Development of the revitalisation of the waterfront in Hamburg in the late 20th and 21st century










<student_name> , Kasselfeld 14, 34130 Kassel
Student number: 
E-Mail: katharina.moors@t-online.de
In my assignment, I will focus on the development of the waterfront revitalisation in the city of Hamburg in the last 30 years. First, I will begin with a general introduction into the topic 'waterfront revitalisation'. Afterwards, I will analyse three revitalisation projects which took place in Hamburg, namely the Fish Market project, the Hamburg Ferry Terminal project and the Hafencity project. Finally, I will sum up the results of my analysis in the conclusion and answer the question of 'How did the revitalisation of the waterfront develop in Hamburg in the late 20th and 21st century?'.
The term 'waterfront' represents the edge of a port city, where water and land meet. At this place the sea transport interchanges with the land transport. According to Harms (2008:5), "a traditional local perspective is to see the port as a gateway with a hinterland and as a connecting point between land and sea trading routes". Over centuries it has also been the place where information and news of other places where exchanged, where locals met foreigners and where sailors went looking for entertainment (Harms, 2008). 
Since the end of the 1950s, many changes have occurred between the city and the port. Before the 1950s, the economies and job opportunities within the city and the port had been linked closely. This changed noticeably by the deindustrialisation in the port cities and their hinterlands. The container ports had to be expanded. Harms (2008:5) states that the conditions for a local port to achieve an important position as a container port were enormous. Deep water channels, extensive areas of level ground for storage and intermodal transfers, adequate rail and motorway connections to the population and production as well as consumption centres were needed (Harms, 2008). To be able to keep up with the competition, the consequence for each port was to invest in port infrastructure, as for example large gantry cranes or intermodal terminals. But not only the global factors and local conditions had an influence on which role the port under the new conditions can and will play. Harms (2008:6) suggests that also the local decisions had to be taken into account. This could be really complicated, since the sets of interests between the shipping companies and the port cities were often different. While shipping companies valued high efficiency and profit maximisation, local actors strived to maintain work places and jobs (Harms, 2008). 
Breen (1996:11) emphasises that in all parts of the world modern shipping operations have relocated away from traditional sites, which were often in the centres of the city. In many port cities, the outplacing of the ports led to 'gaps' in the inner-city areas. These 'gaps' embodied great potential for new usage. Revitalisation in terms of tourism, infrastructure, housing and office space were the most often used methods (Breen, 2006). By those projects, the port area shall become more attractive. Especially tourism should help to change the image from a 'dirty port city' to a cosmopolitan culture metropolis (Schubert, 2001:57). Normally, such a revitalisation process takes 10 to 15 years. 
Schubert (2001:49) presents the thesis that the development of revitalisation processes can be devided into three decades. First experiences with the revitalisation and alteration of the waterfront area were made in the United States since the mid 1960s. The main aims of those projects were leisure and tourism usage, combined with new dwellings, offices and retail, as well as the organisation of festivals and events at the waterfront. The second decade of waterfront revitalisation took place from the mid 1970s until the mid 1980s. The main indicators where overdimensioning and equality in the new usage. The third decade lasted until the mid 1990s and the aims were to avoid standard concepts, to consider the individual environment and to act step by step (Schubert, 2001).
The waterfront area can be classified into several categories, which are named after their functions. In the following I will present one example for the residential waterfront, one example for the working waterfront and one example for both residential and working waterfront.
The Fish Market in Hamburg-Altona is an example for the residential waterfront. It is located close to the river Elbe. The revitalisation project of the Fish Market was completed in 1989 (Breen, 1996). When considering the history of this place, it has suffered heavy damage in World War II bombing. As a result, only six houses around the Fish Market remained. Breen (1996:164) states that the work on the rebuilding of this area began in 1980, after a flood wall along the river Elbe was built up. According to Breen (1996:164), the main questions were "What to do with the Fish Market structure? How to handle as many as 3,500 vendors who used the market? Whether or not continue traditional Sunday markets in the neighbourhood? How to organise them effectively?" 
When the houses in the Fish Market were rebuilt, they gave the plaza an enclosure and a welcoming, protected feeling (Breen, 1996). In total, 173 new housing units were built. Most of the apartments contain social housing. At the ground level of the houses are shops, cafes and restaurants. Breen (1996:165) emphasised that architects tried to combine the old and new elements as good as possible. Furthermore, Breen (1996:165) describes that a children's playground was installed and a sculpture of a fisherwoman has been carefully restored to embellish the plaza. In addition, a new pedestrian bridge crosses the roadway that seperates the plaza housing and shops from the rivers edge (Breen, 1996:165). Today, the Fish Market is very popular for Hamburg and Sunday markets are again filled with shoppers.
The Hamburg Ferry Terminal is an example for the working waterfront. The terminal is also located on the river Elbe and the project was clompleted in 1992 (Breen, 1996). The building was built horizontally along the river and has a size of 12,000 square meters. Breen (1996:184) stresses that it has been the longest office building in Europe for a long time. The project is a result of the relocation of modern shipping operations away from traditional sites, which were in the center of the city before. Although a lot of significant port facilities are still relatively close to the central business district, a lot of operations moved down the river Elbe (Breen, 1996). 
