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.
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.
In the previous article we could see the pre-industrial evolution of Lisbon´s waterfront during the 18th and 19th centuries. We got to know the alternative visions for the port and the riverfront, and how the process to reach a final proposal for the new industrial harbor took some time and was considerably complex. As we saw this process culminated in 1887 with the final competition for the port development plan.
This article will explain how the winning proposal was developed during the first decades of the 20th century. We will also see how the industry and the port evolved, implementing new infrastructure that gradually separated the city from the river and the port.
Finally we will also a second key moment of the port-city relation, at the end of the first-half of the past century, when the waterfront starts to be specialized, segregating different functions At the same time this change allowed the implementation of urban programs on the waterfront for the first time. The changes here mentioned crafted the current image of the port and the riverfront. The final discussion at the end of the 20th century about the regeneration of the water edge and the relation with the river will be left for the next article.
Construction of the first section of the 1887 port plan
On October 31st of 1887 the construction of the new port of Lisbon began. That day was marked by celebrations both for the inauguration of the port development construction and the birthday of King D. Luis (Silva, 1923). The project was divided into 4 sectors. The first one considered the central part of waterfront, went from Sta. Apolónia railway station to Alcântara, the second from Alcântara to Belém, the third one was the eastern section of the riverbank and the 4th one was the south side of the Tagus river (Nabais& Ramos, 1987) (Costa, 2006)
The civil Engineer Hildernet Hersent was considered the winner of the competition in April 1887. His project took the one from Loureiro and Matos as starting point, but included several changes due to technical and economic issues. He was in charge for the development of the first section while the national railway company was responsible for the second one. The other two sectors were left for future construction.
The construction of the first section of the port of Lisbon was not easy and found several problems along the way. Some authors (AGPL, 1958)(Costa, 2006) have divided the process into two phases, a first one from the competition date until 1894, and he second one from 1894 until 1907. During this period the court of arbitrage was forced to intervene twice in conflicts between the contractor and the state. In 1891 the contract was reviewed, extending it for 10 years. A new contract was made in 1894 and the court of arbitrage decided in 1902 to extend the arrangement until the final date of 1907 (AGPL, 1926). Although the construction was supposed to be finished several issues affected it´s normal development, afterwards there were several works necessary to the full completion of the plan, which was not finished until several years after. In 1907 the state took control of the new port facilities and the new territory. For the management of this infrastructure the Minister of public works created an autonomous board formed by seven elements coming from the different actors involved in the port and maritime activities. The new organizations was named the Administração Geral do Porto de Lisboa (AGPL). (ibid.)(AGPL, 1938) (Nabais & Ramos, 1987).
The second section of Lisbon´s waterfront included, besides the railway infrastructure, several docks, but were mainly destined to the navy or other uses rather than the usual commercial activities of the port. The landfills made in this section offered a location for the new industries related with the energy production sector. One example of this sort of settlements was the Central Tejo in Belém. This coal power plant started to be built in 1908 (Silva,1997). These sort of industries would remain in this part of the city until the 1940s (Costa, 2006), as we will later see.
During the first decades of the 20th century we see an increase in the maritime traffic of Lisbon. In several texts of the time we can find criticism to the development path of the port, mainly concerning the slow construction and some management issues (Silva, 1923). The construction of the first sector was not finished until 1926. During that time the existing infrastructure suffered few changes, including the transformation of the fluctuation dock into a “normal” one. In 1923 Silva complained about the delays in the completion of the works, the lack of new investment in machinery, the fact that the 2nd sector could not be used for real port activities, but only railway connection, leisure sailing or industrial areas. He also criticized that the 3rd sector was plan but never financed and the 4th section not even discussed.
The first quarter of the 20th century was a period of political instability in Portugal. This situation did not contributed to the conclusion of the first port project and the development of the other sections. The increasing tension culminated in the assassination of the king D. Carlos I and his son and successor in the throne D. Luis Filipe in 1908. On October the 5th of 1910 the 1st democratic republic of Portugal was declared. During the following years the new regime was as well characterized by a very instable democracy with many changes in government. Finally in 1926 a coup d’état ended the democratic republic and started the military dictatorship. From 1928 to 1933 the regime evolved to become the “Estado Novo”, being António de Oliveira Salazar the key figure. First invited to the government of 1928 to be the minister of finance, gradually increased his influence until he became the president of the board of ministers in 1933, establishing the authoritarian regime that would rule Portugal until the revolution of 1974 (Saraiva, 1996) .
First decades of the 20th century.
In 1907 when the state regained control of the new port the infrastructure consisted in seven docks, with the correspondent technical apparel, a territory including 3500 m of ramps and embankments, 4700 m of piers, two dry docks, and over 14 000 m2 of warehouse space (AGPL, 1938). According to some texts of the time, during the following decades less construction was done, the interventions were mainlythe two new ship repair docks, more storage space and the conclusion of the pier of Santos.
The image of the port as it is known nowadays, started to be forged during this time (Costa, 2006). The separation between the city and the port became stronger and the difference of scale reduced the interaction between the citizens and the port.
The political climate during the 1910s and early 1920s affected as well the port development. Until the new regime gained power and a certain stability was found, there were not many relevant constructions. During the late 1920s and 1930s the new government pushed further port development. The third section, planned in the competition, and already designed in 1916, was finally under construction. The dry docks 3 and 4 for naval repair were built, and the Alcântara and Santos docks were also rebuilt. The construction quality of the first section of the port was far from ideal and different reinforcement works were necessary in the following years after its opening (ibid.) (Silva, 1923).
During this time other relevant infrastructures were built on the land side. The new buildings were designed with the predominant style of the time, the Português Suave(Fernandes, 2003). This architectural expression, very valued by the regime, was chosen for many public constructions of the time. This style was related with the international movement known as rationalism, mainly used other countries with fascist dictatorships. This architectural language was used by the regime as propaganda to communicate their ideals, emphasizing the national identity. As result several relevant port buildings were constructed with this style, particularly the ones that hosted functions related with the public or that had a prominent location in the port-city interface.
The maritime stations
The passenger traffic, both regional and international, was quite relevant for the port of Lisbon. In 1937 more than 350 000 persons arrived or departed from Lisbon by boat (Brito et al. 2007). Three maritime stations were planned during the 1930s, but only two were finally built during the next decade. The maritime stations of Alcântara and Rocha Conde d’Óbidos are two examples of the mentioned architectural style and had an important role in the city´s structure, being the doors to Lisbon for the foreign passengers. Both buildings were designed by Pardal Monteiro, an important architect of the 20th century in Portugal, and the one in Alcântara included murals by AlmadaNegreiros, increasing their artistic value. The first one was inaugurated in 1943 and the second one was built between 1945 and 1948 (Gama, 1997). These stations remained the main connection with foreign countries until the construction of the airport. Afterwards were used mainly to welcome cruise ships.
Detail of the murals by Almada Negreiros
Murals by Almada Negreiros. Antonio Passaporte – 1943 – PTAMLSBPAS002290
Aerial View of Alcântara’s Maritime Terminal and its situation in the city
River elevation of the Maritime Station of Alcantara
Main façade of the Maritime station of Alcântara
To respond to the increasing traffic of people crossing the river from north to south several stations dedicated to the passenger fluvial traffic were planned. The first one was the south-southeast stations next to Praça do Comércio, by Cottinelli e Telmo in the late 1920s (ibid.). Several years later, inaugurated in 1940, another one in Belém was built. In this case the project was by Caetano de Carvalho, in the same style the stations from Rocha Conde d’Óbidos and Alcântara would be built in the same decade. This terminal was linked with the railway station in Belém, and also played an important role in the Exhibition of the same year that we will later explain (ibis.)
Another interesting building was the refrigerated warehouse for cod fish, placed next to the rail line and the Av. 24 de Julho. This construction of large proportions had a strong visual impact due to its proportions and the architectural language including, a bas-relief with national heroes. We can see in the architectural expression or texts of the time that the port was still a an important element of civic pride was.
“(…) O que seríamos se esta esteira maritima nos nãos facultasse o precioso acesso ao Oceano e daí para todos os mares?O que seríamos sem este rio que preparous para os mares traiçoeiros os primeiros navegadores? A importância cital de Lisboa, não só para os portuguese como para o estrangeiro, é de tal modo, que a Europa não teria outra entrada fluvial para o comércio africano e americano se este pôrto não fosse como é.”
In the same decade a relevant change regarding the jurisdiction of the Port of Lisbon took place. The AGPL gained control over the entire Tagus estuary, including the south side, from Alcochete until the bar of Lisbon (AGPL, 1938). This decision should facilitate the expansion of the port and port related industries to the south side. The possibility of moving certain activities to the other bank of the Tagus nurturedthe idea of releasing some sections of the waterfront in the north side to public use, regaining an access to the water for the inhabitants. Several authors discussed this issue, particularly in the section between Cais do Sodré and the Customs, that included the Praça do Comércio (Cid de Perestelo, 1938). In this same sector was the navy arsenal, one of the possible activities to be relocated to the south side, as eventually did happen.
“esta zona marginal debe ser aproveitada pelo municipaio para a construção de um jardim miradouro sobre o tejo, para o embelezamento da cidade e o gozo dos Lisboetas, visto os armazens do porto terem ocupado os antigos passeios marginais.”
Curado in O porto de Lisboa. Ideias e Factos (1928)
The expansion of the port towards the east in the third section included the construction of another 910 m of quays, 3830 m of stone slopes, 46 000 m2 of quayside area, a new dock, and 800 000 m2 of usable surface (Cid de Perestelo, 1938). The third section allowed as well the expansion of large industries in the east, later on enabling the transfer of the gas factory from Belém to Matinha, and the creation of the new avenue parallel to the river, Av. Infante D. Henrique.
During the 1930s and 1940s , once the regime had achieved a certain economic stability, the law for the economic recovery (Lei de Reconstituição Económica nº1914) was passed, planning the expenses for the following 15 years in the key infrastructure (Saraiva, 1993). The port received considerable investment for machinery and at the same time the different activities started to be more segregated. The development of the eastern section facilitated the settlement of larger industrial conglomerates in this area of the city, gradually releasing the western area, mainly Belém, from these activities. This way the urban programs existing in this section were enhanced, leaving this area with a representative function, related with its historical meaning and political connection (Costa, 2006).
If the first decades of the 20th century there were few planning initiatives regarding the port and the city. However, during the 1930s and 1940s, we could see several new plans that would affect the development of the waterfront. The first major urban intervention was the 1940 Expo, that implied the regeneration of the area adjacent to several national monuments such as the Jerónimos monastery and the Torre de Belém, the ex-libris of the city, that since the end of the 19th century until that decade had been surrounded by heavy industrial facilities diminishing its visibility and impact. At the same time, during the1940s, the first Masterplan for the city was being discussed. For this new document international experts were consulted to improve the existing urban environment and to organize the expansion of the city. Simultaneously, between 1943 and 1946, the port of Lisbon expansion plan was prepared. This document would set the path for the port development during the following decades. Also during this period the ZIP (Zona Industrial do Porto – Industrial Zone of the Port) was presented. We will discuss these different document and interventions in the following lines.
Major waterfront interventions in Lisbon during the 1930s and 1940s.
At the end of the 1930s and during the 1940s three key projects affecting the waterfront of Lisbon took place: the move of some industrial facilities from Belém to the eastern area of the city, the conclusion of the Tagus avenue in front of the Praça do Comércio, eased by the new location of the navy yard in the south side of the Tagus, and the Expo of the Portuguese World in Belém. These interventions had a significant impact in the image of the waterfront and would remain as the main projects on the by the riverside until the 1980s when the issue of the relation with the Tagus would be brought back to discussion.
Relocation of the energy industries from Belém to Matinha.
Before we have seen how, during the 1930s and 1940s, the third section of the port plan started to be develop. This area was already an important industrial core, that had grown linked with other structural element of the territory, the railway. The junction of both infrastructures potentiated development of larger industrial facilities in this area (Costa, 2006).The possibility of new industries eased a certain separation of activities on the waterfront, leaving the western section for leisure, culture and other urban activities. In 1937 the Ministry of public works issued an official statement in which insisted in the idea of releasing the area adjacent to the tower of Belém from the industrial facilities. The relocation of the CRGE (CompanhiasReunidas de Gás e Electricidade) gas factory from the west side of Lisbon, where it had existed since 1888, to Matinha, in the eastern section of the city, had been previously decided in 1935 with the law 25.726. This bill stated the need to move the industry and to regularized the edge of the river in the oriental section of the city, improving the connectivity of this area (Folgado, 2015).
Finally the change only took place in 1944 (Costa 2006). The issue of the location of heavy industries next to this important landmark had been subject of controversy, criticism and public discussion since the end of the 19th century. Not been even clear what was the need of such a facility in this place considering that there were others providing the same service (Ramos, 2004). In 1910 the tower received the status of national monument. The change here described was one of the firsts concerning the new uses and the programs to be implemented in the west part of the city. During the following decades the transfer of industries from west to east continued, accentuating the different roles of each part of the city (ibid.)
Demolition of the factory. Photo by Eduardo Portugal in 1950. Arquivo Municipal de Lisboa. Doc: PT-AMLSB-PEL-005-S0021
Demolition of the factory. Photo by Eduardo Portugal in 1950. Arquivo Municipal de Lisboa. Doc: PT-AMLSB-PEL-005-S00222
East-West connection on the waterfront
In the central section of the waterfront, from Cais do Sodré to the customs – placed in the eastern section of the Praça do Comércio – the landfills proposed in different plans were never executed. The main issue in this area was the connection from the east to the west part of the city. The plans presented during the second half of the 19th century often included a railway or a road in front of the square. In the previous article it was clear that this issue was particularly complex. The historical meaning of the place, named by described by Costa (2006) as representative pier, and the difficulties caused by the presence of the navy yard delayed an intervention until the late 1930s.
Aerial image of the navy yards from the early 20th century. Later they would be relocated to the south side of the river leaving space for the riverside road connecting east to west.
