Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract 5
Keywords 6
INTRODUCTION 6
GUIDING PRINCIPALS 24
Port Development & Master Planning 24
Long Term Planning 24
Medium Term Planning 24
Guiding Principles for Port Design 24-25
Port Costs 25
The Port Masterplan 25
Port Location 25
Design Criteria 25
General Layout of Port Works - Principals 25
Port Entrance 25
Connections with Inland Areas 26
Storage Area 26
Review of Existing Port Installations 26
General Cargo Terminal 26
Bulk Cargo Terminal 26
Basic Design Criteria for Marinas 27
Water Dependant Uses 27
Shipping 27-29
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
What Are The Key Factors And Guiding Principles For Major Waterfront Development?
Abstract
This 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 Barcelonas Ports Development, this paper will focus in on
Barcelonas working ports; understanding the logistics and the infrastructure of these functioning areas, how they are managed and how
they relate, influence, and govern the development of the city.
This paper will then look at Barcelonas cruise ship terminals, their services and their importance in relation to the growth of tourism within
the city.
Concluding this section with an overview of guiding principals of Port Master Planning, Port Development & Port Design studying long and
medium term planning, design criteria, shipping & cargo, emphasizing the importance of the ports location and its connections with inland
areas.
This paper will shift back to Barcelona, with an in-depth study on Port Vell; Barcelonas very successful, very popular, commercial and
leisure 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 Vells commercial services, facilities
and uses.
Concluding this chapter by understanding Port Vells importance in relation to the Barcelona Model and how 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, 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 Green Urban Planning and the Barcelona Model in relation to other
metropolitan cities.
This paper will then shift into its second case study; Torontos Waterfront Revitalization, which is still an ongoing process. This project is a
very ambitious, very well planned, polly-faceted, waterfront enterprise, set to revitalize and regenerate, not only by defining Torontos
character, as a major metropolitan world city, but also acting as a transformative gateway to commerce, culture and tourism for Canada
itself.
This study will outline the pressures and motivation behind acting now, the big challenges which lie ahead, and how Toronto arrived at its
solution. Looking at its Strategic Business Plan, its Develop Concept and its different areas, its facets, its ports and harbours, and its
different sections of waterfront.
This paper will analyze Torontos Waterfronts phasing of implementation, its structures, powers and governance, whilst looking at the
financial 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 in
2007.
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 mixed
land 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 environmental
conservation.
Keywords
Waterfront, Development, Revitalization, Regeneration, Toronto, Ports, Harbours, Barcelona. Urban Design, Development, Planning,
Introduction
In many cities, efforts are currently being made to renew the strength of their waterfront. These efforts are supported by several
conditions. Land left vacant by deindustrialization is now cheaper and in many ways prime spots for development. These areas have
high aesthetic and functional values due to their proximity to the water and the city core. Because of the many potential overlapping
jurisdictions of government that are involved, however, detailed planning is essential for such waterfront development and
redevelopment. (Mulvihill, 1991).
Many different developments can be planned along the urban waterfront. Large-scale mixed-use developments offer many commercial
and economic opportunities. These projects contribute a great deal to the process of re-establishing the vitality of the inner city. Other
types of developments are more social than economic. Parks, water-edge walkways, and environmental conservation all add to the
cultural 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 area's well being. They are not only a source of economic
contributions 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 first
consider 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 of
a 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 for
urbanization. Rather than a collection of glass boxes, postmodern architecture tries to give buildings more character and make them
look welcoming. Buildings are designed as more of an addition to the natural landscape than an intrusion to it. Especially along the
waterfront, then, where cities usually first began, a sense of serenity and natural presence, along with an attention to its historical
importance, is needed to bring about the area's full worth. Along with this significance, its physical connection to the city and its
previously 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 and
empirical data that suggest land use is determined by the economic possibilities in each area. The predominant condition of urban
waterfronts before the late 1950s shows that the city harbor was a central place for business relating to ocean cargo. In addition to the
central location, industry was also planned along rivers due to an availability of hydropower and easy waste disposal. Many of these
businesses were later relocated due to advances in railway and highway transportation. Urban waterfront industry was no longer the
least expensive way of manufacturing and transporting goods. Industry moved to cheaper land because of the ease in transportation, and
the city core became deindustrialized. In the 1960s and 1970s the urban waterfront existed as something of an industrial wasteland
because 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 other
developments can make use of the waterfront. In many ways the deindustrialization of the waterfront is a blessing. This is because there
is now room for not just industry, but commercial, residential, and public space as well. Therefore, the deindustrialization of the
waterfront, although initially leading to a decline of the area's worth, in the end allows for the rebirth of the waterfront as a more enjoyable
and recreational area. (Hubbard, 1994)
"The waterfront becomes symbolic of our human limitations and of our potential. It functions as both a physical and a psychological
frontier. By representing what is deep and knowable, it suggests both our hopes and our fears for the future. It is a shimmering mirror which
reflects the sunlight of the day and the city lights of the night, breaking them up into millions of sparkling rays, abstracting and making poetic
our work-a-day world." - John Rubin, 2004
Great waterfronts are not developed over days or months; they emerge through dedicated action by residents, waterfront users, and
community leaders over a number of years, sometimes decades. Each successful project, no matter how small, should bring new strength
to the waterfront, creating a greater economic and social sum of its constituent parts. (Evenius, 2003)
Case Study 1: Barcelonas Ports and Harbours
Barcelona
Barcelona, located in the north-east of Spain and on the shores of the Mediterranean, is one of the main European metropolises, and the
centre of an extensive metropolitan region made up of more than 217 towns, with a total population of 4.6 million inhabitants. It is the
economic, cultural and administrative capital of Catalonia and a leader of an emerging business area in the south of Europe, which is made
up 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 is
consolidating its position as one of Europes 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 settled
here. 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 century
Catalonia is an innovative country with a highly-qualified labour force, an enviable geographical position (at the heart of Europe and
connected to the rest of the world thanks to its Mediterranean ports and its international airports) and top-notch infrastructure and facilities
that draw important investments year after year.
(The Media Centre in Barcelona, 2007)
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 there
is 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 decade
and adjacent blue-collar suburbs like Hospitalet and Santa Coloma doubled and tripled in population. Modernization and industrialization
were proceeding at a rapid pace. Migrants from nearby regions were flooding into the city to take jobs. By the 1930s the province of
Catalonia, 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 the
working class. There was some public housing inexpensive concrete buildings but only 2,200 units had been built. The city relied
overwhelmingly 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 small
property 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 built
substandard dwellings while the authorities looked the other way. By 1927 it was estimated that over 6,000 shanties had been built in
Barcelona, housing 30,000 people, with more in surrounding towns. In the older parts of Barcelona many flats or houses were cut up into
tiny units. Often the penny-pinching landlords refused to provide water hookups for these new units, even though the city building codes
had 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 100,000
by August. Even if these estimates are a bit exaggerated, clearly, this was a massive rent strike. There were rent strikes going on in all the
working class neighborhoods of Barcelona, and a number of the outlying towns had set up their own Economic Defense Commissions and
were pursuing a similar recourse. It took years for the affects of the strike to deplete. And the government has been trying to balance
accommodating tourists and natives since.
"The Governor's housing" is a complex of 900 flats of 20 square metres that were built in 1952 to house people living in the slums of
Barcelona; they were privatized during the 60's to avoid maintenance costs and social conflicts. Some years later, the growth of Barcelona
reached 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, after
several claims, when the three public administrations (State, Regional and City) reached an agreement. The Catalan Government accepted
the total renewal of the houses with the financial help from the Ministry responsible for public works and the City Council's commitment to
rebuild the area.
A new plan was designed together with the Neighbours' Association, with the task of keeping everybody in the same quarter and the
objective to standardize that quarter socially as an urban area. The new streets became intertwined with the old nearby ones, the new
squares opened instead of closed, and some old flats that were empty were renewed to house some of the neighbours temporarily. To
execute the plan, which started in 1992, a private team specialized in managing was contracted. This team, placed on the spot, directed all
the operations of expropriating, pulling down, transferring families, integrating, etc. By the time that fifty percent of the program was
executed, results had already become evident: 239 families were given new flats, new commercial activity began, and illegal activities
disappeared. And, an episode of degradation that should have never occurred began to slowly vanish from people's memory.
When the 1992 Olympics arrived in the city it brought with it more than a few hundred runners, bikers jumpers and swimmers; millions of
tourists flanked the city, certainly a monetary bonus for tourism sectors, but hotels, parking lots, restaurants and the like needed to be built
to accommodate the millions of people that Barcelona would host. There was a problem with space! As the city is built between the sea and
the mountains, urban sprawl is not an option. Meaning housing costs would sky rocket and the people of Barcelona, pushed out of their
own territory. The games indeed did spank a suburban newness to the city, but did little in solving the citys housing shortage.
