· pdf fileforeword by the commi ttee the metr opol ita n communit y by r. d. m ckenzie is one...
TRANSCRIPT
FOREWORD BY THE COMM ITTEE
THE METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY by R . D . McKenz ie is one
of a series of monographs published under the direction of thePresident’s Research Committee on Social Trends, embodying
scientific information assembled for the u se of the Comm itteein the preparation of its report entitled Recent Social Trends
in the United States .
The Committee was named by President Herbert Hoover inDecember , 1929, to survey social changes in this country in order
to throw light on the emerging problems which now confront
or which may be expected later to confront the people of theUnited States . The undertaking is unique in our history . For
the first time the head of the Nationhas called “
upon a group of
social scientists to sponsor and direct a broad scientific study of
the factors of change in modern society.
Funds, for the researches were granted by the RockefellerFoundation, an expert staff was recruited from universities
and other scientific institutions, and a series of investigations
was begun early in 1930 and concluded in 1932 . The complete
report contains the findings of the President’s Research Committee on Social Trends together with twenty-nine chapters p re
pared by experts in the various fields .
Modern social life is so closely integrated as a whole that no
change can occur in any of its phases without _ affecting other
phases in some measure. Social problems arise largely from such
unplanned reactions of the rapidly changing phases of social
life upon themore stable phases . To give a fewexamples : changesin industrial technique react upon employment, changes in thecharacter of adult work affect educational needs, changes in
international relations affect domestic politics, changes in immi
gration policy affect the growth of population and the demand for
farm products, changes in consumption habits affect the demandfor leisure and facilities for enjoying it, changes in demands forsocial service by governmental agencies affect taxes and public
debts , changes in methods of communication tend to standardize
[ V ]
F OR EWORD
the mode of life in country and city . The effects noted in this
list of illustrations in their turn cause other changes, and so on
without assignable limits .
The usual practice of concentrating attention upon one social
problem at a time often betrays u s into overlooking these intricate
relations . Even whenwe find what appears to be a satisfactory
solution of a single problem , we are likely to produce new prob
lems by putting that solution into practice . Hence the_need of
making a comprehensive survey of the many social changeswhich are proceeding simultaneously, with'
an eye to their reao
tions upon one another . That task is attempted in the Committee
’
s report . Of’
course the list of changes there considered is
not exhaustive . N or can all the subtle interactions among social
changes be traced .
To safeguard the conclusions against bias, the researches were
restricted to the analysis of objective data . Since the availabledata do not cover all phases of the many subjects studied, it was
often impossible to answer questions of keen interest . But what
is set forthhas been made as trustworthy as the staff could make
it by careful checking with factual records . D iscussions which are
not limited by the severe requirements of scientific method have
their uses, which the Committee rates highly . Yet an investiga
tion initiated by the President in the hope that the findings may
be of service in dealing with the national problems of today and
tomorrow, should be kept as free as possible from emotional
coloring and unverifiable conjectures . Accuracy and reliability
are more important in such an undertaking than liveliness or
zeal to do good . If men and women of all shades of opinion from
extreme conservatism to extreme radicalism can find a common
basis of secure knowledge to“ build upon, the social changes
of the future may be brought in larger measure under the control
of social intelligence .
The Committee’
s researches were not confined to preparinga general report laid out with proper regard for balance . Intensive
investigations of considerable length were carried out in several
directions where the importance of the subjects warranted and
adequate data were available . Some investigators were rewarded
by especially valuable developments of their programs on a
scale which made it impossible to condense the results into a
single chapter without serious loss . I n these cases separate mono
graphs are necessary to provide adequate presentation of thevi ]
[ vii ]
with in the Committee’
s
to a
PREFACE
As one of a series of monographs prepared under the auspice s
of the President’s Research Committee on Social Trends , this
study attempts to show in an objective and verifiable manner
some of the basic changes that have taken place in Americancities since the advent of motor transportation. I n dealing with
such an enormously complex subject as the modern city, it was
necessary to select at the outset certain phases for treatment.
In making the selection, it was decided to deal with What seemed
to be the more important structural changes that are taking
place in American settlement in order to furnish a background
for the consideration of specific social problems . Since these
structural changes are related to , and can be expressed in terms
of, population movements and technological developments , such
phenomena furnish the basic statistical material used in this
report.
Owing to the limitations of the statistical data , ithas not beenpossible to disclose trends in all the fields covered in the study .
N ot infrequently it was necessary to resort to the case procedure
to suggest developments which may or may not be general in
character . I n presenting this monograph , therefore, the author is
deeply conscious that his investigation merely scratches thesurface of the subject under consideration . If he has succeeded
in presenting a frame of reference for further research in this
field , he will feel that his laborhas not been altogether in vain.
Since even the narrow field sketched in this monograph extends
beyond the realm of the knowledge of any one individual , a
number of experts in special fields were drafted to contribute
chapters on subjects that are closely related to the central theme
of this study . R . E . Park and Charles N ewcomb , of the University of Chicago , kindly contributed the chapter on Newspaper
Circulation and Metropolitan Regions ; Calvin Schmid , of theUniversity of Minnesota , prepared the material for the chapter
on the Expansion of the Political Area of the City ; Ernest M .
Fisher , of the University of Michigan, wrote the chapter on theExpansion of the Urban Land Area ; J Rowland Bibbins, Con
! ix }
PR E F A C E
su lting Engineer, Washington, D . C . , prepared the chapter on
The Economic Topography of the City : Urban Land Values ;Inez K . Rolph , of the Bureau of Foreignand Domestic Com
merce, wrote the chapter on Nucleation : the Pattern of Retail
Marketing ; Miller McClintock, of the Albert Russel ErskineBureau for Street Traffic Research , Harvard University , wrote
the chapter on Trends in Urban Traffic ; Shelby M . Harrison,
General D irector of the Russell Sage Foundation, and Flavel
Shurtleff , of the National Conference on City Planning, contributed the chapter on City and Regional Planning and Zoning ; andThomas H . Reed , of the University of Michigan, wrote the chapter on Metropolitan Government . To these contributors theauthor is deeply grateful .
I n addition to the special contributors mentioned above , theauthor wishes to expresshis thanks to the host of individuals andorgani z ation'
s that made available materials or furnished criti
cisms and suggestions in the preparation of the manuscript . Thenumber of such contributors is too large to permit individual
acknowledgment here . Their names, however , appear in thetext in connection with their specific contributions .
Worthy of especial acknowledgment for help cordially given
are : C . E . Batschelet, Bureau of the Census, United StatesDepartment of Commerce ; L . M . Bradish , Assistant Comptroller,Pullman Company , Chicago ; Ernest M . Fisher , University of
Michigan ; Howard W. Green, Cleveland Health Council ;Eugene Morris, Chairman, Central Freight Association, Chicago
"
;
Charles N ewcomb , University of Chicago ; Malcolm M . Willey ,University of Minnesota ; Ch
’
eng Hsin Chao and Clark Tibbitts,University of Michigan .
To the members of the President ’s Research Committee, whosupervised this study , particularly W. F . Ogburn, Director of
Research , the author desires to express his profound gratitudeboth for the opportunity afforded to make this study and for
the cordial guidance given in its execution .
Above all I am indebted to my wife, who worked with me
faithfully and arduously from first to last.
R . D . MCKENZ I E .
AN N ARBOR, M ICHIGAN,
Febru ary, 1933 .
”
CONTENTS
PART I : RECENT TRENDS IN POPULATION DI STRI BUTIONCHAPTER .
I
IIIIIIVV .
INTRODUCTIONTENDENCIES IN POPULATION DISTRIBUTION .
URB AN AGGREGATIONTHE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT As AN AGGREGATION UNITFACTORS IN CONCENTRATION
PART II : THE RISE OF THE METROPOLITAN COMMUNITYVIVIIVIIIIX
XXIXII
THE METROPOLITAN REGION AS AN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL UNITY . 69
MARGINS OF THE METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY 84
NEWSPAPER CIRCULATION AND METROPOLITAN REGIONS 98
SETTLEMENT MATURATION 1 1 1
PART III : INTERRELATIONS OF CITIESTHE STRUCTURE AND ORIENTATION OF SETTLEMENTDISTANCE AS A FACTOR IN THE INTERRELATIONS OF CITIES .
COMPETITION AND INTEGRATION .
PART IV : THE PROCESS OF METROPOLITAN EXPANSIONXIIIXIVXVXVI
POPULATION PATTERNING WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN COMMUNITYEXPANSION OF THE POLITICAL AREA OF THE CITYEXPANSION OF THE URB AN LAND AREA .
STRUCTURAL METAMORPHOSIS OF THE CITY .
XVII . THE ECONOMIC TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CITY : URB AN LAND VALUESXVIIIXIX
XXXXIXXIIXXIII
THE BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL COMPLEXI TY OF THE CITY .
NUCLEATION : THE PATTERN OF RETAIL MARKETING
PART V : PROBLEMS OF THE LARGE CITYTRENDS IN URBAN TRAFFICCITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING AND ! ONINGMETROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT .
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX
INDEX
PART I
RECENT TRENDS IN POPULATIONDISTRIBUTION
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
HE history of American settlement may be divided roughlyinto three periods . The first was the p re-railway era extending
from colonial times to about themiddle of the nineteenth century .
During this period settlement was confined, for the most part, to
areas accessible to navigable water ; that is, to the Atlantic seaboard and the main river systems east of the Mississippi . Aslate as 1850 over 90 p er cent of the population of the UnitedStates resided east of the Mississippi River, and the greater partof this east of the Al leghenies . During this river régime, settle
ment was of a segmentary character ; the various units as determined by geographic c onditionshad but slight economic or socialrelations With one another . Settlement was also primarily rural
in character ; almost four-fifths of the inhabitants of
the United States in 1850 resided in rural territory or in com
munities of less than
The second period of settlement development commenced
about 1850 with the expansion of the railroad . Beginning in theeastern part of the country, railroad construction extended
westward , first to the river centers of settlement as previously
established and , later, into new frontiers beyond the M l SS l SSlpp l .
By 1870 there was rail transportation to the Pacific Coast, andby 1900 all the main outlines of the present railway nethad beenestablished .
The story of settlement development during this railway era
need not be repeated here . Certain features, however, may
be called to attention . Freed from the dominance of the river
highways , settlement spread under the influence of railroad
transportation westward across the continent. The flow was
directed and controlled by the opportunities offered in the way of
soil and other natural resources . During the 30-year period from1870 to 1900 more than acres were added to thecultivated area of the United States, an extent of territory, as
[ 3 ]
TH E ME TRO P OL ITAN C OMMUN ITY
E . L . Bogart estimates, equal to the land area of Great Britainand Europe except Spain .
1
This rush to new areas of agricultural opportunity lost itsmomentum shortly after the turn of the twentieth century . As
early as 1890 the Superintendent of the Census made the signifi
cant announcement that the frontier had disappeared, meaningthereby that populationhad become distributed over the land toa minimum density of two persons p er square mile . I n a review of
population growth in the United States for the decade 191 0 to1920 , W. S . Rossiter calls attention to the slackening of thiswestward drift .
Until 1900 the flow of p op u lation was mainly westward . From thatcensu s it ap p eared that the current ha'
d slackened, and changes of
p op u lation became more dep endent up on isolated developments in
different sections of the country, such as irrigation, the settlement of
Oklahoma , orcharding in the far N orthwest“
, and the mining and oil
discoveries of the Southwest. The eddies and currents of p op u la
tion tended increasingly to follow changing industrial development .
This naturally led to an accelerated increase in urban p op u lation.2
From the beginning of the westward movement, even before,
but more particularly during, the period of railway expansion,
city growth was largely a product of the flow'
of population into
areas from which rawmaterials could most readily be obtained to
sell in distant markets . As late as 1900 agricultural products
constituted 66 p er cent of all foreign exports from the UnitedStates . Since that time, however , their ratio has diminishedrapidly ; in the period from 1926 to 1930 agricultural exports were
only 36 p er cent of the total value of all exports .
3
During this period of population dispersion the city was for
the most part the child and servant of expanding rural settle
ment ; it followed rather than directed population spread . Gateway cities arose at entrance points to producing regions and
functioned as collecting centers for the basic products from sur
rounding settlement and as distributing points for manufactured
goods brought in from outside territory . These gateway centers
maintained contact with tributary territory through a community
hierarchy of villages, towns , and cities established on the basisof railway transportation . Thus the basic pattern of modern
1 E . L . Bogart, Pushing Back the Frontiers, American Economic Review,
Vol . XXII, No . 1 , March, 1932, pp . 1—2 .
2 US . Censu s, I ncrease of Pop u lation in the United States, 1910—1920, Mono
graphI , 1922, p p . 19—20 .
3 US . Dep artment of Commerce, Commerce Yearbook, 1931 , Vol. I , p . 92.
[ 4 ]
I NTROD U C T I ON
American settlement was formed . N o less than 42 of the 93 cities
of over population in 1930 were incorporated since 1850 ;that is, since the beginning of railway development, and 5 of these
began their official careers since
Toward the close of the nineteenth century the city began toplay a new réle in the evolution of settlement in the UnitedStates . With the rise of manufacturing, population and wealth
became increasingly concentrated in the larger cities . Thedemand of the city for raw materials for its growing industries,and for specialized types of agricultural products for its increasing
population, more and more determined the course of rural settle
ment.
‘
N ew frontiers continued to arise, but chiefly in areas
from which products might be obtained to supply the domestic
city market . On the other hand, many of the older areas of
rural settlement began to recede in response to the economic
forces originating in metropolitan centers . With the growth of
population and wealth throughout the nation, the city acquired
an increasing range of economic and social functions which itperformed not only for its own inhabitants but for rural settle
ments as well . Accordingly it increased in economic and cultural
dominance.
The third period of settlement, and the one with which we are
chiefly concerned in this study, began about 1900 or shortly
thereafter . I t may be referred to as an era of city regionalismwhich is developing under the influence of motor transportation .
As previously indicated, the railroad laid the foundation for
modern regionalism by creating a network of large gateway
cities which served as focal points in the integration of sur
rounding territory and which drew the entire nation togetherinto a single economic unity . The motor vehiclehas not changedthe main outlines of this railway pattern of settlement. The greateconomic forces in Operation when the automobile was introduced compelled accommodation of this new agency of transportation to the existing settlement structure. Despite this fact,it may be fairly stated that the gross effect ofmotor transportation upon American civilizationhas been quite as fundamental asthat produced by the advent of the railroad . Inthe first place,
motor transportationhas grown with a rapidity even greater thanthat of the railroads in their period of fastest expansion. Within a
quarter of a century, motor vehicles and more than4 See Table IX in the Ap pendix.
5
THE ME TRO P OL ITAN C OMMUN ITY
miles of surfaced motor highways have been added to
the transportation system of the United States . Beginning withcity streets and wagon roads as the only routes of traffic, themotor vehicle has developed a system of surfaced highways
adapted to its needs . This new motor-highway net which hasbeen superimposed upon the existing pattern of settlement is
developed most intensively around the margins of cities andhasbrought the city and surrounding territory within a common
transportation system. I n so doing, ithas erased the boundariesand bridged the distances which formerly separated urban from
rural territory and has introduced a typ e of local community
entirely without precedent in history .
Generalizing, it may be said that the railways set the main
structural outlines of American settlement . By making possible
the transfer'
of products between distant regions , they brought
the entire settlement of the United States into a single economicunity integrated through a system of gateway cities of varyingimportance which function through chains of lesser centers
strung like beads along the railway lines . The railroads, however ,did not materially change the traditional pattern of life within
the local community . Except in the larger cities wheremechanical
forms of transportation were introduced, first steam and then
electric , the horse-drawn vehicle remained as the chief agency of
local travel and trafli c . Local institutions and social relations
persisted in the railway régime on much the same basis as in theprevious era . But the coming of motor transportation revolution
i z ed this traditional pattern of local relations and effected institu
tional and cultural changes more disturbing to the social fabric
than the more conspicuous developments induced by the advent
of rail transportation.
By reducing the scale of local distance, the motor vehicle
extended the horizon of the community and introduced a ter
ritorial division of labor among local institutions and neighboringcenters which is unique in the history of settlement . The largecenter has been able to extend the radius of its influence ; its
population and many of its institutions, freed from the dominanceof rail transportation, have become widely dispersed throughout
surrounding territory . Moreover, formerly independent towns
and villages and also rural territory have become part of this
enlarged city complex . This new type of sup ercommunity organ
i z ed around a dominant focal point and comprising a multiple of
[ 6 ]
CHAPTER II
TENDENCIES IN POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
THE NATION AS A POPULATION AG GREGATE
S A background to the study of the modern city it is impor
tant to consider, at least briefly, recent tendencies in thedistribution of population over the land . Let u s begin by as
suming that the people who inhabit thesquare miles of land area of continental United States constitute
a single population aggregate engaged in a great joint enterprise
of exploiting and utilizing the natural resources of this broad
expanse of territory . I t is, of course, a dynam ic entity, steadilyincreasing in numbers and changing in spatial arrangement . I t is
ever bringing into existence new instruments and devices for themastery of its
’
natural heritage ; ever gaining in wealth and
cultural achievement . Moreover, this population group is not an
isolated unit, but part of a larger World with which it is becomingeconomically and culturally more closely integrated . The problemthat confronts u s here is to trace some of the major tendencies in
the spatial arrangement of this active population and to explain as
fully as possible some of the factors concerned . At each decennialenumeration the federal census presents a photographic record ofthe territorial distribution of population . By comparing thearrangement at one census date with that at another, it is possible
to trace the general trend in demographic patterning .
I t should be kept in mind that the pattern of distribution at
any given time is the product of past as well as present conditions .
I n other words, the existing distribution of population cannot beassumed to be the ideal form of spatial arrangement for theactual needs of the present .While our population is perhaps more
fluid than that of any other nation in the world, it is neverthelessfar from being completely mobile. Human settlement is highlyresistant to change . I t contains a large amount of fixed structure
which yields reluctantly to the demands of a dynamic economy .
Human beings are not like molecules of water that readily move
hither and you to establish a level or equilibrium . Frequently ties
[ 8 ]
P O PULAT I ON D I S TR I B UT I ON
of sentiment and interest hold a man to a locality beyond thetime when it would be economically advantageous to changehisplace of abode . But new conditions sooner or later compel new
spatial arrangements, and it may be assumed that population is
always tending toward themost efficient spatial distribution forthe utilization of natural resources under prevailing conditions of
technological culture .
STATISTICAL AREAS
I n approaching the study of population patterning, one must
have recourse to the statistical areas for which census data are
compiled ; namely, divisions, states , counties , and incorporated
municipalities . I t may be stated at the outset that these political
areas do not represent natural population aggregates, nor are they
adequate geographic units by which to measure the trend of
population arrangement over a period of time. I n the first place,divisions and states are too large to show the important localaspects of population shifts, and the boundaries of counties and
incorporated places are too unstable to make long-time compari
sons with any high degree of accuracy . However, onemust u se thetools at one ’s disposal with due regard for their limitations . We
shall begin our study of trends in distribution by a consideration
of the larger areas and work down to the smaller census units
counties and incorporated municipalities .
GENERAL TENDENCIES I N POPULATION PATTERNING
The United States Bureau of the Census divides the countryinto ninemajor divisions for the compilation of certain population
statistics . These regions , or census divisions, are grouped intothreemain sections : the North , the South , and theWest . Pop u la
tion density in these major geographic areas at each of the lastfour census enumerations is shown in Table 1 .
The marked unevenness of population density throughout thecountry is apparent, and , considered from the standpoint of
census divisions, the tendency seems to be toward greater dissimilarity of density . This may be shown in general terms bynoting the mean of the deviations of the nine census divisions
from the average density for the country as a whole, which , in1900 , was in 1910 , in 1920, and in 1930 ,
But increasing disparity in divisional density figures does not
prove that population is moving toward the divisions of high[ 9 ]
TH E ME TRO P OL ITAN C OMMUN ITY
TABLE 1 .— POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES PER SQUARE MILE, BY SECTIONS
AND D IVISIONS, 1900—1930a
Section and division"
United States 25 . 6
The North
90 . 2
193 2 222 . 6 262 . 6
65 . 2 74 . 3 87 . 5 108 . 0
20 . 8 22 . 8 24 . 6 26 . 0
The South . 27 . 9 33 5 37 . 7 43 1
38 . 8 45 3 52 0
49 . 5
28 . 3
The West . 7 . 6 10 . 1
4 . 8
17 . 5
a U.S. Census, 1930, Pop ulation, Vol. I , compiled from Table 7, p . 13.
b For list of states comprising the various divisions see Table 5, p . 16.
density relatively faster than toward those of low density . Census
divisions differ greatly in size ; consequently equal additions to
their respective populations do not occasion equal increases in
density . For example, the area of the Mountain division is four
teen times that of N ew England ; thus, for every person added to
the latter, 14 must ‘
be added to the former to obtain an equal
increase in density .
Perhaps more light can be thrown on the tendency in spatialarrangement by considering the population of the nation as a unitand noting the percentage distribution among the various sec
tions and divisions at different census periods , as in Table 2 .
According to the statistics in this table, the North‘ and theSouth sections lost slightly to the West during the last threedecades in their ratios of the total population . The intersectionalshifts of population from the North to the West were more p ro
nounced in the first decade of the century than in either of theOther ten-year intervals . The South , on the other hand , lost most
heavily between 1910 and 1920 . The slight loss in this section in[ 10 ]
P O PULAT I ON D I S TR I B UT I ON
TAB LE 2 .-PERCENTAGE DISTRI BUTION OF THE POPULATION OF THE UN ITED
STATES, BY SECTIONS AND D IVI SIONS, 1900—1930a
Section and division
United States 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0
The North
N ew EnglandM iddle AtlanticEast North CentralWest North Central
The South.
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
The West .
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
East of M ississippi RiverWest of M ississippi River
U.S. Censu s, 1930, Pop ulation,Vol. I , compiled from Table 5, p. 10.
the last decade was due to the gain in the West South Central
division .
Four of the nine divisions contained higher proportions of thetotal population of the nation in 1930 than in 1920 . Of these , thePacific division shows much the greatest gain , having more than
doubled its ratio of the nation ’
s inhabitants since 1900 . That
the gain in this part of the country was largely at the expense of
theWest North Central division is indicated by the fact that thelatter area dropped from to in its proportion of the totalpopulation during this 30-year interval .
GENERAL EAS T-WE ST AN D NORTH -SOUTH MOVEMENTS
The proportions of the population residing east and westof the Mississippi River have changed less than 1 p er cent duringthe last 20 years as contrasted with a change of 2 p er cent duringthe first decade of the century . The general east-west flow, which
constituted the major trend of population movement from the[ 1 1 ]
TH E ME TRO P OL ITAN C OMMUN ITY
beginning of the nineteenth century, seems to be reaching a state
of'
equ ilibrium, but the drift from the South to the North hasrecently increased in volume, as is shown in Table 3 . I t should , ofcourse, be noted that the figures in this table refer only to thenative born and therefore do not indicate the total volume of
movement.
TAB LE 3 .— TRENDS IN EAST-WEST AND NORTH-SOUTH MIGRATION S OF THE
NATIVE-B ORN POPULATION, 1900—1930“(In thousands )
A . EAST-WEST MOVEMENT
Moved west Moved east
B . NORTH—SOUTH MOVEMENT
Moved north Moved south
0 U .S. Census. 1930 , Popu lation, Vol. I I , Tables 2 and 3, p . 1 6. Data for 1930 taken frompreliminary statement released March 2, 1932 . By
“
east”is meant that part of the United States
lying east of theM ississippi River ; “ west is all territory lying west of the M ississippi. For descriptions of the territory included under the terms north ” and
“
south ” see Table 2 , p . 1 1 .Movement
is measured in terms of the number of persons born in one area and enumerated in the other.
These data show a substantial increase each decade in the totalvolume of both east-west and north-south movements of thenative born . A significant feature of the east-west movement is
that it is no longer so predominantly a one-way flow . The net gainl of the West from the East has been on the decline since 1910 ,when it was in 1920 it was and in 1930 it was
only or p er cent less than in 1920 .
[ 12 ]
PO PULAT I ON D I S TR I B UT I ON
While the north-southmovementhas always beenmore nearly
balanced than the east-west flow, nevertheless in the last twodecades the advantage has swung increasingly in favor of theNorth . The net gain of the North from the South as shown in 1910was in 1920 it was and in 1930 , or
three times the gain shown at the 1920 census . Nine-tenths of
this recent gain was due to the northward migration of Negroes .
I S SETTLEMENT TENDING TOWARD AN EQUILIB RIUM ?
While the actual distribution of population over the countryis far from uniform , the question arises whether, from the standpoint of broad regions such as census divisions , there is a tendency
toward an equilibrium of settlement . A comparison of the rates ofpopulation increase in the various divisions with that of theUnited States as a Whole may throw some light on this question.
Such a comparison is made in Table 4 for the last three decennialperiods . The mean of division deviations from the national
average rate of growth will serve as a rough gauge of the degree ofinterregional movement .
TAB LE 4 .— D
'
ECENN IAL RATES OF INCREASE IN POPULATION, BY D IVISIONSAND DEVIATIONS FROM THE RATES FOR THE UNITED STATES, 1900—1930a
1900—10 1910- 20
Geo a hic division Deviation Deviation Deviationgr p Rate of division Rate of division Rate of division
of in rate from of in rate from of in rate fromcrease national crease national crease national
rate rate rate
United States
New EnglandM iddle AtlanticEast North CentralWest North CentralSouth AtlanticEast South CentralWest South CentralMountain
Pacific
Sum of division deviationsMean of division deviations
U.S. Census, 1930, Pop ulation, Vol. I , compiled from Table 6, p. 12.
[ 13 ]
TH E METRO P OL ITAN C OMMUN ITY
I t will be seen that the mean deviation of the nine censusdivisions from the rate for the United States was in thedecade 1900 to 1910 , then dropped to in the following decade,and rose to in the decade 1920 to 1930 . I n tracing regional
deviations through earlier decennial enumerations, a wavelike
tendency in population movement is discernible . For the decade1890 to 1900 the mean of divisional deviations from the nationalrate was in the decade 1880 to 1890 it was The
_general
trend, however, since 1850 , as might be expected, is definitely
toward more uniform rates of growth among the nine census
divisions . Although the mean of the division deviations from thenational average, 1920 to 1930 , is slightly higher than in thepreceding decade, still in neither period does it equal one-half of
that shown in the first decade of the century . These facts would
seem to indicate that population, considered from the standpoint of census divisions, is tending toward an equilibrium of
arrangement.
LOCAL CONCENTRATION AS MEASURED BY S TATE STATISTICS
Obviously the trend in population arrangement is shown only
in roughest outline by statistics for such large territorial units as
census divisions . Averages computed for these extensive areas
fail to show the important local changes that are occurring in thepattern of American settlement. The individual states within a
census division may show marked unevenness in population
growth from one census date to another and yet the average for
the division as a whole may remain relatively constant . An ex
tensive examination of such data over a period of time would
consume more space than can be allotted to it here . However, a
brief review of state statistics for the last decade is pertinent .
Table 5 and Figure I afford a general picture of the rates of p op ulation growth in the difl’erent states of the Union during thedecade 1920 to 1930 . The range of growth in this period was froma decrease of per cent for Montana to an increase of p er
cent for California. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia show rates of increase less than the national average. On theother hand, nine states increased over 20 p er cent during the lastdecade, or one and one-quarter times the average for the countryas a whole. Outstanding in Table 5 are the comparatively lowrates of growth of the seven agricultural states comprising theWest North Central division, the so-called “ granary of the na
[ 14 ]
TH E ME TRO P OL ITAN C OMMUN ITY
TAB LE 5 .— INCREASE IN POPULATION, BY STATES, 1920—1930a
United States . 16 1
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I ndiana .
I llinoisM ichigan.
WisconsinWest North CentralM innesota .
I owa
M issouri
North DakotaSouthNebraskaKansas
Sou th AtlanticDelawareMarylandDistrict of Columbia
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
a U S Census, 1930, Pop ulation, Vol. I , p . 12.
tion. Only South Dakota in this group has a rate of increase
half as great as that of the country as a whole . The unevenness ofstate growth is illustrated in the South Atlantic division, where
the rates vary from p er cent for Georgia to p er cent for
the neighboring state of Florida . South Carolina, with a rate of
per cent, lies next to North Carolina, with a rate of
p er cent ; and Virginia , with a rate of p er cent, adjoins West
Virginia, whose rate is p er cent.
The comparative rates of state growth , however , do not
reflect the actual volume of population shifts . An increase of
in the population in Arizona in the last decade was suffi[ 16 ]
VirginiaWest VirginiaNorth CarolinaSouth Carolina .
GeorgiaFloridaEast South Centrall i entuckyu
Tennessee .
AlabamaM ississippiWest South CentralArkansasLouisiana .
OklahomaTexasMountain
Bl ontana
I daho
POPULAT I ON D I S TR I B UT I ON
cient to make a percentage growth of whereas an increase of
in the state of N ew York produced a growth rate of
only p er cent . California holds the unique position of having
the greatest absolute increase as well as the highest percentagegain in population in the decade 1920 to 1930 . The net increase inCalifornia for the period in question was whereas theaggregate gain in the 21 states comprising the N ew England ,West North Central , and Mountain divisions was only
Furthermore, p er cent of California’
s net gain in p op u la
tion during the last decade is accounted for by the increase inLos Angeles County . This single county, with an area of
squaremiles, a considerable part of which is uninhabited, showed
a net gain in population , 1920 to 1930 , of an increase
greater than the combined increases of the 15 states comprising
the West North Central and Mountain divisions . These figures
being interpreted in terms of area, the increase in Los AngelesCounty was approximately equal to that in half of the UnitedStates . Somewhat similar examples of concentration might be
cited for other sections of the country . For instance, p er cent
of the total increase in Michigan, 1920 to 1930 , is accounted for in
the three leadingmotor-industry counties— Wayne, Oakland , andGenesee ; and 60 p er
'
cent of the increase in the three states con
stituting the Middle Atlantic division occurred within themetropolitan district of N ew York City .
CONCENTRATION AS MEASURED BY COUNTY S TATISTICS
The tendency toward local concentration suggested by theforegoing figures may be dealt with more systematically by re
course to county statistics . The spotted character of populationgrowth during the last decade is shown by Figure 2 .
The “
tendency toward local growth and decline of populationis, of course, not unique for the decade in question. County statistics for preceding decades show marked variations in the rates of
aggregation throughout the nation . A survey of county data overa 30-year period reveals a general trend toward greater geographicconcentration of population. This may be briefly shown by dividing the total p opulation of the nation into fractions— one-fourth ,one-half, and three-fourths— and noting the smallest number of
counties (selected in order of number of inhabitants) required toobtain these respective fractions at different censal periods . Thistabulation is presented in Table 6 .
[ 17 ]
TH E ME TRO P OL ITAN C OMMUN ITY
[ 18 ]
P O PULAT I ON D I S TR I B UT I ON
TAB LE 6 .— POPULATION CONCENTRATION AS SHOWN BY THE SMALLEST AREAS
REQUI RED To OBTAIN ONE-FOURTH, ONE-HALF, AND THREE-FOURTHS OFTHE TOTAL INHAB ITANTS OF THE UNITED STATES AT EACH OF THE LAST
THREE DECENNIAL ENUM ERATIONS, 1900—1930a
U.S . Census, 1930, Popu lation, Vol. I , compiled from Table 3 , p . 67, and similar tables forother states. Counties are grouped according to total number of inhabitants rather than accordingto density. This was necessary as the Bureau of the Census did not publish county-density figuresfor 1910.
I t is impracticable to show here the actual locations of these
counties of increasing concentration. Two aspects of the trend,however , may be indicated : first, the general drift of populationappears to be definitely toward the counties of former high
density . I n 1920 , there were 265 counties with a density of 100 or
more p er square mile ; in 1910 , these counties contained p er
cent of the total population ; in 1920 , p er cent ; and in 1930 ,
per cent . Second, thismovement toward areas of high density
implies the tendency of population to concentrate in and around
large cities . Table 7 reflects this cityward drift . The figures show
the number and proportion of the total population of the country ,
at each of the last four decennial enumerations, found within
metropolitan zones, established by drawing an arbitrary circle,
with a radius of 20 to 50 miles , around the 93 cities having p op ulations in 1930 of or more . Owing to the fact that a
number of these large cities are located close together , certaingroupings were made which reduced the total number of metro
politan zones to 63 . The areas of the zones are identical for theperiods considered .
The rOle of the large city"
as a focal point of population con
centration is quite apparent . The percentage of the total p op ulation within these 63 metropolitan zones increased from in
1900 to in 1930 . Moreover, almost three-fourths of thenation’
s total increase in the last decade is accounted for by thegrowth of these metropolitan areas .
[ 19 ]
THE METRO P OL ITAN C OMMUN ITY
The inflow of population indicated by these figures doesnot imply that therehas been no tendency towardWider spread .
As a matter of fact, the land frontier of the nationhas expandedconsiderably during the last decade . Therehas been a movement
of population, though not great in actual volume, toward the
TABLE 7 .—TOTAL POPULATION IN 63 METROPOLITAN ! ONES, 1900—1930a
(Cities of or more plus adjacent counties )
Percentage whichPercentagewhich net increase in
Total population popu lation in zones formed of
in metrOpolitan zones formed of total increase inzones total United United States
States population since precedingcensus
Total populationin United States
U.S . Census, 1930, Pop u lation, Vol. I , compiled from Table 3, for each state.
semiarid margin of the midwestern states . The high rates of in
crease of counties in western Texas, western Kansas, Oklahoma,
and along the western part of South Dakota (see Figure 2) showthat the frontier of land settlement is creeping westward under
the influence of new forms of mechanical energy .
MOVEMENT TOWARD DEEP WATER
There is a significant but by no means uniform movement of
population toward the deep-water rim of the country, that is,toward the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and
the metropolitan territory adjoining the Great Lakes . Table 8
presents in summary fashion the facts regarding this populationincrease .
Population moving toward the deep-water rim does not, of
course, spread itself evenly over this broad strip of territory .
I t concentrates in the metropolitan centers, leaving other sections
equally near deep water to decline . The area in question contains
540 counties and the District of Columbia . Of these counties, 100
actually declined in population between 1920 and 1930 , and 195
others had rates of increase less than the national average. Themovement, therefore, is not a mere drift toward open water, but a
[ 20 ]
P O PULAT I ON D I S TR I B UT I ON
TAB LE 8 .— POPULATION CONCENTRATION IN ! ONE S EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY
50 MILES INLAND FROM THE SEAB OARD AND THE GREAT LAKES , 1900(I n thousands)
Percentage I ncrease in
of tota l populationpopulation Popula tion United in Unitedof United within zone States States since
population precedingin zone census
a U .S. Census, 1930, Pop u lation, Vol. I , compiled fromTable 3 for each state. Table is computedon county units, list of which is available from the author on request . The area of the zone issquare miles, p er cent of the total land area of the United States. I tmay be defined as a region
approximately 50 miles Wide, which skirts the salt-water rim of the country and the southern shoresof la kes Ontario, Erie, and M ichigan.
migration into metropolitan regions which for various reasons are
near the water .
DECONCENTRATION
The tendency of popul ation to become more concentrated in
certain areas scattered throughout the nationhas its counterpartin a decreasing population in other areas . Concentration involvesdeconcentration ; rapid growth in some localities is associated
with decline in others . Although population is still spreading into
new areas of settlement, by far the most conspicuous tendency is
toward concentration accompanied by declining numbers inmany
of the older settled parts of the nation . I t is somewhat difficul t to
show the extent of declining area over a period of time owing to
the fact that county boundaries do not remain constant . Con
sidering only those counties whose boundaries have not changed
since 1880 , we find an increasingly large number that are declin
ing in population .
Table 9 shows the number of counties for which comparative
data are available ; also the proportion of the total popul ationliving within the area of decline at four difierent periods . Boththe area of decline and the proportion of the total populationaffected are on the increase . As the rate of national growth dim inishes, it is to be expected that rapid rates of aggregation in certain
localities will be accompanied by corresponding decreases inothers . During the period of heavy foreign immigration, excessive
[ 21 ]
TH E ME TRO P OL ITAN C OMMUN ITY
TABLE 9.— NUMBER OF COUNTIES, NUMB ER DECREASING IN POPULATION, AND
AGGREGATE POPULATION OF DECREASING COUNTIES, WITH PERCENTAGE OFUNITED STATES TOTAL AND PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN TOTAL UNI TED
STATES, 1880
Popu lation
Census yearTotal for Aggregate InUnited decreasingStates counties
1880
1900
a U .S. Censu s , I ncrease of Pop ulation in the United States, 1910—1920. “
Monograph I , 1922 .
Partial reproduction of Table 13, p . 63 ; with 1930 data added.5 The 144 counties in which there were changes in boundaries during the decade are omittedfrom this tabu lation. Their combined popu lation, is also subtracted from the total p op ulation in 1930 . This tabu lation includes independent cities .
rates of growth in certain areas could take “ place without thewithdrawal of population from other sections of the country .
If there were local shiftings of population, they were largely
replaced by the inflow of immigrants from abroad . But now that
the tide of immigrationhas practically ceased and the birth rate
is declining, rates of aggregation in certain localities beyond that
of the national average generally signify corresponding rates of
disaggregation in other localities .
SUMMARY
From the seething movements of population that characterize
modern America , certain general tendencies in spatial arrange
ment are discernible . In the first place, population seems to be
tending toward an equilibrium of settlement as far as major
geographic regions are concerned . I n the second place, thei tendency of arrangement within these large areas is definitely
toward local concentration . Population is becoming arranged in
metropolitan aggregates which are distributed rather widely
throughout the United States . This cityward movement has itsnegative corollary in areas of decline. To an increasing extent,
[ 22 ]
CHAPTER III
URBAN AGGREGATION
HUS far we have been dealing with general tendencies inregard to the geographic distribution of population . We shall
now considerhow population is becom ing arranged with respectto local community life . Our extended economy is organized on
the basis of a network of centers— cities, towns, and villages . Thepattern of settlement is constantly changing through time and
differs greatly from one region to another . According to thecensus there were incorporated places in the country in
1930— 954 more than in 1920 and more than in 1900 . These
local centers of population range in size from a few individuals
to cities of several million .
THE URBAN -RURAL DI CHOTOMY
The Bureau of the Censushas seen fit to classify as urban that
part of the population residing in incorporated places of or
more ; the remainder of the population is considered as rural .
This, to be sure, is a purely arbitrary division of the populationand is subject to many obvious limitations as a measure of
settlement change. I t serves, however , a useful purpose by
enabling one to trace the general trend of settlement over a
period of time .
Although the urban-rural concept as used by the census is
strictly geographic and statistical , it implies much more to thepopular m ind . I thas economic and cultural connotations of far
reaching importance . Perhaps it is for this reason that so much
interest is manifested in the census announcements of the urbanrural ratios of the population . Following each decennial enumer
ation, newspapers and periodicals single out the urban-rural
statistics for special comment . Considering that this is only one
of a hundred or more classifications that appear in each federal
census, the question naturally arises why it should be given so
much publicity . Why, for instance, should there not be as much
popular interest in the statistics relating to the changing age,
24 l
URB AN A G GRE GAT ION
sex, nationality, racial , or occupational composition of thepopulation ? The explanation doubtless lies in the fact that
urbanization implies a change in ou r traditional ways of living,a shift from our rural heritage to a pattern of life that is less
familiar and therefore more uncertain .
I t is becoming generally known that urbanization in a cultural
and economic sense is no longer confined to the populationclassified by the census as urban. Modern communications are
rapidly diffusing urban culture and urban ways of“ living through
out an increasing part of our so-called rural territory . Moreover ,urbanization in the cultural sense is largely a matter of degree,varying with the size and location of the urban center . The censusclassifies as urban, persons residing in small isolated incorporated!places with populations as low as as well as those residing
in cities of several million inhabitants, though the mode of life
of the two groups differs remarkably . On the other hand , thecensus classifies as rural , persons living just beyond the confinesof a large city , provided they are not living within incorporated
territory having the designated minimum number of inhabitants
to be classified as urban, although such persons may commute
daily to the city for work or social activity . Obviously, therefore ,
the urban-rural dichotomy is becoming of decreasing significance .
Nevertheless, a review of urban statistics may cast some light on
the general trend of settlement change .
Table 10 shows the general trend toward urbanization duringthe last half century in continental United States and in each of
its larger sections and census divisions . The first decade of this
period, 1880 to 1890 , shows a somewhat greater drift to the citythan is evidenced in the following decade. Since 1900 , however ,the urban trend has been rather uniform, dropping slightly in
The table shows the rather familiar fact that wide differences exist in the extent of urbanization in the various sectionsand regions of the country . City living is much more pronouncedin the North and West than in the South . Of these three greatsections of the country, the Southhas shown the most rapid gainin the last decade in the urbanization of its population ; it is still ,however, less urbanized than either the North or theWest sectionwas in 1890 .
1 During the last two years, 1930 to 1932, therehas been a p ronounced backto-the-farm movement . This, however, may be but a temporary adjustment to
the dep ression rather than a reversal of the general urban trend.
[ 25 ]
TH E ME TROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
TABLE 10 .— PERCENTAGE URBAN OF THE TOTAL POPULATION, BY SECTIONS AND
DIVI SIONS, 1880—1930“
Section and division
United States 45 . 8
The North
New EnglandM iddle AtlanticEast North CentralWest North Central
The South .
SouthEast South CentralWest South Central
The West .
a U.S. Census, 1930 , Pop ulation, compiled from Table 9, p . 15 , and similar tables for otherdecades.
I t would seem that N ew England has about attained an
equilibrium in the urban-rural ratios of its population ; in fact ,the 1930 census shows a slightly lower percentage Of urban
dwellers in this division than was recorded in 1920 . This decline is
explained , however , by a change in the procedure used by theBureau Of the Census in 1930 in the classification Of population
in N ew England towns .When adjustment ismade for this change,the 1930 census shows the same ratio of urban population as was
shown in The Middle Atlantic division gained slightly inthe proportion Of its inhabitants living in cities in the last decade .
Here, too, it is Obvious that the urban-rural ratios are becomingstabilized . The most striking shift toward urbanization in recent
years occurred in the West South Central division, Where theproportion of the population classified as urban increased from
in 1920 to in 1930 . Slightly smaller gains were made in
the Mountain and East South Central divisions . The Pacificdivision has been notably urban almost from the beginning Of
settlement . As far back as 1890 only two divisions, New England
and the Middle Atlantic, showed higher ratios Of urbanization.
2 U .S. Census, 1930, Popu lation, Vol. 1 , p . 7 .
l 96 l
UR B AN A G GRE GA T ION
The states showing the most rapid gains in urbanization since
1920 are Nevada, Florida , Texas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and
New M exico .
3 All Of these except Tennessee increased in total
population, 1920 to 1930 , faster than the country as a Whole ; andall but Tennessee may be considered as occupying frontier
positions in the spread Of settlement. I t is apparent that themodern frontier develops with a much more nucleated pattern
of population than was the case in the Middle West during thehomesteading era . Even today the wheat states in the North ,particularly the . Dakotas, are much less urbanized than thenewer regions of settlement in Oklahoma, western Texas, or any
of the Mountain states .
DE GREES OF URB ANI ZATION
The twofold classification of population into urban and
rural , using as a line Of demarcation, gives but slight
indication Of the trend in city development . Urbanization is a
matter of degree. Urban centers range in population from places
Of to cities of several million inhabitants . I t is important,therefore, to note the trend in the proportion Of population that is
urban according to different indices Of measurement .
TABLE 1 1 .— PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION IN URBAN PLACES OF SPECIFIED SI z E ,
1890—1930“
Size of places
o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 Compiled from U.S . Censu s, 1930 , Pop u lation, Vol. I , Table 8, p . 14 .
Table 11 presents the urban trend as represented by progressivebases . Whatever base is taken as an index of urbanization, thetendency is toward greater urban living. As high a proportion of
the total population Of the nation is now living in places Ofand over as was found in places of and over in 1900 ; and
almost as high a percentage Of the population is recorded at
3 See Table I in the App endix for rates of urbani z ation in the various states.
[ 27 ]
TH E ME TROPOL I TA N COMMUN I TY
present in places Of or more as was recorded in places of
and over in 1890 . While Table 11 refers to the country as a
whole, the trend for each Of the nine census divisions is in thesame general direction ; that is, toward increasing concentration
in larger urban centers . I n short, population is not merely moving
into urban centers ; it is concentrating more and more in larger
urban aggregations .
CITY GROWTH
There is considerable popular interest in the comparative rates
of increase Of cities Of different size, particularly in the questionas to whether the small cities
_are growing faster or slower than
the large ones . I t may be said at the outset that any attempt to
compute city growth over a period Of time is subject to many
limitations . I n the first place, in tracing urban growth it is neces
sary to group cities into classes Of different size, But the classifications cannot be held constant over an extended period ; as a city
grows it naturally shifts from one classification to another .
Furthermore,‘
a city grows not merely by additions to its p op u la
tion, but by the extension Of its boundaries as well ; and individual
cities vary greatly in the extent to which they annex adjoiningterritory . Many of our cities have not annexed any new territory
for the last half century, while others have made extensive
annexations .4
Again, it should be stated that the growth Of many of thesmaller cities is due to the suburban movements Of metropolitan
populations , and , although these smaller cities may be incorpo
rated as separate political units , they are actually fragments Of thenear-by metropolitan center . Despite these limitations, some Of
which are taken into consideration in the following tabulation, it
is significant to show the rates of growth Of cities in d ifferent size
groups . P . K . Whelp ton, Of Scripps Foundation, has analyzed
the growth tendencies Of cities Of different size. He grouped thec ities Of the nation into 10 different size classes at the beginning ofeach decade and traced the growth of the groups over a 10
year period, adjusting for annexations made during intervening
years . Table 12 presents M r . Whelp ton’
s figures for the last threedecades . The figures in the different censal periods are not
strictly comparable since the groups Of cities for one decade are
not quite the same as those for another .
4 See Chap ter XIVfor further discussion of this point.
28 l
UR B AN A G GRE GAT ION
TABLE 12 .— NUMBER OF CITIES AND RATE OF I NCREASE IN POPULATION, BY SI z E
OF CITY, 1900—1930a
1900—10 1910—20 1920—80
Size of cities at beginning of decade
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to_
to
Over
a Data prepared by P. K. Whelp ton, Scripps Foundation for Research in Popu lation Problems .
For original statement of problem see“
Trends in Popu lation I ncrease and Distribution during1920 American Journal of Sociology, Vol. XXVI , NO. 6, May , 1931, pp . 865- 879.
5 “The number Of cities in certain size groups is difierent from that shown by the census for the
following reasons : (1) Small cities which were annexed to larger cities during the decade are com
bined with them at the beginning of the decade and not listed separately. This may shift theannexing city to a larger size group . (2) In 1930 the Bureau of the Census transferred from urbanto rural certain townships in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode I sland (see U.S. Census,
1930, Pop ulation, Vol. 1, p . These have been considered here as being rural in earlier census
years. (3) The Bureau of the Census also transferred certain unincorporated places from ruralto urban groups ( ibid ) . These have been considered here as being urban in earlier census years iftheir population was sufficiently large.
”
6“I n computing these rates, the same cities are in each size group at the beginning and end of a
decade, and the popu lation of each city at the beginning of a decade includes that of places annexedduring the decade whenever this adjustment cou ld be made, which includes nearly every annexationand all the important ones . The communities classed as rural at the beginning of a decade are so
classed at the end of that decade.
”
An interesting feature brought to light in Table 12 is therelatively high rates Of growth in the last decade Of cities with lessthan inhabitants . Attention is particularly directed to therate Of growth of the smallest group Of cities —those in the to
class . This group shows a higher rate Of increase in the decade1920 to 1930 than in the preceding one . However, this rapid rateOf aggregation, as will be shown later, is largely due to the highrates Of growth of places in this group which happen to be suburbsof larger centers .
5 When these suburban places are taken out Of
this classification, the rate of growth Of the remaining places fallsconsiderably .
5 See Table 22, p . 48 .
l 29 l
TH E METROPOL I TA N COMMUN I TY
URB AN DI SAGGREGATION
Although the urban population as a .whole increased from
to or p er cent, during the decade 1920to 1930 as compared with a gain Of p er cent for the totalpopulation of the United States , it must not be assumed that all
cities shared equally in this increase . As a matter Of fact, 5 12
places of and over in 1920 actually lost population by 1930
as Opposed to the 375 places Of this size that decreased duringthe decade 1910 to 1920 . Table 13 presents a tabulation Of thenumber Of cities and villages classified by size groups that have
declined in population in the last two decennial periods .
TABLE I 3 .— NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF VILLAGE S AND CITIE S THAT DE
CREASED IN POPULATION, BY SIZE GROUPS, 1910—1920 AND 1920
1910—20 1920-30
Places which Places whichSize of place Total showed decreases Total showed decreases
number in 1920 number in 1930
of places of placesin 1910 in 1920
Villages” 4 6 . 5
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Cities .
to
to
to
to
and over
Compiled from Table 6 for each ‘
state as in the U.S. Census, 1930, Pop ulation, Vol. I , and fromTable 5 1 in the U.S. Census, 1920, Population, Vol. I .b In order to make New England more near ly comparable with other divisions, Table 4 in the
1980 census and Table 58 in the 1920 census were used for the six New England states (see notePlaces under listed in these tables were included in this tabu lation, which accounts for thegreater number of villages than is listed by the census.
The tendency for an increasing number and proportion Of cities
and villages to decline in size is apparent ; per cent of all
villages under lost population between 1920 and 1930,
whereas only p er cent declined during the preceding decade.
[ 30 ]
TH E METROPOL I TA N COMMUN ITY
p er cent Of the communities classified as urban in N ew
England suffered a loss in population, whereas in the decade 1920to 1930, per cent declined . The corresponding figures for theMiddle Atlantic division are and I n three divisions, theWest North Central , the East South Central , and the Pacific,the percentage Of places declining was greater between 1910 and
1920 than between 1920 and 1930 . I n the Pacific division theproportion Of places declining was almost twice as high in theearlier period .
I t has become customary to associate declining population
with rural territory . I n the past, the assumption was well founded ,as it was exceptional for a city thathad once attained a p op u la
tion Of or more to show a subsequent decline in numbers .
Prior to 1930, there were only four cities on record that declined
after having reached the mark . The foregoing data, however, clearly show that the urban community, even the fairlylarge one, is no longer immune to the forces making for disaggregation . Moreover , an increasing number of our cities are
failing to keep .pace with the national rate of growth even thoughthey may not suffer an absolute decline in population . Of the746 cities Of and over in 1920 , 354 , almost half the totalnumber, showed rates Of increase in the 1930 census below that
Of the national average. If what these cities lacked in meeting thenational rate Of growth might be thought Of as loss in population,
their aggregate loss, 1920 to 1930 , would be inhabitants .
This number is equivalent to slightly less than one-third Of thetotal loss in all rural territory, computed in the same
manner . If the losses thus sustained in the cities Of less thaninhabitants were added to those of the cities Of over
the total urban decline since 1920 would equal almost half thetotal rural decline .
The significance Of declining urban centers is doubtless greater
than that of declining rural territory . The withdrawal Of ruralpopulation does not as a rule involve the destruction Of invested
capital ; in fact, rural emigration may occasion a more efficient
u se Of capital and land . But the decline Of a city ’
s population
inevitably renders Obsolete a considerable part of the established
structure, suchas buildings and other forms Of fixed utilities .
American cities have become adjusted to excessive rates of
population growth ; construction seems to be able to keep pacewith almost any rate of aggregation . I t is much more difficult
[ 32 ]
UR B AN A G G R E G AT ION
for a city to accommodate itself to a declining population. This,however, is the problem that confronts an ever-increasing number
of our smaller cities and is even affecting some Of the larger ones .I n
“
spite Of the fact that a number of the larger cities haverecently shown losses in population and many others havefailed to keep pace with the national rate of aggregation, it seems
to be generally true that as a city increases in size it tends toward
greater stability as a population aggregate . As yet, no city in theUnited Stateshas declined in population after once reaching the
mark, while on numerous occasions states having many
times this number Of inhabitants have shown decreases . For
example, Iowa with a population of in 1900 declined by1910 to Mississippi with in 1910 dropped to
in 1920 ; Vermont with in 1910 recorded
in 1920 ; Montana, in 1920 , declined to
in 1930 ; Nevada, a mining state with a relatively small p Op u
lation, has recorded decreases on three different‘
occasions ,1890 , 1900 , and 1920 .
The stability Of the large city as a population aggregate seems
to be based on the diversification Of its ecOnomic structure.
