Texas State / Urban Geography / Spring '11 / Dr. Brock Brown
Quiz yourself by thinking what should be in
each of the black spaces below before clicking
on it to display the answer.
Help!
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| alligator (Hayden: 17) |
🗑
|
||||
| car glut (Hayden:28) |
🗑
|
||||
| duck (Hayden: 36) |
🗑
|
||||
| edge nodes (Hayden: 38) |
🗑
|
||||
| LULU (Hayden: 64) |
🗑
|
||||
| pod (Hayden: 76) |
🗑
|
||||
| Burnham | City Beautiful / aesthetically pleasing broad avenues, monuments / Chicago plan / 1893 satellite cities /consistent architecture
🗑
|
||||
| Howard | Garden city movement / Self-contained balance / Est away from pop centers / 32-56k pop cap / 1850-1920
🗑
|
||||
| Le Corbusier | City of Towers / high rises accross park environments /1887 -1965 /urban clusters connected by public trans
🗑
|
||||
| Wright | Broad acre city /convenient 10-20 min planned retail & industrial spaces
🗑
|
||||
| New Urbanism | "change from sprawl" neighborhoods w/ discernable centers, 5 min walk to center, variety of dwellings, garage apts, close elementary, narrow shaded streets, alley parking access, self governing
🗑
|
||||
| Concentric Ring Theory/Zone Model | Burgess, 1920
🗑
|
||||
| Sector Model | Hoyt, 1939
🗑
|
||||
| Multi-Nuclear Model | Harris, Ullman (post-WWII)
🗑
|
||||
| corridor development |
🗑
|
||||
| Megalopolis | conurbation, urban gravity, 60-min isochrome, breaking points
🗑
|
||||
| Central Place Theory - Urban Heiarchy (Cristaller '33) | World Class cities --> Metropolitan Center --> Regional Svc Center -->/// County Seat -->Rural Svc Center
🗑
|
||||
| Rural Service Center | Small threshold pop, Small grocery, local cafe, 2-3 churches, elementary, post office, Blanco, Fairview (previously Buda, Kyle)
🗑
|
||||
| County Seat | 10,000-15,000 ppl. Larger grocery, small domestic auto dealers, fast food, small hospital, full-time police, Fredricksburg, Seguin, Childress
🗑
|
||||
| Regional Svc Center | SHopping mall, small airport, good media, movie theaters, good lvl of helathcare
🗑
|
||||
| Metropolitan Center | Austin/SA, DFW/Houston
🗑
|
||||
| World Class City | LA, New York
🗑
|
||||
| threshold population | Minimum number of ppl in a mkt area needed to support an eco function
🗑
|
||||
| range of a good | Maximum distance ppl can be expected to travel to obtain it
🗑
|
||||
| ACCESS | BEST ACCESS GETS MOST CUSTOMERS. The lower the range of a good, the better access needed
🗑
|
||||
| rent | ability to generate revenue and stay in business. Better access = better rent
🗑
|
||||
| externalities and linkages | certain businesses suffer from other area businesses
🗑
|
||||
| Shopping, prior to WWII | Concentric ring/sector models. Public transportation. Each neighborhood had its own shopping area. Individual stores for items. LACKED PARKING FOR POST WWII SHOPPERS
🗑
|
||||
| Shopping, pre-automobile dominated shopping in concentric ring city | Neighborhood shopping, lots of stores, impacted by local culture, ethnicity, walking distance threshhold-pop, on public trans routes, lacked parking, higher prices b/c NO ECONOMY OF SCALE
🗑
|
||||
| Contemportary trends | urban sprawl, some mixed use, some concentrated/open space, greet arch getting started (water reuse, local electrical generation, veggies onroofs/in walls green infrastructure
🗑
|
||||
| Manors | gave way to merchant cities/merchant capitalism
🗑
|
||||
| Merchant capitalism | arose in the middle ages, redistributed wealth and generated additional wealth which financed the industrial revolution
🗑
|
||||
| Spread of industrialization: INNOVATION AND INVENTION | Britain --> W Europe --> E US --> CAN --> Japan --> China, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, India
🗑
|
||||
| U.S. Spread of industrialization:innovation and invention | East Coast --> Mid West (Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City) --> Los Angeles, West, South
🗑
|
||||
| basic economic activity [TA = BA + NBA] | generate income for city and residents, export g&s and sell outside city (engine for eco growth), manufacturing, division of labor, advanced services
🗑
|
||||
| Nonbasic eco activity [TA= BA + NBA] | circulate income within city. Retail and service sectors
🗑
|
||||
| TA = BA + NBA | Total activity = basic + nonbasic activity
🗑
|
||||
| multipliers | BA generates income, then NBA activities constantly recirculate $$$. For each basic job added, several nonbasic jobs are added. THese can be exported. E.G. 3000 manufacturing jobs = 3000 NB jobs
🗑
|
||||
| primary mulltipliers | company expenditures in local economy. BACKWARD LINKS btwn BA and suppliers; FORWARD LINKS btwn BA selling g&s to local companies
🗑
|
||||
| Secondary multipliers | Money spent by workers in BA. Circulated through urban economy. Worker increase = threshold pop increase.
