Content uploaded by César Ducruet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by César Ducruet
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Waterfront redevelopment and territorial integration in Le Havre (France)
and Southampton (UK): implications for Busan, Korea
Published in: Ocean Policy Research 21(1), 127-156
César Ducruet1 & Sung Woo Lee2
Abstract
본 연구는 유럽의 두 항만도시에 대한 친수공간 개발사업의 차이점들을 지역통합모델
관점에서 분석하여 도시특성에 맞는 바람직한 친수공간 개발 방향을 제안하고자
하였다. 르와브르시(프랑스)와 사우스샘턴(영국)의 다른 친수공간 개발패턴과 공간적
통합과정 설명을 통해 대규모 친수공간 개발이 임박한 우리나라 친수공간 개발의
시사점을 찾아보고자 한다. 주요 발견내용은 항만과 도시기능의 충돌을 고려하여 두
공간에 대한 충분한 고민과 연구와 함께 공간적인 통합, 역사적인 통합, 기능적인 통합,
문화적인 통합계획이 필요하다. 이는 새로운 친수공간과 기존 도시 혹은 항만공간과의
충돌을 방지하여 항만과 도시, 구시가지와 신시가지의 유기적 연결이 가능해 지기
때문이다. 또한 항만도시별 특성에 맞는 친수공간 개발의 중요성을 강조하였다.
Keywords:
Busan, Le Havre, Southampton, Territorial Integration, Waterfront redevelopment
1 Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements (KRIHS)
1591-6 Gwanyang-dong, Dongan-gu, Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do 431-712 Republic of Korea
Tel. +82 (0) 31-380-0183 / Fax +82 (0) 31-380-0482 / Email: dcducruet@aol.com
2 Korea Maritime Institute (KMI)
1027-4 Bangbae-3 dong, Suam B/D, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea
Tel: (82)-2-2105-2830, Fax: (82)-2-2105-2839/ E-mail: waterfront@kmi.re.kr
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
Author manuscript, published in "Ocean Policy Research 21, 2 (2006) 127-156"
2
1. Introduction
Recent trends involving logistics integration, port area expansion and extended hinterland in
the port and maritime industry have redefined the functional role of port cities within supply
chains. As a result of logistics integration and extended hinterland, many load center ports are
focused on inland terminals and transport network to preserve their attractiveness and to fully
exploit potential economies of scale against their rival ports in general perspective
(Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2005), while developing distriparks, logistic centers and free trade
zones around the port area. As well, the surrounding city is affected by port dynamics,
because of the economical and spatial interaction between port and city, but also tries to
develop its own attractivity, based on non-marine initiatives. Waterfront redevelopment lies at
the core of these two trends – port and urban dynamics -, aiming at increasing the economy
and living environment as a whole instead of the sole port activity, which has become less
profitable to local communities.
The question whereas there is a regional specificity of port-city relationships has been
recently discussed through international comparison at a world level (Ducruet, 2005), about
Europe and Asia (Ducruet, 2004; Ducruet and Jeong, 2005) and among Asian hub port cities
(Lee, 2005), using mostly quantitative methods. If global and regional factors become
recognized in the process of port-city linkages (Lee et al., 2007) and waterfront
redevelopment (Hoyle, 2000), there are still few studies comparing the internal organization
of port cities as revelatory of global and regional change from a crossed urban and port
perspective.
Having the aforementioned in mind, this paper proposes to introduce a spatial model of the
European port city through the concept of “territorial integration”, defined by Brunet (1997)
as a process “connecting, supporting interrelationships and reducing disrupts and distances
between elements which, however, keep their own identity (…) An integrated territory
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
3
corresponds to a number of places correctly linked with each other and with decision centers;
all its parts are correctly irrigated with services, goods, information, labor facilities ;
products of any kind efficiently drained and redistributed”. Generally used to depict regional
integration, it can also be applied to the local level, by looking at the level of combination of
different urban and transport functions. Thus, this paper proposes direction of waterfront of
Korea through a qualitative approach so as to interpret the relation between waterfront
redevelopment and the overall structure of the port city in European cities. It argues that the
more a redevelopment project is integrated to the structure of the city, the more it becomes
successful in terms of attractivity for both citizens and businesses. Inversely, the low spatial
integration (resulting from cultural, political, economical factors) of the projects puts a threat
on its attractivity and relevance for the whole local community. This approach is original
compared to previous ones based on maritime identity in cultural geography (Brocard, 1996),
political science (Fouilland, 2001) and social geography (Hoyle, 1995). Moreover, it allows a
comparative approach, while most previous works privileged one case study only, and gives
suggestions of waterfront redevelopment to the Busan case.
First section brings out the phenomenon of conflict of global and local force in port cities. In
the second section, it carries out a literature review of spatial models related to port cities in
general, followed by the European model itself. Then, the model is applied to Le Havre and
Southampton, which face similar aspects with Busan: proximity to a global city (Paris,
London, Seoul) and to a major sea lane (English Channel, Asian corridor). The application of
the model aims at showing the varying successfulness of territorial integration regarding
waterfront redevelopment in the two European cities, before addressing some implications
about Busan case.
