Hubbry Logo
Sector modelSector modelMain
Open search
Sector model
Community hub
Sector model
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Sector model
Sector model
Sector model
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A basic version of the Sector model

The sector model, also known as the Hoyt model, is a model of urban land use proposed in 1939 by land economist Homer Hoyt.[1] It is a modification of the concentric zone model of city development. The benefits of the application of this model include the fact it allows for an outward progression of growth. As with all simple models of such complex phenomena, its validity is limited.[2]

Application

[edit]

This model applies to numerous British cities. Also, if it is turned 90 degrees counter-clockwise it fits the city of Mönchengladbach reasonably accurately. This may be because of the age of the cities when transportation was a key, as a general rule older cities follow the Hoyt model and more recent cities follow the Burgess (concentric zone) model.[citation needed]

Limitations

[edit]

The theory is based on early twentieth-century rail transport and does not make allowances for private cars that enable commuting from cheaper land outside city boundaries.[3] This occurred in Calgary in the 1930s when many near-slums were established outside the city but close to the termini of the street car lines. These are now incorporated into the city boundary but are pockets of low-cost housing in medium cost areas.[2] The theory also does not take into account the new concepts of edge cities and boomburbs, which began to emerge in the 1980s, after the creation of the model. Since its creation, the traditional Central Business District has diminished in importance as many retail and office buildings have moved into the suburbs.

  • Physical features - physical features may restrict or direct growth along certain wedges
  • The growth of a sector can be limited by leapfrog land.
  • The theory too lacks the idea based on land topography.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Sector model

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Sector model, also known as the Hoyt model, is an urban land use theory developed by American economist Homer Hoyt in 1939, positing that cities grow in wedge-shaped sectors radiating outward from the central business district (CBD), with land uses such as high-rent residential areas, industry, and low-income housing arranged along major transportation corridors and axes of accessibility rather than in uniform concentric rings. This model emphasizes directional expansion influenced by socioeconomic gradients, where high-rent neighborhoods originate near the CBD and extend peripherally along favorable paths like avenues or rail lines, pulling adjacent sectors of intermediate and low rents with them, while industrial zones often occupy wedges between residential sectors. Hoyt's framework, derived from empirical analysis of rental patterns in 142 American cities, highlights how topography, historical development, and transportation infrastructure shape persistent sectoral patterns, with rents grading downward from high-rent "poles" in specific directions. Hoyt introduced the Sector model in his seminal work The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities, published by the , as a refinement to Burgess's earlier of 1925, which assumed symmetrical, circular expansion driven solely by distance from the center. Unlike the , which predicted uniform zonation based on invasion-succession processes, Hoyt rejected the idea of concentric circles, arguing instead that "rent areas in American cities tend to conform to a pattern of sectors rather than of concentric circles," based on observed axial alignments in cities like , where high-rent blocks concentrated along lines such as and Chamberlayne Avenue. His analysis incorporated data on rent levels, population shifts, and environmental factors, revealing that high-rent areas do not "skip about at random" but follow definite paths in one or more sectors, often toward open country or waterfronts, thereby accounting for the uneven influence of railroads, highways, and prevailing winds on . The model's assumptions include the primacy of economic accessibility in determining land values, with wealthy residents relocating outward to build new homes on peripheral vacant land, vacating inner areas for lower-income groups and perpetuating sectoral differentiation. Key features encompass a CBD at the core serving as the origin point for high-grade residential sectors, which expand linearly along transportation routes, while low-rent and industrial wedges fill interstitial spaces, creating a pie-like division of the urban landscape. Although formulated in the context of early 20th-century U.S. , the Sector model remains influential in and for explaining radial growth patterns in cities worldwide, particularly where infrastructure corridors dominate , as evidenced by its application in studies of modern metropolises with persistent socioeconomic segregation along transport axes.

