What cities need to utilize their waterfronts better?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

It might have if not for that big hurricane in 1900. But the seawall was built and Galveston is safer than most coastal cities, apart from a major rise in sea level. So, Galveston may actually realize its potential. But there isn't much land area there, is there? So Houston will remain the "big fish", but Galvy will flourish too.

Galveston city limits is currently confined to the barrier island but it could have been a lot denser and expanded onto the mainland; present day La Marque, Texas City, Santa Fe, etc..

[TexasBoi]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Sigh, if only Galveston had been the big city and not Houston.

I actually wish Houston was built on the Galveston or Trinity bay instead of the bayou. Right where La Porte sits.

[edale]

Originally Posted by pj3000

This is actually a pretty common question when people visit Erie... along the lines of "why didn't Erie ever become a bigger city?".

The overarching answer: because Erie is part of Pennsylvania. A state with very little connection to the Great Lakes and with its historic power center and population in the exact opposite, far away corner. Erie is still a rather foreign place to the rest of Pennsylvania and has been far more connected to western NY than PA. In short, Pennsylvania never really took advantage of the Great Lakes port they battled NY, CT, and MA for back in the 1700s. The geographic isolation of Erie from the rest of the state (distance, and a distance covered with very rugged, mountainous terrain) really served to limit its ability to grow like other states' lake cities did. Pennsylvania did not build a canal connecting Lake Erie to Pittsburgh and the Ohio River system until much too late after NY and OH had already built their transportation canals (which allowed Buffalo and Cleveland to boom). And then was behind NY and OH again to develop railroads to the Lake. Erie became and existed as the 3rd largest city in PA for a long period of time, but obviously never came close to reaching the size of its PA big brothers Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, nor Cleveland, Buffalo, etc.

But it was all set up to happen way back when. Ellicott (who finished DC's plan) was commissioned to plan Erie as a city that would become the capital of the Great Lakes. Then in the early 1800s, Erie (pop. 700) was chosen by President Madison over Pittsburgh (pop. 6,000), Buffalo (pop. 500), Cleveland (pop. 40), and Meadville (pop. 500) as the place to build the American Great Lakes naval fleet, due to its excellent, safe harbor and supply routes to Pittsburgh. So, the plans and potential were there... but definitely one of those puzzling aspects of history and development.



Best natural harbor on the Great Lakes? Pennsylvania the leading state of the nation back in the late 1700s/early 1800s?

Your first paragraph seemed kind of obvious to me, which is why I asked why someone assume it would have been the more prominent city. No prominent canal, rugged geography in Western PA, no inland river connection from the lake ala Cleveland, Chicago, or Milwaukee, and Pennsylvania having more of a eastern lean than midwest all point to Erie not becoming much of anything.

Didn't know they had the best natural harbor in the Great Lakes, though.

[The Chemist]

Aside from the Bund and the Lujiazui waterfront on the opposite bank of the Huangpu River, Shanghai's waterfront is quite heavily industrialized (shipyards and dock facilities mostly) in most places. However, the good news is that large stretches of the waterfront on both banks of the river are now being redeveloped into parks with nice walking trails and greenery.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by edale

Your first paragraph seemed kind of obvious to me, which is why I asked why someone assume it would have been the more prominent city. No prominent canal, rugged geography in Western PA, no inland river connection from the lake ala Cleveland, Chicago, or Milwaukee, and Pennsylvania having more of a eastern lean than midwest all point to Erie not becoming much of anything.

Didn't know they had the best natural harbor in the Great Lakes, though.

Well, considering that Erie was the older and more important early location (French and British forts and settlements from the 1750s on and then a US naval town) and the fact that it was in Pennsylvania (arguably the most important state with the most important city at the time) while Ohio wasn't even a state yet, it's logical that it would become the more prominent place, particularly given its harbor and more eastern location.

It probably would have been a far different story if the new federal govt sold the rights to the contested Erie Triangle to New York, rather than to Pennsylvania. But PA was considered to be landlocked without a shoreline, so the purchasing rights went to it. It really comes down to the fact that the state was solidly defined by and oriented to the already long-established Philadelphia/southeastern PA region, with the Great Lakes being a very foreign place (this is true to this day ). This resulted in Pennsylvania being behind both New York and Ohio in fully connecting to and utilizing their lake port for trade, and thus... Buffalo and Cleveland and not Erie.

