USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The ports of tampa and hamburg and the qualitative impacts on their communities

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The ports of tampa and hamburg and the qualitative impacts on their communities
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Becker, Gerhard
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Port Locations and their Functions
Policy and Jurisdiction
Social Costs and Economic Benefits
Major Emissions from Port facilities
Port Management by Residents or Corporations
Dissertations, Academic -- Geography -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: This study researches the past, present and future role of ports, specifically the Ports of Tampa and Hamburg linked to their cities. It examines the legal structures of port authorities which play a major role in their economic priorities and impact their cities' social, environmental and cultural quality of life. From a humanistic perspective, one can look at a port as a place or space. By animating ports, they may provide "fields of care" over time, and a home with character for the region's residents. In this case, their success needs to transcend economics, adding qualitative attributes to the region, such as clean air, water, good working conditions, adequate housing, public transportation, recreational provisions, public waterfront access and more. The Port of Tampa's corporate style and largely state controlled management team prioritized diversification. As a result, the port essentially remained a feeder port. It depends on shipping phosphate (a non renewable resource), fertilizer, scrap metal, petroleum and other general cargo commodities. The port serves main (hub) and container ports which are more lucrative and environmentally less challenging. The Port of Hamburg, on the other hand, controlled by an elected local Senate, became a container hub port early on, and planned its future accordingly. Tampa's traditional housing around the port was dissected; shopping, service and recreational areas around Tampa's city core deteriorated, when Interstates 275, 4 and the Cross Town Expressway were constructed. Suburbs in rural areas were developed with little regard for public transportation infrastructure, recreation facilities, and pedestrian and bike paths. Most of Tampa's waterfront, owned by its Port Authority, is leased out and fenced off to the public access. Redeveloped expensive and mostly empty downtown gentrified residences face parking garages, oil tanks, phosphate stags and scrap yards. Much of Harbor Island, close to downtown, is gated and gentrified. The Port of Hamburg, in contrast to the Port of Tampa, redeveloped an uninhabited warehouse region of its Port, named it Hafen City, thereby adding 40 percent to the core of the city. This cohesive theme is in the process of providing jobs, housing, public waterfront access, shopping, green spaces, museums a concert hall, a theater and more. Light-rail, subways trams, buses, pedestrian and bike paths link the Hafen City to the traditional city center. Hamburg's waterfront remains open to the public by law. A comparison of both port cities shows that the Port of Tampa's largely state controlled corporate style management team prioritizes short term economic results over an extended future planning at the expense of the region's social, cultural and environmental climate. The Port of Hamburg's management team, installed by the locally elected Senate, promotes the City's economic, social, cultural and environmental quality. The above findings, suggest that developments of ports and their cities under democratically elected governments may produce various qualitative outcomes depending on the demand and supply curve of their residents' input.
Thesis:
Thesis (MA)--University of South Florida, 2010.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Gerhard Becker.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0004780
usfldc handle - e14.4780
System ID:
SFS0028068:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2010 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004780
035
(OCoLC)
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
Becker, Gerhard.
0 245
The ports of tampa and hamburg and the qualitative impacts on their communities
h [electronic resource] /
by Gerhard Becker.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2010.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.
502
Thesis (MA)--University of South Florida, 2010.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
3 520
ABSTRACT: This study researches the past, present and future role of ports, specifically the Ports of Tampa and Hamburg linked to their cities. It examines the legal structures of port authorities which play a major role in their economic priorities and impact their cities' social, environmental and cultural quality of life. From a humanistic perspective, one can look at a port as a place or space. By animating ports, they may provide "fields of care" over time, and a home with character for the region's residents. In this case, their success needs to transcend economics, adding qualitative attributes to the region, such as clean air, water, good working conditions, adequate housing, public transportation, recreational provisions, public waterfront access and more. The Port of Tampa's corporate style and largely state controlled management team prioritized diversification. As a result, the port essentially remained a feeder port. It depends on shipping phosphate (a non renewable resource), fertilizer, scrap metal, petroleum and other general cargo commodities. The port serves main (hub) and container ports which are more lucrative and environmentally less challenging. The Port of Hamburg, on the other hand, controlled by an elected local Senate, became a container hub port early on, and planned its future accordingly. Tampa's traditional housing around the port was dissected; shopping, service and recreational areas around Tampa's city core deteriorated, when Interstates 275, 4 and the Cross Town Expressway were constructed. Suburbs in rural areas were developed with little regard for public transportation infrastructure, recreation facilities, and pedestrian and bike paths. Most of Tampa's waterfront, owned by its Port Authority, is leased out and fenced off to the public access. Redeveloped expensive and mostly empty downtown gentrified residences face parking garages, oil tanks, phosphate stags and scrap yards. Much of Harbor Island, close to downtown, is gated and gentrified. The Port of Hamburg, in contrast to the Port of Tampa, redeveloped an uninhabited warehouse region of its Port, named it Hafen City, thereby adding 40 percent to the core of the city. This cohesive theme is in the process of providing jobs, housing, public waterfront access, shopping, green spaces, museums a concert hall, a theater and more. Light-rail, subways trams, buses, pedestrian and bike paths link the Hafen City to the traditional city center. Hamburg's waterfront remains open to the public by law. A comparison of both port cities shows that the Port of Tampa's largely state controlled corporate style management team prioritizes short term economic results over an extended future planning at the expense of the region's social, cultural and environmental climate. The Port of Hamburg's management team, installed by the locally elected Senate, promotes the City's economic, social, cultural and environmental quality. The above findings, suggest that developments of ports and their cities under democratically elected governments may produce various qualitative outcomes depending on the demand and supply curve of their residents' input.
590
Advisor: Kevin Archer, Ph.D.
653
Port Locations and their Functions
Policy and Jurisdiction
Social Costs and Economic Benefits
Major Emissions from Port facilities
Port Management by Residents or Corporations
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Geography
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.4780



PAGE 1

The Ports of Tampa and Hamburg and th e Qualitative Impacts on their Communities by Gerhard Becker A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Geography College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor Kevin Archer, Ph.D. Graham A. Tobin, Ph.D. Mark R. Hafen, Ph.D. Date of Approval November 2, 2010: Keywords: Port Locations and their Functions Policy and Jurisdiction, Social Costs and Economic Benefits, Major Emissions from Port facilities, Port Management by Residents or Corporations Copyright 2010, Gerhard Becker

PAGE 2

i Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................... ..... iii List of Figures .............................................................................................................. ..... iv Abstract ..................................................................................................................... ....... vii Chapter One: The Social Role of Ports ...............................................................................1 History of Ports .................................................................................................. ..... 2 Port Lo cations and their Functions ..........................................................................3 Port Systems.............................................................................................................5 How Have Ports Been Studied? ...................................................................5 Ports as Space or Place .......................................................................................... .6 Public Symbols and Spirits .....................................................................................6 Utilization of Waterfront ........................................................................................1 0 Port Services ..........................................................................................................10 Social Costs and Economic Benefit Considerations ..............................................13 Port Economics and the Environment....................................................................13 The Relevance of These Studies ................................................................15 What is a Place? .................................................................................................. ...17 Waterfront Considerations ....................................................................................18 The Port Authority’s Future Function ....................................................................21 How to Study the Ports of Tampa and Hamburg .......................................22 Chapter Two: The Port of Tampa .....................................................................................27 The Port’s Policy....................................................................................................31 The History of the Port ..........................................................................................32 General Cargo Facilities ........................................................................................34 Bulk Cargo-Dry Liquid and Scrap .........................................................................35 The Priorities of the Port ........................................................................................36 Major Emissions from Port Facilities ....................................................................40 Housing, Shopping, Service and Recreational Areas, Public Transport, Bike and Pedestrian Paths ..................................................................................................45 Redevelopment Project Studies .............................................................................45 Opportunities for Waterfront Peripheral Redevelopment .....................................48 Creative Financing Options for Redevelopment ...................................................50 Distribution of Waterfront and Downtown Real Estate .........................................51 Opportunities at Ybor Channel ..............................................................................56 Development of North Ybor Channel ..................................................................59 A Field Excursion into the Port City in March, April and May 2007 ..................61

PAGE 3

ii Taking a Walk ..................................................................................................... ...62 Chapter Three: The Port of Hamburg ...............................................................................67 The City State and Port of Hambur g-Organizational St ructure etc. .....................69 History of the Port ............................................................................................... ...70 Port Development and Consequences on Region ..................................................73 Completed and Future Expansion ..........................................................................80 Container Gantry Cranes ........................................................................................81 Automated Vehicles for Horizontal Transport at Altenwerder ..............................81 The Port of Hamburg’s Diversification .................................................................83 Container Handling ............................................................................................... 83 Container Handling ............................................................................................... 83 Container Handling and the City .......................................................................... 86 Work Environment and Port Performance .............................................................89 Housing, Shopping and Recreational Areas and Public Transport ........................91 Integration into the City ........................................................................................ 92 Environmental Consid erations for the Planning of Hafen City .............................93 Specifi c Projects at Hafen City ..............................................................................95 Transport-Shared Pedestrian and Cycle Routes .....................................................97 Local Public Transport .........................................................................................9 8 Chapter Four: Comparison of Both Ports ........................................................................100 The Ports of Tampa’s and Hamburg’s Economic Priorities ................................100 Their Social and Cultural Inte gration into Their Communities ...........................103 Environmental Priorities .....................................................................................114 Conclusion .........................................................................................................116 References ................................................................................................................... ....117

PAGE 4

iii List of Tables Table 2.1 Fiscal Year 2001 Top General Cargo Commodities .........................................37 Table 2.2 Fiscal Year 2004 T op General Cargo Commodities ..........................................37 Table 3.1 2007 Port of Hamburg Cargo Turnover development .......................................89

PAGE 5

iv List of Figures Figure 2.1 Map of Florida ..................................................................................................27 Figure 2.2 Egmont Channel to Port of Tampa ...................................................................28 Figure 2.3 Port Facilities in Tampa ...................................................................................29 Figure 2.4 The Port Tampa’s Location to the Caribbean and Panama Canal ....................30 Figure 2.5 Cargo Handling at Berths .................................................................................35 Figure 2.6 Trademark Metals Recycling ..........................................................................41 Figure 2.7 Tampa Heights ..................................................................................................46 Figure 2.8 Channelside Waterfront ....................................................................................52 Figure 2.9 Potentially desirable residential areas ..............................................................53 Figure 2.10 Fenced off Waterfront ....................................................................................55 Figure 2.11 Ybor Channel Real Estate Opportunities .......................................................56 Figure 2.12 North Ybor Channel Real Estate ....................................................................59 Figure 2.13 Port City’s Waterfront ....................................................................................62 Figure 3.1 Port of Hamburg ...............................................................................................67 Figure 3.2 Hafen City’s Extension.....................................................................................71 Figure 3.3 Historical Background of Hafen City ...............................................................71 Figure 3.4 Hamburg City at the north, facing Port development at south .........................72 Figure 3.5 Hamburg City Center: top right to left, Hafen C ity bottom right to left .........75 Figure 3.6 Container Handling Facilities ..........................................................................75 Figure 3.7 Landungsbruecken (front), Elbtunnel, (Building on Right) .............................76

PAGE 6

v Figure 3.8 City of Hamburg, Altstadt and Redevelopment Sites ......................................77 Figure 3.9 Terminal Location seen from Water .................................................................81 Figure 3.10 Truck Handling ...............................................................................................82 Figure 3.11 Container Handling at the Port .......................................................................84 Figure 3.12 The Port of Hamburg and City .......................................................................85 Figure 3.13 Expansion Areas south of the City and north of Harburg ..............................85 Figure 3.14 Port Related Activities on the Elbe viewed from Public Spaces ....................87 Figure 3.15 Real Estate at Port in 1997 .............................................................................87 Figure 3.16 Container Computer Specialist Overseeing Loading and Unloading .............88 Figure 3.17 Port is the ninth larges t Container Port in the World .....................................89 Figure 3.18 Projects at Hafen City .....................................................................................95 Figure 3.19 Shared Pedestrian and Cycle Routes ..............................................................98 Figure 3.20 Public Transport: U = U nderground Railway, H = Bus Stop .........................99 Figure 4.1 Metal Recycling Plant ....................................................................................101 Figure 4.2 a Downtown Neighborhoods Dissected .........................................................104 Figure 4.2 b Typical Buildings close to Downtown Tampa cut off by Highway ............104 Figure 4.3 Two typical Hamburg Neighborhood .............................................................105 Figure 4.4 Hafen City’s Residences and Public Waterfront Access ...............................106 Figure 4.5 Channelside Dr. Transportation System ........................................................107 Figure 4.6 Subway Connecting the Port with City Center ...............................................108 Figure 4.7 The Port City of Hamburg’ s Architecture and Waterfront .............................110 Figure 4.8 Hafen City ......................................................................................................111 Figure 4.9 Landungsbruecken at Bottom left .................................................................112

PAGE 7

vi Figure 4.10 Elbe Philharmonic on top of old Warehouse B ............................................113

PAGE 8

vii Abstract This study researches the past, present and future role of ports, specifically the Ports of Tampa and Hamburg linked to their citi es. It examines the legal structures of port authorities which play a major role in thei r economic priorities and impact their cities’ social, environmental and cultura l quality of life. From a hu manistic perspective, one can look at a port as a place or space. By anima ting ports, they may provide “ fields of care” over time, and a home with charact er for the region’s residents. In this case, their success needs to transcend economics, adding qualitati ve attributes to the region, such as clean air, water, good working conditions, adequate housing, public transportation, recreational provisions, public waterfront access and more. The Port of Tampa’s corporate style a nd largely state controlled management team prioritized diversification. As a result, the port essentially remained a feeder port. It depends on shipping phosphate (a non renewa ble resource), fertilizer, scrap metal, petroleum and other general cargo commod ities. The port serves main (hub) and container ports which are more lucrative a nd environmentally less challenging. The Port of Hamburg, on the other hand, controlled by an elected local Senate, became a container hub port early on, and planned its future accordingly. Tampa’s traditional housing around the port was dissected; shopping, service and recreational areas around Tampa’s city core deteriorated, when Interstates 275, 4 and the Cross Town Expressway were constructed. Suburbs in rural areas were developed with little regard for public transportation infrastr ucture, recreation facili ties, and pedestrian

PAGE 9

viii and bike paths. Most of Tampa’s waterfront owned by its Port Authority, is leased out and fenced off to the public access. Re developed expensive and mostly empty downtown gentrified residences face parking garages, oil tanks, phosphate stags and scrap yards. Much of Harbor Island, close to downtown, is gated and gentrified. The Port of Hamburg, in contrast to the Port of Tampa, redeveloped an uninhabited warehouse region of its Port named it Hafen City, thereby adding 40 percent to the core of the city. This cohesi ve theme is in the process of providing jobs, housing, public waterfront access, shopping, green spaces, museums a concert hall, a theater and more. Light-rail, subways trams, buses, pedestrian and bike paths link the Hafen City to the traditional city center. Hamburg’s waterfront remains open to the public by law. A comparison of both port cities shows th at the Port of Tampa’s largely state controlled corporate style management team pr ioritizes short term economic results over an extended future planning at the expe nse of the region’s social, cultural and environmental climate. The Port of Hamburg’ s management team, installed by the locally elected Senate, promotes the City’s economic social, cultural and environmental quality. The above findings, suggest that developmen ts of ports and their cities under democratically elected govern ments may produce various qualitative outcomes depending on the demand an d supply curve of their residents’ input.

PAGE 10

1 Chapter 1: The Social Role of Ports The themes of this thesis, relating to the qualitative impacts of the Ports of Tampa and Hamburg on their communities, begin with th e linkage of the past, present and future role of ports. Ports are the qualitative driving force that determine the economic and social quality and performance of port citi es and their environs. Ports can be unifying elements in the process of integrating them into the cities and their communities whose characters are diverse, differ and have of ten changed over time. While this thesis researches specifics of the Port Cities of Tampa and Hamburg, this chapter will introduce the relevance of port locations, their functions and th eir systems in general. Furthermore, it will address how ports have been studied a nd utilized. Specifically, port authorities’ functions will be examined in the context of social co sts and economic benefits. A successful port city may add stability to the region, which provides residents with a sense of space and time (Tuan, 1977). Tuan’s observations imply people may want to belong somewhere, and search for a homela nd (port city); and personal relationships may create special values through awareness of architectural space over time. Landlocked cities often lack in physical as well as sociopolitical c oherence due to their distance from nature (Tuan, 1978) Port cities, on the other hand, are linked to open seas and, as a result, are given the opportunity to re tain a natural ambiance. In consideration of the above observation one may question the va lue of an increasi ngly artificial world (Tuan, 1978).

PAGE 11

2 Ports and their cities have changed ov er centuries. Shakespeare’s London, for example, occupied an area of one square mile with some 100,000 people. It had a natural setting, was a pleasant country town with many gardens and broad green fields close to most crowded streets (Tuan, 1978). But take a look at modern London, Paris or New York. The downtown areas appear to be furthest removed from nature. Port cities connect to nature as they depend on the sea ways to exist. By animating them, ports, such as Tampa and Hamburg, take on a life of thei r own that reflect much spirit of their communities’ past and present. How did they evolve? History of Ports Ports can play a major role in early urban development l eading to spatial interactions with different regions for ec onomic, political, cultural and other purposes. Sea routes existed long before the construc tion of railroads; huma ns built ports, and settled around them to prosper from trade. Merchants saw opportunities and clustered around locations that could be linked to world markets by waterways. As a result, people migrated from rural parts of the country to por t cities that provided work. On the other hand, the newcomers gave up their self su fficient country living. City farming could have provided local food supply and created j obs, leading to multiplier effects in labor. Much outsourcing of jobs th at came later could have b een avoided.. Did Tampa and Hamburg learn form the past when they developed their port cities? Broadly, ports are important indicators of wealth because the volumes and patterns of seaborne trade re flect the world distribution of resources, population, location of industries, characteristics of markets, and economic growth rate s including political and military factors. Thus, port-related activities extend beyond the regions where they

PAGE 12

3 are located. Yet, they portra y the way of life in local co mmunities, their character and their quality of life. This in cludes working conditions, clean air and water, and an overall social system that provides safety and secu rity. Based on their economic success, ports provide the foundation for the environmental and social fabric in the region. This chapter addresses port locations and f unctions, their systems and how they have been studied as a place. Port Locations and Their Functions Looking at ports, one first notices thei r physical geography. Sea ports are located along bays, creeks, lagoons, rive rs, estuaries and on entirely artificial, man-made islands. The number, type and capacity of seaports a country needs is rela ted to the volume of trade and dependence on maritime trans port (Cooper, 1983). The Atlas describes a hierarchical structure of seapor ts at the regional, national and international levels. At one end, there are major international ports hand ling predominantly foreign seaborne trade, while at the other extreme, minor ports exist that concentrate on domestic coastal trade. Many of the world’s major seaports can be found on the banks of rivers, at inlets or estuaries. Next, one observes ports’ phys ical changes over time caused by global or regional variations in consumer spending. A factor that may change markets and demographics in different regions of the worl d, and as a result influence the development of sea ports. Many activities su ch as mining raw materials, oil drilling or manufacturing have led to the construction and expansion of sea ports. As a result the size of vessels and the depth of water required to access ports were increase d. With the evolution of sea born trade systems in maritime technology advanced due to greater specialization in

PAGE 13

4 shipping. What followed were efficient in land communications by road, rail or inland waterways to hinterlands of high production or consumption. Cooper (1983) outlines ports logistics: Ports can be found in various locations throughout the world. Their spatial locations ar e linked to their re gional or global access to markets and their logistics. Most majo r ports handle diverse commodities, although there are a number of more specialized por ts throughout the world. Often the traffic of commodities fluctuates, and the form in whic h they are handled changes. Cooper notes, ports have had to modernize existing facilities or construct new purpose-built terminals. Most ports consisted of the familiar all-purpose general cargo facilities until the early 1960s. They had narrow quays and adjacent cove red and open storage areas, handling all types of cargo from dry bulk to timber and break bulk. Since then design and equipment of port terminals have become more speci alized. Many general cargo ships have been replaced by cellular lift-on lift-off (LoLo ) containe r vessels with up to 3000 TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units). These vessels require terminals with large land areas for storage and high capacity mechan ical handling equipment, such as gantry cranes to move and stack containers. Roll-on roll-off (RoRo) terminals, or iginally developed for ships operating in short sea trade, have been mode rnized to accommodate larger vessels that engage in deep sea trade. The handling of cargo between vessel and quay requires ship or shore mounted ramps. Dry bulk terminals are constructed to handle large volumes of cargoes such as iron ore, coal, grain, phospha te, and cement. These terminals need large storage facilities adjacent to their berths. Liquid bulk terminals are used for shipping of petroleum, bulk chemicals, liquid na tural gas and liquid petroleum gas.

