The Urban Port: A Hidden Resource for the City
and the Coastal Zone
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the changing pattern of activity on
the urban waterfront. It examines developments in marine transportation
technology and in the economic structure of the central city that
have influenced the function of the urban port. Drawing upon data
related to the West Side of Manhattan, the impact of the changes
in cargo and passenger ship operations on the urban port is described
and analyzed. A twofold strategy for public agencies to identify
and understand the opportunities presented by technological change
and to formulate policies for the redevelopment of the urban coastal
zone is discussed.
Introduction
Most large cities of the United States are located in the coastal
zone. Of the 20 largest cities in this nation, 17 are situated at
the intersection of a navigable body of water with land.(1) Urban
settlements have traditionally developed at those points in the
transportation process where the movement of goods underwent a shift
from water to land-surface modes of transport. Access to safe, natural
harbors was a vital factor in the location and growth of early American
cities and many communities developed man-made harbors in order
to attract waterborne transport and related industries. The intricate
relationship between a city's location on a body of water and its
growth as a trade and transportation center has been noted by Bader.
Commerce has played a major role in encouraging man to establish
cities and industrial centers in the coastal zone. Water transport
has historically been the only practical, as well as the most
economical means to move goods and people to developing regions.
Once started, cities and industrial centers on rivers, bays, and
estuaries develop, not only as ocean ports but also as focal points
for inland transportation systems…as commercial centers grew at
ocean port sites and jobs became available, population grew. Thus
commerce increased at ocean port cities, both because commodities
were needed in inland areas and because the population of the
port cities themselves required consumable commodities. In short,
man's place in the coastal zone developed primarily from ocean
commerce and the need for a transfer point to inland distribution
systems. Industrial activities and related worker populations
subsequently developed at port locations.(2)
This paper is concerned with changing patterns of activity on the
urban waterfront, with particular emphasis on the port area of the
city, that section of the urban waterfront utilized for the movement
of goods and people in and out of the city. During the past 25 years
there have been significant changes in the technology of passenger
and cargo transportation and in the economic role of the central
city, changes which have and will continue to have a wide range
of social, economic, and physical effects on the port areas of our
large cities. This paper examines the nature of these technological
and economic changes, their potential impact on the urban waterfront,
and the consequences of these technological developments for the
public-sector agencies which plan and manage urban coastal resources.
The discussion consists of four parts:
1. A brief review of the traditional role and structure of the
urban port
2. A description of recent developments in passenger and cargo
transportation technology and in the economic structure of the central
city
3. An analysis of past and present patterns of port activity on
the West Side of Manhattan in New York City, in order to illustrate
the technological changes set forth in 2. above
4. An examination of the new concepts coastal management agencies
will need in order to respond to the technological and economic
changes on the urban waterfront
The Role of the Urban Port
The urban port has traditionally been the site for the waterborne
movement of goods and people in and out of a city. The transportation
activities located at the port have also given rise to a variety
of economic activities which have developed in association with
the harbor. Banks to finance trade were established, as were shipyards
for the construction of clipper ships, and later, steamers and ocean
liners. Immigrants arriving by boat provided a cheap and readily
available source of labor for the city's industrial firms. The port's
influence extended beyond the piers and docks, for land use and
activities adjacent to the harbor were largely oriented toward the
movement of waterborne cargo. Industrial firms dependent upon inbound
shipping for raw materials or on the outbound movement of their
finished products were frequently situated on the waterfront itself,
or close by. Fish and produce markets were established to sell goods
just brought in by ship. In the late nineteenth century, railroad
companies acquired piers, as well as large parcels of land next
to the piers, to facilitate the direct movement of goods shipped
to and from the port by rail. Huge railroad yards, which still exist,
were built next to the waterfront for the loading and unloading
of railroad cars.
Shipping activities at the port also influenced the social and
cultural life of the port area and the surrounding neighborhood.
Bars, restaurants, and hotels catering to the particular needs of
visiting ship crews were located in the immediate port areas, while
permanent dockworkers lived in residential neighborhoods close to
the port. Port activities determined the economic and social structure
of the land surrounding the harbor; the port became a highly specialized
functional area within the city, characterized by a distinctive
set of physical, economic, and social conditions. The character
of the social life of neighborhoods next to the harbor is well defined
and has been the subject of numerous films and novels that portray
the harsh life in the waterfront communities.
Technological Change and the Urban Port
During the past 25 years there have been substantial changes in
marine transportation technology and in the economic function of
the central city that have exerted a major effect on the character
of the activities taking place at the urban port. Waterfront cargo
is generally classified as either general or bulk cargo. General
cargo is low-volume freight, consisting of all forms of goods and
merchandise. Bulk cargo is high-volume freight, such as petroleum,
ore, gravel, and grain. Bulk cargo is commonly shipped directly
to the facilities that utilize the raw materials: petroleum to the
refineries and storage tanks, sand and gravel to the cement and
concrete plants. These facilities, which are often situated on the
coastal zone, process and refine the materials before they are distributed
to consumers.
General cargo has been traditionally shipped by a method referred
to as "break-bulk," in which the cargo is loaded and unloaded from
the ship in crates filled with goods. Over the past two decades
a variety of new technologies have been developed for moving such
cargo more efficiently, including palletization, the LASH (Lighter
Aboard Ship) system, and most important, containerization. Containerization
allows goods to be placed in huge metal boxes, known as containers,
which can be packed by the shipper and unpacked by the consumer.
Goods can thus be shipped directly from a manufacturing plant to
port and from the port to distributing point, without the time-consuming
packing and unpacking process involved in break-bulk. The economic
benefits of containerization are impressive: the time used in loading
and unloading ships is reduced and thus labor costs are lowered;
the turn-around time for a ship to enter port, unload, obtain a
new load of cargo, and leave port is shorter, and, consequently,
a ship is able to make more trips in the same time. In addition,
the opportunities for loss of cargo through theft are reduced by
sealing the containers and by the much greater difficulty of stealing
a container in comparison to a small crate or carton. The attractiveness
of containerization for moving general cargo has resulted in the
construction of ships specifically designed to carry containers
and the corresponding truck and train units for carrying containers.
