-
mrt St
te wntilandatwnhe bentt sherge
1. Introduction
In the past, port areas have regularly expthe increase in cargo
volume handled. At tphological heart of many ports has moved d
f portknownusefuls no ate citynging
production to consumption at waterfronts, and conclude that
thereis a reversal of the direction of inuence between city and
water-front so that the latter now mirrors the cultural trends of
the for-mer and its wider society rather than the city reecting
theeconomic vitality of the port (p. 132).
In recent years, an increasing number of ports in the
Hamburg
environmental issues). In much of the literature published
sincethen, these issues were dealt with separately, and were hardly
re-lated to the vast amount of literature on cities and their
waterfrontdevelopments. This, together with our observation that at
least insome ports there is a spatial limitation to their expansion
raisesthe questions: Are we entering a new phase in port
developmentin a geographical and morphological sense? And, will
this inuencethe relationship between city and port?
In this paper, we will investigate if such a new phase in
thedevelopment of ports and port cities is emerging, and whether
thiscould be an additional phase to portcity interface models. We
will
* Corresponding author at: Delft University of Technology, OTB
Research Institutefor Housing, Urban and Transport Studies, TU
Delft, P.O. Box 5030, 2600 GA Delft,The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 15
2783005; fax: +31 15 2783450.
Journal of Transport Geography 19 (2011) 575583
Contents lists availab
Journal of Transp
elsE-mail address: [email protected] (B.W. Wiegmans).spatial
and functional links between port and city was developedby Hoyle
(1989), who stated that: Economically and geographi-cally, port and
cities have grown apart (p. 430). An example ofthe changing
linkages between port and city is the redevelopmentof older port
areas for urban uses, which include many urbanwaterfront
developments such as housing, commercial functions,and ofces (see
also Hall, 1991; Bruttomesso, 1993; Marshall,2001). Norcliffe et
al. (1996) also discuss the changing relationshipbetween port and
city, and observe a shift from an emphasis on
areas located at quays with deep water access which will
increas-ingly be in short supply.
At the same time, many older and former obsolete port areashave
been transformed into new types of land uses which areincreasingly
encroaching into the port area (Daamen, 2007; Cityof Le Havre,
2007). It appears therefore that the portcity interfaceis
developing into the systems already formulated by Hayuth in1982;
namely, the spatial system (mainly comprising the changingland use
in the port) and the ecological system (mainly comprisingthe (port)
city. This development oand space is described in the well-oped by
Bird (1971). The model ismorphological development, but
payrelationship between the port and thface. A model emphasizing
these cha0966-6923/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd.
Adoi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.06.007anded to accommodatehe same
time, the mor-ownstream, away frominfrastructures in
timeAnyport-model devel-for the analysis of thetention to the
changingand the portcity inter-and mainly weakening
Le Havre range (HLH-ranges) have encountered difculties, as
theyare no longer capable of (fully) accommodating all the demand
forbusiness sites. Although this has led to the development of
newport areas, it appears that in many ports the extension of the
portarea is more difcult than before. A next phase of increase in
theport area is becoming more difcult due to a change in
environ-mental perspectives in the last few decades (Morris and
Gibson,2007) which has resulted in a growing community resistance
andless political support for the transformation of shorelines
andcoastal areas into port zones. This means that it is mainly
thoseChanging portcity relations at Amsterda
Bart W. Wiegmans a,b,*, Erik Louw a
aDelft University of Technology, OTB Research Institute for
Housing, Urban and Transpob TRAIL Research School, TU Delft, Delft,
The Netherlands
a r t i c l e i n f o
Keywords:Portcity interfacePort developmentRegulationSpatial
development
a b s t r a c t
In this paper, we investigathis by analysing the scieAmsterdam
in the Netherof port rms. It appears ththe port area is slowing
doat an increasing speed. In tabout how the redevelopmwhether any
redevelopmenportcity interface has em
journal homepage: www.ll rights reserved.: A new phase at the
interface?
udies, TU Delft, P.O. Box 5030, 2600 GA Delft, The
Netherlands
hether a new phase in portcity development is emerging. We have
donec literature on present and future spatial developments of the
port ofs in terms of the spatial and environmental policies and the
viewpointsin the Port of Amsterdam, but also in other ports, the
expansion pace of, while at the same time the city is expanding in
the direction of the porteginning, this conict was rather passive,
in the sense that the conict wasshould take place. However, the
conict has evolved further to questioningould take place. This
implies that a new phase in the development of thed.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
le at ScienceDirect
ort Geography
evier .com/ locate / j t rangeo
-
analyse this question by looking at the present and future
spatialdevelopments of the harbour of Amsterdam in the Netherlands
interms of the spatial and environmental policies and the
behaviourof rms. This implies that we analyse the portcity
interface from
economic cycle.
576 B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of TranCharlier (1992)
argues that, with the exception of the latter twostages, his
sequence may be integrated in the Anyport-model. TheAnyport-model,
however, makes no specic provision for the clo-sure of upstream
facilities and their return to general city uses. In-stead, Bird
(1963) argues that the port will retain much of theexisting layout
adapted to new uses, and develop new layoutsand installations
suited to new ship types and new methods of car-go handling in new
port areas. Nevertheless, Charliers work tswell within the body of
literature relating to cities and their water-front redevelopment,
but there is one particular element of his
1 Although the Bird model is well-known, there are other models
which describethe morphological development of ports. One of them
is by Meyer (1999), whodistinguished four phases: (1) Entrept port:
a port within an enclosed city; (2)Transit port: port alongside an
open city; (3) Industrial port: a port alongside athe perspective
of the port. This paper is structured as follows: nextin Section 2,
we briey review the literature on spatial port devel-opment and the
portcity interface, and present our analyticalframework; in Section
3, we introduce the Port of Amsterdamand give an overview of the
recent developments in the port andthe policies governing such
developments; in Section 4, we givean overview of the interviews
with port companies in Amsterdam;in Section 5 we briey discuss the
developments in other port cit-ies in the HLH-range; and, in the
nal Section 6, we draw theconclusions.