Overview

Definition and Purpose

The sector model, also known as the Hoyt model, is a theoretical framework in that describes the spatial organization of land uses within cities as wedge-shaped sectors radiating outward from the (CBD). In this model, similar types of land uses—such as commercial, industrial, or residential—extend in linear fashion along major transportation corridors, like railroads or highways, rather than forming uniform circular patterns around the city center. This sectoral arrangement reflects how urban growth follows lines of accessibility, with land values and development intensifying along these routes. The primary purpose of the sector model is to account for the directional bias in urban expansion, emphasizing how transportation infrastructure influences the uneven distribution of land uses and economic activities. Unlike models assuming isotropic (uniform in all directions) city growth, it highlights the role of transport routes in channeling development into specific wedges, thereby shaping accessibility, land prices, and socioeconomic segregation. As a modification of the earlier , the sector model incorporates these transport-driven dynamics to better explain observed patterns in real cities. The sector model relates to concepts from , which examines the physical form, structure, and evolution of urban areas, providing a basis for analyzing how sectoral patterns emerge in city layouts. zoning can reinforce these observed sectoral divisions by legally and economically directing development along transportation axes. Notably, the model elucidates why high-rent residential areas typically form elongated sectors extending from the CBD, maintaining continuity due to prestige and accessibility advantages, rather than dispersing into full concentric rings.

Historical Origins

The sector model of urban land use was proposed by Homer Hoyt, a economist and analyst who served as Principal Housing Economist for the (FHA). Hoyt developed the model amid the economic challenges of the , drawing on extensive empirical data to inform FHA mortgage underwriting practices and urban policy. His work addressed the pressing need to understand residential patterns for assessing housing quality and financial risk in recovering industrial cities. In his seminal 1939 publication, The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities, Hoyt analyzed rent and land value patterns across 142 U.S. cities, utilizing block-level data from real property surveys conducted between 1934 and 1936. The study focused on historical trends from 1900 to 1936, capturing urban expansion during the rail-dominated transportation era of the 1920s and 1930s, when population and industrial growth radiated outward along rail lines from city centers. This period saw rapid suburbanization in industrial hubs, driven by economic opportunities but constrained by limited transport options beyond streetcars and railroads, leading to uneven development and zoning challenges pre-World War II. Hoyt's analysis built directly on earlier observations of Chicago's growth, a key illustrating star-shaped expansion along radial transport routes like Milwaukee Avenue and Cottage Grove Avenue. Influenced by Ernest Burgess's 1925 , which Hoyt critiqued for overlooking directional transport effects, his sector approach advanced post-Depression urban theory by emphasizing axial growth patterns tied to infrastructure. This framework, grounded in FHA data from the , provided foundational insights into how economic recovery could reshape residential landscapes in American metropolises.

Theoretical Framework

Hoyt's Sector Hypothesis

The sector hypothesis, proposed by economist Homer Hoyt in , posits that urban areas develop in wedge-shaped sectors radiating outward from the (CBD), primarily along high-speed transportation lines such as railroads and highways, rather than in uniform concentric rings. This pattern arises because land uses remain relatively stable within each sector over time, driven by economic filtering processes where higher-income groups progressively move outward along desirable corridors, displacing lower-income residents toward the inner edges. In the context of rail systems that facilitated rapid suburban expansion, these sectors elongated due to the advantages of accessibility and prestige associated with certain routes. Sectors form by originating at the CBD and extending radially, with high-rent areas maintaining their desirability through continued proximity to employment centers and social prestige, even as the city grows. This radial extension is reinforced by compatible land uses that cluster along the same axes, preventing across sectors and preserving distinct socioeconomic gradients. A key dynamic in this process is the "invasion-succession" mechanism, where new, higher-status developments invade the outer fringes of an existing sector, leading to succession as older inner portions filter down to lower-income occupants, thereby sustaining the sector's continuity and elongation. For instance, luxury housing corridors along elite lines attract affluent residents, reinforcing the sector's high-status character while compatible uses, such as upscale retail, further entrench the pattern. Influencing factors include transportation accessibility, which directs sectoral growth along efficient routes; economic filtering, which stratifies residents by income and housing affordability; and social status preservation, where prestige tied to location perpetuates high-rent sectors. These elements interact to create persistent sectoral patterns, as observed in Hoyt's analysis of American cities. Hoyt identified five main sectors in typical cities: industry, concentrated near hubs; low-class , adjacent to industrial zones; middle-class , in intermediate positions; high-rent apartments, serving upper-middle groups; and elite residential areas, extending outward along premium corridors.

