653

1 INTRODUCTION

Port-cities constitute complex territorial systems in

which maritime transport [1], logistics [2], industry,

urban development, governance, and environmental

processes intersect. Their evolution is shaped by both

global flows and local spatial conditions, making the

relationship between the port and the city dynamic

rather than fixed. Research on port-city relationships

consequently requires an integrated perspective that

recognizes economic cooperation alongside spatial

conflicts, environmental externalities, competing

demands for waterfront land [3], infrastructure

monitoring [4], new autonomous means of transport

[5][6] and increased risk management dedicated to port

infrastructure [7].

Within this context, multifunctional facilities can be

examined as strategic components capable of

mediating between operational port areas [8] and the

surrounding urban structure. Instead of treating the

port and the city as separate systems, the article

considers how compatible maritime, logistical, service,

mobility, research, and public functions can be

integrated into compact architectural and

infrastructural arrangements [9]. Such an approach can

improve the use of limited waterfront space while

retaining the operational identity of the port [10].

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Figure 1 illustrates a compact city system at Level 1,

highlighting the interpenetration of the urban city

Multifunctional Facilities as a Strategy for Compact City

Development: Spatial and Functional Integration

for Sustainable Port-City Transformation

M. Gerigk

Gdańsk University of Technology, Gdańsk, Poland

ABSTRACT: Port-cities must reconcile maritime operations with growing demands for urban density,

accessibility, environmental quality, and public waterfront use. The historical separation of port and urban

functions has resulted in fragmented spatial structures, restricted access, and conflicts between operational

requirements and urban development priorities. This article examines multifunctional facilities as instruments of

compact port-city development. It investigates how buildings and infrastructural complexes can integrate

logistics, mobility, maritime services, research, commerce, public amenities, and environmental systems while

maintaining seaport safety and operational continuity. The study combined a structured literature review,

functional-spatial analysis, and interpretation of port-city and waterfront transformations. It focuses on port-city

relations, hybrid infrastructure, functional compatibility, and interactions with the urban and natural

environment. The proposed framework positions multifunctional facilities as strategic port-city interfaces that

improve land-use efficiency, connectivity, adaptability, and waterfront accessibility without displacing essential

water-dependent activities, thereby contributing to compact, sustainable, and resilient structures.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 20

Number 3

September 2026

DOI: 10.12716/1001.20.03.13

654

structure and the seaport structure at Level 2. Here

multifunctional facilities enable the creation of an

integrated system structure which aims to respond to

increasing environmental requirements.

The research methodology provided a transparent

framework for identifying, classifying, and

interpreting relationships between spatial form,

functional organization, infrastructure, and port-city

transformation. A structured literature review can

establish the theoretical background, while

comparative case analysis, functional mapping, and

the examination of planning documents can reveal

how similar development principles operate under

different geographical and institutional conditions.

Combining qualitative methods is particularly

appropriate when the subject involves both

measurable spatial characteristics and context-

dependent planning processes [11].

For the main research topic, the methodology

should evaluate multifunctional facilities according to

a consistent set of architectural and urban-planning

criteria. These may include functional compatibility,

spatial concentration, circulation systems, accessibility,

operational safety, adaptability, environmental

performance, and interaction with the waterfront

[12][13]. The comparison should determine whether

multifunctional facilities create meaningful

relationships between port and urban functions or

simply place unrelated activities within the same

building complex. Figure 2 presents the research

methodology for multifunctional facilities dedicated to

the transformation of port-cities.

Figure 1. Connected system of compact port-city elements

scheme [by M. Gerigk, 2026].

Figure 2. Research methodology for multifunctional facilities

in port-city transformation scheme [by M. Gerigk, 2026].

3 STRUCTURE OF THE MODERN SEAPORT

A modern seaport is an interconnected infrastructural

system composed of maritime terminals, storage and

handling areas, industrial facilities, administrative

services, energy networks, and land-based transport

connections. Its spatial structure is increasingly

influenced by containerization, vessel size,

automation, digitalization, security requirements, and

the need to connect maritime transport with rail, road,

pipeline, and inland-waterway systems [14]. These

factors have transformed ports into technologically

advanced nodes within global logistics networks.

In relation to compact port-city development, the

modern seaport should not be treated exclusively as a

horizontally expanding industrial zone. Selected port

functions can be concentrated, vertically arranged, or

connected through multifunctional facilities that

integrate logistics support, administration, mobility,

research, energy, and complementary services [15].

Such solutions may limit land consumption, although

their implementation must preserve cargo-handling

efficiency, security zones, and the uninterrupted

operation of essential maritime infrastructure.

3.1 Administrative and planning boundaries

Administrative and planning boundaries establish the

territorial extent of municipal, regional, port-authority,

and national responsibilities. In port-cities, these

boundaries frequently divide areas that remain

functionally interconnected through transport,

employment, environmental systems, and economic

activity [16]. A multiscalar interpretation is therefore

necessary because the functional port-city region may

extend considerably beyond the formal boundaries of

either the municipality or the port authority.

655

Multifunctional facilities located at the port-city

interface may be subject to overlapping plans,

regulations, ownership structures, and decision-

making procedures [17]. Their contribution to compact

development depends on coordination between

municipal spatial plans, port master plans,

environmental policies, transport strategies, and

investment programs. Integrated governance is

consequently required to ensure that a facility serving

both port and urban users is not constrained by

fragmented administrative responsibilities.

