Great expectations: Waterfront
redevelopment and the Hamilton
Harbour Waterfront Trail
Sarah Wakefield
*
Department of Geography, Centre for Urban Health Initiatives, University of Toronto,
100 St. George St. (5th floor), Toronto, Ont., Canada M5S 3G3
Received 15 July 2006; received in revised form 24 October 2006; accepted 5 November 2006
Available online 21 February 2007
This paper examines waterfront revitalization in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Unlike many con-
temporary North American cities, heavy industry continues to dominate the local economy, and
the physical manifestations of this industry (mills, smokestacks, and industrial air and water pol-
lution) remain visible along Hamilton’s harbourfront. Within the last three decades, major
investments in improving the city’s environment – and reputation – have been undertaken within
the city, including the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail, opened to the public in 2000. This
paper uses newspapers and municipal documents to track the development of the Trail, from
the initial planning of the Trail until the present day. These sources suggest that the proposal
and subsequent development of the waterfront trail are linked to broader discourses of environ-
mental and economic revitalization within and beyond the city. In addition, issues of access and
inclusiveness are highlighted. These results draw attention to the ways that waterfront develop-
ment is both locally situated and moulded by broader discourses and trends.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Waterfront, harbour redevelopment, urban revitalization, environmental remediation
Introduction: Waterfront redevelopment in
Hamilton, Canada
Throughout the industrial era, the presence of indus-
try in a community was a source of pride, indicating
prosperity and progress (
). To-
day, it is more likely to evoke negative connotations:
To call a city ‘industrial’ in the present period...is to
associate it with a set of negative images: a declining
economic base, pollution, a city on the downward
slide... Industrial cities are associated with the past
and the old, work, pollution and the world of pro-
duction. . . Cities with a more positive imagery are
associated with the post-industrial era. . . the new,
the
future,
the
unpolluted,
consumption
and
exchange, the worlds of leisure as opposed to work
(
)
This transition, grounded in broader economic and
social transformations, has left many industrial cities
scrambling to redefine themselves in order to main-
tain positive local identities (
) and attract investment capital to the city
Hall and Hubbard, 1996, 1998; Short and Kim,
). In an attempt to respond to this
perceived need, city planners and promoters have
increasingly turned to waterfront revitalization pro-
jects (
Harvey, 1989b; Wood and Handley, 1999; Sand-
ercock and Dovey, 2002; Desfor and Jorgensen, 2004
The City of Hamilton, an urban centre of approx-
imately 500,000 people, is located on the shores of
Hamilton Harbour and Lake Ontario only 100 km
from Toronto, Canada. Unlike many other cities in
North America, heavy industry – specifically steel
– continues to play a prominent role in Hamilton’s
economy (
City of Hamilton, 2000; City of Hamil-
), and the mills of the two largest steel
manufacturers, Stelco and Dofasco, are conspicuous
*
Tel.: +1-416-978-3653; e-mail:
Cities, Vol. 24, No. 4, p. 298–310, 2007
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd.
All rights reserved.
0264-2751/$ - see front matter
www.elsevier.com/locate/cities
doi:10.1016/j.cities.2006.11.001
298
landmarks on the shores of Hamilton Harbour
(
–
). This ‘‘famously
ugly industrial wasteland’’ (
) developed
between 1800 and 1960, as the original undulating
shoreline was infilled to create new space for indus-
trial development
. This, along with serious water
pollution problems, reduced resident access to –
and interest in – the waterfront (
). In recent decades, pol-
lution control and cleanup efforts have improved
harbour water quality considerably, although the
Harbour remains listed as an ‘‘area of concern’’ un-
der the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (
rup, 1996; Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton
Harbour, 2006a
). The central-east harbour remains
highly industrialised, but by the late 1980’s some
properties in the west harbourfront area were con-
sidered ‘‘underused’’ (
) and
ripe for revitalization.
In 1990, less than five percent of the city’s
waterfront was available for public use. By 2006,
one quarter of that shoreline had been made
accessible to the public, mostly in the western sec-
tion of the harbour (
). One key component
of this increase has been the development of the
Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail. This 3.4 km
long multi-use trail runs along the shoreline be-
tween Cootes Paradise (a nature preserve owned
by the Royal Botanical Gardens) and Bayfront
Park, a large, grassy open space constructed from
a former landfill site for construction waste in
1993 (
–
). The Trail
has recently been extended to connect with other
waterfront attractions, including Pier 4 (another
park) and Pier 8 (home to the new Marine Discov-
ery Centre, a federal museum and interpretive cen-
tre).
There
has,
however,
been
little
new
commercial or residential activity on the water-
front, in marked contrast to many waterfront rede-
velopments described in the literature. There has
also been little change in the low-income character
of the adjacent community.
Despite this lack of private investment on the
waterfront, the new Waterfront Trail has captured
the public imagination. According to one local news-
paper columnist, The Waterfront Trail
. . .
raises people’s hopes and expectations for positive
change. It not only signifies a break with the past, it
represents a fresh start for a city that for too long has
let things slide and settled for second best. (
)
The Waterfront Trail, then, is seen as an icon of the
‘new’ City of Hamilton, allowing ‘‘residents and vis-
itors alike to appreciate our past and look to the fu-
ture as the City and its partners continue working on
the principles of sustainability and enhancing our
overall quality of life’’ (
More specifically, the Trail is seen as a key element
in the transformation of Hamilton from a dirty steel
town to a green and healthy city with ample opportu-
nities for recreation and encounters with nature.
This paper seeks to understand how the Hamil-
ton Harbour Waterfront Trail and connected local
Kilometers
Figure 1
Map of Hamilton Harbour.
1
It should be noted that this infilling and industrial development
has been essentially limited to the Southern shore of the Harbour
(see
). The northern harbourfront, in contrast, is primarily
residential and much of it remains forested due to the hilly terrain.
The northern harbourfront is also part of the City of Burlington in
the Region of Halton, and so falls under a different jurisdiction.
Due to these differences, the paper focuses exclusively on the
southern harbourfront, and primarily on the southwestern har-
bourfront where the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail is
located.
Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield
299
initiatives have shaped a very different waterfront
than many other cities. In so doing, it explores
the extent to which local contexts and/or broader
dynamics are implicated in the development of
Hamilton’s waterfront. The paper begins by outlin-
ing some of the key issues expressed in the water-
front revitalization literature. Results are then
presented, using key themes found in the literature
to focus the analysis. The paper concludes by
assessing how Hamilton’s waterfront redevelop-
ment informs our understanding of revitalization
projects and how they are structured by both local
and global circumstances.