PAGE 14

5 In general, ports can be classified as hub (main) and feeder ports. The former often specialize in containerized cargo hand ling, whereas the latter transport much bulk and general cargo. Main sea ports just like main airports, are hubs that offer shippers a world-wide linkage. They receive and dist ribute commodities from smaller ports which typically are feeder ports. A port which handl es diversified shippi ng often concentrates on feeding hub ports. Feeder ports tend to be less dependant on global alliances, though they generally lack the efficient, clean, and lucrative technology of container ports. Port Systems The methodical planning of ports, their princi ples and rules etc. are subject to Port Authorities’ plans and implements. The Ta mpa Port Authority, for example, is a governmental commission in charge of the tra ffic, regulations, etc. of a port (section 1, June, 3rd, 1991 original page 8, Tampa Port Auth ority, 1994). Port authorities employ directors and a management team. The direct ors may be appointed or elected. Their policies determine the port’s future, its prioriti es and the quality of life in the port since they control the usage of the port real estate. Some ports are an integral part of the city. They are linked to the center by public transpor t, bike and pedestrian routes and provide housing, waterfront recreation, shopping and se rvice facilities. Others are segregated from the city. These ports of ten lack housing, convenient tr ansportation provide little recreational space and have restricted public acce ss to the waterfront. How Have Ports Been Studied? While ports can be studied in many ways this research wi ll look into their meaning as a place and space to the region.

PAGE 15

6 Ports as Space or Place People make emotional investments where they live, and some geographers have addressed the humanistic perspe ctive of space and pl ace, related to town s, cities, ports, and other regions (Tuan, 1974). Tuan addresse s the definition and meaning of place, its stability, various types of places. He argues that symbols from the ancient world and recent times can give an air of significance to localities. Public Symbols and Spirits One may infer from the literature that a region can rise above a human constructed environment through real or imagin ed spirits. Tuan notes that spirits are formless except for sites that stand out. He adds that places like human beings, acquire unique signatures over time. Both, human actions and spirits can form, preserve or destroy places (Tuan, 1974). He points to spirits that populated the mountains and forests of China which were endowed with human pedigrees and carried offi cial ranks. He addresses shrines in ancient Greece, sacred enclosures, an image, a s acred stone or tree throughout neighborhoods. More recently, buildings became symbols: the Houses of Parliament, the Empire State Building. Negative symbols have also formed places and their growth. As a result, a belief system of different cultur es evolved that encouraged one to speak, literally, of the spirit of the place. A single inanimate object, useless in itself, can be the focus of a world through experience. Ruins from engaging in war, such as its results that are preserved with the remainders of the Be rlin wall are examples. Becaus e Tuan (1974) sees a place as a space combining a sense of position within society from an anth ropocentric view, his ideas are useful to analyzing places. This is relevant when observing ports for the

PAGE 16

7 following reason: Their architectural structures are the roots of their social, cultural and economic environment which reflect human ac tivities through gene rations. The result may lead to fields of care adding some pe rmanence to the region where people reside. “Fields of care” are specific locations which represent, assuming the have been left in the first place, a return to human dimensions (Tuan, 1974). This suggests that people make emotional investments in different places over time. If Ports are fields of care, their definition includes the position in society of the individua l and spatial location of the place. These are explored in both sociology and geography. As time and space are often hard to separate, one seems to be a metaphor for the other. Furthermore, one may consider which meaning is literal and whic h is metaphorical. More specifically, a port may bear close anthropocentric imprints over time at nearby (region al) spatial locations. But what does close mean? The definition of close, for exampl e, may be a measure of human relationships but also one of relative distan ce, such as a chair that is close to the window or town squares that are adjacent to residences (Tua n, 1974). As a result, actors in the “human drama” where they live establis h fields of care through repeti tion of the ordinary, creating a closeness to each other and their physical environment over long periods of time. They are creating a lasting home. A connectivity of ports with their residents, for example, reflect the qualitative social level of port cities over ti me. Their human drama and the spatial environment interact. The meaning of place reflects spirit and personality, implying people want to give it a sense of greater emotional power than the mere location or the functional node. “Personality,” Tuan (1974) notes, suggests the unique. Places, like human beings,

PAGE 17

8 acquire unique signatures in the course of time. The prolonged human interaction with nature has formed faces that result in a pers onality with two aspects: one commands awe, the other evokes affection. While there may be fear, excitement, apathy and others, Tuan (1974) compares the first aspect to a disp lay of nature, such as a mountain, and the second to something a person wears and grows fond of. A rain coat, he points out, for example, is for use, and yet in time it ga ins character imparted by the person who wears it. A place through long association with hum an beings can thus be humanized. When people apply moral and aesthetic discernments to a place, they put a “sense” on a place, a spirit or personality. Sense of place has differe nt meanings. One is visual and looks at the beauty where it exists with a trained eye. Anot her creates beauty to please the eye. Places like landscapes and buildings have visual impacts and often register on sight. Other senses, such as hearing, smell, taste and t ouch, may require longer periods of contact in order to obtain explicit knowing. It follows that many meanings, vi sual and others, may be taken into account when looking at port ci ties. Finally, one can acquire in time a profound sense of a place, but to be fully awar e of an attachment to it, one may have to assess it from a distance (Tuan, 1974). Thus, loosely following the theory of supply and demand, with an increased distance and a prolonged absence from a place, it may become more attractive and a l onging for it may strengthen. According to Tuan (1974), travel incr eases awareness, not of exotic places but of home as a place. To see it from the outside provides stability as it maintains its unique identity. Further, the emotion felt among human beings finds an anchorage in things and places. Ports with ships flying flags from different countries may give additional links to emotions as they provide longing to learn about other places or confirm biases.

PAGE 18

9 Furthermore, residents may appreciate th eir home port because ships entering it add a variety to the place. This gives strength pr oviding fields of care. They are not easily identifiable as they lack permanence. Dissolution of the human bond from place, for example, can cause the loss of meaning in the material environment and lead to misery. Such examples are parks with old trees that used to be meeting places for generations, now sold to developers, clos ed fishing piers where people hang out, or an abandoned rail road track and station may give some i ndications of loss of human bond from place. Tuan (1974) refers to a case where some pl ace turns morbid to someone who had lost a human relationship there. He points out, “H is heart was now darkened by grief, and wherever he looked he saw death” (Tuan, 1974) The attack on the World Trade Center in Manhattan in 2001 would evoke similar emoti ons on many survivors. Public symbols, unlike places as fields of care, give prominen ce and an air of signifi cance to localities. Monuments, artwork, streets and towns embody spirit, and the belief system of many cultures encourages one to spea k, literally, of the spirit of place. Modern secular society discourages belief in spirit defined separate from matter, but traces of it still linger in people’s attitudes. While places are small worl ds and may have public symbols and fields of care, they are essentially places that depend on human emotions. Fleming (1987) views a port as a “s mall world” in his research “The Port Community: An American View.” He notes that neither an aerial picture nor a map can fully reveal the microgeography of a port community. He introduces the topic by contrasting the harmony of the community, with thousands of people working for hundreds of private firms and public agencies, to that of a small group of higher level port planners and managers, whose ways of addressing private and public interests

PAGE 19

10 sometimes spread confusion. By dissecting the seaport community, he analyses the distribution of port-related serv ices. He looks beneath the su rface and inside the buildings to discover who is located wh ere and who owns what. He s uggests that explanations of seaport morphologies by most geographers fo cus mainly on highly visible trappings of the port, the waterfront industr ies and dock facilities, and th at little attention has been given to locational clustering of various port services and th eir microgeographical shifts throughout the port city region. He starts his survey with the waterfront. Utilization of Waterfront According to Maritime Administ ration reports, 60 percent of the 2,401 major marine non-military waterfront terminals in the United States were privately owned and operated until the mid-1970s (Fleming, 1987). Afte r that period, the domain of the public port authority expanded impressively, especia lly in the large container ports where each containership berth requires support space rangin g from five to ten hectares, depending on the method of container storage. But the ow nership of private and public land is only one part of the story, as one needs to look at the intended use and operational control of the waterfront property and their impact on the port city region. Port Services Essential sea port operations show patterns of location at and close by the waterfront, which extend geographically fr om the waterfront inland to adjacent high rises. The special logistics depend on specific needs, such as berthing space, fuel provisions, crew replacements, repairs, immigration formalities and so forth. These vessel-oriented services have traditionally been located at or close to the waterfront (Fleming, 1987). While repair yards and fueling facilities, obviously, need to be at the

PAGE 20

11 waterfront, shipping agency offices can be housed further inland. Some operations, such as stevedoring, freight-forwarding, custom work and cargo documentation must be flexible in their choice of location and be av ailable for the visiting vessels. Patterns of proximity of one function to another enhance economics of efficiency. Also curious examples of camaraderie of competitors have been noted (Fleming, 1987). He notes, that the favorite area for steamshi p offices, freight-forwarders and custom house brokers in Houston in the late 1940s was the Cotton Exchange Building located far from the Houston ship channel. The reason for this unu sual choice was cotton. Shippers wanted to stay on top of business and moved close to their good customers, the cotton farmers, and away from the actual shipping facilities. Like Tuan (1974), Fleming (1987) researches the humanis tic perspective of places. His key point is: “The human needs of those who inhabit, work in, or pass through the waterfront distri ct must be considered” ( p.334). There are thousands of people employed in maritime services who n eed food, shelter, recreation, meeting places, union halls, and so forth. In addition, pa rt of the historical seaport scene are the provisions of restaurants, taverns and assorted “recreational faciliti es” for crews ashore. Fleming describes some picturesque episodes th at took place in various ports. An agent for Irish Shipping, Ltd. in New York, for exam ple, was in the habit of collecting crew members from taverns before the ship left port by baiting them w ith a bottle of Irish whiskey, which was only to be opened when they were safely aboard. Part of Galveston’s seaport culture gave privileges to sailors and dockworkers through the purchase of a lifetime membership for one dollar in one of many ‘private clubs’ that allowed the ‘legal’

PAGE 21

12 consumption of strong spirits. This contribute d to Galveston’s seaport culture. Fleming’s (1987) repertoire of such stories helps explai n how ports assume an identity over time. Fleming (1987) continues his investig ation of ports, by look ing into their cultural needs, such as waterfront parks, paths, public piers, esplanades, benches, historic monuments and more. These lands and fac ilities, which are usually public property, attract citizens and tourists, workers and loiterers, seamen and landlubbers, nationals and foreigners. All add character to the seaport scene. If a wate rfront has become too small, short or impractical for modern shipping, it has often been replaced with various seaflavored restaurants, taverns and shops. Su ch places are found at the waterfront of downtown Seattle and many others. Several ports in Washington and Alaska combine commercial fishing with recreational boati ng to support numerous small boat-building, repair, supply, charter and shelter services. They are elements of seaports’ character, and also provide a variety of jobs. Having viewed the cultural needs fo r port residents, Fleming (1987) researches the “livedin” portion of the waterfront di strict. What are the favored residential neighborhoods? He discovers that rundown ur ban properties of the recent past have sometimes been restored to their historic splendor, as is the case in Charleston, South Carolina, and Savannah, Georgia Long stretc hes of apartment complexes with marine vistas are found along the Missi ssippi River in New Orleans. He also addresses tensions within the port community, such as compa tibility of human needs with the space and access requirements of the comm ercial seaport users.

PAGE 22

13 Social Costs and Economic Benefits Considerations Other considerations are keeping the balance between ec onomic advantages and social costs, between private and public s ector control, and between commerce and aesthetics (Fleming, 1987). He notes that th e multifaceted port auth ority should ideally mirror the entire spectrum of port community’s interests. This is a political consideration as a port authority is accountable to an el ected government. Consequently, port officials should not develop secret or sepa rate goals that diverge radica lly from those of the larger port community. Thus Fleming concludes that th e port authority is e xpected to lead, and should do so in the interest of its tax-paying constituents who reside in the port city. Port Economics and the Environment Some researchers do not search for human elements and view ports as an item which can be marketed. Baird (1999) provides a planning history of a container port in Felixstowe, England, a part of Harwich that has grown into the fifteenth largest facility in the world. He addresses the cost recovery fo r private ports, privatized ports and public ports. He concludes that none of them in cluding Felixstowe has recovered the capital cost. Yet he views the port as a success. Th e port was developed at the right time and at the right place. The free market political ideology of the UK growth during the 1980s encouraged expansion on a green-field site pr ior to the serious envi ronmental restrictions. Unlike its European competition, it encounter ed little industrial unrest and doubled its capacity every ten years. Access to cheaper and trouble free port labor was encouraged by local authorities as it increased its multiplie r ratio to 5-7:1. This means that the port’s 2000 jobs were estimated to lead to a further 10-14 000 openings (Baird, 1999). The physical and locational infrastructure offers a minimum of 14 m water depth alongside,

PAGE 23

14 allowing the largest containerships to dock. Felixstowe survives on hidden state aid that is allocated to road construction and other por t related projects. Ther e are constraints to its expansion because of environmental impact studies. The regional district council opposed the last extension of the port which goes through an area of outstanding natural beauty (Baird, 1999). There are two greater implications in Felixstowe’s case study to the themes of this thesis. One is that ports’ resi dents should be aware of the f act that development can lead to the destruction of natural resources. This would imply that a well informed community that exercises its rights can prevent much da mage to the environmen t. “Fields of care” oppose destruction (Tuan, 1974). The other relate s to port authorities neglecting their obligations to tax payers residing in the adja cent port city (Fleming, 1987). Felixstowe’s port quality assessment would delineate false (subsidized) prosperity and environmental destruction. Ports have also been studied from a perspective of busine ss environment that is characterized by globalization of markets, production, finance and distribution. Robinson (2002) discusses new paradigms: por ts as elements in value-driven chain systems which are freight movement pathways Merchandise is shipped between supply and demand locations. A market transaction is satisfied by price mechanisms. This process activates a competitive advantage. Chains or supply chains have, to a large extent, replaced individual firms. His rese arch notes that structural and functional changes are taking place in ports and port authorities. These changes occur in a globalizing market place that link worldwide production sites with rationalized distribution systems. This tr end reflects a change in operation and management. In an

PAGE 24

15 authoritarian way, ports are being downgraded to elements in value chain constellations (Robinson, 2002). The paradigm suggests different fu ture roles of ports: they may become fully fledged partners in the logistic chain, their involvement may be rest ricted to a supporting role, or they may disappear from the scene en tirely. Robinson (2002) defines the role of a port as a place that handles ships and car go with operational efficiency. They are economic units that use economic principle as framework. The key argument of the new paradigm is that freight moves when it benefi ts shippers and customers. Service providers who participate in the process retain value from and add value to the movement. Only market focused firms in a competitive environment will add superior value. Ports and other service providers are onl y one element in the freight movement of end to end pathways. The relevance of this paradigm for the themes of this thesis would suggest the possible disintegration of ports from their ci ty. The creation of a s ophisticated industrial shipping complex suggests an increase of m onetary profits. It may, however, come at the expense of clean air, wate r and public attractions that are associated with the waterfront. The Relevance of These Studies Tuan’s (1974) broad humanistic perspective of places that is supported by Fleming’s (1987) article make compelling arguments on how to research places such as ports. It suggests that a por t is a community within a ge ographical region comprised of many individual places. Consequently, one can link them together and research them on a micro and macro geographical scale. Next it becomes obvious that the meaning of place is important because of its positi on within society, which includes human

PAGE 25

16 dimensions. Doubtless, many places devel op over long periods of time and document values created by generations. Also, most re gions are not stagnant because nature and human interactions influence their character. To study their structure then is difficult, and it is always changing. Tuan’s (1974) and Fleming’s (1987) analyses illustrate ex plicit procedures on how to research places: one must go beyond availa ble statistics and “vis ible trappings” to get a sense for the task. A look at the layout of many Baltic, North sea and Mediterranean port cities, for example, rev eals the spirit, personality and emotional investments that people have made in them over centuries. Sailors, fishermen, boat builders, sail makers, rum-runne rs and many others have left marks long after they were gone. Furthermore, old buildings’ often well insulated with solid brick walls have protected residents from natural disasters. Of course not all “cont ributions” were worth preserving. But in many citi es old architecture blends in with contemporary designs which indicates the changes of economic pros perity, cultural and social life over time. Places breathe history when they remain relatively unchanged. Looking at street corners, cobble stoned squares or building f acades that reflect the various occupations and life styles throughout centuri es can be inspiring. Most se afarers, fishermen or sail makers, for example, lived close to their work and could view their boats and ships from their home or a tavern. Nearby markets provi ded shopping and other services, and little public transportation was require d to get around. Some mode rn ports have retained historical components such as architecture and diverse residen tial housing that link communal life to the city center by public tran sport, side walks and bike paths. These ports have become places of stability.

PAGE 26

17 What is a Place? Tuan (1974) notes that a street ca nnot be a place because it is directional and not rooted in a location. This observation rela tes to urban sprawl which is marked by directional highways and by-passes with neve r ending repetitious chains of shops (e.g. Mc. Donald’s, Home Depot, etc.) that allow no activities to converge into a place. Street corners and squares, on the other hand, are places, and even streets with festivals can become places. A place, in other words, is a small world. It is very important to humans because it provides a center and a basis for their very existence. There are different types of places. As Tuan (1974) notes, some have superficial appeal, and the eye judges their meani ng. The Grand Canyon or Mount Helena in Montana, while magnificent, appear static, a nd the eye senses little physical change over time. Others obtain unique faces over time fr om the experience through long interaction between nature and humans. This suggests th at ports command awe as they earn unique signatures throughout the years. A place can be explored through senses of seeing, hearing, smell, taste and touch. The port of Ge noa in Italy, for example, is not merely a shipping facility or a money-maker. It has m eaning and stability which result from fields of care. Some of them are public square s and narrow street s, surrounded by shops, eateries, and scenic winding hill trails. They appeal to a visual and aesthetic sense. The visual qualities of a place ar e quickly noticeable. But the to wn’s characteristic odors, its sounds, the texture of pavement or sudden gus ts of winds piping th rough streets require a discriminating eye, nose and ear. Tuan’s (1974) finding that a place is a “habit field,” not necessarily one that we can picture, is important because of existing variables. For example, when the sun shines,

PAGE 27

18 roofs look brighter; the sea that is rolling into a harbor at high tide on a stormy day looks more ominous, the different seasons show places in different lights. Yet, they all are part of an established and familiar scene, and in it we can move comfortably. It is a home which needs to be cared for. City ports are such homes for many people. Waterfront Considerations Fleming (1987) points out that the “broader port community ” prefers unobstructed marine vistas, reasonably clear water, prot ection from noise and pollution, and from excessive commercial traffic. This would seem to prioritize the hierar chical order of port authorities’ obligations to th e public. It gives guidelines on how to assess ports from residents’ point of view. While perhaps at odds with commercial interests, unobstructed marine vistas with public access top the list. Therefore, what needs to be addressed is: What happens to waterfront? Do port authorit ies act in the interest of their community when they distribute real estate? What tena nts do they choose? Do developers fence off waterfront for condominiums, restaurants, re tail and other construc tions? Who benefits from rezoning and variances? How do esta blished diverse residences fare? Obviously, the performance of por t authorities reflects both economics and the overall wellbeing of the community. This give s port authorities privil eges and duties, as they are the entities with jurisdiction to carry out long-range development for the facilities of and traffic through ports. Many por t authorities, such as the one in Tampa, have the power of eminent domain. Even if they do not own facilities other than those designated to them, they have jurisdiction ove r all the land and the shipping in the port district.