3.2 Functional structure of the port city

The functional structure of a port-city includes

maritime transport, freight handling, logistics,

manufacturing, shipbuilding, energy production,

administration, housing, commerce, tourism,

recreation, education, and cultural activities. The

importance and spatial distribution of these functions

change as technologies, trade patterns, urban

economies, environmental requirements, and

waterfront land values evolve. The port and the city

should therefore be understood as interdependent

functional subsystems rather than autonomous spatial

entities [18].

For multifunctional facilities, port-city functions

should be classified according to their operational

requirements, environmental impacts, access

restrictions, spatial relationships, and potential for

sharing infrastructure [19]. Compatible activities may

be combined within a single facility, while uses

generating significant conflicts should be separated

through distance, structural divisions, circulation

systems, or time-based management. This selective

integration can support compact urban development

without weakening the performance of the port.

3.3 Systemic organization of the port-city structure

The systemic organization of a port-city concerns the

relationships among land uses, transport networks,

infrastructure, public spaces, ecological systems,

economic centres, and governance institutions. These

components form an urban system through flows of

people, goods, energy, information, and resources. The

performance of the overall structure therefore depends

[20] not only on the properties of individual areas but

also on the quality and efficiency of the connections

between them.

From the perspective of the main title,

multifunctional facilities can function as nodes within

this wider port-city system. By connecting maritime

transport with urban mobility, logistics with services,

or employment with research and education, they can

reduce functional fragmentation and unnecessary

movement. Their systemic value should therefore be

assessed [21] through their contribution to network

connectivity and port-city performance rather than

through the architectural complexity of an individual

building alone. Figure 3 presents diagram of the

modern seaport structure, detailing its key

characteristics. The structure of a modern seaport was

specifies with the following highlighted elements: core

elements, multimodal connections, structural drivers,

compact development and system requirements.

Figure 4 shows a simplified three-dimensional

representation of the port structure system, indicating

the connections between its elements. An elaboration

of this scheme constitutes a spatial representation of

the port system structure and its functional layout.

Figure 3. Modern seaport structure scheme [by M. Gerigk,

2026].

Figure 4. Modern seaport 3d structure connections [by M.

Gerigk, 2026] based on [14][15][22].

656

4 COMPACT PORT-CITY DEVELOPMENT

Compact-city development promotes the efficient use

of urbanized land through spatial concentration, mixed

land use, proximity between activities, public

transport, and the reuse of existing infrastructure.

Compactness is not equivalent to density alone because

it also concerns urban connectivity, the distribution of

functions, accessibility, environmental quality, and the

capacity of infrastructure to support intensified

development [23]. The efficiency of the compact city

depends on the interaction among economic,

morphological and functional forms of density.

In a port-city context, compact development should

reconcile the concentration of activities with the

extensive spatial requirements of maritime transport

and logistics. Multifunctional facilities may contribute

by accommodating compatible port and urban

functions within vertically or spatially integrated

structures. This approach can reduce horizontal

expansion, strengthen proximity between

complementary activities, and improve the use of

existing transport infrastructure while preserving

areas required for water-dependent operations [24].

4.1 Principles of the compact city

The main principles of the compact city include

relatively high development density, mixed land use,

connected street and transport networks, short

distances between everyday activities, and the

limitation of dispersed urban growth. These principles

are expected to support efficient infrastructure

provision and reduce dependence on private vehicles.

Their implementation must nevertheless account for

possible negative effects, including overcrowding,

pressure on public services, land-price increases, and

reduced environmental quality [25].

Figure 5. Compact city structure [by M. Gerigk, 2026] based

on [24][25][27].

Applied to port-cities, compact-city principles

support the concentration of functions around

established maritime and intermodal infrastructure

rather than the creation of disconnected urban

extensions. Multifunctional facilities can translate these

principles into architectural form by combining

transport, employment, services, public amenities, and

environmental systems. Their contribution should be

evaluated in terms of accessibility and land-use

efficiency, rather than assuming that every

intensification of waterfront development is inherently

sustainable [26]. Figure 5 illustrates the structure of the

compact city's main components and its key principles.

4.2 Spatial and functional relations between the port and

the city

Spatial relations between the port and the city concern

physical location, distance, boundaries, accessibility,

transport connections, and the distribution of land

uses. Functional relations refer to economic

dependence, employment, mobility, logistics, services,

environmental impacts, and institutional cooperation.

The relationship may range from close integration to

strong separation, and its form changes as the port and

the city move through different stages of technological

and spatial development [28].

Multifunctional facilities can reinforce port-city

relations by creating carefully controlled points of

interaction between operational and urban systems.

They may accommodate shared functions such as

passenger transport, port administration, maritime

education, research, commerce, cultural activities, and

public observation areas. Their spatial organization

must, however, distinguish public, controlled, and

restricted zones to ensure that urban accessibility does

not interfere with maritime safety and logistics [29].

Figure 6 illustrates the structure of spatial and

functional relationships between the port area and the

urbanized area.

Figure 6. Spatial and functional relations between the port

and the city [by M. Gerigk, 2026] based on [12][30][31].

