LAND
THE
FIVE
USE
STRUCTURE
AMERICAN
OF
CITIES
by
MARCOU
TH.
GEORGES
B.ARCH., Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(1953)
SU3MITTED
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIRDKENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER
IN CITY P1.ANNING
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
(1955)
Signature of Author
Departr#nt qc City & Regional Planning
May 23, 1955
,
Certified by
Thesis\4upervisor,
A.
FredeT k J. Adams ,\ead
Department of City &*Regional Planning
0
Graduate House
Cambridge 39, Mass.
May 23, 1955
Professor Frederick J. Adams, Head
Department of City and Regional Planning
School of Architecture and Planning
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge 39, Massachusetts
Dear Professor Adams:
I respectfully submit herewith a thesis entitled "The Land Use
Structure of Five American Cities" in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning.
Sincerely yours:
George5Th. Marcou
Ir
ACKNOWLEDGNNTS
I wish to express my gratitude to the faculty and fellow students
in the department.
They have contributed, each in his own way, to
create an atmosphere where companionship and learning go hand in hand.
Special thanks are due to Professor John T. Howard who, as my
thesis advisor, gave innumerable helpful suggestions and criticism.
My fiancee, Margaret, has helped in the collection and processing
of the data.
I wish to express my appreciation for her concern.
Miss Dulcie Jones has graciously undertaken the typing of the
thesis.
ABSTRACT OF TSI3
Titles
The land use structure of five American cities
Author:
Georges Th. Mareou
Submitted to the Department of City and Regional Planning on
May 23, 1955, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master in City Planning.
Purpose: - This study is an initial attempt at describing the in-
ternal as well as the total land use structures of five American cities i Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and
San Francisco.
Procedures -
1. To describe the importance of a use in a metropolitan area
relative to the other uses, the percentages of these uses
to the total developed area were analysed.
2. To describe the importance of a use in a metropolis rela.
tive to the same use in other areas, both percentage of
total developed and density for each use were correlated
with certain factors that are believed to mold the total
structure of a metropolis, such as age, economic base, etc.
3. To describe the internal structure of a metropolis, rings
of equal population percentages were drawn around the Central Business District and the land use data derived for
each*
Then indexes measuring the importance of a use in
---------------
a ring relative to the same use in the other rings of a
metropolis were derived, compared and analyzed.
4. To measure the importance of a use in a ring relative
to the other uses in the same ring, their percentages
of the total metropolitan developed area were obtained
and their spatial ranking described.
Findings: -
l. That the five metropolitan areas are in no respect completely alike.
2. That they presented a certain number of similaritiess
(a) that the uses within them tend to take up a spatial
scale of importance similar, in general terms, for all
five;
(b) that some of the variations in their total land
structure can be traced back to factors such as age or
size)
(c) that the land use structure for residential and
comercial uses, although varying considerably from center to hinterland, offers generally similar progressions
for all five areas.
That industrial uses are a little
more individual in their distribution;
(d) that within a ring, variations can be found in the
predominance of a use relative to the other uses in the
ring, but that the general rule rather than the exception
is a ranking in spatial importance similar to that of
the whole metropolis, at least for the three uses
analyzed s residence, commerce and industry.
Thesis advisor
John T. Howard
Associate Professor
of City Planning
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
List of Illustrations
List of Tables
ii
iii
I
Introduction
1
II
Data and Limitations
4
III
The Spatial Importance of a Use Relative to
other Uses in the Metropolitan Area
IV
The Spatial Importance of a Use Relative to
the Same Use in Other Metropolitan Areas
12
The Spatial. Importance of a Use Relative to the
Same Use in Other Rings of the Metropolitan Area
20
V
VI
VII
The Spatial Importance of a Use in a Ring Relative
to the Other Uses in the Same Ring of the Metropolitan
Area
33
Conclusions
38
Bibliography
40
ii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
following
page
1 - THE URBANIZED AREA AND THE RINGS FOR THE FIVE AREAS
5
2 - GENERALIZED LAND USE MAPS FOR THE FIVE AREAS
8
3 - VARIATIONS OF CCMECIAL IENSITIES WITH AGE OF THE
METROPOLIS,
13
4
-
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE STRUCTURE FOR THE FIVE AREAS
21
5
-
ACCUMULATED INDEX NUMBER VALUES OF RESIDENTIAL LAND
USES FOR THE FIVE AREAS
23
6 - CCMMERCIAL LAND USE STRUCTURE FOR THE FIVE AREAS
7 - ACCUMULATED IND!| NUMBER VALUES OF OC*MCIAL LAND
USES FOR THE FIVE AREAS
27
8 - INUSTRIAL LAND USE STRUCTURE FOR THE FIVE AREAS
28
9 - ACCUMULATED INDEX NUMBER VALUES OF INDUSTRIAL LAND
USES FOR THE FIVE AREAS
29
10 - VARIATION FROM RING TO RING OF THE RELATIVE AREAS
OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USES
FOR THE FIVE AREAS
33
iii
LIST OF TABLES
following
page
1 - POPULATION DATA FOR RINGS IN THE FIVE AREAS
6
2 - PERCENTAGE OF LAND IN USE TO TOTAL DEVELOPED
AREA, FOR THE FIVE AREAS
8
3 - DENSITY OF LAND USE FOR THE FIVE AREAS
8
4 - USES LISTED IN ORDER OF DECREASING SPATIAL
IMPORTA NCE, FOR THE FIVE AREAS
9
5
- VALUE OF INDEX NUMBERS FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND
USES, FOR THE FIVE AREAS
20
6
-
VALUE OF ACCUMUIATED INDEX NUMBERS FOR
RESIDENTIAL IAND USES, FOR THE FIVE AREAS
23
VALUE OF INDEX NUMBERS FOR COMMERCIAL IAND
USES, FOR THE FIVE AREAS
20
7
-
8 - VALUE OF ACCUMULATED INDEX NUMBERS FOR
COMMERCIAL IAND USES, FOR THE FIVE AREAS
9
-
VALUE OF INDEX NTJMBERS FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND
USES, FOR THE FIVE AREAS
10 - VALUE OF ACCUMULATED INDEX NUMBERS FOR
INDUSTRIAL IAND USES, FOR THE FIVE AREAS
11
-
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA IN USE,
IN RING
27
20
29
33
INTRODUCTION
I
The last decades have witnessed a tremendous increase in those
activities, in the nation, that are city-oriented.
That increase
has resulted in an intensified trend towards concentration of population in metropolitan areas.
Furthermore, the largest metropolitan
areas have become larger, more and more metropolitan areas are getting into the larger brackets.
These facts have contributed in
focusing the attention of students of the city upon the problems of
our larger metropolitan areas.
Yet city-oriented, space-consuming activities do not all locate
in equal amounts in all metropolitan areas.
Nor do they seem to
take up an equal amount of space at all points of an urban area.
It
is the purpose of this thesis to arrive at certain generalizations
concerning the spatial distribution of activities between and within
some larger metropolitan areas : Chicago, Illinois;
Los Angeles, California;
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Detroit, Michigan;
and San Fran-
cisco, California.
Planners have found it
expedient, in their work, to obtain facts
concerning the land use of cities.
What does land use imply?
other things, four basic qualities.
these constitute physical qualities.
Among
Land implies extent and location,
Use implies type and intensity,
human qualities that man superimposes upon land.
Extent of land use involves the quantity of land, whether measured
in square feet or acres.
2
Location of land use necessitates the introduction of some point
or axis of reference.
It involves a distance for a given point or
set of coordinates.
Type of land use implies classifying those activities that are
"similar" in nature and grouping then together into one "use".
Finally, intensity of land use measures the quantity of a land
use with respect to a unit of population.
Depending on the problem
at hand, any or all of the above four elements will be analyzed.
There are an infinite number of relationships that might characterize the land use structure of a metropolitan area.
chosen.
Four such were
They are:
1. The spatial importance of a use in a metropolitan area relative to the other uses in the same metropolitan area.
2. The spatial importance of a use relative to the same use in
other metropolitan areas.
3. The spatial importance of a use at a certain location within
the metropolitan area relative to other locations.
4. Finally, the spatial importance of a use at a certain location
relative to the other uses in the same location.
To establish the first set of relationships, use will be made of
the area characteristics of metropolitan land uses.
The second set will require studying intensity as well as area
characteristics.
The third relationship will be established by the use of area and
intensity qualities, in a framework of location.
3
The last set will make use of location and area characteristics.
4
II
DATA AND LIMITATIONS
There are certain limitations inherent in collecting and grouping together land use surveys conducted by different agencies in different areas.
The land use reports published by these agencies are listed in
the bibliography.
The limitations are listed under the four headings:-
extent of
land use, location, type, and intensity.
EXTENT:-
The land use surveys did not cover, in all cases, the whole
metropolitan area.
Only Los Angeles and Philadelphia had complete
metropolitan surveys.
The other surveys covered up to the city boun-
daries.
Furthermore the data was presented in different forms.
Detroit
had its data collected by census tracts, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and
San Francisco by groupings of census tracts.
data on the basis of one mile squares.
Chicago presented its
As the population gets less
dense, except in Chicago, the census tracts or their groupings get
larger.
