URBAN ECONOMICS AND

SOCIOLOGY
URBAN STRUCTURE
 CONTENT
• URBAN STRUCTURE
• OBJECTIVES
• POLICIES AND ACTONS
• URBAN STRUCTURE MODELS
 Ebenezer Howard’s Three Magnets 1898
 Bid Rent Theory
 Bugess’ model
 Core Frame Model
 Models: ‘sectors’ (Hoyt) and
‘multi centres’ (Harris and Ullman)
 Mann’s concentric circles and sector model
 Basic urban model for an LEDC
 Turner’s Model
 URBAN STRUCTURE
Urban structure is comprised of three elements:
SPACE:
• The Downtown Core Area is compact and walkable, covering approximatel 188
hectares(465acres)
• It gradually rises in elevation from the Inner Harbour towards Douglas Street and
Blanshard Street; however, much of the central area is relatively level, with two
lower basins around Rock Bay to the north and JamesBay to the south.
• The Downtown Core Area is also defined by a variety of unique public parks and
open spaces ranging from the intimate scale of Bastion Square to the large scale
openness of the front lawn of the Parliament Building which serves as both a
public open space and a place-defining characteristic of the Inner Harbour district

MOVEMENT:
• Primary downtown streets from a transportation perspective include Douglas
Street, Blanshard Street, Bay Street, Cook Street and the portion of Quadra
Street located north of Johnson Street.
• These streets provide key links between the Downtown Core Area and other
surrounding areas of the city and the region.
BUILDING FORM:
• The Downtown Core Area’s distinctive urban form rises steadily eastward
• from the Inner Harbour and the blend of low scale, historic streetscapes and
• rehabilitated heritage buildings to a concentration of newer, higher density
• commercial and residential buildings in the Central Business District and in
the
• Residential Mixed-Use District

URBAN STRUCTURE OBJECTIVES:

• That the physical elements that define space, movement and building
formserve to attract and retain residents, visitors and businesses.
• That existing neighbourhoods and special character areas are recognized
as intrinsic components of each District.
• That the historic context of the Historical Commercial District is
protected.That new parks and open spaces are developed within the Rock
Bay District and the Harris Green neighbourhoods.
• That priority is given to pedestrians, cyclists and public transit in land use
and transportation planning.
 URBAN STRUCTURE-POLICIES AND ACTIONS

DEVELOPMENT:
Maintain lower scale buildings throughout the Historic Commercial
District and along the waterfront to respect the lower scale context of
the area, and gradually transition to taller buildings within the Central
Business District.

LANDUSE:
Ensure land use and related activities complement and
enhance the form and function of each District.

PARKS AND OPEN SPACE:

Support the development of additional public parks and
open spaces to provide public amenity space within the Rock Bay District
and the Residential Mixed-Use District.
VACANT LANDS:
Support the redevelopment of vacant and under-developed sites,
including surface parking lots, with more intensive uses that support
the economic function of the Downtown Core Area.

OFFICE DEVELOPMENT:
Support the development and location of higher density commercial
buildings within the Central Business District.

HARBOUR PATHWAY:
Complete the Harbour Pathway, including connections to the
regional pathway network and the pedestrian network.
URBAN STRUCTURE MODELS
 Ebenezer Howard’s
Three Magnets 1898

Contrasting rural and urban

life. The possibility that the
best of urban and rural could
be incorporated on a “Garden
City”
eg Letchworth (1903) and
Welwyn Garden City (1920).
He actually planted a tree in
every garden in WGC.
Ebenezer Howard
‘Garden Cities of To-
morrow’ in 1902.
Influenced the later
strategy of building new
towns in the UK, US,
Canada, Argentina, Israel
and Germany.
As with most instances of
social engineering, the
garden city movement
didn’t quite achieve what it
set out to do. Its laudable
motives and egalitarian
vision contrast with the
often depressing
artificiality of ‘garden
cities’, and the fact that
they merely function as
dormitories to the larger
cities they so often adjoin.
 Bid Rent Theory
(Alonso 1964)

Bid rent/land rent theory shows how much different sectors of the economy are prepared
to pay for land. Basic assumption is that accessibility is increased with centrality and
therefore retailing is prepared to pay a high price for land in the CBD. As distance from
the CBD increases availability of land increases and it is affordable for residential and
even agricultural use.
 Variations to bid-rent theory

rent
A – CBD
B – Commerce / industry
C – residential high– medium density
D – sub-centres
E – Suburbia
A B C D E
 Land use value for activity sector
according to the distance from the CBD
Land use value

Retail
Residential (several components families)
Residential (single families)

Distance from the centre

•Peaks due to transport intersections

 Bugess’ model of land use (1923)

Model Chicago, years ‘20

Ghetto LOOP

Two Plan
Area

Black Belt
Residential District

Bungalow
Section

I - Loop (downtown; CBD) IV – working class area

II – industries V – residential area
III – transition area VI – suburban area
Commuter zone

Residential zone

Working class zone

Zone of transition
Factory zone
CBD
Core Frame Model – CBD Morphology
 Models: ‘sectors’ (Hoyt) 1939 and
‘multi centres’ (Harris and Ullman) 1945
Sector Multi centres
2 3 3

4 1
2
3
3 5
3 4
1 3 3 7
5
3
6
3 4
2
9 8

1 CBD 6 Heavy manufacturing

2 Wholesale and light manufacturing 7 Sub business district
3 Low-class residential 8 Residential suburb
4 Middle-class residential 9 Industrial suburb
5 High-class residential
 Mann’s
concentric
circles and
sector model
Classic industrial city 1850s
Konx and Pinch 2000 – Urban Social Geography
Industrial city 1945-1975
The post-industrial city
Kearsley’s model
includes contemporary
urban processes and
changes such as
gentrification,
commuter villages,
development projects.
Family Life cycles and movement within a city
Basic urban model for an LEDC city.

Higher cost housing and higher class residential areas located

centrally. Historical core of colonial city. Rapid urban growth
expanding the peripheral areas.
Urban growth is too rapid for
planners and for the city to provide
basic urban infrastructure, housing
and services. Peripheral areas
characterised by poor quality
housing and spontaneous
settlements as immigrants attempt
to satisfy their basic needs of
housing and employment through
the informal economy.
Turner’s Model Changing Priorities of the urban poor in LEDC cities

Fits the profile of a

traditional rural to urban
migrant.
For a young male
bridgeheader location near
employment is the only
priority. They are prepared
to live in overcrowded
central tenaments or
squatter settlements often
with extended families.

Successful bridgeheaders need to establish themselves and consolidate their

status. They seek more space and permanence and become consolidators
often building their own home or paying for a more permanent residence,
coinciding with starting their own families. Tenure and ownership priority.
As an established inhabitant of the city the status seeker will then seek to
improve their dwelling and demand more urban services such as health care
and education. Amenities priority.
Turner’s model can be linked to a
intra-urban movement of migrants
 Turner's main conclusions were:
• “ Uncontrolled urban settlement is a manifestation of normal urban growth
under the exceptional conditions of rapid urbanisation.

• Autonomous urban settlement is the product of the difference between the

nature of the popular demand for dwellings and those supplied by
institutionalised society.

• The institutional control of urban settlement depends on the encouragement and

support of popular initiative through the government servicing of local
resources.”

• Autonomous urban settlements give evidence of improvement over time and

organisation by the inhabitants.
• ‘Uncontrolled Urban Settlements: Problems and Policies’ in Gerald Breese (ed.), 1972 The City in Newly Developing Countries, Ch 35 p.507.
THANK YOU