Abstract
Characteristics of port cities are significantly different than inland cities since they have a spatial relation with water. Waterfronts, main urban squares, and major streets are specified as the predominant components affecting socio-spatial configurations.
The research assumes that the imageability of port cities, which refers to “port city identity” in this research, is associated with the visibility of these key public spaces. The port cities of Famagusta and Limassol—the current major port cities of divided Cyprus—were selected to be evaluated on the specified public spaces to reveal this association.
The specified spaces are scrutinized through both the space syntax methodology and land-use and movement patterns in relation to visibility parameters. The results show that Limassol is more successful than Famagusta in terms of imageability, as it presents higher spatial and social visibility of public spaces, which also strengthens its port city identity.
Introduction
Port cities constitute a special case of cities, since they have unique characteristics differing from inland cities, as their main distinctive feature is a spatial relation with water. The availability of water affected the growth of early settlements and development of naturally formed ports, throughout history. Thus, ports serving as transport nodes symbolized the interdependence of the city and society by facilitating economic growth and cultural diversity.
Although many port cities have some common characteristics, they mostly differ in settlement patterns due to the transformation processes they experience. Hoyle (1998) describes these transformation processes as five distinct phases of the interrelations between port and city: primitive port/city (ancient/medieval to the 19th century), expanding port/city (19th–early 20th century), modern industrial port/city (mid-20th century), retreat from the waterfront (1960s–1980s), and redevelopment of the waterfront (1970s–1990s).
According to Hoyle (1998), the primitive port/city stage represents a spatial and functional association between city and port whereas retreat from the traditional waterfront is reinforced by the spatial separation between city and port particularly during the second half of the 20th century. This significant period gives rise to the Mediterranean region becoming one of the most important and crowded centers of the world. The port cities in the region have occupied “a central geopolitical, commercial, and cultural place in the ever-expanding and ever-intensifying circuits of global exchange” (Kolluoğlu & Toksöz, 2010, p. 2) because of their rich historical background of commercial activity and cultural interaction.
The Eastern Mediterranean, emerging as a particular space of modernity from the 1830s onwards (Fuhrmann & Kechriotis, 2009), hosted port cities with unique social, economic, cultural, and spatial characteristics, specifically until the World War I. These unique characteristics of the port cities constitute their “port city identity” as a complex interaction of similarities and differences. As defined by Relph “identity of place is as much a function of intersubjective intentions and experiences as of the appearances of buildings and scenery, and it refers not only to the distinctiveness of individual places but also to the sameness between different places” (1976, p. 44).
Relph also indicates that “the image of a place is its identity and that to understand something of the social structure of the images is an essential prerequisite for understanding identity” (1976, p. 56). In this sense, port city identity can also be termed as their imageability that is defined as “the quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer” by Lynch (1960, p. 9). This research assumes that imageability is associated with the visibility of public spaces, as this factor makes the city more memorable. As Thibaud points out, “Public space is simultaneously a built environment and a social setting” (2001, p. 42); analyzing the visual qualities of urban public space helps to understand the relationship between spatial forms and social interactions. Therefore, in the context of the study, the visibility of public spaces should be considered as an interrelation of spatial and social aspects wherein spatial visibility refers to being physically accessible and social visibility is framed by user density.
As a part of an ongoing PhD dissertation which is mainly concerned with Eastern Mediterranean port cities, this study aims to reveal the predicted association through the analysis of two different spatial layouts. Famagusta and Limassol port cities have been selected for comparison as they are the current major ports of the two sides of divided Cyprus, thus having a unique background within the Eastern Mediterranean region. Famagusta is a medieval walled city where the defensive function of the port has mostly been the dominant factor of its spatial development. Limassol has the geographical advantage of having a linear coastline that promotes spatial development along the waterfront. Despite the similarities they share on the island, the differences regarding their socio-spatial layouts reflect different identities.
The main research questions of the study are: How is the visibility of public spaces associated with the imageability of port cities? How do the visibility parameters have different impacts on cities with different spatial layouts? How can these parameters be improved for the implementation of future projects and the enhancement of the imageability of port cities? How the spatial layouts of two port cities of a divided country reflect their identities? With the proposed methodology of the analysis and the outcomes, this study could be useful for the future assembly of an integrated picture of Eastern Mediterranean port cities.
The next section introduces spatial and social visibility of public spaces in port cities and is followed by an overview of the cases highlighting their different development dynamics. The article proceeds with comparative case study analyses through spatial and social visibility findings concluding with discussion of the findings.
