‘OUR HARBOUR THEIR DREAM’: HERITAGE, HISTORY AND …

1 5 t h I N TE R N A T I ON A L P LA N N I N G H I ST O R Y S OC I ETY C ON F ER E N C E

1

‘OUR HARBOUR... THEIR DREAM’: HERITAGE, HISTORY AND HEARTACHE IN

THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PORT ADELAIDE WATERFRONT, SOUTH

AUSTRALIA.

DR GERTRUDE E SZILI*

DR MATTHEW W ROFE

Address: *School of the Environment

Flinders University

GPO Box 2100,

Adelaide 5001 South Australia

Australia

e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Following the demise of the industrial economy, many western cities and their industrial precincts have become

synonymous with social, economic and environmental malaise. As a result, recent trends in urban policy have revealed

an explicit emphasis on the redevelopment and revitalisation of these underutilised industrial landscapes. Indicative

of these landscapes are ports and other neglected waterfront sites. The redevelopment of the Port Adelaide

waterfront in South Australia serves as an exemplar of such a post-industrial transformation. Dominated by

entrepreneurial governance arrangements, powerful public and private sectors have coalesced to reinvigorate the

decaying landscape through physical restructuring and discursive tactics aligned with city marketing and place making

campaigns (Szili & Rofe 2007; 2010; 2011;Rofe & Szili 2009). In doing so, images of growth and cosmopolitan vitality

supplant the stigmatised images associated with deindustrialisation, portraying the region as once again economically

vital and socially progressive. Central to this reimaging is an explicit recognition and engagement with the Port’s

maritime history and heritage. Drawing on the successful post-industrial transformation of other waterfronts such as

the Melbourne and London docklands (see for example Butler 2007; Dovey 2005; Marshall 2001), the incorporation of

heritage-sensitive design in Port Adelaide was not dissimilar to other ports globally. Possessing a rich maritime and

industrial history and heritage, the development consortium responsible for the Port’s revitalisation openly espoused

the protection, preservation and celebration of the ‘maritime flavour’ of the Port. Indeed, discussions held with key

stakeholder informants revealed the benefits of heritage-sensitive design as serving both the needs of city marketing

strategies and the needs of existing residents in nurturing their ‘sense of place’. However, whilst the rhetoric of the

public-private partnership ostensibly involved history and heritage, the reality for the local community was quite

different. Foremost of these concerns were issues regarding the discordant scale and form of the new development

within the existing heritage precinct (Szili 2011). Moreover, concessions in planning mechanisms and regulations

appeared to favour commercial profitability over heritage-sensitive design. As such, significant community opposition

arose, with many locals viewing the redevelopment as grossly insensitive to the history and heritage of the landscape

and its people. Thus, through the Port Adelaide waterfront redevelopment experience, the following paper traces the

inadequacies of such entrepreneurially driven revitalisation schemes in meeting local heritage concerns. In doing so,

the authors highlight the tensions inherent in the transformation of redundant industrial waterfronts to post-

industrial landscapes of cosmopolitanism and vitality.

C i t i e s , n a t i o n s a n d r e g i o n s i n p l a n n in g h i s t o r y

INTRODUCTION: THE EBB AND FLOW OF PORT GEOGRAPHIES

After the global recession of the mid 1970s and the precipitant collapse ofindustrial economies, many western

nations and their cities endured rapid deindustrialisation (Paddison 1993; Short et al. 1993). For traditional

industrial areas that once embodied technological and economic progress, this resulted insignificant disinvestment

and physical abandonment. Consequently, former industrial landscapes have come to communicate complex

images of physical and senses of discursive decline. Physical decline manifests itself through “jungle[s] of rott[ing]

[buildings] and abandoned warehouses” (Hula 1990, p.194), while discursively such areas convey more complex

messages such as escalating unemployment, crime and a general social malaise (DeSousa 2005).

In the wake of the post-industrial economy, many of these geographiesare now being reclaimed and revitalised

through the processes of gentrification and urban regeneration policies that involve collaborations between the

public and private sectors (McGuirk 2000; Rofe 2004; Tallon 2010). In an era where cities constantlyvie for

investments at a global scale, it has become critical for urban localities toportray images of growth and

cosmopolitan vitality and progress in order to remaincompetitive.Critical readings of landscapes in transition

reveal that the post-industrial landscape proffers an “impression of improvement” (Dunn et al. 1995, p.149).

Specifically, place making and city marketing campaigns are employed to recastredundant urban landscapes with

more positive images aligned to the post-industrial rhetoric of consumption and leisure. This may involve a

physical restructuring of the built environments, such as the construction of luxury apartments and shopping

complexes. Alternatively, it may also involve the incorporation of highly selective imagery of social, economic and

environmental vitality in marketing and media material. However, whilst a more “cosmopolitan and optimistic”

city narrative may be beneficial in reversing social and economic malaise (Rofe 2004, p.193), it often conflicts

with former identities and conceals many adverse impacts such ascommunity disruption and displacement (Dunn et

al. 1995; Holcomb 2001; Jonas & McCarthy 2009; Howley et al. 2009; Watson 1991). For port geographies, the

selective inclusion and consideration of history and heritage has long been one such area of conflict (Hoyle et al.