2. Port development and the portcity interface
Although spatial and transport scientists have been interestedin
ports for many decades, it was the research by Bird (1963) whichled
to the rst conceptual model of port development. In his
Any-port-model, Bird conceived the port as a direct relationship
be-tween port form and port function, and port space is seen as
achronological and linear succession of historically-distinct
devel-opment phases (Olivier and Slack, 2006). The model consists
ofsix phases (Bird calls them eras), each involving an addition
to,or change in, the physical layout of the port, and helping to
buildup to the complex pattern of a modern major port1. Bird
explainsthat each of the eras was marked by the growth of shipping
volumeor technical advancements in the carriage of goods by sea or
of thehandling in ports. In each era, the new port facilities were
built fur-ther downstream than the facilities in the former era,
resulting in agrowing geographical separation of port and city.
This latter phe-nomenon was also observed in the development of
Asian ports byRobinson (1984). Charlier (1992) developed a
life-cycle concept ofport areas which refers not to the development
of the entire portbut only to a port facility of a particular port
area. This conceptenvisages that a given port facility will
progress through ve stages,namely:
1. growth, resulting from investment to create and expand
thefacility;
2. maturity, in which the full potential of the facility is
obtained;3. obsolescence, which sets in as more modern,
higher-capacity
facilities at better locations take over business;4.
dereliction, after the berths are abandoned by shipping; and5.
redevelopment which signals the start of a new and
non-portfunctional city; and (4) the Distribution port and network
city: the port isrediscovered by the city as a part of the urban
landscape. Surprisingly, Meyer, whois an urbanist, does not refer
to the work of Bird.work that is distinguishing. He argues that an
alternative to city-waterfront development is to regenerate the
port functions of thederelict areas. He suggests that, before these
sites are transformedto city functions, the residual maritime
potential should be as-sessed because this is non-renewable.
Birds model does not address the functional relations
betweenport and city. Although Birds model shows that port and city
spa-tially drifted apart, the model does not envisage the effects
of mar-itime, technological, and logistic developments on the scale
ofmodern ports, the networks in which they operate, and the
relativeimportance of ports for the citys economy. Nor did Bird
foresee theimpact of environmental policies and the sustainable
paradigmshift in the development of ports. Therefore, a different
approachhas to be adopted in order to deal with new empirical
realitiesand/or theoretical developments (Robinson, 2002; Olivier
andSlack, 2006; Daamen, 2007). Robinson and in particular
Olivierand Slack give good recent reviews of the port research
literature,but propose different directions for future research.
Robinson pro-poses a new paradigm in which the economics of the
port in a va-lue-driven chain system forms the cornerstone. Olivier
and Slack,although also emphasizing the economics, take a more
holisticview and propose an interdisciplinary dialogue between
transportand economic geography, particularly by giving more
attention to abehavioural approach, which is well-known in economic
geogra-phy, but less in freight transport research. However, they
also statethat Fundamental questions remain, such as Why is the
physicalenvironment so absent in port studies? Why have concepts of
sus-tainability not penetrated port studies? What of social-change
fac-tors? (p. 1423). We believe that these questions remain to
beanswered as the debate turns towards recent changes at
theportcity interface.
In studies on the portcity interface such as Hoyle (1989,
2000),Charlier (1992), Norcliffe et al. (1996), Daamen (2007), and
partic-ularly Hayuth (1982, 1988), we see that environmental,
social andspatial planning have received more attention than in the
moretraditional port studies. Both Hoyle and Norcliffe et al.
present anevolution of the portcity interface, in which the spatial
separationbetween the port and the city is emphasized in terms of
changes inland use, without actually discussing the links between
the cityand the port: the port is geographically moving away from
the citywhile at the same time the geographical overlap between the
portand the city in terms of land use diminishes. According to
Norcliffeet al. (1996) in the early stages of this evolution, the
port and thecity lived in symbiosis (t1) and developed into a city
next to anon-place port (t3) (see Fig. 1). Hoyle (2000) describes a
similarbut more extended and detailed sequence in six stages (see
Fig. 2)ranging from a close spatial and functional association
betweencity and port (in the 1st stage) via a large-scale port
which con-sumes large areas of land (expanded over the course of
the 2nd,3rd and 4th stages), and then to urban renewal of the
original portarea (in the 5th stage), and ultimately to an enhanced
portcityproximity reecting patterns of urban change and a renewal
ofthe portcity link (in the 6th stage).
Hayuth (1982) is one of rst authors who analysed the
changingintrinsic relationship between the port and the city. In
1982 he sawchanges in the ecological and spatial system, and in
1988 also in-cluded changes in the economic system. Changes in
these systemsled to the growing spatial and functional segregation
of city andport and the changing landscape of the city-waterfront.