4.3 Transformation trends in port and waterfront areas

Port and waterfront areas are undergoing

transformation through port relocation, technological

modernization, brownfield regeneration, adaptive

reuse, environmental remediation, and the

introduction of mixed-use development. Earlier

regeneration models frequently replaced obsolete

maritime functions with commercial, cultural,

residential, and recreational uses. More recent

approaches increasingly recognize the value of

retaining or reintroducing productive activities within

regenerated waterfront districts [32].

657

Within these transformation processes,

multifunctional facilities can provide an alternative to

both monofunctional port development and the

complete urbanization of former port land. Existing

warehouses, terminals, industrial buildings, and

infrastructural structures may be adapted to

accommodate new uses while preserving maritime

heritage and selected productive functions. Such

facilities can support gradual transformation by

allowing the functional profile of a waterfront to evolve

without eliminating its relationship with the port [33].

5 SUSTAINABLE PORT-CITY TRANSFORMATION

Sustainable port-city transformation requires the

coordinated consideration of economic

competitiveness, operational efficiency, environmental

performance, social well-being, and spatial quality. It

involves reducing emissions and resource

consumption, increasing resilience, protecting

ecosystems, and distributing the benefits and burdens

of port development more equitably. Sustainability

should therefore be interpreted as a continuing

transformation of the port-city system rather than as an

isolated collection of environmental measures [34].

Figure 7. Conceptual model of compact port-city

development: a) initial functional structure; b) transformed

structure incorporating multifunctional facilities and

expanded green areas. [by M. Gerigk, 2026; visualization

generated with Microsoft Copilot]

Multifunctional facilities can contribute to this

transformation by reducing land consumption, sharing

technical systems, supporting low-carbon mobility,

and accommodating adaptable combinations of port

and urban functions. Multifunctionality does not,

however, automatically produce sustainability. The

performance of each facility should be assessed

through indicators relating to energy, emissions,

accessibility, spatial efficiency, operational

compatibility, stakeholder participation, and

adaptation capacity [35]. Figure 7 illustrates the

structure of a compact port city in two phases. Figure

7a shows the standard functional separation. The

second stage, Figure 7b, depicts a transformation phase

in which the introduction of multifunctional

architecture and greenery partially bridges the

boundaries, creating a more cohesive urban fabric.

Urban area components: housing (brown), public

utilities (red); port area components: industrial (violet),

transport (blue), public utilities (red); added elements:

multifunctional facilities (orange) and additional green

areas (green).

5.1 Interaction between port operations and urban

structure

Port operations affect urban structure through freight

traffic, industrial land use, noise, emissions,

employment, energy demand, and the location of road

and rail infrastructure. At the same time, urban

development influences port activity through land

values, congestion, environmental regulations, labour

availability, public expectations, and competition for

waterfront space. Their interaction therefore generates

both economic benefits and spatial or environmental

externalities [36].

Multifunctional facilities should respond to this

interaction by connecting compatible systems while

separating potentially conflicting flows. A facility may

integrate port administration, rail or road transfer,

parking, services, offices, and research spaces, while

using separate access routes and structural zones for

freight, employees, and public users. Such

organization can reduce the impact of port-related

traffic on the urban network and improve the efficiency

of connections between maritime and land transport

[37].

5.2 Hybrid infrastructure

Hybrid infrastructure combines engineered

components with ecological, social, digital, or spatial

systems to provide several interrelated services. Its

value is associated with functional diversity,

adaptability, variable connectivity, and the ability to

respond to changing environmental conditions.

Hybrid solutions can produce complementary benefits

by linking conventional grey infrastructure with green

and blue systems while supporting broader forms of

urban resilience [38].

In port cities, hybrid infrastructure can be

incorporated into multifunctional facilities through

combinations of logistics systems, mobility nodes,

energy production, flood protection, water

management, ecological habitats, and public spaces.

This interpretation directly supports the main title

because it defines multifunctionality as the purposeful

integration of infrastructural and spatial performance.

It also requires governance arrangements capable of

coordinating technical systems managed by different

public and private entities [39].

658

5.3 From separated port infrastructure to integrated

urban waterfronts

Separated port infrastructure is characterized by

specialized land uses, extensive security boundaries,

restricted public access, and limited continuity

between maritime areas and adjacent urban districts.

Integrated waterfronts seek to improve spatial, visual,

functional, and institutional relationships without

necessarily removing ongoing port activity. Integration

may therefore involve shared spaces, graduated

accessibility, complementary uses, coordinated

transport, and the preservation of operational and

cultural maritime heritage [40].

Multifunctional facilities can support this transition

by acting as intermediate structures between fully

restricted terminals and publicly accessible urban

areas. They can establish a sequence of operational,

controlled, semi-public, and public spaces while

accommodating functions that serve both maritime

and urban users. This approach makes it possible to

improve waterfront accessibility without applying a

universal redevelopment model that displaces

working-port activities or local communities [41].

6 MULTIFUNCTIONAL FACILITIES AS

INSTRUMENTS OF SPATIAL AND

FUNCTIONAL INTEGRATION

A multifunctional facility is a building or

infrastructural complex in which several functions are

intentionally combined within a coordinated spatial,

structural, circulation, and management system.

Multifunctionality differs from the simple

juxtaposition of uses because it involves shared spaces,

complementary operating patterns, common

infrastructure, or interactions among activities. The

concept can increase the efficiency of urban space by

enabling facilities to respond to different users,

functions, and periods of activity [42].