Spatial and Social Visibility of Public Spaces in Port Cities
Imageability of port cities, which refers to “port city identity” in this research, is associated with the visibility of public spaces by addressing two concepts. These concepts are framed as spatial and social aspects of visibility; spatial aspects dealing with the accessibility of public spaces and the social visibility focusing on activity-based patterns. If public spaces are defined as accessible places that are crowded and that support particular types of activities (Hatuka & Toch, 2016), then accessibility refers to a spatial visibility where spatial activities are associated with social visibility.
An overview of Eastern Mediterranean port cities designates three basic types of spatial development considering the ancient port city and the coastline as the center of the developments: linear development, radial development, and network development as a mixture of linear and radial developments. Waterfronts, urban squares, and major streets are specified as the key public spaces emphasizing the spatial development and determining the city identity, as gathered through development models. In the context of this study, these key public spaces are correlated with the fundamental elements of cities in reference to Kevin Lynch’s (1960) theory of imageability: waterfronts present edges, urban squares are paired with nodes, and major streets with paths. Although it is just a boundary between two phases in the definition of edge by Lynch (1960), waterfront is the most significant feature affecting the socio-spatial configurations and movement patterns in port cities, providing sense of well-being by means of a recreational environment. Urban squares as the nodes of public activities still preserve their existence in the ancient parts of port cities. Major streets, as paths of movement, have also traditionally been major routes of commerce. Imageability of the port cities is assessed through the spatial and social visibility of these public spaces to frame a well-integrated theoretical and methodological basis.
Spatial Aspects of Visibility
Imageability, also referred to as legibility and visibility by Lynch (1960), evokes a visual quality that further evokes an identity, where a highly imageable city is defined as “well-formed, distinct and remarkable inviting the eye and the ear to greater attention and participation” by Lynch (1960, p. x).
In space syntax studies, “the quality of an environment as being comprehendible and easily navigable” (Dalton & Bafna, 2003, p. 59.1) is studied through intelligibility which is defined as “the degree to which what can be seen and experienced locally in the system allows the large-scale system to be learnt without conscious efforts” (Hillier, 1996, p. 171). In their leading work, Dalton and Bafna (2003) argue the inter-dependency of visually distinctive elements and spatial structure by “building upon the relationship between intelligibility and imageability to conclude that this relationship provides strong evidence for an underlying cognitive basis to space syntax” (p. 59.1).
Imageability deals mostly with the visual qualities of cities, whereas intelligibility focuses on revealing underlying spatial logic. Intelligibility is concerned with the relationship between local visual cues and global properties of a space within a system (Dalton & Bafna, 2003) that makes the whole to be read from its parts. Referring to Dalton and Bafna’s statement “all imageable cities must be intelligible, but all intelligible cities need not be imageable” (2003, p. 59.19), intelligibility values help to interpret the imageability of the cities in this study.
The city, while experienced by moving through it, is imaged through the spatial and visual accessibility. In terms of pedestrian movement, accessibility is the evidence of direct interaction with the city and the people. Thus, the analysis of pedestrian flow, as a way of experiencing the city both physically and visually, defines the most accessible spaces, which are usually the vital spaces with a higher possibility of social encounters.
Space syntax, pioneered by Hillier and Hanson (1984), uses the evidence of this interaction for analyzing and representing urban spaces to understand how people move and how spaces are used. As mentioned in Hillier’s theory of “natural movement,” spatial and movement patterns are interrelated (Hillier et al., 1993); spatial configuration can ultimately affect complex social processes through the influence it has on the pattern of movement in streets and the potential this has for generating economic activity (Hillier, 1999). It has already demonstrated in many research studies that the spatial configuration of streets plays an enormously influential role in determining differences in the concentration of movement (Hillier, 1996, 1999; Penn et al., 1998).
Consequently, the movement patterns and accessibility of public spaces have significant roles in the formation of city identity. One of the most important measures of space syntax is integration which is measured with reference to accessibility; if a space is integrated into the spatial configuration, it means it is highly accessible and, thus, dominating the whole pattern.
Although accessibility also refers to visibility, it should be considered as a two-way process including both spatial and social visibility. The concept of isovist in the space syntax theory represents the spatial visibility of a given point. It describes “a clear representation of the strategic views from (or of) a given location” (Turner & Penn, 1999) where an isovist is “the area in a spatial environment directly visible from a location within the space” (Turner et al., 2001).
