S IN E

R GI A

- S

Y NE R

G IE S

- C

I RC U

L AR

- C O

- CR E

A TI O

N -

S HA R

I NG

- I N

T ER C

A MB I

O S -

CO -

WO R

K IN G

- C

I RC U

L AI R

E -

MU T

U AL I

S AT I

O N

S IN E

R GI A

- S

Y NE R

G IE S

- C

I RC U

L AR

- C O

- CR E

A TI O

N -

S HA R

I NG

- I N

T ER C

A MB I

O S -

CO -

WO R

K IN G

- C

I RC U

L AI R

E -

MU T

U AL I

S AT I

O N

S IN E

R GI A

- S

Y NE R

G IE S

- C

I RC U

L AR

- C O

- CR E

A TI O

N -

S HA R

I NG -

-

I NT E

R CA M

B IO S

- C

O -W

O RK I

N G -

CI R

C UL A

I RE

- M

U TU A

L IS A

T IO N

S IN E

R GI A

- S

Y NE R

G IE S

- C

I RC U

L AR

- C O

- CR E

A TI O

N -

S HA R

I NG

- I N

T ER C

A MB I

O S -

CO -

WO R

K IN G

- C

I RC U

L AI R

E -

-

MU T

U AL I

S AT I

O N

S IN E

R GI A

- S

Y NE R

G IE S

- C

I RC U

L AR

- C O

- CR E

A TI O

N -

S HA R

I NG

- I N

T ER C

A MB I

O S -

CO -

WO R

K IN G

- C

I RC U

L AI R

E -

MU T

U AL I

S AT I

O N

S IN E

R GI A

-

-

SY N

E RG I

E S -

CI R

C UL A

R -

C O- C

R EA T

I ON

- S H

A RI N

G -

I NT E

R CA M

B IO S

- C

O -W

O RK I

N G -

CI R

C UL A

I RE

- M

U TU A

L IS A

T IO N

S IN E

R GI A

- S

Y NE R

G IE S

- C

I RC U

L AR

- C O

- CR E

A TI O

N -

S HA R

I NG

- I N

T ER C

A MB I

O S -

- C

O -W

O RK I

N G -

CI R

C UL A

I RE

- M

U TU A

L IS A

T IO N

S IN E

R GI A

- S

Y NE R

G IE S

- C

I RC U

L AR

- C O

- CR E

A TI O

N -

S HA R

I NG

- I N

T ER C

A MB I

O S -

CO -

WO R

K IN G

-

-

CI R

C UL A

I RE

- M

U TU A

L IS A

T IO N

S IN E

R GI A

-

-

SY N

E RG I

E S -

CI R

C UL A

R -

C O- C

R EA T

I ON

- S H

A RI N

G -

I NT E

R CA M

B IO S

- C

O -W

O RK I

N G -

CI R

C UL A

I RE

- M

U TU A

L IS A

T IO N

S IN E

R GI A

- S

Y NE R

G IE S

- C

I RC U

L AR

- C O

- CR E

A TI O

N -

S HA R

I NG

-

- I

N TE R

C AM

B IO S

- C

O -W

O RK I

N G -

CI R

C UL A

I RE

- M

U TU A

L IS A

T IO N

S IN E

R GI A

-

-

SY N

E RG I

E S -

-

CI R

C UL A

R -

C O- C

R EA T

I ON

- S H

A RI N

G -

I NT E

R CA M

B IO S

- C

O -W

O RK I

N G -

CI R

C UL A

I RE

- M

U TU A

L IS A

T IO N

ROTTERDAM

15TH WORLD CONFERENCE CITIES AND PORTS“ CROSSOVERS ”

5-7 OCTOBER 2016

C R OSSV E RO

S

With the collaboration of An event of the

In partnership with

Organised bywww.citiesandports2016.com

15th World Conference Cities and Ports ISSN 2313-2124

INTERNET CONTRIBUTION Stanton Eckstut, FAIA, is a Principal and Board member with Perkins Eastman, one of the world’s foremost architecture and design firms. As a practicing architect for over 50 years, Stan has been a strong ambassador for Placemaking and the creation of iconic public spaces, with work that has focused on large scale mixed-use developments, transit systems, waterfronts, office buildings and higher education campuses that emphasize wellbeing, integrated design, and a lasting sense of place. Lower Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn, Downtown Indianapolis, Hollywood & Highland, and the waterfronts of Buffalo, Yonkers, Hoboken, Long Beach, San Diego, and Washington, DC, have all been transformed by his visionary designs. Central to Stan’s approach is a belief that the architecture of place should welcome the people who inhabit it and recognize the human scale. Stan’s projects have been recognized with various national and regional AIA awards as well as the prestigious Urban Land Institute Heritage Award. He has held positions on the Board of Trustees for the National Building Museum in Washington, DC, the New York State Museum Institute, the Urban Design Program of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture, and as Chair of the Municipal Arts Society of New York’s Street Committee.