Containerization, however, imposes high space requirements on the
land adjacent to the port. It is estimated that 30 to 50 acres of
back-up space are needed for each container berth for the storage
and handling of containers.(3) Such large amounts of back-up space
are difficult to find and assemble and expensive to acquire in high-density
urban areas, especially where ports are close to the central business
district. The construction of port facilities to accommodate containerization
may thus require a shift in location of port activities to a new,
less developed site or the massive redevelopment of existing ports,
using landfill to create new space for container storage and handling.
In the late 1950s the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
anticipated the rise of containerization and undertook the development
of the world's largest container cargo facility at Port Elizabeth,
New Jersey, largely relying on landfill construction techniques.
An additional technological development that has potentially serious
consequences for the urban port is the possible construction of
offshore ports and terminals to accommodate the newest class of
supertankers, which require deep-water depths greater than the depths
of most existing harbors within the United States. Offshore mooring
points currently allow tankers to unload their oil through pipelines
without entering port, and the development of offshore islands with
port facilities would have a substantial effect on the amount and
type of shipping taking place within the urban port.
Changes in land-surface transportation technologies are also influencing
urban port activities. The activities of the urban port were developed
originally in close conjunction with the nation's railroad system,
for until the construction of the interstate highway system the
nation's railroads were the primary land-surface mode for the movement
of cargo. Railroad lines often ran parallel to the waterfront of
cities, terminating at the part where both freight and passenger
terminals existed. Railroad companies were major owners and occupants
of piers and waterfront acreage.
With the rise of the interstate highway system and fast long-haul
trucking, highway and railroad linkages became necessary to move
goods to and from the port rapidly. Birch has pointed out that the
spatial structure of newer cities may be expected "to be built around
road networks, rather than around the railroads and harbors of the
earlier cities."(4) Trailer trucks designed to go directly aboard
ship reflect the growing role of trucks in moving waterborne cargo
on land surfaces. Trucks are also able to directly reach industries
and communities located in the hinterland and in dispersed parts
of the metropolitan regions where rail service does not exist.
The Port and the Economic Function of the Central City
The rise of shipping activity at the urban port was intimately
connected with the central city's manufacturing industries which
obtained raw materials and sent their finished products abroad through
the port. This functional relationship between the urban port and
the city's industrial firms was based on the model of the central
city as the center of manufacturing plants and factories. However,
manufacturing industries play an increasingly smaller role in the
economic life of the central city. With the advent of mass-assembly
technologies, industrial firms have required large tracts of land
for single-story production plants. Such space requirements could
rarely be met in the central city and this, along with other economic
locational factors, has led to the removal of manufacturing activity
to suburban locations. The central business district of large American
cities is now largely oriented toward the provision of highly specialized
services, rather than toward the production of goods, while the
outer ring of the metropolitan area contains huge manufacturing
and industrial plants. As Birch has noted, cities, particularly
the older, "larger, established urban centers," are becoming "economic
specialists."(5) Employment in such cities is largely in white collar,
service occupations, and the central city serves as the site of
governmental and private-sector service organizations and as headquarters
for national corporations whose production plants are located outside
the central city. A recent study of New York City stated that "the
most outstanding change in Manhattan has been the continued departure
of manufacturing and other goods-handling activities, which are
seeking greater tracts of cheaper space outside the city, and the
proliferation of office and service occupations seeking the advantages
of concentration in the CBD [central business district]."(6) The
urban port situated next to the central business district of a city
was highly accessible for the industrial firms located in the central
city. As industrial activity moves outside the central city, the
location of the port in the central city may be a liability for
such firms rather than an asset, given the congestion of city streets
and lack of interstate highway roads in the central city.
The dispersion of the urban population beyond the central city
to the metropolitan region also affects the nature of port activities.
According to the 1970 U.S. Census, 139.4 million of the nation's
203.4 million people live in 243 Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas. More than half of this metropolitan population, 75.6 million,
live outside central cities, while 63.7 million reside within central
cities. Between 1960 and 1970, the central city population grew
by 6.4%, while the population located outside the central city in
the metropolitan area increased by 26.8%.(7) This population increasingly
relies for its consumer goods upon the large shopping centers and
department stores located in the suburbs. Thus the goods and products
brought to the port by ship are likely to require distribution throughout
the metropolitan area rather than in the central city alone. Considering
the dispersion of population and industry in the metropolitan area,
it appears that the location of the port in the heart of the central
city represents a decision based upon economic conditions that no
longer exist.
Passenger Transportation and the Port
Developments in marine transportation technology for cargo have
been matched by an impressive set of changes in the pattern of passenger
transportation which has had equally significant effects on port
activities. Air transportation has replaced the ocean liner as the
dominant mode of trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific travel; this shift
in the mode of passenger transportation is now so nearly complete
that we virtually take it for granted. Yet the shift occurred rapidly.
The initiation of jet flights across the Atlantic in the late 1950s
marked the beginning of the end of the era of the ocean liner as
a major passenger transportation mode. In 1957 there were 1,036,000
passengers who traveled across the Atlantic by sea, just slightly
more than the 1,037,000 who traveled by plane.(8) By 1960 trans-Atlantic
jets carried 1,919,750 people and sea travel had diminished to 867,795
passengers.(9) The Port of New York, traditionally the main port
of departure and embarkation for trans-Atlantic ocean liners, bore
much of this decline. In 1955 the number of trans-Atlantic passengers
who went through the Port of New York was 700,000; by 1974 the number
had dropped to just 84,000 persons."(10) Jet aircraft have made
it possible to cross the Atlantic and the Pacific comfortably, quickly,
and cheaply, and are probably more suited to the pace of advanced
industrial society than the leisurely voyage across the seas.
As a result of the decline in trans-Atlantic passenger travel,
ocean liners have been removed from such sea duty, sold for other
uses, or converted into cruise ships. The city of Long Beach, California
purchased the Queen Mary for use as a floating hotel, commercial
complex, and exhibit, and the France, an ocean liner launched in
1961, was recently taken out of service, in part because the rise
in oil prices required an even larger subsidy than the one already
provided by the French government to keep the ship in operation.(11)
During the same period that trans-Atlantic passenger sea travel
has been declining, there has been an enormous increase in another
form of passenger ship travel, the leisure cruise. Cruise ships,
unlike the conventional ocean liners, are not primarily a means
of transportation but rather serve as floating hotel and recreational
complexes, which also make stops at ports. The cruise market is
growing, both on the east and west coasts, with cruises from East
Coast ports going to the Caribbean and those departing from West
Coast ports sailing down to Mexico and the South Pacific.
