Upload
jodie-lynch
View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Models of Urban Distribution and Location
Rank-Size Rule
• Ideal urban system
• Population of a city is inversely proportional to its rank in the hierarchy
• 1/R x Population of Largest City• R = rank
1 New York City New York 8,391,881
2 Los Angeles California 3,831,868
3 Chicago Illinois 2,851,268
4 Houston Texas 2,257,926
5 Phoenix Arizona 1,593,659
6 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,547,297
7 San Antonio Texas 1,373,668
8 San Diego California 1,306,300
9 Dallas Texas 1,299,542
10 San Jose California 964,695
Major US Cities
1 New York City New York 8,391,881
2 Los Angeles California 3,831,868 .47
3 Chicago Illinois 2,851,268 .35
4 Houston Texas 2,257,926 .26
5 Phoenix Arizona 1,593,659 .18
6 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,547,297
7 San Antonio Texas 1,373,668
8 San Diego California 1,306,300
9 Dallas Texas 1,299,542
10 San Jose California 964,695 .11
Does the Rank-Size Rule Hold?
Rank-Size Rule
• Seems to hold true for mature urban systems (like the United States)
• Does not hold true for many developing countries– Primate city
What about location?
• How far would you be willing to travel for…
• A bagel?
• A rock concert?
Central Place Theory• Walter Christaller (1933)
• How would cities (market centers) be distributed in the ideal?
• Assumptions– Featureless (isotropic) plain– Evenly distributed population/resources– Consumers have similar means/tastes
Central Place Theory
• Hierarchy of goods– Range of a good
• How far one is willing to travel
– Threshold of a good• How much population you need to support
production
Central Place Theory
• The larger the center, the fewer in the system
• Centers distinguished by goods available there– Orders of goods
Central Place Theory
• The highest order center will provide all goods in the system
• Lower orders only certain goods
• So what is the best way to represent the distribution of market centers.
Marketing Principle
k=3
k=4
Transport Principle
k=7
Administrative Principle