In 2004 Barcelona hosted a different kind of Olympics a five-month cultural and intellectual forum that was focused on solving the worlds
problems.
Organizers said they'd expected more than five million visitors to converge on the city for the 2004 Forum of Cultures -- part festival, part
meeting-of-minds on broad themes such as peace, cultural diversity and sustainable development (i.e. housing!) For Barcelona, it was a
chance 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 forum
events, and a whopping $2.6-billion was spent on the festival's infrastructure, including a total transformation of the city's once-marginalized
and crime-ridden northern shore-a neighbourhood called La Mina.
With a very shanty-town like history, La Mina was one of the Cultural Forum's undertakings; thirty years after the first bricks were laid, the
Forum set out to create a change in the marginalizing and cramping of its inhabitants. Unfortunately the area's sad legacy left La Mina so
torn with the greatest social deprivation within the Barcelona metropolitan area today, that even the forum was unable to complete the
revitalization 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 living
space. It has above average numbers living in conditions of poverty, with illiteracy levels running at 25%. Unemployment, employment in
the informal sector and absenteeism from school are all very high. The degradation of the community has been intense, with high crime
rates and serious social fracturing.
And jarring to the many who advocated it, the forum in La Mina's case was a mass failure and was as unsuccessful as it was televised. But
the touristic dollars it brought into the city out shined the forum's mini failures. And an anti-globalization group called the Assembly of
Resistance to the Forum argued that widely embraced topics such as peace and diversity were just excuses for the city to earn more
money with tourism. Thus, keeping with the trend to bow to the spending tourist and turn one's head from the arduous native.
Barcelona's Federation of Neighbourhood Associations says that the forum was taking priority over more important urban issues such as
health care and housing. "Housing is a tremendous problem in Barcelona, and thousands of families live without water or electricity. With
just 10 per cent of what they've invested in the forum, they could have solved housing problems for 23,000 low-income families," said Eva
Fernandez, the federation president.
Innovative and strategic housing policies have been consistently neglected in the broader political and urban agenda of Spain. Tourism has
taken the stand and as it looks from here, is not coming down anytime soon. Oddly, just two weeks ago, Spain's hotel industry reported the
greatest success in three years; seeing a 5 per cent increase in its Revenue per available room. The gravity and complexity of housing
problems and of segregation issues are underestimated. Though hoteliers have suffered from problems of overcapacity in the past,
Barcelona's public and private developers have been particularly active in this sector and Spanish hotel supply increased by 20% between
2001 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 the
same period).
(Abadir, 2005)
The "Barcelona model" of local government and management combines strategic insight, political leadership, innovation, professional
management, quality and proximity, civic culture, participation and the involvement of the citizens. It explores some of the elements that
have contributed to an efficient municipal management, that obtained new investment based on the optimization of current expenditure and
that have transformed the city, maintaining an important level of consensus of the city's population.
(Francisco - Javier Moncl, 2003)
In the case of the Illa Diagonal development, it involved an intrinsically interesting model of urban design that, especially in its exterior, was
somewhat removed from the rhetoric of the Mediterranean city. Yet, the design also facilitated the developments redefinition in use, in the
more private and autonomous sense. Turning to the second component of the Barcelona model the strategic planning associated initially
with the preparations for the Olympic Games this has been subsequently maintained with as much, if not more, energy. This has
promoted 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 been
produced in Barcelona. This is despite the greater importance given in the last post-Olympic phase to the logic of the private sector and
flexible planning, whereby certain processes of a clearly North American origin, such as marketing and theme labeling of the city, have
accelerated. These correspond to a highly globalized type of planning especially that associated with Strategic Plans which at the
same 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 new Barcelona to borrow, adapt and elaborate original syntheses relating to the most
advanced formulae of international urban planning culture, allows one to consider the possible reorientation of its objectives and urban
planning strategies over the next few years. In particular, the operations associated with the Forum of Cultures 2004 will probably indicate
Barcelonas capacity to tackle the challenges that are still outstanding. Until now, the notable success of city marketing strategies, linked to
the new symbolic economy or cultural economy and based upon urban tourism, the media and leisure, contrasts with much less attention
paid to other important aspects: public transport and, above all, housing. Tackling these issues in a more convincing way would mark a
second stage of a wide reaching and really successful planning model, although likely to remain somewhat under-proportioned in relation
to the concerns with image and economics.
Thus, the culture of the city as a promoter of values (as advocated by the Eurocities movement) would remain, for the time being, notably
subordinate 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)
th
18 Century Daught
The enlargements did not stop. In the year 1723, the East Dock was extended to the actual fishermens
wharf 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 the
end of the East dock to the Pulgas tower (where the Portal de la Pau and Columbus monument stands). These
circumstances forced the closing of the port. The solution to the draught problems was not overcome until
1916, 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, 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 and
offering 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 (port
terminals, the Logistics Activities Area, inland maritime terminals, intermodal terminals, depots, etc.), which have global reach and are
linked by multimodal transport corridors.
At these facilities, which operators manage in a decentralized fashion, clients have access to a wide range of handling, transport, logistics
and 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 and
offering 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 (port
terminals, the Logistics Activities Area, inland maritime terminals, intermodal terminals, depots, etc.), which have global reach and are
linked by multimodal transport corridors. At these facilities, which operators manage in a decentralized fashion, clients have access to a
wide range of handling, transport, logistic sand value-added services that facilitate their foreign-trade operations. The Port of Barcelona own
brand-name services -the e-commerce platform and PortIC document interchange, the quality standards and guarantees and the Customer
Service Department- make it easier for users to arrange and track their shipments. (Port de Barcelona, The Port, Logistics, 2009)
Regular Lines
The Port of Barcelona connects with over 825 ports worldwide through established regular shipping lines, and with its hinterland through an
extensive network of road and rail infrastructure. It is both a hub port and a premier transhipment centre for direct ocean lines. (Port de
Barcelona, Regular Lines, 2009)
Latitude: 41 21 N Tides: Width: 125 cm North entrance mouth
Longitude: 2 10 E Draughts: Up to 16 m Orientation: 191.8
Width: 370 m
Draught: 16 m
Strategic Development
The 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: enlarging
the network port, improving port services - including land accessibility and intermodality - and
fostering a far-reaching cultural change within the organization. The contraction of expectations
and available resources has led to the rethink of priorities in terms of activities, which must be
dynamic and attuned to the present situation. The current option is to focus on objectives that
can 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 particularly
successful in this connection in 2008 was the boost given to extending the hinterland deeper into
the Iberian Peninsula and France, with the consolidation of the port terminal projects, dry ports
and rail corridors serving these areas and attracting new cargoes. This line of activity will be (Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Annual
enhanced 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 and
medium-term scenarios.
Consistency: recognising consistencies and inconsistencies in the current culture and describing the desired culture for achieving a
competitive 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 commitment
to the new culture.
(Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 6-7)
The Port Enlargement Works Commissioner coordinates these activities, which are covered in the Llobregat delta infrastructures and
environment 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 new
terminals mainly dedicated to container traffic. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 28)
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 Construccin 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)
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 so
Barcelona, Annual Report, much quarry material, thus lowering the overall cost of the work. In addition, this solution will allow the future
2008, page 30)!
