Overview

Port cities and urban waterfronts:how localized planning ignoreswater as a connectorCarola Hein*

People have redesigned coastlines, creating ports, shaping waterfronts, andbuilding cities to connect water and land. Specialists from many disciplines haveexplored the function and design of the water–land transition over many centu-ries. Among them is planning, a discipline that engages both with the functional-ity of working ports and the design of the waterfront for the urban public. Inorder to explore the development of working ports and the revitalization of aban-doned inner-city waterfronts since the 1960s, this paper reviews planning andplanning history literature in regard to the specific appreciation of water. It firstexamines the planning of ports and its focus on improving the speed, safety, andlogistics, assigning water an industrial role. Second, it reflects on the design ofpost-industrial waterfront spaces, which ascribes a more aesthetic and symbolicas well as leisure-related role to water. Third, it points to the recent reconnectionof cruise shipping with inner-city waterfront redevelopment and the coastline ingeneral. In conclusion, the paper underscores localized perceptions of water inplanning literature and the need to recognize how interconnected water systemsconnect otherwise separated areas along the same coastline. It argues for theintegrated planning of port, waterfront, and city in conjunction with a compre-hensive study of the environmental and ecological role of water in each of thoseplaces, both as a resource they share and, with climate change, a risk to whichthey must collectively respond. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

How to cite this article:WIREs Water 2016. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1141

INTRODUCTION

Bodies of water, rivers, lakes, seas, and oceansconnect distant places and facilitate the move-

ment of goods and people within countries andaround the world. They are an important foundationfor economic development and a vehicle for globali-zation. Water transportation facilitates consumptionof goods and energy in the contemporary globalworld, even though fast modes of transportation

such as planes, trains, and cars have become availa-ble. Tankers, bulk carriers, and container ships playa key role in global trade today, carrying billions oftons of goods (90%) around the world.a In the28 states of the European Union (EU) alone, shippingwas above 1.7 billion tons in 2013.b Shipping laneson oceans and seas are relatively malleable, allowingshippers to easily adapt to changing political andeconomic situations in the foreland, whereas theinfrastructure of rivers, canals, railroads, and high-ways and other roads comprises the relatively fixedhinterland.

Easy access to navigable water, often by way ofnatural harbors, gave rise to numerous cities on riv-ers and seas around the world. In many locations,people have redesigned coastlines, creating ports andwaterfronts to connect water and land. Located at

*Correspondence to: c.m.hein@tudelft.nl

TU Delft - Architecture, Delft University of Technology, Delft,South Holland, Netherlands

Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of inter-est for this article.

© 2016 Wiley Per iodica ls , Inc.

the intersection between water and land, or sea andriver transportation, ports provided the necessaryfacilities—wharfs or quays, piers or jetties, docks andnumerous specialized structures—for transshipmentof goods and people between domains. Numerousspecialists from many disciplines intervened in thecreation and transformation of the working port andthe waterfront over time. Given geographical, topo-graphical, climatic, economic, political, historical,and other differences, each port city developed itsown unique form. Port cities also served as sites oftrading headquarters and of living and leisure spacesfor traders and other people associated with ship-ping. Here, people used water in ways beyondtransportation—for leisure and to construct localidentities and imagery.

Historically, port and city were intimately con-nected, but with industrialization, the two grewapart. Starting in the 1960s, cities constructed newports outside their limits to accommodate large con-tainer ships; later, they revitalized the inner-citywaterfronts that shippers had abandoned. Thisresulted in the functional separation of industrialshipping in the port from water-related activities forurban populations. Similarly, the people whoplanned or studied the port were often not in conver-sation with those who planned or studied the water-front. Planning-related professions and fieldsemerged to variously study, redesign, and documentport or waterfront urban activities and spaces butrarely both. Though water is the single physical sub-stance that connects these domains (the port and thewaterfront), academics and professionals alike treatit very differently in each place.

Following a short introduction to the diversedisciplinary approaches to the study of water in portcities, this article explores planning and planning his-tory literature in regard to two separate spatial enti-ties after 1960: the working ports and the post-industrial waterfront. It explores several foci of pla-nning: first, a willingness to improve the speed,safety, and logistics of the port with the use of wateras an agent of industrialization; second, a desire toincrease aesthetic and symbolic as well as leisure-related roles of water on the waterfront; and third,the recent reconnection of cruise shipping with inner-city waterfront redevelopment and the coastline ingeneral. In conclusion, the paper highlights recentattempts to plan for port and city in conjunction witheach other. It argues that integrated approaches needto coincide with a comprehensive study of the com-mon environmental and ecological role of water inports, waterfronts, and port cities as a commonresource and potential risk.

DISCIPLINARY APPROACHES TOWATER IN PORT CITIES

Water in ports and port cities, its history, presence,and future is a complex topic that includes physicalstructures, flows of commodities, and people as wellas intangible notions of identity creation. Scholarsand practitioners from an accordingly broad range offields have explored it: social scientists (sociologists,economists and geographers); design professionals(engineers, planners and architects); and architec-tural, urban, and art historians. Each discipline andprofession considers water from a different aspect.

The long past of water in ports and cities ismostly a topic for archaeologists and historians.Archaeologists have engaged with port cities, evol-ving networks, and changing waterways, studyingthe emergence of cities such as Agade on the ArabianSea, Piraeus in ancient Greece, and Ostia, the ancientRoman port in the Mediterranean. Historians havefollowed the flows of water and studied diverse mari-time empires on the Arabian Sea, on the Mediterra-nean, and across the Atlantic; these scholars alsotrack their impact on adjacent ports and cities, whichthe Australian maritime historian Frank Broeze aptlycalled ‘Brides of the Sea’.1 They have focused on reli-gious and ethnic communities in port city networksand the spread of diseases.2–4 They have paid atten-tion to water-borne empires, including colonial ones,and their impact on the adjacent ports and cities inwar and peace.1,5–15 Historical maps such as thosecollected in Civitates Orbis Terrarum by BraunHogenberg from the 16th century and other similarmaps document the high degree to which water-based transportation, city construction, and identityformation were intertwined in pre-modern portcities16,17 (Figure 1).

Historians have discussed economic, social,cultural, and artistic aspects of water transportation,from crime and lawlessness to religious exchanges,issues of piracy, commerce and migration, multi-ethnic communities, migration, and culture.c

Numerous historians have studied the evolution ofindividual ports, occasionally comparing them. Theyshow how ports and cities changed in response toshipping needs.18–20 They have also explored thecomplex relationship of port and city.21–24 However,they have rarely discussed the interconnected charac-ter of water or its physical quality. The historicalaccounts do show how, over time, the changing, andsometimes competing, needs and desires of differentstakeholders—shippers, port professionals, citypower brokers, and citizens—have reshaped waterflows and shore lines, port facilities and other water-

Overview wires.wiley.com/water

© 2016 Wiley Per iodicals , Inc.

related installations, land infrastructure connectingthe port and the hinterland, and the architectural andurban structures along its shores.