Stanton ECKSTUT, FAIA

Principal PERKINS EASTMAN

NY, UNITED STATES

2

“Thinking Small: Optimizing Port Properties Into Successful Urban Waterfront Destinations”

Stanton Eckstut, FAIA

Principal

Perkins Eastman

New York, United States

Port properties are very large, so when the time comes to redevelop the land (or portions of it), Port

Authorities think in terms of large scale redevelopments. For urban development, however, only small land

areas are needed. The key to urban successes is a comfortable walk, which is about 1,200 feet. A land area

as small as, say, 15 acres, is all that is needed to realize enough critical mass to make an urban destination,

which will often comprise the entire area of a neighborhood. Fifteen acres in a port would typically be

considered very small. And it is often the small areas that are “left over” and underperform. Besides being

too small to use, the land area wouldn’t allow for ample truck and ship access. Additionally, there are often

higher priorities for spending limited capital funds. While a small port area has many limitations and little

value, the same property - especially if it is on the port’s perimeter and adjacent to a relatively thriving non-

port area - could be seen as “pure gold” to any adjacent urban area. The amount of land required to create

an attractive urban district, with many places and a critical mass of activities, can be quite small relative to

the adjacent port land holdings. Ports can be powerful economic engines for waterfront cities, but the right

small projects can co-exist with these large working port and lease port operations, uninterrupted, when

mixed-use waterfront development is introduced. In most cases, such urban destinations can create added

value for the port.

The Wharf, Washington, DC. Promenade and District Pier. Courtesy Perkins Eastman

3

A common misconception among developers and planners alike is that large areas of land are required to

produce successful mixed-use urban developments. This outdated vantage has also informed how (and

why) urban waterfront developments are made, or rather, stalled due to any number of financial and political

obstacles. The common thinking goes that, in order to produce a waterfront destination, one that

accommodate future development servicing a variety of uses (residential, commercial, hospitality,

entertainment, and so forth), one that is both sustainable and flexible, a land parcel of hundreds of acres in

scale is required. Our recent history with waterfronts has demonstrated, however, that a relatively small

parcel of property is needed to create a major waterfront destination. Further, these destinations need not

be mutually exclusive from their adjoining ports. In fact, port cities across the globe can and should be doing

more to leverage, at the very least, small and underperforming ports in order to create more urbanized,

flexible, and sustainable destinations on the water’s edge. This can be accomplished without waging

contentious political and capital campaigns to set aside huge swaths for development, which inevitably leads

to extreme long-term development that disrupts industry and compromises normal port operations. There is

a simpler way to do things, and it begins with thinking small (especially for Port Authorities).

Thinking small is not the norm when considering the scope and scale of a new waterfront development. Yet,

it should be and it can be more easily assembled and implemented. Thinking small, and in increments, is

the far more practical and feasible approach. Development doesn’t happen all at once. The marketplace

has only so much absorption, and money is always scare. In Washington, DC’s Southwest Waterfront, The

Wharf is a transformative new mixed-use development that stretches along the Washington Channel, a

body of water that temporarily deviates from the Potomac River. Currently under construction, this project

will include recreational piers, retail, office buildings, residences hotels, cultural centers, and public parks,

all on a footprint that averages 350 feet deep.

The Wharf, Washington, DC. Full context. Courtesy Perkins Eastman

The design vision for The Wharf was one based on incorporating flexibility and creating a sustainable

crossover of public and private uses. A series of Mews running perpendicular to the waterfront are

strategically situated to encourage constant pedestrian circulation, as well as offer people alternative

4

destinations to walking along the piers and promenades at the water’s edge. In short, The Wharf will be a

good neighbor in this quadrant of DC and strengthen local economies; it will bind the nation’s capital and its

citizens to the waterfront, and it will uniquely enable business, residential, hospitality, and entertainment

districts to co-exist all within a relatively small footprint. The residual benefits of such a development are the

kind that transform a city for decades, even centuries. When considering the history of the modern city, such

transformations are often relatively modest in scale; modest for ports, but large for everyone else.