The four cities of over inhabitants that decreased in thelast decade— Fall River, N ew Bedford , Lowell , andWilmingtonare all specialized industrial centers . The decrease inWilmingtonis explained in part by its failure to extend its political boundaries ,as the metropolitan territory
'
outside the city showed a rate Of
increase of p er cent between 1920 and 1930 . N0 commercial
city in the United States Of this size has ever suffered an actual
loss in population.
URB ANI ZATI ON OF CLAS SES OF THE POPULATI ON
American cities are largely aggregations Of migrants and as
such tend to select population in accordance with their economic
structure. I n the past ou r cities have recruited population from
two main sources : (1 ) foreign countries ; and (2) rural territory inthe United States . There have always been pronounced regional
variations with respect to the relative significance of these twoforms Ofmigration in city growth . The cities Of the N ew England ,Middle Atlantic, and East North Central divisions have received
large quotas from foreign countries, while the cities Of the South ,and some Of those Of the MiddleWest, have recruited their p op ulations largely from rural territory . Western cities hold an inter
33 l
TH E ME TROPOL I TA N COMMUN ITY
mediate position in this regard , having smaller proportions of
foreign born than do eastern cities , but greater than do southern
cities .
The cessation Of immigration has reduced the proportionof foreign born in most American cities .6 The net gain in this
class Of the population in the last decade was only 2 p er cent.
Although four-fifths of the foreign-born residents Of the UnitedStates were recorded in the 1930 census as living in urban placesas compared with approximately three-fourths in the 1920 census,this group comprised only p er cent Of the total urban p op ulation in 1930, whereas it comprised p er cent in 1920 .
TABLE 15 .— PERCENTAGE URBAN OF THE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATE S, BY
COLOR AND NATIVI TY, 1900—1930a
Percentage urbanColor and nativity
All classes . 56 . 2
White .
NativeNative parentageForeign or mixed parentageForeign bornNegroOther races .
a U.S. Census, 1930, Pop ulation, Vol. I I I , Part I , Table 18, p . 13 .
NOTE : Comparisons between the figures shown for the white popu lation of foreign origin, 1920
and 1930, also those for “
other races are slightly invalidated by the fact that Mexicans wereincluded in the white popu lation in 1920 and in the “
other races ” In 1930 . The census estimates
that persons who wou ld have been classified as “
other races in 1930 were classified as“
white” in the 1920 census. This is the total number for the United States as a whole. The shiftin classification makes only slight difference in the urban popu lation.
Table 15 shows the extent Of urbanization of the variousclasses of the population in the last four census enumerations .
Two facts stand out in this table : (1) the tendency of nativeborn whites of native parentage to move to cities ; and (2) therapid urbanization Of Negroes . The group designated as
“
other
races” shows an excessive extent Of urbanization in the last
decade, but it forms such a small part of the total urban p op ulation, only p er cent, that its influence is negligible .
’
5 I n 1930, 64 of the 93 cities of or morehad fewer foreign-born whitesthan in 1920 .
7 See footnote, Table 15 .
34 l
UR B AN A G G RE GAT ION
The urbanization Of native-born whites of native parentage isundoubtedly associated with the changing occupational structureof American cities ; namely, a shift Of emphasis from industrial
to commercial and professional services . As the city changes inoccupational structure, it imposes new demands upon population
and occasions new forms of population selection . American cities
are to an increasing extent becoming aggregations of the whitecollar classes . The significance of this fact is difficult to appraise,but it undoubtedly has important bearing on many phases Of
urban life. As this element Of the urban population becomes
relatively more numerous than day laborers , it is to be expected
that it will impose new demands upon the city in the form Of
housing, amusements , institutions , and other types of service .
Themigration Of Negroes to cities is a noteworthy characteristic Of the recent urban trend . The proportion Of the Negro p op ulation residing in cities increased from p er cent in 1920 to
p er cent in 1930 , a difference Of representing an increase
of per cent in the decade. A considerable part of this increase
is due to the northward migration Of Negroes, which has beenlargely to cities ; p er cent Of the Negro population Of theNorthwasu rban in 1930 , as compared with per cent of thesouthern Negro population and p er cent Of the western.
SEX AND AGE COM POS I TI ON
An important aspect Of the recent urban trend , but one which
can only be referred to here in the most general terms , is thechanging age and sex composition Of the urban population. This
can be shown best by comparison with the rural population . Theselective aspects of migration to cities are revealed in Tables
16 and 17.
The contrasts between the sex ratios Of the urban and rural
populations are striking . I t will be observed that the proportionOf males to females in the total urban population and in each
of its several classes is on the decline (Table l 6) . -The influence Ofthe large influx of foreign immigrants during the first decade Of
the century, a high proportion Of whom were males, is indicated
by the rise in the sex ratio in 1910 over 1900 . The effect of thismigration, however, had disappeared by 1930 , when the proportion of males dropped to less than that in 1900 . The extensivemigration to cities of native women Of native parentage is indicated by the decline in the urban sex ratio (males p er 100
i 35 l
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
TABLE 16.— SEX RATIO OF THE URBAN AND RURAL POPULATION OF THE UNITED
STATES, BY COLOR AND NATIVITY, 1900—1930a
(Sex ratio number of'
males per 100 females)
Sex ratio
Color, nativity, and area
White .
NativeNative parentageForeign or mixed parentage
Native parentageForeign or mixed parentageForeign born
Other races
4 U .S. Census, 1930, Pop ulation, Vol. I I I , Part I , Table 19, p . 13
females) of this group in the last decade, a decline from to
Notwithstanding the high proportion of adult foreign males
in American cities, the sex ratio of the urban population, twenty
One years and over, was in 1930 , only slightly higher than thesex ratio for the total urban population, which was
The general tendency in the larger cities is toward greaterfemininity ; only 28 of the 93 cities Of inhabitants or more
in 1930 contained more males than females as compared with 43
Of the same cities in 1920 . TO be sure, wide differences prevail in
the sex ratios Of individual cities . The range of males per 100
females for cities Of or over in 1930 extended from
for Gary, Indiana, to ,87.8 for Nashville , Tennessee.
The changing age composition Of the population Of the UnitedStates is a subject which is receiving much attention on the partof population experts . The declining birth rate is reducing theproportion Of young children and increasing the proportion Of
persons in the upper age brackets . The census records fewer
children under five years Of age in 1930 than in 1920, in spite of
36 l
URBAN A G GRE GAT ION
the fact that the total population Of the nation had increasedduring the decade. Children under fifteen formed only
p er cent Of the population in 1930 , whereas they were
per Cent in 1920. Contrariwise, adults twenty-one years and over
constituted per cent of the population in 1930 , as comparedwith per cent in 1920 .
Although the decline in the ratio Of children pertains to rural
as well as urban territory, it is more striking in the latter.
TABLE 17 —AGE DISTRIBUTION (PERCENTAGE) OF THE URBAN ANDRURAL POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATE S, 1920—1930a
Age period
All ages
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
21 and over
0 U.S. Census. 1930, Population, Vol. I I I , Part I , Table 20, pp. 14- 16.
In Table 17 the age distribution Of the population is given by5 and 10-year periods for the urban, rural nonfarm, and rural
farm divisions Of the population. The selective character of therural-urban drift is quite apparent. Children under five con
stituted, in 1930 , per cent of the rural farm population,
per cent Of the rural nonfarm population, and only p er
cent Of the urban population. On the other hand, adults in themost productive years Of life, that is, in the ages from twentyfive to forty-four, formed only p er cent of the rural farmpopulation in 1930 , p er cent Of the rural nonfarm population,but p er cent of the urban population .
37 l
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
The rural nonfarm or village population tends to represent an
intermediate position in age composition between the rural farmand urban populations . The trend toward older populations ismore pronounced in both the urban and rural nonfarm groups
than in the rural farm. The S lgnificance Of this changing age
composition for the nation as a whole, and particularly for theurban population. is a matter Of speculation.
8
3 See Warren S . Thomp son and P . K. Whelp ton, A Nation of Elders in theMaking,
”American Mercury, Vol . XIX, NO. 76, Ap ril, 1930 , pp . 385—397 ; also
P . K. Whelp ton,
“Pop ulation : Trends ' in Age Composition and in Sp ecific
Birth-rates, 1920—1930 , Ameri can Journal of Sociology, Vol . XXXVI I , 6,
May, 1932 , p p . 855—861 .
[ 38 ]
THE M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
tiguous civil divisions having a density of not less than 150 inhabitantsp er square mile, and also, as a ru le, those civil divisions of less densitythat are directly contiguous to the central cities, or are entirely or nearlysurrounded by minor civil divisions that have the requ ired density.
This 13 essentially the same p rincip le as was app lied 111 determining themetrop olitan districts for cities Of over inhab itants at thecensu ses Of 1910 and 1920, excep t that the area which might be includedwithin the metrop olitan district was then limited to the territory within10 miles of the city boundary. At this p resent census no such limithasbeen ap p lied.
2
GEOGRAPH I CAL DI STRIB UTION OF METROPOLI TAN DI STRI CTS
I n accordance with the 1930 procedure 96 metropolitan dis
tricts were outlined, each contaInIng a population Of or
more. They range in population from in the AtlanticCity district, _
to in the N ew York-NortheasternNew
Jersey district , and in area from square miles to
square miles for the same districts . Fifty Of the districts havepopulations of from to 27 from to
9 from to and 10 have over
inhabitants each . The 96 districts contain inhabitants or p er cent Of the total population in continental
United States and p er cent of the total urban population .
The territorial distribution Of the 96 districts is shown in Figure3 prepared by the Bureau of the Census . The high concentrationof districts in the northeastern section Of the country is strikinglyportrayed . Fifty-two Of the 96 districts are located east Of theMississippi and north of the Ohio and Potomac rivers and six
others are located on the opposite banks of these rivers . Fourteen
states have no metropolitan aggregates of sufficient size to be
classified by the census as metropolitan districts . Noteworthy in
this connection is North Carolina witha population of over
and ranking seventh among the states in rate of p op ula
tion increase p er cent— during the decade 1920 to 1930 .
This state contains five cities Of over inhabitants, but inno case was the population in the contiguous territory su fficient
to make up the necessary minimum Of for a censusmetro
politan district. More striking still is the absence Of large urban
aggregates in that section of the country lying between the
3 I bid., p p . 5—6. In 1930, metropolitan districts were established for cities of
inhabitants or more, p rovided the p op ulation in the adjoining territory(Of the requ ired density) was sufficient to make a total p opulation Of
[ 40 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN D I S TR I C T
T HE ME TROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
Twin Cities— Minneapolis and St. Paul— and the Pacific states .
Here is a block Of six states— North and South Dakota, Montana,
Idaho, Wyoming, and Nevada— without a single metropolitan
district . On the other hand , the Pacific states are credited with
nine districts ; the Gulf Southwest, comprising Texas, Oklahoma,
and Kansas, also contains nine rapidly growing districts . Theterritory commonly known as the “
Old South ,”the region lying
east of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio and Potomac
rivers, has 17 metropolitan districts .
RATES OF I NCREASE
The rates Of population increase, 1920 to 1930 , in the 85
metropolitan districts for which comparative statistics are avail
able for the two census periods are shown in Table 18 . In this
table the districts are classified by size groups and the rates are
computed for each class .
TABLE 18 .— POPULATION AND PERCENTAGE I NCREASE OF 85 METROPOLITAN
DISTRICTS, BY SI z E GROUPS, 1920—1930“
Popu lation(in thousands)
Size class of districts
All districts .
to
to
to
to
and over .
a U.S. Census, 1930 , Metropolitan Districts, compiled from Table 4, pp. 10—13.
5 Does not include 1 1 metropolitan districts for which comparable figures are not available.
These districts with their 1930 popu lations are : Chattanooga, Houston, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Memphis, M iami, New Orleans,Portland, Oregon, San Diego, San Jose, Tampa-St. Petersburg,
For specific information regarding the growth of individual districts the reader is referred to detailed Table I I in the Appendix.
The average rate of population increase in the 85 districts forwhich comparative statistics are available was per cent, as
compared with per cent for the total population Of theUnited States . The groups containing the largest and the smallestdistricts— those with populations of over and thosewith populations ranging from to — show the
[ 42 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN D I ST R I C T
highest rates Of increase. Had the 1 1 districts for which com
parable data are not available for the two census periods beenincluded in their appropriate classifications, the rates for these
two groups would have stood out even more prominently, and
of course the general rate for all districts would be higher than thep er cent shown in Table 18 . The omission Of the rapidly
growingLos Angeles districthas reduced considerably the averagerate
'
of increase for the largest group . Of the remaining 10 cities
omitted from Table 18, 5 belong in the to
group , and in every case the rate Of increase since 1920 , as indi
cated by the growth Of the counties in which central cities are
located,has beenhigh .
3
Fifty-eight Of the 85 districts show rates of increase above thenational average, 8 of which increased over 55 p er cent . On theother hand , 27 districts show rates of increase below the nationalrate, 13 of these increased less than 10 per cent, 2 of which
actually decreased (Lowell-Lawrence and Norfolk-Portsmouth
Newport News) . Of the 13 districts having rates Of increase Of
less than 10 p er cent, 10 are located in the extreme east . Four Ofthese (Bridgeport, Lowell-Lawrence, Providence-Fall RiverN ew Bedford, and Waterbury) are in N ew England , 2 (Altoonaand Johnstown) in Pennsylvania ; 1 (Utica) in N ew York State ;1 (Wilmington) in Delaware ; and 2 (Norfolk-Portsmouth-N ew
port News and Savannah) on the South Atlantic seaboard . Theremaining three are west of the Mississippi River : Duluth inMinnesota ; Davenport in Iowa ; and Spokane in the state Of
Washington .
METROPOLI TAN DI STRI CTS COM PARED WI TH OTHERPOPU LATION AGGRE GATES
The relative numerical importance Of some Of these metropoli
tan aggregations may be illustrated by comparison with thepopulations Of selected states and foreign nations . The N ew
York-Northeastern N ew Jersey district has a larger population
than any state in the Union with the exception Of thehome state of
N ew York . Moreover , it takes the total population Of 17 statesbeginning with the smallest and adding in order of rank —to
equal the population in the New York-Northeastern N ew Jersey
district. The increase in population in this single metropolitan
3 See Table I I in the Ap pendix.
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
district in the decade 1920 to 1930 , was greater than the gain in28 states arranged in order Of growth ; and the increase in theChicago metropolitan district in the same
‘ period more than bal
anced the increase in 21 states selected in the same manner .
Again, the inhabitants residing within the N ew
York-Northeastern N ew Jersey metropolitan district— all Of
whom are within a half hour’s train ride Of Times Square - con
stitute a larger human aggregation than that recorded in the 1931census for the Dominion Of Canada and considerably
larger than the combined populations Of Australia and N ew
Zealand . This district outranks, in number Of inhabitants , 17 Of
the 27 politically independent nations of Europe, and 12 Of the13 republics and dependencies Of South America, many Of which
have separate representation in the League Of Nations .
POLI TI CAL COM PLEX ITY OF METROPOLI TAN DI STRI CTS
That the metropolitan districts as outlined on the basis Of
density bear little relation to the local political areas is indicatedby the number Of incorporated places and political jurisdictions
they contain, or the boundaries Of which they intersect . Table19 shows the distribution of the population of the 96 districtsby size Of incorporated places located within these metropolitan
areas, together with the population in the unincorporatedterritory .
TABLE 19.— D I STRrBUTION OF POPULATION WITHIN THE 96 METROPOLITAN
DISTRICTS BY I NCORPORATED PLACES OF D IFFERENT SIZE CLASSES,
Size class of places
100 0
Less than
to
to
to
Unincorporated area
U.S. Census, 1930, Metropolitan Districts , compiled from Table B for each district.[ 44 ]
TH E METROPOL I T A N D I S TR I C T
The 96 districts contain separately incorporated places ,889 Of which , including central cities, are Of urban rank ; that is,they have populations Of or more. I n addition, the districtscontain 677 incorporated villages of less than inhabitants
and persons residing in unincorporated territory .
Furthermore, the 96 district-s cover in whole or in part 250 coun
ties ; 23 Of the districts cut across state boundaries , 4 of which
include parts of 3 different states .
Naturally the districts vary greatly in the number Of separatelyincorporated places they contain. I n 6 Of the districts, there isnot a single incorporated place apart from the central city .
These are comparatively small commercial centers— El Paso,Fort Worth , Knoxville, Nashville, Richmond, and Wichita .
On the other hand, there are 272 incorporated places in the N ew
York-Northeastern N ew Jersey district ; 135 in the Pittsburghdistrict ; and 115 in the Chicago district (see Table 30 , pageSize, topography, and the nature of the local industrial structureseem to be themost important factors in determining the politicalcomplexity of a metropolitan district .
METROPOLI TAN AGGREGATI ON VERSU S URB AN I ZATION
The process Of urbanization assumes a diflerent character
when interpreted from the standpoint Of the metropolitan dis
triet instead Of the political area . The aggregate population
residing in the 96 metropolitan districts , as established on thebasis Of density, equals p er cent Of the total urban populationrecorded in the 1930 census . But over 12 p er cent of the inhabitants of these metropolitan districts are elsewhere classified in
the census as rural because they do not happen to reside within
incorporated places Of inhabitants or more. Such p opula
tion is probably more urbanized from an economic and social
standpoint than much Of the sO-called urban population living
in small centers remote from the larger cities .
Further, the metropolitan district as defined by density in
cludes by no means all Of the people of the area that have directand intimate contact with the culture and institutions Of thecentral cities: Under present conditions Of local transportation,
the population residing within a radius of 30 to 40 miles Of a
large city may be considered as within direct contact with its
institutions and services and therefore in a sense might well be
included as inhabitants Of the city ’
s metropolitan district. I n
[ 45 ]
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
Chapter II Of this monograph a table is presented (Table 7,
page 20) that shows the proportion Of the total population Of theUnited States residing in 63 metropolitan
‘
zones— cities of
or more plus adjacent counties within a radius of 20 to 50 milesf depending upon the size of the City . According to this tabulation,
approximately half of the total population Of the United Statesfat the present time lives within daily access Of a city Of
or more . This is approximately the same percentage of the, total
population as was reported in the cities of or more,
and only eight points less than the total population recorded as
urban. The metropolitan region cuts the population in a different
way from the urban classification ; yet as is seen in Table 20 it
cuts almost as large a slice .
TABLE 20 .
— PROPORTION OF TOTAL POPULATION IN DIFFERENT TERRITORIALCLASSIFICATIONS, 1900—1930a
Territory
U.S . Census, 1930, Population, Vol. I , Table 3, p . 8.
b I bid., Table 4, p. 9.
0 See Table 7, p . 20.
I t is when one comes to interpret the rank and growth of
individual cities or groups Of cities that the phenomenon Of
metropolitan aggregation has most significance. Table 21 listsin order the 10 largest cities in the United States and gives therank Of the metropolitan districts in which they are located ,together with their respective rates Of increase during the lastdecade .
I n only three cases— New York, Chicago, and Philadelphiais the ranking of the central city the same as that of the metro
politan district . I n some instances the difference in rank is p ronounced ;
'
for example, Boston ranks ninth as a city but fifth as a
metropolitan district ; Pittsburgh , tenth as a city and seventh as ametropolitan district ; Cleveland on the other hand occupiessixth place among the cities Of the United States but only tenthamong the metropolitan districts . I t will be noticed also thatfour cities— Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore, and Boston
46
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
class with an aggregate population of By 1930 theCombined population of these 32 places was an increase
Of or per cent in the decade.
‘
But Of the 32 places, 4were suburbs of Detroit, the combined gain of which was
or per cent Of the gross increase for places Of this size in thestate.
Thompson and Whelp tonhave computed the rates Of increase,1920 to 1930, Of different size groups Of cities by location within
and Without metropolitan districts for the country as a whole .
Their tabulation is reproduced in Table 22 .
TABLE 22 .— RATE OF POPULATION INCREASE IN SMALL CITIE S AND IN RURAL
TERRITORY WITHIN AND WITHOUT METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS, BY SIZE OF
CITIES, 1920—1930“
Rate of increase
Type and size of place
Rural area
t t t t t t t t t t
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a The metropolitan districts used are those of 1930 (see U.S. Census, 1930 Metropolitan Dis
tricts) , but the cities and rural areas are classed according to their population In 1920. Territoryrural in 1920 is counted rural in 1930 , although it may have contained one or more incorporatedplaces in 1930 . Abridged from Table 10 in Population Trends in the United States, 1933, by WarrenS . Thompson and P. K. Whelp ton.
I t will be seen that the widest differences in rates of increasebetween places within and those without metropolitan districts
pertain to the smaller group classifications, particularly to townsranging from to inhabitants . As the size Of the groupincreases, the differential in rates Of growth between places inside
and outside metropolitan districts diminishes .Attention is directed
to the wide disparity in the rates of growth Of rural territory
within and that Without metropolitan districts .
SUMMARY
TO summarize : The population Of the United States is tendingto concentrate more and more in large regional aggregates .
[ 48 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN D I S TR I C T
In every such aggregate, the population tends to subdivide and
become multinucleated in a complex Of centers that are econom
ically and socially integrated in a larger regional unity.
Theextent Of the areas Of concentration is determined by theOperation of geographical and economic forces and thereforebears little relation to the political units into which the countryis divided and according to which census enumerations are made .
The political margins Of the centers seldom circumscribe theentire population nucleated therein . Accordingly census enumera
tion on the basis Of political areas affords an inadequate foundation for determining trends in local aggregation or for comparing
patterns Of settlement in different parts Of the country and in
different periods Of time.
This fact has been recognized by the Bureau Of the Census ,with the result that since 1910 metropolitan districts have been
established for the larger centers Of population. The procedureadopted thus far in establishing suchdistricts has been basedon the factor of density . Although this is a marked advance over
the u se Of the political area, it cannot be regarded as entirely
satisfactory . The modern regional community, conceived in
functional terms , may bear but slight relation to the factorOf density. The Bureau Of the Census is ful ly aware of this fact
and , prior to the 1930 enumeration, attempted to establish func
tional criteria for the mapp ing Of metropolitan districts .
4
But the inability sufficiently to standardize the procedure com
p elled the Bureau to revert to the factor Of density as a basis
for determining the geographical limits Of the 1930 districts .
There remains, therefore, the research problem Of working out asystem Of objective criteria that will define the geographical scopeOf themetropolitan aggregate and at the same time be Of sufficientuniform ity for census purposes .
4 See U .S . Census, 1930 , Metropolitan Districts, p . 5 .
49 ]
CHAPTER V
FACTORS IN CONCENTRATION
HE history Of American settlement, considered from thestandpoint of population movements,
'
is a record Of outflowsand inflows —Of dispersion and concentration. Although the twoprocesses have always occurred simultaneously and are complementary aspects of settlement growth , yet they are by no means
even . At certain times, the spread Of population has been themore importantmovement ; and at other times , the concentration.
The spread Of population provides the economic foundation forurban living, and the city furnishes the market or economicstimulus for dispersion.
Considered over a period Of years, as far as the total populationof the country is concerned, it appears that the forces making
for concentration outweigh those making for dispersion, since an
increasing proportion of the total population of the United Statesis
‘
found each decade in a smaller fraction of the total land area
of the country . The question naturally arises : What are theunderlying forces making for this tendency, and why are certain
areas rather than others becoming the geographic foci Of thisconcentration process ?
GENERAL FACTORS I NVOLVED I N CONCENTRATION AN D
DI S PERS I ON
The activities required to sustain any society involve a ter
ritorial division Of labor Of a twofold nature : (1) the field workat the sources from which the basic materials are procured fromnature ; and (2) the center work where the raw materials are
processed for consumption and Where group services are p er
formed . As a civilization grows in Wealth and complexity, thenumber and variety Of both field and center activities increasecorrespondingly . TWO general tendencies are observable with
regard to the spatial aspects of the production Of goods and
services : 1) the proportion of labor required to obtain the originalmaterials from nature is becoming relatively less than that
50
FA C TOR S I N CON C ENTRAT ION
required to fabricate them and to effect the various servicesdemanded by a population with a rising standard Of living ; and
(2) modern communications have so shrunken space that these
center activities may be performed over Wider areas than for
merly, thereby concentrating territorially these functions and
the populations engaged in their performance .
In attempting, therefore, to ascertain why the population of
the United States is becoming less uniformly distributed over theland , although steadily increasing in numbers, it is necessary to
consider the general centralization—decentralization tendencies
Of different types Of economic and social activity . For it may be
assumed that the spatial arrangement Of the population is
basically determined by the operation Of economic forces .
A review Of occupational statistics discloses the general shiftOf emphasis from field to center types of economic activity .
I n spite Of the ever-increasing demand for greater Volume and
variety Of nature ’
s resources, the proportion Of persons actually ;required to Obtain these materials from their geographic sources
is steadily diminishing, while the proportion required to perform .
the multitudinous services that result from increased wealth and
leisure is constantly increasing. This _is shown in Table 23 .
TABLE 23 .— GAINFUL WORKERS 10 YEARS OLD AND OVER, BY GENERAL DIVISIONS OF OCCUPATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES, 1910—19300
Number
General division of occupations
All occupations 100 . 0
Forestry and fishingExtraction of mineralsManufacturing and mechanical industries 28 . 9
Transportation and communication .
Public service (not elsewhere classified)Professional serviceDomestic and personal serviceClerical occupations
0 U.S. Census, 1930, United States Summary, Occup ation Statistics, Table 2, p. 8.
Aside from the general decline in the proportion Of persons
employed in the basic industries, important shifts are taking place5 1
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
in the areas Of production, inducing corresponding movements
Of population. Attentionhas been called to the fact that the ruralfarm population Of the United States decreased p er cent inthe decade 1920 to 1930 . But the loss in this basic group was notshared equally by the different agricultural areas Of the country“
.
Eighteen states showed varying rates of increase in rural farm
population during the last 10 years . N ot infrequently states
showing marked losses in farm population are adjoining or close
to states that have experienced considerable gains . For example,
Georgia is reported in the census as having fewer rural
farm inhabitants in 1930 than in 1920 , whereas the neighboringstate of North Carolina records a gain of and Mississippi
a gain of in rural farm population in this 10-year period .
Missouri lost almost of its farm population between 1920
and 1930, while Texas gained Numerous other examples
might be cited of shifts Of rural farm population from one section
Of the country to another . These movements are in response to
economic forces affecting agriculture . Changes _ in consumers’
demand for different kinds Of agricultural’
products— notably an
increase in the consumption Of fruits and vegetables— induce
developments in those areas inwhich such products may be most
efficiently produced . TO illustrate : Imperial County , California ,
an uninhabited desert three decades ago,has, by virtue Of irrigation and the demand for winter vegetables, increased in p op u la
tion from in 1910 to in 1930 . Similar concentrated
agricultural developments in other parts Of the country might
be noted . Much Of the recent increase in western Texas may be
explained on the basis Of the growing winter market for different
types Of fresh vegetables and also by the shift Of cotton produc
tion resulting from the boll-weevil devastations in the Older
areas and from the improved methods Of farming.
Similar regional shifts pertain to certain classes Of minerals .
This applies particu larly to the production Ofm
cm'
de petroleum .
I n the early part Of the century the chief producing areas were
east Of the Mississippi , mostly in the Appalachian district, butin the course Of the last two decades themajor part of the nation’
s
yearly output Of petroleum has come from mid-continent terri
tory— Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas— and from
Southern California . The proportion Of the nation’
s total produc
tion Of crude petroleum Obtained in these states west Of theMississippi increased from 63 p er cent in 1910 to 85 p er cent in
[ 52 ]
FA C TOR S I N CON C E NTRAT ION
1930 . Moreover, in this period the total production Of crudepetroleum in the United States increased almost 100 p er cent.
MANU FACTURE S AN D POPULATI ON CONCENTRATI ON
The rise Of manufacturing industries ln the United States hasgenerally Seen regarded as one Of the leading causes Of p op u la
tion concentration and city growth, and In the past there wasbasis for this assumption as the decennial increases in the numberOf wage earners bore a fairly constant relation to the increasein the urban population . I n the first decade Of the century, 1900
to 1910 , the urban population Of the United States increasedp er Cent, and
’
the number Of factory wage earners, 1899 to
1909, p er cent ; in the second decade the percentage gains forthe two groups were and respectively . I n the last decade,however , 1920 to 1930 , the urban population increased p er
cent, while the number Of wage earners remained practically
constant, there being a slight decrease p er cent) in the number employed in 1929 as compared with that in 1919. Notwithstanding this stationary Or declining industrial wage-earning
population, the output of the factorieshas continued to increase .
Measured in terms Of Value added by manufacture, production
was p er cent higher in 1929 than in 1919 ; moreover, thehorse power used in factories Increased p er cent in this
period .
1 I t is quite apparent that technological advance is having
the same effect in manufacturing industries as in agriculture and
the other basic industries . The machine and mechanical energy
are reducing the amount Of labor required to Operate our factories
just as they are reducing the number Of persons required to culti
vate our fields and procure our minerals .
Although the number Of wage earners in factories has never
constituted a very high proportion of the total urban population ,
the ratio at the close Of the last decade was notably lower than informer years, as seen in Table 24 .
The significance Of industry as a factor in population con
centration is not fully indicated by statistics relating to thenumber Of persons employed in factories or even by the totaloutput Of manufactured products . If factories became more
Widely distributed throughout the nation, both the number Of
workers and the gross output Of factories might continue to
increase without population in general becoming more con
1 U .S . Department of Commerce, Commerce Yearbook, 1931 , Vol . I , p . 34 .
53 l
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
TABLE 24 .—RATIO OF WAGE EARNERS IN MANUFACTURES, 1889—1929, TO
TOTAL URBAN POPULATION, 1890—1930
Wage earners in manufacturesUrban popu lation“ (average number employed during
year)5
a U.S. Censu s, 1930, Popu lation, Vol. I , p. 8 .
b U.S . Department of Commerce, Commerce Yearbook, 1931 , Vol. I , p . 28
centrated geographically . The pertinent question, therefore, I S
whether manufacturing is spreading or tending to become more
highly concentrated .
I n this connection, it is important to differentiate betweenlocal shifts within a metropolitan community and interregional
shifts . Any attempts to measure centralization or decentralization
tendencies in industry by statistics relating to the size Of thecommunity in which the industry happens to be located are ap t tobe misleading unless due consideration is given to actual location
tendencies . The transfer Of a plant from a central city to an ad
joining suburb does not in any valid sense imply decentralization,
nor does the fact that a higher proportion Of the factory wageearning population is now found inside larger cities than formerly
prove that industry is centralizing . A number Of these larger
cities may merely have extended their political boundaries and
thus brought Within their statistical areas adjoining factory communities . Moreover, as a city increases in size and shifts from a
lower to a higher statistical classification, its industrial wageearning population is likewise transferred statistically from thesmaller to the larger community group . Thus a stationary or evena declining industrial population located in a rapidly growing
city would in time show a tendency toward centralization as
measured by the size of the Community in which it is located .
A more accurate conception of the actual trend in the distribution Of the industrial population is Obtained by considering it as
a separate group and Observing the tendencies in its spatial
[ 54 ]
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN ITY
earners during the last decade . Table 26 shows the change be
tween 1919 and 1929 in the number Of wage earners employed in
manufactures in 33 leading industrial areas Of the United States .
The areas are those outlined in the compilation of the 1929
TABLE 26.— WAGE EARNERS IN MANUFACTURES, BY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL AREAS
AND PERCENTAGE I NCREASE , 1919—1929, COMPARED WI TH PERCENTAGE
INCREASE IN TOTAL POPULATION, 1920- 1930 , IN THE SAME AREAS
Percentage increaseWage earners inor decrease In
manufactures (averNumber age number employed
I ndustrial area0 of durmg year) “counties
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Providence-Fall River-New Bedford .
Bridgeport-New Haven-Waterbury
Los Angeles .
Cincinnati .
Baltimore .
San Francisco-Oakland
Youngstown
M inneapolis-St Pau lHartfordRochesterAlbany-Schenectady-TroyAllentown-BethlehemSp ringfield Holyoke
I ndianapolisKansas City (Mo. and Kans.)
Seattle-Tacoma
Scranton Wilkes-Barre
Total
0 Based on preliminary reports issued June 5 , 1981.5 Compiled from U.S. Census, 1980 , Pop ulation Vol I
FA C TOR S I N CON C ENTRAT ION
Census of Manufactures and most Of them include several counties
in addition to the one in which the central city is located . Thepercentage increase in the total population of each area is p re
sented by way Of comparison.
N 0 less than 24 Of these 33 major industrial areas recorded
fewer wage earners in manufactures in 1929 than in 1919 ; 16
show rates Of decline more than twice as great as the generaldecline Of p er cent in the factory wage-earning population Of
the nation as a Whole ; 10 Of these districts show decreases Of 10
per cent or more . I t will be Observed that all Of the districts eastof the Appalachians show substantial decreases in their industrial
populations . Los Angeles holds a unique position in this list of
major industrial districts in point Of increase in factory wage
earners, 1919 to 1929, showing a gain Of per cent . Dayton and
Toledo stand next in order of percentage gains .
A noteworthy feature Of the data presented in Table 26 is the ’fact that there is little correlation between change in the p ercentage Of wage earners in these districts and increase in total
population. Many of the districts show substantial decreases
in their factory employees and at the same time rapid gams in
population. This applies particularly to the N ew York City
district, in which the number Of factory workers dropped
per cent while the total population increased p er cent . I n
the Philadelphia and Boston districts, the differences are almost
equally striking, and to varying extents the lack Of correlation
pertains to most Of the other districts as well . I n short, it is quiteObvious that the forces that have made for population increase inthese concentrated territories during the last decade have beenother thanmanufacturing, at least considered from the standpointof the number Of persons employed in the making Of the products .
That certain districts in the South have profited by some Of
the recent industrial shifts is indicated by the figures in Table 27 .
This table gives the number Of factory workers in 1919 and 1929,in all of the leading manufacturing centers in southern territory .
The proportion of places showing increases is rather high ; 24 Of
the 33 counties gained in factory wage earners in this period .
The rapid rates of increase Of the total population in thesesouthern counties are also striking. But here, as in the districtslisted in Table 26, population increase has been much more
pronounced than industrial development . Even in those districtsin which the factory population made substantial gains, the
57 l
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
factory population can only partially account for the high rates
Of increase in the total population, as the ratio Of wage earners
to total population is in most instances relatively low.
TABLE 27 — PERCENTAGE I NCREASE OFWAGE EARNERS IN MANUFACTURE S INSELECTED SOUTHERN COUNTIES, 1919—1929, AND OF TOTAL POPULATION IN
THE SAME COUNTIES, 1920—1930
State and county Leading city
Alabama
—36 7
I 5 1
SpartanburgTennessee
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
U .S . Census, 1920 , Manufactures, Vol. IX, Table 2 for each state.
5 Corn iled from A B asi s for Establishing I ndu strial Sales Territories, Domestic CommerceSeries, 0 . 60 , 1932, Table 2, pp. 18—22 . All counties in these southern states havxng over
.
7,000
wage earners in manu factures in 1929 are listed.
rovided com arable data for 1919were available.
6 U.S. Census, 1930, Pop ulation, Vol. I , compi ed from Tab e 3 for each state.
[ 58 ]
FA C TOR S I N CON C E NTRAT ION
COMMERCE AS A FACTOR IN CONCENTRATION
While manufacturing has been declining relatively in recent
years as a facfl
t-
Orw
making directly for the concentration Of p op ula
tion, there has been an Outstanding development 1n commercial
functions . Every large city and over) in the UnitedStates shows a higher proportion Of its gainfully employed p op u la
tion engaged in trade in 1930 than in 1920 . I n most cities, thegains are striking . I n N ew York in 1920 , for instance, p er
cent of the gainfully employed were engaged in trade while in
1930 the proportion had increased to On the other hand ,the proportion engaged in manufacturing and mechanical indus
tries decreased from in 1920 to in 1930 . This pattern Of
shift from manufacturing to commerce extends right through theentire list Of larger cities, although Of course varying in degree in
different places . Even in the industrial city of Detroit, the proportion Of gainfully employed in the trade group increased fromin 1920 to in 1930 , while the proportion engaged in manu
facturing decreased from to I n none of these large cities
was the proportion engaged in manufacturing industries as high
in 1930 as in
The influence Of commerce on population concentration is as
Old as established settlement . The distribution of early cities in
America, as in other parts of the world , was basically determinedby the pattern of commerce . Indeed, our present communal
hierarchy, from the village to the metropolis , is primarily a
spatial expression Of the processes involved in the collection and
distribution of goods . Important as the influence Of commerce
has always been as a bui ld“
r Of cities, the transformation whichhas Occurred 111 recent years, both In its volume and structure,has had almost revolutionary significance with_ respect to thelocal community and population arrangement in general . Therising standard Of living and the greater efficiency of industrythat characterized the decade following the close Of the WorldWar greatly increased the types Of commercial activity and
augmented the volume of commerce . The improved facilities fortransportation and communication transformed the generalpattern Of commerce, accelerating the growth Of large-scale organ2Warren S . Thomp son, Population Trends toward Concentration and Decen
trali z ation,
”in S lums, Large-scale Hou sing and Decentrali z ation, The President’s
Conference on Home Bu ilding and Home Ownership , 1932, p . 214 .
[ 59 ]
i z ation and making for geographic concentration Of many com
mercial functions .A general conception Of the extent to Which different types Of
commercial function are geographically concentrated is afforded
by the data in Table 28 .
TABLE 28 .— CONCENTRATION OF COMMERCIAL FUN CTION AS I NDICATED BY
THE LEAST NUMBER OF COUNTI ES'
REOUIRED TO OBTAIN ONE-FOURTH, ON EHALF, AND THREE-FOURTHS OF THE TOTAL VOLUME OF BUSINESS DONE
BY EACH SPECIFIED SERVICE , 1929—1930
Number of counties required to Obtain
Business
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Pop ulationd
U.S. Department of Commerce, General Consumer Market Statistics, Supplement N o . 1 to
the Market Data Handbook of the United States, 1982 . Net sales in 1929 compiled from Table 2 ,
pp. 20—63.
5 I bid., savings deposits, September , 1980 . The five boroughs comprising New York City are
considered as one county in the compilation of savings-deposits statistics.
1bid total sales, 1929, compiled from Table 4, pp. 74—193.
4 See Table 6, p . 19.
Wholesale.— An exceedingly high degree Of concentration of
wholesale function is indicated by these figures . The total valueOf wholesale business done in the United States in 1929 was
Of which or 2 1 p er cent, is
credited to N ew York County (Manhattan Island) and
to Cook County (Chicago) . Thus the wholesale businessOf these two counties, measured in monetary terms, comprised
p er cent Of the total wholesale business done in the UnitedStates in 1929. If the value Of the wholesale business in the nexteight most important counties. is combined with these,one-half
Of the wholesale business in the United States is accounted for .
Even as much as three-quarters Of the wholesale business Of thecountry is carried on in 57 counties ; that is, in less than 2 p er
cent Of the total counties that comprise the territory Of theUnited States .
Finance .—Financial function, as measured by the amount Of
‘
savings deposits (which Obviously are less centralized than many
[ 60 ]
F A C TOR S I N CON C EN TRAT ION
other banking functions) , represents about half the degree of
geographic concentration shown by wholesale trade . One-fourth )
Of all the savings deposits in the United States were reported
(September, 1930) from 4 counties ,
3one-half from 20 counties ;
and three-fourths GOE S counties .
The tendency Of banking function to desert the smaller towns
and villages in favor Of the larger centers has become quite
conspicuous since the World War . The process is illustrated bystatistics relating to bank suspensions in communities Of d ifferent
size . The distribution Of the bank suspensions which
occurred during the period 1921 to 1930 is presented in Table 29.
TABLE 29.— BANK SUSPENSIONS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING To SIZE OF TOWNS,
1921—1930“
to
10,000 t0 25.000
and
Total .
0 Walter E . Spahr, Bank Failures in the United States, American Economic Review, Vol.XXI I , NO. 1 , Supplement, March, 1932, pp . 21 1—212.
The majority Of bank suspensions are confined to the smaller
communities ; 80 p er cent occurred in towns and villages Of lessthan inhabitants . The decline in banking function in thesesmaller centers is indicative Of the transfer of trade and otherservices also .
Retail .— Even in the field Of retail trade, which Of all the com- 1
mercial functions perhaps bears the closest relation to populationdistribution, there is evidence Of a considerable degree Of geo
graphic concentration. The number of counties required to Obtainone-fourth, one-half, and three-fourths of the total retail sales ,as indicated in the 1930 Census Of D istribution, is less thanhalf the number Of counties required to Obtain the same fractionsOf the total population Of the country in 1930 (see TableThis indicates the general tendency of retail trade to concentrate
in the larger towns and cities .
Seventy p er cent of the total retail business done in the UnitedStates in 1930 was confined to cities Of or more, althoughsuch cities contained only 48 p er cent Of the total population Of
3 See footnote b, Table 28, p . 60 .
61
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
the country . The increasing importance of style and the improvedfacilities of transportation tend toward a concentration ofmany
lines Of retail service . On the other hand ,‘the standardization Of
merchandise as regards quality and price and the development Of
chain stores is tending toward a'
certain degree Of dispersion . But
considered in terms Of value Of sales , the centralizing forces outweigh those making for decentralization.
The general tendency Of commercial function— wholesale,
finance, and retail— to become more highly concentrated geographically is undoubtedly the chief explanation Of recent
tendencies in city growth . The decline Of the small V illage and
town was more pronounced in the last decade than in formeryears . Contrariwise, the rather rapid population growth of many
Of the larger cities in the United States located In regions in which
the general rates Of increase have been comparatively low is a
direct response to the changing pattern Of commerce. To illustrate :
I n the N ew England division, in which the general rate Of increasein the decade 1920 to 1930 Was p er cent, the metropolitan
district of Boston increased p er cent ; Hartford, p er
cent ; and N ew Haven, p er cent . These increases occurred in
spite Of the fact that each Of the three districts showed a p ro
nounced decline in the number Of wage earners employed in
manufacturing establishments in this decennial period . Likewise,in southern territory, where city growthhas been rapid, although
state increases for the most part have been low, concentration Of
commercial function affords the chief explanation. The metro
politan district of Atlanta increased p er cent between 1920
and 1930 , While the rate Of increase in Georgia was only p er
cent . Atlanta’
s growth cannot be explained on the basis Of
manufacturing development, as the Censu s of M anufactures
records only more industrial wage earners in Fulton County
(the county in which Atlanta is located) in 1929 than in 1919.
Many sim ilar instances might be cited Of cities that have grownrapidly in population since 1920 , although there has been butlittle, if any, increase in the number Of factory wage earners and
although the cities are located in regions in which the populationas a wholehas made but slight gain in numbers .
I NCREASED IM PORTANCE OF SERVI CE OCCU PATI ONS
Another factor making for population concentration and
the recent growth of cities is the increased number Of persons Who[ 62 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
from the regions in which it is produced to others Ofl’ering superiorleisure-time advantages . Almost every state in the Unionhas itstourist areas which teem with activity in‘
the summer months ,but which tend to fade away in the colder weather . These periodic
invasions of pleasure seekers furnish a source of income to varying
numbers Of permanent settlers .
'Many Of the tourist counties inthe northern states show substantial increases in population duringthe last decade .
Of course, the regions that have profited most from touristtravel are those with climates which appeal to winter pleasureseekers . Florida
’
s rapid growth in the last decade p er cent)is a case in point . This state actually showed a decline in both
factory wage earners and rural farm population between 1920
and 1930 . The Atlantic City district is another . example Of a
tourist-made center . This metropolitan district increased 57 per
cent in population in the last decade, an increase due almostentirely to the resort appeal of the area . The extent to which theenormous increase Of population in Southern California may
-
be
attributed to the magnetic influence Of favorable climate cannot
be statistically determined ; but there is no question that climate
has played an important rOle in building up this immense p op u la
tion group . As people and wealth flowed into this area, manu
facturing and other wealth-producing activities have developed
also . In this respect the growth of Los Angeles has been quitedifferent from that Of Detroit, its competitor in the race for
metropolitan laurels . The Detroit areahas grown directly as theresult Of the development Of manufactures . Population was
attracted to Detroit by the comparatively high wages paid by
the motor industry . I n other words, industry grew and drew
population into this region ; whereas in the Los Angeles area
population and wealth flowed into the region, and industry
followed in response to the market opportunities .
SUMM ARY
Although the forces making for concentration and dispersion
may be considered in the general manner followed in this discus
sion, it is Obvious that different combinations of forces Operate
to determine population pattern in each region and even in each
community . The statistics presented in the preceding chapters
reveal a checkerboard pattern Of growth and decline throughoutthe country . There have been certain regional drifts ofpopulation,
[ 64 ]
FA C TOR S I N CON C E NTRAT ION
such as to Southern California, Florida, Michigan, NorthCarolina, and to a number Of the large metropolitan communities,notably N ew York City and Chicago . But in general , population
movements show the effect Of local drifts , hills and valleys of
densi ty a’
pp'
éar ClOS'
e
I
tOgetlier ln spac .e Our mobile population
seems"
to be very sensitive to relatively slight differences in
economic opportunities as between local areas . Further , it is
evident that the forces making for concentration in any particular
region change from time to time . The history Of local settlement
in the United States reveals a wavelike development . Periods Ofrapid aggregation are usually followed by periods Of slow grow
ing, stationary, or even declining population . Settlement is always
tending toward an equilibrium . Unless new conditions continue to
induce further growth there is a tendency for the rate to decline .
An examination Of rates“
of state growth shows that only 9 Of
the 48 have had continuous upward or downward trends Of
increase throughout the last three decennial periods ; 39 havegrown in a Zigzag fashion, their rates of increase having both
risen and fallen since 1900 . The trend Of city growth also assumes
a wavelike pattern . Of the 93 cities of or more in 1930 , 47
both rose and fell intheir rates of population increase in thecourse Of the last three decades, while the remaining 46 recorded
a continuous downward trend in rates Of growth .
COMMUNITY
CHAPTER VI
THE METROPOLITAN REGION AS ANECONOMIC AND SOCIAL UNITY
HE foregoing discussion relates to the city community as
defined by aggregation and density . But the city is more than
an aggregation Of people or an agglomeration of buildings . I t is
an organization Of activities, an economic and social organism .
We shall now consider the city and the city region from thefunctional standpoint and note some Of the changes that are
taking place in the interrelations Of institutions and services .
The transformation thathas occurred since theWorldWar in thefunctional reorganization Of the city and its environs , though
less subject to quantitative measurement, is perhaps Of evengreater importance than the recent movements Of population.
The Old communai pattern, characterized by compactly integrated cities which were sharply differentiated economically and
culturally from the surrounding settlement, is being replaced by a
more Open regional community composed Of numerous territorially
differentiated , yet interdependent, units of settlement.
R I SE OF THE METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY
This new type Of regional community that is emerging from
the former pattern Of semiindependent units Of settlement is,
of course, the direct reSIilt of motor transportation and its
revolutionary effect upon lOcal spatial relations . The territorialrange Of primary activities is always determined by the prevailingmodes Of local transportation and communication . The margins
of the Oriental village community extend only so far as a man
can travel on foot or by slow-moving animal in the routine Of
his daily activities . Likewise the trade area Of the p re-motor
‘
village in America was described in terms of the “
team haul ”
the distance that a settler could conveniently go to market by \.
wagon and return tohis home within the working day. The limitsOf the p re-motor city in America and in Europe were defined by
the local systems of steam and electric rail transportation. Beyond
[ 69 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
the area accessible to these mechanical forms Of local transportation lay the city ’s hinterland, an area bound to the city bycertain economic ties but having little contact with the localinstitutions and life Of the city .
The coming of the motor vehicle and the paved highway, theexpansion Of the press and other agencies Of communication havebrought the city and its hinterland into a closer functional
relation. The institutional division of labor which formerly
characterized the inner life of the city has been extended to
include a wide range Of surrounding settlement, effecting whatalmost amounts to a revolution in the pattern Of local relations .
This new type Of multiple-center community is what is meant
by theterm metropolitan, or city, region.
THE METROPOLI TAN COMMU NI TY AS A FUNCTI ONAL ENTI TY
The metropolitan region thus considered 15 primarily a func
tional entity . Geographically it extends as far as the city exertsa dominant influence . I t i s essentially an expanded pattern
Of local communal life based uponmotor transportation . Structu r
ally this newmetropolitan regionalism is axiate in form . The basicelements Of its pattern are centers, routes, and rims . The metro
politan region represents a constellation of centers, theinterrelations Of which are characterized by dominance and
subordination . Every region is organized around a central city or
focal point Of domlnance InWhich are located the institutions andservices that cater to the region as a whole and integrate it with
other regions . The business subcenters are rarely complete in
their institutional or service structure . They depend upon themain center for the more specialized and integrating functions .
The econom ic unity Of the modern city region is primarily
the outcome Of the transformation that has taken place in thefield Of local marketing . The new communications have enabled
the city to extend its commercial services over an expanded area
Of adjacent settlement, and at the same time they have"
afforded
the population and products Of the hinterland more direct and
immediate contacts with the city institutions and markets .
This increasing directness of relation between the city and its
hinterland has greatly enhanced the economic compactness and
mutual interdependence Of the different units of settlement which
comprise the metropolitan region.
70 l
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
the Bureau Of the Census on the basis Of density, represent only theinner core Of the real metropolitan regions . Moreover, the placeslisted are only those which are incorporated as separate munici
p alities . Were it possible to include the unincorporated centers ,many Of which are more important than some of the incorporatedones, the number of places in these 1 1 metropolitan constellations
would be greatly augmented .
TAB LE 30 ,
— INCORPORATED PLACE S OF SPECIFIED SIZE IN SELECTEDMETROPOLITAN DISTRICTS, 1930a
Size of place
Less thanto
to
to
to
and over
n
Total 272 135 92 80
a U.S. Census, 1980, Metr0 politan Districts, compiled from Table B for each district.
I N TERDEPEN DEN CE OF PARTS
The very fact Of a pyramid Of numbers suggests interdepend
ence of relationship . I n general, the degree of specialization of
function tends to vary directly with the size Of the community.
This may be illustrated with respect to retail services by datasecured in a recent study Of retail outlets in Texas . The lines Of
merchandise found in specialized stores were checked accordingto the size Of the community in which the various kinds of storebegan to appear . The results Of these Observations are presentedin Table 31 .
Although specialization Of function tends to increase with thesize Of the community, size is not the only factor involved .
Within the orbit Of a large city ’
s influence, the degree of a com
munity’
s specialization of function bears little relation to thenumber of its inhabitants . Distance from the metropolis and typeOf population, in terms Of income and occupation, are more
important than size in determining the character of a suburban
center’
s institutions . From data furnished by the 1930 census Of
[ 72 ]
E CONOM I C AND SOC I AL UN I T Y
TABLE 3 l .—SPECIALIZATION OF RETAIL FUNCTION AS REPRESENTED BY THE
TYPE S OF STORE FOUND IN VARIOUS SIZED COMMUNITIES IN THE STATE OF
TEXAS, 1929“
Types of stores
Men and women'
s apparel and dry goodsHardware, furniture, and undertaking .
Meats and groceries
Hardware .
House furnishings (incomplete lines )Women
’
s apparel (without shoes)Jewelry (with musical instruments or optometrist service)Hats and dressmakingMen and women
’
s apparel (incomplete lines) .Music stores .
M en apparel .Furniture, new and secondhandMen and women
’
s shoes and hosieryMen and women
’
s shoesWomen
'
s shoes and hosieryWomen
’
s hats .
Women’
s shoes .
Men’
s shoes .
Men’
s hats
5 William J. Reilly, 'Methods for the Study of Retail Relationships, University of Texas
Bulletin, No. 2944, November 22, 1929, p . 26.
retail distribution, it is possible to show something Of thenature of the specialization Of retail function in the variouscommunities that surround a metropolitan center .
Accordingly , the satellite cities 1 Of two large metropOlises,
Chicago and Los Angeles, have been grouped in each case in
concentric zones according to distance from the business centerOf the main city, and selected retail factors— persons p er store ,
total net sales p er capita , net sales p er capita Of food, general
merchandise, and wearing apparel— have been a veraged for thecities located within each zone . By comparing the figures for thedifferent zones, the importance Of the factor Of distance becomes
apparent . In neither of the metropolitan areas is there any
correlation between the size of the satellite community and the
1 As data are not furnished in the census of retail distribution for incorporated p laces Of less than inhabitants, smaller p laces are not included inthese tabulations.
[ 73 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
retail functions it performs .
2 There is, however, a general correla
tion, as indicated in Table 32, between the‘retail services of sub
urban communities and distance from the central city .
TABLE 32 .
