Chapter 7

Land Use Patterns

Purpose

•In this chapter we describe the spatial distribution of employment and population within urban areas

•This distribution was very different about 100 years ago. We explore the market forces behind that change and the welfare consequences

A Monocentic City

A Monocentic City

•Cities looked very different 100 years ago:▫Cities had a unique center ▫Jobs were concentrated near the city

center▫Manufacturing firms located near railroad

terminals▫Office firms clustered in the CBD▫Workers lived in the city center and

commuted by foot or in the suburbs and rode street cars

Rise of the Monocentric City

•Innovations in production and energy increased concentration of production in cities

•Required some means to transport workers to factories and goods to markets

Rise of the Monocentric City

•Innovations in Intracity Transportation▫Omnibus (1827)▫Cable cars (1873)▫Electric Trolley (1886)▫Subways (1895)

Decrease in travel cost and increase feasible radius

Rise of the Monocentric City

•The Primitive Technology of Freight▫Intercity freight: manufacturers

transported finished goods out of the city through ship or rail

▫Intracity freight: horse-drawn wagons were used for transporting goods from the factory to port or rail terminal

▫Tied manufacturer to the central export node: railroad terminal or port

Rise of the Monocentric City

•The Technology of Building Construction▫Balloon-frame building (1832), fastened

with cheap nails▫Office buildings: masonry to cast iron

(1848, five stories) to steel (1885, 11 stories)

▫Elevator (1854): Intra-building price curve inverted by elevator; upper floors rent at premium, not a discount

Demise of the Monocentric City

•100 years ago, the spatial distribution of employment and population started to change

•Define ▫A central city is the territory of the

municipality at the center of the metropolitan area.

▫A Suburban area is the rest of the metropolitan area

The Spatial Distribution of Jobs and People

Distribution of Employment

• Employment decentralization

• In 1948 jobs in central city were twice those in suburban areas

The Spatial Distribution of office space

Three employment centers:

• CBD • Sub-centers: an

area with a minimum of 10,000 workers and 25 worker per hectare

• Dispersed: everywhere else

The Spatial Distribution of Population•Central city share is 36%•Suburban share is 64%•The table below shows that urban

population is more decentralized than urban employment

Urban Density Worldwide

•Cities are defined as areas of high population density

•Variation in density of world cities

•US cities rank lowest

The demise of the monocentric cityDecentralization of Manufacturing: Trucks and

Highways▫The intracity truck (1910). Twice as fast and half

as costly as horse wagon. 1910 - 1920: Number of trucks in Chicago increased 800 to 23,000

▫Tipping the balance away from central location. Truck decreased cost of moving output relative to the cost of moving workers. Firms moved closer to low-wage suburbs

▫The intercity truck (1930s). Long-distance travel became feasible. Improvement of intercity highways facilitated truck transport. Truck freight grew at expense of shipping and rail freight. Most manufactures oriented to highways, not rail terminal or port

The demise of the monocentric city

•Other Factors in Decentralization of manufacturing▫Automobile replace streetcars, increasing

access outside streetcar hub; highway sites accessible to entire metropolitan area

▫Single-story manufacturing plants cheaper in low-rent suburbs

▫Air freight: orientation toward suburban airports

The demise of the monocentric city

•Decentralization of Office Employment▫Before 1970s: paper-processing back-office

operations in suburbs▫Electronic transmission of information

allows decoupling of office activities, with information processors in suburb and decision-makers in CBD

The demise of the monocentric city

• Decentralization of population: Reasons▫ Increase in income: ambiguous effect because

higher income Increases the opportunity cost of commuting, but also Increases demand for housing and land, pulling people

to low-price suburbs▫Lower commuting cost decreases the relative cost

of suburban living▫Old housing in center▫Central-city fiscal problems▫Crime▫Variation in education

Urban Sprawl

•Sprawl Facts•1950 - 1990: urban land increased 245%;

urban population increased 92%

Urban Sprawl

•The role of public policy▫Under pricing of commuting encourages

long commutes▫Mortgage subsidy increases housing

consumption▫Under pricing of fringe infrastructure▫Zoning: Minimum lot sizes to exclude high-

density housing

Why is population density higher in Europe?

• Higher cost of personal transportation

• Higher gasoline taxes• Higher sales taxes on automobiles• Promote small neighborhood shops that facilitate

high-density living▫Expensive electricity and freezers?▫Restrictions on location and prices of large retailers

• Agriculture subsidies allow fringe farmers to outbid urban uses

• Transportation infrastructure favors mass transit

Consequences of Sprawl• Increased demand for public goods, e.g., highways and schools• Environmental consequences: more emissions from energy

consumption• Political consequences: increased dependence on fossil fuels• Depletion of world reserves of fossil fuels results in a non

sustainable life style• Loss of farmland can increase agriculture prices• Inefficient to provide mass transit

▫ To support intermediate bus service, need 31 people per hectare▫ Only New York and Honolulu have this density▫ 60% of Barcelona residents within 600 meters of transit station,

compared to 4% of Atlanta residents within 800 meters of transit station