In offering data on a small unit basis where the streets are
most often the boundaries, units of uses find themselves split between
census tracts.
, Philadelphia's land use survey offered its
data in
two forms:
"net" acreage for the city proper, "gross" acreage for the whole
5
metropolitan area.
"Gross use," to quote the survey report, "is the
area predominantly occupied by the specified land use category, including streets, vacant lots and interspersed parcels occupied by
other uses."
The effect of such a distortion is minimized if the
form in which the data is studied is that of a ratio.
The "net"
acreage data was used in the study of the first two sets of relationships outlined in the introduction, the "gross" acreage figures for
the last two.
LOCATION:As was suggested above, introducing the element of location of
a use within a metropolitah area immediately necessitates the choice
of a point of reference or a set of coordinates.
Basically there are three ways of grouping the data:
Concentric rings around the Central Business District
Sectors around major transportation lines radiating
away from the Central Business District
or
A combination of the two above.
These three ways reflect, in part, the three major hypotheses
advanced by urban theorists.
The Gradient theory, that the land use pattern continuously
changes as distance from the center changes.
The Sector hypothesis, that land uses will reproduce themselves
in sectors along transportation lines as one radiates from center.
The Multiple nucleus theory that the land use pattern is a reflection of the tendency of certain sections of the city to specialize
ma
1
CHICAGO
MA
M ILES
DE TRO\T
S.
(1950)
0.A.
*
*
LOS ANGELES
S.M.A.
(1950)
IC
4ILE
o Z 4
G
PHILADELPHIA
-M.A.
(1950)
as*.
*
*
0
I
RACISCO
OAK LAMJb
FSAN
IL
6
forming nuclei distributed within the city.
Whichever way is chosen will in part reflect the truth contained
in each of these hypotheses.
The first way of grouping the data was chosen.
The data presen-
ted for a ring will then be the average for the land uses within that
ring.
It should then be kept in mind that any results involving loca-
tion are a reflection of the way the data was chosen to be gathered.
Considering the form of census tracts or their groupings, absolute distance as a ring determinant was impossible to use.
The rings
were therefore drawn on the basis of:Compactness around the Central Business District.
As nearly as possible equal percentages of metropolitan
population.
These percentages were computed on the basis of the popu-
lation lying within as well as outside the boundaries of the land use
survey area.
This applies to those areas whose surveys only covered
the central city.
The land use data presented for a ring whose popu-
lation lies partly outside the land use area has then to be considered
with caution.
Maps lA to lE show, at the same scale, the five areas
under consideration.
Land use survey area, extent of metropolitan
area and ring boundaries are shown.
It will be noted that in the case
of San Francisco the metropolitan area includes the counties of Marin,
San Francisco and San Mateo.
Both Marin and San Mateo Counties are
thought to be oriented more towards San Francisco rather than the Oakland complex for which data was not available.
The results obtained
in this study seem to corroborate that assumption.
POPULAION
-
OATA
FOkP . ~ING 5
IN
THf- 5 NAJS
0
LD
Al
c)
Q.o
lo-
0I
-Th
01
4-
-~
0
GO1
4-
0
V-
-J
-I
a~Io
1.8
4.9
1.7
ZZeZI Z7
9.1
4151,034-
C
(v
0
~
*411
4-8
I
4e, 383
30
1151931
13'j5
2ot,938
3
I-cs5
1'5
793,'ii
4oy1,-41
I Z91f 10o
('q59)
40:
3o.Q
30.
(c gC, Z.9)
4o.7
'57. '5
54.1
'3Cl
115 91) 31.5 115 GC,79 5 414, 0 0 0
.0
,49<34)
-I-
(2 '3 9 0(;,s a)(11 4C 14 43)
e0.4
-83.8
84.6
80.7I
3,110,833
.0
aeG.9
Z,ZZ6,?JQ0 Z,451,olL- 15351S~3oo
(3,336 1 4Z)
04.0,1o00
975
4-
-9.1
too
Vi 3Lkrf-'s
in
rn
r-,icketr>
( ) are
-Z,Ts0, 3 Q Z, 4 9 Z~Li
L)
100
ur + e popvlal-iov, ,ti
'ri
tke
(and
u->e Sorvrl
On-iI
7
The accompanying table 1 lists accumulated populations included
in
the land use survey for each ring and the
summation
for each
ring of population inside and outside the land use survey area, also
accumulated.
Included in the table are the accumulated percentages
of population in ring relative to the metropolitan area.
When we
come to study location, these percentages are going to serve as distance characteristics.
TYPE+There were certain differences between the definitions of the
land use categories used by the various cities.
made to reduce these differences to a minimum.
An attempt has been
Certain uses were re-
classified where the categories were flexible enough to allow it.
By
taking broad land use categories such as residential or industrial
and railroads, the data became more easily comparable between metropolitan areas.
Some land use surveys included categories that grouped two uses
together, such as mixed residential and commercial.
The data for these
categories were split on a basis uniform for all metropolitan areas.
INTENSITY:The land use surveys spanned, for all cities, a number of years.
In general, they were started in the 30's, the reports were all pub-
lished between 1941 and 1946.
The population figures used to deter-
mine intensity of use as well as the rings of equal percentage of
population are those reported by the 1940 U.S. Census of population.
Four relationships were listed in the introduction that were considered indicative of the land use structure of metropolitan areas.
The four following chapters are dedicated to the analysis of
these relationships.
Ch ~e.ago
15.9
Def ro;t
31.. I
39.0
N.7
4.9
3.s
I
10.0
l'5.3
"3.9
rC.'
ker-re Ol'on,
14-5
S:tv-ce J-t
3Z4
~SnFvco
4.7
ILO
Z, 3
Cor~n mPire e
hdlU Sty-j
Pi 1 4iilelpjltd
z 8.9
10.1
IT'IQa 2S eI'de n e-
o~A eeS
~~
.4.3
31.1
3.5
9.Z.
11.9
(.15
8.1
3.8
37.o
T-0 FOP-AL '1/0odrce
PE-QCFNT4G.CF QF LAIND IN USE
tr
DFEYE.LOPE-D AP-EA FOP. THE FiVE AV,.EI1S
-
o -MmEmmmm.,
4
tos A~jceS Pk 1UacelP(h 4 .
I.
4.9
Htvl~~~
piesgdicevce-
Yof I Qe s Idaetce-
6.o
Tota I DXe-ye4e.
1.1I
C.4-
2.1
tI d al 4tr I
St5 rcets
A.,3
Cs
7.5s
9.9
Co me-rce
-R.61. 4San'l Publ(*r-
7-1. 7
San -7Fien.'S
.7
zb2
2.4
4A4
2.o
3.2
10Q.0
15.3
Z3 .8
30. 9
AZ.G
749
1.4
TAbLE 3 -
-DENSTY OF
2. G
z .3
I.1
II.z
Z.9
U~E3 DE~NSIrY
Foiz OFFNE
LA'Mb fIVE A~E4S
L4Nl) F4~LE
-
A(ZEAS
USE FOIZ -rHE FIVE
(ac.reQ
U.
1~
__
__
I
.4 4.
4 44~
44 4
C.
~t.
4.
1
4
COMAE(aC~AL
ii
u..:
4.,
44
I M1)U sri (At
1 1'~
4E~J 4
v0eoc i C',ruecv
*4
4/
44
4~4*
4. ~.
W
44
'.4
1
rb
Kr)IL
0
I
2.
3
CHIC 1*c; 0
LIT
CITY
I
2A
I~.
-4
. -4-.-.-.
-
~.
-4
V
44
.4
9,
V
4
I
.
v
I
,~%
4
100.
4
~
I
.4
.4
444%l
4
4
'&
..
0
:~ %
4.
V
4
*4~*~
I
N4,
P
'"ILk~UI
., 0
4*4
*'
V4
j.
4
~,,
"-F-.
IOO
O1h
4
*W
e%.
-.
00
RA.1 q'
LI
'4-.'
AL
,
kM . .S 4 C A1
1-0 M
M
-
00
1A
L-
0 ~
4
U
L
C4
L
ff ETOIr
r\3
L
p~II
0
.ft04.-
I
IND0wTZ
PU~jL( 5'Oj
(S~ft
IPo
Poe
Ll
HIL~
,~'ES
I
Lo
ANGtLES
tMETR,
Ap-ej4
/
INDUSTRAAL
COsAM~~ERZCIAL
I,
'K
*. PUlBLlcI $-PUI3LIc
/
N.
I
/
I
N
N
N
Il.
V
/
*/ /~*
N
L
'S
L;%
A,-
0 00
-
.Vj
9*ttrf
Zs-~'
~\
(S
-,
'-I
I.
i
/
d0
7
WI
*55%
'WV
C?
'I'
0
I
*
"Wft
'I
2
- '.
'4
1'
/
iV.
/
*?
~
V.PH L 4D E LP M IA
METP. AREJA
4
MILES
/
I
K Wf V.
E~Q~
4000
FizI
-
r.
16.
/
-WW
:~
'V
'4.
PQOWAL
WWAWI^lb
A44
0
v
0
.
.
1
VV
V
v *,
.Vd
*6~~
v
''
(V
I
S4
41.1
I
/
VV
If
/
tv I.