— RETAIL SALES DATA FOR CITIES OF POPULATION AND OVERIN Two METROPOLITAN REGIONS- CHICAGO AND LOS ANGE LE S,
1930“
(Surrounding cities are grouped by concentric zones according to distance from the metropolis)
Net sales per capitaNumber
Chicago only 77 $638 8126
Los Angeles only 788 81 14
U.S. Census of Distribution, 1930, preliminary figures on Retai l Trade.
The greater dependency upon the main center Of the com
munities located in Zone I is clearly reflected by the statistics
in Table 32 . With respect to each Of the factors in this tablenamely, persons p er store, total net sales p er capita , a nd net
sales p er capita Of food, general merchandise, and wearing
apparel— the cities in Zone I , in both the Chicago and Los Angeles
areas, show a distinct difference in retail structure from their
respective central cities'
and also from the groups Of cities in thetwo outlying zones . I n certain respects , the cities in Zone IIwhen compared with those in Zones I and III reflect a s omewhat
intermediate type Of commercial structure .
The territorial differentiation Of retail function between thecentral cities and their suburbs is apparent . The satellite cities
show higher p er capita sales in the primary services (food group)than do the central cities, whereas in the more specialized retail
2 See detailed Tables I I I and IV in the App endix .
74 l
E CONOM I C AND SOC I AL UN I T Y
functions, represented by the general-merchandise and wearing
apparel groups, the situation is reversed .
The Bureau of the Census has taken cognizance of this fact
of territorial differentiation of retail function and has compiledthe data for central cities and their suburbs within metropolitan
areas . The percentage distribution of all retail sales, by main
classes of business, are given in Table 33 for the San Franciscoand Los Angeles areas .
TABLE 33 .— PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RETAIL SALE S BY MAIN GROUPS
OF BUSINESS IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND Los ANGE LE S AREAS, 1929“
Business group
FoodAutomotiveGeneral merchandiseApparelLumber and buildingFurniture and householdRe staurant and eating
All other stores .
Secondhand
U.S. Census of Distribution, 1930. preliminary figures on Retail Trade, California. pp . 15—17.
A close inspection of this table will disclose certain character
istics of intercommunity division of labor . I n both areas, thepercentage of sales in the food group is notably higher in thesurrounding cities than in the main cities . This applies also to
the automotive and lumber groups . On the other hand , thepercentage of sales in the clothing groups— general merchandise
and wearing apparel— and in the restaurant group is considerablyhigher in the main cities than in the surrounding communities .
The averaging of data for groups of suburban communities
tends to cancel many of the important individual differences .
The range of variation in different retail functions for the variouscities summarized in Table 32 is shown in detail in Tables IIIand IV in. the Appendix. I t is interesting to note that cities
located within the first 20 miles of the business center of the75 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
main city show wider individual differences in retail function
than do cities in the more distant zones . This is indicated by
the fact that the average deviations from‘ the mean of selected
retail functions3 for the cities located within the first zone sur
rounding Chicago and Los Angeles are notably higher than those
in either of the outlying zones . I n other words, specialization
of function is more pronounced in near-by suburbs than in more
remote communities .
That population type is also an important factor in deter
m ining the commercial structure of suburban communities is
indicated by the fact that the industrial suburbs around Chicago,
when compared with residential suburbs of similar size, show in
practically every instance a higher ratio of stores to population,
lower p er capita net sales, and a lower proportion of total retail
sales in the food group . I n general, the “ data seem to indicate
that the industrial suburb is more complete in its service structure
for the needs of its local population than is the residential suburb ;the latter relies more upon theinstitutions of the central city.
THE GRADI ENT CHARACTER OF A CI TY ’
S I NFLUENCE
The foregoing data seem to warrant the general conclusionthat the influence of a large city over surrounding settlement
tends to wane with distance outward . This gradient pattern of a
city ’
s influence may be illustrated by many different series of
social statistics . That it pertains to wholesale as well as to retail
function, though on a more extended scale, is indicated in
Table 34 .
The home addresses of merchants who visited Chicago wholesale establishments during a nine-month period in 1930 are
tabulated by distance from that city . The tendency for the numbers to decline as distance from Chicago increases is apparent .
Here also, however , factors other than distance are involved . A
considerably smaller proportion of the buyers comes from theterritory lying east of Chicago, in which competition from otherwholesaling centers is pronounced , than comes from territory to
the west and the north .
Even in financial function, where distance would seemingly
have less weight, there is evidence of the regional character of a
3 See Tables I I I and IVin the App endix .
76 l
E CONOM I C AND SOC I AL UN I T Y
TABLE 34 .— OUT-OF-TOWN MERCHANDISE BUYERS WHO VISITED CHICAGO
WHOLESALERS, JANUARY 1 To OCTOBER 1 , 1930 , BY DISTANCE OF HOME
ADDRESS FROM CH I CAGOa
‘1 Merchandise Buyers' Visits to Chicago listed in the Chicago Tri bune, January 1 to October 1 ,1930 , Bu lletin from the Business Survey, No. 293, December, 1930 . (M imeographed sheets for theuse of Tri bune staff . )5 Includes only those buyers who registered at the Tri bune office, and is, therefore, by no means
a complete list of all buyers.
city’
s influence . I n the course of a study made a few years ago by
the Bureau of Business Research in the University of Illinois
concerning Chicago as a money market, data were obtained
which showed the distribution of domestic banking points main
taining correspondent relations with Chicago and N ew York City‘
banks . I t was found that “ location more than any other factor
appears to determine the distribution of banks which name
banks in Chicago and N ew York as correspondents, and location
is a somewhat more important factor in the case of the Chicagobanks than in that of the N ew York banks .
”4
The proportions of all banking points located within concen
tric circles drawn at 400-mile intervals from Chicago whichreported at least one Chicago bank correspondent are shown in
Table 35 .
The proportion of towns having correspondent relations with
Chicago banks is quite obviously influenced by distance, at
least out to the -mile circle. The tendency for the ratio of
contacts to rise in Zones IV and V, that is , in Mountain and
Pacific Coast territory, is due to the fact that relatively large
centers constitute a higher proportion of the banking points inthese areas, and of course the larger centers tend to maintainmore distant
'
banking affiliations than do smaller ones . I n other
4 Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Business Adminis
tration,
“An Analysis of Bankers
’
Balances in Chicago,
”Universi ty of I llinois
Bu lletin, Vol . XXVI , N o . 10, November 19, 1928, p . 15 .
[ 77 ]
TH E ME TROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
TABLE 35 .— BANK1N G TOWN S WITH AT LEAST ONE CHICAGO BANK
CORRESPONDENT, BY DISTANCE FROM CHICAGO, 1927'l
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
a Bureau of Business Re search, College of Commerce and Business Administration, An Analysisof Bankers’ Balances in Chicago University of I llinoi s Bulletin, Vol . XXVI , No. 10. November19, 1928, p. 15 .
b This zone has been divided by the authors of this study into western and eastern halves ; thedividing line being roughly the M ississippi-Alabama boundary line. The figures in the table are
for the western half only. The eastern half of this area between the 400 and BOO-mile circlespossesses banking points of which only per cent have direct Chicago bank connections.This is the region tributary to New York. and is the area in which its banks have the greatestinfluence.
”
(P.
The three Pacific states, Washington, Oregon, California.
words, the factor of metropolitan interrelations has entered to
counteract that of distance.
THE I NDU STRI AL B AS I S OF METROPOLI TAN RE GIONALI SM
Lest it may seem that overstress has been placed upon com
merce as a factor In givmg economic cohesion to the metropolitan
region, attention will now be directed briefly to the role of thebasic industries . I t is generally recognized that manufactures,as Gras pointed out some time ago, have played an importantrOle in the development of the modern metropolitan community .
Years before the advent of motor transportation, industrial
plants of various types appeared around the margins of many of
our larger cities, giving rise to industrial satellite communities
that maintained close financial and m arketing contact with thecentral city. The territorial arrangement of such plants, determined largely by the region
’
s transportation structure— rail and
water— furnished the main outlines of local demographicpatterning. Such industrial complexes, however, appeared only around
the few cities most favorably located with respect to sources
of power and raw materials . But in recent years, manufac
turing establishments, frequently on a small unit scale, have
arisen within or around the confines of every large city in thenation.
[ 78 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
tural resources6 and to have effected more sensitive space and
time relations between the local producer and the market. Milk,fresh fruits, and vegetables produced within the trucking radiusof any large city are transported by truck, and to a less extent by
rail , direct from the producer to the city market, timed to arrivefor early morning distribution or in accordance with the time
peculiarities of the market concerned .
The general effect of the increasing flexibility of local trans
p ortation facilities and directness of marketing practice seems
to be to tighten up the city’
s local produce supply areas and to
effect more economic compactness . This tendency is indicated
by E . A . Duddy’
s investigation of the supply area of the Chicagolivestock market, the results of which he summari z es as follows :
I t might truthfu lly be said for all sp ecies that the tendency of ship p ershas been to seek the market closest to them. This may be attributed inp art to a relatively highfreight tariff, to the increased mileage of hardroads withresulting increase in the use of motor trucks, and to theaggressive comp etition of local packing p lants . The net cflect of thistendency, if the,
same forces continue to op erate, must be to make thesup p ly area of comp eting markets more comp act.
7
Mr . B uddy’
s conclusion regarding the supply area of livestock
may reasonably be supposed to apply in varying degree to otherforms of agricultural production, particularly to truck gardening,dairy products , and fruit . The development of these forms of
agriculture not only within the trucking radius of the large6 I n many p laces, notably around Anna, Centralia, and Olney, I ll ., and
Oaktown, Vincennes, and Mount Vernon, I nd ., the u se of the truck has madep eachgrowing more p rofitable. Overrip es, N o . 2 grade, and culls, sell at a goodp rice at the farm and sometimes first-grade fru it is sold at ahigher p rice at thefarm than at some distant market. A number of the growers in these localitiesstated that theyhad increased their p roduction of peaches as a result of the service of motor trucks .
I ncreased p rofits due to sales to truckmen and a resulting tendency to
increase ap p le p roduction were rep orted at Laurel, Orleans, and Oaktown, Ind .,
and Olney, Flora, Anna, Centralia, and Qu incy, I ll.New p roduction directly attributed to the u se of the motor truck includes
early tomatoes and small fru its in the Vincennes district and at Brownstown,
I nd . A tendency to increase strawberry p roduction in the Egypt district of I llinois,and cantaloupes and watermelons at West N ew York, I ll ., was rep orted.
The important p roduction of mixed vegetables near Terre Haute hasincreased withthe extensive u se of the motor truck in supp lying distant mar
kets. Brice Edwards, Motor-truck Transp ortation of Fru its and VegetablesSouthern I ndiana and Southern I llinois, 1928 Crop , (U .S . Dep artment of Agri
culture) February,1930 , p p . 7—8 .
7 E . A . Duddy, The Supp ly Area of the ChicagoLivestockMarket, 1931 , p . 85 .
[ 80 ]
E CONOM I C AND SOC I AL UN I T Y
marketing centers but in favorable locations throughout thecountry has been one of the most conspicuous trends in recent
agriculture.
SUMM ARY
Generalizing, it may be said that the economic unity of themetropolitan region is based upon a pattern of economic relationscharacterized by territorial differentiation and specialization of
parts which are functionally integrated in a sensitive balance of
space and time relations . The tendency seems to be toward
greater specialization of the differentiated parts accompanied
by amore sensitive gearing of the temporal relations . Inasmuch as
distance is an important factor in the time and cost of reaching
the market, the intensity of local relations tends to decline with
distance from the main center of activity .
REORGANI ZATION OF S OCI AL ACTI V I TI ES WI THI NTHE METROPOLI TAN COMMUNI TY
Data are not available by which to measure accurately thetrend of social relations within the metropolitan community .
But_
inasmuchas communication is a sine qua non of corporate
social action, facts bearing on recent developments in this field
may be used as indicators of the expansion of the social horizon
of the local community .
Two important aspects of the recent developments in com
munications are pertinent in this regard ; (1) their utilization
is more pronounced within the local area than between more
distant points ; and (2) the radius of daily activities has beenextended several fold over that of a few decades ago . I n this
regard, the recent developments in communications have had a
somewhat different application from those which arose in thenineteenth century . Whereas the railway and the telegraph wereprimarily long-distance agencies of contact, the motor vehicle
and the telephone, despite their extended application, are chiefly
used within the orbit of daily local relations . The airplane and
the radio, of still more recent origin, have initiated a second
revolution in the field of distant contacts, the real significance
of which is as yet more or less a matter of speculation .
From the various surveys of motor traffic made by govern
mental and local agencies, the evidence is overwhelming thatthe motor vehicle is primarily a short-distance agency of trans
[ 81 1
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
portation. I n spite of the rapid development of surfaced highways
and the increasing speed of driving, both of which tend to increasetouring and intercity travel, the great bulk of motor traffic is
confined to the orbit of the local area, that is, within a radius of
40 miles or less . This, as Willey and Rice‘
have pointed out,
served to multiply contacts within the community “out of
proportion to contacts at a distance .
”8
I n agencies of communication, likewise, the trend in recent
development has been toward greater intensification of u se
within the local region rather than over the nation in general .
Summarizing the results of their statistical investigation of thevarious agencies of point-to-point communication, namely thepost, telephone, telegraph and cable, Willey and Rice say
Three net imp ressions are left (1) Therehas been a strikingincrease in the frequencyof all p oint-to-point communications, bothlocaland nonlocal . (2) The frequency of local contacts is greater than that ofnonlocal contacts, p rimarily because of the habitual util iz ation of thetelephone. (3) Relatively, the frequency of local communications hasincreased even more rap idly than has the frequency of nonlocal . Theareas of contacthave been exp anding, the p oint-to-
p oint channelshavelengthened and their u sehas increased ; bu t all the while the imp ingements of the local community up on the individual have mu ltip lied witheven greater rap idity— an observation that also develop ed from theconsideration of transp ortation agencies and travel habits .
I t is not imp robable that this intensification of local contactsp lays a part in the p reservation and even in the enhancement of localp atterns of attitude, hab it, and behavior, and serves as an inhibitor ofthe p rocess of cu ltural leveling whichis so often assumed as an out
standing and unopp osed tendency of American life.9
The new developments in transportation and communication
have not only intensified local contacts but have extended theterritorial sphere of their operations . The automobile has increased the radius of local activities from five to ten times thatwhich prevailed under the régime of the horse-drawn vehicle.
Likewise the territorial range of local agencies of communication,
notably the telephone and daily press, has expanded com
3 See U.S . Bureau of Public Roads, State Surveys of Motor Traffic for theStates of New Hamp shire Ohio Vermont Pennsylvania
and the more extensive survey in 1 1 western states The dataobtained in these surveys have been analyz ed by Malcolm M . Willey and
Stuart A. Rice and p resented in summary form in Chap ter IVof Recent Social
Trends, 1933 .
9Malcolm M . Willey and Stuart A. Rice, Communication Agencies and
Social Life, 1933, pp . 153—154 .
[ 82 ]
E CONOM I C AND SOC I AL UN IT Y
mensurately. The intensity of u se of each of these agencies of
local contact, however, tends to decline with distance from thefocal center . That this applies to motor traffic is shown on pages
87 and 88 of this report . That it pertains to newspaper and
telephone media of communication is indicated by Table 36 .
TABLE 36.— NUMBER OF DETROIT DAILY PAPERS CIRCULATED AN D NUMBER
OF TOLL TELEPHONE CALLS PER 100 RESIDENTS OF TOWNS AND CITIES OFOR MORE LOCATED WITHIN SPECIFIED CONCENTRIC ZONES
SURROUNDING THE CITY OF DETROIT, 1931
Newsp ap ersa Toll telephone calls”
0 Compiled by Kenneth McGill, University of M ichigan, fromdata obtained from the Audi t
Bureau of Circulation Reports for the year 1931. These reports do not give the circu lation figuresfor a city or town unless it receives at least 25 copies daily of the newspaper in question. The papersconsidered were the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News, and the Detroi t Times. Compare R. E .
Park, Urbanization as M easured by Newspaper Circulation, American Journal of Sociology,Vol. XXXV, NO. 1 , Ju ly, 1929, p. 62.
5 Compiled by Kenneth McGill from data supplied by the courtesy of the M ichigan Bell Telephone Company, Detroit. Toll-call figures represent totals for a period of 21 days in August, 1981 .
The intensity of the city ’
s social relations with surroundingsettlement, as reflected by statistics pertaining to the variousagencies of local contact, tends to diminish as distance from thecity increases . I n this respect, the pattern of social contacts
seems to correspond to that of the commercial functions already
described . But the territorial scope of the social community,like that of the commercial community, does not extend in thesymmetrical fashion suggested by the data in Table 36 . Thecontraction of spatial distance resulting from the new agencies of
contact makes possible a wider selection of social relations and
thereby increases the complexity of social organization . Spatial
distance under modern conditions bears little relation to social
distance. Physically adjacent population groups may be interrelated in an economic or symbiotic manner and yet live in vastly
different social worlds . The increasing fluidity of the metropolitan
community seems to tend toward a local leveling of culture, butat the same time it seems to encourage a system of socialstratification.
CHAPTER VII
MARGINS OF THE METROPOLITANCOMMUNITY
HE central city casts its influence over the surrounding
settlement in the form of traffic zones . The margins of move
ment, determined by distance and competition, tend to delimit theareas of the “
natural ” community . The boundaries, of course,
are seldom definite, stable lines which can be shown on a map .
They are rather, as already indicated , zones of diminishing in
fluence which vary with changing conditions of transportation
and competition.
Two terms have come into common usage to designate zones of
communal influence : (1) metropolitan area ; and (2) trade area .
The term “
metropolitan area” has come to signify the territory
in which the daily economic and social activities of the localpopulation are carried on through a common system of local
institutions . I t is essentially the commutation area of the centralcity and tends to correspond to the “ built-up
”area in which
public services such as water, light, sanitation, and power become
common problems .
The second concept, trade area, is used to designate a more
extended territory _of city influence
-“
I t is difficult to define in
abstract terms . For practical purposes, however, a city ’
s trade
area may be defined in the words of John W. Pole, Comptrollerof the Currency, as
“
the surrounding geographical territory
economically tributary to a city and for which such city provides
the chief market and financial center .
” 1 Trade or marketing areas
are usually divided into two general classes : retail and wholesale.
Within each class there are obvious variations of territory fordifferent types of service .
TREND IN THE S I ZE OF THE METROPOLI TAN ARE A
For the few cities having rail commutation service, it is possible
to obtain a rather definite conception of the trend in the size of the
United States Dai ly, January 3, 1931 .
l 84 l
MAR G I N S
metropolitan area . The following summary of commutation
traffic for the country as a Whole suggests that the metropolitan
areas . of the rapid-transit cities have probably changed butlittle during the decade, except so far as the motor car may have
extended the rail commutation service.
TABLE 37.— RAILROAD COMMUTATION TRAFFIC, 1922—1930a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 I nterstate Commerce Commission, Statistics of Rai lways in the United States, 1930 .
bFigures for 193 1 are preliminary and subject to revision.
Most of the commutation travel is concentrated around four
cities : N ew York, Chicago, Philadelphia , and Boston . That there
has been considerable change in the volume of commutation
traffic for the different lines entering these cities is indicated by
the following statistics
TABLE 38.
— STEAM RAILROAD COMMUTATION TRAFFIC FOR SELECTED LINES,1922- 1930“
Revenue passengers carried(in thousands)
Long I slandPennsylvaniaNew York CentralNew York, N ew Haven HartfordI llinois CentralDelaware, Lackawanna Western
Erie
Chicago NorthWestern
Boston Maine
Central of New Jersey .
0 Files of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
0 Part of this increase is due to a change in the policy of the company in the classification of
short-distance trafi c.
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
Unfortunately, it is impossible to indicate the trend in thelength of the commutation journey for these different lines . Thefollowing data, however, compiled in the Regional Survey of
N ew York and I ts Environs from the records of the Long IslandRailroad, suggest that on some lines there has been an actual
decline in recent years in the proportion of the longer commutation journeys .
TABLE 39.
— PERCENTAGE OF COMMUTATION TICKETS SOLD BY LONG I SLANDRAILROAD IN COMMUTING ZONE S, 1922 AND 1927“
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
a Regional Survey of New York and I ts Environs, Vol. I I , Popu lation, Land Values and Government, 1 29, n. 127.
Commutation distance is measured in terms of cost and time,
especially time ; and since, in recent years, only a few railwayshave made substantial developments in speed, at least in local
traffic , the outer margins of the rail-commuting territory of therapid-transit cities have probably not expanded much since 1920 .
The greatest transformation in metropolitan areas in the lasttwo decades pertains to the host of cities that depend upon themotor vehicle as their only means of rapid transit. The motor
car and the paved highways have provided the smaller cities
with transportation facilities equal , if not superior , to those of
the rail systems of the rapid-transit cities . There are no com
prehensive statistics available relating to the u se of the motor
vehicle as an agency of metropolitan transportation. Variouscities, however , make counts from time to time of motor traffic
“
along their leading streets and arterial highways . Such countsinvariably show a rapid diminishing of the volume of traffic
with distance from the main business center .
The data compiled by the Detroit Rapid Transit Commissionfrom traffic counts made by theMichigan State Highway Department and the city of Detroit may serve to illustrate the generalpattern of motor traffic relating to a large metropolitan center .
These counts were taken for a 24-hour period (November,at five-mile intervals along the five main arterial highways lead
[ 86 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
mile circle, then somewhat more slowly until the 40-mile circleis reached, where it begins to rise again, owing, undoubtedly, to
the diversion of traffic to other cities . Although the data refer toall forms of motor traffic without regard to type or destination,
the proportion of private automobiles2 is sufficiently great to
warrant the conclusion that the“
40-mile circle, the point of lowestvolume, approximates the outer margin of the motor commuta
tion area .
TRENDS IN THE S I ZE OF THE TRADE ARE A
Important changes are taking place in themarketing territories
of most cities . The retail shopping areas of the larger cities, as
measured by the daily free delivery service of central stores,have expanded greatly in recent years . I t has become common
practice for the larger stores throughout the nation to deliver
their merchandise regularly within a radius of 30 to 50 miles .
City department stores report not only an extension of their
delivery systems since 1920 , but also an increasing volume of
trade from outlying territory . Some stores provide free telephoneservice to their suburban customers and some rebate fares,depending on distance traveled and volume of purchase . Theoutward movement of the higher economic elements of thepopulation has been an important factor in the extension of
market areas of department stores . Several stores report a falling
Off of business within the inner zones ; others report that thevolume of the close-in businesshas been maintained largely as a
result of the increase in the hotel and large-apartment trade .
3
The expansion of the delivery territory of the large central
stores does not imply that the city ’
s trade area is merely a
magnified reproduction of that of the small town . I t representsrather the tendency toward division of labor among the variouscenters located within shopping access of a large city. Thesmall town is yielding many of its more specialized services tothe city while, in turn, it is acquiring new services such as thechain store and the motion-picture theater . The city ’
s retailtrade area comprises the territory from which patrons come to
2 I n a 7-hour count of traffic made November 26, 1932, under the sup ervision
of KennethMcG ill, University of M ichigan, on Detroithighways— count madeon U .S . 10 , in Royal Oak, on U .S . 25 , at Fort Street, and on U .S . 1 12 in
Dearborn— passenger-car traffic composed per cent of the total .
3 Based on returns of a questionnaire sent to a selected list of department
stores.
[ 88 ]
MAR G I N S
purchase style or other specialized merchandise in centrallylocated stores . The increasing importance of style and fashion
is a factor in the expansion of the retail market territory of thelarge city .
TREND I N WHOLES ALE TRADE ARE AS
Perhap s the most significant changes that have taken p lace in d istribution in the last decade have been in the field of wholesaling. For
merly the typ ical wholesaler carried a Wide assortment of everything inhis general commodity line whichretailers needed, althoughthere weresp ecialty wholesalers who carried a smaller assortment, in some cases
confined to a single line . The shifting of retail trade toward the largercenters has tended to reduce the small-town retailer market and to
increase the exp ense of selling to it.
The general trend in wholesaling seems to be toward concen
tration and specialization . The small city, especially if located
within convenient trucking distance of a larger place, is losing
to the latter most of its wholesaling business . On the other hand ,many of the more remotely located small cities seem to be
extending their wholesaling activities since the coming of themotor truck and the growing practice of hand-to-mouth buying.
Here; as inretailing, there is Obviously a trend toward inter
community -division of labor . The more specialized lines of
wholesale merchandising seem to be concentrating in fewer
jobbing centers as evidenced by the 1930 census of wholesale
distribution (see Chapter V) . On the other hand , staples are
wholesaled through regional warehouse centers distributedrather widely throughout the nation .
Perhaps the general tendency in wholesaling is fairly describedby the practice of jobbers and department stores in the GulfSouthwest . According to a recent survey of this region made
by the United States Department of Commerce, it was observedthat local jobbers were tending to reduce marketing areas .
that 39 jobbers out of the 72 interviewed recorded some change inthe territory covered in the p ast five years . Twenty-eight of these firms
reduced the territory covered, while 1 1 exp anded their op erations .
Most of the hou ses that reduced their territory did so becau se theybelieved that the farther away they got the p oorer the character of thebusiness they received , owing to the comp etition of other local hou ses,and that securing bu siness under these conditions amounted to buying
4 U .S . Department of Commerce, Domestic Commerce, Vol . 7, NO. 18, June 20,1931 , p . 199.
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
out comp etition. I n contrast, it is interesting to note that threehou ses that exp anded their territory claimed that the op ening of goodroads had made it p ossible to send their salesmen farther Without an
app reciable increase in traveling exp ense and that the increased volume
of bu siness secured more than warranted the increase in territory.
5
While these facts denote a tendency toward contraction and
more intensive coverage of territory on the part of local jobbers,the same survey revealed that the leading retailers in the GulfSouthwest region did their specialty buying in distant cities .
I n the group of stores with net sales of over a year, all
maintain their resident buying Ofli ces in N ew York . One of the stores
located in Memphis maintained a resident buying Office in both N ew
York and Chicago .
6
I n view of such overlapping of wholesale marketing territor ies ,it is obviously impossible to establish a line or zone around a city
that will adequately circumscribe all of its wholesale activities .
A general conception, however, may be obtained of the most
concentrated part of a city’
s wholesale-market territory by noting
the local territory covered by the trucks of city warehouses andparticularly those of chain establishments .
The truck, like the private automobile, is primarily a shorthaul agency of transportation . And , like the automobile, it is
ordinarily owner-operated , rather than a common carrier .
’ To
the extent , therefore, that the motor truck is used as a conveyer
of local freight, the radius of its operations may be taken as a
measure of local marketing territory . I t has become common
practice for chains and other organizations that buy in largequantities to have the merchandise shipped in carload lots from
the factories to regional warehousing centers , whence it is
trucked out to retailing outlets in surrounding territory . Many5 Edward F. Gerish(U .S . Dep artment of Commerce) , Distri bution of Dry
Goods in the Gu lf Southwest, Domestic Commerce Series, No. 43, 1931, pp . 6—9.
6 I bid ., p . 1 12 .
7 The Bu reau of Public Roads, U .S . Dep artment of Agriculture, in its traflic
surveys has classified trucks into three group s as follows : ‘When load and truckwere owned by the same agency, it was classified as owner op erated. Trucks
op erating forhire over a fixed route, on regular schedule and at p ublic rates, wereclassified as common carriers. Those op erating essentially as common carriers
but not over fixed routes or up on fixed schedules, and those op erating underhau ling agreement witha few agencies, were termed contract haulers . Takingthe total number of trucks so classified as 100 p er cent, the p roportion in eachofthe three classes defined above was : owner op erated, p er cent ; contract
hau lers, p er cent ; common carriers, p er cent.
’
Report of a Survey of Trafi‘ic
on the Federal-aid Highway Systems of Eleven Western States,1930 , p . 29.
[ 90 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
population either for consumption there or for transshipment to
other cities . The Bureau of Railway Economics reports :
All of the lemons unloaded at Los Angeles were received by tru ck .
Of the oranges unloaded, p er cent were received by truck ; of thestrawberries p er cent ; tomatoes, p er cent ; grap es, p er
cent ; celery, p er cent ; p lums and p runes, p er cent ; cabbage,p er cent ; grap e fru it, p er cent ; p eaches, p er cent ; canta
loup es, p er cent ; lettuce, p er cent ; and sweet p otatoes,
p er cent . Rail unloads exceeded tru ck unloads at Los_
Angeles for 5 of
the 18 commodities . Of the comb ined rail and truck receip ts of app les,p er cent were received by rail ; white p otatoes, p er cent ;
watermelons, p er cent ; p ears, p er cent ; and onions, p er
cent.
9
Trucking Radius .— As to the actual extent of the trucking
radius of agricultural products there is but little authentic
information . There is no doubt, however, that the radius of thetruck haul has increased noticeably within the last few years .
Obviously certain types of agricultural products are hauled
longer distances than others . Apparently livestock is hauled by
truck for longer distances than most other forms of agricultural
products . The following summary of information pertaining to
the trucking radius and its extension in recent years appears in a
publication issued by Armour and Company , Union Stock
Yards, Chicago :
I n the beginning most trucking was within the 25 to 50-mile radius,and it has now gradually been extended until 200 and 250-mile hau lsare relatively common in livestock movement, while in the movement
of foods and general commodities in whichp art of the truck’s load iseither sold or delivered, 100 miles more nearly rep resents the maximum
movement. However, some research has been made into this su bjectand the resu lts are p resented as followsThe Corn Belt Farm Dailies, in a study made on livestockhau led by
trucks in 1929, show the length of hau l varying from 1 to 300 miles and
the average hau l 50 miles. The Ohio Exp eriment Station rep orts thatlivestock was tru cked greater distances in 1928 than in p receding years .
For p u rposes of their analysis, truck receip ts at Cleveland and Cin
cinnati were considered for the years 1922, 1927, and 1928 . A smallvolume only had come more than 80 miles to either of these cities, thelargest p ercentage originating between 20 and 60 miles of these markets.
The numbers received from the 50 to 70-mile z ones showed excep tional
9 Bureau of Railway Economics, Unloads of FreshFruits and Vegetables atSixty-six Imp ortant Consuming Markets in the United States,” Bu lletin, No . 39,
October, 1930, p . 11 .
[ 92 ]
MAR G I N S
growth, however . Hogs and sheep esp ecially showed great increases inthe number being trucked for distances greater than 70 miles.
The MeredithPublishing Comp any, in its market analysis touchingon this subject, reports several estimates made by stockyards comp aniesand p rivate p acking companies . Their conclusion is that a 75-mileradius would be a fair one to choose to be ap p lied to most markets .
The Kansas City Stock Yards Comp any rep orted the bu lk of theirop erating within a 100-mile radiu s ; the Salt Lake Union Stock Yardsestimated a radiu s of 200 to 300 miles ; Milwaukee
’
s trucking is rep ortedas coming from a territory within a radiu s of 60 to 75 miles ; Omahareports its receip ts as coming from 10 to 100 miles, and the Los AngelesUnion Stock Yards Comp any rep orted its truck receip ts as coming
generally from a radiu s of 200 miles and in some cases greater distances .
I n theWarren and Pearson stu dy the average miles p er roundtrip of the intercity truckers hauling p roduce to Albany was given as
103 miles ; Bu ffalo, 1 10 miles , Rochester, 134 miles, and Syracu se, 154miles . Syracu se figures showed 27 p er cent of its loads coming from the60 to 80-mile z one.
Trucking distances thu s seem to be regulated by the degree of settlement of the country and the distance of the p roducer from market. I t
seems obviou s that the bu lk of trucking is over distances less than100 miles in the East, but in the West the comparable range is nearer
250 miles.
10
What the effect of this extension of local marketing territory
is or will be in the development of economic regionalism is a mat
ter to be determined by further research . If the truck becomes
commonly employed as a two-way-haul agency of transportation,
it may tend to make the buying area of the city more closely
coincide with the selling area, in which event the city will become
still more intimately bound up with its local hinterland .
At the Chicago commercial truck terminals, officials estimate thattrucks coming from the fru it-growing districts of Michigan handletwo-thirds as muchtonnage of merchandise on their return hauls as
their intonnage during the fru it season and that ap p roximately two
fifths of the outgoing tonnage so handled consists of groceries and
p ackaged foodstu ffs . I t is their belief that the ratio of foodstu ffs in themerchandise fluctuates only slightly in total p rop ortion during the year,althoughthe typ es of foodstuffs moved vary considerably .
1 1
This is not cited as depicting a general practice in-
that only a
small proportion of all motor trucks at present are employed as
1° Armour’
s Livestock Bureau , The Motor Truck in the Food Industry,
Monthly Letter to Animal Husbandmen, Vol . XI , NO . 8, November, 1930 , p p .
15—16 .
1 1 I bid ., p . 3 .
93 l
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
commercial or common carriers . 12 I t may be taken, however , as
an illustration of a practice that may become more common in
the future, and , as it grows , the ties that bind the city to sur
rounding territory may be expected to increase accordingly.
Even more important than the extension of the direct market
ing area of regional products in the integration of the producerwith the central city are the recent developments in the businessorganization of the marketing of basic products . The last decadewitnessed a rapid growth of cooperative marketing, organized on
a regional basis . The general practice of such organization is to
maintain a central business office located in the most important
city of the region, with branches located at the leading subcentersround about . The central office conducts the business entailed inmarketing the product whether locally or inmore distantmarkets .
I n this capacity , it tends to orient local producers toward theregional center and thus makes for greater economic unity and
coordinated activity within the region .
13
M APPI NG OF AREAS OF FUNCTION
Much attention has been devoted in recent years to mapping
administrative and service areas of a city . Regional planningorganizations usually begin their activities by mapping what they
conceive to be the metropolitan area of the city , that is, theterritory in which the planning of local activities is conceivedas a common problem . I n the construction of these maps, such
factors as commutation, subdivision platting, and territory servedby_public utilities are invariably used as criteria for determining
the outer limits of the region .
The most comprehensive attempt made thus far to delimit themetropolitan territory on the basis of function was initiated bythe United States Chamber of Commerce in 1927 and recom
mended to the Bureau of the Census as a technique for delimitingmetropolitan districts in the 1930 census . A list of factors or
indices was compiled and sent to the various cities of the nationthat were considered as probable centers for census metropolitan
12 See footnote 7, p . 90 .
13 R. D . McKenz ie, Economic Succession in the Puget Sound Region,
Pap ers and Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual M eeting of the Ameri can
Sociological Society, Vol . XXXV, July, 1929. Here the p attern of marketing local
agricultural p roducts is graphically portrayed.
[ 94 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
to delimit city marketing territory is evidence of the growingawareness of the emergence of economic regionalism .
I n mapping city trade areas, the general practice is to beginwith the city as a focal point of activity and to determine theouter margins of its marketing territory on the basis of actual
sales experience and practice . Relative costs of transportationbetween the various outlying points and the city center are
usually used as factors in determining where the boundary lineshould be drawn between competing centers . Such boundary lines
obviously are mobile, varying with changes in transportation
facilities and with differentials in prices as between competing
markets .
Much of the present interest in the mapping of city marketareas may be attributed to the example set by the United StatesDepartment of Commerce in its regional studies of marketing
problems during the last six years . In 1927 this government
agency published an atlas of wholesale grocery territories 1 5 in
which are outlined the areas around each primary wholesale
center in which wholesale grocers delivered the major portion of
their merchandise . By combining “
the maps for these various
centers , a wholesale marketing area map of the nation was con
structed . I n subsequent studies, the Department of Commercehas developed a technique of delimiting not only wholesale butretail and financial areas of city function.
16
The simplest and most definite procedure for determining theterritory directly dominated by a particular city is to map thearea surrounding the city wherein its communications , especially
its daily newspapers, show more intensive coverage than do thosefrom competing metropolitan centers . Since the daily press depends largely upon local advertising and since ad rtisers are
concerned with the nature of the circulation as well as its volume,
the area covered by a city ’
s leading newspaper tends to coincide
15 U .S . Dep artment of Commerce, The Atlas of Wholesale Grocery Territori es ,Domestic Commerce Series, N o . 7, 1927. Among the non-government organi z a
tions that have comp iled data on trading areas the following should be notedThe International Magaz ine Comp any (Marketing Division) , N ew York ; TheJ .Walter Thomp son Comp any, NewYork ; The Editor and Publisher Comp any,
N ew York ; The Woman’
s World Magaz ine Comp any, Chicago ; Major Market
Newsp ap ers, I nc ., Chicago.
1 6 See Edward F . Gerish(U .S . Department of Commerce) , Distri bution of DryGoods in the Gu lf Southwest, Domestic Commerce Series, No . 43, 1931 ; EdwinBates (U .S . Dep artment of Commerce) , Commercial Survey of the Pacific Northwest, Domestic Commerce Series, No . 51 , 1932.
[ 96 ]
MAR G I N S
closely with the retail trading area of the city . I n an intensive
study made a feww
yeaI'S
-
ago of retailing practices in the towns andcities of Texas, it was found that newspaper circulation correlated
highly with the territory served by the store delivery services .
I n 41 9 smaller cities and towns newspaper circulation of largercities in those towns approximates within 5 p er cent accuracy
the'
p rop ortion of retail business which the larger cities enjoy in
those towns .
” 17
I n the following chapter , Park and Newcomb discuss in con
siderable detail the relation between city newspaper circulation
and metropolitan regionalism .
17William J. Reilly, Methods for the Study of Retail Relationship s . Uni‘
versity of Texas Bu lletin, N o. 2944, November, 1929, p . 17.
[ 97 1
CHAPTER VIII
NEWSPAPER CIRCULATION ANDMETROPOLITAN REGIONS I
S ANALYSIS will show, many characteristics of newspaper
circulation lend themselves to consideration when one is
concerned with the general topic of the metropolitan community
and regionalism. The newspaper is largely dependent on city
populations for its sale, and there is consequently a high degree
of correlation between circulation and urban concentration.
Newspapers in America are characteristically local and are not
distributed nationally, as are magazines of general literature and
journals of opinion . Hence, with two or three exceptions, 2 their
circulations are confined to the city and the tributary area in
which they are published . This is due in part to the early settle
ment of the country in a number of isolated regions . More gen
erally, however, the explanation lies in the establishment of thepenny newspaper in 1833 , with its emphasis on local news rather
than on opinion and foreign news . This development is distinctly
American and is quite removed from the European pattern even
today .
NEWS AS A COMMODI TY
The newspaper in Americahas gradually assumed the characterof a commodity, that is, something to be sold and distributed .
Similar though the newspaper is to other commodities, there
1 Prepared by R. E . Park and Charles Newcomb, University of Chicago . (Thisis an editorial abridgment of two chapters of Park and Newcomb ’s extensivestudy of newspap er circulation. The comp leted manu scrip t has not yet beenpublished.)
2 Excep tions are the United States Daily, p ublished inWashington, D . C ., theChristian Science Monitor, Boston, and the N ew York Times . Pap ers whichachieve a national distribution are ordinarily those that app eal to a p articular
class . The tendency of the American p ap ers has been to assume a form thatwould ap p eal to all classes within a relatively limited territory. This has beenachieved in p art by describing cu rrent events in sucha way as to emphasi z etheir human interest, giving to news something of the symbolic character of
literature. The same result has been accomp lished by departmentali z ing thenews in sucha way that there will be something for every class of readers .
[ 98 ]
lp
b
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
and the limits within which they circulate tend to coincide withthe trade area .
3 I t is the purpose of this section to examine thepattern of circulation of one group of metropolitan papers and
to note how, through competition with the local papers of theregion, the various types of trade areas are revealed . Beforeproceeding with the analysis, it is desirable to consider two or
three general points .
Limitations on Extent of Distribution.—The size of the trading
area within which any paper will circulate is determined primarily
by two factors : (1) the size of the town, city, or metropolitan
center in which it is published ; and (2) the proximity of other
competing centers of publication .
Thus Boston papers circulate widely over the whole of N ew
England , while the circulation limits of competing centers such
as Philadelphia , Baltimore, and N ew York”
are definitely re
stricted by their proximity to each other . And yet the very sizeof N ew York City assures her, papers a wide circulation even in
these adjacent competing centers, and , conversely, the relativelysmall sizes of
‘Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore operate torestrict the circulation of their papers in N ew York .
Another example is found in the Minneapolis-St. Paul papers ,where the circulation area to the northwest is limited only by
factors of time and space, while to the south and east it is narrowed by competition with Chicago papers .
M etropolitan and Local Papers — Similar influences are domi
nant in determining the areas of circulation of metropolitan and
local newspapers within a given region . Metropolitan papers
are defined as those published in the central city; and local papersas those published in the metropolitan region but outside thecorporate limits of the central city ; that is, in the suburban towns,the so-called “ satellite cities,
”and in that greater region outside
the immediate influence of the metropolis, but still more or lessdependent upon it, which may be described as the metropolitanhinterland .
Now, while it is true that metropolitan papers circulate in thesurrounding satellite centers in competition with local papers,the converse situation is rarely found to exist. N ew York City
papers circulate widely throughout the adjacent territory, bu tConnecticut and N ew Jersey papers do not circulate in N ew
3 See p . 97.
100
NEWS PA PE R C I R C ULAT ION
York. Similarly, Chicago papers circulate in Gary, Indiana, but
Gary papers do not circulate in Chicago, although they do com
pete with Chicago papers in territory suburban to Gary. Theextent to which a metropolitan paper circulates outside its
corporate limits in competition with a locally published paper
may be taken as an index of its dominance in that area . Con
versely, the number of copies published and circulated by a local
paper, in competition with a metropolitan paper, is an index of
the degree of its economic and cultural independence .
Occasionally it is found that a local paper is published within
the limits of a larger city . Such newspapers are limited in their
circulation to the particular quarter of the city or the particularelement of the population for which they are published . Such ,for example, are the foreign-language papers . There are, besides , a
number of local urban community papers published weekly for
the purpose of advertising the local merchants in different quar
ters of the metropolis . South Chicago has published for some
years a daily paper of its own, the Calumet.
I t is, however, difficu lt to maintain a daily newspaper in
competition with the more important metropolitan dailies within
50 miles of a metropolis and the difficulty increases as the means
of interurban transportation and communication tend to integrate
the metropolis with its suburban territory .
Organic Nature of the Trade Area — The correlation of
newspaper circulation and the limits of the trade area resolves
itself into two problems : (1) the metropolitan daily in the localtrade area ; and (2) the circulation and the outside limits of thetrade area . The first problem is most clearly indicated when
the circulations of the daily papers published in the Chicago area
are plotted on a map . The spatial pattern of distribution at once
reveals the organic relation of the functional units . This pattern
shows the whole region as a complex of local trading centers,which are also local publishing centers, each encircled by an area
in which its circulation dominates . The total circulation con
sumed by each small town is supplied by both the metropolisand the local trade center, and the ratio supplied by each dependsmainly on the distance of the town from its local trade center .
That is, the proportion of circulation from the local publishingcenter declines for each town as its distance from the centerincreases , and conversely the proportion of circulation from themetropolitan center increases . The solid lines in Figure 5 cn
101
TH E ME TROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
FIG . 5 .
— The Chicago region as defined by newspaper circulation and by rail
road ticket sales, 1930 .
[ 102 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
newspaper circulation . Chicago papers compete with local
publications most successfully in Evanston. Evanston, however ,is a residential suburb not differing except in size from some
of the residential areas Of Chicago and from a series of other
suburbs located along the line of rapid transit connecting Chicagoand Milwaukee . Waukegan, with the next largest proportion of
papers coming from Chicago, is also a residential community, butlying at a greater distance from themetropolitan center andhenceenjoying a life apart from that of the larger city .
1 The other five cities, however , appear less important as resi
ilential areas for persons employed in Chicago . Instead, a greaterproportion of their inhabitants are engaged in local industries
and commercial enterprises . Quite naturally they are less inte
grated with the central city, and , in fact, become centers of
their own suburban territory . The immediate result is that wherethere is not a large volume of daily commutation traffic between‘
the small city and Chicago, the circulation of papers from the”latter city drops off in proportion to local paper circulation . Thedaily commuter from Aurora is likely to buy a Chicago paper on
the way into the city in the morning and another in the evening
on the way out, but the noncommuter who does not have dailycontact with the large city ordinarily buys the newspaper pub
lished in the smaller center where he lives and trades . I t is alsonoted that only in the areas surrounding the industrial satellitesdo there appear communities taking no papers at all from themetropolitan center .
Further examination of Figure 5 reveals an open space between
the city limits of Chicago and the first towns taking any daily
newspapers from the satellite centers . This area is filled with an
almost contiguous mass of communities such as Des Plaines,Melrose Park, Maywood , Oak Park, Cicero, and Blue Island .
These communities are densely populated and are entirely de
pendent ou Chicago for their daily papers . Nearly all of theinterests of the people in these suburbs are centered in Chicago,
and hence it is to be expected that Chicago papers Would cir
culate to the exclusion of those from the smaller outlying cities .
In the crescent-shaped area beyond this open space, 71 per cent
of the papers are from Chicago ; and in those communities outsidethe immediate local trade areas, 80 p er cent of the papers are
from Chicago. Thus Chicago supplies the bulk of all circulation
within 50 miles of its center at State and Madison streets, even
104
N EWS PA P E R C I R C ULAT ION
including the local publishing centers . I t should be noted that
although each local publishing center has its trade area , domi
nated by its own circulation, these towns consume a relatively
small proportion of the circulation consumed in the area generally .
This is due to the fact that these towns are smaller and are rela
tively less important than the ones on the outer rim of the satel
lite trade area . Their lesser importance and size are determined
by their relation to the satellite even as the satellites are cir
cumscribed , compared with cities of comparable populations
that lie beyond 100 miles from the metropolis, by their proximity
to Chicago . I n other words, the satellite centers tend to limit thecompetition and relative independence of their small subsidiary
towns in about the same way that the metropolis tends to limit
the competition between satellites . As supplementary forms of
communication and transportation develop in the metropolitan
area to a point where the system is completely flexible, we should
expect the importance of the '
satellite to diminish even more .
The conventional form which the Chicago suburban area i
assumes suggests that in similar situations , where populations,industries, and institutions are making similar demands upon
the territory they occupy, one might expect to find a pattern of
territorial distribution not identical but at least comparable with
the one here presented . Further investigation will be necessary
to determinehow far this general hypothesis is in accordance with
the facts , but if, and so far as, it turns out to be true, it will be
due to the fact that in the gradual accommodation of competing
interests within a limited territory, something approaching thehighest possible u se of space availablehas been more or less com
p letely achieved . The existing distribution of newspaper circula
tion in the metropolitan region, since it seems to have arisen in,
response to the same forces which have brought about the existing 5
territorial distribution of social and economical function, is an“
index of the existing social and economic organization Of theregion.
The Outer Limits of the Trade Area.— Beyond the satellite
communities surrounding the city, Chicago papers circulate in
competition With those of other metropolitan centers . I t is of
considerable interest to determine the outer line Of, dominance of
Chi cago newspaper circulation, for just as within the 40-milecommuting
'
z one, traffic and newspaper circulation were corre
lated, so in the outer zone there seems to be a considerable inter
105
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
dependence between circulation and the Wholesale-trade area . I n
recognition of the fact that the local dealer is largely influencedby convenience inhis buying, the ChicagoTribune in 1930 made
a survey of passenger traffic to discover the points on 11 railwaylines out of Chicago where the traffic divided, 50 p er cent moving
forward and 50 p er cent away“
from the metropolis . The pointsdetermined are connected by the broken line in Figure 5 . Themarked similarity between the ebb and flow of traffic and n ews
paper circulation is seen by comparing the broken line with thesolid line which connects the outermost cities taking 50 per cent
or more of their metropolitan newspapers from Chicago as op
posed to competing centers . I t thus appears that there is a grad
ient character to newspaper circulation and to traffic and trade
as well , and that the extent of the areas of dominance are very
nearly coterm inous . Hence the distribution of newspaper circula
tionmight be useful in attempting to delimit the region ofmetro
politan influence .
METROPOLI TAN RE GI ONS DETERM I NED BY NEWS PAPERCI RCU LATION
Communication is fundamental to the existence of every form
and type of society, and one form of communication, namely, thenewspaper, has been found to circulate over the natural areas
within which society is organized . Thus itmay not seem unreason
able that the newspaper should be used as an index in outlininga number of metropolitan regions of the United States . This wasdone with the result shown in Figure 6 .
‘
Procedure .
— The procedure adopted in outlining these regionswas that employed in locating the outlying boundary of
'
the
Chicago region, namely, the selection of a number of large cities
and the plotting of the circulation of certain newspapers published
in these cities . When this had been done, it was found that thelimits of each of the regions so defined were coterminous with
those of adjoining regions, and that the whole countryhad beendivided into a number of cultural and economic provinces, each
with a single dominant city, the center and focus of a populationand a territory more or less completely integrated with it.
While it was generally assumed that a city was to be regarded
as metropolitan when its papers circulated over a considerable
area in competition withthe local papers published in the area,
106
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
do papers published in the afternoon.
4 The statistics were takenfrom the records of the Audit Bureau of Circulation which show
the distribution of member papers in all towns where at least
25 copies are circulated .
5
In each of the 41 regions, the total morning circulation was
compared with similar circulations of competing metropolitan
centers in towns which took copies of newspapers from more than
one center . This procedure made it possible to draw a line around
nearly all towns taking more than 50 p er cent of their metro
politan circulation from each of the several centers . For Chicago,the boundary so determined circumscribes a region with an
average radius of about 200 miles . I n order to compare the d istribution of circulation for each city , it was necessary to take
account of the distribution in from three to eight adjacent cities .
The circulation of Chicago papers was'
comp ared with that of
newspapers published in eight other cities , Milwaukee, Minne
ap olis, Des Moines , Kansas City, St . Louis, Louisville, Indianapolis, and Detroit . Some towns and cities receive papers
from more than one of the 41 metropolitan centers . I n the courseof analysis, individual maps were made for each of the 41 centers,showing the area in which their circulation dominated the com
bined circulation of the centers in competition . These maps were
later transferred to the single map shown in Figure 6 .
Difli cu lties and Anomalies in Outlining Regions — The attemptto delimit the metropolitan region systematically gave rise to
certain difficulties and disclosed some anomalies . An account
of some of these situations is useful in revealing how certainconditions operate in determining regional boundaries .
4 The morning p ap ers selected were Atlanta Constitution, Baltimore S un,
BirminghamAge-Herald, Bufialo Courier-Exp ress, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune,Cincinnati Enqu irer, Cleveland P lain Dealer, Dallas N ews, Denver RockyMountain
N ews, Des Moines Register, Detroit Free P ress, El Paso Times, Helena I nde
pendent, Houston Post, I ndianapolis Star, Jacksonvi lle Florida Times-Union,
Kansas City Times, Little Rock Arkansas Gaz ette, Los Angeles Times, MemphisCommerci al App eal, M i lwaukee Sentinel, M inneapolis Tribune, N ashvi lle Tennesseean, N ew Orleans Times P icayune, N ew York Times, Oklahoma CityOklahoman, Omaha Bee N ews, Phi ladelphia I nqu irer, PittsburghPost-Gaz ette,Portland Oregonian, Richmond Times Disp atch, Salt Lake City Tribune, St. Lou isGlobe-Democrat, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Post I ntelligencer, S ioux CityJournal, Spokane Spokesman-Review, Charlotte Observer, Albuquerqu e Journal,Lou isvi lle Courier-Journal.
5 The newsp ap er statistics comp iled by the Bureau of the Census do not showthe distribution of circu lation.
[ 108 ]
N EWS PA PE R C I R C ULAT ION
Overlap p ing Territory— I n some cases , it happened that the
town or territory Whose position was to be determined was located
where the circulations of two or more metropolitan papers overlapped. According to the procedure adopted, the city of Walla
Walla,Washington, is dominated by no one of the three neighboring centers for not one of them sends 50 p er cent of all the outsidepapers circulated in the city . Spokane, Portland, and Seattle
all send daily papers, but those of Spokane , greatest in number,are but 43 per cent of the total .Excluded Territory.
— Contrasted to the situation described
above“
there were,
found areas which , according to the procedureadopted, seemed to be outside the region dominated by any
of the neighboring centers . Thus , in certain mountain areas, as
I n northernWyoming and again in southeasternMontana , papers
from the nearest cities, Denver , Omaha, and Helena, did not
circulate . When the lists for the Chicago papers were examined,it was found that this section, together with the Black Hillsarea of South Dakota , was apparently Chicago Tribune territory,which suggests that this territory is more closely tied up with
Chicago than with any of the adjacent metropolitan regions . For
this and other reasons,it seems that this territory is a remnant
of the old frontier served by the mail-order system .
Enclaves .