Aerial photography of the Praça do Comércio, before the landfill for the road in front of the square was done (1939).
Finally, the new location for the navy was decided during this decade, the facilities would be relocated to the south bank, in Alfeite, next to Seixal. The long awaited connection was, after several decades, technically possible. Although in previous plans a railway linehad also been discussed, the final solution was the construction of a road. The new avenue, executed in 1939, connected the two railway stations, from Cais do Sodré until the Sta. Apolónia. Linking in this point with the newly planned Av. Infante D.Henrique. The new road was possible due to the development of new landfills, until that moment the buildings were literally on the edge of the river.
In the late 1940s a new plan for this area that was made, but never developed. In 1947 a design by Faria da Costa was released. In the project it was planned a regeneration of the area previously occupied by the shipyard, the redevelopment of Cais do Sodré, including a maritime station next to the railway one, and a tunnel connection to Restauradores Square. This intervention planned the creation of new monumental square in Cais do Sodré with two new 14 floors buildings, where the AGPL headquarters were supposed to be located (Pedras, 2014). In the drawing we can also see how the Tagus edge would be rethought, including new public spaces next to the water.
Although the development of the landfills along the entire waterfront damaged the relation with the river, they allowed the construction of a more efficient connection between the two extremes of the city, including the incipient public transport (Costa, 2006). At the same time, the East-West axis, running parallel to the river, consolidated the barrier of traffic and infrastructure between the river and the city.
As we saw in the previous article the Tagus avenue was an old ambition of some port and urban planners. Several times projects with a certain grandiosity were dreamt. The riverside road was eventually completed, connecting the eastern section of the city with Algés in the western boundary, but with less impact than what it was conceptualized (Barata, 2010). The main concern remained the efficiency as a key element of the road network of the Portuguese capital.
The issue of crossing the downtown, the Baixa, has remained one of the biggest challenges until today. The construction of underground connections has been discussed several occasions during the last 50 years, but the road intervention of 1939 has remained has the main east-west axis on the waterfront.
1940 Portuguese world Expo
The new regime of the Estado Novo had been in power since 1928. During this time there was a certain quest to praise the national pride. The history brought an opportunity to uplift the Portuguese spirit, since in 1940 there would be the possibility of celebrating a double anniversary. In 1140 D. Afonso Henriques was recognized as the King of Portugal, remaining this year as the official date for the foundation of the country. In 1640 Portugal regained its independence from Spain (Saraiva, 1996). At the same time there was the goal of establishing Lisbon as the capital of the empire (França, 1997). The colonies still played an important role in the political and social debate, it seemed necessary to have a metropolis that would represent the grandiosity of the overseas territories.
In 1932 the first discussions regarding the celebration of an international expo began to take place, but only in 1938 an official statement regarding the approval of the “Celebration of the Centenary of the Nationality” was published (Costa, 2015). The original idea was to create facilities that later would remain and be practical for the city. However, the tight deadline and the delay in the decision making process obliged to build temporary pavilions that later would be dismantled. Only in 1939 the final model of the expo was shown to the head of state, Salazar, leaving one year for the construction of the facilities (Acciaiuoli, 1998).
The location of the exhibition, in the western part of town, was clear since the beginning, being the only doubt if it would be in the landfill in front of the Junqueira, where the Cordoaria is, or if it was better in the land in front of the Jerónimos monastery. Finally the greater historical meaning of the second prevailed, playing the monastery a key role in the planning and image of the event (Nobre, 2010). In this location the plan for the Expo used an area of 45 Ha to implement its program (ibid.). It was seen by the masterminds behind the project, mainly the Cotinelli e Telmo and the mayor and minister of public works Duarte Pacheco (França, 1980), as the opportunity to reconnect the historic monastery with the river with square of great proportions. The intervention changed the scale and perception of Belém, bringing a new sense of monumentality contrasting with the previous smaller dimension of the popular architecture (ibid).This location was the first place along the Tagus where a new kind of relation with the river was established.
The exhibition, which opened its doors on June the 23rd of 1940, was organized around the main square (Praça do Império) with clear boundaries. There were pavilions dedicated to different topics, from the former colonies and overseas territories or invited countries, to the national history, the traditional culture and the newest developments in the railway and the port. In the exhibition there was a conjunction of different architectural styles that somehow expressed the duality of the regime´s image. On one side there was the intention of establishing an imperial character, in line with how other fascist regimes were doing in Europe, but at the same time there was a certain exaltation of the popular/vernacular architecture from the traditional village, as the source of the Portuguese values. This dichotomy was visible comparing some of the main pavilions with the reconstruction of a Portuguese village as part of the exhibition. Ironically one of the main critics to the event, at the time and still nowadays, was the fact that to release the land necessary for the new construction and the imperial square a considerable amount of demolitions were required. The buildings that were destroyed were a part of the traditional urban fabric of Belém (Nobre, 2010). Another replica that became one of the highlights of the exhibition was the “Portugal” ship, an imitation from a 16th century galley. The boat was docked in the Belém dock during the exhibition. (Acciauli, 1998).
One of the main intervention that improved the connection with the water were the new crossings of the barrier that separated the river from the city. These bridges had as well a predominant role in the image of the event. They functioned as the east and west gates of the Expo. Another project with the same goal was the pedestrian tunnel placed near the dock of Belém. By the river, next to the new tunnel and symmetrical to the dock, a water mirror with a restaurant was built, giving the impression that the river was nearer to the city in that point. This restaurant, along with the museum of ethnography, has been one of the few remaining buildings of the exhibition. They were adapted to be used after the exhibition.
One of the most remarkable projects was the “Padrão dos Descobrimentos”, a monument to honor the memory of the great explorers. This sculpture of considerable size, 50m high and 695 m2 of surface, was originally built to be dismantled after the exhibition, but since it was a significant success it was afterwards rebuilt, (re)inaugurated 1960 (Acciaiuoli, 1998). The location of the statue, directly on the river edge, between the dock of Belém and the aforementioned water mirror, is, in the opinion of the author, a key decision in the relation of the city with the water. The river edge is no longer just for industrial or port activities, but can be used for cultural programs or artistic interventions. Also the presence of the new monument created a new language, following the example of the tower of Belém, vertical elements with considerable proportions, placed by the river, giving a certain visual rhythm to the waterfront, particularly in the western section.
In terms of architecture the exhibition was considered a success. Under the direction of Cottinelli e Telmo several pavilions were exercises of creativity and helped to expereiment with aforementioned national style. Some of the architects and artists that participated in the event were: Cristino da Silva,Carlos Buigas, Lacerda Marques, Antonio Lino or Antonio Duarte, just to mention few of them.
The Expo did not attracted the number of visitors it was expected. However, the event did helped the local and national governments to implement a series of large projects inLisbon, crucial for the development of the capital (Pedras, 2014). In the local scale the Av. da India became an important axis due to the connection with the Av. 24 de Julho and Marginal (Nobre, 2010). Some other examples are the road network connections to Cascais, both the riverside road and the highway, the national stadium in Jamor, the park of Monsanto, the airport, and the maritime stations above mentioned, that were aimed to receive the international guests of the exhibition. Many of these projects were only finished during the next decades.
During this decade the waterfront suffered significant changes. The project of the Portuguese Expo was in some aspects a predecessor of what would happen in the post-industrial port-cities (Costa, 2006). This operation was the most successful cooperation between the Municipality and the ministry of public works, both lead by Pacheco, and also one of the key examples of the “New Lisbon – Capital of the Empire” (Elias, 132: 2013). Although Belém suffered important changes in its urban structure, there was the goal to leave “useful” facilities and there were plans for what would happen once the exhibition was over, after the event the area remained as an expectant space, without a clear program (ibid.).
Plano Director de Lisboa – Plano de Gröer
During the 1930s and 1940s the authorities of Lisbon Municipality were aware of the need to plan the expansion of the city and to transform it into a capital of the 20th century. The demographic growth was a significant challenge, the population grew from 486 000 in the 1920s to 709 000 in the 1940s (Pedras, 2014). During the first decades of the regime several international experts were consulted for the development of Lisbon. Forrestier in 1927 presented a plan for urban improvements which included several changes that eventually did took place, such as the relocation of the nay arsenal to the south bank of the Tagus or the connection of the Av. 24 de Julho with the Praca do Comércio (Barata, 2010). Later on, Donald Alfred Agache was as well called for the development of the Plano de Urbanizacao da Costa do Sol. This internationally acclaimed planner would afterwards recommended Etienne de Gröer for the development of the urban masterplan (André, 2015).
The year 1938 can be considered a turning point for the urban planning of the Portuguese capital (Silva, 1994) (Tostões, 2001). We have seen that in this year Duarte Pacheco, was elected mayor at the same time he kept his position as minister of public works. His direct connection with the government eased the flow of funds for the development of key projects in Lisbon. Besides the public financing new juridical and technical capacities were developed during this period (Brito et al. 2007). One of his decision was to give to de Gröer the responsibility of developing the PGUEL (Plano Geral de Urbanização e Extensão de Lisboa – General Plan for the Urbanization and Expansion of Lisbon). The plan started to be developed in 1938 but was only approved by the municipal assembly in 1948, already with a different name, the PDCL (Plano Director da Cidade de Lisboa). The document was never officially ratified by the central government, a mandatory step, but it guided the development of Lisbon during this time and the following years (Silva, 1994).
One of the original goals of the plan when the process started in 1938 was to correct the urban development direction. De Gröer, as many others before him, believed to be a mistake to plan de growth of the city in opposite direction to the river, considering it the” main beauty element of Lisbon” (Silva, 15:1994 ). Forrestier had already defended this idea before, recovering the old aspiration of building an avenue by the Tagus. The new plan for Lisbon might have been influenced by the plan for the Sun Coast. This document enhanced the development of the capital towards the west, connecting with Estoril and Cascais. De Gröer implemented some of the concepts that had influenced his education, such as the principle of the Garden City, an anthropomorphic organization with strong zoning (Brito et al., 2007). The key ideas in the PDCL according to Silva (1994) were:
Create a radiocentrical road network
Organize decreasing population densities from the city center towards the periphery.
Create an industrial area in the eastern section of the city, lied with the port development.
Build a bridge crossing the river, linking Poço do Bispo with Montijo. Connected with one of the circular roads.
Build an international airport in the north area of the city.
Create a new monumental axis from the Av. Antonio Augusto Aguiar towards the road to Porto
Create a green ring around the city, from the new park of Monsanto to Loures until the river.
The two most relevant ideas for the port-city relation were the goal of reconnecting the city with the river and the development of industrial areas in the eastern part of town. The interaction with the port activities was not one of the main issues, the discussion around this topic was limited to the connection with the national infrastructural network. The main concerns of this time in the capital were the housing needs, planning the predicted expansion and establishing the main road network of the city (Silva, 1994). This plan would eventually have an important influence in the development of Lisbon and the documents that were developed after. It created the image of the city that we know today (França, 1997).
Port changes in the 1940s
During the 1940s several bills were published that structured the port development in the national and local context. In 1942, following the ideas of the de Gröer plan previously explained, the bill 19/10/1942 was approved, which stated that the eastern section of the city should host the bigger industrial facilities. This bill demanded new infrastructure from Poço do Bispo to Matinha first, and after until Beirolas, already in the limit of the city. Associated with this development several important industries were established, such as the Gas factory in Matinha, Oil refineries in Cabo Ruivo, the slaughterhouse of Lisbon, the milling of Lisbon and the factory and deposit of war material, all of them in Beirolas (Nabais & Ramos, 152, 1988). This industrial development of the eastern section of town was complemented on the south bank with the bigger autonomous industrial complexes, affecting the port economy and territory. They were the Quimigal in Barreiro and Lavradio, the Siderurgia Nacional (National steel plant) in Seixal, and the Lisnave shipyards of in Almada (Costa, 2006).
In 1944 the national government passed the law DL 33922 5/9/1944, responsible for the 2nd phase of the national port plan. The port of Lisbon was not included in this document since it was considered that it required a separate plan due to the size and complexity of the infrastructure. The “Plano de Melhoramentos do Porto de Lisboa”- Plan for improvements for the port of Lisbon, was approved on the 24th of June of 1946, with the bill DL 35716. This new document, besides setting the path for the port development, also assigned the necessary financing. The key works included in the plan, many of them related with the aforementioned industrial area, were: In the eastern section: the construction of new piers and dock in Poço do Bispo, new pier in Xabregas, regularization of the coastline between Matinha and Cabo Ruivo, and Cabo Ruivo and Beirolas, including the new dock of Olivais (destined to work as maritime airport). Also new warehouses and industrial facilities were planned, such as the refinery of Cabo Ruivo. In the western part, the main project was the dock of Pedrouços, dedicated to fishing activities, also known by the name of the managing society Docapesca. New landfills on sludge areas were also planned, with the goal of improving the general hygiene of the port and the city. On the south side the main intervention was the regularization of the coast line between Cacilhas and Alfeite (Nabais& Ramos, op. cit).
Finally, in 1948 another relevant law was passed. In the 2nd article or the DL 36976 20/7/1948, the jurisdiction of the AGPL was updated and increased, including 110 km of riverbanks. The new boundaries were the bridge of Vila-França de Xira, on the east, and the line defined by the fortresses of S. Julião e Bugio on the west. This area included 50 km of river banks on the north side and 60 km on south. The area and river edge controlled by the AGPL had borders with 11 municipalities.
1940s – 1974
The period that goes from the late 1940s until the end of the regime, in 1974, was characterized by the implementation of national plans for the development of the country and the key infrastructure. These plan were also known as the “Planos de Fomento”. During this time three main plans and a partial one were prepared. The first one went from 1953 until 1958, the second from 1959 until 1964, then the intermediate plan, from 1965 until 1967 and finally the third development plan from 1968 until 1974. These documents set the path for the key investment in the main infrastructure and also influenced the urban development strategies (Silva, 1994).