The rise of the leisure cruise has occurred so rapidly that systematic
data on the pattern of cruise activity has not been collected. The
total number of passengers taking round-trip cruises from the three
major East Coast cruise ports - New York, Miami, and Port Everglades
- rose from 318,395 in 1966 to 582,173 in 1971.(12) A major portion
of the rise in cruise business has been due to the popularity of
fly/sail arrangements in which residents of northern cities fly
from their home city to the southern port where the cruise ship
is based. Airlines and cruise firms offer a packaged round-trip
air fare with the cruise. The southern ports offer the advantage
of warm weather during all the days at sea, rather than the risk
of inclement weather associated with winter departures from northern
ports. The scheduling and length of the fly/sail packages is especially
geared to the urban work and vacation patterns; persons can fly
to the southern port of departure on a Saturday, spend seven days
at sea, and return to work the following week after a flight home.
The attraction of the fly/sail packages has led to increased passenger
activity at such southern ports as Port Everglades and Miami, and
more recently at Caribbean ports, notably San Juan. In winter 1970
two cruise ships were based in San Juan; by winter 1973 eight cruise
ships were based there.(13)
An emerging trend in the passenger cruise market that is likely
to contribute even further to the growth of leisure cruise activity
is the "special-interest cruise" and the "cruise to nowhere." The
special-interest cruise caters to specialized groups of the population,
with programming and activities oriented around a particular theme
of activity, such as classical music, postgraduate education, or
social interaction for subgroups of the population. In December
1974 the New School for Social Research in New York City offered
a two-week cruise for adults interested in continuing-education
courses. A number of professional and business organizations are
also beginning to hold conventions and meetings aboard cruise ships.
The cruise to nowhere is simply a two- or three-day cruise from
an urban port, usually over the course of a weekend, in which the
ship departs and returns to the same harbor without making any stops.
The present and potential increases in passenger cruise activity
are likely to have a substantial impact on port development. Fly/sail
arrangements are leading to the dispersion of cruise business among
various warm-weather ports and thus are creating a demand for the
construction of new port facilities in certain warm-water areas,
while further diminishing the role of the northern ports on the
East Coast in passenger ship traffic.
As a result of the extensive changes in marine transportation technology
and in the economic function of the central city, the requirements
for port facilities in our large urban areas have been substantially
altered. Port and port-related activities are still a major component
of the economic infrastructure of an urban region, but the type
of facilities required for modern cargo shipping and the magnitude
of the facilities needed for passenger ship travel are quite different
from those originally built in the traditional urban port. Consequently,
cargo operations in certain cities have been moved to new sites
specifically designed for containerization, while the reduction
in passenger sea travel has led to the closing of many passenger
ship terminals. Moreover, the effects of this decline in shipping
activities at the traditional urban port are felt in the surrounding
land area that depended upon the port for economic sustenance. With
the diminished use of the urban piers and terminals, maintenance
and repair of these facilities have been reduced. The process of
deterioration and decay has begun. In an article written 10 years
ago Wood identified factors that can produce blight on the urban
waterfront, and noted that the simple fact of age can contribute
to waterfront deterioration. The urban waterfront was commonly the
initial site for urban settlement and thus constitutes the oldest
part of the city.(14) The age of the structures at the waterfront,
plus the neglect and even abandonment that comes with reduced activity,
work jointly to produce the physical decay of the port area.
The West Side of Manhattan
In order to understand more fully how changes in transportation
technology and in the economic function of the central city have
affected the urban port, we shall examine the West Side of Manhattan,
an area that illustrates how these factors have influenced the traditional
urban port. The island of Manhattan is bounded on the east by the
East River and on the west by the Hudson River. It is located in
the Port of New York, an area defined by the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey as approximately 1,500 sq. mi., within a 25-mi
radius of the Statue of Liberty. It encompasses parts of two states,
eight separate bays, four rivers, and several straits. Major marine
terminals are located at several sites within the Port, including
Newark Bay, Brooklyn, Staten Island, the New Jersey side of the
Hudson, and Manhattan.(15)
Manhattan Island is a long, narrow strip of land; it is 13.1 mi.
long and, at its widest point, 2 mi. wide. For purposes of this
discussion, the term "West Side" refers to the strip of land facing
the Hudson River from the Battery, at the southern tip of Manhattan,
northward to 59th Street, the area in which extensive port and port-related
activities have traditionally been concentrated. The central business
district of the New York Metropolitan Area is the area of Manhattan
south of 59th Street; approximately 2.5 million people work there.
The West Side became a major shipping center in the Port of New
York during the nineteenth century with the opening of the Erie
Canal, the rise of the steamship, and the growth of the railroad.
Finger piers extend outward on the West Side into the Hudson River
with large sheds or headhouses situated on the piers. An elevated
highway was built in 1927 that runs parallel to the waterfront between
the piers and the adjacent land area, which contains railroad yards,
warehouses, the city's wholesale meat market and, until recently,
the city's major produce market.
The Port of New York has been, and continues to be, an important
marine terminal for foreign trade in and out of the United States.
The Port's oceanborne cargo has increased from 22 million tons in
1940 to 75 million tons in 1973. Despite this absolute growth, the
Port's portion of total U.S. oceanborne foreign trade has declined
from 28% to 12.9% during this same period. The extensive growth
of shipping in ports other than New York has been attributed to
four factors: (a) the growth of population and national markets
outside the Northeast; (b) the development of the Saint Lawrence
Seaway and inland ports; (c) the discriminatory rail rates set by
the Interstate Commerce Commission, which favored southern over
northern areas; and (d) the increases in New York port operating
costs.(16)
Although there has been growth in shipping activity within the
entire Port, changes in the type of cargo and location of major
marine terminals within the Port have affected the relative importance
of the West Side waterfront. The volume of bulk cargo handled in
the Port has grown from 24,478,000 long tons in 1960 to 38,483,000
long tons in 1971; however, during this same period general cargo
has increased only slightly, from 13,737,000 long tons to 14,458,000
long tons. Between 1960 and 1971 the annual average growth rate
for bulk cargo was 4.0%, while the rate for general cargo was 1.17%.(17)
The growth in bulk cargo and the relative stability in general cargo
has had, and will continue to have, serious consequences for the
West Side piers, which are designed primarily to handle general
cargo.