PAGE 28

19 Next, Fleming (1987) points out that a waterfront’s sensations can be experienced. This is in line with Tuan’s (1974) findings that a place appeals to senses. The port community’s life re volves around facts and fiction. Fiction should be stressed because it is a vital ic on of a seaport: Fleming notes th e irrepressible flow of legend, gossip, and exaggeration. This is by no means tr ivial, because it awakens an impetus in many people around ports. People dream of escapi ng, and the history of ports is full of stories with humans having left for greener pastures. Thus the port environment can create a positive and optimistic atmosphere which a regional analysis should explore. There are variables to consider in the assessment of ports. Persistent atmospheric conditions such as fog and grey skies can underline the character of the seaport’s personality. These fundamental elements are of ten found in the historic architecture in port cities. A comparison between the architecture of different climates supports this. The Port of Hamburg, for example, observes the author of this stu dy who has lived in Hamburg reflects its climatic location with solid red brick and weather resistant grey boulder and rock exteriors on buildings in their design. This may transcend to its resident’s ways of living, their life style, for example, which is rather reserved. Ports in warmer regions, such as Nassau, Honolulu or Si ngapore, which the author of this thesis has visited as well, constructed brighter looking buildings with less sturdy construction, which may indicate their more re laxed attitude toward life. As Fleming (1987) notes, a port’s character should be viewed beyond visible trappings. Yet these must be explored as well, as they indicate motives of those who install them. Are the designs and constructions of residences, offices and roads, for example, just functional or also aesthetica lly pleasing? Do street surfaces drain without

PAGE 29

20 environmental damage (run off into water bodi es etc.), or do they only handle traffic? Finally, bringing the port community toge ther sums it up. To find common ground and common purpose calls for coordination betw een the port authority, the various enterprises and the whole community. At first glance, involving the public in city and sea port relationships sounds unr ealistic. Yet a mini patriotism can be cultured. Thus the preservation of sea port herita ge, as Fleming puts it well, can bring together those from different segments of the community who shar e a strong feeling for the past glories or charms of the seaport. Baird’s (1999) analysis of the port of Felixstowe states that the port was developed at the right time at the right plac e. This is certainly true for its economic growth. Baird sees the success of the port through the lenses of a free market supporter. There are, in fact, impressive numbers such as the multiplier effect of jobs, and the increase of container traffic handled from 121,000 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent units) in 1970 to 2.25 million TEU in 1997. The port throughput has more than doubled each decade since 1965. The port provides customers with more than 2.5 km of quay, 21 quayside gantry cranes, two rail terminals, and a total developed area of 267 ha. This capacity can handle 11 ocean-going contai ner vessels and stack almost 60,000 TEU. These listings are useful in a quantitative analysis, as they indicate a potential of qualitative influences in the region’s am enities (housing, public waterfront access and others) which Baird (1999) doe s not address in his paper. Baird (1999) concedes that the port should not be seen as a specific role model for other ports. This is relevant as valid concer ns in the process of its development exist. Cheap labor, for example, was available and few regulations from unions,

PAGE 30

21 environmentalists and local policy makers in terfered with Felixs towe’s development. Also, the port was distant from areas of re search and development, manufacturing and consumption. With the majority of goods merely passing through, the port’s local employment opportunities remained limited to port related services regardless of the optimistic multiplier ratio. Furt her, growing traffic volumes connecting the port to the hinterland may have diminished the quality of life in the region. E ssentially, the study’s method gives good ideas on how to look at ports’ economics. Yet, it dehumanizes the region as it fails to address qua lities such as waterfront for public use, parks, affordable housing within the port area, shopping and se rvice facilities. Baird did not focus on any architectural integration of dow ntown Harwich into the port expansion, public transport, sidewalks and or other characterist ics that make a port attractive. The Port Authority’s Future Function Robinson’s (2002) systematic analys is of a new paradigm of ports and their management does not account for emotional investments people make in places. Yet his findings are useful as the changing role of ports in the rapid gl obalization of market places reflects the outsourcing of port decisi ons to corporate headquarters wherever they may reside. Conceding that consumers benefit from outsourced cheap (possibly exploitive) production sites, and low cost shipping, the port communities pay a heavy price. If regional port authorit ies lose their functions, residents will no longer be able to participate in port decision maki ng that impacts their cities. The traditional port authority, such as in the Port of Tampa, (Tampa Port Authority 1998, 2005, 2006 Directories) consists of a professional management team and an appointed or elected board. Each place, as Tuan (1974) and Fleming (1987)

PAGE 31

22 observe, is unique. It is inde pendent in its organic developm ent. If the new paradigm of ports, with their value-driven chain systems in control, succeeds, it will alter many port regions with the result of colonizing th em. As shippers prefer low wage and non unionized ports, they will flock to regions w ith few regulations and other incentives. Global port management’s prio rities would not likely focu s on regional environmental concerns. As a result, there may be a system atic decline in port regions’ characters, attractions and amenities which have been discussed. Robinson’s (2002) findings are limited as he uses rigid scales. He applie s an economic quantitativ e macro scale method exploring possible regula rities. But he ignores scales co ntaining crucial micro variables, thereby disregarding beliefs, values and attitudes. How to Study the Ports of Tampa and Hamburg This research introduces the geograp hical location and func tion (hub or feeder port) of the port cities of Tampa and Hamburg. It applies the discu ssed literature as methodology and analyses port characteristics on different spatial scales. It emphasizes the human dimension of the port regions on a micro-scale, and the efficiency, productivity and marketability on a macro-scal e. The reasons for th e choice of microscales for human dimensions is that societal goals and decisions about them in ports and other places are often best studied at micro-le vel as scales are not fixed instead develop over time (Smith, 1984, 147). Also, micro-scal e approaches take beliefs, values and attitudes into account (Mitchel,198 3, 200). This is useful in th e research of the ports of Tampa and Hamburg, which addresses human aspects. The macro-scale analysis of economics complements this research via the exploration of possible economic regulariti es (Watson, 1978, 47). While some would

PAGE 32

23 argue against the statement that geographers sometimes have problems comparing different spatial scales because different scales may eventuat e in different results (Bird, 1956, 26), scales can mislead. This is exemplif ied in the following: there is a scalar conflict between national economic growth objectives and the degradation of local environments. The national economic efficien cy based on a macro-scale could require short cuts that may involve micro scale measured disadvantages of noise, pollution, congestion and general environmental alienati on within local areas. This discord between national interests and local environmental prot ection raises the question: national growth for what purpose? Part of the answer must lie in the quality of life enjoyed by all citizens at the micro scale. Hence, a confrontati on between economic efficiency at one scale (macro) and environmental quality at th e other (micro) must be addressed and coordinated within a majority agreed on a le gal (macro and micro scale) framework. This assumes democratic principles. Consequently, this study will look into the legal structure of the ports of Tampa and Ham burg in detail on both scales. Regional geography sometimes argues that if all parts of the earth’s surface are unique then geography cannot fully employ the scientific method (Grigg, 1965, 476-7). But classification and regionali zation procedures can show th at while regions are unique and relative, they can have much in common. Following th is thought, this thesis addresses macroscale quantitative economic s on regional qualitativ e attributes of the ports of Tampa and Hamburg. The first part builds on Baird’s (199 9) quantitative assessmen t of the port of Felixstowe. This method is applied to por ts’ characteristics such as physical and locational factors, ports origins, histor y, developments, transitions, expansions,

PAGE 33

24 ownership and legal structures. Types and figures of port throughput, facilities and financial performance are charted, listed and compared. The second section researches the performance of the ports on their function as elements in value driven chain systems (Robinson, 2002) with the emphasis on port auth orities’ role in global distribution systems: namely, who are the decision makers in the ports of Tampa and Hamburg, and how independently from global pressure do they operate? What follows this analysis is a qu alitative evaluation based on Tuan’s (1974) and Fleming’s (1987) discussions of places and ports This part of the study begins with the ports’ position in society and their spatial location. It in cludes their definition, meaning and stability. This encompasses a micro geogra phy of the communities, viewing fields of care such as interpersonal concern in a physic al setting. Conclusions of this section derive from research of port reports, gove rnment publications, websites, brochures and fieldtrips. The discussion covers three parts, which sometimes overlap: 1) port economics, 2) the residential portion of th e port city and the waterfront di strict, and 3) the integration of the port into the city region. The first, evaluates each port’s performance on cargo Specifically, it will explore port services w ithin the sea port whic h have patterns and locations extending geographically from wa terfront inland and from ground floors upward in port skyscrapers. Do they provide a variety of work, fair wages and benefits, advancement opportunities, and certain pr otection from outsourcing of jobs? The second part analyses the live d-in portion of the wate rfront district, and addresses housing, shopping, se rvice and recreation facilitie s. In particular, are affordable housing, shopping and service f acilities close to th e work places? Did

PAGE 34

25 gentrification displace minorities and low income residents in the port areas? Do residents, being part of the broader port community, have unobstr ucted marine vistas, recreational facilities such as parks, reasonably clear wate r and protection from noise, pollution and excessive commercial traffic? Is there a balance betw een human needs of the city port residents and the space and access requirements and the commercial seaport users? Furthermore, this part of the research looks into possible tens ions resulting from economic advantages and social costs from competing residential, recreational and commercial land uses. The third part, that summarizes the pur pose and themes of this thesis analyses the integration of the port into the city, evaluating the common ground between the port community and the port authority. To what extent has preservation of the traditional seaport heritage with the existing infrastructure, such as parks, roads, visible symbols of the past, pedestrian and cycle routes, been in corporated in the port development? This section begins with evaluating transport conc epts. A port and city must be accessible to different groups and suitable for a variety of different purposes. Ideally, everything must be utilized to its maximum potential. At a minimum, a cohesive network of transportation between city a nd port would exist. Conseque ntly, this portion of the study looks into coordinates of privat e and public transport as well as user friendly cyclist and pedestrian routes. Finally, does a top-down bureaucracy dominate the decision making in the region or do residents have an impact on th e environment in which they live? As has been addressed by Fleming (1987), port resi dents have a unique oppor tunity to live and work at the water’s edge in a functional entity with their city. The question is, in what way have the ports of Tampa and Hamburg ma naged their interpersonal concerns in their

PAGE 35

26 physical settings? This thesis, th en, addresses the qualitative impacts of ports in several ways. Chapter two looks at th e Port of Tampa and chapter three analyses the Port of Hamburg. These chapters research the ports ’ economic priorities, their administration policies, histories and social environmental and cultural developments. Chapter four, the conclusion of this thesis, compares the Ports of Tampa and Hamburg based on the information from the previous chapters.

PAGE 36

27 Chapter 2 The Port of Tampa The Port of Tampa is located at a latitude of 27’ 36’’N and longitude 82’45’’W on Tampa Bay, a large natural indentation of the Gulf of Mexico. The map of Florida (Fig. 2.1) shows the port city of Tampa in cen tral Florida, the bay, its market and its relative geographic relation to the rest of Florida. Fig. 2.1 Map of Florida ( www.AAA.com/visit Florida) The Tampa Bay region is the largest metropolitan market in Florida and with 4.67 million people the 10th largest consumer market in the U.S. (ww.tampaport.com). The Tampa Port Authority official 2005 direct ory provides the following information: The boundaries of the port district, shown in Fig. 2.2, include parts of Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay, McKay Bay (Fig.2.3), Hillsborough River and Old Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay spans nearly thirty kilometers no rtheasterly from the Gulf of Mexico and extends about eleven kilometers at its widest point. Hillsborough Bay with a length of nine miles and a width of four and a half miles is located at the northeastern end of

PAGE 37

28 Tampa Bay. The city center of Tampa on the Hillsborough River lies less than two kilometers from the Port at the head of H illsborough Bay, close to sixty kilometers from the Gulf of Mexico. Old Tampa Bay is almo st eighteen kilometers long and about ten kilometers wide. Vessels with good ground tack le can anchor offshore and inside the entrance east of Egmont Key and south of Ga dsden Point Cut. A Vessel Traffic Advisory System is provided through transmission on radio to assist masters, pilots and persons in charge of vessels in mooring or passing othe r vessels. Deep draft vessels enter Tampa Bay through the Egmont Relocation Channel, which is approximately 15 meters deep and nearly 230 meters wide. A dred ge channel leads through Tampa Bay. Fig. 2.2 Egmont Channel to Port of Tampa (Tampa Port Authority official map 2005) The white line in Fig.2.2 indicates th e run of Tampa’s shipping lane from Egmont Channel into the Port of Tampa. The following is listed by Tampa Port Authority, 2006 and the Port of Tampa operations manual no. 4 (1992). There are about 130 meters wide and 11 meters deep branch channels that connect the turning basin at the Port of Tampa and the City of Tampa (Fig.2.3). East Bay Channel and Turning Basin, located east of Hooker’s Point (Fig. 2.3) are 11 meters deep and so me 900 meters wide at the widest point and about 260 meters at the en trance. The project depth of Tampa Harbor and channels is almost 15 meters. Furthermor e, plans exist to impr ove navigation features

PAGE 38

29 at Big Bend’s entrance channel and berthi ng areas. The Channel intersects with Hillsborough Channels Cut A and Cut C whic h runs north to the Port of Tampa. Fig.2.3 portrays the Port facilities at Tampa, Florida (Tampa Port Authority official map 2005) The Port Authority owns the green colored areas. The purple colored areas are buildings, and struct ures and depths of the wate r channels that are marked from light to dark blue vary from 12 to almost 15 meters. The landlocked, well protected natural harbor is closer to Mexico, Latin America, and the Caribbean than many hub ports (Fig. 2. 4). Furthermore, this port is the closest full service U.S. port within a distance of 1,800 kilometers of the Panama Canal providing access to the Asian Pacific realm.

PAGE 39

30 Fig. 2.4 The Port of Tampa’s Location in re lation to the Caribbean and Panama Canal (Port Authority official map, 1998) Fig. 2.4 shows the Port’s position in the Ca ribbean and its vicinity to Houston, the Bahamas and Jamaica which all have main container ports. Container ports are more profitable and environmentally challenging than feeder ports. Yet, regardless of its proximity to places of growing international trade, the Port of Tampa has essentially remained a feeder port, despite internationa l trade expanding at a faster rate than the world economy generally, and the accession of the People’s Republic of China to the WTO which will integrate about 1.3 billion peopl e into the global economy resulting in a robust growth of container shipment ( http://www.hk24.de 2/2005). The Tampa–Orlando corridor has beco me, partly due to its climatic conditions and no state income tax, one of the fastest growing regions in th e nation. There are 30 million consumers within 500 miles of the Port of Tampa that are reachable by rail and The Port of Tampa’s relative location to the Panama Canal indicates the Port’s potential opportunities to be linked to world shipping and become a hub container port

PAGE 40

31 modern interstate connection. The port clai ms to be West Central Florida’s largest economic engine. Yet, it has essentially re mained a bulk and diversified feeder port serving hub ports such as Houston, Savannah, GA, and Freeport, Bahamas. Why has the Tampa Port Authority not taken advantage of th e port’s relative locati on to develop it into a hub rather than a feeder port? The Port’s Policy The policy is laid out in Port of Tamp a’s Operations Manual No 4 which defines the regulations and practices that govern the po rt district. Administra tion, jurisdiction and statutory responsibilities of the Authorities are outlined in section 1 (June 3, 1991 original page 8, Tampa Port Authority). The Port Au thority was created by act of the Florida Legislature and is a body corpor ate and politic by the State of Florida. The Port of Tampa is under the direction of the Port Director who is appointed by and responsible to the Port Authority. There are seven members on the boa rd, which includes five appointed by the Governor, the current Mayor of the City of Tampa and one County Commissioner. State law demands that two Governor appointe d members must have significant maritime back-ground (Tampa Port Au thority, John Thorington, 2006). The Port is to some extent an i ndependent entity and not an integral part of the City of Tampa because of its legal status. This fact diminishes democratic regional supervision as shall be explai ned. The total Port of Tampa occupies, according to John Thorington, Senior Direct or of Communications a nd Board Coordination (communication 3/15/2007), about 2.500 hectares and owns about half of that total. The Port Authority has jurisdiction over all of the land and the shipping ope rations in the port district although the Port does not own the f acilities in the port dist rict other than the

PAGE 41

32 facilities so designated as the Po rt Authority facilities. Most of the terminal facilities in the port district are owned by private operato rs, some of whom, how ever, are subject to the uniform tariff of the Port Authority. Section 1 of the Operations Manua l No 4 that is issued by the Tampa Port Authority (1994.8) defines the st atutory responsibilitie s of the Authority, stating that it is responsible for drafting and carrying out pl ans for the long-range development for the facilities within and traffic through the port and the port district. The Authority has the power of eminent domain if it is requir ed to carry out th is responsibility. Port Authority decisions are made on macro and micro scale levels. The macro scale activities are mainly accounted for by economic numbers reflecting the ports operating success in a global market. They im pact the region politically, socially and culturally. Therefore, they will be examined on a micro scale level. It is important to note that the Port Authority’s activities are linked to its cont rolling board, whose majority has been installed by the Governor This means that decisions regarding the Port of Tampa are often made at the state (macro) level. The History of the Port The Port of Tampa started in the mid-1850 with the first shipment of cattle to Cuba (2006 Tampa Port Authority Directory). The modern history of Port of Tampa and its administration has been colorful. It bega n in 1945 in a “club-lik e setting” with an attorney, a WW1 veteran, a rea ltor, two executives and a dredging operator, who were appointed by Governor Millard Caldwell. Th is local procedure wa s a good start. If continued, it may have had a positive effect on the Port’s development, as it would have been handled by individuals with regional intere sts. Their first projec t was, to acquire

PAGE 42

33 Closkey’s shipyard at the southern tip of Hooker’s Point from the War Assets Board (Fig.2.3). This suggests a good investment as the War Assets Board, being put out of business, had no further use for it. Then, to ge t a cash flow, the Port Authority leased the yard to Tampa Ship and Drydock Company. What followed were the Port’s increasing phosphate shipments that began in the 1880ies and the demand for larger vessels with deeper draft that required th e deepening of harbor channels to almost 12 meters. This process was authorized by the U.S. Congre ss in 1950. While the ch allenge of cargo in large boxes (containers) expanded globally in the fifties, the Tampa Port Authority’s records show that it was more concerned with the phosphate industry’s plan to move south to Port Manatee. In 1957, the Authority had engaged the consultant Praeger -Kavanaugh to develop a master plan for Hooker’s Point, which had not been utilized. The plan entailed the development of the east side for phosphate and the west for general use. By 1970, two phosphate terminals had been constructed. Phosphate trains were redirected to approximately 200 hectares of terminals that were equipped with a phosphate elevator. In 1971, some diversification t ook place at the Holland Terminal on Hooker’s Point. Cold storage facilities for the sh ipment of fresh citrus were installed, and shipyards were expanded due to a contract to construct five tankers for the Military Sealift Command. Some attention was given to the recreational cr uise industry, which was largely operated from Miami and the Ever glades. In 1981, the Bahamas Cruise Line successfully introduced seven day cruises to Mexico, leaving from Port of Tampa. Although the Port of Tampa experienced a phosphate slump in 1982, a diversification toward growth by contai nerizing general cargo, was put on hold. PRC

PAGE 43

34 Harris, a Fort Lauderdale consultant, argued against the $40-50 million investment based on too little traffic. This asse ssment set the course of the port’s plans for the next decades. While Port Director Emmet Lee stressed in 1983 the Port’s objective to diversify (Tampa Bay Business, Dec.11-17,1983), its traditional shipments of bulk commodities increased by 13.6 percent while the genera l cargo portion fell by 16 percen t reflecting, 3 percent of the Port’s total tonnage. Other ports, such as Houston, Sa vannah, and Kingston, Jamaica, took a more aggressive approach toward general cargo, in particular container shipping. Even Port Everglades in South Florida installed its firs t giant container crane in the late 1970s. In 1982, the Port of Tampa moved only 3,991 cont ainers, holding 36,649 tons of cargo. In comparison, Miami moved 2.1 million tons of container cargo, followed by Jacksonville with 825,000 tons, according to Container News (1982). In spite of the success of other container ports, Frank Clewis, marketing dir ector of the Port of Tampa in the early eighties, argued that phosphate and related pr oducts were the “lifebl ood” of the area. Yet phosphate is a non-renewable resource, and Ce ntral Florida’s mines will, according to various estimates, run dry within forty years. General Cargo Facilities The following port throughput facili ties for shipments are compiled from the official 2006 Tampa Port Author ity Directory: There are elev en general cargo berths at the Port of Tampa with six of them providi ng container facilities. Berths 201 and 202, face East Bay, north east of Hooker’s Point. These multi user docks provide secure multi purpose cargo facilities, have heavy lift capabilitie s, and transit sheds of some 27,000 and 33,000 square meters. The berths are eq uipped for container and general cargo

PAGE 44

35 handling of close to 45,000 kil ograms. An area of almost 12 hectares provides Ro-Ro (roll on and off) access. The berths 208, 209 and 210 provide similar facilities but also handle forest products, vehicles, steel and steel products. Berth 211, another multi user dock, has cargo capabilities for melons, s eafood and other chilled and frozen goods. Docks 212 and 213, multi-user docks, handle co ntainerized cargo, vehicles and steel products. They have no Ro-Ro access. Berths 250, 251, 252 are multi user docks facilities. Seventeen berths serve dry, liquid and scrap commodity shipments. Berth 201 is equipped with a Ro-Ro access. Bulk Cargo-Dry, Liquid and Scrap Opposite of Hooker’ Point at East Bay Ch annel Steel Port of Florida handles scrap and steel products. Fig. 2.5 Cargo handling at berths (20 06 Tampa Port Authority Directory) As shown in Fig. 2.4 (Tampa Port Authority Directory, 2006), berth 1 handles scrap metal and steel products. The facil ity is located opposite Davis Islands. The products are stored, shredded and cut on site. The adjacent berth is a liquid su lphur facility with five tanks of 8.3 million gallons capacity and a 10” pipeli ne. A berth, at Port Sutton Te rminal Channel, is a multiuser dock with a 12,900,000 gallons tank capacit y, one 14” pipeline, one 8” pipeline storing commodities such as liquid nitrogen, liquid calcium nitrate and molten sulphur.