The first development plan (1953 – 1958) was mainly focused in financing and completing the projects scheduled in the document from 1946, without major innovations. The second development plan (1959- 1964) was focused in general interventions to improve the conditions of the port and be able to host the bigger ships, mainly in the third section. In this plan the Docapesca in Pedrouços was one of the project that received more investment, mainly with new buildings and facilities for the fishing activities (Nabais, Ramos, 1987). The infrastructure for fluvial traffic, mainly the ferries, was also improved. In this second plan was also foreseen the change of use of the dock of Bom Sucesso, in Belém, from navy activities to nautical sports and leisure.
The strategic investment decided in these plans had a clear goal of gradually increase the industrial activity in the country. During the 1950s and 1960s we see how the municipalities next to Lisbon received financing to develop key infrastructure, easing the path for the private sector. During these decades the large industrial conglomerates in Lisbon metropolitan area, mainly in the south side of the Tagus as we have already seen, grew from a local/regional scale to compete in the Iberian market (Costa, 2006). The industrial facilities employ thousands of workers in activities related with the petrochemical sector, steel plants and shipyards.
Finally, during the 1970s, the port started to receive container traffic. This new type of cargo, in use since1950s, gradually gained more importance in the international logistic chains. The first terminal prepared to handle this kind of traffic was the one in Sta. Apolónia, adapted with the necessary technology since October 1970. This change opened a new phase in the history of the port activity and the relation between the port and the city (Nabais & Ramos, 1987).
Mas os efeitos da escala ainda tardam, pois a revolução da contentorização só se impõe no Porto de Lisboa, a partir de 1970. Esse é o momento da criação de uma autêntica barreira física na Lisboa ribeirinha, desde Cabo Ruivo àAlfândega.
Folgado & Custódio,1999
Only later, in 1985, the dock of Alcântara would be prepared to handle containers. This terminal was, and still is, operated by a private company named Liscont, working with a concession contract.
The urban development and plans from 1940s until 1970s
After the de Gröer document, and until the end of the regime, other two plans were prepared to tackle the urban development of Lisbon. Both of them used the previous plans as the base for their work, establishing a certain continuity with core ideas, but, at the same time introducing key changes that would shape the future of the Portuguese capital. Another common feature is the fact that both were approved in municipality, and guided the development of the city, but were either never or much later approved by the central government.
The plan published in 1959 (PDUL – Plano Director de Urbanização de Lisboa) was a revision from the one of 1948, with few new concepts and ideas. From an initial vision closer to the garden city in 1938, it evolved to embrace the concepts defended in Athens Charter. One of the key changes was the relocation of the connection between Lisbon and the south side of the Tagus. Instead of placing it in the eastern sector of the city, it was planned between Alcântara and Almada. The bridge would eventually be built in this location, but only opening to the public in 1966. New road connections, including two urban highways, were also planned, enhancing the role of the car in the society. This plan was led by Guimarães Lobato.
The second plan started as revision of the previous one, led by George Meyer Heine, but eventually it became a new full plan, approved in 1967 by the municipality. This new document, also known as the PDUL, had to deal with the increasing traffic of vehicles and the evolution of the demographics. At the same time the new plan identified several issues related to the previous development. The radio-centrism was considered a problem, the delays in some key infrastructure was affecting the urban development of the city, and there was a deviation between the expected population in the existing plans and the real one. The recently inaugurated infrastructure, such as the subway system and the new bridge, required new strategies for the city. The plan proposed a new south-north highway, connecting the Salazar bridge (today known as bridge 25 de Abril) with the airport. A new monumental axis, like in previous plans, from Av. Da Liberdade, was also planned. The concept for distribution of population densities changed in comparison to the previous documents, from a model that defended a decrease from the center to the periphery, to establish an uniform distribution of the population. This plan was only approved by the national Government in 1977 with the ministerial ordinance n.º 274/77, of 19 of May.
Plan from Heyne from 1966
Final version of the plan approved in 1977
In the map of the plans we can see that the port area is considered outside the boundaries of the municipal control. The AGPL (nowadays known as APL) was, and still is, a central government body, responsible for the management of a territory that belongs to the state, not the city. For this reason, the connection and interaction between both institutions, and also between the different plans, has been often limited to the connection nodes necessary for the infrastructure. In the last plans we see a more functionalist approach, where the relation with the river is not as important as it was previously considered. The debate about the interaction between the Tagus and Lisbon would only be recovered in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Both realities, city and port, regained a certain need to cooperate and to find a way to give to the city and citizens a new contact with the water.
The main goal of this research is to discover how the relation between the port and the city has worked in the context of Lisbon and it can be improved. It is widely accepted that to understand our present and plan our future it is necessary to comprehend the past, the path that has taken us to our current situation. In these three articles, the two written so far and the next one, we try to understand how have the port and the city evolved during the last 300 years. We have seen that the international models presented by other senior researchers are more or less accurate in Lisbon, although with slightly different timeline. We can also observe that in the history of this port-city, as in many others, the evolution is not lineal, but rather marked by long periods of stagnation interrupted by moments of intense activity. However, the evolutions does not stop. Since 1755 we have seen how a myriad of small piers evolved into a large industrial port. How in the process several alternatives for more balanced port – city – river – citizen alternatives were dismissed. We could identify the break up moments, the change from a local industry to international, the changes in the waterfront. In the process we have also seen how in the first transformation of the waterfront, the public space regained a lost central role, and how, at the same time, the segregation and intensification of port activities could have caused a certain sense of negligence in the areas of the city that hosted these activities. This last issue, particularly clear since the arrival of the container traffic, along with the infrastructural barrier could be one of the reasons causing the distancing between both realities.
In the following article we will see how the riverfront debate becomes once again a hot topic in the public realm. Since the 1980’s there have been several planning initiatives to recover the city – river relationship. But then, what role has the port played? What were the key concept of this rapprochement? The port remained as a barrier or became an active element of change? In the past decades there has been considerable research done related with this topic, from Master and PhD investigations to architectural and urban planning competition, even initiatives focused in the cultural value of the port and the river. We will see all these activities before we focus in the analysis of the current situation and we try to formulate possible solutions.
André, P. (2015). A CITY MADE OF CITIES Lisbon in the first half of the XX century: new Lisbon (1936) and Lisbon new (1948). Urbana, Cec. Unicamp, 7(10), 89–111.
Acciaiuoli, M. (1998). Exposições do Estado Novo 1934-1940. Lisbon: Livros Horizonte.
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.
Brito, V., & Camarinhas, C. (2007). Elementos para o estudo do Plano de Urbanização da Cidade Lisboa. Cadernos Do Arquivo Municipal de Lisboa, 164–189.
Costa, J. P. (2006). La ribera entre proyectos : formación y transformación del territorio portuario, a partir del caso de Lisboa. Barcelona : Universidade de Catalunha.
Costa, J. P. (2007). A renovação urbana dos grandes complexos portuários do século XX: novos territórios, novas dinâmicas. Portus, (14), 4–7.
Costa, J. P. (2008). Cinco gerações de renovação urbana na ribeira de lisboa. Estuarium, 12–17.
Costa, S. V. (2015). Pensar Lisboa. A obra capital de Duarte Pacheco. Rossio – Estudos de Lisboa, (5), 84–97.
Curado, B. De P. (1928) O Porto de Lisboa. Ideia e factos.Livraria Rodrigues. Lisbon.
Elias, H. (2013). A monumentalização de Lisboa ocidental: arte pública e intervenções urbanas na frente ribeirinha de Belém. Rossio – Estudos de Lisboa, (2), 130–141.
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 ed.). Lisbon: Instituto de Cultura e Língua Portuguesa Ministério da Educação e Ciência.
França, J. A. (1997). Lisboa: urbanismo e arquitectura (3rd ed.). Lisbon: Livros Horizonte.
Gama, E., & Miranda, I. (1997). Lisboa ribeirinha e as suas estações – síntese histórica. In A. Caessa & M. G. Martins (Eds.), Actas das sessões do II Colóquio temético Lisboa Ribeirinha (pp. 201–224). Lisboa: Câmara Municipal de Lisboa – Departamento de Parimonio Cultural Divisão de Arquivos.
Lobo, L. M. (1976). Porto de Lisboa (1963-1974). AGPL. Lisbon.
Mangorrinha, J. (1999). Papéis de(o) Arquitecto na intervenção municipal urbana: notas sobre projectar Lisboa no século XX. Cadernos Do Arquivo Municipal, 1(3), 216–229.
Matias, R. (Ed.) (1961)O porto de Lisboa , in: Portugal de Hoje(1). Eco. Lisbon.
Nabais, A. J. C. M., & Ramos, P. O. (1985). Porto de Lisboa: Subsidios para o estudo das obras, equipamentos e embarcações na perspectiva da arqueologia Industrial. AGPL – Administração Geral do Porto de Lisboa. Lisbon.
Nabais, A. J. C. M., & Ramos, P. O. (1987). 100 anos do porto de Lisboa. Lisboa: Administração do Porto de Lisboa.
Nabais, A. J. C. M., & Ramos, P. O. (1991).Referências Históricas do Porto de Lisboa. Administração do Porto de Lisboa. Lisbon.
Nabais, A. J. C. M., & Ramos, P. O. (199x?). Roteiro das fontes da História do Porto de Lisboa. Administração do Porto de Lisboa. Lisbon
Nobre, P. A. (2010). Belém ea Exposição Do Mundo Português: Cidade, Urbanidade e Património Urbano. Universidade Nova de Lisboa.
Pedras, M. R. (2014). Uma Capital para o Império: a Lisboa sonhada do Estado Novo. Rossio – Estudos de Lisboa, (4), 198–215.
Perestelo, A. M. C. (1938) in Cinquentenario da inauguração das obras da1ª secção do Porto de Lisboa, feita em 31de outubro de 1887. Discursos proferidos na sessão solene de 30 de outubro, presidida por S. Exª o Presidente da República, Sr. General Antonio Oscar de Fragoso Carmona. Administração Geral do Porto de Lisboa. Lisboa, Imprensa Nacional. Lisbon.
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 – How to Handle the Heritage of Port and Shipping History, Arbeitshefte Zur Denkm, (11), 41–45.
Ramos, P. O. (2004). A Torre de Belém e a Fábrica do Gás – Contra o gasómetro, marchar, marchar. Pedra & Cal, (21), 12–14.
Ribeiro, O. (1987). A formação de Portugal. Lisbon: Instituto de Cultura e Língua Portuguesa Ministério da Educação.
Sanches, J. D. (1944). O porto de Lisboa através dos séculos. Lisbon.
Saraiva, J. H. (1993). História de Portugal. (F. L. de Castro, Ed.). Mem Martins: Publicações Europa-América.
Silva, J. J. C. (1923). Desorganização do trabalho no porto deLisboa e as suas consequências no custo da vida. (Tese apresentada ao congresso das associações comerciais e industriais portuguesas reunido em Lisboa e Novembro de 1923). Tip. da Emprêsa Diário de Noticias. Lisbon.
Silva, C. N. (1994). Política Urbana em Lisboa, 1926-1974. Lisbon: Livros Horizonte.
Silva, F. M. da. (1997). Tempos difíceis: a Central tejo e a cidade de Lisboa nos anos trinta e durante a II Guerra. In A. Caessa & M. Gomes Martins (Eds.), Actas das sessões do II Colóquio temático Lisboa Ribeirinha (pp. 353–361). Lisbon: Câmara Municipal de Lisboa – Departamento de Parimonio Cultural Divisão de Arquivos.
Sousa, A. A. De (1926). Le Port de Lisbonne. Commission Administrative du Port de Lisbonne. Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa – Betrand. Lisbon
Tostões, A. (2001). O bairro de Alvalade no quadro do desenvolvimento urbano de Lisboa. In M. H. Barreiros (Ed.), Lisboa, conhecer, pensar, fazer cidade (pp. 64–71). Lisbon: Câmara Municipal de Lisboa – Direcção Municipal de Urbanismo – Departamento de Informação Urbana
AGPL (1913?). The Port of Lisbon.
AGPL – Organização do serviço de Publicidade e Turismo (1958). Imagens do Porto de Lisboa. Lisbon
Ministério das Comunicações. (1943). Planos de arranjo e expansão. (Decreto.lei nº 32842). Imprensa Nacional. Lisbon.
Ministério das Comunicações. (1948). Plano de Melhoramentos do Porto de Lisboa.Tipografia Portuguesa, Lda.Lisbon
The new organization was a significant innovation in the port management models existing at the time. The port of Lisbon was the first one to have this kind of structure, discussed for the first time in the 10thinternational Maritime Congress in Milan in 1905. The board included a president named directly by the government, the director of the customs in Lisbon, an engineer as chief of exploration, the chief of the central maritime department and representatives from the railway companies, the shipping sector, and the commerce. (Perestelo, 1938)
 The power plant “Central Tejo”, was built to provide electricity to the city and the Lisbon-Cascais railway line. There were several expansions during the following years, in some cases even adding an entire new building, like it happened in 1939 (Silva, 1997). It remained in operation until 1968 (Ramos, 1992). Several years it was deactivated it was refurbished to accommodate the electricity museum and to work as a temporary exhibition hall. The new function was implemented in 1990s,being included in what can be considered the Belém museum axis. To this axis belong as well other cultural facilities such as the CCB, the Cordoaria or the Museum of carriages.
 In 1919 the wall of the dock of Alcântara crawled requiring repair. For this reason reinforcement interventions were necessary. Several authors indicate that the low quality of the construction of the piers was due to the short exploration contract given to the contractor, Hersent. This issue could have forced him to build excessively fast and cheap to have a return of his investment, instead of what could have happened if the contract would have been made for a longer period allowing him to build with higher quality standards and recover his investment in a longer period.