I
V
p
'I
t
.7
JV
*~
vV
V.q
VV 1
VVv
-
*~-.
d, ......
a
I
I
5AN
;a
VU
jmvrA
I/.
'V
*
00
48 ......
FANC%5CO
I
9
III
THE SPATIAL IMPORTANCE OF A USE
RELATIVE TO OTHER USES IN THE
METROPOLITAN AREA
To examine a use relative to other uses in the same area, the
totality of the data in each survey report was considered.
In their totality, the surveys covered the land occupied by the
following percentages of metropolitan population:
For Chicago
Detroit
Los Angeles
75.5%
70.7%
100
%
Philadelphia
66.1%
San Francisco
86.9%
Maps 2A to 2E, show in a generalized way the land use pattern for the
five areas.
The data were nevertheless compiled and grouped as shown
on tables 2 and 3. Table 2 lists the land use data in the form of
percentage of developed area and table 3 in that of acres per thousand population.
The spatial importance of a use relative to the other uses in
the urban area can best be seen by ranking the uses for each area in
decreasing order.
Whether one chooses percentage of developed areas
or acres per thousand population, the results are the same.
Table 4 lists for each urban area, the land use categories in
order of decreasing space consumption.
It can be readily seen that the largest percentages of land are
~0
4)1
0
4-
42
42
o30
3c).
39.o
2es( detc~e
zI QtS ,je.C"-
tiee-f s
O~.
I iju
~l)
03.0
G-I
I
VI
Co v
F 4SW6 PAlk 5
ts tr4
P 5,3
ecGa1i OK
ato
wlrev(cf
kWL1t -IS,EA, Itc-
4.0
.7
VEr2b c4
1i.3
PL,,61 C-4 13. PLc 16
11'
C-A.3
COPm e- e
3.5
USQ-S L(StED
P~AL
In
JiLKOItLk S9.L
LA-sr(4
(ze-cfe"&holt
, a S.i~A
Ftc6 t 3
CIO mrvt-ec
DEiCREASIOJG
Of=
IN~ OkDE
te\hK:tE. oP T14f F(VF- AkF4S
L*C
10
taken up by either residential or street uses.
Each of these uses
takes up from 26.1% for Philadelphia to 39.2% for Los Angeles.
Vari-
ations are great.
The differences between the percentages of land taken up by residential uses and those devoted to streets read as follows:-
.3
for Chicago
- .2
for San Francisco
+3.1
for Detroit
+6.6
for Philadelphia
+7.5
for Los Angeles
Chicago makes a more extensive use of the space-consuming grid-iron
street system than any of the other four areas.
An examination of the
maps revealed a larger amount of premature subdivision in Chicago.
The percentage of street land, already developed, is
out of proportion
with residential land not yet developed.
Industrial and Railroad lands and Recreational land hold the same
rank for all five urban areas.
There still
are wide variations though:
from 9.2% for San Francisco to 19.0% for Chicago in industrial use,
from 5.6% in Detroit to 11.9% in Philadelphia for Recreational land.
The last two uses - Commercial on one hand and Public and Semi-
Public on the other - change in rank with different metropolitan areas.
Commercial uses vary from a high 5.8% for Chicago and San Francisco
to a low 3.5% for Los Angeles and Philadelphia.
Public and Semi-Public
uses take up a low 4.3% in Los Angeles and a high 8.1%in Philadelphia.
The giant space-consumers are then residential or street land uses.
11
They are followed in spatial importance by industrial and recreational
uses.
The least important uses are the commercial and the public and
semi-public uses.
One can say then, from the above,
that a relationship can be
established which holds true for all five of the metropolitan areas,
in so far as the uses within them, with some variation, have similar
spatial importance relatively to one another.
There still are vari-
ations though of two natures : variations in rank as well as variations within the same rank between urban areas.
An attempt at explaining these variations will be made in the
next chapter .
12
IV
THE SPATIAL IMPORTANCE OF
A USE RELATIVE TO THE SAME
USE IN OTHER METROPOLITAN AREAS
The variations that we can witness in tables 3 and 4 are due
partly to data limitatiohs and partly to the nature of each metropolis.
The nature of a metropolis which affects its land use characteristics is the product of a large number of factors.
Such factors
as age of the metropolis, its economic structure, its regional background, the topography of its land, all contribute to giving a metropolis its land use pattern.
It
is proposed, in this section, to match some of these factors
that vary from metropolis to metropolis against the land use data.
Inferences between the factors and the data might in
part explain
the variations in the land use characteristics of the five areas.
A word of caution is needed.
A correlation between a factor
and the data does not necessarily mean that the factor is the sole
responsible for the data variation.
rurthermore that correlation
may be due to a totally different factor.
Nevertheless certain rea-
sonable conclusions can be drawn from comparing the factors to the
Only simple cross-classification is used and the results are
data.
discussed only when an inference exists.
The following factors were chosen partly because they were readily available and partly because they are based on a reasonable basis.
13
AGE:-
measured by the number of decades that a metropolitan
area has had a central city of 50,000 or more.
On that basis, the
five metropolitan areas take the following order, as of 1940:
Philadelphia
14 decades
Chicago
9
i
San Francisco
9
"
Detroit
8
Los Angeles
6
"
In percentage of developed area the following inferences can be seen:
-
Spatially, residential uses tend to become more important,
the younger a city is.
Later residential development has responded to the overall
lowering of densities resulting in residential uses taking up a
larger proportion of developed land than previously.
The ratio of the percentages of single family to multi-family
shows that tendency.
Whereas the ratio is almost equal to unity
for Chicago, in Los Angeles single family residence (including a
negligible amount of two-family housing) takes up 16 times as much
land as multiple housing.
-
Spatially recreational lands show in a different way the ef-
fect of the age of the metropolis upon their percentages of developed land.
There is a general tendency for these areas to take up
more space in the older metropolitan areas than in the younger ones.
In acres per thousand population, the following inferences can
be seen:-
sI
---tFj:-
-
-4t
++
-
7.-
-~-
I--T
-
T-T-
T
-4
8
14
- As it
is
to be expected,
the younger metropolitan areas having
been able to respond more easily to technological advances in transportation, take uc more area of developed land per unit of population
than do the older ones.
- This tendency is reflected in lower residential densities.
- Comrercial land Der unit of population follows the same rule.
Although both Philadelphia and Los Angeles exhibit approximately
equal percentages of land in commercial use, the tendency figures reveal wide discrepancies in intensity of use.
Philadelphia's low
figure of .7 acres per thousand population is
a little
less than a
quarter of Los Angelest .
In an attempt to relate the difference in ages between cities
to the difference in acres per thousand population, the values for
age and density were plotted on illustration
3. A strong correla-
tion can be seen which indicates that a decade difference in age
means for these five areas from .2 to .3 additional acres per thousand population.
-
In recreational lands, the acres per thousand population seem
to respond to age.
Since residential densities in themselves are also,
so it seems, affected by the age of the metropolis, the two were matched against one another.
The data show that younger metropolitan areas develop recreational systems at densities much lower than those of the older areas.
This, in spite of the low residential densities found in younger areas
and in spite of the more extensive park areas found in older urban
15
areas.
The relation is the inverse of what planners might consider
the more "desirable" situation.
- In street areas, the stress on motor transportation which has
made the low densities of younger metropolitan areas possible has
also increased the relative importance of the acres per thousand
population in that use, for the younger areas.
SIZE:-
Population in 1940 as reported by the U.S. Census of 1940
was taken as a measure of size of the metropolis.
Whben classified in order of decreasing size, the five areas stood
in the following ranking:
Chicago
4,499,126 population
Philadelphia
2,898,644
i
Los Angeles
2,765,569
I
Detroit
2,295,867
San Francisco
1,419,604
In percentage of developed land, the following inferences can be
seen:-
- It appears from the data that the percentage of acres devoted
to industrial uses increases with the population of the different metropolitan areas.
Even when Los Angeles' peculiar type of industry - oil wells and
open oil storage - is not taken into consideration (1.9% of the metropolitan area) that relationship remains true.
All of our five areas depend at various degrees, as we shall see
16
It might be that the larger metropo-
later, on industrial activity.
litan areas, because of their size, are able to afford those services
that attract more and more industry.
It is also possible that a
larger population forms enough of a market for the presence of service manufactures, such as ice cream, to mention one.
In acres per thousand population, the tendency seems to be for
lower densities of industrial uses as the size of the metropolis decreases.
Los Angeles, if
modified for the reasons outlined above, has
only 6 acres per thousand population (5.5 acres per thousand population are devoted to oil industries and storage).
Even its other
major industry, the motion picture industry, is relatively low density industry.
As the city size increases then, more and more land is proportionally devoted to industrial uses at lower and lower densities.
DEGREE OF INDUSTRIALIZATION AND FUNCTION:-
The first is mea-
sured in terms of the percentage of employed labor force engaged in
manufacturing in 1940.
order:-
The five metropolitan areas fall in this
Detroit
48% of labor force in manufacturing
Philadelphia
36%
Chicago
35% "
"
San Francisco
21%
"
Los Angeles
19% "
I
I
t
"
"
"
"
"
It
"
"
It
f
Function categories are defined in those terms:-
17
Manufacturing (Mm):
employment in
manufacturing : 50% or more
of aggregate employment in
and service establishments,
manufacturing,
trade
employment in
retail
less than 30%.
