Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2006.11.001

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

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 contemporary 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 pollution) 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 environmental 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 development 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

This transition, grounded in broader economic and social transformations, has left many industrial cities scrambling to redefine themselves in order to maintain positive local identities (Wakefield and McMullan, 2005) and attract investment capital to the city (Hall and Hubbard, 1996, 1998; Short and Kim, 1999; Donald, 2005). In an attempt to respond to this perceived need, city planners and promoters have increasingly turned to waterfront revitalization projects (Harvey, 1989b; Wood and Handley, 1999; Sandercock and Dovey, 2002; Desfor and Jorgensen, 2004). The City of Hamilton, an urban centre of approximately 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 Hamilton, 2004a), and the mills of the two largest steel manufacturers, Stelco and Dofasco, are conspicuous

Throughout the industrial era, the presence of industry in a community was a source of pride, indicating prosperity and progress (Eyles and Peace, 1990). Today, 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 production. . . 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 (Short et al., 1993, p. 208)

*

Tel.: +1-416-978-3653; e-mail: sarah.wakefi[email protected].

298

Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield

Kilometers

Figure 1 Map of Hamilton Harbour.

landmarks on the shores of Hamilton Harbour (Hughes, 1999 – Figure 1, Plate 1). This ‘‘famously ugly industrial wasteland’’ (Wells, 2000) developed between 1800 and 1960, as the original undulating shoreline was infilled to create new space for industrial development1. This, along with serious water pollution problems, reduced resident access to – and interest in – the waterfront (Cruikshank and Bouchier, 2004; Evans, 1970). In recent decades, pollution control and cleanup efforts have improved harbour water quality considerably, although the Harbour remains listed as an ‘‘area of concern’’ under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Stirrup, 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 considered ‘‘underused’’ (City of Hamilton, 2005a) 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 section of the harbour (Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour, 2006b). One key component of this increase has been the development of the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail. This 3.4 km

1

It should be noted that this infilling and industrial development has been essentially limited to the Southern shore of the Harbour (see Figure 1). 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 harbourfront where the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail is located.

long multi-use trail runs along the shoreline between 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 (City of Hamilton, 2006a – Plate 2). 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 Discovery Centre, a federal museum and interpretive centre). There has, however, been little new commercial or residential activity on the waterfront, in marked contrast to many waterfront redevelopments 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 newspaper 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. (Dreschel, 2000)

The Waterfront Trail, then, is seen as an icon of the ‘new’ City of Hamilton, allowing ‘‘residents and visitors alike to appreciate our past and look to the future as the City and its partners continue working on the principles of sustainability and enhancing our overall quality of life’’ (City of Hamilton, 2006a). 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 opportunities for recreation and encounters with nature. This paper seeks to understand how the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail and connected local 299

Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield

Plate 1

Hamilton’s steel mills snd eastern Harbourfront.

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 outlining some of the key issues expressed in the waterfront 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 redevelopment 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. Waterfront revitalization is by no means a new phenomenon – 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 transformation 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 activities (Hall, 1991; Van der Knaap and Pinder, 1992; Hoyle et al., 1988). This has rendered many existing waterfront land uses obsolete, allowing for the wholesale redevelopment of large tracts of land in 300

close proximity to city centres. Still, as Malone (1996) notes, the underlying forces that shape waterfront revitalization are the same as those driving 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 increase access to valued cultural and natural amenities. 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 (Bassett et al., 2002). Second- and third-tier cities in regional urban hierarchies (such as Hamilton) may be especially anxious to attract ‘footloose capital’ that will help them make the transition from industrial to post-industrial economies (Sandercock and Dovey, 2002). 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 Breen and Rigby, 1985); the exclusion of local (often working-class) people; insufficient attention to ecological concerns; and limited public involvement in decision-making. The focus in much waterfront regeneration on ‘prestige projects’ (Cowell and Thomas, 2002; Loftman and Nevin, 1996) and place marketing (Gold and Ward, 1994) has also been challenged, suggesting that the ‘‘delightful urban scenes’’ (Bassett et al., 2002, p. 1766) created through regeneration are primarily

Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield

Plate 2

Sights along the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail.

intended for and ‘‘enjoyed mostly by those who are benefiting from the new economy’’ (Sandercock and Dovey, 2002, p. 160), 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 neighbourhoods (Cowell and Thomas, 2002; Wyly and Hammel, 1999; Atkinson, 2000). Conversely, com-

mitment to the provision of affordable housing in waterfront redevelopment initiatives has been extremely weak (e.g., Desfor and Jorgensen, 2004; McCarthy, 2004). 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 sys301

Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield

tems. That is, while access to nature and greenspace have become central to contemporary conceptions of community well-being (de Vries et al., 2003), ‘nature’ is inserted into urban planning in ways that differ by locality (Cowell and Thomas, 2002) 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 While et al. (2004) note, this kind of selective incorporation of ecological goals into urban governance is one characteristic of ‘ecological modernization’. Ecological modernization is an approach to environmental degradation that attempts to reconcile capitalist growth with ecological integrity through the development of technological solutions and the use of market-based initiatives (Browne and Keil, 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, multi-stakeholder partnerships to facilitate particular projects as part of a larger entrepreneurial agenda (Bassett et al., 2002; Desfor and Jorgensen, 2004; Raco, 2002). 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, 2004). Relatedly, Poncelet (2001) observes that multi-stakeholder partnerships are grounded in an assumption that ‘‘confrontational and oppositional behaviours are ultimately an anathema to collaboration’’ (p. 19), leading to the exclusion of oppositional voices. This paper explores one particular case of waterfront revitalization, in order to see how these themes play out in one locality, in order to add to our understanding of the processes at work and how they are shaped by and in particular places. As Cox (2004) notes, The accumulation process. . . occur[s] within a (geographically) constituted field of limits and possibilities 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 waterfront 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. Malone (1996) suggests that: Given that the waterfront may be invaded by common land uses and conventional development interests, 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-

302

vidual development reflects an underlying mix of economic and political intentions and the conditions for planning and development.’’ (Malone, 1996, p. 3–5)

This paper explores how these intentions and conditions are manifested in one particular case study, using newspapers and municipal documents to supply 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 Waterfront Trail, as a geographic and temporal microcosm within which to explore broader issues related to the redevelopment of waterfronts in Hamilton and elsewhere. In turn, this exploration sheds light on the forces at play in the changing landscapes of industrial 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 (Plate 1) emphasizes the importance of Hamilton Harbour as a place of work. While the eastern harbourfront is used exclusively by heavy industry, the west harbour is mixed-use – industry and transportation-related activities remain prominent, but these are interspersed with housing and other uses. The continuing viability of heavy industry separates Hamilton from many other examples in the literature, where the decline of traditional port activities has opened up large areas for redevelopment. At the same time, Hamilton has pursued a similar agenda to many of these cities in terms of its waterfront redevelopment, planning the west harbourfront, at least, as a place for recreation and leisure. The Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail, for example, is designed to encourage waterside recreation. 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 Spectator, 1999) 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 provides an escape from the city without actually having to leave the city. (Zimonjic, 2001)

Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield

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 emphasized the creation of open space and outdoor recreational activities (such as walking the Trail). At the same time, there are many operating businesses in the area. The eastern harbourfront remains exclusively industrial; in the west, the Trail runs on narrow band of land along the shoreline, adjacent to an active rail yard (Plate 2b). 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 fundamentally 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 emphasise the gradual removal of industry from the west harbourfront. Central to waterfront planning since the early stages has been the acquisition of the railway yards adjacent to the Waterfront Trail (Plate 2b): 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 waterfront land for redevelopment. Industrial lands next to the marshalling yard are also included in the concept plan and contribute to the acreage for redevelopment. (City of Hamilton, 1995, p. ii)

Early concept plans (e.g., City of Hamilton, 1995) 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 removed, 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 waterfront redevelopment schemes in other jurisdictions, presented the potential for a ‘‘dramatic spectacle of perpetual carnival’’ (Sandercock and Dovey, 2002) 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 (City of Hamilton, 2005a) has toned down the magnitude of the proposed waterfront spectacle considerably. While the relocation of the rail yard remains a major component of future planning, the new plan includes residential 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, however, 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. (City of Hamilton, 2005a)

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 (financial and political) to encourage them to do so (Dunphy, 2000). 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 actively 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 Hamilton 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 (City of Hamilton, 2005a), rather than because of their commercial function – their activities are still being impinged upon in waterfront planning. The relative lack of voice of these actors in trail planning will be discussed later in the paper. Whose waterfront? Issues of access and social justice In Hamilton, increasing public access to the waterfront has been central to planning – both the 1996 and 2005 planning documents had increasing accessibility as central tenets, and many local organizations have spoken out to ensure that public access is a key component of any redevelopment. Some local observers 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:

