This video did not give any explanation as to when these different models of urbanization originated, but I think we could probably guess that there have been changes in how US cities have been founded and organized over time. I would imagine the industrial revolution in America (I'm thinking meat packing house era Chicago) was really more or less the birth of the metropolis in the US. Our textbook provides the data that by 1920, over 50% of the population lived in urban areas. At this time, many immigrants moved their families to Chicago to work in these factories. During that time period, a CBD definitely existed in Chicago, but the meat packing houses were also prolific. My guess is that the model of urbanization looked something like the Multiple Nuclei model, because you had the downtown, lakefront CBD, but you also had the heavy industry manufacturing district of the meat packing houses with all the less wealthy working class families living somewhere between the two. thestig001
It makes sense what you said about how the model of urbanization was probably like the Multiple Nuclei model. Chicago must have been a very interesting place back then with all the different industries. It still has some of the same industries, but obviously they have changed. Also, it makes sense that so many immigrants would live in cities. There are way more job opportunities there compared to places like Nebraska. swimmer001
When my grandfather brought over the family into the US, the first place they lived was in Miami. There was a greater number of people who shared a cultural background, which made them more welcomed and made it easier to get jobs and support. In order to move to central Illinois, they had to save up a lot of money (relatively). At that time, Peoria's economy was booming, and so jobs were actually easier to get over here than in Miami, and they paid more. If Nebraska had a city where industry was growing, I think we would see a lot more immigrants moving there. FreedomUnderGod001
This video was actually kind of interesting. Some of the things he said about the rings of where different people live in cities using the Concentric Zone model was common sense but yet I had never really thought about. I found it interesting that lower-income people tend to live not in the very center but the 2nd ring. It makes sense though because it would be cheaper than the very center of the city but yet close enough to catch a bus or not have to drive far to get to their jobs. Even though the Concentric Zone model made sense, I think the Sector model actually is a better choice. This way people with a lower-income can get to work easier. There are many lower-income people living in cities, according to the textbook. The Multiple Nuclei model is the model for most American cities, interestingly enough. I would not have chosen that model for American cities but it seems to be working fine. swimmer001
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the lower income class isn't choosing to live in the crappiest side of town. They can only afford to live there. If you think about who develops these plans and who gets the most out of these plans yet again the American Corporations, the wealthy are setting up our cities to better their lives. It irritates me to no end that it doesn't matter how hard you work, honest or loyal, or just a plain ol' good person you are, you might not be able to afford to live in a safe, healthy, beautiful environment. WonderWoman001
I agree with your comment. If you take a minute and think about the layout of each of these models you can tell how they have formed. I think if you looked at how much of these layouts occurred you can contribute it to transportation. Like you said the lower income can get to work easier, they might not have the same transportation capabilities as some of the middle to high income classes. SVT001.
I do agree with you swimmer001 because the lower class do love in the center and have acess to many things around them whether they walk, take a cab or a bus they have less money to spend for transportation. The higher class live farther away and can afford to drive the way for work, shopping, school, etc.This model does seem to work out for each class in the long run but I don't think its fair to place a group of people like this because of their income. This video was interesting and opened my eyes up more on how and why each class is placed throughout the cities. Summer001
Swimmer001 the layout of these models does make sense especially when it comes to the population having transportation. I see as if the people choose to live where they live so that they have a way to work. In big cities the bus or train is an everyday use and living close to one can and will save money and time which in the city most people try to save as much as they can with both. LAWS001
Many people don't know that the north end of Adams street goes through Averyville neighborhood. It gets the name Averyville because the old Komatsu building was originally built by Avery Tractor company, and the majority of people living in that area were Avery Tractor employees. A perfect explanation of how urbanization works, because people moved close to plant for a easy commute. Packers001