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
4
2. Conflict of local and global forces in port cities
Globalization has influenced urban spatial structure as well as the growth of the port through a
rapid increase of exports and imports and the advance of port technology and operation in port
cities. The rise of hub port cities is by all means its product. In this context, Hambleton et al.
(2002) mention that globalization encompasses an enormous range of activities and is
performed by a revolution in transportation and communication. The revolution has not only
shrunk time and contracted space, but has also made transmissions across national boundaries
breathtakingly cheap. The revolution stemming from globalization allows countries and cities
that are far apart to be closely connected. A few hub port cities also become global cities. As a
result of the growth of port activities, their other industries and urban economies, have rapidly
grown. However, these cities still have not identified the factors that affect both urban and
port areas in terms of symbiosis.
A port faces with a variety of pressures, whose two sources are (i) outer effects from global
forces (e.g., globalization, containerization and intermodalism) and (ii) inner effects from
local forces (e.g., post-industrialization and post-modernism). These forces are altering port
and city development and interaction. Thus, the spatial pattern of port businesses and
operations, in a number of countries, increasingly reflect this interrelationship through the
creation of intra- and inter-port competition at local, regional and global scales, mainly related
to port reforms. This in turn pushes urban redevelopment trends towards port (de)
concentration (Hayuth, 1981).
In this respect, various studies dealing with port growth patterns in both developing and
developed countries have been proposed on the port side (Wang, 1998). Others on the urban
side have discussed urban redevelopment policies in obsolete port areas under post-
industrialized trends (Gordon, 1997; Marshall, 2001).
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
5
A number of hub ports are facing similar problems (i.e., space limitation and traffic
congestion) as shown in Figure 1 under the influence of the global and local forces, as
mentioned by Notteboom (1997, p. 100): "diseconomies of scale in some load centres emerge
in the form of a lack of space for expansion and limited foreland or hinterland accessibility".
Thus, the efficient management of peripheral port areas is important for such port cities.
Figure 1 illustrates the relational mechanism between port and city and the potential role of
their common interface.
[FIGURE 1]
3. A spatial model of the European port city
3.1 General trends
European port cities are part of a continental system of ports and cities. With the combination
of globalization on one side, which affects both ports and cities, and localization or
regionalization on the other side, which shows the emergence of an integrated European
territory.
Given the spatial pattern of European settlement, often described as a core-periphery pattern
with the „blue banana‟ at the centre and its surrounding areas, it is very difficult for European
port cities to be both big ports and big cities. It means that port and urban activities are
spatially distributed according to a gradient of centrality and nodality. As showed in Figure 2,
a “ring” of peripheral metropolises is characterized by important urban functions (primate
capital cities) and secondary port functions (ro-ro, shortsea and ferry services), from Dublin to
Saint-Petersburg in the North, and from Lisbon to Istanbul in the South. Another “ring” is
made of gateways, where port function if very important for the local economy, which is often
dependent on trade and industrial activities, from Le Havre to Hamburg in the North, and
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
6
from Valencia to Trieste in the South. Finally, the last “ring” is made of inland metropolises:
Paris-Lyon-Vienna-Berlin, defined by a full range of activities.
[FIGURE 2]
This gradient is an important factor to explain the diverse importance of waterfront
redevelopment. Compared to the maritime cities, gateways have to sustain an important port
and logistics function and are likely to redevelop their wastelands “for new port uses”
(Charlier and Malezieux, 1997) rather than for strictly commercial and non-port purposes.
The city size is another important factor to accompany the redevelopment, in terms of budget,
traffic congestion and lack of space. The strategy of big cities is to maintain and/or increase
their position within the network of global cities, while smaller cities will face the
contradiction of specialization: how can they both take the advantage of being a port city and
manage to diversify their economy?
A recent study (IRSIT, 2004) on European port cities has showed that 28 among 39 cities
have wastelands close to the CBD due to the shift of port activities, with Figure 3 as an
example of the results. Most of wastelands constitute large areas (100 hectares as a mean
value) and the importance of wastelands “seems to be more related to the attractiveness of the
port than to its overall size”.
[FIGURE 3]
This study distinguishes between the cities where wastelands have been reintegrated in the
urban structure (e.g. Barcelona, Hamburg) and those where wastelands are still conflicting
areas (e.g. Marseilles). Among 73 cities studied, 51 declare to be involved in redevelopment
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
7
projects at the port-city interface, but 7 have no project (Wilhelmshaven, Felixstowe, Riga,
Tallinn, Cagliari, Gioia Tauro and Nice) and others did not specify. The surface of the
reconversion project varies from 2 hectares in Zeebrugge to 520 hectares in Dublin, showing
that most industrial port cities are engaged in vast projects of redevelopment, particularly in
northern Europe.
3.2 Previous models of port cities
Although “the influence of the sea on the city plan is quite simple, as main streets converge
towards the waterfront” (Lavedan, 1936), “urban models almost never consider the effects of
port activities on the city‟s spatial structure” (Gleave, 1997).