Key Structural Elements

The sector model posits the (CBD) as the foundational core of , from which various land-use sectors radiate outward in wedge-shaped patterns influenced by transportation corridors. This core serves as the economic and commercial hub, concentrating high-value activities due to and agglomeration benefits. Typical sectors include industrial zones aligned along major transportation axes such as railroads and waterways, where and warehousing predominate to minimize freight costs and leverage logistical efficiency. Residential sectors form distinct wedges: low-rent areas cluster near industrial zones for affordability and worker proximity; middle-rent sectors act as transitional buffers; and high-rent sectors extend along desirable routes, often featuring elevated or scenic amenities to attract affluent residents. These sectors maintain internal homogeneity in while widening progressively from the CBD, bounded by transport lines rather than forming concentric rings. On maps, the model visualizes as pie-slice divisions emanating from the CBD, with each wedge preserving its socioeconomic character along radial pathways, illustrating directional growth over uniform expansion. This layout aligns with Hoyt's sector hypothesis by emphasizing transport-driven sectoral persistence. A prominent example from Hoyt's analysis is , where high-rent residential sectors developed along the shoreline to the north of the CBD, benefiting from waterfront appeal, while low-rent sectors concentrated along rail lines for industrial adjacency.

Comparisons with Other Models

Relation to Concentric Zone Model

The concentric zone model, developed by sociologist Ernest Burgess in 1925, conceptualizes urban growth as a series of concentric rings expanding outward from the central business district (CBD), where land use patterns are primarily shaped by distance from the center and associated socioeconomic gradients, with higher-status residential areas located farther out. This framework, rooted in the Chicago School of sociology, assumes isotropic expansion driven by ecological processes such as invasion, succession, and competition among social groups for prime locations. Homer Hoyt's sector model, introduced in 1939, directly builds upon and modifies Burgess's concentric zone approach by incorporating empirical data on residential rent patterns from 142 American cities, explicitly addressing limitations in the earlier model's assumption of uniform radial growth. Hoyt retained the core idea of a dominant CBD as the urban nucleus but shifted from circular rings to wedge-shaped sectors radiating along key transportation corridors, arguing that this better reflected observed directional biases in land use development. Both models share foundational similarities in their ecological perspective, positing that urban expansion occurs through competitive processes where higher-income groups displace others outward from the CBD, and both emphasize a single central core as the origin of growth influenced by and . However, the sector model critiques and improves upon the concentric zones by highlighting the model's neglect of transportation infrastructure's role in channeling development; for instance, residential areas often form elongated wedges rather than complete circles due to preferences for rail lines providing quick CBD access or prevailing wind directions avoiding industrial pollution. This sectoral emphasis explains uneven , such as high-rent zones persisting along favorable transport routes in cities like , where Burgess's rings failed to account for such linear extensions.

Relation to Multiple Nuclei Model

The , proposed by Chauncy D. Harris and Edward L. Ullman in , describes urban growth as occurring around several independent centers or nuclei—such as airports, universities, and suburban business districts—rather than a single (CBD), reflecting the increasing complexity of in modern cities. This model emerged as a response to the limitations of earlier frameworks, emphasizing polycentric development where specialized activities cluster around these nodes due to compatibility, incompatibility, and agglomeration economies. In contrast to the sector model's assumption of monocentric radial growth along transportation corridors from a dominant CBD, the accommodates polycentric urban forms, which better explain the rise of automobile-dependent suburbs and dispersed economic activities in the post-World War II era. While the sector model envisions linear wedges of similar land uses extending outward, the multiple nuclei approach highlights nucleated clusters that develop independently, often bypassing traditional radial patterns. Both models incorporate the role of transportation in shaping and the sorting of economic activities by and , yet they differ in spatial organization: sectors prioritize corridor-based expansion, whereas focus on discrete growth points. The critiques the sector model's rigidity by explicitly accounting for secondary nodes that emerge from technological and social changes, such as the proliferation of outlying retail centers in post-WWII U.S. cities like and . This evolution underscores a shift from the sector model's suitability for pre-1940s industrial cities, where rail and streetcar lines drove wedge-like expansion, to the multiple nuclei model's explanation of 1950s and later sprawl, characterized by decentralized nuclei facilitated by highways and private vehicles.

