While the majority of the coastline today is developed for tourism, certain sites remain dedicated to industry, commerce, or boat maintenance. What criteria support the decision to choose one program over another when redeveloping and rehabilitating these spaces ?
It goes without saying that every territory is unique, and proposed spatial programming is the result of a delicate balance between market demand and local development policies. On the Atlantic coast, for instance, the Médoc Atlantique intercommunal authority brought in our consulting firm, Segat, to advise on the future of the Pointe de Grave, located in the municipality of Le Verdon-sur-Mer at the mouth of the Gironde Estuary. Spanning several hectares, this site encompasses a variety of commercial, economic, tourist, and leisure functions. Our programming analysis, informed by real estate market assessments, is leveraged to feed into the upcoming master plan.
The decision to prioritize one program over another hinges on numerous factors. Typically, two scenarios arise. In the first, the framework is already established: local elected officials and stakeholders have a clear vision of the program’s broad strokes. Our role is then to bring it to fruition—challenging it, substantiating it with data, and making it operationally viable. Conversely, stakeholders sometimes take a more open-ended approach. In those cases, detailed site walk-throughs, multi-sector studies (retail, healthcare, sports, education, etc.), discussions with stakeholders, and prospect sourcing enable us to pinpoint needs and build programmatic guidelines.
In both scenarios, close attention is paid to what is ‘already there’—what works and what falls short—in order to assess the viability of the site’s existing functions. The goal is to prefigure its development potential by factoring in the territory’s identity, the momentum of traditional sectors, the promise of emerging industries, and the competitive landscape.
The ambition remains to preserve as much of the genius loci—the spirit of the place—and its overall coherence as possible. Nevertheless, the solution is often found through ‘programmatic mixes’ that ensure the economic viability of the project. Ultimately, these trade-offs are influenced by other factors that dictate operational implementation: land assembly, ownership and management models, delivery structures, chosen legal vehicles, and more.
For several years, we have been working closely on these matters with local authorities, urban developers, port concessionnaires, industrial firms, the Conservatoire du littoral, and the GIP Littoral. Driven by coastal erosion and the transfer of the GEMAPI responsibility (Aquatic Environment Management and Flood Prevention) to municipalities and intercommunal bodies with tax-raising powers, I observe a growing complexity that requires a clear-sighted approach—where our interdisciplinary expertise (urban programming, real estate valuation, land engineering, etc.) proves to be a vital asset.
What usage-related challenges do you encounter when dealing with a substantial port and seaside heritage ?
A port and/or seaside heritage is made up of spaces and environments that usually combine various functions: economic (including port activities), boating, tourism, leisure, residential (primary and secondary homes), facilities, etc. The issues encountered are often linked to conflicts between different uses and users. It is therefore frequently necessary to clarify and/or reaffirm the conditions required for successful coexistence. Beyond their sheer variety, the seasonality of these uses can also pose a problem, leading to increased tension during the summer period.
Challenges may also relate to land ownership and control in these areas, which often involve numerous public and private owners with differing ambitions for the future of this heritage and varying levels of commitment to their development strategies. The goal is to reconcile their approaches by co-designing a shared project to ease tensions between existing uses or to enable new ones. From a highly operational standpoint, certain bottlenecks can be resolved through land title regularization or the establishment of easements.
What are the expectations expressed by institutional project owners regarding the repositioning of their port heritage?
Institutional stakeholders have multiple and sometimes hard-to-reconcile expectations. Fundamentally, their goal is to reclaim these heritage assets and enhance this legacy.
Aware of sustainability challenges and the vulnerability of coastal territories, project owners seek more resilient and reasoned developments, while paying close attention to financial feasibility, economic balance, and operational models that secure the management and long-term viability of these projects.