Port cities have long played a key role in the development, discovery, and fight against diseases. They have been laboratories for policies to address public health issues. Diseases reached port cities through maritime exchanges, and the bubonic plague is a key example. Port city residents’ close contact with water further increased the chance for diseases such as cholera. Analyzing three European port cities, this article first explores the relevance of water quality for public health through the lens of the Dutch city of Rotterdam. It then examines plans and projects for London that were shaped by social Darwinism and stressed the moral failings of slum dwellers as a major cause for their misery. It finally explores the case of Hamburg as the perfect example of a city that cultivated ideals of purity and cleanliness by addressing all issues at stake in public health. This article on urban hygiene in three port cities shows how remarkably rich this field of study is; it also demonstrates that the multifaceted aspects of public health in port cities require further attention.

Port spaces, functions, and interests have shaped the growth and development of many cities around the world. At times, different stakeholders-private and public, local, regional, national and global-have collaborated to assure the continuity of port functions in old and new locations and, if the port relocates or if that effort fails, to redevelop former port spaces. Through the lens of port- and city-related urban developments in London, Hamburg, and Philadelphia, this article explores the multiple conditions that are part of port city resilience. It uses historical institutionalism as a theoretical framework for understanding these long-term changes, particularly in institutional and governance dynamics. It shows that the development paths of port and city spaces and the actors who shape them are not always aligned. Through the case of London, it shows a development path that is led by private investment building and relocating a world-class port and administrating it from the city center, while local and national institutions only intervene to balance spatial or social short-comings of the private actors. The case of the city-state Hamburg illustrates the development of shared port-city paths under long-term public leadership that has provided direction for the expanding port as well as for the growing city. In the case of Philadelphia, national interests, the Navy, and private investments played an important role in the creation of port infrastructure and, later, in the largely failed transformation of former port areas into public waterfronts. As shipping elites left the city and new land-based employers emerged, such as the University of Pennsylvania, the port-city path was partly discontinued. The article concludes by pointing to the expected capacity of each of these cities to address future challenges. Awareness of historical practices can help readers understand where current conditions may stand in the way of innovative solutions.

Resilience has become a buzzword used to describe the capacity of cities to bounce back after disasters. It carries the hope of a robust and more sustainable future. Disasters can strike any region, but port cities face complex and particular risks due to their location at the intersection of sea and land, and their role in an international maritime system. This introduction to the special section on resilience, disaster and rebuilding in modern port cities first examines resilience as a concept and course of action in a heterogenous theory landscape. It then explores different dimensions of resilience—environmental, economic, institutional, social and spatial—and their importance in port city historiography. The articles collected in this special section explore case studies from three continents. Together, they demonstrate that there is no such thing as the resilient (port) city. But, they also show that the combination of maritime and urban interests can lead to creative planning for resilience, particularly when port and city authorities pursue the same strategies. In view of contemporary challenges, this special section demonstrates the value of further research on port city resilience and vulnerability. The section raises an important question: Is it possible to balance the wide-ranging economic interests of port actors and their view of waters as sites for shipping with those of local actors concerned about water quality and ecosystems?

Fritz Schumacher (1869-1947), German town planner and reformer, is often mentioned as a ‘conservative modernist’ or as an ‘unmodern architect’ and neglected in the works on the origins of modern housing and urban development. Schumacher was a visionary and pragmatic, a reformer and a realist at the same time. Schumacher's oeuvre and its full impact are not specific to Hamburg, but are integrated into the regional, national and international discourse on the reform of the metropolis. His ideas, his concepts for reform, his methods and his ability to ensure that the plans are implemented promptly, are current and forward-looking. The breadth of his work in Hamburg and Cologne is outlined in this contribution.