This is the first time I am hearing about these models, although it is not the first time I have seen it. I play a lot of computer games, and some games I play are city simulators. Whenever I first start playing a new simulator, I always try and create the most efficient and the largest city possible in the game. The eventual growth of the city always went through a 3 step process: as it was small, I utilized a pattern similar to the concentric zone model, where everything was neatly centered and organized. As I would manage the economy and policies of the city, it would eventually grow into something like the sector model in order to be more efficient, and thus produce more income. But always, at the end of every simulation, it would evolve into an organic structure similar to the multiple nuclei model. It always ended up being the most stable way to consistently grow and sustain the city. Needless to say I am continually pissed at it going to that stage, because I wanted everything to be neatly patterned and organized. It's curious how my simulations reflected the different models of Urbanization. FreedomUnderGod001
I wonder how those simulations are to the urbanization of cities historically? It seems to make sense that in general, cities might have morphed from the concentric zone model, to the sector model, to the multiple nuclei model through population and industrial growth, but is this the case? I found it interesting how in all three models, the low-income housing was always very close to the Central Business District. This doesn't make a ton of sense to me, because most people who work in the CBD are making pretty good money (whether you work in retail or for a restaurant or for a corporation) so where are these lower income people working? Maybe some work in light-manufacturing, but I don't think there are enough jobs in that sector of business for all the lower-income people to work there. thestig001
I think the urbanization of cities historically worldwide is significantly different than what we have experienced here in the US. I suspect that the progress of civilization around a city would determine which model it is more likely to fall under. FreedomUnderGod001
Learning about these three different ways the U.S. develop cities doesn't surprise me much. While I didn't have a name for it as I've traveled you see all the examples and it doesn't surprise as to why they build or plan cities this way. It ties in all the 3 sociology theories together really. You got the social conflict, keeping the poor where they should be on the bad sides of town, they might even get to work at a crappy unsafe factory near their home as well if they are lucky. You got the middle class always working to get to that next level that they probably won't ever reach. The highers on the outskirts of town where it's more safe and beautiful probably on a lake. And of course they surround the business/money...that is if we are lucky enough to live in an area where there are jobs either on the poor side of town or centrally located, where after we earn this education we hope to get to work. Since the beginning of the colonies most of the U.S. is all about getting ahead, making the most, owning, the most. How is this affecting our environment and our humanity? Even down to how our cities are developed all for the good of man or wealth? WonderWoman001
Most of the U.S population live in the suburbs near shops and malls rather than in the old down town industrial districts. When the down town district lost the high income families to the suburbs they struggled to support themselves because only the poor remained. Many cities fell into a crisis and became slums with high crime rates and unemployment. TooTall001
Well it's hard to disagree with any of that. It's apparent that cities are designed for wealth. Just some one elses. The wealth of the coorporations establish what and who are around them. The housing left around factory districts are affordable only because it probably isn't safe living there. People in the upper -class areas woudn't have to know about tainted water sources, or harmfull air emmisions. Rosebudd001
I found this video very interesting about models of urbanization. I have never put a lot of thought into urban growth in the United States. I really found the multiple nuclei model of urbanization the most interesting. I feel like more of the United States is like the multiple nuclei model. I also thought the Burgess Model was neat as well. It has a central location with all the major businesses and directly around it is the poorer, lower income residents. You would think that being closer to the central business district would be the better place, or where you would want to live. After I thought about this, I realized that the workers that can afford to live where they want. The higher paid workers will want to commute to work so they can have a bigger house and more land. It is neat if you look in societies how if you do not go to a town for a few years and when you revisit a town more of the town has spread outward. SVT001.
