THEORIES OF URBAN MORPHOLOGY

Component-I (A) - Personal Details

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof Masood Ahsan Department of Geography,

Siddiqui Jamia Millia Islamia,
New Delhi
Paper Coordinator, if any Dr. Deeksha Bajpai Department of Geography, Dyal
Singh College, DU
Content Writer/Author (CW) Dr. Taruna Bansal Department of Geography,
Jamia Millia Islamia,
New Delhi
Content Reviewer (CR) Dr. Deeksha Bajpai Department of Geography, Dyal
Singh College, DU
Language Editor (LE)

Component-I (B) - Description of Module

Items Description of Module

Subject Name Geography

Paper Name Urban Geography

Module Name/Title Theories of Urban Morphology

Module Id UG-09

Pre-requisites Urban Morphology, Theories, Internal structure,

Burgess, Hoyt, Harris and Ullman
Objectives To Study about the theories of Urban Morphology

Keywords Urban Morphology, Internal structure, Burgess, Hoyt,

Harris and Ullman, Models
Component II - e-Text
Theories of Urban Morphology
Taruna Bansal
I - Introduction:
Urban geographers have made important contributions in the field of spatial transformations
that have been witnessed by urban landscapes in the material and symbolic aspects during the
twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Some of the landmarked attempts in this direction were
the analyses of urban morphology done by Burgess, Hoyt, Harris and Ullman. Although cities
at present have changed significantly since the models were developed; yet they are
frequently cited in debates of urban morphology even if to dismiss their continued relevance.
That is very true say that a large extent of each city possesses a distinctive combination of
varying types of land uses, but a common pattern is can be traced some time. The models
provided by Burgess, Hoyt, Harris and Ullman, today are part of the philosophy of urban
geography and one needs to discuss them in order to understand the basic foundations of this
field.
The morphological pattern of a city has been discussed by three theoretical
explanations. These are - 1. The Concentric Zone Model 2.The Sector Model and 3.The
Multiple Nuclei Model

II - The Concentric Zone Model:

The concentric zone model was given by E.W. Burgess in 1923 based on his extensive and
detailed case studies on Chicago and its various neighbourhoods. His model is radiating out
from the Central Business District and represents increasing degrees of cultural assimilation
with greater economic and social status through each successive residential zone. In the
words of Duncan (1996) the zonal model became a significant and long standing
representation of the North American city especially to study the correlation of social and
spatial distance among the various classes of the society.
Before understanding the Burgess’s model of Concentric Zone one has to study the
tendency of the city to expand. In the words of Park (1925) the typical processes of expansion
of the city can be best demonstrate by a series of numbered concentric circles as shown in
Figure 1. In the figure, Zone I ‘the Loop’ represents the Central Business District (CBD).
Encircling this is an area in transition which is usually surrounded by business and light
manufacture Zone II. The Zone III is inhabited by the workers in industries who have escaped
from the area of deterioration (Zone II) and have the desire to live within easy access of their
work. Next is the residential area Zone IV of high-class apartment buildings or a district of
single family dwellings. Zone V is beyond the city limit – the commuter zone comprising of
satellite cities or suburban areas; within a thirty to sixty-minute ride of the CBD. And each
inner zone has the tendency to extend its area by the invasion of the next outer zone. This
basically deals with the physical growth of the city and with the extension of the technical
services that make city life liveable, comfortable and luxurious.
Figure 1
The Growth of the City

Source: N. R. Fyfe and J.T. Kenny (2005) The Urban geography Reader, Routledge, London, pp. 22.

Burgess through his model presented an image of the progressive movement as

residents of the inner city had a tendency of moving outward to zones of better environmental
conditions. According to Burgess, the American city should take the form of five zones.
These zones are:
Zone I- Central Business District (CBD): It represents the area of CBD revolves around
social, commercial and civic life. It is also the hub of transportation. While Burgess explains
its two parts:
(i)The downtown retail district and
(ii) The wholesale business district encircling the downtown.
Zone II- Zone in Transition: It is an area of which surrounding the Central Business
District (CBD): It is a zone of residential deterioration of old private houses consisting of
largely sub-divided dwelling units. The transition area is settled by immigrants and overrun
by ‘vices’. The Zone II full of rotten business and light manufacturing units from Zone I
encroach upon residential belts. Some portion of this zone is likely to be found in the city’s
slums or poverty areas and crime. In other words, this is a zone with mixture regions of
poverty, disease and their criminal activities and vice.
Figure 2
Concentric Zone Theory

Source: N.R.Fyfe and J.T. Kenny (2005) The Urban geography Reader, Routledge, London, pp. 24.
Zone III- Working Men’s Homes: It is the third ring sum up with the houses of working
people’s homes. This is predominately inhabited by factory and shop workers who are skilled
and thrifty. In other words, it is the zone of old residential blocks occupied by social groups
of working class groups and families those are stable in their jobs. People of this zone moved
out of Zone II to live nearer to their work place. This is an area of second immigrant
settlement, generally of the second generation. It is the region of escape from the slum or
over crowed places.
Zone IV: It is the zone with concentric space still farther from the CBD and is settled by
spacious dwellers. In Chicago, this was dominated by native-born Americans of middle-
income groups. The population residing in this zone are likely to be small proprietors
businessmen, salesmen, professionals and different official clerks.
Zone V: It is the areas farthest from the city centre; and almost one hour’s to two hour’s
travelling time from centre to this zone. This zone may be an open country or country side
region. People of this region seem to commute on a daily basis for their livelihood in the
centre.
Criticism:
With the few modifications Burgess,’ theory is popularly and widely used by current authors.
But the Burgess’ theory is criticized on the several grounds like local topographical features
which affect the residential areas location. While this type of criticism looks invalid because
Burgess himself criticised that point i.e. those zone distortions may result from variations in
relief features. Davie (1972) is the most active critic of the Burgess’ theory who criticised the
theory on following grounds:
(i) The size of CBD’s is irregular in the pattern; and is often rectangular than circular,
(ii) Commerce and business areas of usually extend along streets from the CBD’s in a
radial way.
(iii) Along the lines of transportation, near water or rail network Industrial units lie.
(iv) Near to industrial and transportation areas in every zone the houses are low grade
generally, and
(v) Lastly, Burgess’ theory lacks universal acceptance as a whole.
The critics of Burgess’s concentric zone theory focus on that the theory is not
applicable in the case of its treatment of wholesaling market. Similarly, in the modern city the
large and heavy industries do not take the form of the concentric belt just outside the CBD,
instead, it forms wedges like areas along transportation lines.
The theory of Burgess seems weak, in the historical perspective too. The houses,
streets, and railroads of culture areas developed during historical phases very hard to change
their location. The theory was considered generally in time and space, and it was outdated
and limited only to large Western industrial cities by the late 20th century.
The concentric scheme for the ‘pre-industrial city’ neglected by Sjoberg (1960)’ in
which privileged classes – the elite, gather at the centre due to the nearness of governmental
and religious buildings. While religion and politics in feudal cities had far more important
than the economic –in which the centre’s main market being subsidiary to religious and
political structures.

Merits of the Concentric Theory:

The chief supporter of the Burgess theory is Quinn (1950) says a common-sense observations
which tend to the theory confirmation. The probability of the concentric structure around the
dominant retail area in various cities indicates by the Urban-gradients’ researchers.
The symmetry of concentric may be violated by Local irregularities; the most cities
conformed at least roughly to the Burgess pattern opined by Quinn. The contribution of
Burgess’s model too had appreciation by Haggett and Chorley (1965); according to them it
was a normative model, ‘which is based on simple structure of reality presenting supposedly
significant features of relationships in a generalized form. To conclude, the illustration of
burgess’s model of concentric zone theory; is an expansion of the city in its comprehensible
manner by a series of concentric zones.

II. The Sector Theory:

Burgess’s concentric zone theory was based on the American cities morphology in 1920s.
Homer Hoyt observed that the cities structure had changed and therefore, Hoyt propounded
the sectoral theory in 1939. He emphasizes on the ribbons of development that extended
along commercial streets leading out of the central business district and the tendency of
industrial establishments to concentrate along railroad lines and rivers. He further notes the
existence of poor and middle-income housing along the rich residential areas in the
peripheries of the cities. He opined that the internal structure of the American cities was more
axial than concentric resulting in the formation of different sectors. In other words, as the city
grows, activities expand outward in a wedge or an axis or a sector from the centre (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Source: S. Ghosh (2008) Introduction to Settlement Geography, Orient Blacksawn, Kolkata, pp. 108.
 Hoyt’s sector theory, which explain only with residential land use pattern; the other
types of land uses are considered because of their influence upon the residential areas of the
city. The cities areas which are on rent tend to more and less sectors rather than of concentric
zones (Figure 4). The areas located in one or more sectors of the city tend to be the highest
rent areas. But it is not necessary that all areas are rent areas. The migration of outward sector
is clearly visible in high quality residential areas; where the older settlement remains behind
to become medium-quality residential areas. Hoyt stated that the sector theory is of
fundamental importance in analysing neighbourhoods especially in the American cities for
locating markets for retail sales. The high rent neighbourhoods of a city do not skip about at
random in the process of movement-they follow a definite path in one or more sectors of the
city. No city conforms to the ideal pattern but the general figure is useful as in American
cities the different types of residential areas tend to grow outward along rather distinct radii
and the new growth on the arc of a given sector tends to take on the character of the initial
growth of that particular sector (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Source: N.R.Fyfe and J.T. Kenny (2005) The Urban geography Reader, Routledge, London, pp. 30.

The basis of Hoyt’s theory is a bundle of empirical work. The 64 American cities
were the sample size of Hoyt’s theory which is collected by the Works Progress
Administration. The surveys of New York, Detroit, Chicago, Washington and Philadelphia
supplemented the small and medium sized cities. Thus, to empirical generalizations it is a
very bulk part of observation. Nevertheless, the theory has not gone unchallenged.

Criticism of Hoyt’s Theory:

The theory of Walter Firey’s (1945); carried out a land use study of central Boston. In which
he explored the urban land use shaping by the role of social factors. He pointed out various
aspects of sector theory on this basis of his survey. He argues that there is less validity of
comparing the internal structure of number of cities when physical features like relief,
location on a waterfront and other factors affect the pattern of some cities. Firey also
criticised that Hoyt theory has not sufficiently considered the roles of social and cultural
characteristics in land use explanation. It is obvious that richer residents can choose to settle
anywhere and may not follow the ‘normal’ pattern i.e.; either concentric or sector pattern.

III. The Multiple Nuclei Theory:

Harris and Ullman (1945); brought together their work on central palace theory and
classification of cities respectively to represent a metropolitan area that was not defined by
distances from the central business district but was based on patterns of land-use of the
surrounding areas of the CBD. During the time of its inception to the present day, taking
place in cities, residential, business, industrial or other elements to accommodate the growth
of multiple nuclei model suggested by them.
Harris and Ullman unlike Burgess and Hoyt stressed upon the development of special
purpose districts instead of social differentiation of residential areas. These districts were
nodes of economic activity that needed specialized facilities and benefitted from
agglomeration economies of different activities centred there. The rise of such special
districts or nuclei was due to numbers of factors which affect the human activities expansion
within a city. These are as fallow:
(a) Some activities require specialized facilities like, CBD; which can function at the
point where maximum accessibility possible.
(b) There are also numbers of activities which is present in cohesion. The densely
packed inner districts of large cities are clustered with clothing industry. Due to
cohesion they get profit.
 (c) Some activities are detrimental in nature to one another, and generally seek
separate locations. For example; heavy industry does not prefer to be nearer to the
high-class residential areas.
(d) While some are unable to pay the rents of most desirable locations; like low-
income residential areas or bulk storage facilities have to seek nuclei in remote
regions (Figure 5).
Figure 5

Source: S. Ghosh (2008) Introduction to Settlement Geography, Orient Blacksawn, Kolkata, pp. 108.

The factors which are discussed above along with social, cultural and economic
criteria provide a unique urban landscape with separate nodes. Moreover, this theory reveals
two significant observations based on historical and site elements of morphology. In one hand
the theory produces a model involving complexities of urban structure which may not be
easily and immediately discernible because of historical stratification of land uses during the
process of urban growth. Although there is only one CBD present in most cities and they
have a series of sub-centres around CBD. The peripheral areas are less specialized than CBD
but enough to cope up the needs of smaller sections of the city.
Another one is an observation which is more significant is about the probability of
elements of the concentric and sector models present in its depth. There is nothing new is
involved conceptually in the multiple nuclei model, and, it should not be given the status of a
theory. Therefore, multiple nuclei theory should be looked upon as an approach which only
road to think about the structure of the city, rather than as a rigid generalization in nature
about urban form.