View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!Introducing SlideShare for AndroidExplore all your favorite topics in the SlideShare appGet the SlideShare app to Save for Later — even offline
View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new Android app!View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!
CONTENTSAbstract 5Keywords 6INTRODUCTION 6Case Study 1: BARCELONAʼs Ports & Harbours 6Barcelona Introduction 6The History of the Barcelona Model 7-8The Barcelona Model 8The Barcelona Regeneration Model 8-9Concluding Thoughts on the Barcelona Model 9Port Authority of Barcelona 10The History of the Port 10-11The First Artificial Port 11 th18 Century Draught 11The Works Committee 1968 11The Expansion of Delta 11Port Authority 11The Way Forward 11Logistics Port 11Regular Lines 11-12Strategic Development 12Port Enlargement Works 132008 Developments: East & South Breakwaters 13East Seawall 13South Seawall 13Prat Wharf 14Corrective Measures 14Infrastructure Actions 14Preparation of Areas 14-15Rail Accesses 15Air Quality 15Waste Collection 15Development of the Port Network 16The Zaragoza Goods Terminal 17The Toulouse Goods Terminal 17Perpignan Goods Terminal 18Service Centre for France 18New Barcelona – Lyon Express Rail Service 18FERRMED 18Tanger-Med Logistics Area 18Intermodal Logistics Centre (CILSA) 18-19Leading the Way in CSR 19Stable Cargo 19Boost to Rail Traffic 20Systems & Develoment 20-21More Passengers 21Terminal A - Adossat Wharf 22Terminal B - Adossat Wharf 22Terminal C - Adossat Wharf 22Terminal D - Adossat Wharf – Palacruceros 22Terminals North and South – Barcelona Wharf 22-23Terminal M - Port Vell - Espanya Wharf 23Barcelona Ferry Terminal - Sant Bertran Wharf 23
Terminal Z - Drassanes - Barcelona Wharf 23GUIDING PRINCIPALS 24Port Development & Master Planning 24Long Term Planning 24Medium Term Planning 24Guiding Principles for Port Design 24-25Port Costs 25The Port Masterplan 25Port Location 25Design Criteria 25General Layout of Port Works - Principals 25Port Entrance 25Connections with Inland Areas 26Storage Area 26Review of Existing Port Installations 26General Cargo Terminal 26Bulk Cargo Terminal 26Basic Design Criteria for Marinas 27Water Dependant Uses 27Shipping 27-29BARCELONAʼs Commercial & Leisure Port 30PORT VELL 30The Port Vell Operation in Barcelona 30-31Port Vellʼs Commercial & Leisure Services 31-33Port Vell in relation to the Barcelona Model 33The Barcelona Model in Comparison to Other 33Metropolitan CitiesCase Study 2: The Revitalization of Torontoʼs 34WaterfrontTorontoʼs Waterfront Revitalization 34-35Torontoʼs Waterfront on the World Stage 35-36The Waterfront Scene 36-37An Astonishing Opportunity 37-38The Pressures for Action Now 39-40The Big Challenges 40-41A Strategic Business Plan – The Development 41-44ConceptTorontoʼs Solution 44A Picture of the New Waterfront 44The Central Harbour 44-45The East Bayfront 45The West Bayfront 45The Portlands 45New City Neighbourhoods 45The Olympic District 45The Convergence Centre 45Lake Ontario Park 46Grand Channel District 46The Mouth of the Don River 46The West Donlands 47The Eastern and Western Waterfronts 47-48The Eastern Waterfront 48The Western Waterfront 48-49Phasing of Implementation 49Structures, Powers and Governance 49-50The Financial Concept 50
Land Sales/ Leases (Residential) 50 Infrastructure Spending 50 End-State Impacts 50 Toronto´s Waterfront Design Details 51-52 SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES 53 Building a Sustainable Community 53 Sustainable Land Use 54 Sustainable Transportation 54-55 Sustainable Building 55-56 Air Quality 56 Human Communities 56-57 Cultural Resources 57 National Heritage 57-58 Water 58-59 Minerals and Waste 59 Innovation 59-60 CONCLUSION 61 Compact Design 63 Walkable Mixed-use Communities 63-64 Places where people want to be 64-66 Resilience to Natural Hazards & Climate Change 66 Environmental Conservation 66-67 Bibliography 68-70 Photographs 71!
Nicholas Orthodox Socrates 2011 - 4123875 TU Delft – AR2A010 – Architectural History Thesis In Relation To Port And Harbor Areas, What Are The Key Factors And Guiding Principles For Major Waterfront Development?AbstractThis paper aims to reveal the key factors and the guiding principles for major waterfront development in relation to port and harbor areas;After introducing the city of Barcelona, the Barcelona Model, then the History of Barcelonaʼs Ports Development, this paper will focus in onBarcelonaʼs working ports; understanding the logistics and the infrastructure of these functioning areas, how they are managed and howthey relate, influence, and govern the development of the city.This paper will then look at Barcelonaʼs cruise ship terminals, their services and their importance in relation to the growth of tourism withinthe city.Concluding this section with an overview of guiding principals of Port Master Planning, Port Development & Port Design studying long andmedium term planning, design criteria, shipping & cargo, emphasizing the importance of the ports location and its connections with inlandareas.This paper will shift back to Barcelona, with an in-depth study on Port Vell; Barcelonaʼs very successful, very popular, commercial andleisure waterfront functioning port, as an international tourist attraction and world renowned regeneration project.With a time-line study of the complete history of this port and then an in-depth study into each of Port Vellʼs commercial services, facilitiesand uses.Concluding this chapter by understanding Port Vellʼs importance in relation to the Barcelona Model and how this profound metamorphosisof the port has served to integrate the site into the city and into urban life to the point where, every year, 16 million people visit this multi-purpose spot, as a point of reference for locals and visitors alike.This first case study will be concluded completely by touching upon ʻGreen Urban Planningʼ and the Barcelona Model in relation to othermetropolitan cities.This paper will then shift into its second case study; Torontoʼs Waterfront Revitalization, which is still an ongoing process. This project is avery ambitious, very well planned, polly-faceted, waterfront enterprise, set to revitalize and regenerate, not only by defining Torontoʼscharacter, as a major metropolitan world city, but also acting as a transformative gateway to commerce, culture and tourism for Canadaitself.This study will outline the pressures and motivation behind acting now, the big challenges which lie ahead, and how Toronto arrived at itssolution. Looking at its Strategic Business Plan, its Develop Concept and its different areas, its facets, its ports and harbours, and itsdifferent sections of waterfront.This paper will analyze Torontoʼs Waterfrontʼs phasing of implementation, its structures, powers and governance, whilst looking at thefinancial concept and the infrastructure spending behind this huge regeneration.This section of the paper will be closed by giving several examples of a variety of design details visioned implemented by West 8+DTAH in2007.The study of Toronto continues by looking in detail at its sustainable principals for building a sustainable community, its objectives,strategies and actions taken concerned with; land use, transportation, buildings, air quality, human communities, cultural resources,national heritage, water and minerals and waste.Concluding this paper by offering the most important guiding principals and key elements for waterfront development in relation to mixedland use, compact design, walkable mixed-use communities, the importance of vibrant areas and creating areas where people want to be.The conclusion will close by talking about the resilience to natural hazards and climate change and the importance of environmentalconservation.
KeywordsWaterfront, Development, Revitalization, Regeneration, Toronto, Ports, Harbours, Barcelona. Urban Design, Development, Planning,IntroductionIn many cities, efforts are currently being made to renew the strength of their waterfront. These efforts are supported by severalconditions. Land left vacant by deindustrialization is now cheaper and in many ways prime spots for development. These areas havehigh aesthetic and functional values due to their proximity to the water and the city core. Because of the many potential overlappingjurisdictions of government that are involved, however, detailed planning is essential for such waterfront development andredevelopment. (Mulvihill, 1991).Many different developments can be planned along the urban waterfront. Large-scale mixed-use developments offer many commercialand economic opportunities. These projects contribute a great deal to the process of re-establishing the vitality of the inner city. Othertypes of developments are more social than economic. Parks, water-edge walkways, and environmental conservation all add to thecultural landscape. Of similar importance are restorations and preservations of historical sites along the waterfront. Lastly,marketplaces, festivals, happenings and the like contribute much to an areas well being. They are not only a source of economiccontributions to the city, but they also enhance the culture of the area. (Mann, 1988)Three issues should be considered when building on the waterfront. Urban designers involved in the planning process should firstconsider the functional value of their work. This includes attention paid to accessibility and security. As well as planning flood control,environmental education should also be implemented to ensure protection of the land and wildlife. Finally, the most important aspect ofa proposed development is its contextual fit within the existing landscape. (Breen & Rigby, 1991)This last issue relates to the postmodern trend in architecture. In some ways this movement is a turn away from the modern strive forurbanization. Rather than a collection of glass boxes, postmodern architecture tries to give buildings more character and make themlook welcoming. Buildings are designed as more of an addition to the natural landscape than an intrusion to it. Especially along thewaterfront, then, where cities usually first began, a sense of serenity and natural presence, along with an attention to its historicalimportance, is needed to bring about the areas full worth. Along with this significance, its physical connection to the city and itspreviously mentioned economic and cultural potential make the waterfront a key resource in inner city redevelopment. (Smolski, 1990).In general, the history of urban waterfront developments can be understood from a modified version of the economic rent model (West,1989).This theory of land use is also known as the rule of bid rent for highest and best use. The model was made based on the theory andempirical data that suggest land use is determined by the economic possibilities in each area. The predominant condition of urbanwaterfronts before the late 1950s shows that the city harbor was a central place for business relating to ocean cargo. In addition to thecentral location, industry was also planned along rivers due to an availability of hydropower and easy waste disposal. Many of thesebusinesses were later relocated due to advances in railway and highway transportation. Urban waterfront industry was no longer theleast expensive way of manufacturing and transporting goods. Industry moved to cheaper land because of the ease in transportation, andthe city core became deindustrialized. In the 1960s and 1970s the urban waterfront existed as something of an industrial wastelandbecause of its low economic and social conditions. (Hubbard, 1994)However, the deindustrialization of waterfront areas does not need to cause the complete abandonment of the area. Instead, many otherdevelopments can make use of the waterfront. In many ways the deindustrialization of the waterfront is a blessing. This is because thereis now room for not just industry, but commercial, residential, and public space as well. Therefore, the deindustrialization of thewaterfront, although initially leading to a decline of the areas worth, in the end allows for the rebirth of the waterfront as a more enjoyableand recreational area. (Hubbard, 1994)"The waterfront becomes symbolic of our human limitations – and of our potential. It functions as both a physical and a psychologicalfrontier. By representing what is deep and knowable, it suggests both our hopes and our fears for the future. It is a shimmering mirror whichreflects the sunlight of the day and the city lights of the night, breaking them up into millions of sparkling rays, abstracting and making poeticour work-a-day world." - John Rubin, 2004Great waterfronts are not developed over days or months; they emerge through dedicated action by residents, waterfront users, andcommunity leaders over a number of years, sometimes decades. Each successful project, no matter how small, should bring new strengthto the waterfront, creating a greater economic and social sum of its constituent parts. (Evenius, 2003)Case Study 1: Barcelonaʼs Ports and HarboursBarcelonaBarcelona, located in the north-east of Spain and on the shores of the Mediterranean, is one of the main European metropolises, and thecentre of an extensive metropolitan region made up of more than 217 towns, with a total population of 4.6 million inhabitants. It is theeconomic, cultural and administrative capital of Catalonia and a leader of an emerging business area in the south of Europe, which is madeup of more than 800,000 companies and 17 million inhabitants. Within this Euro-Mediterranean region, which includes the Balearic Islands,Valencia, Aragon and the south- east of France, Barcelona is focusing on new strategic, competitive and international sectors, and it isconsolidating its position as one of Europeʼs principal metropolises. Catalonia, and its capital Barcelona, has always been a welcoming
place for those visiting it. Throughout its history, many different peoples have passed through this land and almost all of them have settledhere. This has made Catalonia a welcoming place, which is tolerant, dynamic and open to anything that is new.Catalonia and Barcelona have now become one of the main economic hubs of Europe. A driver of the Spanish economy, 21st centuryCatalonia is an innovative country with a highly-qualified labour force, an enviable geographical position (at the heart of Europe andconnected to the rest of the world thanks to its Mediterranean ports and its international airports) and top-notch infrastructure and facilitiesthat draw important investments year after year.(The Media Centre in Barcelona, 2007)The History of the Barcelona Model (Abadir, 2005)Barcelona, one of Europes most beautiful and historic cities, has been held up as a model of urban planning and renewal, its public spacesand art renowned internationally, especially since it hosted the 1992 Olympics. Though it cost the city $10 billion (U.S. dollars), the impetustransformed the Mediterranean citys neglected port into a revitalized waterfront and has since led millions of people lining up at its door.But the house of Barcelona is not a continually expanding one. It is a city wedged between the mountains and the sea, and the case ofurban sprawl cannot therefore exist. Highlighting the one main problem of the city… space! Its a battle between tourist dollars, and citizensneeds.Across Europe, housing has re-surfaced on political and urban agendas. But those countries to the south of Europe, particularly Spain,have created a housing crisis that tourism has insufferably affected. Barcelona has a low level of spatial segregation, simply because thereis no space; tourists and natives are forced to live together.In the 1920s Barcelona was the fastest growing city in Europe. The population of Barcelona expanded by 62 per cent during that decadeand adjacent blue-collar suburbs like Hospitalet and Santa Coloma doubled and tripled in population. Modernization and industrializationwere proceeding at a rapid pace. Migrants from nearby regions were flooding into the city to take jobs. By the 1930s the province ofCatalonia, with about 6 million residents, contained about 70% of the manufacturing capacity of Spain.(Photographs: Port de Barcelona, Port Authority, The Port, Maps & Access 2009)The rapid expansion of the city led to a serious housing shortage and a rapid rent inflation that had rent rising up to 150% in many areas.The severe shortage of housing also led to serious problems of overcrowding and deterioration in the kind of housing available to theworking class. There was some public housing — inexpensive concrete buildings — but only 2,200 units had been built. The city reliedoverwhelmingly on the private real estate market to provide housing.Although there were some large-scale private apartment blocks or "estates," much of the housing was provided by a huge class of smallproperty owners. The main landlords organization, the Chamber of Urban Property, had over 97,800 members in the province of Catalonia.Shanty towns began to appear on the outskirts of the city. But these were not shanties built by the residents but by landlords who builtsubstandard dwellings while the authorities looked the other way. By 1927 it was estimated that over 6,000 shanties had been built inBarcelona, housing 30,000 people, with more in surrounding towns. In the older parts of Barcelona many flats or houses were cut up intotiny units. Often the penny-pinching landlords refused to provide water hookups for these new units, even though the city building codeshad required running water since at least 1891. By 1933 it was estimated that 20,000 flats or houses in Barcelona lacked running water.The Economic Defense Commission estimated that 45,000 people were taking part in the rent strike in July of that year, and over 100,000by August. Even if these estimates are a bit exaggerated, clearly, this was a massive rent strike. There were rent strikes going on in all theworking class neighborhoods of Barcelona, and a number of the outlying towns had set up their own Economic Defense Commissions andwere pursuing a similar recourse. It took years for the affects of the strike to deplete. And the government has been trying to balanceaccommodating tourists and natives since."The Governors housing" is a complex of 900 flats of 20 square metres that were built in 1952 to house people living in the slums ofBarcelona; they were privatized during the 60s to avoid maintenance costs and social conflicts. Some years later, the growth of Barcelonareached this marginal neighbourhood, which ended as an "island" of decay in the centre of the new urban outskirts. Its inhabitants grew old,and only the poorest youth remained there. When, drugs and delinquency settled in, the situation worsened and it was only in 1990, afterseveral claims, when the three public administrations (State, Regional and City) reached an agreement. The Catalan Government acceptedthe total renewal of the houses with the financial help from the Ministry responsible for public works and the City Councils commitment torebuild the area.
A new plan was designed together with the Neighbours Association, with the task of keeping everybody in the same quarter and theobjective to standardize that quarter socially as an urban area. The new streets became intertwined with the old nearby ones, the newsquares opened instead of closed, and some old flats that were empty were renewed to house some of the neighbours temporarily. Toexecute the plan, which started in 1992, a private team specialized in managing was contracted. This team, placed on the spot, directed allthe operations of expropriating, pulling down, transferring families, integrating, etc. By the time that fifty percent of the program wasexecuted, results had already become evident: 239 families were given new flats, new commercial activity began, and illegal activitiesdisappeared. And, an episode of degradation that should have never occurred began to slowly vanish from peoples memory.When the 1992 Olympics arrived in the city it brought with it more than a few hundred runners, bikers jumpers and swimmers; millions oftourists flanked the city, certainly a monetary bonus for tourism sectors, but hotels, parking lots, restaurants and the like needed to be builtto accommodate the millions of people that Barcelona would host. There was a problem with space! As the city is built between the sea andthe mountains, urban sprawl is not an option. Meaning housing costs would sky rocket and the people of Barcelona, pushed out of theirown territory. The games indeed did spank a suburban newness to the city, but did little in solving the cityʼs housing shortage.In 2004 Barcelona hosted a different kind of Olympics — a five-month cultural and intellectual forum that was focused on solving the worldʼsproblems.Organizers said theyd expected more than five million visitors to converge on the city for the 2004 Forum of Cultures -- part festival, partmeeting-of-minds on broad themes such as peace, cultural diversity and “sustainable development” (i.e. housing!) For Barcelona, it was achance to recover the international limelight it basked in back in 1992 -- not to mention rake in tourist dollars and for a long-overdue face-lift.And it was an excuse for necessary urban renewal. About $460-million (U.S. dollars) of public and private money went to fund the forumevents, and a whopping $2.6-billion was spent on the festivals infrastructure, including a total transformation of the citys once-marginalizedand crime-ridden northern shore-a neighbourhood called La Mina.With a very shanty-town like history, La Mina was one of the Cultural Forums undertakings; thirty years after the first bricks were laid, theForum set out to create a change in the marginalizing and cramping of its inhabitants. Unfortunately the areas sad legacy left La Mina sotorn with the greatest social deprivation within the Barcelona metropolitan area today, that even the forum was unable to complete therevitalization it set out to do. It still suffers from an urban layout, which has created enclosed streets within a fortress-like setting,marginalized from the outside world. Population and housing densities are very high, homes are of poor quality with very limited livingspace. It has above average numbers living in conditions of poverty, with illiteracy levels running at 25%. Unemployment, employment inthe informal sector and absenteeism from school are all very high. The degradation of the community has been intense, with high crimerates and serious social fracturing.And jarring to the many who advocated it, the forum in La Minas case was a mass failure and was as unsuccessful as it was televised. Butthe touristic dollars it brought into the city out shined the forums “mini” failures. And an anti-globalization group called the Assembly ofResistance to the Forum argued that widely embraced topics such as peace and diversity were just excuses for the city to earn moremoney with tourism. Thus, keeping with the trend to bow to the spending tourist and turn ones head from the arduous native.Barcelonas Federation of Neighbourhood Associations says that the forum was taking priority over more important urban issues such ashealth care and housing. "Housing is a tremendous problem in Barcelona, and thousands of families live without water or electricity. Withjust 10 per cent of what theyve invested in the forum, they could have solved housing problems for 23,000 low-income families," said EvaFernandez, the federation president.Innovative and strategic housing policies have been consistently neglected in the broader political and urban agenda of Spain. Tourism hastaken the stand and as it looks from here, is not coming down anytime soon. Oddly, just two weeks ago, Spains hotel industry reported thegreatest success in three years; seeing a 5 per cent increase in its “Revenue per available room.” The gravity and complexity of housingproblems and of segregation issues are underestimated. Though hoteliers have suffered from problems of overcapacity in the past,Barcelonas public and private developers have been particularly active in this sector and Spanish hotel supply increased by 20% between2001 and 2005 (comparing to less than 1% in France; a drop of 2% in Germany and a growth of only 5% in the United Kingdom during thesame period).(Abadir, 2005)The Barcelona ModelThe Barcelona model, focuses on design issues and the quality of public urban spaces. Whilst also highlighting the capacity to manageunique flagship events such as the 1992 Olympic Games, converting them into levers and strategic instruments of urban renewal andregeneration. Both versions tend to consider the Barcelona model as something singular, something almost unique in the panorama ofinternational urbanism.The "Barcelona model" of local government and management combines strategic insight, political leadership, innovation, professionalmanagement, quality and proximity, civic culture, participation and the involvement of the citizens. It explores some of the elements thathave contributed to an efficient municipal management, that obtained new investment based on the optimization of current expenditure andthat have transformed the city, maintaining an important level of consensus of the citys population.(Francisco - Javier Moncl, 2003)The Barcelona Regeneration Model• International events are used to enhance prestige, attract private investment and to focus and motivate the citys workforce.• Buildings and infrastructure constructed for the events are of very high quality and serve a double purpose: for short-term use during the
event itself and as a means of regenerating a decaying area of the city in the long-term.• The use of low-paid immigrant labour and multiple sub-contracting in the construction industry.• The city is seen as the sum of its neighborhoods, rather than comprising of distinct parts. This discourages a bit-meal approach toregeneration and instead emphasizes the building of communities.• Public intervention is linked to the demands of the local community.• A reduction in urban density of 20%.• The radical transformation of the perimeters of the worst affected areas. It is easier to begin the transformation process where thedeterioration is not so significant.• Careful planning of public building locations to encourage regeneration and prevent duplication.• Buildings of heritage value are conserved for public use such as schools, libraries, offices, cultural centres, etc..• The introduction of mixed new land uses into an area, including service industries, office and retail, private and public housing.• The encouragement of innovative architecture and thinking.• Investment in transport infrastructure to improve accessibility. This increases opportunities for economic and social activity.• A deliberate policy of introducing a new social mix into deprived neighborhoods.• The creation of new communal open spaces in strategic areas to encourage social mixing. The open spaces are created well before newbuilding development commences.• A flexible rather than rigid approach to planning.• A policy of spreading new retail and service industries throughout the city, particularly in central areas to retain vibrant communities.• A block on new out-of-town shopping centre developments.• Compulsory purchase of buildings in very poor condition in order to renovate them using public funds.• Building renovations completed to a high standard, both interior and exterior.• Tax incentives and grants to refurbish properties.• Strong political and local leadership to drive the regeneration process.• Education, job training, health, crime and leisure initiatives to help tackle the social problems of illiteracy, poor health, and highunemployment.• Collaboration between the Leisure and Social Services Departments to tackle social exclusion amongst the disaffected young. Leisureamenities in schools are kept open until late into the evening.(Barcelona Field Studies Centre S.L, 2004)Concluding Thoughts on the Barcelona ModelThe main point to highlight is that the Barcelona model has been extremely successful in the renewal and redevelopment of the existingnuclei of the city – the centre and other metropolitan nodes. At the same time, however, it has limitations as an alternative to the extensiveand dispersed form of urban planning so characteristic of North American and, increasingly, other European cities. What is being faced isnot a reference in the struggle for a greener and sustainable urban planning. Not even examples of high quality landscaping can detractfrom a lack of effective control of the new urban landscape and of the ʻnew peripheriesʼ, even though they may be interesting palliatives. Itis understandable, therefore, that those who analyze Barcelonaʼs experience from the outside have focused on the impressive results ofqualitative and strategic urban planning. With regard to the former component of the model – qualitative urban design – it seems clear thatthe ʻreconstruction of Barcelonaʼ initiated strongly in the first part of the 1980s, constitutes an improved version of what has been carried outsubsequently in other cities. For its quality and integration, Richard Rogersʼ affirmation regarding the ʻ20 year time lagʼ in relation to theBritish cities does not seem exaggerated. A vast number of high quality redevelopments and urban improvements have been carried out inthe central areas, maintaining and increasing the vitality and urban quality of the different urban ʻcentresʼ (taken to mean not just the officialcentral business district, but also all the central nuclei of the metropolitan region of Barcelona). It is precisely here where the most creativeand novel aspects of the ʻmodelʼ have been demonstrated. All of this, despite the perhaps excessive trust in the ʻgood designʼ, can help toexplain not only the scant consideration for the wider metropolitan problem, but also what occurred at the same time in the cityʼs newrecreation/leisure and cultural commercial areas. In this sense, it is important not to lose sight of the nature of these successful new public/private spaces, such as Maremagnum at Port Vell, La Maquinista and Glorias. These large-scale shoppingCentres, which have experienced a genuine boom, contrasting with (or complementing, according to the optimists) the urban quality of thetraditional squares and streets.In the case of the Illa Diagonal development, it involved an intrinsically interesting model of urban design that, especially in its exterior, wassomewhat removed from the rhetoric of the Mediterranean city. Yet, the design also facilitated the developmentʼs redefinition in use, in themore private and autonomous sense. Turning to the second component of the Barcelona model – the strategic planning associated initiallywith the preparations for the Olympic Games – this has been subsequently maintained with as much, if not more, energy. This haspromoted Barcelona into a high position in the international urban ranking.The negative consequences, relating to polarization and social exclusion, so much denounced in other cities, do not appear to have beenproduced in Barcelona. This is despite the greater importance given in the last post-Olympic phase to the logic of the private sector andʻflexibleʼ planning, whereby certain processes of a clearly North American origin, such as marketing and theme labeling of the city, haveaccelerated. These correspond to a highly ʻglobalizedʼ type of planning – especially that associated with Strategic Plans – which at thesame time has converted Barcelona into a reference for other cities, especially those in Spain and Latin America.In any event, the capability demonstrated by the ʻnew Barcelonaʼ to borrow, adapt and elaborate original syntheses relating to the mostadvanced formulae of international urban planning culture, allows one to consider the possible reorientation of its objectives and urbanplanning strategies over the next few years. In particular, the operations associated with the Forum of Cultures 2004 will probably indicateBarcelonaʼs capacity to tackle the challenges that are still outstanding. Until now, the notable success of city marketing strategies, linked tothe new ʻsymbolic economyʼ or ʻcultural economyʼ and based upon urban tourism, the media and leisure, contrasts with much less attentionpaid to other important aspects: public transport and, above all, housing. Tackling these issues in a more convincing way would mark asecond stage of a wide reaching and really successful ʻplanning modelʼ, although likely to remain somewhat under-proportioned in relation
to the concerns with image and economics.Thus, the ʻculture of the cityʼ as a promoter of values (as advocated by the Eurocities movement) would remain, for the time being, notablysubordinate to culture as a motor of industrial, economic and tourism development.(Francisco-Javier Moncl, 2004)(Maps: Port de Barcelona, Port Authority, The Port, Maps & Access 2009)Port Authority of Barcelona• The State Port and Merchant Navy abolished the Works Committees and the Autonomous Ports and created the body, ʻState PublicPortsʼ. Its objective was to coordinate and control the efficiency of the port system, as well as the port authorities and to be responsible forthe port management. For this reason, the Port of Barcelona was renamed the Port Authority of Barcelona• Barcelona has become the Mediterranean city with the largest increase in tourism. The Olympic Games of 1992 gave the perfectopportunity for the world to be aware of the potential tourist virtues of the city. The Port of Barcelona was able to rise to the occasion for thisevent by accommodating up to eleven big cruise ships in its installations, which acted as floating hotels.• From that moment on, the number of cruises and passengers has not stopped increasing, given that, it has allowed the Port of Barcelonato become the most important tourist port in Europe in the last few years. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Authority,General Plan 2009)The History of the Port• Many of the ancient historians and poets have referred to this port: Avieno, Pomponio, Mela, Pliny,Ptolemy...• In 1903 a tombstone was found, near the cemetery of Montjuic, which commemorates Caius Coelius,who had ordered to build walls and gates to fortify this port area with proven defensive intentions.• Barcelona started the building of walls around it when the first barbarian invasions started, in the year263 A.D. Since then, the city has grown in importance and there are multiple references to it, still situatedto the south of the mountain of Montjuic.• Between the years 1164 and 1285, during the reigns of Alfonso II, Pere II, Jaume I and Pere III, the city
became the unquestionable maritime capital of the King and Queen of Aragon. From these years the project arised to install a RoyalShipyard; the famous Drassanes, that even now, today, we all know. The date is not certain, but it is true that in the year 1378, the city ofBarcelona asked Pere IV to restart the port works begun origanally by Pere III, which were interrupted due to severe storms. In those days,the area from the Shipyard to the city, was commonly used as an anchoring place, since the old port situated to the south of Montjuic wasfilled with sand due to the advance of the river and its delta. For this reason, it lost the advantage of being a sheltered area.• The weak protection offered by the anchorage of Barcelona to the ships anchored in that inlet under the terrible east windstorms, causedcountless ship-wrecks throughout the 10th to 12th centuries. The inhabitants of Barcelona decided to unite their efforts in order to build asafer artificial port to benefit and make easier the loading and unloading of commercial operations and to develop the maritime commercewhich the city required. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, History of the Port, 2009)The First Artificial Port • The dream of having a safe port, which in this part of the Catalonian coast meant to have an artificial port, didnʼt start to be insinuated until the 8th of December of 1438: King Alfonso V the Magnanimous bestowed to the ministers of the city of Barcelona the privilege of building a port and its wharfs, in the way and place that they chose. • The works for the construction of the wharf started that same year, although a decade later, the storms that battered the coast destroyed all their efforts. • In the reign of Juan II, on the 20th of September of 1477, the laying of the first stone of a wharf, which was to be definitive and was 103 meters length, took place, arriving to the sand island of Maians, in front of where the Local Representation of the Government is located today. This wharf was baptized with the name of the Holy Cross, and astime went by, it was known as the Old wharf, and it constitutes the real gem of the artificial and external Port of Barcelona, where the menand the city were allied in order to fight against the elements and storms to produce a useful and safe port.• The basic port shelter was the East dock, and from the Maians island it was progressively expanded to the South and to the Southwest. Inparallel to the sands carried by the sea which were piled up, in inconsiderable amounts, on the beach to the East of this site; the alluviumsoil from the Besós river formed a deposit. The Barcelonetaʼs district laid its foundations precisely on these lands gained to the sea, and thesea-landers and fishermen are the ones that historically lived in this Barceloneta neighborhood. (Information & Photographs: Port deBarcelona, History of the Port, The First Artificial Port, 2009) th18 Century Daught• The enlargements did not stop. In the year 1723, the East Dock was extended to the actual fishermenʼswharf and in 1772, during Carlos III, the Linterna tower was built. Nowadays it has become the clock tower. • The port needed more depth. In the year 1743, the sand had formed a barrier, which was extended from theend of the East dock to the Pulgas tower (where the Portal de la Pau and Columbus monument stands). Thesecircumstances forced the closing of the port. The solution to the draught problems was not overcome until1916, with the extension of the breakwater, which in 1882 reached where the floating dock is located today. • It still remained another problem that the new sand barrier formed from the natural reaction arisen due the change of the flows of the sea, which was solved with the extension of the East Dock and the construction of an outer sea wall. The result of this is that the new entrance is defined from the end of the East Dock to the new wharf, which divides the coast at the bottom of the mountain of Montjuic, where the Ponent wharf is located today. (Information & Photographs: Port de Barcelona, History of the Port, S.XVIII: Draught, 2009The Works Committee 1968• With the progressive improvements, a real and effective external port was finally built, free of piled upsoils and sands and having a sheltered water area of around 110 hectares. Between the years 1877 and1882 the first cross-wharf was built, where the Barcelona wharf is located today.• The works were carried out without rest. In 1926 a new extension of the East dock was finished and inthe year 1958, it began its expansion to the south. In 1912 and in 1962 a new outer sea wall was built asthe port advanced to the southwest. In the year 1968 the external port had a sheltered water area ofaround 500 hectares. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, History of the Port, 1868: WorksCommittee, 2009)The Expansion of Delta 1966• The advance of the port from northeast to southwest makes it surpass the mountain ofMontjuic. In the year 1966 the construction of an internal port started. In the LlobregatDelta, the area was dredged and 250 new hectares are added to the port site. Twothousand years later, the commercial activity of the port of Barcelona returns to itsoriginal location, to the west of the mountain of Montjuic.
