- ∗ Acknowledgement is given to the Canadian Council on Urban and Regional Research for support of portions of this research, and to the reviewer for constructive suggestions.
- 1 Examples of this debate include K. Cox and R. Golledge, eds., Behavioral Problems in Geography (Evanston: Department of Geography, Northwestern University, Studies in Geography No. 17, 1969); D. Harvey, “Social Processes and Spatial Form: An Analysis of the Conceptual Problems of Urban Planning,”Papers of the Regional Science Association, Vol. 25 (1970), pp. 47 70; R. D. Sack, “Geography, Geometry and Explanation,”Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 62 (1972), pp. 61–78; D. Meyer, “Urban Locational Analysis: A Paradigm in Need of Revolution,”Proceedings, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 5 (1973), pp. 169–73; P. Burnett, “The Dimensions of Alternatives in Spatial Choice Processes,”Geographical Analysis, Vol. 5 (1973), pp. 181 204; B. J. L. Berry, “A Paradigm for Modern Geography,” in R. J. Chorley, ed., Directions in Geography (London: Methuen and Co., 1973), pp. 3–22; and F. Gray, “Non-explanation in Urban Geography,”Area, Vol. 7 (1975), pp. 228 35. Further background is provided by D. L. Foley, “An Approach to Metropolitan Spatial Structure,” in M. M. Webber, ed., Explorations into Urban Structure (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971), pp. 21–79; L. Martin and L. March, eds., Urban Space and Structures (Cambridge: The University Press, 1972); and by A. D. Cliff, K. Bassett, R. B. Davies, P. Haggett and J. K. Ord, Elements in Spatial Structure (London: Methuen, 1975).
- 2 Examples of the comparison of different levels of spatial aggregation in urban research are M. Yeates. “The Congruence Between Housing Space. Social Space and Community Space, and Some Experiments Concerning their Implications,”Environment and Planning, Vol. 4 (1972), pp. 395 414; and R. A. Sanders, “Bilevel Effects in Urban Residential Patterns,”Economic Geography, Vol. 52 (1976), pp. 61 70. The problem is not limited to geography: see W. Bell, “Neighborhoods and Individual Behavior,” in P. Meadows and E. Mizruchi, eds., Urbanism, Urbanization and Change: Comparative Perspectives (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969).
- 3 See D. Harvey, Explanation in Geography (London: E. Arnold, 1969); G. Olsson, “Inference Problems in Locational Analysis,” in K. Cox and R. Golledge, eds., Behavioral Problems in Geography (Evanston: Department of Geography, Northwestern University, Studies in Geography No. 17, 1969), pp. 14–34; L. Andersson, “Decision-Making and Spatial Changes,” in A. G. Wilson, ed., Urban and Regional Planning, London Papers in Regional Science, No. 2 (London: Pion, 1972), pp. 61–67; W. A. V. Clark, “Behavior and the Constraints of Spatial Structure,”New Zealand Geographer, Vol. 28 (1972), pp. 171 80; F. E. Horton and D. R. Reynolds, “Effects of Urban Spatial Structure on Individual Behavior,”Economic Geography, Vol. 47 (1971), pp. 36 48; J. Eichenbaum and S. Gale, “Form, Function and Process: A Methodological Enquiry,”Economic Geography, Vol. 47 (1971), pp. 524 44; and P. J. Taylor and D. N. Parkes, “A Kantian View of the City: A Factorial Ecology Experiment in Space and Time,”Environment and Planning A, Vol. 7 (1975), pp. 671 88.
- 4 Particularly provocative in this regard are the arguments in G. Olsson, “The Dialectics of Spatial Analysis,”Antipode, Vol. 6 (1974), pp. 50 62.
- 5 Support for this contention is evident in D. Amedeo and R. G. Golledge, Introduction to Scientific Reasoning in Geography (New York: John Wiley, 1975), pp. 171–78.
- 6 Classical and neoclassical formulations of land use, land rent and property rights are now coming under careful scrutiny and reevaluation. A historical overview is given in R. W. G. Bryant, Land: Private Property, Public Control (Montreal: Harvest House, 1972). Reviews of classical economic approaches include J. Hartwick, “Spatially Organizing Human Environments,”Papers of the Regional Science Association, Vol. 31 (1973), pp. 15 30; and R. Muth, “Recent Developments in the Theory of Urban Spatial Structure,” paper presented to the International Congress. Econometrics Society, Toronto, May, 1975. An alternative perspective is provided in D. Harvey, Social Justice and the City (London: E. Arnold, 1973), and formalized in A. J. Scott, “Land Rent, Land Use and Transport: A Study in the Geographical Foundations of Political Economy,”Research Report 27 (Joint Program in Transportation, University of Toronto, February, 1975), 40 pp.