PAGE 45

36 Two berths store molten sulphur, sulphuric acid, bunker, asphalt, anhydrous ammonia and cement. Another berth 30 claims to be a state-of–the-art liquid propane gas terminal with a 26.5 million gallon storage tank. The adjacent berth is equipped for cement, limestone and coal handling. Other berths ha ndle cement products. A terminal, west of Hooker’s Point handles outbound phosphate and fe rtilizer products at load rate of 1,300 tons per hour. The remainder of the bulk cargo berths accommodate a variety of commodities such as petroleum products, anhydr ous ammonia, caustic soda, sulphuric acid and cement building and construction materials. The Priorities of the Port The various movements of commodi ties are compiled from two annual official Port Authority Directories, fiscal 2001 a nd 2004, listed in tables 2.1 and 2.2. There is a large increase in shipping of commodities such as phosphate and related products as well as scrap metal over the two periods. Containe rized shipping, was not prioritized as the following shows. In fiscal year 2004 contai nerized shipping ranks third after scrap metal and steel products (Tampa Port Authority Directory, 2006). The 2006 Tampa Port Authority Directory also ranks containerized top foreign exports as lowest on a scale of five. The following tables (table 2.1 and 2.2) show the ranking of other commodities shipped.

PAGE 46

37 Table 2.1: Fiscal Year 2001 Top General Cargo Commodities (Tam pa Port Authority Official Directory 2002/2003). Rank Rank Commodity Total Net Tons 1 Petroleum 17,484,220 2 Phosphate products 17,287,160 3 Scrap metal 309,589 Table 2.2 Fiscal Year 2004 Top General Cargo Commodities (Source: Tampa Port Authority Official Directory 2006). Rank Rank Commodity Total Net Tons 1 Phosphate Products 19,100,656 2 Petroleum 18,155,777 3 Scrap metal 438,745 The above statistics reflect the Port Authority’s economic priorities which Richard A. Wainio, director of the Port Au thority addressed in a publication “ State of the Port foundation for the Future” on December 11th, 2005: dry and liquid cargoes have been and will continue to be the core business of the port. He outlines the port’s diversity: 1. the largest single commodity group is petroleum, 2. the port is the “worlds pr eferred fertilizer port”, 3. millions of tons of building material fuel the area’s construction business, 4. the third leading commodity by tonnage is coal There is consensus about priori ties among members of the port management. Marketing Manager Greg Lovelace points out th at the port wants business with a high

PAGE 47

38 volume, lots of ship activity and generally goe s after what the market dictates. According to him, the port cannot be a mainline (hub) port as it is not on a mainline route. By comparison, the port of Houston, also not on a mainline route, handles more than one million containers yearly. This assessment is consistent with The Port Authority’s official directory of 2002/2003 offering the goals of a five year strategic plan: 1. stabilize and s upport bulk cargo; 2. increase general cargo; 3. attract industrial mixed use maritime tenants; 4. develop container traffic via strategic alliances; 5. increase cruise passengers to at least one million a year. John Thorington, Senior Director of Government relations, Tampa Port Authority, backs these goals on November 10th, 2004 in his e-mail to the author of this paper: First, the Port of Tampa is the larg est port in Florida. In 2003 the Port handled 48.5 million tons. (In 2005, the tons of cargo ha ndled as the above table shows increased to over 50 million tons annually.) Second, The Po rt’s choice to become a bulk and feeder port and not a hub port is based on its diversification. Historic ally, container shipping has comprised a very small part of the Port’s total tonnage. While the development of container business is an integral part of the Port’s diversification, it will essent ially limit its shipments as a feeder connection to main hub ports. The Tampa Port Authority Directory of 2006 emphasizes its commitment to bulk cargo handling: bulk cargos are the founda tion upon which Tampa has built its global reputation and remain the Port’s number one line of business. Richard Wainio reconfirmed the Port’s goals on December 7th, 2006 in his latest State of the Port address:

PAGE 48

39 even as the port works to diversify, th e dry and liquid bulk business remains the cornerstone of this port. The single largest commodity group is petroleum products, with an entry of 19.7 million tons of refined pe troleum during 2006. Phosphate and fertilizer including unhydrous ammonia account for 15.4 m illion ton or cargo or nearly 32 percent of the port tonnage during the year (2006 State of the Port address). The handling of bulk commodities are, according to the Port’s Environmental Director, more challenging than container sh ipping. Some bulk comm odities like special rock for water filtration are relatively cl ean. Fertilizer, on the other hand, has to be handled very carefully. It is made of phos phate, ammonia, and sulphur and can cause problems if it is released into the environmen t. The Port does not enforce clean fuel use by vessels which projects future environmen tal problems for Tampa. The environmental director argues in a personal communicati on that ships would choose other ports if cleaner fuel use were enforced. He sees th is problem as an international issue. The Port prides itself having an operating income of $16.9 million, up over 15 percent from the previous year. Despite its traditional focus on bulk handling, the Tampa Port Authority now realizes that it may ch ange course towards handling more lucrative commodities. The Port has been working with their Master Plan consultants, Moffatt & Nichol, a group of international port designe rs, on a comprehensive long term strategy that was supposed to be completed in early 2007 but at this point is far from being final. The market assessment shows, according to Ri chard Wainio, that the greatest potential for future growth in Tampa’s busin ess is in the container market. The public and private port facilit ies encompass about 2,000 hectares of land, and businesses directly employ an estimate d 35,000 people (John Thorington, Tampa Port

PAGE 49

40 Authority official director y, 2004, 2007) Also the impact goes beyond the Port as it contributes directly and indi rectly to the creat ion of over 100,000 jobs pumping revenues of $13 billion annually into the seven county region surrounding Tampa Bay (John Thorington, Tampa Port Author ity official directory, 2006). In the context of discussing social, political and cultural effects that are derived from the Port’s economic performance within the Tampa Bay region, it is important to look at the distribution from various cargo handling facilitie s and their related services within functional location patte rns. They represent, according to former Port Director Robert Steiner, 11,000 truck drivers coming to port everyday, people who work in the port, warehouse workers, CSX railroad’ s train personnel handling phosphate, bank workers, government workers, and more. The executive summary given by John Thorington (2006) states the Port activity created nearly $6.2 billion of personal wage a nd salary income for Florida’s residents. The direct wages and salaries amounte d to $827 million from 16,370 port employees earning average salaries and wages of $50,512. The personal state a nd local taxes that were generated by activity at the Port amounted to $572 million. These numbers do not take into account exte rnalities, that incl udes the environmental consequences for the region. Major Emissions From Port Facilities The Port of Tampa, as has been documented, focuses on the storage and transport of bulk commodities. The emissions from pollutants into the air from and water from these processes, may cause concern to the residents.

PAGE 50

41 Fig. 2.6 Trademark Metals Recycling ( 2006 Tampa Port Authority Directory) Trademark Metals Recycling, LLC on 42101 Maritime Boulevard, opposite Davis Island, for example, was inspected by EP C (Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County) staff representing the Air, Water and Waste divisions on March 13th, 2006 and was issued a warning for se veral permit violations resulting from complaints of smoke and odor that had b een noticed by residents on Davis Island. The inspection centere d on wastewater and storm water issues. The facility uses potable water in its shear and dust suppressi on in its grinding operations to minimize environmental pollution of neighboring resi dential areas, such as Davis Islands (Environmental Protection Commission of Hills borough County). But, as complaints of residents suggest, the amount of water used in these activities is insignificant, and therefore most likely not very effective. More water usage, however, may result in an increase of water pollution as the finding states that storm wa ter is the strongest contributor toward water pollution. The Company’s Storm water and multipurpose permits expired on February 23rd 2006 and no renewal of coverage was evident. The facility utilizes the Port Authority’s storm water system. The inspection by the Protection Commission of Hillsborough County (2006) evid enced some poorly defined retention

PAGE 51

42 area with scrap piles, dusty conditions at the side, and two storm wate r inlets that were silted in and in need of cleaning and repa ir. Furthermore, no sedimentation protection was provided. According to permit No. 0570446-004-AO which was valid until November 26th 2008, Trademark Metals Recycling produces/tra nsfers up to 2.74 million tons of scrap metal per year. It is primar ily “shredded ferrous scrap” which is handled outdoors. Although emissions vent directly into the at mosphere without stacks, particulate matter emissions are controlled by adequately wetting the stockpiles prior to transfer. The scrap metal is transported by truck, ra ilcar or barge. Assorted scra p metal (cars and appliances) is fed into a rotary hammer mill. A conveyor belt moves the material to a magnetic feeder to separate the ferrous scrap from the non-ferr ous metals. Particulate matter emissions are controlled by adequately wetti ng the stockpiles prior to tr ansfer and taking reasonable precautions regarding work practices. Freeport McMoRan, Sulpur LLC ha ndle and store molten sulphur and obtained permit No. 0570100-004-AO with the following general conditions (Environmental Protection Agency of Hillsborough County). Visi ble emissions from an emission point in the molten sulphur system shall not exceed 10 percent opacity (six minute average) except during periods of ship unloading when visible emissions from the molten sulphur storage tanks shall not exceed 15% opacity (s ix minute average). Sulphur particulate matter emissions from each storage tank and tr ansfer systems shall be less than one ton per year. In order to limit the potential emissi ons of sulphur particulate matter, particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide, and volatile organi c compounds from individual emission units

PAGE 52

43 and this facility, the maximum molten suphur th roughput for the facility shall not exceed 1.6 million long tons per any 12 consecutive months period. According to the Hillsborough C ounty Protection Commission, CF Industries, Inc. on 2520 Guy Verger Boulevard has b een issued a permit to store and handle phosphate products with a maximum product tr ansport rate of 2400 tons per hour. There are some special conditions. The ab stract of some of them list: A) No more than 500,000 tons of GTSP (Gra nulate Triple Super Phosphate) and 4,670,000 tons of MAP (Magnesium Ammoni um Phosphate) /DAP (Diammonium phosphate) shall be handled at the f acility in any give n 12 months period. B) All fertilizer products will be coated with dust suppressant prior to receipt at the Tampa Warehouse facility. C) For products manufactured by CF Industries at the Plant City Phosphate Complex, records will be maintained on suppressant data and the amount of dust suppressant applied (gallon/ton) for each type of product. D) Products received from other sources than CF Industries require ce rtification that dust suppressants have been applied prior to receipt. The hours of operation are not restricted. If the Environmental Protection Commission finds reasons, such as complaints of increased visible emissions or noticeable questionable maintenance of control equipment, to investigate possible violations, it may require the owner or operator to conduct co mpliance tests which identify the nature and quantity of pollutant emissions from the s ource and provide a report on the results. Ammonia is loaded into truc ks and railcars for shipment offsite. There are two truck loading arms and five railcar loading arms. A propane fired three inch flare is used to flare off ammonia vapors in trucks or railca rs, as needed, prior to loading. The storage tank has a propane fired eight in ch flare on the roof of the ta nk to flare off ammonia if the pressure in the tank exceeds 1.1 psi. Propane fo r the flare is stored in a 100 ton horizontal tank.

PAGE 53

44 According to a memorandum by the Hillsborough County Protection Commission of August 9, 2006 the Ammonia Terminal of CF Industries, Inc. had two accidental releases at its 38,500 ton anhydrous ammonia ta nk. One was due to a failed truck/railcar transfer line pressure relief valve. The other occurred more recently because of warm ammonia vapors in the transfer lines. The permit now require s annual inspections of all pressure relief valves and purgi ng of the transfer lines to the flare prior to loading. It must also be noted that the chemical proc essing of phosphate result in phosphogypsum stockpiles. There are according to EPA r ecords about one billion tons of phospogypsum stockpiled in 25 stacks in Florida. As earlier outlined, the Port Authority encourages increasing the handling of bulk commodities, such as petroleum, phosphate related products, liquid sulphur, ammonia and scrap metal. The author of this thesis observed that the Port facilities are located within less than two miles from downtown wa terfront, a redevelopment area with plans to increase its density for resi dences. Numerous bill boards a dvertise various projects. The author of this research visited two residential towers with twenty-six floors that are being marketed for around $ 600,000 per unit with wraparound balconies that face gypsum piles, oil tanks, scrap metal facilities and pa rking decks. Numerous residential apartment complexes close to the towers have been completed. The ground floors are laid out for retail and service facili ties, the upper floors for residences that offer no views to the nearby waterfront which is blocked by shopping faci lities on Channelside Dr ive. Others, still under construction, offer bankruptcy sale ba rgains. How did this development evolve?

PAGE 54

45 Housing, Shopping Service and Recreational Areas, Public Transport, Bike and Pedestrian Paths Obviously, the distribution and the use of real estate in and cl ose to port facilities impact the region economically as they provi de employment. This ties into political, cultural and social repercussi ons that are linked to factor s such as the handling of adequate and affordable housing, schools, se rvice and shopping fac ilities, recreational areas, parks, and public transportation. Fu rthermore, the installation of bike and pedestrian paths that are safe can lowe r traffic congestion and pollution. Overall amenities that compensate workers for hours of work they spend at Po rt related facilities should be made available to them. Also, the issu es of clean air, water and safety concerns that may lead to present and future health problems need to be considered. These are some of the reasons why past, present and future administrative development plans and their implementation are relevant, and one may note that City, County and the Port Authority, all share an obligation to safe guard the residents’ quality of life. Redevelopment Project Studies The County and City Planning Commission have often addressed housing and land use development/redevelopment project s that border on the Central Business District. One of them is Tamp a Heights, an elevated, old subdivision that once equaled that of affluent Hyde Park, adjacent to Bayshore Blvd. Tampa Heights is important because of its proximity to the Port, which employs directly 30,000 people, and the Central Business District of Tampa that pr ovides 65,000 jobs (Central Business District Periphery Housing Study 1990, 1997).

PAGE 55

46 Fig. 2.7 Tampa Heights (shade d area) Central Business Periphery Housing Study 1990, 1997) The area lends an historical b ackground to planning philosophies as it grew organically (not planned out on a drawing board) over time. This suggests that Tampa Heights today could house thousands of port a nd city workers. Furthermore, with many old trees lining the roads close to the Hillsbor ough River, it could be used for parks and recreational amenities. However, many build ings are dilapidated, windows are boarded and doors show posters “condemned” by the City of Tampa. All this took place years before foreclosures depresse d the real estate market. Tampa Heights housing developmen t began, according to the Central Business Periphery Housing Study of 1990, with a s ubdivision in the 1880s and 1890s in the neighborhood north of downtown (Fig.2.5). This expansion was meant to accommodate a growing community and had a convenient loca tion because it bordered on the original downtown and ended at the Hillsborough Ri ver, thereby avoiding building a bridge across the water way. The houses were bui lt by individual homesteaders on a higher elevation, adjacent to Ybor City and We st Tampa. The population reflected Tampa’s varied ethnic composition of La tinos, Anglos and Blacks.

PAGE 56

47 The nearby downtown Channel Dist rict underwent a peri od of substantial development in the late 1940’s when the ma jority of water, sewer and storm-water systems were constructed. This benefite d new business and improved residential neighborhoods occupied by port workers. The development progress in the area came to an end when Interstate 275 and the Crosst own Expressway were constructed dissecting neighborhoods (City County Planning Co mmission study conducted in October 1990). This encouraged unconstrained suburban sprawl for the following reasons. Large areas of agricultural land were available and low priced. It was rezoned for residential development, and county and city received incr ease property taxes. Low gas prices made commutes affordable. Although Tampa Heights houses ra nk among the finest examples of their particular style, the area con tinued to decline before it ha d reached its potential (Channel Business District Periphery Housing St udy, 1990, 1997), meaning it could have been upgraded, and prevented residents from m oving. One may argue that most that was needed, was paint, plywood, shingles and some pride of residents in the region. Yet, the situation stimulated new opportunities for redeve lopment because of the area’s proximity to the Port. A lengthy process of downtown wate rfront redevelopment planning began that would last decades. This research will refer to three studies, the Central Business District Periphery Housing Study of October 1990 (b ackground research), the Central Business Periphery Housing Study of October 1990 (tech nical report), and the Channel District Study of December 1997. The studies resulted in a strategic action plan for the Channel District Redevelopment Area that was base d on the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This

PAGE 57

48 state-mandated legal document is adopted by gov ernments to guide a long range growth and development over twenty years. There had been numerous downtow n waterfront redeve lopment plans by the Hillsborough County /City County Planning Commi ssion before. They were symbolic in content as they lacked financial details in implementation, a nd included little public input from port employees. Yet, the re gion had potential for improvement. Opportunities for Waterfront Peripheral Redevelopment Opportunities for waterfront periphe ral redevelopment were evident from census data that were gathered fo r the years 1980 to 1985. A trend an alysis suggested a pending shortage of affordable housing (Hills borough County Planning Commission Background Research, Periphery Housing Study, 1990, p.7). Furthermore, at that time the ar ea had many vacant lots that were suitable for redevelopment as many homes had been conde mned and demolished, a process executed by city inspectors following ordinances to safeguard occupants from living in hazardous structures. A more sensible ordinance would require the owne r of the property to make it structurally safe, thus provi ding adequate housing in the area. As very few houses were rebuilt, the housing supply did not meet the de mand which was related to the work force of the nearby port. Also one-third of the re sidential units were overcrowded, suggesting a pending shortage for affordable housing and foreshadowing massive displacements of residents. Yet, due to condemned and demolished residences and the availability of undeveloped lots, scope for housing existed. Ne arly 45 hectares of residential property were available that accounted for almost one-third of the total land usage. In addition to

PAGE 58

49 that, in 1990, one-fifth of the Downtown Nort h area was vacant, indi cating that there was land available for new affordable housi ng construction The housing market was depressed. This set the stage for real es tate speculation beca use properties were reasonably priced due to low rents and unde rutilization from declining port related businesses (Central Business District Peri phery Housing Study, 1990, 12) A number of them created a potential of large parcel land a ssembly such as the Ybor Channel Subarea, part of the Channel District, which became the target of developers. The Channel District comprises approximately 80 hectares adjacent to the Port of Tampa’s Ybor and Garrison Channels along the eastern side of Tampa’s Central Business District. Because of its waterfront, it became a priority to development plans with the City, County and the Port Au thority (Fig.2.6). The Channel District is defined by the Crosstown Expressway on the North, the Ybor Channel on the East, the Garrison Channel on the South, and the Meridian Stre et on the West (the Planning Commission Channel District 1997, 4). The Channel Di strict Council is a group of property and business owners, residents, and other interest s who claimed desire to rehabilitate the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) into an attractive place to live, work and play. Yet, workers in the district were not re presented in the Channel District Council. The workshops in 1990 (Central Bu siness District Periph ery Housing Study) and 1997 (Channel District) provided observations that focused on viable neighborhoods. Both workshops were preliminary to Tamp a’s comprehensive redevelopment plan of 1998 which was required by Florida legislati on. The reason for the meetings, as the planning commission stated, was to get things moving and to put emphasis on previous

PAGE 59

50 efforts that had produced attractive but imprac tical ideas. To implement them, money was needed. Creative Financing Options for Redevelopment There are various ways to finance redevelopment of real estate. One was introduced in the meeting of 1997 (Channel Dist rict,19) Dana Crawford, a special guest from Denver who had pioneered successful c onversions of derelict warehouses into mixed use neighborhoods, offered some creativ e ideas for financing. She referred to her own involvement in a “loft movement” w ith wood floors and brick walls. Those upper stories of warehouses that were usually not portioned off into rooms were cheap enough to purchase. Yet, once the lofts were pre-so ld the remainder of th e buildings were redeveloped through financing from Fannie Mae. For Channel District re-development and similar projects funding could have been ra ised the same way or through municipal and corporate bonds. A local option would have been a grass root oriented creation of bartering forming a regional service exchange based on supply and demand. An article, Bartering by Jack Schacht (The Sideroad, 2007 http://www.sideroad.com ), a Blue Boulder internet Publishing site, Ontario, Canada) explains how the system works. The simplest form of bartering is where one swaps a good or service for another. Business or service providers list a good or service for trade through exchange. In return, the participant receives a trade credit based on the dolla r value of the good or servi ce. The business or service provider can then use its trad e credits to purchas e goods or services offered by other members. Could bartering finance re-devel opment of mixed neighborhoods such as The Channel District, Tampa Height s and other downtown areas?

