Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Figure 21.1
Land values around a city and the effect of
urban expansion on land values.
the urban fringe's caravan parks, slums or squatter
settlements may be as near as they can afford to get
to housing that allows them access to urban jobs.
The urban fringe has a distinctive image and its own
blend of land uses, issues and problems.
THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM:
WHETHER AND HOW TO MANAGE
THE URBAN FRINGE
Much geographical research on urban fringe areas
has focused on whether and how to plan for the
transition from rural to urban, and the
consequences of trying to plan the process.
The issue of 'whether to plan' focuses attention
on free-market cities, where private enterprise is
allowed a largely free rein. Los Angeles is a good
Notes:
B=original bid-rent curve; C=new bid-rent curve after
urban expansion; UF=arbitrary point at urban fringe where
land values rise from A1 to A2 after urban expansion.
Box 21.1
Los Angeles
Los Angeles is the second largest city in the USA (with a
statistical area population of 11.4 million), yet it has a
population density less than half that of London. Los
Angeles has relied on the rapid outward expansion of its
suburbs and those of formerly separate cities to create a
huge, low-density, car-based metropolitan area. Little
weight was given during its outward expansion to factors
such as conserving the beauty of the landscape,
protecting farmland, providing recreational open space,
limiting the physical or population size of the city,
protecting the central business district or minimising the
cost of providing transport or infrastructure. Land was
sold for building wherever willing buyers and sellers
could agree terms, sometimes leapfrogging open fields
and across jurisdictional boundaries before later
development filled in the gaps. In general, strong
centralised planning powers at federal or state level were
politically unwelcome, and any infringement of the right
to develop one's land as one wished was resisted. In the
last twenty years, there have been some moves to
ensure a more orderly progression of urban expansion.
However, the complexity (by European standards) of
local and state government and of planning and
regulatory agencies has led to a confusing picture.
Power, influence and insider knowledge are key
weapons for landowners, authorities, developers and
pressure groups alike in the highly negotiable question
of where to develop next on the fringe of Los Angeles
and hence who will reap the profits. Uncertainty and
competition are the key features of the geography of the
fringe of Los Angeles.
Another strand of research has been concerned
with planning at the urban fringe. If the transition
from rural to urban is not to be left to the free
market, how might public interests be formulated
and brought to bear on the development process?
What would be the consequences and side-effects
of land-use planning on the pace and form of
urban growth? Another dimension is to examine
the positions taken by pressure groups as they
contest the process of development.
The urban fringe is not a homogeneous type of
area—its land uses and history vary from city to
city and culture to culture. Nor is it a wholly unique
type of area, since the development pressures faced
as open fields are encroached on by the advancing
suburbs can also be found in the cores of cities
when major sites become available for
redevelopment (e.g. former port areas).Yet the edge
of the city exerts a particular fascination for so many
groups. For the city dweller, it is where they first
experience open countryside, farms and nature. For
the farmer, the nearness of the city may hinder
farming yet offer the prospect of better access to
customers and speculative gains by selling land to a
housebuilder. For the impoverished rural migrant,
Sources:
Marchand 1986; Davis 1990.