Social Aspects of Visibility
The study extends the spatial visibility of public space by considering the social aspects, and in this sense, visibility refers to the existence of different groups of people sharing public spaces. This is mostly interrelated with the activities carried out. Steinitz (1968) argues that there is an obvious need for greater understanding of the interaction between urban form and activity and of the role of this interaction in the transmission of meaning to have significant environments. He also points out that the environment should communicate the type of activity in a particular location so that a person can find, identify, and describe activity-places. Therefore, the congruence between the physical form and activities engender more meaningful and perceptible cities for their inhabitants (Steinitz, 1968).
Although historical city centers mostly struggle to maintain their vitality, they are still cores of attraction, especially by creating a sense of continuity with the past, as Edgü et al. (2015) discuss. Crowdedness, as a factor for attractiveness of a place, is related to the number of pedestrians. The “existence of a pedestrian flow is crucial for attracting social interaction” (Edgü et al., 2015, p. 176). Once the space is visible to people, it then attracts a greater density with appropriate distribution of land uses. As stated by several authors, “activities are influenced by land uses, pedestrian flows, activity patterns, and circulation flows in the physical setting, which are related to vitality” (Gehl, 1989; Jacobs, 1961; Montgomery, 1998, as cited in Sezer & Maldonado, 2017, p. 194).
Diversity and vitality are defined as “two important interrelated and observable features of public space” by Sezer (2018, p. 825) where “diversity refers to the combination of ‘people and functions’ that are spatially mixed” (Sezer, 2018, p. 825). In particular, variety in land use supports social visibility, which may contribute to the cohesion of communities. “The public visibility of different kinds of people is underpinned by their presence in public spaces, and people’s understanding of their community is in part formed by who and what they see in the public domain” (Holland et al., 2007, p. ix). Through a discussion of socio-cultural inclusion in public space, Sezer (2018) states that “public space offers opportunities to engage and interact with other people” and “occupying the space at the same time allows city habitants to see and observe each other” (p. 824). These social aspects of visibility in public space make the space itself visible and promote the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the city, which is a unique identity of port cities.
Port Cities of a Divided Country: Famagusta and Limassol
Cyprus is located in the maritime crossroads of the Eastern Mediterranean basin and therefore, the island has attracted an important part of the Mediterranean trade throughout the history. Especially in the 19th century, the rapid change in commercial activities brought a multilayered socio-cultural structure which then shaped the socio-economic structure and socio-spatial layout of Cyprus. As the island had been ruled by Ottoman Empire until the end of the 19th century; many states, trading with the empire, had merchants and consuls on the island. For the mid-19th century Cyprus, Aymes (2009) indicates a society “which is by no means confined to nationally divided patterns” (p. 143) at the very center of Ottoman and European provincial society.
However, although multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism were inherent features of Mediterranean port cities, these characteristics declined following waves of nationalism and ethnic tensions in the early decades of the 20th century (Geddes, 2017). Due to the failure of Ottomans on colonization and their decreasing tax revenues from the ports and ships on the Mediterranean, socio-economic structure of the island has changed tremendously. Accordingly, the socio-economic influences affected the development of the spatial structure of the island where the ports had different roles in terms of maritime commerce through different historical periods. In particular, due to the division of the island in 1974, Cyprus port cities have had different development dynamics on both sides of the island.
Famagusta and Limassol are the current major port cities of Cyprus; Famagusta is located on the eastern coast of the island, whereas Limassol is located on the southern (Figure 1). Despite a shared historical background both in the region and on the island, these cities exhibit different settlement patterns in terms of port city characteristics. In addition to their varied geographical features along their coastlines, socio-cultural, economic, and political factors have always been more effective in shaping their futures. Famagusta is a medieval city that has always been dependent on its port whereas Limassol is highlighted by the decline of Famagusta port as a result of their changing hierarchical roles in terms of maritime commerce.
Location of Famagusta and Limassol port cities, 2019.
Famagusta Port City
Famagusta was one of the oldest, busiest, and richest cities in the Eastern Mediterranean. Many of the events in Famagusta’s history have played a role in the spatial development of the city; especially changes in the political and administrative roles of Famagusta affected the city’s relation with the hinterland.
The city was “favored as a center for commercial trade during the 14th century with all important Eastern Mediterranean ports” (Doratlı, 2011, p. 65). However, by the 15th century, the city had undergone some striking changes; the port facilities had decreased and thus the city had lost its economic importance.
The second half of the 19th century is highlighted by improvement projects of the port as a strategic point on the way to the Suez Canal under British rule. Due to the division of the island, which has continued to this day, Famagusta had a sharp drop in terms of maritime commerce activity, which, in turn, brought about political and spatial isolation. Since the division, Famagusta is still the major port of the northern side; however, the city does not have a cosmopolitan structure as the port is no longer internationally recognized.
The spatial pattern of the entire city consists of two main sections: inside and outside the city walls. The ancient port city of Famagusta comprises the walled city, which had been integrated with the old port, whereas the city has been developing outside the walls since the 19th century. Although the city developed parallel to the coastline in earlier periods, it was later built up around a centrally located piazza, which is presently the main public square of the city. The square is located on the primary axis perpendicular to the port and dominated by a cathedral converted to mosque.
The main axis of the city, connecting this square to the port, had started to lose its importance in parallel with the decreasing facilities of the port during the 16th century. Although it had been affected by some physical changes over time, the two major port streets and the square with its two monumental buildings had continued to be the busiest places for trade activity.
Currently, the city has developed in a northwest direction due to the physical restrictions, and the new center of attraction evolved outside the walled city. Militarily controlled areas in the north and the closed Varosha region in the south are main boundaries orienting the city’s development towards the northwest direction. In addition to these physical determinants, the establishment of the Eastern Mediterranean University has created a new center of attraction in terms of economic and social vitality.
Limassol Port City
Limassol is the largest port on the island and one of the busiest ports in the Mediterranean Sea. It is considered “a junction port between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East” (Gerasimou & Georgoudis, 2011, p. 114) as it is the last port towards the Suez Canal.
Limassol is also known as the oldest settlement area in Cyprus and thus had the initial port facilities; it was the main port of Cyprus until the end of the 12th century, “acting as a port and place of exchange” (Geddes, 2017, p. 137). Between the 16th and 19th centuries, Limassol had been used as the secondary port for maritime commerce activity. Similar to Famagusta, Limassol also gained more importance during the 19th century due to a noticeable change in improvement projects brought about during the British administration. Therefore the city began to grow and expand substantially by the second half of the 19th century.
Following the division of the island, Limassol’s new port became the major seaport, again replacing Famagusta because of the changed political situation. The old port has preserved its traditional identity attached to the coastline. Currently, the new port is one of the most dynamic ports in terms of commerce and passenger traffic in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Due to this transformation process of the port facilities, Limassol has “experienced rapid growth throughout the 20th century with significant spatial developments and transformations” (Charalambous & Geddes, 2015, p. 78). Although the historical city center has a radial development characteristic with an organic pattern along the coastline, the overall city has developed in a linear pattern emphasized by “the main east–west circulation routes of the city” (Charalambous & Geddes, 2015, p. 81). “Urban growth has affected the transformation of the historic center resulting in a changing context where certain characteristics of the traditional high street changed, while others persisted through time, and the boundary of the former ‘edge city’ became the new high street” (Charalambous & Geddes, 2015, p. 78).
Today, the ancient urban square, located in the historic city center and around the medieval Byzantine castle, is dominated by recreational functions. Recently, the city has developed in the hills to the north and been extended along the coastline in the east. The old city center and the coastline, which is emphasized by a promenade coastal walkway and a series of mix-use buildings, are connected to the entire layout by a number of radial streets.
A Synoptic Comparison of the Two Cities
Through the prior analyses of Famagusta and Limassol port cities, it is seen that these cities present different port city characteristics based on the geographical constraints, existing physical structures, and historical events. Considering geographical constraints, the combination of the urban layout and the street network are the determinants for spatial configuration. As mentioned by Shpuza (2007), “. . . urban shapes affect urban grids by exerting the limitations of where it is possible to extend, while grids affect urban shapes due to growth occurring along outlying streets” (p. 009:02). Urban shape hull, which is “defined according to the shape enclosed inside the outmost urban boundary of the settlement” (Shpuza, 2007, p. 009:02), is affected by islands that limit the further extension of cities like in the case of Famagusta and Limassol.
Famagusta, representing the network type of development, has an overlapping pattern where the surviving old city and its center are attached to the port; there is a combination of the old and the new parts. Limassol reflects the linear development pattern where the city is horizontally shaped with major streets located parallel to the coastline and intersected with the vertical ones. As the most prominent characteristic of the linear development, a promenade covers the coastline of Limassol to encourage pedestrian movement and recreational activities.