There is very little encouragement in the growth trend for the
kinds of cargo that are relevant to those [West Side] piers. The
West Side piers are capable of handling only general cargo, for
which there has been almost no growth in the entire Port for more
than ten years.(18)
Moreover, the general cargo moved through the Port of New York
is increasingly containerized and the Port's major container facilities
are located on the New Jersey side of the Port, at Port Elizabeth
and Port Newark, where modern port facilities were created to accommodate
containerization. The growth of containerization and the absence
of such facilities on the West Side has contributed to the rise
of the New Jersey side of the Port and the decline of cargo operations
on the West Side.
Any discussion of this set of developments is constrained by the
nature of the information available on Port activities. Data on
shipping is given for the Port as a whole, not disaggregated by
site. Consequently, it is difficult to determine the precise type
and degree of change for particular portions of the Port. One group
studying marine cargo activities on the West Side of Manhattan insightfully
noted this problem.
Although there is widespread agreement that marine cargo operations
in the West Side of Manhattan have declined almost to the point
of disappearing completely, efforts to document this decline are
very difficult. Despite an abundance of data pertaining to the
Port as a whole, specific information on the tonnage of waterborne
commerce along the piers in this particular portion of the Port
is not readily available.(19)
At the present time there are no active cargo piers on the West
Side of Manhattan and two active cargo piers on the East River serve
a total of four ships per week. The decline in West Side pier activity
can be observed through several indirect measures. Total waterborne
commerce on the Hudson River Channel declined from 23.4 million
short tons in 1953 to 8.9 million short tons in 1970 and during
this same period foreign trade on the Hudson River Channel declined
from 5.8 million short tons to 2.4 million short tons. A report
analyzing decreased traffic on the Hudson River Channel stated that
"in view of the fact that New Jersey, with its container facilities,
has fared better than the New York side of the Channel, a large
part of the decline is attributable to the decline in traffic at
the New York."(20) The volume of rail freight at the West Side piers
also provides an indication of the trend in shipping activities
on the West Side. The total volume of rail freight moved to and
from these piers dropped from 5.07 million short tons in 1950 to
1.25 million short tons in 1970.(21)
The extent to which port activities have grown in New Jersey while
those in Manhattan have declined is also reflected in the number
of longshoremen hired at the different areas within the Port. Table
1 provides a detailed breakdown of the number of hirings at major
areas within the Port. The number of waterfront hirings in Manhattan
declined from 1,753,340 in 1957-1958 to 341,931 in 1970-1971, while
hirings in New Jersey rose from 886,692 to 1,212,535 during this
same period. These statistics reveal that Manhattan's share of the
Port hirings dropped from 36.3% to 10.4%, while New Jersey's portion
grew from 18.4% to 36.7%.(22) Put in other terms, in 1957-1958 the
Manhattan waterfront could support yearlong jobs (250 days per year)
for 7,013 persons. In 1970 1971, it could support yearlong jobs
for 1,050 men, an 85% decline in 14 years.(23)
| Table 1 - Waterfront Hirings, New York Harbor |
| |
1957 - 1958
|
1970 - 1971
|
| Area |
Hirings |
% of port |
Hirings |
% of port |
| Manhattan |
1,753,340 |
36.3 |
341,931 |
10.4 |
| Brooklyn |
2,055,053 |
42.5 |
1,570,194 |
47.6 |
| Staten Island |
134,591 |
2.8 |
176,870 |
5.3 |
| New Jersey |
886,692 |
18.4 |
1,212,535 |
36.7 |
| Total |
4,829,679 |
100.0 |
3,301,530 |
100.0 |
|
| Source: Report on Marine Cargo and Passenger Activities
on the West Side of Manhattan, West Side Highway Project.
Prepared by System Design Concepts, Inc., January 1973 |
Passenger ship operations on the West Side of Manhattan have also
been significantly affected by changes in transportation technology.
The piers on the West Side were once the locus of trans-Atlantic
steamship travel. With the advent of jet travel, passenger travel
has shifted to the airports, which are also under the control of
the Port Authority. The number of trans-Atlantic ship passengers
in the Port of New York has declined from 699,000 in 1955 to 164,839
in 1971. By contrast, cruise ship travel has grown from 184,000
to 574,740 during this same period. Despite the spectacular increase
in cruise travel, it has "not been enough to compensate for the
precipitous decline in trans-Atlantic travel."(24) Table 2 documents
the changes in trans-Atlantic and cruise traffic.
| Table 2 - Ship passengers through the Port of New York |
| |
1955 |
1971 |
% Change |
| Trans-Atlantic passengers |
699,000 |
164,839 |
-76.0 |
| Cruise passengers |
184,000 |
574,740 |
212.0 |
| Total passengers |
883,000 |
739,579 |
-11.0 |
|
| Source: Report on Marine Cargo and Passenger Activities
on the West Side of Manhattan, West Side Highway Project.
Prepared by System Design Concepts, Inc., January 1973 |
Although there has been substantial growth in cruise ship activity
in the Port of New York, there have been even greater increases
in the number of cruise passengers sailing from Florida and other
ports.