1988; Pinder 2003; Waitt & McGuirk 1997).

Seaport development has undoubtedly contributed to the cultural heritage of coastal areas throughout the world

(Hoyle 1996; Pinder 2003). Through the vagaries of economic activity, these landscapes have accumulated

distinctive infrastructuresand are intricately tied to the sense of place of local communities (Hoyle 2000; Hoyle et

al. 1988; Hurley 2006). For Pinder (2003, pp.36-37), a strong sense of place identity amongst local populations

within port localities

“has not simply been based on the… often overwhelming economic importance of… port[s]; [but] also fundamental to cultural

heritagedevelopment has been civic pride…”.

Even through waves of deindustrialisation and disinvestment, port geographies have remained physically and

discursively alive in local vernacular. In support, Rofe & Oakley (2006, p.282) assert that while physical and

external perceptions may render ailing ports as decrepit, ‘rust-bucket’ sites beyond salvation, local “discourse[s]

of kinship and mateship”often prevail to form the foundation of “fiercely parochial communities”. These

competing discourses thus become highly politicised in port revitalisation projects, where post-industrial

prophecies of cosmopolitan vitality clash with locally mediated visions of the future. Specifically, the preservation

and incorporation of built heritage and social memory can “all too easily be obliterated by the effects of a

complex set of interrelated physical, planning,economic and community environments” – even in an era where


3

“heritage has gained a high profile” in port redevelopments (Pinder 2003, p.37). Moreover, where heritage and

history are integrated in such projects, criticisms still abound with the often selective inclusion of artefacts and

social memory (Waitt & McGuirk 1997). For port regeneration, this discernment is not surprising given the socially

and morally corrupt messages that port landscapes are said to imbue (Reiser & Crispin 2009; Rofe & Oakley 2006;

Rofe & Szili 2009; Spector 2010; Szili & Rofe 2007). However, privileging sanitised and selective versions of the

past to serve the needs of capital accumulation is problematic. For example Waitt & McGuirk (1997, p.350) argue

that commodifying history results in,

“prioritising ofofficial over vernacular histories, artefacts over mentifacts, first and oldest structures over all others, the

elite over the proletariat, men over women, Anglo-Celtic over indigenous peoples, theglorious over the ignoble, colonisation

over industrialisationand egalitarian ideology over extantsocial relationships”.

As such, dominant social norms remain unchallenged and significant conflict may arise, jeopardising the successful

transformation of these largely redundant landscapes.

Notwithstanding the notion that landscapes embody multiple levels of meaning that are socially constructed and

comprised of anamalgam of material and symbolic elements (Dunn et al. 1995), development consortia must

demonstrate real consideration of the multivocal heritage and history of port waterfronts, if successful

revitalisation is to be achieved. Marshall (2001) and Spector (2010, p.102) further support this notion claiming that

the multivocality of ailing industrial waterfronts “yield important stories –good and bad” – that are integral to

successful post-industrial transformation. The following paper thus traces the inadequacies of such

entrepreneurially driven revitalisation schemes in meeting local heritage concerns. The discussion presented is

derived from data obtained through a multi-methodological approach. Specifically, the paper presents data

derived from landscape deconstruction of Port Adelaide itself, textual and visual analysis of policy documents and

redevelopment marketing materials and semi-structured interviews conducted with twelve respondents from

critical stakeholder groups and organisations. In doing so, the authors highlight the tensions inherent in the

transformation of redundant industrial waterfront to post-industrial landscapes of social and economic prosperity.

SITE DESCRIPTION: PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Historical Context

From the outset and in the tradition of a reconciliatory and more holistic appreciation of history and place in the

Australian context, it is important to note that the place referred to as Port Adelaide by European settlers is the

traditional land of the Kaurna people. While the Port Adelaide areahas a large Indigenous community, their

presence and pre-European occupationof this area is relatively silent within the materials pertaining to the

waterfront redevelopment. The accounts given henceforth remain a European construction ofthe Port Adelaide

landscape that replaced the indigenous Kaurna peoples’ history (see for example Sanderson et al. 2005).