In compact port-city development, multifunctional

facilities can concentrate activities that would

otherwise occupy separate sites and require additional

transport or technical infrastructure. They may

integrate maritime services, logistics support, mobility,

research, education, commerce, environmental

protection, and selected public functions [43]. Their

role is both architectural and urban because they

reorganize connections among infrastructure,

buildings, the port, and the surrounding city.

6.1 Configurations of key functions

Functional configuration concerns the selection,

grouping, and spatial arrangement of activities within

a building or infrastructural complex. Fundamental

criteria include functional compatibility, adjacency,

operating schedules, access levels, circulation

requirements, environmental effects, and possibilities

for sharing services. Configuration may be horizontal,

vertical, clustered, layered, or organized around a

shared infrastructural and circulation core [44].

For port-city multifunctional facilities, the

configuration of key functions should reflect the

relationships among maritime operations, logistics,

mobility, services, research, administration, and public

use. Potential arrangements include passenger

terminals combined with commerce, logistics centres

connected with research facilities, or mobility hubs

integrated with environmental systems and public

spaces [45]. Each arrangement should be assessed

according to whether it improves port-city integration

without creating conflicts between freight, employees,

residents, and visitors. Table 1 presents key functions

for multifunctional facilities, preserving primary

functionality and importance for the port-city

necessities.

Table 1. Key functions of multifunctional facilities in a port

city

KEY FUNCTION

PRIMARY ROLE

PORT-CITY VALUE

MARITIME AND

LOGISTICS

SUPPORT

Cargo-handling

support, storage,

forwarding, customs,

and port-related

services.

Maintains the

operational role of

the waterfront and

connects the facility

with maritime supply

chains.

MOBILITY AND

INTERCHANGE

Passenger transfer, rail,

road, cycling, walking,

parking, and last-mile

connections.

Connects port and

urban movement

while separating

incompatible freight

and public flows.

ADMINISTRA-

TION AND

GOVERNANCE

Port administration,

public services,

security management,

and stakeholder

coordination.

Supports coordinated

management of

shared port-city

spaces and

infrastructure.

RESEARCH,

EDUCATION,

AND

INNOVATION

Maritime education,

laboratories, training,

incubators, and

knowledge exchange.

Links port

employment and

technology with

urban institutions

and human-capital

development.

COMMERCIAL

AND SERVICE

FUNCTIONS

Retail, food services,

offices, business

support, and visitor

services.

Adds everyday

activity without

replacing water-

dependent uses.

PUBLIC AND

CULTURAL

FUNCTIONS

Public amenities,

maritime heritage,

cultural venues, and

observation areas.

Improves public

accessibility and

reinforces maritime

identity.

ENVIRON-

MENTAL AND

ENERGY

FUNCTIONS

Renewable energy,

stormwater

management, flood

protection, ecological

buffers, and circular-

resource systems.

Reduces

environmental

externalities and

strengthens climate

resilience.

ADAPTIVE AND

SHARED INFRA-

STRUCTURE

Flexible structures,

shared technical

systems, phased reuse,

and time-based

occupation.

Improves land-use

efficiency and enables

adaptation to

changing port-city

conditions.

Source: Synthesis based on references [3], [4], [9], [13], [36], and [37]

by M. Gerigk, 2026.

6.2 Types of multifunctional facilities

Multifunctional facilities can be classified according to

their dominant function, location, spatial

configuration, level of public accessibility, relationship

with transport infrastructure, and capacity for

adaptation. Relevant categories include mixed-use

urban buildings, multimodal terminals, vertically

integrated transport or logistics centres, production-

and-research complexes, adaptive-reuse facilities, and

infrastructural buildings containing public programs

[46]. Vertical mixed use is particularly relevant where

659

limited land availability encourages the concentration

of different functions within a shared structural

system.

In the port-city context, three principal types can be

proposed: facilities located within operational port

areas, interface facilities positioned between the port

and the city, and urban facilities incorporating

maritime or port-support functions. This distinction

relates architectural form to security, accessibility,

operational requirements, and the degree of spatial

integration. It also prevents conventional urban mixed-

use buildings from being treated as equivalent to

multifunctional port infrastructure [47]. Table 2

presents the types of multifunctional facilities, taking

into account typical compositions, spatial and

functional integration characteristics and sustainable

pattern.

Table 2. Types of multifunctional facilities at the city-port

interface

TYPE OF

FACILITY

TYPICAL

COMBINATI

SPATIAL /

FUNCTIONAL

INTEGRATION

SUSTAINABLE

TRANSFORMATIO

MULTI-

MODAL

PASSENGE

TERMINAL

Passenger

terminal +

public

transport +

commerce +

public

services.

High functional

and spatial

integration at an

accessible

interface node

[6], [39].

Supports low-

carbon mobility,

proximity, and

intensified use of

existing transport

infrastructure [18],

[39].

PORT

ADMINIS-

TRATION

AND

INNOVA-

TION HUB

Administrati

on + research

+ education +

business

incubation.

High functional

integration and

medium-to-high

spatial

integration

between port

institutions and

the city [6], [13].

Supports digital

transition,

knowledge

exchange,

coordinated

governance, and

adaptable

employment

structures [6], [13].

VERTICAL

INTEGRAT

LOGISTICS

FACILITY

Urban

logistics +

storage +

parking +

energy +

commercial

support.