🗑
|
||||
| backward links, ancillary linkages | BACKWARD LINKS btwn BA and suppliers; ANCILLARY unrelated/mutual economy
🗑
|
||||
| forward links, companion linkages | FORWARD LINKS btwn BA selling g&s to local companies; COMPANION dissimilar, adv for Coke, Ford, Bud
🗑
|
||||
| circular and cumulative causation | self perpetuating?
🗑
|
||||
| Plant closures & outsourcing impact | Smaller cities and less diverse BA are vulnerable to this
🗑
|
||||
| Fordism System of Production | Economy of Scale. Standardized. Fueled global industrialization. Production capacity grew to exceed marked demand.
🗑
|
||||
| Flexible Production | Evolving today. GIS. Uses computer tech to coordinate prodution. Driven by real time demand. increased reliance on part-time and temp labor. "Just in time manufacturing"
🗑
|
||||
| Growth Pole Model | Changes in location of manufacturing over time. Key centers evolve. Periphery MAY benefit from "trickle down."
🗑
|
||||
| Polarization Process | nEGATIVE. Periphery biz cannot match efficiancy from Urban growth center. Attracts labor, investment, and increases gap.
🗑
|
||||
| Stanback Model | Counter --> Growth Node, beyond manufacturing. Evolved over the last 30-40 yrs during loss of manufacturing jobs and rise of svc jobs. Advanced services required. Leads to structural, long enduring changes.
🗑
|
||||
| Stanback Observations on Structural Changes | Services = increased importance. Dominant metropolitan economies. Economic specialization broken down by threshold pop. Wide variety of income/enployment/earnings. Non-earned income = source of aggregate demand
🗑
|
||||
| 1960/1997 % change in US empolyment | MANUFACTURING: 30.97 --> 15.21 /// SERVICES: 13.69 --> 29.37
🗑
|
||||
| Fast Urban Growth 1990-1997 | Atl, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Pheonix, Seattle
🗑
|
||||
| Intermediat Urban Growth 1990 - 1997 | CIncinnati, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Oakland
🗑
|
||||
| Slow Urban Growth 1990 - 1997 | Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleaveland, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
🗑
|
||||
| Human Talent/ High tech industry | Highly concentrated in only a few US cities; generate higher regional incomes.
🗑
|
||||
| wHEELER-pARK mODEL | 1) Changing manufacturing location 1850-present. 2) 1850 Initial centralization. 3) 1880 Central city concentration. 4) 1920 continuous growth. 5) 1960 suburbanization 6) 1980 suburban dominance
🗑
|
||||
| relocation diffusion | coming to a city, moving within a city
🗑
|
||||
| in-migration [P1 + (IM-OM) = P2] | people moving INTO one place form another place
🗑
|
||||
| out-migration [P1 + (IM-OM) = P2] | people moving OUT of one place to another place
🗑
|
||||
| net internal migration | the difference between in-migration and out-migration. P1 + (IM-OM) = P2
🗑
|
||||
| Migration and Natural Pop Growth P1 + (IM-OM) + (B-D) = P2 | Migrant chains create ethnic areas. Newest land in poorest areas. Over time, the collectively move to better parts of the city, generally maintaining their sense of community. P1 + (IM-OM) + (B-D) = P2
🗑
|
||||
| 14th Amendment | African Americans granted civil rights
🗑
|
||||
| Asian Exclusion Acts | 1882, 1917, 1924, 1934. Excluded immigrants from China, Japan, and India and the Philippenes. Categorized as "non-white."
