Page 13 - Mellinato, Giulio, and Aleksander Panjek. Eds. 2022. Complex Gateways. Labour and Urban History of Maritime Port Cities: The Northern Adriaticin a Comparative Perspective. Koper: University of Primorska Press.
P. 13
Complex Gateways: The North Adriatic Port System in Historical Perspective
than the ones regarding labour, the social impacts of port activities, and
their relations with the urban environment (Williams 2003).
Something changed when attention shifted towards the ‘global cit-
ies’ and their key role in shaping the arrangement of the new level of in-
terconnectedness, emerging so clearly at the beginning of the new millen-
nium. The ‘port-city-region relationships’ became one of the focal points
(Wanga and Ducruet 2012), recognizing the fact that the enhancement
of the new functions, proper of a global-level seaport, were extremely de-
manding in terms of space and resources. The result was the determin-
ing of the entire development path, not only at an urban but also at a re-
gional level, as was actually the case both for the rapidly growing Chinese
seaports and for some old-style ports, forced to undergo rapid transitions
in order to catch up with the innovations (Grossmann 2008; Wang and
Cheng 2010).
During the first two decades of our century, the scholarship high-
lighted two different dynamics, coupling their effects inside the seaports’
ongoing experimentations in better ways to capture (and to exploit) the
flows of goods and wealth: on one hand, the transition towards a ser-
vice-led economy and the dematerialization of the most lucrative forms
of economic exchange; on the other hand, the radical relocation of sev-
eral labour-intensive production and industrial activities. The latter has
caused the need to rethink the use and the destination of numerous met-
ropolitan areas, also determining the allocation of spaces for the more
and more space-demanding port activities. During these years, the two
main sets of specialists interested in the history of seaports (maritime
historians and urban historians) divided themselves into more special-
ized subgroups, losing sight of the greater picture. At the same time,
economists began to look at ports (both sea- and airports) with new eyes,
considering them not only as hubs for goods and trade flows, but also
as possible cornerstones for the newly emerging knowledge economy
(Conventz et al. 2013; Conventz et al. 2015; Díez-Pisonero 2020). In the
theoretical literature, we can also appreciate a drift from the study of the
“hard” portion of port competitiveness (infrastructures, spaces, technol-
ogies) to the “soft” one, with an increasing attention devoted to human
resources, organization, the ability to improve and adapt to changing sit-
uations (Ng 2006), and the interrelations between port activities and ur-
ban constraints (Alpcan 2019).
13
than the ones regarding labour, the social impacts of port activities, and
their relations with the urban environment (Williams 2003).
Something changed when attention shifted towards the ‘global cit-
ies’ and their key role in shaping the arrangement of the new level of in-
terconnectedness, emerging so clearly at the beginning of the new millen-
nium. The ‘port-city-region relationships’ became one of the focal points
(Wanga and Ducruet 2012), recognizing the fact that the enhancement
of the new functions, proper of a global-level seaport, were extremely de-
manding in terms of space and resources. The result was the determin-
ing of the entire development path, not only at an urban but also at a re-
gional level, as was actually the case both for the rapidly growing Chinese
seaports and for some old-style ports, forced to undergo rapid transitions
in order to catch up with the innovations (Grossmann 2008; Wang and
Cheng 2010).
During the first two decades of our century, the scholarship high-
lighted two different dynamics, coupling their effects inside the seaports’
ongoing experimentations in better ways to capture (and to exploit) the
flows of goods and wealth: on one hand, the transition towards a ser-
vice-led economy and the dematerialization of the most lucrative forms
of economic exchange; on the other hand, the radical relocation of sev-
eral labour-intensive production and industrial activities. The latter has
caused the need to rethink the use and the destination of numerous met-
ropolitan areas, also determining the allocation of spaces for the more
and more space-demanding port activities. During these years, the two
main sets of specialists interested in the history of seaports (maritime
historians and urban historians) divided themselves into more special-
ized subgroups, losing sight of the greater picture. At the same time,
economists began to look at ports (both sea- and airports) with new eyes,
considering them not only as hubs for goods and trade flows, but also
as possible cornerstones for the newly emerging knowledge economy
(Conventz et al. 2013; Conventz et al. 2015; Díez-Pisonero 2020). In the
theoretical literature, we can also appreciate a drift from the study of the
“hard” portion of port competitiveness (infrastructures, spaces, technol-
ogies) to the “soft” one, with an increasing attention devoted to human
resources, organization, the ability to improve and adapt to changing sit-
uations (Ng 2006), and the interrelations between port activities and ur-
ban constraints (Alpcan 2019).
13
