Models of Urban Distribution and Location

Rank-Size Rule Ideal urban system Population of a city is inversely proportional to its rank in the hierarchy 1/R x Population of Largest City R = rank

1New York CityNew York8,391,881 2Los AngelesCalifornia3,831,868 3ChicagoIllinois2,851,268 4HoustonTexas2,257,926 5PhoenixArizona1,593,659 6PhiladelphiaPennsylvania1,547,297 7San AntonioTexas1,373,668 8San DiegoCalifornia1,306,300 9DallasTexas1,299,542 10San JoseCalifornia964,695 Major US Cities

1New York CityNew York8,391,881 2Los AngelesCalifornia3,831, ChicagoIllinois2,851, HoustonTexas2,257, PhoenixArizona1,593, PhiladelphiaPennsylvania1,547,297 7San AntonioTexas1,373,668 8San DiegoCalifornia1,306,300 9DallasTexas1,299,542 10San JoseCalifornia964, Does the Rank-Size Rule Hold?

Rank-Size Rule Seems to hold true for mature urban systems (like the United States) Does not hold true for many developing countries –Primate city

What about location? How far would you be willing to travel for… A bagel? A rock concert?

Central Place Theory Walter Christaller (1933) How would cities (market centers) be distributed in the ideal? Assumptions –Featureless (isotropic) plain –Evenly distributed population/resources –Consumers have similar means/tastes

Central Place Theory Hierarchy of goods –Range of a good How far one is willing to travel –Threshold of a good How much population you need to support production

Central Place Theory The larger the center, the fewer in the system Centers distinguished by goods available there –Orders of goods

Central Place Theory The highest order center will provide all goods in the system Lower orders only certain goods So what is the best way to represent the distribution of market centers.

Marketing Principle k=3

k=4 Transport Principle

k=7 Administrative Principle