Baltimore’s Inner Harbor is a prime example of what can be accomplished in a post-industrial waterfront

city. The City of Baltimore, Maryland has historically served as a major U.S. commercial seaport well into

the 20th century. Inner Harbor’s shallow waters, however, made it increasingly difficult for modern industry

and shipping to thrive in the port, even with artificial dredging that made some canals more accommodating

to large ships. Beginning in the late 1950s, the City demonstrated tremendous foresight by refocusing the

Inner Harbor maritime industry to be centered on tourist friendly businesses, which helped spur new

development for hotels, restaurants, museums, and retail plazas. Despite the neighborhood’s newfound

success, not all of Inner Harbor benefitted.

Harbor East, Baltimore, MD. Courtesy Perkins Eastman

In the early 1980s we developed a master plan for the section of Inner Harbor known as Harbor East, which

at the time was populated by vacant rail yards that offered little incentive for residents to approach this

underused parcel of waterfront. The Inner Harbor was growing and needed another big attraction, a new

neighborhood - the first neighborhood in the city to reclaim the waterfront. This idea of a dynamic, walkable

neighborhood that is activated 24/7 was a novel idea at the time. Packed into this small area are many

blocks and streets, with all types of uses, and accessible to the public at all times. Harbor East has become

a huge success for the City of Baltimore and a world-class tourist attraction, which incidentally takes up very

5

little land on a cul-de-sac, with few people (particularly a Port Authority) would otherwise find occasion to

visit and put to use. At approximately 15 acres in size, Harbor East has demonstrated that this scale type is

more than adequate for an entire mixed-use neighborhood. Not surprisingly, the development’s limited

footprint has contributed to its walkability appeal. From the start, the key planning idea was not to regulate

land uses, but rather introduce modest regulations to limit building heights and street walls, and thus

maintain the integrity, quality and character of the public realm. This innovative approach also ensures a

flexible development that can adjust with a shifting marketplace and different building uses.

Port Authorities would be better served by redeveloping small areas that are less useful for port operations.

The smaller they are, the more developable they are by the private sector.

Cleveland Waterfront, Proposed Master Plan. Courtesy Perkins Eastman.

As it pertains specifically to Port Authority property, the Port of Cleveland, Ohio, had asked us for a new

plan to repurpose their lakefront properties, specifically those that are Downtown adjacent and close to

existing attractions, such as the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, the Great Lakes Science Center, and First Energy

Stadium, home to the NFL’s Cleveland Browns. This land, like so many other downtown port authority

properties, is quite narrow and with no upland areas to adequately service port operations. Our team

concluded that only a small portion of the port’s water frontage was required to make the existing city

waterfront into a much bigger attraction, and ultimately a destination. The key consideration is a simple yet

potent question: How far are people willing to walk once they have parked their car? In most cases people

will commit to nothing beyond a 5-minute walk to reach their destination, or what roughly equals 1,200 feet

(the average length of a shopping mall). Once that walking distance is superimposed on any length of

waterfront, port authorities can then assume that any sacrifice of land holdings will be very little, especially

when weighing that against the wonderful attraction their city will gain in the process.

6

The City of Cleveland has a strong history of investing large amounts of public funds, over the course of

several decades, into building world-class harbors, piers and esplanades for public use; major and rather

expensive cultural and sports attractions have been introduced to the waterfront as well, all for the purpose

of attracting more people to the city’s lakefront property. These substantial investments of public funds were

not on account of the people (i.e. private citizens, families, commuting office workers) that were projected

to visit and spend money, but on the amount of private development (i.e. offices, residences, hotels) that

the City was looking to attract over the short- and long-term. Private development, of course, is a catalyst

for new activity and business, and helps cities recap any public investments through taxes and lease

payments. But for Cleveland, private development never came, and the area’s major attractions only did

well when there is favorable weather or during special events.