extrados of the seawall (on the inner side) to form an attached wharf for new terminals. The work on Stretches I
and 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 the
superstructure 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 Stretch
II. 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)
Prat Wharf
The Prat wharf, the first of the enlargement of the area, has now taken shape. The 1,500-metre stretch constitutes the line of the first
container terminal in the port enlargement area on the west side of the dock. It will occupy nearly 100 hectares of land regained from the
sea. 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 two
phases. The Prat Wharf Phase I, which was started in 2004 and finished in autumn 2005, involved 1,000 metres of berthing line. It was built
with 18.5 metre wide reinforced concrete caissons and one-metre footing each side to reach the 20.5 metre width on the floor. The caissons
that 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 metres
long, was built between December 2005 and October 2006 and comprises 12 reinforced concrete caissons 13.56 wide on the foundation
slab 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 alexandrinus
page 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 Mediterranean
logistics platform and, along with the actions foreseen in the Delta Plan, make it one of the nerve
centres of the European communications network. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page
31)
Infrastructure Actions
Throughout 2008 Barcelona Port Authority (APB) dedicated a total of 142.75 million EUR to
Preparation of Areas
The work is aimed at remodeling existing areas, especially within the reorganization of the Port of Barcelona's container terminals, involved
the following projects:
Development of the lvarez 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 the
current pier of the Compaa Logstica de Hidrocarburos (CLH), building a new wharf line between the South and lvarez de la Campa
wharves 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 new
berth 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 countries
entering EU territories with all the appropriate health guarantees. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 32)
Rail accesses
The building of rail infrastructures guarantees dynamism and speed in the entry and exit of goods to the port area and allows it to extend its
area of influence. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 34)
Air quality
Barcelona Port Authority (APB) continued to work hand in hand with the Catalan Department of the Environment and Housing to apply the
Air Quality Improvement Plan in the Metropolitan Region of Barcelona, rolling out measures to reduce NOx and PM10 emissions affecting
the Port. Such measures include modernizing the fleet of trucks involved in the Proatrans P+ programme; electrifying vessels during
stopovers; and fostering the use of rail cargo traffic to take such cargo off the roads. The demolition of the Porta Coeli building on the
Adossat 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 and
restructure the network to adapt it to the new configuration of the port area and the new functions under the environmental monitoring
programm of the port works. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 36)
Waste collection
1,965 tonnes of waste were gathered by the Port of Barcelona, 26% less than in 2007. The remaining waste for specific management stood
at 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)
The terminal acts as a neutral operator, allowing any freight agent or professional using maritime transport to plan, organize
and/or monitor all the movements of their goods as they pass through the Port of Barcelona. The tmZ facilities at Mercazaragoza cover
120,000 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 these
facilities have been completed with a 50,000 m2 rail terminal connected to the main network which now provides a regular, competitive and
high-quality service to rail operators and, by extension, to Aragonese freight agents. Zaragoza's location on the BarcelonaMadridLisbon
rail axis, at the nerve centre of the communications network of the north of the peninsula, makes the tmZ rail terminal the origin, destination
and strategic intermediate terminal for traffics from the Port of Barcelona and the rest of Spain and Portugal. The most outstanding indicator
of the tmZs 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 for
the entry and exit of goods. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 39-40)
FERRMED
The APB is an active member of the FERRMED association, set up to promote the Western Mediterranean Rhone Rhine Scandinavia
European goods rail axis between Algeciras (South Spain) and Stockholm. FERRMED's activity focuses on performing a technical,
socioeconomic and supply and demand study including the entire area of influence of the axis. The study's conclusions should serve to
include this major axis as a priority project in the forthcoming review of the European Commission's European transport policy in 2010. The
Spanish government has already expressed its support to the association in this matter. (Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, page 42)
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 lion's share of the Port of Barcelonas
market, 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 this
geographical area grew 6% year-on-year. Specifically, China is the Port's main trading partner, with 23.3% of containers that pass through
our 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 during
2008. 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 in
North Africa. Reduced consumption and production have especially affected traffic in new vehicles, which fell by 10.6% in 2008, closing the
year with a total of 716,306 cars handled. Nearly 90% of this volume corresponds to external traffic. Despite an increase during the first half
of 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 most
vehicles were shipped in February (76,902 units handled). Furthermore, cargo transport in SSS lines developed well, moving from 109,332
ITU 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)
(Photographs: Port de Barcelona, Annual Report, 2008, pages 41, 61, 52, 51, 54, 23)
Long-Term Planning
In the event that a national ports plan does not exist, the consultant should proceed with drafting a master plan, after studying the following
components of long-term planning:
1. The role of the portin particular: (a) The servicing of its inland area as regards foreign trade (b) The support that the port may offer to
the regions 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: for
example, 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 interested
parties 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 government
grant. In general, in modern port development the basic requirement is for large expanses of land to ensure productive operation of the
individual terminals. Therefore, a careful examination of point 3 assumes particular importance.
(Port Planning, 2004, page 10)
Medium-Term Planning
Each port development scheme should be incorporated in the master plan and should proceed to implementation following the results of an
appropriate feasibility study. The latter study should refer individually to each independent
section of the overall development proposal, such as a container terminal or a bulk cargo terminal. Thus, under a positive but reduced yield
from the overall proposal, the risk of concealment of a nonproductive section is avoided. The drafting of a port development plan calls for
the conduct of the following special studies:
1. Analysis of the functionality of the port as regards the services offered in conjunction with capacity
2. Designs, with budgets
3. Operational design, with budget
4. Financial and financing study
In large port development projects it is customary to reexamine the organization and management of the port operating agency and to
recommend organizational improvements on a small or larger scale. It is possible that many of the ports in a country do not warrant a
development effort beyond maintenance of existing structures or appropriate modification, such as to serve fishing vessels or pleasure
crafts. Such modifications are nowadays met quite frequently, since old ports, traditionally being part of the core of their town, cannot easily
incorporate large land expanses needed in modern port layouts. Also, environmental and social issues do not allow in many cases major
expanses of an old port site. The requirement that the citizenship should be granted free access to the waterfront of their city is gradually
being 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 a
common trend is to change the character of a past commercial port into a marina or fishing vessels refuge, where old ports were completely
refurbished into commercial or recreational zones, some of them arousing controversial discussions among town-planners. Since ports
interact 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. This
frequently calls for a compromise between the requirements of the port and the local authorities.
(Port Planning, 2004, pages 10-11)
Port Costs
Two factors constitute port costs: investment cost, which does not depend on traffic, and operating cost, which does. A ships cost in port is
also made up of two constituents: the cost of the vessels waiting time and the cost of the ship while berthed The sum of the port cost and
the 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 generally
recommended that this ratio be lower than, say, 20%, but there is a danger here of showing an improvement of service provided through a
unilateral increase in service time. This is why for the purposes of evaluation, absolute values of total vessel waiting time at the port are
also required.
(Port Planning, 2004, page 12)
Port Locations
Traditionally, ports are situated in a location central to the urban area they serve. The port is thus surrounded by urbanized area, and both
further development of the port and access to it are rendered difficult. This situation restricts expansion of the port required to meet modern
demands. In most cases, a feasibility survey for relocation of the port outside the city will have to be conducted. The prerequisites for such
relocation are (1) secure maritime approaches, (2) ample availability of land area, and (3) satisfactory access by land. For an initial new site
evaluation, 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 include
necessary permissions and ownership implications, dredging and spoil disposal requirements, environmental constraints, and so on. In
cases 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 Criterias
During the master planning stage of a project preliminary design criteria should be proposed covering aspects such as types of operations
to be undertaken (e.g., containers, transit and transshipment flows, import/export; design vessel, operating equipment).
(Port Planning, 2004, page 17)
Port Entrances
The port entrance demands careful consideration to ensure quick and safe entry of vessels in the harbor. The orientation and width of the
entrance should reconcile two opposing criteria. For reasons of comfortable navigation, the harbor entrance should communicate directly
with the open sea and should be as wide as possible. On the other hand, the narrower and more protected the entrance, the smaller the
degree 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 to
the 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 Areas
The nature of a modern cargo port resembles more a cargo handling hub within a combined transport system than a sea transport terminal
point. Consequently, a basic element in the smooth operation and development of a terminal are the ports inland connections. These
connections, through which non-sea transport of goods to and from the port is effected, may be road or rail accesses, artificial or natural
inland navigable routes, airlines, or oil product pipelines. Road, rail, and river connections (to which we refer later) can also connect a port
with specialized cargo concentration terminals located in suitable inland depots. These stations serve to smooth out the peaks in demand
and supply of goods to a port that has limited storage areas. The provision of inland storage areas forming part of a port is a modern
tendency pronounced in container transport, which creates the need for larger backup areas and also a need for boxes to stay in port for a
shorter time. The transport of goods between port and inland depots is thus carried out quickly and efficiently, in contrast with the traditional
servicing of all destination points directly from a port without intermediate transshipment. In addition to being effected by road, the
connection 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 wheeled
trailers fed from the port. In each case, the traditional arrangement in general cargo terminals in which rail (or road) vehicles approach the
docks for immediate loading and unloading of cargo through the use of dock cranes is being abandoned. The main reason for this
development is that loading/unloading vehicles obstruct dock operations, in addition to the frequent inability to coordinate shiptrain
operations, resulting in vessel delay. Two alternative handling options are available in this respect: (1) the full cargo can be forwarded
inland via port sheds, or (2) direct loading/unloading to and from rail or road vehicles can be retained but conducted at some distance
from the docks. The second alternative demands an additional fleet of tractors and platforms to link docks with transshipment areas to
means 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 of
inland navigable routes. Connections by inland navigation offer economy and are particularly suitable for the transport of bulk cargoes and
for supporting combined transports between river ports and seaports that serve barge-carrying vessels.