These three ways they developed the cities is interesting. I do not belive it is right to place us a on graph of where each group is considered to be. We should work together to help each group out so we could lmit the judgment. This says the lower income people stay close to their neighborhoods and the higher income people stay close to their neighborhoods. Which would allow the higher income people to mostly associate to the same people as them. And the lower class to associate with the same people. But I have seen this generation that higher class people associating with lower class people. This is how it should be. Lower class people tend to live around noisy buisnesses but it is closer for them for transportation and walking distances. These models are judgmental to me and shouldn't base people off of their income. I do believe the cities were made the way they were because pf these classifications. How some cities have the bad "trash" side while the other side of town is neat and well maintained looking. I understand it but it blocks other people out and a persons norms could change because of their enviorment their classified in. Summer001
Looking at the three different models that he presented, each model makes sense when you add in the possible time frame that the cities would have been built and the natural migration of people and their preferences on where they’d want to live. The concentric zone model, makes sense when placed in the industrialization era. The sector model makes sense when placed in a post industrial time frame of the city. That’s when people placed an emphasis on education, and had a transportation system in place. The multiple nuclei model resembles what the cities look like out west. The cities out there aren’t older and don’t have an old industrial area. Instead, the people shaped the city around the industrial revolution era. Cities are constantly being recycled as the current population sees fit. Take East Peoria for example, Caterpillar had a vast complex there, industry moved, and now the city is recycling the land and making it fit their needs. Arizona001
I go to school near Chicago and I absolutely love exploring its vibrant neighborhoods. Though I’ve gathered some knowledge of the development of the area of downtown Chicago, I know very little about how these neighborhoods I’ve grown to love came to be. I imagine I would have to do some research into the history of Chicago and “red-lining” or such to really grasp the urban ecology found in Chicago, using the models of urbanization presented in this video will hopefully allow me to develope my perception and understanding of the city as it exists today. From my own experience I can make clear distinctions between neighborhoods as seen in this video, categorizing my brother’s neighborhood of Logan Square in the independant worker zone and Wheaton, where my college resides, in the commuter zone. Maybe I should try and make my own map of the city. Karma001
As you think about the design of Chicago, consider the effect that the Chicago Fire had in the rebuilding of the city and how people were able to plan out the districts more instead of it having grown organically. FreedomUnderGod001
I love the idea of cities being recycled, or as I like to put it, being built upon its past. Chicago is the perfect example of this, possessing literal layers of historical structures. Being a major rail road hub in the 20's and 30's city planners were having major trouble organizing city growth. The rail road occupied large portions of land within the city limits, restricting its ability to grow. The way city planners solved the problem was by building over the rail road tracks, creating a city below a city.Today you can be walking on the sidewalk knowing that below you is another street, and below that a rail road! Its super interesting! Karma001
That is pretty cool, I never thought of Chicago being like that. It seems like a lot of east coast cities are that way as well. For example New York is built on top of the old NY because there wasn't anywhere to grow, so they had to build up. glassonion001
I never knew that Chicago was built in that way. I am supposed to be visiting there soon and will appreciate it a little more now. It also makes sense that if you are running out of room to just build up. I do not think I could live in a big city, I like my space but I think people who live in cities like Chicago or New York live interesting lives. Toby001
Seattle is like that. There was a fire that burned down most of the city and when it was rebuilt, it was rebuilt on stilts so that the area could be leveled off, and flooding made less of a problem. There are tours that you can take in the old central buisness district of Seattle and go underground. I find it facinating that a city can even be built on stilts, but the recycling of the land is always done by the ones who can afford it, and that keeps the economy going. Arizona001
As the industrial revolution began, I don't think any certain model was in mind, it just worked out that way. the industries where built and people needed a place to live with a short commute to work. Once they made enough money to design their own homes they had to move outside of the cities where there was land to build on. When that filled up they moved even further away as it shows on the Burgess or concentric model. As society became more modern the Hoyt or Sector model and or the multiple nuclei model was developed to be more efficient. The older a place of living is the more run down it gets and the cheaper it is to own, is why the lower income families are able to move closer to the inner cities. Now with the third urban revolution the wealthy know to build their cities in the poorest nations to save money and take advantage of the low income or no income families that live in them. TooTall001
I've never heard of these models for urban growth.It's cool that someone looked at how they think cities grow and put in different models. The multiple nuclei model I think is what a lot of the towns here in central Illinois underwent. In Peoria for example a lot of people live in subdivisions on top of the hill away from the "business center" like Adams Street or Water Street. I think this was partly to do with the space, and that a lot more room was available away from the businesses. I think also the model of growth that a town undergoes depends on the location and time it happens. For example a western U.S town won't undergo the same growth as a New York City because it has been over 300 years since NY has come to exist. So people migrate differently than they did back then. glassonion001
More than the video, I think I understood it better with your comment. I do agree with you that most of this depends on the kind of space available and time. Location definitely plays a big role if undergoing a change is considered any how. khush001