Even with the present increases in cruise passengers in New York,
the Port has been getting a shrinking share of the market. On
the basis of present trends alone, Florida ports have become and
will continue to be pre-eminent cruise ports with forecasts of
substantial growth in the Caribbean and less directly competitive
West Coast ports. If the growth of the total cruise market continues,
New York will probably be assured of some share, although the
bulk of the growth appears likely to take place in these other
ports.(25)
The long-term role of New York in the cruise business will depend
both upon the rate of growth of cruise shipping, and on particular
characteristics of the cruise market. A recent report stated, "future
growth of cruise activity in New York is likely to be at a slower
rate than in the past and the absolute volume could stabilize by
the mid-1970s. If fly/cruise competition from southern ports emerges
as a critical factor and ship shortages develop, the level of cruise
activity in the Port of New York could decline."(26)
For a number of years the passenger ship terminals on the West
Side consisted of old, worn structures that provided a minimum of
amenities to passengers and hardly made departure or arrival by
sea an appealing event. The buildings were particularly noted for
being cold in winter and excessively hot in summer. In an attempt
to improve services for passenger ship travelers, the city of New
York and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have built
a new Consolidated Passenger Liner Terminal on the West Side to
replace the old, run-down facilities. The new terminal, which accommodates
six ships, opened in 1974 and represents the Port's commitment to
attract passenger ship business. Despite the attractiveness of the
new terminal, the Port faces intense competition in the cruise market
and must confront a declining trans-Atlantic passenger market. It
is estimated that the cost to "turn around" a cruise ship at Port
Everglades is $11,000, while the cost in New York is approximately
$19,000.(27) In addition, from June through September, 1974, the
peak of the trans-Atlantic sailing months, there were only 27 sailings
from the Port of New York, an average of less than two per week.(28)
Although passenger and cargo shipping operations on the West Side
of Manhattan have substantially diminished in the past two decades,
a large number of the piers and physical structures that supported
these activities still stand. All of the piers on the West Side
are owned by the city of New York, with the exception of six piers
owned by the Penn Central Railroad located next to the 60th Street
railroad yards. The city has traditionally leased the piers to private
firms who operated facilities on them. There are now 36 city-owned
piers standing on the West Side, plus the 6 Penn Central Railroad
piers. An additional 9 piers, owned by the city, have recently been
demolished or are scheduled for demolition. Table 3 provides a detailed
account of the types of pier use. Three times as many piers are
used for nonmarine-related uses as for marine-related uses. More
than half of the 36 piers are used for storage, parking, or freight
forwarding and consolidation. The 8 vacant piers include the 4 Chelsea
piers which cost 25 million dollars to renovate and which have remained
unused since they opened in 1968.
| Table 3 - Pier usage on the West Side* |
| Type of use |
Piers |
|
Marine-related uses
|
| Passenger Shipping |
3 |
| Cargo Shipping |
0 |
| Recreation and education |
3 |
| Other (e.g., gravel, oil barging) |
2 |
| Total |
8 |
|
Nonmarine related uses
|
| Storage and parking |
14 |
| Freight forwarding and consolidation |
4 |
| Vacant |
8 |
| Other Municipal Uses (e.g., heliport, garbage
removal) |
2 |
| Total |
28 |
|
|
Source: Inventory of Piers, North River, Deparment of
Ports and Terminals, City of New York, 1974, and Environment
Impact Statement, West Side Highway Project, 1974
*excludes 9 city-owned piers recently demolished or scheduled
for demolition and 6 piers owned by Penn Central Railroad
that are to be sold with adjacent railroad yards to a private
developer.
|
The piers used for storage and parking contain such diverse items
as cars towed away by the Police Department, buses belonging to
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and large, empty truck
trailers. The three piers used for recreation and education include
two that house the sightseeing boats that circle the island of Manhattan
and go up the Hudson, while the third, known as the Morton Street
pier, has a ship moored at the pier that serves a maritime trades
high school; the area next to it, which once contained a pier shed,
has been paved and made accessible to the public which uses it heavily
for strolling sunbathing, and picnicking. Of the piers demolished
or planned for demolition several were torn down after fires gutted
them, while others have been taken down to make way for redevelopment
projects. One outgrowth of the absence of activity on the piers
has been a rise in informal and illegal social transactions in old
pier sheds and in the trucks parked on the piers. A journalist described
the nature of one pier's use.
The pier, of course, is off limits. A sign outside announces
"Property of the City of New York, No Trespassing, Violators Will
Be Prosecuted." During the summer, approximately 1,500 violators
passed through the portals on a warm night. Sex was, and is, available
in all combinations. In two's, in fours, in clusters. Name the
formula, name the mechanics, it's there. If the trucks were fantasy,
the pier is nirvana.(29)
Crime has increased on these abandoned and underused piers and
reported illegal activities include the fencing of stolen goods,
the sale of drugs, and murder.(30)
The land use of the area surrounding the piers has been sharply
affected by the decline in port activity on the West Side. Two large
railroad yards are minimally used for railroad purposes, while the
truck facilities built to handle marine cargo have been leased to
warehousing and freight consolidation firms who located on the West
Side when low-cost space became available after marine cargo truckers
moved to port sites in Brooklyn, New Jersey, and Staten Island.
Most important, the large amount of unused and underutilized space
on the waterfront has produced numerous sites for large-scale redevelopment
projects. At the present time, several major redevelopment projects
are either planned or under construction. Battery Park City, a residential
and commercial project, is being built on 100 acres of landfill
at the southern tip of Manhattan, on the site of former piers. When
completed, Battery Park City will contain approximately 15,000 housing
units and house approximately 45,000 persons. A 231-million-dollar
convention center is planned for construction on the site of two
former passenger ship piers. The two railroad yards owned by the
Perm Central Railroad Company have recently been sold to a private
real estate developer. On one of the yards, a 100-acre site, 20,000
apartment units are to be built; the other, a 44-acre site, will
be used for a manufacturing-maritime complex or 10,000 apartment
units.(31) A 1971 study of the Hudson River by the Urban Development
Corporation stated that "the West Side Penn Central yards at 30th
and 60th Streets taken together comprise the largest development
opportunity adjacent to the Hudson River waterfront."(32)
Perhaps the most far-reaching project on the West Side is the proposed
redevelopment of the West Side Highway. The existing highway, elevated
in order to provide access to the piers for trucks and trains, has
deteriorated to the point where it is no longer completely safe
for vehicular traffic. Large portions have been closed to motor
vehicles and it has subsequently become a popular spot for urban
bicyclists. The proposed reconstruction of the highway calls for
the creation of 178 acres of landfill and the highway would be situated
largely below ground, with land above the highway available for
residential, recreational, and industrial uses.