• The Statute of Autonomy of the port granted, in the year 1978, the end of a solid historical tradition of the port of Barcelona. It is thenconsidered, ʻa public entity acting in a mercantile regimeʼ. At the same time, it opened the doors to a period full of future possibilities. In theyear 1987 it also started to develop a Strategic Plan, an ambitious project, which affected all the activities of the Port Community.(Information & 4 Photographs: Port de Barcelona, History of the Port, 1966: Expansion by Delta, 2009)The Way Forward• There has been a lot of work done over the last few years to organize the zone into areas, in accordance with the different specializedterminals, in order to obtain the efficiency objectives that business demands. The importance of container traffic should be highlighted as itis a key factor in making the Port of Barcelona - the first logistics platform in Southern Europe.• With so many years of effort and hope, a polyvalent port has been created, which is composed of three fundamental zones: Port Vell (theOld Port), the commercial port and the logistics port. In spite of this, the forecasted growth in traffic for the new millennium has encouragedus to keep on working. Thatʼs why a historic fourth enlargement is about to emerge by diverting the mouth of the River Llobregat 2 km to thesouth, doubling the present Port area in size. The Plan foresees that in 2050, the area will reach 1,265 hectares, a milestone, which boththe city of Barcelona and its citizens deserve. (Port de Barcelona, History of the Port, The Way Forward, 2009)Logistics Port• The Port of Barcelona is set up as a large network of facilities and services spread out throughout the region, accessible to clients andoffering comprehensive door-to-door logistics services.• The port premises, in addition to being a major territorial and economic infrastructure, serve as the hub for this set of service centres (portterminals, the Logistics Activities Area, inland maritime terminals, intermodal terminals, depots, etc.), which have global reach and arelinked by multimodal transport corridors.• At these facilities, which operators manage in a decentralized fashion, clients have access to a wide range of handling, transport, logisticsand value-added services that facilitate their foreign-trade operations.• The Port of Barcelona is set up as a large network of facilities and services spread out through out the region, accessible to clients andoffering comprehensive door-to-door logistics services.• The port premises, in addition to being a major territorial and economic infrastructure, serve as the hub for this set of service centres (portterminals, the Logistics Activities Area, inland maritime terminals, intermodal terminals, depots, etc.), which have global reach and arelinked by multimodal transport corridors. At these facilities, which operators manage in a decentralized fashion, clients have access to awide range of handling, transport, logistic sand value-added services that facilitate their foreign-trade operations. The Port of Barcelona ownbrand-name services -the e-commerce platform and PortIC document interchange, the quality standards and guarantees and the CustomerService Department- make it easier for users to arrange and track their shipments. (Port de Barcelona, The Port, Logistics, 2009)(Photographs: Port de Barcelona, The Port, Logistics, 2009)Regular LinesThe Port of Barcelona connects with over 825 ports worldwide through established regular shipping lines, and with its hinterland through anextensive network of road and rail infrastructure. It is both a hub port and a premier transhipment centre for direct ocean lines. (Port deBarcelona, Regular Lines, 2009)
Latitude: 41° 21ʼ N Tides: Width: 125 cm North entrance mouthLongitude: 2° 10ʼ E Draughts: Up to 16 m Orientation: 191.8° Width: 370 m Draught: 16 mWarehousing: Wharves and berths: 20.3 km South entrance mouthCovered: 121,035 m2 Ro-ro ramps: 32 Orientation: 205°Open: 2,941,339 m2 Tug operators: 9 Width: 145 m Wharf cranes: 29 Draught: 11.5 mDry dock: Floating dock: Land area:Length: 215 m Length: 120 m 828.9 haBreadth: 35 m Breadth: 19 mCapacity: up to 50,000 t Lifting capacity: up to 4,500 t(Port de Barcelona, The Port, Logistics, 2009) (Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 2, 3 & 37)!Strategic DevelopmentThe forecasted reduction in traffic due to falling worldwide demand, is already beginning to show,and the enlargement projects of other ports that are underway and will soon be up and running,will spell greater competition in the immediate future. In this light, Barcelona Port Authority (APB)has conducted a detailed analysis and has reaffirmed the validity of its strategic axes: enlargingthe network port, improving port services - including land accessibility and intermodality - andfostering a far-reaching cultural change within the organization. The contraction of expectationsand available resources has led to the rethink of priorities in terms of activities, which must bedynamic and attuned to the present situation. The current option is to focus on objectives thatcan help the Port to strengthen its market and customer orientation and improve efficiency,quality and productivity to generate a sufficient competitive edge. One move that was particularlysuccessful in this connection in 2008 was the boost given to extending the hinterland deeper intothe Iberian Peninsula and France, with the consolidation of the port terminal projects, dry portsand rail corridors serving these areas and attracting new cargoes. This line of activity will be (Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Annualenhanced in the coming years, as will the search for synergies with the Port of Tarragona to Report, 2008, page 5)!achieve a more advantageous position in the shared hinterland.The underlying aim is to take a deeper look at cultural change in the organization, based on three pillars;
• Competitiveness: identifying the situation of the Port of Barcelona with regard to other ports, while considering possible short andmedium-term scenarios.• Consistency: recognising consistencies and inconsistencies in the current culture and describing the desired culture for achieving acompetitive port in the current environment.• Commitment: working on priority lines of action in the fields of management, activity and people, as the manifestation of the commitmentto the new culture.(Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 6-7)Port Enlargement Works……model barcelonaFrom 2008 to 2010 the Port of Barcelona, is currently immersed in the most ambitious period of its growth in its history.The completion of the works to enlarge the East seawall and build the South seawall, and the coastal corrective measures.The Port Enlargement Works Commissioner coordinates these activities, which are covered in the Llobregat delta infrastructures andenvironment plan (the Delta Plan), which will make it possible to rescale areas and double the area available at the Port to 1,300 hectares.The new seawalls are the key to generating 439 hectares of new port land, which will gradually be regained from the sea, to house newterminals mainly dedicated to container traffic. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 28)2008 developments: The East and South breakwaters.These structures define the new profile of the port and create nearly 800 hectares of sheltered waters necessary to house new wharvesand therefore to allow new activity. This milestone also arrives at a very important time. The Port has been able to take advantage of 15years of growth in its traffic and profits to undertake the enormous financial, environmental and technical investment needed to generate theinfrastructure that will serve the city for decades to come. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 6)East seawall The enlargement of the East seawall was completed on 18 November 2008, after 82 months, and was built by the UTE Dique Este, a temporary group comprising FCC Construcción S.A. (35%), Ferrovial- Agroman S.A. (25%), Construcciones Rubau S.A. (25%) and Copisa Constructora Pirenaica S.A. (15%). The work involved building a 2,025 metre long emerging/ sloping seawall crowned at a height of +12.00 m, which extends the existing seawall. The main mantle is made of 50-tonne Parallelepiped concrete blocks at the base, and 80-tonne blocks at the pier head. The project involved: • dredging 1.23 million cubic metres of material; • laying 2.89 million tonnes of riprap classified between 500 kg and 5 tonnes; • tipping 10.60 million tonnes of quarry ballast; • using 579,210 cubic metres of concrete, 77% for building the blocks and 33% for superstructure and surfaces. The total cost of the works was 213 million EUR, 53% of which was co-financed by the EU Cohesion Fund, and the rest with own funds, not from the general state budget. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 28-29)(Photograph: Port de Barcelona,Annual Report, 2008, page 28)!South seawall The South seawall was built in three stretches, the last of which was filled in on 17 July 2008. The works lasted 74 months for the first and second stretches, plus another 44 months for the third. The first part (Stretch I) involved building an emerging sloping seawall two km long and crowned at a height of +9.0 metres. Its main mantle comprises 60-tonne parallelepiped concrete blocks. The second part (Stretch II) is 1.7 km long and is different to the first. This seawall is built with prefabricated concrete caissons, comprising empty circular cells 3.65 metres in diameter. The caissons are buoyant and were transported to the site by sea. Once the caissons were anchored, the cells were filled with sand to provide solidity and guarantee the necessary stability of the structure. The caissons rest on a bed of quarry ballast with a cross-section of more than 200 metres. In this case, the waves do not break directly against (Photograph: Port de the seawall, but are reflected onto it, advising this particular type of construction and avoiding the need for soBarcelona, Annual Report, much quarry material, thus lowering the overall cost of the work. In addition, this solution will allow the future2008, page 30)! extrados of the seawall (on the inner side) to form an attached wharf for new terminals. The work on Stretches Iand II can be summarised as follows:• 1.94 million cubic metres of material dredged;• 9.68 million tonnes of quarry ballast and 3.03 million tonnes of riprap classified between 1.5 and 6 tonnes tipped;• 10.42 million kg of steel forged for reinforcing;• 429.76 million m3 of concrete used, 129.46 million m3 for making the protection blocks, 186.10 for the caissons and 114.20 for thesuperstructure and surfaces.The last stretch of the South seawall (Stretch III) is a 1.1 km emerging seawall, the first 1,000 metres comprising a sloping section with 40-tonne parallelepiped concrete blocks on the main mantle, and the last 100 metres - the pier head - with a vertical section similar to StretchII. The budget for this project was 113.48 million EUR.
The main parts of the project were:• 0.91 million cubic metres of material dredged;• 1.55 million tonnes of classified quarry riprap, ranging from 150 kg to 4 tonnes;• 5.36 million tonnes of quarry ballast brought by land and sea;• 22,350 m3 for caissons, 149,650 m3 of concrete for blocks and 58,280 m3 for the sheltering wall and surfaces,• 1.82 million kg of steel.(Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 29-30)(Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 29)Prat WharfThe Prat wharf, the first of the enlargement of the area, has now taken shape. The 1,500-metre stretch constitutes the line of the firstcontainer terminal in the port enlargement area on the west side of the dock. It will occupy nearly 100 hectares of land regained from thesea. One significant characteristic of this future terminal, with a capacity for 2.5 million containers per year, is that it will be the first semi-automated wharf in Spain and one of the first in the world. The building of the first 1,500 metres of the Prat wharf was divided into twophases. The Prat Wharf Phase I, which was started in 2004 and finished in autumn 2005, involved 1,000 metres of berthing line. It was builtwith 18.5 metre wide reinforced concrete caissons and one-metre footing each side to reach the 20.5 metre width on the floor. The caissonsthat were finally built were 41.31 metres long and 17.5 metres high, with a depth at water level of -16.00 m. Phase II, which is 500 metreslong, was built between December 2005 and October 2006 and comprises 12 reinforced concrete caissons 13.56 wide on the foundationslab and 12.07 metres at the shaft, 41.30 metres long and 18.00 metres high. The extrados in this phase was built with granular material,with a depth at water level of -16.50 m. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 30)Corrective Measures The port enlargement not only represents a great potential for growth in logistics, but will also provide the legacy of a beach. One of the corrective measures of the environmental impact declaration involved the generation of a new beach stretching along two kilometres of coastline next of the new right bank of the river. A specific habitat has also been created to maintain and protect the autochthonous fauna, especially(Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008,the Kentish plover (Charadrius alexandrinuspage 31)! Linneaeus).All of these works are the physical base on which the Port can grow. This growth is both quantitative(new wharves, cranes and accesses) and qualitative (new shipping lines, better customer service,new connections with Europe) and should consolidate it as the core of the main Mediterraneanlogistics platform and, along with the actions foreseen in the Delta Plan, make it one of the nervecentres of the European communications network. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page31)Infrastructure ActionsThroughout 2008 Barcelona Port Authority (APB) dedicated a total of 142.75 million EUR to (Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 32)!
infrastructure works, representing more than 70% of total investment by the authority and approximately 10% more than the previous year.A large part of the investment was dedicated to the works on the southern enlargement of the Port of Barcelona (above). (Port deBarcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 32)Preparation of AreasThe work is aimed at remodeling existing areas, especially within the reorganization of the Port of Barcelonas container terminals, involvedthe following projects:• Development of the Álvarez de la Campa wharf. This project, which is now complete, involved redeveloping road accesses to the wharf,with the adaptation of the two roundabouts and the roads converging upon them.• Enlargement of the South wharf. The works currently underway will create 18 hectares of new port land. The project includes removing thecurrent pier of the Compañía Logística de Hidrocarburos (CLH), building a new wharf line between the South and Álvarez de la Campawharves and a new terrace for loading, unloading and handling containers.• Berth for liquid bulk carriers. In response to the increase in liquid bulks handled in the Port of Barcelona, work has begun to build a newberth for carriers between 180 and 275m long, to be located in the Inflammables Wharf.• Enlargement of the Border Inspection Post (BIP) building. The BIP service checks that perishable products from third world countriesentering EU territories with all the appropriate health guarantees. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 32) t(Photographs: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 33 & 32)Rail accessesThe building of rail infrastructures guarantees dynamism and speed in the entry and exit of goods to the port area and allows it to extend itsarea of influence. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 34)Air qualityBarcelona Port Authority (APB) continued to work hand in hand with the Catalan Department of the Environment and Housing to apply theAir Quality Improvement Plan in the Metropolitan Region of Barcelona, rolling out measures to reduce NOx and PM10 emissions affectingthe Port. Such measures include modernizing the fleet of trucks involved in the Proatrans P+ programme; electrifying vessels duringstopovers; and fostering the use of rail cargo traffic to take such cargo off the roads. The demolition of the Porta Coeli building on theAdossat Wharf and the storms at the end of the year put various pieces of equipment for the weather and air quality surveillance network(including the P1-Porta Coeli ozone measuring station) out of service. This event provided an opportunity to renew the equipment andrestructure the network to adapt it to the new configuration of the port area and the new functions under the environmental monitoringprogramm of the port works. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 36)Waste collection1,965 tonnes of waste were gathered by the Port of Barcelona, 26% less than in 2007. The remaining waste for specific management stoodat 507 tonnes. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 37)
(Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 37) circuit (Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 37)Development of the Port NetworkBarcelona Port Authority continued to roll out its strategy of growth based on distributing port services and networked logistics in 2008. Thistwo-fold approach, coordinated by the Strategy and Development Department, involves designing and reinforcing different kinds of servicecentres – logistics areas, inland goods terminals, intermodal terminals, warehouses and so on – and also providing the infrastructures andservices of the multimodal transport corridors connecting these centres with the Port of Barcelona. The idea is for Port customers to be ableto access a wide range of handling, transport, logistics and added-value services for their external trade operations in these facilities, whichare managed in a decentralised way by the operators. At the same time, the Port of Barcelonas brand services – the Port CommunitysPortIC telematic platform, quality standards and guarantees and the customer service – allow them to organize and monitor their cargo.(Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 39)The Zaragoza goods terminal The Zaragoza goods terminal (tmZ), in operation since 2001, acts as a service platform for imports and exports from Aragon, Navarre and La Rioja. It offers a whole series of differentiated services to professional users (shipping agents, freight forwarders, logistics operators) and, by extension, to importers and exporters. These services include container consolidation and deconsolidation, warehousing and additional services, and customs warehouses; container logistics (empty container storage, warehousing, handling, cleaning and repair, full container handling and a transhipment area for road vehicles): transport services between Barcelona and Zaragoza, and local collection and distribution. The terminal acts as a neutral operator, allowing any freight agent or professional using maritime transport to plan, organizeand/or monitor all the movements of their goods as they pass through the Port of Barcelona. The tmZ facilities at Mercazaragoza cover120,000 m2, with a 6,000 m2 logistics warehouse and an 8,000 m2 container depot which can be enlarged to 41,000 m2. This year thesefacilities have been completed with a 50,000 m2 rail terminal connected to the main network which now provides a regular, competitive andhigh-quality service to rail operators and, by extension, to Aragonese freight agents. Zaragozas location on the Barcelona–Madrid–Lisbonrail axis, at the nerve centre of the communications network of the north of the peninsula, makes the tmZ rail terminal the origin, destinationand strategic intermediate terminal for traffics from the Port of Barcelona and the rest of Spain and Portugal. The most outstanding indicatorof the tmZʼs activity is the number of movements in its container depot - a total of 27,912 TEU this year (trains and trucks), with 224 trains(112 incoming and 112 outgoing) providing 6,553 TEU. The rail terminal makes the tmZ logistics platform more accessible and dynamic forthe entry and exit of goods. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 39-40)The Toulouse goods terminal The Port of Barcelona also operates the Toulouse goods terminal (tmT), a similar initiative in the south of France. Set up in 2002, the tmT brings the Port closer to its potential customers in the French Midi region and serves to extend its area of influence and carry port services to the freight agents located north of the Pyrenees. In sum, it taps into new traffics starting and/or ending in the French departments of Midi-Pyrenées and Aquitaine. CILSA, the company that manages the Logistics Activities Area (ZAL) of the Port of Barcelona, is responsible for developing the tmT project in the new facilities of the Eurocentre logistics platform 20 km outside Toulouse. The terminal will offer a 17-hectare logistics activities area with space for local and Port of Barcelona international maritime trade operators to set up, in addition to a ContainerFreight Station in the remaining three hectares. The first logistics warehouses are due to became available in 2009. (Information &
Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 40)Perpignan goods terminal Perpignan, just 187 kilometres north of Barcelona, is another major logistics and communications node due to its location on two of the Port of Barcelonaʼs strategic land transport corridors: Toulouse – Bordeaux and Montpellier – Lyon – Southern Germany – Northern Italy. It is an exceptionally-located site for intermodal connections of French and European traffic to Barcelona. This has led the Port to initiate procedures for setting up a goods terminal in Perpignan. The first step was to acquire 5% of the shares of the Local Joint Venture Limited Company, Perpignan/Saint Charles Conteneur Terminal. This company manages a rail terminal located next to the Saint Charles market, one of southern Europes main logisticsand distribution centres for vegetables and fresh produce, and other types of goods. The Port of Barcelona aims to implement a goodsterminal in the short term, and has already signed an agreement to develop a 30-hectare ZAL. (Information & Photograph: Port deBarcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 40)Service centre for France The Port of Barcelona has plans for France that are more ambitious than its presence at the facilities in Toulouse and Perpignan and its future sites in Lyon and Northern France. In 2008 various specialised services were created for French customers, under the collective term Service Centre for France. The Port uses this concept as a vector for offering free, tailormade support in the physical and documentary operations involved in the movement through the port. It provides the support of consultants facilitators specialized in setting up efficient logistics chains through the Port, and a team dedicated to creating rail services with France. The increased flows of goods originating or ending in France that passed through the Port of Barcelona were the result of the efforts of the Port Community. The process was also facilitated by sweeping changes in Community Customs rules, which have harmonizedprocedures with other EU countries. One result of this is that a tax representative is no longer required. Another, perhaps the mostimportant, is that French and non-French hauliers are now free to transport containers by land in and out of the Port of Barcelona.(Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 40-41)New Barcelona - Lyon Express Rail ServiceIn the Barcelona – Lyon corridor, the APB has been involved as the business developer and the facilitator of the creation of a new railservice linking the Port of Barcelona with the main cities and regions of France that generate external trade. By virtue of the agreementsigned with Renfe Operadora and Naviland Cargo, a specific offer of rail services has been designed for this corridor. The service startedoperating early in 2009 with three weekly trips in each direction. The ʻBarcelyon Expressʼ service connects the Port of Barcelonas twocontainer terminals (TCB and TerCat) with the Naviland Cargo rail terminal in Vénissieux (Lyon) at the centre of one of the main logisticsnodes in France. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 42)FERRMEDThe APB is an active member of the FERRMED association, set up to promote the Western Mediterranean – Rhone – Rhine – ScandinaviaEuropean goods rail axis between Algeciras (South Spain) and Stockholm. FERRMEDs activity focuses on performing a technical,socioeconomic and supply and demand study including the entire area of influence of the axis. The studys conclusions should serve toinclude this major axis as a priority project in the forthcoming review of the European Commissions European transport policy in 2010. TheSpanish government has already expressed its support to the association in this matter. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 42)Tanger-Med Logistics AreaThe expansion of the Ports hinterland will also mean a greater presence on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. In April 2008, thePort of Barcelona and TangerMed signed a cooperation agreement to enhance their mutual relations. This also involves the Port ofBarcelona developing a logistics area in Tangier to serve the operators of the routes between Spain and Morocco that use these ports. ThePort of Barcelona will operate a ten hectare logistics area, five hectares of which will be in the logistics tax free zone and five hectares in theTangerMed dry port area. The strategic focus of the ports network is the APBs response to market demands and a way of contributing tothe strategic aim of making the Port a large distribution concentration and logistics centre for Mediterranean cargo. This involves providingtransport and logistics services inside and outside the Port by forging alliances with other external operators to attend to increasinglyglobalised production and distribution needs. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 42)Intermodal Logistics Centre (CILSA) This year the Intermodal Logistics Centre (CILSA) continued to roll out the second phase of the Port of Barcelonas 143- hectare Logistics Activities Area (ZAL) located at El Prat de Llobregat, South West from the Barcelona centre, situated in the delta of the Llobregat river, also occupied by the Barcelona Airport. The foundations for its success are its strategic location, allowing goods to be distributed efficiently ! !"#$%$&()#*+"$%+,-+ .(/-0$1(2+3114(0+5-)$%2+ to the markets of the Iberian Peninsula, the south of France, 67782+)(&-+9<;+ Italy, and North Africa; a flexible offer of high-quality buildings which meet all the new standards on fire prevention; and a !"#$%$&()#*+"$%+,-+.(/-0$1(2+3114(0+5-)$%2+67782+ )(&-+9:;+ !
wide range of complementary services for companies and individuals. This responds to CILSAs intention to generate synergies among thedifferent operators and achieve economies of scale by managing different common services. All the companies that set up in the ZAL mustcontribute to helping the Port of Barcelona to achieve its goal of growing into the first Euromediterranean logistics hub. To this end, all thecompanies in the ZAL have to guarantee that at least 30% of the traffic that they generate involves the maritime mode. The total activity ofthese customers generates annual traffic of two and a half million tonnes of goods, 35% of which begin or end at sea. Among the leadingnational and international companies currently occupying the ZAL, 45.7% provide logistics services, 28.3% are logistics operators, 18.5%are freight forwarders, 5.4% are distributors and 2.1% are involved in the import-export business. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008,pages 46-47)Leading the way in CSRCILSA is involved in a great many social, environmental and employment activities that are part of its approach to Corporate SocialResponsibility (CSR). The company applies sustainability criteria in its projects:• Fostering public transport to provide access to the ZAL • Creating green areas between the logistics buildings • Applying water-savingcriteria for irrigation • Use of low-consumption outdoor lights to avoid light pollution • Large covered areas with roof lights to maximise use ofsunlight • Thermal insulation in buildings • Open-plan design of warehouses to facilitate operations • Provision of services for people withinthe complex: Service Center, restaurants, shops, childcare facilities, etc. • Photovoltaic electrical generation areas to bring about a zeroCO2 emission rating • Ongoing audits to improve the output of the facilities • Fostering Short Sea Shipping and intermodal transport •Optimizing land use • Reduction of empty transport • Sustainability awareness campaigns • Fostering off-peak transport (night transport) •Reducing intermediate transport • Coordinating the Delta Mobility Council • Optimizing linear support infrastructures. (Port de Barcelona,Annual Report, 2008, page 47)Stable cargo In 2008, the more than thirty terminals at the Port of Barcelona handled a total of 51.8 million tonnes of cargo, including victualling and fishing. This is a slight increase over 2007 (+0.87%), in spite of the worldwide decrease in maritime cargo transport as a result of the global slowdown that began in 2008. It is therefore noteworthy that the Port of Barcelona managed to record increases in various traffics against falling global cargo levels. This is the case of liquid bulks, mainly energy products such as natural gas or petrochemicals. This traffic grew by 10% in 2008 to reach a total of 12.1 million tonnes handled. General cargo reached 34.9 million tonnes, practically the same level as the previous year. Containerized cargo traffic, the main component of general cargo, fell by 1.6% with regard to 2007, and stood at 2,569,549 million TEU (twenty-!"#$%$&()#*+"$%+,-+.(/-0$1(2+3114(0+5-)$%2+"(&-+667+ foot equivalent container units). The Far East and Japan make up the lions share of the Port of Barcelonaʼsmarket, as the nearly 600,000 TEU handled in the port in 2008 started or ended in a country from this region. Cargo to and from thisgeographical area grew 6% year-on-year. Specifically, China is the Ports main trading partner, with 23.3% of containers that pass throughour terminals starting or ending there.Although the Asian market is the strongest in absolute terms, we cannot ignore the dynamic behaviour of the North African market during2008. Traffic between the Port of Barcelona and North Africa (which received two trade missions - one to Morocco and one to Algeria)increased by 31% according to the final figures. In total, the Port of Barcelona transported 304,873 TEU starting or ending in markets inNorth Africa. Reduced consumption and production have especially affected traffic in new vehicles, which fell by 10.6% in 2008, closing theyear with a total of 716,306 cars handled. Nearly 90% of this volume corresponds to external traffic. Despite an increase during the first halfof the year (with two-digit growth up to April 2008), there was a marked reduction in such traffic during the second half of the year. The mostvehicles were shipped in February (76,902 units handled). Furthermore, cargo transport in SSS lines developed well, moving from 109,332ITU shipped in 2007 to 117,769 in 2008, an increase of 7.7%. The ITU is a unit of measurement equivalent to a means of land transport,whether self-propelled or not, such as trailers, platforms, trucks, refrigerated vans and so on. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008,page 55) (Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 72)
DEVELOPMENT IN SHIP TRAFFIC, 1999-2008, (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 55) Boost to Rail Traffic The growth in rail traffic, both of containers and vehicles, is one of the high notes of the panorama for 2008. It is also an indicator of the advances made by the Port and the different players that are strongly committed to enlarging the Portʼs hinterland by building intermodal connections to increase volumes of cargo transported by rail. Throughout 2008 a total of 52,562 TEU came in or out of the Port of Barcelona by rail, representing an increase of close to 26% over 2007, when the rail mode accounted for 41,770 TEU. The most dynamic months for train activity were during the summer and autumn, with a peak of more than 7,000 TEU transported in October. Two cargo corridors carry most of the traffic and far outstrip the others in the number of containers handled. The top position is held!"#$%$&()#*+"$%+,-+.(/-0$1(2+ by the corridor connecting Barcelona with the centre of the Peninsula, with 33.3% of all the TEU of3114(0+5-)$%2+67782+)(&-+9:;+ rail transport, while the connection with the Zaragoza area represents 32%. The Port of Barcelona achieved the most outstanding growth in vehicles transported by rail, with 34% more than in 2007.During 2008 a total of 156,188 vehicles were transported by rail, enabled to a large extent by the rail link between the SEAT factory inMartorell and the Port of Barcelona, which came into service just over a year ago. Total traffic at the Port of Barcelona was 50.5 milliontonnes, a 1% increase over the previous year, while container traffic was 2,569,549 TEU, down 1.6% year on year. As a result, incomefrom fees and services to goods was almost the same as in 2007 and those for ships increased by 2%. Furthermore, the positivedevelopment of passenger traffic, with 3.2 million people passing through our port during the year, pushed up income by 16%. Income fromconcessions in the public domain grew 7% to consolidate their role as the Ports main source of income, contributing 43% to overallturnover. Staff costs increased 4% year on year, while other operating expenses - external services - generated an expense of 19.5 million,33% higher than the previous year. There was a 28% increase in depreciation of fixed assets as a result of the entry into service of the firsttwo stretches of the South seawall at the end of 2007, accounting for an accumulated investment of 230 million EUR. The East seawall andthe third stretch of the South seawall also came on stream in September and October 2008, involving a total investment of 373 million EUR.The absorption ratio of current expenses over net turnover remained steady at 31%, in line with the last four years. (Port de Barcelona,Annual Report, 2008, page 58)(Photographs: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 58 & 60)Systems and DevelopmentsContainer Terminals Cruise Ship Terminals- Specialists in container handling - Specialits in container handling- Highly qualified staff - Highly qualified staff- 2 international terminals: TCB and TerCat - 2 international terminals: TCB and TerCat- Up to 16-metre draught for all kinds of ships (super-post-panamax) - Up to 16-metre draught for all kinds of ships (super-post-- 17 container cranes panamax)- More than 3 000 metres of berthing line - 17 container cranes
- Rail facilities for handling and shipment - More than 3 000 metres of berthing line- 1 terminal for national and coastal shipping traffic: Estibadora de - Rail facilities for handling and shipmentPonent - 1 terminal for national and coastal shipping traffic: Estibadora- 1 terminal for multipurpose ships with handling of containers and de Ponentconventional cargo: Terminal Port Nou - 1 terminal for multipurpose ships with handling of containers and conventional cargo: Terminal Port Nou - The leading European cruiser port and a Mediterranean turnaround base - 7 international passenger terminals - Wide range of specialised companies in the sector - Leaders in security and specific logistics for cruise traffic - Major private investments in specialised terminals - Consolidation of the city-port relations - ʻMedcruiseʼ member, The Association of Mediterranean Cruise Ports(Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 25)(Photographs: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 41, 61, 52, 51, 54, 23)More Passengers Passing Through BarcelonaThe progression of passenger figures was the most positive of the various traffics flowing through the Port each year, with a total of3,236,976 people arriving or leaving from the Port aboard regular ferries and cruise ships. The tourist cruiser sector experienced the mostoutstanding growth (17.5%), allowing a total of 2,074,554 passengers to be transported. This is a new record for the Port of Barcelona,which consolidated its role as the leading cruiser port in the Mediterranean and pushed its ranking up to number five worldwide, behind thebig four Caribbean tourist ports - Miami, Port Canaveral and Port Everglades in Florida, and Cozumel in Mexico. It is important to point outthat 56% of all cruise passengers passing through the Port of Barcelona are in turnaround (in other words, they start and/or end their cruisein this port, where they embark or disembark). This is especially significant because this type of passengers contributes the most to thelocal economy, because they spend more time in the city.Regular ferry lines provided service to a total of 1,162,422 passengers, an increase of 4.3% over 2007. The progression in passengerflows was helped by the Short Sea Shipping (SSS) services connecting Barcelona with the Italian ports of Genoa, Civitavecchia (Rome)and Livorno. These routes were used by a total of 396,477 passengers, which is a 26.6% increase year-on-year. Coastal shipping withNorth Africa also performed very well, mainly with the consolidation of the line linking Barcelona with the port of Tangiers in Morocco. Therewas a 94% increase up to 41,634 passengers.(Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 54-55)
(Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 12)Terminal A– Adossat wharf Due to the fast growing number of home port passengers, and the bigger capacity of the ships, Creuers del Port de Barcelona, the current concessionaire of the Terminal, has decided to demolish the existing cruise Terminal A and build a new one, prepared to operate the future mega cruise ships. The project included the expansion from 3.600 m2 to over 6.200 m2, and incorporates last requeriments concerning security, comfort. Fast passengers and luggage processing and architectural image. Gangways offer wharfand luggage conveyors will ensure passengers not to be mixed with trucks, forklitfs and handling staff.The total investment made by Creuers del Port de Barcelona is near €15 milion. Demolition works started November 2006 and theTerminal was ready in 2008. The total project fully complies with ISPS regulations (International Ship and Port Security Code)Technical specifications - Indoor Area: 3.450 m2 - Berthing line: 700 m. - Ship length: no limit - Draught: 12 m. - Wharf width: 26 m. -Wharf height: 2,1 m. - Turnaround: 3.000 pax. - Distance to city: 2 km.Services - Police - Immigration - Metal detectors - X-Rays machines - Air conditioning - Public telephones (Cash/Visa payment) - Foreignexchange - Duty free shops - Souvenir shops - Delivery service - Bar - restaurant - Parking area for buses - Shuttle bus to city buses -Taxi rank. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Terminals, Cruise Ships, 2009)Terminal B – Adossat wharf In response to the continuous increasing passenger traffic, Creuers del Port de Barcelona, SA, the contractor at the terminal, inaugurated in April 2005 the new turnaround cruise terminal. Terminal B is designed to operate next deployments of 140,000 tonnes and 3,600 passenger mega cruise ships in the Mediterranean area after a total investment of over € 10 million. Terminal B has a total of 6,500 sqm., which are divided in two main areas: check-in and luggage claiming area. It is designed with last requirements concerning security, comfort, fast processing operations and image, and it is equipped with 2 wharf gangways and 4 luggage conveyor belts. Miami architectural firm BEA International has been the designer of this new terminal, which will fullycomply with International Shipand Port Security code (ISPS).Technical specifications - Indoor Area: 6.500 m2 - Berthing line: 700 m. - Ship length: no limit - Draught: 12 m. - Wharf width: 21 m. -Wharf height: 2,1 m. - Turnaround: no limit - Distance to city: 2 km.Services - Police - Immigration - Metal detectors - X-Rays machines - 2 passanger gangways - 4 luggage conveyors - Air conditioning -Public telephones (Cash/Visa payment) - Foreign exchange - Duty free shops - Souvenir shops - Bar - restaurant - Parking area forbuses - Shuttle bus to city centre - Taxi rank. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Terminals, Cruise Ships, 2009) Terminal C - Adossat wharf This terminal, also equipped with all kind of services, has suffered an important refurbishment made together by Creuers del Port de Barcelona, S.A. and the Port Authority. Its 4,000 sqm. are used in a multipurpose way so as to make it possible to provide service to both turnaround and transit operations. Technical specifications - Indoor Area: 4.000 m2 - Berthing line: 580 m. - Ship length: no limit - Draught: 12 m. - Wharf width: 22 m. - Wharf height: 2,1 m. - Turnaround: 3.000 pax. - Distance to city: 2,5 km. Services - Police - Immigration - Metal detectors - X-Rays machines - Air conditioning - Publictelephones (Cash/Visa payment) - Foreign exchange - Duty free shops - Souvenir shops - Bar - restaurant - Parking area for buses -Shuttle bus to city centre - Taxi rank. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Terminals, Cruise Ships, 2009)
Terminal D – Palacruceros - Adossat wharf The Palacruceros is a state-of the-art facility of almost 10.000 sqm in two main floors designed by Luigi Vicini and Andrea Piazza. Amongst its services, it isto enhance the VIP lounge, the Childrenʼs room, a shopping center, the Palacafé with its wonderful sea view “terrasse” or the Internet Point. The total amount invested to its construction, which has been wholly financed by the Italian company, Costa Crociere, S.p.A., has been 12 milion euros. The terminal, that have preference for a Carnival Corporation groupʼs ship, but under a neutral management, foresees an activity of over 170 calls and 400.000 passengers. Technical specifications - Indoor Area: 10.000 m2 - Berthing line: 580 m. - Ship length: no limit - Draught:12 m. - Wharf width: 22 m. - Wharf height: 2,1 m. - Turnaround: no limit pax. - Distance to city: 2,5 km.Services - Police - Immigration - Metal detectors - X-Rays machines - Air conditioning - Public telephones (Cash/Visa payment) - Foreignexchange - Duty free shops - Souvenir shops - Bar - restaurant – terrasse - Internet point - Childrenʼs room - Crew members room -Parking area for buses - Shuttle bus to city centre - Taxi rank. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Terminals, Cruise Ships,2009)Terminals North and South – Barcelona wharf These two international terminals are on the Barcelona wharf, with a total of 824 meters of berthing line and are part of the World Trade Center, a State-of-the-Art business centre located at the Barcelona wharf. The North Terminal is prepared to give service to one medium sized vessel and the South Terminal can receive two ships, the biggest one as long as 253 meters. The additional mooring space on the eastern side of the quay can beused by either Terminal Nord or Terminal Sud. Both terminals are sited at such aproximity to the city centre that tourists can walk to Plaça Colom in 5 minutes. Technical specifications - Indoor Area: 5.000 m2 - Berthing line: 230 m.(Nord) – 434 (Sud) – 160 (E) - Ship length: 160 m.(Nord) – 253 (Sud) – 205 (E) - Draught: 8 m.(Nord) – 7,7 m.(Sud) – 9,5 m.(E) -Wharf width: 14 (Nord i Sud) – 18 m.(E) - Wharf height: 2,5 m. - Turnaround: 800 pax. (Nord) – 1.100 pax. (Sud) – Transit only (E) -Distance to city: 400 m.Services - Police - Immigration - Metal detectors - X-Rays machines - 2 passenger gangways - Luggage conveyors - Air conditioning -Public telephones (Cash/Visa payment) - Foreign exchange - Duty free shops - Souvenir shops - Parking area for buses - Taxi rank.(Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Terminals, Cruise Ships, 2009)Terminal M – Port Vell – Espanya wharf In Espanya wharf there is Terminal M–Port Vell, situated in the Maremagnum leisure area. It is the smallest Terminal and provides service to vessels with smaller capacities and lengths. Technical specifications - Indoor Area: 480 m2 - Berthing line: 220 m. - Ship length: 140 m. - Draught: 8,6 m. - Wharf width: 10 m. - Wharf height: 2,35 m. - Turnaround: 200 pax. - Distance to city: 400 m. Services - Air conditioning - Public telephones (Cash/Visa payment) - Souvenir shops - Bars, restaurants and coffee places - Lifts and escalators - Shuttle bus to city centre - Nearby access to metropolitan public transports network - Taxi rank - Other advantages: cinema, lʼAquarium, IMAX. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Terminals, Cruise Ships, 2009)Terminal Ferry de Barcelona – Sant Bertran wharf This ferry terminal is provided with all the necessary equipment to serve cruise lines operations with the highest standards of security. Its use is sometimes required when the season gets very busy and basically to transit operations. Technical specifications - Indoor Area: 2.200 m2 - Berthing line: 255 m. - Ship length: 220 m. - Draught: 11 m. - Wharf width: 12 m. - Wharf height: 2,15 m. - Turnaround: 250 pax. - Distance to city: 400 m. Services - Air conditioning - Public telephones (Cash/Visa payment) - Souvenir shops - Bar - restaurant - Lifts and escalators - Nearby access to metropolitan public transports network - Taxis. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Terminals, Cruise Ships, 2009)Terminal Z – Drassanes – Barcelona wharf Only on occasional situations this ferry terminal is used for cruise ships. It fulfills with security requirements. Services - Air conditioning - Public telephones (Cash/Visa payment) - Bar - restaurant - Lifts and escalators - Nearby access to metropolitan public transports network - Taxi rank. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Terminals, Cruise Ships, 2009)
GUIDING PRINCIPALSPort Developments and Master PlanningThe master plan of a port allocates the land within the port to the various uses required, describes the projects needed to implement theplan, and gives an indicative implementation scheme by development phase. These phases are related directly to the projected port traffic,which has to be monitored closely. When in due course a decision is reached to proceed with implementation of a development scheme,this should be integrated smoothly with, or derive from, the master plan for the port. Therefore, it is important that a master plan exists, anddrafting one should be among the primary concerns of port management. Of course, a variety of continuously varying factors have abearing on such a plan, ranging from statistical data on port traffic to international treaties. For this reason, the plan should be revisedregularly, at least every five years. Moreover, if during the design of a particular development phase the need arises for a review of theplan, this should be conducted concurrently, if possible, to ensure compatibility with the other functions and operations of the port. However,the lack of a master plan at a particular port should not delay the making of decisions for small-scale immediate improvement, although it isrecommended that at the first opportunity an effort should be made to draft a master plan for the port.(Port Planning, 2004, page 10)Long-Term PlanningIn the event that a national ports plan does not exist, the consultant should proceed with drafting a master plan, after studying the followingcomponents of long-term planning:1. The role of the port—in particular: (a) The servicing of its inland area as regards foreign trade (b) The support that the port may offer tothe regionʼs commercial and industrial development (c) The attraction of transiting and transshipment traffic.2. The responsibility of the port for the construction of both port and land works. Frequently, more than one agency becomes involved: forexample, when a port area is serviced by a railroad.3. The land use in the area and the potential for expansion of the port. It is important that there be general agreement between interestedparties over the proposed expansions and land use so that the resulting master plan meets with wide acceptance.4. The policy for financing the port development, which may be formulated on the basis of its own resources and/or through a governmentgrant. In general, in modern port development the basic requirement is for large expanses of land to ensure productive operation of theindividual terminals. Therefore, a careful examination of point 3 assumes particular importance.(Port Planning, 2004, page 10)Medium-Term PlanningEach port development scheme should be incorporated in the master plan and should proceed to implementation following the results of anappropriate feasibility study. The latter study should refer individually to each independentsection of the overall development proposal, such as a container terminal or a bulk cargo terminal. Thus, under a positive but reduced yieldfrom the overall proposal, the risk of concealment of a nonproductive section is avoided. The drafting of a port development plan calls forthe conduct of the following special studies:1. Analysis of the functionality of the port as regards the services offered in conjunction with capacity2. Designs, with budgets3. Operational design, with budget4. Financial and financing studyIn large port development projects it is customary to reexamine the organization and management of the port operating agency and torecommend organizational improvements on a small or larger scale. It is possible that many of the ports in a country do not warrant adevelopment effort beyond maintenance of existing structures or appropriate modification, such as to serve fishing vessels or pleasurecrafts. Such modifications are nowadays met quite frequently, since old ports, traditionally being part of the core of their town, cannot easilyincorporate large land expanses needed in modern port layouts. Also, environmental and social issues do not allow in many cases majorexpanses of an old port site. The requirement that the citizenship should be granted free access to the waterfront of their city is graduallybeing respected by more and more authorities. Nevertheless, the problem of what to do with the old port installations is a complex one,where both the needs of the local community and the benefits of the relevant port authority should be accommodated. As noted above acommon trend is to change the character of a past commercial port into a marina or fishing vessels refuge, where old ports were completelyrefurbished into commercial or recreational zones, some of them arousing controversial discussions among town-planners. Since portsinteract in many ways with the surrounding township, port master planning should take into account, apart from strictly engineering issues,such aspects as social, economic, and environmental constraints and should easily fit within the relevant town and regional plans. Thisfrequently calls for a compromise between the requirements of the port and the local authorities.(Port Planning, 2004, pages 10-11)Guiding Principles for Port DesignIf the undertaking involves the development of an existing port, before proceeding with development plans it would be prudent to makeefforts to (1) Increase productivity and (2) improve existing installations. Factors that contribute to increasing productivity in an existing portare improvements in loading and unloading practices, to the overall operation of the port terminals, and to modernization of cargo handlingand hauling equipment. As pointed out, the expansionsthat may be required additionally to the improvements above should be incorporated in the master plan of the port and should beimplemented within a time horizon in order to constitute productive projects according to the pertinent feasibility studies. Particularly asregards the individual terminals within a port, the respective capacity calculations are based on different factors, depending on the nature ofeach terminal as follows:1. In conventional cargo terminals, the required number of berths is determined first, to keep vesselsʼ waiting time below a specified limit,
determined by economic and other criteria.2. In container terminals, the land area required for the unobstructed movement of cargo flow is calculated.3. For specialized bulk cargo terminals, the cargo flow during loading and unloading has to be calculated first, to ensure that vessels will beserviced within acceptable periods of time. As arrival times of commercial vessels at ports cannot adhere to an exact schedule, enablingready scheduling of requisite berthing and eliminating waiting time, to determine the number of berths a compromise is usually madebetween two extreme situations: on the one hand, the minimization of vessel waiting time, and on the other, the maximization of berthoccupancy.(Port Planning, 2004, pages 11-12)Port CostsTwo factors constitute port costs: investment cost, which does not depend on traffic, and operating cost, which does. A shipʼs cost in port isalso made up of two constituents: the cost of the vesselʼs waiting time and the cost of the ship while berthed The sum of the port cost andthe cost of the ship in port provides a total cost.A measure often used to describe the level of service offered to vessels is the ratio of waiting time to service time. It is generallyrecommended that this ratio be lower than, say, 20%, but there is a danger here of showing an improvement of service provided through aunilateral increase in service time. This is why for the purposes of evaluation, absolute values of total vessel waiting time at the port arealso required.(Port Planning, 2004, page 12)Port Master PlansFrom a construction point of view, ports may be classified into the following categories:1. Artificial Ports. Artificial ports are those constructed along a shoreline by means of earth fill or excavation. In both cases these ports haveto be protected from the adverse effects of waves and currents. In the former case the land part of a port is created by means of earth fill,and in the latter case the port basin is created artificially by means of excavation of land adjacent to the shoreline. The geometry of theexcavated basin depends on port size and mode of operation. The excavated harbor is joined with the sea via an approach channel. Theentrance to this channel is usually protected from waves and current by means of breakwaters and dikes.2. Ports Constructed in a Natural Harbor. Significant factors to be considered in opting for one of the foregoing types of port is availability ofland, land fill material, soil quality, depth of water, environmental conditions, and others.(Port Planning, 2004, page 17)Port LocationsTraditionally, ports are situated in a location central to the urban area they serve. The port is thus surrounded by urbanized area, and bothfurther development of the port and access to it are rendered difficult. This situation restricts expansion of the port required to meet moderndemands. In most cases, a feasibility survey for relocation of the port outside the city will have to be conducted. The prerequisites for suchrelocation are (1) secure maritime approaches, (2) ample availability of land area, and (3) satisfactory access by land. For an initial new siteevaluation, an extensive list of data to be collected is usually drawn up. Some of the items included are: • Uses and ownership of the land •Topography and access • Existing utilities and structures at the site • Wind and rainfall data • Hydrographic information • Geotechnical data,including potential sources of construction materials • Environmental assessment of the area.During the initial site evaluation, some aspects of the project that may affect its development should be investigated. These may includenecessary permissions and ownership implications, dredging and spoil disposal requirements, environmental constraints, and so on. Incases of inability to relocate, an alternative to be examined is that of establishing additional land facilities inland such as an inland depot.(Port Planning, 2004, page 17)Design CriteriasDuring the master planning stage of a project preliminary design criteria should be proposed covering aspects such as types of operationsto be undertaken (e.g., containers, transit and transshipment flows, import/export; design vessel, operating equipment).(Port Planning, 2004, page 17)General Layout of Port Works - Guiding PrinciplesThe arrangement of port works should be such as to ensure easy berthing of vessels, secure efficient cargo loading and unloading, andsafe passenger embarkation and disembarkation operations. Specifically, easy access of vessels to a port should be ensured through anappropriate navigation channel, a suitably designed port entrance, an adequate maneuvering area, and avoidance of undesirable erosion ordeposition of material in and around the harbor area.(Port Planning, 2004, pages 17-19)Port EntrancesThe port entrance demands careful consideration to ensure quick and safe entry of vessels in the harbor. The orientation and width of theentrance should reconcile two opposing criteria. For reasons of comfortable navigation, the harbor entrance should communicate directlywith the open sea and should be as wide as possible. On the other hand, the narrower and more protected the entrance, the smaller thedegree of wave energy and deposits that penetrate the harbor basin, resulting in more favorable conditions for attaining tranquility of the in-harbor sea surface. It is recommended that orientation of the entrance be such that vessels entering the harbor have the prevailing wind tothe fore. Transverse winds and waves create difficult conditions for steering a vessel through the critical phase of entering the harbor basin,and a layout of port works that would permit frequent occurrences of such situations should be avoided.(Port Planning, 2004, pages 19-21)
Connections with Inland AreasThe nature of a modern cargo port resembles more a cargo handling hub within a combined transport system than a sea transport terminalpoint. Consequently, a basic element in the smooth operation and development of a terminal are the portʼs inland connections. Theseconnections, through which non-sea transport of goods to and from the port is effected, may be road or rail accesses, artificial or naturalinland navigable routes, airlines, or oil product pipelines. Road, rail, and river connections (to which we refer later) can also connect a portwith specialized cargo concentration terminals located in suitable inland depots. These stations serve to smooth out the peaks in demandand supply of goods to a port that has limited storage areas. The provision of inland storage areas forming part of a port is a moderntendency pronounced in container transport, which creates the need for larger backup areas and also a need for boxes to stay in port for ashorter time. The transport of goods between port and inland depots is thus carried out quickly and efficiently, in contrast with the traditionalservicing of all destination points directly from a port without intermediate transshipment. In addition to being effected by road, theconnection between port and inland depot may be by rail, particularly when the distance is great. In the latter case, the loading of trains,when this involves imports, may be effected at a small distance from the port, where the goods are forwarded through a system of wheeledtrailers fed from the port. In each case, the traditional arrangement in general cargo terminals in which rail (or road) vehicles approach thedocks for immediate loading and unloading of cargo through the use of dock cranes is being abandoned. The main reason for thisdevelopment is that loading/unloading vehicles obstruct dock operations, in addition to the frequent inability to coordinate ship–trainoperations, resulting in vessel delay. Two alternative handling options are available in this respect: (1) the full cargo can be forwardedinland via port sheds, or (2) ʻʻdirectʼʼ loading/unloading to and from rail or road vehicles can be retained but conducted at some distancefrom the docks. The second alternative demands an additional fleet of tractors and platforms to link docks with transshipment areas tomeans of overland transportation.(Port Planning, 2004, pages 26-27)Many ports throughout the world are constructed at the mouths of navigable rivers or canals, to connect them with other areas by means ofinland navigable routes. Connections by inland navigation offer economy and are particularly suitable for the transport of bulk cargoes andfor supporting combined transports between river ports and seaports that serve barge-carrying vessels.(Port Planning, 2004, page 29)Storage AreasA small portion of the total throughput of a general cargo terminal is either loaded directly to or discharged directly from land transportationmeans without requiring storage at the terminal. The other cargo is stored for a period of time in sheds, open areas, or warehouses.(Port Planning, 2004, page 34)Review of Existing Port InstallationsThe examination of existing installations should precede any decision to expand old, or to construct new, port terminals. The purpose ofsuch a study is to identify any functional difficulties that would detract significantly from the theoretical productivity of the marine and landsector of the port terminal. In many cases, improved organization of the componentoperations of the port terminal produces a significant increase in its productivity. In addition to an improvement in the terminalʼsorganizational structure, there is the possibility of introducing structural changes and upgrades of port installations, which will usuallynecessitate a considerable expenditure. It should be noted that in many cases, technological developments and changes in packaging andcargo handling methods frequently render the upgrading of existing installations a difficult and complicated task. At the same time, theexistence of spare capacity is always a desirable feature in a modern port able to accommodate peaks in cargo flows, albeit with reducedproductivity.(Port Planning, 2004, page 31)General Cargo TerminalsThe first phase in a design for expansion of an existing break-bulk cargo terminal or for the creation of a new one involves diligent collectionand analysis of statistical data regarding the existing terminalʼs output. This analysis will also determine the ʻʻageʼʼ of the existing terminal—in other words, the degree to which the owners of this break-bulk cargo terminal are prepared to see it evolve into a multipurpose terminalor even into a specialized container or bulk-cargo terminal. This decision will be based on the percentages of the flows and the unit loadingthat conventionally packaged cargoes assume over time. Analysis of these data will also reveal whether berth productivity falls short oftheoretical values. In this case, and particularly if significant vessel waiting times are observed, the cause of the reduced output should belooked into carefully. Usually, a standard efficiency rating per berth with a high degree of break-bulk cargo traffic is 100,000 tons per year,whereas if unitized cargoes constitute 30 to 40% of the traffic, this productivity figure may rise to more than 150,000 tons per year.(Port Planning, 2004, page 31)Bulk Cargo TerminalsTo decide on the expansion of a bulk cargo terminal, the data from the existing terminal have to be considered. Just as in the case of break-bulk terminals, the purpose of this examination is to determine whether the lower productivity of the terminal is due to malfunctioning or toincreases in traffic volume. In ore-exporting terminals, the latter case may be due to improvements in mining technology or to discoveries ofnew deposits. The study should focus on such issues as coordination between the various phases of product movement, on lags, if suchexist, during which no product is available for loading on the vessel, and on the method of cargo movement over land. The findings of thisexamination will lead to a decision either to improve the operational procedures and the equipment of the existing terminal, or to create anadditional bulk cargo terminal.(Port Planning, 2004, page 31)
Basic Design Criteria for MarinasMarinas provide harboring and supply and repair services for pleasure boats. Recently, marine tourism and other recreational activities,such as amateur fishing and sailing, have increased rapidly worldwide, with a corresponding pleasure craft and in a requirement formooring spaces. To be classified as a fully developed marina, a harbor should satisfy certain criteria that extend beyond the provision ofmooring slots. These services include water and bunker supply, availability of a repair unit, vessel lifting and launching arrangements, asupplies and provisions outlet, and vessel dry berthing. Pleasure boats fall mainly into two categories: motor-powered and sailboats. Boatsof these categories differ with regard to the geometric characteristics necessary for designing the moorings and in general, all the elementsof a marina. The percentage of participation of each category in the total number of vessels to be serviced in the marina depends primarilyon the country and the marine region involved. Over time, these percentages vary in accordance with the development of this type ofrecreation as well as other parameters.(Port Planning, 2004, page 47)Water-Dependent UsesCompeting demands for use of the shoreline and the increasing value of waterfront property have displaced many traditional waterfrontactivities. State and local governments have responded with innovative policies and techniques to preserve water-dependent uses andtraditional working waterfronts. Historically, coastal communities relied upon water-dependent uses of their shorelines, such as commercialfishing and shipping, for their livelihood. Today, in coastal communities, water-dependent uses are threatened with displacement or havegiven way to more profitable non-water-dependent uses, such as residential development, hotels, offices, restaurants and retail shops.(Preserving Waterfronts for Water Dependant Uses, 1997, pages 1-2)Waterfront communities are encouraged to develop policies to balance the competing demands on finite coastal resources, such as sitessuitable for water-dependent uses, and to implement these policies by: (1) preserving existing water-dependent uses; (2) reservingappropriate vacant lands for water-dependent uses; and (3) designating lands for redevelopment with water-dependent usesA policy which specifies, either what types of development are suitable along the coast or what areas of the coast are suitable fordevelopment. In most cases, water-dependent uses are given a higher priority than non-water dependent uses in the coastal zone.(Preserving Waterfronts for Water Dependant Uses, 1997, page 5)Many coastal areas/ waterfronts do not allow shoreline development unless it is water dependent or there are no feasible alternatives fornon-water-dependent development.(Preserving Waterfronts for Water Dependant Uses, 1997, page 6)Public funding has financed capital improvements for infrastructure required by water dependent uses.Communities have also paid to construct bulkheads, boardwalks and public fishing platforms. Although the cost is high, some communitieshave acquired waterfront property to ensure space for future public water-dependent uses.With limited areas available for expanding or relocating facilities for existing water-dependent uses, local policy-makers are searching forcreative approaches to balance competing interests on the waterfront. Segregation, an article of faith in traditional zoning, is giving way to amix of waterfront uses in many local land use plans. A mix of uses is not without consequence, however. Individuals may find that the initial"charm" of working waterfronts pales in the realities of operating industry.Some waterfront industries worry that neighborhood and commercial pressures can jeopardize their ability to function in a marketenvironment. Finally, some policy analysts see granting priority to water-dependent uses as a free market interference that is compromisingthe ability of waterfront communities to change with the industries that have traditionally occupied their waterfronts.(Preserving Waterfronts for Water Dependant Uses, 1997, page 7)Other factors, such as the consolidation of port activities and regional economic trends, such as the transition from an economy based onheavy manufacturing and distribution of goods to a more diversified, service-oriented economy have accelerated this trend.(Preserving Waterfronts for Water Dependant Uses, 1997, page 8)Traditional working waterfront activities, such as dockage for day-sail schooners and whale-watching vessels, and public fish markets,enhance historic preservation efforts in coastal communities dependent on tourism money(Preserving Waterfronts for Water Dependant Uses, 1997, page 6)ShippingRapid changes in freight shipping, centered around containerized cargo and the modern logistics revolution highlight the risks of high costcapital investments that will take many years, or decades, to complete and even longer to realize a reasonable rate of return.Raising the issue whether current Federal involvement in ports through dredging, landside transportation improvements or subsidizedcapital, among other things, needs to be reappraised before a new round of capital intensive investment begins.(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, pages 2-3)
The current practice of shipping freight cargo in twenty-foot containers has necessitated large-scale infrastructure investments andredefined the role of the longshoreman at modern ports. Specialized cranes and cargo handling gear, with expanded berths and storageand handling areas are just the minimum requirements to make a port attractive to shipping lines. Labor remains a critical ingredient in portoperations, but now technologically sophisticated equipment requires skilled operators who are capable of operating computerized controlsystems accurately and efficiently.(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, page 4)A complex web of public and private organizations at the national, state and local levels manage marine transport systems. Theseorganizations serve a wide variety of users, operators, and regulators and often have different (or even competing) priorities, requirementsand procedures. Even the coordination of the marine transportation system is complex and not always clearWithin this framework, many users and service providers, both public and private, must confront rapid technological change and the needfor large-scale investments in the marine transport system. The seemingly simple change from break-bulk, or general cargo, to the use ofstandard sized containers, combined with dramatic improvements in the loading and unloading of ships, changed the economics ofshipping by dramatically reducing the amount of time that a ship remained in port.As container fleets expanded and ship size increased, ports were forced to undertake billions of pounds/ Euros/ dollars in capitalinvestments for the construction of new facilities and the modernization of existing ones. Moreover, the investment in container relatedfacilities marked a shift in the financial responsibility for investments as port-related government funding replaced investment that had oftenbeen provided by private interests(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, page 5)The improved connections between ports and the countryʼs extensive rail and highway systems, and the physical ease by which acontainer can be transferred from one mode to another, have broken down the perception of individual ports as natural gateways toexclusive hinterlands. Container shipping is now a “door-to-door business” from the point of production to the point of consumption, with theshipping lines largely in control of the routing of cargo. Ports cannot feel secure that even cargo generated in their host cities will be shippedoverseas from their docks.For example, cargo generated on the East Coast of the USA and destined for the Far East is often shipped across the continent by rail toWest Coast ports. And within each coastal area there are a number of ports in competition, including ports in Canada. The result is thatinter-port competition has increased dramatically and some historically strong ports have lost much of their shipping traffic to other facilities.(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, page 7)The growth of shipping alliances has increased the bargaining power of shippers in their negotiations with ports. Alliances offer shippers theopportunity to achieve the economies of scale offered by increased vessel capacity without sacrificing the frequency of service that iscritically important to their customers. Major international shipping lines recognize their strong negotiating position and have, notsurprisingly, begun to play one port off of another to attain the most attractive facilities and price.(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, pages 7-8)Although they are required to make large investments to attract shipping activity, ports have little control over shipping line decisionsregarding the routing of freight.In other cases, ports have invested in expensive new infrastructure that did not fit in with the service networks that evolved from shippingline alliances and mergers.Beyond the landside infrastructure requirements many of the worlds harbors and channels are not naturally deep enough to accommodatethe latest-generation container ships, which require water depths of 45 feet or greater. Thus, dredging has become essential to portdevelopment.Traditionally, federal funds were used to pay for the construction and access of major channels, while non-federal funding has been used todredge berths and minor channels(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, pages 8-9)Dredging has become more complicated due to the presence of contaminated sediments and the shortage of disposal capacity forcontaminated materials. Even so the future of the dredging requirements is expected to grow above recent levels following the completionof current deepening projects and the associated increase in maintenance dredging requirements associated with these deeper channels.Many port authorities, around the world, have been structured as business-like enterprises, relying on subsidies to support investmentrequirements and on government support for channel dredging.Port development or expansion often involves the commitment of other public subsidies for intermodal transportation improvements.(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, pages 9-10)Dedicated rail links are designed to improve the movement of freight between the publicly owned ports privately operated rail-yards