Applications

In Urban Land Use Analysis

The sector model serves as an analytical tool in urban land use analysis to identify sectoral patterns in rent gradients and zoning, often employing geographic information systems (GIS) for spatial mapping or historical maps to trace development trajectories. Researchers apply it to overlay transportation corridors with land use data, revealing how radial sectors influence property values and functional zoning from the central business district outward. This approach facilitates quantitative assessment of rent decay along sectors, where accessibility via transport lines sustains higher values in premium residential or commercial wedges compared to peripheral areas. A specific application appears in analyses of British industrial cities, such as , where sectors align with Victorian-era rail networks that channeled industrial and residential expansion. In these contexts, the model maps how rail lines from the directed low-rent industrial sectors along transport axes, while higher-income residential sectors extended outward perpendicular to them, reflecting economic sorting tied to infrastructure. Such studies use archival rail maps to validate sectoral persistence, demonstrating how early transport investments shaped enduring divisions. The model demonstrates strong empirical fit in older European and U.S. cities, particularly when the sectoral framework is rotated to align with dominant axes rather than assuming radial symmetry from the center. This adjustment accounts for historical in pre-automobile cities, where sectors of similar land uses—such as industry or upscale —radiate along fixed routes, maintaining internal homogeneity over distance. For example, researchers have applied the model to analyze spatial-temporal land use changes in Ruaka town, , , from 1988 to , illustrating outward expansion in sectors influenced by transportation. The sector model uniquely aids in studying filtering processes within markets, where it predicts neighborhood transitions as higher-income groups relocate outward along preferred sectors, vacating inner areas for successive lower-income occupants. Hoyt's framework highlights how transport-favored sectors resist filtering due to sustained , while others undergo sequential downgrading, enabling forecasts of residential succession based on sectoral position and economic pressures. This conceptual lens emphasizes economic dynamics over social invasion, providing a basis for modeling market-driven shifts in quality and occupancy. In 20th-century studies, the sector model was applied to validate transport's pivotal role in segregating land uses, confirming that radial corridors amplify functional specialization and socioeconomic divides in expanding urban areas. Analyses of U.S. and European cities during this period used the model to correlate rail and investments with sectoral growth, underscoring how dictates the spatial separation of commercial, industrial, and residential activities.

In City Planning and Development

The sector model has proven instrumental in guiding urban policy by emphasizing the development of transportation corridors to direct sectoral growth, thereby mitigating uncontrolled . By channeling expansion along radial routes such as highways and rail lines, planners can concentrate infrastructure investments and land uses in defined wedges emanating from the (CBD), promoting efficient and reducing fragmented peripheral development. This approach aligns with the model's core premise that via transport networks shapes socioeconomic land-use patterns, allowing cities to foster compact, linear growth rather than isotropic expansion. In valuation and practices, the model supports the delineation of sectors to preserve value gradients, particularly through controls that maintain high-rent residential wedges while segregating industrial zones along lower-value corridors. For instance, ordinances can limit building heights and intensities in premium sectors to sustain exclusivity and prevent encroachment from incompatible uses, thereby stabilizing property assessments based on sectoral positioning relative to the CBD and transport access. This application underscores the model's utility in policy tools that balance economic viability with spatial equity, informing decisions on permissible land uses to uphold the radial of desirability. The sector model has informed historical efforts and continues to provide a foundational framework for corridor-based , adapting sectoral principles to enhance connectivity and mixed-use nodes along transport axes.

Criticisms and Limitations

Theoretical Weaknesses

One primary theoretical weakness of the Sector Model lies in its foundational assumptions, which overemphasize the role of rail-based transportation corridors in shaping urban while largely disregarding social and cultural influences. Developed in an era dominated by rail systems, the model posits that sectoral growth radiates along these fixed lines from the , but this overlooks how non-economic factors such as community sentiments, ethnic enclaves, and cultural preferences can disrupt or redirect patterns. For instance, Walter Firey critiqued the model for insufficiently accounting for these social and cultural characteristics, arguing that they play a pivotal role in land use decisions beyond mere economic or transport-driven logic, and noted that physical features like relief and waterfront locations can further affect patterns. The model's rigidity further undermines its theoretical robustness, as it assumes sectoral boundaries and stability persist indefinitely, without mechanisms to address centrifugal forces like or economic shifts that could alter urban form. This static framework describes equilibrium patterns in a generic but fails to incorporate dynamic processes, such as sector widening or boundary adjustments in response to changing market conditions or . Consequently, the model lacks an internal logic for explaining how sectors might adapt or merge over time, rendering it inflexible for conceptualizing urban growth as an ongoing, responsive phenomenon. Additionally, the model does not account for the role of urban planners or policies, which can direct patterns independently of transportation or economic factors. Additionally, the Sector Model exhibits a conceptual gap by prioritizing residential land use at the expense of broader commercial or mixed-use developments, treating non-residential elements primarily as influencers on rather than as evolving components of . Hoyt's hypothesis, derived from an of residential rent patterns in 142 cities during , thus confines its explanatory power to sectors while underplaying the interplay of retail, industrial, and hybrid zones. This residential-centric focus limits the model's applicability as a comprehensive theory of . Finally, the model's theoretical foundations are rooted in 1939 data from pre-World War II American cities, predating the emergence of theories that would later highlight dispersed growth patterns beyond radial sectors. This temporal limitation means the hypothesis does not anticipate or integrate conceptual shifts toward polycentric or , leaving a gap in its ability to address evolving theoretical paradigms in .