Legally proclaimed a port in 1837, Port Adelaide had been stigmatised as a drear place. As the principal site for

disembarking colonists, Port Adelaide left a lot to be desired. Colonial writings detail the shock new arrivals felt

upon making land-fall after the long and arduous voyage from England. Dictated by tidal flows, numerous ships had

to wait for prolongedperiods for sufficient water to cross the bar at the Outer Harbour. Anchored in what


wasdescribed as a “… narrow dirty ditch, fringed on both sides with odious mangrove trees” (James 1838, p. 26),

many settlers spent at least one “… wretched night… owing to the myriads of mosquitoes which attacked… [them]

unsparingly” (Tolmer 1882, p. 130) awaiting the opportunity to disembark. Contrary to the glowing descriptions

presented in England extolling thevirtues of the Colony of South Australia, settlers were confronted with a

“...landing place... crudely constructed of clay, poles and bushes... [alive with] the imprecations of seamen and

the blasphemy of bullock drivers” (Pike 1967, p. 205). The scarcity of building materials prompted people to live in

makeshift shelters referred to as ‘humpies’ lending Port Adelaide’s built environment a transitory and

impoverished air. There wasno sewerage or waste disposal except for the outgoing tide, which “...turned

themangrove swamps into a smelly abomination” (Page, 1981, p. 21). In summer, the sunbaked the soil into dust,

engendering the name ‘Dustholia’. In winter the Port became ‘Mudholia’ as the rain turned roads into a quagmire

(Page, 1981, p. 21). Thus, from colonial settlement, the Port was described as “... a most unwholesome and

unsavoury spot” (Harcus 1876 p. 26). The alternate place name this engendered was simply ‘Port Misery’ (Rofe &

Szili 2009; Szili & Rofe 2007).

By the end of the 19th century, years of laborious toil paid off. With new roads and the erection of a permanent

wharf, Port Adelaide supplanted Port Misery. To transform this primordial environment of “...eerie tangled

mangroves and banks... of mud” (Whitelock 1977, p. 49) into a thriving industrial port was deemed a colonial

triumph. Yet the stigma of Port Misery remained (Rofe & Oakley 2006). Social commentaries emphasisedproblems

of delinquency, prostitution and unemployment. To this triumvirate, unionmilitancy and violent protest action was

added at various stages. So corrupting was the Port said to be, that residency there was cast as initiating “…the

slow drift of decent working classfamilies down to slum condition” (Leigh, 1929, p. 2). The Great Depressions and

theSecond World War brought the stigma of Port Misery once again to the fore. Shortages ofemployment and

capital restricted development in the region (Samuels, 1986, p. 11). Theailing waterfront was dealt a further blow

when the introduction of new containerisedcargoes in the 1950s initiated a shift of primary port activity to the

Outer Harbour. To stemthis decline, public–private sector initiatives to establish the Port as the major retail

centrein Adelaide’s north-western suburbs emerged during the 1960s and 1970s. However, thiswas never realised

as these proposals were initiated during periods of economic downturn (Pascoe 1990, p. 74).

Presently, the area encompassing the waterfront land of the Port Adelaide inner harbour is typical of a largely

redundant industrial landscape. Due to the processes of economic restructuring and changes in maritime

transportation inrecent years, many of the traditional industries located in the area have eitherclosed or relocated

(Pascoe 1990, p.14). This decline is immediately evident in thevacant land and abandoned and decaying buildings

surrounding the Port River environs (see Figures 1 & 2).To arrest these processes of decline, a policy-lead

revitalisation of the Port Adelaide waterfront aims to reposition the landscape as a region ‘ripe’ for investment.

Through entrepreneurial governance practices such as city marketing and re-branding campaigns, the Port is

portrayed as a lively, progressive and economically vital place.


5

Figure 1- Vacant Land Adjacent to Boatyards & Inner Harbour, Port Adelaide [Szili 2004]

Figure 2- Derelict Building, Port Adelaide [Szili 2005]

Located approximately 14 kilometres to the north-west of Adelaide (see Figure 3), the revitalisation of 52ha of

waterfront land in Port Adelaide (see Figures 3 & 4) commenced in late 2004. In collaboration with the successful

development tender, Urban Construct Pty Ltd and international property group Multiplex, the redevelopment was

envisaged to create some 6 000 jobs and generate over AUD$900 million in construction work (LMC 2004). For

many, this investment was heralded as a catalyst for an urban “renaissance” for the wider region (Hoyle & Starick

2005, pp. 10–11). Specifically, this renaissance involved an intensive development of the waterfront industrial land

to provide for mixed residential and commercial use.


Figure 3- Location of Study Site: Port Adelaide [Szili 2011]

Trading as the now defunct Newport Quays Consortium (NPQ), the Port Adelaide redevelopment was typical of

planning policies promoting urban consolidation through public-private partnership. However, despite the

promulgation of a more prosperous and positive post-industrial identity, the redevelopment struck a series of

political, social, economic and environmental hurdles that has now rendered the development stagnant (England

2012; Szili & Rofe 2007; Szili 2011). Whilst dissension originated from numerous government and private

stakeholders, some of the most vociferous concerns arose from local community groups and residents. Specific

concerns ranged from poorly executed public consultation (Szili 2011) to questionable environmental remediation

practices (Szili & Rofe 2007). However, vehement opposition to a perceived lack of sensitivity to the Port’s

heritage was also prominently featured in community opposition. The following Section provides a discursive

account of these local stakeholder opinions from interviews conducted between 2008 and 2009.