We can find buildings from the beginning of the century in Portugal designed in modernist style, such as the fluvial station from Cottinelli e Telmo. Gradually the architects started to develop the Português Suave language, very valued by the regime .This style has been studied by several serearchers in Portugal. For example it was descibed by Pedras(2015) as it follows: (…) caracterizava-se pela reaproximação a uma estética joanina, com elementos característicos como as varandas do andar nobre, as linhas austeras, a monumentalidade das entradas, os telhados em mansarda e a simetria sóbria e regular que marcava toda a edificação.
 During the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the construction of the port (1938), in the speech made by Prof. Eng. Afonso de Melo Cid de Perestelo, the layout of the port, occupying the entire waterfront was criticized. It was also suggested that the central section should be left for the city to “breathe” and have a contact with the water, insisting, once again in the creation of an avenue or boulevard in front of the location of the navy shipyard.
 In the book “Port de Lisbonne” the possibility of relocating the navy arsenal was very clear. This publication was published by the AGPL itself to promote the port of Lisbon. We can see that even the official stand was to ease the access to the river in specific locations, such as the Praça do Comércio.
 There are texts from different authors and intellectuals of the time referring this topic and criticizing the municipality that approved the construction of the industries close to the Tower, authors such as Castilho, Ramalho Ortigao or Bordalo Pinheiro. For more information check the article by Ramos “A Torre de Belém e a Fábrica do Gás – Contra o gasómetro, marchar, marchar”, published in 2004.
 As said by Nobre (2010) there are contradictory information about the territory occupied by the Exhibition. For example Costa (2006) indicates a territory of 56 Ha.
 Duarte Pacheco (1900 – 1943) was a key figure in the transformation of Lisbon and Portugal during the 1930s and 1940s. He would be the minister of education in 1928 and of public works from 1932 until 1935, and once again from 1938 until his death in November 1943. He became the mayor of Lisbon from 1938, keeping both position officially only for a few months. His influence in the city and the country was much broader than this period (Costa, 2015).
 Some authors state that, as often happens in authoritarian regimes, the official numbers were distorted and only the first and last days attracted a considerable number of visitors. (Accialiui, 1998)
The “Plano de Urbanização da Costa do Sol” (Urbanization Plan for the Sun Coast) started to be developed by Agache in 1933. This plan was created for the development of the region between Lisbon and Cascais, being the road network one of the key elements. It was the first regional plan developed in Portugal. The project remained on hold until Duarte Pacheco, in 1938, became the mayor of Lisbon and Minister of Public Works. At this point the plan was resumed by De Gröer, at the same time he was working in the Plan for Lisbon. (Costa, 2015)
Étienne De Gröer was hired by the municipality between 1938 and 1940, and once again between 1946 and 1948 (André, 2015)
Particularly relevant was the new legislation that allowed an easier expropriation procedure when necessary. This favorable law allowed the municipality to become one of the main urban and real estate developers of the city. It was able to get 35% of the total development area until 1951 (Franca, 1997).One of the goals of Duarte Pacheco was to keep the right to urbanize exclusive for the public institutions, i.e. the municipality. (Brito et al. 2007)
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.
Lisbon, the capital of Portugal, is placed in the Atlantic coast. However, when we analyze the culture and the history of the city, we can notice that its roots are clearly linked to the Mediterranean Sea. The cultural palimpsest present in the urban structure and its heritage comes from the different great civilizations that at some point ruled this region. Its urban evolution can only be compared with other Mediterranean port-cities like Marseille, Genoa or Barcelona, where the same civilizations of the past also left their mark and the port played a crucial role for the urban development. The relation between Lisbon and Portugal with the Mediterranean region was studied by one of the main Portuguese geographers of the twentieth century, Orlando Ribeiro. In his book ”Portugal, o Mediterrâneo e o Atlântico” (1987), developed a detailed study on Portugal’s dual nature, i.e. a country which is Atlantic by location but mostly Mediterranean in culture. This book had a wide impact, since Ribeiro deepens in the concepts of Atlantic Europe and Mediterranean Europe, linking central and southern Portugal to the Mediterranean culture and northern Portugal (together with Galicia) to a pan-Atlantic European culture.
Lisbon had a constant evolution as an important port-city along its history. During roman times it was named Olissipo and it was integrated in the province of Lusitania. In the middle ages was controlled by the caliphate of Cordoba until it was reconquered by the Christians in 1147. Only in 1255 it would become the capital of Portugal.
The golden era of Lisbon arrived on the fifteenth century during which it was the capital of a growing empire. Famous explorers like Vasco da Gama or Magalhães departed from this city on the search for new land. The overseas colonies gave Lisbon a relevant international role in several fields like politics, commerce and culture. During this time the port was the soul and heart of the city. The activities here developed had an immediate impact in the urban structure and its inhabitants. Like in most port-cities, in this early stage the interaction between both entities was very strong, there were no strict barriers and the whole city was related to the port. During the sixteenth and seventeenth century the Iberian commerce developed rapidly and Lisbon remained as one of the main ports in the path from the Mediterranean sea to territories in Asia, Africa and South America.
During the eighteenth century the fade of the Portuguese capital changed dramatically. Due to the decline of Portugal as an overseas empire other port-cities took the leading role Lisbon used to have. Finally in 1755 a natural disaster changed the structure of the city. In 1 November an earthquake with the epicenter in the Atlantic ocean close to the Portuguese sore took place. The effect of the seism combined with a tsunami and fire caused mass destruction and the death of many[i]. After the catastrophe the city was forced to develop a reconstruction plan for the downtown, the most affected area. The head figure during the whole process was the Marquês de Pombal, the powerful prime minister designated by the king D. José I. There were several proposals for the redevelopment of the city center, the majority of them guided by the ideals of the time i.e. building more rational, healthier and logical cities. The principles followed by Carlos Mardel and Eugenio dos Santos, the engineers responsible for the project were precursory to the ones followed by Hausmann in Paris later on (Pardal,2003).
The break up between City and Port
Already before the great earthquake there were plans for the regularization of the waterfront to improve the port infrastructure. During the nineteenth century the waterfront was one of the main issues in Lisbon. Besides the needs for an improvement in the docking conditions, there were several public health problems that were caused by the lack of souring and the dejects that were thrown directly to the river. Several authors have identified different proposals for the redevelopment of the riverfront, including partial or more general plans. The new port facilities were often incorporated in designs that included as well new urban tissue, including bourgeois areas with workers neighborhoods. Another novelty was the presence of new green spaces and in some cases, like the plan from Thomé Gamon in 1870, the riverside boulevard, a public space inexistent until that moment (Barata, 2009).
Finally the legal figure of the Port Authority was created in 1887, and the port became an autonomous place. This new institution was developed simultaneously with the first general plan for the port of Lisbon, which structured an industrial development mainly in the center and western part of town. The East part followed an unstructured growing process, initially small industries, but later on larger industrial complexes, that functioned almost autonomously (Costa, 2006). The Industrial Revolution, originated in England in 1780s[ii], accelerated the production process and as consequence also the transport chains. These changes had a fast impact in the port. Heavy machinery started to be used, the size of the vessels increased in short time, so did the volume of cargo and the need for space to store it. In this metamorphose the port became gradually a closed area between the city and the river. We can read in statements from writers of that period how the port began to be seen as an obstacle for the relation with the Tagus.
Contemporarily, other important infrastructure was being developed that also caused changes in the waterfront. In Lisbon the first railway was inaugurated in 1856 connecting the capital with Carregado outside the city, towards the north-east. In the other direction the impact was even greater. In 1895 the railway between Cais do Sodré, near the city center, and Cascais to the west was opened. It was designed along the new coastline, and run parallel to the port and the river, next to the new Avenue named Avenida 24 de Julho. This infrastructure immediately developed a new barrier between the city and the Tagus. The alienation process did not stop there; new avenues and heavy roads were also created to give answer to growing traffic and the needs of the city .
During the twentieth century almost the entire Lisbon coast line was artificially regularized, in order to increase the port activities and accommodate the new ships. As mentioned before, the process started in the west, but eventually continued to the east, reaching outside the municipality boundaries[iii].
All these changes ended the interaction that for so many centuries took place in the waterfront. The open activities related with the river were reduced to few fish markets and the free urban access to the water could mainly happen in the main square, Praça do Comércio, and the beaches outside the city center. The port was seen as an external element that, although employed many inhabitants, had a negative image, associated with the “sailor’s towns”, source of pollution, danger, prostitution etc (Rudolf, 1980).
In mid twentieth century a technological innovation in the transport industries increased the alienation process. The container, created by Malcolm Mclean in 1956 (Amenda,2011), increased the port needs for more storage areas, mainly outside the urban boundaries. In cities where this was not possible, the port intensified its activities within the urban structure. In Lisbon this meant that the existing barrier (fence plus infrastructure) was accentuated by a vertical wall of containers in the terminal handling this cargo. This new change caused an even heavier mechanization process, with an inhuman scale, and the feeling that in the port areas the inhabitants were unwanted visitors. Since 2004 the port authorities have to implement the ISPS Code (International Ship and Port Facility Security), that closes even more the port areas to the city and harms the possible interaction.
The new access to the river
In 1940 the Exposição do Mundo Português took place in Belém, in the western part of the city. Due to the celebration of this event, the Portuguese government took the initiative to redevelop a section of the waterfront area, allowing the local inhabitants to regain access to the Tagus river. It was planned following the example of the world exhibitions, but focused on the former Portuguese colonies and the ancient overseas empire. The historical meaning and the connections with the past were inevitable so it was crucial that the inhabitants and visitors could reach the water and enhance its vision of the city. In the project the issue of the barrier was handled for the first time creating an underground crossing.
Unfortunately the exhibition was not followed by other projects with the same scope. The issue of the river connection remained in the dark until the late 1980s. In 1988 the first competition related with the river took place and the waterfront problem became again a “hot topic”. Already in this event the coordinator Arch. Pedro Brandão appealed to the regeneration of the waterfront considering it a crucial part of Lisbon’s identity (Brandão, Jorge, 1988). The winning project addressed the barrier problematic and proposed several visual axes and new public facilities that would recover the connection with the water in a more symbolical way.
Finally, by the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, the first steps towards a complex vision of Lisbon’s waterfront were given. Initially the extension of the recovered area in Belém gave the city a new public space by the river. At the same time several pedestrian bridges were built in order to overcome the barrier. There was also a change in the inhabitant’s idea of the river[iv]. They started to demand the connection to the Tagus, and noticed how important it was for the city’s identity.
In the last 30 years we have seen an important improvement in the relation between the city and the river. In this paper several examples will be presented where we can observe how the rehabilitation of port buildings helps the healing process of the wound between the city, the river and the port. At the same time the question remains whether all the effort made regarding the refurbishment of industrial heritage has really helped the port to establish itself as well as an identity element for Lisbon.
We must notice that in recent decades (1990s -2000s) several plans have been developed, in which the issue of the relation with the river has been gaining more attention. These documents often included studies and research regarding the Tagus and the waterfront. Some examples of these kind of plans are: the strategic plan of Lisbon, POZOR (plan for the riverfront), Plano de Pormenor de Alcântara, the PDM (the city’s masterplan) or the Plano Geral de Intervenções da Frente Ribeirinha de Lisboa (Salgado, 2013). Most of the time these plans had idealistic visions, sometimes too ambitious, to become a reality.
The most relevant waterfront urban development in Lisbon was the 1998 EXPO, which had as main theme the oceans. This plan was focused in the redevelopment of an area of 380 Ha, mostly described as a port brownfield although it included several working industries and companies and low income housing. The planners followed a tabula rasa concept leaving only the former refinery tower as a landmark from the industrial past of the place. The redevelopment was supposed to boost the urban development towards the east from the city center, however it created a new “island” of urbanity, with a new approach towards the river. The results were mainly positive regarding the relation with the Tagus, creating new public spaces in the waterfront but without attracting the urban development that was expected. Some of the current main leisure centers, Pavilhão Atlântico, Museu da Ciência, FIL, Vasco da Gama mall, are reconverted expo-facilities in what nowadays is called Parque das Nações.
In the present moment approximately 11 of the 19 km that form the Lisbon waterfront are accessible to the public[v]. On the riverfront we can find different examples of interventions, from different scales and approaches. We can see public and green spaces newly developed, but also spaces that are deeply related with the past. In the 1990s several authors observed the potential of this industrial and port related heritage and highlighted the importance it could have for the city, not just as museums or sculptural elements but also as assets that could complement the existing public needs.
The existing heritage has been thoroughly studied and to be properly described it would require a long term investigation. For this reason it was decided that this paper would only focus on three different kinds of projects that have already been developed and can show the variety of spaces and the different approaches that can be taken.
In the first place we will present the two projects that dealt with the public space and the evolution of the urban structure and uses, these are the Praça do Comércio rehabilitation and the Ribeira das Naus. The second group of interventions are single industrial buildings of large dimensions that have been restored or partially refurbished, and are mainly used for cultural activities. In this category we can find the EDP Electricity Museum, the Orient Museum and the Cordoaria. Finally in the third group we will analyze the old docks warehouses that in the 1990s were recovered for leisure activities. Two different cases will be explained, the Docas de Santo Amaro and the Jardim do Tabaco.
FIRST GROUP OF INTERVENTIONS: PUBLIC SPACES
Praça do Comércio (Commerce Square)
The current layout of Lisbon’s main square comes from the reconstruction plans, although before the 1755 earthquake this was already the main meeting place of the city[vi]. As it still happens today, around the square the buildings hosted the power institutions, ministries, and, as it names indicates, some of the merchant companies. For the design of the buildings and the public space several proposals were made, but the main characteristics remained unaltered. The size was determined by the urban plan and the layout of the buildings did not change considerably. Like it happened with the overall plan, the construction took several decades until it was totally finished, in the 1875, when triumphal arc was concluded. Praça do Comércio is one of the biggest squares in Europe, with an overall dimension of 180×200 m and 35000 m2. It is a perfect symmetrical design with two central elements, the statue of D.José I and the mentioned arc, from where the Rua Augusta, the main street of the plan, starts and connects to other square from the Baixa plan, the Rossio.
