The blue waterfront City and port integration through smart cluster management and hybrid planning models ProposalThe blue waterfronttitle goes here | City | Section and port title integration goes here through smart cluster management and hybrid planning models
A Blue Waterfront Redevelopment, looks beyond traditional relocation, it uses and maximizes the overall value of the area.
02 The blue waterfront | City and port integration through smart cluster management and hybrid planning models
Introduction
Within an era where “Blue” is becoming an ever more prominent and popular term with concepts like Blue Growth and Blue Economy, Deloitte has coined the term “Blue Waterfront”. The intention of this term is showcasing and merging two ongoing developments in the urban planning environment and the maritime/marine environment. It links blue growth, the long term strategy to support sustainable growth in the marine and maritime sectors, and development, the long term strategy to support sustainable growth in the marine and maritime sectors as a whole to waterfront redevelopment.
The port-city waterfront has always been History accelerated with the advent of more recent a disputed area where different urban and Waterfront redevelopment is a well know advanced port logistics and especially with economic functions are intertwined. Some concept within city-planning and large containerization. of the best known city redevelopment (planned) real-estate development. The projects in of the past century are pure earliest projects can be traced back to the Urbanisation waterfront redevelopments where we 1960s (not coincidentally aligned with the Soon after the technological developments see a shift from economic (maritime) rise of the container industry1) when cities affecting the city ports occurred, we saw spatial use to a more mixed urban like Boston, Baltimore and San Francisco (see) a strong tendency of urbanization. A spatial use. Examples include London set the trend to redevelop impoverished large population shift from rural to urban Docklands, San Francisco Bay area, Boston waterfronts into dynamic urban residency as a result from people wanting Waterfront and Auckland Waterfront, environments. Due to the technological to live and work (again) in central areas. Cape Town Waterfront, Antwerp Eilandje, developments (containerization) certain It occurs either organically or planned etc. This transition has been instigated traditional, smaller terminals often located as a result of individual, collective and by technological developments in the near or even in the city (centre) lost their state action. maritime industry and evolving needs of value as a traditional port terminal. Port urban populations in major port cities activities moved further outside the city Then, after the old port areas became across the globe. and the “obsolete” terminals became derelict, strong urbanization led to a derelict areas within the city. renewed interest in these areas, often What we witness today is that, in tandem containing large open spaces and with the port industry as a whole, Technological developments directly located near a river, dock or bay, waterfront development is slowly evolving Technological changes in shipping and which results in a relatively high real towards a more complex process. Where in cargo handling facilities triggered the estate potential. The combination of the past we saw a shift of value generating transformation of ports. Whereas the port the urbanisation and the technological activities purely from maritime-economic was formerly known as a spot of basic development trends resulted in a slow to urban-economic (i.e. living and office commodities, the modern port evolved progression of ports moving away from jobs), today we see a true explosion of to a horizontal cross-section of different their inner city, which is still visible today various activities and uses which are product chains with most noticeably with modern port expansions often taking possible at this frontier of urban-maritime the container era and consequent scale place on reclaimed land and far away from development, including city logistics, increase in ships. Once this move had the original city centres. Prime examples recreation and additive manufacturing. happened, the port-city relationship of reclaimed land are Maasvlakte I and began to split and they started to become Maasvlakte II in Rotterdam, both focusing two distinct entities. This separation was on large shipping related activities and heavy industry2.
1. Container industry started in 1950s America, patented by Malcolm McLean (USA, 1956). Although he wasn’t an ocean shipper, he owned the largest trucking company in the country at that time , this resulted in a large scale increase in shipping 2. Maasvlakte I is mainly used for Bulk (EMO), container (ETC, Hutchinson, Euromax) distribution centers (Reebok, DHL, kloosterboer), Slufter (toxic reclamation) and a power station (coal, Uniper). Maasvlakte II is mainly used for container (APM, ETC),offshore (Allseas) and has vacancies. 03 The blue waterfront | City and port integration through smart cluster management and hybrid planning models
Figure 1 shows a traditional conceptual model on this port-city evolution.