(Port Planning, 2004, page 29)
Storage Areas
A small portion of the total throughput of a general cargo terminal is either loaded directly to or discharged directly from land transportation
means 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)
Water-Dependent Uses
Competing demands for use of the shoreline and the increasing value of waterfront property have displaced many traditional waterfront
activities. State and local governments have responded with innovative policies and techniques to preserve water-dependent uses and
traditional working waterfronts. Historically, coastal communities relied upon water-dependent uses of their shorelines, such as commercial
fishing and shipping, for their livelihood. Today, in coastal communities, water-dependent uses are threatened with displacement or have
given 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 sites
suitable for water-dependent uses, and to implement these policies by: (1) preserving existing water-dependent uses; (2) reserving
appropriate vacant lands for water-dependent uses; and (3) designating lands for redevelopment with water-dependent uses
A policy which specifies, either what types of development are suitable along the coast or what areas of the coast are suitable for
development. 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 for
non-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 communities
have 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 for
creative approaches to balance competing interests on the waterfront. Segregation, an article of faith in traditional zoning, is giving way to a
mix 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 market
environment. Finally, some policy analysts see granting priority to water-dependent uses as a free market interference that is compromising
the 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 on
heavy 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)
Shipping
Rapid changes in freight shipping, centered around containerized cargo and the modern logistics revolution highlight the risks of high cost
capital 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 subsidized
capital, 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 and
redefined the role of the longshoreman at modern ports. Specialized cranes and cargo handling gear, with expanded berths and storage
and handling areas are just the minimum requirements to make a port attractive to shipping lines. Labor remains a critical ingredient in port
operations, but now technologically sophisticated equipment requires skilled operators who are capable of operating computerized control
systems 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. These
organizations serve a wide variety of users, operators, and regulators and often have different (or even competing) priorities, requirements
and procedures. Even the coordination of the marine transportation system is complex and not always clear
Within this framework, many users and service providers, both public and private, must confront rapid technological change and the need
for large-scale investments in the marine transport system. The seemingly simple change from break-bulk, or general cargo, to the use of
standard sized containers, combined with dramatic improvements in the loading and unloading of ships, changed the economics of
shipping 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 capital
investments for the construction of new facilities and the modernization of existing ones. Moreover, the investment in container related
facilities marked a shift in the financial responsibility for investments as port-related government funding replaced investment that had often
been provided by private interests
(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, page 5)
The improved connections between ports and the countrys extensive rail and highway systems, and the physical ease by which a
container can be transferred from one mode to another, have broken down the perception of individual ports as natural gateways to
exclusive hinterlands. Container shipping is now a door-to-door business from the point of production to the point of consumption, with the
shipping lines largely in control of the routing of cargo. Ports cannot feel secure that even cargo generated in their host cities will be shipped
overseas 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 to
West Coast ports. And within each coastal area there are a number of ports in competition, including ports in Canada. The result is that
inter-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 the
opportunity to achieve the economies of scale offered by increased vessel capacity without sacrificing the frequency of service that is
critically important to their customers. Major international shipping lines recognize their strong negotiating position and have, not
surprisingly, 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 decisions
regarding 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 shipping
line alliances and mergers.
Beyond the landside infrastructure requirements many of the worlds harbors and channels are not naturally deep enough to accommodate
the latest-generation container ships, which require water depths of 45 feet or greater. Thus, dredging has become essential to port
development.
Traditionally, federal funds were used to pay for the construction and access of major channels, while non-federal funding has been used to
dredge 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 for
contaminated materials. Even so the future of the dredging requirements is expected to grow above recent levels following the completion
of 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 investment
requirements 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 their
political 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 private
participation in the port projects would normally cause the bonds to be taxable. However, bonds issued to support the construction and
renovation of docks, wharves and related facilities are considered to be exempt facility bonds and may be financed on a tax-exempt basis
even 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 cargo
possible. State, regional and local governments have the responsibility for the planning, development, financing and construction of much
of the landside port infrastructure.
Other federal agencies have responsibility for related issues of safety, national security and the environment. A different set of federal
agencies 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 they
have developed new berths to handle modern container ships, undertaken equipment purchases to improve the efficiency of cargo
handling, created new terminals and expanded storage yards, implemented state-of-the-art communications technology and worked with
federal, state and local governments to achieve better rail and highway links for landside port access. The ports have often expanded
facilities 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 development
process is wasteful, with the taxpayers money being spent on redundant cargo handling facilities. The economic advantages of operating
large 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 are
needed.
(A Federal Ports Policy, 1997, page 22)
Moreover, port development chokes off alternative uses of valuable seaside property, disrupts nearby residential and business
development and may have negative environmental consequences from the dredging of contaminated materials. An overriding concern for
people in this camp is that when nationally important infrastructure decisions are made locally, national interests are subordinate to local
interests and priorities.
Those for whom these concerns about the decentralized process resonate most loudly would, most likely, welcome a broader governmental
role 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 port
investment and to urge the removal of government subsidies that distort otherwise rational investment decisions. In the absence of that
outcome, a periodic reassessment of the federal role in the planning and development of maritime infrastructure certainly seems
appropriate.
(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 waterways
investment, 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 be
extremely controversial. If the government decides to undertake this reappraisal, it should not feel unduly constrained by perceived
constitutional 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)
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. This
hotel 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% retail
and 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)
Bosch i Alsina wharf: is one of the largest spaces of the Port Vell. Its 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
Merc (patron saints 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 marinas 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 Plaa 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 dHistria de Catalunya -Catalonias History Museum- and
restaurants, are located). (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Spaces, 2009)
Passeig Joan de Borb: 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 Plaa de lOdissea , the Plaa dItaca 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)
Plaa de les Palmeres: is integrated in the Passeig Martim 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)
LAqurium 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 launchs 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 Martim 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 dHistria 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 Borb, 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 Nutic de Barcelona: This is a private and centenarian club. Its located in the Espanya wharf and organizes many
internationally famous activities: the Regata Conde de God and the Regata Ermenegildo Zegna are two
examples.
Reial Club Martim 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 Nataci Atltic Barceloneta: The Club Nataci Atltic-Barceloneta is a sporting body with a no profit motive in mind, which is the
result of the merging between the Club Nataci Atltic, 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 Nataci Barcelona: The Club de Nataci 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 towards
the future. (Information & Photograph: Port de Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)
Golondrines: Typical boats with special characteristics, navigate in the Port of Barcelonas 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 Ramn 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 Helicpters 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 Frum, the Olympic Village, the Sagrada Famlia,
the Eixample, the Tibidabo, Camp Nou (the FC Barcelona stadium) and Olympic zone. (Information & Photograph: Port de
Barcelona, Port Vell, Equipments, 2009)
Another project underway involves refurbishing the Plaa del Mar, the Passeig Maritim and Passeig Joan de Borb boulevards up to the
new entrance mouth. Work is due for completion in 2010 and will provide the city with a more attractive stretch of boulevard linking all the
beaches.
The areas generated during the building of the North Entrance Mouth will also include new activities related to the Vela Hotel, which will
open its doors in late 2010, and to the new public areas along the seafront. It is this combination of activities, together with the involvement
of the concession-holding companies and the attractive location, which have drawn 16 million people to the Port Vell each year. These new
projects are likely to inject even more life into this area. The Port Vell knows that it needs the support, stimulus, acceptance and complicity
of civil society to consolidate its position as an ideal meeting place of the port with the city, and its strategy is therefore aligned in this
direction.
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, 16
million 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)
In other cities in which these same dispersal processes are in a more advanced phase, the dominant concern is now with maintaining the
vitality of the central areas. Nevertheless the unordered nature of the new peripheries in these LatinEuropean cities is also notable. What
has taken place in Barcelona is an urban planning resulting from the original re-elaboration and, above all, from the application of formulae
outlined 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 thinking locally (in the legal city)
and implemented globally (in the real city). It is, therefore, the reverse of the environmentalist movements maxim (thinking globally and
acting 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)
Our new Waterfront will be a model to the world of how economic development, environmental protection, and cultural and recreational
growth can complement each other. Torontos waterfront will offer something to everybody; A place to play, live and work.
(Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page 9)
(Map: Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page 43)
(Photographs: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, page 11)
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 which
literally refocus and renew the entire urban area. Toronto alone has been virtually inert compared to its sister cities, who are inevitably its
competitors. Most amazing in its unrealized potential is Torontos Central Waterfront, with some 2,000 acres of largely undeveloped land, at
the heart of the City, region and Province. Visitors from other great cities are shocked by our failure to realize the value of this asset. The
Waterfront 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 as
the decades of activity on the part of consultants, public interest groups and government. What is new is the prospect of hosting the 2008
Olympic 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 common
goal. Although Toronto has been able to do this at other times, in other undertakings, the evolution of Torontos waterfront has not been
characterized by unified action. Uncoordinated private investment alone will not overcome the major impediments now existing. What the
Task Force is presenting here is a plan to position Toronto at the forefront of modern cities. The potential is fabulous, the undertaking is
affordable, and the obligation to act on behalf of those who come after us is undeniable.
(Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 13-14)
(Photographs: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, pages 47, 44 & 55)
An Astonishing Opportunity
The existence of extensive areas of abandoned land left behind
by vacated industry, shipping and railways, and by the mid-20th
century incursion of expressways, is typical in virtually all of the
waterfronts of large global cities. But the Task Forces research
of other cities make it clear that Torontos situation is distinct in a
number of respects. These add up to a superb opportunity. First,
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 Torontos 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 Americas 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
(Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront and recreation, transportation, industry and education- situated in a public and parkland
Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page environment.
15) (Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 16-18)
!
(Photograph: Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page 8)
These conditions appear to have been widely prevalent before comprehensive renewal was undertaken in major urban waterfronts studied
by the Task Force, including the conditions of sclerosis and competing jurisdictions. At some point in all of these examples, governments
have realized that conditions cannot be reversed without effective new vehicles for intergovernmental action. Renewal can only be achieved
through such vehicles and collaboration. In the time available, the Task Force reviewed the history of the Toronto waterfront, particularly the
previous attempts at regeneration, and took several lessons from this review. First, there has been a set of common themes, objectives and
principles, enunciated at every stage of the areas evolution: the desire to accommodate nature and parkland; the need to reconcile the
imperatives of the environment, human settlement and economic activity, and to realize that they are all interconnected, as is the waterfront
to its watershed; the need for coordinated public and private investment and cooperation among the three levels of government; and the
ambition to accommodate both urban settlement (including residence and work) and industry. Second, many large-scale plans have not
transpired, or have been achieved only partially. As early as 1911, the Toronto Harbour Commissions grand plan created huge areas for
industry, much of which did not materialize. (It also advocated housing at Cherry Beach.) In the 1950s and 1960s, the expected boom in
shipping 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 priorities
and development. While the Toronto Harbour Commission had primary ownership and powers, it also lacked the comprehensive
responsibilities and authorities needed to deal with change. But, at the same time, its powers prevented other governments or agencies
from doing so. These historical threads need to be recognized, and new courses of action designed.
(Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 18-20)
Our vision will give us a new waterfront for a new millennium. Well reshape this front porch to our city as a seamless whole instead of a
patchwork quilt. Its going to happen! We have the will, and with the co-operation and investment of the three levels of government and the
private sector, well have the way. Its 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. (Mayor Mel Lastman, October, 1999)
(Photograph: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, page 37)
Torontos Solution:
The Gardiner/Lake Shore structure is largely outmoded in its present design. It was intended to be a link in a large-scale expressway
system that would have included a Scarborough Expressway. In fact, relatively little traffic is through traffic and, the expressway acts
effectively 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 provide
access to the downtown area. The very nature of expressways entails limited access and egress points. Congestion results from traffic
trying to get on and off at a few ramps. To solve the Gardiner problem, the Task Force recommends a dramatic solution that requires a
comprehensive approach to enhance distribution of traffic throughout the downtown core, as noted previously, including enhancements to
the GO and other public transport systems. The Task Force recommends taking down the Gardiner expressway from west of Strachan
Avenue to its east limit. Traffic will be distributed from the Gardiner Expressway and the southern reaches of the Don Valley Parkway to
downtown streets at as many points as possible, including the long proposed Front Street Extension and improvements to the
Richmond/Adelaide interchange, thus eliminating the need for an expressway through the core. From west of Strachan Avenue to Spadina
Avenue, the expressway will be constructed below grade. East of that point, having distributed much of its traffic, it will become a surface
arterial road system. Burying the roadway between Fort York and the Lake
frees the Fort from its entrapment and permits a continuous flow of parkland between Fort York and the Lakefront via Coronation Park. It
also frees the future redevelopment areas of the Molson and West Railway lands from the constraints imposed by the Gardiner. Bringing
the Gardiner traffic to ground level throughout the central portion of the City removes its sterilizing influence, eliminates the debilitating
effect of the overhead structure, allows attractive new neighbourhoods, improves access to the core, provides important new waterfront
streets and unifies, rather than divides, Toronto with its waterfront. It also eliminates the not insignificant costs of maintenance.
(Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 29-39)
A Picture of the New Waterfront (Our Toronto Waterfront, 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 Section
can be implemented in the various precincts of the Central Waterfront. While the concept is coherent in its totality it is only a pictorial
representation in its details. The details of the concept across the area will be developed further and, in fact, will evolve over the full course
of planning and implementation. What the concept plan shows is an elaborate public realm of access-ways, open space and parks, framed
by 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 water
that arrive at extraordinary waterfront plazas, of creating a public water edge from Leslie Street to Jameson Avenue, and enlivening the
whole waterfront with new mixed-use residence and work environments.
i The Central Harbour: is the northern perimeter of Torontos Inner Harbour. It includes the West Bayfront, between Bathurst and Yonge
Streets, and the East Bayfront, between Yonge and Parliament Streets. With the institution of a public waters 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 the
waters 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 waters edge at Spadina Avenue, and
Portland, John, York, Bay, Yonge, Jarvis, Sherbourne and Parliament Streets. A wide new boardwalk promenade, about 70 feet wide, is
suggested for the Harbour edge as a major new public space. This will allow the public to experience the waters edge in a close-up and
intimate 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 of
Queens Quay are publicly owned and used for film production, storage and recreational uses. Land to the north is mainly privately owned
and used for a range of service industries, car dealerships, a new Loblaws, the LCBO warehouse and the Toronto Star building. The
Redpath Sugar Refinery is located on the south side of Queens Quay. Further west, a large residential project has planning approval but
the site remains vacant. Throughout the length of the East Bayfront, the elevated Gardiner Expressway is a formidable overshadowing
presence. The area has tremendous potential for mixed development, given its proximity to the downtown and to the waterfront and its
views across the Harbour. The Redpath Sugar Refinery, which relies on delivery by ship, can remain and coexist with adjacent
redevelopment with appropriate interface measures.The waters edge can house facilities for cruise ships that are coming to Toronto in
increasing numbers and other tourist facilities.
The West Bayfront: from Yonge to Bathurst Streets, hosts a concentration of cultural and recreational activities, residential and tourism
developments, key development sites and the intermodal Union Station. The area is segmented by the elevated Gardiner Expressway, its
ramps and the associated Lakeshore Boulevard, that collectively degrade the street and pedestrian environment. The district contains
major 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 tourist
boats and visitors, public open space and parkland. This area is to be the Central Ring in the Olympics. Most of this area is either already
developed or has planning approval for high-density residential or commercial development. Radical improvement of the surrounding urban
environment by accommodating the Gardiner Expressway at ground level will greatly facilitate bringing the downtown and the waterfront
together. The proposed new walkways and boardwalks will increase public space at the water along York and Maple Leaf Quays, with
enlarged public plazas at York and Yonge Streets. This area of the waterfront is Torontos most public face to the world and requires a
commensurate 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 Channel
at its centre. A comprehensive resolution of the jurisdictional, environmental and functional impediments to its most productive use as a
new, central urban district of the City is essential. The Portlands, now a void in the life of the City, can become a unique, mixed waterfront
area offering many types of venues to live, work and play. Magnificent new parks along the waters edge can provide locations for a
memorable experience for families, tourists and everyone who wants to be on the Citys lakefront. The Toronto 2008 Olympic Bid can
provide the catalyst for the transformation of the Portlands. If the Bid is successful the Western Portlands will represent the east ring of
Torontos 2008 Olympic Plan that includes a new Stadium for 100,000 spectators during the Olympics and 20,000 seats afterwards, the
Aquatic Centre and the Broadcast Centre, as well as other facilities that will be removed after the Games. The Ship Channel will be the
home of rowing events. The Athletes Village will be located on the south side of the Ship Channel. Solutions to the issues of soil
remediation and flooding and to the areas relative inaccessibility are all resolvable and must be addressed to unlock the remarkable
development and parks potential. Accessibility to the Portlands at the Don River will be enhanced by replacement of the Gardiner fly-over
with conventional roads and inspiring new bridges. The naturalised mouth of the Don River, instead of the concrete Keating Channel, will
provide great opportunities for a green entrance to this new urban district. Depending on decisions with respect to the future of the Port, as
noted previously, the Ship Channel could be transformed into a Grand Channel and the heart of the new Portlands, edged with public
walkways linked to possible new canals and open spaces. A system of new canals and waterways will provide radically increased land
areas overlooking water, making the Portlands a series of connected islands with associated promenades. The new waterfront boulevard
will define a wide strip of public open space along the waters edge, with magnificent locations for waterfront attractions, new performance
venues, 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 Bid
contemplates locating the 2000 unit Athletes Village in the Cherry Beach and Grand Channel neighbourhoods on the south side of the
channel. The Eastern Channel Neighbourhood will take advantage of dramatic views of the City skyline, the harbour and the Lake. Open
space areas along the waters edge and the new waterfront boulevard will provide public access to the water. Cherry Street will be the
Portlands Main Street, 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 Centre
and other facilities that in future will become community uses. This section of Cherry Street could become an avenue of sports for the City.