In this chapter three periods of spatial inclusion, fragmentation, and re-integration of port and city functions are analysed with a focus on the Hamburg region and related to corresponding governance structures. First, when port and city had been a functional and spatial unit until the beginning of the 19th century. Second, a later period of separation in several phases until the 1980s began. Since the 1960s, deindustrialisation and containerisation drove ports away from cities, leaving areas along the old waterfront as a challenge to planners for re-integration of urban and port functions. Finally, since the beginning of the new millennium, a third period arose, when options for a re-mix of port and city became possible again. By analysing these historical phases, it becomes possible to more precisely analyse changing interdependencies between city and port.

This impressive book examines the legitimation of power, the production of consent, the demonstration of strength, effectiveness and speed in a country on the European periphery that has received l...

This impressive book examines the legitimation of power, the production of consent, the demonstration of strength, effectiveness and speed in a country on the European periphery that has received l...

The book with the unwieldy title ‘Town Planning Manuals – The systematisation of knowledge on cities 1870–1950’ is a manual about manuals of town planning with far-reaching aspirations and a subjec...

This article deals with the philosophical and ethical background of Jane Jacobs's ideas on cities as organized complexity and her criticism of urban planning and urban renewal in the form of demolition and area remediation. Many publications have already examined her influence on development projects in as far as this is verifiable. Her contribution to the paradigm shift in urban planning has been reflected in many ways. However, her - not explicitly elaborated - ideological value system that runs through her publications and determined her actual conduct, still remains a desideratum of research.

Urban planning is often considered unnecessary from a neo-liberal viewpoint, particularly as the market would guarantee an optimal spatial allocation of facilities and uses without it. Planning costs and bureaucracy would be saved and the implementation of projects accelerated. However, it is argued here that urban planning has achieved many successes since the beginning of urbanization, which have led to an improvement in the living conditions of broad sections of the population. Urban planning history needs to evaluate these experiences, advancements (and failures), and to apply them for future projects and developments. In the meantime, the professional identity of planning history has been increasingly strengthened by new approaches and cross-border networking.

Hamburg has had a major transformation at the urban level within the metropolitan region including the increase of people born and immigrants, and to ensure an adequate supply in the market for the growing number of households of one and two peoples and the demand for series of ages between 15 and 30 years that means young people, one must know how to manage public and private budgets. The most important idea is the new concept of urban development in Hamburg which is harnessing the potential of a growing metropolis and so since 2004 where start this forecast, plus the Territorial Vision Hamburg is based on key growth industries city to strengthen its role as an engine of economic dynamics. In Hamburg this development is carried out with a port where there starts all the transformation of assets in the city center. The future space requirements, technical infrastructure and new container terminals and the protection of the environment are a great and costly challenge for the entire city. And specifically beginning of the expansion the "String of Pearls" started in Elbe and Altona. They spent wars and events that the city faced to reach what it is today without neglecting its urban development for the entire benefit of the population.

The IPHS Book Prize was awarded for the fifth time in Sao Paulo. Whilst some of the details and procedures have changed, the main focus remains the same: the IPHS endeavours to foster the study of planning history worldwide. It is a global network of academics and practitioners interested in historical dimensions of urban, regional and environmental planning across many cultures, scales and timeframes. The Book Prize is awarded to the two most innovative books written in English and based on new research. The prize has been 250 pounds for each winner for several years now. Books may be written individually or in joint-authorship. Nominations were received from publishers and scholars. Members of the Book Prize committee are Prof. Helen Meller (University of Nottingham), Prof. Nihal Perera (Ball State University), Prof. J. L. Sainz Guerra (University of Valladolid) and Prof. Dirk Schubert (HafenCity University Hamburg). This time a special prize was awarded to Robert Freestone, Professor of Planning and Urban Development in the Faculty of the Built Environment at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. He has been a long-serving member of the IPHS and apart from organizing the IPHS conference in Sydney, he served as IPHS President from 2003 to 2006. He is on the editorial boards of many journals such as Planning Perspectives and has published and edited several pioneering books. The IPHS Book Prize committee awarded to him a special prize for an outstanding publication: Urban Nation: Australia’s Planning Heritage (CSIRO Publishing in association with the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and the Australian Heritage Council, Collingwood, 2010). The committee’s statement read: