Study on Design Strategies for Revitalizing Former Industrial Piers through Multi Functional Facility Integration = 다기능 시설 통합을 통한 노후 산업부두 활성화 설계 전략 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Waterfront revitalization has emerged as an urban development strategy, with global waterfront revitalization cases such as Baltimore’s Inner Harbor and Sydney’s Darling Harbour demonstrating how integrating diverse cultural, recreational, and entertainment facilities, can transform waterfronts into urban hubs. These cases highlight the potential of waterfront spaces as multi-functional destinations catering to residents and visitors. In the case of Busan’s waterfront, despite its strategic location and unique topography, there are waterfront open spaces that remain underutilized due to the lack of facility diversity and limited functionality. This research was initiated based on the framework of analyzing waterfront areas worldwide that have already integrated multi-functional facilities to offer design strategies to guide the revitalization of underutilized waterfront areas.
As maritime industries decline, many waterfront piers have become underutilized, prompting cities to rethink their potential. Instead of demolition, there is a growing focus on revitalizing these spaces to preserve their historical value and transform them into urban public hubs. Strategically located near waterscapes, waterfront piers offer unique opportunities for redevelopment into recreational and entertainment spaces that foster community engagement and support urban sustainability. Following the cases of waterfront piers redevelopment, this research analyzed the implementation strategies for multi-functional facilities in the waterfront piers and proposed strategies for revitalizing underutilized and industrial piers.
This research employs a two-part methodology to analyze waterfront piers. The first part focuses on the framework of involving public engagement and their needs in early planning stage of waterfront development project. This involves the users' demographic data and facility proportion analysis, examining the characteristics of local populations, such as age distribution, income levels, and occupations, and assessing how these demographics align with the distribution of recreational, dining, and retail spaces within the case studies. The second part analyzes spatial configuration and the connection of circulation and facilities placement in the case studies. To conduct this analysis, Space Syntax is employed as an analytical tool, incorporating convex map and justified graph map analysis to evaluate spatial relationships and integration strategies.
The demographic analysis highlights that the success of waterfront piers is closely tied to the characteristics of their surrounding user groups. High-income professionals dominate the user demographics of Pier 17 (New York), influencing the prevalence of fine-dining table-serviced restaurants(90%) and limited counter-serviced restaurants(10%). In Pier 57 (New York) and Pier 57 (Seattle), middle-income groups with younger age distributions favor more casual dining options. Pier 57 (New York) provides table-serviced restaurants(45%), counter-serviced restaurants(19%) and recreational facilities(39%), while Pier 57 (Seattle) serves table-serviced restaurants(59%), counter-serviced restaurants(10%), retail(26%), and recreational facilities(5%). Mixed-income and multi-age users at Pier 39 (San Francisco) align with the balanced distribution of table-serviced restaurants(27%), counter-serviced restaurants (4%), retail(29%) and recreational facilities(40%). These results highlight the significance of implementing facilities that align with the socioeconomic characteristics and age demographics of their key user groups.
Space Syntax analysis revealed that the relationship between primary circulation (main pedestrian pathways) and waterfront circulation (paths along the water’s edge) played a pivotal role in spatial integration. Piers with overall well-connected circulation systems, like Pier 17, exhibited high central and waterfront integration values, indicating improved usage possibilities for the waterfront area and its related spaces, including both restaurants and recreational spaces. Waterfront circulation was found to be less integrated in some piers, such as Pier 57 (New York), due to its limited connection to other spaces or key attractions, reducing its role in engaging users. In piers such as Pier 57 (Seattle) and Pier 39, both circulations (primary and waterfront) were well-integrated, creating more dynamic and accessible spaces that encouraged greater interaction between different facility types.
In terms of facility placement, small-scale piers like Pier 17 and Pier 57 (Seattle) prioritize quick access to dining services, positioning restaurants at lower depth levels while reserving higher depths for recreational and entertainment facilities. This strategic arrangement offers immediate access to programs. Large-scale piers, such as Pier 39 and Pier 57 New York, exhibit more intricate spatial configurations. At these piers, key attractions are strategically placed at both the lowest and highest depth levels to enhance movements throughout the whole pier area. At Pier 57 New York, retail spaces are concentrated at mid-depth levels, creating a centralized hub of activity. In contrast, Pier 39 distributes restaurants and retail facilities throughout its layout, ensuring movement accessibility across the pier.