For every discipline and urban space, waterthus has a different significance and quality: mode oftransportation, border of the land, place of leisure,or backdrop for urban identity, image creation, andculture. Even though the same body of water linksport and waterfront development, a disconnect per-sists between those who pay attention to port

development and those who pay attention to water-front redevelopment, whether as port professionalsor academics. The field of urban planning has beenunique insofar as it has engaged both domains, thequestion of working ports and historic port revitali-zation. Now, historians studying planning also neces-sarily discuss both themes—active commercial ports(both containers and bulk) on the outskirts of citiesand the revitalization of inner-city ports for urbanactivities—albeit separately and with differing levels

FIGURE 1 | Water connects all areas of Amsterdam for transportation and beautification. Woodcut by Cornelis Anthonisz madein 1544 after an oil painting of his own making from 1538. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam#/media/File:Cornelis_anthonisz_vogelvluchtkaart_amsterdam.JPG

WIREs Water Port cities and urban waterfronts

© 2016 Wiley Per iodica ls , Inc.

of intensity regarding water as the remainder of thearticle demonstrates.

ONE WATER - MULTIPLE LANDSIDEINTERVENTIONS: MODERNIZINGPORTS AND WATERFRONTREVITALIZATION

Controlling water, transforming water, and landsidestructures of the port was a key to port survival andan issue of national importance. Once rivers andshores became too crowded, rendering transshipmentimpractical, governments and shipping companiesbuilt new docks to control water height despite tidalchanges (as in London) and tidal harbors to allowfor unloading despite changing river levels25

(Figure 2). The Report of a Royal Commission estab-lished in 1900 to study the administration and facil-ities of the Port of London found that the port hadfailed to keep pace with the developments of the pop-ulation and of commerce and that innovation wasnecessary, stating ‘We are, however, convinced thatif in this great national concern, energy and couragebe shown, there is no reason to fear that the welfareof the Port of London will be permanentlyimpaired’.26

Industrialization in the 19th and 20th centuriesled to the creation of monofunctional areas. Itbrought ever bigger and more specialized ships—sailing ships yielded to steam ships, and multifunc-tional transporters were superseded by containerships and oil tankers—in turn transforming the portsand related cities to which these ships traveled.27

New technologies and means of transshipment—suchas bigger cranes but also the construction of railwaylines next to the shipping facilities—also pushed citiesand shippers into recurrent reconstruction of portfacilities. Monofunctional areas for shipping, admin-istration, and housing replaced the formerly inte-grated multifunctional buildings. Urban rebuilding,such as for the warehouse and later the office districtin Hamburg, destroyed the narrow streets of oldhousing districts, for better and for worse; these hadbeen the sites of major outbreaks of cholera—awater-borne disease to which port cities were particu-larly prone even as they were also distinctivelypicturesque.28

As ports moved to new locations, often on theoutskirts of metropolitan areas, new specialized pro-fessions focused on ongoing developments in the portand on the traditional inner-city waterfront, as docu-mented in extensive and different sets of publications.Focusing on ports’ new extra-urban locations, theseport professionals, logistics scholars, and economists

FIGURE 2 | London Docks with Sail ships in 1810. Source: Thomas Rowlandson (1756–1827) and Augustus Charles Pugin (1762–1832) (after)John Bluck (fl. 1791–1819), Joseph Constantine Stadler (fl. 1780–1812), Thomas Sutherland (1785–1838), J. Hill, and Harraden (aquatintengravers) in: Pyne, William Henry; Combe, William (1904) [1810] ’The West India Docks’ in The Microcosm of London or London in Miniature,Volume III, London: Methuen and Company, pp. Plate 92 Retrieved File:Microcosm of London Plate 092—West India Docks.jpg

Overview wires.wiley.com/water

© 2016 Wiley Per iodicals , Inc.

studied and designed waterways to facilitate ship-ping, transshipment, and storage.29–32 Engineers,managers, and planners were concerned with thedesign and managements of harbor facilities, withstorage sites and diverse water technologies.33–36

Meanwhile, upon the departure of the port from tra-ditional waterfronts, many city governments used theopportunity to redevelop the former inner-city ports,taking advantage of water access and historicalbuildings for the renovation and branding of theircities. They aimed to reconnect people to water andto enhance local identities by celebrating their porthistories with water-related events like harbor birth-days, cruise days, and historic sailing ship parades.They made facilities originally destined for portindustries into water-related heritage sites or leisureand tourist venues.

Port and city continued to detach until the mid-20th century; the most important split between thetwo occurred after the 1960s. The following over-view of the respective literature on port and water-front planning since containerization shows thatwhile water as a physical object is present in publica-tions on ports and waterfronts, scholars have focusedon disparate characteristics of water, functional andsymbolic ones, respectively. In fact, it demonstratesthat practitioners and scholars have ignored the roleof water as a common facilitator for multiple areaswithin the city. However, attention to common inter-ests and needs is required for addressing issues ofsea-level rise and climate change. As it turns out, thestudy of planning also reveals that ports and portcities have a long history of responding to water-related disasters including changes in sea-levels, theaccumulation of silt, and flooding—a highly relevanttopic today that merits further attention, both interms of historical events and future planning, andone that ought to be discussed throughout for thewhole coastline.37

NEW PORTS SINCE THE 1960S:WATER FOR GLOBAL TRANSPORTOF GOODS

Over the last 5 decades, public and private decisionmakers around the world built new ports and facil-ities for the increased transshipment of goods andpeople, responded to similar challenges and opportu-nities, developed new ports, dredged waterways,transformed storage and transshipment in responseto changing ship sizes, new containers, and new com-modity flows. They transformed water at an indus-trial scale.

The construction of new ports on the outskirtsof cities that started in the 1960s in conjunction withcontainerization exemplifies the understanding thatwater is a facilitator of the transportation of com-modities. As numerous scholars have pointed out,containerization led to wholesale restructuring ofshipping networks, trade patterns, port facilities,port city hierarchies, and urban form.38 However,despite the globally identical catalysts for the crea-tion of new ports and the common role of water, thehistory of their construction has been dealt with inindividual stories rather than as an interconnectedstory.39,40

Such an integrated story would explore how,from the late 1960s to the late 1970s, ship sizesincreased, passing the barrier of 50,000 tons gross,requiring deeper waterways and bigger harbors, andtransforming port cities around the world in theirwake.41 Ships, as global water-borne connectors,require the same conditions and facilities in all portsthat wish to host them around the world.42 As fewports were able to handle container, oil, and bulkcarriers of increasing sizes, city governments, portauthorities, and shipping companies from New Yorkto London and Hong Kong developed new terminalson the outskirts where deep water was available tomaintain their city’s edge in a tight competition,creating new waterlines with long quays, deep-waterberths bordered by cranes, and next to large asphalt-covered surfaces for container storage with good hin-terland infrastructure connections. On August15, 1962, the Port Authority of New York and NewJersey opened Port Elizabeth as the first container ter-minal.43 Another example of the effect of the reloca-tion of cargo facilities is the decline of the Portof San Francisco, which was limited by its existingfinger piers and topography, and the rapid develop-ment of the Port of Oakland, where the firstcontainership arrived in 1962 and which offered ded-icated container facilities and good access totransportation.44

The new facilities would come to resemble eachother across the globe, each changing the waterfrontof large areas mostly on the outskirts of existingcities. Among the European ports, Rotterdam hadhistorically improved its water connections, notablythrough the construction of the Nieuwe Waterweg in1872 from Rotterdam to the sea. It was one of thefirst ports to receive a container ship, the sea–landcontainer carrier Fairland in 1966, and to adapt itsport. Reshaping the Maas River and extending theport towards the sea became a major part of thecity’s post-war growth as a global port and trans-shipment point toward the German industrial areas,

WIREs Water Port cities and urban waterfronts

© 2016 Wiley Per iodica ls , Inc.

Overview wires.wiley.com/water

© 2016 Wiley Per iodicals , Inc.

WIREs Water Port cities and urban waterfronts

© 2016 Wiley Per iodica ls , Inc.

a story that has been discussed by several Dutchauthors.45–47 The growth of Rotterdam as an oil portnotably transformed the river’s path, the water’sedge, and the form and depths of water basins(Figure 3). The success of Rotterdam is also inti-mately related to its connection by rail and barge tothe large inland river container terminal Duisburg, astatus that is notably explored in promotionalliterature.d

As of 2013, Rotterdam held the first placeamong European ports in container shipping (11th),before Hamburg (15th), Antwerp (18th and 16th), orLondon (107th), all three cities that are located onrivers and limited in regard to the size of ships they

can accommodate.48,49 Antwerp, a long-term com-petitor of Rotterdam, received its first container shipin 1966 and is now receiving oil through pipelinesfrom its Dutch neighbor, replacing water accessthrough land lines.48–56 The Hamburg port, includ-ing the first container terminal in Hamburg, onBurchardquai opened in 1968 and has extendedsouth of the River Elbe. Several traditional villageshad to leave to make room for new container term-inals, leaving only a historical church as a reminderof their historical presence (Figures 4 and 5). Today,the container port has become a local scenery andtouristic attraction separated from the city by thebreadth of water.57–63 In Australia, Botany Bay

FIGURE 3 | The transformation of the Rotterdam port during the oil revolution, 1862, 1882, 1930, 1936, 1950, 1964, 1972, 2015. Source: Oiland the Rotterdam Port | By Carola Hein/Bernard Colenbrander/Alexander Koutamanis | CC BY NC SA 4.0.

Overview wires.wiley.com/water

© 2016 Wiley Per iodicals , Inc.

FIGURE 4 | HHLA Container terminal. Handling a container ship at the Altenwerder terminal (CTA)Photo: HHLA. http://hhla.de/en/photos-films/picture-galleries/container/detail.html?tx_otoldnewgallery_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=1393&cHash=5aa4155b082e46f03c6dd311609034fc

FIGURE 5 | The Altenwerder Church, the only reminder of the historic village replaced by the container port expansion. Photo: JolanDhuique-Hein.

WIREs Water Port cities and urban waterfronts

© 2016 Wiley Per iodica ls , Inc.

developed in the 1970s some 10 km south of the citycenter. Here, as in many other locations, the govern-ment and other powerful entities behind the con-struction largely disregarded the communities alreadyliving where the container terminals would be built.64

On the Thames River, the Tilbury docks that servedthe London port and originated in 1886 wererestructured for container service by 1970.f A newdeep-water terminal, London Gateway in Thurrock,Essex, is under construction even further from thecity center. While located on the same river, the sitewill be largely under the control of authorities otherthan the city and thus also beyond the reach of plansby the Mayor of London to ensure that the city’sfuture development meets new criteria of sustainabil-ity and social equity.65,66

Just as governments and other actors ignoredthe people in the way of the terminals, they disre-garded questions of water quality, waste manage-ment, ecology, and heritage structures andlandscapes. Economic growth and improving theconnection to the water took precedence in these bigport cities, a central, shared goal that becomes visiblewhen we look at the literature comparatively. Whileample planning-related publications exist on eachlocation, writings that study the port and water-related developments in a metropolitan or regionalcontext appear to be missing.

Thanks to the adaptations of diverse bodies ofwater, to coastline transformation and new port con-structions, and to urban adaptations, global maritimetraffic flows have facilitated the increase of globalproduction and consumption patterns. Global tradeis visible in the huge amount of containers that circlethe earth as well as in urban growth. The WorldBank counted a little over 651,000,000 transship-ments of 20-foot container units in 2013.g The lead-ing container ports are now located in Asia and theMiddle East, and the huge ships that dock there con-nect to Europe and America. New ports have notablyemerged in China, where many goods originate andwhere leaders since the 1970s have emphasized thegrowth of ports. A look at economic statistics onleading global ports published by the American Asso-ciation of Port Authorities (AAPA) in 2013 showsSingapore and Shanghai as ranking respectively firstand second in terms of twenty-foot equivalet unit(TEU) and total cargo volume—at least partly aresult of their particular water access.e They are fol-lowed by several other Asian, mostly Chinese, cities.These flows of goods carried by container on waterare in addition to the enormous flows of bulk goods,such as petroleum and its products (1800 millionmetric tons in 2014 in crude oil), carried by ships.h

Increasing ship sizes require deeper waterwaysor ports that are built into the sea, further illustratingthe industrial dimension and engineering of water inports and the common catalysts shaping far flunglocations. Deep-water ports are defined as ports thatcan accommodate the largest ship that can cross thePanama Canal’s locks, so-called Panamax ships.New deep-water ports have been constructed, forexample, in China, such as the Yangshan deep-waterport near Shanghai that is connected to land over thenew Donghai Bridge, which is more than 30 km(18.6 miles) long. It hosts a gigantic container termi-nal on a man-made area between two islands. Tobenefit from economies of scale, traders keep order-ing bigger ships, pushing the deepening of ports andwaterways and the raising of bridges in Miami,New York, Seattle, and other cities around theworld. With the completion of the Panama Canalexpansion expected in 2016, even bigger ships, theso-called Super Panamax ships, will require manycities to rework their ports; discussions about thechanges required are already underway in port citieson the American east coast, such as Savannah,Georgia.67

Bodies of water are also intimately related tothe global exchange of energy, notably of petroleumproducts. Again, research on individual citiesabounds, but comprehensive studies of the interrela-tion of planning for oil ports and the role of watertherein are missing. A comprehensive history wouldconsider the numerous new ports developed for oilshipping. The development of Rotterdam from 1862until today reflects the ubiquitous growth of petro-leum storage, refining, and transport particularly well(see Fig. 3).68 Another example of oil-related portredevelopment is Port Harcourt after 1958 inNigeria.69–71 Oil income led the Nigerian govern-ment to conceive and construct the new inland capi-tal city, Abuja, and the oil economy triggered thegrowth of the port of Lagos through which consumergoods and raw materials entered the country.

Petroleum shipping transforms cities aroundthe world, but so far, little attention has been givento these networked changes in places with and with-out oil.72 Petroleum has redesigned places on strate-gic water sites even in the absence of oil sources, asevidenced through the emergence of Singapore as anoil hub. Thanks to its location near one of the chokepoints in global shipping, the Malakka Strait; itspolitical status as a former British colony; and its rep-utation as a small city-state with friendly relations toits Asian neighbors, Singapore has become a majoroil hub after the construction of Singapore’s first oilrefinery on Pulau Bukom in 1961. However, the local

Overview wires.wiley.com/water

© 2016 Wiley Per iodicals , Inc.

availability of oil and the possibility of selling itaround the world was a major criterion in the designof Jebel Ali in Dubai. The sheik used foreign ideasand consultants for engineering, planning, and archi-tecture (including concepts for company towns) toreinvent and re-imagine the port city at an unprece-dented new scale.73,74 A deep-water port for oiltransport notably exists in Louisiana. The LouisianaOffshore Oil Port serves supertankers since 1981 andis located in the Gulf of Mexico, southeast of PortFourchon. While pipelines carry oil from Russia toEurope or from Canada to the United States, watertransportation provides more flexibility, and travel-ing on the oceans is cheaper than flying over them.The emergence of new oil ports suggests that globaloil flows continue to be carried by water. Newwaters will open as the sea ice melts, and the possibil-ity of new shipping lanes will create numerous politi-cal challenges that are already in the news. Climatechange and rising waters are already changing someport cities, yet another common theme that meritscomparative investigation.