- 7 Previous work on an earlier version of this data base is summarized in: L. S. Bourne and M. J. Doucet, “Components of Land Use Change and Physical Growth,” in L. S. Bourne, et al., eds., The Form of Cities in Central Canada: Selected Papers, Department of Geography Research Paper 11 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973), pp. 83–102; and L. S. Bourne, “A Descriptive Typology of Land Use Structure and Change,”Land Economics, Vol. L (1974), pp. 271–80. New data on land use in Metropolitan Toronto for 1971 were obtained, and the previous analyses were repeated.
- 8 This measure of change, referred to as relative percentage change, is defined as: (1971 acres in use i– 1963 acres in use i) X 100/1963 total acres and calculated for each of i uses and j zones. The number of zones varies from 297 tracts down to 62 zones.
- 9 There are many indices and measures of internal areal homogeneity. One index, directly relevant to the analysis of land use and involving a measure of the changing information content of the data series, is outlined by Y. Medvedkov, “Internal Structure of a City: An Ecological Assessment,”Papers of the Regional Science Association, Vol. 27 (1971), pp. 95 118. Other measures relate to the issue of segregation. Revised segregation indices for all Canadian cities are in F. I. Hill, Metropolitan Canada (Ottawa: Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, forthcoming).
- 10 Recent summaries of principal components and factor analysis applications in geography are provided by D. Clark, W. K. D. Davies, and R. J. Johnston, “The Application of Factor Analysis in Human Geography,”The Statistician, Vol. 23 (1974), pp. 259 81; and by R. J. Johnston, “Residential Area Characteristics: Research Methods for Identifying Urban Sub-Areas,” in D. Herbert and R. J. Johnston, eds., The Geography of Urban Sub-Areas, Vol. 1 (London: J. Wiley, 1976).
- 11 Principal components analyses were undertaken while varying each of these measures: for all land uses and for developed uses only, for different indices of change as well as for three levels of spatial aggregation. The latter included census tracts (n = 297), zones of approximately equal population (n = 62) and zones of approximately equal area (n = 59). Details on the construction of these units are given in Bourne and Doucet (1973) op. cit., footnote 7 and Bourne (194), op. cit., footnote 7. Note that the present analysis is limited to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Extensive suburban development has taken place outside these boundaries since 1971, but for the current study period (1963-71) the omission of such areas does not introduce significant distortions.
- 12 Figure 3 is a generalization of the results of several analses not just that in Table 1. The factor scores employed in subsequent sections of the paper, however, do derive from Table 1.
- 13 The imprint of local building cycles on the form of the city is demonstrated by J. S. Adams, “Residential Structure of Mid-western Cities,”Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 60 (1970), pp. 37–62; J. W. R. Whitehead, “Building Cycles and the Spatial Pattern of Urban Growth,”Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 56 (1972), pp. 39–55; and B. J. L. Berry, “Short-Term Housing Cycles in a Dualistic Metropolis,” in H. M. Rose, ed., The Social Economy of Cities (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1975), pp. 165–82. Examples of the effects on urban growth of long term development and building cycles are less common: see B. Robson, Urban Growth (London: Methuen, 1973); and B. Thomas, Migration and Urban Development (London: Methuen, 1972).
- 14 Excellent accounts of the role of investment decisions in urban development are given in W. L. C. Wheaton, “Public and Private Agents of Urban Expansion,” in M. M. Webber, ed., Explorations into Urban Structure, revised edition (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania 1971), pp. 154–96; and in W. F. Smith, Urban Development. The Process and the Problems (Berkeley: University of California 1975). Alternatively, the image of urban structure held by intermediaries in the development process, such as real estate brokers, is a factor in how these decisions are made. See R. Palm, Urban Social Geography from the Perspective of the Real Estate Salesman (Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, 1976).
- 15 In the context of Canadian cities, ample evidence is provided in J. Lorimer, A Citizen's Guide to City Politics (Toronto: James, Lewis and Samuel, 1972); D. L. Stein, Toronto For Sale (Toronto: New 1972); D. Gutstein, Vancouver Ltd. (Toronto: J. Lorimer & Co., 1975); M. A. Goldberg, “Residential Developer Behavior: Some Empirical Findings,”Land Economics, Vol. L (1974), pp. 85–89; D. G. Bettison, The Politics of Canadian Urban Development (Edmonton: University of Alberta 1975); and J. Lorimer and E. Ross, eds., The City Book. The Politics and Planning of Canadian Cities (Toronto: J. Lorimer & Co., 1976).