303

Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield

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 little people share the harbour with big industry. (Dreschel, 2000)

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 (City of Hamilton, 2006b), so the goal of enhancing access to the waterfront has been supported by Trail development. 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 ‘outings’, 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 the new harbourfront parks and a site for recreational pursuits they enjoy (e.g., rollerblading and cycling). Without better information about the users of the Waterfront Trail, it is impossible to know whether residents of the neighbourhoods adjacent to the harbour are similarly benefiting. While access to recreational amenities (such as the Trail) has improved significantly in the west harbourfront in the last two decades, the neighbourhoods themselves remain predominantly lowincome (Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton, 2004). 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, 2005). Low income households in the census tracts adjacent to the Waterfront Trail range from 24% to 64% of total households (Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton, 2004). Some gentrification 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 rejuvenated harbour [could be] a catalyst to the renaissance of surrounding neighbourhoods in the North End. . . (McNulty, 2000)

The question that needs to be asked (following Bassett et al., 2002) is, ‘renaissance’ for whom? The 1996 West Harbourfront Development Study (City of Hamilton, 1995) does not mention affordable housing, and, surprisingly, neither does the

304

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 income levels and household characteristics’’ (City of Hamilton, 2004b). 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 affordable housing should be a component of subsequent development of the harbourfront (City of Hamilton, 2005a). 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 commitment in practice. As the redevelopment of the waterfront continues to enhance the area’s attractiveness as a residential location, failure to provide adequate affordable housing could result in the displacement 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 cattail marsh, and the RBG, in conjunction with partners including the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Restoration Project, the Bay Area Restoration Council, McMaster University, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, are working to restore this sanctuary. (City of Hamilton, 2006a)

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 nonnative fish species, particularly carp. The crowning glory of the program is the Cootes Paradise Fishway (Plate 2c), located adjacent to the Harbour Waterfront 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 (City of Hamilton, 2006a). These activities are often performed for an audience of Trail users. Environmental restoration projects were also integrated into the building of the Waterfront Trail itself, including structures to maximize fish habitat and ‘naturalized’ landscaping with native plants (City of Hamilton, 2006a – Plate 2d). Overall, trail design and construction were planned with the specific intent of minimizing negative environmental impacts, and habitat maintenance and improvement objec-

Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield

tives were weighted heavily, even against concerns about aesthetics and cost. For example, the $1.2M (Cdn) floating walkway through the Desjardins canal (Plate 2e) allowed the trail to be constructed without any filling of the existing channel, and the ‘naturalized’ 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 fisheating 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. (Zimonjic, 2001)

This ‘wildness’ is also evident at Bayfront Park, at the eastern end of the Trail. As was mentioned earlier, the park was originally an industrial landfill site; prior to its use as a park, the site had to be significantly remediated. The waste on the site was contained using armour rock (to withstand wave action) and a soil cap. While early plans by the original 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 parkland. It includes some large mown lawns for special events, and a manicured sand beach. Other than these areas, the peninsula has been planted with native grasses and shrubs and allowed to grow without intervention. Hamilton’s waterfront thus has a ‘wilder’, more natural character than most. This quality is enhanced by the pronounced lack of buildings as part of the redevelopment thus far. This represents a substantial departure from ‘bricks-and-mortar’ visions of the waterfront (While et al., 2004). At the same time, the development of this new and/or revitalized ‘wilderness’ required substantial physical transformation of the landscape. The emphasis on technological intervention to mediate environmental damage reveals the project’s origins in a paradigm of ecological modernization. While not all environmental remediation can be seen as ecological modernization, projects which emphasize technological solutions to environmental problems – and exhibit a certain level of hubris accompanying these interventions (see Higgs, 2003) – serve to embed a topdown, 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 consistent with ecological modernization as a driving paradigm. While the city has taken a pro-environment 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 lowdensity, 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 cleaner, 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 habitat, are caused by the erosion of soil from subdivision construction. (Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour, 2006a)

In Hamilton, then, it cannot be said that ‘the growth imperative’ has taken a back seat to ecological 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 outdoor 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 Hamilton 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 overcoming negative stereotyping. (Hamilton Spectator, 1999)

A local quasi-governmental organization goes further, stating that: The economic prosperity of Hamilton, Burlington, and the Bay Area is directly related to the environmental health and status of the Hamilton Harbour ecosystem. A positive image, the attraction of tourists and new residents, and private and public investment in this vital area all become more likely if. . . the harbour and its watershed are restored. (BARC, nd)

