The goal of the congress is quite ambitious, since this year the AIVP celebrates its 30th anniversary, presenting the opportunity to asses the evaluation of port-city policies. At the same time, 2017 was the 30th anniversary of the 1987 Brundtland Report that presented the based on which most research and governance initiatives on Sustainable Development (SD) have been based on. The AIVP conferences is an excellent opportunity to understand how can port cities contribute to SD and can we develop sustainable port-city relationships. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) provide a base on which scholars and practitioners will work on and discuss, updating the Charter for Sustainable Development of Port Cities presented in the AIVP World Conference from Sydney 2006.
Special Waterfront Session during the 25th APDR Congress
Workshop in Naples “Cities from the Sea, City-port System and the Waterfront as Common”
During spring time, another opportunity to discuss the port-city relation will be in Naples, the 4th International Workshop “Cities from the Sea, City-port System and the Waterfront as Common“, chaired by Prof. Massimo Clementi. This workshop, is destined to participants from different disciplines as architects, planners, psychologist,students, who are concerned with port-cit-sea relationship. The event will take place in April 16-21. The new deadline for the application is March 21st, and the fee is 100€. PhD researchers, architects and community psychologists will be guiding the work groups, bridging theory and practice. Naples is a complex port-city, with a cultural historical palimpsest and a topography characterized by the Mount Vesuvious. The port plays an important role in the city’s economy, and hosts all possible sectors, from cruises to shipyards, including different cargo terminals. The students will work on three specific areas, proposing new scenarios based on sustainable development.
PhD Symposium Interfaces in the Built Environment. Bridging Technology and Culture in the Baltic Sea Region
In April 16, will take place the PhD Symposium “Interfaces in the Built Environment. Bridging Technology and Culture in the Baltic Sea Region“. The event will be hosted in the Hafencity University in Hamburg, chaired by Prof. Annette Bögle, and continues the work developed for the Balttic International Summer School (BISS), providing a multidisciplinary approach on urban development problems. The symposium is free of charge, and although it is limited to 25 participants, it will be interesting to share different approaches to common urban problems. Colleagues from the HCU, such as Elida Ríos, will present their current research on waterfront public spaces. The scientific committee is formed by professors from Baltic port cities such as Gdansk or Helsinki. As we have discussed several times during the research, north European countries follow the Hanseatic port governance model, in which the municipality has a stronger and more direct connection with the port authority. The symposium could be an opportunity to do discuss differences between north and south, but also between east and west, since the former soviet countries have key historical differences with the German or Danish scenarios, possibly visible in port cities.
The AIVP hosts every two years the Word Conference Cities and Ports (WCCP). This is the biggest event in the world about port cities, bringing together politicians, managers, academics, professionals and even students to discuss this issue. This year’s edition is titled “Next Generation”, and it will focus on the port-city of the future and we want to craft the relation between port and city.
Quebec is the port city that will host the 16th edition of the WCCP, between the 11th and 14th of June 2018. This event is being prepared in collaboration with the Port Authority of Quebec. During the conference we will have the opportunity to discuss the different issues affecting the port-city relationship, building on the work developed in Rotterdam in 2016 and following a similar structure.
The conference gives the opportunity to send contributions that later can be included in the program either as poster or presentations. It is an excellent opportunity to give disclosure to any kind of project that contributes to a new kind of port-city interaction, heading towards sustainable development. In the WCCP website is a list of key topics that will be discussed, that can also work as an inspiration to write the contribution. The deadline is, for the moment, December 11th.
In 2018 the AIVP will also celebrate their 30th anniversary. The organization was created in 1988 in Le Havre, were is still based, led by the former mayor of this french city Mr. Antoine Rufenacht. During these 30 years the AIVP has continuously worked as a platform for dialogue and collaboration between the different actors that craft the port-city relationship. Before next year’s edition of the WCCP, this event has been hosted in some of the greatest port cities around the world such as Rotterdam, Durban, Buenos Aires, Lisbon or Sydney to name a few. Besides these major conferences, the AIVP also has also developed a broader program, with different actions, from annual meetings, to study trips or policy and planning recommendations. However, in the mean time, the relationship between port and city has evolved. New technologies and governance models have reignited the debate.
The Quebec conference is also a great opportunity to discuss the future of the AIVP and what are the topics to be considered for the next 30 years. The quest for a sustainable port-city relationship is not closed project, but an open process, subject to continued changes and innovations. The Sustainable Development Goals, set by the UN, are a good reference of the kind of society we want. The 16th WCCP gives an opportunity to discuss the next generation of the port cities and the what this new generation will demand from the AIVP.
During the last couple of months it was difficult to find time to craft an article worth posting. Finally the third piece explaining the evolution of the port-city relation in Lisbon is here.
Portugal was in a complex political situation after the end of the dictatorship in 1974. The carnations revolution brought democracy to the country, a period also known as the 3rd republic, but the socio-political situation was yet unclear. Until the political climate settled the major economic decisions remained unaltered.
During the early 1980s the country was still in a unstable socio-economic situation. For this reason it was forced to ask for a loan from the IMF, who intervened twice in these years, in 1978 and 1983. Portugal joined the EEC (European Economic Community) in 1986, along with other south-European countries like Spain and Greece. The arrival of European funding allowed important investments, particularly in infrastructure.
Port evolution during the 1970s and 1980s
The changes taking place on a global scale in the maritime sector also affected the port and industrial development in Lisbon. The introduction of new technologies, i.e. the container, changed many port dynamics and the space the port required. During these decades, 1970s and 1980s, the port saw the creation of new container terminals adapted to the new cargo. The two main examples were the terminal of Sta. Apolónia and the one in Alcântara. Sta Apolónia terminal opened in 1970, it was the first infrastructure dedicated to containers in the Iberian peninsula. The facility in Alcântara was inaugurated in 1985. According to Nabais & Ramos (1987), this terminal was severely deteriorated in the 1960. The AGPL (Administração Geral do Porto de Lisboa) decided to invest on it and prepared for containers.
During these decades other port facilities were created. Particularly relevant were the new silos for bulk cargo, linked with several industries, such as concrete manufacturers, agri-food companies, mainly dedicated to cereal derivatives or liquid bulk. The new infrastructure caused an important visual impact in the estuary, but increased the throughput of this type of cargo. This investment helped the port of Lisbon to become the leading port in cereal bulk cargo in the Iberian context.
At the same time these investments were taking place the maritime business was changing, causing transformations in the port-city relation, world-wide and obviously also in Lisbon. The port and industrial activities of large conglomerates diminished drastically. These industrial settlements, located on the eastern section of the city and the south side of the Tagus, developed during previous decades, originated large urban voids and brownfields. As in other port-cities there was a process of socio-economical decay in the urban areas linked with port and industrial activities. (Figueira de Sousa and Fernandes, 2012)
The social perception of the river and the port management model also changed during these years. People demanded an access to the Tagus, and the Port Authority (hereafter PA), like many other worldwide, changed to a landlord port functioning scheme after 1995 (Cabral, 2001). Later, in 1998, also following international port governance trends, the PA became a public owned company, (Administração do Porto de Lisboa – APL S.A). The economic and technological changes along with the increasing social pressure to get a free river accessibility, motivated a compendium of planning initiatives, led by different stakeholders, that changed the port-city-river relationship.
The most relevant issues for the current investigation is the evolution of the initiatives concerned with the use of the waterfront, and the development of new infrastructure testing the port-city relationship. During the late 1980s and early 1990s the attention towards the use of the waterfront for public areas and facilities started to rise. We will see how the situation changed drastically when compared with the previous decades. Four key processes took place almost simultaneously, we will briefly comment them and see what role did the PA played. The consequences caused by these planning initiatives marked the PA scope for the following decades, pointing out an institutional rigidity process.
Many planning initiatives with different results
During the second half of the 20th century, particularly since the 1980s, several private projects were developed along the railway barrier, on the city side. These new constructions gradually changed the programs of these buildings, from industrial to office and housing, although they were not part of any general plan nor considered the connection with the river a relevant goal. The new buildings were simply answering to market needs and city development, gradually increasing the urban pressure over the port (Costa, 2006). Simultaneously, there was a growing interest on the historical value of certain heritage buildings near the river, related with former port activities. This attention can be seen in the refurbishment project of “Casa dos Bicos” (op.cit. 2006).
Changes in the maritime sector and in the industrial tissue had left abandoned areas on the waterfront, affecting the general image. These spaces were seen as an opportunity. National and municipal (hereafter CML) governments, and port authorities, were interested in the waterfront regeneration. During this period we will see several parallel plans taking place at the same time, with different leading figures. For the scope of this research we will only focus on the ones directly affecting the waterfront, requiring negotiation with the PA.
The first relevant moment was the 1988 competition, organized by the Architectural Association and supported by different public bodies, including the PA. Besides this event, in this chapter we will mainly discuss the plans of the EXPO 1998, the POZOR and the 1990s municipal strategic and City development plans – PDM (Plano Director Municipal).
One of the most interesting characteristic of this period is the evolution of the port’s role, both internally and in relation with the society. Several authors have highlighted how, inspired by the international waterfront regeneration trends and to find financing for new port infrastructure, the PA deviated from its original focus to be more concerned with urban planning issues (Matias Ferreira, 1997, 1999; Ressano Garcia, 2006; Costa, 2006; Rego Cabral, 2001). This attitude change earned the port strong criticism from different sectors of society, claiming that it was going beyond its realm and accusing it from privatizing public territory, since the PA was only authorized to rent or lease port land, not to sell it for tertiary redevelopment projects (Ressano Garcia, Op. Cit)
First waterfront redevelopment initiatives – “Lisboa, a Cidade e o Rio” competition – 1988
Most scholars agree that the definitive moment for the new approach towards the waterfront and the river-city relationship occurred in 1988, when the competition “Lisboa, a Cidade e o Rio” (Lisbon, the city and the river) took place. This event organized by the Architectural Association (AA) and supported by the PA, had the goal of providing ideas for the riverfront, admitting the presence of the port, and mostly to raise a debate about the connection between the city and the river.
The Tagus has always been considered the key identity element for Lisbon. It has been the inspiration for artists from different times, and welcomed kings from foreign countries. It was one of the key reasons for the original settlement by the Phoenicians, and provided transport, protection, work and food. The main public space of the city, the Praça do Comércio, opens up to the water and in the social psyche there is a certain false nostalgia for the free access to the river, something that never really happened, at least the way most residents picture it (Morgado, 2005). During the 20th century the separation between the city and the river increased, due to the presence of industrial activities that, as we have seen in previous chapters, blocked the visual connection or turned the riverfront into an inhospitable space. The new port landfills progressively changed the “face” of Lisbon creating a new artificial territory, increasing the distance between both.
Gradually, during the second half of the 20th century, the water, rivers and seas, gained a new role in the city´s urban structure, a phenomenon taking place worldwide. There was a new perception, and therefore economic use of water, as an identity and landscape element that could increase the property´s value (Ward, 2011). New waterfront projects were often created around the contact with the water, seen it as strong development concept, and possibly as an asset to increase the profitability of the real estate operation. The examples known at the time often included new leisure facilities, office building or housing. Several projects in the USA and Europe showed a new image for “water cities”, based on what is often considered the urban post-fordist society (Olivier & Slack, 2006; Schubert, 2011). The new international waterfront image, the partial decadence of some port areas, an intense cultural program and the interest of several stakeholders, such as the PA and the AA, raises the awareness of local residents and created an interesting debate about this issue.
In the introduction of the competition´s publication (Brandão, 1988) the innovative character of the competition is clear. In this text there are several relevant statements. The author points out, as one of 6 key premises, the port activity as inseparable from the city, in a certain way appealing to the necessary coexistence between both realities.
“A actividade portuária é cidade – elemento indissociável da centralidade que a cidade oferece, pode rentabilizar a cidade com a sua própria vitalidade.”
Brandão (3: 1988)
Further on he also describes the riverfront as both 15 km of conflict and a key element of the urban and metropolitan structure for the connection with hinterland, Europe and the Iberian peninsula. In the same text Brandão also highlights the variety of layers existing in this port-city interface, including cultural and heritage elements, relevant economic activities and important landscape features.
In the competition 23 proposals were presented. The final statement of the jury indicates that none of the competitors was fully aware of the technical aspect necessary to include the port activity in their proposals. Therefore, the majority of the projects worked in idealized scenarios in which the port activities were either not considered or oversimplified. Only one proposal, from Arch. Manuel Bastos, was considered to have potential influence in the future planning of port activities. Another important entry was the one presented by Gravata Filipe. His project was focused on Cais do Sodré, and was later further developed to include commercial areas and housing in this area. In this work, mostly in the later development, the influence of American and British waterfront projects was clear. Several companies and the PA were later interested in the further development of the project, but never became a reality.
The competition played an important role, raising considerable media attention. It set the foundation over which the debate about the riverfront and the port would be built. Some ideas were later retaken or included in other plans, however the main issue of the port-city coexistence was not addressed. Although this competition was sponsored by the PA, the CML was also very present. Later both organizations would develop separate visions over the same problem, deepening the conflict. One particular plan that we will later see, the POZOR, damaged PA´s public image, and by association of port activities.
To conclude this section, when we observe the project areas, the issues they tried to solve and the images of the sites, we see that not much changed during the following years, although there was a strong debate. The first important intervention would start in the early 1990s, being inaugurated in 1998, the World Expo, in the eastern section of the city. Some priority areas, as stated in the competition catalogue, were gradually improved, although, some of them, only today are being completely developed, after years of discussion and frustrated attempts.
First major plans – 1990s
The idea competition brought a new vision of what could take place in Lisbon´s waterfront. The following years we would see different initiatives taking place, sponsored by different public bodies. The national government, responsible for the PA, developed different projects and plans with an international reach, and massive public investment. The waterfront was rediscovered by the municipality, and mostly by the people. There are several examples of the transformation process taking place at the time.
Centro Cultural de Belém (CCB)
In 1987 the plan for the regeneration of Belém, by Prof. Costa Lobo, was focused on the area where the 1940 Expo took place. This section of the city had several urban voids from the exhibition and required a general plan for its regeneration. In this plan was included the CCB project.
In the same plan for Belém, the burial of railway lines was suggested. This issue would be discussed several times during the following decades in the different planning initiatives that affected the waterfront.
After Portugal was accepted in the EEC, it was in charge of hosting the commission presidency in 1992. This event was used as motivation to promote the creation of new large public building, with a cultural scope. The location for this new facility was in Belém, in a sensible place, next to the Jerónimos monastery and the railway line. The competition for the new facility took place in 1988, for a site of 5 Ha. Several well-known archistars competed to develop the project, in total 53 proposals were presented, being the final winner the team formed by Gregotti and Risco Ateliê (the office led by Manuel Salgado, current urban development responsible in the municipality).
The design included five sections connected with an interior street that would link the Praça do Império to Belém Tower. The project´s geometry and the sensible location raised considerable discussion and controversy, particularly among certain sectors of society, that considered the new building an aggression to the monastery, a protected monument (França, 1997).
This case, although built in municipal land, not port land, was one of the first major intervention on the waterfront, implementing cultural programs and trying to develop a connection with the river through its elevated public space (Pagés Sanchez, 2011). The controversy already indicated how delicate the riverfront is for the local society and how any intervention would be closely examined.
From the five elements that composed the project, two remained unbuilt, including a congress centre and hotel. The proposal´s completion has remained in municipal masterplans and detail and sector plans. No specific deadlines have been set, and other cultural projects on the waterfront have been developed in the meantime.
Portugal was, at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, a country aching to achieve international recognition and establish a fast development process to match its European partners. The country needed to show a new image to distance itself from the dictatorship times, and overcome the existing challenges. Spain, the Iberian neighbour, had successfully applied to host international events that would raise the international profile of two major cities, namely Barcelona with the 1992 Olympics, and Seville with the 1992 Expo.
Hosting international events would also bring funding and generate an opportunity to implement new key infrastructures in Lisbon, allowing it to compete with other cities. The investment required would be justified in terms of image, marketing, tourism generated income, and positive externalities. For the city it was also an opportunity to impulse a transformative process that otherwise would take longer time and face greater difficulties. Although the main driver was the central government, local government appreciated the investment brought by the international exhibition. At the same time, the scale of the intervention would go beyond Lisbon, affecting the entire metropolitan area, the region or even the country.
During the drafting of application, an internal debate took place to decide the best location for the Expo. After much discussion, three options were finally brought to the table by the project committee. The first included a poly-nucleus concept, with several locations spread over the metropolitan area, a second option was the western part of the city, on the boundary between Lisbon and Oeiras. The third option was the eastern section where several declining industries existed. The first option was immediately discarded since it presented several difficulties that could make the event unmanageable. For the final discussion remained two possibilities, both on the waterfront, affecting port territory.
Lisbon has historically suffered an unbalanced urban development, particularly visible in the east-west dichotomy. The western section had an organic development, including the presence of historical monuments that potentiated the identity of this part of the city. In previous chapter we have seen how during the 20th century this section of the city was the first place to undergo an urban waterfront redevelopment plan, increasing its cultural and social profile, with museums and representative buildings. In contrast, the eastern section of the city hosted large industrial settlements and the port expansion for new cargo, such as containers. In the long term, particularly when the industrial activities started to decay, the eastern section became a depressed area, suffering socio-economic problems, poverty among the local residents and chaotic urban development, including slums, large social housing projects and gradually industrial brownfills. In this area we could also find companies from the petrochemical sector, whose activities were no longer considered suitable for the urban environment, presenting diverse hazards (Matias Ferreira, 1999).
The final decision, reached in 1991, was to develop the Expo in the eastern section of the city, on the boundary with Loures, in port territory, that hosted different companies from aforementioned petrochemical sector. The reasoning behind the decision was that it was an opportunity to balance the urban development and impulse a regeneration process in this section, implementing a new centrality that would attract private investment between the city´s downtown and the new development. Also relevant was the presence of logistic infrastructure, close to the airport, railway lines connecting the city with the rest of the country and Spain, and the possibility of integrating a new connection with the south side of the river.
The case of the Expo 98 in Lisbon can be observed from very different perspectives. It has been broadly used as an outstanding example of urban intervention, that brought quality public spaces to the city, new leisure and cultural facilities, unique in the region or even in the country, and a successful real estate scheme, with considerable private investment after the event (Guimarães, 2006). The fast reconversion of the exhibition area into a new element of the urban structure was also considered exemplary, avoiding abandonment situation like it happened in Seville six years earlier. Officials from the municipality and the central government have also, frequently, used the expo to show the Portuguese capacity when competing to host international events, such as the Euro cup in 2004, or international summits, such as the EU meetings. However, the plan and development of this section of the city also had its flaws and negative aspects, or at least less positive issues, that could have been handled differently. In this investigation we will focus on the general urban regeneration process, the effects on the port territory and the role of the PA.
In 1992 Lisbon beat Toronto in the final vote of the BIE (Bureau International de Exhibition). The inauguration date was set for May 1998, implying a fast development process. Given the tight deadlines the government decided to create a new agency, named Parque Expo, that would operate outside the usual urban legislation, and benefited from special capabilities. The area where the exhibition and associated real estate operation would take place was removed from the PDM being drafted at the time. The new public company had total authority for the redevelopment of the area, including building permits. The financial capacity introduced two speeds in Lisbon´s development (Costa, 2006), enabling an unprecedented urban transformation rhythm. 
The government set three main goals (Matias Ferreira, 1997): (i) to reconnect the city with the river, (ii) to impulse the regeneration of this area, and (iii) to develop the plan with no cost for the state, being financed through the real estate scheme for the aftermath, associated to the operation. The first goal was also included in the municipal plans. In this area the Olivais dock, the former maritime airport, was considered a great opportunity to establish a new connection with the river.
The regeneration of the area was complemented with the Plano de Urbanização da Zona Envolvente da Expo 98 (Plan for the surrounding area of the 1998 Expo). This part of the city was already a priority in the new PDM. The social issues present in these neighbourhoods, the lack of public facilities and unbalanced urban developed between east and west was seen as a major problem. Municipal plans considered the regeneration should be based in the “gate” character of this area, that included connections with major transportation chains, such as railway, port and airport. At the same time the redevelopment of the depleted industries was considered, including its consolidation and the construction of new facilities linked with education and investigation. When the expo location was decided, the PDM was modified, and the 350 Ha for the operation given to the new public company. Different authors mention how the original intention was to avoid the “island” effect, that eventually did happen. The connection with the surrounding did not happen as fluently as expected, particularly in the social sense, the contrast between the poor areas and the new modern neighbourhood was, and still is, clear. The pressure to complete the project on schedule has been often used to justify the lack of public consultation that in other conditions would have taken place. At the same time, to achieve the goal of minimal state investment, the real estate scheme favoured luxury housing and higher densities introducing a strong gentrification process.
The site for the expo included a considerable section of port territory. In the law DL 207/93 14th of June the decommission of the land was made official, being the Parque Expo responsible for the compensation to the APL (Matias Ferreira, 1997). When the exhibition was concluded the PA demanded a considerable indemnification for losses, mostly caused by the contract breach with the concessionaries. This operation it is subject of controversies since the compensation from Parque Expo to the APL was never paid, the APL had to carry with the losses. Also, as Castro and Lucas (1997) point out, the port land release took place in a particularly sensitive moment, when the tension between the APL and the municipality was increasing. Being the Parque Expo a government company, not a municipal one, certainly eased the path. However, as the same authors explain, the losses caused by the aforementioned transfer were accounted in 1994 in 65 mill €.
During the application and planning process the role of the PA was rather passive. If the PA would have been owned by the CML there could have been considerable differences. In Portugal the port management model follows what it is known as the Latin tradition, the central government controls all PAs in the country. In the central government agenda, to do an international event in port territory was more important than the port plans or even the compensation payment, that in case it had been paid, could have compromised the operation. In this particular case the centralized port management scheme diminished the possible confrontation. The agreement regarding the port land was made between two government companies.
Comparison with other plans
Particularly interesting is the fact that at the same time the expo process was taking place, the PA was drafting its own waterfront real estate operation, the POZOR (Plano de Ordenamento da Zona Ribeirinha). This plan, that we will later describe in further detail, included the reconversion of a central waterfront section into housing and office buildings. There were several key differences: (i) the location was considerably more sensitive, since it affected a consolidated area of the city, contrasting with the eastern section where the expo was going to take place. Another key difference (ii) was the lack of central government support, being an initiative mostly defended by the PA, with the opposition of the local government and civil society. Another issue (iii) was that, while the expo real estate operation, was developed by a new public company created for the occasion, the PA collaborated with a private corporation, also developing itself the urban plan, a task beyond what was by many accepted as its realm.
Comparing both cases we see that there can be substantial differences when developing a waterfront plan, pending on the national port system and who are the operation´s main drivers. In this case, as it is said in the official documents (Mega Ferreira et al., 1999), the national ownership of the port authority was considered an advantage, avoiding possible conflicts. In the POZOR, the situation was exactly the opposite, social confrontation was present since the beginning. There was no clear political back up to the project and the confrontation eventually stopped the plan.
POZOR and Port Plans
The riverfront competition supported by the PA brought considerable media and social attention to the relation between the port, the city and the river. In the international context, more cities were implementing waterfront development plans. In two American cities, Baltimore and Boston, the first major plans took place. During the 1980s several port-cities in Europe redeveloped their urban waterfront, including the famous case of London, with a liberal approach, and others that followed a concept more focused on public spaces, housing or new leisure areas (Schubert, 2011). As it happened with every planning tendency, it expanded, reaching Portugal and inspiring the PA to act in a certain manner.
The gradual decrease in port activities during the 1970s and 1980s, forced the PA to reassess its role and evaluate the port territory, identifying where were the active port facilities, and what land could be destined to other uses (Figueira de Sousa and Fernandes, 2012). During early 1990s, the PA saw its role and influence diminished by the ambitions of the central government to do the 1998 Expo. For the PA losing control over the Expo territory meant releasing almost 20% of its land and seen how the petrochemical cargo handling was transferred to Sines, both issues were a significant for the APL. At this point the PA decided to elaborate an strategic plan to answer the contextual changes.
In this investigation we will focus on the process and reactions the plan caused, just as we have done with previous documents. There are other investigations developed by well known scholars that enter into further detail, and that have been broadly referenced in this paper.
Before the POZOR the PA already realized it was necessary to change its attitude towards the city. The growing pressure and the option of gaining certain revenues from the waterfront regeneration became a strong motivation. After the competition that took place in 1988, one of the proposals received considerable attention. The project presented by Gravata Filipe included the redevelopment of waterfront between Cais do Sodré and Praça do Comércio. His project offered a new commercial vision for this area, including a shopping centre. (Ressano Garcia, 2006).
Gravata Filipe partnered with British architect David Colley to further develop the project into a more concrete plan. The project affected 2,5 km of the riverfront, stretching from Santos to Sta. Apolónia, the historical central section, including land from the PA, the municipality and the central state. With a strong commercial approach, influenced by the British examples, the plan included several key ideas that later would be again discussed and some implemented. The most relevant ones were the vertical transport node and the road tunnel to solve the barrier effect in this section. The first one was later developed, including the connection between trains and ferries with the subway, while the second, although often discussed, was never built (Costa, 2006).
This proposal marked the beginning of a new approach towards the waterfront and its commercial value. The PA saw an opportunity to satisfy the public demand of greater access to the water, avoid possible social conflict and profit from the land, that later could be reinvested in the development of a new container terminal on the south side of the Tagus. One of the most relevant aspects of this proposal was bringing together different actors to negotiate about a concrete plan. As Costa (op. Cit.) mentions, the sensitive location also caused considerable debate, somehow giving a continuation to what had taken place some years earlier. During the second half of the 1990s the argument about this particular section would continue, even seen the creation of an ad-hoc company for its redevelopment, including the tunnel. As said before the tunnel would not be built, the transport node would be developed years after, and finally the public space would be designed twice.
Strategic Plan 1992
Simultaneously to the Project for Cais do Sodré, the PA had taken a pro-active role and decided to do the first strategic plan to establish a development course for the port. Following the public debate and the evolution seen in the international context, it seemed inevitable to potentiate port development on the south side of the river and consider the waterfront regeneration on the north.
In the port strategic plan, developed between 1990 and 1992, the pro-active approach implied the construction of a new container terminal on the south side, in Trafaria, and further waterfront regeneration on the north side. According to Costa (2006), the main issue was not the construction of new terminals, but the way it was proposed, linking Trafaria with Bugio Fort, an island in the middle of the river’s mouth. The environmental impact of this project, and the opposing local government of Almada, presented the first controversy. The strategic plan later evolved into a more concrete plan, the POZOR, published in 1994. This new document would create unprecedented tensions in the port-city-citizens relationship.
The POZOR was presented to the public in June 1994, proposing to restructure the complete waterfront, from Algés until to the Expo, giving 12 km of riverfront to the city. The commercial approach was clear, following in some areas a similar scheme to the one introduced by Gravata Filipe.
One of the characteristics of the plan was the dense construction for certain areas, influenced by the British model. It organized the waterfront in six different sections, each one treated differently; at the same time catalogued the existing buildings, either to be kept, refurbished or demolished. The new buildings would totalize 450 000 m2 between Sto. Amaro and Alcântara, and 160 000 m2 in Rocha Conde d’Óbidos – Santos. Included in the plan was the construction of a new shopping mall with 82 000 m2 in Cais do Sodré, by Multi Development Corporation International (MCDI) (Ressano Garcia: 71, 2007).
The public discussion process was particularly interesting. The project was presented with a public exhibition including a large model and plans, an innovative approach, particularly coming from an organization such as the PA. There were several debate sessions for public participation, taking place in a representative placement like the Alcântara cruise terminal.
Since the plan became public it faced fierce opposition, not just from the civil society or NIMBY movements, but also from reputed specialists from architecture, landscape architecture and urban planning. Social figures from the media and popular intellectuals supported the opposition movement, reaching large press coverage, taking the conflict to a previously unseen polemic. Also in the political sphere the POZOR did not counted with much support. The mayor at the time, Jorge Sampaio, rejected the proposal of the PA, claiming that the port land recovered for urban uses should be planned for the city’s general good (Costa, 2006). This author explains how the discussion reached the national political debate, being even argued whether the planning capabilities of the port ought to be limited.
The massive social contestation forced the PA to retract itself immediately and offer an alternative. In 1995 a second version of the plan was presented, removing the new planned construction and the real estate operation, focusing on new public spaces for the city. The plan kept the same scheme, dividing the waterfront into six different sections, with 4 different vectors (buildings, connections, parking and zoning). The main point was to study each case without proceeding to large scale transformations.
Another difference to the previous POZOR was the collaboration between public organizations. If in the former plan the PA practically operated by itself, cooperating with private companies, for the new document it established an intense dialogue process with the municipality.
Short after the new plan was presented, a new board took charge. Cabral, the new head of the board, stated the PA would, from that point on, focus on port development (Matias Ferreira, 1997)
Finally, the POZOR 2 was never concluded, but, as with other plans in Lisbon on the 20th century, it guided several PA’s waterfront interventions. Although in this second version the public space and leisure facilities had an important role, the trust of the local residents in the PA never recovered. The results of the plan were mainly visible in the western section of the waterfront, where a new access to the river was created, including green areas. In Santo Amaro former warehouses were refurbished to host restaurants and clubs. Several parking and marinas were also developed. In 1995 the APL and CML began to cooperate, mainly for the redevelopment of certain public spaces and connections, particularly in the western section, from Cais do Sodré until Algés, including three priority interventions and identifying 11 crossings in different levels (Craveiro & Soares, 1997), some of which several were built.
Personal Comment on the POZOR Process – Institutional Framework
The POZOR is an interesting case to analyse the repercussions of path dependency, institutional plasticity and social expectations. In this article we have seen how the PA intended to act beyond what we can strictly consider its core activities, i.e. port activities management. The formal institutional framework gave the PA the capabilities to draft urban development plans, in the legislation it is indicated that it would be allowed to manage its territory beyond the port activities, including leisure or cultural programs. With this plan the PA saw the opportunity to do an “all around” operation, theoretically creating positive externalities to all the involved stakeholders.
The financing of the new terminal in Trafaria was connected to the real estate operation on the northern side of the river. As we have seen, the main intervention was between Cais do Sodré and Alcântara, curiously an area without any relevant public spaces on the port level, and with a strong infrastructural barrier, including a bright avenue and the railway line. The city should also benefit from this operation since the new waterfront would theoretically be open for all the citizens, increasing the public riverfront area. The issues before described, lack of public and green spaces, visual impact and possible gentrification, were the main drawbacks.
The process of institutional plasticity and change, as explained by Buitelaar et al. (2012) implies a complex succession of factors, that eventually leads to an institutional change. In the case of Lisbon we can actually see the reverse process. Although the institutional framework allowed the PA to execute the plan it proposed, since it was entirely within its territorial boundaries, the social context along with certain planning decisions, triggered a reverse procedure in which, instead of institutional plasticity, institutional rigidity took place. The general society had created specific expectations for the PA role, the riverfront and the relation between the river and the city. The PA was seen as a non-democratic organization, pending from the central government, with a very specific function, in charge of managing a specific territory for a certain function, port activities (Matias Ferreira, 1997). In other words we could say there was a certain expectation, a path dependency, not decided by the PA or the port community but by the social image of this particular body. On the other hand, the process started in 1988, concerning the relation between the city and the river, created a certain desire among the inhabitants, to gain an access to the river, seen as the key identity element of the city. The proposals presented in the competitions privileged this point of view. The municipal plans were also drafted in this direction.
The timing, location and scope of the POZOR also affected its fate negatively. There was already a significant waterfront regeneration process taking place in the city, the Expo, that hindered the possible institutional support from the national government. The municipality was already “left out” of the Expo process, due to the creation of the Parque Expo, therefore there was a precedent distrust. This corporation, created by the central government, had, as we have seen, supra-municipal powers, similar to the PA, and operated above the traditional urban planning scheme. The priority for the central government was the success of the Expo, therefore the support for the POZOR was compromised from the start.
The location also presented issues. We have seen how this central section of the waterfront has stronger roots in Lisbon´s history, hence any intervention could easily awake certain sensibilities. On the opposite side, the EXPO was on the eastern part of the city, where the urban tissue was not (and still is not) so consolidated. Any intervention here would imply less discussion or protest.
Finally the plan´s character and design principles were unfitted for the context. The influence of British plans for urban waterfronts, which often included dense real estate operations, affected the POZOR negatively, passing an image of a strong gentrification development, in an area for which the local population had higher expectations. It is important to consider that, in general terms, the civil society, might well not understand the issues of planning boundaries, been an apparent continuum, therefore a strong image can easily be created. The density and program of the first draft triggered the social protest we have seen. Curiously, the process was innovative and could be considered a positive example for its participatory nature. Although the public discussion did not provided the positive feedback expected by the PA, it did set an interesting example for future planning initiatives.
The bricoleurs, the actors that in Buitelaar et al. (2012) model would pressure to change the institutional framework, in this case did the opposite, pressuring politicians and decision makers to install a process of institutional rigidity, reducing the PA planning powers. In this context we could say the PA´s path dependency harmed its expectations of acting beyond its usual realm, and finding an extra financing resource for other port infrastructure. Although eventually the proposed legislation change did not succeeded, probably linked to the retreat of the plan by the PA, the complete process did narrowed the development path of the PA in several ways. It was clear that any sort of large urban planning intervention led by the PA would be critically observed. The general role of the PA was associated with port activities, and only certain low-impact actions to implement leisure programs, linked with heritage refurbishment would be socially accepted. We can find different examples of this in the last 20 years. The release of riverfront areas for public and green spaces would be accepted. The connection with the new municipal plans had to be consulted and encouraged, since one of the main critics by the municipality planners was the apparent disregard towards the new masterplan and partial plans.
Among the issues and path narrowing process installed in the PA after the POZOR, one of the most worrying ones is the reduced interaction that followed this period, concerning public consultation processes. The NIMBY phenomenon that took place during the plan’s public presentation might have been reinforced due to the openness of the PA. We could then argue to what point would be on the PA´s best interest to encourage public participation in future plans and projects that might have an impact in the riverfront. Also, as said in an interview, the PA the communication is done using the official channels, contacting the municipality or other representative institutions, not directly with the citizens as it was with the POZOR. In this case we could ask ourselves to what extend will the CML explain the APL´s point of view, needs or even positive impact. This issue will be explored in the cruise terminal project, an example of port facility that has been considered crucial to experiment with the port-city-citizen relationship (Figueira de Sousa, 2003).
PDM and Municipal Strategic Plan
In 1989 a new political team arrived to the city hall, starting an intense period of municipal change and planning (Leite, 2008). Previously we have seen the state initiative with the Expo 98 and the port ambitions for the waterfront in the POZOR plan. In this section we will briefly describe Lisbon´s first strategic plan and the successive city masterplan. The transition from the 1980s to the 1990s potentiated the notion of Lisbon as capital of a Metropolitan area, and the need to compete in international context to attract investment. The city suffered several unsolved problems. During this time the first city development plan, drafted during democracy, was published and implemented.
Lisbon´s strategic plan, approved in 1992, was the first document of new strategic planning system, also including the PDM and the priority plans and projects (Craveiro, 2004). The PEL (Plano Estratégico de Lisboa) was mainly a socioeconomic instrument to define the principal development vectors and areas, and support the political and decision making processes (Leite, 2008). This new scheme proposed a new urban development model, including eight key points. To connect the city with the river was one of the top priorities, also including the redevelopment of historic areas in the centre, the regeneration of the eastern section, improvement of public transport system and reducing urban expansion towards the north. The main general goals for the strategic plan were to modernize the city, improving the general life quality and allowing it to compete with other European metropolises, reassure Lisbon´s role as metropolitan capital and improve the administrative system. During this period Lisbon was already losing population, a tendency that would increase along the 1990s.
For the scope of this investigation, connecting the city with the river is the most important aspect. The plan considered four different city sections, being one of them the riverfront. For this sector the municipality pretended to recover the connection with the Tagus, without harming the port (Craveiro & Soares, 1997). In this scenario the competition concerning the waterfront organized by the architectural association and sponsored by the PA, created positive precedent. The municipality recognized PA´s effort in the recent waterfront regeneration projects, particularly the new public spaces by the river.
During the following years the municipality developed several plans for the riverfront surroundings, in which the reuse of heritage elements played an important role. These plans concerned mostly areas in the western and eastern sections of the city. Once again the idea of burying the railway, and later also the road, was discussed. In the scope of the plan several key operations were identified to reinforce the connection between the city and the river, mostly taking place in the western and central waterfront section, affecting several locations with relevant monuments. These concrete actions were destined to areas controlled by the municipality, such as Praça do Comércio, or in which port activities were not suitable, mostly from Alcântara to Belém. To improve the connection several crossings in different locations along the barrier were planned.
The PEL was adapted during the drafting process, to include the development of the expo in the eastern section of the city. Initially this plan proposed to develop in this area the gate of the city, profiting from its connectivity with national and international transportation networks, as we have previously seen.
The PDM approved in 1994 was the first city masterplan since 1977. This document was part of the new planning strategy promoted by the new municipal government, following the development path set by the strategic plan aforementioned. It was also coordinated with other documents drafted at the same time, such as the PROT-AML (Plano Regional de Ordenamento do Território – Área Metropolitana de Lisboa), or the detail plans drafted for different city locations.
In the plan, as it happened in the PEL, the territory was organized in 4 different areas, being one of them the riverfront. Among the key goals was again the connection with the river, identified as one of the key elements Lisbon should relate with, the second one was the metropolitan area. In the PDM report the connection with the estuary is highlighted defining Lisbon as a river-city (cidade ribeirinha). The port is not assumed as a key identity element, although we could consider it is included in the river-city character, port activities, as we have previously seen, had a strong influence in the city’s economy, identity and urban development (PDM, Relatório Síntese, 1994).
To improve the connection with the river several actions were proposed. The first one was to integrate port areas, improving the port access and complementary services. Other measures included better organization of river transport with Lisbon’s transport interfaces, enhancing public areas on the riverfront, integration of the infrastructural barrier formed by the railway and roads, and establish the view system defended in the same PDM, strengthening the visual relation.
One interesting issue was the Expo area. Parque Expo was responsible for the land where the event would take place, including its after-expo development. For this reason the municipality had to discuss with them the solution and redevelopment of the section of the city. The APL and Loures municipality were also included in the conversation. In the PDM, the eastern edge of Lisbon was still considered the new logistic platform. The integration of port and transport infrastructure was one of the main goals, considering these area crucial for the productive activities in the metropolitan area.
The basic PDM intervention unit were the UOP (Unidade Operativa de Planeamento e Gestão). There were 30 UOP identified in the whole plan of which seven affected the riverfront (Costa, 2006). This author explains that the PDM was more specific than the PEL regarding the possible land uses, including industrial buildings refurbishment to host other programs, such as offices or housing. The relation with the APL was made via specific agreements for concrete issues, such as the port communication, roads and railway.
Once the Expo was finished, the planning horizon for the post-event period expanded until 2009. The municipality began to work on the redevelopment of the surrounding territory to integrate the “new urbanity island” the EXPO area was about to become (Matias Ferreira, 1999).
The new plan to regenerate the eastern edge of Lisbon was named PUZRO (Plano de Urbanização da Zona Ribeirinha Oriental – Urbanization Plan for the Eastern Riverfront) and continued the work developed in the plan for the surroundings of the Expo, practically assuming the same boundaries. The intervention area was structured around four axis, three running parallel to the river (Av. Infante dom Henrique, the interior street from Rua da Madre Deus to Rua Fernando Palha and the railway line) and the avenue Marechal Gomes da Costa expanding from the riverfront towards the north. In total, the covered area was 418,1 Ha, including 4,5 km of riverfront.
A first version of the plan was presented in 2001, although not approved, partly due to the remarks given by the regional development commission. Afterwards it was decided it would become an strategic document, finally republished in 2008, renamed: “Documento Estratégico de Monitorização da Zona Ribeirinha Oriental” (Strategic Document for Eastern Riverfront Control).
The original plan, although was never approved, it guided the redevelopment of the area during the following years, a process we have often seen in Lisbon’s recent urban history. The PUZRO included a detailed analysis of the existing industrial heritage, while at the same time, potentiated the redevelopment of large industrial sites and planned new public facilities. From this document several relevant detail plans were drafted, of which we will briefly mention two, Plano de Pormenor do Braço de Prata and the Plano de Pormenor da Matinha.
The first one, from 1999, consisted in the redevelopment of a military industrial site. Although initially included larger areas, it finally affected 10 Ha of land. Renzo Piano was the leading architect behind the project. Some of the most relevant features included the integration of the avenue Infante dom Henrique into the new urban structure, releasing the riverfront for a new public garden. This new green space was supposed to take place in port territory, and be paid by private developer. In figures the project proposed 142500 m2 plus 5500 m2 for public facilities. Being 72% for housing, 16% for economical activities and 12% for services. (Costa, 2006). The project has suffered several setbacks, and is today under development. For the moment only few structures are visible being unknown the completion date. In an interview with planners from the CML, it was said the property developers had presented an updated version of the project for approval, therefore it was supposed the construction should be resumed shortly.
In this plan the riverfront park was a relevant issue. It implied the release of port land for public use and a new green space financed by the private developer. In this case we can observe the possible malfunction and inefficiencies of the planning system. The APL released the land for the new green area in 2009. The plan could bring positive outcomes, since it would give this area a new access to the river, increasing its appeal for further private investment. The problem, as it often happens when the public redevelopment depends of private investors, was the project delay. During this time the land has remained abandoned, without any maintenance. Since previously it used to be port land the port image is affected, due to the assumption the PA is still responsible for its caring. This situation raises the question about the relevance of public plans if the development of key elements relay on private hands.
The second detail plan (Plano de Pormenor), concerns Matinha, between Braço de Prata plot and the Expo. In this territory we can find gasometer structures, acting as landmark from an industrial past. The final version of the plan was published in 2011, included the redevelopment of the area from the gasometers until the riverfront, affecting an area of 31,5 Ha, included in the UOP 28. Initially, the uses planned in the 1994 PDM for this area were related with investigation and technology. After the PUZRO was cancelled the municipality changed the program to mixed use including housing and tertiary activities. The project is characterized by a central green axis, framing the industrial heritage on one extreme, connecting with the riverfront park on the other. The new buildings are designed perpendicular to the river, following a similar concept to Renzo Piano’s project, but on a larger scale. The total construction area would be 339.305 m2.
Since the plan was published the plot has not suffered any alteration. No construction nor real estate development has been announced, remaining an industrial landfill during this time. The location could be considered quite attractive, since it is near a new area such as the Parque das Nações (former Expo 98), but until now there has been no private investor. Once again the issue aforementioned appears, the municipality might produce plans but the redevelopment depends on market operations.
In the strategic document the interaction with the port was explained on article 7, indicating that any urban action to be taken within the realm of this plan must include PA approval.
The decade between the 1988 competition and the EXPO 1998 meant a significant change in the way local residents looked at the river. The Tagus was no longer just reference in literature and history, but a space for the citizens to enjoy. This period was also relevant in terms of planning and stakeholders positioning. The PA development/action path was narrowed due to the social protest, and to some extent marked its role for the following decade.
During these years the foundations for Lisbon’s contemporary development were built. The planning frenzy gave many projects, some of them still under construction today. The image of the city was transformed, as so it was the ambitions of the inhabitants regarding public space and riverfront areas.
Four key moments, happening almost simultaneously, decided the interaction between the actors. Although two of them did not left the drafting table, motivated either by their nature (ideas competition of 1988) or by the public repulse (POZOR), they set the course for action for the following years. The first brought attention to an issue until them ignored for decades, the relation between the city and the river, while the second introduced an innovative approach, such as the participative process, although it played against the own interests of the APL, narrowing its future realm. The Port Authority, in the good tradition of Lisbon, did eventually developed some projects included in the plan although the document itself was not properly implemented.
The public discussion about the POZOR had a greater relevance than what it might have seen at the time. It was not just a rejection of planning ideas and design, it eventually decided what the PAs are and are not allowed to do in Portugal. The institutional rigidity did not occurred immediately, but, as we will see in following articles, it indicated APL’s future path and functions. Eventually new legislation was passed, a decade after the first plan, that narrowed the scope of the PA, limiting its capabilities.
Administração do Porto de Lisboa.(2007) Plano Estratégico de Desenvolvimento do Porto de Lisboa – Relatório Síntese. Lisboa: Administração do Porto de Lisboa, 144 p.
Brandão, P. (1988). Prefácio. In P. Brandão & F. Jorge (Eds.), Lisboa, a cidade e o rio – concurso de ideias para a renovação da zona ribeirinha de Lisboa. (pp. 3–4). Lisbon: Associação de Arquitectos Portugueses..
Breen, A., & Rigby, D. (1994). Waterfronts: cities reclaim their edge. McGraw-Hill.
Buitelaar, E., Lagendijk, A., & Jacobs, W. (2007). A theory of institutional change: illustrated by Dutch city-provinces and Dutch land policy. Environment and Planning A, 39, 891–908.
Cabral, N. (2001). Giving New Life to the Riverfront Areas of the Port of Lisbon. Portus, (1), 32–37.
Castro, A., & Lucas, J. (1999). A Expo’ 98 – Cronologia de um Processo. In V. Matias Ferreira & F. Indovina (Eds.), A cidade da EXPO 98 (pp. 345–422). Lisbon: Bizâncio.
Cid, M. S., & Reis, D. (Org.) (1999). Documentos para a história da Expo ’98 1989-1992. Lisbon: Parque Expo 98 SA.
CML – Salgado, M. (2011) Proposta 2/12/2011.
Costa, J. P. T. D. A. (2006). La ribera entre proyectos : formación y transformación del territorio portuario, a partir del caso de Lisboa. Barcelona : Universidade de Catalunha.
Craveiro, M. T., & Soares, L. B. (1997). Ligar a cidade ao Tejo: zona ribeirinha – estratégia e programa de intervenção CML/APL – 1990-1995. In A. Caessa & M. Gomes Martins (Eds.), Actas das sessões do II Colóquio temático Lisboa Ribeirinha (pp. 401–406). Lisbon: Câmara Municipal de Lisboa – Departamento de Parimonio Cultural Divisão de Arquivos.
Craveiro, M. T. (2004). A retoma do planeamento estratégico 2001-2005 na cidade de Lisboa. GeoInova, 10, 221–239.
Desfor, G., & Jørgensen, J. (2004). Flexible urban governance. The case of Copenhagen’s recent waterfront development. European Planning Studies, 12, 479–496.
Figueira de Sousa, J., & Fernandes, A. (2012). Metamorfoses da cidade portuária: transformações da relação entre o porto e a cidade de Lisboa. Confins, (15). Retrieved from http://confins.revues.org/7702 ; DOI : 10.4000/confins.7702
França, J. A. (1997). Lisboa: urbanismo e arquitectura (3rd ed.). Lisbon: Livros Horizonte.
Guimarães, F. J. (2006). Cidade portuaria, o porto e as suas constantes mutações. Lisboa: Parque Expo.
Leite, M. A. D. F. D., & Craveiro, M. T. (2008). Entrevista a Maria Teresa Craveiro: O processo de Planeamento Estratégico em Lisboa: Dilemas, desafios e resultados. Oculum – Ensaios, Revista de Arquitectura E Urbanismo, 165–174.
Matias Ferreira, V., Rodrigues, W., Casanova, J. L., Castro, A., Wemans, L., & Amor, T. (1997). Lisboa – A metrópole e o rio. (V. Matias Ferreira, Ed.). Lisbon: Bizâncio.
Matias Ferreira, V., & Indovina, F. (1999). A cidade da EXPO 98. (V. M. Ferreira & F. Indovina, Eds.). Lisbon: Bizâncio.
Morgado, S. (2005). Protagonismo de la ausencia. Interpretación urbanística de la formación metropolitana de Lisboa desde lo desocupado. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona. Retrieved from http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/6959
Nabais, A. J. C. M., & Ramos, P. O. (1987). 100 anos do porto de Lisboa. Lisboa: Administração do Porto de Lisboa.
Pagés Sánchez, J. M. (2011). Frente ribeirinha e cidade. Equipamentos públicos culturais como solução de conexão e regeneração. Universidade Técnica de Lisboa.
Ressano Garcia, P. (2007). Life and death of the Lisbon waterfront – Vida e morte do porto de Lisboa. Universidade Portucalense Infante D. Henrique.
Salgado, M. (2012). Reconquista da Frente Ribeirinha de Lisboa. Portusplus, 3(12).
Schubert, D. (2011). Seaport Cities: Phases of spatial restructuring. In C. Hein (Ed.), Port Cities: Dynamic Landscapes and Global Networks (1st ed., pp. 54–69). New York: Routledge.
Ward, S. V. (2011). Port cities and the global exchange of planning ideas. In C. Hein (Ed.), Port Cities: Dynamic Landscapes and Global Networks (1st ed., pp. 70–85). New York: Routledge.
Wemans, L. (1999). A EXPO 98 – da avaliação económica aos custos sociais. O custo zero, a engenharia financeira e od défice de setenta milhões. In V. Matias Ferreira & F. Indovina (Eds.), A cidade da EXPO 98 (pp. 252–287). Lisbon: Bizâncio.
Decreto Lei 207/93 14 de Junho
Decreto Lei 100/2008
Decreto Lei 336/98 3 de Novembro
Projeto de Lei 85/VII presentado in 1996
Resolução em conselho de ministros 87/2009, em 3 de Setembro de 2009
 According to the strategic plans and activity reports, the Iberian peninsula is the main hinterland of the port of Lisbon, more specifically the western side from Madrid. For this reason it is relevant the competition with the Spanish ports. The agro-food industry grew considerably due to the investment in the 1980s. Currently the port still is one of the leading players in this type of cargo, competing with Girona and Barcelona. (APL, 2007)
 The large industrial conglomerates had a stronger presence in the south side of the river, with companies related to heavy actitivies, such as Quimigal in Barreiro, Lisnave in Almada and Siderurgia Nacional in Seixal (Costa, 2006, Nabais& Ramos, 1987)
The law for this change was the DL nº 336/98 3rd of November. Lisbon’s Port Authority was then renamed as “Administração Portuária de Lisboa” (APL).
 Although this statement is widely accepted, some scholars like Costa (2006), mention the Casa dos Bicos refurbishment project, referred previously, as another important moment for the waterfront regeneration movement. This project had an important impact, however, from our perspective, is not as relevant as the following plans, since it was an isolated intervention, more linked with the identity value of the heritage and historic waterfront.
 The riverfront, as we can see in paintings and photographs, was mostly build, without a continuous public space along the water. In previous chapters we have seen how the concept of a Tagus promenade appeared in the 19th century, remaining in the general psyche. The access to the water were limited to the places where some economic activities were taking place, such as port, commerce or fishing. The only locations where a “leisure” by the water would take place was on the beaches in the western part of Lisbon.
 The committee was formed by representatives of the different stakeholders involved in the project. Initially it did not counted with the participation of the PA, but eventually, after the location of the exhibition was decided, the PA was invited, along with Loures municipality. However, the final decision depended of the national government. Different experts were also consulted, particularly in the initial stages to decide the location. The process has been well documented and can be consulted in: Cid, M. S., & Reis, D. (Org.) (1999). Documentos para a história da Expo ’98 1989-1992. Lisbon: Parque Expo 98 SA.