The recommendations for revitalizing underutilized and industrial waterfront piers emphasize the integration of diverse facilities tailored to local needs, circulation configurations that enhance connectivity to waterfront areas, and strategic facility placement to optimize scenic views and engagement. By adopting these spatial configurations that leverage natural surroundings and strategic placement of facilities, waterfront piers can differentiate themselves from traditional shopping malls, creating multi-functional waterfront spaces that balance urban activity with unique waterscape connections.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 1. INTRODUCTION ···································································································································· 1
• 1.1. Research Background ······················································································································· 1
• 1.2. Research Purposes ··························································································································· 7
• 1.3. Research Methodology & Structure ····························································································· 10
• 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ························································································································ 13
• 2.1. Piers and their Role in the Waterfront Area ················································································· 13
• 2.1.1. What is a Waterfront Pier? ··········································································································· 13
• 2.1.2. Historical Background of Waterfront Pier ················································································ 15
• 2.1.3. Under-Utilization of Waterfront Pier ························································································· 17
• 2.1.4. Redevelopment of Waterfront Pier ··························································································· 18
• 2.2. Waterfront Planning ······················································································································· 22
• 2.3. Retail and Shopping Center Design Guidelines ········································································· 25
• 2.3.1. Demographic Analysis ················································································································ 25
• 2.3.2. Circulation Layout ······················································································································· 26
• 2.4. Integration in Urban Planning ······································································································· 28
• 2.4.1. Contemporary Urban Planning: From Segregation to Integration ········································ 31
• 2.5. Space Syntax Role in Spatial Organization ················································································· 36
• 2.5.1. Convex Map Analysis ················································································································· 38
• 2.5.2. Justified Graph ···························································································································· 39
• 3. CASE STUDIES SELECTION AND BACKGROUND ········································································ 40
• 3.1. Case Studies Selection ·················································································································· 40
• 3.2. Background and Implementation Process ················································································· 45
• 3.2.1. Case 1: Pier 17 (New York) ········································································································· 45
• 3.2.2. Case 2: Pier 57 (New York) ······································································································· 47
• 3.2.3. Case 3: Pier 57 (Seattle) ··········································································································· 49
• 3.2.4. Case 4: Pier 39 (San Francisco) ······························································································· 51
• 3.2.5. Case 5: Mosaic (Kobe) ·············································································································· 54
• 3.2.6. Case 6: Navy Pier (Chicago) ···································································································· 56
• 4. ANALYSIS ON DEMOGRAPHIC DATA & FACILITIES OF PIERS ·················································· 58
• 4.1. Case 1: Pier 17 (New York) ············································································································ 58
• 4.2. Case 2: Pier 57 (New York) ·········································································································· 62
• 4.3. Case 3: Pier 57 (Seattle) ··············································································································· 65
• 4.4. Case 4: Pier 39 (San Francisco) ·································································································· 67
• 4.5. Analysis on Facilities Proportion ·································································································· 71
• 5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WATERFRONT PIER AND URBAN SHOPPING MALL ·············· 73
• 5.1. Spatial Configuration of Pier 39 ··································································································· 75
• 5.2. Spatial Configuration of Shinsegae Shopping Mall ·································································· 77
• 5.3. Comparative Analysis of Pier 39 and Shinsegae Shopping Mall ··········································· 79
• 6. SPACE SYNTAX ANALYSIS ············································································································ 82
• 6.1. Convex Map Analysis ··················································································································· 84
• 6.1.1. Case 1: Pier 17 (New York) ········································································································ 84
• 6.1.2. Case 2: Pier 57 (New York) ······································································································ 86
• 6.1.3. Case 3: Pier 57 (Seattle) ··········································································································· 89
• 6.1.4. Case 4: Pier 39 (San Francisco) ······························································································ 92
• 6.2. Findings on Space Syntax Analysis ··························································································· 95
• 6.2.1. Comparison of Aspect Ratio, Mean Depth and Integration ················································· 95
• 6.2.2. Comparison of Circulation and Facilities Integration ··························································· 97
• 6.2.3. Analysis on Spatial Configuration ························································································· 100
• 6.2.3.1. Case 1: Pier 17 (New York) ··································································································· 101
• 6.2.3.2. Case 2: Pier 57 (New York) ································································································· 103
• 6.2.3.3. Case 3: Pier 57 (Seattle) ······································································································ 105
• 6.2.3.4. Case 4: Pier 39 (San Francisco) ························································································· 107
• 6.2.4. Patterns of Facilities Implementation ··················································································· 109
• 6.3. Analysis Result of Overall Process ··························································································· 110
• 7. CONCLUSION ·································································································································· 114
• Reference ············································································································································· 119