WATERFRONT REVITALIZATIONAND WATER AS LEISURE ANDIDENTITY

Meanwhile, New York, Hamburg, Amsterdam, Phil-adelphia, and Sydney lost their identity as globalports. If new ports were booming in similar ways, itwas because shippers and other stakeholders hadabandoned older ports, which now suffered in com-mon. The old waterfronts became ghost districts,challenges to urban development. Filled with indus-trial structures, including refineries and waste, thesesites were often connected to polluted waters andneeded major investment for redevelopment. Manycities had to develop new strategies for these now-empty inner-city ports and for the many peoplewho had lost their jobs in packaging, transportation,and storage. This planned restructuring oftraditional waterfronts occurred almost simultane-ously around the world and is studied extensively,mostly through individual cases, and only a few pub-lications can be mentioned here to suggest the largerpicture.75–81

Waterfront (re)development emerged as ananchor project for urban redevelopment—whetherfocused on business, leisure, or multifunctionaldevelopment—as models of regeneration of brown-field areas, with a special heritage appeal through thepreservation and reinterpretation of traditional port

infrastructure and the reuse of the water for locals.Local presses have often touted these revitalizations,celebrating water for its aesthetic appeal to residentsand tourists, that is, as a setting or background—thelong views it provides, the promenades along itssides, the approach across it toward new construc-tion. They celebrate the history of the site throughthe preservation of heritage buildings, discussionsabout the design and events of the public spaces, andoccasional events and uses of the water, such as forheritage ships, ferry landings, pleasure cruising,cruise ship events, harbor birthdays or other water-based celebrations such as Baltic Sail, a maritime fes-tival around the Baltic Sea. Aquariums in severalcities, Baltimore, Osaka, or Genova, add a touristicand educational component linked to water and thelocal environment (Figure 6). Water quality, or therecreation of local marine habitats or water systems,appears mainly when they contribute to the use ofthe site. Water quality issues may mean cleanup ofoil spills and other industrial waste as the case of theNewtown Creek waterfront suggests: here, 17–30million gallons spilled from historic refineries. Whileprojects such as the river revitalization of theCheonggyecheon in Seoul also have tactile qualities,those are less relevant for seaport cities, where theriver is less accessible and not made available forplay or swimming.82

A large number of former seaports have remadetheir inner-city waterfronts; the literature on thesetransformations mostly deals with individual cities. Itis so extensive that only a few sources can be indi-cated here.83–90 Inner-city waterfront transformationsin North America and Europe include Baltimore,New York, Vancouver, Boston, Portland, Seattle,Miami, London, Hamburg, Barcelona, Genova, Lis-bon, Sevilla, Helsinki Bilbao, Liverpool, and Dublinto mention just some. In Asia, Shanghai, Sydney,Osaka, and Melbourne stand out.

The celebratory character of much of this litera-ture is balanced by a few commentaries that speak tothe socioeconomic issues associated with urbanrenewal of a waterfront area and the impact of thatwork on the city as a whole. Thus, researchers havestudied Baltimore as the model for waterfront regen-eration around the world; they have also consideredits impact (or the lack thereof ) on the city as awhole.91 The revitalization of the Docklands inLondon has similarly seen celebratory and criticalscholarship.92–98 Scholars occasionally raise ques-tions about socioeconomic transformation beyondphysical ones and the role of social justice or thecommodification of historical heritage, often inresponse to the redevelopment of waterfronts as part

WIREs Water Port cities and urban waterfronts

© 2016 Wiley Per iodica ls , Inc.

of exhibitions or mega-events, as in Sevilla (1992),Barcelona (1992 and 2004), Genova (1992 and2004), Lisbon (1998), and Hamburg (2013–15) andeven in applications to host such events such as inHamburg for the Olympics&&.89,99–101

However, there are new waterfront adaptationsbeyond Baltimore and established European, Ameri-can, or Australian models. Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia,Quatar, and Manama are imagining and buildingentirely new waterfronts, focused on upscale housing,tourism, culture, and leisure activities, on landreclaimed freshly for this purpose. The palm islandsin Dubai, for example, resemble other artificialislands, such as Port Island and Rokko Island inKobe, built in the 1960s to provide new port func-tions, housing, an amusement park, and sport facil-ities.102 Similar land reclamation projects in theTokyo Bay, in Hong Kong, and other cities providedspace for new developments, including housing and amultitude of business, commercial, and cultural func-tions. Occasionally, cities have renaturalized areassuch as the Kasai Rinkai Koen, the largest park incentral Tokyo and located close to Tokyo Disney-land, on reclaimed waterfront land. The area aims torecall the natural habitat of Tokyo Bay, and theTokyo Sea Life aquarium located in the park featuresaquatic habitats from Tokyo and the world. TheMarina Bay redevelopment in Singapore onreclaimed land is yet another facet of waterfront

redevelopment. The annual revenue from oil and gasaffords the Gulf countries a financial foundationfrom which to reform their local economies, rebuildcities, and invent new urban futures The financial cri-sis and the falling oil prices have slowed down someof the ambitious projects, such as the one for Masdarnear Abu Dhabi, designed by Foster & Partners andoriginally projected as a zero-energy and zero-wastecity.103 Saudi Arabia, the world’s single largest sup-plier of oil similarly plans to use oil profits to con-struct six several economic cities.104 One of these,the King Abdullah Economic City, is planned toexpand over some 181 sqkm (70 sq miles); but only15 percent have been built so far.105

Waterfronts have been built and rebuilt overcenturies for shipping and for leisurely purposes, andthey continue to attract investments. Particularlylocations facing the sea, with their impregnableviews, are among the most appreciated real-estatesites. Engineers, elites, and citizens have long gainedexperience in controlling and orienting water anddeveloping new technologies; contemporary interven-tions occur mostly independently from each otherand do not consider water as an encompassing entity.Questions of animal and plant life in the rivers andoceans around ports and urban waterfronts are onlyreceiving passing attention, even though such discus-sions occur regularly regarding waterfronts in naturalor vacation sites.106i

FIGURE 6 | The Skyline of Baltimore Waterfront: Inner Harbor and sport field from Federal Hill, 2006. © Aneese | Dreamstime.com—Baltimore Inner Harbor Photo.

Overview wires.wiley.com/water

© 2016 Wiley Periodicals , Inc.

RECONNECTING PORT ANDWATERFRONT: WATER FORPLEASURE CRUISES

Water transportation today is not only about effi-cient and economic movement of goods in containersor in bulk but also about bringing people to newplaces, including revitalized waterfronts. People con-tinue to travel by ship, for example, on ferries con-necting islands within one nation or crossing theBaltic and other seas for daily life purposes (includingmigration). Additionally, the number of people trav-eling for pleasure on cruise ships grows steadily.What was traditionally a pastime for the wealthy hasbecome a mass adventure. Before World War I, at atime when the Hamburg-based Hapag shipping com-pany conveyed millions of immigrants from Europeto America, its director Albert Ballin was developingthe first custom-build cruise ships. Its draw grewsteadily until World War II, which meant a suspen-sion of such activities.

By the 1980s, when waterfront revitalizationwas expanding, cruising was starting to pick upagain. Revitalized waterfronts and events provide thenecessary attractions for tourism. In turn, the shipsbring port activity back to the formerly abandonedcentral city sites, with all the environmental andsocial challenges that such activity entails. Their arri-val also provokes questions of gentrification and

inequality as old working ports with diverse popula-tions have given way to housing, parks, leisure, andtravel for the relatively wealthy.