As the unique identity of each city depends on its images which are composed of the views of urban elements, identifying public spaces spatially and socially helps to reveal the distinctive character.
Based on the limited commercial activities, Famagusta’s major port, with a fishing port at one end, is still attached to the old city. On the contrary, Limassol’s commercial port is moved to a peripheral area of the city whereas the old port location hosts a fishing port expanded by the marina. This study is not concerned with the commercial ports of the cities but the interaction or relationship with their city centers that involve the main public spaces in reference to port city identity.
Comparative Analysis of Case Study
Comparative analysis takes place within the context of predominant spatial components to assess the imageability of Famagusta and Limassol port cities (Figure 2) with network and linear developments. As a tool for assessing the cities’ imageability, the waterfront, main urban square, and major port street of both cities are analyzed through visibility parameters in two stages. The waterfronts are defined according to the location of the historical city center and its ancient port, and the major port streets are considered as the main commercial streets leading towards the waterfront. The specified spaces are initially analyzed through syntactic findings to reveal the spatial visibility, while public visibility of the spaces is examined through their land-use patterns and density of movement flows.
Predominant spatial components of Famagusta and Limassol, 2019.
The Methodology of Analysis
The main structure of the analysis is based on the comparison of visibility parameters of the specified key public spaces through a two-phased methodology (Table 1). In the first phase, space syntax is used to analyze and discuss spatial visibility of public spaces, whereas in the second phase, the social visibility of public spaces is analyzed through land-use patterns and gate count.
Methodology of the Analysis.
The syntactic research in this study is composed of axial lines and isovist analyses. The predominant spaces of Famagusta and Limassol port cities are analyzed through integration and isovist components of space syntax methodology by using the University of Michigan’s Syntax 2D software. To measure the integration levels, a radius of 1,000 m is specified for the line analysis, and the center is located in the port area. Although this distance exceeds the expected walking distance, it helped, especially in Famagusta, to perceive both the inside and outside of the city walls.
Syntactic properties of the key public spaces are analyzed initially with the axial line analysis of the cities’ present layouts within the specified area. Axial line analysis, one of the fundamental components of space syntax (Turner, 2007), is a method used to obtain the “most integrated axes” (introduced by Hillier and Hanson)—those from which all others are shallowest (Hillier et al., 1993).
To reveal the accessibility of the spaces within the entire layout, integration-n level, known as global integration, is used for the evaluation as it indicates the degree to which a unit is more integrated or segregated from a system as a whole. Integration-n level measurements involve the global measurement analysis of a system through movement, where “n” denotes the number of turns from the starting point. Axial line analysis is used to discover “intelligibility” through the correlation of local and global measures. The intelligibility of the cities is gathered through the relation between axial global integration and axial connectivity values.
The spatial visibility of the spaces is also measured through isovist analysis where the viewer point is located strategically within the layout. Point isovist values are interpreted among the area and perimeter properties as the area measures how much space can be seen from the viewpoint and conversely from how much space the observer at the viewpoint can see, whereas the perimeter measures the length of the edge of all space visible from the viewpoint (Benedikt, 1979). The area and perimeter properties help to discover uninterrupted wideness and visual range that increases the visibility of a space, which in turn promotes social interaction.
Land-use pattern and gate count analyses reveal the social visibility of the spaces. Functional distribution affects both the density of movement and the presence of the people while the social visibility of a space depends on the variety of functions it offers. The gate count method is used to count pedestrians on a particular space within a specific time period to reveal the density of movement flows. Based on the context of the study, April is accepted as the optimum month of the year due to best climatic conditions for outdoor use. The observation of pedestrian activity is conducted both on a weekday and a weekend day to determine the differential uses of the public spaces. Each space was observed for 15 minutes in 2-hour time periods, from 12:00 to 14:00, for both days. The results gathered through this direct observation method are correlated with the results obtained by syntactic and functional pattern analyses.
Spatial and Social Visibility Findings
Spatial visibility of key public spaces, analyzed through the syntactic properties, is presented in Figures 3 and 4. In the axial line analysis, the highest integration level is shown with red lines, and the lowest integration level is shown with dark blue lines in the integration-n analysis of the Famagusta and Limassol port cities (Figure 3).
Axial line analysis of Famagusta and Limassol, 2019.
Isovist analysis of waterfronts, main urban squares, and major port streets, 2019.