- 16 R. Drewett, “Land Values and Urban Growth,” in M. Chisholm, A. E. Frey and P. Haggett, eds., Regional Forecasting (London: Butterworth's, 1970), pp. 335–57; and “The Developers: Decision Processes,” in P. Hall, et al., The Containment of Urban England, Vol. 2 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1973), pp. 163–93; E. J. Kaiser and S. F. Weiss, “Public Policy and the Residential Development Process,”Journal, American Institute of Planners, Vol. XXXVI (1970), pp. 30–37; and E. J. Kaiser, “Decision Agent Models: An Alternative Modelling Approach for Urban Residential Growth,” in D. C. Sweet, ed., Models of Urban Structure (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1972), pp. 109–22.
- 17 Recent geographical perspectives on urban conflict issues are in J. Wolpert, A. Mumphrey and J. Seley, Metropolitan Neighborhoods: Participation and Conflict over Change. Resource Paper No. 16, Commission on College Geography (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers, 1972); R. E. Kasperson and M. Brietbart, Participation, Decentralization, and Advocacy Planning. Resource Paper No. 25, Commission on College Geography (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers, 1974); and K. Cox, et al., eds., Locational Approaches to Power and Conflict (New York: Sage Publications, 1975).
- 18 M. Clawson and P. Hall, Planning and Urban Growth: An Anglo-American Comparison (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University 1973); and M. Clawson, “Factors Affecting Suburbanization in the Postwar Years,” in S. Gale and E. Moore, eds., The Manipulated City (Chicago: Maaroufa 1975), pp. 182–88.
- 19 Three related studies of the renewal process by the author include: “Locational Factors in the Redevelopment Process: A Model of Residential Change,”Land Economics, Vol. XLV (1969), pp. 183–93; Physical Adjustment Processes and Land Use Succession: A Conceptual Review and Central City Example,”Economic Geography, Vol. 47 (1971), pp. 1 15; and (with J. Berridge), Apartment Location and Developer Behaviour: A Reappraisal,”Canadian Geographer, Vol. 17 (1973), pp. 403 11. Conceptually related studies of land use and neighborhood succession include J. T. Little et al., The Contemporary Neighborhood Succession Process (St. Louis: Washington University, 1975); and L. D. McCann, Neighbourhoods in Transition, Studies in Geography No. 2 (Edmonton: Department of Geography, University of Alberta, 1975).
- 20 Most of the first wave of interviews were carried out during the winter and spring of 1971. The procedures are summarized in S. Chamberlain, “Aspects of Developer Behaviour in the Land Development Process,”Research Paper 56 (Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, 1972). Return interviews were undertaken in the fall of 1974.
- 21 This approach has been used to examine the process of large-scale private redevelopments in Canadian cities by R. W. Collier, Contemporary Cathedrals (Montreal: Harvest House, 1974).
- 22 One view of the extent of such biases in urban housing markets is outlined in D. Harvey and L. Chatterjee, “Absolute Rent and the Structuring of Space by Governmental and Financial Institutions,”Antipode, Vol. 6 (1974), pp. 22 36; and M. J. Boddy, “Theories of Residential Location or Castles in the Air,”Environment and Planning A, Vol. 7 (1975), pp. 109 11. See also R. L. Lindberry, “Equality, Public Policy and Public Services: The Underclass Hypothesis and the Limits to Equality,”Policy and Politics, Vol. 4 (Dec., 1975), pp. 67 84.
- 23 Between the time of data collection and the second interviews opposition to rapid growth and sprawl increased. Controls on land use, and local resistance to redevelopment, strengthened. These trends forced developers to an even greater concentration on local areas and on larger scale projects. Others left town to invest elsewhere. The existing geography of land uses was made more rigid.
- 24 The debate on the properties, and behavior, of the development and construction industries in Canadian cities continues. One highly critical view of the development industry in Canada is G. Barker, J. Penney, and W. Seccombe, Highrise and Superprofits (Kitchener: Dumont 1973). The issues of capital accumulation, corporate concentration, market power, and profits have yet, however, to be given a geographical dimension. Several of the major financial intermediaries involved in redevelopment in Metro Toronto did acknowledge during the interviews that up until the late 1960s they refused most if not all residential mortgage applications in the older areas of the central city. By the early 1970s they contended this restriction had been largely removed, and government-insured mortgages on older units had been increased.