Parque Expo was a QUANGO (Quasi autonomous Non-Government Organization). This sort of publicly owned development companies has been a common vehicle for urban development operations. We can see them in Hamburg, Oslo, Helsinki, and other port-cities. In the case of Lisbon, it continued to operate after the Expo, being responsible for urban management and facilities in the Parque das Nações. The company developed more projects, not just in Portugal. During the early 2000s it developed several riverfront green areas in different Portuguese cities integrated in the POLIS program. Parque Expo was deactivated on December 31st 2016, although its fate had already been decided in 2011 (http://expresso.sapo.pt/economia/2016-12-30-Parque-Expo-extinta-a-31-de-dezembro, consulted on 4/6/2017 11:50).
 This sort of operation it is not exclusive from Lisbon. In other waterfront operations similar schemes were followed, for example in Copenhagen. See Desfor& Jørgensen, (2004).
 Particularly relevant for this matter is the work developed by Matias Ferreira. Two books were published with the testimonies of different experts. “Lisboa, a Metrópole e o Rio” (1997) and “A Cidade da Expo 98” (1999). In the latter the issues that would affect the overall operation were predicted. The main critic was that in the end the operation was a requalification with new uses and high socio-economical classes, and not a proper regeneration as it was announced during the entire planning process.
 During the first stages of the planning and application process the state and the committee defended that the Expo would not cost the state anything, thanks to the real estate operation (Wemans, 1999)
Castro and Lucas (1999) originally indicate 14 million contos, equivalent to 65 mill € approx. According to the National Statistical Institute of Portugal (INE) 65 mill€ adjusted to 2016, after the inflation would be ca. 105,8 million € (https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ipc).
 In the answer to the BIE survey from October the 7th of 1991, to evaluate the Portuguese application the committee explicitly indicated that the public owner ship of the PA by the central state was an advantage, granting the absence of any social conflict. (Parque Expo, 1999)
 The acronym NIMBY stands for: Not In My Backyard. These sort of civil movements opposing real estate or infrastructural developments can often be found in port related situations.
 Interview with APL representatives, Mariana Teixeira and Carla Matos, on December 16th 2015.
 The new major was Jorge Sampaio, later to become Portugal´s president.
According to Craveiro & Soares (1997) the anchor projects were: Praça Afonso de Albuquerque, Cordoaria, Standard Eléctrica, Alcântara-Rio, Janelas Verdes, Aterro da Boavista, Ribeira das Naus, and Terreiro do Paço.
 Interview with Arch. Pedro Dinis, head of the public space department inside the CML. The meeting took place on December 21st 2015
 This agreement was based on the law DL 100/2008 stating the release of port land no longer hosting port activities. The official accord was approved by the Minister Council on September 3rd 2009 (Resolução do Conselho de Ministros 87/2009). In the Analysis Unit 3 this operation between the CML and APL will be further explored, since it included other riverfront locations.
On October last year I had the chance to participate in a workshop organized by the ISOCARP and ITACUS, in collaboration with Glasgow city council. The scope of the workshop was to gather a group of young professionals from different fields, such as (underground) engineering, architecture and planning, and produce visions for Glasgow’s waterfront, more specifically the western section. During one week we worked together in groups of five trying to find a coherent concept for the riverfront, combine our expertise. The final result was a report with the proposals developed by the groups.
As a result of decades of industrial decline, the Clyde waterfront is lacking in vibrancy, coherence, built character and a sense of place. There are a significant number of vacant and derelict sites, large areas of surface-level car parking, a number of sizeable monolithic land uses and little sense of the area’s historic legacy.
In addition, the site examined has particularly poor pedestrian connectivity. Both as a result of the Clydeside Expressway, poor east-west connections along the river walkway, poor north-south connections across the river and little access or visual connection with the river itself. This has created a sense of isolation away from the vibrant and diverse neighbourhoods around it, particularly Govan and the West End.
The site has a rich heritage of great significance for Glaswegians (see section 2.3), although little tangible built evidence of this remains. Our group title ‘Welding the Weegie Waterfront’ makes reference to the area’s historic past, where the term ‘Clyde Built’ was once a world-renowned description of ships built with outstanding craftsmanship and quality. It is our intention to explore how the regeneration of the Clyde could take a similarly carefully-crafted approach that is rooted in the area’s sense of place and can once again become an area for which Glaswegians can take pride.
The site investigations that informed this report explored the extents of the area, from the City Centre to the working Govan shipyards, including both north and south of the Clyde. Surveying Finnieston, Partick, Govan and Pacific Quay, as well as the Riverside Museum, Govan Graving Docks and a number of vacant and derelict sites, we navigated the barriers of water and motorway infrastructure in the process. Evidence was gathered from conversations with local users of the river, and by getting down onto the water itself, with a boat ride. Both these particular perspectives have been primary inspirations for our strategy for the Clyde.
This has led to an approach that re-frames the city from the point of view of the river and re-examines the river from the perspective of the people of Glasgow themselves (or ‘Weegies’ – a perhaps controversial but familiar local term).
In line with this approach, we have created a persona through which to test our strategy for the site. While there will be more than one person’s perspective of the site, for the purposes of this study, we have explored one experience in detail. She has become an example of a Weegie who is exploring the Waterfront. We have called her Lucy MacDonald.
Lucy’s story and Lucy as a planning/participatory tool
The methodology we have developed during the workshop is based on systems engineering and systems thinking. Our methodology is summed up in the diagram below:
Study the environment – site visits, maps and GCC presentations
The first step of the methodology consists of analysing the environment by a territorial diagnosis; both its constraints and its opportunities. Due to time limits and the format of the workshop, we analysed the environment with the help of Glasgow City Council’s (GCC) presentations, maps (provided by GCC) and two site visits. One visit was alongside the river walkway by foot and another one was by boat on the river itself. This analysis allowed us to define the present state of the Clyde waterfront:
Activities (site visits + GCC presentations)
Climate (site visits + GCC presentations)
Topography (site visits + map)
Built environment (site visits + maps)
Urban form (site visits + maps)
Geology (maps + GCC presentation)
Space use (site visits + maps + GCC presentation)
Define the needs –Lucy’s story
The next step in our methodology consisted of defining people’s needs near the Clyde waterfront. We asked the question – what do people want to do on, and near the waterfront? This focuses on assessing needs through desired future realities. This approach could be considered a ‘bottom-up’ approach because it emphasizes citizens as primary stakeholders. What would we (as planners consulting the Council) like the people to be able to do in this area? This approach is more ‘top-down’ as it emphasises the public institution of the Council as a point of departure. Using both of these approaches – ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top down’ – will help to shape the future activities alongside the Clyde Waterfront.
A problem with urban planning is that needs are related to spaces, however, spaces are shared resources and people all have different needs. Therefore, it could be very difficult to satisfy every citizen of Glasgow with limited available space. Importantly, the renovation of the Clyde does not only require the determination and analysis of needs, but also frames the area’s evolution over time. For example, for the next 20 years or more.
In order to understand how the site could be attractive to Glaswegians, we wrote the story of a fictional character: Lucy MacDonald. She’s a young woman who represents one experience of living on the Clyde Waterfront in the year 2040. Within the YPTDP workshop, we chose to imagine what life would be like for the people of Glasgow in the next 20 years as well as what could inspire them. During this workshop, we imagined one week* of Lucy’s life on the waterfront (but other timeframes could also be explored further – one day, one year, etc.). In essence, we are using Lucy’s story as a narrative for city development. This narrative could be further researched and more extensively analysed and enriched. Lucy is adopted as a persona that represents a specific demographic, and investigative research can help to build her story: What are her needs in 2040 that would help to attract this demographic to Glasgow?
In this workshop, we only used one persona. We used the story of Lucy, but stories of other Glaswegians with different characteristics (varying demographics – gender, age, socio-economic background, etc.), could also be imagined to explain the needs of other Glaswegians. While infinite stories could be told, for the purposes of this planning tool, the number of personas should be limited and carefully targeted, in order to explain the necessary variation of experience, while allowing people to focus on the planning proposals. The story should be used to assist the planning process. It’s an enabling system that allows the principal focus in the project to remain at the centre: Rethinking the Clyde Waterfront. In our project this is: Welding the Weegie Waterfront.
Ideally, even Lucy’s story itself is written by Glaswegians themselves. If made possible, Lucy’s story could be used as a participatory tool.** Glaswegians writing the story themselves could be arranged, for example, by using a combination of big data and social media. Popular channels on social media could enable various ways of interacting, rating, and providing content. Examples of these are Facebook, Pinterest, Tumblr, Instagram, and Twitter.
Locate Lucy’s activities in space and time
Lucy’s needs are then translated into activities. This step consists of assigning spaces as well as a specific timeframe (i.e. time of day/week/year) that allow activities to take place. Activities are allocated to space and time independently. Since one of the objectives by GCC was to implement place-based solutions, we use the Clyde as our main spatial departure point. Looking from the Clyde, we explored potential zones along the Waterfront, crossing the banks and, in so doing, reactivating them. Lucy’s story provides this perspective from the Clyde to the city.
Allocate activities on the surface
The first space allocation takes place on the surface, on the banks of the Clyde, above ground. During the workshop, and as a direct result of site analysis undertaken, we created a series of layered maps allocating various activities to different spaces. Each map layer explored one type of activity distributed along the waterfront.
As a starting point, we identified where Lucy’s activities were already present near the Clyde and developed them, where necessary, by improving or expanding their program and functions.
For new activities to the Waterfront, sites were allocated in relation to the varying spatial requirements for different activities. These were then strategically coordinated in order to have activities throughout the day (and night) alongside the Clyde.
Allocate activities in time
One objective of the Glasgow City Council is to transform the Clyde Waterfront into a vibrant place. According to this statement, activities should be allocated to have activities on the Waterfront throughout the day. Certain activities had to be re-allocated to meet this requirement.
Allocate activities on the ground, above the ground or underground
The result of this methodology was that different activities were superimposed on the same space. The following possibilities were formulated:
To use the same space for different activities at various parts of the day;
To use underground and above ground spaces for a multitude of various activities;
To combine both possibilities;
Layer such as: Business; Green/Landscape; Living; Road network & infrastructural nodes: station, highway, bridges; Sport & Health; Education; Culture
Design and engineering
After activities have been located in both space and time (in a way that addresses citizens’ needs as much as possible), it is then necessary to develop spatial solutions for each defined activity. This moved the process from planning towards more architectural- and engineering-based conversations. Within the group, architects and engineers then worked together to define the best solutions within the technical constraints.
These engineering and architectural constraints then led to further strategic conversations around the allocations of activities in both space and time. There were two main types of constraint; the constraints arising directly from the product itself (structural constraints, technological constraints, geological constraints, etc.) and the constraints caused by the enabling system (organizational, regulatory, contracting, financing, etc.). During the development of the product, they both interact and influence each other. In system engineering this process is explained by the “Vee-cycle” development tool:
This cycle explains the classic development of a product starting with defining the needs towards its operation, and later the destruction/reuse. It starts with formulating “system requirements” towards “component” requirements in the evolution of the project. During the workshop, we only studied the system requirements due to time constraint. We can see that both constraints from the proposed system and the enabling system can influence the solution.
For example, at times, we decided that it could be useful to have two underground storeys and four aboveground storeys to house the activities defined by Lucy’s needs. However, due to geological constraints 2 underground storeys were not possible (this constraint comes from the proposed system) and because of the Local Development Plan it is not possible to have more than 3 floors (this constraint comes from the enabling system). Then we will have to find another solution to undertake the activities, for example to find a new space on the Clyde, or to lower the quality of service related to the chosen activities. There is a feedback loop between the citizens’ (personas like Lucy) needs and the architectonic solution developed by architects and engineers.
Vision/Strategy: From the city to the river and from the river to the city – working with the edges
Lucy on the waterfront
During our analysis and site visits, we were able to experience the river directly from the water. Our perception of the river was transformed when viewed directly from a boat rather than from the more conventional viewing points along the riverbanks. We also noticed that the river is unique in its ability to connect the city from east to west. In order to change the role of the waterfront in the city and to reactivate it, we decided that it was crucial to work with the edges and to capitalize upon the river’s potential to connect the city from east to west.
In our story, Lucy Macdonald is able to spend her whole day along the waterfront. In this imagined future, it is possible to be by the river, experience different interactions with the water and enjoy the unique atmosphere found along the Clyde. At the moment, the riverbanks work almost exclusively as a fast bike-lane. People use it to travel east-west, from the outskirts to the city centre. One of the goals of our proposals is to complement the existing program, creating spaces where people would like to stay, not just pass by quickly.
Lucy’s typical day would begin in a new start-up hub, next to the shipyards, where an opportunity area has already been detected by the municipality. After an entire morning working in her new company, she would then cross the river to go for a run. Lucy could cross the Clyde with a new ferry service or the Clyde Tunnel, now improved and more pedestrian-friendly. On the north side of the Clyde, she would jog along the river enjoying the widened and improved public space that now continues more seamlessly to the city centre. Later, she could either study in the knowledge centre, meet a friend in a café or go shopping in a new retail area.
The Edges – Active topographies
The quay walls of the river Clyde currently act as a vertical barrier that keep the people far from the water. To improve this situation, we propose to deconstruct these edges, creating a “soft” transition between the river level and the city level. Bringing people closer to the water, and ‘softening’ this transition is, we believe, crucial to the redevelopment of the Clyde. Within the site boundary, several locations where the idea of platforms at different levels could be implemented, were identified. These varying heights could allow a more intense integration of different programs, creating a complex and “active” topography.
The following images illustrate different examples of urban waterfront regeneration, bringing people closer to the water. One example, Lyon, creates several typologies of public spaces by the water, where people can stay, run or play. These lower spaces offer protection from the traffic existing on the ground level and give people a new perception of the river and their city’s relationship to it. Chicago has adopted a similar approach, but on a different scale. The river, which clearly has an urban character, is far lower than the street. Making the most of this height
difference, it was possible to implement a program of cafés and restaurants under street level and closer to the water. This intervention has brought life and diversity to the river bank. It is no longer just a place for sports but also a place to go out at night or have coffee after lunch. Working with different levels brings a panoply of possibilities, from educational programs to roof gardens. The Ewha University of Seoul provides an example of the possible integration strategy the Knowledge Centre where Lucy might study could adopt. The possibility of reading, studying or seeing an exhibition while also looking at the Clyde is a luxury that should be explored in Glasgow.
The aforementioned idea requires certain features that are not available along the Waterfront. For this reason, our approach has been tailored to specific sites, and some locations require a totally different approach. On the western section of our intervention area, the new Glasgow Harbour residential development is situated. These new buildings are located close to the river’s edge, making it harder to implement the idea of the deconstructed edge. However, the main goal of experiencing the Clyde from different perspectives can nonetheless still be achieved. Instead, increasing the existing public space with a cantilever platform would also bring people closer to the water and to the centre of the river. This intervention would help to strengthen the continuity of public space along the waterfront, creating an atmosphere that is civic and public. In different places on both banks we noticed the feeling of privatisation of common space. The edge was in some cases fenced and impeded the parallel circulation and connection. The new platform could also be complemented by a second floating element along the same section. Here people might be able to touch the water or engage with boats and other floating elements. These ideas, which could also be implemented in other areas along the river, aim to regenerate the relationship between Glaswegians and the water.
Identity on the waterfront
Our proposal is titled “Welding the Weegie Waterfront”. This term appeals to the vernacular of Glasgow and Glaswegians. It refers to a sense of place based on local identity. We believe the plan to be developed in this city should respect and enhance its existing heritage and identity. Along the edges of the river, the idea of identity and heritage is found in remnants of the river’s shipbuilding past. For example, the different former shipyard ramps could offer a third type of interaction with the water. These elements, on both banks, are presently abandoned. They present interesting characteristics that could provide another dimension to the waterfront: the connection with the past.
The final idea for the edges, which affects the entire Waterfront from east to west, is to develop a common identity for this part of the city. The use of a common design language could improve Glaswegians’ perceptions of their river, and could also emphasize the history of the activities that took place in the past along the waterfront. Despite their absence, they continue to contribute to the identity of the city. Remaining heritage elements, from the crane to the former shipyards and the bridges, are currently isolated episodes along the Clyde. An intervention that celebrates the area’s historic assets could improve the quality of the space and the mental image of the Waterfront. We can find an example of this approach in Oslo, where the Havnepromenade works to connecting the entire waterfront. This project stretches along 14 km, linking 14 stations, which explain the history of the local industries along the river. A common language could also be found for urban furniture, graphic design and the design of public spaces. This intervention would be able to, on the one hand, respect different character areas along the waterfront, while also ‘welding’ the river’s edge in its entirety on the other. It would result in a more coherent image of Glasgow in the mind of Glaswegians and visitors.
Havnepromenade by White arch. and Rodeo arch.
Oslo Havnepromenade by Grid.
Lucy’s needs and activities have helped define the main features that may need to be developed along the banks of the Clyde and its vicinity. This section focuses on the site-specific approaches that have been developed at three sites along the river. Building on the approaches outlined in the previous section, a multi-level/multi-purpose approach has been developed to give the river back to the “Weegies” and to weld their roots, needs and well being.