The Hafencity is an example for both residential and working waterfront revitalisation. It describes the complete new building of an inner-city district in the city of Hamburg. Regarding the spatial and temporal dimensions and also the investment volume, the Hafencity is presently the largest urban development project in Europe. According to Bauer (2008:1) the project is completely urban, which is an international uniqueness. Bauer (2008:1) states that the plans for the project were firstly publicised in 1997, when the Mayor of Hamburg announced a vision for 'a return of the city to the river Elbe'. The boundary had to be redrawn and with this change the area of the inner city could be enlarged by forty per cent, to be used for the expansion of urban functions that needed centrally located space (Harms, 2008). 
In 1999, the city planning department organised an international architectural competition for architects, who wanted to join the Hafencity project. The winning team of the competition was a joint Dutch-German group. 
The three aims were:
· Very good linkages between the new Hafencity, the listed and protected building assemble of the Speicherstadt and with the existing inner city of Hamburg.
· An impressive range of contemporary and future oriented layout typologies of urban districts.
· An intelligent division of the whole area into eight sensibly designed urban districts with a variety of uses. Each area could be built connected to the previous one and the plan would allow a step by step development over a period of 10 to 20 years.
(Harms, 2008:17)
The realisation of the plans started in 2000 and will be completed in 2017. Harms (2008:18) stresses that the main aim is to open the city to the water again and to develop a completely new central urban district with mixed uses of offices, housing for different income groups, recreation and business locations, with extensive public open spaces and full access to the water. According to Harms (2008:19), one cultural highlight of the Hafencity district is the Elbphilharmonie, a new concert hall on top of a former cold storage warehouse. Even though the building is not finished yet, it is already notorious on the grounds of increasing costs which were not expected when the realisation of the project started in 2007 and also because of rescheduling the date of completion from 2010 to 2015. Further cultural attractions are the International Maritime Museum and the Science Center (Harms, 2008). Hotels and restaurants are available as well as shops. Regarding the shops, city planners did not decide to build shopping malls but only separate shops to strengthen the inner-city retail (Bauer, 2008). Due to the diversity Hamburg is not only becoming more important as a business location but also as a tourism location.
The guiding concepts of the project Hafencity were various. First, the history of the place (especially of the 'Speicherstadt', which is the neighbouring district of the Hafencity) and the quays with their granite walls and cranes should be preserved in the area of planning. Second, the new mixed-use district with 10,000 to 12,000 inhabitants and more than 20,000 work places should be integrated with the existing inner city of Hamburg. Third, city planners wanted to revitalise the area as a place for urban living and housing through the construction of at least 5,000 to 6,000 new dwellings. Furthermore, they wanted to strengthen the daily pedestrian, environmental and recreational quality of the new and older inner city through appropriate design of river promenades, squares and public places. Finally, they wanted to connect the area with a highly attractive public transport system and to provide the project with a future-oriented and sustainable energy system (Harms, 2008:18).
Bauer (2008:3) explains that the funding of the project is splitted up. It is supported by the state with 550 million Euros and by the city of Hamburg with 420 million Euros. More than 70 investors are involved in the project. The cheapest apartments can be rent for 2,950 Euros per square meter. Bauer (2008:4) emphasises that especially multilocal international menages feel attracted by the new location.
The Hafencity University is a further uniqueness of the Hafencity project. It is a university for architecture and metropolis development and it was founded in 2006 by the city of Hamburg. The courses of studies are focused on the design of the urban environment, as for example architecture, constructional engineering, resource efficiency in architecture and planning or culture of the metropolis. At the moment, the HCU consists of approximately 2,000 students and approximately 60 professors. It is obvious that the HCU is a university of the metropolis - not only because of the subjects but also because of the location. In 2013, the HCU will move to a modern newly constructed building. It will be an attraction of the Hafencity and at the same time a place where the development of the city district will be accompanied critically (www.hcu-hamburg.de).
After having considered all these issues, it is obvious that the revitalisation projects, which took place in Hamburg in the last 30 years, changed the waterfront in various ways. The revitalisation of the Fish Market, as an example for the residential waterfront, and the Hamburg Ferry Terminal, as an example for the working waterfront, are both smaller projects compared with the Hafencity project, which focuses on both residential and working aspects. The Hafencity project is the only project of the three examples which is not finished yet. I come to the conclusion that through all those projects the especialness of the city was reanimated and made Hamburg a multifaceted place, which remains faithful the charm of a waterfront city.
References:
* Harms, Hans. 2008. Changes on the Waterfront: Transforming Harbour Areas. Working Paper, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, No. 2008,02.
* Schubert, Dirk. 2001. The Regeneration of Derelict Dockland and Riverside Zones. RuR 1/2001.
* Breen, Anne. 1996. The New Waterfront: A Worldwide Urban Success Story. McGraw-Hill Professional.
* Bauer, Ute Christina. 2008. Das Verhältnis von Stadt und Fluss neu definieren: Die Hafencity Hamburg. Standort - Zeitschrift für angewandte Geographie. Springer Verlag 2008, 32:40-44.
* Hafencity University Hamburg www.hcu-hamburg.de 14.12.2012, 18:26