Thechanges in the spatial and economic systems more or less
repre-sent the same trend that other authors portray, but what is
of par-ticular interest is the ecological system which
involvesenvironmental issues (mainly water and air quality). This
is partic-
sport Geography 19 (2011) 575583ularly apparent in Daamens
(2007) study of the portcity interfacein Rotterdam and Hamburg
which reports that local authorities areactually planning the
redevelopment of current port areas and the
-
and
B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of TranFig. 1. Evolution and
separation over time of citiesdevelopment of new city areas
geographically very close to theport. It is no longer only the
abandoned port areas which are beingredeveloped for city uses, as
planners are also proposing to rede-velop parts of the port near
the city which are actually still inuse for port activities.
According to Daamen, both the city andthe port are engaged in a
similar battle to attract people and busi-ness and it is often the
city-waterfronts where the battle materi-alizes, creating competing
space-use demands and a zone ofconict for city and port authorities
(Daamen, 2007: 19).
For our analysis of the portcity interface we use a
frameworkwhich is partly based on Bird (1963) who makes a
distinction be-tween port form and port function. We add port
regulations to this,
Fig. 2. Stages in the evolution of the portcity re
Fig. 3. Relations between port form, port function and port
regulation.their ports according to Norcliffe et al. (1996:
126).sport Geography 19 (2011) 575583 577because these are also
important for companies who settle in portareas, but were probably
less important at the time Bird developedhis model. The port form
represents the geographical and morpho-logical shape and layout of
the port. On the rm level, this relatesto the rms location in the
port and the amount of land they use.The port function relates to
the core business operations (for in-stance logistics) of port
companies and the Port Authority and theirinteraction. Port
regulation refers all sorts of regulation concerningport activities
such as environmental regulations (concerned withnoise, ne dust,
CO2, water quality, odour), transport (modal shift,tons handled per
quay), spatial planning (land use), labour, safetyand security.
Port form, function and regulation are related (seeFig. 3).
3. The Port of Amsterdam: development and policies
The Port of Amsterdam is part of the Seaports Amsterdamwhich
also includes the smaller ports of Beverwijk, Velsen/IJmu-iden en
Zaanstad. In Europe, many ports are identied as eithergateway ports
or hub ports (Ferrari et al., 2006; Notteboom,1997). But this
classication is based on containers being animportant sector for
the port concerned. The Port of Amsterdamis, however, neither a hub
nor a gateway port, but is more a kindof commodity port in which
the manufacturing of the handledgoods forms an important part of
the activities in the port area.This port has many different
sectors and the producing industrythat uses the incoming freight
ows is well represented in the port
lationships according to Hoyle (2000: 405).
-
ation sites. Source: http://www.portofamsterdam.com (adapted by
authors).
Table 1Current and future handling in the Amsterdam port area in
million tonnes. Source:Haven Amsterdam, 2009.
Market segment 1995 2000 2007 2008 2020 2040
Oil products 8177 11,595 24,866 30,566 45,000 48,000Coal 4760
11,289 14,734 17,383 24,000 36,000Agribulk 7529 10,044 8326 9004
11,000 16,000Other dry bulk 3952 4623 6641 7310 8000 12,000
578 B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of Tranarea. The port is
also an important location of inland waterwaytransport. In this
article we focus on the Port of Amsterdam ratherthan on the
collective of smaller ports in the Seaports Amsterdamarea, because
we focus on the portcity interface in Amsterdam. Inthe spatial
development of the port form in Amsterdam, the Any-port-model and
the evolution in the portcity relations accordingto Hoyle (2000)
can be observed for the port of Amsterdam (see:Zoest, 2005;
Gilijamse et al., 2009). At rst the port and the city
Fig. 4. Map of the port of Amsterdam with former and current
transformwere integrated at the current city centre. In later
stages (alreadyin the 17th century) purpose-built harbours were
developed tothe East of the city centre. After completion of the
Noordzeekanaalin 1876, which connects the port to the North Sea,
the develop-ment began to the West of the city centre. Particularly
after theSecond World War large new port areas were developed on
thiswest side. Then, in the 1980s the transformation of the
formerEastern Docklands to new residential uses began. In the
1990s,the transformation of the area called the IJ-banks (the
waterfrontof the city centre) also began (see Fig. 4) and is now
underdevelopment2.
In the past few decades, the Port of Amsterdam has been grow-ing
rapidly also because sufcient new port areas were available.The
total Amsterdam port area is about 2600 hectares, of which1600
hectares is for companies and 1000 for the harbours andother
infrastructure. As a result of the growth in port activities
inAmsterdam, the supply of vacant business sites has
decreasedsharply from 426 hectares in 2003 to 270 in 2009
(GemeenteAmsterdam, 2003, 2009). In terms of cargo throughput
tonnages,the Port of Amsterdam belongs to the top ve in Europe,
although(much) smaller than its neighbouring port of Rotterdam
which isthe largest port in Europe. In recent years handling in the
porthas grown signicantly. In 2008, the transhipment was 75,755
mil-lion tonnes, of which crude oil and oil products formed more
thanone-third. For the future a continued growth is expected,
particu-larly in the container sector (see Table 1).
Due to the rapid growth in the past and forecasted growth,
thePort of Amsterdam is faced with (in its own words) challenges
in
2 For an analysis of the IJ-banks development, see Bongenaar and
Malone (1996).sport Geography 19 (2011) 575583the elds of land
supply, the environment and the accessibility ofthe port area. The
solutions to these challenges are laid down ina new Strategic
policy document called Slimme Haven (SmartPort), which was approved
by the City Council in 2008 (HavenAmsterdam, 2009).