Environmental and economic health are thus intertwined in the public imagination, in ways that echo While et al.’s (2004) observation that environmental remediation within an ecological modernization 305

Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield

paradigm does not challenge the dominance of entrepreneurial, growth-focused approaches to redevelopment, but in fact may offer support for them. The City of Hamilton has also adopted some relatively traditional strategies for attracting growth through waterfront redevelopment, such as the pursuit of anchor attractions (e.g., the new Marine Discovery 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 development in the waterfront: The City of Hamilton is the facilitator of the proposed development and is responsible for steering its course towards a single, viable plan. Its continuing role is to help streamline the inquiry and administrative process while coordinating the needs of landowners, senior government, and future investors. (City of Hamilton, n/d) [The City] recently announced the creation of the Invest in Hamilton Team, in order to fast track approvals and immediately make decisions to expedite development in the City of Hamilton (City of Hamilton, 2005b)

These attempts to spur further waterfront development 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 International 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 (City of Hamilton, 2005c). This new initiative seems to have taken precedence over waterfront redevelopment, with the City calling the airport the ‘‘economic engine’’ of its future. Public and private interests in waterfront redevelopment In Hamilton, the current shape of waterfront development can be explained, to a significant degree, by the involvement – or lack thereof – of particular actors 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 (City of Hamilton, 2006a – see Table 1 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), responsible for the planning and implementation of the trail project. 306

A look at the list of WWTPAG members provides a potential explanation for the foregrounding of environmental issues in Hamilton’s waterfront revitalization. One third of the members of WWTPAG were governmental and non-governmental organizations whose primary mandate is the protection and enhancement of the natural environment. Key players 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 Restoration Council. The Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC) deserves additional attention in this context. BARC is a non-profit charitable organization that oversees the implementation of the Hamilton Harbour Remedial 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 (BARC, 2004). Under the terms of the agreement, the two federal governments must implement programs and report on their progress in restoring, preserving, and protecting the Great Lakes (Environment Canada, 2006). The development of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) by quasi-governmental committees is a central component of this implementation, and each RAP is expected to draw on local community involvement in each area of concern to develop strategies to remediate 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, governmental, institutional, and environmental sectors’’ (BARC, 2004, unpaginated). 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 enabled 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 planning process. Interestingly, WWTPAG did not include local business representatives beyond those directly impacted 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-development project: given that there was little opportunity for business development as part of the trail, business leaders may not have been interested in direct

Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield Table 1

Hamilton Waterfront Trail ‘Partner’ organizations

Organization name

Organization type

Bay Area Restoration Councila Berminghammer Foundation Equipment Canada Millennium Partnership Program Canadian Coast Guarda Canadian National Railwaya Canusa Games – Hamilton Branch City of Hamiltona Columbian Chemicals Department of Fisheries and Oceansa Dofasco Inc. Environment Canadaa Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Projecta Halton Region Conservation Authoritya Hamilton Harbour Commissionersa Hamilton Naturalists’ Club Hamilton Region Conservation Authoritya Hamilton-Wentworth Land Stewardship Council Leander Boat Cluba Ministry of Environmenta Ministry of Transportationa ‘‘Public at large’’ Rail Linka Regional Tree Planting Program Royal Botanical Gardensa Waterfront Regeneration Trust

Non-governmental organization Industry Foundation (funder) Quasi-governmental organization Industry (Crown corporation) Non-governmental organization Local government Industry National government Industry National government Non-governmental organization Quasi-governmental organization Quasi-governmental organization Non-governmental organization Quasi-governmental organization Non-governmental organization Small business Provincial government Provincial government No organizational affiliation Quasi-governmental organization Quasi-governmental organization Non-governmental organization Quasi-governmental organization

Source: Adopted from http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/cityandgovernment/citydepartments/publicworks/parks/publictrails/trailslist.htm, 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.

involvement at this stage. Whatever the rationale for WWTPAG membership, the relationship between local businesses and the other members of WWTPAG was occasionally rocky. Unlike other WWTPAG members, the Canadian National Railway (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 storage 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 Bassett et al., 2002). Hamilton’s business community is a mix of large, established 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 complex landscape, there is as much potential for conflict as consensus around the economic future of Hamilton, and thus it may be difficult to organize a sectoral response to local policy developments (see Raco, 2003). Furthermore, few venture capitalists have been stepping up to contribute to the City’s larger 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 capital within Hamilton itself, given its status as a ‘second-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 Hamilton’s lingering reputation as a polluted example of the old industrial economy.

