How is the Hoyt model different to the Burgess model?

Concentric Rings vs. Sectors: Cracking the Code of City Layouts

Ever wondered why cities are laid out the way they are? For ages, urban planners and geographers have been trying to figure this out, using models to make sense of the urban sprawl. Two of the earliest and most influential? The Burgess concentric zone model and the Hoyt sector model. Now, these aren’t just dusty old theories – they offer fascinating insights into how cities grow and evolve. But they see things differently, and that’s where it gets interesting.

Back in the 1920s, sociologist Ernest Burgess took a good, hard look at Chicago and came up with his concentric zone model. Picture a bullseye, with the city center as the very middle. That’s your central business district (CBD), buzzing with shops and offices. Right around that? The zone of transition. Think a bit rough around the edges, a mix of old factories and maybe some rundown housing. Then, as you move further out, you hit the zone of working-class homes, followed by nicer residential areas, and finally, the commuter zone – basically, the suburbs. The further you are from the city center, the wealthier the residents, according to Burgess. It’s like a game of leapfrog, with new groups moving outwards and pushing everyone else along.

Then, along came Homer Hoyt, a real estate economist, in 1939. He had a different idea. Forget rings, he said – think of wedge-shaped sectors shooting out from the CBD, like slices of a pie. These sectors follow transportation routes, like major highways or railways. Hoyt figured that the posh neighborhoods tend to grow outwards along one of these slices, dragging similar housing along with them. The less fancy areas end up in the other slices. And industrial zones? They also stick to transportation lines. So, transportation is the key, according to Hoyt, shaping where everything ends up.

So, what’s the big difference? Well, Burgess thought cities grew evenly in all directions, creating those ring-like zones. Hoyt, on the other hand, saw growth being channeled along transportation routes, creating those distinct sectors. It’s like the difference between dropping a pebble in a pond (Burgess) and pouring water down a hill (Hoyt). And when it comes to who lives where, Burgess saw wealth increasing with distance from the CBD. Hoyt, though, figured that the rich could live way out from the center, as long as they were along the right corridor.

Of course, neither model is perfect. Burgess’s model is a bit too simple, really. It doesn’t take into account hills, rivers, or even multiple business districts. Hoyt’s model, while more detailed, can be a bit too predictable. It assumes everything just follows the roads, ignoring government planning or even just local quirks.

But hey, these models are still super useful. Burgess gives you a basic understanding of how cities are laid out, while Hoyt adds the transportation twist. By getting your head around both, you can start to see the hidden forces that shape our cities. And who knows, maybe you’ll even come up with your own model one day!