With the aid of examples, explain why the classical models of Urban Structure are inappropriate today.

In order to consider how far the classical models of urban structure are appropriate, or inappropriate, today, the terms ‘urban model’ and ‘classical models’ should be defined. Firstly a ‘model’ is any theoretical framework that can be applied to various situations; therefore an ‘urban model’ is a framework that can be applied to an urban area and attempts to define its structure. Secondly, there are three main ‘classical models’: Burgess’ Concentric Ring model (1925); Hoyt’s Sector model (1939) and Harris and Ullman's Multiple Nuclei model (1945). These models take on different forms and define the structure of cities in different ways. However, Hoyt, when considering his model, used the basic principle of Burgess’ model and merely adapted it having studied various American towns and cities. This essay is primarily concerned with determining the validity of these models at present. Considering this, the three models should be briefly explained.

The Concentric Ring model (fig 1) designed by Burgess in 1925 was based on Chicago and assumes that the city is on an isotropic or homogenous (flat and featureless) landscape. It relies on transport being equal in all directions, cultural and sexual homogeneity, a single most accessible point that is the main source of employment (the CBD) and the city has no historical use. Figure 2, Hoyt’s Sector Model, recognises that transport is unlikely to be equal in all directions and that heavy industry will occur mainly along the more favourable communication points; Middle class housing will be surrounded by Lower Middle class housing and Zones of Working Men’s housing will be found nearest industrial areas. Hoyt also recognises the CBD as the main employer within the town. The Harris - Ullman Multiple Nuclei model has no obvious connection to Burgess and Hoyt. The model shows that there is no single centre, but many regional centres. The model does, however, show that the CBD will be the single most accessible point in the city, that there is likely to be industrial and retail suburbs and that like functions will group together. There have, of course, been models made more recently and therefore are more appropriate than the older models only because they are more current. Mann (1965), Rees (1970), Lawton (1973) and Hopkinson (1985) all proposed models but are not deemed as classical.

It seems sensible to consider the three models chronologically and therefore begin by looking at the Concentric Ring Model. This model has many of flaws; in particular the assumption of cultural and sexual heterogeneity and a series of concentric rings. It is unlikely than any city will have total cultural and sexual heterogeneity or precise concentric rings. For example Burgess’ model could not be applied to the Metropolis of Atlanta, GA, in the United States. The diagram below shows the 167 subdivisions of the Metropolis and clearly shows that there is a definite area of predominantly ‘Black’ populated areas; in fact most of the southern part of Atlanta is populated by ‘Black’ people. Adding to this the south of the city is far less wealthy than the affluent north. In this respect the idea of concentric rings is not applicable, neither is the idea of succession. This is due to the fact that on such low annual wages, people are unable to better themselves and the zones of Lower Middle and Upper Middle Class housing does not occur in concentric bands.

Similarly, in Sheffield the ward of Burngreave has the highest proportion of immigrants from New Commonwealth countries (19%) but could not be considered the ‘worst off’; this ‘privilege’ falls to Park, a ward found immediately south of the CBD. Park has 21% working class people - the largest in Sheffield. There are definite zones of land use within Sheffield, though, but they do not occur concentrically. The main industrial area - the Lower Don Valley - stretches to the North East of the city along the River Don and two railways and areas of Lower Middle class housing surround the Upper Middle class ward of Ecclesall. Indeed Hoyt’s sector model would be more appropriate in this situation.

However often within a town or city the type of housing or land use is based on morphological periods. This means that upper middle class housing, for example, might be found in one zone near the centre of a city and the poorer classes on the outskirts, only because this is where the type of period housing these classes occupy was previously developed. For example in Sheffield, there are four main types of morphological periods that have determined the type of class structure. Near the CBD, and Park, it is mainly Victorian terraces and working class housing, whereas towards the South West we would find Victorian detached housing populated mainly by the Upper Middle classes. Also, as a city develops and endures different morphological periods it is likely that certain areas will undergo redevelopment or the merging of various periods. It is possible to identify such periods by road patterns (terracing, crescents, cul-de-sacs, etc.) or by features found on the fringe of zones like sewage and gas works or Mental Institutes. Phases of growth and fringe development may also be seen in the developing world, but here the morphological form of cities is complicated by colonial and post-colonial influences which have introduced elements of ‘western’ cultural form to many cities. Sometimes indigenous and external influences may be spatially separated giving a distinctive dual structure to the city, as in the case of Bombay in India or Kano in Nigeria. But more usually influences are mixed, though there may be distinct native and European quarters.