High internal

functional

integration;

medium spatial

integration

because access

and security

remain

controlled [9],

[40].

Reduces horizontal

land consumption

and supports

shared energy and

transport

infrastructure [9],

[18].

MARITIME

PRO-

DUCTION

AND

RESEARCH

COMPLEX

Shipbuilding

or repair +

workshops +

laboratories +

training.

High productive

integration and

medium urban

integration,

normally with

graduated access

[4], [9].

Retains productive

waterfront activity

while modernizing

industrial areas,

technology, and

skills [4], [8].

ADAPTIVE

-REUSE

WATER-

FRONT

COM-PLEX

Warehouse

or terminal

reuse +

culture +

commerce +

offices +

selected

production.

Medium-to-high

integration,

depending on

retention of

maritime

functions and

spatial

permeability

[25]–[27].

Supports

brownfield

regeneration,

heritage reuse, and

gradual

transformation

rather than

wholesale

replacement [25]–

[27].

PORT-CITY

MOBILITY

AND

SERVICE

HUB

Freight or

employee

mobility +

public

transport +

parking +

services.

Medium-to-high

integration;

separates user

flows while

sharing a

strategic

Can reduce

congestion, improve

accessibility, and

coordinate port-

generated and

urban mobility [7],

[31].

transport node

[7], [31], [39].

PUBLIC

WATER-

FRONT

AND

MARITIME

HERITAGE

FACILITY

Public space

interpretatio

n + culture +

tourism +

controlled

views of

operations.

Medium

functional

integration and

high visual and

public-space

integration, with

operational

boundaries

maintained [26],

[34], [35].

Reconnects the city

with the water and

maritime identity

while protecting

working-port

activities [25], [26],

[35].

HYBRID

CLIMATE

AND

ENERGY

INFRA-

STRUCTUR

Flood

protection +

renewable

energy +

ecological

space +

mobility or

public use.

High

infrastructural

integration

extending across

building,

waterfront, and

district scales

[32], [33], [37],

[42].

Strengthens climate

adaptation,

ecosystem services,

resource efficiency,

and long-term

waterfront

resilience [32], [37],

[42].

Source: Classification by M. Gerigk, 2026.

6.3 Interaction with the urban and natural environment

The interaction of a facility with its environment

concerns its effects on urban form, landscape, mobility,

public space, water systems, climate, ecosystems, and

neighboring communities [48]. Environmental

assessment should therefore extend beyond the

building boundary and consider multiple spatial

scales. In dense urban areas, the connectivity and size

of green-infrastructure elements influence their

capacity to provide ecosystem services and support

wider multifunctional networks. Table 3 presents the

types of multifunctional facilities, taking into account

environmental relationships, spatial and functional

response and transformation contributions.

Table 3. Environmental relationships of multifunctional

facilities at the city-port interface

FACILITY TYPE

RELATIONSHI

P WITH THE

NATURAL

ENVIRONME

SPATIAL /

FUNCTIONA

L RESPONSE

TRANSFOR-

MATION

CONTRIBUTIO

MULTI-MODAL

PASSENGER

TERMINAL

High exposure

to waterfront

microclimate,

stormwater,

transport noise,

and emissions.

Use sheltered

routes,

permeable

surfaces, low-

emission

access, and

clear

separation

from

operational

risk zones

[30], [31], [39].

Concentrates

mobility and

reduces

pressure for

dispersed car-

oriented

development

[18], [39].

PORT

ADMINISTRATIO

N AND

INNOVATION

HUB

Moderate direct

environmental

impact but

strong capacity

to monitor and

manage

environmental

performance.

Integrate

environmenta

l data, passive

design, green

infrastructure

, and

decision-

support

systems [6],

[13], [42].

Improves

environmental

governance and

enables

coordinated,

evidence-based

transformation

[6], [11], [13].

VERTICALLY

INTEGRATED

LOGISTICS

FACILITY

Potentially high

energy

demand, traffic

emissions,

noise, and

Apply

vertical

concentration

, renewable

energy,

Limits land take

and supports

more efficient

logistics and

660

sealed-surface

runoff.

acoustic

buffering,

stormwater

retention, and

segregated

freight

circulation

[9], [30], [31].

infrastructure

sharing [9], [18].

MARITIME PRO-

DUCTION AND

RESEARCH

COMPLEX

Direct

relationship

with water

quality,

industrial

emissions,

hazardous

materials, and

shoreline

ecology.

Use

containment,

clean

production,

controlled

drainage,

ecological

buffers, and

monitoring

systems [2],

[8], [30].

Retains water-

dependent

production

while reducing

environmental

externalities

and

modernizing

technology [2],

[4], [8].

ADAPTIVE-

REUSE WATER-

FRONT

COMPLEX

Depends on

contaminated-

land

remediation,

flood exposure,

embodied

carbon, and

heritage

constraints.

Prioritize

remediation,

reuse of

existing

structures,

flood-

adapted

ground

levels, and

connected

green-blue

space [25]–

[27], [42].

Reduces

demolition and

greenfield

development

while restoring

underused

waterfront land

[25]–[27].

PORT-CITY

MOBILITY AND

SERVICE HUB

Strong

influence on air

quality, noise,

heat, and

environmental

performance of

transport flows.

Provide

public-

transport

priority,

active-

mobility

links,

charging

infrastructure

, shade, and

emission

buffers [7],

[31], [39].