Clyde river banks and Quay walls:
Here is where Lucy’s story showcases a new way to interact with the Clyde river. As outlined above, the intervention alongside Glasgow Harbour could be enriched by the use of cantilevering platforms and floating pontoons. In other zones along the river banks, the quay walls may be able to be modified in order to allow a softer transition between the water level and the current street level. In those locations, the use of concrete structures and prefabricated modules may help to establish a strong water connection for both the north and the south banks of the Clyde.
Another important approach to the quay walls is maintenance. In some places of the Clyde river, there are some quay walls that have failed or are showing some structural affectation. This could be a unique opportunity to implement new structures that connect the street level and the river. They would be less robust than the actual walls and more durable (time). Referring to relevant hydraulic information of the Clyde river would help define where this kind of solution is feasible, taking into account the new uses the river will have (there is no need to have strong quay walls to support the ships docking, etc.), thereby giving to the community a new space for commercial activities.
Some complementary works and further exploration of the particular characteristics of the structures (water resilience, easy cleaning, etc.) will need to be carried out in order to create a new environment that can withstand water level variations as well as enable more active uses of the river banks.
Even given the short time surveying the Clyde, it became evident that between the “Clyde Arc” bridge and the Clyde tunnel there exists an immediate need to establish stronger physical north-south connections. In developing this idea, it became apparent that two important landmarks could define destinations and zones where this new infrastructure could be placed. The Kelvin river, which flows north to south, and the Riverside Museum standing isolated where the Kelvin meets the Clyde, provide a strong axis and key nodes for what we will call the Multi-level north-south connection (MLNSC).
In order to define the characteristic of this MLNSC, there are two main features that have to be evaluated. The first is the Clydeside Expressway; the east-west motorway along the north bank of the river, and the second is the River Clyde itself.
One common approach could be to bury at least two kilometres of the highway to create a new pathway for north-south connections. However, there is another opportunity that could also overcome the highway “barrier” as well as delivering new useful and weather-protected spaces to Glasgow. This alternative is an underground gallery which starts near the Yorkhill hospital development site between Finnieston and Partick and ends to close to the Clyde river quay walls in front of the Govan Graving Docks.
Is important to note that this underground gallery is conceived and designed as thoroughly integrated with surface level activities. Instead of being conceived as underground, it is viewed as a shifting ground plane. Indeed, the “interface between the above and below ground realms appears to be a critical factor in the acceptability and success of underground spaces.” In this kind of underground work, Glasgow has the advantage of easily excavatable geological conditions in which several tunnels and underground passages have already been developed.
The other main feature of the MLNSC is the crossing of the Clyde river from the north bank (next to the underground gallery exit) to the Govan graving docks. This connection is conceived as an elevated ‘green’ bridge, with no intermediate pillars nor cables that could interfere with the view from the bridge to the river and the new public spaces along both banks. The use of high strength materials (concrete, steel, etc.) must be considered during the detailed design of this structure.
Finally, the MLNSC will need to be complemented with multi-storey and active buildings that facilitate accessibility to different levels and hence ‘activate the section’. These developments should be used to strengthen the connection between ‘underground’ and elevated passages as well as the ‘deconstructed river edge’ as described earlier. These shifting ground planes will establish new relationships with the river and help Glaswegians to get in touch with the water once again.
The Govan Graving Docks offer a significant opportunity to bring new activities into the existing heritage structures to both reflect Glasgow’s important history of shipbuilding, and host new and diverse events.
First, a renewal of the old dock gates will be required in order to guarantee their watertight function. Next, the emptying of water out of the docks will provide new and unique spaces to the city to be used for local markets, commercial venues, cultural meetings, etc.
Another use for these newly revitalized Graving Docks could be a water retaining structure. A new connection to the sewer system, based on a complete hydraulic design, could enable this empty space to retain excess water during rain periods, allowing the collected flow to be disposed to the Clyde river in delayed stages. The purpose of this design is to ensure that the total flow in the river channel would never exceed its design capacity. As a stand-alone water retaining structure, the Govan Graving Docks could not be the city’s sole method of flood control, but if complemented with similar spaces located elsewhere along the Clyde river course, the cumulative effect could be of great help in mitigating Glasgow’s flood risk.
Conclusion: Welding the Weegie Waterfront takeaways
Our proposal is a way to address the core issue in planning the Clyde waterfront: its lacking in vibrancy, coherence, built character or a sense of place. The proposal aims to improve the connectivity through ‘welding’, which is a process of connecting various areas across the Clyde via new and existing infrastructure. The process is rooted in place and referencing the legacy of the place’s history.
The workshop provided the opportunity to explore how the regeneration of the Clyde could take a carefully-crafted approach that is rooted in the area’s sense of place and can once again become an area for which Glaswegians, or Weegies, can take pride. This approach can consist of a planning methodology that adopts the persona of Lucy MacDonald and recounts her daily activities in a narrative style.
This methodology could very well be expanded to allow more participants from Glasgow to be involved and become stakeholders. It has a potential to become a participatory tool in planning and our proposed channels are social media and big data. Therefore, Lucy’s story is an approach that re-frames the city from the point of view of the river, while re-examining the river from the perspective of the people of Glasgow themselves. From the perspective of implementation, the story should be used to assist the planning process as an enabling system, which allows the principal focus in rethinking the Clyde Waterfront to remain: Welding the Weegie Waterfront.
It is place making through systems thinking. In systems thinking, two types of constraints must be taken into account: the constraints arising directly from the product itself (structural constraints, technological constraints, geological constraints, etc.) and the constraints caused by the enabling system (organizational, regulatory, contracting, financing, etc.). During the development of the product they both interact and influence each other and, in systems engineering, this process is explained by the “Vee-cycle” development tool.
Our vision is to change the role of the waterfront in the city and to reactivate it. In essence, the project site is both the problem and the solution. Our strategy could be understood as threefold:
Lucy’s story provides a persona and narrative that focus principally on the Clyde Waterfront. Lucy Macdonald is able to spend her whole day along the waterfront. In this imagined future, it is possible to be by the river, experience different interactions with the water and enjoy the unique atmosphere we find when visiting the Clyde.
The Edges – Active topographies are examples of urban waterfront regeneration, where the result is bringing people closer to the water. In order to achieve this, it is crucial to focus on the edges and also to capitalize upon the river’s potential to connect the city across the river.
Identity on the waterfront: interesting characteristics that could provide another dimension to the waterfront, which enable a connection with the past. In terms of the image of the city, this component aims to unify the area on a larger scale through a design language.
Our proposed approach to planning and our strategy are illustrated with three site projects:
Clyde river banks and Quay walls is primarily reconsidering the edges of the Clyde river. It aims to create a new environment that can withstand water level variations as well as enable more active uses of the river banks. In other zones along the river banks, the quay walls may be able to be modified to create a softer transition between the water level and the current street level.
Multi-Level North-South Connection (MLNSC) portrays the potential of involving engineering in urban design in an early phase. To restructure major infrastructural components, for example by shifting ground planes, new relationships with the river will be established. This will enable Glaswegians to get in touch with the water once again.
The Govan Graving Docks look at the potential redevelopment of the docks in Govan, south of the Clyde. They have a high potential for becoming a water retaining structure and, if integrated into wider city networks, could reduce the risk of flooding.
 Think Deep: Planning, development and use of underground space in cities. ISOCARP, ITA-AITES, ITACUS. Netherlands, 2015.
The history of Lisbon has been well studied and documented by many researchers, particularly from the national context. In fact we can even find a specific field in the social sciences dedicated to the study of the history, evolution and identity of the Portuguese capital, the “Olisipografia”, created by Júlio Castilho in the end of the 19th century (Silva 1994). The subject we intend to explain here has been analyzed by researchers from different disciplines, from urban history and planning, to sociology or anthropology, among others. However, to fully understand the current status of the port-city relation in the mentioned context it seemed necessary to look for the root of the possible conflict. The complexity of the problems here discussed requires knowing its origin, counting with the support of the vast bibliography dedicated to the topic.
When compared to other European port-cities Lisbon is relatively ancient. The first settlements in area of Lisbon go back to pre-historic times in the Tagus estuary and the city birth has been established in Phoenicians times. In this research we will focus in what can be considered modern and contemporary history (from the 18th to the 21st century). According to Hoyle’s model (1988,2002), and confirmed by different other authors, the first stage of the port-city relationship, when the port and the city can be considered a single reality,lasted until the arrival of the industrial revolution. The second stage, during the first industrial revolution, is when the first separation begins, this phase will be the focus of this article.
In the majority of European port-cities we can see how the new scale and development, brought by new technologies, caused significant changes in their urban structure. The existing port infrastructure were no longer enough and there was the need of developing the first large port plans. In Lisbon this process can also be identified, although the time line and speed of the changes diverge from other European realities. The local context regarding the economic and political conditions caused several delays in the overall development process.
The 1755 Earthquake and its consequences in the port and city development
In the particular context of Lisbon we can identify a specific event that caused a shift in the urban expansion policies and could be the root of the first break up between the city and the port. As in any relation , traumatic events can cause a change in the status quo and the further development of the interaction. In the case of the Portuguese capital this occurred in the 1st of November of 1755, when anearthquake of 8,75 degrees in the Richterscaletook place, with its epicenter in the ocean,200 km away from the southwest Portuguese coast (Baptista et. al 2006). The seism was accompanied by other calamities, a fire of great proportions that lasted several days and a tsunami that stroke the city 40 minutes after the quake. This natural disaster caused significant destruction and casualties, particularly among the low classes. The most affected area of the city was the “Baixa”, the downtown placed in a valley that in prehistoric times used to be a gully. This natural disaster seriously affected as well other parts of the country and conditioned the investing capacity of the city and the nation. The effects of this natural disaster reached epic proportions, being its consequences magnified all along the European continent, mainly due to the religious and philosophical meaning that it was attributed by some of the leading intellectuals of the time. The date when it occurred, the All Saints day, and the Enlightenment era nurtured major discussion about the causes and consequences of the earthquake.
After the seism the majority of the efforts and resources were directed to the reconstruction of the capital. During this time a major historic and political figure of Portugal rose, Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, mainly known as the Marquês de Pombal. This minister was in charge of the rebuilding process, organizing the competition and coordinating the allocation of the financing. The course of the reconstruction has been one of the main research topic in the fields of urban planning and architecture in Portugal. Here we will only focus on some of the main characteristics that could be relevant to the aftermath in the following centuries to the port-city relation.
In terms of urban planning we can see how the new concepts of the discipline of that time were very present in the reconstruction. The different proposals presented included a regular grid of rectangular city blocks, including as well a certain standardization in architecture. This design principles created an urban tissue with completely different proportions when compared with the previous medieval urban structure, still present in the resilient section of the city, in the Alfama and Castello hill. The hygiene concerns, an important issue of the time, forced a regular structure that granted better ventilation, sun light and easier access. The winning proposal, developed by Manuel da Maia, Eugénio dos Santos, Carlos Mardel and Sebastian Poppe, respected two key urban spaces from the preexistence. The plan included two squares in the same location where we could have found them before the earthquake. O Rossio in the north boundary of the project and Praça do Comércio as the main square by the river, where previously we could find the Terreiro do Paço.
In the new Baixa we could also find another characteristic revealing the political and social changes taking place during this time. In the new city structure we could see how the role of the church changed and new public building would be built in some of the most representative locations, such as the D. Maria Theater closing the Rossio square. In Praça do Comércio we would also see that the civil programs occupied the key spaces. This change is also relevant for the urban development and the relation with the waterfront since, as we will see, many convents placed in Lisbon and its outskirts were secularized. Some of these buildings, that for many years developed farming activities, in many cases placed on the riverside, would change to industrial uses, being the first facilities of this kind along the waterfront. The new industrial activities often required the creation of small docks and piers, forming a panoply of small port areas before the great port plan was even discussed (Nabais & Ramos, 1987).
The general layout of the plan has one particular characteristic that has been seen by different authors as one of the key moments for the mutation in the relation between the city and the river. When deciding the reconstruction of the destroyed neighborhoods can be seen in the plans that the concern of a new earthquake and tsunami was present. In the paintings of that time we can see that the effect of the wave in the city was catastrophic, the powerful image caused several changes in the planning concepts. The royal palace was moved from the waterfront to Ajuda, one of the hills in the outskirts of Lisbon. Another relevant change was that in the reconstruction plans, the direction towards the North was preferred, opposing what until then had been the normal urban development orientation, along the river following an East-West axis (Silva, 1994, 2001). This change, visible in the layout of the blocks,was crucial for the development of the city until today. The chosen South-North axis would determine the direction of the city in the following decades and centuries, as we will later see. Initially the plan ended in Rossio square, but later, by the end of the 19th century, the municipal government decided to follow this axis, developing important projects, such as the Passeio Público. This public spacewas replaced in the end of the 19th Century by the Avenida da Liberdade, indicating direction for the future development of Lisbon towards the north.
Landfill and Port plans developed until the end of the 19th Century
The process of cleaning the debris caused by the earthquake lasted until the 19th century (França, 1997)and the plan was not completed until 1873 with the conclusion of the arch above the Augusta street connecting with the Praça do Comércio. Simultaneously, the regularization of the river bank was being discussed. Several planning initiatives were developed before the earthquake and many others after,when the reconstruction process was well advanced and the political climate allowed it.
Several authors have identified the first initiatives dating back to the 1720s and 1730s, during the reign of D. João V. These first two plans were mostly focused in regularizing the waterfront, since in different locations private initiatives had already started to gain land to the river. Another goal was to solve the hygiene issues affecting the city. In different references we can find information from travelers from the 18th century that highlighted the powerful image of Lisbon one could have when arriving from the river, but how it would also vanish immediately when touching land. The health problem was considered one of the main concerns, particularly on the waterfront, in the neighborhood of Boavista, where a considerable amount of dejects would end up. The area was even considered at a certain moment to be one of the yellow fever disease outbreaks in 1857 (Silva).
The last plan presented before the earthquake was designed by Carlos Mardel. The publication date of the plan it is not certain, however most authors indicate that it was probably done in 1750. This document was the first one that include a proposal for the complete “urban” waterfront. The main intervention would be the regularization of the border, including a riverside promenade, and the creation of a major military shipyard, replacing and improving the existing one near the Praça do Comércio.
The period described above can be considered pre-industrial in the particular context of Lisbon. The first vapor powered boat would only arrive in the 1820s and the first railway line would only be built in the 1850s. However, it would only cause significant changes once the key connections were established, in the mid-1860s and mostly during the last decades of the century. This infrastructure and the use of new machinery are considered crucial to the development of the industrial society. The change in the productive model would arrive later to Portugal than to other European countries. For this reason only from the 1840s onwards would we see the first proposals for the development of general plans for Lisbon’s port. Thisissue, the creation of a world class port through the use of landfills to compete in the international markets and regain a lost political status, was being constantly discussed. The intense debate it is clear if we consider that during this period more than thirty different proposals were presented until the final project started to be developed in 1887. At the same time while the discussion regarding the port plan was starting to emerge, the firstplanned large landfill was being developed.
The area of Boavista, between what is nowadays known as Cais do Sodré and Santos, was where some of the first industries of Lisbon were developed. During the late 18th and early 19th century several factories and small shipyards where here created. The occupation of this land was made without proper planning, characterized by narrow and deep plots, that tried to keep the contacts with the river in order to use it for transport and communication, creating different docks and piers, as we have already seen.
The mentioned health issue was one of the main concerns of the local government, but there were also other issues to be addressed. Another goal was to reorganize the area following a more logical scheme, following examples of other urban contemporary projects. At the time the goal was, as well, the embellishment of the area, since it was a location near the centers of power of the capital. This was a general concern regarding the entire city but particularly sensible in this district, also due to its potential connection with the river, where a “riverside boulevard” could had been developed, a dream that will be present in several plans that we will later see.
In 1858 the project started, led by the local engineer José Vitorino Damázio, and financed by the central government. One year later in 1859 the CML (Câmara Municipal de Lisboa – City hall) took over, although for the final stage of the construction they required financial support from the central government.
The goal of regularizing the urban structure remained unfulfilled, partly due to the constant conflict with the landowners and the ownership of the new territory. Finally the plots remained with the same proportions but a middle street dividing them in half was implemented.
The construction was finished in 1865 and the final result of the project included the opening of the 24th of July street, later Avenue. This new road would become an important development axis, although it did not reached the importance it was planned to. The project later led to the development of new public spaces, such as the D.Luís I square, nowadays popularly known as the Cais do Sodré.
The local inhabitants of all classes welcomed the new space by river, which included a public area next to the water where the people could see the Tagus, as Castilho remind us in his book:
“já Lisboa toda, desde 1867, se costumara com gosto ao deasafogado terreiro marginal. (…) Havia tardes, na primavera, e no outono, em que a sociedade concorria ali, aquele salão enorme, a ver o Tejo, que é amigo de nós todos, e a contemplar as magnificiências com que o sol de despedia. Desde a Rainha, a senhora D. Maria Pia, (…) até à humilde varina, e à pobre rapariginha operária, encontrava-se ali toda a gente passeando em certas tardes; e Lisboa, atónita de si mesma, confraternisava em primeira mão com o mar, que representava e representa as nossas melhores e mais firmes tradições.