Diversified (Mr):
employment in manufacturing less than 50%
but greater than employment in retail trade.
Diversified (Rm):
employment in manufacturing more than 20%
but less than 50% of aggregate, employment in retail
trade greater than employment in manufactur-
ing.
The five metropolitan areas fell in
the following categories:
Detroit
:Mm
Philadelphia
:
Mr
Chicago
:
Mr
San Francisco
:
Rm
Los Angeles
:
RM
All five metropolitan areas fall, in various degrees, in the
category of manufacturing centers.
The three highly industrialized
are also those which have the highest degree of industrialization.
In percentage of total developed land, these three areas ex-
hibit a decrease in percentage of land devoted to industry.
Detroit
the most highly industrialized area is also the one with the lowest
percentage of land in industry.
In acres per thousand population, the highest densities are
found in the most industrialized areas.
We saw above that there seemed to be a relation between size of
city and its industrial land use structure.
If we bring the factors of size and degree of industrialization
together, we find that the larger the city, the lower its degree of
industrialization.
A large metropolitan area then seems to get away
from strict specialization.
for examplep
Chicago is more diversified than Detroit,
Yet that very diversification of services and occupa-
tions is instrumental in attracting more and more industry.
REGION:-
As defined by the U.S.
Census, the five areas fall in
the following regions:
Philadelphia
: North-East
Chicago, Detroit
: North-Central
Los Angeles, San Francisco : West
No inferences were found between regional background and land use structure.
Variations in the land use data can then be traced back, in part
at least, to some factors&
uses is
The spatial importance of residential land
relatively higher in the younger cities.
Recreational uses are more spatially important in older cities.
Industrial land uses increase in
with the size of the metropolitan area;
degree of industrialization increases.
they decrease,
importance
however, as its
19
These conclusions are based upon the study of the behavior of the percentage of land use relative to the total developed area.
Relative to
the population, however, lower densities in developed area, residential land, commercial uses, recreational areas and street uses are
characteristic of younger metropolitan areas.
Industrial land densi-
ties seem to decrease as the size of the area increases and as its
degree of industrialization decreases.
i
20
V
THE SPATIAL IMPORTANCE
OF A USE IN A RING
RELATIVE TO
THE SAME USE IN OTHER RINGS
OF THE
METRPOLITAN AREA
A metropolitan area contains within its boundaries a certain
amount of land devoted to a certain use.
It
also contains a definite
amount of population whose activities center within the metropolitan
area.
From the above it follows that we can define a
tmodel"
that
would constitute a basis for comparison between rings within a metropolitan area as well as between the metropolitan areas.
In addition,
such a model, adjusted, could become a basis for comparing uses to
These are the requirements that the model would have to
one another.
follow.
Such a model would be a metropolitan area in which population
and land uses would be evenly distributed.
not mean to indicate a desirable situation.
The word "model" here does
It is merely a tool of
comparison.
It follows that any position of that metropolitan area would contain the same percentage of land devoted to, say, commercial uses
(A) as it would contain percentage of population
ly,
A
AA
=
1
P
IP
'A
or
A
ZA
_
(zp)
.
Mathematical-
P.
eP
An index comparable to the one stated above can be derived for
I.
4 /j4A/
*Atj''4 pp~
AA
AK
.2
2.1
5.8
.1
.8
I-,
Z .0
.43
.4 5.3
4.1
71.,3
4.1
ro.i
5-.3
9.1
lo.4
13.'
5
AJ
0.
-0
12.4-
r l.6
I 2..o
~4.l
9.8
19.c
11.1.
as.
(.38
LG.o
13.4
1 .9 4
.85
3
l.'~
4.8
A%
LlA
l.-1
.4o
.19
Zo.I
.3L.
p9
'7
C.'
30.5
97
4:1.1 51.7
.91
3Z.5 Z3.,o
1.41
1-1.1
PS- 44-5F.84
51.+
it.1
3o.S
1%
43.3
IS .31
7.1
0f
4.1
,C81.sF7
1.1
1.4
1.4
T e-5
1.3
3(.6
I.o8
13.1
3.4-
\1ALUF-S Oiw Irw
WUtMi5Es
%FSFe
Tr4FE. fZ:(YE 4AEs.
LS3
1.90
Z.32.
2.0
Fog
Pf-S IDEUri A(-
A~ b
LAA)
Che ap
'7
D ek-o
A'c
PX
ZP
00
-v
QO
0
Ph ladda
AcP
P
SP
Saa rne.f
cp
AX /Ep
Z.,o
S
F-
Los.
1.3
5.8
-C
7.9
1-6
9-.
1S.3 13.1
11.14
G.6
14.3
18.3
(4.1
15.3
\9.o
z.8 3o.S
1.4-
(135
19.7 ZZ*r
14.1-
134
lo.I
9.r 5.3
4.8
4i.I
zo.-
194
44C-
E
V
51.4 '5z .7
44.9 5i.4
34.4 44T
Zo.3 23-o
21. 30S
11.9 Z8.3
-0
2,c
(. 1.4
loS 13.1
1.3
Table I[
VALUES
OF
WNDEX
USES , Fop, TfEVv FV
7.t
P0MBERS
ARFAS.
1.1i
Fo.
COMMERCIA.L
LA N 1>
,p
-------
11r-tr-o it
Chkaso
a
A
A: i'
4-o
A/r
A't/i A
71
11__esP~i acle4oi
Los
Mr/gf
4 ~At
~P
%A
v -JS a pi t'C,.
p
~pI 4
Ar
A
.8
Y!
0
3.1
5.8
8.1
1.9
0
A,-%
.3
'64
4.8
1.9I 5.3
9.1
9.1
(C3 13.
11-L
Ic
I A' 19.4
13-C
14.2z
tz.3
1,3 r
~513 20ol
C4.-
0
S.]
lz .s
r1 Iro .1 134
___
.9c
.44
vs
3,0-5
1.-
17--7
Z3-.
49.o c.
Ilz
zzlo 3os
1.94-
II
Table 9
LI
%VALVE5
vo.
% .9
OF: INDEX QDMUH6PS
VS .FC4!- _TME FIVE AIZEAS.
44
Z .3
13 .7
1.9- 1.1.1
Id
1.1
F69, INJDJMZIA4-
L"D
P7
21
each use, for each ring within each metropolitan area.
The "spatial
importance" of a use can then be measured in terms of "shares" of
that use with respect to our model.
Tables 5,
7 and 9 show these
values for all five areas for three uses : residence, commerce, industry.
By definition, then, a ring will be said to have its share of
a use if its index number coincides with that of our model, or if
A_
ZA
P
-i
ZP
A ring will have "more than its share" if that ratio is larger than
unity, less if smaller than unity.
For presentation purposes, the index numbers were grouped into
eight ranges.
Four of these cover use-rich rings, the other four in-
clude use-poor rings.
The index numbers obtained as outlined above constitute only one
variable.
They have to be matched against other variables which
characterize distance from the Central Business District.
The accu-
mulated percentage of population within each ring was chosen as the
distance variable.
Three uses were chosen to be analyzed for all five metropolitan
areas.
They are residential, commercial and industrial land uses. Each
of these is representative of the largest, smallest and medium spaceconsumers as was found earlier.
The index number for each ring for
each use was matched against the accumulated percentage of population
within the ring boundaries.
The results for each of the three uses are diagramatically shown
for each city separately.
classification.
They are included in their appropriate use
dexcA APA
under .1L49
0
Z49
- .
.1-i
.25
-S
-
0
.9
-
Z-0
-9
0
-
3.599
4.,o - ~.9
Ove
Y
a. o
ESIDENTiAL
LANUSE.
5 TzUCTU R.E
4
10
9
1
keVCTUQ.E
4
.5
*
4
*6
*4$
4DEN JALS T
l
~F
03
;3ctvtw t kt4
to
I0
0
ft
30
4
4:>
SO
60
10
fQ19 QI
80
of tnw
90
Af
K00
____
r
_9_EN~rTIAL
____
ucrukE
gATr
-1gllyL
6
i
crm ateJ
10
2
104
6 0 7 80
%of metrpobtan Population
90
Oc
.51tE %S ,uIS oICrU Z
10,-Lo
30
0
5
to
70
80
90
loo
C-
*1~
2~
_
IA2ANC1uu
4)
N7
-~
_
_
____
_
E__
_
)crveE
lAo
.1
64
.1 1
44ZJWjnvllatea -/. Ilop
*1
10
zo
'0
o
4Q 50
60
70
&
90
Nt
t
10~ Olirls
too
V
22
It should be noted that the available land uses data was representative of areas containing up to
84%
for Chicago
100%
for Philadelphia
100%
for Los Angeles
73% for Detroit
87% for San Francisco
of their metropolitan populations.
The index numbers for the areas
nose land use data did not
cover 100% of the metropolitan population were arrived at by taking
both the population percentages shown above and the total land use
acreages within their study areas as equivalent to one hundred percent.
Consequently the true index numbers for the different rings
are in reality lower than as shown.
A. RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
The attached illustrations, 4A to 4E, show an idealized ring
pattern for each metropolitan area.
The rings are in proportion to
the percentage of the population within them.
The index value for residential uses for each ring is shown by
±a appropriate range color.
These values are shown on table 5.
Under each ring pattern is a sketch of the actual values of the
index numbers, for residential land, for each metropolitan area.
These values are average for each ring.
The values are plotted on
23
a semi-logarithnic vertical scale, the effect of which is to visual~
ly attenuate differences in the higher ranges.
The effect of the
scale is also to bring out clearly, any general relationships that
might exist.
A look at the diagrams reveals that no two cities are exactly
alike.
But it
also shows, as expected, a tendency for rings to be-
come spatially richer in residential uses as the percentage of the
metropolitan population increases.
Considering the use-poor rings, we find that the spatial importance of residential uses increases at a relatively constant rate.
The use-poor rings cover that part of the mtropolitan area which
contains about 50 to 60 percent of the population.
"Abnormal" situ-
ations such as occur in San Francisco, Philadelphia and Los Angeles,
will be discussed later.
The spatial importance of residential uses in the use-rich rings,
increases at an accelerated rate.
This reflects that relatively more
land is devoted to residence, the further away from the center.
Rela-
tively accelerated rates of decrease of residential densities on the
hinterland of metropolitan areas is a widespread urban phenomenon.
The diagrams as constructed are a reflexion of the changes of acres
relative to population.
They are an indication of residential densities.
That such diagrams reflect densities is true only for residential uses.
Residential land is accepted as, so to speak, the origin and destin4
ation of daily activities.
Night-time population, which is basic to
our index definition, is strongly related to that land.
This is not so
4-
V
0
-M-
Tale_ G -
YALVF-S
oF
9,ESIDEIVTI,4L
~E5tDENTIAL
ACCL'MVL-ATEID
)LAND
~.-4tJo
VSIE S
t~SES
fI
JOVEy t)JUM63eis
APLEAS
FOIZ
TftE
f~Va A~Z~E~.S
TItE RVF~
~
-
~7
7
H
4-
-i--I-
..j
4
4-~
I
I
-+
m ~
I
-~ - -I-
r
I-
K-
H
-i-
-- i
-~
4-
4.
-----v--4---v---+-
-~
i-----
---
4
~-
I
-
-.
4
I
I
--
I---
-i--
I
-I
&
F
-~
1
.-L -~
K
~.i..i
I
~IIT~.V7J
.2
I
__
1-
-~
4-
-------~----*F--i-
_
~
.4...-
-4-HF
~
V
K
-~
-
'I
t ~
iii.
4- 4
I
-- v-i
T
V
___
________
-
-
~
~
----i--i---'
-4-------:----- '4
+---
--'*-"T---
-
I.~ ; j < 7i
-
-
'4
I
*
-I-
-~-
-~
I
r
~
'4-
~
I
IL
}~
24
I
4-.-
-
4-
--
-
7
K -H I-
---.
--
4-
I
.7
~
I
4
.4
~4-k:~Q54ANL~f
I
~
-- 4--
F-
I
-I-
4-
I
-H-
-K.1
I
I
4-
I
p----~----
I-I
~-.
-
I-i-i
I
-4--
t~1
I-
I
r
I
-~
-
2.1~.
--4-
.]
v
-
-~
I
I
-~
-
-~
--
~
I
I
I
--
.n
-~
4
------
F
TF7
1777
T~7
7
r
-
-
I-----I-
T
-
i
..
K----~
I
II
I
_
4
---
4-r
1--
1
I
~~~'1'~'~'
r
1-
* '-----.4---
5:
--- 1-
-
-n-..;
-
+
-
.4..~
II**.
-j
i
-----
j--j-.
44
__
L.IILL
0
-LO
30
---
-i--I----.-2414i7V
I4-
~
~11
''iccJrnu~efc~.fIjo~optK
H
~
_
10
4
-
__ti
___
-.
-4---
-
-7
-
.2
,
-4--
-~-
40
50
60
ro
0
__
~Jo
10
8o
80
90
jOO
go
100
5
5
24
for other uses.
People may or may not shop, work, or play within the
same ring in which they reside.
It is also obvious that the picture would be truer if floor area
ratios could be applied to the land area.
At the center of the met-
ropolis, the floor area would be higher than the actual land acres devoted to residence.
At the hinterland the amount of residential land
is larger than the actual floor area used for residence.
The results
would tend to shift the index values closer to our model.
When we come to examine individual cities, we have to adjust for
the different sizes of rings.
One way is to derive a set of index
numbers for the accumulated values of the percentages of residential
land to the percentages of the population.
These values are shown
on table 6. Illustration 5 shows these values plotted for all five
metropolitan areas against our chosen distance characteristic.
Each
value is then the average for all residential land and all population
within each ring.
The values will tend to equal unity as the metropolitan population approaches 100 percent.
Chicago, the most populous of our metropolitan areas, displays
the characteristics that were described above, for the five metropolitan areas as a whole.
The accumulated index diagram shows that its densities are higher
than those of Detroit or Los Angeles.
It is probable that a combina-
tion of factors and not a single one is responsible for Chicago's
high densities.
Two of these factors might be the age of the city
25
and its industrial structute.
The order in which the accumulated index values arrange themselves,
notably between 10 percent and 90 percent of the metropolitan population in the same as their order when classified by age.
The effect
of age is therefore not only on the total metropolis but seems to
manifest itself in lower residential densities at any concentric area
of the metropolis when the average index value is taken for all within
that area.
Furthermore, as we shall see later, Chicago's industrial estates
keep up in spatial importance with the population, encouraging higher
residential densities.
Chicago's ring 4 displays a decrease in spatial importance incompatible With the city's general trend and the overall pattern.
In
that same ring there is a drop in the percentage of land devoted to
residential uses relative to the total developed area.
ring containing part or all oft Li0014 Humboldt,
parks.
It is the
Douglas, Burnham
There is also a drop of acres/i000 population of the ring,
denoting an increase in residential densities, relative to rings 3
and 5.
Philadelphia, the second most populated metropolitan area studied,
displays abnormally high densities in its 50 to 60 percent population
range.
As previously outlined, it
is the oldest of all metropolitan
areas and does retain its rank as the most dense area.
however, that its index values were too low.
It was felt,
The data for the Phila-
delphia metropolitan area is compiled on "gross area" basis.
"Gross
26
area is the area predominantly occupied by the specified land use
category, including streets, vacant lots and interspersed parcels
occupied by other uses."
In delimiting residential areas, more land
must have been included in the outer rings, less in the inner ones,
resulting in too high inner densities.
Los Angeles is the third most populated area studied.
Its con-
sistently lower densities are in part a reflexion of its age and in
part the decentralized character of its major industries, which will
be discussed later.
The index values at the outer rings are low, de.
picting the existence on the hinterland of relatively high density
areas.- The Long Beach area, for example, has the third and fifth
highest densities in single and multiple residence respectively, of
the study areas used as a basis for the Los Angeles land use survey.
It is a beach community with seashore cottages on small lots.
The
effect of the presence of such communities is to lower the spatial
importance of residential uses.
Detroit, the next to the lowest populated area under study, displays no "extraordinary" characteristics.
San Francisco' s central area shows densities that are higher
than all the others, except Philadelphia.
This would hold true
whether the total metropolitan population is taken as that of Marin,
San Francisco and San Mateo counties (as shown on diagram) or that of
the nine bay area counties.
Shortage of land due to the physical shape of the peninsula and
poor topography might be cause for these high densities.
27
Some of the results that flow from comparing our five urban areas
to our model metropolis may be obvious.
Our intuitive knowledge of
metropolitan areas can nevertheless serve as a check to these results.
Following are the results for the commercial land uses.
COMRCIAL LAND USES:A look at illustrations 6A to 6E, based on table 7, reveals the
existence of certain relationships.
As expected, spatially, commercial uses are most important in the
Central Business District.
floor areas were used.
Their importance would be even greater if
These high spatial importance values rapidly
All as the percentages of the population increase.
At 10 to 30 per-
cent we pass in general from the use-rich rings to the poorer ones.
Most rings in the, metropolitan areas fall in the category of usepoor rings.
Objectively this does not mean that commercial facilities
are not meeting the standards of population.
It merely means that on
the basis of our model, the downtown commercial areas are more spatially important than the rest.
The Central Business District holds the
largest percentage of land with the least population.
Individual diagrams indicate relationships between resident population and the commercial area within their ring.
Varying floor area
ratios, large possible amounts of relation between the resident population of a ring and the commercial area of other rings, and other
factors prevent the index values from being equal to unity.
By the
same token the fact that the values are with some variation close
to
In dex AX
uncer
+
.Z,9
0
-105
-
0
.A5
--
.o ... 9 9
2.o -5.999
iever
8. V
COMMERCIAL
LAND USE
STPRLCTUIE
6
eq.
10
I
7
L-
ii
CJC&GoI~i
w
it
tiii
%0 11
i
39
__W
CO~mintRa L SM
5
_4_1
4
a
*6
.1
*1~
.3
4.
*1
_____
to
_____
to
o
_____
3c
o
I_____ _____
4ie
g50
4e
I
60
o
1*
%i
I tak t'
K~upwi{a
10
6o
~0
90
100
oo
-.