These projects rely heavily on private financing, but they will receive loans and grants from the government.The most general federal subsidy for port investments arises through the issuance of tax-exempt debt by local governments and theirpolitical subdivisions (including port authorities).As a general rule, local governments may issue tax-exempt bonds for the construction of facilities that serve a public purpose. The privateparticipation in the port projects would normally cause the bonds to be taxable. However, bonds issued to support the construction andrenovation of docks, wharves and related facilities are considered to be “exempt facility bonds” and may be financed on a tax-exempt basiseven if the private participation exceeds the standard threshold.(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, page 11)As a result, port facilities have lower interest costs than they would if they were financed with otherwise equivalent taxable private debt.The private sector invests in, owns and operates much of the equipment, vehicles and vessels that make the movement of freight cargopossible. State, regional and local governments have the responsibility for the planning, development, financing and construction of muchof the landside port infrastructure.Other federal agencies have responsibility for related issues of safety, national security and the environment. A different set of federalagencies is responsible for the funding and oversight of projects to improve the landside access to ports.(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, page 12)Competing ports seek to make their facilities more attractive to the evolving needs of shipping lines and shippers. Toward this end theyhave developed new berths to handle modern container ships, undertaken equipment purchases to improve the efficiency of cargohandling, created new terminals and expanded storage yards, implemented state-of-the-art communications technology and worked withfederal, state and local governments to achieve better rail and highway links for landside port access. The ports have often expandedfacilities in advance of the demand for new services so that adequate capacity will be available to meet future needs.On the other side of this issue, detractors of the decentralized institutional structure might argue that this competitive port developmentprocess is wasteful, with the taxpayers money being spent on redundant cargo handling facilities. The economic advantages of operatinglarge size container ships has led shipping lines to concentrate cargo at a limited number of load centre ports. Following this argument,excess port capacity translates into a competitive environment that drives down port charges and increases the public subsidies that areneeded.(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, page 22)Moreover, port development chokes off alternative uses of valuable seaside property, disrupts nearby residential and businessdevelopment and may have negative environmental consequences from the dredging of contaminated materials. An overriding concern forpeople in this camp is that when nationally important infrastructure decisions are made locally, national interests are subordinate to localinterests and priorities.Those for whom these concerns about the decentralized process resonate most loudly would, most likely, welcome a broader governmentalrole in the development of port facilities.Departments must seek greater coordination and harmony among the myriad of federal agencies that are involved in policy making,investment strategies, resource allocations and environmental regulations.(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, page 23)To argue for a market solution to the problem of the institutional framework under which the nation plans, finances and undertakes portinvestment and to urge the removal of government subsidies that distort otherwise rational investment decisions. In the absence of thatoutcome, a periodic reassessment of the federal role in the planning and development of maritime infrastructure certainly seemsappropriate.(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, page 24)The rapid changes in the freight industry, coupled with increasing levels of public investment in port infrastructure and related waterwaysinvestment, raise the need to periodically reappraise the “hands-off” policy related to the federal involvement in landside ports infrastructure.Any arguments to modify the existing locally based decision-making structure for port infrastructure investments would undoubtedly beextremely controversial. If the government decides to undertake this reappraisal, it should not feel unduly constrained by perceivedconstitutional limitations on federal actions related to port facilities.(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, page 25)
(Photographs: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 19, 10 & 17)Barcelonaʼs Commercial and Leisure Port; ʻPort VellʼThe Port Vell represents a unique attraction for the city, the citizens and the enterprises. Every year Port Vell is visited by million of peopleand the success of any event held in this place is guaranteed.Port Vell shows year after year that the harmonious coexistence of leisure, culture and business activities, sport, professional fishing andvessel repairs is not only feasible, but necessary to create synergies and satisfy concession-holding companies and services to citizensand visitors. (Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Spaces, 2009)Marina Port Vell 1,598 vessels berthed from 6m to 130mCatalan History Museum 221,998 visitorsMaritime Museum 1,097,040 visits altogether, 332,405 in the exhibitionsMaremagnum 13 million visitorsLʼAquàrium de Barcelona Sea Life Centre 1,650,000 visitorsImax Port Vell 440,540 cinema-goersEl Far Consortium 72,726 usersBarcelona Swimming Club 8,383 membersAtlètic Barceloneta Swimming Club 12,096 members, 759,000 people entering the clubLas Golondrinas pleasure boats 272,092 passengers(Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Spaces, 2009)The Port Vell Operation in Barcleona• The Special Plan for the Port Vell of Barcelona was adopted in 1989.• This plan means the urban renewal of the Barcelonaʼs old port extending 55 Ha (13,59 acres) taking in all the quays built up since theXVIII century; those quays are located nearby city centre.• The Master Plan in 1976 included the idea of branching off the Llobregat River (an idea that has been implemented in the “Delta Plan”including the relationship among port, airport, train and roads). From this moment different plans existed to change the old urban port.• The port area is managed by the Port Authority, an independent body from the City and under the guidelines of Central Government.• Only a good relationship between the port and the city will make possible the regeneration of the old port.• Early in the 1980ʼs the Port Authority received an offer from EDC (Enterprise Development Co.), a company rooted in Rouse Co., to buildup a “fun city” in the old port of Barcelona.• But in any case, in the early 1980ʼs some plans to integrate port and city were on the table, specially from the moment the City Council thdecides to return the Paseo de Colón, the 19 century promenade, to its civic form.• A new buried urban motorway was designed by Solà Morales and the Paseo de Colón and the Moll de la Fusta (Wood Quay) will recovertheir physiognomy like a sea façade of the city.• The program guidelines, developed by an Urban development Corporation (the Port 2000), were set off from an approach of "mix offunctions" excluding the residential function because of legal reasons derived from the Metropolitan General Plan,.• The functional areas to plan were: Hotel, Offices, Culture, tourism, sport and Leisure.• This program was implemented in two phases.• A first one between 1989 and 1995 focussed on:a) The development of cultural and training equipment (Palau del Mar like headquarters of the Catalunya´s Museum of History and the ElFar - The lighthouse- building, Centre for the Seas Works);b) The arrangement of the Port Vells public spaces with special relevance of the continuation of the Ramblas through the Rambla del Mar,a bridge that links the city and the quay, a design by Piñon and Viaplana;c) The creation of a leisure area including the Sea World, Cinema and an IMAX;d) The creation of a commercial centre and coffee-shops and restaurants: the Maremagnum;
e) The development of sport equipment (Port Vell´s Marina), and;f) The creation of new ships terminals in order to allow Barcelona to become headquarter port for the Mediterranean cruises.• The second phase, between 1995 and the present time supposes a deep modification of the port structure through:a) The separation between the urban and the commercial port that requires the construction of a new mouth;b) The construction of a drawbridge that allows the connection between the two areas of the commerce port;c) The finalization of the World Trade Centre, a complex up to 135.000 m2 on international trade service, designed by Pei,Cobb, Freed &Partners including: a convention centre, business centres, a hotel and the services of restaurants and bars, and;d) The last foreseen proceeding is the construction of a new hotel designed by R. Bofill, 90m. high, in the platform of the new mouth. Thishotel will be part of the group of singular buildings that several architects are designing in Barcelona to create a new skyline.• The percentages for the non “free” space were: 22,0% sports (swimming pools), 5,0% institutional buildings, 14,5% offices, 24,3% retailand leisure, 15% technical support to the marina and fishermen, 4,2% education, 10,0% existing residential areas and 5,0% hotels,• All that represents the 20% of the operation area.• The uses for the rest of the area are: road infrastructure, water (included the Marina) and• Public Space (boulevards, promenades, etc).(Multifunctional Land Use in the Renewal of Harbour Areas: Patterns of Physical Distribution of the Urban Functions. On the Waterfront,2004)Port Vellʼs Commercial & Leisure ServicesBosch i Alsina wharf: is one of the largest spaces of the Port Vell. Itʼs an ideal place for acts of great magnitude, with great infrastructures and capacity for a large number of people. With an easy access, it has a car park in the Passeig de Colom. This space, known by all people as Moll de la Fusta, is a space very much integrated in the city. Year after year it provides space for activities, such as; markets like; the Festes de la Mercé (patron saintʼs day of Barcelona), the Festa de la Diversitat, exhibitions for promotion and the launch of different products. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Spaces, 2009)Rambla de Mar: is the most emblematic image of the Port Vell. The architecture and the urban furniture turn this Rambla into a singular walk by the sea. It is the natural continuation of the Rambles de Barcelona. Tourists, citizens of Barcelona, and the companies that film movies or advertisements, all benefit from this space. At certain times, the central part of this bridge pivots on its axis to allow the marinaʼs boats to come and go. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Spaces, 2009)Diposit Wharf: is a smaller wharf than all the others. It is ideal for the creation of specific atmospheres of street musicans and bands,weekend markets, and many terraced seafood restaurants, and for walks near the Marina Port Vell. It is divided in two areas: the Plaça Pau Vila (totally independent, where we can find temporary activities as the Firaires de la Barceloneta during the festivals of the Neighborhood and the City), the Palau de Mar (where, the social welfare offices of the Generalitat de Catalunya -Government of Catalonia-, the Museu dʼHistòria de Catalunya -Cataloniaʼs History Museum- and restaurants, are located). (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Spaces, 2009)Passeig Joan de Borbó: Also known as the Moll de la Barceloneta. It is wide, open, spacious and, above all, a very fond place. The closeness of the beach, with the attractions and views of the Marina Port Vell, the fishing boats, the palm trees makes this space the perfect place for the organization of trade and sport, culture, social events or filmings, product launchs, markets, gastronomic activities, etc. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Spaces, 2009)Espanya wharf: is at the heart of the Port Vell area. This area has very diverse spaces: the Plaça de lʼOdissea , the Plaça dʼItaca and the Mirador del Port Vell. These spaces are ideal for product launchs, shows or spectacular parades over the sea. It has many cultural and leisure possibilities, such as; the Maremagnum, the Imax cinema and the Aquarium. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Spaces, 2009)Barcelona wharf: is the headquarters of the World Trade Center of Barcelona. It houses economic activities, a business centre, maritime terminals and a luxury hotel. It is ideal for actions, which require to capture the attention of the public as well as for demanding companies. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Spaces, 2009)Plaça de les Palmeres: is integrated in the Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta with an underground car park and leisure activities. It is connected with the Nova Bocana and its new spaces. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Spaces, 2009)
Maremagnum: is the commercial centre that offers restaurants, shops, multiscreen cinemas and bars. It has the Sala Maremagnum, a space of 750 m2 and a big area outside suitable for the organization of any event. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)LʼAquàrium de Barcelona: is one of the biggest aquariums in Europe on the subject matter of the Mediterranean. It has a wide cultural and leisure collection that offers research, education and fun. It is constantly increasing its activities and the exhibition area is forever changing. It is a perfect space for product launchʼs and conventions. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)Imax Port Vell: is a spectacular cinema. The first cinema in the world, which has integrated and developed the technology for the adaptation of the three systems in the same cinema: Imax, Omnimax (3D sound) and three dimension visuals. With a program of films of cultural contents, it is one of the main attractions of the Port Vell area. The projection room and the rest of the installations, including a convention and launch hall, can be privately hired to organize parallel activities as well as the cinema activity. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)Museu Marítim de Barcelona: Located in the historical building of the Drassanes Reials of Barcelona, it is the best preserved civilian Gothic construction in the world. Besides its permanent exhibition, it is always possible to find temporal exhibitions related to the sea. It has very emblematic spaces for private and special events. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)Museu dʼHistòria de Catalunya: Located in a typical building of the port architecture of the 19th century, it is an old warehouse today turned into a modern museum, which offers a journey, through the country of Catalunya in an interactive experience, through the time. It offers the possibility of enjoying temporal exhibitions, as well as the organization of singular events in its spaces. As well as, a gourmet resturant on the top floor with a roof top terrace, with public access, with amazing views over the entire Port Vell area. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)Marina Port Vell: Located in the Passeig Joan de Borbó, is the public Marina of Barcelona. It has 450 moorings for leisure boats in a unique location of the city. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)Marina 92: Next to the Marina Port Vell, it is the marina, which offers the possibility of maintenance for the great yachts. It is one of the first marinas in the Mediterranean to have a sincrolift. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)World Trade Center Barcelona:The WTCB has a wide range of services which makes this complex a big space equipped with great services and infrastructures, including a luxury five star hotel. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)Reial Club Nàutic de Barcelona: This is a private and centenarian club. Itʼs located in the Espanya wharf and organizes many internationally famous activities: the Regata Conde de Godó and the Regata Ermenegildo Zegna are two examples. Reial Club Marítim Barcelona: A private and also centenarian club located in the Espanya wharf. The club promotes sailing and rowing. It organizes activities of great percussion, such as the Regata de Ioles (Yawls) or the Trofeu de Rem (Rowing Trophy), amongst others. It has an independent restaurant. (Information & Photograph:Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)Club Natació Atlètic Barceloneta: The Club Natació Atlètic-Barceloneta is a sporting body with a no profit motive in mind, which is the result of the merging between the Club Natació Atlètic, founded in 1913, and the Barceloneta Amateur Club, founded in 1929. Its objective is the promotion of swimming and water polo, as well as the spreading of their practice for all people. Club Natació Barcelona: The Club de Natació Barcelona is a historic club; this involves a very important legacy, whether in sporting glories or humanist values, which the club wants to respect, to increase and to project towardsthe future. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)
Golondrines: Typical boats with special characteristics, navigate in the Port of Barcelonaʼs closed waters. The wooden boat has two decks; a lower and an upper, also called imperial. It has two bridges so that it can maneuver better in narrow spaces. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)Cable Railway of the Port: The cable railway which joins the port with Miramar, in the Montjuic hill side, was designed in 1926 by Carles Buigas, with Ramón Calzada and Josep M. Roda as collaborators, with the aim of connecting the expo. of 1929 with his maritime section. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)Barcelona SkyTour: Cat Helicòpters offers flights of 10 minutes of duration over the city of Barcelona, during which the passengers have excellent views of the Port of Barcelona, the Port Olympic, the zone of the Fòrum, the Olympic Village, the Sagrada Família, the Eixample, the Tibidabo, Camp Nou (the FC Barcelona stadium) and Olympic zone. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)The Importance of Port Vell in Relation to the Barcelona ModelThe Maritime Museum and Catalan History Museum continued to make an important contribution to culture. Furthermore, the Port ofBarcelona, the Drassanes Consortium and the El Far Consortium joined forces around a series of projects concerning activities related tothe sea. These projects, linked to teaching plans, essentially aim to disseminate and preserve the present and past values of seafaringculture as well as fostering a new approach to relations between civil society and the maritime world. Alongside this, the Port Vell looks tothe future with a raft of innovative activities, converting and adapting areas and concessions to new needs. There are plans afoot to openthe Fishermens wharf area to visitors, who will soon be able to participate in its business and cultural life. This approach will generate newdynamism by providing a new point of attraction and regenerating the area, modernising and benefiting the fishing sector and theBarceloneta district.Another project underway involves refurbishing the Plaça del Mar, the Passeig Maritim and Passeig Joan de Borbó boulevards up to thenew entrance mouth. Work is due for completion in 2010 and will provide the city with a more attractive stretch of boulevard linking all thebeaches.The areas generated during the building of the North Entrance Mouth will also include new activities related to the Vela Hotel, which willopen its doors in late 2010, and to the new public areas along the seafront. It is this combination of activities, together with the involvementof the concession-holding companies and the attractive location, which have drawn 16 million people to the Port Vell each year. These newprojects are likely to inject even more life into this area. The Port Vell knows that it needs the support, stimulus, acceptance and complicityof civil society to consolidate its position as an ideal meeting place of the port with the city, and its strategy is therefore aligned in thisdirection.This profound metamorphosis of the port has served to integrate the site into the city and into urban life to the point where, every year, 16million people visit this multi-purpose spot, a point of reference for locals and visitors alike.Well-communicated and situated in the very heart of Barcelona, the City-Port is a unique attraction for tourists to visit and enjoy.(Gerenica Urbanistica, Port 2000, 2004)The Barcelona Model in Comparison to Other Metropolitan CitiesIt seems clear that Barcelona still has a considerable amount to learn from certain green and metropolitan urban planning traditions. Seenfrom this perspective the Barcelona model can be considered more a ʻfollowerʼ than a ʻleaderʼ. In effect, the ʻgreen urban planningʼ, whichconstitutes one of the most important components of any advanced urban planning model of recent years, Barcelona is still somewhat farfrom the comparable maturity found in other Northern and Central European countries. With regard to the maintenance of a sustainable, orsimply a ʻreasonableʼ, urban structure with a progressive integration of metropolitan growth in the agricultural, forestry and naturalenvironment, Barcelona has a considerable amount to learn and little to show. In this sense it seems that a certain lack of concern for whatwould occur beyond the existing, consolidated city, has been relevant in understanding the lack of capacity to control these types ofprocesses.In other cities in which these same dispersal processes are in a more advanced phase, the dominant concern is now with maintaining thevitality of the central areas. Nevertheless the ʻunorderedʼ nature of the new peripheries in these Latin–European cities is also notable. Whathas taken place in Barcelona is an urban planning resulting from the original re-elaboration and, above all, from the application of formulaeoutlined in other locations, relating to qualitative and strategic urban planning.However, from the metropolitan perspective it is more a question of an urban planning that appears to be ʻthinking locally (in the legal city)and implemented “globally” (in the real city)ʼ. It is, therefore, the reverse of the environmentalist movementʼs maxim (thinking globally andacting locally), which has tended to prevail in recent years.(Francisco-Javier Moncl, 2004)
(Photographs: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, pages 3, 7 & 54)Case Study 2: The Revitalization of Torontoʼs WaterfrontTorontoʼs Waterfront RevitalizationOn November 3rd, 1999, the formation of a Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Task Force was announced by Mayor Lastman, PremierHarris and Prime Minister Chrétien, with the mandate to develop a business plan and make recommendations for the development of the
Toronto waterfront. The magnitude of the task and the reporting deadline would have been intimidating if it were not for the fact that asubstantial body of work already existed. Torontoʼs Waterfront has been the focus of numerous studies, beginning with the 1911 planprepared by the Toronto Harbour Commission. These include the solid and comprehensive body of reporting by the Royal Commission onthe Future of the Toronto Waterfront and its successor agency, The Waterfront Regeneration Trust; the Gardiner/Lakeshore Task Force;and the Task Force to Bring Back the Don and related initiatives. Of great importance was the work of the Cityʼs Department of UrbanPlanning and Development Services, including its recent report, ʻUnlocking Torontoʼs Port Landsʼ. The Task Force was asked to:• Review existing plans for the waterfront;• Prepare an inventory of waterfront assets held by the three levels of government;• Develop a strategic master plan to combine open space, recreational, residential, commercial and entertainment uses;• Examine infrastructure enhancement requirements, including transportation, services, parks and environmental remediation;• Determine the required investment to implement the waterfront vision;• Determine participation and partnership opportunities with the private sector through various partnership structures;• Integrate 2008 Olympic bid requirements; and• Recommend a process to oversee and co-ordinate the waterfront development.(ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page 9)ʻOur new Waterfront will be a model to the world of how economic development, environmental protection, and cultural and recreationalgrowth can complement each other. Torontoʼs waterfront will offer something to everybody; A place to play, live and work.ʼ(ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page 9)(Map: ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page 43)(Photographs: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, page 11)Torontoʼs Waterfront on the World StageToronto is one of an elite group of world cities which act as gateways to commerce, culture and tourism for their respective countries. OlderEuropean cities, such as Paris, London and Amsterdam, and Rome and Athens before them, are testaments to the importance of a long-term process of coordinated investment and development. More recently other cities, including Sydney, Berlin, Barcelona, Boston, NewYork andSan Francisco, have launched major programs of investment and renewal. Each city has a population of between three and eightmillion, possesses a sophisticated and educated citizenry and has defined its place in an emergent world urban culture. Although differingin national character and geographical situation, each city endeavors to present its best self to the world. In recent decades thedevelopment of major parks, cultural assets and transport systems, and the remediation of environmental blight have been undertaken by
each competing city. Urban waterfronts have normally been the focus of renewal, since they possess the scale and energy to define andgive character to major urban settlements. The waterfront is our civic living room where we, as hosts, entertain the world. Great capitalcities are undertaking major waterfront enterprises.• London is entirely transforming its evacuated docklands for living, working and leisure;• Rotterdam and Amsterdam are making comprehensive docklands renewals;• New York has replaced decayed piers with the hugely successful and profitable Battery Park City, and is replacing its West Side Highwayexpressway with parkland and urban development;• Cape Town has built a vital new entertainment and retail area in its operating portlands;• Beirutʼs Solidere Corporation is rapidly rebuilding its war-torn central area with extraordinary new mixed-use districts;• Barcelona used a comprehensive and continuing renewal of its waterfront, in association with the 1992 Olympic Games, as a hugelysuccessful spur to the economic recovery of the city;• Boston is undertaking a $17 billion CDN demolition of its elevated expressway and rebuilding it underground;• Shanghai revived its once-great riverfront as a first initiative in the cityʼs revival;• Sydney is reconstructing the central ex-industrial Pyrmont peninsula as an urban district; and• San Francisco has replaced its Embarcadero expressway with an extraordinary new landscaped plaza.All of these cities have overcome impediments to the transformation of their waterfronts. Chief among the problems have been:• Conflicting governance and ownership;• Residual industrial activity of a previous period;• Soil contamination resulting from previous industrial activity; and• Transportation facilities constructed in an expedient way, with a negative impact on the quality of the public realm.As cities have addressed these issues, various models for action have been devised. Extraordinary outcomes have been fashioned whichliterally refocus and renew the entire urban area. Toronto alone has been virtually inert compared to its sister cities, who are inevitably itscompetitors. Most amazing in its unrealized potential is Torontoʼs Central Waterfront, with some 2,000 acres of largely undeveloped land, atthe heart of the City, region and Province. Visitors from other great cities are shocked by our failure to realize the value of this asset. TheWaterfront Task Force, on behalf of the three levels of government, has sought to devise a Toronto-specific concept, which will, at last,unlock the future of the waterfront. The Task Force has benefited from the examples provided by cities that have gone before us, as well asthe decades of activity on the part of consultants, public interest groups and government. What is new is the prospect of hosting the 2008Olympic Games, providing a spark plug and a specific timetable. The Task Force addressed:• What should be done in concept;• How it can be achieved; and• How it might be paid for.Success in other cities underlines the need for unified action. Citizens and the three governments must work as one towards a commongoal. Although Toronto has been able to do this at other times, in other undertakings, the evolution of Torontoʼs waterfront has not beencharacterized by unified action. Uncoordinated private investment alone will not overcome the major impediments now existing. What theTask Force is presenting here is a plan to position Toronto at the forefront of modern cities. The potential is fabulous, the undertaking isaffordable, and the obligation to act on behalf of those who come after us is undeniable.(ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 13-14)(Photographs: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, pages 47, 44 & 55) (Photograph: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, page 14) !
The Waterfront SceneWhen we look down upon the City of Torontoʼs entire 29 mile waterfront, we see a lake-edge that isremarkably green and accessible, from Marie Curtis Park in the west to the Rouge River in the east.Outside of the Central Waterfront, the 6 mile section from Jameson Avenue to Leslie Street, thereare numerous places for public enjoyment on the Lake, and also many opportunities forpreservations and enhancement. The western and eastern waterfronts offer many opportunities toenhance and protect their distinct character. The Central Waterfront is a different story, a place ofextraordinary circumstances, problems and opportunities in both local and world environments. Wesee here the magnificent island parkland, boating and shipping activity, an outgrowth of high-risetower development from the regional core to the water at Yonge Street, a more recent concentrationof mainly residential development between Yonge and Bathurst Streets, and the giant platform of theGardiner Expressway snaking throughout. But, generally, we see vast areas of unused or under-used land, from Exhibition Place in the west to Ashbridges Bay in the east. In a city that hasundergone much recent redevelopment, there has been almost no new building east of Yonge Streetin the Central Waterfront for decades, and no residential development. The Portlands alone, fromAshbridges Bay to Torontoʼs Inner Harbour, contain a thousand acres of under-used industrial land,much of which lies mainly fallow. The East Bayfront, three times as large as the western Harbour-front area, contains scattered industrial and other activities but is largely vacant and unattractive toinvestment, settlement and activity that might be expected on prime waterfront land in a great city.The 80-acre West Donlands area is vacated, awaiting reinvestment. In the west, Exhibition Placeand Ontario Place are experiencing declining use and are isolated from the rest of the city.Exhibition Place has large areas of vacant land used only for parking. Overall, the Central Waterfronthas some 2,000 acres of largely vacant land at the Cityʼs doorstep. Although they are the lastremaining large undeveloped areas on the entire Toronto waterfront and could, therefore, beexpected to be among the nationʼs most valuable, they have very low current value.(ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 15-16)(Photograph: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC,2007, page 52)An Astonishing OpportunityThe existence of extensive areas of abandoned land left behindby vacated industry, shipping and railways, and by the mid-20thcentury incursion of expressways, is typical in virtually all of thewaterfronts of large global cities. But the Task Forceʼs researchof other cities make it clear that Torontoʼs situation is distinct in anumber of respects. These add up to a superb opportunity. First, (Photograph: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, pages 53)
the overall size of lands that are in need of revitalization is unusually large. Perhaps only the London Docklands had greater areas ofvacancy and dereliction, when the British Government began their renewal in the 1980ʼs. By and large, the redevelopment areas of greatcities, such as New Yorkʼs Battery Park, Sydneyʼs City West, Beirutʼs city-centre, or Manchesterʼs Salford Quays, have been in the order ofhundreds of acres, not thousands. Second, Toronto appears to be virtually alone among the world cities in still possessing such widespreadland abandonment and opportunity in its Central Waterfront. Other cities have already taken measures to restructure their lands andinstitutions to induce revitalization. This situation of widespread dereliction is, on one hand, a national and regional embarrassment, in thatwe have been unable to move deliberately to confront the situation. On the other hand, it also presents an extraordinary opportunity tomove forward now. Toronto has a magnificent tradition of city-building at a local scale. The Central Waterfront must be restructured to makeexcellent local development attractive, and so that, in the end, the whole is more than the sum of the parts. The third distinct aspect ofTorontoʼs situation is that a very large proportion of the land is owned by one government or another. As part of mits mandate, the TaskForce has catalogued the ownership of lands among Federal, Provincial, City and private ownerships, as well as the status of leases onpublic lands. In the Portlands, for example, approximately 80% of the developable lands is in public ownership. In the East Bayfront, thefigure is about 40%, and in Exhibition Place, Ontario Place and the West Donlands virtually total. This high percentage of public ownershiprepresents a special opportunity for the public to catalyze reinvestment and recapture costs. It is a great advantage that many cities havelacked when they faced the prospect of waterfront renewal. Finally, the lands are vacant to a degree that is highly unusual at this point intime in relation to other world waterfront cities. This condition represents another potent advantage in that there are commensurately largeopportunities for renewal and turnaround. Analysis by the Task Force indicates that the Central Waterfront could comfortably accommodatea population in the order of that of present-day Oshawa or Brampton. An emerging policy of the City of Toronto is to seek the relativelyintensive re-use of large vacant ex-industrial areas of the City. The Central Waterfront lands are potentially among the most valuable in Canada. The area is; • vast, with some 2,000 acres of land that is clearly underused or vacant; • unique in that there are no other remaining lands of really substantial size anywhere along the Toronto waterfront; • in the centre of the city, adjacent to Torontoʼs downtown core, to the intermodal transportation hub of Union Station, and extendable transit links; • surrounded and permeated by some 25 kilometres of harbour, channel and lake edge, including the ship channel, which is one of North Americaʼs great man-made artifacts and a powerful armature for development; • excellently served by regional highways; • connected to a municipal infrastructure system capable of accommodating at least the early phases of development in each area; • mainly in public ownership; • bordered by parkland along its southern edge; • imbued with stunning and unusual landscapes and views back to the City and to the Lake; and • large enough to accommodate a full variety of urban uses: for commerce, residence, leisure (ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront and recreation, transportation, industry and education- situated in a public and parkland Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page environment. 15) (ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 16-18) !
(Photograph: ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page 8)Why Renewal has not occurred up to nowWhy do the conditions of perpetual vacancy, under-use and under-valuation exist in the Central Waterfront today? The Task Force hasexamined the question in a global context of waterfront revitalization, and also in the context of Toronotoʼs waterfrontʼs history. There are anumber of potent factors that now prevent revitalization in the Central Waterfront. Without their removal, renewal of any appropriate kindcannot occur.• Although a number of excellent concepts and proposals have been formulated, including and most notably the ecosystems approachdeveloped by the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, there is no agreed vision of the Central Waterfrontʼs future among governments or in thepublic mind. From Barcelona to Cape Town to New York, experience shows that such an agreed vision is required to galvanize energiesand investment.• There is no vehicle for comprehensive management of renewal in areas that require it. This results in random and uncoordinateddispositions of public assets. Investment cannot be attracted unless such a mechanism is present to coordinate, phase, promote andintegratepublic and private actions. It is required for excellence of renewal, but it is also vital for developers and investors who, most of all, requireclarity, certainty and the knowledge that their efforts and those of others will together create value.• The regulatory regimes in most of the area are vestigial, outmoded and inappropriate to the accommodation of modern urban needs.• There is no authority to define, sort out and manage the risks of polluted soil, and competing environmental requirements of industry andhuman settlement.• In many parts of the area, both public transportation and service infrastructure are inadequate.• Major infrastructure investments are required to support full build out and to achieve community objectives.• A number of environmental factors, including the Gardiner Expressway/Lake Shore Corridor as presently constituted, mitigate heavilyagainst revitalization and against the assumption of these lands into the fabric of the city.• No mechanism exists for reversing what has been described as a condition of gridlock among the City, Provincial and Federalgovernments, and their agencies, each with differing objectives, assets, responsibilities and powers.These conditions appear to have been widely prevalent before comprehensive renewal was undertaken in major urban waterfronts studiedby the Task Force, including the conditions of sclerosis and competing jurisdictions. At some point in all of these examples, governmentshave realized that conditions cannot be reversed without effective new vehicles for intergovernmental action. Renewal can only be achievedthrough such vehicles and collaboration. In the time available, the Task Force reviewed the history of the Toronto waterfront, particularly theprevious attempts at regeneration, and took several lessons from this review. First, there has been a set of common themes, objectives andprinciples, enunciated at every stage of the areaʼs evolution: the desire to accommodate nature and parkland; the need to reconcile theimperatives of the environment, human settlement and economic activity, and to realize that they are all interconnected, as is the waterfrontto its watershed; the need for coordinated public and private investment and cooperation among the three levels of government; and theambition to accommodate both urban settlement (including residence and work) and industry. Second, many large-scale plans have nottranspired, or have been achieved only partially. As early as 1911, the Toronto Harbour Commissionʼs grand plan created huge areas forindustry, much of which did not materialize. (It also advocated housing at Cherry Beach.) In the 1950ʼs and 1960ʼs, the expected boom inshipping did not transpire, and it has declined to the point where now it is confined mainly to relatively low-volume deliveries of bulk items.
