The Burgess Concentric-Zone Model, developed in 1925 by sociologist Ernest Burgess, is a foundational model in urban geography that explains the spatial structure of cities. It proposes that cities grow outward from a central point in a series of concentric rings, with each ring representing a distinct urban zone. This model was based on Chicago's urban development in the early 20th century and aimed to describe patterns of residential, industrial, and commercial land use.
Burgess’s model was one of the first attempts to analyze urban growth and social organization using a structured, scientific approach. His theory suggested that the socioeconomic status of residents and the function of urban areas change systematically as one moves away from the Central Business District (CBD). The model was heavily influenced by industrialization and migration patterns, which shaped the development of cities in North America and Europe during this time.
Development of the Burgess Concentric-Zone Model
The Burgess model was developed based on Chicago’s rapid urban expansion in the early 1900s.
It was influenced by human ecology, a field that examines the relationships between people and their urban environment.
Burgess argued that cities expand outward in rings due to economic and social forces, forming distinct zones based on land use, income levels, and industrial activities.
This outward expansion is driven by competition for land, with land values decreasing as one moves away from the city center.
The model assumes a monocentric city (a city with a single dominant center) and applies best to industrial-era cities before the widespread adoption of automobiles.
Key Zones of the Burgess Model
Burgess divided the city into five concentric zones, each with specific characteristics in terms of land use, population density, and socioeconomic status. These zones represent a pattern of urban growth and social differentiation that was particularly relevant to early industrial cities.
1. Central Business District (CBD)
The innermost zone, also known as "the Loop" in Chicago.
The economic and commercial core of the city, where land is the most valuable.
Characterized by:
High-rise buildings, including corporate offices, banks, hotels, and retail stores.
High land value, due to the concentration of businesses and accessibility.
Limited residential space, as most buildings serve commercial or administrative functions.
Major transportation hubs, such as railway stations, bus terminals, and subway networks.
High daytime population, as workers and shoppers commute into the area.
This zone has the highest degree of accessibility, making it the focal point for businesses, finance, and government institutions.
2. Zone of Transition
The area surrounding the CBD, acting as a buffer zone between commercial and residential areas.
Characterized by:
Mixed land use, including old factories, warehouses, and deteriorating housing.
High levels of poverty and urban decay, with aging infrastructure.
Immigrant communities and low-income groups due to cheap housing.
Slums and tenement housing, often overcrowded and poorly maintained.
Industrial pollution, as factories and warehouses occupy large portions of the area.
Frequent redevelopment, with some areas undergoing gentrification or being repurposed for commercial use.
This zone experiences constant social and economic change, as lower-income residents move in and out in search of better opportunities.
3. Working-Class Zone
The first true residential area, located beyond the Zone of Transition.
Also known as the "inner suburbs" or "blue-collar residential zone".
Characterized by:
Modest housing, often small apartment buildings, row houses, or single-family homes.
Stable communities, where factory and industrial workers settle for longer periods.
Ethnic enclaves, where immigrant groups form close-knit neighborhoods.
Proximity to workplaces, allowing for shorter commutes to industrial jobs.
Lower land costs compared to the inner city, making homeownership more attainable.
This zone marks the beginning of residential suburbanization, as families move away from industrial pollution and congestion.
4. Middle-Class Zone
The suburban housing zone, primarily occupied by middle-income families.
Characterized by:
Larger homes, often detached single-family residences.
More green space, including parks, yards, and tree-lined streets.
Better living conditions, with cleaner air and less noise pollution.
Commuter reliance, as residents often travel into the city for work.
Lower population density, with more spacious neighborhoods.
This zone reflects the rise of suburbanization, where residents seek a balance between city access and improved quality of life.
5. Commuter Zone
The outermost ring, representing low-density housing and rural suburbs.
Characterized by:
Wealthier residents, who can afford to live far from the city center.
Exclusive residential areas, including gated communities and estate homes.
Long commutes, often reliant on personal vehicles or commuter rail systems.
Desire for privacy, larger properties, and a quieter environment.
Lower land costs, making it attractive for larger-scale housing developments.
This zone represents the expansion of urban sprawl, as cities extend outward and absorb nearby rural areas.
Application of the Burgess Model to Industrial Cities: The Case of Chicago
Chicago in the early 20th century followed the concentric pattern proposed by Burgess.
The CBD (The Loop) was the center of business and commerce, with high land values and dense commercial activity.
The Zone of Transition included areas such as the Near West Side, where industrial pollution and slum housing were prevalent.
The Working-Class Zone contained ethnic neighborhoods, such as Polish, Italian, and Irish communities, where workers lived in affordable housing near their jobs.
The Middle-Class Zone extended into areas like Oak Park and Cicero, where families sought better living conditions.
The Commuter Zone included suburbs like Evanston and Naperville, which developed as wealthy residents moved farther from the urban core.
The model accurately reflected industrial-era Chicago, but urban renewal and suburbanization have since altered this pattern.
Critiques of the Burgess Concentric-Zone Model
Overly simplistic: The model assumes that all cities grow in uniform rings, which is rarely the case.
Outdated assumptions: The model does not account for modern transportation, such as highways and air travel, which allow more decentralized urban growth.
Ignores the role of automobiles: In the 20th and 21st centuries, cities have developed in irregular patterns, influenced by car ownership and suburbanization.
Limited applicability to non-American cities: European, Asian, and African cities have different historical and cultural influences, making the concentric model less relevant.
Fails to account for multiple nuclei: Many modern cities have multiple business centers, rather than a single dominant CBD.