Supports modal

shift and

improves

environmental

conditions at

the port-city

interface [7],

[31], [39].

PUBLIC WATER-

FRONT AND

MARITIME

HERITAGE

FACILITY

Direct contact

with shoreline

ecosystems,

landscape,

water access,

and

recreational

pressure.

Use

ecological

edges,

accessible but

controlled

routes,

habitat

protection,

and

landscape

continuity

[26], [32], [35],

[42].

Combines

public access,

maritime

identity,

ecological

repair, and

cultural

regeneration

[25], [26], [35].

HYBRID

CLIMATE AND

ENERGY INFRA-

STRUCTURE

Designed as

part of natural

processes rather

than as an

isolated

technical object.

Combine

flood storage,

habitat,

renewable

energy,

cooling,

water

treatment,

and public-

space

functions

[32], [33], [37],

[42].

Creates

multifunctional

green-blue

networks and

increases

adaptive

capacity at

multiple spatial

scales [32], [37],

[42], [43].

Source: By M. Gerigk, 2026.

Multifunctional facilities should mitigate the

environmental effects of port and urban activities

while increasing the resilience and adaptability of the

waterfront. Their design should be coordinated with

wider seaport resilience planning, infrastructure

investment, business continuity, and stakeholder

cooperation [49]. In this sense, the facility becomes part

of the adaptive capacity of the port-city system rather

than an isolated architectural object located at the

water’s edge. Figure 8 presents conceptual designs for

facility types from T1 – T8 established in Table 2.

Communication and access routes are highlighted in

each illustration.

Figure 8. Conceptual model of multifunctional facility for

compact port-city development: T1. Multi-modal Passenger

Terminal; T2. Port Administration and Innovation Hub; T3.

Vertically Integrated Logistics Facility; T4. Maritime

Production and Research Complex; T5. Adaptive-Reuse

Waterfront Complex; T6. Port-City Mobility and Service

Hub; T7. Public Waterfront and Maritime Heritage Facility;

T8. Hybrid Climate and Energy Infrastructure. [by M. Gerigk,

2026; visualization generated with Microsoft Copilot]

661

7 CONCLUSIONS

The analysis demonstrates that compact and

sustainable port-city development depends on

coordinating spatial form, functional organization,

infrastructure, environmental processes, and

institutional responsibilities. Neither density nor

waterfront regeneration alone guarantees sustainable

outcomes [50]. The effects of compact urban form vary

according to local economic, morphological,

environmental, and social conditions, which indicates

the need for context-sensitive evaluation rather than

universal assumptions.

Multifunctional facilities can form a strategic

component of sustainable port-city transformation by

concentrating compatible activities and creating new

relationships between port operations and urban life.

Their principal contribution lies not in the number of

functions they contain, but in the quality of integration

achieved among maritime infrastructure, mobility,

services, public space, and environmental systems [22].

Their implementation therefore requires coordinated

governance, clearly defined institutional

responsibilities, functional compatibility, adaptability,

and measurable urban benefits.

REFERENCES

[1] T. Abramowicz-Gerigk and A. Hejmlich, “Human Factor

Modelling in the Risk Assessment of Port Manoeuvers,”

vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 427–433, 2015, doi:

10.12716/1001.09.03.16.

[2] T. Abramowicz-Gerigk and Z. Burciu, “Application of

Ship Motion Simulation in Reliability Assessment of Ship

Entrance into the Port,” TransNav, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 613–

617, 2017, doi: 10.12716/1001.10.04.10.

[3] M. Zarei, M. Arasteh, and S. Shahab, “Exploring Port–City

Relationships: A Bibliometric and Content Analysis,”

Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 16, no. 11, p. 4341, May

2024, doi: 10.3390/su16114341.

[4] T. Abramowicz-Gerigk, M. K. Gerigk, L. Hapke, and K.

Tetfejer, “Cloud-based system for monitoring loads

generated on the quay wall by ship propeller jets,”

Marine Structures, vol. 93, p. 103517, Jan. 2024, doi:

10.1016/J.MARSTRUC.2023.103517.

[5] T. Abramowicz-Gerigk and Z. Burciu, “Situational

Awareness in Autonomous Shipping – Ship Domain in

Remote MASS Operation,” TransNav, International

Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety od Sea

Transportation, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 889–893, Dec. 2024, doi:

10.12716/1001.18.04.15.

[6] D. Rykaczewski and M. Gerigk, “Application of Artificial

Neural Networks in Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle Control

and Surveillance System,” in Engineering Proceedings

2026, Vol. 133, Page 1, Multidisciplinary Digital

Publishing Institute, Apr. 2026, p. 1. doi:

10.3390/engproc2026133001.

[7] T. Abramowicz-Gerigk, “Sustainable Risk Management

of Damage to Seaport Infrastructure Caused by Vessel

Impacts,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 18, no. 8, p.

3653, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.3390/su18083653.

[8] T. Abramowicz-Gerigk, Z. Burciu, M. K. Gerigk, and J.

Jachowski, “Monitoring of Ship Operations in Seaport

Areas in the Sustainable Development of Ocean–Land

Connections,” Sustainability 2024, Vol. 16, Page 597, vol.

16, no. 2, p. 597, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.3390/SU16020597.

[9] M. Gerigk, “Multi-criteria design of multifunctional

buildings with particular emphasis on the criterion of

functional flexibility,” PhD Thesis, Gdansk University of

Technology, 2017.