Empirical and Modern Shortcomings

Empirical analyses of early 20th-century urban development have revealed mismatches between the sector model's predictions and actual patterns. In during the 1930s, numerous near-slums emerged outside the central city but adjacent to the endpoints of streetcar lines, rather than extending continuously along radial transportation corridors as the model anticipates; these areas have since transitioned to middle-class residential zones, highlighting deviations from expected sectoral persistence. The model also underemphasizes physical constraints like in some critiques, alongside leapfrog development, where growth skips over undeveloped land, disrupting the continuous wedge-shaped progression. In contemporary contexts, the sector model demonstrates limited relevance amid polycentric urban forms that emerged post-1980s, where multiple employment and commercial nodes develop disconnected from a single . The model's foundational assumptions, rooted in 1939 observations of rail-dominated transport, fail to address post-World War II shifts like widespread private vehicle ownership, which enabled dispersed and commuting patterns unbound by fixed corridors. Recent trends, including accelerated by digital technologies, further erode its utility by reducing dependence on centralized employment sectors and promoting flexible distributions. Overall, the absence of revisions since the mid-20th century leaves it ill-equipped for sustainability-oriented planning, such as integrating green corridors or mitigating sprawl's environmental impacts.

References

  1. https://archive.org/download/structuregrowtho00unitrich/structuregrowtho00unitrich.pdf
  2. https://facultyweb.wcjc.edu/users/jonl/documents/urbangrowthmodels.pdf
  3. https://surface.syr.edu/context/thesis/article/1925/viewcontent/1156698.pdf
  4. http://hoytgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Homer-Hoyt-Bio-Grant-and-Steve-Final-1-29-2019.pdf
  5. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/20831307
  6. https://archive.org/details/structuregrowtho00unitrich
  7. http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/11165/1/Giarratani/chapterseven.htm
  8. https://ojs.library.okstate.edu/osu/index.php/OAS/article/view/4047/3721
  9. https://geographycasestudy.com/urban-land-use-patterns-and-models/
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666188824000315
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382519619_A_Critical_Analysis_of_the_Standard_Urban_Model_in_the_Context_of_Greater_Manchester
  12. https://www.academia.edu/35493875/Urban_Spatial_Structure_Theory_and_Phenomenon
  13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24573941
  14. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1191/0309132505ph552xx
  15. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/41057/11-431JFall-2002/NR/rdonlyres/Urban-Studies-and-Planning/11-431JReal-Estate-Finance-and-InvestmentFall2002/E49ABACA-3562-4312-92FF-BE3C84AF1D62/0/431_GMch05.pdf
  16. https://pressbooks.nvcc.edu/nolgeo210/chapter/spatial-structures-of-cities/
  17. https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/articles/sector-theory-by-homer-hoyt/
  18. https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/geop09/chapter/theories-of-urban-morphology/
  19. https://pangeography.com/the-sector-model-of-urban-morphology/
  20. https://mlsu.ac.in/econtents/3564_u%203.pdf
  21. https://www.nowgonggirlscollege.co.in/attendence/classnotes/files/1623247655.pdf
  22. https://player.uacdn.net/lesson-raw/1OV5RBFRMAXH4GVYEIV9/pdf/9402594854.pdf
  23. https://mlsu.ac.in/econtents/3564_u%25203.pdf
  24. http://lrlr.landscapeonline.de/Articles/lrlr-2008-3/articlese3.html
  25. https://www.albert.io/blog/hoyt-sector-model-ap-human-geography-crash-course/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.