However, throughout the century there has been no agency or level of government able to restructure and manage major shifts in prioritiesand development. While the Toronto Harbour Commission had primary ownership and powers, it also lacked the comprehensiveresponsibilities and authorities needed to deal with change. But, at the same time, its powers prevented other governments or agenciesfrom doing so. These historical threads need to be recognized, and new courses of action designed.(ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 18-20)The Pressures for Action NowSeveral factors or circumstances suggest that action is needed now to turn around the dilapidation of Torontoʼs Central Waterfront.Inevitable Results of Further Inaction: The first, but not necessarily the most obvious, is that unless the governments deliberately chooseand act to revitalize the area, other choices effectively will be made. An example is current pressure for ʻbig boxʼ retail developments invaluable Central Waterfront land. The Ontario Municipal Board recently rejected an application because such a use is not appropriate forprime waterfront land adjacent to downtown. However, pressures on the Portlands, particularly, to adopt the role of regional retail anddistribution will continue. Once established, these essentially exurban building forms with large areas of surface parking will establishprecedents that exclude a host of denser urban functions that are an essential part of city building. There are areas such as the WestDonlands that are of prime urban importance, where there are clearly identifiable obstacles to welcome changes that might otherwise occur.Here, public soil reclamation and flood-prevention actions must take place before private investment can be attracted. Inaction will surelycondemn the lands to storage and other radically inappropriate use.The Core of the Growing Region: More broadly, there is an urgent need to ensure that Toronto endures as a city and region with ahealthy core. With a population growing at almost 100,000 people a year, the Toronto region is one of the fastest growing in North America,with a projected population in 2021 of 6.8 million. Toronto is part of one of the largest urban agglomerations on the continent, whichincludes the Golden Horseshoe and contiguous areas of New York State. Such growth places great premium on the value of the CentralWaterfront. It makes no sense to have idle or underutilized land at one of Torontoʼs best functional and symbolic locations. Opening up thewaterfront lands assists in redirecting the relentless sprawl of the urban region by providing more accessible and more attractive locationsclose to the downtown core for participants in the new economy. Almost all the new employment spaces in the region are now beingcreated in the urban fringe. This constitutes a very worrisome, long-term threat to recreational and farm land. The waterfront offers anopportunity to counterbalance these centrifugal forces, by creating a very large supply of living and working space at the core of the region.A Downtown in Decline: There are many factors that contribute to a cityʼs quality of life: A healthy downtown core, convenient and diversecommercial neighborhoods, efficient, modern and safe transportation and infrastructure, available employment and a supply of affordablerental housing. Although the Greater Toronto Area is currently experiencing an economic boom, the future of the City of Torontoʼs quality oflife is at risk without a resurgent commercial and industrial sector to fuel development and employment. The warning signs are evident.Since the beginning of the 1990ʼs, new office and hotel development has been stalled. No major office tower has been built in thedowntown core since 1995, and virtually no new rental accommodation. The majority of commercial and industrial construction activity, andnew jobs, have shifted outside the City of Torontoʼs boundaries.The New Economy: Grasping opportunities in the new economy requires any city to provide new types of commercial and residentialvenues and services. Such has been the underpinning of the revitalization efforts being undertaken in other cities. The old boundariesbetween living and working environments and the old assumptions about the nature of work and workplace are changing rapidly.Tomorrowʼs successful cities will be those that can provide technologically modern, flexible live/work space in an attractive and interestingcontext. While Toronto has been successful in providing such an environment in the ʻKingsʼ districts, it will need to provide additional areasin which new live/work venues of this type can be developed. The vast majority of high-tech growth is occurring in the 905 region. This is incontrast to many other waterfront cities, such as San Francisco, Seattle or Vancouver, where high-tech campuses are being developed onformer portlands. The University of California at San Francisco is developing a new research campus at the core of a $4 billion (USD)mixed use development on derelict portlands in its central waterfront. Such initiatives are a critical part of the regeneration of the centralcity.Tourism: For the sixth year in a row, Torontoʼs leisure market is under-performing. According to Statistics Canada, visits to the City byCanadian, U.S. and overseas tourists have decreased by 12.9% since 1996. Almost 90% of all tourism visits to Toronto originate from theU.S. border states. Leisure visits from the U.S. alone have declined 29.1 per cent since 1996. Notwithstanding, Toronto has experienced anincrease in tourism dollars spent over the past few years with a record high in 1998 of $5.34 billion. Hotel occupancy rates have been onthe rise, increasing from 60% in the early 1990ʼs to 75% in 1998. These increases have been due to business trips. While constructionactivity of new hotels has been stagnant, the industry has invested close to $100 million on refurbishment of existing properties in recentyears, most of those being in the downtown. Although these are promising signs, it is clear that Torontoʼs tourism potential is not beingmaximized to the extent suggested by world trends. Toronto competes for both leisure and convention business in a very competitive NorthAmerican marketplace. While Toronto is a major city in terms of the number of hotel rooms and meeting facilities it has to offer, its budgetsfor advertising and promoting the city are very low when compared to other tourism and convention bureaus. Waterfront revitalizationprojects elsewhere reflect the increasing importance of tourism, leisure and entertainment. These place very particular demands to providecompetitive attractions and environments. Yet, many of Torontoʼs existing waterfront attractions are tired and in decline with no newinvestment planned. Major waterfront revitalization also attracts major new initiatives for the regional economy that require prominence andworld presence. For example, the new Guggenheim Museum on Bilbaoʼs waterfront increased the total GDP of its province by 0.5 %(ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 20-24)
(Photograph: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, page 34)The Big ChallengesIf the Toronto waterfront is to be revitalized, and if that should occur in a manner that will elevate it to one of worldwide recognition, interestand quality, then a series of key issues or challenges must be confronted now.ESTABLISHING A GALVANIZING CONCEPT: The review of other cities that have revitalized their waterfronts reveals the paramountneed for a compelling comprehensive concept of the future that people embrace and are excited by. It is necessary that people perceive thewaterfront as public territory, an asset that is widely held. Part of this challenge is for the citizens of Toronto, Ontario and Canada to foreseea revolution in the quality of the areaʼs environment, and to partake in it.CONSTRUCTING A VEHICLE FOR ACTION: A vehicle or vehicles must be constructed with specific authorities and responsibilities forsuccessful corporate action among governments. Only that will enable the planning, coordinating, financing and other actions required overtime.RESPONDING TO THE ECONOMIES OF THE FUTURE: Within these vast lands, encouragement must be given to the development ofnew areas that flexibly accommodate new and emerging economic endeavours, as they develop. Such accommodation needs to befounded on new formulations of cluster enterprises.PLANNING FOR QUALITY AND EXCITEMENT: The fact that little renewal has occurred to date affords the opportunity to build places ofcoordinated quality, including the kinds of spectacularly important structures that have provided other cities with enduring landmarks.Further, it is crucial to make places all throughout the waterfront that provide diverse pleasure and excitement.GUARANTEEING A PUBLIC WATERFRONT: This waterfront must be, and be seen and understood to be, public to the greatest extentpossible, with no new impediments to public access created. The waterʼs edge is important, and so is the development of numerous pathsto it. Building form must enhance, not impede, this public quality.DEVELOPING EXCELLENT TRANSPORTATION: The Central Waterfront is superbly located in relation to city and regional publictransport and roads. One challenge is to extend those systems into the area in logical, digestible phases, so as to promote an area that iscomprehensively served, but has a high degree of reliance on public transportation. Further, the basic public transportation system thatserves the Central Waterfront, including importantly Union Stationʼs GO train and TTC capacity, must be fortified through reinvestment.Pedestrian and bicycle travel must be accommodated and fostered, as well as ferries and water taxis. A second vital transportationchallenge is the resolution of the problems of the Gardiner corridor, described below.REDESIGNING AND RECONSTRUCTING THE GARDINER CORRIDOR: There is a stark contrast in Torontoʼs central area between thedeveloped urban area north of the rail and expressway corridors and the under-utilized areas to the south. The elevated Gardiner deck is amassive structure that commands the landscape all across the Central Waterfront, rendering what should be nationally prized lands as aremote and exposed terra incognito. The structure is also a costly one to maintain. It should be dismantled now, while there is the spaceand latitude to do it economically and when surrounding lands can be enhanced in value. The challenge is to transform what seems to bean urban design liability into an urban asset; to provide a suitable environment for the comprehensive development of thousands of acres ofTorontoʼs Central Waterfront. Creative solutions are required to achieve this while coping with necessary traffic access for cars and trucks,improving the level of service for motorists, providing a thoroughly accessible waterʼs edge, and doing it all in a very cost-effective manner.
MAKING EXCELLENT LIVING ENVIRONMENTS: A challenge is to settle wide areas of the Central Waterfront in excellent, livable, water-side communities, thus putting the lands to proper use and stimulating year-round and round-the-clock activity. Part of this is to provide arange of housing types and tenures, including affordable housing in accordance with City policies.MAKING GOOD THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: Revitalization will require the establishment of processes that can deliver, in acomprehensive and coordinated fashion, improvements to water quality, the remediation of polluted soils and the necessary flood protectionactions. The necessary broad measures and risk management strategies can only be achieved through government action. Private sectorinvestment will then follow. Natural linkages, such as the Don River valley as it connects to the Lake, must be restored. Water qualityimprovements will encourage development and public activity at, and near, the waterʼs edge. Water quality should be appropriate forsailing, swimming and other water based activities. Current initiatives should be encouraged, coordinated and funded.INCREASING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE: In numerous ways, highly accessible parkland, plazas, walkways, and promenades need to bedeveloped to build on the base of the trails and of the island, shore and wilderness park now available.(ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page 24-26)ʻOur vision will give us a new waterfront for a new millennium. Weʼll reshape this front porch to our city as a seamless whole instead of apatchwork quilt. Itʼs going to happen! We have the will, and with the co-operation and investment of the three levels of government and theprivate sector, weʼll have the way. Itʼs a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Our new waterfront will be a valuable resource for this generation,and an invaluable one for generations to come.ʼ (Mayor Mel Lastman, October, 1999)(Photograph: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, page 37)A Strategic Business Plan – The Development ConceptIn reviewing the opportunities and challenges established in the previous chapter, the Task Force has identified major developmentinitiatives, all of which need to be advanced together in a logical and digestible development phasing strategy. These initiatives are outlinedbelow.Numerous courses of action will be required to establish an extraordinary capital waterfront over a period of perhaps twenty or twenty-fiveyears, but they can be grouped into these development initiatives. All of these initiatives can and must be undertaken together.(ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 29-39)i Building a Waterfront for Public EnjoymentThe image of such a waterfront is already expressed in the Cityʼs document ʻOur Toronto Waterfront! the wave of the futureʼ. ʻOur newToronto Waterfront will offer the quiet joy of strolling along miles of wetlands, parks, boardwalks, promenades and heritage foot trails. It willoffer the excitement of arts festivals, bike and boat races and activity-filled public squares, a butterfly sanctuary and a lakeside aquarium.Torontoʼs waterfront will offer something for everyone. A place to play, work and live.ʼ The Development Concept provides the frameworkfor realizing thisimage of public enjoyment, with a number of key components.New Living, Working and Leisure: The Concept provides throughout the Central Waterfront for new mixed-use communities,accommodating in total perhaps 100,000 residents and 25,000 employees over the development period. These communities will provide arange of housing opportunities, including affordable housing. This infusion will stimulate and support the creation of a lively all-year domain.The Concept contains a great range of places for varied leisure and tourist activity. For example, the whole waterʼs edge is a public domain
and would contain a series of plazas at the ends of streets, places that could accommodate waterfront wide festivals.The Green Border: The Development Concept proposes a ʻgreen borderʼ along the entire length of the Central Waterfront, from LeslieStreet to Jameson Avenue. It would be defined as public territory by a waterfront boulevard, formed by extending Queenʼs Quay to the eastand west. This public border will include walkways, parks, promenades, piers and other public open space elements. It would also be anextraordinary domain for the location of major new public buildings such as an aquarium, concert hall, museum or cruise-ship terminal. Itwould contain more local but important public elements such as band shells and boat docking.New Public Open Space: The Development Concept would add over 450 acres of new public open space in the Central Waterfront.Depending on decisions on the future of the Port, large new areas of parkland can be located in areas of the Outer Harbour. Additionalpublic space and parkland is created at Exhibition Place, including an urban entertainment park, and at Coronation Park. As well, the Mouthof the Don River would be re-made to include a large naturalized delta. Trails and walkways will be expanded,linking the whole waterfront.Excellence and Beauty: The Development Concept is built around the enhancement of many of the waterfrontʼs unique assets, includingthe Inner Harbour, Cherry Beach and the Ship Channel. The removal of the Gardiner Expressway deck is an essential step in creating awaterfront of international stature. The corporate mechanisms proposed in this report allow the achievement of special quality in manyrespects. Environmental clean-up can be expedited. Comprehensive energy efficiency programs can be implemented. Development can becoordinated, so as to ensure a built environment with a scale and character appropriate to a waterfront of real consequence, and to preventbuilding that privatizes the public waterfront. A coherent landscape of public places and plazas can be designed and made over time, inaccordance with a guiding Master Plan, and through innovative regulatory mechanisms. Finally, real excellence can be obtained in thedesign of landmark buildings by important architects, including the use of design competitions.ii Accommodating Business, Employment and the New EconomyThe Development Concept accommodates substantial business and employment opportunities, particularly for the new economy, byproviding for a new Convergence Centre, Trade Marts, office space in new neighbourhoods, and increased tourism, as well as the potentialof major education/technological institutions. In total, the Concept provides for 9 to 10 million square feet of new nonresidential space inmixed-use neighbourhoods throughout the Central Waterfront. Experience in comparable waterfront locations suggests that space of thisquantity might accommodate up to 40,000 jobs over a 20 to 25 year period. The Task Force believes that the Central Waterfront locationcan be extremely attractive to businesses and employees, and that this activity and new residence will be mutually supportive, particularlywith pervasive new telecommunications infrastructure. But, they can only succeed if a high degree of public transportation convenience isprovided.Convergence Centre: The Development Concept provides for the creation of a ʻconvergenceʼ community in the Portlands to help Torontomore fully realize opportunities for interaction between the new media and the new high-technology and knowledge-based economy. Itwould foster interactions between activities such as music, film, TV, communications, software development, biotechnology and publishing,in a live/work environment. These opportunities have been made possible by technological advances, telecommunications deregulation andindustry restructuring. For example, the volume of internet activity is thought to be doubling every 100 days. By the end of 2000, 8 % of theworldʼs retail transactions will be via the internet. Service and knowledge industries have already become the new core of the Torontoeconomy, an extraordinary base for expansion through convergence. For example, the report ʻEconomic Development in the GlobalKnowledge Economy: A Challenge to the City of Torontoʼ,makes these points:• The Biomedical and Biotechnology cluster (pharmaceuticals, medical equipment and biotechnology) in the Toronto region is the singlelargest cluster in any metropolitan area in North America in job terms. The City of Toronto has more Biomedical and Biotechnical jobs thanany U.S. city, and the University of Toronto has the largest faculty of medicine in North America.• The Business and Professional Services cluster is one of the largest in North America and is growing more rapidly in the Toronto regionthan in New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston or Washington. After nearly a decade of decentralization from cities to suburbanlocations across North America, since 1994 this cluster has grown faster in the City of Toronto than the surrounding regions.• The GTAʼs Information Technology and Telecommunications cluster is larger than New Yorkʼs or Los Angelesʼs. Our software industry isamong the fastest growing in North America, well ahead of New York, Boston, Dallas, Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles, along withSeattle (Microsoft), San Jose (Silicon Valley) and Atlanta. The GTA IT&T cluster is unique in its strength in both hardware and software• The Toronto region Media cluster is the 4th largest in North America, behind Los Angeles, New York and Chicago. Toronto was once theclear favourite in Canada for domestic and foreign film production but is now starting to lose market share to Vancouver and Montreal. Thistrend can be reversed. The competition for the entrepreneurs and workers of the new economy is fierce and will only increase. Citiesaround the world such as San Francisco, Shenzhen, Singapore and Hong Kong are redefining themselves as ʻSmart Communitiesʼ,ʻIntelligent Islandsʼ or ʻCyber Citiesʼ. Connectivity, new generation facilities, infrastructure and creativity have become their hallmarks.Toronto has the opportunity to leverage its high-technology expertise and creative and entrepreneurial talent by providing state-of-the artfacilities with the required broadband network to house converging businesses. It is essential that all new mixed districts, including theConvergence Centre, have access to the latest telecommunications infrastructure. Accordingly, the Task Force proposes a full and flexiblecommunications supporting infrastructure throughout the new neighbourhoods, as well as a potential ʻutility corridorʼ along the Don ValleyParkway and the Lake Shore for installation of fibre-optic cable and other connections to the waterfront.Trade Marts: A real opportunity may exist to take advantage of the successes of the National Trade Centre and of the recently expandedConvention Centre, to secure Torontoʼs position as a leading North American and global business city. This role could be considerablyaugmented by innovative relaxation of customs and other tariff restrictions, to create, in effect, a ʻfree trade zoneʼ for the trade centre andtrade mart area. The Development Concept, therefore, proposes approximately three million square feet of new trade mart space. Trademarts are permanent showrooms managed by individual suppliers, product designers and tradeassociations, as well as by associated professions and services. In Dallas, Atlanta and several European cities, clusters of trade martbuildings have supported the temporary or rotating exhibition functions provided by the large exhibition halls. Frequently, individualbuildings are themed to a specific product grouping (e.g. information technology, toys, design products or fashion). Hotel development isalso typically associated with such complexes.Tourism: The Development Concept has at its core the enhancement of the waterfront as a public space with new attractions and places.For example, there will be increased space for cruise ships and boating, and family entertainment generally. Also, legacy facilities providedby the Olympics should be successful attractions. Increased tourism has been a key spin off of the revitalization of other waterfronts, suchas Barcelona.The Port: The Task Force has concluded that the use of the federal lands of the Toronto Port Authority is a key component of any plan to
develop the Toronto waterfront and particularly the redevelopment of the entire Portlands area. It is the recommendation of the Task Forcethat Transport Canada enter into a consultative process with the City of Toronto, the present users of the Port and other interested parties,to consider and make recommendations to the Government of Canada with respect to the future of the Port of Toronto and specificallywhether the Port should remain in its present location, or should be moved to a different location in the Toronto Harbour or elsewhere. Adecision by the Government of Canada is of critical importance to a full determination of the utilization of the Portlands area.The Toronto City Centre Airport: The time constraints and the number and complexity of the issues involved precluded the Task Forcefrom addressing the future of the City Centre Airport. The Task Force did make a point of doing nothing in its Strategic Business Plan thatwould impact on the airport. If Toronto is awarded the 2008 Olympic Games, the Airport would be required for hosting them. Acomprehensive study should be undertaken immediately, however, in order to devise a plan for the airport that meshes with the vision forthe waterfront. Specific attention should be paid to the noise cone of airport operations with respect to housing.iii Developing Comprehensive Transportation NetworksThe Development Concept is based on an integrated and comprehensive systems of streets and public transportation. Fundamental to thenew street system is the web of streets that will carry and disperse the traffic loads of the Gardiner/Lake Shore and southern Don ValleyParkway systems. In the East Bayfront area, while these streets will carry substantial traffic, some in coupled one-way systems, they will bedesigned with traffic signals and wide sidewalks to act as excellent, traversable urban boulevards. In the new areas of development,particularly in the Portlands, the present major road system, designed for industry and transport, will require elaboration with local grids toserve their residential and work communities. Of major importance throughout is the creation of a waterfront boulevard, as discussed in iabove. As development is undertaken, early transportation service will likely be by buses. However, the orders of intensity assumed for newdevelopment in this Development Concept will likely support streetcar/LRT service. Provision has been made in this plan for theaccommodation of LRT lines across the Central Waterfront. The use of bicycles should be encouraged through design. The revitalization ofthe Central Waterfront has implications in a wide area with respect to transportation. The expansion of GO and TTC facilities at theintermodal Union Station is regarded as a critical element of the concept. Further, historical data shows that, for 20 years, the total vehicularflows into the downtown during the morning peak period have been relatively constant, despite increases in employment. These increaseshave been absorbed by public transport, particularly GO transit, and support to these systems is required for the future. In addition, there isthe mooted LRT link from the new intermodal Union Station to Pearson International Airport, being studied by the Minister of Transport forCanada. The link would enable air passengers to check in at Union Station.(ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 29-34)iv Providing A Clean EnvironmentIt is the opinion of the Task Force that the challenges to development posed by environmental constraints must be addressed, and that thiscan best be done as an element of an encompassing waterfront strategy.Water Quality: The water in the Don River and Toronto Harbour is in a degraded state as a result of the impacts on urban runoff andcombined sewer overflows. Water quality and the factors that influence it have been the subject of numerous studies and actions over thelast 30 or so years. One of the key studies was the Toronto Area remedial action plan. Proposed between 1988 and 1991, this initiative wasspearheaded by the federal and provincial governments in response to the International Joint Commission designation of ʻarea of concernʼunder the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. While this work has resulted in significant water quality improvements, it is the opinion ofthe Task Force (and many others) that further water quality improvements are still required. It is the Task Forceʼs objective that the waterquality be improved to the point that it is more aesthetically pleasing, the Harbour and Don River fishery is enhanced in terms of diversity,and ideally that Toronto Bay meets provincial swimming and water contact activity standards. Recognizing the importance of River andLake water quality, the City is already working with a number of stakeholders to address water quality through the preparation of a WetWeather Master Plan. This activity is applauded. The Task Force has included funding in its budget to accelerate the study and itʼsimplementation.Soils: The environmental condition of the soils in portions of the Toronto waterfront, particularly the West Donlands and the Portlands, hasbeen a major impediment to the redevelopment of these lands. The soils were contaminated mainly as a result of previous industrial useson the lands and in some cases adjacent or nearby lands. In order to facilitate the orderly and most economical development of theselands, it is necessary that the nature and extent of contamination be better understood for all sites, an orderly strategy for remediation beestablished and issues of long-term liability be addressed. Relatively recent changes to the Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites inOntario published by the Ministry of the Environment are helpful in establishing an appropriate and efficient clean-up program.Flooding: Land in the vicinity of the current terminus of the Don River (at the Keating Channel), and to an even greater degree north of themain railway crossing of the Don River are subject to flooding during major storm events. This is principally a result of constraints imposedby man as the area has been developed. Until the flooding ʻproblemʼ is solved, it imposes a nearly total constraint on the appropriatedevelopment of the West Donlands and portions of the Portlands. The problem and preferred solutions are well understood and generallyaccepted. While they are expensive to implement, the benefits to the West Donlands and other areas, included and not included in thewaterfront plan, are significant. The major elements of the preferred solution include increasing the capacity of the culvert under the railroadcrossing, constructing a berm on the west side of the Don River across the West Donlands and improving the hydraulics of the riverdownstream of the railway.Don River Mouth: The southern reach of the Don River, particularly south of the railway crossing is contained in a man-made channel thatdischarges to the Keating Channel before it reaches the lake. This current configuration is problematic from a hydraulic, environmental andaccess perspective. Through the work of groups and organizations such as the City of Toronto, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, and theTask Force to Bring Back the Don, a strategy has been developed to naturalize the River in this area. The implementation of this strategy isa high priority for the Task Force (and also the 2008 Olympic Bid Committee). Implementation of this strategy would create a meanderinglow flow channel in a wide floodplain, natural wildlife and fish habitat and some opportunities for improving stormwater quality. It would alsoallow for the integration of existing Don River trails and bicycle paths with a new and expanded waterfront trail system and provide aneducational resource. Development in the vicinity of the mouth would relate to the River and crossings of the River would be undertaken inan aesthetically pleasing and hydraulically appropriate fashion to create a natural gateway to the Portlands. The Development Conceptreflects this approach.Toronto, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, and the Task Force to Bring Back the Don, a strategy has beendeveloped to naturalize the River in this area. The implementation of this strategy is a high priority for the Task Force (and also the 2008Olympic Bid Committee). Implementation of this strategy would create a meandering low flow channel in a wide floodplain, natural wildlifeand fish habitat and some opportunities for improving stormwater quality. It would also allow for the integration of existing Don River trailsand bicycle paths with a newand expanded waterfront trail system and provide an educational resource. Development in the vicinity of the mouth would relate to the
River and crossings of the River would be undertaken in an aesthetically pleasing and hydraulically appropriate fashion to create a naturalgateway to the Portlands. The Development Concept reflects this approach. earlier analysis has produced an approach that give the TaskForce confidence that the elevated expressway platform can be removed and the required traffic accommodated by substitute roadsystems.Lessons From Other Cities: As more and more cities around the world tackle the revitalization of their waterfronts, most face thechallenge presented by barriers erected in previous decades in the form of freeways and expressways. The Task Force wanted to learnfrom othersʼ successes and mistakes. In North America, the most frequently cited examples are the West Side Highway in New York, theEmbarcadero Freeway and Central Skyway in San Francisco and the Central Artery project in Boston. In New York and San Francisco, thefreeways were essentially feeding traffic into the urban cores, and were removed without undue impact on automobile access to the centralcity. In Boston, where approximately 70% of the freeway traffic is ʻthrough trafficʼ, it was obviously not possible to eliminate the freeway.Instead, it is being reconstructed underground at an extremely high cost (about $17 billion CDN). To a great extent, this cost results fromthe need to construct a tunnel under the existing elevated freeway, as there is nowhere else to locate it in the built up Boston waterfront.Fortunately, Torontoʼs situation is more like New Yorkʼs and San Franciscoʼs than Bostonʼs, in that relatively little traffic on the GardinerExpressway in the Central Waterfront is through-traffic, and in the fact that substitute systems can be built while the present elevatedsystem is in operation. Notwithstanding this, Boston provides an important lesson to us that we should act now before incrementaldevelopment leaves no room for a substitute surface roadway system to be built primarily off the current Gardiner alignment.Torontoʼs Solution:The Gardiner/Lake Shore structure is largely outmoded in its present design. It was intended to be a link in a large-scale expresswaysystem that would have included a Scarborough Expressway. In fact, relatively little traffic is through traffic and, the expressway actseffectively as two expressways, one from the east and one from the west that terminate in a handful of exits in the middle (Spadina, York,Yonge, Jarvis) to provideaccess to the downtown area. The very nature of expressways entails limited access and egress points. Congestion results from traffictrying to get on and off at a few ramps. To solve the Gardiner problem, the Task Force recommends a dramatic solution that requires acomprehensive approach to enhance distribution of traffic throughout the downtown core, as noted previously, including enhancements tothe GO and other public transport systems. The Task Force recommends ʻtaking downʼ the Gardiner expressway from west of StrachanAvenue to its east limit. Traffic will be distributed from the Gardiner Expressway and the southern reaches of the Don Valley Parkway todowntown streets at as many points as possible, including the long proposed Front Street Extension and improvements to theRichmond/Adelaide interchange, thus eliminating the need for an expressway through the core. From west of Strachan Avenue to SpadinaAvenue, the expressway will be constructed below grade. East of that point, having distributed much of its traffic, it will become a surfacearterial road system. Burying the roadway between Fort York and the Lakefrees the Fort from its entrapment and permits a continuous flow of parkland between Fort York and the Lakefront via Coronation Park. Italso frees the future redevelopment areas of the Molson and West Railway lands from the constraints imposed by the Gardiner. Bringingthe Gardiner traffic to ground level throughout the central portion of the City removes its sterilizing influence, eliminates the debilitatingeffect of the overhead structure, allows attractive new neighbourhoods, improves access to the core, provides important new waterfrontstreets and unifies, rather than divides, Toronto with its waterfront. It also eliminates the not insignificant costs of maintenance.(ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 29-39)A Picture of the New Waterfront (ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 40-54)The picture on the following page and the illustrations throughout this Section show how the six initiatives outlined in the previous Sectioncan be implemented in the various precincts of the Central Waterfront. While the concept is coherent in its totality it is only a pictorialrepresentation in its details. The details of the concept across the area will be developed further and, in fact, will evolve over the full courseof planning and implementation. What the concept plan shows is an elaborate public realm of access-ways, open space and parks, framedby new city blocks designed for diverse urban development. The fundamental principle is to elaborate and enhance the public realm,through transformation of the Gardiner corridor, the creation of networks of public space and parks, of developing park streets to the waterthat arrive at extraordinary waterfront plazas, of creating a public water edge from Leslie Street to Jameson Avenue, and enlivening thewhole waterfront with new mixed-use residence and work environments.i The Central Harbour: is the northern perimeter of Torontoʼs Inner Harbour. It includes the West Bayfront, between Bathurst and YongeStreets, and the East Bayfront, between Yonge and Parliament Streets. With the institution of a public waterʼs edge along its eastern edge,the Inner Harbour is reinforced in its totality as a kind of central park for Toronto; a great water body surrounded by public open space.Parts of the centre and western areas of the Central Harbour now have buildings that obscure or compromise the public access to thewaterʼs edge. A number of measures are introduced in the Development Concept to combat this perceived privatization.A series of park plazas would be constructed at the conjunction of major landscaped streets and the waterʼs edge at Spadina Avenue, andPortland, John, York, Bay, Yonge, Jarvis, Sherbourne and Parliament Streets. A wide new boardwalk promenade, about 70 feet wide, issuggested for the Harbour edge as a major new public space. This will allow the public to experience the waterʼs edge in a close-up andintimate way from Bathurst Street to Parliament Street. Strategically placed piers would allow greater public contact with the water.Lighthouse lantern structures around the Inner Harbour would define the space at night.The East Bayfront: from Parliament Street to Yonge Street links the Downtown to the Portlands. The Marine Terminals to the south ofQueenʼs Quay are publicly owned and used for film production, storage and recreational uses. Land to the north is mainly privately ownedand used for a range of service industries, car dealerships, a new Loblaws, the LCBO warehouse and the Toronto Star building. TheRedpath Sugar Refinery is located on the south side of Queenʼs Quay. Further west, a large residential project has planning approval butthe site remains vacant. Throughout the length of the East Bayfront, the elevated Gardiner Expressway is a formidable overshadowingpresence. The area has tremendous potential for mixed development, given its proximity to the downtown and to the waterfront and itsviews across the Harbour. The Redpath Sugar Refinery, which relies on delivery by ship, can remain and coexist with adjacentredevelopment with appropriate interface measures.The waterʼs edge can house facilities for cruise ships that are coming to Toronto inincreasing numbers and other tourist facilities.The West Bayfront: from Yonge to Bathurst Streets, hosts a concentration of cultural and recreational activities, residential and tourismdevelopments, key development sites and the intermodal Union Station. The area is segmented by the elevated Gardiner Expressway, itsramps and the associated Lakeshore Boulevard, that collectively degrade the street and pedestrian environment. The district containsmajor regional recreation and tourism facilities such as the SkyDome, the Air Canada Centre, the CN Tower and the Convention Centre. In
addition, Harbourfront Centre located at York Quay is a national cultural hub that provides public programming for cultural,recreation and educational activities. The waterfront area includes the Marine Museum, a hotel, marina and mooring locations for touristboats and visitors, public open space and parkland. This area is to be the Central Ring in the Olympics. Most of this area is either alreadydeveloped or has planning approval for high-density residential or commercial development. Radical improvement of the surrounding urbanenvironment by accommodating the Gardiner Expressway at ground level will greatly facilitate bringing the downtown and the waterfronttogether. The proposed new walkways and boardwalks will increase public space at the water along York and Maple Leaf Quays, withenlarged public plazas at York and Yonge Streets. This area of the waterfront is Torontoʼs most public face to the world and requires acommensurate standard of design excellence and programming originality.ii The Portlands: The thousand acres of the Portlands represent perhaps the largest resource in any city of centrally located yet under-utilized land. It is close to the downtown, surrounded on three sides by water with seventeen kilometres of shoreline and the Ship Channelat its centre. A comprehensive resolution of the jurisdictional, environmental and functional impediments to its most productive use as anew, central urban district of the City is essential. The Portlands, now a void in the life of the City, can become a unique, mixed waterfrontarea offering many types of venues to live, work and play. Magnificent new parks along the waterʼs edge can provide locations for amemorable experience for families, tourists and everyone who wants to be on the Cityʼs lakefront. The Toronto 2008 Olympic Bid canprovide the catalyst for the transformation of the Portlands. If the Bid is successful the Western Portlands will represent the east ʻringʼ ofTorontoʼs 2008 Olympic Plan that includes a new Stadium for 100,000 spectators during the Olympics and 20,000 seats afterwards, theAquatic Centre and the Broadcast Centre, as well as other facilities that will be removed after the Games. The Ship Channel will be thehome of rowing events. The Athletesʼ Village will be located on the south side of the Ship Channel. Solutions to the issues of soilremediation and flooding and to the areaʼs relative inaccessibility are all resolvable and must be addressed to unlock the remarkabledevelopment and parks potential. Accessibility to the Portlands at the Don River will be enhanced by replacement of the Gardiner fly-overwith conventional roads and inspiring new bridges. The naturalised mouth of the Don River, instead of the concrete Keating Channel, willprovide great opportunities for a green entrance to this new urban district. Depending on decisions with respect to the future of the Port, asnoted previously, the Ship Channel could be transformed into a ʻGrand Channelʼ and the heart of the new Portlands, edged with publicwalkways linked to possible new canals and open spaces. A system of new canals and waterways will provide radically increased landareas overlooking water, making the Portlands a series of connected islands with associated promenades. The new waterfront boulevardwill define a wide strip of public open space along the waterʼs edge, with magnificent locations for waterfront attractions, new performancevenues, tourism facilities, museums and galleries in dramatic settings.New City Neighbourhoods: Within the Portlands, several new neighbourhoods and districts are envisaged. The Toronto 2008 Olympic Bidcontemplates locating the 2000 unit Athletesʼ Village in the Cherry Beach and Grand Channel neighbourhoods on the south side of thechannel. The Eastern Channel Neighbourhood will take advantage of dramatic views of the City skyline, the harbour and the Lake. Openspace areas along the waterʼs edge and the new waterfront boulevard will provide public access to the water. Cherry Street will be thePortlandʼs ʻMain Streetʼ, providing a pedestrian friendly street of shopping and services for this new quarter of the City.The Olympic District: The large Olympic District will contain the post-Olympics legacy facilities: the Olympic Stadium, the Aquatic Centreand other facilities that in future will become community uses. This section of Cherry Street could become an ʻavenue of sportsʼ for the City.After the Olympics, this prominent site provides a remarkable opportunity for important city building projects (connected to the ConvergenceCentre to the east), such as a major corporate campus, new-high tech educational, institutional or world-class research facility, as well asfor associated housing, offices and retail uses.The Convergence Centre: The Task Force recommends the creation of a ʻconvergenceʼ community as a striking innovation in thePortlands. As noted earlier, it combines new media, communications, software development, biotechnology and other activities in the neweconomy with film, television, publishing and other assets. Located along Commissioners Street, the Convergence Centre would helpToronto more fully realize the opportunities for convergence in arts, science and technology. The Convergence Centre would include acommunity with attractive loft and other residential housing for the entrepreneurs and creative people working in the Centre, who are urbanpeople by nature.