The „Anyport‟ model of Bird (1963) proposes successive stages of port development from an
upstream urban site to a downstream / deepwater site, with implicit reference to London but
which can be found elsewhere in Europe and has been confirmed by the more recent spatial
model of the European estuary (Brocard et al., 1995). The models of Zaremba (1962) are very
dependent on the morphology of port cities, with the natural site as one of the main factors to
explain their industrial and urban development. Hudson‟s model (1996) is also dependent on
site issues, but through a more synthetic approach with only two types.
Other models are specific to one regional area, like the classical one of McGee (1967) on the
southeast Asian city, the colonial Indian city (Kosambi and Brush, 1988), extended
metropolitan region of Rodrigue (1997) from the case of Singapore, the one of Eliot (2003) on
the South Asia port metropolis and the other of Lee (2005) on the Asian hub port cities.
The diagrams of Frémont (1996) and Chédot (1999) bring the time dimension in the model, so
as to define trajectories of port development according to their insertion in three dimensions:
city, maritime networks and hinterland. It is also the task of Hoyle (1990) with its successive
stages of port-city separation and redevelopment. Unfortunately, the ones of Lecoquierre
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
8
(1999) on European ports and the chrono-spatial model of Marcadon and Comtois (1996) do
not have a spatial approach despite their relevance to explain the evolution of port-city
linkages.
Spatial models of port-city relationships are numerous but remain relatively limited as tools
for international comparison, notably concerning waterfront redevelopment. Even the more
specific studies of Hayuth (1982) on the port-city interface, or the one of West (1989) on the
rent remain conceptual and are not applied to specific cases.
3.3 The European case
This paper proposes a general model of the port city in order to encompass the complexity of
internal dynamics taking place at the waterfront. It is applied to Le Havre and Southampton in
Europe so as to test its relevance. Three steps are proposed to build the model: the site, the
territorial dimension and the reticular dimension (Figure 4). Then, a synthesis is given before
its application (Figure 5).
A first step combines two types of sites (bay, estuary) so as not to limit the approach to one
particular physical configuration, and to lower the importance of the site compared to other
development factors (A). Three main stages of development are highlighted, showing the
gradual spread of port functions outside the urban core, together with industrialisation and
urbanisation processes. Two important factors intervene: the lack of space and the traffic
congestion (e.g. difficult transit of trucks through the city; technological change in the
maritime world).
With the combination of functions (B), particular territories emerge: the “sailortown”, of
which the “waterfront” is the area adjacent to the docks and the sea, the Maritime and
Industrial Development Area (MIDA) where industrial and port activities integrate. Thus, a
specific aspect of the port city pattern is the mixture of functions instead of a simple zoning,
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
9
highlighted by a “cut” between the port city itself (upper part) and the “anycity” (lower part).
These territories are often depicted by land use conflict and overlapping strategies of different
nature (municipal, port, private companies), which are accentuated when the areas belong to
different jurisdictions.
[FIGURE 4]
The reticular dimension (C) is based of a common use of transportation networks by several
players: daily commuting, trucking to and from the port and the city, river transport for
barging and other activities (recreational, crossing). The port city is a place where all transport
modes can be represented, compared to “anycity”: sea, port, river, air, road, rail and other
additional activities like storage, distribution, packaging and logistics. Intermodality is more a
potential, which effectiveness depends on the operational integration of different modes
within a transport chain, but it remains very complex to assess in reality. On one side, the lack
of efficient transfer brings a risk of congestion and loss of competitiveness; but on the other
side, an efficient interconnection has the risk to lower the local value-adding process. A
recurrent pattern seen in numerous cases is the formation of a major axis between the port city
and its surrounding region, that may cut the city from the port.
The general model is a simplified combination of these steps, insisting on the dichotomy
between “anycity” and “port city”. This asymmetrical organization rules the daily life of the
city, and gives its major specific character when compared to “non-port cities”. The crossing
of “port/city” and “sea/land” enable to give a general principle of a port city‟s organization.
Other principles are: the reciprocal relationship between port traffic intensity and distance to
the urban core, the concentration of terrestrial traffic along a major axis used for both
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
10
commuting, trucking and freight logistics (river, railway), and the emergence of a new
centrality on former docks, so as to value the waterfront and its outlying neighborhoods.
[FIGURE 5]
4. Le Havre and Southampton case study
4.1 General context of the two port cities
Le Havre and Southampton are two port cities of the English Channel, the densest sea of the
world in terms of maritime trade. Although Southampton dates back to medieval times, Le
Havre has been planned as a new port city at modern times (1517). They have in common to
be both commercial and passenger ports, with Le Havre being a main gateway to America
with giant liners, but the rise of aviation reduced this activity to some ferryports while it
sustained in Southampton for cruise services (Queen Mary 2). The two port cities were
bombed during WWII and faced similar steps of development since then: the rise of oil traffic
and the construction of remotely located oil berths (Fawley and Antifer), the development of
containerization and the prospects for new port development (Dibden Bay and Port 2000).
However, Port 2000 has started its operation in march 2006 while Dibden Bay project failed
to get recognition from central government. Finally, some major differences remain like the
type of port governance: Le Havre is an “autonomous port” (public administration controlled
by central government) while Southampton is managed by Associated British Ports, a private
company operating several ports in Great Britain. It is obvious but important to mention that
Le Havre is a maritime and river port (Seine estuary) at the mouth of a corridor to Paris while
Southampton has no navigable inland waters and is not connected to mainland Europe by
ferry links.