Understanding waterfront revitalization:
Themes and issues
In recent years, waterfront revitalization (and urban
regeneration projects more generally) have been the
subject of considerable academic inquiry. Water-
front revitalization is by no means a new phenome-
non – ports have historically served as the principal
drivers of city economies, and as cities have grown
and changed over the centuries, so too have their
waterfronts.
However,
recent
(1960-present)
changes have led to an unprecedented transforma-
tion of many urban waterfronts. In the 19th and
20th centuries, the dominance of shipping gave
way to rail and road transport, and subsequent
changes to the shipping industry over the past few
decades led to the relocation of many harbour activ-
ities (
Hall, 1991; Van der Knaap and Pinder, 1992;
). This has rendered many existing
waterfront land uses obsolete, allowing for the
wholesale redevelopment of large tracts of land in
close proximity to city centres. Still, as
notes, the underlying forces that shape
waterfront revitalization are the same as those driv-
ing urban development more generally – that is, the
economic and political intentions of planners and
developers and the conditions under which these
activities are undertaken are central in all forms of
urban development.
Much of the existing literature views waterfront
revitalization as a means to increase the economic
vitality of localities, create new public spaces, and in-
crease access to valued cultural and natural ameni-
ties. Waterfront revitalization has been seen by
many cities as a mechanism to create and promote
a more positive image, thus securing growth and
capital investment in a competitive global market
(
). Second- and third-tier cities
in regional urban hierarchies (such as Hamilton)
may be especially anxious to attract ‘footloose capi-
tal’ that will help them make the transition from
industrial to post-industrial economies (
).
In recent years the focus has shifted to negative
aspects of waterfront revitalization, such as: an
emphasis on recreation and leisure at the expense
of ‘real’ work (see also
the exclusion of local (often working-class) people;
insufficient attention to ecological concerns; and lim-
ited public involvement in decision-making. The fo-
cus in much waterfront regeneration on ‘prestige
projects’ (
Cowell and Thomas, 2002; Loftman and
) and place marketing (
) has also been challenged, suggesting that the
‘‘delightful urban scenes’’ (
) created through regeneration are primarily
Plate 1
Hamilton’s steel mills snd eastern Harbourfront.
Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield
300
intended for and ‘‘enjoyed mostly by those who are
benefiting from the new economy’’ (
), at the expense of those who
are not. For example, the literature is replete with
examples of how redevelopment can isolate – and
in some cases replace – working-class neighbour-
hoods (
Cowell and Thomas, 2002; Wyly and
). Conversely, com-
mitment to the provision of affordable housing in
waterfront redevelopment initiatives has been extre-
mely weak (e.g.,
In relation to environmental concerns, waterfront
redevelopment has often occurred in ways that do
little to enhance – and often further damage – the
benign integration of urban areas into natural sys-
Plate 2
Sights along the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail.
Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield
301
tems. That is, while access to nature and greenspace
have become central to contemporary conceptions
of community well-being (
), ‘nat-
ure’ is inserted into urban planning in ways that dif-
fer by locality (
) but that
generally fail to reduce the city’s impact on the local
physical environment in key areas such as water and
air quality, habitat protection, and biodiversity. As
note, this kind of selective incor-
poration of ecological goals into urban governance is
one characteristic of ‘ecological modernization’.
Ecological modernization is an approach to environ-
mental degradation that attempts to reconcile capi-
talist growth with ecological integrity through the
development of technological solutions and the use
of market-based initiatives (
2000; Davidson and Frickel, 2004
), both of which
are common currency in waterfront redevelopment
initiatives.
Waterfront regeneration projects often serve as a
focal point for the creation of public–private, mul-
ti-stakeholder partnerships to facilitate particular
projects as part of a larger entrepreneurial agenda
(
Bassett et al., 2002; Desfor and Jorgensen, 2004;
). Some studies have found that these
partnerships replace broader public consultation,
with community involvement seen as an obstruction
to progress (
Sandercock and Dovey, 2002; Jacobs,
). Relatedly,
observes that mul-
ti-stakeholder partnerships are grounded in an
assumption that ‘‘confrontational and oppositional
behaviours are ultimately an anathema to collabora-
tion’’ (p. 19), leading to the exclusion of oppositional
voices.
This paper explores one particular case of water-
front revitalization, in order to see how these themes
play out in one locality, in order to add to our under-
standing of the processes at work and how they are
shaped by and in particular places. As
notes,
The accumulation process. . . occur[s] within a (geo-
graphically) constituted field of limits and possibili-
ties that varies greatly. . . At the level of form, the
variety of possibilities cannot be over-emphasized.
(p. 182)
Again, it is important to note that while water-
front revitalization perhaps offers an unprecedented
opportunity for developers and cities to remake
large swaths of territory, the processes through
which these changes occur are common to all urban
development.
suggests that:
Given that the waterfront may be invaded by com-
mon land uses and conventional development inter-
ests, individual projects may reflect changes in the
structure of the development industry, such as the
balance of commercial and institutional developers,
or the relative distribution of local, national, and
international interests. [. . .] The form of any indi-
vidual development reflects an underlying mix of
economic and political intentions and the condi-
tions for planning and development.’’ (
)
This paper explores how these intentions and con-
ditions are manifested in one particular case study,
using newspapers and municipal documents to sup-
ply evidence of the transformation of the waterfront
and the way that this transformation has been both
envisioned and described. The paper focuses on
the development of the Hamilton Harbour Water-
front Trail, as a geographic and temporal microcosm
within which to explore broader issues related to the
redevelopment of waterfronts in Hamilton and else-
where. In turn, this exploration sheds light on the
forces at play in the changing landscapes of indus-
trial cities.
On the waterfront: results from the Hamilton
case study
Places of work, places of leisure
The continuing visibility of industry on the southeast
shores (
) emphasizes the importance of Ham-
ilton Harbour as a place of work. While the eastern
harbourfront is used exclusively by heavy industry,
the west harbour is mixed-use – industry and trans-
portation-related activities remain prominent, but
these are interspersed with housing and other uses.
