Reading topic 13
13.2
In urban areas, people are not randomly distributed; they cluster in specific neighborhoods based on social traits.
Geographers analyze residential patterns of different groups.
Explanations for these patterns consider various social factors.
Models of Urban Structure
Concentric Zone Model (Ernest Burgess, 1925): Describes urban growth in concentric rings from a central area:
Central business district
Zone of transition
Zone of independent workers' homes
Zone of better residences
Commuter's zone
Sector Model (Homer Hoyt, 1939): Suggests cities develop in sectors or wedges:
Central business district
Transportation and industry
Low-class residential
Middle-class residential
High-class residential
Multiple Nuclei Model (Chauncy Harris and Edward Ullman, 1945): Cities have multiple centers (nodes) for various activities:
Central business district
Wholesale and light manufacturing district
Low, medium, and high-class residential districts
Heavy manufacturing district
Outlying business district
Residential and industrial suburbs
Galactic (Peripheral) Model (Chauncy Harris, 1960): Features an inner city with suburban nodes connected by a beltway:
Central city
Suburban residential area
Shopping malls
Industrial district
Office park
Service centers and airport complexes
Applying Urban Models in North America
Urban Structure Models: Explain where different social groups live.
Social Area Analysis: Examines living standards, ethnic backgrounds, and lifestyles using census data dividing areas into tracts and blocks.
Concentric Zone Model: Older homes are in inner rings; newer homes are in outer rings (e.g., older housing in inner San Antonio).
Sector Model: Higher-income households cluster in northern sectors, while lower-income households are in inner and southern sectors.
Multiple Nuclei Model: Shares ethnic/racial clusters (e.g., Hispanic populations in the city center, Black populations in the east).
Limitations: Models are criticized for simplicity and mid-20th century relevance; combining models offers better insights.
Applying Urban Models in Europe
CBDs: European CBDs differ from North America, with medieval structures and more residents.
Residences: Higher population density in European CBDs (e.g., Paris) vs. North American counterparts.
Consumer Services: European CBDs are known for cultural activities and nightlife, attracting residents.
Public Services: Features include important public buildings like churches and palaces.
Business Services: Professional services exist without skyscrapers to preserve historic views.
Concentric Zones: Older housing closer to city center; newer housing in outer rings with high-rise apartments in suburbs.
Sectors: Income clustering in European cities (e.g., higher-income in west Paris).
Multiple Nuclei: Significant immigration leads to ethnic and racial groups living in suburbs, contrasting with U.S. urban areas.
13.3
Premodern Cities in Developing Countries
Precolonial and Colonial City Patterns: Precolonial cities in developing countries were influenced by indigenous cultural values, while colonial cities were often restructured by European rulers.
Beijing's Evolution:
Yuan Dynasty: Kublai Khan founded Dadu in 1264, featuring a central Drum Tower, three palaces on Qionghua Island, and a checkerboard residential layout with markets and walls.
Ming Dynasty: After capturing Dadu in 1368, the Ming dynasty reconstructed it, creating the Forbidden City and the Temple of Heaven. The city was renamed Beijing in 1403.
Colonial Legacy:
Standardized City Plans: European colonial powers imposed standardized plans, such as the Laws of the Indies for Spanish cities in Latin America, featuring gridiron street plans centered on a church and central plaza.
Dual Cities: In some cases, colonial powers built new cities next to existing ones, like Fès in Morocco, which has a precolonial Islamic city with narrow streets and a bazaar, and a French colonial district with wider streets and public squares.
Demolition and Reconstruction: In other cases, colonial powers demolished precolonial cities to build new ones, as seen in Saigon, Vietnam, where most of the existing city was replaced by the French colonial city.
Applying the Urban Models in Developing Countries
Concentric Zone Model in Developing Countries:
Inner rings house wealthier individuals due to proximity to business and consumer services, and access to vital public services.
Example: Sub-Saharan African cities and Nagpur, India, where the highest-cost housing is in the center, and the cost declines outward.
Outer rings often consist of informal settlements (e.g., squatter settlements) with limited services and basic shelters.
Sector Model in Developing Countries:
High-income residents form an elite residential sector extending from the center along a commercial spine.
Example: Santiago, Chile, where the elite sector extends northeast from the CBD.
Services like water and electricity are more reliable in the elite sector, attracting wealthier residents.
Multiple Nuclei Model in Developing Countries:
Cities have multiple nodes instead of a single CBD, with various functions dispersed across several areas.
Example: Southeast Asian cities with nodes of informal settlements and "alien" zones for newcomers.
South Africa's apartheid era showed clear evidence of this model with distinct neighborhoods for different ethnic groups.