🗑
|
||||
| Asia Barred Zone 1917 | Denied South Asians entry. Excluded American posessions of the Phillipenes and Guam
🗑
|
||||
| Chinese Exclusion Acts/Immigration Exclusion act 1882 | Suspended immigration of CHinese laborers, barring re-entry of Chinese laborers qho departed and did not return before the passage of the act.
🗑
|
||||
| Alien Land Laws | 1913, 1920, 1923. pROHIBITED aSIAN IMMIGRANTS FROM OWING LAND AND OTHER FORMS OF PROPERTY THROUGH THE LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF NONWHITES AS ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP
🗑
|
||||
| Immigrant Act of 1924 | Exclusion of the Japanese. Barred entry. Totally excluded them from immigration. "Whites only" could be naturilized as citizens.
🗑
|
||||
| Tydings-McDuffie Act 1934 | Exclusion of Filipinos. Cut immigration to a quota of 50/year. All inside the US reclassified as "Aliens." COnnected with the issue of Phillipine independence from US colonization
🗑
|
||||
| Magnusun Act 1943 | Lifted the barriers to citizenship to most immigrants of Asian origin. Repealed the Exclusion Act of 1882, est. a quota for Chinese immigrants, and made Chinese elegible for citizenship, negating the 1790 racial bar.
🗑
|
||||
| Asian Exclusion Repeal Acts 1946 | Filipeno and East Indian. McCarran-Walter Act 1952
🗑
|
||||
| Immigrant Act 1965 | eliminated immigration quotas. Est new criteria for immigrants.
🗑
|
||||
| California Proposiotion 187 (1994) | Attempts to deny schooling and medical care to illegal immigrants.
🗑
|
||||
| social distance, invasion, succession, penetration, consolidation | "Problems" which arose during the Industrial era. From the study of Urban Ecology (1910-1930s). Only partially accurate.
🗑
|
||||
| Social Area Analysis (Shevky and Bell) | Forces which shape 1955 cities: Demand for advanced job skills, family structures, residential mobility. Reflects socioeco status, and ethnic status as well
🗑
|
||||
| Ethnoburb | Ethnic neighborhoods, temporal transition of composition. Also known as a "cultural enclave"
🗑
|
||||
| New Factors in Organizing Urban Space | 1) Power: political, economic. 2) Residential diferentiation: division of urban space along social lines, social reproduction-capitalism needs...by class, in neighborhoods. 3) Globalization-manufacturing --> adv svcs
🗑
|
||||
| spatial polarization | dual/divided city
🗑
|
||||
| gentrification | upgrading neighborhoods
🗑
|
||||
| citadels | enclosed, protected neighborhoods
🗑
|
||||
| cultural enclave | cultural, immigrant (ethnoburb) community
🗑
|
||||
| ghettos | created by external force
🗑
|
||||
| edge city | suburban city. Jobs, retail, housing. Increasingly defensive design: walls, gates, guards
🗑
|
||||
| WOrking class city | increasingly downgrading) poverty and crime. Usually deteriorating.
🗑
|
||||
| Causes of segregation | 1) economic, 2) discrimination, 3) preferences (voluntary self-separation)
🗑
|
||||
| Evenness | A measure of segregation, based on the Index of Dissimilarity. 10% Total.
🗑
|
||||
| Proportional Distribution | A measure of segregation, thE PERCENTAGE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH WOULD NEED TO RELOCATE TO ACHIEVE EVENnESS
🗑
|
||||
| exposure/isolation | A measure of segregation which uses the Isolation Index.
🗑
|
||||
| Centralization | A measure of segregation, determines the closeness to central city, relative to other groups.
🗑
|
||||
| Clustering | A measure of segregation,the degre to which group members live in a neighborhood close to each other, and between neighborhoods
🗑
|
||||
| COncentration | A measure of segregation, EXTENT TO WHICH GROUPS LIVE IN RESTRICTED AMOUNT OF URBAN SPACE
🗑
|
||||
| Hypersegregation | MULTIPLE FORMS OF SEGREGATION, SIMULTANEOUSLY
🗑
|
||||
| GreatMigration 1915-1920 | Lead to the Urban Sector model. Devistation of Southern Ag....boll weevil, share cropping. Ag depression preceded great depression.l Wartime industrial labor shortages. Tight low income housing mkt.