Over the last decade, growing numbers of peo-ple have vacationed on cruise ships, taking advantageof water transportation and enjoying water as abackground to their tourist experience, albeit oftenwith little interest in its environmental quality. Thenew cruise ships are at the scale of large skyscrapers.The construction of the Queen Mary II in 2003 ush-ered in a new age of truly gigantic cruise ships,including the Royal Caribbean Oasis and its sistership the Allure; at 225,000 tons and 1188 feet; thesecruise ships are more akin to tankers and containerships than to the pleasure ships of the past. TheAllure can host nearly 6,300 passengers and a staffof almost 2400 crewmembers and offers amenitiesfrom a shopping mall to a water park, from a zipwire to Broadway-style shows. Also over the last dec-ade, the number of cruise ship tourists has risensteadily, and cruise tourism has developed into aform of mass tourism. In 2012, American cruise shipscarried some 17 million passengers on fully cateredvacations and tours to exotic locations.107 Many ofthese cruises take advantage of another facet of waterin cities: waterfront revitalization and water as lei-sure and identity-producing sites108 (Figure 7). Theimpact of cruise ships on cities such as Venice ishighly contested but is yet to be fully studied

FIGURE 7 | View of the HafenCity Hamburg with a cruise ship and the working port visible across the river Elbe. Copyright: Carola Hein.

WIREs Water Port cities and urban waterfronts

© 2016 Wiley Per iodica ls , Inc.

(Figure 8). These new cruises require extensive facil-ities, and the number of terminals has grown rapidlyin recent years.

The effects of cruise shipping goes beyond thatof industrial shipping of commodities as the qualityof the site of arrival, its urban, or rural aspects mat-ter to the paying passengers. Environmental aspectssuch as water quality therefore take on new meaning.The link between cruise shipping and water qualityand the environment is evident, even though it hasyet to fully enter into planning practice. Activists crit-icize the cruise- shipping industry’s use of heavy oiland unfiltered sulphurous gasoline, both environmen-tally disastrous and dangerous to the health of urbaninhabitants. Several bills have been brought beforethe US Senate to enact national standards requiringthat waste water generated by cruise ships be treated,but none have actually been passed.109 However,catering to the cruise ship industry and ignoring eco-logical damage may backfire in the long run. Forexample, the loss of ice in the Hudson Bay might cur-tail cruise shipping. Many tourists are taking the shipto the bay to look for ice-based wildlife; if the iceretreats (because of climate change caused in part bythe ships themselves), the wildlife may move furthernorth, and cruise ships may ignore the port.110 Cul-ture and nature are largely commodified as part ofthe cruising experience, but questions of social justiceand ecology related to cruising have yet to be fullydiscussed in the literature.111

So far, planners for port authorities and muni-cipalities have treated their water-related properties

separately, for industrial and shipping purposes onthe one hand and those for urban leisure activities onthe other. Yet the creation of new ports on water-ways is a key element of globalization and economicgrowth as it supports the international distribution ofcommodities and energy. Paradoxically, the globaleconomy and consumption that containerization fos-ters also contribute to global climate change and ris-ing water levels that particularly threaten many if notall ports and their cities. A few scholars and organi-zations are honing in on the missing relationshipbetween port and city planning.112–114 The Associa-tion Internationale Ville et Port (AVIP) and The Aso-ciación para la Colaboración entre Puertos yCiudades/Association for the Collaboration betweenPorts and Cities (RETE) promote the comprehensiveplanning of port and city through publications andconferences.115,116 The need to respond to issues ofrising water levels and climate change, highlightedalso through the flooding of New Orleans after Hur-ricane Katrina in 2005, has also attracted interestfrom the Museum of Modern Art in New York,which examined it in regard to New York117

(Figure 9). Nonetheless, a broad, global investigationof economic, social, cultural, ecological, and environ-mental aspects is missing.

CONCLUSION

Even though water is a shared resource and key char-acteristic of both port and waterfront design, its

FIGURE 8 | Cunard-line Cruise ship towering over historical Venice. Editorial Stock Photo: Cruise ship in Venice ID 17080333. © June Cairns |Dreamstime.com. From Dreamstime, Cunard in front of venice. © Airn | Dreamstime.com—Cruise Ship In Venice Photo.

Overview wires.wiley.com/water

© 2016 Wiley Per iodicals , Inc.

physical character, its ecological and environmentalquality, receive only passing attention in the scholarlyliterature except in regard to pollution. Despite theinterconnectedness of ports and waterfronts, or themore recent intersection between cruise ships andinner-city ports, there are few studies that engage theurban uses of water from a comprehensive perspec-tive and tie the different urban bodies of water, riv-ers, lakes, or the sea, into local urban planning.Furthermore, despite the shared challenges of waterthat threaten port cities around the world, collectiveresponses are so far absent.

The challenges of global water rise will requireingenuity around the world. Port cities and urbanwaterfronts are at the forefront of these changes. Sofar, scholars have paid only limited attention tobringing an urban planning perspective to bear onports, port cities, and waterfronts that are located onsingle bodies of water, such as the North Sea, theBaltic Sea, or the Mediterranean Sea. HurricaneSandy provided a first taste of the potentialdangers and challenges of flooding. New plans andplanning coalitions between ports, cities, and

neighboring regions, both along the shore andtowards the hinterland, may be necessary to addressthis challenge.

Academic research on ports and waterfrontshas focused on isolated aspects of port engineering ormanagement or on the urban potential of waterproximity.118 More research needs to be conductedto find a common perspective on future challenges,notably towards environmental risks such as risingwater levels and urban flooding due to climatechange.119,120 Heritage themes and sustainability oncoastlines is another important theme and one thatthe EU wishes to address in a 2017 call.j New flooddefences (unbreakable dykes, swimming cities)appear to be solutions that are raised locally and bycities with appropriate means. Some ports try to posi-tion themselves as so-called GreenPorts that balanceeconomic and environmental challenges.k Responsi-ble innovation has become a theme, for example, forthe Rotterdam port, which reduces fees for ships thathave won the Green Award.l However, despite recentattempts at global policies on pollution, no planningresponses have yet emerged.

FIGURE 9 | More than fifty failures in the levees and flood walls protecting New Orleans led to extensive flooding after Hurricane Katrina in2005. Link text : Navy-FloodedNewOrleans | by Jeremy L. Grisham—U.S. Navy.

WIREs Water Port cities and urban waterfronts

© 2016 Wiley Per iodica ls , Inc.

Economic and other factors remain the maindrivers of port and waterfront planning. A novel rec-ognition of interconnected water systems, of connec-tions between dredging the port and the need forinfill to shore up the coasts, and the construction ofso-called unbreakable dikes, or super-dikes, seemsdisconnected from planning literature. Scholarly dis-cussion of mixed-use waterfront landscapes aroundhistoric port cities and new ports may help plannersand others reconsider the relationships between citiesand water. An integrated perspective on the contextof the city and its hinterland, acknowledging thewater as a shared resource and challenge—as a phys-ical, economic, social, cultural and also environmen-tal and ecological element—might help us developcommon responses to contemporary challenges.