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
11
The two cities have developed very differently despite the apparent similarity of their
situation. They both face the advantages and constraints of being close to the national capital
(London and Paris, two global cities), but Southampton has a better position in the urban
system because it has no direct competitor before London or Bristol in the south (Portsmouth
being an industrial city and former naval port) while Rouen is keeping its position between Le
Havre and Paris as Normandy‟s regional capital (Brocard, 1994). It had direct effects on the
two city‟s economic structure: Le Havre remained an industrial city located in a rural area,
with a majority of low-skilled employees in big factories like automobile (Renault) and
chemicals (Total), shifted during the 1960s from the Paris capital region; Southampton
became a commercial and tertiary center during the shift of financial services and light
industries in the 1980s from London thanks to lower rental costs (Mason et al., 1990), better
economic attractivity and radial position in the transportation network (Monkhouse, 1964).
Due to their specific situation, they have started both in 1993 a strategy of “urban
networking” so as to cooperate with neighboring cities in terms of territorial development to
help addressing new projects, of which waterfront redevelopment (Ducruet, 2006).
4.2 Territorial integration and waterfront redevelopment in Le Havre and Southampton
4.2.1 The morphological factor
The two sites of the port cities bring interesting differences in terms of morphology and
potential development. As noticed by Zaremba (1962), whose case study is notably based on
Le Havre and Southampton among several other cases, Le Havre‟s site is characterized by
more advantages than for Southampton‟s, as showed in Table 1 and Figure 6. Then,
waterfront development projects will be dependent on two essential factors: the particular
morphology of the port city (1) and its economic identity as part of an urban network (2).
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
12
[TABLE 1]
[FIGURE 6]
The application of the European port city model starts with Figure 7, so as to determine a
more precise land use pattern for the two port cities, using satellite images. In terms of overall
urban area pattern, Southampton has more developed than Le Havre thanks to its inland
position, while Le Havre has been blocked to the south by the river Seine. Although this
shows the limits of Zaremba‟s models to explain particular case studies, it confirms the
varying size of the two cities‟ interface, which is larger in Le Havre than in Southampton.
Then in Southampton, port areas and industries have been limited not only due to port
competition and the nature of activities, but also for morphological reasons. It also means that
there would be less wastelands in Southampton, as land has been less available in the past for
port and industrial development. Then, waterfront redevelopment is a less important topic in
Southampton than in Le Havre.
[FIGURE 7]
4.2.2 Territorial integration in Le Havre
In Le Havre, the port-city interface is a vast territory running from the seaside / museum
Malraux to the Vauban docks / entrance of the city, along the docks, warehouses and canals
that penetrate inland. In particular, the neighborhoods of Saint-Nicholas, Eure and Neiges are
symbols of the port-city interface in Le Havre, with old industrial architecture and abandoned
lands. Current projects include “Vauban-Gare”, to refresh the entrance and the city close to
old docks (hotels, logistic companies, chamber of commerce, concert hall and the new “center
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
13
for sea and sustainable development”). The main project, “Docks Vauban” follows the
redevelopment of the beach area (ancient houses and walkways) and the PIC URBAN project
(European funding) for the redevelopment of the southern parts of the city, adjacent to the
port. Its originality is the central situation of the project (entrance of the city, strategic for the
connection of the city and the port inland access) and its nature (multifunctional with a
preference to maritime-related activities, using warehouses along the docks that have been
abandoned since port activities shifted toward deep dea). The total project is estimated to cost
100M Euros, financed by private investors, on 66 square kilometers (of which 40 are for
commercial use). The accessibility is well organized both for public transport (bus lines,
several parking areas) and freight transport (trucks can use the main roads or bypass the city
entrance to the south without creating congestion).
Thus, the project can be said to participate to the general dynamic of the whole city, because it
is a part only of a global policy to rise Le Havre‟s status from a port industrial city to a
commercial maritime city.
4.2.3 Territorial integration in Southampton
The case of Southampton (UK) is by many ways very instructive about the possible failure of
waterfront redevelopment, caused by a lack of territorial integration. As a dynamic city of
Southern England, and a major UK port, Southampton faces the problem of all British cities:
the budget of the local authority is totally dependent from the central government. Moreover,
it is a medium-sized city (220,000 inhabitants) and also faces the constraints and advantages
to be close to a global city (London).
Then, Southampton tried to overcome its difficulties by launching ambitious projects of
waterfront redevelopment in the 1990s, as a means to reinforce its attractivity and to bring
additional budget from the private sector. Projects include the redevelopment of Ocean
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
14
Village, Town Quay and West Quays, very influenced by the mood for “postmodern
waterfronts” (Northcliffe et al. 1996). The content of the waterfront areas is mostly based on
consumption (fast-food, theaters, nightclubs, shopping malls, marinas and bars) without much
link with the maritime character of the city. It has even been said that the redevelopment
strategies of Southampton have been “mediocre” (Brunskill, 2001), given the poor urban
design brought by the planners to the privately funded projects.