3.1. Spatial policy: a limited supply of land
In the port area, the public Port Authority is the main supplier
ofland, and the municipality is the planning authority. According
tothe new policy up to 2020, the transhipment growth of the Portof
Amsterdam has to be realised within the existing area. Thismeans
that the port form will not change until 2020. To accommo-date the
forecasted growth in handling, several measures havebeen
proposed:
Redevelopment of existing business sites which are
currentlyunderutilised: This is, however, not a new policy.
Between1990 and 2007, the municipality acquired 307 hectares of
previ-ously developed land from companies in the port area. In
thesame period it released 560 hectares.
Intensifying land use: This could mean developing
multi-storagebuildings, but also connecting currently dry business
sites withquays that have deep water access, or reducing harbours
inorder to develop new business sites and/or quays. In general,this
requires larger investments.
Containers 1111 782 3442 3905 26,000 69,000Other 5695 6282 7344
7587 10,000 13,000Total 31,225 44,614 65,353 75,755 124,000
194,000
-
rtc
B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of Transport Geography 19
(2011) 575583 579 Higher rents and additional land lease
conditions: Because thePort Authority and the municipality only
lease out land anddo not sell it they can attach conditions to land
leases. Theseconditions and the rents will be linked to the
intensity of theland use. Also shorter lease periods have been
announced.
Fig. 5. Transformation zone and housing plans at the poIn
addition, the development of a transition zone between theport and
the city is proposed. In this zone, called the Minervahaven(see
Fig. 5), the economic activities are planned to change fromport
activities to city activities (in particular the creative
indus-tries). Although the area is relatively small (7 hectares)
and will re-main a business area, it will no longer be available to
portcompanies, which in effect reduces the port area.
The Port is also confronted with the spatial policies of
theMunicipality itself. For a few decades, the Municipality has
fol-lowed a compact city policy which implies that (new)
residentialdevelopment should preferably take place within, or
adjacent to,the existing built-up area. Within this context, since
the 1980s,around 10,000 houses have been built in former port areas
suchas the Eastern Docklands and the IJ-Banks. Additional plans for
atleast another 5000 houses in the parts of the port close to the
city(Houthaven and the former NDSM-wharf) were developed in
the1990s and at the beginning of the 21st century (Fig. 5). These
plansare more problematic and controversial than the Eastern
Dock-lands and IJ-Banks. Roo (2003) analysed the conict between
spa-tial and environmental planning for the Houthaven, and
concludedthat the planning process had ended in a stalemate (p.
306), par-ticularly because most of the proposed dwellings were
planned in azone in which residential development is restricted
because ofnoise levels (see the Port Zone in Fig. 5)3. Eventually,
in 2008, themunicipality and three companies agreed that, under
certain condi-tions, residential development in the Houthaven and
NDSM-wharfarea is possible, but that in the coming 20 years, the
Municipality
3 For a description, see also De Roo (2003), Chapter 7:
Liveablility on the Banks ofthe IJ. Environmental Policy of the
City of Amsterdam.will not start new residential developments which
might harm thecompanies. After 2028 new developments are possible
and the mu-nicipal spatial planning department and the Port
Authority are al-ready performing scenario analyses on the portcity
interfacebetween 2030 and 2040 (Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening and
Haven
ity interface of Amsterdam. Source: drawn by authors.Amsterdam,
2009).
3.2. Environmental policy: more strict environmental
regulations
Because of increasing regulations at the European level,
theDutch state and regional and local authorities are obliged to
imple-ment these regulations and to enforce them. In particular
environ-mental regulations and the protection of rare species are
puttingpressure on port activities. These regulations will limit
the growthopportunities for the Port of Amsterdam, and there are
additionalcomplications because of the proposed intensive use of
the portarea and advancing residential development. The Port
Authority,in cooperation with the port companies, is looking for
sustainableinnovations in order to become more
environmentally-friendlyand to create extra environmental space for
the growth of portactivities. Examples are cleaner ships, cleaner
energy productionand use, the improvement of air and water quality,
noise control,the creation of ecozones4, and the careful handling
of dangerousgoods (TU Delft, OTB, 2007 and Haven Amsterdam,
2009).
3.3. Transport Policy: improving accessibility
The accessibility of the Port of Amsterdam, and in a
broadersense also that of the Amsterdam area, is becoming
increasinglyproblematic. Road freight transport in particular is
experiencingconsiderable congestion, but current investments in new
roads willease this. Both rail capacity and inland waterway
capacity are en-ough for the near future. Sea transport is
experiencing accessibility
4 Ecozones are sites which are not in use by companies and are
temporarily in useas nature reserves.
-
users site might create extra land in the Amsterdam port
area
create space. Businesses suited for the Port of Amsterdam can
be
ranaccommodated, and businesses better suited for other ports
suchas the Port of Rotterdam can be advised to locate there.
Coopera-tion could be with Rotterdam, Vlissingen or Groningen, but
alsoin Europe there might be opportunities to cooperate (or
evenmerge) with comparable ports (e.g. Zeebrugge).
The companies perceive that the accessibility of the port is
gen-erally good. The majority of the interviewed companies
receiveabout 100% of their incoming freight ows by sea. However,
thefor new port activities, but will also lead to less-desired
extra logis-tics activities. Some companies are worried by the
planned housingnear the port area which is delaying or halting
planned invest-ments. To accommodate their growth many rms are
increasinglylooking for alternatives outside the Port of Amsterdam
(e.g. An-twerp, Vlissingen, Zeebrugge, Rotterdam, and Hamburg).