After the Olympics, this prominent site provides a remarkable opportunity for important city building projects (connected to the Convergence
Centre to the east), such as a major corporate campus, new-high tech educational, institutional or world-class research facility, as well as
for associated housing, offices and retail uses.
The Convergence Centre: The Task Force recommends the creation of a convergence community as a striking innovation in the
Portlands. As noted earlier, it combines new media, communications, software development, biotechnology and other activities in the new
economy with film, television, publishing and other assets. Located along Commissioners Street, the Convergence Centre would help
Toronto more fully realize the opportunities for convergence in arts, science and technology. The Convergence Centre would include a
community with attractive loft and other residential housing for the entrepreneurs and creative people working in the Centre, who are urban
people by nature.
(Photograph: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, page 29)
(Photographs: Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 49 & 50)
v Garrison Common Garrison Common is the area between Bathurst Street and Strachan Avenue that includes Coronation Park, Old Fort
York and the Molsons/ 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 York
will 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 new
waterfront boulevard extension would cross from Stadium Road along a southern extension of Coronation Park to Ontario Place. This
waterfront drive with its new associated park will increase the park size by almost 10 acres. The Parks regimental memorial trees, located
at the west end, currently one of the most beautiful and solemn places on the waterfront, will be enhanced by giving it a wider park context
and connection to the surrounding city. With the major realigned open space, this area will become attractive for the development of
housing along its edges.
vi Exhibition District Ontario Place and Exhibition Place, with their combined prime waterfront location of 270 acres, are desperately in
need of new direction. With the exceptions of the new investments in the National Trade Centre and the Molsons Amphitheatre both
Ontario Place and Exhibition Place are losing market share and public attractiveness and must have a new vision. Many recent attempts
have been made to re-energize these lands, with limited success. The new vision for this area builds on its extraordinary location on the
Lake, its proximity to a city core whose development is spreading inexorably in this direction. The Development Concept suggests
normalizing 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 ring of Olympic Games facilities. The green border 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, and
the removal of the street/train grade conflict on Strachan Avenue could reverse the isolation of this area. location on the Lake, its proximity
to a city core whose development is spreading inexorably in this direction. The Development Concept suggests normalizing 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 ring of Olympic Games facilities. The green border 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, and the removal of the
street/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 44
acres in total for public festivities, such as the CNE and Caribana. The area between Lake Shore Boulevard and the new waterfront
boulevard offers the greatest potential for introducing permanent population to ensure year round activity for this section of the City. A band
of housing development, with retail and entertainment uses at the street level, could create a lively new waterfront district. In addition, the
Exhibition and Ontario Place sites offer substantial opportunities for locating some of the major destination tourism infrastructure that
Toronto is sorely lacking: a major entertainment complex, urban resort hotels and for new ventures for family waterfront entertainment, such
as winter gardens, butterfly houses, museums, aquaria and the like. The district is comprised of three parts: the Trade Centre Precinct, the
Exhibition 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 exceeded
expectations in terms of the number of event days, suggesting the medium to long-term expansion of this facility is possible up to one
million square feet. The Olympics could provide a catalyst for this. South of Princes Boulevard trade marts could be developed as well as
hotels 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 and
servicing, restaurants and related accommodations. Access is provided by a new local road and land bridges, and possibly water-taxi
service.
Exhibition Gardens Precinct: At the western end of Exhibition Place, an urban park is proposed. It includes the existing green area with
its Victorian and historic buildings. Fashioned after Copenhagens Tivoli Gardens, museums, restaurants, clubs and other entertainment
uses will provide for year-round use. Permanent rides could be a feature. New housing can be provided here, with linkages to the
neighbourhoods to the north.
(Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 40-54)
Eastern Waterfront
Port Union: The City and TRCA have an ambitious plan to reconnect the developing residential community with the waterfront. It involves
the development of a Village Common and a pedestrian connection under the CNR tracks linking with the TRCA Port Union waterfront
project. This is a $16 million capital project for trail connections and bank stabilization from the Rouge River (more or less) west to the
mouth 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. This
area currently has a large baseball complex but little, if anything, else. The TRCA has a concept plan for a marina at East Point, similar to
Bluffers, Humber Bay and Colonel Samuel Smith. This, along with Port Union, represents the two most significant opportunities in the East
Waterfront for active recreational opportunities.
The Guild Inn: The property surrounding The Guild Inn comprises 36 hectares of culturally significant landscape. Although the existing
buildings are not in good condition, there are opportunities for theatre space, both indoor and open-air. The Citys Department of Economic
Development Culture and Tourism is preparing feasibility studies for a multi-purpose arts and culture centre. This project could be pursued
jointly 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 a
summer 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. Waterfront
Trail) and connections to the City (i.e. Kingston Road streetcar). The Kingston Road streetcar is a powerful and generating initiative to
achieve an east/west linkage along the 29 mile waterfront. The linkages between open space areas can be achieved with strategic
purchases of private property and by utilizing various local roads where topography makes waterfront linkages unfeasible, as is often the
situation in the Eastern Waterfront. These were critical and supported the overall goal of a passive waterfront with several areas of
enhanced recreational opportunities. (Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 56-57)
(Photograph: Toronto Central Waterfront Public Meeting, TWRC, 2007, page 10)
(Connections to the Waterfront: Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page 34)
Phasing of Implementation
The Development Concept is intended to be implemented over a period of 25 years. The phasing of development will be affected by the
following 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 Athletes and Media Villages, the new
Olympic 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 no
disturbances 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 4,000
units 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 with
the 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 of
berms 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 6
years, will be completed by 2008 for the Olympics. Careful coordination is required to ensure that disruption to traffic is minimized. The plan
for rebuilding the Gardiner provides for the construction of new routes prior to demolition of the elevated roadway. It is understood that
plans are underway for improvements to Union Station to increase GO and TTC capacity and develop an intermodal station, a key to
transportation access for the Central Waterfront. (Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, page 59)
On the revenue, and potential P3 partnerships, advice was sought from RBC Dominion Securities, TD Securities and KPMG LLP. Values
with respect to real estate were compiled by Barry Lyon Consultants Ltd. and Trust co Property Corporation. Based on input from the
above, 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 are
estimated to be in the order of $5.2 billion. Additional spending for the construction of buildings etc. by the private sector exclusively is
estimated 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, the
Task Force has provided the government with Revenue Generation options that range between $3.42 billion and $5.5 billion. Private debt
financing utilizing the cash flow stream from some of these revenue options can be arranged for $1.99 billion to $3 billion. (These numbers
are 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 past
20 years. Condominia are increasingly accepted as a lifestyle-oriented form of housing. In the area demarcated by the boundaries of the
former City of Toronto in which the waterfront lands are located, a sustainable level of condominium apartment sales appears to be in the
range of 3,000 to 4,000 units annually. For the four main redevelopment districts across the waterfront (Exhibition Place/Garrison, East
Bayfront, West Donlands, Portlands), average sales in the range of 1,100 units per year appear to be reasonable. Based on a land-use
concept prepared for the Task Force, the Task Force has estimated the residential development capacity of each of the available land
parcels in the four main waterfront districts. That capacity is estimated to total about 38,700 residential units. Based on estimated
absorption rates, the Task Force anticipates that the build out program would be completed by 2022. Revenues generated by the sale or
lease 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 of
the home-buying market is geared to the state of the job market. For the condominium and rental apartment market an added element is
the fact that apartment occupants are largely motivated by convenience factors, considering the relatively high prices they pay for their
relatively 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 of
the residential land components. New employment in the range of 15,000 to 25,000 has been assumed for purposes of the Financing
Model. Land Sales/Leases (Non-Residential) For purposes of the Financing Model, revenue from non-residential land sales and leases in
the 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, which
will include the National Trade Centre expansion and the Trade Marts, constitute a third of the total commercial yield on the waterfront and
are 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 the
infrastructure activity. Since the details have yet to be fleshed out, the implications for tax revenues such as GST and PST, land transfer tax
and property taxes cannot be estimated with any precision. Total direct, indirect, and induced soft revenues associated with the
infrastructure spending will be in the order of $0.9 billion, the largest component of which will be personal income taxes on increased
incomes. Infrastructure spending is calculated to generate approximately 26,000 person-years of direct employment, primarily as on-site
construction 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- state
outcomes already described. The analysis provided to the Task Force focused on the six zones that constitute the Central Waterfront. It
developed no estimates of soft revenues associated with additional economic activity elsewhere in the GTA or the Province and made no
adjustments 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 existing
tourist draws and create new ones, thereby renewing the Citys somewhat aging portfolio of destination attractions and offsetting the decline
in tourism visitation to the City.