Applying the Urban Models to Mexico City
Stages of Development: Mexico City has evolved through three main stages: pre-European origin, European colonial period, and postcolonial independence.
Precolonial Mexico City:
Founded by the Aztecs as Tenochtitlán on an island in Lake Texcoco in 1325.
Featured the Great Temple as the religious center, connected to the mainland by causeways with drawbridges.
Population grew to between 200,000 and 400,000 inhabitants.
Colonial Mexico City:
Conquered by the Spanish in 1521, who destroyed Tenochtitlán and built a new city on its site.
The city was centered around the ZĂłcalo, with streets laid out in a grid pattern.
Modern Mexico City:
Population grew modestly in the 19th century, reaching around 500,000 by 1900.
Currently, the municipality has 9 million residents, and the urban area has 22 million.
Concentric Zones:
Rapid population growth led to expansion, with the outer ring containing the most modest and least expensive housing.
Informal settlements are common on the outskirts, particularly on hillsides, making access to jobs in the CBD difficult.
Sectors:
The most expensive housing is located in the southwest, along the Paseo de la Reforma.
This area features high-rise apartments and offices, influenced by physical factors like higher elevation and better sewage flow.
Socioeconomic Distribution:
High-income areas are primarily in the southwestern and western parts of the city.
Medium-income areas surround high-income areas, mostly in the southwestern, central, and western parts.
Low-income areas are predominantly in the eastern, northwestern, and southeastern parts of the city.
Physical Influences:
Higher elevation in the west led to better sewage flow and less dust from the dried-up Lake Texcoco bed.
Social patterns from the 19th century were reinforced as the population grew in the 20th century.
13.4
Urban Transportation
The average American travels 56 kilometers (35 miles) per day, with trips having specific purposes: 19% for work, 28% for social/recreational activities, 18% for shopping, 20% for personal errands, 11% for school/church, and 4% for other purposes.
John Borchert identified five transportation epochs in U.S. urban areas:
Sail-Wagon Epoch (1790-1830): Urban areas clustered along the Atlantic Coast, communication via wind-powered ships.
Iron Horse Epoch (1830-1870): Steam-powered railroads and canals connected inland cities with the East Coast.
Steel Rail Epoch (1870-1920): Long haul rail lines reduced travel time between cities.
Auto-Air-Amenity Epoch (1920-1970): Motor vehicles and gasoline-powered airplanes dominated transport.
Satellite-Electronic-Jet Propulsion (1970-present): Electronic communication and control of transport systems.
In the U.S., 83% of trips are by private vehicle, 10% by walking, 3% by public transport, and 4% by other means. Even in large metropolitan areas, 75% of trips are by private vehicle.
Motor vehicles offer benefits such as comfort, choice, flexibility, and perceived lower costs compared to public transport.
Motor vehicles incur significant environmental costs and use a substantial amount of urban land for roads and parking.
Strategies to control vehicle use and reduce traffic congestion include:
Congestion charges: Fees to drive in certain areas during peak times, as seen in London and Stockholm.
High-occupancy vehicle lanes (HOVs): Lanes restricted to vehicles with multiple occupants to encourage carpooling.
Tolls: Higher charges during congested times, recorded by transponders.
Permits: Restrictions on driving in central areas based on license plate numbers, common in cities like Jakarta.
Bans: Prohibitions on cars in parts of central areas in European cities like Amsterdam and Vienna.
Legacy of Public Transport
Benefits of Public Transport:
More space-efficient than motor vehicles, especially in urban areas.
Cheaper, less polluting, and more energy-efficient.
Effective for moving large numbers of people quickly into small areas.
A bus can accommodate 30 people in the space of one car; a double-track rapid transit line can transport as many people as 16 lanes of urban freeway.
Drawbacks of Public Transport:
Limited trips by public transport despite its importance in large cities.
Public transport systems can be strained during rush hours due to high commuter volumes.
Public Transit Around the World:
Classified into heavy rail (subways, metros, elevated trains), light rail (trams, streetcars), and buses.
Heavy-rail systems operate in 205 cities globally as of 2022.
Example: Munich, Germany, has extensive rail services compared to Indianapolis, USA, which has none.
Public Transport in the United States:
Historically constrained by poor transportation, leading to crowded cities.
Development of subways and elevated trains in the largest cities to relieve congestion.
Suburban expansion in the 20th century relied on motor vehicles, allowing greater flexibility in residence choice.
Recent Trends in Public Transport:
Primarily used for commuting into and out of CBDs.
Only 5% of commuting trips in the U.S. are by public transport.
Light-rail systems have seen a resurgence, with 37 systems in the U.S., 18 of which opened since 2000.
Cities like Dallas and Los Angeles have developed large light-rail systems.
Challenges Facing Public Transit:
Fares do not cover operating costs, leading to a cycle of fare increases and service reductions.
Public transport is not fully recognized as a vital utility deserving of subsidies.
Limited service in most U.S. cities restricts access to employment for some people.
Public transport ridership peaked in the 1940s, declined to a low in 1970, and saw a modest increase before the COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant drop.
Challenges & Hopes for Cities
Inner-city challenges: Residents face difficulties in finding jobs, ensuring safety, and accessing services.
Job skills: Many inner-city residents lack the technical training required for modern jobs, and businesses that hire low-skilled workers are often located in suburbs, which are hard to reach without a car.
Homelessness: Approximately 570,000 Americans are homeless, primarily due to insufficient income to afford housing. One-fourth of the homeless population are children.
Family challenges: High rates of single-parent households and unwed mothers in inner cities lead to difficult choices between work and childcare, often exacerbated by the loss of government assistance if a partner moves in.
Health and safety: Inner cities have higher rates of serious crimes, often linked to joblessness and drug addiction. Gangs and drug distribution contribute to violence.
Services: Inner-city neighborhoods often lack adequate police, fire protection, healthcare facilities, and access to food. There is a growing gap between the cost of needed services and available funding.
Congestion: Traffic congestion costs Americans significant time and money, supported by policies that favor car use, such as subsidized fuel prices and government-funded highways.
Gentrification: The process of converting low-income, renter-occupied areas to middle-income, owner-occupied areas. It attracts higher-income residents but can displace lower-income residents due to rising rents.
Reviving residential areas: Gentrification is attractive due to larger, architecturally appealing houses, proximity to downtown jobs, and cultural amenities. Cities encourage this through low-cost loans and tax breaks.
Reviving consumer services: Some consumer services are returning to inner cities to meet the needs of gentrified neighborhoods and attract leisure activities. Examples include Boston’s Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Baltimore’s Harbor Place, Chicago’s Navy Pier, New York’s South Street Seaport, Philadelphia’s Reading Terminal Market, and San Francisco’s Ferry Building.
Challenges for Suburbs
Residential segregation in suburbs is significant, with housing often built for specific income levels, excluding others due to cost, size, or location.
Racial and ethnic segregation persists, with some suburbs discouraging lower-income individuals and people of color to maintain property values.
Zoning ordinances legally protect homogeneity in suburban communities by limiting land use and development density, often favoring single-family homes and prohibiting apartments.
Commercial segregation separates residential areas from commercial and manufacturing activities, which are confined to distinct areas.
Geographic segmentation helps retailers target customers by analyzing social and economic characteristics and purchasing behaviors, exemplified by the PRIZM clusters.
Consumer services have expanded in suburbs due to the concentration of customers, leading to the development of large shopping malls and the decline of CBD shops.
Business services are moving to suburbs for lower rents and better accessibility, though this can pose challenges for lower-paid workers who may lack reliable transportation or miss the central location's vibrancy.
Suburban Sprawl & Smart Growth
Suburban Sprawl: Sprawl refers to the development of suburbs at low density and in locations not connected to the existing built-up area. It is driven by the desire for cheap land and large tracts of land for housing.
Costs of Sprawl:
Increased expenditure for local authorities to extend roads and utilities.
Loss of agricultural land.
Higher energy consumption due to longer travel distances.
Density Gradient: The density of housing decreases as you move outward from the city center. Inner-city areas have high-density housing, while newer suburbs and fringe areas have lower density.
Inner-city: Up to 250 dwellings per hectare (100 dwellings per acre).
Older suburbs: About 10 houses per hectare (4 houses per acre).
New suburbs: Detached houses on 0.25 to 0.5 hectares (0.6 to 1.2 acres).
Fringe areas: Lots of 1 hectare or greater (2.5 acres).
Changes in Density Gradient:
Fewer people living in city centers, creating a gap in the density gradient.
Increased density on the periphery due to new housing projects.
U.S. vs. U.K. Suburbs:
U.S.: Development is scattered and discontinuous, with newer developments farther from the city.
U.K.: Development is more concentrated and controlled, with greenbelts limiting sprawl and driving up house prices.
Smart Growth: An approach to urban expansion that protects rural land and promotes sustainable development. Key principles include mixed-use development, a range of housing types, walkable neighborhoods, and compact design.
Urban Growth Boundaries: Defined boundaries within which new development must occur to curb sprawl. Examples include Portland, Oregon, and Miami-Dade County, Florida.