*The lack of an inland river connection was not really a factor, since French Creek is just south of Erie (and was connected to Erie/the Lake via canal) and runs into the Allegheny-Ohio-Mississippi system. French Creek was significantly more of a river/transportation route than what existed in Cleveland, Chicago, or Milwaukee. PA/Philly just never capitalized on the location and developed the water route like Ohio and other states did so with theirs.

Tough to make the claim that Erie became not "much of anything" though (kind of an arrogant dick comment) It was an important industrial and port city, though obviously never reached the level of close neighbors Buffalo or Cleveland.

[edale]

How is it an arrogant/dick comment to say that a city that topped out at about 130,000 people, and a metro area that never exceeded 350k never became much of anything, especially given all the historical and geographical advantages you say it has/d? That's like the size of Green Bay, WI or Duluth, MN. Not even close to the same league as neighboring Cleveland or Buffalo.

[pj3000]

Not going to get into semantics, but to "never become much of anything" connotes a rather pejorative tone. Maybe I misinterpreted your words, or if that's your perspective, fine.

Though facts do matter... so 1) there are many, many cities throughout the US that never grew to be among the most populated cities, yet certainly were still highly important centers of commerce that by no means fit the description "not much of anything" 2) Duluth and Green Bay are really not very good examples for historic comparison of size, and 3) no statement was made about being in the same league as neighboring Buffalo and Cleveland; in fact, the last sentence in my above post states the exact opposite; as my initial response also did. So your assertion only echoed what I already stated.

...

Anyway, back to topic at hand... Buffalo, Cleveland, and Erie are definitely places that should utilize their waterfronts better. All have done a decent job of reclaiming former heavily-industrialized waterfront land and adding recreational attractions/amenities, but each could use a lot of investment still. Cleveland, unfortunately, has the Lakefront Airport and Browns stadium right on the water, which obviously take up tons of space and diminishe the overall atmosphere of the area. Buffalo has A LOT of now-vacant waterfront land, so there is big potential, but also challenges with connectivity and access given the size of the tracts and highway barriers running all along. Erie probably has the most attractive waterfront, given its setting on Presque Isle Bay, natural surroundings/beaches of Presque Isle peninsula, and having greater topographic relief from downtown to water level. Development has taken off in the past decade with shovels in the ground for the major Harborplace and Sassafras Pier developments, but still slow with connection/access issues due to the Bayfront Parkway serving as a barrier.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Aside from the Bund and the Lujiazui waterfront on the opposite bank of the Huangpu River, Shanghai's waterfront is quite heavily industrialized (shipyards and dock facilities mostly) in most places. However, the good news is that large stretches of the waterfront on both banks of the river are now being redeveloped into parks with nice walking trails and greenery.

Isn't the Huangpu River kinda nasty and silty looking?

[Pedestrian]

Local Resistance Builds to Google’s ‘Smart City’ in Toronto
By Vipal Monga and Jacquie McNish
Aug. 1, 2018 10:59 a.m. ET

TORONTO—An Alphabet Inc. project aimed at creating a “smart city” on Toronto’s waterfront is facing resistance from local officials who are worried about the development’s direction and how Google’s parent company will handle residents’ personal data.

The local friction has raised doubts about Alphabet’s inaugural attempt to use urban design and technology to tackle modern-day issues, such as expensive housing, traffic congestion and environmental sustainability.

The Toronto project is suffering from delays and the loss of key personnel. On Tuesday, the two bodies behind the project—Alphabet’s subsidiary Sidewalk Labs LLC and Waterfront Toronto, a Canadian government entity—said they expect to release a final development plan by next spring. That plan had been expected this November. Meanwhile, the chief executive of Waterfront Toronto, a supporter of Sidewalk, resigned in July, and a real-estate developer left Waterfront’s board this week because she was uncomfortable with Alphabet as a partner.

The early stumbles reflect the challenges of building new, high-tech land developments and illustrate the difficulties for-profit technology companies can encounter when working with municipal agencies responsible for safeguarding citizens’ privacy . . . .

Under the terms of a negotiating agreement issued on Tuesday, Sidewalk laid out a plan to invest a total of $50 million for the next planning stage of the deal. Waterfront Toronto, a development and revitalization agency established in 2001 with government-appointed board members, agreed to negotiate intellectual property ownership and digital privacy rights based on a set of “guiding principles” emphasizing people’s control over their own information.

