Modeling Geographic Dispersion

in an Urban Area

2001 Nathan B. Forrester and

Matthew S. Forrester
 Background
The Megapolis Project examined urban
development patterns in Paris during 1990-
1991
The Megapolis model showed why a
multi-cellular settlement pattern or
distributed development poles make an
urban area dysfunctional
 Overview
The Megapolis model simplifies and extends
Urban Dynamics (Jay Forrester, 1969)
Retained Concepts:
Jobs, Population, Business and Residential Structures
Attractiveness Principle
New Concepts:
Geographical disaggregation
Commuting
Variable construction density
 Structure
Large area divided into a grid of 49 squares
Key Stocks in each area:
Jobs
Residents
Business and Residential Structures
Visibility of Jobs and Workers depends on
commute time between areas
Jobs, Residents, and Businesses change
depending on visibility, occupancy, and density
 Scenarios to Follow
Initial conditions for Jobs, Residents, and
Structures:
Balanced on average for the city
Spread evenly over the entire area
Sequence of structural additions
Each scenario adds a new feedback concept to
the model
 Basic Structural Unit
Movement
Out
People
(by Area) Attractiveness
Net
Migration
Movement
In
49 Stocks
49 x 49 = 2401 Flows
each for Jobs and Residents
Generic Urban Grid
46 38 30 26 31 39 47
45 22 14 10 15 23 40
37 21 6 2 7 16 32
29 13 5 1 3 11 27
36 20 9 4 8 17 33
44 25 19 12 18 24 41
49 43 35 28 34 42 48
Layout of numbered urban cells
Scenario 1: Internal Movement
due to Job/Worker Visibility
Activate internal movement of residents and
jobs between areas in response to visibility of
jobs and workers
Not yet activated:
Net Migration in/out of city
Construction
Occupancy effects on movement
Density effects on movement
 Implosion
Limited commute tolerance makes
jobs/residents on opposite sides of the city
invisible to each other
High visibility of jobs and workers makes the
center more attractive than the periphery
Residents and businesses implode toward the
city center
Implosion ceases when most residents and jobs
are all within an easy commute of each
People move to areas with
higher job visibility

Movement
Out
People Attractiveness
Net (by Area)
-
Migration
Movement
In Job
Visibiltity
 Scenario 1: Movement
Jobs Residents

400k 0 400k
 Scenario 1: Movement

400000
300000
200000
100000
1
0
3 S7
S6
5 S5
S3
S4 Residents
7
S1
S2
& Business
Scenario 2: Net In/Out Migration
Structural Addition:
Positive feedback loop attracts people to the
city due to high job visibility, further increasing
visibility
Behavioral change:
Exponential growth in total population
proceeds in parallel with implosion to the city
center
Attractiveness drives migration
into and out of the city
City Avg
City Job/Labor Attractiveness to
Force Balance Exterior
+ Attractiveness

People
Net (by Area) Job
Migration Visibiltity
 Scenario 2: Migration
Jobs Residents

1.2M 0 1.2M
 Scenario 3: Occupancy Limits
Structural Addition:
Occupancy rates of residential and business
structures impact attractiveness of an area
Behavioral change:
Implosion stops abruptly as structures in the
center become crowded and vacant structures
on the periphery become attractive.
Total population declines
People move in response to
differential occupancy rates

Movement
Out
People Attractiveness
Net (by Area)
Migration -
Movement
In Occupancy

Structures
 Scenario 3: Occupancy
Jobs Residents

400k 0 400k
 Scenario 4: Construction
Structural Addition:
Occupancy rates drives Net Construction of
residential and business Structures
Behavioral change:
Implosion implosion and exponential growth
dominate again as occupancy constraints relax
Total population grows more slowly due to
construction lags
 Occupancy drives
construction

Attractiveness
Movement Structures
Out -
People Occupancy
-
(by Area)
Movement Net
In Construction
 Scenario 4: Construction
Jobs Residents

600k 0 600k
 Scenario 5: Density Limits
Structural Addition:
Density influences the attractiveness of an area
Behavioral change:
Implosion and growth continue until the urban
core becomes sufficiently crowded to constrain
business or residential growth
Urban profile becomes flatter
Density retards growth

Movement
Out
People Attractiveness
Net (by Area)
Migration
Movement -
In

Density
 Scenario 5: Density
Jobs Residents

400k 0 400k
 Scenario 6: Differential Density
Structural Addition:
Businesses tolerate (or prefer) high density
Residents prefer living in low-density area
Behavioral change:
Businesses crowd to the center
Residents spread out in a ring around the center
The city supports more people with lower
unemployment
 Scenario 6: Differential Density
Jobs Residents

400k 0 400k
Scenario 6: Differential Density

300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
1
0
3 S7
S6
5 S5
S4
7
S2
S3
Residents
S1
Scenario 6: Differential Density

300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
1
0
3 S7
S6
5 S5
S4
7 S2
S3
Business
S1
 Policy Experiment 1:
Improved Transit
Parameter Change:
Time to travel a given distance drops
Behavioral change:
The urban area expands horizontally
Population rises
In equilibrium, city is bigger, not better
Experiment 1: Transit

Population
v. Time:
-Base
-Transit
Experiment 1: Transit

Population
Profile:
-Base
-Transit
Experiment 1: Transit

Attractiveness
Profile:
-Base
-Transit
 Policy Experiment 2:
Central Zoning Constraints
Parameter Change:
Zoning restricts permissible density of business
construction density in core
Behavioral change:
Businesses move out of the center
Most residents move further from the center
Some residents move back to urban core
Total unemployment rises
Experiment 2: Zoning

Unemployment
v. Time:
-Base
-Transit
 Experiment 2: Zoning
Jobs Residents

400k 0 400k
 Megapolis Simulator
The Megapolis model is packaged in as a
custom Venapp
Interface was written using an automatic
code generator developed in Microsoft
Excel
Order a copy on the sign-up sheet
Megapolis Simulator Dashboard
Venapp Code Generator