Discussion and conclusion The Hamilton Waterfront Trail and other related initiatives 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 virtues 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 307

Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield

significant failings. However, regardless of the relative success or failure of Hamilton’s waterfront redevelopment, it cannot be argued that the regeneration of Hamilton’s waterfront has been guided by a fundamentally 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 (Short and Kim, 1999), 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 (McCarthy, 2004);  an ecological modernist approach to environmental remediation (Poncelet, 2001), evident in the connections drawn between ecological and economic vitality;  an overriding concern with image enhancement as part of a larger desire to attract economic investment (Gold and Ward, 1994); and,  a demonstrated willingness to bend existing planning restrictions to facilitate that economic investment (Jacobs, 2004). However, waterfront redevelopment, like other urban revitalization, occurs within ‘‘historically contingent ensembles of complementary economic and extra-economic mechanisms and practices’’ (Jessop, 1997). As Cox (2004) notes, the potential for variation in form among different sites of investment and development is immense, and the unique character of Hamilton’s waterfront can be at least partially attributed to this ‘local contingency’. In this case, waterfront development was shaped by specific environmental conditions, as well as by existing networks between institutions. At the city level, Hamilton’s legacy of environmental contamination as a result of the city’s industrial heritage focussed efforts on the need for environmental improvements as part of a waterfront redevelopment strategy; at the site level, specific biophysical conditions (such as the unsuitability of the Bayfront Park property for building construction) have constrained the choices that can be made by local actors. In addition, local actors are bound together in a variety of strong and weak networks that have evolved over time. In particular, the prior involvement of many local stakeholders in the development of the Remedial Action Plan through the Bay Area Restoration Council has given a particular shape and focus to the subsequent waterfront planning. However, many ‘local’ constraints and opportunities 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 arrangements that privileged environmental concerns over 308

economic and social ones. That is, broader national and international imperatives – in particular the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement – shaped waterfront redevelopment through the provision 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 sociopolitical contexts in ways that impacted on the eventual redevelopment program (see Raco, 2002). Other broad trends, such as the relative position of Hamilton within global and national urban 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 waterfront. 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 interest 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 development 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’ (Harvey, 1989a). That is, while image-focused development relies on the creation of a unique appeal, development initiatives that attempt to purposefully create uniqueness end up looking alike (Judd and Fainstein, 1999). In addition, a failure to explicitly address issues that might compromise the waterfront’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 waterfront redevelopment in Hamilton. The focus on public documents and newspaper accounts means that the nuances of the development process remain opaque. For example, the views of and personal relationships 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 understanding 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

Acknowledgments The author gratefully acknowledges the support provided by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) research grant (#456228). In addition, the author wishes to recognize the hard work of two research assistants, Vivian Ng and Julie Fleming.

References Atkinson, R (2000) The hidden costs of gentrification: displacement 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 [pamphlet]. 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 Hamilton, Planning and Economic Development Department. City of Hamilton (1995) A Vision for the Future: The West Harbourfront Development Study Final Report. City of Hamilton 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/rdonlyres/f3d401f9-bd8c-4339-8113c24699eb76a3/0/gh106steelprofilespreads2.pdf, accessed January 2006. City of Hamilton (2004a) Hamilton Economic Development Review, 2004. Available online at http://www.myhamilton.ca/ 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/EcDevStrategyFinal2005.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. Environmental History 9(3), 464–496. Cox, K R (2004) Globalization and the politics of local and regional development: the question of convergence. Transactions 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 Spreeuwenberg, P (2003) Natural environments – healthy environments? 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. European 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 20year deal ties up waterfront. Hamilton Spectator 30(October), A1. Environment Canada (2006) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. 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 Geography 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/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/NewsandPublications/NewsReleases/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 Redevelopment. Belhaven Press, London. Hughes, R (1999) Neighbourhood under siege: Northeast residents face the worst of industry, traffic and smelly regional operations. 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.

309

Great expectations: Waterfront redevelopment and the Hamilton Harbour Waterfront Trail: S Wakefield McCarthy, J (2004) Tourism-related waterfront development in historic cities: Malta’s Cottonera project. International Planning 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) Accomplishments and Challenges. Available online at http:// 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.

310

Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton (2004) Incomes and Poverty in Hamilton. Available online at http:// 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 regeneration 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.