Privacy watchdogs have questioned who will control sensitive digital information as residents are tracked by sensors that may be embedded in such infrastructure as traffic lights, thermostats and garbage-disposal units. Also at issue are ownership rights over any products or techniques developed at the site and sold elsewhere . . . .

https://www.wsj.com/articles/local-r...=hp_lista_pos7

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by JManc

Isn't the Huangpu River kinda nasty and silty looking?

in shanghai it's the space, scale, skyscrapers, the colonial architecture on the bund, the crazy variety of boat traffic...not unlike a jumbo-proportioned new orleans waterfront. i guess im kind of used to muddy riverfronts...yeah, the water is nasty but you're not face-to-face with that, you're looking at other things.

[Pedestrian]

Port Soliciting Concepts for Thirteen of San Francisco’s Historic Piers
August 1, 2018

The Port of San Francisco has just issued a formal solicitation of developers and tenants interested in redeveloping thirteen of San Francisco’s historic piers, along with the Agriculture Building adjacent to San Francisco’s Ferry Building, stretching from, and including, Pier 35 to Pier 48 (yes, that’s the one that Anchor Brewing was to occupy).

Proposed concepts are expected to align with the public-oriented priorities outlined in San Francisco’s Waterfront Land Use Plan, priorities which include “arts and culture, assembly and entertainment, education, food and beverage, maritime (excursion and leisure), museums, recreation and specialty retail.”

“Other uses that attract the public—such as movie theaters, grocery stores, or general retail—are unlikely to fit this public-oriented definition as these categories do not promote and highlight the historic, waterfront facility as part of the primary patron experience.”

Keep in mind that all fourteen of the historic structures (Pier 35; Pier 33; Pier 31; Pier 29½; Pier 29; Pier 23; Pier 19½; Pier 19; Agriculture Building; Pier 26; Pier 28; Pier 38; Pier 40; and Pier 48) are in need of some serious rehabilitation.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ric-piers.html

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by TexasBoi

I actually wish Houston was built on the Galveston or Trinity bay instead of the bayou. Right where La Porte sits.

That'd be okay if hurricanes didn't exist. Then again, if they didn't, we'd be talking about Galveston as a board favorite here and Houston like it's San Jose, or at least even more so than some already do. But it's extremely low along Galveston Bay.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

It might have if not for that big hurricane in 1900. But the seawall was built and Galveston is safer than most coastal cities, apart from a major rise in sea level. So, Galveston may actually realize its potential. But there isn't much land area there, is there? So Houston will remain the "big fish", but Galvy will flourish too.

Not really, Galveston is every bit as vulnerable as, say, New Orleans, if not more so. Galveston has not dealt well with powerful hurricanes since, just better than it did with no seawall. And there are a number of factors, such as organized crime (decades ago), poor city planning and stubborn attitudes (by poor people and old money families) that have prevented the city from being more than a coastal resort. I guess that's better than being a ghost town under the waves.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Not really, Galveston is every bit as vulnerable as, say, New Orleans, if not more so. Galveston has not dealt well with powerful hurricanes since, just better than it did with no seawall. And there are a number of factors, such as organized crime (decades ago), poor city planning and stubborn attitudes (by poor people and old money families) that have prevented the city from being more than a coastal resort. I guess that's better than being a ghost town under the waves.

Bring in Dutch people and they'll figure out a way to cope with rising sea levels. Been doing it for 500 years.

[ThePhun1]

What they did after the hurricane was better than anything the Dutch have ever done or at least very close. It's just a poor location, built on a coastal island on sand and not solid rock. The only reason it exists is people's will to live there, which applies to every place I suppose but especially in this case.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

What they did after the hurricane was better than anything the Dutch have ever done or at least very close. It's just a poor location, built on a coastal island on sand and not solid rock. The only reason it exists is people's will to live there, which applies to every place I suppose but especially in this case.

I think the Dutch have the upper hand in holding back water seeing as their entire country at or below sea level but on the flip side, the Netherlands is not exactly hurricane prone either. Even with the seawall, Galveston had 6-7' storm surge that hit a sizable portion the island during Ike.

[sterlippo1]

Originally Posted by The North One

Philly does a really bad job with its waterfront unfortunately, it would take a lot to fix it.

yeah, too bad. They'd have to get I-95 out of there and that's not happening soon.