Over the centuries the use of the central space has changed many times. Initially was envisioned as the main representative space but rapidly it became appropriated by the citizens. On the arcade we can find besides several ministries and govern agencies, some historic cafes, like o Martinho da Arcada. Although the U-shaped layout remained unaltered, what happened in the central space went through different phases. At the beginning of the twentieth century it had trees in order to give shade to the users, and later on, until few decades ago, it was a central parking lot. This evolution could serve as a metaphor of the evolution of the role that the waterfront space as suffered. This is the most representative space of Lisbon, where in ancient times, but also during the twentieth century, world leaders were welcomed. The mutations in the perceptions of the space are a good sign of how resilient cities can be.
In 1992 an idea competition was made. Although there was no winner design, the main concepts were taken from the proposal developed by the architects Pedro Pacheco and José Adrião who took the second place. In this project the architects developed a new strategy for the use of the arcade and new pavements that would give back to the square the nobility with which it was originally thought, but at the same time providing a new versatility for urban functions like events or concerts (Macedo, 2011). The construction process was complex due to several issues, among them the groundwater or the complications caused by the construction of the subway directly under the square. Finally in 2007 after many political changes Praça do Comércio was redeveloped with a new project by a new architect Bruno Soares who was directly chosen by the newly created public company Frente Tejo[vii]. In 2010 the square was reopen to the public, with a new design for the central space including a new pavement characterized by stone diagonal stripes that increase the visual dimension of the square. The project maintains the arcade program for cafes and restaurants, leaving the door open to new uses like museums or commerce.
Since the renovation the square has become once again part of the city’s collective image. Besides being one of the main tourist attractions, is one of the main public scenarios for events and political demonstrations. The river gets inside the city’s urban tissue thanks to the geometry and the scale of the square, nowadays more recognizable than what has been for the past half a century.
Ribeira das Naus
This space is the ancient shipyard of Lisbon. In the images developed by Braun in the sixteenth century we can already see evidences of a shipyard in the waterfront next to the royal palace. In this naval plant were built the ships that would later connect with the overseas colonies. After the 1755 earthquake the shipyard was rebuilt in the same location, remaining an area only accessible to the workers, therefore not public. This industrial site remained active until the first half of the twentieth century when in 1939 the navy decided to close the site. This change allowed the construction of the road that connected the east part of the city with the west, running parallel to the river.
The designer in charge was the landscape architecture office, PROAP, led by João Nunes. The project started in 2009 and was finished in 2014. The project was divided in two phases, a first one regarding the riverfront and the redevelopment of the avenue, and a second one which still is in progress that includes the “land part”, concerning the dry docks and the green areas. After its opening several changes were made to the original project, since the intense traffic required a different pavement for the road section.
The project follows a concept of micro-topography, increasing the contrast between the different historical times that left a footprint in the area, and at the same time reinforcing the connection with the river. Also the water edge was redone and giving the inhabitants a space where they can get in contact with the river, something missing in Lisbon’s urbanized waterfront.
The improvement of the space is clear, especially when compared with the previous stage. The presence of a green area in the waterfront is something that until this moment existed only in Belém, including the Junqueira waterfront, and in the Parque das Nações. This new area invites people to stay by the Tagus river and functions not just as connection area between two historical public transport nodes, but also as a place to stay.
The most critical aspect is the presence of the road that still runs in the middle of the project. This is an element of conflict because it breaks the project into two sections and does not allow the full usufruct of the new developed space. The issue regarding the east-west connection has remained problematic since the city started to develop along the waterfront. The traffic crossing the city center is one of the main problems of Lisbon. Since the completion of the mentioned avenue in the first half of the twentieth century, it has been clear that it is necessary to find another solution. The construction of a tunnel to diminish the impact of the traffic has been discussed several times, however the technical and budget difficulties have held the project still. In other port cities we have seen that the only solution for the crossing traffic is to create a tunnel or an elevated connection. Both options imply considerable investment and difficulties for its realization. The municipality however has decided to continue with the development of new green spaces next to the waterfront without addressing this problem.
SECOND GROUP OF INTERVENTIONS: THE LARGE SINGLE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
In a second group we can find what once were important industrial buildings directly related with the port. This typology is characterized by its great dimensions, that in the last decades have made them very attractive for exhibitions and events.
In chronological order from the moment when they were built three cases will be explained, the Cordoaria Nacional, Central Tejo (Electricity Museum) and Pedro Álvares Cabral Building (Orient Museum)
The ancient Royal Factory of Cordoaria da Junqueira, was built in the late eighteenth Century, after the earthquake, by order from the Marquês de Pombal. In this building the ropes, cords and flags for the different ships that departed from Lisbon’s port were manufactured (Nabais, Ramos, 1987). Its location nowadays does not allow the same relation with the river like it used to be before the shore line was artificially rebuilt. The building was modified when the waterfront was changed by landfills to allow the railway connection from Cais do Sodré to Cascais. In ancient cartography we can see that the south façade was directly on the water and that both two ends used to be considerably larger, this last modification took place later when the path of the railway was modified.
One of its most peculiar characteristics are its dimensions, it is almost 400 meter long and 50 wide, being one of the longest buildings in Europe. These particular proportions were directly related with the industrial activities that were developed inside.
This example of industrial architecture is considered nowadays a national monument and hosts the navy archives, a naval school and two main galleries prepared for temporary exhibitions and events. Although there are several program using the space simultaneously, the building it is not fully recovered, particularly the interiors, and still does not have a clear purpose.
Its situation in the city, in Belém, surrounded by urban voids, in front of the infrastructural barrier and its particular morphology increases the complexity of a possible full rehabilitation. Very often it is an topic of public debate. For several years was planned to adapt the Cordoaria for hosting the National Archeology museum or the Navy Museum, but the intervention has proven difficult and costly. The building does not has the conditions for permanent exhibitions or guarantees the climatic needs for delicate artifacts.
At the moment this area still waits for the completion of a plan in order to redevelop its connection to the river and find a permanent solution for the space.
The second case is the Electricity museum, also in Belém. Built in the early twentieth century, the industrial complex known as Central Tejo, functioned from 1909 until 1972. The most representative building was finished in the mid-1920s and it is a good example of industrial architecture heritage. Its red brick façade has become an important landmark in Lisbon’s waterfront, and it represents the evolution of the city into the industrial times.
During the first half of the twentieth century was the main power plant in the city. It played a key role producing energy for many uses, like the railway line that runs parallel to the river, heading to the west.
Although the industrial activity stopped officially in the end of the 1970s, it was only recovered for cultural uses in the 1990s, when started to work as electricity museum. More recently, since 2006, reopened its doors as the EDP Museum, owned by the major electrical company of the country. Besides the main exhibition it also hosts temporary events.
Its privileged position on the shore increases its monumentality, especially considering that it is an isolated volume on the sore without any other buildings in the surroundings to compare with. At the same time it is placed in Belém, with many other monuments and cultural centers, integrated in the cultural urban structure.
At the present moment the EDP is building another cultural center next to the EDP Museum. This new project, signed by the British architect Amanda Levete, has also generated much discussion regarding the architecture, the location and the real need for this new building. Its sinuous shapes will create a great contrast with the place and the preexistence. Also this project changes partially the river line, something that it was not initially allowed in the municipal plans.
This new facility, along with the EDP Museum and the coaches Museum reinforces the idea of a cultural axis along the river, developed in the strategic plans by the Lisbon municipality. This strategy has been occasionally criticized, considering that Lisbon already has museums and cultural centers with considerable budgets and great expenditure of public money.
Pedro Álvares Cabral Building
The final case in this group is the building that hosts the Orient Museum. This construction from the 1940s, project done by the architect João Simões Antunes, is a remarkable example of the architecture of the regime the Estado Novo. Being the original program a codfish warehouse, it almost has no windows in the façades, accentuating the monolithic aspect of the volume. In 1992 stopped functioning as a warehouse and it closed its doors until 2008 when reopened as the Orient Museum, run by the Fundação Oriente.
The renovation project was signed by one of the most renowned contemporary architects in Portugal, João Luis Carrilho da Graça. During the construction process there were several issues to be solved related with the previous activity of the building, the very low free height of the several floors forced the architect to find a complex distribution scheme[viii]. Another problem was the strong codfish odor that remained in the building; this issue was finally solved and did not compromise the normal operation of the museum.
Its urban situation is relatively complex, considering that it is placed in Alcântara, where several port activities are still functioning. It is near the container terminal, the customs and navy guard facilities. Also at the front of the main door exists the infrastructural barrier that separates the city from the river. This issue might be the most critical aspect of the project in terms of urban planning. As we analyze the building, we can see that it is not properly connected with the surroundings, which include a train station from where visitors could arrive.
Even with these problems, this example shows us that although the original use of the building was very specific and that the morphological features of the preexistence were not easy to incorporate to current uses it was possible to recover for a new program totally different from the original function.
THIRD GROUP OF INTERVENTIONS: THE PORT WAREHOUSES
Finally the third typology is the docks warehouses, that between the mid-1990s and the 2000s were refurbished for recreational activities. Two cases will be presented although there are many others along the riverbank in Lisbon[ix].
The first case is the Santo Amaro docks, also popularly known as “Docas”. As we have previously seen, in this zone the port activities are still functioning, where we can find the container and the cruise terminals among others. Also there are several buildings that host offices and companies related with the port. In the beginning of the 1990’s this was one of the first waterfront sections where former port buildings were transformed to host recreational uses. The warehouses were restored by privates with the support of the port authority (Rêgo Cabral, 2011). In the same area two recreational marinas were created, Santo Amaro and Alcântara.
We can see that this area is in a relative central location, west from the Praça do Comércio. Several public transports reach this place and is one of the waterfront sections where we can clearly see the barrier effect caused by some port sectors. Considering that there is a complex mix of functions, we can realize the consequences of having an industrial port within city boundaries, and the problems that it can generate, related with traffic and the accessibility requirements of trucks and cargo transport.
In terms of program there is a key difference with the previous cases. In the previous cases there is a cultural function, but in this case the main role is played by leisure activities. This is important for the urban waterfront regeneration in order to insure the diversity of what sort of programs can be developed in this part of the city. This aspect is crucial to make sure that the river is present in the everyday life, even though when it is only the background picture.
The industrial architecture of these warehouses has been very often reduced to a simple container for activities, which can be understood when we see that there is no special protection, unlike what happens with the other cases that are considered national monuments. Although this might be an issue if seen from the heritage preservation point of view, it might have been a positive aspect when seen from the business perspective, considering that allows more freedom to private entrepreneurs and the rapid occupation of these buildings.
A second case study is the Jardim do Tabaco. This is also a docks warehouses ensemble, like the previous one, but placed east from the Praça do Comércio. The name is related with the tobacco customs placed in the area around the seventeenth century. It follows the same model as the ones presented before, former docks warehouses refurbished to host restaurants, bars and clubs; reinforcing the idea of nightlife by the river. A different aspect is the fact that in these buildings we can also find different shops facing the city side.
In this area of the city we can feel again the effect of the barrier and the lack of adapted pedestrian paths, especially considering that we are nearby the main square and different subway connections. In the near future we should see important changes in this section of the waterfront since the new cruise terminal will be built here.
The two cases briefly explained show other model of intervention in the waterfront, which also integrates the preexistence buildings but develops a different activity and purpose. The mix of uses present in the riverfront areas is a key aspect in order to insure the presence of people with different schedules, activities and needs.
When analyzing Lisbon’s waterfront we see different types of interventions. Until the present moment there has been a relative positive balance between brand new interventions, like the Parque das Nações, and the recycling and reuse of port buildings heritage. This is a key aspect to ensure the good relation between port and city and reinforce the urban identity. As we have seen in this paper there is not just one way to reuse the existing buildings. In the waterfront many different activities can take place and it is important that it happens so. We cannot just destine the river banks for green areas and museum, but also the different urban programs that we find in our cities, from culture to offices, from education to housing. In many Mediterranean cities we can see how port heritage has been recovered for different uses, like in Barcelona the Atarazanas, in Genoa the Magazini del cottone and in Marseille the industrial silos.
Through the different examples that have been here presented, we can see how important it is to plan beyond the scale of the building. In order to increase the effect of the reuse of port heritage to new activities, we have to ensure that it is well connected to adjacent areas and also linked to urban transport networks. Elaborating urban plans that take in account the different systems acting in the city, helps us to face the complexity and the conflicts between different realities. In port-cities this conflict is always present and we have to consider how the different elements interact between themselves, in order to find a balance and reach a status quo between port and urban activities.
In the process of waterfront urban regeneration several actors play key roles and there has to be a constant dialogue in order to reach good results. When talking about port cities we have always to consider the port authorities, their rules and their priorities. The municipality must have clear course for action or as we have seen there is the risk of leaving the city in an impasse, without going forward to a better relation with the sea or river. In many Western Mediterranean cities we also see the important role played by public companies dedicated to manage the urban regeneration. These companies could be a good way to deal with conflict and coordinate the process.
Port-cities have an even more complex reality than other cities. The way their roots are connected to the sea or river makes them special. We have to plan our cities in order to get in touch with our roots, respect the identity and find a development model for the coexistence between port and city.
This paper is an improved version of the article originally presented in the fifth Colloquium on Mediterranean Urban Studies, hosted in Mersin in October 2014.
[i] The debate regarding the death caused by the seism is not settled. According to some sources the earthquake could have caused from 10 000 to 100 000 casualties. The effects of this natural disaster were felt in the entire continent. Other Portuguese and Spanish cities suffered the shakes and destruction of the quake. The tsunami could have reached the coasts of Brazil several hours after it occurred.
[ii] The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain and spread to Western Europe and the United States within a few decades. The precise start and end of the Industrial Revolution is debated among historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it ‘broke out’ in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s, while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830. Joseph E Inikori (2002)
[iii] Several researchers (Costa, Barata, Fernandes, Figuiera de Sousa among others) have studied the evolution of the industry along the waterfront of Lisbon. Costa identifies different stages that include changes of the scale in the industrial facilities but also their location in the urban tissue. The industry evolves from a smaller scale developed near the center (Praça do Comércio) and the west side of the city, to bigger conglomerates in the eastern section of, and finally to the autonomous complex in the south side of the estuary.