I think that also, California is a big state with big cities such as Los Angeles. So many people have gone there for jobs and immigrants as well from Mexico especially because of the border. I was born in Los Angeles. My mom had jumped the border illegally but, she legal now so that's good. But, yea I think the guy should've included an example of California with the models. Because there are so many people in that urban area. With traffic and other things. HollaGurl001
I have really never heard of these models before. It's really interesting to know how cities and surroundings grow around. The Center being CBD or Central Business District. Next to center zone is mixed of residential and commercial areas put together. Following, would be the inner city or the suburbs area, this is the area where most of the working class families live. Fourth being area for better homes, it is kind of understandable because as you move away from city areas good homes and better housing qualities are bound to happen. I think that the video did not go into details of why these zones are separated with what they are, it would be interesting to figure out why. This study was basically based on Chicago first but definitely these are the zones for all major cities. khush001
With the Sector Model it is evident that the lower class are going to live closer to transportation such as buses or even close enough to their work place to walk due to insufficient funds. For the concentric zone having five different zones starting with the central business district, second zone of transition containing industry and poorer quality homes, third zone of working class homes with stable working families, fourth zone of better residences contains newer more spacious homes and zone five commuter zones. I feel like the zones make sense they are very understandable. The sector model is looking more at resources and why these people choose to live where they live. In order to afford a home period you have to have transportation to work and being close to the work place would a.) Save money and b.) A reliable way to work daily. As for the Nuclei model land use zones are in chunks basically saying the people are spaced out due to increase of car ownership which I feel like where I live the nuclei model is used more than any other model. LAWS001
These U.S. City Growth models were interesting. It is about social status, and money. Of course people built towns and industry near waterways to start with, as that was the only type of transportation. Later in history water was a main source of power, so industry would also be near. As technology gave way to Steam engines, people were able to then travel to other cities for business as well as relocating. Automobiles made it possible to move trade goods farther, and people more readily . Industry became the hub of the design of transportation . In the Concetric Zone model, it's shaped like a target. The center is business, scattered with low-income housing. The next transition ring explains a light industry fluxed with older homes and tennament housing. The next zonein housing is middle-class, working and single people; outside of that is family living, and last is commuters. The second model worked better for cities with huge population growth. Dr. Hoyte realized that Chicago didn't fit this economic target, as there wasn't a source of upper class set of people,more like low-income housing situations. His Sector model is represented that population of Chicago is shaped by transportation access, and the different types of economic activity , (restaurants, salons, shops etc.) His model proved that as a city grows and activity expand outward in a wedge . The nicest housed are in the hub-downtown and the lower classes follow suit behind them in a wedge chunk. The last model is well-known as the Multiple Nuclei Model, and this shows businesses were defined by transportation as well. But, in this case produced little pockets of areas that prove that central businesses are not as important. For instance, high end living areas attract business, while big industry may deter it. Rosebudd001
The Burgess model definitely describes Peoria. We don't have specific sectors like Chicago. We are culturally integrated through and through. Peoria has all the rings described in the video. You could go so far as to include East Peoria in the concentric rings of the Burgess model. Peoria and East Peoria have the primary central business district located around the river. We learned that urbanization has a tendency to be centered around water sources for transportation of goods and services. Most of the economically challenged citizens live near the CBD. For instance, the majority of section 8 housing is found near downtown Peoria. The wealthy tend to be on the outskirts near Dunlap and Kickapoo. That leaves, the working class, to commute from in between the upper and lower economic groups to downtown. Packers001
Yeah, I can see how the growth of cities such as Chicago, California, New York and other parts have changed over time. In Peoria I see rebuilding, fixing things up. The streets, building more housing tearing up trees replacing them making room for many more people. It allows the growth of the population in cities to increase. Globally it happens. As far as I have heard is that Peoria used to be a big city. With more people but as Chicago grew with factories and whatnot people moved over there for jobs, which increased population over there.
In the previous comments it was mentioned that a few people have never heard of these graphs which made me feel better because until now I have not either. It makes a lot of sense though why houses are less expensive the closer you live towards factories and what not because of the noise and pollution. Also, there is less room around factories for large more expensive homes. Within the sector model I thought it was interesting that it expands through the wedges because I do not think there are many towns around her like that. Overall this video was very interesting, I never knew there are patterns of specific types of layouts for cities. Toby001
This video did not give any explanation as to when these different models of urbanization originated, but I think we could probably guess that there have been changes in how US cities have been founded and organized over time. I would imagine the industrial revolution in America (I'm thinking meat packing house era Chicago) was really more or less the birth of the metropolis in the US. Our textbook provides the data that by 1920, over 50% of the population lived in urban areas. At this time, many immigrants moved their families to Chicago to work in these factories. During that time period, a CBD definitely existed in Chicago, but the meat packing houses were also prolific. My guess is that the model of urbanization looked something like the Multiple Nuclei model, because you had the downtown, lakefront CBD, but you also had the heavy industry manufacturing district of the meat packing houses with all the less wealthy working class families living somewhere between the two.
