifying the economic and social and training and research establishments. interests common to all the affected parties. Basing themselves or The programme for the "Fishing Port" also led not on a specific structure (informal working groups, users' to the installation of cultural equipment and tourist functions: hotels, restaurant, shops, association, communities of stakeholders, etc.) these parties should and the departure point for visits of the port. take care to join their efforts in the fields of research and (See p. 66-67) 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: Horizontal Blending: In Amsterdam, the - a horizontal blending based on a juxtaposition of passenger terminal is associated in the same equipments area with shops, a congress hall, a hotel, and a cultural space devoted to music (see - a vertical blending that should associate in the same p. 27; 83) building a port activity on the ground floor and urban Vertical Blending: In Marseilles, the functions on other levels. This solution, still infrequently "Terrasses du Port" project (see p. 31) plans found, should also provide the advantage or being less for: ƒ on ground level: a sea passenger greedy of space. terminal ; In both cases, the mixing of urban and port functions should ƒ on the upper level: a shopping centre constitute an additional advantage for the site. It will both reinforce complementary with the retail shops in its identity and its attractiveness. the near-by city centre ; ƒ on the roof terrace: a promenade with a view over the port. 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project 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 In Gdansk, in the district that will become the connected with the port activities "new city district", offices, small businesses and the maintenance of ship building activities are Falling back on temporary uses of a city port interface site will planned. Housing accommodation and vulnerable often be a waiting and transition solution to satisfy legal installations such as hospitals are in a first stage constraints connected with the port activities: risks, noise, dust, excluded, as well as industrial activities traffic…. Such temporary uses that will mark an intermediary step (See p. 53)

of the project should be translated by: In Amsterdam, in the Houfhaven and NDSM - the installation of "light" temporary urban equipment in Wharf areas, the construction of student modular units, prefabricated buildings capable of being residences in modular units of the container type dismounted, etc. provides a strong port identity to these developments whilst underlining their mobile or - the construction of flexible buildings allocated in a first temporary character (See p. 86). stage for a given use –office for example- but designed to be able easily to shift into another use –residential for In Amsterdam also, the student residence example. This shift will be induced because of new constructed in a former cruise vessel stems from the same approach. The same elements can be functional requirements of the partners, of the advances found there: the temporary character of the in legislation, of changes in the neighbouring port activity occupation of the site by a population itself or even its relocations, etc. 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 In Riga, to bring the population to the site of sites by temporary utilisation. Andrejsala, the stakeholders have wagered on the installation of temporary cultural equipment, Temporary uses could play a role of catalyser for initiating a and the provisional or definitive reallocation of development operation. Even before the final developments are port buildings for cultural purposes. carried out, they should induce frequentation of the city port (See p. 74-75) interface sites concerned and their re-appropriation by their future In Amsterdam, small businesses in the creative occupants or by the population. 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.

Guide of good practices 118 Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project

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 In Delfzijl, the close proximity between port supra-national legislations also provide the occasion to act rather and industrial activities and the city centre than to suffer by engaging in dynamic and anticipatory renders the situation especially complex environmental strategies. This should lead towards two types of and constrictive. Work carried out with all the firms concerned, on the one hand, complementary approaches: comes from a strategy of information on the - to work upstream with all the business firms present in the environmental impacts and the various port industrial sector. This work should start right at the legal constraints (such as those of noise preliminary stages of projects aimed at maintaining, extending zoning). But one the other hand, and above all, it is a question of studying and or installing port and industrial activities. It should be aimed at determining with these firms all possible studying all the legal opportunities and all the solutions that solutions including the abandoning of the enable firms to satisfy this environmental legislation. The projects and/or the relocation of activities financial impacts should be evaluated. (See final Seminar of the PCP project, Le Havre, May 2007). - to carry out an inventory and diagnostic of the environmental It is notably with these objectives that the impacts of the ports, in particular on the city port interface European project "Sympic" was developed under project leaders Valencia (A project areas. This work should constitute a preliminary step to that was presented during the final seminar implementing measures and instruments for measurement of this PCP Project (See also: and the environmental management of the city-port interface. 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 Amongst the urban projects in the South with port activities: offices, small businesses, cultural District of Le Havre, one sector is situated directly opposite a container depot. On this installations … "Quai de Gironde", a compatible solution could be the installation of offices and small businesses. - Port "buffer" zones housing port equipment or installations In Amsterdam, the Vlothavenpier zone with a lesser impact: small logistics, waterway traffics could house a timber products terminal and offices connected with this activity. Leisure connected with the urban economy, a base for ship servicing activities could also be present there. This activities, barge "mooring place"... 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 In Gdansk, an existing green zone between predominantly rural zones, or the creation of green spaces. 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.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project 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 For example, Newcastle (Australia) and voluntarist marketing strategy selling offices or residential Hamburg (Germany) are engaged in this accommodation "with a view over the water" should take care to type of approach. 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.