(Photograph: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, page 29)Lake Ontario ParkDepending on whether or not the Port is relocated, a large, new, waterfront park, larger than High Park, could be developed along the OuterHarbour, connecting the park at Cherry Beach to the Ashbridges Bay sewage treatment plant. The current community sailing clubs could beincorporated into the park or be relocated to adjacent areas. Park roads would provide access through the park so that everyone can enjoythe park and views. The Leslie Street Spit would remain natural open space. The new park could include reforestation projects, botanicalgardens, a butterfly house, trails and formal gardens.Grand Channel DistrictDepending on decisions with respect to the future of the Port, the Grand Channel can represent a transformation of the present ShipChannel. It is an extraordinary artifact, one of Canadaʼs great man-made localities. With the development of its perimeter for public use andaccess, and for the location of a variety of residential and other uses, it can become a place of special local and international presence.Associated lateral canals could spread this water amenity for boating and skating. The future of the Hearn Plant has not yet beendetermined. Given its location on the Outer Harbour, the site and building presents interesting possibilities for resort-type recreation, majorinstitutional or other facilities.(Photographs: ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 49 & 50)The Mouth of the Don RiverThe restoration of the Don River Valley has been one of the Cityʼs most imaginative andrewarding urban regeneration initiatives. The Development Concept proposes resolving one ofthe last major impediments to the restoration of the river and valley. The ugly and undignifiedKeating Channel would be replaced along with the removal of the Gardiner platform, by anaturalized river mouth, bordered by park spaces. This new river bed for the Don offers a wealthof environmental benefits that will be felt throughout the valley. A strong set of greenwayconnections can be developed between the valley and the Leslie Street Spit and a newwaterfront park system. The mouth itself can be designed with new islands and pools anddifferent depth and flow conditions to provide aquatic habitats and complement the reintroductionof fish stocks to the river. As noted previously, the up-stream flood risks (particularly to the WestDonlands neighbourhood) that were compounded by the barriers created by the road and railcorridors, and by the shape of the Keating Channel, can be mitigated by the proposed river flow (Photograph: ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ,patterns. The new environment created by this regeneration initiative would provide a unique Waterfront Revitalization Task Force,introduction to the new urban district of the Portlands. 2003, page 53) !
The West DonlandsThe West Donlands area, now largely vacant, was publicly purchased for the development of a new, mixed use, urban neighbourhood. ThisBusiness Plan will provide the necessary framework for development to proceed at last. A berm can be built along the River to provide floodcontrol, as well as some parkland. New techniques and regulatory environments are now available to reduce the costs of soil remediation.Bridges to carry the new waterfront boulevard and Cherry Street over the river mouth can be designed as signature entrances and the riversetting provides some highly visible and accessible locations for new gateway buildings. An early program element, the area is proposed toinclude an Olympic Media Village, consisting of 2,000 residential units. The urban design character of the area is related to the successfuldevelopment in the neighboring St. Lawrence district, namely medium rise and townhouse forms aligned along a central open space.Extensive planning, including a recent community design review, indicates that some 5,000 residential units could be accommodated.Commercial development, primarily local retail and office space would be built along the easterly extension of the Esplanade Park. Newlocal roads will be added by extending the pattern of roads in surrounding areas and connecting to the Bayview Extension. Eastern Avenuewill be the extended across the Don River as part of the new road infrastructure to increase access to the downtown.v Garrison Common Garrison Common is the area between Bathurst Street and Strachan Avenue that includes Coronation Park, Old FortYork and the Molsonʼs/ Wittington lands. The district will change dramatically when the Gardiner Expressway is buried under Fleet Street.The new Garrison Creek open space will provide a strong north-south connection from the Lake to north of the rail corridor. Old Fort Yorkwill be linked to this open space system and, for the first time since the Expressway was built, will also be linked to the City. The newwaterfront boulevard extension would cross from Stadium Road along a southern extension of Coronation Park to Ontario Place. Thiswaterfront drive with its new associated park will increase the park size by almost 10 acres. The Parkʼs regimental memorial trees, locatedat the west end, currently one of the most beautiful and solemn places on the waterfront, will be enhanced by giving it a wider park contextand connection to the surrounding city. With the major realigned open space, this area will become attractive for the development ofhousing along its edges.vi Exhibition District Ontario Place and Exhibition Place, with their combined prime waterfront location of 270 acres, are desperately inneed of new direction. With the exceptions of the new investments in the National Trade Centre and the Molsonʼs Amphitheatre bothOntario Place and Exhibition Place are losing market share and public attractiveness and must have a new vision. Many recent attemptshave been made to re-energize these lands, with limited success. The new vision for this area builds on its extraordinary location on theLake, its proximity to a city core whose development is spreading inexorably in this direction. The Development Concept suggestsnormalizing this area as a part of the City, while still maintaining and enhancing the several healthy activities to be found within its precincts.These areas would accommodate the western ʻringʼ of Olympic Games facilities. The ʻgreen borderʼ is extended through these lands,connecting to Dufferin Street and Jameson Avenue. Jefferson Street could be extended south over the railroad and road corridor. This, andthe removal of the street/train grade conflict on Strachan Avenue could reverse the isolation of this area. location on the Lake, its proximityto a city core whose development is spreading inexorably in this direction. The Development Concept suggests normalizing this area as apart of the City, while still maintaining and enhancing the several healthy activities to be found within its precincts. These areas wouldaccommodate the western ʻringʼ of Olympic Games facilities. The ʻgreen borderʼ is extended through these lands, connecting to DufferinStreet and Jameson Avenue. Jefferson Street could be extended south over the railroad and road corridor. This, and the removal of thestreet/train grade conflict on Strachan Avenue could reverse the isolation of this area.A series of north/south plazas could link the city with the Lake. Princes Boulevard could be a series of linked plazas providing some 44acres in total for public festivities, such as the CNE and Caribana. The area between Lake Shore Boulevard and the new waterfrontboulevard offers the greatest potential for introducing permanent population to ensure year round activity for this section of the City. A bandof housing development, with retail and entertainment uses at the street level, could create a lively new waterfront district. In addition, theExhibition and Ontario Place sites offer substantial opportunities for locating some of the major destination tourism infrastructure thatToronto is sorely lacking: a major entertainment complex, urban resort hotels and for new ventures for family waterfront entertainment, suchas winter gardens, butterfly houses, museums, aquaria and the like. The district is comprised of three parts: the Trade Centre Precinct, theExhibition Gardens Precinct and the Marina Island Precinct.Trade Centre Precinct: The National Trade Centre is the anchor for this District. Since opening, the National Trade Centre has exceededexpectations in terms of the number of event days, suggesting the medium to long-term expansion of this facility is possible up to onemillion square feet. The Olympics could provide a catalyst for this. South of Princes Boulevard trade marts could be developed as well ashotels and housing, with underground parking.Marina Island Precinct: The land currently occupied by Ontario Place is proposed in the Development Concept as a marine-oriented all-year open public park. The number of mooring spaces are greatly increased, onshore services are provided, including boat supply andservicing, restaurants and related accommodations. Access is provided by a new local road and land bridges, and possibly water-taxiservice.Exhibition Gardens Precinct: At the western end of Exhibition Place, an urban park is proposed. It includes the existing green area withits Victorian and historic buildings. Fashioned after Copenhagenʼs Tivoli Gardens, museums, restaurants, clubs and other entertainmentuses will provide for year-round use. Permanent rides could be a feature. New housing can be provided here, with linkages to theneighbourhoods to the north.(ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 40-54)The Eastern and Western WaterfrontsWhile the Task Forceʼs mandate focuses on the Central Waterfront, it appreciates that Torontoʼs waterfront is part of a watershed for sixmajor rivers - Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek, Humber River, Don River, Highland Creek and Rouge River, and that the Mayorʼs waterfrontvision extends along the entire lakefront. The Eastern and Western Waterfronts exhibit their own pattern of large regional parks separatedby stretches of private ownership. For the Central Waterfront the development focus is on significant change and revitalization, but in theEastern Waterfront (Scarborough) and Western Waterfront (Etobicoke) the emphasis is on protection and enhancement. The proposedrevitalization will reconnect the Eastern and Western Waterfronts to the new Central Waterfront. The Mayorʼs vision, expressed in thedocument ʻOur Toronto Waterfront! the wave of the futureʼ, includes a number of initiatives for the Eastern and Western Waterfronts. Themain objectives for these areas are to enhance current green spaces, to increase public access to the waterfront, with public trails along theedge of the lake, and to improve the environment.
Most of these initiatives have been developed with the local communities and are underway as part of existing City, or Toronto RegionConservation Authority (TRCA) programs. Generally, in contrast to the Central Waterfront, the Eastern and Western Waterfronts do notrequire major greening efforts. Nor are there large areas of public land suitable for major redevelopment. There are, however, complexissues of public accessibility because of private land ownership of sections of the waterʼs edge. The proposed waterfront corporation shouldwork with the City on its priorities and the Task Force has allocated funding to support these initiatives. In particular, opportunities should besought that will help achieve continuous public access across the entire 29 mile Toronto waterfront. The initiatives for the Eastern andWestern Waterfronts include environmental improvements, such as erosion controls, increasing public access through the creation ofparkettes at the Lake in unopened street allowances, and improving streetscapes along their main streets, Kingston Road and Lake ShoreBoulevard West, as well as specific projects described below. (ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page55)Eastern WaterfrontPort Union: The City and TRCA have an ambitious plan to reconnect the developing residential community with the waterfront. It involvesthe development of a Village Common and a pedestrian connection under the CNR tracks linking with the TRCA Port Union waterfrontproject. This is a $16 million capital project for trail connections and bank stabilization from the Rouge River (more or less) west to themouth of the Highland Creek and provides for a bridge across the Creek.East Point Park: The City owns approximately 60 hectares of largely undeveloped open space to the west of the Highland Creek. Thisarea currently has a large baseball complex but little, if anything, else. The TRCA has a concept plan for a marina at East Point, similar toBluffers, Humber Bay and Colonel Samuel Smith. This, along with Port Union, represents the two most significant opportunities in the EastWaterfront for active recreational opportunities.The Guild Inn: The property surrounding The Guild Inn comprises 36 hectares of culturally significant landscape. Although the existingbuildings are not in good condition, there are opportunities for theatre space, both indoor and open-air. The Cityʼs Department of EconomicDevelopment Culture and Tourism is preparing feasibility studies for a multi-purpose arts and culture centre. This project could be pursuedjointly with the Task Force.Bluffers Park: This is a TRCA facility which houses a commercial marina, restaurants and private yacht clubs. It is highly prized as asummer recreation destination and heavily used during peak periods.Connections/Linkages: The primary objective for the East Waterfront is to provide for linkages between waterfront sites (i.e. WaterfrontTrail) and connections to the City (i.e. Kingston Road streetcar). The Kingston Road streetcar is a powerful and generating initiative toachieve an east/west linkage along the 29 mile waterfront. The linkages between open space areas can be achieved with strategicpurchases of private property and by utilizing various local roads where topography makes waterfront linkages unfeasible, as is often thesituation in the Eastern Waterfront. These were critical and supported the overall goal of a passive waterfront with several areas ofenhanced recreational opportunities. (ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 56-57)(Photograph: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, page 10)The Western WaterfrontMimico Waterfront Trail Extension: The continuation of the Waterfront Trail, from Humber Bay Shores through to Norris Crescent Park, isa long standing objective. This trail extension has been identified by the Etobicoke Community as the next logical step in the continuation ofthis important waterfront amenity. The former City of Etobicokeʼs Waterfront Planning Committee initiated this half-mile trail extension in1991. Since then both the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and City staff have been given direction to proceed with the project.Preliminary property negotiations have commenced and the TRCA along with the City/community are proceeding to obtain allenvironmental approvals. The project is at the conceptual stage and includes a 10 metre wide multi-use trail with a small boat day mooringfacility located at Superior Avenue Park. The day mooring facility, while still conceptual, was originally supported by the Mimico Businessesand the Humber Bay West boating community. The project lands include approximately 15 private properties. The cooperation of theselandowners is an important part of the implementation of the project. The implementation of this trail is the next step in the westernextension of this important amenity and will help to facilitate not only increased recreational enjoyment of the Cityʼs waterfront amenity butalso will be an added benefit to the Lake Shore business community. This project will also complete the vision for the Humber Bay Westharbour area and its sailing focus.Mimico Creek/ Etobicoke Creek Restoration: Just west of Park Lawn Road the Mimico Creek valley runs north/south and flows into LakeOntario. A short distance north of Lake Shore Boulevard the creek forks to the west and has created a small wetland area. As part of
studies undertaken by the former City of Etobicoke, this area has been identified as an open space with the potential for creating significantconnections and providing the habitat linkages between the waterfront and the remaining watershed. The Mimico Creek valley has alsobeen identified as a flood plain. The design and management of this park system has been seen as an opportunity to support the naturalenvironment of the major river valleys, enhance the aesthetic of the area and provide year round opportunities for education and recreation.A significant percentage of the land required for the restoration is already in public ownership. Community groups in South Etobicoke haveidentified the restoration of the Mimico Creek wetland and the regeneration at the mouth of Etobicoke Creek as important projects. Theserestoration projects have many similarities to the Bring Back The Don initiative and its implementation would be a welcome improvement tothis Lake Shore community. Watershed management strategy development has been initiated for the Etobicoke and Mimico CreekWatersheds. A Task Force has been developed to prioritize opportunities for enhancement, regeneration and celebration of thesewatersheds. The strategy will support the initiatives identified along the waterfront and build important community partnerships.Enhancements to Colonel Samuel Smith Park Ongoing initiatives are transforming the area, including renovations to change the LakeshoreAssembly Hall into a cultural centre for the community, recently announced by the City. The building, situated on the south-east corner ofLake Shore Boulevard West and Kipling Avenue on the Lakeshore Grounds, formerly known as the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital, hasbeen a prominent and distinctive feature of the Etobicoke area for over 100 years. When completed, the Assembly Hall will provide facilitiesfor a wide range of arts and cultural programs and gatherings, including exhibitions, community meetings, conferences, plays,presentations, and workshops. (ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 57-58)(Connections to the Waterfront: Our Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page 34)Phasing of ImplementationThe Development Concept is intended to be implemented over a period of 25 years. The phasing of development will be affected by thefollowing key factors, assuming the organizational, approval and financing structures are in place.• The timing required for completion of Olympic related facilities, including the development of the Athletesʼ and Media Villages, the newOlympic facilities and open spaces such as the medals plazas, and the infrastructure to support this development.• The impact of the Olympics on the scheduling of other development initiatives so that the City will appear in complete condition, with nodisturbances due to construction activities during the Olympics.• The ability of the market to absorb the proposed 40,000 new housing units, which is assumed to be at a steady rate, except for the 4,000units required for the Olympic Villages in August 2008, and for the inevitable ups and downs of the economy.• The need to jump start the Convergence Centre as a focus for the new economy in the Portlands.• The need to coordinate the demolition of the elevated Gardiner Expressway from Exhibition Place and the Don Valley Expressway withthe approved demolition of the Gardiner to the east of the Don Valley.• The need to expedite soil remediation projects and flood control measures through the realignment of the Don River and development ofberms along the river, prior to redevelopment of much of the West Donlands and Portlands areas.• The need to coordinate and expedite environmental approvals so that the reconstruction of the Gardiner corridor, estimated to take 6years, will be completed by 2008 for the Olympics. Careful coordination is required to ensure that disruption to traffic is minimized. The planfor rebuilding the Gardiner provides for the construction of new routes prior to demolition of the elevated roadway. It is understood thatplans are underway for improvements to Union Station to increase GO and TTC capacity and develop an intermodal station, a key totransportation access for the Central Waterfront. (ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page 59)Organizing Structure, Powers and GovernancePrevious attempts to revitalize Torontoʼs waterfront failed, in part, because there has never been a realistic and effective operationalmechanism for the financing and management of the redevelopment. One of the principal objectives of the Task Force has been to deviseeffective operational and financial strategies. A review of successful developments that other countries have undertaken revealed that theyhad in common the formation of a mandate specific ʻdevelopment corporationʼ. The corporation was formed by the governments involvedfor the specific purpose of developing a designated area. The corporation would act in a business like way but possess key governmentpowers for catalyzing development. Each of these corporations was a function of their individual circumstances, yet common themes canbe identified:• All corporations had the authority to sell, lease or mortgage their land assets.• They operated in a business model, with the requisite real estate and management skills.• They offered investors or partners a greatly simplified planning process.• Their governance structure was efficient and action-orientated.• The corporations also received government financial assistance, not only by way of grants, but also in the form of tax abatements, creditsand other programs.• All were intergovernmental in their ownership and support.The conclusion is that once the consultative process is completed and the public policy objectives established, the management of therevitalization of the Toronto waterfront must ultimately be consolidated within one entity. By necessity, that entity must be a Corporationwith its own legal persona, with an ability to acquire, hold and dispose of property, raise financing and be a party to transactions and legalproceedings in its own name. The corporation must have effective control of the development of all waterfront lands, implementing a
previously agreed overall plan. The corporation would have a ʻsunsetʼ clause. For purposes of the financing model the Task Forcerecommends the incorporation of a non-share capital corporation under the Canada Corporations Act of which the Government of Canada,the Government of Ontario and the City of Toronto would be members. The ʻToronto Waterfront Development Corporationʼ (TWDC), thusconstituted, would be what is known in government parlance as a ʻjoint enterpriseʼ. Although the federal and provincial governments wouldbe members of the Corporation the TWDC would not be listed in the Schedules to the (federal) Financial Administration Act and, otherwise,would not be a federal Crown corporation. Likewise, the Corporation would not be scheduled as an agency, board, or commission of theGovernment of Ontario. The Task Force recommends that the Corporation be incorporated as soon as practicable. Legislative authorityexists for the federal government to become a member of the Corporation, as long as the federal government does not acquire a controlposition. Specific statutory authority appears to be required for the Ontario government to become a member of, or shareholder in, acorporation. Furthermore, the current Municipal Act does not contain any authority for a municipality such as Toronto to be a member of anon-share capital corporation.13 Proposals to amend the Municipal Act released by the Ontario government in the Spring of 1998 includeprovisions specifically prohibiting municipalities from ʻincorporating a corporationʼ or ʻacquiring or guaranteeing any interest in a security of acorporationʼ.14 It is not clear whether these proposed prohibitions would apply to a municipality becoming a member of a non-share capitalcorporation. If they do, the Task Force recommends that Ontario provide the necessary statutory authority for the City of Toronto to becomea member of the Corporation. The concept of this corporation is perhaps the key recommendation of the Task Force. The Task Force,therefore, strongly recommends that the three levels of government forthwith set up a working group to develop a specific acceptableproposal for the Toronto Waterfront Development Corporation. The Task Force has done significant research relating to corporations whichother cities; such as London, New York, Detroit, Baltimore, etc, have used to advance their plan, and would be prepared to assist indeveloping the concept if requested to do so. (ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 61-62)The Financial ConceptIn order to develop a conceptual framework plan, a detailed study of the Development Plan as conceived was undertaken and subsequentlycosted by Marshall Macklin Monaghan. The cost estimates were then verified by Tempest Management Corporation SNC Lavalin.On the revenue, and potential P3 partnerships, advice was sought from RBC Dominion Securities, TD Securities and KPMG LLP. Valueswith respect to real estate were compiled by Barry Lyon Consultants Ltd. and Trust co Property Corporation. Based on input from theabove, a financing model was built which served as the template for the financial concept.Introduction: The infrastructure costs associated with implementation of the Development Concept proposed by the Task Force areestimated to be in the order of $5.2 billion. Additional spending for the construction of buildings etc. by the private sector exclusively isestimated to be in the order of $7 billion, bringing the total project all-in cost to the order of $12 billion. In order to fund the $5.2 billion, theTask Force has provided the government with Revenue Generation options that range between $3.42 billion and $5.5 billion. Private debtfinancing utilizing the cash flow stream from some of these revenue options can be arranged for $1.99 billion to $3 billion. (These numbersare described in Figures 1, 2 and 3 which follow.)Land Sales/Leases (Residential): The Toronto condominium apartment market has expanded and diversified considerably over the past20 years. Condominia are increasingly accepted as a lifestyle-oriented form of housing. In the area demarcated by the boundaries of theformer City of Toronto in which the waterfront lands are located, a sustainable level of condominium apartment sales appears to be in therange of 3,000 to 4,000 units annually. For the four main redevelopment districts across the waterfront (Exhibition Place/Garrison, EastBayfront, West Donlands, Portlands), average sales in the range of 1,100 units per year appear to be reasonable. Based on a land-useconcept prepared for the Task Force, the Task Force has estimated the residential development capacity of each of the available landparcels in the four main waterfront districts. That capacity is estimated to total about 38,700 residential units. Based on estimatedabsorption rates, the Task Force anticipates that the build out program would be completed by 2022. Revenues generated by the sale orlease of waterfront lands are estimated, for purposes of the Financing Model, to be in the range of $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion. The strength ofthe home-buying market is geared to the state of the job market. For the condominium and rental apartment market an added element isthe fact that apartment occupants are largely motivated by convenience factors, considering the relatively high prices they pay for theirrelatively small living spaces. For many, being close to their places of work, if possible within walking distance, is a critical amenity.Accordingly, creation of the nearby employment envisaged by the Development Concept is critically important to maximizing the value ofthe residential land components. New employment in the range of 15,000 to 25,000 has been assumed for purposes of the FinancingModel. Land Sales/Leases (Non-Residential) For purposes of the Financing Model, revenue from non-residential land sales and leases inthe Central Waterfront are estimated to be in the range of $50 to $60 million. An average absorption rate of 500,000 square feet per annum(with the Portlands moving faster than average) has been put to the Task Force as a reasonable assumption. The Exhibition District, whichwill include the National Trade Centre expansion and the Trade Marts, constitute a third of the total commercial yield on the waterfront andare included in the Financing Model at zero value.Infrastructure Spending: Many of the lands to be developed are publicly owned and governments will undertake much of theinfrastructure activity. Since the details have yet to be fleshed out, the implications for tax revenues such as GST and PST, land transfer taxand property taxes cannot be estimated with any precision. Total direct, indirect, and induced soft revenues associated with theinfrastructure spending will be in the order of $0.9 billion, the largest component of which will be personal income taxes on increasedincomes. Infrastructure spending is calculated to generate approximately 26,000 person-years of direct employment, primarily as on-siteconstruction employment and an additional 30,000 person-years of indirect and induced employment.End-State Impacts: Soft revenues associated with the residential/business/land use mix of the Central Waterfront for the projected end-state year (2023) were also estimated. End state revenues include:• Additional property taxes generated by the 40,000 residential units and non-residential development in the Central Waterfront; and• Direct, indirect, and induced effects of the 24,000 jobs expected to be located in the Central Waterfront.Total direct, indirect and induced soft revenues associated with the end-state were estimated to be in the order of $0.6 billion annually.Existing economic activity and soft revenues on the site were not quantified, but the amounts are relatively small compared to the end- stateoutcomes already described. The analysis provided to the Task Force focused on the six zones that constitute the Central Waterfront. Itdeveloped no estimates of soft revenues associated with additional economic activity elsewhere in the GTA or the Province and made noadjustments for possible diversion of economic activity from other parts of the GTA to the Area as a result of its redevelopment. It is clear,
however, that this Business Plan, if implemented, could have a significant impact on the economy of the city, and would enhance existingtourist draws and create new ones, thereby renewing the Cityʼs somewhat aging portfolio of destination attractions and offsetting the declinein tourism visitation to the City.(ʻOur Toronto Waterfrontʼ, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 62-70)Torontoʼs Waterfront Design Details;Public Promenade & Wooden Deck Jetty:(Photograph: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, page 26)Bridge Design(Photograph: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, page 21)
(Drawings & Models: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, West 8+DTAH, 2007, pages 36-42)
GUIDING PRINCIPALS & KEY ISSUES;Sustainability Principals for Torontoʼs WaterfrontThere is no single approach to sustainability that fits every community. Experience elsewhere demonstrates that it is through the systematicapplication of sustainability principles based on solid information about existing environmental, economic, and social conditions that acommunity will find its own pathway to sustainability. (Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 2, page 1)Sustainable Waterfront Revitalization for an Integrated Sustainable CommunityA precise definition is not critical. However, it is important to revitalization of Torontoʼs waterfront that there is general agreement about thekey aspects of a sustainable community, including;• Social progress that meets the needs of everyone.• Effective protection of the environment.• Prudent use of natural resources.• Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.• Vibrant, diverse, economically strong community• Efficient use of power & green energy• Green space & green buildings• Green water, waste water & storm water infrastructure• Extraordinary design• Reuse, recover & recycle land facilities & waste• With a strong sense of place• Transit, bike, pedestrian & water access(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 1, pages 3-4) stMission: To put Canada at the forefront of global cities in the 21 Century by transforming the waterfront into beautiful, accessible newcommunities, parks and public spaces, fostering economic growth in knowledge-based, creative industries and, ultimately, redefining howthe city, province, and country are perceived by the world.Vision: Working with the community and public and private partners, the Corporation will create spectacular waterfront spaces, culturalinstitutions, and diverse and sustainable commercial and residential communities that offer a quality of life second to none. We willcapitalize on Torontoʼs existing global economic clusters to establish a Portlands District for Creativity and Innovation and strive to ensurethat Toronto is the city where the world desires to live.Objectives• Develop accessible, new and improved waterfront communities and public spaces that offer a high quality of life for residents and visitorsalike• Attract innovative, knowledge-based industries to the Portlands• Engage the community as an active partner in revitalization• Develop strategic partnerships to attract private-sector investment(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 1, page 2)Building a Sustainable CommunityBuilding a sustainable community means paying attention to several important aspects of revitalization at the same time. It is widely agreedthat development is not moving in the direction of sustainability unless it is characterized by:• Achieving exemplar standards of functional and beautiful urban design.• Minimizing resource consumption and waste production.• Ensuring that participation in governance is as broad as possible.• Encouraging innovation that addresses conservation and building technologies.• Increasing economic opportunity and self-sufficiency.• Focusing on development that supports diversity of all types along with a strong sense of community.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 1, page 4)Core Principles of the City of Toronto Central Waterfront Plan1A. Removing barriers/making connectionsB. Building a network of spectacular waterfront parks and public spacesC. Promoting a clean and green environmentD. Creating dynamic and diverse new communities(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 2, page 1)Global Hub of Creativity and InnovationThe Toronto waterfront will emerge as the global hub of creativity and innovation. Revitalization of the Toronto waterfront will drive theeconomy through leadership in sustainability and make the waterfront a place where people are drawn by the range of opportunities forinnovation and investment. Revitalization of the Toronto waterfront will result in the tranquility, recreational activities, clean environment,aquatic and terrestrial habitat and natural “wildness” of a northern lakeside cottage with year-round recreational and cultural opportunities,green space, access to the lake and environmentally safe public amenities including clean beaches open for swimming and fish populationssuitable for eating.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 2, page 9)
Responding to the changing economic, social, environmental and cultural conditions as well as technological and scientific breakthroughs,The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporationʼs (TWRC) Sustainability Policy is outlined in the Actions, Strategies, Objectives &Targets below;SUSTAINABLE LAND USEGoal: Land use planning that supports sustainable community development.Rationale: Land use planning is a fundamental driver of sustainable communities and links to most of the themes in the Framework. Itprovides the physical context within which communities grow but it is the principles underlying land use planning decisions that determinehow features such as street layout, open space and building placement combine to bring vitality and diversity of opportunity to the Torontowaterfront. Sustainable land use will optimize street layout and building placement to capture energy savings, access to lake andcommunity interaction.Response: Good urban planning has always been about finding balance among competing interests in a way that results in a high qualityof life. In many respects this is consistent with a sustainability approach although it is incumbent on planners and urban designers to beexplicit about how their decisions were shaped by an intent to move forward on sustainability. Sustainable communities rely on a mix ofuses to bring diversity and vibrancy to an area. From a land use planning perspective that means the best land use planning is in no wayhomogenous. Mixed land use and compact urban development are essential to community sustainability. Other links between sustainabilityand land use planning include building placement that optimizes energy efficiency options and community interaction and features such aseast/west recreational trails, north/south vistas, and fully integrated transit-system land use that encourages frequent interactions ofresidents, workers, visitors, and learners.Of particular importance on the Toronto waterfront is easy access to the lake along with excellent views of the lake. Increased access andvisibility will contribute to the long-term viability of the area by inviting on-going “interaction and engagement with the waterfront.”8 Streetlayout that is welcoming and encourages walking and community interaction year-round are also essential to the sustainability of waterfrontcommunities.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, pages 11-12)Objective 1: Mixed land use.Strategy: Development patterns consistent with sustainability.Actions: Conduct consultative precinct planning that results in mixed land use, balancing residential, commercial, industrial and parks andopen space and compact urban development with excellent access to the lake, to public transit, and to community and recreational features•Determine minimum targets for pervious land surface and green space.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, page 13)Objective 2: Vibrant street lifeStrategy: Attract people to the streets.Actions: Orient buildings and streets to ensure most walking zones have good sunlight for a significant part of the day • Install three to fourkilometers of well-designed • Designate car-free zones. walkways that are attractive and functional throughout all four seasons, regardlessof climate • Designate car-free zones.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, page 13)Objective 3: Maximize opportunities for use of renewable energy.Strategy: Taking energy requirements into account during land use planning.Action: Orient building and streets to optimize access to natural lighting and heat from winter sun.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, page 13)Objective 4: Enhanced animal and aquatic habitat.Strategy: Site design that accommodates animal and aquatic habitat.Actions: Habitat enhancement along the waterʼs edge – including harder edge on the western side and more wetland - as on the east •Create and maintain networks of natural systems both within the site and beyond its boundaries including linking the Don River corridor,Cherry Beach, Lake Ontario Park, and the Leslie Street Spit.• Infrastructure creation that facilitates understanding, appreciation, and use offish and wildlife resources.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, pages 13-14)Objective 5: Compatibility between designated land uses and sustainable infrastructure.Strategy: Coordinate infrastructure and land use planning.Actions: Site development adjacent to existing infrastructure • Ensure that open spaces and parks planning complement objectives of theCity of Torontoʼs Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan • Ensure that site development and building placement strengthenopportunities for district energy solutions.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, page 14)Objective 6: Recapture value of abandoned and underused sites.Strategy: Redevelop abandoned sites.Action: Create a Brownfields Remediation Strategy for the Toronto waterfront.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, page 14)SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATIONGoal: Make alternative transportation options such as walking cycling and public transit the natural choice for residents and visitors to thewaterfront area.Rationale: The use of cars is a major contributor to air pollution both through the use of fossil fuels and, to a lesser extent, the energyembedded in materials used in cars. Even if nonpolluting sources of fuel become common place one-day, the widespread use of cars willstill have a negative impact on the environment through the expansion and building of roads through agricultural and natural ecosystems.Response: Sustainable communities maximize the use of alternative transportation options for moving people and goods. Getting people
out of cars and walking or cycling has significant public health benefits, decreases contributions to global warming and contributes tocommunity vibrancy through increased opportunities for interaction.Objective 1: Minimize car useStrategy: Discourage car use.Actions: Restrict opportunities for parking on-site • Designate car-free zones • Minimize amount of impervious paved surfaces for roadsand parking • Situate basic shopping needs and personal services within walking distance of residential units.Target 1: Individual waterfront resident driving a maximum of 1300 kilometres per capita per year.12Target 2: all residences within 350 metres of a light rapid transit (LRT), streetcar or bus stop.13,14Objective 2: Increase walking, cycling and public transit use.Strategy: Make walking, cycling and public transit attractive options.Actions: Create bike paths and pedestrian linkages with and between waterfront neighbourhoods and the rest of the City • Createextensive on-site bicycling facilities and parking.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, pages 15-18)SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGSGoal: Elegant architectural building systems that reduce negative environmental impacts and provide high indoor air quality andexceptional comfort.Rationale: Sustainable building systems are ones that meet sustainability objectives for reduced use of natural resources duringconstruction and during operation. They provide high levels of personal comfort for their occupants due to exceptional indoor air quality anda strong connection to the outdoors. Where possible, sustainable building systems also anticipate future technologies and take this intoaccount during design. They demonstrate elegant architectural solutions to these challenges. Addressing the sustainability dimensions of abuilding site, such as aesthetic compatibility with the existing community or natural setting, presence of contaminated soil, or a lack ofexisting infrastructure, can enhance the sustainability features of a building and make a much greater contribution towards a sustainablecommunity than a stand-alone building.Response: The Toronto waterfront will be a showcase of the multitude of innovations in high-performance building design, current andemerging. They will be built to last and will make use of existing on-site materials where it is safely possible to do so. The TWRC willchoose land revitalization that supports sustainability by exploring options to conventional large-scale, top-down commercial developmentprocesses. Examples of alternatives include coordinated development of several sites within a designated area to promote diversity, sale ofland to individual households or syndicates of households or not-for-profit agencies that will to conform to strong sustainability standards, oraccepting a less than market return on land in exchange for achieving higher sustainability performance. During the past ten years, thecombined efforts of pioneering architects and building engineers have come together to create a new generation of architecture withsubstantially reduced environmental footprints and increased occupant health, comfort and productivity. These building systems are theresult of a new integrated design process that brings together a wide variety of disciplines early in the design process and seeks tomaximize efficiency and elegance of design from a systems perspective. Sustainable buildings on the Toronto waterfront will meeteconomic and social demands for building longevity by focusing on durability of materials and systems and flexibility of building use.Sustainable buildings will apply Leadership in Energy and Design (LEED) standards through an integrated design process to implementappropriate energy efficiency measures, recycle materials, use materials from sustainable sources and local sources, and reduce thegeneration of construction and demolition waste over conventional building systems.LEED standards address indoor air quality through measures such as natural lighting and ventilation and minimizing the use of materialsthat have off-gas properties. LEED also encourages the use of appliances with high energy efficiency. The sustainability features of thebuilding site are an important component of LEED. For example, is the proposed building in an area with existing infrastructure or part of abrownfield remediation scheme? For more detailed technical discussion of sustainable buildings on the waterfront. (Reference: TWRCʼsGreen Building Standards.)Objective 1: More sustainable buildings.Strategy 1: Market sustainable building concept.Actions: Produce marketing materials aimed at the development community and at the general public outlining the benefits of sustainablebuildings • Develop an awards program that recognizes excellence in sustainable building design on the Toronto waterfront.Strategy 2: Showcase sustainability buildings of outstanding beauty and high performance.Action: Build an exemplary sustainability building or set of buildings very early in the waterfront revitalization process.Objective 2: High performance sustainable building systemsStrategy 1: Integrated design process.Actions: Hold integrated design workshops with members of the design, construction, and operations teams at the beginning of all majorbuilding initiatives • TWRC building and site design request for proposals and terms of reference will stipulate the use of an integrateddesign process.Strategy 2: Apply LEED standards.Action: Make LEED standards available to all interested parties.Target: All new buildings designed between 2005- 2008 will conform to LEED Gold certification. During 2008, an evaluation will be carriedon the feasibility of all new buildings conforming to LEED Platinum.Objective 3: Building sites that maximize sustainable oppertunities.Strategy: Locate buildings close to existing infrastructure or in under-serviced areas such as the Portlands; site buildings to minimize theneed for new infrastructure and resource use.Action: Explore the opportunities for different types of district heating and cooling, capitalizing on economies of scale and long-termfinancial arrangements.Objective 4: Buildings that are compatible with a high quality of life in associated communities.Strategy 1: Buildings that contribute to a sense of community.