7

Figure 4- Location of Study Site: Port Adelaide [NPQ n.d.]

HERITAGE OR HEARTACHE?

One of the central themes to emerge from the contestation of the redevelopment has been the perceived

disregard for the Port’s distinct maritime heritage. Several sites and landmarks within the redevelopment zone are

currently protected by their inclusion within the Port Adelaide State Heritage Area. Sensitive to this legislation,

the LMC openly stated that the Port’sheritage-listed icons within the redevelopment area will be protected and

preserved (LMC 2010). In addition, to demonstrate their commitment topreserving and respecting this history, a

cultural heritage survey and mappingexercise had been initiated to

“research, record and, where possible, celebrate the maritime history and cultural heritage of the Inner Harbour through

various interpretive methods” (LMC 2010).

For a prominent informant from the LMC, the cultural mappingexercise was envisaged to aid the

“LMC and developers in understanding what’s important historically to the local community... [and] give the community a

voice”.

However, despite active consultation with local heritage groups, the local community questioned the motives and

efficacy behind such initiatives. For an informant from a local heritage group, the cultural mapping exercise had

“come too late in the development process”. Similarly, a local business owner remarked,

“they ask for our opinion after Stage One has already been built. Heritageboundaries were already changed so the developers

could come in and do asthey will without heritage constraints getting in the way. I mean, it’s great that the LMC are pushing

the cultural and heritage considerations, but preservingjust a few of the buildings like Hart’s Mill [see Figure 2] and the AMC

[Adelaide MillingCompany building] is really tokenistic because they’ve eradicated everythingelse... I’m not surprised the

taller buildings are being conserved; because itjustifies them [the developers] building multi-storey apartments”.


The notion that consultation regarding heritage issues was a fait accompli suggests another problematic facet of

the broader objective of heritage sensitive design in meeting local needs. That is, that the transparency and

stakeholder dialogue that entrepreneurial governance espouses (see Evans et al. 2005; Mayer 1995; McGuirk &

MacLaran 2001) is seen as partial and manipulated to serve the needs of government and the development

consortium. For the LMC and development consortium, NPQ, the extent of heritage-listed sites proved more of a

hindrance than aspects that could be “imaginatively incorporated in the redevelopment” (PAREPG 2009). While

the LMC informant acknowledged the importance of retaining “the Port’s maritimeflavour”, they believed it was

not the State “government’s responsibility to offer financial incentives to owners to restore absolutely everything

that has a historical connection to the Port”. This respondent further remarked that

“we can no longer cocoon the State heritage areas... we love the cultural andbuilt heritage, but it’ll cost you two-and-a-half

times more to reuse some ofthese spaces than it would normally cost to knock it down. A lot of the buildingsaround the Port

are left in a state of disrepair simply because owners can’t afford to bring it up to today’s standards... [and] you also have to

consider thatthere isn’t a market for adaptive reuses [for the Port’s buildings] at the moment” [LMC Informant 2008].

Thus, despite the rhetoric of heritage preservation, actors from the State government and development

consortium place economic considerations as paramount.

Another interesting point raised by a representative of a local business was the manipulation ofheritage boundaries

by state government actors to suit the needs of capital. This concern was also raised in various media releases

which reported that boundariesof the heritage area were changed to exclude a

“few thousand square metres of[water] frontage... [to] vastly broaden... the scope for redevelopment” (Lloyd 2005a, p.44).

As a result, the Port’s 'iconic' wharf sheds were exempt from protection, andsubsequently demolished to allow the

development to proceed. This deliberatemanipulation of State heritage regulations was seen as “another insult to

the local community” (Local Business Informant 2008) and supports the views of another business owner and

resident that the “whole redevelopment” had been “bastardised... by the powers-that-be”. Moreover, according

to a member of a local heritage group, the architectural style of the development was regarded as “conflicting

withthe overall heritage and atmosphere of the area”. This informant added that aside from the “aesthetic mis-

match with the current building stock” (see Figure 5), the redevelopment “did not comply” withthe height limits

set by the Council’s Development Plan. This assertion wassupported by both the local Council and a brochure

produced by a local environmental action group, thePort Adelaide Resident’s Environmental Protection Group

(PAREPG) contesting the redevelopment (see Figure 6). While Informant the LMC informant claimed that the height

of the apartments “were not at odds with the taller structuresaround the Port”, Figure 6 clearly illustrates that

the scale and width of thedevelopment dwarfs the Port's tallest structure, Hart’s Mill, and even overshadowsa

similar residential tower in the already densely populated coastal suburb of Glenelg. While the “triumph of

capitalism” may be “marked by a landscape... [where] skyscrapers reach upward (not to heaven) but in

competition to be the tallest town” (Holcomb 2001, p.52), the quest for Port Adelaide to reach the lofty heights of

post-industrial success was mired by the very shadows its concrete structures create.