Economic Activity in Manhattan
The shift from a goods- to a service-based economy in Manhattan
has also contributed to the reduced role of the West Side as a site
for cargo shipping. Dick Netzer has observed that between 1962 and
1972 Manhattan's "service-exporting sector grew substantially, while
there was a massive decline in jobs in the goods-handling industries
and a sizeable one in retail trade.''(33) Almost all the employment
growth in Manhattan during these years was concentrated in service-related
occupations, some of which are unique to New York; thus the extent,
though not the direction, of this trend may vary for other large
cities. In 1972 goods-handling industries accounted for 23% of all
jobs in Manhattan, while the service-exporting sector accounted
for 45% and government accounted for 10% of all jobs in Manhattan.
Thus government and the service sector represented 55% of all the
jobs in Manhattan.(34) Moreover, the largest increases in the number
of manufacturing jobs in the New York region occurred in the outermost
parts of the metropolitan areas, in counties located a substantial
distance from New York City. The growth of a service economy in
Manhattan and of manufacturing activity on the periphery of the
region have important implications for port facilities located in
the central city. The point of origin and destination for goods
shipped through the Port of New York is less and less likely to
be Manhattan. With the development of new port facilities in New
Jersey, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, the traditional port facilities
on the West Side of Manhattan have become less important to the
region's economy, and this too has added to the decline of the West
Side piers. Hence, there are more and more proposals for redevelopment
of this waterfront area.
Planning and Management of the Urban Port
The changes in marine transportation technology and in the economic
function of the central city that have reduced port activity on
the West Side of Manhattan have produced similar effects on waterfronts
of other large American cities. In Chicago the departure of industries
no longer needing a riverfront location and the decline of huge
railroad yards has left vacant huge amounts of land alongside the
Chicago River. The major users of urban port areas - cargo and passenger
shipping firms, railroads, warehouses and port-related industries
- have altered their activities within urban regions in order to
meet locational and spatial requirements brought about by modem
transportation technologies. Consequently, the former users no longer
require the piers, terminals, and land area of the traditional urban
port that are situated next to the central business district. As
these firms departed from the waterfront or reduced the extent of
their activities in the port area, the urban waterfront became occupied
by marginal economic enterprises and, in some cases, has simply
been abandoned. Neglect and underutilization of the port have provided
a setting for a variety of undesirable social activities, which
has created the popular impression of the port area "as a place
with a bad smell and a bad rumor and good to stay away from."(35)
This negative conception of the urban port has commonly been shared
by citizens and public officials who regard the urban port as another
case of urban blight and as a vestigial organ of the city.
It is possible to offer an alternative interpretation of the conditions
which have characterized the urban waterfront. Economic and technological
forces have led to the decline of the traditional urban port as
the locus of shipping; however, the outcome of these processes also
presents cities with unusual opportunities. In this context, the
decline of shipping and related industrial activity at the port
has created large amounts of unused and underutilized urban space
which has the potential for improving the economy and environment
of our urban communities. As the Chicago 21 Plan stated in
describing one portion of the city's waterfront, "The Chicago River
and adjacent areas represent one of the greatest opportunities for
significant environmental improvement anywhere in the Central Communities."(36)
And the New York City Planning Commission said that "the waterfront
is now the City's most extensive underdeveloped and promising natural
resource."(37) Beyond such physical characteristics, there are distinctive
institutional patterns at the water's edge that make reutilization
especially attractive. The vacant and unused land at the water's
edge is frequently owned by the city itself or, if in private ownership,
it is usually carved into relatively large parcels and can be acquired
more easily than if the property were divided into small parcels
and owned by a multiplicity of persons and firms. Moreover, the
limited activity at the urban port allows cities to undertake redevelopment
of the waterfront without disrupting existing businesses or uprooting
neighborhoods.
If public agencies are to intervene effectively in the planning
and management of the urban waterfront, it will also be necessary
that they understand the processes of technological change that
have influenced the urban port. The urban port has traditionally
been defined in terms of economic development and the contribution
of waterborne commerce to the city's economy. This role still exists
for port facilities where shipping is technologically feasible and
economically viable. However, a large number of port areas located
next to the central business district of large cities no longer
meet the requirements of modern shipping and transportation technology.
Therefore, the purpose which the urban port serves must be reconsidered
and redefined. These port areas located in the heart of our urban
communities can play a vital role in our attempts to deal with the
social, economic, and physical problems present in central cities.
The task for public agencies is to integrate the urban port into
the social and economic infrastructure of urban communities. The
port area, once physically cut off from the rest of the city by
railroad yards, warehouses, and highways, must be linked to the
people who live and work in cities. The urban waterfront constitutes
a major social, as well as economic, resource for the residents
and workers in the city; however, waterfront access and use will
need to be increased if it is to serve as an asset to the city.
All too often, opportunities to integrate the waterfront into the
life of an urban community have simply been ignored, as in the case
of the central business district of New York.
One of the CBD's great missed opportunities . . . is its virtual
self-denial of access to the magnificent waterfronts along the
Hudson and East Rivers, a form of abnegation for which there is
little or no economic justification.(38)
In an era when there is concern over making cities more livable,
the urban waterfront offers a rare opportunity to serve a diversity
of recreational, residential, and commercial uses in a location
that possesses distinctive environmental amenities. The port's location
next to water offers calm and tranquility and a visual esthetic
to balance the congestion and noise from high-density urban neighborhoods.
It is one of the few locations in our cities where it is possible
to gain access to a natural physical phenomenon. In addition, the
historical buildings located in the port area can, with judicious
renewal, allow us to retain a sense of the city's cultural origins.
To achieve these aims, it will be necessary to pursue a twofold
strategy: (a) the identification and understanding of the opportunities
created by technological change at the urban waterfront and (b)
the formulation of a public policy for intensely developed portions
of the coastal zone. The first course of action involves perception
and cognition of the range of social and economic purposes which
the urban waterfront can serve. The existence of a coastal zone
which can serve as more than a site for port activities needs to
be incorporated more fully into the consciousness of urban citizens
and public officials. The decline of the port area, though neither
anticipated nor desired, provides unusual opportunities for cities
to assemble land and direct the redevelopment of a valuable portion
of the central city.