Depois, anos depois, abriu-se a Avenida; e o Aterro… nem mais lembrou sequer.”
By the end of the century the development of the great port plan would separate the city from the river. The creation of the Cascais railway line in 1895 would establish a definitive barrier between this area and the river. Once again Castilho explains this situation in his work:
“(…) o Lisboeta não veria comboios deslizando como sombrinhas entre ele e o seu querido Tejo, impossibilitando-lhe com cancelas quezilentissimas o trânsito livre com fumo, rumor, e perigos, a melhor coisa que ele tem: O passeio marginal.”
Industrial development along the river
The first industrial development that occurred in Lisbon was placed along the waterfront, in different locations. Previously, we have already mention that the industrial revolution arrived later to Portugal than to other European countries. However, it did took place, particularly from the mid-19th Century onwards, when the new technology was available, and, mostly, when the new transportation infrastructure, railway and port (shipping), offered new communications, increasing the scale of the industrial activity, allowing new ways of structuring the territory.
Initially the industrial activities were concentrated in the area of Boavista, where the aforementioned landfill took place. Short after, and following a set of specific geographic characteristics we could find new, and bigger industrial areas, in Xabregas, Alcântara and Belém. For these larger factories or power plants there were several main qualities determinant for the settlement of new activities. In the first place the land availability, once the scale of the industries started to grow it was necessary land to expand the facilities. As the century advanced this was only possible on the boundaries of the city or directly on the outskirts. Another important element was the topography. Lisbon is known for its rugged geography, composed by several hills that did not eased the implementation of larger conglomerates or main infrastructure, as we will see it happened with the railway and the port. Finally the access to the river was a key element. In order to have an easy way to send or receive cargo or products a direct connection with the Tagus was crucial, since, at the time, it was the most efficient communication method.
The industrial settlements above mentioned evolved following different paths. The cores of Alcântara and Xabregas maintained the secondary sector activities, the first one was linked with the port development and the second related with ever larger industrial conglomerates and power plants (Costa, 2006). In Belém the development, as we will see, evolution was otherwise, particularly in the transition to the 20th century.
The development of the railway connections enhanced the industrial identity of the first two mentioned areas. By the end of the century the three main lines (the north, Sintra and Cascais) were already active. Particularly relevant was the creation of the train connection between Alcântara and Xabregas, that linked the first large port areas with the heavy industrial facilities.
The evolution of the industry in Lisbon is particularly relevant for the development of the city-river relationship. By the end of the 18th century in the Tagus estuary we could find a myriad of small ports and piers, as Nabais & Ramos (1987) indicate, during the first half of the 19th century the situation would not change much, but the debate regarding the creation of one main port intensified. In an initial moment the proximity to the river was determinant for the settlement of industries. In a second stage the same industries had out grown the existing port facilities and demanded a larger port that could suit their logistic interests (Custódio, 1994).
“Mas se o porto (ou melhor os diferentes portos de uma grande realidade portuária) foi condição de fixação das fábricas, as indústrias, por sua vez, foram as grandes impulsionadoras da construção efectiva de um grande porto em Lisboa.”
Finally another particular event increased the pressure to develop the new great port of Lisbon. In 1869the Suez Canal was opened (Costa, 2006). Theoretically this new navigation path could bethe chance for Lisbon to regain importance in the international politics and commerce. It was thought that, due to its positions in the Atlantic coast, it would become a regular stop for the ships doing the route from the Mediterranean Sea to the central range in Europe. It was clear at the time that the current port facilities could not host the traffic nor the scale of the ships the new canal would allow. The port was not just seen as an important element for the local industry but as a tool to recover a lost status, consistent with the maritime history of the country.
The waterfront plans, from 1844 to 1887.
From the mid-1840s until the disclosure of the definitive port plan in 1887 we could see a vivid debate in the society of the time, regarding the use of the waterfront and the new landfills that could be developed on the river.
The expansion and improvement of the port was one of the main issues, as we have seen, but there were other subjects that also caused controversy. The hygiene and general living conditions weresome of them, as so it was the embellishment of the city that, as pointed out by some authors, paled when compared with other European metropolises. By the end of the century another important topic was the direction of the urban expansion. We have seen that in the reconstruction plans developed for the Baixa the S-N axis was the main development direction. However, only in the late 19th century, when Fontes Pereira de Melo was the minister in charge and Ressano García the leading engineer, would the final decision be made.
The history and relation of the different port plans has been analyzed by different authors in investigations exclusively dedicated to this topic. For this reason we will work on the research already developed and will only present the general features of the plans and the process. We will also observe few key examples besides the definitive project from 1887.
During the second half of the 19th century we can see how the issue of the urban and industrial expansion had three main positions. The first one prioritize the new urban areas and the mentioned embellishment. From this first group there were not so many proposals, and the official position, acknowledging the need of a new greater port, was neither on this side. The second option were the plans that had a clear commercialist and industrial approach, in which the port was clearly the most important element, neglecting the need of urban areas on the waterfront. This alternative, which eventually succeeded as we will see, counted with the support of the national government and the local industries. Certain intellectuals and planners did criticized it since the Tagus river, the key identity element of Lisbon, would be then separated from the city. The contact that it had been established, the new landfill of Boavista, would be ruined and the city would clearly turn its backs to the water, as indeed happened. Finally the third option, from which we have a couple of examples, was focused in having a general plan for the entire waterfront, or most part of it, that included the port and the urban expansion. These projects segregating urban and port functions kept connection with the Tagus and offered a more balanced perspective. One of the key elements of these proposals was the creation, or expansion, of the riverside promenade. Many of them did explained that it would be one of the most spectacular urban spaces of Europe, often comparing it with avenues and projects from other cities, like Antwerp or Marseille.
The analysis of the different plans, reveals who were the participating agents. It is interesting to see that there were experts from different European countries, mostly from France and England, but also Italy, Spain, or Belgium. The lack of competent engineering schools in previous centuries caused this situation. From the Portuguese projects we can see that also often the technicians had studied abroad.
Although it was a project sponsored by the national government we also see that some private initiatives tried to develop landfill plan aiming at getting the exploration of the new land in long term deals.
The development of the railway was another important issue for the majority of the proposals. The lines would be developed along the waterfront, in the new landfills, taking profit of the new leveled land. The connection with the existing lines was one of the key goals. For this reason in most plans we see how the train would draw a line from east to west, including the Sta. Apolonia station, close to the riverfront. The Praça do Comércio would remain as the central element of all proposals, one of the “representative piers” identified by Costa (2006) in his classification of the waterfront spaces.
Plans from José Pezerat
One of the first architects and engineers to present a plan was Pierre Joseph Pézerat, Frenchman working in the Municipality since the early 1850s. There is information about him working in the waterfront improvement plan since 1844. In 1854 he published a plan for the section between Boavista and Rocha Conde d’Óbidos, which would later inspire the definitive plan for this area. In it, Pezerat intended to develop a closed port, a system of docks and piers, a maritime neighborhood and the railway. The ambitious plan was rejected by the municipality. Later in 1865 he presented a report about the improvements necessary for Lisbon. In this new document he increased the area of action from the previous project, extending it from the navy shipyard towards the west until the Tower of Belém. One of the novelties of this project was the fact that he relocated some port facilities to the south side of the Tagus in order to free up space in the northern side for urban activities.
1869 – Visconde de S. Januário e Eng. Mendes Guerreiro
In 1869 the Viscount of S. Januário and the engineer Mendes Guerreiro presented another plan that included the waterfront from Sta. Apolónia train station until the Tower of Belém. This plan had stronger maritime vocation. It included a study about the embarking and disembarking of cargo in the ships, creating a continuous quay along the extension of the project.
1870 – Thomé de Gamond
Thomé de Gamond, another french engineer, presented in 1870 his ambitious plan for the waterfront of Lisbon. The area included in the plan went from the valley of Alcântara, where existed several industrial settlements, to the area of Xabregas, more specifically Marvila. In the image we can see that the plan included large landfills, achieving a distance of 1150m to the previous river border in the farthest point.
One of the main innovations of this plan was the fact that included both the port and the urban expansion, with a total segregation of activities. Taking the Praça do Comércio as the center of the project,he created in the eastern section a major port of over 100Ha and 5220 m of pier. This location of the port, although it raised some criticism, it should allow a direct connection with the train station locatednearby. The plan also included the implementation of the railway to Sintra, running parallel to the riverside.
The urban expansionsector of the proposal implied a significant increase of the urban tissue between Praça do Comércio and Alcântara. This area should be dedicated to the new bourgeoisie of the time and, through real estate operations, it would help to finance the project (França, 1994). In the eastern sector we could also find a maritime district, destined to host commercial offices, industrial facilities and housing for the working classes linked to the sector.
The new urban structure included three new parks, the main oneplaced in Alcântara. A key element was the creation of a maritime, green boulevard, bright 115m. The concept of the “Tagus Avenue” would be a constant concept in many plans revealing how important it was to keep a connection with the river, although eventually, this link would be lost for several decades.
Plans developed by the 1871 Commission
In 1871 the ministry of the navy created a commission to analyze and make a proposal about the city and port of Lisbon. This work group was formed by Cateano Maria Batalha, Sanches de Castro, Gilberto Rolla, Ladislau Miceno Machado, Bento F.M.C. de Almeida de Eça, Domingos Parente, António Rodrigues Loureiro e José Joaquim de Almeida. The plan was finished in two years, although there are sources that indicate it was published only in 1874 (Barata, 2010).
This proposal included the waterfront from Sta. Apólonia station to Belém. It also implied smaller interventions in the south side of the Tagus, between Cacilhas and Trafaria. The plan would create new landfills gaining 157 Ha, and would develop 9 docks, 3 ship reappearing facilities, a major riverside boulevard, a working-class neighborhood and an extension of the navy shipyard. In the south side the new facilities would be linked with the river traffic.
In the image is clear that the main interventions would take place between Santos and Belém, leaving almost unaltered the eastern part of the city, where the industrial activities were starting to develop rapidly. Besides the port expansion, one of the main observations of the commission was that the health conditions of Lisbon still remained disturbing. The problems were not totally solved with the Boavista landfill. This concern is visible in the application of what at the time were considered the necessary rules for the development of healthy neighborhoods, mostly by improving the ventilation and sun light of the new urban areas. This concepts was translated into a regular urban tissue with brighter streets. This last feature can also be seen in other plans that include urban development.
1873 – Conde Clarange du Lucotte
The count Clarange du Lucotte had made a study in 1855, but his most relevant contribution is the plan from 1873. This project prioritized the urban functions over the port activities as we can see in the drawing. The proposal included two docks and an outer harbor. One of the main design features was the creations of a continuous pier from the navy shipyard next to the Praça do Comércio to Belém, totaling approximately 6,5 km.
1879 – Manuel Raimundo Valadas
In 1879 Manuel Raimundo Valadas, a Spanish engineer, presented his work, based in the plan previously done by the 1871 Commission. His proposal, although it agreed with the majority of the decisions made by the previous authors, included some changes. The area affected by the project extended from Praia Gastão, presumably in Xabregas, to Pedrouços in Belém. It also included territories in the south side of the river. The plan for the north side was divided into three sectors: the first one from Praia Gastão to the Customs, near the Sta. Apolónia train station and Praça do Comércio; the second one would extend from the last previous point to the Cordoaria, between Alcântara and Belém. Finally, the third sector would extend from the Cordoaria until Pedrouços, after the Belém Tower. Another innovation was the fact that he was one of the firsts to indicate that the larger factories and industries should be placed in the south side of the river, leaving the north side only for commercial operations. This would eventually become true, but only during the first half of the 20th century.
1882 – Miguel Pais
Miguel Pais, a notable Portuguese engineer of the time, famous for his project for a bridge connecting both sides of the Tagus, presented in 1882 (or 1883, there is mixed information about the publishing date) his project titled: “Melhoramentos de Lisboa e o seu Porto- Improvements of Lisbon and its port”. In it, he proposed an intervention from Beato, in the eastern section of the city, to the tower of Belém, totaling 11450 m. One of his concerns was the need of rapidly implementing the plan, since over the last decade there had been considerable discussion, but no real interventions. For this reason he proposed to combine 8450 m of stone piers, or wall as he explains, with iron bridges and piers, with aiming at a faster construction. The project included several docks, being the biggest one in the central section, between the navy yardand the Cordoaria, where the majority of the port areas would be placed. There were other two main features in his project. The first one, as stated by Barata, the creation of a wooded boulevard along the river side, from one end to the other of the project. The idea of the “Tagus avenue” persisted in many projects. The second element was the relocation of the navy yard to the south side of the river. A change that would eventually take place during the first half of the 20th century, when the new road linking east to west was built, passing through the deactivated navy facilities.
1886/7 – Final plan, Joaquim de Matos and Adolfo Loureiro
Finally, in 1886, after hosting of competition in which six different projects were presented, the final plan was developed by the engineers João Joaquim de Matos and Adolfo Loureiro. The latter was the supervisor of the construction process, which started in 1887.
The Belgian engineer, Pierre Hildernet Hersent, was chosen as the contractor for the works to be developed. Hersent himself had participated in previous the competition. He secured the construction of the two central sectors, but later, found several problems with the government and was forced to exit the project.
The project was divided into 4 sectors: the first one, the central sector, included the waterfront from the train station in Sta. Apolónia to Alcântara; the second section went from Alcântara to Belém. The third included the river side from Sta. Apolónia towards the east; and the final part was the south side of the river. As Costa (2006) indicates only the first and second parts were realized, but not entirely.
The central section, where the majority of the new port infrastructure was placed, including the docks of Santos, Alcântara, the Navy, Alfândega (the custom) and the one form Terreiro do Trigo, the fluctuation dock in Boavista and the outer harbour, was left unfinished for many years. The dock of Santos was only completed later. The new dock for the navy was never done and the landfill in front of Praça do Comércio, where the train was supposed to circulate, was also never realized. The second part was fully built since it was crucial for the Cascais railway line and was consider a priority by the authorities.
The first construction period from 1887 until 1905. Afterwards the original plan suffered several changes. Therefore the project was never fully completed, although several docks have remained in use until nowadays.
During the first decades of the 20th century the complex political climate in Portugal harmed the implementation of large scale projects. However, during the last years of the process regarding the development of a major in port in Lisbon, another issue emerged: the articulation in Belém between port and industrial infrastructure and some of the most cherished national monuments, such as the Torre de Belém or the Jerónimos Monastery (Costa, 2006). In some of the plans here explained there were several examples that destined this part of the city for the urban development. Later on, during the first half of the 20th century, we will see how this tendency of leaving the western part of the city for urban activities and focusing the port and industrial areas in the center (mainly in Alcântara and Santos, and mostly port activities) and eastern sections of the city, will be clearer in the waterfront interventions and new plan from 1946.
Simultaneously to the port plan discussion the expansion of the city towards the north was planned. The architect in charge in the municipality, Ressano García, developed a new project following the axis established in the Baixa plan, as we have already mentioned. The replacement of the PasseioPúblico for the new avenue and the layout of a further expansion to the north,combined with the new port and railway infrastructure, set the course for the “break up” with the river. Authors like Barata have pointed out how real estate speculationmight have also influenced this development of the city towards the north, since the plots were this expansion was planned belonged to powerful private owners who had economic interests in the implementation of the S-N axis.
In other texts we find evidence of how, as the industrial port developed, the relation deteriorated, particularly due to the limitation of the contact with the river. The port facilities formed, to the eyes of some inhabitants, a barrierseparating them from the Tagus without any concerns for the aesthetics quality or the public space. We can better understand this in the following texts from the time:
“Indiscutível é que as começadas obras são melhoramento comercial, e higiénico. Sim; Lisboa parece dever Lucrar com elas no seu Comércio, e na sua salubridade. Aí temos o lado útil.
Não foi postergado o lado bello? Não foi sacrificada a um prosaísmo demasiadamente exclusivo a formosura proverbial de Lisboa? Não foi prejudicada pelas exigências meramente utilitárias a frontaria desta povoação proverbial de Lisboa? Não foram cruamente immolados alguns dos nossos mais majestosos logradoiros, alguns dos mais ilustres edifícios lisbonenses? Não vai ser arrancado à cidade um dos seus brasões mais fidalgos, o mar, a que devemos as nossas melhores glórias? (..) Estas novas obras (…) vieram tornar triviais e semsabores as pitorescas fimbrias maritimas de Lisboa.
Pois não teria havido meio de conciliar as exigências positivas com as artísticas? (…)”
“Cidade disposta em anfiteatro, em sucessivos terraços… ora perdendose
lá longe,… ora avançando sobre o rio como o estreito tombadilho duma nau. […] Como aproveitou o lisboeta estas condições naturais tão singulares, esta dádiva do céu e da água? Que partido tirou ele do Tejo? Voltou-lhe as costas, simplesmente”
“Na faixa marginal da cidade tem-se a impressão de que as edificações que ali se ergueram obedeceram à intenção de tapar com um biombo de cantaria a vista do Tejo(…) E em vez de tudo convergir para o rio fantástico, de ele ser o fundo dos quadros decorativos, de constituir, por assim dizer, o leitmotiv da estética citadina, e de se abrir a seu lado uma das mais belas avenidas do Mundo, corre ali um paredão inestético de casaria, de fábricas, de armazéns, e até de gasómetros, ocultando ao lisboeta a vista do seu largo e claro rio”
Proença, 1924, Retrieved from Barata (2009)
Barata, A. (2009). A ordenaçao do espaço litoral de Lisboa, 1860-1940. Cripta Nova. Revista Electrónica de Geografía Y Ciencias Sociales., XIII(296). Retrieved from http://www.ub.es/geocrit/sn/sn-266-4.htm
Barata, A. C. M. (2010). Lisboa “caes da Europa”: realidades, desejos e ficções para a cidade (1860 – 1930). Lisboa: Edições Colibi – IHA/Estudos de Arte Contemporânea, FCSH – Universidade Nova de Lisboa.