[iv] The urban waterfront regeneration projects have become a global phenomenon. During the 1960’s the first projects were developed in North America , after that we see an evolution until today’s most recent interventions in Hamburg, Rotterdam or Marseille. This kind of plans have become usual in port-cities. The inhabitants from these same cities regained the notion of important urban spaces by the water are.
[v] In the sustainability reports from 2007 and 2008 it is explained that 76% of the waterfront under the jurisdiction of the port authority (205 km) is accessible to the public. The issue is the fact that most of the heavy port activities are placed in the waterfront of Lisbon. In the report from 2007 it is said that 41% of the territory controlled by the port authority in Lisbon (15,9 km) is accessible to the public. This figure is the lowest of the 11 municipalities that have contact with the port.
[vi] In fact the king D. Manuel I changed his residence in 1511 to the palace placed in the waterfront, an area that later came to be known as the “Terreiro do Paço.”
[vii] This public company was supposed to coordinate all the projects related with Lisbon’s waterfront, including as well the Ribeira das Naus and the Carriage Museum in Belém. After several public scandals the company was closed and did not continued with other possible projects. This “quango” could have worked as a interesting tool for the development of the waterfront heritage and coordination of plans.
This post is based on the paper to be presented in the AESOP YA Congress to be held in Ghent between 21st and 24th of March 2016.
The relation between cities and ports has been thoroughly analyzed from different perspective in the last 50 years. We can find several investigations that try to explain the concept of port-city and the evolution of their interaction. Many authors, e.g. Bird (1963) and Hoyle (1989; 2000) among others, have developed spatial models that explain the different stages the relation between ports and cities goes through. Although the mentioned models present limitations they are widely accepted as the better abstraction of the evolution of the port-city interface. One of the critic that could be made to these schemes is the fact that not all port-cities fit the description (Kokot, 2008). However, in order to perform a comparative analysis, it provides a solid starting point. According to Hoyle’s model we currently find ourselves in the 6th Phase, when new links between the city and the port can be established. In this article we will not focus in the theoretical research or abstract analysis of port-city development, but rather in the actual governance praxis that we can find in Europe.
In order to better understand the role of the context, the different problems and solutions that we find in the European continent a research project was proposed. For this investigation a sample of six port-cities was chosen representing different realities: Oslo, Helsinki, Rotterdam, Marseille, Genoa and Lisbon. In this selection we can find some of the main ports of the continent, such as Rotterdam, but at the same time the Nordic capitals, like Oslo and Helsinki, in which the port is mainly relevant in the regional and national level. Also present are port cities that host the major national port for industrial activities but simultaneously tourism or passenger related activities, like Genoa and Marseille. Finally the port of Lisbon, the capital of Portugal, that is suffering strong national competition and seen an important increase in the cruise sector.
Newman and Thornley (1996) have explained before the differences between the planning systems in the context aforementioned. These distinctions in the national legal framework and the particular physical and social conditions generate different approaches and solutions for nuisances generated by port activities. These externalities are frequently very similar since the main harbor activities are very often alike. The PAs (Port Authorities)must have a policy to cope with the issues created by its activities in the cities since the positive effects of the port spread throughout the region but the negative externalities very often remain in the urban core (Ircha, 2013; Merk, 2013,2014). The combination between global problems and local solutions generates a diversity of management and planning practices worth observing and comparing.
The methodology for the analysis of the study cases was based on visits to the port-cities for periods of two weeks during which one of the main tasks was to perform semi-structured interviews to the responsible authorities in order to get first hand information. We were able to establish contact with the port authorities, municipalities, planning agencies and professionals. In total 15 interviews were done. At the same time we contacted the local inhabitants informally to better understand their perception of the port and the role this infrastructure plays in the social identity of the city. The methodology was completed with consultation of bibliography and official documents. For the analysis of the waterfront regeneration projects present in all the study cases we followed the method proposed by Schubert (2011), which includes quantitative and qualitative dimensions e.g. size of the project, start and completion dates, planning culture or location. Finally the time spent in each of the study cases allowed us to perform a photographical survey of the port-city environment and the interaction of the city with the water.
In the work developed by other researchers we can see that there are several key topics related with port-cities. For example in the series dedicated to port-cities from the OECD (Merk et.al. 2010-2013) the economic subject was predominant, although it also included information about the urban planning, environmental impact and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The waterfront regeneration projects are another issue that has been extensively studied by other authors, mainly with study case analysis, e.g. Schubert (2008, 2011) and Meyer (2003). Another important source are the guides of good practice developed over the last decade. Several of these publications have been supported by the existing internationals organizations focused on ports and port-cities, such as ESPO (European Sea Port Organization) the European ports lobby, the AIVP (Association Internationale Ville et Port) or RETE more focused in Mediterranean and south American countries.
We were able to identify 3 main common topics in the port-city relation among the selected study-cases: (i) Institutional relations and role of the port authorities, (ii) physical interaction, including the port-city interface and waterfront regeneration projects, and (iii) the social relation between ports and cities.
2. Institutional relation – New synergies
In the European context most PAs follow the landlord port model . Although the functioning scheme is very similar the political context of each port changes the governance capacities of each PA, being particularly relevant the national political system of each country. In the selected study cases we could also find one PA, Rotterdam, that has evolved from this model into a developer port (Vries, 2014) as we will later see.
We could find two main schemes for the national systems in the studied context, centralized and decentralized (Newman & Thornley, 1996). These two models for the national organization of the state create crucial differences between the European countries. In the particular subject we are concerned the major difference is related with the control of the PA. In the case of the centralized model the central government plays the leading role, in some cases being even the sole responsible for the PA board. This model is mostly seen in the South European countries, in our case sample we could find it in the cities of Genoa, Marseille and Lisbon. The main issue of this scheme is the fact that many decisions regarding the strategic planning and the allocation of economical resources are not taken in the PA itself, but in the central authority, usually the ministry or national department. In this decision making process the priority is given to the economical aspects of the port activity and the resources are mainly dedicated to the major infrastructural works. Regarding the relation with the city, the issue that might surge is the fact that frequently it is not considered a priority and the investment in projects or activities that could improve the synergies is very often declined. During our interviews we could see that for example in Genoa the PA does not fully controls the revenues its activity generates, therefore does not have capacity to decided where the majority of the investment should be made. Regarding the studied cases that have this model, we also found that when the PA is mainly controlled by the central state, there is a certain institutional and emotional detachment between the city and this infrastructure. This was visible in the Marseille case, where, besides the strong presence of the central state, the complex configuration of the boards hinders the negotiation process.
The alternative on the other hand is more common in central and north European countries. In the study cases this option could be found in Rotterdam, Oslo and Helsinki. In the decentralized model the city has a prominent role in the control of the PA, very often being the majority shareholder in case is a semi-private company, like in the Dutch case (Vries, 2014), or even the PA is under the “umbrella” of the municipality. Previously, in some cases, this institution used to be a department of the municipality, like in Helsinki, but recent reforms to improve the management transformed them into semi-public companies controlled by the local authority. In these cases the state also plays an important role although not so determinant as in the alternative model. In some cases is also present in the shareholding and, in most countries with this system, is in charge of the national coordination of these key infrastructures. For the port-city relation the decentralized model is more beneficial since the city has a stronger voice in the management decisions, they receive benefits from their shares and the urban issues in the interface are considered important as well.
The two models aforementioned condition the port-city relation in the institutional field, but are not the only elements that affect this interaction. Another issue is the land ownership. In the analyzed cases we found three types of situation. In the first scenario the port land is owned by the PA and it can be used as a resource for financing port projects in case a waterfront regeneration plan takes place. We could see this in Oslo, where the PA was able to finance the Sydhavna terminal through the revenues of the real estate operation involving the port territories near the city center. Another similar case would be Marseille. The GPMM (Grand Port Maritime du Marseille) controls the port land since the last legislation reform in 2008. For this reason when the port released the area for the waterfront regeneration, it received a compensation from the planning agency. Another situation regarding the land ownership is when the port territory is owned by the city. In this case there is a leasing contract which ends when the port activities are ceased in a certain waterfront section and the land is released without the need of a compensation. This scheme can be found in Rotterdam or in Helsinki. The Finnish capital can be considered an extreme case since the municipality is one of the main land owners in the city. In this case the PA only owns the constructions and machinery built in its territory. During the interviews the port representatives claimed that the land issue puts them in a disadvantage position in the case of a negotiation regarding urban issues. Finally we can find cases in which the land is owned by the central state and there is a standardized procedure for the ownership transition. We can find this situation in Lisbon, where the law states that in case the port territory does not have a current or foreseen use it should be handled to the local authorities if there is a clear plan regarding its transformation for urban uses.
In the institutional relation we could also observe another issue that affects only certain ports. These are major infrastructure that even in the smaller cases include a vast extension of territory. In the sample we studied the size of the port varies from 125 Ha of land in the port of Oslo to 12500 Ha along 40 km of the river Maas in the case of Rotterdam. This dimension affects the territorial management that in some cases it includes several municipalities. The two most extreme cases among the selected port-cities were Marseille and Lisbon. In the French case the port territory is divided into two main locations, Marseille (east basin) and Fos (west basin). Besides the two very different realities, the port activity also affects a broad number of small municipalities, at least 3 communauté from Marseille to Fos sur Mer (Bertoncello & Dubois, 2010) that demand a sit in the management board. The negotiation with so many stakeholders, each one with very different priorities and development goals, is considerably complicated. In the Portuguese capital we found that the port limits with 11 municipalities. In this case each one has a different relation with the port authority and different openness towards port activities. These issues that could seem subjective might affect the port development. In the Lisbon case one of the factors that influenced the decision of the new container terminal location was the political relation with the local authorities .
Another issue that affects this relation is the fact that the PA is not the same as the port community. Therefore, the concept or agenda of the official institution is not always welcomed by the companies, workers, unions and other individuals or organizations from the port. In some cases, mainly Genoa and Marseille, we noticed how this diversity of actors might difficult the dialogue and in some cases delay important reforms. In general terms we could see that the port communities are not so open to change, particularly if it is brought from outside the port. The PA plays a crucial role since it has to properly explain the necessary change and convince this very resilient community to accept it.
In the investigation we were also able to understand the importance of the negotiation process necessary between all the involved stakeholders. In port territories very often we find other institutions besides the port authorities, such as railway companies, road authorities, customs, public transport companies, cargo and ferry terminals, etc. In all the study cases the negotiation and willing to dialogue was crucial for the urban and port development. For these negotiations the existence of dialogue platforms, sometimes linked to a project, was considered to be a useful approach.
3. Physical relation – Interface and Waterfront regeneration projects – Dialogue and negotiation
In the selected study cases we could observe how different sorts of urban projects in the waterfront are taking place or have been developed in the past. Since these port-cities have been studied previously by other scholars into more detail, we will only mention the main aspects of them, specifically the most recent developments.
3.1 The interventions
In Helsinki, after the relocation of the industrial port in Vuosaari, several urban development are taking place that will change the relation of the city with the water. Particularly relevant are the ones in Jatkasaari and Kalatasama. In the first one we shall also see the interaction with port activities (Laitinen,2013), more specifically the ferries, that brought in 2015 10,7 mill passenger and also a considerable figure of ro-ro cargo, approx. 25% of the general throughput (Merk et al. 2012).
In Oslo the Fjord City plan is being developed since 2000, when the municipality chose to implement the urban strategy focused in improving the contact of the city with the fjord rather than the one more harbor oriented (Kolstø, 2013; Gisle Rekdal, 2013). This decision was also very representative of the different types of relation that cities have with their ports, not always considered an identity element. In this case the dialogue and negotiation has played a crucial role, since the land, as mentioned before, is owned by the port. One of the most important features of the plan is the new coherent vision for the waterfront. In the case of Oslo the new promenade along the urban shore plays an important role, since it is the link between the different areas, that go from new port terminals in Sydhavna in the south to the new centralities in Bjorvika. The plan will proceed with the development of Filipstad and Vippetangen. These sections of the waterfront will require more negotiation than in previous parts since there are port related industries operating there and the solution for connection with the urban tissue implies not just the port but also the railway company.
The case of Rotterdam presents two main examples for waterfront interventions, Kop van Zuid and Stadshavens. The first is entering its final stage and is an example of “port out-city in” type of project. In this case a port brownfield was transformed into a high standard mixed-use district. The clear gentrification we can see it was considered positive, being one of the goals of the project, since the city needed greater variety in a dwelling market dominated by social housing (Daamen et al., 2015). The second intervention could be considered a model for the future. Its scale and complexity is greater than other cases since it implies an area of 1600 Ha, of which 600 Ha of land (Vries, 2014) with many active industries. This last section of the port inside the highway ring began to be discussed in the year 2004, with an initial approach similar to the Kop van Zuid. In 2007, before the world financial crisis, it was clear that the scheme could not be replied and that a different strategy was necessary (Daamen,2010; Vries, 2014). The model changed from a “port out-city in” approach to a real coexistence among port and urban uses. The industries are considered to be important, particularly innovative ones related with the port, and the transition will be developed in a slower rhythm, with a more flexible implementation agenda. The housing program will be built in the areas that allow a compatible use. This case is considered to be very innovative since, as mentioned before, the project no longer takes place in a port brownfield, but in a active port sector. The integration can hardly be achieved, but the coexistence between port and city can be a reasonable goal.
Marseille is also undergoing an important urban transformation. After the industrial crisis of the 1970-1980 the city went into a process of social and physical degradation, unemployment rates grew considerably, the lack of private investment caused a degradation of the urban tissue with several brownfields and the productive model did not evolved from the previous scenario. The port, as in many other cases, was no longer the job provider it used to be. At the same time the city gained a negative reputation. To invert the negative development tendency the central government decided to act by implementing an urban regeneration plan in 1995, the Euroméditerranée (Bertoncello & Dubois, 2010; Martin, 2015). The operation was destined to change the image of the city and its productive model, with a new CBD where several industrial brownfield used to be, near the urban port. The operation required the cooperation of all the involved actors, including the GPMM.
