Urban waterfront regeneration is one of the largest changes to the structure of Australian and many world cities over the last two decades. There is no comparative research which evaluates their governing with particular attention to the relationship and responsibility of quasipublic agencies and local government. This study advances the competitive-city paradigm from a focus on global cities to an examination of inter-city urban competition between differently located cities in the urban hierarchy by comparing waterfront renewal projects located in Adelaide, Darwin and Melbourne. Through interview, policy and document analysis, the article offers preliminary insights on current and emergent governance arrangements involved in urban waterfront renewal. In an era of increasing inter-urban competition, the study reveals hybrid forms of urban governance are driving the planning and delivery of these three waterfront renewal projects. Further, there exists a 'knotty' tension between these models of urban governance and the capacity for meaningful consultation and participation between governments.

No abstract

No abstract

Port Adelaide, South Australia has been stigmatised as ‘Port Misery’ for over one hundred and fifty years. The origins of this stigmatised discourse can be traced prior to actual colonisation, having their genesis in wide political debates. This reflects the complex and contested nature of landscape, revealing that ‘Port Misery’ constitutes a powerful meta‐narrative that has been projected onto Port Adelaide by powerful and often external actors. This stigmatising discourse may lie dormant for prolonged periods of time, only to be remobilised to serve specific political, social and economic objectives. Recently, the ‘Port Misery’ discourse has been remobilised to justify the redevelopment of Port Adelaide from an industrial to a post‐industrial landscape.

No abstract