Social visibility of key public spaces, which is evaluated through functional land-use patterns, is presented in Figures 5, 6, and 7. In the gate count analysis shown in Table 2, the number of people using each public space during the specified period is recorded.
Land use of waterfronts in Famagusta and Limassol, 2019.
Land use of main urban squares in Famagusta and Limassol, 2019.
Land use of major streets in Famagusta and Limassol, 2019.
Observation of the Density of Movement Flows for Both the Weekday and Weekend.
Visibility of waterfronts
In terms of spatial visibility, Famagusta has limited accessibility due to the city walls creating segregation between the sea and the coastline. As it is seen in the axial line analysis (Figure 3), there is no axis with a high integration level reaching to the waterfront. In Limassol, the promenade covering the long coastline linearly connects the waterfront with the hinterland; this is also visible through a highly integrated horizontal axis located on the coastline and vertical street axes coming from the city center towards the waterfront (Figure 3). The main difference in waterfront accessibility of the two cities is the visual connection with the major port street, which can be seen in both Figures 3 and 4.
The functional use of the waterfront affects both the isovist area and perimeter. As it is used as a promenade in Limassol, the isovist area covers more space and the isovist perimeter includes more visual range that can be seen from the viewpoint (Figure 4). Therefore, higher area and perimeter values indicate that the waterfront presents more spatial visibility in Limassol.
Because of the city walls dividing the waterfront of Famagusta into two parts, land-use patterns and thus the user profile differ on two sides of the wall. As the north to the east part of the wall is covered with the shipyard and the old warehouses, the waterfront serves only the port facilities (Figure 5). The other side of the wall, which is the inner-city part of the waterfront, comprises industrial, commercial, recreational, office, and mix-use buildings. As an addition to the division and lack of contact with the waterfront, functional distribution on the area limits the social visibility.
On the other hand, Limassol’s long coastline is defined by a newly built marina on the southwest and new high-rise buildings on the east side of the city. Along the coastline, the city has its primary street axis defined by commercial, administrative, office, residential, and educational buildings. The variety of functions, the connection towards the waterfront, and the promenade itself make the waterfront highly visible. In contrast with Famagusta, the existence of residential function in Limassol keeps the waterfront alive all day long.
According to the pedestrian observations, movement levels at waterfronts are noticeably higher on weekends than on weekdays in both cities. The waterfront is dominated by vehicular traffic in Famagusta, which is verified by the pedestrian numbers presented in Table 2. As the area is a node of public transportation, the number of people increases during the weekend due to the visiting tourist groups. In Limassol, the coastline is emphasized with a promenade encouraging a coastal walkway attracting many people and as being the most popular public space in the city during both the weekday and the weekend (Table 2).
Visibility of main urban squares
The main urban square in Famagusta dominates the spatial pattern of the city, whereas Limassol does not have such a prominent urban square representing a stronger node in the pattern. Nevertheless, Castle Square is accepted as the main square of the city considering its strategic location and spatial association to the port. The square has become a frequently used public space especially after the pedestrianization of the area. Although it does not represent a dominant public space as in Famagusta, Limassol’s urban square seems more integrated and more accessible. The square also has the advantage of being located close to the waterfront and being intersected by the major and highly integrated streets of the pattern. In Famagusta, main urban square, located centrally in the walled city, seems segregated in the urban pattern as it is not reachable through integrated streets (Figure 3).
However, the main urban square of Famagusta is highly visible based on the isovist values (Figure 4). The visual scope of the square spreads towards the surrounding streets with a wider area and the isovist perimeter extends to those streets covering a wide range of the surrounding layout. Contrarily, Limassol has a limited area used as an urban square, which is more like a junction point within the city pattern, reflecting a limited visual scope and range. Therefore, considering the spatial analysis findings, Limassol’s square is more accessible but less visible comparing to the square of Famagusta.
The land-use analysis shows that the main urban square of Famagusta is dominated by commercial and mix-use buildings whereas the square in Limassol is surrounded by recreational, administrative, and mix-use buildings (Figure 6). The social visibility of the square in Famagusta is mostly based on the pedestrian movement following the commercial uses, while the social visibility in Limassol’s square is activity based. Although the pedestrian flow in both cities increases on weekends, it increases almost three times for Famagusta (Table 2). Based on the observational data, both squares are mostly used by local people during weekdays but dominated by tourist groups on weekends. In addition to having a landmark adjacent to their squares, which is the main attraction point for visitors, additional functions attached to the square promote the increase in number of people on weekends in both cities.
