Monocentric city model Flashcards
(18 cards)
achilles heel of MC
‘The Achilles’ heel of the monocentric model is that it fails to explain that job location - even in a single center -is not exogenous but depends on other determinants of urban form’ (Anas and Kim, 1995)
MC model limitation with CC
Monocentric city models ignore all other transport but automobile (Buyukeren and Hiramatsu, 2016)
- In reality people may just move closer to public transport or if pt isn’t improved might just continue driving if there is no alternative
Also assumption that people must go to work (and in CBD).
- in reality jobs are everywhere including remote
Origins of MC city model
Developed in the 60s and 70s - Cities are organised around a single central business district
Several key predictions from Muth, 1969 and Mills, 1972
- Population density, land values and house prices decline with distance from the CBD
Households and businesses are willing to pay a premium for locations closer to CBD due to lower commuting costs and better access to amenities - Decline in Pop.Den, land value and house prices follows convex function : rate of decline steep near CBD and flattens out with distance
- Capital:Land ratio declines with distance from the CBD. More intensive land use near CBD (taller buildings)
Early empirical support for MC city - shift to PC city evidence
Chicago case study, McMillen, 2006
r^2 values indicate that distance from CBD explains more than 80% of the variation in natural log of land values in 1836 and 1857, remain as high as 0.61 in 1910
Falls to 0.24 in 1928, nearly 0 in 1960, 0.10 in 1990 - little predictive power now
However, adds in some other variables and a more general functional form, including distance from Lake Michigan and the airpots and it raises the R^2 value for 1990 to 0.87
Distance from CBD is not the only variable that matters - distance from important areas is key
why MC and PC are the same concept - evolution and dispersal of CBD
Not necessarily evidence against the model but a reflection of the changing nature of cities, with the emergence of multiple employment centres and increasing importance of factors other than distance from CBD
historic cities CBD
Chicago: 80% jobs concentrated within 4 miles of the centre (Fales and Moses, 1972)
UGB under mono centric
UGB increases density, reducing congestion
not as good as CC because it does not address the core market failure
cons: higher rents, artificial land scarcity
proven empirically by Bruckner (2000)
Proven theoretically by Pines and Sadka (1985)
CC under monocentric assumption
residents move closer to CBD so they can walk, cycle or use PT
Monocentric model (congestion) assumptions
In this model, it is assumed that all jobs are located downtown (the center of a circular city) and cannot relocate, there is no public transit, all trips are commutes to work,
The earliest theoretical treatment of congestion in the monocentric city model was by Strotz (1965) In these and other analyses, the congestion externality is internalized by tolling every mile of the radial commute to the downtown.
In such a setting, consumers can blunt the impact of the toll, only by moving to a residence closer to the downtown to reduce miles traveled and tolls paid. Consequently, population densities near the downtown increase and the monocentric city becomes more compact.
CC (mono moves to polycentric)
As a counterpoint to monocentric analysis, Anas and Kim (1996) demonstrated in a theoretical general equilibrium model that congestion and its pricing can cause the emergence of job centers or the decentralization of jobs from the downtown center to the periphery. With high congestion, firms move closer to their workers and customers, reducing their travel times, and benefit by paying lower wages or charging more for output.
founded by
Alonso in the 1960s