The continuing viability of heavy industry sepa-
rates Hamilton from many other examples in the lit-
erature, where the decline of traditional port
activities has opened up large areas for redevelop-
ment. At the same time, Hamilton has pursued a
similar agenda to many of these cities in terms of
its waterfront redevelopment, planning the west har-
bourfront, at least, as a place for recreation and lei-
sure. The Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail, for
example, is designed to encourage waterside recrea-
tion. Local commentators see the trail as a welcome
alteration
of
the
industrial
character
of
the
waterfront:
The value of a waterfront pathway in reclaiming the
west harbour as a place for people was evident. [. . .]
The bay is far too valuable to be used predominantly
for heavy industry and cargo shipping. Residents and
visitors want the waterfront to be an inviting natural
oasis, where they can rest or enjoy strolling, boating,
fishing, and even swimming. (Hamilton
)
Walkers, cyclists, in-line skaters and many other
users have discovered the solace of the waterfront
recreational trail. . . [F]rom the west end, the steel
mills that dominate the vista are reduced to rusty
smokestacks in the distant background, but it’s the
water and sky that fill the view. [. . .] The trail pro-
vides an escape from the city without actually having
to leave the city. (
)
Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield
302
As the above quote suggests, the trail is seen not
just as a place for recreation, but also as an escape
from city life. The quotes also suggest a certain level
of discomfort with the industrial character of the
city, seeing it as something to hide or get away from.
To date, waterfront redevelopment has empha-
sized the creation of open space and outdoor recre-
ational activities (such as walking the Trail). At the
same time, there are many operating businesses in
the area. The eastern harbourfront remains exclu-
sively industrial; in the west, the Trail runs on nar-
row band of land along the shoreline, adjacent to
an active rail yard (
b). While parts of Piers
4, 8, and the landfill that is now Bayfront Park have
been redeveloped for recreational and cultural uses,
many land uses on the waterfront have not been fun-
damentally altered, including two working marinas.
Walking in the area offers a compelling picture of
a working harbour, with boat, train, and warehouse
activity occurring adjacent to the Trail.
However, future plans for the waterfront empha-
sise the gradual removal of industry from the west
harbourfront. Central to waterfront planning since
the early stages has been the acquisition of the rail-
way yards adjacent to the Waterfront Trail (
b):
A key aspect of this concept plan is the relocation of
the CN marshalling yard on Stuart St. . . While two
lines will remain, the removal of the marshalling yard
will provide up to 40.5 hectares (100 acres) of water-
front land for redevelopment. Industrial lands next to
the marshalling yard are also included in the concept
plan and contribute to the acreage for redevelop-
ment. (
Early concept plans (e.g.,
used the ‘reclaimed’ rail yard (as well as adjacent
industrial lands not owned by the railway) as the
centrepiece for a massive transformation of the West
Harbourfront district: with the existing industries re-
moved, a massive leisure park was envisioned,
including expansive public gardens, an open-air
amphitheatre, and areas for ‘special attractions’
(such as a sports complex and an Imax theatre) as
well as shops and restaurants. This plan, like water-
front redevelopment schemes in other jurisdictions,
presented the potential for a ‘‘dramatic spectacle
of perpetual carnival’’ (
) along the harbourfront. It also called for the
complete removal of work-related activities in the
west harbourfront (except for work in shops and
restaurants).
The most recent harbourfront plan (
) has toned down the magnitude of the
proposed waterfront spectacle considerably. While
the relocation of the rail yard remains a major com-
ponent of future planning, the new plan includes res-
idential development and lays out fewer ‘special
attractions’ (although the planning maps include
several blank spaces that are possible sites for such
attractions). The gradual removal of industry, how-
ever, remains central to the plans for the district:
The City of Hamilton acknowledges the importance
of industry to the regional economy. Nevertheless,
it is a central principle of this Plan that the decline
of heavy industrial activity in the West Harbour is
expected. . . in keeping with City’s objective to have
industrial uses in the West Harbour relocated to a
more suitable area of the City, where it will be more
compatible with surrounding uses, existing and
planned. (
)
These ‘more suitable’ areas for industry, while not
clearly defined in the plan, are presumably found in
the eastern harbour district, or in the city’s suburban
industrial parks.
These plans are currently on hold, as the railway
company is reluctant to relocate its marshalling
yards, and the city has insufficient resources (finan-
cial and political) to encourage them to do so (
). Thus, while the Waterfront Trail was
proposed in initial concept documents as a small
component of the overall transformation of the west
harbour – a path along the water at the edge of a
new waterfront district – the Trail and the adjoining
parks are currently the primary manifestation of the
planned west harbour transformation.
At the same time, Waterfront Trail development
has irritated – although not relocated – other local
business actors. The Leander Boat Club, Royal
Hamilton Yacht Club and MacDonald Marina all ac-
tively opposed the extension of the trail between
Bayfront Park and Pier 8, as the Trail follows the
most direct route between these two points, which
is through their marinas and storage yards. Access
to these properties were previously limited to marina
and club clients – although the land is City of Hamil-
ton property, the clubs/marinas have held long-term
leases with the City. Thus, while marinas are granted
explicit exemptions from the gradual removal of
industry outlined in the most recent waterfront plan
– on the grounds that they improve the ambience of
the area (
), rather than be-
cause of their commercial function – their activities
are still being impinged upon in waterfront planning.
The relative lack of voice of these actors in trail plan-
ning will be discussed later in the paper.
Whose waterfront? Issues of access and social justice
In Hamilton, increasing public access to the water-
front has been central to planning – both the 1996
and 2005 planning documents had increasing accessi-
bility as central tenets, and many local organizations
have spoken out to ensure that public access is a key
component of any redevelopment. Some local observ-
ers have seen the development of the waterfront trail
an issue of social justice, with the good of the average
citizen set in contrast to the desires of big business:
Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield
303
There’s no underestimating what the Waterfront
Trail brings to Hamilton in terms of civic pride. It
rights a long-standing wrong by finally letting the lit-
tle people share the harbour with big industry. (
Since its opening July 1, 2000, it is estimated that as
many as 10,000 people per week use the Hamilton
Harbour Waterfront Trail during good weather (
), so the goal of enhancing access
to the waterfront has been supported by Trail devel-
opment. However, more limited attention has been
paid to issues of equity in access to the Trail, although
the Trail was explicitly designed to facilitate access, at
least by accommodating wheelchairs and strollers.