One of most interest facts about this case for the port-city relation is the vertical integration of port and urban activities in several key projects. Terrasses du Port, Silo d’Arenc and in the future the J1 Warehouse show the compatibility of port activities with cultural, service or shopping programs. Besides these specific projects the process also allowed the city to regain an access to the sea in the J4/MUCEM section. Another important element was the flexibility of the plan, since the construction was only developed when a high rate of occupancy (70%) was assure, avoiding the risk of empty buildings and the possible degradation. Most importantly, the commitment achieved was translated into the city-port charter, a document that summarized the negotiation process and granted the presence of the port in the urban core, easing the acceptance of the project by the port community, not always opened to change. The plan is still ongoing and in the next years it should start its second phase, this time without affecting directly port territories.
The case of Genoa presents a different reality from the ones discussed previously. In the Italian city currently there is no waterfront regeneration project in the classic meaning of the concept, i.e. acting in a port brownfield to generate an urban tissue near the water. This sort of intervention already took place in the late 1980’s, early 1990’s and in the early 2000’s, in always linked with a big events policy (Gastaldi, 2010, 2013). The particularity of the Genoese context is the need to intervene in the active port, to give answer to specific technical issues and, in the process, use this opportunity to improve the relation of the city with the port and the sea. The Blue print project developed by Renzo Piano is a conceptual plan for the east section of the port territory focused in reorganizing the shipyards industry, improving its infrastructure and implementing a better distribution of the existing activities, which include a yacht club and water sports. Simultaneously the exhibition fair district, outside the port boundaries, should also be affected by this plan, since it also requires an intervention to invert its current degradation process. The project plans the development of 11300 m2 of housing, 25 000 m2 of tertiary activities and 12 000 m2 of commerce in the sector focused in the urban regeneration. This figure is relatively small when compared to the previous cases, which also shows the different scope of the project. One of the main features of the plan, as we can see in the image, is the creation of a new blue buffer, i.e. a water channel separating the city from the port.
In Lisbon the most important waterfront regeneration project took place in the late 1990’s, the regeneration of a port brownfield in the east part of the city for the EXPO 1998. After the event the area suffered several changes to adapt to its post-expo use, hosting a new business district, several housing projects and key cultural infrastructures. The main critic to this project was that it created an island of new urbanity disconnected from the existing urban tissue (Ressano Garcia, 2011). In 2007 the general plan for waterfront interventions was published, in which the future use of riverfront areas and port territory to be dismissed was described. This plan was developed in the strategic level and the partial projects were developed in a closer scale. The economic crisis that affected the world economy, and particularly the Southern European countries, burst short after the release of the document and several project there hosted suffered significant delays, being developed only today. In this period the absence of activities in the released areas increased the negative image of the port, although the port itself was not responsible of the situation. The importance of temporary uses was clear in this case, since they could have allowed an appropriation of the space by the inhabitants that later on might ease the integration.
3.1.7 Synthesis table with the dimensions of Schubert model
3.2 Conclusions of the physical relation analysis
One of the elements that are most relevant for the waterfront regeneration projects is the situation regarding the contracts with the existing companies. The majority of the PA, as we have already mentioned, follow the landlord model, therefore there are companies developing their activities in the port territory which have made an investment based in a long term commitment. These contracts are usually signed for several decades and imply considerable compensation sums in case they are broken. In the waterfront project they might form an impediment for the implementation of the plan. We could find this issue in several cases. In Oslo there are operating firms in Filipstad and in the silo in Vippetangen. In Rotterdam there are several companies with long-term contracts in Merwerhaven, Eemhaven and Waalhaven, that in case they had to be relocated the necessary compensation could affect the outcome of the project. One of difficulties of acting in the active port is the issue of respecting the contracts, in this context the flexible planning and negotiation skills might prove to be determinant for the success or failure of the project.
The waterfront and the port-city interface are a very specific situation, the issues affecting this part of the city are very particular and the solutions applied in other locations of the urban tissue might not work here (Hoyle, 1998). At the same time in this context the municipal authorities deals with another institution managing a vast territory, the port authorities, with different priorities and goals, that counterbalances the negotiation process. In order to find solutions very often an specific planning agency is created. In the analyzed study cases we found several agencies, frequently linked with a project, instead of a steady organizations meant to follow different plans. In Rotterdam the Stadshavens evolved to be a dialogue and coordination platform after the approach to the project changed (Daamen,2010; Vries, 2014).
In the case of Genoa we found precedents of these sort of initiatives, created by both sides of the relation. For the port plan the PA established an agency for the development of the port Masterplan. This new office counted with the collaboration of world renowned architects and planners, e.g. Rem Koolhaas, Solá Morales and Bernardo Secchi, to provide new ideas for the port-city interface (Boeri,1999). Later on another agency, the Genova Urban Lab, was created to solve the existing urban issues, among them the relation with the port. The synergies created in the process have helped to improve the dialogue between the municipal and port authorities.
In Marseille the Euroméditerranée was created by the national state with the scope of the urban regeneration of the city. The participants in the new public agency were also the GPMM, the urban community, the county council, the regional council and the municipality. The agency forced a dialogue almost inexistent until that moment. One of the greatest achievements of this initiative has been the connection between the national and the local decision makers. This agency is linked to the project development and its destiny is to disappear when the plan is finished. However it has already left a document that should work as guide for the future of the port-city relation, the “city-port charter”.
The other cases have not developed an specific waterfront agency, but in certain moment have established joint venture dedicated to specific projects, such as the Frente Tejo in Lisbon, focused in three major public projects and later extinguished.
3.2.3 Two tendencies
Waterfront projects have been studied by several authors since the pioneer interventions in Boston and Baltimore in the 1960’s. Ever since we have seen an evolution in the development models. In Europe we could until now find several generations of waterfront revitalization (Schubert, 2008 and 2011). The first one exemplified in London, the Canary wharf, contrasting later with what took place in Barcelona or Genoa where the public space and leisure had the dominant role. Later the focus changed to mixed- use and housing very often linked with a landmark cultural project, following the example of Bilbao.
In the studied port-cities we found two main sorts of waterfront revitalization plans. In the Nordic countries the concept has followed what we have already seen in other locations e.g. the Netherlands. The relocation of the port industrial harbor created the opportunity of a waterfront project. In Oslo the new port terminal in Sydhavna has been developed with the revenues from the Oslo Havn KF, which also benefited from the real estate operations . In Helsinki on the other hand the decision of moving the industrial port to Vuosaari released a considerable space for new districts in the city.
While in Oslo the free market law prevails, therefore high standard housing for high income class, in Helsinki the role of the municipality as landowner allows a greater social mix in the new city districts in the waterfront. The composition of both social structures might provide in the future different perceptions of the public space and the urban environment by the water.
The second type of waterfront intervention is the one that acts in the active port territory, as we see in Rotterdam and Genoa. In these cities the plans are not limited to port brownfields, but propose the reconfiguration of the active port, considering at the same time the urban needs and the harbor related activities. In this cases the interface between both realities changes and technical needs from the port are used to improve the synergies with the city. When comparing both we could say that Rotterdam takes the concept further since the transformation is not physical but also social and economical. The RDM campus is one positive example of interaction between city and port in the educational sector, in the boundary between both territories (Aarts et al, 2012). This sort of plans could be considered a new generation of waterfront regeneration projects since they offer a new approach to the port-city reality. The Euroméditerranée plan in Marseille has elements from both, since this operation has not altered significantly the configuration of the port territory and only in a small section the PA has released area by the water. The main innovation was the coexistence of port and urban activities, as we have seen in several projects.
The waterfront interventions have clear development stages (Schubert, 2008). Starting with the abandonment of the area and relocation of port infrastructure, to the emergence of a port brownfield, later proceeding to the implementation of plans and its revitalization. In the last decade we have already seen that the process was starting to change, since the real estate development were proving to be economically very convenient. The pressure to the port to move it mains infrastructure to another location was not only due to the technical and logistic needs for more space, but also from the different urban stakeholders. We might have achieved a new stage, the waterfront intervention no longer happen after the port released the area, but rather take place in the active port. At the same time also the model of intervention has changed in these cases. If previously the main goal was to develop green public spaces, cultural venues or mixed-use and housing developments, what could be named the “beauty waterfront”, now it seems we have an alternative “productive waterfront” model, where the industries are considered important for the city and the effort has to be made for the compatibility and coexistence between the port and the city. This evolution in the waterfront projects and the dangers of the previous model, more focused in housing and leisure programs, were already detected by other authors, e.g. Chrarlier (1992), who named it “the dockland syndrome”, Bruttomesso (2009) and Ducruet (2013), who considered a mistake to remove all the port activities from the regenerated waterfront, denaturalizing it from its original function.
4. Emotional relation
During the study case visits and analysis we were able to observe a third dimension of the port-city relation, the interaction between the citizens and the port. Until very recently the PA’s in general terms had not considered the importance of the public image and the communication with the inhabitants of the city where they were placed. Several scholars have already studied the negative image of the port, e.g. Hooydonk (2007), but the responsible authorities did not considered it an issue for their governance until recently.
Regarding this topic one of the key concepts is the SLO (Social License to Operate). As explained by Dooms (2014), 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. This subjective dimensions are often difficult to measure. In port-cities the SLO is not achieved easily since, as we mentioned before, the cities that host the harbor have to deal with the majority of the negative consequences of the port activity. In order to grant this license, the ports have to look for values that go beyond the usual port arguments regarding their economic impact, jobs, tons of cargo, etc. The soft values of seaports have in this context a key role. They are defined by Hooydonk (2007) as “the non-socioeconomic values which include among others historical, sociological, artistic and cultural sub-functions that form the soft-function of seaports”. In the selected port-cities these soft-values were presented in several ways, from education to heritage to cultural or communication initiatives.
During our research we observed that the different actions taken in this field could be organized in four main categories: education, communication, heritage and social agenda. Besides these key issues, the matter of the port as an identity element was considered to be transversal to all subjects. The problem of the urban identity in port-cities has been studied by several scholars, e.g. Hooydonk (2009) Warsewa (2011). In the concerned port-cities we were able to see that not all of them that host a port consider themselves a port-city, or the port as a key element of their identity. We can mention Oslo or Lisbon for example, in which the citizens and the authorities acknowledge other features as more important for their identity. In the Norwegian case, as stated before, the fjord has a dominant role, the people are more related with the natural element than with the artificial port landscape. In the Portuguese capital the same happens with the Tagus river. Although is very clear how the port activity and development has affected the character and morphology of the city, the inhabitants are not able to relate with the port, sometimes even considering it an impediment to a more fluid relation with the river.
In the other cases the port is considered an important characteristic for the collective image of the city. When we observe the different cases is clear that this key infrastructure does not has the same weight in the identity of each city. The role the port plays in Rotterdam cannot be equal to the one in Helsinki. However we have detected that there might be a growing detachment towards the port. For this reason the need to improve the social relation is clear. In some cases the goal is to strength the role of the port, in others, to create a social relation with it. Therefore the four categories above mentioned have to work jointly to achieve the desired result.
The relation with the educational institutions has been one of the fields where the PA have made the greater efforts for the social integration. In all the visited port-cities the PA had organized school visits to the port facilities for groups of children of different age. In another level the collaboration with the universities is also very frequent. In Marseille the PA participates in workshops with the architecture faculty. In Rotterdam the cooperation with educational institutions goes beyond visits or workshops. In the RDM campus the start-up companies focused in port activities give the students the opportunity to apply the theoretical knowledge. The education programs are also being use to deal with another issue, the fact that to younger generations the port is no longer seen as an attractive place to pursue a professional career.
Regarding the issue of understanding the port, an specific infrastructure can be found in some port cities, the port center. This space is focused in explaining the port to a broader audience, particularly children and teenagers, to allow the inhabitants to regain a sense of ownership of the port (Marini et al., 2014). Very often their exhibition and educational activities are complemented by boat tours where the students can see what they have learn before. In two study-cases, Rotterdam and Genoa, we could visit the port-center. Both cities have this kind of centers, although the one in Genoa has been closed since 2014. There is a Port-Center Network organized by the AIVP which coordinates the relation between the different institutions. In the future is expected to find more centers in the different ports. In some port-cities we could also find maritime museum that often have a section dedicated to explaining the port.
In the paper “Lipstick on a Gorilla” (Van Stiphout, 2007), we could read that the port is now a reality that must be explained. The communication has been another field in which we have assisted to important changes in recent years. The use of social media to explain the port and interact with the inhabitants has become a regular activity. Most PAs have a communication strategy but often does not reach the targeted audience. The port of Rotterdam has been active in many channels to spread the news about the port activities. They produce a free newspaper and have an online TV channel, an initiative we can also see in Hamburg. Another useful strategy is the information signage, where the port and its history can be explained to the inhabitants. In Oslo the information strategy in the Fjord City project was particularly effective since it was linked to the waterfront promenade project. The possibility of joining a coherent urban vision with user friendly information boards proved to be useful. The port history is explained where the current waterfront regeneration projects are being built. The explanation of the transition could help to develop an emotional connection with the port heritage and improve the port identity role.
The next category where we can find soft-values strategies is the heritage. In old port areas we can often find harbor machinery, cranes and warehouses. During the field trips we could see the different role this heritage has played in the port regeneration projects. In Oslo, Helsinki, Rotterdam and Genoa we could see the cranes working as sculptural elements in the public space. The use of warehouses and other buildings like silos is also frequent. In Marseille the Silo d’Arenc was refurbished into a cultural venue, keeping the port circulation underneath. In Genoa the congress center is the old cotton warehouses. In Rotterdam, in the Katendrecht district, we should see in the near future several projects in industrial buildings take place, which could allow a mixed use of the space. In the same city we can also find the historic harbor associated with the maritime museum. In this space, besides the cranes and boats we can also see the workshops where they are repaired, allowing a relative coherent atmosphere. The use of heritage to connect with the history of the port is one of the most effective and accepted strategies. In case the buildings or cranes are kept, is important that they are integrated in the new urban plans but with the right context, otherwise, they might be isolated elements losing their strength as a whole.
