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

1 New York City New York 8,391,881

2 Los Angeles California 3,831,868

3 Chicago Illinois 2,851,268

4 Houston Texas 2,257,926

5 Phoenix Arizona 1,593,659

6 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,547,297

7 San Antonio Texas 1,373,668

8 San Diego California 1,306,300

9 Dallas Texas 1,299,542

10 San Jose California 964,695

Major US Cities

1 New York City New York 8,391,881

2 Los Angeles California 3,831,868 .47

3 Chicago Illinois 2,851,268 .35

4 Houston Texas 2,257,926 .26

5 Phoenix Arizona 1,593,659 .18

6 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,547,297

7 San Antonio Texas 1,373,668

8 San Diego California 1,306,300

9 Dallas Texas 1,299,542

10 San Jose California 964,695 .11

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