PAGE 60

51 Hypothetically, it would start w ithin the region with supply and demand of housing. Both are or were available in the above areas. Affordable housing, for example, has been in demand for years because of port related jobs, and supply has been available in form of labor, derived from a diverse popul ation that has been or can be trained in fields, such as construction, tile, carpentry and others. Furthermore, building material, plumbing, electrical supply companies and ma ny others would do well on the supply side in the area partly due to favorable zoning and low property prices. The next step, would require forming a community involved grass root movement. It would include supply offers from local retailers, service facilities, restaurants, and tradesmen and labor from present and future residents. Banks could provide loans based on and secured by barteri ng qualifications (acc ounts). Instead of outsourcing the work to developers with high overhead expenses and mark ups, reconstruction by locals would by more cost efficient. Furthermore, the acquisition of goods and services would require less cash flow as an exchange of both could be conducted by using surplus of inventory and se rvice facilities. This process would attract a variety of marketable skills to particip ate in the region’s economy. Accountants, for example, could offer services for meals in re staurants in return, lawyers, office workers, nurses, babysitters could bart er with technical skilled re sidents such as carpenters, electricians plumbers and many others. Yet, none of the above options were considered and traditional financing was chosen. The Distribution of Waterfront and Downtown Real Estate Thus, private developers becam e involved in financing, and therefore the distribution of waterfront and other real estate assets was left to them. The Mayor of

PAGE 61

52 Tampa at that time encouraged a Master Plan (The Planning Commission, The Channel District, December 10th, 1997 P 20) which included Tampa Port Headquarters and new upscale residential efforts at Harbor Island. As no guidelines for public utilization were brought up, it meant that those who had the reso urces would have the largest say in what, how, and where to constr uct these facilities. Fig. 2.8 Channelside waterfront has been pr ivatized. (2006 Port Au thority Directory) What followed was the construction of the Mariott Hotel, the Ice Palace (St. Pete Times Forum), the Channelside District Entertainment shopping complex that houses restaurant chains, bars, a movie theatre a nd a number of docks for cruise lines. All projects target visito rs and spectators for sport events with the goal to make them spend money which in most cases is outsourced to out of state investors. This suggested little community spirit, such as to keep the funds in the region leading to a multiplier effect in creation of jobs.

PAGE 62

53 Harbor Island, part of the overall project became a beacon for the affluent, while original residential neighbor hoods which had been occupied by blue collar workers and the lower middle class since the 1920’s were either abandoned, condemned or deteriorated. This occurrence was surprising as past plans had tried to address diverse housing. There had been opportunities to en hance the residential development in portions of the downtown waterfront in 1967 when the City leaders proposed a series of developments that included government offi ces, commercial, high-density residential, and high rise office buildings. In 1983 th e Community Redevelopment Area which comprises 60 percent of the Central Business Di strict was created with tax incentives for projects. The majority of them would be carried out by invest ors ignoring the residents’ priorities. A City of Tampa and Hillsbor ough County Planning Commission meeting (1990, p.17) ranked factors which influence the choice of where to live. Fig. 2.7 lists areas by census tract where peopl e like to reside. Fig 2.9 Potentially desirable residential areas near the Port of Tampa (Central Business Periphery Housing Study, 1990) The area (Fig. 2.7) would need an evaluation of security, price of housing, roads and public transportation, closeness to wo rk and available shopping facilities. The

PAGE 63

54 Channel District plan of 1997, as has been pointed out, pertained to land use and development. While port workers were not represented, there were discussions with dozens of interest groups including one board member of the Tampa Port Authority who owned much of the land. The Planning Comm ission Report (1990, 4) pointed out that the CBD periphery areas have significan t untapped redevelo pment potential, and affordable housing cannot be achieved wit hout the provision of private and public subsidies and incentives. Housing should be ta rgeted to a broad spect rum of lifestyles and income groups to appeal to as large a segm ent of the population as possible. However, these ideas did not match th e Port Authority’s goals. The Port looked after its economic interests, and had bought more land in the 1980’s to accommodate cruise lines and tour ism at the Garrison Ch annel which borders on the Convention Center at the west and ends at Cruise Term inal 2 at the east end (Fig. 2.6). The Port Authority encouraged de velopment and concentrated on commercial projects. This was in line with the creation of the community rede velopment area which encompassed sixty percent of the central bus iness district. As a result, developers obtained, without community approval, large pa rcels of prime waterfront at the Channel for hotels, restaurants and retail shops. Th ere was no referendum, no public outcry and no opposition. The chain link fence (Fig. 2.8) prohib its public access to the water. The chain of eateries on the left have water view for patrons only..

PAGE 64

55 Fig. 2.10 Top: Fenced off waterfront, left: Chai ns of Eateries with waterfront view for patrons only. (P hoto by Becker). Other examples of failed strategies are the market place on Harbor Island that opened in 1985 and went out of business af ter a few years of operation. What followed was the construction of Harbor Island re sidences which began in 1991. This upscale development is largely gated and has no public spaces. Its public monorail transport system, that connected it with down-town Tampa was, abolished. The redevelopment plan for the Channel District was completed in 1993. The above demonstrates the influenc e of developers on regional environmental planning. No attempt is made to consult or involve present or future residents in the process of planning. Corporations who are fore ign to local issues determine where people should live. They also decide on residents can shop in the area, and in what stores, as chains and anchor stores domi nate the Channel District. Small local retailers and service providers have been driven out of business due to high rents. For those who cannot pay

PAGE 65

56 for downtown living, there is “g ated suburbia”, spread out su bdivisions with what some would call a ghetto like atmosphere. Public transport for commuters is inadequate. Attention must be drawn to the fact that the region’s residents were not adequately represented in this process. Tw o reasons which will be discussed in more detail contributed to this outcome. One was that the Port operates as an entity with eminent domain which may lead to a conflict of interests between the Authority and the residents. Second, as Terry Eagan, Librar ian of Hillsborough County City Commission suggested during my visit in his office in 2005, both city and count y compete for power at the expense of the micro re gion’s residents. As result, th e community that works in the port region did not organize, did nothing to defend its “home” and became disenfranchised. Opportunities at the Ybor Channel Opportunities for integration of waterfront, residences and retail and shopping facilities still exist in some sections. Fig. 2.11 Ybor Channel Real Estate Opportuni ties (Tampa Port Authority Directory 2006)

PAGE 66

57 The Garrison Channel (Fig.2.9) is linke d to another deep water channel, the Ybor Channel, which defines the northern end of the port and houses the Tampa Port Authority, Cruise Terminal 3 and the Flor ida Aquarium at the south. Both channels embrace downtown Tampa at Channelside Drive at the west and Adamo Drive at the north. These channels are close to the City of Tampa’s Central Busi ness District and real estate is available. Numerous land lease opportunities are being ma rketed at present through the Florida Gulfcoast Commercial Asso ciation of Realtors according to Peter Ferri, the Port Authority’s Direct or of real estate. Some 7 hectares of Ybor Channel real estate, north of the Authority ’s headquarters along Channelside Drive, are available for lease to developers. Up to 60 hectares unde veloped or “greenfield’ hectares at Port Redwig, near Big Bend west of U.S. 441 are o ffered. In addition, a total of 36 hectares in seven separate tracts on Pendola Point at Po rt Sutton, south east of Hooker’s Point, combining 41 contiguous land parcels are on the market for lease. Then there are nine parcels totaling 45 hectares on Hooker’s Point. When these parcels are being developed, will there be sufficient housing for employees parks and recreational areas supplied? The Channel District Plan of 1997 had outlined some useful ideas. They make sense, but there is no plan in place to bri ng these ideas to fruiti on. The plan suggests the creation of a Channel District pa rk system. While a park will attract the City’s residents, there is no provision for free parking. Also th e planners want to foster an environment that will attract artists to both live and work here, but details how to finance this project are not given. This plan, though, could be im plemented through bartering. Artists could potentially finance their housing with their art work. It was also brought up to revitalize

PAGE 67

58 the waterfront. This idea may have introduced an opport unity to open concession stands for food, picnic areas, fishing docks and boat ramps and canoe and kayak rentals. But specifics were not addressed. A nother proposal suggested to crea te an integrated lifestyle of living, working and playing within the Ch annel District. But no details of social infrastructure, such as affordable housing, schools and more were addressed. and this would require affordable housing, schools a nd playgrounds. There we re no provisions in the plan to provide this infrastructure. The vague propositions continued with the recommendation to prepare an integrated Ma ster Plan for the Channel District and Central Business District, create a tax incr ement financing district and implement the master plan. For the plan to succeed, a f unded, a staffed Channel District organization with professional management and volunteer e fforts would have to be established to promote, market and cultivate the developm ent of new Channel District business. However there were no provisions about the pres ervation of symbols or historic elements of the Port. Some goals materialized according to a Strategic Action Plan of the Channel District Redevelopment Area. Some are pending, and others are planned. The approximately 80 hectares adjacent to the Po rt of Tampa’s Ybor and Garrison Channels have been influenced by its location a nd the historic dependence upon port related activities. Different properties have b een identified by thei r current status. Committed projects are in the planning stages and have received zoning and site development approval and may have star ted construction. They amount to more or less 10 hectares.

PAGE 68

59 Uncommitted lands which include about 28 hectares remain in an underdeveloped existing condition and are developable. New or renovated projects of approximately 16 hectares have been completed or upgraded and tend to support th eir long-term retention. The remaining lands of nearly 30 hectar es include public right of way and open water within the District boundary wi thin Garrison and Ybor Channels. Developers are prepared to carve up th e last section of downtown waterfront. Development of the North Ybor Channel The North Ybor Channel property has been evaluated and analyzed by Wilson Miller, Inc. and Mechanik Nuccio Hearne & Wester, P.A. at the request of Gibraltar Developers (North Ybor Channel Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 2007). Fig. 2.12 North Ybor Channel Real Estate (Tampa Port Authority Directory 2006) This area within walking distance of downt own, merits attention because of its redevelopment potential.

PAGE 69

60 The above developers proposed in March 2007 comprehensive plan amendments based on existing conditions and charac ter in that area. There are several parcels at the north end of the Ybor Channel with a total of 21.43 acres. It is primarily occupied by the In tercontinental Ship Repair Company. The future land use classification on the site is Hea vy Industrial and the zoning is a mixture of Industrial Heavy and Channel District 1 (CD1), for that portion of the property within the Channel District CRA (Fig. 2.9). The prope rty borders are close to the Crosstown Expressway and Adamo Drive to the north, 19th Street to the east, Channelside Drive to the west, and Harbor Street, Ybor Channe l, and Sahlman Drive to the south. The surrounding parcels are primarily office or light industrial in use.The Planning Commission’s existing land use data show a mixture of light commercial and heavy industrial uses in the surrounding area, including Portland Cement to the north east of the site, and vacant industrial warehous e facilities to the east along 19th Street. The south of the property along 19th Street houses a petroleum storage facility. About forty percent of the site acreage is part of the Channel District CRA. To the south along Channelside Drive is the future location of Tampa Inte rnational Technology Ce nter which recently submitted a request for rezoning the land for hotel and residential use. According to a study of the North Ybor Channel Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 2007, there are few, if any, remaining parcels along the urban waterfront left that could be considered suitable for urban mixed-use development. The North Ybor Channel Plan Amendments list a variety of references, such as the City of Tampa Community Redevelopment Agency (1988) and the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission (1998). Both have addr essed land use development designations.

PAGE 70

61 None of them has shown a cohesive integration effort to unite the Port City. It would be simplifying the cause of the problem to blam e just these authorities. After all, the residents elected their officials. Their knowle dge, education, or lack of it, and interest pertaining to the fate of their environment were also instrumental to the outcome of the area’s redevelopment, which despite d ecade long re-construction plans, and their implementation has not raised the region’s quali ty. The ideas laid out in the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commissi on (1998) and The Tampa Community Redevelopment Agency (1988), which Gibr altar Developers use as a base for redevelopment of the North Ybor Channel Di strict, are a copy of failures that were evidenced in the development of the Channel District. The above research has been a docum ented investigation of the Port’s past and present economic, social cultural and political environment. At this point, a practical analysis of the region will be used to suppor t the above findings which is done by car, bike, and kayak and includes a walk around the Port City’s waterfront. A Field Excursion Into the Port City in March, April and May 2007, by Car, Bike, Kayak, and on Foot The car ride starts at Ballast Poin t Park, the southern tip of Bayshore Boulevard where the pedestrian walkway that faces the waterfront ends. Driving north on Bayshore Boulevard, a six miles stretch, which introdu ces itself as a linear park on Hillsborough Bay. First, one notices unobstr ucted views of phosphate mine stacks to the east across the bay. They are hilly, sandy and sometimes gr eenish remains from phosphate processing, and there are no signs of residential devel opment as the soil has been contaminated. According to the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County explains

PAGE 71

62 phosphate Gibson stacks are still being used for depositing by-products from phosphate chemical processing for fertilizer. The activ e yellow stacks are expanding to the south and contain phosphogypson the use of which ha s been banned since 1989 based on the trace amount of radioactivity it contains. They are permitted to reach a height of 200 feet. Northeast, the skyline of the Cent ral Business District Tampa glimmers in the setting sun. The drive continue s north toward Davis Islands th at stretch to the east, and cranes (not birds) at Hooke r’s Point appear at the horizon. The water view is replaced with concrete structures after one has passed a small marina. Both the Tampa Convention Center and the Mariott waterfront hotel on Channelside Drive block the view to the Garrison Channel. To be able to look beyond this development, one parks at a 24 hour enforced meter and walks to the wate rfront behind the Tampa Convention Center which is close to downtown and City Ha ll, the core of the City of Tampa. Taking a Walk Fig. 2.13 Port City’s Waterfront. (20 06 Tampa Port Authority Directory)

PAGE 72

63 At 7 pm on a Friday evening in April 2007, the exploration of the Port City’s waterfront continues with a walk on a stoned sidewalk that is illuminated behind the Marriot Hotel (Fig. 2.11) The stretch is short and ends at the St. Pete Times Forum after I have passed a number of expensive, well maintained docked motor yachts, a few empty benches and one couple with a child. No other pedestrians or bikers are visible. A short distance before the St. Pete Times Forum, th ings change. There is a sport event going on, and the area fills up with cars and people. The traffic lasts until the event begins. Now one has two options. One is to walk across the br idge to Harbor Island, the other is to turn north on Garrison Street into Channelside Driv e. Choosing the first, one enters Harbor Island a privately owned development. Among completed apartments, boat docks, restaurants and service facilities, signs st and out that advertis e residences between $900,000 to over $2 million. Most of Harbor Island has been gated and closed to the public, and it takes less than five minutes to walk across the bridge which used to be serviced by a monorail, called the people m over, transporting them to downtown and back. The second route leads along Channelsid e Drive (in 2009 part of Riverside Walk has been extended running a few hundred feet parallel to Channelside Drive ending before the shopping mall) to the Port Author ity Complex. Using a sidewalk next to an electric streetcar that moves by with much noise at about fi ve miles per hour, one passes a parking complex and arri ves at the core of th e Channelside District. The fenced in Starship Dinner Cruise Terminal, the Channelside Shopping Mall, Cruise Terminals, the Aquarium and the Port Authority Administration Building loom to the right, all within a distance of less than a mile. There are benches, no rain shelters, no picnic tables, and no traditional port ambiance, such as stalls selling fresh fish, fruits and

PAGE 73

64 vegetables. The air smells of gas fumes from the parking garage on the left. There are no ship stores where one could buy a docking line, anchor, compass or sextant, No traditional bars with old tables, lamps, sea char ts or paintings interfere with the urge to shop and consume. However, the commercial lim its are drawn somewher e: no hint of sin, no red light district, a ch aracteristic part of many ports, can be detected. The area toward the water front is fenced off with “No Trespassing” signs. To look at the Channel one needs to enter one of the ba rs. The view becomes overwhelming in a maritime Disney World sens e, a bit like Las Vegas. The cruise ships when they are docked on Sunday afternoon, for example, tower over the two story shopping mall. The ships, except for their numerous life boats, resemble residential structures with multi-lit floors, balconies and glass windows. The walk through this humanly constructed environment passes th e aquarium and finally the Tampa Port Authority building. There are some side roads toward the waterfront which end in fenced in areas that are controlled by the US Customs Authorities. The walk which has been duplicated by bike on side walks and roads (no bike routes are available) conti nues on Channelside Drive along th e Ybor Channel toward the Cross town Expressway. As has been point ed out, this area is planned for redevelopment. At present, it l ooks dilapidated with ship repa ir facilities and empty store houses. Back to the parked car at the Conve ntion Center, one turns northeast and crosses a bridge entering Davis Islands. The only public wa terfront of the island is located at the southeast facing Harbor Island at the north and port facilities at the south. Here one looks at piles of scrap metal and appliances processed by Trad emark Metals Recycling that