Castilho, J. de. (1893). A Ribeira de Lisboa : descripção histórica da margem do Tejo desde a Madre de Deus até Santos-o-Velho. Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional.
Costa, J. P. T. D. A. (2006). La ribera entre proyectos : formación y transformación del territorio portuario, a partir del caso de Lisboa. Barcelona : University of Catalunya.
Cruz, J. P. P. (2016). A cidade e o rio: origem e evolução da frente ribeirinha de lisboa até ao século XVIII. Rossio – Estudos de Lisboa, (6), 116–129.
Custódio, J. (1994). Reflexos da Industrialização na Fisionomia e vida da cidade. In I. Moita (Ed.), O Livro de Lisboa (pp. 435 – 492). Lisboa: Livros Horizonte.
Folgado, D., & Custódio, J. (1999). Caminho do Oríente – Guía do património industrial. (J. Sarmento de Matos, Ed.). Lisbon: Livros Horizonte.
Folgado, D. (2015). Lisboa industrial. Um caminho da e para a modernidade. Rossio – Estudos de Lisboa, (5), 98–109.
França, J. A. (1980). Lisboa: Urbanismo e Arquitectura (1a). Lisbon: Instituto de Cultura e Língua Portuguesa Ministério da Educação e Ciência.
França, J. A. (1994). De Pombal ao Fontismo. In I. Moita (Ed.), O Livro de Lisboa (pp. 363–388). Lisboa: Livros Horizonte.
França, J. A. (1997). Lisboa: urbanismo e arquitectura (3rd ed.). Lisbon: Livros Horizonte.
Nabais, A. J. C. M., & Ramos, P. O. (1987). 100 anos do porto de Lisboa. Lisboa: Administração do Porto de Lisboa.
Ramos, P. O. (1992). Lisbon’s Historic Waterfront. Industriekultur Und Arbeitswelt an Der Wasserkante – Zum Umgang Mit Zeugnissen Der Hafen- Und Schiffahrtsgeschichte / Industrial Culture and Industrial Work in Coastal Areas – Howto Handle theHeritageof Port andShippingHistory, Arbeitshefte Zur Denkmal, (11), 41–45.
Ressano Garcia, P. (2007). Life and death of the Lisbon waterfront – Vida e morte do porto de Lisboa. Universidade Portucalense Infante D. Henrique.
Silva, R. H. (1994). Os Últimos Anos da Monarquia – Desenvolvimento urbanísitico os novos bairros. In I. Moita (Ed.), O Livro de Lisboa (pp. 405 – 424). Lisboa: Livros Horizonte.
Silva, R. H. da. (2001). Planear a cidade burguesa, 1777-1900. Lisboa depois do Marquês de Pombal. In M. H. Barreiros (Ed.), Lisboa, conhecer, pensar, fazer cidade (pp. 50–65). Lisboa: Câmara Municipal de Lisboa – Direcção Municipal de Urbanismo – Departamento de Informação Urbana.
Tobriner (sobre a Gaiola da Baixa)
Regarding the number of casualties there are divergences. The documents of the time are not clear. França, for example, indicates 10000 casualties. Also, according to the same source, 54 convents, 35 churches, 33 palaces and 17 000 homes were destroyed (França 1994:363)
Voltaire for example wrote the “Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne”.
 Another notable feature was an innovative construction technology, named the “gaiola”, the cage, which would allow buildings with several floors, to have a certain flexibility, in theory increasing the resilience of the new constructions in case another earthquake took place. For more information see Tobriner, S. (2001). Compreender a importânciada Gaiola Pombalina, o Sistema anti-sísmicomais avançado do Século XVIII. In Pedra& Cal, n.° 11, July/August/September. GECoRPA.
King D. Manuel I decided in the beginning of the 16th century to relocate the royal palace to the Terreiro do Paço where he could see the river and maritime activities, giving even more emphasis to the waterfront role (Cruz, 2016). After the earthquake the royal as moved to the Ajuda hill, far from the river and the new square was left for government and commercial affairs.(França, 1994, 1997)
This waterfront development process has been included by Costa (2006) in the “building-by-building” category, one of the seven that he identified in his research.
The first railway line in Lisbon was built in 1856 connecting the capital with Carregado. In the 1860s the train linked Lisbon with Porto and Madrid. Finally in the last 15 years of the 18th century we see the opening of the lines that connected Sintra and Cascais with Lisbon and the inner line linking Alcântara and Xabregas. (Costa, 2006)
 Regarding this information we could find sources indicating different figures. According to Castilho until de beginning of the port development works 20 plans were published, Costa states there were 30 and Ramos indicates there were more than 50, including global and partial plans.
Costa (2006) indicates that there were previous landfills in Alcântara. These developed were in a smaller scale, unplanned and through a process that took several decades.
 Another way of noticing the economic and social changes is the observation of the international exhibitions. Different authors indicate how these events serve to “take the pulse” to the society of a certain time. In Lisbon, during the second half of the 19th century, different industrial exhibitions take place, showing the visibility the industrial process had for the society. Particularly relevant was the exhibition of 1888, when Herbest, the contractor for the port works, presented the plans for the future port of the capital (Custódio, 1994). We will see that in Lisbon the international exhibitions have played a relevant role regarding the urban development, particularly in the waterfront.
 In fact it was in this neighborhood where the first strike of the country took place. In 1849, in one of the first steel companies.(Custódio, 1994)
Belém was until the end of the 19th century a separate municipality. Finally in 1885 was merged with Lisbon
 The central range refers to the coast section in central Europe, stretching from Le Havre to Hamburg, that includes several of the main port and logistic centers of the continent, including the two aforementioned and others such as Antwerp, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, or Bremen, among several.
We refer particularly to the work developed by Castilho, Loureiro, Nabais& Ramos, França, Silva, Custódio, Costa and Barata among others.
Cordoaria – Royal Ropery of Junqueira – is one of the main pre-industrial factories created during the government of Marquês de Pombal, in 1775. The building is an architectural landmark with very particular proportions, extending almost 400m parallel to the river in the Junqueira area. It was designed to be the main factory for maritime ropes, sails and other marine equipment.
Last spring we noticed several initiatives focused in the port-city relation. This autumn we also have several events that will bring interesting inputs to the debate from different perspectives.
In this post we will also mention two congresses that took place during the summer months. The proceedings of these events are already available and include interesting papers.
15th AIVP World Conference Cities and Ports ‘Crossovers’
One of the main events focused in the port-city relation will take place this week in Rotterdam. From the 5th to the 7th of October more than 400 delegates will meet to discuss different issues related with relation between the port and the city. The AIVP in collaboration with the Port Authority of Rotterdam have prepared a dense program with speakers coming from different contexts and backgrounds. There will be interesting synergies between the professional and the academic worlds.
Here is the official statement explaining the conference:
Port cities everywhere are facing up to new challenges, both locally and globally. Factors such as energy, climate, e-commerce and “uberisation” of the economy, major geopolitical developments, are all overwhelming 20th century organisations and structures that are proving unequipped to deal with contemporary issues. New synergies, gateways, bridges and other crossovers need to be devised and developed, to ensure that ports, cities, economic stakeholders and citizens are able to play their part in the modernisation of port communities. The aim is to build a city-port relationship that is responsive, resilient, and competitive, while also taking into account the needs of the local population and… the environment.
It is possible to work together. A whole host of initiatives have already been adopted, with increasing success. Our 15th worldwide conference in Rotterdam aims to showcase them, working with you to build YOUR future.
1. How can crossovers between cities and ports enhance the circular economy?
2. How can crossovers between cities and ports stimulate innovative business climate?
3. How can we use smart technologies for green logistics and industries in port and city?
4. How can joined urban and port planning facilitate the next economy – flexible frameworks of port and city?
5. How can crossovers allow the creation of resilient ports cities facing up to the challenges of climate change
6. How can port cities enhance social innovation, develop new skills and raise the profile and image of the port?
During October a series of conferences and debates has been prepared to discuss several issues related with the port in the context of the Portuguese capital.
Each week there will be a debate with presentation from various professionals, focused in different specific topics. The issues to be discussed will go from the port-city relation, to the role of the port in the metropolitan area or even the maritime tourism, a hot topic nowadays in Lisbon.
The conclusion of the program will probably take place during the celebrations of the day of the port, on October 31st.
We leave you here a brief glance of the program:
Friday the 6th : Maritime tourism – a new dynamic
Friday the 14th: Innovative solutions for the port-city relation
Friday the 21st: A port with two shores – Multimodal platform of Barreiro
Thursday the 27th: The port of Lisbon – The future is made today
The Young Planning Professionals of the ISOCARP workshop will take place in Glasgow by the last week of October. In this meeting the participants, 20 young professionals, will have the chance to discuss the redevelopment of Clyde Waterfront in Glasgow. The connection new infrastructure and the integration of above and below ground urban design will be the main challenge the participants will have to face.
One of the most interesting aspects of this workshop is the fact the work will be developed by an interdisciplinary team, formed by 10 architects/urban planners and 10 civil engineers.
3rd International Workshop “Cities from the Sea – Maritime identity and Urban Regeneration”
In the city of Naples, organized by the Federico II university the 3rd International Workshop “Cities from the Sea – Maritime identity and Urban Regeneration” will take place between the 26th of November and 3rd of December.
In this workshop the participants, 30 student and 6 tutors, will have the chance to discuss the present and the future of the waterfront and port of Naples. The focus of the meeting will be development of port-cities from different perspectives, from urban planning to community psychology. There will an opportunity to interact with the local stakeholders and attend to several conferences from experts from different fields.
The Call for applications, both for students and tutors, is currently open. The deadline is October 14th.
We leave you here some information from the official website.
Urban planning and design in seaside cities, collaborative strategies, community psychology
Urban regeneration, place branding and urban marketing for seaside cities
Case study and field work areas: Port of Naples and San Giovanni Coast + Nisida Islet, Coroglio and Bagnoli + Historic Waterfront of Naples
Interaction with international referees and real stakeholders
Integrated economic/enviromental/social approach
Focus group on port cities and coastal urban areas
Working with “hungry and foolish” people
Real interdisciplinary collaboration among planning, architecture, psychology, economics, ecology, art, social sciences, etc.
Interaction with key actors of Napoli metropolitan coast on the land and on the sea
“On board” site visits and views from the sea of Napoli metropolitan coast
4th World Port Hackathon
The 4th World Port Hackathon took place on the 2nd and 3rd of September, in the RDM Campus in Rotterdam. During twenty-four hours, 100 hackers took on the challenges from the port of Rotterdam and the port of Singapore. Throughout the World Port Hackathon, the hackers experienced active participation from the port community and there were also many visitors during the Expo and the Grand Finale. (Text retrieved from the official website).
17th IPHS Conference
Last July , the 17th Conference of the International Planning History Society was held in the TU Delft. In this event there several sessions with interesting papers. We can highlight one of them, more related with the port-city topic, titled: Resilience, Path Dependency and Port Cities. Several senior researcher ins the field of waterfront and port-city relations participated in the conference, such as Carole Hein (organizer of the event), Han Meyer or Dirk Schubert.
The proceedings are already available in the congress website here.
13th International Conference on Urban History
A second congress also in the field of urban history, that took place this summer was the 13th Conference of the EAUH – European Association for Urban History. The event, realized in Helsinki, developed sessions about many different topics, being two particularly relevant for the ongoing investigation. The first one was the M21 European Seaport Culture. In it, several researchers presented investigation concerning several study cases, some of them already analyzed here, such as Rotterdam, Genoa or Marseille. Considering the type of conference the approach was from a historic point of view, but it gave interning insights to specific issues, like for example the origin of the Hafengeburtstag in Hamburg.
The second session relevant to the port-city relation was the S23. Reinterpreting Global History: Second Cities, an Alternative Road to Global Integration in the Nineteenth and Twentieth century. The discussion about the concept of second city, very often connected with the one of port-city, was particularly interesting. The papers were particularly incisive, discussing some cases aforementioned.
Several authors have studied the evolution of the relation between cities and ports, developing different models, identifying a conflict situation that in many cases continues until today. In this article we will try to briefly summarized some of the causes of the conflict and their impact in the relation. After, we will mention some strategies used by the port authorities and communities and how they can be complemented by the Port Centers. Finally we will see how this concept works and how it has evolved from the first generation to the second, explaining two examples from each one.
The Port-City relation
We can find complains regarding the port infrastructure and how they cut the access to the water already in the late 19th century. However, the positive outcome of having a port at that time it was clear. The number of jobs associated with the port activities and the economic advantages granted a certain social support for the port development. The evolution of the logistic chain, the maritime technology, the world economy, planning practices or new legislation forced changes during the 20th century in the port configuration and functioning. Due to these changes, among other things, the positive effects of the port activities began to spread over the region or the country, while the negative externalities, mainly related with the environment and traffic, remained in the port-city (Ircha, 2013; Merk, 2013,2014).
Along with the diminishment of the positive externalities, the raise of an ecological conscience during the second half of the 20th century had as well an impact in the way people saw ports. This phenomenon created social concerns about the environment and the negative effects certain industries could cause. These concerns eventually resulted in a movement opposing some industrial infrastructures, including ports and their expansion projects.
The process aforementioned, particularly the decrease in the economic impact of the port-maritime activities in the local society, has been named by other researchers as demaritimisation (Musso et al. 2011). This term can also include the decrease of the cultural presence of the port in the port-cities, which results in a loss of maritime character. The lost of port conscience could eventually lead to the reallocation of public resources into other sectors, further harming the port development. It is also possible to observe that the ports, and more specifically the port authorities, have not, for the major part of their history, maintain a transparent communication with the city or the local citizens. As result, the physical and symbolic distance between cities and ports has been increasing.
Simultaneously a new type of project began to take place in port-cities, the urban waterfront regeneration plans. This sort of intervention, which started in the 1960s in the USA, was initially based in the transformation of port brownfields near the city center. By the end of the 20th Century, the evolution of this type of projects and the changes in the urban development tendencies had transformed the waterfront area into one of the most appealing locations for new city districts, changing the previous industrial activities for housing projects, office buildings, public spaces or cultural facilities (Schubert, 2011). Among other issues, the increase of value of the waterfront plots put more pressure on the port to leave the locations close to the city center. In some cases, like Oslo, the port authorities also saw this process as an opportunity to finance new port infrastructure outside the urban core. The result of these changes was that in numerous cases ports were no longer visible nor existed close to the everyday routines of the city as it was before, separating themselves from the general image of the local identity.
The evolution of the port-city relation as previously described have resulted in a significant diminishment of the social support of ports. In the late 20th century and beginning of the 21st, we could see a shift in the priorities of the port authorities. They start to include the social integration of ports in their program and projects (Merk,2013). In the early 21st century several documents from European initiatives were published showing the concern about this issue. In this context one of the aims of the port authorities was granting the Social License to Operate. As explained by other authors (Dooms ,2014, Boutilier and Thomson,2011) the SLO is, in its broader concept, fulfilling the expectations of stakeholder and local communities in dimensions that go beyond the creation of wealth, i.e. the social acceptance of port activities by local communities, that take in consideration other elements, besides the economic impact of the port.
To achieve the SLO, a common strategy has been to appeal to what was named by Van Hooydonk as the Soft – Values, “the non-socioeconomic values which include among others historical, sociological, artistic and cultural sub-functions that form the soft-function of seaports” (Van Hooydonk, 2007). In some of the bigger port-cities, such as Rotterdam or Hamburg, the port festivals have been an important event in the festivities calendar. This sort of events are being implemented in port-cities around the world with relative success in terms of local participation. The use of the soft-values has been enhanced by different port authorities, developing a socio-cultural agenda, from movie festival to concerts or sport events.
The practices using soft-values have been able to attract people to the port territory, create a visual relation with the port atmosphere and in some cases help to keep the port-maritime identity of some port-cities. However, there is a tendency to a certain romanticism in the cultural events, sometimes detached from the real functioning of the port. As mentioned by Verhoeven (2011), both soft and hard values are necessary to regain the public support of ports. In order to develop a process of remaritimisation of port-cities, it is mandatory to combine innovative port activities, that generate new port related jobs and locally created added value, with the aforementioned Soft-Values and a clear communication channel. Considering the discredit of many political institutions and the tendency of the bottom-up planning policies, it seems reasonable to look for new tools for the port-city relation, adapted to the new scenario, such as the Port Centers.