—Among the 41 cities used in this study three—Milwaukee, Des Moines, and Indianapolis— present certain
interesting anomalies . An examination of the distribution of
Chicago papers in Milwaukee territory, for example, reveals thefact that there is no such sharp dividing line separating
Milwaukee from Chicago as that which marks the boundarybetween Chicago and St. Louis or between Chicago and Detroit.
There are approximately 75 towns and cities that receive 25
or more papers from both St . Louis and Chicago . These cities are
all located on the border that divides the region of Chicago from
that of St . Louis . Outside of these border cities, Chicago papers
do not circulate in Missouri , except in two metropolitan cities,St. Louis and Kansas City .
This is not true either of Milwaukee, Des Moines, or Indiana
polis . Chicago papers circulate everywhere in the states of Wisconsin, Iowa , and Indiana in competition with Milwaukee, Des
Moines, and Indianapolis papers .
Nearly every town in the region outside of Illinois takes papers
from both the local large city, that is, Milwaukee, Des Moines, or
[ 109 ]
TH E METROPOL I TAN COMMUN IT Y
Indianapolis, and the distant metropolitan c ity, that is, Chicago.
I n the case of the Des Moines region, some 150 towns take papers
from both Des Moines and Chicago, and although a line of
dominance can be drawn between Des Moines and Chicago, Still
the Chicago papers circulate beyond DesMoines into the westernpart of Iowa .
These cities, dominant in their own more limited areas , are
nevertheless surrounded by territory in which the circulation of
Chicago papers is greater than theirs . They are, so to speak,enclaves in the larger m‘
etropolitan region, so that their position
with respect to Chicago is not unlike that of other local and
regional cities outside the commuting area of Chicago .
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
Many of the central cities of these districts are of quite recent
Origin, at least in the sense of revival of urban functions if not in
actual date of incorporation . Thirteen were incorporated since
1870 and 5 since 1880 :
The rapid emergence of large cities in regions which a few
decades ago were considered frontier outposts of themetropolitan
centers in the East and Middle Westhas effected a considerablegeographic realignment of economic functions. Many cf
.
thesingle-industry cities that developed under the market conditionsimposed by an expanding rural frontier have been compelled to
accommodate their economic activities to more restricted areas .
A number of such cities, asi ndicated earlier in this report, suflered
actual losses in population in the last decade .
Occupational Uniformity.— ~The general effect of this geographic
rearrangement of economic functions “
I s to produce" greater
uniformityof occupational structure in the largeru
c
l
ities through
out the nation. Each large city tends to build u p a complete
system of economic and social institutions for the local p op u lation. While this is a general tendency, certain factors, largely
geographic , prevent the full development of this process . If a
city ’
s population continues to increase, its economic structure
tends to becomemore balanced and complete. This is indicated
by the tendency toward greater uniform ity in the occupational
structure of the large cities of the country .
Table 42 shows the proportions of the gainfully employed indifferent industrial groups for two decennial periods, 1920 and
1930 in c ities of and over .
A careful examination of the figures in this table will disclosecertain general tendencies in the occupational structure of thesecities . I n the first place, the proportion of persons employed in
manufacturing in 1930 is, for every city, less than in 1920 ;
contrariwise, the ratios of the total gainfully employed found in
trade and commerce were without exception higher in 1930 than
in 1920 . Likewise, in the service groups of occupations— public,professional , domestic— the ratios are in general tending to
become higher .
The net outcome of this shift in occupations is to make forgreater similarity in the occupational structure of all large cities .
To illustrate : I n 1930 , the proportions of the total gainfully
employed classified by the census in manufacturing industries
in these large cities ranged from for Denver to for
[ 112 ]
S ETTL EMENT MATURAT ION
TABLE 42.—PROPORTION OF GAINFULLY EMPLOYED ENGAGED IN CERTAIN
GROUPS OF I NDUSTRIES IN THE CITIE S OF AND OVER (1930) FOR1920—1930“
1920 l1930,1920 )1930‘1920 I1930 I1920 1930‘1920 I1930 I1920 1930
8 8 12 12 9 2 3 8 1
2 3 2 0
24 245 9 34 8 11 6 10 9 18 9
49 0 40 1 11 1 1 1 6 20 7 23 1 9 47 2 7 2
3 1 3 3 6 0
5 4
9 4 15 6 20 2
7 7 13 1 17 3
55 0 44 0 9 4
64 8 54 1 7 1
36 6 27 0 10 0
61 2 48 1
6 0 7 41 8 2 7
2 3 3 0 12 7
2 0 2 0
13 6 12 29 2 2 1 6 26 9
8 4 10 7 14 5 18 0 6 7 7 85 7
6 7 12 66 2
6 1
2 4 2 3
3 4 3 0
48 8 42 1 10 8 10 8 18 5 22 1
7 2 13 049 0 39 2 1 1 7 1 1 7 1 6 2 20 3
7 9 9 5 13 23 8 4 044 4 33 7 12 0 1 1 5 18 1 22 0
8 1 11 57 2
37 1 26 4 12 1 14 6 19 6 24 8 7 0 3 7 9 0
2 8 3 148 0 39 0 12 1 11 1 18 0 21 9
9 0 14 7 19 3 1 9 2 5 6 5 6 6 7 78 460 4 51 2
3 0 7 0 9 6 8 53 053 5 43 3 12 3 13 0 15 2 18 6
30 4 17 4 1 1 4
9 2 10 2
6 0
2 541 7 32 3 12 3 12 3 22 7 26 8 2 3 10 4
7 1 17 73 937 4 26 3 1 6 6 16 9 17 0 22 8 4 1
6 7 8 4 12 22 12 151 1 41 5 10 3 10 3 16 7 20 4
60 8 45 5 8 1 6 4 7 5
8 6 13 6
5 82 72 88 3 14 9 21 3
35 8 29 5 13 9 12 3 24 9 27 3 2 5 2 4 8 4
42 4 29 4 12 1 13 0 19 0 25 5
50 9 39 7 11 1 10 7 17 9 22 3
9 5 1 1 0
6 8 8 6 10 7
3 0 9 02 5
2 0 2 3
2 6 7 0 8 6 7 3
5 4
2 27 4 7 8 13 2 18 462 2 51 2
2 9 6 6 6 7
2 4
2 3
1 9
50 2 37 0 19 5 18 7 14 9 22 2 3 1
6 4 7 7 14 8
9 4 10 0 10 6
7 6 7 1 17 7
2 946 5 38 3 1 1 2 12 4 17 6 2 1 0
2 142 0 29 5 1 1 9 13 1 19 9 25 4
2 136 8 31 1 14 4 13 6 19 5 22 2
6 0 7 1 8 5
9 5 10 88 0
1 8 2 155 8 45 7 1 1 9 12 9 15 4 19 6
4 2 5 446 4 33 9 12 6 13 6 17 5 21 6
2 0 2 7 10 2 10 8 13 034 0 25 7 12 9 12 6 23 5 26 7
9 1 1 1 4
9 6 10 0
2 4 9 0
8 4
2 2
2 7 3 1
45 5 33 4 11 2 13 4 18 4 24 6
43 2 31 5 13 5 1 6 3 2 1 3 26 1
2 934 0 28 2 12 9 1 1 2 20 5 22 6'
8 3 7 7 15 7
6 5
2 7 7 2 7 2 21 7
4 4
2 4 2 3
1 7
1 0
2 1
31 7 28 9 12 6 10 8 27 9 28 1
39 7 32 8 12 6 1 1 1 16 1 20 3 1 9
1 5
2 2
2 0 2 4 6 1
7 1 18 8
6 0 6 59 9 15 7
32 7 28 2 14 2 11 8 21 6 23 6
60 2 49 5
6 44 173 7 58 5
6 4 7 1 21 3
8 0 9 27 2 14 1 18 88 1
Popu lation Trends toward Concentration and Decentralization,Slums, Large-scale Housing, and Decentrali z ation, The President’s Conference on Home Building
0 Warren S. Thompson,
and Home Ownership, 1932, p . 214 .
[ 1 13 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
Akron, and the average ratio for the group of cities was
I n 1920, the proportion of persons employed in manufacturing
varied from for Dallas, to for‘
Akron and the average
for the group Of citieswas Themean of the deviations Of theindividual cities from the general average for the group in 1930was 7.4 , as compared with in 1920 . I n other words , the statistics show that these cities w ere less divergent in 1930 in theproportions Of their gainfully employed listed in the manufactur
ing industries than was the case 10 years previous . This same
tendency toward greater uniformity applies to most of the other
occupational groups . I n fact, in no occupational classification was
the divergence in the proportion Of persons employed greater in
1930 than in 1920 . The facts are summarized in Table 43 .
TAB LE 43 .
— AVERAGE RATIOS OF THE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED IN CERTAIN GROUPSOF INDUSTRY IN 36 CITIE S OF AND OVER, 1930 , AND IN THE SAME
CITIE S, 1920 , TOGETHER WITH THE MEAN DEVI ATIONS FROM THE
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE S OF THE EMPLOYED IN EACHI NDUSTRIAL GROUP“
Industry
Manu facturing and mechanical industries .
TransportationTradePublic service
Professional serviceDomestic and personal service .
Compiled from statistics in Table 42. The city of Washington is omitted .
Industrial Diversification.— As a city increase 8 in size, it tends,
as already suggested, to become more diversified in its industrial
base. The extent of a city’
s industrial diversification is indicated
in a general way by the number Of different kinds of manufactur
ing industries it possesses Data regarding the kinds Of industrylocated within a city are seldom furnished in the Censu s of M anu
factures made by the Bureau Of the Census . For two differentyears, however, 1921 and 1927, these data are available for a
selected group of cities , and are presented in Table 44 .
In interpreting this table, it is important to bear in mind that
the statistics relate to only the corporate areas of the cities in1 14
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
coming Of the motor truck, many industries have arisen in thesmaller cities to cater to the local market .
Banking Institutions .— Another and perhaps more significant
index of the growing self-sufficiency of the younger city is thedevelopment of its financial function. Of all economic services,finance seems to show the greatest tendency toward concentration .
Although this tendency is still pronounced, the facts would seem
to indicate that a larger number Of cities are . organizing their
financial institutions to meet their local and regional needs.
The past decade witnessed conspicuous developments in themerging and consolidation Of financial as well as many other types
Of institutions . The shift from small to large banking operations
with a consequent concentration of banking functions in thelarger cities3 may be taken as an index Of the growing economicmaturity of the cities concerned . Since 1923 , the American
Banker has published each year a list Of the 100 largest banksin the country . By comparing the distribution Of these banks in
1930 with that in 1923 , some idea of the territorial development
Of banking function may be Obtained .
Three suburban cities , Brooklyn (part Of N ew York City but'
in
a sense suburban) , Hoboken, and Oakland, which appeared in the1923 list do not reappear in 1930 . On the other hand , six young
regional cities— Atlanta , Dallas, Oklahoma , Portland (Oregon) ,Seattle, and Tulsa— do not appear in 1923 but are recorded in the1930 list . The declining relative importance of N ew York is a
notable feature Of this tabulation.
CULTURAL LEVELIN G
The foregoing discussion has dealt with the tendency towardeconomic uniformity among the various large cities of the nation .
I t would appear, however, that culturally also the variousregions of the country are tending to become more uniform . A
number Of indices have been compiled , most Of which show a
tendency toward greater cultural leveling in the various geographic areas Of the United States . The various “ indices are
shown in summary form in Table 47. One Of them , the ratio Of
daily newspaper circulation to the population, may be taken
as an example to show the method employed . The daily newspaper, as already indicated, 4 is a sensitive barometer of the
3 See Table 29, p . 61 .
4 See Chap ter VI I I .
[ 1 16 ]
S E TTL EMENT MAT URAT ION
TABLE 45 .— DISTRIBUTION OF THE 100 LARGE ST BANKS, THEIR TOTAL DEPOSITS
AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL DEPOSITS, BY CITIES, 1923-4 930a
100 . 00
AtlantaBaltimoreBoston
BrooklynBuffaloChicago .
Cincinnati
Detroit
Jersey City .
Kansas CityLos AngelesM ilwaukee
New Orleans
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a American Banker, January 2 1, 1924, and January 20, 1931 . Data are for December 31 in bothyears.
development Of the urban community . The extent to which ithasbecome a medium of communication in any region may there
fore be taken as a measure of the dissemination of urban cultural
traits .I n analyzing the ratios of circulation Of daily newspapers and
other measures Of cultural leveling, the nine geographic areas
employed by the Bureau Of the Census have been taken as
[ 1 17 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
convenient population units . They are sufficient in number to
provide a certain amount Of detail , yet not so numerous as to
render an analysis confusing . Table 46 shows the ratio Of news
papers circulated to 1 ,000 of the general population In the geographic divisions In 1909 and 1929.
TABLE 46 .
— MORNING AND EVENING DAILY NEWSPAPERS PER POPULATION,
1909—1929
Newspapers p er Deviations/from
popu lation the mean
Division
s s s s s s s s s s s s
o o o o oo o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Unweighted meanRatio of average deviation to the mean
U.S. Census, Census of Manufactures, 1914, Vol. 11, Table 41, p. 651.b Compiled from U .S . Census, Censu s of Manufactures, 1929, Bu lletin on Printing and Pub
lishing and Allied I ndustries,” Table 11 , p . 1 15 . At the time this table was compiled the report onnewspaper circu lation by geographic divisions had not yet been published and data for severalof the smaller states were combined in such a way as to prevent their use . Consequently the figuresused for Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode I sland , North Dakota, Sou th Dakota, Delaware,District of Columb ia, I daho, Wyoming, Utah, and N ewMexico are for the year 1927 as publishedin the Census of Manufactures, 1927, p . 607.
The easiest way to discover whether or not various areas Of thecountry are becoming more uniform would be to compare therange between the districts ranking highest and lowest in 1909
and in 1929. The newspaper circulation data show a range Of 446
for the Middle Atlantic division to 78 for the East South Centraldivision in 1909; that is, a difference Of 368 as compared with
329 (481 , Middle Atlantic ; and 152 , East South Central) for 1929.
But this measure is neither satisfactory nor strictly accurate, asit takes into account only the extreme cases, thus eliminating theother seven from consideration . The mean Of the deviations fromthe average for the country as a whole affords a better index of thetendency with regard to the territorial distribution of the phenomena . I t will be observed that the unweighted mean Of the
118 l
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
TABLE 47.— SIxTEEN I NDICES OF THE TENDENCY TOWARD CULTURALMATURATION IN THE UNITE D STATE S, 1900- 4930a
Average deviation interms of the means
Index of maturation
EducationTeachersPublic elementary and secondary-school expenditures .”
College and university studentsDaily newspaper circulation (1909—1929)I lliteracy
Communication and transportationPost office receiptsMotor-vehicle registration (1913)Surfaced-road mileage ( 1914)Telephones ( 1902—1927)
Heal thPhysicians and surgeons
Dentists
ReligionChurch membership (1906—1926)Church expenditures (1916
M iscellaneousSavings deposits (1910)Who’
s Who ( 1910)Urban popu lation
a The sources of the original data are given in the Appendix with the tables from which theseratios were computed. All rates are calculated on the basis of the total popu lation except in threeinstances. School expenditures are expressed as p er capita of the population five to seventeen yearsof age; motor-vehicle registration is computed on the basis of the urban population; surfaced-roadmileage is expressed in relation to the land area of the geOgraphic divisions . See Table V in theAppendix.6 Indices are for 1900 and 1980 when possible; exceptions are noted.
individuals . The geographic distribution of this population at
any time may be considered as indicative of the institutional andcul tural development in the various areas .
The early numbers of this directory showed a heavy coneen
tration of these distinguished persons in the N ew England and
Middle Atlantic regions . Few persons of this eminence were
recorded in the rural or frontier areas of the South or West .
However, our brief indices in Table 47 indicate a tendency toward
more uniform distribution Of this selected population throughout
the major geographic areas Of the country . The subject warrants[ 120 ]
S E TTL EMENT MAT URAT ION
V120
8735
UV) N
313m
'
flWN
OHVOI
'
HSVM
NM“
0103 14
NN03
8 9 3 9.
UOUVVIdOd 000 90' 8 36
[ 121 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
more detailed consideration . Consequently , ratios of Who’
s Whoregistrants to total population have been computed for different
periods for each state of the Union and also for different groups
of cities . The state ratios for 1920 and 1930 are shown graphicallyin Figure 7 . (See Table VI in the Appendix . )Although the proportions Of Who’
s Who notables to the totalpopulation are markedly higher in the N ew England and Middle
Atlantic states than in most Of the other states Of the Union , it
will be Observed that the gains made in 1930 Over 1910 are
relatively much less than those in most of the other states . I n
fact the state Of Massachusetts contained a smaller proportion
OfWho’
sWho registrants in 1930 than in 1910 as compared
with I n general the various states of the Union show
considerably less divergence in 1930 in their proportions of Who’
s
Who notables than they did in 1910 , a fact .which indicates a ri smgof the cultural level Of the more backward areas .
When cities rather than states are taken as the statistical units,interesting results appear . Table 48 shows the proportions Of
Who’
s Who notables p er Of the total population in
different size groups Of communities .
TABLE 48 .—COMPARATIVE RATIOS OF “WHO’S WHO NOTAB LE S PER
TOTAL POPULATION IN CITIES CLASSIFIE D ACCORDING To SI z E , 1910—1930a
Classification of cities
Metropolitan cities (as named in U .S. Censu s of 55 8 57 9 57 8
Other cities having in 1930 a total population of or
more 32 5 32 9 34 4
All cities having in 1930 a total popu lation of 50 000 and
less than 98 33 6 36 3 39 7
All cities having in 1930 a total population of and
less than 25 4 27 9 28 1
All other area in continental United States . 8 6 1 1 2 13 8
Compiled from Who’
s Who in America, Vols. VI , XI , XVI . This and other tables on Who’
s
Who popu lation were compiled by A. H. Robertson, University of M ichigan.
I t appears that the large metropolitan communities have
higher ratios of these notables than are found in the groups of
smaller cities . An interesting feature of the tabulation, however ,is the fact that the gains in this 20-year period have been more
pronounced in the smaller than in the larger centers . This is
partially explained by the fact that there is a tendency for
[ 122 ]
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
population . The industrial city Of Detroithas served as a magnet
for the unlettered immigrants from Europe and for rural Negroesfrom the South . Los Angeles , on the otherhand, appears to haveattracted a relatively higher cultural class Of people . I n spite
Of its very rapid rate of increase, the proportion of Who’
s Whonotables to the total population in 1930 was points higher
than in 1910 .
The selective influence of the Los Angeles area applies to themovements not merely of the native born to that
'
region'
but also
of the foreign born . I n Table 50 are presented the proportions ofthe foreign-born Who’
s Who registrants,
to the total foreign-born
population in each of these four great cities . The ratio of foreign
born notables to the total foreign-born population in Los Angeles
is conspicuously high— even higher than the total ratio Of Who’
s
Who notables to the total population in the city Of Detroit .
TABLE 50 .— PROPORTION OF WHO’S WHO NOTABLES OF FORE IGN ORIGIN TO
TOTAL FORE IGN POPULATION IN NEw YORK, CHICAGO, DETROIT, LOSANGELES, 1910—1930a
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Average
Compiled from Who’s Who in Ameri ca, Vols. VI , XI , XVI .
SUMMARY
The various indices Of maturation presented in this chapter
definitely support the hypothesis that the different regions Of
the country are tending to become more nearly uniform in eco
nomic and cultural characteristics . Although the dominance of
the East and parts of the Middle West is still strongly in evi
dence, nevertheless the contrast between these areas and other
sections Of the country is much less today than it was two decadesago . I n short, the younger belts Of settlement and the rural Southare acquiring the same general pattern Of economic and social
organization as prevails in the more developed areas .
[ 124 ]
S ETTL EMENT MATURAT ION
The significance of this coming of age of frontier settlement
will appear from data presented in subsequent chapters . Thatit is efi’ecting important reaccommodations on the part Of many
of the older areas is apparent . Data presented in a preceding
chapter6 revealed a substantial decline in industry and populationin a number Of the older industrial centers of the East. This
decline is related in part to the shift of industries to the Southand West . Undoubtedly many similar changes are taking placein other types of urban function, though in some cases they may
be less amenable to statistical verification .
The growth of national chain and branch establishments con
stitutes, on the one hand, a factor making for the maturation of
newer areas of settlement, and , on the other hand , indicates a
redistribution or decentralization Of many functions that were
formerly highly localized .
As the newer regions of settlement become more developed,they likewise tend to become more conscious Of their economic
possibilities and limitations . Every region is actively strivingto construct its own economic and cultural life as far as its geo
graphic base will permit . This is shifting the position Of manyregions from the rOle of frontier market and supply area to theOlder centers of population to a rOle Of competitor in a strugglefor both local and distant markets .
5 See Chap ter V.
CHAPTER X
THE STRUCTURE AND ORIENTATION OF
SETTLEMENT
HE present pattern Of settlement in the United States , Jas stated in our introductory chapter, reflects the influence of 1
three successive stages in transportation development : water,1
rail, and motor vehicle . The stages thus defined are differentiated f
not in the sense that one form Of transportation displaced or'
succeeded the other, but rather that, as supplements, each in turn
has played an important rOle in determining the existing spatial3pattern and functional interrelations of our present constellation
Of settlement centers— cities, towns, and villages .
THE ERA OF WATER H I GHWAYS
From the beginning Of colonial times to about the middle of
the nineteenth century the natural systems of water highways
including the seaboard and navigable rivers and lakes , supple
mented from time to time . by canals and other artificial exten
sions— determined the main outlines of settlement expansion
and the location of the principal centers of commerce.
For more than two hundred years after the first settlers landed on
our shores, the rivers were the p rincipal highways, just as they hadbeen for unknown thou sands Of years on the other continents of theearth. These first settlers found the country covered with a vast, un
broken forest. I twas inevitable, therefore, when the westward movement
of p op u lation began, that the line of marchshou ld go first up the riversflowing into the Atlantic and then down those flowing to the Lakes andthe Mississip p i . Washington made rep eated journeys from the Potomac
to the Ohio, which, Of all the westward-flowing streams, was the one
most largely u sed .
1
During the period Of dependence upon water transportation as
the chief agency of long-distance freight movement, settlement
structure assumed two different and , in some respects, competing
1 S . A. Thomp son, The Up s and Downs ofWaterways, N ational Waterways,Vol . VI I I , Sep tember, 1929, p . 9.
[ 129 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
forms as determined by the physical landscape and the courses ofthe two principal water highway systems . The one, constituted
by the Hudson River, the Erie Canal , and the Great Lakes,furnished a navigable route from the North Atlantic to a large
extent of territory lying west Of the Alleghenies and oriented this
territory toward N ew York City and other Atlantic seaports .
The other , consisting of the Mississippi-Ohio system, together
with the Missouri and other tributaries, oriented midwestern
settlement toward the Gulf Of Mexico through the port of N ew
Orleans .
Along these two great water systems settlement spread , and
!flourishing
cities arose at the most important junction points
a nd breaks in navigation . The federal census of 1840 records theleading points on the .Lakes . route, by order of size, as follows :lAlbany, 33 ,721 ; Buffalo, Detroit, Cleveland ,
E6,071 ; Toledo, 1 ,222 . The principal points on the Mississippi
£0 1110 route were Cincinnati , 46,338 ; Pittsburgh , 3 1 ,204 ; Louislv ille, 21 ,210 , St . Louis , Nashville, 6 ,929. At the head of
the Lakes route stood the city Of N ew York with a population
!in 1840 Of (including present boroughs) ; at the head Of
fthe Mississippi system stood the port of N ew Orleans with a
%population of lacking only 120 inhabitants of being thesecond city in the country at that time . (Baltimore ranked
second .)Of these two avenues Of contact with the rapidly developing
settlement of the West, the Mississippi-Ohio route was by far
the more important . This system , comprising more than 35
rivers aggregating over miles of navigable water, spread
like a great tree across the most fertile part Of the nation, its
main trunk reaching from the Gulf Of Mexico almost to thenorthern limits of the nation and its branches tapping innumer
able square miles of territory on either side, and seemed designed
by nature to form the structural framework Of American settlement, at least for that part of the territory lying between theAlleghenies and the mountain ranges of the West . But time hasproved that man-made highways are sometimes more importantthan nature ’
s routes in determining the structure Of settlement .
Until the outbreak Of the Civil War, the Mississippi systemconstituted practically the only outlet for the commerce Of
midwestern settlement . The introduction Of the steamboat inthe early part Of the nineteenth century served to accentuate
[ 130 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
rapidly, to shift the axis ofmidwestern freight movement from a
north-south— as determined by the Mississippi system— to an
east-west flow. This process of transition .in the orientation of
settlement was accelerated by the disruption of river commerce
occasioned by the Civil War . The situation is summarized byF . H . D ixon :
The war served at once to close all southern p orts to commerce, and
destroyed the greater p art of the river trade. Steamboats continued to a
small extent to p ly the waters of the up p er Mississipp i and the Ohi o,
but throughtraffic southward ceased altogether. Railway bu ildingcontinued . The rail lines whichmost seriou sly threatened river commerce
were located north Of the Ohio, and were undisturbed by military op er
ations . Although hamp ered by lack of cap ital, extension of lines wasnot wholly checked, and the p rogress in railway bu ilding made duringthe time of disturbance was su fficient to increase materially theircomp etitive p ower . During this p eriod of waterway inactivity
the railways were not only extending their lines, but they were makingmore eflicient their existing facilities . Consolidation Of connecting linesinto single systems for the p urp ose of increasing the efficiency of longdistance Op eration was p roceeding rap idly. I n the sixties ap p eared thefirst of the fast freight lines , whichfacilitated enormou sly the handlingof through business from the West. Coop eration Of railways in theconstruction of union stations, connecting tracks, and similar facilitiesincreased in the decade 1860 to 1870 . Ship p ers became accu stomedto the new transp ortation agency . They found it more eflicient, and it
relieved them Of the bu rden of marine insurance. I n short, bu sinessrelationship s were established whichcarried on after the waterwayswere again available, and , excep t at certain p eriods when circumstances
were excep tional, the rivers did not even ap p roach their former p osition
of imp ortance.
3
After the close of the CivilWar , railway construction progressed
rapidly, the lines following in the wake Of settlement as it moved
westward across the continent . By 1890 all the main features Of
the present railway map had been established . Later constructionconsisted largely Of adding extra tracks to the main lines and
building branches and feeders . Even this development practically
came to an end shortly after the first decade of the present century .
The total railway mileage of the United States is about the same
today as it was 20 years ago—
approximately miles .
3 Frank HaighDixon, A'
Trafiic History of the M issi ssipp i River System,
National Waterways Commission, Document 11 , 1909, pp . 37—38 . Quoted byBureau Of Railway Economics in An Economic Survey of I nlandWaterway Trans
portation in the United States, Sp ecial Series, No . 56, 1930 , p . 37.
[ 132 ]
STR U C TUR E AND OR I E N TAT ION
THE RA I LROAD A S A DETERM I NANT
Although themain outlines of the railwaymap were determined
by the pattern of preceding settlement, once the lines wereestablished they molded the pattern of subsequent settlement .
Towns and villages arose at intervals along the railroad tracks .
Points of intersection provided advantageous locations and Often
gave rise to larger centers . As a city grew in importance, cross
lines were built connecting it with neighboring cities . Through .
this process, the railway net continued to develop and to emphasize the relative importance of these focal points . Outstanding in
the general pattern was the city Of Chicago . Du e to its strategic
location near the southern tip Of Lake Michigan and in the heartof the great central plains, this city became the super-gateway
for both the east-west and north-south movements of commerce .
From a village of slightly Over inhabitants in 1840 before
Ch'
ic'
agOby developed into a
over people and had become the second
largest city in the'
Uf
nit—
cd States .
Chicago versus N ew Orleans — As Chicago grew in size, its
dominance, or gravitational power, increased beyond that of theOlder river cities, tending to orient midwestern settlement around
this focal point . Whereas formerly the Mississippi-Ohio cities
were oriented toward N ew Orleans as the gateway to the east andthe outside world, they nowbecame directly tributary to Chicago
as the integrating center . A rough conception of the extent to
which these river cities are now related to Chicago and N ew
Orleans respectively may be gained by the comparison in Table
5 1 of the volume Of pullman passenger traffic between the river
cities and the two integrating points , Chicago and N ew Orleans .
Relative to the populations of the two main Cities, the Chicagotraffic is no greater than the N ew Orleans ; but from the stand
point Of the actual extent of contact , it is apparent that Chicago
far outstripsher erstwhile competitor . Further, the fact that threeOf the four river cities are considerably closer to Chicago than to
N ew Orleans, and therefore more accessible by motor and day
coach service, makes the berth passenger data less indicative of
the total movement between these points and Chicago than of
the movement toward the Gulf port.
Chicago versus St. Louis — Since the close of the Civil War
there has been little question as to the relative drawing power
[ 133 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
TABLE 51 .—PULLMAN-BERTH PASSENGER TICKETS SOLD BETWEEN CHICAGO AND
FOUR RIVER CITIE S AND BETWEEN N EW ORLEANS AND THE SAME CITIES,1929“
Berthpassenger tickets Berth passenger ticketssold between common sold between common
points and points andCommon p omts Common p onnts
“ All statistics on berth passenger traffic appearing in this table and in Tables 52—54 werefurnished by the courtesy of the Pu llman Company, Chicago Special acknowledgment is madeto L. M . Bradish, Assistant Comptroller of the company, for the work of compiling the data . I n
every instance the statistics include both-way traffic.
of Chicago and N ew Orleans on the cities located along theOhio-Mississippi system . By 1870 Chicago outranked N ewOrleans
in number of inhabitants, and the differentials in size became
more pronounced at each census enumeration . Chicago ’
s p op ul a
tion in 1890 outnumbered that of N ew Orleans by more than
four to one . The keenest competition for commercial supremacy
in the Mississippi Valley came from the city of St . Louis . As thecenter of an extended river traffic before the arrival of the rail
road , St . Louis obtained a substantial lead on Chicago in the racefor economic dominance over midwestern territory . I t was not
until 1880 that Chicago surpassedher rival as a center of p op ul a
tion, but, from that time on, her lead advanced with almost
geometric progression. The 1930 census records more than four
times as many inhabitants in Chicago as in St . Louis .
The relative gravitational power of these two large cities withrespect to certain southern points is suggested by the statisticsin Table 52 .
Chicago versus New York City.— Chicago
’
s present rival inserving southern territory is New York . Both cities are well
provided with direct railway connections with the South , butN ew York reflects the greater magnetic influence with respect topopulation movements . Continuing with our berth passengerdata, we see from the figures in Table 53 the preponderance of
N ew York over Chicago as a point Of contact with territorybelow the Ohio River .
[ 134 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN IT Y
Several features of Table 53 are worthy of attention. I n thefirst place, the total volume Of berth passenger traffic between
the points in this southern section Of the country and N ew York
City is more than twice as great as that between the same
points and Chicago .
FIG . 8 .
The statistics show a slight decline in 1929 as compared with
1923 in the aggregate traffic to and from N ew York and an
increase in the traffic to and from Chicago . The time interval is
too short, however, to warrant any conclusion regarding trend .
From all points listed save Louisville and South Carolina— the[ 136 ]
S TR U C T UR E AND OR I E N TAT ION
latter only in 1929— N ew York traffic exceeds Chicago traffic .Conspicuous among the southern foci of traffic is Florida . Thetravel between points in this state and N ew York constituted , in
1929, p er cent of the total for all places listed in Table 53 ,
and over a third of all traffic between Chicago and these southern
points . Parenthetically it may be stated that the aggregateberth passenger traffic between Florida and all other states Of
the Union was in 1923 and in 1929, or ap p roxi
mately one-twentieth of the total berth passenger traffic for
the country as a whole for each Of these years . The combined
traffic between Florida and New York, and Florida and Chicago,constituted 5 1 per cent of all traffic between Florida and outside
point-s in 1923 and 49 p er cent in 1929.
East-West versus North-South M ovement — A clearer picture
of the relative importance of these two north-south streams of
traffic is afl’orded when the statistics in Table 53 are plotted, as
in Figure 8 .
The streams of traffic as indicated by berth passenger data
in the foregoing tables are relatively small in comp arison with
the great east-west flow across the continent . The movement
between _N ew York“
City and Chicago is considerably greater
in volume than the aggregate traffic between N ew York City
and all the southern points listed in Table 53 . Likewise the trafficbetween Chicago and Southern California is notably greater
than the total traffic between Chicago and these southern points .
I n order to contrast this general east-west flow Of traffic with thenorth-south stream along the Mississippi Valley, Table 54 hasbeen compiled, illustrated by Figure 9. The statistics show theberth passenger movement between Chicago and points selected
to.
indicate travel between the east-west and north-south extrem
ities of the country.
Besides the striking disparity between the east-west and thenorth-south streams Of traffic, Table 54 shows that the movement
Of berth passengers between Chicago and the .Pacific Coast was
greater in both years than that between Chicago and the AtlanticCoast . The nature of the streams may be different . The trafficbetween Chicago and the Pacific Coast was probably augmented
by the movement of tourists and settlers, while the ChicagoAtlantic traffic was perhaps more largely composed of persons
traveling for business reasons . I t will be noticed also that thegreat bulk
.of the traffic between Chicago and the Atlantic sea
[ 137 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
TABLE 54 .— PULLMAN-BERTH PASSENGER TICKETS SOLD BETWEEN CHICAGO AND
POINTS SELECTED TO SHOW EAST-WEST AND NORTH-SOUTH TRAFFICSTREAMS, 1923—1929“ 1
East-west traffic
Chicago and the Atlantic Coast
Chicago and the Pacific Coast
Oregon and WashingtonCentral CaliforniaSou thern California
North-south traffic
Chicago and the
Chicago and North points .
Twin Cities
DuluthOther M innesota points
Pu llman Company, Chicago. See footnote. Table 5 1. I ncludes both-way traffic.
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
Mississippi . Gateway cities arose which integrated the populationsof difl’erent geographic areas and kept them in constant economic
and social contact with the older centers \ of the East. I n this
manner, the p resent'
national economy based on city regionalism
gradually expanded over the entire area of continental United
States .
The railways thus developed a form ofmetropolitan regionalism
characterized by gHtSW-
aym
cities supported by extended chains
of towns and villages strung along converging. lines . The growthOf the larger centers was accentuated in many instances by thefact that they became freight-rate breaking points, thereby
Obtaining certain advantages ascOmmercial distributing centers .
4
Whereas physical barriers such as waterfalls, shallows, and other
breaks in water transportation constituted the leading factors inthe location and growth Of cities during the régime Of water
transportation , rail junction points and the freight-rate structuresupplied the basis for gateway cities in the railroad era .
MOTOR TRANS PORTATI ON
Coming after the main outlines of settlement pattern were well-n
established, thé'
motor vehicle and the motor hfgfijz aylhayev nqt
material ly changed this basic structure. THe}? have created_ _n_q
new large cities . They have, however , effected modifications d in)localg elation
_s which, iii”
the aggregate, are —perhaps quite as
significant as those introduced by the railroads . Motor trans
p ortatiOE’
iS‘
a“
twentiethcentury phenomenon and the major
part of its developmenthas occurred within the last two decades .
Although some“ horseless carriages
”appeared on the streets of
certain American cities during the late nineties, the first motor
vehicle license in the United States was issued in the State of
N ew York in I n 1910 the total registrations for all typesOf motor vehicles were Ten years later this numberhadincreased to and , in 1930, to the unprecedented total of
Highways — Highway construction, the necessary counterpartOf motor traffic, represents a somewhat lower curve of growth; butthe total mileage of surfaced rural highways in the United
4 For further discussion of this p oint, see Chapter XI .
5 Highway Education Board, Highways Handbook, 1929, p . 1 .
6 National Automobile Chamber of Commerce, Facts and Figures of the Auto
mobi le I ndustry, 1930 . p . 15 .
[ 140 ]
STR U C T UR E AND OR I ENTAT ION
States increased from in 1904 to in 1929. Thus
in the course of 25 years there were superimposed upon the l
transportation structure of the country miles of motor
highways, over twice the existing railway m ileage. I t is not
possible to trace the growth of motor traffic , but from the standpoint Of passenger travel it is safe to estimate that the yearlypassenger miles by automobile far exceed those of all other
agencies of transportation combined .
The evolution of the motor highway nethas followed a some
what different course from that Of the railroad lines . Inasmuch ashighway construction is regarded as a public rather than a
private function, the funds at first coming largely from local
taxing bodies— municipalities and counties— thefi
highWay’
s
'
Wi
ere
developed on a distinctly local basis . Construction led out from
cities and towns and only as state and'
federal funds became
available did through highway systems become common . Therailroads, on the other hand , were constructed as private enter
prises . The number and direction of the routes were deter
mined by economic expediency . Although the first railroads
were for the most part local lines , the through route in general
preceded_branch lines . Accordingly rail transportation had the
efl’ect of bringing distant points into direct economic contact
while it left unchanged the local systems of transportation .
A comparison of a highway map with a railroad map Of almostany region shows these essential points of difference between thetwo transportation systems . The mesh in the highway net isclosely woven in territory surrounding towns and cities, and
threads out into broken ends with distance from the populationcenter . The number of surfaced motor roads between distant
points is still comparatively small . I n spite of the enormous
increase in motor highway construction during the last 25 yearsthere is as yet not a single surfaced highway that extends,unbroken, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast ; whereas in the25-year interval following the arrival of the first railroad in
Chicago four transcontinental l ines had been constructed .
The motor highway net, which at first consisted of city streets
and rural wagon roads, is rapidly acquiring a form and structureOf its own. I n other words , it is becoming adapted to the conditions imposed by the increasing volume and speed of motor
traffic . There is rapidly developing under federal aid and state
highway funds, a system of primary motor highways connecting
[ 141 ]
t
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
the larger centers of population. These arterial thoroughfares
are becoming straighter and wider and are being located with
little regard for the courses followed by the earlier wagon roads .
As this system of‘
construction proceeds, it tends to canalize
intercity motor traffic and to fashion the pattern Of new settle
ment development. Frequently the course Of the through motor
highway bears little relation to that of the railroad line. Conse
quently many of the smaller towns and villages, located along
the railroad tracks, are not touched by the new intercity highways . I n many instances such places, as far as public transporta
tion is concerned, are more isolated now than formerly ; for therailroads have eliminated many of the local trains which used toprovide transportation service to these small centers .
Influence on Cities .—On
,the other. hand , the motor vehicle
and highway net have given to scores of minor cities a new—com
mand over surrounding territory and have occasioned a realign
ment o
'
f‘
local relations . Many of our smaller cities located on a
transcontinental railroad had no direct shipping contact with
near-by places on parallel lines . This applied particularly to
settlement west of the Mississippi where the main railway lines
run in a general east-west direction and where the cross lines arerelatively few. The“
change effected by themotor car in this region
is illustrated as follows :
I f a Siou x Falls jobber cou ld sell a bill of goods to a merchant inBrookings, S . D to be ship p ed from Sioux Falls by rail, it wou ld bebest to go via the N orth Western, and the route taken wou ld be westfrom Sioux Falls to Salem, S . D ., a distance of 40 miles, then northtoHuron, a distance of miles, and then east to Brookings, a distance Of72 miles, making a total hau l of miles, and the time consumedwou ld requ ire second morning delivery at Brookings . The total distancefrom Sioux Falls due northto Brookings by truck is 58 miles and theschedule now in effect by truck is a dep arture from Siou x Falls ata .m., and delivery at Brookings at p m. the same day.
7
I t thus appears that one of the important functions of motor
transportation has been to fill in gaps existing inthe railroadstructureI
‘
In SO flOing, the hashad theeffect of
rounding out the city’
s hinterland and of intensifying localrelations . I n a word, this new form of transportation has madefor the development of modern city regionalism .
7 Armour’
s Livestock Bureau ,
“The Motor Truck in the Food Industry,
Monthly Letter to Animal Husbandmen, Vol . XI , No . 8, November, 1930, p . 9.
[ 14a ]
CHAPTER XI
DISTANCE AS A FACTOR IN THE
INTERRELATIONS OF CITIES
N OUR machine economy of large-scale production and inter
community division Of labor, distance is becoming an increasingly important factor . As cities extend their activities and
become centers Of diversified local economies, their relations with
one another become more and more complex . Urban living
necessitates more sensitive economic and social adjustments to
time and place than were required in the rural economy Of'
earlier
itimes . The whole tempo of life has been speeded up in recentyears, effecting a more sensitive balance in intercommunity rela
tions . And the more sensitive the balance the greater is thedanger of disequilibrium . I t is not surprising, therefore, thatincreasing attention is being manifested in all subjects pertaining
to transportation and communication . Every new development
in the agencies for overcoming d istance is given wide publicity
as a subject of popular interest . Cities are ever on the alert with
respect to changes or contemplated changes in facilities Of
transportation and communication ; realizing as they do that evenslight variations in freight rates , time schedules, and routes of
traffic may affect them for good or ill . I n the recent hearings
before the Interstate Commerce Commission regarding suggested
modifications of the freight-rate structure in the midwesternstates (Western Trunk Line Territory) , pages Of
testimony were taken, and approximately exhibits contain
ing more than pages were received .
” 1
I n our modern economy, distance is conceived largely in terms
of time and cost rather than in actual mileage. I n this respect,distance is variable, changing
“with every modification In thespeed and cost Of transportation. This variableness of distance
gives to every city and region an unstable economic p osition inintercommunal relations that is not adequately represented by the
4 I nterstate Commerce Commission, Rate Structure I nvestigation, Part 2,
Western Trunk-Line Class Rates, Report N O. May, 1930 , p . 14 .
[ 144 ]
D I S TAN C E A S A FA C TOR
city ’s actual geographic location. The physical distribution of
population centers as shown on ordinary maps gives but slightindication of their spatial arrangement as measured by the time
or cost of intercommunication. If our geographies depicted therealities of human spatial relations, the distances that separatecommunities would be shown in minutes and cents rather than in
miles .
CHANG I NG TIME DI STANCE (PAS SENGER)
I t is common knowledge that space is contracting in response
to recent developments in the agencies of transportation and
communication; From the standpoint of the time required to
travel from one extremity to another , continental United States
is smaller today than the N ew England of a century ago . Priorto the com ing of the railroad when the stagecoach constituted
the fastest means of inland travel , it required from four to nine
days , depending on the weather, to make the journey from N ew
York to Boston— a distance of about 220 miles ; and from two to
three days to travel by stage from N ew York to Philadelphia— a
distance of 91 miles , whereas today one may travel by train from
N ew York to San Francisco in 74 hours, or approximately three
days, and by scheduled air service in less than 30 hours, that is , in
approximately one-half the time required to travel by stage from
N ew York to Philadelphia before the modern era .
2
Great as this general process of contractionhas been, ithas nottaken place uniformly throughout the nation . Just as the con
traction of the physical world created mountain folds and plains ,so the contraction of the economic and social worldhas been more
pronounced in certain places than others .
By an exam ination Of time schedules and freight_
rates it is
possible to gain a general , though inadequate, impression ofhowour economic and social world is becoming reduced in magnitude .
The substitution Of the motor car for the horse-drawn vehiclehascontracted local distance to about one-tenth of the former scale .
The motor vehiclehas not, however , materially reduced the time
or cost of travel , as established by the railroad , between distant
points . The speed Of themotor vehicle, increasing as it is, does not
as a rule equal that of the express train in intercity travel. Therefore, in measuring the contraction of space between distant
.
2 Stage schedu les as given by the U .S . Census, A Century of Popu lationGrowthin the United States, 1 790 -1900, 1909.
[ 145 ]
TH E METROPOL I TAN COMMUN I TY
points, railway time schedules and freight charges at different
per iods may fairly be taken as gauges of changing time-cost
distance.
Railroad — As Chicago is the hub of the nation’
s rail trans
p ortation system, itmay logically be taken as the base from whichto note comparative changes in . the speed of travel to different
sections Of the nation. I n Table 55 the fastest running time of
TABLE 55 .— CONTRACTION OF SPACE AS SHOWN BY CHANGE S IN RA I LROAD/TIME
SCHEDULES AND BY AIRPLANE SCHEDULE S BETWEEN CHICAGO AND SELECTEDCITIE S, 1912, 1920, AND 1931
Railway Airplane‘
Increase or
Chicago toFastest running timeb decrease Fastest(In hours and minutes ) in fastest Route flying
running distance time, 1931
time, 1912 (miles) (hours and3 1 (hours and minutes)minutes)
New YorkWashingtonPittsburghClevelandDetroit
Los AngelesSan Francisco
OmahaKansas CitySt. Lou isSt. PaulJacksonvilleNew OrleansAtlanta .
NashvilleCincinnati
0 Route distances are taken from U.S. War Department, Oflicial Table of Distance, 1918. Theymay not correspond to the actual distances traversed by the fastest trains.b Ofiicial Guide of the Rai lways, April of each year.6 Compiled from The Oflicial Aviation Guide, August, 1931 , and Air Commerce Bulletin, July 1,
1931.
trains between Chicago and 17_large cities, selected to illustrate
changes in travel time in different parts of the nation, is listed forthree difl’erent periods : 1912, 1920, 1931 . Included in the tablealso is the fastest Official flying time between Chicago and thesame cities as Of August, 1931 .
[ 146 ]
TH E METROPOL I TAN COMMUN I TY
The reduction of space as reflected in time schedules has notbeen uniform . The time distance between Chicago and N ew
Yorkhas increased slightly3 while that between Chicago and othereastern points has remained practically unchanged during thelast 20 years . The time distance to southern points has beensubstantially reduced , but the greatest changehas been betweenChicago and Pacific Coast points where the running time in 1931
was 10 to 18 p er cent less than in 1912 and about 20 p er cent less
than in 1920 .
The recent tendency in train time schedules is t oward a more
uniform scale of speed between all distant points . The speedof travel to western and southern points is becoming more in
harmony with the Chicago-N ew York time scale. Moreover, thetime differentials between fast and slow trains are decreasing.
There are relatively more fast and fewer slow trains than therewere a decade ago . For instance, in 1912 the median running time
Of 25 trains between Chicago and N ew York was 24 hours and
40 minutes, while in 1930 them edian running time for 29 trainswas 20 hours and 50 minutes . Although the proportion of fast
trains between Chicago and other points has not increased to a
similar extent, nevertheless on most lines therehas been considerable decrease in average running time .
Time reduction in railway schedules has been effected largely
through the elimination of small station stops . I n 1920 , when the72-hour schedule was in effect between Chicago and the PacificNorthwest, the Great Northern
’
s fastest train made 36 regular
stops between Minneapolis and Seattle ; the Chicago, Milwaukee ,St . Paul and Pacific Railroad ’s fastest train scheduled 65 regularstops . In 1931 the regular stops between these two centers were,for the Great Northern, 13 ; and for the Chicago, Milwaukee,St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, 43 . On the shorter hauls, as
between Chicago and St. Louis, or Chicago and Detroit, non
stop trains have been introduced and most Of the faster trainsstop only at the large centers .
Air.— The airplanehas initiated a new era in time" distance
in intercity travel . Flying time tends to approximate one-thirdOf
‘
th'
e fastest train time. The reduced time Of air transportation
results not only from the more rapid speed of travel but alsofrom the shorter route distances . The reduction in routemileage is
3 Subsequent to the comp ilation of these figures several Chicago-N ew York
trains reduced their schedules to 18hours .
[ 148 ]
D I S TAN C E A S A FA C TOR
particularly pronounced where water or other physical barriers
necessitate a meandering of the routes Of surface transportation.
For example, the air time from Detroit across Lake Erie to Cleveland -is scheduled at present as 55 minutes as compared with 3hours and 50 minutes by fastest train service . Likewise the air
time from Detroit to Milwaukee across Lake Michigan is 2 hoursand 45 minutes as compared with 7 hours and 45 minutes by train ,
allowing no time for change of trains in Chicago .
FREI GHT TIME SCHEDULES
Even greater changes than those in passenger movement have
taken place in the speed of railway freight. The average freight
car mileage pen day increased from miles in 1922 to
miles in 1929, the peak year . N ot onlyhas there been an increase
in the speed Of freight movement but also greater regularity inservice .
“
I t is now the general practice to run a part of thefreight trains on schedules almost as stringent as those of passengertrains .
”4
Since 1923 the Chicago Association of Commercehas publisheda yearly chart showing the fastest time of through freight fromChicago to different centers throughout the country ; the 1930
chart shows a reduction Of two to three days since 1923 in thetime required for freight to reach Pacific Coast points .The general effect Of the increasing speed of intercity trans
portation has been to emphasize the relative importance of thelarger centers of population . The automobile, by supplementing
rail transportation, has rendered obsolete a Vast number of thesmaller station stops required duringthe regime of the horsedrawn vehicle and dirt roads . According to L . F . Loree, Presidentof the N ew York, N ew Haven and Hartford Railway,
“ There arerailroad stations in the country . If we could get rid of
of them, a great saving woul d be effected .
” 5 The largecity is especially concerned about the speed of freight deliveries .
For it is only by increasing the dispatch of freight that it can
hope to maintain direct contact with distant marketing pointsin this day of hand-to-mouth buying . Accordingly, many citieshave established transportation bureaus to cooperate with the
4 Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Distribution in the United States,1931, p . 52 .
5 N ation’
s Bu siness, Vol . XVI I , No . 3, March, 1929, p . 100 .
[ 149 ]
TH E ME TROPOL I T AN COMM UN I TY
railways in effecting more speedy movement Of m erchandisefreight.
Freight—cost Distance — Although cost is closely associated
with time, tending to vary inversely with the speed of movement,
nevertheless cost differentials as measured by freight rates areworthy of separate consideration as they tend to have a selectiveinfluence on the routing of freight and , therefore, on the interrelations Of centers .
The great complexity of the freight rate structure of the nationmakes it impossible to show general cost distances betweendifferent centers of population . Freight rates vary for differentcommodities and for difl’erent conditions of shipment . Class
rates, however— that is, group rates for merchandise for which
there are no specific commodity rates and which comprise about10 p er cent of the total volume Of freight— may be used to
illustrate space differentials as measured in terms of cost of
transportation . Commodity rates would show much wider costdifferentials but the data are
'
too complicated for presentationhere .
Table 56 shows Class I freight distances compared with actual
distances between Chicago and selected cities . The shortestroute distance (mileage) between Chicago and these points is
translated into Class I freight-cost distance using the rate betweenChicago and N ewYork City as a base. Thus the cost of transporting 100 pounds of Class I freight from Chicago to N ew York, adistance of 909 miles, is 142 cents, or miles for one cent. Thecost of transporting 100 pounds of Class I freight from Chicago toRochester, a distance of 603 miles, is 105 cents . If the ChicagoN ew York rate Of miles per 1 cent prevailed between Chicagoand Rochester , the 105 cents would transport the 100 pounds offreight 672 miles, 69 miles farther than the present distance.
Accordingly Rochester’s Class I freight distance from Chicago as
determined by the Chicago-N ew York base is 672 miles instead of603 , the actual distance . I n a similar manner the freight distancebetween Chicago and each Of the other cities listed in T able 56has been computed .
This table becomes more significant when the figures are givengraphic expression .
I t is quite clear that the economic position of a city as rep re
sented by cost Of transportation bears little relation to its geo
graphic location . On a cost basis, Chicago is relatively closer to
[ 150 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
TABLE 56.—FIRST-CLASS FRE IGHT DISTANCE COMPARED WITH ACTUAL DISTANCE
(M ILEAGE ) FROM CHICAGO To REPRESENTATIVE CENTERS, TAKING THE
CHICAGO-NEW YORK RATE CE M ILES TRANSPORTATION FOR ON E
CENT AS A BASE ,
Rate(centsp er 100 Actual
Chicago to pounds distancefirst-class (miles)freight)
Trunk-line TerritoryNew York
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
o o o o o o o o o o o o o
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Central Freight AssociationFort WayneGrand RapidsDayton .
FlintDetroit .
Cincinnati .
Lou isville .
ColumbusAkronCleveland .
Canton, OhioPittsburghBuffalo
Southern Freight AssociationNashville .
Memphis .
Knoxville .
Chattanooga
AtlantaNew Orleans .
Jacksonville
D I S TAN C E A S A FA C TOR
TABLE 56 .—FIRST-CLASS FRE IGHT DISTANCE COMPARED WITH ACTUAL DISTANCE
(M ILEAGE ) FROM CHICAGO TO REPRESENTATIVE CENTERS, TAKING THE
CHICAGO-NEW YORK RATE OF M ILES TRANSPORTATION FOR
ON E CENT AS A BASE ,— (Continued)
Rate (centsp er 100 Actual
Chicago to pounds distancefirst-class (miles)freight)
Southwestern Freight AssociationDallas
San
El Paso
Western Trunk-line TerritoryDes Moines
M inneapolisDuluthWichitaDenver
Transcontinental Freight Association Territory :
Spokane
Los AngelesPortland, OreSan Francisco .