ReplyDeletethestig001
It makes sense what you said about how the model of urbanization was probably like the Multiple Nuclei model. Chicago must have been a very interesting place back then with all the different industries. It still has some of the same industries, but obviously they have changed. Also, it makes sense that so many immigrants would live in cities. There are way more job opportunities there compared to places like Nebraska.
Deleteswimmer001
When my grandfather brought over the family into the US, the first place they lived was in Miami. There was a greater number of people who shared a cultural background, which made them more welcomed and made it easier to get jobs and support. In order to move to central Illinois, they had to save up a lot of money (relatively). At that time, Peoria's economy was booming, and so jobs were actually easier to get over here than in Miami, and they paid more. If Nebraska had a city where industry was growing, I think we would see a lot more immigrants moving there. FreedomUnderGod001
DeleteThis video was actually kind of interesting. Some of the things he said about the rings of where different people live in cities using the Concentric Zone model was common sense but yet I had never really thought about. I found it interesting that lower-income people tend to live not in the very center but the 2nd ring. It makes sense though because it would be cheaper than the very center of the city but yet close enough to catch a bus or not have to drive far to get to their jobs. Even though the Concentric Zone model made sense, I think the Sector model actually is a better choice. This way people with a lower-income can get to work easier. There are many lower-income people living in cities, according to the textbook. The Multiple Nuclei model is the model for most American cities, interestingly enough. I would not have chosen that model for American cities but it seems to be working fine.
ReplyDeleteswimmer001
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the lower income class isn't choosing to live in the crappiest side of town. They can only afford to live there. If you think about who develops these plans and who gets the most out of these plans yet again the American Corporations, the wealthy are setting up our cities to better their lives. It irritates me to no end that it doesn't matter how hard you work, honest or loyal, or just a plain ol' good person you are, you might not be able to afford to live in a safe, healthy, beautiful environment. WonderWoman001
DeleteI agree with your comment. If you take a minute and think about the layout of each of these models you can tell how they have formed. I think if you looked at how much of these layouts occurred you can contribute it to transportation. Like you said the lower income can get to work easier, they might not have the same transportation capabilities as some of the middle to high income classes. SVT001.
DeleteI do agree with you swimmer001 because the lower class do love in the center and have acess to many things around them whether they walk, take a cab or a bus they have less money to spend for transportation. The higher class live farther away and can afford to drive the way for work, shopping, school, etc.This model does seem to work out for each class in the long run but I don't think its fair to place a group of people like this because of their income. This video was interesting and opened my eyes up more on how and why each class is placed throughout the cities.
DeleteSummer001
Swimmer001 the layout of these models does make sense especially when it comes to the population having transportation. I see as if the people choose to live where they live so that they have a way to work. In big cities the bus or train is an everyday use and living close to one can and will save money and time which in the city most people try to save as much as they can with both. LAWS001
DeleteMany people don't know that the north end of Adams street goes through Averyville neighborhood. It gets the name Averyville because the old Komatsu building was originally built by Avery Tractor company, and the majority of people living in that area were Avery Tractor employees. A perfect explanation of how urbanization works, because people moved close to plant for a easy commute. Packers001
DeleteThis is the first time I am hearing about these models, although it is not the first time I have seen it. I play a lot of computer games, and some games I play are city simulators. Whenever I first start playing a new simulator, I always try and create the most efficient and the largest city possible in the game. The eventual growth of the city always went through a 3 step process: as it was small, I utilized a pattern similar to the concentric zone model, where everything was neatly centered and organized. As I would manage the economy and policies of the city, it would eventually grow into something like the sector model in order to be more efficient, and thus produce more income. But always, at the end of every simulation, it would evolve into an organic structure similar to the multiple nuclei model. It always ended up being the most stable way to consistently grow and sustain the city. Needless to say I am continually pissed at it going to that stage, because I wanted everything to be neatly patterned and organized. It's curious how my simulations reflected the different models of Urbanization. FreedomUnderGod001
ReplyDeleteI wonder how those simulations are to the urbanization of cities historically? It seems to make sense that in general, cities might have morphed from the concentric zone model, to the sector model, to the multiple nuclei model through population and industrial growth, but is this the case? I found it interesting how in all three models, the low-income housing was always very close to the Central Business District. This doesn't make a ton of sense to me, because most people who work in the CBD are making pretty good money (whether you work in retail or for a restaurant or for a corporation) so where are these lower income people working? Maybe some work in light-manufacturing, but I don't think there are enough jobs in that sector of business for all the lower-income people to work there.