9

Figure 5- Image of Hart’s Mill in Foreground of Stage One, Edgewater, Port Adelaide [Szili 2011]

Figure 6- PAREPG Brochure Protesting Port Waterfront Redevelopment [PAREPG 2009]

Media articles also reported similar disquiet, claiming the redevelopment will “tear... out the historical heart of

Port Adelaide” (Lloyd 2005b) and the “historic buildings [will] stay out of sight” (Lloyd 2007). Echoing the views of

local interviewrespondents, the press asserted that despite the preservation of historic buildings such as Hart’s Mill

(see Figure 5),

“the problem here is that the developers... are not going to adequately protect their settings. The buildings are valued not

just because of their age andsignificance but also because of their context... There is a concession to thebuildings, but it is

really just an added insult” (Lloyd 2007, p.50).

Thus, for the local community, retaining a few relicts of the Port’s maritime heritage is viewed as tokenistic and

“grossly insensitive to the Port’s history” (Local History Group Informant 2008). For one local business informant

and resident, the development consortium had “made a mockery of the place” and reduced this to a “lack of

transparency and accountability” on the State Government’s behalf. Figure 7 demonstrates this local contempt for

the heritage-insensitive design. This cartoon mocks the State Government actors for their supposed candour in

integrating the region’s maritime heritage. Moreover, the image of the ‘sinking ship’ and disconnected power


supply communicates the current beleaguered state of the redevelopment. That is, despite the glossy rhetoric of

revitalisation, the Port is “not happening” and remains a “tired industrial precinct” (Wheatley & Lloyd 2009, p.10)

devoid ofthe inward investment touted by the government.

Figure 7- Media Caricature of the Port Adelaide Waterfront Redevelopment [Valdman (2008) IN:The Advertiser, 24 September, 2008, 16.]

Tall Order for Profit Taking

While post-industrial regeneration is positioned as the panacea for urban decline, questions abound as it how these

new landscapes are integrated or indeed interact with existing landscapes. Addressing the poor integration of the

new development with the historic nature of the wider area, a prominent local business owner and resident

claimed the proposed 7 - 12-storey buildings would contradict the maritime flavour of the Port as

“the land had been used as boatyards since the inception of the State... it’s aworking Port”.

This was supported by another local business informant who had close connectionsto the maritime history of the

area;

“the Port always fascinated me... probably because of my family connectionswho came out on the early ships. The big old

warehouses and stately oldbuildings are memories of a bygone era, of a working-class Port, but shouldreally be preserved and

celebrated. I can understand the developers wanting tomaximise their returns, but 12-storey apartments will ruin the real

image of theplace... it’s a working-class area, and that has charm. Bringing in yuppie-typeswill change this forever, and I’m

not sure if it’s a positive thing”.

The notion that multi-storey buildings were not conducive to the working-classcharacter and history of the Port

was also reflected in the comments made by aprominent member of the local council. The Informant claims the

height of thebuildings depicted in Figure 8:

“ha[ve] the real possibility of creating an enclave. The development does not fitthe socio-economic status of the area. You

will not end up with the social mix...the tall structures stand to overshadow neighbouring suburbs and possibly create a

ghetto outside of the gloss of the new apartments” (Local Government Informant).

The suggestion that a ‘ghetto’ may be created on the margins of theredevelopment is an interesting reflection.

While the Informant does not believethe redevelopment will become a ghetto in the more traditional sense of the


1

term, they maintain that it may have adverseeffects on residents in surrounding areas. That is, the shadows

created by the tallstructures also stand to metaphorically overshadow the remnants of the socio-

economicallydisenfranchised in surrounding suburbs. Moreover, both respondents acknowledge that the

redevelopment caters to a much wealthier clientele, which in their views is likely to cause hostility between the

existing community with regards to incoming residents. Sincethe development consortium (NPQ) was unavailable

for comment at the time, this claim cannot be contested; however, it does highlight the nature of local concerns.

Figure 8- Artist’s Impression of the Port Adelaide Waterfront Redevelopment [Hoyle, 2007, 16.]

Similar dissonance was raised by the local community regarding the displacement of traditional Port activities.

Foremost of these concerns arose from boat builder, Mr Kingsley Haskett. As the owner of Port Adelaide’s oldest

surviving boat yard, Mr Haskett had made his battle to fight eviction very public. Canvassing local forums,

newspapers and television stations, the boat builder had struggled with the LMC and developer’s plans to revitalise

the waterfront land on which his boatyard had operated for 170 years. In an article published in The Advertiser, Mr

Haskett claimed that despite attempts by local Council and historical societies to keep the fabric of the history of

the Port alive, “the Government are actively working to get us kicked out” (Lloyd 2008, p.14). The local

businessman continued by stating that he was offered the option of downsizing to half of the space at fifteen-

times the cost; an offer which was clearly unviable in terms of physical operations and economic viability (Lloyd

2008). In April 2009, Mr Haskett’s fight to save his business was lost as he was “evicted by the State Government to

make way for future stages of the Newport Quays waterfront redevelopment” (Kennett 2009, n.p.).

The experiences of both local business owners highlight the tensions inherent to entrepreneurial styles of urban

governance. However,in addition to local business representatives, other members of the local community have

raised analogous frustrations in response to the scale and form of the waterfront redevelopment. Reflecting on the

previous assertions that the development is not incongruous with wider real estate trends (LMC Informant),

members of the PAREPG criticized the LMC and development consortium byclaiming the redevelopment will:

“lead to existing communities feeling they have come to live behind the dresscircle of wealthier folk... the design [runs the

risk] of creating exclusive zoneswhere access is so restricted [it] creates a rich ghetto” (PAREPG 2004).

These concerns were later echoed in a brochure produced bythe PAREPG which proclaimed the project as a

“massive enclave development” (PAREPG 2009). Contrasting the comment made earlier by the local government

Informant, the PAREPG use the term ‘ghetto’ with a subtle difference; however, both talk of contested


landscapes. The waterfront redevelopment is thus problematised with the landscape of the rich and powerful,

contrasting the existing landscape of thepoor and disenfranchised. Similar concerns are emphasised by Winchester

et al.(1996) in their analysis of the redevelopment of Newcastle, NSW. They dispute the social equity of such

large-scale local entrepreneurialdevelopments, claiming that the displacement of the impoverished is a

probableresult of re-investment (Winchester et al. 1996). Thus, while the LMC may purporta socially inclusive,

heritage sensitive and progressive redevelopment (Szili & Rofe 2007), in reality, it is seen as an elitist middle-class

vision by local stakeholders.

In a response to the Plan Amendment Report (PAR) for the redevelopment, PAREPG treasurer Tony Bazeley

remarked:

“there is no evidence in the PAR that considers the problems of gentrification onadjacent areas and the consequent

displacement of people on low incomes...the development is a development for the rich”.

An LMC spokesperson similarly acknowledged that local residents who do not have high levels of disposable income

may be excluded from purchasing an apartment and “may run into trouble as council rates increase”. However,

the Informant also argued that the revival of the region would not occur ifthe area “does not receive a critical

influx of residents who can spend money”. Similarly, a prominent local councillor confessed,

“the redevelopment needs to include people in the higher incomebands so they spend in the local area... sadly, it [Port

Adelaide] won’t berevitalised if we can’t attract this demographic type”.

In addition, the LMC Informant claimed the redevelopment will:

“reduce ghettoisation [coll.]... because studies have shown that when you mix people of different socio-economic

backgrounds, it improves the overall way of life”.

Attenuating the displacement of blue-collar residents and working class heritage of the area, the Informant added:

“when you talk about blue-collar, it becomes or refers to a state of mind... in 20years it could mean anyone who works in a

call centre... and people changejobs at least 3 or 4 times in their lives, so who’s to say a truck driver living in thePort might

not do something else later down the track”.

Thus, for the Informant, socio-economic status is not static, but rather fluid. It can be changed in both a temporal

sense, as well as through physical alterations in the landscape. That is, for the respondent, the redevelopment

may be viewed in a positive light as it may act as a catalyst for social reform.

Whilst both informants recognised the predicament between urban regeneration and social justice, the new

identity created for Port Adelaide is obviously partial and exclusive. As Dunn et al. (1995) argue, the identity

transformation of former industrial cities is an exclusionary political process and favours the local elite at the

expense of others less powerful, and involves highly selective inclusions and interpretations of history and

heritage. This has been demonstrated through the advertising and marketing strategies which have clearly

promoted elitist consumption and leisure activities such as waterfront living and sailing (see Szili & Rofe 2007).

Moreover, the very nature of entrepreneurial governance as experienced in Port Adelaide precludes those actors

who cannot actively participate in the underlying premise of capital accumulation.


1

CONCLUSION

The paper offers an empirical discussion of the limitations that entrepreneurially governed redevelopments with

regards to preserving or even acknowledging heritage in port landscapes. Despite the stated intention of the LMC

and the development consortium that their actions would be sensitive to local history and vernacular community

views, here depicts a different outcome. A common sentiment within community responses is that notions of

heritage and its preservation constitute little more than a thinly disguised justification for developer actions. In

this sense, developers are said to be positioning themselves as the champions of heritage. The logical extension of

this position is that local communities do not represent the best pathway forward for the appropriate preservation

of heritage landscapes. In effect, local communities then are positioned as the agents of decline. Naturally, this

is met with outrage by those communities. Yet, heritage is a complex and contested domain. As Waitt & McGuirk

(1997) contend, heritage is more than simply objects in the landscape. Artifacts may well be the physical

expressions of heritage designation, but they are only physical reminders of the mentifacts or social relations and

meanings in space that they represent. Thus, the case of Port Adelaide offers a stark reminder that heritage is

more than artifacts within the landscape. Heritage is history enshrined through legislative processes. This is the

heart of contestations over heritage in revitalization projects. The struggle here is between existing communities

who hold or claim to hold the histories that underpin the heritage of a given place and those external groups who

seek to appropriate and mobilize it in the interests of their own, often economically-premised, agenda. These

struggles are often bitter, protracted and often stacked in the favor of developers as a consequence of their

entrepreneurial links with various tiers of government. However, this is not always the case as some local

victories and concessions can, and have, been won. Regardless, the lesson of Port Adelaide and those places

experiencing similar transformations is that heritage is not static, nor is it natural or neutral. Rather, heritage is

dynamic and constitutes a site of contention and contestation.

REFERENCES

Butler, T. “Re-urbanizing London Docklands: Gentrification, suburbanization or new urbanism?”. International

Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol.31, No.4, 2007, 759-781.

De Sousa, C. “Policy performance and the brownfield redevelopment in Milwaukee, Wisconsin”. The Professional

Geographer. Vol.57, No.2, 2005, 312-327.

Dovey, K. Fluid City: Transforming Melbourne’s Urban Waterfront. Sydney: UNSW Press, 2005.

Dunn, K. M., McGuirk, P.M., & Winchester, H.P.M. “Place making: the social construction of Newcastle”. Australian

Geographical Studies. Vol.33, 1995, 149-167.

England, C. “Government denies shelving Newport Quays project to appease voters”. The Adelaide Advertiser. 24

January, 2012, n.p.

Evans, B., Joas, B., Sundback, S. and Theobald, K. Governing Sustainable Cities. London, Earthscan: 2005.

Harcus, W. (Ed.) South Australia: Its History, Resources and Production. London, Sampson Low, Marston, Searle &

Rivington: 1876.

Holcomb, B. “Place marketing: using media to promote cities” IN Vale, L.J. & Warner, J.B. (Eds.) Imaging the City:

Continuing Struggles & New Directions. New Jersey, Centre for Urban Policy and Research: 2001, 33-55.


Howley, P., Scott, M. and Redmond, D. “Sustainability versus liveability: an investigation of neighbourhood

satisfaction”. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Vol.52, No.6, 2009, 847-864.

Hoyle, B. (Ed.). Cityports, Coastal Zones and Regional Change. Chichester, Wiley: 1996.

Hoyle, B. “Glocal and local change on the port-city waterfront”. Geographical Review. Vol. 90, 2000, 395–417.

Hoyle, B.S., Pinder, D.A. and Husain, M.S. Revitalising the Waterfront: International Dimensions of Dockland

Redevelopment. London: Belhaven, 1988.

Hoyle, R. and Starick, P. “The renaissance of a port”. The Adelaide Advertiser. 4 June, 2005, 10-11.

Hula, R. “The two Baltimores” IN Judd, D.R. & Parkinson, M.H. (Eds.)Leadership and Urban Regeneration: Cities in

North America and Europe. London, Sage Publications: 1990.

James, T.H. Six Months in South Australia; With Some Account of Port Philip and Portland Bay in Australia Felix;

With Advice to Emigrants. Holborn, J. Cross: 1838.

Jonas, A.E.G. and McCarthy, L. “Urban management and regeneration in the United States: State intervention or

redevelopment at all costs?”. Local Government Studies. Vol.35, No.3, 2009, 299-314.

Kennett, H. “Searles Boatyard battle lost”. Portside Messenger. 22 April, 2009, n.p..

Leigh, E. Register News. 9 February, 1929, 2.

Lloyd, T. “Rust belt no longer”. The Advertiser. 4 June, 2005a, 45.

Lloyd, T. “Tearing out the historical heart of Port Adelaide”. The Advertiser, 9 July, 2005b, 44.

Lloyd, T. “Historic buildings stay – out of sight”. The Adelaide Advertiser. 30 June, 2007, 50.

Lloyd, T. “I’ll fight eviction, vows boat builder”. The Adelaide Advertiser. 26 May, 2008, 14.

LMC (Land Management Corporation) Port Waterfront Redevelopment. Available at:

<http://www.lmc.sa.gov.au/lmc/projects/Port_waterfront/>. 2004: Accessed 7 January 2005.

LMC Port Adelaide Waterfront Redevelopment Fact Sheet. Available at: <http://www.lmc.sa.gov.au/theport>

2010: Accessed 12 December 2010.

Marshall, R. (Ed.) Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities. London: Spon Press, 2001.