City documents suggest that Trail users include west
harbourfront residents, as well as residents of other
parts of the city who come down to the trail for ‘out-
ings’, but these accounts are anecdotal. One potential
concern in terms of equity is that the waterfront trail
may be most beneficial to affluent city residents from
the western suburbs of the city (which abut Cootes
Paradise –
Figure 1), who now have easier access to
While access to recreational amenities (such as the
Trail) has improved significantly in the west har-
bourfront in the last two decades, the neighbour-
hoods
themselves
remain
predominantly
low-
income (
Social Planning and Research Council of
). Indeed, the west harbourfront area
is one of the poorest in Hamilton, which itself has
the highest poverty rate in Ontario – almost 20%
of Hamiltonians live on incomes below the poverty
line (
Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction,
). Low income households in the census tracts
adjacent to the Waterfront Trail range from 24%
to 64% of total households (
search Council of Hamilton, 2004
). Some gentrifica-
tion has occurred, but this has – to date – been
limited to a small number of houses that have an
unobstructed water view. However, the potential
for the displacement of low-income households
looms large. In a newspaper article celebrating the
opening of the waterfront trail, a local writer notes,
The trail and parks have great potential as keys to an
even more exciting future for the harbour . . . the reju-
venated harbour [could be] a catalyst to the renais-
sance of surrounding neighbourhoods in the North
End. . . (
)
The question that needs to be asked (following
) is, ‘renaissance’ for whom?
The 1996 West Harbourfront Development Study
(
) does not mention afford-
able housing, and, surprisingly, neither does the
2004 land use plan for downtown Hamilton. Rather,
the emphasis is on ‘‘identifying opportunities for a
range of housing types catering to a variety of in-
come levels and household characteristics’’ (
). Given the low-income character
of the central city, this can be read as a euphemism
for developing more high-end housing. The recent
Setting Sail planning report does suggest that afford-
able housing should be a component of subsequent
development of the harbourfront (
). However, this issue is raised only briefly, and
the language is weak, suggesting that Hamilton, like
many other cities, could see an erosion of this com-
mitment in practice. As the redevelopment of the
waterfront continues to enhance the area’s attrac-
tiveness as a residential location, failure to provide
adequate affordable housing could result in the dis-
placement of existing low-income residents.
(Re)constructed nature: environmental remediation
on the waterfront
In Hamilton, waterfront redevelopment has been
accompanied by a massive ‘rehabilitation’ of the
area’s natural environment. Evidence of this can
be found along the length of the Waterfront Trail,
starting at its western terminus at Cootes Paradise.
As described in the City’s interpretive material for
the Trail,
Cootes Paradise Marsh is part of the Royal Botanical
Gardens (RBG). This area was once an extensive cat-
tail marsh, and the RBG, in conjunction with part-
ners
including
the
Fish
&
Wildlife
Habitat
Restoration Project, the Bay Area Restoration Coun-
cil, McMaster University, and the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, are working to restore this
sanctuary. (
)
The restoration of the marsh has been extensive,
including large-scale replanting of native species,
reconstruction of shoreline habitat, and a variety of
measures to reduce the damage caused by non-
native fish species, particularly carp. The crowning
glory of the program is the Cootes Paradise Fishway
(
c), located adjacent to the Harbour Water-
front Trail. The Fishway, essentially a series of
underwater fences and traps, captures fish trying to
enter Cootes Paradise. Staff then sort and release
the fish – native species into the marsh, non-native
species back into the harbour (
). These activities are often performed for an
audience of Trail users.
Environmental restoration projects were also inte-
grated into the building of the Waterfront Trail itself,
including structures to maximize fish habitat and
‘naturalized’ landscaping with native plants (
–
d). Overall, trail design
and construction were planned with the specific in-
tent of minimizing negative environmental impacts,
and habitat maintenance and improvement objec-
Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield
304
tives were weighted heavily, even against concerns
about aesthetics and cost. For example, the $1.2M
(Cdn) floating walkway through the Desjardins canal
(
e) allowed the trail to be constructed without
any filling of the existing channel, and the ‘natural-
ized’ water edge along most of the Trail maximizes
the potential for shoreline habitat at the expense of
additional trail width and consistent water views.
According to the local newspaper, these efforts have
been quite successful at attracting wildlife:
Ducks nest and rear their young in this area and fish-
eating birds such as the black-crowned night heron
and the belted kingfisher use the shoreline trees as
launching pads for fishing expeditions. On the
ground, snapping turtles use the sandy slopes to lay
their eggs. (
This ‘wildness’ is also evident at Bayfront Park, at
the eastern end of the Trail. As was mentioned ear-
lier, the park was originally an industrial landfill site;
prior to its use as a park, the site had to be signifi-
cantly remediated. The waste on the site was con-
tained using armour rock (to withstand wave
action) and a soil cap. While early plans by the origi-
nal property owner and the city had included new
residential and commercial development on the site,
it was subsequently deemed unsuitable for building.
The site was therefore given entirely over to park-
land. It includes some large mown lawns for special
events, and a manicured sand beach. Other than
these areas, the peninsula has been planted with na-
tive grasses and shrubs and allowed to grow without
intervention.
Hamilton’s waterfront thus has a ‘wilder’, more
natural character than most. This quality is en-
hanced by the pronounced lack of buildings as part
of the redevelopment thus far. This represents a sub-
stantial departure from ‘bricks-and-mortar’ visions
of the waterfront (
). At the same
time, the development of this new and/or revitalized
‘wilderness’ required substantial physical transfor-
mation of the landscape. The emphasis on techno-
logical
intervention
to
mediate
environmental
damage reveals the project’s origins in a paradigm
of ecological modernization. While not all environ-
mental remediation can be seen as ecological mod-
ernization, projects which emphasize technological
solutions to environmental problems – and exhibit
a certain level of hubris accompanying these inter-
ventions (see
) – serve to embed a top-
down, reactive approach to environmental damage
that is consistent with ecological modernization.
The City of Hamilton’s selective incorporation of
ecological goals into urban governance is also con-
sistent with ecological modernization as a driving
paradigm. While the city has taken a pro-environ-
ment stance with respect to the remediation of the
harbour and the development of the Waterfront
Trail, it also decided to construct the Red Hill Creek
Expressway – an urban highway/ring road that runs
through the last remaining natural river valley in
the city – in the face of considerable opposition from
environmentalists and the federal government. The
City has also been criticised for encouraging low-
density, automobile-dependent development in the
periphery. This suburban development could impair
the ecological renewal of the harbour:
While the sediment entering the harbour is now clea-
ner, the Royal Botanical Gardens has reported very
turbid conditions on the Ancaster Creek entering
the Cootes Paradise Marsh. The turbid conditions,
which severely affect the integrity of the marsh habi-
tat, are caused by the erosion of soil from subdivision
construction. (
Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton
)
In Hamilton, then, it cannot be said that ‘the
growth imperative’ has taken a back seat to ecolog-
ical priorities. Rather, these two priorities have been
balanced in different ways in different locales within
the city, and indeed, they have come to be seen as
deeply intertwined – an idea that will be discussed
in more depth in the next section.