4.4 Social agenda
Finally, the last type of strategy is the social events for the port integration. The open door days and port festival, like the ones in Rotterdam, Helsinki or Lisbon constitute the typical example of this sort of action. In most guides of good practice they are mentioned as an effective method of bringing people to the harbor and rising the interest of the general audience for the port issues. These sort of event might be characterized by a certain folklore and detachment from what really a port is nowadays. Nevertheless they do attract attention and must be complemented with the educational programs and infotainment from the port-centers and maritime museums. Besides these venues, the port also can be active in the other events, such as the city marathon, concerts or exhibitions, that put the focus in the port, or the port can work as background. This way, the harbor image is introduced in the life of the inhabitants, what could lead to a broader acceptance of its presence.
All the strategies aforementioned are correlated, the cultural venues are often associated with the port-centers which can be placed in port heritage buildings. The soft-values can be explained in different ways but their effects in the general mindset cannot be measured from one year to the other. The successful cases that use these strategies have been applying them for the long term results. However, it is important to have a realistic idea of the perception of the port by the citizens by performing studies, like the one from Lisbon in 2007, where the actual image of the port is evaluated. The effects of these policies could lead to higher acceptance of the port.
In this article we have not focused in the environmental policies followed by the different PAs, although is clear they are the first priority regarding the coexistence with the city and CSR. This is a broader subject to be dealt in another article, but we can notice how important they have become in the different ports we visited. The control of the different pollutants using sophisticated sensor system is an usual practice in the European ports. At the same time there is a constant dialogue with the responsible authorities for an effective control of the nuisances and the companies operating in the port. In another dimension we can also see how the new terminal or port expansion projects have environmental concerns regarding the fauna and flora. In the Maasvlakte 2, in Rotterdam, the creation of the breakwater reused material from the original Maasvlakte. The new port territory in Vuosaari is placed in a Natura 2000 reserve, therefore the nuisance had to be reduced to the minimum. For this reason the sound barrier in the east border is a wall made with concrete blocks that allows the integration of vegetation to reduce the impact of the port.
5. General Conclusion
After analyzing the different study cases one of the original assumptions proved to be correct, it is not possible to achieve a real physical port city integration, only a sustainable coexistence (Bruttomesso, 2011). The current technical requirements and security limitations will constantly hinder the full integration that belongs to the early phases of Hoyle’s model. In this case the description of Hoyle’s 6th phase might be correct, since we did found new links between the port and the city, and in the future they might even be reinforced due to the economic development associated with port industries and port-clusters.
In the selected port-cities we found common problems to all of them, e.g. environmental issues, traffic associated to port activity or the barrier effect. However, the physical, political, emotional and institutional context plays a key role in all the cases, requiring specific solutions for the mentioned general problems. We also found that the abstract models proposed by several authors and the rankings do not fully express the reality of the port or the complexity of the port-cities.
The two existing schemes regarding the national governance, centralized and decentralized, can affect the relation between the port and the city, particularly in the institutional level. These differences can later be seen in the effort the PA is able to do in order to improve the interaction with the city. The allocation of resources controlled by a central authority might difficult the investment in the disclosure of the soft-values of seaport, what could in the long term increase the positive synergies with the inhabitants.
In the waterfront we have seen how the intervention model has evolved, although in the selected study cases the plans developed in the 1990’s and 2000’s are currently under development. The new strategies are focused in intervening in the active port, in some cases generating new types of interaction between both realities. The need of a port-city combined strategy affects both the physical and economical development. One technical improvement might cause an spatial redistribution, which could imply a new access to the water or new associated industries. This change, that in this article we took the freedom to name “from beauty waterfront to productive waterfront”, might introduce a more balance relation and better acceptance of the port presence. At the same time this sort of plans could help to maintain the port identity, providing a certain variability to the necessary coherent vision for the waterfront.
Finally, during the analysis of the study cases, it was clear that the role of the PA has to go beyond the management of the port territory and activities. The port has to assume its role as constituent element of the urban structure and collective image. The disclosure of the soft-values of seaports by the PAs should help the port to achieve greater acceptance by the citizens. If we consider that very often the PAs are politicized institutions it seems reasonable that an investment is made for the improvement of its public image and obtaining the SLTO. We have seen that the full physical integration between port and cities will not be possible, but the social integration of the seaports should be considered an important goal to be achieved by the PAs.
 According to the AAPA (American Association of Port Authorities) at a Landlord port the PA is responsible for the basic infrastructure which later leases to private operators for the different port activities.
 The term communauté de communes refers in French to a federation of municipalities. In this case the three communauté in question gather 27 communes. On January 1st of 2016 a new administrative body, the Métropole d’Aix-Marseille – Provence, was created which gathers the aforementioned municipalities and Aix-en-Provence. This new institution should easy the territorial management and the relation of the municipalities with the port.
 Ro-Ro is, as defined by the AAPA, Short for roll on/roll/off type of cargo. This sort of cargo is not lifted inside the ship with cranes, but rolls on and off it, since it goes in cars, trailers or other type of vehicles.
 Another case where the importance of the contracts situation can be seen is Hamburg. For the 2024 Olympic proposal, that finally was rejected by the citizens in a referendum, one of the bigger challenges was the figure of the compensation for the companies operating in the Kleinen Grasbrook, port territory, where the Olympic village was supposed to be built.
 The port of Rotterdam has two Port-Centers: the EIC, placed in a central location in the port territory with the scope of general explaining the harbor and the port activities, and the Futureland center, in the Maasvlakte 2, focused in explaining the port expansion project.
 Both PAs have channels in the online platform YouTube
Aarts M, Daamen T, Huijs M, De Vries W. Port-city development in Rotterdam: a true love story. UPM Departamento de urbanística y ordenación del territorio revista digital – territorio, urbanismo, sostenibilidad, paisaje, diseño urbano http://urban-e.aq.upm.es/consulted in 2/07/2015 15:41
Boeri, S. (1999). Designed Concepts. In Molinari L. (Ed.), Piano, Porto, Città. L’esperienza di Genova (pp. 19–22). Milan: Skira editore – Autorità Portuale di Genova.
Bertoncello, B., & Dubois, J. (2010). Marseille Euroméditerranée – Accélérateur de Métropole. Marseille: Parenthèses.
Bird, J.H. (1963). The major Seaports of the United Kingdom, London: Hutchinson.
Brutomesso, R. (2009). Transformaciones del paisaje portuario contemporáneo: del negocio al ocio… y al negocio, otra vez. Portus 18, Pag 10–15.
Bruttomesso,R. (2011) Port and City: from integration to coexistence. In Alemany,J & Bruttomesso,R. (eds) The Port City of the XXIst Century, New Challenges in the Relationship between Port and City. RETE, 102-117
Charlier, J. (1992) The regeneration of old port areas for new port uses. European port cities in transition: 137-154. In: Hoyle B.S. (ed.), European port cities in transition, Belhaven Press, London British Association for the advancement of science , Annual Meeting, University of Southampton
Dooms, M.(2014) Integrating “triple P” bottom line performance and the license to operate for ports: towards new partnership between port cluster stakeholders. In Alix,Y. Delsalle & B. Comtois, C. (eds) Port-City governance. Editions EMS,55-75
Daamen, T. (2010). Strategy as Force. Towards Effective Strategies for Urban Development Projects: The Case of Rotterdam CityPorts. Delft: IOS Press.
Daamen, T., Aarts, M., Huijs, M., De Vries, W. (2015) Rediscovering the waterfront in Rotterdam. Trasporti e Cultura, n. 41, Year XV, Venice.
Ducruet,C.,Lee,S.W. (2006) Frontline soldiers of globalization: Port-city evolution and regional competition, GeoJournal, 67(2), 107-122.
Ducruet,C. (2011) The Port City in a multidisciplinary analysis. In Alemany,J & Bruttomesso,R. (eds) The Port City of the XXIst Century, New Challenges in the Relationship between Port and City. RETE, 32-47.
Ducruet, C. (2013) Waterfront redevelopment: the fragility of local benefits, PORTUS: the online magazine of RETE, n. 25, June 2013, Year XIII, Venice, RETE Publisher.
Fernandes, A. (2015) Essay on the valorization of heritage and cultural identity in waterfront redevelopment processes. PORTUS plus: the online Journal of RETE N. 5, Year V
Garcia, P R. (2011). Public Spaces at the urban conversion of Lisbon Expo’98, PORTUS plus: the online Journal of RETE N. 2, Year II
Gastaldi, F. (2010). Genova. La riconversione del waterfront portuale. Un percorso con esiti rilevanti. Storia, accadimenti, dibattito. In M. Savino (Ed.), Waterfront d’Italia. Piani politiche progetti (pp. 88–104). Milan: FrancoAngeli Editore.
Gastaldi, F. (2013). Great events, urban regeneration and gentrification in the historic centre of Genoa. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal 31, 7, 31–41.
Ghiara, H., Demoulin, P., Marini,G., (2014) Port Center: to develop a renewed port city relationship by improving a shared port culture. In Alix,Y. Delsalle & B. Comtois, C. (eds) Port-City governance. Editions EMS, 233-245.
Gisle Rekdal, P. (2013) About the Fjord City from the Port’s point of view, Portus: the online magazine of RETE, n.25,(online) RETE publisher.
Hoyle, B.S. (1989) The port City Interface: Trends, Problems and Examples, Geoforum Vol. 20, 429-435.
Hoyle, B.S. (1998) The redevelopment of derelict port areas. The Dock & Harbour Authority, Vol. 79, No. 887, page 46-49
Hoyle, B.S. (2000) Global and Local Change on the Port-City Waterfront. Geographical Review, Vol. 90, No. 3, page 395-417
Hoyle, B.S (2011) Tomorrow’s World? Divergence and Reconvergence at the Port-City Interface. In Alemany,J & Bruttomesso,R. (eds) The Port City of the XXIst Century, New Challenges in the Relationship between Port and City. RETE, 32-47.
Ircha M C. (2013) Social License for Canadian Port, PORTUS: the online magazine of RETE, n. 25, Year XIII, Venice, RETE Publisher.
Kokot ,W. (2008). Port Cities as Areas of Transition – Comparative Ethnographic Research. In (Eds.) Kokot,W, Gandelsman-Trier, M., Wildner, K., & Wonneberger, A. Port Cities as Areas of Transition: Ethnographic Perspectives. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Kolstø, S, (2013) Oslo Fjord City Course is Set, Making Good Speed!, PORTUS: the online magazine of RETE, n. 25, Year XIII, Venice, RETE Publisher.
Laitinen, T. (2013) Helsinki experiencing a period of growth: the Daughter of the Baltic Sea gazes out over the sea, PORTUS: the online magazine of RETE, n.25, Year XIII, Venice, RETE Publisher.
Martin, T. (2015). 1995-2015 Les 20 ans d’Euroméditerránée. Marseille: Euroméditerranée.
Merk, O. (2013), The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: Synthesis Report, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2013/13, OECD Publishing.
Merk, O., Hesse. M. (2012), The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: the Case of Hamburg, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2012/06, OECD Publishing.
Merk, O., Notteboom, T. (2013), The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: the Case of Rotterdam, Amsterdam – the Netherlands. OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2013/08, OECD Publishing.
Merk, O., Hilmola, O-P, Dubarle, P. (2012), The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: the Case of Helsinki, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2012/08, OECD Publishing.
Merk, O., Comtois, C. (2012), Competitiveness of port cities: the case of Marseille-Fos, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2012/11, OECD Publishing.
Merk, O. (2014), The effectiveness of port-city governance, In Alix,Y. Delsalle & B. Comtois, C. (eds) Port-City governance. Editions EMS, 233-245.
Meyer, H. (1999). City and Port. Transformation of Port Cities London, Barcelona, New York, Rotterdam. Rotterdam: International Books.
Newman,P.,Thornley,A. (1996) Urban planning in Europe, International Competition, National System & Planning Projects. Routledge.
Osmaa,K. (2013) Helsinki converting waterfronts into residential areas. Portus: the online magazine of RETE, n.25,(online) RETE publisher.
Schubert D. (2008) Transformation Processes on Waterfronts in Seaport Cities – Causes and Trends between Divergence and Convergence. In (eds.) Kokot,W, Gandelsman-Trier, M., Wildner, K., & Wonneberger, A. Port Cities as Areas of Transition: Ethnographic Perspectives. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Schubert, D. (2011). Seaport Cities: Phases of spatial restructuring. In Hein, C. (Ed.), Port Cities: Dynamic Landscapes and Global Networks .New York: Routledge.
Schubert D. (2013) The last frontier of urban waterfront regeneration: Northern Europe, PORTUS: the online magazine of RETE, n. 25, June 2013, Year XIII, Venice, RETE Publisher.
Van Hooydonk, E. (2007) Soft values of seaports, a strategy for the restoration of public support for seaports. Garant.
Van Hooydonk, E. (2009). Port city Identity and Urban Planning. Portus, 18, pag 16–23.
Vries, I. M. J. (2014), From Shipyard to Brainyard – The redevelopment of RDM as an example of a contemporary port-city relationship, In Alix,Y. Delsalle & B. Comtois, C. (eds) Port-City governance. Editions EMS, 233-245.
Warsewa, G. (2012) The Role of Local Culture in the Transformation of the Port–‐City, Portus Plus -2, the online journal of RETE.
Guides of Good Practice:
SUDEST-Sustainable development of Sea Towns (2007)
PCP: Plan the city with the port, strategies for Redeveloping City-Port linking spaces (2007)