Mayer, M. “Urban governance in the post-Fordist city” IN:: Healey, P., Cameron, S., Davoudi, S., Graham, S. and

Mandani-Pour, A. (Eds.) Managing Cities: The New Urban Context. London, Wiley: 1995, 103-128.

McGuirk, P.M. “Power and policy networks in urban governance: Localgovernment and property-led regeneration in

Dublin”.Urban Studies. Vol.37, 2000, 651-672.

McGuirk, P.M. and MacLaran, A. “Changing approaches to urban planning in an 'entrepreneurial city': The case of

Dublin”. European Planning Studies. Vol.9, No.4, 2001, 437-457.

Paddison, R. “City marketing, image reconstruction and urban regeneration”. Urban Studies. Vol.30, No. 2, 1993,

339-350.

Page, M. Port Adelaide and its Institute 1851-1979. Adelaide, Rigby: 1981.

PAREPG (Port Adelaide Residents Environment Protection Group) “Submission on the Port Waterfront

Redevelopment PAR”. Planning SA. Available at: <http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/> 2004: Accessed 17

March 2005.


1

PAREPG (Port Adelaide Residents Environment Protection Group) “LMC in a Spin”. 2009: Available at:

<http://www.parepg.org.au>. 2009: Accessed 12 December, 2010.

Pascoe, J. The Redevelopment of the Port Adelaide Centre: Urban Conservation and the Planning of Heritage.

Adelaide: Honours Thesis, Flinders University of South Australia, 1990.

Pike, D. 1967: Paradise of Dissent: South Australia 1829–1857. Melbourne, Melbourne University Press: 1967.

Pinder, D. “Seaport decline and cultural heritage sustainability issues in the UK coastal zone”.Journal of Cultural

Heritage. Vol. 4, 2003, 35-47.

Reiser, D. and Crispin, S. “Local perceptions of the reimaging process: The case of the Sullivans Cove waterfront

precinct”. Journal of Place Management and Development. Vol. 2, No. 2, 2009, 109-124.

Rofe, M.W.“From ‘problem city’ to ‘promise city’: gentrification and therevitalisation of Newcastle”.Australian

Geographical Studies.Vol. 42, No.2, 2004, pp.193-205.

Samuels, B. Mudflats to Metropolis: Port Adelaide 1836-1986. Adelaide, B & T Publishers: 1986.

Sanderson, V., Giles, G. and Brusnaham, M. Aboriginal voices: Telling Stories From the Port. Adelaide, Von

Sanderson and Glenn Giles: 2005.

Short, J. R., Benton, L.M., Luce, W.B. & Walton, J. “Reconstructing the image of an industrial city”. Annals of the

Association of American Geographers. Vol.83, No.2, 1993, 207-224.

Spector, J.O. From Dockyard to Esplanade: Leveraging Industrial Heritage in Waterfront Redevelopment.

Philadelphia: Masters Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 2010.

Szili, G. Entrepreneurial governance and the green imperative: A critique of the environmental rescripting of Port

Adelaide and Mawson Lakes, South Australia. Adelaide: PhD Thesis, University of South Australia, 2011.

Szili, G. and Rofe, M.W. “Greening Port Misery: Marketing the green face of waterfront redevelopment in Port

Adelaide, South Australia”. Urban Policy and Research. Vol. 25, No.3, 2007, 363-384.

Szili, G. and Rofe, M.W. “The naming game: The politics of place namesas tools for urban regenerative practice?

Refereed proceedings of the 3rd State of Australian Cities Conference, University of Western Australia,

Perth, November 24th to 27th 2009.

Szili, G. and Rofe, M.W. “The commodification of the waterfront” IN: Daniels, C.B. and McKay, J. (Eds.) Adelaide:

Water of a City. Adelaide, Wakefield Press: 2010, 396-412.

Tallon, A. Urban Regeneration in the UK. Oxon: Routledge, 2010.

Tolmer, A. Reminiscences of an Adventurous and Chequered Career at Home and at the Antipodes.London,

Sampson Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington: 1882.

Waitt, G. and McGuirk, P.M. “Selling waterfront heritage: A critique of Millers Point, Sydney”. Tijdschrift voor

economische en sociale geografie. Vol. 88, No. 4, September 1997, 342-352.

Wheatley, K. and Lloyd, T. “Is it too late to revive our Port?” The Adelaide Advertiser. 24 October, 2009, 10-11.

Whitelock, D. Adelaide, 1836–1976: A History of Difference. St Lucia, University of Queensland Press: 1977.

Winchester, H. P. M., McGuirk, P.M. & Dunn, K.M. “ Constructing places for the market: the case of Newcastle,

NSW”. International Journal of Heritage Studies. Vol.1, No. 1 & 2, 1996.41-58.

‘OUR HARBOUR THEIR DREAM’: HERITAGE, HISTORY AND …

Documents