Abstract
The space at the interface of a port and a city structures accumulates influences resulting from the functions and activities both of the port and city. These functions very often collide with each other and creates dysfunctional zones within port cities. However there are solutions, which create added value for both spatial organisms. This study attempts to investigate the contemporary nature, types and organization of the port-city contact zones and the possibilities of their effective shaping and planning. The work considers the contact zones in the context of various variables (natural, topographic, historical, functional, transport, economic, ownership and management, formal and legal), and refers to spatial evolution of both structures. The study review some study cases and comment on existing literature regarding such issues as: - types of functions and services provided by ports and cities (Merk 2013), - differences in land use forms and physiognomy of port and city structure (Schubert 2015, Mansfeld 2016, Hein and Schubert 2020), - models of port’s and city’s development and evolution (Notteboom and Rodrigue 2005, Bird 1971, Ducruet 2011, Krośnicka 2021), - models of contact zones from an urban point of view (Norcliffe et al 1996, Hayuth 1982, Hoyle and Pinder 1992), - models of ports ’physical, administrative and mental limits within the city structure (Daamen and Vries 2013, Sanchez 2015). The study tries to describe types and categories of zones, methods of their delimitation, and models resulting from delimitation. The multi-criteria study of the contact zone enabled the analysis of selected port cities in terms of their port and urban space, taking into account the development factors of the port city and the port itself. By defining character and creating a typology of interactions (both dynamic and static ones), and by identifying types of borders between a port and a city, building the transformation strategies and general principles for shaping these areas become possible. The port of Gdynia (Poland) was selected as a special study case. References: Bird J. (1971). Seaports and Seaport Terminals, Hutchinson and Co. Ltd, London, 1–240. Daamen T.A., Vries I. (2013). Governing the European port-city interface: institutional impacts of spatial projects between city and port. Journal of Transport Geography, 27(2013), 4-13. Ducruet C. (2011). The port city in multidisciplinary analysis. Joan Alemany and Rinio Bruttomesso. The port city in the XXIst century: New challenges in the relationship between port and city, RETE,pp.32-48. Hayuth Y. (1982). The port-urban interface: an area in transition, Area, 14(3), 219–224. Hein C., Schubert D. (2020). Resilience, Disaster, and Rebuilding in Modern Port Cities. Journal of Urban History, Vol. 47, issue 2, 235-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144220925097 Hoyle B., Pinder D. (eds), 1992, European Port Cities in Transition, Belhaven Press, 1–207. Krośnicka, K. A. (2021). Migration of container terminals as their natural process of evolution: Case study of Gdańsk and Gdynia ports. Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 93, 2021, 103045, ISSN 0966-6923, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103045. Mansfeld U. (2016). Interspace – a space between the disciplines. City on water. 90-97. Merk O. (2013). The competitiveness of global port-cities: synthesis report. OECD, 42-45, 104-115, 150-155. Norcliffe G., Bassett K., Hoare T., 1996, The emergence of postmodernism on the urban waterfront. Journal of Transport Geography, 4(2), 123–134. Notteboom T., Rodrigue J.P. (2005). Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development [in:] Maritime Policy & Management. Sanchez J.M.P. (2015). Port-City relation: integration – conflict – coexistence. Analysis of good practices. 51th ISOCARP Congress, Rotterdam. Schubert D. (2015). Waterfront transformations and city/ports interface areas in Hamburg. Revista Dimensión Empresarial, vol. 13, nr 1. p. 9-20.