However,also in most competing ports new sites are not abundantly
avail-able. Other companies are willing to expand in Amsterdam,
butthey are not allowed to do so because other business
operations(in place of existing operations) are preferred by the
Port Author-ity. Concerning the port form, cooperation with other
ports mightproblems as a result of the insufcient capacity of the
IJmuidenlocks and because they can only accommodate vessels with a
max-imum depth of 45 ft due to tunnels under the Noordzeekanaal.
Theplan is to have a second lock ready in 2016. Overall, the modal
splitfor the port of Amsterdam is quite good: road 53%, inland
water-way transport 43% and rail 4%. The goal is to further
increase themarket share of relatively sustainable transport such
as inlandwaterways and rail.
4. Business viewpoint on port form, function, and regulation
In mid 2008, together with the Port Authority, an initial
sampleof approximately 25 companies was selected and nally,
eightcompanies were willing to participate in an interview. The
compa-nies are evenly distributed over the port area and active in
thetransport (2), handling (1) and manufacturing (5) sectors.
Theinterviews were conducted in a semi-structured way to obtainthe
companies viewpoints on the current and future port form,port
function, and port regulation.
4.1. Port form
In 2008, most interviewed companies thought that their
opera-tions at their current sites could continue to grow for about
35 years. This is also observed in other ports in the HLH-range
suchas Rotterdam, Hamburg, Bremen, and Vlissingen. In Amsterdam,the
average expected growth that can be accommodated on thecurrent
sites is about 1020% as compared with normal 2008 lev-els of
operation. Several companies have land in reserve in order tobe
able to extend their operations on the current location.
Somecompanies have different sites in the port of Amsterdam
and/orin the Noordzeekanaal zone. The companies might create
addi-tional space by restructuring their sites into one efcient
site forthese companies concerned. Some companies see possibilities
tointensify land use on their current site, but this would require
largeinvestments (amounts of 17 million per hectare are quoted)
ineither higher buildings or underground structures. This might
sug-gest a role for the Port Authority in order to reduce the high
cost ofthese expensive structures to the company. On the other
hand, also(intensied) quay usage and price increases for sites can
contributeto more efciency in land use. Storage in the hinterland
at the
580 B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of Texpansion of deep water
access is difcult especially given all thelegal planning
proceedings. Without an improvement of the IJmu-iden lock, a
further expansion of the Amsterdam port (in volume) isimpossible.
Outgoing ows from the Port of Amsterdam are byroad, rail and inland
waterways. The companies expect that railfreight transport will
increase due to an increase in coal transportto sites in Germany
not accessible by inland waterways and moretransport to Eastern
Europe.
4.2. Port function
For the port function, the business operations of
companies(including the Port Authority) in the Port of Amsterdam
were ana-lysed. According to the interviews, positive points are a
exible,fast and focussed service of the Port Authority and its good
locationclose to European customers. However, some opportunities
forimprovements were identied by the companies: Amsterdamshould
focus on its own peer ports in Europe rather than on main-ports, be
more stable in its priorities, and rely less on bulk ows;the
problems with sea lock IJmuiden; the political lobbying ofthe
regional and national authorities could be improved; and
themaintenance of the inland waterway infrastructure could be
bet-ter. Some companies complain about the implemented rental
pol-icy of higher rents and shorter rental periods (25 or 30
yearsinstead of 50 years), which shorten their pay back time on
invest-ments. This is particularly the case for companies which
mightwant to invest in an intensication of their land use. Also it
is saidby some companies that the local authority (the mayor and
theBoard of Aldermen of the City of Amsterdam) shows only a
modestinterest in the port. However, the Port Authority differs on
this lastissue by stating that the Municipality does take the Port
of Amster-dam seriously, as it supports the recently prepared new
vision forthe port. Concerning the rental policy, it was put
forward that theEuropean Union requests shorter rental periods, and
that compet-ing ports are also reducing the length of lease
periods, with the aimof intensifying competition between ports.
However, several unde-sired side effects (e.g. the slowing down of
business investments inthe Port of Amsterdam by existing companies)
might occur. Ulti-mately, policy is designed to intensify land use
(whereby compa-nies need long lease periods), but at the same time
portcompetition is aimed for (whereby shorter lease periods
arerequired).
4.3. Port regulation
Port regulations imposed by the different government
layers(European, national, regional, and local) cause some
difcultiesfor companies. Aspects that increasingly put pressure on
compa-nies are environmental regulations concerning ne dust,
noise,CO2, safety, water quality, security, etc. Several companies
have ex-pressed their concern about the strict execution of
European regu-lations in the Netherlands as compared with
neighbouringcountries. In this respect it is important to note that
it is not theAmsterdam Port Authority that imposes environmental
regula-tions on the companies, but the municipal and regional
authorities.In this respect, several ports outside the Netherlands
have beenquoted as being more exible as compared with the Port
ofAmsterdam. According to the interviewed companies, examplesof
more exibility in other ports can be found in: (1) gassing of
in-sects in cacao; (2) lifting sacks; and (3) re protection
measures. Asa result of regulations imposed by the United States,
the port secu-rity measures have become stricter. A nal problem
that was indi-cated in the interviews concerns housing encroaching
former portareas. If housing legally enters port areas (enabled by
a land-useplan), and if the inhabitants of these houses start to
complainabout port activities and take a legal action, the judge
will probably
sport Geography 19 (2011) 575583rule in favour of the
inhabitants. This is perceived as unfair by com-panies and at least
would call for equal legal treatment of housingand port activities.