[10] M. Gerigk, “Spatial Development of Modern Port

Structure and Sustainable Urban Growth within

Multifunctional Organization,” TransNav, the

International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of

Sea Transportation, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 441–446, 2025, doi:

10.12716/1001.19.02.13.

[11] C. J. L. Balsas, “Coastal Waterfront Transformations,

Fishing Structures, and Sustainable Tourism,”

Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 16, no. 15, p. 6313, Jul.

2024, doi: 10.3390/su16156313.

[12] B. Ettorre, G. Daldanise, E. Giovene di Girasole, and M.

Clemente, “Co-Planning Port–City 2030: The InterACT

Approach as a Booster for Port–City Sustainable

Development,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 15, no.

21, p. 15641, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su152115641.

[13] A. Jankowska, “Innovative Approaches to Transport

Challenges in Port Cities Based on Literature Review,”

TransNav, the International Journal on Marine

Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, vol. 19, no.

2, pp. 469–476, 2025, doi: 10.12716/1001.19.02.16.

[14] I. de la Peña Zarzuelo, M. J. Freire Soeane, and B. López

Bermúdez, “Industry 4.0 in the port and maritime

industry: A literature review,” Journal of Industrial

Information Integration, vol. 20, p. 100173, Dec. 2020, doi:

10.1016/j.jii.2020.100173.

[15] M. Gerigk, “Interference between Land and Sea Logistics

Systems. Multifunctional Building System Design

Towards Autonomous Integrated Transport

Infrastructure,” TransNav, the International Journal on

Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, vol.

16, no. 3, pp. 439–446, 2022, doi: 10.12716/1001.16.03.04.

[16] S. Dolana, “The Administrative-Territorial Boundaries

Available for a Multiscalar Analysis of EU Port Cities,”

UOU scientific journal, vol. 5, no. 05, Jun. 2023, doi:

10.14198/uou.2023.5.05.

[17] Q. Zhang, S. Zheng, H. Geerlings, and A. El Makhloufi,

“Port governance revisited: How to govern and for what

purpose?,” Transport Policy, vol. 77, pp. 46–57, 2019, doi:

10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.03.001.

[18] Y. Kong and J. Liu, “Sustainable port cities with coupling

coordination and environmental efficiency,” Ocean &

Coastal Management, vol. 205, p. 105534, May 2021, doi:

10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2021.105534.

[19] G. D’Amico, K. Szopik-Depczyńska, I. Dembińska, and

G. Ioppolo, “Smart and sustainable logistics of Port cities:

A framework for comprehending enabling factors,

domains and goals,” Sustainable Cities and Society, vol.

69, p. 102801, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.102801.

[20] M. Tomko and S. Winter, “Describing the functional

spatial structure of urban environments,” Computers,

Environment and Urban Systems, vol. 41, pp. 177–187,

Sep. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.05.002.

[21] D. Zhao, X. Dongmei, and D. Wei, “Research on Port-

Industry-City Integration and its Spatial Spillover Effects:

Empirical Evidence from the Bohai Sea Rim Region,”

Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, vol. 17, no. 4, pp.

1653–1679, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s12061-024-09599-2.

[22] E. Tijan, M. Jović, A. Panjako, and D. Žgaljić, “The role of

port authority in port governance and port community

system implementation,” Sustainability (Switzerland),

vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1–14, Mar. 2021, doi:

10.3390/su13052795.

[23] G. M. Ahlfeldt and E. Pietrostefani, “The economic

effects of density: A synthesis,” Journal of Urban

Economics, vol. 111, pp. 93–107, May 2019, doi:

10.1016/j.jue.2019.04.006.

[24] S. E. Bibri, J. Krogstie, and M. Kärrholm, “Compact city

planning and development: Emerging practices and

strategies for achieving the goals of sustainability,”

Developments in the Built Environment, vol. 4, p. 100021,

Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100021.

[25] F. Sulaiman, “Compact City: What Is the Extent of Our

Exploration for Its Meanings? A Systematic Review,”

Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 15, no. 13, p. 10302, Jul.

2023, doi: 10.3390/su151310302.

662

[26] C. McFarlane, “Density and the compact city,” Dialogues

in Human Geography, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 35–38, Mar. 2023,

doi: 10.1177/20438206221144821.

[27] S. Balikçi, M. Giezen, and R. Arundel, “The paradox of

planning the compact and green city: analyzing land-use

change in Amsterdam and Brussels,” Journal of

Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 65, no.

13, pp. 2387–2411, Oct. 2022, doi:

10.1080/09640568.2021.1971069.

[28] Z. Li, W. Luan, Z. Zhang, and M. Su, “Research on the

Interactive Relationship of Spatial Expansion between

Estuarine and Coastal Port Cities,” Land, vol. 12, no. 2, p.

371, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/land12020371.

[29] J. Debrie and N. Raimbault, “The port-city relationships

in two European inland ports: A geographical

perspective on urban governance,” Cities, vol. 50, pp.

180–187, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.004.

[30] B. Moretti, “Investigating Port Spatiality: Tools for a

Spatial Approach to Port Clusters,” Ocean and Society,

vol. 2, p. 9285, 2025, doi: 10.17645/oas.9285.