(Our Toronto Waterfront, Waterfront Revitalization Task Force, 2003, pages 62-70)
(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;
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
Goal: Make alternative transportation options such as walking cycling and public transit the natural choice for residents and visitors to the
waterfront 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 energy
embedded in materials used in cars. Even if nonpolluting sources of fuel become common place one-day, the widespread use of cars will
still 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 to
community vibrancy through increased opportunities for interaction.
SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS
Goal: Elegant architectural building systems that reduce negative environmental impacts and provide high indoor air quality and
exceptional comfort.
Rationale: Sustainable building systems are ones that meet sustainability objectives for reduced use of natural resources during
construction and during operation. They provide high levels of personal comfort for their occupants due to exceptional indoor air quality and
a strong connection to the outdoors. Where possible, sustainable building systems also anticipate future technologies and take this into
account during design. They demonstrate elegant architectural solutions to these challenges. Addressing the sustainability dimensions of a
building site, such as aesthetic compatibility with the existing community or natural setting, presence of contaminated soil, or a lack of
existing infrastructure, can enhance the sustainability features of a building and make a much greater contribution towards a sustainable
community than a stand-alone building.
Response: The Toronto waterfront will be a showcase of the multitude of innovations in high-performance building design, current and
emerging. 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 will
choose land revitalization that supports sustainability by exploring options to conventional large-scale, top-down commercial development
processes. Examples of alternatives include coordinated development of several sites within a designated area to promote diversity, sale of
land to individual households or syndicates of households or not-for-profit agencies that will to conform to strong sustainability standards, or
accepting a less than market return on land in exchange for achieving higher sustainability performance. During the past ten years, the
combined efforts of pioneering architects and building engineers have come together to create a new generation of architecture with
substantially reduced environmental footprints and increased occupant health, comfort and productivity. These building systems are the
result of a new integrated design process that brings together a wide variety of disciplines early in the design process and seeks to
maximize efficiency and elegance of design from a systems perspective. Sustainable buildings on the Toronto waterfront will meet
economic 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 implement
appropriate energy efficiency measures, recycle materials, use materials from sustainable sources and local sources, and reduce the
generation 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 materials
that have off-gas properties. LEED also encourages the use of appliances with high energy efficiency. The sustainability features of the
building site are an important component of LEED. For example, is the proposed building in an area with existing infrastructure or part of a
brownfield remediation scheme? For more detailed technical discussion of sustainable buildings on the waterfront. (Reference: TWRCs
Green Building Standards.)
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 Torontos Accessibility Design Guidelines for all major public buildings and facilities
on the Toronto waterfront Design buildings and sites to allow sunlight into corridors and courtyards. For example, keep buildings low in the
front 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 visually
connect people with plants. Commercial building designs will enable all occupants with stationary desks to maintain visual access to the
outdoors.
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 QUALITY
Goal: 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 negatively
affect plant, animal, and aquatic habitat. Air pollution includes ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and
small particulates that can be inhaled and cause irritation to the respiratory tissues. A recent report by Toronto
Public Health estimated that five common air pollutants contribute to about 1,700 premature deaths and 6,000 hospital admissions in
Toronto each year19. Air quality is directly linked to energy and transportation choices. Fossil fuels are by far the current favoured
energysource 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 natural
resources 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 the
TWRCs initiatives on energy, transportation and land use. Ultimately, the waterfronts influence on Torontos air quality will depend on the
degree to which fossil fuel use can be avoided. The Toronto waterfront will address poor air quality by encouraging energy efficiency and
the use of alternatives to fossil fuels for heating, cooling, light and transport. This approach will be supplemented and implemented through
activities such as mixed use planning and alternatives to auto use, controlling pollutant and particulate emissions from construction and
post-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 in
the energy and transportation, land use and materials and waste sections of this framework are strongly related to this category of impacts.
HUMAN COMMUNITIES
Goal: Vibrant welcoming healthy and inclusive waterfront
Communities.
Rationale: Communities with a high quality of life are desirable places to live, work and do business. Sustainable communities are
characterized by a clean environment, a resilient economy and strong sense of social-well being throughout the population. A sustainable
community 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, balanced
decision-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 transformed
into a place where people from all backgrounds and ages can live, work, play, visit, and learn in a way that strengthens and celebrates the
beauty, the diversity, the economic vitality, the opportunities, the creativity, the heritage, and the natural environment of the City of Toronto
and the GTA.
Sustainability communities will also attract a mix of people to the waterfront including adults with children, seniors, New Canadians and
those from all economic backgrounds A sustainable approach to community development includes dramatically improving access to the
waterfront, improving and maintaining attractive, environmentally sound parks, open spaces and recreational opportunities, stimulating
mixed use development that provides housing options for a wide variety of living arrangements and pocketbooks, and creating small- and
medium-scale commercial opportunities and diverse employment options.
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 Housing
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Goal: 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 many
different 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 aspects
of waterfront revitalization. Integrating cultural considerations into activities such as land use planning, the
design of parks, public space and buildings, ensures the creation an attractive mix of features that draw people to the area year round and
contribute greatly to the likelihood of achieving an overall beautiful natural and built environment on the waterfront. Integrating cultural
considerations into revitalization requires understanding the cultural opportunities that exist in the near and longer terms as well as
protecting and enhancing cultural heritage resources that are already in place.
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 they
can 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 for
relevance to each waterfront initiative.
Action 2: Develop an operational strategy for integrating cultural heritage resources into planning and design for site, buildings and
infrastructure using approaches such as restoration, adaptive re-use and public art
WATER
Goal: 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 the
ecosystem as a whole. Conservation of fresh water is also important since, even in urban centres like Toronto that have a good supply of
fresh 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 waterfronts
and water resources. The aim is to takes steps that will support the improvement of water quality on the waterfront while sharing the
benefits of improved water quality with Toronto and the GTA as a whole. The waterfront will be clean, healthy and safe for recreation
including swimming. The Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan is an important source for building a sound response to some of the
major sustainability challenges posed by under the water theme. The Toronto waterfront will also pursue revitalization in a way that
maximizes the opportunities for the conservation of drinking water. Freshwater will be preserved and respected as a precious resource and
will not be widely used for purposes where waste water (also known as grey water) would be a safe and effective alternative. The Toronto
waterfront will also be foremost in the development of elegant waterfront architecture, water art and green building and open space design.
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)
INNOVATION
Goal: To encourage innovation as a means to make the Toronto Waterfront the foremost example of sustainability and a centre for
creativity 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 and
celebrated 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 advances
in technology. All facets of waterfront development will pose challenges and opportunities for innovation as those involved in activities such
as planning, design, construction, and maintenance take steps to incorporate sustainability principles into their efforts. As well, providing a
rich and diverse cultural and learning environment coupled with ease of formal and informal interaction increases the likelihood of all types
of innovation technological, artistic, and lifestyle springing to life on Torontos 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).
"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 boundarythe waterthat 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 areas 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)
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 that
retains this mix of uses.
A waterfront master plan can be an effective starting point to engage the community in envisioning future development and articulating the
values that new planning policies will support.
An effective harbor management plan can govern activity in the water, complementing the communitys waterfront master plan and can
manage activities in both the water and the adjacent land area.6 By recognizing the interdependence of land and water uses and crafting
rules 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)
Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place that capitalizes on the waterfronts 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)
Compact Design
Waterfront views are an eagerly sought amenity; communities can protect them by using compact design. Here, the area with the highest
development density is a short distance inland at a higher elevation. Building heights gradually decrease as development approaches the
waterfront. Putting denser development on higher land with taller buildings protects water views for all buildings as they step down in height
to the water. This preserves visual access to the water across the community, creating a compact neighborhood that complements
surrounding uses, including the waterfront itself. Compact development can capitalize on the natural advantages of the waterfront, provide
attractive communities by the water, protect valued assets, and improve the overall quality of life. When applied at both the building and
community-level, compact design can make better use of the land at the waters edge, as well as the water bordering it.