San
0 Compiled from figures for December, 1930, furnished through the courtesy of Eugene Morris.
Chairman, Central Freight Association, Chicago.
eastern and farther away from southern and western points thanits geographical location indicates . Table 56 also demonstrates aprinciple familiar in the economics of railroad transportation ;namely, that costs per mile tend to increase as the length of hauldiminishes . The points close to Chicago show Wider differentials
between actual mileage and freight mileage than do points more
remote.
Railroad transportation is not conducive to compact economicregionalism . I t gives the local producer but little advantage overhis distant competitor in reaching the local market . The eco
nomics of motor transportation tend - to produce the oppositeeffect. The lower terminal and loading costs give the truck an
advantage over the railroad in the short hauls, an advantage
[ 153 ]
THE METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
which diminishes as the length Of haul increases .
6 Accordingly
motor transportation has the effect of intensifying economic
activity within the local area .
E FFECT OF THE PANAMA CANAL
Barring the introduction of the motor vehicle, the Opening of
the Panama Canal unquestionablyhas been the most important
transportation development Of the century with respect to thesettlement structure Of the nation . Although Panama traffic
constitutes a very small percentage of the total freightmovement
of the country, ithashad the effect Of disturbing the equilibriumof the freight structure and causing a renewal of interest in theinland water systems . The wide differential between land and
water freight rates— one which tends to increase rather than
diminish— has the effect of bringing the Atlantic and Pacificseaboards closer together ; while inland points depending upon
rail transportation are becoming relatively more remote . I n
Chapter II facts were presented showing the tendency Of p op ulation to mass at strategic points along the deep-water rim of thenation . This tendency, no doubt, is directly related to thedifferential between land and water freight rates . The recent rapidgrowth Of population along the Pacific Coast and in the N ew
York region seems to have a close relation to the opening Of thePanama Canal .
TABLE 57.- COST DISTANCE FROM PHILADELPHIA TO SAN FRANCISCO BY WATER
COMPARED WI TH COST DISTANCE OF SELE CTED I NLAND POINTS TO SAN
FRANCISCO BY RAIL, 1930“
Rail rate,”to San Francisco from
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Philadelphia Business Progress Association, . Transportation Faci lities in the Phi ladelphia Area,
August 11, 1980, p . 15 .
5 All rates based on 100 pounds.
3 In a recent p etition (June, 1931) to the Interstate Commerce Commissionfor an advance in freight rates, the railroads stated that the effective radius ofmotor-truck comp etition was from 150 to 200 miles .
[ 154 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
accessible to the canal route . The situation is illustrated by thefollowing quotation
There is little doubt Of the imp ortance Of the effect of a rate structure
upon the ability Of a manufacturer to sellhis p roducts . Here lies successor failure. A clear and typ ical examp le is seen in the effect Of the Panama
Canal up on Chicago’
s ab ility to sell in the Pacific Coast territory . Prior
to the bu ilding of the canal, Chicago ship p ers enjoyed a su bstantialbusiness in this territory. Up on the canal ’s comp letion, steamshipcomp anies began Op erating between the Atlantic and Pacific ports ,carrying merchandise and other commodities at rates materially lowerthan the all-rail rates from Chicago . As this business increased, withservice regu lar and dep endable, the bu siness of the MiddleWest ship p er
gradually decreased until, with excep tion Of sp ecialties, and , to a very
limited degree, Of some few commodities, the Pacific Coast territoryhas been lost to the Chicago market. N umerous efforts were made byChicago ship p ers in coop eration withtranscontinental railroads to
secure rates whichwou ld 'meet this comp etition, and not until theTransp ortation Department, coop erating with the I llinois CentralRailroad and Redwood Steamship Line, were rates secured p ermittingChicago ship p ers to meet this comp etition . These rates ap p ly only on a
few commodities, but it demonstrates clearly the effect of freight ratesup on the ability to sell and distribute manufactures .
7
CONCLU S I ON (WATER R IM )
The nation is gradually turning its face toward the water rim ,
not only to reach its own markets more efficiently—
b ut also to
participate more effectively ln the world market . I n the past, theocean gateways Of the United States were concentrated alongthe eastern seaboard ; but the Opening of the Panama Canal andthe increased contacts with South America and Asia are stimu
lating the development of many additional ocean gateways as is
indicated by the recent rapid growth Of Gulf and Pacific ports .
The margins Of the country as measured by cost distance fromthe national and world markets are the inland points remote from
contact with deep-water navigation. Large sections of the NorthCentral and Mountain states are tending to become
“ blighted
1areas”in the changing pattern Of the national economy . N ot
only has most Of this territory been unaffected by the major
industrial developments Of the decade, but it has become relatively more remote from the national and world market withrespect to the sale of its basic products .
7 The Chicago Association of Commerce, Chicago Commerce, December 7.1929, p . 201 .
[ 156 ]
D I S TAN C E A S A FA C TOR
The effect of freight rates on the growth and interrelation of
cities is difficult to measure. There can be no doubt, however ,that, had the earlier freight rate structure of the country beenbased on distance, as it is now tending to become, the presentpattern Of communal life would be quite different . I t is axiomatic
that commercial centers tend to arise at points Of break in
traffic . But breaks in traffic are due not merely to geographical
barriers, which necessitate transfer from one type of carrier to
another ; they are due also to'
breaks in freight rates . The countryis divided into freight territories, and sudden changes in rates
frequently occur at the boundaries Of these territories . Cities,therefore, which are breaking points in the freight rate structure,enjoy advantages over competing centers less fortunately situated .
157 1
CHAPTER XII
COMPETITION AND INTEGRATION
HE general contraction Of space, the increasing fluidity of
products and people, together with the rapid development of
large cities— the number of cities of and over in theUnited States increased from 38 in 1900 to 93 in 1930— have
the effect of intensifying intercity competition and of bringing
about various forms of intercity and interregional division Of
labor . Of all the forms Of human aggregation the city is perhapsthe best example of the free interplay of economic forces . Unl ike
the nation as a whole, which may impose tariff barriers and
immigration restrictions to shield itself against outside competi
tion,
1 the city, as far as the domestic market is concerned, must
meet competition in an Open field . I ts size and position in thelarger economy are determined by its relative strength in thecompetitive process .
I NTERCI TY COM PETI TION
There are two identifiable though related aspects to thequestion of intercity competition . One is the competition among
small centers under the shadow of themetropolis ; the other is therivalry among the larger centers that are aspiring toward orhavealready attained commercial dominance over surrounding settlements . They may be thought of as intraregional and interregional
competition . These two types of intercity competition are so
intimately related and similar in nature that it is Virtuallyimpossible to discuss them as separate phenomena . With respect,however, to the competition among the small cities within theimmediate area of the metropolis, there seems to be a tendency
toward accommodation to a regional economy .
1 The city or regionmay u se its p olitical influence tohave its basic commoditiesp rotected by tariff s . The p rotection that one region Obtains for its p roducts islargely paid for by other regions in the form of increased p rices . Consequently,tariffs, like the geographic distribution of federal government funds, p rovide thebasis for muchp olitical rivalry between different regions within the nation .
[ 158 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
ADJU STMENT TO THE N EW SCALE OF DI STANCE
Indeed , the regional trend is up setting‘
to both the smaller
regional satellites and to the many aspirants for commercial
dominance . Most of our cities were established before the era of
motor transportation and other recent developments which tend
toward modern regionalism . Consequently, the pattern of d is
tribution is frequently out of harmony with present cond itions .
In some regions large cities are located too close together for
each to become a center of regional activities . I n other areas,
remote from larger centers, small cities are assuming the status
Of embryonic metropolises for surrounding settlements and
are gradually taking over many of the local functions formerly
performed by the larger and more distant cities . This process
of readjustment to modern regionalism is causing a pronounced
rearrangement of urban populations 2 and forms the basis of muchof the present intense rivalry among the larger cities of thenation.
S ize as a Factor.— I n the competition between cities , size is an
important factor . Inasmuch as the concentration Of many func
tions seems to be cumulative in character , the city which onceattains an advantage over its competitors in number of inhabitants can maintain its dominance largely by virtue of bulk
momentum . Consequently, the will to grow, to increase in pop ulation, wealth, and prestige, dominates the p sychology of most
American cities . 3 This will to grow is evidenced in the generalconcern about local rates of aggregation . Following each decennial census, numerous cities throughout the country protest tothe Bureau Of the Census against what they consider to be an
underenumeration of their inhabitants . The large city is con
cerned not merely with its own rate of growth but with that Of
its region as a Whole . For , as a city expands its economic influenceover adjoining settlement, it benefits, in many respects, as much
from regional growth as from increase Within its corporate limits .
Publicity.— This desire for -growth and status is furtherrevealed
in the literature of publicity issued by cities and their civic organiz ations . Extravagant claims regarding resources, the scope and
character Of marketing areas, and other local advantages fill the2 See p p . 30—33 .
3 Notwithstanding the general app rehension regarding the rap id urbani z ationof population, the individual city rejoices in its rap id growth.
[ 160 ]
COM PE T I T ION AND I N T E GRAT ION
pages of the periodicals and pamphlets distributed by many an
American c ity . To illustrate :
An enterp rising and delightfu l southern city with a p opulationslightly in excess of has recently p u blished throughits leadingtrade organi z ation what ap p ears to be a most creditable market datahandbook. I ts trading areas are described in circles . I ts advertisershaveconceived a 500-mile radius for the circle of its trading territory. Chicago,
Detroit, Cleveland, Bu ffalo, Baltimore, Washington, St. Lou is, and
Kansas City are boastfu lly listed among the 35 of the 100 largest citiesof the country lying within its radius— therefore, Within the city
’
s tradeterritory.
4
An examination of such publications over a period of time,
however, discloses a tendency on the part of many cities toward
more tempered statements and more scientific analyses of
regional data . Facts are marshaled and presented with greater
care than formerly and the compass is being discarded in themapping of market areas . This tendency toward more scientific
procedure is due, perhaps, in part, to the example set by theBureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce in its careful re
gional studies ; and in part also to the growing realization thatthe more desirable types of business and industry are not be
guiled by. reckless advertising.
Competition among the larger cities assumes a wide variety of
forms, most of which never become focused in public attention.
From a national survey of community advertising made several
years ago by the United States Department of Commerce it wasfound that the principal Objectives of the expenditure of funds
for community promotion as listed in the questionnaires re
turned by 322 cities , were as follows :
Tou rist business, 22 p er cent ; bu siness p romotion, 21 p er centfip restige and good-will, 17 p er cent ; conventions and p u blicity, 14 p er
l
‘
cent ; agricu ltu ral development, 13 p er cent ; residence and settlers, 1 1p er cent. Eight resp ondents added indu strial p romotion, whichwasintended to be included under bu siness p romotions, while mining and
fishing development and the p romotion of attendance at a local collegewere also mentioned as Objectives .
5
An interesting feature brought to light in this survey was thefact that community promotion, or the consciously directed
4 An Outlinefor MarketSurveys : Prepared for Manufacturers, Distributors, andCommunities, by George C . Smith, I ndustrial Club of St. Lou is, 1930 , p . 12 .
5Wroe Alderson (U.S . Dep artment of Commerce) , Advertisingfor CommunityPromotion, 1928, p . 6 .
161
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN ITY
competition of a city with its rivals , is more pronounced among
the intermediate group of centers than among the greatmetropolises .
The largest direct exp enditure for advertising comes in the middlegroup Of cities, those withp op u lations of from to I t is
in this group of cities that the phenomenon known as the communityadvertising campaign p ecu liarly belongs, in which a good many thou sanddollars are raised by an intensive canvass and budgeted to a variety of
mediums for advertising over a p eriod of two to five years .
6
Much of the present intercity rivalry may be regarded as a
temporary stage in the process of readjustment to an inter
regional economy . I n time, no doubt, new forms of accommoda
tion and division of labor will develop between the larger citiesto counteract the conditions making for the present severity
Of intercity competition. Much will_depend upon whether new
inventions, particularly those relating to the agencies for over
coming distance, will be introduced to start new successions inintercommunal relation. There is evidence that life is becoming
adjusted to the conditions imposed by motor transportation ;there is also evidence that certain cities have begun to settledown and take stock of their limitations as well as of their
advantages . The more cities are thrown back upon the resources
of their respective regions the more stable is our intercity econ
omy likely to become .
I NTE GRATI ON
While the forces of competition tend to set cities and regionsapart as separate economic and social entities, other forces at
the same time are drawing them together in an ever finer webof functional interrelationship . The trend toward closer integration Of settlement is represented in the expansion of communica
tions— in the highways, airways, pipe lines, and particularly inthe modern agencies for the dissemination of intelligence. Thethickening of the web of routes, the increasing speed of traveland transport, the development of the metropolitan p ress , of
toll telephone service, the mails, and the radio, all are Objectiveindices of the trend toward more intimate relations among thevarious units of settlement .
Commercial Patterning — A national system of key cities ,each dominating a more or less definable trade area, is arising in
6 I bid ., p . 3 .
162
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
Once a city becomes established as a regional distributing
center, its banking, transportation, and other facilities compel
new concerns entering the region to select it as their point of
Operation . This cumulative process is one of the chief factorsin explaining the recent rapid growth ofmany of the more isolated
cities of the nation, particularly those ln the South and Middle
West where state rates Of population increase have been rela
tively low .
10 This tendency toward concentration of business
function in certain types of cities is indicated roughly by statis
tics pertaining to the recent construction Of Office space. Whileincrease in Office spacehas been one of the conspicuous develop
ments in the construction field in postwar years, ithas been muchmore pronounced in the larger than in the smaller cities , as
indicated by Table 58 .
TABLE 58 .— GROWTH OF NEW OFFICE SPACE , 1919— 1929, COMPARED WITH
POPULATION I NCREASE , 1920—1930 , IN FOUR GROUPS OF CITIES IN27 STATES“
Square feet of new office spacePopu lation 0“ thousands)constructed, 1919—29
NumberSize group
548
406
508
Total
a Special tabu lation by F. W. Dodge Corporation.
Although the construction of office space since the World War
has been relatively greater in the larger groups of cities, therehave been wide differences in the amount of space constructed in
cities of approximately the Same size . I n short, location as wellas size is an important factor in the selection of a city as an Officecenter . I n Table VIII of the Appendix the number of square feetof new office space constructed during the 1 1-year period 1919to 1929 is given for individual cities , grouped by Federal Reserve
1° See p . 58.
164
COM PE T I T ION AND I N T E GRAT ION
Districts . Certain cities in each district stand out much more
prominently than others with respect to office construction . I n
the Boston Federal Reserve District, Hartford , with a populationof
'
164,000, is credited with over square feet Of new
Office space, while Providence, with a population of
records only square feet of new Office space . Obviously
the proximity of Providence to Boston diverts much of its business function to that larger metropolis . The proportion of new
Office construction to population increase is three times as great
in Boston as in Providence . Equally striking disproportionate
developmentsp
in new office construction appear among the cities
in the other Federal Reserve districts . I n general , industrial
cities and centers located relatively close to a larger commercial
city show smaller proportionsof new office space to population .
NATI ONAL ORI ENTATI ON
Head Oflices .— I n addition to the establishment of a large
number of regional centers, there is a tendency for certain
services to concentrate or to become oriented around single
TABLE 59.—LOCATION OF HEAD OFFICE S OF NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,
1929“
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 Compiled from the alphabetical list of Commerci al and I ndu strial Organi zations of the Uni tedStates, 1929.
5 Two offices each.One office each.
national centers . The pattern of national integration is indicated
in part by the distribution of head Offices of national-
organiza
tions of . various types . Although Table 59 shows pronounced
concentration in the location of the head offices of national
165 J
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
organizations, it also reveals considerable spread . The scatter ,however, is due primarily to the fact that a number of theorganizations do not maintain independent Offices . Their headquarters are merely the places where the secretary happens to
reside . If such organizations were eliminated from the foregoingtabulation, the concentration would be much greater in N ew
York and Chicago .
The distribution of head offices of chain-store organizations
follows a somewhat similar pattern, except that Washington
drops out of the list of those having more than two head offices .
TABLE 60 .— DISTRI BUTION OF 168 HEAD OFFICE S OF CHAIN-STORE
ORGAN IZATIONS EACH HAVI NG 100 OR MORE STORE OUTLETS,1930“
Twin Cities
Cincinnati
Kansas CityLos Angeles Jersey CityPittsburghSan Francisco 40 cities°
Philadelphia
Secured from Brokers Division, Chain Store Headquarters. 1930 edition, National Associationof Real Estate Boards.
5 Two offices each.One oflice each.
News Centers .—Further light may be cast upon the genera l
pattern of national orientation from data obtained by the Associated Press in a one-week survey (November 10—16, 1929) of
the origin of the news items that enter into the making of a daily
newspaper. The items represented in this survey
bore date lines from different communities, of whichwere in the United States, and 172 were foreign. Of the domestic items
or app roximately one-fourth, bore the date lines Of 17 cities . The10 cities supp lying the largest number were as follows :
New York 785 San FranciscoWashington 605 Boston
Chicago 396 Seattle
Los Angeles 350 Detroit
St. Lou is 254 Atlanta
[ 166 ]
THE METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
functions where the factor Of communication is dominant . I t is
primarily the national broadcasting center, the money-marketcenter, the publishing center of art and scientific journals .
Chicago , on the other hand, is the hub of the national trans
p ortation system , the point at which the entire population of
the nation could assemble in the shortest interval of time . Thepattern of division of labor is neatly illustrated in the field of
publishing and distribution . Several magazines designed to
summarize the latest news are published in New York butprinted and distributed from Chicago .
13
Finance and Business — The respective positions Of these two
cities in the national economy may be illustrated by statistics
showing the proportion of the banking cities and towns in thevarious census divisions of the United States which maintain
correspondent relations in either city .
TABLE 61 .— NUMBER OF BANKING POINTS REPORTING N EW YORK CITY AND
CHICAGO BANKS AS CORRE SPONDENTS, BY CENSUS DIVI S ION Sa
Division
New EnglandM iddle AtlanticbEast North Central6West North CentralSouth AtlanticEast South CentralWest South CentralMountain
Pacific
Total .
0 Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Business Administration, An Analysisof Bankers’ Balances in Chicago, University of I llinoi s Bulletin, Vol. XXVI , No. 10, November19, 1928, pp. 9- 11.Outside Greater New York.Outside Chicago.
N ew York dominates as a banking center in seven of the nineterritorial divisions. Attention is called particularly to N ew
York’
s dominance in western and southern territory . Chicagoholds a fairly prominent position in Pacific Coast and Mountainterritory, but falls far below N ew York in southern divisions .
1 ? The news-magaz ine Time is a consp icuous illustration. Time is edited inNew York City but p rinted in and distributed from Chicago .
[ 168 ]
COM PE T I T ION AND I N T E GRAT ION
I t would seem that the southern part of the country is orientedtoward N ew York as its financial and business center rather
than toward Chicago . Even the section lying west of the MissisS lpp l , which is more directly aligned by transportation with
Chicago, seems to maintain a closer integration with N ew
York .
14 This is further demonstrated by data collected in a recent
study Of the “ Distribution of Dry Goods in the Gulf Southwest”
made by the United States Department Of Commerce . In this
survey it was discovered that southern merchants patronized
New York as the main center for the purchase of all lines of
specialty merchandise . The results of the survey in this respect
are summarized as follows
Muchthe most imp ortant p rimary market traded in by dry-goodswholesalers and jobbers of the Gu lf Southwest is N ew York, althoughmuchof the merchandise p urchased through N ew York has its origins
in other p arts of the country.More thanhalf Of the jobbers rep orting,
and all but two withyearly sales of over maintain N ew Yorkconnections for buying. Of 17hou ses giving estimates considered reliableas to quantity
“
buying by sources , four withnet sales over
rep orted 75 to 90 p er cent Of their total p urchases as coming throughN ew York, while the rest estimated anywhere from 50 to 90 p er cent of
their merchandise requ irements to be similarly sup p lied .
1 5
Style.
-I t would seem that, as style becomes an increasing
factOr'
inmerchandising, N ew York ’
s position as a market center
is enhanced . T his is indicated by the extent t o which women’
s
clothing is manufactured or distributed from N ew York . I n 1927,
p er cent Of the total value of the national output of women’
s
clothing was credited to N ew York City as against p er cent
in 1909, and 68 p er cent in 1904 . I n men’
s clothing, however,Where the element of style is less significant, there is a much wider
distribution of production. I n 1927 only p er cent of the valueof products in this classification was credited to N ew York .
The concentration Of style merchandise and speciali z ed p ro
fessional services in N ew York City has the effect Of drawing to
that center selected occupational groups such as designers ,artists, brokers, and publishers . I n each of these occupations
New York contains ratios far beyond its population quota .
14 For data relating to the relative extent of travel on railways between com
mon southern p oints and New York City and Chicago, see Figure 8 .
‘5 U .S . Dep artment of Commerce, Domestic Commerce, July 20 , 1931 , p . 20 .
[ 169 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
The relation between these two great cities, Chicago and
New York, seems to be drawing ever closer, as is evidenced by
the flow of passenger trafli c 16 and the increase in the u se of
long-distance telephone service . While the number of toll mes
sages increased 34 p er cent over the country as a whole in thethree-year period 1927 to 1930 , the toll business between Chicagoand N ew York increased 1 15 p er cent .
17
SUMM ARY
Certain general tendencies are observable with regard to theinterrelations of cities . (1) The smaller satelliteswithin the shadowof a large city are tending to become adjusted to the metropolitan
situation . Their relations with one another and with the centralcity are assuming the form of integration and division of labor,thus eliminating some of the earlier features of competition .
(2) Rivalry between the larger cities— those that have become or
are aspiring to become centers Of commercial regions— seems to
be getting keener, as evidenced by the concern shown regarding
trade areas and numbers of inhabitants . (3) While competition
is tending to set ou r large cities apart in regional provinces,communications and national organizations are integrating them
within a larger interregional complex . (4) This interregional
economy functions through a system of sup erinterregional
centers . (5) N ew York City and Chicago are key supercenters
in the United States ; they integrate the various smaller regional
centers and thus orientate the entire country . (6) Between thesetwo great cities a division of labor has evolved , N ew York
becoming the center in the network of communications and
Chicago the center in the transportation structure .
1° See Figure 9, p . 138.
17W. H . Harrison,
“Recent Developments in the Toll Telephone Service,
Bell TelephoneQuarterly, Vol . IX, NO. 2, Ap ril, 1930, pp . 125—126 .
[ 170 ]
CHAPTER XIII
POPULATION PATTERN ING WITHIN THE
METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY
HE preceding chapters have dealt with the rise of the metro
politan community as a population aggregate and an econom
ic entity . The remainder Of this monograph will deal with
certain aspects of change within the metropolitan community
and with some of the problems arising therefrom . Outstanding
in this regard is the changing pattern of population distribution.
The ceaseless movements of population from one locality to
another within the city and its surrounding territory have occa
sioned far-reaching transformations in the internal organizationof the city and have given rise to many administrative and
financial problems .
THE CENTRI FU GAL DR I FT
The most conspicuous form Of population shift within themetropolitan area is the so-called suburban or out-going”
tendency . This is usually measured in terms of the proportionwhich the population of the central city or cities bears to the totalpopulation of the metropolitan district . For the last three decadesthe Bureau of the Censushas published figures for the metropoli
tan districts Of the large cities . As already noted , the procedureadopted in defining the 1930 districts was somewhat different
from that used in the two preceding decades ; 1 consequently strict
comparisons cannot be made over the 30-year period . However ,for 85 Of the 96 districts defined in the 1930 census, theBureau has adjusted the 1920 data to make comparison valid .
Table 62 presents the figures for these 85 districts by size groups .
I t will be Observed that the rate Of increase in the outside
territory of these 85 metropolitan districts is a little more than
twice as great as that in the central cities, and , as would beexpected , the rate differentials tend to increase with the size of
the districts . To be sure, wide variations are found in the relative1 See p . 39.
173
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN IT Y
rates of change for diflerent districts, depending largely upon
the practice of annexation. For instance, six of the districts showan actual decrease in population since 1920 in the territory outsidetheir central cities ; but in all save two— Duluth and Evansvillethe decreases were due to recent annexations .
2
TABLE 62 .— POPULATION AND PERCENTAGE I NCREASE OF 85 ME TROPOLITAN
DISTRICTS IN CENTRAL CITIES AND OUTSIDE TERRITORY, BY SIZE GROUPS,1920—1930“
Population(in thousands) Percentage
District increase,
1920-80
All districts of and over
In central cities .
Outside central cities .
Districts of to
I n central cities .
Outside central cities
Districts of to
In central cities .
Outside central cities
Districts of to
I n central cities .
Outside central cities .
Districts of to
In central citiesOutside central cities .
Districts of and over
I n central cities
Outside central cities .
0 U.S. Census, 1930, MetropolitanDistricts, compiled fromTable 4. pp . 10—13. For l ist of districtsnot included in this tabulation, see footnote 6, Table 18, p . 42.
Another point to note in regard to these 85 metropolitan dis
tricts is the relatively large proportion of the popu lation,
p er cent, that is recorded as outside the central cities . For 1 1 of
the districts the outside population is greater than that in thecentral cities . I n the Pittsburgh district it is almost twice as great
2When a city annexed a comp lete civil division between the two census p eriods.the Bureau of the Censu s added to the city
’
s 1920 p opu lation the p op ulation of
the annexed division at that date ; but in most cases the annexed territory cut
across civil divisions and therefore was not adju sted by the Bureau . The generaleffect of this is to reduce somewhat the actual rates of increase of outside territory.
[ 174 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
TABLE 63 .— POPULATION CHANGE BY CONCENTRIC ZONES FROM THE CENTER
OF THE CITY OUTWARD, 1910—1930“(New York, Chicago , Cleveland , Pittsburgh )
Percentage increaseor decrease
9
4-mile zones”5
9
64 5
11 1
Outside cityc
9 o
2-mile zones“
Outside city°
2-mile zones"
103.
Outside cityc
Pittsburgh 679 3 770 3 867 3
2-mile z onesb
Outside city° 499 . 1 582 . 4 732 . 9
0 Data compiled from U.S. Census , 1930 , on the basis of census tracts : that for New York byWalter Laidlaw, Cities Census Commission, New York ; for Chicago by Charles Newcomb , University of Chicago ; for Cleveland by Howard W. Green, Cleveland Health Council ; for Pittsburghby Philip E. Keller, Bureau of Social Research . Pittsburgh . Due to the fact that the outer zonesare not strictly coterminous with the political boundaries of these cities the figures for total popalations vary somewhat from those given in the census reports.
5 When zone boundaries intersect census tracts or other statistical areas the population is estimated ou the basis of the proportion of the area falling on either side of the dividing line.
t’As given in the U.S. Census. 1920 , Pap ulation, Vol. I . Adjusted by P. K. Whelp ton, ScrippsFoundation, to make data comparable for the three periods .
4 Less than 1 p er cent.
[ 176 ]
POPULAT ION PATT E RN I N G
FIG . 12.
[ 177 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
delphia,Boston, St. Louis, and Detroit, though not directly
comparable, tell a similar story . The depression seems to be
causing considerable backwash to these lower-rental areas, but in
all probability this is only a temporary cessation of a general
centrifugal process .
Figure 12, which shows population change by districts in
Chicago for the decade 1920 to 1930 , fairly typifies the patternof recent expansion in the larger cities of the United States .
THE GROWTH PROFI LE OF A METROPOLI TAN DI S TRI CT
The outflow of population from the inner zones of the largecity meeting the incoming tide from surrounding rural territory
I3 I7 2 1 25 2 9
MILES FROM CENTER OF CITY.
FIG. 13.
effects a rather interesting growth profile for the metropolitan
region which , from the data at hand, can be shown only in
general outline . Figure 13 gives a rough approximation of thegrowth profile of the Chicago district for the decade 1920 to 1930 .
The 1920 population in successive zones, as in Table 63 , is taken
as the base line and the percentage change, minus or plus, for the[ 178 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
In general the statistics for these districts show that theproportions of females, foreign-born whites, and Negroes werehigher in the central cities ; while the proportions of children,
males , and native white Americans were higher in the suburban
territory . Females outnumbered males in central cities in 68 of
the 96 districts, whereas in the outside territory this was the casein only 17 districts . Likewise in 82 districts the percentage of
foreign-born whites in central“
cities was higher than in the outsideterritory ; and in 90 districts this was also true of the percentageof Negroes .
The most pronounced form of selection shown by the statisticsof metropolitan districts pertains to the distribution of the child
population. In all but 4 of the 96 districts the percentage of
children under 15 years of age was higher outside than insidecentral cities . These data indicate the tendency of family groupsto establish themselves around the periphery of the community .
Broad comparisons of such heterogeneous population aggre
gates as are found in large cities and their surrounding settlements
give but slight indication of the operation of selective processes .
I t is well known that the suburbs of any large city may differ
greatly, one from another, in the make-up of their p op u la
tions . Residential suburbs, particularly the more exclusive ones ,
tend to have a high proportion of women, a relatively low ratio of
children, and a small percentage of foreign born ; while in most
industrial suburbs the conditions are reversed . The unincor
p orated territory adjacent to large cities almost invariably shows
high ratios of males and children.
The selective processes involved in city expansion seem to
operate in a somewhat orderly and typical fashion from the centerto the periphery of the community . I t is now possible by means
of census-tract statistics to show how different elements of thepopulation become segregated and arranged throughout the community as a Whole . Obviously it is impracticable to attempt a
detailed analysis of such data here. A sampling of a cross section
of metropolitan Chicago may serve to illustrate how, selective
forces operate.
In Figure 14 is shown the age-sex composition of the p op ula
tion of Oak Park Village, a residential suburb , and of six census
tracts lying along Madison Street between Oak Park and thecenter of Chicago. The tracts selected are approximately
miles apart . Inasmuch as the population of a large part of this
[ 180 ]
POPULAT ION PATT ERN I N G
[ 181 ]
THE METROPOL I TAN COMMUN ITY
area is characterized by a high degree of mobility, it is safe to
assume that it has changed many times in the 20-year intervalshown . Yet the age
-sex composition of the respective tracts hasbeen altered only slightly . I n each decade an excessive proportion
of adult males is found in the area lying close to the Loop— themain business center— with a tendency toward a more even age
sex distribution as one proceeds out toward the fringe of themetropolitan area . The general tendency of women and children
to withdraw from the central section of the city is quite apparent .
So, too, is the decrease in the proportion of childrenin the outly
ing tracts , although in interpreting this fact considerationmust be
given to the general decline throughout the city during the lasttwo decades in the proportion Of children to adults . Research on
a more extended scale may well show that this age-sex pattern is
somewhat typical of metropolitan communities .
Economi c Selection.
—Perhaps the most important form of
selection involved in metropolitan expansion is that pertaining
to the distribution of the different income and occupational
classes of the p opulation . I t is a matter Of common observation
that the inner and Older sections Of a city, particularly those
lying close to the main business center , are usually inhabited bythe weaker and less stable elements of the population, while theouter zones and suburbs tend to have higher proportions of
the more substantial members of the community .
TABLE 64 .—DISTRIBUTION OF FOUR SERIES OF SOCIAL DATA IN I NDIANAPOLIS,
BY ZONE S“
0 R. Clyde White, The Relation of Felonies to Environmental Factors in I ndianapoli s,Journal of Social Forces, Vol . X, No. 4, May, 1932, pp . 498—509.
5 Cases of the I ndianapolis Family Welfare Society p er married or widowed women, datafor November, 1929.
c The per capita contributions (residence of contributor) to the Indianapolis Community Fundin 1930—1931 .
d Percentage of all males over fifteen years of age who are single, U.S . Census, 1980.
0 Percentage of land used for business purposes
TH E METROPOL I TA N COMMUN I TY
nevertheless the editor of this directory assures us that thebasis of selection has remained relatively constant . Accordingly
the trend in residential distribution of these families as shown in
Table 65 may be taken as a fair index of the movement of De
troit’
s most competent citizens .
TABLE 65 .— RE SIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF DETROIT’S SUBSTANTIAL FAM ILIES,
1910—1930“
Total families 100 . 0 100 0 100 0
Business center to GrandBoulevardb .
Grand Bou levard to city limitsBeyond city limits .
0 Compiled by Thomas M . Pryor, University of M ichigan, from Dau’
s Blu e Book and its
successor, the Social Secretary.
5 Approximately the area within a three-mile radius of the main business center of Detroit.
The general exodus of competent families from the inner zoneOf the city is apparent . The 1930 figures Show a distribution
almost the reverse of that prevailing in 1910 . Whereas in 1910 ,
p er cent resided within the Grand Boulevard circle and
p er cent beyond the city’
s corporate limits ; in 1930 , 50 p er cent
lived outside the city ’
s municipal boundaries and inside
Grand Boulevard . The remainder of the group in either yearresided in territory lying between the boulevard and the city ’s
corporate limits .
The families that have moved beyond the city limits haveconcentrated in two suburban districts : Grosse Pointe Village,located just east of the city, and the Bloomfield Hills-Birminghamdistrict lying to the north .
The data in Table 65 also show that a considerable part of
the movement from the area within Grand Boulevardhas been toother areas within the city rather than to suburban territory .
For example, the Indian Village district, located on the Detroit
River just east Of Grand Boulevard, has shown a rapid increasein its number of “
substantial families,” having 94 in 1910 , 114 in
1920, and 433 in 1930 . I n short, the process of segregation as well
[ 184 ]
POPULAT ION PATT E RN I NG
as the process of expansion is involved in the distribution of thehigher income groups .
Further indication that the shift of residence of the city ’
s
social élite is not always to suburban communities is found in
the rapid growth of Chicago ’
s Gold Coast district, only a few
blocks distant from the main business center Of the city , and by
the rapid development of fashionable apartments on ParkAvenue, adjacent to the leading business district Of N ew York .
I n fact in the largest cities there seems to be a tendency for thevery wealthy to establish at least a winter
“
residence close to
the Office center . This inward movement, however , is statistically
insignificant when compared with the general drift toward theoutermargins of the community .
Cultural Selection.— I t is apparent that the cultural and
institutional structure of a community bears a close relation to
the trend in population patterning . The exodus of the betterelements of the city ’
s population— including a wide range of
income classes— from the inner to the outer zones is reflected in
the cultural life of the community . Measured by almost any in
dex, the city shows a tendency toward increasing wholesomeness
and social stability With distance from the center . As indicatedearlier in this chapter, rates of destitution, measured by family
TABLE 66 .— JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RATES, BY ZONE S FROM CENTER OF CITY
OUTWARD“
Rates by zones"
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
a This table is compiled from Clifl'
ord R. Shaw and Henry D . McKay , Rep ort on the Causes ofCrime, Vol. I I , National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D. C June, 1931 .b The juvenile court records from which the above cases were taken are for the following years
Chicago, 1917—1923 ; Philadelphia, 1927; Richmond, 1927—1980 ; Cleveland, 1919—1921 ; Birmingham.
1927—1930 ; Denver, 1924—1929; Seattle, 1926—1929.
0 Percentage -of boys ten to fifteen years of age in each area brought to the juvenile court on
petitions alleging delinquency.4 No data.
[ 185 ]
TH E METROPOL I TA N COMMUN I TY
welfare cases, show a pronounced tendency to decline with dis
tance outward . This same gradient pattern of distribution applies
to many cultural phenomena . Clifford R . Shaw, of the ChicagoInstitute for Juvenile Research , has computed juvenile delinquenoy rates by concentric zones for a number of large American
cities and in every casehas found a definite tendency for the ratesto decline with distance from the center of the city . Table 66
summarizeshis findings in this regard .
R . Clyde White, in his study of adult crime in Indianapolis,found a similar gradient pattern of distribution, as shown in
Table 67. I t will be observed that the rates of both felons and
felonies decline rapidly with distance from the business center
of the city.
The evidence seems conclusive that the selective processesinvolved in the expansion of American cities
'
tend to make for
increasing wholesomeness and stability as the outermargins of thecommunity are approached .
TABLE 67.— FELONS AND FELONIE S PER MALE S 15 To 74 YEARS OF AGE
AND PER SQUARE M ILE OF AREA, BY ZONES“
I I
I I I
IV
a R. Clyde White, The Relation of Felonies to Environmental Factors in Indianapolis,Journal of Social Forces, Vol. X, No. 4, M ay, 1982, pp. 498—509.
b Zones are established by drawing concentric circles at one mi le intervals from the center of thecity . Zone V is a wider area.
I NSTI TUTI ONAL ACCOMMODATI ON
In the process of city expansion, new developments tend to
concentrate at the center and around the periphery of the com
munity . The intermediate area, in which , as a rule, the poorerpeople congregate, lags behind the center and the rim in theprocess of cultural advance . Old buildings , old institutions, andOld ways of doing things characterize the economic and cultural
life of this intermediate zone . Here the city , in its growth , leaves[ 186 ]
TH E ME TROPOL I TA N COMMUN I TY
TABLE 68 .
— DISTRIBUTION OF MOTION-PICTURE THEATERS AND SEATS, BYC ONCENTRIC ZONES FROM CENTER OF CITY OUTWARD IN CHICAGO,
PHILADELPHIA, DETROIT, 1920—1930a
o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o oo o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o
CHICAGO
PHILADELPHIA
16
13
39
39
34
14
18
4
3 340
0 400
187 180
DETROIT
9
1
658
980
763
708
694
830
575
375
340
400
751
978
880
937
822
000
9 Data for Chicago supplied by Herbert Blumer ; for Philadelphia by Albert Comanor ; for Detroitby E . W. McFarland .
[ 188 ]
POPULAT ION PATTE RN I N G
I 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 IO I I l2 l3 I4
MILES FROM C EN TER OF C ITY
FI G . 15 .
189
TH E METROPOL I TA N COMMUN I TY
tribution of theaters according to size within these cities . Thelarge theaters— those having seating capacities of or more
are found only in themain business centers and in the outer zonesof the city . The increase in the average size of the theaters
located in the outer sections is significant . I t is important to
Observe that the average size of the theaters located in the zoneslying immediately beyond the main business center is notably
smaller than that of the theaters at the center or farther out .
Moreover, in both Chicago and Detroit, the aggregate number of
theater seats in this intermediate areahad declined considerablyby 1930 . I n Philadelphia , the decline was only relative.
The general pattern of distribution of theater seats in thethree cities, together with the changes recorded between 1920
and 1930 , is clearly portrayed in Figure 15 . The contours in this
figure should be compared with the land-value profiles shown in
Figures 29 and 30 , pages, 234 and 236 . The sim ilarity of thelines describing these two series of data is striking— first, the peakat the main business center , followed by a sudden drop of the linein the intermediate area , then by an upward turn almost as
abrupt as the outlying districts are reached . I n other words, thedata indicate the tendency of American cities to grow at thecenter and the rim and to decay in the intermediate territory .
SUMM ARY
To summarize briefly the data presented in this chapter : (1)The centrifugal movement Of the city
’
s population has beengreatly accelerated since the advent of motor transportation .
(2) This outward movementhas been selective in character , themore efficient elements of the population gravitating in “higher
ratios than the weaker economic groups to the margins of thecity ; (3) The wholesomeness of the urban environment. improves
with distance from the center of the city ; (4) Institutional development has followed closely the patterning Of population, by
confining location largely to the center and rim of the city ;
(5 ) The general outcome of recent city expansion has been thecreation of blighted areas in many of the Older close-in districts .
[ 190 ]
TH E METROPOL I TA N COMMUN ITY
0 0 0 O O O Q0 0 0 Q' N
SONVSOOHL N I NOLLV1 ndOd
[ 192 ]
EX PAN S ION OF POL I T I C AL AR E A
aries as population accumulates around its margins . I t thus
succeeds in maintaining within its corporate limits at least part
of the curve Of population growth within the region . The processis illustrated by Figure 16 .
I n this figure the political areas at diflerent periods in thehistory of three American cities— Cleveland , Boston, and St .
Louis— are considered as separate communities , and the curve of
population growth is plotted from the date when such area was
established down to 1930 . Thus the population growth in the cityof Cleveland as of 1830 is followed through to 1930 ; next theCleveland Of 1840 , which includes the incorporated territory of
1830 plus that annexed during the following decade, is likewiseheld “
constant down to 1930 ; and so with the area of the city as of
each subsequent decade . The same procedure is used in plotting
the curves for Boston and -St . Louis . The fewer bu t larger annexations of these two cities, however , produce less uniform curves Of
growth .
I t will be seen that each political area tends to come to a
stationary , if not an actually declining, population ; also that thegeneral growth of the cityhas been maintained through periodic
annexations of new territory . Cleveland, by virtue Of rather
frequent annexations, has succeeded in maintaining a rather
uniform curve of growth . That the time has arrived for further
extension Of Cleveland’
s political limits if the city is to keep pacewith the rate of growth of the district as a whole is shown by
the fact that between 1920 and 1930 the population inside thecentral city increased only p er cent, whereas that of the“
outside terr itory” of the metropolitan district increased
p er cent, and the metropolitan district as a whole, including thecity of Cleveland , p er cent .
Boston and St. Louis have made fewer annexations thanCleveland . Boston’
s last annexation was made in 1912, -whenHyde Park Town , comprising approximately 5 square miles Of
territory and people , was added to the city. Prior to that,Boston had annexed no territory for a period Of 32 years . St .
Louis has made no annexations since 1876, when approximately
43 square miles were added to the territory of the city .
The comparatively low rates of growth“
of these two citiesduring the last decade is partially explained by their failure toextend their boundaries . From 1920 to 1930 the population of thecity of Boston increased only p er cent, while that of the f‘out
[ 193 ]
TH E METROPOL I TA N COMMUN ITY
side territory of the Boston metropolitan district increased
per cent . The corresponding figures for St . Louis in this same
period are p er cent and p er cent respectively .
The failure or inability Of a city to annex the suburban territoryinto which its population moves is an important factor in ex
plaining the low rates of growth Of a number of the larger citiesof the United States . This is indicated in part by the figures
presented in Table 69. Included in this table are 18 of the 24
TABLE 69.
— I NCREASE IN POPULATION IN CITIE S THAT-ANNEXED No TERRITORYBETWEEN 1890 AND 1930, COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE OUTSIDE TERRITORYOF THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS IN WHICH THE CITIES ARE LOCATED,
1920—1930“
Percentage increase
Des Moines
Elizabeth-Jersey City-PatersonbHartfordNew HavenNew YorkPhiladelphiaProvidence-Fall River-New Bedford"St. Louis Mo
San AntonioSan FranciscoScranton
WashingtonWorcester
U .S. Census, 1930, MetrOpolitan Districts. The total number of cities over popu lationthat annexed no territory between 1890 and 1930 was 24 . Only 18 are shown in the table. Four ,Yonkers, Camden, Cambridge. and Lynn, were omitted because they are in immediate proximityto metropolitan cities and it is felt that they do not represent the typical situation. New Orleansis omitted because popu lation figures for the outside territory are not available. St. Pau l is omittedbecause of the impossibility of separating its outside territory from that of M inneapolis.
5 Combined by the Bureau of the Census into one district, the New Jersey Division of the New
York City metropolitan area. The city of Newark is excluded because it annexed some territorybetween 1890 and 1930.
0 One metropolitan district.
cities with populations in 1930 of or more which have not
extended their political boundaries since 1890 ; a number of
them have made no annexations for a much longer period . Bycomparing the rates of growth of these cities with the rates of
increase in the outside territory of the metropolitan districts in
[ 194 ]
TH E ME TROPOL I TA N COMMUN I TY
during the decade 1920 to 1930 , and the total area annexed was
less than in the preceding l O-year period , indeed less than duringthe last decade of the nineteenth century . Thirteen of the 82c itie s included in Table 70 have made no annexations since
1890 , and some have made none for a considerably longer period .
FREQUENCY AND AVERAGE S I ZE OF ANNEXATIONS
I n order to ascertain what the tendency is with regard to thefrequency and the average size of annexations, the figures in
Table 71 have been compiled .
TABLE 71 .— FREQUENCY AND AVERAGE SI z E OF ANNEXATIONS OF 35 CITIES,
BY DECADES, 1850—1930a
Decade
Total .
a Data derived from city engineers’
reports . Each separate parcel of land added to a city isconsidered as an annexation in this table.
The following 35 cities are included in this table (see Table IX of the Appendix) :
and
I t will be noticed that the trend for these 35 cities is towardmore frequent annexations , but the average size of the parcelsannexed is becoming smaller . For the first four decades , from1850 to 1890 , the frequency of annexations remained more or
less constant with an average of about 39 parcels of land p er
decade ; from 1890 to 1900 the number increased to 5 1 ; from 1900
to 1910 , to 95 ; from 1910 to 1920 , to 135 ; and from 1920 to 1930 ,
to 187. On the other hand , the average size of territorial accessions seems to be decreasing, although there are some noticeableexceptions . The average size of annexations from 1850 to 1860
was square miles, while for the following two decades therewas a marked decline to and square miles respectively.
[ 196 ]
EX PAN S ION OF POL I T I C AL AR E A
From 1880 to 1890 , there is an increase to square miles .
The trend from 1890 to 1930 is noticeably downward , although
the average size of annexations is higher for the decade 1910 to1920 than for 1900 to 1910 . The lowest average is square
miles, which occurred between 1920 and 1930 .
EXAM PLE S OF LARGE ANNEXATI ONS
From time to time, certain cities have annexed unusually large
parcels of land . In 1898 N ew York City consolidated with
Brooklyn (now the borough of Brooklyn) , Queens County (nowthe borough Of Queens) , and Staten Island (now the borough of
Richmond) , which added approximately square miles to thecity . I n 1915 Los Angeles annexed SanFernando, an area of
square miles, to its territory . I n 1854 the city limits of Philadelphia were made coterminous with the county limits, thereby
adding square miles to the city . Other cities that have
made large annexations include Baltimore, square miles
of land in 1918 ; St . Louis, approximately 43 squaremiles in 1876 ;San Francisco, square miles of land and square miles
of water in 1856 ; Buffalo, square miles in 1854 ; Oakland ,square miles in 1909; Miami , squaremiles of land and
square miles of water in 1925 .
Generalizing, it can be said that American cities are not
annexing territory in keeping with the expansion of their p op u
lation . Even the cities that have made most rapid extension of
their political boundaries in recent years have failed to in
corporate territory as fast as populationhas moved out or accu
mu lated near by. This is well illustrated by the cases of Los
Angeles and Detroit . Since 1910 Los Angeles has increased itspolitical area from 100 to 441 square m iles ; and Detroit from 40
to 139 square miles . Yet the 1930 census recorded over
people in the Los Angeles metropolitan district residing outside
the city of Los Angeles and in the Detroit metropolitan
district outside the corporate limits of Detroit .
ANNEXATI ON AND M ETROPOLI TAN GOVERNMENT
Obviously there is little possibility for the central city of a
metropolitan community to meet the problem of governmental
integration through the expansion Of political boundaries . I n
the first place, metropolitan population is spreading too widely
and too rapidly for the central city to hope to keep pace with
[ 197 ]
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
it by extensions Of political limits . In the second place, thereseems to be a well-defined tendency for the population of a metro
politan region to become multinucleated within the larger whole .
This process of nucleation appears even within the politicalarea Of the city where population becomes organized around
various business subcenters . I t appears in a more pronounced
fashion outside the corporate limits of the city in the form of
politically independent communities . As indicated in a previous
chapter, a large proportion of the new incorporations between
1920 and 1930 took place within the immediate orbits of thelarger cities .
3 I t would seem_
that at least part of the stimulus
in the recent suburban drift is the desire to move to communities
where life may be organized on a smaller scale and where individ
ual participation can be more effective .
3 See p . 71 .
TH E METROPOL I TA N COMMUN ITY
and (6) the distribution of the parcels into widely dispersed
ownership .
I n View of the public interest involved, in this process, public
regulation or control has been asserted in a number of ways ,depending in large measure upon the location of the property tobe subdivided . The greatest amount Of control is exerted over
properties lying within “
the political boundaries of cities or
municipalities ; very little is exercised over others . I n nearly every
case, however, the subdivider is obliged to file for record with theproper authorities a map showing howhe' proposes to subdivide
the property, including the provision made for streets, the exact
property lines established, etc . Before this map can be accepted
for record, it must have the approval of the administrative body,such as the city council or the board of supervisors, controlling
the area in which it is located . These bodies usually have es
tablished regulations governing the width of roadways or streets
and other mechanical or technical details concerning the method
of subdividing . When such a map has been recorded, title to theparcels may be transferred by reference to this map . The only
alternative to thismethod is that of selling “ by metes and bounds
description that is, by placing in the instruments that transfer
title an elaborate and technical description of the location of thelines that bound each parcel . This is a laborious process, fraughtwith imminent danger of m istakes and subsequent flaws In titles .
In some jurisdictions, it is forbidden .
3
Furthermore, in several instances municipalities have been
granted some powers of regulation of plats beyond their own
boundaries .
4 All of these powers, however, are confined solelyto the regulation of the manner in which subdivision shall take
place . In no instancehas any authority been granted to regulate
the amount of subdividing or the time when it may occur . De
cisions on these matters are left entirely to the judgment of
individuals.
When the sites have been prepared, they become graduallyabsorbed into urban uses, as permanent structures are erected on
3 The injunction is contained in the “Standard City Planning Enabling Act
p repared by the U .S . Dep artment of Commerce and widely adop ted. For sum
mary of legislation see Lester G . Chase, “Regional Planning Commissions or
Organi z ations,”1932 ;
“A Tabulation of City Planning Commissions in the
United States, 1932 ; Survey of City Planning and RelatedLaws,” 1929, 1931 ,all published in mimeographed form by the U.S . Dep artment of Commerce.
See footnote 3 .
[ 200 ]
EX PAN S ION OF UR B AN L AND AR E A
them . Some time must Obviously elapse before this takes place .
The major reason for a necessary lag between the preparation and
the utilization is that the two operations are conducted on a
diflerent scale. Preparation must be wholesale ; while utilizationis piecemeal . With the ownership of the sites distributed widely
among difl’erent individuals, seldom more than a half dozen lots
FIG . 17.
are likely to be brought into u se by the same operation. But
during this interval the land has been thrown out of rural or
semiurban uses and still waits the coming of the u se for which ithas been prepared . The improvements that have been installed in
the process meanwhile represent a large capital investment that
lies idle . Hence a social interest attaches to the problem of
reducing as far as is possible the interval between the two .
[ 201 ]
TH E ME TROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
The problems of the territorial expansion of urban commu
nities , therefore, center in this penumbra between the two usesand focus on two major considerations ; namely, (1) the geographical distribution Of subdivision activity in the penumbra ; and (2)the degree to which subdividing and utilization are correlated as
FI G . 18 .
to time, or the length of time necessary to complete the transitionof the area from rural to urban uses .
Expansion of urban uses and of subdividing activities in this
penumbra is not, as one might suppose, gradual or steady . Theurban community does not creep out steadily but expands by
leaps and starts . Subdividing activity is especially irregular and
erratic . Instead of appropriating the land at the edge of the202
THE METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
1919, from 1920 to 1924, and from 1925 to 1929. Each dot rep re
sents five lots . The heavy black line represents the median”
line of growth and is located by superimposing upon the map a
series of triangles of 7% degrees, with the angles radiating from
a spot chosen arbitrarily as the center of the city . The dots ineach triangle are then counted and a point chosen within the
FIG . 20 .
triangle beyond which the number of dots is equal to the numberbetween the point and the center of the city . These median pointsare then connected by the heavy “
median” line .
I t will be noticed at once that the first period , 1910 to 1914 ,was characterized by subdividing activity in rather widespreadareas, while during the next period , 1915 to 1919, the location
[ 904 ]
EXPAN S ION OF UR B AN LAND AR E A
of activity was much nearer to the center Of the city . In no
direction did activity in this period reach so far out from thecenter as ithad inthe preceding four years . As a matter of fact ,
this period represented the filling-in process that follows a period
FIG . 21 .
of reaching out . I t may be urged that this second period is notrepresentative because the war intervened to
_interrupt usual
processes .While this is partially true, still 1915 and 1916 were notwar years in America ; and the history of previous periods of urbangrowth seems to suggest that the situation was not abnormalduring these years in so far as the geographical location of ac
tivity was concerned .
During the following decade, another period of expansionwas experienced, similar to the one that was coming to an end
[ 205 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
between 1910 and 1914 . Subdividing activitie s sprang out arterial
highways to far-distant areas, overleaping much of the intervening territory in the swift outward movement, until by 1925 to1929 they had come to the remote corners of the whole region .
The period of expansion is marked not only by far-flungsubdividing but also by an enormous increase in volume . Thus in
FIG . 22 .
the Grand Rapids metropolitan region, from 1922 to 1928,inclusive, the number of lots in subdivisions placed on record was
or an average of a year ; while from 1915 to 1921
only or an average of 482 a year, were placed on record .