Actions: Barrier-free design consistent with the City of Torontoʼs Accessibility Design Guidelines for all major public buildings and facilitieson the Toronto waterfront • Design buildings and sites to allow sunlight into corridors and courtyards. For example, keep buildings low in thefront to allow sunlight into the street.Strategy 2: Buildings that allow residents, workers, and visitors to the waterfront to feel connected to nature.Action: Design buildings that incorporate atria, winter gardens, roof-top gardens, terraces, green houses, and other elements that visuallyconnect people with plants. Commercial building designs will enable all occupants with stationary desks to maintain visual access to theoutdoors.Objective 5: Long life for buildings and related structures.Strategy: Buildings that allow for full adaptability over time.Action: Super-size the height of the first floor of residential buildings to allow for easier conversion to commercial uses over time.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, pages 19-26)AIR QUALITYGoal: Minimize pollutant emissions on the Toronto waterfront to help improve air quality in the City and throughout the region.Rationale: Poor air quality has a dramatic effect on quality of life in the city, especially during the summer months, and can negativelyaffect plant, animal, and aquatic habitat. Air pollution includes ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide andsmall particulates that can be inhaled and cause irritation to the respiratory tissues. A recent report by TorontoPublic Health estimated that five common air pollutants contribute to about 1,700 premature deaths and 6,000 hospital admissions inToronto each year19. Air quality is directly linked to energy and transportation choices. Fossil fuels are by far the current favouredenergysource for transportation as well as for space heating, cooling, and lighting for all industrial, commercial, and residential purposes.The use of fossil fuels is fundamentally unsustainable since not only are they major sources of air pollution but they are also finite naturalresources that will eventually be used up.Response: A sustainability response to air quality is strongly linked to energy use along with land use and infrastructure planning.Complementary benefits of reduced greenhouse gases, smog precursors and toxic air pollutants will be achieved through theTWRCʼs initiatives on energy, transportation and land use. Ultimately, the waterfrontʼs influence on Torontoʼs air quality will depend on thedegree to which fossil fuel use can be avoided. The Toronto waterfront will address poor air quality by encouraging energy efficiency andthe use of alternatives to fossil fuels for heating, cooling, light and transport. This approach will be supplemented and implemented throughactivities such as mixed use planning and alternatives to auto use, controlling pollutant and particulate emissions from construction andpost-construction, developing partnerships with industry and research organizations to find ways to reduce emissions and track carbon off-sets, and building a reasonable tree canopy to improve air quality and enhance biodiversity and community liveability. Goals and targets inthe energy and transportation, land use and materials and waste sections of this framework are strongly related to this category of impacts.Objective 1: Reduce concentrations of the air pollutants that contribute to smogNOTE: Reducing smog has strong links to several additional strategies and actions listed under other themes particularly Transportation,Energy and Human Communities.Strategy 1: Mixed use planning to minimize car use.Action: Situate basic shopping needs and personal services within walking distance of residential units.Target: All residential units within 350m of basic shopping needs and personal services.Strategy 2: Increased control of polluting emissions duringSmog Alert days.Action: Adopt a set of smog alert protocols for the Toronto waterfront for construction and post-construction phases. The protocols shouldcomplement the smog alert response plan already in place for City of Toronto operations.Objective 2: Minimize dust from construction and demolition activities.Action: Adopt a set of demolition and construction dust control protocols for the Toronto waterfront.Objective 3: Purify air and add beauty and comfort on site.Strategy: Expand tree canopyAction 1: Develop landscaping plan to provide shade in summer and wind resistance in winter.Target: 30-35% coverage of site with trees.Action 2: Develop tree maintenance protocols to ensure sustained tree growth.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, pages 27-29)HUMAN COMMUNITIESGoal: Vibrant welcoming healthy and inclusive waterfrontCommunities.Rationale: Communities with a high quality of life are desirable places to live, work and do business. Sustainable communities arecharacterized by a clean environment, a resilient economy and strong sense of social-well being throughout the population. A sustainablecommunity supports and encourages diversity and takes long-term and external impacts into account during decision-making.Strengthening sustainability within a community often begins with a clear vision but it is really a process of creative, local, balanceddecision-making that continues to adjust to changing realities of community and urban living.Response: Pursuing the development of sustainable communities on the Toronto waterfront will ensure that the waterfront is transformedinto a place where people from all backgrounds and ages can live, work, play, visit, and learn in a way that strengthens and celebrates thebeauty, the diversity, the economic vitality, the opportunities, the creativity, the heritage, and the natural environment of the City of Torontoand the GTA.Sustainability communities will also attract a mix of people to the waterfront including adults with children, seniors, New Canadians andthose from all economic backgrounds A sustainable approach to community development includes dramatically improving access to thewaterfront, improving and maintaining attractive, environmentally sound parks, open spaces and recreational opportunities, stimulatingmixed use development that provides housing options for a wide variety of living arrangements and pocketbooks, and creating small- andmedium-scale commercial opportunities and diverse employment options.Objective 1: Waterfront communities that attract people all year round.
Strategy: Enhanced recreational features.Action 1: Create and maintain green and open space that is suitable for a wide range of recreational activities and park land.Target: 25% of waterfront area devoted to new and improved parks and open spaces (over 200 hectares).Action 2: Implement strategies to clean up waterfront beaches.Target: At least eight waterfront beaches meeting Blue Flag certification for water clean enough to swim in by 2008.Action 3: Develop winter recreational programs across the Toronto waterfront.Action 4: Create extensive year round walking, biking, fishing, and boating opportunities.Objective 2: A place to live, for people from all walks of life, of all ages.Strategy: A diverse housing mix and related community services.Action 1: Include appropriate housing to support all age groups and families of all types, sizes, and economic levels.Action 2: Build or enhance the appropriate number and type of community services including outdoor play areas, community centers,elementary and secondary schools, daycares, and libraries.Target: 25% of new residences targeted for affordable HousingObjective 3: Appropriate mix of residential and commercial space.Strategy: Draw small, medium, and large businesses to the waterfront.Action: Market the business benefits of being part of a sustainable waterfront community. Target businesses and corporations that havedemonstrated interest in the sustainability concept.Target: At least 25% of space is commercial space.Objective 4: A peaceful and relaxing enviroment.Strategy: Minimize noise and light pollution.Action 1: Develop and implement a noise control strategy.Target: Ambient noise levels of 45 dB (A) in residential areas.Action 2: Develop and implement a strategy to minimize direct light beams directed beyond site boundaries or upwards without fallingentirely on a surface for the purpose of illuminating that surface28 (this has a link to the Natural Environment theme since it would need tobe designed to also minimize bird strikes of buildings).Objective 5: Community involvement in growing healthy nutritious food.Strategy: Community gardeningAction: Creation of community gardens throughout waterfront communities. Identify and make available public plots of land that aresuitable forfood growing adjacent to or on residential and community development by 2004.Action: Encourage organic farming/gardening methods.Action: Establish a healthy food/local market café by 2007.Target: All new residential buildings will incorporate roof gardens, balcony gardens, and/or community gardening plots. (Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, pages 33-41)CULTURAL RESOURCESGoal: A high level of cultural vibrancy and creativity.Rationale: A strong commitment to cultural vibrancy goes hand-in-hand with support for the arts, recreation, cultural heritage, festivals,services, sports and street activities. An engaging waterfront is an attractive and stimulating place to visit, live and work, brings manydifferent benefits to the community, the City and region and welcomes and enables all people to fully participate in City life.Response: Cultural priorities and the wise management of cultural resources on the waterfront need to be incorporated into many aspectsof waterfront revitalization. Integrating cultural considerations into activities such as land use planning, thedesign of parks, public space and buildings, ensures the creation an attractive mix of features that draw people to the area year round andcontribute greatly to the likelihood of achieving an overall beautiful natural and built environment on the waterfront. Integrating culturalconsiderations into revitalization requires understanding the cultural opportunities that exist in the near and longer terms as well asprotecting and enhancing cultural heritage resources that are already in place.Objective 1: Maximize cultural resources on the waterfront.Strategy: Incorporate cultural features and activities throughout the waterfront.Action 1: Create a visual identity program including public art and interpretive resources.Action 2: Create cultural and heritage destinations on a variety of scales.Action 3: Strengthen connections between the waterfront and the city through historically and/or culturally significant corridors.Action 4: Support artistic and cultural expression in new buildings, new infrastructure, in urban ecological processes and in green and openspaces.Objective 2: Protect and enhance existing cultural and heritage resources, including built heritage.Strategy: Understand the nature and extent of existing waterfront built and cultural heritage and archaeological resources and how theycan be integrated as part of sustainable community development.Action 1: Develop an inventory and map of cultural heritage resources along the waterfront, and ensure the inventory is reviewed forrelevance to each waterfront initiative.Action 2: Develop an operational strategy for integrating cultural heritage resources into planning and design for site, buildings andinfrastructure using approaches such as restoration, adaptive re-use and public artObjective 3: Maximize cultural activities.Strategy: Provide a wide range of opportunities for cultural activities and facilities.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, pages 43-46)
NATIONAL HERITAGEGoal: Greatly enhance the environmental integrity of the Toronto waterfrontRationale: The health of the local ecosystem has profound implications for the ultimate sustainability of local communities and the Cityand region as a whole. Many issues relating to this theme are covered in other parts of the framework, including air quality and water.Polluted soil, air, and water pose health risks and are strong obstacles to building vibrant communities. Degraded habitats and invasiveplant monocultures reduce the viability of area ecosystems over the long term and detract from the natural beauty that would attract peopleto the waterfront to live, work and play. As well, an enhancement or expansion of the current natural heritage promotes a more naturalwater cycle, enhances biodiversity and provides greater opportunities for recreation and a higher quality of life than paved and other waterimpervious ground cover. Prior to settlement of the Toronto area, the shoreline was very different from the one we know today. Rivers andcreeks supplied clear, cool water and provided habitats for riverspawning fish such as salmon. Nutrient-rich estuaries supported wetlandsteeming with wildlife. Sandy spits provided protection from winds and wave action. Sheltered stretches of shoreline were lined with lushstands of emergent vegetation. Much of the nearshore was covered with sand, gravel and stone (Whillans, 1999).Response: Measures will be taken to restore and enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat including creating favourable conditions formigratory birds with an emphasis on high quality habitat restoration. Setting high targets for habitat improvement will strengthen biodiversityand focus attention on the value of these natural assets. Restored and enhanced aquatic habitats will allow renewed opportunities forsustainable use of fishery resources. A reasonable goal would be to introduce biodiversity into waterfront areas using regionally appropriateflora and fauna. Native plant species are an excellent choice because they generally require much less water to thrive and because they donot introduce the risk of ecosystem disruption that can accompany the introduction of non-indigenous plant species. Appropriateecosystems for the waterfront would be wetland or Carolinian.Objective 1: Extensive habitat improvement.Strategy: Restore and enhance natural communities in accordance with soil, topographic and hydrologic conditionsAction 1: Implement the recommendations for improving the ecological health of the shoreline contained in the Toronto Waterfront AquaticHabitat Restoration Strategy including improving water and sediment quality, re-introducing top predators such as muskellunge and walleyeand increasing structural diversity across the waterfront.Action 2: Protect and restore the habitat for all wildlife, including migratory birds.Action 3: Create and maintain networks of green space throughout the waterfront as identified in the Toronto and Region TerrestrialNatural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS).Objective 2: Strengthen native biodiversity.Strategy: Ground cover with a diversity of indigenous plant species.Action 1: Identify native plants most suitable for waterfront revitalization.Action 2: Ensure a mix of plant species, avoiding the creation of monocultures.Target: 80% of all restoration plantings on publicly owned gardens and landscape areas are native to Southern Ontario. Remaining 20%must be non-invasive species.Objective 3: State-of-the-art integrated soil management.Strategy: Safe and effective management of contaminated soils.Action: Implement the TWRCʼs Integrated Groundwater Management Soil Strategy.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, pages 47-50)WATERGoal: Improve water quality along the Toronto waterfront and reduce per capita consumption of fresh water.Rationale: Excellent water quality is a vital component of a sustainable community since it essential for human health and the health of theecosystem as a whole. Conservation of fresh water is also important since, even in urban centres like Toronto that have a good supply offresh water, it requires energy and other resources to deliver treated water to homes, businesses and industries.Response: The Toronto waterfront will be the demonstration city for the conservation, integration and sustainable innovation of waterfrontsand water resources. The aim is to takes steps that will support the improvement of water quality on the waterfront while sharing thebenefits of improved water quality with Toronto and the GTA as a whole. The waterfront will be clean, healthy and safe for recreationincluding swimming. The Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan is an important source for building a sound response to some of themajor sustainability challenges posed by under the water theme. The Toronto waterfront will also pursue revitalization in a way thatmaximizes the opportunities for the conservation of drinking water. Freshwater will be preserved and respected as a precious resource andwill not be widely used for purposes where waste water (also known as grey water) would be a safe and effective alternative. The Torontowaterfront will also be foremost in the development of elegant waterfront architecture, water art and green building and open space design.Objective 1: Contribute to improved water quality in the lake.Strategy: Reduce likelihood of contaminants entering the lake.Action 1: Implement measures help absorb rainwater such greenroofs, widespread greenspace, permeable surfaces, rain gardens, and,where necessary, surface gutters routing water to rain gardens.Action 2: Institute best practice guidelines for the control of herbicides; salt; animal waste and other pollutants.Action 3: As permeable surfaces increase, build proposed tunnel to collect storm-water runoff for treatment prior to discharge.Action 4: Reduce the quantity and improve the quality of Storm-water runoff by implementing the recommendations of the City of TorontoWet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. This includes:1. As a priority, rainwater (including snowmelt) should be managed where it falls on the lots and streets of the city, particularly before itenters a sewer.2. Wet weather flow should be managed on a watershed basis with a natural systems approach being applied to storm-water managementas a priority.3. A hierarchy of wet weather flow solutions should be implemented starting with at source, then conveyance, and finally end-of-pipe.4. Torontoʼs communities need to be made aware of wet weather flow issues and involved in the solutions.Objective 2: Reduce use of portable water
Strategy: Increase the use of rainwater and grey-water.Action 1: Capture storm-water and reuse on-site.Action 2: Design and implement an integrated water management plan that relies on the use of clean storm-water and available grey-waterfor toilet flushing and other uses where drinking water quality is not essential.Target: Set target for per capita consumption of potable water at 150 litres per person per day residential; 25 litres per person per daycommercial water consumption.Action 3: Encourage use of dual flush toilets and installation of water-conserving appliances.Objective 3: Protect groundwater from contamination.Strategy: Minimize risks from contaminated sites.Action: Implement the TWRC integrated soil and groundwater management strategy.Objective 4: Celebrate the waterfront setting and water as a feature.Strategy: Encourage artistic expression using water as theme and incorporate art as an integral part of building sustainability components.Action 1: Design and install distinctive pieces of water art along the waterfront.Action 2: Organize a local and international design competition and seek sponsors to ensure water art is a distinguishing feature of theToronto Waterfront.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, pages 51-56)MATERIALS AND WASTEGoal: Significantly reduce per capita waste production over current levels and minimize the use of resources for production of building andother materials.Response: Integrated waste management is a process designed to “close the loop” on resources, with strategies to minimize the use ofmaterials and systems for recycling or reusing all waste materials. The Toronto waterfront will demonstrate the highest standard of efficientresource and non-toxic materials use.Objective 1: Waste reduction.Strategy: Set per capita waste reduction targets.Action: Provide area residents with information on waste reduction strategies.Target: Per capita waste disposal targets of 200kg/person/year.Objective 2: Re-use and recycle.Strategy: Choose salvaged or recycled materials over new ones, and re-use building components and existing systems where safety andsuitability permit.Action 1: Implement the TWRCʼs construction and demolition materials management strategy.Action 2: Establish a temporary on-site recycling facility to handle construction materials. Include opportunities for the public to purchasematerials not needed for construction.Target: 75% of lumber from sustainable plantations or recycled sources.Target: 25% of building materials from recycled or renewable sources.Objective 3: Local economic development.Strategy: Buy from local suppliers.Action: Compile a directory of businesses within a hundred kilometre radius of Toronto selling sustainable products.Objective 4: On-site containment of waste.Action: Establish facility for on-site composting of organic waste.• Develop protocols for transferring compost to community gardens and parks throughout the waterfront.• Make compost easily available to all waterfront residents.Action: Import waste from other parts of the City as capacity allows.Objective 5: Avoid use of material and compounds that create health or environmental risks during production, use or disposal.Strategy: Minimize use or production of hazardous waste during revitalization activities.Action 1: Establish protocols for limiting the use of chlorinated solvents, and solvent-based paints in the first five years of revitalization(2005 – 2010) with the possibility of long-term phase out of the use of all hazardous substances.Action 2: Produce an information guide on product substitution of non-hazardous products for hazardous materials.Action 3: Conduct an annual hazardous waste audit to evaluate hazardous waste levels and find new opportunities for substitutions.(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, pages 57-59)INNOVATIONGoal: To encourage innovation as a means to make the Toronto Waterfront the foremost example of sustainability and a centre forcreativity and knowledge.Rationale: Innovation is a way to change negative practices and patterns and support a shift to a more sustainable way of doing things.Innovation also offers the promise of exciting economic, social, and environmental benefits for the Toronto Waterfront communities and,potentially, for the region, the province, and the country as a whole. Creating an environment where innovation is encouraged andcelebrated will attract those in the creativity and knowledge industries as well as increase interest among investors.Response: The Toronto waterfront will be a network of fully connected communities with the flexibility to take advantage of future advancesin technology. All facets of waterfront development will pose challenges and opportunities for innovation as those involved in activities suchas planning, design, construction, and maintenance take steps to incorporate sustainability principles into their efforts. As well, providing arich and diverse cultural and learning environment coupled with ease of formal and informal interaction increases the likelihood of all typesof innovation – technological, artistic, and lifestyle – springing to life on Torontoʼs waterfront.
