In the first place, it seems essential to recall that port cities are players of globalisation who have to integrate in their strategic plans this global dimension in order to be competitive on an international level. The city and the port have to work together to determine a strategic plan. The city – port interface constitutes an essential element of this. To succeed with the city port interface supposes a precise analysis of the needs of the city and those of the port. It also requires a shared knowledge of each other's requirements.
The urban expectations
By turns, the port cities invited to take part in these exchanges of views thus expressed various expectations : requirements for new quality housing accommodation to reply to the strong urban pressures (Amsterdam or Le Havre); necessity to develop attractive shopping centres on a local, regional and international level (Le Havre, Gdansk, London) ; development of public installations for tourism, culture and leisure (Le Havre, Bremerhaven, Riga and again Valencia).
All the speakers agreed on the fact that the city – port interface spaces are often privileged places for such developments. Most of the time, it is a question of central areas, emblematic of the port city and possessing a quality heritage often dilapidated and to be rehabilitated.
The needs of the port
Ports today require new spaces for their activities but, more and more often, have no free areas on which to relocate and develop new port activities. The question of environment and security also exerts a real pressure which they have to face. The good management of the impact of their activities on the urban and natural environment is also a necessity to enable their activities to be accepted by an informed exacting citizen.
As the Professor and Researcher, Jacques Charlier (Institute of Geography of Louvain la Neuve, Belgium) reminded everybody during the conclusions to this international seminar, the ports have today three alternatives for their development :
- the "Greenfield" alternative envisages developments and extensions on spaces still free. It is becoming les and less frequent, available spaces becoming rarer
- the so-called "Bluefield" solution proposes a development of the port towards the sea, on artificial islands. This solution proves to be very expensive, it is however often the only one envisageable;
- finally, the "Brownfield" solution enables port redevelopment on already used spaces. In this alternative, the port is led to re-determine the utilisation of its spaces and redevelopment remains within the existing port domain.
This last solution is also a solution for sustainable development. But it signifies equally that after having moved physically away from the city, the port returns towards it and redevelops closer and closer to the city.
This last solution is very well resumed by Jean Pierre Lecomte, Chairman of the Port Autonome du Havre : "after being expanded, the port must more and more be faced with rare and constrained spaces : constraints connected with the good environmental management of natural spaces, the management of industrial risks and of security, of urban pressures. The modern city and port have to recompose their territory and, more than ever, learn to live together. It is this approach that the Le Havre stakeholders have adopted and undertaken, in particular for the Southern districts of our city."
This idea of "living together" is at the centre of the European project "Building the City with the Port" for which this seminar was the conclusion.
Succeeding to build the city with the port
In all port cities, new districts are developing in immediate contact with port activities. New architectures and new solutions have to be imagined to render the missions connected with port activities acceptable.
These interface territories are also territories of opportunities for the City : opportunities for quality urban developments but also for a new image for spaces that are most often perceived in a negative light. The image of the port can be put back into value through careful "scenic staging" of its activities (creation of a landscaped urban park at the City – Port interface in Le Havre, visit to the heart of port activities in Bremerhaven, etc…).
Over and above the technical solutions (blank wall for new urban installations in front of the port in Amsterdam), strategic and functional solutions are possible between "hard" port activities and sensitive urban functions such as housing. In this respect should be mentioned the creation of buffer zones (green belt, offices, small firms connected with the port, etc.) or the recourse to temporary utilisation (lodgings for students in containers in Amsterdam) and to flexible buildings permitting subsequently an evolution towards other functions; for example offices designed for the possibility of subsequently becoming housing accommodation in Amsterdam.
Rendering acceptable the negative impacts of port activities also supposes the implementation of solutions enabling them to be lastingly downplayed. This is the aim of the environmental handling of the city – port interface in Valencia. The consideration and respect of the environmental constraints and regulations are also a question of collaboration and dialogue with business firms. Following the example of Delfzijl (Netherlands), this voluntarist action, carried out during the first stages of the project nevertheless does not exclude the eventuality of having to relocate certain logistics and port activities and to renounce all or part of a project.
The question of collective choice is also clearly posed. The impossibility of certain urban installations, in particular close to certain parts of the port (security measures connected with the ISPS Code for example or an industrial risk) have to be asserted. It is a question of measuring the impact of new urban activities on the existing activities of the port and with regard to the requirements connected with them for the transport of goods (good connections, maritime utilisation of the waterways, etc.). The choices will then be those of compatible installations and functions : promenade, leisure installations rather than housing units. A strategy that can also prove to be a win-win solution, when complementariness can be at the centre of the project..For example, by combining port activities and the business firms connected with the port, with research and training facilities or even with tourist and recreational installations in Bremerhaven or in Le Havre.
Sometimes the assertion of incompatibility must be ventured and the choice of complementariness made : together the city and the port have to decide on their joint future!
This necessary communal reflection and the "good practices" that may be implemented on these connecting spaces between city and port will be the subject of a Guide, published by the City of Le Havre in collaboration with IACP (International Association of Cities and Ports).
