Urban Geography Notes: Topics 13–16

Similarities between Burgess (concentric ring) and Hoyt (sector) models:
- Both include a CBD.
- Both show some middle‑class housing located farther from the CBD than working‑class housing.
Differences:
- Hoyt model does not completely encircle the CBD as Burgess does.
- Burgess is a circular/zone model; Hoyt features sectors with factories and some housing in wedges rather than full rings.
1b: High‑cost modern housing tends to be on the outskirts as suburbs expand; outer areas usually have more land per dwelling. Traditional industry tends to be near rail lines because bulky materials/products were transported by rail; rail was a dominant, cost‑effective method in the era of many early settlements.
1c: Similarities for LEDCs and MEDCs:
- CBD exists in both.
- Elements of concentric and sector patterns appear in both.
  Differences:
- LEDCs often have poorer housing on the edge of the centre with squatter settlements, due to rural‑urban migration.
- In LEDCs high‑cost housing tends to be near the centre (often from colonial development); in MEDCs high‑cost housing has moved toward the edge more recently.

In Barcelona, high‑quality residential land use tends to be away from the centre (and in some sectors away from industry), consistent with the Hoyt model; low‑class housing tends to be closer to the centre, as in Burgess. Industry is located in sectors following roads and railways (sector model), with some low‑class housing near it.

a: Top photo shows older, dense terrace housing (≥ four storeys, no front gardens, street parking). Bottom photo shows modern high‑rise blocks (some four+ storeys) with blocks and intervening vegetation/open land.
b: Top photo is close to the centre due to old, high‑density housing. Bottom photo could be outer suburb, or inner redevelopment replacing slum housing with new development; the presence of substantial vegetation/open space favours outer suburban location.

Students should take photographs and label land use details. If possible, do this in the local urban area; teacher can provide a map with main land‑use zones to annotate with photos.

In groups of four, each member researches one urban problem and presents examples. c: Perceived importance varies by resident; for example, high crime worries most people, but the elderly may be more concerned. Inadequate housing concerns everyone, though owners may be less worried. Traffic congestion depends on car ownership/use. Air/water pollution concerns depend on proximity to industry/roads/river and whether priorities are economic or environmental.

a: Housing overcrowding: Jakarta, Seoul, Shanghai. Air quality poor: Cairo, Jakarta. Traffic congestion high: London, Cairo, Seoul.
b: Compared with Shanghai, Moscow is likely to have: less traffic congestion; fewer people without electricity; fewer people sharing a room; more air pollution; more noise pollution; more murders.
c: Debates on most important QoL indicators vary; LEDC cities (e.g., London, Melbourne, San Francisco) illustrate contrasts: Melbourne shows all QoL indicators favourably; London scores poorly on traffic congestion and noise; San Francisco has relatively high murders. Personal priorities drive justification.

a: Mumbai monorail opens with lines above roads.
b: Advantages for residents: less private‑vehicle use, no parking, and on‑board productivity/relaxation. Disadvantages: not all areas served, stations distant; crowded/uncomfortable trains at peak; timetable limitations.
c: Other congestion solutions include: underground railways, trams, park‑and‑ride schemes, congestion charging, number‑plate policies, bypasses/ring roads.

Redevelopment vs regeneration:
- Comprehensive redevelopment: gives a new planned start with new buildings/infrastructure but can destroy communities and reduce social cohesion; high‑rise designs can reduce community interaction and raise crime concerns.
- Urban regeneration (renewal): improves existing buildings and communities; can be harder/more expensive to renew slums/derelict areas; often preserves social fabric but may be patchy in impact.

a: North America
b: Brazil = 60 ext{–}80 ext{ ext{%}}
Egypt = 40 ext{ ext{–}}59 ext{ ext{%}}
India = 20 ext{ ext{–}}39 ext{ ext{%}}

South America: urban share in 1950 = 35 ext{ ext{%}}; projected to 75 ext{ ext{%}} by 2030. Urbanisation accelerated 1950–1995; rate slowdown expected afterward.
Asia: urban share from <10 ext{ ext{%}} in 1950 to 25 ext{ ext{%}} in 2030; rapid urban growth continues.
Africa: projected to be around 35 ext{ ext{%}} urban by 2030, faster growth than Asia.

a: Push factors from rural areas: drought, poverty, unemployment, lack of land/food, failed crops, no prospects, poor education, high infant mortality, malnutrition.
b: Pull factors in cities: housing, education, money, shops, medical care.

Informal sector: Many migrants to cities find better opportunities but many end up unemployed or working in informal sectors; services and education/health may be improved, yet affordability remains a barrier; some migrants escape poverty in the countryside only to face urban poverty and inadequate housing with limited access to basic amenities.

Advantages of LHS housing: availability of work (e.g., leather trade, garment, small industry), proximity to city centre for services, cheap homes.
Problems: cramped housing, poor sanitation, lack of health care.

Location: inner city area or edge of the CBD.
Homes: low rise, close together, zinc roofs; often self‑built from poor materials; unstable and prone to fire/flooding.
Quality of life: likely poor due to overcrowding, poor sanitation, lack of electricity and piped water; noisy; polluted atmosphere; low privacy; higher crime risk (mugging/robbery).

a: LHS = selling newspapers; RHS = cleaning/repairing shoes.
b: Informal‑sector characteristics: lack of formal jobs; flexible hours; workers may be too young for formal employment; informal work serves a market (services/products) with limited regulation.

Migrants to the Nile Delta/Nile Valley originate mainly from the north (Alexandria/Port Said) and south (El Minya, Sohag, Aswan). Distances typically: short from the north (<75 km) and longer from the south (up to 350 km in some cases; e.g., Qena ~10,000 people; Aswan ~5,000 people around 450 km).

Cairo housing issues include: illegal self‑built brick houses on farmland along the Nile (≈80% of informal housing); the Cities of the Dead (2–3 million people living among tombs); ~0.5 million people living in improvised huts on roof spaces of office blocks/flats in the city centre.