- 25 Some companies, in response to deteriorating market conditions and tightened development controls in Toronto, have become land developers exclusively (see Chamberlain, op. cit., footnote 20).
- 26 One of the few attempts, at least in Canadian cities, to examine the effects of community organizations on development trends and urban spatial structure generally, is D. Ley, ed., Community Participation and the Spatial Order of the City, B.C. Geographical Series, No. 17 (Vancouver: Tantalus, 1974). Other expressions of the role of community groups are given in A. Powell, ed., The City Attacking Modern Myths (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1972).
- 27 Such methods are colorfully described for Canadian cities by Lorimer and Ross, op. cit., footnote 15, and for British cities by Oliver Marriott, The Property Boom (London: Pan Books, 1967).
- 28 The BMD02R version of step-wise multiple regression was employed in which the variable selected for inclusion at each step in the analysis was that with the largest F-value.
- 29 Examples of those models which are empirically based are given in H. J. Brown, et al., Empirical Models of Urban Land Use (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1972). More recent theoretical models are outlined in G. J. Papageorgiou, ed., Essays in Mathematical Land Use Theory, proceedings of a conference held at McMaster University, May, 1975 (forthcoming).
- 30 All variables were uniformly transformed to a logarithmic scale. The analyses were repeated with and without transformations, but only the latter are reported here.
- 31 An example of the Toronto experience is given in P. Rebizant, New from Old: A pilot study of housing rehabilitation and neighbourhood change (Toronto: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1974).
- 32 The problem of measuring accessibility and its relationship to land use change is demonstrated, again in the Toronto context, in R. D. MacKinnon and R. Lau, “Measuring Accessibility Change,” in L. S. Bourne et al., eds., The Form of Cities in Central Canada: Selected Papers (Toronto: University of Toronto 1973), pp. 120–37.
- 33 Statistical evaluations of these effects is difficult, particularly in separating effects due to changes in transit provision from those due to other processes of redevelopment. Two attempts to do so for Toronto are G. W. Davies. “The Effect of a Subway on the Spatial Distribution of Population,”Research Report 7404, Department of Economics, University of Western Ontario, May, 1974; and T. Miyao, “The Effects of Transportation Investments on Residential Characteristics in Metropolitan Toronto,” Working Paper, Institute for Policy Analysis, University of Toronto, 1976.
- 34 It should be noted that these are measures of travel time to the city center or the geographic center of population. Measuring accessibility to all locations of employment concentration in the metropolitan area was considered but not used since there is little evidence that the localized attractiveness of these concentrations is strictly distance-dependent.
- 35 Land ownership patterns in urban areas have a substantial effect on the rate, direction and location of land use change. There is, however, little empirical evidence on these patterns or on whether large owners and speculators are able to exert oligopolistic or market power. If they do, our theoretical formulations of land use patterning become considerably less relevant. An empirical example of the urban land ownership and land-banking by private developers in Canada is contained in Urban Land: Locked up Tight,”City Magazine, Vol. 1 (1975), pp. 17 31. A recent theoretical interpretation is J. R. Markusen and D. T. Scheffman, “Ownership Concentration and Market Power in Urban Land Markets,”Discussion Paper 003 (London, Ontario: Research Program on the Impact of the Public Sector on Local Economies, Department of Economics, University of Western Ontario, 1975).
- 36 The sign of the regression coefficient in the latter case (see factor score equation 6 in Table 4) is negative, the reverse of what real property theory suggests. That is, higher rates of apartment construction are inversely related to the quality and median value of dwellings in that area. In Toronto this reflects two major development trends: the massive spread of apartment development into suburban areas, often in combination with below average price townhouses, and the tendency for apartment redevelopment in the central city to avoid those areas of relatively poor or very high housing quality. It is also clear that the incidence of the property tax as it affects apartment development is an important locational consideration, but this has not been seriously examined.
- 37 The failings of this instrument have been widely voiced. See M. Clawson, ed., Modernizing Urban Land Policy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University 1973); Mason Gaffney“Land Rent, Taxation and Public Policy,”Papers of the Regional Science Association, Vol. 23 (1970), pp. 141 53; and J. W. Hughes ed., New Dimensions in Urban Planning: Growth Controls (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers, The State University, 1975).
Annals of the Association of American Geographers
Volume 66, 1976 - Issue 4