The Fit of Urban Waterfront Interventions: Matters of Size, Money and Function

Abstract

Urban riverfront interventions are ubiquitous throughout the developed world, and increasingly also in the Global South. Many have failed spectacularly. We conducted a systematic review of failed riverfront interventions to draw lessons that could improve future projects. Learning from past mistakes may be more important than observing successes, because successful elements in one city may not be repeatable elsewhere, as the context and opportunity could be specific to that one city. Recognizing what did not work elsewhere may provide clues needed to improve future projects. Our results show that poorly designed riverfront interventions typically fail on several levels: a bad program, with the wrong budget and timing, no concern for local needs or context, results in an unattractive and costly intervention, with reduced to no social or environmental benefit. To create more successful interventions in the future, we should acknowledge the local context, the morphology of the river valley, the time and budget a set of solutions entail, and select uses and functions that work for a diverse crowd and provide multiple benefits, including good flood management performance and the restoration of the rivers’ natural connectivity.

Urban Planning Policies to the Renewal of Riverfront Areas: The Lisbon Metropolis Case

“…Albeit the commodification of the Lisbon waterfront is a part of the contemporary debate [85], the ongoing transformation combines public access and enjoyment to qualified riverside areas, star-architect projects as symbols of this new image [86], redevelopment projects and undefined areas. The balance between the mix of uses, and the public for these uses, needs to be clearly defined [87], as well as who benefits from these transformations, private or public interests [83] and who gets to participate in the planning and design process [88].…”

“…From a social justice perspective, these redesigned waterfronts present opportunities to assure wide access to quality public spaces and enjoy natural amenities, taming inequalities created by poorly planned urban development and highly industrialized areas [92]. As this balance between the ecological role of urban waterfronts and its human activities is becoming more evident by the climate change debate, Pinto and Kondolf [87] stress the importance to improve the ecological functions of these areas by combining desirable urban activities and infrastructure, with watercourses preservation or restoration actions.…”

Olympic Waterfronts: An Evaluation of Wasted Opportunities and Lasting Legacies

“…Pinto and Kondolf proposed an evaluation tool for the quick assessment and identification of elements of waterfront projects that have failed or are prone to failure [18]. It is meant as a quick assessment tool, designed for quick comparability, and based on readily assessable criteria and data.…”

“…Brownfields, located in central sites within metropolitan areas, on the shores of rivers, lakes, and seas, are often perceived as prime real-estate opportunities within dense urban fabrics [16]. Large urban regeneration projects have become desirable investments but frequently lead to unequal balancing of desired outcomes among different stakeholders, fostering land-use conflicts and the commodification of public space [17], often failing to fully meet the challenges and opportunities for improvement at the urban waterfront [18].…”

“…Our objective in this paper is to explore the specific nature of Olympic Waterfronts through a test application, in a set of case studies, of a previously developed, yet improved, evaluation tool. Additionally, being the first published application of the tool, we test whether it can be successfully applied to a set of real-life case studies and used for comparison and pattern recognition (see [18]). This evaluation draws from the identification of common mistakes present in Olympic Waterfronts, The Wrongs, complementing it with an assessment of best practices, which we hope could inform policymakers in future developments of similar nature.…”