Likewise, during the three years 1929 to 1931 an average of only
298 a year were recorded . Doubtless the inactivity between 1915[ 206 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
A very similar story is told by the data from Detroit, Toledo,
and B irmingham , Alabama . A period of relative inactivity
lasting from 7 to 15 years has consistently been followed byfeverish activity that boosted the total number of new lots to a
figure several times that recorded during the inactive periods .
FIG . 24 .
The data on utilization of the lots created during these spurts
of activity are much less extensive, being confined to those for
the Grand Rapids region alone.
l The maps shown in Figures
21 to 24 indicate the geographical location of the lots utilizedduring the periods 1910 to 1914 , 1915 to 1919, 1920 to 1924 ,
and 1925 to 1929. Comparison of these maps with those in
7 The data on utili z ation are also from Fisher and Smith, op . cit.
[ 208 ]
EXPAN S ION OF UR B AN LAND AR E A
Figures 17 to 20 suggests the following observations : (1) Utiliz ation lags far behind subdividing as far as geographical distribu
tion of the sites involved is concerned . (2) Compared with the
.lso u 12 0 14 6 15 17 u n mo z i 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 29 |930 3l
FI G . 25 .
tendencies in subdividing, utilization tends rather to creep fromthe already built-up fringes into the penumbra with occasional
I909 I0 I I I2 I3 I4 IS I6 I1 18 I9 20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 29 30 3!
FI G . 26 .
sorties deeper into it . Utilization shows some tendencies, however ,to jump from the periphery of the built-up area into isolated anddetached locations, gradually filling up the interstices . But this
209
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
tendency is far less pronounced than it is in subdividing . (3) Thegeographical distribution Of utilization is much more uniform
than that of subdividing . Whereas subdividing activities are
grouped with heavy masses falling in some spots and practically
none in others, utilization is more evenly spread over the penumbra with the principal grouping tending to fall near the inner edge .
I n connection with the number of lots subdivided and thenumber utilized each year the greatest discrepancy appears . I n
Table 72 the number of each is given from year to year , from 1909
to 1931 , in the Grand Rapids region withthe central core Of thecity excepted . The figures are charted in Figure 25 . The cumulative total number of lots on record and the total number utilizedfrom year to year are given also in Table 72 and shown in Figure
26 .
I t will be noticed that for the entire period lots were
subdivided for every one utilized . The two series move almost
together , with the number of lots subdivided nearly always
practically double the number utilized . This correlation is inter
rup ted only for the years preceding the war and those following
1928, when sirbdividing all but ceased .
The principal explanation of these movements is found in therole that speculation plays in the extension of the urban territory .
Subdivision lots are created with reference to a market, not a
need . During periods of speculation, the market is active and a
large portion of the lots created are sold not for u se but as so
called “ investments . The purchasers expect to hold their lots
for a rise in price and a consequent profit . I n some cases, partie
u larly early in the period , such hopes are realized . These cases
serve to encourage further speculation, and a“
runaway market”
develops . The supply Of lots created during such a period appears
to have no relation to any reasonable apparent need for additional
sites for utilization .
This rOle of speculationhas as its basis the historical development of American communities . Pioneer days of
“ boom towns”
are still fresh in memory, and it has not yet been .generally
accepted that the “ period of explosive expansion” is over . Indeed ,there will probably be cases Of similarly rapid expansion in certain
communities, but the conditions that justified much of it in
earlier days no longer exist throughout the country as a whole .
The historical attitude still remains, however, as a general back
[ 210 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
Another suggestion is that subdividers be required not only
to secure approval of the mechanical features Of a proposed plat,but that they also be obliged to secure froma properly constituted
authority, such as a city or regional planning commission, a
certificate of public convenience and necessity, similar to that
required of a public utility, before they can offer subdivided lots
for sale .
8 This suggestion appears to have merit and is gaining
some favor . I t would not be surprising to find it adopted by many
communities .
Another suggestion is that subdividers be required to install
throughout a subdivision all the necessary public utilities, or
file a bond guaranteeing their installation, before Ofl’ering the lots
for sale . This requirementhas been used effectively in some juris
dictions. But this remedy is only a palliative. I t does serve to keep
the most irresponsible subdivider out of the field by requiring a
certain amount of financial stability . I t prevents gross misrep re
sentation and failure to live up to promises made dur ing theeffort to sell . I t will not, however, prevent and will scarcely
minimize the overexpansion due to speculation. This fundamental
force must be attacked and throttled by any plan to remedy thesituation.
Finally, some check upon speculative activities would be
exerted by the widespread dissemination of statistical data cover
ing the actual situation from time to time . Studies of this nature
would not be popular, however, in periods of speculation, and
their interpretation would be warped to fit the needs of particularinterests . They would, however , impose the necessity of explanation, at least to an informed prospective speculator . I t would
appear desirable to give such studies some form of official recognition and some official body the power to enforce the intelligentinterpretation of such data upon those who encourage speculationand would without some official restraint exaggerate the excessesof subdividing . I n other words, some power to exercise social
control or regulation of the amount of subdividing appears to benecessary .
3 See Coleman G . Woodbury, Some Suggested Changes in the Control ofUrban Land Development,
” Journal of Land and Public Uti lity Economics, Vol .V, No . 3, Augu st, 1929, p . 249.
[ 212 ]
CHAPTER XVI
THE STRUCTURAL METAMORPHOSIS OF THE
CITY
HE changing pattern of population distribution within themetropolitan region is associated with important changes in
the physical structure of the community and with the mode Of
function of its various institutions . A city is a physical mechanism
aswell as a population aggregate . The relations between the physical shell and its human content are reciprocal and interactive .
The one influences and directs the other . We have already
dealt with certain tendencies in aggregation and patterning
of population ; we shall now consider some of the structural
accommodations .
PHYS I CAL B ASE
The physical base of the city is expanding in response to thecentrifugal drift of the population . All the public utilities— streets,
water mains, sewage facilities , electric lighting, gas and telephone
services— show rapid rates of expansion within the past decade .
The increase in street pavement, which is generally paral leled by
the other services, may be taken as an index. I n 201 cities studied
TABLE 73 .-TOTAL AREA OF STREET PAVEMENT LAID IN 201 CITIES, BY
POPULATION GROUPS, 1925—1929“
Area (in thousands of square yards)
to
to
to
to
and over
Total
4 Ar thur H. Redfield, Street Paving in Rep resentative American Cities, 1925- 1939. U.S. Bureau
of Mines, 1. C. May, 1931 , p . 7. Names of cities given in this publication.
[ 213 ]
THE METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
by Arthur H . Redfield dur ing the years 1925 to 1929 inclusive,a total of square yards of pavement were laid, theannual amount increasing until 1927 and declining somewhat in
1928 and 1929. The data are summarized inTable 73 .
These figures pertain merely to pavement within the corporatelimits of cities . But a city
’
s street system is no longer confinedwithin its political boundaries . The paved motor highway net
encircling every city is really an extension of the street system .
From this standpoint it . is no longer possible to tell where thecity ends and the country begins .
The physical city has expanded in response to new conditions
of transportation and population distribution, whereas thepolitical structurehas lagged behind . I n a sense, the entire metro
politan complex made up Of its scores of incorporated communi
ties of varying size is rapidly acquiring a common physical base
in the form of streets, sewers, water mains, light, power, and
transportation and communication facilities . Superimposed upon
this common physical and econom ic unity is a multiplicity Of
separate political , judicial , police, tax-levying, and other ad
ministrative jurisdictions . This failure Of the political structureof the metropolitan community to become adjusted to thephysical and social structure of the larger community constitutesone of the major problems in local government at the presenttime .
1
BU I LDI NGS
The buildings in a city— houses, churches, schools, stores,
factories, Office structures, and the like— are physical manifesta
tions of the pattern of its social and economic organization .
Therefore tendencies in regard to type and extent of the variousclasses of buildings found in any city are significant indices Of
developments in the social and economic relations of its inhabitants .
Trends in building construction are here considered only as
they indicate change in the organization and life of the community,not as they affect the building industry itself . Inasmuch as an
increasing proportion Of all buildings constructed in cities rep re
sents construction for sale or rent rather than for u se by theowner , tendencies in construction are good barometers of thechanging organization of the city . Buildings, like motor cars or
household furniture, are made for profit, and therefore are resp on1 For a discussion Of metropolitan government, see Chap ter XXI I .
[ 214 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
in 10 of the 13 years for which data are available. I t gained
in relative importance from 1921 to 1924 and held a position of
OVer 60 per cent of the total through 1928 , only to drop Off sharplyin 1929. Commercial construction, of whiChthe chief subclass isoffice buildings, maintained a fairly uniform percentage of thetotal to 1931 when it declined to Factories dropped
suddenly in relative importance after 1920 , with a slight upward
trend between 1924 and 1929 and a pronounced sag in 1930 and
1931 . The effect of the depression is seen not only in themarked decline in total construction after 1929 but also in thechanging ratios in the several classes of building . N oncommer
cial classes— hospitals and institutions, educational and public
buildings— have gained in relative importance in the construction
program since 1929.
Residential Construction — In residential construction thereare at least two general trends that areWorthy of special atten
tion . The first is the recent tendency for new residential space to
increase faster than population ; and the second is the tendencytoward multiple dwellings . I n regard to the former, Leo Wolman,
who has conducted extensive research in this field, makes thefollowing summary statement
In the four years p rior to the American entry into the World War,
there was an average construction of 209 square feet p er p erson added tothe p opulation . When the war years are inclu ded, this average drop sto 205 square feet. The postwar boom of 1919 not only wip ed out all thehortage created during the war but raised the average to nearly 221square feet. Then followed another two years witha low constru ction
record, whichagain brought the average below the level established inthe fou r years from 1913 to 1916 . But, beginningwith 1922, constructionbegan a consistent upward movement, and by the end of 1927 theaverage residential constru ction p er p erson added to the p op u lation wasmore than 286 square feet.
2
The amount Of residential floor space allotted each new inbahitant varies considerably, however, in different localities . Table 75
shows the relation between the amount of residential construction
and the increase in urban population in the F .W. Dodge terr itories
for the 10-year period 1920 to 1930 . I n order to make the recentrecords comparable with those of earlier years, it was necessary
to combine a number of the territories . Consequently, the regionsLeo Wolman,
“Consumption and the Standard of Living, Recent Economic
Changes in the United States, Vol . 1, National Bureau of Economic Research, I nc1929, p . 63 .
[ 216 ]
TH E S TR U C T URAL METAMOR PHOS I S
for which the data are assembled are somewhat larger than thepresent Dodge territories . I t will be noted that the sparsely
settled regions, on the whole , provided less new residential floor
space than the more congested territories .
TABLE 75 .
— RELATION OF N EW RE SIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION (ALL TYPES) TOURB AN POPULATION I NCREASE , BY REGIONS, 1920—1930a
(Based on contracts awarded in 37 states)
Region
1 . New England2. New York and northern N ew
Jersey3 . M iddle Atlantic4. Pittsburgh5 . Central West
6. North West
7. South East
0 F. W. Dodge Corporation, special tabulation.
5 These are the F. W. Dodge Corporation statistical divisions as of 1929. A number of the districts intersect state boundaries and can be accurately described only by reference to county units .
The territory included in each district is roughly as follows : ( 1) The six N ew England States ; (2)New York State and northern New Jersey ; (3) eastern half of Pennsylvania, rest of New Jersey,Maryland, Delaware ; District of Columbia, Virginia ; (4) western half of Pennsylvania, states of
West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio ; (5) southern peninsula of M ichigan, the states of I ndiana, I llinois,M issouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, I owa, most of Wisconsin, parts of Arkansas, Tennesseeand M ississippi ; (6) states of M innesota, North and South Dakota, western Wisconsin, and theupper peninsu la of M ichigan; (7) states of North and South Carol ina, Georgia. Florida, Alabama,
Lou isiana. parts of M ississippi, Tennessee. and Arkansas ; (8) state of Texas . Precise boundaries ofthese districts may be obtained from the F. W. Dodge Corporation or from the author.
Adjusted to make the 1930 urban area correspond with that of 1920 . See U.S. Census, 1930,
Pop ulation, Vol. I , p. 7.
4 Data available for only seven years.0 Data available for only five years.
1 Adjusted to period for which data are available.
M u ltip le Dwellings .
—The rapid increase in the proportion of
families provided for in apartments is strikingly shown in a
compilation of building permits for 257 cities of population
or over published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics .
3 Between1921 and 1928 the percentage of one-fam ily dwellings, as indicated
by the building permits, dropped from to the ratioof two-family dwellings rose from in 1921 to over 21 p er cent
3 U .S . Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review, Vol . XXXI , Ap ril,1931, p . 171 .
[ 217 ]
THE METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
of the whole for 1922 , 1923 , and 1924, then declined to p er
cent in 1928 ; and the percentage ofmultifamily dwellings climbedfrom in 1921 to in 1928 . In 1929 and 1930 the percentageof one-family dwellings increased again, reaching p er cent
in the last-named year ; and 1930 also saw the percentage of
two-family dwellings climb to and the percentage of multi
family dwellings fall to But this interruption of the trendnoted between 1921 and 1928 is probably a temporary reaction
to the econom ic depression . Despite fluctuations, the generallong-time tendency is definitely toward themultifamily dwelling .
4
A closer analysis of the building-perm it data, however, indicates
that this tendency is a product of metropolitanism and is not
characteristic of the housing movement in the smaller indep end
ent cities of the nation . Robert Whitten , analyzing the buildingpermit data of the Bureau Of Labor Statistics for 1921 and 1929 inconnection with the President ’s Conference on Home Buildingand Home Ownership , 5 brings out this distinction clearly . I n
the 14 largest cities, with populations of or more, thepermits for multifamily dwellings increased from to p er
cent of the whole . Increases for other urban communities were as
follows
Number, type, and popu lation of cities
31 central metropolitan cities
57 suburban cities (popu lations or more)46 independent cities (popu lations or more)65 independent cities (popu lations to
64 independent cities (populations to
I n all the cities studied , except those in the third category,which were communities of population or more outside ofmetropolitan regions, the percentage of two—fam ily dwellings
declined ; in cities of that category it increased from in 1921
to in 1929. I n general , these figures reveal a much smaller
percentage of apartments both -at the beginning and at the end
4 This p ertains to construction within the corporate limits of cities . Were
statistics available for the smaller suburbs, the p roportion of Single dwellings
would undoubtedly be muchhigher .
5 From an unp ublished App endix, p rep ared for the Report of the Committeeon Family Typ es and Community Relations as Determining Housing Needs, byRobertWhitten.
[ 218 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
apartments is fragmentary but nevertheless suggestive. A . G .
Hinmanhas summarized the records of the Chicago City HealthDepartment as follows
Of ap artment units constructed in Chicago, the p eriod 19131928, 6 p er cent have one room ; 12 p er cent, two rooms ; 14 p er cent,
three rooms ; 29 p er cent, forir rooms ; 24 p er cent, five rooms ; and 15 p er
cent, six or more rooms . The average siz e of ap artment units in thebu ildings constructed in the p eriod 1913—1919 is rooms and in thosebu ilt since 1924, rooms .
7
The statistics published by the Regional Survey of N ew York
Show a similar tendency toward the smaller apartment .
I n 1913 the average number of rooms p er ap artment in new construc
tion was in 1925 it was in 1926, in 1927, and in
1928,
OFFI CE BU I LDI NGS
The most conspicuous development in the large structural
unit is the office building . Every year seems to establish a new
record in the height and floor space of the office structure . Accord
TABLE 77.— CHANGE IN THE SIZE OF N EW OFFICE BUILDINGS IN THE CHICAGO
LOOP DISTRICT, 1871—1930a
Decade
Compiled from material in the office of the Chicago Real Estate Board .
ing to the annual surveys of the National Association of BuildingOwners and Managers, which cover old as well as new construc
tion, the average rentable floor space per Office building reported
increased from square feet in 1924 (23 cities ; build
ings) to square feet in 1930 (43 cities ; buildings) .
7 A. G . H inman, An I nventory of Housing in a Suburban City, Journal ofLand and Public Utility Economics, Vol . VI I , May, 1931 , p . 174 .
8 Regional Survey of New York and I ts Environs, Vol. VI , Bu i ldings . Thei rUses and the Spaces about Them, 1931, p . 238.
[ 220 ]
THE STR U CT URAL METAMOR PHOS I S
The Chicago Real Estate Board has compiled data on officebuildings constructed in the city of Chicago since 1871 . Thetrend toward increasing size of the building unit is clearlyindicated .
VERTI CAL EXPANS ION
The increasing size of the structural unit is a result of vertical
growth evenmorethan of expansion of the building site . American
cities are reaching upward as well as outward . The verticalgrowth , like horizontal spread , is a natural structural response
to the Operation of economic forces under present conditions of
technological culture . Recent developments in vertical trans
portation have been less conspicuous but almost as important
as those in horizontal transportation . According to information
furnished by the Otis Elevator Company, the total number of
power elevators in the country increased from in 1920 to
in 1929. This increase in the number of elevators does
not fully indicate the advance in vertical transportation . Although
it cannot be shown statistically , the increase in the volume and
mileage of vertical “
traffic has undoubtedly been very great inrecent years .
According to M r . Clarence T. Coley, Op eratingmanager Of the Equ itable Bu ilding, the 48 p assenger elevators in that great structure carry
on the average p eop le p er day between the hours of 8 AM . and
6 P .M . During the course Of a year they travel miles, or 1 1 times
around the earth at the equator, each car carrying 6 p ersons for every
mile. The bu ildinghas 40 stories, square feet of net rentablearea, and a p ermanent p op u lation of The p eop le p assing in and
ou t of its various p ortals each day number The real estatemanagement firm of Cushman Wakefield has had a count made of
the number of p assengers carried by the elevators in 16 office bu ildingsunder its management in the Grand Central z one of N ew York City .
The 16 bu ildingshad a combined height of 303 stories and were servicedby 75 elevator cars . During the year 1928, including 305 working daysbetween the hours of 8 AM . and 6 R M p ersons were carriedby the elevators . The 75 cars made a total of trip s, equal to a
total of miles . These figures, inadequate as they are, give u s
some idea of the enormously heavy traffic carried by the “ verticalstreets of N ew York City.
9
9W. C . Clark and J . L. Kingston, The Skyscrap er, A Study in the EconomicHeight of Modern Ofiice Bu i ldings, American I nstitute of Steel Construction,
1930 , p . 128 .
[ 221 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
While the tall building is still largely confined to a few of thegreat cities Of the nation, it is beginning to appear in the smaller
cities as well , where building regul ations ,permit . I n 1929 theThompson Starrett Company, I nc ., made a nation-wide census
of“ skyscrapers ,
”the results of which are summarized in Table
78 .
TABLE 78 .— CENSUS OF SKYSCRAPERS, BY SIZE OF CITIE S, 19296
Class of cities
Underto
to
to
and over .
Total .
a American City, September, 1929.
This census, taken four years ago, does not depict the situation
at the present time. In fact, it is admittedly incomplete for thedate at which it was taken . Nevertheless, the statistics indicate,perhaps fairly accurately, the distribution of tall buildings among
the various size classes of cities .
The ratio between land area and rentable floor space is a
determining factor in the economy of the skyscraper . The rentablefloor space Of the Empire State Building is more than twenty-fivetimes its ground area . I n order to achieve this, it had to be
extended to 85 stories . For the Chrysler Building the ratio is a
little over 20 to 1 . For the Woolworth Building it is a little over
16 to 1 . For the Metropolitan Tower‘iit is under 13 to 1 . But theratio does not increase in direct proportion to height, largely
because Of the additional space that must be given to elevators
in the higher buildings . There is, therefore, an economic limit tothe height of city buildings , and it is possible that that limithasbeen attained or even passed .
10
Skyscraper Apartments — Although high buildings are p re
dominantly office and hotel structures, there are indications that1° Stewart Browne, President of the United Real Estate Owners ’ Association,
is quoted in the N ew York Times, March20, 1932 as p redicting, “
that duringthe p resent year (1932) all skyscrap er bu ildings bu i lt during the p ast four years,excep t those owned by large financial institutions, will be foreclosed unless suchbu ildingshave already been foreclosed.
”
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
ferentiation of various types Of economic and social activity
within the city . I t is generally known that, as cities increase insize , their different economic activities tend to group themselves,giving rise to financial , shopping, wholesale, amusement, and
other kinds Of districts . Locality specialization, whether in theform of districts or individual streets, has always been a dis
tinctive feature Of large cities“
, even those without modern
facilities for transportation . The old cities of the Orient are
renowned for their speciali z ed streets, along which rows of small
shops display similar or complementary_wares for sale. The
financial districts of London and N ew York are examples of oldand seemingly permanent groupings .
The recent tendency in American cities is for the building,rather than the street, to become the physical unit for suchcomplementary groupings of activities . The tall building is likethe old specialized street, stood on end . By housing competitiveor related services under a common roof, and by substitutingvertical for horizontal transportation, a great saving of time is
effected . The situation is well illustrated in the Chicago Merchandise Mart . This great structure, covering square feet of
ground but having square feet of rentable floor space ,
had listed on its directory of tenants , in July, 1931 , differentnames, representing wholesaling, manufacturing, and advertising
firms .Were these firms distributed on the old pattern, they wouldrequire many times the ground space occupied by the Mart,
and the customer would have to travel many miles of streets to
obtain the selection of merchandise at present available in thissingle building .
The department store, which made its appearance in thenineties, with the introduction of the electric street car, rep re
sented the beginning of the movement toward the large, speciali z ed building unit structurally designed to house a series Of
associated economic services . This type of buildinghas now beenwidely im itated . Banks, theaters, hospitals, schools, and evenchurches are assuming the department-store pattern of organization and are conducting their -operations in fewer but largerbuildings which are more systematically organized .
Of course the extreme expression of this tendency is theoffice building, the existence and the peculiarities of which can
be partially explained by the fact that the managerial functionsof a modern business can be carried on apart from its Operative
[ 224 ]
TH E STR U C TURAL METAMOR PHOS I S
or productive functions . Management needs relatively small
space and it is not tied down by problems of transportation . As
R . M . Haighas said :The exercise of this managerial function of coordination and control
is at first glance singu larly indep endent of transportation . I t does notrequ ire the transfer of huge quantities of materials . I t deals almostexclusively with information. What is all-imp ortant is transp ortation
of intelligence. The mail, the cable, the telegraph, and the telephonebring in its raw material and carry out its finished p roduct. I nternallyeasy contact of man with man is essential. The telephone is p rodigallyu sed, Of course, but the p ersonal conference remains, after all, themethodby whichmost Of the imp ortant work is done. Conferences withcorp o
ration Oflicers , wi th bankers, withlawyers, and accountants, withp artners, withfellow directors, fill the day. The work is facilitated when thetime of the men whose time is most valuable is conserved . The districtmust be conveniently accessible and must be at theheart of the system
of communication. I t must be arranged so as to give the greatest p ossibleease of contact among menwhose p resence is desired in arriving at
deCIs1ons .
1 1
SUMM ARY
The trend in building construction in the decade followingthe World War reveals the following characteristics : (1) a rapid
increase in residential space, with a pronounced tendency toward
the multifamily type of dwelling ; (2) a tendency toward larger
apartment buildings , accompanied by a decline in the number of
rooms p er family apartment ; and (3) a phenomenal increase in
office building construction, particularly of the skyscraper type .
These structural developments depict certain changes which
occurred in our mode of life during this period . The growth of
residential floor space was undoubtedly associated with theaccelerated movements of population within the urban area and
with the general rise in the level of income. The declining size of
the family apartment reflects the decline in the size of the fam ilygroup .
1 2 The growth of oflice space and the tendency toward
larger buildings indicate the increasing importance of business in
our economic life and the tendency for business function to
concentrate geographically .
1‘R. M . Haig,“Towards an Understanding of the Metrop olis, Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Vol . XL, May, 1926, p p . 426—428 .
13 See W. F . Ogburn, The Family and I ts Functions, Chap ter XI I I , inRecent Social Trends, 1933 .
[ 225 ]
CHAPTER XVII
THE ECONOMIC TOPOGRAPHY OF THE
CITY : URBAN LAND VALUES 1
HE movement of city land values not only reflects tendencies
in the general growth of population within the urban area ,
but also indicates the processes involved in the physical expansionof the community . As the city increases in size, it also changes in
structural form. These structural changes, which relate to thepatterning of population and institutions, are registered in corre
sponding changes in land values . Thereforea land-valuemap of a
city at any given time affords an important index of the internalorganization of the community. And by comparing such maps
for different periods it is possible to ascertain the trend in thecity ’
s structural development .
The following study presents some of the characteristics of theeconomic topography of the large American city and indicates a
few of the important changes that have occurred in structural
form In recent years .
The study of trends in urban land values can be approached
from two different points Of View : (1) that of the changes and
trends in total urban land values ; and (2) that of the distributionof value over the various portions of the urban area . The attemptin this chapter is to present the data available from both of these
points of V iew and to suggest the trends that are discernible fromthe data .
SOURCE S AN D LIM I TATIONS OF DATA
The data available for this type of investigation consistprincipally of the records of assessed values of real property .
2
In some instances the total value is divided as between land and
buildings, but unfortunately this division is not universal . Thedata for the city of Chicago , however, are taken from Olcott
’
s
Blue Book of Land Values .
1 Prepared by J. Rowland Bibbins, Washington, D . C .
2 As reported in Financial Statistics of Cities, Government Printing Office,Washington, D . C.
[ 226 ]
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
39 0 0
29 0 0
[ 228 ]
THE E CONOM I C TOPOGRA PHY
increasing budget expenditures . The rate of increase in assessed
values, it will be noted , was generally greater after 1920 thanduring the previous decade. This fact probably reflects in addi
tion to increased governmental expenditures the influence of
postwar conditions, particularly the increase in building thatprevailed in most communities during this period . Annexationswere also common inmost cities during this period and influenced
the rate of increase in assessed valuations . I t is interesting toObserve that this upward trend is less pronounced in Pittsburgh ,Milwaukee, and Boston than in the other cities . The upwardtrend was not pronounced in N ew York until 1921 , or in Wash
ington until 1922 ; but it began in Chicago, Milwaukee, San
Francisco , Buffalo, and Los Angeles in 1919. I n Detroit, theupward trend after the break from 1915 to 1917 continued at a
fairly uniform rate from 1917 to 1925 , doubtless reflecting theinfluence of the expansion of the automobile industry in that city .
I n Table 79 the assessed value of all real property and of land
and buildings separately is given for Detroit, with the ratio of
aggregate land to building value, from 1896 to 1930 , with theexception of 1910 . I t is interesting to note how this ratio fell
almost constantly between 1896 and 1915 , when it reached thelow figure of A change in assessment technique accounts
for. the sudden rise in the ratio in 1916 , but it will be noted that
the ratio immediately began to decline and has fluctuated only
slightly around unity since 1917 . This fact is the more remarkable
because of the large annexations that occurred during the decadeof the twenties .
I t would be worth while to know whether this tendency for
aggregate assessed value of land and buildings to be approximately
equal prevails also in other communities , and if so, what its
implications are with respect to both public finance and com
munity growth .
The most important influence in the upward trend of land
values is doubtless population growth . Thedirect influence Of
population growth cannot be shown in Figure 27, where total
real property values are charted chronologically . I n Figure 28,total real property values are plotted against estimated p op ula
tion, both series Of data being plotted on a logarithmic scale .
Thus the increase in population and the increase in real property
values are correlated . I n the upper part of the chart, the smaller
[ 229 ]
T H E M ETROPOL I TAN COMMUN I TY
TABLE 79.—ASSESSED VALUATION OF LAND AND BUILDINGS IN DETROIT FROM
YEAR TO YEAR, 1895(I n thousands of dollars )
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 Compiled from the records of the Board of Assessors of the city of Detroit.
cities4 and , on the“
lower part, the larger cities5 are charted . A
direct relation between population growth and increase in real
property values is suggested by the uniformity of slope of thelines in the figure . I t will be noticed that the lines representingthe larger cities have an especially uniform slope and the relationshown between population growth and increase in property
4 M ilwaukee, Newark, SanFrancisco, Buffalo, St. Lou is, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Washington, and Boston .
5 Cleveland, Los Angeles, Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, and NewYork.
230
THE METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
values indicates a tendency for property values to increase as
the square of the increase in the population. The notable excep
tion is Los Angeles, where the slope Of the line is distinctlydifferent . This slope represents a tendency for land values toincrease in proportion only to
_the increase in population and
not to the square of the population.
6 The light radial lines insertedon the chart represent the exact direction which would be taken
by the other lines if the increase in property values were preciselyin proportion to the increase of p op ultion (n l ) or to f thesquare Of the increase in population (nThe smaller cities do not follow the uniform trend . I n those in
the upper part of the chart, namely, Milwaukee, San Francisco ,
Buffalo, and Newark, a trend is indicated sim ilar to that whichexists in the larger cities where values tend to increase as thesquare of the population ; but in the lower group of cities, St .
Louis, Baltimore, Boston, Pittsburgh , and Washington, real
property values tend to increase less rapidly . The increase inthis group is more nearly directly proportional to population
increases .
I t is impossible to generalize very broadly on the basis of thesedata, but the uniformity Of the trends in the different groups of
cities indicates tendencies that can certainly be called unmis
takable and that need to be investigated further .
THE GEOGRAPHI CAL DI STRDBUTI ON OF LAND VALUE
I t is well recognized that land values are not spread uniformlyover the urban area, but quite the opposite . If values were
charted in topographical fashion, the chart would represent high
peaks and low valleys . Changes in the location and height Of thepeaks and the depths of the valleys have been rapid in thepast decades, and the forces operating to affect this distribution
of land value are numerous . Many Of them have been discussed
in other chapters . They may be summarized as follows
1 . There has been an exodus of population from the centralportions of the city . This exodus is caused in small measure by an
increase in the S ize of central areas utilized for business purposes ,but much more largely by the progressive deterioration of
structures in large portions of the central areas . The effect of this
Mathematically, the equation would be y kx" , where y p ropertyvalues, a: population, 15 a constant, and n 2 . For Los Angeles, the valueof n would be 1 .
[ 232 ]
TH E E CONOM I C TOPOGRA PHY
deterioration is a creeping paralysis , commonly referred to as
blight.
”
2 . The exodus of population from the central area together withthe settlement of new population in suburban areashas caused a
drift Of the masses of the population outward radially . Much Of
this drift is due to the promotional and sales efforts which havebeen made in connection with the development Of new suburban
areas .
3 . With the outward radial drift of population has come a
recentralization Of outlying-district business centers, sometimes
reaching the proportion Of satellite business communities .
4 . The provision Of rapid-transit facilities has tended to
aggravate further the decline Of the central area by providingnon-Stop express service through such areas and non-stop high
ways for automobile traffic .
The study Of the distribution Of land values and of the changes
that have taken place centers in three phenomena : (1) theincrease in values in the strategically located restricted central
areas ; (2) the increase in values in the outlying district subcentersand (3) the decline Of values in other portions of the inner area .
On the decline of values in the inner area Of the city not includedin
_
the intensively developed portion, data are not available.
I t is a common observation, however , that this declinehas beengreat and is probably proceeding at an accelerated rate . So rapid
has the decline been that in many cities the revenues from
taxation Of real estate have been shrinking to an a larming extent .
The phenomenon needs very careful study .
The degree of concentration of value in the centralized and
intensively developed financial and central retail area is striking
in every city . The relative smallness of the area characterized by
intensive uses and high values, however , is not generally ap p re
ciated . Land value reaches its highest peak in most cities at fairlyaccurately ascertainable points . The high values are found
distributed along a principal street, falling Off abruptly on eachside Of the street and rapidly, but less abruptly, along thestreet itself.I t is impossible accurately and graphically to portray the
situation as it exists in the high-priced area and in every direction
from it . I n Figure 29, however, an effort is made to indicate therapidity with which land values decline from the highest pointon the highest value street in a number of cities . The data are
233
THE METROPOL I TAN COMMUN ITY
0 0 Q N
smws woma n so 1 N33 8 3 d
234
THE METROPOL I T A N COMMUN ITY
[ 236 ]
TH E E CONOM I C TOPOGRA PHY
manifestly would be revealed by these and similar data for other
cities .
In the upper portion of Figure 30 , the assessed land values per
front foot are given for the different blocks along Madison Street
in Chicago, from Michigan Avenue west to Austin Avenue . Thelower line in the upper part of the chart represents assessed
values of land per front foot in each block in 1921 ; the upperline, assessed values in the same block in 1930 . The most striking
feature of the chart is the similarity in curves with points of high
value having been established in 192 1 , the changes that havetaken place being Changes in the extent to which increases in ,
value .have occurred . Values in the Loop district east of theChicago River increased only p er cent . The greatest increasein value occurred far west on Cicero Avenue, where the percentage of Increase was 889. The influence Of blight in the Inner area isindicated by the small percentage Of increase between theChicago RiVer and Racine AVenue, which was Only 32 . Theincreases rose rapidly, however , from Racine Avenue until they
reached a maximum at Cicero . The decline was less rapid beyondCicero Avenue, and if the line were projected beyond the city
limits the increases would be found to be very large . The highpercentage of increasein the outlying areas is a manifestation Of
the tendency toward decentralization.
The peaks Of value come at remarkably regular intervals .
This fact can be partially explained by reference to the transportation system, which provides important crosstown street
railway intersections at or near the points Of peak value . As a
matter of fact, the peaks appear to be slightly beyond theimportant intersections rather than at them .
Similar tendencies are shown in the lower portion of Figure30 , which presents the data for land values on 63d Street, west
from Stony Island Avenue. The largest increase in land valuesagain falls far from the area which originally had the highestvalue, namely that at Halstead Street. The increase was 900p er cent in the area between Central Park Avenue and
Kostner . The area in either direction from this point of
greatest increase likewise had large increases , but the HalsteadStreet area also received the large increase of 463 p er cent .
Again, the peaks of value come at regular intervals and tendto lie beyond the intersection of important crosstownstreet-railway lines .
237
THE METROPOL I TA N COMMUN ITY
00m
000
00~a
000
000
00h
000
000
ooo
.~1
80
6mm
0
86
000
.
0N
000
.
0N “
IOO
23s
CHAPTER XVIII
THE BIOLOGICALAND CULTURALCOMPLEXITY OF THE CITY
N Chapter XIII we dealt with processes involved in metro
politan expansion. The data presented show certain char
acteristics of the outward movement . We shall now consider
in more detail the patterning of population and Of cultural
phenomena within the city . I t is common knowledge that, as a
city increases in size, its population tends to become segregated
geographically on the basis Of such factors as race, language,income, and occupation . This g1ves u se to districts , colonies,quarters ; in a word , to the formation of natural areas within thecity.
Segregation is a characteristic of great cities the world over .
The large city with its complex division of labor not only tolerates
but encourages variety in its human composition. But, while
biological and cultural differences are factors in bringing people
together for diversified types of employment, these very differ
ences cause them to live apart in separate districts and colonies
within the community .
ETHNI C AN D RACI AL COLON I ES
American cities are renowned for the ethnic and racial hetero
geneity Of their inhabitants . As foci of migration, they have
drawn their human elements from all quarters of the globe . The1920 census lists 45 different nationality groups in the foreignpopulations of cities of or more. Naturally not all Of thecities contained representatives from every one of the 45 foreigngroups . And the proportions of the different nationalities variedfor different cities . Nevertheless, it is apparent that in extent ofethnic diversification the larger cities of the United States are
unparalleled in any other country .
The foreign colony in the American cityhas been a subject of
muchconcern on the part of city Officials and civic organizations
for more thanhalf a century . Social settlement and other welfare
[ 240 ]
B IOLOG I C AL AND C ULTURAL COM PLEX
groups have endeavored to assist the immigrants to become
assimilated into the life and culture Of the larger community .
Recent detailed studies of some of our foreign colonies reveal thefact that they are ever in process of disintegration. Based, as
most of these colonies are , on cultural difl’erence, they tend todissolve as members Of the group acquire the language and
customs Of the larger community . The process Of change seems
to, occur in a somewhat successional manner . As a rule, the new
Immigrant first enters the city in the lower rental areas located
close to the main business center . As he acquires the languageand rises in occupational status , he leaves the area of original
settlement and moves to a slightly better district. Ifhe continuesto be successful in his economic activities, he withdraws fromthis second area Of settlement and takes up residence in a more
favorable location. These various steps Of change repeated by
thousands of immigrantshave given rise, at least in some of thelarger cities, to typical first, second, and third areas of immigrant
settlement, each progressively farther out from the businesscenters, or areas of original settlement, Of the community .
The continuity Of the foreign colony in the large cityhas beenmaintained through‘
the constant recruitment of fellow country
men from abroad, not infrequently from the same town or
village in the home land . To be sure, not all immigrant colonies
in a given city share equally in such replacement . Those estab
lished during the period of the “
Old imm igration ”— immigration
from northern Europe— have largely disappeared from lack Of
new recruits to take the place of the former immigrants, who havegraduated from the areas Of original settlement. Most of thepresent ethnic colonies in our larger cities are composed Of
immigrants from eastern and southern Europe ; that is, Of peoples
belonging to the“
new immigration .
”The rapid influx of Italians,
Poles, and Russians in the years preceding theWorldWar caused
the sudden expansion of the colonies Of these peoples in certain
of our northern cities . Frequently this has involved the invasionof adjoining settlement, causing not only displacement Of theformer population but a rapid Obsolescence of local institutions, as each foreign group tends to reconstruct its home-landenvironment where it locates in the American city . This type Of
expansion and displacementhashad the effect of accelerating therate of change throughout the whole city and has given rise tomany problems of an economic and social nature.
[ 24 1 ]
THE METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
The recent stoppage Of immigrationhas shut Off the source of
new life to most of the present immigrant colonies, and in all
probability the existing colonies will in time tend to vanish, as
was the case with the Older ones . Naturally they will not all
disappear with equal rapidity, as certain foreign groups appear
to have greater cultural cohesiveness than others . This is espe
cially true Of the foreign-born Jews and Italians .
Racial Coloni es — Colonies of colored people, notably those Of
Negroes, the largest colored population in American cities,reveal a different history . In the first place, Negro segregation i s
based on color and economic status rather than on language or
other cultural factors . The Negro colonymay expand or subdivideinto smaller parts, but it does not disintegrate like the colonyof foreign-born whites . The northward migration Of Negroes into
a number of our large industrial centers following the cessation
TABLE 80 .
— CONCENTRATION OF NEGROES BY SELECTEDWARDS AND STATISTICALAREAS IN SIx NORTHERN CITIE S, 1930a
Concentration by wards or
statistical areas
Total PercentageNegro increase
p op u la in Negropopu lation1920—30
Percentage Of Negroes tototal popu lation in each ofthe first four wards and
statistical areas of highestNegro concentration
New York(Manhattan)
ChicagoClevelandDetroit
PittsburghPhiladelphia
0 Compiled from U.S. Census, Population Bu lletin, 2d Series, 1930, Table 23 for each city.
of foreign immigrationhas caused an unprecedented expansion of
Negro colonies in the cities affected by this movement.
The pattern Of Negro distribution in the large city varies toomuch to be considered here in detail . I n some cities, notably
New York and Chicago, the Negroes are highly concentrated in a
few districts . I n others , such as Philadelphia and Washington ,
small colonies are scattered widely throughout the city. Local242
THE . METROPOL I T A N COMMUN ITY
Filipinos, and Mexicans. These colored groups are highly con
centrated in the lower economic areas of the cities in which theyreside. Although Chinese have been residents of the United States
TABLE 81 .— PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION THAT WERE NEGROES,
PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION AND IN NEGROPOPULATION, 1920—19306
Total Percent Percentage change in Percentage change inpopu lation Negroes total population Negro population
Census tract
1920—30 1920—30
Total city
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note: M inus sign denotes decrease.
° Taken from Popu lation Characteri stics by Census Tracts , Cleveland, Ohio, edited by H. W.
Green for the Plain Dealer Publishing Company, 1931.
since the middle of the nineteenth century, they still live in theirChinatowns, geographically and socially isolated from the re
mainder of the community . A survey of the distribution of
[ 244 ]
B IOLOG I C AL AND C ULT URAL COM PLEX
Chinese in San Francisco and Seattle indicates that they are at ,
present even more concentrated geographically than they were
20 years ago . Japanese, Filipinos, and Mexicans— more recent
arrivals— are also highly concentrated in the cities in which theyhave taken up residence. Individuals Of these various colored
groups may move from one city to another, but wherever they
go they tend to live in compact racial colonies .
This general tendency on the part of colored peoples to live incolonies represents a form Of accommodation to the Americancommunity . By minimizing contact, segregation tends to reduce
race friction. I t is usually when a colored colony expands or whencertain of its members attempt to move into other areas thatinterracial friction becomes manifest.
AGE AN D SEX
More fundamental than the processes involved in ethnic or
even racial segregation are those relating to the spatial distribution of the different age and sex elements of a city ’
s population .
The city may be likened to a great sieve which Sifts and sorts itshuman elements and arranges them in space in accordance with
their economic efficiency and their rOle in the life of the com
munity . The physical structure of the city— its buildings, streets,and transportation systems— constitutes the mesh of the sieve,and competition among the human elements the dynamo which
drives the machine.
Toward the center of the city, where hotels and rooming houses
abound,gravitate the transient adults , mostly males . Out along
the"
radial transportation lines, where family hotels and fashion
able apartments tend to group , the proportion of women in thetotal popul ation is abnormally high . In the intervening p ieshaped areas
,and In the industrial suburbs, excessive proportions
of children are almost invariably found .
I n Figure 32 are diagrams that Show the typical age-sex
structure of the populations found in different types of areas
within the large city . The diagrams are arranged in two series
those on the left indicating types of areas in which children p redominate ; those on the right, areas in which adults predominate.
Each series Of diagrams, when read from the top to the bottom of
the page, shows the geographic distribution of the various areas ,beginning near the Loop district of Chicago and advancing out
toward the periphery Of the city. The diagrams on the left side245
THE METROPOL ITA N COMMUN ITY
FIG. 32 .— Typ es of districts in Chicago as determined by the age-sex compositio
of the pop u lation, 1920 . (P repared by Charles N ewcomb.)
[ 246 ]
THE METROPOL I TA N COMMUN I TY
among the different sections of a ci ty seems to vary directly with
the size and occupational characteristics Of the population .
Most of ou r great cities possess residence areas ranging from
extremes Of poverty to heights of wealth‘
and luxury . N ot in
frequently the most widely differentiated districts are located in
close spatial proximity .
The cu ltural characteristics Of a given area within the citybear close relation to the economic conditions Of the inhabitants .In almost any aspect Of social relations wider differences may be
found between different districts within the same city than between any two regions of the United States . By means of census
tract data it is now possible quantitatively to measure and com
pare the conditions of life in different districts of the city . This
has been done by H. W. Green for Cleveland . On the basis of
equated rental values, Mr . Green divided the Cleveland metro
politan community, including the central eity'
and four suburbs,
TABLE 82 .—VARIATIONS IN SOCIAL DATA AMONG 14 ECONOM IC AREAS INCLEVELAND AND IN FOUR ADJOINING SUBURBS, 1930a
Gan r. OA wan “ n o 0 O 0
A s s i l t o
a w e s~
w ?I: d o h
5 - 4 9 4 9 A so :
a t» g u‘“ O B 9‘ $ 3 3
o h fl q’ fi fl v d oa 32 ° F " ” m
"
o m es m o
8 8 .2 0 u 0 u 0 0
53 4 : g “ -H v.4 0
“ 3:H
’ H a o o- ° Q .
s.~
0.
: C m -‘a d Q'U es u —c h ” a ” S L E U E ‘
UQ “ h s..
O O EQ A
EQ Q Q Q M Q GS O O M
“m d ’ " d o fi d
m m l-‘a
fi da
v
fiu
E Q H Q m-fi d u
a m mm h
12
On the basis of data on value and rental of homes collected by the Bureau of the Census .
Cleveland was divided into 14 economic areas, having the equ ivalent monthly rentals shown in
the table. Rates of incidence of other phenomena were also calcu lated for the same 14 areas . Thefour adjacent suburbs are Lakewood, Shaker Heights , East Cleveland, and Cleveland Heights .
Data furnished by HowardW. Green, Cleveland Health Council . For a fuller description of methodsee Population Characteristics by Census Tracts, Cleveland, Ohio, edited by HowardWhipple Greenfor the Plain Dealer Publishing Company, 1931, where several of the above series appear.
[ 248 ]
B IOLOG I C AL AND C ULT URAL COM PLEX
into 14 economic areas, and computed rates for various series Ofbiosocial phenomena . Table 82 shows these 14 areas arranged in
ascending order Of rental levels, together with rates for thedifferent social phenomena.
The facts in this table speak for themselves . The vast differences that appear -in the rates between the lower and higherrental areas afl’ord some indication of how culturally differentiated the ordinary city becomes . Moreover, data compiled for
such comparatively large sections of a city as the 14 areas in
question fail to Show the extreme divergences that exist between
smaller sections within the metropolitan community.
SUMM ARY
The significance of segregation as a phenomenon of city lifehaslong been recognized by social workers and others dealing with
welfare problems . I t is being increasingly recognized by business
men and administrative Officials as a factor to be dealt with .
More and more it is being realized that a city cannot be satis
factorily administered as a single population entity. More and
more business and social organizations are beginning to analyze
the biological and economic differences that exist in various sec
tions Of“
their cities and to deal with each district according to its
particular characteristics .
CHAPTER XIX
NUCLEATION : THE PATTERN OF RETAI LMARKETING 1
NASMUCH as the forces which nucleate and integrate p op ula
tion within the city pertain largely to'
the retail marketingstructure, research in this field is basic to an understanding of theprocesses involved in city expansion . Al ready much attention
has been given in this monograph to marketing practice and its
relation to the organization of life within the metropolitan com
munity. Our data, however, have referred to the interrelationsbetween the central city and its satellites rather than to the commercial organization of the city itself . The following detailedstudy Of retail marketing in Baltimore, based upon Official census
records, is presented as an illustration of the distribution Of
retail services within a large American city . Unfortunately thedata apply only to a single year, 1929, and therefore do not in
dicate the trend of development in retail patterning . However ,this pioneer study suggests the importance Of further research
in this field .
In an effort to discover factors influencing the location of
retail stores, an experimental study showing the pattern of retail
distribution in the city Of Baltimore was undertaken. Through
the courtesy of the United States Bureau of the Census, thisstudy was based on the Baltimore returns of the Census of Dis
tribution, taken in 1930 by that Bureau, supplemented withother data, and on considerable field work conducted by theBureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce .
For the purposes of this survey, the city was divided into three
geographical zones or districts . These districts have been called
the central shopping district, which is the retail heart of the city’
s
business district ; the mid-city or urban shopping district, whichis a broad circular zone surrounding the central shopping district ;and the outlying or suburban shopping district, which is essen
1 Prepared by I nez K. Rolph, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce,U.S . Department of Commerce.
[ 250 ]
THE METROPOL I T A N COMMUN ITY
zone . A very small proportion Of the general merchandise stores
of the city are now in the central shopping district, although
TABLE 84 .— PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE N ET SALES, IN
BALTIMORE , BY KINDS OF BUSINESS IN THE VARIOUS RETAI LDEVELOPMENTS, 1929
Total . . 100 0
Food .General merchandiseAutomotiveApparelLumber and buildingFurniture and household .
Restaurants and eating
placesDrug stores
Jewelry storesOther stores
Represents negligible amount.
those that remain do more than two-thirds of the generalmerchandise business and considerably more business than
any other commodity group . N ot quite one-fourth of the apparel
stores are located there, although this district is generally thought
of as the clothing center of the city. They do, however , consider
ably more than one-half of the apparel business and account for alarge proportion of this district ’s chain stores, which aremainly Ofthe sectional-chain type.
3 Furniture and household stores located
there are few in number but do approximately one-half of the3 Several typ es Of chain store are identified by the Bureau of the Census for
analysis Of data on retail distribution. Three typ es are considered sep aratelyin this study : the local, sectional , and national . As defined by the census,
“A
local chain is a group of substantially similar stores under the same ownership and
Op eration, merchandised from a central warehouse or other common point or
points, but not from the stocks of a p arent store. I n a local chain a majority of
its stores are located in and around one city.
” “A sectional chain is one whose
stores are located in a number of cities so that its interests are more than local,but a large majority of whose stores is located within one geographic division,
or an equ ivalent area.
” “ National chains are those Op erating in two or more
geographic divisions, whose interests and op erations are broader than those of
any one section of the country.
”U .S . Census, 1930, Census of Distribution, Retail
Distribution, State Series, Missouri , p . 6.
[ 252 ]
NU CL E AT ION
city’
s furniture and household business . Exactly one-fourth of
the city ’
s jewelry stores are there and they do three-fourths Of thecity ’
s jewelry business . These four kinds Of business— general
merchandise, apparel , furniture and household goods, and
jeweli'y— dominate the retail pattern of the central shopping
district.
Although the other commodity groups— foods, automotive,lumber and building, restaurants, and drug stores— are rep re
sented in the central shopping district, they appear far more
frequently and do a greater volume of their total business else
where. The general pattern Of retail distribution outlets alongwith a rough knowledge Of urban developments indicates that
these five groups have spread out from the center, leaving as
dominant only the general merchandise store supplying diverse
needs and those other forms of retail business that are in direct
competition with it .
Another point in regard to the central shopping district is that,although all types Of management are represented, p er cent
of the establishments and p er cent Of the volume Of business
are attributable to independently operated stores with not more
TABLE 85 .— PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE STORES IN BALTIMORE ,
BY TYPES OF OPERATION IN THE VARIOUS RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS, 1929
Single-store independents2 and 8-store independentsLocal chainsSectional chainsNational chainsOther chains and unclassi
fied types of operation
Represents negligible number .
than two branches . For the city as a whole, p er cent of thestores and p er cent of the business are of this nature. Thedata are shown in Tables 85 and 86. National chains predominate
numerically, but the sectional chains do the greatest proportionOf chain business in the central district.
[ 253 ]
TH E ME TROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
TABLE 86 .— PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE NET SALE S, IN
BALTIMORE , BY TYPES OF OPERATION IN THE VARIOUS RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS,1929
0 0 28 l
Single-store independents . 5 2
2 and 3-store independents 8 1 2 . 5
Local chains 7 0 1 0
Sectional chains 9 0 4 4
National chains 8 8 3 1
Other chains and unclassi
fied types of Operation .
a I ncluded in the figure for other chains and unclassified types .
5 See note a.
M ID-CI TY S HOPPI NG DI STRI CT
Lying immediately around the central business core is the midcity shopping district, comprising 18 subcenters, 1 1 public
markets, 5 string streets, and those outlets not connected with
any retail development and referred to in this study as“not
concentrated business .
”The mid-city district is an area of
square miles, or 26 p er cent Of the total land area Of the city,exclusive of parks and cemeteries . Some persons, or 65
p er cent of the total population, live in the area. Within itsboundaries are included the majority of the city’
s foreign-born
and colored populations, most of whom are Of low economic
status . As in other cities, it is a small-income area and is rather
uniform in this respect. The total retail business Of the districtrepresents 80 per cent Of the stores and p er cent of the volume
of business of the city as a whole.
I n the mid-city district, residence is not distinctly set apart
from business ; people live, Shop, and Often work within its
boundaries . While it might'
have been desirable to divide this
area into communities, the lack Of natural boundaries prevented
it at this time. On the other hand, despite the general “salt-and
pepper” design created by the large number of not concentrated
business establishments, it was possible to locate the differentforms of retail development.
[ 254 ]
TH E ME TROPOL I T AN COMMUN IT Y
ments attracts those who pass along the street or who are in
the district for other purposes, such as employment . Hence, as
will appear, they are dependent only to a\
minor extent on theadjacent residential community . Five major string-street devel
opments appear in Baltimore ; their locations are indicated on
the map of the city .
I n these developments apparel stores are in the majority,with food stores, restaurants, and furniture andhousehold establishments following. General merchandise stores do the greatestvolume Of business, followed in order by the automotive, apparel ,and furniture groups . The amount of business done by these com
modity groups emphasizes the importance of specialty shops and
specialized districts as part of string-street developments.Three Of the streets were found to be essentially apparel develop
ments, particularly for men and boys ’ clothing and furnishings ;the other two were found to be dominated by automotive estab
lishments. Food sales are lower on the string-street developments
than in any other area, and the volume Of restaurant business is
greater than in any other retail center except the central distriet, indicating that these outlets like those at the commercial
core depend upon a transient trade rather than that derived from
near-by residential areas .
