Hoyt’s Sector Model, 1939
Hoyt’s Sector Model fits to some extent with Vancouver city. Although Vancouver’s transport routes are no longer important in deciding land usage since many residents own cars, the high-class residential and manufacturing industry still repel each other. Hoyt was correct in predicting that in areas such as Shaughnessy and Southlands, wealthy people choose the best sites and they are able to afford living further from industry and manufacturing. However, Hoyt’s model cannot be applied to Vancouver completely because opulent areas such as Southlands tend to stay away from main lines of communication since they have sufficient transportation to get them around the city. In some ways, Vancouver does resemble a “wedge” shape expansion because the wealthy have expanded west of the CBD, the middle class southeast, and the lower class east, but historically these shapes have no always been the case. Areas such as Yaletown and Gastown used to resemble today’s Downtown Eastside in the 60’s and 70’s, however, after successful city planning and urbanization proposals, the city was able to develop a deteriorating district into today’s wealthy waterfront area. Hoyt’s Model does not support change in land usage, nor does it encourage redevelopment of inner-city areas. Although Vancouver’s residential pattern does resemble the shape of a wedge, Vancouverites have not always lived in this pattern and wealthy residents are now concerned with their surrounding environment much more than the service of a main ribbon of communication. Hoyt’s Sector Model is slightly outdated and does not reflect all the important aspects of urban Vancouver.
Harris and Ullman’s Multiple Nuclei Model, 1945
Harris and Ullman’s Multiple Nuclei Model fits well with Vancouver’s geographical and historical context because Vancouver developed from multiple residential and economic centers as oppose to a single business district. The purpose of Harris and Ullman’s nuclei model is to produce a more realistic model from the old-fashioned models of Burgess and Hoyt, and was based on cities in more economically developed countries. As Harris and Ullman suggests modern cities do not grow from one CBD but several independent nuclei. Traditionally, downtown Vancouver, Point Grey, and South Vancouver were all single business districts. Overtime, Point Grey and South Vancouver amalgamated with Vancouver and gave Vancouver its final boundaries. Although there is only one place in Vancouver today where skyscrapers stand, areas like Kerrisdale represents pre-existing centers which have been engulfed by the city and are now acting as hubs for commercial and residential activity. In addition, as the model predicted, Vancouver funded many areas adjacent to skytrain stations such as Joyce station Collingwood and the new Olympic village at False Creek waterfront to become new centers for commercial and residential purposes. Each nucleus is a growth point with functions different from other nuclei, such as Burnaby Metrotown for commercial and entertainment services and downtown Vancouver for financial and economic services. Vancouver has developed multiple nuclei for maximum accessibility and distinct commercial, industrial, and residential purposes; therefore, it is a prime example of Harris and Ullman’s Multiple Nuclei Model
Murdie’s Ecological Model of Urban Form
Murdie’s Ecological Model of Urban Form fits well with Vancouver’s urban structure. Similar to Murdie’s model, Vancouver has adopted many social groupings based on income, family status, and ethnicity. As stated by Murdie, high income residents live in sectors opposite to low income residents because of environmental issues and health concerns. Areas such as West Point Grey are directly opposite to areas like the Downtown Eastside and Strathcona. As we expand concentrically from the CBD towards UBC, Burnaby, and the Fraser River, we can see a trend of increasing family sizes in both upper and lower class families. The West End, for example, has an average household size of 1.5 with 5.6% of the population under 19 years of age; however, as we move further from downtown, areas such as Dunbar, Sunset, and Killarney with an average of 3.2 persons per household and 25% youth experience dramatic statistical differences from those of Vancouver’s inner-city districts. Although ethnic communities are no longer as strong as they were decades ago, we can still see areas of high ethnic density. These communities, as Murdie suggests, can occur almost anywhere with the exception that they must be in clusters. Urban ethnic communities in Vancouver such as Punjabi Market and the strong Chinese community in Victoria-Fraser and Oakridge are evidence of clustered ethnic groupings living in one urban district. Murdie’s Ecological Model is an excellent representation of Vancouver’s urban structure and takes into account many of Vancouver’s complex metropolitan function.
As we compare and contrast Vancouver with famous geographical models, we see a strong correlation between the models which do and do not fit Vancouver’s urban structure. Although older models such as Burgess’ and Hoyt’s models may have been accurate during their time, they are outdated and are hard to relate to because our values have changed over the past 50 years and cities are no longer what they were before. The models that fit Vancouver well are not necessarily abstract or innovative; they simply utilized the fundamentals behind older models such as economic status sectors and ethnic clusters and molded them to fit our 21st century urban city structure.
Work Cited
Waugh, David. Geography, an Integrated Approach (Geography S.). Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes, 2002.
In-class handout on “Land use models”