🗑
|
||||
| Post WWI Urban Migration | First African-American ghettos evolved. Fear, racism urban riots. Neighborhood improvement assoc. Resstrictive covenants. Dual housing mkts/ the "color line". Less than 1/3 of poor live in cities.
🗑
|
||||
| Post WWII Urban Migration | Urban migration became worse. Chicago 1920 no neighborhoods more than 90% African American. Segregation morthroughrough in Northern cities.
🗑
|
||||
| POST WWII Suburbia | Massive increase in housing stock. Rapid increase in home ownership. 90%minority neighborhoods, as racial divides grew. Older, deteriorating neighborhoods surrendered to miniorities. Encouraged by Federal loan practices, redev funds, public housing.
🗑
|
||||
| 1960s Urban Riots | 83 US cities experienced race riots. Magnitude and # at new heights. GREAT ECO INEQUALITY
🗑
|
||||
| Structural rascism | separate but equal
🗑
|
||||
| DEINDUSTRIALIZATION/GLOBALIZATION | caused decline in manufacturung jobs (BA), and decling in related service (NB/multipliers). Service setor jobs globalized. Neg impact of urban eco base. Minorities suffer disproportionately.
🗑
|
||||
| city poverty | BY 2000, 1/2 OF ALL POOR LIVE IN CITIES. 78% LIVE IN METROPOLITAN AREAS: 42% IN CENTRAL CITY, 36% IN SUBURBS
🗑
|
||||
| TENURE | LATIN, "TO HOLD." HOUSING IS SECURED AND OCCUPIED BY PRIVATE (90%) AND PUBLIC (govt). pUBLIC MKT HOUSING IS RARE.
🗑
|
||||
| CHANGING FUNCTION OF CITIES | 1 TRADE. 2 MANUFACTURING. 3 SERVICES/TECH/R&D. 4 1990s DECENTRILIZATION. 5 GENTRIFICATION
🗑
|
||||
| WHEN DID THE US BECOME PREDOMINANTLY URBAN? | BTWN 1910-1920.
🗑
|
||||
| EARLIEST URBAN SETTLEMENTS | SPAIN. ST. AUGUSTINE, 1565 --> THEN, ENGLISH (ROANOAK, JAMESTOWN).
🗑
|
||||
| INVASION AND SUCCESSION | HOUSIG MKT, WHERE ONE GRP TAKES OVER ANOTHER GRPS SPACE
🗑
|
||||
| FILTERING AND VACANCY CHAINS | HOYT.
🗑
|
||||
| INITIAL URBANIZATION | NEW HOUSING, RECENTLY IN SUBURBS.
🗑
|
||||
| TRANSITION | POP GROWTH, INCREASED DENSITY, MULTI-FAM BEING BUILT
🗑
|
||||
| DOWNGRADING | OLDER HOUSING STOCK CONVERTED TO NEW, MULTI-FAM. PHYSICAL DETERIORATION.
🗑
|
||||
| THINNING | pop declines, vacancy, abandoment
🗑
|
||||
| renewal | obsolete housing replaced with multi-family; intensive land use increases, often public-sector involvement.
🗑
|
||||
| incipient decline |
🗑
|
||||
| john Yinger "Matched Pairs research" | Discrimination can occur at three stages: 1) Information re: availible units. 2) Terms and conditions/financing assistance. 3) Steering, location of ofther units (purchase and rental)
🗑
|
||||
| redlining | identifying minority areas, refuse to lend b/c of potential for reduced value. Applied FHA loan guarantee programs - devastating impact. denied $ to inner-city and minorities., kept them from suburbanization.
🗑
|
||||
| when was redlining prohibited? | 1975 HMDA, 1977 CRA, 1990s...some practices continue at applicant level
🗑
|
||||
| secondary mortgage mkt | occured during post WWII auto dom society. fed govt loan guarantees, millions could now purchase homes @ reasonable cost. favored new/modern housing. shortage of capital in commercial depository banks, S&Ls.