Perhaps the most important factor to consider when assessing how far the classic land use models are appropriate today, is their validity when looking at developing countries. All three of the models were based on developed countries and as a result are unlikely to be of much significance to cities in Latin America or South East Asia. To compensate for this, generalised models have been suggested for both areas. These do contain ring and sector elements similar to Burgess and Hoyt and to some extent are shaped by the same processes such as rates of historical growth, social progresses of invasion, succession and segregation as well as economic forces (multi-national companies), but city form is more varied. This is due to some of the additional factors such as dual indigenous and outside influences and over-rapid urbanisation leading to the growth of shanty towns.

Recognising that the classical models fail developing countries, it should be noted that cities in the developed world, especially in the United Kingdom, are now restricted in growth by features such as Green Belts or have become metropolises/megalopolises. Such features would not have existed, or if they did were uncommon, and so were not taken into account when these models were made. As a result of Green Belts, new towns have begun to be constructed. These are planned settlements aimed at housing overspill populations and providing jobs and services that were sufficient for the overspill population. New towns became more common during the inter-war period, when improvements in transport and rising affluence in ‘ordinary people’ led to the rapid spread of suburbs around major cities. This has continued in the post-war years and is not only evident in New towns but also in dormitory villages in the nearby countryside. New towns like Stevenage failed in the early 1950’s as a result of poor job opportunities. To resolve this towns such as Milton Keynes were set up far enough away from the conurbation of London to be independent of them, but large enough to act as a ‘counter-magnet’ to them. Milton Keynes is built in a gridiron pattern with the CBD in a central position, industrial areas on the outskirts of the town and several open areas. Within the diverse assortment of residential areas there are several sub-centres to act as local centres within the city but the major employment centre is the CBD. The arrangement of housing and the rapid growth of the town in the 1960’s means that housing will mostly be the same and prices, initially, quite cheap. Therefore it is unlikely that we will see a concentric nor sector pattern, however, characteristics of the two will occur as well as the multi-nuclei model, which the town mostly resembles. However, the Harris - Ullman model was produced at around the same time as New Towns began to appear and as a result it could be expected that the model will fit such towns with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Finally, the classical models do not put a large emphasis on transport, other than when considering the location of industry. Modern towns in the developed and developing world heavily rely on transport within the Urban environment. American cities are built predominantly for the automobile user (e.g. Los Angeles) and all people has easy access to the large freeways. In the 1920’s and 30’s when Burgess and Hoyt drew up their models, transport on such a huge scale would not have been so important and the cities relatively new. Since this time, such cities have continued to expand to create conurbations and metropolises. As a result of this expansion, the space in which cities have to grow and the ability to travel, many American cities have abandoned their centres causing a dead heart. This means that the CBD might not be in the centre of the city and may not be the single most accessible point as a result of transport links. In this respect all three classical models are inappropriate.

In conclusion, it has been proved that the classical models are, individually, inappropriate today. This is because: there is little or no heterogeneity in towns and cities (Atlanta); they were based on developed countries only and cannot be applied to developing cities (Latin America); the effect of morphological periods on housing areas and class structure; New Towns resulting from Green Belts and overspill populations; and finally the lack of emphasis on transport which is vital in American Cities (Los Angeles). However, these models are not completely inappropriate as it is likely that certain features of each will appear in all cities. For example, elements of concentric rings and succession, sectors of industry along good communication links, and localised sub-centres are common in all modern town and cities.