Port-City Interface

MEL- Ports & Regions

Dr. Wouter Jacobs
11-4-2018
 Our Conventional Knowlegde
Port and City have become disconnected (Bird, 1973;
Hoyle, 1989, Norcliff et al 1996):
 Spatially: ports move away from city center
 Economically: less dependency of port on urban labor
market, less dependency of city on port for growth.
 Institutionally: devolution of port governance/
foreign ownership of port functions

Port’s economic growth related to engagement with

Global Supply Chains and attraction of global physical
flows (Robinson, 2002).
 Global Chains- Local Pains
(Hesse, 2006)

As ports have become part of globalized systems

of production and distribution with value
capturing often taking place far away, the
negative externalities of these processes mainly
reside locally and affect the local quality of life
(noise, pollution, congestion)
 Ports and Urban Regions:
some observations
• The average size of the urban agglomerations
hosting the top 50 container ports (by
throughput) in 2008 was 6.2m
• The 65 urban agglomerations of 1m people or
more that contained ports handling 1m TEUs or
more in 2008, accounted for 66.5% of global
container throughput. In other words, urban
agglomerations hosting one-fifth of the world’s
population handle at least two-thirds of global
container moves
 Ports remain Urban:
• ports continue to occupy urban spaces, are
embedded in localized knowledge systems, still
draw on urban labour markets and infrastructure,
and are subject to local politics and policy
concerns

• that innovation and ‘new combinations’ are more

likely within large and diversified urban (port)
spaces (cf. Glaeser, 2011), because they provide
more access to skilled labour as well as wide set
of actual or potentially complementary industries
 The Death of Distance?

In spatial sciences (geography, planning, urban studies etc) the role of transport costs
seized to be important in since 1980s to explain the locational behavior of firms,
industries and consequent economic development and urban growth
– Transport costs had deminished considerably since the 1980s due to containerization
and low energy prices
– ICT allowed for the frictionless transfer of capital, data and information
– Cairncross (1998): the ‘Death of Distance’.

With transportation costs approaching zero, the world became indeed ‘flat’. But
why dont we see a equal distribution of economic activity across space?
The World is Flat??… or is it Spiky?!
Why did so many great cities
emerged at ports?
 Why did so many great cities
emerged as ports?
• Increasing Returns to Scale (internal to the firm)
– Manufacturers locate where the market is large enough but the
market is large enough where manufacturers are located.

• Ports = Reduced Transport Costs for Trade

• Agglomeration benefits (external to the firm)

– Knowledge spillovers
– Reduced transactions and search costs
– Specialized labour markets
– Untraded interdependencies (reputation, image)

……And some historical accidents

 Port-Cities as Agglomerations
• Localization Economies • Urbanization Economies

• Benefits that occur from

• Benefits that occur from
the spatial concentration
of similar and specialized
businesses: Ports
the spatial
concentration of a
diversitity of
businesses: Cities
 Port and the City: London
Canary Wharf Lloyd’s Market and
Baltic Exchange

London Gateway- Deepsea Port

 London: Trade + Agglomeration
As the port of London gained dominance
as an entrepot of goods

So did its merchant community bringing

in wealth and commercialized
information to the City

The Foundation of Lloyd’s of London Insurance

Market

The Foundation of the Royal Exchange

Setting Global Standards in International

Maritime Law
 London: Trade + Agglomeration
Its port declined, but London pioneered
waterfront redevelopment in the early
1980s @ Canary Wharf

In 1981 London pioneered the introduction of

the Oil Futures Contract, allowing ‘hedging and
options ‘ on the delivery of oil

In 1984 London pioneered the Freight Forward

Agreement (FFA), allowing ‘hedging and options ‘
on the supply of ocean transport services
 Ports and Cities: the Inter-face
• Interface:
– geographical line of demarcation between port
owned land and urban zones
– An area of transition between port land uses and
urban land uses
– An interactive economic system (employment), an
area of integration in terms of transport or as an
area of conflict (in terms of policy and planning)
The Evolutionairy Model of Hoyle
The Evolutionary Model of Hoyle
The Evolutionary Model of Hoyle- Phase I
Phase I
 The Evolutionary Model
Phase II
• The Maas and Rijnhavens in Rotterdam
 The Evolutionary Model of Hoyle
Phase III
• Post-World War II: 1950-1970
– Marshall Aid and national importance of rebuilding the port!
– Construction of Botlek 1955
– Construction of Europoort 1960
– Construction of Maasvlakte 1970
The Evolutionary Model of Hoyle
Phase IV
The Evolutionary Model of Hoyle:
Phase V
 Waterfront Redevelopment:
Stadshavens
• Part of Project Mainport Development
– 1,600 ha. 20,000 jobs, 850 firms
 Waterfront Redevelopment:
Stadshavens
• In 2004: formation of OMSR: Development
Corporation for Stadshavens
• OSMR: 50-50% shareholder-ship port authority and
municipality, but with no clear leadership
• 4 governance problems emerged:
– Corporatization Port authority: creating distance rather than
proximity between PA and city government
– Delay Approval Maasvlakte II
– Port Director involved in a financial scandal
– Too optimistic expectations about urban planners about the
move of port activity away from urban center
• No clear Problem-owner
 Waterfront Redevelopment:
Stadshavens