🗑
|
||||
| abraham levitt | economy of scale neighborhoods post wwII
🗑
|
||||
| SPRAWL NEGATIVE ATTIBUTES | AUTOS NECESSARY TO PARTICIPATE FULLY IN SOCIETY. INCREASED SEPARTION BTWN SOCIEO-ECONOMIC CLASSES. CONTRIBUTIONS TO HEALTH PROBLEMS. POLLUTION. WASTED TIME.
🗑
|
||||
| ZONE OF ABANDONMENT | BLIGHT OF THE INNER-CITY. OVERCROWDED/DETERIORATING CBD.
🗑
|
||||
| URBAN RENEWAL | "DEMOLISH AND REBUILD"
🗑
|
||||
| ELITIST THEORY | ONLY A FEW INDIVIDUALS HOLD POWER
🗑
|
||||
| PLURALIST THEORY | POWER IS DISTRIBUTED
🗑
|
||||
| REGIME THEORY | PPL COME TOGETHER TO ACCOMPLISH GOALS, AD HOC
🗑
|
||||
| organic regime | keep the same, anti-change
🗑
|
||||
| instrumental regime | coalesce to accomplish big objective
🗑
|
||||
| symbolic regime | coalition to look after/alter city image
🗑
|
||||
| urban governance stages | 1) elite dominance 2) machine politicts 3) reform politicts
🗑
|
||||
| elite dominance | First stage of urban governance. colonial area to mid-19th century. property-owing upper class- EURO/AM males
🗑
|
||||
| machine politics | Second stage of urban governance. heiarchical/party boss (hall, Daley). populist. territorial.
🗑
|
||||
| reform politics | third stage of urban governance. cities are run by experienced admins who apply scientific management techniques. at large elections. non partisan elections. council-manager form of govt.
🗑
|
||||
| 3/4 of local revenue | property taxes...much goes to schools.
🗑
|
||||
| grid system | used to plan land use.
🗑
|
||||
| CDPs | unincorperated cities. do not have charter. have far less rules.
🗑
|
||||
| japanese cities | clean, safe, lowest crime rates in the world. ethnically homogeneous. 4%belong to minority group. SOCIET CLOSED UNTIL 1868/OPENED W. BANG! DELIBERATE INDUSTRIALIZATION. MIGHTY MIL. WWII CHANGED FOCS FM. MIL CONQUEST TO ECO DEV. LONG HIST FEUDAL SYST.
🗑
|
||||
| political fragmentation | often occurs when metropolitan areas expand. growth of service delivery areas.
🗑
|
||||
| polycentrism | pro-fragmentation. Believe big, remote metro scale govts become unresponsive to local interests. success in fighting city hall. tiebout hypothesis. political and lifestyle choices. Small town, personal feeling.
🗑
|
||||
| Tiebout hypothesis | people will seek a better fit btwn their tolerance for taxes, and demands for service.
🗑
|
||||
| arguements against poly-centrism | fiscal disparity, variation in tax base/ability to provide services. 2) larger tax base means lower taxes. 3) metropolitan polarization btwn resource poor anr resource rich municipalities.
🗑
|
||||
| federal poverty guideling for family of 4 | 19,350 (1,612/month). AK 24,190. HI 22,260.
🗑
|
||||
| how to reduce a fragmented metropolis? | annexation, city-council consolidation, joint eco dev districts, extraterritorial jurisdiction.
🗑
|
||||
| elastic annexation | One way to reduce a fragmented metro areas. thse cities aggressively epand area via annexation/consolidaion, capturing suburban growth and affluent tax base.
🗑
|
||||
| inelastic cities | do not change their boundaries, and contribute to fragmented metroploitan areas
🗑
|
||||
| extraterritorial juristiction | the state allows cities to make certain decisions about land use beyond the city limit.
🗑
|
||||
| CAPCOG | CAPITAL AREA COUNCIL OF GOVTS.CATALYST FOR REGIONAL PLANNING. ONE OF 24 COGs IN TX. FOUNDED 1970.