Deletethestig001
I think the urbanization of cities historically worldwide is significantly different than what we have experienced here in the US. I suspect that the progress of civilization around a city would determine which model it is more likely to fall under. FreedomUnderGod001
DeleteLearning about these three different ways the U.S. develop cities doesn't surprise me much. While I didn't have a name for it as I've traveled you see all the examples and it doesn't surprise as to why they build or plan cities this way. It ties in all the 3 sociology theories together really. You got the social conflict, keeping the poor where they should be on the bad sides of town, they might even get to work at a crappy unsafe factory near their home as well if they are lucky. You got the middle class always working to get to that next level that they probably won't ever reach. The highers on the outskirts of town where it's more safe and beautiful probably on a lake. And of course they surround the business/money...that is if we are lucky enough to live in an area where there are jobs either on the poor side of town or centrally located, where after we earn this education we hope to get to work. Since the beginning of the colonies most of the U.S. is all about getting ahead, making the most, owning, the most. How is this affecting our environment and our humanity? Even down to how our cities are developed all for the good of man or wealth? WonderWoman001
ReplyDeleteMost of the U.S population live in the suburbs near shops and malls rather than in the old down town industrial districts. When the down town district lost the high income families to the suburbs they struggled to support themselves because only the poor remained. Many cities fell into a crisis and became slums with high crime rates and unemployment. TooTall001
DeleteWell it's hard to disagree with any of that. It's apparent that cities are designed for wealth. Just some one elses. The wealth of the coorporations establish what and who are around them. The housing left around factory districts are affordable only because it probably isn't safe living there. People in the upper -class areas woudn't have to know about tainted water sources, or harmfull air emmisions. Rosebudd001
DeleteI found this video very interesting about models of urbanization. I have never put a lot of thought into urban growth in the United States. I really found the multiple nuclei model of urbanization the most interesting. I feel like more of the United States is like the multiple nuclei model. I also thought the Burgess Model was neat as well. It has a central location with all the major businesses and directly around it is the poorer, lower income residents. You would think that being closer to the central business district would be the better place, or where you would want to live. After I thought about this, I realized that the workers that can afford to live where they want. The higher paid workers will want to commute to work so they can have a bigger house and more land. It is neat if you look in societies how if you do not go to a town for a few years and when you revisit a town more of the town has spread outward. SVT001.
ReplyDeleteThese three ways they developed the cities is interesting. I do not belive it is right to place us a on graph of where each group is considered to be. We should work together to help each group out so we could lmit the judgment. This says the lower income people stay close to their neighborhoods and the higher income people stay close to their neighborhoods. Which would allow the higher income people to mostly associate to the same people as them. And the lower class to associate with the same people. But I have seen this generation that higher class people associating with lower class people. This is how it should be. Lower class people tend to live around noisy buisnesses but it is closer for them for transportation and walking distances. These models are judgmental to me and shouldn't base people off of their income. I do believe the cities were made the way they were because pf these classifications. How some cities have the bad "trash" side while the other side of town is neat and well maintained looking. I understand it but it blocks other people out and a persons norms could change because of their enviorment their classified in.