• In 2006 Iand swap between PA and

Municipality: PA remains in control of
the Waal-and Eemshaven, while city
takes over control of sites Merwe-
Vierhavens at the North Bank
• Tensions remain between PA- and the
city about land use and integrating port-
industrial and urban-recreational
functions remain even till today
Critique on The Port City Interface
• A Linear development model, with no account
of positive and negative feedback loops
• It could not anticipate the revolution of
containerization
• Purely morphological model, with limited
account of economic and institutional
relationships between city and port
• No account of the role of actors (port
authority, government, communities, firms)
The interface as Source of Conflict
The Anyport-Model
(Bird, 1984)
The Anyport-Model in Rotterdam
 The Anyport Model
• Critique:
– It does not take into account the rise of pure
transshipment hub developed on offshore (island)
location without a land based hinterland: Kingston,
Salalah, Gioa Tauro, Malta
– It does not take into account the inland dimension as
a driving factor in port development dynamics: inland
transport costs account of 18% and in some instances
up to 60% of total transport costs!
– The issue of spatial scale and local contingencies: not
in every place do we find an exact development
trajectory as in the Anyport-model
Port of Vancouver
DP World terminal in Downtown
Vancouver
Port of Vancouver Deltaport
Vancouver Deltaport
Port Regionalization
(Notteboom & Rodrigue, 2005)
 Greenport Venlo (Raimbault & Jacobs, 2013)
• Land for Logistics
• Network Allignments
• Discursive Practices
Towards a new Interface
SMART CITY:
• Cities as incubators of
entrepreneurship

• Cities as concentrations of
human capital, knowledge
and innovation

• Cross-overs between
industries

• Triple A: Agglomeration,
Amenities, Accessibility (cf.
Koster, 2013)
 Evolving Supply Chains

Supply Chains
become complex
value webs based on
knowledge exchange
across value chain
partners
Ports and Technology
Amazon’s Dragon Boat Project
Disruptive Technologies (Lloyds Register, 2014)
Cross-overs and the life-cycle of clusters
(Van Oort, 2015)
Latent opportunites in human capital
(Van Oort, 2015)
Transition skill-base combination
(Van Oort, 2015)
 The New Interface
• Ports still provide vital infrastructures that
allow for the access to global markets and for
the metropolitan supply of goods and
production inputs
• The certain mix of commodities passing
through ports allows for ‘new combinations’
and localized value-added ‘transformations’,
such as in all kinds of bio-based applications
 The New Interface
• Ports also provide experimental zones for
high-tech companies located in the city to
implement various smart technologies that
optimize cargo handling, storage and logistics
planning.
• The co-siting of various related manufacturing
industries allow for the re-use of wastes and
residuals and as inputs for the urban built
environment (e.g. heating).
 Port Vision 2030:
Dynamic, Versatile and Adaptable

48
Biobased economy: from oil to Bio fuels
• It is a small step for the oil
terminals to store biofuels.

• The share of biofuels is

approximately equal to the
mandatory percentage that
energy producers are required
to blend (approximately 5 % in
2012).

• Two biodiesel plants are

located in the Port of
Amsterdam fed by organic
residues and rapeseed oil:
Vesta and Greenmills
Bio based economy: from coal and bulk to biomass
Biomass transshipment fits in
seamlessly with other
transshipment of Agri bulk

NuonHemweg power plant

• Supplied directly by Bulk
Terminal Amsterdam (OBA) via a
conveyor belt.
• Gas- and Coal-fired plant
• Plans for the co-firing of
sustainable biomass. In 2016
they will start and the goal is co-
firing more than 50% biomass in
2018.
 Energy transition is CIRCULAR ECONOMY

Where waste meets energy

An industrial area nearby the city enhances the urban circular

economy.

51
 Circular economy: The Amsterdam
Waste and Energy plant (AEB)

Domestic
Waste
Electricity
( 75% of the Households)
&
District heat
network
(5% of the households)
Circular economy: The Amsterdam Waste and Energy company
(AEB)
Cicular economy: Waternet’s sewage treatment plant

Bio gas Bio LNG

Sewage
sludge

Phosphates
 Circular economy: Greenmills

Fried cooking
Oil

Bio-fuels
 Circular economy: innovative
initiatives and Start ups

Plastics Low
sulpher
gasoil
 Energy Port in Transition

Where Waste meets Energy

Where Fossil meets Bio

Where Global meets Local
Global Chains and Local Gains!
57
 Knowledge-driven Transitions
• Port XL (2015):
stimulate innovative
startups in the
maritime and port
industries

• Smartport (2015):
Collab between PA,
industry, TU Delft, EUR
and City to stimulate
applied research
through Roadmaps
 Conclusions
• The waterfront remains a battlefield between
port and urban interests

• Port development and water redevelopment

subject to all kinds of planning regulations in
terms of land use and environmental impact

• Port sites in city should be assesed on their

residual maritime potential. They are non-
renewable: once you assign other uses, the
port function will not return.
 Conclusions
• Too narrow focus on conflicting land uses and
mitigation constrains opportuntinities for
transition Stadshavens.

• Ports at the forefront in promoting sustainable

developmen because they need to

• Need for rediscovering the symbiosis between

port and city: global chains – local gains.