Introduction
Human geography forms the basis of societal existence and interrelation. Living in a world threatened by overpopulation and scarcity of resources to sustain the coming generations, urban planning is increasingly becoming important. Governments must work with professionals in the urban planning industry to adequately structure city dwellings in a manner that will accommodate as many people as possible. More challenging is the responsibility to ensure that people comfortably co-exist in the already defined and limited public space and resources. This analogy relates to urban planning and human psychology concerning the present state of infrastructure within physical environs. To discuss explicitly the rationale behind most urban landscapes and models, this paper evaluates various urban models used for planning city infrastructure. Of particular interest will be cities developed after the industrial age.
Urban Planning for Post-Industrial Cities
The complexity of human interaction in society presents a challenging task to urban planners to effectively allocate efficient resources to sustain city activities. City planners have to figure out where and how to structure infrastructure systems in the best manner possible to accommodate all persons. However, this daunting task is marred with uncertainties to identify the best model that will adequately suit the urban population. The criteria for this implementation revolve around zoning, and Rantenen and Rajaniemi (2020) defined zoning as the practice of segmenting areas with particular activities. Planners segregate regions based on the relevance of the action to the human population in those cities.
Post-industrial cities boast a high number of service sector jobs as compared to agricultural and industrial activities. Most of these cities are in the developed world nations, most specifically because of the high state of technological advancement and superior infrastructure. Examples of post-industrial societies include Japan, the United States of America, and Europe (Ronald et al., 2018). On the same, the move to a post-industrial city emanates from the shift in society from a manufacturing-based community to a service-based culture.
This transition leads to the creation of a new society that majorly focuses on service production and provision to community members. Such cities create an economic shift to industrialized nations, which will henceforth produce the goods that dwellers in the post-industrial society will consume. Such interdependence is critical for the economic survival and sustainability of both human setups.
Examples of world locations with post-industrial societal living standards and economic activities include Los Angeles with a multiple-nuclei type of urban model and the Latin American Model (Brunn et al., 2020). Chicago is next to transition from a concentric zone model to the present sector model urban planning structure. The similarities and differences between the three urban models, multiple-nuclei model, the Latin American Model concentric zone model, and the sector model follow next.
Multiple-Nuclei Urban Model
Developed in 1945 by two geography enthusiasts, the Multiple-Nuclei model argues that most cities' urban cores are losing importance in the present world (Morren, 2017). Edward Ullman and Chauncy Harris, inventors of the model, presented that view by because most economic activities are shifting transaction centers from the center of the city (Plane, 2020). The proponents argued that the central business district should be viewed as a nucleus within a larger network of interconnected cities. The ‘metropolitan,’ as they called it, was increasingly becoming accessible with the increased purchasing power of the people to own automobiles and the governments’ efforts to improve the infrastructure around and within the city.
This type of urban model is good for expansive cities yet to attain optimum operational level as a full service-based economy. Most nations and cities that have outgrown the agricultural and subsistence economy sector and as well have outlived the industrialization phase design such kind of city structure to embrace the accompanying benefits of a service sector-based economy. Within this city structure for urban planning are nine different zones or regions that represent a particular human function and activity in the city. The central business district is the most prominent, and this region is independent of the others because of the concentrated business transactions occurring within it.
Next is the light manufacturing portion and low-class residential area that accompany each other. The basis for these connections is the provision of cheap labor that these city dwellers can provide (Vincze, 2019). Middle-class residents and upper-class citizens have abodes at the city edges though not explicitly defined as the regions cross each other depending on the available amenities within such zones.
Heavy manufacturing now then occurs on the outskirts of the city, and the area is followed by an outlying business district that serves the needs of the people and organizations within the heavy manufacturing zone. For super-rich in society, the residential suburbs serve their interests to their satisfaction as they isolate themselves furthest from the city center. An industrial suburb then can emerge from the little concentrated segments of the multiple-nucleic city environment.