As a result, the different projects remained separated from each other, both institutionally
(different developers) and spatially (southeast and southwest). Moreover, each redevelopment
(Ocean Village and Town Quay, on both sides of Southampton Waters) are not well planned
in terms of accessibility (few parking places and low bus coverage) and attractivity (most of
attractions have seen their frequentation decline in the recent years and many commercial
stores have closed). Thus, the content of the projects are mostly oriented towards mass
consumption (stores) and upper class (marinas), without being spatially integrated to the rest
of the city structure. The lack of spatial and economical integration (i.e. the West Quays
redevelopment was recently blamed by the central government for being too much
commercially-oriented and for surpassing the city‟s budget) led to a relative failure of the
whole waterfront redevelopment.
The relative failure of these projects to attract tourists and public frequentation raises a
number of questions. First, the short term strategy has focused on a poor qualitative content,
mostly made of commercial activities (fish and chips, bars) and recreational (nightclubs,
marinas, cinemas). Second, the projects are quite small and isolated a) from each other b)
from the rest of the city. Then, their frequentation has gradually declined until the recent
period, as Southampton inhabitants (e.g. students) preferred to stay in the city center which is
more lively and attractive. Another problem was the low car accessibility of the different
areas, and their poor urban design.
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
15
As a result, the central government has blamed Southampton City Council to have
overweighted its budget and used it for only its profits. It is an effect of a limited public
debate and discussion about what should be developed in this city. Moreover, the failure of
the new port project (Dibden Bay) of Southampton, condemned by the central government,
adds to the general mismanagement of the port city.
Then, some UK urbanists have started to argue in favour of the “redevelopment of the
redeveloped areas” which constitutes a dramatic loss of time and money. Their principal
argument is that the urban landscape and the integration of the projects within the whole city
should be improved, so as to erase the very limited content of the previous waterfront
redevelopment.
4.3 Interpretation
This case study has used the concept of territorial integration applied to waterfront
redevelopment policies in two European port cities. It appears that despite the similar
situation and history of the cities, and despite the relative success of Southampton in the last
decades as a commercial city compared to the stagnating industrial character of Le Havre, the
evaluation of the projects‟ successfulness is in favor of the French port city.
Our main argument is verified, as based on the varying degree of interaction between the
redevelopment process and the entire city dynamic and structure as shown in Figure 8.
It means that Southampton‟s waterfront redevelopment was too much disconnected from the
city needs and structure, being the direct application of a “model” like the London Docklands
or the Boston examples. Without being integrated to the city area and economy, the project
cannot reach sufficient recognition towards companies and citizens, and then become useless
to the daily life of the city. It constitutes enormous wastes of money and land, especially
given the particular peninsular site of Southampton.
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
16
For Le Havre, although investment is private, the spirit of the planning project has respected
the city dynamics, economy and culture. It shall become a successful project but yet it is not
opened to the public (completion in 2008), what is a difficulty for comparing the two
achievements. Still, the way the projects was realized gives much argument about the way
waterfront redevelopment is led in France (see also Marseille “Euroméditerranée” Project
under completion which is also based on an interaction with the city structure). The
methodological approach using spatial models is not an end in itself. It helps to recognize the
degree of interaction between different functions and to address general trends in terms of
spatial homogeneity, disrupt and integration.
In conclusion, it can be said that waterfront redevelopment, in Europe and elsewhere, shall be
of four kinds:
- Economic integration: focus on the needs and lacks of the city economy, taking into
account its relative situation in its urban network (what are the specific functions
compared to other neighboring cities and how can redevelopment can value these
functions?)
- Spatial integration: focus on the accessibility of the project area, at the level of the
whole agglomeration (prevent from congestion, divide public and freight flows)
- Cultural integration: focus on the link with the sea and the maritime function, so as
not to cut the redevelopment from its past.
- Historical integration: focus on the conservation of old port facilities and old
building in the CBDs so as to prevent disconnection from its past.
[FIGURE 8]
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
17
5. Implication for Busan waterfront redevelopment
5.1 Brief introduction
Having grown to be North Asia‟s hub ports, Busan has established itself as a top class
container port. It has excellent natural conditions for anchorage and a geographical location
that is a connection between Asia to both Japan and America for shipping lines (Figure 9). It
has also played an important role as a gateway for Korea‟s manufacturing industry and an
alternative transshipment platform to Japan (especially, since the Kobe earthquake in 1995).
[FIGURE 9]
Busan has a long history as a trade port dating back to 1407. However, the port has played an
important role in modern trading since it was colonized by Japan in 1910. After independence
from Japan in 1945, the port has grown rapidly. It has been greatly influenced by Korea‟s
economic structure in relation to export-based manufacturing industry. Thus, remarkable
growth has been recorded in a short period of time. It began to handle containers in 1970 with
only 5 thousand TEUs per annum, but it soon reached 2.3 million TEUs in 1990. Its traffic
increased by 322% in 10 years to reach 7.5 million TEUs by 2000. In 2005, it achieved a
throughput of 11.8million TEUs (Containerisation International Yearbook, various years).
Such evolution has made the port develop all around Busan bay, blocking the urban spaces
from reaching the seaside.
5.2 Territorial pressure
Busan is confronted with the big change resulting from conflict between local and global
forces. It is the opening of new port and the redevelopment of old port areas. The waterfront
redevelopment has to consider the particular growth of Busan (Figure 10).