Visibility of major streets
Although the major streets of the cities represent different spatial characteristics, both originate from the main commercial street and lead to the waterfront. Famagusta’s major street, which is a combination of the “traditional commercial street” and the “port street,” starts at the land gate of the citadel and reaches to the sea gate in an organic layout. As the sea gate is closed in its present condition, the street lost its historical structure and therefore has no physical or visual connection with the waterfront. The major street of the pattern, located within the historical town center in Limassol, is the major commercial street that connects the main boulevard, located at the edge of the historic core, and the waterfront.
Due to this multipartite street layout of both cities, the isovist points are formed at the main junctions, as seen in Figure 4, to see the distribution of the visual scope on both sides. Although the street does not reach the waterfront in Famagusta, it covers more isovist area as it is integrated with the main urban square. In the Limassol case, the isovist perimeter covers more area due to the longitudinal penetration of the visual scope towards adjacent streets.
Passing through the main urban square, the major street in Famagusta is connected with the main port street dominated by commercial uses (Figure 7). As the local scale of commercial uses encourages pedestrian movement, the street has a busy pedestrian traffic mainly on weekends (Table 2). In Limassol, the main street is also the main commercial street but as it is defined by shopping malls it has a heavy flow of vehicle traffic while having a low pedestrian flow. Although the major street of Famagusta does not have spatial visibility towards the waterfront, it keeps the social visibility higher in terms of user density. In Limassol, the major street is not dominated by pedestrians but it has a strong spatial visibility with a continuous and direct axis starting from the city center ending at the water edge. Therefore, while the social visibility is function-based in Famagusta, Limassol has a space-based visibility.
In terms of the overall pattern, Famagusta has different spatial expansion, with a denser pattern of shorter streets surrounded by city walls, thus presenting more axial lines than Limassol; the average global integration is 5,104 × 108 for Famagusta and 1,227 × 109 for Limassol. As seen in Figure 3, Famagusta gives the clues of spatial expansion towards the outside of the city walls, whereas the most integrated axes are represented in the main pedestrian street on the chief land gate. This is the intersection point of inside and outside of the city walls. On the other hand, Limassol’s highly integrated streets are mostly parallel to the coastline and the city’s ongoing spatial development is towards the north-east.
Based on the distribution of the highly integrated streets within the city layout, Limassol is seen as more accessible; the high integration-n value supports its “intelligibility” as well. The Pearson correlation for Limassol shows the value of p = .000 < .01 (df = 373, r = −0.389) representing “high intelligibility” implying that the whole of the urban pattern is readable through its parts. On the other hand in Famagusta, the correlation value of p = .360 > .05 (df = 464, r = 0.043) is not significant, indicating that the city is not intelligible. Therefore, Limassol’s regular grid pattern is intelligible, while the organic pattern of Famagusta is not.
In general, there is equality in isovist area and perimeter values in terms of having one dominant public key space as being more visible. Famagusta is distinguished by the higher values of its main urban square, while the waterfront of Limassol covers more visual area and surface as it is verified in area and perimeter values. These spatial visibility findings are also verified with the social visibility findings. The land-use pattern analysis shows that a variety of functions and connections to the waterfront makes Limassol more socially visible where people have opportunities to gather and socialize at specific points. The observation of the pedestrian movement, on the other hand, indicates that the movement flow in Famagusta is oriented towards the inner city, mostly towards the main urban square, whereas the waterfront in Limassol is a densely used public space.
Conclusion
The spatial analyses of the settlement layouts reveal the differences in patterns in relation to the association between port and city-based development dynamics. Cyprus, as a divided island, faces different socio-spatial transformations that create varying layouts and functional patterns. Although special attention is given to how the spatial layout of two port cities of a divided country reflects their identity, the outcomes of this study are also expected to contribute an integrated picture of Eastern Mediterranean port cities.
The results imply that physical features of the port cities offer different advantages and disadvantages for spatial configurations in relation to the location of the ancient port and the coastline. Famagusta, preserving the authentic organic pattern surrounded by city walls, seems to be spatially and visually segregated from the sea. Limassol, on the other side, presents higher integration levels towards the sea with ongoing projects on the coastline, as it is more included in the daily life and in attracting more people. Maritime commerce still takes an important place in Limassol’s economy affecting the configuration of the spatial pattern in turn. In contrast, Famagusta has turned its back on its waterfront as inefficient maritime activities do not put any pressure on the city’s physical limitations in order to encourage the spatial integration with the coastline.