Does not reflect modern socioeconomic realities: Urban areas are increasingly shaped by gentrification, globalization, and mixed-use developments.
Assumes land value decreases with distance: While generally true, exceptions exist where high-value developments occur in suburban or edge-city locations.
FAQ
Burgess proposed the concentric-zone model based on observations of early 20th-century industrial cities, particularly Chicago. He argued that cities develop in concentric rings due to a combination of economic competition, social stratification, and transportation constraints. The Central Business District (CBD) forms the core because businesses, government institutions, and retail establishments compete for highly accessible land. As land costs decrease outward, different socioeconomic groups settle in rings based on affordability and commuting needs. Additionally, industrial pollution, crime, and congestion push wealthier residents outward into suburban and commuter zones, reinforcing the ring structure. The model also reflects the impact of railroad and streetcar systems, which were dominant forms of transportation before automobiles enabled decentralized growth. While this model effectively described early industrial urbanization, it does not fully account for modern suburbanization, transportation corridors, and polycentric urban structures, which have altered traditional city layouts over time.
The Burgess model assumes cities develop in uniform, expanding rings, but modern transportation innovations have significantly altered urban growth patterns. In the early 20th century, cities relied on streetcars, railroads, and walking, which led to dense urban cores and predictable concentric expansion. However, with the rise of automobiles, highways, and suburban commuter rail systems, urban growth has become more fragmented and decentralized. Instead of expanding in rings, many cities now develop along transportation corridors, creating edge cities and suburban business districts. Cities like Los Angeles and Houston illustrate this shift, with multiple nuclei of economic activity rather than a single dominant CBD. The Interstate Highway System and increased air travel have also allowed for suburbanization and exurban development, making the rigid concentric pattern less applicable to modern urban landscapes. While Burgess’s model remains useful for analyzing historical urban patterns, it does not fully explain modern urban sprawl and decentralized business districts.
Land value is a key factor in the Burgess Concentric-Zone Model, as it helps explain why certain land uses and socioeconomic groups are located in specific zones. The model suggests that land value decreases as distance from the CBD increases due to accessibility and competition for space. The CBD has the highest land values, leading to vertical expansion with skyscrapers and high-density development. In contrast, the Zone of Transition has declining land values due to industrial pollution, aging infrastructure, and urban decay, making it affordable for low-income residents and new immigrants. As land values drop further outward, middle- and upper-class housing develops, where families can afford larger homes and more green space. However, this trend is not absolute—factors like proximity to waterfronts, desirable school districts, or transportation hubs can increase land value in unexpected areas. While Burgess’s model provides a general framework, modern cities display more complex land-use patterns influenced by economic development, gentrification, and government zoning policies.
Gentrification, the process of wealthier individuals moving into and revitalizing formerly low-income areas, disrupts the predictable outward expansion assumed in the Burgess model. The model suggests that wealthier residents move outward from the CBD to escape congestion and industrial pollution, while lower-income populations remain in the inner city. However, gentrification reverses this trend, as high-income residents reclaim and renovate urban areas that were once part of the Zone of Transition. This process raises property values, displaces long-term residents, and alters the socioeconomic composition of central-city neighborhoods. Cities like New York (Brooklyn), Washington D.C. (Shaw), and San Francisco (Mission District) demonstrate this trend, where previously low-income, industrial, or minority-dominated areas have been transformed into high-cost housing and commercial spaces. Gentrification shows that urban growth is not strictly outward, but can be cyclical, with inner-city redevelopment challenging the traditional concentric-ring pattern.
The Burgess model was developed during the height of industrial urbanization, but deindustrialization has reshaped many cities that originally fit this pattern. In the mid-20th century, as factories closed and industrial jobs moved to suburban, international, or automated production centers, many inner-city industrial zones declined. The Zone of Transition, once a hub for factories and working-class housing, has often experienced population loss, economic stagnation, and increased poverty. Examples include Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, where industrial collapse led to urban decay, depopulation, and vacant buildings. Instead of outward expansion, many of these cities have struggled with shrinking populations and declining tax bases, forcing urban planners to repurpose former industrial spaces for new uses such as mixed-use developments, technology hubs, and cultural districts. While some areas have rebounded, others remain in decline, showing that the Burgess model does not account for long-term economic shifts or post-industrial urban restructuring.
Practice Questions
Explain how the Burgess Concentric-Zone Model accounts for the spatial organization of residential and economic activities in an industrial-era city. Provide an example of a city that fits this model.
The Burgess Concentric-Zone Model describes urban growth in concentric rings, with each zone serving a distinct function. The CBD is the economic core, surrounded by the Zone of Transition, where industries and low-income housing coexist. Beyond this, working-class, middle-class, and commuter zones form progressively wealthier residential areas. Chicago exemplifies this model, with its high-density Loop (CBD), industrial West Side, and suburban commuter zones like Naperville. The model reflects industrial cities' economic and social divisions but does not account for modern urban sprawl, edge cities, or transportation-based expansion seen in contemporary metropolitan areas.
Identify and explain two criticisms of the Burgess Concentric-Zone Model in explaining modern urban patterns.
The Burgess Concentric-Zone Model is often criticized for its oversimplification of urban growth. First, it assumes cities expand uniformly in rings, but modern cities develop irregularly due to transportation networks and multiple business centers (edge cities). Second, the model does not account for gentrification and socioeconomic diversity, where revitalized urban areas attract wealthy residents, disrupting the predicted spatial order. Cities like Los Angeles defy the model with their polycentric structure, where multiple business districts exist. Additionally, globalization and digital economies further challenge the model’s relevance, as economic activity is no longer confined to a single CBD-centered structure.