The string-street stores comprise p er cent of all stores in
the city and do p er cent of the volume of business . Closely
paralleling the distribution for the city as a whole, p er cent
of these establishments are independently operated . N et sales,however , give the chain stores p er cent Of the businessvolume . Among the chain stores the sectional type here, as in thecentral district, is the more important when measured in amount
of sales . A large proportion of the sectional—chain business is doneby the general merchandise, automotive, and furniture and
household groups .M id-city Subcenters.
—Located at various points in the midcity area are a number of shopping centers that appear to be
small reproductions of the original central retail district . Ohservation indicates that these subcenters are local community
developments surrounded by racial and economic groups . Gen
erally theymean to the local area what the central district and thestring-street development do to the whole city . Embryonically,they were around-the-corner grocery stores, later developinginto a group Of neighborhood retail outlets as the immediate
‘
area
256
NU CLE AT ION
came to depend on them . Theremay be said to exist four classes Of
subcenters measured by the extent to which the needs Of thecommunity are met rather than by quality or quantity Of mer
chandise sold . For the purposes Of this study, a class A subcenter
was defined as one where nine principal commodity groups were
represented— food, general merchandise, apparel , automotive,furniture and household , lumber and building, restaurants and
eating places, drugs , and jewelry .
4 A class B subcenter is defined
by the presence of any seven of the nine groups ; a class C subcen
ter, by any Six ; and a class D subcenter, by any five . NO attempt
was made to evaluate the different commodity groups, for thevalue Of the presence Of various commodities depends upon thecharacter of the surrounding community . A restaurant, for
example, may be of more value to some communities than a
furniture store, and Vice versa .
Approximately 80 p er cent of the stores in the city are located
in the mid-city district, and one-sixth of the district stores are
4 The kinds of outlets constituting eachof the nine commodity group s, togetherwithminimum services requ ired for subcenter classification, are as follows :
1 . Food group— candy and confectionery, delicatessen, fru it and vegetable,grocery, meat, bakery goods, and other food stores . A sufficient variety of
services for the p rep aration Of a meal .
2 . General merchandise group— dep artment stores, dry-goods stores, generalstores, variety, 5-and-10, and to-a-dollar stores. At least one outlet .
3 . Ap p arel group— men and boys
’
clothing and furnishing stores, women
and children’
s ready-to-wear specialty shop s, family clothing stores (men, women,
and children’
s) , millinery shop s, shoe stores, furriers— fur shop s, hosiery shop s,and knit-goods shop s, other ap parel and accessories stores. A sufficient varietyto p rovide necessary garments for all members of a family.
4 . Automotive group— motor—vehicle establishments (new, trade-in, and
u sed cars) ; accessories, tires, and batteries shop s ; filling stations ; motor cycles,
bicycles, and supp lies stores ; garages (rep airs, gas, Oil, other automotive
establishments. At least a filling station.
5 . Fu rniture and hou sehold group— furniture stores ; floor coverings, draperies, curtains, and upholstery stores ; China, glassware, tinware, aluminum, etc. ,
stores ; hou sehold-ap p liances stores ; other house furnishings and app liances
stores. At least a furniture store.
6. Lumber and bu ilding group— lumber and bu ilding-materials yards, hardware stores, electrical shop s,heating and p lumbing stores, p aint and glass stores.
At least ahardware store.
7 . Restaurants and eating-p laces. group— restaurants, cafeterias ; lunch
rooms ; lunchcounters, refreshment stands, box-lunchp laces ; fountains . At
least one where a meal can be bought.8 . Drugs
— drug stores without fountain, drug stores withfountain. At least
one drug store.
9. Jewelry— jewelry stores, service ; jewelry stores, installment credit. Atleast one jewelry store where minor rep airs to a watchor other jewelry
“
can be
made.
[ 257 ]
THE METROPOL I TAN COMMUN ITY
to be found in the 18 subcenters . Among the subcenter outlets,more than one-fourth are food stores . Next in order comes theapparel group , followed by the general merchandise outlets .Other commodity groups are more equally represented . Meas
ured in either volume Of business or in numbers, the subcenterstores constitute about the same proportion of the city ’
s total ,
p er cent by volume and p er cent by number .Within thedistrict, the two measures reveal certain differences . Food stores
account for about one-fourth Of the number of outlets but do only
one-fifthOf the total business . Apparel shops exceed general
merchandise stores in number but drop to the level Of the latterin net sales . Jewelry stores, however, rank lowest according to
either determinant .
Chain stores account for only one-tenth Of the retail outlets
in the subcenters . Among the chains the local and national
types are equally represented in number and exceed the sec
tional . The sectional stores, however, lead in business volume
chiefly by reason of their furniture, general merchandise, and
automotive sales . Three-fourths of the subcenter business isdone by independent outlets .
Public Retail M arkets — Most Of the 1 1 pub lic markets inBaltimore are nearly as old as the city itself . With well-established patronage, they exert a great influence on food distributionin the city, and their customers are distributed over the entire
area . These markets , with their outlets, 5 represent
per cent of the city ’
s retail establishments . Fourteen-fifteenthsOf the market outlets are in the food group , and they command
all but one-fortieth of the business volume. While the markets
are essentially raw-food centers, restaurants and other eating
places comprise the bulk Of the few remaining outlets . Retail
market stores are predominantly independent . The chain store
is represented solely by the local type, and the few that are
present do only 5 p er cent Of the business .Not Concentrated Business .
— Fifty-nine p er cent of thecity ’
s stores doing p er cent of the total business are separated from the various retail concentrations and are referred toas
“not concentrated business .
” Field investigation revealed an
average of two or three of these stores to a block over the entiremid-city area , ordinarily serving none but the local neighborhood .
SO few of the not-concentrated-business outlets are found in the5 I n some cases a market outlet includes several states.
[ 258 ]
TH E ME TROPOL I T A N COMMUN ITY
Summary of M id-city D istrict — The centralized retail pattern
established by the central shopping district is continued on thestring streets adjacent to it . Imitating the downtown retail
district are 18 subcenters, each the core of a surrounding local
community . Adjacent to the subcenters, and sometimes perhaps
responsible for their existence, are 1 1 public food markets . And
finally, there is a large number Of scattered stores serving com
munity needs , but existing apart from the various concentratedcenters .
Independent operation characterizes the great majority
of retail outlets in the mid-city district . There are V irtually no
chain stores on the string streets, in the public markets, and
among the not concentrated businesses . About one-fourth of thesubcenter outlets are chain stores, divided in nearly equal p ro
portion among the national, sectional , and local types .
THE OUTLYI NG S HOPPI NG DI STRI CT
The outlying shopping district lies in a zone that is essentially
residential . Hence the retail services owe their existence to thevarious community developments comprising the district . Our
cities are no longer mononucleated ; rather they are fast becom ingheterointegrated . More and more they are being composed Of a
number Of separate communities , and the farther removed
these communities are from the center of the city the more
clearly defined they are and the more accurately does their
retail business reflect the people Of the community .
The boundaries Of the outlying shopping district of Baltimore
can best be identified by referring to Figure 33 . This district con
tains 538 square miles, or p er cent of the total land area of
the metropolitan city, exclusive of parks and cemeteries . Thepopulation Of this area is approximately or 35 p er cent Of
the city total . Eighteen separate communities are identifiable,chiefly on the basis Of racial or income composition . Income dif
ferences in this district are particularly significant . Since most
Of the residential communities are populated with native-born,
although there are some few where a German or a
“
Russian
element is sufficient to carry identity, racial composition is much
less significant in establishing differences here than in the midcity district .
Outlying Subcenters .— The predom inant form Of retail
development in the outlying district is the subcenter, and 20 such
[ 260 ]
NU CLE AT ION
concentrations Of varying degrees of importance were located .
Two of them were found to be Of the type that could supply all
essential retail needs (class A) , one of them was found to supply
even Of the nine essentials (class B) , ten of them were found to
supply six Of the nine essentials (class C) , and the remainder,seven, were found to supply five of the nine essentials (class D) .As the central shopping district and the string streets have
much in common, so the subcenters in the mid-city districtand those in the outlying district have the same characteristics .
Since communities in the outlying district have a much smaller
degree of p op luation density than those in the mid-city district,their subcenters are also much smaller, containing altogether only
p er cent of the city ’s stores (Table Close to one-fourth
of this number of outlets belong to the food group , indicating thatmost subcenters probably started as small concentrations of food
stores . While all other commodity groups are represented , they
are proportionately few in number . Automotive outlets (mainly
filling stations) rank second, with an equal representation Of
general merchandise, apparel , and lumber and building estab
lishments (mainly hardware stores) following . From the point ofview Of sales, food stores do almost half of the subcenter volume.
I t - is significant that, while there are almost twice as many food
outlets in the mid-city subcenters as in the outlying subcenters,the volume of food business which the two developments do is
very close . Measured by sales volume, the other services stand in
about the same order as that in which they are placed by their
numerical frequency. The automotive group (mainly filling sta
tions) ranks second in volume, lumber and building establish
ments (mainly hardware stores) and drug stores together rankingthird, and general merchandise stores ranking fourth (TableThere is, as might be expected, a marked difl’erence between
the apparel stores in the mid-city subcenters and those in theoutlying subcenters, both in number of stores and in amount of
business . Furthermore, the very commodity groups— food and
automotive— which are lowest from the point '
Of V iew Of sales inthe central shopping district are the groups which do the greatestvolume Of business in outlying subcenters .
Chain stores are more important in the outlying area than inany Of the other concentrations of retail outlets . Approximatelyone-sixth of all outlying subcenter stores are chain Operated and
they account for two-fifths Of the business volume. Although
261
THE METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
local chains are the least important in the center of the city, thefarther out one goes the stronger they become. National chains
are also stronger here than sectional chains, the reverse of whatis true in the central shopping district (Tables 85 and
Neighborhood Developments_.— A
“
neighborhood develop
ment, in this study, has been thought of as a group of stores
selling only convenience goods to the exclusion of the greaterdiversity of the subcenter . I t is usually dependent on the neighborhood around it, although sometimes it owes its existence to a
transportation transfer point . The neighborhood developments
selected for analysis are all located in the outlying district . There
are, of course, numerous developments of this form in the midcity district, but because of their confusion with not concentrated
stores in an area zoned largely for commercial u se, it was
impossible to isolate them . They are believed, however, to be far
more significant in the outlying district because of their greaterdependence on contiguous neighborhoods . Eighteen distinct
neighborhood developments were found and analyzed as such in
this study .
Neighborhood developments are, ordinarily, limited to theselling of convenience goods— food, drugs, hardware, and
gasoline . Of all the stores in the Baltimore district, p er cent
are located in neighborhood developments, and two-thirds of
these neighborhood stores are food outlets, constituting a greaternumber of food establishments than are found in the centralshopping district. Drug stores, hardware stores, and filling
stations each constitute one-ninth of the remaining number of
stores . The volume of business done in this form of development
amounts to per cent of the city’
s total . The greater proportionof this amount, seven-elevenths, is done by the food outlets, an
amount equal to that done by the food outlets in the centralshopping district . Filling stations do three-elevenths of the business, an amount three times as great as that done by filling stations and other automotive establishments located in the centralshopping district. Drug stores located there do approximately
one-eleventh of the business, and hardware stores an even smalleramount (Tables 83 and
Although the chain store once'
more fails to dominate the retail
pattern, it does account for two-ninths of the outlets and for
just less than half the business of the neighborhood developments .
National chains do four times the volume of business done'
by
[ 262 ]
THE METROPOL I TA N COMMUN ITY
ately dense communities, with to persons to thesquare mile, one finds a moderately complete retail pattern
stores representing a few commodities other than conveniencegoods but not a complete representation of all principal com
modities , such as was found in the subcenters in the denselypopulated areas . By correlating retail business and population
density , ithas been possible to trace the development of the retailsubcenter . Convenience goods usually make their appearance
first. Then, as population increases , restaurants, in some one of
their several forms, and general merchandise outlets, usually
small , follow . Of the principal commodity groups, the last to entera subcenter are apparel , furniture, and jewelry . This appears to be
the normal development of a subcenter . Likewise, it is possible tocorrelate types of operation with population density . Wheredensity is moderately high, one finds the greatest number of
chain-operated stores . Here population is closely related to
income , a matter which will be referred to later . I n all sparsely
populated communities , the independent store predominates, as
it does in the most densely populated communities at the other
extreme . I t appears, therefore, that population density is signifi
cantly correlated with concentrations of retail business, with
the kinds of business represented in those concentrations, and
with the types of operation that prevail there .
Next to population density, income exerts the greatest influenceupon retail pattern. Both high and low-income areas repel
concentrations of business . The high-income areas are generally
found in the outlying district where the demand 1s not sufficient
to support diversified business and where property restrictions
forb id its location . I n such areas, retail stores are limited to theselling of convenience goods— those commodities bought fre
quently . The-
more frequently we buy a commodity the fewer theelements that enter into the selection of where we buy it . I t is themoderate- income areas with a fair share of both buying habit and
buying power that support concentrations of community busi
ness . I n addition to affecting the number and variety of.outlets,income also exerts an influence
'
on type of operation . The mod
erate- income areas make the_greatest appeal to the chain
operated store . This was found to be true in both the mid-city
district and the outlying district . Conversely, it was found to be
true that the very high income and the very low income groups
constitute the independent establishments patronage . The[ 264 ]
N U CLEAT ION
high-income areas attract the fairly large independent stores
because of service and a greater variety of merchandise with
respect to needs ; the low-income areas attract the small independents because they cannot support chain—operated business .
Topography is an important influence on retail pattern, to theextent that it frequently determines where people travel and ,
consequently, where they shop . There are instances where, by
engineering skill , topographical barriers have been surmounted,but ordinarily they still tend to isolate a community and thereby
restrict the limits of its shopping area . There is considerable
undeveloped land— low, wooded, or for other reasons not yet
developed— surrounding most of the shopping units in the out
lying districts of Baltimore . There is also considerable land de
voted to park and cemetery purposes . These lands have created
barriers which serve as shopping obstacles, and frequently in
spite of other influences, such as transportation, they have deter
mined the physical limits to which shopping will ordinarily
extend .
Generally, a more important influence than topography
within a city is transportation structure. The extent to which thepeople of Baltimore .travel to the central shopping district to dotheir buying is indicated by the fact that the downtown core doesonly p er cent of the retail business of that city . But as an
indication of the fact that the central shopping district supplies
certain needs, doubtless city wide, it was found in Baltimore that
this district is supported largely by the four commodity groups
previously referred to, namely, general merchandise, apparel,furniture, and jewelry . The same means of transportation, however, that carry the city ’
s population to the central shopping
district for certain purposes, have produced other buying centers
of considerable importance . Specific locations of concentrations of
stores and the size of those concentrations can be partially tracedto public transportation intersections and to the importance of
those intersections as transfer points . I n the mid-city district inBaltimore, there are 18 retail centers of importance. At one of
these centers, more than worth of retail business was
done in 1929; at another one there was an expenditure of more
than and the remaining 16 centers in this district didamounts of business proportionate to their size . All of them are
located at or very close to important transfer points where street
car and bu s traffic is heavy . I n the outlying district, this same
265
THE METROPOL I TA N COMMUN I TY
subcenter pattern is forming and , where population density is
comparatively high, the subcenters have reached the same degree
of importance to their communities as have those in the mid-citydistrict . I n the eastern part of the outlying
’
district in Baltimore,
there is no crosstown transportation and this has resulted in
almost no subcenter growth . This condition stands out in marked
contrast to the condition in the western part, where there is
considerable crosstown transportation and following it perfectly
there is a network of subcenters . So the influence of transportationis at work in all parts of the large city . As population moves ,transportation and business move with it .
Concentrations of racial and ethnic populations also help
determine the retail structure of the city. I n Baltimore, ap p roxi
mately 47 p er cent of the population is divided among first and
second-generation immigrants and Negroes . Areas were found to
be dominated by Germans, Poles , Lithuanians, Negroes, Ru ssians, Italians, and other groups . Since the newest comers to any
city, as well as the Negroes, are usually of the lowest economicclass, they are found in the cheap residential area surrounding
the downtown Center . Hence it is not strange that, ashas alreadybeen observed, the 18 mid-city subcenters were identified as
nuclei of communities of particular nationality or racial groups .
I t is probably the econom ic level of the mid-city population
rather than its nativity or color that determines the pattern of
retail business . That is not to say, however, that ethnic composi
tion exerts no influence, for as has been stated elsewhere, new
immigrants tend to reproduce the structure and habits of thecountry in which they originated . Hence, certain specialized
wants or customs of doing business were found to have an eflect
on the pattern of retail distribution.
In conclusion, it may be said that the peculiar needs and p ractices of the difl’erent communities that make up the several
parts of a city vary in market characteristics even more than dothe different regions of the country . And it appears that p op ulation density, income, topography , transportation facilities, and
racial composition are the chief forces at work in setting up theretail pattern of a city .
[ 266 ]
CHAPTER XX
TRENDS IN URBAN TRAFFIC 1
F THE manifold problems associated with life in the largecity perhaps none receives more popular attention and com
ment than that of traffic and transportation. Several times a daythe average city dweller employs some form of mechanical trans
portation in the pursuit of his activities . The larger our cities
become and the wider their population spreads the greater is thereliance upon private or public transportation facilities . Since theadvent of the motor vehicle, the problem of traffic congestionhasheld a leading place in the discussion of the city ’
s transportation
difficulties .
But the problem of traffic is more involved than the overt
conditions -might imply . I t afl'
ects the entire structure of the community . Indeed one might difl’erentiate stages in the evolution
of the city ’
s structure by the periods when new forms of trans
p ortation were introduced . The city before the advent of theelectric railway had quite a different form from that which it
acquired after this agency of transportationhad come into com
mon u se. Likewise the city as determined by electric transporta
tion was quite a different organism from the present motor city .
Even yet the city is far from being adequately adjusted to themotor vehicle . Business and population have responded more
readily to the new conditions than has the physical structure of
the city . This lag in structural accommodationhas the effect of
rendering obsoletemuch of the older structure of the city, therebyinducing blight and lowering land values .
The changes that have come in recent decades in types and
volume of urban traffic form the basis for predicting, with whatever validity is possible, the course of future trends . An analysis
of this problem, therefore, must include an examination of thequantitative significance of various types of transportationmechanisms, the extent to which each performs the functions
1 Prepared _by M iller McClintock, Director, the Albert Russel Erskine Bureaufor Street Traffic Research, Harvard University.
[ 269 ]
TH E METROPOL I TA N COMMUN I TY
required of the whole transportation equipment, how the re
qu irements placed upon any one type or group of equipment
affect the other types or groups, and the influence of the size of
the community upon the shifts in demands made upon the different kinds of equipment . These are (1) the automobile, themotor bus, and the motor truck ; (2) the surface street car ;
(3) rapid-transit facilities, including suburban train service ; and
(4) horsedrawn vehicles . Pedestrian traffic is also significant in
the whole complex and must be appraised .
Since automotive equipment is the newest form of mechanism,
it Will have to receive the largest amount of attention, with an
effort being made to determ ine its quantitative significance and
its influence upon other equipment. These questions can be
studied in the light of statistics on the total numbers of automo
tive units in u se and on the changes that have come in relative
u se of both automotive equipment and preexisting types of
transportation facilities . The latter may be conveniently referred
to as“
riding habits .
”When riding habits are studied over several
decades in cities of various sizes, it may be p ossible to discover
some of the factors that determine them and will influence them
in the future . Thus the basis will be laid for such predictions asseem justified .
THE AUTOMOTI VE REVOLU TI ON
Motor vehicles have exerted a sudden and profound effecton American cities . I n the 35 years since their introduction, they
have become an important if not an essential part of practicallyevery urban activity. In fact, so much of the productive and
distributive operations of cities is predicated upon automotive
vehicles that none of the larger communities could continue theirpresent scale or type of existence without these mechanisms .
The rapidity with which the automobile has been introducedhas resul ted in many revolutionary changes both in physical
conditions and in social habits . The ful l implications of thechange have not yet been felt, and continuing maladjustments
form the principal elements in the so-called traffic problem .
The national figures of automobile registration as presentedin Table 87 give a preliminary view of the magnitude of themovement.
The degree to which cities have participated in this nationalmotorization is shown by the fact that 48 per cent of the passenger
270
THE METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
commodity cartage. I n the earlier period the struggle was by no
means one-sided, but increasing efficiency in motor vehicles hadmade their final victory quite certain in 1915 .
The degree to which the motor car has'
replaced the horse incity traffic is revealed in a number of recent traffic studies . Thus,of vehicular movements recorded in Washington, D . C . ,
in 1930, were by passenger automobiles, by motor
trucks , and 868 by horse-drawn vehicles .
2 A sim ilar study made
in Boston in 1928 showed a total of vehicular movements
of which were by passenger automobiles, by
motor trucks, and were by horse-drawn vehicles .
3 Theannual increase inmotor-vehicle registrations and the corresponding decline in horse-drawn vehicles are illustrated in Chicago,
which is one of the few cities to keep accurate records of the latterclass of vehicles (see Table Assuming that it will be possible
TABLE 89.
— MOTOR—VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS IN CHICAGO, 1910—1929“
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o
0 Figures supplied by the Chicago Association of Commerce.
5 I ncludes motor cycles and demonstrators.c Eight-month record only.
for cities to maintain a reasonable fluidity of traffic movement,
it appears probable that the relatively near future will see thecomplete disappearance of the horse as a factor in city trafli c .
Absorption of the motor carhas been by no means uniform in
all cities throughout the United States. I n general it may be said
that the number of motor vehicles p er population is likely
to be greater in the smaller cities and that western and mid
2 Parking and Garage P roblem of the Central Business District of Washington,
D. C. , National Cap ital Park and Planning Commission, 1930 , p . 23 .
3 The Street Trafiic Control Problem of the City of Boston, 1928, p . 405 .
[ 272 ]
TREND S I N U R BAN TRA FF I C
western cities are likely to have proportionately greater numbers
of motor vehicles than the larger industrial cities of the Atlanticseaboard . The national ratio of persons p er automotive vehicle
is now The extreme range in the great cities is from a ratio of
in Philadelphia to one of in Los Angeles .
The Future of Automobiles in Cities — Automotive vehiclesmay be accepted as the standard mechanisms for the urbanmovement of commodities and for the private transportation of p er
sons . Unless there are introduced new types of traffic units nowunknown, it is probable that the urban registration of motor
vehicles will increase steadily in the future, though at a less
rapid rate than in the past . This increase will continue until apoint Of balancehas been reached ; that is, until in any particular
community the ratio of population to vehicles ceases to decline
and remains relatively constant . From that time on, increases
in motor-vehicle registrations will bear a relatively constant
relation to population increases . I n would be hazardous to esti
mate at what point the balance ratio may be reached in any com
munity . I t will be influenced by many variables . The average
city, however , will probably have a ratio lower than the presentnational ratio of
I n the larger metropolitan centers the saturation point will bedetermined by ability to u se rather than by ability to buy . I n
other words, physics and not econom ics will control the ultimate
degree of concentration of automobile ownership . There is now
in all of the larger cities a considerable number of persons who are ,
potential automobile owners but who do not wish to purchase .
because of present traffic conditions ; that is, they are financially
able to own and operate a motor car but progressive inconven
ience and hazard have eliminated them from the market . Im
p rovements in traffic conditions may bring all or some portion of
these persons into the owner group . The process, however , willbe slow, for normal growth in necessary traffic will tend to main
tain congestion and consequent inconvenience . Should trafli c
inconvenience become increasingly great in the future, as it hasin many cities in the past , it is to be anticipated that many automobile owners will abandon their ownership . This process of
elimination will affect private owners more quickly than com
mercial owners, for they are more sensitive to inconvenience,normally have alternative methods of transportation, and have
no way of compensating themselves for the inconvenience[ 273 ]
TH E METROPOL I TAN COMMUN ITY
suffered . Thus, one may see street traffic become increasingly
commercial in character, as it now is in some of the more con
ge'
sted parts of the great cities. Operators of public carriers,trucks, and taxicabs will tolerate a great deal more inconvenience
than will the private operator, for their compensation can be
adjusted in some degree to cover their losses .
I n the smaller cities where congestion is a less importantfactor , the balance or saturation point of automobile ownership
will be controlled more definitely by economic considerations,that is, by capacity to buy . I t is probable that the smaller cities
will have an average ratio of population to automobiles d is
tinctly lower than that of the larger cities .
PUB LI C TRANS PORTATION
There is a widespread and probably justifiable belief that theextensive u se of the private automobile has served to retard thedevelopment of public passenger transportation. While figures of
trends during the past few years would seem to substantiate thisV iew, collateral considerations make generalizations hazardous
and sometimes misleading . For example, would city populationshave increased so rapidly without the introduction of auto
mobiles ? Would cities have developed widespread residential
districts with substantial public-transportation demands withoutthe freedom afforded by the motor car ? Would concentration inbusiness and industrial districts which results in large transporta
tion loads have been so intense without motor vehicles ? Would
people be so intolerant of walking except for riding habits created
by the automobile ? All of these questions can be answered in thenegative with some qualification . N o matter to what extent they
might modify final conclusions, however, there can be little doubtthat the motor car has absorbed a very large volume of urbantraffic which might otherwise have gone to public-transportationagencies .
Statistical proof of this observation is difficult to find . Such
material as is available is open to question as to whether the communities from which it is drawn are typical and whether they can
be said to represent adequately all the elements in the problem .
When all these reservations are made, however , the data serve asvaluable confirmation of general observation. Thus Figure 344
This figure is rep roduced from The Relation of I ndivi dual to Collective Trans
portation, Rap id Transit Commission, Detroit, 1928, p . 22.
[ 274 ]
THE METROPOL I TA N COMMUN I TY
indicates distinctly the tendency for the number of p er capita
rides in collective transportation facilities to decline as the number of automobiles increases . Likewise, the statistics in Table 90indicate the tendency for p er capita revenue rides to decrease as
the number of automobiles p er population increases, andvice versa. A few notable exceptions, however, must be men
tioned : I n San Francisco thereare 198 automobiles p erpopulation, but the number -
of per capita rides is 461 . I n Rich
mond, conversely, the number of automobiles is only 78 per
but the number of p er capita rides is only 221 ; and Winnipeg,with only 80 automobiles p er reports only 197 rides p er
capita . Notwithstanding these exceptions, however, the datarepresent unmistakable evidence of the fact that the privateautomobile is a strong competitor of the public conveyance.
Some further light is thrown on this problem by the datapresented in Table which reflect the experience of street
railways and motor buses over the decade 1920 to 1929.
I n the 46 cities included in the summary table therehas beena nominal increase amounting to p er centi n the total revenuepassengers carried by the railways . The increase in passengerscarried by buses for the same period has been p er cent .
I n 1920 the bu s traffic amounted to p er cent of the rail
traffic ; by 1929 it had increased to p er cent. I n the Wholegroup of cities, therefore, the electric-railway industry remained
practically static, while the increase in the number of bus p as
sengers came from the total increase in all passengers . Theadvances made by buses can be said to have been obtained by
inroads, not so much upon existing patronage of electric railways ,as upon their potential increase of patronage.
When the cities comprising the entire group are brokendowninto size groups, however, conditions are found not to be uniform,
and a study of the variations of conditions between groups givesa valuable indication of probable future trends . The five citiesin group A, all with populations of more than contrib
ute more than half of the total street-railway p assengers .
\as
'
shownfor all 46 cities . The cities in this group have shown a very sub
stantial increase (amounting to p er cent) in street-railway5 The data in this table were p rep ared by the Statistical Dep artment of the
American Electric Railway Association after a comp rehensive analysis of all
available material. The author wishes to exp ress app reciation to the Association,
and esp ecially to Edmund J. Murphy, Director of Information, for assistance in
the comp ilation of this table.
276
TRE ND S I N U R B AN TRA F F I C
revenue passengers in the 10-year period . I n this group thenumber of bu s passengers has materially increased , but only by
p er cent, as compared with the 794 p ercent increase in all
cities . Bu s passengers in this group of cities amounted to p er
TABLE 91 .—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF REVENUE PASSENGERS CARRIED BY STREET
RAILWAYS AND MOTOR BUSES IN 46 AMERICAN CITIES, 1920- 1929(I n thousands)
TOTAL 46 CI TI ES WI TH 1930 POPULATIONS OVER
1926
GROUP A. 5 CI TIES WI TH 1930 POPULATIONS OVER
1928
GROUP B . 7 CI TI ES WI TH 1930 POPULATIONS BETWEEN AND
GROUP C. 34 CITIES WI TH 1930 POPULATIONS BETWEEN AND
cent of the railway passengers in 1920 and to per cent in 1929.
These facts suggest that railway traffic is increasing in the majormetropolitan centers and that bu s traffic is likewise increasing
but less rapidly there than in the entire group of cities with pop ulations of more than
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN ITY
Group B includes cities withpopulations between and
000 . I n these cities street railways havehad a less favorable
exper1ence. The 10-year period shows an actual decrease of
p er cent in the number of revenue passengers carried . The numberof bu s revenue passengers in this group, however, increased
p er cent in the decade. They were equivalent to p er
cent of the railway passengers in 1920 and to p er cent in 1929.
The heaviest losses to railways have been in cities in group C ,
with population between and The decline inrailway passengers in these cities for the period was p er cent .
I n 1920 the number of passengers carried by buses was equ iva
lent to per cent of the railway passengers, and in 1929 to
p er cent . Figures are not available for cities with less than
population . There is reason to believe, however, that theywould show an even greater loss for street railways thanhas beenexperienced in cities in group C .
I t seems fair to conclude that the trend is toward a static or
an even more important position for street railways in cities of
more than population ; that they may hold their own in
cities with a pop ulation between and that
in cities with populations less than their patronage will
decline.
Special Public Carrier Developments— There are three special
developments in urban transportation which are significant and
which may deeply affect future trends . They are rapid transit,suburban train operation, and bu s transportation .
Rap id Transit— Rapid transit has been restricted entirely to
the larger metropolitan centers . N ew York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston are the only cities possessing well-developed
systems of rapid transit in the form of subways, elevated rail
ways, or both . I n these cities the number of passengers in publiccarriers has increased rather than decreased , as is shown by thedata presented in Figure The increase is particularly noticeable in connection with rapid-transit facilities and is probably due
to a number of factors including (1) the presence of largemasses ofindustrial employees economically unable to own and operate
motor cars ; (2) street congestion discouraging the u se of auto
mobiles ; and (3) the superior service rendered by rapid-transit
as compared with street-car operation . True rapid-transit devel
6 Relation of I ndividual to Collective Transportation, 0 p . cit , p . 24.
278
THE METROPOL I TA N COMMUN I T Y
TABLE 92 .— REVENUE PASSENGERS CARRIED BY SPECI AL TRANSPORTATION
AGENCIES IN FOUR CITIES, 1920—1929“(I n thousands)
Surface and rapid-transit railways
Philadelp uia New York City and Chicagoand Boston
4 cities figures notseparable byagencies
Years
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Prepared by the American Electric Railway Association. Rapid transit and surface railwaytraffic figures are reported separately for NewYork City and Chicago. For Philadelphia and Boston,
no separation between rapid-transit and surface-railway trame is available.
Suburban Trains .
— I n many cities highly developed suburban
train.
service gives transportation comparable in speed and con
venience with that afforded by regular rapid-transit systems . Thehauls are usually for relatively long distances as compared with
those of strictly local transportation ; thus this type of service
directly affects suburban population patterns . Several notable
instances of improvements in service through electrification or
other changes have resulted in recent years in greatly increased
traffic . I n N ew York, Philadelphia, Chicago , and Boston,
suburban commuter service plays a very large part in the transportation scheme of the metropolitan district . Other cities showsimilar tendencies which will undoubtedly grow in the future.
The Motor Bus — The motor bus is relatively new in the localtransportation field . I ts. development followed that of the “jitney,
” whichhad a spectacular rise and fall in the second decade
of this century . The “ j itney” proved that between the street car
and the private passenger automobile there was a definite transportation need . I ts practical demise proved likewise that theservice could not be rendered satisfactorily except by organizedand responsible agencies . I t paved the way for the bus .
[ 280 ]
TR E ND S I N UR B A N TRA FF I C
The motor bu s as an agency of local transportationhashad a
very rapid growth during the past 10 years . (See Table 91 , also
Table 92, for increases in number of revenue passengers .) Aside
TABLE 93 .— GROWTH IN LOCAL BUS SERVICE IN PLACES WI TH MORE THAN
POPULATION“
Number of placesPlaces with buses and trolleysPlaces with buses onlyPlaces with no local bus serviceNumber of railway operators of busesNumber of independent operators of busesNumber of buses in local service" .
Number of local routesMiles of local bus routes
“Facts and Figures of the Automobi le I ndustry, National Automobile Chamber of Commerce,
1930, p. 29. The latest figures supplied by Bus Transportation show as of January 1, 1931, numberof buses in local service, miles of route, number of cities with bus transportation,
only 210. The total number of electric railways Operating buses, either as substitutions for trolleyservice or in feeder servicewas 262 as of January 1.5 Exclusive of jitneys in Detroit, St. Lou is, Spartanburg, S. C., Columbia , S . C Atlanta, andsavannah, Ga.
from the rapid growth in the number of buses and the miles of
city operation, it is significant that the number of cities with busservice exclusively increased notably , and likewise that the number of independent operators declined materially . More formal
and responsible organization of the bus business has been demanded by the requirements of both competition and publicservice. I t is also noteworthy that many electric railway com
p anies are operators of buses .
As yet it is quite impossible to anticipate what will be thedominant type of public-carrier transportation in the cities of thefuture. I t seems very probable, however, that the street-railwaylines, at least in the larger cities , will be able to maintain themselves and possibly will improve their position. This will be more
likely where there is some type of rapid transit Which is dependentto a degree upon rail coordination.
The bu s has proved its capacity to render a desirable type of
local transportation service under certain conditions . I n thelarger cities it is not probable that it will replace the more impor
[ 281 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
tant rail lines, although it may develop certain special routes
which will be very heavily traveled, such as Michigan Boulevardin Chicago and Fifth Avenue in New York City. I n metropolitan
service the trend would appear to be toward coordination of bu s
and rail operation, with the u se of bu s for local service, for cross
town connections, for expansion of service into new territories,and for replacement of street-car service on routes so lightly
traveled that they do not justify continued maintenance of streetrailway right-of-way and equipment .
I n the smaller cities where traffic is less dense and Where theprivate motor vehicle, because of less congestion and more widely
distributed ownership , offers more intense competition to public
transportation, it is entirely possible that the motor bu s may
become the dominant type of public carrier . This eventuality
may be greatly expedited with the perfection of experimental
types of buses with greatly imp roved’
operating economies .
DI STRIB UTION OF TRAFFI C AMONG VARI OU S TYPE S OF
VE HI CLE S
The importance of each type of traffic is revealed by a study of
its actual flow within a city . I n no cityhas an attempt been made
to analyze all of the intracity movements during a single day,
but the more important currents have been studied in detail .The most significant business-day flow is that to and from thecentral business district . The available figures resulting from
TABLE 94 .— METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION USED BY PERSONS RIDING To AND
FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS or SELECTED AMERICAN CITIES“
transit
Boston (1927)ChicagoKansas CitySan Francisco (1926)Washington (1929)PhiladelphiaM ilwaukee
0 Unless otherwise noted, figures are from studies by the Albert Russel Erskine Bureau .
0 Phi ladelphia Trafi c Survey, M itten Management, 1929, I I , p. 17.
Transportation in the Mi lwaukee Metrop olitan District, Mcclellan and Junkersfeld, Inc., 1928,
p. 186.
[ 282 ]
THE METROPOL I TA N COMMUN ITY
TABLE —COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC VOLUME AND I TS DISTRI BUTION AMONGDIFFERENT TRANSPORTATION AGENCIE S IN CENTRAL BUSINESS D ISTRICT
OF PHILADELPHIA, 1925—1928“
Kind of Vehicle
Passenger automobilesTaxicabs”.Trucks
Horse-drawn vehicles .
Surface cars .
Bu ses
Subsurface and elevated
0 Philadelphia Traf ic Survey, M itten Management, 1929, I I , p . 17. The two years from 1926 to
1928 showed a p er cent increase in the number of automobiles entering the Loop district inChicago. Street Traflic Economics , American Electric Railway Association, 1928, p . 70.
b Taxicab drivers not included.
TR END S I N UR B AN TRA F F I C
using taxicabs and horse-drawn vehicles declined . This may or
may not be a typical case, but it does seem to indicate whatsignificant changes may take place.
There are no satisfactory materials warranting conclusionswith respect to the relation between transportation types anddistances traveled . I t is well known, however, that the automobile
FIG. 37.
has assisted in the residential development of areas which were
not accessible by public transportation . Without the motor car
some of these districts might have been made available by trans
portation extensions , but in many instances it is apparent that
the length of the haul and the light trafli c would have made suchservice impossible .
A study of the transportation habits of government
employees was recently conducted in Washington , D . C . (seeFigures 36 and The data gathered in this study clearly show
7 Parking and Garage Problem of the Central Business District of Washington,
D. C., National Cap ital Park and Planning Commission, 1930 , pp . 58—59.
[ 285 ]
THE METROPOL I T A N COMMUN ITY
the large u se made of street cars for short hauls and of automo
biles for long haul s . The working places of the great majority of
the employees studied are in the area below and to the rightof the center of the figure. I t will be observed that in the near-byresidential districts public-carrier riders exceed in number theautomobile riders . I n the outlying residential districts the situa
tion is reversed, and , with the exception of one or two areas,
automobile riders exceed in number those using public carriers .
URB AN TRAFFI C AN D THE COMMU NI TY PATTERN
The population and business patterns of communities have
been very largely influenced by traffic and transportation condi
tions . Before the development of the automobile, the street
railway played a major part in the opening of new residential
districts, in the creation of neighborhood business areas alongthe more important lines, and in providing added access to thecentral business district . This influence of the street railway , now
combined with that of the bu s, is by no means past, but theattraction is no longer so certain as it once was . Formerly theconstruction of a street-car line in a district gave property
owners along the line a kind of monopoly within their area .
Business locations could be established with certainty that
practically all of the workers of the area would daily u se the lineand therefore be exposed to the wares or services offered . Propertyowners could build rental properties, flats, or apartment houses
upon the route or closely adjacent to it with assurance that
they would remain accessible to those who must u se the street
car line for daily travel . The establishment of a bu s line gives no
such assurance. There are no capital expenditures In fixed
improvements comparable with tracks which tie the trans
p ortation to the particul ar route. If traffic conditions warrant,it can be transferred to another route by a simple order.Public carriers exert the most powerful influence upon the
community patterns when they assume the form of rapid transit .
The subway routes in N ew York City, Philadelphia , and Boston,
and the elevated routes in certain parts of Chicago have been
notable developers of business'
and residence districts . Rapid
transit lines give a stability which other forms of transportation
cannot give. Their capacity is vastly greater than a street-car
line, and , once constructed, the lines are definitely fixed .
[ 286 ]
TH E METROPOL I TA N COMMUN ITY
Some of the resulting decentralization of business would have
taken place, without doubt, under the earlier forms of transporta
tion; but it has been expedited greatly by the automobile. Thecustomer who comes by automobile composes a substantial partof retail patronage (see Table He may choose his markets
freely, for he is not bound by public-carrier routings . If theroutes to the established markets become congested, he will seekmore convenient service elsewhere . Aside from certain habits
and traditions, which are at best unstable, it may“
be taken as a
principle of the relation between traffic and retail trade that,values being equal , the market will be favored which is most
conveniently accessible.
Decentrali z ation.— The present trend toward decentralization
makes it appear quite obvious that unless the capacity of princi
p al arteries to central districts can be improved , and unless suit
able terminal facilities for automobiles can be provided , central
districts will fail increasingly to gain their proportionate share of
community business . The shifts necessitated may prove to be
more costly than would have been the provision of traffic facilities
to and in the central districts .
The automobilehas also tended to bring about a wide distribution of population in residential areas . Suburban districts almostentirely lacking in public transportation service but well p opulated are to be found in any large metropolitan area .
The relative speed of the automobile and the street car in typ ical movements between central business districts and outlying
districts is clearly illustrated in Figures 38 and
The data upon which these figures are based represent typicalafternoon peak-hour conditions, in other words , conditions dur ingthe period of time when the largest number of central-districtworkers are home-bound , and therefore the conditions that are
most likely to afl’ect the selection of a home site. I t will be ob
served that there is very little difference between the distancecovered by street cars and automobiles in the first five minutesof the outward journey . This is due to the fact that on crowdedstreets, where the two operate together, street cars tend to controlthe speed of all other traffic . This equality of speed disappears inthe second five minutes of outbound travel , and from that time
on the motor car proves to be much speedier . The effect whichthis facthas on the distribution of population is indicated by the
9A Trafiic Control P lan for Kansas City, 1930, pp . 88, 92 .
288
TREND S I N UR BAN TRA F F I C
TH E ME TROPOL I T AN COMMUN ITY
THE METROPOL I TA N COMMUN ITY
5 . Public carriers have in general better maintained theircompetitive position where rapid-transit service is provided ,though this does not necessarily mean better financial return .
6 . I n the larger cities there has been a
‘
tendency to coordi
nate bu s and street-railway operation, using the former as an
auxiliary to the latter ; but in the smaller cities therehas been a
tendency for the bus to replace the street railway .
7 . The private automobile, the bu s, the street car, and , in
the larger cities, rapid transit, have proved their utility in urbantraffic, and in the future they will p robably d evelop side by sidewith one or the other of the forms developing more rapidly ac
cording to local conditions .
8 . Street railways and later motor vehicles have tended tobring about a wider distribution of urban population and a greaterconcentration of business activity .
9. Increasing congestion in central districts and on routesleading to them is resulting in a tendency toward the decentraliz ation of business activity ; this tendency is especially notable inconnection with retail trade .
CHAPTER XXI
CITYAND REGIONAL PLANNINGAND ! ONING 1
PLANNI NG TRENDS
HE purpose of city planning and its more recent develop
ment into regional planning is to make cities and regions
convenient, healthful, and attractive places in which people may
work, play, learn, and otherwise express themselves in well
rounded living . This is “
an aim shared also by other civic en
deavors ; the special province of city planning is the wide range
of problems relating to the physical aspects of the city or other
unit— its streets , railroads, waterways, public services ; its
public buildings, schools, and other cul tural centers ; parks,recreation grounds, and other open spaces ; and the development
of housing, industry, and other private property . I t studies theseproblems comprehensively with a view to outlining plans for
future growth and development on a city-wide or region-widebasis .
The city-planning movement in the United States is datedfrom 1905 because in that year three plans were made : a plan
for Manila, Philippine Islands, one for San Francisco,California,
and one for Columbia, South Carolina . These are the earliestcity-planning reports in the planning era of which there is any
record . One of the next important plans to be completed, and one
which undoubtedly gave impetus to these early developments,
was the one made for Chicago under the general guidance of
Daniel H . Burnham which appeared in 1909. The most significanttrends from this beginning period are to be found in the legislation relating to city planning, in the setting up of planning commissions, and in the definite projects undertaken by cities , whichresulted in well-considered reports .
1 Section prepared by Shelby M . Harrison, General Director of the Russell
Sage Foundation; and Flavel Shurtlefi , Secretary, National Conference on CityPlanning; and Planning Foundation of America .
[ 293 ]
THE METROPOL I T A N COMMUN ITY
LEG I SLATI VE S ANCTI ONS
In state legislation in this country the first recognition of
city plann ing as a function of a city department is found in thespecial act of Connecticut for Hartford in 1907.
2
The planning commissions in Milwaukee, 1908, in Chicago ,
1909, and in Detroit, 1910, were established under city ordinances ; and Baltimore
’
s commission was appointed by authorityof a special act of the Maryland legislature, passed in 1910 .
Most of the other early planning commissions were established
under local ordinances .
The first planning laws of general application were passed in
1909 for Wisconsin and in 1911 for Pennsylvania (cities of thefirst class) . In 1913 laws of this character were passed for all
N ew York cities and incorporated villages . Massachusetts in thesame year passed an act which made planning boards mandatory
in all cities and towns over population . The states, other
than N ew York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts,and Wisconsin, which have since passed laws of general applica
tion authorizing the creation of planning boards are as follows
1915 Nebraska, Ohio, California1918 Connecticut
1919 M innesota, NorthCarolina, Oregon1921 Indiana, I llinois, Kansas, Nevada, Tennessee, Vermont1923 Oklahoma1924 District of Columbia1925 I owa
1926 Louisiana
1927 Maryland1928 Kentucky1929 Arkansas, Colorado, NorthDakota
Thus just two more thanhalf of the states have enacted
legislative sanctions or bases for planning in their cities . All
sections of the country are represented, although the greatest activity appears to have been centered in the states along theAtlantic seaboard and in the MiddleWest. The curve of develop3 A p lann ing commission was set up consisting of the mayor as the p residing
ofi cer, the p resident of the Board of Street Commissioners, the p resident of thePark Commission, the city engineer, one member of the Board of Aldermen, one
member of the Common Council, and two citi z ens. Thi s commission was giventhe p ower to make a map or p lan showing p roposals for all physical imp rovements, and all questions concerning the location of p ublic buildings, streets, andparks
“shall be referred to said commission by the Court of Common Council
for its consideration and rep ort before final action is taken on suchlocation.
”
[ 294 ]
THE METROPOL I TA N COMMUN ITY
Advisory commissions with shadowy functions depend too much
on the uncertain cooperation of other municipal departments .
CI TY PLANNI NG COMM I S S IONS OR BOARDS
During the last two decades numerous official city planning
commissions or boards have been established throughout thecountry . Their functions range from undertaking the preliminarysurvey or research work upon which later plans are based to
drafting the plans and putting them into operation. Before 1914there were 17 such official city planning agencies . During thenext few years the newly instituted agencies may be grouped
as follows
Number of Ofli cialYears Planning Agencies
1914 to 1922 207
1923 to 1926 161
1927 to (June) 1930 Between 350 and 400
The total for the period of roughly twenty years is thus some
thing upward oi 735 official commissions or boards established as
part of the local government machinery . I n addition, numerous
nongovernmental city-planning agencies have been instituted in
the period . Many of these did the preliminary pioneer work in thecommunity and either developed into the later official comm issionor went out of existence when the official bodies began to func
tion. The number of nonofficial agencies in recent years is p ro
portionally less than formerly since the public has become
somewhat better acquainted with the city—planning idea and ithasseemed less necessary to get action started through an exp eri
mental venture . I t is evident that the bulk of the development
herehas taken place during the last 15 years and that by far themost active period was from 1927 to 1930 .
These official planning bodies may be grouped as to size of
locality served . I n the 13 cities having populations of over
in 1930 there were 1 1 governmental planning agencies .
I n the 80 cities of between and people there
were 70 official planning agencies . I n the 283 cities having
populations of between and there were 205 offi
elal agencies . And the approximately 500 remaining agencies
were about equally divided between cities under and cities
between and of which latter there were
[ 296 ]
PLANN IN G AN D ZON IN G
The effectiveness of planning agencies varies widely among
the different cities, depending on the composition of the commission, on the law or ordinance under which it operates, on thecooperation from othermunicipal agencies, and on other and more
or less general public support . Some indication of their place inthe municipal scheme of things may be seen in the yearly appro
p riation received by the various commissions .
‘ I n those cities
where separate appropriations to the planning commission havebeen made over a period of at least three years, the followingfacts may be summarized
App rop riations of and upward were made in 14 cities of the18 whichhave pop u lations of overOf .the 75 cities between and p op u lation, 13 made
ap p rop riations of to and 13 made ap p rop riations of
to
Of the cities in the country under and over therewere less than 20 with app rop riations of over a year .
I n other words , of the 93 cities with populations of over40 have specific appropriations for the planning com
mission’
s work ranging from upwards . These appropriations are for the regular administrative work of the planningcommission . They do not include amounts appropriated for
specific planning projects, like the making of a topographicalsurvey, the making of a master plan, or the drafting of a zoningordinance .
The experience of leading city planners leads to the observation that the planning commission ’
s work cannot be effectivelycarried out unless ithas assigned to it a paid secretary-engineer .
This official may have other duties ;he may be the city engineer ,ashe is in “
many cities . For the payment ofhis salary, or a partof it, and for other administrative expenses of the commissionthere will certainly be required not less than a year in thesmallest cities and not less than a year where the executiveofficer of the planning commission giveshis full time to that work.
On this conservative basis it is seen that a very large proportionof the planning commissions are as yet inadequately financed,less than 60 cities among the total of nearly having p opul a
1 To secure exact statistics -is extremely difficult if not imp ossible, for somecities whichare effectively carrying out p lanning p rograms make no separate
ap p rop riations, the p lanning commission being considered a division of thep ublic works department or of the city engineer
’
s office.
[ 297 ]
THE METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
tions of or over having seen fit thus far to provide at
p er year for this work. I t should be added, however, that funds
secured by a number of private, nongovernmental planning bodieswould add considerably to this group of 60 cities . I n a few cases
the total sums available have ,run into comparatively large
figures, as in Philadelphia where has been raised for its
Regional Plan and in N ew York where the N ew York Regional
Plan Committeehas already spent more than a million dollars on
its enterprise .
CI TY PLANN I NG RE PORTS
Another indication of developments in planning may behad inlooking at the number of cities which through either ofiicial
or through nonoflici-al agencies have carried their planning proiects through the point where city plan reports have been placed
before their citizens. Of the 93 largest cities of the UnitedStates, that is, those of over population in 1930, 77 have
issued fairly comprehensive planning reports . Of the cities rang
ing between and population, reports have been
prepared in 108 ; and of the cities under about 150 have
planning reports . I n a few cases these are for the cities and theirsurrounding regions . Thus of cities of people or more,
only a little over one-sixth have carried their interest in planning
through the stage where a reporthas been published .
Of the 335 cities which have planning reports, 60 were made
before 1916. These early reports would now be considered
hardly more than preliminary or sketch plans . They were not
based on comprehensive studies of population, traffic movement,
or other local conditions and in most cases were hardly more
than suggestions for improvements made by the planner after a
brief visit to the city. More than half the cities whichhad theseearly plans have since either discarded them entirely for more
thorough and comprehensive reports, covering all the items in a
city planning program, or supplemented them by comprehensivereports in one or more fields, such as streets, parks , and zoning .
Even in the 300 plans new or revised which have been producedsince 1916 there is a great difference in the thoroughness of thebasic surveys, and consequently in the completeness of thefinal plan ; but about 125 of them are known to be grounded on
substantial data secured by careful surveys . They would probably
[ 298 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
Year
Before 1916
1916 to 1920
1921 to 1925
1926 to 1927
1928 to 1929
Total
of cities zoned since that date has been something over 100 ,except for 1930 when the number dropped to 77.
Although there are about 200 more zoned cities than cities
with planning commi ss10 ns , the distribution in population groupsis proportionately much the same, as will be seen from thefollowing table.
TABLE 97.— ZONED CITIES ACCORDING To SIZE OF POPULATION, 1930
The division between this and the next smaller group of cities, at this writing, is approximate,due to some uncertainty in the reporting. I t is accurate within a negligible percentage, however .
During the period since zoning began, there has been markedadvance in the scope of zoning legislation and improvement in
the technique applied to the drafting of zoning ordinances , justas therehas been advance in the scientific preparation of master
city plans . I n some of the earlier ordinances, cities were zoned for“u se
”only ; that is, for the control of the uses to which the land
should be put—
commercial , industrial, residential , or other .
Practically all of the ordinances since 1925 have been comp rehensive, covering u se to which land and buildings may be
’
p ut, theheight and bulk of buildings, or the area which may be covered .
A wide difference is to be seen 111 the administration of zoningordinances . I n some cities councils are easily prevailed upon tomake amendments to the zoning ordinance, usually without re
ferring the proposals to the planning commission or zoning board
300
PLANN I N G AND ZON IN G
even for a report. I n some cities the boards of adjustment or ap
peal, which are the quasi-judicial boards to hear zoning appeals,are very liberal in their interpretation of the ordinance or in
permitting exceptions to them— too liberal for very effective
community control of land and building developments, in thejudgment of leaders in this field . I n other cities councils make
no amendments without first getting the advice of the planningcommission and in the great majority of cases this advice is
followed . I n the latter cities it is usually found that the zoningboards of appeal are strictly interpreting the ordinance and
granting variances only in cases of decided hardship .
The accumulative experience in this field seems clearly to indi
cate that, for efficiency in the administration of zoning regula
tions, city councils should not change the zoning ordinance
except after a report from the planning commission or zoning
board ; and in all cases before the zoning board of appeals involving variances from the zoning ordinance the planning commissionshould be heard . A number of cities accomplish this by having at
least one member of the planning commission sit as a member of
the zoning appeal board .