In general, the building of extra houses in the
-
Tran6. Conclusions
In the past, ports and their cities have seen substantial
spatialchange. Over time, both spatially and functionally they
becameincreasingly separated from each other. The port itself has
evolvedfrom a distinct space, as a single, xed, spatial entity to a
placewhere synchronic forces are played out among a pluralistic
port5. The development in other port cities in the HamburgLeHavre
range
Is the development of the portcity interface in Amsterdam
un-ique, or are there other ports in which the same developments
oc-cur? Several sources in the literature (together with
interviewswith policy makers and port authorities in Rotterdam,
Hamburgand Vlissingen) indicate that changes in the portcity
interfaceare emerging in other ports as well. Daamen (2007)
analysed theportcity interface in Rotterdam, where local
authorities are plan-ning redevelopment of port areas near the
city. According to Daa-men the Rotterdam municipal government
adopted a pro-activeattitude in the attempt to prevent more
brownelds to emergealong waterfronts within [..] Rotterdam. . .
(Daamen, 2007: 11).These initial plans foresaw in several rm
relocations to new portareas. In later planning stages these
relocation plans were aban-doned and the transformation of port
areas into housing areaswas reduced. However, according to a survey
by the Chamber ofCommerce of Rotterdam still several port areas are
planned to be-come housing areas (Ecorys, 2006). Currently the
municipality isplanning to build around 5000 houses in the port
area. In contrastto Amsterdam, the total area of the port in
Rotterdam will increasedue to the current development of the second
Maasvlakte which isinitially being developed to accommodate mainly
new containerterminals. This was only agreed upon after lengthy
discussionson environmental and economic impacts and a period of
shortageof space in the port in the 1990s (Gils and van Klijn,
2007; Stevens,1999; Vreeker et al., 2008).
In general terms, the same challenges apply to the other ports
inthe HLH-range and can be seen as a shift to more sustainable
pol-icy, although the timing and intensity of development can be
dif-ferent (City of Le Havre, 2007). In the port of
Hamburg,comparable developments are taking place. Old harbour areas
aretransformed into new vibrant parts of the city centre closely
lo-cated to port activities (Daamen, 2007). The port of
Vlissingenhas difculties in growing further due to a lack of
available landand also due to limited extra noise usage space
(Provincie Zeeland,Gemeente Vlissingen, Gemeente Borsele, 2006;
Scherbeijn, 2007).In Bremen the opportunities to expand the port
area do not exist.In Antwerp, the expansion opportunities in the
existing port areawere limited and also forced a move of the port
towards the sea.This led to the construction of the Deurganck Dok,
dedicated tocontainer handling. This development is comparable to
the Maasv-lakte 2 in Rotterdam, and also this might be the latest
expansionfor the port of Antwerp. The developments in the port of
Amster-dam can also be observed in several other ports in the
HLH-range.neighbourhood of existing port companies is perceived as
a blue-print for problems. This means increased tensions between
livingand port functions. The current housing plans of the City
ofAmsterdam will lead to shorter rental periods for land, which
iscausing companies to rethink their investment plans and may
alsolead (if executed) to an actual reduction of land available to
portactivities.
B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal ofcommunity striving for common
internal and external goals (Oliv-ier and Slack, 2006: 1418). The
once substantial and longstandingsymbiosis between ports and cities
has been eroded (Norcliffeet al., 1996: 125). In the literature,
these developments have,among other things, given rise to a
re-conceptualization of spatialport development and the porturban
interface in particular. Weargue that, because of recent
sustainable spatial policies in West-European city ports, the focus
on the spatial aspects of port devel-opment is imminent again. Our
Amsterdam case shows that thePort Authority in Amsterdam is
stabilizing the amount of land inthe port area available for
expansion of rms, while at the sametime the Municipality has a
substantial target to build houses inthe existing built-up area. In
spatial terms, this means that theexpansion of the port area has
stopped, while the urban housingfrontier is gradually encroaching
on the existing, and now xed,harbour area.
Is Amsterdam a special case in this respect? We do not think
so.First, the development of the Port of Amsterdam shows
greatresemblance with the stages in the Anyport-model and
theoreticalnotions on waterfront developments. Second, our
(limited) surveyamong other ports in the HLH-range suggests that
Amsterdam isnot a unique case. In several port cities there is an
emerging con-ict between the city and the post in the interface,
although thesehave different backgrounds. Also, various ports are
facing difcul-ties in expanding the port area. Therefore it seems
that the era ofunproblematic port expansion has ended. However,
some portsstill expand (such as Rotterdam), but they encounter
similarchanges in the portcity interface suggesting that we are
dealingwith a more general development. The question that emerges
is:Are we now entering a new phase in port developments which isnot
included in existing models? And if so, which model is best sui-ted
to be expanded? Or, should we develop a whole new model?
We argue that a model is needed in which both the
spatialdevelopments of the port and concepts about the porturban
inter-face are present. The Anyport-model of Bird, as a
chronological andlinear succession of development phases, is an
adequate startingpoint, but lacks the possibility to integrate the
problematic aspectsof the porturban interface because this disturbs
the linear succes-sion of the historically-distinct development
phases. On the otherhand, the concept about the porturban interface
which mainly fo-cuses on waterfront developments lacks the spatial
component (animportant exception is Hayuth, 1982). Therefore, we
propose amodel in which the morphological development and the
changingporturban interface are combined, and which is an extension
ofthe evolutionary model by Norcliffe et al. (1996) as shown inFig.