NOTESa World Ocean Review, Global Shipping A Dynamic Mar-ket, http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/transport/global-shipping/; Green Port, 2016 Climate Deadline Unre-alistic, http://www.greenport.com/news101/Regulation-and-Policy/2016-climate-deadline-unrealisticb Eurostat, Maritime transport statistics—short sea shippingof goods, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Maritime_transport_statistics_-_short_sea_ship-ping_of_goodsc For a sample of historical research topics see: WORLDHISTORY ASSOCIATION SYMPOSIUM ‘Port Cities inWorld History’ March 26–28, 2014, http://www.thewha.

org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Barcelona-Program-Final-3.21.14.pdfd DeCeTe Duisburg, http://www.ect.nl/en/content/decete-duisburg; Container Terminals in the Port of Duisburg,http://www.duisport.de/hafeninfos/container-terminals.htmle AAPA (American Association of Port Authorities) WorldPort Rankings 2013, http://www.aapa-ports.org/Industry/content.cfm?ItemNumber=900 (Accessed February 02, 2016)f Port Cities London (Tilbury Dock (1886–1981)). http://www.portcities.org.uk/london/server/show/ConFactFile.82/outputFormat/print/Tilbury-Dock.htmlg Container port traffic http://data.worldbank.org/indica-tor/IS.SHP.GOOD.TU/countries/1W?display=maph Transport volume of crude oil in global seaborne tradefrom 2009 to 2014 (in million metric tons) http://www.sta-tista.com/statistics/264013/transport-volume-of-crude-oil-in-seaborne-trade/i The nature of Cities, Cities are ecosystems of people,nature, and infrastructure http://www.thenatureofcities.com/2015/01/06/urban-water-fronts-have-typically-been-sites-of-heavy-development-and-often-are-sites-of-pollution-or-exclusive-access-but-they-have-enormous-potential-bene-fits-how-can-we-unlock-these-benefits-for/j Cultural heritage of European coastal and maritimeregions, Call: H2020-SC6-CULT-COOP-2016-2017,http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/3083-cult-coop-07-2017.htmlk Green Port, http://www.greenport.com/homel Rotterdam rewards Green Award LNG tankers too,https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news-and-press-releases/rotterdam-rewards-green-award-lng-tankers-too

REFERENCES1. Broeze F, ed. Brides of the Sea: Port Cities of Asia

from the 16th–20th Centuries. Honolulu, HI/Kensing-ton: University of Hawai’i Press/New South WalesUniversity Press; 1989.

2. Cesarani D, Romain G, eds. Jews and Port Cities1590–1990. London/Portland (OR): Valentine Mitch-ell; 2006.

3. Amenda L. Die Welt im Kleinen: Chinesenviertel inwesteuropäischen Hafenstädten 1890–1950; Hamburg,Rotterdam, London. In: Dierken J, Stuhlmann A, eds.Geisteswissenschaften in der Offensive. Hamburg:Europäische Verlagsanstalt; 2009, 322–352.

4. Echenberg M. Plague Ports: the Global Urban Impactof Bubonic Plague, 1894-1901. New York:New York University Press; 2007.

5. Gipouloux F. The Asian Mediterranean: Port Citiesand Trading Networks in China, Japan and SoutheastAsia, 13th-21st Century. Cheltenham/Northampton(MA): Edward Elgar Publishing; 2011.

6. Subramanian L. Ports, Towns and Cities: A HistoricalTour of the Indian Littoral Hardcover. Marg Founda-tion; Mumbai, 2009.

7. O’Flanagan P. Port Cities of Atlantic Iberia, c. 1500-1900. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing; 2008.

8. Kolluo�glu B, Toksöz M, eds. Cities of the Mediterra-nean. From the Ottomans to the Present Day.London/New York: I. B. Tauris; 2010.

9. Graf A, Huat CB, eds. Port Cities in Asia andEuropa. London: Routledge; 2009.

10. Bentley JH, Bridenthal R, Wigen K, eds. Seascapes:Maritime Histories, Littoral Cultures, and Transoce-anic Exchanges. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’iPress; 2007.

11. Haneda M. Asian Port Cities, 1600–1800: Local andForeign Cultural Interactions. Singapore/Kyoto: NUSPress/Kyoto University Press; 2009.

Overview wires.wiley.com/water

© 2016 Wiley Per iodicals , Inc.

12. Braudel F. Les mémoires de la Méditerranée: préhis-toire et antiquité. Paris: Éd. de Fallois; 2001.

13. Pearson MN. Port Cities and Intruders: The SwahiliCoast, India, and Portugal in the Early Modern Era.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress; 1998.

14. Blussé L. Visible Cities: Canton, Nagasaki, and Bata-via and the Coming of the Americans (EdwinO. Reischauer Lectures). Cambridge, MA/London:Harvard University Press; 2008.

15. Brockey LM, ed. Portuguese Colonial Cities in theEarly Modern World. Farnham and Burlington, VT:Ashgate; 2008.

16. Braun G, Hogenberg F. Civitates Orbis Terrarum.Cologne, 1572–1617.

17. Fussel S, Koolhaas R. Braun/Hogenberg, Cities of theWorld - Complete Edition of the Colour Plates1572–1617 (Civitates Orbis Terrarum). TaschenAmerica, Los Angeles; 2008.

18. Meyer H. City and Port: The Transformation of PortCities: London, Barcelona, New York and Rotter-dam. Rotterdam: International Books; 2003.

19. Hein C. Port Cities: Dynamic Landscape and GlobalNetworks. New York, NY: Routledge; 2011.

20. Hein C. Modern cities: interactions: port cities. In:Clark P, ed. Oxford Handbook on Cities in History.Oxford and New York: Oxford UniversityPress; 2012.

21. Hoyle BS. The port-city interface: trends, problemsand examples. Geoforum 1989, 4:429–435.

22. Hoyle BS. Cityports: Coastal Zones and RegionalChange. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 1996.

23. Konvitz JW. Cities and the Sea: Port City Planning inEarly Modern Europe. Baltimore, MD: John HopkinsUniversity Press; 1978.

24. Amato D. Port planning and port-city relations. TheDock and Harbor Authority 1999, 7:45–48.

25. Pudney J. London’s Docks. London: Thames andHudson; 1975.

26. Owen DJ. 1934. Twenty-five years of thePort of London Authority. The P.L.A. MonthlyBeing the Magazine of the Port of London Authority:The Port of London Authority 1909–1934,102, 149–162. P. 151.

27. Miller MB. Europe and the Maritime World: ATwentieth Century History. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press; 2012.

28. Kenealy A. The Cholera in Hamburg. In:Eagle MKO, ed. The Congress of Women: Held inthe Woman’s Building, World’s Columbian Exposi-tion, Chicago, U. S. A., 1893. Chicago, IL: MonarchBook Company; 1894.

29. Ducruet C, ed. Maritime Networks: Spatial Structuresand Time Dynamics. London: Routledge; 2016.

30. Song D-W, Panayides P, eds. Maritime Logistics: AGuide to Contemporary Shipping and Port Manage-ment Kindle Edition. London: Kogan Page; 2015.

31. Notteboom T, Ducruet C, Langen FD, Langen PD,eds. Ports in Proximity. Competition and Coordina-tion among Adjacent Seaports. Aldershot: Ash-gate; 2009.

32. Cheng, LK Wong Y-CR. Port Facilities and ContainerHandling Services, Hongkong City University ofHongkong Press; 1997.