ReplyDeleteSummer001
Looking at the three different models that he presented, each model makes sense when you add in the possible time frame that the cities would have been built and the natural migration of people and their preferences on where they’d want to live. The concentric zone model, makes sense when placed in the industrialization era. The sector model makes sense when placed in a post industrial time frame of the city. That’s when people placed an emphasis on education, and had a transportation system in place. The multiple nuclei model resembles what the cities look like out west. The cities out there aren’t older and don’t have an old industrial area. Instead, the people shaped the city around the industrial revolution era. Cities are constantly being recycled as the current population sees fit. Take East Peoria for example, Caterpillar had a vast complex there, industry moved, and now the city is recycling the land and making it fit their needs. Arizona001
ReplyDeleteI go to school near Chicago and I absolutely love exploring its vibrant neighborhoods. Though I’ve gathered some knowledge of the development of the area of downtown Chicago, I know very little about how these neighborhoods I’ve grown to love came to be. I imagine I would have to do some research into the history of Chicago and “red-lining” or such to really grasp the urban ecology found in Chicago, using the models of urbanization presented in this video will hopefully allow me to develope my perception and understanding of the city as it exists today. From my own experience I can make clear distinctions between neighborhoods as seen in this video, categorizing my brother’s neighborhood of Logan Square in the independant worker zone and Wheaton, where my college resides, in the commuter zone. Maybe I should try and make my own map of the city. Karma001
ReplyDeleteAs you think about the design of Chicago, consider the effect that the Chicago Fire had in the rebuilding of the city and how people were able to plan out the districts more instead of it having grown organically. FreedomUnderGod001
DeleteI love the idea of cities being recycled, or as I like to put it, being built upon its past. Chicago is the perfect example of this, possessing literal layers of historical structures. Being a major rail road hub in the 20's and 30's city planners were having major trouble organizing city growth. The rail road occupied large portions of land within the city limits, restricting its ability to grow. The way city planners solved the problem was by building over the rail road tracks, creating a city below a city.Today you can be walking on the sidewalk knowing that below you is another street, and below that a rail road! Its super interesting! Karma001
ReplyDeleteThat is pretty cool, I never thought of Chicago being like that. It seems like a lot of east coast cities are that way as well. For example New York is built on top of the old NY because there wasn't anywhere to grow, so they had to build up. glassonion001
DeleteI never knew that Chicago was built in that way. I am supposed to be visiting there soon and will appreciate it a little more now. It also makes sense that if you are running out of room to just build up. I do not think I could live in a big city, I like my space but I think people who live in cities like Chicago or New York live interesting lives. Toby001
DeleteSeattle is like that. There was a fire that burned down most of the city and when it was rebuilt, it was rebuilt on stilts so that the area could be leveled off, and flooding made less of a problem. There are tours that you can take in the old central buisness district of Seattle and go underground. I find it facinating that a city can even be built on stilts, but the recycling of the land is always done by the ones who can afford it, and that keeps the economy going. Arizona001
DeleteAs the industrial revolution began, I don't think any certain model was in mind, it just worked out that way. the industries where built and people needed a place to live with a short commute to work. Once they made enough money to design their own homes they had to move outside of the cities where there was land to build on. When that filled up they moved even further away as it shows on the Burgess or concentric model. As society became more modern the Hoyt or Sector model and or the multiple nuclei model was developed to be more efficient. The older a place of living is the more run down it gets and the cheaper it is to own, is why the lower income families are able to move closer to the inner cities. Now with the third urban revolution the wealthy know to build their cities in the poorest nations to save money and take advantage of the low income or no income families that live in them. TooTall001
ReplyDeleteI've never heard of these models for urban growth.It's cool that someone looked at how they think cities grow and put in different models. The multiple nuclei model I think is what a lot of the towns here in central Illinois underwent. In Peoria for example a lot of people live in subdivisions on top of the hill away from the "business center" like Adams Street or Water Street. I think this was partly to do with the space, and that a lot more room was available away from the businesses. I think also the model of growth that a town undergoes depends on the location and time it happens. For example a western U.S town won't undergo the same growth as a New York City because it has been over 300 years since NY has come to exist. So people migrate differently than they did back then. glassonion001
ReplyDeleteMore than the video, I think I understood it better with your comment. I do agree with you that most of this depends on the kind of space available and time. Location definitely plays a big role if undergoing a change is considered any how.
Deletekhush001
I think that also, California is a big state with big cities such as Los Angeles. So many people have gone there for jobs and immigrants as well from Mexico especially because of the border. I was born in Los Angeles. My mom had jumped the border illegally but, she legal now so that's good. But, yea I think the guy should've included an example of California with the models. Because there are so many people in that urban area. With traffic and other things.