The Port Center Concept
The Port Center concept can be described as a ” museum and didactic structure oriented to the diffusion of port and maritime awareness and knowledge” (Ghiara, 2012). This structure has a physical location, a permanent exhibition and staff focused in the organization of visits to the center and the port territory. This structure has been used to articulate the relation between the port and the citizens, including local and foreign visitors. As we will see in the examples, the Port Center has also been created as a two way communication channel where, not only the people can get information about the port, but also is possible to organize a debate about the port-city relation or the port expansion projects. In most European countries the public discussion of large infrastructural projects is mandatory by law, which is also an opportunity to involve the locals in the port development debate and generate a certain feeling of appropriation of the port.
The Soft-Values of seaports, as mentioned before, are one of the main assets ports can use to regain the social acceptance and visibility. The management of these values can also be made using the Port Center as the hinge for the port-city interaction, developing the socio-cultural agenda and the educational programs, fostering the public debate or implementing new information channels. The Port Centers form an alternative way to communicate with the citizens, complementing the existing initiatives. We can identify two different generations of this sort of structure since they started to be used in the late 1980s.
Antwerp Port Center
The impact generated by the larger ports usually requires them to develop innovative strategies to reduce their negative externalities and increase their social integration, including innovative ways of information disclosure (Merk, 2013, 74). In 1988 the first Port Center was created in one of Europe’s biggest ports, Antwerp. This new facility was, and still is, located in the center of the port territory, on the right bank of the Scheldt river, next to the Lillo fort, 20 Km. from the city center. The scope for which it was founded was mainly educational, seeking to change the negative perception the port had, mainly among the younger generations. This issue is particularly relevant, not just regarding the social acceptance, but also concerning the lack of qualified workers.
The educational scope of the Antwerp Havencentrum, previously also known as Lillo Port Center, was clear since it was initially thought exclusively for school classes. The fact of being far from the public transport was not a problem since the groups would arrive directly with their own means. Later, the Center allowed different types of groups, increasing their impact in the local society, welcoming pensioners and company delegations visiting the port.
The Port Center of Antwerp is mainly financed by the province, responsible for 70% of its budget. In an initial moment it did not included other organism in the board of directors, but this situation changed in 2014 when the representatives of the logistics and industrial sectors of the port were invited to the board. The integration of the different stakeholders of the port community is important, not just for possible economic support, but also for the legitimacy of the project and the organization of the port visits. Secondary financing strategies have also been developed, including an entrance fee for the visitors and the sublet of meeting rooms as venue for the interested companies.
The exhibition space (800sqm) explains the functioning of the port and its impact in the regional, national and international level. The pedagogic project has been developed following the principle of edutainment, combining the explanation of the logistic chain, the ships and the port territory with interactive games in order to captivate the attention of the students. This strategy was inspired by the science museums, and later was followed by Port Centers developed afterwards.
The integration of former employees in the guides team is another positive aspect of the project. This initiative allows to maintain a certain sense of port community and gives first hand testimonies to the visitors. In order to grant the correct communication between the youngsters and the retired port workers, the latter received an specific training for the interaction and explanation of their experiences.
So far the Antwerp Port Center has enjoyed reasonable success according to the number of visitors, over 47 000 per year (AIVP, 2016). The coordination with the educational community has been as well positive. Other forms of collaboration have been developed, particularly relevant with the high schools focused in the maritime education and with the institute of maritime management and transport from the university of Antwerp. The main critic could be that, for the moment, it has not been possible to organize a two way interaction as some examples of the second generation, limiting the possible communication (Ghiara et al. 2014). Another issue could be the fact the Port Center of Antwerp still is reserved for groups visits from the target audiences, not allowing individual visits, limiting its social impact capacity.
The second Port Center of the first generation is the EIC (Education and Information Centre) of Rotterdam. This structure was created in late 1993 by Deltalinqs (Association of port companies of Rotterdam) and the port of Rotterdam Authority. It shares several characteristics with the case of Antwerp regarding location, scope and type of visitors. It is placed next to Rozenburg and the Europoort terminal, 20 km from the city center and without a good public transport connection.
The main goal was to explain the port to the new generations and show them that the port can be a good option to pursue a professional career. As it happens in Antwerp, the port was no longer seen as an attractive location to work (Aarts et al., 2012) . The strategy to explain the ports is similar as well to Antwerp. It includes a permanent exhibition with games and didactic activities and organizes port visits for the groups that come to the center. It also offers their services and facilities to the port companies, including the possibility of hosting private events. This service, along the entrance fee, provides a secondary financing source. In the website we can find educational material to assist the school teachers to better prepare the visit and take the maximum profit of it.
The success of this initiative is clear, receiving 22 000 visitors per year (Merk, 2013) but, as the aforementioned example, for the moment it does not allows individual visitors. Nevertheless the Port of Rotterdam decided to develop a second Port Center, already part of the second generation, including some changes in the model followed so far.
The concept of the Port Center has been implemented in different contexts and we can find examples in port -cities in and outside Europe. It took more than two decades for the concept to be used by other port-cities. To this second wave, developed since the first decade of the 20th century, belong for example the cases of Genoa, Melbourne, Vancouver, Busan, Rotterdam- FutureLand, Le Havre, Ashdod and Livorno. In the initiatives that integrate this second generation we can find a greater variety of solutions for the challenges faced by the centers from the first one.
In terms of financing we can see different approaches. On one hand, there is possibility of a collaboration between different institutions, related with the port, including port authorities, municipalities and regions or the chamber of commerce. This approach can be found in Genoa, Le Havre or even in the port museum of Dunkirk. On the other hand, we can also find initiatives that are full responsibility of the port authorities, for example Rotterdam-FutureLand, Melbourne, Ashdod or Livorno. This second model reveals how the concern regarding the social acceptance and integration has grown in the port authorities. In the first generation the port authorities were not so present in the financing or the organization, mainly done by the province or the association of port companies. The option of a joint project gives more credibility to the center since it is more unlikely that is perceived by the visitors as a public relation from the port authority.
The location issue has also been handled in different ways. We can find two main options: The Port Center placed in the port territory, as it was in the first generation, or located in the boundary between port and city, near the urban core. In Melbourne and Ashdod the structure is placed in the port area, being the second one in a restricted access location. The visit is only possible in groups, often with their own transportation. This solution allows a direct impression of the port, but it reduces the options of individual visitors. The second possibility, implemented in Genoa and later in Livorno or Le Havre, has an easier access to the facility. This second option allows an easier access to the general public, broadening the target audience. However, it is important to notice that, in several cases here presented, the choice of the location was very often more related with the available facilities than with other criteria. The majority use existing locations, in some examples occupying heritage buildings owned by the port or one of the partners, giving a stronger sense of attachment to the place and a more recognizable space.
Regarding the target audience, the majority of the Port Centers are focused in the younger public, particularly the children and teenagers deciding the educational path they want to take. In some cases, like Genoa or Le Havre, it was decided to welcome a wider audience, occasionally developing content and activities for a more mature public. For example, Le Havre developed the technical Thursdays program, during which experts from port different activities or port development do presentations about specific topics in a more detailed level.
Another element that has changed is the entrance fee. In most cases of the second generation the entrance fee is no longer applied or with a symbolic figure. The majority of the project financing has been done by the participating partners.
Simultaneously to the second generation the AIVP created the Port Center Network. This work group was established in 2011 (Morucci et al. 2016) with the goal of connecting the existing Port Centers from both generations and share the best practices. One of the main inputs of this initiative has been the Missions Charter of a Port Center, a document published in 2013 with ten key points explaining the goals and challenges if this type of projects
From the mentioned cases that form the second generation we will explain in further detail two, the Italian Port Centers of Genoa and Livorno.
Genoa Port Center
The Port Center of Genoa was one of the first cases of the second generation. The project was supported by five different institutions: the Genoa Port Authority, the Maritime Authority, the Province of Genoa, the University and the Municipality of Genoa (through the Porto Antico SpA) (Ghiara, 2012). The chosen location for the new facility was in the Porto Antico area, next to the city center and other urban attractions, like the Bigo or the aquarium, with an easy access for the general public.
The university of Genoa, more specifically the faculty of economy, developed the necessary research collaborating with the port community. The main motivation of the project was not to explain the point of view of the port authority, but to include all the different perspectives of the port-city relationship.
Around the Port Center a socio-cultural agenda was developed. During the first years a series of events took place, such as the port run, movies on the docks, or activities coordinated with other museums and science centers. This panoply of actions was destined, as pointed out by Ghiara (2012), to promote the soft-values and articulate the relation between both realities.
Although the general public was the target audience, the school groups still received considerable attention. Besides the exhibition and the tours to the port territory, other activities were programmed. One of the main examples was the “Let’s adopt a ship” project, by which the student groups would be able to remain in contact with the crew of a ship (Ghiara et al, 2014).
During the first years the project received 14000 visitors each year (Merk, 2013), including almost 6000 students per year in average (Ghiara, 2012).
The Port Center of Genoa is since mid 2014 closed due to a lack of understanding between the participant partners. The goal after the first years was to give the management of the center to the port authority but for the moment the situation is unclear. This problem shows how difficult and complex the collaboration between the different institutions operating in the port-city can be. This issue will affect the image of the port and the aimed social support, in this case particularly necessary since the port has a direct boundary with the city along the entire urban waterfront.
Livorno Port Center
On November 2015 the most recent Port Center of the second generation opened its doors in the port-city of Livorno. In this case the project is developed by the port authority of Livorno, that since 2007 has developed several initiatives aimed towards a better social integration of the port. Among these actions, the one that has received greater recognition, is the Porto Aperto program, during which social activities in the port are organized, mainly during the school period.
There are several aspects from the case of Livorno that differentiate it from previous cases. The center is located inside the Fortezza Vecchia, a fortress from the 16th Century. This heritage construction is placed in the boundary between the city and the port and offers a historic context for the Port Center, as well as different points where the visitors can see the port from an elevated location. The port authority was able to use its own resources for the refurbishment of a section of the fortress since it would host the Port Center, what can be considered a port function. This issue is particularly relevant since, in the case of Italy, the law very often does not allows the port authorities to finance projects that are not related with the port activities.
The Port Center includes a permanent exhibition and a library. However, when compared with other cases is considerably smaller, adapted to the local context. Regarding the exhibition itself another innovation is its layout. Although the principles of edutainment are still present, the final solution used new available technologies, such as virtual reality or kinetic games, to give a more interactive experience. Besides the fact of being more attractive to the teens and children visiting the center, this new approach allows a certain flexibility and adaptation capacity, since the necessary equipment is easier to move and transport.
One of the original motivations of the Port Center of Livorno was, besides explaining the port, to develop a forum where the ideas about the port-city relation could be shared and discussed (Corradini & Morucci, 2012). This goal became a reality during the spring of 2016, from April to June, when the port debate took place in the fortress and included the port center as one of the main tools to explain the port and the development project planned. The figure of the debate is planned in the regional law of Tuscany in cases where the project budget exceeds 50 million €. In this case there were two proposals to be discussed, the Europe Platform, including different infrastructure related with the logistics sector, and the new maritime station, mainly destined to passenger traffic. The project would be located in a position that could create new port-city interaction, including interventions in the existing heritage. During the different debate sessions, the public got to know the issues related with both projects, besides general information about the port functioning. The debate also worked as a two way communication, since the citizens were also able to give their inputs to the discussion, although the port authority is not compelled to follow the conclusions of the debate. During the initiative the participants could also make port visits. The organization created as well an online user-friendly platform where all the information was available.
In the evolution of the relation between port and city we have seen how the interaction and communication has changed. The need to obtain the SLO forced many port authorities to include the social integration as one of their priorities. In an initial moment it was noticed that the use of the soft-values could help to regain the port identity of many port-cities. The development of a socio-cultural agenda has became a reality in many cases. However, we have seen that it is necessary to explain the port reality as it is nowadays, complementing the romantic vision often presented with updated information.
The port-cities are territories open to urban planning innovation, as we have seen in numerous waterfront projects. In this case, the Port Center is an element around which is possible to articulate the relation between port and city, including the local citizens., while contributing to the social acceptance of the port. These structures offer the inhabitants the opportunity to re-appropriate themselves of the port and identify it as an important element of the city’s identity.
The success of the policies developed by the different port-authorities, including the management of Soft-Values and Port Centers, is yet to be measured. The study of these actions and their results is a relevant subject to be studied, which should be approached with a holistic methodology. The investigations would have to be formulated including several perspectives from different fields. The study of the policies impact would determine their validity and how they must be adapted to the ever changing reality of the port-cities.
This paper was presented in the session about European Seaport Culture in the 13th Conference on Urban History that took place in Helsinki, between the 24th and 27th of August.
Aarts, M., Daamen, T., Huijs, M., & de Vries, W., Port City development in Rotterdam: A true love story. 2013, Retrieved from http://urban-e.aq.upm.es.Visited on 12-08-2016 18:25
Barata, A. C. M., Lisboa “caes da Europa”: realidades, desejos e ficções para a cidade (1860 – 1930). Lisbon: Edições Colibri – IHA/Estudos de Arte Contemporânea, FCSH – Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2010.
Corradini, S., Morucci, F., Livorno between preserving port identity and future challenges. Portusplus, 3. (2012)
Demoulin, P., Port information center as an essential instrument in reconnecting ports and citizens. In 12th International Conference Cities and Ports. Le Havre: AIVP. 2010
Dooms, M., Integrating “triple P” bottom line performance and the license to operate for ports: towards new partnerships between port cluster stakeholders. In Y. Alix, B. Delsalle, & C. Comtois (Eds.), Port-City Governance (pp. 55–76). Cormelles-le-Royal: ems – Management & Societe. 2014
Ghiara, H., How to communicate the port today to build the port of tomorrow ? The port center Activities in Genoa. In 13th AIVP World Conference Cities and Ports. Le Havre: AIVP. 2012
Ghiara, H., Demoulin, P., & Marini, G., Port Center: to develop a renewed port-city relationship by improving a shared port culture. In Y. Alix, B. Delsalle, & C. Comtois (Eds.), Port-City Governance (pp. 233–246). Cormelles-le-Royal: ems – Management & Societe. 2014
Guillain, S., Relazione Finale. Dibattito pubblico sullo sviluppo e la riqualificazione del porto di Livorno. Livorno. 2016
Ircha M C., Social License for Canadian Port, PORTUS, n. 25, Year XIII, Venice, RETE Publisher. 2013
Morucci, F., Bicocchi, J., New port identity between global and local. The case of competitive development of Livorno. Portusplus, VI(6). 2016
Merk, O., The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: Synthesis Report. OECD Publishing. Paris, 2013
Musso, E., & Ghiara, H., Reshaping the economic landscape of Port Cities. In J. Alemany & R. Bruttomesso (Eds.), The Port City of the XXIst Century. New Challenges in the Relationship between Port and City (pp. 87–101). Venice: Rete. 2011
Schubert, D., Seaport Cities: Phases of spatial restructuring. In C. Hein (Ed.), Port Cities: Dynamic Landscapes and Global Networks (1st ed., pp. 54–69). New York: Routledge. 2011
Sessions, G., The Deep Ecology Movement: A Review. Environmental Review: ER, 11(2), 105–125.,(1987)
Van Hooydonk, E., Soft values of seaports. A strategy for the restoration of public support for seaports. Antwerp: Garant. 2007
 Among these authors we can find for example the work developed by Bird, Hayuth, Hoyle or Meyer. All of them have explain the evolution of the relation between port and city and the port-city interface, often linked with the economic cycles.
 For example in the case of Lisbon we can find texts from journalists and writers from the end of the 19th Century or beginning of the 20th, such as Castilho or Proença, that complained about the options taken in the port development plan and how they affected the relation between the city and the river (Barata, 2010)
 It is generally accepted that the first major change in the port-city relation took place during the industrial revolution, when many port development projects took place forced by the improvements in the maritime technology. Also in this period is when the first port authorities were founded. Another important change took place during the 1960’s, when the container, invented in the 1956 by Malcom Mclean, started to be a universal cargo forcing changes in the ports layout. In terms of legislation the most recent example is the international ISPS code, which implies that the port areas must have restricted access and have to be separated from the surroundings by a wall or fence.
 Aldo Leopold was the first author to mention the idea of an ecological conscience in his book “A sand county almanac” from 1949. In his work, the author claimed a change in the worldview, from an anthropocentric perspective to an ecocentric one, being the man part of nature and not above it. This work, along with the book “Silent Spring” from R. Carson, published in 1961, inspired what can be known as the “Age of ecology” (Sessions, 1987).
 Documents from European projects such as: the “plan the city with the port” initiative, the SUDEST and CTUR projects, both integrated in the Urbact program, and the “People around ports project” from which the “Code of Practice on Societal Integration of Ports” from ESPO resulted. During the same time span the AIVP (Association International Ville et Port) also published several documents mentioning the topic of social integration of ports.
 The port festivals of Hamburg (Hafengeburtstag) and the Rotterdam (World Port Days) are two of the most well known events of this kind. Both attract hundreds of thousands visitors and the port is in the center of the celebration. Another sort of example could be the port run in Valparaiso or Porto, or the music festivals in Hamburg (Elbjazz) or Las Palmas (Temudas).
 Although not technically a Port Center, it fulfills a part of its mission and is an example of cooperation among several local institutions.
 The exhibition is formed by different stations and a central media table. The stations include a beamer, a white screen and a movement sensor. This sort of technology can be easily moved and adapted to other location in case the Port Center has to move.