PAGE 74

65 emit smoke into the air. One also observe sandy hills of building material stored by Florida Rock. The area has two dog parks, an air port landing strip built on abandoned oil tanks, a sandy beach south of the Port Cut D Channel, and a boat ramp. The field trip on land ends here, and the expl oration continues by kayak. Paddling between a variety of anc hored boats, around the tip of Davis Island Yacht Club, one enters Cut D Channel towa rd Harbor Island which is surrounded by three channels: Sparkman, Seddon and Garris on. Avoiding sea-going vessels in the relative narrow Cut D Channel, one keeps to the right or left of the markers, passes Trademark Metals which on this Sunday belche s yellow smoke into the atmosphere. In order to avoid collision with commercial and pl easure crafts, it is advisable to stay close to the coast which houses a sheriff station, su lphur storage facilities, oil storage tanks, and docks for bulk commodities. There seem to be no guidelines as to how close one may go toward these facilities. If one paddles toward one of the ba rges in the channel, a coast guard cutter may approach one with flashing blue lights and a machine gun. The crew will tell you to stay a few hundred feet away from ships and barges The trip north on Seddon Channel is more relaxing, not so choppy due to less water depth and no commercial shipping. The waterfront is accessible to the public. Ther e are people walking and fishing. A sea wall and a green belt with oak trees line the road to ward the west of the Channel which houses the US Coast Guard, a marina, a park with li ttle league facilities, and tennis courts. There are no restaurants, shops or service facilities to acco mmodate the residents who live opposite the area f acing Seddon Channel. Opposite, one finds expensive residences but no sidewalks or public facilities on Harbor Is land. At the end of the island

PAGE 75

66 and this channel at the southern edge of the Convention Center, one enters Garrison Channel under a bridge (Fig. 2.11). At this section, Harbor Island accommodates a few boat slips, a bank, eateries and some high e nd service facilities which are accessible by car. Nearing Ybor Channel that houses the described Channelside Drive facilities, one turns south into the Sparkman Channel. Afte r passing Florida Rock, Citco, Central Oil Company and Gulf Sulphur, the kayak enters Cut D Channel which faces more bulk and liquid facilities, the trip ends at the ramp. The field trip observes some of the residents’ exposure to the environment that has been created by their government and Port Authority. It also tries to point toward areas that are still open for redevelopment, su ch as the North Ybor Channel. This raises the question of decision making on Port wate rfront real estate. the involvement of members of the community with local officials, the legal structure and the resulting social implications for port residents. While this will be addressed in chapter 4 in a comparison analysis between Tampa and Hamburg, chapter 3 researches the qualitative impacts for residents of another port, the Port of Hamburg. It evaluate s its location, history, policy and priorities. It includes the port’s geogra phic real estate dist ribution, its economical philosophy and its public transport system that links establis hed and re-developed neighborhoods

PAGE 76

67 Chapter 3 The Port of Hamburg Hamburg’s port is located at a la titude of 53 degrees N and a longitude of 09 degrees E at the mouth of the Elbe river. Hamburg is situated at the crossroads of Europe’s main traffic routes. Practically, al l the main industrial c onurbations of central Europe are accessible within 24 hours by road or rail. The total area of the port, including Upper and Lower Elbe, equals approximately 11.5% of the total area of the Free-State Hamburg. It totals approximately 8,000 hectares which includes some 5,000 hectares of land and close to 3,000 hectares of water. The port utilizes about 3,500 hectares of land and 3,000 hectares of water (Ham burg Port Authority, 1997). Fig. 3.1 Port of Hamburg (Free Port City Hamburg, Department of Commerce, 1997) The Port of Hamburg collaborates with neighboring or asso ciated ports as a hub within the transport chain. The Port provides more than 320 berths and over 45 kilometers of quay walls for ocean–going ships with some 200 partly computercontrolled container bridges a nd cranes, grab-cargo cranes, and siphons for all types of liquid commodities.

PAGE 77

68 Some 100 kilometers from the open sea, the Port is accessible even to the largest ships. Bulk carriers of more than 300,000 t onnes that handle up to 135.00 tonnes of cargo call at the Port (Freie Hansestadt Hamburg, Wirtschaftsbehoerde, 2002). It services the world’s largest container ships as hub port. An uninterrupted chain of radar stations and buoys as well as the availability of tug and pilo t assistance guarantee na vigability at night and in poor visibility. Hamburg is linke d to approximately 1,000 ports throughout the world by nearly 200 regular liner services co vering 300 different routes. The port railway network consists of over 600 kilometers of tracks linking dock storage, terminals and industrial plants in the harbor. Prof essor Dr. Erhard Rittershaus, the 2nd mayor of Hamburg and president of the “Wirtschaftsbe hoerde” (commerce depa rtment) introduced in January 1997 the Port’s future lo gistics (Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, Wirtschaftsbehoerde, 1997). The commerce department reports 140,000 port related jobs in 1997 that impact the total region. One third of them, 46,500, depend directly on the Port. Some 48.500 people find employment in indus try and service related to th e Port (Freie Hansestadt Hamburg, Wirtschaftsbehoerde, 1997). They work in ship building, shipping agencies, brokerage firms, trading companies, banks insurance offices and others. About 47,500 workers depend indirectly on the Port engage d in public works, road construction and investment programs that are related to Po rt economics. Furthermore, the Port’s employment structure has been enhanced by its attraction as a place containing human bonds and fields of care. A multiplyer effect from the Port as an employer has created a tourist industry with hotels, re staurants, retailers and media.

PAGE 78

69 The City State and Port of Hamburg Organizational Structure and Port Jurisdiction The organizational structure and port jurisdiction of the Port of Hamburg differ from the Tampa Port Authority’s legal domai n. The Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg ‘s parliament and senate control the Minist ry of Finance and the Ministry of Economic Affairs (Data Communication System, Port of Hamburg, Marketing, Freie Hansestadt Hamburg Wirtschaftsbehoerde, 1997)). Both are in charge of the following departments: Real Estate, Budget Planning, Se rvices and Economic Infras tructure, Planning Division. This chain of command provi des port planning, port development, infrastructure, restructuring and extension. The city of Hamburg and its Port’s commercial activities ar e linked., as the Port’s day-to-day operations are the responsibility of the City’s Ministry of Economic Affairs. This local decision structure enhances the design of port development, the building and maintaining of infrastructure, the fixing harbor dues, estate rental, traffic regulation and conservancy as these are not delegated to an outside body. Furthermore, Hamburg’s Port estate is owned by the City. This may foster local pride in ownership due to the process: The residents elect the City’s Mayor, the Se nate and Representati ves They appoint the administrative body who can, on a regional level, determine the fate of their Port. It can control the Ministry’s land policy. The City State of Hamburg, while it must abide by Federal and European Law, is governed by a Parliament (the citizen’s ruling body with 121 representatives) and the Senate who elect the Ministries of Finan ce and Economic Affairs. Both essentially control Port planning, port de velopment, restructuring and extension. There remains a

PAGE 79

70 regional aspect in the Port of Hamburg’s development that has resulted in the largest urban planning project in Hamburg, Harbor City. It is regional because, as will be explained, it is structured on historical backgr ound of the City and is unique as a process, implemented through the organizational structure of the Port City with local control on how to plan an extension of a c ity center (www.HafenCity.de, 2005). History of the Port The Port’s present and future ch aracter reflects its hi storical background. When Mayor Foscherau of the Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg presented a vision of Hafen City (Harbor City) to the public in l997, he referred to the area of approximately 155 hectares that contains 55 hectares of water (http://www.HafenC ity.de/index). Shown enclosed by in Fig. 3.2, Hafen City, is su rrounded by water, located south of the traditional Hamburg city center and within a wa lking distance of one kilometer from City Hall, and the central railway station. This is noteworthy, as the station is the core of Hamburg’s public transport system with bus, tram, subway, elevated local rail and longdistance rail service. Th e station also houses dozens of s hops such as bakeries, butchers, delicatessen and bars, liquor st ores and more. Furthermore, it is used as a passage by tens of thousands of pedestrians daily on their comm ute to work. Now the city center is in the process of expansion to the south ( http://www.HafenCity.de 2005). As will be addressed, the plan for its infrastructure is flexible and more importantly based on much local impetus.

PAGE 80

71 Fig. 3.2 Hafen City’ Extension (circled) to the Elbe River and down town Hamburg. ( http://www.HafenCity.de 2005) Fig. 3.3Historical background of Hafen City a nd Sandtorhafen’s(Sand Gate Port Basin) docking facilities, 19th century (HafenCity.de/index. 2005)

PAGE 81

72 The Elbe Region Fig. 3.3 depicts Hafen City’s activities and indus trialization based on port development through the use of canals which wind through th e area now being re-developed (Free City of Hamburg Department of Economics, 1997) The Elbe region has an interesting historical background dating b ack centuries. The planning of a modern port, however, began in 1862, when Johannes Dalmann, the executive director for water related Port constructions (Wasserbaudirektor), erected qua ys on the banks of the Elbe River, thereby opening up the North Elbe for shipping on the banks of the Elbe (Fig. 3.4). Additional areas were developed over years or are in the process of being upgraded according to the plan of 1997. Fig. 3.4 Hamburg City at the north, facing Port development at the south. (Freie Hansestadt Hamburg, Wirtschaftsbehoerde (Free City of Hamburg Department of Economics, 1997) The green areas in Fig. 3.4 show th e finished Port projects, the yellow ones are under construction and the pink sections are planned for future development.

PAGE 82

73 Port Development and Consequences on Region According to Hamburg’s Ministry of Transportation, the Port construction and its extension had far reaching consequences fo r the Port City of Hamburg. Residential developments at the waterfront from the A ltstadt (Old City) to Altona (Fig. 3.4 north) followed Port related employment. To accomm odate the demands of the industrial age, Sandtorhafen (Fig. 3.3), the first modern tide open Port basin, was developed from 1862 to 1866 (www.HafenCity.de). The figure show s how ships could dock at the quay. For further transport of commodities innovation was needed. A Hafen Info Center publication, 2002 observes that 1872 began the transfer of commodities from ship to rail. This created opportunities for distribution of goods. The customs free status for the en tire City of Hamburg helped because it meant goods could be stored without being taxed before th ey were sold (www.HafenCity.de, 2005). It attracted international shipping. The situ ation changed in 1881 when the “Freie Hansestadt Hamburg ( Hamburg Free City) was pressured by the German Reich to join their customs union ( www.HafenCity.de 2005). As a result, between 1881 and 1888, the duty exempt status of Hamburg which had incl uded the entire city was down sized, duty free ware houses had to relo cate to the port area and “Speicherstadt” (Storage City), which became the largest duty free storage complex in the world. The separation of Speicherstadt from the city center had consequences for many residents. Much of the “ Free Port area ” became uninhabited, due the extension of Speicherstadt ( www.HafenCity.de 2005) It caused 20,000 resi dents to lose their homes which were torn down and replaced by warehous es. The isolation of the Port from the City stopped the Port City’s organic developm ent as the City coul d no longer access the

PAGE 83

74 Elbe River which isolated it the from free in ternational trade. The separation remained despite the growing trade volume of the city and the expansion of the harbor area in subsequent decades. While the Port was thriving Hamburg’s city center had lost its direct access to the Elbe, and it would take almost 100 years to regain it. Hafen City is an important addition to the core of Hamburg because it is located adjacent to its traditional cente r at the north (Fig. 3.2). The redevelopment of Hafen City can provide an organic growth of the Port City. Fig. 3.5 shows the integration of the new area into the center: From west to east one notices a cohesive theme (not cut off by highways) of the shopping district Gaensema rkt (Goose Market), the Binnen Alster (Inner Alster River) surrounded by side walks, the Rathaus (City Hall) and other central areas ending at Hauptbahnhof (Central Railway Station). All places are within easy walking distance to Hafen City. Alternatively, one can bike there, take a bus, a subway or the el evated local rail (S-Bahn). The accessibility of public transportation enhances the community’s togetherness. One may assume that residents, who commute on public transport systems, for example, often spend regular time together. This may form a camaraderie and sometimes friendships. Commuters may discuss politics, whom to vote for, and other things which concern them. They participat e in their environment.

PAGE 84

75 Fig. 3.5 http:// www. HafenCity.de, 2005) ( Ci ty center: top right to left: Main Station, Museum Mile, Prime shopping location, City Hall, Waterfr ont Alster River, Shopping Area, Waterfront Promenade. Bottom right to left: Hafen City in various stages of completion). The old center and Hafen City ar e connected by bridges (Fig.3.5). Hafen City begins at Dalmankai at the west end as shown at the bottom on the left ( www.HafenCity.de 2005). The new area will be linked to the old city by various bridges sharing pedestrian and cycle routes. Speicherstad t with its red brick buildings is located at the north east end of Hafen City. At the end of the 1960s, container hand ling facilities were inst alled at the South of the Elbe. They lend a picturesque background to the overall ambiance of the Port. But, unlike many European port where traditional sites were erased, the Port of Hamburg maintained much of its historical character.

PAGE 85

76 Fig. 3.6 Container handling facilities ( http://hafen-hamburg.de 2005) Fig. 3.7 Landungsbruecken (front) Elbtunnel ( building on right) (Orbis Verlag, 1990)

PAGE 86

77 Landungsbruecken the historical passenger docks were opened in 1910. They were utilized by many migrants leaving the country during times of war and depression. The Elbe-Tunnel in St. Pauli an under ground passage, was opened in 1911, and the winding trails through the park -like setting between the elevated Elb-Chaussee and waterfront remained (Orbis Verlag, 1990). The Elbtunnel, St. Pauli, Landungsbruecken (Landingbridges), and Ueberseebruecken, (O versea Bridges) for pa ssenger liners are depicted in Fig. 3.8. Also note Hafen City before its development embedded by Grasbrookhafen, Sandtorhafen Magdeburger Hafen and Strandhafen. The U and S signs (Fig.3.8) indicate subway and light rail stops of commuter trains th at run approximately every five minutes during the day until midnight All trains connect to the central railway station. Fig. 3.8 City of Hamburg, Altstadt (Old ci ty) and redevelopment sites to south linked by bus service, Uand S-Bahn (subway a nd elevated trains) (Orbis Verlag, 1990)

PAGE 87

78 The city of Hamburg (Fig. 3.8) ha s an unusual infrastruc ture. Tuan’s (2004), definition of space and place can be noted as most non linear of streets in Hamburg turn directions into places. As a result, many areas attain a regional character. Furthermore, the mixed residential and commercial zoning ma kes areas user friendly. No interstates or expressways dissect neighborhoods. Port areas close to the City cen ter between St. Pauli and Oevelgoenne at the northern edge of the Port showed potential fo r redevelopment (City Development, article & item: Department of Transportati on, Senate, 9/22/2005, HafenCity.de, 2005). According to Hamburg Action: A Field Guid e by Ava Bromberg and Brett Bloom (www. Journalofaestheticsandprotest .org, 10/25/2007), a grass root movement was started in 1994 when a small open patch of land in that area, with views from the St. Pauli neighborhood to the Elbe River, came under thr eat of being sold by the city. The city wanted the space developed into high-rise corp orate offices, but the people living in St. Pauli preferred their space and river view to remain unobstructed. The Park Fiction group, named after the project, called for a “collective wish production,” a process whereby the desires of the people of St. Pa uli could “take to th e streets” (Hamburg Action: A Field Guide, 2005). Park Fiction opened a participatory design process for the contested open space. According to participan t Sabine the project was in a broader sense about the privatization of public space, a bout community conferences and democratic planning procedures. The Park Fiction group which grew over the course of eight years consisted of artists, neighbors working with social inst itutions, squatters with a long history of “activity” in the neighborhood and shop and caf owners (Hamburg Action: A Field

PAGE 88

79 Guide, 2005). A planning container on the site stored an archive of desires, a garden library, and an “action kit” that was portable and could be taken to apartments in the neighborhood. Later Park Fiction’s work wa s financed by the Art in Public Space program of the municipal culture department of Hamburg. In 1997 the Senate decided to enlarge the inner city by 40 percent. This plan became inst rumental to the integration of Hafen City into the center of the city. To begin with, the local public transport system that starts at the core of the c ity had to be linked to Hafen City. The construction of the new underg round railway line, the U4, will begin in 2007 ( www.HafenCity.de 2005). The completion of this line will integrate Hafen City into the Hamburg underground rail network. The new lin e will run from the U2 station at Jungfernstieg under Alsterfleet, Binnenhafen, Sandtorhafen and Grassbrookhafen to the heart of Hafen City. Furthermore, ther e are several new bus routes planned to complement the new underground railway system. The integration of these new routes into the existing system will create an effici ent public transport network providing access to the city center, Hamburg’s railway stati on, and the rest of Hamburg. From the main railway station there are nume rous regional and long distance rail services available. Unlike Tampa which offers no light rail and de pends on cars, this infrastructure provides port and city workers with convenient and fast tr ansport from there residences to work. It must be noted that the Port’s marketing philosophy cont rasts with that of Tampa. Dr. Juergen Sorgenfrei,, Chairma n, Port of Hamburg Marketing e.V. points toward the Port’s future in his editorial (P ort of Hamburg Magazine 4/2002). He stresses the importance of container traffic, and his assessments in shipping differ vastly from Tampa’s Marketing Manager’s Greg Lovelace ’s who promotes Tampa as a diversified

PAGE 89

80 feeder port. Dr. Sorgenfrei addresses th e shipment of 5.2 million TEU (twenty-foot equivalent units) by container and promotes sh ipments to the Far East, the Baltic and new cargo routes from and to the Americas. He points out that the City of Hamburg’s Senate passed a speedy resolution to apply for federal funds for upgrading and deep ening the lower Elbe river. New container facilities and the Altenwerder Terminal w ill bring the total cargo handling capacity to nine to ten million TEU. Hamburg is the sixt h largest container port worldwide. More than forty international shipping lines make th e Container Terminal Burchardkai a gate to all continents. Advanced gantries, straddle ca rriers and nearly three kilometers of quay facilitate container dispatch worldwide. Completed and Future Expansion There are a number of expansion pr ojects currently in progress which will enable the Port to handle more than double its 2001 throughput by 2010 ( http://www.hafenhamburg.de 2005). This study will focus on Altenwer der although Moorburg to the south are included in future Port expansion plans. Work began on the new Altenwer der terminal to the south of the city and the Port estate. The first stage of construction was designed to handle 700,000 boxes annually (equivalent to 1.9 million standard 20’ contai ners) The complex will provide a container terminal capable of handling 1.9 million TEU a year, approximately 65 hectares of storage and distribution facilities that are asso ciated with over 160 hectares for transport, transshipment processing and associated activities.

PAGE 90

81 Fig. 3.9Terminal Location seen from water ( http://www.hafen hamburg.de) The container terminal will be highly automated using a double rail mounted gantry system. All container movements within the terminal will be carried out by remote control. The terminal will feature 14 doublehoist double trolley type container cranes on an almost 1.6 kilometers quayside with a stacking area that can accommodate 30,000 TEU. Container Gantry Cranes Fig. 3.9 shows a section of the terminal seen from the water. Clearly noticeable are four container bridges, the adjoining circulation area for AGVs (Automated Guided Vehicles), the yard with DRMG (Double Rail Mounted Ga ntry) cranes, and in the background the rail station. The new cranes can lift weights of up to 63 tonnes including spreader weight which is fifty tonnes under th e spreader. Ships of the super-post-panmax generation with twenty-two rows of containe rs on deck can effortlessly be spanned by jibs sixtyone meters long while landside outre ach also extends to as much as sixteen and a half meters. Automated Vehicles for Horizontal Transport at Altenwerder Transport of containers, for example from the yard behind the quay wall, will be operated by automated, unmanned vehicles.These diesel-hydraulic ca rriers with rubber

PAGE 91

82 tires are capable of handling two 20’ standard boxes simultaneously (Dr. Thomas Koch, project manager, HHLA Container Terminal, July 29th 2002). About sixty of the vehicles will circulate in an area with a radius of one hundred meters behind container gantry cranes which will be completely closed to human access once commissioning is completed. According to Dr. Koch, the vehicles will navigate with the aid of a network of electronic markers set in the ground that are read as the vehicles pass. The Altenwerder container terminal will be supplemented by special storage facilities for dangerous goods and tanker containers, for handling general cargo or oversized consignments. There will be and adjacent holding area for empty container on the south side of the facility. Adjacent to the terminal operation s there are areas for repairing and cleaning containers. The termin al will also have a container yard for 30,000 TEU in a total area of 220,000 square meters. Space will be provided in 22 storage blocks. In addition to the above installation the terminal prov ides truck and rail handling. Fig. 3.10 Truck handling ( http://www.hafen-hamburg.de )

PAGE 92

83 The container terminals of Altenwerder and Burchardkai are quite flexible as they can accommodate all kinds and sizes of vessels and contai nerized commodities. While the Port obviously prioritizes container traffi c, how diverse is the Port? Furthermore, on what assumptions are the above projects based? The Port of Hamburg’s Diversification The 2005 Port Development Plan (h ttp:fhh.hamburg.de/stadt 2005) laid out an overall strategy. It states the following: “The Port will remain a universal port. A wide range of maritime services will be a complex factor in the metropolitan region.” This is an important statement as it emphasizes the Po rt’s importance as part of the overall city. The plan also demonstrates that a whole seri es of local authority responsibilities are also carried out within the Port, such as ener gy supply, waste water treatment or waste recycling. It is noteworthy that Senate policy of the City will take all thes e aspects into account in a procedure to delegate the account ability. The Port of Tampa, on the other hand, has no such provisions as it operates in an independent domain with the majority of its board members being in stalled by the state. Container Handling Again it must be stressed that a ma jor policy of the Port of Hamburg focuses on the broad-based container handling segment and its related logistic services. This platform guides the Senate to encourage th e provision of sufficient space, aiming to guarantee an appropriate growth in co ntainer handling in a period of dynamic international trade expansion (Fig. 3.11).