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
18
[FIGURE 10]
Busan old port still has to handle a number of container cargoes (the capacity is about 600
million TEUs) above 20 years and a part of the port needs to be redeveloped as urban function
area. As a result, waterfront redevelopment is an important project for harmonizing space as
mentioned in European case. It should consider combination among port, old fishery market,
ferry and train terminals, and the other CBD functions. Another particular feature of Busan
compared to Le Havre and Southampton, like between Asia and Europe in general, is the
continued activity at the “old port” whereas it has totally stopped in European inner port
cities. Then, Busan has an additional pressure from the port side. Such pressure is illustrated
in the difficult passage of trucks through the city to and from the port (Frémont and Ducruet,
2005), which is compensated financially, but not spatially, by a container tax levied by the
municipal government (Kim et al., 2002). The lack of space for building a new waterfront is
also accentuated, compared to Europe, by the lack of abandoned areas: every area in Busan is
maximized in its utilization. There also one can recognize a particular feature of Asian port
cities: the high productivity rates at the terminals resulting from the lack of space.
Figures 11 and 12 show the principles of Busan‟s land use before assessing its implications
for waterfront redevelopment.
[FIGURE 11]
5.3 The international and national contexts
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
19
While other waterfront redevelopment cases in Asian port cities are backed by already
established global cities such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Shanghai, etc., it is not the
case for Busan.
Despite its important demographic size (4 million inhabitants), and its remarkable port
function (5th container port of the world for TEU throughput in 2005, 90% of Korea‟s port
throughput), it is not the core of Korea‟s economy. Seoul region concentrates about 96% of
the major public and private companies‟ headquarters (Hong, 1996). This enormous
concentration is a major constraint to attract strategic activities and diversify Busan economy,
and is an increasing trend despite the governmental efforts to deconcentrate the capital region.
Thus, a waterfront redevelopment project in Busan shall ask the question: how can it be a tool
to overcome the heavy weight and lock-in effect of the Korean urban system, and how can it
turn the maritime and port function into an advantage?
Another important condition for the success of Busan‟s waterfront redevelopment is to
overcome the drastic competition with other South Korean ongoing projects, such as Songdo
New City within the Incheon Free Economic Zone, Saemangeum tourism project in Jeolla
province, the New Administrative City (or ubiquitous city) under way especially close to
Daejeon and, especially, the plethora of free trade zones which are usually built between port
and urban areas for industrial purposes: customs free zones, free trade zones, free economic
zones, foreign exclusive and industrial complexes, foreign investment zones and the free
international city of Jeju.
In economic terms, the attraction of companies within the Busan waterfront project seems
hampered by this international and national context. Although Busan participates to the
national strategy of free zones, with Busan-Jinha Free Economic Zone and its Customs Free
Zone, it is far from being recognized as a leading location for investors.
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
20
[FIGURE 12]
6. Conclusion
This paper suggest to common direction of waterfront redevelopment through the different
point between two European waterfront redevelopments in terms of territorial integration. The
findings are given to many implication for Busan waterfront redevelopment. The direction of
waterfront redevelopment is believed to be induced from the internal and external forces that
are coincidentally in juncture at the same time. The drastic changes in the regional
environment have exerted impacts on specific port cities, causing them to evolve in a specify
way which is different from their counterparts in other regions of the world. In order to
respond to the changes, new policies are implemented and the city and port become more
cohesive and connect very close to each other to increase the competitiveness.
By reviewing and comparison of European cases, the waterfront redevelopment keeps role of
four kinds for achieving combination between local and global force, urban and port function
and old and new evolution, respectively:
- Economic integration: Busan has to integrate commercial and logistic functions as
economic cluster.
- Spatial integration: Busan has to connect between commercial and logistics zones
like port and FTZ, and commercial and transport zones like train platform and ferry
terminal.
- Cultural integration: Busan has to maintain the cultural connection between
maritime function like fishery market, new commercial zone and CBD.
- Historical Integration: Busan has to conserve the historical entities coming from old
CBD and old port area.
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
21
With the above content in mind, Busan waterfront redevelopment does not copy to the other
cases of waterfront redevelopment in any countries. Its waterfront redevelopment has to
understand its situation in terms of port competition. It is also supposed to consider
connection from the city needs and structure. Without being integrated to the city area and
economy, the project cannot reach sufficient recognition towards companies and citizens, and
then become useless to the daily life of the city. It constitutes enormous wastes of money and
land, especially given the particular Busan waterfront redevelopment. What factors make and
increase Busan attractiveness, compared with domestic and international competitors?
Compared with competitors in Korea, waterfront is an important factor for increasing Busan‟s
attractiveness. Therefore, considering port function in core urban area, Busan should
implement common planning document for the waterfront.
References
Anuman Interactive (2003) Planet Observer 2. ESRI France, CNES.
Bird, J. (1963) The Major Seaports of the United Kingdom. Hutchinson of London, London.
Brocard, M. (1994) Deux villes frontières portuaires: Le Havre et Southampton. La Revue
d’Ici 11, 8-12.