[31] J. Hwang, C. Kang, and Y. Kim, “Port City in Spatial

Transition: A Case Study on Culture-led Urban

Regeneration,” The Korea Spatial Planning Review

(국토연구), vol. 118, pp. 21–41, 2023, doi:

10.15793/KSPR.2023.118..002.

[32] E. Tommarchi, “Waterfront Redevelopment Five

Decades Later: An Updated Typology and Research

Agenda,” Ocean and Society, vol. 2, no. 0, p. 9265, Feb.

2025, doi: 10.17645/OAS.9265.

[33] F. Tanis and F. Erkok, “Learning From Waterfront

Regeneration Projects and Contemporary Design

Approaches of European Port Cities,” History Urbanism

Resilience: Change and Response Planning, vol. 17, no. 3,

pp. 150–162, Jun. 2016, doi: 10.7480/IPHS.2016.3.1259.

[34] J. S. L. Lam and W. Y. Yap, “A Stakeholder Perspective

of Port City Sustainable Development,” Sustainability

2019, Vol. 11, Page 447, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 447, Jan. 2019, doi:

10.3390/SU11020447.

[35] S. S. Saswat, A. Seetharaman, K. Maddulety, and P.

Bakhshi, “Adoption of Sustainability in Seaport

Infrastructure: A Systematic Literature Review,”

International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable

Development, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–12, Jan. 2023, doi:

10.4018/IJSESD.333861.

[36] T. Roberts, I. Williams, J. Preston, N. Clarke, M. Odum,

and S. O’Gorman, “Ports in a Storm: Port-City

Environmental Challenges and Solutions,” Sustainability

(Switzerland), vol. 15, no. 12, p. 9722, Jun. 2023, doi:

10.3390/su15129722.

[37] M. Ziemska-Osuch and S. Guze, “Analysis of the Impact

of Road Traffic Generated by Port Areas on the Urban

Transport Network—Case Study of the Port of Gdynia,”

Applied Sciences 2023, Vol. 13, Page 200, vol. 13, no. 1, p.

200, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.3390/APP13010200.

[38] E. Andersson et al., “Urban climate resilience through

hybrid infrastructure,” Current Opinion in

Environmental Sustainability, vol. 55, 2022, doi:

10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101158.

[39] L. Herslund, K. Carden, and P. Mguni, “Editorial:

Governing hybrid urban infrastructure—The co-

production of decentralized, nature-based and localized

solutions,” Mar. 27, 2023, Frontiers Media S.A. doi:

10.3389/frsc.2023.1185354.

[40] B. Hoyle, “Global and Local Change on the Port-City

Waterfront,” Geographical Review, vol. 90, no. 3, p. 395,

Jul. 2000, doi: 10.2307/3250860.

[41] C. Evans, M. S. Harris, A. Taufen, S. J. Livesley, and L.

Crommelin, “What does it mean for a transitioning urban

waterfront to ‘work’ from a sustainability perspective?,”

Journal of Urbanism, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 349–372, Jul. 2025,

doi: 10.1080/17549175.2022.2142648.

[42] A. Ghafouri and C. Weber, “Multifunctional Urban

Spaces a Solution to Increase the Quality of Urban Life in

Dense Cities*,” Manzar, vol. 12, no. 51, pp. 34–45, 2020,

doi: 10.22034/manzar.2020.214183.2023.

[43] C. Babb, R. Tiwari, and M. Tye, “Green, Blue and Smart:

Institutional Work in the Creation of a Multifunctional

Infrastructural Space,” Urban Policy and Research, vol.

42, no. 3, pp. 293–307, Jul. 2024, doi:

10.1080/08111146.2024.2323659.

[44] G. Iskhojanova, I. Zayats, and L. Sarttarova,

“Typological aspects of urban architecture design based

on the principle of hybridity,” Innovaciencia, vol. 10, no.

1, pp. 1–8, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.15649/2346075X.2976.

[45] A. Gurzhiy, S. Kalyazina, S. Maydanova, and R.

Marchenko, “Port and City Integration: Transportation

Aspect,” in Transportation Research Procedia, Elsevier,

Jan. 2021, pp. 890–899. doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2021.02.144.

[46] E. Generalova and V. Generalov, “Mixed-Use High-Rise

Buildings: A Typology of the Future,” in IOP Conference

Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2020. doi:

10.1088/1757-899X/753/2/022062.

[47] S. Samarani, “Exploring Port City Porosity and Flows

within Port Regions: The Case Study of Port of Malaga

and Port of Beirut,” Landscape Architecture and Regional

Planning, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 64–72, Sep. 2024, doi:

10.11648/j.larp.20240903.12.

[48] L. Li and J. Carter, “Exploring the relationship between

urban green infrastructure connectivity, size and

multifunctionality: a systematic review,” Landscape

Ecology, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 61-, Mar. 2025, doi:

10.1007/s10980-025-02069-1.

[49] E. Kalaidjian, A. Becker, and S. Pinel, “Operationalizing

resilience planning, theory, and practice: Insights from

U.S. seaports,” Frontiers in Sustainability, vol. 3, p.

963555, Sep. 2022, doi: 10.3389/frsus.2022.963555.

[50] L. Liu and Y. Tian, “Compact Urban Form and Human

Development: Retest Based on Heterogeneous Effects,”

International Journal of Environmental Research and

Public Health, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 2198, Feb. 2022, doi:

10.3390/ijerph19042198.