The ‘Titanic syndrome’ of coastal cities: when resilience becomes an urban myth

Valérie Lavaud-Letilleul, November 2025

Plateforme d’observation des projets et stratégies urbaines (POPSU)

To download : popsu_transversal_4_coastal_cities_analysis_and_synthesis_en-gb.pdf (250 KiB)

Coastal metropolisation : a three-act model**

Act 1 : The illusion of successful metropolisation

In the 1990s, derelict port areas became new urban centres, symbols of urban capitalism’s reclaiming of the waterfront. From Boston to Marseille, via Dunkirk, ‘waterfront’ projects transformed port-side neighbourhoods into luxury areas, attracting investors and the ‘creative classes’. The sea, once a place of work, became an amenity – an aesthetic and economic asset. This model, based on the ‘Sea, Sun and Sand’ triad, appeals through its apparent harmony: growth, attractiveness, modernity.

Act 2: The model’s fissures

But this transformation comes at a price. Gentrification is displacing the working classes, who are being replaced by affluent residents and tourists. Ports, once centres of working-class life, are becoming commercial zones where use value gives way to market value. The author highlights a dual trend: the attraction of elites and the exclusion of those on lower incomes. Coastal cities are becoming focal points for capital, where soaring property prices generate profits at the expense of liveability.

Act 3 : Resilience, or the art of perpetuating the system

When the sea poses a threat – rising sea levels, storms – cities adopt the rhetoric of resilience. But for Lavaud-Letilleul, this is an urban fable : an ‘insurance-style’ concept that protects investments rather than residents. In Miami, high-tech sea defences are funded by the over-densification of the waterfront, accelerating ‘climate gentrification’ (the rich move further inland, whilst the poor are pushed towards high-risk areas). In Lagos, the ‘Eko Atlantic’ megaproject, protected by a ‘great wall’, stands in stark contrast to the slums where residents adapt with meagre resources. In Venice, the ‘Mose’ project (€6 billion) is failing to save the city from the ‘Venexodus’¹, with residents being replaced by tourists.

→ Transition : resilience is therefore nothing more than a mirage, a tool in the service of an urban-maritime capitalism that perpetuates itself under the guise of adaptation.

The cursed triptych : Sea level rise, Selection, Saturation

To deconstruct the ‘ 3S ’ (Sea, Sun, Sand) model, the author proposes a counter-narrative : ‘ Sea level rise, Selection, Saturation ’.

• Sea level rise :

  Coastal cities, whilst aware of the risk, underestimate the urgency. Rampant urbanisation along the coastlines exacerbates vulnerabilities, whilst technical solutions (seawalls, pumping stations) are often ill-suited or simply shift the problem elsewhere. Example : in Miami, protective infrastructure is funded by property speculation, creating a vicious circle.

• Selection (Social selection) :

   

Metropolisation acts as a filter : it attracts the rich and pushes out the poor. Adaptation policies target strategic areas (city centres, tourist districts), neglecting disadvantaged outlying areas. The result : an ‘ urban Noah’s Ark ’, where only the wealthiest are ‘ saved ’. Inequalities in exposure to risks (flood-prone housing, flood-prone areas) are widening.

• Saturation (Overexploitation) :

  The ‘more and more’ model – more tourists, greater densification – ignores irreversible thresholds. Venice is the archetype of this: overtourism is driving residents out of the city (175,000 in 1951, 50,000 in 2020) and threatening its ecological balance. Beaches, harbours and lagoons are becoming areas of conflict, where market value takes precedence over use value.

→ Transition : Faced with this reality, one question springs to mind : how can we break this deadlock ?

Demetropolisation : towards radical liveability

The author does not merely criticise : she proposes a radical alternative : ‘ demetropolisation ’. This concept is based on four pillars :

1. Liveability over attractiveness.

   The aim is to ‘decommodify’ urban space, prioritising use value (housing, access to the sea) over market value. Example : massively expanding social housing to prevent climate policies from being perceived as a double burden on the working classes.

2. Hyper-regulation.

   In the face of this urgent crisis, legal frameworks must be strengthened: climate-focused urban planning law, challenging coastal property rights (via the public maritime domain), or even the division of property rights for submersible assets. The aim? To limit speculation and anticipate risks.

3. Democratic renewal. Urban democracy must be rethought ‘ with our feet in the water ’, by involving :

   - Residents (through citizens’ assemblies).

   - ‘Non-humans’ (rivers, the sea, ecosystems) – why not grant them ‘legal personality’, as is the case for certain rivers in New Zealand ?

   - Future generations, via dedicated bodies.

Conflict management

Rather than seeking an illusory consensus, the author advocates fostering dissent. Disputed sites (ports, beaches, industrial zones) must become spaces for negotiation, where conflicts enable the development of socio-ecological compromises.

Conclusion

The Titanic syndrome is not inevitable. But to avoid sinking, we must dare to change course : replacing the resilience of systems with the resilience of residents, and attractiveness with liveability. A challenge that is both urgent and beneficial.

To go further