BURGESS Model

Urban Land Use Model

Chicago in 1920s

Concentric model

• It was put forward by

Ernest W. Burgess

and his associates in 1920s.

(sociologist) • It was based on

empirical research

American cities, like Chicago.

in a number of • Main ideas of the model: Ecological approach to explain land use pattern Residential segregation + Social segregation Spatial pattern of various land use zones

ECOLOGICAL Concepts of the model

• Burgess adopted the concepts used by plant ecologists (ideas of

competition, dominance, invasion and succession

) • within the city, people competes for limited space (COMPETITION) • those who are best able to pay (DOMINANCE) achieve the most desirable locations (INVASION and SUCCESSION). • those individuals and functions with the lowest level of economic competence have the least choice, occupying the poorest locations.

How did Burgess explain land uses in Chicago?

• The CBD, the most accessible location attracted all sorts of commercial activities • Shortage of land induced keen competition • The location was dominated by those activities with high rental capacity

How did Burgess explain land uses in Chicago?

• This is caused by growth of city economy & arrival of new migrants to the city. • As the city grew, the CBD would exert pressure on the zone immediately surrounding it i.e. the zone of transition • Outward expansion of the CBD would invade nearby residential areas causing them to expand outwards.

How did Burgess explain land uses in Chicago?

 The process was thought to continue with each successive neighbourhood moving further from the CBD.  New immigrants would move into the cheapest residential areas of the city. When they became economically established, they would migrate outwards.

 Thus lower residential class moved to adjacent neighbourhoods and more affluent residents moved further outwards.

Bid-rent mechanism APPLIES

• land value decreases with increasing distance.

• the highest land value is at the city centre because of keenest competition.

functional zoning

and

residential segregation

• = within different areas of the city, different single functions formed the dominant element.

Concentric Model C.B.D.

Transition Zone Low class residential Middle class residential Commuter’s zone

CBD

• at the

heart

of the city • forms the

commercial, social and cultural hub

.

• the

most accessible

, at the focus of urban transport network

Chicago’s inner city “slums” 1920s Chicago’s Gold Coast 1930s

• • • • • •

Zone in transition

Surrounds the CBD an area of ‘

blight

’, also called the

twilight zone

. An area of

mixed land uses

manufacturing, residential – wholesale, light Provides

cheap housing

wave for each new immigrant the zone often characterized by slums, immigrant ghettoes, unstable and

low social groups

and crime.

poorest residential areas.

Zone of workingmen’s homes

• • • • surrounds the transition zone has some of the older, often

terraced housing

areas of the city occupied by workers who have left the transition zone but who still conditions.

require ready access

to their places of work in the inner zone. They left transition zone because they want better living 2nd generation immigrants form an important element of the pop. in this zone.

Zone of better residence (middle-class housing)

• • usually

single-family dwellings

detached houses in semi-detached or also some

light industry

industrial estates.

in this zone, often in

Commuter Zone

• • • lies beyond the continuous built-up area of the town, at the

fringe of the urban area

.

consists of pastures.

discontinuous urban settlement

interspersed with recreational facilities, woodland, is the zone of

high class residential

properties where people can afford the

high costs of commuting

.

Discussion

• Can you apply the ecological concepts suggested by Burgess to explain the land use changes in Hong Kong?

Socio-economic characteristics

wealth Socio-economic characteristics Social status Ethnics Family structure Income Education level occupation People of different races Majorities vs minorities Family size Family composition Age Sex

Socio-economic status

Near city centre Towards the periphery

People of

lower socio economic status

sites, e.g. usually have lower income due to lower skills and poorer education so they occupy some less favourable

the slums

in the inner city or

squatter areas

at the edge of the inner city People of

higher socio-economic status

of life.

usually have higher income (more affluent) due to more professional occupation and their higher educational background. as they look for better living environment and higher quality Conclusion: Positive correlation between

socio-economic status

households with

distance from the CBD

. of

Ethnic groups in a city

• Ethnic groups are new immigrants from other foreign countries, e.g. the Chinese, the Italians, the Japanese in some US cities • Ethnic groups tend to

cluster toegther

as: • They can cooperate, unite together or defend themselves when encounter any problems in the neighbourhood • They can feel less isolated from the city in order to integrate themselves into the community • They usually have lower social status / bargaining power to compete for a favourable site  occupy the inner city areas • Examples: China town (Leicester Square) in London, Little Sicily in Chicago

Family size

Family structure

Near city centre

Small families occupy less space as they can afford the small flats near city centre

Far away from city centre (Peripheral areas)

Big families as they need more space for children so they look for larger space of lower land rent Family average age Family structure Old people usually have lower mobility Young professional (yuppies) lives close to city centre to look for entertainment, e.g. rise of Soho District Young family have higher mobility

Early stage of urbanization

• People tended to reside near the CBD to minimize the distance travelled so as the transport cost

suburbanization

• As real incomes have risen and better transportation has increased mobility, this allows the separation of home and workplaces. • Wealthy people moved out of the inner city which was later Invaded by poorer ethnic minorities due to rising immigrants to the city. • To offset high land value in these near city locations, they use only small amount of land by living in high density apartments which make maximum use of expensive land. • Occupied by wealthier people who could afford the higher transport cost when moving out of the city centre. • Wealthy people can occupy larger amount of cheaper residential land on the periphery where they live in detached dwellings and pay the high commuting costs to city centre.

Results of suburbanization

•

social segregation

classes which segregate themselves from other groups. = creating particular groups or • poor people living close to the city centre on high value land, while more wealthy people live on the periphery where land is generally cheaper.

• As reflected by the

quality of housing

• different in

life styles

and

social status

+

quality of life

,

income

Weaknesses of burgess model

• Concentric zones are not

homogenous heterogeneous

but • therefore, they are distorted by major transport axes and topography features.

not distinctive

and inevitably

Criticisms

•

Limited universality

(Carter, 1976) : it is limited “to a particular situation, at a particular time in a particular country” • The setting of the model was based on a particular

historical

&

cultural context

. • It is most relevant to American cities in the 1920s but is less relevant to other times and other cities especially in ELDCs.

Criticisms

• The

decline of the CBD

and the

emergence of suburban business centres

• Increasing level of

public intervention

•

Transport innovation

• it has allowed many centres of

employment

grow outside the CBD due to increased mobility to • large plots of land are only available in the urban fringe, thus lower class residential areas are found in the outer zone due to inefficient transport. • It enables low class residents to move away from their place of work.

Criticisms

• Use for understanding

residential commercial

pattern better than and

industrial

land uses

Contributions

• It was the first attempt to analyse the

morphology

of town

internal

• Burgess model has invaluable contribution for

residential land use

of a city. It suggests a process of urban growth that might give rise to these.

• It provides a

good conceptual framework

for more detailed study of the complex urban land use.