Workshop 1 PORT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Chaired and run by Mr Henk DE BRUIJN
Manager Corporate Development, Port of Rotterdam, Netherlands

Is it possible today to anticipate the lack of space in port cities by imagining which activities can coexist with which other activities? There could be also a real interest for the port to keep a certain number of activities in the city. Which ones? - only maritime or financial services? - or is it possible to imagine terminals or logistics areas next door to a residential, recreational or commercial development ? The port will need to be able to formulate conditions for future coexistence. What can the city propose in terms of services and urban structure to support the port stakeholders in their search for new port specialised businesses in order to increase the general port added value?

Key elements of the conclusion

• Property is biggest asset
• Port Authority owns best waterfront locatios
• PA doesn’t use their property optimal, so no maximum profit is gained
• Planning should be market driven
• Assetmanagement needs to be improved in every front (asset-, property-, facility) to retain and attract clients
• Benchmarking is the key
• A national vision is needed
• Integral vision for the port-city development between portcities
• Work on the image of the port
• Create a bufferzone between port and city (a maritime zone for example)
• Be innovative: no mac waterfronts, use local architectural design
• Port and cityplanners must educate each other
• Strategic long term view market driven
• Communication between port and city and its citizens (imagebuilding)
• Educate politicians about the cooperation the city and port
• Dynamic and flexibel planningmodal, no footprint
• If property is no use anymore to the port, give it back to the city
• Know the demands and needs of the market in every asset
• Inside out, outside in !

Workshop 2 STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENTS FOR A CITY PORT MIX
Chaired and run by Ms Wil VAN DER HOEK
Director, Development Corporation CityPorts, Netherlands

Better reorganising and rethinking the utilisation of the city port interfaces, maintaining and favouring a partial return of port activities within the city, can provide the answer to the lack of space that our port cities will be confronted with in the near future. For instance, the reversibility of a development at the city port interface enables the space to be occupied (and avoids uncontrolled wasteland) without however condemning it to a single type of utilisation for ever. Do temporary functions represent an efficient solution for medium term planning and for the safeguard of port activities?

Key elements of the conclusion

• Urban development is making a plan and making a proces
• City is a mind scape
• Temporary use can help to put a place on the mind map
• Temporary use can take the people of the city in places where they never been before.
• The key is a strategy not a plan, grass routes principle
• Invent tools
• Gradually occupying the area
• Public space and infrastructure must be seen as strategic interventions
• Make a public maritime space
• Visual quality matters
• Fit in, innovate and sensitive
• Add quality in architecture and space
• Open up the port area to the city (discussion about safety)
• Explane to the city the profits of the port
• Express freight urban delivery
• No privaterisation of the river/kay
• Make a water plan and a peoples plan
• Put peoples needs first
• Make an architectual plan of the port so you can connect it visualy to the city > colours, lights, architecture, use the elements that are already there
• Port city relation:Be a good employer
• Discussion: just let it go vs regulations; how do you regulate temporary use
• Keep the historical buildings, but search for a good user for the building
• If there is no policy about historical buildings, make your own criteria

Workshop 3 ENVIRONMENT: FACTOR OF CITY PORT INTEGRATION
Chaired and run by Mr Michael DOOMS
Department of Business Economics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

It is no longer conceivable to imagine a new generation of port transformations without having taken the environmental dimension into account. Today, to give preference to a mix of port and urban activities requires above all a mastery of the constraints linked to direct and indirect pollution and of the regulations imposed by national and international instances. It has therefore become a necessity to be acceptable at all levels in order to guarantee a sustainable and competitive development. This realization should also enable the citizens of port cities to become reconciled again with their port activities. The ecological port and the safe port thus become the citizens port.

Key elements of the conclusion

Start within the port authority and internal stakeholders

• Employees: create consciousness for environmental issues; integrate environmental dimension in day-to-day decision making
• Clients (port users): do not penalize, but stimulate, e.g. rebates on port dues, co-investment in new technology, awards,...
• Shareholder (public/private): somewhat missing: complex, difficult given governance structures ? No gain/result to be obtained ?

Port specificity, type of client have to be taken into account.
Measurement is possible and is applied.

External stakeholders:

• Need for proactive approach (even offensive): Need to be able to answer the environmental question before it is asked.
• Apply regional industrial networking: With other sectors (e.g. tourism), other infrastructure managers (e.g. airports) and transport modes (e.g. road, rail); with clients (sometimes a joint approach with several port authorities is needed); with suppliers of e.g. consumables, equipment, building material (environmental friendly product specifications; with knowledge creating institutions (e.g. universities, other R&D centers).
• Communication: regular, face-to-face and credible.

A proactive approach leads to more commitment from external stakeholders: decrease in lawsuits and unnecessary mitigation measures.

For CityPorts:

• Difficult to create a true port-city mix on micro-level (e.g. a specific site), have a more broad approach (port zone or port area as unit);
• No “one size fits all” approach: identify specificities of each zone and apply generic framework of networking for increased environmental performance.
• Importance of communication: more and credible communication about environmental performance enhances the acceptance of (re)development strategies.

In general for ports within city regions to retain or gain “insider” status: “Go green or die