🗑
|
||||
| COGs | COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS. ALL STATES HAVE THESE/
🗑
|
||||
| 10 THINGS WRONG W/ SPRAWL | 1) LOSS OF SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC AMIENITIES. 2) UNDERMINES EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTNENCE. 3) CONSUMES MORE RESOURCES. 4) INCREASES TRANS COSTS. 5) SEPARATES POOR FROM JOBS. 6) IMPOSES TIME TAX. 7) DEGRADES WATER/AIR 8) HABITAT DESTRUCTION 9)
🗑
|
||||
| EUROPEAN HOUSING | DENSE. SCARCE LAND. STURDIER MATERIALS. EXTREME COST. MORE RENTERS. STRINGENT PLANNING. ANTIQUITY/HERITAGE. PRESERVATION VS. RENEWAL. HISTORIC CORES.
🗑
|
||||
| WESTERN EURO CITIES | HISTORIC CORE = PRESTIGEOUS/EXPENSIVE. AJACENT ZONES OF TRANSITION, URBAN POOR, RECENT MIGRANTS. REMOTE "NEW TOWNS" TIED BY MASS TRANSIT. 1/2 OF gdp GOES TO PUBLIC EXPENDITURE. [u.s. = 1/3, MOSTLY MIL]
🗑
|
||||
| SOCIAL GEO IN EUROPE | CITIES DIVIDED BY CLASS. HOUSE, FAM SIZE SMALLER, BUT LESS MOBILE. ETHNIC SEGREGATION LESS EVIDENT THAN US.
🗑
|
||||
| LARGEST URBAN AREA | TOKYO. OSAKA 4th LARGEST/ EXTREMELY HIGH DENSITY. LAND VALUE = 100x U.S. AVG COMMMUTE 2 HRS. MORE EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME.
🗑
|
||||
| POP GROWTH IN EUROPE, TODAY | ZPG, -0.2. LOW/NONEXISTANT. GROWTH DRIVEN BY MIGRATION FROM LDCs TO MDCs
🗑
|
||||
| FAUBOURGS | EARLY SUBURBS, JUST OUTSIDE EURO CITY WALLS.
🗑
|
||||
| MOST DENSE EURO CITY/ACRE | BUCHAREST, ROMANIA.; 669!!!
🗑
|
||||
| MOST DENSE U.S CITY/ACRE | NEW YORK...178
🗑
|
||||
| CENTRAL CITY DECLINE | BEGAN 1970s. MANUFACTURING NEAR CBDs CLOSED; RELOCATED TO LOWER COST AND ABSORB MORE SPACE. FOR HIGH TECH EQUIPMENT. RETAIL FOLLOWED...LEAKED TO SUBURBS, MALLS/BIG BOXES
🗑
|
||||
| CONSEQUENSES OF CENTRAL CITY DECLINE | TAX BASE DROPPED, REMAINING POP POOR AND ELDERLY. INFRASTRUCTURE DECAY. SCHOOL SYST DECAY. FEW "ECO OF SCALE" OPPS
🗑
|
||||
| PORTS/BREAK OF BULK CITIES. | GOODS SHIPPED THORUGH/ CARGO BROKEN DOWN ALONG ROUTE.
🗑
|
||||
| TRANSPORTATION DRIVEN CITIES | CARGO BROKEN DOWN ALONG ROUTE.
🗑
|
||||
| SPECIAL FUNCTION CITIES | MINIG/EXTRACTION, TOURISM/ENTERTAINEMNT, GOVT CONCENTRATION
🗑
|
||||
| MKT SITE CITIES | RETAIL AND CONSUMER SVC CENTERS. WELL DEVELOPED CBD. ORGANIZED ALONG URBAN HEIARCHY...COLLECTION POINT FOR LOCAL PRODUCTIONM DISTRIBUTION CENTERS FOR GOODS NOT LOCALLY AVAILIBLE. KANSAS CITY, sT. lOUIS, CHICAGO.
🗑
|
||||
| MONOCENTRIC CITIES | THE INITIAL SINGLE FOCUS OF CENTRALITY-CBD. COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION NODE, TRSNSHIPMENT POINT. CONCENTRIC RING/SECTOR MODELS
🗑
|
||||
| AGGLOMERATION | OCCURED LATE 1960s TO PRESENT. BASIS OF MULTI-NUCLEAR CITY MODEL. SPATIAL DISTRUBUTION.