Objective 1: Stimulate creativity and innovation.Strategy: Incentives to be innovative.Actions: Establish a waterfront “innovation in sustainability” recognition program.• Design that contains original and innovative technology.• Design that uses existing technology in an original way.• Design that can be replicated and marketed elsewhere.• Design that uses recognized sustainable design specialists in design process (include copies of reports and recommendations).• Design developed from multi-disciplinary or community participation.• Innovative financing or partnership performance contracts (e.g. in areas such as energy).Objective 2: Bring attention to Toronto waterfrontʼs sustainability achievements and potential.Strategy: Promotion of the Toronto waterfront as a centre for innovation and creativity.Action 1: Begin compiling inventory of all innovative activities on the waterfront in 2004. Document with photographs and video andpromote at local, national and international events.Action 2: Hold a biennial international conference and exhibition on innovation in sustainability.Objective 3: Ability to accommodate important technological advances.Strategy: Flexibility platforms in new buildings and infrastructure(Sustainability Framework, 2005, section 3, pages 61-62)
CONCLUSION "The Transformation of the Urban Ports is, without a doubt, one of the big chapters of the urban renewal for the last 20 years and it can make sure it will be a crucial topic in next decades. The old central ports are entering in obsolescence fundamentally because of the changes in the system of port traffic and the growth of containerisation that demands other measures and another functional system (J. Busquets & J. Alemany, 1990) Coastal and waterfront communities have a natural boundary—the water—that makes efficient land use critical. Not only is development physically limited within this boundary, but the proximity to the water is often of highest value and at greatest risk from natural hazards, requiring an approach to community and building design that provides high structural integrity and the greatest benefit on the least amount of land. (Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 11) Waterfront communities are linked to the water by docks, piers, and boardwalks. Applying compact community design principles to these uses can improve both function and aesthetics. These compact designs also can create attractive community spaces. (Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 12) In coastal and waterfront communities, thoughtfully integrating a mix of land uses with the waterfront can deliver many benefits including generating vibrancy from active, pedestrian-friendly streets, sidewalks, and public spaces. In contrast to conventional development approaches that isolate residential, commercial, and civic uses from one another, mixing these land uses creates vibrant, sustainable communities. Putting homes, stores, offices, schools, and other uses close to one another makes it easier for residents to walk or bike to their daily destinations instead of driving. Communities can use existing infrastructure more efficiently, with the same sidewalks, streets, and utility systems serving homes, commercial centers, and civic places. Having these diverse uses in the same neighborhood generates vibrancy from active, pedestrian-friendly streets, sidewalks, and public spaces. In coastal and waterfront communities, thoughtfully integrating a mix of land uses with the waterfront can deliver these same benefits. This approach can also incorporate the areaʼs distinctive visual, historical, and natural features into the daily life of residents and visitors, giving people a strong connection to the water. On the coast or waterfront, a mixed-use approach to development may mean weaving water-dependent uses with those not dependent on the water. While some uses may complement one another, others may require buffers, such as warehouses, research facilities, or open space, to separate ports and heavy industry from homes, schools, shops, and other incompatible uses. Integrating compatible, nonwater- related uses with the water-dependent ones that have traditionally defined the identity of coasts and waterfronts can provide a more stable economic base. If water-dependent activities slow down because of economic conditions, weather, or seasonal fluctuations, the compatible non-water-dependent uses can help sustain the local economy and continue to serve the daily needs of those who live, work, and play in the community. (Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 7)Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation on Adopt zoning policies and building codes that support mixed-use • Create overlay and special area zones that permit horizontal and development vertical mix of uses • Create form-based codes that prescribe building type, not use Plan for the needs of water-dependent recreational, commercial, • Employ visioning exercises to determine community support for and industrial users maintaining working waterfront • Develop waterfront master plans to guide land-based uses • Develop harbor management plans to guide water based activities • Create special area management plans to supplement existing plans for natural resource protection in specific areas Implement fiscal policies and incentives that support a mix of uses • Use current-use zones, tax abatements, and tax exemptions to reduce the cost of critical activities of a working waterfront • Create tax increment financing districts to improve infrastructure to support water-dependent activities (Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 9) In communities experiencing rapid growth and high demand for land, as well as those with slower growth or economic decline, a mixed-use approach to development provides a way to plan for growth that protects the environment and strengthens the economy. In all cases,
preserving working waterfronts and public access to the water requires communities to plan ahead and create a vision for future growth thatretains this mix of uses.A waterfront master plan can be an effective starting point to engage the community in envisioning future development and articulating thevalues that new planning policies will support.An effective harbor management plan can govern activity in the water, complementing the communityʼs waterfront master plan and canmanage activities in both the water and the adjacent land area.6 By recognizing the interdependence of land and water uses and craftingrules that value and support water-dependent uses, both types of plans can help communities fulfill their vision.(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 7) Guiding Principles Waterfront Key Elements 1. Mix land uses 1. Mix land uses, including water-dependent uses 2. Take advantage of compact building design 2. Take advantage of compact community design that enhances, preserves, and provides access to waterfront resources 3. Create a range of housing opportunities and 3. Provide a range of housing opportunities and choices to meet the needs of choices both seasonal and permanent residents 4. Create walkable communities 4. Create walkable communities with physical and visual access to and along the waterfront for public use 5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a 5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place that strong capitalizes on the waterfrontʼs heritage sense of place 6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, 6. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and the critical and critical environmental areas environmental areas that characterize and support coastal and waterfront communities 7. Strengthen and direct development toward 7. Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities and existing communities encourage waterfront revitalization(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 4) Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation Mix land uses and design buildings to • Adopt policies and codes that allow for a mix of uses compatible with foster pedestrian activity and visual access waterfront development to the water • Adopt building codes that establish appropriate building heights around water resources and ensure visibility of special points of interest or viewing areas • Connect buildings, streets, and paths to the waterfront • Create central parking facilities to serve as park-once locations within walking or shuttling distance of waterfronts or central business districts Foster a safe and supportive infrastructure for walking, • Establish a pedestrian master plan that supports investment in good biking, and other non- motorized means of travel sidewalks, narrow streets, crosswalks, bike lanes, on-street parking, street art, and appropriately scaled green infrastructure • Ensure pedestrian safety through street design standards and speed control measures • Provide maps for pedestrians, bikers, (with tours and points of interest), informational signage, and guides to boating storage facilities, racks, and access points • Provide well-maintained pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths • Assess and consider impacts from expected sea level rise or lower lake levels Expand and manage physical access to the water • Inventory existing access sites compared to current and projected demand for access • Prioritize access needs by identifying what types of access are needed and their most appropriate location • Identify potential funding sources that will support the acquisition of properties for new access and the construction of any physical infrastructure needed • Provide attractive and safe pathways between parking areas, public transportation, and waterfronts, ensuring that the connections are well-lit with adequate signage(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 21)Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place that capitalizes on the waterfrontʼs heritage. Coastal and waterfront
communities can capitalize on their location and strengthen their sense of place by visually and physically connecting their streets,buildings, and public spaces with the water.(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 23) Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation Create an understanding of the communityʼs assets • Conduct a community asset inventory • Write an ecological history of the community • Incorporate community asset inventories and ecological history into visioning efforts Create a community vision for the future • Use visual preference surveys • Conduct visioning exercises • Incorporate ideas from citizen advisory committees • Consider potential short- and long-term impacts of climate change Incorporate the community vision into policies and codes • Adopt design guidelines for new development as well as redevelopment projects • Adopt form-based codes • Require new development projects to incorporate public charrettes into the plan development process Incorporate historic and cultural structures in development • Implement historic preservation districts projects, including working waterfront features such as • Implement tax incentives to protect historic resources buildings, docks, and piers • Provide grants for reuse of historic structures • Implement an economic development agenda that capitalizes on the communityʼs waterfront heritage and natural assets(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 25)Compact DesignWaterfront views are an eagerly sought amenity; communities can protect them by using compact design. Here, the area with the highestdevelopment density is a short distance inland at a higher elevation. Building heights gradually decrease as development approaches thewaterfront. Putting denser development on higher land with taller buildings protects water views for all buildings as they step down in heightto the water. This preserves visual access to the water across the community, creating a compact neighborhood that complementssurrounding uses, including the waterfront itself. Compact development can capitalize on the natural advantages of the waterfront, provideattractive communities by the water, protect valued assets, and improve the overall quality of life. When applied at both the building andcommunity-level, compact design can make better use of the land at the waterʼs edge, as well as the water bordering it.(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 12)Walkable Mixed-use CommunitiesIn a walkable community, trips by bicycle or on foot are viable transportation alternatives to the car. Walkable communities locate a mix ofuses, such as homes, shops, and schools, close to each other. They provide sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes that create safepassage for walkers and bikers, and they offer convenient, well-designed parking that encourages people to park and walk to theirdestination. Walkable communities offer more transportation choices, higher levels of social interaction, greater opportunities for physicalactivity, and reduced emissions from automobile travel.For waterfront communities, improving the connection between pedestrians and the water can increase interest in walking and biking andhelp to decrease the pressures of seasonal traffic. The pedestrian connection to the water can be improved physically, with better street,path, and trail connections, and with access points to the water that are open to the public. The connection also can be approachedvisually, by designing the built environment in ways that preserve the view of the water and encourage residents and visitors to access thewaterfront on foot. Orienting the built environment to the water can improve public access to it and encourage a better appreciation of thisprecious asset.(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 19)Giving people more options for getting around meets many community goals. When people find it easy and safe to walk, bike, or taketransit, they no longer have to rely exclusively on cars to get to shops, work, and school, reducing air pollution and traffic congestion.Walking and biking also help people include physical activity in their daily routines, give more freedom to those unable or unwilling to drive,and can reduce household transportation costs.(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 35)In waterfront and coastal communities, strong and often competing demands between development, recreational uses, and protection ofthe environment must be balanced. The uncertainty in development can be magnified by the extra layers of local, state, and federalregulations that apply along the water. Often, planning and permitting agencies have different roles and responsibilities that must bereconciled. By creating an easily understood, predictable development process, waterfront and coastal communities can create a climatethat is more likely to produce projects that meet multiple community goals. This can be achieved by effectively coordinating acrossregulatory agencies, providing non-regulatory incentives, and allowing flexibility in local development policies.(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 39)
Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation Come to consensus on a vision for future growth • Employ design charrettes, comprehensive plans, and other stakeholder visioning processes Develop processes that make decisions • Create consistent cross-agency review criteria and processes predictable and faster while meeting community • Use one-stop shops for interagency review development objectives and protecting natural • Develop pattern books and design guidelines that include form-based codes and cultural resources Make development processes transparent, fair, • Create development policies and regulations that are easy to understand and apply and inclusive • Use published project review timelines • Build on-line databases showing project status • Use a variety of stakeholder involvement processes, including community meetings, design charrettes, and on-line discussion forums Provide centralized, easily accessible information • Produce publications and websites that outline processes • Create on-line databases • Use one-stop shops for information on the permitting process Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation Develop an inclusionary process to maximize • Conduct a stakeholder analysis participation and results • Schedule meetings to accommodate all stakeholders (including seasonal residents) • Conduct individual and small group interviews • Administer community surveys through the mail Develop a common understanding among the • Engage all stakeholders to set goals diverse stakeholders • Conduct walkability tours and audits • Administer visual preference surveys • Hold community visioning exercises • Perform policy audits to ensure that plans, codes, and regulations are consistent with community vision Use appropriate and transparent meeting and • Use charrettes to resolve complex design issues communication techniques • Use trained meeting facilitators • Employ a communication strategy to keep all interested constituencies updated and involved • Use geographic information systems (GIS) to create maps depicting alternative development scenarios • Analyze alternative development scenarios using visualization software Collaborate with federal, state, and local • Employ special area management planning authorities who have jurisdiction over the • Conduct joint coastal permit reviews public trust and coastal natural resources • Provide feedback when federal agencies solicit input for environmental impact statements(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 41)One of the primary interests of people living and working near the water can be access to the water. However, the legal frameworkregulating access is complex. In most waterfront settings, historic public use can establish an easement allowing public access to the wateracross private land.But public access rights vary across jurisdictions. Often shorefront property owners also own the adjacent intertidal zone. The quality of lifein coastal and waterfront communities depends in part on finding ways to constructively balance these rights of public access and privateownership. Well-designed, collaborative stakeholder involvement processes can help reach this objective. Identifying who to involverequires understanding who has an interest in, or will be affected by, proposed development. Near the water, there can be manystakeholders, such as recreational users, commercial fishers, developers, waterfront business owners, and permanent and seasonalresidents. On the coast, awide range of government entities must be engaged, since they are responsible for community health and safety and for protecting boththe environmental quality of coastal ecosystems and the publicʼs right of access to them.(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 43-44) Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation Enhance water-based public • Encourage water-based public transportation options, particularly those that accommodate walk-on transportation and link it passengers (e.g., ferries and water taxis) to pedestrian and land- • Coordinate water-based public transportation with land-based systems and schedules (e.g., rail, bus) based transit systems • Apply transit-oriented development principles to water taxi or ferry terminal areas, using high-density, mixeduse projects to attract water transit riders Ensure that transportation • Ensure efficiency of intermodal connections (e.g., port to truck, rail, air) options consider the • Coordinate between marine transportation and port plans, local land use plans, and land transportation movement of goods, as well and infrastructure plans
as people Plan for seasonal • Use variable pricing policies for parking or tolls transportation needs • Consider a park-once strategy for cars and boats; complement with shuttle services and improved pedestrian access • Locate parking structures and sites away from waterʼs edge • Increase shuttle service during seasonal peaks(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 37)Places where people want to beVibrant streets and attractive public spaces are hallmarks of healthy communities. Distinctive features such as tree-lined boulevards,historic buildings, or rows of shops and cafes make neighborhoods and downtown centers places where people want to be. Old buildingslend themselves to reuse as housing, businesses, and cultural centers; new building designs can blend with the character of surroundingstructures and the environment, creating a more cohesive community fabric that helps maintain economic vitality.In new coastal or waterfront communities, pedestrian scaled streets, well-designed buildings, and inviting public spaces can be connectedwith the water to create great places. In established communities, redevelopment efforts can incorporate buildings, docks, and otherstructures historically connected to the working waterfront, capitalizing on the rich heritage the waterfront provides.Natural and working lands play an essential role in the economic, environmental, and social well-being of communities. Natural areas andparks increase neighboring property values, attract businesses and residents, support tourism, offer opportunities for recreation, andprovide scenic valueWetlands, forests, stream buffers, and other critical environmental areas provide many additional benefits, including water and air filtration,recharge of precious groundwater resources, protection of drinking water supplies, and habitat for plants, animals, and beneficial insects.Conserving these resources is important to the environmental health and well-being of any community as it grows or redevelops. Coastaland waterfront communities depend on their working lands, waterscapes, and ecological systems. The dynamic natural processes thatcharacterize the shifting boundary between the land and the water create beautiful landscapes that are essential to both local ecology andeconomy. Freshwater and tidal creeks, marshes, cliffs, dunes, estuaries, and beaches intertwine to support complex ecological systemsthat provide invaluable services. Wetlands provide critical habitat, mitigate flooding, and capture and retain sediments, helping to keeppollutants from reaching downstream waters. Estuaries provide essential nurseries for commercial and recreational fish species. And beachand dune systems protect the shoreline against the natural hazards of erosion, storms, and sea-level rise. Local economies fueled by suchactivities as sport and commercial fishing, recreation, and tourism, as well as retiree and artist communities, rely on the natural assets thatsupport them.Protecting the strength and health of waterfront and coastal communitiesʼ natural resources requires balancing the needs of the builtenvironment with those of the natural one. Green infrastructure planning can help communities get this balance right. Through greeninfrastructure planning, a community or region can identify and prioritize natural areas that should be preserved or restored to protect long-term ecological health and build community resilience. The process begins with an assessment of an areaʼs most important environmentalassets, identifying the natural and working lands and water bodies that need to be protected or restored. Along the water, this processshould include a community vulnerability assessment, which systematically identifies areas that are vulnerable to, or that can help buffercommunities from, natural hazards. The result is a framework that defines which lands and water bodies need protection and which areascan best accommodate growth.Central to any planning process along the shore must be the recognition that shorelines are constantly changing systems. Erosion,flooding, storm surges, and sea-level change in response to tides, waves, and storms are all natural processesSmart shoreline development can mitigate the damaging effects on the built environment caused by these changes by incorporating landuse approaches that reduce the risks from coastal and waterfront hazards. For example, protecting, maintaining, and, where possible,restoring natural areas along the water can create buffers that protect development from environmental changes. Communities can use avariety of tools to implement this approach, including development setbacks (e.g., from the high tide line), conservation easements, androlling easements, which shift automatically with natural changes in the shoreline. Capitalizing on the inherent resilience of these assets byproperly protecting them can help protect people and property from the impacts of natural hazards and the additional challenges posed by achanging climate. Coastal and waterfront communities depend on their natural and working lands and the water. By preserving open space,farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas, communities can maintain essential environmental services and improvecommunity resilience.Infill development in existing communities, where roads, utilities, and transportation connections are already in place, is a preferred growthstrategy because of the many environmental and economic benefits it provides. When communities convert underused infill sites, such asparking lots or vacant properties, into vibrant mixed-use developments, they strengthen their local tax base, concentrate growth, and reducepressure to convert undeveloped land, yielding significant air and water quality benefits. Redevelopment of brownfields—sites where reuseis complicated by real or perceived contamination – removes environmental hazards from communities and provides new investmentopportunities in areas already well served by infrastructure. New development and investment in these infill locations can re-energizelagging commercial corridors, providing new stimulus to preserve traditional uses and promote recreational opportunities that strengthen thelocal economy. In many coastal and waterfront areas, properties at the waterʼs edge are prime redevelopment targets, since they are in or
near the historic center of the community, are well connected to land- and waterbased modes of transportation, and are close to jobs,services, and tourist sites. Waterfront revitalization can enhance historic, cultural, and scenic resources, supporting community efforts tomaintain a strong sense of place while protecting the water and other natural resources.All coastal and waterfront communities need to consider their vulnerability to natural hazards such as storms and flooding, and, for those onthe coast, the risks from sea level rise.Communities must carefully consider the economic and environmental context before determining the best location for growth,development, and redevelopment. Along the water has always included factors such as sensitive natural areas, storms, and flooding.Communities facing the possibility of increased vulnerability from climate change-related impacts, such as increased flooding and sea levelrise, may need to consider whether infill or redevelopment is appropriate. In appropriate locations, these development strategies can yieldimportant economic, environmental, and community benefits.(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, pages 23-32) Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation Promote community-based • Conduct community vulnerability assessments to ensure redevelopment is directed to waterfront revitalization efforts appropriate areas • Create waterfront master plans • Use special area management plans • Use harbor management plans • Employ tax increment financing • Create business improvement districts Promote infill development by • Fix current infrastructure (fix it first policies) preserving, upgrading, • Employ development incentives such as expedited permitting processes in areas with existing and reusing existing properties infrastructure • Create concurrency policies for new development Retrofit historic waterfront for new • Establish or promote historic preservation districts with associated incentives such as tax credits uses or easements • Establish rehab codes for renovation of historic waterfront (or other area) buildings Clean up and reuse brownfields • Use state and local brownfield assessment and cleanup programs(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 33)Resilience to Natural Hazards and Climate ChangeCoastal and waterfront communities must be ready to respond to and rebound from hazards created by weather and climate. Theuncertainty about exactly how the climate will change should not stop communities from acting to protect property and lives. Much of theattention on climate change focuses on sea-level rise and coastal storm intensity.Planning with greater awareness can help communities make efficient investments in buildings and other infrastructure, protect and restorecritical environmental areas, and protect public health. In applying these principles to any development project, communities need toexplicitly consider natural hazards, including the potential impact of climate change. Resilience to natural hazards, such as storms andstorm surges, sea-level rise, and shoreline erosion, is inextricably linked to the siting and design of development, as well as to the built andgreen infrastructure that supports it.Well-planned and well-maintained natural systems can help protect communities in many ways.(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 4) Key Action Options Policies, Tools, and Techniques for Implementation Plan with nature, • Conduct community vulnerability assessment to determine natural hazard risks; model future scenarios; anticipating dynamic include participatory approaches to understand risks perceived by the community waterfront and coastal • Link community hazard mitigation plan to community comprehensive plan; incorporate into zoning, capital processes (e.g., expenditure plans, and other local land use management tools storms, sea-level rise, • Use green infrastructure assets (such as natural buffer zones) to accommodate projected risks from climate lake level fall, erosion) change and manage ecological • Protect, restore, and enhance vulnerable shorelines through acquisition, rolling easements, living shorelines, systems to be adaptive buffers and setbacks, or site-level green infrastructure/LID storm-water management practices to changes caused by human activity Protect, maintain, and, • Use green infrastructure planning to identify community and regional environmental assets where feasible, restore • Designate marine or terrestrial management areas ecological systems, • Use purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights, and land or marine conservation including submerged agreements to protect critical areas lands and shore habitat • Use best management practices promoting on-site stormwater infiltration, native species, and living shorelines • Protect or restore connectivity between natural areas where needed to support ecosystem function
• Define appropriate indicators to measure and monitor ecosystem function and health over time • Produce report cards and illustrative maps, based on goals and community vision, to align science with management priorities and to convey results to the public Preserve open space • Partner with community land trusts to protect high priority lands and natural lands for • Designate protection of waterscapes or coastal viewsheds within zoning schemes scenic resources and • Create nature preserves, hiking and blue trails recreational • Use targeted funding for open space and habitat preservation opportunities • Zone waters for specific uses based on local circumstances and constraints(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 29)Environmental Conservation and Waterfront RevitalizationUrban waterfront redevelopment provides an opportunity to initiate a process of ecological function improvement of marine edge habitatsand public awareness for sustainable management of coastal environments and resources.There is increasing awareness about the importance of coastal zones that is creating momentum for incremental recovery through acombination of conservation and technologically innovative restoration measures. Given the spatial and temporal convergence of criticalshoreline habitat and intense settlement in the coastal zone, there are a variety of rationales for transformative change to urban waterfrontsettings.For decades, we have relied on no-take conservation paradigms to provide functioning ecological capital for present and future generations.However, most protected areas are too small, too fragmented, or ineffective in management to deliver the biodiversity and ecologicalfunction goals for which they were established. We need more proactive, widespread and incremental interventions to restore, enhance,and recreate habitats as a complement to continued conservation measures. Often the drivers behind waterfront change do not havemarine ecosystem enhancement as a goal but they provide an opportunity to rethink an area holistically.Habitat restoration can be integral to urban waterfront redevelopment, bringing together the typically divergent worlds of design andecology. This synergy can offer both educational and research opportunities to examine the recovery capacity of highly degraded marineenvironments. Science is increasingly asked to respond to complex social issues.Professionals and academics (e.g. city planners, engineers, landscape architects, scientists) that address issues of form and function ofhuman inhabited space are being asked to incorporate ecological needs into design solutions. A nexus of ecological recovery thatembraces elements of aesthetics, design and the celebration of place is emerging through the applied science of restoration ecology.Likewise, ecologically oriented urban design is vital for reconnecting us to the near-shore environment through diverse values includinghealthy ecology, society and economic factors.(Seattleʼs Central Waterfront, 2006, pages 1-3)
BibliographyEVENIUS, The 2003 Long Range Waterfront Master Plan for the City and Borough of Juneau. [PDF, electronic document]. USA,November 22, 2004. http://www.juneau.org/plancomm/documents/LRWP_PartFour.pdf , 09/05/2010, 13:45CIDEM (Government of Catalonia). The Media Sector in Barcelona & Catalonia. [PDF, electronic document]. Barcelona City Council -Economic Promotion & Catalonia Investment Agency. Barcelona. February 2007.www.acc10.cat/catalonia/binaris/media%20final%20eng_tcm82-65063.pdf . 14/05/2010, 16:10.WEST, Niels. Urban-waterfront Developments: A Geographic Problem in Search of a Model. Geoforum. [Magazine] Volume 20 Issue 4.Kingston, RI, USA, 1989: pages 459-468. Available online: [PDF electronic document]. July 2002.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V68466KVMT4P&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1989&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=969998271acaf9289391884180c35bfb . 12/03/2010, 12:30.MULVIHILL, David A. Urban Waterfront Development. Urban Land. [Magazine]. Volume 50. USA 1991. Pages 36-37.BREEN, Ann, and Rigby, Dick. Prospect: On the Waterfront. Landscape Architecture. [Magazine]. Volume 81. USA. 1991. Page 128.MANN, Roy B. Ten Trends in the Continuing Renaissance of Urban Waterfronts. Landscape and Urban Planning [Magazine] Volume 16.1988: Pages 177-199.SMOLSKI, Chester E. Waterfronts as a Key to City-Center Redevelopment. Rhode Island History [Magazine] Volume 48. 1990. Pages 86-94.ABADIR, Ingy. Wedged Between a Rock and a Hard Place. [PDF, electronic document]. Eurpean Culture & European Journalism. UK.2005. http://typo3.ivm.hu.nl/index.php?id=5892 , 09/05/2010, 16:10FRANCISCO, Javier Moncl. The Barcelona model: an original formula? From ʻreconstructionʼ to strategic urban projects. [PDF, electronicdocument]. Departament dʼUrbanisme i Ordenacio del Territori, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya. Barcelona. 2004.http://www.egs.mmu.ac.uk/users/cgibson/EG4325%20Urban%20Regeneration/Student%20Learning%20Resources/Urban%20Regeneration/Urban%20Regeneration/media/monclus_barcelona.pdf , 17:00, 09/05/2010Barcelona Field Studies Centre S.L. [Website]. Barcelona. 2004. http://geographyfieldwork.com/BarcelonaModel1.htm , 10/05/2010, 15:15Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. 2008. 30/12/2009, 12:00Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es . Port de Barcelona, Port Authority, The Port, Maps &Access, 2009,http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/portadaen/?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/ExtranetAnglesLib/El%20Port%20de%20Barcelona/el+port/planols+i+accesos , 21/01/2010, 10:00Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es.Port de Barcelona, Port Authority, General Plan. 2009.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_hgz2DDIFNLYwMLfzcDAyNjQy9vLwNTV38LM_3g1Dz9cJAus3h_5yBHJydDRwMDX1MXoCofFwNvp1AjA3cziLwBDuBooO_nkZ-bqh-pH2WO0y5_E_3InNT0xORK_YJsL4_yfEdFAMImRnE!/dl2/d1/L0lJSklna21BL0lKakFBQ3lBQkVSQ0pBISEvWUZOQTFOSTUwLTVGd0EhIS83X1NJUzFSNTkzMDhPRjAwMjMxSktKMDVFT080L0FSSG06MzA5NjAwMTQ!/?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_SIS1R59308OF00231JKJ05EOO4_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/extranetangleslib/El+Port+de+Barcelona/Autoritat+Portuaria/Pla+director/ ,21/01/2010, 13:00Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es.Port de Barcelona, The Port, The History of the Port. 2009.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/!ut/p/c0/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_hgz2DDIFNLYwMLfzcDAyNjQy9vLwNTV38LM_3g1Dz9gmxHRQBdpgI2/?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_SIS1R59308OF00231JKJ05EOO4_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/extranetangleslib/El+Port+de+Barcelona/El+Port/Historia+del+Port/ , 21/01/2010, 14:00
Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es.Port de Barcelona, The Port, Logistics. 2009.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_hgz2DDIFNLYwMLfzcDAyNjQy9vLwNTV38LM_3g1Dz9cJAus3h_5yBHJydDRwMDX1MXoCofFwNvp1AjA3cziLwBDuBooO_nkZbqlQ7eVR7qioCAC0lzFo/dl2/d1/L0lDU0lKSWdrbUEhIS9JRFJBQUlpQ2dBek15cXchL1lCSkoxTkExTkk1MC01RncvN19TSVMxUjU5MzA4T0YwMDIzMUpLSjA1RU9PNC91Rk9OTDEzNjgwMDA3/?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_SIS1R59308OF00231JKJ05EOO4_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/ExtranetAnglesLib/el+port+de+barcelona/el+port/port+logistic , 21/01/2010, 15:00Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es.Port de Barcelona, Regular Lines. 2009.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/!ut/p/c0/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_hgz2DDIFNLYwMLfzcDAyNjQy9vLwNTV38LM_3g1Dz9gmxHRQBdpgI2/?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/ExtranetAnglesLib/El%20Port%20de%20Barcelona/El%20Port/Portada , 21/01/2010: 16:00Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es.Port de Barcelona, Terminals, Cruise Ships. 2010.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/!ut/p/c0/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_hgz2DDIFNLYwMLfzcDAyNjQy9vLwNTV38LM_3g1Dz9gmxHRQBdpgI2/?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_SIS1R59308OF00231JKJ05EOO4_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/ExtranetAnglesLib/el+port+de+barcelona/el+port/terminals/creuers , 11/05/2010, 16:30Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es.Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Spaces. 2010.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_hgz2DDIFNLYwMLfzcDAyNjQy9vLwNTV38LM_3g1Dz9cJ us3h_5yBHJydDRwMDX1MXoCofFwNvp1AjA3cziLwBDuBooO_nkZ-bqhpH2WO0y5_E_3InNT0xORK_YJsL4_yfEdFAMImRnE!/dl2/d1/L0lJSklna21BL0lKakFBQ3lBQkVSQ0pBISEvWUZOQTFOSTUwLTVGd0EhIS83X1NJUzFSNTkzMDhPRjAwMjMxSktKMDVFT080L29neHhqNDEwMDAwNg!!/?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_SIS1R59308OF00231JKJ05EOO4_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/extranetangleslib/El+Port+de+Barcelona/Serveis/Port+Vell/Espais/ ,21/01/2010, 17:00.Port de Barcelona, AUTORITAT PORTUARIA DE BARCELONA. Port of Barcelona Annual Report 2008. [PDF, electronic document]. Riera,J V (Chairman of the Management Board), Valencia Alonso, F J (Harbour Master), Carreras, J O (General Manager), et al. Barcelona.2008.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/wcm/connect/428925804e56d02d9182ff41c6003169/en.AnnualReport2008.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=428925804e56d02d9182ff41c6003169 , 28/12/2009, 12:00.EL CONSORCI BARCELONA. Construction & Technical Standards for Utilities & Services in the Zona Franca Industrial Estate. [PDF,electronic document]. Barcelona. 2008. http://w3.bcn.cat/multimedia/fitxers/bcn-negocis/guiainvertireng2703.055.pdf , 12/01/2010, 15:00.REMESAR Antoni, Cer Polis. Multifunctional Land Use in the Renewal of Harbour Areas: Patterns of Physical Distribution of the UrbanFunctions. On the Waterfront. [PDF, electronic document]. Universitat De Barcelona & João Pedro Costa; Faculdade De Arquitectura.Universidade Técnica De Lisboa, 2004. http://www.ub.es/escult/Water/waterf_06/W06_02.pdf , pages 7-9, 29/12/2010, 19:00.Gerencia Urbanistica, Port 2000. [Website] Barcelona. 2008. http://www.portvellbcn.com/en/ , 31/01/2010, 16:00.PRINCESS CRUISES. Adventures Ashore Port Guide. [PDF, electronic document]. Barcelona.http://greatestromantic.travel/images/learn/ports/pdf/portguides/barcelona.pdf , 21/12/2009, 16:00.PECO, Brussels. Environmental Management Framework for Ports and Related Industries. Port Engineering. [Book]. John Wiley and Sons2004.1999. ISBN: 0471412740, 9780471412748. 17/11/2009, 18:00MEMOS, Constantine. Port Planning. [PDF, electronic document]. Zografos, Greece, National Technical University of Athens, 2004.http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/40/04714127/0471412740.pdf , 11/12/2009, 19:00.WILEY, John. Planning and Design of Ports and Marine Terminals. [PDF, electronic document]. New York, 1983.http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/40/04714127/0471412740.pdf , 15/12/2009, 18:00.Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation, [Government Website]. Toronto. www.waterfrontoronto.ca , 11/01/2010, 21:00.FUNG, Robert. FARLINGER, William. GRANT, Ruth, et al. ʻOur Toronto Waterfront; Gateway to New Canadaʼ, Waterfront Revitalization
Task Force. [PDF, electronic document]. Toronto. 2003. http://www.toronto.ca/waterfront/torontow.pdf , 14/01/2010, 13:00.Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC), Toronto Central Waterfront Meeting, [PDF, electronic document]. Toronto. 2007.Christopher, Glaisek, (VP Planning & Design, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC)). Hubbard, Pam, (Facilitator, LURAConsulting). Geuze, Adriaan, (West 8+DTAH, Overview: Design & Vision). http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/dbdocs/45b7cf08157ca.pdf ,16/05/2010, 12:10.Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC), Toronto Central Waterfront Revitalization. [PDF, electronic document]. Toronto.2006. Christopher, Glaisek, (VP Planning & Design, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC)). Hubbard, Pam, (Facilitator,LURA Consulting). Geuze, Adriaan, (West 8+DTAH, Overview: Design & Vision).http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/dbdocs/4540d6e7bdf0a.pdf , 29/12/2009, 18:00Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC). Marine Use Strategy – Final Report. [PDF, electronic document]. Toronto. 2008.http://www.waterfronttoronto.com/dbdocs/4521de3b5013c.pdf , 11/01/2010, 13:00Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC). Quay to the City Summary Report. [PDF, electronic document]. Toronto. 2004.http://waterfrontoronto2.ets.net/dbdocs/477e7a29a30da.pdf , 02/01/2010, 19:00Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC). Toronto Central Waterfront plan & Municipal Class Environmental Assessment(Schedule C). [PDF, electronic document]. Toronto. 2007. http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/dbdocs//447e4b1977237.pdf , 17/01/2010, 12:00VOGEL, Mary. Greening Waterfront Development. [PDF, electronic document]. Urban Land Magazine. 2007.http://www.planetizen.com/files/27635.pdf , 12/12/2009, 18:30CAMPBELL, John. Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation – Sustainability Frame Work. [PDF, electronic document]. President &CEO. Toronto. 2008. 30/12/2009, 14:00DILL, Paula & BEDFORD, Paul. Making Waves: Principals for Building Torontoʼs Waterfront. [PDF, electronic document]. Commissioner &Urban Developer. Chief Planner & Executive Director; City Planning Division. Toronto. 2009. 12/01/2010, 17:00URBAN LAND INSTITUE. Remaking the Urban Waterfront. [Book]. Urban Land Institute. 2004. 237 pages. ISBN: 978-087420903714/12/2009. Societal Responses. Preserving Waterfronts for Water Dependent Uses. [PDF, electronic document]. USA, 1997.http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/websites/retiredsites/sotc_pdf/WDU.PDF , 14/05/2010, 12:00NEWMAN, David & WALDER, J H. A Federal Ports Policy. [PDF, electronic document]. National University of Singapore, Public PolicyProgramme. Singapore & USA. 1999. http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Handler.ashx?path=Data/Site/SiteDocuments/wp/2000/wp01.pdf ,15/05/2010, 14:45McCORMICK, Jenny. Smart Growth, for Coastal and Waterfront Communities. [PDF, electronic document]. New Jersey Sea Grant, NewYork State Department of State, University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program, et al, USA, 2009.http://coastalsmartgrowth.noaa.gov/smartgrowth_fullreport.pdf , 03/01/2010, 09:00Luce Waterfront Team (in support with the City of Seattle Waterfront Ecology Team) Seattles Central Waterfront. [PDF, electronicdocument]. Seattle, USA, http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@proj/documents/web_informational/dpds_008059.pdf, 12/05/2010, 15:10
PhotographsPort de Barcelona, AUTORITAT PORTUARIA DE BARCELONA. Port of Barcelona Annual Report 2008. [PDF, electronic document]. Riera,J V (Chairman of the Management Board), Valencia Alonso, F J (Harbour Master), Carreras, J O (General Manager), et al. Barcelona.2008.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/wcm/connect/428925804e56d02d9182ff41c6003169/en.AnnualReport2008.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=428925804e56d02d9182ff41c6003169 , 28/12/2009, 12:00.Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es . Port de Barcelona, Port Authority, The Port, Maps &Access, 2009,http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/portadaen/?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/ExtranetAnglesLib/El%20Port%20de%20Barcelona/el+port/planols+i+accesos , 21/01/2010, 10:00Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es.Port de Barcelona, Port Authority, General Plan. 2009.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_hgz2DDIFNLYwMLfzcDAyNjQy9vLwNTV38LM_3g1Dz9cJAus3h_5yBHJydDRwMDX1MXoCofFwNvp1AjA3cziLwBDuBooO_nkZ-bqh-pH2WO0y5_E_3InNT0xORK_YJsL4_yfEdFAMImRnE!/dl2/d1/L0lJSklna21BL0lKakFBQ3lBQkVSQ0pBISEvWUZOQTFOSTUwLTVGd0EhIS83X1NJUzFSNTkzMDhPRjAwMjMxSktKMDVFT080L0FSSG06MzA5NjAwMTQ!/?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_SIS1R59308OF00231JKJ05EOO4_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/extranetangleslib/El+Port+de+Barcelona/Autoritat+Portuaria/Pla+director/ ,21/01/2010, 13:00Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es.Port de Barcelona, The Port, The History of the Port. 2009.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/!ut/p/c0/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_hgz2DDIFNLYwMLfzcDAyNjQy9vLwNTV38LM_3g1Dz9gmxHRQBdpgI2/?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_SIS1R59308OF00231JKJ05EOO4_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/extranetangleslib/El+Port+de+Barcelona/El+Port/Historia+del+Port/ , 21/01/2010, 14:00Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es.Port de Barcelona, The Port, Logistics. 2009.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_hgz2DDIFNLYwMLfzcDAyNjQy9vLwNTV38LM_3g1Dz9cJAus3h_5yBHJydDRwMDX1MXoCofFwNvp1AjA3cziLwBDuBooO_nkZbqlQ7eVR7qioCAC0lzFo/dl2/d1/L0lDU0lKSWdrbUEhIS9JRFJBQUlpQ2dBek15cXchL1lCSkoxTkExTkk1MC01RncvN19TSVMxUjU5MzA4T0YwMDIzMUpLSjA1RU9PNC91Rk9OTDEzNjgwMDA3/?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_SIS1R59308OF00231JKJ05EOO4_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/ExtranetAnglesLib/el+port+de+barcelona/el+port/port+logistic , 21/01/2010, 15:00Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es.Port de Barcelona, Regular Lines. 2009.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/!ut/p/c0/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_hgz2DDIFNLYwMLfzcDAyNjQy9vLwNTV38LM_3g1Dz9gmxHRQBdpgI2/?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/ExtranetAnglesLib/El%20Port%20de%20Barcelona/El%20Port/Portada , 21/01/2010: 16:00Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es.Port de Barcelona, Terminals, Cruise Ships. 2010.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/!ut/p/c0/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_hgz2DDIFNLYwMLfzcDAyNjQy9vLwNTV38LM_3g1Dz9gmxHRQBdpgI2/?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_SIS1R59308OF00231JKJ05EOO4_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/ExtranetAnglesLib/el+port+de+barcelona/el+port/terminals/creuers , 11/05/2010, 16:30Port de Barcelona, [Government Website]. Barcelona. www.portdebarcelona.es.Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Spaces. 2010.http://www.portdebarcelona.es/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_hgz2DDIFNLYwMLfzcDAyNjQy9vLwNTV38LM_3g1Dz9cJ us3h_5yBHJydDRwMDX1MXoCofFwNvp1AjA3cziLwBDuBooO_nkZ-bqhpH2WO0y5_E_3InNT0xORK_YJsL4_yfEdFAMImRnE!/dl2/d1/L0lJSklna21BL0lKakFBQ3lBQkVSQ0pBISEvWUZOQTFOSTUwLTVGd0EhIS83X1NJUzFSNTkzMDhPRjAwMjMxSktKMDVFT080L29neHhqNDEwMDAwNg!!/?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_SIS1R59308OF00231JKJ05EOO4_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/extranetangleslib/El+Port+de+Barcelona/Serveis/Port+Vell/Espais/ ,21/01/2010, 17:00.Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC), Toronto Central Waterfront Meeting, [PDF, electronic document]. Toronto. 2007.Christopher, Glaisek, (VP Planning & Design, Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC)). Hubbard, Pam, (Facilitator, LURAConsulting). Geuze, Adriaan, (West 8+DTAH, Overview: Design & Vision). http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/dbdocs/45b7cf08157ca.pdf ,16/05/2010, 12:10.FUNG, Robert. FARLINGER, William. GRANT, Ruth, et al. ʻOur Toronto Waterfront; Gateway to New Canadaʼ, Waterfront RevitalizationTask Force. [PDF, electronic document]. Toronto. 2003. http://www.toronto.ca/waterfront/torontow.pdf , 14/01/2010, 13:00.