Talk:Concentric zone model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geography (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Urban studies and planning (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Chicago[edit]

Oddly, chicago doesn't even follow the concentric model any more; with edge cities in the northwest and west suburbs, no clearly defined circular "zone of transportation", a population hub in absorbed joliet, plans for a secondary airport that would further decentralize the concentrations of business towards the south suburbs and an exurban presence that can be argued to extend as far out as Iowa, the area seems to be much more of a multiple nuclei model. it also displays "sector-model" tendencies, with a concentration of wealth from rich to poor moving couterclockwise, begining at the fabulously wealthy north shore, moving to the very wealthy northwest suburbs, to the wealthy/middle class west suburbs, to the middle class/lower middle class/working class south suburbs, and terminating in the eastern suburbs of indiana, an area not known for its material wealth.

The concentric model seems an excellent ideal type for a city that doesn't exist: We all think of cities as dense cores, surrounded by comparatively wealthy suburbs, with a beltway thrown in somewhere. We hear stories regarding the "explosive" amounts of new development occurring at the urban fringe, and assume that this explosive development must occurr in accommodation of a single economic group or urban need, creating uniform layers. Ironically, it is this most simple and readily assumed ideal type which seems to hold true least frequently in real life, for even the most oft-cited example of the 'concentric model" hardly lives up to the definition of what it should be.

"It describes the peculiar American geography, where the inner city is poor while suburbs are wealthy; the converse is the norm elsewhere" I believe this needs some sort of citation? Is this phenomenon "peculiar" only in the US? It seems to me that the same thing applies to Athens, Greece, especially after the large waves of immigration of the past 20 years. There are poor suburbs (mostly to the west, but the richest districts of the city are the north and east suburbs. City centre has been greatly devalued as far as residences go, and most Greeks have left for the suburbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverbladeGR (talkcontribs) 12:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Entries for this Topic[edit]

A search of "Concentric Zone Model" or "Concentric Zone Theory" will direct you to the article "Concentric Zone Model". However, searching "Burgess Model" or "Concentric Ring Theory" brings you to "Concentric Ring Theory". The Zone Model article provides mostly commentary on the model and its history, while the ring model article is an actual explination of the theory. It would be helpful to combind these. Yeah, I agree. This is a good idea,because the ideas are very similar, if not identical.

Yes, quite agree, they're the same thing dammit

merged[edit]

I've asked for the Concentric ring model to be deleted and have merged it with this. I've amended the links. Hope it's okay. SuzanneKn (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Minor point, the cherry on top of a merger is normally a redirect from the dead article to the living one. Articles are sometimes deleted rather than redirected, but this is not one of those cases, so I just now finished the job with a redirect. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

diagram[edit]

I've put in this new diagram as the earlier one did not have the factory zone in writing whilst there was a pic of a factory. There is a zone of transition and a factory. I prefered the nice pictures in the earlier diagram so if it could be amended it would be better than my one. However, mine is more typical of what is in geog text books. SuzanneKn (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)