The planning of the urban port has conventionally been treated
as a problem of port management and, in those cases where extensive
redevelopment has occurred, redevelopment has generally taken place
within the context of traditional urban renewal programs. The literature
dealing with urban waterfront redevelopment has been predominantly
oriented toward the development of individual projects and the improvement
of the design and appearance of the city waterfront, rather than
with the systematic changes which have occurred in the use pattern
of the urban port and the implications of such changes for urban
communities.39 By contrast, the decline of the docklands in East
London has become an issue of local and national concern in the
United Kingdom and has generated extensive debate concerning the
objectives of port redevelopment.(40) A heightened awareness of
the alternative roles which waterfront redevelopment can play in
the revitalization of our cities needs to be fostered in this country.
The second course of action entails the formulation and implementation
of public policy that explicitly deals with intensely developed
portions of the coastal zone. Concern for the planning and management
of coastal zone resources has been focused almost entirely on the
preservation of wetlands and the maintenance of undeveloped coastal
areas in their natural state. Public policies to regulate coastal
resources have largely been concerned with issues that involve the
question of development versus nondevelopment of coastal resources.
It is equally important for public agencies with authority over
coastal resources to address questions involving coastal redevelopment
in high-density urban areas.
A diversity of waterfront redevelopment projects is now planned
or under construction in major American cities such as Chicago,
New York, and Boston.(41) The scarcity of urban space that is both
available for large-scale redevelopment projects and directly accessible
to water enhances the attractiveness of the urban port. When compared
with the level of commercial and residential development in the
city as a whole, the urban waterfront represents underdeveloped
or underutilized space. Moreover, as outlying portions of the coastal
zone become subject to more restrictions on development, it will
be necessary to consider ways to redevelop coastal resources in
the core of our urban regions in order to respond to human desires
for access and utilization of coastal zone resources.
The urban waterfront is thus likely to be the site of intense pressures
for redevelopment. If such redevelopment is to serve a variety of
social, economic, and environmental purposes, an institutional structure
must exist which will consider a wide range of public values in
the planning and management of the urban coastal zone. Only when
such a management structure is created to guide the overall pattern
of redevelopment, can the vast promise and potential of the urban
waterfront be fulfilled.
Acknowledgments
This article is the result of research sponsored in part by NOAA,
Office of Sea Grant, U.S. Department of Commerce, under grants to
the New York Sea Grant Institute. An earlier version of this paper
was presented to the 36th National Conference on Public Administration,
Chicago, Illinois, April 1-4, 1975. Particular appreciation is expressed
to Barbara Wauchoppe and the staff of West Side Highway Project
for their technical assistance. The author acknowledges the helpful
comments of Herbert Klarman, Robert Warren, Elizabeth Chase, and
Adriana Kleiman.
Notes
1. U.S. Bureau of tile Census, County and City Data Book,
1972, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973, p.
814.
2. Richard G. Bader, Robert A. Ragotzkie, and John M. Teal, "Transportation
and Coastline Modifications," in The Water's Edge: Critical Problems
of the Coastal Zone, Bostwick H. Ketchum, ed. (Cambridge: MIT
Press, 1972), p. 127.
3. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, and Douglas, Inc., Containerport
with the Otis Elevator Storage and Retrieval System for Containers
(New York) October 1, 1969.
4. David L. Birch, "The Economic Future of City and Suburb" (New
York: Committee for Economic Development), Supplementary Paper no.
30, 1970, p. 13.
5. Birch, "The Economic Future of City and Suburb," p. 8.
6. Morton Hoffman and Co., Inc., Socioeconomic Studies for West
Side Highway Project, Baltimore, Maryland, August 1973, p. 1-50.
7. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United
States, 1973 (94 edition) Washington, D.C., 1973, p. 17.
8. Ted Morgan, "Adieu to the Luxury Liner," New York Times,
23 February 1975, sec. 6, p. 68.
9. Morgan, "Adieu to the Luxury Liner," p. 66.
10. "City Hopes to Ride Our Cruise Slump," New York Times,
15 February 1975.
11. Morgan, "Adieu to the Luxury Liner," p. 68.
12. Richard B. Patton, "Sea Travel's Future," Travel Market
Yearbook, 1973-1974, p. 78.
13. Patton, "Sea Travel's Future," p. 79.
14. Donald F. Wood, "Renewing Urban Waterfronts," Land Economics,
vol. XLI, no. 2, May 1965.
15. Port of New Jersey-New York: Facts and Figures (New
York: 1972), p. 2.
16. This section on the West Side's cargo shipping activities draws
largely on data and analysis published by the West Side Highway
Project. For a detailed discussion of the West Side's cargo activity
see Report on Marine Cargo and Passenger Activities on the West
Side of Manhattan, prepared by System Design Concepts, Inc.,
New York, West Side Highway Project, January 1973.
17. Report on Marine Cargo, p. 7.
18. Report on Marine Cargo, p. 7.
19. Report on Marine Cargo, p. 10.
20. Report on Marine Cargo, p. 10.
21. Report on Marine Cargo, p. 10.
22. Report on Marine Cargo, p. 14.
23. West Side Highway Project, Environmental Impact Statement,
New York: 1974, p. 37.
24. Report on Marine Cargo, p. 20.
25. Report on Marine Cargo, p. 27.
26. Report on Marine Cargo, p. 27.
27. "New Ship Terminal Here Faces Problems," New York Times,
25 March 1974, p. 33.
28. "New Ship Terminal," p. 33.
29. Arthur Bell, "Mayhem on the Gay Waterfront," Village Voice,
13 January 1975, p. 5.
30. Bell, "Mayhem on the Gay Waterfront," p. 5.
31. Robert D. McFadden, "Penn Central Yards' Sale Is Approved by
U.S. Court," New York Times. 11 March 1974.
32. Wateredge Development Study - Hudson River Edge Development
Proposal: A Proposal for Discussion, New York State Urban Development
Corporation, May 1971, p. 20.
33. Dick Netzer, "The Cloudy Prospects for the City's Economy,"
New York Affairs, vol. I, no. 4, Spring 1974, p. 27.
34. Netzer, "Cloudy Prospects," p. 28.
35. Bess Balchen and Jack Linville, "The City Waterfront: Ending
an Era of Neglect," Nation's Cities, vol. 9, no. 4, April
1971, p. 9.
36. Chicago 21: A Plan for the Central Area Communities
(Chicago: City of Chicago, Department of Planning and Development,
1973), p. 108.