Sector Zone Model
The sector zone model builds up from the concentric model to includes diversity around communication and transportation. Homer Hoyt was credited with the creation of the model back in 1939, and the model came from his observation that most cities sprawl along communication or transportation lines (Miron, 2017). One major accord for this type of urban planning involves the city of Chicago and other most prominent towns. Particular interest spirals from the city of Chicago, USA. For so long, the city has been considered a concentric model urban dwelling, but in essence, Chicago is a sector model-based city structure.
In this type of urban planning, establishments grow waywardly along roads, railroads, riverbanks, and coastlines. Instead of the circles in the Ernest Burgess concentric model, with Hoyt’s planning arrangement is that small stand-alone centers come together to form a city. Traditionally, laborers were credited with the creation of the town. From one center to the other, Miron (2017) further stated that the workers' construction activities for roads and rail transport multiply and spread in the villages along the route of construction. This outpouring of human resources and the diversity brought with it through the interaction with locals creates a dynamic local environment that is new to everyone, hence spiraling the invention of a town within a town.
The Latin American Urban Model
The Latin American Model emanates from the Spaniard's notion of colonization (Brunn et al., 2020). Cities with this type of planning have the central business district surrounded by the city’s elites, and the region beyond it degrades in social status as one goes furthest from the CBD. This social structure was a governance strategy to control the extent of political control and economic empowerment of the colonized. Resultant of this activity, however, most Latin American societies have this type of introverted city formula from that of the concentric model. The model combines the best elements and impact of globalization and the Latin American culture to create a blend of city landscape that is explanatory of a post-industrial city.
Whereas the concentric urban model has low-class residents in the innermost circles, the Latin American Urban Structure has the most affluent establishments at the heart of the city. High-class citizens are closest to the city’s central resources. The most outstanding reason for this arrangement is rural to urban migration. As people move from the villages to seek a better living in urban centers, the cities get congested and cannot cater for such high populations. Concerned for their social safety and standings, the city’s elite then creates ‘concentration’ zones, designated places of residence, albeit outside the CBD environs.
This city has sections just like the others, but the concentration and alignment are different. To start with, the Latin American Model has a CBD as the innermost core of the city dealing with substantial activities of the city dwellers. There is a market for formal and informal businesses, and beyond that is the elite residential sector with home offices as well as corporate letting space. Gentrification zone and the zone of maturity follow next, after which another region with a mixture of middle and low-income earners co-exist in the ‘zone of situ.’
A remarkable trait of the inner-city zone of maturity is that this region is ever under construction. There are always ongoing construction and building activities in the region as people acclimatize in the city. Beyond this zone are slum areas of a settlement whose residents could or could not be a part of the city population. It is highly likely that people in this zone of disamenity came to the city but never got the chance to obtain meaningful employment to access the city’s center every day. Further from this zone is the settlement for squatters, the outcasts whom the urban system has failed to accommodate effectively.
Similarities between the Urban Models
Human focus is the single outstanding concept that is similar across all the urban planning models discussed by this paper. As humans grow and develop, they adapt to present needs and wants, and the same applies to the environment around them. The invention of automobiles made people further embrace long-distance trade, an activity that resulted in people coming from far-reaching places to urban centers. When rural folk gets to the city, they try to adapt to city life. With adaptation comes social interaction and culture, and resultantly the need to put up a governance structure to manage the increasing population.
Urban planners come together to ensure the population within urban and rural localities get the best from the available resources with overstraining any particular side. The management, therefore, designates how the city shall be developed in accordance to resources availability of economic and social importance of a certain proportion. Residential areas and business areas are allocated per the needs of the town’s population, mostly the towns’ elite. Segmentation is also another similarity between the urban models identified above. All sections of the city are related and bundled in accordance with the physical activity within that region. The classification may be due to ease of governance from the authorizing body in the city, or from human nature to seek solace in numbers, or purely from a competitive perspective where resources are concentrated in one particular region.
Differences between the Models
The Multiple-Nuclei urban model differs from the rest because it classified dependent and independent economic activities. This first type of urban planning revolves around similar businesses coming together and form a cluster within a certain part of the city. Supporting business and service providers enclose around it and create a region of activities that support one another, albeit in one concentrated area of the town.