‘Selling the city’: the waterfront as an engine of local
economic development
Hamilton’s waterfront redevelopment, with the
Waterfront Trail as its focal point, has thus far been
low-key, emphasising natural landscapes and out-
door recreation. Interestingly, this approach has
been reconciled with the vision of the waterfront
as a growth engine by emphasizing the importance
of visible manifestations of Hamilton’s ecological
integrity in overcoming negative stereotypes. For
example, one newspaper editorial suggests that:
. . .
a trail system will improve the image of a city that
has struggled with unfair, unflattering portrayals in
the national media. We hate to count the times Ham-
ilton has been labeled an ugly, blue collar town
because of the steel plants along the bayfront. . . [A]
trail system, linking the significant natural resources
on the city’s doorstep, can work wonders in overcom-
ing negative stereotyping. (Hamilton
)
A local quasi-governmental organization goes fur-
ther, stating that:
The economic prosperity of Hamilton, Burlington,
and the Bay Area is directly related to the environ-
mental health and status of the Hamilton Harbour
ecosystem. A positive image, the attraction of tour-
ists and new residents, and private and public invest-
ment in this vital area all become more likely if. . . the
harbour and its watershed are restored. (
Environmental and economic health are thus inter-
twined in the public imagination, in ways that echo
observation that environmental
remediation within an ecological modernization
Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield
305
paradigm does not challenge the dominance of entre-
preneurial, growth-focused approaches to redevelop-
ment, but in fact may offer support for them.
The City of Hamilton has also adopted some rela-
tively traditional strategies for attracting growth
through waterfront redevelopment, such as the pur-
suit of anchor attractions (e.g., the new Marine Dis-
covery Centre on Pier 8) and the loosening of
development restrictions to stimulate investment.
Indeed, the City has publicly stated its willingness
to ‘expedite’ residential and commercial develop-
ment in the waterfront:
The City of Hamilton is the facilitator of the pro-
posed development and is responsible for steering
its course towards a single, viable plan. Its continuing
role is to help streamline the inquiry and administra-
tive process while coordinating the needs of landown-
ers, senior government, and future investors. (
[The City] recently announced the creation of the
Invest in Hamilton Team, in order to fast track
approvals and immediately make decisions to expe-
dite development in the City of Hamilton (
These attempts to spur further waterfront devel-
opment have yet to bear significant fruit, the new
Marine Museum notwithstanding. Interestingly, the
focus within Hamilton has recently shifted away
from the waterfront, concurrent with a change in
municipal government. The new government has
prioritised development around the Hamilton Inter-
national Airport, located at the urban fringe.
Dubbed the ‘aerotropolis’, the City envisions a
planned community with links to road corridors
and large scale commercial/spin-off development
(
). This new initiative seems
to have taken precedence over waterfront redevel-
opment, with the City calling the airport the ‘‘eco-
nomic engine’’ of its future.
Public and private interests in waterfront
redevelopment
In Hamilton, the current shape of waterfront devel-
opment can be explained, to a significant degree, by
the involvement – or lack thereof – of particular ac-
tors in Hamilton’s socio-political context. For
example, a wide range of ‘partners’ were involved
in the development of the Waterfront Trail. The
Waterfront Trail website publicly acknowledges
many for-profit and non-profit organizations for
providing financial and in-kind support for the trail
(
– see
for a list of
organizations). However, the most important actors
in the development of the Trail had a seat on the
West Waterfront Trail Project Advisory Group
(with the ungainly acronym of WWTPAG), respon-
sible for the planning and implementation of the
trail project.
A look at the list of WWTPAG members provides
a potential explanation for the foregrounding of
environmental issues in Hamilton’s waterfront revi-
talization. One third of the members of WWTPAG
were governmental and non-governmental organiza-
tions whose primary mandate is the protection and
enhancement of the natural environment. Key play-
ers included the Regional Conservation Authorities
of both Hamilton and Halton (which has jurisdiction
over the northern shores of the harbour), the federal
and provincial ministries of environment, the Fish &
Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project (responsible
for the Cootes Paradise marsh remediation), the
Royal Botanical Gardens (which owns the forests
and wetlands at the western end of the harbour,
including Cootes Paradise) and the Bay Area Resto-
ration Council.
The Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC) de-
serves additional attention in this context. BARC
is a non-profit charitable organization that oversees
the implementation of the Hamilton Harbour Reme-
dial Action Plan (HHRAP). Hamilton Harbour is
currently listed as an ‘area of concern’ under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between
Canada and the United States (
). Under
the terms of the agreement, the two federal govern-
ments must implement programs and report on their
progress in restoring, preserving, and protecting the
Great Lakes (
). The
development of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) by
quasi-governmental committees is a central compo-
nent of this implementation, and each RAP is ex-
pected to draw on local community involvement in
each area of concern to develop strategies to remedi-
ate local ecosystems and improve water quality. In
this context, the HHRAP lays out a plan to improve
harbour water quality, and BARC serves as the
organization responsible for implementing that plan.
BARC is itself a multi-stakeholder partnership, as
most BARC members represent organizations
‘‘from the agricultural, industrial, recreational, gov-
ernmental, institutional, and environmental sectors’’
(
). Many of the key actors
in WWTPAG had therefore been working together
for some time through BARC, as part of the
HHRAP development and implementation. This en-
abled better collaboration and coordination among
these partners than might otherwise be the case. It
also embedded the goals and values of the HHRAP
(including environmental remediation and enhanced
public access to the waterfront) into the Trail plan-
ning process.
Interestingly, WWTPAG did not include local
business representatives beyond those directly im-
pacted by the trail (i.e., the Canadian National
Railway and the Leander Boat Club). This may
be due to the focus of this particular re-develop-
ment project: given that there was little opportunity
for business development as part of the trail, busi-
ness leaders may not have been interested in direct
Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield
306
involvement at this stage. Whatever the rationale
for WWTPAG membership, the relationship be-
tween local businesses and the other members of
WWTPAG was occasionally rocky. Unlike other
WWTPAG members, the Canadian National Rail-
way (CNR) and the Leander Boat Club (and in
more recent discussions, the Royal Hamilton Yacht
Club and the MacDonald Marina) have objected to
key portions of the planned Trail development.