🗑
|
||||
| LOCALIZATION ECONOMIES | CLUSTERING OF SIMILAR. TIMEAND ## SAVINGS. COMPETITIVE LINKAGES.
🗑
|
||||
| URBANIZATION ECONOMIES | CLUSTERING OD DISSIMILAR, UNLIKE. ADVERTISING, FINANCE, INSURANCE. CAN BE DRAWN BY GRAVITY. UNRELATED ACTIVITIES SERVE A MUTUAL MKT. SAVINGS DERIVED WHEN SEVERAL UNLIKE ESTS DEPEND ON COMMON SUPPLIER
🗑
|
||||
| CBD AGGLOMERATION LINKAGES (4) | 1) ANCILLARY. 2) COMPANION. 3) COMPETITIVE. 4) COMPLIMENTARY
🗑
|
||||
| ANCILLARY LINKAGE | PART OF CBD AGGLOMERATION. BIZ TIES/CORPORATION GRAVITY
🗑
|
||||
| COMPANION LINKAGE | PART OF CBD AGGLOMERATION. BIZ TIES W/DISSIMILAR TARGETS.
🗑
|
||||
| COMPETITIVE LINAKAGES | PART OF CBD AGGLOMERATION. CONSUMER TIES, CLUSTERING OF SIMILAR ACTIVITIES FACILITIATES LOCALIZATION ECONOMIES
🗑
|
||||
| COMPLIMENTARY LINKAGE | PART OF CBD AGGLOMERATION. CONSUMER TIES, RELATED FUNCTIONS SERVE THE SAME MKT. URBANIATION ECONOMY.
🗑
|
||||
| ZONE OF DISCARD | MAY EXPAND IN ONE DIRECTION AND RETREAT IN ANOTHER. NIGHT POPULATION.
🗑
|
||||
| ZONE OF ASSIMILATION | GROWTH OCCURS HERE. MAY EXPAND ---> ZONE OF DISCARD. OLD AND ECAYING EDGE, FORMORLLY VIBRANT. LOW LAND VALUE. UNDESIRABLE APPEARANCE.
🗑
|
||||
| ZONE OF TRANSITION |
🗑
|
||||
| REVITALIZAITION/REDEVELOPMENT | DETERIORATION BEGAN IN 1950s. GROWTH MACHINES (COALITIONS) CREATE NEW IMAGE, RAISE $$ FOR IMPROVEMENT.
🗑
|
||||
| FIFTH AMENDMENT | HELPED FORM LEGAL BASIS FOR CITY PLANNING. "TAKINGS CLAUSE." PRIVATE PROPERTY CANNONT BE ANNEXED W/O JUST COMPENSATION
🗑
|
||||
| FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT | HELPED FORM LEGAL BASIS FOR CITY PLANNING. NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY W/O DUE PROCESS.
🗑
|
||||
| EMINENT DOMAIN |
🗑
|
||||
| ZONING | LIMITS EARNINGS WHEN GOVT TAKES PROPERTY. CONSTITUTIONAL IN 1929.
🗑
|
||||
| ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT | ENVIRONMENTAL TAKINGS
🗑
|
||||
| STAKEHOLDERS | INCLUDES GOVT AT ALL LEVELS, PROVATE DEVELOPERS, FINANCERS, RESIDENTS, OTHERS
🗑
|
||||
| housing act of 1954 | The Master Plan to catelog/inventory existing land use, population, eco profiles. Lays out dev goals. Institutionalization of planning process. Legal foundation for specific regulations. brings stakeholders together.
🗑
|
||||
| comprehensive plan | offers long range vision. inventory of physical and cultural geography of the city. an overview of historial and projected trends. procedures to administer and change.
🗑
|
||||
| pedestrian sheds | five min walk
🗑
|
||||
| transit-oriented development TODs | around transit stops
🗑
|
||||
| cluster zoning |
🗑
|
||||
| exclusionary zoning |
🗑
|
||||
| 7.5 topographic | bm-benchmark, feet above sea level
🗑
|
Review the information in the table. When you are ready to quiz yourself you can hide individual columns or the entire table. Then you can click on the empty cells to reveal the answer. Try to recall what will be displayed before clicking the empty cell.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Created by:
goldmeg89
Popular Geography sets