4
-4
Agn po~vIatloi4
lo
to
C4
Q4
Co
lo
Jac
5
1
4
IL
I
*1
.~!
.4
3
-2.
So
4o
~o 4.
Jo
8?
~%
1*
4PtH ADE
CoN MEACI I&
C
C,
________
I I I
Ii
i
i
_________
_________
_________
________
________
i
i
I
F________
_________
_________
i
i
i
I
it
ioX)WsukfO
x._____
D~*Wpp
|
1
1.
S.
4o
o
Go
so
9*
1*
a.
-I.
SAO ; aaL eChs
_o__
(R
___$
rV tE
Af
4
.3
4
jO~~~~~t
to
S
.
1
o
eo
tk
.
metr40
I
go
lov
a
chdc
4-
4
.
______
AXAL/V
%7%Pv
os
t
Detr
4
z i'Ac
I.
%P
rV
0-~
4.1
1.8
A% 4(-
IZ.9
d
0
G
0
MZ.1 8.1
(;.c
4)
Z?, 14.
0
Zf-3
BZ.C
4o.]
401Z
F
9
-r
43o
0
4S(
100.0
"
Gi
03
0
44.S
I-
Io.L 4. 9
17.3
t00.0
100.0
0
0
0
0
Gi-T 51f
R(.S 905,
I-00.
E
9C.9 97-3
0
100.0 100.0
_
Zo.I
0
195S C4-
0
4 71
.7
81.5
.1
1.-
15.1
Z1. 3
59.1
11
1
____
_
Table a
-
t isc
I
t
_-
0v
S5 -avT-
? aepl,
A-geteS
I
v
r
I
L
____
VALUES
VALUES
OF
OF
CoMMEe~C-IAL
COM~eZCAAL
0
0
9
___
'
gq.
9%.% 98.3
100.0
__
0
'A.I
Co-.
000
14
0
0
0
'37.4 ?1.9
1I
__
___
A crUM mULAT E D
L-APD
LAtJt'
UsfES
U~E-~
FOE-
roe
TO4E
rI4E
FP(VE
f(VE.
A 9.E AS
AQ.EA.S
-
T-
-
-T
--
-J1
D
p
'~
c
-V
----
~
'~
1
--
I-'_c
I1
F-F8l
F
II
F
F2
FF
v-oIo
-9
-ce
o
4o-o
v___
Go'
g,
g'
pF
-
4
~
1-~~*~
28
unity indicates that the percentage of land in commercial use is close
to that of the population, in
any given ring, except the downtown area.
Considering the latter, the difference between its high values and an
average for all other rings gives the extent of the percentage of land
area which serves the whole metropolitan area.
Furthermore the range
of population at which the rings pass from the use-rich to the usepoor categories, is a possible boundary for the extent of most of those
uses that serve the metropolitan area as a whole.
In our cities, that
range is between 10 and 30 percent of the metropolitan population, or
from 2 to 5 miles from the center of the Central Business District.
The attached table 8 and illustration 7 show the index values for
the average commercial area and the average
population percentages.
population at different
It illustrates the effect of the inclusion of
more commercial areas relative to population increases.
It shows how
Chicago has an average density of commercial use, the lowest of any of
the cities.
In considering the overall pattern, there appears a periodic movement of ever decreasing amplitude.
The higher downtown values keep
decreasing to a point between 30 and 50 percent of the population, then
pick up
gain
to a maximum located between 50 and 80 percent, to
drop again at the hinterland.
This pattern is modified by a high index value which does not
occur for all metropolitan areas at the percentage of metropolitan
population.
These high values seem to be local phenomena.
In the case
of Chicago, for instance, the high value is due to the inclusion in the
n ce xp
under -1L49
0
. -,0
t
0
1.0 -1.999
't.o -31999
4.-o -~l9
ove~r 8.o
INDUSTeIAL
LAND
USE
5rQuCruE
8
1
C
____
____
~
____
-U
_____
_____
___
__________
~co'~
____
Sr~IM-
$1QQC
rQaE
4
3
.9
.0
q
.4
.3
*1.
acc~ww 1~4 7~
.1
to
Lo
Lo
~o
4o
40
so
Go
lo
SO
~
,.
90
I
I,..Icfa'~
~vi.tI.'
____
-a
___
D__
__
woiT 5
-
.4
I.
Q~com
10
8e
1
o f"dag idfe
~too
9
O o af ske
ei/
t4O
ose~1
an
rea
*.
er
Ite
Oeto
-.
C
at"40
4.
s
.
t ie. P4 of
IT*
so
-oe
D
11.
.8
*1
.5
.4
4i
4L
ea
,-I
10
~~0
40.1
I*
t..,
i
29
commercial area of an extensive commercial amusement park.
Apart from the variations that are mentioned above, Los Angeles
displays at the very hinterland of its area an increase due to Pomona,
a relatively dense town separated from Los Angeles proper by low density areas.
In the case of San Francisco, the last ring does not keep up in
percentage of commercial land with the percentage of the population.
Compared to the inner areas,
Sunset,
Parkside and Merced,
which con-
stitute that last ring are not commercially independent but probably
have to rely upon commercial facilities outside their ring.
It
should be noted that the relationship that exists between per-
centages of land devoted to commercial uses and percentage of population is partly due to the existence of string-like commercial develop.
ment along the main transportation lines radiating from the center.
Commercial uses, then, like residential uses, are closely related
to the population.
different.
But the spatial importance of these two uses is
Furthermore,
the results as obtained through the use of
the model are checked by our intuitive knowledge of the metropolis.
Let us apply our model to the industrial structure of the five
metropolitan areas.
INIUSTRIAL LAND
OSES:-
Illustrations 8A to 8E based upon table 7 show the industrial land
structure for all five of the metropolitan areas,
At first, there appears to be no general common characteristic to
C,
d
es
Lo s Aoqw I&e
-D tro it
C1g
Sa~ KScC~
Phi laoelp~iC&
m
Ar%
A /
4.0
~p
Is
00
-y
0
~3.
442-1
4
ri
.c
13.9
100.0
o.1-
Kcc
4 4
'1A
%A/CArA
,pp A4r P1
At £P
A/p
/j
.z3.
Z.327.3
3C-7
4C.]
19.Z
11.3
(j)
51.3 Zo.t 1
50.57. 51o. 4
T
G4t
C
Io0.o 100.0
&S.eo*
140.0
Tale io
2.1
99.0 91.3
98.0 9?,
Ioo.o
106.0
YALUES
100.0
oF
,twsT..A.
(00.0
4CCUMULATED
LAOD
9939 9Z.9
84.C
useS
\JDEX
f~oC ThE
0UVM5eR
FvE
F
AR.EAS
'U
-r
lb
-'
__
--
'U.
3
__I
-~
-
I
-
-~
I-
viz
II~
-
-jill
-
..
K4
--
I
I
-
1~
4
I
--1--
4-
-
-v
-
4
: if
--
i4
S-~
I
I
I
II
I
I~
T_
-------
±-~-------I------ ~
+---t-
___
'-.
K-I
------
i--I
I -'--
+~-
P
e
-
:j
I
I
-
ro
7L
-
Iii
0
f~-
-~
~~-
ii
.-
___
-,
__
4-
-~--1---________
____
-
I
K
~1
1
i
1
~----i-----J~-.....L~~J
-
___
-
ij
-
I ______
_____
i i
L.
-1---viI
*~1~
Cvr
f
1
I ____ I --
I
I ___ t
1.____ 1 ___ L
____
______
-
---I
K-
ill'
-
I
-
-
I..~.....i...I...I.......
H
______
'Iii'
7IITV~7
2-K.1-~-~--
Kt
~Tji
__
-i-
~~~1-~
II
1
.I...-.....=...~.
________________
-~.-I
-______
~--~---
v-i--
_______________________
________
_______
I
-4---
1~
r
C,,.3c~
_______ I _____A-I
J_______________I______..........I
I
--
_________________________ _______
--
_
-i---
b -4-------
-1-
---I
-Ii-
-t--
.l~
i-i-i
er
KTVK
cr
4-i.---
4-
~~-4+--
I
III
Loun
______
__
P----t---~--I---I--
~ii1
r
_____
--
___r-
2__f1727
-------
---
A
___________ ___________
____
__
-
-
-
_
___________
-~___
1,1
-4-4
Am~)
C V ,ON
'
359 73
C
rftsy6u !
Ii t"~
-4-
-- I--
-
CYC
vift ___ ''7jT]
-f---
HH
-I--Kr
t--I
-
-I--
4-----
-4
__~~~1
I--~4ini
-- 1
2
SEMI-LOGARITHMIC
I L KFJFFL z* ESSER Cc.
30
the structure of industrial land uses in the five metropolitan areas.
There seems to be a scattering of use-rich and use-poor rings.
thing is apparent that the maxima and mihima
One
occur at the center of
metropolitan areas or at their hinterland.
An accumulated graph, illustration 9 based upon table 10, shows
the evolution of the average index numbers as the percentage of the
population of the metropolitan area increases.
Nearer the center, the index values go from a maximum in Chicago
to a minimum in Los Angeles.