The Cuyahoga County Port Authority, which manages maritime operations for the Port of Cleveland, was

the exclusive owner of all land situated at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River on Lake Erie. Even with major

attractions, there had previously not been enough land for private development. Again, knowing that there

is a favorable limit to how big an area was needed, the Port Authority could easily give up a small portion of

land (by port authority standards), especially a parcel that is very narrow and of no significant use for

maritime operations. The relatively small amount of port land needed to create a new neighborhood,

comprising private mixed-use developments, has huge implications for the City. This new neighborhood has

enough sub-parcels to create the needed critical mass of activities to help existing attractions and create

year-round activity. Thanks to just this relatively small dose of converted port property, Downtown Cleveland

is now able to claim a major new waterfront destination.

Queensway Bay, Long Beach, CA. Courtesy Perkins Eastman.

7

On the other side of the country, in Long Beach, California, the new waterfront property known as

Queensway Bay was once property held by the city’s Port Authority (aka the Harbor Department of the City

of Long Beach). Within the larger scheme of the Port’s commercial endeavors, this downtown parcel was

far too narrow for any type of manageable port operations, and had far too little highway infrastructure to

support it. Long Beach’s Main Street went right to the water’s edge, but was underserved as a destination

and had no clear terminus point. While the port property itself was quite narrow, it benefitted from a huge

(and long) amount of waterfront frontage that could allow for virtually any world-class waterfront destination.

There was enough land to create a new harbor that could accommodate mixed-use private development,

and today Main Street is a major attraction which serves as the anchor for Downtown Long Beach’s renewal

as a place for recreation, shopping, and the public’s enjoyment.

This development model is epitomized by Battery Park City in New York City. The 92-acre neighborhood,

which is situated along Manhattan’s southern tip, is an urban infill development, created anew in the 1970s

and developed in phases through the 1980s. Battery Park City replaced piers and transformed them into a

dynamic destination that services residential, recreational, business, and commercial needs. Today, Battery

Park City is a singular global standard bearer for waterfront destinations, and demonstrates in myriad ways

how a relatively small amount of land can go a long way toward facilitating the public’s enjoyment of the

waterfront edge. Battery Park City also epitomizes the crossover effect that occurs when unused property,

which is tethered to regulations and security concerns, is brought together with mixed-use development

designed for public benefit.

Battery Park City, South Cove, New York, NY. Copyright Paúl Rivera, Courtesy Perkins Eastman.

Security is not compromised by sacrificing a small amount of land for the public good; the normal ebb and

flow of port operations is not compromised by the nearby introduction of residential units, office buildings,

8

restaurants, retail storefronts, public esplanades, and green space. With this in mind, and with dozens of

built examples around the globe to draw from, new zoning policies can and should be introduced that

purposefully promote public use and the enjoyment of a city’s waterfront while maintaining a secure

environment when shipping, trade, and other port activities can not only continue without interruption, but

eventually increase their value and benefit from such policies in the long run.

What appears small to a port is actually quite large to the rest of the urban area. A property depth of

approximately 500 feet (from the water’s edge), the norm for Battery Park City, is hardly functional for port

operations. The value to urban waterfronts is not the depth, but rather the length of frontage for strolling and

open space amenities. Blocks for private developments can be as shallow as 300 feet for major residential,

office, and hotel developments. The length along a waterfront offers the best views, so in reality a depth of

land is a negative. What might appear to be too small and too limited for the purposes of port operations

might be the most suitable for successful urban revitalization, private development, and creating great

“Public Places.”

Huishan North Bund, Shanghai, China. Copyright Blackstation, Courtesy Perkins Eastman.

Port Authorities across the globe would be better served by realizing that what they’re sitting on is strategic

property. Strategic in the sense that, given the mass appeal for private development and mixed-use activity

along the water’s edge, port operations need not exist on these particular parcels. Many of these small sub-

parcels of narrow port property we find around the world tend to be located in older sections of the city, near

historic downtown centers and similar. By modern day standards, they are certainly not optimal for maritime

commercial activity, but as candidates for urban renewal, there is nothing better.

We know that urban waterfronts require a relatively small amount of land to become something greater, a

destination for private development, recreation, dining and all kinds of activity that brings people by the

millions to the water’s edge. Recent re-developments around the world, from Shanghai to Long Beach, have

demonstrated that what’s considered small by port standards is in fact huge to everyone else. With minor

transfers of property, and with little to no change in port operations and without compromising security, this

“thinking small” approach becomes a misnomer, because the residual benefits are anything but small.

ROT-CouvROT_page-garde_EckstutStanton Eckstut_Texte Final