1: CBD
2:Wholesale and light manufacturing
3: Low-class residential
4: Middle-class residential
5: High-class residential
Amanda Teefey Lee
Most MEDW cities follow the general pattern of these two models. Therefore it is clear that they have a general order to their structure, with a pattern of land uses, as well as an identifiable structure. Areas within a city can be categorized into different sections, which shows that the structure of the city is significant, and ordered. However, it is important to remember that the models were based on American cities, and so it is difficult to generalize them to all MEDW cities. Secondly, in relation to the statement referring to ‘modern’ cities, the models were created over 60 years ago, and so the models may not be an effective way of illustrating the order of many cities.
Robson developed an urban land use model which refers specifically to one particular area – Sunderland. It was created in 1975 and combines data on ratable value of houses and their degree of division, explaining the residential patterns found in this area. The model is illustrated below:
1: CBD
2: low-class (subdivided) houses
3: low-class
4: medium class
5: high-class
6: rooming houses
7: industry
8: River Wear
This model in a way is more reliable as it specifically shows the order of a certain city, but it therefore means that it can only really be applied to Sunderland. It illustrates the way in which a city can grow due to specifying in a certain industry; shipbuilding relates to the growth of the area along the river. There are some aspects of Burgess’s rings, moving from low class to medium and high class housing north of the river, as well as different sectors apparent. South of the river, low-class housing follows the coast, and high class housing is adjacent to it. This structure is common to many cities in the UK and other countries, but it must be stated that it was specifically constructed for Sunderland. Therefore, although it only illustrates one modern city, it shows that not all modern cities have no order.
Other models include Harris and Ullman’s nuclei model created in 1945, the Hopkinson’s model created in 1985, the Lawton model in 1973 and Mann’s model of a hypothetical British city. Therefore it is clear that many modern cities do have order, as these models were based on a range of cities. For that reason, it is clear the statement is wrong. This, however, does not mean that all modern cities do have order, but it does show that most cities in the MEDW have a degree of order.
It is very difficult to construct an urban land use model for cities in the LEDW, due to the inconvenience of collecting data as well as the fact that there are large variations between cities that it would be hard to create an applicable model. The rough models created for cities in the developing world are related to particular world regions, such as West Africa and South East Asia, and are put together based on the models put forward by Burgess and Hoyt for MEDW cities.
The inner zone is likely to have areas of high quality accommodation, which would be occupied by the wealthy citizens of the city. Much of it is legacy from colonial times when wealthy landowners, traders and administrators inhabited this zone. Moving outwards from the inner zone there is a decrease in the quality of housing, unlike in the developed world where there is an increase. This is due to the creation of shacks by those entering the city. A good example of
Amanda Teefey Lee
where this is apparent is in Brazil, where there is obvious inward migration to the cities such as Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. Those moving in cannot afford proper accommodation, and so they join many others by building temporary housing from local materials. These are what is known as Shanty towns, and are illegal as it is usually built on unsuitable sites with the dwellers paying no rates or taxes, leading to less money for improvement projects. An example is the Rochina favelas on the hillsides of Rio de Janeiro, but this is an example of a shanty town which has become established, with improvements being made to not only the housing (like building an upstairs), but also to facilities, as buses, schooling, shops and health provisions are now put in place. Therefore it is clear that Rio de Janeiro, although not comparable to LEDW cities, does have some order.
It appears that some cities in the LEDW do have some order in terms of their structure, as it is possible to construct models and adapt them to different developing cities. However, the amount of order which is apparent is unclear and most likely very little. Many LEDW cities like Mexico City grew very rapidly with no planning or aim to create a well established city. The main focus is on the centre of business and wealth, with little or no consideration for the outskirts and more rural areas. This is the Case in Lima, Peru. In many cities there are vast amounts of shanty towns which have grown on very unsuitable land, such as on a hillside, unstable ground such as near a plate boundary, on an area of land frequently flooded etc, which continue to grow rapidly. This could be said to be due to the little amount of order within the city of controlling the development of shanty towns, as well as concentrating funding of the development of the inner city rather than the outer zones. As these shanty towns uncontrollably grow and the number of immigrants continually increases, it is quite hard to identify the order of modern cities in the developing world.
Urbanization is the process of rural areas becoming urban, and it has been apparent in the developed world for hundreds of years. In the UK, it was mainly due to the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th/ early 19th centuries. Growth in cities have largely stabilized, illustrating that cities in the MEDW do have order, but there are still issues which need addressing. In the developing world, however, urbanization is a more recent phenomenon, and growth has mainly occurred over the past fifty years. Due to this rapid growth there is less control apparent in the cities, and there have been major implications to those living there, as well as their management.
In comparison the population density is extremely high in developing world cities judged against cities in the MEDW. Development has steadied in the developed world, whereas this is not the case in the developing world. For example, the former largest city, New York, is now 5th in comparison to Tokyo, Mexico City, Sao Paulo and Shanghai. Certain aspects of cities are what makes them considered ordered, in terms of how they ‘urbanized’. Many towns benefited from specialization which prompted further growth, such as Birmingham, which specialized in brass manufacturing. This leads to the multiplier effect, stimulating further growth near factories. The constant removal, transportation and manufacturing of raw materials increased the wealth of the towns/cities, and new transport links allowed further migration from rural areas. Even though many of these industries no longer exist in most cities, the order that was set at the time of development is still apparent in modern day cities. Another example is Brighton, which now specializes in the tourist industry, providing accommodation, entertainment and appropriate infrastructures for the thousands which visit during the summer months.
Cities increased in size, through a process known as suburbanization. Larger properties were built on the outskirts of towns/ cities, which lead to a net migration outwards. The suburbs grew in relation to transport links, and this growth still occurs today as business and retail compete for areas near the CBD.
More recently, with the growth in car ownership, counter-urbanization was occurring in many cities. Improvements in road networks and the congestion in the inner city area has lead to decentralization of retail and entertainment to out-of-town shopping centres, with an increasing
Amanda Teefey Lee
population wanting to live in more rural areas. However, due to gentrification and regeneration in inner city areas, for example the Docklands and Battersea, there has been a surge of re-urbanization, in which people are moving back into the inner city areas.
Considering the four processes of urbanization, it is clear that within each stage there is order in the city. This is because, if the city had no order, and therefore no distinct structure, then these four processes would not have occurred at the steady and fairly manageable rate that they did, and still do today in many modern cities.
Cities in the LEDW have also gone through these processes, but at different rates. There has been rapid urbanization, as shown by Mexico with a population growth from around 5 million in 1960 to 25 million, a growth of roughly half a million a year. This is mainly due to the fact that most developing countries were in stages two and three of the Demographic Transition Model, and so natural increase is high, leading to a population ‘explosion’. This could be evidence that some modern cities in the LEDW have no order, with an increasing population leading to a sprawl of the city into outskirts, and uncontrollable development. However, it does not apply to all modern cities in the developing world, as some, such as China, have placed policies in order to control population growth, hopefully leading to a control in urban development, hence giving them order.
In conclusion, it is clear to see that most modern cities do have order, and so the statement is false. Yes, there are some cities which appear to have no order, but to generalize this to all modern cities in untrue. Cities in the MEDW are clearly more order than those in the developing world, but this does not mean that all cities in the developing world have no order. Many factors contribute to the extent of order found within a city, such as whether it has the wealth to control structure and growth, and whether it has a good infrastructure maintain from when it first urbanized, to present day.