The existence of a port and the ensuing
industries grouped around it may be the causes for such a pattern.
Chicago, San Francisco and Philadelphia have all port facilities at
their centers.
Detroit and Los Angeles do not.
Following the next segment of the metropolitan population between
20 and 50 percent, we find that values are close to unity.
Deviations
from the model for Chicago, Detroit and Phi.adelphia are not excessive.
Industrial land/1000 population of the rings, as well as percentages
of industrial land to total developed for these rings are relatively
constant.
In that range, the radiating transportation lines group
around them industrial land to the extent that the increase in land is
fairly close to that of the populatioh.
It does not, here again, neces-
sarily follow that the manufacturing population finds employment within
the same ring.
Given a more suitable ring formation for San Francisco,
the relative importance of ring 2 would have increased close to thoue
of the other cities at the same population percentages.
In the ranges beyond 50 percent we find increases for all four of
31
the metropolitan areas for which data are available.
Chicago's chiefly heavy industries are located in that area,
most of them south of the Central Business District.
Some are in-
land, others such as the Illinois Steel Company chose to locate on
the shore of Lake Michigan.
In Philadelphia, the existence of Chester, a heavily industrialized city, boosts the spatial importance of ring 4. Chester is
located on the Delaware.
That high value is followed by more "nor-
mal" values.
Los Angeles has followed a slightly different pattern from the
rest.
It is the only metropolis whose center is not located by an
important transportation water body.
Its basic industries have spe-
cial locational characteristics that have had an effect on its density structure.
Motion picture industries do not depend on trans-
portion for their raw materials or finished products as heavily as
other industries do.
At the same time they have advantages in ag-
gregating and by their nature are relatively high space consumers.
Oil extraction occupies extensive areas and has to locate at the oil
site, in the plain sand along the coast.
Both these two basic indus-
tries have, because of their locational and spatial characteristic,
put the emphasis oh the rings in which they are located, to the detriment of a more evenly spread out industrial structure.
San Francisco's industry, localized as it is mainly in the Portero, Bayview areas has lessened the spatial importance of the outer
ring.
32
It
should be kept in mind that throughout all these metropolitan
areas are small industries which are scattered throughout the metropolis.
Their effect on our presentation is nevertheless overshadowed
by that of the large industrial concentrations.
Comparing the industrial structure of the five metropolitan areas
to their residential and commercial structures,
it
the latter display a strong tie to the population.
is apparent that
In a word, resi-
dential land uses increase in spatial importance, as the percentage
of the population increases,
commercial land uses drop from their
high level at the center of the metropolis to a relatively constant
level, as that same percentage increases.
The industrial structure's
relationship to the same basis is highly modified by other factors
that distort its relationship to population.
33
VI
THE SPATIAL IMPORTANCE
OF A USE
IN A RING RELATIVE
TO THE OTHER USES IN THE
SAME RING OF THE
METROPOLITAN
AREA
The question of the spatial importance of a use in a metropolitan
area relative to the other uses in the same area has been dealt with
earlier.
There, the totality of the metropolitan area was the unit.
Here, the same relationship will be studied but with rings as units.
The same three uses that made the subject of the previous sectionts
study will be dealt with again;
dustry.
they are residence, commerce and in-
Referring back to the section dealing with the metropolitan
area as a whole, it had been found for all areas, that these three uses
when listed in order of decreasing spatial importance read as follows:
residence, industry and commerce.
Residential uses are among the lar-
gest space consumers, commercial uses among the smallest.
If these three uses were evenly distributed in the metropolis then
their order of decreasing spatial importance in each ring would be the
same as for the metropolis as a whole.
In order to find what their order is for each ring, a frame of re-.
ference was chosen that would apply to all five of our areas.
total developed area for the metropolis was selected.
The
The percentage
of the land covered by each of these three uses in each ring, relative
to the total developed area of the metropolis, was computed.
Table U
R.ESD
ENT1A4L
COMMERCIAL
I
-
-.
U
INDUST2.AL
..-
I
~
4.
C
V.
I.)
I
\
,3.4
'',
.3
1.-1
4,3
4.1
~
.0
.4-
'3
.4
.'1
1,~7
4-
.VI
-I
IS
0
-*
\J40
.1
.A
.3
.3
~1
.1
,I
2.4-
.0
.51.3
3.2
1.4Z
4-o
CS
1,0.8
18.9
(3.8
-9
1.1
.
t
I.2
Z.
.4
s.G
Z.8
3o.0
15.9
.-
1.o
2.1 t.9
Z*-i
-
.\1
Table 1I
c.2.-
'I
.0
I'
- PERCENTAGE
OF Toral DEVELOPE-D AREA
Z.y
.Z.
.5-
-
2-
.2.
4.'
5.8
.7
IN US-E ,
.2.
IM RING.
V~L
I
-
-
L
7
-1-1--i
4t
~Tl:FQ~Q~
I
-4-1
~-
4~4E4I&L
2
471
I
6--
--
--~
I
------ ----
1I
---.-.t-
-I
-
-
-1
---1.--.-'
---v--i
-L ~
~~~~~~.1
I
-
-i
-
It
~'II
I
.................
]-
-I--
liLiL ~ 1
0
to
La
It--.#%
)a
40
5o
(so
'T
so
90
1o
10A
iial",-WW--
- - --
-
-
,
-
q
it
LK
~
41
F
~-
I
ILL
~
-i
VI17
F
_
4
-------------
_~~~~-
:
-~~~--t
-
-~--
--
1
.
-4
KI-->
-
--
-1--
I-
--
--
1~}
F
F
-
4---
4--
-7--------- 7--.
I
F
--
FL-4
4-----
--
~~~1~~~
F
--I
-1---- -II
4-
-I-----
F
- -- t--
I--
-1---
-
ll4~ltg~
4-- F
~1~
F- ~
--
-F-
I
--I----
1--.1----El
fiv~tLt'LI
F
S...'
---
p-r
- -
-I-
Th1Th1W
IL
N
--
I-~*
I
-- ~-J
..2
I
F
F
~-
--
-- {----~-
~
-
F
I
F
4.2,
-I
F
I
i-
-
Lf
K
F
I
I
--- I--
-4---
I--
I
-----1---
-
-7---
4 -- H-- .4 -
7KTTh
1~~
~~1~~~~
.9-
p 1---f-i--i-F
-7
---F--
---------A..-
--4---
----
-f--i-
--
4
1--
--
F
~±2
--I
----
-4
4--
4--
.L
.1~
0
to
4o
30
4o
,se
LLil
1o
Go
'l0
aS
o
100
10
B
I
-
-2-
--
4--
7-
E
LO
+3 KIiiVIz~i
_--
5
4
-
--.
-
-
---
*-
-
{-7
2
-
-%-- --
111,11
I----
-- 4--
-1
-4-~-
-e99
--
te
et
---
t
-
--
MA
~M
-"1
-
--
Q
cw lAt
I
-2
-
4--
S
-
-
-
itI .44 i lls
I-- -4-
----
-I--
--
I
~-
-.
-- 4-
------
4
-
-----
-4--
-- -
------*
-
-H-
-
-
-
.6
,5
-
I~
I-
-i-
7-
-I-
-
4-
-
--a--- KJ-
-H----
S.
7v
-
7
--
1.
-
--
-,-2
i*
-i
11
--- -
etee
I.
7
-I-
p.
- --
~i
1I..~..
--
V
-I-J
_..--i-.
I------
*'1
4-
4-
* -4-
~ -~
--
-
-
}-F'
f7
I
KY -- I
i--------
- --
--
---
-j---4
I-
- --
-
-+-H-
-
I
-
-
- --
-
10
-H---
-4-
403 0
4o T
o
10
80
.4I
90
I
-j
Ki-
-I
-
Ii-
i-a
~K
-4--
--
-I
~~~1~~~~~
I0C
(00 -
----
i
I-
p
PH~iLt biPH
r;
~t
_
I
-
F
-
- --
--
--
---
mmm
Tb
T
'11D
__
1W_
- --
ti.u
---
.8__
Pt 4---. 4
"L-T~ IL-KI-K-
a
.
-t
-4
-H-
-~
1
-4 - 4
.
----I----
2-
9
4 - ---4- -
i
e
-- I-LO
30
<liii
Ao
ro
-I--4---v
v~.te~
Go
Im
to
~
90
-
---7
1~~~~~
in4v'.
t*o
ep
IOD
7-;-
---I------
'i~~~1~
-7--
i.-l
-~
___~I
4 _____
-1
I
--
-
_
I
ii7IL1
LL
--4--
~1
-- F---
----
--t
4---
---
I
I
I-
I
I
-h-i
______1~~
* ~1-~-- -H----
4
-I---T- ft--V
I i
[41
H------
It
Itt,
-b
LtI4I444~tIUq
--
,,,~,
I
V
-
-i
V -jL
-4-2
-j
WI~IVYW~WPYW~I
~
K
j-,
II
if
--
--
--4
3
5AtLg~~ t~ ~~91
Ii
~~~~~~1~~~
V
_
_
-----I----
11
I
1-
~-i
~_
I
I
-
_________
-4-
-4-
+
4
-t
----------
-4--
4
-~
----------
*ne
e4.