1. For this we assume that there is a normal and natural
pro-gression from Birds Anyport-model to the later portcity
interfacemodels. Although these models have different theoretical
andempirical backgrounds, the portcity interface analysis is
logicallyan outcome of the sequences of port changes that Bird
describedespecially in a morphological and spatial sense.
Essential in this proposed extended Norcliffe et al. model
(seeFig. 6) is that the symbiosis that existed during the rst
phasesof the Anyport-model (t1 and t2 in Fig. 6) and the successive
periodin which older port areas were abandoned by port companies
andwaterfront redevelopments took place (t3 in Fig. 6) have
nowpassed, and have been replaced by a zone in which there is a
con-ict between different kinds of land use. In t2 the port and the
citybecame increasingly functionally separated and in t3 they also
be-came geographically separated. In these phases, the port form
stillfollowed the port function. Port regulation was increasing in
thisphase, especially non-core port regulation (such as
environmentalregulation). In t4 (the present situation) the
geographical separa-tion disappears, while the functional
separation remains, whichbasically causes the current conicts. We
do not claim that t3was a period without conict (see for instance:
Kilian and Dodson,
sport Geography 19 (2011) 575583 5811996: Foster, 1999; Hoyle,
2000), but that the conict was ratherpassive, in the sense that the
conict was about how the redevelop-ment should take place. In t4
however, the conict is aboutwhether
-
Bird, J., 1963. The Major Seaports of the United Kingdom.
Hutchinson of London,London.
terf
ranany active redevelopment should take place. It is not a
conict be-tween proposed new types of land uses on vacant harbour
sites,but a conict between the existing land use as a port and
proposedcity land uses (mainly housing). In this phase, it is
increasingly dif-cult for port form to follow the development of
the port functionespecially when there is no downstream expansion
as in the Any-port-model. Instead, there appears to be a
problematic urban fron-tier, which is steadily moving into the
older parts of still active andvibrant harbour areas. This also
implies that port regulation isincreasingly harming the port
development, because the port reg-ulation is inuenced by the
sharpened societal regulation (envi-ronmental-but also labour
regulations). It appears that portregulation is slowly starting to
inuence port form and port func-
Fig. 6. Proposed new spatial model for the portcity in
582 B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of Ttion in a limiting
way.It remains to be seen if the linear succession of phases with
an
increasing port area with downstream locations has come to
anend. Our survey of port companies, policy makers and port
author-ities show that in some ports the expansion of the port area
contin-ues (for example Rotterdam), while in others it is slowing
down orhas stopped (for example Amsterdam). Irrespective of the
growthof the port area, the t4 phase can be recognized in most
ports. Thisimplies that the city is expanding more rapidly into the
direction ofthe port, than the port moves away from the city. In
other wordsthe main spatial driving force in the city-port
interface in t4 isthe city, whereas in t1t3 this was the port. In
this respect, it seemsthat the global forces (mainly changing
transport and logistics con-cepts) that were predominantly
responsible for the growth of theports in t2 and t3 are now losing
to local forces within the citywhich are steered by planning and
sustainability paradigms. Theseparadigms also are responsible for
policies which are bringing theareal growth of the port to a halt.
These local forces were not ab-sent in the t3 period (for instance,
see Pinder, 1981; Hoyle, 1995)but were not powerful enough to be
successful. This situationhas now changed in the t4 period.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the BSIK programme for
partlynancing this project, the Port of Amsterdam for its
cooperation inthe project that led to this article, and the port
businesses whichagreed to be interviewed. Thanks also go to Pito
Dingemanse, JanBird, J., 1971. Seaports and Seaport Terminals.
Hutchinson & Co., London.Bongenaar, A., Malone, P., 1996.
Amsterdam: the waterfront in the 1990s. In:
Malone, P. (Ed.), City, Capital and Water. Routledge, London,
pp. 240260.Bruttomesso, R. (Ed.), 1993. Waterfronts: a new frontier
for cities on Water.
International Centre Cities on Water, Venice.Charlier, J., 1992.
The regeneration of old port areas for new port uses. In:
Hoyle,Egbertsen (both of the Port of Amsterdam) and two
anonymousreferees for their helpful comments and suggestions on an
earlierversion of the article and to Itziar Lasa for her assistance
in makingthe maps and graphics.
References
ace Source: authors, inspired by Norcliffe et al. (1996).
sport Geography 19 (2011) 575583B.S., Pinder, D.A. (Eds.),
European Port Cities in Transition. Bellhaven Press,London, pp.
137154.
City of Le Havre (Lead partner), 2007. Plan the City with the
Port. Strategies forRedeveloping CityPort Linking Spaces. Guide of
Good Practice. City of Le Havre,Le Havre.
Daamen, T., 2007. Sustainable Development of the European
portCity Interface. In:Paper Presented at the ENHR-Conference. June
2528 in Rotterdam.
Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening, Haven Amsterdam, 2009. Haven-Stad,
drievergezichten voor de westelijke IJ-oevers. Dienst Ruimtelijke
Ordening andHaven Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Ecorys, 2006. Inventarisatie van herbestemde en bedreigde
bedrijventerreinen.Kamer van Koophandel Rotterdam, Rotterdam.
Ferrari, C., Parola, F., Morchio, E., 2006. Southern European
ports and the spatialdistribution of EDCs. Maritime Economics &
Logistics 8 (1), 6081.
Foster, J., 1999. Docklands. Cultures in Conict, Words in
Collision. UCL Press,London.