(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 12)
For waterfront communities, improving the connection between pedestrians and the water can increase interest in walking and biking and
help 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 approached
visually, by designing the built environment in ways that preserve the view of the water and encourage residents and visitors to access the
waterfront on foot. Orienting the built environment to the water can improve public access to it and encourage a better appreciation of this
precious 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 take
transit, 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 of
the environment must be balanced. The uncertainty in development can be magnified by the extra layers of local, state, and federal
regulations that apply along the water. Often, planning and permitting agencies have different roles and responsibilities that must be
reconciled. By creating an easily understood, predictable development process, waterfront and coastal communities can create a climate
that is more likely to produce projects that meet multiple community goals. This can be achieved by effectively coordinating across
regulatory 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
One of the primary interests of people living and working near the water can be access to the water. However, the legal framework
regulating access is complex. In most waterfront settings, historic public use can establish an easement allowing public access to the water
across private land.
But public access rights vary across jurisdictions. Often shorefront property owners also own the adjacent intertidal zone. The quality of life
in coastal and waterfront communities depends in part on finding ways to constructively balance these rights of public access and private
ownership. Well-designed, collaborative stakeholder involvement processes can help reach this objective. Identifying who to involve
requires understanding who has an interest in, or will be affected by, proposed development. Near the water, there can be many
stakeholders, such as recreational users, commercial fishers, developers, waterfront business owners, and permanent and seasonal
residents. On the coast, a
wide range of government entities must be engaged, since they are responsible for community health and safety and for protecting both
the environmental quality of coastal ecosystems and the publics right of access to them.
(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, page 43-44)
In new coastal or waterfront communities, pedestrian scaled streets, well-designed buildings, and inviting public spaces can be connected
with the water to create great places. In established communities, redevelopment efforts can incorporate buildings, docks, and other
structures 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 and
parks increase neighboring property values, attract businesses and residents, support tourism, offer opportunities for recreation, and
provide scenic value
Wetlands, 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. Coastal
and waterfront communities depend on their working lands, waterscapes, and ecological systems. The dynamic natural processes that
characterize the shifting boundary between the land and the water create beautiful landscapes that are essential to both local ecology and
economy. Freshwater and tidal creeks, marshes, cliffs, dunes, estuaries, and beaches intertwine to support complex ecological systems
that provide invaluable services. Wetlands provide critical habitat, mitigate flooding, and capture and retain sediments, helping to keep
pollutants from reaching downstream waters. Estuaries provide essential nurseries for commercial and recreational fish species. And beach
and dune systems protect the shoreline against the natural hazards of erosion, storms, and sea-level rise. Local economies fueled by such
activities as sport and commercial fishing, recreation, and tourism, as well as retiree and artist communities, rely on the natural assets that
support them.
Protecting the strength and health of waterfront and coastal communities natural resources requires balancing the needs of the built
environment with those of the natural one. Green infrastructure planning can help communities get this balance right. Through green
infrastructure 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 areas most important environmental
assets, identifying the natural and working lands and water bodies that need to be protected or restored. Along the water, this process
should include a community vulnerability assessment, which systematically identifies areas that are vulnerable to, or that can help buffer
communities from, natural hazards. The result is a framework that defines which lands and water bodies need protection and which areas
can 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 processes
Smart shoreline development can mitigate the damaging effects on the built environment caused by these changes by incorporating land
use 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 a
variety of tools to implement this approach, including development setbacks (e.g., from the high tide line), conservation easements, and
rolling easements, which shift automatically with natural changes in the shoreline. Capitalizing on the inherent resilience of these assets by
properly protecting them can help protect people and property from the impacts of natural hazards and the additional challenges posed by a
changing 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 improve
community resilience.
Infill development in existing communities, where roads, utilities, and transportation connections are already in place, is a preferred growth
strategy because of the many environmental and economic benefits it provides. When communities convert underused infill sites, such as
parking lots or vacant properties, into vibrant mixed-use developments, they strengthen their local tax base, concentrate growth, and reduce
pressure to convert undeveloped land, yielding significant air and water quality benefits. Redevelopment of brownfieldssites where reuse
is complicated by real or perceived contamination removes environmental hazards from communities and provides new investment
opportunities in areas already well served by infrastructure. New development and investment in these infill locations can re-energize
lagging commercial corridors, providing new stimulus to preserve traditional uses and promote recreational opportunities that strengthen the
local economy. In many coastal and waterfront areas, properties at the waters 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 to
maintain 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 on
the 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 level
rise, may need to consider whether infill or redevelopment is appropriate. In appropriate locations, these development strategies can yield
important economic, environmental, and community benefits.
(Smart Growth for Coastal and Waterfront Communities, 2009, pages 23-32)
Planning with greater awareness can help communities make efficient investments in buildings and other infrastructure, protect and restore
critical environmental areas, and protect public health. In applying these principles to any development project, communities need to
explicitly consider natural hazards, including the potential impact of climate change. Resilience to natural hazards, such as storms and
storm surges, sea-level rise, and shoreline erosion, is inextricably linked to the siting and design of development, as well as to the built and
green 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)
There is increasing awareness about the importance of coastal zones that is creating momentum for incremental recovery through a
combination of conservation and technologically innovative restoration measures. Given the spatial and temporal convergence of critical
shoreline habitat and intense settlement in the coastal zone, there are a variety of rationales for transformative change to urban waterfront
settings.
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 ecological
function 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 have
marine 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 and
ecology. This synergy can offer both educational and research opportunities to examine the recovery capacity of highly degraded marine
environments. 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 of
human inhabited space are being asked to incorporate ecological needs into design solutions. A nexus of ecological recovery that
embraces 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 including
healthy ecology, society and economic factors.
(Seattles Central Waterfront, 2006, pages 1-3)
Bibliography
EVENIUS, 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, 13:45
CIDEM (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=969998271acaf9289
391884180c35bfb . 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, 16:10
FRANCISCO, Javier Moncl. The Barcelona model: an original formula? From reconstruction to strategic urban projects. [PDF, electronic
document]. Departament dUrbanisme 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%20Regeneratio
n/Urban%20Regeneration/media/monclus_barcelona.pdf , 17:00, 09/05/2010
Barcelona Field Studies Centre S.L. [Website]. Barcelona. 2004. http://geographyfieldwork.com/BarcelonaModel1.htm , 10/05/2010, 15:15
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%20d
e%20Barcelona/el+port/planols+i+accesos , 21/01/2010, 10:00
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&CAC
HEID=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 Urban
Functions. On the Waterfront. [PDF, electronic document]. Universitat De Barcelona & Joo Pedro Costa; Faculdade De Arquitectura.
Universidade Tcnica 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 Sons
2004.1999. ISBN: 0471412740, 9780471412748. 17/11/2009, 18:00
MEMOS, 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. Our Toronto Waterfront; Gateway to New Canada, 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, LURA
Consulting). 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, 18:00
Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC). Marine Use Strategy Final Report. [PDF, electronic document]. Toronto. 2008.
http://www.waterfronttoronto.com/dbdocs/4521de3b5013c.pdf , 11/01/2010, 13:00
Toronto 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, 19:00
Toronto 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, 12:00
VOGEL, Mary. Greening Waterfront Development. [PDF, electronic document]. Urban Land Magazine. 2007.
http://www.planetizen.com/files/27635.pdf , 12/12/2009, 18:30
CAMPBELL, John. Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation Sustainability Frame Work. [PDF, electronic document]. President &
CEO. Toronto. 2008. 30/12/2009, 14:00
DILL, Paula & BEDFORD, Paul. Making Waves: Principals for Building Torontos Waterfront. [PDF, electronic document]. Commissioner &
Urban Developer. Chief Planner & Executive Director; City Planning Division. Toronto. 2009. 12/01/2010, 17:00
URBAN LAND INSTITUE. Remaking the Urban Waterfront. [Book]. Urban Land Institute. 2004. 237 pages. ISBN: 978-0874209037
14/12/2009. 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, 12:00
NEWMAN, David & WALDER, J H. A Federal Ports Policy. [PDF, electronic document]. National University of Singapore, Public Policy
Programme. Singapore & USA. 1999. http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Handler.ashx?path=Data/Site/SiteDocuments/wp/2000/wp01.pdf ,
15/05/2010, 14:45
McCORMICK, Jenny. Smart Growth, for Coastal and Waterfront Communities. [PDF, electronic document]. New Jersey Sea Grant, New
York 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, 09:00
Luce Waterfront Team (in support with the City of Seattle Waterfront Ecology Team) Seattle's Central Waterfront. [PDF, electronic
document]. Seattle, USA, http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@proj/documents/web_informational/dpds_008059.pdf
, 12/05/2010, 15:10
Photographs
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&CAC
HEID=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%20d
e%20Barcelona/el+port/planols+i+accesos , 21/01/2010, 10:00
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, LURA
Consulting). 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. Our Toronto Waterfront; Gateway to New Canada, Waterfront Revitalization
Task Force. [PDF, electronic document]. Toronto. 2003. http://www.toronto.ca/waterfront/torontow.pdf , 14/01/2010, 13:00.