Integrating societies

OBJECTIVE 1: TO PREPARE FOR TOMORROW'S JOBS

Recommendation 23: To adapt the professional training sectors In Le Havre, the most recent challenges In active collaboration with the academics in research and connected with the security of ports and the training, ports and the port industries should contribute to put in logistics chain have resulted in the creation place specific training curricula. The contents of the course in 2007 of a Master's Degree in addition to programmes should be regularly adjusted in order to correspond the already existing port and logistics training courses and certificates. 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.

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, In Buenos Aires, port heritage has been put cranes, containers, etc.) and by putting the reconverted port into value right at the outset of the Puerto Madero operation. heritage into value. - a landscaping treatment of the city port frontier and the In Rosario, all the city port interface sites are creation of urban park(s) along this frontier to increase connected by a series of gardens. A similar frequentation of the site right from the start of the project and approach is under way in Genoa. to give back a positive image of these spaces that may have been wastelands for a long period of time.

Guide of good practices 120 Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project

Recommendation 25: To open the port to the population Several practices could contribute to this: Antwerp, Brussels, Valparaiso, … the examples of these types of events and "port days" are numerous. - the use of events and the regular organisation of one-off events (music, cinema, sports, sailing, "Port Days", etc.) on Amsterdam notably counts on events the city port interface areas. For these events, a site should connected with sailing to promote the port. They also organise port days with circuits by be chosen where port activities are still maintained and/or bus or by boat and access to the terminals. which provide a direct view of the active port, in order to have These circuits for visits could in the future be a larger impact. proposed much more regularly.

- a regular implication of the port authority in the cultural The formula retained by Bremerhaven activities of the city (exhibitions, sponsorships, etc.) enables the constraints connected with standards of security (in particular the ISPS - the organisation of guided tours by boat to provide another Code) to be reconciled by a visit by bus as close as possible to the terminals. This is access and vision, closer to the vessels and the installations, besides completed by a belvedere (view and/or by coach privileging the departure point of visit tours point) constructed using the symbolism of as close as possible to the other tourist sites of the city. the port (containers) and providing a direct - the creation of bus, pedestrian or bicycle promenade circuits view of the container terminals in full swing. Access to the roof level and to the view of with accesses to natural or artificial observation points: the port is at the very heart of the construction of belvederes, access to roof terraces of certain "Terrasses du Port" project in Marseille, but warehouses, etc. the access to the roof of the former submarine base in Saint-Nazaire can also be mentioned. Recommendation 26: To determine an overall tourist offer The tourist potential of port cities goes well above just cruise In the Le Havre project for a Centre of the Sea and Sustainable Development, over activities. The implementation of an overall tourist offer should and above the direct and immediate high- contribute to this. To the urban and cultural advantages proper to rise view over the whole port city, a real each city, this should associate not only the industrial port tourist offer is proposed and educative heritage (maritime and port museums) or oceanic (aquarium), but functions are combined: an interactive museographic circuit will in fact enable the also a direct vision of the port and its modern activities. challenges of sustainable development for the port city to be understood, and notably the activities of a modern port.

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project 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

Guide of good practices 122 Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project 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.

Guide of good practices 124 Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project

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

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project 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

International Association Cities and Ports

Greta MARINI Chargée de mission International Association Cities and Ports

Denis DAVOULT Documentalist - European Affairs International Association Cities and Ports

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

Guide of good practices 126 Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project

Guide of good practices Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project 127

Ville du Havre

November 2007

Guide of good practices 128 Plan the City with the Port - PCP Project

Guide of good practices