Gemeente Amsterdam, 2003. Bedrijfslocaties in Amsterdam
2003.Ontwikkelingsbedrijf Amsterdam, Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf,
DienstEconomische Zaken and Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening,
Amsterdam.
GemeenteAmsterdam,2009.Bedrijfslocaties
inAmsterdam2003.OntwikkelingsbedrijfAmsterdam, Gemeentelijk
Havenbedrijf, Dienst Economische Zaken & DienstRuimtelijke
Ordening, Amsterdam.
Gilijamse, R., Bonke, H., Moes, J. Kurpershoek, E., 2009. De
haven van Amsterdam.Zeven eeuwen ontwikkeling. Amsterdam,
Uitgeverij Thoth Bussum and HavenAmsterdam.
Gils, M., van Klijn, E.H., 2007. Complexity in decision making:
the case of theRotterdam harbour expansion. Connecting decisions,
arenas and actors inspatial decision making. Planning Theory &
Practice 8 (2), 139159.
Hall, P., 1991. Waterfronts: A new urban frontier. Institute of
Urban and RegionalDevelopment, University of California, Berkeley
(working paper 538).
Amsterdam, Haven., 2009. Slimme Haven, Havenvisie Gemeente
Amsterdam 20082020. Haven Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Hayuth, Y., 1982. The porturban interface: an area in
transition. Area 14 (3), 219224.
Hayuth, Y., 1988. Changes on the waterfront: a model based
approach. In: Hoyle,B.S., Pinder, D.A., Husain, M.S. (Eds.),
Revitalising the Waterfront: The
-
International Dimensions of Docklands Redevelopment. Belhaven
Press,London.
Hoyle, B.S., 1989. The portcity interface. Trends, problems and
examples.Geoforum 20 (4), 429435.
Hoyle, B., 1995. A shared space. Contrasted perspectives on
urban waterfrontredevelopment in Canada. Town Planning Review 66
(4), 345369.
Hoyle, B., 2000. Global and local change on the portcity
waterfront. TheGeographical Review 90 (3), 395417.
Kilian, D., Dodson, B., 1996. Between the devil and the Dead
Blue Sea: functionalconicts
inCapeTownsVictoriaandAlfredWaterfront.Geoforum27(4), 495507.
Marshall, R. (Ed.), 2001. Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities.
Spon Press, London.Meyer, H., 1999. City and Port. Transformation
of Port Cities London, Barcelona,
New York, Rotterdam. International Books, Utrecht.Morris,
R.K.A., Gibson, G., 2007. Port development and nature
conservation
experiences in England between 1994 and 2005. Ocean & Coast
Management 50(56), 443462.
Norcliffe, G., Basset, K., Hoare, T., 1996. The emergence of
postmodernism on theurban waterfront. Geographical perspectives on
changing relationships. Journalof Transport Geography 4 (2),
123134.
Notteboom, T.E., 1997. Concentration and load centre development
in the Europeancontainer port system. Journal of Transport
Geography 5 (2), 99115.
Olivier, D., Slack, B., 2006. Rethinking the port. Environment
and Planning A 38 (8),14091427.
Pinder, D.A., 1981. Community attitude as a limiting factor in
port growth: the caseof Rotterdam. In: Hoyle, B.S., Pinder, D.A.
(Eds.), Cityport Industrialization and
Regional Development: Spatial Analysis and Planning Strategies.
PergamonPress, Oxford and New York.
Provincie Zeeland, Gemeente Vlissingen, Gemeente Borsele, 2006.
Beleidsregelzonebeheersysteem Industrieterrein Vlissingen-Oost,
Middelburg, ProvincieZeeland.
Scherbeijn, A., 2007. Concept Redelijke Sommatie, 27 maart 2007,
Middelburg.Provincie Zeeland.
Robinson, R., 1984. Industrial strategies and port development
in developingcounties: the Asian case. Tijdschrift voor Economische
en Sociale Geograe 76(2), 133143.
Robinson, R., 2002. Ports as elements in value-driven chain
systems: the newparadigm. Maritime Policy and Management 29 (3),
241255.
Roo, G. de, 2003. Environmental planning in the Netherlands: too
good to be true.From command and control planning to shared
governance. Aldershot, UK,Ashgate.
Stevens, H., 1999. The International Position of Seaports. An
InternationalComparison. Kluwer Acadamic Publishers,
Dodrecht/Boston/London.
TU Delft, OTB 2007. Quick-scan; de terminalkeuze van reders.
Delft: TU Delft, OTB.Vreeker, R., Nijkamp, P., van Ansem, I., van
Ierland, I., 2008. Ports in international
networks. A multicriteria evaluation of policy options for
accommodatinggrowth. In: Giaoutzy, M., Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), Network
Strategies in Europe.Developing the Future for Transport and ICT.
Ashgate, Aldershot (UK), pp. 239258.
Zoest, R. van (Ed.), 2005. De Amsterdamse Haven 12752005.
Uitgeverij DeVerbeelding, Amsterdam.
B.W. Wiegmans, E. Louw / Journal of Transport Geography 19
(2011) 575583 583
Changing portcity relations at Amsterdam: A new phase at the
interface?IntroductionPort development and the portcity
interfaceThe Port of Amsterdam: development and policiesSpatial
policy: a limited supply of landEnvironmental policy: more strict
environmental regulationsTransport Policy: improving
accessibility
Business viewpoint on port form, function, and regulationPort
formPort functionPort regulation
The development in other port cities in the HamburgLe Havre
rangeConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences