What is the Burgess and Hoyt model?

Cracking the Code of City Life: Making Sense of the Burgess and Hoyt Models

Ever wonder why cities look the way they do? I mean, seriously, have you ever looked at a city map and thought, “There’s gotta be a reason for this madness!” Well, you’re right. Urban planners and geographers have been scratching their heads over this for ages, trying to figure out the method to the urban madness. Two of the most influential ideas to come out of that are the Burgess and Hoyt models. Think of them as old-school blueprints for understanding how cities grow and organize themselves. Both models assume that there is a single Central Business District (CBD) in the city.

The Burgess Model: Like Rings in a Tree Trunk

Back in the 1920s, a smart cookie named Ernest Burgess came up with a theory. He looked at cities, especially Chicago, which was booming at the time, and saw a pattern. He imagined the city as a series of rings, like the rings you see when you chop down a tree. Hence, the name concentric zone model, but most people call it the Burgess model.

Let’s break down those rings:

• Zone I: The Central Business District (CBD): This is the city’s beating heart. Picture skyscrapers, bustling shops, and transportation hubs all crammed together. It’s where the action is, the place everyone flocks to for business and entertainment.
• Zone II: The Transition Zone: Right next to the CBD, things start to get a little rough around the edges. It’s a mixed bag of factories, warehouses, and older, often run-down housing. New immigrants and folks with lower incomes often end up here because it’s what they can afford. Let’s just say it’s not the poshest part of town.
• Zone III: The Working-Class Zone: Moving outwards, you find more modest homes and apartments. This is where the working class lives, people who are making their way but still need to be close to jobs in the CBD and the transition zone.
• Zone IV: The Residential Zone: Ah, now we’re talking! This is where the middle class resides in nice houses with green lawns. It’s a step up in terms of quality of life and a bit further from the hustle and bustle.
• Zone V: The Commuter Zone: Way out in the suburbs or even the countryside, you’ll find bigger houses, bigger yards, and longer commutes. This is where the well-to-do folks live, willing to trade the convenience of city living for a bit of peace and quiet.

The Burgess model basically says that cities grow outwards, with each inner ring pushing into the outer ones. As you move further from the city center, people tend to be wealthier. It’s a snapshot of what cities were like in the early 20th century, when public transport was king, and expansion meant converting existing land.

The Hoyt Model: Slices of the Urban Pie

Then, in 1939, along came Homer Hoyt, who had a slightly different take. He was a land economist, and he thought the ring idea was a bit too simplistic. Instead, he proposed the sector model. Imagine the city as a pie, cut into slices. These slices, or sectors, radiate outwards from the CBD along major transportation routes.

Here’s the gist of it:

• Transportation is King (Again): Hoyt realized that railways, highways, and even waterways had a huge impact on how cities grew.
• Birds of a Feather: Similar activities tend to cluster together in these sectors. You might have an industrial sector, a high-income residential sector, and so on.
• Sticking Together: Businesses and people like to be near others doing the same thing. It’s just good for business (or for finding friends!).
• Money Talks: Hoyt noticed that wealthier folks tended to live in certain sectors, often away from the noise and grime of industrial areas.

The Hoyt model acknowledges that cities aren’t perfectly round. Transportation and resources can really mess with that simple ring pattern. It’s all about how major routes influence where things end up.

The Good, the Bad, and the Urban

Both the Burgess and Hoyt models have their strengths and weaknesses. No model is perfect, but they give us a framework for thinking about cities.

Burgess Model:

• What’s Cool: It’s simple and easy to grasp. It highlights how wealth tends to increase as you move away from the city center.
• What’s Not: It’s too simple! It assumes the land is flat and uniform, which is rarely the case. It doesn’t account for natural features like rivers or hills. And it’s definitely showing its age, since it doesn’t consider cars or the rise of suburbs.

Hoyt Model:

• What’s Cool: It recognizes that transportation is a big deal. It explains why similar activities cluster together.
• What’s Not: It can be too broad and doesn’t always fit local conditions. It’s also a bit outdated, focusing on rail transport and not really considering cars. Plus, it doesn’t account for those “edge cities” that pop up way out in the suburbs.

Wrapping It Up

The Burgess and Hoyt models are like the granddaddies of urban planning theories. They give us a starting point for understanding how cities organize themselves. While they’re not perfect, they offer valuable insights into the forces that shape our urban landscapes. Burgess focused on social class and distance, while Hoyt emphasized transportation. By understanding these models, we can do a better job of planning for cities that are sustainable, inclusive, and, well, just plain better places to live. Nowadays, urban planners often mix and match ideas from different models to create cities that are ready for the future.