PAGE 93

84 Fig. 3.11 Container handling at the Port. ( http://www.hafen-hamburg.de ) Two zones have been charted for future development,: Zone one, Moorburg and Altenwerder southwest of the Unterelbe adja cent to Harburg; and Zone two, located south of Finkenwerder. Fig. 3.12 and 3.13 show th e location of the Port area to the City and the terminal within the border of the port area.

PAGE 94

85 Fig. 3.12 The Port of Hamburg and City (F reie Hansestadt Hamburg, Department of Commerce, 1997) Fig. 3.13 Expansion Areas south of the city and north of Harburg (Hamburg Wirtschaftsbehoerde (Department of Commerce) 1997)

PAGE 95

86 Fig. 3.13 shows Zone 1 and Zone 2 which are Port expansion areas south of the city and north of Harburg. The shaded areas around Altenwerder ar e re-development sites that have been approved by the Senate through a special investment program ( http://fhh.hamburg.de/stadt 10/26,2005). Growth in the volu me of container traffic is being coped with by development of larger ships. Eco-friendly adaptation of the navigation channels in the Lower and Oute r Elbe must match the development in container ship construction. Cargo handling fac ilities need to be adapted to load and unload the largest container ships. Handling of larger container ships increases the stacking sequences and requirements for contai ner storage slots. Therefore, new areas must be made available by redeveloping suita ble old sites in the Port expansion zone. They are, for good reasons, located in spacious areas that have relativ ely little exposure to residential developments, parks and recreational facilities. Yet, they will become part the overall Port scene because of the view from different public places on Hafen City. Container Handling and the City Container handling becomes part of the City as illustrated in Fig. 3.13. The old City of Hamburg (Altstadt) toward the north, future Hafen City and Altenwerder (container terminal) south of the Elbe are connected and can be viewed from numerous public places in the Port City. The picture be low shows some of the Port logistics in Altenwerder. The expansion plans include a ra il road station, service facilities, container terminal expansion, central storage, wo rkshops and administration buildings.

PAGE 96

87 Fig. 3.14 Port related activities on the Elbe viewed from public spaces, (Free City of Hamburg Commerce Department, 1997) Fig. 3.14 illustrates the Port’s r eal estate facilities that are numerically listed before the re-development plan of 1999, all being integrated into the new development at Altenwerder. Fig. 3.15 Real Estate at Port in 1997 (Fr ee City of Hamburg Co mmerce Department): 1.Landungsbruecken (landing bridges), 2. serv ices close to city logistics, 3. shipbuilding facilities, 4. raw material processing industries, 5. and 6. container handling, 7. storage and service, 8. conven tional and container cargo handling, 9.raw material industry and related trade, 10. au tomobile shipping, oil tanks, and mineral oil processing, 11. small industrial production and trading, 12. mixed industrial use.

PAGE 97

88 It is noteworthy, that the listed Port services have remained within the Port region and not been outsourced which means that they have been functionally prioritized close to city logistics. Potential polluting and noi sy industries are largely distanced from residential areas (development plan, 2005). Port related sy stems, such as the use of computerized loading and unloading of cont ainer ships (Fig. 3.16) and truck handling (Fig 3.9) have been added. In extension to that, the 2005 Port development plan prioritizes the growth of container traffi c accommodating larger ships, cargo handling facilities with larger container handling ga ntry cranes, eco-frie ndly adaptation of the navigation channels in the Lower and Outer Elbe to match developments in container ship construction, a central prerequis ite for Hamburg’s growth potential. Fig. 3.16 Container computer speciali st overseeing loading and unloading processes (http.//www.hafen-hambug.de). As has been addressed, the hand ling of large containe r ships increases the stacking sequences and requirements for contai ner storage slots. This will increase the productivity at the quay edge and requires maximum performance of terminal operators as shown in Fig. 3.15.

PAGE 98

89 Work Environment and Port Performance The independent body “Gesamthaf enbetrieb Hamburg m.b.H” (Total Port Operations Hamburg Ltd), formed in 1951, was based on the purpose to create an agreement between employers and trade unions to set up a special “Harbor Employer” for harbor workers in the Port. The 2006 report of the “Gesamthafenbetriebs-Gesellschaft m.b.H. Hamburg”, whose jurisdiction is acknowledged and who has board members representing employers and unionized employees touts the performan ce of the Port’s 90 million tonnes containerized shipments in 2006. These record numbers reflect the work environment that is linked to the qualitative and quantitative personnel performance who handles the shipments. The association repr esents 5,884 highly specialized workers, such as container bridge drivers, van-carrier drivers, reach stacke r drivers who handle containers at the Port (Gesamthafenbetr iebs-Gesellschaft m.b.H. Hamburg, 2006) Fig. 3.17 The Port is the ninth la rgest container port in the world ( http://www.hafen-hamburg.de /content).

PAGE 99

90 The organization, Operations Hamb urg Ltd., points out that its training program offers opportunities leading to permanen t employment, continued education and retirement benefits. Container oper ations increased from 129,000 to 139,000. Based on the Port of Ha mburg statistics of 2007 ( http://www.hafenhamburg.de/content ) the cargo turnover develope d as shown in table 3.1. Table 3.1 ( www.hafen-hamburg.de ., 2007). Year 1990 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Bulk (metric tons x 103) 32.8 39.2 37.5 39.4 37.8 40.0 42.7 Liquid (metric tons x 103) 15.3 13.6 11.4 11.6 12.2 13.1 14.2 Suction (metric tons x 103) 4.9 6.8 6.2 6.7 4.3 5.6 6.3 Grabber (metric tons x 103) 12.6 18.8 19.9 21.2 21.3 21.2 22.2 No. of 20’containers (units x106) 1969 4688.7 5374 6138 7003 8100 8862 Containerized % of general cargo 68.6 93.7 95.1 96.1 96.5 96.8 97.2 The overview of cargo turnover according to a 2007 ( www.hafen-hamburg.de 2007) report is noteworthy. Table 3.1 shows that the degree of containerization in percentage of general cargo in the year 1990 amounted to 68.6 percent and increased to 97.2 percent by the year 2006. The number of 20 foot units almost doubled in the same period. Liquid cargo turnover dropped in the sa me period approximately ten percent. The transport of environmentally challenging comm odities and oil relate d products decreased. It must be noted at this point that Hamburg’s focus on contai ner shipping started early. In

PAGE 100

91 1990 the port shipped 2,000,000 TEU containers. In the year 2004 the total turnover over TEU containers had reached 7.000.000 (Table 3 .1). As has been outlined, there are a number of expansion projects currently in pr ogress that will enable the Port to handle container shipping at a growth rate of se ven percent through the year of 2010. How do these developments affect the lives of the City’s residents? Housing, Shopping and Recreational Areas and Public Transport The City and the Port are two entitie s that belong together historically, influence and compete with each other ( http://www..hamburg.de 2007). This understanding is expressed in the Master plan of Hafen City wh ich will increase the center of the city by forty percent. It is designed to have an urban development concept returning Hamburg’s City Center to the Elbe (Ortwin Runde, Firs t Mayor of the Free a nd Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Introduction of the Master Plan 2000). This original plan was flexible and has been updated over the years. For good reason, as many cities had created a generic environment in their attempt at re-developmen t by disregarding specific elements of their regions. It could be argued that many city re -developments resulted in boring environs as they were drafted in laboratories that did not know the characteristics of city centers. Some became largely mono functional cities that are formed by trade and commerce. Unlike developments through the nineteenth cen tury that created cosmopolitan vitality with lively quarters that ha d evolved over generations, the perfect shopping office design in modern cities became an alien element to cities’ original function: a place to work, and to socialize, to reside, to rela x, to entertain and to visit. Hafen City has incorporated the

PAGE 101

92 ideological concept of the past when it refers to the guidelines of the Port of Hamburg’s qualitative growth ( www.HafenCity.de 2005). The fundamental structure of Hafen City along with its inte gration with adjacent parts of the City contains the following gui delines that were established in a town planning competition (www.Hafe nCity.info): Speicherstad t (the historic warehouse district) is seen as a southern extension of th e former city walls and will have a symbolic effect as a cornerstone for the developmen t of Hafen City. Magdeburger Hafen harbor will be a key arrival point and link to the City Center at Jungfernstieg. The quay areas will be transformed into wide promenades open to the public. Each quay area design will depend on its neighboring commercial and re sidential outlay. Elevated ground floor zones with respect to tidal water level vari ations will make the Hafen City waterside accessible for relaxation, recreation sports and games. The plan stresses that part of the experience of living and working on the waterf ront lies in the use of water itself as transport medium. Thus, there are provisions to establish a scheduled public ferry system for Hafen City. In contrast to the aquatic Magdeburger Hafen harbor, the elongated green area between Brooktor and Baakenhafen will be developed into a public space with a distinct city atmosphere. This will include an extension of the historic city fortifications to the shore with its wa terside network of footpa ths along the River Elbe. Integration Into the City Hafen City and the present day city center will form a cohesive central district from the former city walls to the Elbe. Furthermore, connections to Hammerbrook, Rothenburgsort and Veddel around Baakenhafe n harbor will enhance the access to the eastern end of Hafen City. To integrat e new and existing populations, schooling

PAGE 102

93 education facilities are being plan ned (www.HafenCity.de, 2005). A gradual development of up to 1,500 dwellings west of Magdeburger Hafen harbor will not require to build a new elementary school. The dema nd can be absorbed by extending the existing school “Bei der Katharinenkirche”. Fo r new housing ranging between 1,500 and 1,800 units a buffer of nearly 0.8 hectares will be set aside for additional educational demand. To provide sufficient school capacity for furt her residential development for the rest of Hafen City, an elementary school with four classes in each year/g rade will be required. Based on 5,500 dwellings in Hafen City, a perm anent high school with three classes in each year/grade will be needed. For that purpos e the construction of at least five storey high buildings on about two hect ares of land not including out door sports space would be a prerequisite. In addition, a two acre plus buffer will be set aside for peak demand. Newly constructed schools in Hafen City will not provide their own outdoor sports facilities because fully equipped gymnasium s can be reached within a few minutes. While the plan sounds promising, it also c ontains potentially problematic variables. Environmental Considerations for the Planning of Hafen City In the summer and autumn of 1998 the ecological situati on on land and in the water was evaluated at the Hafen City site (www.HafenCity.de, 2005) Ecological points of interest for redevelopment were found in the old brick quay wa lls at Grasbrookhafen harbor and Magdeburger Hafen harbor as habita ts of many rare lichens, mosses, ferns and other vegetation. As the Master Plan aims to preserve ecol ogically valuable areas, most basins and canals, including their embankments, will be retained. This would include the conservation of reed beds, hemlock water-fennel, fish habitats in water basins and mussel beds. The study also showed that all land had be en artificially elevat ed in the past when

PAGE 103

94 the area was converted into docks. As a result, no original soil was investigated in the entire area. Some land has been reclaimed. In addition to the eco logical background, the Master Plan of Hafen City evaluated the noise levels ( www.HafenCity .de, 2005). No clear assessment of noise leve ls from dock activities, road and traffic in the area were established. As a result, current emissions wi ll be measured and recorded in the dock areas south of the North-Elbe. Furthermore, the current noise emissions to the south of Hafen City do not appear to represent any theoretical and practic al problems for the development if they are based on all conceiva ble day time levels. Yet, the plans of Hafen City will have to take into account that there is an existing industrial area which operates day and night. Some theoretical solutions are noise-reducing t echnologies and noise restrictions through regulating dock activities. A more realistic plan is for housing to face away from noise sources. Even now, in all probability current noise levels are already within acceptable limits. It al so is noteworthy, that many hotels, in France for example, are build close to the runway s of major airports. Their out side walls and windows provide excellent noise insulation The development master plan of 2006 al so had to deal with a research of potential soil contamination. The plan pointed out that in the past, relatively few soil tests were carried out in the development area because th ere were mainly individual concerns at the time. At an early planning stage of Hafen Cit y, an investigation into the area’s history was conducted. A total of 169 sites at Hafen City were scrutinized because of its land use history. According to current information and present land use, there is no evidence of any human health risk (Editorial 2006 : Ma sterplan). Also a large proportion of the ground surface is sealed. The Environmental protection Authority a nd the Hamburg Port

PAGE 104

95 Area Development Corporation (GHS) have identified certain areas (Ericusspitze, Kirchenpauerkai and Grasbrookhafen, a former gas work site) as potential sites with contamination which may have to be attende d to. An ongoing risk assessment that is based on the intended land use will be n eeded Finally, between 1987 and 1999 the Environmental Protection Author ity investigated air pollutant s at six locations. According to current information, the overall pollu tion caused by copper, lead and cadmium contaminants is at an acceptable level fo r all intended land uses (Editorial 2006: Masterplan). Specific Projects at Hafen City Essentially fifteen quarters are in the planni ng. The most interesting ones are: 1. Elbe Philharmonic. 2. Magellan Terraces. 3 Marco Polo Terraces. A. Dalmannkai, B. Sandtorkai, C.Brooktorkai, D. Strandkai, and E. Ueberseequartier (Oversea Quarter). Fig. 3.18 Projects at Hafen City. ( www.Hafen city.de, 2005)

PAGE 105

96 The territorial exploration will begin at Dalmannkai which forms a peninsula between the Sandtorhafen at th e north end and Grasbrookhafen ha rbor basins at the south. The projects of which some are completed and others are under construction lend an interesting diversity to Hafen City’s characte r for several reasons. One is the construction of the new philharmonic concert hall on the r oof of the historic Kaispeicher A (Fig.3.17) which was decided on by the Senate of Ham burg in July 2005. It will soon become a reality with its ground laying that took place on April, 2nd 2007 ( www.Hafen City.de, 2009). Two concert halls (2,150 and 550 seats) will top the monolithic shaped historic Cocoa storage facility. “We will provide a program for every body,” states Christoph Lieben-Seutter, its future director and form er secretary general of the Vienna Concert House rejecting cultural priv ileges from the elite. The state run NDR (North German Radio) Symphony Orchestra has been elected as regular performer and is scheduled to begin from summer. Another reason for The Dalmannkai Quarter’s qualitative level lies in its waterside construction project s (Fig. 3.17, 2 and 3) The Master Plan gives special attention to the design of pub lic waterfront Magdeburger Hafen harbor will play an important part in developing public areas. Hen ce, the quay areas will be transformed into wide promenades open to the public. The Ma gellan Terraces at Sandt orhafen experienced their grand opening on June 10th, 2005. Another cultural impetus near Dalmannkai Quarter is the conversion of the hi storical Kaispeicher B warehouse. This oldest warehouse whic h was built in 1878/79, will accommodate the International Maritime Museum of Hamburg ( www.HafenCity .de, 2009).. It is located at the point where Magdeburger Hafen harbor and Brooktorhafen ha rbor converge and

PAGE 106

97 creates a unique gateway to the Uebersee quartier (Overseesquarte r). Kaispeicher B remodeling began in 2005 and will retain the di stinctive architecture of the historic ware house and from 2008 on, the Peter Tamm Collec tion will be on display on about 14,000 squaremeters gross floor space. The co llection includes 27,000 model ships, 35,000 construction plans, a large number of nau tical instruments, paintings and maps. Furthermore, the Maritime Museum will contain the Peter Tamm Institute for Shipping and Marine History, a library and archive a nd an outdoor terrace. To enable convenient access to the Museum a pedestrian bri dge across Brooktorhafen harbor will be constructed. Transport-Shared Pedestrian and Cycle Routes Transportation for pedestrians a nd cyclists throughout Hafen City and the traditional City Center started in 2002 with the construction of the Kibbelsteg bridges. An ensemble of bridges has a total length of 220 meters on two levels, open on top and sheltered from the weather underneath. Th eir design was inspired by historic predecessors. Cyclists will have the option to chose their route according to their preferences.

PAGE 107

98 Fig. 3.19 Shared pedestrian and cycl e routes. (http://www.HafenCity.de, 2005) It is worth noting, that the rout es connect to the traditional city center. Furthermore, the high-end residential areas ar ound the elevated waterf ront to the north, such as Elbchaussee, and the adjacent ma in stream housing facilities in Altona, Bahrenfeld, Ottensen and Lurup are linked. Th e quay sides will be an important part in the network. The areas will be made accessibl e to different groups with lower gradients for disabled people. Local Public Transport Hafen City will benefit according to the Master Plan from various forms of public transport. The new underground railway line, the U4, on which construction began in 2007, will run from U2 station at Jungf ernstieg under Alsterfleet, Binnenhafen, Sandtorhafen and Grasbrookhafen to the Uebers eequarter (Overseas Quarters) the heart

PAGE 108

99 of Hafen City. The completion is scheduled by fall 2011. The second line will run to the east of Lohsepark Fig.3.20 Public transport: U = underground railway, H = bus stop (http://www.HafenCity.de, 2005) There are several new bus routes planned to complement the subway system (Fig. 3.19). Furthermore, numerous regional (S-Bahn) and long distance rail services run from the main rail station. As a result, most of Hamburg’s suburbs can be reached within one half hour. The overall concept of plans and proj ects is based on the idea that the City can only grow if the “living accommodation on offe r is diverse, and new construction sites are available, particularly for families at the right time and price” ( http://www.wachsendestadt.hamburg.de/intg rafikversion/projecte/wohnbauflaechen 2008). In fact, more than fifty projects, ranging from 20 to 850 accommodation units, are under construction or are being ma pped within the City limits. All of them are linked by a convenient public transport system. Obvious ly, Hamburg’s and Tampa‘s qualitative social, economic and environmental concepts differ. How they compare will be addressed in chapter 4.

PAGE 109

100 Chapter 4 Comparison of Both Ports The themes of this thesis relate to the quantitative economic impacts on their social, cultural and environmental quality of life. Therefore, the ports of Tampa and Hamburg will be compared by their return to human dimensions in the region. The comparison will show, how the geographical characteristics of the land were commercially developed and modified by huma ns. This discussion will show that the economic development of container or feeder ports are linked to the region’s social and environmental well being. The methodology used in this comparison follows Tuan’s and Fleming’s observations of place and space. The Ports of Tampa’s and Hamburg’s Economic Priorities There is a consistency in Tampa Po rt Authority’s preferences and marketing ideas for economic gains and growth. It is laid out in the latest three Port Authority Directories and various State of the Port Addresses by CEO Richard A. Wainio. Bulk business, such as petroleum related products, phosphate, scrap metal and coal, remain the cornerstone of the Port (Fig.4.1). Tanks and processing plants have been installed over the years within view of the city center. Yet less exposed Port owned real estate was available at other locations, such as Hooker’s Po int. Considering that a lack of planning and uncontrolled growth diminished unobstructed marine vistas and thus some of the meaning of its sea port, Tampa’s Port Authority ignored basic human needs in its community.

PAGE 110

101 Fig.4.1 Metal recycling plant (Por t Authority Directory, 2006) The 2005 Port Development Plan issued by the Port of Hamburg also set directions for its economic goals. They ar e based on Senate Policy that recognizes Hamburg as a universal port but prioritizes a broad base of container handling segments and its related logistics services. As a re sult, containerized cargo increased, liquid commodity turnover and the transport of ag ricultural bulk and oil related products decreased. Unlike Tampa, bulk handling and st orage facilities were planned out and are located away from the city center (Fig. 3.14). Th is Port succeeded in its lay out of real estate for bulk facilities. Based on its current forecast of cargo handling, the Port of Hamburg can expect future increases in container revenues. The Po rt of Tampa’s economic future, in contrast, is uncertain. Present revenues, gained from dry and liquid cargo handling, do not reflect future earnings. Phosphate handling, for example, the Port of Tampa’s prime commodity, will diminish, as it is a non renewable resour ce. Its supply may last for few more decades. Nevertheless, no replacement that matches th e turnover of this product is in sight.

PAGE 111

102 By-products from its mining have left stretches of prime Bay-waterfront uninhabitable. The long term handling of phosphate products and the environmental contamination have not served th e Port community’s interests. Yet, Tampa’s Port leaders have not learnt from their phosphate past. Unlike Hamburg’s concept in which the Senate as ked the Hamburg Ministry of Economics and Labor to carry out a survey of future land re quirements for the logi stics sector and to develop a coherent land management for the “ port and logistics” cl uster, Tampa’s Port Director Wainio voices his frustrations ove r bureaucratic unnecessary red tape from the environmental sector. In his 2008 State of the Port Address, he calls for a state intermodal advocate to be installed by the Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic development (OTTED) to expedite important economic develo pment projects. As his idea violates the port authorities’ function, namely, to mirro r the entire spectrum of port community interests (Fleming, 1987). the Port Author ity has failed in bringing the community together. More bulk projects have been announced in 2008. They include a new contract with International Oil Trading Terminal of leasing approximately a 17 hectares for new storage tanks and related infrastructure. Fu rthermore, expanded pe troleum facilities are on their way to completion (2008 State of the Port Address). The exposure of scrap metal handling and its storage is a visual landmark from much of Tampa’s waterfront. Scrap metal handling exceeded three times the amount of container shipping in 2006 when the Port of Hamburg has succeeded by applying a holistic consistency in its economic priorities. It focused early on containerization which it in creased to 97.2 percent of its

PAGE 112

103 total cargo by the year 2006. Their loading and unloading processe s are visible from much of the elevated Port City’s waterfront turning the area from a direction into a place. The Ports’ of Tampa and Hamburg’s Social and Cultural Integration into Their Communities If the essential character of cities is their distance from nature (Tuan, 1978), one may look at them as a home with space a nd place, and as a perspective of human experience. Finding the common ground and co mmon purpose, bringing the community together, is one of the port authority’s essential functions (Fleming, 1987). This consideration will serve as a basis for the social and cultural comparison of both ports, their successes and failures. The Port of Tampa employs an estimated 35,000 people (John Thorington, Tampa Port Authority official dir ectory, 2006) and provides port re lated jobs for nearly 100,000 workers. The Port of Hamburg provides j obs for around 124,000 workers in Hamburg. As a result, both cities need soci al infrastructures, one of them being affordable housing. Residences in Tampa, close to the po rt and the city center, were available before Seminole Heights, Tampa Heights, and Do wntown North deteriorated, essentially throughthe construction of two interstate highways and the cross town expressway. All three dissected established neighborhoods. No pr eservations of heritage from different segments of the community who may have had strong feelings for th e past of the Port were addressed..

PAGE 113

104 Fig. 4.2a Downtown neighborhoods dissect ed by Interstates 275, 4 and the Expressway (Periphery House Study, Planning Commissi on Report, 1990) Many traditional buildings in the region (Fig. 4.2) were destroyed or condemned, with them the human experience which conn ects over long periods of time. Had they been maintained, upgraded and kept affordable to own or rent, they could have become “fields of care.” Fig. 4.2b Typical buildings close to downtown Tampa cut off by Interstate Highways (Photos by Becker, 2010).

PAGE 114

105 The buildings depicted in Fi g.4.2.b are two of many in a neighborhood close to downtown Tampa that has been cut off by the Interstate Highways. Areas adjacent to the center, such as Harbor Island, and sections of Ybor City were gentrified, thereby exclude diversity. Overall, however, elected officials encouraged developers to build “laboratory cities” in rural areas, where displaced families found housing, but few cultural and education facilities. The Port C ity’s housing policy had failed. The Port City of Hamburg construc ted no expressways or interstates through its center. It retained the ch ain of neighborhoods facilita ting bringing the community together. Apartment houses and homes, many of them built on winding non directional streets more than a century ol d (Fig.4.3) were restored. Fig. 4.3 Two typical Hamburg neig hborhoods (Orbis Verlag, 1990). Other residences, which were dest royed during World War 2, were rebuilt. Rents remained reasonable, as they were capped by the owner’s maintenance and improvement cost increases. As a result, many residents li ve in their homes for decades. Some of them pass them on to their children.

PAGE 115

106 Old wharves at the Port, south of the center, were annexed to it, restructured and became Hafen City. They will provide homes for 10,000 to 12,000 people. The Port of Hamburg’s housing policy deserves credit. The region maintained historical residences, grown through time and complement the demand for new residences in adjacent Hafen City (Fig. 4.4). All add wealth to the region’s culture and recreation. Fig.4.4 Hafen City’s Residences and public Waterfront Access ( www.hafen city. de, 2005) Apart from housing, an efficient trans port system, safe side walks and bike paths are social attractions to city life. Public transport systems, for example, not only carry passengers to their destination but also create human kinship and share a common purpose. This is noticeable in New York, Sa n Francisco, Sao Paulo and smaller cities, such as Chapel Hill, North Ca rolina. Safe side walks and bi ke paths throughout the center and adjacent neighborhoods lower traffic c ongestion and connect people. Paris and Amsterdam offer public bike s to their residents. Tampa’s transportation infrastructure did not follow this suggested concept. No trams or subways run through the dismembered sections of the city. Subdivisions, far

PAGE 116

107 from the city, are linked by express ways and expanding highways. Transport remains limited to the automobile (Fig. 4.5 ). Fig.4.5 Channelside Dr. Transportation system (Photo by Becker, 2008) Oversized buses often block traffi c lanes. As many locations are not linked by direct bus service, riders are advised to call in fo r schedules and bus routes. The above demographics do not enco urage an efficient light rail system that depends on a regular high number of riders. No bus or other pub lic transport serves Tampa International Airport. Furthermore, individual transport options throughout the city are limited, as few safe bike and pe destrian paths link neighborhoods. Overall, Tampa’s transport system fosters communal isolation and a waste of resources with mostly one passenger per vehicle on route. Projects, such as light rail from downtown Tampa to the University of South Florid a and a bullet train to Orlando are being discussed. Hamburg, on the other hand, is li nked throughout the City with its suburbs by an extensive public transp ort system (Fig. 4.6).

PAGE 117

108 Fig. 4.6 Subway connecting the Port with City Center runs under and above ground (Photo by Becker, 2008) Subways (Fig.4.6) Schnell-Bahns (f ast light rail) trams and busses connect suburbs and the central railway station. Pa ssenger ferries run on th e Alster and Elbe rivers. They arrive and depa rt within minutes from sunrise to midnight. The S Bahn connects the City’s Interna tional Airport. The various option of conveyance lend opportunities to riders to inter act with each other, form frie ndships, initiate grass root movements, read or prepare for work. Subway and bus services now extend to Hafen City which bikers and pedestrians can reach via convenient paths and bridges. Road signs indicating short distances in kilometers to various central locations, en courage walking and biking. Participating in Hamburg’s traffic system is a homecoming in itsel f, as it offers it riders options, such as to watch the scenery, meet people, initiate gra ss root movements or simply read or study. Therefore, Hamburg’s connectivity between people and places turned out successful. Other social elements, which attrac t people towards cities, are their integrated architectural designs and their usage. Sin ce the 1970s, downtown Tampa has encouraged corporate high rise constructi ons without residential secti ons. Lately, condominiums are

PAGE 118

109 being marketed viewing the cross town expres sway. Yet, the city center is a ghost town after business hours and on weeke nds. Many of the traditional re tail and service facilities closed down. Tampa’s Port Authority was instrument al to the privatization of waterfront which it owns (Fig.2.6). It leased the land to the Channelside Di strict Entertaining shopping complex, which closed the public access to the waterfront from the Riverside walk on (Fig.2.6). The Port Authority’s Administration building to the north was constructed on waterfront property as well. If both projects had been erecte d across from the street, and had the waterfront been revamped in a de sign similar to that of San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf, the sea port’s sp irit would have been enriched. The few remaining parcels of water front at the North Ybor Channel that have been analyzed by developers, suggest no new id eas as they refer to the City and County studies of 1988 and 1998. This leaves few e xpectations for maritime events with celebrations, parades and large assemblages from every part of the port community. Overall, the utilization of Ta mpa’s center and its adjacent wate rfront failed the interests of its residents. Hamburg maintained its historical architecture, thereby cr eating an evolution of consciousness throughout the City (Fig. 4.7). The first picture expresses the humanistic perspective of joy by carrying an emotional charge which is greater than the location or functional node. This means residents turn a di rection into a place In contrast to Tampa’s yearly pirate festival which as a two class pa rade (government offici als in floats watched by the standing and walking public) does not re flect Tampa’s historical past, Hamburg’s Landungsbruecken appear animated. Obviously, residents and visitors identify with the

PAGE 119

110 City. The other scene define s the center’s harmony of tr aditional buildings with unobstructed public waterfront access. The vision of the City is determined by water: the Binnen Alster (Inner Alster), part of the inner City (Fig.4.8), is linked to the Aussen Alster (Outer Alster) and its surrounding residences. The Al ster rivers are interwoven with numerous canals that lead to the Port. The city claims a total of 2,284 bridges which exceeds those of the cities of Ve nice, Amsterdam and London together. Fig.4.7 The Port City of Hamburg’s archit ecture and waterfront (Obis Verlag, 1990) Hafen City, within a walking distan ce of 800 meters to the Rathaus, (City Hall) adds approximately 40 percent to the City. Th e Senate approved in 2000 to built an area of 1.6 million square meters to provide 20,000 jobs, gastronomic and leisure facilities, shops parks and open spaces (Fig. 4.9).

PAGE 120

111 Fig.4.8 Hafen City (HafenCity.de, 2005) The above observations give the City’s man made environment high ratings. It carries a unique signature in the course of time, lending stability to its residents through their cycle of work during the day. If the human personality is a fusion of natural disposition an d acquired traits, then a place is a composite of natural endowment and the modifications wrought by successive generations of human beings (T uan 1974). Therefore, loosely speaking, a city’s cultural and recreational asse ts depend on the accretion through prolonged interaction between nature and man. Planners, responsible for Tampa’s cu ltural and recreational wealth disagreed. The city’s and county’s nearly two million resident s find themselves without preservation of their Port’s illustrious histor y which could tell a continuous story. Furthermore, residents find no significant imprints associated with art shows, exhibitions or festivals experienced in many great parks without social barriers. There are no signs of bringing the Port community together. Instead, frag ments of parks spread through neighborhoods that are not “neighborly” having been disc onnected by highways. The downtown library is a popular hangout for many homeless people. The City lacks a specific concert hall

PAGE 121

112 with the usual acoustical design for musical pe rformance. The absence of scenic outdoor grounds for regular plays, musical program s and communal gatherings, add to the cultural deficit. Worse still, one senses no themes of present or past symbols that relate to a sea port. Hamburg, on the other hand, underwent a process of cultu ral awareness of its Port City treasures through centuries. There are fi reworks on New Year’s Eve at the historical Landungsbruecken that draw thousands of re sidents to the Port ’s waterfront, and “Hamburgers” shows their patriotism by celeb rating its birthday every year (Fig.4.8). Weekend outings are frequented by families strolling through hilly parks and winding streets from St. Pauli or to the banks of th e Port (Fig 4.10). From the waterfront, public domain by law, one can watch ships come a nd leave and enjoy reasonably priced crab and fish sandwiches, sausages, beer a nd “schnaps,” made out local grain. Fig.4.9 Landungsbruecken at the bot tom left (Orbis Verlag, 1990)

PAGE 122

113 Across a bridge from Landungsbruecken (Fig.4.8) to Hafen City, the scene opens with open spaces and squares. Unlike Tampa’s Channelside Drive, basins, parks and promenades, all facing the water, provid e public access. The Marco Polo Terassen (Fig.4.9) are built on three levels in a park li ke setting and slope toward the water ending in a wood covered side walk. Close by Magellan Terrassen (Fig. 4.11) cover an area of 5,000 square meters and resemble the te rraced or stepped design of a classic amphitheater, serving as a stage for cultural events. An unusual preservation of sea port he ritage evoking a cultural identity exhibits the Elbe Philharmonic on the roof of Ka ispeicher A (Quay warehouse A) shown in Fig.4.11. In a “Shakespearean” way Hafen City has endorsed a cultural mix for the elite and masses, as it claims to provide a program for everybody. Fig. 4.10 Elbe Philharmonic on top of old warehouse B. ( www.Hafencity.de 2009) Another multifaceted cultural spectrum suggesting the hear, see, feel or smell of the sea, surfaces at Kaispeicher B, bu ilt in 1878/1879. As the oldest warehouse in Speicherstadt and Hafen City, it will retain it s distinctive architect ure and be converted into the “International Mari time Museum of Hamburg.”

PAGE 123

114 Finally, the experience of Hamburg’ s culture can be a very personal thing as it touches the mind and the heart (Tuan,1987). It is something shared that cannot be duplicated elsewhere, and the expe riences are never quite the same. Environmental Priorities The social and cultural qualitative performance of cities must be linked to their government’s environmental priorities. Port Cities’ emissions of pollutants from facilities, for example, can cause present or future health problems. The Port of Tampa stores and transports bulk commodities close to residential areas and has, as has been documented by the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, violated numerous permit codes. Furthermore, scrap metal permits seem to be liberally issued, allowing emissions to vent direc tly into the atmosphere without stacks. Phosphogypsum which keeps being stockpile d across from Bayshore Boulevard may project unknown health issues. The Port Authority has set no standards limiting contaminating fumes emitted from ships entering, docking at or leaving the Port. Also tug boats leaving trails of black diesel fumes in the air, while maneuvering ships and barges through channels are part of every day’s pict ure from the few public waterfront locations. Overall, Tampa’s Port related environmenta l priorities are reason for concern to its residents. Hamburg’s environmental policies ar e structured by an attempt to balance the Port’s economic purpose with its residents’ quality of life. Terminals for commodities, such as oil and chemical products, are distanced from residential areas. Cruise ships, for example will reduce their carbon footprint when in port through the use of land supplied energy ( http://www.hamburg.de /Green-Technology 2010). Instead of trucks, the Port of

PAGE 124

115 Hamburg uses waterborne container taxis fo r environmentally friendly transfer between terminals. In June, 2009 Hamburger Hafen a nd Logistik AG and 11 of its subsidiaries joined the voluntary Hamburg Environmental Partnership to improve the environmental energy efficiency ( http://www.hamburg.de/Green-Technology 2010). The Hamburger Hafen and Logistik plans to containerize a di sproportionate increase of CO2 to channel it back for re-use of energy. Hafencity’s reside nce constructions and wa terfront lay-out is largely removed from facilities that cause noise and pollution. As the above analysis demonstrates, priorities that por t authorities set vary and eff ect residents’ quality of life and closes as follows: The cities of Tampa and Hamburg are governed by similar democratic principles, yet they provide different social and cultural spaces for their communities. This suggests the importance of local commitment toward communal affairs and informed decision making whom to elect. Thus it is noted, that one place disregarded humanistic spatial values the other preserved them. The research has specified Tuan’s and Fleming’s broad concepts of place and space by researching societal distinctions of two port cities on quali tative micro scales. The regions’ heritages were animated for the purpose to understand the implications of economics on human values that have become shared experiences over time. As places have physical and mythical geographies, the comprehension of reality is no absolute. As a region benefits from emotion and thought that result in social acts, each generation is also responsible for the e nvironment it leaves behind.

PAGE 125

116 Conclusion Ports are important driving forces to th e quality of live in their entire region. Feeder ports (Tampa), are less profita ble than container hub ports (Hamburg). Tampa’s and Hamburg’s ports have impacted their social, cultural and environmental levels for the following reason: The Port of Hamburg is controlled by its residents. This powerful local tool promotes the city’s economic, social cultural and environmental quality. The Port of Tampa’s largely state contro lled corporate style management team looks at short term economic numbers, thereby ignoring th e region’s social, cultural and environmenta l quality of life. In summary, a port city’s qualita tive economic, social, cultural and environmental equilibrium mirrors th e supply and demand curve of their residents’ input.

PAGE 126

117 References Baird, A (1999) Analysis of private sea port development: The port of Felixstowe Transport Policy 6 Bird, J (1956) Scale in regional study illu strated by brief comparisons between the western peninsula of England and France. Geography, 41: pp. 25-38. Cooper, Alistair D (1983) The Atlantic Atla s of the Oceans. Times Books Limited: New York Fleming, D.K. (1987) The port community: an American view. (Marit. Pol. MGMT.) 14: pp. 321-336 Grigg, D (1965) The logic of regional systems. Annals of the Asso ciation of American Geographers 55: pp. 465-491. Mitchel, J.C. (1983) Case and situation an alysis. The Sociologi cal Review 31: pp. 187211. Robinson, Ross (2002) Ports as elements in value driven chain systems: the new paradigm. (Marit. Pol. MGMT) 29: pp. 241-245. Smith, N. (1984) Uneven Development: nature capital and the production of space. Oxford: Blackwell Tuan, Yi-Fu (1974) Space and pl ace: humanistic perspectiv e. Progress in Geography 6: pp. 233-246 Tuan, Yi-Fu (1977) Space and place: the pers pective of experience. The University of Minnesota: Minneapolis. Tuan, Yi-Fu (1978) The City: Its Distance from Nature. Geographical Review 68: pp. 1Personal Communication: Thorington, John. Telephone C onversation, 10 February 2004. Thorington, John. Email Co mmunication, 1 March 2007.

PAGE 127

118 Maps, Pamphlets, Brochures, Photos, other Documents: Becker, Gerhard, Personal Photo, Tampa Channelside, 2008. Becker, Gerhard, Personal Photo, Tampa Downtown, 2010 Germany, Department of Commerce, Free Port City Hamburg, 1997. Germany, Conf.Sofia, Port Reform at Port of Hamburg 2006. Germany, Hamburg, Hafencity Development Plan 2007. Germany, Hamburg, Hafencity Development Plan 2001. Koch, Thomas, Altenwerder, HHLA Container Terminal, 1997. Hillsborough County, City-County Planning Commission, Tampa Housing District Study, 1998. Hillsborough County, Environmen tal Protection Commission, Major Violations of Emissions from Port Facilities 2005-2008. Hillsborough County/Tampa, Central Business District Periphery Housing Study, 1990, 1997. Tampa, North Ybor Channel Comprehensive Plan Amendments, 2007. Tampa, Tampa Bay Business, Tampa Bay Business Weekly Edition, Dec. 11-17, 1983. Tampa, Tampa Port Authority, Official Map and Directory, 1998. Tampa, Tampa Port Authority, Official Map and Directory, 2002/2003. Tampa, Tampa Port Authority, Official Map and Directory, 2005. Tampa, Tampa Port Authority, Official Map and Directory, 2006. Tampa, Tampa Port Authority, Port of Tampa Oper ations Manual no. 4, effective September 1, 1994. Tampa, Tampa Port Authority, State of the Port Future Foundation, 2005. Tampa, Tampa Port Authority, State of the Port Address, 2006. Tampa, Tampa Port Authority, State of the Port Address, 2008.

PAGE 128

119 Orbis, Verlag, Hamburg 1990. USA, Container News, 1982.