~-2 -4
4-
I-
-4-----*
i *-i
f
,4-
----
.3
-
--
'--v--i ~7ti~Ii
~~1
--
,2
-4-
~~~2~~
-4---
-
-- I
-H---
-
t
jiV~-71
-- i-V
K
1 -1-
-~
-~--
-~
-i--b- 4)
-- 4---
J77L7~1
NH
--A--
---4-
-~
ii
2
-t
- --
--I-
I-
ia4
do
k>
3o
4o
vo
6o
-1
-i
-- 1----
-
t7-
o
-4-----'
1-
-- ---------
.1i
--
*~~1
V--F
-- 4--
~1~
I-
xii
i-i--
H
1
~-
I(~O
pzo:±
tOE.
34
lists these percentages plotted against our chosen distance characteristic, the accumulated percentages of the metropolitan population within
the rings.
From an examination of the data, it
is obvious that the ranking
of these three uses varies within the metropolis.
It is not as clear
cut in each ring as for the total metropolis.
If we were to rank the three uses in order of decreasing spatial
importance we would find certain similarities.
The residential uses relative to the commercial uses follow a
pattern.
Industrial uses, particular as they are to each metropolis,
rank themselves in different positions, depending on the ring and the
metropolis.
In general, then, and this is visible for those areas -whose central data are detailed enough, commercial uses are more important than
residential uses, right around the downtown area.
dential uses gain predominance,
From then on, resi-
commercial uses very closely following
them in importance but on a much lower scale.
This close relationship
depicts the extent to which commercial uses, except in the downtown
areas, are oriented towards the residential lands or rather towards the
population living on those lands.
Although both residential uses and
commercial uses increase, the former increase at a higher rate than
the latter.
Commercial uses seem then to be directed more toward popu-
lation rather than the amount of land in residential uses.
It is a
known fact that the downtown commercial areas do not only serve the
little population within them but the rest of the metropolis.
The
35
point at which residential uses gain predominance over commercial uses
cannot be determined for all five areas, due to the variety in ring
configuration.
But judging from the available data, that point is
within 3/4 mile of the center of the metropolis.
Industrial uses are very characteristic to each metropolis.
Chicago's chiefly light industry is located right in the downtown area.
That and the existence of a port as well as the very low amount of
residential land have contributed in giving industry in ring 1 as high
a percentage of the developed area as commercial uses, placing them
high above residential uses.
From that point on, industrial uses take
up different percentages of the total developed areas, keeping in most
cases their rank between residential and commercial uses.
It should
be noted here that unlike same of the other five cities, Chicago' s industry extends deep into its
center.
Detroit's rings display a surprising uniformity.
Within the first
four rings, commercial uses are overtaken by continually increasing
residential uses.
Industrial uses are at a minimum. In the four other
rings, residential, industrial and commercial uses hold their order,
the same as for the metropolis as a whole.
The absence of large indus-
trial estates in the inner rings has been mentioned before in connection
with the lack of a port on the river, at the center of the metropolis.
In that respeet Detroit differs from Chicago.
Los Angeles' ring structure does not permit to draw any conclusion
concerning its center except that at 4.8 percent of its metropolitan
population, the residential land has already overtaken the commercial
r
36
land in quantity and that in that ring, industrial land is at the
lowest.
Rings 2 and 3 display the normal ranking.
Ring 4 is the
only ring in all five areas, outside "downtown" rings in which industrial
land overtakes residential land.
ring are space-consuming.
The main industries in
oil industries*
that
Their relatively low em-
ploynent per acre has not been the cause for any extensive residential settlements around them.
On the hinterland of the metropolis,
beyond the point where the data for both Chicago and Detroit stop,
Los Angeles displays a general lowering of the three uses.
Residen-
tial uses still prominent drop and then rise again as they include
the quasi-independent to.n of Pomona.
rank.
Commercial uses keep their
Industrial uses, the lowest, disappear.
Philadelphia displays
in each ring the general characteristics that were described above.
San Francisco's ring 1 demonstrates the compact nature of its
industry.
A better ring formation would have shown an increase in
the value of industry in ring 2. Ring 4 also shows by its lack of
industry the concentration near the center of industrial uses.
In this connection, we have found that out of the five areas,
industrial uses in the center are negligible for Detroit and Los Angeles.
In the other cases industry has found a way of infiltrating
right to the center.
Apart from the lack of port facilities at the
center mentionea earlier, Detroit and Los Angeles happen to be the
youngest of the metropolis studied.
In one way or another this fact
may have had the effect of minimizing the importance of industry in
the center.
by deliberate action, in
the case of Detroit, the
37
industrial belt was diverted, mainly by allowing industry to locate
on the branch of the M.C.
Railroad that bypasses the civic center.
In a way this had the effect of creating another center north of the
first one.
The similarities in spatial importance between the ring structure of the three uses have been mentioned before.
residential-commercial uses and how it
varies,
The pattern of
the industrial use
structure and its particular characteristics.
From the examination of the illustrations, it can be seen that
the very vast majority of the population for the five urban areas is
contained in those rings where residence, industry and commerce are
in that order.
whole.
The same order that applies for the metropolis as a
It can be concluded that that order is the rule rather than
the excection.
That modifications occur at certain points, for all
urban areas, such as the predominance of commercial over residential
uses in the "downtown" area;
with all the areas.
these are variations that are consistent
They are probably the result of the same forces.
Particular variations occur when the extent of these forces varies
from metropolis to metropolis.
economic base,
topography, have been mentioned earlier in
with the study of a use in
areas.
Some of these forces, such as age,
connection
an area relative to the same use in
other
There is no reason to doubt that the same forces do not apply
locally to distort the internal structure one way or another, and give
each metropolis a characteristic internal structure just as they give
it
a characteristic total structure.
VII
CONCLUSIONS
At this point, two major conclusions can be drawn :
-
that, although no two cities have shown exactly the same
total or internal land use structures, their data, limited as they
are, present certain similarities.
These have been expressed at the
end of each previous section.
-
that the variations that occur in the total as well as
the internal structures of these areas can be traced back, at least
in part, to the play of certain factors, some of which have been previously identified.
This twofold phenomenon suggests a direction for future research.
First, if there are certain similarities inherent in the land use
structure of cities, these similarities can be brought out best by the
use of a "model".
This "model" can be a theoretical one, as the one
used in section V, or it
can be an average, for all cities in the
United States or for a large number of cities within the same population range.
Second, that if variations can be traced back to the play of certain factors, more research would be needed to identify and define
these factors.
be refined.
Factors such as the ones used in section IV have to
Although it may not be possible to identify all the fac-
tors that go into characterizing a metropolitan area, a large amount
of variation will be explained.
Developing factors for such items as
39
topography, transportation potential, population characteristics, even
social attitudes, would be a fruitful direction of research.
As we have seen, not all uses are influenced by a certain factor.
The degree of response of a use to a factor constitutes another possible aspect for future research.
But before the need for comparing cities which is manifested by
planners as well as students of the city comes close to any satisfactory stage, certain basic units have to be established.
This thesis has been a constant battle with inadequate data.
The work that has been carried out by such organizations as the
American Institute of Planners to promote a uniform land use classi-
fication has not yet borne its fruits.
It may be that another system
of classification is needed not only more uniform but also more flexible.
Furthermore,
the need to investigate units of area other than the
census tract is apparent,
concerned.
specially where non-residential uses are
A better unit will also provide chances for testing on a
rational basis the truths contained in the three major theories of
urban use, as well as possibly drawing attention to new ones.
40
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following publications are the sources for the land use data:- Chicago Planning Commission, Land Use in Chicago Vol. II, Chicago
Land Use Survey, 1943
- Detroit City Plan Commission, Present Land Use in Detroit, A Master Plan Report, 1946
- County of Los Angeles Regional Planning District, master Plan of
Land Use, Inventory and Classification, 1941
- Philadelphia City Planning Commission, Planning Study No. 3. Land
Use in Philadelphia Metropolitan District, 1944
-
San Francisco City Planning Commission, The Master Plan of San
Francisco, Present and ruture Uses of the Land, 1944
The population data were obtained from:-
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1940
The factors discussed in Chapter III were obtained from the following
sources:-
The International City Managers' Association, The Municipal Year
Book 1945, R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., Chicago, Ill., 1945
-
Bogue, Donald J., & Harris, Dorothy L., Comparative Population and
Urban Research via Multiple Regression and Covariance Analysis,
Scripps Foundation Studies in Population Distribution, Oxford,
Ohio, 1953
Backgrounc bibliography:- Chicago Planning Commission, The Industrial and Commercial Background
for Planning Chicago, University of Chicago, 1950
- de Merileir, Marcel J., Manufacturing Occupance in the West Central
Area of Chicago, University of Chicago, 1950
- Detroit City Plan Commission, Master Plan Reports, The Economic Base,
1944
41
- Philadelphia City Planning Commission, Industrial Land Use for
Philadelphia in relation to Metropolitan Area Development,
1950
- San Francisco Department of City Planning, The Population of San
Francisco, a half century of change, 1954
- Scripps Foundation Studies in Population Distribution, Needed
Urban and Metropolitan Research, Bogue, Donald J. ed. Oxford,
Ohio, 1953