33. Ligteringen H, Velsink H. Ports and Terminals. Delft:VSSD; 2012.

34. Burns MG. Port Management and Operations.London and New York: Routledge; 2014.

35. Brinkmann B. Seehäfen: Planung und Entwurf. Hei-delberg, Germany: Springer; 2005.

36. Binns A. 1934. Twenty-Five Years Engineering Devel-opments of the Port of London Authority. The P.L.-A. Monthly Being the Magazine of the Port ofLondon Authority: The Port of London Authority1909–1934, 102, 163–170.

37. Luo M, Yip TL. Ports and the Environment: Mari-time Policy and Management. “Special Issue: Portsand the Environment.” Maritime Policy & Manage-ment 40, no. 5. Routledge; 2015.

38. Levinson M. The Box: How the Shipping ContainerMade the World Smaller and the World EconomyBigger. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress; 2010.

39. Robinson R, Chu D. Containerization and the Port ofHong Kong in the 1970s. In: Fung-Shuen VS,ed. Urban Hong Kong: Collected Essays: Population,Economy, Environment, Housing, Planning, Future.Hong Kong: Summerson; 1981.

40. Schenker E. The Effects of Containerization on GreatLakes Ports Special Report no. 2. Milwaukee, WI:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Center for GreatLakes Studies; 1968.

41. Hayuth Y. The port-urban interface: an area in tran-sition. Area 1982, 14:219–224.

42. Meisel F. Seaside Operations Planning in ContainerTerminals, Physica-Verlag Heidelberg; 2009.

43. Port of New York and New Jersey, History http://www.panynj.gov/port/history.html, (Accessed Febru-ary 02, 2016)

44. Port of Oakland. About the Port. Available at:http://www.portofoakland.com/about/history.aspx.(Accessed February 02, 2016).

45. Van der Schoor A. de Dorpen van Rotterdam: vanOntstaan tot Annexatie. Rotterdam: Ad Donker Uit-geversmaatschappij bv; 2013.

46. Schraver J. Rotterdam The Gateway to Europe: His-tory of the Port and Trade of Rotterdam. Rotterdam:Ad Donker; 1948.

WIREs Water Port cities and urban waterfronts

© 2016 Wiley Per iodica ls , Inc.

47. van Walsum GE. Rotterdam Europoort 1945–1975.Rotterdam: Ad Donkers; 1972.

48. Loyen R, Buyst E, Devos G. Struggling for Leader-ship: Antwerp-Rotterdam Port Competition between1870–2000. Berlin: Physica; 2003.

49. Van de Laar P, Loyen R. Trade and Transhipmentin Antwerp and Rotterdam. Port Competition andthe Load Factor (1900–1940). Amsterdam:Aksant; 2004.

50. Cabouret M. L’évolution récente du port d’Anvers(Part 1). Norois 1977, 95:375–384.

51. Groepering der Havenbelangen (Antwerp, Belgium).Antwerp, Leading European City And Port with anAmerican Fighting Spirit. Antwerp: Antwerp, Port ofAntwerp Promotion Association, AntwerpGeneralManagement of the port; 1969.

52. Schoonhoven É. Anvers, son fleuve et son port; coupd’oeil sur les principales étapes de son histoire écono-mique et maritime. Antwerp: Lloyd Anversois; 1958.

53. Wellens M. Antwerpen: stad in beweging, 1983–1987.Merksem-Antwerpen: Marc Wellens; 1988.

54. Jan B, Greta D, Mandy N, Werner VH, Kathelijne V.Momentum: Antwerp’s Port between 1880 and thePresent Day. Antwerp: Pandora; 2002.

55. Winkelmans W. de Haven van Antwerpen en Rotter-dam. Gent: Rijksuniversiteit Gent; 1971.

56. Schubert D. Stadterneuerung in London und Hamburg:eine Stadtbaugeschichte zwischen Modernisierung undDisziplinierung. Braunschweig: Vieweg; 1997.

57. Amenda L. “Welthafenstadt” und “Tor zur Welt” :Selbstdarstellung und Wahrnehmung der HafenstadtHamburg 1900–1970. Dtsch Schiffahrtsarch 2006,29:137–158.

58. Driesen O. Welt im Fluss: Hamburgs Hafen, dieHHLA und die Globalisierung. Hamburg: Hoffmannund Campe; 2010.

59. Gerckens C. Containerisierung im Hamburger Hafen1968–1975. Strukturelle Auswirkungen der staatli-chen und privaten Anpassung. Diss. Koblenz; 1978.

60. Grobecker K. Hafen Hamburg Sechs JahrzehnteErfolgsgeschichte. Hamburg: Koehlers Verlagsge-sellschaft mbH; 2004.

61. Kamin B. Hafen und Logistik--nur noch Containerund keine Menschen? Hamburg: Wachsende Stadtdurch schrumpfendes Gemeinwesen? Hamburg:GNN Verlag; 2005.

62. Kludas A, Maass D, Sabisch S. Hafen Hamburg. DieGeschichte des Hamburger Freihafens von denAnfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Hamburg: Kabel; 1988.

63. Moltmann G. Hamburg als Auswandererhafen. In:Ellermeyer J, Postel R, eds. Stadt und Hafen. Ham-burger Beiträge zur Geschichte von Handel und Schif-fahrt. Hamburg: Christians; 1986.

64. Tull M. The environmental impact of ports: anAustralian case study. In: XIV International EconomicHistory Congress (session No. 58), Helsinki, 2006.

65. Mayor of London. The London Plan. Spatial Devel-opment Strategy for Greater London. Consolidatedwith Alterations since 2004. London: GreaterLondon Authority; 2008.

66. Hein C. Port cities and urban wealth: between globalnetworks and local transformations. Int J Glob Envi-ron Issue 2014, 13:339–361.

67. Ramos SJ. Planning for competitive port expansionon the U.S Eastern seaboard: the case of the SavannahHarbor Expansion Project. J Transp Geogr 2014,36:32–41.

68. Hein C. Exploring architectural history through thepetroleumscapes of the Randstad to imagine newfossil-free futures (illustratie van Jenna Arts). BullKunsthistorici 2015, 3:27–31.

69. Klieman KA. U.S. oil companies, the Nigerian CivilWar, and the origins of opacity in the Nigerian oilindustry. J Am Hist 2012, 99:155–165.

70. Ogundana B. Oscillating seaport location in Nigeria.Ann Assoc Am Geogr 1972, 62:110–121.

71. Shneerson D. Investment in port systems: a case studyof the Nigerian ports. J Transport Econ Policy 1981,15:201–216.

72. Hein C. Suez et la route du pétrole. In: Piatone C,ed. Suez. Cairo: Institut Francais d’Archeologie orien-tale (IFAO); 2011.

73. Ramos SJ. Dubai Amplified (Design and the BuiltEnvironment). Ashgate: Aldershot; 2010.

74. Ramos SJ. Dubai’s Jebel Ali Port. Trade, territory andinfrastructure. In: Hein C, ed. Port Cities: DynamicLandscapes and Global Networks. London: Routle-dge; 2011.

75. Smith H, Ferrari MSG, eds. Waterfront Regeneration.Experiences in City-Building. London andNew York: Routledge; 2012.

76. Marshall R, ed. Waterfronts in Post-Industrial Cities.London and New York: Spon; 2001.

77. Breen A, Rigby D. The New Waterfront: A World-wide Urban Success Story. London: Thames andHudson; 1996.

78. Desfor G, Laidley J, Schubert D, Stevens Q, eds.Transforming Urban Waterfronts: Fixity and Flow.London: Routledge; 2010.