CNR, by refusing to move its railyard to another
location, was able to shape the trail in a particular
way. By contrast, Leander and the other marinas
were in a more tenuous situation, renting rather
than owning their properties, and thus were forced
to compromise in Trail planning and allow the
Trail to be routed through their marinas and stor-
age yards.
Beyond the most local actors, the involvement of
the business community in waterfront revitalization
more generally has been noticeably absent. This is
potentially an indicator of a ‘‘relative thinness of
business activism’’ in Hamilton (a situation observed
in Bristol, England, by
). Hamil-
ton’s business community is a mix of large, estab-
lished industrial and institutional players (e.g., the
big steel mills, the university, and the hospitals)
and smaller local businesses that may feed into these
sectors (e.g., steel machining shops and independent
laboratories) or may operate entirely outside them
(e.g., local independent retailers). Within this com-
plex landscape, there is as much potential for conflict
as consensus around the economic future of Hamil-
ton, and thus it may be difficult to organize a sec-
toral response to local policy developments (see
). Furthermore, few venture capitalists
have been stepping up to contribute to the City’s lar-
ger vision of the waterfront (i.e., a place with not
only naturalized areas, but also new attractions,
housing, and stores and restaurants). This may be a
function of a relative lack of access to venture capi-
tal within Hamilton itself, given its status as a ‘sec-
ond-tier’ city in regional hierarchies. ‘Offshore’
developers have also not been attracted to invest
(despite significant efforts by the City’s economic
development department), perhaps because of Ham-
ilton’s lingering reputation as a polluted example of
the old industrial economy.
Discussion and conclusion
The Hamilton Waterfront Trail and other related ini-
tiatives have shaped a very different waterfront than
in many cases explored in the literature. It has not
been the purpose of this paper to expand on the vir-
tues of Hamilton’s waterfront, nor to denigrate its
weaknesses. Indeed, the very characteristics that
some may consider the Hamilton waterfront’s
greatest strengths may be seen by others as its most
Table 1
Hamilton Waterfront Trail ‘Partner’ organizations
Organization name
Organization type
Bay Area Restoration Council
Non-governmental organization
Berminghammer Foundation Equipment
Industry
Canada Millennium Partnership Program
Foundation (funder)
Canadian Coast Guard
Quasi-governmental organization
Canadian National Railway
Industry (Crown corporation)
Canusa Games – Hamilton Branch
Non-governmental organization
City of Hamilton
Local government
Columbian Chemicals
Industry
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
National government
Dofasco Inc.
Industry
Environment Canada
National government
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project
Non-governmental organization
Halton Region Conservation Authority
Quasi-governmental organization
Hamilton Harbour Commissioners
Quasi-governmental organization
Hamilton Naturalists’ Club
Non-governmental organization
Hamilton Region Conservation Authority
Quasi-governmental organization
Hamilton-Wentworth Land Stewardship Council
Non-governmental organization
Leander Boat Club
Small business
Ministry of Environment
Provincial government
Ministry of Transportation
Provincial government
‘‘Public at large’’
No organizational affiliation
Rail Link
Quasi-governmental organization
Regional Tree Planting Program
Quasi-governmental organization
Royal Botanical Gardens
Non-governmental organization
Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Quasi-governmental organization
Source: Adopted from
, accessed January 2006, and minutes from the West Harbourfront Trail Project Advisory Group meeting of December 9, 1998.
a
Held seat(s) on the West Waterfront Trail Project Advisory Group.
Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield
307
significant failings. However, regardless of the rela-
tive success or failure of Hamilton’s waterfront rede-
velopment, it cannot be argued that the regeneration
of Hamilton’s waterfront has been guided by a funda-
mentally different set of values than those espoused in
other places. Rather, the evidence suggests that many
of the attitudes exhibited in other locales are also
present in Hamilton, such as:
discomfort with the historic character of the city as
a place for heavy industry (
),
most noticeable in calls for the removal of all
industry from the western harbourfront;
lack of consistent attention to social inequality,
particularly with respect to the need for affordable
housing (
);
an ecological modernist approach to environmen-
tal remediation (
), evident in the
connections drawn between ecological and eco-
nomic vitality;
an overriding concern with image enhancement as
part of a larger desire to attract economic invest-
ment (
); and,
a demonstrated willingness to bend existing plan-
ning restrictions to facilitate that economic invest-
ment (
However, waterfront redevelopment, like other
urban revitalization, occurs within ‘‘historically con-
tingent ensembles of complementary economic and
extra-economic mechanisms and practices’’ (
). As
notes, the potential for varia-
tion in form among different sites of investment
and development is immense, and the unique char-
acter of Hamilton’s waterfront can be at least par-
tially attributed to this ‘local contingency’. In this
case, waterfront development was shaped by spe-
cific environmental conditions, as well as by exist-
ing networks between institutions. At the city
level, Hamilton’s legacy of environmental contami-
nation as a result of the city’s industrial heritage fo-
cussed efforts on the need for environmental
improvements as part of a waterfront redevelop-
ment strategy; at the site level, specific biophysical
conditions (such as the unsuitability of the Bayfront
Park property for building construction) have con-
strained the choices that can be made by local ac-
tors. In addition, local actors are bound together
in a variety of strong and weak networks that have
evolved over time. In particular, the prior involve-
ment of many local stakeholders in the develop-
ment of the Remedial Action Plan through the
Bay Area Restoration Council has given a particu-
lar shape and focus to the subsequent waterfront
planning.
However, many ‘local’ constraints and opportu-
nities were themselves structured by macro-scale
trends within the economy and government. For
example, waterfront redevelopment in Hamilton
occurred in relation to extra-local policy arrange-
ments that privileged environmental concerns over
economic and social ones. That is, broader na-
tional and international imperatives – in particular
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement –
shaped waterfront redevelopment through the pro-
vision of resources for environmental remediation,
and through the purposeful development of local
institutional networks around that remediation.