The port-city waterfront has always been possible at this frontier of urban-maritime a disputed area where different urban and development, including city logistics, economic functions are intertwined. Some recreation and additive manufacturing. of the best known city redevelopment projects in of the past century are pure The complexity of Port-City evolution waterfront redevelopments where we The complexity of waterfront see a shift from economic (maritime) redevelopment stems from the fact that spatial use to a more mixed urban most major ports today including their spatial use. Examples include London older (derelict) port areas are in close Docklands, San Francisco Bay area, Boston proximity or even part of the city centres Waterfront and Auckland Waterfront, of successful global cities (e.g. Amsterdam, Cape Town Waterfront, Antwerp Eilandje, Antwerp, Durban, Hamburg, Hong-Kong, etc. This transition has been instigated Los Angeles, New York, Rotterdam, by technological developments in the Singapore, etc.). As a result of that maritime industry and evolving needs of waterfront redevelopment projects involve urban populations in major port cities many stakeholders who all have a variety across the globe. of interests and conflicts, including local communities, business owners, companies What we witness today is that, in tandem active in the maritime and non- maritime with the port industry as a whole, industries, government organisations, etc. waterfront development is slowly evolving This complexity has always been towards a more complex process. Where in the core challenge of a successful the past we saw a shift of value generating waterfront redevelopment. Over the activities purely from maritime-economic past 50 years we have seen four main to urban-economic (i.e. living and office approaches emerging: jobs), today we see a true explosion of various activities and uses which are
04 The blue waterfront | City and port integration through smart cluster management and hybrid planning models
1. Ad hoc reconversion: North American In addition to these four approaches we namely shipbuilding & repair, transport cases Baltimore Inner Harbour, the have witnessed the rise of a 5th approach. and fisheries. These areas were being major North American Projects in 1960 This new approach, Deloitte dubbed the reconverted from their intended traditional and 1970s, these projects were mostly “Blue Waterfront Redevelopment”, shows port function towards a combination of led by redevelopment agencies with no a strong increase in complexity and a new residential and urban functions balancing grand masterplan focused on creating way of reasoning from a hybrid urban- community, port and economic uses. retail and festival marketplaces port mindset. Other popular reconversion functions 2. Plan-led organization: Boston, include housing, hotels, heritage, sports, London, Barcelona and Toronto, 1980s Further explanation Blue Waterfront recreation, tourism and local commerce. distinctive market-driven and plan-led Redevelopment planning processes first European According to the Blue Growth strategy of As we can see the traditional approach was cases like London docklands, Barcelona the European Commission, the objective very centred in a single use for the area (or and the start of Rotterdam, public– of the Blue Growth strategy is to promote limited mixed use) but more importantly private partnerships and the extensive smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. was always comprised of the traditional use of private investment The focus industries of Blue Growth in urban related industries. The Blue 3. Hybrid model: combining lessons from Europe include ocean energy, aquaculture, Waterfront Redevelopment breaks with this approaches 1 and 2 Vancouver, Sydney, maritime tourism, blue biotechnology and paradigm of purely urban related use and and Liverpool and in Europe Cardiff seabed resources. In addition to these core looks at the best uses, both for the city and Bay, Liverpool, Salford Docks and sectors shipbuilding & repair, transport, for the port. Berlin’s Wasserstadt fisheries and offshore oil and gas are also 4. Resource driven reorganization: included as important elements of the occurred post 1990 during the Blue ecosystem. rescission combining previous planning styles with innovative ones allowing The traditional waterfront development these cities meet their redevelopment was instigated by a declining activity aims rethinking the use of resources, of the older traditional blue economy for e.g. Bilbao sectors/traditional port functions,
Traditional waterfront redevelopment Modern waterfront redevelopment
Traditional port use Traditional port use
Derelict impoverished area
Derelict Assessment of most Focus on activities impoverished area potential spatial use including2 • Aquaculture • Marine biotechnology • Energy and seabed mining Redevelopment to traditional uses • Trade Redevelopment to • Tourism mixed (detailled) use • Environment Commercial-, cultural-, educational-, environmental-, historic-, • Construction 1 recreational-, residential- and working waterfronts • Marine Services 1 Breen & Rigby (1996); based on EC (2017) and UN (2017)
Figure 2 high level overview of Blue port ecosystem.
05 The blue waterfront | City and port integration through smart cluster management and hybrid planning models
The term Blue in the waterfront context is derived from a definition of the blue economy stating that the “Blue Economy insists on solutions being determined by their local environment and physical/ecological characteristics”. This means that one could consider the original development of a port city the ultimate form of the Blue Economy where a city either grows organically next to a naturally “perfect port location” or a port develops near a city which is “naturally suited for maritime transport” depending on which one came first, the city or the port. Over time, due to changing environments, these “perfect locations” lost their value and had to evolve. Up until recently, the focus of this evolution was the shift from port to urban, partially instigated through the ongoing urbanization. However what we are seeing today, given the Blue economy and Blue growth developments, is that planners are starting to look at alternative/hybrid uses for these “derelict” areas.
Sports
Sailing
Tour
Containers Travel Seabed mining
Ship Terminals Cruise Fishing Bio-tech building