79. WARE. Blue Frontiers. Comparing Urban WaterfrontRedevelopment. Ljubjyana, Venice: Grundvigt; 2013.

80. Hoyle BS, Pinder D, Husain MS. Revitalising theWaterfront: International Dimensions of DocklandRedevelopment. Chichester: Wiley; 1994.

81. Schubert D. ‘Ever-changing waterfronts’: urban devel-opment and transformation processes in ports andwaterfront zones in Singapore, Hong Kong andShanghai. In: Graf A, Huat CB, eds. Port Cities in

Overview wires.wiley.com/water

© 2016 Wiley Per iodicals , Inc.

Asia and Europe. London and New York: Routle-dge; 2009.

82. Busquets J, ed. Deconstruction/Construction: TheCheonggyecheon Restoration Project in Seoul. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Graduate School ofDesign; 2011.

83. Bone K, Bone E, Betts MB. The New York Water-front: Evolution and Building Culture of the Port andHarbor. New York: Monacelli; 1997.

84. Brown PH. America’s Waterfront Revival. PortAuthorities and Urban Redevelopment. Philadelphia,PA: University of Philadelphia Press; 2009.

85. Hoyle BS. Urban waterfront revitalization in develop-ing countries: the example of Zanzibar’s Stone Town.Geogr J 2002, 2:141–162.

86. Sepe M. Urban history and cultural resources inurban regeneration: a case of creative waterfrontrenewal. Plan Perspect 2013, 28:595–613.

87. Aprioku IM. Local planning and public participation:the case of waterfront redevelopment in Port Har-court, Nigeria. Plan Perspect 1998, 13:69–88.

88. Dovey K. Fluid City. Transforming Melbourne’sUrban Waterfront. Sydney: UNSW Press; 2005.

89. Carnevali G, Delbene G, Patteeuw V, eds. GENO(V)A. Developing and Rebooting a Waterfront City.Rotterdam: NAI Publishers; 2003.

90. Vicario L, Monje PM. Another ‘Guggenheim effect’?Central city projects and gentrification in Bilbao. In:Atkinson R, Bridge G, eds. Gentrification in a GlobalContext: The New Urban Colonialism. London andNew York: Routledge; 2005.

91. Ward SV. ‘Cities are Fun!’: inventing and spreadingthe Baltimore model of cultural urbanism. In:Monclús FJ, Guardia M, eds. Culture, Urbanism andPlanning. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2006.

92. BARKER. Dockland: origins and earlier history. In:Carr RJM, ed. Dockland, An Illustrated HistoricalSurvey of Life and Work in East London. London:North East London Polytechnic with Greater LondonCouncil; 1986.

93. Brownill S. Selling the inner city: regeneration andplace marketing in London’s Docklands. In: Gold JR,Ward SV, eds. Place Promotion: The Use of Publicityand Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions. Chiche-ster: John Wiley & Sons; 1994.

94. Brownill S. Developing London’s Docklands:Another Great Planning Disaster? London: PaulChapman Publishing; 1993.

95. Edwards B. London Docklands - Urban Design in anAge of Deregulation. Oxford: Butterworth Architec-ture; 1992.

96. Foster J. Docklands. Cultures in Conflict, Worlds inCollision. London: UCL Press; 1999.

97. Schubert D. Stadtplanung ohne Planung’ - Die Dock-lands in London und die Aushebelung des englischen

Planungssystems als neue ‘Planungskultur’. In:Brech J, ed. Neue Wege der Planungskultur. Darm-stadt: WOHNBUND; 1993.

98. Schubert D. Vom Traum zum Alptraum? Von denDocks zu den Docklands – Strukturwandel undUmbau der ehemaligen Hafenareale in London. In:Schubert D, ed. Hafen- und Uferzonen im Wandel.Analysen und Planungen zur Revitalisierung derWaterfront in Hafenstädten. Berlin: Leue; 2002.

99. Wilson M, Huntoon L. World’s fairs and urbandevelopment: Lisbon and Expo ’98. In: Williams J,Stimson R, eds. International Urban Planning Set-tings: Lessons of Success. New York: JAI PressInc; 2001.

100. Iba H, Hamm Oliver G, eds. Projekte und Konzepte:Katalog zur Zwischenpräsentation 2010 = Projectsand Concepts : Catalogue for the Interim Presenta-tion 2010. Berlin: Jovis; 2010.

101. IBA Hamburg, ed. Metropole: Metrozonen, Berlin:Jovis; 2010.

102. Lafrenz J, ed. Hamburg und seine Partnerstädte.Sankt Petersburg-Marseille-Shanghai-Dresden-Osaka-Léon-Prag-Chicago. Hamburg: Institut für Geogra-phie der Universität Hamburg; 2001.

103. Walsh, Bryan. “Masdar City: The World’s GreenestCity?” Time, Jan. 25 2011. (February 02, 2016).

104. EYGM. “Economic Cities – Opening Vistas ofGrowth in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” Availa-ble at: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-economic-cities-wave-of-growth-in-saudi-arabia/$FILE/ey-economic-cities-wave-of-growth-in-saudi-arabia.pdf. (February 02, 2016).

105. See Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority,2007–2008, March 2009. Available at: http://sagia.gov.sa/english/index.php. (Accessed xxxx xx, xxxx).

106. Berens G, ed. Remaking the Urban Waterfront.Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute; 2004.

107. Mouawad JAD. 2013. Too Big to Sail? Cruise ShipsFace Scrutiny, New York Times.

108. Hein C, Hillmann F. The missing link: redevelopmentof the urban waterfront as a function of cruise tour-ism. Portus 2013, Jul 24, 2013 - U.S. 26.

109. US Government. ‘Clean Cruise Ship Act of 2013’. In:113th Congress, 2013–2015. 2013.

110. Stewart EJ, Tivy A, Howell SEL, Dawson J,Draper D. Cruise tourism and sea ice in Canada’sHudson Bay Region. Arctic 2009, 63:57–66.

111. Hein C. Temporalities of the port, the waterfront andthe Port City. Portus 2015, 29:1–8.

112. Carmona M, ed. Globalization & City Ports: TheResponse of City Ports In The Northern Hemisphere.Delft: TU Delft; 2003.

113. Hoyle BS, ed. Cityports, Coastal Zones, and RegionalChange. International Perspectives on Planning andManagement. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1996.

WIREs Water Port cities and urban waterfronts

© 2016 Wiley Per iodica ls , Inc.

114. Hoyle BS, Pinder DA. Cityport Industrialization andRegional Development. London, Oxford: Perga-mon; 1981.

115. AIVP. Plan the City With the Port: Guide of GoodPractices. Le Havre: AIVP; 2015.

116. RETE Publicaciones. Available at: http://retedigital.com/publicaciones/portus/. (Accessed August 4, 2015).

117. Museum of Modern Art. Rising Currents: Projectsfor New York’s Waterfront. New York, NY:Museum of Modern Art; 2011.

118. Hein C. Port cityscapes: conference and research con-tributions on port cities. Portus. Plan Perspect 2016,31:1–15.

119. Nicholls RJ, et al., ‘Rankings of the World’s CitiesMost Exposed to Coastal Flooding Today and in theFuture. Executive Summary’ (OECD, 2007).

120. Soriani S, ed. Porti, Città e territorio costiero: Ledinamiche della sostenibilità. Milan: Fondazioni EniEnrico Mattei; 2002.

Overview wires.wiley.com/water

© 2016 Wiley Per iodicals , Inc.