Thus, the new partnership arrangements created
on the waterfront were shaped by broader socio-
political contexts in ways that impacted on the
eventual
redevelopment
program
(see
). Other broad trends, such as the relative po-
sition of Hamilton within global and national ur-
ban hierarchies (i.e., as a second-tier city) and
the prevalence of particular growth discourses
(e.g., of the importance of ‘city selling’), also help
to explain the character of the Hamilton water-
front. In particular, Hamilton’s national reputation
as a polluted industrial city stimulated a waterfront
development designed, at least in part, to refute
that reputation in order to stimulate investor inter-
est in the city.
Hamilton’s waterfront thus emerged from a mix of
global pressures and local exigencies rather than by
intent. This leaves it vulnerable to future develop-
ment that could compromise its current character.
For example, by promoting the waterfront as a site
for other, more commercially-focused attractions,
the City runs the risk of ‘serial reproduction’ (
). That is, while image-focused develop-
ment relies on the creation of a unique appeal,
development initiatives that attempt to purposefully
create uniqueness end up looking alike (
). In addition, a failure to explicitly
address issues that might compromise the water-
front’s social and ecological integrity (e.g., loss of
employment, gentrification, upstream ecological
degradation) could undermine past initiatives.
This account does not tell the full story of water-
front redevelopment in Hamilton. The focus on pub-
lic documents and newspaper accounts means that
the nuances of the development process remain opa-
que. For example, the views of and personal rela-
tionships between key actors are inadequately
captured. In addition, the focus on the Hamilton
Harbour Waterfront Trail as a case study means that
other aspects of Hamilton’s waterfront change are
not fully explored. However, the data sources used
in this paper help to generate a better understanding
of the dominant viewpoints expressed on Hamilton’s
waterfront, and give a sense of the broad dynamics
at work, at least in terms of the development of
the Trail. This paper contributes to our understand-
ing of the local and extra-local factors that shape
waterfront development, and begins to elucidate
how the local and extra-local are connected through
networks of actors, patterns of economic investment
and/or decline, and perhaps most importantly, by
globalized growth discourses that are re-interpreted
at the local level.
Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield
308
Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges the support
provided by a Social Sciences and Humanities Re-
search Council of Canada (SSHRC) research grant
(#456228). In addition, the author wishes to recog-
nize the hard work of two research assistants, Vivian
Ng and Julie Fleming.
References
Atkinson, R (2000) The hidden costs of gentrification: displace-
ment in central London. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment 15(4), 307–326.
BARC, (nd). Bringing Back the Bay [pamphlet]. Bay Area
Restoration Council. Hamilton, Ont., Canada.
BARC (2004) Hamilton/Burlington Bay Area Access Map [pam-
phlet]. Bay Area Restoration Council, Hamilton, Ont.,
Canada.
Bassett, K, Griffiths, R and Smith, I (2002) Testing governance:
partnerships, planning, and conflict in waterfront regeneration.
Urban Studies 39(10), 1757–1775.
Breen, A and Rigby, D (1985) CAUTION: Working Waterfront.
The Waterfront Press, Washington, DC.
Browne, D R and Keil, R (2000) Planning ecology: the discourse
of environmental policy-making in Los Angeles. Organization
and Environment 13(2), 158–205.
City of Hamilton (n/d) West Harbourfront in Southern Ontario,
Canada [Economic Development Brochure]. City of Hamil-
ton, Planning and Economic Development Department.
City of Hamilton (1995) A Vision for the Future: The West
Harbourfront Development Study Final Report. City of Ham-
ilton Planning Department.
City of Hamilton (2000) Hamilton Steel Sector Profile. City of
Hamilton Economic Development Department, Hamilton,
Ont. Available online at
http://www.myhamilton.ca/nr/rdonly-
res/f3d401f9-bd8c-4339-8113c24699eb76a3/0/gh106steelprofile-
spreads2.pdf
, accessed January 2006.
City of Hamilton (2004a) Hamilton Economic Development
Review, 2004. Available online at
NR/rdonlyres/5782A965-6617-449F-A098-C906E6D31E64/0/
ecdevreview04.pdf
, accessed January 2006.
City of Hamilton (2004b) Putting People First: The New Land Use
Plan for Downtown Hamilton. City of Hamilton Economic
Development Department, Hamilton Ont.
City of Hamilton (2005a) Setting Sail: The Hamilton West
Harbour Planning Area Study. City of Hamilton Planning
and Economic Development Department. Hamilton, Ont.
City of Hamilton (2005b) Invest in Hamilton 2005. Perspective
Marketing, Hamilton, Ont.
City of Hamilton (2005c) Economic Development Strategy.
Available online at
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/
ED4F0E97-34B2-4374-AD24-DB034885ECB5/0/EcDevStrat-
egyFinal2005.pdf
; accessed April 2006.
City of Hamilton (2006a) Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail.
Available online at:
http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/
cityandgovernment/citydepartments/publicworks/parks/public
trails/trailslist.htm
, accessed February 2006.
City of Hamilton (2006b) Friends of the Waterfront Trail.
Available online at
http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/
cityandgovernment/citydepartments/publicworks/parks/progra
ms/friendswaterfronttrail.htm
; accessed April 2006.
Cruikshank, K and Bouchier, N B (2004) Blighted areas and
obnoxious industries: constructing environmental inequality on
an industrial waterfront, Hamilton, Ontario, 1890–1960. Envi-
ronmental History 9(3), 464–496.
Cox, K R (2004) Globalization and the politics of local and
regional development: the question of convergence. Trans-
actions of the Institute of British Geographers 29, 179–
194.
Cowell, R and Thomas, H (2002) Managing nature and narratives
of dispossession: reclaiming territory in Cardiff Bay. Urban
Studies 39(7), 1241–1260.
de Vries, S, Verheij, R A, Groenewegen, P P and Spreeu-
wenberg, P (2003) Natural environments – healthy environ-
ments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between
greenspace and health. Environment and Planning A 35,
1717–1731.
Davidson, D J and Frickel, S (2004) Understanding environmental
governance: a critical review. Organization and Environment
17(4), 471–492.
Desfor, G and Jorgensen, J (2004) Flexible urban governance: the
case of Copenhagen’s recent waterfront development. Euro-
pean Planning Studies 12(4), 479–496.
Donald, B (2005) The politics of local economic development in
Canada’s city regions: new dependencies, new deals, and a new
politics of scale. Space and Polity 9(3), 261–281.
Dreschel, A (2000) Waterfront Trail rights a longstanding fault.
Hamilton Spectator 10(July), A3.
Dunphy, B (2000) CN shunts harbour jewel away; Railway’s 20-
year deal ties up waterfront. Hamilton Spectator 30(October),
A1.