CI TY PLANNI NG I NSTRU CTI ON I N COLLE GES
Practically no attention was given to instruction in or trainingfor city planning in any college or technical school in this country
before 1910 . The School of City Planning, at Harvard University,was established in the autumn of 1929. Twenty-five colleges or
technical institutions are now giving one or more city planning
courses in connection with their departments of architecture,engineering, or landscape architecture . At least 50 additional
colleges or technical schools give lectures on city planning in
connection with courses in engineering, art, political economy,municipal government, political science, or sociology.
I n the present state of demand for professional services incity planning and zoning, professional training for these fields isreasonably well provided for . However, the fact that city and
regional planning is in its early stages of development in this
country, and the further fact that problems of congestion, of
movement on streets and highways, of other forms of com
munication, and of adequate provision for the amenities of lifeand the health of the people are increasing, would seem to
[ 301 ]
munity, city, and regional growth is inevitable and cannot be long
postponed . This points to further probable deve lopment in train
ing for the profession and emphasizes the growing importance inundergraduate courses of giving more attention to subjects that
will enable future citizens to more intelligent uponquestions in their localities .
TH E METROPOL I T AN’
COMMUN I TY
unit of government commensurate with the task— with power toestablish the plan and with the financial and legal ability to
execute it.
Similarly, the problems of water supply and sewerage, which
depend essentially upon topography, need to be dealt with either
for the whole metropolis or for large sections of it without refer
ence to the arbitrary boundaries of the existing units of govern
ment . The protection of public health in an area within which
there is a daily movement of a large portion of the populationcan be secured only by means of a unit of government embracing
the whole area ; one or two units in which health laws are slackly
enforced can menace the safety of all the rest . Police administra
tion can scarcely be made effective in a metropolitan area if
certain of the metropolitan units are cities of refuge for gangsters
and bandits .
Other difliculties arise out of inequality of financial ability on
the part of the various divisions of the metropolis . The central
city, with its high-valued business district, usually occupies a
position of financial advantage midway between the wealthy
residential suburb with few governmental problems and high
property values on the one hand, and the Working-class com
TABLE 98 .
— ASSESSED VALUATIONS AND TAx RATE S, CITY OF ST . LOUI S ANDCERTAIN M UNICIPALITIES IN ST. LOUI S COUNTY
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
The basis of assessment in the city of St. Louis differs from that in St. Lou is County; the ad
justed per capita valuation for the city of St. Lou is wou ld be about
munity with large population and low values on the other (seeTable Under such circumstances education, for example,
[ 304 ]
METROPOL I T AN GOV E RNMENT
is very unevenly provided throughout the metropolis . The broadwell-kept thoroughfares of one unit debouch into the ill-paved ,unkept streets of another . The very communities which need
them most are quite unable to provide themselves with parks
and playgrounds or even with essential sanitary services . This
does not by any means exhaust the list of metropolitan problems
it simply suggests their extent and importance.
METHODS
Such a situation has naturally led to attempts at solution.
The most obvious method of meeting a metropolitan problem
affecting several units of government is the establishment of a
special or ad hoc district for the purpose of dealing with that
problem . I n the United States such districts may be divided
into three classes : (1) those which are agents of the centralgovernment, the govermng body being appointed by and re
sponsible to the governor or legislature— for example, theMassachusetts MetropolitanDistrict ; (2) those which are agents
of the various local units within the district, the governing bodybeing made up of representatives chosen by the governing bodiesof these units — for example, the Metropolitan Water D istrictof Southern California ; and (3) those which are themselves dis
tinct units of local government, the governing body being electeddirectly by the people of the district— for example, the ChicagoSanitary D istrict and the East Bay Municipal Utility D istrict .
A steady movement in the direction of the creation of such dis
tricts has shown itself in the United States during the last 20years, as will be seen from Table 99. I n recent years they havebeen established at the rate of about one a year . When a metro
politan problem has become acute, it is fairly easy to secure
the creation of a special district to take care of it. This is at leastpartly due to the fact that its creation does not mean the disruption of any existing unit or the displacement of any political
power or influence .
I t is obvious, however, that while individual problems of
the metropolis may be solved in this way, the metropolitan
problem as a whole remains unsolved . I t is possible to create one,
two, three districts covering much the same area, but the es
tablishment of each one of them may serve only to complicatethe governmental situation and help to make the citizen’s task
more difficult than ever .Where several functions are joined in the[ 305 ]
TH E ME TROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
TABLE 99.— PRINCIPAL SPECIAL DISTRICTS IN EXISTENCE IN THE UNITED STATE S,
1932
Name of district Activity
New York Passaic Valley Sewerage District 1902 Sewerage
Joint Sewerage Districts 1899 Sewerage
NewYork and New Jersey InterstatePalisades Park Commissions 1900 Park developmentNorth Jersey Water Supply District 1916 Water supplyPort of New York Authority 1921 Port development ; interstate
bridges and tunnelsChicago Sanitary District 1889 Sewerage
South Jersey Port Authority 1926 Port developmentMetropolitan Water District of
Southern California 1930 Water supplyBoston Massachusetts Metropolitan Dis
triet° 1919 Water supply ; sewerage ;
parksDivision of Metropolitan Planning 1923 P lanningMetropolitan Transit District 1929 Transit operation
Cleveland Cleveland Metropolitan Park Distriet 1915 Park development
-East Bay Municipal Utility District 1923 Water supplyBaltimore CountyM etropolitanDistriet 1924 Water supply ; sewerage
M ilwaukee M ilwaukee County MetrOp olitan
Sewerage District 1921 Sewerage
Washington Washington Suburban District 1918 Water supply ; sewerage;
plumbing ; inspection; con
trol over plattingPort Of Seattle Commission 191 1 Port developmentI ndianapolis Sanitary Distr ict 1917 Sewage disposal. etc.
Portland Port Commission 1891 Improvement of port Channel
4 Formed by consolidating the Metropolitan Park District (1893) and the Metropolitan Water
and Sewerage District, which latter in turnhad been formed in 1901 by consolidating the Metro
politan Sewerage District ( 1889) and the MetropolitanWater District
same commission, as in the Massachusetts Metropolitan Commission for the Boston area, the result is something closely ap
p roximating a general unit of local government for themetropolis .
The consequence is an increasing tendency to strive for somemore
complete solution than that offered by the special district.
Annexation.— I n the Old days the problems created by the
spread Of urban population over the area surrounding a city weretaken care of by annexationfib ut annexation is no longer p racticable as a means of coordinating with the central city the vastareas into which the automobile and the paved highway have
2 See Chap ter XIV, and Table IX in the Appendix.306
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN IT Y
The second alternative is the creation of units Of metropolitan
scope possessing sufficient powers to deal with those matters
which affect the metropolis as a whole but leaving other matters
to be dealt with either by the existing units or by new units to
be created for the purpose . This is no more than saying that we
need a new unit of government to replace the county, sometimes
larger in area, and always endowed with broader powers and
more effective organization than characterize counties today .
The trend in this direction cannot be proved by any concretechanges in the structure of local government . So far none of theprojects for the creation of this type of metropolitan government
have been p ut into practice in the United States . The only ex
amples to which we can turn are the Administrative County of
London, set up in 1888, and the City of Greater Berlin, estab
lished in 1920 . But there is no doubt of the movement of
many minds in the direction of this solution. There have been
presented to the Massachusetts General Court at its last two
sessions proposals of a committee appointed by Mayor Curley of
Boston for the establishment of a metropolitan government for
that city . The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and other
civic forces in that region are deliberately endeavoring to estab
lish a metropolitan government embracing the whole or a large
part of SanMateo County . I n fact, the newSan Francisco charter,adopted March 26, 1931 , makes direct provision for the futureincorporation of San Mateo County into San Francisco with a
limited autonomy for the municipalities included . A bitter battle
was waged in the Pittsburgh area in 1928 and 1999 over the p roposal to unite Allegheny County and Pittsburgh as the GreaterCity of Pittsburgh , preserving powers of local self-government for
each of the 120 units involved . The charter embodying thismeasure barely failed of ratification because of a provision requ ir
ing a two-thirds majority of the votes cast in a majority of theunits before it went into effect. The Pennsylvania GeneralAssemblyhas already begun the process of constitutional amend
ment to make this absurd system of ratification unnecessary .
I n St . Louis, Cleveland , Portland (Oregon) , Los Angeles, and
Chicago, there are well-defined movements for metropolitan
consolidation, while in Buffalo, Detroit, St . Paul-M nneap olis,
Dallas-Fort Worth, and other centers there is evidence of theserious consideration which men of affairs are giving to theso-called federated plan of metropolitan union.
[ 308 ]
METROPOL I T AN GOV E RNMENT
City-county Relations.— Mention should be made of the
definite termination of the trend toward the separation of cities
from the counties in which they are situated and toward giving
them independent city-county governments . The last such separation was that of Denver from Arapahoe County in 1903 , but 10years ago there was much talk Of the desirability of city-county
separation . Today there is little or none. Althoughmany cities
would benefit financially from such a separation, it is now very
clearly realized that separation means crippling the outlying
area, making it difficult for it to provide the facilities of futuredevelopment and depriving the central city of any control over
the character of that development.
There is , on the other hand , much talk of city-county consolidation that is, the union of the city with the county in which it issituated although no suchunion has occurred for more than a
third of a century . All the difficulties that lie in the way of theextension of a municipality
’
s boundaries by annexation confront
every attempt to consolidate it with its county, plus the determined resistance Of the county politicians to anything which
disturbs their monopoly of county control .
SUMM ARY
I t may safely be assumed that the metrop oltian problemdiscussed here will continue to grow . The spread of city p op ula
tion over larger and larger areas is steadily taking place, even
though the general movement of population from country tocityhas been somewhat checked by the depression. Even unp ros
perons Cities are continuing to spread out ; as time goes on, themaladjustment of areas of government to areas of population will
become more and more serious . All the metropolitan problems
will become more intense until readjustments are essential . Thefact that the weight of local taxation is now so bitterly felt may
open the way to the solution of the metropolitan problem, which
cannot be divorced from the larger problem of themaladjustment
of political units to population. Townships are passing away,dying of financial anemia. The old one-room school district is
apparently about to slip into the limbo of forgotten things .Many counties are proving too small to meet their financial
Obligations, and in some parts of the country pressure for theirconsolidation is becoming vigorous . There is a real reason forreadjusting our notions of the areas of government— town,
[ 309 ]
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
township, city, county— which exist largely because of tradition,
and setting up units whichconform to the social and economic
facts of our national life.
Among these units will be the metropolitan area. We may call
that area a city of a county or a city and a county. I t may
possess a unified or a federated _type Of government . But it will
correspond to the facts of modern urban existence. We shall
have larger and probably more powerful counties, with independent cities and villages functioning within them, but therewill be within the county no subordinate units of rural local
government— only cities and villages ; and this will be true Of themetropolitan area as of the agricultural county.
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
involved in metropolitan growthduring the last decade wereprimarily commercial and institutional , with industry playing
a relatively smaller rOle. The metropolitan community, at least
until the advent of the depression in 1929, offered an increasing
variety of jobs as well as more steady employment . I t also
Oflered a wider variety Of economic and cultural services . I t
took on more and more the aspect of a coherent economic and
cultural state, more realistic“
in many ways than the existing
political states .These sup ercommunities have not only been increasing in
population, but have been taking on definite attributes .Whereverpopulation concentrates in aggregations of several hundred
thousands , it tends to break up into a multiplicity of communal
units . Every large city is the center of a constellation of smaller
centers, some of which are the direct products of the outward
movement from the main city ; others were formerly independent
centers that have now become economically and socially inte
grated with the dominant city . Among these various units of
local settlement, there is arising an ever-increasing refinement of
division of labor and interdependence of relationship . This
has the effect of creating within the city region bonds of common
interest that are muchstronger than any ties that bind one
region to another .
The city region as here defined is largely a product of modernmeans of communication, developed more intensively in localareas than throughout the nation as a whole. Assume that theboundaries of an ancient or medieval city were largely determined by the distance a man could walk in two hours . This
would give a practical radius of 8 miles and a diameter of 16
miles . The introduction of the motor car would at once multiplythese lim its at least six times , extending the practicable radiusto at least 50 miles . The case of the modern supercity is not
quite so simple as this, since transportation by horse-drawnstages , by steam boats where water was adjacent, and by steam
railways extended the urban radius long before the coming of
the automobile. But the illustration is pertinent . Measured intime, rather than linear expansion, the Old boundaries of citieshave been outgrown and vast new areas have been brought withinthe city’s influence.
The sup ercommunity therefore absorbs varying numbers of
separate local communities into its economic and cultural
[ 312 ]
S UMMARY AND CON CL U S ION S
organi zations . In this pattern, a dominant city— that is , dominant
relative to surrounding settlement— functions as the integratingunit . These Central cities are becoming increasingly conscious
of themselves as centers of commercial provinces and are attempt
ing to define and delineate the territory over which they exercise
a dominant econom ic influence . The evidence at hand clearly
indicates that the influence of the central city over surrounding
territory tends to diminish with distance outward . There is
usually a line, or rather zone, where the territory of one
metropolitan center meets and overlaps that of another . We
can in fact draw a map tentatively allotting the entire
territory Of continental United States to a comparatively
small number of the larger Cities . In other words, there is
developing within the United States , and in fact throughout
the modern world, a pattern of settlement which may be
designated as city regionalism . This new city regionalism
differs from the regionalism of former times in that it is a
product of contact and division of labor rather than of mere
geographic isolation .
These sup ercommunities throughout the nation appear to be
becomingmore nearlyuniform in their economic and institutional
structure. The frontier type of city is gradually developing into
a metropolis . This is shown in physical structure— in the growthof tall Office buildings and financial institutions . I t is also shown
in the increasing complexity of the industrial and occupational
pattern of the larger cities throughout the nation and by thetendency toward more uniform distribution of cultural traitsand cultured persons . The increasing diversity within the c ityregion and the uniform ity among the regions result in a higher
degree of local autonomy . The regional city tends to grow more
self-su fficient and therefore to become a competing unit within
the larger interregional economy . But this self-su fficiency is
limited by the concentration of certain industries and certainraw materials . There is a countertendency toward a closer
functional relation among the metropolitan centers of thenation . Just as communities within the metropolitan region
preserve a certain degree of independence and local identity ,
yet are closely bound within the economic and cultural networkof the central city ; so the regional communities themselves are
independent in many things, yet are parts of a national andinternational economy .
[ 313 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
This situation is brought about, or intensified, by the growthof -national organizations, economic and social , of the chain type .
The general practice of such organizations is to divide the countryinto service areas and to select the largest regional city as districtheadquarters for activities in surrounding territory . This pattern
of organization, initiated by the Federal Reserve BankingSystem in 1913 , is becoming common to large-scale organizations
Of almost every type. Although the number of key . centers
employed by any organization to reach its clientele varies with
the nature of the service, there is a tendency on the part of
different organizations to select the same regional headquarters
for financial and administrative purposes . The process is cumulative. Once a city becomes established as a regional distributing
center, its banking, transportation, and other facil ities compelnew concerns entering the region to select it as their point Of
operation . The result is that a rather well-defined pattern of
regional office centers is taking shape throughout the nation .
But while the rOle of the great city in the nation at large hasbeen growing in importance and changing in nature, even more
radical and important changes have taken place within the cityitself. Every large city has experienced rap id
’
shifts in its localpopulation since the end of the World War . The suburban drifthas not only increased in volume but has altered in character .
The outward movement in recent years has been largely amongthe white-collar classes, who have created a definite new problemby removing themselves from the political city while remaining
within the sphere of influence of the economic and cultural city.
They have drawn after them a number of local institutions ,business outlets and municipal services , creating a real m s in u rbe
in the suburban territories . Industry likewise has tended to
migrate outward , not for the same reasons but because increasing
congestion in the more central districts has hampered its activi
ties and added to its production costs .The general effect of this outward drift, coupled with the
more intensive u se of land brought about by large structuralunits, has been to hasten the obsolescence of much of the older
pattern of the city . Every large c ity is confronted, on the one
hand, with the problem of increasing congestion in certain areasand , on the other, with that of revitalizing its blighted areas .
The deteriorated districts are rarely rehabilitated by private
enterprise, though in some cities , notably N ew York, blighted
[ 314 ]
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
expansion of urban life . The multiplicity of separate govern
mental and taxation bodies in every large metropolitan aggrega
tion constitutes one of the serious difficulties confronting themetropolitan commu rfity today . Because city planning is bydefinition lim ited to the obsolescent political City, it is now being
rapidly superseded by regional planning . But regional planning
on a scale commensurate with actual needs is thwarted by thelarge number of politically independent communities with which
planning bodies have to deal .
The development of the new supercity p oints, therefore, to
the need of some sort of supermetropolitan government . ProfessorReed has presented this problem and the steps already taken to
cope with it . I t is quite apparent that the Old procedure of
annexation of surrounding territory by a central city is no longer
a satisfactory solution . The spread of population under theinfluence Of motor transport is far too rapid and too extensive
to be dealt with adequately by annexation , even if annexation
were not vigorously resisted by most of the suburban com
munities . Some plan of coordination of governmental functions
must be developed before the political unity of the real functionalmetropolitan community can be achieved .
From the point of view of individual welfare , most of the graverproblems ofmetropolitan livingmay be grouped under the generalcategory of insecurity or instability . Our metropolitan . com
munities are organized with the individual rather than thefamily as the economic unit . This makes possible a high degree of
specialization and occupational division of labor within the localpopulation group and thereby increases the efficiency of thecorporate whole ; but this very specializationmakes the individualincreasingly dependent upon the smooth operation of the eco
nomic system . As population concentrates in larger aggregation
units , there is a continual increase in the differentiation of occupations and in the interdependence of tasks . The economic mechanism becomes more intricate and the balance between theinterdependent units more
,
delicate . As long as the generaleconomic trend is upward, the ind ividual can shift from task totask and from place to place in response to the conditions of thedynamic process , but once the sensitive system becomes dis
located , as at present, he is left helpless and stranded . His onlyrecourse is to rely upon his scattered kinsfolk for temporary reliefor to cast himself upon the mercy of organized charity .
[ 316 ]
S UMMARY AND CON CL U S ION S
Accommodation to present conditions of dislocationhas largelytaken the form of attempts to revert to a simpler social order .
National governments have attempted to protect their citizens
against outside competition by raising tariff barriers and immigra
tion restrictions . Many states and cities have appealed to their
inhabitants to confine their purchases as far as possible to goods
and products produced within the local area . Individuals have
sought refuge in the kinship group , and famil ies have returned
to the village and deserted farmstead . Even the ancient system
of barter has been revived . These and many similar practices
that might be mentioned reveal the natural human impulse to
return in times‘
of stress to ways that are more familiar and
presumably more secure. But our metropolitan society is too
complex a mechanism to be adjusted by such expedients . Theoutstanding fact to be kept in mind is that our great metropolitan
communities are products of the operation of economic and
cultural forces that are world—’
wide in scope . While each metro
politan aggregate is tending to become a more complete economic
and social unit, the interdependence among these sup ercom
munities is becoming more sensitive and more extended in space .
To attempt to adjust this complex mechanism by reversion to
Old techniques is analogous to trying to repair a motor car with a
crowbar and hammer .
In closing this study , perhaps one might be excused for ventur
ing to speculate about probable future developments . I t would
seem that the general outlines of American settlement pattern
are established for years to come. Our great centers of p op u lation are not only deeply rooted in the general economic fabric,but an increasing proportion of our people have become sociallyand culturally conditioned to urban ways of living . I t is highly
improbable, within the near future at any rate, that any revolu
tionary changes will occur in population patterning . -I n all
probability our great cities will continue to decentralize in thesense that population and economic functions will become more
widely dispersed throughout the metropolitan areas . But it isnot likely that there will be any general exodus to the farm.
Modern agriculture is closely integrated with ou r metropolitan
system of living . I t has developed in response to the growth of
city markets and has been subject to the same technological
influences that have invaded other forms of industry, as evidenced
by the steady decline in the number of workers required to
[ 317 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
cultivate the land . There will undoubtedly continue to be much
interregional shifting of the urban population as the generalrate of population growth diminishes and as new industries
arise in different parts of the nation .
As ou r regional communities become more conscious of their
common interests , an increasing amount of purposeful planningi s likely to ensue . N or is this planning likely to be restricted to
the mere physical aspects of community structure and municipal
functions . I t will , in all probability, include an increasing range
of economic and social activities . The age of extreme and almost
unregulated individual competition appears to be nearing a close.
If we are going to consider stability and security as essentialaspects of wholesome social living, conscious effort must be
directed toward regulating competition in the interest Of generalwelfare.
TABLE I .— PERCENTAGE URB AN OF THE TOTAL POPULATION, BY STATES,
1880—1930“
Division and state I1880 1890 1900 1910 I1920 1930
29 5 35 4 40 0 61 4
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
19 5 26 9 34 3
30 6 44 7 54 3
24 8 34 9 39 3
23 9 33 2 38 2
North Dakota c
South Dakota
South Atlantic
District of ColumbiaVirginia .
West Virginia .
North CarolinaSouth Carolina
East South Central
M ississi p iWest Sout Central
4 0 6 5 8 525 5 25 4 26 5
3 7 7 4
15 6 17 1Mountain
Pacific
0 U.S . Census, 1930, Popu lation, Vol. I , Table 9. p. 15. and similar tables for other years.
[ 321 ]
38
26
84
93
78
56
53
41 O
QF‘
P
01
€0
©
©
26
5 1
15
89
94
52
65
60
48 G
QWOI
tO
t-‘OO 83
55
22
91
95
59
72
70
54 QQQ
O
h‘
OI
D-‘O
OI
THE M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
TABLE I I .— METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS CLASSIFIED ACCORDING To RATE or
I NCREASE , 1920—1930“
District District
DI STRI CTS INCREASING 50 PER CENT OR MORE
M iami (Dade County) . TulsaLos Angeles (Los Angeles County) . FlintOklahoma City DetroitHouston (Harris County) 92 . 5 South BendSan Die 0 (San Diego DallasTampa t. Petersburg (HillsborOu Atlantic Cityand Pinel las counties) Wichita
DI STRICTS INCREASING 25 TO 50 PER CENT
Sacramento .
Charleston .
San AntonioSan Jose (Santa Clara County)Birmingham.
RoanokeAtlantaHuntin
gton-Ashland .
KDOXVI e Jersey ,
Chattanoo a (Hamilton County)Memphis (
gShelby County) .
Jacksonville (Duval County)PeoriaFort WorthM ilwaukeeGrand Rapids
DI STRI CTS I NCREASING 10 TO 25 PER CENT
CantonHartfordPortland (Multnomah County)M innea olis-St. Pau lBuflalo iagaraSyracuseI ndianapolisRochesterSalt Lake CitySt. LouisCincinnatiAkronSeattleRacine-KenoshaEvansvi lleN ew Orleans (Orleans County)WashingtonErie
DI STRI CTS INCREASING LESS THAN 10 PER CENT OR DECREASING
Altoona 9 9 SavannahBridgeport 9 9 JohnstownProvi dence-Fall River-New Bedford. . Duluth
9 . 2 Lowell-LawrenceNorfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News .
WilmingtonDavenport
U.S. Census, 1930, Metmpoli tan Districts, Table 4 , pp. 10—13.
[ 322 ]
NashvilleSan Francisco-OaklandFort Wayne .
ChicagoDaytonBin hamtonRoc ordYoun stownNew ork-Northeastern NewLittle Rock .
ClevelandColumbusKansas CityEl Paso
DenverReadingTrentonLancasterBaltimorePhiladelphiaTacomaPittsburghBostonOmaha-Council BlufisDes Moines .
Allentown-Bethlehem-EastonNew Haven
Albany-SchenectadyWheelingHarrisbur
gSp ringfiel -HolyokeScranton-Wilkes BarreWorcester
THE METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
TABLE IV.— RETAIL SALES DATA FOR CITIES OF POPULATION AND OVERIN THE LOS ANGELES REGION, BY ZONES, 19300
Net sales per capita.
Popula
Los
Zone I (0—20 miles)Beverly HillsSanta Monica
InglewoodBurbank.
Huntington ParkGlendaleSouth GateAlhambraSouth PasadenaComptonPasadena .
Whittier .
Long Beach .
Monrovia .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zone I I (20—40 miles)FullertonAnaheimPomonaSanta Ana
Ontario
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zone I I I (40—80 miles)Riverside .
San Bernardino
Redlands .
Santa Barbara
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Compiled from U.S . Census of Distribution, Retai l Distribution, State Series, 1930 (preliminaryreports) .
[ 324 ]
A P P E ND IX
TABLE V.— I NDICES OF SETTLEMENT MATURATION
PART A. SCHOOL TEACHERS PER POPULATION, BY DIVI SIONS, 1900- 1930
Division
East North CentralWest North Central
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Unweighted mean
4 Compiled from the U.S. Census, Special Report on Occup ations, 1900 , Table 32, pp . 94- 113 .
5 Compiled from the U.S. Census, Occup ation Statistics, StateReports, 1930 , Table 4. All indicesof settlement maturation in Table V were compiled by Clark Tibbitts , University of M ichigan.
PART B . PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY-SCHOOL EXPENDITURES PERCAPI TA OF POPULATION 5 TO 17 YEARS OF AGE, BY DIVI SIONS, 1900
—1930a
Division
Compiled from data given in Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1932, Table 105, p . 108.
[ 325 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
TABLE V.— I NDICES OF SETTLEMENT MATURATION — (Continued)
PART C. COLLEGE UNI VERSITY AND PROFESSIONAL-S CHOOL STUDENTS PERPOPULATION, BY DIVI SIONS, 1900—1930“
Division
1 l 5M iddle AtlanticEast North CentralWest North Central .South AtlanticEast South CentralWest South Central
Unweighted meanRatio of deviations to the mean
Compiled from data given in Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1932, Table 1 10, p. 112.
PART D . PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL POPULATION THAT IS ILLI TERATE, BY
DI VI SIONS, 1900- 1930
Division
M iddle AtlanticEast North Central .West North CentralSouth AtlanticEast South CentralWest South Central
Unweighted meanRatio of deviations to the mean
0 Compiled from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1907, Table 26, p. 64.
U.S. Censu s, United States Summary, Population Bulletin, 1930, Table 50, p. 5 1 .
[ 326 ]
TH E M ETROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
TABLE V.— I NDI CEs OF SETTLEMENT MATURATION.
— (Continued)PART G. M ILES OF SURFACED RURAL ROADS PER SQUARE M ILES OF LAND
AREA, BY DIVI SIONS, 1914—19300
Division
137
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Unweighted meanRatio of deviations to the mean
0 Compiled from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1932, Table 374, p. 351.
PART H. MOTOR VEHI CLES PER URBAN POPULATION, BY DIVI SIONS, 1918
Division
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Unweighted meanRatio of deviations to the
0 Compiled from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1932. Table 385, p. 360. Urban pop u lation for 1918 estimated arithmetically.
328
A P P E ND IX
TABLE V.—I NDI CEs on SETTLEMENT MATURATION .
— (Continued)PART I . PHYSI CIANS AND SURGEONS PER POPULATION, BY DIVI SIONS,
1900- 1930
Division
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unweighted meanRatio of deviations to the mean.
Compiled from the U.S. Census, Speci al Report on Occupations, 1900, Table 32, pp . 94—1 13 .
5 Compiled from U.S. Census, Occup ation Statistics, State Reports, 1930, Table 4.
PART J. DENTI STS PER POPULATION, BY DIVI SIONS, 1900—1930
Division
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Unweighted meanRatio of deviations to the mean
C Compiled from the U.S. Census, Sp ecial Report on Occupations, 1900, Table pp . 94—113 .
5 Compiled from U .S . Census, Occu p ation Statistics, State Reports, 1930, Table 4 .
[ 329 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN C OMMUN I TY
TABLE V.
— I N DI CEs OF SETTLEMENT MATURATION .— (Continued)
PART K. PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION WHO ARE CHURCH MEMBERS, BYDIVI SIONS, 1906- 1926
Division
New England . .
M iddle AtlanticEast North Central .West North CentralSouth AtlanticEast Sou thWest South CentralMountain
Pacific
Unweighted meanRatio of deviations to the mean
‘1 Compiled from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1916, Table 2 1 , p . 36.
b U .S . Census , Religi ous Bodies, 1926, Vol . I , Table 7, p . 58 .
NOTE : Popu lation for 1906 estimated arithmetically ; for 1926 from US . Censu s estimates .
PART L. CHURCH EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA OF POPULATION, BY DIVI SIONS ,
1916—1926“
Division
M iddle AtlanticEast North CentralWest North Central
Unweighted meanRatio of deviations to the mean .
0 U .S . Census, Religious Bodies, 1926, Vol . I , Table 28, p . 312 .
330
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I T Y
TABLE VI .— STATEs RANKED IN ORDER OF REPRE SENTATION IN WHO’S
.WHO IN AMERICA ” IN 1910—1911 EDITION, SHOWING COMPARATIVE RATIOSOF
“WHO’S WHO NOTAB LE S PER\
TOTAL POPULATION,1910—1930“
State
Number Per cent
15 .
1 6. Pennsylvan
22 . M innesota
28. New Mexico 15 9
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o oo o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
a Compiled from Who’s Who in America, Vols. VI , XI , XVI .5 Exclusive of the District of Columbia.
[ 332 ]
A P P E ND IX
TABLE VI I .— STATES RANKED IN ORDER OF REPRESENTATION IN WHO’S WHO
IN AMERICA” IN 1910—1911 EDITION SHOWING COMPARATIVE RATIOS,WHO’S WHO
” NOTABLES PER NATIVE WHITE POPULATION21 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, 1910—19306
0 Compiled fromWho's Who in America, Vols. VI , XI , XVI .b Exclusive of the District of Columbia.
[ 333 ]
TH E METROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
TAB LE Vl I I .— NEW OFFICE SPACE CONSTRUCTED, 1919- 1929, IN RELATION TO
I NCREASE OF POPULATION, 1920—1930 , AND TO TOTAL POPULATION, 1930 ,FOR INDIVIDUAL CITIE S GROUPED BY FEDERALRE SERVE DISTRICTS“
District and city
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
N ew York district
Popu lation
Bu ffalo .
Newark .
RochesterJersey City .
Syracuse .
Scranton .
Paterson .
Albany .
Utica .
hiladel hia districtPhila elphia 1 ,
WashingtonTrenton.
Camden .
Reading .
WilmingtonCleveland districtClevelandPittsburghColumbus, Ohio .
3 ,1 ,
142 559
Square feet of officespace constructed,
1919—29
0 Compiled from data supplied by the courtesy of the F . W. Dodge Corporation.
5 Data available for 6 years only .
Data available for 5 years only .
4 Data available for 7 years only .
[ 334 ]
TH E METROPOL I T AN COMMUN I TY
Cities
n n n n n
0 0 0 0 0 0
TABLE IX.— TERRITORIAL GROWTH OF THE 93 AMERICAN
c c c c c c c c
[ 336 ]
5 023 . NI
O
bE
s)
fl
oa
t—i07
0
6 . 95i
2 10‘
9 . 14i
4 . o5 i
54 .
35 .
13 .
37 .
66
45 .
17 .
. 00"
39 .
24 .
19 .
. 00
30 .
23 .
. 91‘
36
37
34
15.
93.
o
74
5D“
64
91"
25‘
35
97
43 .
34 .
13 .
. 40
66 .
23
25
37
17 :
1 6 .
37 .
12
23
25
82i
25‘
. 03
36 . 00‘
l l‘
00
345
97
30‘
2 93‘
4 .o0 i
71
36
39
58
52
45
41
23 .
17 .
46
. 67
. 7733 .
93 .
14 .
19 .
29
26
. 75
. 30‘
. 06‘
. 75‘
53 . 1 6
1734 .
. 09‘
50 .
795
22
92“
38"
29‘
40
90
64
64.
55.
38 .
32 .
22 .
58 .
53 .
52 .
26 .
23 .
48 .
24
17 .
17 .
16 .
17 .
12 .
18 .
33 .
79 .
14 .
19 .
A P P END IX
CITIES WITH A POPULATION OF OR MORE IN 1930
Land area, square miles
7 . 96i
3 72‘ 2 93“ 2 93‘
l 09"
[ 337 ]
TH E METROPOL I TAN COMMUN I T Y
TABLE IX.— TERRITORIAL GROWTH OF THE 93 AMERICAN CITIE S
Cities
Des MoinesLong BeachTu lsa .
Salt Lake CityPatersonYonkersNorfolk .
JacksonvilleAlbany . .
Kansas City, KanChattanoogaCamdenErieSpokaneFallFortElizabethCambrid e
N ew Be for
Reading zWichitaM iami
WilmingtonKnoxville .
PeorIa .
Canton .
South Bend
Lynn .
0
Utica . .
Du luthTampa 9 . 195
Gary . 37 . 56i
Lowell . 13 91
Sources of Data : All the statistics for this table, except Where otherwise noted (footnotes a, b,e, d, and e) were obtained through direct correspondence from the city engineers of the variouscities, and , in a few Instances, from oflic1al city planning bodies. Where possible, statistics checkedwith data fromU. S . Bureau of the Census and other sources ; in case of discrepancies, city engineers
’
reports usually taken as final au thority.4 Area taken from Metropolitan Districts, U.S. Census , 1932 , pp . 10—13.
5 Area is for Ju ly 1 , 192 1 ; See Financial Statistics of Cities Having a Pop ulation of Over1921 , U.S . Census, 1922, p. 35- 38.
6 Area for 1910 as given y Financial Statistics of Cities Having a Population of Over 1910,U.S . Census, 1913, pp . 90—91 .
4 Area for 1900 as g‘i
jven by Financi al Statistics of Cities Having a Population of Over
1904, Bu lletin No. 50 , .S . Census, 1906, pp . 41—43.
0 Area for 1890 as given by Report of Social Statistics of Cities in the Uni ted States at the EleventhCensus: 1890, Department of the I nterior, Census Office, 1895. The method of securing these datawere as follows : “
the total area has been obtained either from the city records or by carefu lmeasurements from the latest obtainable maps.” I bid., p . 7.
[ 338 ]
cu:
era91
S
e
at
»
Sat
e
»
O
0!
O
was
26 . 34i 26 . 34i
12 . 49i 9 . 42b
39 34 3 91
TH E M ETROPOL I T A N COMMUN I TY
TABLE X.
— POPULATION OF VARIOUS AREAS AT EACH DECENNIAL YEARPART A. CLEVELAND, OHIO, 1830—1930a
Popdlation at census years
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Popu lation at census years
ity ofAnnexationCity of .
Annexation ofCity of .
Annexation ofCity of .
Annexations ofCity of .Annexations ofCity of .
Annexation ofCity of .
Annexations ofCity of .Annexatlons ofCity of .
AnnexationsAnnexations ofCity of
0 Compiled from U.S. Census data by H. W. Green.
[ 340 ]
,301770
071
1 10 622
A P P EN D IX
TABLE X.— POPULATION OF VARIOUS AREAS AT EACH DECENNIAL YEAR.
(Continued)PART B . BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, 1840—19300
Population at census years
Boston proper 138 850
South Boston
Popu lation at census years
149 449 163 786 148 040
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
Compiled from U.S . Census data by H. W. Green.
[ 341 ]
TH E ME TROPOL I TA N COMMUN ITY
TABLE X.— POPULATION OF VARIOUS AREAS AT EACH DECENNIAL YEAR .
(Continued)PART C. ST. LOUI S, M I SSOURI , 1840—1930a
Popu lation at census yearsArea
City ofAnnexation ofCity of .
Annexation of
City ofAnnexation of .
City of .
City of
Popu lation at census years
City of 1840
Annexation of 1850
City of 1850
Annexation of . 1860
City of 1860
Annexation of 1870
City of 1870
Annexation of 1880
City of 1880
Compiled from U.S. Census data by H.W. Green. Numbers placed in parentheses are estimated
INDEX
A
Accommodation, 5, 33 , 158, 3 17
institutional, 186—190structu ral, 213
Advertising, 99, 160—162
Age-sex composition of popu lation, 35—38
in Chicago, 180- 182Agricu ltural development, 8—4Agricu ltural eXp orts , 4Agricultural products, 52, 79- 80, 91—93Agricu ltural states, 14—16Agricu lture,
'
317
Airplane, 148—149Alderson, '
Wroe, 16111
Annexation, 28, l 74n, 191—198, 306-307,
336—339
Apartments. 88, 217—220 , 222—223, 245Armour and Company, 92Armour's Livestock Bureau , 93n, 14211
Atlanta metropolitan district, 62, 322Atlantic City metropolitan district, 40 , 64, 322Australia“
, 44
Automobiles, 5, 271in Chicago, 272in cities, 271, 273
ownership of, in selected cities , 275- 276
Baltimore, —47
automobiles in, 275
banks in, 1 17
industries in, 115
land values in, 227—229
occupations in, 113
retail marketing in, 250—266
revenue rides p er capita in, 275
Baltimore metropolitan district, 47, 322Banking points, 77withcorrespondents in Chicago, 78in New York City, 168
Banks, 116-117, 224Federal Reserve, 163, 314suspensions of, 61
Bibbins, J. Rowland, 226nBiological comp lei ity, 240—247
Biological selection, 179-182
Birth rates, 86-87in Cleveland , 248
Blumer, -Herbert, 188nBogart, E. 4
Boston, 46—47
annexations,banks in, 1 17
as a head office and news center, 165- 167
occupations in 113
trafi c in, 279 280 , 282, 287
wage earners in, 56—57
Boston metropolitan district, 46—47, 62, 72, 322Bradish , L. M ., 134n
Broadway land values, 234—235Browne, Stewart, 222n
Bu ildings, 214—215increasing size of, 219—221
office, 220—221residential , 216—217significance of large, 223- 225skyscraper, 222—223
Burgess, E . W., 177
Burnham, Daniel H 293
Burton, J . E 199n
Buses, 277, 280—284
(See also Motor transportation)Business, in central cities and satellites, 73—75,
161 , 168—169, 225, 323, 324
in Baltimore, 250—266and newspaper circu lation, 97
retail, 61—62subcenters, 70types of, 73wholesale, 60
California, increase of p o pu lation in, 14, 17
Canada, 44Census tracts, 175, 177, 180 248
Central cities , 39, 313
increase in, 173—175
zones of influence of, 76—83
(See also Cities)
Central Freight Association, 15311
Central land values in selected cities, 234—235Centralization, 51, 811
methods of measuring, 54Centrifugal drift of popu lation, 47, 178, 191 .
213
Chain stores , 62, 88, 90-91
in Baltimore, 252—254, 258—259, 261—264head offices of, 166number and classes of, 163n
TH E METROPOL I TA N CO MMUN ITY
Chicago, 46age
-sex composition in selected tracts in,
180—182
automobiles in, 272, 275
as a banking center, 77—78, 168
banks in, 1 17
centrifugal drift in, 175—176
as a commercial center, 133—139commercial structure of satellites, 73—76, 323as a head office center, 165
—166
industrial area, 56—57industries in, 1 15
juvenile delinquency in. distribution of, 185
land values in, 227- 229, 236, 238
motion picture theaters in, 188- 189
Negroes in, 242—243
as a news center , 166
newspapers, 100—106occupations in, 1 13
ofiice bu ildings in, 220—221
Pu llman passenger traffic to, 133—139
traffic in, 85 , 106, 275, 279, 280 , 282 , 287
as a transportation center, 133- 139
Who’
s Who notables in, 123—124
Chicago Association of Commerce, 149, l 56n
Chicago Merchandise Mart, 224
Chicago metropolitan district, 44, 45—47, 72,322
growth profile of,i
l 78
Chicago Real Estate Board, 221Children, distribution of, 180—182 , 245
Cities, central and suburban, 74—75
competition between, 158—159
declining, 30—33early river, 130gateway, 4—6, 140gradient pattern of influence of, 76—78
growth of popu lation of, 28—29, 65
within and without metropolitan districts,47, 48
growth of territory of, 195—196influence of, 4—5
integration of, 162—167
interrelations of, 129—157
key, 162- 164
maturation of, 1 11—1 12
and motor transportation, 142—143
newly incorporated, 71of and over, 5 , 39
annexations by, 195—197, 336—339area at date of incorporation, 191 , 336—339
declining, 33
foreign-born whites in, 34n
nationalities in, 240
planning in, 298
population within access of, 20 , 46
rates of increase in, 65
service occupations in, 63
sex ratio in, 36
zoning in, 300
transportation in, 269—291
[ 346 ]
City, 8, 69division of labor within, 70
population, sources of, 33—34
p re-motor, 69
regionalism, 5 , 71 , 142, 313
stability of large, 33street pavement in, 2 13
structural metamorphosis of, 212—235
City-coun‘
ty relations , 309City planning and zoning, 293—302, 3 16appropriations for, 297—298(See also Zoning)
Civilization, 5
Clark, W. C. , 22 l n
Cleveland , 46—47annexations , 192—193, 340banks in, 1 17
centrifugal dr ift in, 175—176
economic areas in, 248—249
industrial area, 56—57industries in, 1 15
juvenile delinquency in, 185
land values in, 227—229
lots recorded in, 207Negroes in, 242
- 244
occupations in, 1 13
time distance to Chicago, 146—148
Cleveland metr6p olitan district, 46, 47, 72, 322Clothing industry in New York, 1 69Coley, Clarence T., 221
College students, increased number of, 63Colonies, ethnic and racial, 240—245Comanor, Albert, 188nCommerce, 59, 62
persons engaged in, 1 12—1 13
Commercial function, concentration of, 60—62
Communal influence, zones of, 84—97Communal pattern, 71
Communications , 3—5 , 81—83 , 312
Community, 7advertising, 160—162division of labor , 159mu ltiple-center, 70natural, 84specialization of function in, 72, 76
(See also Metropolitan community )Commutation, 94
distance, 84, 87, 88
tickets by zones, 86traffic , 85
Competition, 84, 245, 317, 318
between cities , 158- 170
between regions, 1 59
Concentration, of business , 164 , 169, 191of commerce, 59—62
factors in, 50—65
of financial function, 60—61
of popu lation, 14—20, 31 1
within metropolitan districts , 89, 42(See also Popu lation)
of retail function, 61—63
TH E METROPOL I TA N COMMUN I TY
Gradient pattern, of newspaper circulation, 89 Kansas City, occupations in, 1 13
of substantial families in Detroit, 184 time distance from Chicago, 146—148
of toll telephone calls, 83 trafi c time zones in, 288-291
Grand Rapids , platting and utilization of lots transportation in, 282, 287
in, 201, 212 Keller, P. E 176n
Gras, N. S . B ., 78 Key centers , 162- 164
Green, Howard W l 76n, 192n, 248 Kingston, J. L., 22l n
Gries, John M ., 219n
Haig, R. M ., 225
Harrison, Shelby M 293n
Harrison, W. H., 170n
Highways, 6, 70 , 79, 87and settlement structure, 140—142water, 129—131
Hinman, A. G ., l 75n, 220
Hinterland, 70, 71
Immigrants, 241—242
areas of settlement of, 246Immigration, 21 , 22, 34, 241
—242, 317
Imperial County, California, 52Incorporation, 5, 71 , 1 12
areas of cities at date of, 191, 336—338
Indianapolis, 182—183 , 184distribution of felons and felonies in, 186
as a head office center, 165—167
industrial area, 56—57
as a news center, 166
occupations in, 1 13
transportation in, 287
Industrial areas, 55—58Industrial diversification in cities, 1 14—1 15
Industrial satellite communities, 78, 105
I ndustrial specialized centers, 1 15Industry, assembly line basis of, 79location of, 55—59
manufacturing, 53—59types of, in selected cities, 114—115wage earners in, 53—58
I nstitutions, 216
accommodation of, 186—190
obsolescence of, 241
Integration, 5
of cities, 162—167
Interdependence of industry, 79, 316, 317Interstate Commerce Commission, 144
Juvenile delinquency in selected cities, 185
Kansas City, as a head office center, 165—167
industrial area, 56—57as a news center, 166
[ 348 ]
Labor (See Division of labor)Laidlaw, Walter, 176nLand values, 226—239, 315
central, 234- 235changes in total, 227- 231distribution over urban area, 231
League of Nations, 44Leisure, a factor in popu lation concentration,
63—64
Loree, L. F 149
Los Angeles, annexations, 197, 336—337commercial structure of satellites of, 73—76,
324
compared with Detroit, 64, 123—124
as a head office center, 165—167
industrial area, 56—57industries in, 1 15
as a news center, 166
occupations in, 1 13
time distance from Chicago, 146- 148Who’
s Who notables in, 123—124Los Angeles County, 17Los Angeles metropolitan district, 47, 72, 322
Manufacturing, 53—59relative decline in, 59
wage earners in, 53—58
Maturation of settlement, 111—125, 159indices of, 1 1 1—125, 325-831
Mcclintock, M iller, 269n, 284m, 285nMcFarland, E . W., 188n
McG ill, Kenneth, 83a , 88a
McKay, Henry D 185n
Metropolitan area, 84—88
new incorporations within, 71
trend in size of, 84
Metropolitan centers, 5 , 179
M etropolitan community, 312as a constellation of centers, 71—72
as a functional entity, 70—71margins of, 84—97
and newspaper circulation, 98—110
population patterning within, 173—190
rise of, 84—97
Metropolitan districts, 89—49, 72cities within, 44—45, 72
compared with other popu lation aggregates ,
43 44
definition of, 89—40, 173
I ND EX
Metropolitan districts , geographical distribution of, 40—42. 111
growth crests in, 175
growth profile of, 178
incorporated places within, 44—45, 71, 72increase in southern and western, 111
—1 12
political complexity of, 44—45, 72popu lation concentration in, 40, 42
public services in, 305—306rates of increase of, 42—43, 194
cpmpared with that of central cities, 47by size groups, 174
Metropolitan government, 303—310Metropolitan region, agricu ltural supply area
of, 79—81
as an economic and social unit, 69—83as determined by newspaper circu lation,
106—110
structure of, 70
Metropolitan regionalism, as developed byrailways, 140
industrial basis of, 78—79and motor transportation, 140- 143
Metropolitan zones, 19—20M ichigan, motor industry in, 79
popu lation increase in, 16, 17
M id-city shopping district, 254- 260M igration to cities, 33, 35
M ississippi River, 43metropolitan districts east of, 40metropolitan districts west of, 111petroleum west of, 52—53popu lation east of, 3 , 11
—12
system, 130- 131
as a transportation route, 129- 132
Morris, Eugene, 15sn
Motion picture theaters , 88distribution of, 188—190
Motor highways (See Highways)Motor transportation, 69, 274—276and economic regionalism, 153
and its effect on cities, 270- 272
and its future in cities, 273- 274
and settlement structure, 140- 143Motor trucks, effect of, on agricu lture, 79—80
on manufacturing, 79
radius of Operation, 90—94
registrations of, 271
in Chicago, 272Motor vehicle, 5a local agency, 81- 82registrations of, 5, 271
in Chicago, 272in selected cities, 275
M0
ovement Of pop ulatlon, 8’ 4’ Obsolescence of institutions, 241, 314to counties of high density, 19 Obsolete structure 32toward deep Water, 20—21 Occupational structure of American cities , 35,
Murphy, Edmund J 276n 51 , 1 12—114
National Association of Building Owners and
Managers, 220
N ation’
s Business, 149n
Native-born population, 12whites in cities, 34—35
Negroes, 13in central cities, 180northward migration of, 35
segregation of, 242—244
urbanization of, 34—35
Neighborhood stores, 262New York City, 17, 46—47, 55—56, 1 13, 194annexations, 197automobiles in, 275
as a banking center, 116, 168- 169
centrifugal drift in, 175- 176dominance of, 134
as a head office center, 165—167
industries in, 115
land values in, 227—229, 234
—235
Negroes in, 242—243
as a news center, 166
newspapers, 100occupations in, 242- 243as a point of contact with the South, 134—135and Pu llman passenger traffic, 134—139as a style center, 167, 169
time distance to Chicago, 146—148traffic in, 85 , 275 , 279, 280
Who’s Who notables in, 123—124
New York County, wholesale business in, 60New York-Northeastern New Jersey metropolitan district, 40 , 43—4 4, 45-47, 72, 322
New Zealand, 44Newcomb, Charles, 97, 98n, 177, 246n, 247
News, centers, 1 66- 167as a commodity, 98—99Newspaper, 24, 95advertising, 99metropolitan and local 100—103Newspaper circu lation, in Chicago satellites,
103
by divi sions, 1 18limits of, 100—101as a measure of city influence, 83of cu ltural uniformity, 116—119
and metropolitan regions, 102
and the trade area, 96—97, 99-100
North Carolina, nometropolitan districts in, 40
population increase in, 16
Nucleation, 27, 49, 198
of retail function, 250-266
TH E METROPOL I TA N COMMUN I TY
Occupations, 35, 62- 63Oflice buildings, 220construction of new space for, 164, 334—335
Oflices , distribution of head, 164—166Ogburn, W. F., 225n
Otis Elevator Company, 221Outlying shopping district, 260—262
Panama Canal , 154—156Park, R. E 97, 98n, 10311
Pavement in cities, 213
(See also Motor highways)Petroleum, 52
Philadelphia,46—47
banks in, 1 17
as a head oflice center, 165—167
indu strial area , 56—57
industries in, 1 15
juvenile delinquency in, 185
land values in, 227—229
motion picture theaters in, 188—190
Negroes in, 242—243
as a news center, 165—1 67
occupations in, 1 13
trafi c in, 85, 279, 282 , 284
Philadelphia Business Progress Association,
l 54n
Philadelphia metropolitan district, 46- 47, 72,322
Pittsbu rgh, 46—47automobiles _ia , 275
banks in, 1 17
centrifugal drift in, 175—176
as a head cflice center, 165—167
indu strial area, 56—57
Negroes in, 242—243
as a news center, 166
occupations in, 1 13
revenue rides p er capita in, 275
time distance from Chicago, 146—148
Pittsburgh metropolitan district, 46—47, 72, 322Planning (see City planning)Platting of subdivisions, 199—212, 3 15Plimpton, R. E ., 9l n
Pole, John W., 84
Political boundaries, 9, 39, 45 , 49, 214Political complexity of metropolitan districts ,
44—45 , 214
Popu lation, 3, 4
centrifugal drift of, 47college, 63concentrationof, 14—20
in cities, 19
factors making for, 50—65declining, 20 31—33
deconcentration of, 21—22
distribution of, 8—22
equ ilibrium, 8
tending toward, 13—14[ 350 ]
Population, increase, 14, 16industrial, 53—59in metropolitan districts, 42—45patterning, 9—1 1within metropolitan community, 173—1 90
selection, 35
urban, 26
(See also Urbanization)Population movements, 1 1—13
to areas of high density, 19toward deep water , 20—21of native born, 12
to suburbs, 175—177westward, 4Position, New York and Chicago, 168
relation of, to changing distance, 144, 150Power, used in factories, 53 , 79n(See also Factories)Pryor, Thomas M ., 184n
Public markets in Baltimore, 258Public utilities , 2 13—214“Publicity, 160- 1 62Pullman traffic, 134—139
Racial colonies, 240- 245and retail structure of city, 266Railroads, 3- 5
commutation traffic on, 85—86
compared with motor roads , 14 1—142influence of, 133 , 139, 153
mileage, 132and settlement structure, 13 1—140time schedu les, 146—148train stops, 148, 149Rapid transit, 278—280Reed, Thomas H . , 214, 303n
Redfield , Arthur H ., 2 l 3n, 214
Regionalism, city, 5 , 71, 142 , 313created by railroads, 139versu s sectionalism, 139
—140
Regions, economic , 6, 153Reilly, William J 73n, 97n, 163n
Retail services, 88—89in Baltimore, 250
—266
concentration of, 60—61
within metropolitan region, 74—76
specialization of, 73
and transportation, 287
Rice , Stuart A 82 1 67n
Robertson, A. H l 22n
Rolph, I nez K . 250n
Rossiter, W. S 4
Rural farm population, 52
age distribu tion of, 37
Rural nonfarm population, 87
Ru ral popu lation, 3 , 82, 45
age-sex distribu tion of, 35—38
classification of, 24
inside metropolitan districts, 48
Whelpton, P. K., 28, 29h, é8a , 4 8;
Whitten, Robert , 218
land values "in, 2 28—229as .a news center, —sl t6f7
occupations in; 1 13time distance to Chicago,transportation.in, 2 72, 282, 284 , 286—287
Waiter rim, na’tion facing, 156
popu lation movement toward, 20—21Wa-t
’
er transportation, 3, 129—132
compared with ra-il, 154—155routes, 129
—131 Zoning, 299- 301cities on, 130 (See also City Planning)
Women, 180, 245
Woodbury, Coleman G ., 2 l‘2n