Brocard, M. (1996) L‟identité maritime des villes portuaires. Congrès International de
Géographie, La Haye, 10 août 1996.
Brunet, R. (1997) Territoires de France et d’Europe: Raisons de Géographe. Belin, Paris.
Brunskill, P. (2001) Urban design in Southampton. Quarterly Journal of the Urban Design
Group 78. http://www.rudi.net/bookshelf/ej/udq/78/case1-udq78.shtml
Charlier, J. and Malézieux, J. (1997) Les stratégies alternatives de redéveloppement portuaire
en Europe du nord-ouest, pp. 107-114 in: Baudouin, T., Collin, M. and Prelorenzo, C.
(Eds.), Urbanité des cités portuaires, L‟Harmattan, Collection „Maritimes‟.
Chédot, C. (1999) Diagramme triangulaire : une représentation de la trajectoire spatiale des
ports, pp. 165-173 in: Les Ports Normands, un Modèle ? Actes du Colloque Rouen – Le
Havre, 28-29 mai 1998, Publications de l‟Université de Rouen.
Containerisation International, various years, Containerisation International Yearbook.
London, Emap Business Communications Ltd.
Ducruet, C. (2000) Le Chorotype de la Ville Portuaire: Concepts, Méthodes et Applications
en Europe Occidentale. Undergraduate Dissertation in Geography and Territorial
Planning, Le Havre University, 84 p.
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
22
Ducruet, C. (2004) The trans-scalar development of transportation hubs: a quantitative
comparison of European and East Asian container port cities in the 1990s.
경상논집
18(2), Inha University, 171-199.
Ducruet, C. (2005) Approche comparée du développement des villes-ports à l‟échelle
mondiale: problèmes théoriques et méthodologiques. Cahiers Scientifiques du Transport
48(1), 59-79.
Ducruet, C. (2006) Benchmarking urban networking strategies in Europe: An application of
chorems to France and Great Britain. The Korea Spatial Planning Review 49, 3-24.
Ducruet, C. and Jeong, O. (2005) European Port-city Interface and its Asian Application.
Research Report n° 17, Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements, 143 p.
Eliot, E. (2003) Chorotype de la métropole portuaire d‟Asie du Sud. Mappemonde 69(1), 7-9.
Fouilland, B. (2001) A la Recherche de la Décision Urbaine. Aménager les Villes Portuaires:
Le Havre et Southampton. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation in Political Science, Institut
d‟Etudes Politiques de Paris, 3 tomes.
Frémont, A. (1996) Le port du Havre, un triangle magique? pp. 84-87 in: Atlas de l’Estuaire
de la Seine, Publications des Universités de Rouen et du Havre.
Frémont, A. and Ducruet, C. (2005) The emergence of a mega-port, the case of Busan, from
the local to the global. Tijdschrift voor Econ. En Soc. Geografie 96(4), 421-432.
Gleave, M.B. (1997) Port activities and the spatial structure of cities: the case of Freetown,
Sierra Leone. Journal of Transport Geography, 5(4), 257-275.
Gordon, D.L.A. (1997) Managing the changing political environment in urban waterfront
redevelopment. Urban Studies 34(1), 61-83.
Hambleton, R., Savitch, H.V. and Stewart, M. (Eds.) (2002) Globalism and Local Democracy:
Challenge and Change in Europe and North America. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Hayuth, Y. (1981) Containerization and the load centre concept. Economic Geography 57,
160-176.
Hayuth, Y. (1982) The port-urban interface: an area in transition. Area 14(3), 219-224.
Hong, S.W. (1996) Seoul: a global city in a nation of rapid growth, pp. 144-178 in: Lo, F.C.
and Yeung, Y.M. (Eds.) Emerging World Cities in Pacific Asia, Tokyo, New York &
Paris, United Nations University Press.
Hoyle, B.S. (1990) Introduction: beyond the waterfront, pp. 1-3 in: Hoyle, B.S. (Ed.) Port
Cities in Context: the Impact of Waterfront Regeneration, Transport Geography Study
Group, Institute of British Geographers.
Hoyle, B.S. (1995) A shared space: contrasted perspectives on urban waterfront
redevelopment in Canada. Town Planning Review 66(4), 345-371.
Hoyle, B.S. (2000) Global and local change on the port-city waterfront. Geographical Review.
90(3), 395-417.
Hudson, B.J. (1996) Cities on the Shore: the Urban Littoral Frontier. Pinter, 180 p.
IRSIT (2004) Les Villes Portuaires en Europe, Analyse Comparative. CNRS, GDR Libergeo
1559, Institut de Recherche en Stratégie Industrielle et Territoriale, CIRTAI, Université
du Havre, 168 p.
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
23
Kim, K.W., Kwack, K.S. and Kim, G.S. (2002) A study on the container tax collection of
Busan city, pp. 21-30 in: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Spring Meeting on Navigation
and Port Research, Busan, Korea Institute of Maritime and Fisheries Technology.
Kosambi, M. and Brush, J.E. (1988) Three colonial port cities in India. Geographical Review,
78(1), 32-47.
Lavedan, P. (1936) Géographie des Villes. Gallimard, N.R.F., Paris, 206 p.