Environment Canada (2006) Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment. Available online at
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/greatlakes/
default.asp?lang=En&n=FD65DFE5-1
, accessed September
2006.
Evans, L (1970) Hamilton, the Story of a City. Ryerson Press,
Toronto.
Eyles, J and Peace, W (1990) Signs and symbols in Hamilton: an
iconology of Steeltown. Geografiska Annaler B 72, 73–88.
Gold, J and Ward, S (eds.) (1994) Place Promotion: The Use of
Publicity and Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions. Wiley,
Chichester.
Jacobs, K (2004) Waterfront redevelopment: a critical discourse
analysis of the policy-making process within the Chatham
maritime project. Urban Studies 41(4), 817–832.
Judd, D R and Fainstein, S (1999) The Tourist City. Yale
University Press, New York.
Hall, P., 1991. Waterfronts: A New Urban Frontier. University of
California Institute of Urban and Regional Development,
Berkeley CA. Working Paper 538 (May).
Hall, T and Hubbard, P (1996) The entrepreneurial city: new urban
politics, new urban geographies? Progress in Human Geogra-
phy 20(2), 153–174.
Hall, T and Hubbard, P (eds.) (1998) The Entrepreneurial City.
Wiley, Chichester.
Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction (2005) Roundtable
for Poverty Reduction Takes Community Approach [press
release]. Available online at
http://www.myhamilton.ca/myha-
milton/CityandGovernment/NewsandPublications/NewsRe-
leases/2005News/May/05-05-13b.htm
; accessed April 2006.
Spectator, Hamilto (1999) Taking back our waterfront. [Editorial].
Hamilton Spectator 13(July), A8.
Harvey, D (1989a) The Urban Experience. Blackwell, Oxford.
Harvey, D (1989b) The Condition of Postmodernity. Blackwell,
Cambridge, MA.
Higgs, E S (2003) Nature by Design: People, Natural Process, and
Ecological Restoration. MIT Press, Boston.
Hoyle, S B, Pinder, D and Husain, M S (1988) Revitalising the
Waterfront: International Dimensions of Dockland Redevelop-
ment. Belhaven Press, London.
Hughes, R (1999) Neighbourhood under siege: Northeast residents
face the worst of industry, traffic and smelly regional opera-
tions. Hamilton Spectator(December 15), A1.
Jessop, B (1997) The entrepreneurial city: re-imaging localities,
redesigning economic governance or restructuring capital. In
Transforming Cities: Contested Governance and New Spatial
Divisions, N Jewson and S MacGregor (eds.), pp. 8–41.
Routledge, London.
Loftman, P and Nevin, B (1996) Going for growth: prestige
projects in three British cities. Urban Studies 33, 991–1019.
Malone, P (1996) Introduction. In City, Capital and Water, P
Malone. City, Capital and Water. Routledge, London.
Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield
309
McCarthy, J (2004) Tourism-related waterfront development in
historic cities: Malta’s Cottonera project. International Plan-
ning Studies 9(1), 43–64.
McNulty, G (2000) Waterfront trail opening is cause for accolades.
Hamilton Spectator(July 4), A12.
Poncelet, E C (2001) ‘A kiss here and a kiss there’: conflict and
collaboration in environmental partnerships. Environmental
Management 27(1), 13–25.
Raco, M (2003) The social relations of business representation and
devolved governance in the United Kingdom. Environment and
Planning A 35, 1853–1876.
Raco, M (2002) The social relations of organizational activity and
the new local governance in the UK. Urban Studies 39(3), 437–
456.
Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour (2006a) Accom-
plishments and Challenges. Available online at
www.hamiltonharbour.ca/rap/accomplishments.htm
; accessed
May 2006.
Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour (2006b) Hamilton
Harbour Remedial Action Plan 2000–2005 Highlights and
Summary. January 16.
Sandercock, L and Dovey, K (2002) Pleasure, politics, and the
‘public interest’: Melbourne’s riverscape revitalization. APA
Journal 68(2), 151–164.
Short, J R and Kim, Y H (1999) Globalization and the City.
Addison-Wesley/Longman, Essex.
Short, J R, Benton, L M, Luce, W B and Walton, J (1993)
Reconstructing the image of an industrial city. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 83(2), 207–224.
Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton (2004)
Incomes and Poverty in Hamilton. Available online at
www.sprc.hamilton.on.ca/Reports/povincsum04.pdf
; accessed
April 2006.
Stirrup, M (1996) Implementation of Hamilton–Wentworth
Region’s pollution control plan. Water Quality Research
Journal of Canada 31(3), 453–472.
Van der Knaap, B and Pinder, D A (1992) Revitalising the
European Waterfront: policy evolution and planning issues. In
European Port Cities in Transition, B S Hoyle and D A Pinder
(eds.), pp. 55–175. Belhaven Press, London.
Wakefield, S and McMullan, C (2005) Healing in places of decline:
(re)imagining everyday landscapes in Hamilton, Ontario.
Health and Place 11(4), 299–312.
Wells, J (2000) Welcome to the best city on the planet. Hamilton
Spectator(January 26), B1.
While, A, Jonas, A E G and Gibbs, D (2004) The environment and
the entrepreneurial city: searching for the urban sustainability
fix in Manchester and Leeds. International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research 28(3), 549–569.
Wood, R and Handley, J (1999) Urban waterfront regener-
ation in the Mersey Basin, North West England. Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management 42(4), 565–
580.
Wyly, E and Hammel, D (1999) Islands of decay in seas of
renewal: housing policy and the resurgence of gentrification.
Housing Policy Debate 10(4), 711–769.
Zimonjic, P (2001) Harbour trail a scenic escape. Hamilton
Spectator(August 21), A6.
Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield
310
Document Outline
- Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
great expectations summary
Great Expectations Powerful Themes in the Novel
great expectations
Great Expectations key?cts
Ch Dickens, Great Expectations
Dickens Great Expectations
GREAT EXPECTATIONS
Great Expectations study questions
Great Expectations Comparison to Oliver Twist doc
Great Expectations
Great expectations
ebooksclub org Charles Dickens Great Expectations Bloom 039 s Guides
Great Expectations The importance of Mrs Joe doc
GREAT EXPECTATIONS
Charles Dickens GREAT EXPECTATIONS
Dickens Charles Great expectations
History of Great Britain exam requirements
Introduction to Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics BRIZARD, A J
how to write great essays id 20 Nieznany
więcej podobnych podstron