The land-use analysis shows that the key public spaces in Limassol have more potential in terms of variety and vitality promoting social visibility in comparison with Famagusta. Although the main urban square and the major street are well-defined and connected with each other, the disconnection from the waterfront distastefully affects the social visibility in Famagusta. In the Limassol case, the major street and the waterfront are well-defined and connected public spaces while the main urban square seems isolated. Nevertheless, the social visibility of the square is supported by a variety of functions with a potential of contributing to the social cohesion of different groups of people. Therefore, it is verified by the results that Famagusta is isolated, while Limassol has adapted itself to enhance the port city identity and imageability, especially in preserving the visibility of the key public spaces.
The comparison of Famagusta and Limassol also shows that the two cities have different characteristics in terms of port city identity where the only difference is not due to the physical features of the city but also due to the socio-cultural and socio-economic parameters and thus political circumstances. The socio-cultural and socio-economic changes starting with the division of the island were especially accelerated by the establishment of Eastern Mediterranean University in Famagusta. As most of the local residents have moved outside of the walled city, daily life of the city has been transformed as a result of a lack of population and movement. Military areas and the university play serious roles in the city’s spatial and social structures. Consequently, Famagusta has become an introverted city, which has then resulted in losing its port city identity and becoming a citadel city or a university city.
Limassol has favorably experienced this process where the city is still using its own potential to strengthen the port city identity. The construction of the marina and the redevelopment of the old port and promenade have triggering effects on the city identity of Limassol. A waterfront, as the most prominent feature affecting the socio-spatial configurations in port cities, itself is a highly imageable form creating a social attraction for pedestrians. Therefore, in Limassol, the promenade on the waterfront creates an imageable city by establishing spatial and visual connections with the city as well.
Like Famagusta, Limassol’s city center has also been left by the local residents and dominated by immigrants. However, the profile of the new population differs from Famagusta’s as Limassol’s has a multicultural character. Because of the city’s maritime commerce activities and the existence of the marina with residential and recreational uses, the city has become a cosmopolitan destination. This results in the transformation of the city, especially the waterfront, which is visible through increasing public projects. Presently, the waterfront is dominated by iconic high-rise residential and office buildings supported by commercial and recreational venues. Therefore, Limassol is taking advantage of being one of the busiest ports of the Mediterranean, which is reflected in its port city characteristics, while Famagusta struggles with the difficulties of limited sea trade activity based on the political circumstances of the island and the indifference of the locals to maritime affairs.
By the 20th century, an increase in maritime commerce activity and changes in maritime technology brought a need for industrial development areas in large-scale modern port cities. Therefore, modern port facilities have mostly moved from the original core due to the consumption of large areas. As a part of the original cores, traditional ports have been transformed to be recreational areas by redeveloping the waterfronts.
It has been pointed out by Hoyle (1998) that the stage of “redevelopment of the waterfront” of port cities mostly undergoes a process of urban renewal to re-establish the spatial and functional association between the city and the port. It is clear that ports have a pioneering role in the spatial development of the cities, especially by stimulating socio-cultural and economic mobility at this stage. Famagusta, having problems related to reflecting a port city identity, should be involved in the stage of “the redevelopment of the waterfront” to retrieve its strong ancient port identity.
Therefore, Famagusta should integrate its waterfront into city life by facing it. Taking the advantage of having sea gates providing a visual field through the city walls, future attempts should be the accessibility of the waterfront, where human activity can extend all the way to the coastline. Bringing the port activities to another destination, changing the character of the waterfront by adding a marina and/or a promenade, and changing the land-use pattern would help to redefine the identity of the city.
Today, port cities and their associated coastlines are the subjects of increasing planning consideration in order to strengthen the identity of the cities. Recently, many Mediterranean port cities have been reviving the multiculturalism through the redevelopment of their waterfront and the port area. Diversity and vitality of these spaces promote the cosmopolitan character of the cities which is the prominent feature of port cities.
Port cities are more than just coastal cities. Having a port city identity requires the integration of the ancient port to the public life, which is achieved through the visibility of main public spaces. In the light of the issues discussed through the two different port cities in this study, the spatial and visual connection of the key public spaces should be considered as a fundamental step in regaining the identity and strengthening the imageability in declining port cities.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Erincik Edgü is now affiliated with Department of Architecture, Maltepe University, Turkey.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