37. The Waterfront, Supplement to Plan for New York City
(City of New York: City Planning Commission, 1971), p. 5.
38. Emanuel Tobier, "Economic Development Strategy for A City"
in Agenda for a City: Issues Confronting New York, Lyle C.
Fitch and Annmarie Walsh, eds. (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications,
1970), p. 63.
39. For a discussion of redevelopment projects occurring on urban
waterfronts see Dennis R. Judd and Robert E. Mendelson, The Politics
of Urban Planning: The East Saint Louis Experience (Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1973), pp. 73-117; "Renewal of Waterfront
Areas," Journal of Housing, no. 5, June 1964, pp. 236-255;
Bess Balchen and Jack Linville, "The City Waterfront: Ending an
Era of Neglect," Nation's Cities, vol. 9, no. 4, April 1971;
Peter Blake, "New York: Towards a New Venice," New York,
July 19, 1971, pp. 24-33.
40. P. Hall, "Whose Docklands," New Society, February 27,
1975, pp. 519-521; Peter Marris, "Planning for People: Tile Docklands
Example," New Society, February 20, 1975; Nicholas Falk,
ed., "Opportunity Docks," Architectural Design, XLV, February
1975, pp. 74-112.
41. Ian Menzies, "A Bridge to Boston's Waterfront," Boston Globe,
27 June 1974, p. 22; The New York City Waterfront, Comprehensive
Planning Workshop, New York City Planning Commission, July 1974;
The Waterfront, Supplement to Plan for New York City, New
York City Planning Commission, January 1971; The Riveredge Plan
of Chicago, City of Chicago, Department of Development and Planning,
December 1974; A Study on the Future of Chicago's Lakefront,
Final Report, 1972, Johnson, Johnson and Roy, Inc., Ann Arbor,
Michigan; The Lakefront Plan of Chicago, A Summary Report,
City of Chicago, Department of Development and Planning, July 1973.
Bibliography
Albion, Robert, The Rise of the New York Port (1815-1860).
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1939.
Balchen, Bess, and Linville, Jack, "The City Waterfront: Ending
an Era of Neglect," Nation's Cities, vol. 9, no. 4, April
1971.
Bell, Arthur, "Mayhem on the Gay Waterfront," Village Voice,
13 January 1975.
Birch, David E., The Economic Future of City and Suburb,
New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1970.
Blake, Peter, "New York: Towards a New Venice," New York,
July 19, 1971.
Chicago 21: A Plan for the Central Area Communities, City
of Chicago, Department of Planning and Development, September 1973.
"City Hopes to Ride Out Cruise Slump," New York Times, 15
February 1975.
City of Chicago, Department of Development and Planning, The
Lakefront Plan of Chicago: A Summary Report, July 1973.
City of Chicago, Department of Development and Planning, The
Riveredge Plan of Chicago, December 1974.
Dailing, Arthur H., "Measuring Benefits Generated by Urban Water
Parks," Land Economics, vol. XEIX, no. I, February 1973.
Falk, Nicholas, ed., "Opportunity Docks," Architectural Design,
XEV, February 1975.
Farrell, William E., "Cities Sprucing Up Seedy Rail and Dock Areas,"
New York Times, 8 December 1974.
Fitch, Eyle, and Walsh, Annmarie, eds., Agenda for a City: Issues
Confronting New York. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1970.
Hall, Peter, "Whose Docklands," New Society, February 27,
1975.
Hoffman, Morton and Company, Inc., Socioeconomic Studies for
the West Side Highway Project, Baltimore, Md., August 1973,
Judd, Dennis R., and Mendelson, Robert E., The Politics of Urban
Planning: The East Saint Louis Experience. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press, 1973.
Ketchum, Bostwick, ed., The Water's Edge: Critical Problems
of the Coastal Zone. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972.
Land Use and the West Side Highway: Recommendations, A Report
to the Working Committee of the West Side Highway Project, New
York: City Planning Commission, 1974.
McFadden, Robert D., "Penn Central Yards' Sale Is Approved by U.S.
Court," New York Times, 11 March 1974.
Mann, Roy, Rivers in the City. New York: Praeger Publishers,
1973.
Marris, Peter, "Planning for People: The Docklands Example," New
Society, February 20, 1975.
Menzies, Ian, "A Bridge to Boston's Waterfront," Boston Globe,
27 June 1974.
Moncrief, Lewis, and Canup, Jan, "Forgotten Rivers," Parks and
Recreation, vol. IX, no, 10, October 1974.
Morgan, Ted, "Adieu to the Luxury Liner," New York Times,
Section 6, 23 February 1975.
Morris, James, The Great Port: A Passage Through New York.
New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969.
Morrison, John H., History of New York Ship Yards. New York:
William F. Sametz and Co., 1909.
Netzer, Dick, "The Cloudy Prospects for the City's Economy," New
York Affairs, vol. I, no. 4, Spring 1974.
The New York City Waterfront Comprehensive Planning Workshop,
New York: City Planning Commission, June 1974.
Patton, Richard B., "Sea Travel's Future," Travel Market Yearbook,
1973-1974.
"Renewal of Waterfront Areas Presents Special Problems, Brings
Special Opportunities," Journal of Housing, no. 5, June 1964.
Report on Marine Cargo and Passenger Activities on the West
Side of Manhattan, West Side Highway Project, prepared by System
Design Concepts, Inc., January 1973.
A Study on the Future of Chicago's Lake front, Final Report,
1972, Johnson, Johnson and Roy, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan,
Wateredge Development Study-Hudson River Edge Development Proposal,
A Proposal for Discussion, New York State Urban Development
Corporation, May 1971.
The Waterfront, Supplement to Plan for New York City, New
York: City Planning Commission, January 1971.
West Side Highway Project Environmental Impact Statement,
New York: West Side Highway Project, 1974.
Willie, Lois, Forever Open, Clear and Free, The Historic Struggle
for Chicago's Lake front. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1972.
Wood, Donald F., "Renewing Urban Waterfronts," Land Economics,
vol. XLI, no. 2, May 1965.
Originally published in Coastal Zone Management
Journal
Volume 2, Number 3. 1976
Crane, Russak & Company. New York.