Lecoquierre, B. (1999) Un modèle diachronique des ports de la Basse-Seine dans l‟espace
européen, pp. 227-230 in : Les Ports Normands, un Modèle ? Actes du Colloque Rouen –
Le Havre, 28-29 mai 1998, Publications de l‟Université de Rouen.
Lee, S.W. (2005) Interaction Between City and Port in Asian Hub Port Cities. Unpublished
PhD Dissertation in Urban Planning, University of Seoul.
Lee, S.W., Song, D.W. and Ducruet, C. (2007) A tale of Asia‟s world ports: the spatial
evolution in global hub port cities. Geoforum (forthcoming).
Marcadon, J. and Comtois, C. (1996) Le modèle chrono-spatial appliqué aux villes portuaires
maritimes françaises et chinoises, pp. 171-183 in: La Ville Maritime, Temps, Espaces,
Représentations, Actes du Colloque de Brest, 9-10-11 juillet 1996, Université de Bretagne
Occidentale, 358 p.
Marshall, R. (2001) Waterfronts in Post-industrial Cities. Spon Press, London.
Mason, C., Pinch, S. and Witt, S. (1990) Flexible employment strategies in British industry :
evidence from the UK Sunbelt. Regional Studies 25(3), 207-218.
McGee, T.G. (1967) The Southeast Asian City: A Social Geography of the Primate Cities of
Southeast Asia. G. Bell & Sons.
Monkhouse, J.F. (1964) A Survey of Southampton and its Region. Southampton University
Press, Southampton.
Norcliffe, G., Bassett, K. and Hoare, T. (1996) The emergence of postmodernism on the urban
waterfront. Journal of Transport Geography 4(2), 123-134.
Notteboom, T. (1997) Concentration and load centre development in the European container
port system. Journal of Transport Geography 5, 99-115.
Notteboom, T. and Rodrigue, J.P. (2005) Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port
development. Maritime of Policy and Management 32(3), 297-313.
Reeves, P. (1989) Studying the Asian port city, pp. 29-53 in: Broeze, F. (Ed.), Brides of the
Sea: Port Cities of Asia from the 16th - 20th Centuries, University of Hawaii Press,
Honolulu.
Rodrigue, J.P. (1994) Transportation and spatial development in the Singapore extended
metropolitan region. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 15(1), pp. 56-74.
Savitch, H.V. (1988) Post-Industrial Cities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Vigarié, A. (1979) Ports de Commerce et Vie Littorale. Collection „Hachette Université‟, 496
p.
West, N. (1989) Urban-waterfront developments: a geographic problem in search of a model.
Geoforum 20(4), 459-468.
Zaremba, P. (1962) Les principes du développement des villes portuaires. Académie
Polonaise des Sciences, Centre Scientifique de Paris, Fasc. n° 32.
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
24
Table 1: Advantages and constraints of Le Havre and Southampton’s morphology
Le Havre
Southampton
Advantages
a) The city keeps the whole coastal area for
its development
b) Port and urban areas are well integrated
and the public space along the river can be
developed for citizens
c) port and related industries are compactly
organized, that facilitates transport links
between city and port
d) this morphology allows to separate clearly
the city in two parts, one for residential and
working functions, one for leisure functions,
without representing a constraint to the port
a) city develops freely towards inland, as it is
not constrained by port areas
b) the port area between the sea and the city has
remained thin because of the lack of space
Constraints
a) The link between the major city and the
satellite city (here Honfleur) is often difficult
b) The upstream growth of the port might
become an obstacle for land transportation,
because of overlapping areas and necessitates
to improve road links
c) The communication between the two river
banks lead to costly works like bridge or
tunnel because of the river
a) The peninsular situation forces the city to
develop on another bank using costly works
like bridges, what reduces its access to inland
through one direction only
b) The port is forced to shift on a scarce
remaining land along the peninsula so as to
reinforce its access to inland transportation
networks (rail, road)
Source: adapted from Zaremba, 1962.
Figure 1. Relational Mechanism between Port and City
Source: modified from Lee, 2005
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
25
Figure 2. Major ports and cities in Europe
Sources: Containerisation International; Helders, 2006
Figure 3. Size of some European waterfront redevelopment projects (Unit: Ha)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Ancona
Zeebrugge
Oslo
Trieste
Leghorn
Le Havre
Belfast
Bilbao
Barcelona
Tees & Hartlepoo l
Hamburg
Antwerpen
Dunkirk
Gothenburg
Marseilles
Dublin
Source: IRSIT, 2004
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
26
Figure 4: Building a spatial model of the European port city
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
27
Figure 5: Spatial model of the European port city
Figure 6: Zaremba’s models of Southampton (left) and Le Havre (right)
Source: adapted from Zaremba, 1962
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
28
Figure 7: Spatial pattern of Le Havre and Southampton
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
29
Figure 8: Synthesis of Le Havre and Southampton case study
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
30
Figure 9: Territorial layout of Busan port city
Source: adapted from Frémont and Ducruet, 2005.
Figure 10: Spatial pattern of Busan port city
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
31
Figure 11: Networks and nodes in Busan port city
Figure 12: A territorial model of Busan port city
halshs-00459369, version 1 - 24 Feb 2010