DeleteHollaGurl001
I have really never heard of these models before. It's really interesting to know how cities and surroundings grow around. The Center being CBD or Central Business District. Next to center zone is mixed of residential and commercial areas put together. Following, would be the inner city or the suburbs area, this is the area where most of the working class families live. Fourth being area for better homes, it is kind of understandable because as you move away from city areas good homes and better housing qualities are bound to happen. I think that the video did not go into details of why these zones are separated with what they are, it would be interesting to figure out why. This study was basically based on Chicago first but definitely these are the zones for all major cities.
ReplyDeletekhush001
With the Sector Model it is evident that the lower class are going to live closer to transportation such as buses or even close enough to their work place to walk due to insufficient funds. For the concentric zone having five different zones starting with the central business district, second zone of transition containing industry and poorer quality homes, third zone of working class homes with stable working families, fourth zone of better residences contains newer more spacious homes and zone five commuter zones. I feel like the zones make sense they are very understandable. The sector model is looking more at resources and why these people choose to live where they live. In order to afford a home period you have to have transportation to work and being close to the work place would a.) Save money and b.) A reliable way to work daily. As for the Nuclei model land use zones are in chunks basically saying the people are spaced out due to increase of car ownership which I feel like where I live the nuclei model is used more than any other model. LAWS001
ReplyDeleteThese U.S. City Growth models were interesting. It is about social status, and money. Of course people built towns and industry near waterways to start with, as that was the only type of transportation. Later in history water was a main source of power, so industry would also be near. As technology gave way to Steam engines, people were able to then travel to other cities for business as well as relocating. Automobiles made it possible to move trade goods farther, and people more readily . Industry became the hub of the design of transportation . In the Concetric Zone model, it's shaped like a target. The center is business, scattered with low-income housing. The next transition ring explains a light industry fluxed with older homes and tennament housing. The next zonein housing is middle-class, working and single people; outside of that is family living, and last is commuters. The second model worked better for cities with huge population growth. Dr. Hoyte realized that Chicago didn't fit this economic target, as there wasn't a source of upper class set of people,more like low-income housing situations. His Sector model is represented that population of Chicago is shaped by transportation access, and the different types of economic activity , (restaurants, salons, shops etc.) His model proved that as a city grows and activity expand outward in a wedge . The nicest housed are in the hub-downtown and the lower classes follow suit behind them in a wedge chunk. The last model is well-known as the Multiple Nuclei Model, and this shows businesses were defined by transportation as well. But, in this case produced little pockets of areas that prove that central businesses are not as important. For instance, high end living areas attract business, while big industry may deter it. Rosebudd001
ReplyDeleteThe Burgess model definitely describes Peoria. We don't have specific sectors like Chicago. We are culturally integrated through and through. Peoria has all the rings described in the video. You could go so far as to include East Peoria in the concentric rings of the Burgess model. Peoria and East Peoria have the primary central business district located around the river. We learned that urbanization has a tendency to be centered around water sources for transportation of goods and services. Most of the economically challenged citizens live near the CBD. For instance, the majority of section 8 housing is found near downtown Peoria. The wealthy tend to be on the outskirts near Dunlap and Kickapoo. That leaves, the working class, to commute from in between the upper and lower economic groups to downtown. Packers001
ReplyDeleteYeah, I can see how the growth of cities such as Chicago, California, New York and other parts have changed over time. In Peoria I see rebuilding, fixing things up. The streets, building more housing tearing up trees replacing them making room for many more people. It allows the growth of the population in cities to increase. Globally it happens. As far as I have heard is that Peoria used to be a big city. With more people but as Chicago grew with factories and whatnot people moved over there for jobs, which increased population over there.
ReplyDeleteHollaGurl001
In the previous comments it was mentioned that a few people have never heard of these graphs which made me feel better because until now I have not either. It makes a lot of sense though why houses are less expensive the closer you live towards factories and what not because of the noise and pollution. Also, there is less room around factories for large more expensive homes. Within the sector model I thought it was interesting that it expands through the wedges because I do not think there are many towns around her like that. Overall this video was very interesting, I never knew there are patterns of specific types of layouts for cities. Toby001
ReplyDelete